On the birthday of Veniamin Kaverin. "Two Captains": an extraordinary story of the creation of a wonderful novel

27.06.2019

His father Alexander Zilber was the bandmaster of the Omsk Infantry Regiment. In 1896 he came from Vyborg to Pskov with his wife Anna Zilber-Dessan and three children - Mira, Elena and Lev. In Pskov, David, Alexander and Benjamin were also born in the Zilber family. The family was large, complex, "unfriendly", as Benjamin later noted, wonderful in its own way and noticeable in a small provincial town. Alexander Zilber was a man with outstanding musical abilities, he spent a lot of time in the barracks, rehearsing army marches with soldier bands. On Sundays, a brass band under his direction played for the public in the Summer Garden on the open stage. The father did not delve into the lives of the children, and the financial situation of the family was not easy. Most of the worries lay on the shoulders of the mother, who had a much greater influence on the fate of her talented children. Anna Grigoryevna was a highly educated woman, she graduated from the Moscow Conservatory in the piano class and passed on all her intelligence, energy and breadth of interests to her children. Anna Grigorievna gave music lessons, organized concerts for the people of Pskov, at her invitation famous musicians, singers and dramatic artists, including Fyodor Chaliapin and Vera Komissarzhevskaya, came to Pskov.

In the Zilber family, all children were musically gifted. The frequent lack of family cosiness and harmony was compensated by devotion to one's favorite work, diligence, reading and participation in the public life of the city. In the evenings after the concerts, when 12-15 people sat down at the table, the family discussed the next event in the cultural life of the city, often argued and lived with these impressions for a long time. The younger Veniamin listened to the disputes of his older brothers and their comrades - the future scientists August Letavet, Yuri Tynyanov, Miron Garkavi, to a large extent felt their influence and charm of enthusiastic and creative personalities. “Stuck on Velikaya, running home only to eat. It was a wonderful, lazy life, more in the water than on land ... ”- Benjamin wrote later. In the summer, the Zilbers sometimes rented a dacha in Chernyakovitsy - a large, old, crumbling house, which was nicknamed "Noah's Ark." Recalling himself in early childhood, Benjamin wrote: “Everything amazed me - the change of day and night, and walking on my feet, while it was much more convenient to crawl on all fours, and closing my eyes, magically cutting off the visible world from me. The frequency of eating struck me - three or even four times a day? And so all your life? With a feeling of deep surprise, I got used to my existence - it’s not for nothing that in children’s photographs my eyes are always wide open and my eyebrows are raised.

The autobiographical trilogy “Illuminated Windows” gives an idea of ​​what different everyday events the life of a little Pskov was full of, how he asserted himself in the family and eagerly absorbed impressions from the world around him, in which a revolution was brewing, democrats and monarchists were at enmity, snitches were hunting for underground workers, but “shops opened every morning, officials went to their “offices”, mother went to the “Special Music Store” on Ploskaya, nanny went to the market, father went to the music team.”

In 1912, Kaverin entered the Pskov gymnasium, where he studied for 6 years. He later recalled: “I was not given arithmetic. I entered the first class twice: I failed because of arithmetic. For the third time, he passed the exams in the preparatory class well. Was glad. We lived then on Sergievskaya street. I went out in uniform to the balcony: to show the city that I am a high school student. The years of study at the gymnasium left a bright mark in the life of Benjamin, in all the events of his student life he was an active and direct participant, in 1917 he became a member of a democratic society (abbreviated DOW).

He wrote later that “the house, the gymnasium, the city at different times of the year, the gardens - Botanical and Cathedral, walks to the German cemetery, the skating rink, himself between four and fifteen years” he remembered “photographically accurately”, but the seventeenth year “is sinking in an avalanche of surging events. And not only political - "For the first time in my life I spoke at meetings, defended the civil rights of the fifth grade, wrote poetry, wandered endlessly around the city and the surrounding villages, rode boats along the Great, fell in love sincerely and for a long time."

The writer considered the winter of 1918, when German troops occupied Pskov, to be the boundary separating childhood and youth: “The Germans, as it were, slammed the door behind my childhood.”

The most important place in Benjamin's life, from the moment he learned to read, was occupied by books. Reading amazed the boy with the opportunity to go to another world and another life. About the role that reading played in the life of Pskov youth in the early 20th century, Veniamin Aleksandrovich recalled in the essay “Interlocutor. Notes on Reading”: “In a provincial town crammed full of realists, seminarians, students of the Teachers’ Institute, they were constantly arguing about Gorky, Leonid Andreev, Kuprin. We also argued - like a child, but with a sense of significance that raised us in our own eyes. A close friend of Leo's brother, and then the husband of Elena's sister, Yuri Tynyanov, a wonderful literary critic and writer in the future, became a teacher, a great comrade, a friend for young Kaverin for life. In Pskov in the autumn of 1918, Veniamin read his poems to him, in imitation of Blok, and the first tragedy in verse. Tynyanov, criticizing what he had read, nevertheless noted that there was “something” in this teenager, “although at the age of thirteen everyone writes such poems.” Tynyanov noted a good style, "strong" dialogue, a desire for plot construction, and later, on his advice, the young writer turned to prose.

In 1919, Veniamin Zilber left Pskov with his brother Leo to study in Moscow. He took with him a poor wardrobe, a notebook with poems, two tragedies and the manuscript of the first story. In Moscow, Veniamin graduated from high school and entered Moscow University, but on the advice of Tynyanov, in 1920 he transferred to Petrograd University, at the same time enrolling in the Institute of Oriental Languages ​​at the Faculty of Arabic Studies. During his studies, he became interested in German romantics, went to lectures and seminars in a huge old raincoat, tried to write poetry, made acquaintances with young poets. In 1920, Veniamin Zilber submitted his first story "The Eleventh Axiom" to the competition announced by the House of Writers and soon won one of six prizes for it. This story was not published, but made an impression on Gorky, who praised the novice author and began to follow his work. At about the same time, Viktor Shklovsky brought Veniamin to the Serapion Brothers community of young writers, introducing him not by name, but by the title of that very story - The Eleventh Axiom, about which the Serapions had heard. “Under the name of the Serapion Brothers,” wrote Yevgeny Schwartz, who often attended their meetings, although he was not a member of the “brotherhood,” writers and people a little like each other united. But the general feeling of talent and novelty explained them, justified their association. The Serapions included such famous writers as Vsevolod Ivanov, Mikhail Zoshchenko, Konstantin Fedin and the poet Nikolai Tikhonov. But Kaverin was closest in spirit to Lev Lunts, who died at the age of twenty-three. Together they represented the so-called Western direction and encouraged Russian writers to learn from foreign literature.

To learn is not to repeat it. It means to breathe into our literature the energy of action, discovering new wonders and secrets in it,” wrote Lunts. Dynamic plot, entertaining, combined with mastery of form and polished style, they put at the forefront. “I have always been and remain a story writer,” Veniamin Aleksandrovich later admitted. Critics constantly scolded him for his predilection for the plot and entertainingness, and in the turbulent 1920s, Veniamin himself criticized recognized authorities with youthful fervor: “I considered Turgenev my main literary enemy” and, not without sarcasm, declared: “Of Russian writers, I love Hoffmann the most and Stevenson. All "Serapions" had characteristic nicknames; Benjamin had such a nickname as "Brother Alchemist". “Art must be built on the formulas of the exact sciences,” was written on the envelope in which Veniamin sent his first story to the contest.

The pseudonym "Kaverin" was taken by the writer in honor of the hussar, a friend of the young Pushkin (brought by him under his own name in "Eugene Onegin").

It's already dark: he sits in the sled.
"Drop, drop!" - there was a cry;
Frost dust silver
His beaver collar.
He rushed to Talon: he is sure
What's waiting for him Kaverin.
Entered: and a cork in the ceiling,
The comet's guilt splashed current,
Before him roast-beef bloodied,
And truffles, the luxury of youth,
French cuisine best color,
And Strasbourg's imperishable pie
Between Limburg cheese alive
And golden pineapple.

In 1922, Veniamin Kaverin married the sister of his friend Yuri Tynyanov, Lydia, who later became a famous children's writer. In this happy and long marriage, Benjamin and Lydia had two children - Nikolai, who became a doctor of medical sciences, professor and academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, and daughter Natalya, who also became a professor and doctor of medical sciences.

In 1923, Kaverin published his first book, Masters and Apprentices. Adventurers and madmen, secret agents and card cheats, medieval monks and alchemists, masters and burgomasters - the bizarre fantasy world of Kaverin's early "desperately original" stories was inhabited by very bright personalities. “People play cards, and cards are played by people. Who will figure it out?" Gorky called Kaverin "the most original writer" and advised to take care of his talent: "This is a flower of original beauty, form, I am inclined to think that for the first time on the basis of Russian literature such a strange and intricate plant blooms." It is impossible not to note the obvious scientific successes of the novice author. After graduating from the university, Kaverin was left in graduate school. As a philologist, he was attracted by the little-studied pages of Russian literature of the early 19th century: the works of V.F. Odoevsky, A.F. Veltman, O.I. The story of Osip Senkovsky, journalist, editor of the Library for Reading. This book was simultaneously presented as a dissertation, which Kaverin brilliantly defended, despite its obvious fiction, at the Institute of Art History. Kaverin believed in his writing talent and in the fact that fate handed him a “long-distance ticket”, as Yevgeny Zamyatin prophetically said about him, and therefore decided for himself only one thing: to write and write every day. “Every morning,” said Yevgeny Schwartz, “whether in the country, in the city, Kaverin sat at the table and worked for the allotted time. And so all my life. And then gradually, gradually, "literature" began to obey him, became plastic. Several years passed, and we clearly saw that the best in Kaverin's being: good nature, respect for human work, boyish naivety with a boyish love for adventure and exploits - begins to penetrate the pages of his books.

In the early 1930s, Kaverin became interested in writing plays that were staged by famous directors and were successful. Vsevolod Meyerhold repeatedly offered him cooperation, but Kaverin himself believed that he was at odds with the playwright's craft and focused entirely on prose works. He published his new works one after another - this is how the novels and stories “The End of the Khaza”, “Nine-tenths of Fate”, “The Brawler, or Evenings on Vasilyevsky Island”, “Draft of a Man”, “Artist Unknown” and collections of stories were published. In 1930, the 28-year-old author published a three-volume collected works. Officials from literature declared Kaverin a writer-"fellow traveler" and viciously smashed his books, accusing the author of formalism and a thirst for bourgeois restoration. Meanwhile, times were approaching when it became dangerous to ignore such “criticism”, and Kaverin wrote the “traditional” “Fulfillment of desires”. This novel was very popular, but the author was dissatisfied with his offspring, called it an “inventory of edification”, periodically revised it and, in the end, reduced it by almost two-thirds: “My success was a reward for abandoning the originality that I cherished so much , then, in the twenties. The novel "Fulfillment of Desires" was released in 1936, but the novel "Two Captains" really saved Kaverin, otherwise the writer could share the fate of his older brother, academician Lev Zilber, who was arrested three times and sent to camps.

According to rumors, Stalin himself liked the novel "Two Captains" - and after the war the writer was awarded the Stalin Prize. The novel "Two Captains" became the most famous work of Kaverin. After publication, it was so popular that many schoolchildren in geography lessons seriously argued that it was not Lieutenant Vilkitsky who discovered the Northern Land, but Captain Tatarinov - they believed in the heroes of the novel so much, perceived them as real people and wrote touching letters to Veniamin Alexandrovich, in which asked about the fate of Katya Tatarinova and Sanya Grigoriev. In the homeland of Kaverin in the city of Pskov, not far from the Regional Children's Library, now bearing the name of the author of "Two Captains", a monument was even erected to Captain Tatarinov and Sanya Grigoriev, whose boyish oath was: "Fight and seek, find and not give up."

During the Great Patriotic War, Veniamin Kaverin was a special front-line correspondent for Izvestia, in 1941 on the Leningrad front, in 1942-1943 - in the Northern Fleet. His impressions of the war were reflected in wartime stories, and in post-war works - "Seven Pairs of Unclean" and "The Science of Parting", as well as in the second volume of "Two Captains". The writer's son Nikolai Kaverin spoke about his father's war years: “I remember his story about how in the summer of 1941 on the Karelian Isthmus he was sent to a regiment that successfully repelled the Finnish offensive. On the road, their car met scattered groups of fighters, then the road became completely empty, and then they were fired upon, and the driver barely managed to turn the car around. It turned out that the retreating fighters they met were this very regiment, the success of which had to be described. Before Izvestia's special correspondent could get to him, the Finns defeated him. I remember a story about the behavior of sailors from different countries under the bombing in Arkhangelsk. The British behaved very well, and among the Americans, the American Chinese were especially calm - even indifferent - to meet the danger. From the stories about life in Murmansk, I remember an episode in the club of sailors, when one of the naval pilots was called, he finished the game of chess and left, saying that he was being called to fly to the "Bul-Bul". When he left, Kaverin asked what it meant, and they explained to him that "Bul-Bul" - that's how the pilots call some place on the coast, where the Germans have a very strong air defense, and our planes are constantly shot down there. And they're boo-boo. In the behavior of the pilot, who finished the game and left, there was no sign of any excitement or anxiety.

In 1944, the second volume of the novel "Two Captains" was published, and in 1946 the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks issued a decree on the magazines "Zvezda" and "Leningrad". Mikhail Zoshchenko and Anna Akhmatova, whom Politburo member Zhdanov called in his report "a bastard" and a "harlot", immediately found themselves in isolation. Many "friends", having met Zoshchenko on the street, went over to the other side, but Zoshchenko and Kaverin had an old friendship and their relationship did not change after the decision of the Central Committee. Kaverin, who then lived in Leningrad, did his best to support a friend who was in trouble, whom he considered one of the best contemporary writers. They visited each other at a party, walked together along the Leningrad streets. Kaverin helped Zoshchenko financially.

In 1947, Veniamin Kaverin left Leningrad, moved to Moscow and lived in the village of writers Peredelkino. From 1948 to 1956, the writer worked on the Open Book trilogy, which told about the formation and development of microbiology in the country and the goals of science. The book gained popularity among readers, but colleagues in the "workshop" and critics took the novel with hostility. Here is what the writer’s son said about this: “I don’t know if Kaverin’s independent behavior played a role in his literary fate. In any case, when the first part of the novel The Open Book was published in a magazine version in 1948, an unusually powerful, even at that time, critical rout followed. In fourteen articles and reviews in different, not only literary newspapers and magazines, the novel was denounced as a work deeply alien to socialist realism. The tone of the articles varied from furiously accusatory to dismissive, and not only the author was scolded, but also the heroes of the novel. I remember that in one of the reviews Andrei Lvov was called "silly" (probably for too thoughtful reasoning). Kaverin held firm, he stopped reading devastating articles after the first three or four. Still, the rout did not go unnoticed. The second part of the novel is paler than the first. When the novel was published, the first scene - the gymnasium duel that caused particular fury among critics - had to be removed, now Tanya Vlasenkova was not hit by a random dueling bullet, but simply knocked down by a racing sled. Subsequently, Kaverin restored everything.

At the 2nd Congress of Writers in 1954, Kaverin made a bold speech, calling for freedom of creativity, for a fair assessment of the legacy of Yuri Tynyanov and Mikhail Bulgakov. In 1956, Kaverin became one of the organizers of the almanac "Literary Moscow". His son said: “Kaverin was a member of the editorial board and was very actively involved in the affairs of the almanac. The first volume of the almanac was published in January 1956, on the eve of the 20th Party Congress. He was not only a success with readers, but was favorably received by critics and "bosses". The second volume came out at the end of 1956. The second part of the novel "The Open Book" was printed in it. The situation had changed greatly by that time. In the Hungarian democratic movement, which was crushed by Soviet tanks in November 1956, writers, the Petofi Club, played an important role. Therefore, now the liberal-minded literary community was under suspicion. And in general, the atmosphere in literature and public life became more severe after the “Hungarian events”. The second almanac "Literary Moscow" was met with hostility. Yashin's story "Leverage" caused a particularly great fury. Yashin, who at that time could hardly have read Orwell, nevertheless described the phenomenon that Orwell called "doublethink". This could not have gone unnoticed, so the almanac, most likely, would have been smashed without the “Hungarian events”. The case was not limited to critical attacks in the press. Party bureaus and committees met, writers-members of the party were obliged to "admit mistakes" at the discussion of the almanac in the Writers' Union. Kaverin was not a member of the party, and did not want to admit mistakes. At the discussion, he vigorously defended the almanac. He was worried, his voice broke. Surkov, who was then a prominent literary and party official, who concluded the discussion, said (as always with a sour voice): “It seems that we are discussing serious questions here if one of the founders of Soviet literature was so worried that he even let the rooster go.” Emmanuil Kazakevich, the editor-in-chief of the almanac, very expressively reproduced this speech by Surkov. My sister and I then for a long time called our father nothing more than "the founder."

In the 1960s, Kaverin placed in the New World, headed by Alexander Tvardovsky, the novels Seven Pairs of the Unclean and Oblique Rain, written in 1962, as well as articles in which he sought to resurrect the memory of the Serapion Brothers and rehabilitate Mikhail Zoshchenko . In the 1970s, Kaverin spoke out in defense of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and other disgraced writers. Kaverin himself did not give up, creating his truthful prose - in 1965 he wrote a book of articles and memoirs “Hello, brother. It is very difficult to write ... ", in 1967 - the novel "Double Portrait", in 1972 - the novel "In Front of the Mirror", in 1976 - the autobiographical narrative "Illuminated Windows", in 1978 - a collection of articles and memoirs "Evening Day", in 1981 - the fairy tale "Verlioka", in 1982 - the novel "The Science of Parting", in 1985 - the book of memoirs "Desk" and many other works.

For the first time, Kaverin's works began to be filmed in 1926. The film studio Lenfilm filmed the film "An Alien Jacket", a film in two episodes "Two Captains" and a television film in nine episodes "Open Book". Kaverin himself considered the television version of the story "School Play" to be the most successful. In total, three films were made based on the novel "Two Captains". And on October 19, 2001, the premiere of the musical Nord-Ost, based on this novel, took place in Moscow. On April 11, 2002, at the North Pole, the authors of the musical Georgy Vasiliev and Alexei Ivashchenko hoisted the Nord-Ost flag with the immortal motto of the polar explorers "Fight and seek, find and not give up."

Kaverin was neither a dissident nor a fighter, and, nevertheless, he had the courage to repeatedly condemn the arbitrariness of power and the cynicism of the dominant ideology. Kaverin wrote an open letter in which he announced the severance of relations with his old comrade Konstantin Fedin, when he did not allow Solzhenitsyn's novel Cancer Ward to the Russian reader. Kaverin settled scores with enemies in the book of memoirs "Epilogue", which he wrote on the table in the 1970s.

The "Epilogue" described the history of Soviet literature and the biographies of its creators without any rouge and embellishment, presenting Kaverin's stern and courageous look at who is who. It told about the degradation of Tikhonov, the betrayal of Fedin, the resistance of Schwartz, the martyrdom of Zoshchenko, the courage of Pasternak, a harsh sentence was passed on Alexei Tolstoy and Valentin Kataev, there was pain for Leonid Dobychin, tenderness for Mandelstam and disgust for Konstantin Simonov. About Simonov, Kaverin wrote: “He outlined to me the brilliant theory of successively taking five Stalin Prizes. And took six ... ". "Epilogue" turned out to be scorching and bitter. The history of this book is not without interest in itself. - recalled Nikolai Kaverin. - In 1975, Kaverin finished it, but three years later he returned to it again, the work was finally completed in 1979. The previous part of the memoirs, Illuminated Windows, which dealt with the pre-revolutionary period, had been published a few years earlier, but the publication of the Epilogue, which tells about the Soviet period, was out of the question. The book, in particular, deals with an attempt by the NKVD to recruit Kaverin as a literary informer in the autumn of 1941 (they had nothing more to do at the moment when the blockade of Leningrad was closed, and Guderian was advancing on Moscow). We are talking about the preparation of the deportation of Jews during the period of the "doctors' case" and the related attempt to concoct a letter from "prominent Jews" with a request to shoot the "killer doctors", about the persecution of Solzhenitsyn, about the defeat of Tvardovsky's "New World". And all this is described by a participant in the events, and even a Kaverin pen! The "Epilogue" is still sharp and interesting reading, but then the book was perceived as a clear attempt on Soviet power. Kaverin did not want to publish the book abroad. He was going to continue to write and publish, and did not at all aspire to prison or emigration. It was decided to postpone the manuscript until better times, and for safety's sake, send it abroad, let it lie there and wait in the wings. At that time, the authorities were just about to expel Vladimir Voinovich abroad, and Kaverin agreed with him that if Voinovich really leaves, then the manuscript will be forwarded to him. Simply giving it to Voinovich to take the manuscript with him seemed too risky, and besides, the work on the memoirs was not quite finished yet. Then, when Voinovich had already left, and the book was completed, I asked Lyusha (Elena Tsezarevna Chukovskaya) to help with sending the manuscript. I knew that she had considerable experience in this kind of business. But, apparently, just at that time she could not do this herself, since the "all-seeing eye" was carefully watching her in connection with her participation in Solzhenitsyn's affairs. Therefore, she asked Boris Birger, an artist known throughout the world, but not recognized by the Soviet authorities, to help send the manuscript. I did not tell Kaverin himself about all these details, he only knew that I intended to ensure that the manuscript was forwarded to Voinovich. It was because of this that there was a moment when the case took an unexpected turn and almost broke. Birger requested that the manuscript be taken to an acquaintance, an Austrian diplomat, who doubted whether the author really wanted his memoirs to be sent to the free West. And both of them, Birger and the diplomat, came to Kaverin's dacha in Peredelkino to get the author's personal approval. I was not at the dacha at that moment, and no one could explain to Kaverin what relation Birger, and even more so the unknown Austrian, had to the Epilogue. Nevertheless, everything went well. Kaverin understood everything, confirmed his approval of the intended transfer, and the "Epilogue" went to Voinovich, where he lay until "better times." "Better times" eventually came, the book did not have to be published abroad. The Epilogue was published in 1989 by the Moskovsky Rabochiy publishing house. Kaverin managed to see the signal copy ... ".

Someone very rightly remarked: “Kaverin is one of those people whom literature has made happy: he always wrote enthusiastically, always read others with pleasure.” Perhaps it was this concentrated immersion in books, archives, manuscripts that allowed him in the most cruel years to “protect his heart from evil” and remain true to his friends and himself. And therefore, in his own writings, in which good is always - clearly and clearly - separated from evil, we find "a somewhat bookish world, but pure and noble" (E.L. Schwartz).

Reflecting on his successes and failures, Veniamin Alexandrovich wrote: “My only consolation is that I still had my own way ...” Pavel Antokolsky spoke about the same: “Each artist is strong because he is not like the others. Kaverin has the pride of "a face with a non-general expression."

He did not stop writing until the last days, even when there was no longer complete confidence that all plans could be realized. One of the last works of Kaverin was a book about his best friend Y. Tynyanov "New Vision", written in collaboration with the critic and literary critic Vl. Novikov.

The text was prepared by Tatyana Khalina

Used materials:

V. Kaverin "Epilogue"
V. Kaverin "Illuminated windows"
Site materials www.hrono.ru
Site materials www.belopolye.narod.ru

Novels and short stories:

"Masters and Apprentices", collection (1923)
"The End of Haza", a novel (1926)
"Brawler, or Evenings on Vasilevsky Island" novel (1928).
The Artist Unknown, a novel (1931) is one of the last formal experiments in early Soviet literature
"Fulfillment of desires" novel (books 1-2, 1934-1936; new edition 1973).
"Two Captains" novel (books 1-2, 1938-1944)
"Open Book" novel (1949-1956).
"Seven pairs of unclean" story (1962)
"Slanting rain" story (1962)
"Double Portrait", a novel (1967) - tells about a scientist fired from his job, who, on a denunciation, ends up in a camp
"Before the Mirror", a novel (1972) - reveals the fate of one Russian artist, especially dwelling on the period of emigration, carefully including authentic documents in the artistic narrative
The Science of Breakup, novel (1983)
"Nine Tenths of Destiny"

Fairy tales:

"Verlioka" (1982)
"Town of Nemukhin"
"The Glazier's Son"
"Snow Maiden"
"Nemukhin's Musicians"
"Easy Steps"
"Sylvant"
"Many good people and one envious person"
"Hourglass"
"Flying Boy"
"About Mita and Masha, about the Cheerful chimney sweep and the Master of golden hands"

Memories, essays:

"Greetings, brother. Writing is very difficult... Portraits, letters about literature, memoirs (1965)
"Companion". Articles (1973)
"Illuminated Windows" (1976)
"Evening Day". Letters, memories, portraits (1980)
"Desk". Memories, letters, essays (1984)
"Happiness of Talent" (1989)

Knight of the Order of Lenin (1962)
Cavalier of two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor
Knight of the Order of the Red Star

Before talking about the content of the novel, you need at least in general terms to imagine its author. Veniamin Aleksandrovich Kaverin is a talented Soviet writer who became famous for his work "Two Captains", written in the period from 1938 to 1944. The real name of the writer is Zilber.

People who read this story, it usually sinks into the soul for a long time. Apparently, the fact is that it describes a life in which each of us can recognize himself. After all, everyone faced friendship and betrayal, grief and joy, love and hatred. In addition, this book tells about the polar expedition, the prototype of which was the sailing in 1912 of the missing Russian polar explorers on the schooner "Saint Anna", and wartime, which is also interesting from a historical point of view.

Two captains in this novel- this is Alexander Grigoriev, who is the main character of the work, and the leader of the missing expedition, Ivan Tatarinov, the circumstances of whose death the main character is trying to find out throughout the book. Both captains are united by loyalty and devotion, strength and honesty.

The beginning of the story

The action of the novel takes place in the city of Ensk, where a dead postman is found. With him, a bag full of letters is found, which never reached those to whom they were intended. Ensk is a city not rich in events, so such an incident becomes known everywhere. Since the letters were no longer destined to reach the addressees, they were opened and read by the whole city.

One of these readers is Aunt Dasha, who is listened to with great interest by the main character, Sanya Grigoriev. He is ready to listen for hours to stories described by strangers. And he especially likes stories about polar expeditions written for the unknown Maria Vasilievna.

Time passes, and a black streak begins in Sanya's life. His father is jailed for life on murder charges. The guy is sure that his dad is innocent, because he knows the real criminal, but he does not have the opportunity to speak and cannot help his beloved person in any way. The gift of speech will return later with the help of Dr. Ivan Ivanovich, who, by the will of fate, ended up in their house, but for now the family, consisting of Sanya, his mother and sister, is left without a breadwinner, plunging into ever greater poverty.

The next test in the boy's life is the appearance of a stepfather in their family, who, instead of improving their unsweetened life, makes it even more unbearable. The mother dies, and they want to send the children to an orphanage against their will.

Then Sasha together with a friend named Petya Skovorodnikov escapes to Tashkent, giving each other the most serious oath in their lives: "Fight and seek, find and not give up!" But the guys were not destined to get to the coveted Tashkent. They ended up in Moscow.

Life in Moscow

Further, the narrator departs from the fate of Petya. The fact is that friends get lost in an unusually huge city, and Sasha ends up in a commune school alone. At first he loses heart, but then he realizes that this place can be useful and fateful for him.

And so it turns out. It is in the boarding school that he meets important people for later life:

  1. Faithful friend Valya Zhukov;
  2. The real enemy is Misha Romashov, nicknamed Chamomile;
  3. Geography teacher Ivan Pavlovich Korablev;
  4. School director Nikolai Antonovich Tatarinov.

Subsequently, Sasha meets an elderly woman on the street with obviously heavy bags and volunteers to help her carry her burden home. During the conversation, Grigoriev realizes that the woman is a relative of Tatarinov, the director of his school. At the lady's house, the young man meets her granddaughter Katya, who, although she seems somewhat arrogant, still likes him. As it turned out, mutually.

Katya's mother's name is Maria Vasilievna. Sasha is surprised by how sad this woman constantly looks. It turns out that she experienced great grief - the loss of her beloved husband, who was at the head of the expedition when he went missing.

Since everyone considers Katya's mother a widow, the teacher Korablev and the director of the Tatarinov school show interest in her. The latter is also the cousin of Maria Vasilievna's missing husband. And Sasha often begins to appear at Katya's house in order to help with the housework.

Facing injustice

The geography teacher wants to bring something new into the life of his students and organizes a theatrical performance. The peculiarity of his idea is that the roles were given to hooligans, who were subsequently influenced in the best way.

After that, the geographer suggested to Katina mother to marry him. The woman had warm feelings for the teacher, but could not accept the offer, and it was rejected. The school director, jealous of Korableva for Maria Vasilyevna and envious of his success in raising children, commits a low deed: he gathers a pedagogical council, at which he announces his decision to remove the geographer from classes with schoolchildren.

By a coincidence, Grigoriev finds out about this conversation and tells Ivan Pavlovich about it. This leads to the fact that Tatarinov calls Sasha, accuses him of informing and forbids him to appear in Katya's apartment. Sanya has no choice but to think that it was the geography teacher who let it slip about who told him about the collective meeting.

Deeply wounded and disappointed, the young man decides to leave the school and the city. But he still does not know that he is sick with the flu, flowing into meningitis. The disease is so complicated that Sasha loses consciousness and ends up in the hospital. There he meets the same doctor who helped him start talking after his father's arrest. Then the geographer visits him. He explains to the student and says that he kept the secret told to him by Grigoriev. So it was not the teacher who handed it over to the principal.

School education

Sasha returns to school and continues to study. Once he was given the task - to draw a poster that would encourage the guys to enter the Society of Friends of the Air Fleet. In the process of creativity Grigoriev the idea came to him that he would like to become a pilot. This idea absorbed him so much that Sanya began to fully prepare to master this profession. He began to read special literature and prepare himself physically: to temper himself and go in for sports.

After some time, Sasha resumes communication with Katya. And then he learns more about her father, who was the captain of the Saint Mary. Grigoriev compares the facts and understands that it was Katya's father's letters about the polar expeditions that then ended up in Ensk. And it also turned out that it was equipped by the director of the school and part-time cousin of Katya's father.

Sasha realizes that she has strong feelings for Katya. At the school ball, unable to cope with the impulse, he kisses Katya. But she does not take this step of his seriously. However, their kiss had a witness - none other than Mikhail Romashov, an enemy of the protagonist. As it turned out, he had long been Ivan Antonovich's scammer and even kept notes about everything that could be of interest to the director.

Tatarinov, who does not like Grigoriev, again forbids Sasha to appear in Katya's house, and indeed to maintain any communication with her. In order to separate them for sure, he sends Katya to the city of Sasha's childhood - Ensk.

Grigoriev was not going to give up and decided to follow Katya. Meanwhile, the face of the one who was the culprit of his misadventures was revealed to him. Sasha caught Mikhail when he got into the guy's personal belongings. Not wanting to leave this offense unpunished, Grigoriev hit Romashov.

Sasha follows Katya to Ensk, where she visits Aunt Dasha. The woman kept the letters, and Grigoriev was able to read them again. Approaching the matter more consciously, the young man understood more of the new and became eager to find out how Katya's father disappeared, and what director Tatarinov could have had to do with this incident.

Grigoriev told Katya about the letters and his guesses, and she gave them to her mother upon her return to Moscow. Unable to survive the shock of the fact that the culprit of her husband's death was their relative Nikolai Antonovich, whom the family trusted, Maria Vasilievna committed suicide. Out of grief, Katya blamed Sanya for the death of her mother and refused to see or talk with him. Meanwhile, the director prepared documents that would justify his guilt in the incident. This evidence was presented to the geographer Korablev.

Sanya is hard going through separation from her beloved. He believes that they are never destined to be together, but he cannot forget Katya. Nevertheless, Grigoriev manages to pass the test exams and get the profession of a pilot. First of all, he goes to the place where the expedition of Katya's father disappeared.

New meeting

Sanya was lucky, and he found Katya's father's diaries about the expedition to the "St. Mary". After this, the guy decides to return to Moscow with two goals:

  1. Congratulate your teacher Korablev on his anniversary;
  2. To meet your beloved again.

As a result, both goals were achieved.

Meanwhile, things are going from bad to worse for the dastardly director. He is blackmailed by Romashov, who gets papers testifying to the betrayal of his brother by Tatarinov. With these documents, Mikhail hopes to achieve the following:

  1. Successfully defend a dissertation under the guidance of Nikolai Antonovich;
  2. Marry his niece Katya.

But Katya, who forgave Sasha after the meeting, believes the young man and leaves her uncle's house. Subsequently, she agrees to become Grigoriev's wife.

War years

The war that began in 1941 separated the spouses. Katya ended up in besieged Leningrad, Sanya ended up in the North. Nevertheless, the loving couple did not forget about each other, continued to believe and love. Sometimes they had the opportunity to receive news about each other that the dearest person was still alive.

However, this time does not pass in vain for the couple. During the war, Sana manages to find evidence of what he was sure of almost all the time. Tatarinov was really involved in the disappearance of the expedition. In addition, Romashov, an old enemy of Grigoriev, again showed his meanness by leaving the wounded Sanya to die in wartime. Michael was put on trial for this. At the end of the war, Katya and Sasha finally found each other and reunited, never to get lost again.

Moral of the book

The analysis of the novel leads to an understanding of the main idea of ​​the author, that the main thing in life is to be honest and faithful, to find and keep your love. After all, only this helped the heroes to cope with all the hardships and find happiness, even if it was not easy.

The above content is a very concise retelling of a voluminous book, which is not always enough time to read. However, if this story did not leave you indifferent, reading the full volume of the work will surely help you spend your time with pleasure and benefit.

Even in modern Pskov, fans of the novel can easily recognize the places where Sanya Grigoriev spent his childhood. In describing the non-existent city of Ensk, Kaverin actually follows his memories of Pskov at the beginning of the 20th century. The protagonist lived on the famous Golden Embankment (until 1949 - American Embankment), caught crayfish in the Pskov River (in the novel - Peschanka) and took the famous oath in the Cathedral Garden. However, Veniamin Alexandrovich did not write off the image of little Sanya from himself, although he admitted that from the first pages of the novel he made it a rule not to invent anything. Who became the prototype of the main character?

In 1936, Kaverin goes to rest in a sanatorium near Leningrad and there he meets Mikhail Lobashev, the writer's neighbor at the table during lunches and dinners. Kaverin offers to play carom, a kind of billiards, in which the writer was a real ace, and easily beats his opponent. For some reason, for the next few days, Lobashev does not come to lunch and dinner ... What was Kaverin's surprise when, a week later, his neighbor showed up, offered to compete again in carambola and easily won game after game from the writer. It turns out that he has been training hard all these days. A man with such willpower could not but interest Kaverin. And over the next few evenings, he wrote down the history of his life in detail. The writer practically does not change anything in the life of his hero: the boy’s muteness and an amazing recovery from it, the arrest of his father and the death of his mother, escape from home and shelter ... The author only relocates him from Tashkent, where the hero spent his school years, to his familiar and native Pskov. And also changes his occupation - after all, then genetics were of no interest to anyone. That was the time of the Chelyuskinites and the development of the North. Therefore, the second prototype of Sanya Grigoriev was the polar pilot Samuil Klebanov, who died heroically in 1943.

The novel connected the fates of two captains at once - Sanya Grigoriev and Ivan Tatarinov, who commanded the schooner "Holy Mary". For the image of the second protagonist, Kaverin also used the prototypes of two real people, explorers of the Far North - Sedov and Brusilov, the expeditions led by which left St. Petersburg in 1912. Well, the diary of the navigator Klimov from the novel is entirely based on the diary of the polar navigator Valerian Albanov.

Interestingly, Sanya Grigoriev became almost a national hero long before the writer finished his novel. The fact is that the first part of the book was published in 1940, and after its writing Kaverin postponed as much as 4 years - the war interfered.

During the Leningrad siege… The Leningrad Radio Committee turned to me with a request to speak on behalf of Sanya Grigoriev with an appeal to the Baltic Komsomol members,” Veniamin Aleksandrovich recalled. - I objected that although a certain person, a bomber pilot, who was operating at that time on the Central Front, was brought out in the person of Sanya Grigoriev, nevertheless, this is still a literary hero. "It doesn't interfere with anything," was the reply. "Speak as if your literary hero's name could be found in a phone book." I agreed. On behalf of Sanya Grigoriev, I wrote an appeal to the Komsomol members of Leningrad and the Baltic - and in response to the name of the "literary hero" letters rained down containing a promise to fight to the last drop of blood.

The novel "Two Captains" really liked Stalin. The writer was even awarded the title of laureate of the USSR State Prize.

Hamlet of the Ensky district. The genesis of the plot in Kaverin's novel "Two Captains" 

V.B. Smirensky

This poem is encrypted.

V. Kaverin. "Fulfillment of desires".

Analyzing the plot of the novel by V. Kaverin "Two Captains", the authors of the critical essay "V. Kaverin" O. Novikova and V. Novikov 1 believe that the novel is marked by a special closeness to folk fantasy narrative and therefore it is advisable to draw an analogy not with specific fairy tale plots, but with the very structure of the genre described in V.Ya. 2. According to the authors, almost all (thirty-one) functions of Propp find one or another correspondence in the plot of the novel, starting with the traditional plot "One of the family members leaves home" - in the novel, this is the arrest of Sanya's father on a false charge of murder. Further, the authors cite Propp's clarification: "An enhanced form of absence is the death of parents." So it goes with Kaverin: Sanya's father died in prison, and some time later his mother died.

According to O. Novikova and V. Novikov, the second function "The hero is treated with a ban" is transformed in the novel into the story of Sanya's dumbness. When the “prohibition is violated,” that is, Sanya acquires speech and begins to read Captain Tatarinov’s letters by heart everywhere, the “antagonist” (that is, Nikolai Antonovich) comes into action. Perhaps missing, the authors believe, is only the fourteenth function "A magical agent comes into the hero's disposal," that is, a miracle in the literal sense. However, this is compensated by the fact that the hero achieves his goal and defeats opponents only when he acquires willpower, knowledge, etc.

In this regard, O. Novikova and V. Novikov believe that although folklore elements in literature are being qualitatively transformed, nevertheless, they seem legitimate attempts by modern writers to use the energy of a fairy tale, pairing it with a realistic narrative. Propp's list of functions can serve as a kind of connecting link, a special language into which not only fairy-tale but also literary plots are translated. For example, "The hero leaves the house"; "The hero is tested, questioned, attacked..."; "The hero arrives unrecognized at home or in another country"; "The false hero makes unfounded claims"; "The hero is offered a difficult task"; "A false hero or antagonist, a pest is exposed"; "The enemy is punished" - all this is in the "Two Captains" - up to the final, until the thirty-first move: "The hero marries and reigns." The whole plot of "Two Captains", according to O. Novikova and V. Novikov, is based on the test of the hero, "this is a framing short story, centralizing all the other plot threads."

In addition, researchers see in "The Two Captains" a reflection of a whole range of varieties of the novel genre and, in particular, Dickens' plots. The story of Sanya and Katya's relationship is reminiscent of a medieval chivalric romance and a sentimental romance of the 18th century at the same time. "Nikolai Antonovich resembles a hero-villain from a Gothic novel" 3.

At one time, A. Fadeev also noted that the novel "Two Captains" was written "according to the traditions not of Russian classical literature, but of Western European literature, in the manner of Dickens, Stevenson" 4 . It seems to us that the plot of "Two Captains" has a different basis, not directly related to folklore traditions. Recognizing the links with the traditions of the novel genre, our analysis shows a much more striking similarity and close connection between the plot of Kaverin's novel and the plot of Shakespeare's greatest tragedy Hamlet.

Let's compare the plots of these works. Prince Hamlet receives "news from the next world": the ghost of his father told him that he - the king of Denmark - was treacherously poisoned by his own brother, who seized his throne and married the queen - Hamlet's mother. "Farewell and remember me," calls the Illusive Man. Hamlet is shocked by these three monstrous crimes committed by Claudius: murder, seizure of the throne, and incest. He is also deeply hurt by the act of his mother, who so soon agreed to the marriage. Trying to make sure that the ghost of his father told, Hamlet with visiting actors plays a play about the murder of the king in the presence of Claudius, Gertrude and all the courtiers. Claudius, losing his temper, gives himself away (the so-called "mousetrap" scene). Hamlet reproaches his mother for betraying her husband's memory and denounces Claudius. During this conversation, Polonius, eavesdropping, hides behind a carpet, and Hamlet (unintentionally) kills him. This entails Ophelia's suicide. Claudius sends Hamlet to England with secret orders to kill him upon arrival. Hamlet escapes death and returns to Denmark. Laertes, furious at the death of his father and sister, agrees with the king's insidious plan and tries to kill Hamlet in a duel with a poisoned rapier. In the finale, all the main characters of the tragedy die.

The basic construction of the plot of "The Two Captains" largely coincides with the plot of Shakespeare. At the very beginning of the novel, Sanya Grigoriev, a boy from the city of Ensk, receives "news from the other world": Aunt Dasha reads letters every evening from the bag of a drowned postman. Some of them he learns by heart. They are about the fate of the lost and probably lost expedition in the Arctic. A few years later, fate brings him in Moscow with the addressees and characters of the found letters: the widow (Maria Vasilievna) and daughter (Katya) of the missing captain Ivan Tatarinov and his cousin Nikolai Antonovich Tatarinov. But at first Sanya does not know about it. Maria Vasilievna marries Nikolai Antonovich. She speaks of him as a man of rare kindness and nobility, who sacrificed everything to equip his brother's expedition. But Sanya by this time is already experiencing a strong distrust of him. Arriving in his native Ensk, he again turns to the surviving letters. "Like lightning in a forest illuminates the area, so I understood everything by reading these lines." In the letters it was said that the expedition owed all the failures to Nikolai (that is, Nikolai Antonovich). He was not named by his last name and patronymic, but it was him, Sanya is sure.

So, like Claudius, Nikolai Antonovich committed a triple crime. He sent his brother to certain death, since the schooner had dangerous side cutouts, worthless dogs and food, etc. In addition, he not only married Maria Vasilievna, but also made every possible effort to appropriate the glory of his brother.

Sanya exposes these crimes, but his revelations lead to Maria Vasilievna's suicide. Returning to Moscow, Sanya tells her about the letters and reads them by heart. According to the signature "Montigomo Hawk Claw" (although erroneously pronounced Sanya - Mongotimo), Maria Vasilievna made sure of their authenticity. The next day she got poisoned. Compared with Shakespeare's Gertrude, her betrayal of her husband's memory is somewhat softened at first. At first, she "ruthlessly" treats all attempts by Nikolai Antonovich to look after her and take care of her. He achieves his goal only after many years.

Important for motivating Sanya's behavior is the fact that relations in the Tatarinov family strikingly remind Sanya of the events that took place in his own family: after the death of his father, his beloved mother marries "buffoon" Gayer Kuliy. Stepfather, a man with a "fat face" and a very nasty voice, causes Sanya great dislike. However, his mother liked him. "How could she fall in love with such a person? Involuntarily, Maria Vasilievna also came to mind, and I decided once and for all that I did not understand women at all." This Gaer Kuliy, who sat down in the place where his father sat and liked to lecture everyone with endless foolish reasoning, demanding for this that they also thanked him, in the end, caused the premature death of his mother.

When Sanya met Nikolai Antonovich, it turned out that, like Gaer Kuliy, he was the same lover of tedious teachings: “Do you know what“ thank you ”is? Keep in mind that depending on whether you know or not. .." Sanya understands that he is "talking nonsense" specifically to annoy Katya. At the same time, like Gaer, he expects gratitude. So, there is symmetry in the relationship of the characters: Sanya's deceased father, mother, stepfather, Sanya, on the one hand, and the deceased captain Tatarinov, Maria Vasilievna, Nikolai Antonovich, Katya, on the other.

At the same time, the teachings of the stepfathers in the novel are consonant with the speeches of the hypocrite Claudius. Let's compare, for example, such quotes: "King. The death of our beloved brother is still fresh, and it is fitting for us to bear pain in our hearts ..." "Nikolai Antonovich not only talked to me about his cousin. This was his favorite subject." "He made it very clear to him why he loved to remember him so much." Thus, due to the double reflection in the novel of the relationship of the main characters of Hamlet, the motive of "the betrayal of her husband's memory" ultimately turns out to be strengthened by V. Kaverin. But the motive of "restoring justice" is also getting stronger. Gradually, the orphan Sanya Grigoriev, looking for traces and recreating the history of the "St. Mary" expedition, seems to find his new, this time spiritual father in the form of Captain Tatarinov, "as if instructed to tell the story of his life, his death."

Having found the expedition and the body of Captain Tatarinov frozen into the ice, Sanya writes to Katya: “As if from the front, I am writing to you - about a friend and father who died in battle. Sorrow and pride for him excite me, and before the spectacle of immortality, my soul passionately freezes ..." As a result, external parallels are reinforced by internal psychological motivations 5.

Continuing to compare the episodes of the novel and the tragedy, we note that although the revelations of Hamlet shocked the queen, their consequences turned out to be completely unexpected. The unexpected murder of Polonius led to the insanity and suicide of the innocent Ophelia. From the point of view of "normal" or life logic, Maria Vasilievna's suicide is more justified than Ophelia's suicide. But this example shows how far Shakespeare is from ordinary life logic and everyday ideas. Suicide of Maria Vasilievna– a natural event in the overall plot structure of the novel. The suicide of Ophelia is a tragedy in a high tragedy, which in itself has the deepest philosophical and artistic meaning, an unpredictable plot twist, a kind of intermediate tragic finale, thanks to which the reader and viewer delve into the "inscrutable meaning of good and evil" (B. Pasternak).

Nevertheless, from a formal (plot, or event) point of view, one can state the coincidence of the episodes: both in the tragedy and in the novel, one of the main characters commits suicide. And one way or another, the hero is burdened by an involuntary feeling of guilt.

Nikolai Antonovich seeks to turn Sanya's evidence of guilt against him. "This is the man who killed her. She is dying because of a vile, vile snake, who says that I killed her husband, my brother." "I threw him away like a snake." Here you can already pay attention to the vocabulary and phraseology of the characters in the novel, to their similarity with the translation of "Hamlet" by M. Lozinsky, which was published in 1936 and with which V.A. Kaverin was probably familiar by the time the novel was written: "The ghost. The snake that hit your father put on his crown."

Sanya intends to find the missing expedition and prove his case. He makes these promises to himself, to Katya and even to Nikolai Antonovich: "I will find the expedition, I do not believe that it has disappeared without a trace, and then we'll see which of us is right." The oath runs through the novel as a leitmotif: "Fight and seek, find and not give up!" This oath and promises resonate with Hamlet's oath and promises to avenge his father: "From now on, my cry is:" Farewell, farewell! And remember me. "I swore an oath," although, as you know, the role of Hamlet goes far beyond the usual revenge.

In addition to the most important plot coincidences in the tragedy and the novel, one can note coincidences that relate to the details of the behavior of the characters.

Sanya comes to Korablev, but at this time Nina Kapitonovna also comes to Korablev. Korablev leads Sanya into the next room with a holey green curtain in place of the door and tells him: "And listen - it's good for you." Sanya hears all this important conversation in which they talk about him, Katya and Romashka and looks through the hole in the curtain.

The circumstances of the episode are reminiscent of the scene of the meeting between Hamlet and the queen, when Polonius is hiding behind the carpet. If in Shakespeare this detail is important from many sides (characterizes the spy zeal of Polonius and becomes the cause of his death, etc.), then Kaverin apparently uses this scene only so that Sanya quickly learns important news for him.

Claudius, frightened and angered by the revelations, sends Hamlet to Britain with a letter, where there was an order, "that immediately after reading, without delay, without looking whether the ax was sharpened, they would have blown my head away," as Hamlet later tells Horatio about this.

In the novel, Sanya, organizing an expedition to search for Captain Tatarinov, learns from Nina Kapitonovna that Nikolai Antonovich and Romashka "... they write about everything. Pilot G., pilot G. Denunciation, go ahead." And she turns out to be right. Soon an article appears, which, indeed, contains a real denunciation and slander against Sanya. The article said that a certain pilot G. in every possible way denigrates a respected scientist (Nikolai Antonovich), spreads slander, etc. "The Directorate of the Main Northern Sea Route should pay attention to this man, who dishonors the family of Soviet polar explorers with his actions." If we take into account that the case takes place in the fateful thirties (Kaverin wrote these episodes in 1936-1939), then the effectiveness of the denunciation-article could be no less than the treacherous letter of Claudius dooming Hamlet to execution to the British king. But, like Hamlet, Sanya avoids this danger with his energetic actions.

You can pay attention to further coincidences in the character system. Lonely Hamlet has only one true friend - Horatio:

"Hamlet. But why aren't you in Wittenberg, student friend?" Marcellus calls Horatio "the scribe".

Sanya has more friends, but Valka Zhukov stands out among them, who is interested in biology at school. Then he was a "senior scientific specialist" on an expedition to the North, then a professor. Here we see coincidences in the type of activity of the friends of the heroes: their distinguishing feature is scholarship.

But Romashov, or Chamomile, plays a much larger role in the novel. Even at school, his deceit, hypocrisy, double-dealing, denunciation, greed, espionage, etc., are manifested, which he tries, at least sometimes, to hide under the guise of friendship. Early enough, he becomes close to Nikolai Antonovich, later becoming his assistant and the closest person in the house. By position in the novel and by its extremely negative properties, he combines all the main characteristics of the courtiers of Claudius: Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Katya thinks that he looks like Uria Gip, the character of C. Dickens. Perhaps that is why both A. Fadeev and the authors of the essay "V. Kaverin" suggested that Dickens' plot was reflected in the novel.

In fact, for understanding this image, it is essential that in the novel he also performs the function of Laertes, which consists in the fact that he. engages in mortal combat with the hero. If Laertes is driven by revenge, then Romashov is driven by envy and jealousy. At the same time, both the one and the other character act in the most treacherous way. So, Laertes uses a poisoned rapier, and Chamomile leaves Sanya, seriously wounded during the war, stealing a bag of crackers, a flask of vodka and a pistol from him, that is, dooming him, it would seem, to certain death. At least he himself is sure of it. "You will be a corpse," he said haughtily, "and no one will know that I killed you." Assuring Katya that Sanya is dead, Romashka apparently believes in it himself.

Thus, as in the case of the suicide of Maria Vasilievna, we see that in the novel, in comparison with the tragedy, there is a redistribution of plot functions between the characters.

The vocabulary used by V. Kaverin to characterize Romashov is based on the keyword "scoundrel". Even at a school lesson, Sanya on a bet gives Chamomile to cut his finger. “Cut,” I say, and this scoundrel coldly cuts my finger with a penknife. Further: "Chamomile rummaged in my chest. This new meanness struck me"; "I will say that Chamomile is a scoundrel and that only a scoundrel will apologize to him." If in the novel these expressions are "scattered" throughout the text, then in M. Lozinsky's translation they are collected "in a bouquet" in a monologue, where Hamlet, choking with anger, says about the king: "Scoundrel. Smiling scoundrel, damned scoundrel! - My tablets, - you need to write down that you can live with a smile and be a scoundrel with a smile.

In the final scene of the showdown, Sanya says to Romashov: "Sign, scoundrel!" – and gives him to sign the "testimony of M.V. Romashov", which says: "Meanly deceiving the leadership of the Main Northern Sea Route, etc." "O regal villainy!" - exclaims Hamlet, shocked by the treacherous letter of Claudius.

Key scenes in Hamlet include the Ghost scene and the mousetrap scene in which the antagonist is exposed. In Kaverin, similar scenes are combined into one and placed at the end of the novel, where, finally, justice finally triumphs. It happens in the following way. Sanya managed to find photographic films of the expedition that had lain in the ground for about 30 years and developed some of the footage that seemed to be lost forever. And now Sanya demonstrates them at his report in the Geographical Society, dedicated to the materials found. It is attended by Katya, and Korablev, and Nikolai Antonovich himself, that is, as in the "mousetrap" scene, all the main characters of the novel.

"The lights went out, and a tall man in a fur hat appeared on the screen ... He seemed to have entered the hall - a strong, fearless soul. Everyone stood up when he appeared on the screen (Compare Shakespeare's remark: The Phantom Enters.) And in this solemn silence I read the report and the captain's farewell letter: "We can safely say that we owe all our failures only to him." And then Sanya reads out a document-commitment, where the culprit of the tragedy is directly indicated.Finally, in conclusion, he says about Nikolai Tatarinov: "Once in a conversation with me, this man said that he recognizes only one witness: the captain himself. And now, with a m, the captain now calls him - his full name, patronymic and surname!

Shakespeare conveys the confusion of the king at the climax, which occurs in the "mousetrap" scene, through the exclamations and remarks of the characters:

About f e l and I. The king is up!

HAMLET What? Scared of a blank shot?

Queen. What about your majesty?

P about l about n and y. Stop the game!

King. Give fire here. - Let's go!

In with e. Fire, fire, fire!

In the novel, the same task is solved by descriptive means. We see how Nikolai Antonovich "suddenly straightened up, looked around when I loudly called this name." "In my life I have not heard such a diabolical noise," "a terrible turmoil arose in the hall." Comparing these episodes, we see that Kaverin seeks to solve the climax and denouement of his novel with a spectacular scene in which he tries to merge the emotional tension that arises in the tragedy "Hamlet" in the scenes with a ghost and in the "mousetrap" scene.

O. Novikova and V. Novikov, the authors of the essay "V. Kaverin", believe that in the work on "Two Captains" "the author of the novel, as it were," forgot "about his philological erudition: no quotations, no reminiscences, no parody-stylization moments not in the novel, and this may be one of the main reasons for good luck" 6.

However, the evidence presented suggests otherwise. We see a fairly consistent use of the Shakespearean plot and the system of characters in the tragedy. Nikolai Antonovich, Captain Tatarinov, Valka Zhukov and the main character himself consistently reproduce the plot functions of their prototypes. Maria Vasilievna, repeating the fate of Gertrude, commits suicide, like Ophelia. One can quite clearly trace the correspondence to the prototypes and their actions in the image of Romashov: espionage and denunciation (Polonius), feigned friendship (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern), an attempted insidious murder (Laertes).

O. Novikova and V. Novikov, trying to bring the novel "Two Captains" closer to the structure of the genre described in "The Morphology of a Fairy Tale" by V. Ya. Propp, are right in the sense that in Kaverin's novel, as in a fairy tale, discovered by Propp: if the set of permanent characters changes in a fairy tale, then between them there is a redistribution or combination of plot functions 7. Apparently, this regularity operates not only in folklore, but also in literary genres, when, for example, this or that plot is reused. O. Revzina and I. Revzin gave examples of combining or "gluing" functions - the roles of characters in A. Christie's novels 8. Differences associated with the redistribution of functions are of no less interest for plot and comparative studies than close coincidences.

The identified coincidences and consonances make one wonder how consciously Kaverin used the plot of the tragedy. It is known how much attention he paid to the plot and composition in his works. "I have always been and remain a story writer", "the great importance of composition ... is underestimated in our prose",– he emphasized in the "Outline of work" 9. The author has described in some detail here the work on "Two Captains".

The idea of ​​the novel was associated with an acquaintance with a young biologist. According to Kaverin, his biography so captivated the writer and seemed so interesting that he "made a promise to himself not to give free rein to the imagination." The hero himself, his father, mother, comrades are written exactly as they appeared in the story of a friend. "But the imagination still came in handy," admits V. Kaverin. Firstly, the author tried to "see the world through the eyes of a young man shocked by the idea of ​​justice." Secondly, "it became clear to me that something extraordinary was about to happen in this small town (Ensk). The 'extraordinary' I was looking for was the light of the Arctic stars, accidentally falling into a small abandoned city" 10.

So, as the author himself testifies, the basis of the novel "Two Captains" and the basis of its plot, in addition to the biography of the hero-prototype, formed two major lines. Here we can recall the technique that Kaverin first tried to use in his first story.

In the trilogy "Illuminated Windows" V. Kaverin recalls the beginning of his writing career. In 1920, while preparing for an exam in logic, he read for the first time a summary of Lobachevsky's non-Euclidean geometry and was struck by the audacity of his mind to imagine that parallel lines converge in space.

Returning home after the exam, Kaverin saw a poster announcing a competition for novice writers. In the next ten minutes, he made the decision to leave poetry for good and switch to prose.

"Finally - this was the most important thing - I managed to think over my first story and even called it: "The Eleventh Axiom." Lobachevsky crossed parallel lines at infinity. What prevents me from crossing two pairs at infinity allelic plots? It is only necessary that, regardless of time and space, they eventually unite, merge ... ".

Arriving home, Kaverin took a ruler and drew a sheet of paper lengthwise into two equal columns. In the left, he began to write the story of a monk who loses faith in God. In the right is the story of a student who loses his possessions at cards. At the end of the third page, both parallel lines converged. The student and the monk met on the banks of the Neva. This short story was submitted to the competition under the meaningful motto "Art must be based on the formulas of the exact sciences", received an award, but remained unpublished. However, "the idea of" Eleventh Axiom "is a kind of epigraph to all Kaverin's work. And in the future he will look for a way to cross parallel ..." 11

Indeed, in the novel "Two Captains" we see two main lines: in one storyline, the techniques of an adventure novel and a travel novel in the spirit of J. Verne are used. The bag of the drowned postman with soaked and partially damaged letters, which talk about the missing expedition, cannot but resemble the letter found in the bottle in the novel "Captain Grant's Children", where, by the way, the search for the missing father is also described. But the use of authentic documents in the novel, reflecting the real and dramatic history of the Far North explorers Sedov and Brusilov, and, most importantly, the search for evidence leading to the triumph of justice (this line turned out to be based on a Shakespearean plot), made the plot not only fascinating, but also literary. more meaningful.

The third storyline, on which Kaverin initially relied, “works” in a peculiar way in the novel - a true biography of a biologist. Rather, here, from the point of view of comparative plot, the combination of this line with the two above is of interest. In particular, the beginning of the novel, which describes the homelessness and hungry wanderings of Sleigh. If Shakespeare's main character, who is destined to take on the heavy burden of restoring violated justice, is Prince Hamlet, then in the novel the main character is at first a homeless child, that is, "n and sh and y." This well-known literary opposition turned out to be organic, because, as O. Novikova and V. Novikov rightly note, the tradition of the upbringing novel was clearly manifested in the general structure of The Two Captains. "Traditional techniques have vigorously earned, applied to cutting-edge material" 12.

In conclusion, let us return to the question, how conscious was Kaverin's use of Shakespeare's plot? A similar question was asked by M. Bakhtin, proving the genre proximity of the novels by F.M. Dostoevsky and the ancient menippea. And he answered him resolutely: "Of course not! He was not at all a stylizer of ancient genres ... Speaking somewhat paradoxically, one can say that not Dostoevsky's subjective memory, but the objective memory of the very genre in which he worked, preserved the features of the ancient menippea." 13

In the case of V. Kaverin's novel, we still tend to attribute all the intertextual coincidences noted above (in particular, lexical coincidences with M. Lozinsky's translation of Hamlet) to the writer's "subjective memory". Moreover, he probably left a certain "key" for the attentive reader to decipher this riddle.

As you know, the author himself dates the emergence of his idea for "Two Captains" to 1936. 14. Work on the novel "Fulfillment of desires" has just been completed. One of the indisputable successes in it was a fascinating description of the decoding by the hero of the novel of the tenth chapter of "Eugene Onegin". Perhaps, while working on The Two Captains, Kaverin tried to solve the opposite problem: to encrypt the plot of the greatest and well-known tragedy into the plot of a modern novel. It must be admitted that he succeeded, since so far no one seems to have noticed this, despite the fact, as V. Kaverin himself pointed out, the novel had "meticulous readers" who saw some deviations from the text of the documents used 15. Such a connoisseur of plot construction as V. Shklovsky, who noticed at one time that two novels were inserted into the novel "Fulfillment of Desires" 16.

How did Kaverin manage to transform the tragic Shakespearean story so skillfully? S. Balukhaty, analyzing the genre of melodrama, noted that one can "read" and "see" the tragedy in such a way that, omitting or weakening its thematic and psychological materials, turn the tragedy into a melodrama, which is characterized by "convex, bright forms, sharply dramatic conflicts, in-depth plot" 17.

These days, the time for close attention to the novel is gone. However, this should not affect the theoretical interest in his study. As for the "key" to unraveling the plot, which the author left, it is connected with the title of the novel, if one recalls one of the final solemn lines of Shakespeare's tragedy:

Let Hamlet be raised to the platform,

Like a warrior, four captains.

Finally, the last "syllable" of the Kaverin charade is associated with the name of Sanya's hometown. In general, such names as the city of N. or N, N-sk, etc., have a tradition in literature. But, melting the Shakespearean plot into the plot of his novel, Kaverin could not help but recall his predecessors, and among them the famous story related to the Shakespearean theme - "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District". If Leskov's heroine was from Mtsensk, then my hero, the pilot G., let him be simply from ... Enska, Kaverin might have thought, and left a rhyming trail for future clues: Ensk - Mtsensk - Lady Macbeth - Hamlet.

5 V. Borisova, Roman V. Kaverin "Two Captains" (See V. Kaverin. Collected works in 6 volumes, vol. 3, M., 1964, p. 627).

8 O. Revzina, I. Revzin, Toward a formal analysis of plot composition. – "Collection of articles on secondary modeling systems", Tartu, 1973, p.117.

  • 117.5 KB
  • added 09/20/2011

// In book: Smirensky V. Analysis of plots.
- M. - AIRO-XX. - With. 9-26.
Among Chekhov's literary connections is one of the most important and permanent - Shakespeare. New material for the study of Chekhov's literary connections is provided by his play The Three Sisters and Shakespeare's tragedy King Lear.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the journal reception of two volumes of V. Kaverin's novel "Two Captains". The critical response to the novel was mixed. The author explores the controversy that unfolded on the pages of Soviet periodicals after the appearance of the novel.

Key words: V. A. Kaverin, "Two Captains", magazine debate, Stalin Prize.

In the history of Soviet literature, the novel by V. Kaverin

"Two Captains" occupies a special place. His success in the reader's environment was undeniable. At the same time, the novel, it would seem, corresponded to all Soviet ideological guidelines. The main character, Alexander Grigoriev, is an orphan who miraculously survived during the Civil War. He was literally adopted and raised by the Soviet authorities. It was the Soviet government that gave him everything, allowed him to realize his childhood dream. Former homeless child, orphanage, became a pilot. He dreams of finding traces of the Arctic expedition that died at the beginning of the First World War, led by Captain Ivan Tatarinov. Find, in order not only to pay tribute to the memory of the scientist, but also to solve the problem, almost solved by Tatarinov. The task of finding new sea routes. The brother of the deceased, the former businessman Nikolai Tatarinov, hinders Grigoriev. It was he who killed the ka - pitan Tatarinov for the sake of profitable supplies and love for him - not. Then he fully adapted to the Soviet regime, hid his past, even made a career as a teacher. And the swindler Mikhail Romashov, a peer of Grigoriev, who is in love with the daughter of the deceased captain, Ekaterina, helps the former pre-employee. She will marry Grigoriev, who does not change either friendship or principles.

The life work of the Russian sailor, who served the Fatherland, and not the "tsarist regime", will be continued by the Soviet pilot. And he will achieve victory, not looking at the intrigues of enemies.

Everything seemed to fit perfectly. But the novel was not only praised by critics. There were also devastating reviews. This article explores the reasons that led to the controversy about the novel.

1939–1941 Volume One

Initially, the genre of Kaverin's new book was defined as a story. From August 1938 it was printed by the Leningrad children's magazine

"Bonfire". Publication was completed in March 1940.1 Since January 1939, the publication of Kaverin's story began to be published by the Leningrad journal Literaturny Sovremennik. It also ended in March 19402

The first critical reviews appeared even before the story was printed in full. On August 9, 1939, Leningradskaya Pravda published a semi-annual review of the materials of Literary Contemporary. The author of the review highly appreciated Kaverin's new story3.

This opinion was contested in the article "Closer to Your Readers," published on December 11, 1939, in Komsomolskaya Pravda. The author of the article, a teacher, was dissatisfied with the work of the children's magazines "Bonfire" and "Pioneer". Well, in the Kaverin story, she discovered “an ugly, perverted, incorrect image of the school environment, students and teachers”4.

Such an accusation - at the end of 1939 - was very serious. Political. And, according to the author of the article, not only Kaverin was guilty. The editors also: "The educational value of this repeal - but the long story is very doubtful"5.

Kaverin's contemporaries easily guessed the possible consequences. They guessed that the article, which contained a political accusation, should have been the first stage of a “developmental” campaign. That's how it usually started. Here is a “letter from a reader”, and here is the opinion of an authoritative critic, etc. However, nothing of the kind happened.

On December 26, Literaturnaya Gazeta published K. Simonov's article "On Literature and the Rules of the New Order." The author was already quite influential at that time, it was understood that he expressed the opinion of the leadership of the Writers' Union. Si-monov spoke very sharply about the article published by Komso-Molskaya Pravda:

N. Likhacheva's review of Kaverin's story is not only cheeky, but also stupid in its essence. The point, of course, is not a negative assessment of the story, the point is that N. Likhacheva, in a few lines, tried to cross out her great and hard work6.

The reviewer in Komsomolskaya Pravda, according to Simonov, did not understand the specifics of fiction. I didn’t understand that “writers write books, not internal rules. Literature, of course, should help educate children, it should awaken in them lofty thoughts, a thirst for exploits, a thirst for knowledge - this is a big enough task so as not to dump on the shoulders of writers what is included in the duties teachers"7.

The following reviews appeared in print after the magazine version of The Two Captains had been fully published, and a separate edition was being prepared for publication.

In June 1940, the journal "Literaturny Sovremennik" published an editorial - "The Fate of Captain Grigoriev." The editors admitted that the story "is not only, in our opinion, the best of what Kaverin has written so far, but also represents a very peculiar and interesting phenomenon in our literature - tours of recent years ..."8.

The newspaper controversy was not forgotten either. The editors noted with gratitude “the correct and witty article by K. Simonov”9. The position of the editors in this case is clear: Simonov defended not only Kaverin, but also the staff of the journal. Simonov's influence can also be traced later. So, on July 27, Izvestia published an article by A. Roskin “Two Captains”, where Simonov’s review, although not mentioned, is almost quoted in fragments. Si-monov, for example, wrote that nowadays children rarely turn to the end of the book without having finished it, and Kaverin may have forced his readers to skip a few pages in an effort to quickly find out about the fate of the characters. Accordingly, Roskin noted: “Probably, many readers jumped over the pages of Kaverin’s books not because of an annoying desire to finish reading as soon as possible, but because of a sincere desire to quickly find out the future of the heroes”10.

However, Roskin emphasized that not only a fascinating plot should be attributed to the achievements of the writer. An indisputable achievement is the main character. Kaverin, according to the critic, created a hero who would be imitated by Soviet readers11.

The only serious flaw in the book, Roskin believed, was

this plot is not quite substantiated ending: Kaverin "hurried-

at the end of the novel, in the bustle of untying all sorts of large and small plot knots”12.

Other critics joined in this assessment. It was about the fact that the chapters devoted to Grigoriev's childhood were a success for the writer - better than others13. The reproaches were formulated most clearly by P. Gromov. He pointed out that the action of the book is considered in two plans. On the one hand, the causes of the death of Captain Tatarinov are being investigated. And on the other hand, the reader follows the peri-petitions of Grigoriev's fate. However, too much attention has been paid to the history of the Tatar expedition, because “Sanya Grigoryev is not complete as an artistic image, he blurs as an individual”14.

These were the main accusations. Not very important, given that the accusation of a political nature Simonov was dropped. In general, the reviews printed after the completion of the journal publication were positive. Critics noted that "Two Captains" is a serious achievement of the writer, who managed to get rid of old "formalistic" delusions. In general, the situation has changed radically again.

However, it is precisely for this reason that the reasons for which a review appeared that practically forbade the publication of Kaverin's story are especially interesting.

It is noteworthy that Kaverin, who did not always take seriously the assessments of his books, remembered the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda. Almost forty years later, in his autobiographical book Epilogue, he noted that “even The Two Captains was greeted once, with a thunderous article, by a certain teacher, indignantly stated that my hero Sanya Grigoriev called the Komsomol member du-roy”15.

Invectives, of course, did not boil down to this alone. Kaverin only emphasized their absurdity. But in this case, the turnover “even “Two Captains”” is interesting. The author seemed to be sure that there would definitely be no complaints here. There seems to be nothing to complain about. And - wrong. I remember my mistake all my life. As for the reasons, I didn’t give a reason.

The reasons are revealed in the analysis of the political context.

In 1939, preparations began for the awarding of writers to the horde - us. The lists were then compiled both by the leadership of the Writers' Union and by the functionaries of the Department of Agitation and Propaganda of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. SP and Agitprop traditionally competed. Agitprop sought to subjugate the leadership of the joint venture, but failed. The leadership of the joint venture had the opportunity to directly address I. Stalin. He did not always support Agitprop. The question of awarding

denami was very important. Both the increase in fees and the benefits granted to the awarded depended on his decision. It was decided who was supposed to distribute it - Agitprop or the leadership of the joint venture. It was here that it was revealed who was more influential. The leadership of the joint venture had its own creatures, Agitprop, of course, had its own. So the lists didn't match.

Kaverin could well count on the order. And I counted. Hoped. It was not only a matter of vanity, although the order is a sign of official recognition. At that time, there were not many “order-bearers”. The status of the “writer-order-bearer”, respectively, was high. And most importantly, the order at least provided relative security. "Pisate - lu-order-bearer" arrest without guilt and reason threatened then to a lesser extent than other fellow writers.

The leadership of the joint venture has always favored Kaverin. He was popular among readers. And his professionalism was noted by M. Gorky in the early 1920s. For all that, Kaverin never applied for any positions, did not seek benefits, did not participate in writers' intrigues. His candidacy should not—la—raise any objections from the agitprop functionaries.

The preemptive strike inflicted by Komsomolskaya Pravda led to the exclusion of Kaverin from the award lists. It can be assumed that the teacher who sent the article to Komsomolskaya Pravda acted on her own initiative. However, the publication of the article was not an accident. Agitprop once again showed that the issue of awarding is decided not only by the leadership of the joint venture.

The political accusation had to be answered. Only after that it would be possible to consider the question of the award. Si-Monov replied. The leadership of the joint venture showed that they do not accept the opinion of Komsomolskaya Pravda, and are ready to continue the debate. Critics under-held the leadership of the joint venture. Agitprop was not yet ready to continue - comrade. But Agitprop won. I won because it took time to refute the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda. In the meantime, time passed, the award lists were compiled and agreed upon. Kaverin did not receive the order then. Rewarded others. For the most part, not so well-known, published much less.

1945–1948 Volume two

Kaverin continued to work. Prepared for publication the second volume

"Two Captains" The publication of the second volume in January 1944 was started by the Moscow magazine Oktyabr. It ended in deca - bre16.

In the preface to the journal publication, it was reported that one of the main themes of the novel is the continuity of Russian and Soviet history. This was constantly emphasized: “In the desire of Sa- nor to resurrect and raise high the half-forgotten personality of Captain Tatarinov, the continuity of the great traditions of Russian culture is hidden”17.

In parallel, the editorial preparation of the novel was going on at the publishing house "Children's Literature". The book was signed for publication on April 14, 1945. The situation, it would seem, was quite favorable. In the new volume, Grigoriev, who fought in the Far North, finally solved the problem set by Captain Tatarinov, and the intriguers were finally defeated and put to shame. But the changes began even before the book was signed for publication.

The first volume of the novel, according to the critic, was Kaverin's ud - whose. The main character, the pilot Grigoriev, was especially successful. On the other hand, the swarm volume did not live up to the reader's expectations. The author did not cope with the task. He even neglected the method of socialist realism. According to Gromov, Kaverin was carried away by an adventurous plot, which is why a historically accurate hero acts in invented, historically random circumstances.

Gromov was still somewhat cautious in his assessments. It was the first blow. It was followed by a second, much stronger one. The August issue of the Moscow magazine Znamya published an article by V. Smirnova “Two captains are changing course”, where the assessment of the second volume was already unambiguous - negative20.

Smirnova was then known not only as a critic. First of all, as a children's writer. Characteristically, in March 1941, she recommended Kaverin's book to the readers of Pioneer magazine. It was, in her words, a "modern Soviet adventure novel"21.

Four years later, the assessment has changed. Smirnova contrasted the Kaverinsky novel with the novels of L. Tolstoy, which, according to her, can be re-read again and again, while the Kaverinsky book should have been inscribed “be afraid to re-read it!”22.

Of course, there should have been at least some explanation why five years earlier the book was positively evaluated. Smirnova explained her previous assessments of Ka-Verinsky's book by the hopes of critics for the growth of the author's skill and the shortage of children's literature in particular23.

The hopes of critics, according to Smirnova, turned out to be in vain. It was not skill that grew, but Kaverin's ambition. According to Smirnova, he conceived the idea of ​​making the pilot Grigoriev the very hero, “in whom, as in a mirror, the reader has long wanted to see himself,” the very type, “the creation of which is the newest and most important task of Soviet literature and the dearest dream of every -th Soviet writer"24.

This, Smirnova insisted, failed Kaverin. He cannot be compared with Tolstoy. And even the main Kaverinsky hero did not op - he justified his hopes. His boyish vanity, as Smirnova argued, “did not grow into self-esteem, into national pride, which are obligatory for Captain Grigoriev if he claims to be a representative of the Soviet youth”25.

In addition, Smirnova emphasized that Grigoriev, in fact, is devoid of the features of the Russian national character. But he has

“a lot of gloating that is not characteristic of a Russian person”26.

This was already a very serious accusation. In the context of the "patriotic" campaigns of the war era - almost political. Well, the conclusion was formulated by Smirnova without any equivocation: “Hope - dy and Kaverin's desires did not come true. “Two Captains” did not become the epic of Soviet life”27.

Smirnova's review was perhaps the sharpest. Other reviewers, noting that the Kaverinsky novel is not without flaws, rated it highly on the whole28. Smirnova, on the other hand, denied the novel any merits and brought accusations against the author that, in fact, excluded positive assessments. And this was especially strange, because the novel was nominated by the leadership of the joint venture for the Stalin Prize back in March29.

Smir could not have been unaware of the novel's nomination for the Stalin Prize. Almost everyone who was in the joint venture knew about it. But it seems that it was the nomination that was the reason for the appearance of the devastating article.

It was not only about the Stalin Prize. The problem of creating a truly Soviet epic comparable to Tolstoy's epic "War and Peace" was discussed. This problem, as you know, was discussed - it was given in the 20s. The fact of the creation of a truly Soviet epic should have confirmed that the Soviet state does not prevent, but promotes the emergence of literature that is not inferior to the Russian classics. The common joke of those years was the search for the “red Lion Tol-stoy”. By the 1930s, the problem had lost its former relevance, but with the end of the war, the situation changed again. The solution to this problem was personally controlled by Stalin. In this regard, the long-standing rivalry between Agitprop and the leadership of SP30 escalated again.

The chronological framework of the Kaverin novel is from the beginning of the First World War and almost to the end of the Great Patriotic War. And the volume is quite solid - for 1945. Of course, Kaverin did not claim the status of "red Leo Tolstoy", but the leadership of the joint venture could well report: work on the creation of truths - but the Soviet epic is underway, there are successes. And the Stalin Prize was actually secured for the author of the most popular book.

It is unlikely that the leadership of the joint venture planned in any way to approve Kaverin in the status of "red Leo Tolstoy". But Agitprop struck a warning blow. At the same time, he showed again that the issue of awarding is not decided by the leadership of the joint venture. Smirnova's recall, one might say, disavowed the decision taken by the leadership of the joint venture. The accusations were too serious. And the novel is bad in itself, and the problem of creating the epic of the Soviet era cannot be correlated with this novel, and even the main character has a non-Russian character.

Such accusations could not be left unanswered. They concerned not only Kaverin. All publishing organizations that published and were about to publish Kaverin's novel were also concerned. And the leadership of the joint venture, of course. The answer was published in the November-December issue of the magazine "October" E. Usievich's article "Sanya Grigoriev in front of the pedagogical court"31.

Usievich, a Bolshevik since 1915, was then considered a very authoritative critic. And she mastered the technique of behind-the-scenes games no worse than Smirnova. Usievich's article was addressed not only to the "general reader". She also implicitly addressed Simonov, who recently joined the editorial staff of the Znamya collegium. The title of the article Usievich could not but recall the article by Simonov, who in 1939 defended Kaverin from the attacks of the “classy lady”.

Simonov, of course, had nothing to do with Smirnov's article. The work of the magazine, in fact ignoring the editor-in-chief V. Vishnevsky, was then led by D. Polikarpov, who openly lobbied for agitprop interests. Polikarpov's anti-Semitic opinions were known to Moscow journalists. It seems that Smirnova's statements about the absence of features of the Russian national character in the Kaverin hero were inspired, if not by Likarpov personally, then with his knowledge and approval. Contemporary writers understood the hint. The author of the novel "Two Captains" is a Jew, and therefore the character of the protagonist could not be Russian. However, Po-likarpov not only expressed his opinion. The policy of state anti-Semitism became more and more outspoken32.

Of course, Usievich did not mention Simonov. But with Smirno, howl argued in Simonov's manner. Emphasized that the

Smirnova's license is made up of "separate reproaches. Some of them are completely unsubstantiated, and taken together, they have nothing in common with each other, except for the common goal - to discredit the novel “Two Captains” ”33.

Usievich refuted all Smirnova's invectives one by one. True, the question of whether the novel can be considered a Soviet epic was carefully avoided. There was no need to argue here. Ushie noted - vich and the fact that there are flaws in the novel. But she emphasized that what was said about the shortcomings “could serve as a subject of discussion and dispute, to which rude abuse and malicious allusions against the excellent book of V. Smirnova have nothing to do”34.

Usievich's article, like Simonov's article in its time, demonstrated the readiness of the leadership of the SP to continue the struggle. This time Agitprop conceded - in part. Kaverin received the Stalin Prize - chil. Second degree, but received. And the novel has already been officially recognized as a Soviet classic35.

Material taken from: Scientific journal Series “Journalism. Literary Criticism No. 6(68)/11



Similar articles