Biography of Voronsky

Back the content forward, Alexander Konstantinovich Voronsky, Alexander Konstantinovich Voronsky, was a romantic man, firmly confident in the direct action of a work of art on a person’s soul, on his deeds and actions. With Vera, Voronsky acted in this ennobleing the beginning of literature. He condemned Lassal because he died on a duel because of a woman, did not forgive Pushkin’s passions that led him to death, but he himself was ready to die in a dispute for some classic ideal, like Andrei Bolkonsky.

Dostoevsky’s heroes were alien to, shrugged all this dark power, did not understand and did not want to understand. Voronsky was a romantic dogma. No other assessments, except - is not useful, Voronsky did not essentially have. He treated the verses as prose - following the example of Belinsky. Yesenin’s talent admitted, but did not want to see that Yesenin’s successes like poems about 26, about 36, and even “Anna Snegina” - all this is outside of great literature, that “Moscow Kabatskaya”, “Inonia”, “Magpie” will not be surpassed.

A clash with this poetics led Yesenin to death. And “Soviet Rus”, “Persian motifs” and “Anna Snegina” are significantly lower in its artistic level than the “forty -UST”, “Inonia”, “Pugachev” or the peak of Yesenin’s work is the collection “Moscow Kabatskaya”, where each of the 18 poems that make up this amazing cycle is a masterpiece of Russian lyrics, which is distinguished by unusual originality, dressed in a dressed in The personal fate, multiplied by the fate of society - using everything that is accumulated by Russian poetry of the 20th century - expressed with the brightest force.

But not only “Anna Snegina” and “Soviet Rus'”-here some satisfactory compromise was found at the expense of artistry, of course, with all their verbosity, the anti-Eyeenine style-Yesenin does not have plot descriptive verses. Yesenin is the concentration of artistic energy in a small number of lines - this is its strength and sign. But it's not even about Anna Snegina.

Attempts to rape themselves and led to suicide. Now we know that along with this hack, Yesenin also wrote the “Yesenin” poems “Metel”, “Black Man” at that time every “Leader” provided patronage to any writer, artist, and sometimes provided material assistance. Trotsky wrote several articles about Pilnyak, demanding mutual love and her evidence. Berry patronized Gorky. You should not think that Gorky’s name opened someone's doors in the twenties.

Gorky never forgave his positions in the year, his speeches in defense of the war of the year. The party point of view on Gorky was presented in the special article by Theodorovich [2] “Class Roots of Gorky’s Creativity”, Volga bourgeois antylenin performances, friendship with Bogdanov, who is the Antilenine school for the money of a millionaire Gorky.

To provide Gorky with a calm life and took on Henry Berry. It was solid support. Gorky conspired with Stalin quickly and after the execution of his friend, the berry made a well -known statement "If the enemy does not give up, he is destroyed." Here Gorky did not need help and support of secondary persons. Stalin Gorky was panic. Vsevolod Ivanov left a story about his invitation for breakfast to Gorky on Nikolin Gorus.

Gorky and Stalin were nearby. Gorky turned pale, ran to apologize, breakfast was interrupted, and when the owner returned, there was no face on it, and the guests hastened to leave. But what was happening in the second half of the thirties, it became possible to tell in Kutz only after thirty years. About the twenties and now nothing truthful has been printed.

But back to the patrons, party policy of the top itself. Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, in a report at the 1st Congress of Writers, called Pasternak the first name in Russian poetry. But together with Pasternak the hope of Russian poetry Nikolai Ivanovich called Ushakov. There was nothing unusual in this. With his first books “Spring of the Republic” and “50 poems”, Ushakov immediately entered the front ranks of modern Russian poetry.

They expected from him, Lofovites, constructivists, Rappovtsy held out his hands to him, hurrying to capture a new fearless talent in their networks. Nikolai Nikolaevich Ushakov, a modest man, was afraid of cheerful glory and retreated into the shadow, not daring to take a place in the struggle of the Titans like Mayakovsky and Pasternak. A lot were expected from Ushakov.

He did not write anything better than his first collections. Stalin patronized Mayakovsky. Both figures exchanged compliments. Stalin, on a statement by Lily Brik, wrote a resolution addressed to N. Ezhov: “Mayakovsky is the best talented poet of our Soviet era. The indifference to his memory is a crime. ” Pasternak decided to protect himself from the vengeful hostility of Stalin, expressed against everyone who is praised by enemies, and wrote the poem about Stalin in the year, calling the cycle “artist”: not a man lives - an act, an act in an earthly ball.

This poem not only saved Pasternak, but honored a personal conversation by phone with Stalin, although not about his ode.Until now, no one can understand how a poet, to whom Lenin was sharply negative, is inscribed in history and later even into a school textbook. Mayakovsky entered Stalin and Lunacharsky. When Gorky lived in Capri and negotiations began on such a delicate matter as the return of Gorky to the Soviet Union, Mayakovsky published his letter to Gorky in Novy Lave.

Voronsky received a letter from Gorky that he, Gorky, would revise his decision to return, if he is not guaranteed the exclusion of such demarchees from anyone. Voronsky replied that he informed the members of the government and Alexei Maksimovich could not worry. Mayakovsky will be put in place. Both letters are in the archive of Gorky. Which of the government members turned to Voronsky?

Not to Stalin and is unlikely to Lunacharsky. In any case, negotiations were conducted through Voronsky, and Voronsky was by no means a fan of Gorky - neither as an artist, nor as a public figure. On a crowded dispute with the Averbach and the Rappovtsy, Voronsky challenged Gorky’s belonging to the proletarian literature Gladkov, Lyashko, Bakhmetyev, etc. Voronsky shocked with a finger, and the Bekesha thrown for warmth fell off his shoulders.

In the end, Voronsky threw it to Bekesha, put it on the department and agreed on a speech without Bekesha - and then only put it in his sleeves and sat down at the wooden, unpainted table of the presidium. In the year I was cleaning Voronsky in Goslit. The state itself was then placed in the Vetoshny Lane. Magidov, an old Bolshevik, led to cleaning. And Magidov, like Theodorovich - yes, all, all, without exception, people whose names were in the forefront of the builders of the new life - all were destroyed by Stalin, physically destroyed.

Voronsky spoke about his life, that, they say, he was mistaken, he worked there and there. There were no questions, there were few people, sixty people in the hall, or even less. Magidov had already prepared to dictate to the secretary: “consider it proven”, when suddenly a hand rose from the back rows asking for words for a question. Some young guy got up. It was written on his face sincere desire to comprehend the situation, not to prick, not hint, but simply understand for himself.

For a long time in the Soviet press, your critical articles are not visible. So you wrote a book about Zhelyabov - this is good. Memories wrote even better. The story is finally the head of the “hurricane”. All this proves a large supply of creative energy very well. But criticism, criticism, where is your? Voronsky was silent for a moment and answered calmly, slowly and coldly: - Upon returning from the Lipetsk link, I broke my journalist's pen.

The guy in the back rows nodded his head enthusiastically, sat down, disappeared from his eyes, and Magidov called the next to check. Alexander Konstantinovich Voronsky as an editor of two magazines - “Red Novi” and “Flight”, as the head of the large publishing house “Circle” and the leader of the literary group “Perev” gave a huge amount of time, energy, and the forces of moral and physical reading of other people's manuscripts.

There were always a lot of poems, and the gatherings of the twenties represented the same stormy sea as now. I myself was a consultant in fiction at the central working reading of them. Gorky in the House of Unions in the thirty -second and thirty -third year. Stream of manuscripts, conversations with authors and so on. But the library is not a magazine.

This peculiarity of art did not want to accept dogmatic and theorists, realists and romantics, hermits and businessmen. Not a single new name in literature, which would be ordered by Voronsky. Reading other people's manuscripts is the worst of the worst work. Ungrateful lesson. But theoretical beliefs forced Voronsky to draw in new search and with new attention.

However, this attention began to corrode skepticism over time. Voronsky’s daughter tells how sometimes his father took someone's voluminous manuscript. Alexander Konstantinovich weighed a paper heaviness on his hand. Will not go. Of course, there is a reason here. Then everyone was waiting for Pushkin: about five years it would pass-and a new Pushkin will appear, because capitalism is such a system that “crumpled and strangled”, and now the time passed, but Pushkin was not there.

Gradually, they began to understand that art lives according to special laws, outside public conflicts and is not determined by them. He paid the same attention in his correspondence, in his writing activity and Gorky. The same was politics and the same failures.