Denis Dragunsky, Gazeta.ru
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavius, the son of the Divine Caesar Augustus, a senate priceps, a great pontifex, consul 13 times, emperor 21 times, tribune 37 times, the Father of the Homeland… in other words, Roman Emperor Octavian Augustus, created quite a sustainable and reliable state system, a sort of a monarchy in republican decor. He consolidated disintegrated Rome, strengthened science and art. At the same time, he was a sadist, tyrant and general miscreant.
Tiberius made the economy of Rome stronger, cut unnecessary expenses, restrained usurers, he was a greedy and frugal financier. He did not, however, spare money on restoration of cities hit by earthquakes. Tiberius was reiterating that he was serving the senate and every Roman. At the same time, he was a libertine and a pedophile, an aficionado of hideous orgies with children. He killed his opponents or anyone who seemed suspicious without mercy.
Caligula had balanced and generally peaceful foreign and anti-oligarchic domestic policies. It is possible that he was killed by oligarchs and bellicose circles wishing to wage war against Britain. He was a sadist, lived with his sister and crushed poor oligarchs and generals.
Concerning Nero, he was an outstanding ruler. He reduced and lifted many taxes and customs duties, boosting the economy. He rebuilt the capital after the fire. He skilfully appointed administrators to all posts. Most importantly, he made the life of ordinary people, especially the poor, easier. No wonder there were fake Neros appearing after his death, people were hailing them and even protecting them from forces. All that did not stop Nero from being a libertine and pederast, dressing his male lover as an empress, killing his own mother, personally torturing people, arguing with everyone in his declining years, drowning in orgies and dying an embarrassing death.
So the question is: were those people good or bad?
Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus never had such a question. He did write his famous book “The Twelve Caesars” only 20 years after the murder of Domitian, the last of the twelve. Suetonius had no cognitive dissonance. Every biography he wrote consists of two parts. The first one describes the governance achievements of the Caesars, the second one is about their personal qualities.
Since the fall of the USSR, about as much time has passed. People say time flies faster than it used to. But it seems false. On the contrary. We still cannot get rid of the childishly holistic view on our lost old homeland.
We are prisoners and martyrs of cognitive dissonance of the black-and-white outlook.
We, for instance, cannot realize two equally fair assertions.
The first one. Joseph Stalin was the greatest political figure of Russia in 1922-1953. Well. He was not the greatest, he was the biggest. Although it is unclear why the words should be changed. “Great,” as I see it, does not mean “good,” not to mention “noble,” “kind,” “bright,” “wise” and appealing in all aspects.
So he was a big politician, at least because there was no one as powerful and probably could not be. We cannot talk seriously about thin-necked leaders, weak-willed, unwise and light-minded people whose sympathy Stalin gained, then turned them against each other and destroyed one by one.
Stalin did quite a lot. To a certain extent, he did recreate the Russian Empire in the image of the USSR (attention! I did not say that an empire, especially of the Soviet type, is bad; but it was recreated). To a certain extent, he carried out industrial modernization. It does not matter whether Soviet scientists created all the Soviet machinery or it was purchased in America, partly stolen there. What difference does it make? Most importantly, the machinery, from Gaz-M1 and FED cameras to the nuclear bomb, was made.
In addition to that, victory in the world’s biggest war: whether you like it or not, Stalin was the commander-in-chief.
We can certainly say that Russia without the Bolsheviks would have been developing a lot more rapidly and dynamically. Maybe. I think so too.
But it is a question for Nicholas II, who was opposed to the constitutional monarchy. Then, yes. Then, maybe there would have been no war. But so far, in the circumstances offered by history and unaltered, Comrade Stalin is the biggest, I repeat, political figure of Russia in 1922-1953.
Secondly. Despite all the aforementioned, Stalin was an impeccable scoundrel, a villain, a criminal and the worst enemy of the nation, personally responsible for rivers of wasted blood, millions of broken lives.
One thing does not refute the other.
Or take the collocation “Soviet literature,” for example.
As democratic-spirited Soviet readers of the 1970s, we thought that writers in the USSR belonged to the following categories.
There were Soviet writers: Fadeyev, Markov, Kochetov and 5,000 or 10,000 more.
There were anti-Soviet writers: their number was a lot smaller. Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov, Belinkov and other self-published writers with an explicit anti-communist position. It was anti-communist, I emphasize, because some of them, for example Sinyavsky, were approving the idea of the Soviet system of social life (in other words, the fusion of the executive and the legislative powers, at least at a low level; it seems that Gorky had the same illusion in his time).
Finally, there were what would be called non-Soviet authors, though they managed to get their works printed in Soviet publishing centers. There were very few such people. Aksenov, for instance. Or the so-called Katayev, an old Soviet classic writer who suddenly started writing avant-garde stories: “The Holy Well,” “The Grass of Oblivion” and especially “Mosaic of Life.” Those queer authors act as though they are not members of the Writers’ Union, as though they were Americans in Paris. Ernest Hemingways of their kind.
And then there is the emigrant literature, but that is a special story.
A good scheme. No, absolutely unacceptable. Because it included such notable, though very diverse writers like Yuri Trifonov, Vasily Shukshin, Victor Astafyev, Yuri Nagibin. Venedikt Yerofeyev and poets of underground avant-garde did not fit into it, though we (big masses of democratic-spirited readers of the stagnation age) hardly knew them.
“Soviet, anti-Soviet – what’s the difference?” wondered Anatoly Naiman, according to notes of Dovlatov. Indeed, there is no difference for literature, of course.
All determined and principled anti-Soviet and non-Soviet writers were formed by the Soviet context. The Soviet reality was either a palatable environment or a subject of political or less commonly aesthetic polemics, or a repulsed background. But the background, no matter how much you repulse it, determines the outlines of the shape.
When we start serious disputes about what writer of Russia in the 1920-1980s was Soviet, or what was not Soviet even a bit, what does it mean? It means that we are being pulled by Sovietism, with its ideological pincers.
All Russian writers living in the USSR were Soviet (other ex-Soviet republics can figure themselves). Everyone, from Anatoly Ivanov to Friedrich Gorenstein, including Yevgeny Kharitonov and anyone you like. Russian Soviet. They include confirmed communists, obstinate dissidents, time servers of different talents, certain escapists, realists, avant-gardists and etc. But the line is common, Soviet. This should not be confused.
We are not appalled that Horace was a pampered courtier, while Ovid was an exiled dissident. Both were Roman poets. There is no Rome and never will be. Just like the USSR. The sooner we reconcile ourselves to historical fact, the easier we will understand our literature, our country, ourselves
Denis Dragunsky says it is high time we ended the black-and-white outlook on our lost homelandDenis Dragunsky, Gazeta.ruGaius Julius Caesar Octavius, the son of the Divine Caesar Augustus, a senate priceps, a great pontifex, consul 13 times, emperor 21 times, tribune 37 times, the Father of the Homeland… in other words, Roman Emperor Octavian Augustus, created quite a sustainable and reliable state system, a sort of a monarchy in republican decor. He consolidated disintegrated Rome, strengthened science and art. At the same time, he was a sadist, tyrant and general miscreant.Tiberius made the economy of Rome stronger, cut unnecessary expenses, restrained usurers, he was a greedy and frugal financier. He did not, however, spare money on restoration of cities hit by earthquakes. Tiberius was reiterating that he was serving the senate and every Roman. At the same time, he was a libertine and a pedophile, an aficionado of hideous orgies with children. He killed his opponents or anyone who seemed suspicious without mercy.Caligula had balanced and generally peaceful foreign and anti-oligarchic domestic policies. It is possible that he was killed by oligarchs and bellicose circles wishing to wage war against Britain. He was a sadist, lived with his sister and crushed poor oligarchs and generals.Concerning Nero, he was an outstanding ruler. He reduced and lifted many taxes and customs duties, boosting the economy. He rebuilt the capital after the fire. He skilfully appointed administrators to all posts. Most importantly, he made the life of ordinary people, especially the poor, easier. No wonder there were fake Neros appearing after his death, people were hailing them and even protecting them from forces. All that did not stop Nero from being a libertine and pederast, dressing his male lover as an empress, killing his own mother, personally torturing people, arguing with everyone in his declining years, drowning in orgies and dying an embarrassing death.So the question is: were those people good or bad?Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus never had such a question. He did write his famous book “The Twelve Caesars” only 20 years after the murder of Domitian, the last of the twelve. Suetonius had no cognitive dissonance. Every biography he wrote consists of two parts. The first one describes the governance achievements of the Caesars, the second one is about their personal qualities.Since the fall of the USSR, about as much time has passed. People say time flies faster than it used to. But it seems false. On the contrary. We still cannot get rid of the childishly holistic view on our lost old homeland.We are prisoners and martyrs of cognitive dissonance of the black-and-white outlook.We, for instance, cannot realize two equally fair assertions.The first one. Joseph Stalin was the greatest political figure of Russia in 1922-1953. Well. He was not the greatest, he was the biggest. Although it is unclear why the words should be changed. “Great,” as I see it, does not mean “good,” not to mention “noble,” “kind,” “bright,” “wise” and appealing in all aspects.So he was a big politician, at least because there was no one as powerful and probably could not be. We cannot talk seriously about thin-necked leaders, weak-willed, unwise and light-minded people whose sympathy Stalin gained, then turned them against each other and destroyed one by one.Stalin did quite a lot. To a certain extent, he did recreate the Russian Empire in the image of the USSR (attention! I did not say that an empire, especially of the Soviet type, is bad; but it was recreated). To a certain extent, he carried out industrial modernization. It does not matter whether Soviet scientists created all the Soviet machinery or it was purchased in America, partly stolen there. What difference does it make? Most importantly, the machinery, from Gaz-M1 and FED cameras to the nuclear bomb, was made.In addition to that, victory in the world’s biggest war: whether you like it or not, Stalin was the commander-in-chief.We can certainly say that Russia without the Bolsheviks would have been developing a lot more rapidly and dynamically. Maybe. I think so too.But it is a question for Nicholas II, who was opposed to the constitutional monarchy. Then, yes. Then, maybe there would have been no war. But so far, in the circumstances offered by history and unaltered, Comrade Stalin is the biggest, I repeat, political figure of Russia in 1922-1953.Secondly. Despite all the aforementioned, Stalin was an impeccable scoundrel, a villain, a criminal and the worst enemy of the nation, personally responsible for rivers of wasted blood, millions of broken lives.One thing does not refute the other.Or take the collocation “Soviet literature,” for example.As democratic-spirited Soviet readers of the 1970s, we thought that writers in the USSR belonged to the following categories.There were Soviet writers: Fadeyev, Markov, Kochetov and 5,000 or 10,000 more.There were anti-Soviet writers: their number was a lot smaller. Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov, Belinkov and other self-published writers with an explicit anti-communist position. It was anti-communist, I emphasize, because some of them, for example Sinyavsky, were approving the idea of the Soviet system of social life (in other words, the fusion of the executive and the legislative powers, at least at a low level; it seems that Gorky had the same illusion in his time).Finally, there were what would be called non-Soviet authors, though they managed to get their works printed in Soviet publishing centers. There were very few such people. Aksenov, for instance. Or the so-called Katayev, an old Soviet classic writer who suddenly started writing avant-garde stories: “The Holy Well,” “The Grass of Oblivion” and especially “Mosaic of Life.” Those queer authors act as though they are not members of the Writers’ Union, as though they were Americans in Paris. Ernest Hemingways of their kind.And then there is the emigrant literature, but that is a special story.A good scheme. No, absolutely unacceptable. Because it included such notable, though very diverse writers like Yuri Trifonov, Vasily Shukshin, Victor Astafyev, Yuri Nagibin. Venedikt Yerofeyev and poets of underground avant-garde did not fit into it, though we (big masses of democratic-spirited readers of the stagnation age) hardly knew them.“Soviet, anti-Soviet – what’s the difference?” wondered Anatoly Naiman, according to notes of Dovlatov. Indeed, there is no difference for literature, of course.All determined and principled anti-Soviet and non-Soviet writers were formed by the Soviet context. The Soviet reality was either a palatable environment or a subject of political or less commonly aesthetic polemics, or a repulsed background. But the background, no matter how much you repulse it, determines the outlines of the shape.When we start serious disputes about what writer of Russia in the 1920-1980s was Soviet, or what was not Soviet even a bit, what does it mean? It means that we are being pulled by Sovietism, with its ideological pincers.All Russian writers living in the USSR were Soviet (other ex-Soviet republics can figure themselves). Everyone, from Anatoly Ivanov to Friedrich Gorenstein, including Yevgeny Kharitonov and anyone you like. Russian Soviet. They include confirmed communists, obstinate dissidents, time servers of different talents, certain escapists, realists, avant-gardists and etc. But the line is common, Soviet. This should not be confused.We are not appalled that Horace was a pampered courtier, while Ovid was an exiled dissident. Both were Roman poets. There is no Rome and never will be. Just like the USSR. The sooner we reconcile ourselves to historical fact, the easier we will understand our literature, our country, oursel.
