A book of an interview with Irina Vrubel-Golubkina “Conversations in the Mirror” was published. “Air” prints the famous conversation with Nikolai Khardzhiev, a historian of the Russian avant-garde, who personally knew Malevich, Tatlin, Filonov, and almost all of the key heroes of Russian art and literature of the 20th century.

 

Nikolai Khardzhiev - writer, historian, textologist and collector. Born in Odessa, in the twenties he moved to Leningrad, where he was close to the circle of futurists, met and made friends with the Krucheny, Oberiuts, Malevich and Tatlin, Mandelstam and Akhmatova. Later he will move to Moscow; in his apartment in Maryina Roshcha all any noticeable poets and artists of the era visited. Over the years, he has collected a rich collection of paintings and texts of the Russian avant-garde. The conversation took place in January 1991 in Moscow, when Khardzhiev was 88 years old. The interviewer is the editor-in-chief of the Russian-language Israeli magazine Zerkalo. Khardzhiev will die in 1996 in Amsterdam, where he will move in a vain attempt to keep the archive: he will be plundered during the life of the historian.

Nikolai Khardzhiev, 1950-1960s

Irina Vrubel-Golubkina: Meetings and work with which people have had the greatest influence on you?

Nikolay Khardzhiev:I was most influenced by artists, not poets and philologists. Most of all in understanding art, I owe Malevich. I was also very friendly with Tatlin, and I hid it from Malevich. They were enemies, and I had to hide from each of them that I communicate with the other. Fortunately, one of them lived in Moscow, and the other in Leningrad. Tatlin was a man with a monstrous character - a maniac, was afraid that some professional secrets would be stolen from him. Once during the war with Finland, Akhmatova came to me in Maryina Roscha. The apartment was communal, she lived with me, I moved out into the corridor. Tatlin called, and I told him that I have Anna Andreevna, maybe he will show us the work? He invited us to his place. It was darkened, and on a terrible night, without electricity, in terrible mud and slush, we reached Maslovka. I first went up to his workshop. She was on the top floor, the last door so that no one would pass by. Knocking - no answer. I left Anna Andreyevna down, went down, I said: "He is probably in the apartment." Then I went up to the sixth floor, his apartment was in the same courtyard - there is no answer either. I was furious, and we drove home. Then I decided that he probably thought that Akhmatova would spy on his professional secrets. I stopped dating him. In addition, we were still working with him on the “Case” of Sukhovo-Kobylin. He made one drawing of the Courtroom. I do not like theater, but I feel it. I told him that the table is boring in the drawing, everyone will see only their backs. "Place it diagonally, like Tintoretto." He did so, and then believed in my unheard of abilities. I told him: “Well, you, I’m not involved in the theater, here’s Leonid Petrovich Grossman, he published a book and wrote articles on the theater, and he will be a very good consultant. ” Two days later, the call: “Why did you advise such shit to me?” I say: “Shame on you, he is a respected man, professor, in any case, does not deserve such an attitude.” “No, I don’t need him, you are a bad person, you don’t want to help me.” I had to decipher the symbolism of the “Cause” for him, because there Varavin is a fiend of hell, the robber Varrava, who was released instead of Christ. Worked with him for quite some time. He promised me that they would also conclude a contract with me. But when the commission came and I was there, he did not say anything about me. I left and stopped meeting him. “Shame on you, he is a respected man, a professor, in any case he does not deserve such an attitude.” “No, I don’t need him, you are a bad person, you don’t want to help me.” I had to decipher the symbolism of the “Cause” for him, because there Varavin is a fiend of hell, the robber Varrava, who was released instead of Christ. Worked with him for quite some time. He promised me that they would also conclude a contract with me. But when the commission came and I was there, he did not say anything about me. I left and stopped meeting him. “Shame on you, he is a respected man, a professor, in any case he does not deserve such an attitude.” “No, I don’t need him, you are a bad person, you don’t want to help me.” I had to decipher the symbolism of the “Cause” for him, because there Varavin is a fiend of hell, the robber Varrava, who was released instead of Christ. Worked with him for quite some time. He promised me that they would also conclude a contract with me. But when the commission came and I was there, he did not say anything about me. I left and stopped meeting him. that they’ll also conclude a contract with me. But when the commission came and I was there, he did not say anything about me. I left and stopped meeting him. that they’ll also conclude a contract with me. But when the commission came and I was there, he did not say anything about me. I left and stopped meeting him.

Six months pass - he was a crafty beast, like children, a cunning devil, - a phone call - me. I miraculously recognized this voice: “Says T-a-a-tlin”, - I am silent, then he says the phrase: “Well, you know, you also have a character.” I laughed. Thus the quarrel ceased.

I.V.-G .: Did he envy Malevich?

N.Kh .: He hated him with fierce hatred and envied to some extent. They could not divide the crown. Both of them were candidates for the post of director of the Institute of Artistic Culture. Malevich said: "Be the director." Tatlin: "Well, if you offer, there is something amiss." And he refused, although he really wanted to be a director there. There was always a contention there, until he left for Kiev. When Malevich died, his body was brought to cremate in Moscow. Tatlin nevertheless went to look at the dead. He looked and said, "Pretending to be."

Kazimir Malevich, 1915

I.V.-G .: When did you meet Malevich?

N.Kh .: In 1928 at the OBERIU evening. Then I met everyone - with Harms, with Vvedensky. There was Tufanov, an old wizard, who had some influence on the Oberiuts. An elderly man, a cripple, hunchbacked, ridiculous appearance, but a curious person. <...> I was with Eichenbaum. And Malevich was sitting there - very important.

I.V.-G .: What were Malevich's relationships with God?

N.Kh .: Of course, Malevich has a mystical element. When Lenin was hanged instead of an icon, he said that this place should not be left empty. He also said: “How is my pointlessness different from their art?” - he himself answered: “With a spiritual content that they don’t have!” And Kruchenykh said: “God is a mystery, not a zero. Not a zero, but a secret. ”

I.V.-G .: What have you talked about in recent years with Malevich?

N.Kh .: There were discussions on various topics, but, as always, about art. Of the Russian artists, he and Tatlin most of all loved Larionov. Although they quarreled with him, everyone quarreled. Malevich also quarreled with Larionov. Nevertheless, they both agreed that Larionov is a unique painter. I think that after Cezanne there was no such painter.

I.V.-G .: Which of the poets was closest to Malevich?

N.Kh .: He nevertheless appreciated Kruchenykh most of all. He told Khlebnikov: "You are not a wizard, you are a wise guy." No, he greatly appreciated Khlebnikov, but he considered Kruchenykh to be parallel to himself - an idler and an absurd.

IV-G.: How did Malevich relate to what was happening in the 30s?

N.Kh .: Although he was very poor, he was an optimist by nature. He tried to do something, some architectural projects, some kind of social town. And somewhere it was even half-approved, but nothing came of it. He was very strong-willed and persistent, although he was already sick then. He made the project of the social city based on his architectons. I even wanted to do utilitarian architecture, which did not correspond to his installations. He even once told me that he was ready to accept socialist realism, with only one amendment: so that it was artistic realism.

I.V.-G .: What did he mean?

N.Kh .: That it was art. He was even ready to do a story thing. But then art was given to people of non-art, and Malevich’s amendment to “artistic social realism” was not acceptable. It was a bunch of mediocrity, drawing themed paintings from photographs.

Vladimir Evgrafovich Tatlin

I.V.-G .: In the 30s, did the atmosphere of constant pressure from the authorities and the feeling of “closure of art” not make Malevich and Tatlin become closer to each other?

N.Kh .:Tatlin continued to hate him with terrible hatred, and Malevich treated him somehow ironically. They could not divide the crown. Tatlin nevertheless somehow adapted - he worked in the theater, designed the performances. He did not disdain any plays, even if a successful author, if only there was work. He designed more than 30 performances and received a "well-deserved". And Malevich, when the Institute of Artistic Culture was still closed, was already quite “leper”. He was inactive, but the disciples came to him, and he was still very influential. But when he died and his beloved students Suetin, Rozhdestvensky and others buried him, so there was some joy of release on their faces, because he still held them very much. His presence changed their life and biography. Of course, they were very sad, but they were no longer children, and this was freedom from him. At his funeral there were a lot of people, the students led the ceremony. The coffin made by Suetin was delivered from Leningrad to Moscow, then there was a cremation, a funeral. Then they lost the grave, although relatives lived nearby. <...>

I.V.-G .: And how did Malevich communicate with his students? Was it a commune? Close relations?

N.Kh .:No no. They came to him, he lectured to them. In Vitebsk, the situation was workshop, they talked daily at school, he taught them. But in Leningrad this was no longer the case. He lived in this terrible apartment, they came to talk with him. But they themselves were with a mustache, everything they needed learned in Vitebsk. Malevich appreciated Suetin most of all: they had a spiritual relationship. Chashnik is a faithful Malevician, a good artist, very close, but more imitative. Suetin is more original. He went through Suprematism and came to very peculiar things. Like abstract figures with ovals coming from the icon. He had an amazing series of elephants both in a pictorial interpretation and in a Suprematist one. It all disappeared, the wives stole. In the 20s he made sculpture with reliefs. A wonderful draftsman, a man with a range, confident in what he is doing,

He was a beloved student, and Malevich cared terribly about him. I was looking for doctors. My friend Suetin was a psychopath, an unbearable person with a million personal stories. He plagued me with this, came to me at night, did not let me sleep, talked about another tragedy. When he was already in the hospital, I came to visit him with Christmas presents. They did not let me in, but I gave a bribe, and he was brought to us in a small living room. He came up to me, rubbed himself and said in a guilty voice: "Well, now I will only do art." And it was time for him to die, it was too late.

IV-G.: The percentage of Jews in the literary and artistic environment was then very high?

N.Kh .: Of course, almost all of Malevich’s students were Jews. In addition to several, such as Sannikov, Socks. They were very capable and disappeared in the middle of nowhere. So people disappeared, nothing remained. Look at this famous photo from an art school in Vitebsk with Pan in the middle (he was a good artist, plein-airman, he was not an academician. Poor old man - he was later killed, such a meek, handsome Jew). Everything in this photo is Jewish, so Nina Kogan, as always, smiles blissfully. Only one Ermolaeva is Russian here, an aristocrat, they had a huge estate. She was a wonderful woman, she was then shot for religious beliefs, so lame and led to be shot.

Mark Zagarovich Chagall, 1970

I.V.-G .: Was it the most international period of Russian art?

N.Kh .: Well, Malevich did not care at all - he did not recognize any nationalities. It was important to him - an artist or not an artist. His wife, Una's mother, Rafalovich, was Jewish or semi-Jewish. <...> In general, no one thought about this topic then, I had Jewish gymnasium friends, no one paid any attention to it then. Alexandre Benois had Jews ancestors - a tailor, they hid, of course, but his ancestor was a French Jew, I read it somewhere.

Yes, when all these Jewish boys ran away from Malevich to Chagall, well, Suetin was, however, a nobleman, the scandal was all over Vitebsk. Ida herself told me that her father hated Malevich and was angry with her because she likes Malevich. Chagall's character was, God forbid. Malevich was still relatively humorous, and this one was terribly vindictive. Because of this, he left for Paris, which as a result turned out to be in his hands. All the same, he could not forgive Malevich of Vitebsk. But Malevich was not to blame - all the students themselves immediately went to him. And what Chagall could teach them - he was not a teacher at all. They imitated him to the flying Jews. Even Lissitzky was first influenced by Chagall. But Malevich appreciated him immediately. He drew from Lissitzky its architectural basis and invited him to engage in voluminous Suprematism. He himself did experiments in this direction, but really almost did not do this. An idiotic article by Khan-Magomedov says that it was Lissitzky who influenced him. Nothing of the kind; he gave this task to Lissitzky. He tried it, but did not do it. His most planar forms were quite satisfactory, they worked for him as voluminous, the movement of light gave this illusion. And Lissitzky was an amazing schedule, phenomenal, and he colorized very skillfully, although he was not a painter. <...> although he was not a painter. <...> although he was not a painter. <...>

Lissitzky’s early, Shagalov’s, paintings are almost not preserved here, because he went abroad. He left due to the fact that he fell in love with the artist Khentova. She exhibited with the "World of Art" and in other places. Incredibly beautiful woman - a dazzling blonde, a Jewess with no national signs. She was a fashionista, dressed beautifully, all in furs, I don’t know where she got the money from. I have a photograph - she is all in furs standing near the work of Lissitzky. It was in Germany around the time of the release of Veshi. She would be charming now - such blond curls. He was madly in love with her, and she was completely indifferent to him, maybe only appreciated as an artist. She herself was an artist. He shot because of her, shot himself in the lung, and then because of this he was ill all his life. Nobody knows about it Lissitzky's wife Sophia Kuppers told me this. It was difficult for Khent to imagine Lissitzky's wife, he is small, and she is a gorgeous woman. I met Lissitzky only once. She left her brother, a journalist, wrote under the pseudonym Henry, a dark man and, probably, an informer.

Then the people were different, the wife of the artist-Lefovets, it seems, Nivitsky, a hysteric, wrote very good memories about Mayakovsky, but there was something in her. He cheated on her terribly, and she complained to Mayakovsky, believing that this was the influence of LEF and Brikov. To which Mayakovsky said: "Old-fashioned we, Lily, are people with you.

I.V.-G .: Nikolai Ivanovich! What is the "art of the 20s"?

N.Kh .: This is the same myth as the poetry of the Silver Age. There was no art of the 20s. This was pre-revolutionary art, all movements have already been created. Just innovative artists were still alive, they were still not old at the time of the revolution. Punin was an isocommissar and patronized the left. He told me that they wrote about him then: “Honest and old intellectuals went over to the side of the revolution,” and then I (Punin) were 29 years old then. ” Everything that was done was created before the revolution, even the last, Suprematism, was already in 1915. At the beginning of the 1920s they could still do something, and when the Civil War ended, they were immediately stopped.

I.V.-G .: But all these people were attracted by the possibility of social transformation of the world?

N.Kh .: But in Russia this did not happen. No, of course, the futurists in everyday life wanted to change everything, but it was a utopia. Malevich initially tried to do the decoration, but then it was not until that, Russia was dying of hunger, he himself was dying of hunger in Vitebsk. Organizing life according to the laws of art is unrealistic. True, in the West there are entire cities and quarters of leftist architecture. But for whom is it? Corbusier built villas for wealthy people. Urban planning has changed, but it has not changed life. I have long said that any social formation in the West is closer to what we consider socialism. The individual has become much more free and protected, but still it was not possible to create any extravaganza in life.

In addition, they turned to the avant-garde, because monumental work, street design, could not be performed by old methods. Only the left could do this, and so they were mobilized.

I.V.-G .: Do you think that Russian artists were divorced from the general world process?

N.Kh .: Art was international as never before, but still there was a national accent. There was a Russian primitive, in the West it is not so accepted. Here Larionov is a primitive, splint, icon. So, as the sign was appreciated in Russia, it was not appreciated anywhere.

I.V.-G .: Why was there such a breakthrough in Russian art?

N.Kh .: Searches of national sources, roots. Larionov first realized the importance of folk art and primitive. Before him this was not perceived as art, they were simply described as Rovinsky, without understanding anything about it, without perceiving it as art.

I.V.-G .: I just looked at the icons in the Tretyakov Gallery - this is not a primitive, but high-class intellectual art.

N.Kh .: No, this is not a primitive, but these are monumental and generally simplified forms. The icon is incredibly monumental. The Russians come from the Greeks, but nevertheless created their own icon, which is very different from the Greek and much higher than it. This is the case when the students surpassed the teachers, but the teachers were not bad.

I.V.-G.: Do you think that the primitive and lubok, having entered intellectual art, have created this breakthrough of the beginning of the century?

N.Kh .: And the clearing of the icons greatly influenced. Chekrygin was completely obsessed with Rublev's Trinity. He said that there was such a blue, which was not in world art. The icon and the primitive changed Western influence, it collided with cubism and as a result a new Russian art appeared, not original, but original. Malevich once told me: “Well, even though I am weaker than Picasso, but my texture is Russian.” But it turned out to be no weaker! Now he generally goes number one in world art. He had ambition, but at the same time, and some modesty, he knew his own worth. It was already a new language of art, and the new systems in art were international. Malevich was a huge success in Paris, despite the fact that he is not a painter; Marcade brought me a huge catalog with a huge number of errors. But Filonov failed.

IV-G.: Was there any inferiority complex among Russian artists in relation to Western ones?

N.Kh .: Well, Malevich and Larionov knew their worth very well, did not belittle themselves at all. Even Goncharova knew her own worth, of course, she was far from Larionov, but as a woman she was phenomenal, and Rozanova knew her worth, she was superbly sure of what she was doing, a great artist. The other ladies were no longer right — Popova, Udaltsova, Stepanova — where did they go! Popova is very tough.

Alexander Mikhailovich Rodchenko, 1924

I.V.-G .: And Rodchenko?

N.Kh .:In general, rubbish and complete insignificance. Zero. He appeared in 1916, when everything had already taken place, even Suprematism. Popova and Udaltsova still appeared in 1913, Rozanova in 1911. But he came to everything ready and did not understand anything. He hated everyone and envied everyone. Rubbish was an incredible person. Malevich and Tatlin treated him with irony and contemptuously - for them he was a comic figure. Lissitzky did not express anything about him, but he also disdained him, and Rodchenko terribly envied and hated him. Rodchenko made Mayakovsky a bunch of drawing covers, and Lisitsky made one (the second bad one) for The Voice - does Rodchenko have anything like that? Malevich made a white square on a white background, and this immediately black square on a black background is soot, boots. When he started doing photography and photo editing, in the West there were already wonderful masters — Man Ray and others. Lissitzky was already following Man Ray, but no worse. That was the artists, but this photograph - above, below - is just nonsense. I believe that such an artist was not. He was inflated at us and at auctions. His family in every possible way inflates - daughter, daughter's husband. The grandson, an art critic named Lavrentiev, admires his grandfather - this is a family shop.

I.V.-G .: What is Filonov’s place in Russian art?

N.Kh .: He is not a painter, and therefore failed in Paris. Lissitzky is also not a painter, but his space constructions made Parisians treat him kindly. And Filonov for them, probably, is something German - expressionism. He is a phenomenal draftsman - incredible. He had such a small job, two boys in Grenoble, he then painted and spoiled it. He generally painted, he thought: the main thing is to draw, the rest will follow. There were depicted two small frogs with consumptive legs. Holbein would not have painted like that. He was a maniac, a crazy creature, he believed that the main thing is to draw, the rest will follow.

I.V.-G .: Did you communicate with him?

N.Kh .:He even wrote about me in his diary, about how we talked with him. I remember the last meeting was very scary. His wife was paralyzed, she could not stand the light. They lived in a hostel on Makartovka. We stood in the corridor and talked, and suddenly she screamed in a wild voice, and he went to her. And, imagine, he died of starvation during the blockade, and she survived it. He starved himself. His wife was 25 years older than him - a reddish, sweet, neat and very hospitable woman. I came to them, she sintered some pie for tea. Filonov is sitting, not eating. I told him: “Pavel Nikolayevich, what are you?” - and he: “I do not want to stray from the regime.” In addition, there was cranberry with sugar, then it was very cheap and was considered an unthinkable vitamin. He said: “Do not tell anyone that this is a healing thing. They will immediately grasp everything ”- what a reasonable one! And he only had tobacco and brown bread - that’s how he lived. Itself was similar to its characters: bony hands, manic eyes, very weak such, strong-willed, possessed creature. Crazy, crazy maniac. He had one drawing, almost pointless, wheel-shaped forms and designs. It's unbelievable that a human hand could do that.

Filonov appreciated Kruchenykh, although he was a stranger to him. Kruchenykh ordered him drawings for Khlebnikov, and Khlebnikov really liked these drawings. In general, Filonov was Khlebnikov's favorite artist. He painted a portrait of Khlebnikov, and this portrait was gone. He probably drove his family to Astrakhan, and there they did not appreciate the new art. The Khlebnikov family complained all the time that money should be sent to him every month. The creepy family was, they didn’t understand anything, they didn’t appreciate him, they could not be compared with any Rambo. There was such a poem of mine, I wrote out the full text, the manuscript that I saw at Miturich, he showed me, disappeared. And he could only write. It was such a volcano, this unprecedented genius from the other world, it is simply ridiculous to compare someone with it, a person with cosmic consciousness.

Alexey Eliseevich Kruchenykh, 1950

Photo: Stedeliyk Museum, Amsterdam

I.V.-G .: And how did Filonov come about?

N.Kh .:He studied at the Academy of Fine Arts and was completely alien there. He made a long trip to Europe - on foot, he had no money. He has been to many museums. His early things were strange, symbolic, dreamy. He painted at the Academy so that the old man Chistyakov drew attention to him. He did not study with him, but he came to his class and asked: “What did this crazy Holbein draw?” His works were in the Russian Museum, and then they were given to their sisters. They had two small rooms, and the work was huge, wound on rollers. There was nowhere to go, but the museum did not want to take. Then I went on a terrible scam. I conspired with TsGALI so that they would take away all things, and they agreed. Then I came to the administration of the Russian Museum and said: “After a day, the work will leave for Moscow. How stupid, the artist was connected with Leningrad all his life. Why it should be archived, where they freeze it, no one will ever see it, and then they will give it to you for storage. ” In general, I persuaded them, and the work did not leave for Moscow.

I took a few things, arranged an exhibition at the Mayakovsky Museum, and then returned. He had two sisters. The eldest, good, died, and there remained terrible rubbish and the hypocrite Evdokia Nikolaevna. Then she wrote memories where there is not a single word about me. But I have her letter, where she writes that I was able to arrange an exhibition then, and she thought that Pavel Nikolayevich’s exhibition could be arranged only after 50 years.

Then this sister sold part of the things to foreigners and Kostaki — this wonderful, faithful sister. 15 things were to be exported to Finland that could only be bought from her. The paintings were cut into small pieces, then to glue. But they were covered, and this failed. I told Evdokia Nikolaevna that she was a merchant and trash, and she hated me abruptly.

I.V.-G.: Nikolai Ivanovich, do you consider Kandinsky a Russian artist?

N.Kh .:German, absolutely nothing to do with Russian art. Only the foreigner could draw his early luboks, with complete misunderstanding. But these are early things, and as a painter he formed in Germany under the influence of Schoenberg. This is a musical element, amorphous, and Russian art is constructive. Late Kandinsky is constructive, but he lost himself; he is good precisely musical, amorphous. Kandinsky were Poles and hated Russia. He was born here, and his mother was Russian. But at home they spoke German - his babble was German. No wonder he left for Germany in the 19th century. He was the head of the society of artists there, and then, after Blaue Reiter, he became completely super-general. And he came to Russia during the First World War, and then stuck for a long time in Sweden. He did not want to stay in Germany, which fought with his homeland. He was a noblest man. But here he was completely alien, and all the left did not notice his presence at all. He had no students here. He was a foreigner here. Malevich sourly told me about him: "Yes, but he is still an idiot." Moreover, he was the first messenger, but after all he got out of Fauvism, he did not go through Cubism, so he is not constructive and has nothing to do with Russian art. Take a piece of Fauvism painting (Van Dongen, early Marriage, whoever you want), abandon the subject, and you will see that all these bright contrasting scales of Kandinsky, all this color system comes from Fauvism. he was the first nonsense, but after all he got out of Fauvism, he did not go through Cubism, so he is not constructive and has nothing to do with Russian art. Take a piece of Fauvism painting (Van Dongen, early Marriage, whoever you want), abandon the subject, and you will see that all these bright contrasting scales of Kandinsky, all this color system comes from Fauvism. he was the first nonsense, but after all he got out of Fauvism, he did not go through Cubism, so he is not constructive and has nothing to do with Russian art. Take a piece of Fauvism painting (Van Dongen, early Marriage, whoever you want), abandon the subject, and you will see that all these bright contrasting scales of Kandinsky, all this color system comes from Fauvism.

I.V.-G .: Nikolai Ivanovich, what is the most important thing for you now in the art of the 20th century?

N.Kh .: The greatest Khlebnikov is such a unique phenomenon, which has no equal in literature in any nation, such poets are born once every thousand years. It is impossible to name one in art, as a painter I love Larionov most of all. Malevich, of course, is a color painter. Tatlin nevertheless left art, in painting he cannot compete with Larionov, yet he did not hold out. He had one thing hanging in the apartment - "Apple Orchard" Larionov. He told me: “See?” - “I see.” Well, of course, Larionov, Tatlin, Malevich - the main three Russian.

I.V.-G.: Nikolai Ivanovich, how did you come to Khlebnikov?

N.Kh .:I was Lefovets, was associated with the futurists. Khlebnikov was the first number for us. Then it was very poorly published. I was busy with textology, I wanted to translate it into Russian. It is so distorted in the five-volume book that there is not a single correct text. My goal was to collect unpublished texts and set the stage for the future complete works, which, by the way, have not yet been published. A thick volume has come out now - this is terrible trash, monstrous work. There is such a Parnis, this swindler, who nevertheless involved the linguist Grigoryev in this story, who disgraced himself, because this monstrous publication came out many years after Stepanov’s five-volume edition, but after so many years it was necessary to start publishing fully equipped, being able and able to correct all Stepanov’s mistakes. And they repeated them. They write in the introduction that this is a matter for the future. But now, sixty years after publication, the future is now. So this is speculation on the anniversary. In addition to this volume, several more small books by Khlebnikov were published for the anniversary; all of them are worthless. This is all speculation.

I.V.-G .: Why is this happening?

N.Kh .:This requires hellish textual work, except for me no one can do it. I have been working on this for many years, but they have not given me the opportunity to publish. Publishers did not agree to my conditions, they wanted to publish something for the reader, and I wanted all my textual work to be visible. I’m ready for all the breadcrumbs textology. You see all of these folders - this is all the bread-making textology. The correct texts have not been established; textual work requires a tremendous knowledge of the material. But I am afraid that I am not destined to see this published. “Khlebnikov, he is so complicated, he has everything,” Mandelstam told me, saying goodbye when he left me at the last rest house where he was arrested. I then gave him to read the volume of Khlebnikov. Then, in the 60s, I came across Webern’s book about Bach, where he said: “There is everything in Bach.” This, of course, is fragmented in time,

I.V.-G .: Then there were such spiritual values as Khlebnikov, Mayakovsky, Pasternak. How did it happen that they took Akhmatova, this beautiful aesthetic chamber poetess, and canonized her?

N.Kh .: But she is still a great poet, although I do not like her. When we met and made friends, she said to me: "I always dreamed of making friends with a man who does not like my poems."

And then this our love of the classics, jubilee literary criticism, canonization - it arose only in our time, before it was not. Science is also being customized. Anniversaries, symposia, books are published. Create such an Olympus of culture. And it is characteristic that this is during a period of terrible feuds - before this they did not bother with culture. And Mandelstam is a chamber poet; he is called great not by rank. He is a brilliant man, but not a great poet. A sign of a great poet is a range that Mandelstam did not possess. Khlebnikov and Mayakovsky are the great poets.

I.V.-G .: But was it precisely Mandelstam who was canonized?

N.Kh .: Yes. They call him a great poet for no reason, I would say. He was a man of genius, but a chamber poet, who wrote little, like Tyutchev. Fet already wrote more. The Americans made him Brockhaus and Efron, four volumes, five volumes, and here they want to reproduce it - it all fits in one not very large volume.

In general, I am against the establishment of societies in memory of Malevich, Khlebnikov, Mandelstam and others - this is speculation, the founders want to travel the world, and Malevich and Khlebnikov will do without them, they should not be glorified.

I.V.-G.: How did the reanimation of works and authors who disappeared by forced means or went into exile influence on contemporary Russian literature and culture?

N.Kh .: What does it mean to return? Why return - to familiarize yourself? That intelligentsia that somehow survived, and so knew everything. There is some kind of stupidity in this mass return - in every vulgar article, for example, Berdyaev is now quoted, which you can stop reading after that. But Bakhtin, without whom not a single stupid article is now complete. Nabokov was inflated with us without any proportion. He has nothing to do with Russia; in the afterword to the “Invitation to Execution,” he scolds the Russian language. Why blame your native language to magnify a stranger? In the same words, he says that he didn’t read Kafka (that is, he read), only before Kafka he is great, as he is to heaven, and you read Nabokov’s poems - this is graphomania and mediocrity. The end of the "Invitation to Execution" Nabokov stole from Platonov from the "Epiphanian Gateways", there with homosexuality and in general.

I.V.-G .: What is the place of Platonov in modern literature?

N.Kh .:Well, they knew him before. I can’t read this prose, there is too much superstition, there is too much “natural thinker”. But he was a wonderful and wise man. I saw him only once at my friend, the writer Fraerman. Platonov came there, together they wrote some hackneyed play. He had nothing to eat, he was in a full corral. We exchanged a few words, and suddenly he said: "Let's put Reuben up and we will drink vodka with you." He opened the door and pushed out onto the site of Reuben, who had left. We drank vodka and talked about the gospel. He told me that he wanted to write a story about an Abyssinian boy, Pushkin’s ancestor. When he was taken away, the sister of this Hannibal sailed for a long time behind the ship - such a black mermaid - it struck him. And I told him that Tynianov wanted to write about this, he was very surprised - such a coincidence. Legends have always been told about Platonov. I really liked him, he was a very outstanding person. I witnessed one scene in the editorial office of the journal Literary critic, which was then liberal, and Platonov wrote articles for him under the pseudonym of Man. There was such a muddy swindler Dmitriev, even belonged to the young gangsters, collected, it seems, autographs, then he was in exile for a while, then he disappeared, disappeared like a ghost. So Dmitriev said that he met Platonov and he complained to him that he could not write that they did not print him, and this was told in the presence of Platonov, who went to another room and said that he had never seen this man and was not familiar with him, and he was kicked out in disgrace. I witnessed one scene in the editorial office of the journal Literary critic, which was then liberal, and Platonov wrote articles for him under the pseudonym of Man. There was such a muddy swindler Dmitriev, even belonged to the young gangsters, collected, it seems, autographs, then he was in exile for a while, then he disappeared, disappeared like a ghost. So Dmitriev said that he met Platonov and he complained to him that he could not write that they did not print him, and this was told in the presence of Platonov, who went to another room and said that he had never seen this man and was not familiar with him, and he was kicked out in disgrace. I witnessed one scene in the editorial office of the journal Literary critic, which was then liberal, and Platonov wrote articles for him under the pseudonym of Man. There was such a muddy swindler Dmitriev, even belonged to the young gangsters, collected, it seems, autographs, then he was in exile for a while, then he disappeared, disappeared like a ghost. So Dmitriev said that he met Platonov and he complained to him that he could not write that they did not print him, and this was told in the presence of Platonov, who went to another room and said that he had never seen this man and was not familiar with him, and he was kicked out in disgrace. then he was in exile one time, then he disappeared, disappeared like a ghost. So Dmitriev said that he met Platonov and he complained to him that he could not write that they did not print him, and this was told in the presence of Platonov, who went to another room and said that he had never seen this man and was not familiar with him, and he was kicked out in disgrace. then he was in exile one time, then he disappeared, disappeared like a ghost. So Dmitriev said that he met Platonov and he complained to him that he could not write that they did not print him, and this was told in the presence of Platonov, who went to another room and said that he had never seen this man and was not familiar with him, and he was kicked out in disgrace.

I.V.-G .: Have you worked with the Twisted?

N.Kh .: We were friends for forty years, endlessly quarreling and could not part with each other. They were very friends.

I.V.-G.: How did it happen that all the prophets remained, and people like Bunin, Gorky, Khodasevich left?

N.Kh .: Well, here Akhmatova could leave and did not leave. A real poet needs an air of disaster, because of this, she cursed emigration. She basically didn’t want to leave, she has poems about it. And Florensky even served them; he worked at the State Planning Commission. He drove with Dzerzhinsky in the same car, and he turned away when this one was baptized in a church. He was, in addition, an amazing mathematician, but they did not spare him, they shot such an intelligent man who served them, because he basically did not want to leave his homeland.

IV-G.: What do you think about the future of culture in general and Russian in particular? Or did the beginning of the 20th century block the possibility of a second explosion of culture for many years?

N.Kh .:In any case, there cannot be a second such heyday. Now some are trying to call the beginning of the century the Silver Age of Russian poetry. This is a myth, a fiction, very stupid. This definition belongs to the symbolist poet Piast, who applied this to the poets of the second half of the 19th century - Fofanov and others. It was the decline of poetry, before symbolism, after the 60s. There were, of course, wonderful phenomena, like Sluchevsky, but Pushkin and Nekrasov — raznochinsky — periods of poetry were stronger. He came up with the name: silver is still not gold. Then it was picked up by Sergey Makovsky, who released his memories in exile. And since he himself was a secondary poet, he transferred this to the poetry of the 20th century, which was the real golden age of Russian poetry starting with the Symbolists, Acmeists, Futurists and Oberiuts,

I.V.-G .: What is the improbability of the appearance of the Oberiuts?

N.Kh .:A whole important trend took place in Russian culture, but nobody printed them, there was no samizdat, there were no handwritten distributions. Except for Oleinikov, the most uninteresting of them, because he is nevertheless humorous, although L. Ginzburg overestimated him. He went on the lists - "Fly" and all that; lovely poems, but he was not oberiut. And they were realized, no matter what. Vvedensky hacked in children's literature: he wrote terrible books, very few are good. There was a gambler, a player, he needed money, and he wildly hacked, but not in poetry. And Harms, it seems, wrote only six children's books, and very good ones — he did not like this, but he could not write poorly. Marshak invented to publish some kind of comics - to retell classics for children, such as Rabelais - why do Rabelais children? But Zabolotsky retold and Rabelais and published such a book. Marshak was a businessman and no poet, and all this is nonsense. So Harms was asked to retell Don Quixote. I then lived with Harms, he had to go to conclude a contract. After that we agreed to meet to go to dinner. I ask him: “Well, have you made a contract?” He replies: “No.” - “Why?” - “You know, the hand does not rise on Cervantes.”

Daniil Harms, 1930

I.V.-G .: And what kind of person was Harms?

N.Kh .: Dazzling! The unpredictable wizard. I have seen many wonderful people, but I have it in the first place. He was poetry itself.

I.V.-G.: Have you read the memoirs of E. Schwartz?

N.Kh .:Absolutely not interesting. Evgeny Lvovich was a fool, vulgar, bourgeois gentleman. I will tell you a story about him. He was friends with Oleinikov, they worked together at Detgiz. But Oleinikov always scoffed at him, in a friendly manner. And then some actress arrived who invited Oleinikov, Kharms and me to their hotel room. Oleinikov says: “We need to grab Schwartz.” Evgeny Lvovich was very flattered - it was nonsense for us, but he loved all that, he really wanted to go to the hotel with us. On the way, Oleinikov tells us: "Be silent and do not say a word." We have always had different hoaxes, all this alogism has been transferred to everyday life. It was domestic fiction - from morning to evening: teasing, mystifying, sometimes talking for fictional people. So, we come, Evgeny Lvovich comes out, on one cheek the soap foam is not washed away yet. Oleinikov says: “Evgeny Lvovich! We are not going anywhere, everything has been postponed. ” He even choked! “Have you gathered somewhere yourself?” He: “Yes, that is, no, that is, yes!” We go back, leaving Schwartz completely stunned, and Harms begins to play Oleinikov, give way to him on each site and call him Nadezhda Petrovna - he he was painfully proud and did not like to be taunted by him.

The Schwarts were terrible garment collectors, collecting porcelain, all kinds of junk. Harms was very poor, earned almost nothing. His aunt brought him a chest that had previously belonged to her husband, a former sea captain. There were a lot of Chinese and Japanese things, amethysts in silver - a whole chest. And here Schwartz came to him with his wife, and he filled my pockets with all this and said: “You see, my aunt gave me, and I gave it to Nikolai Ivanovich.” And they were furious - logically, he had to give them something; brought them to white heat.

He himself was a disinterested man, a real alien. People like Harms are very rare. Vvedensky was also a wonderful person. His "Elegy" is a brilliant, epoch-making work. He was a bad guy, a libertine, an outrage, never laughed, only smiled.

Nikolai Zabolotsky, 1930

I.V.-G .: And Zabolotsky?

N.Kh .:Well, Zabolotsky was different, more reasonable. Then their alliance somehow broke up. I remember he invited us - Kharms, Oleinikov and me - to his thirtieth birthday. And he had a wife, the one who remained his widow, although she had left him shortly before he returned from the camp. She was then very young and terribly loud - we all hated her. He sent her off somewhere and made such a bachelor party. The house was only vodka and red caviar. But, when we passed a commercial store, Oleinikov said: “It would be nice to have us here for the night.” And we, drunk, argued about art. Harms purposely called the boring German artist of the 19th century (I don’t remember which one) the best artist in the world, assuring him that he was a genius. It all ended in a fight. We threw pillows at each other, and then decided to end this debate about art at the Russian Museum. In the morning, after a sleepless night, we went there, looked there Fedotov, artists of the first half of the XIX century. There was an adjacent hall with a huge palace mirror. Someone said: "My God, what a terrible face!" I replied: "This is us."

I.V.-G.: Nikolai Ivanovich, who were the “main” poets in Russian poetry for the Oberiuts?

N.Kh .: The main thing was the denial of all previous poetry. After all, they were completely different - these are alogisms and, in general, a completely different system. Of course, they appreciated Khlebnikov, some burlesque things like “Shaman and Venus”, “Marquis of Dezes”. I told Vvedensky: “You are of aristocratic descent, you are descended from the Marquise Deses, he said:“ Yes. ”

But nevertheless they were closer to the Twisted, they revered him very much, especially Vvedensky. He knew that I was friends with Kruchenykh, and asked him to introduce him, he did not dare to come to him. And in the spring of 1936 (?), We went with him to Kruchenykh. Kruchenykh knew that there were such Oberiuts, but he behaved very importantly, which was not peculiar to him. But it is strange that such an impudent man and an eagle, like Vvedensky, behaved like a schoolboy. I was shocked, could not understand what happened to him. Vvedensky read I do not remember which, but a very good poem. And then Kruchenykh read a magnificent poem of a girl of five or seven years old and said: “But this is better than your poems.” And in general he was of little contact. Then we left, and Vvedensky said to me in a sad voice: "But he is right, the verses of the girl are better than mine." You need to know the proud Vvedensky to appreciate all this.

I.V.-G.: Nikolai Ivanovich, the next generation has not appeared after you? Then was the desert?

N.Kh .: Absolute desert - and there are separate hermits in it! There were gifted people, in the end, what is art? - that ruble, that nickle - would be real! Pyataks were, they do not need to be despised, but they did not make the weather. This was not a new trend, but in the 20th century everything came with currents. There were separate capable people.

I.V.-G .: Did the circle fall apart?

N.Kh .: Yes, there was nothing - there was a Union of writers, just employees, bureaucracy permeated everything and everyone. Backsides, censorship, and censorship themselves. Just not to overlook. Talented people were less talented than they could be.

I.V.-G .: And in the sixties, the new post-Stalinist generation that appeared had something in common with your culture and talent?

N.Kh .: It seems to me that there was really nothing major, there was no phenomenon. They did not surpass that. Of course, there were people who were related to the past and were trying to do something. There were still talented people. But such a number of poetic graphomaniacs as in Russia are nowhere to be found, and this quite often obscures the picture.

I.V.-G .: That is, nothing new appeared in the sixties?

N.Kh .: Nothing equivalent to what happened. No wonder there was such a cult of Malevich. The new ones had to deny both Malevich and Tatlin — to drive them to hell! My friendship with Kharms was finally entrenched when we were with my friend Volpe in Chukovsky’s apartment. At first, Marshak fooled me in another room, then we went out, and Volpe indignantly said: “Here Daniil Ivanovich claims that Blok is no good!” Volpe was engaged in symbolism, adored Blok. I say: “So what surprises you? Without denying, nothing new can be created. ” And Harms winked at me with one eye. So friendship began.

I.V.-G.: So you think that not only the explosion did not happen, but they adopted what happened at the beginning of the century, and this completely leveled them?

N.Kh .: Of course, but, on the other hand, this is understandable: they did not know much, the thirst to find out - there is nothing wrong with that. They did not become great poets, but a whole layer of literate people appeared. After all, the Oberiuts were little known in their time. This is, after all, a rare case - a whole stream has been realized without printing (except for Oleinikov) a single line.

I.V.-G .: But on the next generations, it was the Oberiuts who had the greatest influence?

N.Kh .: Because they were the last great current, and then, our time is so hole-bul-wide that the system of Oberiuts is an epoch-making tendency. Installation is given, the key to time. And even earlier - Twisted. Gippius understood this, although she hated it, and in 1917 wrote: “There is a formula - hole-bul-schir!”

January 1991, Moscow. The Mirror No. 131, 1995

'