The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

The white truth of Bunin (notes about buninsky journalism)


White truth of Bunin

(notes about buninsky journalism)

I.M. Ilyinsky (Moscow humanities university) *

Article is devoted to consideration and assessment of publicistic heritage of I.A. Bunin. As the author shows, Bunin publicist represents something other, than Bunin artist, and buninsky journalism is according to the contents the special creativity standing away from it actually works of art.

Bunin White Truth (Notes on Bunin’s Publicism)


(Moscow University for the Humanities)

The article covers consideration and estimation of I. A. Bunin’s publicistic heritage. As the author indicates, Bunin-publicist somehow differs from Bunin-artist, and Bunin publicism in its content is a specific creative work that stands apart from his fiction as such.

Ivan Alekseyevich Bunin with good reason lives in consciousness of millions (in mine too) as the great writer and the poet: wizard of a word, classic of the Russian literature, the first of the Russian writers Nobel laureate... National property. National pride.

And very few people know Bunin as the publicist: its journalism was in the USSR under a ban. Only in 1990 spent Gorbachev "reorganization" Okayan-were published "

ny days", 1918-1920 based on diary entries of Bunin. However dozens of buninsky articles and speeches in emigrant newspapers and magazines of 1920-1953 remained unknown for the Russian reader. Among other things and therefore that Bunin bequeathed not to republish the journalism after his death.

There were people who broke this precept. So there was a book "Great Dope" published in Russia in 1997. In 2000 izda-

* Igor Mikhaylovich Ilyinsky is a Doctor of Philosophy, professor, the rector of the Moscow humanities university, the president of the National union of non-state higher education institutions, the president of the Union of non-state higher education institutions of Moscow and the Moscow region. Ph.: (495) 374-78-78. Al. address:

telstvo of "IMLI RAS" and "Heritage" published the book "I.A. Bunin. Journalism. 1918-1953".

Now everyone can make the and complete idea of Bunin publicist and of his journalism which, in my opinion, demands much deeper analysis, than is made in not numerous laudatory articles so far. The fact is that in present Russia Bunin as the artist, is almost canonized, untouchable; "Damned days" and its other journalism are used as some kind of act of charge of the October revolution and the Soviet power.

Meanwhile Bunin publicist — something other, than Bunin artist; buninsky journalism — something absolutely special, standing away from his actually art creativity though proceeds from the same mind, the same soul, and in this sense art and publicistic, it seems, have to represent organic whole. But do not represent. Here about this "other" and "special" in buninsky creativity I also want to argue. I think that discussions about Bunin's journalism still ahead, and they will pass in rigid disputes.

Nobody can become the great writer or the poet, without being at the same time deep philosopher and the thinker. I did not meet articles in which it would be told about Bunin something like that. Perhaps because to prove it and it is not required. Owing to outstanding mind, unique observation and insight the buninsky journalism is magnificent not only in a form, style and language, than Bunin is nice first of all, but also on the accuracy of many estimates of those events which he witnessed.

Bunin's journalism, undoubtedly, art. From a feverish, passionate stream of the words which are slipping out without thoughts, without any preparation, straight off, from shouts of the horror which captured Bunin at the sight of what occurred during the October revolution of 1917 that was created as he spoke, these "semi-savages", these "boors", these "common people" in the years of civil war; from a storm

the buninsky emotions which were hardly in time to clothe in brilliant improvisations, in the expressive sketches of street pictures and characters grabbed on the fly, and in inexact and "terrible words", unlimited expressions, hasty estimates, cartoons and caricatures of men, Red Army men, Bolsheviks and their leaders, before eyes there is a figure literally perishing from indignation and rage of the person — a figure picturesque and tragic, the figure enduring cataclysms of the Russian story with such suffering with what it is possible to endure only own and intolerable physical pain; a figure truly heroic type, he is obsessed approving the truth and ready for the sake of it to go in the way all the way though on a rack though on a cross. To current publicists to study and study at Bunin not only to skill of a word, but fearlessness and courage, not bribability, fidelity to the views and the debt.

I will tell, however, and another: it was heavy to read buninsky journalism, to re-read "Damned days" to me, and from time to time — it is extremely unpleasant. In the outlooks on life and history Bunin is extremely biased and tendentious what he did not deny. The passion eclipses to the person reason.

About the past, about what was, but that was swept away by revolution Bunin writes with warmth and tenderness. And it should be understood: there was all the best in his life and all his hopes.

And any hint on light in the present, in the future. All emphases in buninsky journalism are placed only on negative, sins and dark sides of revolution, the new power and revolutionary "crowd". Bunin in an emphasis did not want to see though something positive in revolution and in all that occurred around, diligently collected all worthless, terrifying, insignificant, than life in any times and everywhere is full, but especially — in the period of breaks of history and distempers. It is too much rage, it is too much bile, it is too much hatred. Too. Disagreement and a protest cause an overlap, violation chuvst-

va measures. "I love and I hate" in one stage — here a state in which Bunin for many years of emigration stayed. "Who dares to teach me to love for Russia?" — he indignantly questioned. And immediately the cry was extorted from his breast: "Revenges, revenges!"

Recognized as one of the best writers of the time, Bunin publicist spoke with the world on behalf of the Russian literature, the Russian culture, believing that he performs a mission before the Russian history. Spoke about Russia, about the Russian soul, the Russian character, the Russian people, the Russian history, about the Russian revolution, about the power of Bolsheviks and her leaders, about world revolution and the Soviet power. Did not speak, and sentenced, believing, probably, that he not only has the right to it, but also is capable to give the right answers on all issues of life.

Certainly, there are many things where Bunin is right, any reasonable person has to agree with it. How it is possible to object its furious protest to revolts, revolutions, wars and any violence, for example? Yes, at these moments of history from the person all escapes low, animal, brutal, there is running wild and barbarization of the people.

But how to avoid revolutions? Here question of questions! Bunin answers this fundamental question with the naive words of Leo Tolstoy which that tried to anticipate the tsar Nicholas II from revolution, advised it: "Love the enemies!." "Idit on the way of Christian execution of God's will.". And so — in many cases.

As the person of huge talent, Bunin in many respects can be trusted. Especially directed by questions. But it is impossible to trust Bunin in answers in everything, blindly and recklessly. Bunin understood not everything. Bunin in something was mistaken, largely was mistaken in something. And, apparently, conjectured something (for the sake of "artistry"), and even invented.


It is known that the journalism is literature on social and political in -

pro-@ present. But in what degree the journalism as a sort of literature can be art? Of course, first of all is a question of talent of the author. But be you the genius among geniuses if undertook journalism, necessarily you plunge into policy, so, and into ideology — special and most difficult spheres of life and area of special knowledge. To present as if "Damned days" is "work of art" in which there are pages, "which can be equal to the best of everything that is written by Bunin" (Aldanov, 1935:472) as it was written by M.A. Aldanov, is too. In my opinion, "Damned days" — the document especially political, ideological, skillfully painted in art paints and tone. But the quality of publicistic literature is defined not by artistry, but depth of penetration into social matter, and the main thing — answers to topic of the day. Not rage, not hatred, and the truth capable to resolve a contradiction, the conflict. But Bunin did not even set such positive task for himself. Reflexed, drew.

Certainly, journalism — an integral part of creative heritage of I.A. Bunin, the document of time. But it is the document in which as Daniel Riniker notes, for example, Bunin made numerous changes more than once — stylistic, documentary, ideological. Not only that the text of "Damned days" is only based on diary entries of Bunin of the Moscow and Odessa period of 1918-1920 of his life, and generally written anew in 1925-1927 already in Paris at the request of the editor of the Vozrozhdeniye newspaper to P.B. Struva, Bunin, "preparing "Damned days" for the Berlin collected works, considerably processed the text in comparison with newspaper option. However this editing was not final." (Ivan Bunin, 2001: 629). "Studying this editing shows that it carried both stylistic, and ideological character" (in the same place). Repeated and thorough correction of the text after all could not but

to distort the documentary beginning. "In the text of "Damned days" — D. Riniker notices — the layers differing by origin and on time of writing are found" (in the same place: 641).

It is worth asking a question: what was the main source of thoughtful conclusions and the fierce statements of Bunin? Newspapers and rumors.

"All rumors and rumors" — he writes in "Damned days" on April 12, 1919 in Odessa. "Rage of rumors. Petrograd is taken by the general Gurko, Kolchak near Moscow, Germans just about will be in Odessa" (Bunin, 2006yo: 309). Nothing it really happened, but Bunin lived in rumors and hope that they will come true.

Here excerpts from only two pages of "Damned days" (in the same place: 292-293) of February 28, 1918. "Messages from Sretenka — the German soldiers occupied the Spassky Gate"; "Hearing that in Moscow the Germans organized detective office" (in the same place, 293); "The German case entered St. Petersburg as if"; "They say that Moscow will be in the power of Germans on the seventeenth of March" (actually it was not. — I.I.); "Told in the tram of soldiers."; "Received data from Rostov."; "Added: "Bolsheviks create the terrifying atrocities in Rostov. shot 600 nurses; well, if not six hundred, then after all it is probably decent"; "The cook from Jara spoke to me."; "Messages from our village.". And so — nearly on each page.

You read, and you, today's, too the unconscious horror suddenly covers. It is clear, that except newspapers and rumors of other sources of information Bunin had no and could not have, lived in great frustration and panic. But unless, reading these articles today, we should not consider buninsky psychological state and undisguised partiality?

On February 10, 1918 Bunin writes: "Yet time to understand the Russian revolution impartially, objectively did not come. You hear it now constantly. Impartially! But true impartiality

all the same will never be. And, above all: our "partiality" will be very expensive to future historian. Unless "passion" only of "the revolutionary people" is important? And we well, not people, perhaps?" (in the same place: 282).

People, of course, are people! Only other people are misters, people of other estates, other interests, than the interests of common people, "semi-savages", "common people".

The Buninsky journalism, especially "Damned days", is considerably a collection of rumors, conjectures, and here and there for certain and his richest imagination about which he spoke, comparing the ability to dream with a similar gift of L.N. Tolstoy. On March 11 in "Damned days" record: "Tolstoy told about himself once: "All trouble is that at me the imagination is a little more alive, than at others." I have also this trouble" (in the same place: 296).

Words which here so, without thoughts, straight off, without any preparation slip out — the most truthful. But how many in them the truth? There is a question. If your reflection is constructed entirely on rumors, and rumors too on rumors, then how many sense in your truthfulness what use from it?. However, told spitefully, to a lie thorough it is similar. Often the protest is caused not by(with) the truth in itself, and how it is given.

Of course, it is possible to believe that the truth is not in bearing the truth, and in saying that you think. But hardly this principle approaches Bunin. He was eager for changes from told them, especially first. But for this purpose one truth, one firmness and readiness to hang for the truth though on a cross, it is not enough. The truth about public affairs has to coincide nevertheless somehow with the truth, but not contradict it. Bunin is contradictory, and it it does not matter when not a destructive flame of hatred on all who not "icon" who was just honored "icon" and passed into other harbor. And pravdolyuby, among other things, it is usually connected with desire to find in anything good, and not just worthless. Desperate,

immense pravdolyuby without the aspiration to discover light at the end of a tunnel — only manifestation of immense arrogance is frequent.


The fact that Bunin did not host revolution is known. According to sorosovsky textbooks the school students are told that no "great" and "socialist" revolution in October, 1917 in Russia existed, and there was "a Bolshevist revolution", "seizure of power" and that accidental. The same words speaks about revolution also Bunin. Here some of his statements about it.

"Tikhonov told me — Bunin writes — as Bolsheviks are still amazed that they managed to seize power and that all of them still keep" (in the same place: 297). "Lunacharsky after the revolution of week two ran with stared: well, you only think, we only wanted to make demonstration, and suddenly such unexpected success!" (in the same place). Later Trotsky wrote in the diary: "If in St. Petersburg there would be neither Lenin, nor me, there would be no October revolution also" (in the same place: 414).

"Revolution was inevitable or not? — Bunin asks. Also says: "No inevitability, of course, existed because, despite all shortcomings, Russia blossomed, grew, with fantastic speed developed and changed in every respect. There was Russia, there was a great, bursting with any belongings house" (Bunin, 2006: 391).

Here Ivan Alekseyevich seriously was mistaken.

The problem which Bunin did not want to know and understand was that in the 20th century Russia entered with feudal ideology, with idea of divine origin of throne, unlimited autocracy, denial of the Constitution, need of parliament and political parties. Against the background of what occurred in Europe hundreds years ago it was the call which the tsar did not even hide, on the contrary, openly threw to society.

On January 17, 1895 at accession to the throne in the throne speech Nicholas II prya-

mo told: "It is senseless to dream of any Constitution". The same year the tsar firmly supported execution of working demonstration in Yaroslavl, having sent a telegram in which it was said: "Thanks of good fellows-fan-goriytsam for resistant and strong behavior during factory disorders".

That K. Marx in 1870 was convinced that "in Russia the most grandiose social revolution is inevitable and close", and repeated it repeatedly; that the fast Russian revolution as F. Engels spoke, will become "a turning point in world history"; about what in "Letters from far away" V.I. Lenin predicted that revolution of 1905 and February the 1917th have to lead Russia to socialist revolution — the tsar Nikolay did not know — what for "small fry"? Also Bunin had never heard of it it seems.

Nicholas II canonized nowadays as the great martyr was very weak governor not capable to make adequate decisions, to react truly to a situation on which dared to report to him.

In 1902 the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation Plehve in the report said to the tsar: "If 20 years ago when I managed department of police, I would be told that Russia is threatened by revolution, I would only smile. Now I am forced to look at situation differently". In February, 1914 the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation Durnovo told the autocrat that "in case of the unsuccessful war in Russia the socialist revolution is inevitable".

From where Bunin could know about all this? But with full confidence wrote that to the October revolution "common people" were provoked by Bolsheviks. Also it was convinced that it is absolutely right. Though during that time there were already revolution of 1905, the February revolution of the 1917th which gave a reason for deep reflections.

Bunin writes: "Klyuchevsky notes extreme repeatability of the Russian history" (Bunin, 2006yo: 343).

In views of revolution to Bunin there were to liking also Napoleon's words: "What generated revolution? (the French. — I.I.) Ambition! What stopped it? Ambition!"

"Ambition!." Is not present: "povtoryae-

bridge" causes of any revolution, whether it be English, French or some other: the arising Russian bourgeoisie closely and stuffy in the atmosphere it was feudal and (in fact) still serf relations. In 1902 in strikes and strikes 694 thousand workers, participated in an October strike of 1905 — already more than 2 million. Therefore the February revolution was bourgeois-democratic, the arising working class could not reconcile to oppression, operation and intolerable working conditions at factories and the plants. The tsar is forced to publish "Manifesto" (a compromise! — I.I.) and to promise the people new freedoms.

"From us as from a tree — both the cudgel, and an icon" — quotes more than once in the articles Bunin the Russian proverb. "From us" is from whom? Or "cudgel" — from "common people", "icon" — from landowners, noblemen, princes and other?. Propertied class? Blue blood?.

"If I this "icon", this Russia (? — I.I.) did not love because of what I so would go crazy all these years because of what I suffered so continuously, so fiercely? And said that I only hate" (in the same place: 311).

Ivan Alekseyevich loved "icon". And those who sang Dubinushka?. Whether thought

about volume, why from some — only "icons", and from others — only "cudgels"; whether there is no what dirty trick here in the life device, and how long it will proceed?. Of course, thought and understood: in vain perhaps the brother his Yuli drove in youth on radical circles? But Bunin and why to want if you though impoverished, but nevertheless the nobleman, is already famous to all Russia, as they say, "are full, drunk also a nose in tobacco" did not wish any sweeping changes?

"Ambition!." If only! "Repeatability": poverty and hunger constantly and sharply let know themselves in the Russian villages,

where at the beginning of the 20th century 85 percent of the population lived. Every three-four years in the country — crop failures, and after them — hunger. In 1891-1892 in Russia hundreds of thousands of people died of hunger. Every 10 years in Russia there was a big crop failure and — big hunger. In 1911 the hunger covered 20 provinces with the population in 30 million people.

Statistics: on the eve of 1917 in Russia there were about 2 million rich peasants. It is a lot of! About 3 million more concerned middling persons. But 10 million (two thirds) peasants were poor people: without hearth or home; neither horses, nor cow. In effect the farm laborers the same serfs, though "free", forced to kowtow for new owners, still yesterday the same serfs as they which were often even more cruel and ruthless, than former bar. Sooner or later the poor peasant had to declare the needs and sufferings. And when in the years of World War I he was dressed in an overcoat and distances in hands a rifle, "the person with a gun" became a natural reserve of the smoldering revolution. And when revolution burst, rose under banners of those who promised the world, lands and bread. It were Bolsheviks. It was Lenin.

Lenin, Bolsheviks perfectly understood "unsteadiness", changeability of moods, a people raskolotost on several layers: on prosperous, happy with and life; living difficult, but fluctuating, to a revolt not of ready; on the poor and beggars, gol roll-down, "a damnation branded" on that being born, live and die in hunger and cold, in service, without any hope for children or at least grandchildren and great-grandsons to be beaten out "in people". Such in Russia there was an absolute majority — though among the arising working class though among the peasantry which grandfathers and fathers of all half a century back still stayed in serfs — in slavery. To whom is such destiny lovely? "Common people" and "нелюдь" were understood that they "nobody" and "nothing". And when proclaimed that "nobody" will become "all", they rose.

Whether Lenin was ambitious? Probably, why would be not present? The person deprived of ambition will not achieve anything in any area. Bunin — incarnate ambition. But what wonderful writer and poet!.

"Everything we hurry to pour in wine new in bellows old and — what?" — Bunin questions. In confirmation of senselessness of such classes quotes Schiller: "Attempt of the French to restore (? — I.I.) the sacred rights of people and to win freedom found only their powerlessness. The corrupted generation was unworthy these benefits. What did we see? Rough anarchical institutes which, being released, break all social communications and with insuperable rage hurry to animal self-satisfaction. Some mighty person who will subdue anarchy and will firmly clamp reins of government in the fist will be.".

"And Great English revolution? — again Bunin now Herzen's quote questions. — Cromwell, the greatest villain, executes Charles and ruins millions (? — I.I.) people, destroys that freedom for which he as if fought. Forms, but not essence change." (Bunin, 2006a: 380-381). Also adds from himself: "The same was in France with her Maratami and Robespyerami, in Spain, in America, in Russia. By means of murder to carry out the human benefit! To reach equality violence whereas violence the sharpest manifestation of inequality" (in the same place: 381).

Whether it is worth objecting three great people at once — to Schiller, Herzen and Bunin — without being at the same height of public recognition, as they? Especially as in many respects they are right... It is impossible to believe a revolt and revolution the benefit. It is necessary to agree that revolutions untie dark instincts in people and conduct to an inevitable razrushitelstvo. It is necessary to agree that "violence is the sharpest manifestation of inequality". And it not all that it is necessary to recognize as the truth concerning which to argue would be silly and funny. But this truth is the truth not full, not okonchatel-

ny which recognition it would be possible to stop infinite series of the national revolts, revolts and revolutions coming in all countries from ancient times to these days. Revolutions, alas, nevertheless come true, proving to this fact the inevitability, and at times and need — "eventually".

Everything is extremely more difficult, than it is presented in articles and diary entries of Bunin. Even Leo Tolstoy, Herzen and Schiller here to him not in the help, in any case, do not save a situation.

It is unlikely the person is born the revolutionary. Hardly anyone from a school bench dreams to make revolutions. Unfortunately, human societies are arranged so that form demand for people of such sense who since some moment of the life become on the way of "professional revolutionaries". And so far as such people in society exist, in process of accumulation of their quantity the revolution becomes inevitability, sooner or later — how people in the top echelons of power near the Supreme governors feel as is to people of the second and third estates and also common people which in any society usually make the majority.

Researchers of revolutions which during a time of life of Bunin was very few and which works he could not read noticed, in particular, that each revolution has general and special reasons, the driving forces. And it almost always — the people of the high society, or the highest spiritual layer dissatisfied with the device of economic and political life, but in any way not "common people", not the simple people in itself from which it is possible to wait for a revolt, a revolt, but not the revolution leading to reorganization of all main forms so, and entities of the existing system. It is noticed that revolution is always followed by a counterrevolution, kickback back, to initial positions, the attempt of restoration of former life forms which sometimes is successful, but not forever. Noticed that kickback length

in the past depends on that, revolution in the aspiration to "updating" and a razrushitelstvo of the existing way of life evolved how dramatically. It is noticed that the prime targets of revolution are achieved through a compromise between revolutionary and counterrevolutionary forces, and there is it not at once, and gradually, during their fight year after year on which dozens, and even hundreds of years leave.

There is a Great English revolution on which, quoting Herzen, Bunin refers. Not it is clear, why it sights the English history (perhaps, the most bloody of all in the world, including Russian) of Cromwell? This revolution was only continuation and end of the whole series of the revolutions and civil wars shaking England from civil war of 1258-1268 as a result of which in 1265 the first-ever parliament consisting entirely of the nobility was created. In it there was no place to "people" which part was on the party of the king and feudal lords, and a part — on the side of the arising bourgeoisie though such concept at that moment did not exist yet. And the reason for which "people" fought with itself and killed each other was not in protecting the interests of the misters at all, is not present. Poverty and hunger which always attracted and drove the disadvantaged into that camp where zamanchivy promised them future satiety and a roof over the head were this cause. As for fight between Parliament and a dynasty Styuartov with her supporters — feudal lords for the absolute royalty, "people" could not guess it: why it to misters on both sides?. And unless not the same was in fight "white" and "red" in the Russian revolution? In the middle of Civil war both "red", and "white" entered military mobilization. To summer of 1919 in Northern army of people of 14 thousand, "white" from 25 thousand, were captured Red Army men. The alternative was simple: was taken prisoner — or with a rifle against "red", or a bullet bluntly. The same occurred at Denikin, Kolchak and Wrangel. The same is also in a "red" camp...

In a rupture of times almost in 400 years between 1295 when in England "The model parliament" at the absolute power of the king was created (a compromise!), by both the beginning of another revolution and civil war of 1642 the country was shaken by a set of revolts and revolutions. In 1641 the king's favourite is executed the columns Stafford. The parliament won only because behind it there were risen "people", and first of all London. The country and the people were divided into two parts, two England. In the spring of 1648 new civil war which can be called the Great English revolution broke out. Also there was it not at will of "people" and Cromwell who only here and appears on the political and public scene, and owing to Charles I's attempt to take a revenge and to return itself the power. The parliament defeated Charles I. In 1649 the king was executed. And Cromwell eventually became a dictator, dispersed parliament, restored the House of Lords (restoration! — I.I.) and nearly assigned to himself a royal crown, but got sick, died, the dead was taken from a grave and hung up. On May 19, 1649 England became the first-ever parliamentary republic: the prime target of revolution of 1258-1268 at last was achieved.

Nevertheless in 1660 the restoration was made (! — I.I.) royal dynasty Styuartov; the king agreed to authorize the main gaining bourgeois revolution (a compromise! — I.I.). But "national" disorders did not cease: in 1688 "the nice revolution" which result in 1689 was a compromise began (! — I.I.) between representatives of the feudal monarchy (old) and the bourgeoisie which was not bad standing on feet (new).

Here dash-dotted statement of history of "English revolution" (four revolutions!) honor with length in 400 years during which millions of people, but Cromwell here though a noticeable, but passing figure died really. Everything is much more considerable, more large-scale and is more gloomy in the history

this country which gave to the world "model" of revolutionary reorganization of society.

It is now Great Britain from which remained only England, Scotland and already soon seven hundred years Ireland which is at war with the central power, looks such peace, full and especially tempting for new Russian rich men. But when I, traveling around this country, visited its castles and the museums, listened to guides, knowing what I just told of, to me from time to time became terrible, there was a wish to shout to the people surrounding me: "Listen! And it you teach us, Russians, to human rights, freedom and democracy now? You, hundreds of years heating the country, and then and many other countries in the ocean of blood? You, then our "allies" in World War II, cold and prudently watching how the Russian people bleed profusely in fight against fascism, waiting who against whom will win: Hitler — the USSR or Stalin — Germany? You conceiving together with the USA even during this war in 1942 to attack the Soviet Union, and then planning to begin World War III upon termination of World War II at once —

1 June, 1945? Do you dare to teach us?!"

But, poostyv, thought: "In some metaphysical sense, perhaps, nevertheless they have such right because they gained it, only why all dump to Russia, Russia and Russians? Why about the bitter experience "hesitate" to tell?.

Here that I when I read Bunin's reflections about revolution and sins of the "Bolsheviks" who are really existing, but not exclusive think.

Bunin did not understand (did not want to understand?) that "damned days" came not "suddenly", and became atonement of the sins and mistakes of the Russian autocratic power saved centuries. To think as if for comprehension of meanings of history and logic of social development there are enough only writer's observation and writer's talent, it seems to me, very fondly. And Bunin, probably, quite so also believed. In its notes and articles, except names of Leo Tolstoy yes not

Dostoyevsky and Herzen who are too honored by it, from considerable figures nobody meets. Marx and Lenin as experts on public life for Bunin of a being insignificant, negative and negative. And it were, whatever you may say, great minds. Meanwhile Bunin was no more than the connoisseur, the cold observer of life of the Russian village, a conscientious fixer of the processes happening in it, but not the opponent of the imminent okayanstvo who was full of desire to cure a public illness. The great draftsman from nature. The poet — not the doctor, it only pain, a string and a nerve?. The passion in Bunin's soul began to seethe, hammered with a key only when "dope" and "okayanstvo" escaped outside and ripped to shreds everything that was drawn by him in well-known "Village".

When we speak about Bunin publicist, it is necessary to remember that he is a landowner, the aristocrat, the orthodox monarchist, all the essence being drawn towards old noble culture and the settled way of life. This established historic fact cannot be ignored. Bunin saw and described what wanted to see, and did not see, did not want to see, nobility and understand what did not answer his views. And times just did not understand that does not understand. In that there is nothing unusual: the person — a being limited. Bunin was a person. The person with the — the White truth. Treated all other truths haughtily, contemptuously. For it there was no truth neither rustic, nor working, nor "red", and there were only a White idea and the White truth.

But what is the White idea? The famous Russian religious philosopher Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin sent from the USSR in 1922 for anti-revolutionary activity widely and distinctly stated this idea in the preface to the collection "White Business" published in Berlin in 1926. The white idea, according to Ilyin, it not the "armed counterrevolution"; not "reaction", not "restoration"; not "class" business, not "class", business not "personal", not "party", not "property", not "vindictive".

"White Business — Ilyin claimed - it is White Spirit, White Heart, White Will. White never protected and will not protect neither class, nor class, nor party business: their business — business of Russia — the homeland, business of the Russian state. And the whiteness of personal will is defined by this ability — to live the interests of whole, to fight not for a personal pribytok, and for public rescue, to sink both class, and class, and party business — in patriotic and state. We are free both from revolutionary, and from reactionary prejudices; and what we wish for Russia, is healing and revival, health and greatness, but not return to that indignant state from which revolution with all its shame and humiliation grew". "Russia was spiritually sick before a distemper, revolution was as aggravation and development of this disease".

Fine words!

But! "White defend business of spirit on the earth — Ilyin continued — and consider themselves right in the face of God's. From here religious point of their fight: it is directed against the devilish beginning and bears to it a sword.".

Researchers of buninsky creativity write about Bunin as "the implicit and consecutive supporter of the White idea and the White movement" (Bunin, 2000: 5). "White", according to Bunin, are those, "at which all is taken away, scolded, raped, killed — the homeland, native cradles and graves, mothers, fathers, sisters." (Bunin, 2006yo: 318). "White are landowners, manufacturers, blood-suckers, spiders, oppressors, despots, satraps, petty bourgeoises, obscurants, knights of darkness and violence" (in the same place: 334). "White" is Abel; "red" is Cain. In March, 1919 Bunin said: ". I feel that I should not be a writer, and has to take part in the government", "the .vsa has more and I think more to come to volunteer army and to join the government" (in the same place: 8).

Absolutely considered Bunin and in the White camp. In August, 1920 to P.B. Struva from

a name of the government of Armed forces of the South of Russia invited Bunin to the white Crimea: ". We decided that such force as you, it is much more necessary now here at us in the south, than abroad" (in the same place). Present: Bunin became a member of the government in the south where invited him to P. Struva with the consent of Wrangel. And what would occur in case of their victory? Bunin was the barin, the landowner-landlord, the orthodox monarchist. This is also vectors of his thoughts and actions: on corvee, little men! Or — to a wall. In rage there is no outcome. Hatred threatens, the rage mertvit, but does not fructify.

In November, 1920 Wrangel's army was broken. Bunin remained in Paris.

Bunin tries to present business so as if its truth — special, crystal-clear, distilled, absolute. In 1919 he defined political "credo" in such words: "I not right and not left — I was, esm and I will be an unshakable enemy of all silly, released from life and angry, false, disgraceful, harmful from where it proceeded". But, it seems to me that it is a position not of the person, and God soaring it is necessary to all and it is necessary all. Comprehending buninsky journalism, it is necessary to understand (I will tell for the third time!) that Bunin was though given, but only the person, but not God.

Whether Bunin understood what "the Russian revolution" won against not temptations of Bolsheviks but because in the country was nationwide how speak now, "system crisis"? What were the people bored by war that peasants yearned that the tsar and his power to the bottom exhausted trust of citizens? 240 thousand soldiers of the Petrograd garrison came over to the side of revolution - it is as? When in the irreconcilable conflict the Red idea and the White idea met, nearly a half of the Russian army officers and is more than a half of officers and generals of the General Staff (color of army!) went to serve in the Red Army. It — as? The most part of Central office of the Russian military intelligence headed by the lieutenant general came over to the side of revolution

N.M. Potapov!. Royal generals and officers were not Bolsheviks and almost none of them entered later a party. Their choice was defined by a civic duty, love to Dews

Gary Newton
Other scientific works: