Roman in Pikulya is an evil spirit. Devilry

Book " Devilry"is considered one of the most famous works Valentina Pikulya. The writer himself said that this was his main literary success. It talks about the life of a man who helped big influence on the situation in the country. At the same time, his personality still causes a lot of controversy, and the same goes for the book.

The central character of the novel was Grigory Rasputin. He was brought from Siberia to the capital because he was noticeably different from others in his views. Grigory had a good understanding of people and understood how to please people. In a short time he was able to gain a foothold in secular society, and then with the help of a maid of honor and at the court of the emperor. Gradually, he increasingly influenced the adoption of important decisions and skillfully used his position. Those around him, seeing his success, began to gather around him in order to also gain some benefit.

The novel covers the period from the rise of Nicholas II in the last years of the reign of Alexander III until the autumn of 1917. The writer, talking about the life of the main character, reflects historical events: the Russian-Japanese War, the suppression of the 1905 revolution, the First World War, the February Revolution. It makes you think about why the entire system of royal power was destroyed.

There are no fictional characters in the book; Pikul relied on real facts. He used more than a hundred sources to write the novel. The author studied open documents, official versions of events, memories of eyewitnesses, data from interrogations and testimony of officials and ministers. He often provides links to these sources. For this reason, the facts presented can be considered completely reliable. The writer talks about the negative aspects human personality, reveals the vices of society and power, forgetting to mention the good. Some may not like this. But in the novel the author wanted to show exactly this - the impurity of the powers that be.

The work belongs to the Prose genre. It was published in 1979 by Veche Publishing House. The book is part of the "Pikul's Books/cellophane" series. On our website you can download the book “Evil Spirits” in fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt format or read online. The book's rating is 4.21 out of 5. Here, before reading, you can also turn to reviews from readers who are already familiar with the book and find out their opinion. In our partner's online store you can buy and read the book in paper form.

"Devilry". A book that Valentin Pikul himself called “the main success in his literary biography.”

The story of the life and death of one of the most controversial figures in Russian history - Grigory Rasputin - develops under the pen of Pikul into a large-scale and fascinating story about what is probably the most paradoxical period for our country - the short break between the February and October revolutions...

Valentin Pikul
Devilry

I dedicate this to the memory of my grandmother, the Pskov peasant woman Vasilisa Minaevna Karenina, who lived her entire long life not for herself, but for people.

Prologue,
which could be an epilogue

The old Russian history was ending and a new one was beginning. Creeping through the alleys with their wings, the loudly hooting owls of reaction darted through their caves... The first to disappear somewhere was the overly perceptive Matilda Kshesinskaya, a unique prima weighing 2 pounds and 36 pounds (the fluff of the Russian stage!); a brutal crowd of deserters was already destroying her palace, smashing into smithereens the fabulous gardens of Babylon, where overseas birds sang in the captivating bushes. The ubiquitous newspaper men stole the ballerina’s notebook, and the Russian man in the street could now find out how this amazing woman’s daily budget worked out:

For a hat – 115 rubles.

A person's tip is 7 kopecks.

For a suit – 600 rubles.

Boric acid – 15 kopecks.

Vovochka as a gift - 3 kopecks.

The imperial couple were temporarily kept under arrest in Tsarskoe Selo; at workers' rallies there were already calls to execute "Nikolashka the Bloody", and from England they promised to send a cruiser for the Romanovs, and Kerensky expressed a desire to personally escort the royal family to Murmansk. Under the windows of the palace, students sang:

Alice needs to go back

Address for letters – Hesse – Darmstadt,

Frau Alice rides "nach Rhine"

Frau Alice – aufwiederzein!

Who would believe that just recently they were arguing:

– We will call the monastery over the grave of the unforgettable martyr: Rasputin! - stated the empress.

“Dear Alix,” the husband answered respectfully, “but such a name will be misinterpreted by the people, because the surname sounds obscene.” It is better to call the monastery Grigorievskaya.

- No, Rasputinskaya! - the queen insisted. – There are hundreds of thousands of Grigorievs in Rus', but there is only one Rasputin...

They made peace on the fact that the monastery would be called Tsarskoselsko-Rasputinsky; In front of the architect Zverev, the Empress revealed the “ideological” plan of the future temple: “Gregory was killed in damned Petersburg, and therefore you will turn the Rasputin Monastery towards the capital with a blank wall without a single window. The façade of the monastery, bright and joyful, turn towards my palace...” March 21, 1917 year, precisely on Rasputin’s birthday, they were going to found a monastery. But in February, ahead of the tsar’s schedule, the revolution broke out, and it seemed that Grishka’s long-standing threat to the tsars had come true:

“That’s it! I’ll be gone – and you won’t be either.” It is true that after the assassination of Rasputin, the Tsar lasted only 74 days on the throne. When an army is defeated, it buries its banners so that they do not fall to the winner. Rasputin lay in the ground, like the banner of a fallen monarchy, and no one knew where his grave was. The Romanovs hid the place of his burial...

Staff Captain Klimov, who served on the anti-aircraft batteries of Tsarskoye Selo, once walked along the outskirts of the parks; By chance he wandered to stacks of boards and bricks, an unfinished chapel lay frozen in the snow. The officer illuminated its arches with a flashlight and noticed a blackened hole under the altar. Having squeezed into its recess, he found himself in the dungeon of the chapel. There stood a coffin - large and black, almost square; there was a hole in the lid, like a ship's porthole. The staff captain directed the flashlight beam directly into this hole, and then Rasputin himself looked at him from the depths of oblivion, eerie and ghostly...

Klimov appeared at the Council of Soldiers' Deputies.

“There are a lot of fools in Rus',” he said. – Aren’t there already enough experiments on Russian psychology? Can we guarantee that the obscurantists will not find out where Grishka lies, as I did? We must stop all pilgrimages of the Rasputinites from the beginning...

Bolshevik G.V. Elin, a soldier of the armored car division (soon the first chief of the armored forces of the young Soviet Republic). Covered in black leather, creaking angrily, he decided to put Rasputin to death - execution after death!

Today, Lieutenant Kiselev was on duty guarding the royal family; in the kitchen he was handed a lunch menu for “Romanov citizens.”

“Chowder soup,” Kiselyov read, marching along long corridors, “smelt risotto pies and cutlets, vegetable chops, porridge and currant pancakes... Well, not bad!”

The doors leading to the royal chambers opened.

“Citizen Emperor,” said the lieutenant, handing over the menu, “allow me to draw your highest attention...

Nicholas II put aside the tabloid Blue Magazine (in which some of his ministers were presented against the backdrop of prison bars, while others had ropes around their heads) and answered the lieutenant dimly:

– Don’t you find it difficult to use the awkward combination of the words “citizen” and “emperor”? Why don't you call me simpler...

He wanted to advise that they address him by his first name and patronymic, but Lieutenant Kiselev understood the hint differently.

– Your Majesty,- he whispered, looking towards the door, - the soldiers of the garrison became aware of Rasputin’s grave, now they are holding a meeting, deciding what to do with his ashes...

The Empress, all in keen attention, quickly spoke with her husband in English, then suddenly, without even feeling pain, she tore off a precious ring from her finger, a gift from the British Queen Victoria, and almost forcibly put it on the lieutenant’s little finger.

“I beg you,” she muttered, “you will get whatever you want, just save me!” God will punish us for this crime...

The empress's condition "was truly terrible, and even more terrible - the nervous twitching of her face and her entire body during a conversation with Kiselyov, which ended in a strong hysterical attack." The lieutenant reached the chapel when the soldiers were already working with spades, angrily opening the stone floor to get to the coffin. Kiselev began to protest:

“Are there really no believers in God among you?”

There were also such among the soldiers of the revolution.

Kiselyov rushed to the office phone, calling the Tauride Palace, where the Provisional Government was meeting. Commissar Voitinsky was on the other end of the line:

- Thank you! I will report to Minister of Justice Kerensky...

And the soldiers were already carrying Rasputin’s coffin through the streets. Among the local inhabitants, who came running from everywhere, wandered “material evidence” taken from the grave. It was the Gospel in expensive morocco and a modest icon tied with a silk bow, like a box of chocolates for a name day. From the underside of the image, with a chemical pencil, the Empress wrote her name with the names of her daughters; Vyrubova signed below; around the list of names the words are placed in a frame: YOURS – SAVE – US – AND HAVE MERCY. The rally began again. The speakers climbed onto the lid of the coffin, as if onto a podium, and talked about what a terrible animal power lies here, trampled by them, but now they, citizens of free Russia, boldly trample on this evil spirit that will never rise...

And the ministers conferred in the Tauride Palace.

- This is unthinkable! – Rodzianko snorted. – If the workers of the capital find out that the soldiers have dragged Rasputin, unwanted excesses may occur. Alexander Fedorych, what is your opinion?

“It is necessary,” answered Kerensky, “to stop the demonstration with the corpse on Zabalkansky Avenue.” I propose: take the coffin by force and secretly bury it in the cemetery of the Novodevichy Convent...

In the evening, near the Tsarskoye Selo station, G.V. Elin stopped a truck hurrying to Petrograd, the soldiers hoisted Rasputin into the back of the car - and off they went, just hold on to your hats!

“That’s what I didn’t drive,” the driver admitted. - And Chinese furniture, and Brazilian cocoa, and even Christmas tree decorations, but to carry a dead person... and even Rasputin! – this has never happened to me before. By the way, where do you guys go?

- We don’t even know ourselves. Where are you going, my dear?

- To the garage. My Benz of the court department.

- Take us there too. The morning is wiser than the evening…

Current page: 58 (book has 58 pages total) [available reading passage: 38 pages]

In the middle of the square, fires flared up with a bang.

The Marseillaise thundered and raged.

As always – inviting and jubilant!

Author's conclusion

I started writing this novel on September 3, 1972, and finished it in New Year's Eve as of January 1, 1975; over the roofs of ancient Riga, rockets burned with a flapping sound, the clinking of glasses could be heard from the neighbors as I, a zealous chronicler, dragged a bundle with Rasputin’s corpse into the hole and chased a homeless minister around the capital.

So, the point is set!

They say that an English novelist from a young age accumulated materials about a certain historical figure, and in his old age he ended up with a whole chest of papers. Making sure that everything was collected, the writer mercilessly burned all the materials on the fire. When asked why he did this, the novelist answered: “The unnecessary was burned, but the necessary remained in memory...”

I didn’t burn the chest of materials about Rasputin, but selecting what I needed was the most painful process. The length of the book forced me to refuse many interesting facts and events. The novel included only a tiny fraction of what was learned about Rasputinism. I confess that I had to be extremely economical, and on one page I sometimes tried to consolidate what could easily be expanded into an independent chapter.

We usually write - “the bloody reign of the tsar”, “the cruel regime of tsarism”, “the corrupt clique of Nicholas II”, but from frequent use the words have already been erased: it is difficult for them to withstand the semantic load. A kind of amortization of words has occurred! I wanted to show those people and those living conditions that were overthrown by the revolution, so that these cliched definitions would again gain visual visibility and factual weight.

According to V.I. Lenin’s definition, “the counter-revolutionary era (1907–1914) revealed the whole essence of the tsarist monarchy, brought it to the “last line,” revealed all its rottenness, vileness, all the cynicism and depravity of the tsar’s gang with the monstrous Rasputin at its head... »

Here exactly about this I wrote it!

Probably, they can reproach me for the fact that, while describing the work of the Tsarist Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Police Department, I did not reflect in the novel their brutal struggle against the revolutionary movement. In fact, these two powerful levers of autocracy are occupied with intradepartmental squabbles and participation in Rasputin’s intrigues.

This is true. I don't mind!

But I wrote about the negative side of the revolutionary era, back in title page warning the reader that the novel is dedicated to the disintegration of the autocracy. Please understand me correctly: based on ideas about authorial ethics, I deliberately did not want to fit two incompatible things under one cover - the process of growing revolution and the process of strengthening Rasputinism. Moreover, the work of the tsarist Ministry of Internal Affairs in suppressing revolutionary movement I have already reflected in my two-volume novel “On the Outskirts great empire“, and I didn’t want to repeat myself. I was partly guided by the behest of the democratic critic N.G. Chernyshevsky, who said that one cannot demand from the author that in his work wild garlic should also be fragrant with forget-me-nots! The Russian proverb confirms this rule: if you chase two hares, you will not catch either... Now I must make a frank confession. It seems that who else, if not me, the author of a book about Rasputinism, knows about the reasons that made Rasputin an influential person in the empire. So I am the author! – I find it difficult to accurately answer this treacherous question.

Memory takes me back to the first pages.

Rasputin drinks vodka, makes scandals and is nomadic in front of people, he lewds and steals, but... Agree that there were a lot of reasons for putting Rasputin in prison, but I see no reason for bringing this personality to the forefront.

Only a narrow-minded person can think that Rasputin rose to prominence thanks to his sexual potency. Believe me that everything world history I don’t know of a case where a person advanced thanks to these qualities. If we take a closer look at the famous figures of favoritism, at such bright and original personalities as Duke Biron, the Shuvalov family, the Orlov brothers, Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky, Godoy in Spain or Struensee in Denmark, we will see a picture completely opposite to Rasputinism. Having at some point demonstrated purely masculine qualities, the favorites then acted as prominent statesmen with a keen grasp of administrative talents - this is precisely why they were valued by crowned admirers.

People may object to me using the example of Potemkin... Yes, this man was not a clean person. But while he had great vices, he also had great virtues. Potemkin built cities, populated the gigantic expanses of uninhabited steppes of the Black Sea region, he made a grape paradise out of Crimea, this sybarite knew how to heroically withstand a barrage of Turkish cannonballs, when his adjutants had their heads blown off their shoulders; The smartest people in Europe traveled to distant lands only to enjoy a conversation with the Russian Alcibiades, whose speech shone with wit and aphorism.

What comparison can there be with Rasputin! From the history of favoritism it is known that, having received a lot from the queens, Russian courtesans knew how to spend money to benefit not only for themselves. They collected collections of paintings and minerals, valuable books and engravings, entered into correspondence with Voltaire and Diderot, sent foreign architects and painters, orchestras and opera companies, they invested money in the creation of lyceums and cadet corps, after which they remained art galleries and palaces with parks, which have survived to this day as valuable monuments of the Russian past.

And what has come down to us from Rasputin?

Dirty jokes, drunken belching and vomit...

So I ask again - where are the reasons that could specifically justify his rise?

I do not see them. But I... can guess about them!

My author’s opinion is this: in no other time could a “favorite” like Rasputin appear at the Russian court; Even Anna Ioannovna, who adored all sorts of monstrosities of nature, would not have allowed such a person onto her threshold. The appearance of Rasputin at the beginning of the 20th century, on the eve of revolutions, in my opinion, is quite natural and historically justified, because in the rot of decay all vile trash thrives best.

The “anointed ones of God” had already degraded to such an extent that they regarded the abnormal presence of Rasputin in the presence of their “highly appointed” persons as a normal phenomenon of autocratic life. Sometimes it even seems to me that Rasputin, to some extent, was a kind of drug for the Romanovs. It became necessary for Nicholas II and Alexandra Fedorovna in the same way that a drunkard needs a glass of vodka, or a drug addict needs regular injections of the drug under the skin... Then they come to life, then their eyes shine again!

And one must reach the highest degree of decomposition, moral and physiological, in order to consider communication with Rasputin “God’s grace”...

I probably don’t quite understand the reasons for Rasputin’s rise also because I’m trying to think sensibly. To understand these reasons, obviously, you have to be crazy. It is possible that we even need to go crazy to the state in which the last Romanovs were, - then Rasputin will become one of the things necessary for life...

This is where I allow myself to end the novel.

A novel is a house with open doors and windows.

Everyone can fit in it as they see fit.

The good thing about the novel genre is that it leaves the author the right to leave something unsaid in order to leave room for the reader’s conjecture.

Without this conjecture, no novel can be considered complete.

Comments

We consider it necessary to introduce readers to the author's preface to the first complete version of the novel. (Ed.)

From the author

I consider the novel “Evil Spirit” to be the main success in my literary biography, but this novel has a very strange and overly complicated fate...

I remember that I had not yet started writing this book, when even then I began to receive dirty anonymous letters warning me that they would deal with me for Rasputin. The threats wrote that you, they say, write about anything, but just don’t touch Grigory Rasputin and his best friends.

Be that as it may, the novel “Evil Spirits” was written, and soon I had an agreement with Lenizdat. While waiting for the novel to be published as a separate book, I gave it to the magazine “Our Contemporary” for publication. The editors of the magazine informed that the novel, which was too voluminous, would be published in a greatly abbreviated form.

However, when it came out, in the magazine I discovered not my own, but someone else’s title, “At the Last Line”; the very first pages of the publication were written not by me, but by someone else’s hand. In fact, under the title “At the Last Line,” the reader did not receive an abridged version of the novel, but only excerpts from it, from which it was in no way possible to judge the entire book.

But even these passages turned out to be quite enough to excite the inner circle of L.I. Brezhnev, who saw themselves and all the sins of their camarilla in scenes of corruption at the court of Nicholas II, in pictures of embezzlement and corruption. It’s not for nothing that in the middle of publication my novel was wanted to be “edited” by the wives themselves - the same L. I. Brezhnev and M. A. Suslov.

The first blow was dealt to me by M.V. Zimyanin, who demanded me “on the carpet” to inflict reprisals on me. Then a devastating article by Irina Pushkareva appeared (I still don’t know who she is), which served as a signal for the general persecution of me. After this, the “heavy artillery” came into action - in the person of M. A. Suslov, and his speech, directed against me personally and my novel, was obsequiously picked up by the pages of the Literary Gazette.

Lenizdat, of course, immediately broke the contract with me, but at the same time terminated the contract for the publication of the popular book by M. K. Kasvinov “Twenty-three steps down”, because our materials were largely identical.

Many years passed, a vacuum of ominous silence formed around my novel and my name - I was simply kept silent and not published. Meanwhile, historians sometimes told me: we don’t understand why you were beaten? After all, you didn’t discover anything new; everything that you described in the novel was published in the Soviet press back in the twenties...

Unfortunately, the editors of Lenizdat, rejecting my novel, were guided by the opinion, again, of Irina Pushkareva, who wrote for the same editors: “After reading the manuscript of V. Pikul’s novel, it remains unclear why the author needed to bring up stories long forgotten and buried in a landfill events and facts of secondary importance.” But for me, the author, it remained unclear why the events on the eve of the revolution, which involuntarily brought its beginning closer, ended up “in the dustbin” and why did they seem “secondary” to the critics?

But let’s not forget that this was written in that barren and filthy time, which is now commonly called the “era of stagnation,” and therefore our supreme leaders did not want the reader to look for regrettable analogies between the events of my novel and those blatant outrages that were happening in the circle of the Brezhnev elite. In fact, doesn’t my dear Churbanov look like Grishka Rasputin? Looks like it! He looked just like him, but he didn’t have a beard...

These, I think, are the main reasons why the novel caused such a furious reaction in the very top echelons of power. But now times have changed, and I will be happy if there is a reader - finally! – will see my novel under its real title and in full.

* * *

In Pikul’s creative life, work on the novel “Evil Spirit” became an important stage that brought deep satisfaction. But in my personal life it was a catastrophically difficult time, which left deep traces that never healed until the end of my life...

Based on the agreement signed on May 28, 1973 with Lenizdat, Valentin Savvich sent the manuscript to his usual address. (It so happened that for many years the books of Pikul, who was never a member of the party, were published by the party publishing house under the auspices of the Leningrad regional committee of the CPSU.) “Evil spirits” ended up in the regional committee structure, where the first readers of the manuscript were censors, editors and reviewers who specialized mainly in the products of the party apparatus.

According to the stories of Valentin Savvich, he worked on this novel for more than ten years. How much material was shoveled! Not counting small newspaper and magazine notes, of which he looked through many hundreds, the “list of literature lying on the author’s desk” added to the manuscript included 128 titles.

I'm holding it in my hands now. This is not just a bibliography - it contains the author’s opinion about what he read. I can’t resist quoting at least selectively:

4. ALMAZOV B. Rasputin and Russia. Publishing house "Grunhut", Prague, 1922. The book is full of errors, and therefore I hardly used it in my work.

20. BUCHANAN, George. My mission in Russia. Per. from English D. Ya. Blokha. “Obelisk”, Berlin, 1924. Finally, a lousy Soviet translation of memoirs with the appendix of A. Kerensky’s article THE END OF THE ROYAL FAMILY in the publication of GIZ (M., 1925).

25. VYRUBOVA A. A. Her Majesty’s maid of honor. Intimate diary and memories. 1903–1928, Riga, no year. I didn’t use this unthinkable lie in my work.

73. OBNINSKY V. P. No date. The last autocrat. Berlin, approx. 1912. As is known, the circulation is approx. 500 copies was almost completely destroyed by the Tsarist secret police, 1 copy. There are books in Moscow, I have another one.

101. SIMANOVICH A. S. Rasputin and the Jews. Notes personal secretary Rasputin. Riga, b/g.

Remember, reader, these books and Pikul’s comments. Two reviews were given of “Evil Spirits,” different in form and content, but similar in their categorical rejection of the book. A lengthy consideration of them may not deserve attention, but it is instructive from the point of view of showing the inconsistency of concepts based on momentary fads, on the mood and opinion of those above...

Thus, senior researcher at the USSR Academy of Sciences, candidate of historical sciences I. M. Pushkareva wrote after reading the manuscript:

– “poor knowledge of history (?! – A.P.) brings the author into the camp of our ideological opponents abroad”;

- “in Pikul’s novel, in contradiction with established views in Soviet historical science, the revolutionary era of the early 20th century, illuminated by the genius of V.I. Lenin, is called nothing less than the “era” of Rasputinism”;

Disregards Marxism-Leninism, contradicts established views, expresses his understanding, etc. - at that time this was not praise at all. This assessment of the author’s behavior in those days can now be perceived as an order for personal courage, for contribution to democracy and openness.

– “the literature that “lay on the table” of the author of the novel (judging by the list that he attached to the manuscript) is not large...”;

- “the novel... is nothing more than a simple retelling... of the writings of the White emigrants - the anti-Soviet B. Almazov, the monarchist Purishkevich, the adventurer A. Simanovich, etc.”

I hope you remember Pikul’s opinion about Almazov? But he really did use “adventurer.” And what self-respecting writer would ignore the notes of “adviser and tsar-appointed secretary Rasputin,” almost completely unknown to a wide circle of readers, simply because he is not of “Soviet blood.” Moreover, according to eyewitnesses, smart, with a good memory, strong, who lived to be a hundred years old (died in 1978), the secretary “vouched for the complete correspondence of the facts he presented to reality.” By the way, much later, after the publication of “Evil Spirits,” Simanovich’s notes were published in the journal “Slovo” under the heading “Firsthand”.

The editorial conclusion, signed by the head of the fiction editorial office E. N. Gabis and senior editor L. A. Plotnikova, contradicted the review only in terms of the statement that “the author, of course, has the most extensive (! – A.P.) historical material,” but there was unanimous agreement on the substance of the final conclusions: “V. Pikul’s manuscript cannot be published. It cannot be considered a Soviet historical novel, the origins of which date back to the 20th century in the work of A. M. Gorky” (Pushkareva).

“The manuscript of V. Pikul’s novel “Evil Spirits” cannot be accepted for publication, because ... it is a detailed argument for the notorious thesis: the people have the kind of rulers they deserve. And this is insulting to a great people, to a great country, as October 1917 clearly demonstrated” (editorial conclusion).

This is how the funeral of the “Evil Spirit” took place.

Lenizdat terminated the contract, but Valentin Savvich did not despair - he transferred his work to the editors of the magazine “Our Contemporary”.

Since the manuscript of the novel was quite voluminous, about 44 author's pages, the editors suggested that the author shorten the novel. Valentin Savvich agreed to shorten the novel, but he himself did not take any part in this, because at that time his wife, Veronika Feliksovna, was seriously ill.

A shortened version of the novel was published in the magazine “Our Contemporary” from No. 4 to No. 7 for 1979 under the title “At the Last Line.” It should be noted that neither the title nor the published version of the novel, to put it mildly, brought Valentin Savvich satisfaction.

Before readers had time to get acquainted with the ending of the novel, the newspaper “ Literary Russia“On July 27, Pushkareva’s article “When the sense of proportion is lost” appeared. These were rehashes of the negativisms of the review, squared by the realization of the futility of the first attempts to completely close the unwanted topic.

The banner of the campaign against Pikul was also taken up by the critic Oskotsky:

- “the novel clearly reflected the ahistorical nature of the author’s view, which replaced the social-class approach to the events of the pre-revolutionary period with the idea of ​​​​the self-destruction of tsarism”;

- “in the novel “At the Last Line” - “Vyrubova’s memoirs,” the forgery of which is accepted as authentic” (?! - A.P.).

But it was a trifle, so to speak - flowers. “Berries” followed the performances of M. Zimyanin and M. Suslov.

A meeting of the secretariat of the board of the RSFSR SP was held, where the publication of the novel in the magazine “Our Contemporary” was recognized as erroneous. Essentially, the secretariat of that time carried out an action to discredit not only the “Evil Spirit”, but also the entire work of V. Pikul.

In one of his letters, Valentin Savvich expressed his condition as follows: “I live in stress. They stopped printing me. I don’t know how to live. I didn't write any worse. I just don’t like the Soviet government...”

The remains of the Our Contemporary magazines with the publication of the novel began to be confiscated from many libraries. I write “leftovers” because the bulk of the magazines were immediately “withdrawn” by readers, the book passed from hand to hand and began its life.

What kind of will and faith it was necessary to have in order to survive in an atmosphere of misunderstanding and bullying. During this difficult period, Valentin Pikul lost his wife.

The ice broke only in 1988.

Unexpectedly, the Krasnoyarsk book publishing house offered to publish the novel “At the Last Line,” to which Pikul offered to publish “the hitherto unknown novel “Evil Spirits.” A photocopy was urgently made, and the manuscript went to distant Krasnoyarsk.

We should pay tribute to Doctor of Historical Sciences V.N. Ganichev, who personally knew V. Pikul, who wrote a short preface, thereby significantly calming the nerves of some doubting publishers.

While the Siberians were working on the manuscript, a request came from the Voronezh magazine “Rise” to publish the book, which was carried out starting with the first issue in 1989.

Their fellow countrymen from the Central Black Earth Book Publishing House, represented by director A. N. Sviridov, also became interested in the long-suffering novel and, having received the go-ahead from the author, released a two-volume edition of “Evil Spirits” with a circulation of 120 thousand copies.

In the same year, 1989, the book, tastefully designed by the artist V. Bakhtin, was published in the Krasnoyarsk book publishing house with a circulation of 100,000.

The “boring, verbose, loose narrative” (according to Oskotsky) was snapped up in one moment. The phrase, which gradually began to fade, came back to life: “A book is the best gift.”

On next year Under the influence of reader demand, the book's circulation increased sharply: 250 thousand copies of the book were published by the Leningrad Rosvideofilm, 200 thousand by the Moscow Military Publishing House.

Speaking about the Dnepropetrovsk publishing house "Promin", which published "Evil Spirit", I remember with particular warmth its director - Viktor Andreevich Sirota, who really appreciated Valentin Savvich.

And then there was “Roman-newspaper” ( Chief Editor V. N. Ganichev) with its more than three million copies. The first three issues in 1991 were given to the novel “Evil Spirit”.

The pompous phrases of reviews have faded, but interest in the book and demand for it do not weaken...

May the reader forgive me for the lengthy comment. But it is precisely the “Evil Spirit” that is, in my opinion, cornerstone in understanding and, if you like, in knowledge of the character, creativity, and the whole life of Valentin Pikul.

Stolypin Arkady

About the book "At the Last Line" by V. Pikul

Article by Arkady Stolypin

(son of P.A. Stolypin)

about the book by V. Pikul "At the Last Line"

From the editor. It is hardly a great exaggeration to consider that V. Pikul’s novels are among the most popular in Russia. Ten to fifteen years ago, for many, this was the standard of historical prose, almost a textbook by which to study Russian and world history. Indeed, the lightness of style, exciting intrigue, complex interweaving of the plot - all this forced the reader, exhausted by the tedious cliches of the Soviet official-bureaucratic language, to literally read in one breath everything that came from the pen of V. Pikul. The author's seemingly great scientific objectivity and impartiality also contributed to its popularity. In addition, we should not forget that V. Pikul wrote not about party and government figures, not about “folk heroes” whose biographies everyone “got stuck in their teeth”, but about Tsars, Emperors, nobles, Russian officers, scientists , politicians, that is, about people to whom university and school history textbooks were assigned, in best case scenario, no more than 10-15 lines. At the same time, it was somehow forgotten that historical truth was far from what V. Pikul wrote about it. Give an objective historical analysis his writing was very difficult at that time. But even now, when, obviously, there is every opportunity to get acquainted with “history as it is,” since hundreds of memoirs and historical studies have been published, Pikul’s novels are still the “ultimate truth” for many. Presented to the readers of "Posev" is a review of one of the most popular novels V. Pikul's "At the Last Line" was written by Arkady Stolypin, the son of the great Russian reformer P.A. Stolypin. It convincingly shows that most of the novelist’s “historical” research, to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality. The review was first published in the magazine "Posev" No. 8, 1980.

Arkady STOLYPIN

BRITTLES OF TRUTH IN A BARREL OF LIES

One can, without fear of being mistaken, say about Valentin Pikul’s novel “At the Last Line” that it enjoys exceptional success among readers in the Soviet Union. However, it is unlikely that this interest of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of readers is due only to the “flow of plot gossip.” , as stated by the author of the literary review in Pravda (dated October 8, 1979). If you read the novel carefully, you get the impression that it was written not by one, but by two authors. Either there is a stream of hopeless idle talk, then suddenly the faithful intersperse places written in a different hand, places where one can find some shred of truth about our historical past. Is the novel so popular because of these crumbs of truth, does the reader perceive the vast flawed part of the novel as an annoying but familiar "forced assortment"? We hope that this is exactly so. Has the author deliberately thickened the paint, hoping that our reader has long been accustomed to the work that Krylov’s rooster did on a dung heap? It’s hard to say, we don’t know that much about Pikul. But even if he was primarily concerned with getting the manuscript through the censors, he overdid it. There are many passages in the book that are not only incorrect, but also low-grade and slanderous, for which in a rule-of-law state the author would be responsible not to critics, but to the court. We will not touch these pages. We will simply try to truthfully portray the slandered people. I would like to emphasize that I was prompted to take on this article only by the news that the novel “At the Last Line” is read by many people in Russia. I will be happy if at least a small part of them reads these lines. Although the book is dedicated to pre-revolutionary Russia, before our eyes appear figures from the Khrushchev (or even Brezhnev) era, dressed in frock coats and uniforms of the tsarist era. For example, the Pikulevskaya Empress Maria Feodorovna official reception whispers to Alexander III: “Sashka, I beg you, don’t get drunk!” (!) What didn’t Pikul say about this queen! She allegedly scandalized at the time of the death of her royal husband and the accession of her son to the throne; she allegedly remarried. Pikul clearly neglects the memoirs of that time. And there were many people who left their memories of the queen. For example, Foreign Minister Izvolsky testifies: “She was a charming and infinitely kind woman. She softened with her friendliness and illuminated with her charm the reign of Emperor Alexander III... Without hesitation, she advised her son reasonable changes, and the situation was saved in October 1905 with her assistance." Younger brother Emperor Nicholas II - Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich - Pikul clearly likes it. But he too is depicted in a distorting mirror. Thus, the author forces him to publicly beat Rasputin near the fence of the imperial Tsarskoye Selo park, as if he were not the Grand Duke, but a vigilante on Mayakovsky Square. Your own father I didn’t even know. Pikul writes: “... a black-mustached, wiry man with a predatory gypsy gaze, Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, sat down in a well-warmed (ministerial - A.S.) chair.” “A wiry man,” reporting to the Tsar about state affairs, behaves like a hooligan. The Tsarina exclaims, turning to the Tsar: “Lounge in front of you in a chair, grabbing your cigarettes from the table.” In the novel, my father smokes both his own and other people’s cigarettes without tired. Yes, and a lot to drink: ... closing his eyes bitterly, he sucked down the lukewarm Armenian with some indignation (?! - A.S.). In fact, my father never smoked a single cigarette in his entire life. When there were no guests, we only had mineral water on the dinner table. Mother often said: “Our house is like that of the Old Believers: no cigarettes, no wine, no cards.” When Pikul writes about the dachas of that time, he imagines a closed zone near Moscow: “Having crumpled up his work day, Stolypin went to Neidgart’s dacha in Vyritsa,” he reports. Firstly, the “Neidgart dacha” (obviously belonging to my mother, née Neidgart) did not exist at all. As for the “crumpled working day,” I myself, from my childhood memories, could have a lot to object to. I prefer, however, to quote Izvolsky’s words: “Stolypin’s ability to work was amazing, as was his physical and moral endurance, thanks to which he overcame extremely hard work.” Member of the State Duma V. Shulgin testified that P. Stolypin went to bed at 4 o'clock in the morning, and at 9 he already began his working day. According to Pikul, right hand my father, when he was the governor of Grodno (1902-1903), was shot by a Socialist Revolutionary terrorist. Wrong. Stolypin's right hand had been working poorly since early youth(rheumatism). Subsequently, this even intensified when he was governor of Saratov: one Black Hundred pogromist in June 1905 hit his father’s right hand with a cobblestone when he was protecting a group of zemstvo doctors from reprisals. The novel describes a scene that allegedly took place in the First Duma, that is, no later than June 1906, when Stolypin was still Minister of Internal Affairs. “When the Duma went into a rage and began to shout that he was a satrap, Stolypin raised his fist above himself and said with amazing calm: “But you won’t be intimidated.” In fact, something similar happened almost a year later, when my father was already prime minister. Raised fist was not, and the mentioned words were not a separate remark - they ended his response speech on March 6, 1907 at the opening of the Second Duma: “All of them (the attacks of left-wing deputies - A.S.) come down to two words addressed to the authorities: “Hands up!". To these two words, gentlemen, the government complete calm, with the consciousness of his rightness, can answer only two words: “You won’t intimidate!” Pikul cites a conversation of historical significance that allegedly took place between Stolypin and the Octobrist leader A.I. Guchkov in the Winter Palace in August 1911. Firstly, we had not lived in the Winter Palace for a good 2 years (we lived on Fontanka, no. 16) . For the second half of July and all of August, my father was not in St. Petersburg: due to cardiac fatigue, he took a 6-week vacation for the first time. He interrupted it twice to preside over meetings of the Council of Ministers - at the end of July (in connection with the preparation of the Kyiv celebrations) and on August 17 (due to events in Outer Mongolia). The meetings took place not in the Winter Palace, but on the Islands in the Elagin Palace. On September 1 (14), 1911, in the Kiev theater (before Bogrov’s shot rang out), the royal box was allegedly “occupied by Nicholas II and his wife.” In fact, Alexandra Feodorovna remained in the palace. In the box with the tsar were his daughters Olga and Tatiana, as well as the crown prince of Bulgaria (later the tsar) Boris. He arrived in Kyiv at the head of the Bulgarian delegation to participate in the opening of the monument to Tsar-Liberator Alexander II. Pikul doesn’t know about this or doesn’t want to know. But the Bulgarians remember. Several years ago I received a letter from the exiled Bulgarian Tsar Simeon in which he recalled this event. Pikul writes that even in pre-war times, the Dowager Empress Maria Fedorovna, due to some whim, moved to Kyiv for permanent residence, taking with her her second husband, Prince George Shervashidze. In fact, the move took place at the end of 1915 or at the beginning of 1916, and not because of a whim: the tsar moved to Headquarters and it was easier for the tsarina to communicate with her son from Kyiv. Moreover, the time has come for Rasputin’s political influence in St. Petersburg. Prince Georgy Shervashidze held a position at the tsarina's court in St. Petersburg, but was not in her close circle. He did not follow her to Kyiv (and then to Crimea). I share the feelings of the Soviet historian Irina Pushkareva when she writes: “The novel distorts the interpretation of the era, mixes up the emphasis in assessing the historical process, and incorrectly characterizes a number of historical figures". (Literary Russia", August 2, 1979). I would like to say a few more words about the explosion on Aptekarsky Island on August 12, 1906. Let us forgive the author for the fake depiction of this tragic incident. Let's focus on something else. Pikul writes: “Over thirty people died and forty people were mutilated, who had nothing to do with Stolypin. Factory workers who, with great difficulty (emphasis mine - L.S.) obtained an appointment with the Chairman of the Council of Ministers for their personal needs, died.” “Those who achieved it with great difficulty...” One might think that we're talking about about a reception with Kosygin, Andropov or another representative of the “people’s” government. I remember from childhood (this was also noted by a number of witnesses at that time): my father insisted that his Saturday visiting days be available to everyone. Those who came to the reception were not required to present a written invitation, or even any form of identification. This is how the terrorists, dressed in gendarmerie uniforms, entered the entrance. Then there is this scene, supposedly in the Winter Palace: “At night, Stolypin sat on the royal bed, listening to his daughter Natasha screaming in the next room of the palace, whose leg the doctors had amputated (emphasis added - A.S.). Near his wife, his wounded son was in pain. ". Firstly, after the explosion, my father convened an emergency meeting of the Council of Ministers, which ended only at two o’clock in the morning. And the rest of the night was occupied with the fate of the wounded. To be convinced of this, Pikul would only have to look at any newspaper of that time. Secondly, my sister and I were not transported from the site of the explosion to the Winter Palace. They also wrote about this then. For example, New Time" (August 13, 1906): "Yesterday, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, the wounded daughter of P. A. Stolypin Natalya, 14 years old, and his son Arkady, 3 years old, were brought to the private hospital of Dr. Calmeyer in ambulances from the ministerial dacha." The author needed the invention to add that at my sister’s bedside, Rasputin, who was not in sight at that time, “mumbled” prayers. There was no amputation: life surgeon E. V. Pavlov opposed this. After two operations and long-term treatment, my sister got back on her feet. Let's move on to the characterization given by Pikul to the last imperial couple. It is difficult to tell in detail about our last Empress Alexandra Feodorovna in a magazine article. Inspired by the best intentions, she, nevertheless, contributed to the collapse of our statehood. By moving to Headquarters and giving herself entirely matter of waging war, the Tsar handed over the reins of government to her, and to Rasputin, who stood behind her. The then British Ambassador George Buchanan notes: “The Empress began to rule Russia, especially starting in February 1916, when Stürmer was appointed head of government.” For once, the Soviet press gives these events coverage that is close to the truth: in her review of Pikul’s book, Irina Pushkareva writes in Literary Russia: “Bourgeois falsifiers of history exaggerate the role of Rasputin’s personality. Rasputin’s influence has indeed increased to some extent in environment of the court camarilla in the very last years of the tsarist regime, during the war years. And this was one of the many signs of the crisis of the ruling elite." As if everything was clear: the empress bore for all time part of the terrible responsibility for the catastrophe that befell our country. But this is not enough for Pikul. He considered it necessary to portray the mournful and morally pure empress as an immoral woman. On this score, as I already said, I will not polemicize. But Pikul throws other accusations at Alexandra Fedorovna. She was, they say, a Germanophile, almost a spy, almost an accomplice of Wilhelm. She, they say, did not love Russia, did not loved her children, loved only herself. The book contains next place : “Gregory,” the queen said in the fall of 1915, “I need a reliable person, obviously loyal, who, secretly from the whole world, would transport large sums of money to ... Germany.” So here it is. The ministers of finance, who later found themselves in exile, Kokovtsev and Bark, did not find any amounts that belonged to the murdered royal family in the West. Not only in Germany, but also in the allied England. But there were fairly accurate traces of the large sums that German paid agent Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin received from the German treasury. Those accusing the empress of Germanophilism (Pikul is not alone in this) are silent about the fact that she was brought up mostly at the English court and was half English, the beloved granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Pierre Gilliard, who taught the royal children, writes in his book “Thirteen Years at the Russian Court”: “Queen Victoria did not like the Germans and had a special disgust for Emperor William II. And she passed on this disgust to her granddaughter, who felt more attached to England, her homeland his mother than to Germany." Germanophiles, however, were at the royal court and in the capital. Ambassador Buchanan looked closely at them. About the commandant of the imperial palace, General Voeikov, he writes: “But neither he nor anyone else would ever dare to express his pro-German feelings, which could irritate Their Imperial Majesties.” About Prime Minister Stürmer: “This very cunning man did not even think of speaking openly in favor of a separate peace with Germany ... neither the Emperor nor the Empress would have tolerated such advice being given to them, because of which he would almost certainly have lost of his post." To this the ambassador adds: “Kerensky himself once assured me that (after the February Revolution - A.S.) not a single document was found on the basis of which one could suspect that the empress was thinking about a separate peace with Germany.” This was the case when the royal couple was on the throne. So what then? According to Pikul, in the summer of 1917, while imprisoned in Tsarskoe Selo, the queen allegedly whispered to the tsar: “We must leave everything here, even children, and run... run... We must run to Germany. Now our last hope is in our cousin - the Kaiser and his mighty army." In fact, after the Brest-Litovsk Peace, while imprisoned in Tobolsk, Alexandra Fedorovna says: “I would rather die in Russia than be saved by the Germans.” These words were brought to us by the royal entourage who survived the bloody massacre. Lieutenant General M. Diterichs, who, on the orders of Admiral Kolchak, led the investigation into the murder of the royal family in Yekaterinburg, mentions in his book that officer Markov was secretly sent by the Germans at the beginning of 1918. , to Tobolsk. He brought the queen a written proposal from Emperor Wilhelm that could save her. With a letter from the queen to her brother, the Prince of Hesse, he headed back to Kyiv, then occupied by the Germans. “Emperor Wilhelm, under the influence of the Prince of Hesse, invited Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and her daughters to come to Germany,” writes Dieterichs. “But she rejected this offer...” In December 1917, from Tobolsk, the Tsarina secretly wrote to Vyrubova in her penultimate letter: I'm old! Oh, how old I am! But I am still the mother of our Russia. I experience her torment, just like the torment of my own children. And I love her, despite all her sins and all the horrors she has committed. No one could tear a child away from the mother’s heart, no one could tear away the love for his native country from a human heart. However, the black ingratitude shown by Russia towards the Emperor tears my soul apart. But this is still not the whole country. God have mercy on Russia! God, save our Russia!" In his description of the personality of the last tsar, Pikul went so far that even official Soviet criticism is forced to correct him. I will not quote Pikul. I will limit myself to a brief description of the personality of the last emperor. All pre-revolutionary statesmen with whom I had the opportunity to meet talk about this issue (Kokovtsev, Sazonov, Krgzhanovsky), they highly appreciated the intelligence, ability to work, and selflessness of the sovereign. Everyone regretted that the tsar was weak-willed and, as a result, at times indecisive. All people who knew him closely made the same points about this judgments. Izvolsky writes: “Was Nicholas II a naturally gifted and intelligent person? I have no hesitation in answering this question in the affirmative. I was always amazed by the ease with which he grasped the slightest nuance in the arguments presented to him, as well as the clarity with which he expressed his own thoughts." From the French ambassador Paleologus we find the following lines about the king: "Brave, honest, conscientious, deeply imbued with consciousness of his royal duty, unshakable in times of trial, he did not possess the quality necessary in an autocratic system, namely, a strong will." Ambassador Buchanan is not far from this assessment: "The Emperor possessed numerous qualities, thanks to which he could successfully play the role of a monarch under a parliamentary system. He had a receptive mind, methodicality and perseverance in his work, an amazing natural charm that everyone who came into contact with him fell under. But the emperor did not inherit the impressiveness, strength of character and ability to make clear decisions necessary for a monarch in his position." Pikul writes that the tsar was bored during the ministers’ reports, yawned, giggled, and understood little. It's a lie. In the summer of 1906, in the Peterhof Palace, when the agrarian reform was being prepared, the Tsar worked with my father all night long. He delved into every detail, gave his opinions, and was tireless. Obviously, these Peterhof nights were remembered by the tsar when in March 1911 (at the time of the government crisis) he wrote to Stolypin: “I believe you, just like in 1906” (letter dated March 9, 1911). Nicholas II did not lose these qualities, and most importantly, self-control, in the most difficult moments life. Izvolsky describes a reception with the Tsar in the summer of 1906 in the Peterhof Palace, at the time of the uprising in Kronstadt. The windows of the royal office shook from cannon shots: “The Emperor listened to me attentively and, as usual, asked me a number of questions, showing that he was interested in the slightest details of my report. No matter how much I looked at him furtively, I could not catch any sign on his face. the slightest sign of excitement. However, he knew well that just a few miles from us his crown was at stake." When an uprising broke out in Petrograd and the hour of abdication came, the tsar addressed his last order to the troops. (As is known, the publication of this document was prohibited by the democratic Provisional Government.) All personal considerations in this order were discarded. The king focused all his thoughts on the fate of the country, on loyalty to his allies, on the need to fight to the bitter end. He did not think about himself even in Siberian captivity. But if he agreed to admit the shameful Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, then the Germans would have saved him. We will have to talk about money matters separately. Pikul has such a scene. "The beautiful Mrs. M.", dressed in expensive furs and hung with jewelry, appears to the Minister of Finance Kokovtsev with a note from the Tsar: "Give out one hundred and twenty thousand rubles urgently." The minister carries out the tsar's will, but takes this money not from the state treasury, but from the tsar's personal funds. Having learned this, the royal couple was allegedly indignant. Pikul writes: “Billionaires, living for nothing on everything ready, in fairy-tale palaces filled with treasures, they devoured the treasury, like rats crawling into a head of cheese, but... just dare to touch their little bag!” “The beautiful Mrs. M.” actually existed. This was at the very beginning of the reign of Nicholas II. Having resorted to the protection of the Dowager Empress, this lady asked the Tsar for a large loan from the state treasury... In February 1899, the Tsar refused in writing to his mother . The text of the letter has been preserved. This is about a separate case. Now about the royal finances as such. In his book, “Nicholas and Alexandra,” the historian of the last royal couple, the American Robert Massey, gives financial estimates of that time. As he writes, the personal income of Nicholas II was actually impressive. But Massey also provides a complete list of expenses. They are impressive too. Here are some of these expenses: the maintenance of seven palaces, the maintenance of the Imperial Academy of Arts, the maintenance of the Imperial Ballet, the maintenance of the maintenance staff of the imperial palaces (15,000 people), subsidies to a number of hospitals, orphanages, almshouses, etc. In addition, the Imperial Chancellery received a constant stream of requests for financial assistance. The king secretly, from his personal funds, satisfied all requests that deserved attention. As a result, as Massey writes, based on documentary data, at the end, and sometimes in the middle of the year, the king did not know how to make ends meet. I have a personal memory. At the beginning of April 1916, at Headquarters, in Mogilev, Nicholas II told our man who was with him distant relative Admiral Mikhail Veselkin: “I learned that Natasha Stolypina, who was injured in the explosion of 1906, will soon get married. I decided to give her a small pension. Please inform her family about this, but do not make it public.” The royal family lived frugally. Expensive receptions and court balls were canceled (with the exception of the lavish celebrations in the winter of 1913 on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov). Ambassador Buchanan writes: “In the seclusion of Tsarskoe Selo, the imperial couple adhered to very simple image life... receptions were rare." This irritated the St. Petersburg high society, which found itself far from the royal family. The common people, greedy for magnificent ceremonies, were also not happy: “The German woman is keeping the tsar away from the people.” Few people knew about the modest lifestyle of the royal family. I remember how one day my father arrived with a report at the Palace earlier than the appointed hour. He was asked to wait a little: the royal family was still at the table. And so, in the reception room, Colonel Dexbach, who was with my father, approached him with excitement and said: “Your Excellency, I just saw fruit being brought to the royal table. I would never allow such a pitiful dessert to be served to mine.” home table." The royal family saved not only on food, but also on clothing. Lieutenant General Diterichs, examining the royal things during the judicial investigation in Yekaterinburg, describes the rather worn overcoat of Nicholas II. Inside one of the sleeves the king wrote: purchased in such and such a year, given for repair in such and such a year. I remember my mother's story. In December 1913, the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna gave a ball at the Anichkov Palace in honor of her two eldest granddaughters Olga and Tatiana. The royal couple was supposed to be present at the ball. And the queen hesitated for a long time: whether to order a ball gown from the capital’s first dressmaker, Madame Brisac. As a result, the ball gown was not ready for the day of the ball and Alexandra Fedorovna appeared at Anichkov Palace in an old, no longer fashionable attire. This incident caused ridicule in high St. Petersburg society. But my mother and the Tsar’s maid of honor, Baroness Buxgeveden, who survived in Yekaterinburg, remembered this with sadness already in 1921 in Berlin. This entire - the largest - part of Pikulev's novel was written with the obvious purpose of presenting it in the wrong light and discrediting the entire Duma period of our national history. The main bosses in public life and in politics, Pikul, along with Rasputin, are defrocked, religious fanatics and morally degraded hierarchs of the Orthodox Church. Or unscrupulous financial businessmen who have enveloped representatives of the administration, the army and even the imperial couple in their web. There were fanatics, there were defrocked people. They exist now in almost all countries of the free part of the world. But they, as was the case in Russia during tsarist times, do not at all influence the course of history. There were also not entirely clean businessmen. There was a banker in St. Petersburg, Manus, who was close to Rasputin and had a bad reputation. But no role in government financial policy Manus didn't play. Of course, he had no access to the royal couple. But, in Pikul’s description, Manus is omnipotent, he is omnipresent. Perhaps Pikul wrote this on orders to incite anti-Semitic sentiments? (Manus was a Jew). Perhaps, on the orders of those at the top of party power, Pikul began to discredit the last decades of the tsarist system, often simply falsifying events? Perhaps he was tasked with showing that Russia was then mired in a stinking swamp, and such a show at the beginning of the century was needed by the Kremlin dogmatists in order to fight the religious revival, with the monarchical sentiments that are now unexpectedly manifesting themselves in the new Russian generation? Did the customers achieve the desired result? Probably not. Pikul, on the one hand, lied ineptly, and on the other, he stepped over the line of what was prescribed and what was permitted. It's time to move on now to those phrases, and sometimes even entire pages in the novel, that are written in a different handwriting. Firstly, Pikul changed Marxism. As Pravda notes, he “replaced the social-class approach to the events of the pre-revolutionary period with the idea of ​​​​the self-destruction of tsarism.” But although it is not social-class, the “idea of ​​the self-destruction of tsarism” is closer to the truth. Self-decomposition has been observed (since when? since the end of the last century?) in all layers of Russian society. And among the bureaucracy, divorced from the liberal intelligentsia. And among the intelligentsia, living in utopias and cut off from the people. And among the merchants (rich Savva Morozov, and not only him, financed Lenin and the work of his terrorist groups). But, along with diseased cells, there were also healthy cells. Self-decomposition could stop. After the revolution of 1905, healthy blood circulation began again in the state body. In the novel we find lines as if written by a cultured and reasonable teacher in the margins of the essay of a presumptuous student. So, it says that during the reign of Nicholas II, “... Maxim Gorky and Mechnikov, Repin and Tsiolkovsky created, ... Chaliapin sang and the incomparable Anna Pavlova danced, ... Zabolotny defeated the plague bacillus, and Makarov’s “Ermak” crushed the ice of the Arctic... Boris Rosing pondered the problem of the future of television, and young Igor Sikorsky lifted Russia's first helicopter vertically above the ground... This should be remembered so as not to go to a false extreme." And although the author falls into a false extreme, he still, here and there, inserts meaningful phrases into his text: “The moral authority of Russia was very great, and Europe humbly waited for what they would say on the banks of the Neva. .. The industrial power of the Empire was growing, and Russia could throw almost everything onto the world market - from armadillos to baby pacifiers... The industrial boom began in 1909, and Russian power largely determined the tone of European politics. Russia stood on a par with France and Japan, but lagged behind England and Germany. But in terms of the degree of concentration of production, the Russian Empire came out on top in the world." Of course, much could be added to Pikul’s words. But what is written is indicative. Pikul even dares to timidly recall the freedom of the press that reigned then. Chairman of the Duma Rodzianko tells the Tsar: “It is customary for us to scold ministers in newspapers. Synod, Duma... and they pour water on me. We tolerate everything - we're used to it, sir!" If Pikul had added that before the First World War the Bolshevik "Pravda" was published legally in St. Petersburg, then the picture would have been even more complete. Pikul decides to say a few words about the role of the Duma: "Unlike the Tsar who wanted to ignore the Duma, the prime minister actively became friends with it. I understood that parliament, even the most shabby one (! - A.S.), is still the voice of public opinion. Stolypin led big game with members of the Central Committee of the October Party... Russia, after defeat in the war with the Japanese, quickly gained military power. That is why allocations for defense are the most acute, the most wounding." And here not everything is agreed. But from the above quotation it is clear that the Duma was by no means a simple registration office, rubber-stamping decisions made in advance in another instance. Allocation of loans for all sectors of government work depended on popular representation. Therefore, the Duma debate on the reconstruction of the fleet was “acute, wounding.” Ministers, representatives of the public, the military, many were smeared and slandered by Pikul. But not only slandered and smeared. If their portraits are put together, then something real appears before our eyes and even almost truthful. Here is the Minister of Finance Kokovtsev. “The right reproached Kokovtsev for the lack of monarchism, the Left criticized him for the excess of monarchism. And Vladimir Nikolaevich was simply a liberal." "Kokovtsev was an intelligent and well-mannered man, but he was talkative beyond measure (? - A.S.). He was an honest man and he entered the vast chronicle of the robbery of the Russian treasury (? - A.S.) like a dog in the manger." Here is Minister of War Roediger. "The author of many military scientific works, which for a long time were considered almost classical, highly educated person". Here is the Governor-General of Turkestan A. Samsonov. "He developed new areas for cotton crops, drilled artesian wells in the deserts, built an irrigation canal in the Hungry Steppe." Here is the Chairman of the State Duma: "The leader of the Octobrists, the head of the landowner party, Rodzianko outwardly resembled Sobakevich (? - A.S.), but behind this appearance hid a subtle, penetrating mind, great willpower, strong adherence to principles in those issues that he defended from his own, monarchical positions." Pikul even decides to hint that the time of the "Stolypin reaction" It was by no means a time of domination by reactionary elements: “The extreme right was just as inconvenient and odious for the government as the extreme left. Tsarism never risked drawing high-ranking cadres from among the extreme right." Separately, I would like to dwell on my uncle, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sazonov. Not because Pikul particularly liked him, but because with the lines dedicated to this statesman, there are big national problems involved. He is described as I remember him: “Very weak in health, Sazonov did not smoke, did not drink, had no bad habits... he was a polyglot and a musician, an expert in history and politics.” The novel describes important conversation Sazonov with the German ambassador Count Pourtales just before the start of the First World War: “Sazonov froze in the middle of the office... I can tell you one thing,” he noted calmly, “as long as there remains even an insignificant chance of preserving peace, Russia will never attack anyone ... The aggressor will be the one who attacks us, and then we will defend ourselves." The above words of Sazonov nullify the misinformation existing in communist and communism circles that the tsarist regime allegedly deliberately provoked the First World War in order to suppress the growing revolutionary sentiments in the country. In this matter, Pikul confirms the words of Buchanan, who writes: “Russia did not want war. When problems arose that could cause war, the tsar invariably showed all his influence in favor of peace. In his peace-loving policy, he went so far that at the end of 1913. "The impression was that Russia would not fight under any circumstances. The trouble is that this false impression prompted Germany to take advantage of the current situation." Buchanan further clarifies: “Germany knew very well that following the strengthening of the German army in 1913, Russia was forced to develop a new military program, which could not be fully completed before 1918. Thus, a particularly favorable opportunity arose for a military attack, and Germany I used it." Among the fictions and obscenities in the book, there are places where the figure of the minister-reformer is still visible. Pikul writes: “Stolypin stood out from the crowd, was extremely colorful. It was he who now formed the background of power... he was reactionary, but at times he thought radically, trying to destroy in the order of things what had remained indestructible for centuries before him. An integral and strong nature is an oddity other bureaucrats." There are four places in the book where the author almost put into my father’s mouth words that he actually spoke. Even if this was said in a different setting and in a less rude form, the main thoughts of his statesmanship were expressed correctly. First: the day after the explosion on Aptekarsky Island, at a meeting of the Council of Ministers, “Stolypin said that yesterday’s assassination attempt, which almost took the lives of himself and his children, would not change anything in domestic policy Russian state. “My train has not derailed,” said Stolypin. “Terrorists need great upheavals, but I need Great Russia... My program remains unchanged: suppression of disorder, resolution of the agrarian question as the most urgent matter of the Empire and elections to the Second Duma.” Second excerpt ( also refers to the first year of Stolypin’s government activity, when the revolutionary ferment had not yet subsided): “He shook the bell, calling the secretary, a telegram to the provinces, write it down, I dictate: “The struggle is not against society, but against the enemies of society. Therefore, indiscriminate repressions are not Actions that are unlawful and careless, that bring anger instead of calm, are intolerable. Old system will receive renewal." The third place is especially indicative. Even if this is a conversation between Stolypin and the tsar that never happened and is given in rude terms. But in this conversation the main thoughts of the agrarian reform are briefly outlined: "It’s high time to split the community and give the peasant land: take this your! So that he can feel the taste of it, so that he can say - “My land, and whoever touches it, I will go at him with an ax!” Then the instincts of the landowner will awaken in the peasant, and all revolutionary doctrines will break against the mighty layer of the peasantry, like a storm against a breakwater." “My land, and whoever touches it, I will go at him with an axe” - how did the censorship miss this? These words, attributed to my father, also contain today a condemnation of the entire collective and state farm system. The fourth passage seems to complement everything previously said: “The Prime Minister urgently left for Crimea... A journalist from the influential newspaper Volga climbed into his carriage (! - A.S.), and at night Stolypin, walking along the carpet, firmly knocked together phrases from the interview. “Give me,” he dictated, just twenty years of internal and external peace, and our children will no longer recognize dark, backward Russia. Quite peacefully, with Russian bread alone, we are capable of crushing all of Europe.” Stolypin did not intend to put pressure on Europe. But otherwise the quote corresponds to what he actually said. Was revolution inevitable? Pikul, of course, does not pose the question this way. But the answer is clear in Stolpin’s words quoted above. It is also evident in the description of the days preceding the First World War: “Bravura music flowed through the wide-open windows. The Russian Guard marched, brought up in the tradition of dying, but not surrendering... The iron Russian Guard marched measuredly and clearly.” What is shown here, but not agreed upon, just begs to be put on paper. If the “iron Russian guard” had not died in the fields of East Prussia and Galicia, if some guards units had been (as in 1905) left in the capital? What would happen then? Would the propagandized soldiers of the Petrograd garrison (from the reserves) have been able to carry out the “great and bloodless”?" The author interprets August 14th differently from Solzhenitsyn. Briefly mentioning the offensive of our troops in East Prussia, he writes: "It was the day of the complete defeat of the German army, and entered the chronicle of Russian military glory new page called Gumbinen... The breakthrough of Samsonov's army predetermined the defeat of Germany, and those Germans who knew how to think sensibly already realized that Germany could not win... The Germans lost the war not at the table of Versailles in 1918, but in the Masurian swamps swamps back in August 1914." In these words one can hear regret that Russia was not among the winners. In this matter, the author is close to the thoughts of Sir Buchanan, who hoped that the First World War would end differently. The British ambassador recalls in his book, an audience with the Tsar on March 13, 1915, which was attended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sazonov. On the agenda was an agreement on Constantinople and spheres of influence in Persia: “The Tsar opened the atlas and began to follow Sazonov’s report on it, pointing with his finger, which amazed me speed, the exact location on the map of each city and each region discussed... Then, turning to the Emperor, I say: after the end of the war, Russia and Great Britain will be the two most powerful powers, and universal peace will be ensured." Well-founded, but unfulfilled hopes. Thus, in the novel “At the Last Line” we are faced with two texts, sometimes sharply contradicting one another. One, more extensive text talks about a state sliding into an abyss. In the other - about a state that is gaining new strength and can, without resorting to violence, take first place in Europe. Pikul doesn’t say all this, but it sounds between the lines. It turns out, therefore, that the novel “At the Last Line” reflects two trends that are now emerging in the circles of Russian society. One tendency is dogmatic, totalitarian. Its representatives strive to trample into the dirt and show our historical past in an ugly form. Especially the Duma period at the beginning of the century - with so many opportunities, carrying so many hopes! It is obviously no longer possible to hide the truth about this time: the process of restoring historical memory has begun in new generations. Therefore, the authorities need to present this time in a distorted form and thus try to prevent a sound vision of the future. Another tendency includes people who see that totalitarianism is heading towards an abyss and is dragging Russia and other countries there with it. People of this tendency (some of them for selfish reasons, for the sake of their own salvation) strive to rely on the still living foundations of the past. The novel "At the Last Line" was almost banned by the authorities. It seems that this is not due to the shortcomings noted by Soviet critics (incorrect interpretation of historical events, abundance of alcove and fake episodes). And due to the fact that the author, to some extent, timidly noted the presence and positive aspects our national statehood, still capable of rebirth.

Stolypin Arkady

Stolypin Arkady

About the book "At the Last Line" by V. Pikul

Article by Arkady Stolypin

(son of P.A. Stolypin)

about the book by V. Pikul "At the Last Line"

From the editor. It is hardly a great exaggeration to consider that V. Pikul’s novels are among the most popular in Russia. Ten to fifteen years ago, for many, this was the standard of historical prose, almost a textbook by which to study Russian and world history. Indeed, the lightness of style, exciting intrigue, complex interweaving of the plot - all this forced the reader, exhausted by the tedious cliches of the Soviet official-bureaucratic language, to literally read in one breath everything that came from the pen of V. Pikul. The author's seemingly great scientific objectivity and impartiality also contributed to its popularity. In addition, we should not forget that V. Pikul wrote not about party and government figures, not about “folk heroes” whose biographies everyone “got stuck in their teeth”, but about Tsars, Emperors, nobles, Russian officers, scientists , politicians, that is, about people to whom university and school history textbooks allocated, at best, no more than 10-15 lines. At the same time, it was somehow forgotten that the historical truth was far from being the same as V. Pikul wrote about it. It was very difficult to give an objective historical analysis of his writings at that time. But even now, when, obviously, there is every opportunity to get acquainted with “history as it is,” since hundreds of memoirs and historical studies have been published, Pikul’s novels are still the “ultimate truth” for many. The review presented to the readers of Posev about one of the most popular novels by V. Pikul, “At the Last Line,” was written by Arkady Stolypin, the son of the great Russian reformer P.A. Stolypin. It convincingly shows that most of the novelist’s “historical” research, to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality. The review was first published in the magazine "Posev" No. 8, 1980.

Arkady STOLYPIN

BRITTLES OF TRUTH IN A BARREL OF LIES

One can, without fear of being mistaken, say about Valentin Pikul’s novel “At the Last Line” that it enjoys exceptional success among readers in the Soviet Union. However, it is unlikely that this interest of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of readers is due only to the “flow of plot gossip.” , as stated by the author of the literary review in Pravda (dated October 8, 1979). If you read the novel carefully, you get the impression that it was written not by one, but by two authors. Either there is a stream of hopeless idle talk, then suddenly the faithful intersperse places written in a different hand, places where one can find some shred of truth about our historical past. Is the novel so popular because of these crumbs of truth, does the reader perceive the vast flawed part of the novel as an annoying but familiar "forced assortment"? We hope that this is exactly so. Has the author deliberately thickened the paint, hoping that our reader has long been accustomed to the work that Krylov’s rooster did on a dung heap? It’s hard to say, we don’t know that much about Pikul. But even if he was primarily concerned with getting the manuscript through the censors, he overdid it. There are many passages in the book that are not only incorrect, but also low-grade and slanderous, for which in a rule-of-law state the author would be responsible not to critics, but to the court. We will not touch these pages. We will simply try to truthfully portray the slandered people. I would like to emphasize that I was prompted to take on this article only by the news that the novel “At the Last Line” is read by many people in Russia. I will be happy if at least a small part of them reads these lines. Although the book is dedicated to pre-revolutionary Russia, before our eyes appear figures from the Khrushchev (or even Brezhnev) era, dressed in frock coats and uniforms of the tsarist era. So, for example, Pikul’s Empress Maria Fedorovna whispers to Alexander III at an official reception: “Sasha, I beg you, don’t get drunk!” (!) What Pikul didn’t say about this queen! She allegedly scandalized at the time of the death of her royal husband and the accession of her son to the throne; she allegedly remarried. Pikul clearly neglects the memoirs of that time. And there were many people who left their memories of the queen. For example, Foreign Minister Izvolsky testifies: “She was a charming and infinitely kind woman. She softened with her friendliness and illuminated with her charm the reign of Emperor Alexander III... Without hesitation, she advised her son reasonable changes, and the situation was saved in October 1905 with her assistance." Pikul clearly likes the younger brother of Emperor Nicholas II - Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. But he too is depicted in a distorting mirror. Thus, the author forces him to publicly beat Rasputin near the fence of the imperial Tsarskoye Selo park, as if he were not the Grand Duke, but a vigilante on Mayakovsky Square. I didn’t even recognize my own father. Pikul writes: “... a black-mustached, wiry man with a predatory gypsy gaze, Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, sat down in a well-warmed (ministerial - A.S.) chair.” “A wiry man,” reporting to the Tsar about state affairs, behaves like a hooligan. The Tsarina exclaims, turning to the Tsar: “Lounge in front of you in a chair, grabbing your cigarettes from the table.” In the novel, my father smokes both his own and other people’s cigarettes without tired. Yes, and a lot to drink: ... closing his eyes bitterly, he sucked down the lukewarm Armenian with some indignation (?! - A.S.). In fact, my father never smoked a single cigarette in his entire life. When there were no guests, we only had mineral water on the dinner table. Mother often said: “Our house is like that of the Old Believers: no cigarettes, no wine, no cards.” When Pikul writes about the dachas of that time, he imagines a closed zone near Moscow: “Having crumpled up his work day, Stolypin went to Neidgart’s dacha in Vyritsa,” he reports. Firstly, the “Neidgart dacha” (obviously belonging to my mother, née Neidgart) did not exist at all. As for the “crumpled working day,” I myself, from my childhood memories, could have a lot to object to. I prefer, however, to quote Izvolsky’s words: “Stolypin’s ability to work was amazing, as was his physical and moral endurance, thanks to which he overcame extremely hard work.” Member of the State Duma V. Shulgin testified that P. Stolypin went to bed at 4 o'clock in the morning, and at 9 he already began his working day. According to Pikul, my father’s right hand, when he was governor of Grodno (1902-1903), was shot by a Socialist Revolutionary terrorist. Wrong. Stolypin's right hand had been functioning poorly since early youth (rheumatism). Subsequently, this even intensified when he was governor of Saratov: one Black Hundred pogromist in June 1905 hit his father’s right hand with a cobblestone when he was protecting a group of zemstvo doctors from reprisals. The novel describes a scene that allegedly took place in the First Duma, that is, no later than June 1906, when Stolypin was still Minister of Internal Affairs. “When the Duma became enraged and began shouting that he was a satrap, Stolypin raised his fist above himself and said with amazing calm: “But you won’t be intimidated.” In fact, something similar happened almost a year later, when my father was already prime minister. There was no raised fist, and the words mentioned were not a separate remark - they ended his response speech on March 6, 1907 at the opening of the Second Duma: “All of them (the attacks of left-wing deputies - A.S.) come down to two words addressed to the authorities: “Hands up!” To these two words, gentlemen, the government, with complete calm, with the consciousness of being right, can respond with only two words: “You will not intimidate!” Pikul cites a conversation of historical significance that allegedly took place between Stolypin and the Octobrist leader A.I. Guchkov in the Winter Palace in August 1911. Firstly, we had not lived in the Winter Palace for a good 2 years (we lived on Fontanka, 16). During the second half of July and all of August, my father was not in St. Petersburg: because due to cardiac fatigue, he first took a 6-week leave. He interrupted it twice to preside over meetings of the Council of Ministers - at the end of July (in connection with the preparation of the Kiev celebrations) and on August 17 (due to events in Outer Mongolia). The meetings did not take place. in the Winter Palace, and on the Islands in the Elaginsky Palace. On September 1 (14), 1911, in the Kiev theater (before Bogrov’s shot rang out), the royal box was allegedly “occupied by Nicholas II and his wife.” In fact, Alexandra Feodorovna remained in the palace. In the box with the tsar were his daughters Olga and Tatiana, as well as the crown prince of Bulgaria (later the tsar) Boris. He arrived in Kyiv at the head of the Bulgarian delegation to participate in the opening of the monument to Tsar-Liberator Alexander II. Pikul doesn’t know about this or doesn’t want to know. But the Bulgarians remember. Several years ago I received a letter from the exiled Bulgarian Tsar Simeon in which he recalled this event. Pikul writes that even in pre-war times, the Dowager Empress Maria Fedorovna, due to some whim, moved to Kyiv for permanent residence, taking with her her second husband, Prince George Shervashidze. In fact, the move took place at the end of 1915 or at the beginning of 1916, and not because of a whim: the tsar moved to Headquarters and it was easier for the tsarina to communicate with her son from Kyiv. Moreover, the time has come for Rasputin’s political influence in St. Petersburg. Prince Georgy Shervashidze held a position at the tsarina's court in St. Petersburg, but was not in her close circle. He did not follow her to Kyiv (and then to Crimea). I share the feelings of the Soviet historian Irina Pushkareva when she writes: “The novel distorts the interpretation of the era, mixes up the emphasis in assessing the historical process, and incorrectly characterizes a number of historical figures.” (Literary Russia, August 2, 1979) I would like to say a few more words about the explosion on Aptekarsky Island on August 12, 1906. We will forgive the author for the fake depiction of this tragedy...