The solution to the problem of personality in the stories of Yu. Trifonov (“House on the Embankment”). Thesis: The problem of character in Trifonov’s work “The House on the Embankment” Heroes and images

One of the most famous buildings in Moscow is, in fact, a city within a city - with its own completely autonomous infrastructure, with its own unique contingent of high-ranking residents, with a dramatic interweaving of destinies and life stories during times of repression and regime change.

The house on the embankment, located on Bolotny Island (formal address, Serafimovicha Street, building 2), opposite the Kremlin, was built in 1931 specifically for the elite of the new, Soviet society. The first residents moved in in the middle of the decade. And soon the Great Terror broke out - and many apartments were empty. In place of the disappeared citizens, new ones were settled, but their fate was often sad.
Since then, the monument of constructivism has been surrounded by an aura of unkind rumors. Someone talks about the ghosts of old residents appearing in the apartments. Someone - about a secret passage that went straight into the kitchens so that it would be easier to arrest eminent residents without unnecessary noise. One way or another, the House on the Embankment really preserves the memory of many tragedies of those years.
The list of residents who perished in the Gulag far exceeds the list of those killed in the Great Patriotic War...

The house on the embankment is not only a “symbol” terrible years Russia", but also a symbol of the creation of a new country, people who created industry lived here Soviet Union, and heroic polar pilots. Do not forget that in that short pre-war period the country's GDP was increased 70 times!
But of course you also need to remember the price.

The house was called differently: the House of Government, the First House of Soviets, the House of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars... In 1976, Yuri Trifonov's story “The House on the Embankment” was published, in which the writer described the life and morals of the residents of the government house, many of whom lived in the 1930s were arrested and left their comfortable apartments for Stalin's camps or were shot. Thanks to the efforts of Yuri Trifonov’s daughter, a museum was opened in the house itself in memory of the repressed residents of the “House on the Embankment”

The need to build a house for the families of government members and high-ranking leaders arose in 1918, when hundreds of employees moved from Petrograd to Moscow after the state capital was moved there; the housing problem had to be solved.

On June 24, 1927, a decision was made to begin construction of a house for senior employees designed by architect Boris Iofan.
The construction site occupied a block on the artificial Bolotny Island, or rather an incompletely drained swamp that formed back in the 18th century after the construction of the Vodootvodny Canal; in addition, the ancient All Saints Cemetery remained here. One of the legends is connected with the location of the house - supposedly this predetermined the death of its residents.

But the main thing was functionality. The house is located on an island, it was relatively isolated from common people, but was in close proximity to the Kremlin.

building a house on the embankment

Construction. 1928:. From the collection of the Museum of Moscow. At the time construction began, the banks were still earthen, but soon the embankment was dressed in granite and became a place for walks for the residents of the house; a pier for ships and even a swimming pool were equipped right there. A pier existed here before; stone and sand were delivered on barges, and peasants in bast shoes dragged building materials to the shore.

The permanent exhibition of the museum presents the history of the construction of the house (drawings, models, apartment plans, documentary photographs)

The house was designed by Boris Iofan and his architectural bureau in the style of late constructivism. For Moscow at that time it was a grandiose building. The building was high-rise - in those years in Moscow they did not build higher than 6-7 floors, and the House on the Embankment had, depending on the roof configuration, up to 12 floors, 505 apartments, when the apartments were compacted into “communal apartments”, more than 6,000 people lived in the building - the population small town.
This is not exactly a house; in the usual sense, it is a whole complex of closed buildings with courtyards and passages. The area of ​​the territory is about three hectares, and the building complex has 25 entrances.

The building of the house was supposed to be made ultra-modern in order to solve all the everyday issues of the intellectual elite of the Soviet nation, which was supposed to direct all its energy to solving much more important state problems.
Indeed, in the early 30s, the majority of Muscovites did not have access to sewerage and central water supply.

The House on the Embankment had not only all these benefits of civilization. Even the ready-made furnishings of the rooms were luxurious - oak furniture, according to designer sketches by Boris Iofanatipova, but the residents could not change or change anything at their own discretion. The rich property was state property, with inventory numbers, and new residents signed an acceptance certificate for the entire contents of the apartment. One day, the wife of historian Alexander Svanidze got rid of the provided headset and ran into trouble because an inspection took place once a year. I had to pay a huge amount.

There were also kindergarten on the roof, a cinema, a dry cleaner, a canteen, where initially the residents of the house were fed for free, several shops, a dry cleaner, a tennis court and even a club (now the Variety Theater under the direction of Gennady Khazanov). Lawns with fountains were laid out in the courtyards (after the war, the fountains were dismantled and flower beds were installed).

But the biggest miracle for Muscovites in the 1930s was... elevators. The guys living in the house invited the girls on a date - to ride in the elevator!
One of the legends of the House on the Embankment was also associated with elevators. Allegedly, there was a portal in the house to another dimension, where people entered, but from where there was no return exit. But of course many knew what kind of portal it was...
At the height of Stalin’s repressions, no one asked unnecessary questions if, within a couple of nights, all the people suddenly disappeared from the apartment opposite. The less you know, the better you sleep, and there is a chance that they won’t come to you in the middle of the night on a freight elevator - there was, of course, a wiretap in the House.

Yes, Stalin’s repressions affected many, but they naturally affected the highest party and government officials very strongly. The Museum of the House on the Embankment has two lists: those killed in the Great Patriotic War and those repressed. So, the list of those repressed is much longer.

The construction was supervised by People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Genrikh Yagoda, who did not fail to use new home in the interests of his department. On the ground floor there were safe apartments for security officers, and in entrance No. 11 there was only a staircase and windows - no apartments, no elevator. According to the conspiracy theory, the apartments of high-ranking officials who had barely celebrated their housewarming and immediately found themselves under the surveillance of the “competent authorities” were bugged from this entrance. One of the secrets of the House on the Embankment is connected with the absence of the 11th entrance, whether there was a direct passage to the Kremlin and straight to the Lubyanka, or an exit to the basements where residents were shot, and there was even a berth for a submarine... A small light submarine without a massive periscope, so that to swim in the shallow Moscow River it could well take a VIP person on board and save his life in the event of a palace coup or repression.

In the house, which until 1991 was on the special balance of the KGB, only employees of various departments and services, “responsible workers”, heroes of the Civil War, old Bolsheviks, outstanding scientists and writers, employees of the Comintern, heroes of the war in Spain, as well as service workers could live in the house. personnel with an impeccable worker-peasant biography and willingness to serve in the Cheka.

The most prestigious were considered to be the entrances with windows overlooking the Kremlin. There were six- and seven-room apartments, and of course there were also one-room apartments, overlooking the service premises.
Apartments were given according to rank, and not according to money, as now.

By the standards of those times, the residents were very lucky - separate comfortable and fully furnished apartments, decorated with frescoes and stucco. There are elevators, hot and cold water, full provision. No worries or hassle - others could only dream of such luxury. Live, as they say, and be happy.

But this joy was poisoned every day by the poison of fear - “chekists” in black-black jackets and black-black crispy boots, coming at night.
They took the accused and took him to an unknown direction. Then they came for his wife. She was exiled to ALZHIR (Akmola camp for wives of traitors to the motherland in Kazakhstan), and her children were sent to an orphanage. In orphanages, children were renamed, and it was incredibly difficult to find them later.

The children of Stalin himself lived in the House for some time - Svetlana and Vasily, the son of Felix Dzerzhinsky - Yan, the architect of the House on the embankment Boris Iofan (he designed it himself - and lived there);

Among the first residents are Kuibyshev, Marshal Zhukov, Marshal Tukhachevsky (shot in 1937); Marshal Bagramyan, General Kamanin, future Secretary General Nikita Khrushchev, scientists and technical specialists, rocket and space technology designer Glushko, pilot and participant in Arctic expeditions Mikhail Vodopyanov, oncologist surgeon academician Nikolai Blokhin, poet Demyan Bedny, and also Artem Mikoyan, Alexey Kosygin, writer Alexander Serafimovich, in whose honor the street on which the House is located is named. Choreographer Igor Moiseev. The apartment has been preserved in all its details to this day. famous ballerina Ulanova – huge amount people who influenced history.

/fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/evge-chesnok ov/album/173001/view/962819?page=1" target="_blank">
vge-chesnokov/album/173001/view/962817?p age=1" target="_blank">

Separately, among the celebrities who lived in the House on the Embankment is the name of the writer Yuri Trifonov, the author of the story “The House on the Embankment,” which later replaced the original “Government House.”
Yuri Trifonov’s family lived in this house and his parents found themselves in the millstone of Stalin’s repressions in 1937-1938. At the heart of the story - real events that happened to the residents of the House.

November 2, 1989 is considered the birthday local history museum“House on the Embankment”, the director of which is Olga Romanovna Trifonova: “We are in the former apartment, to put it roughly, a guardhouse, and to put it politely, the guard of the first entrance, the most prestigious entrance of the House on the Embankment. After the redevelopment, the museum received another room where the interiors of the living room were recreated.

The museum was organized by a resident of the house, a woman of fantastic energy, Tamara Andreevna Ter-Eghiazaryan (1908-2005). Over time folk museum transformed into a municipal one, and then into a state one.

Visitors are greeted by a stuffed penguin, once brought from a northern expedition by pilot Ilya Mazuruk (either the penguin climbed onto the plane itself, or the pilots took the animal as a souvenir.

The habitat of party workers and the Soviet intelligentsia of the 1930s has been recreated (personal belongings, photographs, original furniture made according to the sketches of the chief architect of the house B.M. Iofan)

All exhibits were donated to the museum by the residents of the house, some were even found by chance. The previous generation dies or sells apartments, new residents move in, they take priceless evidence of history and cultural values: old photographs of famous people, household items and clothing.

For example, they may take out a general's uniform of a major Soviet military leader or glass photographic plates of a famous photographer.
And how many interesting things were told by the old residents of the House on the Embankment!

excursions are conducted with a gramophone turned on

Personal belongings of the residents of the house. Fragment of the Museum’s exhibition “House on the Embankment”

The archives are of particular value and pride to the museum staff. The correspondence of the repressed residents of the building, numerous documents, even personal notes and diaries have been preserved here.

The NKVDEShnik's cap is not real.

Both victims and executioners lived in the House on the Embankment: the bloody G. Yagoda, the people's commissar-murderer Yezhov, Vyshinsky, Kaganovich, or the person who participated in the execution royal family(later Philip Goloshchekin was arrested on charges of Trotskyism and shot). Here everything is mixed up, as in the entire Russian history of the twentieth century.

Portrait of Stalin drawn by one of the residents

Yuri Trifonov wrote a great phrase in his novel “Time and Place”: “These were times of greatness in small deeds.”
For example, the creator of the Botanical Garden, Nikolai Tsitsin, once saw boys with baby. It turned out that the guys heard crying, secretly climbed into the neighbors’ sealed apartment and found a baby in the closet. The academician, favored by the authorities, did not pass by, took the child of the “enemies of the people” and ordered his housekeeper to take him to the village. So he saved one life.

Now it is difficult to separate legends from facts... Among the most “famous” ghosts of the house is the nameless daughter of the army commander. Allegedly, her father and mother were arrested during the day at work, and when they came for her in the evening, the girl refused to open the door, threatening the security officers with her father’s revolver. According to legend, they did not take risks and simply boarded up the windows and doors to the apartment, turning off the water, electricity and telephone. The girl asked for help for a long time, then the screams from the walled-up apartment died down. Since then, the ghost of the army commander's daughter allegedly sometimes appears at night on the embankment in front of the Variety Theater.

In the house with which so many tragically cut-off destinies are connected, there was true story with one of the modern residents of the house, who was haunted by a poltergeist. When they looked up the archives of her apartment, it turned out that during the years of repression, all the residents were shot.
But were there many such apartments in the House on the Embankment? In those years, entire families were shot and exiled, and the vacated areas were quickly repopulated.

Another legend of the House on the Embankment, the boy prophet Leva Fedotov, who in his diaries allegedly predicted the Second World War and that the USSR would initially suffer heavy losses, and the war would become protracted.

In the center of the hall there is an installation dedicated to the people who died in 1937, and nice people from some factory in Ostankino helped find pieces of old-style barbed wire.

The House on the Embankment Museum is not only a museum of the history of all the inhabitants of the house of the 1930-50s, but also the history of the country. A concentrate of history, culture, and politics has been preserved here. Material evidence has been preserved here past life: household items, photographs.
Surprisingly, people of that era continue to live here, some have passed their 100th anniversary. lived and continues to live in the House on the Embankment large number centenarians.

Since 1997, every year in March, exhibitions and “Centennial” meetings have been held, dedicated to the memory of those residents of the House who would have turned 100 years old in the past year.

Elizaveta Alexandrova

The title of the story “House on the Embankment” is the literary name of a really existing house located at 2 Serafimovich Street on the Bersenevskaya embankment of the Moscow River. On June 24, 1927, it became known that all living spaces occupied by government employees were overcrowded. The only way out of this situation was construction that reflected the scale of the era and the statesmen, houses, Government House. The complex of the 12-story building included, in addition to 505 apartments, several shops, a laundry, a clinic, a kindergarten, a post office, a savings bank, and the Udarnik cinema. The apartments had oak parquet and artistic paintings on the ceilings. The frescoes were made by restoration painters specially invited from the Hermitage. The eleventh entrance of the house is non-residential. There is not a single apartment in it. There is no elevator at the entrance. It is assumed that from here either the apartments of residents of other entrances were bugged or some secret rooms are hidden behind the walls. In addition to this entrance, the house had secret apartments for security officers. The security officers worked in the house under the guise of commandants, concierges, elevator operators, and in their apartments they met with their informants or hid mysterious residents. Many residents of the house were repressed by their families.

One cannot miss the fact that many of the author’s works are autobiographical. As a child, Trifonov had a company consisting of four friends - Leva Fedotov, Oleg Salkovsky, Mikhail Korshunov and Yuri Trifonov himself. Each of them served as a prototype for the heroes of the story “The House on the Embankment.” Leva Fedotov, was the “genius of this place”, and later became the prototype Anton Ovchinnikova. Lev was Trifonov's childhood friend. Yuri Trifonov wrote about Fedotov: “He was so different from everyone else! From his boyhood, he rapidly and passionately developed his personality in all directions, hastily absorbing all the sciences, all the arts, all books, all music, the whole world, as if he was afraid of being late somewhere. At the age of twelve, he lived with the feeling that he had very little time, and had an incredible amount to do.” He was particularly interested in mineralogy, paleontology, oceanography, he painted beautifully, his watercolors were on display, he was in love with symphonic music, wrote novels in thick calico-bound notebooks. He was known at school as the local Humboldt, like Leonardo from 7th B. Fedotov arranged and literary competitions, competing in mastery of words with young Trifonov. Moreover, he established the courtyard Secret Society of Test of Will (TOIV), which could only be joined by walking along the railing of the tenth floor balcony. There were other crazy ideas too. In addition to walking along the railings, he also strengthened his will by walking in short breeches in winter. Leva Fedotov became famous thanks to his diaries, which were discovered after the war. This is a total of 15 shared numbered notebooks. 17 days before Germany attacked the USSR, he described in his diary when and how the war would begin, at what pace the German troops would advance and where they would be stopped.

Anton Ovchinnikov in the story completely repeats the fate of Fedotov. “Anton was a musician, a fan of Verdi, he could sing the entire opera “Aida” from memory... he was an artist, the best in school... he was also a writer of science fiction, scientific novels devoted to the study of caves and archaeological antiquities, he was also interested in paleontology, oceanography, geography and partly mineralogy... Anton lived modestly, in a one-room apartment furnished with simple government furniture”; “he was stocky, short, one of the shortest in the class, and, moreover, wore short pants until the late cold weather, tempering his body”

Prototype Himius Mikhail Korshunov appeared, who also wrote several works about the Government House. Prototype Walrus- Oleg Salkovsky, who, just like in the work, was a loose fat man and could not participate in the tests of the TOIV society. According to Olga Trifonova, the writer’s wife, the prototype of another hero of the story is Levki Shulepnikova, could be Seryozha Savitsky, who, like Shulepa, was from prosperous family, but ended up homeless. Levka Shulepnikov's mother, Alina Fedorovna, also has a real-life prototype. “Alina Fedorovna was tall, dark, spoke sternly, looked proudly. ...Something in between the noblewoman Morozova and the Queen of Spades,” Trifonov writes in the story. “Yuri Valentinovich knew such a woman - a beauty, an aristocrat, the daughter white general. She constantly married NKVD employees - those who were investigating the case of her next husband,” Olga Trifonova’s words prove.

In the third-person narrative about Vadim Glebov, the author weaves memories of fleeting moments in the life of a certain hero-narrator, who gives his personal assessment of everything that happens and those around him, analyzes everything through the prism of his perception.

This character also belonged to their company, his name is not mentioned. The prototypes of the hero-narrator's friends were the friends of Trifonov himself. Trifonov lived for some time in the same house on the embankment, like the hero-narrator, and even moved from this house in the same month and year. We can assume that this is the voice of the author himself, Yuri Trifonov.

The author uses a special spatio-temporal composition: he does not present all the episodes in order, but alternates different times and angles of vision. The composition in the work has a circular character; it begins and ends with a time when “none of these boys are now in this world. Some died in the war, some died from illness, others disappeared into obscurity. And some, although they live, have turned into other people.” The story is divided into semantic parts, each of which can be attributed to one of three periods - approximately 1937, 1947 or 1972. These are school ones student years and “present” time.

Thus, Trifonov draws parallels between the given episodes from the lives of both heroes. He shows certain events from different points of view, narrating either from the first person - through the eyes of the “I” hero, or from the third, describing life path Vadim Glebov.

Most likely, in order to avoid the subjectivity of the narration on behalf of one hero, he tries to show readers as widely as possible the era in which the heroes live, their way of life, and conditions. An almost imperceptible thin thread, this “leaden” feeling of pressure on people is stretched through the entire work. He manages to convey the mood that reigned during the totalitarian regime, without describing brutal political scenes such as mass repression, but only everyday, everyday life.

Trifonov also shows Glebov’s character in contrast with “I” - the hero. The hero is a resident of a high-status house, which Vadka Baton is so eager to go from her “Deryugin farmstead”, but at the same time the hero does not boast of it, does not flaunt it. Glebov has to constantly visit this house, see all the luxury of the furnishings, the standard of living: “Alina Fedorovna, Levka Shulepa’s mother, could poke a piece of cake with a fork and push it away, saying: “In my opinion, the cake is not fresh,” and the cake would be taken away.” . This caused misunderstanding and indignation on Vadim. He could not understand this neglect. Everything was new, wild, unexpected for him, and, returning to his dilapidated house, he felt the injustice even stronger, more deeply. Then for the first time the deep feelings of Glebov, his dark side. Envy arose in him, a painful feeling that he would carry throughout his entire life.

An example to follow lyrical hero was Anton Ovchinnikov. A man of broad interests, talented and hardworking. And Glebov strove for Levka Shulepnikov, who loved to lie, was a frivolous, but at the same time kind, open, sociable person. This characterizes them as people of different ideological views and, therefore, antipodes. They perceived the same Sonya, who was selflessly in love with Glebov, differently. “I” considered her ideal: “Where else will I meet a person like Sonya? Yes, of course, nowhere in the whole world. It’s pointless to even search and hope for something. Of course, there are people, maybe more beautiful than Sonya, they have long braids, Blue eyes, some special eyelashes, but all this is nonsense. Because they can’t hold a candle to Sonya.” For Glebov, “Sonya was just an addition to that sunny, many-sided, colorful thing that was called childhood.” He did not belittle Sonya’s merits, but at the same time he did not properly appreciate her feelings for him, he played with them, adjusting them to suit himself. And although later he seems to begin to feel attracted to her, this is nothing more than the result of self-hypnosis. As a child, the lyrical hero develops a dislike for Glebov due to jealousy. He realizes that Glebov is unworthy of Sonya’s love, looks for flaws in him, but sometimes speaks very objectively about Vadim’s behavior: “He was absolutely nothing, Vadik Baton. But this, as I later realized, is a rare gift: to be nothing. People who know how to be in the most brilliant way go far. The whole point is that those who deal with them imagine and draw on any background everything that their desires and their fears tell them.” This is a completely reasonable point of view. Glebov’s father raised him on the “tram rule”: “What he said, chuckling, as a joke - “My children, follow the tram rule - don’t stick your head out!” - was not just jokes. There was a secret wisdom here, which he gradually, shyly and as if unconsciously tried to instill.” We can conclude that Glebov was initially brought up in this way: conformity is felt in his actions throughout his life. As in childhood - the episode with the questioning of Levka’s stepfather about the attack on his son, when he named several culprits, although he himself was partly the instigator, but did not admit it, so in adulthood, when he did not protect his mentor, good friend, Professor Ganchuk . Then the provocateurs Druzyaev and Shireiko, playing on this quality of Glebov, persuaded him to a kind of betrayal. Although he had a choice, due to his conformity, Glebov remained on the sidelines and neither defended the professor, fearing not to be awarded the Griboedov scholarship, nor went against him, since he realized that he would ruin friendly relations with the Ganchuk family, but simply did not come and speak, making excuses by death loved one. He constantly finds excuses for his unworthy actions.

Vadim Glebov subsequently does not want to remember moments of the past. He hopes that if he doesn't remember, it will cease to exist in his mind. But the “I” hero is not afraid of memories, he is sure that they brought useful experience, and even if you don’t remember them, they will not disappear anywhere.

In his work, Trifonov very accurately managed to recreate the atmosphere of that time, to show the greatness of the Government House as independent world, to convey to the reader his role in the fate of the heroes, and, as for Glebov, to show individual person against the background of the era, leaving his actions to the readers' judgment.

References.

1. Trifonov Yu. House on the embankment. M.: Children's literature, 1991.

2. Oklyansky Yu. Yuri Trifonov. M., Soviet Russia, 1987.

3. Vukolov’s prose graduating class. M.: Education, 2002.

Yuri Trifonov’s story “The House on the Embankment” is included in the collection “Moscow Stories”, on which the author worked in the 1970s. At this time, it was fashionable in Russia to write about large-scale, global things in human life. And writers fulfilling social orders were always in demand by the state, their works sold in large circulations, and they had the right to count on a comfortable life. Trifonov was not interested in social orders; he was never an opportunist. Along with A.P. Chekhov, F.M. Dostoevsky and many other creators of Russian literature, he is concerned with philosophical problems.

Years pass, centuries pass - these questions remain unanswered, again and again they arise before people. Man and the era... Man and time... This is the time that takes a person into submission, as if freeing the individual from responsibility, the time on which it is convenient to blame everything. “It’s not Glebov’s fault, and not the people,” goes the cruel internal monologue of Glebov, the main character of the story, “but the times. So let him not say hello at times.” This time can dramatically change a person’s fate, elevate him or drop him to where now, thirty-five years after his “reign” at school, a person who has sunk to the bottom is squatting. Trifonov considers the time from the late 1930s to the early 1950s not only as a certain era, but also as the fertile soil that formed such a phenomenon of our time as Vadim Glebov. The writer is not a pessimist, but not an optimist either: man, in his opinion, is the object and at the same time the subject of the era, that is, he shapes it. These problems worried many Russian classics. They occupy one of the central places in Trifonov’s work. The author himself said this about his works: “My prose is not about some philistines, but about you and me. It’s about how each person is connected to time.” Yuri Valentinovich wants to analyze the state of a person’s spirit. The problem of what happens to a person, with his ideas throughout life, is revealed in the story “The House on the Embankment” using the example of Vadim Glebov.

Glebov's childhood defined him future fate. Vadim was born and raised in a small two-story house, which was located on the same street as the house on the embankment - “a gray hulk, like a whole city or even a whole country.” Even in those distant times, Glebov began to experience “suffering of inadequacy”, envy of the inhabitants of this house. With all his might he reached out to them, trying to please them. As a result, Levka Shulepnikov even became his best friend; everyone willingly accepted him into their company.

A person’s natural desire to please others, to prove himself well, to make an impression gradually develops into real conformism for Glebov. “He was somehow suitable for everyone. And this, and that, and with these, and with these, and not evil, and not kind, and not very greedy, and not very generous, and not cowardly, and not a daredevil, and seemingly not a cunning one, but at the same time time is not a simpleton. He could be friends with Levka and Manyunya, although Levka and Manyunya could not stand each other.”

Since childhood, Vadim was not particularly strong-willed; he was a cowardly and indecisive person. Many times in his childhood he got away with his cowardice and vile acts. And in the case of the beating of Shulepnikov, and when Vadim betrayed Bear, and when he told Sonya about walking along the railing so that she would save him, Glebov always acted like a coward and a scoundrel, and he always got away with it. These qualities progressed in him with incredible power. Not once in his life did he commit a brave act; he was always a mediocre person, representing nothing of himself as a person. He was used to hiding behind other people's backs, shifting the entire burden of responsibility and decisions onto others, and was used to letting everything take its course. Childhood indecisiveness turns into extreme spinelessness and softness.

During his student years, envy of the prosperous, wealthy Ganchuks and Shulepnikovs eats up his soul, displacing the last remnants of morality, love and compassion. Glebov is deteriorating more and more. During these years, as before, he tries to gain the trust and please everyone, and especially the Ganchuks. He does this well: the lessons of his childhood were not in vain. Glebov became a frequent guest in their house, everyone got used to him and considered him a family friend. Sonya loved him with all her heart and was cruelly mistaken: there is no place for love in the soul of an egoist. Concepts such as pure sincere love, friendship, were alien to Glebov: the pursuit of the material eradicated everything spiritual in him. Without much torment, he betrays Ganchuk, abandons Sonya, ruining the rest of her life.

But Vadim Glebov still achieved his goal. “People who know how to be brilliant in a different way advance far. The whole point is that those who deal with them further imagine and draw on any background everything that their desires and their fears tell them. They're not always lucky." He became a popular man and became a Doctor of Philology. Now he has everything: a good apartment, expensive, rare furniture, high social status. The main thing is missing: warm, tender relationships in the family, mutual understanding with loved ones. But Glebov seems happy. True, sometimes conscience still wakes up. She pricks Vadim with memories of his vile, base, cowardly actions. The past, which Glebov so wanted to forget, to push away from himself, which he so wanted to disown, still emerges in his memory. But Glebov, it seems, has learned to adapt to his own conscience. He always reserves the right to say something like: “What, exactly, am I to blame for? The circumstances turned out that way, I did everything I could.” Or: “It’s no wonder she’s in the hospital, because she has such bad heredity.”

But even in childhood, the beginning of Vadik Glebov’s transformation into an absolutely spineless scoundrel-conformist began, who, however, now lives comfortably and goes to various international congresses. He walked towards his goal long and persistently, or maybe, on the contrary, did not show any moral and volitional qualities...

Yu. Trifonov, in his story “The House on the Embankment,” remarkably succeeded in revealing the problem of man and time. The writer loves to connect time, past and present, and shows that the past cannot be cut off: the whole person comes out of there, and some invisible thread all the time connects a person’s past with the present, determining his future.
Read the news.

At the center of the story “House on the Embankment” are the same problems as in the story “Exchange”. This situation of choice, when a person is faced with a dilemma, whether to transgress or not to transgress a moral law, is a correlation between true and false, compromise and betrayal.

The main characters of the story - Glebov and Shulepa - go through this path, although each in their own way.

Describing Glebov’s family, Trifonov tries to show the origins of that betrayal and, in general, of that “philosophy of life” that his hero will follow throughout his life. From his mother he inherits the energy and desire to get out of the social environment in which he finds himself, and from his father his cunning and “worldly wisdom”, which boils down to the principle of “keep your head down,” fawn over those above you and be ready for meanness for the sake of profit. (the story of how he opposes “intercession” for a relative, then gets along with his wife, etc.). A similar desire to try to extract benefit from everything is characteristic of Glebov already from early childhood. He skillfully “trades” his “connections” - the opportunity to take his classmates to the cinema. But in comparison with Shulepa’s “opportunities,” which Shulepa has thanks to her stepfather’s high position, Glebov’s “power” turns out to be ridiculous. And this gives rise to envy in him. Everything that Glebov undertakes in the future is one way or another dictated by self-interest, the desire to extract the greatest benefit from his actions. So, having found himself in the Ganchuks’ house as a student of the famous professor, after some time Glebov begins to estimate his chances of extracting the greatest dividends from this circumstance. With Sonya, who sincerely loves him, from the very beginning he “plays a game”, as he begins to understand that all the material and other benefits of the Ganchuks may well belong to him through her. Glebov also “plays a game” with the old professor, adjusting to what he wants to hear from his best student. The duality of Glebov’s position, when his scientific supervisor at the institute begins to be bullied, the reluctance to make a choice, which in any case leads to some losses, is in many ways reminiscent of Dmitriev’s position from “Exchange”, only here this the position is deliberately laid bare by the author even more. Even Shulepa is outraged by the dishonesty of her former comrade - the desire to get everything in full and at the same time “not to get dirty.” Trifonov essentially shows the process of gradual degradation of personality (it is no coincidence that an analogy is drawn with Raskolnikov, who, by killing the old money-lender, that is, having committed a crime, thereby kills the human element in himself). Tragic fate Sleepyheads and the subsequent loneliness of the elderly professor lie almost entirely on Glebov’s conscience.

Shulepa is a kind of “double” of Glebov in the story. What Glebov strives for, what he painfully envies, Shulepa has from the very beginning. He is not faced with the task of breaking out of insignificance and poverty; a high position, as well as everything that his peers can only dream of, surrounds him from childhood. Nevertheless, he is well aware of the price paid for this: power comes from his stepfather (first from one, then from the other), that is, it is based on the ability of Shulepa’s mother to “settle well” in life, to find a wealthy and powerful patron . Shulepa is familiar with the feeling of shame and humiliation from this state of affairs, and as a kind of defensive reaction, he has cynicism, he knows well the “value of people,” unlike, for example, Sonya, who has a sincere feeling for Glebov and does not evaluate people “inwardly.” Perhaps this is why Shulepa does not consider it shameful to treat others condescendingly (unlike Sonya), thereby compensating for her own humiliation. It is precisely because Shulepa was initially given more that he ultimately turns out to be a more integral person and a more honest person than Glebov. He finds the courage to stop “playing a role” and dress up in someone else’s clothes. However, having tried to become himself (at the end of the novel he appears under his own last name), Shulepa can no longer do this - and as a result, he “breaks down”. Permissiveness and disregard for everything that is considered obligatory for “mere mortals” is not in vain for Shulepa. Drinking, working as a loader in a furniture store, and then in a cemetery is a natural result of such a life path.

Other characters in the story are also distinguished by their desire to “catch”, to build their lives not on real merits, but on intrigues and the creation of imaginary scientific works. These are those whom Ganchuk calls “bourgeois elements”, who were not finished off by himself during the “purges” of the 20s, and WHO organize persecution against him at the institute. The merits of the professor himself are by no means imaginary, and his family lives with a sincere interest in science. They are open to the people around them, cannot tolerate being served, and try to communicate with everyone on equal terms. But this turns out to be their main problem. Ganchuks are too detached from life; a sincere desire to see the same decent and integral people in those around them leads to the fact that they cannot figure out in time who they are dealing with. They do not notice what is happening to their daughter, for a long time they do not realize Glebov’s increased interest in the apartment, dacha, elevator and other benefits that the Ganchuks have earned, but which are not something important in their lives (it is repeatedly emphasized that that the professor’s main asset is his unique library). When Yulia Mikhailovna understands what Glebov is, it is already too late. In desperation, she even tries to bribe him with real “bourgeois” things - jewelry.

In fact, Glebov does not commit treason (his grandmother, with her death, frees him from the shameful speech at the meeting), but the readiness to commit treason is essentially treason. Nevertheless, Glebov does not feel a sense of guilt, and to be more precise, he diligently displaces it from his own consciousness. The career he has been striving for for so long is finally opening up to him. And despite the fact that now, after so many years, he understands that he committed meanness then, this will in no way affect his life. Regretting the complete meanness, he will nevertheless enjoy its fruits, unlike the same Shulepa, who at least had the courage to honestly face the truth.

Trifonov’s next work after “Impatience” is
the story “Another Life” (1975) testified that pi
satel has entered a new phase creative development. At first I
it may seem that here he is developing the same life plan
teria, as in “Exchange”: misunderstanding of two people, husband and wife,
their marriage is a clash between two clans, two models of attitudes towards life.
Olga Vasilievna from the world of people who are quite mercantile and
pragmatic, behind Sergei Troitsky is his mother, women
on with principles. But in “Another Life” Trifonov comes to the fore
puts forward a conflict of incompatibility between people, even those who love each other
friend, tries to understand the nature of misunderstanding - that mental,
the moral soil that gives birth to it. And he discovers
that misunderstanding has, one might say, an ontological character
ter: the reason for the incompatibility of two people is their differences
attitude towards existence itself, towards existence, varies according to
understanding the essence of human life.
Olga Vasilievna is a chemist by profession and researches, by the way
speaking, the problem of biological incompatibility. And as a spice
worksheet working with molecules and cells, it is simple and clear
but explains the essence of human existence: “It all begins
and ends with chemistry.” And Sergei is a historian by profession, but like us
noted above, Trifonov’s historian is a bearer of a special, du
a spiritually-seeking attitude towards life. This is his understanding of the essence
person:
Man is a thread stretching through time, the thinnest
the nerve of history, which can be split off and isolated, and along it
define a lot. Man, he said, will never be reconciled
with death, because it contains a feeling of infinity
a thread of which he himself is a part.
Sergei believes that man is not a molecule after all
polar, but spiritual, that it exists not only in scanty physical
ical limits - between birth and death, but also in infinite
wide historical expanses, penetrating into the past and future
thoughts, guesses, interests, hopes.
Sergei sets himself the task of looking for “threads”, connecting
connecting the present with the past. This turns out to be very difficult for
soul work, because the threads that stretch from the past,
“fraught, very fraught.” Unwinding them, he penetrates almost
237 mystical feeling of misfortune. Maybe in the “excavation” activity itself
Is the digging of graves something infernal? Or maybe from a rut
rich historical past, like from old burial grounds,
some kind of mortal poison bursts out - the poison of knowledge, the poison of demon
merciful knowledge? And yet we must look for these threads, because
“if you can dig deeper and deeper, then you can
try to find the thread going forward.”
This is the philosophy of history professed by Sergei Troitsky
as a form of overcoming oblivion and death. There is no doubt
nious humanity and morally demanding character of this
philosophy. But its bearer himself becomes a victim of the environment, I live
cabbage soup according to the biological laws of the struggle for existence: when
Sergei refuses to cooperate with the pseudo-scientific “clique”
mi" and "bundles" - for example, it does not provide an alcove for
a very helpful boss and his mistress or refuses
give part of his dissertation to his boss, he is not allowed to work.
And Sergei cannot stand it: he abandons his dissertation, carried away
is interested in parapsychology, entertains himself with sessions of summoning spirits,
In the end he dies - his heart can’t stand it.
But the whole story is constructed as an internal monologue of his widow,
Olga Vasilievna, remembering the past. Moreover, these memories
the heroine's passing is presented in a multi-layered, unique way
polyphonic orchestration of narrative discourse. Olga
Vasilievna, remembering her recently deceased husband, makes a reverence
gap of the past, remaining true to its chemical fearlessly
truth, she mercilessly “digs” herself as deeply as possible, and in her
everyone's memories come back to life former voices and positions.
Here, for example, is Olga Vasilievna’s recollection of how
she behaved when Sergei came from the meeting where they “ruined”
his dissertation:
She continued to teach him passionately. Low irritation seethed. He
He waved his hand and went out somewhere. A minute later he returned from his suitcase
nom. She did not immediately understand that he was about to leave, and when he
said that he would go to Aunt Pasha for a few days, which was absurd
Honestly, no one invited him to Vasilkovo, there was nowhere to live there, all
Aunt Pasha’s relatives have already moved from the cells and sheds to the hut,
summer was over, she got angry and couldn’t restrain herself, and thunder
ko screamed that this was flight, cowardice, and that if he now
goes to the village, she relieves herself of responsibility for his health
rovier and won’t give him any money at all. She screamed absurdly, shamefully, how could she
but yell only in great anger.
In this passage, the zone of the impersonal narrator includes
several hero zones. The speech zone of Sergei, who said, “what on
“He’ll go to Aunt Pasha for a few days.” The area of ​​Olga’s speech at that time
Vasilievna: “This is flight, cowardice... and generally will not give him deeds.”
238 neg.” The area of ​​Olga Vasilievna’s speech today, her self-esteem:
“She passionately continued to teach him.<…>Screamed nonsense, shame
But". And all this together. Such a complex polyphonic narrative
tion in formal monologue speech- this is a unique phenomenon
nie in our literature, this is a genuine discovery of Yuri Trifo
new Through such an organization of speech, where consciousness itself
Olga Vasilievna stratifies into many faces and enters
in dialogues with other consciousnesses, the author reveals the process of mu
a thorough spiritual revision by the heroine of herself.
The central conflict of this story is by no means
Let's move towards denunciation of "philistinism". Paradoxically, this
news of love - Olga Vasilievna’s love for Sergei. All my
life she loved him, loved him despotically, desperately, fearfully
lose, sadly experiencing his failures, willingly for the sake of
his success is to do everything and sacrifice everything. She's permanently stunned
this love, the most amazing thing is that she is isolated by it even
from Sergei. The real Sergei is constantly replaced in her perception
tia a certain object in need of guidance and care. "News
him by the hand and teach him with pain and contrition of heart" - here
her position. Hence the constant substitution of his way of thinking, his
her own views, hence Olga Vasilievna’s “thick skin”,
her “lack of feeling”, inability to accept another life as another
I feel like it doesn’t coincide with mine.
Next to Olga Vasilievna Trifonov places other va
Options for spiritual isolation. First of all, these are modern “but
good people" - pragmatists, "iron kids", like Genka Kli-
flour, clearly and unambiguously measuring everything and everyone’s benefit to themselves.
Alec represents a no less aggressive type of spiritual isolation
Sandra Prokofievna, Sergei's mother. It seems that in all respects she
a man of crystal honesty and integrity, directly about
The opposite of cynical pragmatists. But Trifonov discovered
It is clear that the mother’s integrity, developing into dogmatism and
intolerance is no less isolating than selfish
the pragmatism of the “iron kids”, that the tone of the “metal comics”
Sarsky firmness,” with which she categorically imposes
their races, is as unacceptable for a decent person as
and cynical proposals of all sorts of tricksters. Direct antecedent
Alexandra Prokofyevna’s teacher was Ksenia Fedorovna from “Ob
“mena”, mother of Viktor Dmitriev. But the remark regarding the “non-
bending thoughts" of Ksenia Feodorovna passed casually, not
this was the main thing in her image - she was a passive figure.
As for Alexandra Prokofievna, intolerance and doctrine
nervousness are dominant in her character, and they play dumb
important role in escalating a tense psychological atmosphere
around her son. The author clearly indicates the source
nickname of these personality traits of Alexandra Prokofievna: during the years of civil
239 of the Danish War, she served as a typist in the political department, and already
on the first visit to the Troitsky apartment, this is exactly what “was about
it means right away: no match for other mothers, not just a beginner
an old woman, but a history maker.” Alexandra Prokofievna herself
is proud to belong to the generation of old revolutionaries
oners, because this - according to Soviet mythology - gives her
moral right to judge and pass sentences in any matter
du. But Alexandra Prokof’s demonstrative commitment
Evny's revolutionary past gets an ironic treatment in the story
Chinese lighting, right down to the caustic grotesque. At least
purely external description: Alexandra Prokofievna “not long ago
dressed up in ancient khaki pants, an incredible jacket
times of war communism." Of course, one could attribute
such a description is based on the conscience of Olga Vasilievna (she is a subject with
knowledge) who has special feelings for her mother-in-law. But
and Sergei after another discussion with Alexandra Prokofiev
noah remarks: “But you, mommy, during this time remained completely
completely untouched. Kind of an achievement." Yes, sometimes without
the personal narrator cannot resist sarcasm, here's how, on
example, he describes the gesture with which Alexandra Prokofyevna
completes another pathetic roulade:
My loved ones will not leave for me - I repeat, for me! -
completely without a trace. They will stay here. - She spanked
palm on the place in the middle of the chest where she placed it in minutes
cardiac weakness mustard plasters.
In such a context, where on the one hand the mother, petrified in
archaic revolutionary dogmatism, and on the other - “iron
kids,” it is clear that Sergei’s efforts, no matter what he does
(whether it’s “digging up graves” or magical sessions on call
spirits), have always been aimed at overcoming the total
isolation, in search of a penetrating understanding of someone else's
"otherness". In a similar way, Sergei undertakes metaphysics
technical attempts to go beyond the limits of one’s “I”, to establish a con
tact with another, understand another. And the position of social and historical
cultural disagreement between people is just one of the consequences
of this metaphysical principle: to understand “otherness” or,
on the contrary, to level it out and limit it in every possible way.
But, most importantly, it is Olga Vasilievna who realizes the spiritual
Sergei’s project: to overcome the isolation of one’s “I”, to reach out to another
mu, to understanding the other. This is, in essence, what this article is dedicated to.
news from the very first pages. “And again I woke up in the middle of the night,
how I woke up every night now, as if someone was habitually and
he angrily woke me up with a push: think, think, try to understand!” Olga
Vasilievna wakes up the same way Sergei woke up. Now
she is tormented by the same pain in nature that did not let him go. She, like him, digs up a grave. He was digging up a grave
connected with the history of the Moscow secret police, she unearths
history of my relationship with Sergei.
She is trying to restore the coherent logic of fate, to enter
living, open contact with the past, gone forever. She
trying to open his isolation for another life, for a life
Sergei. She, just like him, suffers from “lack of feeling”
close people, mother-in-law and daughter. She, like him, is alone
ka in his attempts to understand, and through the unity of pain came
gives a feeling of connection. She begins to suffer from the same pain and the same
the same reason that Sergei. "Every touch is pain, but life
consists of touches, because there are thousands of threads, and each
torn from the living, from the wound.” The image of the thread that was known
kovym from Sergei, migrates already into the consciousness of Olga Vasil
Evny.
And then it becomes clear that with her torment, with her torment
by threads from memory I comprehended Sergei’s covenant about infinity
threads and that they are “fraught.” If she had previously argued with
Sergei’s idealism, now understands differently: “My God, if everything
begins and ends with chemistry, why does it hurt?” After all, pain is not
chemistry, chemistry and pain - that’s all that death and life consist of.
Chemistry is death, and pain is life. Here is the formula of tryphons
cultural philosophy of universal connection in the first, purely psychological
skom approximation. Just this feeling of pain, birth in the soul
condolences for the pain of another person - this is the first con
tact with the other, this is the recognition of the other and his “otherness” as
self-valuable and not allowing rude interference and
lia phenomenon.
It is no coincidence that the author ends the story in an almost surreal way
a picture of Olga Vasilievna’s dream. Through a dream the heroine seems to
overcomes the threshold of being/non-being and comes into contact with Serge
eat, which physically no longer exists, but spiritually she is united with him
was struggling in the process of painful comprehension of his “otherness”, according to
little involvement in his spiritual search and suffering.
Olga Vasilyevna dreams that she is walking with Sergei through the forest, passing
walks past the fence, they see some sick people, they are looking for the highway
behold, some woman volunteers to guide them and “they provide
standing in front of a small forest swamp.” But after the surreal
static sleep, interrupted by the alarm clock, begins
reality, however, it is also depicted in the same unsteady surreal
literary manner, like a dream, so that the reader cannot immediately
understand where the heroine is now - on this side or on this side
reality.
Here in real world Olga Vasilievna met someone else
person. He has his own family, his own job. He's not young anymore
was unwell, “and she was tormented because he was sick away.” Your
241 by caring for him, Olga Vasilievna seems to make up for that sympathy
the presence that she so lacked in her relationship with Sergei. Fi
The central chord of the story is:
Once we climbed the bell tower of the Savior-Lykovskaya Church
vi. It was difficult to climb, he stopped twice on a stone
on the stairs, was resting, and when they climbed to the topmost flat
sparingly, to the sound of the bell, their hearts were beating strongly, and they both accepted
validol. They saw: Moscow was going into darkness, it was glowing and
towers fell, lights disappeared, everything there turned blue, merged as if in
memory. If she strained her eyes, she could see the high
mud "Gidroproekt" not far from his house, and he could find
the foggy cap of a skyscraper on Vosstaniya Square, next to
which he lived. There was a wind above, it suddenly blew with a sharp gust,
she reached out to him to shield him, to save him. He hugged her. And she
I thought it wasn’t her fault. It's not her fault, because her life is different
was around, was inexhaustible, like this cold space, like
this city without an edge, fading in anticipation of the evening.
The very rhythm of this narrative period creates a feeling
fragility, a poetic elegiac state, and this is its
its kind of rhythm of sympathy, condolences, co-experience.
Trifonov said that in his works the afterbirth
these years, starting with “Exchange,” he tried to achieve a “special”
volume, density: “on a small bridgehead it’s possible to say how
but more." (This refers to psychological density, density
information, descriptions, characters, ideas1.) And indeed, in
each of his “Moscow (or city) stories” the writer
tests the genre, as they say, in different “modes”. Here and there
tion, organized by a strict plot (“Exchange”), and ret
perspective space-time composition (“Pre-
strong results"), here is a confession ("Preliminary results"), and
depiction of the world from the perspective of two people, close and alien
simultaneously (“The Long Goodbye”), and the narrative is not in the form
actual direct speech, where the voices of the main character are intertwined
ini and the narrator (“Another Life”).
In the story “House on the Embankment” (1976), Trifonov seems to
collected together many of his findings from previous years. Here gentlemen
there is Trifonov’s favorite narration - “the voice of a car
ra, which seems to be woven into the hero’s internal monologue”2. But
the interweaving of the voices of the author and the hero has an extremely wide
amplitude of oscillations: from emphasis in the narrator’s speech
even the temporary, age-related characteristics of the hero’s speech, from the merger
fusion of the author's voice with the hero's voice until complete separation from
1 Trifonov Yu. In a nutshell - infinite (The conversation was conducted by A. Bocharov) // Questions
literature. - 1974. - No. 8. - P. 191.
2 Ibid.
242 him and highlighting the author’s voice in separate comments and
characteristics of the hero.
Constructing the work as the memories of the main character, Three
Fonov gave a psychological motivation for retrospective pro-
space-time composition. And the overlap of two plots,
chronologically designated 1937 (the apogee of the Great Ter
Rora) and 1947 (the beginning of a new round of pogrom ideologists
ical campaigns), allowed the writer to reveal the essence of that
personality type, which is personified in the image of Glebov -
type of person “nothing”, all-pleaser, all-weather, easy to
adjusting according to the first signals coming from time.
The author shows how, as he matures and matures, this psychological
the type gradually grows into a social type, into a figure of “conscience”
the greatest servant of any evil at any historical time.
Thanks to the shape inner monologue hero his spiritual world
visible from the inside. Therefore, the author manages to reveal the psychological
Glebov's conformity mechanics: it turns out that the process itself
adaptation to one or another conjuncture occurs almost
irrational, one might say, on a physiological level. Here
some drunk student who happened to be at a party
from the professor's daughter, asks: “Guys, is there something wrong with me?
I understand, but who is screwing the hostess? This same Sonechka?<…>In such
tower to scurry." Glebov, along with other “lads”, is outraged
is overwhelmed by the cynicism of these phrases, and then feels “that maybe
beat Sonya,” and indeed, this “tall, pale girl,
somewhat thin”, which before Glebov “didn’t worry about
se”, “even interfered” with useful communication with her father, a professional
rum Ganchuk, “then, finally, I began to worry.” But about
Professor Ganchuk fell under the wheel of another ideological campaign
panic, and Glebov, who has almost officially become a groom
Sonya begins to feel a cooling towards her (“Suddenly you become
caresses, touches, even simple words, He
moved away, grew gloomy - the gloom was completely invincible
ma, embraced against my will"). That is, not even consciousness, but vegeta
Glebov’s nervous system adapts to the “vibes”
one or another campaign, and thus a complete object is found
tive justification for his betrayals - at least for himself,
for inner peace of mind, and in front of others you can
delight in references to the will of history, the force of time, power
circumstances, etc., etc.
But the voice of an impersonal narrator, growing into a monologue
hero and turns into a commentary, gets to the bottom of the backbone
Glebov's personality, and at the basis of his behavior reveals two
driving force: envy and fear. The author's voice reaches the pamphlet
noah causticity: “The hero is a waiter, the hero is a procrastinator
box of rubber." Finally, Glebov’s behavior is associated with
243 by the giving of Judah. (The Judas motif is heard in Glebov’s dream scene
after he betrayed his teacher: “Glebov dreamed
dream: in a round tin box from a Montpensier there are cress
you, orders, medals, badges, and he goes through them, trying not to sin
be careful not to wake someone up. This dream with medals in tin
This box was then repeated in his life.” It's the same image
thirty pieces of silver, slightly updated by time.)
However, such rhetorical methods of condemning the innocent
fundamental conciliation no longer suited the author of “At Home”
careful" quite. Because in this case the Glebovs still have
This is a justificatory argument: “Condemn, do not condemn, but against the times
You won’t go with me, it’ll twist whoever you want.”
Therefore, it was important for Trifonov to show the same time, but with
the other side, with different eyes. That's why the story also includes
one subject of consciousness is the lyrical hero, “I”. He's the same age
Glebova, his classmate. But the consciousness of the lyrical hero is in everything
antithetical to Glebov’s consciousness. Moreover, the contrast is carried out
very clearly and even harshly: through a comparison of their idols (ba
catch of fate of Levka Shulepa, whose stepfather is a big boss
nickname along the line of the GPU, and the strict autodidact Anton Ovchinniko
va, the son of a deceased border guard), boyish ways
statements, relationships with Sonya, etc. By comparing the memories
the author puts and decides on the moments of the lyrical hero and Glebov
a request for choice in the most difficult circumstances of the time. There is only one time.
But people with different values ​​live at the same time.
landmarks. This means the choices they make and the busy
As a result of the choice, positions will differ from person to person.
What explains the different landmarks and different positions?
Before giving a positive answer to this question, Yuri Tri
von strongly challenges mechanistic determinism,
which directly outputs moral essence personalities from the class
owl origin of man. Mechanical determinism oops
sen because it removes personal responsibility from a person. But
the founders of the ideas of mechanistic determinism in the story okaz
come... people of the old school, from that same legendary region
Menu of “fiery revolutionaries”: Professor Ganchuk, his soup
friend Yulia Mikhailovna and her sister Aunt Ellie. "God, how boring you are
zhuazny,” condemns Yulia Mikhai almost with disgust
Love of Glebov, who has gotten into her family. She and her learned husband
quite seriously discuss the social origins of their pros
Tivnikov - some are from small shopkeepers, and some from the railway
Rozhnikov. The comedy of the situation is that the “bourgeois” Gle
Bov grew up in a semi-impoverished family of a Soviet employee, and Bolshevik Yulia
Mikhailovna and her sister are in the family of a Viennese banker, however,
bankrupt, and the grandfather of the former security officer Ganchuk served as a saint
puppy
244 I But if in “Another Life” the revolutionary arrogance “de-
Alexandra Prokofievna’s history maker discredited
was filled with comic details and ironic intonation, then in
"The House on the Embankment" discredits old dogmatists
ripetas of life itself, which are embodied in a special, accompanying
no to the main conflict, storyline. Professor Ganchuk
continues to live in captivity of the ideas that developed in the first
years Soviet power, he himself enthusiastically creates a hero from the past
ical legends, proudly recalling how he “cut down” his enemies
and “all sorts of learned young men in glasses”: “The hand did not tremble when
Yes, the revolution ordered - hit!” Creating an image of his speech, Three
backgrounds are superbly parodied by the sweeping, tooth-crushing
jargon of the times civil war and the fight against all sorts of "deviation"
mi": "Here we dealt a blow to Bespalovism... It was a relapse,
I had to hit hard... We gave them a fight..."; "Half-baked
a high school student with a hidden cadet or modern
psychology accuses me of underestimating the role of class struggle
would... Yes, let him pray to God that he didn’t fall into my hands at twenty
that year, I would have traded him as a counter!” This mythology Gan-
Chuks teach the younger generation, pass on to them the inheritance of the vul-
garno-sociological formulations, which, like a club
we operated in the past. And now, in the forties, with a new
political situation, new dogmatists, only already mastered
butted up against all sorts of romantic ideals, all sorts of Dorod-
new and Shireyki, cynically use all these mythological
rarities and vulgar sociological labels as a means of
the collapse of the professor himself. The fundamental difference between
Ganchuk and those who are now “throwing a barrel at him”, no: “They
They just temporarily swapped places. Both are waving checkers.
Only one is already a little tired, and the other was recently given shash
“ku in the hand,” summarizes Glebov, from a very close distance
This is clearly visible.
A tragic and farcical plot in which the venerable ideologists of the mechanists
statistical determinism become victims of vulgar socio-
logical schemes that they themselves implanted fits into
persistent dispute that goes on behind the scenes between Glebov and his op.
ponentami - about a person’s ability or inability to fight
stand up to historical circumstances. After the first meeting
with a witness to his betrayals, Glebov puts forward his most
main defensive argument: “It’s not Glebov’s fault and it’s not the people
and times. So let him not say hello at times.” Develop everyone
Trifonov refutes the plot and the fate of all his characters
this argument: at any time, responsibility remains with the person
century!
How is an indestructible moral character formed in a person?
core? And why does it form in some people and not in others?
245 The answer to this question follows from the comparison between
commemorations of Glebov and the lyrical hero. And so compositional
the move takes on a special meaning.
Glebov doesn’t want to remember: “...he tried not to remember. That,
what was not remembered ceased to exist. This was not the case
When". By the way, Levka Shulepa, who turned into a drunkard,
“I also didn’t want to find out.” Yes, and lonely old Ganchuk “doesn’t
I wanted to remember. He was not interested... He was happy to
was talking about some serial drama that was broadcast
on TV."
But the lyrical hero values ​​​​memory: “I remember all this
nonsense of childhood, losses, finds..." - this is how the first one begins
ric "introduction"; “I remember how he tormented me and how I
however, he loved him...” - the beginning of the second “introduction”; "And yet
I remember how we were leaving that house on the embankment...” - beginning
third "introduction".
Glebov, committing another betrayal, is in a hurry to leave
over time, break ties, forget lessons. Therefore, in his memory
In our opinion, life appears kaleidoscopically torn: out of thirty
in the seventh year he jumps to the forty-seventh, then turns
appears immediately in the seventy-second year. And the lyrical hero reverently
preserves the memory of the past, it stretches the history of childhood, according to
therefore brings it to the end of October forty-one
(in the dense coordinate grid of dates and references that exists in
story, this countdown is also significant - the people who remained in Moscow
ve after October 16, symbolized perseverance and faith). And then,
at last meeting, Anton Ovchinnikov will say that the recordings
writes down all the details of his current life in his diary, and writes this one down too.
meeting at the bakery: “Because everything is important to the story.”
What Anton, who later died on the front, began to do
those realized by the lyrical hero. In the author's plan, give him
played a key role, this is evidenced by his own confession
Trifonov’s statement: “The lyrical hero is necessary, and he carries within himself
no less content - but maybe more! - all
the rest of the book." What mission does the lyric perform?
Chinese hero in “The House on the Embankment”? He is the keeper of history
skaya memory. This is the same historian as Grisha Rebrov from Long
farewell" or Sergei Troitsky from "Another Life". But at the end of the day
from them, he extracts historical experience from biographical
the time of his generation. And he fulfills the mission of a historian not
by professional calling, but by moral duty: he
restores memory, arms itself with it and arms the reader
tel. He does not bring back the past (what the former darling dreams of
1 Letter from Yu.V. Trifonov to N.L. Leiderman dated August 29, 1978 //L and t.gaze
ta. - 1991. - March 27. - P. 13.
246 fate, and now the cemetery gatekeeper Shulep), he warned
cuts and teaches from the past. This is the main function of the lyrical
hero in "House on the Embankment".
The antithesis of unconsciousness and recollection has the principle
great significance in the concept of the story “House on the Embankment”. In this
the antithesis sounds not only a moral verdict on betrayal,
doomed to break with history. In it, this antithesis, hears
and an alarming warning about the danger of unconsciousness, for
for which the lessons of history were of no use. Finally, in this antita
This is an indication of the force that can block the road to evil
and expose the true face of the “unconscious” and therefore free
from reproaches of conscience, constantly keeping the Glebovs’ nose to the wind.
This power is the memory of people, this is the ability to draw lessons from history.
ries, carefully preserve and carefully study the acquired history
ical experience. This is, according to Trifonov, the core of morality.
human foundations that guide him in his resistance to circumstances
in overcoming evil.
Thought about moral role historical memory has already sounded
in “Another Life”, in Sergei’s speeches. But in "House on the Embankment" she
embodied in artistic structure, was specified in
actions of the heroes, passed the test of artistic logic
world of the work.
“House on the Embankment” is undoubtedly the most “dense”
story by Yuri Trifonov. But, as we see, the genre structure
it is built from the methods inherent in the story of subjective and pro
spatio-temporal organization of narrative and image
nia. However, if in the stories of previous years these methods worked
“one by one”, then in “The House on the Embankment” they all participate together
ste, coordinating with each other. And yet, apparently, Yuri Tri
backgrounds was concerned with the need to emphasize the internal
the correlation of all voices, all space-time
layers in the work. There are no other reasons to explain
there are additional “braces” in the structure of “House on the Embankment”.
Firstly, Trifonov used the inherent race of Chekhov
I’ll tell you the method of “block” construction’. If we compare, for example,
the story of Glebov's first, pre-war betrayal
ry of his betrayal in the post-war period, we will find under
the marked uniformity of situations, the arrangement of characters, lo
plot movement geeks. “Blocky” will be in relation to the sun
memories of Glebov, memories of the lyrical hero, they
they are consistently opposite.
Secondly, the author considered it necessary to introduce into the structure of “Houses on
embankment" such proven organizing elements as
1 See: Fortunatov N.M. Architectonics of Chekhov’s short story. - Gorky, 1975. -
pp. 67-109.
247 prologue and epilogue. In the prologue, just like an overture, the main
motives, moreover, here in a deliberately reduced, everyday
material (Glebov’s daughter Margosha decided to get married) in
in a reduced form, the collision of choice and completion is “played out”
She makes a decision typical of Glebov: “Let everything go as it should.”
on the move." And in the epilogue it is condensed, ultimately contrasted by
position of historical remembrance and responsibility lyrically
the hero's position of historical omnivorousness, easy flirtation with
Time. (It is no coincidence that next to Glebov in the epilogue is
Alina Feodorovna, mother of Shulepa, courtesan in history, me
taking husbands depending on the trends of the time.)
Finally, The House on the Embankment has permanent leitmotifs
you, repeating images, also giving additional
strength to the whole. This is, first of all, Glebov’s accompanying “mo”
tive furniture": an antique table with medallions, which I'm chasing
there is Glebov; a huge mahogany buffet in Shulepa's house,
memorable to him; sofa with solid curved back in the cabin
no Ganchuk and the notorious white busts on the closet look very
high ceilings - “not what they’re building now, probably three
and a half, no less.” Repeating parts have become
Shulepa's leather pants and his American leather pants
jacket, the object of Glebov’s envious desires.
Thanks to this construction, Trifonov was able to create in the “House”
on the embankment" is more capacious and complex than in its previous
stories, art world, while he managed to maintain
the inherent focus on analysis of the story genre is more important
neck (according to his thoughts) philosophical, moral, psychological
skaya problem - the problem of “Man and History”. But at the same time
time literally physically feels like the story is bursting
novelistic intention - a feeling of “universal connection of phenomena”,
the desire to find these connections, to “pair” them into artistic
nom overall.