home Calculators

Memories of Vsevolod Nekrasov. Memoirs of contemporaries about Nekrasov. A few days with V.N. Nekrasov

The path to literature for the author of the poems “Who Lives Well in Rus'”, “Frost, Red Nose” and “Russian Women” was a long one. Once in St. Petersburg and not always having money in his pocket even for a full meal, Nikolai Nekrasov began to compose alphabets and fairy tales in verse, which were ordered by publishers of popular prints, wrote vaudeville for the Alexandrinsky Theater, and at the same time worked on more serious poetry, prose, criticism and journalism.

“Lord, how much I worked! ..”, the poet later recalled. But people who knew him were sure that hardships only hardened his character. From a boy sleeping in the slums, Nikolai Nekrasov turned into the editor of Sovremennik, founded by Pushkin himself, and after the closure of the legendary magazine, he headed Domestic Notes.

Avdotya Panaeva, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Fyodor Glinka and other writers and memoirists left their memories of this talented person. We have selected 5 interesting testimonials.

Avdotya Panaeva

The first time I saw I.A. Nekrasov was in 1842, in winter. Belinsky brought him to us to read his Petersburg Corners. Belinsky was expected to play preference by his partners; V.P. Botkin, who arrived from Moscow, also sat with us. After Nekrasov's recommendation to me and to those who did not know him, Belinsky hurried him on to start reading. Panaev has already met with Nekrasov somewhere.

Nekrasov was apparently embarrassed at the beginning of the reading; his voice was always weak, and he read very quietly, but then broke up. Nekrasov looked sickly and looked much older than his years; his manners were original: he pressed his elbows strongly to his sides, hunched over, and when he read, he often mechanically raised his hand to his barely protruding mustache and, without touching it, lowered it again. This mechanical gesture remained with him when he read his poems.<...>

“Belinsky found that those writers who have the means should not take money from Nekrasov. He preached that it was the duty of every writer to help a needy fellow out of a predicament, to give him the means to breathe freely and work as he pleased. He wrote to Herzen in Moscow and asked him to send something to the Petersburg Collection. Herzen, Panaev, Odoevsky, and even Sollogub gave away their articles without money. Kroneberg and other writers themselves were in great need, Nekrasov paid them. Turgenev also gave away his "Landlord" in verse as a gift, but it cost Nekrasov much more, because Turgenev, as usual, having spent the money sent to him from home, was penniless and constantly borrowed money from Nekrasov.

Nikolay Chernyshevsky

Nekrasov’s description of the “second period of journal activity” beginning in 1856 says, among other things, that “the poet’s mental and moral horizon expanded significantly under the influence of the strong movement that began in society and those new people who surrounded him.” - It was not in the expansion of the “mental and moral horizon of the poet”, but in the fact that the censorship framework was somewhat “pushed apart” and the “poet” got the opportunity to write about some of what it was previously impossible for him to write about. limit the expansion of censorship, Nekrasov constantly said that he writes less than he wants; a play is being composed in his thoughts, but there is a consideration that it will be impossible to print it, and he suppresses thoughts about it; this is hard, it takes time; but until they suppressed, thoughts of other plays do not arise; and when they are suppressed, one feels tired, disgusted with an activity that is too narrow.

Fedor Glinka, memoirist

My father, the once famous writer and patriot Sergei Nikolaevich Glinka, met Nekrasov in 1839 with his godfather N.A. French. From that day on, Nekrasov became a frequent visitor to our house. As I see him now, in front of the table, reading French aloud with a funny accent. Nekrasov soon made friends with my older brother S. S. Glinka (still alive to this day) and settled with him at the corner of Nevsky Prospekt and Vladimirskaya Street, in a house now occupied by the Moskva Hotel. They occupied a number of rooms on the third floor, decently decorated with their own furniture, transported by a brother with old apartment on Liteinaya, where he had a printing house. All upholstered furniture was upholstered in red fabric; I mention this because after my brother's departure from Petersburg, Nekrasov, when meeting with me, constantly demanded this furniture, although, according to his brother, it did not belong to him at all. When I went to see my brother, I mostly found Nekrasov lying on the sofa; he was constantly, or seemed, sullen and spoke little.

Ekaterina Zhukovskaya, memoirist

Returning from the village in the autumn, he often came to us in the evenings to read this or that poem he had just written, or simply to talk about editorial matters. He read in an extremely original way, completely different from how other poets of that time read: he did not enter into pathos and did not howl, but read in some kind of sepulchral voice, which was greatly facilitated by his constant hoarseness.

Distinguished by his wide scope, he represented an amazing mixture of a broad nature with a certain stinginess, which was found mainly in trifles.

So, everyone was once surprised by a bad translation of some French novel, placed in the Sovremennik, where, for example, the word esprit de corps was translated - "spirit of the body" - and the like.

Some began to reproach Pypin for skipping such a transfer.

Yes, it's not me! This translation was placed by Nikolai Alekseevich himself! He bought it from an unknown translator.

Someone in my presence reproached Nekrasov for this.

Sin beguiled! he laughed. - The small one seduced me with cheapness: he asked for 8 rubles from a sheet.

Along with this, he did not regret giving large advances to persons whom he recognized as talented and from whom he expected great things, which often was not justified in practice.

Alexey Nikolaevich Moshin, writer

I met Nekrasov and Dostoevsky at Andrei Alexandrovich Kraevsky's, sometimes in a rather large company. All I remember about them is that Nekrasov seemed to me a sweet, amiable, attentive person, a very interesting interlocutor, a witty, often cheerful storyteller. Dostoevsky seemed to be a very stern and gloomy and unsociable person: he entered into conversation and arguments only with a circle of his close acquaintances, he was often sad, dejected and often seemed irritated. A heavy, gloomy, morbidly nervous person - this is how Dostoevsky seemed to me.

Polikarpova Tatyana Nikolaevna

It's just mysticism - Kazan mysticism ... Like in a poem by Vsevolod Nekrasov, where there are stanzas consisting of almost this one word: "Kazan Kazan Kazan \ Kazan what Kazan \ Kazan what \ life\ Kazan what Kazanka"...

Not only was I born and educated in Kazan, wrote a story about her school, and this Kazan the story was published by a magazine "Kazan", almost 30 years after writing, - not enough of all this - “ Kazan» It also turned out to be a poem! And the poem of my old, old friend.

The history of the publication of "95 poems" by Vsevolod Nekrasov

Gerald Janechek

This small episode in the history of Vsevolod Nekrasov's work: the collection "95 Poems" (Lexington, Kentucky, 1985) and its reprint under the title "100 Poems" - is little known (rather unknown after the death of the poet) ... Since the circulation of the first edition was only 10 copies, of which, it seems, only one came to Russia to the author himself, it is quite possible to doubt its existence. It remains for me, the editor-publisher of these two publications, to write about the history of their emergence.

The last soldier of the departed regiment. In memory of Vsevolod Nekrasov.

Vladimir Strochkov

Hard hit. Over the past ten years, poets have been attacked like a pestilence. And among these losses, the most bitter and irreplaceable - which followed one after another almost in a row - in 1996, 1998 and 1999 - the death of Joseph Brodsky, the tragic death of Andrei Sergeyev and the death of Igor Kholin and Genrikh Sapgir, and now, after ten-year pause, exactly on the ninth day after the death of Lev Losev, followed by Vsevolod Nekrasov, the first minimalist poet and the last Lianoz poet.

A few days with V.N. Nekrasov

I. S. Skoropanova

Jeans, a jacket, a cap gave Nekrasov a rather democratic look, but in the crowd he stood out with a certain detachment, even isolation, as if he was circled by an invisible line-boundary, or he was both here and not here. The gaze was mostly directed inward, and only out of the corner of the eye the poet fixed the surroundings. The face is ascetic, with regular, somewhat heavy features; no longer young; but Nekrasov did not look like an old man (until his death), most likely because he did not feel like one.

The dog barks: Vsevolod Nikolaevich ...

Alexander Levin

When the poems of Vsevolod Nekrasov first caught my eye (it was in the early 80s), I, as they say now, did not get it. What is it? - I remember, I was amazed: no rhyme, no music, strange columns with incomprehensible spaces ... But such bewilderment did not last long. At one of the literary evenings of the mid-80s, I heard Nekrasov's performance live and, to my amazement, discovered music in poetry, discovered rhymes and rhythms.

Description of the presentation on individual slides:

1 slide

Description of the slide:

Nekrasov in the memoirs of contemporaries A.Ya. N.A. Dobrolyubov

2 slide

Description of the slide:

Memoirs of I.A. Panaev. I.A. Panaev (1822-1901), an engineer by education, had an excellent literary talent and published several fiction works in Sovremennik. Honest, energetic, hardworking, for over 10 years he was in charge of economic and financial affairs in the magazine. I knew Nekrasov well and never doubted the good and respectable qualities of his heart. Therefore, questions about him, in which at times there sounded a note of irony and a certain gloating glee, touched me to the core. Many tales were erected against him and many of the most outrageous slanders were spread about him. I couldn't answer questions calmly. To each questioner I explained in detail the absurdity of the rumours, and, in support of my assurances, I volunteered to present evidence. It is important for the public to know: was there a contradiction between everything beautiful and good that filled his works, and the moral qualities of the one who expressed this beautiful and good so well? Was there a discord between the good feeling expressed in beautiful verse and the feeling that lives in the heart of the poet? To this I will answer firmly and without hesitation: there was no discord. Nekrasov, in his moral qualities, did not at all contradict the image that he painted with his imagination. He was a gentle, kind, unenvious, generous, hospitable and completely simple man; but he did not possess sufficient firmness of character. Editorial staff of the Sovremennik magazine

3 slide

Description of the slide:

Memoirs of N.G. Chernyshevsky. N.G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) is closely connected with life and creative biography N.A. Nekrasova. Since 1853, he began to publish in Sovremennik. In 1856, going abroad, Nekrasov left him as the sole editor of the magazine. Upon leaving the Pedagogical Institute, Dobrolyubov settled in an apartment that was damp and made an unpleasant impression with its gloomy walls, the plaster of which was old, crumbling, tarnished and dirty. Having visited him, Nekrasov came to me and began a conversation directly with the words: “I just visited Dobrolyubov, I did not imagine how he lives. You can't live like that. We need to find him another apartment. This beginning was followed by a continuation, overflowing with reproaches to me for my carelessness about Dobrolyubov. The dampness of the apartment was especially distressing to him. He said that in case of poor health, D. could suffer greatly if he remained in such an environment. Returning home, Nekrasov immediately instructed his brother (Fyodor Alekseevich) to look for an apartment for Dobrolyubov. He gave the same order to his servant Vasily. When I called on Nekrasov two or three hours after he was with me, he was already talking about the fact that there would be much more difficulties for D. in arranging a tolerable life than I can imagine. It is not difficult to find a decent apartment and furnish it, but it does not mean anything yet. It is necessary to arrange for him to have a good dinner. It is necessary to find some conscientious servant who knows how to cook well. A few days later, he arranged that too. N.G. Chernyshevsky N.A. Dobrolyubov

4 slide

Description of the slide:

Memoirs of A.Ya.Panaeva. (A.Ya. Panaeva (1819-1893) - literary employee of the Sovremennik magazine, writer, common-law wife of N.A. Nekrasov, to whom he dedicated the Panaevsky cycle of love lyrics. She left perhaps the best memories of N.A. .Nekrasov - an outstanding publisher, a talented journalist, an extraordinary and complex person). I heard from Nekrasov himself how he was in poverty at the beginning of his stay in St. Petersburg. He conveyed with humor how he lived in an empty room, because his mistress, wanting to survive her tenant, took out all the furniture in his absence, Nekrasov slept on the bare floor, putting his coat under his head, and when he wrote, he stretched himself on the floor, tired of standing kneeling on the windowsill. Before my eyes, an almost fabulous transformation took place in the outdoor environment and the life of Nekrasov. Of course, many envied Nekrasov that at the entrance of his apartment in the evenings there were brilliant carriages of very important persons; his suppers were admired by the rich gastronomes; Nekrasov himself threw thousands to his whims, ordered guns and hunting dogs from England; but if anyone had seen how he lay for two days in his office in a terrible spleen, repeating in nervous irritation that he was disgusted with everything in life, and most importantly - he was disgusted with himself, then, of course, he would not envy him.

5 slide

Description of the slide:

Memoirs of peasants about N.A. Nekrasov. In 1889, the poet S.D. Drozhzhin published memoirs of the huntsman Sergei Makarovich, with whom Nekrasov hunted in Chudovskaya Luka. It is they who help to understand what attracted Nekrasov to the village, to the peasants. Going on a hunt, I always called the peasants and children to help out there. So it was this time. We came to hunt, and suddenly, according to my calculations, there were more men and children than they should. What to do? I began to scold and drive away those who were superfluous; the gentleman heard this, came up to me and asked why I was chasing them. I explained that a lot of extras that I didn't hire. The master grinned, and left everyone, good soul. The hunt this time was a success. The master killed the bear, and gave the peasants another 50 kopecks in addition to the promised payment. And how the children loved him, the deceased! Wherever he came, everything, as it is, this little thing, it happened, and dumped out to meet him - and they are always waiting for him, like a bright holiday. He loved them very much, well, they clung to him. Once we arrived in one village, the frost was terrible, but it was necessary to make a round-up, the master, on the occasion of a severe frost, forbade me to take the children, and when I recruited only adults, almost all the children raised a roar. Nikolai Alekseevich asked me why they were crying. I replied that "hunting fit." "Here, fools!" - he said, called the children and gave them gifts. “But what can I say,” said Makarych, sighing, “there are no such gentlemen as the late Nikolai Alekseevich today, and, perhaps, there won’t be ...

They say that only good things should be said about the dead or kept silent. I do not know how correct this is, especially when it comes to outstanding personalities, what was Nekrasov. It is the business of people to evaluate all aspects of a person's soul and forgive him for his sins, if at least part of his good sides make amends for the bad ones. In addition to all the good things he expressed in verse, Nekrasov, like any living person, was not alien to the weaknesses inherent in any ordinary person. I would be very sorry if the reader saw in my memoirs some kind of hidden malice or revenge. If an evil feeling towards Nekrasov sometimes stirred in me, then it was buried along with his death. His long suffering redeemed in my eyes all that bitterness that I sometimes felt against him. Standing at the grave with calmed feelings, I contemplate the past with the impartiality of a chronicler, and if some unquenched feelings stir in me, then these are rather feelings of love for all the distant, irretrievable past associated with my youth ...

Let us return, however, to Nekrasov: I do not touch upon either his social activities or the assessment of his poetic works, since I do not consider myself competent enough to add anything to the assessment made by his late co-editor and collaborator A.N. Pypin. I cite only those private facts of his life that manifested themselves directly before my eyes and came into contact with our personal life, mine and my husband, Yuli Galaktionovich.

I met Nekrasov in April 1864. I stopped by the editorial office of Sovremennik to talk about one article with Antonovich. Antonovich was not there yet. I found one Sleptsov, with whom I was talking when Nekrasov entered. Taking Sleptsov aside, he asked him who I was and asked him to introduce himself to me at once. Even before the banning of the People's Chronicle, he offered Yulii Galaktionovich, through Pypin, to give money in order to turn this newspaper into a daily newspaper. Julius Galaktionovich agreed and fussed about a new editor in view of Akhsharumov's rejection of the responsible editorship, when suddenly it was closed by the highest command. Now, having met me, Nekrasov began to explain to me that he was fascinated by the journalistic articles of Yuli Galaktionovich in the People's Chronicle and therefore would very much like Yuli Galaktionovich to take a closer part in the editorial board of Sovremennik, not being limited exclusively to scientific articles, as was the case until now. since.

Of course, I advised him to turn to Yuli Galaktionovich himself, which he soon did.

Since then, Nekrasov and I have become close acquaintances.

Distinguished by his wide scope, he represented an amazing mixture of a broad nature with a certain stinginess, which was found mainly in trifles.

Some began to reproach Pypin for skipping such a transfer.

Yes, it's not me! This translation was placed by Nikolai Alekseevich himself! He bought it from an unknown translator.

Someone in my presence reproached Nekrasov for this.

Sin beguiled! he laughed. - The small one seduced me with cheapness: he asked for 8 rubles from a sheet.

Along with this, he did not regret giving large advances to persons whom he recognized as talented and from whom he expected great things, which often was not justified in practice.

So, to one young writer who wrote a good story, he not only gave an advance, but also made his apartment available during his temporary absence from St. Petersburg. Returning, he did not find the writer at home, but only a letter from him, in which the latter asks to forgive him for the meanness he committed. Having received this letter, Nekrasov was confused and began to confer with the employees present, what kind of meanness could be discussed. Different assumptions began to be made.

Suddenly his man Vasily enters and with a gloomy face asks:

Nikolai Alekseevich, where did you hide your pins?

Yes, they are under glass in a hill.

There isn't one.

Let's go look: under the glass there is not a single pin, some of which were of great value. Nekrasov laughed happily.

Oh, what a scoundrel, because how it was frightened! And I was afraid of God knows what!

He was well aware of his weaknesses and often confessed to us his sins, which were involuntarily forgiven him: so sincere and simple was repentance, and his conversation was entertaining and intelligent.

In practical terms, Nekrasov had an extremely light view of the fulfillment of promises, since they were not formalized in an official way.

On one of our Sundays, Nekrasov brought us news of the issue of the first domestic loan. Almost everyone who had money, and those who did not, wanted to get such a loan, including me. Having dreamed about winning 200,000, many began to agree on who would give how much to whom if they won, and asked the witnesses to shake hands. When I turned to Nekrasov to part my hands, he said to me:

Throw, Ekaterina Ivanovna, all these precautions: as soon as you win, don't give a penny to anyone.

What do you! - I exclaimed, - we're on parole.

And honestly, nothing will help when you get the winnings in your hands! he laughed at my amazement. - Trust an experienced person.

Despite the seriousness of his tone, I was still ready to explain his remark as a joke. Unfortunately, his further and, moreover, immediate actions showed that such was his general view of money relations and word of honour.

So, before the subscription in 1866, when, with the permission to do without prior censorship, the subscription assumed a much larger size, Nekrasov promised to share the profits with the main permanent employees. Half of the amount from a subscription in excess of 4,000 subscribers (covering all the expenses of the publication) was to go to him, the other to the three main employees: Yuli Galaktionovich, Pypin and Antonovich. When one of them hinted at Nekrasov in January about his promise, he replied that everything would be the same for the time being, that, in fact, he got excited, that the expenses were more than he expected. The employees were delicate people, embarrassed and inept in money matters, and therefore left with nothing, they only laughed at the kulaks of Nekrasov.

In the same year, in the summer, we lived with the Antonovichs at a dacha in Lesnoy after the closing of Sovremennik, when Nekrasov came to say goodbye to us, leaving for the village. He told us that, in view of force majeure, he did not consider himself obliged to return the money to subscribers, that he still had to pay some debts on the old accounts of Sovremennik.

But for the three of you (Yulii Galaktionovich, Antonovich and Pypin), I ordered the office to issue 1,000 rubles each, and then we'll see.

Thanked. A day later, Pypin came to us and brought 500 rubles to be divided among three people instead of the promised 3,000.

Zvonarev (the head of Sovremennik's office) assures us that Nekrasov ordered that this money be given out for the time being, and we will receive the rest upon his return. There are some unpaid bills,” Pypin said.

Having moved to the city in the autumn, after the trial of Yuli Galaktionovich, we had to make ends meet, and therefore we waited for Nekrasov to return from the village in order to receive from the Sovremennik office the money he had promised to pay for the apartment and the most urgent debts. He returned at last and appeared to us on Sunday evening, apparently hoping to find company with us as before. Meanwhile, after the panic caused by Karakozov's shot, after the searches, everyone somehow became discouraged and stopped gathering at each other's and went in more one by one, when it was necessary; and in general, few more have moved to the city, and therefore Nekrasov found only us alone. He behaved without the usual simplicity and cordiality, somehow unnaturally cold. He did not apologize for ordering only 500 rubles for three instead of the promised 3,000, and did not say a word about his intention to fulfill his promise. He said, among other things, that all summer long they sent him money to the village for a full annual subscription, just to get 5 books of Sovremennik with articles by Yuli Galaktionovich "The Question of the Young Generation." I tried to push Yuliy Galaktionovich slowly so that he would take advantage of this story and remind him of money. But always incredibly scrupulous in money matters directly related to himself, Julius Galaktionovich did not dare to speak, hoping that Nekrasov would speak himself. But Nekrasov did not speak. There was talk of trial and verdict. Angry with Nekrasov's behavior, I remarked to him:

Surprisingly kind and accommodating person Alexander Nikolaevich Pypin. After all, the articles "The Question of the Young Generation" were published when you were signed by the editor. Remember, you still came to persuade Yuly Galaktionovich not to delete from the proofs some passages that he had crossed out. But Alexander Nikolaevich was sued for nothing and sentenced to imprisonment. I hope that at least you will sit, and not him.

Well, I'm ready! - Nekrasov answered embarrassed.

In the end, Pypin still had to sit out, to whom Nekrasov, wanting to appease, sent money and a fine not given up to 1000 rubles.

Departing from us, Nekrasov, as if in passing, said:

I order Zvonarev to send you a fine (100 rubles) tomorrow.

From this I saw Nekrasov's full intention not to pay the rest of the money, and since our situation was almost hopeless, I followed Yuli Galaktionovich, who got up to see Nekrasov off, and sternly said to him:

Ask the same, otherwise we will soon be evicted from the apartment.

Yuly Galaktionovich had nothing to do at such a mention; he was inspired by courage and said to Nekrasov:

What about the money you promised in the spring?

Yes, yes, I will! - and hurried out. The next day, Yuliy Galaktionovich was brought 100 rubles from the office to pay the fine. No matter how poor we were, nevertheless, such an act of Nekrasov could not but outrage us, like a handout to a beggar; because Julius Galaktionovich refused these 100 rubles. Three hours later, Nekrasov's footman brought 300 rubles from him, with a note from the latter in which he said that he reserved the right to pay the rest of the money or not to pay, depending on the circumstances. And Julius Galaktionovich sent this money back with a note in which he said that he wanted to receive his due, and not a handout, depending on his mercy.

To this, Nekrasov considered it necessary to write that he saw from the return sending that Yuli Galaktionovich did not particularly need money, and therefore would give it to someone more in need.

Yuli Galaktionovich showed both these notes the next day to Pypin, who had come to us, who shook his head at them, and gave them to him as a keepsake:

Maybe you will find it useful for your literary characteristics.

On this we broke off relations with Nekrasov until we met with him at Unkovsky. We kept a low profile and avoided talking to him. He felt awkward and tried to appease us. By the end of dinner, he read us his new poem on a then contemporary topic: "The Search."

Wanting to somehow smooth our relations and soften my severity, he said:

There is also about you, Ekaterina Ivanovna, - and he read it.

The next day Unkovsky comes to us and says:

Just now Nekrasov came to see me. He came to repent, he says, help, dear, I feel like a perfect pig in front of Zhukovsky; I was ashamed to look into my eyes yesterday. I am indebted to him: I owe him a thousand rubles, how can I give them back to him? - I said: "Very simple, go and give, if you must." He nevertheless considered it necessary to send me in advance. How, he says, will Ekaterina Ivanovna (i.e. me) receive me?

Soon he really came excited, apologized to Yuli Galaktionovich, gave the money and began to express various projects about some new publication instead of Sovremennik. We parted with the fact that as soon as he combines something, he will inform Yuli Galaktionovich.

I am sad to remember the time associated with the merger of Nekrasov with the Notes of the Fatherland, which Sovremennik did not stop scolding and bullying for so many years.

The reaction that ensued after Karakozov's shot decided to sweep away all somewhat liberal journals and not allow such people with a liberal name like Nekrasov.

Otechestvennye Zapiski, which fell with the prosperity of Sovremennik, was of almost no benefit to Kraevsky; in order to raise them, names were required. And since the society was liberally disposed, Kraevsky came up with the idea of inviting his former enemy, Nekrasov, to join his firm, giving him complete control over the editorial staff, and Kraevsky’s long-term conservative direction, as it were, served as a guarantee of the journal’s reliability to the government.

The merger of Nekrasov with Kraevsky seemed at first to be something monstrous; At first, no one wanted to believe, but since it remained almost the only way out, they found it possible to take part in the new edition of the "Notes of the Fatherland", but all together.

Antonovich, in writing from abroad, asked Yuli Galaktionovich to take upon himself the protection of all his interests in relation to cooperation in the "Notes of the Fatherland", if Nekrasov invited him, which neither Antonovich nor anyone else doubted. But since Nekrasov, spoiled by big profits, now had to share with Kraevsky, he first of all conceived to reduce salary and fee expenses. Taking advantage of the absence of Antonovich, he expressed a desire to get the cooperation of only Yuli Galaktionovich and Pypin. After discussing such a proposal, Julius Galaktionovich and Pypin found it impossible to throw Antonovich out. This would have been all the more unpleasant for Julius Galaktionovich, since Antonovich handed over his interests to him, as I wrote above, expressing in advance the certainty that Julius Galaktionovich could not act badly. In view of the then cramped position in which we were, Nekrasov's offer of 250 rubles instead of the previous 300 rubles was still a great resource for us, and Yuli Galaktionovich and Pypin were ready to agree, but only with Antonovich, with whom they were connected by partnership. Nevertheless, Nekrasov refused to cooperate with Antonovich, as he was dissatisfied with his polemics with Dostoevsky and Strakhov in Sovremennik. Similarly, he refused any guarantees in the sense of participation in profits. Julius Galaktionovich and Pypin attached great importance to the spirit of the corporation and found it impossible to participate in the complete removal of Antonovich and refused. They did not even want to inform Antonovich of the real reasons for their refusal to participate in Fatherland Notes out of a sense of delicacy, so that he would not think that they were internally reproaching him for the embarrassed position in which they found themselves thanks to a sense of camaraderie. He was only told that they were repulsed by the kulaks of Nekrasov, who now, having received the magazine without cost and risk, since he was hiding behind Kraevsky, offered worse conditions only because he knew for sure that they had nowhere else to go and they were backed up to the wall. They were incorrigible idealists, whose words did not differ from their deeds. Yes, and they did not think that the admirers and admirers, who so recently honored Yuli Galaktionovich, who was acquitted in the first instance, would so quickly retreat from him under the influence of the reaction and begin to throw mud and printed accusations of self-interest at him for this, since Nekrasov explains why his former employees do not participate in him, he said that they ask a lot and do not agree with him. for 50 rubles. In refutation of these rumors, Julius Galaktionovich and Antonovich published a pamphlet, which provoked attacks against them by all those who wanted water from Otechestvennye Zapiski and wished to serve the latter.

Nekrasov's attitudes towards women were far from being correct. So, his well-known and undisguised relationship with Avdotya Yakovlevna Panaeva, to whom he mainly owed his well-being, at one time took on a very ugly character. Living with her almost in the same apartment, door to door along the front staircase and connected directly with his back rooms, he not only shamelessly hosted a Frenchwoman, which was insulting to Avdotya Yakovlevna's pride, but gradually reduced the latter to the role of a housekeeper, settling a Frenchwoman opposite of his apartment, on the other side of Liteinaya, in Tatsky's house.

Once he came to warn Avdotya Yakovlevna that he would not go to the club, but would take a bath, and asked her to take care of his dinner, which she ordered. At the time of his supper, a table was laid for two in her dining room, where he usually ate. But instead of Nekrasov, his footman appeared, seized both appliances and the finished dish, and took everything to the Frenchwoman, declaring that Nekrasov would dine with her after the bath.

In this state of affairs, Avdotya Yakovlevna did not find it possible to stay longer with him. Since Sovremennik, founded by Panaeva's husband, who, in addition to his own money, invested the money she received from Ogareva, did not formalize his property in any way, and with his death Nekrasov was the sole owner of this magazine, her situation became very difficult in the absence any documents. She turned to Yuli Galaktionovich and asked to speak with Nekrasov regarding her financial affairs. Julius Galaktionovich, not entering into her calculations regarding Panaev’s money, who long before his death remained only her fictitious husband, believed that Nekrasov, having lived with her for almost 20-25 years and being a rich man, was obliged to provide for her and therefore not considered it possible in this case to refuse mediation, at least risking a complete break with Nekrasov in the event of the latter's refusal.

Fortunately, Nekrasov not only agreed with the arguments of Yuli Galaktionovich, but felt a surge of extraordinary tenderness for him, which he expressed to many of our mutual acquaintances: "Here is a man!" he said. I am glad that I can mention this, so that I would not be suspected of complete hostility towards Nekrasov, who was precisely attractive with his wide swings and completely unexpected transitions. He agreed to give Panaeva 50,000, which he could not sell now in integrity, but handed them over with bills of exchange to Abaza, from whom he won 300,000 around that time, which were also paid to him in bills.

After that, Panaeva left Kraevsky's house and soon married the late secretary of Sovremennik, my former comrade in the commune, Apollon Filippovich Golovachev. Avdotya Yakovlevna Panaeva at that time was about fifty years old, and she was fifteen years older than Golovachev; nevertheless she was so clever and attractive that this wedding did not surprise anyone.

Golovachev remained incorrigible until the end of his days. Of course, he left the secretariat, having married Panaeva. He was somehow arranged as the manager of the printing house of Prince Golitsyn. Accustomed to living widely and hospitably, Avdotya Yakovlevna Panaeva continued her former wide way of life and, after leaving Nekrasov, very soon lost 50,000, in which her husband, always careless, helped her. Subsequently, when he broke up with her and Avdotya Yakovlevna almost fell into poverty, holding on only with allowances from the Literary Fund and a subsidy given to her by her niece, Kraevsky's daughter, Bilbasova, Nekrasov, thanks to the mediation of her sister, who maintained good relations with Panaeva, more than once helped the latter and bequeathed to her his income from the Notes of the Fatherland.

Nekrasov's act with another woman came out even ruder. He brought a young beautiful widow from the Yaroslavl province, where he became friends with her...

At one time it was said that he would marry her, and he introduced her as a bride in the Gaevsky house. However, several months passed, the wedding was not heard.

The late Saltykov once remarked in a conversation with us: "I'm afraid that he will do some dirty trick with her too; a pretty woman, only, it seems, too simple-minded: he will soon get bored." Indeed, Saltykov's predictions soon came true.

Once this widow came to say goodbye to the Gaevskys, and with tears she said that Nekrasov had become ruder and colder with her: he no longer mentioned the wedding, and the other day, after he had an orgy, in which ladies of the half world and French women from cafes took part , when she came with reproaches and asked: "What do I have to do with it?", - he answered in the most cynical way: "To sleep with me when I want to." - "Then I'll leave." - "And with God: it's amazing how women do not understand when it's time for them to leave." She left.

Now such rude antics are not uncommon. Modern morals have become remarkably coarse. Today's novelists of the latest formation elevate sexual lust, unbridledness and animal instincts to the ideal of life. It was not so in our time. There were mistakes in choosing a wife, but in any case, they first of all looked for a person, a friend, and not just an appetizing body. Therefore, Nekrasov's antics inspired resentment even to his closest friends.

Nekrasov's last lover was the most dexterous and managed to bring him to the marriage ceremony just before his death. He was married lying in bed, and he had to order a camp church, which cost several thousand. His wife was uneducated, the daughter of a military clerk, and very pretty.

Regarding this novel - if one could call Nekrasov's last whim a novel - I recall a small incident: Nekrasov rented an apartment for this Zinochka in Povarsky Lane, just opposite the apartment of Antonovich, with whom at that time he completely broke up. The lane, as you know, is narrow, and the windows of Zinochka's apartment were not hung, so that the Antonovichs, against their will, could observe the gentle evolutions of the couple. Once Antonovich, interested in what was happening on the contrary, took up the binoculars and was just noticed by a particularly effacing Nekrasov. The latter immediately stopped his tenderness near the window and the next day moved Zinochka to another apartment.

According to those who knew Nekrasov closely, recent times During his illness, his future wife finally took possession of him, held him in her arms and only pretended to look after him in front of outsiders. She took all the cash from him, according to his sister, with whom Nekrasov did not cease to be friends until his death and to whom he bequeathed his compositions.

In general, as he once expressed to Yuli Galaktionovich, he loved his dog most of all, with whom he took pictures more than once. One day he came to us completely upset and said that his dog was missing, and throughout the evening he mentioned this loss more than once with longing.

So it turns out that one should not become so attached to animals, ”July Galaktionovich remarked to him.

Why, it was my only serious attachment in life! he exclaimed in despair.

Zhukovskaya, Ekaterina Ivanovna (nee Ilyina, pseudonym D. Torokhov) (1841-1913), translator, memoirist.

At present, the preparation of a volume of memoirs about the outstanding Russian poet Vsevolod Nekrasov is being completed in Moscow (compiled by - Galina Zykova and Elena Penskaya). The essay by Sergey Leibgrad brought to your attention was written specifically for this publication.

Remembering Vsevolod Nekrasov is excruciatingly difficult and joyful for me. For me, he is one of the most important Russian poets of the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, constantly present in my speech consciousness. Genius, forgive me for the odious and completely meaningless word, which returned the possibility of expression to Russian poetry.

This is what became the reason for our acquaintance, this is what I have been telling my Samara students, literary friends and ordinary listeners of the Ekho Moskvy radio station in Samara for a quarter of a century. A strange and terrible "offense complex", Nekrasov's "Klaas's ashes" is still pounding in my heart. Unfortunately, the topic of being crossed out, hushed up, destroyed, forged, excluded and destroyed by its systems (Soviet, post-deground, "Groys" and "German") inevitably turned out to be at the center of our conversations, and sometimes disputes. And only on the margins of these conversations of ours did the paradoxical artistic, literary-critical, art history and human originality of the unique poet and thinker Nekrasov manifest itself. Its burning precision, organics and depth. Naturalness and inevitability, freed from inertia. concentration and freedom. That is, something without which it is impossible to imagine living Russian poetry before and after conceptualism.

I met with Vsevolod Nikolayevich only ten times. The same number of times, maybe a little more, we talked with him on the phone. My editorial papers contain a lengthy "offended" letter from Nekrasov. The letter was written in January 1996, right after the New Year holidays. In addition to reproaches in an attempt to “distance himself from his point of view,” Vsevolod Nikolayevich also sent a wonderful poem about Samara, dedicated to me and the photographer Sergei Osmachkin (it was published on the Circus Olimp + TV portal on February 9, 2013).

On July 16, 2007, at his dacha in Malakhovka, I took, as it turned out, the last video interview in his life. By a strange coincidence, this happened on the day of the death of Dmitry Alexandrovich Prigov, an outstanding Russian poet and his "sworn friend", whom he unfairly considered one of the culprits of his "deletion" from the new Russian poetry.

My personal acquaintance with Nekrasov took place in September 1995. The initiator of our meeting was the poet and younger friend of Vsevolod Nikolaevich Alexander Makarov-Krotkov. Just at that time, I managed to find a sponsor for the publication in Samara of the modern art bulletin "Circus Olympus". Sasha became the representative of the publication in Moscow. And the goal of this thick black-and-white newspaper almost exactly coincided with Nekrasov's desire - to give readers and writers the most accurate and honest picture of modern Russian literature and poetry, first of all. Without forerunners in the person of Georgy Obolduev, Mikhail Sokovnin, the Lianoz and Conceptualists, it was pointless to talk about “other literature” or “postmodernism”. Among those from whom I, as an editor, was going to build on, in order to then publish the authors of my generation and the next after him, were Vsevolod Nekrasov, Dmitry Aleksandrovich Prigov, Lev Rubinstein, Mikhail Aizenberg and Viktor Krivulin.

Sasha Makarov-Krotkov told me that Nekrasov would like to publish two letters to Norbert Wier, editor of the Essen magazine Schreibheft. Nekrasov unsuccessfully sent these programmatic texts about the "falsification" of contemporary Russian art, primarily the so-called conceptual poetry, and the "leadership" of domestic uncensored art by Boris Groys to Germany through Sabina Hengsen. They did not want to print the texts and the metropolitan publications, frightened by the sharp and merciless Nekrasov assessments of Groys, Bakshtein, Ilya Kabakov, Dmitry Aleksandrovich Prigov.

Nekrasov was looking, on the one hand, for a publication that would not be afraid to print his revealing "letters", and, on the other hand, would be worthy of his ethical and aesthetic requirements. Nekrasov trusted Alexander Makarov-Krotkov, but demanded a mandatory personal meeting with me.

Vsevolod Nekrasov was extremely important to me. I believed and believe now that the author of such a grandiose artistic scale has the right to any, to paraphrase Osip Mandelstam, unresolved statements and radical judgments. This is his personal territory of responsibility, he deserved it with his creativity. I will never agree with most of the accusations against Prigov, but I was sure that Dmitry Alexandrovich, who also became the author of Olympus Circus, would understand and forgive his older comrade.

In September 1995, I was walking through the gloomy autumn Moscow landscape, which for some reason reminded me of the work of Oleg Vasiliev, to meet Nekrasov. At the intersection of Stromynka and Babaevskaya he stood for about former club Rusakov by Konstantin Melnikov. A little girl with a sad adult face explained to me how to get to Bolshaya Ostroumovskaya, house 13.

Before entering the entrance of a nine-story building made of gray silicate brick, I nervously smoked and walked up to the floor I needed. The door was opened by a kind, full-bodied, dressed as if in something summer cottage, Anna Ivanovna Zhuravleva. Behind her stood Vsevolod Nikolayevich Nekrasov, whom I immediately recognized from the photograph. He was wearing an old leotard and some plain plaid shirt in a mixed blue and burgundy. That's how I remember it for some reason. I was asked if there was a place for me to spend the night and was immediately taken to the kitchen.

An old, shabby, cramped “Khrushchev-type” apartment, creaking wooden floors, worn-out slippers, books, folders, boxes, bales, rolls, tablets. "Conceptual" crack in the entire wall. Somewhere in the back of the room, going to the kitchen, I saw the computer monitor turned on. A strange feeling of simplicity, old-fashionedness and careless convenience, modernity and relevance. The computer was new, much more advanced than what I had then.

I did not have time to say anything until they fed me cabbage soup with sour cream, potatoes with meatballs and lightly salted cucumbers with cabbage along with a couple of shots of vodka. And then we talked for about two hours.

I explained the concept of the Olympus Circus, said that I consider it an honor to publish Nekrasov’s texts, at the request of Vsevolod Nikolaevich I “built” a line of living Russian poetry from Mandelstam through the Oberiuts and Obolduev to the Lianozovites - Yan Satunovsky and Vsevolod Nekrasov, and then to Prigov and Rubinstein . He named the names of Aigi, Aizenberg, Kibirov, Druk, Akhmetiev and, of course, Makarov-Krotkov. Nekrasov, hearing the word "Prigov", did not show any hostility. He added Sokovnin, Sukhotin, Alexander Levin to my list, then spoke very warmly about Boris Slutsky, Leonid Martynov and Nikolai Glazkov. He returned to Mandelstam and Yan Satunovsky as to his favorite poets. And suddenly, with incomprehensible warmth, he touched Yesenin and Bulat Okudzhava, as examples of speech poetry. Only after that did Nekrasov tell me what he thinks about Boris Groys, Prigov and the “preparation”. About speech that catches itself on poetry, about concretism and Moscow conceptualism. About the skill that Prigov betrays by compromising and replicating his discoveries. Not to know about art and not to know about science. About how, sticking together in the system, “with all the excitement and greyness” they wipe it off, as if there was no such author at the very beginning. About the fact that ten more years were added to thirty years of non-existence ...

We agreed that in the first seven issues I would publish two open letters from Nekrasov to Neubert Wier, and in December Vsevolod Nikolaevich would come to the presentation of Olympus Circus. Before leaving, he presented me with two thin books of his, "Poems from a Journal" and "Help". I asked him if he had a few more copies of these books for Samarans, and he gave me a whole pack of "Information" for students and teachers of the Pedagogical University and the State University. Saying goodbye, he asked if I would like to give him my collections, it is important to him. Of course I wanted it. And he prepared two books in advance, but during the conversation he decided not to violate the "purity of the genre."

Underground man. Master. Outskirts man. Old gray boy. Amazing speech, desperately similar to his poetry. Rhythmic, impulsive, devoid of comparisons and metaphors. Chant. Like a dialect. For some reason I thought of Andrey Platonov. About Mandelstam in Voronezh. Lump above upper lip. There was no gap between his words and his poetry. As if something important was taken from him, but they forgot about him. Not even like that. What was open, heard, caused by it began to distort and make senseless. When it came to politics, it sounded very accurate. Now it is remembered almost as a prophecy. Nekrasov talked about fraud, about his exclusion from the context, about the new Massolit, about post-Soviet lies and unprofessionalism, and then claimed that all this led to Chechen war and end with a new totalitarian system. He did not utter the phrase "Orthodox Stalinism", but he spoke precisely about this.

On December 2, 1995, Vsevolod Nekrasov, together with Gennady Aigi, Lev Rubinstein and Alexander Makarov-Krotkov, came to Samara for the presentation of the first number of Olympus Circus. Those were wonderful days. Two days. Nekrasov was light, thawed, smiling. Sincerely touched by the attention of students, teachers, Samara writers.

I settled the poets in the Rossiya Hotel, next to the river port, on the banks of the Volga. Large 12-storey Soviet hotel. The best thing about it was the glass walls and the view: the river, the Zhiguli and Samara from the other side. Nekrasov all the time, fascinated and even lovingly looked into the distance, looked at something, as if he was going to draw. When we were sitting in the hall, I recited his verses to him: “To see/ the Volga// and nothing comes/ to mind// well/ it is possible/ to be// or the Volga is not big/ has become// but/ there is/ a lot of water.” Nekrasov did not feel irony. He peered into the Volga landscape seriously and sentimentally.

On the evening of December 2, a literary evening took place in the Samara Actor's House. I introduced the guests as classics of contemporary Russian poetry. Gennady Aigi accepted this characteristic as obvious. Lev Rubinstein smiled ironically. Vsevolod Nikolaevich slightly twisted his childlike thin lips. And yet it was noticeable - the crowded hall with an abundance of young faces made an impression on him. Nekrasov read amazingly. Very quietly, very accurately, convincing the audience of the halting purity of speech and language, of unobtrusive wit and uplifting naturalness. He seemed to wipe words and sentences with his repetitions to transparency. An amazing silence reigned in the hall, interrupted by applause. And suddenly Vsevolod Nikolaevich, refusing the attention concentrated on his voice and on his poems, began monotonously reading the letter about Groys and the "preparation". It was hard to listen to him to the end. Nekrasov was not upset, noting: "Poems in verse, but this is more important for me now."

After the performances, we walked around old Samara. Nekrasov looked like a private detective or local historian. He carefully examined the facades and fences, looked into the courtyards, asked me about the architects and residents. From Samara to Moscow, he captured about forty issues of the Circus Olympus, where the first part of one of his two letters was published.

And two months later, I received a letter in which he politely but harshly “gave a bill” for the fact that, without his knowledge, I independently gave the name to the text “Open Letters to a German Friend” and in the second issue, along with the text, I placed Viktor Batyanov’s drawing “Image Don Quixote".

The fact is that I decided in every issue on almost every page to place a "gallery" of one artist or photographer. Nekrasov's first publication was accompanied by a pencil portrait of the poet, handed over to him by V. Krivitsky. The second is a drawing by Batyanov, the third is a photograph by Svetlana Osmachkina, the fourth is a landscape photograph by Vladimir Privalov.

I am, of course, to blame. Instead of titling Nekrasov's texts "Letters to Neubert Wier," I, by association with Camus's letters, gave them the title "Open Letters to a German Friend." But at the presentation in Samara, Vsevolod Nikolaevich did not tell me anything about this. He considered the drawing of Don Quixote in the second issue to be a manifestation of condescension and an attempt to distance himself from his point of view.

“Don Quixote does not suit me in any way because everyone knows who Don Quixote is. First of all, he is crazy. A sick person, completely divorced from reality, perceiving it extremely inadequately ... It's just hard to imagine that at one time Mandelstam, say, or Obolduev, someone would not poke - in the nose or behind the eyes - with this particular character. Fundamentally mistaken: Mandelstam, Obolduev, Kharms or Bulgakov, or Martynov, Glazkov were connected with reality not weaker than others, but stronger. What is considered reality. You understand, the point is not to compare Vsevolod Nekrasov with any of those named as an author. This is not my copyright. But I think I can compare my own position with anyone else's - and with the position of the above authors, my own really has something in common: a position of isolation. Absences. Question - where? In reality, am I absent, like Don Quixote, or in the system, like Kharms and others? ”, Nekrasov wrote to me, and then repeated this almost verbatim in a telephone conversation.

Vsevolod Nikolaevich suggested that I stop publishing the letter or print the first letter to the end with the explanation that the title belongs to the editor, not the author. However, Nekrasov said, there is still a third option - to apologize in print for everything and print both letters, as we agreed.

In the fifth issue, I published the end of the first letter to Vir, and a month and a half later, while in Moscow, I called Vsevolod Nikolaevich. Without letting me speak, he asked me, if possible, to come to visit. I tried not to justify myself by telling him that I didn’t need to prove Nekrasov’s inexhaustible reality in poetry and that he was the most important and principled figure in the second Russian avant-garde, in its concretist and conceptualist incarnation (Nekrasov considered concretism to be a more accurate term than conceptualism). But at the same time, I consider both Prigov and Rubinstein to be very significant and significant authors, in my opinion, not involved in the “non-existence” of Nekrasov in the version of Groys and others like him.

Vsevolod Nikolaevich relented, unexpectedly for me he remembered the film "Station for Two" and called this picture of Ryazanov a real art. And he began to get out of the boxes, rolls, because of the wardrobe of the work of Nemukhin, Rabin, Bulatov, Vasiliev. Incredible work. With the greatest warmth, he spoke about Oleg Vasiliev, moving away from inertia and cliches while maintaining human intonation. Suddenly he began to talk about repetitions, as about the revival of meaning and words, as about speaking into a word and into a biography. “Here you have completely different poems, I see you, Samara, time behind them. You now considered it strange that I said about Ryazanov's "Station for Two". But there is no preparation in this. How could this not be with Yan Satunovsky. Like Mandelstam, whose speech runs away from the convoy. I confess, I remembered, and then I scratched this remark of Nekrasov on a piece of paper, because he mentioned me in it too. But the vague comparison of Eldar Ryazanov, whom I do not perceive in the space of art, and Satunovsky with Mandelstam, without whom there is no Russian poetry for me, seemed to me how absurd, how very Nekrasov.

Subtly, deeply and technologically reflecting on poetry, Vsevolod Nikolaevich often struck me with restlessness and naivety, without which his transformed direct speech would be impossible.

In numbers 14, 15 and 16 of the Circus Olympus in 1996, Nekrasov’s second letter to Vir was published, I informed readers that the title of the texts was given by the editor, with short breaks almost every year I visited Vsevolod Nikolaevich, where before the conversation Anna Ivanovna always fed me a homemade dinner from the “Soviet youth”.

I'm not sure it's deserved, but I received special thanks from Nekrasov for my review of his joint book "The Package" with his wife. Focused not on his exclusivity, but on "exclusion" of himself from the front row of new Russian poetry, he emphasized in my review the line "objective evil, objective betrayal, objective indifference is still evil, betrayal and indifference."

There were also new grievances. Genrikh Sapgir handed over Nekrasov's "not quite those poems" to me for publication in the "Samizdat of the Century" section. Vsevolod Nikolayevich would have chosen other texts, but Sapgir was still the columnist. And after the Circus Olympus ceased to exist due to the default of 1998, I placed in the collection Chosen Circus Olympus not a fragment of one of Nekrasov’s letters, but his small article about the Lianozovsky group. He himself allowed me to choose any of his texts, but he was dissatisfied with my choice.

In 2000, Vsevolod Nikolaevich recalled our conversation five years ago. About how the short period of Russian democracy will end, which, as he said, “a greyhound with science not to know and art not to be able” has appropriated. This was shortly after the Kursk and the presidential elections.

At the beginning of 2001, I once again deceived the hopes of a brilliant poet. No, at some point I myself believed that our plan was feasible. Director of the Samara exhibition center "Expo-Volga" Natalia Lelyuk agreed to bring to Samara an exhibition of paintings and drawings from the collection of Vsevolod Nekrasov. I convinced her that it was necessary to create a Nekrasov literary and art museum in Samara, that he was one of the greatest living European poets, that the appearance of such a museum in our city would make her a part of the history of Russian and world art. For some time, Vsevolod Nikolaevich also believed in this, at first he looked at me, as at Bender during his immortal monologue about New Vasyuki. Everything fell through due to the need to arrange a very significant insurance. Nekrasov knew very well the value of the works that Rabin, Nemukhin, Bulatov, Infante, Vasiliev, Kabakov, Masterkova, Kropivnitsky, Pivovarov, Shablavin, Roginsky, Bakhchanyan gave him. The sponsor of the exhibition and the future museum did not want to risk his money. “Of course, I have great respect for Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov, but I have no right to risk the family business,” he said after some thought.

On December 8 and 9, 2005, Nekrasov came to Samara for the second time in his life. His wife Anna Ivanovna Zhuravleva also came with him. They were invited by Samara State University to the conference “Codes of Russian Classics. Problems of detection, reading and actualization”.

We again wandered around the old Samara. He again, as in his first visit, was happy. They were interested in him, he was asked to sign his books, he was asked questions. He was again a living classic. Albeit in a narrow "circus-Olympic" and university circle. But it was precisely this circle that for two days carefully surrounded the old poet of genius with a childishly touchy face. He wrote about this a little later in Samara: a slide program, which was published on the Olymp Circus + TV portal through the efforts of Elena Penskaya and Galina Zykova in 2013.

The last time I met Nekrasov was at his dacha in Malakhovka on July 16, 2007. On this day, Dmitry Aleksandrovich Prigov died. “Have I really outlived Dima physically,” Vsevolod Nikolaevich said almost in a whisper. Boris Yeltsin died a month and a half ago. The feeling of the final parting with Russia that never came true, despite the tweaks of self-irony, did not leave me throughout the whole road to Nekrasov. My friend and I were driving to Moscow from Samara by car, at 10 o’clock a text message arrived about Prigov’s death.

It was a hot, stuffy, Bulgakov day. For collector's edition In The Master and Margarita, I interviewed contemporary poets and prose writers about their attitude towards this novel. Vsevolod Nekrasov was the first. And the only one who, almost without any reservations, absolutely seriously called this text one of the best Russian novels of the twentieth century. The artistic phenomenon and the act of Bulgakov, who outplayed the system that strangled him. Revenge and retribution made possible by skill and authenticity. Nekrasov considered my words about massoidism, fiction, situationality and “Sovietness” of the phenomenon of “The Master and Margarita” to be undeserved. Bulgakov was dear to him, as an example of a loner who paid tribute to Massolit. The very system that, in his opinion, arose in place of the Soviet one. And which woke up "the current horror in leather jackets."

Absurd, surrealistic and at the same time lubok was the dacha as such. A simple skewed wooden house with an open veranda, with old decaying furniture, rugs, a huge cat and kind, wise Anna Ivanovna. A small bald spot in front of the gate and completely overgrown with wild trees, mostly maples, tiny country cottage area. Slender, skinny trees fought desperately for a place under the sun. They grew so densely that it was almost impossible to squeeze between them. To the question "Is Bulgakov's anti-Semitism anti-Bolshevism for him?" Vsevolod Nikolaevich painfully replied that these were parallel phenomena. "Such a number of certain names among those who persecuted Bulgakov cannot be accidental." Nekrasov immediately noticed that anti-Semitism is an abomination, that Germany was justly punished for it, and then she herself was freed from this filth, that his most beloved and most important poets Osip Mandelstam and Yan Satunovsky, that Alexander Levin and I did a lot for him (he mentioned me, probably because I was standing opposite him) that during the "doctors' case" and the fight against cosmopolitanism, he did his best to protect his friends from this Nazi filth. But... So he is isolated, forgotten, deleted, pushed aside by people with the same surnames, and this is very dangerous for everyone, this provokes the "Black Hundred evil spirits." Groys, Backstein, Epstein, Rubinstein, Eisenberg, began to list Nekrasov. “Vsevolod Nikolaevich, you really appreciated Lev Rubinstein and Mikhail Aizenberg. And is the surname for you the nationality? ”- I stopped the list of surnames. “I'm not talking about poetry now, but about position. And they too, ”Nekrasov objected to me. “Are you serious about all this? This is the deepest delusion, a disease. And what would Mandelstam and Satunovsky say to that? ”I tried to get rid of the obsession. “In Russia, what happened in Germany never happened, and we must make sure that this never happens. I partly agree with Solzhenitsyn. If he had such notes. They bit him badly, in bad faith. Skewed is skewed, but Shvonder was,” Vsevolod Nikolaevich muttered without directly answering my question. I did not aggravate our dialogue to the limit ...

After a pause, Nekrasov remembered how in his youth he imitated Mayakovsky, Yesenin, Tsvetaeva, and then Martynov. His main and most powerful shock after Mandelstam was Satunovsky's poetry. The very possibility of such verses. At the end of our meeting, Nekrasov, at my request, read several of his old and new poems.

“Wait// I’ll see// How it goes/ Clouds// How it goes”…

I was sure that I was seeing the living Vsevolod Nikolaevich Nekrasov for the last time.

On March 24, 2009, on the day of his 75th birthday, a month and a half before Nekrasov's death, not a single, as we say by inertia, central mass media congratulated or remembered the poet. Suddenly, a photograph of Nekrasov appeared on the Kultura channel, and a voice-over said: “Today, the innovator poet, literary theorist, member of the Lianozovo group Vsevolod Nekrasov celebrates his 75th birthday.” A poem appeared on the screen: "I remember a wonderful moment / Neva's sovereign current / / I love you Peter's creation / / Who wrote the poem / / I wrote the poem."

I immediately called Makarov-Krotkov so that Sasha would tell Vsevolod Nikolaevich that he was there. There is even one for "these".

And on July 9, 2014, the exhibition “I LIVE and SEE” nevertheless arrived in Samara. The Samara Art Museum presented seventy-six works from the Nekrasov collection, containing more than three hundred paintings and graphic sheets and transferred to the State Museum fine arts named after A.S. Pushkin after the death of a remarkable poet by literary critics Galina Zykova and Elena Penskaya. Vsevolod Nikolayevich showed me many of them in his cramped apartment on Bolshaya Ostroumovskaya...