Two historical realities of Vladimir Vysotsky. A literary and historical essay (after the reading of chapters 29-56 of the Vladimir Novikov's book "Vysotsky")
Аннотация: Two historical realities of Vladimir Vysotsky. A literary and historical essay (after the reading of chapters 29-56 of the Vladimir Novikov's book "Vysotsky").
Two historical realities of Vladimir Vysotsky. A literary and historical essay (after the reading of chapters 29-56 of the Vladimir Novikov's book "Vysotsky").
After completing the reading of the book by Vladimir Novikov 'Vysotsky', we briefly comment on one of the questions.
Vladimir Vysotsky, like Guy de Maupassant, like Charles Baudelaire, like many other cultural figures, was faced with the problem of a 'modern society' and a 'big city'. This problem was a difficult psychological issue for people who were connected by a historical, psychological threads, with a comfortable Middle Ages and with the period between the Middle Ages and developed industrial capitalism.
Both a "modern society" and a "big city" did a deprivation, a liberation a humans from a "comfortable historical past", of a moral, historical supports. Both a "modern society" and a "big city" imposed values and worldview, creating an active sense of psychological discomfort.
In the new conditions, it was necessary, it was supposed to strive for success. But the success itself was rather dubious. And at the start, it was needed to agree with the own insignificance, with the recognition of oneself as a zero. Such an understanding, such a start and such a movement to success did not create much satisfaction.
If the participant in the events tried to evade the generally accepted aspiration and movement towards (generally accepted) success, then sanctions and public condemnation (ostracism) awaited him.
If the problems of 'modern society' and 'big city' are inherent in the modern Western World (which includes Russia as a periphery), then for Russia (USSR) of the second half of the 20th century (when Vladimir Vysotsky lived and acted), an another significant problem existed.
For the USSR, the issue of the completion of the neo-east-republican historical period, was relevant. (The main period is the period of the existence of the Rzeczpospolita (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The conditional interval that separates the "main" period from the "neo" period is the years from 1775 to 1924).
The neo-east-republican historical period began around the 30s of the 20th century, when, by coincidence, such East-Republicans as Felix Dzerzhinsky and Gleb Krzhizhanovsky came to the real power. In their hands was a real state-economic power, authority, and they were doing the real actions of restoring the state and the economy.
The most important political role was played by Stalin. Dzerzhinsky and Krzhizhanovsky for various reasons moved away from the first roles in the state. But Stalin adopted their policy and direction of movement, and such people as, for example, Vasilevsky (Minister of Defense) and Vyshinsky (Minister of Foreign Affairs) appeared on command positions.
The neo-east-republican historical period is characterized by a powerful economic and scientific leap forward. In some areas, the USSR has become one of the world leaders.
The scientific, technical and economic achievements of the USSR to a certain extent reconciled, secured agreement, ensured consent the broad layers of the population with the political regime, with its orders and economic difficulties. People of all levels felt a positive prospects.
Under Khrushchev and after Khrushchev, the neo-east-republican historical period began to fade, gradually moving to own finish. A sense of frustration has spread across all spheres of life. The inefficiency of the political regime showed itself in full. Creative personalities of a high level, retaining the intellectual potential of the East-Republican society, numerically became less and less. And such people with their personal qualities, conceptual ideas, a common cultural level and intellectual potential could not compensate for the shortcomings of the political regime.
The official culture of the USSR did not fix the degradation of society that had begun, nor the disappointment of the masses, nor the self-awareness (depression, bitterness, suppression, anger...) of a "simple" persons, of a "simple" population.
One of the reasons for the incredibly wide popularity of Vladimir Vysotsky is that he, perhaps, is the only creative figure of the second half of the 20th century in the USSR who was able to reflect both the problems - (1) the problem of 'modern society', 'big city', and (2) the problem of a fading, of the ending of the neo-east-republican historical period (and the beginning degradation of society, and the disappointment of the masses, and the self-awareness of a "simple" population).
Like, for example, Maupassant and Baudelaire, Vysotsky did not withstand a 'historical pressure'.
Such is our point of view on some aspects of the tragic end of the earthly journey of Vladimir Vysotsky.
We add that the author of the book "Vysotsky", Vladimir Novikov, set out a rather interesting observation. The 1980 Moscow Olympics was, in a sense, a substitute for the communism that Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev promised to build by 1980.
Naturally, such a replacement, a substitute could not but caused a negative emotions of various shades in the widest sections of the population. (Again, the "official culture" was on the sidelines ...). However, it is unlikely that such negative emotions significantly influenced the earthly path of Vladimir Vysotsky.
These are some of our considerations, set out in the shortest possible form, after the completion of the reading of Vladimir Novikov 's book "Vysotsky."
May 10, 2020 20:27
Translation from Russian into English: May 11, 2020 03:11.
Владимир Владимирович Залесский 'Две исторические реальности Владимира Высоцкого. Литературно-исторический очерк (после прочтения глав 29-56 книги Владимира Новикова 'Высоцкий')'.