there were relationships, she continued to live. let's now remember how it all happened. she had children to feed feeding was extremely difficult. she didn't go on by very often that we children bring a piece of bread. she is all about love and soul, you understand, so someone told her that there is such a kuntsevo shelter. and what do they feed the children? well, the truth is, why not see it three times to watch? she didn't go, why didn't she go? she, who took it there, she took the children irina and alyo and both girls there, and suddenly in one moment. uh, the news came, i don’t know how there weren’t any phones that i got sick. moreover, alya got sick, alya has a terrible temperature of 40 and even a little higher, and they cannot diagnose her. she dies and

marina ran and took alya home. and she nursed her, she did not leave her, and at this very moment, when all this was happening, she was fighting for her life. irina died in the orphanage there, and no one told her, and they buried her there. she learned everything, then i can go on, we are talking about poetry two hands of sins lowered on the infant's head were given to me, one for each two heads, but with both clamped furious, as best as she could, the older one did not save the darkness, snatching out the younger one, caressing the tender lush heads with two hands. two hands and now one of

them turned out to be an extra light one on the neck of a thin dandelion on the stems, but it’s still not at all understood that my child is in the ground. i do not want to eat or drink and live, but to cross my arms quietly, to swim with my eyes across the empty sky and for freedom. i don't mind otherwise. oh lord don't i moved my finger, i don’t want to breathe my hands. he does not allow anyone to speak badly about this situation in front of him, who says it? who does not know what it was. and she left soon after.

irina did not stop at the beginning of 2020, 22. where did the massarik call to the czech republic? but amazingly, she writes to hurt another. no, a thousand times better to endure the most i'm not a winner. i am under my own judgment; my judgment is stricter than yours. i don't like myself, i don't sit. whatever people say, marina is a phrase, they will always say bad. it's also true when the first wife, but exactly written too early, brother too young. the main difference between his

sociability, the public is my wolf solitude. he can’t live without a newspaper, and i can’t live in a house where the main newspaper lives. here, when here it was leaving with the undressing family. yes, it's boring, yes, the heart does not beat, but i was given a terrible gift of conscience - disrespect for someone else's suffering. she said who is your neighbor. the law of god, the one who does not need you the most, may be writing. she was a fool, they would be happy without me, well, who would have convinced me. i was sure they were sure that without me they would die. and now i'm a burden to them. god's punishment they all want to act to build a life. they need something else than what i can give, gave away and remained useless to anyone. i understand it well. i myself am like that. excuse me, but i understand why you

, uh, why she is the universe for herself, she is the universe yes, and for some reason her lawyer. of course, thank you. thank you, larochka, what did you call? i'm always happy to talk about marina and that, it's also important for me to refute what you said today, is it so important. this is a podcast of letters, and i had a guest, great svetlana kryuchkova today we gathered our thoughts about tolstoy and dostoevsky hello dear friends tatyana alexandrovna kasatkina philologist doctor of science ivan andreevich yesaulov philologist doctor of science. i’m vladimir legoyda

, of course, i managed to talk to you with philologists about tolstoy and dostoevsky, but you know , we have such a tradition here in our podcast. we take on the impossible, i'll tell you that after dan you i'm not afraid of anything anymore, yes, dear friends. ah. here's what i want to start. there is such a joke, maybe she has not yet clever, that all people are divided into people of tolstoy and people of dostoevsky yes, you have to love someone alone, but is it like the people of florence or not? yes, there is. so i will conduct such a parallel here, but in general it has the right to exist. what do you think? well, i love venice and florence and coffee and tolstoy and dostoevsky yes , it’s clear that for me it’s not all the same, well, as if in different ones, but, well, they are generally about different. therefore, it is not at all mutually exclusive figures, but you understand. this is what it can be, a playful division,

that after all, people like to read, or, uh , someone gets more attached, and not only not only readers, because writers also boil over. e, we remember the same bunin , who, with all his heart, is for tolstoy with the liberation of tolstoy and against dostoevsky , that is, there is something in this e. e , such that it can, yes, but uh, i'm rather closer here, of course, that's what tatyana said. i, too, are different strings of the soul, uh, resonates uh, uh, after all, in different ways age, uh, then uh on a sweatshirt, then she is dostoevsky, so to speak, uh, such motives and positions. yes hmm well, you know, i, uh, also thought about the fact that there is such a stereotype. so let's put it a little bit, let's stretch the first thing we say dostoevsky means orthodoxy. and

what, in general? well, how do you automatically love orthodox dostoevsky and so on, yes, yes, that's a very big question. yes, in general, where is the dostoevsky church and so on, but we say tolstoy , meaning monks, which, in general, is also big question, because as uh said many times, prices are there when karenina's deathbed forgives. well, yes, in general, this is one of the most christian scenes, maybe in the world literature of ivan ilyich. and the death of ivan ilyich, which we will definitely talk about today, i hope. here's what about these stereotypes tatyana. firstly. e, dostoevsky e does not write about the church, but because he writes about god inside a person. he writes, in fact, about the image of god yes, and uh, he does not believe the space of the world on the sacred propane. and it would be good for us not to share in general, that is, for him, what is happening in the church is actually happening in the world. and, as it were, well, this ecumenical liturgy that ends with taking

karamazov. it’s as if it’s written directly to them, because they didn’t understand for too long, and he decided to say as much as possible, as if in the forehead , that’s all, yes, but that’s all and uh, at least with crime and punishment, starting very clearly, he always has the deepest ecclesiastical scene in crime and punishment takes place in a tavern. here's marmalade, yes, eh the future about the future life, yes, and i am the last court to speak there, yes, in fact , the situation is tavern. yes, yes, in the dwelling of the marmalade yes, and there, too, confession and communion take place and e. transfiguration e. here is this hmm denial and rebellious human mind. yes, in some higher form of forgiveness. that's it. eh, dostoevsky, he is built on the same paradoxes on which the gospels are built. so he doesn’t, no matter how he provides us with such a flat and even and convenient platform.

yes, like they came to the temple and stood there. well as alyosha says, yes, if the lord said, take your godfather follow me, then it’s not enough for me to give 2 rubles. and walk around the day. here andreevich wants to object aha or pick up. yes, the point is that for me , dostoevsky, of course, is easter. uh, such a writer, the problem is that , for example, uh, uh, in 1992, nikita ostrov posted the messengers of the rgd for the first time, uh, such a letter from archimandate kern. hey, ibunina. eh, and there. e. hmm, this is the eighty-second year. e, if i'm not mistaken, then the third fourth issue and there, just e archmagnet ker e, confesses his love. to whom tolstoy refers to this for what e for his e, maybe he

writes e closer to god e, and closer than dostoevsky than dostoevsky, despite the excommunication. and how he somehow explains it, he explains it with his love for them. yes, that's exactly the way to say it, and here these are deeply christian approach. in a sense, even here he, uh, even speaks about what, not only as an artist, but also in his such theological quests, tolstoy, uh, is, of course, hot. this picks up ivan bunin understandable case. he's there, uh, impartially responds. uh, about dostoevsky, in short, uh, there is certainly a problem here, but different aspects of such russian orthodox christianity are touched upon by tolstoy dostoevsky, as you know, how very much i love this comparison, like uh, heidegger once said that without the kelvin cathedral hmm uh, stone, that's not uh,

not quite became a stone in order for the stone to be stone, the kenin cathedral must be thick. dostoevsky for our e russian. i would say even russian orthodox culture all the same. uh, at least artistic creations no journalism. it's something, uh, i don't know, something like, maybe, uh. plato and aristotle do you agree, yes, a very good comparison with plato and aristotle, because really, as it were. eh, dostoevsky is the whole product, and tolstoy is the whole product. well, this is the same, well, you can’t say that the spirit is there, but it’s high and beautiful, and the soul is not important until you master the soul, and you don’t master the space of the soul. yes, it will not pass to the spirit, of course, of course, and here he is talking about tolstoy. it's here human coexistence, which they and at

some points really lead to the very heights of the spirit. yes, this is the most dostoevsky scene. here is tolstoy's bath in korea, here it is, that is, it's not, again , it does not exclude one another, but naturally, something is closer to someone, because someone will say, this is already burning in spirit. yes, he is looking. suddenly he discovers for himself such a thought, as dostaevsky is ready to follow him. here, and someone lives and quite, as it were, uh, well. e lives in this middle world. well, here's martha yes here, here, here, here, here is martha. it's almost impossible to say that she is not needed. yes, it is very necessary. she and, as it were, without her, maria cannot exist either. that's because the submarine sat a lot of christ's, someone should, uh, take care of life, it's interesting, here, but still then. we are talking about their relationship to religion

as well. yes, here i have a few questions . the first one is what we have already indirectly reached out to him through the death of ivan ilyich; the theme of death is central, the theme of any religious consciousness. what is death? how to overcome it? what to do with it and so on. here, as he allows, here is tolstoy and worthy. well, uh, as you know. uh, central point. on sunday, tolstoy did not receive. uh, and that was his main problem. we will remember there, let's say the famous arzamas horror and others, and so on to say it and uh, the very transfiguration uh, which is still connected on earth with the resurrection, was also a big problem from here, the opposition, there uh, of the animal and the spiritual in the same in that in the novel of the resurrection about tolstoy , dostoevsky, fortunately, did not have this. e here and e, in in this case, uh, of course they uh, well,

they diverged at the central point. e. well, uh, uh, i think the most important thing. so now i think so, it’s still, uh, to distinguish between the ideas of ideology, uh, and uh, heroes and uh the world itself, and here we see, uh, if we are so serious about this in tolstoy and dostoevsky, uh, that- something close, because in the literature. e in literature in literature is close to the great time of russian culture, what is close and the idea of ​​ideology e does not explain a person as such? there is a stable expression , tolstoy's favorite heroes, here in the intimacy of alizova's gennachka about this, in particular natasha rostova why are we going for an ideology for an idea? no, we love her as such, uh, we pity ivan ilyich as such, uh, and the same for udostoevsky, even fyodor pavlovich karamasov. he's still, uh, he's a man who understands that without her we don't

like korsavi's word, idiologist. uh, here, uh, he was leaning on ideology. he, too, needs to be loved and pitied, like marmalade. and this is a deeply christian approach to man. that's what a man is about. they are for ideology. still, this is not posture. there is indeed a difference. i think in the works of death in the works of one and the other. like, well, again, after all, death. eh, well, dostoevsky's death. just no. here, despite the fact that he has a lot of deaths of deaths. here, but tolstoy after all, if we are not talking about what he draws, then, yes, here, please, pierre who laughs at all, yes, they wanted to lock me up in me, my immortal soul suddenly understands that there are no boundaries . and if you are free, yes, and if you are really this spirit, yes, and then, who can you

in general, to catch and lock up, who can restrict you, and so on, the same thing again and yes to the death of ilyich’s bathroom when, well , it seems to everyone that it’s generally already, so to speak , meaningless, but a corpse, and he just goes. here, to the greatest, in general, the greatest events of their main are taking place, all the same in that it seems to me that, after all, perhaps you will not agree with me that death is already necessary so that there is no death. e in the sense that dostoevsky does not depict, say, a dying person from within his dying consciousness, but always a reaction. some other, but not vnu-from within. uh, tolstoy dares to portray and show it's pretty creepy. eh , somehow trying to shock this, of course, very much, because a very important thing, that is , other reactions of others or in the way you monologue from within the consciousness of the hero himself. this is not the case, it seems. eh, that's why it also

seems to me that udostoevsky never exists. there is no hard boundary between the life of death, as there is no between the sacred, yes, that is, it is interesting that yes, because if a person lives this life in the spiritual dimension, this is property, according to basically, it doesn't change anything. here, and all the heroes pull him up there, but again, yes, all this is a wand, remember. this is the same person who, uh, says, uh, the most stumbling, at least, if not the deepest words about love. yes, because, well, dostoevsky is always through the lowest. he goes to the highest through the funniest to the great himself. that's when fyodor pavlovich explains that there were no babies for him. and in general , it’s like, well, it’s already one thing, too, the fact that she is a woman. it's already half of everything and so further, after all, he, in fact, speaks of god's infinite love for anyone who wears human experiences. yes, he not only thinks, he also

feels like that, which is much more serious. that is, he is experiencing this love , which is simple, because there is, well, yes, a woman, yes, his love is already directed at her, but the problem was still death. otherwise, how is masha lying on the meeting table, so to speak, masha is lying on the table and immediately begins without transition without without but reflection on how she died. yes, when we meet why can't we meet here, how will we meet there, that is, yes, of course, i'll see you, but this is the starting point here for reflection yes, and for reflection on what he begins again on earthly life. yes, that is , it is impossible to love a person on earth as oneself according to the commandment of christ. the law of personality on earth is the law of personality on earth. i would say link like this. i prevent, yes, and then this discussion begins again, which is actually about what

needs to be done here in order to be alive there again there are no boundaries. collected thoughts on about tolstoy and dostoevsky today , philologists, tatyana kosatkina and ivan esaulov. i am vladimir of the left. yes, we continue dostoevsky who says this is super well-known, that if someone proved to me that the truth is in them, then i would agree or prefer to remain christ and not with the truth, that is, theological probably is not quite correct, but here is the full force of the statement. it’s impossible to object to this, and even tolstoy, who, in my opinion, is written in one of the letters that christ is who he is he says he is god's. he is the son of man. well , then here is the so-called translation of the gospel. yes, where in general, sunday no, well, where in general, wonderful miracles. no, well, here are miracles , even miracles, we would forgive him. yes, but there is no such thing on sunday and there is such a mahatmagande. yes, there is konstantin leontiev

, who exclaims that tolstoy does not have an organ, who believes. here was tolstoy's organ, which, of course, he had an organ that believes. this, i think, like the same rso on which everything has tolstoy somehow, yes, he was worn. all my life, but from the age of 15 case, and uh, he believed too. eh, finally russian. eh, but there was a problem here, and the problem lies in the fact that it seems to me that both tolstoy and dostoevsky quite clearly sort of polymerized ideas in their time. enlightenment but in different ways it is differently polymerized in juiciness, because after all. uh, rousseau, he's part of the enlightenment . not so to say. eh, so to speak, a piece

that contradicts him, so here's the problem. eh, that dostoevsky's controversy - that's what they remembered. uh, christ is the truth, uh, impersonal there can be no truth, that's why because if, uh, it's true, without uh, uh, personally it's a lie, yeah. she is a lie, in fact, which is given out, and therefore, oh, christ is real, and that is what is the matter, but tolstoy still seems to me, uh, tolstoy still has this moral, just ethical e say e hmm aspect in uh, gospels. yes, so to speak, he is , in many respects, self-sufficient. well , this is the problem, because religion is not reduced to morality is not reduced to morality. but uh, how would leo try to explain through this morality nikolaevich, uh, you have to go to god through, well, yes. well, now, i even tell students all the time

that this is the famous one, i want to be quite good. here it is not about religion, because religion is not about the fact that i want to be good. i want to be immortal. so, i would generally say that this statement is , in what sense, much closer to thick reasoning in general than it may seem to us. so, but in what sense, in what aspect? i think that when dostoevsky speaks, he is not disingenuous in the sense that on in fact, the true christ is here, and this is some kind of flawed and abstract truth. he's quite serious he's considering. that's what the apostle paul is talking about. yes, if hmm , if christ has not risen, he will have it several times, yes, and in demons. yes, let's go. yes, he said you will be with me in paradise, but they went and did not find them. yes, they are not god's paradise. that is, if christ has not risen, then we are more unfortunate than all men, and says the apostle paul a. dostoevsky speaks in this situation.

even if christ is not resurrected, he is so beautiful. i love him so much that i would rather stay with him than any kind of truth that is, well, here's the truth, yes, then the truth is that christ will not be resurrected , we do not make assumptions, what if he is not resurrected ? from which it follows that he is admitting - well, because this is about the truth. yes, either or here is the truth that is proclaimed. yes, what christianity proclaims, or the laws of nature are true, which are not. yes, i think that this is such a reduction that allows you to show here this infinite love for christ that is , even if yes, here is the apostle, he says, if we are the most unfortunate of all, and he says, even. if not, then i'm still with him and i 'm happy to think about it, or it seems to me, this is your interpretation, so it's quite obvious, uh,

time. it could be made out, but uh, i 'm sure that here it's this very act of love, that is, he says, i stay with you in any situation. so to speak, it was true or wrong, here, but tolstoy he does not love christ, because tolstoy is drawing closer to him. well i mean so to speak, the plane that dostoevsky deliberately lowers, so to speak, cutting off this one's own e, this one's endless exit yes, that's into the realm of the spirit. here he loves christ , he he he he he and rousseau also loves with the same love. that's what they love about, because he is christ, he competes with christ tolstoy yes, well, he is generally quite all the time, of course, and he eventually. well, that is, the higher. yes, so to speak, the point in humanity, the more he competes with her. that's it in the end. i

think this is the feeling, the gospel of miracles and more. it. actually, this is what it is. well, he came. i am a tolstoy teacher of life. why do you even need someone else there, amazing in this sense, sunday? where where is the real uh, the liturgy is a real paska, not a real one huh? the real finale, when people 's reduced pieces of the gospel about them appear, and now he is really on the path of resurrection, otherwise it was not entirely satisfactory for tolstoy, although this is late, of course. tolstoy needs it too. here, but at the same time tolstoy after all, i even remember more than once about she said this, but tolstoy poses such questions. e, unrequited, which is our church and how would we, as a community of christians, cannot exist. that is, you can brush it aside, so to speak, and then we will not, well, that is, we will cease to be christians. that

's about the questions of being a person on earth , polls of equality, the question of their attitude to money, and in general, the acquisition. yes, these are all questions that, well, they are quite easily solved at a different level, but for dostoevsky they were practically non-existent. but at the level at which they are worth to put tolstoy they are necessary for the resolution too, it would be easy to resolve all these issues and get around them. so to speak, going immediately into the realm of the spirit, where it is really all equal and ignore then the inequality. and then this is the feeling, yes, which a person creates when he thinks that due to the fact that the other will feel bad, he can be good. and we are not going to decide anything here. yes, we won't go any further. unfortunately, it seems to me that these questions are correct so

to say, uh, really. right. he constantly poses, e he not only poses questions, but unfortunately simple often and answers this and his answers, unfortunately, because he does not answer well, because his answers eh, they give very strongly to the spirits of his time and, for example, when i i read, being sick, uh, war and peace. uh, i'm recovering somehow. but when i read his journalism, and this one is sure only until the epilogue, because when we get to the epilogue with this one, someone else came. well, i wrote. well, all the same, well, when when you read, for example, uh, hmm its about art or mistakes that are no good, or that we should of course learn to write from christian children, they are not with us, er, well, after all. it's uh, i still love nikolaevich, but the recommendations are very reminiscent of the spirits. eh, jean-jacques. look at

the competition here. hey, that's also an interesting thing. ah, their relationship to each other. yes, an amazing uh thing, which in our time is badly behaving, probably, it seems to me that contemporaries of that level can imagine, so to speak , they have never met fame and knowledge about each other in their lives. and as far as i understand. once they were together in a room where vladimir sergeevich solovyov was giving a lecture. and moreover, there was fear, yes, who knew both, but it seems like tolstoy said i don’t want to get acquainted with anyone, i won’t, and fyodor mikhailovich didn’t recognize lev nikolaevich , which is also somehow now? yes, and then, uh, i tried, i say, as i was only if i knew that he was there, yes, and then, too , very much. that's how they treated each other,

because dostoevsky's dying. tolstoy says. i now realized that closer to this person i was not. they are literature each other perceived very critical dostoevsky, who reads how it is alexandra andreevna and the fat countess gave him a letter to dostoevsky, and he reads and what? and the food of the letter? yes, no one reads and says something, not something else. well, it's not actually literature. they are somehow literature, but she herself was very, as it were, worried. they say that i was ashamed to give, and such children's here. from the point of view of christian children's writing , in such a thinker, how does it get, that is, uh, they just absolutely always walk at different levels, really im really. uh, i think it was very difficult for them to speak. i think that it was not very easy to speak soviet in general, but it remains, for those who will get up right tomorrow. i don't know, i didn't say. there are, of course, even more. i would

say existential is not a meeting of course. pushkin seraphim of sarov, which are for another transmission, yes, but here, but here, after all. i would think that e lev nikolaevich was quite self-sufficient. i don't know about dostoevsky, but lev nikolaevich e. hmm it's jealousy, after all. i think, to experience in any case, these were two teachers who taught different ones and they were already aware of themselves by the time they were in the same room. they were fully aware of themselves already in this capacity in this role, of course, it is a pity that they did not meet. although god knows that it really was. maybe good. yes, maybe, i think that it is, most likely, like this, the lord has arranged. that's because , uh, really. as if they had nothing to talk about forgive the speech. but this is tolstoy's confession, ah, that there was no man

closer than he does not see it here as something like that. well, since the competition is over. he left and he was like, well, generously noble handsome. here he was great, he says, counting it. uh, almost a note from the house of the dead is called, so i found something to re-read after the release of the karamazov brothers, in general, after this grandiose one in general. well, at some point in the transfiguration, he also read what he re-read. he took the book. yes, and you said that the notes from the house of the dead. yes, well, that is, it's still some kind of something is not right in this moment or did or or intentionally here did intentionally wrote. at least a visit to optina is the subject of other impressions, directly opposite, as you know. this is to say, and this is still

quite a central point for somehow all the time to strive, it’s all the same even after everything after the excommunication, but he also strives, as if, yes, they didn’t invite me. this is what, yes, uh, no matter how they showed me, yes, i can’t, how to enter myself the student's perspective non-student. well, here's the first step. yes, even there, then it was already possible at the end to say start and teach. yes? well , this is the first step to take. and it was a chance, maybe we don't have much time. i know what else i want. and what else i want to talk about, here, returning, uh, to your first teysu remotely. well, at the beginning, which sounded like the dostoevsky area of ​​the spirit. and tolstoy and the region, but the soul yes, well, that's exactly understandable in such a trichotomous, so to speak, structure of the personality of the soul of the body, yes, christian. ah. i

i can’t forget how one very respected and very subtle art of a woman told me why she can’t reread dostoevsky she said, he looks into me like that, what i’m afraid to look at in myself, and it’s hard and unpleasant for me, and in general, that's why i do without fyodor mikhailovich. well , there, at best, the village of stepanchikov. here are its inhabitants. here and is this the innocence of the spirit , you won’t go through the breath - this is an illusion that you can evaporate, so to speak. eh, without going through the body here the soul successively. yes, that is not soar. you will have too much. that 's what you don't want to look into something, what of you. that's why it doesn't go anywhere and doesn't go away. yes? here is the same. yes, here is the confession, what is it really designed for? she’s not a formal thing,

yes, it’s like she went up to the priest there and called something and you were let in for communion. that is, it is such a, so to speak, formality on the way to involvement. here. in principle, confession - this is work with what you want to change in yourself, but it hurts. this it always hurts. and now imagine how they say cruel talent. he hurts me. he makes me look into something in myself that i don't want to look into. in the meantime, i have not illuminated everything at all for the columns of my soul. i do not go to the spirit. don't they look at tolstoy? these are exactly what i wanted to say about this, that both tolstoy and