vasily shukshina and now ah, vasily rozanov and you are right that, but rozanov he somehow appeared in my previous books as such, well, a minor one might say, but a very important character, for example, in the biography of brishvin. yes, the well-known conflict, the yelets gymnasium, when rozanov expelled the geography teacher roznov, expelled the high school student. prishvina hooligan loser for not knew, uh, where is the island of ceylon in response began to be rude and in the gymnasiums it was not allowed to be rude to the teacher it was impossible. these institutions were the most serious crime. here, well, e exactly appeared, for example, in the biography of andrei platonov, since the figure of pink was extremely important for the platonic. he repelled him and argued with him, but it was so important for him after the departure of the rose of the people, they did not intersect. yes, but nonetheless. there are absolutely amazing recordings of viktor shklovsky that are exactly flat, which when he made such an air. ice in russia and platonov at that time he worked as a provincial land reclamator in the voronezh province, they write that he met with the provincial land reclamation worker, who speaks of the rose of ishkovsky, who actually wrote the first book. yes, yes, this fact of shklovsky was, uh, a parasite, and then it was exactly met in the biography of rasputin. by the way, it’s very interesting, because we are generally used to perceiving rasputin so a little bit, some kind of cranberry frivolous figure of russian life in russian history, but in fact they wrote about him . the deepest russians, of course, but also wrote merezhkovsky. and prishvin wrote a block wrote, white berdyaev wrote sergei nikolaevich bulgakov wrote, but they rather could n’t be wary of such a negative attitude, but exactly like that there was a whole panel, in his honor he composed very uh, so unexpectedly praised rasputin and it seemed very interesting to me generally a panicker. eh, if we are talking about pink, it sounds ambiguous from the very beginning, because it is a paradoxical figure and those who like to teach it. it's something to catch all the time they say that here you are you speak for and here you speak against. eh, a year ago. you say one thing, and then another, but this is such a figure, apparently woven and the paradox was scolded during his lifetime, and in response he mockingly spoke in a straight line, only ravens fly, and the heavenly bodies move along the else. and why should i have one point of view on the subject? i have several of them, but still here i see, maybe i'm wrong. and you , of course, are more of an expert in this field, but i see here a paradoxical reference to the demons of dostoevsky because there is such a famous scene when ivan shatov asks his mentor. there, the motherland didn’t tell me, i’m quoting roughly , they didn’t tell me that russian people can not live without god, and now you say that there is no god. when you lie then or now e and the staurogen is not easy to read and says, and then i did not lie and now i do not lie. i'm just now speaking from the point of view of you being true and saying, he is not, there is some kind of it after all. a moral defect, well, no one reproached rozanov for a moral defect, but, it seems to me, i don’t know if he meant strogino himself, when he declared such a position of his, in general, of course, dostoevsky meant a lot to an even person, and in the biographical sense, apollinaria can be performed even the first. actually coined this term. legend of the great inquisition. and the rostov of dostoevsky 's brother karamazov does not have this word. legend that's uh, so uh, of course, these reproaches. they spoke out to him, but you know, what a thing. it was the spirit of the times. i think rozanov, like no one else, reflected the spirit, uh of the time, when and uh, already mentioned rasputin was perceived by some as a prayerful elder by others, as a depraved terrible person. when azov is another such important figure. that era, on the one hand, is a terrorist. yes and so, it seems to me, uh, rozanov's nature, rozanov's personality, like sponge in it was the spirit of the times, and he expressed and reflected the spirit of the times, which was really very dual, very two-faced, very indefinite. but, if rozanov were different, he would not be pink and therefore make claims against him, it seems to me, well, this is a little funny. it's ridiculous, all the more now. well, okay, even his contemporaries could reproach him for some kind of moral uncleanliness, but now we don’t know who we are to judge someone for behavior, of course, he was the way he was and that mattered a variety of things. yes, his attitude, there are jewish issues. one of the most yes, and he actually had a different attitude towards orthodoxy, he also simultaneously spoke from christian positions, passionately loving the russian church, on the other hand, he wrote such terrible things about christ e that no worm would write there attitude towards russia, which, on the one hand, he was madly in love with, but precisely because he loved allowed himself the most severe criticism, and in the address of his native country, but this is exactly. here he was like this. my task, the author’s, my task, i’m definitely not saying not to rate him how bad or good he was, but simply to tell the reader that there was such a rozov and the reader is already free to do with my book whatever he wants to accept my hero does not accept my hero, my task is to honestly tell his story, i see. well, you said a wonderful thing, but the legend of the grand inquisitor. this is really a book that allowed him to engage in literary work. this is the ninety-first, it seems the year. yes i'm not mistaken, but she made him a name she would make. this is important. really. yes , that's exactly what i mean, but a very important thing. you said that he invented this phenomenon. yes, i invented it, because this text does not exist. e brother romanov yes, the devil knows ivan's plan, he says that he lets him know that he knows about this plan ivan in horrified rectangle and says no. no, just not about that. that is, in general, all this never existed with this hand. can you tell? so rozanov adds a lot in russian culture, but, as it were, he adds with words what is precisely because of the paradoxes, and other less decisive ones who walk in a straight line could not finish who stood on opposite sides of the barrier. is it possible to say that he succeeds in something so, very special, that few people understand by the teeth you can say anything, but it seems to me that the word append suggests some agreement with the original. yes, a sequel. he is rebelling. he explodes, he refutes, he resists exactly never for exactly always against when there is such a fantasy. yes, this is such a water surface that is never calm. she always rolls like waves and destroys everything, and at first he is fascinated by something, then they love him just as much. this is also an interesting thing. when he studied at the gymnasium, his biography was so complicated, he studied at three gymnasiums, he was a hooligan, a loser, inveterate, uh, scary, but at the same time he said that russian high school students - this is the best thing in russian history, because the devil will break his teeth about them. and then this person becomes a gymnasium teacher and a teacher. he becomes holding his muzzle. he was a terrible teacher was a terrible teacher. everyone who remembers him remembers some kind of monster, and in this, too, are the amazing products of rozanovskaya's personality. well, i must say that the title of the book, of course, is not unconditional. yes, there is something they say here, of course, it's all the same just such a marketing ploy uh, and it has nothing to do with this ambiguous strange polysemantic speech that can be on the u screen. before roman bertok, i have to appear as a love drama, but in some way, er, to present the interpretation as filo. and the treatise, and for someone to appear as an exercise in a parallel history, is there still some kind of parallel or or not to you rozanov himself became more understandable or not after writing the book? well, maybe it has become a little more understandable, but again i want to say that i myself am very different from you written. yes, a lot has been said, there is a wonderful roznov encyclopedia of such a thousand nikolaevich putin let's name him. yes, the man says the first such biography of miscellaneous in the series. yes, of course, yes, and therefore i immediately limited the task for myself that i have no purpose to write. this is such a comprehensive book. there is no purpose to write his complete biography. about the meaning of all his work. i confess terrible things when i write biographies of my hero writers. the first thing i do is read a collection of their writings. well, what are you re-reading, something in the first time in this horror salted on these 330 and understood. i won't read this. i just drowned i will drown in this material and my task is very simple to tell the story of his life. here is his biography. in the truest sense of the word. i don't touch much of his work. here is my task to tell, when he was born, who were dad and mom, what were the women in his life, what were the children in his life? yes, because that's family life for growth. this is really the most important thing, in fact, it is family life that explains everything about him. coups. after all, this is amazingly even entered into russian literature conservatively with the police, yes, in such right-wing positions, and from the position of the monarchists, and then suddenly here he is like me, and pavel himself is the other way around. yes, the apostle paul who becomes the most becomes a pagan. he becomes a judaphile, he becomes a christian. why does this happen to paul, who becomes the most one can say that it happened to him, on the contrary , and why did it happen because here is, as it were, one of the most tragic tense moments of his life. it is his marriage history. yes, his first wife was apollinaria suslova, a lot of dostoevsky well, not very long-term, but in general, some period some period. there were two marriages. this is a significant period. i think that fyodor mikhailovich would not have written almost anything if they had parted like snakes, yes, but in his life both destructive constructively and in the life of various things are the same, and then, in general, they parted, and he has a second wife, but he was not divorced from the first, and therefore the second marriage was not considered legal, although they did not marry in the church, but for the state meant nothing, and so the children who were born in this marriage. they were not legitimate children. they didn't have his last name, they didn't have his, patronymic, and other things that wildly pissed off lilo, that he just didn't do it in order to turn the tide completely fet. yes , it was absolutely a completely common story, and people somehow put up with it and adapted myself to grigorievna dostoevskaya, who is already in the future satisfied, yes, exactly very friendly. he said you were worried. well, your girls will come out married, they change their last name, and he was furious wild. well, in a terrible situation, he would be such a person, of course, with such fantastic ideas about how the family got sick and died, the girls would go to the panel and become prostitutes, and he wanted them to be again like a son, relaxed. yes, and a prostitute. liza from the underground and many more who exactly? yes and so he writes a letter to the victorious ruling marquis, and they say to him, it’s even hard that he can’t do it and even understands that there are enemies around. well, enemies, who are they there, not the church bureaucracy, not the synod no higher. he is also a maximalist. and who is higher than jesus christ, and this is where the rozanov rebellion against the gospel against orthodoxy against the new testament begins, and from here, his roll into jewry the old testament in the ancient religion, because from his point of view there could not be such a thing, yes, and here is exactly the translation because if you do not recognize my children, yes, if christ did not order, as rozanov believes , to recognize children, at least in the interpretation and then on the laws. it sounded like his christoclasm arises. not even richer. that's it christ because for it turns out that christianity is a religion with which it is good to die, but it is bad to live christianity against the family against sex. yes, the most important part of human life, connected with eos with physical love, is also, as if shamefully hushed up, and exactly in this one, wildly infuriates the most important topic, the most important so-so writes down such details that james joyce just rests . yes, for him, he really was like that. here is an infant profit in every sense of the word. yes, because he could approach any woman and ask. but how are things with her husband still like at night, that there all the universities wanted him himself, are things going on or not at all? circumstances can you discuss the theatrical opening or what? you ate for dinner, that you can't discuss it? this is such a part of life, a huge huge important part of life, and than everything else . it's wonderful what you said rozanov i i think so, it seems to me, i am much less, uh, his feelings than would be, but it seems to me that he is not always aware of his bulgarianness. he is not a price tag. yes, absolutely organic, just like a child. the fact is that here, as if my idea of my book is exactly in this writer to a person who was robbed of his childhood. this is how his biography turned out. there, father died early. mom for the second time, well, actually got married. that's what a terrible man was, spread rot on children and was exactly a terrible father. virtually taken away childhood, and from this childhood. he fled to dream. he escaped in a dream from all these circumstances. and now, it seems to me, this is a stolen childhood. it then popped out. he remained such an eternal child at the same time, nevertheless, rozanov is valuable to us, not just for that. uh, how original he is, unlike anyone else, and by the fact that he expressed the time, because after all, the iron curtain. no matter how much they argue, he is or churchill, but still his idea, of course, after yes, of course the revolution yes, yes, this is his metaphor. i am the apocalypse of our time, that is, vasily hmm, organically and directly, i didn’t even always think about what he was doing and expressed a lot of truths. yes, actually the first russian blogger. after all, he came up with this genre e, the writer's diary. after all, this is the first block, after all, this is such a slightly long dough, and yet it is written in such a slightly heavy language in a dostaevsky way that it even made a revolution in the language, we speak our own fallen leaves, therefore, books in general. because yes, the person did not read. well, because by and large rostov journalism, interesting specialists. well, yes, he is sharp paradoxical, but who will read his numerous articles in the new time and in the russian word it has become part of history, fallen leaves are forever, solitary fallen leaves are the genre itself and thoughts in the same. if you think this is an essay. i really like the fact that in fact it is, as if the fight against literature is followed by some kind of reasoning, and then e famo