Literature Fund Society of Russian Literature. Communion of Russian literature

Dedicated to the creation of the Society of Russian Literature. Presented a report His Holiness Patriarch Moscow and All Rus' Kirill.

Society of Russian Literature

About existing initiatives

Despite the difficulties our country is experiencing today, much is being done to pay attention to cultural life our people. In my opinion, very creative undertakings and projects are emerging, many of them relying on the experience of predecessors who, through joint efforts, achieved important results in areas that are significant to society. Thus, in 2012, through the efforts of the state, scientists and public figures, the Russian historical society, which before the revolution was the locomotive of the study and popularization of Russian history. Four years ago, the Russian Military Historical Society was created, educating the younger generation using the examples of the military valor of our ancestors. The activities of the Russian Geographical and many other scientific societies are actively developing.

In 1992, on the initiative of Academician D.S. Likhachev, the Society of Amateurs was revived Russian literature, whose meetings began to be held at the Marina Tsvetaeva House-Museum. The society was active largely thanks to the extraordinary energy and enthusiasm of its secretary Raisa Nikolaevna Kleimenova. But, unfortunately, after her death in 2010, the organization practically ceased its activities, at least visible on a national scale.

Join forces

Considering the scale of changes that have taken place in our society and education over these six years, I believe it is appropriate and timely to give new life to the Society of Literature Lovers by filling its agenda with consideration of urgent problems. And we have gathered today to combine our efforts in preserving perhaps the most important segments national treasure- literature and the Russian language, which are a reliable foundation for the successful development of Russia not only in the 21st century, but, if God bless human history, for many centuries to come. Of course, both the Russian language and literature should be perceived as the most important elements of the national education system.

Traditional school

Traditional Russian school is an integral part Russian civilization, the main formative principle of which historically is the spiritual and moral criterion, the spiritual and moral basis. As the Primate of the Church, I cannot help but note that our civilization has largely grown from the Christian understanding of the essence of existence, from the Orthodox faith, nurturing the beauty of the people’s soul, which is captured in Russian literature and art. Cultivating a love for a virtuous life from early childhood was the basis of pedagogy. Surprisingly - a virtuous life as an indispensable condition for the formation of personality! The agreement of the spiritual principles of education in the family and school was the key to successful moral education the younger generation, and there was no opposition - what was taught at school was taught at home.

Domestic education assumed the development, as they said in the old days, of “the mind and abilities of the soul” with the help, on the one hand, exact sciences, especially highlighting mathematics, and on the other hand, the Russian language, classical literature, history, ancient and modern languages, the Law of God. All this formed a healthy national identity, high level morality and, as a result, loyalty to one’s homeland.

Similar associations existed in Russia before. As I already said today, in 1811 the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature was formed in Russia, with the goal of “promoting the success of Russian literature as the main means of spreading education.” At the meetings of the Society, F.I. presented their first experiments. Tyutchev and A.I. Polezhaev. One of the founders of the Society, Vasily Lvovich Pushkin, read poems by his nephew Alexander at meetings. Through the efforts of the Society, which united scientists and writers, government and public figures, over the 119 years of its existence, thousands of outstanding works of Russians were published literary critics and linguists, domestic philological education has become one of the most successful in the world, and in-depth study of the best works of Russian literature has become firmly established in school education. Here is a wonderful example of public initiative and the development of a school as a state institution. It is thanks to this that, despite all the trials and changes that befell Russian society during the Soviet period, it was possible to preserve and develop the highest culture and not lose continuity with the thousand-year-old national tradition.

The school that survived “ laboratory methods”

Domestic school Soviet period Having experienced separation from the Church, she experienced the introduction of a “class approach” to education, various kinds of “laboratory methods” of teaching, which my mother told me about with horror. As far as I remember, it was about the fact that not everyone prepares for lessons individually, but “in the laboratory,” that is, all together. This means that someone was placing commas, and someone was chasing pigeons or doing other important things at that time. As a result, someone knew something, but, in general, the generation that studied in schools in the 20s and early 30s was illiterate, including literary illiterate. However, in pre-war years returned to the pre-revolutionary tradition of teaching, or at least took decisive steps. The principles of scientific and systematic approach to education and an orientation towards a harmoniously developed personality began to be reaffirmed. The Soviet secondary school began to structurally correspond to the imperial gymnasium, borrowing a lot from it, including the completeness of teaching general education disciplines.

Any Soviet schoolchild could easily recite by heart Tatyana’s letter, an excerpt from Borodino, quote Griboyedov, Dostoevsky, Nekrasov, Tolstoy, Gorky, as I recently became convinced of while walking along the embankment of the Strait of Magellan before going to Antarctica and talking with members of the delegation. We vied with each other to quote “The Song of the Storm Petrel” - after all, even older people still had something left from those very years of schooling. By reading these works and comprehending them, children learned about the world, they formed ideas about good and evil, about truth and lies, about decency and crime, they assimilated the experience of previous generations, developed a culture of speech and thinking, and acquired artistic taste; finally, they became familiar with national history.

Literature and cultural self-identification of the individual

In Russia, literature has traditionally been entrusted with a special high mission in the field of intellectual, aesthetic, spiritual and moral development of the individual. Our predecessors understood that the native language and literature are involved in the formation of a person’s cultural self-identification, provide a connection with the history of the native people, with previous generations. Without this connection, cultural, and therefore value continuity is destroyed. After all, a people is a community of people, but not only living ones, but also a community of present and past generations. The concept of “people” unites people both horizontally - living today, and along the historical vertical.

What has been said is true, but not only in relation to the Russian language and literature, but also in general in relation to school as a concept and institution.

I will not hide that I am concerned about the growing number of requests from the most different people- parents and teachers, cultural figures and scientists who are sounding the alarm due to the sharp decline in the knowledge of schoolchildren, especially in the field of literature and the Russian language. Literacy is rapidly declining - to be convinced of this, just read posts on social networks. We gladly welcome the return of the practice of writing essays to school, but we cannot yet call the situation in education rosy. We have ceased to be, as I already said, one of the most reading countries, and the Unified State Exam score in the Russian language has been lowered.

What does this indicate and what consequences could it have? Of course, a schoolchild who does not know his language and does not become familiar with the national culture and, first of all, with literature, is cut off from his roots. It is more difficult for him to realize and, even more so, to feel involvement along that same historical vertical with his people, with the great events of the past, to share moral, spiritual and cultural ideals with national heroes and outstanding personalities.

Modern society is accustomed to saying that the younger generation is individualistic, pragmatic, has poor command of words, and does not like to read. I get to talk to young people and I see how their eyes light up when you talk about examples from the past, including literary examples when they suddenly learn something that, unfortunately, they did not learn about at school. There is a keen interest in all this, but it cannot be otherwise. We must not exclude the possibility that genetic heredity carries over not only physical or mental potencies, but also inclinations and even ideals formed by previous generations. So what needs to be done to unlock these potencies? We need to help children, and I think it is very important that this help begins at school, including by developing a serious approach to teaching the Russian language and literature.

I believe that the Society being created, consisting, among other things, of well-known specialists in the field of Russian language and literature, will be able to contribute to solving the problems that the school faces in the field of teaching these disciplines. It is known that today certain ideas are proposed for public discussion that have both their supporters and opponents. It is good that different ideas are being proposed, but it is very important that there be some place that is neutral and supportive enough to allow for competent and respectful debate so that solutions can be reached that meet the aspirations of many people, solutions that will really help our school to overcome the undoubted crisis and reach a level of teaching the Russian language and literature that will greatly contribute not just to the revival, but also to the further progressive development of our culture and, perhaps most importantly, to the progressive moral and spiritual development of the individual, so that future generations Russians were able to distinguish good from evil, truth from falsehood, decency from crime, so that they were able to build a peaceful, just and prosperous country. And may God help us in this.

Resolution of the founding meeting of the Society of Russian Literature

1. The problems of teaching literature and the Russian language in modern Russian schools, raised in reports and discussions at the founding meeting of the Society of Russian Literature, require broad professional and public discussion.

2. A decision was made to create the Society of Russian Literature.

3. Goals and objectives of the society:

Consolidation of the efforts of scientists, teachers, cultural figures, the general public to preserve the leading role of literature and the Russian language in the education of the younger generation, strengthening a single cultural and educational space, development best traditions domestic humanitarian education, cultural and educational activities.

4. The participants of the meeting take the initiative to hold a congress of teachers of literature and the Russian language and a forum of the parent community in order to develop a coordinated position on the most pressing and pressing problems of school philological education.

5. At the next meeting of the Society of Russian Literature, present the results of a professional and public discussion of the identified problems related to the teaching of literature and the Russian language in a modern Russian school.

Press service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'

On May 26, 2016, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' spoke at the Congress of the Society of Russian Literature.

Dear participants of the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature! I warmly greet you all.

I would like to note right away: although, as we know from Russian history, societies of lovers of Russian literature have been created before, such a representative meeting dedicated to issues of the Russian language and Russian literature is being held for the first time. In 1811, two societies were created in Russia, uniting people who were not indifferent to the fate of Russian literature. One of them, the literary and scientific “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” at Moscow University, existed until 1930. Another - “Conversations of Lovers of the Russian Word”, which united St. Petersburg writers - unfortunately, disbanded already in 1816, after the death of its founder Gabriel Derzhavin.

The “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” at Moscow University, which included, in addition to scientists and writers, statesmen and public figures, outstanding sons of our Fatherland, worked for the benefit of the people of their country for almost 120 years. During this time, the Society published many outstanding artistic and folklore works, scientific works and dictionaries. Thanks to him active work The teaching of philological disciplines in Russia has reached an unprecedented flourishing, and issues of the Russian language and literature have always been in the center of public attention and discussion.

In 1992, on the initiative of academician Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, the “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” was revived. But a few years later, after the death of Dmitry Sergeevich and the energetic secretary of the Society, Raisa Nikolaevna Kleimenova, it, alas, practically ceased its activities.

And now all of us who care about fate Russian culture, united for the sake of preserving our national heritage - the Russian language and the great Russian culture. The main goal of the newly formed Society of Russian Literature, as before, is the study and popularization of Russian literature and the Russian language, as well as increasing the role of philological disciplines in educational processes at all levels of the national school - from elementary to higher education.

We, representatives of the older generation, remember our school teachers with gratitude and are deeply grateful to them for their professionalism and the high quality of teaching that they demonstrated. Of course, the education system in the Soviet Union was largely ideological. But this is precisely the strength and greatness of Russian literature: it is capable of putting the light of truth, goodness and love into the hearts of readers, overcoming any peculiarities of the ideological context, including ideological blinders, “ iron curtains"and other harmful external circumstances.

The great Russian classical literature, which so providentially reached its most powerful age at the beginning of the tragic twentieth century, took on another important mission, a task beyond the capabilities of any other humanitarian sphere at that time: it fulfilled the purpose of preserving for posterity not only Russian culture, but also our national history.

Finally, Russian literature - albeit contradictory, but steadily and courageously - has always led its reader to the knowledge of the highest spiritual and moral values, to the knowledge of the highest meaning of life, to the knowledge of God.

In this regard, I recall the remarkably precise words of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev about the role and significance of literature and philology in general: “Literature is not only the art of words. This is the art of overcoming words.<…>Understanding a text is an understanding of the entire life of one’s era behind the text. Therefore, philology is the connection of all connections.<…>It underlies not only science, but all human culture. Knowledge and creativity are formed through the word, and through overcoming the rigidity of the word, culture is born.”

It is no coincidence that, perhaps not fully consciously rationally, but vividly feeling in their hearts, many people of the middle and older generation considered literature teachers to be their favorite teachers at school. But today the same literary scholars, our contemporaries - both young teachers and teachers of advanced age - are desperately sounding the alarm bell, seeing and realizing more clearly than others the danger of the situation that has developed in the current philological education.

The opinion that young people read little these days has become a common truth for many. But this fact, fortunately, is highly controversial. Firstly, not all young people read a little. And secondly, this problem is not insoluble.

I remember how in the 1950s and 60s they were worried that film adaptations of literary works would lead to teenagers stopping reading, just as they now say that computers and adapted books will completely wean young people from reading the classics. Of course, this can happen if the teacher does not instill a taste for literature and reading. That is why in our computerized times the role of a mentor is especially important - a person who transfers knowledge from heart to heart, from mind to mind. Indeed, in this communication there is not only a rational, but also a spiritual, emotional principle. I think everyone who is present here has long forgotten the content of the lectures of their professors in higher school. And when we say: “We had a wonderful professor,” the last thing we think about is the content of these lectures. The very fact of meeting a wonderful person is remembered, and not only on a rational level.

Therefore, the role of the teacher cannot be overestimated. He does not simply transmit information, as a computer does, he refracts what is said through himself and transmits part of his soul, his mind to those who listen to him. And if this is a sincere person, if he is a devotee of his craft, then nothing can compare in terms of the power of persuasion and influence on the audience with the words of a true master of his craft - a teacher.

And here, in my opinion, lies the root of the problem. Of course, the range, level and quality of reading of a growing, emerging person is influenced by the modern rhythm of life, and introduction to Internet culture, and innovations electronic age. But the main problem, I think, is that school, society and the state, in the end, do not always take care with due diligence and responsibility to instill in young people a taste for reading, teach them to understand and love literature, and to learn from what you read, the most important lessons for life.

This problem is complex, but completely solvable. For this you need Special attention pay attention to the training of teaching staff in the humanities. It is impossible for people to enter pedagogical institutes on the residual principle: if you don’t get into an elite university, where to go? To the pedagogical! Pedagogical universities must become intellectual, cultural centers our country, and the prestige of teachers should be comparable to the prestige of scientists, astronauts, and athletes. In that case capable people will go to pedagogical universities, and it is they who will form the new generation, even if not everything goes well with the programs and manuals. Because a talented teacher can convey a powerful emotional, spiritual, intellectual signal over bureaucratic documentation - believe me, I know this first-hand.

Nevertheless, it is useful for us to think about school and university programs that are so actively discussed today, including their variability. I hope we will talk about this topic again, but, looking forward to the discussion, I would like to express my opinion: there is no need to be afraid of the word “variability.” Some shy away from him as if from a scarecrow. But the whole question is what to choose from. If we choose between two works by Dostoevsky, we will not lose anything. But if great classic will be contrasted with a writer whose work does not evoke universal admiration, and whose personality does not evoke respect, then this is no longer variability; a different term should be applied to such a phenomenon.

Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of variability. We need to talk about the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural content of school education programs. It is important that behind smart and attractive formulations such as “modular teaching”, “thematic principle”, “variable content”, “strengthening subjectivity in teaching”, “the teacher’s ability to formulate his own program, adapting it to the specifics of the school, class, region” , - there were verified and time-tested pedagogical methods, and did not hide, as happens, pedagogical helplessness, essentially unnecessary and dubious experiments, taste, restless desire for reforms, unprofessionalism, in the end. But it's not a matter of terms - it's a matter of content, a good head and a kind heart. Then we will have reached a national consensus on all the most complex issues, including those we are currently considering.

Of course, the school curriculum as a whole is overloaded, and the child does not always cope with it successfully. I remember my academic years: The family was poor, and I was forced to work and study. I didn’t have a minute of free time either on the tram or on the bus - I was always with a book. I know what it's like to be overwhelmed. But I thank my wonderful teachers, who, despite this overload, armed me not only with knowledge, but also with a love of literature, and taught me how to write essays. And trying to make it easier for children to study by providing the opportunity to remove from the curriculum great works of artistic literature recognized throughout the world is, of course, unacceptable.

In preparing for this speech, I tried to delve into the main controversial issues relating to the teaching of literature in school. There are problems that I would like to propose for our joint discussion.

Some “experts” argue that Russian classical literature - its language, heroes, value paradigm - is incomprehensible to modern schoolchildren, and therefore almost useless in the field of education. Another thing, in their opinion, is the literature of modern times, which talks about familiar realities, qualities needed for successful life, trends, excuse the word, etc.

"Trend" - foreign word. “Tendency” is also foreign, but Latin. Why was the Latin word “tendency” replaced by the English “trend”, explain to me, educated people? Or is the word “trend” an indicator of education? For me this is a very bad sign. That is why I did not delete the word “trend” from this text, wanting to express my opinion about the often completely illogical, unjustified use of foreign, primarily English, words in our modern Russian language.

Undoubtedly, best works Literatures of the turn of the XX-XXI centuries should be studied in school, but they should be introduced into the program without haste, remembering the ideological function of literature, which can awaken “good feelings,” in the words of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, and can promote both allegorical and explicit form of images and ideas that are destructive for children.

It is necessary to find a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the list of works offered for classroom and extracurricular reading. The need for responsible discussion and adoption of the so-called “golden canon” seems fundamentally important. It can be called whatever you like: “golden canon”, “national canon”, “canon of Russian literature”, but there must be a set of texts that must be studied in high school. Without this, we simply will not be able to form in children a holistic perception of Russian literature, and therefore Russian culture. I think there is no need to be afraid that in such a situation teachers are deprived of choice. There is always a choice: to work conscientiously or carelessly, to sincerely love children and your profession or to be indifferent to it. But the most important thing is the choice that I mentioned earlier. The teacher can choose from the two best the best, from his point of view. But the choice cannot be between the best and the mediocre, between obligatory for everyone due to the unique contribution of the work to Russian and world culture and a purely conceptual text, interesting in this moment, but losing meaning along with the disappearance of the historical context. Attaching liberal arts education solely to the context of the era is the wrong method. Undoubtedly, education should actualize ideas emanating from culture, from tradition. Without this, culture and tradition die. The modern context cannot fully control the educational process, because what is very important in our fast-moving time will not be important tomorrow. How we suffered from the problems of the 90s! I remember what was happening in this room. Such was the battle between right and left! Where are these battles, where are these people? Everything is gone, but Pushkin hasn’t left! So, I think that it is necessary to find a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the list of works offered for classroom and extracurricular reading. Fundamentally important is the need to preserve, as I have already said, a certain canon. And I believe that this is what we should focus on: what kind of canon is this, what kind of books are and how variability can operate within this canon.

Obviously, one of the reasons for the decline in interest in Russian literature and its generally unsatisfactory knowledge among the younger generation was, among other things, the ongoing educational reforms over several years. I do not want to criticize any specific institutions, or people, or the very idea of ​​reform. Professionals have already made various comments and will probably continue to criticize certain aspects of this reform. It is also impossible without reforms. You can't stand in one place. The world is developing, the school is developing, our country is developing. On May 24, the day of Cyril and Methodius, I was at a concert on Red Square. A girl was sitting next to me. I look - he sings very well, with a clear voice, very clearly. I started talking to her. The girl is studying in the 5th grade, I looked at her and couldn’t believe my eyes - sitting in front of me was an adult, relaxed, smart, knowledgeable. I remember myself in the 5th grade - I would not only be afraid to say a word to the Patriarch, I would be afraid to say a word to the school principal. But this is a different generation, and if we say that the school of the 50s-60s should be the indisputable gold standard for us, we will ruin the school, the standard, and everything else.

At the same time, I am sure that it would be wrong to consider education reforms, as I have already said, from an exclusively critical point of view. As a result of long-term reforms that affected all areas and levels of education, it was necessary to radically lower the minimum threshold in the Unified State Examination. We are now touching on this difficult topic. Regarding the Unified State Exam, I will express my opinion - I have already expressed it several times in different audiences, I think it is important to do this now, without, of course, claiming any special positive assessments - it seems to me that completely abandoning the Unified State Exam would be the wrong step. I became acquainted with the Unified State Exam in Finland about 30 years ago. I had a connection to this country - I managed our parishes there, being the rector of the theological academy in St. Petersburg. And then one day I came to this country on a spring day, and I saw how many young people were wearing white caps. They explained to me that these are those who passed the state exam for high school. I ask: “What does this status give?” - “Student title.” - “Have they already entered universities?” - “No, and many will not do so. But they are already students, they have their own status recognized by the state.” And they told me about Unified State Exam system, and I thought it was a good thing to have some kind of prescriptive assessment of a student's knowledge.

But there is something in this good idea that you definitely need to pay attention to in order to correct it in the future. better side, because cash Unified State Exam status causes too much criticism from parents, children, and teachers. The first criticism and objection is the test response system. There are subjects whose knowledge cannot be assessed in a test manner. You can pass the traffic rules in a test manner, but in some countries they refused: they offer to examine certain situations on computers. At one time I took my license in Switzerland - you put crosses and that’s it. But people realized that this was not entirely correct, that such an assessment system for a whole range of subjects was insufficient.

Therefore, it seems to me that, firstly, the introduction of an essay is already a very big step forward. It is important that an oral component be added to the Unified State Examination, which would not serve as the only method for determining knowledge. After all, a personality reveals itself when it talks, and the girl revealed herself when she started talking to me. And if you gave her some template, it remains to be seen what she would say. Therefore, I am deeply convinced that the oral component when passing a state exam in a number of subjects is a very important point. Of course, this primarily concerns the Russian language and literature. It is impossible to “drive” all the wealth of our literature into tests and short answers to questions. Recently, at the awards ceremony for the Patriarchal laureates literary prize I already recalled the words of Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman, with whom I had the joy of personal acquaintance and communication. I can’t say that we were friends, but we were mutually interested interlocutors. I knew both him and his wife, and I gained a lot from communicating with this man. So, he said that eternal ideas and values ​​invariably put on the clothes of time, and the reader only needs to correctly recognize these thoughts. Today I would like to quote another remarkable statement by this outstanding philologist. Speaking about such categories as culture and information, he said: “Culture is not a warehouse of information at all.<…>Culture is a flexible and complexly organized mechanism of cognition.” It is impossible to imagine literature as a collection of data about writers, their works and main characters. Reading a literary work is always reflection, deep inner work mind and heart, which cannot be seen and assessed by correctly checking the boxes.

It is no coincidence that in the 50s and 60s there were sometimes critical remarks about the film adaptation classical works. What happens to a person when he reads a classic literary work? And the more talented the author, the more powerfully what I’m about to say affects a person. Everyone who reads fiction creates an artistic image in their mind. And the stronger the writer, the brighter the image in our minds. I do not live by the images that I saw in films based on the novels of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. I have developed my own images, even my own room interiors; how I imagine the clothes based on what was written in these texts, what the characters looked like. In other words, each of us, reading a literary text, becomes a co-author; for himself - we have already talked about actualization today - he personally updates the content of the work of art. And this cannot be replaced either by cinema, although even there it is interesting to observe the skill of the director and actors, or by theatre, although there it is important to see the beauty of everything that the director and actor create. Because with reading, you are the director yourself, you are the artist yourself, you are the director yourself. It is in this part of assimilation literary text, I think, contains its enduring significance for the formation of personality, for the formation of human culture.

An extremely important topic that also needs our joint discussion is the issue of training future teachers. I have already said this and will not dwell on it. I will only say that Russian literature is, without exaggeration, one of the pillars of our national life, the most important foundation of the civilization of the Russian world, I would say, the cultural pillar of state life. Therefore, the future of the Russian language and literature should be a subject of discussion not only among professionals, but also among everyone Russian society. This is a strategic task today that must be resolved responsibly.

The fertile field of Russian literature should not be an arena for ideological battles, for lobbying someone's interests, or inappropriate experiments. We need to clear this platform of internecine strife that we inherited from the 90s. We must fully understand what last years, over the decades, mistakes and distortions were, of course, made, but there is no life without mistakes and without distortions. It is very dangerous when a mistake is not noticed, when, due to political and human factors, it is hushed up and becomes part of the flesh and blood of people’s life. That's when this mistake becomes a historical crime. I think we are all called today - not only society, but also the Government, the writing workshop, readers - to realize that we are at a very important point in our spiritual and cultural development. What will happen to our school, to our literature, to our writing workshop and to our readers depends to a large extent on what this development will be like.

Thank you for attention.

― Likhachev D.S. About the art of words and philology.
― Lotman Yu.M. Culture and information // Lotman Yu.M. Articles on semiotics of culture and art.

1 /

On March 9, 2016, the Society of Russian Literature was created, the chairman of which was Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'. On May 25–26, Moscow hosted the first congress of this organization, which is designed to unite professionals and experts, teachers and parents, and cultural figures.

The President set tasks

Speaking at the plenary session of the congress, which took place in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that “preserving the Russian language, literature and our culture are issues of national security, preserving our identity in the global world.”

According to the head of state, the Society of Russian Literature should “become a platform for developing consolidated approaches to the promotion of the Russian language, popularization Russian literature, helping young and talented writers and, of course, solving the problems of philological education.”

As Vladimir Putin explained, this is “not only about ensuring public and expert assessment of educational and educational materials, but also about participating in the revision of federal state educational standards in terms of the Russian language and literature, in the preparation of specialized training programs and a list of literary works, which the younger generations must know."

“We must do everything so that knowledge of classical and modern literature and competent speech become an integral part of the country’s life, in fact, a rule of good manners, so that it becomes fashionable, so that our entire society takes care of their preservation and development,” the president emphasized.

Is it possible to solve these problems? Patriarch Kirill looks to the future with optimism. According to him, the opinion that “young people read little is a very controversial fact.” Firstly, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church stated that not all young people read a little, and secondly, this problem is not insoluble if there is an intelligent mentor nearby, a teacher who can instill a taste for reading and the desire to learn important lessons for life.

Therefore, according to the Patriarch’s conviction, “teacher universities should become intellectual and cultural centers”; applicants cannot be admitted there on a residual basis, and the prestige of teachers should be comparable to the prestige of scientists and athletes.

His Holiness also touched upon such pressing problems as the variability of school and university programs. In his opinion, there is no need to be afraid of variability - we should talk about the intellectual and spiritual content of school education programs, about a reasonable balance of compulsory and variable components. The same applies to the list of literature intended for reading by students: there must be some kind of “golden canon”, which includes time-tested works of Russian classics, from which a literature teacher could choose the best, in his opinion, books.

Patriarch Kirill did not ignore the eternally relevant Unified State Exam topic, criticizing the multiple-choice portion of the test. True, RAO President Lyudmila Verbitskaya corrected him that such tasks are now excluded from the Unified State Exam in Russian language and literature and even shared interesting news: in 2017 it is planned to introduce oral part in control and measuring materials on these subjects.

The speech of the Minister of Education and Science Dmitry Livanov did not make an impression on the participants of the congress. The reason is that he spoke about achievements and successes (about the increase in hours for studying Russian language and literature; about the increase in the number of children taking part in essay competitions; about the upcoming renewal of school library collections), while people gathered to analyze the accumulated problems requiring urgent solutions.

The teachers made a decision

This was evidenced by the discussions that took place at the meetings of the working sections that took place on the eve of the plenary session.

The most heated discussions took place in the section devoted to the teaching of Russian language and literature at school.

Section moderator, absolute winner of the “Teacher of the Year” competition (2012), director of “Gymnasium No. 1520 named after. Kaptsov" in Moscow, Vita Kirichenko set the tone for the discussion from the very beginning, posing the question bluntly: how to relate to the recently developed documents - the Concept of teaching Russian language and literature and the Approximate basic educational program for high school in these disciplines?

The section leader offered three options to choose from: 1. These documents are a given that must be accepted. 2. Regard these documents as temporary, to which teachers have the right to make changes at their own discretion. 3. These documents will not have a significant impact on the life of the school; they can be ignored in your daily activities.

Those gathered accepted the second option as a basis. As it turned out, many are not satisfied with the concept of teaching Russian language and literature: the reason is that, despite lengthy professional and public discussion, not all teachers’ opinions were taken into account in the final version. But since the document is a framework, adjustments can still be made to it, and at this stage it is important to join in the discussion of the action plan for implementing the concept.

As for the Approximate Basic Educational Program for High School, the section participants decided to postpone its approval due to the need for refinement.

In addition, experts intend to conduct an examination of all textbooks on the Russian language and literature included in the Federal List.

Finally, the idea of ​​organizing a congress of language teachers in 2017 received universal support.

Parents wanted to go back in time

An equally heated discussion took place at the meeting of the section “The Role of Parents, Parent Communities and Public Organizations in Preserving the Russian Language,” which brought together representatives of the National Parents Association from 48 regions. During the discussion, one could hear a variety of proposals. For example, about the need to return uniform textbooks and programs to modern schools; on the introduction of a course in Russian literature instead of two separate subjects - Russian language and literature. One of the parents suggested teaching children in elementary school to write with fountain pens and ink - they say, this is the only way to develop calligraphic handwriting...

Summing up the results of the section’s work, Alexey Gusev, chairman of the coordinating council of the all-Russian public organization “National Parental Association for Social Support of the Family and Protection of Family Traditions,” noted: a survey of more than 1,000 parents showed that the overwhelming majority are dissatisfied with the quality of teaching and textbooks. Many see the solution in returning to the Soviet school model and traditional teaching principles.

As Alexey Gusev stated with regret, parents do not have sufficient competence to motivate children to study the Russian language and literature, to examine textbooks, so educating parents is one of the priority tasks of the Society of Russian Literature for the near future.

Preliminary results

By the way, teachers on the sidelines of the congress complained that parents have recently perceived education as a service sector and put pressure on teachers, demanding high results in terms of current performance and final certification.

As Julia Uvarova, a teacher of Russian language and literature at Moscow school No. 825, told us, the Unified State Exam has turned from a tool that tests the level of knowledge into an end in itself for learning. Given the lack of hours for a full study of the Russian language and literature, a colossal amount of time is spent not on the development and upbringing of children, but on all kinds of diagnostics and monitoring, measuring meta-subject results, trial exams, and compiling reports.

The bureaucratic avalanche is consuming the school: it is no coincidence that the participants in the section “Russian Language and Literature at School” appealed to the Ministry of Education and Science with a demand to take control of the feasibility of collecting data from teachers by various organizations.

In addition, according to teachers, the unjustified pursuit of high scores, on the basis of which school ratings are compiled, leads to even greater stratification and inequality in the education system, widening the gap between mass and elite schools.

Finally, according to teachers, when preparing events such as the congress of the Society of Russian Literature, more time should be left for live discussions - both in real and virtual space. During the tense meetings, many did not have the opportunity to express their opinions, and organizing a forum on the Internet could significantly expand the circle of participants.

According to the director of the philological center of the united publishing group "DROFA" - "VENTANA-GRAF" and candidate of philological sciences Larisa Savchuk, very important and pressing problems were announced at the congress - such as, for example, the decline of speech culture in society or the creation of special programs and textbooks for teaching Russian to migrants; increasing the role of the Russian language in interethnic communication; support for Russian scholars and Russian-speaking citizens of the near abroad, but the question remains open of how all this will be implemented in practice, what powers and financial resources the Society of Russian Literature will receive for these purposes.

As for solutions, accepted by the participants Congress, not all of them can be assessed unambiguously, Larisa Savchuk believes. For example, the intention of specialists to postpone the approval of the Model Basic Educational Program for high school could result in a big problem for both textbook authors and publishing houses, which must prepare textbooks for the new Federal List by September of this year.

If we talk about the Concept of Teaching Russian Language and Literature, then, according to L. Savchuk, the criticism is not entirely justified: according to her, this is a fairly balanced document, which presents a reasonable combination of mandatory and variable parts, maintaining a balance of scientific and practical components.

As she explained, opponents are not satisfied with the fact that the developers have focused on the communicative aspect of learning the Russian language, on the formation of practical skills (the ability to speak, write texts in different genres and styles), allegedly downplaying the importance of the principles of science and systematicity. But it should be taken into account that a good level of communicative competence today is a requirement of the time and one of the main demands of society, which is reflected in school standards. At the same time, maintaining a balance between knowledge of the theory of language and the development of the ability to use it in one’s speech practice depends on the qualifications of textbook authors and teachers.

“Russian textbooks are written by famous linguists and philologists; in this area there is continuity and preservation of the best traditions,” states Larisa Savchuk. – The only thing that is really worth regretting is the loss of such an important procedure as testing new textbooks. But in our publishing house we constantly maintain feedback with the teaching community and promptly respond to their comments and recommendations in the process of reprinting textbooks.”

Renewal of the world begins at school

In general, the first congress of the Society of Russian Literature was successful. He demonstrated the civic activity of the professional community, its interest in solving pressing problems of studying the Russian language and literature. This gives us hope that the Society of Russian Literature will become the same authoritative organization as the already existing Russian Historical and Russian Geographical Societies, the Royal Society of Literature of Great Britain, the German Goethe Institute and the Chinese Confucius Institute. All of them play a significant role in popularizing science and updating education.

And how can one not recall the words of the outstanding scientist Dmitry Mendeleev that “the renewal of the world begins at school”...

Olga Dashkovskaya

The Society of Russian Literature was headed not by writers and philologists, but by clergymen of one of the religious organizations of Russia. Photo from the site www.patriarchia.ru

The Society of Russian Literature has been created in our country. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' announced this on March 9 of this year, opening a meeting of the Patriarchal Commission for Culture on the territory of the historical park at VDNKh. The facade of the pavilion where the historical park “Russia” is located. My story,” decorate the portrait of Alexander III and the famous words of the emperor that Russia has only two allies - the army and the navy. Modern Russia added Russian literature to the number of allies. Apparently accurate Russian word, according to the Kremlin (the patriarch said that the idea of ​​​​creating a society comes from Putin), will help unite the country.

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church recalled that in the 19th and 20th centuries the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature already operated at Moscow State University. However, pre-revolutionary society was led by writers and academics, not hierarchs, despite the fact that the Church was then a state institution. “I accepted this proposal precisely because we are talking about the humanitarian dimension of our lives, individuals, society, state, and the humanitarian dimension is part of the spiritual responsibility of the Church,” this is how the patriarch explained the president’s proposal to lead the new society to him, the leader religious organization. By the way, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature existed after the revolution, until the 1930s, in democratic Russia it was recreated and still exists. Patriarch Kirill, in his report at the meeting on March 9, mentioned a parallel structure, but believes that its activities “practically ceased” in 2010.

The founding meeting of the Society of Russian Literature adopted a resolution that outlined the goals: “consolidating the efforts of scientists, teachers, cultural figures, and the general public to preserve the leading role of literature and the Russian language in the education of the younger generation, strengthening a single cultural and educational space, developing the best traditions of the domestic humanitarian education, cultural and educational activities.” The main activity of the society will be work related to recommendations for teaching literature in secondary schools. One of these recommendations, according to media reports about the debate that unfolded after the patriarch’s announcement of the creation of the society, will be the formation of a list of literature for schoolchildren to read. Problem general list It has long occupied the minds of officials, and its discussion has even risen to the presidential level.

“The story with the list of works has been going on for several years: it began back in the late 90s, when Unified State Exam name– for ease of verification, the wide recommended list of works for school study was narrowed and became the “Mandatory Minimum,” recalls Mikhail Pavlovets, Associate Professor of the School of Philology at the Higher School of Economics, participating in the group developing the “Approximate Basic educational programs", which is supervised by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science. – Then the so-called “Putin’s list of 100 books” appeared that every graduate should read Russian school, several alternative lists from different organizations and persons, finally a list in the “Concept of School Philological Education”, which was developed by the Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature (ASSUL), which gathered under its wing the mainly conservative part of domestic literature specialists. That “Concept”, contrary to the wishes of its creators, never received official, normative status, but if we carefully read the list of the created Society of Russian Literature, then in it we will find most of the names associated with ASUL, and with the “Concept”, and with that the list itself."

According to Pavlovets, the Russian Orthodox Church itself will not compile any lists, but it acts as the patron of a group of experts, giving a certain administrative weight to their findings. “Although certain wishes will most likely be expressed,” the expert adds, “the positions of writers who are still in the late Soviet time through the efforts of the leaders of the so-called Russian party in Soviet culture and education, they were recorded as “protectors” and “conservatives”: in this sense, Dostoevsky has an advantage over Tolstoy, Shmelev over Bulgakov (about whose “The Master and Margarita” some believers have many questions - but not to his “White Guard”), Yesenin before Mayakovsky, etc. At the same time, it is unlikely that any significant names will drop out of the list: the creators of this kind of lists know that any author can be made a supporter of any ideology, including the Orthodox-protective one: it is no coincidence that in the context of the list one recalls the experience of the Soviet school, in which the poem Blok's "Twelve" was taught as an apology for the revolution, and " Dead Souls"Gogol - as a denunciation of serfdom."

Indeed, at the founding meeting, Patriarch Kirill more than once spoke kindly of the Soviet school and even admitted that during a recent visit to Antarctica he almost recited Gorky’s “Petrel” out loud.

Previously, Christian Churches compiled lists of prohibited books. The Catholic Index librorum prohibitorum is known. However, the Russian Orthodox Church of imperial times also contributed to the prohibition of “spiritually harmful” works, such as: “On the causes and nature of the union in western Russia" Kostomarov, "Folk Russian Legends" by Afanasyev, the 6th volume of the collected works of 1889 by Leskov (about the life of the clergy), "Resurrection" by Tolstoy, etc. Already today there is a struggle either with Nabokov or with Pushkin’s “The Tale of the Priest and His Worker Balda.”

Immediately after the announcement of the creation of the Society of Russian Literature, the Church Commission for Family Affairs made a proposal to remove some stories by Chekhov, Bunin and Kuprin from the school curriculum. This statement appeared so inopportunely that the chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media, Vladimir Legoida, hastened to present it as a purely private opinion.

With the creation of the Society of Russian Literature, the Russian Orthodox Church turns to the formation of its “positive” Russian and Soviet classics. Pavlovets says: “The mandatory list has several meanings: firstly, it is given the state meaning of the “spiritual bond” of the “single educational space of Russia” - so that, relatively speaking, in the Udmurt school of Tatarstan they read the same “War and Peace” in literature lessons, as in the Russian school of Kaliningrad or Sakhalin. This will emphasize the state-forming role of the Russian Orthodox Church, which supports a single list.”

It is not difficult to imagine on what basis the Church will formulate its recommendations. “Our civilization has largely grown from the Christian understanding of the essence of existence, from the Orthodox faith, nurturing the beauty of the people’s soul, which is imprinted in Russian literature and art,” Patriarch Kirill formulated this position.

“Literature is valuable in the eyes of the Church only if it meets the goals of Christian preaching,” says culturologist Roman Bagdasarov. – Let’s try to imagine that today “ Dictionary living Great Russian language" (which was once published by the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature) would be published under the editorship of Patriarch Kirill. He would have to include such words as “motherfuck”, “havchik”, “scum”, as well as the immortal expression “soak in the toilet”. Is he ready for such a turn? Hardly. Meanwhile, Dahl's dictionary contained stylistically similar words and expressions in abundance, because it set the task of showing the lexical composition that was relevant at that time as a whole. This was what Vladimir Dahl intended. This is the only way to seriously judge the trends in language development, much less try to somehow influence them.”

“This is probably why Patriarch Kirill and his associates decided to found another society rather than recreate the old one,” continues Bagdasarov. “Before Kirill’s statement, not a single philologist was included in the Patriarchal Council for Culture, even at the level of honorary members.” The expert recalled that the preface to Dahl’s dictionary was once written not by an ordinary specialist in philology, but by a world-famous linguist, Ivan Baudouin de Courtenay.

Similar concerns in a tendentious approach, but already to the literary heritage and the current literary process, are expressed by Mikhail Pavlovets: “Russian culture (and literature in particular) is too rich - and continues to be actively replenished in recent decades (including due to previously prohibited or forgotten works): no mandatory list can give an idea of ​​all the diversity - artistic, ethnocultural, ideological and philosophical - of our literature, but it can leave part of this diversity behind, and pass off another, much smaller part, through educational institutions, as the main one, summit." The expert recalls that, in accordance with the tradition that developed in Soviet times, this is primarily the literature of realism. Participation in the discussion of the Russian Orthodox Church, in his opinion, will additionally highlight works in which Christian motifs are significant.

“A single list will make the fate easier for those teachers who simply do not have the resources or desire to expand their professional horizons: having mastered a certain mandatory list once and for all, you can work on it from year to year, relying on the work of previous years: hence the participation of members of the teachers’ association in the project . And finally, modern education becomes more and more varied, its content is updated following successes modern science and culture, which is why educational publishing houses suffer: textbooks cease to be the main source of information, in particular - in literature, the variety of books studied in different classes and schools kills the very idea of ​​a textbook, and here a single list will be a great help (therefore, in the story with a list, active representatives of some publishing houses). The main problem that such a list will not solve, but, on the contrary, will worsen, is the problem of “Alexia”, non-reading modern children and youth. But supporters of the list do not see a big problem in this: they fight against the “hedonic” approach to reading (confusing aesthetic pleasure with physiological pleasure), they talk about reading “classics” primarily as hard spiritual work that should be forced to: religious thought about salvation suffering is also included in the ideological arsenal of adherents of the list. Thus, the classics are perceived as something like the ancient languages ​​that were previously studied in gymnasiums: these languages ​​are dead trunk - but living roots, they are in no way in demand by modernity - but they commune a person with eternity and tradition. This approach is not in great demand by the modern education system, aimed at adapting a person to the fluid modernity and preparing him for an uncertain future: there is a systematic approach, a conflict between two cultural models, two value systems, two understandings of the purpose of education. And one of them, with the active support of the state, has a chance to establish itself in our country for some time, despite the fact that from a historical perspective it is most likely doomed,” sums up Pavlovets.

The creation of the Society of Russian Literature will allow the Russian Orthodox Church to expand its presence in the education system. The Moscow Patriarchate has long and regularly reminded that the existing format of “spiritual and moral education” in schools, namely the pluralistic course “Fundamentals of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics,” does not satisfy it at all. In addition to proposals to expand ORKSE to all years of study, which the Ministry of Education and Science has so far successfully fought off, the Church is trying to invade other areas of knowledge. Theology has recently achieved recognition as a scientific discipline.

The rationale for such a strategy can be heard from the lips of Patriarch Kirill. “Domestic education assumed the development, as they said in the old days, of “the mind and abilities of the soul” with the help, on the one hand, of the exact sciences, especially mathematics, and on the other, the Russian language, classical literature, history, ancient and modern languages, and the Law of God “, said the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Moscow Patriarchate is just these days discussing the draft “Educational Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” which states that “The Church throughout its history has strived for the churching of a culture that includes various aspects spiritual and social existence of a person, transforming it and filling it with Christian content.”

The Russian Orthodox Church is looking for new ways to “church” education and culture – and finds them. The state, it seems, is ready to hand over the entire humanitarian sphere to the clerics for “nurturing.” The benefit for the Church from this does not require comment, but the benefit for society remains a topic of debate.

Everyone knows such milestones in Russian culture as the dictionary of V.I. Dahl, the monument to A.S. Pushkin in Moscow, the monument to N.V. Gogol by N.A. Andreev. It would seem, what do they have in common? This commonality is often not named in studies on these subjects, which is especially offensive. What they have in common is that the dictionary was published by the Society of Lovers of Russian (Russian) Literature, and the celebration of the opening of the monument to Pushkin in 1880 with the famous speeches of Dostoevsky and Turgenev was also organized by the Society. And it also collected money for the monument to Gogol, participated in organizing a competition for the design of the monument, and looked for a place to install it. For this alone, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature deserves attention and respect. The Society’s contribution to the development of Russian culture and literature remains, unfortunately, still poorly understood.

OLRS arose in 1811 at the turn of Russian literature towards a new direction, towards new forms in a changing general cultural process. It saw its goal in creating “sound” literature. To do this, it began to study the heritage of Russian literature from Lomonosov, since it believed that modern Russian culture began with him. It dealt with the problems of the Russian language and collected materials for various dictionaries.

In the dispute about the Russian language, which at that time played a big role in the development of culture, the Society did not side with either A.S. Shishkov or N.M. Karamzin, since it saw the truth somewhere in the middle. From the first years of its existence to the last, it never came out with sharp criticism of the work of this or that writer. It recognized the talent of its contemporaries, but left the final assessment for later, choosing as its members the opponents of Shishkov and Karamzin, classicists and romantics. Society has been reproached more than once for not appreciating Pushkin’s work during his lifetime, for “not keeping up with the rapid progress of Russian literature.” But it did not strive for this. Only after several decades, after the opening of the monument to Pushkin in Moscow in 1880, the Society began a campaign for the canonization of Pushkin. One of the founders of the Society, its main ideologist A.F. Merzlyakov cried over Pushkin’s works, felt how wonderful it was, but he could not give them a sober assessment, bring them under the rules known to him...

In 1836, when the Society turned 25 years old, its life came to a standstill, although it would seem that everything should have been the other way around. Russian literature at this time already had Batyushkov, Zhukovsky, almost all of Pushkin, Gogol, ending with The Inspector General. And at the meetings, the appendices of the psalms and innocent poetic exercises of the members were still read. The society made attempts to revive its activities, which had declined after the Decembrist uprising. N.I. Nadezhdin even drew up a plan according to which, again, everything had to start with M.V. Lomonosov, but Nadezhdin’s publication of P.Ya. Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter” in 1837 stopped these attempts. The Society did not enjoy the support of the university administration either. A.E. Gruzinsky, assessing the activities of the Society for the first period in 1911, said: “The largest literary novelties, read over 25 years, there were excerpts from Gnedich’s Iliad, a number of Krylov’s fables, scenes from Yuri Miloslavsky Zagoskin. Among the authors among huge amount The Shatrovs, Salarevs, Smirnovs, Filippovs, Kokoshkin, Merzlyakov and V.L. Pushkin seem to be major ones, and three Lyceum poems by Pushkin the nephew, read by Uncle Vasily Lvovich, two or three of Zhukovsky’s less significant works, and early translations from Horace F.I. Tyutchev 1816-1819. ... For 25 years it has not moved forward one step. The entire flowering of our fiction passed by him. Chained for 25 years to cherished dream publish Lomonosov's odes, it did not notice either Pushkin or Gogol. You can be sure that Lomonosov himself would not approve of this.” But the significance of the Society during this period lay elsewhere. It began a systematic study of Russian literature and its language; it created the environment, the soil on which talents grew. Boarding school pupils and university students were involved in the work of the Society and were accepted as employees. Among them were a graduate of the University Noble Boarding School F.I. Tyutchev and student A.I. Polezhaev.

The 27 volumes of works published by the Society played a significant role in the development philological science. They contain materials for dictionaries, discussions about the problems of Russian grammar, the Slavic language, the history of Russian literature and literary experiments contemporaries of Pushkin, reflecting the level of literature over which the poet rose. We must not forget the work of the members of the Society in publishing the speeches of Moscow University professors, delivered in Russian. This publication is also a kind of milestone in Russian culture. It put an end to the debate about what language to teach at the university - Russian, or German, or Latin. The publication showed that the Russian language has reached a height that makes it possible to teach any science.

In the second period of its activity (1858-1877), both in the previous and subsequent ones, the Society saw its main purpose in the study of the past. It again dreamed of publishing Lomonosov’s works, but due to lack of funds, its dream was never realized. At this time, the Society was headed by Slavophiles or persons close to them in their views, which left its mark on its activities. Literary movement, which unfolded in the 60s of the last century in St. Petersburg, was not reflected in the activities of the Society. It consciously moved away from him. As a result, both in the first period and in the second, the Society was unable to create anything significant in the criticism that it wanted to see “sound and harmless.” The society took upon itself such an important task in the Slavophil movement as the study of the people, namely their folklore, their language. The result of this was the publication of ten editions of songs collected by P.V. Kireevsky and the dictionary of V.I. Dahl. With the help of the Society, several more folklore collections were published at this time. Society did not close itself in one Slavophile direction. All famous writers were accepted as its members: A.N. Ostrovsky, A.N. Maikov, F.I. Tyutchev, L.N. Tolstoy, I.S. Turgenev, A.A. Fet, Ya.P. Polonsky , M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A.K. Tolstoy, I.A. Goncharov, F.M. Dostoevsky. The society welcomed A.F. Pisemsky, who was expelled from St. Petersburg. Society kept its literary traditions, instilling respect for them among the many visitors to their public meetings. The Society began its second period with the struggle for freedom of speech, for the sake of which it arose. In order to speak freely without being subject to censorship, it even refused to publish its works, which, according to the new censorship statute, were supposed to be censored.

A milestone in the life of the Society was the dispute about literature in 1858 between L.N. Tolstoy and the Chairman of the Society A.S. Khomyakov about the significance of the artistic element in literature. In 1911, Tolstoy’s speech had not yet been found, and literary critic A.E. Gruzinsky, in his review of the activities of OLRS, regrets this. Then, in the 1920s, while working on the collected works of Leo Tolstoy, A.E. Gruzinsky found it in the archive and carefully rewrote it. The second period, according to Gruzinsky, was closer to modern literature: “Moscow for the first time heard at these meetings a number of poems by K. Aksakov... Fet, Pleshcheev, Maykov, A. Tolstoy, new things by Ostrovsky, scenes from all new novels and dramas by Pisemsky , starting with “The Troubled Sea”, from several works by L. Tolstoy”2. Gruzinsky also noted the “brilliant” reviews of literature by Khomyakov, M.N. Longinov, Kotlyarevsky, Buslaev. But even during this period of its activity, the Society was not at the forefront of the literary struggle. It seemed to observe the modern literary process from the outside, while it itself was directed towards the past, into the study of archives, into their collection, into the study of folklore. At the meetings of the Society, they constantly talked about the importance of collecting materials about their contemporaries, about their significance for the further study of Russian culture. From the first years of its existence to the last, the Society never sharply criticized the work of this or that writer. It recognized the talent of its contemporaries, but left the final assessment for later.

The third period (1878-1910) was distinguished by a qualitatively different nature of the Company’s activities. It can be entitled “From the monument to Pushkin to the monument to Gogol.” The opening of the monument to Pushkin in 1880 and the opening of the monument to Gogol in 1909 are two peaks in the life of the Society. In 1880, the Society did a lot of work to convene all Russian writers for the holiday and invited guests from abroad. The holiday was a great success. The speeches of famous writers, especially Dostoevsky and Turgenev, and the feeling of freedom inspired the holiday, made them talk about it, and remember it forever. Much was done here for the first time. For the first time they started talking about the unity of writers. This was practically their first congress. The canonization of Pushkin began here. For many who spoke about Pushkin for the first time, this topic became a constant. For the first time, the exhibition dedicated to the poet organized by the Society gave rise to many other exhibitions, which contributed to the preservation of a large number of memorial items and archives. The publication of albums and catalogs of these exhibitions consolidated materials collected, often for the first time and often previously completely unknown. At this holiday, Pushkin was placed first among Russian writers. And immediately a number of great Russian writers began to line up, to whom it was necessary to erect a monument, to whom it was necessary to canonize. Gogol was the first to be named. At the Pushkin holiday, it was decided to raise funds for a monument to Gogol. And the Society took on this mission. The celebration of the opening of the monument to Gogol in 1909 was much larger in scale than Pushkin’s in terms of the number of invited guests, both Russian and foreign. Russian literature received international recognition. These two holidays, organized by the Society, attracted the attention of all thinking Russia and made them realize what heights Russian literature and Russian culture had reached.

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Society felt confident. It ranked Lermontov, Zhukovsky, Griboyedov and many others alongside Pushkin and Gogol. In addition to scientific meetings, it began to organize paid literary and musical evenings and attracted artists to its work. Growing revolutionary events influenced the Society's choice of problems to study. The study of the role of literature in the liberation movement was brought to the fore. Society moved away from the Slavophile trend, although the study of folklore continued, although not as large-scale as in the 60-70s.

In the 1890s, it became finally clear that Belinsky had entered the consciousness of most of educated Russia. OLRS put him first in criticism, celebrating the 50th anniversary of his death in 1898. The society regretted that these celebrations did not become nationwide due to the government’s refusal to support them. Society was unable to isolate itself from revolutionary events. It supported student unrest and protested against the arrest of writers. Its chairman was summoned to the police regarding the speeches of some of its members, it had to notify the police about the programs of its meetings, and gendarmes were sent to its meetings. The society was not allowed to hold some public meetings and was forced to hold them closed with guests, that is, without inviting students. Nevertheless, the Society managed to get through all these drinking sessions without major losses.

The main thing for the Society at the end of the century before last was the popularization of great Russian writers. Its meetings were attended by all segments of the population. Special readings were organized for the lower strata. The society sought to ensure that Pushkin’s name was known to all the people, then he would be truly popular. Three works by Pushkin were published especially for the general public - “Boris Godunov”, “Eugene Onegin”, “Poltava”. The creativity of writers was also popularized through literary and musical evenings organized by the Society. Many were its members modern writers, whose works were heard more than once at its meetings, for example, L. Tolstoy, I. A. Bunin. A.P. Chekhov was even chosen as temporary chairman.

In the fourth period of its activity (1910-1930), the Society entered the apogee of its glory. It enjoyed authority both in Russia and abroad. On its 100th anniversary, it summed up the path it had traveled. It's quite enough. Society managed to get through revolutionary storms. The Chairman of the Society since 1921, P.N. Sakulin, said that the Society saw a necessary stage in the revolution historical development country, opening up broad prospects for workers in science and literature, that the Society lives in a period when there is a rapid change in trends in literature, a critical revision of the main issues in science and literature, and conscious and firm self-determination is required from the Society. Sakulin and many remaining members of the Society believed that the revolution had opened the way to the realization of those ideals that Russian literature had long cherished, “freedom-loving and people-loving Russian literature.”

At the meetings of the Society on the eve of the revolution there were I.A. Bunin, K.D. Balmont, M.N. Minsky, V.A. Gilyarovsky, B.K. Zaitsev, D.S. Merezhkovsky, Vas.I. Nemirovich-Danchekno, S.G. Skitalets, I.N. Potapenko, V.V. Veresaev, N.D. Teleshov, V.Ya. Bryusov, I.S. Shmelev and many others. After the revolution, F. Gladkov, L. Leonov, Bor. Pilnyak, Pant. Romanov, E. E. Nechaev, A. S. Neverov, M. P. Gerasimov were elected. A.E. Gruzinsky, P.N. Sakulin, N.K. Piksanov, N.L. Brodsky, M.O. Gershenzon, V.E. Ermilov, P.S. Kogan, V.L. Lvov-Rogachevsky, N.M. Mendelson, N.P. Sidorov, A.A. Kizevetter, V.F. Savodnik, P.E. Shchegolev and many others. From 1910 to 1930, the meetings discussed the work of Ostrovsky, Nikitin, I.S. Aksakov, Khomyakov, Belinsky, Dobrolyubov, Turgenev, Lermontov, Griboedov, Goncharov, L.N. Tolstoy, Zlatovratsky, Mamin-Sibiryak, Pomyalovsky, Ogarev, E P. Rostopchina, Stankevich, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Odoevsky, Herzen and many others. After his death, the Society remembered L. Andreev, D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, S. A. Vengerov, A. A. Blok, V. G. Korolenko, P. D. Boborykin, I. V. Yagich, V. Ya. Bryusov, M.O. Gershenzon, N.A. Kotlyarevsky, S. Yesenin, etc. In 1918, the 100th anniversary of the birth of I.S. Turgenev was celebrated. The Society had commissions on Pushkin, Turgenev, and modern literature. The main topic remained the study of Pushkin's legacy. The Society also participated in the opening of monuments to Herzen and Ogarev, Ostrovsky, Zlatovratsky on Vagankovskoe cemetery. It has never held meetings equal in scale to the meetings on the opening of monuments to Gogol and Pushkin. All these responsibilities gradually passed into other hands.

Next to the OLRS, which united many prominent writers and scientists, and was the center literary life, numerous literary organizations are growing like mushrooms. The society maintained contacts with many of them. Its members were often their members. In the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary periods, in the reigning confusion of styles and trends, the Society found its way. It did not renounce the legacy of the past and was in no hurry to condemn trends that for some reason it did not like or suit. It listened to many, while trying to adhere to the historical and cultural school. In variety literary movements it saw the richness of literature. Society, wise by experience, looked condescendingly at the statements of the young to “throw” old literature from the ship of modernity. The Society's centenary coincided with the time of Mayakovsky's first performances. Society felt confident, it was in the thick of modern events, his interest in the past did not contradict the modern course literary process. But the Society, willy-nilly, fell into the “junk” that Mayakovsky was destroying. He was convinced that a new life requires new forms and new content in art. But the war did not work out. There were cases when the Chairman of the Society, P.N. Sakulin, took the side of Mayakovsky and defended him. Mayakovsky's arrival in June 1924 at a meeting of the Society, at which it welcomed Vyach. Ivanov, made the meeting more dynamic, the members of the Society listened to Mayakovsky’s poems, and as a result everyone was satisfied with each other.

The “New Life,” which Mayakovsky and the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature welcomed, in reality turned out to be not what the writers imagined it to be. The main idea The Bolsheviks invested in it. To implement their idea, one-dimensional socialist realism, officially proclaimed in 1934, was most suitable. In 1930, the “new life” no longer needed either Mayakovsky or the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. And in one year Mayakovsky died, two leaders of the Society, A.E. Gruzinsky and P.N. Sakulin, died. The society, having managed to hold memorial meetings dedicated to Mayakovsky and Gruzinsky, did not meet again after Sakulin’s death in September 1930, and a new chairman was never elected.

The period from 1910 to 1930 is saturated revolutionary events. This is the time when a radical change occurred in Russia in life itself, in the consciousness of the people. Russian culture, literature, and philological science are characterized by an extraordinary rise and decline by the 1930s, by the time the Society ceased its activities. By 1930, everything that did not correspond to the image was practically expelled from art and literature historical reality in revolutionary development, the idea of ​​art serving the working class, helping it build socialism, and then communism. On this path, there was no need for “sympathizers” or “reforging”, everything that did not meet the Bolshevik requirements. Neither were needed ardent defender a new life, but not fitting into the framework allotted to him, Mayakovsky, nor the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, adapting to new circumstances. The process of sifting literature went so quickly that former member of the Society N.K. Gudziy, twenty-seven years after the cessation of its activities, asked in bewilderment: “We recognize that pre-October academic science in the field of exact, natural history disciplines, as well as technology created great values, which we can be proud of, and when it comes to the academic humanities, we mostly say nothing in its favor. How did it happen that we ended up so weak in one of the most important areas of our culture? In this case, are we not sacrificing our national pride?”

The society of lovers of Russian literature did not run ahead of literature, it slowly followed it, collecting materials, archives, systematizing, putting everything in its place. The path of Society is one of the ways of understanding the formation of Russian literature, Russian culture, and social thought.

The Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, revived in 1992, tries to follow the traditions of the previously existing Society. We are trying to “preserve the spiritual connection of times,” to the best of our ability to popularize the enormous wealth accumulated in philological science, and to fight for the purity of the Russian language. At the end of each month, we hold meetings mainly in the M. Tsvetaeva House-Museum, but sometimes in other museums (V.I. Dahl, A.S. Pushkin, L.N. Tolstoy). A special feature of our meetings is that almost every problem can be given an insight into the history of its study in the Society.

More than twenty books have been published under the OLRS stamp, including: R.N. Kleymenov. Society of lovers of Russian literature. 1811-1930 (2002); Pushkin and OLRS (1999); IN AND. Dahl and OLRS (2002); Gogol and OLRS (2005).

The society unites teachers, library staff, scientists, university professors, museum teachers, writers, poets and simply lovers of literature.

The main goal of our Society is seen to be the study and popularization of philological science, Russian literature, the Russian language, and the unification of lovers of Russian literature.

Chronicle of OLRS meetings 1992–2003.

Speech by F.F. Kokushkina on the influence of light poetry on language