Uzhankov Alexander Nikolaevich lectures. Moscow Sretensky Theological Seminary

Uzhankov Alexander Nikolaevich

Uzhankov Alexander Nikolaevich – Doctor of Philology, Professor. Vice-rector for scientific work at the Gorky Literary Institute. One of the country's leading medievalists. He developed a theory of the staged development of Russian literature and a theory of literary formations. He created a new historical poetics of ancient Russian literature. Gives courses of lectures on the history of Russian literature of the 18th-19th centuries to students of five Moscow universities.

Today we will talk about, perhaps, the most mysterious, the most mystical writer of the 19th century - Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov. I called today’s lecture “The Unrecognized Prophet.” And I will start it with one poem. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this poem was written by a 15-year-old boy. The poem is called "Prediction".

When the kings crown falls;

The mob will forget their former love for them,

And the food of many will be death and blood;

When children, when innocent wives

The overthrown will not be protected by the law;

When the plague is from stinking, dead bodies

Will begin to wander among the sad villages,

To call from the huts with a scarf,

And hunger will begin to torment this poor land;

And the glow will color the waves of the rivers:

On that day a mighty man will appear,

And you will recognize him–and you will understand

Why is there a damask knife in his hand;

And woe for you!–your cry, your moan

Then it will seem funny to him;

What is this poem about? I am amazed and adore the Soviet literary scholars who always included this poem in Lermontov’s collected works, always commenting that it was written under the influence of the cholera riots of 1830, when Lermontov’s grandmother’s uncle, Stolypin, died.

But tell me, please, where is it said about cholera riots? It is very clearly stated here:

The year will come, Russia's black year,

When the kings crown falls.

It is quite obvious that Lermontov is talking about the beginning of the 20th century. That is, about those events that will take place 90 years later, after this poem was written, which means this is an insight into the future.

But this is not only a revolution, not only when the crown of the kings falls, but also when the law is overthrown, that is, when there is no power, when it will not be able to protect either children or women, when death will be called from the huts with a scarf, because a hut is a house in which a person can hide. But if a civil war breaks out, how can anyone hide from it? And when the glow colors the rivers, because there will be fires. Look at this amazing insight into the future of a 15-year-old boy. Does this mean he has such an amazing gift of foresight? And finally, the last lines, about this mysterious man with a damask knife. Please note that it emphasizes a high forehead, a high brow.

And everything will be terrible, gloomy in it,

Like his cloak with his lofty brow.

Who is this in the revolution, in the October revolution of 17, with an exalted brow? That is, the poet foresaw this main robber? It turns out that he saw it, he saw the future. Who was Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov, where did he get such a gift? To answer this question, I will start from afar.

Back at the end of the 13th century, on the border between England and Scotland, near the monastery town of Milrose, near Elsendoorn Castle, lived the rather famous, semi-mythical, semi-legendary Scottish knight Thomas Learmont. They knew him as a sorcerer, a sorcerer, a seer. On the high hill of Elsendoorn, under the crown of a mighty tree, he gathered people who loved to come there to listen to him speak, how he predicted, how he read poetry.

He had another nickname - Thomas the Rhymer. By the way, Walter Scott even wrote a poem about him. This Thomas Learmonth, by the way, predicted the unexpected and accidental death of the Scottish king Alfred III. That is, he was a seer and foresaw the future. His fate and how it ends is interesting. They said that two white deer from the fairy kingdom came for him, that he was friends with the fairy kingdom, and received certain prophecies or the gift of prophecy. They took him away - and he never returned, no one saw him again.

And four centuries later, at the beginning of the 17th century, in 1613, Russian troops captured the White Fortress. A certain Scot with the same last name, Georg Learmont, was captured by the Russians. He soon switched from the Calvinist faith to the Orthodox faith, asked to serve Mikhail Fedorovich, the Russian Tsar, who accepted him into the service, even awarded him 8 villages, and he began to serve.

Already his grandchildren were stewards in the Russian service, and either in the seventh generation, as the Lermontov Encyclopedia says, or in the eighth, as Vladimir Solovyov, a famous religious writer and poet of the late 19th century, said, Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov was born.

What kind of person was Lermontov? Of course, the scale of his talent is amazing. No one doubted that he was a genius. His star, although it rose brightly and rushed across the firmament of Russian poetry, left a noticeable mark, but did not completely shine. We completely forget that he could have been on Pushkin Square when the monument was unveiled, both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. After all, he was a little older than them. And how would Russian literature have developed then if Lermontov had remained alive? True, we know that history does not know the subjunctive mood, so let's understand what remains. Let's look at both the man and his poetry.

By the way, we don’t know a lot about Lermontov, because no letters have been preserved, maybe just a few. There are almost no memories of him, diary entries, like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and we can imagine these figures. But there is almost nothing about Lermontov. His poetry, his creativity, and prose, of course, remained.

Can we restore his image through poetry? We can, but partially. Why? Because if we compare Lermontov with Pushkin - and Pushkin was an idol for him, he loved him very much - then we will see how opposite these two people are. They live differently and reflect their lives in poetry differently. “You are a king, live alone,” says Pushkin, because Pushkin has a lot of friends, and he is always among friends.

“And like a criminal before execution, I am looking around for a kindred soul” - this is Lermontov, you see, he is looking for some kindred soul in poetry, because he has no friends. Why are there so few memories of him? They say that he has a very heavy gaze; no one could withstand this gaze.

I noticed that even in those small memoirs that have been preserved about Lermontov, we will not find an accurate description of his eyes. What color were they? Some say that they were dark, without focusing on the color, some say that they were brown, others simply say that it was a very heavy look. Some couldn’t stand it, they went into the next room, and if he looked closely at someone, he would certainly turn around and somehow tremble from this gaze.

Does this mean that he even penetrated into a person’s soul, he saw through everything? Yes, you can say that. On the other hand, many note that he did not like to read his poetry. In many ways, they seemed to be written for oneself. This is some kind of surge of his thoughts, a surge of his emotions, his reflections, but poetry amazes with the depth of its thoughts.

You know, it is difficult to determine his age from Lermontov’s poems. I'll give you an example. One of his poems, as you already guessed, is an early poem, but I won’t tell you the age yet. What topics, what problems does Lermontov touch on in this poem:

Don't blame me, omnipotent

And don’t punish me, I pray,

Because the darkness of the earth is grave

With her passions I love...

Appeal to God... In general, in Lermontov’s poetry there are quite a few poems in which he would address God. There are many poems with the title “Prayer”, there are many poems in which he addresses the Mother of God, but he speaks to the Creator as equals - this is extremely rare in Russian poetry. Why? Because we must take into account that all poets of the 19th century are in the context of Orthodox culture. Naturally, they reflect the Orthodox worldview, and, knowing this culture, willingly or unwillingly, they reflect it in their poems. This means that Lermontov has this too.

Another thing is that there is a personal attitude to the problem that he touches on. In this case, the religious problem, one might even say theological, is the relationship between man and God, the relationship between man and the Creator. Again, let me remind you that Lermontov knows Pushkin’s poems, knows his “Prophet”:

Arise, prophet, and see and listen,

Be fulfilled by my will,

And, bypassing the seas and lands,

Burn the hearts of people with the verb.

If talent comes from God, then you need to serve God with your talent. And here is a 15-year-old boy. He asks that the Creator not blame him for those human qualities that are manifested everywhere:

For something that rarely enters the soul

Your living speeches flow...

Look, he doesn’t perceive divine words the way Pushkin did:

For wandering in error

My mind is far from you.

This means that he is far from the Creator, he understands that He exists, but he is aware that he is still too far from the Creator.

Because lava is inspiration

It bubbles on my chest;

For the wild excitement

The glass of my eyes is darkening.

That is, passions obscure the eyes. Pushkin overcame many of them, and therefore was filled with amazing spiritual content, and reflected this filling in his work. Lermontov did not have time to do this. It’s as if he’s always at the fork in two roads: where to go – left or right. All the time he has this choice, an amazing choice.

But extinguish this wonderful flame,

The burning fire

Turn my heart to stone

Stop your hungry gaze.

From a terrible thirst for song

Let me, creator, free myself,

Then on the narrow path of salvation

I will contact you again

Also amazing. If in Pushkin’s poem “The Prophet” the poet shows how a person’s personality is transformed when the heart is taken out of the chest and a “fiery coal” is inserted into the chest so that it literally burns the hearts of people, then here the process is essentially the opposite - the fiery heart is taken out so that cold and reasonable insert there.

When Pushkin is compared with Lermontov, we see how different they are. Pushkin is more material, Lermontov is more mystical. I will give several poems or examples from poems to show how differently both poets seem to reproduce the same thing. For example, Pushkin:

The last cloud of the scattered storm

Alone you rush along the clear azure

Can we imagine it or paint a picture? Very easy. Because it is very material. This is Pushkin. Now Lermontov:

That morning there was a vault of heaven,

So pure that an angel's flight

A diligent eye could have followed.

So, every day we go out and watch the angels fly. Can I paint this picture? Of course not. Although the picture seems to be visible, he uses completely different worldview elements to recreate this picture, a poetic picture.

And we see how different these two poets are. They lived, in fact, at the same time, belong to the same culture. When we get acquainted with Lermontov’s poetry, even with his early poetry, we are surprised by some recognition he makes about himself. For example, at age 15 he writes:

I've lost track of my years.

What, can't count to 15? This is, of course, funny. This means that here he means something else: he did not live here on earth for these 15 years. He implies that time has a greater extension, and is acknowledged in other poems:

And there was a lot in my sight

Accessible and understandable, because

That I am not bound by earthly ties,

And punished with eternity and knowledge.

Punished by knowledge and eternity, knowledge of the past. How many of us remember what happened to us before birth? It’s a paradoxical question, but it feels like Lermontov knew. He even has one poem:

An angel flew across the midnight sky,

And he sang a quiet song;

And the month, and the stars, and the clouds in a crowd

Listen to that holy song.

He sang about the bliss of sinless spirits

Under the bushes of the Gardens of Eden;

He sang about the great God, and praise

His was unfeigned.

He carried the young soul in his arms

For a world of sadness and tears.

And the sound of his song in the soul is young

Left - without words, but alive.

And for a long time she languished in the world,

Full of wonderful desires,

And the sounds of heaven could not be replaced

She finds the songs of the earth boring.

This poem is called "Angel". The soul remembers the song that the angel sang to it, it remembers what happened before birth. Interesting confession from Lermontov. He barely remembered his mother. He was not yet 3 years old when she died.

But Lermontov says he remembers the songs his mother sang. He says: I don’t remember the words, I don’t remember the melody, but if I heard this song, I would immediately recognize it. Look, this is a completely different perception. Some kind of deep, historical memory, not only of what happened in earthly life, but also of what happened before.

If we talk about his prophecies, about his earthly life, I would like to draw attention to his prediction of his own death.

At the place of execution - proud, even despicable -

I will end my life.

This is at 16 years old.

I foreknew my lot, my end,

A bloody grave awaits me

A grave without graves and without a cross,

On the wild shore of roaring waters.

I want you to remember these words, because we will return to them at the end of the lecture, when we talk about Lermontov’s duel, about his death. And finally, in the poem “Dream,” which was written between May and July 1841, and he died on July 17, Lermontov will write:

The wound was still smoking deep

Drop by drop my blood oozed out.

Prince Vasilchikov, Lermontov’s second, thirty years later, will note in his memoirs: “The wound was smoking in the right side, blood was oozing in the left, the bullet pierced the heart and lungs.” Prince Vasilchikov uses the same verbs “smoke” and “ooze” as in Lermontov’s poem, although he did not know this poem. Amazing coincidence? Of course.

So who was Lermontov? The characteristics are very different. He had no friends, but Natalya Nikolaevna, the widow of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, when she met him shortly before Lermontov’s death, noticed that he was the most amazing, most sensitive, most intelligent person whom she met after the death of Alexander Sergeevich. Natalya Nikolaevna knew people well.

But others said that he was completely unbearable, and it seems that in these notes and characteristics that have come down to us, we see two completely different people. Some people have great respect for him, while others hate him.

Why does this happen? Dmitry Merezhkovsky wrote a long article “M. Yu. Lermontov. Poet of Superhumanity,” trying to understand the phenomenon of Lermontov. Who is he, how should we relate to Lermontov’s poetry, his God-seeking (and superhumanity is God-seeking), and, naturally, his behavior?

Vladimir Solovyov characterizes Lermontov very harshly, showing a variety of passions. He even brings up the idea that Lermontov was overcome by three demons - bloodthirstiness, voluptuousness and pride. The most important one is the demon of pride, which did not allow Lermontov to humble himself, and, perhaps, that is why he did not allow Lermontov to become what Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy became. First, live a longer life. On the other hand, develop your talent as much as possible.

Indeed, if we look at the memories of some people who knew Lermontov closely, he amazes with his actions. He somehow became infatuated with Ekaterina Alexandrovna Khvostova and followed her everywhere, at all the balls, in all the houses. Lermontov tried to make her fall in love with him, he said that if she loved him, he would believe that there is a God. The pressure was so great that, finally, Ekaterina Alexandrovna gave up, she also fell in love with Mikhail Yuryevich.

From Ekaterina Alexandrovna’s notes: “He completely enslaved me. I felt scared for myself. It was as if I felt an abyss under my feet. He persuaded me to run away and have a secret marriage.” And she agreed, just imagine. When he already felt that Catherine was ready for anything, he wrote her an anonymous letter, from a third person. He writes about himself, or more precisely, about Lermontov: “Believe me, he is not worthy of you. Nothing is sacred to him. He doesn't love anyone. I have nothing against him except contempt, which he richly deserves.”

The letter was intercepted by family members, a scandal broke out, and Ekaterina Alexandrovna writes: “It’s amazing how that night I didn’t cry my heart out and remained sane. He killed my soul." And then, some time later, when Ekaterina Khvostova saw Lermontov at the ball, he pretended not to notice her. Seizing the moment, she approached him to ask: “For God’s sake, tell me, why are you angry?” “I don’t love you anymore,” Lermontov replied. “Yes, it seems I never loved.”

What, scoundrel, scoundrel? Don't judge so quickly and so quickly. Lermontov writes in his diary: “Now I don’t write novels, I experience them.” Another time he will remark about his victim: “I am actually preparing material for my writings.” So what is it? Is he really experimenting on people? If a person is vain, he tries to be different from everyone else. He tries to stand out: by clothes, conversation, speech, actions. Lermontov did not need this. It seems that he wanted people to say about him that he was like everyone else. And in this desire to be like everyone else, Lermontov is. You will ask why?

Soloviev, analyzing Lermontov’s work, came to the conclusion that the poet took a lot from Western European philosophy, religious thought and poetry. In any case, according to Solovyov, his attitude towards human life, the human soul was taken from Dante’s “Divine Comedy”. It says that there was a war in heaven. Archangel Michael and the white army defeated the dragon, which was cast into the abyss, turned into Satan, and together with the black angels they disappeared in that abyss.

But human souls are those angels who in heaven did not make a final choice. They did not choose between white and black angels, so the Lord sends them to earth. He who is near heaven is not overwhelmed by earthly things. This idea is very noticeable in Lermontov’s work. This means that his life is also a test. He must choose his path on earth: with whom he is - with white angels or with black ones. This choice is final. If he believes that the eternal human soul is being tested here, maybe that’s why he doesn’t really strive to stay on earth?

In one of his poems he addresses the Creator:

Just arrange it so that from now on you

It didn't take me long to thank him.

This is sacrilege. He asks the Creator to shorten his own life. Why? Because it's hard for him to live here. He wants to leave this world as quickly as possible: “To escape from the inevitable thought, and to forget the unforgettable...”, he says in one poem; “Oh, how could I forget what is unforgettable,” says another poem.

And I lost track of my years

And I catch the wings of oblivion: -

How I could give them my heart!

How would eternity throw mine at them!

Giving up your eternity is amazing. He does not have a feeling of the temporality of existence, but there is a feeling of eternity that he carries within himself.

Having talked a little about how Lermontov looks into the future, he predicts his death, he does not think that he will die in old age, he has a presentiment of his death, I would like to note that just as you can see the future, you can consider the past. Lermontov also had this gift. Why? Because “I am punished both by knowledge and by eternity.” He knows what happened, and as an example I want to analyze the well-known “Song about the Merchant Kalashnikov.”

We call it for short “Song about the merchant Kalashnikov,” but in fact Lermontov has a longer title and is more correct, because Lermontov amazingly penetrates into the 16th century.

As a medievalist studying the culture of ancient Rus', I want to draw your attention to the fact that I did not find a single historical error in this song. It can be found in any work, because the author’s artistic imagination can allow him, by reproducing the historical truth, to add something of his own. Lermontov does not use this. Such an amazing feeling that he himself was present everywhere there, that he observed it all, and described it all himself.

He knows perfectly well, down to the smallest details, the life of the 16th century. I’ll note right away that Lermontov did not know Domostroi, which would be published a little later. And, in general, Lermontov, who fought in the Caucasus, had no time for Domostroy. But how did he accurately capture the essence of this most important work of the 16th century, especially as it concerns the family as a small church?

So, “Song about Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the young guardsman and the daring merchant Kalashnikov.” This is the hierarchy, which can be clearly seen in the name itself. Song about whom? First of all, about the tsar, then about the young guardsman, because he is the tsar’s servant, and then about the merchant Kalashnikov. But we call it “Song about the merchant Kalashnikov,” that is, we rearranged it a little, thereby emphasizing the feat that Stepan Paramonovich Kalashnikov performs. To some extent, this song is a stylization of the epic colloquial style that existed in ancient Rus':

Oh, you goy, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich!

We composed our song about you,

About your favorite guardsman,

Yes, about a brave merchant, about Kalashnikov.

First of all, an appeal to the king, we are talking about him.

We put it together in the old fashion,

We sang it to the sound of the guslar

And they chanted and gave orders.

The Orthodox people enjoyed it...

Also an important note. This means that it was written for the Orthodox, because there is a certain code for the perception of the behavior and the situation that Lermontov will talk about. So that it is Orthodox people who amuse themselves.

The next day, on the Moscow River, there is a fist fight, single, and Kiribeevich comes out. Three times he calls out, but no one wants to go against him, because they know him as a great fighter. Ivan the Terrible promised to reward the winner, and whoever is defeated, God will forgive him. This is very important - the words of Ivan the Terrible about the award to the winner. And then two fighters came together - Kiribeevich and Stepan Paramonovich. Since Stepan Paramonovich is a defender, he cannot strike first. Kiribeevich strikes first:

Then Kiribeevich swung

And he hit the merchant Kalashnikov for the first time,

And hit him in the middle of the chest -

The brave chest crackled,

Stepan Paramonovich staggered;

A copper cross hung on his broad chest

With holy relics from Kyiv,

And the cross bent and pressed into the chest;

Like dew, blood dripped from under him.

Is it a coincidence that the blow falls on the cross? Of course not. Just as Christ is the crown of the Church, so the crown of the small church is the husband. He hits Christ, but the relics of the saints save Stepan Paramonovich from this deadly blow. And then Stepan Paramonovich got creative, hit him in the left temple, and Kiribeevich fell as if he had been cut down. In the left temple... They say that on the right is the guardian angel, and on the left is the tempter demon. See what Ivan the Terrible's reaction is:

Answer me truthfully, according to your conscience,

Willingly or reluctantly

You killed Movo's faithful servant,

Movo of the best fighter Kiribeevich?

“I will tell you, Orthodox Tsar,

I killed him freely

And why, I won’t tell you about what.

After all, in order to tell him the truth, you need to publicly disgrace your wife, Alena Dmitrievna, so he will take the secret with him to the grave. And then Ivan the Terrible orders the execution of Stepan Paramonovich. You may ask: how can this be, since Ivan the Terrible promised to reward him? And this is the royal reward, because no one can reward a person like a king. He has the right to execute or pardon. After all, Stepan Paramonovich killed a man and violated a commandment. This is one of the deadly sins - murder. How to atone for this sin? Only by martyrdom. And he will be executed.

Have you noticed or not that many of Lermontov’s heroes end their lives as martyrdom or die. “Bela”: Pechorin did not return to Russia from his trip, Vulich and many others. It turns out that for Lermontov this death, unexpected, martyrdom, is very important, including in theological and religious terms, because this martyrdom atones for human sins.

And now I want to move on to Lermontov’s duel. April 12, 1841. At the Karamzins’ farewell party, Lermontov was very sad and said that he would soon die. Nobody, of course, paid attention to these words of Lermontov. But just shortly before the duel with Martynov, he wrote the poem “Dream,” in which he described himself lying in the valley of Dagestan, mortally wounded. I would like to draw your attention to the course of the duel itself.

The reason for it was some kind of joke made by Lermontov in the direction of Martynov, who had long asked Lermontov not to joke, especially in front of the ladies. But Lermontov could not resist, and Martynov, leaving the house, held Lermontov by the sleeve and said: “You know, Lermontov, that I very often tolerated your jokes, but I don’t like them to be repeated in front of the ladies.” To which Lermontov replied in a calm voice: “And if you don’t love me, then demand satisfaction from me.”

Which of them challenged whom to a duel—Lermontov’s Martynov or Martynov’s Lermontov—is completely unclear. Even Lermontov’s seconds spent three days sorting out this clash, if not friends, then acquaintances. After all, Martynov studied at a course lower than Lermontov, and they knew each other very well. Lermontov visited his Moscow house. And now there was such discord, and most importantly, none of the seconds knew who should take the first step towards reconciliation. Basically, this is the one who challenges a duel. Who challenged you to a duel?

As Prince Vasilchikov says, at about 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening they headed to the foot of Mashuk, where duels usually took place. They chose a small path that led into the mountains, so that there would be fewer people, and they counted the barrier - 10 steps. And another 10 steps in different directions, a total of 30 steps, separated the seconds.

Prince Vasilchikov noticed that a black cloud was slowly rising on the horizon and enveloping the entire heavenly space. When the duelists were separated, Lermontov remained standing in the place where he was placed, only covering his temple with a pistol. Martynov quickly approached the barrier, took aim for a long time, so that one of the seconds exclaimed: “Well, shoot, finally, or I will scout you!” A shot rang out. At this time a terrible thunderstorm broke out and rain poured down. They rushed to Lermontov. He was already lifeless. An amazing death, accompanied by deafening thunderclaps.

Remember Lermontov's ancestor Foma Lermont, the rhymer? They say that according to medieval beliefs, the soul of a sorcerer does not leave the earth, it moves from generation to generation along the male line. “I’ve lost track of my years,” says Lermontov. But Lermontov was the last in this family, and again, according to medieval ideas, if there is no one to pass on his abilities and his knowledge, then this man will end his life tragically. “I know that the head you love will go from your chest to the chopping block” - these are the words of Lermontov. She knew that his fate would end tragically.

What can be said about Lermontov in these final words? Look, martyrdom, like Stepan Paramonovich’s, means that with this martyrdom he atoned for the sins that had accumulated during his life. Why did he return to this death so often, and why did he describe it? He had a presentiment of her, he knew her, and perhaps he even hoped that such a departure would free him from many sins. This is where I would like to end my story today.

Audience Questions

Papavyan Gevork, Moscow State University. Lomonosov : Please tell me, Alexander Nikolaevich, is it possible to find in Lermontov’s works true predictions addressed to the present time, to its people, statehood, or maybe even religion? Thank you.

– Directly to our time, perhaps, it’s impossible. But to the future of Russia and the people, yes, undoubtedly. His poetry, and in general his prose, was aimed at one thing - for Russia to be a very integral country, a very strong country, and Russian culture was very important for Lermontov. His life and work show that in history you can find two reference points - the past and the present, and, relying on them, you can draw a vector into the future.

When Lermontov considered the past, he said that in the originality of Rus' its strength, its salvation. Including Orthodoxy, he was moving towards this. For Lermontov, Russian culture is, first of all, an Orthodox culture, and Russia, as an autocratic country, is fundamentally Orthodox.

Catherine . It seems to me that Lermontov’s work was not fully understood by his contemporaries. Do you think if he had lived a few decades later, his life would have turned out differently? Thank you.

– You noticed absolutely correctly. In general, Lermontov’s work was not sufficiently appreciated not only by his contemporaries, but also by his descendants. On the one hand, we seem to know, and a lot, about Lermontov. But with today’s lecture I just wanted to awaken interest in Lermontov, because they began to gradually forget about him. And here it is very important to study his work.

As for the second part of your question, this is very interesting, you can speculate why. After all, Dostoevsky came out not so much from Gogol’s “The Overcoat” as from Lermontov. All the heroes of Dostoevsky, they constantly face a choice, just like Lermontov and his heroes. There is a moral choice there all the time. Therefore, if Lermontov had lived longer, I think that he would have had a tangible influence on both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. This would be a completely different development of literature. But, I repeat, most of Dostoevsky’s heroes come from Lermontov.

Elena . Why is it assumed that Lermontov could not have known about such little things as, for example, sweet overseas wine or, say, names. Really, if we know now, couldn’t he have known such little things about long-gone centuries? Thank you.

– You see, all these studies were carried out in Soviet times, that is, in the 20th century. For example, the same “Domostroy”, although it was published in the middle of the 19th century, Lermontov did not yet know it. As for overseas wine, or these nuances with the name, these are not just traditions of Orthodox culture, these are traditions of the 16th century. If he had written about this in the 17th century, then everything would have been fine. In the 17th century they knew about this, and it would have been perceived as completely normal, for the 16th century, these are details that can only be known in the 16th century, arriving and dealing specifically with the 16th century.

Lermontov was not a historian; Karamzin is not. You see, at that time historical research was still in such a state, I would not say that it was in its infancy, but the most important work on history was Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State.”

Prepared by Natalia Myuselimyan

PROFESSOR ALEXANDER UZHANKOV: EDUCATION WITH BEAUTY

TO THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF SRETENSKY THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL. SERVING THE WORD. PART 2 Conversation with Professor A.N. Uzhankov

TO THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF SRETENSKY THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL. SERVING THE WORD. PART 1 Conversation with Professor A.N. Uzhankov

IN THE RAYS OF THE SETTING SUN FOR THE 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EVENTS THAT UNPLOCKED ON THE PAGES OF M.A.’S NOVEL BULGAKOV "THE MASTER AND MARGARITA"

PERCEPTION OF CREATIVITY AND WRITING IN ANCIENT Rus'

“YOU NEED TO READ WITH A PENCIL IN YOUR HAND” Conversations about Russian literature (+VIDEO)

AUDITORIUMS, MUSEUMS, HOME LIBRARIES

WESTERN EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN LITERATURE

“CINEMA IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE ARTS AS LONG AS PEOPLE ARE ILLITERATE”

“LEARN TO READ CORRECTLY!”

THE CHURCH AND THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE: AN EPIPHANIC CONNECTION OF EVENTS

FROM DIABLERY TO “OPERETKA”: MUSICAL BUFF AND TECHNIQUES OF NEUROLINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING IN M. A. BULGAKOV’S MYSTERY NOVEL “THE WHITE GUARD”

CATEGORY OF TRANSFORMATION IN THE WORK OF A. S. PUSHKIN

Kyiv METROPOLITAN HILARION (1051-1054)

IMAGES OF ARTISTS IN THE EARLY PROSE OF D. S. MEREZHKOVSKY (BASED ON THE NOVELS “JULIAN THE Apostate”, “LEONARDO DA VINCI” AND “ITALIAN STORIES”)

Alexander Nikolaevich UZHANKOV graduated in 1980 from the Russian department of the philological faculty of Lviv State University. I. Franko. He worked as a correspondent for the newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, an editor in the magazine “October”, and a senior editor in the publishing house “Soviet Writer” of the USSR SP. Member of the Union of Journalists of the USSR. He took part in the creation and was the first General Director of the specialized publishing and trading enterprise “Heritage”, created by order of the USSR Council of Ministers at the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1990, he began working as a senior researcher in the department of ancient Russian literature at the Institute of World Literature. M. Gorky Academy of Sciences of the USSR. He was the initiator of the creation and the first executive director of the “Society of Researchers of Ancient Rus'” at the IMLI RAS. Since 1992, teaching (MSLU, GASK, SDS, etc.). Specialist in the field of literature, history and philosophy of Ancient Rus'.

He owns research on the new dating of “The Word of Law and Grace”, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”, “Readings about Boris and Gleb”, “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”, “Tales of Igor’s Host”, “Tales of the Destruction of the Russian Land” , “Tales of the Life of Alexander Nevsky”, “Chronicle Daniil Galitsky”, etc.

He proposed a new concept for understanding ancient Russian chronicles, linking it with the eschatological ideas of Russian medieval scribes; discovered traces of the influence of the biblical “Book of the Prophet Jeremiah” on “The Tale of Igor’s Host”; reinterpreted “The Tale of Peter and Fevronia of Murom”; studied the evolution of the depiction of nature in ancient Russian literature; history of the genre of ancient Russian stories, etc. He developed a theory of the staged development of Russian literature from the 11th century to the first third of the 18th century and a theory of literary formations of Ancient Rus'. Author of more than a hundred works on the theory and history of Old Russian literature.

Alexander Nikolaevich UZHANKOV: interview

Alexander Nikolaevich UZHANKOV (born 1955)- Doctor of Philology, Candidate of Cultural Studies. Theorist and historian of Russian literature and culture. Professor of the Moscow State Linguistic University (MSLU), Literary Institute named after. A.M. Gorky, Sretensky Theological Seminary. Vice-rector for scientific work of the Literary Institute named after. A.M. Gorky. Member of the Russian Writers' Union: .

- Alexander Nikolaevich, you have been teaching at Sretensky Theological Seminary since its very foundation. Please tell us about the first years of the seminary.
- There are no accidents in a person’s life. A small life episode after a while is interpreted as a prediction of the future. One day, long before the opening of the seminary, I went to pick up my nephew at the school, which is located next to the Sretensky monastery. Since classes were not over yet, I walked around the monastery grounds. The time was atheistic, the ancient temple of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was closed, but I knew that it contained an amazing wooden carved cross - the highest monument of wooden art. All that remained was to regret that such a masterpiece was hidden from people, and the temple was not accessible for prayer. Then, of course, I could not even imagine that 20 years later, from service in this very church, my teaching career at Sretensky Seminary would begin.

I was invited to give lectures on Russian literature at the seminary by my colleague Professor A.M. Kamchatnov. In the summer of 1999, under the leadership of the abbot of the monastery, Archimandrite Tikhon, the curriculum of the then Sretensky Higher Orthodox School was created. It was also necessary to develop a program on the history of Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries.

I took up the task of drawing up a literature course program for an Orthodox university with interest. After all, if we look at Russian literature only from a secular perspective - as artistic works, then we will not see a lot. First of all, we will not see the spiritual meaning of ancient Russian literature. And he was once decisive. And, of course, in such educational institutions as the Moscow Theological Seminary, the Moscow Theological Academy or the Sretensky Higher Orthodox School, it was possible and necessary to talk about the true essence of ancient Russian literature, and all Russian literature in general, about its spiritual component, about those ideas that are embedded in verbal works. By that time, I had already accumulated some teaching experience: I taught several original courses at the Moscow State Linguistic University (MSLU, formerly the M. Thorez Institute of Foreign Languages) and at the State Academy of Slavic Culture (GASK).

- Do you remember your first lecture at Sretensky Seminary? What were your impressions?
- Certainly. On the first day of the first academic year, in the morning, before the start of classes, we gathered in the monastery church. There was a liturgy, then Father Tikhon blessed the entire teaching staff and seminarians, wishing them success in their new endeavor. He asked who would give the first lecture. It turned out that the educational process at SDS began with a lecture on ancient Russian literature.
The strongest impression in all the years of my teaching was meeting with students who were unusual for me: after all, I, a secular person, came to the monastery to lecture to the monks. Entering the seminar auditorium for the first time, I saw special listeners. Some were even older than me in age, most with life and spiritual experience. Many already had higher education, there were even candidates of science! And a natural question arose in me: what can be taught to them?

Education is the restoration of the image of God. Of course, ancient Russian creations especially contribute to this. However, it was necessary to teach this subject in such a way that together, together, we could find something that would benefit us all. The main message was that we were learning to learn. We worked. They were laborers of the word, or rather, co-workers. I taught the living Russian word and studied myself, and this was important for me, because I, too, could borrow something from my monastic students. In addition, teaching at the seminary itself, the monastic environment itself, obliges you to do a lot. I always liked that in theological schools every lecture begins with a prayer. Old Russian works were written by monks by grace, therefore one can also read them and comprehend their spiritual meaning only by grace. When a lesson begins with prayer standing, it proceeds completely differently than in any secular university. That fertile soil appears on which the words of spiritual writers fall.

Alexander Nikolaevich, at one time you held the post of first vice-rector of the seminary, responsible for the scientific activities of the seminary and the educational process. Tell us about this period of your activity.
- The offer to become the vice-rector of the school was unexpected for me at that time, because at that time I was the dean of the philological faculty and the vice-rector for science at the State University of History and Culture and did not leave these positions. Why did Father Tikhon make this offer? Probably because it was necessary to build the educational process and structure the seminary. It was necessary to create departments by discipline, organize the work of the departments themselves, and create an educational unit that would supervise the educational process. I took up this organizational work. Father Ambrose (Ermakov) helped me a lot then, for which I am sincerely grateful to him. Father Ambrose was the vice-rector of the SDS, then he was ordained bishop. And now the seminary functions according to the model laid down then.

During the time when I was here as vice-rector, the task was not so much to attract competent teachers: philosophers, historians, theologians, linguists, etc., but to organize and direct their work. The core of teachers was attracted from MDA, Moscow State University, and other leading Moscow universities. The level of teaching was set quite high: through the efforts of Father Tikhon, the best teaching forces in Moscow gathered at the Sretensky Higher Orthodox School: professors A.A. Volkov, G.G. Mayorov, A.M. Kamchatnov, A.I. Sidorov, A.F. Smirnov and others. Academician I.R. gave lectures periodically. Shafarevich, professor N.A. Narochnitskaya, N.S. Leonov, A.I. Osipov.

How would you rate the level of thesis defended at the seminary, the degree of their seriousness and the complexity of the defense?
- The level of theses of the first graduating class was quite high. These were deep, one might say, thorough scientific and theological works. As experience shows, the result of a student’s final work depends not only on the quality of teaching and scientific supervision, but also on the students themselves, on their approach to the dissertation essay. And in the future, the level of those works that I had to review, in general, turned out to be quite high.

Alexander Nikolaevich, you teach at several secular universities, teaching the same course as in the seminary. Do you place any special emphasis when presenting material to a secular audience and a religious school audience?
- Of course, although the courses are similar. I now continue to teach both at MSLU and at the Literary Institute. A.M. Gorky, and at the Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. Ultimately, the focus of lectures depends on the audience to whom you read them. If in secular universities the emphasis is on the scientific aspect of presenting material, on the study of form and genre, on the poetics of works and, above all, the artistic side of essays is considered, then in a seminary more attention can be paid to the spiritual component. Study exactly what the work was written for.

Higher education programs are set by state education standards, and teachers should not go beyond these standards. In the seminary, it is possible to teach an author’s course, naturally, with reference to the generally accepted program, but at the same time focusing on a more scrupulous consideration of issues of interest to seminarians. Most of them will leave here as clergy, and they will be approached with questions about certain works of fiction. And I have to equip them with a method of text analysis, having considered the possible maximum of works in the educational process.

Is it possible to compare your course taught at the seminary with hagiography as a discipline that studies the lives of saints, theological and historical-ecclesiastical aspects of holiness?
- It is possible, and at the same time we must proceed from the Orthodox understanding of ancient Russian literature. In secular universities this course is usually called the history of ancient Russian literature, thereby emphasizing its secularity; the emphasis is on the term literature, on artistic fiction, on the subjective vision of the author. In creation, the word in Ancient Rus' meant co-creation with God. The vast majority of ancient Russian authors were monks, many of them were later canonized, starting with St. Hilarion of Kyiv, the author of the “Sermon on Law and Grace.” And the Monk Nestor is the first hagiographer who wrote the lives of the holy princes Boris and Gleb and the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk, one of the founders of chronicles - the compiler of the famous “Tale of Bygone Years”, and the Monk Theodosius himself is the author of words and teachings, and even Prince Vladimir Monomakh is the author of “ Teachings to Children,” and many others are included in the Synodik of Orthodox Saints.

Old Russian literature should be studied as our patristic literature, as we study the works of the holy fathers of the Church. Here we cannot limit ourselves only to those techniques that are used in the study of secular fiction. Spiritual works were written out of obedience, but the desire to create something useful for the reader’s soul was also present. That is why, in my opinion, hagiography and ancient Russian literature should be looked at as divinely inspired books. That is, all the genres inherent in Old Russian literature: lives, teachings, solemn eloquence, words for the consecration of the church, and so on - contain spiritual instructions, since the main theme of all Old Russian creations is the salvation of the soul. And in them, as in the lives of the saints, there are instructions and examples to follow that an Orthodox person should follow.

Do you give special preference to the theological side of the work or, as a philologist, are you trying to cover the whole process together with historical, socio-cultural points of view?
- The lives of saints should be considered, first of all, taking into account their main purpose: they tell about the spiritual feat of a saint, which can become a model for the reader. There is a general theme in the life. The saint imitates Christ and follows the “royal path,” that is, the path of the Savior. When the Lord came into the world, he said that he came not to break the Ten Commandments, but to fulfill them. He accepts baptism, although, as the God-man, he did not need it. He gave the world nine more beatitudes and He Himself was the first to fulfill all 19 commandments, showing this general path to salvation. This is the path of the Russian saints, starting with the passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. They fulfilled all 19 commandments and accepted martyrdom, that is, they likened their spiritual feat to Christ. And it is no coincidence that Boris and Gleb are the first Russian saints, for the Church is built on martyrdom.

In each life, the theme of salvation of the soul and individual spiritual achievement is revealed to the maximum by the hagiographer. There are many saints in the Russian Orthodox Church, and many lives have been created - models for imitation. And although each righteous man had his own spiritual achievement, what they had in common was the desire to fulfill all the commandments.

For a deeper understanding of the spiritual meaning, it is important to find parallels between Holy Scripture and hagiography, study the retrospective analogy of the actions of the righteous and saints and determine their theological meaning. For example, the hagiographer compares the blessed prince Alexander Nevsky with Joseph the Beautiful: the second most important prince in Rus' after Batu with the second most important dignitary in Egypt after the tsar. In wisdom - with Solomon, in courage - with Titus Flavius ​​Vespasian, who became the Roman emperor after suppressing the uprising in Judea, so Alexander Yaroslavich gained power after suppressing the uprising in Novgorod.
Parallels with biblical characters are important in order to better understand the military and spiritual exploits of the saint and to justify his actions. In the case of Alexander Nevsky, this is a matter of defending the Fatherland and the Orthodox faith. He prevents the spread of Catholicism and the advancement of the Order of Crusaders in Rus'. Another of his feats was humility in the name of saving a large number of Russian people, whom he managed to “pray” from joint military campaigns with the Tatar-Mongols. He himself went to the horde to intercede for them and laid down “his life for his friends” - at the cost of his own life, saving the lives of his subjects. So these parallels between the life of Alexander Yaroslavich and the Bible are determined by the typology of the saint’s behavior.

As a philologist, I am not obliged to consider them; I can only point out sources and possible allusions. But when teaching at SDS, I pay attention to the spiritual meaning of this or that creation, to the theological aspect of all literature. This is what distinguishes teaching at SDS from teaching at a secular university.

- What do you see as the main task of your subject and yours personally?
- Russian literature has always been concerned with educating a highly moral personality. The best Russian writers were never just writers of fiction, that is, writers of entertaining stories for the amusement of the public or for the sake of a fee. Russian literature of the 19th century is the deepest philosophical heritage. We can talk about the religious quests of Gogol, the philosophy of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky. Already Russian religious philosophy of the late 19th - early 20th centuries could not do without a deep philosophical understanding of Dostoevsky’s “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor”. There is no Russian religious thinker who has not written at least a few lines about it.

It should be noted that in the 19th century there were no “pure philosophers” in Russia, but there were writer-thinkers, and they forced readers to think deeply about the purpose of life and the meaning of human existence. Together with their heroes, they tried to find an “justification” for life. However, they did not always succeed. But at least they pointed to the path of moral self-improvement. If we take the work of Dostoevsky, his novels from “Crime and Punishment” to “The Brothers Karamazov”, we will see possible ways of moral degeneration of a person. Essentially, these are novels about the spiritual transformation of personality. Therefore, during lectures it is much more important for me to talk about the content of a work than about its external form. Much has already been written and said about her even without me.

Unfortunately, I myself was taught differently. More attention was paid to composition, plot, artistic images, but not to the meaning that writers put into their works. And if we talk about the tasks that we, teachers, face, then we must teach students to independently work with texts and comprehend their deep meaning. If they master this technique - and in seminar classes we try to master it - then they themselves will be interested in reading the classics and recognizing the spiritual meaning behind the plot outline of the novel. It became noticeable that from course to course the children’s passion for classical literature is growing, but also their level of comprehension, and this cannot but rejoice.

In addition to monuments of ancient Russian literature, what works attract your attention? What do you recommend seminarians read from Russian literature?
- If we talk about the curriculum, then in each era we can identify iconic works. For example, for poetry of the 18th century these are, of course, two “Reflections on God’s Greatness...” by M.V. Lomonosov, ode “God” by G.R. Derzhavin, which can be called the pinnacle of spiritual poetry of the 18th century. The ode “God” reflects the entire Bible and the Orthodox Creed, and an Orthodox person should be ashamed not to know this work! Such creations can be commented on and analyzed for a very long time, because the more significant the work, the more different meanings are revealed in it. It is important to get acquainted with “Poor Lisa” by N.M. Karamzin, in which one can discern the first implementation in Russian literature of the “prilogue theory”. The transition from spirituality to soulfulness is observed in “Darling” by I.F. Bogdanovich.

As for the 19th century - the “golden age” of Russian literature, in the work of each writer one can single out a peak work. If we talk about Pushkin’s prose, then this is undoubtedly “The Captain’s Daughter,” which is not by chance called his spiritual testament. This is a story about love and mercy. It expresses the meaning of serving God through serving the Fatherland, serving one’s neighbor through mercy based on love. This is a work of amazing design.

In Dostoevsky, I would especially highlight the novel “Crime and Punishment”, in which there are three levels of understanding: worldly, spiritual-moral and biblical. And each of them has its own meaning. At the spiritual and moral level, the development of sin in Raskolnikov is traced from the origin of the thought to its embodiment (the same “principal theory”). The biblical level is a comparison of Cain and Raskolnikov, who bears the mark of Cain as a murderer in modern times. Without understanding the different spiritual levels, we will not be able to fully comprehend the meaning of this work. The novel “The Idiot” with its deepest thought about the salvation of man is also important. Jesus Christ came into the world to save all humanity through self-sacrifice based on love. The novel shows that one, almost ideal person, is not able to save another, since it is impossible to accomplish this feat without love in the heart and faith in God. Compassion alone is not enough. Without love there is no salvation.

One can consider the creativity of writers in the dynamics of development. Let's say, Pushkin's early work and later, after his conscious acceptance of Orthodoxy. Dostoevsky's path from social revolutionary ideas to Christian humility. It is interesting to trace Gogol's spiritual evolution. Gogol has very powerful stories about the soulless “little man” - “The Overcoat” and “Portrait”, in which he explores the problem of man’s likeness to God in the ability to create and build his spiritual life. If Akaki Akakievich turned into a man who collects earthly riches instead of heavenly ones, then he is described as a dumb creature, unable to even express his thoughts, for there is no spiritual development in him. In “Portrait” the characters are shown not only in the process of the Fall, that is, the temptation of material things, but also at the moment of comprehension of their own sin and repentance. There is no man without sin. However, the power of repentance is great. As a result, the author of the portrait of the moneylender will paint the Nativity of Christ in such a way that the splendor of the image will amaze the abbot of the monastery and the brethren. According to the abbot, the artist could not reproduce the image of God only with his human nature. It was an unknown angelic force that guided his brush. The artist’s new creation contains the power of a transformed person. The meaning of human existence lies in the spiritual rebirth of the individual.

In fact, every writer can find a work in which a spiritual and moral theme is considered. Let's take Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina. In it we will also see the development of Anna’s fall from grace in accordance with the “prilogue theory.” But the central place in the novel is still occupied by the story of two families: when one family (Karenina) is destroyed by passion, the other (Levina) is created by love. The family is a small Church, an ark of salvation in worldly life.
That is, writers not only gave readers the opportunity to look at themselves through the prism of a work of art and draw a parallel between their lives and the lives of literary heroes, but also to draw appropriate conclusions that would protect them from unseemly actions.

In the educational process of a theological school, the most important thing is the educational moment. How do you implement it in your lectures?
- Today's students are essentially teenagers. Their characters are still being formed, and by nature they are, as a rule, maximalists. You just need to talk to them frankly. If you say one thing and do another, then when they notice the falsity, they will no longer believe you. You can only tell them what you yourself are deeply convinced of and what you yourself adhere to. Accordingly, when recommending something to students, you can only be guided by what you do yourself. If we talk about our everyday experience, it is better to talk about our mistakes so that they do not repeat them.

I strongly recommend guys keep a diary. Almost all writers kept diaries to one degree or another. Why is this necessary? A diary is important for monitoring yourself and assessing your development. And write everything in it honestly, as Tolstoy did. If a person really wants to develop morally and spiritually, then he must keep a diary not just describing the day he lived and the dialogues he had, but also give a critical analysis of his life, his actions and thoughts. There must be hard work on oneself, and the diary contributes to this. A diary also fosters hard work in a person, because daily diary keeping, if it becomes a habit, teaches regular work, promotes observation, the development of style, and the ability to write. Why couldn’t Akaki Akakievich redo just one paper? Yes, because he did not know how to work with words, to manage them. “Changing the title title and changing verbs here and there from the first person to the third” turned out to be an impossible task for him.

Working on style is an important aspect of journaling. With the current simplification of vocabulary, the emergence of youth slang, which we see on forums on the Internet, in email correspondence, SMS messages, there is a significant impoverishment of the vocabulary of modern young people. But keeping a diary helps expand your vocabulary. Let us remember that Pushkin the lyceum student did not know Russian well, but was fluent in French. Carried away by literary work, he comprehends the Russian language. Few people know that his works contain the largest stock of Russian words: several times more than Dostoevsky or Tolstoy! And his example should be science for us. In everyday life, we use five to seven thousand words - this is the vocabulary of a moderately educated person. Pushkin has more than 20 thousand different words in his works.

- Alexander Nikolaevich, please tell us about yourself, your life path, your student years.
- Life experience is axiological in nature and consists of understanding value guidelines and spiritual reasoning about them. In your life you need to find certain key points necessary to understand why life worked out this way and not differently, and what, if necessary, can be corrected.

At the age of 7, I became seriously ill, just in the summer before 1st grade. The illness was severe; for almost two months the temperature was below 40. Of course, school was out of the question. And I really wanted to! After all, all my friends were already in school. My parents were very worried, the doctors didn’t know what to do with me. Then my prayer-book grandmother said to my mother: “Take him to Saint Theodosius of Chernigov.”1 The relics of Saint Theodosius rested in the women's Holy Trinity Monastery of Chernigov, where her cousin was a nun. We went to her.

In Chernigov, the first thing they did was put me in a children's clinic - under the supervision of doctors. To take me out of there for just one night, my mother had to write a receipt. The doctors released us with undisguised fear, because my temperature did not decrease. Since I could not sleep due to the high temperature, I remembered everything very well.

On Saturday evening we arrived at the monastery so that the next morning, before Sunday service, we could venerate the holy relics that were in the altar of the temple. My grandmother, giving me her bed, prayed all night, and my mother was nearby. And early in the morning my grandmother took me to the temple. I approached - not without fear - to the relics of the saint and kissed his open hands. Immediately I felt the warmth emanating from them. When I told the adults about this, they were distrustful of my words: how warm is it? We returned to the hospital, where I slept for a day. When I woke up, they took my temperature, and it turned out to be normal!

Later I learned that St. Theodosius of Chernigov is the patron saint of teachers and students, and I, it should be noted, then had a great desire to go to school, but the doctors did not let me.
Apparently, the child’s prayer was so strong that I received the intercession and help of St. Theodosius in healing. Seeing the change in my health, the head physician asked my mother: “Have you been to St. Theodosius?” She confessed. “Well, then it’s clear, this is not the first time,” he said.

For a long time I was planning to go to Chernigov, but somehow it didn’t work out. And now, 40 years later, in August, my friends called me, saying that they were going by car to Chernigov, and offered to go with them. I took with me an icon of St. Theodosius, which one parishioner of our church gave me after my story about the healing, and we went.
At my request, at the Trinity Cathedral, at the relics of St. Theodosius of Chernigov, a thanksgiving prayer service was served with an akathist to the saint. The priest opened the shrine and gave me the opportunity to venerate the relics again. With boldness and spiritual trepidation, I approached the saint’s shrine, and everything came to mind: how I once approached these holy relics for the first time. It felt as if I had met again with someone dear and close to me after 40 years, even, I suspect, day to day. And I again felt his love and mercy for me. Finally, I asked the priest to attach to the relics an icon of the saint brought from Moscow.

In a state of joy and spiritual uplift, I headed out of the monastery to the car that was waiting for me. On the way home, at some point we noticed a special aroma in the car. I immediately realized what was going on, and, taking out the icon, I discovered that it was she who was fragrant. Everyone was imbued with the miracle that happened before our eyes.

One more circumstance in this story is striking: literally the next day after my adolescent healing, the women’s monastery was closed by order of N.S. Khrushchev (it was 1962 - the time of persecution of the Church), and the nuns were evicted. Undoubtedly, the fact that the Lord, through His saint Theodosius of Chernigov, revealed the miracle of healing a youth on the last day of the monastery’s existence, and that, by the grace of God, this youth turned out to be me, is seen as a special Divine Providence.

Then I had school and Lviv University. I was lucky enough to receive a good secular education thanks to various people. It is known that the Lord does His will through people, which is why much in our lives is, as it were, “determined” by people: they can tell us what to do next in life.

A very important meeting for me back in my school days was with Pavel Pavlovich Okhrimenko, a specialist in ancient Russian literature. It was then that I decided for myself that I would study ancient Russian literature.

Another person who determined my life path was Alexander Serafimovich Enko. I spoke to him “by chance” in the Moscow metro, and a few days later we “by chance” found ourselves next to each other on a plane flying from Leningrad to Moscow. That’s when we met, surprised by this “accident.” We were friends with him for more than 30 years - until his death. And when I did not enter Moscow State University, he suggested that I enter the philological faculty of Lvov University, and, thanks to him, I ended up there. The university had excellent teaching staff. His environment is of great importance for the formation of a specialist. All the teachers knew that I had been studying ancient Russian literature since the 1st year, and the dean’s office gave me a simply fantastic opportunity - to travel to universities and listen to lectures on ancient Russian literature! I still remember with gratitude the dean, Professor I.I. Doroshenko. So I listened to lectures at Leningrad and Minsk universities. But I didn’t have a supervisor.

Then, as a 3rd year student, I wrote a letter to MSU professor V.V. Kuskov, author of a textbook on ancient Russian literature. I said that I was especially interested in the apocrypha and ancient Russian literature, but did not have a mentor in this matter. And Vladimir Vladimirovich answered me, an unfamiliar student: “Come to Moscow for the winter holidays with your work.” This is how I met him and consider him my teacher. Under his guidance, I wrote not only my coursework, but also my diploma thesis. I was able to listen to his lectures at Moscow State University.

In Leningrad I met N.N. Rozov - head of the manuscripts department of the Public Library. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. He drew my attention to Gogol’s spiritual prose and pointed to his “Reflections on the Divine Liturgy.” Thanks to Nikolai Nikolaevich, I discovered the religious writer Gogol in the atheistic era. At Leningrad University I had conversations with N.S. Demkova and M.V. Rozhdestvenskaya. In Minsk - with L.L. Short.

The wealth of my secular education lies in the responsiveness of those people who shared their knowledge with me. Everyone I named were specialists in ancient Russian literature. But I always felt support from my other teachers. Seeing my passion, they helped me in every possible way.

There were teachers not only in the past, they also exist in the present.

For me, an example of serving God and the cause is Archpriest Pavel Fazan, rector of the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in the town of Shchorsa, near Chernigov. It is already amazing that in their large family there are four brothers and even two sons-in-law - priests!

Once upon a time there was a magnificent temple in my home town of Shchors, but the Germans, retreating in 1943, blew it up. Father Paul took on the construction of a new church of St. Nicholas, having only 43 hryvnia (about 200 rubles) in the treasury and an unshakable faith in God’s help. In four years, a beautiful two-level stone church was erected, services are already underway in the lower church, and finishing work is underway in the upper church. And the Sretensky Monastery, with the blessing of its abbot, Archimandrite Tikhon, shared books from the library with him, and the vice-rector of the seminary, Father John, donated new publications. Such an ascetic cannot help but help.

What struck me most was Father Pavel’s daily schedule. At 5-6 o'clock in the morning he already gives communion to the weak and sick, at 8 - service, at 11-12 - religious services. At 16 - Akathist, then - evening service. Moreover, you need to go to Chernigov for the night - to stand up for the Catherine Church, which the schismatics are trying to take away. Then - by parish. He is the dean of the Shchorsk district. Visit Schema nun Catherine in the village. Loknistoe for a spiritual conversation, visit the Domnitsa Monastery with the miraculous icon of the Mother of God, and on the way back to the holy spring. I observed Father Pavel after two busy days and a sleepless night. It was he who took me everywhere, and the Lord gave him strength. I saw it at the source.

Alexander Nikolaevich, tell me, did you develop the teaching methodology yourself, or did you adopt someone else’s experience?
- I was very lucky, because my wonderful mentors were people born at the beginning of the twentieth century and brought up in pre-revolutionary traditions. They passed on to us what they learned from their teachers. A teacher, first of all, is realized in his students. It is very important how students perceive the knowledge given to them by the teacher and whether they continue his work. This is how scientific schools are created.

With words of gratitude, I can remember Professor A.V. Chicherin, who was acquainted with Sergei Tolstoy, Yesenin, Blok, Bely... He also met with Gorky, Mayakovsky, Bulgakov.

Alexey Vladimirovich instilled in us the skills of literary criticism, he said that in the classical gymnasium he was taught to use the “method of close reading.” When you read quickly, only following the plot, you don’t notice much. When you read slowly and thoughtfully, paying attention to the smallest details and details, then you begin to understand that the idea of ​​the work is revealed through the details. Without noticing essential details, you can misinterpret an artistic composition.

This also applies to the methodology that we now use; in fact, she is a well-forgotten old thing. First of all, students themselves should try to understand the meaning of the work by reading it. Don’t just run your eyes and connect letters into words, but read - see the meaning intended by the author, focusing not on the plot outline, but on the idea. In each case, it is necessary to find an answer to the question of why the writer wrote this work and why it turned out that way. Is it the will of the author or his inability to write differently? It happens that an ideological plan and its actual implementation can be completely different.

By the way, this technique was described back in the 11th century, in the teaching of a certain monk “On reading books.” He wrote that reading should benefit the soul, that one should not turn the page without taking everything into one’s heart. Since each book was written by the grace of God, the reader should be imbued with the spiritual word and not rush to interrupt the conversation with God. This is the method of slow and close reading. We don’t want to interrupt a pleasant conversation with a friend, so here we shouldn’t interrupt our conversation with God. And then God-inspired words fall into the heart and strengthen the person.

“Every gift is from above,” that is, from God, including writing talent. If a writer understood that his talent was a gift from God, then he devoted his entire life to serving God through literature, just like the ancient Russian scribe. In essence, true writing is a synergistic connection between the writer and the Creator, but this happens when the writer is not autocratic. When he tries to create of his own free will, his personal art becomes clear: initially he wanted to write one thing, but it turned out completely different. And the answer is the writer himself: how will his word resonate in the souls of his readers?!

Recent studies of Gogol's work indicate precisely this. He interpreted his writing as spiritual. Not long ago, notebooks with Gogol’s extracts from the holy fathers were opened and published. And we can see how spiritually great the writer’s work on himself was. Then much of his work begins to be seen differently. Accordingly, in order to comprehend the meaning of his work, one would have to be a bit of a theologian.

A seminary is a closed educational institution in which the day is structured according to a certain schedule. A large amount of time is devoted, in addition to studying, to performing various obediences. What can you say about the workload that seminarians bear, and what was it like during your years of study?
- I can say, based on my personal experience: the busier I am, the more I can get done. In my time, students were loaded to the maximum; there was practically no free time left. And in our student years we learned to use time rationally. We read a lot, much more than people read now, perhaps because of the Internet, where you can easily get the information you need.

We had items that took up a lot of precious time. It is enough to recall the history of the CPSU, scientific communism and atheism. Every day I had to take notes on the classics of Marxism-Leninism for two to three hours. Now, thank God, this is not the case, and during this time you can do a lot. From the morning until approximately 3 o'clock in the afternoon we spent time at lectures, and after them we went to the library to read until late in the evening. Today's students are not used to working in libraries. In our time, the reading rooms were filled with young people, but now they are half empty, and this fact is depressing. A lot of workload can only be good for me. Now, for example, as vice-rector of the Literary Institute and executive editor of the “Bulletin of the Literary Institute,” I teach at four universities. I also have two doctoral students, five graduate students, and at least five graduate students every year. I'm not even talking about coursework. Everyone needs to devote time, read student papers several times, and at the same time they need to conduct their own scientific research. Therefore, the excuse that there is not enough time is from the evil one; There will always be time if you want.

- You often publish in various magazines, including on the website Pravoslavie.ru, which, by the way, you supervised at one time. Tell us what works you have published recently and what you are working on now.
- A year ago, a very important monograph “Stadial development of Russian literature of the 11th - first third of the 18th century” was published. Theory of literary formations" (M., 2008) is the result of many years of reflection. It puts forward a new theory of the development of Russian literature. It is complemented by the recently published monograph “On the specifics of the development of Russian literature of the 11th - first third of the 18th century. Stages and Formations" (M., 2009), in which theoretical issues find practical implementation. Both books are sold in the Sretenye store at the Sretensky Monastery. Recently, “The Tale of the Life of Peter and Fevronia of Murom” was published in my translation and with my afterword (M., 2009). Finally, I fulfilled my long-standing promise - I wrote an article about M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” for the website Pravoslavie.ru. A number of articles have been published in magazines. Took part in scientific conferences and Christmas readings. Now, with God’s help, I am completing work on a book on “The Word of Law and Grace.”

- Alexander Nikolaevich, your lectures are especially popular among seminary students. The church audience is still closer in spirit to the subject you teach. How interested is the secular audience in ancient Russian literature, and what attracts them most about it?
- I have the happy opportunity to start working with students both in the seminary and in secular universities from the 1st year. This is very important for their spiritual education. Young people have just returned from school, with an unformed worldview, full of interest in life, and in search of their place in society. You can not only observe the evolution of a given person over several years, how he develops and what he comes to, but also help him in his formation. The role of the mentor here is great and responsible.

In the 1st year, the student is looking for himself and the opportunity to test and demonstrate his strengths. Most often, he focuses on his favorite subjects or teachers, although preferences may change with age. One cannot but rejoice that interest in ancient Russian literature is constantly high. For example, at the State Academy of Slavic Culture they wrote five or six diplomas a year, which means that students began studying ancient Russian literature from the 1st year, plus they wrote term papers in the 2nd-4th years. Here it was important not only their study of ancient Russian literature, but also their own spiritual growth: one cannot be separated from the other.

For me, the greatest happiness was when one graduate, while defending her thesis, admitted that she was baptized two weeks ago. Her work on her diploma led her to this decision. If she had not studied ancient Russian literature, then perhaps she would not have taken such an important step in her life or would have taken it much later, but then her life would have turned out differently. It is important that this was her conscious choice. I have repeatedly observed that it is not parents, but, on the contrary, children who bring their parents to Church. This, by the way, relates to the question of spiritual and moral education and the role of literature in it. If such cases are at least sometimes present in our practice, then our teaching work takes on meaning.

It is clear that in seminary it is a little different. But I also have theology students from Moscow State Linguistic University (MSLU). Last year, there were also five of my graduates among them, and all of them defended themselves with excellent marks. For me it was no less joy than for them. Firstly, this was the first issue. Secondly, the topics of the diplomas were complex, but they coped with the task and revealed them. Two of last year’s graduates became my colleagues at the university and are now working on their Ph.D. dissertations.

When reviewing the lives of saints in secular universities, you probably drew the audience’s attention to their theological meaning. Is this accepted by the secular audience at large?
- Audiences are different. It is gratifying to note that now there are more and more Orthodox churchgoers in secular audiences. But it is one thing to call oneself Orthodox, another thing to be a member of the Church - to live according to church laws. Then the perception of the spiritual meaning of literary works occurs on a completely different level.

At the Academy of Slavic Culture that I already mentioned, there were many Orthodox students, and it was easier to talk about spiritual things there, since they were brought up in the traditions of Russian Orthodox culture. They perceived everything differently than those who were raised on “Western European values.” In the 1990s, it was difficult to teach at MSLU, because the students were mainly children of Russians who had lived abroad for the last ten years. Life outside one’s native culture, when personality is being formed, does not pass without leaving a trace. The children, although they were considered Russian by nationality, were already Europeans by their mentality. And it was difficult for them to perceive much from their culture. In Europe and America they were taught the priority of material values ​​over spiritual ones. Having arrived in Russia, they became related to that part of society that is drawn to “pan-European values”, but diverged from another, no less significant part, striving to revive the original Russian traditions based on Orthodoxy.

When you begin to discuss with “Russian foreigners,” say, the image of Eugene Onegin, they easily perceive him because they understand him with his hedonistic aspirations and desires. If we talk about the Orthodox community, then they are closer to the image of Pyotr Grinev, capable of self-sacrifice, from “The Captain’s Daughter” - the complete opposite of Onegin. But if earlier “foreigners” did not think about why Pushkin polemicizes with himself in his later works, now, living in Russia, they are gradually imbued with traditional Russian culture and perceive these literary images differently. And, most importantly, they give them the correct assessment.
In the 1990s, it was difficult to teach due to the diversity of the audience. When I asked young people which of them wanted to leave Russia, only two or three people did not raise their hands. Now the situation is reversed. This means that the worldview of young people and their value orientation have changed, and now I dare to hope that Russia has a future.

Alexander Nikolaevich, it is known that within the walls of the seminary you conducted a seminar on the film directed by Pavel Lungin “The Island” for seminarians and students of the journalism department of Moscow State Linguistic University. Tell us more about this meeting. What was her goal?
- There is only one goal - so that students can themselves, by thinking and reasoning with a little help from me, discover the spiritual meaning of this film.

Film is, first of all, a spectacular, that is, imaginative, side. But this film is deeply symbolic, and therefore has many meanings. Here it is important to both see the symbols and interpret them, and this means to penetrate into the spiritual meaning of the work. It so happened that we touched on this topic at a lecture both at the seminary and at the Linguistic University. And we came to a collective decision to get together and discuss this film together. It seemed interesting to compare both the secular view of these things and the spiritual vision of the issue by children of the same age.

In fact, it turned out that like-minded people gathered, who largely complemented each other with their subtle observations and helped to jointly penetrate into the spiritual content of the film. Parallels were drawn both with classical literature and with the spiritual development of personality. In hagiographic literature, this motive of salvation is often present. The film shows the power of repentance and humility of a person, which lead him to spiritual perfection. In fact, we see an example of personality transformation already at the present stage.

Alexander Nikolaevich, you started teaching at the seminary from the very first intake, a decade has passed since then. How is the current student different from the previous one? Are there any dynamics visible? And what, in your opinion, distinguishes a seminarian from a secular student, what makes him stand out?
- Practically nothing, students are the same everywhere: hard workers, lazy, and cunning. Only the enrollments of students from different years differ. For example, in the seminary the first intake consisted of monks and people of mature age who had a higher education, not only humanitarian, but also technical. These adults made a conscious choice: they came from secular life to the monastery, and this choice personally inspires respect in me. In addition, we had a small age difference, and this removed age barriers.

Often after lectures we would have long conversations. These were quite frank conversations, many revealed the reasons for their departure to the monastery. We talked about various topics, talked about politics, science and everything in general. These students knew what they wanted and strived to gain as much knowledge as possible. I liked their efficiency and determination. There was no need to push them, it was enough to advise them to read something, and they read. And then we discussed it together. They wanted to learn and they studied. Their growth was noticeable, many of them accepted the priesthood, now they themselves have spiritual children (I myself send my friends and students to them), deliver wonderful sermons, and take confessions. They are already conducting spiritual work in the monastery. When I meet them, I am sincerely happy for them. To this day we still have friendly relations with Father Adrian, Father Ambrose, Father Arseny, Father Luke, Father Cleopas, Father John, the current vice-rector of the seminary, and many others. I am glad that they have found their place in life and feel their need, their relevance among the laity and students. And I see with what respect the parishioners treat them.

- And in conclusion, tell me what teaching at SDS means to you?
- The most important thing is my spiritual education. The most tangible thing is the fraternal monastic prayer for the teachers and personally for me, a sinner. I began to feel this prayer from the very first days of my stay at the seminary. She holds in life. The most useful thing is spiritual conversations. The most joyful thing is to see the success of students. The most important thing is work for the glory of God, for the benefit of people and for the salvation of the soul.

Theorist and historian of literature and culture of Ancient Rus', teacher at Sretensky Theological Seminary, vice-rector of the Literary Institute named after. Maxim Gorky.

– Alexander Nikolaevich, a modern person living in constant time pressure, certainly knows that reading is necessary - in order to understand the world around him, to understand himself. But he also has many other desires that push reading into the background. So what books should fill this “background”? What should you read at all costs?

- It's a question of priorities. And reading is different from reading. For example, newspapers and periodicals can be read on the subway. Detective stories to kill time (this is an amazing expression: “to kill time”) can also be read on the subway. But Dostoevsky!.. I don’t understand when they read Dostoevsky in the subway.

A tribute to today's times - e-books. I have several of them, but I hardly use them. I love holding a published, printed book in my hands. It has a certain font, there are margins without which I cannot read. I always read with a pencil, and always make some notes in the margins. And how interesting it is to re-read it later! It’s interesting to see what places are marked, to see your thoughts that you wrote down in the margins next to each other.

I was once amazed by Gorky: he always read very quickly - and always with a pencil in his hands. All the books in his library - it has been preserved, is in the Gorky Museum, it is about 10,000 books - so, all the books in his library are marked! He read very carefully. But he also responded to young authors. But almost all literary critics and all writers read with a pencil. This is, so to speak, an axiom.

So what should you read first? I will say this: less is more. After all, even in Russian literature there are a lot of names. The course that, for example, I teach at Sretensky Seminary is designed for almost four years, and at the same time I’m not talking about many writers whose work I would really like to dwell on, and these are not even writers of the second plan, but of the first. Because it is better to take a deeper look at the works of Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and consider them more scrupulously. I give the most important thing - a technique for reading texts. And then let the guys go on their own, they have learned to read correctly.

In principle, the teacher’s task No. 1 is to teach reading. It would seem that at school we learn to read, and we know how to read, but... we only know how to swallow letters, words, sentences, comprehend the plot and then retell it - and in this, by the way, all sorts of encyclopedias are especially skilled. Indeed, why read four volumes of “War and Peace” if you can skim through 8 or 16 pages of some incomprehensible text - and you will already have an idea about the novel and even be considered an educated person, because you basically know what “War and Peace” is about? world". But the question arises: why did Tolstoy need five years of hard labor? He is a sybarite, he loves balls, roulette, cards, and he gives up all this in order to write a novel - and not for the sake of a fee, I emphasize, and not even for the sake of fame, although he was a vain man. But he wanted to convey something to us! But we don’t need this, 8 pages are enough for us...

The main thing is our attitude towards what we read. Essentially, a work of art is a spiritual mirror into which we look, and it shows what we see. If we see only one detective story, then this is our content. If we see the theological meaning, it means that we have already advanced a little spiritually, which means that we already see what others do not notice. Perhaps even the author himself did not imagine that he had this meaning, but we saw it. What does this indicate? We can see that our spiritual vision is already sharpened.

– A question that is extremely important for reading comprehension: what are the rules by following which a person will find the joy of reading? After all, we know that a person begins to value spiritual life when he feels the first victories over himself.

– It’s the same in reading: when there are the first discoveries, when a person suddenly finds something unexpected for himself in a text that seems to have been known for a long time.

Former students of some universities where I once taught and I practice the following. Periodically - say, once a month - we meet somewhere. And we agree in advance which work everyone is reading. This is the main condition: for everyone to read it. At these meetings we discuss it. And discoveries happen! Firstly, when they were reading, it turns out that they had already made a bunch of discoveries, and now that we have gathered together and are starting a discussion, everyone is sharing these discoveries. Do you understand how interesting it is?! This is much more interesting than reading detective stories, much more interesting. And you can’t even imagine how happy they are about these discoveries! Why? Because these are small victories over oneself, over, so to speak, routine. They all “sit” on the Internet, most of them are journalists, and professional journalists at that, so they read a lot, and, nevertheless, for them it is an outlet - to read a small work, and then all together discuss it, analyze it, look, discover meanings. And this is also a great joy. And the further they grow up, the more is revealed to them - this is the same spiritual growth, only thanks to literature.

– You never give your lectures “from a piece of paper,” and even more so, never from a printed text. And if you turn to some auxiliary materials, then these are always your hand sketches, made on small pieces of paper, which, one might say, are unique. And in this regard, your manner of presenting information is unique. What can this method of working with text give me, as a reader, when I write something out for myself by hand, take notes, and not just read the already mentioned e-books and tablets, as is customary for many today?

– The manuscript is yours. Even when you write a book, if you write it by hand, it’s yours. Dostoevsky once said that you must definitely dip your pen into the inkwell: because while you are carrying the pen to it, and then to a sheet of paper, you are thinking about a thought. You need to think all the time. When you scribble, thinking seems to disappear; when the writing process is slow, there is an opportunity to think. Of course, he spoke with some irony, but the meaning is deep.

When you write with your own hand, this text is truly yours and no one else’s – it’s written in your handwriting, and it’s as if your energy is preserved in it.

When the text is typed on a computer, I still edit it by hand - I make a printout and make changes to it. You can, of course, edit on a computer, but it’s better this way: you can better see where to change what word, where to make a stylistic edit.

And when a book comes out, you look at it as a completely alien creation. Nothing connects it with you - block letters, paper, some kind of binding... well, maybe, except maybe your last name. And it is still unknown whether you wrote a book or whether some ideas came from above. That’s why you also look at the last name with some apprehension: it’s there, but is it your book? can you tell that this is my book?

And these are my pieces of paper - I know every letter in them. And if I need to replace something, I replace it, write another... They accumulate, then these notes will be used somehow: in an article, in a new lecture, in a report... They are all collected first in envelopes, then the envelopes - in folders, then everything is put into a large folder. And everything is systematized. But the most important thing - I tell students about this when they write term papers or dissertations: be sure to record the first thoughts that appear when reading the text - they are the most interesting. Then you will return to them. If you don’t record them, that’s it, you’ll forget them. It’s like a dream: when you dream, you remember and are present in the dream, as soon as you wake up - maybe you still remember at first, but in the evening you don’t. It’s exactly the same with this thought. But it can be extremely precious. After all, this is the same contact, especially if you read spiritual literature, a contact sent from above. And so that it doesn’t get interrupted, write it down, record it somewhere. You will certainly come back to this later. I even have a special notebook - not a diary, no, but for some incidental thoughts, as they say. And when you re-read it after some time, you are amazed: these are not your thoughts, I couldn’t think like that! But these thoughts will decorate any article, any report, any lecture. That’s why I always tell the guys: “You need to read with a pencil and definitely record these passing thoughts.”

– Alexander Nikolaevich, we have to admit that modern schools often discourage students from reading Russian classics. What advice could you give to a person who wants to rediscover this amazingly rich spiritual world of Russian literature?

- There is only one piece of advice - read. Read as much as possible! I'll start with the most basic. When I talk to students, especially at the first lecture, I ask them “tricky questions”: “Tell me, have you read these works?” - “We read.” - “And what is their main idea?” They begin to remember and try to answer something. I say: “Are you sure?” And when we start to dig a little deeper, it turns out that, indeed, the study of literary works in school is very, very superficial. Maybe for a school, especially for the middle classes, this is permissible, because there it is necessary to take into account both the age of the child and his capabilities - both mental and psychological: how much he can perceive certain works. In high school there should be a more serious approach. During this period, the formation of a worldview takes place, where the approach to studying works will be much more complicated.

I always tell my students that any work of Russian literature must be read at least twice. The first time is an introduction to the plot. The second time - getting to know the details.

More formalists, first the Germans at the end of the 19th century, then the Russian formalists of the beginning of the 20th century, revealed that in world literature there are only 36 plots - although some counted 38. But this does not matter: 36 or 38 plots. And everything else is their variations. This means that the plot is not so important for revealing the meaning. Details matter. Detail is the queen of meaning. That is, if we notice the details, then we can understand the meaning.

To understand what idea a 19th century writer conveys or introduces into his work, you need to pay attention to the details. I once had a wonderful teacher - Professor Alexey Vladimirovich Chicherin, who graduated from high school before the revolution. And he said: “We were taught to read slowly - or read closely.” That is, high school students were in no hurry to read, they were not taught speed reading. Why? Because if you read quickly, you don’t notice the details, you don’t comprehend the meaning.

And he also taught us to read slowly. That’s why I also teach my students to read closely. I tell them: “I am a bridge between the 21st and 19th centuries. Why? Because my teachers were born in the 19th century, they taught me, now I am teaching you, already in the 21st century.”

Uzhankov Alexander Nikolaevich, born in 1955 in Shchors, Chernigov region, Ukraine. Professor, Doctor of Philology, Candidate of Cultural Studies. Graduated from the Russian department of the philological faculty of Lvov State University. I. Franko (1980).

In his last year he began publishing in Komsomolskaya Pravda, where, after graduating from university, he was invited as a correspondent to the Press Bureau, then moved to the department of literature and art (1981-82). After Komsomolskaya Pravda, he worked as editor of the criticism department of the magazine Oktyabr, senior editor of the publishing house "Soviet Writer" of the USSR Writers' Union, General Director of the specialized publishing and trading enterprise "Heritage", created by order of the USSR Council of Ministers at the USSR Academy of Sciences (1988-89).

Since 1989, scientific work at the Institute of World Literature named after. A.M.Gorky Academy of Sciences of the USSR, since 1992 - teaching. He was the dean of the Faculty of Philology and vice-rector for scientific work of the State Academy of Slavic Culture. Initiator of the creation and first executive director of the “Society of Researchers of Ancient Rus'” at the Institute of Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences (then RAS).

From 2006 to present - Vice-Rector for Scientific Work of the Literary Institute named after. A.M. Gorky. Professor at Moscow State University. M. Lomonosov (MSU), Russian Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture Ilya Glazunov, Institute of Cultural History (UNIK), Sretensky Theological Seminary (SDS), Higher Theological Courses at the Moscow Theological Academy.

He gave lectures at Charles University (Czech Republic, Prague), University of Palermo (Italy), Lviv National University (Ukraine), Baltic Federal University (Kaliningrad), Kemerovo State University, etc.

Member of the Union of Journalists of the USSR (1985) and the Union of Writers of Russia (2000). Executive editor (2006), then Chairman of the editorial board of the Bulletin of the Literary Institute named after. A.M. Gorky" (2012), member of the editorial board of the series "Religious and Philosophical Heritage of Ancient Rus'" (IP RAS), member of the editorial board of the literary and journalistic almanac "Ruslo" (St. Petersburg). Author and presenter of the program about Russian literature “Time Factor” on the Prosveshchenie TV channel (since 2011), author of lectures on TV “Culture” in the program “Academy” (since 2011).

Honorary worker of higher professional education of the Russian Federation. Full member (academician) of the Academy of Russian Literature.

Member of the Public Council under the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation.

Theorist and historian of Russian literature and culture of Ancient Rus'.

He is responsible for research on the new dating of “The Tale of Law and Grace”, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”, “Readings about Boris and Gleb”, “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”, “Tales of Igor’s Host”, “Tales of the Destruction of the Russian Land” , “The Tale of the Life of Alexander Nevsky”, “The Chronicler of Daniil Galitsky”, etc.

He proposed a new concept for understanding ancient Russian chronicles, linking it with the eschatological ideas of Russian medieval scribes; discovered traces of the influence of the biblical “Book of the Prophet Jeremiah” on “The Tale of Igor’s Host”; reinterpreted “The Tale of Peter and Fevronia of Murom”; studied the evolution of the depiction of nature in ancient Russian literature; history of the genre of Old Russian stories, developed a new methodology for dating Old Russian works, created a new “Historical poetics of Old Russian literature”, etc.

He developed a theory of the staged development of Russian literature from the 11th to the first third of the 18th century and a theory of literary formations of Ancient Rus'.

The results of his research were included in university and school textbooks.

A.N. Uzhankov’s works have been translated into Ukrainian, Italian and English.