Likhachev theory. Likhachev D.S.

Most recently, the scientific community celebrated the centennial anniversary of the prominent Russian literary critic, cultural historian and textual critic, academician (since 1970) Dmitry Likhachev. This largely contributed to a new wave of interest in his extensive heritage, which constitutes the cultural heritage of our country, and, most importantly, to a modern reassessment of the significance of a number of his works.

After all, some of the researcher’s views have yet to be properly comprehended and understood. This, for example, includes philosophical ideas about the development of art. At first glance, it may seem that his reasoning concerns only some aspects of artistic creativity. But this is a misconception. In fact, behind some of his conclusions there is a holistic philosophical and aesthetic theory. The rector of the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions (SPbSUP), Doctor of Cultural Sciences Alexander Zapesotsky and employees of the same educational institution, Doctors of Philosophy Tatyana Shekhter and Yuri Shor, spoke about this in the magazine “Man”.

In their opinion, works of art history stand out in the thinker’s work - articles from “Essays on the Philosophy of Artistic Creativity” (1996) and “Selected Works on Russian and World Culture” (2006), which reflected Dmitry Sergeevich’s philosophical views on the process and main stages of the historical development of Russian art.

What does this term mean in the worldview of a prominent scientist? By this concept he meant a complex system of relationship between the artist and the reality around him, and the creator with the traditions of culture and literature. In the latter case, the particular and the general, the natural and the random were intertwined. In his opinion, the historical development of art is a kind of evolution that combines both traditions and something new. Likhachev raised artistic thinking and related theoretical questions to the problem of truth as the basis of any knowledge.

The meaning of the academician’s ideas about art as a sphere of highest values, about the importance of the search for truth for him is revealed most fully in comparison with postmodernism - a movement of philosophical and artistic thought that developed in the last quarter of the 20th century. Let us remember that adherents of this trend question the existence of scientific truth as such. In its place is communication: the participants of the latter receive information in an unclear way, then transfer it to an unknown person, being unsure that they did it correctly. In this theory, one true understanding of the event is considered impossible, because Many of its variants equally exist. Moreover, the basis of thinking becomes the concept of probability, and not logical argument. All this, the authors of the article claim, contradicts Likhachev’s views, because the task of finding the truth and deepening its understanding is the basis of his own worldview.

However, he himself took a special approach to the nature of truth when the question of its relationship with art was raised. The scientist interpreted it in line with Russian philosophy - as the highest goal of knowledge. And therefore, in many ways, he innovatively posed the question of the relationship between science and art. After all, in his opinion, both are ways of comprehending the world around us, but science is objective, and art is not: it always takes into account the individuality of the creator, his qualities. As a true humanist, to whom Dmitry Sergeevich undoubtedly belonged, he called art the highest form of consciousness and recognized its primacy over scientific knowledge.

This means, the academician believed, although art is a form of knowledge of nature, man, history, it is still specific, because the works generated by it evoke an aesthetic reaction. Hence its distinctive feature in comparison with science is “inaccuracy,” which ensures the life of a work of art in time.

Likhachev believed that trained and unprepared people feel art differently: the former understand the author’s intention and what the artist intended to express; They rather like incompleteness, while for the latter, completeness and the given play an essential role.

Such an interpretation of the peculiarities of artistic exploration of the world expands its possibilities and meaning for humans. Therefore, argue Zapesotsky, Shekhter and Shor, Likhachev also interprets the question of the originality of national art, which is familiar to aesthetics, differently. Its distinctive properties, according to the scientist, are determined primarily by the peculiarities of Russian cultural consciousness. Openness to the world has given our art the opportunity to absorb and then transform, according to its own ideas, the colossal experience of Western European culture. Nevertheless, it followed its own path: influences from outside were never dominant in its development, although they undoubtedly played an important role in this process.

Likhachev insisted on the European character of Russian culture, the specificity of which is determined, according to his thought, by three qualities: the accentuated personal nature of artistic phenomena (in other words, interest in individuality), receptivity to other cultures (university) and freedom of creative self-expression of the individual (however, it has limits). All of these features grow out of the Christian worldview - the basis of the cultural identity of Europe.

Among other things, in the analysis of the problems of art, the thinker gave a special place to the concept of co-creation, without which true interaction with art itself cannot occur. A person who perceives an artistic creation complements it with his feelings, emotions, and imagination. This is especially evident in literature, where the reader completes and imagines images. There is a potential space for people in it (and in art in general), and it is much greater than in science.

For the scientist’s philosophy of art, it was also important to understand mythology, since both it and the artistic consciousness are trying to reproduce the unified structure of the real world. In addition, the unconscious principle is of paramount importance in them. By the way, according to Likhachev, mythologization is inherent in both primitive consciousness and modern science.

However, the authors note, the academician paid the greatest attention to style in his theory: after all, it is this that ensures the completeness and genuine manifestation of the true and mythological in a work of art. Style is everywhere. For Likhachev, this is the main element in the analysis of artistic history. And their opposition, interaction and combination (counterpoint) are extremely important, because such interconnection provides a diverse combination of various artistic means.

Dmitry Sergeevich did not ignore the structure of the artistic process. For him, there are macroscopic and microscopic levels in creativity. The first is associated with tradition, with the laws of style, the second - with individual freedom.

He also paid attention to the topic of progress in art: in his understanding, the origin of the latter is not a one-line, but a long process, the significant feature of which he called the increase in the personal principle in artistic creativity.

So, having examined in detail Likhachev’s philosophical concept set out in the article under consideration, one cannot but agree with the final thought of its authors that the ideas proposed by Dmitry Sergeevich are deep and largely original. And his special gift for immediately analyzing the unity of centuries-old historical artistic heritage and the possession of scientific intuition allowed him to pay attention to topical (including today) issues of aesthetics and art history, and what is most valuable is to define in many ways the current philosophical understanding of the artistic process.

Zapesotsky A., Shekhter T., Shor Y., Maria SAPRYKINA

Cultures. He lived a very long life, in which there were deprivations, persecutions, as well as grandiose achievements in the scientific field, recognition not only at home, but throughout the world. When Dmitry Sergeevich passed away, they spoke with one voice: he was the conscience of the nation. And there is no stretch in this lofty definition. Indeed, Likhachev was an example of selfless and persistent service to the Motherland.

He was born in St. Petersburg, in the family of electrical engineer Sergei Mikhailovich Likhachev. The Likhachevs lived modestly, but found opportunities not to give up their hobby - regular visits to the Mariinsky Theater, or rather, ballet performances. And in the summer they rented a dacha in Kuokkala, where Dmitry joined the ranks of artistic youth. In 1914, he entered the gymnasium, and subsequently changed several schools, as the education system changed in connection with the events of the revolution and the Civil War. In 1923, Dmitry entered the ethnological and linguistic department of the Faculty of Social Sciences of Petrograd University. At some point, he joined a student circle under the comic name “Space Academy of Sciences.” The members of this circle met regularly, read and discussed each other's reports. In February 1928, Dmitry Likhachev was arrested for participating in a circle and sentenced to 5 years “for counter-revolutionary activities.” The investigation lasted six months, after which Likhachev was sent to the Solovetsky camp.

Likhachev later called his experience of life in the camp his “second and main university.” He changed several types of activities in Solovki. For example, he worked as an employee of the Criminological Office and organized a labor colony for teenagers. “I came out of this whole mess with a new knowledge of life and a new state of mind, - Dmitry Sergeevich said in an interview. - The good that I managed to do for hundreds of teenagers, saving their lives, and many other people, the good received from the fellow prisoners themselves, the experience of everything I saw created in me some kind of very deep-seated peace and mental health.”.

Likhachev was released early in 1932, and “with a red stripe” - that is, with a certificate that he was a drummer in the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, and this certificate gave him the right to live anywhere. He returned to Leningrad, worked as a proofreader at the publishing house of the Academy of Sciences (having a criminal record prevented him from getting a more serious job). In 1938, through the efforts of the leaders of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Likhachev’s criminal record was cleared. Then Dmitry Sergeevich went to work at the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Pushkin House). In June 1941, he defended his Ph.D. thesis on the topic “Novgorod chronicles of the 12th century.” The scientist defended his doctoral dissertation after the war, in 1947.

Dmitry Likhachev. 1987 Photo: aif.ru

USSR State Prize laureate Dmitry Likhachev (left) talks with Russian Soviet writer Veniamin Kaverin at the VIII Congress of USSR Writers. Photo: aif.ru

D. S. Likhachev. May 1967. Photo: likhachev.lfond.spb.ru

The Likhachevs (by that time Dmitry Sergeevich was married and had two daughters) survived the war partially in besieged Leningrad. After the terrible winter of 1941–1942, they were evacuated to Kazan. After his stay in the camp, Dmitry Sergeevich’s health was undermined, and he was not subject to conscription to the front.

The main theme of Likhachev the scientist was ancient Russian literature. In 1950, under his scientific leadership, The Tale of Bygone Years and The Tale of Igor’s Campaign were prepared for publication in the “Literary Monuments” series. A team of talented researchers of ancient Russian literature gathered around the scientist. From 1954 until the end of his life, Dmitry Sergeevich headed the sector of ancient Russian literature at the Pushkin House. In 1953, Likhachev was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. At that time, he already enjoyed unquestioned authority among all Slavic scholars in the world.

The 50s, 60s, 70s were an incredibly busy time for the scientist, when his most important books were published: “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'”, “The Culture of Rus' in the Time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise”, “Textology”, “Poetics” Old Russian Literature", "Eras and Styles", "Great Heritage". Likhachev in many ways opened up ancient Russian literature to a wide range of readers, did everything to make it “come to life” and become interesting not only to specialist philologists.

In the second half of the 80s and in the 90s, the authority of Dmitry Sergeevich was incredibly great not only in academic circles, he was revered by people of various professions and political views. He acted as a promoter of the protection of monuments - both tangible and intangible. From 1986 to 1993, Academician Likhachev was the chairman of the Russian Cultural Foundation and was elected as a people's deputy of the Supreme Council.

V.P. Adrianova-Peretz and D.S. Likhachev. 1967 Photo: likhachev.lfond.spb.ru

Dmitry Likhachev. Photo: slvf.ru

D.S. Likhachev and V.G. Rasputin. 1986 Photo: likhachev.lfond.spb.ru

Dmitry Sergeevich lived for 92 years; during his earthly journey, political regimes changed several times in Russia. He was born in St. Petersburg and died there, but lived in both Petrograd and Leningrad... The outstanding scientist carried faith (and his parents were from Old Believer families) and endurance through all the trials, and always remained faithful to his mission - to preserve the memory, history, culture. Dmitry Sergeevich suffered from the Soviet regime, but did not become a dissident, he always found a reasonable compromise in relations with his superiors in order to be able to do his job. His conscience was not stained by a single unseemly act. He once wrote about his experience of serving time on Solovki: “I realized this: every day is a gift from God. I need to live for the day to day, to be satisfied that I live another day. And be grateful for every day. Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of anything in the world.". There were many, many days in the life of Dmitry Sergeevich, each of which he filled with work to increase the cultural wealth of Russia.

About science and non-science

Scientific work is the growth of a plant: first it is closer to the soil (to the material, to the sources), then it rises to generalizations. So with each work separately and so with the general path of a scientist: he has the right to rise to broad (“broad-leaved”) generalizations only in mature and elderly years. We must not forget that behind the wide foliage there is a strong trunk of springs, work on the springs. The compiler of the famous English dictionary, Dr. Samuel Johnson, stated: “Knowledge is of two kinds. We either know the subject ourselves, or we know where to find information about it.” This saying had a huge role in English higher education, because it was recognized that in life the most necessary knowledge (in the presence of good libraries) is second. Therefore, examination tests in England are often held in libraries with open access to books.

It is checked in writing: 1) how well the student knows how to use literature, reference books, and dictionaries; 2) how logically he reasons, proving his idea; 3) how well he can express thoughts in writing. All Englishmen can write letters well. In an effort to display scholarship and insight, art scholars and paleographers often exaggerate and overextend their ability to make precise attributions and dates. This is expressed, for example, in the “exact” definition of the region from which the icon comes, which does not take into account the fact that icon painters constantly moved from one place to another. This is also expressed in the “exact” determination of the time to which this or that handwriting belongs. “The first quarter of such and such a century” or “the last quarter of such and such a century.” As if a scribe could not work for 50 years or more without adapting his handwriting to one or another handwriting that had come into fashion. Or as if the scribe could not learn from an old man, and even somewhere in the outback.

However, the accuracy of the “definitions”, sometimes accurate to within a decade, gives “weight” to the scientist in the eyes of others. I remember how my school friend Seryozha Einerling (great-grandson of the famous publisher of the “History of the Russian State” N.M. Karamzin) showed me at the very beginning of the 20s the documents of the 18th century Salt Office that he had exchanged. Herrings at the market were wrapped in these documents. They were obtained by him from the “written off” deposits of the Petrograd archives. Merchants willingly exchanged these documents for ordinary newsprint - pound for pound. I also exchanged these documents (especially since we lived in the government apartment of the First State Printing House - now “Printing Yard”, and we had a lot of all kinds of paper for exchange). I was very interested in the beauty of handwriting: each scribe has his own handwriting. There were dry handwritings, characteristic of the 18th century, and there were also very sweeping ones - exactly like the 17th century. The documents in most cases had dates.

When I studied paleography at the university with academician E.F. Karsky, I brought him some of the documents and he explained to me the presence of archaic handwriting on dated documents from the mid-18th century: the documents were from the cities of the Russian North. “Culture” reached there slowly; the scribes’ teachers could be old people. What if there were no dates on the documents? Modern “erudite” paleographers would certainly define them as “the end of the 17th century” or something like that. Unless they would have thought to check the watermarks... Couldn’t the same thing happen with icons? I myself have been writing for seventy years. During this time, my handwriting changed: it became less legible - age affects, but not the era. Although even in modern times handwritings change over time.

Academician A. S. Orlov retained some old letter styles typical of the 19th century: the letter “t”, for example. In the creation of various art historical pseudo-theories and generalizations, the vanity of researchers plays a huge role: the desire to “have their say,” to give their own definition, name, while hiding, however, their dependence on their predecessors or “unpleasant” contemporaries. Sometimes art critics (and literary critics too) do not refer to their contemporaries in order to separate themselves from them for group reasons or out of simple human hostility. In the recently published book of our best expert on ancient Russian art - G. K. Wagner - “Canon and style in ancient Russian art” (Moscow, 1987) there is a chapter “Statement of the problem”, where views on styles in ancient Russian art are analyzed with remarkable objectivity and neutrality various scientists since the 19th century. It says nothing about personal relationships between art critics, but, knowing these relationships, one should regret how much theory loses from extra-theoretical emotions and the egoism of researchers striving for “self-affirmation” or to belittle the importance of their contemporaries.

By the way, there are several simplified ways to create “new” approaches and methods in the humanities. One of them, the most common, is to declare the need for complexity. Hence, in pedagogy, an absurd complex method of teaching was born in the 1920s. Integrated approaches have appeared from time to time in art criticism, literary criticism, and various auxiliary disciplines. What can you say against the need for “complexity”? And the impression is that a new toy is in the hands of scientists.

Secondary nature in science. Secondaryness is a phenomenon that overwhelms different aspects of culture. Science, and literary criticism in particular, is also susceptible to this phenomenon. Scientists often create new hypotheses not on the basis of “raw” material, but by modifying old, already used hypotheses and theories, with all the facts given in them. This is an even better form of secondaryity. It’s worse when a scientist tries to put himself above science and begins, like a policeman, to regulate traffic: this one is right, that one is wrong, this one should correct himself, and this one should not go too far. He gives out praise and spanks, graciously encourages someone, etc. This secondary nature is especially bad because it creates false (fortunately, short-lived) authority for the scientist. Anyone who picks up a stick begins to instill involuntary fear - as if he might get hurt.

The historiographical approach approaches secondaryness in science based on purely external similarity. But historiography, if it is real, is not a secondary science. A science historiographer also studies raw material and can come to interesting conclusions. However, historiography is also in great danger of being secondary. Secondary - like connective tissue. It threatens to grow and displace living, “working” cells. St. Augustine: “I know what it is only until they ask me what it is!” A scientist does not necessarily have to always answer questions, but he certainly must pose them correctly. Sometimes the merit of asking the right questions can be even more important than a vague answer. Man does not possess the truth, but tirelessly seeks it. A vivid scientific imagination allows a scientist, first of all, not so much to offer solutions as to put forward more and more new problems. Science grows not only by the accumulation of statements, but also by the accumulation of their refutations.

V.I. Vernadsky, known throughout the world for his scientific generalizations, wrote: “Real scientific work seems to be experience, analysis, measurement, a new fact, and not a generalization.” True, next to him he crosses out this thought, denies its universality, but still... (Pages of the autobiography of V.I. Vernadsky. M., 1981, p. 286). In letters from America and Canada, V.I. Vernadsky is amazed at the “luxury of university education,” the “breadth of opportunities for scientific work,” and the small results. On August 6, 1913, he writes from Toronto: “There are few great talented individuals. Everything is taken by organization, means; number of employees. What Nicole showed us yesterday was baby talk, which is strange to talk about seriously...” Nicole is a Canadian scientist, professor at Kingston University. It seems that we have entered the same period in the development of science; we always rely on the numbers, rather than the talent, of great personalities in science. In the 20s, Academician Steklov did not want to give academic vacancies to S. F. Platonov and said among other things: “Sciences are divided into natural and unnatural.” S.F. Platonov was found and answered: “Sciences are divided into social and antisocial.”

Goethe said: “Two can’t see a ghost.” This idea can be extended to the simultaneous creation of any complex theory by two people. However, there are cases when some discovery seems to be brewing, the state of science “allows” it to be made. The simultaneity of discoveries in science and technology (and perhaps stylistic and ideological decisions in art). In 1825, Janos Bolai received a letter from his father, warning his son about the need to publish his geometric theory as soon as possible, because “it must be admitted that some things have, so to speak, their own era, in which they are found in different places at the same time.” In fact, in February 1826 N.I. Lobachevsky presented a report containing a similar theory, with a new solution to Problem V of Euclid's postulate on parallel lines. Historians of science should engage in a special study of the simultaneity of some discoveries by different people (Popov and Marconi, etc.). In the general context of cultural history, this is extremely important.

And regarding Lobachevsky, I would add the following. Often discoveries are made while playing, as a playful, cheerful guess. It seems that Lobachevsky initially did not attach particularly serious importance to his discovery. In art (especially in painting) a lot came from shocking, mischief, and jokes. When I asked B.V. Tomashevsky, did Viktor Erlich correctly describe the history of literary formalism in his book on this subject, B.V. Tomashevsky answered me: “He didn’t notice that at first we were just being hooligans.” In science, the familiar must come before the unfamiliar. Extreme braking. Surgeon Lev Moiseevich Dulkin told me about how a completely extraneous and often empty phenomenon distracts from the main thing. The professor was giving a lecture. During a lecture, an assistant brings in an obscure glass screen and places it in front of the audience. Then he comes in again and starts hitting him. He finishes and leaves. The professor turns to one student, then to another, to a third, etc., asking: “What did I just talk about?” No one knows. The stupidity (the screen, beating on it) completely distracted the students from the lecture. The same is true in scientific work: stupid squabbles, “elaborations” and so on can completely paralyze the work of a scientific institution.

I have repeatedly written and said in my speeches that access to archival materials should be more open and free. Scientific work (especially textual criticism) requires the use of all handwritten sources on a particular topic (I write about this in two editions of my book “Textology”). In our country, more and more often, archives decide whether to release this manuscript, but not to release this one, and this decision is often arbitrary. Young scientists especially need to be taught to use primary sources—and they are increasingly finding themselves cramped in the reading rooms of manuscript departments. Handwritten books and manuscripts should be handed out more often—by the way, their safety depends on this. The researcher controls the condition of the manuscripts, controls the archivist, checking whether he has “identified” the manuscript. I could give dozens of examples when manuscripts were considered “lost” as a result of the fact that they did not fall into the hands of a researcher for a long time and were not identified.

The availability of a source - whether a handwritten document, a book, rare magazines or old newspapers - is a cardinal problem on which the development of the humanities depends. Blocking access to sources leads to stagnation, forcing the researcher to stomp on the same facts, repeat platitudes, and ultimately separates him from science. There should be no closed funds - neither archival nor library. How to achieve such a position is a question that should be discussed by the general scientific community, and not decided in departmental offices. Freedom of access to life-giving cultural property is our common right, the right of everyone, and it is the responsibility of libraries and archives to ensure that this right is put into practice. The easiest way to be known as an erudite is to know a little, but precisely what others don’t know.

If I had to publish a journal (literary or cultural), I would make it three main sections: 1) articles (necessarily short, concise - without phraseological cliches and frills; in general - no more than half a sheet); 2) reviews (the department would open with a general review of books published over a certain period of time: maybe a year by topic, and would consist mainly of detailed analyzes of books); 3) notes and amendments (like those given by I.G. Yampolsky in “Questions of Literature”); this would introduce discipline and a sense of responsibility into the author's work, and would improve the authors.

YES. Goldhammer. Self-hypnosis in scientific research (magazine “Scientific Word”, 1905, book X, pp. 5-22). Very interesting article. Using many examples, it shows a long-known fact: how the results of observations and experiments are adjusted to conclusions. But what is important and new about it is that this “adjustment” is often done unconsciously. The researcher is so convinced of the conclusions he has drawn up in advance that he sees their confirmation in everything and really does not see anything that contradicts them. Although the author limits himself to the “exact” sciences, this applies to an even greater extent to the humanities. In literary textual criticism, this is all too common. Just look at the works on the textual criticism of “Zadonshchina”: the version is worse, which means it is secondary, the version is better, which means they corrected the previous reading, which was worse. It is no longer possible to follow “self-hypnosis” at all in broader generalizations, when it is necessary to characterize the features of the work of a particular author.

But self-hypnosis extends not only to creators, but also to readers, viewers, and listeners. And here it sometimes plays a positive role. The reputation of an author or artist makes you pay more attention to their work: read, watch, listen. And the reader, viewer and listener must be “searching”, attentive, thoughtful, especially if this concerns “difficult” creators: Pasternak, Mandelstam, post-impressionists, complex composers. Sometimes the reader, viewer, or listener thinks, as a result of self-hypnosis, that he understands. Well, let it seem! In the end he will understand or reject it. But all three cannot do without a period of inquisitive searching. If all three want to improve their knowledge of art. An increase in knowledge about a phenomenon sometimes leads to a decrease in its understanding.

In literary criticism, instead of research, “supra-scientific” work is increasingly being developed: the “scientist” mostly talks about who is right, who is wrong, who is on the right path, and who has deviated from it, etc. In the Inquisition there was a position of “qualifier”. The qualifier determined what is heresy and what is not heresy. In science, qualifiers are terrible. There are many of them in literary criticism. La Rochefoucauld: “A person always has enough courage to endure the misfortunes of others.” Let's add: and the scientist - the failures of someone else's experiment or his factual error. B. A. Romanov said about one historian who expanded the list of his works with an abundance of reviews: “He spits out his reviews right and left.” Where there are no arguments, there are opinions. In one of his reviews, B. A. Larin wrote: “The strongest part of the book has to be its table of contents - an attempt to systematize the issues - but their development (that is, the whole book - D. L.) is superficial and primitive.” Deadly accurate.

In the early 30s, during the “perestroika” of the Academy of Sciences, someone (I won’t mention the name) read a report on Pushkin in the Great Conference Hall of the main building of the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad. At the end of the report, when everyone was leaving, in the crowd at the door of E.V. Tarle raised his hands up and said: “Of course, I understand that this is the Academy of Sciences, but there were still people with higher education in the hall.” Yesterday a report on Soviet literature was read at the Department of Literature and Language. I couldn’t stand it and left, and told my friends: “We’re used to everything, but the stenographers were ashamed.” Newton discovered the law of gravity, but he did not build hypotheses - what it is, how it is explained, etc. Newton declared this declaratively: he said that he does not build hypotheses about what he does not know. And by this he did not slow down the development of science (according to Academician V.I. Smirnov. 15.IV.1971).

Progress is, to a large extent, differentiation and specialization within some “organism.” Progress in science also means differentiation, specialization, complication of the issues being studied, and the emergence of more and more new problems. The number of questions raised in science significantly outstrips the number of answers. Consequently, science, which makes it possible to use the forces of nature (in a broad sense), simultaneously increases the number of mysteries of existence. One of the greatest pleasures for an author is the publication of his book or article. But... this pleasure decreases with the release of each subsequent book: the second book is already half the delight of the first, the third - a third, the fourth - a quarter, etc. To preserve this pleasure, it is necessary that the works be new, not repeated - be as if “first” every time. The book should be a “surprise” - both for the reader and for the author himself

It is not enough to be a fish to become a good ichthyologist: this expression can be applied to one old folklorist from the village, who considered herself the highest authority in matters of folk art. Irritated by the empty sociologizations of one literary critic, V.A. Desnitsky said: “You can’t make Pushkin’s pants out of this.” Rutherford said: “Scientific truth goes through three stages of its recognition: first they say, “this is absurd,” then, “there is something in this,” and finally, “this has long been known!” The whole point here is that Rutherford calls each of these judgments “recognition”! “Inversion system” in science: an evidentiary system is built for a particular concept. Documents are selected accordingly, etc. S. B. Veselovsky wrote: “No profundity and no wit can compensate for ignorance of the facts” (Research on the history of the oprichnina. 1963, p. 11).

V. A. Desnitsky (a former seminarian) called employees of the Pushkin House with academic degrees “racassophores.” The drumbeat of erudition: names, titles, quotations, bibliographic footnotes - necessary and unnecessary. Izorgina’s expression: “caring scholars.” Anatole France: “Science is infallible, but scientists are often mistaken.” From “The History of a City” by Saltykov-Shchedrin. One of the paragraphs of the Charter “On the freedom of mayors from laws” reads: “If you feel that the law poses an obstacle for you, then remove it from the table and put it under you.” It is in vain to think that this does not apply to science. “Where, I would like to know, is that heavyweight who is able to cram into seven or eight pages... history and theory, reviews and methods” (from an article by Marlen Korallov). "M. A. Lifshits, by right of talent and authority, took a police post in art history to regulate traffic. But the flow did not turn back, but simply began to bypass the guard..." (M. Korallov).

“Selective thinking” is a scourge in science. The scientist, according to this selective thinking, chooses for himself only what is suitable for his concept. A scientist should not become a prisoner of his concepts. Superstitions are generated by incomplete knowledge and half-education. Semi-educated people are the most dangerous for science: they “know everything.” A.S. Pushkin in “Sketch of an article on Russian literature”: “Respect for the past is the trait that distinguishes education from savagery.” Bad ideas grow especially fast. “Prestigious publications” of scientists: 1) to increase the number of works (list of works); 2) to participate in one or another collection, where the appearance of the scientist’s name is in itself honorable; 3) to participate in any big scientific dispute (“joining a dispute” - “and I have my own opinion on this”); 4) in order to enter the historiography of the issue (articles of this kind are especially frequent in disputes about the dating of the document); 5) in order to remind about yourself in some reputable magazine; 6) in order to show your erudition. Etc. All these publications pollute science.

Artificially inflating the volume of articles: 1) through a detailed and in some cases unnecessary presentation of the historiography of the issue; 2) by artificially increasing bibliographic footnotes, including in the footnotes works that have little relation to the problem being studied; 3) by detailing the path by which the author reached this or that conclusion. Etc. Pattern in the topics of scientific articles: 1) the article sets itself the goal of showing the limitations of a particular concept; 2) supplement the argumentation on a particular issue; 3) make a historiographical amendment; 4) revise the date of creation of a particular work, supporting the point of view already expressed, especially if it belongs to an influential scientist. Etc. All this is often simple scientificity, but which is difficult to identify. Fame and reputation of a scientist are completely different phenomena.

Ten self-justifications of a plagiarist. How plagiarism is justified in scientific papers. Firstly, I note that plagiarism is decided first of all by the boss, and not by a subordinate or even an equal. And the excuses are the following: 1) he (the victim) works according to my ideas; 2) he (the victim) and I worked together (together - often means conversation, hint, etc.); 3) I am his (the victim’s) leader; 4) the entire institute or the entire laboratory works, the plagiarist claims, according to “my” ideas, according to “my” methods, etc. (and what, generally speaking, then is the role of the scientific director of the institution reduced to? That’s why he is the leader); 5) borrowing is a common place in science, a well-known position, a banality not worth any footnote, reference, etc. Who doesn’t know this position? 6) I referred to him (and referred to a secondary position or in a very general form, which does not allow the reader to understand what was taken from the victim); 7) and he himself copied this position from so-and-so (in the expectation that they would not check it, especially if the reference was made without an exact indication of the source); 8) but I have something else (paraphrasing, creating a new term for the same concept); 9) but I have completely different material (if there is a lot of material, the situation is justified by other examples, this method works especially easily); 10) put the idea of ​​a young scientist into the basis of collective work headed by “well-deserved names.” In general, fight against individual works and strive to create collective works.

There are infinitely many ways to circumvent conscience. But the result is the same: new major names do not appear in science, science withers, “secret works” appear - secret so that the mediocre “organizers of science” do not take possession of them. Science often takes revenge on skeptics. When Voltaire was told that a fish skeleton had been found high in the Alps, he scornfully asked if the fasting monk had breakfast there. K. Chesterton: “In Voltaire’s time, people did not know what the next miracle they would be able to expose. Nowadays we do not know what next miracle we will have to swallow” (from Chesterton’s book about Francis of Assisi). Half-knowledge in science is terrible. It is believed that bad scientists can lead well in science. They are taken from half-knowledgeable people, appointed as directors and managers, and usually direct science along the narrow paths of petty technicalism, which lead to quick and fleeting success (or to complete failure, when such half-knowledgeable people strive for adventurism in science).

You can never rely on one type of information, one argument. This can be well demonstrated by the following “mathematical” anecdote. They consulted with a mathematician: how to protect yourself from a terrorist with a bomb appearing on a plane? The mathematician’s answer: “Carry a bomb with you in your briefcase, since according to probability theory there is very little chance of two bombs being on the plane at the same time.” Another type of vanity in science: striving to possess “exquisite knowledge.” This is possible, and this kind of snobbery continues to exist, although less frequently than in previous centuries. A long tongue is a sign of a short mind. The most easily achieved and one of the main advantages of a scientific report (a report as such) is brevity. Small progress in a big matter is more important than big progress in a small matter (or maybe I’m wrong?). A mistake recognized in time is not a mistake. What is needed in a scientific team is not directives and orders, but cooperation. And the main task of the leader is to achieve this cooperation.

“Responsible employee” - this “term” is usually understood in the sense of “important”, “high-ranking boss”, but must be understood exactly according to the meaning of the words themselves: an employee responsible for his actions, for his orders and actions. He is not raised above his actions, but is subordinate to them, subordinate to his duties, we are punished for every lie committed by this worker. A responsible employee is in greater demand than an ordinary employee. The “responsible worker” is contrasted with the ordinary, and not the “irresponsible” worker, because the latter is not a worker at all. Every employee is responsible for his work. Work and worker form a certain unity. This is especially clear in scientific work: a scientist is his works and discoveries. In this way he is, to one degree or another, immortal. Good work is not just done by a good worker, but it creates a good worker. The work and the employee are tightly connected by two-way communication. What subtle revenge, what evil mockery: to praise a person for something in which he clearly did not show himself!

“Letters about the Good and the Beautiful,” in which academician Dmitry Likhachev reflects on the eternal and gives advice to young people, became a bestseller back in 1985 and was translated into many languages. Alpina Publisher is re-releasing a collection by one of the most famous scientists of the 20th century. “Theories and Practices” publishes several letters - about why careerism can make a person unhappy and unbearable, how intelligence will help you live a long time, and why a person needs “disinterested” reading.

Letter Eleven

About careerism

A person develops from the first day of his birth. He is focused on the future. He learns, learns to set new tasks for himself, without even realizing it. And how quickly he masters his position in life. He already knows how to hold a spoon and pronounce the first words.

Then, as a boy and a young man, he also studies.

And the time has come to apply your knowledge and achieve what you strived for. Maturity. We must live in the present...

But the acceleration continues, and now, instead of studying, the time comes for many to master their situation in life. The movement proceeds by inertia. A person is always striving towards the future, and the future is no longer in real knowledge, not in mastering skills, but in placing oneself in an advantageous position. The content, the real content, is lost. The present time does not come, there is still an empty aspiration to the future. This is careerism. Internal anxiety that makes a person personally unhappy and unbearable for others.

Letter Twelve

A person must be intelligent

A person must be intelligent! What if his profession does not require intelligence? And if he could not get an education: did the circumstances turn out that way? What if the environment doesn’t allow it? What if his intelligence makes him a “black sheep” among his colleagues, friends, relatives, and simply prevents him from getting closer to other people?

No, no and NO! Intelligence is needed under all circumstances. It is necessary both for others and for the person himself.

This is very, very important, and above all in order to live happily and long - yes, long! For intelligence is equal to moral health, and health is needed to live long - not only physically, but also mentally. One old book says: “Honor your father and your mother, and you will live long on earth.” This applies to both an entire nation and an individual. That's wise.

But first of all, let's define what intelligence is, and then why it is associated with.

Many people think: an intelligent person is one who has read a lot, received a good education (and even mainly a humanitarian one), traveled a lot,...

Meanwhile, you can have all this and be unintelligent, and you can not possess any of this to a large extent, but still be an internally intelligent person.

Education cannot be confused with intelligence. Education lives by old content, intelligence - by creating new things and recognizing the old as new.

Moreover... Deprive a truly intelligent person of all his knowledge, education, deprive him of his memory. Let him forget everything in the world, he will not know the classics of literature, he will not remember the greatest works of art, he will forget the most important historical events, but if at the same time he remains receptive to intellectual values, a love of acquiring knowledge, an interest in history, an aesthetic sense, he will be able to to distinguish a real work of art from a crude “thing” made only to surprise, if he can admire the beauty of nature, understand the character and individuality of another person, enter into his position, and having understood the other person, help him, he will not show rudeness, indifference, or gloating , envy, but will appreciate another if he shows respect for the culture of the past, the skills of an educated person, responsibility in resolving moral issues, the richness and accuracy of his language - spoken and written - this will be an intelligent person.

Intelligence is not only about knowledge, but about the ability to understand others. It manifests itself in a thousand and a thousand little things: in the ability to argue respectfully, to behave modestly at the table, in the ability to quietly (precisely imperceptibly) help another, to take care of nature, not to litter around you - do not litter with cigarette butts or swearing, bad ideas (this is also garbage, and what else!).

The Likhachev family, Dmitry - in the center, 1929; Dmitry Likhachev, 1989, © D. Baltermants

I knew peasants in the Russian North who were truly intelligent. They maintained amazing cleanliness in their homes, knew how to appreciate good songs, knew how to tell “happenings” (that is, what happened to them or others), lived an orderly life, were hospitable and friendly, treated with understanding both the grief of others and someone else's joy.

Intelligence is the ability to understand, to perceive, it is a tolerant attitude towards the world and towards people.

You need to develop intelligence in yourself, train it - train your mental strength, just as you train your physical strength. And training is possible and necessary in any conditions.

That training physical strength contributes to longevity is understandable. Much less understands that longevity requires training of spiritual and mental strength.

The fact is that an angry and angry reaction to the environment, rudeness and lack of understanding of others is a sign of mental and spiritual weakness, human inability to live... Pushing around in a crowded bus is a weak and nervous person, exhausted, reacting incorrectly to everything. Quarreling with neighbors is also a person who does not know how to live, who is mentally deaf. An aesthetically unresponsive person is also an unhappy person. Someone who cannot understand another person, attributes only evil intentions to him, and is always offended by others - this is also a person who impoverishes his own life and interferes with the lives of others. Mental weakness leads to physical weakness. I'm not a doctor, but I'm convinced of this. Long-term experience has convinced me of this.

Friendliness and kindness make a person not only physically healthy, but also beautiful. Yes, exactly beautiful.

A person’s face, distorted by malice, becomes ugly, and the movements of an evil person are devoid of grace - not deliberate grace, but natural grace, which is much more expensive.

A person's social duty is to be intelligent. This is a duty to yourself. This is the key to his personal happiness and the “aura of goodwill” around him and towards him (that is, addressed to him).

Everything I talk about with young readers in this book is a call to intelligence, to physical and moral health, to the beauty of health. Let us live long as people and as a people! And veneration of father and mother should be understood broadly - as veneration of all our best in the past, in the past, which is the father and mother of our modernity, great modernity, to which it is great happiness to belong.

Letter twenty two

Love to read!

Every person is obliged (I emphasize - obliged) to take care of his intellectual development. This is his responsibility to the society in which he lives and to himself.

The main (but, of course, not the only) way of one’s intellectual development is reading.

Reading should not be random. This is a huge waste of time, and time is the greatest value that cannot be wasted on trifles. You should read according to the program, of course, without strictly following it, moving away from it where additional interests for the reader appear. However, with all deviations from the original program, it is necessary to draw up a new one for yourself, taking into account the new interests that have arisen.

Reading, in order to be effective, must interest the reader. An interest in reading in general or in certain branches of culture must be developed in oneself. Interest can be largely the result of self-education.

Creating reading programs for yourself is not so easy, and this should be done in consultation with knowledgeable people, with existing reference guides of various types.

The danger of reading is the development (conscious or unconscious) of a tendency towards “diagonal” viewing of texts or various types of speed reading methods.

Speed ​​reading creates the appearance of knowledge. It can be allowed only in certain types of professions, being careful not to create the habit of speed reading; it leads to attention disorders.

Have you noticed how great an impression is made by those works of literature that are read in a calm, leisurely and unhurried environment, for example on vacation or during some not very complex and non-distracting illness?

“Teaching is difficult when we do not know how to find joy in it. It is necessary to choose forms of recreation and entertainment that are smart and capable of teaching something.”

“Disinterested” but interesting reading is what makes you love literature and what broadens a person’s horizons.

Why is TV now partially replacing books? Yes, because TV forces you to slowly watch some program, sit comfortably so that nothing disturbs you, it distracts you from your worries, it dictates to you how to watch and what to watch. But try to choose a book to your liking, take a break from everything in the world for a while, sit comfortably with a book, and you will understand that there are many books that you cannot live without, which are more important and more interesting than many programs. I'm not saying stop watching TV. But I say: look with choice. Spend your time on things that are worth spending. Read more and read with greater choice. Determine your choice yourself, depending on the role your chosen book has acquired in the history of human culture in order to become a classic. This means that there is something significant in it. Or maybe this essential for the culture of mankind will be essential for you too?

A classic is one that has stood the test of time. With him you won't waste your time. But the classics cannot answer all the questions of today. Therefore, you need to read and. Don't just jump at every trendy book. Don't be fussy. Vanity makes a person recklessly spend the largest and most precious capital he has - his time.

Letter twenty-six

Learn to learn!

We are entering a century in which education, knowledge, and professional skills will play a decisive role in a person’s destiny. Without knowledge, by the way, which is becoming more and more complex, it will simply be impossible to work and be useful. Because, robots. Even calculations will be done by computers, as well as drawings, calculations, reports, planning, etc. Man will bring in new ideas, think about things that a machine cannot think about. And for this, a person’s general intelligence will be increasingly needed, his ability to create new things and, of course, moral responsibility, which a machine cannot bear. Ethics, simple in previous centuries, is endless. It is clear. This means that a person will have the most difficult and complex task of being not just a person, but a person of science, a person morally responsible for everything that happens in the age of machines and robots. General education can become a creative person, a creator of everything new and morally responsible for everything that will be created.

Teaching is what a young man now needs from a very young age. You always need to learn. Until the end of their lives, all the major scientists not only taught, but also studied. If you stop learning, you won’t be able to teach. For knowledge is growing and becoming more complex. It must be remembered that the most favorable time for learning is youth. It is in youth, in childhood, in adolescence, in adolescence, that the human mind is most receptive. Receptive to the study of languages ​​(which is extremely important), to mathematics, to the assimilation of simple knowledge and aesthetic development, which stands next to moral development and partly stimulates it.

Know not to waste time on trifles, on “rest”, which sometimes tires more than the hardest work, do not fill your bright mind with muddy streams of stupid and aimless “information”. Take care of yourself for learning, for acquiring knowledge and skills that only in your youth you will master easily and quickly.

And here I hear the young man’s heavy sigh: what a boring life you offer our youth! Just study. Where is the rest and entertainment? Why should we not rejoice?

No. Acquiring skills and knowledge is the same sport. Teaching is hard when we don’t know how to find joy in it. We must love to study and choose smart forms of recreation and entertainment that can also teach us something, develop in us some abilities that we will need in life.

What if you don’t like studying? This cannot be true. This means that you simply have not discovered the joy that the acquisition of knowledge and skills brings to a child, boy or girl.

Look at a small child - with what pleasure he begins to learn to walk, talk, delve into various mechanisms (for boys), and nurse dolls (for girls). Try to continue this joy of mastering new things. This largely depends on you. Make no mistake: I don’t like studying! Try to love all the subjects you take at school. If other people liked them, why shouldn't you like them! Read worthwhile books, not just reading matter. Study history and literature. An intelligent person should know both well. They are the ones who give a person a moral and aesthetic outlook, make the world around him large, interesting, radiating experience and joy. If you don’t like something about an item, strain yourself and try to find a source of joy in it - the joy of acquiring something new.

Learn to love learning!

Common ideas that Rus' borrowed in the X-XIII centuries. the genres of their literature from Byzantium and Bulgaria are true only to a certain extent. The genres were indeed borrowed from Byzantium and Bulgaria, but not all of them: some did not move to Rus', the other part was created here independently starting from the 11th century. And this is explained primarily by the fact that Rus' and Byzantium stood at different stages of social development. Rus' had its own social needs in literature. Much greater closeness apparently existed between Russia and Bulgaria, but even here there were major differences. For example, Rus' did not borrow poetic genres from Byzantium. Translations of poetic works were made in prose and rethought in terms of genre. Although the first Bulgarian writers composed poetic works, as is well shown in the works of A. I. Sobolevsky, R. O. Yakobson, N. S. Trubetskoy and D. Kostich, their experience did not cause imitations and continuations in Russia. Court chronicles and various philosophical works were also compiled in Rus'. The relationship between literature and folklore was different. So, for example, in Byzantium already in the 12th century. Greek proverbs were collected. At this time, a collection of proverbs was compiled by Feodor Prodromus. Mikhail Glika provided them with his comments. In Russia, the collection of proverbs began only in the 17th century. So, Byzantine and Russian literature were of different stages. Therefore, it would be wrong to simply elevate the genre system of Rus' to the Byzantine one. A certain stage difference also existed with Bulgarian literature, which was more than a century ahead of Russian. The genres of medieval Russian literature were closely related to their use in everyday life - secular and ecclesiastical. This is their difference from the genres of new literature, which are formed and developed not so much from the needs of everyday life, but under the influence of the internal laws of literature and literary requirements. Reality in modern times had a wider and deeper impact. Divine services required their own genres, intended for certain moments of the church service. Some genres had a purpose in the complex monastic life. Even private reading had its own genre regulations. Hence, several types of lives, several types of church hymns, several types of books regulating divine services, church and monastic life, etc. The genre system even included such genre-non-repetitive types as service gospels, several types of paeans and paremias, and apostolic epistles etc. Already from this cursory and extremely generalized enumeration of church genres, it is clear that some genres could develop new works in their depths (for example, the lives of saints, which were to be created in connection with new canonizations), and some genres were strictly limited to existing works, and the creation new works were impossible in them. However, both of them could not change: the formal characteristics of the genres were strictly regulated by the peculiarities of their use and external traditional characteristics (for example, the obligatory nine parts of the canons and their obligatory relationship with the irmos). Somewhat less constrained by external formal and the traditional requirements were “secular” genres that passed to Rus' from Byzantium and Bulgaria. These “secular” genres (I put the word “secular” in quotation marks, since in essence they were also church in content, and they were “secular” only in their purpose) were not associated with a specific use in everyday life and therefore were freer in their external, formal characteristics. I mean such educational genres as chronicles, apocryphal stories (they are very different in genre characteristics) and large historical narratives such as “Alexandria”, “The Tale of the Sacking of Jerusalem” by Josephus, “The Acts of Devgenius”, etc. Serving a regulated medieval life, the genre system of literature, transferred to Rus' from Byzantium and Bulgaria, did not, however, satisfy all human needs for artistic expression. R. M. Yagodich was the first to draw attention to this circumstance in his interesting report at the IV Moscow International Congress of Slavists in 1958. In particular, R. M. Yagodich pointed out the insufficient development of lyrics and lyrical genres. At the next international congress of Slavists, in 1963 in Sofia, in my report on the genre system of Ancient Rus', I suggested that this shortcoming is partly explained by the fact that the needs for lyrics and entertainment genres were satisfied by the genre system of folklore. The system of book genres and the system of oral genres seemed to complement each other. At the same time, the system of oral genres, while not covering the needs of the church, was, nevertheless, more or less integral, could have an independent and universal character, and included lyrical and epic genres. The literate elite of feudal society had both book and oral genres. The illiterate masses satisfied their needs for artistic expression with the help of an oral system of genres that was more universal than the book system, and in church use they also had book genres at their disposal, but only in their oral transformation. Bookishness was accessible to the masses through worship, and in all other respects they were performers and listeners of folklore works. It is necessary, however, to pay attention to the following: the genre system of folklore in the Middle Ages, in my opinion, was the same as the literary system of genres, closely related to household services. Essentially all medieval folklore was ritual. Not only all lyrical genres were ritual (different types of wedding songs associated with certain moments of ceremonies, funerals, holidays, etc.), but also epic ones. Epics and historical songs grew out of the glorification of the dead or heroes during certain rituals, lamentations of defeats and other social disasters. Fairy tales were told at certain everyday moments and could have magical functions. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some epic genres were freed from the obligation to perform them in a certain everyday environment (epics, historical songs, fairy tales). In the Middle Ages, the whole way of life was closely connected with ritual, and ritual determined genres - their use and their formal features. The literary-folklore genre system of the Russian Middle Ages was in some parts more rigid, in others - less rigid, but if we take it in In general, it was traditional, highly formalized, and changed little. To a large extent, this depended on the fact that this system was ceremonial in its own way, closely connected with its ritual use. The more rigid it was, the more urgently it was subject to change in connection with changes in everyday life, ritual, and application requirements. She was inflexible and therefore brittle. She was connected with everyday life, and therefore had to respond to its changes. The connection with everyday life was so close that all changes in social needs and everyday life had to be reflected in the genre system. The first thing you should pay attention to is the emergence of a decisive discrepancy between the secular needs of a feudalizing society in the 11th-13th centuries. and the system of literary and folklore genres that was supposed to satisfy these new needs. The system of folklore genres, quite defined, was adapted primarily to reflect the needs of a pagan tribal society. There were no genres in it yet that could reflect the needs of the Christian religion. It also did not have genres that would reflect the needs of a feudalizing country. However, as we noted at the beginning, the genres of church Byzantine literature could not fully correspond to Russian secular needs. What were these needs of the secular social life of Ancient Rus' in the 11th-13th centuries? During the reign of Vladimir I Svyatoslavich, the huge early feudal state of the Eastern Slavs finally took shape. This state, despite its large size, and perhaps partly because of its size, did not have sufficiently strong internal ties. Economic ties, and in particular trade ties, were weak. The military position of the country was even weaker, torn apart by the strife of the princes, which began immediately after the death of Vladimir I Svyatoslavich and continued until the Tatar-Mongol conquest. The system with the help of which the Kyiv princes sought to maintain the unity of power and defend Rus' from the continuous raids of nomads required a high patriotic consciousness of the princes and people. At the Lyubech Congress of 1097 the principle was proclaimed: “Let every prince own the land of his father.” At the same time, the princes pledged to help each other in military campaigns in defense of their native land and obey their elders. Under these conditions, the main restraining force against the growing danger of feudal disunity between the principalities was moral strength, the force of patriotism, the force of church preaching of fidelity. Princes constantly kiss the cross, promising to help and not betray each other. Early feudal states were generally very fragile. The unity of the state was constantly disrupted by the discord of feudal lords, reflecting the centrifugal forces of society. The unity of the state, given the lack of economic and military ties, could not exist without the intensive development of personal patriotic qualities. To maintain unity, high public morality, a sense of honor, loyalty, dedication, patriotic self-awareness and high development of the art of persuasion, verbal art - genres of political journalism, genres that develop love for the native country, lyric-epic genres were required. The help of literature was as important in these conditions as the help of the church. We needed works that would clearly demonstrate the historical and political unity of the Russian people. Works were needed that would decisively expose the discord of the princes. Literature alone was not enough to promote these ideas. A cult of the holy brothers Princes Boris and Gleb is being created, who meekly submitted to the hand of the murderers sent by their brother Svyatopolk the Accursed. A political concept is being created according to which all prince-brothers descend from one of three brothers: Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. These features of the political life of Rus' were different from the political life that existed in Byzantium and Bulgaria. The ideas of unity were different due to the fact that they concerned the Russian land, and not the Bulgarian or Byzantine one. Therefore, we needed our own works and our own genres of these works. That is why, despite the presence of two complementary systems of genres - literary and folklore, Russian literature of the 11th-13th centuries. was in the process of genre formation. In different ways, from different roots, works constantly arise that stand apart from traditional systems of genres, destroy them or creatively combine them. As a result of the search for new genres in Russian literature and, I think, in folklore, many works appear that are difficult to attribute to any one firmly established, traditional genre. These works stand outside genre traditions. Breaking traditional forms was generally quite common in Rus'. The fact is that the new culture that appeared in Rus', a very high one, which created a first-class intelligentsia, lay a thin layer on the folk culture - a fragile and weak layer. This had not only bad consequences, but also good ones: the formation of new forms, the emergence of non-traditional works were greatly facilitated by this. All more or less outstanding works of literature, based on deep internal needs, break out of traditional forms. In fact, such an outstanding work as “The Tale of Bygone Years” does not fit into the genre framework perceived in Rus'. This is not a chronicle of any of the Byzantine types. “The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky” is also a work outside of traditional genres. It has no genre analogies in Byzantine literature - especially in the translated part of Russian literature. The works of Prince Vladimir Monomakh break traditional genres: his “Teaching”, his “Autobiography”, his “Letter to Oleg Svyatoslavich”. Outside the traditional genre system are “Prayer” by Daniil Zatochnik, “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land”, “Praise to Roman Galitsky” and many other wonderful works of ancient Russian literature of the 11th-13th centuries. Thus, for the 11th-13th centuries. It is characteristic that many more or less talented works go beyond traditional genre boundaries. They are distinguished by infantile softness and vagueness of shape. New genres are formed for the most part at the intersection of folklore and literature. Works such as “The Lay of the Ruin of the Russian Land” or “Prayer” by Daniil Zatochnik are semi-literary and semi-folklore. It is even possible that the emergence of new genres occurred orally, and then were consolidated in literature. The formation of a new genre in Daniil Zatochnik’s “Prayer” seems typical to me. At one time I wrote that this is a work of buffoonery. The buffoons of Ancient Rus' were close to Western European jugglers and shpilmans. Their works were also close. “Prayer” by Daniil Zatochnik was dedicated to the theme of professional buffoonery. In it, the “buffoon” Daniel begs for “mercy” from the prince. To do this, he praises the strong power of the prince, his generosity, and at the same time seeks to arouse self-pity, describing his misfortunes and trying to make his listeners laugh with his wit. But “Prayer” by Daniil Zatochnik is not just a recording of a buffoon’s work. It also contains elements of the book genre - a collection of aphorisms. Collections of aphorisms were one of the favorite readings in Ancient Rus': “Gennady’s Stoslovets”, various types of “Bees”, partly “ABC books”. Aphoristic speech invaded the chronicle, the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” and the “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh. Quotes from the Holy Scriptures (and most often from the Psalter) were also used as a kind of aphorisms. The love of aphorisms is typical of the Middle Ages. It was closely connected with an interest in all kinds of emblems, symbols, mottos, heraldic signs - in that special kind of meaningful laconicism that permeated the aesthetics and worldview of the era of feudalism. “Prayer” contains aphorisms that are close to buffoon jokes. They contain elements of that “culture of laughter” that was so typical of the masses of the Middle Ages. The author of “Prayer” mocks “evil wives,” ironically paraphrases the Psalter, gives advice to the prince in a clownish form, etc. “Prayer” skillfully combines the genre features of buffoonery and book collections of aphorisms. Another type of work, serious, even tragic , but who came from the same environment of princely singers, is “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is one of the book reflections of the early feudal epic. It stands on a par with such works as the German “Nibelungenlied”, the Georgian “The Knight in the Tiger’s Skin”, the Armenian “David of Sasun”, etc. These are all one-stage works. They belong to a single stage of folklore and literary development. But in terms of genre, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” has especially much in common with “The Song of Roland.” The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” classifies his work as one of the “difficult stories,” i.e. e. to narratives about military deeds (cf. “chanson de geste”). Many Russian and Soviet scientists wrote about the closeness of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” and “Song of Roland” - Polevoy, Pogodin, Buslaev, Maikov, Kallash, Dashkevich, Dypnik and Robinson. There is no direct genetic dependence of the “Lay” on the “Song of Roland”. There is only a commonality of the genre that arose in similar conditions of early feudal society. But there are also significant differences between “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and “The Song of Roland,” and they are no less important for the history of the early feudal epic of Europe than the similarities. At one time, I have already written more than once about the fact that in “The Tale” are combined two folklore genres: “glory” and “lament” - glorification of princes with mourning of sad events. In the “Word” itself, both “weeps” and “glories” are mentioned repeatedly. And in other works of Ancient Rus' we can notice the same combination of “glory” in honor of the princes and “crying” for the dead. So, for example, close in a number of features to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land” is a combination of “crying” about the dying Russian land with “glory” to its powerful past. This combination in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” of the genre of “laments” with the genre of “glories” does not contradict the fact that “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” as a “difficult story” is close in genre to “chanson de geste”. “Difficult stories”, like “chanson de geste”, belonged to a new genre, which obviously combined two more ancient genres in its formation - “laments” and “glories”. “Difficult Tales” mourned the death of heroes, their defeat and glorified their chivalry, their loyalty and their honor. As is known, “The Song of Roland” is not a simple recording of an oral folklore work. This is a book adaptation of an oral work. In any case, such a combination of the oral and the book represents the text of the “Song of Roland” in the famous Oxford copy. We can say the same about “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” This is a book work that arose on the basis of an oral one. In “The Lay” folklore elements are organically merged with book elements. The following is characteristic. Bookish elements are most noticeable at the beginning of the Lay. It is as if the author, having begun to write, could not yet free himself from the methods and techniques of literature. He has not yet sufficiently broken away from the written tradition. But as he wrote, he became more and more interested in the oral form. From the middle he no longer writes, but seems to be recording some kind of oral work. The last parts of the Lay, especially “Yaroslavna’s lament,” are almost devoid of bookish elements. We have before us a case where folklore invades literature and snatches a work from the system of literary genres, but still does not introduce it into the system of folklore genres. In “The Lay” there is a closeness to folk “glories” and “laments”, but in its dynamic solution it approaches a fairy tale. This work is exceptional in its artistic merits, but its artistic unity is achieved not by the fact that they follow, as was usual in the Middle Ages, a certain genre tradition, but, on the contrary, violates this tradition, refuses to follow any established system of genres that determined by the requirements of reality and the strong creative individuality of the author. Thus, a thin layer of traditional genres transferred to Rus' from Byzantium and Bulgaria was constantly breaking down under the influence of the acute and dynamic needs of reality. In search of new genres, ancient Russian scribes in the XI-XIII centuries. often turned to folklore genres, but did not mechanically transfer them to book literature, but created new ones from the combination of book elements and folklore. In this environment of intensive genre formation, some works turned out to be unique in genre terms (“Prayer” by Daniil Zatochnik, “Teaching” - an autobiography and letter to Oleg Svyatoslavich by Vladimir Monomakh), other works received a stable continuation (“Initial Chronicle” - in Russian chronicles, “The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky” - in subsequent stories about princely crimes), others had only isolated attempts to continue them in terms of genre (“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and in the 15th century “Zadonshchina”). During the most difficult period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke - from the middle of the 13th century. and until the middle of the 14th century. - new works are created primarily in the genres of historical stories, reflecting the collective emotional attitude of the people to the events of the Tatar-Mongol invasion. The chronicle narrative is “compressed” to information for purely business purposes: records of historical events prevail over stories about them. The exception is mainly the stories about Batu's invasion, and later about the events of the fight against the Tatars. A decisive turning point occurred in the last quarter of the 14th century. The trends of the Eastern European Pre-Renaissance brought with them a new attitude towards literature. The individualization of religion (hesychasm with its silence, the development of hermitage, solitary prayer, etc.) changed the attitude towards reading. Individual reading is developing widely, along with ritual and “business” reading. Many cell books appeared, and then cell libraries. Collections are created for individual reading, reflecting the individual interests of the compiler. This is associated with the appearance of a large number of new translations and new lists of theological works - works designed for individual reading, individual reflection and individual emotional disposition. Translated literature of the XIV-XV centuries. brought with it a wave of new genres that widely expanded the boundaries of the genre system of Russia. The national upsurge of the last quarter of the 14th century. caused the appearance of many historical works. In connection with state-unification tendencies, the genre of stories about princely crimes is not renewed, but many military-historical stories with journalistic ideas appear (stories about the battles of Pyan and Vozha, the story of Edigei, etc.) or ideas of a national-patriotic nature (the cycle stories about the Battle of Kulikovo). These historical works have their own genre characteristics, which were not present in the historical works of pre-Mongol Russia. The development of individual reading, which we mentioned above, brought with it not only a huge expansion of the reading repertoire, but also the repertoire of genres. Individual reading maintained interest in new works, developed cognitive genres, and developed genres in which entertainment, plot, and imaginary events began to play the main role. The need for new genres was partly satisfied at the end of the 15th and 16th centuries. introducing business writing genres into literature. These same business genres “justified” the appearance of fantastic plots, with which the medieval literary consciousness struggled for a long time and persistently, but which individual reading persistently demanded. Coming into its own, fiction has long been masked by the image of what was, actually existed or exists. That's why in the 16th century. genres of various kinds of “documents” as forms of literary work are included in literature simultaneously with fiction. Looking ahead a little, let's say that at the beginning of the 17th century. article lists of embassies appear that never existed. These article lists have long been considered “false” in science; in fact, they are literary works in which fiction is presented to the reader as something that actually happened in the form of a document. The chronicle includes an element of fiction. Fabricated speeches are put into the mouths of historical figures. On the one hand, documents (letters, labels, messages, categories) widely penetrate traditional genres (the chronicle, the dignified book, “history” and “legends”), on the other hand, the genres of business documents are included in literature and receive here purely literary functions. Complex and versatile searches in the field of genres can be traced in journalism. The stability of genres is broken here too. The topics of journalism are topics of living, concrete political struggle. Many of them, before penetrating into journalism, served as the content of business writing. This is why forms of business writing also become forms of journalism. Peresvetov writes petitions. Artistic and journalistic elements are largely included in the “Acts” of the Stoglavy Cathedral. Stoglav is a fact of literature to the same extent as a fact of business writing. Diplomatic correspondence is also used for literary purposes. The form of diplomatic correspondence is used for literary purposes in the fictional literary correspondence of the first quarter of the 17th century, allegedly between the Turkish Sultan and Ivan the Terrible. So, diplomatic messages, resolutions of the cathedral, petitions, article lists, even acts of the cathedral become forms of literary works. “The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow” by Andrei Kurbsky should be recognized as a new genre phenomenon. For the first time in Russian historiography, a work appeared, the purpose of which was to reveal the reasons, the origin of this or that phenomenon in the character and actions of Ivan the Terrible. In “The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow,” the entire presentation was subordinated to this single goal. The political legend, which received intensive development in the 15th and 16th centuries, should also be recognized as a new phenomenon in terms of genre. Among the political legends we must include “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir.” This is an official work, the themes of which were depicted on the bas-reliefs of the royal throne in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. State acts and the ceremony of crowning the kingdom were based on this “Tale.” Other political legends are “The Tale of the Kingdom of Babylon” and “The Tale of the Novgorod White Cowl.” These works are similar to each other in many respects. They present historical fiction as reality and therefore strive to be documentary in form. They recount events long past, but they justify the political claims of today. They typically combine fiction with historically reliable events. Finally, for the 16th century. Some genre-specific phenomena associated with the formation of a significant layer of official works can also be noted. State intervention in literary affairs creates the official style of “second monumentalism,” which in terms of genre is expressed in the creation of huge compilation monuments that combine heterogeneous genre works. This was not a complete novelty of the 16th century, since earlier in the chronicle and chronograph we encountered a similar phenomenon, generally characteristic of the Middle Ages. But in the 16th century. in connection with the formation of the Russian centralized state, compilation develops to the possible limits of official pomp. A collection of all books in Rus' recommended for private reading is being created - the multi-volume “Great Fourth Menaion” of Metropolitan Macarius, the “Degree Book of the Royal Genealogy” is being created, the multi-volume “Facebook Chronicle”, etc. The 17th century is the century of preparation for radical changes in Russian literature and, above all, in its genre structure, which from approximately the second third or the middle of the next century begins to coincide with the genre structure of Western European literature. The changes that are being prepared in the 17th century are due mainly to the decisive expansion of the social experience of literature, expanding the social circle of readers and authors. Before dying out, the medieval genre structure of literature becomes extremely complicated, the number of genres increases, their functions are differentiated, and the consolidation and isolation of literary features as such occurs. The number of genres expands enormously due to the introduction of forms of business writing into literature, which at this time are increasingly used are given purely literary functions. The number of genres is increasing due to folklore, which is beginning to intensively penetrate into the writing of democratic strata of the population, and due to translated literature. New types of literature that appeared in the 17th century. - syllabic poetry and drama - are gradually developing their genres. Finally, there is a transformation of old medieval genres as a result of increased plotting, entertainment, visualization and expansion of the thematic scope of literature. Of significant importance in changing genre characteristics is the strengthening of the personal principle, which occurs in the most diverse areas of literary creativity and goes along the most diverse lines. The division of literature into official and unofficial, which appeared in the 16th century. as a result of the “generalizing enterprises” of the state, in the 17th century. loses its edge. The state continues to initiate some official historical works, but the latter no longer have the same significance as before. Some literary works are created at the court of Alexei Mikhailovich or in the Ambassadorial Prikaz, but they express the point of view of the courtiers and employees, and do not fulfill the ideological tasks of the government. Here, in this environment, there could be private points of view or, in any case, well-known variants... Thus, huge official genres are “leviathans”, typical of the mid-16th century. with his style of “second monumentalism”, in the 17th century. die off. But in genres the individual principle is strengthened. Autobiographical elements penetrate into historical works dedicated to the events of the Time of Troubles, into lives, and in the second half of the 17th century. The genre of autobiography appears, incorporating elements of the hagiographic genre and historical narration. The main, but not the only representative of this genre of autobiography is the “Life” of Archpriest Avvakum. A typical example of education in the 17th century. a new genre is the emergence of the genre of “visions” during the Time of Troubles. Visions were known before as part of the lives of saints, legends about icons, or as part of chronicles. During the Time of Troubles, the genre of visions, studied by N. I. Prokofiev, acquired an independent character. These are acutely political works, designed to force readers to act immediately, to take part in events on one side or another. Characteristically, the vision combines the oral and the written. The vision arises through word of mouth and only after that is it committed to writing. The “secret spectators” of the vision could be ordinary townspeople; watchmen, sextons, artisans, etc. But the one who puts this vision into writing, the author, still continues to belong to the highest church or service class. However, both of them are no longer so interested in glorifying a saint or shrine, but in reinforcing their political point of view, their denunciations of social vices, their political call to action with the authority of a miracle. Before us is one of the characteristics of the 17th century. examples of the beginning of the process of secularization of church genres. Such are the “visions” of Archpriest Terenty, “The Tale of a Vision to a Certain Spiritual Man,” “Nizhny Novgorod Vision,” “Vladimir Vision,” the “vision” of the Pomeranian peasant Evfimy Fedorov, etc. The separation of scientific literature and artistic. If earlier “Shestodnev”, “Topography” by Kozma Indikoplov or Diopter, like many other works of a natural science nature, had an equal relation to both science and fiction, now, in the 17th century, such translated works as “Physics "Aristotle, Mercator's Cosmography, the zoological work of Ulysses Aldrovandi, the anatomical work of Vesalius, Selenography and many others stand apart from fiction and do not mix with it in any way. True, this distinction is still absent in “The Officer of the Falconer’s Way,” in which artistic elements are mixed with ritual ones, but this is explained by the specifics of falconry hunting itself, which interested the Russian people of the 17th century. not only from a utilitarian, but mainly from an aesthetic point of view. The distinction between scientific and artistic tasks in the field of history remains unclear, but this confusion of literature with science will exist in historical literature throughout the entire 18th century. and will partially pass into the 19th and even 20th centuries. (cf. the stories of Karamzin, Solovyov, Klyuchevsky). One of the reasons for the beginning of a stricter distinction between scientific and fiction literature and the corresponding “self-determination” of genres was the professionalization of authors and the professionalization of the reader. A professional reader (doctor, pharmacist, military man, ore miner, etc.) requires literature on his profession, and this literature becomes so specific and complex that only a scientist or specialist technician can become its author. Translated literature on these topics is created in special institutions for special purposes by translators who are familiar with the complex essence of the work being translated. In Rus' in the 17th century. a number of translated genres are assimilated: a chivalric novel, an adventure novel (cf. stories about Vova, Peter of the Golden Keys, about Otto and Olunda, about Vasily Goldhair, Bruntsvik, Melusine, Apollonius of Tyre, Belshazzar, etc.), moralizing short story, funny anecdotes (in the original sense of the word, an anecdote is a historical incident), etc. In the 17th century. a new, very significant social expansion of literature is taking place. Along with the literature of the ruling class, “posad literature”, folk literature, appears. It is written by democratic authors, read by mass democratic readers, and in its content reflects the interests of the democratic environment. It is close to folklore, close to colloquial and business language. It is often anti-government and anti-church, belonging to the “ludicrous culture” of the people. In part, it is close to the “people's book” of Western Europe. The social expansion of literature gave a new impetus towards its mass appeal. Democratic works are written in business-like cursive, in sloppy handwriting; they remain for a long time and are distributed in notebooks, without binding. These are quite cheap manuscripts. All this did not take long to affect the genres of works. Democratic works are not bound by any stable traditions, especially the traditions of “high” church literature. There is a new influx in the literature of business genres - genres of office writing. But, in contrast to the use of business genres in literature in the 16th century, their new use in the 17th century. was distinguished by sharply peculiar features. Before the advent of democratic literature, the genres of business writing were filled with literary content that did not break the genres themselves. In democratic literature, business forms of writing are used ironically, their functions are sharply impaired, and they are given literary significance. Business genres are used parodically. The business form itself is one of the expressions of their satirical content. So, for example, democratic satire takes the actually existing form of a dowry painting and strives with its help to express the absurdity of the content. . . The same thing distinguishes, for example, the church form of the “Service to the Tavern” or the “Kalyazin Petition”. In works of democratic parody, it is not the author, not the author’s style that is parodied, but the form and content, the genre and style of a business document. The new content is not invested in business genres, as was the case before, but explodes this form, making it a subject of ridicule, like its usual content. The genre here acquires a meaning that is not typical for it. Essentially, we are no longer dealing with business genres, but with new genres, created by rethinking old ones and existing only as facts of this rethinking. Therefore, each of these forms can be used once or twice. Ultimately, the use of these “inverted” and reimagined genres is limited. The genre is organically connected with the essence of the plan and therefore cannot be repeated many times. The process of using genres of business writing in democratic literature is typical for the 17th century. destructive in nature. Democratic literature, in all the new things it has brought into the process of genre development of Russian literature, does not stand alone. Much in it has something in common in its meaning with what syllabic poetry provides, for example, for this development. Syllabic poetry is also associated with the process of social expansion of literature, but expansion in a completely different direction - towards the creation of a literary elite: a professional, educated author and readership intelligentsia. Single and short poetic texts, known in manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries. , are replaced in the 17th century. regular poetry: syllabic and folk. Syllabic poetry brought with it many poetic genres, some of which came here from prose: messages (epistols), petitions, petitions, “declamations”, congratulations, prefaces, signatures for portraits, thanksgivings, parting words, “ cry" etc. n. Syllabic poetry in terms of genre was close to rhetoric. For a long time it did not acquire its poetic function and its own system of genres. Poetic speech was perceived as not entirely serious, as humorous, ceremonial and ceremonial. Rhetoric is clearly felt, for example, in the poetic “declamations” of Simeon of Polotsk, addressed to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The poetic form was perceived as “ironic etiquette” and served to soften rudeness, impoliteness, and harshness. In poetic form, one could dissuade the addressee from getting married, ask for a loan of money, praise and praise the addressee without compromising one’s dignity too much. This is the guise through which the author demonstrates his learning, his mastery of words. Syllabic poetry also served pedagogy, since in the pedagogy of the 17th century. Learning by heart played a big role. In the poems of Simeon of Polotsk there are the same themes and motifs as in the prose “butts” included in such translated collections as “Roman Deeds”, “The Great Mirror”, “The Bright Star”, but presented to the reader with a touch of emotional detachment. In the syllabic there was an element of play in poetry. It should not have set the reader up emotionally, but rather surprised him with verbal dexterity and mental play. Therefore, new poetic genres were associated with those traditionally prosaic ones that required floridity - predominantly panegyric genres (praises, epistoles, etc.). Even acrostics, common in Western baroque poetry, were perceived in Rus' as traditional cryptography and were used mainly, as before, to hide the name of the author out of monastic modesty and humility. Parade verse is also close to syllabic poetry in its genre characteristics. Here, too, playfulness and some, but in this case “reduced” rhetoric prevail. Genre forms of prose are also transferred into paradise verse: “A noble message to an enemy”, “A nobleman’s message to a nobleman”, “The Tale of the priest Sava”, “The Tale of Ruff”, “The Tale of Thomas and Erem”, etc. It is characteristic that part of this genus The greatest works were known first in prose and only then translated into poetry. Poetry, lyric poetry, requiring full self-expression of the author, immediately came into poetry. For the first time, poetic content is consistent with poetic form only in the genres of folk verse. It is from folk verse with its lyrical genres that Russian poetry originates. The genres of folk verse that have penetrated into writing are more strictly consistent with the poetry of the task. Such are the lyrical songs of Samarin-Kvashnin or the poetic poem “Grief of Misfortune”, in which the genre features represent an unusual combination of characteristics of a lyrical song, spiritual verse and epic, which is not characteristic of folk poetry itself. The study of genres from the point of view of their functions (functional approach) allows us to identify the main lines in changing the genre system of Ancient Russia. Development of the genre system of Russian literature in the X-XVII centuries. demonstrates the process of gradual liberation of genres from their business and ritual functions and their acquisition of purely literary functions. Deepening the literary functions of each genre increases the importance of these genres in the social life of the country. Literary works begin to have a diverse impact on reality, instead of being part of a ritual, part of the policy of the state, principality or church. Freed from a narrow purpose, literary genres acquire broad social significance. This process of changing the very essence of the genre system is associated with two phenomena in development literature as such: the social expansion of literature and the gradual individualization of reading. At the same time, the individualization of reading is closely connected with the social expansion of literature and, conversely, social expansion is with the individualization of reading. The social expansion of literature is the expansion of the social contingent of its authors and readers, the expansion of social themes and the social (social) purpose of genres. It is in these conditions of their social expansion that literary genres not only lose connection with ritual and narrow business functions, but also acquire an individual reader who reads “for himself” and “to himself.” The reader is left alone with the literary work. The proliferation of lists of works and their fate begins to depend on the individual reader, and not on the significance of the work in one or another business and ritual aspect of life. That is why in literature there is an increasing desire to satisfy individual tastes, to be diversely interesting, and thus it acquires greater social significance. The development of the system of literary genres of Ancient Rus' is also a system, but only a dynamic one, active and functionally related to the development of social life. The emergence of a new genre systems are the main sign of the transition of Russian literature from the medieval type to the type of modern times. How do these two types differ in general terms? Medieval literature fulfills its social purpose directly and directly. The genres of medieval literature have certain practical functions in established life, in the church and legal order. Genres differ mainly in their purpose for performing certain vital, but more or less narrow functions. They are practically necessary in various aspects of public life. Artistry, as it were, complements and equips literary genres, contributing to their implementation of their immediate life tasks. The literature of modern times fulfills its social purpose primarily through its artistic origin. Genres of literature are determined not by their business purpose, but by their purely literary properties and differences. Literature is winning its independent place in the cultural life of society. She receives freedom from ritual, way of life, from business functions and thereby becomes able to fulfill her social calling not fractionally, not in connection with one or another specific purpose of the work, but also directly, but directly artistically and on a level freer from business functions. It rose high and began to reign in the life of society, not only expressing views and ideas already formed outside its borders, but also shaping them. The entire historical and literary process of the previous time is the process of the formation of literature as literature, but literature that exists not for itself, but for society. Literature is a necessary component of social life and the history of the country.
1973

Notes

1. Jagoditsch R. Zum Begriff der “Gattungen” in der altrussischen Literatur. – Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch, 1957/58, Bd 6, S. 112-137.

2. Likhachev D.S. 1) The system of literary genres of ancient Rus'. - In the book: Slavic literature. V International Congress of Slavists (Sofia, September 1963). M., 1963, p. 47-70; 2) Poetics of Old Russian literature. M.; L., 1967, p. 40-65. See about this: A. M. Kanchenko. Origins of Russian poetry. - In the book: Russian syllabic poetry of the 17th-18th centuries. L., 1970, p. 10.

3. Likhachev D.S. Social foundations of the style of “Prayer” by Daniil Zatochnik (see this ed., pp. 185-200).

4. See: Bakhtin M. The work of Francois Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. M., 1965.

5. See: Likhachev D. S: Genre “Tales of Igor’s Campaign”. - In the book: La Poesia epica e la sua formazione. Roma, 1970, p. 315-330; Robinson A. N. Literature of Kievan Rus among European medieval literatures: (typology, originality, method). - In the book: Slavic literature. VI International Congress of Slavists. M., 1968, p. 73-81.

6. See for more details: Dmitrieva R. P. Collections of the XV century. - as a genre. - TODRL, L., 1972, vol. 27, p. 150-180.

7. Kogan M.D. “The Tale of Two Embassies” is a legendary political work of the early 17th century. – TORDL, M.; L., 1955, T. 11, pp. 218-254.

8. Kagan M.D. Legendary correspondence of Ivan IV with the Turkish Sultan as a literary monument of the first quarter of the 17th century. - TODRL, M.; L., 1957, t. 13, p. 247-272.

9. The following works are devoted to the study of the social composition of readers of relatively late times: V. V. Bush. Old Russian literary tradition in the 18th century: (On the issue of the social stratification of the reader). - Scientist. zap. Saratov University, 1925, vol. 4, issue. 3, p. 1-I; Verkov P.N. On the issue of studying mass literature of the 18th century. - Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Department of Social Sciences, 1936, No. 3, p. 459-471; Speransky M. N. Manuscript collections of the 18th century. M., 1962; Malyshev V.I. Ust-Tsilemsky Manuscript collections of the 16th-20th centuries. Syktyvkar. 1960; Romodanovskaya E.K. About the reading circle of Siberians in the 17th-18th centuries. in connection with the problem of studying regional literature. - In the book: Studies in language and folklore. Novosibirsk, 1965, issue. 1, p. 223-254.

10. Prokofiev N.I. “Visions” of the peasant war and the Polish-Swedish intervention of the early 17th century: (From the history of literary genres of the Russian Middle Ages): abstract. dis. …. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1949.

11. See about this “culture of laughter”: Bakhtin M. The work of Francois Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

12. Compare, for example, the monk of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery Efrosin; see about him: Sedelnikov A.D. Literary history of the Tale of Dracula. - IORYAS, L., 1928, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 621-659; Lurie Y. S. Literary and cultural-educational activities of Efrosyn at the end of the 15th century - TODRL, M.; L., 1961, t. 17, p. 130-168.

13. Filippova P. S. Songs of P. A. Samarin-Kvashnin. - IOLYA, 1972, vol. 31, issue. 1, p. 62-66.

D.S. Likhachev

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF GENRES OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN LITERATURE

(Research on Old Russian Literature. - L., 1986. – P. 79-95.)