Meeting of the Society of Russian Literature. A society of Russian literature was created, headed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill

Some believers are interested in what Orthodox holiday will be celebrated on February 15, 2019. On this day, the Orthodox Church celebrates the Presentation of the Lord (its popular names are Gromnitsa, Purification of Mary, Day of Candles).

Catholics also celebrate it, but at a different time. Meeting falls on the 40th day after the Nativity of Christ. Accordingly, Orthodox believers celebrate it on February 15 (according to the Julian calendar), Catholics - on February 2 (according to the Gregorian calendar).

What Orthodox holiday will be on February 15, 2019?

Let us tell you in more detail what holiday is established by our church on February 15th. Translated into modern Russian, the word “sretenie” means “meeting.” On this day, the baby Jesus Christ was brought to the Jerusalem Temple for the first time to honor the law of Moses, in accordance with the Old Testament custom of 40 days of purification after the birth of a child.

The Most Pure Mother of God and Joseph came to the temple of God not for cleansing, which Mary did not need because she was an Ever-Virgin, but in order to fulfill the decree before God. Here Jesus was met by the elder Simeon the God-Receiver, who, according to legend, lived 360 years, and the prophetess Anna.

It is believed that Candlemas symbolizes the meeting of the Old Testament, which Simeon personifies, and the New Testament (Christ). According to legend, Simeon waited to meet Jesus all his life. On the day it happened, the elder turned to God:

“Now do You let Your servant go, O Master, in peace, according to Your word, for mine eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all nations, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Your people Israel.”

As the Scripture says,
“And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His Mother: Behold, this One is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel and for the subject of controversy, and a weapon will pierce Your own soul, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” (Luke 2:34-35).

According to Simeon's prediction, the Most Pure Virgin with swords piercing her heart is depicted on the icon “Softening Evil Hearts.” This image is very popular among believers. Since ancient times, many legends have been known about its miraculous power.

Customs and rituals of the church holiday celebrated on February 15?

The Presentation of the Lord has been celebrated for several centuries. It appeared in the liturgical calendar of the Church of Jerusalem back in the 4th century. It is not surprising that many rituals and customs observed by believers are dedicated to it. Thus, all-night vigils and Divine Liturgy are held in churches.

In ancient times, on this day there was a procession with lit lamps. Later, Catholics began to carry out the blessing of Sretensky candles and processions with them; candles began to be lit during the Mass during the reading of the Gospel and the Eucharistic Canon.

This ancient rite was accepted Orthodox Church in the seventeenth century. IN Orthodox churches The candles are consecrated as a sign of the cleansing of the world by the light of Christ's Gospel.

The Sretenskaya candle symbolizes the fire of God's Grace, and is also perceived as a symbol of a praying heart burning with love for the Lord. The prayers of believers should ascend to God like her flame, burning the barriers of worldly vanity and melting sinful souls like wax.

According to established tradition, people keep these candles at home throughout the year and light them on special cases- for example, during prayer for sick relatives, in moments of mental anxiety and unrest, as well as during Lent when reading the canon of St. Andrew of Crete, the passionate Gospels, etc.

However, clergy warn that consecrated candles should not be given any magical or miraculous meaning, much less use them in witchcraft rituals.

Also on this day, water is blessed in temples. It can be stored for a long time without losing its properties. It is used in the consecration of houses and in healing rituals for various diseases.

How did they celebrate the holiday falling on February 15 in the old days?

In Rus', in the old days, on the day of this Orthodox holiday, peasants walked around their houses on this day with the icon of the Presentation of the Lord or the Savior. When they brought her into the house, the whole family fell on their faces with the words: “Lord our God, come to us and bless us.”

Our story about what kind of holiday is celebrated by the Orthodox on February 15 will be incomplete without mentioning the related ancient customs. In pagan times, the Slavs celebrated the holiday of Gromovnitsa on this day, glorifying the thunder god Perun and the goddess Gromovnitsa, to whom they made sacrifices.

In the villages on the Presentation of the Lord, festivities were held and pancakes were baked, which symbolized the Sun. Since pagan times, at this time the Slavs performed rituals to greet this luminary and invite spring.

On this day, it was customary to give the chickens oats so that they would lay eggs better and the eggs would be larger and tastier. The peasants drove the cattle out of the barn into the corral and began to prepare the seeds for sowing. Coming from church to the Presentation, they shook the garden trees so that they would bear fruit well.

What should you not do on the Christian holiday of February 15?

According to established tradition, these days you cannot do housework - cleaning and laundry, as well as sewing, knitting, embroidery, and working in the garden. It is recommended to refrain from watching entertaining television programs, going to the theater and cinema.

The meaning of such prohibitions is not that certain actions cannot be performed, but that an Orthodox holiday is, first of all, a day that is dedicated to God.

Believers should take a break from worldly, everyday affairs and devote themselves to spiritual concerns. Try to show more warmth and care towards friends and loved ones, help poor and sick people.

It is also believed that wishes made at Candlemas can come true.

Now you know which one religious holiday falls on February 15, 2019. It remains for us to add that weather signs at this time are used to judge the weather in the spring. It is believed that on this day winter meets spring. People used to say: “What is the weather on Candlemas, so will spring.”

If there is a thaw, spring will be early and warm, if the day is cold, you should wait for a cold spring. The snow that fell on Candlemas foreshadows a long and rainy spring; it’s not without reason that people said: “On Candlemas Day there’s a snowball – there’s rain in the spring.” If the sky is strewn with stars, then spring will not come soon.

1 /

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

The President set tasks

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

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

As Vladimir Putin explained, we're talking about“not only about ensuring public and expert assessment of educational and educational materials, but also about participation in the finalization of federal state educational standards in terms of Russian language and literature, in the preparation of specialized training programs and list literary works, which the younger generations must know."

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

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

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

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

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

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

The teachers made a decision

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

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

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

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

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

As for the approximate main educational program for high school, then the section participants decided to postpone its approval due to the need for refinement.

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

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

Parents wanted to go back in time

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

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

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

Preliminary results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renewal of the world begins at school

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

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

Olga Dashkovskaya

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

Society of Russian Literature

About existing initiatives

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

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

Join forces

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

Traditional school

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

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

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

The school that survived “ laboratory methods”

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

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

Literature and cultural self-identification of the individual

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution of the founding meeting of the Society of Russian Literature

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

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

3. Goals and objectives of the society:

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

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

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

Press service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'

On May 25-26, the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature (ORS), a newly created public organization headed by Patriarch Kirill, took place in Moscow. On the first day of the congress, the work was organized in sections, and the plenary session was held in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions on the second day.

First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature: awaiting a resolution

ORS refers to this type of public organization that is born from above, and from the very “top”: I personally asked the Patriarch to head the Society V.V.Putin, he also delivered a greeting at the congress itself. In the Hall of Columns, in addition to the participants and delegates of the congress, there were ministers, presidential aides, deputies of the Duma and the Federation Council ( for the most part those who left after the departure of the president). Such an organizational resource makes the powers of this public organization very broad. This is both the strength and weakness of the Society - suddenly acquired power tempts you, you need to be prepared for it. How the ORS, whose presidium numbers more than 70 people, will use this power will become clear in the near future.

Patriarch Kirill- face new organization. It was his speech that opened the plenary session - and it became the most balanced, vivid and accurate speech of the congress. His Holiness spoke about how he sees the state of affairs with the teaching of literature and the Russian language in schools and universities. He spoke simply and figuratively; he managed to formulate the most ordinary things in such a way that they were filled with significant meaning. According to the patriarch, when talking about literature at school, there is not only an exchange of information; what is important is knowledge that goes from heart to heart, knowledge refracted through a person. Therefore, the figure of the mentor is key here. It is the teacher who manages (or fails) to instill a love of reading books - and this formation of love and interest in literature should become his main task. He is hampered by numerous bureaucratic things - but a talented teacher, even over these barriers, can send a powerful emotional signal to the student.

The Patriarch urged not to be afraid of variability in literary education. The main issue is that the choice is between the best and the best, and not the best and the mediocre. Therefore, on the agenda is the definition of the “golden canon” (within which, however, its own variability is possible) and finding a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the program. The main thing, as the patriarch said, is to have a good head and kind heart- then the choice will be correct.

Recognizing the overload of the school curriculum, the patriarch suggested not rushing to abandon the classics. She is timeless. Focusing only on the modern, understandable, included in the current context is dangerous, because the context will fade, be forgotten, turn out to be momentary - “but Pushkin will remain forever.” At the same time, the patriarch urged not to freeze at one point and not to be afraid of change. He told how during a concert on Red Square he got into a conversation with an unfamiliar girl sitting next to him. She studies in the fifth grade - and completely amazed the patriarch with the depth of knowledge and freedom of judgment. “We weren’t like that; at her age, not only with the patriarch, I would be afraid to talk to the school director.” The children are different, the time is different - and the school should be different. But all changes must be thought out very well. Speaking about reforms, the patriarch particularly focused on the Unified State Exam: supporting the idea unified exam in principle, he nevertheless spoke out sharply against test measurements of knowledge and called for an oral component to be introduced into the Unified State Examination.

Speaking about the pain points of the current humanitarian education, the patriarch emphasized that the OPC intends to deal with precisely them. And to solve pressing problems, it is necessary to consolidate different forces.

Other speakers also spoke about this consolidation, about what has been done recently in the field of Russian language and literature: the President of RAO L.Verbitskaya, Chairman of the State Duma S. Naryshkin, Minister of education D. Livanov. Then V. Putin visited the congress for a short time, who welcomed the creation of the Society.

Then we moved on to the reports of the leaders of the working sections of the congress. And then it became clear that real consolidation is still very far away. And moments of consolidated applause during the speech of populist manipulative experts or indignant stamping of feet - well, where would a congress be without them? - rather cause sadness, reminiscent of other congresses of other times...

The recommendations of the sections, which were to be included in the final resolution of the congress, often contradicted each other, which corresponds to the picture of the real state of the professional community of humanists. Some proposed banning the concept of teaching Russian language and literature adopted by the government, others to begin work on a set of measures for its implementation. Some demanded that the sample programs be reworked and turned into unified and mandatory ones, while others said that this was impossible and unnecessary. The section of culture and art asked to make the Unified State Examination in literature mandatory, the section of parents - to return everything as it was in the Soviet school, increasing, for example, the share of “normative solemn, pretentious speech” in the environment of the child... There were calls to introduce exams in the Russian language for journalists and workers television and radio and dismiss for mistakes (in parentheses we will say that on the stands in the corridor of the Hall of Columns Ivan Alekseevich Bunin was called Andreevich, and the representative of Moscow State University in her speech called him Aleksandrovich - and, it seems, no one lost their posts...) And - etc. There were a lot of proposals, and it was impossible to create a congress resolution on them on the spot - so it was decided to collect, summarize and post all the materials on the OPC website.

It is unknown what form the final resolution will take as a result. The congress took place, and it is gratifying that the problems of literature were discussed these days at the highest level. But the main problem is that we have many committees, councils and societies dealing with Russian language and literature. And there are a lot of conversations. Will the OPC become a real force, capable of not only discussing problems, but also solving them? And won't it be a source of new problems? How will such a large organization manage its life and how will it establish connections with government agencies and society? Will they trust him? There are many questions, and we will get the first answers to them when we see the resolution and compare it with what was said and proposed at the congress.

Sergey Volkov

N.V. Kovtun, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of the Department of World Literature and Methods of Its Teaching

Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after. V.P. Astafieva

The article is devoted to the analysis of the creation and development of domestic public organizations involved in increasing the level of literacy and literary education of the people. A special place is occupied by the history of the recently created Society of Russian Literature, which was headed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'; the main tasks and directions of the organization’s activities are described.

The work shows how the role of fiction and books has changed in the cultural contextXX–XXI centuries, dynamics of symbolic and social status its creators, the functions of reading and composing - the fundamental practices that make literary creativity as such possible. A number of fundamental mythologies underlying the national culture (literary-centrism, bibliophilic myth) are explained, without knowledge of which it is impossible to understand the specifics of the current situation, which has dramatically affected the status of philological education and humanities in general. It is emphasized that the creation of the Society of Russian Literature is not just a desire to strengthen the cultural prestige of the country, to remind national traditions, O Orthodox foundations our culture, but the awareness by intellectuals, clergy, and authorities of the idea of ​​​​the impossibility of preserving a state without the language and literature that holds it together.

On March 9, 2016, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' established the Society of Russian Literature (ORS). The Patriarch personally headed the Society, which included prominent scientists, members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy education, teachers leading Russian universities, teachers, writers, publishers, representatives state power, clergy and students. The very fact of the birth of a new public organization, on the one hand, is evidence of the actualization of interest in liberal arts education(it is no coincidence that 2015 passed under the sign of Literature), on the other hand, confirmation of a very difficult state of affairs in this area, directly related to issues of personal self-determination, the nation’s self-awareness of its destiny, cultivating a sense of citizenship, attitude towards its land and culture. Behind last years From a self-sufficient, structure-forming field of knowledge, the humanities have turned into a service sector, and we are seeing the destructive consequences of this today.

The idea of ​​creating an organization whose goal would be to increase literacy and literary education people, of course, did not arise today. In 1811, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature (OLRS) was created at Moscow University, which existed until 1930. The mission of the Society was to promote the success of Russian literature as the main means of disseminating education. Members of the organization were also involved in publishing activities; among the particularly significant events was the publication of “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V. Dahl. At different periods, the post of Chairman of the Society was occupied by M.N. Zagoskin, A.S. Khomyakov, I.S. Aksakov, acad. F.I. Buslaev, acad. N.S. Tikhonravov, I.A. Bunin, P.N. Sakulin (died 1930). Active participation in his activities they took I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.K. Tolstoy and other outstanding Russian writers and poets. At the meetings of the Society, F.I. read their works. Tyutchev and A.I. Polezhaev.

Special commissions are created under the Society: Pushkin, historical, literary and modern literature; The collections “Turgenev and His Time” (1923), “Pushkin” (in 2 volumes, 1924–1930) were published. With the change from the revolutionary-romantic, mystical-theurgic cultural paradigm of the 1920s to the monological, canonical Culture - 2, the Organization ceased to exist and was revived only during the period of “perestroika” on the initiative of Academician D.S. Likhachev (1992), who becomes its honorary chairman. More than twenty books have been published under the OLRS stamp, including the research “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. 1811-1930" (2002); “Pushkin and OLRS” (1999); "IN AND. Dahl and OLRS" (2002); “Gogol and OLRS” (2005).

It is logical to preface the analysis of the functions and significance of ORS today with at least a cursory review the most important stages the formation of domestic culture as literary-centric, when a book or literary text acquires a completely special status. The origins of this situation are rooted in the Russian Middle Ages; already in the Age of Enlightenment, a bibliophilic myth was emerging, associated with the affirmation of the decisive, and sometimes the only influence of the book on the moral and aesthetic self-awareness of man and society as a whole. Defended sacred meaning book in which the Word of the Lord is hidden: “The Word combines in itself both reason and speech, and one of the names of the Son of God, and the law given to people by him,” writes Yu.M. Lotman. The significance of the word is recognized as immanent, inherent in the word as such, “a vain word is unnatural as desecration.”

Rus' is paving its way to civilization, relying on the book, which provides exceptional authority " book people" If in Europe, as V. Kantor testifies, “the book of the ball was an addition to the luxuriously developed artistic, educational, social, everyday, urban infrastructure of Antiquity, albeit roughened by the barbarian invasion, then in Rus' it sometimes turned out to be the only builder of the spiritual life of the ancient Russians.” Introduction to book wisdom often occurs through sound word Teachers. The few literate people vested with spiritual power were respected, feared, and sometimes hated. The first Russian scribes were perceived as conductors of the will of the Almighty, instructing and inspiring them. The sacralization of the written word, on the one hand, and the inaccessibility of even the first handwritten sources, on the other, turn the book into a cult object. Even those recorded from the 11th century. creations of church literature are perceived mainly from the lips of clergy, and not from books; the book itself is awarded with almost mystical, ritual characteristics.

The book brought knowledge about the world to Rus'; through books they discovered Byzantium and Europe. When university education arose in Europe in the Middle Ages, it was absent in Rus', which indicates, rather, not backwardness, but originality cultural type. Thanks to universities, it was possible to master someone else’s culture as one’s own, study it, and comprehend it; in Russia, this role is taken on by the Academy of Sciences. M. Mamardashvili considers all Russian classical literature to be a verbal myth, a single “social and moral utopia,” “an attempt to give birth to an entire country - from words, from meanings, from truth.” The “teacher” function of the word, common to the era of classicism, acquires unprecedented relevance on Russian soil; it is assumed that “society has not yet been created, that it has yet to be created. In this creation, the writer is given the main role. Moreover, the author focuses on the future, and not on the present, on the ideal, and not on the real reader, on the reader whom he himself is called upon to create.” Russian people learn to live “inside” the text, among literary characters.

We also owe another basic mythologeme to the Age of Enlightenment, when the book is interpreted as an ideological weapon in the struggle of various subcultures. The nature of this situation is twofold: the dissolution of the artistic principle in extra-artistic verbal contexts for a long time prevents the isolation of literature as independent type aesthetic activity, but at the same time this also creates the effect of the “all-presence” of literature, which oriented many social practices for book and literary samples.

Since the Enlightenment ideological struggle publishing activity itself is becoming, here it is worth mentioning the actions of banning “harmful books”, the rigidity of censorship on printed products, which marked the power structures from the time of Catherine right up to Stalin and Brezhnev. On the contrary, publications enrolled in ideologically approved reading programs are published in huge circulations. In Rus', the book is credited with the mythological role of an instant catalyst of public opinion; the Russian writer cannot imagine himself without power, without the right to social prophecy. Literature in this context is a type of preaching, a way of influencing the evil that exists in the real world: “A writer cannot give up his moral convictions and should not lose faith in the power of his word, that his word can convince someone,” says A .AND. Solzhenitsyn.

Russian culture at the beginning of the 20th century was also marked by a mystical attitude towards the book. In modernism, the book, the artist, is a mediator between the profane, philistine present and the transcendental ideal, the word is literally a conductor of higher ideas. If modernism professes the doctrine of salvation through art, then the avant-garde, and after it official Soviet literature, consider the word as an instrument of life creation. Russian literature of the Soviet period "represents one of the most radical and consequential experiments in anthropological change through a large-scale writing project, carried out in the most favorable totalitarian conditions for this program," writes M. Berg. Soviet artists inherit the roles of interpreters of the highest truth, “interpreters”, the line between dream and reality, text and “extra-textual reality” is recognized as conditional, the “new world” is shaped according to the principle of “Potemkin villages” - slogans and appeals skillfully drape holes in the toga of a perfect state. It is art, first of all, orthodox Soviet literature, provides faith in the rigor of a “bright future.” Films, books, posters are a means of establishing the new government; they are denied independent aesthetic significance. No one has ever known such a large-scale, total power of the written word or picture over reality. historical era. Gradual demythologization of the idea of ​​a “bright future”, the very political system leads to the fact that official art involuntarily enters a phase of repetition and self-parody.

The era of postmodernism calls the fight against the power of speech and literature, the deconstruction of the great myths and utopias of the past, one of its main tasks. The cult authors of this time transferred the stylistics and language of European postmodernism to Russian soil, but this required the utmost humiliation and inversion of humanistic values ​​and principles of realistic writing, the introduction of taboo vocabulary, the use of infernal symbolism, and the deprivation of “literariness” from literature. Creativity as a game frees us from the power of previous ideas that are subject to deconstruction; the reward is freedom, intellectual first of all. The bearers of high ideals are assigned the role of spiritual “monsters”; there is a postmodern replacement of the lyrical subject with a kaleidoscope of masks. The author turns from a prophet or teacher into a craftsman, even a jester, whose task is to entertain the public.

By the end of the 1990s, the role of " popular writer”, a writer-brand whose fees are significantly higher than the earnings of traditionalists for whom literature was a ministry, a mission. The demand for mass literature, an onlooker writer, an observer who distances himself from his own text (and then defamiliarizes it), becomes an indicator of the crisis of literary centrism, an assertion of the power of the market, its right to determine the status of a particular product, gesture, or event. In the conditions of decanonization of the image of the book, the writer’s word is desacralized and becomes the “word of man,” in need of discussion and verification. The artist gains true freedom and risks only the commercial failure of his own books, but at the same time the social value of his works decreases. Today's literature is losing “the status of a mirror of the laws of life, and the status of a zone of playful freedom, and the status of an oasis of spirituality.” High literature becomes the lot of a few, acquiring the quality of a museum.

In parallel with these processes, however, the dependence of postmodernist practices on the subject of deconstruction becomes more and more clear; the only criterion for assessing creativity remains the consistency of negation, the sophistication of the author’s game, which straightens the horizon of expectations. Art becomes dehumanized, becomes self-enclosed, entropic, demonstrating exclusively the technique of reception. Critics and readers are disappointed in this literature; no provocations, no playing on the strategies of classics or Soviet mythology, change the situation. A mass exodus from the borders of culture under the sign of “post-” is planned. The completion of the postmodern project, disappointment in the values ​​of globalization, which occurred at the turn of the 1990–2000s, actualizes interest in one’s own, national, realistic principles poetics. The issues of preserving the purity of the native language and the status of literature again became urgent, ultimately determining the unity, security of the country, and its immediate future.

So, comparing the system of social functions of Russian literature of the 18th and 19th centuries with modern times, one cannot help but note the fundamental transformation that literature has undergone over the past decades: first of all, such a property of Russian literature as its ubiquity in early eras presence in religious, political, social, philosophical, natural science discourses, and also, naturally, in the disciplinary framework of these spiritual and intellectual traditions. The transition from the Enlightenment belief in the power of the Word to the undermining of the status of the Author, relativization literary writing, significant violations of artistic conventions and the boundaries of artistry in general - ranging from their extreme socialization within the framework of the Soviet project to desocialization and total revision in postmodern aesthetics, where the hierarchical vertical is replaced by a pluralistic horizontal, explosive, according to Yu.M. Lotman, was realized in the middle - late 20th century. Along with finding autonomous status, literature was faced with the visual arts that had previously been commercialized, whose symbolic value was determined by popularity among the masses.

During the period of cultural “liberalization” of the 1990s, literature lost the support of the authorities, was unable to compete on equal terms due to low demand, the debunking of the status of the intelligentsia, which had lost its former social charisma, and also due to the thinning of the layer of “serious” readers who aimed at some point for the entertainment provided by the visual arts. Economic reasons also played a role: books are an expensive commodity, home libraries are perceived as an unjustified luxury, as an excess or an old-fashioned eccentricity. The tradition of working with complex texts (the interpretation of which requires analytical effort, time, and internal preparation), which constitutes one of the most important features of Russian culture, is being devalued, but the “wake” in literature has obviously been rushed.

The value of literature at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries. opens in a different direction than before, is associated not with the reorganization of the universe, but with the interpretation of chaotic reality, the search for an adequate language for its comprehension: “we live only through interpretation, bringing meaning to reality.” It is literature that provides the tools for explaining contradictory, secret moments human existence, and in this function its significance is indestructible. Literature turns out to be a powerful tool dispensation, structuring of the cultural field, reconciliation of the “I” and modern, alienated reality, personal self-identification. Analysis of artistic texts that have become symbols of a certain time reveals the content of entire eras from positions closed to the exact sciences, hidden, giving an idea of ​​the spirit, sounds, smells, moods of people, their secret thoughts and high aspirations. Literature creates its own map of the universe, much more subtle and unique than the political one, without knowledge of which it is hardly possible to comprehend the present and respond to the challenges of modern civilization. It is no coincidence that today, in parallel with the processes of demystification of Russian literature and the destruction of literary centrism, the process of saving “literary ideology” “from above” begins, as evidenced by a critical attitude towards mass literature, the functioning of a field of cultural establishment similar to that of the authorities, and the creation of a number of special public organizations.

Against this background, the creation of the Society of Russian Literature is no longer just a desire to strengthen the cultural prestige of the country, to recall national traditions, the Orthodox foundations of our culture, but the awareness by intellectuals, clergy, and authorities of the idea of ​​​​the impossibility of preserving a state without the language and literature that binds it together.

IN modern Russia the issue of literary literacy is one of the most emotionally discussed, “damned” issues. The passions around the Unified State Exam in literature have not yet cooled, non-governmental organization Parental committee speaks out sharply (even to the point of prohibitions) against the sale of individual texts included in the additional reading program, and mass literature in general. List of books for required reading or the so-called “Golden Hundred” are discussed with such emotional intensity that it is difficult to explain based on educational pragmatics; rather, this is a consequence of the fear of losing literary centrism.

The priority of a literary text as an educational tool over others (pictorial, theatrical) lies, among other things, in its replication and control (censorship). Traditional school literature curricula, built on the reading and interpretation of canonical works, supported belief in certain spiritual, moral values, ideologically verified. The teacher’s word and work on the essay were aimed at establishing in the student the necessary skills in deciphering texts. This disciplinarian approach, which until the 1990s was perceived as the only possible one, despite all its costs, formed the rules of existence in a literary-centric environment, taught one to comprehend complex, large works that required a wide range of knowledge in philosophy, history, cultural studies, etc.

Reading famous circle texts were united by society no less than by the territory. The sophisticated reader demanded a certain level of works, could judge their specificity, today in his place is a consumer of mass culture, designed for a comfortable pastime, and not internal work.

Let us emphasize that Russia’s prestige in the world rests to a high degree on the achievements of its classical literature, which has become a kind of code for reading the “mysterious Russian soul”, to replace which we cannot offer much today. Efforts aimed at preserving, studying, disseminating the Russian language ( current project“Ambassadors of the Russian language in the world”) do not lead to the expected results, largely because they are self-sufficient in nature. The Russian language does not have the business powers of English or the scientific clarity of German; it is valued precisely as the language of brilliant Russian authors. The response to the reduction in the number of libraries and bookstores, the curtailment of the program for promoting national culture to the West, and the downgrading of the importance of philology as an independent field of knowledge was a sharp drop in interest in the native language and literacy of the population as a whole.

The situation with university philological education is more than dramatic; the reduction of specialized literary departments, places in graduate school and doctoral studies has resulted in the washing out of professionals and gifted students from this environment, and a drop in the level of teaching in general. The active introduction of distance learning, among other things, has led to a devaluation of the culture of communication, especially noticeable in the field of specialists in exact sciences. The modern teaching community often remains captive to previous methods and approaches that are unable to satisfy the needs of students. As a result, we risk finding ourselves in a situation where a pragmatically minded, dumb population, having lost the ability to comprehend the high, imagination, deprived of quality education, protection of previous traditions and myths, will be insensitive to the motivations and calls of the State. The creation of an OPC is one possible answer to these concerns.

The work of the Organization has just begun; on May 25–26, 2016, the 1st Congress was held in Moscow, on the first day of which sectional sessions were held dedicated to current problems philological science, education, upbringing: “The Society of Russian Literature - mission and responsibility to Russian society”, “Russian language and literature at school”, “Professional associations of Russian scholars in the life of society”, “Culture and art as guides and guardians of Russian literature”, “ Basic Research Russian language", " Additional education: problems, achievements, development prospects”, “Teaching Russian language and literature in universities as a strategic priority of educational policy in multinational state", "The role of parents, parent communities and public organizations in preserving the Russian language." The results of the work of each section were actively discussed during scientific discussions, proposals for the Congress resolution were developed and voiced.

On May 26, a plenary meeting of the Congress was held in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions, at which the President of the Russian Federation V.V. made presentations and detailed reports. Putin, His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill, Chairman of the Society, President of the Russian Academy of Education L.A. Verbitskaya, professors from leading universities in the country, school teachers, journalists. After hearing the opinions of the guests and forum participants, the Congress adopted several fundamental documents: the Congress Resolution, approved the composition of the Presidium and the Bureau of the OPC. Among the priority tasks, they included an examination of the state of legal support for language policy in the Russian Federation; work on the examination of school textbooks on literature; discussion of the list of required literature for study at school; improving the Unified State Examination tasks, which they hope to supplement oral part; development of the National Reading Support Program (2016–2020); development special program regulating the acquisition of libraries of schools and universities; updating mechanisms for training and retraining personnel for the educational publishing system... and many others. It is important that the Society of Russian Literature is already functioning as a new discussion platform for discussing issues of teaching Russian language and literature, as an Organization consolidating the efforts of public and non-profit organizations dealing with issues of Russian literature.

On July 13, 2016, a meeting of the Presidium of the OPC was held in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, chaired by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'. The atmosphere of the meeting was emphatically business-like; issues were resolved about the formation and activities of the OPC working groups, which will regulate the activities of certain areas related to the solution of priority tasks facing the Organization.

And finally, I would like to emphasize that efforts to consolidate and implement projects related to the preservation, development and promotion of the Russian language and literature, which are now being actively undertaken “from above,” cannot be effective enough without active support “from below.” Already today, under the auspices of the Society, monographs have been published (“Russian Traditionalism: History, Ideology, Poetics, Literary Reflection.” M., 2016), scientific projects and major international forums have been prepared. Understanding the complexity of the moral, ethical, ideological and economic situation in the country, which has had a dramatic impact on the situation in the field of education, it is important to use every chance to change it for the better, the OPC gives such a chance.

Literature

1. Paperny V. Culture Two. - M.: NLO, 2007.
2. Prikazchikova E.K. Cultural myths in Russian literature of the second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries. - Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 2009.
3. Lotman Yu.M. Essays on the history of Russian culture of the 18th century. / From the history of Russian culture XVIII - early. XIX century In 5 volumes. T. 4. - M., 1996.
4. Kantor V. “There is a European power” Russia: a difficult path to civilization. - M., 1997.
5. Mamardashvili M. How I understand philosophy. - M., 1992.
6. Berg M. Literaturocracy. Problems of appropriation and redistribution of power in literature. - M.: NLO, 2000.
7. Solzhenitsyn A. Interview with the German weekly “Die Zeit” // Zvezda. - 1994. - No. 6.
8. The crisis of literary centrism: loss of identity vs. new opportunities. Monograph / Rep. ed. N.V. Kovtun. - M.: Flinta: Science, 2014.
9. Venediktova T.D. On the benefits of literary history for life // New Literary Review. - 2003. - No. 59. - P. 12–21.
10. Kovtun N.V. Introduction / Russian project for the reconstruction of the world and artistic creativity of the 19th-20th centuries. Monograph / rep. ed. N.V. Kovtun. - M.: Flinta: Science, 2011. - P. 5–11.
11. Izer V. Changing functions of literature / Modern literary theory: anthology. - M.: Flinta: Science, 2004.
12. Savkina I. “The Vampire’s Kiss”: modern mass literature kills or preserves classics / Crisis of literary centrism: loss of identity vs. new opportunities. - M.: Flinta: Science, 2014. - P. 95–115.
13. Zenkin S. Criticism of narrative reason. Notes on theory // UFO. - 2003. - No. 59. - P. 524–534.
14. Kovtun N.V. "Garbage Man" and modern state: mechanisms of temptation // Literatura. - 2015. - T. 56–57. - No. 2. - P. 68–81.