D Likhachev's contribution to world culture. Modern problems of science and education

D.S. Likhachev was born in St. Petersburg on November 15 (28), 1906. He studied at the best classical gymnasium in St. Petersburg - the K.I. May, in 1928, he graduated from Leningrad University simultaneously in the Romano-Germanic and Slavic-Russian departments and wrote two diploma works: “Shakespeare in Russia in the 18th century” and “Tales of Patriarch Nikon.” There he went through a solid school with professors V.E. Evgeniev-Maksimov, who introduced him to work with manuscripts, D.I. Abramovich, V.M. Zhirmunsky, V.F. Shishmarev, listened to lectures by B.M. Eikhenbaum, V.L. Komarovich. While studying at the Pushkin seminar of Professor L.V. Shcherba, mastered the technique of “slow reading”, from which his ideas of “concrete literary criticism” subsequently grew. Of the philosophers who influenced him at that time, Dmitry Sergeevich singled out the “idealist” S.A. Askoldova. .

A talented student who received an excellent education, he was not immediately able to turn to the study of that area of ​​​​Russian literature and culture to which he devoted his entire life. The first scientific experiments of D.S. appeared in a special kind of press, in a magazine published in the Solovetsky special purpose camp, where 22-year-old Likhachev was designated as a “counter-revolutionary” for a five-year term. In the legendary SLON, as D.S. himself noted, his “education” continued; there the Russian intellectual went through a Soviet-style school of life that was harsh to the point of cruelty.

Studying the world of special life generated by the extreme situation in which people found themselves, D.S. collected in the mentioned article interesting observations about the thieves' argot. The innate qualities of a Russian intellectual and camp experience allowed Dmitry Sergeevich to withstand the circumstances: “I tried not to lose my human dignity and did not crawl on my belly in front of the authorities (camp, institute, etc.).”

His path at the Academy of Sciences D.S. Likhachev began in 1934 as a “scientific proofreader” at the Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In this capacity, he is listed in the academic anniversary collection of Pushkin’s works, which was published in 1937. As a proofreader for D.S. participated in the preparation for publication of the second volume of “Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature” (1935) - a publication that meant a lot for the development of Russian medieval studies and gained worldwide fame largely due to the fact that from the eleventh volume to the fifty-second D.S. Likhachev was (with rare exceptions) its executive editor. A number of his most important works are also published here. The fiftieth anniversary volume of the Proceedings was dedicated to his 90th birthday.

Work by D.S. Likhachev on the preparation for publication of a course of lectures on ancient Russian literature by Academician A.S. Orlova largely determined his future fate. Participation of the President of the Academy of Sciences A.P. Karpinsky was helped by D.S. clear your criminal record and stay in Leningrad. Scientific work by D.S. began in the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Pushkin House in 1938, when it was headed by A.S. Orlov and V.P. Adrianova-Peretz, with whom D.S. Close scientific and friendly relations were established. And although even before joining the Department, D.S. already had the first scientific experiments, he nevertheless believed that the years spent in prison and before entering the Department were lost for science: “I completely lost 10 years of my life” (November 29, 1962).

As the scientist noted, “he began to publish his first articles on issues of Russian culture in besieged Leningrad (articles in Zvezda and a brochure together with M.A. Tikhanova “Defense of Old Russian Cities”)” (November 29, 1962). While still a literary editor, he took part in the preparation for printing of the posthumous edition of the work of Academician A.A. Shakhmatov "Review of Russian chronicles" (1937). This work played an important role in the formation of D.S.’s scientific interests. Likhachev, introducing him to the study of chronicles as one of the most important and difficult complex problems in the study of ancient Russian history, literature, and culture. And ten years later D.S. prepared a doctoral dissertation on the history of Russian chronicles, an abbreviated version of which was published in the form of the book “Russian Chronicles and Their Cultural and Historical Significance” (1947).

Being a follower of those developed by A.A. Shakhmatov's methods, he found his way in the study of chronicles and for the first time after Academician M.I. Sukhomlinov (1856) assessed the chronicles as a whole as a literary and cultural phenomenon. Moreover - D.S. Likhachev was the first to consider the entire history of Russian chronicle writing as the history of a literary genre, which was constantly changing depending on the historical and cultural situation.

The following books grew out of chronicle writing: "The Tale of Bygone Years" - a publication of an ancient Russian text with translation and commentary (1950. Vol. 1-2; in the "Literary Monuments" series) and the monographs "National Identity of Ancient Rus'" (1945), "Novgorod the Great " (1954; 2nd ed. 1959).

Already in the early works of D.S. Likhachev's scientific talent was revealed; even then he amazed specialists with his unusual interpretation of ancient Russian literature, and therefore the largest scientists spoke of his works as extremely fresh in thought. The unconventionality and novelty of the scientist’s research approaches to Old Russian literature lay in the fact that he viewed Old Russian literature primarily as an artistic, aesthetic phenomenon, as an organic part of culture as a whole. D.S. persistently searched for ways for new generalizations in the field of literary medieval studies, attracting data from history and archaeology, architecture and painting, folklore and ethnography to the study of literary monuments. A series of his monographs appeared: “Culture of Rus' in the era of the formation of the Russian national state” (1946); "Culture of the Russian people of the X-XVII centuries." (1961); "Culture of Rus' in the time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise" (1962).

It is hardly possible to find in the world another Russian medievalist who during his life would put forward and develop more new ideas than D.S. Likhachev. You are amazed at their inexhaustibility and the richness of his creative world. The scientist always studied the key problems of the development of Old Russian literature: its origin, genre structure, place among other Slavic literatures, connection with the literature of Byzantium.

Creativity D.S. Likhachev's work was always characterized by integrity; it never looked like a certain sum of diverse innovations. The idea of ​​the historical changeability of all literary phenomena, which permeates the scientist’s works, directly connects them with the ideas of historical poetics. He easily moved throughout the seven-century history of ancient Russian culture, freely operating with the material of literature in the diversity of its genres and styles.

Three capital works of D.S. Likhacheva: “Man in the literature of Ancient Rus' (1958; 2nd ed. 1970), “Textology. Based on the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries" (1962; 2nd ed. 1983), "Poetics of Old Russian Literature" (1967; 2nd ed. 1971; and other ed.), - published within one decade, They are closely related to each other, forming a kind of triptych.

Working on one book stimulated creative thought, covering more and more new topics and problems, from which further ideas grew. So, in a letter dated March 16, 1955, D.S. developed the idea of ​​the first work: “We need to prepare a report for the meeting - “Depiction of people in hagiographic literature of the late XIV-XV centuries.” An article on this topic would link into a single chain my articles about people in the VIII volume of TrODRL and in the X volume of TrODRL.

If the first report was already a generalizing stage in the planned work, then the second became a program application, which formulated the basic principles of future fundamental research. As we see, D.S. originally intended to raise the question of the significance of textual criticism as a promising topic for the International Meeting of Slavic Studies in Belgrade, which preceded the resumption of the International Congresses of Slavic Studies.

Both reports by D.S. He spoke a month later - on April 23 and 25, 1955 at the Second All-Union Meeting on the Study of Old Russian Literature, which also testifies to the speed and creative intensity with which the scientist worked.

About how busy D.S. Likhachev at that time, issues related to the study of the history of text in a broad sense, are evidenced by the views he expressed in a private letter on the tasks of the journal Izvestia OLYA, which “should devote serious articles to the state of the study of this or that issue, discipline (for example, the state of paleographic research in the USSR, the study of filigree, the study of book printing in Western Europe and Russia, the study of metrics, textual issues, the study of translated Russian literature of the 11th - 17th centuries, etc.)" (August 6, 1957).

Attention to man, his activities and depiction in literature and art is organically characteristic of the scientific interests of D.S. Likhacheva. His monograph “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'” represents a completely new type of research. It was the first to study the artistic vision of man in ancient Russian literature, and also described artistic methods and styles of depiction that changed depending on the historical era and genre.

The book analyzes the style of monumental historicism of the 11th - 13th centuries, the expressive-emotional style of the 14th - 15th centuries, “idealizing autobiography” as the official style of the 16th century, and the baroque style of the 17th century. etc. A characteristic feature of the theoretical constructions of D.S. Likhachev - the theories he created never rise above knowledge, are not the imposition of some abstract schemes on the subject being studied, but flow from knowledge based on the analysis of sources: “You cannot be a good “ancientist” without working on manuscripts” (March 10, 1950). ). The concept of styles of Old Russian literature, which grew out of the study of specific historical and literary material, serves as a theoretical basis for establishing certain literary periods within the Middle Ages that did not previously have literary definitions.

D.S. Likhachev made an important scientific discovery: he discovered that a turning point in the depiction of man came along with the crisis of the medieval way of describing man, which occurred at the beginning of the 17th century. Literature for the first time discovered the image and theme of the “little man”: “The human personality was emancipated in Russia not only in the clothes of conquistadors and rich adventurers, not in the magnificent recognition of the artistic gift of Renaissance artists, but in the “gunka tavern”, at the last stage of the fall, in search of death as liberation from all suffering. And this was a great foreshadowing of the humanistic character of Russian literature of the 19th century. with its theme of the value of a small person, with its sympathy for everyone who suffers and who has not found their true place in life."

Thanks to such discoveries, after such research, it becomes clear that the study of the general patterns of development of all Russian literature of the modern era is impossible without a thorough study of ancient literature.

One of the leading topics of scientific creativity of D.S. - textual criticism. The scientist dedicated a series of articles and books to her, in the creation of which his own experience played a huge role: “It is difficult to write a book on methods of handling manuscripts using someone else’s material, especially if this someone else’s material is not processed by a like-minded person” (February 24, 1963). In a holistic and systematized form, the results of many years of textual research by D.S. Likhachev were reflected in his major work “Textology” (1962). In a revised and expanded form, it was published in 1983 in the second edition.

This pioneering research caused a great stir in the scientific world and received high praise and international recognition. But if the book “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'” is dedicated to man as an object of literary creativity, then in “Textology” man appears as a subject - the creator of the literary process.

Ascent from the text to the person behind it - this is how D.S. Likhachev defines the direction of textual criticism: “A person—his interests, psychology, education, inclinations, ideology, and behind the person—society should, in this case, be at the center of the textual critic’s interests.” D.S. Likhachev calls for seeing the scribes’ work methods as a manifestation of their purposeful activity and therefore giving preference to conscious changes in the text (ideological, artistic, psychological, stylistic, etc.) over mechanical indications - unconscious random errors of scribes.

The first reviews of the published work had just begun to arrive, as D.S. I was already finishing my next project, I became interested in the new Textology - brief, for all occasions. Although it will have 5 sheets, I will include something new (it is also based on new literature)" (June 1963). At the end of the next month, the work was already completed.

Methodological principles developed as a result of textual practice, D.S. Likhachev moves on to issues of restoration of monuments of art, architecture, gardens and parks. The scientist considers it necessary to approach each monument as a historically studied phenomenon, all stages of its life are equally valuable.

Of all his special works, D.S. especially emphasized research in textual criticism, considering them the most important for science. The results of the scientist’s theoretical and practical activities in the field of textual criticism are so significant that it is appropriate to talk about the textual school of D.S. Likhacheva. His “Textology” has become a reference book and program of action for many researchers of literature, history and culture not only of the Middle Ages, but also of the New Age.

"Textology" D.S. Likhacheva gave a powerful impetus to practical work on studying the history of the text of many literary monuments of the Russian Middle Ages and their scientific publication. The rule was to combine the text of a monument, its textual analysis and literary interpretation in one study. This combination is typical for a series of monographic studies and publications of monuments of ancient Russian literature. Significant results have been achieved in mastering more and more little-studied works and genres, such as hagiographies and chronographs.

Under the leadership of D.S. Likhachev, what was started by V.P. was completed. Adrianova-Peretz developed a carefully thought-out methodology and rules for publishing medieval texts, now adopted in the “Literary Monuments” series. Multilateral research and scientific publications of works of ancient Russian literature formed the basis of the twelve-volume collection “Monuments of the Literature of Ancient Rus'” (1978 - 1994).

The principles and techniques of textual analysis have found application in linguistics, where the linguistic-textological direction has developed. The data obtained using the textual methodology makes it possible to detect multi-temporal layers of linguistic phenomena in the text; they serve as a reliable source for historical phonetics and grammar, and contribute to solving the most complex problems of the formation of the Old Russian literary language. Based on the concept of D.S. Likhachev's linguotextological analysis is also important for historical lexicology and lexicography, the study of Slavic-Russian dictionaries of the Middle Ages of various types.

The scope of application of the methodology of textual research is no longer limited to literary criticism, source studies, and linguistics. It is also used by folklorists. In recent decades, musical textual criticism has also been developing - based on the material of singing manuscripts of Ancient Rus'. Its development has promising significance for the study of the history of ancient Russian musical culture. Textual observations make it possible to judge the life of a chant in time, to classify chant variants for the same text, to understand the author’s and local variant chants, just as literary scholars do when studying the history of the text of a monument, its editions and types.

Formulated by D.S. Likhachev, the fundamental provisions of textual studies can be applied in the study of the history of text and the publication of monuments of antiquity, eastern and new Western European literature. His “Textology” can serve as the foundation for building a general theory of textual criticism.

In conclusion to the book “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'” D.S. named his predecessors, who did a lot to study the artistic essence of Russian literature of the 11th-17th centuries. - such as F.I. Buslaev, A.S. Orlov, V.P. Adrianova-Peretz, N.K. Gudziy, I.P. Eremin and others. But only Dmitry Sergeevich managed to summarize valuable observations and create a holistic and convincing scientific concept based on his interpretation of ancient Russian literature as a special aesthetic system. D.S. appears in this book as a cultural historian. “In Poetics,” the scientist wrote, “I have tasks for researchers. For the first time after the famous “Historical Poetics” by Academician A.N. Veselovsky D.S. Likhachev built a theoretical “Poetics of Old Russian Literature” based on a study of aesthetic principles and features of the worldview of medieval man. As a matter of fact, the work of D.S. could be considered as a continuation of the research of A.N. Veselovsky, although it is built on different material and other methodological foundations.

Innovation by D.S. Likhachev was brilliantly manifested in many of his original assumptions. The scientist indicated in his works that a number of hypotheses he put forward require further development: “None of the questions raised in this book,” he wrote in the concluding paragraph of “Poetics,” can be considered finally resolved. The purpose of this book is to outline the paths of study, and not to close them to the movement of scientific thought. The more controversy this book generates, the better. But there is no reason to argue that there is a need to argue, just as there is no reason to doubt that the study of antiquity should be conducted in the interests of modernity.”

Three books - “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'”, “Textology”, “Poetics of Old Russian Literature” - D.S. Likhachev created a single scientific text - about literary culture, its comprehension based on knowledge of sources and criticism of the text, and about man as the central object of artistic creativity.

It was D.S. Likhachev gave a powerful impetus to the study of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” In 1950, he wrote: “It seems to me that we need to work on “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” After all, there are only popular articles about him and no monograph. I'm going to work on it myself, but The Lay deserves more than one monograph. This topic will always remain necessary. No one here writes dissertations about the “Word.” Why? After all, everything there is unexplored!” Bearing in mind the skeptical view of the French Slavist A. Mazon on the “Word”, D.S. noted: “Our science itself is to blame for Mazon - it was we who gave birth to him through the lack of work on the “Word”.”

Then D.S. outlined themes and problems that were implemented by him in the coming decades. He is the author of a series of fundamentally important monographic studies, numerous articles and popular science publications dedicated to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, in which the scientist revealed previously unknown features of the great monument, and most fully and deeply examined the question of the connection between the “Tale” and the culture of his time . A keen and subtle sense of words and style made Dmitry Sergeevich one of the best translators of the Lay. He carried out several scientific translations of the work (expository, prose, rhythmic), possessing poetic merits, as if they were performed by a poet.

When in the spring of 1963 A.A. Zimin expressed a skeptical point of view on the authenticity and antiquity of the Lay, D.S. Likhachev, being a principled opponent of this view, believed that in order to conduct a serious discussion, “his work must certainly be published, since otherwise they will say that we are ‘squeezing,’ ‘pressing,’ etc.” On June 27 of the same year, he wrote that from the editor of the magazine “Russian Literature” “V.V. Timofeeva received a reprimand: “Six months have passed, and you have not yet defeated Zimin.” I replied: “And we can’t, since Zimin is not published.” What to smash? Of course, I will be correct and will not blame him for anything. The answer style is the same as in our red collection. At a meeting in the Presidium (if there is one) I will insist on the need to publish Zimin’s entire work.” But the ideological authorities did not listen to the advice of Likhachev and his closest colleagues, and the publication of Zimin’s research was banned. Such actions by the authorities put the scientist in a very difficult position, because for a discussion with Zimin, especially at an international forum, his mandatory presence was required.

The scientist became the initiator and participant in such a remarkable project in many respects as the five-volume “Encyclopedia “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”” (1995), where, by the way, the history of the skeptical view of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is also impartially covered.

The monograph by D.S. is of not only scientific, but also cultural and educational interest. Likhachev "Great Heritage. Classic works of literature of Ancient Rus'" (1975). The book “The Laughing World of Ancient Rus'” (1976), written in collaboration with A.M. Panchenko, D.S. introduced a new topic into the field of study of ancient Russian literature.

The fundamental feature of the scientific appearance of D.S. Likhachev - the modernity of his works in the broadest sense, thanks to which the myth about the “irrelevance” of medieval studies was dispelled. He is one of those few scientists who saved the prestige of studying ancient Russian literature and culture of Ancient Rus'. His works showed how an ancient subject of academic study is not only analyzed in the light of modern scientific theory, but becomes relatable, useful and understandable to our society.

D.S. was always interested in the history of Russian art, issues of protection and restoration of cultural monuments (at one time, as a member of the Academic Council, he took part in the work of the Russian Museum). A clear expression of his scientific and public position was his article “Alleys of ancient linden trees”, published in the newspaper “Leningradskaya Pravda” (April 18, 1972) regarding the plan adopted by the authorities for the reconstruction of the Catherine Park in the city of Pushkin, which envisaged the restoration of a regular park in that form as it existed in the middle of the 18th century. D.S. following I.E. Grabar believed that restoration “at a certain point in the life of a monument” ruins it; he looked at restoration as a way to prolong the life of a monument and preserve all that is most valuable in it. His idea was not to thoughtlessly “restore”, that is, not to cut down the old park associated with the names of Pushkin, Annensky, Akhmatova, but to extend its life. It is quite possible that while reflecting on the fate of Tsarskoye Selo Park, the ideas for his future book “The Poetry of Gardens. On the Semantics of Garden and Park Styles” (1982), which was subsequently reprinted several times, arose. History of gardening styles, including D.S. in the concept of “culture” is considered as a manifestation of the artistic consciousness of a particular era, and the garden is considered as a unique form of synthesis of different arts, developing in parallel with philosophy, poetry, and aesthetic forms of life.

Culturology, developed by Likhachev in historical and theoretical aspects, is based on his vision of Russian literature and culture in the thousand-year history in which he lived along with the rich heritage of the Russian past. He perceives the fate of Russia from the moment it adopted Christianity as part of the history of Europe. The integration of Russian culture into European culture is determined by the historical choice itself. The concept of Eurasia is an artificial myth of the New Age. For Russia, the cultural context called Scando-Byzantium by scientists is significant. From Byzantium, from the south, Rus' received Christianity and spiritual culture, from the north, from Scandinavia - statehood. This choice determined the appeal of Ancient Rus' to Europe.

The life and work of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev is an entire era in the history of our science; for many decades he was its leader and patriarch. A scientist known to philologists all over the world, whose works are available in all scientific libraries, D.S. Likhachev was a foreign member of many academies: the Academies of Sciences of Austria, Bulgaria, the British Royal Academy, Hungary, Göttingen (Germany), the Italian, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, the USA, Matitsa Srpska; honorary doctorate from the universities of Sofia, Oxford and Edinburgh, Budapest, Siena, Torun, Bordeaux, Charles University in Prague, Zurich, etc.

Brilliant achievements in science, wide international fame, recognition of scientific merits by academies and universities in many countries of the world - all this can create an idea of ​​​​the easy and cloudless fate of a scientist, that the life and scientific path he has passed since entering the Department of Ancient Russian Literature in 1938, from junior researcher to academician, was an exceptionally prosperous, unhindered ascent to the heights of scientific Olympus.

“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 nation! 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. It is they 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!

A brief outline of the scientific, pedagogical and social activities of D. S. Likhachev.

In those same years, D.S. studied ancient Russian literature in a seminar with Professor D.I. Abramovich. Under the guidance of the latter, he wrote his diploma work (unofficial) on the little-studied “Tales of Patriarch Nikon.” D.S.’s official diploma work in the Romano-Germanic specialty was the study “Shakespeare in Russia in the 18th century.”

After graduating from the university, D. S. Likhachev was not immediately able to concentrate his strength and knowledge on scientific work; only 10 years later he joined the staff of the Sector of Ancient Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the USSR Academy of Sciences. However, D.S. came into close contact with the work of this Sector, editing its printed publications in the Leningrad branch of the Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

In 1937, the Sector prepared a posthumous edition of the extensive work of Academician A. A. Shakhmatov “Review of Russian chronicle codes of the XIV - XVI centuries.” “This manuscript fascinated me,” recalled Dmitry Sergeevich, who, as editor of the publishing house, had to carefully check its readiness for typesetting. As a result, he developed an interest in other works of A. A. Shakhmatov, and then in a wide range of issues related to the history of ancient Russian chronicles. It is with this deeply thought-out theme that he will enter the circle of “ancients” - literary scholars (1938). Research in this area will bring him the academic degree of a candidate (1941), and then a doctor of philological sciences (1947).

D. S. Likhachev approached the chronicle not only as a historian, but also as a literary critic. He studied the growth and change in the methods of chronicle writing themselves, their dependence on the uniqueness of the Russian historical process. This revealed a deep interest in the problem of artistic mastery of ancient Russian literature, characteristic of all D.S.’s work, and he considers the style of literature and fine art as a manifestation of the unity of artistic consciousness.

The first works of D. S. Likhachev are devoted to the older chronicles of Novgorod. A series of his works in the 1940s was devoted to this topic, which immediately attracted readers with the rigor of his method, the freshness and convincing validity of his conclusions.

Study of Novgorod chronicles of the 12th century. led D.S. to the conclusion that the special style of this chronicle and its social tendency are explained by the coup of 1136, the establishment of a “republican” political system in Novgorod. Based on independent research in the field of Novgorod literature, painting and architecture of the 12th - 17th centuries. in their entirety, D. S. Likhachev published a number of informative, completely original articles in the second volume of “History of Russian Literature” (1945). They clearly revealed a certain general pattern in the development of medieval Novgorod culture in its various manifestations. The results of these investigations are also reflected in his book “Novgorod the Great” (1945).

These works made it possible to discover another valuable quality of the young scientist - the ability to present his scientific observations in such a way that they would interest a wide circle of non-specialist readers. This attention to the reader, the desire to instill in him interest and respect for the past of our fatherland permeate all the work of D. S. Likhachev, making his popular science books the best examples of this genre.

Expanding the scope of his observations on the history of chronicles, Dmitry Sergeevich writes a number of articles concerning the Kyiv chronicles of the 11th - 13th centuries. Finally, he sets himself the task of constructing a systematic history of chronicle writing from its origins to the 17th century. This is how his extensive doctoral dissertation was born, which, unfortunately, was published in a significantly abbreviated form. D. S. Likhachev’s book “Russian Chronicles and Their Cultural and Historical Significance” (1947) became a valuable contribution to science; its fundamentally new conclusions were accepted by literary scholars and historians.

Dmitry Sergeevich's research finally eliminates any attempts to explain the origin of the Russian chronicle from Byzantine or West Slavic sources, which in fact were only reflected in it at a certain stage of its development. He presents in a new way the connection between the chronicles of the 11th and 12th centuries. with folk poetry and the living Russian language; as part of the chronicles of the XII - XIII centuries. reveals a special genre of “stories about feudal crimes”; notes the peculiar revival in North-Eastern Rus' of the political and cultural heritage of the ancient Russian state after the Kulikovo victory; shows the relationship between individual spheres of Russian culture in the 15th - 16th centuries. with the historical situation of that time and with the struggle to build a centralized Russian state.

An in-depth study of the early stage of the Kyiv chronicle of the 11th century, which at the beginning of the 12th century. led to the creation of a classic monument - “The Tale of Bygone Years”, which forms the basis of the two-volume work of D. S. Likhachev, published in the series “Literary Monuments” (1950). In this work, the newly critically checked text of “The Tale of Bygone Years” was carefully and accurately translated by D. S. Likhachev (together with B. A. Romanov) into a modern literary language, preserving the original structure of speech.

The cycle of works by D. S. Likhachev devoted to Russian chronicle writing is valuable primarily because they gave the right direction to the study of the artistic elements of chronicle writing at different stages of its development; they finally established the chronicles’ place of honor among the literary monuments of the historical genre. In addition, a thorough study of the features of the chronicle narrative allowed D.S. to develop the question of forms of creativity bordering on literature - about military and veche speeches, about business forms of writing, about the symbolism of etiquette, which arises in everyday life, but significantly influences literature itself.

The study of the history of Russian chronicles as the history of a change in the artistic features of the narration of historical events and figures, a change naturally associated with the general historical process and with the development of Russian culture in all its manifestations, involved related literary monuments in D.S.’s circle of research. As a result, an extremely fresh observational article, “The Galician Literary Tradition in the Life of Alexander Nevsky” (1947), was published. Based on a large amount of handwritten material, an exemplary textual study of “The Tale of Nikola Zarazsky” was created, which was continued in articles in 1961 and 1963 dedicated to one of the works of this cycle - “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu.”

Since 1950, D. S. Likhachev has held one of the leading positions among researchers of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” The results of several years of work on the Lay were reflected in the book The Lay of Igor’s Campaign, published in the “anniversary” year of 1950 for the Lay in the series “Literary Monuments”. The revision of a number of issues related to the first edition of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” determined in this new book the very method of publishing the text, the interpretation of its “dark” places, the disclosure of the rhythmic structure of the “Tale”, as well as the translation of the text into a modern literary language, setting itself aiming to reproduce the rhythm of the original.

Extensive research work on the largest literary monuments of the 11th - 13th centuries. formed the basis for D. S. Likhachev’s general article “Literature,” which gives a picture of the development of literature of this period. It was published in the collective work “The History of Culture of Ancient Rus'. The Pre-Mongol Period” (vol. 2, 195I), which received the USSR State Prize.

Unlike his predecessors, D. S. Likhachev emphasizes with particular force the “historicism” of the literature of Kievan Rus, its desire to sensitively respond to all political events and reflect changes taking place in the ideology of society. The author recognizes this historicism as the basis for the independence and originality of literature of the 11th - 13th centuries.

Based on his previous research, the scientist vividly characterizes the state of the Russian language at the time of the creation of older literary monuments and comes to the conclusion that it was precisely the high level of development of the Russian language in the literature of the 11th - 12th centuries. owed its rapid growth.

Concise but expressive characteristics of all the most important monuments and literature before the beginning of the 13th century. inclusively allowed D.S. to present the main features of the literary process of the period studied.

All these questions were developed in detail in his book “The Emergence of Russian Literature” (1952). In this study, for the first time, the question of the historical prerequisites for the very emergence of literature in the context of the early feudal ancient Russian state is raised so broadly. The researcher shows the internal needs that determined the origin and development of literature, reveals its independence and the high level of presentation determined by the development of oral poetry. Defining the unique features of the literature of the Old Russian people, D.S. rightly evaluates the contribution made to its development by the works of Byzantine and Bulgarian literature, assimilated in South Slavic and Russian translations.

Material of literature of the 11th - 13th centuries. was once again interestingly used by D. S. Likhachev for a generalizing concept in his extensive sections of the collective work “Russian Folk Poetic Creativity” (1953) - “Folk Poetic Creativity of the Heyday of the Old Russian Early Feudal State (X - XI centuries)” and “Folk poetic creativity during the years of feudal fragmentation of Rus' - before the Mongol-Tatar invasion (XII - early XIII centuries)."

In a new collective work, “The History of Russian Literature” (1958), Dmitry Sergeevich published a more detailed outline of the history of literature of the pre-Mongol period than in 1951 and gave an “Introduction” and “Conclusion” to the section of the first volume devoted to the literature of the 10th - 17th centuries.

From analyzing the literary mastery of individual writers and entire groups of works or certain periods in the history of literature, D. S. Likhachev came closer and closer to the general problem of the “artistic method” of ancient Russian literature in its historical development.

In the artistic method of ancient Russian writers, D. S. Likhachev was primarily interested in ways of depicting a person - his character and inner world. The cycle of his works on this topic opens with the article “The Problem of Character in Historical Works of the Early 17th Century.” (1951). The scientist began his study of this problem, as we see, from the end - from the period that completes that segment of the history of Russian literature, which, in general, is called “ancient”, contrasting it with the “new” time. However, already in the literature of the 17th century. a turning point is clearly visible, the emergence of a number of new features that will be fully developed in the 18th century. Among these features, D.S. especially highlighted a new attitude to the depiction of a person, his inner world.

In 1958, D. S. Likhachev published the book “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'.” In this book, the “problem of character” is explored not only on the basis of historical genres: from the end of the 14th century. hagiography is involved; The “new” in the development of this problem is widely shown in various types of democratic literature of the 17th century. and in the Baroque style. Naturally, the author could not exhaust all literary sources in one study, but within the limits of the studied material he reflected the historical development of such basic concepts as character, type, literary fiction. He clearly showed what a difficult path Russian literature went through before turning to depicting the inner world of a person, his character, that is, to artistic generalization leading from idealization to typification.

The book "Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'" is a serious contribution not only to the study of the history of ancient Russian literature. The method of scientific research that underlies it and the important generalizations that it contains are of great interest both for an art critic, and for a researcher of new Russian literature, and for a theorist of literature and aesthetics in the broad sense of the word.

The historical approach to the study of the artistic mastery of the literature of Ancient Rus' also characterizes D. S. Likhachev’s formulation of other questions of the unique poetics of the 11th - 17th centuries.

Steadily following the path of studying the specific connections of literature as part of culture with historical reality, D. S. Likhachev from this position also explores the originality of the artistic mastery of ancient Russian literature. The so-called “constant formulas” have long been declared one of the characteristic features of ancient Russian poetics. Without denying their presence, D.S. proposed studying these formulas in connection with the “extremely complex rituals - church and secular” that feudalism had developed. This “etiquette” also corresponded to constant forms of verbal expression, which D.S. conventionally proposes to call “literary etiquette.”

A generalization of D. S. Likhachev’s observations on the artistic specifics of Old Russian literature was his article “On the study of artistic methods of Russian literature of the 11th - 17th centuries.” (1964), and especially the book “The Poetics of Old Russian Literature” (1967), awarded the USSR State Prize in 1969. D. S. Likhachev’s monograph is distinguished by the breadth of the range of phenomena under consideration and the harmony of the composition, which makes it possible to connect seemingly the most distant phenomena of artistic life - from the features of stylistic symmetry in the monuments of translated literature of Kievan Rus to the problems of the poetics of time in the works of Goncharov or Dostoevsky. This complex composition of the book is due to the concept of the unity of Russian literature constantly developed by D. S. Likhachev; the principle of analyzing the phenomena of poetics in their development determines the construction of all sections of the monograph.

D. S. Likhachev has long been fascinated by the idea of ​​​​creating a theoretical history of Old Russian literature, which would make it possible to comprehensively analyze the leading trends and processes of literary development, consider literature in its closest connections with the history of culture, determine the complex relationships of Old Russian literature with other medieval literatures, and, finally, find out the main paths of the literary process. If in his works of the 50s D.S. focused on studying the process of the emergence of ancient Russian literature and the initial stage of its development, then in subsequent studies he turned to the key problems of its history.

His fundamental work “Some problems of studying the second Young Slavic influence in Russia”, presented at the IV International Congress of Slavists in 1958 and giving rise to an extensive literature in the form of numerous reviews and responses in our country and abroad, best characterizes the scientist’s ability to cover the widest circle interconnected and interdependent phenomena, to find and explain the common thing that brought them to life, to see various aspects of the implementation of a direction that covered all spheres of spiritual life: literature (repertoire, stylistic techniques), fine arts, worldview, even writing techniques.

A unique result of these many years of research by the scientist was his book “The Development of Russian Literature of the X - XVII Centuries. Epochs and Styles” (1973). In it, D.S. again draws attention to the phenomenon of “transplantation” as a special form of communication and mutual influence of medieval cultures.

The solution to the problem of the Pre-Renaissance in Old Russian literature proposed by D. S. Likhachev seems fundamentally important. D.S. analyzes the humanistic trends typical of Byzantium and the South Slavs during this period, examines in detail the second South Slavic influence that contributed to the penetration of these ideas and sentiments into Russian soil, and reveals the specifics of the Russian version of the Pre-Renaissance, which, in particular, was characterized by conversion to “its antiquity” - the culture of Kievan Rus; The book reveals the reasons that prevented the rapidly flowing Pre-Renaissance from transitioning into the “real Renaissance”.

Related to the problem of the fate of the Russian Renaissance is the question of the specifics of the Russian Baroque, raised by D.S. in the article “The Seventeenth Century in Russian Literature” (1969). In the book, D.S. sums up his many years of research in this area.

D.S. also turned to the study of ancient Russian “culture of laughter.” In the book “The Laughter World of Ancient Rus'” (1976), he first posed and developed the problem of the specifics of the laughter culture of Ancient Rus', examined the role of laughter in the social life of that time, which allowed him to illuminate in a new way some features in the behavior and literary work of Ivan Grozny, in Russian folk satire of the 17th century, in the works of Archpriest Avvakum.

Of great interest is the concept of D. S. Likhachev, according to which there was not and could not be a sharp break between the “new ancient” and new Russian literature, for already during the entire 17th century. a transition was made from medieval literature to the literature of modern times, and the latter was not born out of nowhere in the process of fundamental changes at the beginning of the 17th century, but naturally completed the long, centuries-long process that took place in the literature of Ancient Rus' from the moment of its formation. This issue was examined in particular detail by D.S. in the section “Paths to New Russian Literature” in the book “The Artistic Heritage of Ancient Rus' and Modernity” (1971), written together with V.D. Likhacheva.

Another theoretical problem worried D.S. Likhachev and repeatedly attracted his attention - this is the problem of the genre system of Old Russian literature and, more broadly, of all Slavic literatures of the Middle Ages. This problem was posed and developed by him in reports at international congresses of Slavists - “The System of Literary Genres of Ancient Rus'” (1963), “Old Slavic Literatures as a System” (1968) and “The Origin and Development of Genres of Old Russian Literature” (1973). In them, for the first time, the panorama of genre diversity was presented in all its complexity, the hierarchy of genres was identified and explored, and the problem of the close interdependence of genres and stylistic devices in ancient Slavic literatures was posed.

The history of literature faces a special task: to study not only individual genres, but also the principles on which genre divisions are carried out, to study their history and the system itself, designed to serve certain literary and non-literary needs and possessing a certain internal stability. The broad plan for studying the system of genres of the 11th-17th centuries, developed by D.S., also includes clarification of the relationship of literary genres with folklore, connections between literature and other types of arts, literature and business writing. The importance of D.S.’s work lies precisely in the fact that he clearly formulated the main objectives of the study and the originality of the very concept of “genre” as applied to the literature of Ancient Rus'.

All theoretical works of D. S. Likhachev strive to direct the study of the artistic system of literature of the 11th - 17th centuries. on the path of genuine historicism, to take it beyond the limits of the mechanical accumulation of facts. They call for a comparative study of literary styles of different periods of the Russian Middle Ages, for an explanation of changes in styles due to the new tasks of literature that arose in a new historical situation.

But theoretical problems cannot be solved in isolation from specific historical and literary studies and, above all, from studies of individual literary monuments. The range of monuments that D. S. Likhachev himself studied is extremely wide - these are chronicles and “The Tale of Igor’s Host”, “The Prayer of Daniil the Prisoner” and “Teaching” by Vladimir Monomakh, the works of Ivan the Terrible and “The Tale of Woe-Misfortune”, the story “On the Capture of the City of Torzhka” and “History of the Jewish War” by Josephus, “Six Days” by John the Exarch and Izbornik 1073, etc. These specific studies led D. S. Likhachev to the idea of ​​​​the need to summarize the accumulated material in the field of ancient Russian textual criticism literature. In a number of articles, he discussed specific issues of textual practice, methods of publishing documentary and literary monuments, and finally published an extensive work “Textology. Based on Russian literature of the 10th - 17th centuries.” (1962). This work by D.S. represents the first experience in Russian philology of systematizing all textual problems facing researchers of Russian literature of pre-Petrine times, and methods for solving them.

One thought runs through the entire book of D.S.: textual criticism in general and, in particular, the textual criticism of medievalists is not the sum of more or less successful “techniques” of study, it is one of the branches of philological science, which has its own tasks, requiring an extremely wide range of knowledge to solve them. It represents a necessary stage in the study of literary monuments of the Russian Middle Ages, without which we will not receive reliable material for depicting the literary process of that time.

In the second edition of Textology (1983), published twenty years later, D. S. Likhachev made a number of significant changes and additions, which was dictated by the emergence of new research and a revision of some points of view on the issues raised in the first edition of the book. D.S. also included new sections in the book, in particular, he thoroughly considered the issue of the author’s will in connection with the problems of publishing the author’s text.

Addressing many historical, literary and theoretical problems, moving from specific observations of individual monuments to generalizations of the broadest nature, D. S. Likhachev for decades did not abandon the topic to which he devoted dozens of his works. This theme is “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” In the works of the 50s, discussed above, D.S. laid down the main directions of his future research. One of them is connected with the study of the poetics of the “Word” in comparison with the aesthetic system of his time. This problem was first reflected in the article by D.S. “The Tale of Igor’s Host” and the features of Russian medieval literature” (1962), then, in connection with reflections on the genre of the monument, in the article “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and the process of genre formation XI - XIII centuries." (1972) and finally in the general work “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and the aesthetic ideas of his time” (1976). Most of these works, with additions and changes made by the author, were included in his book “The Tale of Igor’s Host” and the culture of his time” (1978).

A significant place in D.S.’s scientific biography is occupied by his works devoted to polemics with skeptics. To this day, his work “Study of the Tale of Igor’s Campaign and the Question of Its Authenticity” (1962) has not lost its significance. D. S. Likhachev made a great contribution to the creation of the six-volume “Dictionary-Reference Book “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”” (1965 - 1984), actively participating in its editing and discussion, supplementing its articles with materials from his own research.

D. S. Likhachev always strived to ensure that the achievements of scientific thought became the property of the widest reader circles. In addition to the popular publications “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” D.S. publishes a book of essays about classical works of literature of Ancient Rus' - “The Great Heritage” (1975). He was the initiator and participant of the monumental series "Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus'", published since 1978 by the publishing house "Khudozhestvennaya Literatura" and received the State Prize of the Russian Federation in 1993. The desire to convey the results of scientific research of recent decades to higher education prompted D. S. Likhachev to publish the course “History of Russian Literature of the X - XVII Centuries” (1980), in which he acts as the author of the introduction and conclusion and as the editor, who made a lot of efforts to This university textbook combined scientific character and methodological integrity with accessible presentation.

D. S. Likhachev never confined himself to studying ancient Russian literature. The book “Literature - Reality - Literature” (1981) contains his articles on various problems of literary theory, and among them is a selection of the most interesting observations on the works of Pushkin, Nekrasov, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Leskov, Tolstoy, Blok, Akhmatova, Pasternak, which D.S. is united by the concept of “concrete literary criticism.”

The ability to connect together various spheres of culture and explain them based on the general aesthetic concepts of time led D.S. to a new topic - the poetics of landscape art. In 1982, his original book “The Poetry of Gardens. On the semantics of gardening styles” was published, based on materials on the history of gardens and parks in Russia and Western Europe from the Middle Ages to the beginning of our century.

D. S. Likhachev attached great importance to the humanities, their social significance, and their enormous role in the education of patriotism. D.S. put forward a special concept - “ecology of culture”, set the task of careful preservation by man of the environment created by “the culture of his ancestors and himself.” A series of his articles included in the book “Notes on the Russian” (1981) is largely devoted to this concern for the ecology of culture. D.S. repeatedly addressed this same issue in his speeches on radio and television; a number of his articles in newspapers and magazines sharply and impartially raised issues of the protection of ancient monuments, their restoration, and respect for the history of national culture.

The need to know and love the history of one’s country and its culture is spoken of in many of D.S.’s articles addressed to young people. A significant part of his books “Native Land” (1983) and “Letters about the Good and the Beautiful” are devoted to this topic; (1985), specifically addressed to the younger generation.

Science and cultural values ​​are created by people. The grateful memory of them should not be forgotten. D.S. created a whole series of essays about his senior comrades - outstanding scientists V.P. Adrianova-Peretz, V.M. Zhirmunsky, P.N. Berkov, I.P. Eremin, N.I. Konrad, N.K. Gudzii, B.A. Romanov and others. These are not only memoirs, they are also essays on the history of science, they are like small hymns to the best qualities of scientists - their passion, hard work, erudition, talent. Naturally adjacent to these memories of scientists is a selection of aphorisms and judgments called by the author “Thoughts on Science.” D.S.’s essays and aphorisms about scientists and science were included in the book “The Past for the Future” (1985).

D.S.’s contribution to various fields of scientific knowledge is enormous - literary criticism, art history, cultural history, scientific methodology. But D.S. did a lot for the development of science, not only with his books and articles. His teaching, scientific and organizational activities are significant. In 1946-1953 Dmitry Sergeevich taught at the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University, where he taught special courses - “History of Russian Chronicles”, “Paleography”, “History of the Culture of Ancient Rus'” and a special seminar on source study.

The scientific and organizational talent of D. S. Likhachev was visibly manifested when in 1954 he headed the Sector of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences. An initiative, energetic and demanding leader, he knew how to implement great scientific ideas. Under his leadership, the Sector (renamed the Department in 1986) firmly occupied the place of a genuine scientific center that unites and directs the study of literature of the feudal period (from the 11th to the 17th centuries inclusive).

The scientific authority of D. S. Likhachev was also recognized by foreign Slavists. D.S.’s speeches at international congresses of Slavists, at conferences, in scientific societies and universities in a number of foreign countries had a great resonance. In 1985, he took part in the Cultural Forum of the States Parties to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), held in Hungary. Full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences since 1970. D.S. is elected a foreign member of the academies - Bulgarian (1963), Hungarian (1973), Serbian (1971, National Academy of Dei Lincei (Italy, 1987), corresponding member of the Austrian (1968), British (1976), Göttingen (FRG, 1988) Academies, honorary doctorate from the universities of Bordeaux (1982), Budapest (1985), Oxford (1967), Sofia (1988), Zurich (1983), Edinburgh (1971), Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun (1964) The State Council of the People's Republic of Bulgaria twice awarded D.S. the Order of Cyril and Methodius, 1st degree (1963, 1977), the international prizes named after the brothers Cyril and Methodius (1979) and named after Evfimy Tarnovsky (1981), and in 1986 D. S. Likhachev was awarded the highest award of the NRB - the Order of Georgiy Dimitrov.

Many books and articles by D.S., published in Soviet publications, were translated into Bulgarian, Polish, German, English, French and other languages. The books by D. S. Likhachev “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'”, “Culture of Rus' in the Time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise”, “Textology. A Brief Essay” were published in Bulgarian, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, German, English, Japanese. ", "Development of Russian literature of the X - XVII centuries. Epochs and styles", "Poetics of Old Russian literature", "The Laughing World of Ancient Rus'" (together with A. M. Panchenko), "The artistic heritage of Ancient Rus' and modernity" (together with V.D. Likhacheva), “Great Heritage”, “Letters about the Good and the Beautiful”, “Poetry of Gardens”; phototypically republished abroad his books “Russian Chronicles and Their Cultural and Historical Significance” (1966), “Culture of Rus' during the era of the formation of the Russian National State. (Late XIV - early XVI century)” (1967), “National Identity of Ancient Rus'. Essays from the field of Russian literature of the 11th - 17th centuries" (1969)

One of the very important areas of D.S.’s scientific and organizational activities is his editorial work. She was not limited to publications of the Department of Old Russian Literature: D.S. was the chairman of the editorial board of the "Literary Monuments" series, the editorial board of the yearbook "Cultural Monuments. New Discoveries", a member of the editorial board of the journal "Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Department of Literature and Language", the series "Popular Science Literature", published by the USSR Academy of Sciences, a member of the editorial board of the publication of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR "Auxiliary Historical Disciplines". D.S. served on the editorial boards of many other publications; he was also a member of the editorial board of the Brief Literary Encyclopedia. D.S. took an active part in the life of a number of institutions and organizations. He was a member of the Leningrad Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, chairman of the Pushkin Commission of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a member of the Academic Council of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a member of the bureau of the Scientific Council on the complex problem "History of World Culture" of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academic Council of the State Russian Museum, Academic Council of the Museum of Ancient Russian Art named after. Andrei Rublev, member of the Criticism Section of the USSR Writers' Union.

In 1961 - 1962 D. S. Likhachev is a deputy of the Leningrad City Council of Workers' Deputies of the 8th convocation. In 1987, D.S. was again elected as a deputy of the Leningrad City Council of People's Deputies. In 1966, for services to the development of Soviet philological science and in connection with the 60th anniversary of his birth, D.S. was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor; in 1986, Dmitry Sergeevich was awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labor for his great services in the development of science and culture, training of scientific personnel and in connection with his 80th birthday. In 1986, D.S. was elected chairman of the board of the Soviet Cultural Foundation.

In the last decade of D. S. Likhachev’s life, his public relevance acquired particular importance. But it’s one thing when, as chairman of the Cultural Foundation, he is involved in a huge variety of ideas and projects of representatives of national culture seeking financial support, and quite another when he withstands the onslaught of newspaper, radio and television journalists day after day. One and only words are expected from him. Which will be clear in their open-mindedness and intellectual authority. Society trusts his assessments, but this is already a rapidly stratifying society, trying to free itself from the dogma and official phraseology of previous decades. It is wary and with a degree of mistrust perceives what it hears and reads. But D. s. This society believes Likhachev because he does not curry favor either with time or with society. He lives in it and he believes in the enduring value and unifying power of domestic and world culture, he is convinced and convinces others of the moral and spiritual strength of man, his high destiny to do good and create beauty. Even the way D. S. Likhachev speaks and writes, his style of communication with the audience, turns out to be significant. The culture of speech, the persuasiveness of intonation, the excellent sense of the native language and the logically strict movement of thought made readers and listeners involved in the ideas, problems, and anxieties of D. S. Likhachev in his thoughts about the historical role of Russia and the fate of world culture.

The name of D. S. Likhachev became known to the international community during these years. His works on the history of ancient Russian literature and culture were, of course, known to Slavists all over the world and were translated into foreign languages, but the possibilities for D. S. Likhachev’s personal presence abroad were limited. Now he represents at many international meetings of the highest level, and he is a kind of revelation for the countries of Western Europe, for America and Japan, that in “mysterious” Russia there are, it turns out, people who are involved in everything, reflecting on the fate of the world, who have preserved the idea of eternal values. Moreover, this “custody” is not at all retrospective, since it was D.S. Likhachev who proposed in 1995 to the world community for discussion and approval the “Declaration of the Rights of Culture,” which formulated the main results of his own thoughts on topics relevant to the existing world.

New books by D. S. Likhachev continue to be published every year. These are most often works of a generalizing nature, such as, for example, “Notes and Observations: From Notebooks of Different Years” (1989), “On Philology” (1989), “Russian Art from Antiquity to the Avant-Garde” (1992), “Essays on the Philosophy of Art creativity" (1996). Scientific research on the history of ancient Russian literature is brought together, supplemented and clarified: “Historical poetics of ancient Russian literature. Laughter as a worldview” (1996), “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign and the culture of his time. Works of recent years” (1998). During these years, a significant place belongs to D. S. Likhachev’s reflections on the past and future of Russia, memories of teachers and contemporaries, and autobiographical notes: “The Book of Concerns” (1991), “Thoughts” (1991), “Memoirs” (1995, reprint. 1997, 1999).

For outstanding achievements in the field of humanities, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences awarded D. S. Likhachev in 1993 with the Great Gold Medal named after M. V. Lomonosov, and in the same year he was awarded the title of First Honorary Citizen of St. Petersburg. In 1996, he was awarded the Order of Merit for the Fatherland, second degree; in 1997, the International Literary Fund awarded him the Prize for the Honor and Dignity of Talent. In 1998, for his contribution to the Development of Russian culture, D. S. Likhachev became the first holder of the Order of the Apostle Andrew the First-Called “For Faith and Loyalty to the Fatherland” established by the Russian government; in the same year he was awarded the International Silver Commemorative Badge “Swallow of the World” (Italy) for his great contribution to the promotion of ideas of peace and interaction of national cultures. The public authority of D. S. Likhachev in these years is great and he tries to use it as much as possible to protect libraries, museum values, and cultural institutions from attacks on their integrity and dignity. He still has many scientific and creative plans, but his strength is gradually leaving him. Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev died on September 30, 1999 in St. Petersburg. He was buried in the cemetery in Komarovo on October 4.

The essay is based on an article by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz and M. A. Salmina, published in the book: D. S. Likhachev. 3rd ed. M.: Nauka, 1989. P. 11-42. A shortened edition and additions to the article were made by V. P. Budaragin.

List of main editions of the works of academician D.S. Likhacheva. Page

Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. - M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1947. - 499 p. (Reprint 1966, 1986).

The book is based on the doctoral dissertation of D. S. Likhachev, defended by him in 1947. The result of his scientific work was the construction of a systematic history of chronicle writing from its origins to the 17th century. “The purpose of the book,” wrote D.S. Likhachev, “is to supplement the genealogy of chronicle writing with the general history of the chroniclers’ work itself, to give a history of chronicle writing methods, chronicle writing techniques - always different depending on the conditions in which chronicle writing was carried out, to give the history of chronicle writing as the history of Russian historical and political thought."

Man in the literature of Ancient Rus'. - M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1958. - 186 p. (Reprint 1970, 1987).

In this book, D.S. Likhachev made the first attempt to analyze how people were seen in ancient Russian literature and what were the artistic methods of depicting him. The author of the book came to the conclusion that there were several styles in the depiction of a person, which successively replaced each other, but sometimes coexisted in parallel, covering different genres.

Textual criticism: Based on Russian literature of the 10th - 17th centuries. - M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962. - 605 p. (Reprint 1983, reprint 2001: with the participation of A. A. Alekseev and A. G. Bobrov).

As rightly noted by V.P. Adrianova-Peretz and M.A. Salmina in “A Brief Outline of the Scientific, Pedagogical and Social Activities of D.S. Likhachev”, this book by the scientist “represents the first experience in Russian philology of systematizing all textual problems facing researchers of Russian literature of pre-Petrine times, and methods for solving them."

Textology: Krat. feature article. - M.; L.: Nauka, 1964. - 102 p.

This book is a short essay on issues of textual criticism, i.e. on issues of studying the history of the text of a particular work, be it a historical document or an artistic composition. The main thesis for the author remains the position that textual criticism is an independent philological science, designed to first study the text and then publish it.

Poetics of Old Russian Literature. - L.: Nauka, 1967. - 372 p. (Reprinted 1971, 1979, 1987).

D.S. Likhachev was the first to consider ancient Russian bookishness as a special literature and revealed the aesthetic value of the monuments of verbal art of medieval Rus'. He not only highlighted the artistic features of individual works or genres (this was observed in the works of A.S. Orlov, V.P. Adrianova-Peretz, I.P. Eremin), but presented poetics as an integral system. Based on a huge “real commentary”, the scientist debunked the myths about the isolation and isolation of ancient Russian literature, its isolation. He noted the “extremely high Europeanism” of the literature of Ancient Rus'; her youth and ability to develop.

The artistic heritage of Ancient Rus' and modernity. - L.: Nauka, 1971. - 120 p. (Collaborated with V.D. Likhacheva).

The book “The Artistic Heritage of Ancient Rus' and Modernity” was written by a literary critic (D.S. Likhachev) and an art critic (V.D. Likhacheva, daughter of D.S. Likhachev), which is not accidental, because literary criticism and art criticism, as stated in the book, - “these are sciences that fight the death of culture... they establish the connection of times, the connection of peoples, and strengthen the unity of humanity.” At the same time, deep assimilation of the artistic heritage of the past, “introducing it to modern culture requires deep and comprehensive research.” The authors showed that as a result of discoveries and research, especially in the 20th century, Ancient Rus' appeared “not as an immutable and self-limited seven-century unity, but as a diverse and constantly changing phenomenon.”

Development of Russian literature X - XVII centuries: Epochs and styles. - L.: Science, 1973.- 254 p. (Reprint 1987, 1998).

Such books by D.S. Likhachev, as “Man in the literature of Ancient Rus'”, “Culture of Rus' in the time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise”, “Poetics of Old Russian literature”, as well as “Development of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries. Epochs and styles”, dedicated to the historical poetics of Old Russian literature, This is a new direction not only in domestic, but also in world literary criticism.

Great heritage: Classic works of literature of Ancient Rus'. - M.: Sovremennik, 1975. - 368 p. - (For lovers of Russian literature). (Reprint 1980, 1987, 1997).

In the book "The Great Heritage" D.S. Likhachev gives a description of the literary monuments of Ancient Rus', which can be called classical, i.e. works that are examples of ancient Russian culture, known throughout the world and which every educated person should know.

"The Laughing World" of Ancient Rus'. - L.: Nauka, 1976. - 204 p. (Ser. "From the history of world culture"). Joint with A. M. Panchenko. (Reprint 1984: “Laughter in Ancient Rus' - jointly with A. M. Panchenko and N. V. Ponyrko; reprint 1997: “Historical poetics of literature. Laughter as a worldview”).

In this book, the authors sought to characterize laughter as a system, the anti-world in its entirety, the worldview of laughter in itself and at the same time only one culture - the culture of Ancient Rus'. The urgent need for the appearance of this study is quite understandable: the “world of laughter” of Ancient Rus' has not been studied. As the authors of the book rightly wrote, “no attempts were made to determine its national and epochal features.”

"The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and the culture of its time. - L.: Khudozhestvennaya lit., 1978. - 359 p. (Reprint 1985).

Book by D.S. Likhachev "The Lay of Igor's Campaign" and the culture of his time" is a monographic study summing up the results of the author's many years of work on the study of one of the most significant works of ancient Russian literature. The scientist’s individual observations of the text of the monument, the discoveries he made, set out in a number of works published earlier, acquired in this monograph the form of a generalization that arose at the intersection of a variety of methods and approaches in the study of the work, which, in turn, allowed D.S. Likhachev to build a concept that describes both the nature of the monument itself and reveals the specifics of the aesthetic structure of the entire Russian Middle Ages.

Notes about Russian. - M.: Sov. Russia, 1981. - 71 p. (The Writer and Time). (Reprint 1984, 1987).

We write a lot about our roots, the roots of Russian culture, but very little is done to truly tell the general reader about these roots, and our roots are not only ancient Russian literature and Russian folklore, but also everything neighboring us culture.

Literature - reality - literature. - L.: Sov. writer, 1981.- 215 p. (Reprint 1984, 1987).

The book "Literature - Reality - Literature" is clearly divided into two parts, two sections. The first section is devoted to particular explanations of particular literary phenomena - what the author calls “concrete literary criticism.” “One of the objectives of the book,” writes D.S. Likhachev, “is to show various aspects of specific literary criticism, specific in the analysis of style, specific in the interpretation of works, specific in commenting on individual passages. Explanations are sought in historical reality, in everyday life and customs, in realities cities, even in the most previous literature, taken as a kind of reality."

Poetry of gardens: Towards the semantics of gardening styles. - L.: Nauka, 1982. - 341 p. (Reprint 1991, 1998).

Popularity of the book by D.S. Likhachev's "Poetry of Gardens", expressed not only in reprints of this scientist's work, but also in its translations into other languages ​​(Polish, Italian, Japanese), is understandable. D.S. Likhachev considered the garden as a certain aesthetic system, “a meaningful system, but the content of which requires its own very special definition and study.” The justification for this approach to gardening culture lies in the fact that a garden always expresses a certain philosophy, aesthetic ideas about the world, and man’s relationship to nature.

Letters about the good and the beautiful. - M.: Det. lit., 1985. - 207 pp. (Reprinted 1988, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1999).

Book by D.S. Likhacheva "about the good and the beautiful", compiled in a conventional form - 46 letters, addressed and addressed to the younger generation, she talks about the Motherland, patriotism, the greatest spiritual values ​​of humanity, the beauty of behavior and the surrounding world.

Selected works: in 3 volumes. - L.: Hood. literature., 1987. T. 1.- 656 p. T. 2. - 656 p. T. 3. - 656 p.

In the three-volume edition of D.S. Likhachev's collection contains his main books and works devoted not only to ancient Russian literature, but also to Russian culture as a whole.

Notes and observations: From notebooks of different years. - L.: Sov. writer, 1989. - 608 p.

In the book by D.S. Likhachev included a wide variety of notes, memories, thoughts, observations extracted by the author from his notebooks, as well as interviews from the 80s. The genre of this book is interesting - these are notes: there are no connections in the memoirs, discussions about literature, architecture, culture and science in general are fragmentary and not systematized - in a word, “little things”, maybe not everything is clear and not everything is complete. But this is precisely the charm and spirit of this book - its “calm flow”, and at the same time depth and wisdom. The reader can and should draw his own conclusions and think for himself.

Russian art from antiquity to the avant-garde. - M.: Art, 1992. - 408 p.

The entire book “Russian Art from Antiquity to the Avant-Garde,” all the essays included and selected by the author for it, are permeated with a comprehensive and all-consuming pride in Russian culture, in the creations it has created. Admiration, worship and words of gratitude are spoken in this book by a man who has spent his entire life studying this culture, understanding and illuminating it, and therefore he has the right to appreciate and evaluate it.

Memories. - St. Petersburg: Logos, 1995. - 519 p. (Reprint 1997, 1999, 2001).

"Memories" D.S. Likhachev's works may go beyond the traditional memoir genre. Of course, they reflect the milestones and events of his own life, his personal destiny: childhood, studying at the university, student scientific circles, arrest, Solovki, construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, liberation, difficult hungry days of the blockade, work at the Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences, Pushkin House.

Essays on the philosophy of artistic creativity / RAS. Institute rus. lit. - St. Petersburg: Rus.-Balt. information BLITZ center, 1996. - 159 p. (Reprint 1999).

The book "Essays on the Philosophy of Artistic Creativity" is dedicated to the 90th anniversary of Academician D.S. Likhacheva. This is a collection of some previously published articles and reflections by D.S. Likhachev about the nature of artistic creativity, but supplemented with completely new chapters and built into a single logical chain.

About the intelligentsia: Sat. articles. (Supplement to the almanac "Eve", issue 2). - St. Petersburg, 1997. - 446 p.

The book contains articles, speeches, newspaper publications, interviews with academician D.S. Likhachev of different years. All of them are united by one theme - the role and importance of the intelligentsia in society. “On the Russian intelligentsia” and “The intelligentsia is an intellectually independent part of society” are two articles in the collection that set out the author’s main thoughts on this topic.

"The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and the culture of its time. Works of recent years / Ed. T. Shmakova. - St. Petersburg: Logos, 1998. - 528 p.

The first edition of the book “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign and the Culture of His Time” was published in 1978. The book is a monographic study summing up the results of the author’s many years of work on the study of one of the most significant works of ancient Russian literature.

Thoughts about Russia. - St. Petersburg: Logos, 1999. - 666 p.

This book, the last published during D. S. Likhachev’s lifetime, combines works devoted to the problems of the cultural history of Russia, its place in the history of world civilization, myths about it, its national characteristics and most characteristic features.

Editing and introductory articles to each volume in publications of ancient Russian monuments: "Izbornik" (1969, 1986), "Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus' (in 12 volumes, 1978-1994), "Library of literature of Ancient Rus'" (in 20 volumes ; publication has been carried out since 1997; during the life of D. S. Likhachev, 7 volumes were published, by 2002 - 10 volumes).

D.S. Likhachev wrote ten prefaces to the publication “Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus'”.

Russian culture. - M.: Art, 2000. - 438 p.

This book is a posthumous edition of D.S. Likhachev’s essays, written by him at different times and on different occasions, but invariably containing the author’s independent personal view on the problems of Russian culture throughout its thousand-year existence. The principle of considering culture as an integral environment is combined with the assertion that Russian culture belongs to universal European culture, polemicizing with ideas about the “Eurasianism” of Rus'.

Statements

Feeling yourself in history is extremely important. This feeling of history is helped by cultural and historical monuments. The historical appearance of our cities, the historical landscape, and the ordinary buildings of entire districts play a special role in this feeling.

Literature, art, traditions, and customs help one feel oneself in history.

It’s not for nothing that children are so drawn to old customs and love stories about antiquity. This is a healthy and extremely important instinct.

Feeling like a heir to the past means realizing your responsibility to the future.

“How little of what happened was written down, how little of what was written down was preserved” (Goethe). But there is one more step in relation to the past: misunderstanding of it, distortion, creation of a kind of myths that are completely inconsistent with what happened. Even historical figures and historical events from half a century ago have been turned into a kind of “mythologem.” And what’s interesting is that there are completely different ideas about the same event or person, each of which forms a coherent image. An example is the image of Stalin (there are more than two of them).

Fashion very often runs after something serious and superficially reflects some underlying phenomena. Now there is a fashion for history: historical novels, memoirs, Klyuchevsky, Solovyov and Karamzin. Interest in history (even if often shallow) is a fundamentally very important, significant and necessary phenomenon for our time. Interest in history is associated with the need (spiritual necessity) to look for one’s roots, to feel stability, strength, one’s place and purpose in our shaky world. And this also teaches respect for other peoples, other cultures and at the same time self-respect. History teaches us to value modernity as the result of thousands of years of effort, exploits, and sometimes the martyrdom of our ancestors. History shows how many mistakes were made in the past “for the sake of the happiness of the subjects.” It fosters a sense of responsibility towards the future.

It's amazing how the smartest people can make mistakes. This must always be kept in mind when referring to “authorities”. Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov seriously wrote in the book “The National Question in Russia” (St. Petersburg, 1888): “As for modern writers, even with the most benevolent assessment it still remains certain that Europe will never read their works” (p. 140). But now, globally, Russian literature is the most widely read! Further: “We need to showcase growing talents and geniuses more significant than Pushkin, Gogol or Tolstoy. But our new literary generations, which, however, had time to show their strength, could not produce a single writer approximately equal to the old masters. The same should be said about music and historical painting: Glinka and Ivanov did not have successors of the same magnitude as them. It seems difficult to deny the obvious fact that literature and art in Russia are on a descending line...” (pp. 140 - 141). Solovyov says the same about Russian “scientific creativity.” A prejudice of its time? But how many more prejudices do we have, inherited from the 19th century and cultivated by ourselves and about ourselves!

In the same book, Vl. Solovyov there is also such a place (p. 139, note): “Only in architecture and sculpture it is impossible to indicate anything significant created by the Russians. Our ancient cathedrals were built by foreign architects; a foreigner owns the only (my italics - D.L.) highly artistic monument that adorns the new capital of Russia (the statue of Peter the Great).”

O. E. Mandelstam said about Klyuchevsky: “Klyuchevsky, a kind genius, a homely patron spirit of Russian culture, with whom no disasters, no trials are scary.” This is in the note about the “Badger Time” block. This is amazingly true, but why? I think that events, no matter how terrible, are illuminated and sanctified by their inclusion in a story, a meaningful story, a narrative story well written. In general, any humanitarian concept, whether it concerns history, art, literature, an individual work or an individual creator (writer, sculptor, painter, architect, composer), makes life “safe,” justifies the existence of misfortunes, smoothes out all their “prickliness” in them.

“The present is the last day of the past.” For Ancient Rus', this is how it was: “front” (beginning) and “back” (the very last in the time series). We are behind, in the “convoy” of events that have happened and are happening. The present is the result, the outcome of the past. Therefore, a bad past can never lead to a good present, unless... unless we realize all the mistakes of the past. By rushing into the future, we ourselves become the past. No sacrifices or destruction in the name of a “beautiful future” are invalid and immoral.

I’m coming from the cemetery in Komarovo - the road “I won’t tell you where” in a pine forest. Two people cut down a pine tree. They clumsily saw further - into logs (in Solovetsky - long logs), so that they can take the pine home for burning.

- “Where does the firewood come from?”

The “summer resident” (semi-responsible worker) gloomily answers (without stopping, without thinking - literally “on the fly”):

- “From the forest, obviously.”

This scene contains everything: the power of Russian poetry (it is ingrained in the consciousness, serves as a language), and the vulgarity, heaviness, sadness of our life. After all, the scene repeats Nekrasov in a caricature. There, at Nekrasov’s, there is a boy, alive, moral, busy with moral work. And here is a poacher, a “violator,” a semi-responsible worker, a summer resident, unaccustomed to work, engaged in physical labor for the sake of theft.

Over time, Russia will stand on the boy. He is his father’s helper, and then he will go to his father’s grave, he will be a peasant, he will feed Europe. Or he will become a soldier.

And this one? There is no future. The present is theft, “country comfort.” There is no cemetery behind him - he probably doesn’t go to his “native graves”. It heats the stove, and even then it’s a bad one, built by the hands of hacks.

R. G. Skrynnikov, in his book about Grozny, gives a good quote from Engels, explaining Grozny’s mood, his fear of death. Skrynnikov writes that the “era of terror” cannot be identified with the dominance of people who inspire horror. “On the contrary (here begins a quotation from Engels), this is the domination of people who are themselves afraid. Terror is mostly useless cruelty, committed for their own comfort by people who themselves experience fear” (Letter from F. Engels to Karl Marx dated September 4, 1870 - K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 33, p. 45 ).

It is well said by S. M. Solovyov: “The attachment of the peasants is a cry of despair emitted by a state in a hopeless economic situation” (S. M. Solovyov. Public readings about Peter the Great. M., 1984, p. 23). It is well said further: “The past, present and future belong not to those who leave, but to those who remain, remain on their land, with their brothers, under their national banner” (p. 27).

"Russia, poor Russia." And this is absolutely true. But what wealth is there in the palaces of the nobility, the imperial family. It is enough to compare the suburbs of St. Petersburg with Franz Joseph's Schönbrunn Palace near Vienna. And the wealth of monasteries and libraries! And yet Russia is poor, because wealth or poverty is the wealth or poverty of the people, the general standard of living.

But here is an incorrect, hackneyed, set sore throat, repeated several times with boastfulness in reports at general meetings of the USSR Academy of Sciences by its president, Academician Alexandrov: “Our country is from a country of almost complete illiteracy under the tsarist government...” Where did this statement come from? From old statistics? But then all Old Believers who refused to read books from the civil press were recorded as illiterate. And these “illiterates” loved books, knew their books better than information collectors knew theirs. And read more.

Our ideas about history and the past are mostly myths. One of the myths is “Potemkin villages”. And Prince Potemkin populated Novorossiya and built Mariupol, Nikolaev and many other cities exactly where he supposedly built his “villages”.

Nevertheless, there was truth in this myth about the “Potemkin villages”: in Russia they really liked to build for the “boss’s eye.”

It is typical for the West and for us to exaggerate the specificity of Russian history. Specificity should be sought, but only where it can actually be scientifically established. Everyone is rubbing Grozny in our nose. However, while Ivan the Terrible was raging in our country, the Duke of Alba was bloodily dealing with his enemies in Holland, and St. Bartholomew’s Night was taking place in Paris.

Vl. Soloviev said, paraphrasing the Gospel: “Love all other peoples as your own.” For the development of culture, sympathetic adaptation to the culture of other peoples is extremely important.

“Everyday democracy” has always been stronger in Russia than in the West. Despite serfdom! Landowners, especially their children, were often friends with courtyard servants. There were also nannies and uncles from the peasants - Arina Rodionovna, Savelichi. Against this background, Leo Tolstoy was not surprising.

The Englishman Graham in his book “Unknown Russia” wrote: “Russian women always stand before God; thanks to them Russia is strong.”

They say that in the slave markets of the Mediterranean, Russian women were especially valued as nannies. And after all, serf nannies remained our most cordial and intelligent teachers. In addition to Arina Rodionovna, see: Shmelev, “Nanny from Moscow”; book Evgeny Trubetskoy, “Memories”. Sofia, 1921; book S. Volkonsky, “The Last Day. Novel-chronicle”, etc.

Every nation has its own advantages and disadvantages. You need to pay more attention to your own than to others. It would seem the simplest truth.

Man, his personality, is at the center of the study of the humanities. That is why they are humanitarian. However, one of the main humanities - historical science - has moved away from the direct study of man. The history of man turned out to be without man...

Fearing an exaggeration of the role of the individual in history, we have made our historical works not only impersonal, but also impersonal, and as a result of little interest. Reader interest in history is growing unusually, historical literature is also growing, but meetings between readers and historians in general do not work out, because readers, naturally, are primarily interested in a person and his history.

As a result, there is a great need for the emergence of a new direction in historical science - the history of human personality.

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 person of all his knowledge, education, deprive him of his memory itself, but if at the same time he retains sensitivity to intellectual values, love of acquiring knowledge, interest in history, taste in art, respect for the culture of the past, the skills of an educated a person, responsibility in resolving moral issues and the richness and accuracy of one’s language - spoken and written - this will be intelligence.

People at the lowest levels of social and cultural development have the same brains as people who graduated from Oxford or Cambridge. But it is “not loaded” completely. The goal is to give full opportunity for cultural development to all people. Don’t leave people with “unoccupied” brains. For vices and crimes lurk precisely in this part of the brain. And also because the meaning of human existence lies in the cultural creativity of everyone.

Of course, education cannot be confused with intelligence, but education is of great importance for a person’s intelligence. The more intelligent a person is, the greater his desire for education? And here one important feature of education attracts attention: the more knowledge a person has, the easier it is for him to acquire new ones. New knowledge easily “fits” into the stock of old ones, is remembered, and finds its place.

I will give the first examples that come to mind. In the twenties, I knew the artist Ksenia Polovtseva. I was amazed by her acquaintances with many famous people of the beginning of the century. I knew that the Polovtsians were rich, but if I had been a little more familiar with the history of this family, with the phenomenal history of its wealth, how many interesting and important things I could have learned from it. I would have a ready-made “packaging” to recognize and remember.

Or an example from the same time. In the 20s we had a library of rare books that belonged to I. I. Ionov. I wrote about this once. How much new knowledge about books I could have acquired if I had known at least a little more about books in those days.

The more a person knows, the easier it is for him to acquire new knowledge.

They think that knowledge is interpreted and the range of knowledge is limited by certain amounts of memory. Quite the opposite: the more knowledge a person has, the easier it is to acquire new ones.

The ability to acquire knowledge is also intelligence.

And besides, an intellectual is a person of a “special disposition”: tolerant, easy in the intellectual sphere of communication, not subject to prejudices, including those of a chauvinistic nature.

Many people think that intelligence, once acquired, remains for life. Misconception! The spark of intelligence must be maintained. Read, and read with choice: reading is the main, although not the only, educator of intelligence and its main “fuel.” “Don’t extinguish your spirit!”

A nation that does not value intelligence is doomed to destruction.

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 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 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.

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.

The words of St. Augustine: “The only sign of nobility will soon be knowledge of literature!” Now - knowledge of poetry, in any case.

Will the book cease to exist? Will it be replaced by devices that display or read text?

Of course, devices (devices) are very necessary. It would be great if a geologist could take a hundred or a thousand reference books with him on an expedition in a matchbox, or a winterer could take a large library with him just for reading.

But these devices cannot completely replace a book, just as the theater could not replace the cinema (as they predicted), a horse could not replace a car, a living flower could not replace the most skillful fake.

You can stroke the book, love it, and return to what you read. I love reading Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol - in those same one-volume books that were given to me by my parents as a child, even though the text in them is inaccurate. Blok’s poems in the very collections that were published during his lifetime are special.

The device (device) can be extremely convenient, but still the book is alive.

My favorite thing about the book is the font in which it is printed, the typesetting of the title, the clear printing, and the lovingly made binding.

If a book does not give rise to a single independent thought in you, it means that you read it in vain (except for reference books, but they are not read in a row).

Be Columbus - open good books in an ocean of insignificant ones.

Books, according to Karl Popper, are the “third reality”; the first is objectively existing, the second is subjective.

Some thoughts from the Izbornik of 1076, intended for princes.

“When you are slandered, understand: there is always someone to blame for that slander; If you don’t, then I think the eyes are spreading slander.”

“Whoever is weak to live, don’t bring him into the world.”

“Let the sun not set in your anger.”

“There are many verbs to God, but few to man.”

“It is hard for a man to be condemned before he can be condemned.”

And here is a thought from the great book “Cheti-Minea”:

“It is fitting for the helmsman (helmsman) and the rowers to have the same thought; if they begin to have discord within themselves, then the ship will sink.”

One Pomor said to Ksenia Petrovna Gemp: “There is one sky above us, and one earth below us.” Otherwise: we are all equal under heaven and on earth.

I also remember the saying: “Prudence is the best part of valor.”

Somewhere in Belinsky’s letters, I remember, there is this idea: scoundrels always prevail over decent people because they treat decent people as scoundrels, and decent people treat scoundrels as decent people.

Miscavige said somewhere: “The devil is a coward, he is afraid of loneliness and always hides in the crowd.” And again: “The devil seeks darkness, and we must hide from him in the light.”

Many sayings are known to us in a shortened form. At first everyone knew them in full and therefore understood them from the initial words, and then the saying seemed understandable even without continuation: a saying - and that’s it. So, for example: “Daring trouble has begun...” Why trouble? And here’s what Peter, according to legend, said when he was the first to drive a pile in a particularly stormy river in 1702 I, transferring his frigates from the White Sea to Lake Onega: “It’s a big deal for the first deer to rush into the fumes, the rest will all be there.” And here’s another saying: “Don’t sweep your trash out of your hut,” its full form: “Don’t sweep your trash out of your hut and onto someone else’s fence.”

A long tongue is a sign of a short mind.

English proverb: “People who live in a glass house should not throw stones.”

Destroyed churches along the banks of the Volga “gradually become the property of nature.” Someone said something similar about the ruins in Athens.

Nature is an amazingly gifted artist. If you leave it without human intervention for ten years, it creates a beautiful landscape. Trees planted in a “box” city quickly improve it.

Let's ask ourselves - what style does this “artist” work in? Classicism? No! Baroque? No! Romanticism is already closer. Landscape romantic parks are closest to the aesthetic aspirations of nature, and nature is closest to landscape romantic parks.

In romantic parks, the nature of different countries and different landscape zones of nature can be most naturally expressed.

In poetry, romanticism did the most to “discover” nature. Romantic poetry is more clearly saturated with descriptions of nature than all others. In all this, much speaks in favor of romanticism and in favor of its role in the history of literature and painting.

For me, the mystery in nature is the aesthetic consistency of colors: for example, the color of a flower and its leaves, the colors of wildflowers growing in the same clearing, the color of autumn leaves. On a maple tree - always different, but consistent. If color is vibrations that have nothing to do with what the human eye sees, then how are the colors of flowers calculated for their perception by humans?

Where nature is left to itself, its colors are always coordinated in shades.

Nature is a great landscape painter.

The most beautiful trees are old olive trees. I saw amazing, two-thousand-year-old olives, full of health, in 1964 in the Primorsky part of Montenegro near Budva and Sveti Stefan. In the book of Hosea in the Bible: “...and it will be as beautiful as the beauty of an olive tree,” that is, there is no higher. The olive heals itself. She heals the hollows that form in her trunk, and these trunks look like huge seeds of her fruit.

Old trees are the subject of intense care and veneration in the Baltics, the Caucasus, the Balkans...

In Montenegro, two-thousand-year-old olive trees are amazingly beautiful (near the city of Budva). In Bulgaria, images of “one old tree” growing near a town are being circulated... I forgot which one. The year of his “birth” is 16... I also forgot, but I remember clearly, the 17th century. And in our village of Kolomenskoye, trees (oaks) are 500 years old and do not receive due respect and attention. They are dying. Maybe this phenomenon is generally typical for us Russians, when old people are not given a seat in transport?

What a contrast with the Caucasus! We traveled along the Volga in 1987 on a ship, on which there were many Georgian passengers with children. A Georgian boy of about 13, whom everyone on the ship considered a big naughty man, was one of the first to get off at each pier and helped my wife and I and other elderly people get off at the gangway!

One Canadian told me that their old trees, the old ones, receive medals, and these medals are attached to them. There are record-breaking trees: the oldest in their area, the tallest, the thickest in the trunk. In Estonia and Latvia, all old trees are registered.

Koran: “Be sure to plant a tree, even if the world ends tomorrow.”

My father (an engineer) told me. When they built a brick factory chimney in the old days, they looked, most importantly, to ensure that it was positioned correctly, that is, absolutely vertically. And one of the signs was the following: the pipe should have swayed slightly in the wind. This meant that the pipe was placed vertically. If the pipe was tilted even a little, it did not oscillate, it was completely motionless, and then it was necessary to dismantle it to the ground and start all over again.

Any organization, to be strong, must be elastic, “sway a little in the wind.”

A surprisingly correct thought: “A small step for a person is a big step for humanity.” Thousands of examples can be given of this: it costs nothing for one person to be kind, but it is incredibly difficult for humanity to become kind. It is impossible to correct humanity, it is easy to correct yourself. Feed a child, carry an old man across the street, give up your seat on a tram, do a good job, be polite and courteous... etc., etc. - all this is simple for a person, but incredibly difficult for everyone at once. That's why you need to start with yourself.

Saunova E.,
1st year student of the Faculty of Folk Arts
creativity TSMPI named after. S.V. Rachmaninov.

An article about the contribution of D.S. Likhachev in the development of linguistics:
“The whole world originates in the word...”

On November 28, Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev would have turned 100 years old. But only now we seem to understand how important it was to hear his quiet word, in which there was restrained nobility, wisdom, and consolation. He was not a shepherd, but his whole appearance and every word called to high spirituality, to patience, to the narrow path of faith and love.

Likhachev devoted most of his works to linguistics. This is what he wrote in one of his books in the article “On oral and written language, old and new”:

“One of the main manifestations of culture is language. Language is not just a means of communication, but first of all a creator, a creator. Not only culture, but the whole world has its origins in the Word. As the Gospel of John says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Word and language help us to see, notice and understand what we would not have seen or understood without it; it opens up the world around us.

The Russian language is extremely rich. Accordingly, the world that Russian culture has created is rich.

The richness of the Russian language is due to a number of circumstances. The first and most important thing is that it was created on a vast territory, extremely diverse in its geographical conditions, natural diversity, as well as the variety of contacts with other peoples...

Our language has absorbed everything that was created by folklore and science. Language in the broad sense includes proverbs, sayings, phraseological units, and “walking” quotes. The names of many literary heroes (Mitrofanushka, Khlestakov, Oblomov) organically entered the Russian language and became its integral part (common nouns). Language includes everything seen “through the eyes of language” and created by the art of language.

Likhachev believes that the greatest value of a people is their language - the language in which they write, speak, and think. He thinks! This must be understood thoroughly, in all the ambiguity of this fact. After all, this means that a person’s entire conscious life passes through his native language. The most important way to know a person—his mental development, his moral character, his character—is to listen to the way he speaks.”

So, there is the language of a people, as an indicator of its culture, and the language of an individual, as an indicator of his personal qualities, the qualities of a person who uses the language of the people.

Dmitry Sergeevich writes not about the Russian language in general, but about how this language is used by this or that person: “A lot has been written about the Russian language as the language of the people. It is one of the most perfect languages ​​of the world, a language that has developed over more than a millennium, producing the world's best literature and poetry in the 19th century. Turgenev spoke about the Russian language - “one cannot believe that such a language was not given to a great people.”

But it also happens that a person does not speak, but “spits” words. For every common concept, he has not ordinary words, but slang expressions. When such a person speaks with his spitting words, he reveals his entire cynical essence.”

The linguist says that studying foreign languages ​​sharpens the sense of language - and one’s own in the first place: “This is an educational tool. Studying the grammar and idioms of a foreign language is especially important. Russian literature itself was brought up on the study of Church Slavonic and Latin, and in ancient times - Greek. The main drawback of modern literature is a defective sense of language.”

Love for your national language is a necessary engine of verbal creativity. But the Russian language can also become nationalless if it does not have a friendly neighborhood with other languages. Then the Russian language will lose its flexibility. But in order to avoid this, you need to know the history of the language, the history of words and expressions, know sayings and proverbs.

Likhachev also reflects on the fact that a language cannot but be national: “Of course, there must be one language of interethnic communication. In the Middle Ages this was Latin; for the eastern and southern Slavs - Church Slavonic; Arabic and Persian for the peoples of the Near and Middle East.

But it’s not just about communication; we need a common language for scientific, technical, and specific terminology. The Russian language is well suited for this. But studying it should not lead to damage to the knowledge of their language for various non-Russian nations and nationalities.”

Being bilingual has never interfered with my language skills. Pushkin was bilingual. At the Lyceum he had the nickname Pushkin the French. Most likely, Pushkin’s excellent sense of language, accuracy, and correctness of the Russian language is inextricably linked with his bilingualism. He saw the verbal world “in color.”

In Dmitry Sergeevich’s work there were very interesting facts about the language of the St. Petersburg intelligentsia: “There were a lot of foreign words, primarily because there were some everyday phenomena and just dishes borrowed from the Germans or the British, but, above all, from the Germans: “fryshtykat” ( have breakfast), arme “riter” (sweet scrambled eggs with a bun soaked in milk), etc. These and other words were perceived and pronounced as Russian. However, it was customary to pepper Russian speech with French expressions. There were many concepts that were poorly conveyed in Russian, and it was more common to define these concepts in French words, pronounced exactly like French words: “faire des conquetes“ (to win love victories), “fausse prederie” (false modesty), “grand seigneur” ( big master)".

After foreign languages, Dmitry Sergeevich smoothly moves on to the grammar of the Russian language: “The expressiveness of the Russian language is given by the abundance of suffixes, prefixes, prepositions, endings, and the ease with which new words are formed with their help. For example: to catch up, to drive out, to drive, to drive, to drive away, to overtake, to drive away, to drive out, to drive, to disperse, to drive and simply to drive.

We almost forgot about declension of numerals. It is amazing that even in the Academy of Sciences, in reports where numbers constantly appear, these numbers are not declined: “more than fifty”, not “more than fifty”; “up to three hundred”, not “up to three hundred”. And when it comes to complex numbers and the speaker is actually trying to incline them, cover your ears.

The rejection of declension of names of settlements began especially intensively during the Great Patriotic War. In reports from the front: “Our troops liberated the city of Riga,” and not “the city of Riga.” Frankly, this tendency leads to the impoverishment of the language. Instead of “I live in the city of Leningrad,” I prefer to hear that I live “in the city of Leningrad.”

What about the female gender of positions or wives of officials? When they say “general’s wife,” it is clear that this is about the general’s wife. What about the “doctor”? —What is it: the doctor’s wife or the doctor herself? Is it possible to say “doctor of science” or “candidate”? I think it’s right that the “doctor’s lady” has almost disappeared in recent years. Sometimes they say jokingly “doctoress,” but not jokingly they say “poetess.” But I think that a woman poet, if she is a real poet, should be called “poet” and not “poetess”. A. Akhmatova hated this word, Tsvetaeva too.

Apparently, only old female professions retain and will retain the feminine gender for a long time - “hairdresser”, “manicurist”, “cook”, but in general, the gradual abandonment of the feminine gender in the names of professions is a natural process and does not hurt the ear.”

When Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev was 21 years old, he wrote a short essay: “Phenomenology of the Question.” In it he described the “life of a question” as words. He had about three dozen expressions in his collection; what is done with the question during its “life”. Something like this: “a question is conceived, raised, put forward, touched upon, developed, stated, put up for discussion, awakened, raised head on, becomes a sore point, exhausted, removed.” He selected these idioms for a week, and the more he found them, the funnier and more “satirical” the whole “life of the question” became.

The academician’s thoughts on sayings and their changes are also interesting: “Many sayings are known to us in a shortened form. At first everyone knew them completely and therefore understood them from the initial words, and then the proverb seemed understandable even without continuation: a proverb - and that’s it. So, for example: “Daring trouble has begun...” Why trouble? But here is what Peter said, according to legend, when he was the first to drive a pile in a particularly stormy river in 1702, transferring his frigates from the White Sea to Lake Onega: “It’s a hard thing for the first deer to rush into the fumes, the rest will all be there.” But here’s another saying: “Don’t sweep the rubbish out of the hut”; her complete appearance: “Don’t sweep your rubbish out of your hut and onto someone else’s fence.”

We all (including myself) do not know how to decline numerals. We put the wrong emphasis. We violate grammatical rules in the phonetic transmission of the self-names of new states.”

So, the world of Russian culture, thanks to its sensitivity, is unusually rich. However, this world can not only get richer, but also catastrophically quickly become poorer. And here’s what Likhachev wrote about this: “Impoverishment can occur not only because we simply stopped “creating” and seeing many phenomena (for example, the word “courtesy” has disappeared from active use - people will understand it, but now almost no one pronounces it ), but because today we increasingly resort to words that are vulgar, empty, erased, not rooted in the tradition of culture, frivolously and unnecessarily borrowed from the side. After the revolution, the prohibition of teaching the Law of God and the Church Slavonic language brought a colossal blow to the Russian language, and, consequently, to the Russian conceptual world. Many expressions from the psalms, worship, and Holy Scripture have become incomprehensible. This enormous damage to Russian culture will still have to be studied and comprehended. The double trouble is that the repressed concepts were also concepts mainly of spiritual culture.

And the language is getting poorer...” - these are the words with which Dmitry Sergeevich ends his works on linguistics.

“The Likhachev phenomenon will seem incomprehensible to the future,” Daniil Granin recently wrote. - Once upon a time there lived a scientist who studied ancient Russian literature, essentially armchair, book science. How did he become a spokesman for public conscience... in a vast country, in these troubled years? Why did both the people and the authorities take him into account?..."

This is, of course, a mystery for the mind, but not for the heart. The heart understands and loves a person without reservations. Likhachev was loved, deeply respected and honored. He, perhaps the only one among our famous contemporaries, was called by the whole country with respect, without familiarity - “Dmitry Sergeevich.”

Literature:
1) D.S. Likhachev. Russian culture. “On language, oral and written, old and new.” M - 1998.

Doctor of Cultural Sciences, Professor A. ZAPESOTSKY (St. Petersburg).

November 28, 2006 marked the 100th anniversary of the birth of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev. The scientist passed away in September 1999, and the relatively short historical distance was enough for a very thorough expansion of ideas about the role and essence of his scientific heritage. The current year 2006 was declared in the country as the “Year of the Humanities, Culture and Education - the Year of Academician D. S. Likhachev.”

Science and life // Illustrations

Opening of an exhibition of works by the teaching staff of the Humanitarian University.

Dmitry Sergeevich at the discussion of the Declaration of Cultural Rights. Saint Petersburg. Palace of Beloselsky-Belozersky. April 10, 1996.

During the discussion "The Fate of the Russian Intelligentsia."

Participants in the discussion "The Fate of the Russian Intelligentsia." The hall of the palace of the Beloselsky-Belozersky princes is full. 1996

On March 12, 1998, a significant ceremony took place - the name of the wonderful musician M. L. Rostropovich was included on the memorial plaque of the Humanitarian University.

Honorary citizens of St. Petersburg Academician Likhachev and head of the Department of Physical Education of St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise Professor Bobrov on Librarian Day. April 27, 1999.

Academician Likhachev and writer Daniil Granin are like-minded people in many ways.

It is curious, but during Dmitry Sergeevich’s life, recognition of his contribution to science was limited to literary criticism - since 1937, Likhachev’s main place of work was the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Academy of Sciences. The scientist’s colleagues in the literary department almost immediately appreciated the significance of such works as “Russian Chronicles and Their Cultural and Historical Significance” (1947), “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'” (1958), “Textology. Based on Russian Literature of the X-XVII Centuries "(1962), "Poetics of Old Russian Literature" (1967) and others. The greatest academic recognition for D. S. Likhachev came from studies related to written monuments: “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”, “Messages of Ivan the Terrible”...

At the same time, the academician's articles and books about Russia - about its culture, history, morality, intelligentsia - were not subjected to any serious scientific analysis; colleagues classified them as journalism. Oddly enough, but even such fundamental works as “The Three Foundations of European Culture and Russian Historical Experience”, “Culture as an Integral Environment”, “Petrine Reforms and the Development of Russian Culture”, or the lecture “St. Petersburg in the History of Russian Culture”, given by Dmitry Sergeevich at our university in 1993, did not receive a timely assessment. Moreover, in 1995-1996, under the leadership of D.S. Likhachev, the Declaration of the Rights of Culture was developed - a kind of scientific and moral testament of the scientist, a document of exceptional, global significance. Meanwhile, some researchers of his legacy until recently believed that the academician did not create anything significant in the final decade of his life.

Today, D. S. Likhachev’s enormous contribution to the history and cultural studies of Russia is already undoubted; his works attract the attention of philosophers, art historians, teachers and representatives of other branches of science. Unfortunately, the fact that there is still no complete collected works of the academician hinders full-fledged studies of his work. And yet it is obvious that Likhachev’s works enrich a wide range of humanities. Analyzing the scientific heritage of the scientist, you understand how, as he studies ancient Russian literature, he becomes cramped within the framework of classical philology. Gradually, Dmitry Sergeevich appears before us as a scientist of the synthetic type, freely working in almost all areas of humanitarian knowledge relevant to his time.

First of all, attention is drawn to the bright and holistic concept of Russian history proposed by Likhachev. Today, many argue about what Russia is: part of Europe, a combination of European and Asian principles (Eurasia) or a completely unique, original phenomenon. According to Likhachev, Russia is the most European part of Europe. And Dmitry Sergeevich justifies this very logically, with specific and very impressive examples. Polemicizing with his opponents, he writes: “Russia had extremely little of the eastern itself. From the south, from Byzantium and Bulgaria, a spiritual European culture came to Rus', and from the north - another, pagan warrior-princely military culture - Scandinavia. It would be more natural to call Rus' Scando-Byzantium , rather than Eurasia."

Likhachev’s special attention is drawn to key, turning points in the history of the fatherland, for example, the specifics of the 14th-15th centuries, which he defines with the concept of “Pre-Renaissance”. The scientist shows how the formation of Russian national culture took place at this time: the unity of the Russian language is strengthening, literature is subordinated to the theme of state building, architecture increasingly expresses national identity, the dissemination of historical knowledge and interest in native history increases to the broadest proportions, etc.

Or another example - Peter's reforms. Dmitry Sergeevich considers their generally accepted interpretation as a cultural transition of a power from Asia to Europe, accomplished at the will of its ruler, one of the most amazing myths created by Peter himself. Likhachev argues: when Peter came to reign, the country was European, but the transition from medieval culture to the culture of modern times was ripe, which was carried out by the great reformer. Meanwhile, in order to implement the reforms, the sovereign needed to seriously distort ideas about previous Russian history. “Since greater rapprochement with Europe was needed, it means that it was necessary to assert that Russia was completely fenced off from Europe. Since it was necessary to move forward faster, it means that it was necessary to create a myth about Russia, skeletal, inactive, etc. Since a new one was needed culture, which means the old one was no good. As often happened in Russian life, moving forward required a thorough blow to everything old. And this was done with such energy that the entire seven-century Russian history was rejected and slandered," writes D. S. Likhachev.

From the academician’s works it follows that Peter’s genius manifests itself (almost primarily) in a radical and rapid change in public opinion: “One of the features of all Peter’s actions was that he knew how to give a demonstrative character to everything he did. "What indisputably belongs to him is a change in the entire "sign system" of Ancient Rus'. He changed the army, he changed the people, changed the capital, defiantly moving it to the west, changed the Church Slavonic script to a civilian one." Likhachev believes that the basis of these actions is not the whims and tyranny of the tsar and not the manifestation of the instinct of imitation, but the desire to speed up ongoing phenomena in culture, to give conscious direction to slowly occurring processes. Relying on the historian Shcherbaty, he writes that without Peter, Russia would have needed seven generations to implement similar reforms. However, the reforms were natural, and their course was prepared by “all lines of development of Russian culture, many of which go back to the 14th century.”

Dmitry Sergeevich not only acts as the author of his own concept of Russian history. His historicism is multifaceted. On the one hand, we can talk about it at the level of a scientist’s understanding of various specific phenomena of life. On the other hand, his works contain enough material to understand the general patterns of historical processes.

The scientist’s works (especially during the period concluding his scientific biography) indicate that Likhachev understood the history of mankind primarily as the history of culture. It is culture, according to the deep conviction of the academician, that constitutes the meaning and main value of the existence of humanity - both peoples, small ethnic groups, and states. And the meaning of life at the individual, personal level, according to Likhachev, is also found in the cultural context of human life. In this regard, D. S. Likhachev’s speech at a meeting of the presidium of the Russian Cultural Foundation in 1992 is characteristic: “We do not have a cultural program. There is an economic and military program, but there is no cultural one. Although culture has a primary place in the life of the people and the state.”

In essence, the scientist proposes a culture-centric concept of history. In accordance with it, he evaluates individual historical figures not by successes in wars and seizures of territories, but by their influence on the development of culture. Thus, D.S. Likhachev has a clearly negative attitude towards the personality and activities of Ivan the Terrible, although he recognizes the tsar’s undoubted talents, including literary ones. "The state took upon itself to resolve all ethical issues for its citizens, executed people for deviating from ethical standards of all kinds. A terrible ethical system of Grozny arose... Grozny took on an incredible burden of responsibility. He flooded the country with blood in the name of observing ethical standards or that seemed to him to be ethical standards."

It was the political terror of Ivan the Terrible, according to D. S. Likhachev, that contributed to the suppression of the personal principle in artistic creativity and became one of the reasons that prevented the flourishing of the Renaissance in Russia.

In the general flow of cultural transformations, the academician highlights the dominant question of the historical selection and development of the best. And the best for him is highly synonymous with humane. As a result, Likhachev creates a truly humanistic concept of historical development.

A special interest in culture, combined with unique scientific erudition, allowed Dmitry Sergeevich to be on the crest of interdisciplinary scientific research in the humanities, which led at the end of the 20th century to the formation of a new branch of knowledge - cultural studies. If we look back into the past from the standpoint of modern scientific knowledge, we can say that next to Likhachev the philologist at the end of the last century stood the figure of Likhachev the culturologist, no less significant, no less large-scale. Academician Likhachev is a great culturologist of the 20th century. No one, I think, comprehended the essence of our culture better than him. And this is precisely his greatest service to the country. Dmitry Sergeevich’s gaze was able to capture the culture of Russia in the dynamics of its historical formation and development, in its systemic integrity and in its amazing, beautiful internal complexity. Considering Russia in the powerful flow of the world process of development of civilizations, D. S. Likhachev invariably denies any attempt to talk about Russian-Slavic exclusivity. In his understanding, Russian culture has always been European in type and has carried all three distinctive features associated with Christianity: personal origin, receptivity to other cultures (universalism) and the desire for freedom. At the same time, the main feature of Russian culture is its conciliarity - according to Likhachev, one of the specific principles characteristic of European culture. In addition, among the distinctive features, Dmitry Sergeevich mentions a focus on the future and traditional “dissatisfaction with oneself” - important sources of any movement forward. Clearly defining the essence of Russian national identity, the scientist believes that our national features, characteristics and traditions have developed under the influence of broader cultural complexes.

Tracing the formation of the culture of Ancient Rus', Likhachev considers it especially important to introduce the Slavs to Christianity. Without denying the Tatar-Mongol influence, the scientist nevertheless characterizes it as alien and generally rejected. Rus' perceived the invasion as a catastrophe, as “an invasion of otherworldly forces, something unprecedented and incomprehensible.” Moreover, for a long period after liberation from the Tatar-Mongols, the development of the Russian people went under the sign of overcoming the “dark ages of the yoke” of an alien culture.

The academician considers the origin of Slavic culture in connection with the Greek-Byzantine cultural layer. In a number of his works, he very convincingly, in concrete and impressive detail, shows how this mutual influence took place, arguing that it corresponded to the deep needs of the development of Russian culture. At the moment of its formation at the national level (XIV-XV centuries), Russian culture bore, on the one hand, the features of a balanced, self-confident ancient culture, based on the complex culture of old Kiev and old Vladimir, on the other hand, it clearly showed an organic connection with the culture of the entire Eastern European Pre-Renaissance.

Despite the fact that the development of Russian culture then took place mainly in a religious shell, its monuments (in their highest manifestations) allow us today to talk about attention to the individual, human dignity, high humanism and other features that determine Rus'’s belonging to a broad, pan-European cultural complex.

And, finally, the broadest context in which Dmitry Sergeevich views our culture is global. The starting point for his analysis is the first great historical work, “The Tale of Bygone Years” (the beginning of the 12th century). The Varangians in the north, the Greeks on the shores of the Black Sea, the Khazars, among whom were Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans. Close relations between Rus' with the Finno-Ugric and Lithuanian tribes, Chud, Meri, Vesya, Izhora, Mordovians, Komi-Zyryans. The state of Rus' and its surroundings were multinational from the very beginning. Hence the most characteristic feature of Russian culture, running through its entire thousand-year history - ecumenicality, universalism .

A special place in the works of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev is occupied by the cultural study of St. Petersburg, his conclusions shed light on a lot here too. The scientist identifies features characteristic only of St. Petersburg, characteristic of the three centuries of its existence. First of all, an organic combination of the best Europeanness and the best Russianness. According to Likhachev, the uniqueness of St. Petersburg is that it is a city of global cultural interests, combining the urban planning and cultural principles of various European countries and pre-Petrine Rus'. Moreover, the essence of St. Petersburg culture is not in its similarity to Europe, but in the concentration of the best aspects of Russian and world culture. Dmitry Sergeevich considers an important feature of St. Petersburg to be “its scientific connection with the whole world,” which also turned St. Petersburg into “a city of global cultural interests.” Another significant side of St. Petersburg is academicism in all its manifestations, “a penchant for classical art, classical forms. This manifested itself both externally - in architecture, and in the essence of the interests of St. Petersburg authors, creators, teachers, etc.” The academician noted that in St. Petersburg all the main European and world styles acquired a classical character.

It was in St. Petersburg that that special, and in some respects the highest, “product” of world culture, called the intelligentsia, appeared and developed. According to Likhachev, this is one of the peaks of the development of the European spiritual tradition, a phenomenon that formed on Russian soil in a natural way. There were heated discussions at our university about what constitutes the essence of the concept of “intellectual” and about the role of the Russian intelligentsia. Dmitry Sergeevich actively participated in them. As a result, a definition was born: an intellectual is an educated person with a heightened sense of conscience, who also has intellectual independence. “Intellectual independence is an extremely important feature of the intelligentsia. Independence from party, class, class, professional, commercial and even just career interests,” wrote Dmitry Sergeevich.

In a general philosophical sense, an intellectual is characterized by a special kind of individualism of a social person, associated with society by ethical imperatives, in Russian transcription - by conscience. An intellectual is guided by the interests of the people, not the authorities. And in pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg, the intelligentsia spontaneously, “from below,” united into “societies and communities,” “social formations,” where people united by specialty, mental or ideological interests gathered. The system of such informal societies independent of the state gave birth to public opinion - a tool no less powerful in some situations than political or legislative power. “These public associations,” writes Likhachev, “played a colossal role, first of all, in the formation of public opinion. Public opinion in St. Petersburg was created not in government institutions, but mainly in these private circles, associations, at journals, at meetings of scientists, etc. ... This is where people’s reputations arose.”

For the intelligentsia, morality as a double-edged category, as a synthesis of personal and social, is the only power that does not deprive a person of freedom; on the contrary, it is conscience that is the true guarantee of freedom. Combining into a single whole, will and morality create the core of a person - his personality. That is why “the greatest resistance to evil ideas is always provided by the individual.” The formation of such a layer of people can be regarded as the highest humanitarian achievement of Russia, a kind of triumph of the human spirit, lying in line with the European (Christian) tradition.

Thus, Peter’s great undertakings to overcome backwardness from the West in the fields of science and education end with unconditional and quite obvious success. St. Petersburg culture asserts itself as one of the highest manifestations of global culture.

The Declaration of Cultural Rights, created by a group of employees of the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions under the leadership of D. S. Likhachev, became a kind of pinnacle of his life’s journey. This is the scientist’s message to the world community, a message to the future. The idea of ​​the Declaration is as follows. The current stage of development of civilization has given rise to the need to officially accept by the international community and state governments a number of principles and provisions necessary for the preservation and further development of culture as the heritage of mankind.

The Declaration formulates a new approach to defining the place and role of culture in the life of society. It is no coincidence that it says that culture represents the main meaning and global value of the existence of both peoples, small ethnic groups, and states. Outside of culture, their independent existence becomes meaningless. The right to culture should be on a par with the right to life and other human rights. Culture is a condition for the continuation of a meaningful life, human history, and the further development of humanity.

The Declaration introduces the concept of “humanitarian culture,” that is, a culture focused on the development of creative principles in man and society. And this is clear: an unregulated, uncivilized market enhances the expansion of inhumane values ​​of mass culture. If this continues, we may witness the loss of culture of its essential function - to be a humanistic guideline and criterion for the development of civilization and man. That is why states must become guarantors of the cultivation of humanitarian culture, this spiritual foundation and the possibility of development and improvement of man and society.

It is interesting that in the Declaration D.S. Likhachev gives his own, alternative understanding of globalization. He sees in it a process driven primarily not by economic, but by cultural interests of the world community. Globalization must be carried out not for the “golden billion” of residents of individual countries, but for all of humanity. It is incorrect to understand it only as the expansion of global corporations, the flow of personnel and raw materials. Humanity must build a concept of globalization as a harmonious process of world cultural development.

At various Russian public forums, the Declaration received the approval of the country's scientific and creative intelligentsia. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs ensured that a number of its provisions were reflected in the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2003) and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). On the agenda is work towards its holistic acceptance by the world community.

The personality of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev - the brightest phenomenon of Russian and world culture - has become one of the symbols of its greatness. Professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Sussex, Robin Milner-Gulland, rightly said of Likhachev: “With the true internationalism of his views, he is the most convincing advocate of the richness of thousands of years of Russian cultural experience known to our generation. We will still benefit from the fruits of his tireless work for a long time.” .

See the issue on the same topic