Likhachev form and content. Be funny without being funny

30. The concept of the unity of Russian literature by D.S. Likhachev.

Likhachev was able to prove that Russian literature was able to fulfill its great mission of formation, unity, unity, education, and sometimes even salvation of the people in difficult times of devastation and decay. This happened because it was based and guided by the highest ideals: the ideals of morality and spirituality, the ideals of the high, measured only by the eternity of man’s destiny and his equally high responsibility. And he believed that everyone can and should learn this great lesson of literature.

31. D.S. Likhachev’s teaching on the internal form of a work of art.

Sixties of the twentieth century. marked by the expansion of literary horizons and the use of new methods of analyzing a work of art. In this regard, interest in the problem of “literature and reality” has increased. A return to this most important problem of poetics is marked by the well-known article by D.S. Likhachev "The Inner World of a Work of Art". The point of the article is to affirm the “self-legitimacy” of life depicted in a work of art. According to the researcher, the “artistic world” differs from the real one, firstly, by a different kind of systematicity (space and time, as well as history and psychology, have special properties in it and are subject to internal laws); secondly, its dependence on the stage of development of art, as well as on the genre and author.

32. D.S. Likhachev on the principles of historicism in the study of literature.

Thanks to Likhachev’s brilliant research, the history of ancient Russian literature appears not as a sum of literary monuments on some time scale, but as a vital and continuous growth of Russian literature, surprisingly accurately reflecting the cultural, historical and spiritual and moral path of many generations of our ancestors.

34. Hermeneutic approach to the study of literary text.

Hermeneutics is the theory and art of "in-depth interpretation of texts." The main task is to interpret the primary sources of world and domestic culture. “Movement to the origins” as a unique method of hermeneutics - from the text (drawing, piece of music, educational subject, action) to the origins of its origin (needs, motives, values, goals and objectives of the author).

35. The concept of the hermeneutic circle.

The circle of “whole and part” (hermeneutic circle) serves as a guideline for the semantic understanding of the text (to understand the whole, it is necessary to understand the elements, but the understanding of individual elements is determined by the understanding of the whole); the circle gradually expands, revealing wider horizons of understanding.

36. Receptive aesthetics. Justification of the subjectivity of perception of a literary text (V. Iser, M. Riffater, S. Fish).

From the moment of its appearance, receptive aesthetics, represented by the names of R. Ingarden, H.-R. Jauss, V. Iser, introduced into literary studies the opportunity to reflect the diversity of types of reception, distinguished, however, by the duality of its attitudes. In receptive aesthetics, on the one hand, a thesis is postulated, and on the other hand, the meaning of the message is made dependent on the interpretative preferences of the recipient, whose perception is determined by the context, which presupposes the individualization of each specific act of reading. The interpretation of the work, on the one hand, is obviously determined by the paradigmatic attitudes of the reader, on the other hand, M. Riffaterre points to the possibility of authorial control over decoding by forming the necessary context in the space of the text itself. The multiplicity of readings and ambiguity of meaning, which Y. Lotman also called not to mix, thus arise at the intersection of the author’s intention and the reader’s competence, provided that the author is also the recipient of his own work.

The scientific biography of Academician Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev began in his student years. He studied simultaneously in two sections of the Department of Linguistics and Literature of the Faculty of Social Sciences of Leningrad University: Romano-Germanic (specializing in English literature) and Slavic-Russian. D.S.’s participation in the “Nekrasov Seminar” of Professor V.E. Evgeniev-Maksimov served as an impetus for an in-depth study of primary sources, which determined his entire future path in science. Dmitry Sergeevich himself especially notes that it was V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov who taught him “not to be afraid of manuscripts” and to work in archives and manuscript collections. So, already in 1924-1927. he prepared a study on Nekrasov’s forgotten texts: he found about thirty previously unknown feuilletons, reviews and articles published in a number of publications in the 40s of the 19th century, and established their affiliation with Nekrasov. Due to circumstances beyond the control of the young researcher, this work was not published (references to this work by D. S. Likhachev were included in the article by N. Vyvodtsev “Nekrasov - critic and reviewer” (Nekrasov N. A. Collected works. / Ed. V E. Evgeniev-Maksimov and K. Chukovsky. M.; Leningrad, 1930. T. 3. P. 369, 370).

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 Old 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 chronicles of the XIV-XVI centuries.” “This manuscript captivated 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 “ancient” 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. was prepared for the study of ancient Russian chronicles by a serious critical study of the works of his predecessors, in particular the numerous works of Academician A.A. Shakhmatov. Having mastered all the strengths of the textual methodology of this major scientist, Dmitry Sergeevich realizes the need to continue, and in some cases, revise the latter’s conclusions in two directions. It was necessary to significantly deepen the “historical method” of A. A. Shakhmatov. Next in line was a big historical and literary problem: the style of chronicle writing seemed to A. A. Shakhmatov unchanged at all stages of history. 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 considered 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. The significance of this branch of chronicle writing for the restoration of the prehistory of “The Tale of Bygone Years” was already outlined in the studies of A. A. Shakhmatov. At the same time, the peculiar style of the Novgorod Chronicle of the 12th century, preserved by the oldest of all the lists that have come down to us - the Synodal list of the first Novgorod Chronicle - opened up scope for studying it as a literary monument. Thus began the study by scientists of the Novgorod Chronicle, and then of all Novgorod literature and fine arts of Novgorod in the 12th-17th centuries. A series of his works of the 40s are devoted to this topic, which immediately attracted readers with the rigor of the method, the freshness and validity of the 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 a 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 Kiev chronicles of the 11th-13th centuries: ““Oral chronicles” as part of the “Tale of Bygone Years”” (1945), “Russian embassy custom of the 11th-13th centuries.” (1946). 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 text has undergone deep and comprehensive research, combining the painstaking work of the publisher and commentator with broad historical generalizations. In this study, “The Tale of Bygone Years” appears before the reader as a literary work that is complex in its composition and literary design and as a most valuable source of historical information about the political life and culture of the ancient Russian state of the 10th - early 12th centuries. This publication currently serves as the basis for researchers developing particular issues in the history of the Tale, as well as for educational and popular science literature on the history of culture and literature of Kievan Rus.

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. In a word, literature appears before us not only as a reflection, but also as a unique manifestation of reality, and this function has left a certain imprint on the character of literature, giving it a specific, national flavor.

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. It raised before him, in particular, questions about the significance of folk poetry in the development of various forms of historical storytelling. As a result, an extremely fresh observational article, “The Galician Literary Tradition in the Life of Alexander Nevsky” (1947), was published. It connects this literary monument of North-Eastern Rus' with the biography of Daniil Galitsky and establishes the specific historical circumstances under which such a connection could arise. 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.” To this day, his articles “Historical and political outlook of the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”” and “Oral origins of the artistic system of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”” (1950) have not lost their significance. Considering the ideological meaning of this work in the first article, the scientist establishes that the author’s worldview was formed under the influence of Russian reality. In the second article, using specific material, he shows that the figurative system of the Lay, also inextricably linked with historical reality, was created on the basis of the feudal military and labor symbols of his time.

The results of several years of work on “The Lay” were reflected in the book “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” published in the “anniversary” year of 1950 for “The Lay” in the “Literary Monuments” series. 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. In the article accompanying the publication and in a rich commentary on the text of the Lay, D. S. Likhachev examines the ideological and artistic content of the monument in their inextricable connection, revealing the dialectical unity of its form and content.

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'. Pre-Mongol period,” vol. 2 (1951), which received the USSR State Prize.

Unlike his predecessors, D. S. Likhachev emphasizes the “historicism” of the literature of Kievan Rus, its desire to respond to all political events and reflect the changes taking place in society. The author recognizes this historicism as the basis for the independence and originality of literature of the 11th-13th centuries. Taking into account changes in feudal relations, he shows the movement of literature and the struggle in it of various social and artistic trends, monitors the formation of local literary schools, changes in relationships with folk poetry, the development of the literary language, and also establishes the inextricable connection of this movement of literature with “social experience.” ", with the historical process.

Based on his previous research, the scientist clearly 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 that literature of the 11th-12th centuries. owed its rapid growth. The author sheds light on the issue of Russian-Byzantine literary connections, showing that the transfer of some works of Byzantine literature to Russian was determined by the needs of Russian life and developing feudalism. The assimilation of these works was creative, it reflected the trends of the time and typical features of the culture of the Kyiv state.

Concise but expressive characteristics of all the most important monuments of 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. “Russian literature moves along its own independent course, taking its origins in preliterate, oral literature and folklore, capturing in its powerful movement works of translated literature, processing them, selecting what primarily met Russian needs, and striving forward to the gradual accumulation elements of realism, to liberation from churchism. In this powerful current, progressive forces struggle with conservative forces, social experience with an inert idealistic theological system, national elements firmly based on the demands and needs of Russian life, with the traditions of church literature" ( Likhachev D. S. Literature // History of culture of Ancient Rus'. T. 2. Pre-Mongol period. M.; L., 1951. S. 176-177).

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. At the same time, he clarifies the significance of translated literature in the development of Russian culture in the 11th-12th centuries, connecting the very selection of translated monuments with the same internal needs that arose in close connection with the history of the people.

Material of literature of the XI-XIII 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 ancient Russian early feudal state (X-XI centuries)” and “Folk poetic creativity during the years of feudal fragmentation of Russia - before the Mongol-Tatar invasion (XII - early XIII centuries)." Based on those reflected in the literary monuments of the XI-XIII centuries. folk legends, proverbs, rituals and customs, D.S. carefully analyzes in the records of modern times those features that there are grounds to attribute to the distant past. First of all, he definitely establishes that in Russian society of the 10th century. “Each class has its own characteristics of oral creativity. These features are determined by differences in the ideology of individual classes, differences in everyday life itself, and the degree of need for oral creativity" ( Likhachev D. S. Folk poetic creativity during the heyday of the ancient Russian early feudal state (X-XI centuries) // Russian folk poetic creativity. T. 1. Essays on the history of Russian folk poetry of the 10th - early 18th centuries. M.; L., 1953. P. 146).

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.

The scientist determines the significance of ancient Russian literature based on the idea of ​​“complex patterns” that govern the development of literature throughout its entire path, and the continuity of this path: “Without studying ancient Russian literature, it is impossible to correctly imagine the historical process of the development of Russian literature of the 18th and 19th centuries.. If a direct reader's attitude towards it cannot always bring a clear awareness of its merits, then a historical attitude towards it allows one to clearly realize the great values ​​that it possesses" ( Likhachev D. S. Introduction // History of Russian literature. M.; L., 1958. T. 1. P. 15-16). The general result of the development of literature of the Russian Middle Ages is formulated by the author as “the path of approaching the truth of life.” The “Conclusion” reflects all the significant observations made by Soviet literary criticism as a whole, as well as the research of D.S. himself. The latter reveal the content of the literature of the 10th-17th centuries. and its unique artistic methods, which, gradually developing, expanded the possibilities of artistic depiction and generalization.

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 Old Russian literature in its historical development. He explained the significance of this problem as follows, addressing a wide circle of readers in the preface to the book “The artistic prose of Kievan Rus of the 11th-13th centuries” (1957): “To understand the features of the artistic method of Ancient Russia means to understand the literature of Ancient Rus', its enduring aesthetic values. But the artistic method is closely connected with the artistic tasks that the writer set for himself, and with the values ​​that the contemporary reader was looking for in literary works" ( Likhachev D. S. Literary monuments of Kievan Rus // Fiction of Kievan Rus of the 11th-13th centuries. M., 1957. S. IV).

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.

Already in the historical narrative of the 16th century. There is a noticeable increase in interest in historical figures, but their characteristics are still built according to the traditional system: they reflect the idea of ​​​​the ideal of a ruler, commander, enemy. The turbulent events of the early 17th century, which contributed to the “tremendous accumulation of experience of social struggle in all classes of society,” which repeatedly sparked “disputes about the merits of one or another contender for the throne,” are the main reason, according to the researcher, that literature from that time began to describe human characters more deeply, notice their complexity and inconsistency, and express “principled judgments” about them. This new attitude to the task of depicting a person in historical writings was influenced by the social experience of the writers, but the form still remained old.

Thus, D.S. showed the result that came in the 17th century. a historical narrative that has put forward new tasks for depicting human character. Now the researcher has returned to the beginning of that long journey, which found its completion in historical writings that described the events of the Time of Troubles and discussed the characters of their participants. The article “Depiction of People in the Chronicle of the 12th-13th Centuries” (1954) appeared in print.

In numerous works by D. S. Likhachev devoted to the chronicle of this period, the chronicle appears as the leading genre of that time: it was in it that “certain artistic means in depicting people were most established.” D. S. Likhachev explores these artistic means and the very direction in which writers went to create characteristics of individual personalities in connection with the system of pictorial images of people. Analysis of literary portraits from the chronicles of the 12th-13th centuries. leads him to the following conclusions: “In the depiction of people, literature of the 12th-13th centuries. follows... feudal ideas about what a representative of one or another social level should be, what feudal relations themselves should be, and basically retains the official point of view of the ruling class on everything included in literature" ( Likhachev D. S. Depiction of people in the chronicles of the 12th-13th centuries // Tr. Dept. Old Russian lit. 1954. T. 10. P. 40). The inner life of the person depicted, apparently, “is of interest to writers of the 12th-13th centuries only insofar as it is externally manifested in actions, in a certain line of behavior” (ibid. p. 41). However, into this system of depiction, completely subordinated to the feudal ideal of behavior, sometimes individual elements of the folk ideal, attempts to accurately reproduce reality, violating the schematic nature of the image, sometimes spontaneously penetrated. And yet, in this period, such violations were still rare exceptions; the system generally dominated. She created images, and this was not “an idealization of a person,” but “an idealization of his social position - the level in the hierarchy of feudal society on which he stands” (ibid. p. 8). Comparing this conclusion with the results that D. S. Likhachev came to by analyzing the way a person is depicted in historical works of the 17th century, we will see that the researcher has determined the path for further study of the entire “problem of character” as a whole. Now it was necessary to attract material from other literary genres and cover all stages of the history of literature from its origins to the end of the 17th century.

In 1958, D. S. Likhachev published the book “Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'” (the second edition was published in 1970). In this book, the “problem of character” is explored not only on the material 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.

In this book, the author points out that living thread of historical development that runs through the history of ancient Russian literature. Based on the study of a large amount of factual material, D.S. outlines several ways - “styles” - of depicting a person in ancient literature, which not only succeeded each other, but also coexisted in different genres; he connects the choice of method with the task facing the writer. The scientist closely monitors the accumulation of “artistic and educational” discoveries, which in the 17th century. will lead to the first experiments in revealing the characters of historical figures in a historical story, and to the first social group portraits in democratic satire. It is noteworthy that D. S. Likhachev never brings these “discoveries” to typification in realism of the 19th century. and at the same time shows that their path went towards the accumulation - still quantitative - of experience in a realistic depiction of reality. Greater credibility is given to the characteristics of individual styles of depicting a person in literature by comparing them with the techniques of the fine arts of Ancient Rus'. The researcher deeply penetrates into its historically conditioned originality, skillfully showing how literature and art either followed the same path in creating an idealized image of a person (XII century), or art was ahead of literature in the ability to reflect the inner world of a person (XIV-XV centuries).

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. In the article “On the Question of the Origin of Literary Trends in Russian Literature” (1958), he substantiates in the most general terms the conclusion: literary trends appeared only in the 17th century, “with the class stratification of literature into the literature of the ruling elite and the democratic lower classes. With this stratification, a sharp difference in ideologies arises, various artistic methods appear, the possibility of choosing an artistic method is created, disputes arise in the field of aesthetics, elements of literary criticism are born, the first professional writers appear, the texts of literary works are stabilized - all this created the necessary conditions and the very need for literary trends" ( Likhachev D. S. On the issue of the origin of literary trends in Russian literature // Rus. lit. 1958. No. 2. P. 13). This conclusion represents a whole program for studying the problem as a whole: “it is very complex,” writes D. S. Likhachev, “it requires research and research.” This appeal is the primary significance of this article, which directs the attention of medieval literary scholars to one of the most important unresolved issues in the history and theory of literature 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 developed: “The relationships of people with each other and their relationships with God were subject to etiquette, tradition, custom, ceremony, developed and despotic to such an extent that they permeated and to a certain extent took possession of a person’s worldview and thinking” ( Likhachev D. S. Literary etiquette of Ancient Rus' (to the problem of studying) // Tr. Dept. Old Russian lit. 1961. T. 17. P. 5). This “etiquette” also corresponded to constant forms of verbal expression, which D.S. conventionally proposes to call “literary etiquette.” “Literary etiquette and the literary canons developed by it are the most typical medieval conventional normative connection between content and form” (ibid. p. 6).

However, the “system of literary etiquette” still “slowed down the development of literature, led to a certain inertia of literary creativity, although it never completely subjugated it.” There were “violations” of it, but it “was not destroyed [entirely] either in the 16th or 17th centuries, and in the 18th century. partially replaced by another” (ibid., p. 17). Having outlined in the most general terms the history of “literary etiquette” from its origins to the 17th century, D.S. sets the task of “carefully studying” all the problems that arise in connection with this topic.

“Towards the formulation of the question” - this is how D.S. defined the task of his article “Medieval symbolism in the stylistic systems of Ancient Rus' and ways to overcome it” (1956), directing attention to the study of “the features of symbolism and ways to overcome it in each era.”

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), which was awarded the USSR State Prize in 1969 (The book “The Poetics of Old Russian Literature” was republished in 1971 and 1979). 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. examines the origin and evolution of literary movements, the poetics of artistic generalization (in its specific medieval forms, such as, for example, the principle of abstraction or the evolution of forms of literary etiquette), the poetics of artistic means, among which the analysis of the “poetics of imitation” occupies a particularly important place. , because imitation of “classical models”, imitation, genre stylization were the defining features of Old Russian literature. A significant part of the book is devoted to problems that have recently (and to a large extent under the influence of D. S. Likhachev’s research) been of particular interest: these are the problems of artistic time and artistic space (D. S. Likhachev’s first article on this topic (“Time in works Russian folklore") was published in the magazine "Russian Literature" in 1962 (No. 4)). Dmitry Sergeevich manages to convincingly show how the concept of artistic time changes depending on the type and genre of a literary work (or the genre of a work of oral folk art), on the artistic intent of the work, and on the position of the author. But at the same time, D.S. notes, “to understand the features of the modern use of artistic time in literature, one must look into previous eras. The modest role of artistic time in old literature and folklore will help to understand the diverse manifestations of artistic time in the 19th and 20th centuries.” ( Likhachev D. S. Poetics of Old Russian Literature. L., 1967. P. 223). This explains a fundamentally important methodological technique, when the evolution of forms of artistic time is considered starting with monuments of folklore, then in monuments of ancient Russian literature, and finally in some classical works of literature of the 19th century.

The above fully applies to the category of “artistic space”, which D.S. examines on the material of a fairy tale with the specific “superconductivity of its space” and on examples from monuments of ancient Russian literature, in particular on the example of “chronicle narration, from its inherent special point of view from bird's eye view" - as if at a distant point, from where the chronicler "looks around" the earth, at different ends of which events worthy of his attention are simultaneously taking place. This sketch ends with an interesting analysis of the “light” space of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”

Concluding his book, D.S. writes that “not one of the questions raised in this book can be considered completely resolved” (ibid., p. 370). This statement is hardly fair: when considering the features of the poetics of ancient Russian literature, folklore or literature of modern times, D.S. not only notices and subtly analyzes certain facts; Every time he finds the only correct position from which these phenomena and facts can be raised and understood in the general context of the history of Russian literature and historical poetics, and thanks to this he comes to deep and convincing generalizations.

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 on the second South Slavic influence, which gave rise to an extensive literature in the form of numerous reviews and responses in our country and abroad ( Likhachev D. S. Some tasks of studying the second Young Slavic influence in Russia // Studies in Slavic literary criticism and folklore: Dokl. owls scientists at the IV International. Congress of Slavists. M., 1960. P. 95-151), best characterizes the scientist’s ability to cover the widest range of interconnected and interdependent phenomena, to find and explain what is common 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 devices), fine arts, worldview, even writing techniques. Without understanding the essence of the process called the second South Slavic influence, it was impossible to raise the question of the nature of the Russian Pre-Renaissance in a new way, which was carried out by D. S. Likhachev in the article “Pre-Renaissance in Russia at the end of the XIV - first half of the XV century” (1967), in which characterized new phenomena that arose in all spheres of Russian spiritual culture during this period and raised the question of why “the Russian Pre-Renaissance did not transform into the present Renaissance.” According to D.S. Likhachev, “the answer should be sought in the general uniqueness of the historical development of Russia; in the lack of economic development at the end of the 15th and 16th centuries, in the accelerated development of a single centralized state that absorbed cultural forces, in the death of the commune cities of Novgorod and Pskov, which served in the 14th and early 15th centuries. the basis of pre-Renaissance movements, and, most importantly, in the strength and power of the church organization, which suppressed heresies and anti-clerical movements" ( Likhachev D. S. Pre-Renaissance in Rus' at the end of the 14th - the first half of the 15th century // Literature of the Renaissance and problems of world literature. M., 1967. P. 181). Considering the key problems of the literary and cultural development of Rus'. D. S. Likhachev, in the article “The Seventeenth Century in Russian Literature” (1969), develops the idea that it was in this century that “Renaissance phenomena suddenly developed later” and that it was “the belated flowering of the Renaissance that created the motley picture that appears Russian literature in the 17th century." ( Likhachev D. S. The seventeenth century in Russian literature // XVII century in world literary development. M., 1969. P. 300-301).

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. D.S. notes that for the Middle Ages it is more correct to talk not about the influence of one culture on another, but about a special process specific to this time, when “entire cultural layers” were transplanted to new soil “and here they began a new cycle of development in conditions of the new historical reality: they changed, adapted, acquired local features, were filled with new content and developed new forms" ( Likhachev D. S. Development of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries. Epochs and styles. L., 1973. P. 22.).

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 Russian Baroque, raised by D.S. in the article “The Seventeenth Century in Russian Literature.” In the book, D.S. sums up his many years of research in this area. He notes that the features of Russian Baroque were determined primarily by the fact that, unlike Baroque in other European countries, Russian Baroque did not replace the Renaissance, but presented in a new interpretation such medieval traditions as “ornate style”, “weaving of words”, “chronographic instructiveness” (ibid., p. 24). Moreover, the Baroque in Rus' to some extent took on the functions of the Renaissance, and this “can explain the cheerful, human-affirming and educational character” of the Russian Baroque (ibid., p. 207). The relationship between “our own” and “foreign” baroque in Rus' was peculiar: according to D.S., “there was only one baroque - borrowed, but it was also domestic,” because “which came to us through the Polish-Ukrainian-Belarusian influence, the baroque took over functions of the Renaissance, having changed greatly and acquiring domestic forms and domestic content” (ibid., p. 211).

D.S. also turned to the study of ancient Russian “culture of laughter.” In the book “The Laughing World of Ancient Rus'” (1976) ( Likhachev D. S., Panchenko A. M. “The Laughing World” of Ancient Rus'. L.: Nauka, 1976. D. S. Likhachev owns the section “Laughter as a “worldview””. For the second edition see: Likhachev D. S., Panchenko A. M., Ponyrko N. V. Laughter in Ancient Rus'. L.: Nauka, 1984) 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 the Terrible, in Russian folk satire of the 17th century c., 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, because 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 on the artistic heritage of Ancient Rus' ( Likhacheva V. D., Likhachev D. S. The artistic heritage of Ancient Rus' and modernity. L.: Nauka, 1971). The work, in particular, examines the defining lines of development of all Russian literature from the 11th to the 20th centuries: this is a gradual increase in the “sector of freedom”, that is, the freedom to choose a plot and choose artistic means for its implementation, this is the process of increasing the “personal principle” ", that is, the gradual awareness by the authors of the right to their point of view, to their individual style, to originality as a quality that does not contradict the aesthetic value of the work, but, on the contrary, is its dignity. Finally, the process of expanding the social environment of literature was uniform: more and more democratic heroes, ever wider social strata gradually entered its field of vision; the fates of representatives of various classes and estates begin to be considered with the same respectful attention that was previously awarded only to epic heroes and persons standing at the highest levels of the feudal hierarchy or surrounded by the piety of church veneration.

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), “Ancient 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 modern division into genres, based on purely literary characteristics, appears relatively late,” warns the scientist. In Russian literature it comes into force only in the 17th century, and before that time “literary genres, to one degree or another, carry, in addition to literary functions, extraliterary functions” ( Likhachev D. S. System of literary genres of Ancient Rus' // Slavic literatures: V International. Congress of Slavists: (Sofia, September 1963). Dokl. owls delegations. M., 1963. P. 47).

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, the connection of literature with other types of arts, literature and business writing. The importance of D.S.’s works 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. The scientist persistently reminds us with his theoretical heaps that only in the historical approach to the study of the artistic originality of ancient Russian literature lies a solid basis for determining the very essence of the literary process of the 11th-17th centuries. At the same time, through the analysis of specific material, he shows researchers of modern literature that the main literary categories were not “eternal”, that many literary values ​​of Russian literature of the 19th century. have a historical origin and that ancient Russian literature stands at the beginning of the path that will ultimately lead to their formation. D.S.'s research, even with its sometimes debatable conclusions, contributes to the revitalization of work in one of the most lagging areas of literary criticism - theoretical.

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. (A number of articles by D. S. Likhachev containing historical and literary analysis of individual monuments were collected and republished in book: Likhachev D. S. Research on Old Russian Literature. M.: Nauka, 1986). These specific studies led D. S. Likhachev to the idea of ​​the need to summarize the accumulated material in the field of textual criticism of ancient Russian 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 the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries." (1962). The purpose of this book is to remind you that “textual criticism, both in its theoretical and in its practical part, is the basis of literary criticism and historical source study.” This work by D.S. represents the first experience in Soviet philology of systematizing all textual problems facing researchers of Russian literature of pre-Petrine times, and methods for solving them. It is built on the widespread use of textual practice of the largest representatives of Russian philology of the pre-Marxist period, on the analysis of the textual work of Soviet researchers, on numerous observations of the textual nature of D. S. Likhachev himself.

All stages of the textual critic’s work, starting with the search for material to be studied from copies of the work, and ending with the restoration on their basis of the history of the text of the monument and the preparation for publication of each of its surviving varieties, are carefully characterized. The specific tasks that arise before the researcher at each specific moment of the study are identified, the ways of their correct solution are shown, and the typical mistakes of individual textual critics are revealed, leading them astray from the right path,

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. Textologically carelessly processed handwritten material distorts our understanding of both the author’s text and its subsequent history in changed historical conditions. A practical conclusion follows from this: a medievalist must master the method of textual research in the fullness of its tasks.

In the second edition of Textology (1983), published twenty years after the first, 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.

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 topic 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. For the first time, this problem was reflected in the article by D.S. ““The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” 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 Lay of Igor’s Campaign” and the aesthetic ideas of his time” (1976). D. S. Likhachev also considers more specific issues of the poetics of “The Lay” - he examines the composition of the monument, the “poetics of repetition” in it, and reflects on the possible purpose of “The Lay” to be performed by two singers (article “Assumption about the dialogical structure of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” ", 1984). Most of these works, with additions and changes made by the author, were included in his book “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign and the Culture of His Time,” which was published in two editions (1978 and 1985).

D. S. Likhachev repeatedly opposed amateurish attempts to “guess” the name of the author of the Lay, but he himself made a significant contribution to the development of the question of the author of the Lay as a person, type, representative of a certain social or professional category. Related to these searches are, in particular, D.S.’s observations of references to princely singers in the Lay and the assumption that the author of the Lay could have been the singer of Prince Igor ( Likhachev D. S. Reflections on the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” // Rus. lit. 1985. No. 3. P. 5).

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 Lay of Igor’s Campaign and the Question of Its Authenticity” (1962) has not lost its significance; D.S.’s works on the relationship between the Lay and Zadonshchina have occupied an important place in the debate about the Lay. and in particular his article “Features of imitation of “Zadonshchina”” (1964), which contained important theoretical provisions about the “poetics of imitation.” In these articles by Dmitry Sergeevich, as well as in his reviews and notes directed against amateurism in the study of the Lay, important methodological issues are discussed: the principles of interpretation of the “dark places” of the monument, the principles of analyzing the language of the source, issues of scientific responsibility when putting forward hypotheses.

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.

The role of D. S. Likhachev in the popularization of this outstanding monument is invaluable. The edition of “The Lay” prepared by him for schoolchildren, illustrated with magnificent engravings by V. A. Favorsky, went through twelve editions (1952-1986); he owns the book for teachers “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Historical and literary essay" (1976 and 1982), popular books - "The Tale of Igor's Campaign." Historical and literary essay" (1950, 1955) and "The Tale of Igor's Campaign - the heroic prologue of Russian literature" (1961, 1967).

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 above-mentioned 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 and 1980). He is the initiator and participant of the monumental series “Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus'”, published since 1978 by the publishing house “Khudozhestvennaya Literatura”. This series includes editions of texts with translations into modern Russian and with detailed commentaries. Each volume opens with an article by D.S., which highlights the features of a particular stage of literary history based on the material of the works included in this volume. Taken together, these articles by D.S. constitute a review of ancient Russian literature over seven centuries of its existence. 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) (The second edition is called “History of Russian Literature of the XI-XVII Centuries” (M., 1985 )), in which he acts as the author of the introduction and conclusion and as the editor, who made a lot of efforts to ensure that this university textbook combines scientific character and methodological integrity with accessibility of presentation.

D. S. Likhachev never confined himself to the study of ancient Russian literature: the very laws of its evolution, so brilliantly identified and described by the scientist (in the already mentioned article “Paths to New Russian Literature”) ( Likhachev D. S. Paths to new Russian literature // Likhacheva V. D., Likhachev D. S. The artistic heritage of Ancient Rus' and modernity. L., 1971. P. 71-112), led to the need to continue the analysis of “lines of development” over subsequent centuries, and the deepened interest in the styles of ancient Russian literature could not help but draw attention to the most striking stylistic phenomena in Russian culture of modern times ( see, for example, the articles “Some thoughts on the “inaccuracy” of art and stylistic directions” (1973) and “Counterpoint of styles as a feature of the arts” (1981); in the latter article, observations on the mutual influence of different spheres of art - literature, ballet, painting - are especially interesting ).

D.S.’s book “Literature - Reality - Literature” (1981, 1984) 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. unites with the concept of “concrete literary criticism.” Concrete literary criticism is the most important methodological technique, since “it strives to prove its conclusions, and not to construct hypotheses or generate ideas” ( LikhachevD. S. Literature - reality - literature. L.. 1984. P. 8), because it connects literature with reality, with this reality it explains seemingly purely literary phenomena.

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 “Poetry of Gardens” was published. On the semantics of gardening styles”, 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 attaches great importance to the humanities, their social significance, and their enormous role in the education of patriotism. The achievements of the humanities and the worldview of society are connected, according to D. S. Likhachev, in the most intimate way: “patriotism must certainly be the spirit of all the humanities” ( LikhachevD. S. Past to future: Art. and essays. L., 1985. P. 75. (Science, worldview, life)), the scientist asserts, and the humanities, and above all history, literary criticism, cultural history, are an indispensable environment in which true patriotism is brought up. 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.” “The preservation of the cultural environment,” writes D.S., “is a task no less significant than the preservation of the surrounding nature,” since “the cultural environment ... is necessary for him (man. - M.WITH.) spiritual, moral life, for his “spiritual settledness” (ibid. p. 50). 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 raise issues of protecting ancient monuments, their restoration, and promoting knowledge about 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 Beautiful” (1985), especially addressed to the younger generation, are devoted to this topic.

Science and cultural values ​​are created by people. The grateful memory of them should not be forgotten. D.S. creates 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 (See the section “People of Science” (pp. 399-563). D. S. Likhachev also took part in television programs dedicated to outstanding figures of science, culture and art - Yu. Tynyanov, K. Chukovsky, D. Arsenishvili, V. Yakhontov, N. Aseev.). These are not only memories of a memoir nature, 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, and talent.

Naturally adjacent to these memories of scientists is a selection of aphorisms and judgments called by the author “Thoughts on Science” (ibid., pp. 564-573). These are Dmitry Sergeevich’s thoughts about the ways and methods of scientific research, about the necessary qualities of a scientist, about scientific integrity and scientific ethics.

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 history department 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. Here he trained his first graduate students, who later became employees of the Sector of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences (IRLI). For them, as for other students of D.S., who later came to his “school” as employees of this Sector, they are characterized, first of all, by an excellent mastery of the methodology of textual research, which opens the way to literary study. D.S. invariably demanded that they turn to primary sources and work with manuscripts. All publications and studies of monuments of ancient Russian literature prepared in D.S.’s “school” are built on a solid textual foundation.

The scientific and organizational activities of D. S. Likhachev, who in 1954 headed the Sector of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, are also expanding widely. An initiative, energetic and demanding organizer, he knows how to implement great scientific ideas. Under his leadership, the Sector (renamed the Department in 1986) firmly occupies 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 is 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 and still have 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. was 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 is awarded the highest award of the NRB - the Order of Georgiy Dimitrov.

Foreign Slavists working in the field of the history of Old Russian literature maintain scientific connections with the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, headed by D. S. Likhachev. They take advantage of his consultations, make reports at conferences and his regular meetings, and publish their research in the “Proceedings” of the Department. D.S. himself and the staff of the Department repeatedly took part in international scientific conferences and symposia, and published their articles abroad. A number of books and articles by D.S., published in Soviet publications, have been 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. Brief essay", "Development of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries. Epochs and styles", "Poetics of Ancient Russian Literature", "The Laughing World of Ancient Rus'" (together with A. M. Panchenko), "The Artistic Heritage of Ancient Russia and Modernity" (together with V. D. Likhacheva), "The Great Heritage ", "Letters about the good and the beautiful", "Poetry of gardens"; phototypically republished abroad his books “Russian Chronicles and Their Cultural-Historical Significance” (1966), “The Culture of Rus' in the Age of the Formation of the Russian National State. (End of the 14th - beginning of the 16th 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. It is not limited to publications of the Department of Old Russian Literature: D.S. Chairman of the editorial board of the “Literary Monuments” series, the editorial board of the yearbook “Cultural Monuments. New discoveries”, member of the editorial board of the journal “Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Department of Literature and Language”, series “Popular Science Literature”, published by the USSR Academy of Sciences, 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. is on the editorial boards of many other publications; he was also a member of the editorial board of the Brief Literary Encyclopedia. D.S. takes an active part in the life of a number of institutions and organizations. He is 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, Scientist Council of the State Russian Museum, Academic Council of the Museum of Ancient Russian Art. Andrei Rublev, member of the Criticism Section of the USSR Writers' Union.

In 1966, for services to the development of 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 to the high post of Chairman of the Board of the Soviet Cultural Foundation.

V. P. Adrianova-Peretz

M. A. Salmina

Abbreviated by edition:

Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev.

3rd ed., add. M.: Nauka, 1989. P. 11-42.

(Materials for the biobibliography of scientists of the USSR. Serial lit. and language. Issue 17)

They say that content determines form. This is true, but the opposite is also true: the content depends on the form. The famous American psychologist of the beginning of this century, D. James, wrote: “We cry because we are sad, but we are also sad because we cry.” Therefore, let's talk about the form of our behavior, about what should become our habit and what should also become our internal content.

Once upon a time it was considered indecent to show with all your appearance that a misfortune had happened to you, that you were in grief. A person should not have imposed his depressed state on others. It was necessary to maintain dignity even in grief, to be even with everyone, not to become self-absorbed and to remain as friendly and even cheerful as possible. The ability to maintain dignity, not to impose one’s sorrows on others, not to spoil others’ moods, to always be even in dealing with people, to always be friendly and cheerful is a great and real art that helps to live in society and society itself.

But how cheerful should you be? Noisy and intrusive fun is tiring for those around you. A young man who is always spitting out witticisms is no longer perceived as behaving with dignity. He becomes a buffoon. And this is the worst thing that can happen to a person in society, and it ultimately means a loss of humor.

Don't be funny.
Not being funny is not only an ability to behave, but also a sign of intelligence.

You can be funny in everything, even in the way you dress. If a man carefully matches his tie to his shirt, or his shirt to his suit, he is ridiculous. Excessive concern for one's appearance is immediately visible. We must take care to dress decently, but this concern for men should not go beyond certain limits. A man who cares excessively about his appearance is unpleasant. A woman is a different matter. Men's clothes should have only a hint of fashion. A perfectly clean shirt, clean shoes and a fresh, but not very bright tie are enough. The suit may be old, it should not just be unkempt.

When talking with others, know how to listen, know how to be silent, know how to joke, but rarely and at the right time. Take up as little space as possible. Therefore, at dinner, do not put your elbows on the table, embarrassing your neighbor, but also do not try too hard to be the “life of the party.” Observe moderation in everything, do not be intrusive even with your friendly feelings.

Don't be tormented by your shortcomings if you have them. If you stutter, don't think it's too bad. Stutterers can be excellent speakers, meaning every word they say. The best lecturer at Moscow University, famous for its eloquent professors, historian V. O. Klyuchevsky stuttered. A slight squint can add significance to the face, while lameness can add significance to movements. But if you're shy, don't be afraid of it either. Don't be ashamed of your shyness: Shyness is very cute and not at all funny. She only becomes funny if you try too hard to overcome her and are embarrassed by her. Be simple and forgiving of your shortcomings. Don't suffer from them. There is nothing worse when an “inferiority complex” develops in a person, and with it bitterness, hostility towards other people, and envy. A person loses what is best in him - kindness.

There is no better music than silence, silence in the mountains, silence in the forest. There is no better “music in a person” than modesty and the ability to remain silent, not to come to the forefront. There is nothing more unpleasant and stupid in a person’s appearance and behavior than being important or noisy; There is nothing funnier in a man than excessive care for his suit and hairstyle, calculated movements and a “fountain of witticisms” and anecdotes, especially if they are repeated.

In your behavior, be afraid to be funny and try to be modest and quiet.

Never let yourself go, always be even with people, respect the people who surround you.

Here are some tips, it would seem, about secondary things - about your behavior, about your appearance, but also about your inner world: do not be afraid of your physical shortcomings. Treat them with dignity and you will look elegant.

I have a girl friend who has a slightly hunchback. Honestly, I never tire of admiring her grace on those rare occasions when I meet her at museum openings (everyone meets there - that’s why they are cultural holidays).

And one more thing, and perhaps the most important: be truthful. He who seeks to deceive others first of all deceives himself. He naively thinks that they believed him, and those around him were actually just polite. But a lie always reveals itself, a lie is always “felt”, and you not only become disgusting, worse, you become ridiculous.

Don't be funny! Truthfulness is beautiful, even if you admit that you deceived before on some occasion, and explain why you did it. This will correct the situation. You will be respected and you will show your intelligence.

Simplicity and “silence” in a person, truthfulness, lack of pretensions in clothing and behavior - this is the most attractive “form” in a person, which also becomes his most elegant “content”.

Around conversations about intelligence

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, 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. 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 Polovtsevs 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 twenties 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!” It is much easier to learn the tenth foreign language than the third, and the third is easier than the first. The ability to acquire knowledge and the very interest in knowledge grows exponentially in every individual. Unfortunately, in society as a whole, general education is falling and the place of intelligence is being replaced by semi-intellectuality.

An imaginary conversation “directly” with my imaginary opponent-academician in the living room of “Narrow”. He: “You extol intelligence, but in your meeting, broadcast on television, you refused to define exactly what it is.” Me: “Yes, but I can show you what semi-intelligence is. Do you often come to Uzkoy?” He is often". Me: “Please tell me: who are the artists of these 18th century paintings?” He: “No, I don’t know that.” Me: “Of course it’s difficult. Well, what are the subjects of these paintings? It's easy." He: “No, I don’t know: some kind of mythology.” Me: “This lack of interest in surrounding cultural values ​​is lack of intelligence.”

The spontaneity of culture and the culture of immediacy. Culture is always sincere. She is sincere in her self-expression. And a cultured person does not pretend to be something or someone, unless pretense is part of the task of art (theatrical art, for example, but it should also have its own spontaneity). At the same time, spontaneity and sincerity must have a kind of culture, not turn into cynicism, into turning oneself inside out in front of the viewer, listener, reader. Every kind of work of art is made for others, but a true artist in his work seems to forget about these “others.” He is a “king” and “lives alone.” One of the most valuable human qualities is individuality. It is acquired from birth, “given by fate” and developed by sincerity: to be oneself in everything - from the choice of profession to the manner of speaking and to the gait. Sincerity can be cultivated in oneself.

Letter to N.V. Mordyukova

Dear Nonna Viktorovna!
Forgive me for writing to you on a typewriter: my handwriting is very bad. Your letter brought me great joy. Although I received many letters, receiving a letter from you meant a lot to me. This is also a recognition that I could hold my own on stage! And indeed, a miracle happened to me. I went on stage completely tired: a night on the train, then rested in a hotel, random food, arriving in Ostankino an hour and a half in advance for negotiations, installation of lights; and I’m 80, and I was in the hospital for six months before that. But after fifteen minutes the audience “fed me up.” Where did the fatigue go? The voice, which had completely shrunk before, suddenly withstood three and a half hours of speaking! (There is one and a half left in the program.) I don’t understand how I sensed the layout of the hall. Now about the fleas. These are not “fleas”, but the most important thing. And how did you grasp this most important thing?!

Firstly, about intelligence. I deliberately missed the answer to the question: “What is intelligence?” The fact is that I had a program on Leningrad television from the Youth Palace (also an hour and a half), and I talked a lot about intelligence there. This program was watched by Moscow TV workers, apparently, it was they who repeated this question, but I did not want to repeat myself, keeping in mind that the Moscow program would be watched by the same viewers in Leningrad. You can’t repeat yourself - this is mental poverty. I was a schoolboy in the North with the Pomors. They amazed me with their intelligence, special folk culture, culture of the folk language, special handwriting (Old Believers), etiquette for receiving guests, etiquette for food, work culture, delicacy, etc., etc. I can’t find words to describe my admiration for them. It turned out worse for the peasants of the former Oryol and Tula provinces: they were downtrodden and illiterate due to serfdom and poverty.

And the Pomors had a sense of self-esteem. They were thinking. I still remember the story and admiration of the head of the family, a strong Pomeranian, about the sea, surprise at the sea (attitude as to a living being). I am convinced that if Tolstoy had been among them, communication and trust would have been established immediately. The Pomors were not just intelligent - they were wise. And none of them would want to move to St. Petersburg. But when Peter took them as sailors, they provided him with all his naval victories. And they won in the Mediterranean, Black, Adriatic, Azov, Caspian, Aegean, Baltic... - the entire 18th century! The North was a country of complete literacy, and they were recorded as illiterate, since they (northerners in general) refused to read the civil press. Thanks to their high culture, they also preserved folklore. And the people who hate intellectuals are the semi-intellectuals who really want to be full intellectuals.

Semi-intellectuals are the most terrible category of people. They imagine that they know everything, they can judge everything, they can make decisions, decide destinies, etc. They don’t ask anyone, don’t consult, don’t listen (they are deaf and morally). Everything is simple for them. A real intellectual knows the value of his “knowledge.” This is his basic “knowledge”. Hence his respect for others, caution, delicacy, prudence in deciding the fate of others and strong will in upholding moral principles (only a person with weak nerves, unsure of his rightness, knocks on the table with his fist).

Now about Tolstoy’s hostility towards aristocrats. I didn't explain it well here. In all his writings, Tolstoy had a “bashfulness of form”, a dislike for external gloss, for the Vronskys. But he was a true aristocrat of spirit. Same with Dostoevsky. He hated the very form of aristocracy. But he made Myshkin a prince. Grushenka also calls Alyosha Karamazov a prince. They have an aristocratic spirit. The polished, finished form is hated by Russian writers. Even Pushkin’s poetry strives for simple prose—simple, brief, without embellishment. Flauberts are not in the Russian style. But this is a big topic. I have a little about this in the book “Literature - Reality - Literature”. Interesting: Tolstoy did not like opera, but appreciated cinema. Appreciate it! There is more life simplicity and truth in cinema. Tolstoy would have recognized you very much. Would you be happy about this? And I don't confuse a role with an actor. Already from your letter and from your understanding of roles it is clear to me: you are gifted with inner aristocracy and intelligence.

Thank you!
Yours D. Likhachev.

A nation that does not value intelligence is doomed to destruction. 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 is in the cultural creativity of everyone. Progress often consists of differentiation and specification within some phenomenon (living organism, culture, economic system, etc.). The higher an organism or system stands on the stages of progress, the higher the principle that unites them. In higher organisms, the unifying principle is the nervous system. The same is true in cultural organisms - the unifying principle is the highest forms of culture. The unifying principle of Russian culture is Pushkin, Lermontov, Derzhavin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Glinka, Mussorgsky, etc. But not only people, geniuses, but also brilliant works are captured (this is especially important for ancient Russian culture).

The question is how higher forms can arise from lower ones. After all, the higher the phenomenon, the fewer elements of chance it contains. System from unsystematicity? Levels of laws: physical, higher than the physical - biological, even higher - sociological, the highest - cultural. The basis of everything is in the first steps, the unifying force is in the cultural level. The history of the Russian intelligentsia is the history of Russian thought. But not every thought! The intelligentsia is also a moral category. It is unlikely that anyone will include Pobedonostsev and Konstantin Leontyev in the history of the Russian intelligentsia. But at least Leontyev should be included in the history of Russian thought. The Russian intelligentsia also has certain beliefs. And above all: it was never nationalistic and did not have a sense of its superiority over the “common people”, over the “population” (in its modern shade of meaning).

To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search in several fields at the same time:

Logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search taking into account morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " # " before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one is found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.

# study

Grouping

In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

By default, 2 edits are allowed.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Relevance of expressions

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^ " at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word “research” is four times more relevant than the word “development”:

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values ​​in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.

Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.