General remarks on ethical articles published in the past year. - An article by Mr. Zavitnevich on the highest principle of public morality. - An attempt by Mr. Shchukin to agree with the fashionable theory of aestheticism. - About so-called. "ascetic ailments" in connection with Mr. Skabichevsky's article.
When reviewing articles of ethical content published in Russian journals over the past year, two observations come to mind. Firstly, one cannot fail to note the modernity of issues and topics that are somehow touched upon by both the secular and spiritual press: most of the articles have a direct or indirect relation to subjects of topical interest, so to speak: capitalism and the labor question in the West (article Zavitnevich "On the Highest Principle of Public Morality", Wanderer, August - September), modern social trends in the Russian intelligentsia (Russian Thought, October - November, article by Skabichevsky "Ascetic ailments in our modern advanced intelligentsia"), and socialism (arch. Plato in the 11th book of the Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy) the question of the war (Faith and the Church, April, St. Priest Galakhov "Christianity and War") about patriotism (Christian Reading, May, article by Prof. Bronzov, "Is patriotism reprehensible “), modern pessimism (Faith and Church, article by Priest Arseniev “The Main Cause of Modern Pessimism”), an attempt to reconcile Christianity and aestheticism (Faith and Church, 8–10, V. Schukin “Fundamentals of Christian Aesthetic Life”), essays on moral views only that the dead Russian thinkers - Vl. S. Solovyov and N. Ya. Grot (in Christian Reading, November, article by Prof. Bronzov "In memory of V. S. Solovyov. - A few words about his ethical views"; in Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, January - February, article Eikhenwald "Essay on the ethical views of N. Ya. Grot"), a polemic with anti-church morality c. L. Tolstoy (in the Wanderer, for October and November, Borisovsky's article "The Dogmatic Foundations of Christian Love") and Nietzsche's anti-Christian morality (ibid., for October, Nikolin's article, "On Humility" and in Christian Reading, for February - March, article Prof. Bronzov on the same subject) - these are the topics that most of the articles are devoted to. Relatively few remain who have no special relation to contemporary phenomena and interests; such are the articles: Archimandrite Sergius “On Morality in General” (Christian Reading, December), Mirtov “The Moral Ideal According to Idea” (ibid., April) prof. Bronzov "Some data for the characterization of the moral worldview of St. Macarius of Egypt" (ibid., October), Voliva "Critical analysis of the ethical views of Spencer" (Faith and Reason, nos. 14 and 15), Lavrov "On the free will of man from a moral point of view" (ibid., nos. 12–13) Theological “Teaching about Conscience” – History and Literature of the Question (Orthodox Interlocutor, September), Egorov “Christian moral teaching according to Martensen compared with Christian moral teaching according to Bishop Feofan” (ibid., February), prof . Chelpanov. "The moral system of utilitarianism exposition and criticism" (World of God, October - November) and several articles that stand in the middle between scientific-ethical and edifying literature. - Another fact that is striking in the list we have already made is that in the development of ethical issues, spiritual journalism decisively belongs to the palm in comparison with secular journalism: meanwhile: in all secular journals over the past year we will find only 2-3 articles on moral issues, almost every book in a theological journal contains one or even several articles that have, if not direct, then indirect, relation to ethics. Of course, not all of them testify to the brilliant state of scientific research in this area, but the fact in itself testifies to the important place ethical interests occupy in the minds of the environment whose organs are spiritual journals. If we are not mistaken in this, then we think that the readers of The Theological Bulletin will not be without interest to dwell with us on some of the issues discussed in the periodical press.
1) V. Zavitnevich on the highest principle of public morality. (Wanderer, book 8-9) The main task of the hostel, according to Mr. Zavitnevich, is the reconciliation of personal freedom and social unification of many individuals in a common life: a person is freedom-loving and selfish by nature, society, by the very conditions of its existence, requires the restriction of individual aspirations. The history of society is the history of experiments - one way or another to reconcile these two, apparently, fundamentally hostile principles. Eastern despotism solves the problem in a crudely simplified way, sacrificing personal freedom to the representative of social unity. Rome wants to achieve the required reconciliation through legal definitions that establish precise boundaries for personal freedom, leaving it inviolable within these boundaries. But this solution of the issue turned out to be illusory: “forced at every step of his life to cope with the form of the law, the Roman ceased to cope with the voice of his conscience”, as a result of which “internal freedom was replaced by external”. In order for a person, limited in his actions, to feel free, it is necessary that he himself sets boundaries for himself in the name of higher moral motives resting on an absolute basis, and not be limited only by externally laid down legal prescriptions. It is precisely this condition that is satisfied by the solution of the question that offers. Christianity places the principle of love at the basis of social relations, which equally satisfies both personal and social requirements. The charm of true love lies in the fact that, while demanding certain sacrifices from a person, it immediately rewards them with inner satisfaction. This eudemonistic element, “softening the severity of moral achievement,” makes it possible to reconcile egoism and altruism, the individual and the social principle in one and the same act. However, the two beginnings tried in this way are not made equal, and one of them is given preference over the other; it is not difficult to understand why this happens: altruism is the principle that unites and creates, by which the life of the whole is determined; egoism, on the other hand, is the principle that divides and conditions the life of the parts that make up the whole. “In the life of a social organism, as well as in the life of a physical organism, the triumph of the egoistic principle, the principle of individualism, would entail the destruction of the whole, which is noticed every time this principle triumphs.”
This is the highest principle of social life. Turning to modern Western society, which gave rise to the above reasoning of the author, Mr. Zavitnevich states that it is not at all inclined to be guided in its life by Christian principles. Christian principles remain almost completely alien to the entire social development of Europe. The history of social life here begins with the boundless arbitrariness of the individual in the form of "fist law"; the latter is replaced, in the form of reaction, by monarchist absolutism, which in turn gives way to revolution in the ecclesiastical and political spheres; the democratic principles thus triumphant liberate the individual, but this freedom soon disappears under the pressure of capitalism and turns into the gravest slavery. The incredible economic progress of the last period, on the one hand, gave birth to a class of the rich, on the other hand, it bred poverty and hunger, lowering wages and depriving the mass of the working people of earnings; the boundless power of some, the pitiful stagnation and mass extinction of others - a situation that is far from consistent with the requirements of the well-being of society; the unscrupulousness of the first to preach the cynical morality of oppressing the weak under the banner of Darwin's scientific principles, the understandable irritation of the latter, aggravate relations, increase the criticality of the situation, and Europe is again ready to become the arena of a terrible struggle for the personal freedom of the majority oppressed by a more powerful minority. The horror of the situation is increased, and partly created by the fact that Europe is as far as possible from what lies the only way out of the difficulty - from the Christian principles of social life. Why does it depend?
Two historical facts lead the author to the answer he is looking for. In the era of troubled times, the Russian people, in order to restore state unity, turn to the Christian principles of unity, love and self-denial on a church-religious basis, as evidenced by the content of historical monuments. Germany experienced a similar situation in the era of the great interregnum (1254-1273), when the principles of legality seemed to have completely disappeared under the onslaught of the predatory instincts of violent knights; however, the means of combating evil here turned out to be completely different; it was the "Holy Theme", for which the dagger and the rope served as symbols, and of which the folk tradition has preserved the most terrible memory; the restored imperial power uses the same means. The difference is not accidental; it is rooted in the very nature of peoples. The main character of the two peoples was reflected even earlier in their adoption of Christianity in their people's epos. The ideal of the Germans was expressed in their doctrine of Valhalla - the halls of Odin, where the souls of heroes flock to after death. Here “every morning they go out, accompanied by Odin, to fight, divide into parties and cut each other down as much as they can; by evening, the severed limbs grow together, the wounds heal, so that the next day you can do the same exercise again. Thus, the ecstasy of battle, bloodshed - these are the national ideals of Germany. Meanwhile, the most ancient historical traditions and epic tales testify to a completely opposite direction of the Slavic-Russian ideals. So the father of Ilya Muromets, letting his son go on a journey, gives him such instructions:
I will give you a blessing for good deeds,
And there is no blessing for bad deeds.
You will go the way and the way
Do not think evil of the Tatar,
Do not kill a Christian in an open field.
The Russian man is peaceful by his very nature, while the German, on the contrary, is "by nature a robber." This is the source of the struggle and violence that characterizes the history of the ecclesiastical, political and material-cultural life of the West. “Now it is easy to understand, the author concludes, why the law of Christian love could not become the guiding principle of the life of European society: this could not happen because the law of love turned out to be in direct conflict with the vital principle of the German-national element, characterized by an exorbitant riot of a person who does not know how to believe limits to the arbitrariness of their egoism.
Mr. Zavitnevich's article reveals undoubted signs of scientific and literary talent. But the favorable impression of it is largely weakened by the author's historical exaggerations. The reader, already from the above presentation, could not but notice that they are mainly determined by Slavophile tendencies. Only a one-sided enthusiasm can excuse the strange misunderstanding into which Mr. Zavitnevich falls when he asserts that the Germans (Western Europeans) are cutthroats and robbers by their very nature, and that Western Europe has remained almost uninvolved in the Christian element in its social culture. Let us take into account that this is said about a society that for more than 1000 years has confessed not only with its lips, but also with its heart, about a society that raised Sts. Francis and Vincent, Howard, Pestaloczi, Victor Hugo with his "Unhappy", Dunant, Jeanne Jugan, Father Damien, Gladstone, whole ranks of disinterested fighters for lofty Christian ideals, about a society whose entire historical development has so far tended to to come to the aid of the disenfranchised, the helpless and the weak, in which a grandiose network of charitable institutions has long been formed and in our time sometimes the private charity of one city has the budget of a whole small state - about a society where almost every literary work speaks of Christian influence, where even opponents Christians can rarely free themselves from the power of Christian ideas and feelings. Of course, with all this, there remains the possibility of regretting that Western society is still very far from being completely Christian, that it has not realized Christian ideals even approximately - one can regret this, but do not look for reasons for our national self-exaltation here - and this is not even out of Christian humility, but simply because we do not have factual data, we do not have the right. According to Mr. Zavitnevich, we, by our very national nature, are destined for a better assimilation of Christian principles in comparison with the West. If this is true, then so much the worse for us that we are still burying our talents in the ground and have not yet done anything to carry out such a lofty mission: is it really possible to give at least one serious proof that our social life far ahead of the West in the implementation of Christian ideals?! And is the very idea of our special vocation, supposedly inherent in the very nature of the people, so firmly substantiated? If the position that the German is by nature a “robber” and “thug” does not even need to be refuted, then on the other hand, some special peacefulness of the Slavs needs, in any case, solid evidence, although, perhaps, one should not deny that that the Slav in general, and the Russian in particular, is somewhat more peaceful than the German. Let us recall the Baltic Slavs, who terrified the neighboring Germans with their ferocity and bloodthirstiness, who panicked the raids of the Slavs on Byzantium), let us recall the Novgorod freedom fighters, who considered robbery a noble occupation, Novgorod massacres, hitherto flourishing in many corners of our God-saved fatherland, fisticuffs with human victims - these are a lovely heritage of pre-Petrine Russia so beloved by the Slavophils, let us further recall that the dawn of history finds our Russia in the form of numerous clans and tribes constantly at war with each other, that with the establishment of a political system, this tribal and tribal enmity is replaced by endless and bloody strife ... In total this, it seems, is quite enough to cast doubt on the absolute opposition of the German and Slavic-Russian national types. In view of this, it is not at all surprising if the ancient Western chroniclers characterize the Slavs with approximately the same features that some Russian historians attribute to the ancient Germans. So Helmold (XII century), who has a reputation as an observant and conscientious chronicler), writes: “The Slavs are innate insatiable, indomitable ferocity, which caused death to the surrounding peoples on land and at sea.” n. Zavitnevich is touched by the fact that in a troubled era the Russian people united in defense against the enemy, and he contrasts this with a similar fact from the history of the West. But there is nothing too touching in the fact that only the consciousness of a common danger united Rus'. If, however, we delve deeper into the matter, we will see that between the two facts there is no longer such a striking contrast as Mr. Zavitnevich finds. Undoubtedly, in Germany, in the era of the interregnum, the consciousness of internal danger also united the friends of order and peace. The author laments that they fought against the enemies of the world by means of the gallows and the dagger. But did the Russian people, united by the consciousness of danger, go to their enemy with open arms, and not with a spear and a sword?! The methods of struggle, therefore, were the same, only some fought with external enemies, while others fought with internal ones, which, as Mr. Zavitnevich is well aware, were not at all better than external ones. But the restored imperial power treated the rebels very cool? As if the Russian authorities, in the course of our entire history, did nothing but gently stroke their opponents on the head! Should we reproach the West in this case, when we have in our history Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich of blessed memory, who left far behind him all the sovereigns of Western Europe in the eradication of "sedition" - not real, but only imaginary? ! Despite all this, as we said above, perhaps one should not dispute the idea of the relative peacefulness of the Russian people. But after all, the conditions for the assimilation and implementation of the Christian ideals of social life are not contained in peacefulness alone; probably, other, more active qualities are also needed for this, and only when they prove to us that in these qualities, Rus' is superior to Western Europe, we, perhaps, will believe in our historical destiny, about which Mr. Zavitnevich speaks.
We have seen how the author's Slavophile inclinations prevent him from impartially evaluating historical facts. This, however, does not prevent us from treating with sincere sympathy such views of Mr. Zavitnevich, which remain correct regardless of this or that attitude to historical facts. For example, I will dwell on the following judgments of the author about the relationship between Christian and state-legal principles. “In contrast to the state, which is based on a formal legal basis, there is an institution that is predominantly moral. A person who sincerely enters the Church renounces his egoism in advance and expresses his readiness to voluntarily submit to the guidance of the Spirit of God, who lives in the unity of human convictions, in the unity of consciences. The Church does not rule out the possibility of disagreement; but she does not allow enmity because of this disagreement .... There is and cannot be a place for violence in the Church, for the simple reason that violent measures with their effect cannot penetrate into the area that the Church owns. In the area of the inner life of the spirit, hypocrisy, lies, deceit can be created by violence; but you cannot create an honest, sincere conviction. That is why the use of violent measures in the religious sphere is an undoubted sign that the purity of the Christian consciousness began to be clouded, and the church principle began to give way to the state principle. The goal of the highest ideal aspirations of the Church in relation to the state is to assimilate it according to its own laws, to saturate it with its own spirit, that is, to replace the formal legal relations of its members with moral ones. Until the Church has achieved this, she, as far as possible, should keep aloof from the state, strictly observing the purity of her moral foundations. The penetration of the Church by the state principle is death for the Church” (Strannik, August, pp. 533–534). It would do no harm to remember this for those of our theologians who strive to turn theology itself into ancilla civitatis. State-legal orders are basically the result of the fact that society has not yet been sufficiently imbued with Christian principles; they are the result of the limitation of Christian ideals by the insurmountable demands and conditions of historical life; therefore, whoever defends them in the name of Christian ideals does a very bad service to Christianity, because this cannot be achieved otherwise than through the systematic degradation of the high ideal of Christianity. A well-deserved punishment for this kind of morality of adaptation is the curious position in which it puts itself, linking its fate with the fleeting fate of certain state-legal concepts and legalizations. So, for example, prof. Olesnitsky, in his system of Christian moral teaching, says that women can be allowed to hold positions - a folk teacher, a teacher of some subjects in the lower grades of women's gymnasiums, a children's and women's doctor, a telegraph operator and a factory worker). But let us imagine that in three years women will be allowed to teach not only in the lower, but also in the upper classes of women's gymnasiums, and not only some, but all subjects, and Mr. Olesnitsky's moral "world outlook" will already be outdated. Certainly few theologians have extended so far the adaptation of Christian morality to existing orders. However, many are at risk of being in a similar position ...
2) V. V. Schukin. Fundamentals of Christian aesthetic life. (Faith and Church, book 8-10). Shchukin's article can be considered a sign of the times in that the author to a certain extent adheres to the fashionable point of view of contemporary aestheticism. It is known that representatives of this trend, having thrown overboard the morality of serving others, which is unbearable for worn-out natures, are looking for the highest meaning of life in aesthetics, in enjoying the beautiful, in elegant taste, and in the center of attention, instead of neighbors, as the old social morality requires, it turns out to be one's own. I" - with its aesthetic sensations, delights and raptures. Thus, aestheticism naturally merges with individualism, which seeks to replace altruistic ethics. Of course, Mr. Shchukin is far from propagandizing aestheticism and individualism in the way that modern decadents and Nietzschians preach them, but in his article it is impossible not to recognize attempts to adapt fashionable points of view to Christianity. - The basis of human life and activity, Mr. Shchukin argues, is the desire for happiness. The problem of happiness is the main issue of religion, philosophy, science, aesthetics. It is clear that there is first of all the solution of the question of happiness. Assuming the highest happiness of man in union with God, which will come only in the future life, Christianity does not exclude the possibility of approaching future happiness already here on earth, but it does not indicate a definite path for this, giving only general principles, with the help of which the Christian must "himself find and determine the true meaning of earthly happy life. This task is assumed by Mr. Shchukin. There are allegedly two directions in solving this issue - idealistic and materialistic; the first recommends exclusively mental pleasures to a person, the second - exclusively sensual, physiological (the most typical representative of it is the author Nietzsche! In general, Mr. Shchukin's historical classification is absolutely fantastic). But since none of these directions, due to its one-sidedness, is capable of satisfying a person, both extremes lead him to pessimism, to disappointment in happiness. But "if two extreme paths - the path of increased tension of intellectual forces and one-sided satisfaction of the elemental needs of the body - lead a person to internal decomposition", then "there remains a third, not negative, but a positive way of reconciling them by combining intellectual and physical needs in a harmonious set of their . ... The area in which the intellectual and elemental, or physical, sides of a human being must naturally balance and reconcile, is the area of \u200b\u200baesthetic.” Seeing, thus, in aesthetics the “only suitable” means for achieving positive happiness, the author analyzes aesthetic contemplation and aesthetic creativity, discovering elements of higher spiritual satisfaction and bliss in them. It is this aesthetic bliss that the author wants to make the focal point of a Christian's life, placing art and aesthetics in connection with the religious Christian life and showing that the highest and fullest aesthetic pleasure is possible only on the basis of a Christian mood. Aesthetic contemplation and aesthetic creativity require a person to renounce egoism and worldly fuss, they require spiritual purification and self-deepening - all this is exactly what Christianity requires. With the assistance of the latter, the author wants to make a person's whole life an uninterrupted aesthetic pleasure. But in order to become the highest principle of life, aesthetics must have its basis in religious Christian metaphysics. Therefore, the author tries to establish a parallel between the aesthetic life of man and the life of the Divine Himself. According to Mr. Shchukin, contemplation and creativity serve equally as signs of both the aesthetic life of a person and the absolute divine life (in support of the latter, biblical sayings are cited: “God create heaven and earth”, “and God saw everything, create a Christmas tree: and behold goodness is great"), and its basis, both in the Divine and in man, is love for oneself, "expressed in self-pleasure with one's own perfection." The conclusion from this is very clear: only in the aesthetic life does man live the life of the Divine Himself.
The psychological analysis of Mr. Shchukin in places can be called rather subtle and successful, and his private thoughts, especially where he speaks of the significance of the Christian mood for aesthetic life, deserve full attention. But the sad impression is made by the fact that the author's article, as already mentioned, is to a large extent a reflection of a corrupting, anti-social decadent craze. To place aesthetic self-gratification in the center of attention, in any refined form, means to sin against the vital socio-practical ideals of genuine Christianity, instead of healthy and normal activity, to preach an allegedly Christian sugary and unhealthy opinion. The inclination in the fashionable trends of our time to put feeling in the place of activity is the result of spiritual overwork or degeneration, worn out nerves, and in general practical unsuitability, and it is sad to see how this sick atmosphere begins to penetrate even into the theological press. No one, of course, will deny the importance of art in a person’s life, but trying to fill it all life without a trace is like if we thought of making a dinner out of cakes alone; this would be a perversion of the normal meaning and purpose of aesthetics. Aesthetic delight is a great thing, because it refreshes spiritual forces, raises energy, inspires to high deeds; this meaning is fully consistent with the transience of aesthetic impressions, which Mr. Shchukin so saddens, and which he wants to reduce to the abnormality and depravity of human nature, while the real abnormality lies not at all in this transience of aesthetic delight, but in the desire to artificially stretch it over the whole a life that can give birth to nothing but a painful anguish. It must be remembered that feeling, whatever it may be, is only a companion of activity and must never leave this role; therefore, as soon as they begin to assign an independent place to it, so, as a result of a perversion of the normal relationship of the elements of life, the latter inevitably takes an ugly direction.
3) A. M. Skabichevsky, Ascetic ailments in our modern advanced intelligentsia (Russian Thought, book X-XI). Mr. Skabichevsky’s article was written about three novels that were previously published in Russian magazines (Letkova’s “Dead Swell” - in Rus. Thoughts for 1897; Eltsova’s “In a Foreign Nest” - in Novaya Slovo for 1897 and Barvenkova"Expansion" - in Russian Wealth for 1900); but in its content and character it does not at all belong to the number of bibliographic reviews, and is of a wider and more general interest than a casual literary-critical review. The author devotes half of the article to the disclosure and substantiation of his views on asceticism, which he then tries to confirm by analyzing these novels. Even without sharing the views of the author, one cannot but recognize them as interesting and deserving full attention from people interested in ethical issues. Moreover, despite their one-sidedness, they do not at all represent a continuous delusion, but are only the fruit of an incorrect generalization that extends the signs of one part of a certain kind of phenomena to their entire field.
According to modern word usage, shared by the majority, the words asceticism and ascetic indicate a monk who indulges in religious ecstasies and exploits of self-exhaustion. This kind of understanding of asceticism, according to Mr. Skabichevsky, is very narrow and accepted only by tradition without an independent analysis of the phenomena of life. A deeper look at the matter leads to the conviction that asceticism does not constitute an exclusive and inalienable belonging to any religion, philosophical school, or a certain degree of spiritual development; it is no more no less than a special kind of mental illness inherent in people of the most diverse degrees of development, the most diverse views, beliefs and beliefs. In its intermittent character, it resembles intermittent fever, or better yet, drunkenness. It is very possible that hard drinking is precisely the lowest degree of asceticism. Healthy people always treat wine the same way, they always like it or dislike it the same way: on the contrary, in drunkards, an irresistible desire for wine is replaced by an irresistible aversion to it. “We also notice the same change of two periods in people subject to asceticism: spiritual ecstasies are correctly replaced by sensual ones, and in both cases we are not dealing with normal moods, which healthy and balanced people experience, but with ecstasies that sometimes reach complete insanity." Approaching binge drinking in terms of its symptoms, asceticism also has causes common with binge drinking: “most ascetic diseases are rooted on the basis of dissatisfaction with life, oppression of any kind ... if at the same time all hopes and bright illusions are lost ahead and is the consciousness of the hopelessness of the situation. In a word, these are the same reasons that, with less culture, give rise to a tendency to binge. This also shows that every asceticism is invariably associated with pessimism. Ascetic diseases arising from a pessimistic attitude are not limited to sporadic cases, but very often take on an epidemic character, covering entire countries and nations; it depends on the general conditions of life, conducive to a gloomy pessimistic mood. Rus' was in such conditions from the very beginning of its existence. The whole nature of our country in general - harsh, dull and meager, disposed to a gloomy outlook on life; and besides, Byzantium turned out to be our enlightener, “with its complete decomposition of the entire social system, the predominance of monasticism and gloomy ascetic ideals. It is not surprising, therefore, that Rus' became a "nursery of every kind of asceticism," which preached renunciation of all fleeting joys of life and sinful temptations. The extreme estrangement from Europe further confirmed the ascetic ideals in the minds of the Russian people, finally bringing them to a panic fear of the slightest manifestation of fun, joy, enjoyment of the gifts of life. So, for example, the decrees of 1648 forbade, under the threat of exile to distant cities, the singing of songs, not only in the streets and in the fields, but also at home; it was forbidden to laugh, joke and idle talk; come together for some kind of spectacle, games and dances, play cards and chess, etc. This ascetic trend dominated in Rus' until the Petrine reforms, when a reaction against the extremes of asceticism sets in. That is why the Petrine era is characterized by an explosion of cheerfulness and revelry of the flesh that has never been seen before. The government no longer forbids amusements; it even prescribes them under the threat of fines, disgrace and shameful ridicule: feasts and assemblies with continuous dances and all kinds of madness, masquerades, public revels with music, carousels, fireworks, noisy street processions of a satirical-comic or Bacchic character, “the most joking and most drunken cathedral ' led by Peter himself - all this was an inevitable reaction against ascetic fanaticism, suspecting "evil and death in every innocent smile of a young life." But caused by social illness, this outburst of merriment was not in itself a healthy phenomenon; it was a febrile attack, which was again to be replaced by a depression; the ascetic trend was too deeply ingrained in Russian national life, entered the flesh and blood of the Russian people, and therefore could not be eradicated immediately. The further history of the Russian people gives the best confirmation of this, representing a constant change of two moods: ascetic-pessimistic and cheerful, falling on the reactionary and progressive eras. A new and mighty stream of fun, breaking through in the reign of Catherine, is replaced by a gloomy reaction of Paul's reign. The era of Alexander I sharply splits into two periods: the bright and cheerful period of Speransky and the gloomy ascetic period of Arakcheev. During the reign of the imp. Nicholas I, asceticism and mysticism finally take over the public mood. The end of the 1950s and 1960s are again characterized by a rise in public self-awareness, expressed in general rejoicing and merriment. But in the 70s and 80s this mood was again replaced by ascetic despondency, repentant motives, enslavement of the flesh to the spirit; the penitent nobles, frail, dull, nervously unwound, who thought a lot about themselves, but in reality turned out to be incapable of anything, imposed unbearable epithems on themselves for the sins of their fathers and the payment of a debt to the people. ... Young men appeared who left universities together with hateful science and, like the missionaries of the first centuries of Christianity, went to preach advanced European ideas among the dark and illiterate working masses. A different kind of young men and even elders appeared, who put on peasant clothes, studied agricultural work, and, denying urban culture, science and art, decided to devote their whole lives to agriculture, and for this purpose they were hired as laborers to wealthy peasants. In the 1990s, the opposite trend began again: our intelligentsia got tired of caring about lower brothers, about paying an unpayable debt, sacrificing themselves for unrealizable ideas, dressing in sermyag and bast shoes and depriving themselves of all the joys of life. An irresistible, purely spontaneous desire arose to take a break from the painful tension of the nerves, and so the young intelligentsia embarked on careerism, sportsmanship, selfless burning of life; young people, by their very age prone to love and self-sacrifice, are carried away by the same callous as well as the controversial doctrine of Marxism, the children of people-lovers begin to worship the inhuman aristocratic ideas of Nietzsche.
G. Skabichevsky understands asceticism so broadly that the reader may be perplexed whether the author fundamentally denies any self-denial, whether he declares any deeds of love to be a painful phenomenon, putting in their place the cult of personal pleasure and fun. The author himself, however, foresaw this bewilderment and tries to warn him; according to his statement, he is far from calling any altruism and disinterested passion for the idea as asceticism. It is impossible to call an enthusiast an ascetic who, giving himself up to certain disinterested inclinations, does not at all believe that the whole goal, the whole content of life lies in such hobbies, and does not consider all other needs of human nature, “like love for wife and children, enjoyment of music, theatrical spectacles , conversations with friends over a bottle of wine, etc., for something so reprehensible, criminal, which a person who does not want to destroy his soul should refuse once and for all. So the author rises up in defense of the violated rights of pleasure, joy and happiness, and specifically of personal egoistic happiness, sensual pleasures. The author, with amusing indignation, mentions that Konstantin Aksakov died a virgin, with a despondent look speaks of the small number of cafes-chantants and hurdy-gurdies in modern Petersburg, and with sincere enthusiasm describes the beer hall of the 60s “with vast halls that could accommodate thousands of crowds, with billiards, skittles, roulette, lotto, dominoes "and the then St. Petersburg streets, on which" hurdy-gurdies howled everywhere, sometimes with drums, monkeys, bagpipes creaked, harmonicas groaned, wandering orchestras rattled through the yards, rachniks showed the city of Paris, Petrushka devil from behind striped screens he carried children and adults to hell to the delight, and acrobats in shiny tights showed their somersaults on carpets spread over the pavement. All these pictures, with a little too much tavern fun, captivate Mr. Skabichevsky immeasurably more than that holy inspiration, that noble, and of course by no means always painful, enthusiasm with which, until recently, masses of young people went to the service of the lesser brethren. But here we must remind Mr. Skabichevsky that he is carried away to the detriment of his own theory: after all, those outbursts of merriment that he likes so much, according to his own theory, are only a painful reaction, this is one of the alternating paroxysms; why such injustice - such condescension to one paroxysm and severe condemnation of another? G. Skabichevsky demands equality of physical and spiritual pleasures, egoism and altruism, although it is not entirely clear where exactly his ideal is - in the vulgar petty-bourgeois happiness that awaited Freda and Pierre (in Barvenkova's novel "Expanse"), which he speaks of in such a sympathetic tone , whether in pathetic mediocrity, which knows how to be balanced, or in those historical personalities who “equally colossally” manifest themselves, “both in great feats of an altruistic nature, and in the satisfaction of egoistic passions” (Book. X, p. 32). If the former, then it is too insulting for humanity; if the latter, then why is it healthier and better than the intermittent ascetic paroxysms so condemned by Mr. Skabichevsky? But no matter how one understands this equality of sensuality and spirit, no noble moral worldview will ever reconcile with it: personal and, in particular, even sensual joys can be of great importance if they support the energy and vigor of spiritual forces, but give them an independent place in life. means endangering that in which the best part of humanity has always seen the only task truly and completely worthy of a person - his spiritual aspirations and ideals. It goes without saying that among these worldviews it occupies the first place; therefore, it is extremely strange to see Mr. Skabichevsky's confidence that Christ preached precisely his ideals. In the opinion of Mr. Skabichevsky, the relation of the teaching of Christ to the joys and pleasures of life is excellently portrayed by the words of Arsenoi in Merezhkovsky's novel The Outcast: “Those who torment their flesh and soul in the desert, she says, are far from the meek son of Mary. He loved children and freedom, and the joy of feasts, and lush white lilies. It is quite true that Christ was not a persecutor of joy and beauty, but if Mr. Skabichevsky, who apparently sympathizes with the teachings of Christ, wants to impose on Him his idea of the equality of sensuality and spirit, egoism and altruism, then this only shows that the teachings of Christ are for him terra incognita; Mr. Skabichevsky either does not know or forgets that the teaching of Christ, with all his cheerfulness, is the preaching of the cross-bearing and self-denial, and not egoistic and sensual pleasures, that the same Christ, who loved lilies and feasts, called, however, to “destroy one’s soul” for the sake of higher spiritual goals. G. Skabichevsky contrasts asceticism with the Christian teaching of love, peace, meekness, humility, gentleness, etc. (Book X, p. 22). But was everything that Mr. Skabichevsky mercilessly condemns under the name of asceticism alien to this spirit of love, peace, gentleness, etc.? Was not, for example, Saint Sergius more than anyone filled with the humility of love and gentleness? Was it not love that animated the majority of the Narodniks in their service to the lesser brethren? Is it not love that prompts Maria Pavlovna into the novel by Count. Tolstoy's "Resurrection" to go entirely into charity, forgetting about personal happiness? It goes without saying that all this does not in the least interfere with cheerfulness: true satisfaction is achieved by a person not by the pursuit of pleasures and pleasures, and least of all by physical pleasures, but by selfless love. Therefore, self-denial, if it is not an attack of diseased nerves (that this actually happens, is beyond doubt), is a sign not of a decline in the spirit, but of its strength, the richness of the inner content, which is cramped in the narrow framework of egoism, and which therefore strives to pour out through towards known objective goals. But according to Mr. Skabichevsky, the satisfaction that arises on this basis is suspicious, dangerous, because it always threatens to turn into a paroxysm of unbridled sensuality. This, of course, should be the case according to Mr. Skabichevsky's theory, but does it always happen in reality? In order to answer this, let us turn to the facts with the help of which Mr. Skabichevsky wants to prove his theory.
According to Mr. Skabichevsky, the characteristic symptom of asceticism is the correct alternation of spiritual and sensual ecstasies. His reference to the history of Russian social life to a certain extent, apparently, can serve as a confirmation of such a view. But firstly, we will find fluctuations in public moods everywhere and always; therefore it is quite risky to see such fluctuations as a sign of an intermittent disease. Moreover, social psychopathology is too little developed to make such decisive and bold diagnoses in this area as Mr. Skabichevsky makes. Therefore, to test his views, it is best to turn to the individual facts that he cites. In this case, the only example that unconditionally confirms his theory will be Ivan the Terrible, who periodically passed “from unbridled orgies of drunkenness and debauchery to tearful repentance, when, together with his entourage, he locked himself in some monastery and there, dressed in monastic robes, laid earthly obeisances ... and indulged in all kinds of tortures of the flesh. There is no doubt that Ivan the Terrible was a typical representative of that same painful asceticism that Mr. Skabichevsky speaks of; but on the basis that this, without a doubt, morally disturbed person, was a sick ascetic, to suspect illness in any renunciation of joy and happiness in the name of higher ideals, is the same as recognizing all religiosity as a sign of mental illness only because some epileptics subject to bouts of morbid religiosity. G. Skabichevsky is also right in that the striving for ascetic deprivations for their own sake, without any higher practical goals, if not always, then very often characterizes a certain nervous defect, which then threatens to manifest itself in an unexpected reaction, but he looks in vain everywhere for this it is a pathological phenomenon, when the case is explained, apart from it, from motives that do not contain anything morbid. Of course, there is something abnormal in the fact that Zina Chernova (in Eltsova's novel "In a Strange Nest"), for no reason and in the name of what, exhausts her flesh, in order to then throw herself into the arms of the first rogue; but if it weren’t for this aimless exhaustion of the flesh, if it weren’t for the painful exaltation peeping through it, then we wouldn’t have the right to see an “ascetic illness” either in the fact that she is carried away by dreams of self-sacrifice, or even in the fact that she gives herself vulgar heartthrob; the latter, of course, is sad, but in itself still does not belong to the field of pathology. We think, finally, that even for Zina Chernova, for all the exaltation of her nature, this life lesson will not be in vain, so that her moral revival, about which Ms. Yeltsova speaks, does not at all threaten a new “ascetic illness”. But if Zina Chernova to some extent speaks in favor of Mr. Skabichevsky, then Letkova's novel The Dead Swell is no longer suitable for him. The representative of the "ascetic ailment" here is Lyolya - the main character of the novel, on whose behalf, in the form of her diary, the whole story is being told. Brought up by a populist mother in the ascetic ideals of self-sacrifice and service to the people, Lyolya falls in love with a handsome, somewhat limited, but kind officer - Vladimir Barmin, who does not know any lofty questions, and marries him, despite the protests of her mother; soon, however, Lyolya begins to get bored with her husband, who does not satisfy her spiritual needs; here the well-worn esthete Lvov turns up with his beautiful and supposedly original phrases, with the cult of beauty and higher individuality, I Lyolya, carried away by him, leaves her husband; but soon, however, this new happiness with a loved one, who, moreover, revealed himself from the most repulsive sides, begins to burden the heroine, and she, having comprehended the emptiness and unsatisfactoriness of a purely personal, egoistic existence, returns to the ideals of her mother. True, this short retelling may give the impression that Lyolya, in the best possible way, confirms Mr. Skabichevsky's theory, but a closer look at the case turns out that it has nothing in common with this theory. Brought up in the ideals of self-sacrifice and herself taking some part in “serving the people”, Lyolya falls in love with a handsome officer - this is the first manifestation of an ascetic illness. But in order for a fact to be able to confirm the views of Mr. Skabichevsky, it would be necessary to show that we are dealing with two alternating ecstasies, yet we do not find this main symptom here. Quite the opposite: Lyolya never completely, wholeheartedly gave herself up to the “paroxysm” of self-sacrifice; serving the people and the cause of her mother in general did not satisfy her from the very beginning, and she always felt in herself a thirst for personal happiness, which, at the first opportunity, was reflected in the fact that Lyolya fell in love with a handsome and healthy officer without high spiritual aspirations. All this is so common, simple and normal that excursions into the field of psychopathology would, apparently, be completely inappropriate here. But let's go further. A few years later, Lelya gets bored with her husband, who is completely incapable of understanding her, and she leaves with the decadent Lvov; it turns out that here, too, there is again an “ascetic ailment”: in this case, however strange such terminology may be, we can rightfully blame any betrayal of a wife on her husband and vice versa on an ascetic ailment. The husband does not satisfy the wife's spiritual needs, and she leaves with another who captivates her with the cult of beauty, elegant phrases, refined taste - this is an "ascetic ailment". If it had happened the other way around, that is, if refinement of taste had been on the husband’s side, and Lvov’s side had the advantages of healthy physical beauty, then Lelya’s betrayal could again be interpreted as a manifestation of an ascetic illness. Since, further, all betrayals in marriage already in themselves testify to the lack of complete satisfaction of one of the spouses with the other, we get a mathematically accurate conclusion - that all betrayals come from an “ascetic illness”. How little this fact from Lelya's biography fits the views of Mr. Skabichevsky is easy to understand, of course, from the fact that there is no change in physical and spiritual paroxysms, but only one physical attraction is replaced by another, also physical: Lvov only managed to touch Lelya's sensuality from a new side. , and they themselves eventually come to the realization that their attraction was based on physiology. But maybe, finally, the ascetic illness affected, at least, in the fact that Lyolya returns to the ideals of her mother, forgotten for some time? From what we have seen above, it is already possible to understand how correct it is to apply the data of psychiatry to the case here. We know that two opposite tendencies have always lived in Lela: the desire for self-sacrifice and the thirst for personal happiness; according to her own explanation, she inherited the former from her mother, the latter from her father. This means that she did not suffer from intermittent painful paroxysms, and the only thing is that her life turned out in such a way that she could not reconcile these two needs at once, and one can hope that, having finally tasted all the bitterness of the so-called. personal happiness, she will no longer renounce altruistic ideals, but will be able to merge them into one whole with a purely personal life. Are there many such people who immediately find their true path in life, who do not suffer from a split, from the struggle of opposing impulses? To look everywhere for traces of pathology means to recognize as normal only the balance of a well-organized machine and to find in it the highest ideal of man. - So, “Lyolya turned out to be completely unsuitable for the theory of Mr. Skabichevsky; this however is only half of the failure. In the same novel, he has to reckon with a direct refutation of his theory, which he quite prudently ignores. In fact, it seems rather strange that Mr. Skabichevsky stops his attention on the heroine, which in essence has nothing in common with his views, and completely forgets about the typical ascetic from his point of view, which is the mother of Lelya, who has completely gone into the service of the people and has forgotten about personal happiness. It would seem that, if anywhere, then here we should look for intermittent paroxysms; some purely feminine narrowness inherent in Nastasya Petrovna, which manifests itself in excessive pedantry, strictness and sometimes even a little comical reasoning, it would seem from the point of view of Mr. Skabichevsky, should have sharpened the transitions to rampant sensual passions. However, do we see anything similar? We see only the following: Lyolya's mother lived all her life for others, according to the testimony of the heroine of the novel: first for her husband, then for her daughter, finally, she completely went into the service of her neighbors; we see that the holy inspiration does not leave Nastasya Petrovna for a minute, and she, even in spite of her daughter’s murderous and distressing behavior, in spite of complete bodily exhaustion, remains cheerful and full of spiritual strength, which Lyolya herself repeatedly speaks with surprise. Thus, we see how difficult it is to prove that asceticism, in the terminology of Mr. Skabichevsky, i.e., complete renunciation of personal happiness and personal joys, is a painful phenomenon.
Apart from the extremes just indicated, we do not deny the truth in what Mr. Skabichevsky says. He is right in that one-sided asceticism often degenerates into painful and ugly forms, that ascetic tendencies often grow not on the basis of healthy aspirations of the spirit, but on the basis of nervous dislocation and morbidity, which makes itself felt in subsequent reactions; he is right in that asceticism for the sake of asceticism, without any further fruitful purpose, looking at the joys of life as something sinful in itself - all these phenomena are abnormal and undesirable. But for the sake of this, to see an ascetic illness in every selfless self-denial that forgets about itself and its joys, in every renunciation of happiness for the sake of higher goals, in every opposition to sensuality that threatens to engulf the spiritual personality, is to draw the same ugly conclusion as if someone Somehow, just on the basis that many of the Spanish kings who call themselves turned out to be simply crazy, I would argue that all real Spanish kings are nothing more than crazy. The torn or painful asceticism that Mr. Skabichevsky speaks of can often be the result of poorly calculated personal forces. Therefore, in self-denial, and especially in the suppression of sensuality, a certain kind of caution is needed. But there are people with such a happy nature that self-renunciation and self-restraint for them is not in the least associated with dangers and only increases their spiritual strength. It is precisely here that Mr. Skabichevsky senses the "stench of degeneration." Meanwhile, it would do no harm for him to recall, if we are not mistaken, the image of Christ highly revered by him, who, with all his “joyfulness”, perfectly dominated sensuality and had “no place to lay his head”.
Current page: 11 (total book has 29 pages) [accessible reading excerpt: 20 pages]
We see the same thing in the "Word": everything is described in motion, in action. As in the Iliad, the battle is compared to a thunderstorm, to a downpour. As comparisons, cosmic phenomena are given (princes are compared with the sun, failure is predicted by an eclipse). Comparisons with labor processes prevail: harvesting, sowing, forging - and with images of hunting and hunting animals (pardus, falcons). The world of gods enters the world of people - as in the Iliad. And at the same time, The Tale of Igor's Campaign is not the Iliad.
The world of the "Word" is a large world of easy, uncomplicated action, a world of rapidly occurring events unfolding in a vast space. The heroes of The Word move with fantastic speed and act almost effortlessly. The point of view from above dominates (cf. the “raised horizon” in ancient Russian miniatures and icons). The author sees the Russian land as if from a great height, covers vast spaces with his mind's eye, as if "flies with his mind under the clouds", "prowls through the fields to the mountains."
In this lightest of worlds, as soon as the horses begin to neigh behind Sula, the glory of victory is already ringing in Kyiv; the trumpets will only begin to sound in Novgorod-Seversky, as the banners are already in Putivl - the troops are ready to march. The girls sing on the Danube - their voices wind across the sea to Kyiv (the road from the Danube was sea). Heard in the distance and the ringing of bells. The author easily transfers the story from one area to another. He reaches Kyiv from Polotsk. And even the sound of a stirrup is heard in Chernigov from Tmutorokan. The speed with which the actors, animals and birds move is characteristic. They rush, jump, rush, fly over vast spaces. People move with extraordinary speed, they roam the fields like a wolf, they are transported, hanging on a cloud, they soar like eagles. As soon as you mount a horse, as you can already see the Don, there definitely does not exist a multi-day and laborious steppe transition through the waterless steppe. The prince can fly "from afar". He can soar high, spreading in the winds. His thunderstorms flow through the lands. Yaroslavna is compared with a bird and wants to fly over a bird. Warriors are light - like falcons and jackdaws. They are living shereshirs, arrows. Heroes not only move with ease, but effortlessly stab and cut enemies. They are strong as animals: tours, pardus, wolves. For Kuryans there is no difficulty and no effort. They gallop with strained bows (stretching a bow in a gallop is unusually difficult), their bodies are open and their sabers are sharp. They run through the field like gray wolves. They know the paths and the yarugas. Vsevolod's warriors can scatter the Volga with their oars and pour out the Don with their helmets.
People are not only strong, like animals, and light, like birds, - all actions are performed in the "Word" without much physical stress, without effort, as if by themselves. The winds easily carry arrows. As soon as fingers fall on the strings, they themselves rumble glory. In this atmosphere of ease of any action, the hyperbolic exploits of Vsevolod Bui Tur become possible.
The special dynamism of the Lay is also associated with this “light” space.
The author of The Lay prefers dynamic descriptions to static ones. It describes actions, not stationary states. Speaking of nature, he does not give landscapes, but describes the reaction of nature to events occurring in people. He describes an approaching thunderstorm, nature's help in Igor's flight, the behavior of birds and animals, nature's sadness or its joy. Nature in the Lay is not the background of events, not the scenery in which the action takes place - it is itself the character, something like an ancient choir. Nature reacts to events as a kind of "narrator", expresses the author's opinion and author's emotions.
The "lightness" of space and environment in the "Word" is not in everything similar to the "lightness" of a fairy tale. She is closer to the icon. The space in the "Word" is artistically reduced, "grouped" and symbolized. People react to events in masses, peoples act as a single whole: Germans, Venetians, Greeks and Moravians sing the glory of Svyatoslav and the cabins of Prince Igor. As a single whole, as “coups” of people on the icons, the Gothic red maidens, Polovtsy, and squad act in the “Word”. As on icons, the actions of the princes are symbolic and emblematic. Igor disembarked from the golden saddle and moved into the saddle of Kashchei: this symbolizes his new state of captivity. On the river on Kayala, darkness covers the light, and this symbolizes defeat. Abstract concepts - grief, resentment, glory - are personified and materialized, acquiring the ability to act like people or living and inanimate nature. Resentment rises and enters the land of Troyan as a virgin, splashes with swan wings, a lie awakens and is lulled to sleep, joy droops, the mind becomes tight, ascends the Russian land, strife is sown and grows, sadness flows, melancholy spills.
"Light" space corresponds to the humanity of the surrounding nature. Everything in space is interconnected not only physically, but also emotionally.
Nature sympathizes with the Russians. Animals, birds, plants, rivers, atmospheric phenomena (thunderstorms, winds, clouds) take part in the fate of Russian people. The sun shines for the prince, but the night groans for him, warning him of danger. Div shouts so that the Volga, Pomorye, Posulye, Surozh, Korsun and Tmutorokan can hear him. The grass droops, the tree bows to the ground with tightness. Even the walls of cities respond to events.
This method of characterizing events and expressing the author's attitude towards them is extremely characteristic of the Lay, giving it emotionality and, at the same time, a special persuasiveness of this emotionality. It is, as it were, an appeal to the environment: to people, nations, to nature itself. Emotionality, as it were, is not authorial, but objectively existing in the environment, “spilled” in space, flows in it.
Thus, emotionality does not come from the author, the “emotional perspective” is multifaceted, as in icons. Emotionality is, as it were, inherent in the events themselves and nature itself. It saturates the space. The author acts as a spokesman for the emotionality objectively existing outside of him.
All this is not in the fairy tale, but much is suggested here by the annals and other works of ancient Russian literature.
The only significant work of the XII century about the "offensive" campaign is "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", but we know that it was undertaken for defensive purposes "for the Russian land", and this is emphasized in every possible way in the "Lay".
But how many works appear on purely “defensive” topics, especially in connection with the Batu invasion, the invasions of the Swedes and the Livonian knights: “Tales of the Battle of Kalka”, “The Life of Alexander Nevsky”, “The Word of the Death of the Russian Land”, chronicle stories about the defense of Vladimir , Kiev, Kozelsk, the story of the death of Mikhail Chernigovsky, Vasilko Rostov (in the annals of Princess Maria), "The Tale of the Devastation of Ryazan", etc. The end of the XIV and XV centuries are again covered by a whole wreath of stories about the defense of cities: about the Battle of Kulikovo, Tamerlane, about Tokhtamysh, about Edigey, a number of stories about the defense against Lithuania. A new chain of stories about courageous defense, but not about courageous campaigns - in the 16th century. The main one is about the defense of Pskov from Stefan Batory.
It cannot be said that there is a lack of offensive themes for literature in historical reality. Only one Livonian war, waged with varying success, in which outstanding victories were won, would give many opportunities in this direction.
The only exception is the Kazan History, most of which is devoted to Russian campaigns against Kazan. The same continues in the 18th and 19th centuries. Not a single one of the great victories over the Turks in the 18th century produced a great work, nor campaigns in the Caucasus and Central Asia. But the "Caucasian theme", like "Kazan History", led to a kind of idealization of the Caucasian peoples - up to the Caucasian army itself, dressed by order of Yermolov in the clothes of the Caucasian highlanders.
Only the defensive war gave food to the creative imagination of great writers: the Patriotic War of 1812 and the defense of Sevastopol. It is remarkable that "War and Peace" does not refer to the foreign campaign of the Russian army. "War and Peace" ends at the borders of Russia. And this is very revealing.
I don't think this is a feature specific to Russian literature. Let us recall the "Song of Roland" and other works of the Middle Ages. Let's remember the works of the New Age.
The heroism of the defenders has always attracted the attention of writers more than the heroism of the attackers: even in Napoleonic history. The most profound works are devoted to the Battle of Waterloo, the Hundred Days of Napoleon, the campaign against Moscow - or rather, the retreat of Napoleon.
Immediately after World War II, in his lectures at the Sorbonne on the history of Russian literature, A. Mazon said: “Russians have always savored their defeats and portrayed them as victories”; he meant the Battle of Kulikovo, Borodino, Sevastopol. He was wrong in his emotional, hostile to all Russian assessment of defense topics. But he was right that the people are peace-loving and write more readily about defense than about offensive, and heroism, the victory of the spirit, sees in the heroic defense of their cities, country, and not in the capture of another country, the capture of foreign cities.
The psychology of defenders is deeper, deeper patriotism can be shown precisely on defense. The people and the culture of the people are essentially peaceful, and this can be seen with complete clarity in the wide scope of the topics of literature.
There can be no recurrence of a scientific dispute about the antiquity of the Lay, but there are enough dilettantes of various kinds, and you can never vouch for them ... The Lay, like any well-known glorified monuments, is a favorite object to "show oneself". Lovers are another matter. Those who love the "Word" can discover many new things, can enter into science. But amateurs and dilettantes are different categories of people.
Documents have always been part of the annals. Let us recall the treaties with the Greeks of 911 and 941, the texts of which are included in the Tale of Bygone Years. And in the future, along with literary materials (historical stories, military stories, lives of saints and sermons), written documents very often got into the annals, not to mention “oral” documents - speeches of princes at a veche, before a campaign or before a battle, on princely photographs: they were also transmitted, if possible, with documentary accuracy. However, only in the 16th century did the chronicle itself begin to be fully realized as a document - exposing or justifying, giving rights or taking them away. And this leaves an imprint on the style of the chronicle: responsibility makes the presentation of the chronicle more magnificent and sublime. Chronicle adjoins the style of the second monumentalism. And this pretentious style is a kind of fusion of oratory with state office work.
Both developed to a high degree in the 16th century and intertwined with each other at the peaks, that is, in literary works.
But the chronicle - is it the pinnacle of literary art? This is a very important phenomenon in Russian culture, but, from our point of view, it seems to be the least literary. However, raised on the columns of oratory monumentalism and documentary monumentalism, the chronicle ascended to the very heights of literary creativity. It has become the art of artificiality.
As instructions in relation to the rulers of states, not only the “Secret of the Secret”, “Stephanit and Ikhnilat”, “The Tale of Queen Dinara”, many works of Maxim the Greek, the messages of the elder Philotheus and “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” - the latter with a statement of theories ( not always similar) the rights of Russian sovereigns to the throne and their role in world history, but also chronographs and chronicles, annals and chroniclers. State power, interpreted in different ways, is nevertheless always placed high, the authority of the sovereign is affirmed everywhere, the responsibility of sovereigns to the country, subjects and world history, the right to interfere in the fate of the world is affirmed everywhere. On the one hand, this destroyed the old ideas about the Grand Duke as a simple owner of people and lands, but on the other hand, elevating the power of the sovereign to the sole representative and defender of Orthodoxy after the fall of the independence of all Orthodox states, created the prerequisites for the Moscow sovereigns to be confident in their complete infallibility and the right to interfere even in every little detail of private life.
Teachings, instructions, advice, concepts of the origin of the clan and power of the Moscow sovereigns not only put power under the control of the public, but at the same time inspired the Moscow sovereigns with the idea of their complete lack of control, created the ideological prerequisites for the future despotism of Ivan the Terrible.
On the “softness of the voice” of ancient Russian literature. This is not at all a reproach to her. The volume sometimes gets in the way, annoying. She is obsessive, unceremonious. I have always preferred "quiet poetry". And about the beauty of the ancient Russian "quietness" I remember the following case. At one of the conferences of the sector of ancient Russian literature of the Pushkin House, where there were reports on ancient Russian music, Ivan Nikiforovich Zavoloko, now deceased, spoke. He was an Old Believer, graduated from Charles University in Prague, knew languages and classical European music, the manner of performing vocal works. But he also loved ancient Russian singing, he knew it, he sang it himself. And so he showed how to sing on the hooks. And it was necessary not to stand out in the choir, to sing in an undertone. And, standing on the pulpit, he sang several works of the XVI-XVII centuries. He sang alone, but as a member of the choir. Quiet, calm, secluded. It was a living contrast to the manner in which some of the choirs now perform ancient Russian works.
And in literature, the authors knew how to restrain themselves. It doesn't take long to see such beauty. Remember the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the death of Oleg, the story of the capture of Ryazan by Batu, "The Tale of Peter and Fevronia of Murom." And how many more of these modest, "quiet" stories that had such a strong effect on their readers!
As for Avvakum, it is on the verge of modern times.
Strikingly "empathy" Archpriest Avvakum. Regarding the loss of the son of the noblewoman Morozova, Avvakum writes to her: “It’s already uncomfortable for you to whip with a rosary and it’s not comfortable to look at how he rides horses and stroke his head - do you remember how it used to be?” The feeling of the absence of a son is clearly conveyed to physiology: there is no one to pat on the head! Here you can see Avvakum the artist.
The literature of modern times has adopted (partly imperceptibly to itself) many features and peculiarities of ancient literature. First of all, her consciousness of responsibility to the country, her educational, moral and state character, her susceptibility to the literatures of other peoples, her respect and interest in the fate of other peoples who entered the orbit of the Russian state, her individual themes and moral approach to these topics.
“Russian classical literature” is not just “first-class literature” and is not, as it were, “exemplary” literature, which has become classically impeccable due to its high purely literary merits.
All these virtues, of course, are in Russian classical literature, but this is by no means all. This literature also has its own special “face”, “individuality”, and its characteristic features.
And I would first of all note that the creators of Russian classical literature were authors who had enormous “public responsibility”.
Russian classical literature is not entertaining, although fascination is highly characteristic of it. This is the fascination of a special nature: it is determined by the offer to the reader to solve complex moral and social problems - to solve together: both the author and the readers.
The best works of Russian classical literature never offer readers ready-made answers to the social and moral questions posed. The authors do not moralize, but seem to address the readers: “Think about it!”, “Decide for yourself!”, “Look what happens in life!”, “Do not hide from responsibility for everything and everyone!” Therefore, answers to questions are given by the author together with the readers.
Russian classical literature is a grandiose dialogue with the people, with their intelligentsia in the first place. This is an appeal to the conscience of readers.
The moral and social issues with which Russian classical literature addresses its readers are not temporary, not momentary, although they were of particular importance for their time. Due to their "eternity" these questions are of such great importance for us and will be so for all subsequent generations.
Russian classical literature is eternally alive, it does not become history, only “history of literature”. She talks to us, her conversation is captivating, elevates us both aesthetically and ethically, makes us wiser, increases our life experience, allows us to experience “ten lives” together with her heroes, experience the experience of many generations and apply it in our own lives. It gives us the opportunity to experience the happiness of living not only “for ourselves”, but also for many others - for the “humiliated and insulted”, for “little people”, for unknown heroes and for the moral triumph of the highest human qualities ...
The origins of this humanism in Russian literature lie in its centuries-old development, when literature sometimes became the only voice of conscience, the only force that determined the national self-consciousness of the Russian people - literature and folklore close to it. It was at the time of feudal fragmentation, at the time of the foreign yoke, when literature, the Russian language were the only forces binding the people.
Russian literature has always drawn its enormous strength from Russian reality, from the social experience of the people, but foreign literatures have also served as a help; first Byzantine, Bulgarian, Czech, Serbian, Polish, ancient literature, and from the Petrine era - all the literature of Western Europe.
The literature of our time has grown on the basis of Russian classical literature.
The assimilation of classical traditions is a characteristic and very important feature of modern literature. Without assimilation of the best traditions there can be no progress. It is only necessary that everything most valuable should not be missed, forgotten, simplified in these traditions.
We must not lose anything from our great heritage.
“Book reading” and “reverence for books” must preserve for us and for future generations their high purpose, their high place in our lives, in shaping our life positions, in choosing ethical and aesthetic values, in preventing our consciousness from being littered various kinds of "pulp" and meaningless, purely entertaining bad taste.
The essence of progress in literature lies in the expansion of the aesthetic and ideological "possibilities" of literature, which are created as a result of "aesthetic accumulation", the accumulation of all kinds of literary experience and the expansion of its "memory".
Works of great art always admit of several explanations, equally correct. This is surprising and not always even clear. I will give examples.
The features of style and worldview reflected in the works can be simultaneously and fully explained, interpreted from the point of view of the writer’s biography, from the point of view of the movement of literature (its “internal laws”), from the point of view of the development of verse (if it concerns poetry) and , finally, from the point of view of historical reality - not only taken at once, but "deployed in action." And this applies not only to literature. I noticed similar phenomena in the development of architecture and painting. It is a pity that I am new to music and the history of philosophy.
More limitedly, mainly in the ideological aspect, a literary work is explained in terms of the history of social thought (there are fewer explanations of the style of works). It is not enough to say that every work of art must be explained in the "context of culture." This is possible, this is correct, but not everything boils down to this. The fact is that the work can equally be explained in the “context of itself”. In other words (and I'm not afraid to say it) - immanently, to be explained as a closed system. The fact is that the “external” explanation of a work of art (historical setting, the influence of the aesthetic views of its time, the history of literature - its position at the time the work was written, etc.) - to a certain extent, “dismembers” the work; commenting and explaining the work to some extent splits the work, loses attention to the whole. Even if we talk about the style of a work and at the same time understand the style in a limited way - within the limits of the form - then the stylistic explanation, losing sight of the whole, cannot give a complete explanation of the work as an aesthetic phenomenon.
Therefore, there is always a need to consider any work of art as a kind of unity, a manifestation of aesthetic and ideological consciousness.
In literature, forward movement takes place, as it were, in large brackets, embracing a whole group of phenomena: ideas, stylistic features, themes, etc. The new enters along with new life facts, but as a definite totality. A new style, the style of an epoch, is often a new grouping of old elements that enter into new combinations with each other. At the same time, phenomena that previously held secondary positions begin to occupy a dominant position, and what was previously considered paramount recedes into the shadows.
When a great poet writes about something, it is important not only what he writes and how, but also what he writes. The text is not indifferent to who wrote it, in what era, in what country, and even to the one who pronounces it and in what country. That is why the American "critical school" in literary criticism is extremely limited in its conclusions.
In the testament of St. Remigius to Clovis: “Incende quod adorasti. Adora quod incendisti. "Burn what you worshipped, bow down to what you burned." Wed in the "Nest of Nobles" in the mouth of Mikhalevich:
And I burned everything I worshipped
He bowed to everything that he burned.
How did it get from Remigius to Turgenev? But without finding this out, you can’t even write about it in literary commentaries.
The topics of the books are: reality as potential literature and literature as potential reality (the latter topic requires scientific wit).
And you need to make this communication easy and simple.
Old age makes people grouchier, more talkative (remember the saying: “The weather is rainier by autumn, and people are more talkative by old age”). It is not easy for the young to endure the deafness of the old. Old people do not hear well, answer inappropriately, ask again. It is necessary, when talking with them, to raise your voice so that the old people can hear. And by raising your voice, you involuntarily begin to get annoyed (our feelings often depend on our behavior than behavior on feelings).
An old person is often offended (increased resentment is a property of old people). In a word, not only is it difficult to be old, but it is also difficult to be with the old.
And yet the young must understand that we will all be old. And we must also remember: the experience of the old oh, how it can come in handy. And experience, and knowledge, and wisdom, and humor, and stories about the past, and moralizing.
Let us recall Pushkin's Arina Rodionovna. A young man may say: “But my grandmother is not Arina Rodionovna at all!” But I am convinced of the opposite: any grandmother, if her grandchildren want, can be Arina Rodionovna. Not for everyone, Arina Rodionovna would have become what Pushkin made her for himself.
Arina Rodionovna had signs of old age: for example, she fell asleep while working. Remember:
And the spokes are slowing down every minute
In your wrinkled hands.
What does the word "delay" mean? She did not always hesitate, but "per minute", from time to time, that is, as it happens with old people falling asleep from time to time. And Pushkin knew how to find in the senile weaknesses of Arina Rodionovna lovely features: charm and poetry.
Pay attention to the love and care with which Pushkin writes about the senile features of his nanny:
Longing, forebodings, worries
That makes you wonder...
The poems were left unfinished.
Arina Rodionovna became close to all of us precisely because Pushkin was next to her. If there had been no Pushkin, she would have remained in the short memory of those around her as a talkative, constantly dozing and preoccupied old woman. But Pushkin found the best features in her, transformed her. Pushkin's muse was kind. People, communicating, create each other. Some people know how to awaken their best features in those around them. Others do not know how to do this and themselves become unpleasant, tiresome, irritable, drearily boring.
The old people are not only grouchy, but also kind, not only talkative, but also excellent storytellers, not only deaf, but have a good ear for old songs.
In almost every person different features are combined. Of course, some features predominate, others are hidden, crushed. One must be able to awaken in people their best qualities and not notice minor shortcomings. Hurry up to establish good relations with people. Almost always good relations are established from the first words. Then it's harder.
How to be in old age? How to overcome its shortcomings? Old age is not just fading away, calming down, a gradual transition to peace (I can say - to "eternal peace"), but just the opposite: it is a whirlpool of unforeseen, chaotic, destructive forces. This is a powerful element. Some kind of funnel that sucks a person, from which he must sail away, move away, get rid of, with which he must fight, overcome it.
Not just a decrease in memory, but a distortion memory, not the extinction of creative possibilities, but their unforeseen, sometimes chaotic grinding, which should not be succumbed. This is not a decrease in susceptibility, but a distortion of ideas about the outside world, as a result of which the old person begins to live in some kind of special, his own world.
With old age, you can not play giveaway; she needs to be attacked. It is necessary to mobilize all the intellectual forces in oneself so as not to go with the flow, but to be able to intuitively use zaoticism in order to move in the right direction. It is necessary to have a goal accessible to old age (counting both shortening terms and distortion of opportunities).
Old age sets up "wolf pits" that should be avoided.
D. S. Likhachev "Russian classical literature"
Russian Classical Literature” is not just “first-class literature” and not “exemplary” literature, as it were, which has become classically impeccable due to its high purely literary merits.
All these virtues, of course, are in Russian classical literature, but this is by no means all. This literature also has its own special “face”, “individuality”, and its characteristic features.
And I would first of all note that the creators of Russian classical literature were authors who had enormous “public responsibility”.
Russian classical literature is not entertaining, although fascination is characteristic of it to a high degree. This is the fascination of a special property: it is determined by the offer to the reader to solve complex moral and social problems - to solve together: both the author and the readers. The best works of Russian classical literature never offer readers ready-made answers to the social and moral questions posed. The authors do not moralize, but seem to address the readers: “Think about it!”, “Decide for yourself!”, “Look what happens in life!”, “Do not hide from responsibility for everything and everyone!” Therefore, answers to questions are given by the author together with the readers.
Russian classical literature is a grandiose dialogue with the people, with their intelligentsia in the first place. This is an appeal to the conscience of readers.
The moral and social questions with which Russian classical literature addresses its readers are not temporary, not momentary, although they were of particular importance for their time. Due to their "eternity" these questions are of such great importance for us and will be so for all subsequent generations.
Russian classical literature is eternally alive, it does not become history, only “history of literature”. She talks to us, her conversation is captivating, elevates us both aesthetically and ethically, makes us wiser, increases our life experience, allows us to experience “ten lives” together with her heroes, experience the experience of many generations and apply it in our own lives. It gives us the opportunity to experience the happiness of living not only “for ourselves”, but also for many others - for the “humiliated and insulted”, for “little people”, for unknown heroes and for the moral triumph of the highest human qualities ...
The origins of this humanism in Russian literature lie in its centuries-old development, when literature sometimes became the only voice of conscience, the only force that determined the national self-consciousness of the Russian people - literature and folklore close to it. This was at the time of feudal fragmentation; at the time of the foreign yoke, when literature, the Russian language were the only forces binding the people.
Russian literature has always drawn its enormous strength from Russian reality, from the social experience of the people, but foreign literatures have also served as a help; first Byzantine, Bulgarian, Czech, Serbian, Polish, ancient literature, and from the time of Peter the Great - all the literature of Western Europe.
The literature of our time has grown on the basis of Russian classical literature.
The assimilation of classical traditions is a characteristic and very important feature of modern literature. Without assimilation of the best traditions there can be no progress. It is only necessary that everything most valuable should not be missed, forgotten, simplified in these traditions.
We must not lose anything from our great heritage.
“Book reading” and “reverence for books” must preserve for us and for future generations their high purpose, their high place in our lives, in shaping our life positions, in choosing ethical and aesthetic values, in order not to let our consciousness be littered various kinds of "pulp" and meaningless purely entertaining bad taste.
The essence of progress in literature lies in the expansion of the aesthetic and ideological "possibilities" of literature, which are created as a result of "aesthetic accumulation", the accumulation of all kinds of literary experience and the expansion of its "memory".
D. S. Likhachev "Russian culture"
Once I was returning from a trip to Astrakhan and back. The ship is modern, huge, comfortable; it has over 300 passengers.
But there was not one who would remain indifferent at the sight of flooded forests and tattered architectural monuments on the banks. No sooner had one, once beautiful, building with a collapsed roof disappeared from sight than another appeared in sight. And so all twenty-two days of travel. Trouble, trouble beats with swan wings!
And it was even more upsetting when we did not see the building at all, which until recently had been rising on the shore, but ruthlessly demolished under the pretext that its appearance had become ugly due to neglect and desolation.
This is blatant irresponsibility and mismanagement!
Is it really impossible to adapt perishing churches, old estates to the needs of the surrounding population, or leave them as monuments, signs of the past, covering them only with solid roofs, preventing further destruction?!
After all, almost all of them are quite beautiful, placed in the most prominent places.
They weep through the eye sockets of their empty windows, looking at the passing palaces of rest.
And it upset everyone. There was not a single person whom the spectacle of a passing culture would leave indifferent.
We do not keep antiquity, not because there is a lot of it, not because there are few connoisseurs of the beauty of the past among us who love our native history and native art, but because we are in too much of a hurry, we are waiting too much for an immediate return. But the monuments of antiquity bring up, as well as well-groomed forests, they bring up a caring attitude towards the surrounding nature.
We need to feel ourselves in history, understand our significance in modern life, even if it is private, small, but still kind to others.
Everyone can do something good and leave a good memory for themselves.
To keep the memory of others is to leave a good memory of yourself.
D. S. Likhachev "Russian North"
Russian North! I find it hard to put into words my admiration, my admiration in front of this edge. When for the first time, as a boy of thirteen, I traveled along the Barents and White Seas, along the Northern Dvina, visited the coast-dwellers, in peasant huts, listened to songs and fairy tales, looked at these unusually beautiful people, who behaved simply and with dignity, I was completely stunned. It seemed to me that this is the only way to truly live: measuredly and easily, working and getting so much satisfaction from this work. In what a well-coordinated karbas I had a chance to swim ("go" the Pomors would say), how magical fishing and hunting seemed to me. And what an extraordinary language, songs, stories ... But I was still a boy and my stay in the North was very short - only a month - a summer month, the days are long, sunsets immediately turned into sunrises, colors changed on the water and in the sky every five minutes, but the magic remained the same. And now, after many years, I am ready to swear that I have not seen a better edge. I am fascinated by him until the end of my days.
Why? In the Russian North, there is an amazing combination of present and past, modernity and history (and what history - Russian! - the most significant, the most tragic in the past and the most “philosophical”), man and nature, watercolor lyricism of water, earth, sky, the formidable power of stone, storms, cold snow and air.
Our northern writers write a lot about the Russian North.
But after all, they are northerners, many of them left the village (“they left”, but to some extent they remained), - it is embarrassing for them to write about their own. They themselves sometimes think that if they praise their own, and this will be perceived as bragging.
But I was born in St. Petersburg and lived all my life only in these three cities: St. Petersburg, Petrograd, Leningrad, maybe also in St. Petersburg - this is a special, working-class city that emerged from St. Petersburg. It’s not embarrassing for me to write about my endless love for the Russian North ...
But the most important thing that the North cannot but touch the heart of every Russian person is that it is the most Russian. He is not only spiritually Russian, he is Russian in that he has played an outstanding role in Russian culture.
He not only saved Russia in the most difficult times of Russian history - in the era of the Polish-Swedish intervention, in the era of the First Patriotic War and the Great, he saved us from oblivion Russian epics, Russian ancient customs, Russian wooden architecture, Russian musical culture, Russian great lyrical elements - song, verbal, Russian labor traditions - peasant, craft, seafaring, fishing. Remarkable Russian explorers and travelers, polar explorers and unparalleled stamina warriors came from here.
But can you tell about everything that our North is rich and famous for, why it is dear to us and why we should keep it like the apple of our eye, not allowing either mass migrations, or the loss of labor traditions, or the depopulation of villages.
People come here and will continue to come here to experience the moral healing power of the North, just as they would go to Italy to experience the healing power of the European South.
D. S. Likhachev "Russian language"
The greatest value of a people is its language, the language in which it writes, speaks, and thinks. Thinks! This must be understood thoroughly, in all the ambiguity and significance of this fact. After all, this means that the entire conscious life of a person passes through his native language. Emotions, sensations - only color what we think, or push the thought in some way, but our thoughts are all formulated by language.
The surest way to know a person - his mental development, his moral character, his character - is to listen to how he speaks.
If we notice a person's manner of holding himself, his gait, his behavior, and we judge a person by them, sometimes, however, erroneously, then a person's language is a much more accurate indicator of his human qualities, his culture.
So, there is the language of the 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.
I want to write not about the Russian language in general, but about how this or that person uses this language.
Much has been written about the Russian language as the language of the people. It is one of the most perfect languages in the world, a language that has developed over more than a millennium, giving rise to the best literature and poetry in the world 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 cynical nature.
From the very beginning, the Russian language found itself in a happy position - from the moment of its existence together in the bowels of a single East Slavic language, the language of Ancient Rus'.
- The Old Russian people, from which the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians later emerged, inhabited vast expanses with different natural conditions, different economies, different cultural heritage and different degrees of social advancement. And since communication, even in these ancient centuries, was very intense, then by virtue of this variety of living conditions, the language was rich - in vocabulary in the first place.
Already the Old Russian language (the language of Ancient Rus') joined the wealth of other languages - first of all, literary Old Bulgarian, then Greek (through Old Bulgarian and in direct relations), Scandinavian, Turkic, Finno-Ugric, West Slavic, etc. It not only enriched itself lexically and grammatically , he became flexible and receptive as such.
Due to the fact that the literary language was created from the combination of Old Bulgarian with the folk colloquial, business, legal, "literary" language of folklore (the language of folklore is also not just colloquial), many synonyms were created in it with their shades of meaning and emotional expressiveness.
The “internal forces” of the people affected the language - its tendency to emotionality, the variety of characters and types of attitude to the world in it. If it is true that the language of a people reflects its national character (and this is certainly true), then the national character of the Russian people is extremely internally diverse, rich, and contradictory. And all this should be reflected in the language.
It is already clear from the foregoing that language does not develop alone, but it also has linguistic memory. It is facilitated by the existence of thousands of years of literature and writing. And here there are so many genres, types of literary language, a variety of literary experience: chronicles (by no means uniform in nature), "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", "The Prayer of Daniil the Sharpener", the sermons of Cyril Turovsky, "Kiev-Pechersk Patericon" with its charm "simplicity and fiction", and then - the writings of Ivan the Terrible, various works about the Time of Troubles, the first records of folklore and ... Simeon of Polotsk, and at the opposite end from Simeon, archpriest Avvakum. In the 18th century, Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Fonvizin, - further Krylov, Karamzin, Zhukovsky and ... Pushkin. I will not list all the writers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, I will pay attention only to such virtuosos of the language as Leskov and Bunin. All of them are extremely different. It's like they write in different languages. But most of all language develops poetry. That is why the prose of poets is so significant.
Scenery- General view of the area.
Tale- the genre of narrative literature.
Publicism- a type of literature and journalism that covers issues of politics and public life.
Story- short storytelling.
Reputation- a general opinion about someone.
Sculpture– 1. The art of creating volumetric works of art by carving, modeling and casting, forging, chasing. 2. Works of such art. Sculpture can be easel (statues, portraits, genre scenes) and monumental (monuments, decorative sculpture in gardens and parks, reliefs on buildings, memorial ensembles).
Comparison- a word or expression containing the assimilation of one object to another.
Epigraph- quotes placed before the text, revealing the artistic intent of the author.
Epistolary form- letter, message
Epithet- a definition that gives the expression figurativeness and emotionality.
Application
D. S. Likhachev "The Earth is our home"
Once (about a dozen or two years ago) the following image came to my mind: the Earth is our tiny house, flying in an immensely large space. Then I discovered that this image simultaneously with me came independently to dozens of publicists.
It is so obvious that it is already born hackneyed, stereotyped, although this does not lose its strength and persuasiveness.
Our house!
But the Earth is the home of billions and billions of people who lived before us!
This is a defenselessly flying museum in a colossal space, a collection of hundreds of thousands of museums, a close collection of works by hundreds of thousands of geniuses (oh, if you could roughly count how many universally recognized geniuses there were on earth!).
And not only works of geniuses!
How many customs, lovely traditions.
How much has been accumulated, saved. How many possibilities.
The earth is all covered with diamonds, and under them there are so many diamonds that are still waiting to be cut, made into diamonds.
This is something of unimaginable value.
And most importantly: there is no second life in the Universe!
This can be easily proved mathematically.
Millions of almost unbelievable conditions had to converge in order to create a great human culture.
And what is there before this incredible value of all our national ambitions, quarrels, personal and state revenge ("retaliatory actions")!
The globe is literally "stuffed" with cultural values.
This is billions of times (I repeat - billions of times) the Hermitage enlarged and expanded into all areas of the spirit.
And this incredible global jewel is rushing at an insane speed in the black space of the Universe.
The Hermitage rushing through outer space! Terrible for him.
The Pre-Raphaelites compiled a "List of the Immortals", it includes: Jesus Christ, the author of the book of Job, Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Leonardo da Vinci, Goethe, Kite, Shelley, Alfred the Great, Landor, Thackeray, Washington, Mrs. Browning, Raphael, Patmore, Longfellow, author of Stories after Nature, Tennyson, Boccaccio, Fra Angelico, Isaiah, Phidias, early Gothic architects, Gibertti, Spencer, Hogarth, Kosciuszko, Byron, Wordsworth, Cervantes, Joan of Arc, Columbus, Giorgione, Titian, Poussin, Milton, Bacon, Newton, Po. Everything!
Isn't it curious?
It would be nice (interesting) if such lists of immortals were compiled more often: in different countries and in different eras.
For Russians of the same time, it would have been completely different, and especially in our time.
But someone would remain unchanged in these lists: Shakespeare and Dante, for example.
And someone would be added to everyone: L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, for example, compared with the above list of Pre-Raphaelites.
D. S. Likhachev "How the Earth cries"
The Earth, the Universe has its own sorrow, its own grief ”But the Earth does not cry with tears - drunkards, freaks, underdeveloped children, neglected, abandoned old people, crippled, sick... And she also cries over uselessly cut down forests, bank falls in reservoirs overflowing with the tears of the Earth, flooded lands, meadows that have ceased to cherish herds on themselves and serve as hayfields for people, asphalt yards with stinking tanks, between which children play. Shamefully the Earth is covered with yellow “industrial” smokes, acid rains, all living things, listed in the red funeral books, are hidden forever. The Earth becomes a miserable "biosphere".
Therefore, take care of youth until old age. Appreciate all the good things that you acquired in your youth, do not squander the wealth of youth. Nothing acquired in youth goes unnoticed. Habits developed in youth last a lifetime. Skills in work - too. Get used to work - and work will always bring joy. And how important it is for human happiness! There is nothing more unhappy than a lazy person who always avoids work, effort...
Both in youth and in old age. Good habits of youth will make life easier, bad habits will complicate it and make it more difficult.
And further. There is a Russian proverb: "Take care of honor from a young age." All the deeds committed in youth remain in the memory. The good ones will please, the bad ones will not let you sleep!
D. S. Likhachev "On Russian nature"
Nature has its own culture. Chaos is not the natural state of nature. On the contrary, chaos (if it exists at all) is an unnatural state of nature. What is the culture of nature? Let's talk about wildlife. First of all, she lives in society, community. There are "plant associations": trees do not live mixed up, and known species are combined with others, but far from all. Pine trees, for example, have certain lichens, mosses, mushrooms, bushes, etc. as neighbors. Every mushroom picker knows this. Known rules of behavior are characteristic not only of animals (all dog breeders and cat lovers are familiar with this, even those living outside nature, in the city), but also of plants. Trees stretch towards the sun in different ways - sometimes with hats, so as not to interfere with each other, and sometimes spreadingly, in order to cover and protect another tree species that begins to grow under their cover. Pine grows under the cover of alder. The pine grows, and then the alder that has done its job dies. I observed this long-term process near Leningrad, in Toksovo, where during the First World War all pine trees were cut down and pine forests were replaced by thickets of alder, which then cherished young pines under its branches. Now there are pines again. Nature is "social" in its own way. Its “sociality” also lies in the fact that it can live next to a person, coexist with him, if he, in turn, is social and intellectual himself, protects her, does not cause irreparable damage to her, does not cut down forests to the end, does not litter rivers. .. The Russian peasant created the beauty of Russian nature with his centuries-old labor. He plowed the land and thus gave it certain dimensions. He put a measure to his arable land, passing through it with a plow. The frontiers in Russian nature are commensurate with the work of a man and his horse, his ability to go with a horse behind a plow or a plow, before turning back, and then forward again. Smoothing the ground, a person removed all sharp edges, mounds, stones in it. Russian nature is soft, it is well-groomed by the peasant in his own way. Walking a peasant behind a plow, a plow, a harrow not only created "streaks" of rye, but leveled the boundaries of the forest, formed its edges, created smooth transitions from forest to field, from field to river. The poetry of the transformation of nature through the work of a plowman is well conveyed by A. Koltsov in the “Song of the Plowman”, which begins with the prodding of a sivka:
Well! trudge, sivka,
Arable land, tithe.
Let's whiten the iron
About the damp earth.
The Russian landscape was mainly created by the efforts of two great cultures: the culture of man, which softened the harshness of nature, and the culture of nature, which in turn softened all the imbalances that man unwittingly brought into it. The landscape was created, on the one hand, by nature, ready to master and cover up everything that a person violated in one way or another, and on the other hand, by a person who softened the earth with his labor and softened the landscape. Both cultures, as it were, corrected each other and created its humanity and freedom.
The nature of the East European Plain is meek, without high mountains, but not impotently flat, with a network of rivers ready to be “communication routes”, and with a sky not obscured by dense forests, with sloping hills and endless roads smoothly flowing around all the hills.
And with what care the man stroked the hills, descents and ascents! Here the plowman's experience created an aesthetic of parallel lines - lines running in unison with each other and with nature, like voices in ancient Russian chants. The plowman laid furrow to furrow - as he combed it, as he laid hair to hair. So a log is placed in a hut to a log, a block to a block, in a fence - a pole to a pole, and they themselves line up in a rhythmic row above the river or along the road - like a herd that has gone out to drink.
Therefore, the relationship between nature and man is the relationship between two cultures, each of which is “social” in its own way, sociable, has its own “rules of conduct”. And their meeting is built on peculiar moral grounds. Both cultures are the fruit of historical development, and the development of human culture has been carried out under the influence of nature for a long time (since the existence of mankind), and the development of nature with its multimillion-year existence is relatively recent and not everywhere under the influence of human culture. One (the culture of nature) can exist without the other (human) and the other (human) cannot. But still, during many past centuries, there was a balance between nature and man. It would seem that it should have left both parts equal, somewhere in the middle. But no, the balance is everywhere its own and everywhere on some kind of its own, special basis, with its own axis. In the north in Russia there was more "nature", and the farther south and closer to the steppe, the more "man".
Anyone who has been to Kizhi has probably seen how a stone ridge stretches along the entire island, like the backbone of a giant animal. A road runs along this ridge. The ridge was formed over centuries. Peasants freed their fields from stones - boulders and cobblestones - and dumped them here, by the road. A well-groomed relief of a large island was formed. The whole spirit of this relief is permeated with a sense of centuries. And it was not for nothing that the family of storytellers Ryabinins lived here from generation to generation, from whom many epics were recorded.
The landscape of Russia throughout its heroic space, as it were, pulsates, it either discharges and becomes more natural, then it thickens in villages, graveyards and cities, it becomes more human. In the countryside and in the city, the same rhythm of parallel lines continues, which begins with arable land. Furrow to furrow, log to log, street to street. Large rhythmic divisions are combined with small, fractional ones. One flows smoothly into the other. The old Russian city does not oppose nature. He goes to nature through the suburbs. "Suburb" is a word that was deliberately created to connect the idea of the city and nature. Suburbia is near the city, but it is also near nature. The suburb is a village with trees, with wooden semi-village houses. Hundreds of years ago, he clung to the walls of the city with vegetable gardens and gardens, to the rampart and the moat, he clung to the surrounding fields and forests, taking from them a few trees, a few vegetable gardens, a little water in his ponds and wells. And all this is in the ebb and flow of hidden and obvious rhythms - beds, streets, houses, logs, blocks of pavements and bridges. For Russians, nature has always been freedom, will, freedom. Listen to the language: take a walk in the wild, go free. Will is the absence of worries about tomorrow, it is carelessness, blissful immersion in the present. Remember Koltsov:
Oh you, my steppe,
The steppe is free,
You are wide, steppe,
Spread out
To the Black Sea
Moved up!
Koltsov has the same delight before the vastness of freedom.
Wide space has always owned the hearts of Russians. It resulted in concepts and representations that are not found in other languages. What is the difference between will and freedom? The fact that free will is freedom, connected with space, with nothing obstructed by space. And the concept of melancholy, on the contrary, is connected with the concept of crowding, depriving a person of space. To oppress a person is to deprive him of space in the literal and figurative sense of the word.
Free will! Even barge haulers who walked along the tow line, harnessed to a strap like horses, and sometimes together with horses, felt this will. They walked along a tow line, a narrow coastal path, and all around was freedom for them. Labor is forced, and nature is free all around. And nature needed a big man, open, with a huge outlook. Therefore, the field is so loved in the folk song. Will is large spaces through which you can walk and walk, wander, swim along the flow of large rivers and for long distances, breathe free air, the air of open places, breathe in the wind widely with your chest, feel the sky above your head, be able to move in different directions - as you please.
What is free will is well defined in Russian lyrical songs, especially robber songs, which, however, were created and sung not by robbers at all, but by peasants yearning for free will and a better life. In these bandit songs, the peasant dreamed of carelessness and retribution for his offenders.
The Russian concept of courage is daring, and daring is courage in a broad movement. It is courage multiplied by scope to bring out that courage. One cannot be daring, bravely sitting out in a fortified place. The word "daring" is very difficult to translate into foreign languages. Courage still in the first half of the XIX century was incomprehensible. Griboyedov laughs at Skalozub, putting into his mouth such an answer to Famusov’s question, for which he has “an order in his buttonhole”: “For the third of August; we sat down in a trench: He was given with a bow, around my neck. It's funny how you can "sit down", and even in a "trench", where you can't move at all, and get a military award for it?
Yes, and at the root of the word "feat" is also "stuck" movement: "feat", that is, what is done by the movement, prompted by the desire to move something motionless.
I remember as a child a Russian dance on the Volga steamer of the Kavkaz and Mercury company. The loader danced (they were called hookers). He danced, throwing out his arms and legs in different directions, and in excitement tore off his hat from his head, throwing it far into the crowded spectators, and shouted: “I’ll tear myself! I'll break! Oh, I'm torn!" He tried to take up as much space as possible with his body.
Russian lyrical lingering song - it also has a longing for space. And it is best sung outside the home, in the wild, in the field.
The bells had to be heard as far as possible. And when they hung a new bell on the bell tower, they purposely sent people to listen to how many miles away it could be heard.
Fast driving is also a desire for space.
But the same special attitude to open space and space is also seen in epics. Mikula Selyaninovich follows the plow from end to end of the field. Volga has to catch up with him for three days on young Bukhara colts.
They heard a plowman in a pure poly,
Plowman-plowman.
They rode all day in pure poly,
The plowman was not run over,
And the next day they drove from morning to evening.
The plowman was not run over,
And on the third day they rode from morning to evening,
Plowman and ran over.
There is also a sense of space in the beginnings of epics describing Russian nature, and in the desires of heroes, Volga, for example:
Volga wanted a lot of wisdom:
Pike-fish to walk the Volga in the blue seas,
Like a falcon, fly the Volga under the clouds.
Wolf and roam in the open fields.
Or in the beginning of the epic "About Nightingale Budimirovich":
“Is the height, the height under heaven,
Depth, depth of the akian-sea,
Wide expanse over the whole earth.
Deep whirlpools of the Dnieper ...
Even the description of the towers built by Nightingale Budimirovich's "choir squad" in the garden near Zabava Putyatichna contains the same delight in the vastness of nature.
Well decorated in towers:
The sun is in the sky - the sun is in the tower;
A month in the sky - a month in the tower;
Stars in the sky - stars in the tower;
Dawn in the sky - dawn in the tower
And all the beauty of heaven.
Delight in front of the open spaces is already present in ancient Russian literature - in the Primary Chronicle, in "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", in "The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land", in "The Life of Alexander Nevsky", and in almost every work of the most ancient period of the XI-XIII centuries . Everywhere, events either cover vast spaces, as in The Tale of Igor's Campaign, or take place among vast spaces with responses in distant lands, as in The Life of Alexander Nevsky. Since ancient times, Russian culture has considered freedom and space to be the greatest aesthetic and ethical good for man.
D. S. Likhachev "On old age"
Dealing with old people is not easy. It is clear. But you need to communicate, and you need to make this communication easy and simple.
Old age makes people grouchier, more talkative (remember the saying: “The weather is rainier by autumn, and people are more talkative by old age”). It is not easy for the young to endure the deafness of the old. Old people do not hear well, answer inappropriately, ask again. It is necessary, when talking with them, to raise your voice so that the old people can hear. And by raising your voice, you involuntarily begin to get annoyed (our feelings often depend on our behavior than behavior on feelings).
An old person is often offended (increased resentment is a property of old people). In a word, not only is it difficult to be old, but it is also difficult to be with the old.
And yet the young must understand that we will all be old. And we must also remember: the experience of the old oh, how it can come in handy. And experience, and knowledge, and wisdom, and humor, and stories about the past, and moralizing.
Let us recall Pushkin's Arina Rodionovna. A young man may say: “But my grandmother is not Arina Rodionovna at all!” But I am convinced of the opposite: any grandmother, if her grandchildren want, can be Arina Rodionovna. Not for everyone, Arina Rodionovna would have become what Pushkin made her for himself.
Arina Rodionovna had signs of old age: for example, she fell asleep while working. Remember:
And the spokes are slowing down every minute
In your wrinkled hands.
What does the word "delay" mean? She did not always hesitate, but "per minute", from time to time, that is, as it happens with old people falling asleep from time to time. And Pushkin knew how to find in the senile weaknesses of Arina Rodionovna lovely features: charm and poetry.
Pay attention to the love and care with which Pushkin writes about the senile features of his nanny:
Longing, forebodings, worries
They squeeze your chest all the time,
That makes you wonder...
The poems were left unfinished.
Arina Rodionovna became close to all of us precisely because Pushkin was next to her. If there had been no Pushkin, she would have remained in the short memory of those around her as a talkative, constantly dozing and preoccupied old woman. But Pushkin found the best features in her, transformed her. Pushkin's muse was kind. People, communicating, create each other. Some people know how to awaken their best features in those around them. Others do not know how to do this and themselves become unpleasant, tiresome, irritable, drearily boring.
The old people are not only grouchy, but also kind, not only talkative, but also excellent storytellers, not only deaf, but have a good ear for old songs.
In almost every person different features are combined. Of course, some features predominate, others are hidden, crushed. One must be able to awaken in people their best qualities and not notice minor shortcomings. Hurry up to establish good relations with people. Almost always good relations are established from the first words. Then it's harder.
How to be in old age? How to overcome its shortcomings? Old age is not just fading away, calming down, a gradual transition to peace (I can say - to "eternal peace"), but just the opposite: it is a whirlpool of unforeseen, chaotic, destructive forces. This is a powerful element. Some kind of funnel that sucks a person, from which he must sail away, move away, get rid of, with which he must fight, overcome it.
Not just a decrease in memory, but a distortion memory, not the extinction of creative possibilities, but their unforeseen, sometimes chaotic grinding, which should not be succumbed. This is not a decrease in susceptibility, but a distortion of ideas about the outside world, as a result of which the old person begins to live in some kind of special, his own world.
With old age, you can not play giveaway; she needs to be attacked. It is necessary to mobilize all the intellectual forces in oneself so as not to go with the flow, but to be able to intuitively use zaoticism in order to move in the right direction. It is necessary to have a goal accessible to old age (counting both shortening terms and distortion of opportunities).
Old age sets up "wolf pits" that should be avoided.
D. S. Likhachev "Russian classical literature"
Russian Classical Literature” is not just “first-class literature” and not “exemplary” literature, as it were, which has become classically impeccable due to its high purely literary merits.
All these virtues, of course, are in Russian classical literature, but this is by no means all. This literature also has its own special “face”, “individuality”, and its characteristic features.
And I would first of all note that the creators of Russian classical literature were authors who had enormous “public responsibility”.
Russian classical literature is not entertaining, although fascination is characteristic of it to a high degree. This is the fascination of a special property: it is determined by the offer to the reader to solve complex moral and social problems - to solve together: both the author and the readers. The best works of Russian classical literature never offer readers ready-made answers to the social and moral questions posed. The authors do not moralize, but seem to address the readers: “Think about it!”, “Decide for yourself!”, “Look what happens in life!”, “Do not hide from responsibility for everything and everyone!” Therefore, answers to questions are given by the author together with the readers.
Russian classical literature is a grandiose dialogue with the people, with their intelligentsia in the first place. This is an appeal to the conscience of readers.
The moral and social questions with which Russian classical literature addresses its readers are not temporary, not momentary, although they were of particular importance for their time. Due to their "eternity" these questions are of such great importance for us and will be so for all subsequent generations.
Russian classical literature is eternally alive, it does not become history, only “history of literature”. She talks to us, her conversation is captivating, elevates us both aesthetically and ethically, makes us wiser, increases our life experience, allows us to experience “ten lives” together with her heroes, experience the experience of many generations and apply it in our own lives. It gives us the opportunity to experience the happiness of living not only “for ourselves”, but also for many others - for the “humiliated and insulted”, for “little people”, for unknown heroes and for the moral triumph of the highest human qualities ...
The origins of this humanism in Russian literature lie in its centuries-old development, when literature sometimes became the only voice of conscience, the only force that determined the national self-consciousness of the Russian people - literature and folklore close to it. This was at the time of feudal fragmentation; at the time of the foreign yoke, when literature, the Russian language were the only forces binding the people.
Russian literature has always drawn its enormous strength from Russian reality, from the social experience of the people, but foreign literatures have also served as a help; first Byzantine, Bulgarian, Czech, Serbian, Polish, ancient literature, and from the time of Peter the Great - all the literature of Western Europe.
The literature of our time has grown on the basis of Russian classical literature.
The assimilation of classical traditions is a characteristic and very important feature of modern literature. Without assimilation of the best traditions there can be no progress. It is only necessary that everything most valuable should not be missed, forgotten, simplified in these traditions.
We must not lose anything from our great heritage.
“Book reading” and “reverence for books” must preserve for us and for future generations their high purpose, their high place in our lives, in shaping our life positions, in choosing ethical and aesthetic values, in order not to let our consciousness be littered various kinds of "pulp" and meaningless purely entertaining bad taste.
The essence of progress in literature lies in the expansion of the aesthetic and ideological "possibilities" of literature, which are created as a result of "aesthetic accumulation", the accumulation of all kinds of literary experience and the expansion of its "memory".
D. S. Likhachev "Russian culture"
Once I was returning from a trip to Astrakhan and back. The ship is modern, huge, comfortable; it has over 300 passengers.
But there was not one who would remain indifferent at the sight of flooded forests and tattered architectural monuments on the banks. No sooner had one, once beautiful, building with a collapsed roof disappeared from sight than another appeared in sight. And so all twenty-two days of travel. Trouble, trouble beats with swan wings!
And it was even more upsetting when we did not see the building at all, which until recently had been rising on the shore, but ruthlessly demolished under the pretext that its appearance had become ugly due to neglect and desolation.
This is blatant irresponsibility and mismanagement!
Is it really impossible to adapt perishing churches, old estates to the needs of the surrounding population, or leave them as monuments, signs of the past, covering them only with solid roofs, preventing further destruction?!
After all, almost all of them are quite beautiful, placed in the most prominent places.
They weep through the eye sockets of their empty windows, looking at the passing palaces of rest.
And it upset everyone. There was not a single person whom the spectacle of a passing culture would leave indifferent.
We do not preserve antiquity, not because there is a lot of it, not because there are few connoisseurs of the beauty of the past among us who love our native history and native art, but because we are in too much of a hurry, we are too expecting an immediate return. But the monuments of antiquity bring up, as well as well-groomed forests, they bring up a caring attitude towards the surrounding nature.
We need to feel ourselves in history, understand our significance in modern life, even if it is private, small, but still kind to others.
Everyone can do something good and leave a good memory for themselves.
To keep the memory of others is to leave a good memory of yourself.
Application
Cherished words of D.S. Likhachev
Biography of Likhachev
Likhachev Dmitry Sergeevich - literary critic, historian, art critic, culturologist, public figure. Born in an intelligent St. Petersburg family of an electrical engineer.
In 1923, Likhachev entered the Faculty of Social Sciences at Petrograd University, where he studied at the ethnological and linguistic department in two sections at once - Romano-Germanic and Slavic-Russian.
On February 3, 1928, at a meeting of the "Space Academy of Sciences" (which included students from several institutes), he made a report in which he half-jokingly proved the advantages of the old spelling. The text of the speech was written according to the canceled rules and was a parodic imitation of the learned writings of a medieval scribe. In the report, he openly spoke about the oppression of the Russian Orthodox Church by the Soviet authorities. A few days later he was arrested.
He was a prisoner of the Solovetsky Monastery. In 1931 he was transferred to the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, and a year later (1932) he was released ahead of schedule. In 1936, his criminal record was expunged. For several years after returning from prison, he worked as an editor and proofreader. It was impossible to get a job elsewhere, in addition, he hoped that in an inconspicuous position he would be able to avoid new repressions. From 1938 he conducted scientific work at the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House), (since 1954) he headed the sector of ancient Russian literature. Professor at Leningrad University (1946-1953). Author of dozens of books and hundreds of articles.
WITH1939 Likhachev became an "ancientist" specialistVareas of the history of Russian literature.
During the Second World War, Likhachev did not leave his native city, despite dystrophy, he continued to engage in science.
D.S. Likhachev treated his great fame calmly.
He wrote 39 research books on culture and ancient Russian literature, on the topics of morality, philosophy, and historical poetics.
In 2000, D.S. Likhachev was posthumously awarded the State Prize of Russia for the development of the artistic direction of domestic television and the creation of the all-Russian state television channel "Culture".
№ 5 "All is calm at sea"
One strong impression from my childhood in Kuokkale. Easter weekHow and in all Russian Orthodox churches, it was allowed to call everyone and in any time. Father and we, two brothers, one day (we came to the dachas early in the spring) went to the bell tower to ring. How delightful it was to hear the ringing under the very bells!
There was then one incident that "glorified" my brother and me among all summer residents. The wind was blowing from the shore (the most dangerous). My older brother took off the blue curtain in our nursery, hoisted it on our boat and offered a ride under the "sail" to a completely domestic boy - the grandson of Senator Davydov.
The home boy Seryozha went to his grandmother and asked her permission to ride.
Grandma was a dandy girl with purple eyessat in a steel-coloured silk dress under a parasol. She only asked if Seryozha would get his feet wet: after all, there is always water at the bottom of the boat. She ordered Seryozha to put on galoshes.
Seryozha put on new shiny galoshes and got into the boat.
All this happened in front of my eyes. Go. The wind, quiet as always near the shore, intensified in the distance. The boat was driven. I watched from the shore and saw: the blue sail slowly tilted and disappeared. Grandmother, as she was in a corset and with an umbrella, walked on the water, stretching out her arms to her beloved Seryozha. After reaching the deep water, the violet-eyed grandmother fell unconscious.
And on the shore, behind a fence of sheets, the pro-rector of St. Petersburg University, the handsome Prozorovsky, was sunbathing. He watched his grandmother and when she fell, he rushed to save her. And, oh horror! - in shorts.
He picked up the purple-eyed grandmother and carried her to the shore. And I ran home with all my might.
Running up to our dacha, I slowed down and tried to be calm. The mother asked, obviously guessing that something had happened: “Is everything calm at sea?” I immediately replied: "All is calm at sea, but Misha is drowning."
These words of mine were remembered and remembered hundreds of times later in our family. They have become our family saying when suddenly something unpleasant happens.
And in the sea at that time the following happened. The home boy Seryozha, of course, did not know how to swim. His brother began to save him and ordered him to throw off his galoshes. But Seryozha did not want to - either in order not to disobey his grandmother, or because he was sorry for the shiny galoshes with copper letters “S. D." ("Seryozha Davydov"). The brother threatened: "Dump, you fool, or I will leave you myself."
The threat worked, and boats and boats were already rowing from the shore.
Father arrived in the evening. My brother was taken to the second floor to flog, and then my father, without changing his habits, took us for a walk along the sea.
As expected, my brother and I walked ahead of our parents.
People who met said, pointing to my brother:“Savior, savior!”, and the “savior” walked gloomy, with a weeping face.
I was also praised for my "wise" restraint. And once, in a particularly strong storm, one of the people I met said to me: “Everything is calm at sea, but four booths were washed away and overturned.”
I immediately ran to the sea to look.
I still love storms, but I do not like the deceptive coastal wind.
№ 8. "External impressions"
Neither my family nor I, an eleven-twelve-year-old boy, of course, did not really understand what was happening, and was happening almost before our eyes, since we lived on Novoisakievskaya Street near St. Isaacievskaya Square. The family was poorly versed in politics. When, in the first days of the February Revolution, the “gordoviks” (as the policemen were called in Petrograd) seized the tower of St. Isaac’s Cathedral and the attics of the Astoria Hotel and fired at any gathering crowd from there, my parents were indignant with the “gordoviks” and were afraid to approach these places. But when the Gordoviks were dragged from their positions and the angry mob killed them, the parents were indignant at the cruelty of the mob, not particularly entering into further discussion of events.
When my father and I walked along Bolshaya Morskaya and saw how they were building a house and carrying weights on their backs shod in bast shoes so as not to slip, peasants who had come to the city to work, I almost choked with pity and recalled the “Railway” with my father Nekrasov.
The same thing happened on any embankment in places where it was allowed to unload barges with bricks and firewood. Hefty wheelbarrows quickly rolled in their wheelbarrows with a heavy load in order to climb, without stopping, along the narrow boards thrown from the sides of the barges to the embankment. We felt sorry for the Cathals, tried to imagine how they live apart from their families on these barges, how they freeze at night, how they yearn for their children, for the sake of whom, in essence, they earned their bread with hard work.
But when these same former loaders and porters, artisans and petty employees went on free ballet tickets to the Mariinsky Theater and filled the stalls and boxes, the parents regretted the former brilliant brilliance of the blue Mariinsky Hall. The only thing that pleased parents at those performances was that the ballerinas danced no worse than before. Spesivtseva and Luke were just as magnificent, bowing to the new audience in the same way as before the old one.
But how wonderful it was! What a lesson in respect for the new audience the theater of that time gave us all!
The most important and at the same time the most difficult period in the formation of my scientific interests was, of course, university.
I entered Leningrad University a little earlier than the prescribed age: I was not yet 17 years old. A few months were missing. At that time they accepted mostly workers. It was almost the first year of admission to the university on a class basis. I was neither a worker nor the son of a worker, but an ordinary employee. Even then, notes and recommendations from influential people mattered. I am ashamed to admit that my father got me such a note, and it played a certain role in my admission.
There were professors "red" and just professors. However, there were no professors at all - this title, like academic degrees, was canceled. Doctoral dissertation defenses were conditional. Opponents concluded their speeches like this: “If it were a defense, I would vote for the award ...” The defense was called a dispute.
The division of the "conditional professorship" into "red" and "old" on the basis of how someone addressed us was just as arbitrary; "comrades" or "colleagues". The "Reds" knew less, but addressed the students as "comrades"; the old professors knew more, but said "colleagues" to the students. I did not take into account this conditional sign and went to everyone who seemed interesting to me.
I entered the Faculty of Social Sciences. The abbreviation FON was also deciphered as follows: "Faculty of expecting brides." But there were few "brides" there, by today's standards. It just seemed that there were a lot of them out of habit: after all, before the revolution, only men studied at the university.
What gave me the most being at the university? It is difficult to list all the things that I have learned and what I learned at the university. The matter was not limited to listening to lectures and participating in classes.
The only thing I regret is that, that not everyone was able to visit.
№ 9. "Trust as a movement"
However, back to school time.
At school, I got the hang of drawing caricatures of teachers: just one or two lines. And one day at recess I drew everyone on the blackboard. And suddenly the teacher came in. I froze. But the teacher came up, laughed with us (and he himself was depicted on the board) and left without saying anything. And after two or three lessons, our class teacher came to the class and said: "Dima Likhachev, the director asks you to repeat all your caricatures on paper for our teacher's room."
We had smart teachers.
At the Lentovskaya school, where I studied, the students' own opinion was encouraged. There were frequent arguments in the class. Since then, I have been striving to maintain independence in my tastes and views.
The first time after moving to a state-owned apartment on the Petrograd side (Gatchinskaya, 16, or Lakhtinskaya, 9), I continued to study with May. In it, I experienced the very first reforms of the school, the transition to labor education (carpentry lessons were replaced by sawing firewood for heating the school), to joint education of boys and girls (girls from a neighboring school were transferred to our school), etc. But traveling to school in overcrowded trams became completely impossible, walking was even more difficult, since the difficulties in the then Petrograd with food were terrible. We ate duranda (pressed cake), oatmeal bread, sometimes we managed to get some frozen potatoes, we went on foot to Lakhta for milk and received it in exchange for things. I was transferred nearby to the Lentovskaya school on Plutalova Street. And again I ended up in a wonderful school.
A close relationship, friendship, a “common cause” formed between students and teachers. Teachers do not need to impose discipline with strict measures. Teachers could shame a student, and this was enough for the public opinion of the class to be against the offender and the mischief was not repeated. We were allowed to smoke, but none of the aborigines of the school used this right.
№ 11. Blockade
War broke out. At the recruiting station, with my constant ulcerative bleeding, I was completely rejected, and I was content with participating in self-defense, living in the barracks at the institute, working as a "signalman" and on duty on the tower of the Pushkin House. I was in charge of a manual siren, which I activated during each enemy air raid. I slept now on the Krylov sofa, now on the big sofa from Spassky-Lutovinovo, and I thought and thought. My wife tried to buy the whole ration at home for everyone, she got up at night to be the first to go to the store. Children were then ordered to be taken out of Leningrad, while adults remained. But we hid our children on Vyritsa, from where they were taken out just before the occupation by the Germans, the head of the proofreading publishing house of the Academy of Sciences MP Barmansky. If not for him, I would be left withoutfamilies. We in the Pushkin House did not even suspect that the enemy was so close to Leningrad, although we went to trench work - first at Luga, then at Pulkovo.
It is amazing that, despite the hunger and physical work to save our valuables in the Pushkin House, despite all the nervous tension of those days (and perhaps precisely because of this nervous tension), my ulcerative pains completely stopped, and I found time to read and work.
The losses at our institute, in our family, among our friends and relatives were horrendous: more than half of my relatives and friends died from exhaustion. We have a very poor idea of how many people were taken away by hunger and all other deprivations.
Millions of people no longer know what the blockade was. It is impossible to imagine. And what about visitors, about foreigners?
In order to imagine a little what the blockade was like, you need to go to school when the lessons end. Look at these noisy children and imagine exactly them, but in tens of thousands, silently lying in their beds in frozen apartments, motionless, not even asking for food, but only looking at you expectantly.
I learned about the end of the war in the morning on the street - by the faces and behavior of passers-by: some laughed and hugged each other, others cried alone. What other event could cause so much joy and such a wave of grief? Wept for those who died, died of exhaustion in Leningrad, did not wait for a meeting with their relatives, who turned out to be disfigured and disabled.
I do not remember only one thing: the feeling of vindictive triumph.
If people all over the world possessed and retained a vivid sense of the horror experienced during the war, modern politics would be built differently.
№ 10. Floors of Care
Floors of care. Caring strengthens relationships between people. Strengthens the family, strengthens friendship, strengthens fellow villagers, residents of one city, one country.
The feeling of caring for another appears very early, especiallyin girls. The girl does not speak yet, but is already trying to take care of the doll, nursing her. Boys, very young, like to pick mushrooms, fish. Berries and mushrooms are also loved by girls. And after all, they collect not only for themselves, but for the whole family.
Gradually, children become objects of ever higher care and they themselves begin to show real and wide care - not only about the family, but also about the school, where parental care has placed them, about their village, city and country ...
Care is expanding and becoming more altruistic. Children pay for taking care of themselves by taking care of their elderly parents - when they can no longer repay the care of children. If care is directed only at oneself, then this is an egoist.
Caring is what brings people together.
The person must be caring. An uncaring or carefree person is most likely a person who is unkind and does not love anyone.
Morality is characterized by a high degree of compassion. In compassion there is a consciousness of oneness with humanity and the world (not only people, peoples, but also with animals, plants, nature, etc.)
№ 20. "Russian classical literature"
Russian Classical Literature” is not just “first-class literature” and not “exemplary” literature, as it were, which has become classically impeccable due to its high purely literary merits.
All these virtues, of course, are in Russian classical literature, but this is by no means all. This literature also has its own special “face”, “individuality”, and its characteristic features.
And I would first of all note that the creators of Russian classical literature were authors who had enormous “public responsibility”.
The best works of Russian classical literature never offer readers ready-made answers to the social and moral questions posed. The authors do not moralize, but seem to address the readers: “Think about it!”, “Decide for yourself!”, “Look what happens in life!”, “Do not hide from responsibility for everything and everyone!” Therefore, answers to questions are given by the author together with the readers.
The moral and social questions with which Russian classical literature addresses its readers are not temporary, not momentary, although they were of particular importance for their time.
Russian classical literature is eternally alive, it does not become history, only “history of literature”.
The origins of the humanism of Russian literature are in its centuries-old development, when literature sometimes became the only voice of conscience, the only force that determined the national self-consciousness of the Russian people - literature and folklore close to it. It was at the time of feudal fragmentation, at the time of the foreign yoke, when literature, the Russian language were the only forces binding the people.
Without assimilation of the best traditions there can be no progress. It is only necessary that everything most valuable should not be missed, forgotten, simplified in these traditions.
We must not lose anything from our great heritage.
№ 44. "Development"
Every person is obliged (I emphasize - must take care of his intellectual development. It is his duty tosociety 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.
Reading, in order to be effective, must interest the reader. 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.
The danger of reading is the development (conscious or unconscious) in oneself of a tendency to "diagonal" viewing of texts or to various types of high-speed reading methods.
"Speed reading" creates the appearance of knowledge.
№ 47. "Historical Prejudice"
M We are very often at the mercy of historical prejudices. One of such prejudices is the conviction that ancient, "pre-Petrine" Rus' was a country with a continuouslittle literacy.
Thousands and thousands of handwritten books are stored in our libraries and archives, hundreds of birch bark letters were found in Novgorod - letters belonging to artisans, peasants, men and women, ordinary people and people of high social status. Printed books show a high level of typographic art.
More and more new centers of book culture are found in the monasteries of Ancient Russia among forests and swamps, on islands - even far from cities and villages. In the manuscript heritage of Ancient Rus', we are discovering more and more new original works and translations. It has long been clear that the Bulgarian and Serbian manuscript heritage is more widely represented in Russian manuscripts than in their homeland.
Old Russian frescoes and icons, Russian applied arts received universal recognition all over the world. Old Russian architecture turned out to be a whole huge world, amazingly diverse, as if belonging to different countries and peoples with different aesthetic culture. From the manuscripts we got an idea about ancient Russian medicine, about Russian historiosophy and philosophy, about the amazing variety of literary genres, about the art of illustration and the art of reading, about various spelling and punctuation systems. And we keep repeating and repeating: "Rus is illiterate, Rus is bastard and silent!"
Why is that? I guess it might be becauseXIXcentury, the bearers of ancient Russian culture remained predominantly peasants, historians judged ancient Russia mainly by them, by the peasants, and they had long been twisted by serfdom, increasing impoverishment, lack of time for reading, overwork, poverty.
It was serfdom that brought with it that illiteracy, as the "basting" of the peopleXIXconvict, which even to historians seemed primordial and typical of Ancient Rus'.
One phrase in Stoglav about the illiteracy of the Novgorod priests served and continues to serve this conviction of the illiteracy of the entire population. But after all, the Stoglavy Cathedral, designed to establish a single order of church rules for all of Rus', had in mind only the Novgorod custom of electing street priests by the whole street, as a result of which people who did not have an accurate idea of the church service fell into the priests.
In a word: the most abundant material of excellent handwritten and printed books, stored or heroically collected by our enthusiastic patriots in the North, in the Urals, in Siberia and other places, requires us to recognize the high written culture of the first seven centuries of Russian life.
№ 34. "Kindness"
Kindness cannot be stupid. A good deed is never stupid, because it is selfless and does not pursue the goal of profit.
"Week of open good deeds". This is a topic for reflection and for a short essay. The action takes place at an unknown time. Maybe in the year 2000. The word "kind" is despised, and they say "kind" when they want to offend. There should be only "intransigence". And suddenly a decree: it is possible and even necessary to do good deeds - to do it individually! It is even recommended to do charity work. You can give and ask for alms. It is possible and even recommended to give and receive in debt. You can come to hospitals to help the sick, wash the floors. You can, you can, you can... And now people discover the happiness of kindness. For many, acquisitiveness, the passion for profit, for collecting trifles, dissolves like a fog. People smile at each other after doing a good deed. Someone is leading an elderly person across the street. Not “someone”, but everyone gives up their seats in the metro to the elderly.
Happy faces. Saleswomen are happy to sell, they are happy to carefully wrap purchases.
And they are already asking to extend the week of open goodaffairs. They write letters about it to the top.
The revolution of kindness is zealously picked up by children! They are the most and the first to be infected with good. Kindness becomes their favorite game. They look for the poor, the sick, the elderly, orphans who need help, they find the unfortunate. Organize groups of “pathfinders of goodness”.
There is reconciliation with the world. That's why there are unhappy people: to give happiness to others. The unfortunate become the happy concerns of others, for the unfortunate in one may be happy in another.
You can not do very much in life, but if you do nothing, even small things, against your conscience, then by doing this you bring enormous benefits.
№ 39. "Honor and conscience"
Moral concepts that we really lack in people's assessments: decency and honor. Very rarely, praising a person, they say: "He is a decent person." And even more rarely: "he acted as honor prompted him."
In the meantime, think about how many applications for both concepts: decency in family life, decency in a journalist, decency in love. The honor of a doctor, the honor of a worker, the honor of a school, the honor of a citizen, the honor of a husband or wife. The word given by a person - whoever he may be, must be kept, otherwise his honor will be tarnished.
And one more forgotten moral concept - "courtesy" in behavior.
It is most natural and easiest to maintain independence by observing courtesy. One should be courteous not only to ladies and with ladies, but with everyone and always.
How is honor externally expressed: a person keeps his word, both as an official (employee, statesman, representative of an institution), and as a simple person; a person behaves decently, does not violate ethical norms, respects dignity - does not grovel before the authorities, before any "good giver", does not adapt to someone else's opinion for the benefit, does not stubbornly prove his case, does not settle personal scores, does not "pay off" with the "necessary people" at the expense of the state (various indulgences, "devices", etc.).
Lack of morality brings chaos to social life.
There is one essential difference between conscience and honor. Conscience - always comes from the depths of the soul and is cleansed by conscience to one degree or another. Conscience "gnaws". Conscience is not false.
True honor is always in accordance with conscience. False honor is a mirage in the desert, in the moral desert of the human (or rather bureaucratic) soul.
Martynov, who killed Lermontov in a duel, that is why he bequeathed not to write his name on the grave and not to erect any monument to himself. What is the difference with Dantes, who until the end of his long and prosperous life was convinced that he had "no other way out" (although the way out was quite simple - to sacrifice his external honor for the sake of internal).
№ 41. Gentlemen's Humor
I never cease to be amazed at the reconciler,healingennoblingpropertyof the human mind - to laughter, which no most perfect computer can ever possess, even if it calculates where, at what moment and on what occasion one should laugh.
In April 1826, a duel was to take place between US Secretary of State (that is, Foreign Secretary) Henry Clay and Senator John Randolph. I will not talk about the reasons for the duel, to convey those "fightingwords" (insulting words obliging the opponent to a duel), which were uttered by Randolph (by the way, the insult, very cruel and public, was no longer without an element of humor; Randolph used the text from Fielding's "Tom Jones").
The duel was supposed to take place according to very cruel American rules - from ten steps. In the first exchange of shots, both, however, missed. "It's child's play," Clay declared, "I demand a second shot." His second shot only pierced Randolph's clothes. Then, in response, Randolph fired into the air and announced: “You owe me the cost of my clothes!” - "I'm glad it's not more," Clay replied, and the opponents reconciled. Randolph's wit and Clay's good response saved both from the third round of the duel.
№ 33. "Idleness"
Idleness is not at allthat a person sits idle, "hands folded" in the literal sense. No, the idler is always busy: he talks on the phone (sometimes for hours), goes to visit, sits at the TV and watches everything, sleeps for a long time, thinks up different things for himself. In general, a slacker is always very busy ...
№ 55. "Selflessness"
A television operator who lived for several months in Antarctica told. When frosts and winds become especially strong, the penguins stand in a circle. In the middle, the smallest, then more, then adults, and outside - in a circle, at the very south - old men, leaders. And they die to save the race.
№ 40. "Trains"
Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev told me how in the summer he rented a dacha next to the railway. Trains disturbed his sleep. Finally, he decided: not trains are passing by, but people are passing by with their worries and thoughts. And the noise of the trains ceased to irritate him. He began to sleep.
It is necessary to develop a benevolent, "understanding" attitude towards the environment, and then it will become easier to live.
Evil people live shorter lives than good people.
