The science of the historical past currently presents researchers with such diverse and complex tasks that their solution requires a very large amount of knowledge, a broad outlook, and mastery of various specialties of the humanities cycle. This is especially true for those who deal with the problems of the Middle Ages, where there are few sources and each of them has to be studied comprehensively, while attracting written monuments, archaeological materials, works of fine art, architecture, etc. Of course, each branch of historical science has its own specifics, its own range of sources, its own methodology and technique research, but only a comprehensive use of all sources using different methods can provide full-fledged conclusions. And the guiding principle of research should be the principle of historicism, the natural development of humanity, its culture.
All of this applies directly to acad. To Dmitry Sergeyevich Likhachev. A philologist, a literary critic by profession, he is a wide-profile historian of scientific interests, erudition, problems, and methodology of his works. In his book" The Emergence of Russian Literature", he wrote: "The history of literature is a part of the history of culture (without any dissolution of its specifics), and the history of culture is a part of historical science as a whole, and this circumstance again makes it easier for us to study literary development, helps us fill in the missing links"1 . Thus, the researcher himself declares his close connection with historical science, and all his work confirms this.
Thanks to Likhachev, many monuments of medieval writing were published. They are published in the proceedings of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and in the series "Literary Monuments". Sometimes Likhachev prepares the texts for publication himself, and sometimes his students and collaborators under his editorship do so. But there is always a creative participation of the scientist in the preparation of publications. Likhachev's archeographic activity concerns, of course, literary works, but they are also historical sources that are constantly used in the study of various problems of the Russian past. Such publications as "The Tale of Bygone Years", "The Word about Igor's Regiment", "Military Tales of Ancient Russia", "Messages of Ivan the Terrible", "Travels of Russian Ambassadors of the XVI-XVII centuries", etc., made by D. S. Likhachev together with other scientists, are widely known. The publications prepared by the Institute of Russian Literature are characterized by a high archaeological culture. Texts are printed using all known lists. An overview of the lists, comments and a number of indexes are given: named, geographical, sometimes also subject-terminological. Sometimes the publication contains thematic essays: literary and historical. A special type of publication - the so - called monographic research-has gained great popularity-publications of texts where the monument is reproduced together with a monograph about it.
Likhachev's translations of ancient Russian works and commentaries on them were organically included in the historical science. For an example, it is enough to refer to his translation (together with B. A. Romanov) "Tales of Bygone Years", which is referred to by all students of Kievan Rus.
Turning to the problems of Likhachev's research, we should first of all point out his deep interest in the history of chronicles and call his bright work " Russians
1 D. S. Likhachev. The Emergence of Russian Literature, Moscow, 1952, p. 11.
page 132
chronicles and their cultural and historical significance "(Moscow -Leningrad, 1947). The author considers chronicles as a historical source and as a phenomenon of Russian culture, chronicle vaults - as monuments of historical and political thought. He bases his book on the thesis: the chronicle is closely connected with life, and its character and content changed under the influence of its requirements. Deep historicism in the approach to the material makes it possible to discern the struggle and interbreeding of ideological and political trends behind the genealogy of chronicle codes. Considering the appearance of chronicles in Russia not as a result of imitating Byzantine chronicles, but as a consequence of the development of public consciousness, Likhachev connects the further course of chronicles with those phenomena in the life of the Russian people that occurred during the periods of the Old Russian state, feudal fragmentation, political unification and the creation of a Russian centralized state, up to the XVII century. If in the work under consideration the author mainly focused on the reflection of the ideological and political struggle in the annals, then in his other works he showed how the chroniclers reacted to the class clashes of their time.
In the field of source studies (textual) methodology, Likhachev is a follower of the greatest Russian scientist A. A. Shakhmatov. In his essay "Shakhmatov as a researcher of Russian chronicles", Likhachev notes that Shakhmatov introduced new techniques to the study of chronicles, amazing in subtlety and foresight, and emphasizes his penchant for complex generalizations that cover a huge number of particular facts, the "complex" nature of his observations. Likhachev considers the textual method proposed by Shakhmatov (comparison of chronicle lists, dismemberment of chronicle vaults, establishment of their interrelationships, etc.) to be the foundation of chronicle source studies. 2 He often follows Shakhmatov when considering the alternation of specific chronicles.
But Likhachev always subordinates the textual study of chronicle monuments to the task of revealing their significance as phenomena of social life, their class essence, and their political meaning. And here he acts as a Marxist historian, and his direct teacher is Academician B. D. Grekov, who did a lot to create the concept of the history of feudal Russia. In this respect, for example, Likhachev's article "Sofia Vremennik" and the Novgorod Revolution of 1136 " deserves attention, in which the history of the Novgorod chronicle is considered in connection with Grekov's conclusions about the evolution of the political system of Novgorod in the XII century. 3
Likhachev also evaluated chronicle works from the point of view of their significance as monuments of historical thought. His article "On the Chronicle period of Russian Historiography"4 is significant . It was published in connection with a discussion about when historical representations appeared in Russia, and was a response to those who denied their presence in the annals. Likhachev proves that the chronicler was a historian, that he had his own understanding of the causal relationship of events, he consciously treated the material that preceded him, checked the chronology of the sources used, and sought to supplement his work with new facts.
The chronicle business is only one area of culture and only one of the sources for its study. Likhachev's creative pen always strives to reproduce the phenomenon in its entirety with the involvement of sources in all their diversity. This is how the bright works of the scientist on the history of Russian culture were born: "Culture of Russia during the formation of the Russian National State (late XIV-early XVI centuries)" (Moscow, 1946), " Novgorod the Great. Essay on the cultural history of Novgorod in the XI-XVII centuries "(Moscow, 1949), " Culture of the Russian People in the X-XVII centuries "(Moscow, 1961), " Culture of Russia in the time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise (late XIV-early XV centuries) "(Moscow, 1962), etc. These are mostly popular science works. Written by a master of words, an expert on the subject, an outstanding scientist, imbued with love for national cultural values, they are of great educational significance, contribute to the patriotic education of people. There are common features in all these books: an understanding of the versatility of culture (enlightenment, literature, chronicle writing, epic, painting,
2 See "A. A. Shakhmatov. 1864-1920". Collection of articles and materials under the editorship of S. P. Obnorsky. Moscow-L. 1947.
3 "Historical Notes", vol. 25, 1948.
4 Voprosy Istorii, 1948, No. 9.
page 133
architecture, customs, and everyday life), its dynamism, its national image, wealth, and international significance.
Likhachev raises the question of the significance of the culture of the past for cognition of the present and insight into the future. "Knowledge of the history of one's own people,"he writes," knowledge of the monuments of its culture opens up a whole world for a person - a world that is not only majestic in itself, but which allows us to see and evaluate modernity in a new way." The transfer of cultural values connects generations and creates conditions for human progress. According to Likhachev, "knowledge of the past is an understanding of the present. Modernity is the outcome of the past, and the past is the future that has not yet developed. We live in a great flow of time, the movement of which we have learned to control and which will lead us to communism, where everything will be needed, including all the best that has been created by man in all the centuries of his existence. " 5 Likhachev shares his deep thoughts on the role of cultural monuments in the history of mankind with the readers of his book "Poetics of Ancient Russian Literature". "Unlike the general movement of 'civil' history,"he writes," the process of cultural history is not only a process of change, but also a process of preserving the past, of discovering new things in the old, of accumulating cultural values. " 6 The best works of culture continue to participate in the life of humanity. The writers of the past whose works people continue to read are our contemporaries. In humanistic and human works, culture does not know aging.
These thoughts of the scientist are fruitful and instructive. They show that along with his research skills in studying specific phenomena of Russian culture, Likhachev also has a desire to raise big theoretical questions. The philosophical orientation of intelligence is its organic property. A number of theoretical positions are developed by the author in the already mentioned book "The Emergence of Russian Literature". The main ones are reduced to the justification of the historical method: monuments of literature and writing are a part of history; the history of literature and writing is included in historical science as a part of the whole; a literary historian must rely on the achievements of historical science; historicism is a necessary requirement imposed by theoretical thought for the scientific study of the development of literature. From these positions, Likhachev considers the main problems of the emergence of ancient Russian literature. It was born out of the internal needs of the feudal society of ancient Russia, was prepared by the development of the Russian language, oral creativity; a certain role in this process was played by the cultural communication of Russia with other countries, but it was not the primary cause of the appearance of literature.
Considering the process of feudalization and the formation of the Old Russian early feudal state, Likhachev dwells on the question of the creation of the ruling class of its superstructure by subordinating written creativity and establishing control over oral creativity. Thus two cultures were formed: one dominant, idealistic, ecclesiastical, closely connected with Byzantium, the other-folk, original, connected with Russian reality. Touching on both cultures, Likhachev makes subtle historical observations. Thus, speaking about the role of business writing in the development of literature, he notes the art of legal generalizations in Russkaya Pravda, agreements with the Greeks that prepared the development of artistic generalizations.
A number of important considerations are expressed by Likhachev about the Byzantine "influence" on Russia. The culture that came to Russian society from Byzantium was not the culture of the people, but of the aristocracy and bureaucracy, although it was created by the hands of the people. The old class culture of Byzantium was called upon to help the young class culture of Russia. Thus, Byzantine influence was not a national issue. At the same time, Russia perceived it not passively, but actively - it took only the necessary elements of culture.
Likhachev's book" The Emergence of Russian Literature " raises another general theoretical problem: the class character of Russian literature and its nationality. The author objects to the often vulgar claim that
5 D. S. Likhachev. Culture of the Russian people of the X-XVII centuries, p. 7.
6 D. S. Likhachev. Poetics of Old Russian literature, ed. 2-E. L. 1971, pp. 405-406.
page 134
everything that comes from oral folk art is progressive, and everything that is "written" or "bookish" is reactionary. The struggle was not between written and oral creativity, but between the ideologies of the two main classes of the feudal era. At the same time, both antagonistic classes of feudal society were characterized by patriotism, but its content and manifestations were different.
A continuation of the work "The Emergence of Russian Literature" is Likhachev's book " The Development of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries "(l. 1973). In it, the author, according to him, sought to give some generalizations for building in the future a "theoretical history of Russian literature", by which he understands research based on the study of" whole ensembles of microobjects " of the nature of the process and its driving forces. He compares "theoretical (statistical)" literary studies with statistical physics. Speaking from the standpoint of historicism, Likhachev develops the idea of the unity of human history, that the path of each nation is subject to the general laws of the movement of society. He joins the concept of the world historical process proposed by Academician N. I. Konrad, which links the development of world culture with the change of social formations, identifying three epochs: antiquity with the culture of the slave system, the Middle Ages with the culture of feudalism, the Renaissance, when the first sprouts of capitalism appear. The presence of these three epochs in the life of peoples is a natural phenomenon, and not a historical accident.
Likhachev made an attempt to apply Conrad's concept to Russia. Russia has passed the stage of slaveholding formation. The Slavs moved directly from the primitive communal system to feudalism. Therefore, the Russian people did not know the ancient stage of culture. But the absence of any stage of social development requires "compensation" - the replenishment usually received from neighboring peoples. Kievan Rus took advantage of the experience of Byzantium and Bulgaria. In the XIV-XV centuries. Russia was on the verge of Rebirth. But there was no rebirth in it. There were only isolated elements of the humanist and renaissance character and the reformation movement. All this complex of phenomena Likhachev calls Pre-birth. Predrenes-saens did not pass in Russia in the Renaissance. The absence of real antiquity in Russia with a developed culture of the slave-owning formation affected it. The author looks for the features of Pre-Birth in the manifestation of the personal principle in written monuments, the growth of self-consciousness.
In accordance with his specialty, interests and the topic of the book, he writes about phenomena in the field of literature. But the historian cannot ignore Likhachev's statement that it would be necessary to consider in the same way the relationship between literature and legal monuments of ancient Russia (Russkaya Pravda, Yardstick of the Righteous, various sudebniki, Ulozhdeniye, etc.). The problem of Pre-Birth in Russia, which Likhachev addressed in the press, met with a lively interest. response from historians of Russian and world culture. The attitude to his conclusions was different. Proponents of understanding the Renaissance as a purely Italian phenomenon of a certain era considered it inappropriate to look for even rudimentary Pre-Renaissance phenomena in Russian reality. However, the idea of general laws of world history, which is increasingly recognized by researchers and confirmed by the materials of Russian life of the XIV-XV centuries, inclines domestic medievalists to recognize the concept of "Pre-birth".
Likhachev's book " Man in the Literature of Ancient Russia "(Moscow-L. 1958, ed. 2nd-1970) could be called, according to her impression on the reader, a work of literary painting. Its task is to consider the artistic vision of a person in ancient Russian literature and artistic methods of its representation. The book is provided with pictures showing the correspondence of images of a person in literature and in painting. Human vision (the writer's understanding of it) " is a passive, perceptive beginning; image methods are an active, creative beginning; both ultimately depend on the relations of their time, on the writer's class worldview. Likhachev examines the changes in the depiction of human character during the XI-XVII centuries in connection with changes in the social system, traces the styles that replaced each other throughout the epochs.
The book contains a lot of informative material. It presents the results of studying the rich cultural heritage of Russia. But there is another trait in it that deserves to be noted: This is a study from the field of historical source studies.
page 135
In fact, the writer's vision of a person is a reflection in the source of both the person and the environment. At the same time, Likhachev shows the impact of the environment and people on the writer and his intervention in the surrounding reality. All this is demonstrated by the example of a number of epochs. Thus, the literature of the XI-XIII centuries in depicting people follows feudal ideals, reproduces ideas about what a representative of the feudal class should be like, occupying one or another step of the hierarchical ladder. At the beginning of the 17th century, the accumulation of social contradictions in feudal society and the experience of class struggle drew the attention of literature to the complexity and inconsistency of human characters.
The source study theme permeates all of Likhachev's activities, whether it is preparing monuments for publication, studying specific problems of the historical past, developing general theoretical issues of literary studies and history, philosophical reflections on the role of culture in the world process. Likhachev's special work in the field of theoretical source studies "Textology based on the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries" deserves special consideration. It summarizes the author's long-term observations on the manuscript heritage of the past and outlines new prospects in this area. He defines textology as a science that " aims to study the history of the text of a monument at all stages of its existence in the hands of authors and in the hands of its copyists, editors, compilers, that is, throughout its entire length, the text of monuments has only changed... The history of the text was to a certain extent the history of their creators and partly... their readers. The first place in textual research is occupied by the individual and society in the sense of historical materialism. " 7
Likhachev emphasizes that a textual critic must be a historian in the broadest sense of the word. And all of Likhachev's work is based on the material of written monuments of a diverse nature and content: literary (especially chronicle), legislative, legislative, etc. The author makes extensive use of the experience of analyzing the Russkaya Pravda ,documents from princely archives, and monastic copy books. Likhachev raised Shakhmatov's methods to a new level, which were intended to serve Marxist-Leninist source studies. The whole system of Likhachev's constructions is aimed at establishing the concept of "regularity" in textual theory and subordinating textual theory to the solution of this problem.
According to Likhachev, a scientifically developed textology should narrow the application of the concept of "randomness" to observations of the history of handwritten monuments. From the point of view of the methodology of scientific research, a case is the remainder that remains as a result of all the attempts of a scientist to explain a particular phenomenon, Likhachev believes. To reduce the role of chance in science to a minimum and thereby expand the possibilities of scientific knowledge - this is what he devotes his rich creative life to. The task is noble, and in its solution the author has reached great heights.
Academician L. V. Cherepnin
7 D. S. Likhachev. Textology on the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries, Moscow, L. 1962, pp. 23, 24, 25.
page 136
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2006-2025, BIBLIOTEKA.BY is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Belarus |