Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev: What is the greatest goal of life? What you need to know about Academician Likhachev But why was the already quite middle-aged Likhachev beaten in the entrance, and his apartment set on fire? Someone so aggressively expressed their disagreement with his interpretation of “The Lay of Sex”

Private bussiness

Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev (1906—1999) born in St. Petersburg. His father Sergei Mikhailovich Likhachev was the son of a church elder and worked as an engineer in the Main Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs. Mother Vera Semyonovna was from a family of merchants of the same faith (moderate Old Believers).

From 1914 to 1917, Likhachev studied first at the gymnasium of the Imperial Humane Society, then at the gymnasium and the Karl May Real School. In 1917, when the power plant workers at the First State Printing House chose Likhachev's father as their manager, the family moved to a government apartment, and Dmitry continued his education at the Lentovskaya Soviet Labor School.

In 1923 he entered the Faculty of Social Sciences at Leningrad University. Here he studied at the ethnological-linguistic department, simultaneously in the Romano-Germanic and Slavic-Russian sections.

In 1928, he wrote two diploma works: one about Shakespeare in Russia at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, the other about stories dedicated to Patriarch Nikon.

In February 1928, Likhachev was arrested and sentenced to five years for counter-revolutionary activities - participation in the student circle “Space Academy of Sciences”. Clubs were a common feature of student life, the “Space Academy of Sciences” was created for the pursuit of “fun science,” because, as Likhachev wrote, “science itself, which requires the full dedication of one’s time and mental strength, should not be boring and monotonous.” The “Academy” became of interest to the security officers after one of the students, in honor of its first year, sent a congratulatory telegram supposedly from the Pope.

Despite the fact that Likhachev did not complete the course due to his arrest, the university management issued his parents a diploma - the student fulfilled all the requirements of the curriculum.

In 1928-1931, Likhachev served time in the Solovetsky camp: he was a wood cutter, a loader, an electrician, and looked after cows. During his imprisonment, his first scientific work, “Card Games of Criminals,” was published in the magazine “Solovetsky Islands.”

In 1931, he was taken from Solovki to the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, where he worked as an accountant, then as a railway dispatcher. There, Likhachev received the title of “Udarnik BBK”, thanks to which he was released six months ahead of schedule - in the summer of 1932.

Having been freed, he returned to Leningrad and worked as a literary editor at the Publishing House of Socio-Economic Literature (Sotsekgize). In 1934, he entered the position of scientific proofreader at the publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Since 1938, Likhachev worked at the Pushkin House - Institute of Russian Literature (IRLI AS USSR). He started as a junior researcher, in 1948 he became a member of the academic council, in 1954 he received the position of head of the sector, and in 1986 he was appointed head of the department of ancient Russian literature.

During the blockade, he was with his family in Leningrad until June 1942, from where he was evacuated to Kazan along the “Road of Life”. In the same 1942, for his selfless work in the besieged city, he received the medal “For the Defense of Leningrad.”

Since 1946, in addition to working at the Pushkin House, Likhachev taught at Leningrad State University, and in 1951 he became a university professor. He taught special courses for historians: “History of Russian Chronicles”, “History of the Culture of Ancient Rus'” and others.

Likhachev's main scientific works were devoted to the culture, language and traditions of the Old Russian state. He published the books “National Identity of Ancient Rus'” (1945), “Russian Chronicles and Their Cultural and Historical Significance” (1947), “Culture of Rus' in the Time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise” (1962), “Poetics of Old Russian Literature” (1967) and a lot others.

Likhachev studied in detail “The Tale of Bygone Years” and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” He translated both of these monuments of ancient Russian literature into modern Russian and published them in 1950, providing detailed comments.

In 1953, Likhachev was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and in 1970 he became an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Likhachev actively called for the preservation of cultural monuments of St. Petersburg and other Russian, as well as Ukrainian cities. In particular, he defended Nevsky Prospekt from being “modernized” by completely glazing the first floors of houses, and convinced the authorities to abandon the construction of the Peter the Great tower on Vasilyevsky Island.

Dmitry Likhachev died in the Botkin hospital on September 30, 1999, and was buried in the cemetery in Komarovo.

What is he famous for?

The outstanding Russian thinker and scientist Dmitry Likhachev received worldwide recognition as the author of extensive fundamental research in various areas of Russian culture and philology - from early Slavic writing to the present day. Likhachev is the author of about 500 scientific and 600 journalistic works, devoted mainly to the literature and culture of Ancient Rus'. Popularizer of science, who published “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and other literary monuments with scientific commentary.

In 1986, Likhachev organized and headed the Soviet (and later Russian) Cultural Foundation, a large organization for the support of arts and humanities education. Bal is an active opponent of the demolition and “reconstruction” of architectural monuments, in which they are replaced with a new building.

He wrote in “Memoirs”: “I will not tell everything that I had to endure, protecting the Traveling Palace on Srednyaya Rogatka, the church on Sennaya, the church in Murin from demolition, the parks of Tsarskoye Selo from felling, Nevsky Prospekt from “reconstructions”, from sewage. Gulf of Finland, etc., etc. It’s enough to look at the list of my newspaper and magazine articles to understand how much effort and time the struggle in defense of Russian culture took away from my science.”

What you need to know

In 1995, Likhachev developed a draft declaration of cultural rights. The academician believed that the international community should legislate provisions that would ensure the preservation and development of culture as the heritage of all humanity.

The authorities of St. Petersburg supported the initiative, a public commission was created to finalize the ideas of the declaration in order to submit a revised version to the President of Russia and then to UNESCO. The final draft of the document stated that culture is the main meaning and global value of the existence of peoples and states.

In the declaration, Likhachev also gives his vision of globalization - as a process that should be governed not by economic, but by cultural interests of the world community.

This document was not adopted in its entirety. A number of his theses were included in the Declaration on Cultural Diversity, approved by UNESCO in 2003 and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005).

Direct speech

About repression (D. S. Likhachev “Memories »): “One of the goals of my memoirs is to dispel the myth that the most brutal time of repression came in 1936-1937. I think that in the future, statistics of arrests and executions will show that waves of arrests, executions, and deportations began already from the beginning of 1918, even before the official announcement of the “Red Terror” in the fall of this year, and then the tide kept growing until Stalin’s death, and , it seems, a new wave in 1936-1937. was only the “ninth wave”... Having opened the windows in our apartment on Lakhtinskaya Street, we spent the nights in 1918-1919. could hear random shots and short machine-gun bursts in the direction of the Peter and Paul Fortress.

It was not Stalin who started the Red Terror. Having come to power, he only sharply increased it to incredible proportions.

In the years 1936 and 1937, arrests of prominent figures of the all-powerful party began, and this, it seems, most of all struck the imagination of contemporaries. While in the 20s and early 30s officers, “bourgeois”, professors and especially priests and monks, along with the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peasantry, were shot by the thousands - everything seemed “natural”. But then the “self-devouring of power” began, leaving only the most gray and impersonal in the country - that which was hidden, or that which was adapted.”

About the blockade (ibid.):“There was already snow, which, of course, no one removed, and it was terrible cold. And downstairs, under the special school, there was a “Gastronomy”. They gave out bread. Those who received them always asked for additional weights. These “extra weights” were immediately eaten. They jealously watched the scales in the light of the smokehouses (in the stores it was especially dark: in front of the windows, barriers were erected from boards and earth). A kind of blockade theft also developed. The boys, especially those who suffered from hunger (teenagers need more food), rushed to the bread and immediately began to eat it. They didn’t try to run away: they just wanted to eat more before they took it away. They raised their collars in advance, expecting beatings, lay down on bread and ate, ate, ate. And on the stairs of the houses other thieves were waiting and took food, cards, and passports from the weakened. It was especially difficult for the elderly. Those whose cards were taken away could not restore them. It was enough for those so weak not to eat for a day or two that they could not walk, and when their legs stopped working, the end came.<…>

Corpses lay along the streets. Nobody picked them up. Who were the dead? Maybe that woman still has a living child who is waiting for her in an empty, cold and dark apartment? There were a lot of women who fed their children, depriving themselves of the portion they needed. These mothers died first, and the child was left alone. This is how our colleague at the publishing house, O. G. Davidovich, died. She gave everything to the child. She was found dead in her room. She was lying on the bed. The child was with her under the blanket, pulling her mother’s nose, trying to “wake her up.” And a few days later, her “rich” relatives came to Davidovich’s room to take... not the child, but a few rings and brooches left from her. The child died later in kindergarten.

The soft parts of the corpses lying on the streets were cut off. Cannibalism has begun! First, the corpses were stripped, then cut to the bones; there was almost no meat on them; the circumcised and naked corpses were terrible.

Cannibalism cannot be condemned indiscriminately. For the most part it was not conscious. The one who circumcised the corpse rarely ate the meat himself. He either sold this meat, deceiving the buyer, or fed it to his loved ones in order to save their lives. After all, the most important thing in eating is protein. There was nowhere to get these proteins. When a child dies and you know that only meat can save him, you cut it off from the corpse...”

On persecution (ibid.):“In October 1975, I was scheduled to speak in the assembly hall of the philology department about “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” When, an hour before the performance, I left the door of my apartment, a man of average height with an obviously pasted-on large black mustache (“false omen”) attacked me on the landing of the stairs and hit me in the solar plexus with his fist. But I was wearing a new double-breasted coat made of thick drape, and the blow did not have the desired effect. Then an unknown person hit me in the heart, but there was my report in the folder in my side pocket (my heart was protected by “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”), and the blow again turned out to be ineffective. I rushed back to the apartment and started calling the police. Then I went downstairs, where the driver (obviously from the same organization) was waiting for me, and I myself rushed to look for the attacker in the nearest streets and alleys. But, of course, he had already changed his sports cap and torn off his glued-on mustache. I went to give a report...

My appeal to the police investigator had the same result as the appeal about the attack on my apartment in 1976.

This time - 1976 - was a time in Leningrad when apartments of dissidents and left-wing artists were set on fire. For the May holidays we went to the dacha. When we returned, we found a policeman walking around in his apartment.<…>It turned out that at about three o'clock in the morning the night before, the sound alarm went off: the house was awakened by a howler. Only one person jumped out onto the stairs - the scientist who lived below us; the rest were afraid. The arsonists (and that was them) hung a tank of flammable liquid on the front door and tried to pump it into the apartment through a rubber hose. But the liquid did not flow: the gap was too narrow. Then they began to widen it with a crowbar and shook the front door. The sound guard, which they knew nothing about (it was assigned to the surname of their daughter’s husband), began to howl wildly, and the arsonists fled, leaving in front of the door both a canister of liquid and plastic ropes with which they tried to seal the cracks so that the liquid would not flow back , and other “technical details”.

The investigation was conducted in a unique way: the canister with the liquid was destroyed, the composition of this liquid was not determined (my younger brother, an engineer, said that the smell was a mixture of kerosene and acetone), fingerprints (the arsonists ran away, wiping their hands on the painted walls of the stairs) were washed away. The case was passed from hand to hand until, finally, the female investigator said benevolently: “And don’t look!”

However, fists and arson were not only the last arguments in my attempts to “work through”, but also revenge for Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn.

The attack on the apartment site occurred exactly on the day when M. B. Khrapchenko, who replaced V. V. Vinogradov as academic secretary in a not entirely honest manner, called me from Moscow and offered to sign, together with the members of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, the famous letter of academicians, condemning A.D. Sakharov. “This will remove all accusations and discontent from you.” I replied that I didn’t want to sign, and even without reading it. Khrapchenko concluded: “Well, there is no trial!” He turned out to be wrong: a court was finally found—or rather, “lynching.” As for the May arson, my participation in writing the draft chapter on Solovki in the Gulag Archipelago probably played a role here.”

How important is it to speak your mind? D.A. suggests thinking about this problem. Granin.

The writer in his text focuses on the outstanding personality of D.S. Likhacheva. This man “had his own approach to everything” since his school years; he was not afraid to express his own opinion and contradict existing theories. So the author, quoting Likhachev, urges readers: “Don’t remain silent, speak out.” This urge provides a basis for thinking about the value of one's own view of the world and its expression in social relations.

Thus, the writer comes to the following conclusion: it is necessary to express your personal opinion on everything that happens in the life of mankind, because even one voice is very weighty and important for society.

Our experts can check your essay according to the Unified State Exam criteria

Experts from the site Kritika24.ru
Teachers of leading schools and current experts of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.

The experience of fiction will serve as confirmation of my position. For example, in M. Sholokhov’s story “Wormhole” we see how the opinion of the hero Styopka, based on protecting the poor, influences the working man - the peasant. This episode is proof that you need to express your view of the world, since it affects not only the life of the person himself, but also the existence of those around him.

Let us recall Zheleznikov’s work “Scarecrow”. In it, Lena Bessoltseva, having learned to express her position and defend her own views, helped the children - her classmates - understand life values. The author clearly shows us how important it is to express personal opinions.

So, the text by D.A. Granina convinces us that for the life of a person, a group of people, every opinion is important, every glance is valuable, because the expressed proposal of one member of society can become a point for the development and improvement of the spiritual, cultural and social world of people.

Updated: 2017-05-27

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

Useful material on the topic

Here is what he writes about him immediately after starting to work with him in 1986:

At 16.00 I went to the Vnukovo-II airfield to meet D.S. Likhachev, who is supposed to fly in with Reagan’s wife from Leningrad. She arrived on her own plane. Together with her is the wife of A. Gromyko. Didn't wait. Took D.S. and Z.A. [Likhachev] and to the Akademicheskaya Hotel. The old man is fresher, tanned at the dacha and feels good. He is tormented by planetary thoughts - some kind of concert for the whole world with a conductor from Vienna and a metropolis between Moscow and Leningrad. Hosts. Behind the cloud. He is of little interest in a purely real sense in the culture of the people. He simply doesn’t see her and doesn’t know her. He complained about Piotrovsky, who did not allow him and N. Reagan into the Hermitage. Old people, but envious people.

It was May, and now October, when it became clear what Likhachev was like:

Spoke with D.S. Likhachev by phone. The older you get, the more it itches. He's not as intelligent as he tries to make himself out to be. He is terribly susceptible to all kinds of rumors and gossip. A lot of trash is hanging around him. Yes, and age makes itself felt, and maybe fame came late. Constantly posing in front of the TV. Wants to remain in history. No need for help, as long as it doesn't interfere. It’s bad that he’s out of touch and lives in Leningrad. The telephone is not a means of communication.
<...>
October 11. [.]. On the phone with D.S. Likhachev. Returned from Bulgaria. Filmed again by Bulgarian TW. Tired of posing, complains about receptions in Bulgaria. Something old and grumbling. Has little interest in the affairs of the Foundation. The board requests an appointment for November. Bad sediment. There is a lot of senile foppery, the position of a sage from the outside. Not rooting [for the cause].

And now it’s 1992, when more than 5 years of collaboration have passed:

Capable of any meanness. Cruel to the point of mercilessness. He can do any nasty thing, lie. He will invent, believe and prove. For almost five years, working in the same house - a shrine of Russian science, they do not greet each other or shake hands. The same bottom as he himself [.] is built around him. I had little fame when I was young. Now vanity takes on its debts. He never forgets himself in any situation. He cannot stand it when his opinion is not perceived as absolutely correct. There is much more that does not fit into the framework of the created image of the first intellectual of our country.
<...>
February 13. Even on Monday, rumors appeared that D. Likhachev was coming to Moscow and wanted to meet with the Foundation’s apparatus (probably, I.N. Voronova’s criticism was conveyed in detail). I don’t have any calls or messages, and I’m no longer interested. I didn’t go to the station to meet him. [. ]. How much muddy he brought in for the sake of personal vanity, how much nerves he took away! And not a word of gratitude. He says he is a believer. I do not believe! They say that he is an intellectual. Does not work! A mask behind which hides a petty man in the street, a St. Petersburg tradesman, a troublemaker. Unfortunately, this is the final conclusion about its internal content.

No comments, as they say. Another significant fact. Likhachev accepted from the hands of Yeltsin the highest order of the Russian Federation - a country that is 20 years old - the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. Even such a scum as Solzhenitsyn refused such an award, and this scum took the award from the hands of a state criminal.

What is the biggest goal in life? I think: increase the goodness in those around us. And goodness is, first of all, the happiness of all people. It consists of many things, and every time life presents a person with a task that is important to be able to solve.

You can do good to a person in small things, you can think about big things, but small things and big things cannot be separated. Much, as I have already said, begins with little things, originates in childhood and in loved ones.

A child loves his mother and his father, his brothers and sisters, his family, his home. Gradually expanding, his affections extend to school, village, city, and his entire country. And this is already a very big and deep feeling, although one cannot stop there and one must love the person in a person.

You have to be a patriot, not a nationalist. There is no need to hate every other family because you love your own. There is no need to hate other nations because you are a patriot. There is a deep difference between patriotism and nationalism. In the first - love for one's country, in the second - hatred of all others.

The great goal of good begins small - with the desire for good for your loved ones, but as it expands, it covers an ever wider range of issues.

It's like ripples on the water. But the circles on the water, expanding, are becoming weaker. Love and friendship, growing and spreading to many things, acquire new strength, become higher, and man, their center, becomes wiser.

Love should not be unconscious, it should be smart. This means that it must be combined with the ability to notice shortcomings and deal with shortcomings - both in a loved one and in the people around them. It must be combined with wisdom, with the ability to separate the necessary from the empty and false. She shouldn't be blind.

Blind admiration (you can't even call it love) can lead to dire consequences. A mother who admires everything and encourages her child in everything can raise a moral monster. Blind admiration for Germany (“Germany above all” - the words of a chauvinistic German song) led to Nazism, blind admiration for Italy led to fascism.

Wisdom is intelligence combined with kindness. Mind without kindness is cunning. Cunning gradually withers away and will certainly sooner or later turn against the cunning person himself. Therefore, the cunning is forced to hide.

Wisdom is open and reliable. She does not deceive others, and above all the wisest person. Wisdom brings the sage a good name and lasting happiness, brings reliable, long-lasting happiness and that calm conscience that is most valuable in old age.

How can I express the commonality between my three propositions: “Big in small”, “Youth is always” and “The biggest”?

It can be expressed in one word, which can become a motto: “Loyalty.”
Loyalty to those great principles that should guide a person in big and small things, loyalty to his impeccable youth, his homeland in the broad and narrow sense of this concept, loyalty to family, friends, city, country, people.
Ultimately, fidelity is fidelity to truth—truth-truth and truth-justice.

Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev.

Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev lived, worked at full capacity, worked every day, a lot, despite his poor health. From the Solovetsky Special Purpose Camp he received a stomach ulcer and bleeding.
Why did he remain healthy until he was 90?

Composition

What can be a guarantor of the quality and success of our lives? I think everyone finds the answer to this question themselves. Probably, these should be the criteria and guidelines that lead directly to our goal. Creative longevity is a life in the face of art, but what can be the reason for a person’s creative longevity? D.A. invites us to reflect on this question in his text. Granin.

Citing as an example the creative path of the great writer, Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, the author analyzes his activities and emphasizes the tenacity, perseverance, and “resistance” with which this man lived and acted from his school years. Revolutionary inclinations, freshness of ideas, courage of thought, spiritual disobedience and a tendency to look critically at everything that society presents - this is what constituted the formation of Dmitry Sergeevich as a creative personality. The author highlights the writer’s words that every misfortune benefited him, thereby emphasizing the steadfastness of his character and loyalty to his convictions.

D.A.’s thought Granin conveys through the words of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev: “... when everything is deaf, when they don’t hear you, be kind enough to express your opinion...”. The author believes that courage of thought, courage, the ability to confront and critically evaluate what is happening allow a person not to lose heart and remain committed to his own aspirations. Such great creative figures as D.S. Likhachev, openly expressed their opinions and never lost heart, this explains their creative longevity.

Of course, D.A. Granin is right. The basis of any success is that very “resistance” - immunity to any kind of criticism, problems and failures. Creative longevity is determined by the constant and energetic promotion of one’s own ideas, no matter how much they differ from generally accepted norms. In addition, it is important to be able to criticize any statement, to be “naughty” and courageous in all respects.

At all times, there have been people who differ from the majority in their opinions and outlook on life. Therefore, many writers raised a similar problem in their works. For example, the hero of the novel A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit", Alexander Chatsky, opposes the Famusov society, while proclaiming the ideas of individual independence and the elimination of feudal-serf tyranny. And despite the fact that at the end of the comedy this hero is left alone with his views, he is not a loser. A.S. Griboedov writes that progress lies precisely behind Chatsky’s revolutionary ideas.

One of the most important novels by M.A. Bulgakov, “The Master and Margarita”, unfortunately, became popular only after the death of the writer. The ideas and themes raised in the novel went against Soviet censorship, but the writer took a huge number of measures to ensure that his brainchild reached the masses. The hero of the novel himself, the Master, faced exactly the same problem: they refused to publish his novel, and he, tired of constant persecution, burned his brainchild. Margarita showed real perseverance and perseverance: the girl loved the master so much that she did everything possible to at least be able to read the novel he wrote herself. The subsequent popularity of the work showed that perhaps there was no point in trying to bypass Soviet censorship, but The Master and Margarita is truly a revolutionary novel that makes you think about many problems of society.

In conclusion, I would like to note once again that the main components of a person’s success are steadfastness, perseverance, perseverance and revolutionary thinking. We are how we stand for our ideas, what we think and where we go, and creative longevity is no exception.