Speech by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill at the plenary session of the congress of the Society of Russian Literature. Congress of the Society of Russian Literature

OLRS arose in 1811 at the turn of Russian literature towards a new direction, towards new forms in a changing general cultural process. It saw its goal in creating “sound” literature. To do this, it began to study the heritage of Russian literature from Lomonosov, since it believed that modern Russian culture began with him. It dealt with the problems of the Russian language and collected materials for various dictionaries.
In the dispute about the Russian language, which at that time played a big role in the development of culture, the Society did not side with either A.S. Shishkov or N.M. Karamzin, since it saw the truth somewhere in the middle. From the first years of its existence to the last, it never came out with sharp criticism of the work of this or that writer. It recognized the talent of its contemporaries, but left the final assessment for later, choosing as its members the opponents of Shishkov and Karamzin, classicists and romantics. Society has been reproached more than once for not appreciating Pushkin’s work during his lifetime, for “not keeping up with the rapid progress of Russian literature.” But it did not strive for this. Only after several decades, after the opening of the monument to Pushkin in Moscow in 1880, the Society began a campaign for the canonization of Pushkin. One of the founders of the Society, its main ideologist A.F. Merzlyakov cried over Pushkin’s works, felt how wonderful it was, but he could not give them a sober assessment, bring them under the rules known to him...
In 1836, when the Society turned 25 years old, its life came to a standstill, although it would seem that everything should have been the other way around. Russian literature at this time already had Batyushkov, Zhukovsky, almost all of Pushkin, Gogol, ending with The Inspector General. And at the meetings, the appendices of the psalms and innocent poetic exercises of the members were still read. The society made attempts to revive its activities, which had declined after the Decembrist uprising. N.I. Nadezhdin even drew up a plan according to which, again, everything had to start with M.V. Lomonosov, but Nadezhdin’s publication of P.Ya. Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter” in 1837 stopped these attempts. The Society did not enjoy the support of the university administration either. A.E. Gruzinsky, assessing the activities of the Society for the first period in 1911, said: “The largest literary novelties read over 25 years were excerpts from Gnedich’s Iliad, a number of Krylov’s fables, scenes from Yuri Miloslavsky Zagoskin. Among the huge number of authors, among the huge number of Shatrovs, Salarevs, Smirnovs, Filippovs, Kokoshkin, Merzlyakov and V.L. Pushkin seem to be major, and three lyceum poems by Pushkin the nephew, read by Uncle Vasily Lvovich, two or three things shine on the programs of the meetings. Zhukovsky from less significant ones, and early translations from Horace F.I. Tyutchev 1816-1819. ... For 25 years it has not moved forward one step. The entire flowering of our fiction passed by him. Chained for 25 years to cherished dream publish Lomonosov's odes, it did not notice either Pushkin or Gogol. You can be sure that Lomonosov himself would not approve of this.” But the significance of the Society during this period lay elsewhere. It began a systematic study of Russian literature and its language; it created the environment, the soil on which talents grew. Boarding school pupils and university students were involved in the work of the Society and were accepted as employees. Among them were a graduate of the University Noble Boarding School F.I. Tyutchev and student A.I. Polezhaev.
In the second period of its activity (1858-1877), both in the previous and subsequent ones, the Society saw its main purpose in the study of the past. It again dreamed of publishing Lomonosov’s works, but due to lack of funds, its dream was never realized. At this time, the Society was headed by Slavophiles or persons close to them in their views, which left its mark on its activities. Literary movement, which unfolded in the 60s of the last century in St. Petersburg, was not reflected in the activities of the Society. It consciously moved away from him. As a result, both in the first period and in the second, the Society was unable to create anything significant in the criticism that it wanted to see “sound and harmless.” The society took upon itself such an important task in the Slavophil movement as the study of the people, namely their folklore, their language. The result of this was the publication of ten editions of songs collected by P.V. Kireevsky and the dictionary of V.I. Dahl. With the help of the Society, several more folklore collections were published at this time. Society did not close itself in one Slavophile direction. All famous writers were accepted as its members: A.N. Ostrovsky, A.N. Maikov, F.I. Tyutchev, L.N. Tolstoy, I.S. Turgenev, A.A. Fet, Ya.P. Polonsky , M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A.K. Tolstoy, I.A. Goncharov, F.M. Dostoevsky. The society welcomed A.F. Pisemsky, who was expelled from St. Petersburg. The society preserved its literary traditions, raising the numerous visitors to its public meetings to respect them. The Society began its second period with the struggle for freedom of speech, for the sake of which it arose. In order to speak freely without being subject to censorship, it even refused to publish its works, which, according to the new censorship statute, were supposed to be censored.
A milestone in the life of the Society was the dispute about literature in 1858 between L.N. Tolstoy and the Chairman of the Society A.S. Khomyakov about the significance of the artistic element in literature. In 1911, Tolstoy’s speech had not yet been found, and literary critic A.E. Gruzinsky, in his review of the activities of OLRS, regrets this. Then, in the 1920s, while working on the collected works of Leo Tolstoy, A.E. Gruzinsky found it in the archive and carefully rewrote it. The second period, according to Gruzinsky, was closer to modern literature: “Moscow for the first time heard at these meetings a number of poems by K. Aksakov... Fet, Pleshcheev, Maykov, A. Tolstoy, new things by Ostrovsky, scenes from all new novels and dramas by Pisemsky , starting with “The Troubled Sea”, from several works by L. Tolstoy”2. Gruzinsky also noted the “brilliant” reviews of literature by Khomyakov, M.N. Longinov, Kotlyarevsky, Buslaev. But even during this period of its activity, the Society was not at the forefront of the literary struggle. It seemed to observe the modern literary process from the outside, while it itself was directed towards the past, into the study of archives, into their collection, into the study of folklore. At the meetings of the Society, they constantly talked about the importance of collecting materials about their contemporaries, about their significance for the further study of Russian culture. From the first years of its existence to the last, the Society never sharply criticized the work of this or that writer. It recognized the talent of its contemporaries, but left the final assessment for later.
The third period (1878-1910) was distinguished by a qualitatively different nature of the Company’s activities. It can be entitled “From the monument to Pushkin to the monument to Gogol.” The opening of the monument to Pushkin in 1880 and the opening of the monument to Gogol in 1909 are two peaks in the life of the Society. In 1880 the Society held great job to convene all Russian writers for the holiday, invited guests from abroad. The holiday was a great success. The speeches of famous writers, especially Dostoevsky and Turgenev, and the feeling of freedom inspired the holiday, made them talk about it, and remember it forever. Much was done here for the first time. For the first time they started talking about the unity of writers. This was practically their first congress. The canonization of Pushkin began here. For many who spoke about Pushkin for the first time, this topic became a constant. For the first time, the exhibition dedicated to the poet organized by the Society gave rise to many other exhibitions, which contributed to the preservation large quantity memorabilia, archives. The publication of albums and catalogs of these exhibitions consolidated materials collected, often for the first time and often previously completely unknown. At this holiday, Pushkin was placed first among Russian writers. And immediately a number of great Russian writers began to line up, to whom it was necessary to erect a monument, to whom it was necessary to canonize. Gogol was the first to be named. At the Pushkin holiday, it was decided to raise funds for a monument to Gogol. And the Society took on this mission. The celebration of the opening of the monument to Gogol in 1909 was much larger in scale than Pushkin’s in terms of the number of invited guests, both Russian and foreign. Russian literature has received international recognition. These two holidays, organized by the Society, attracted the attention of all thinking Russia and made them realize what heights Russian literature and Russian culture had reached.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Society felt confident. It ranked Lermontov, Zhukovsky, Griboedov and many others alongside Pushkin and Gogol. In addition to scientific meetings, it began to organize paid literary and musical evenings and attracted artists to its work. Growing revolutionary events influenced the Society's choice of problems to study. The study of the role of literature in liberation movement. Society moved away from the Slavophile trend, although the study of folklore continued, although not as large-scale as in the 60-70s.
In the 1890s it became finally clear that Belinsky had entered the consciousness of most educated Russia. OLRS put him first in criticism, celebrating the 50th anniversary of his death in 1898. The society regretted that these celebrations did not become nationwide due to the government’s refusal to support them. Society was unable to isolate itself from revolutionary events. It supported student unrest and protested against the arrest of writers. Its chairman was summoned to the police regarding the speeches of some of its members, it had to notify the police about the programs of its meetings, and gendarmes were sent to its meetings. The society was not allowed to hold some public meetings and was forced to hold them closed with guests, that is, without inviting students. Nevertheless, the Society managed to get through all these drinking sessions without major losses.
The main thing for the Society at the end of the century before last was the popularization of great Russian writers. Its meetings were attended by all segments of the population. Special readings were organized for the lower strata. The society sought to ensure that Pushkin’s name was known to all the people, then he would be truly popular. Three works by Pushkin were published especially for the general public - “Boris Godunov”, “Eugene Onegin”, “Poltava”. The creativity of writers was also popularized through literary and musical evenings organized by the Society. Its members included many modern writers, whose works were repeatedly heard at its meetings, for example, L. Tolstoy, I. A. Bunin. A.P. Chekhov was even chosen as temporary chairman.
In the fourth period of its activity (1910-1930), the Society entered the apogee of its glory. It enjoyed authority both in Russia and abroad. On its 100th anniversary, it summed up the path it had traveled. It's quite enough. Society managed to get through revolutionary storms. The Chairman of the Society since 1921, P.N. Sakulin, said that the Society saw a necessary stage in the revolution historical development country, opening up broad prospects for workers in science and literature, that the Society lives in a period when there is a rapid change in trends in literature, a critical revision of the main issues in science and literature, and conscious and firm self-determination is required from the Society. Sakulin and many remaining members of the Society believed that the revolution had opened the way to the realization of those ideals that Russian literature had long cherished, “freedom-loving and people-loving Russian literature.”
Next to the OLRS, which united many prominent writers and scientists and was the center of literary life, numerous literary organizations are growing like mushrooms. The society maintained contacts with many of them. Its members were often their members. In the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary periods, in the reigning confusion of styles and trends, the Society found its way. It did not renounce the legacy of the past and was in no hurry to condemn trends that for some reason it did not like or suit. It listened to many, while trying to adhere to the historical and cultural school. In variety literary movements it saw the richness of literature. Society, wise by experience, looked condescendingly at the statements of the young to “throw” old literature from the ship of modernity. The Society's centenary coincided with the time of Mayakovsky's first performances. Society felt confident, it was in the thick of modern events, his interest in the past did not contradict the modern course literary process. But the Society, willy-nilly, fell into the “junk” that Mayakovsky was destroying. He was convinced that a new life requires new forms and new content in art. But the war did not work out. There were cases when the Chairman of the Society, P.N. Sakulin, took the side of Mayakovsky and defended him. Mayakovsky's arrival in June 1924 at a meeting of the Society, at which it welcomed Vyach. Ivanov, made the meeting more dynamic, the members of the Society listened to Mayakovsky’s poems, and as a result everyone was satisfied with each other.
The period from 1910 to 1930 was full of revolutionary events. This is the time when a radical change occurred in Russia in life itself, in the consciousness of the people. Russian culture, literature, and philological science are characterized by an extraordinary rise and decline by the 1930s, by the time the Society ceased its activities. By 1930, everything that did not correspond to the image was practically expelled from art and literature historical reality in revolutionary development, the idea of ​​art serving the working class, helping it build socialism, and then communism. On this path, there was no need for “sympathizers” or “reforging”, everything that did not meet the Bolshevik requirements. Neither an ardent defender of the new life, but who did not fit into the framework allotted to him, Mayakovsky, nor the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, adapting to new circumstances, were needed. The process of sifting literature went so quickly that former member of the Society N.K. Gudziy, twenty-seven years after the cessation of its activities, asked in bewilderment: “We recognize that pre-October academic science in the field of exact, natural history disciplines, as well as technology created great values, which we can be proud of, and when it comes to academic humanities, we mostly don’t say anything in its favor. How did it happen that we ended up so weak in one of the most important areas of our culture? In this case, are we not sacrificing our national pride?”
The society of lovers of Russian literature did not run ahead of literature, it slowly followed it, collecting materials, archives, systematizing, putting everything in its place. The path of Society is one of the ways of understanding the formation of Russian literature, Russian culture, and social thought.
(R.N. Kleymenova)

On May 26, 2016, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' spoke at the plenary session of the Congress of the Society of Russian Literature.

Dear participants of the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature! I warmly greet you all.

I would like to note right away: although, as we know from national history, societies of lovers of Russian literature have been created before, such a representative meeting dedicated to issues of the Russian language and Russian literature is being held for the first time. In 1811, two societies were created in Russia, uniting people who were not indifferent to the fate of Russian literature. One of them, the literary and scientific “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” at Moscow University, existed until 1930. Another, “Conversations of Lovers of the Russian Word,” which united St. Petersburg writers, unfortunately disbanded already in 1816, after the death of its founder Gabriel Derzhavin.

The “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” at Moscow University, which included, in addition to scientists and writers, statesmen and public figures, outstanding sons of our Fatherland, worked for the benefit of the people of their country for almost 120 years. During this time, the Society published many outstanding artistic and folklore works, scientific works and dictionaries. Thanks to him active work The teaching of philological disciplines in Russia has reached an unprecedented flourishing, and issues of the Russian language and literature have always been in the center of public attention and discussion.

In 1992, on the initiative of academician Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, the “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” was revived. But a few years later, after the death of Dmitry Sergeevich and the energetic secretary of the Society, Raisa Nikolaevna Kleimenova, it, alas, practically ceased its activities.

And now all of us, who care about the fate of Russian culture, have united to preserve our national treasure- Russian language and great Russian culture. The main goal The newly formed Society of Russian Literature, as before, is the study and popularization of Russian literature and the Russian language, as well as increasing the role of philological disciplines in educational and educational processes at all levels national school- from elementary to advanced.

We, representatives of the older generation, remember our school teachers with gratitude and are deeply grateful to them for their professionalism and the high quality of teaching that they demonstrated. Of course, the education system in the Soviet Union was largely ideological. But this is precisely the strength and greatness of Russian literature: it is capable of putting the light of truth, goodness and love into the hearts of readers, overcoming any peculiarities of the ideological context, including ideological blinders, “iron curtains” and other harmful external circumstances.

The great Russian classical literature, which so providentially reached its most powerful age at the beginning of the tragic twentieth century, took on another important mission, a task beyond the capabilities of any other humanitarian sphere at that time: it fulfilled the purpose of preserving for posterity not only Russian culture, but also our national history.

Finally, Russian literature - albeit contradictory, but steadily and courageously - has always led its reader to the knowledge of the highest spiritual and moral values, to the knowledge of the highest meaning of life, to the knowledge of God.

In this regard, I recall the remarkably precise words of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev about the role and significance of literature and philology in general: “Literature is not only the art of words. This is the art of overcoming words.<…>Understanding a text is an understanding of the entire life of one’s era behind the text. Therefore, philology is the connection of all connections.<…>It underlies not only science, but also all human culture. Knowledge and creativity are formed through the word, and through overcoming the rigidity of the word, culture is born.”1

It is no coincidence that, perhaps not fully consciously rationally, but vividly feeling in their hearts, many people of the middle and older generation considered literature teachers to be their favorite teachers at school. But today the same literary scholars, our contemporaries - both young teachers and teachers of advanced age - are desperately sounding the alarm bell, seeing and realizing more clearly than others the danger of the situation that has developed in the current philological education.

The opinion that young people read little these days has become a common truth for many. But this fact, fortunately, is highly controversial. Firstly, not all young people read a little. And secondly, this problem is not insoluble.

I remember how in the 1950s and 60s they were worried that film adaptations of literary works would lead to teenagers stopping reading, just as they now say that computers and adapted books will completely wean young people from reading the classics. Of course, this can happen if the teacher does not instill a taste for literature and reading. That is why in our computerized times, the role of a mentor is especially important - a person who transfers knowledge from heart to heart, from mind to mind. Indeed, in this communication there is not only a rational, but also a spiritual, emotional principle. I think everyone present here has long forgotten the content of the lectures of their professors in higher education. And when we say: “We had a wonderful professor,” the last thing we think about is the content of these lectures. The very fact of meeting a wonderful person is remembered, and not only on a rational level.

Therefore, the role of the teacher cannot be overestimated. He does not simply transmit information, as a computer does, he refracts what is said through himself and transmits part of his soul, his mind to those who listen to him. And if this is a sincere person, if he is a devotee of his craft, then nothing can compare in terms of the power of persuasion and influence on the audience with the words of a true master of his craft - a teacher.

And here, in my opinion, lies the root of the problem. Of course, the range, level and quality of reading of a growing, emerging person is influenced by the modern rhythm of life, and introduction to Internet culture, and the innovations of the electronic age. But the main problem It seems to me that the school, society and the state, in the end, do not always take care with due diligence and responsibility to instill in young people a taste for reading, teach them to understand and love literature, and extract the most important things from what they read. lessons for life.

This problem is complex, but completely solvable. To do this, special attention must be paid to the training of teaching staff in the humanities. It is impossible for people to enter pedagogical institutes according to the residual principle: if you don’t get into an elite university, where to go? To the pedagogical! Pedagogical universities should become intellectual and cultural centers of our country, and the prestige of teachers should be comparable to the prestige of scientists, astronauts, and athletes. In that case capable people will go to pedagogical universities, and it is they who will form the new generation, even if not everything goes well with the programs and manuals. Because a talented teacher can convey a powerful emotional, spiritual, intellectual signal over bureaucratic documentation - believe me, I know this first-hand.

Nevertheless, it is useful for us to think about school and university programs that are so actively discussed today, including their variability. I hope we will talk about this topic again, but, looking forward to the discussion, I would like to express my opinion: there is no need to be afraid of the word “variability.” Some shy away from him as if from a scarecrow. But the whole question is what to choose from. If we choose between two works by Dostoevsky, we will not lose anything. But if a great classic is contrasted with a writer whose work does not evoke universal admiration and whose personality does not evoke respect, then this is no longer variability; a different term should be applied to such a phenomenon.

Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of variability. We need to talk about the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural content of school education programs. It is important that behind smart and attractive formulations such as “modular teaching”, “thematic principle”, “variable content”, “strengthening subjectivity in teaching”, “the teacher’s ability to formulate his own program, adapting it to the specifics of the school, class, region” , - there were verified and time-tested pedagogical methods, and did not hide, as happens, pedagogical helplessness, essentially unnecessary and dubious experiments, taste, restless desire for reforms, unprofessionalism, in the end. But it’s not a matter of terms - it’s a matter of content, a good head and a kind heart. Then we will have reached a national consensus on all the most complex issues, including those we are currently considering.

Certainly, school program generally overloaded, and the child does not always cope with it successfully. I remember my academic years: The family was poor, and I was forced to work and study. I didn’t have a minute of free time either on the tram or on the bus - I was always with a book. I know what it's like to be overwhelmed. But I thank my wonderful teachers, who, despite this overload, armed me not only with knowledge, but also with a love of literature, and taught me how to write essays. And trying to make it easier for children to study by providing the opportunity to remove from the curriculum great works of literary fiction recognized throughout the world is, of course, unacceptable.

In preparing for this speech, I tried to delve into the main controversial issues relating to the teaching of literature in school. There are problems that I would like to propose for our joint discussion.

Some “experts” claim that Russian classical literature - its language, heroes, value paradigm - is incomprehensible modern schoolchildren, and therefore almost useless in the field of education. Another thing, in their opinion, is the literature of modern times, which talks about familiar realities, qualities needed for successful life, trends, excuse the word, etc.

“Trend” is a foreign word. “Tendency” is also foreign, but Latin. Why Latin word"tendency" was replaced by English "trend", explain to me, educated people? Or is the word “trend” an indicator of education? For me this is a very bad sign. That is why I did not delete the word “trend” from this text, wanting to express my opinion about the often completely illogical, unjustified use of foreign, primarily English, words in our modern Russian language.

Undoubtedly, best works Literatures of the turn of the XX-XXI centuries should be studied in school, but they should be introduced into the program without haste, remembering the ideological function of literature, which can awaken “good feelings,” in the words of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, and can promote both allegorical and explicit form of images and ideas that are destructive for children.

It is necessary to find a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the list of works offered for classroom and extracurricular reading. The need for responsible discussion and adoption of the so-called “golden canon” seems fundamentally important. It can be called whatever you like: “golden canon”, “national canon”, “canon of Russian literature”, but there must be a set of texts that must be studied in secondary school. Without this, we simply will not be able to form in children a holistic perception of Russian literature, and therefore Russian culture. I think there is no need to be afraid that in such a situation teachers are deprived of choice. There is always a choice: to work conscientiously or carelessly, to sincerely love children and your profession or to be indifferent to it. But the most important thing is the choice that I mentioned earlier. The teacher can choose from the two best the best, from his point of view. But the choice cannot be between the best and the mediocre, between obligatory for everyone due to the unique contribution of the work to Russian and world culture and a purely conceptual text, interesting in this moment, but losing meaning along with the disappearance historical context. Attaching liberal arts education solely to the context of the era is the wrong method. Undoubtedly, education should actualize ideas emanating from culture, from tradition. Without this, culture and tradition die. The modern context cannot fully control the educational process, because what is very important in our fast-moving time will not be important tomorrow. How we suffered from the problems of the 90s! I remember what was happening in this room. Such was the battle between right and left! Where are these battles, where are these people? Everything is gone, but Pushkin hasn’t left! So, I think that it is necessary to find a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the list of works offered for classroom and extracurricular reading. Fundamentally important is the need to preserve, as I have already said, a certain canon. And I believe that this is what we should focus on: what kind of canon is this, what kind of books are and how variability can operate within this canon.

Obviously, one of the reasons for the decline in interest in Russian literature and its generally unsatisfactory knowledge among the younger generation was, among other things, the ongoing educational reforms over several years. I do not want to criticize any specific institutions, or people, or the very idea of ​​reform. Professionals have already made various comments and will probably continue to criticize certain aspects of this reform. It is also impossible without reforms. You can't stand in one place. The world is developing, the school is developing, our country is developing. On May 24, the day of Cyril and Methodius, I was at a concert on Red Square. A girl was sitting next to me. I look - he sings very well, with a clear voice, very clearly. I started talking to her. The girl is studying in the 5th grade, I looked at her and couldn’t believe my eyes - sitting in front of me was an adult, relaxed, smart, knowledgeable. I remember myself in the 5th grade - I would not only be afraid to say a word to the Patriarch, I would be afraid to say a word to the school principal. But this is a different generation, and if we say that the school of the 50s-60s should be the indisputable gold standard for us, we will ruin the school, the standard, and everything else.

At the same time, I am sure that it would be wrong to consider education reforms, as I have already said, from an exclusively critical point of view. As a result of long-term reforms that affected all areas and levels of education, it was necessary to radically lower the minimum threshold in the Unified State Examination. We are now touching on this difficult topic. Regarding the Unified State Exam, I will express my opinion - I have already expressed it several times in different audiences, I think it is important to do it now, without, of course, claiming any special positive assessments - it seems to me that completely abandoning the Unified State Exam would be the wrong step. I became acquainted with the Unified State Exam in Finland about 30 years ago. I had a connection to this country - I managed our parishes there, being the rector of the theological academy in St. Petersburg. And then one day I came to this country on a spring day, and I saw how many young people were wearing white caps. They explained to me that these are those who passed the state exam for high school. I ask: “What does this status give?” - “Student title.” - “Have they already entered universities?” - “No, and many will not do so. But they are already students, they have their own status recognized by the state.” And they told me about the Unified State Exam system, and I thought it was a good thing when there is some kind of directive assessment of a student’s knowledge.

But there is something in this good idea that you definitely need to pay attention to in order to adjust it for the better, because the current state of the Unified State Exam causes too many complaints from parents, children, and teachers. The first criticism and objection is the test response system. There are subjects whose knowledge cannot be assessed in a test manner. Here's the rules traffic it is possible in a test manner, and in some countries they refused: they offer consideration of certain situations on computers. At one time I took my license in Switzerland - you put crosses and that’s it. But people realized that this was not entirely correct, that such an assessment system for a whole range of subjects was insufficient.

Therefore, it seems to me that, firstly, the introduction of an essay is already a very big step forward. It is important that an oral component be added to the Unified State Examination, which would not serve as the only method for determining knowledge. After all, a personality reveals itself when it talks, and the girl revealed herself when she started talking to me. And if you gave her some template, it remains to be seen what she would say. Therefore, I am deeply convinced that the oral component when passing a state exam in a number of subjects is a very important point. Of course, this primarily concerns the Russian language and literature. It is impossible to “drive” all the wealth of our literature into tests and short answers to questions. Recently, at the award ceremony for the laureates of the Patriarchal Literary Prize, I already recalled the words of Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman, with whom I had the joy of personal acquaintance and communication. I can’t say that we were friends, but we were mutually interested interlocutors. I knew both him and his wife, and I gained a lot from communicating with this man. So, he said that eternal ideas and values ​​invariably put on the clothes of time, and the reader only needs to correctly recognize these thoughts. Today I would like to quote another remarkable statement by this outstanding philologist. Speaking about categories such as culture and information, he said: “Culture is not a warehouse of information at all.<…>Culture is a flexible and complexly organized mechanism of cognition”2. It is impossible to imagine literature as a collection of data about writers, their works and main characters. Reading a literary work is always reflection, a deep inner work of the mind and heart, which cannot be seen and assessed by correctly checking the boxes.

It is no coincidence that in the 50s and 60s people sometimes expressed criticisms about the film adaptation classical works. What happens to a person when he reads a classic? literary work? And the more talented the author, the more powerfully what I’m about to say affects a person. Everyone who reads fiction creates an artistic image in their mind. And the stronger the writer, the brighter the image in our minds. I do not live by the images that I saw in films based on the novels of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. I have developed my own images, even my own room interiors; how I imagine the clothes based on what was written in these texts, what the characters looked like. In other words, each of us, reading a literary text, becomes a co-author; for himself - we have already talked about actualization today - he personally updates the content work of art. And this cannot be replaced either by cinema, although even there it is interesting to observe the skill of the director and actors, or by theatre, although there it is important to see the beauty of everything that the director and actor creates. Because with reading, you are the director yourself, you are the artist yourself, you are the director yourself. It is in this part of assimilation literary text, I think, contains its enduring significance for the formation of personality, for the formation of human culture.

Extremely important topic, which also needs our joint discussion, is the issue of training future teachers. I have already said this and will not dwell on it. I will only say that Russian literature is, without exaggeration, one of the pillars of our national life, the most important foundation of the civilization of the Russian world, I would say, the cultural pillar of state life. Therefore, the future of the Russian language and literature should be a subject of discussion not only among professionals, but throughout Russian society. This is a strategic task today that must be resolved responsibly.

The fertile field of Russian literature should not be an arena for ideological battles, for lobbying someone's interests, or inappropriate experiments. We need to clear this platform of internecine strife that we inherited from the 90s. We must fully understand what last years, over the decades, mistakes and distortions were, of course, made, but there is no life without mistakes and without distortions. It is very dangerous when a mistake is not noticed, when it is due to political, human factors is hushed up and enters flesh and blood folk life. That's when this mistake becomes a historical crime. I think we are all called today - not only society, but also the Government, the writing workshop, readers - to realize that we are at a very important point in our spiritual, cultural development. What will happen to our school, to our literature, to our writing workshop and to our readers depends to a large extent on what this development will be like.

On March 9, 2016, under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', an extended meeting of the Patriarchal Council for Culture was held, dedicated to the establishment of the Society of Russian Literature.

Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, prominent cultural and artistic figures, philologists, linguists, specialists in the field of teaching Russian language and literature.

The presidium of the meeting was attended by:

• His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' - chairman;
• Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomna Yuvenaly - deputy chairman;
• Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate;
• Bishop Tikhon of Yegoryevsk, vicar of Moscow Sretensky Monastery, - executive Secretary;
• Varlamov A.N., acting Rector of the Literary Institute named after A.M. Gorky;
• Verbitskaya L.A., President of the Russian Academy of Education, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Russkiy Mir Foundation;
• Dobronravov N.N., poet, laureate of the USSR State Prize;
• Karpov S.P., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
• Pakhmutova A.N., People's Artist USSR, composer;
• Sokolov A.S., professor, rector of the Moscow State Conservatory named after P.I. Tchaikovsky;
• Tkach O.P., member of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation from the Kaliningrad region, publisher, Founder of the book publishing company "Olma Media Group";
• Tolochko P.P., Chairman of the Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments, Professor, Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Director of the Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine;
• Tolstoy V.I., Advisor to the President Russian Federation, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation;
• Ganichev V.N., Chairman of the Board of the Union of Writers of Russia;
• Kovalchuk A.N., Chairman of the Union of Artists of Russia, People's Artist of Russia, member of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Arts;
• Mikhalkov N.S., People's Artist of Russia, Chairman of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia;
• Tsereteli Z.K., People's Artist of the USSR, President of the Russian Academy of Arts;
• Nikonov V.A., Chairman of the State Duma Committee of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Education, Chairman of the Board of the Russkiy Mir Foundation, Doctor of Historical Sciences;
• Shakhnazarov K.G., CEO film concern "Mosfilm", film director, screenwriter, Honored Artist of the Russian Federation, People's Artist of the Russian Federation;
• Shumakov S.L., Deputy General Director of the information holding of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "All-Russian State Television and broadcasting company", director and editor-in-chief of the TV channel "Culture".

Opening the meeting, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill addressed the audience with an opening speech, in which he announced the creation of the Society of Russian Literature and his decision to lead this society.

“Several months ago, the President of our country, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, approached me with a proposal to create a Society of Russian Literature and subsequently lead its work. “I accepted this proposal precisely because we are talking about the humanitarian dimension of our life, personality, society, state, and the humanitarian dimension is part of the spiritual responsibility of the Church,” said, in particular, His Holiness. — Humanitarian side human life included in what we call the pastoral care of the Church, and it was as a shepherd who, along with so many, bears responsibility for the spiritual state of the people that I decided to lead this society. I will not say that this was a difficult decision, taking into account the agenda of the Patriarch. And yet, I believe that the Patriarch should also pay increased attention to the topic just outlined, because we are talking about something very important, relevant to the life of our entire people and our entire society.”

It was proclaimed " Everlasting memory» to the deceased members of the Patriarchal Council for Culture. In 2014-2015 the following people died: Georgy Pavlovich Ansimov, People's Artist of the USSR (1922-2015); Vladislav Igorevich Kazenin, chairman of the Union of Composers (1937-2014); Valentin Grigorievich Rasputin, writer (1937-2015); Vladimir Dmitrievich Sarabyanov, restorer of the highest category, candidate of art history (1959-2015).

Bishop Tikhon of Yegoryevsk delivered a report on the implementation of the decisions of the previous meeting of the Council.

Then His Holiness Patriarch Kirill made a report on the creation of the Society of Russian Literature.

During the meeting, reports were presented by:

• Verbitskaya L.A., President of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor philological sciences, professor - “Russian language from M.V. Lomonosov to the present day";
• Zinin S.A., Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Chairman of the Federal Subject Commission on Literature in the Unified State Examination System - “Literary education at school: future scenarios”;
• Fedorov A.V., candidate of philological sciences, teacher of Russian language and literature of the highest category - ““Cunningly interpreting freedom”: the school literary canon and the problem of variability”;
• Kazakova E.I., Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Director of the Institute of Pre-University Education of St. Petersburg State University - “Approaches to the formation of a subject program”;
• Prokhorov Yu.E., Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Doctor philosophical sciences, professor, chairman of the coordinating council of the Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature of Higher School - “Quality training of teachers of Russian language and literature is the basis of the future cultural level of generations”;
• Uzhankov A.N., Doctor of Philology, Professor, Vice-Rector for scientific work Literary Institute named after. A.M. Gorky - “The problem of textbooks, teaching aids for schools and universities”;
• Lubkov A.V., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Advisor to the Rector of the Moscow Institute open education— “Training of teaching staff: current state, problems and assessments".

The discussion of the reports was attended by: People's Artist of Russia, Chairman of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia N.S. Mikhalkov; Chief Researcher at the Institute of World Literature named after. A.M. Gorky RAS, Doctor of Philology V.Yu. Trinity; Head of the Department of General Linguistics, Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University, Doctor of Philology, Professor A.A. Volkov, head of the department of rhetoric at the Institute of Russian Language. A.S. Pushkin, Doctor of Philology V.I. Annushkin; General Director of the Mosfilm film concern, film director, screenwriter, Honored Artist of the Russian Federation, People's Artist of Russia K.G. Shakhnazarov; Archbishop Mark of Berlin, Germany and Great Britain; Chairman of the Federal Subject Commission on Literature in the Unified State Examination System, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor S.A. Zinin; Associate Professor of the Academy of Postgraduate Education (St. Petersburg) S.V. Fedorov; Dean of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.P. Karpov; Chairman of the State Duma Committee of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Education, Chairman of the Board of the Russkiy Mir Foundation, Dean of the Faculty government controlled Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor V.A. Nikonov; Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Russian Literature of the Moscow City Pedagogical University E.G. Chernysheva; teacher of Russian language and literature at secondary school No. 2097 in Moscow, honored teacher of the Russian Federation, candidate of pedagogical sciences O.N. Zaitseva; Chairman of the Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments, Director of the Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Professor P.P. Tolochko; People's Artist of Russia, Chairman of the Union of Workers of Slavic Culture, Director of the Institute of Culture of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Russian Federation N.P. Burlyaev; editor-in-chief of the Free Press website, writer, journalist, public figure S.A. Shargunov; Chairman of the Board of the Union of Writers of Russia V.N. Ganichev and others.

According to a number of meeting participants, some trends in modern Russian education have the consequence of limiting the most important role of the Russian language and literature in the education of the younger generation and therefore must be rethought and adjusted.

Discussing the possible principles of activity of the Society of Russian Literature, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill noted: “If we talk about the methodology of our work, then, of course, we should think about holding certain forums in order to have direct and feedback with people, to hear the voice of the people and respond, in including the questions, disappointments and hopes of people. I think this is a very important way of exchanging views.”

At the same time, according to His Holiness, in order to develop specific documents, it is desirable to create a “ working group specialists who are able to work with the materials that are the subject of our concern in a professional manner, so that we can obtain texts that can then be discussed in a broader representation of the scientific and pedagogical community.”

The Primate of the Russian Church called for real steps to be taken in the near future in both directions: “These two directions are the social work of our organization and the transfer to large audiences, including, of our thoughts, ideas, our understanding of how to go along the path of implementing these decisions, and, on the other hand, the creation of a professional expert group capable of working with texts and preparing our corresponding recommendations"

The meeting participants approved the creation of a professional expert group and the holding of forums for the preparation of decisions and documents and their further broad discussion.

Following the meeting, a resolution was adopted.

1. Problems of teaching literature and the Russian language in modern Russian schools, raised in reports and discussions at constituent assembly Russian literature societies require broad professional and public discussion.

2. A decision was made to create the Society of Russian Literature.

3. Goals and objectives of the society:

Consolidation of the efforts of scientists, teachers, cultural figures, the general public to preserve the leading role of literature and the Russian language in the education of the younger generation, strengthening a single cultural and educational space, development best traditions domestic humanitarian education, cultural and educational activities.

4. The participants of the meeting take the initiative to hold a congress of teachers of literature and the Russian language and a forum of the parent community in order to develop a coordinated position on the most pressing and pressing problems of school philological education.

5. At the next meeting of the Society of Russian Literature, present the results of a professional and public discussion of the identified problems related to the teaching of literature and the Russian language in a modern Russian school.

The Society of Russian Literature proposes to hold a congress of teachers of Russian language and literature and a forum of parent community, so that on the most acute and pressing problems of school philological education an agreed position was developed.

The next meeting of the Society of Russian Literature will be held on April 30, 2016. It will present the results of professional and public discussions of the identified problems.

The First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature opened on May 25, Philologist's Day, at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. The delegates and guests of the congress were prominent scientists, members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Education, politicians, teachers of leading Russian universities, school teachers from Russian regions, writers and cultural figures, representatives of the parent community, public organizations, students and clergy.

On May 26 of this year, in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions, the plenary session of the congress was chaired by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', together with the President of RAO, the President of MAPRYAL and ROPRYAL L. A. Verbitskaya.

The meeting was attended by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin. Speaking about the Russian language and literature, the President emphasized “that we are talking about preserving - no more, no less - national identity, about being and remaining a people with its own character, with its own traditions, with its own identity, without losing historical continuity and the connection of generations. For Russians, this means being and remaining Russian.”

At the congress there was a representative delegation from Moscow State Pedagogical University: vice-rector, director of the Institute of Philology and foreign languages L.A. Trubina, head Department of Russian Language N.A. Nikolina, manager Department of Literature Teaching Methods V.F. Damn, boss. Department of General and Applied Linguistics O.E. Drozdova, head Department of Pre-University Teaching of Russian Foreign Languages ​​E.A. Khamraev, professor A.D. Deykina, S.A. Zinin, E.G. Chernyshova, K.P. Smolina, E.V. Getmanskaya, V.N. Bazylev, associate professors E.L. Erokhin, L.Yu. Komissarova,M.V. Sarapas, L.G. Latfullina, N.A. Popova.

Tell friends:

In contact with

Classmates

Show discussion

Discussion

No comments yet

On March 14, 2019, the Second All-Russian Scientific and Practical Seminar for Teachers was held at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia educational organizations working in classes with multiethnic student populations. Teachers took part...

March 13, Associate Professor of the Department of Russian Literature of the XX-XXI centuries. Natalya Yuryevna Bogatyreva took part in the pedagogical marathon, which is held annually by the Trinity Orthodox School. Lecture on the topic “Trends in modern children's and youth...

February 27 at the Center for Russian Language and Culture named after. A.F. Losev Institute of Philology, Moscow State Pedagogical University held a meeting with Shavkat Safarovich Sharipov, rector of the Tashkent State Pedagogical University. Bottoms, tied...

At the beginning of March, Professor of the Department of Russian Literature of the 20th-21st Centuries at the Institute of Philology of Moscow State Pedagogical University Yanina Viktorovna Soldatkina took part in the “Geek Zona” program on Teos radio, which actively cooperates with Moscow State Pedagogical University on issues...

On March 6, 2019, an international online webinar on the topic “ Recognized by the world Abai”, dedicated to Abai Kunanbayev (1845-1904) - the great poet of the Kazakh people, humanist philosopher, composer,...

Center for Russian Language and Culture named after. A.F. Losev Institute of Philology, within the framework of the Exchange Program of the Cultural and Educational Project "Russia - Italy" (PRIA) of the Moscow Department of Education, a now traditional round...

On March 2, a round table dedicated to the 120th anniversary of the birth of Yuri Karlovich Olesha was held at the A.F. Losev Center for Russian Language and Culture. Teachers from the Institute of Philology took part in the live conversation...

On February 22, a round table dedicated to the centenary of the birth of the American writer Jerome David Salinger (January 1, 1919 - January 27, 2010) was held in the Main Building of Moscow State Pedagogical University, in which...

On February 28 – March 1, students and undergraduates of the Institute of Philology of the Moscow Pedagogical State University spent together with Irina Georgievna Mineralova, professor of the Department of Russian Literature of the 20th-21st centuries, at Brest State University...

On February 28 – March 1, 2019, the XXIII International Scientific and Practical Conference “Linguistics for Everyone” was held on the topic “Serious and entertaining in the language of different spheres of life.” More than 150 participants attended the conference...

February 27, 2019 at the National Eurasian University. L.N. Gumilyov (Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan) opened an international conference of young scientists, which was held via videoconference. Moscow Pedagogical State University, Institute of Philology,...

February 27, 2019 at State Museum stories Russian literature named after V.I. Dalia (State literary museum), in the House of I.S. Ostroukhov in Trubniki as part of the exhibition and research project “Literary Wars of the 1920-1930s:...

At the end of February, a working visit of the delegation of the Institute of Philology to the Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce (Poland) took place. The delegation included the director of the institute, head of the department of Russian classical literature Doctor of Philology E.G. Chernysheva...

The MPGU video channel has set another record - the number of its subscribers has exceeded 30,000 people! Thus, our YouTube channel is among the top three among the official video channels of Russian universities.

Center for Russian Language and Culture named after. A.F. Losev Institute of Philology organized and held interactive platforms as part of the celebration of the Day native language. According to good tradition, on February 21 at the Moscow Pedagogical State University...

The collection contains articles by participants in the IV scientific and practical conference of young scientists “Media processes in the modern humanitarian space: approaches to study, evolution, prospects”, held at Moscow Pedagogical State University on May 12, 2018.

February 17, 2019 Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of General Linguistics at Moscow State Pedagogical University, specialist at the Center for Russian Language and Culture named after A.F. Loseva Andrey Vladimirovich Grigoriev spoke on radio Mayak about...

Celebrating International Mother Language Day brightly and widely has become a good tradition at Moscow Pedagogical State University. As in many countries of the world, on February 21 at the main pedagogical university in Russia they say...

On February 16, at the Institute of Philology, a meeting was held with prose writer Tatyana Menshchikova, timed to coincide with the release of her book “My Father Lighted the Stars” in the Compass Guide publishing house. The debut story of a young talented writer is addressed to teenagers...

On February 21, the whole world celebrates Mother Language Day. Students of the Preparatory Faculty of the Russian Foreign Language took part in a university-wide celebration and held one of the platforms - “We speak different languages, but the planet...

On February 20, the IV student scientific and practical conference “Teacher of the 21st Century”, organized by the Department of Literature Teaching Methods, was held at the Institute of Philology. More than 200 students of 2-5 years of undergraduate and...

On February 21, 2019, as part of the celebration of Mother Language Day at MPGU (Corpus of Humanitarian Faculties), university students participated in many cultural and educational events. The interactive linguistic quiz game “Vocabulary” aroused great interest...

On February 16, the Institute of Philology hosted a lecture-forum “Fonvizin - Griboyedov - Gogol: playwrights - our contemporaries.” Participants of the lecture-forum led by Irina Georgievna Mineralova, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Russian Literature...

On February 15–16, 2019, the International Scientific and Practical Conference “ Modern paradigm teaching and learning Russian as a foreign language”, organized by the Department of Russian as a Foreign Language in Professional Training of the Institute of Philology...

Professor of the Institute of Philology of Moscow State University Irina Georgievna Mineralova on the “Red Line” channel in the program “Telescraper. Moritz and Bushin are lumps, The Gulag Archipelago is a bad book.”

On February 9, as part of the events of the All-Russian School of Poetry, the third meeting of the scientific and creative seminar OPOYAZ-2, which resumed its activities after an almost 20-year break, was held at the Institute of Philology. Meeting in the form of a Christmas Poetry Afternoon...

On February 9, 2019, in the Building of Humanitarian Faculties of Moscow State Pedagogical University, the Department of Local History and Historical and Cultural Tourism of the Directorate for the Study of History of Moscow State Pedagogical University conducted an educational quest “Labyrinth of Epochs” for students of Moscow universities and schoolchildren....

On February 9, the Institute of Philology hosted a lecture “Modern children’s literature: names, traditions, trends” Natalya Yuryevna Bogatyreva, Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Russian Literature of the 20th-21st centuries at the Institute of Philology, at a lecture dedicated...

February 5, 2019, specialist of the Department of Local History and Historical and Cultural Tourism of the Directorate for the Study of History of Moscow State Pedagogical University E.R. Polatkhanova, together with students from the Institute of History and Politics, the Institute of Philology and the Institute of Childhood, conducted...

Department of Rhetoric and Speech Culture in in full force completed training at the Moscow State University Library on compiling a list of references for the work program of disciplines. The head of the reference and bibliographic department, Maria Nikolaevna Svirina, taught teachers how to effectively...

Literature Ancient Rus': materials of the X All-Russian conference " Old Russian literature and its traditions in the literature of modern times”, dedicated to the memory of Professor Nikolai Ivanovich Prokofiev; Epic tradition in Russian literature of the 20th–21st centuries: materials of the XXIII Sheshukov readings.

01/31/2019 – 02/02/2019 the VII International Scientific and Practical Conference was held at Novosibirsk State University Total dictation“Dynamic processes in the modern Russian language”, in which the professor of the Russian language department of the Institute of Philology took part...

On February 1, 2019, the Moscow Pedagogical State University hosted the International Scientific and Practical Conference “Mythological and Historical in Russian Literature of the XX-XXI Centuries. XXIV Sheshukov Readings.

Moscow Pedagogical State University was represented at the International Scientific Conference “Dialogue of Cultures X” in the Czech Republic on January 15–16, 2019. Teachers took part in the conference, held at the University of Hradec Králové...

The Russian Center in Berlin, with the support of the Russkiy Mir Foundation, held from January 28 to 30, 2019 International conference on working with Russian-speaking children “Formula for Happy Holidays”, which adopted...

International scientific and practical conference “World literature for children and about children”, under the patronage of which an international forum is held every 2 years at Moscow State Pedagogical University and jointly with the Crimean Federal University. IN AND....

January 21, 2019 Center for Russian Language and Culture named after. A.F. Losev Institute of Philology, Moscow State Pedagogical University, held a webinar dedicated to summing up the results of the All-Russian Universiade “Great, Mighty”, in the organization of a remote tour of which he took part...

Rector of Moscow State Pedagogical University, Professor Alexey Vladimirovich Lubkov on the “Russia 1” channel in the “Morning of Russia” program.

January 15 at the Center for Russian Language and Culture named after. A.F. Losev Institute of Philology, Moscow State Pedagogical University, held a meeting on issues related to the opening of the Russian Language and Culture Centers named after. A.F. Loseva in...

On December 27, 2018, at the department of Russian as a foreign language in vocational training, a New Year’s evening was held, aimed at studying the traditions of celebrating the New Year in Russia. Students took part in it...

The Preparatory Faculty of the Russian Foreign Languages ​​Institute of the Institute of Philology wishes everyone a Happy New Year! And he remembers the New Year's holiday for foreign students of the faculty. It took place on December 27 in the hall of the humanities faculties building. Real Grandfather...

On December 27, in the foyer of the Main building of MPGU, a New Year tree was held for the children of teachers, organized by the Laboratory of Student Initiatives of the Institute of Philology and the student council of the philology department with the support of the Primary Trade Union Organization of MPGU. Every...

Within the framework of the development of the Institute of World Literature named after. M. Gorky (IMLI RAS) of the project “RUSSIAN ESTATE IN LITERATURE AND CULTURE” on December 26, 2018 in the former estate of Prince. Trubetskoy "Narrow" (now Federal Scientific Center for RR...

The MPGU YouTube channel, which is increasingly gaining active and caring supporters, has overcome a new important psychological milestone: the number of its subscribers has exceeded 25,000 people, and the number of channel views has amounted to more than 4 million 100 thousand visits.

On May 25, 2016, at the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature, a meeting of the section “Teaching Russian language and literature in universities as a strategic priority of educational policy in a multinational state” was held. The organizers and moderators of the section were T.V. Doctor of Philology, Professor, Vice-Rector of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov. Kortava and Doctor of Philology, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Philology of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen N.L. Shubina.

The meeting of the section “Teaching Russian language and literature in universities as a strategic priority of educational policy in a multinational state” was attended by 72 people from 53 educational, scientific and public organizations.

Among them are members of the Russian Language Council under the President of the Russian Federation, the Federal Educational and Methodological Association for Linguistics and Literary Studies, headed by Academician of the Russian Academy of Education L.A. Verbitskaya, representatives of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, six federal universities (North Caucasus, Crimean, Far Eastern, Southern, Baltic, Northeastern), leading national research and classical universities ( graduate School Economics, Moscow Pedagogical State University, Saratov State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky, Voronezh State University, Ryazan State University named after S.A. Yesenin, Mari State University, Syktyvkar State University named after Pitirim Sorokin, Moscow State Linguistic University, All-Russian State University of Justice, Perm State University, Oryol State University, Academy civil protection EMERCOM of Russia, Moscow City Open University, Bashkir State University, Kostroma State University named after N.A. Nekrasov, Yaroslavl State University named after P.G. Demidov, Russian Economic University named after G.V. Plekhanov, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen and others).

At the section meeting, 20 reports were made, including a report by the rector of the North Caucasus Federal University A.A. Levitskaya and the rector of the North Ossetian State Pedagogical Institute L.A. Kuchieva.

On May 26, 2016 in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions with the participation of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, a plenary session of the First Congress of the “Society of Russian Literature” was held under the chairmanship of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'.

Speaker of the State Duma of the Russian Federation S.E. made a welcoming speech. Naryshkin and the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation D.V. Livanov.

At the plenary meeting, the presidium of the Society of Russian Literature, consisting of 75 members, was elected. Among them is the rector of the Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, academician V.A. Sadovnichy, Rector of St. Petersburg State University Professor N.M. Kropachev, Rector of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Academician A.V. Torkunov, Rector of the Ivan Fedorov Moscow State University of Printing Arts, Professor K.V. Antipov, I. O. Rector of the Literary Institute named after A.M. Gorky Professor A.N. Varlamov, I. O. Rector of Moscow State Linguistic University I.V. Manokhin.

The Bureau of the Society of Russian Literature consists of 13 people, including Academician A.V. Torkunov.