Reflections of the famous figure of Russian culture D Likhachev. D.S. Likhachev and Russian culture. "Russian culture in the modern world"

"Russian culture in the modern world"

Key to the fragment:Both in Russia itself and beyond its borders, there is a powerful layer of cultural myths that distort the real assessment of the phenomenon that Russian culture represents. Therefore, today it is necessary to carry out hard work to “demythologize” the image of Russia both in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the Russian people reflecting on their cultural identity. The culture of Russia is the culture of a country that has a rich cultural heritage, created not only by Russians, but also by all the peoples that make up its composition. The traditions of democracy and parliamentarism, the preservation of continuity with the spiritual and moral achievements of the past, the desire for continuous modernization and humanization of society - these are the cultural prerequisites that allow us to hope for the revival and prosperity of Russian culture in the modern world.

No country in the world is surrounded by such contradictory myths about its history as Russia, and no people in the world are assessed as differently as the Russians.

N. Berdyaev constantly noted the polarization of the Russian character, in which completely opposite traits are strangely combined: kindness with cruelty, spiritual subtlety with rudeness, extreme love of freedom with despotism, altruism with selfishness, self-abasement with national pride and chauvinism. Yes and much more. Another reason is that various “theories,” ideology, and tendentious coverage of the present and past played a huge role in Russian history. I will give one of the most obvious examples: Peter’s reform. To implement it, completely distorted ideas about previous Russian history were required. Since greater rapprochement with Europe was necessary, it means that it was necessary to assert that Russia was completely fenced off from Europe. Since it was necessary to move forward faster, it means that it was necessary to create a myth about Russia as inert, inactive, etc. Since a new culture was needed, it means that the old one was no good. As often happened in Russian life, moving forward required a thorough blow to everything old. And this was done with such energy that the entire seven-century Russian history was rejected and slandered. The creator of the myth about the history of Russia was Peter the Great. He can also be considered the creator of a myth about himself. Meanwhile, Peter was a typical pupil of the 17th century, a man of the Baroque, the embodiment of the precepts of the pedagogical poetry of Simeon of Polotsk, the court poet of his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

There has never been a myth in the world about the people and their history as stable as the one created by Peter. We know about the persistence of state myths from our time. One of these “necessary” myths for our state is the myth about the cultural backwardness of Russia before the revolution. “Russia has gone from being an illiterate country to being advanced...”, etc…. Meanwhile, Academician Sobolevsky's research on signatures on various official documents even before the revolution showed a high percentage of literacy in the 15th-17th centuries, which is confirmed by the abundance of birch bark letters found in Novgorod, where the soil was most favorable for their preservation. In the 19th and 20th centuries, all Old Believers were classified as “illiterates,” since they refused to read newly printed books. Another thing is that there was no higher education in Russia until the 17th century, but the explanation for this should be sought in the special type of culture to which ancient Rus' belonged.

There is a firm conviction in both the West and the East that Russia has had no experience of parliamentarism. Indeed, parliaments did not exist in our country before the State Duma of the early 20th century, and the experience of the State Duma was very small. However, the traditions of deliberative institutions were deep before Peter. I'm not talking about the evening. In pre-Mongol Rus', the prince, starting his day, sat down to “think” with his squad and boyars.

Conferences with “city people”, “abbots and priests” and “all people” were constant and laid a solid foundation for zemstvo councils with a certain procedure for their convening, representation of different classes. Zemsky councils of the 16th-17th centuries had written reports and resolutions. Of course, Ivan the Terrible cruelly “played with people,” but he did not dare to officially abolish the old custom of conferring “with the whole earth,” at least pretending that he was ruling the country “in the old way.” Only Peter, carrying out his reforms, put an end to the old Russian meetings of a wide composition and representative assemblies of “all people.” It was necessary to resume public and state life only in the second half of the 19th century, but after all, this public, “parliamentary” life was resumed; was not forgotten!

I will not talk about other prejudices that exist about Russia and in Russia itself. It was not by chance that I focused on those ideas that portray Russian history in an unattractive light.

When we want to build the history of any national art or the history of literature, even when we compile a guidebook or description of a city, even just a museum catalogue, we look for reference points in the best works, dwell on brilliant authors, artists and their best creations, and not on the worst . This principle is extremely important and completely indisputable. We cannot build the history of Russian culture without Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Tolstoy, but we can completely do without Markovich, Leikin, Artsybashev, Potapenko. Therefore, do not consider it national bragging, nationalism, if I talk about the most valuable thing that Russian culture gives, omitting what has no price or has a negative value. After all, every culture takes its place among the cultures of the world only due to the highest that it possesses. And although it is very difficult to understand the myths and legends about Russian history, but on one set of issues

we will stop anyway. This question is: is Russia East or West?

Now in the West it is very common to attribute Russia and its culture to the East. But what are East and West? We partly have an idea about the West and Western culture, but what the East is and what the Eastern type of culture is is completely unclear. Are there boundaries between East and West on a geographical map? Is there a difference between Russians living in St. Petersburg and those living in Vladivostok, although Vladivostok’s belonging to the East is reflected in the very name of this city? It is equally unclear: are the cultures of Armenia and Georgia of the Eastern or Western type? I think that an answer to these questions will not be required if we pay attention to one extremely important feature of Rus', Russia.

Russia is located on a vast space that unites various peoples of clearly both types. From the very beginning, in the history of three peoples who had a common origin - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians - their neighbors played a huge role. That is why the first great historical work, “The Tale of Bygone Years” of the 11th century, begins its story about Rus' with a description of who Rus' neighbors with, what rivers flow where, and what peoples they connect with. In the north, these are the Scandinavian peoples - the Varangians (a whole conglomerate of peoples to which the future Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, and “English” belonged). In the south of Rus', the main neighbors were the Greeks, who lived not only in Greece proper, but also in the immediate vicinity of Russia - along the northern shores of the Black Sea. Then a separate conglomerate of peoples - the Khazars, among whom were Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans.

The Bulgarians and their writing played a significant role in the assimilation of Christian written culture.

Rus' had the closest relations over vast territories with the Finno-Ugric peoples and Lithuanian tribes (Lithuania, Zhmud, Prussians, Yatvingians and others). Many were part of Rus', lived a common political and cultural life, called, according to the chronicles, princes, and went together to Constantinople. There were peaceful relations with Chud, Merya, Vesya, Emy, Izhora, Mordovians, Cheremis, Komi-Zyryans, etc. The State of Rus' was multinational from the very beginning. The environment of Rus' was also multinational.

The following is characteristic: the desire of the Russians to found their capitals as close as possible to the borders of their state. Kyiv and Novgorod arose on the most important European trade route in the 9th-11th centuries, connecting the north and south of Europe - on the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” Polotsk, Chernigov, Smolensk, and Vladimir were founded on trade rivers.

And then, after the Tatar-Mongol yoke, as soon as trade opportunities with England opened up, Ivan the Terrible made an attempt to move the capital closer to the “sea-ocean”, to new trade routes - to Vologda, and only chance prevented this from happening. Peter the Great is building a new capital on the most dangerous borders of the country, on the shores of the Baltic Sea, in the conditions of an unfinished war with the Swedes - St. Petersburg, and in this (the most radical thing that Peter did) he follows a long tradition.

Taking into account the entire thousand-year experience of Russian history, we can talk about the historical mission of Russia. There is nothing mystical in this concept of historical mission. Russia's mission is determined by its position among other peoples, by the fact that it unites up to three hundred peoples - large, great and small, demanding protection. The culture of Russia has developed in the context of this multinationality. Russia served as a giant bridge between nations. The bridge is primarily cultural. And we need to realize this, because this bridge, while facilitating communication, also facilitates hostility and abuse of state power.

Although the Russian people are not to blame for national abuses of state power in the past (partitions of Poland, the conquest of Central Asia, etc.) in their spirit and culture, nevertheless this was done by the state on its behalf. Abuses in the national politics of our decades were not committed and were not even covered up by the Russian people, who experienced no less, but perhaps greater suffering. And we can say with certainty that Russian culture, throughout its entire path of development, is not involved in misanthropic nationalism. And in this we again proceed from the generally accepted rule - to consider culture as a combination of the best that a people has.<…>(p. 3-5)

It is no coincidence that the flowering of Russian culture in the 18th and 19th centuries took place on multinational soil in Moscow and mainly in St. Petersburg. The population of St. Petersburg was multinational from the very beginning. Its main street, Nevsky Prospect, became a kind of avenue of religious tolerance, where side by side with Orthodox churches there were Dutch, German, Catholic, Armenian churches, and near Nevsky Finnish, Swedish, and French. Not everyone knows that the largest and richest Buddhist temple in Europe was built in St. Petersburg in the 20th century. A very rich mosque was built in Petrograd.

The fact that a country that created one of the most humane universal cultures, which had all the prerequisites for uniting many peoples of Europe and Asia, was at the same time one of the most cruel national oppressors, and above all of its own, “central” people - the Russians, is one of the most tragic paradoxes in history, largely the result of the eternal confrontation between the people and the state, the polarization of the Russian character with its simultaneous desire for freedom and power.

But the polarization of Russian character does not mean the polarization of Russian culture. Good and evil are not at all equal in the Russian character. Good is always many times more valuable and significant than evil. And culture is built on good, not evil, and expresses the good beginnings among the people. We must not confuse culture and the state, culture and civilization.

The most characteristic feature of Russian culture, running through its entire thousand-year history, starting with Rus' of the 10th-13th centuries, the common foremother of the three East Slavic peoples - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian - is its universalism. This feature of universality, universalism, is often distorted, giving rise, on the one hand, to denigration of everything that is one’s own, and, on the other, to extreme nationalism. Paradoxically, bright universalism gives rise to dark shadows...

Thus, the question of whether Russian culture belongs to the East or the West is completely removed. The culture of Russia belongs to dozens of peoples of the West and East. It was on this basis, on multinational soil, that it grew in all its originality. It is no coincidence, for example, that Russia and its Academy of Sciences created remarkable Oriental and Caucasian studies. I will mention at least a few names of orientalists who glorified Russian science: Iranist K. G. Zaleman, Mongolian N. N. Poppe, sinologists N. Ya. Bichurin, V. M. Alekseev, Indologists and Tibetologists V. P. Vasiliev, F. I. Shcherbatskoy, Indologist S. F. Oldenburg, Turkologists V. V. Radlov, A. N. Kononov, Arabists V. R. Rosen, I. Yu. Krachkovsky, Egyptologists B. A. Turaev, V. V. Struve, Japanese scholar N. I. Konrad, Finno-Ugric scholars F. I. Videman, D. V. Bubrikh, Hebraists G. P. Pavsky, V. V. Velyaminov-Zernov, P. K. Kokovtsov, Caucasian scholar N. Ya. Marr and many others. You can’t list everyone in the great Russian oriental studies, but they were the ones who did so much for the peoples that were part of Russia. I knew many of them personally, met them in St. Petersburg, and less often in Moscow. They disappeared without leaving an equivalent replacement, but Russian science is precisely them, people of Western culture who have done a lot to study the East.

This attention to the East and South primarily expresses the European character of Russian culture. For European culture is distinguished precisely in that it is open to the perception of other cultures, to their unification, study and preservation, and partly assimilation.<…>(p. 5-6)

So, Russia is East and West, but what has it given to both? What is its characteristic and value for both? In search of national cultural identity, we must first of all look for the answer in literature and writing.

Let me give you one analogy.

In the world of living beings, and there are millions of them, only man has speech, in a word, can express his thoughts. Therefore, a person, if he is truly a Man, must be the protector of all life on earth, speak for all life in the universe. Likewise, in any culture, which represents a vast conglomerate of various “silent” forms of creativity, it is literature and writing that most clearly expresses the national ideals of culture. It expresses precisely ideals, only the best in culture and only the most expressive of its national characteristics. Literature “speaks” for the entire national culture, just as a person “speaks” for all life in the universe.

Russian literature emerged on a high note. The first work was a compilation essay devoted to world history and reflection on the place of Rus' in this history. It was “The Philosopher’s Speech,” which was later included in the first Russian chronicle. This topic was not accidental. A few decades later, another historiosophical work appeared - “The Sermon on Law and Grace” by the first Russian metropolitan Hilarion. It was already a completely mature and skillful work, in a genre that had no analogues in Byzantine literature - a philosophical reflection on the future of the people of Rus', a church work on a secular theme, which in itself was worthy of that literature, that history that arose in the east Europe... This reflection on the future is already one of the unique and most significant themes of Russian literature.

A.P. Chekhov in his story “The Steppe” made the following remark on his own behalf: “Russian people love to remember, but do not like to live”; that is, he does not live in the present, and indeed only in the past or future! I believe that this is the most important Russian national trait, far beyond just literature. In fact, a special interest in the past is evidenced by the extraordinary development in ancient Rus' of historical genres, and primarily chronicles, known in thousands of lists, chronographs, historical stories, time books, etc.

There are very few fictional plots in ancient Russian literature - only what was or seemed to be was worthy of storytelling until the 17th century. The Russian people were filled with respect for the past. Thousands of Old Believers died for their past, burning themselves in countless “burnings” (self-immolations), when Nikon, Alexei Mikhailovich and Peter wanted to “destroy the old days.” This feature has been retained in its own unique forms in modern times.

Alongside the cult of the past from the very beginning in Russian literature was its aspiration towards the future. And this again is a feature that goes far beyond literature. In unique and varied, sometimes even distorted, forms it is characteristic of all Russian intellectual life. Aspiration towards the future was expressed in Russian literature throughout its development. It was a dream of a better future, a condemnation of the present, a search for an ideal society. Please note: Russian literature, on the one hand, is highly characterized by direct teaching - the preaching of moral renewal, and on the other - deeply exciting doubts, quests, dissatisfaction with the present, revelations, satire. Answers and questions! Sometimes even the answers appear before the questions. Let's say that Tolstoy is dominated by teaching and answers, while Chaadaev and Saltykov-Shchedrin are dominated by questions and doubts that reach the point of despair.

These interrelated inclinations - to doubt and to teach - have been characteristic of Russian literature from the very first steps of its existence and have constantly placed literature in opposition to the state.<…>(p. 6-7)

This search for a better state and social structure in Rus' reached particular intensity in the 16th and 17th centuries. Russian literature becomes journalistic to the extreme and at the same time creates grandiose chronicle collections covering both world history and Russian history as part of the world history.

The present has always been perceived in Russia as being in a state of crisis. And this is typical of Russian history. Remember: were there eras in Russia that would have been perceived by their contemporaries as completely stable and prosperous? A period of princely strife or tyranny of Moscow sovereigns? Peter's era and the period of post-Petrine reign? Catherine? Reign of Nicholas I? It is no coincidence that Russian history has passed under the sign of anxieties caused by dissatisfaction with the present, veche unrest and princely strife, riots, alarming zemstvo councils, uprisings, and religious unrest. Dostoevsky wrote about “an eternally created Russia.” And A. I. Herzen noted: “In Russia there is nothing finished, petrified: everything in it is still in a state of solution, preparation... Yes, you feel lime everywhere, hear a saw and an ax.”

In this search for truth, Russian literature was the first in the world literary process to realize the value of the human personality in itself, regardless of its position in society and regardless of the individual’s own qualities. At the end of the 17th century, for the first time in the world, the hero of the literary work “The Tale of Misfortune-Grief” became an unremarkable man, an unknown fellow, without a permanent roof over his head, mediocrely spending his life in gambling, drinking away everything from himself - to the point of bodily nudity. "The Tale of Misfortune" was a kind of manifesto of the Russian rebellion.

The theme of the value of the “little man” is then made the basis of the moral stability of Russian literature. A small, unknown person, whose rights must be protected, becomes one of the central figures in Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and many authors of the 20th century.<…>(Page 7)

The literature created by the Russian people is not only their wealth, but also a moral force that helps the people in all the difficult circumstances in which the Russian people find themselves. We can always turn to this moral principle for spiritual help.

Speaking about the enormous values ​​that the Russian people possess, I do not want to say that other peoples do not have similar values, but the values ​​of Russian literature are unique in the sense that their artistic power lies in its close connection with moral values. Russian literature is the conscience of the Russian people. At the same time, it is open in nature in relation to other literatures of mankind. It is closely connected with life, with reality, with the awareness of the value of a person in himself.

Russian literature (prose, poetry, drama) is Russian philosophy, Russian peculiarity of creative self-expression, and Russian pan-humanity.<…>(P. 8-9)

On the basis of moral forces, Russian culture, the expression of which is Russian literature, unites the cultures of various peoples. It is this association that is its mission. We must heed the voice of Russian literature.

So, the place of Russian culture is determined by its diverse connections with the cultures of many, many other peoples of the West and East. One could talk and write endlessly about these connections. And no matter what the tragic breaks in these connections, no matter how the connections are abused, it is still the connections that are the most valuable in the position that Russian culture (precisely culture, not lack of culture) has occupied in the surrounding world.

The significance of Russian culture was determined by its moral position on the national issue, in its ideological quests, in its dissatisfaction with the present, in the burning pangs of conscience and the search for a happy future, albeit sometimes false, hypocritical, justifying any means, but still not tolerating complacency.

And the last question that should be addressed. Can the thousand-year-old culture of Russia be considered backward? It would seem that the question is beyond doubt: hundreds of obstacles stood in the way of the development of Russian culture. But the fact is that Russian culture is different in type than the cultures of the West.

This concerns primarily ancient Rus', and especially its XIII-XVII centuries. The arts have always been clearly developed in Russia. Igor Grabar believed that the architecture of ancient Rus' was not inferior to Western architecture. Already in his time (that is, in the first half of the 20th century) it was clear that Rus' was not inferior in painting, be it icon painting or frescoes. Now to this list of arts, in which Rus' is in no way inferior to other cultures, we can add music, folklore, chronicle writing, and ancient literature close to folklore. But here is where Rus' clearly lagged behind Western countries until the 19th century: science and philosophy in the Western sense of the word. What is the reason? I think due to the absence of universities and higher school education in Rus' in general. Hence many negative phenomena in Russian life, and church life in particular. The university-educated layer of society created in the 19th and 20th centuries turned out to be too thin. Moreover, this university-educated stratum failed to arouse the necessary respect for itself. The populism and admiration for the people that permeated Russian society contributed to the decline of authority. The people, who belonged to a different type of culture, saw in the university intelligentsia something false, something alien and even hostile.<…>(p. 9)

Source: Likhachev D.S. Russian culture in the modern world // New world. – 1991. No. 1. – P. 3–9.

Self-test questions:

1. What position did P.Ya. take on the question of the ways of development of Russian culture? Chaadaev?

2. What features of the national Russian character contributed to both the creation and destruction of Russian culture (according to D.S. Likhachev)?

3. Why D.S. Does Likhachev consider Russian culture an important part of European and world culture?

4. What cultural myths and stereotypes distort our perception of our own culture?

5. What positions exist in the West regarding Russian culture?

Further reading

Collection of works by D.S. Likhachev “Russian Culture”

The 100th anniversary of the birth of Academician Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev (1906-1999) - an outstanding scientist of our time, philologist, historian, cultural philosopher, patriot - is the best reason to re-read his works that were once read before, as well as to become familiar with with those of his works that I had never read before or that were not published during his lifetime.

Scientific and literary heritage of D.S. Likhachev is great. Most of his works were published during his lifetime. But there are books and collections of his articles that were published after his death († September 30, 1999), and these publications contain new articles by the scientist and works that were previously published in abbreviation.

One of these books is the collection “Russian Culture”, which includes 26 articles by Academician D.S. Likhachev and an interview with him dated February 12, 1999 about the work of A.S. Pushkin. The book “Russian Culture” is equipped with notes on individual works, a name index and more than 150 illustrations. Most of the illustrations reflect the Orthodox culture of Russia - these are Russian icons, cathedrals, temples, monasteries. According to the publishers, the works of D.S. included in this book. Likhachev reveal “the nature of the national identity of Russia, manifested in the canons of primordially Russian aesthetics, in Orthodox religious practice.”

This book is intended to help “every reader gain a sense of involvement in the great Russian culture and responsibility for it.” “The book by D.S. Likhachev’s “Russian Culture,” according to its publishers, “is the result of the ascetic path of a scientist who devoted his life to the study of Russia.” “This is Academician Likhachev’s farewell gift to all the people of Russia.”

Unfortunately, the book “Russian Culture” was published in a very small circulation for Russia - only 5 thousand copies. Therefore, the vast majority of school, district, and city libraries in the country do not have it. Considering the growing interest of the Russian school in the spiritual, scientific and pedagogical heritage of Academician D.S. Likhachev, we offer a brief overview of some of his works contained in the book “Russian Culture”.

The book opens with the article “Culture and Conscience.” This work takes only one page and is typed in italics. Taking this into account, it can be considered a lengthy epigraph to the entire book “Russian Culture”. Here are three excerpts from this article.

“If a person believes that he is free, does this mean that he can do whatever he wants? No, of course not. And not because someone from the outside imposes prohibitions on him, but because a person’s actions are often dictated by selfish motives. The latter are incompatible with free decision-making.”

“The guardian of a person’s freedom is his conscience. Conscience frees a person from selfish motives. Selfishness and selfishness are external to a person. Conscience and selflessness are within the human spirit. Therefore, an act done according to conscience is a free act.” “The environment of action of conscience is not only everyday, narrowly human, but also the environment of scientific research, artistic creativity, the area of ​​faith, the relationship of man with nature and cultural heritage. Culture and conscience are necessary to each other. Culture expands and enriches the “space of conscience.”

The next article in the book under review is called “Culture as an Integral Environment.” It begins with the words: “Culture is what largely justifies before God the existence of a people and a nation.”

“Culture is a huge holistic phenomenon that makes the people inhabiting a certain space from just the population into a people, a nation. The concept of culture should and has always included religion, science, education, moral and moral norms of behavior of people and the state.”

“Culture is the shrines of the people, the shrines of the nation.”

The next article is called “Two Channels of Russian Culture.” Here the scientist writes about “two directions of Russian culture throughout its existence - intense and constant reflection on the fate of Russia, on its purpose, the constant confrontation of spiritual solutions to this issue with state ones.”

“The harbinger of the spiritual destiny of Russia and the Russian people, from whom all other ideas of the spiritual destiny of Russia largely came, appeared in the first half of the 11th century. Kyiv Metropolitan Hilarion. In his speech “A Sermon on the Law of Grace,” he tried to point out the role of Russia in world history.” “There is no doubt that the spiritual direction in the development of Russian culture has received significant advantages over the state direction.”

The next article is called “Three foundations of European culture and Russian historical experience.” Here the scientist continues his historiosophical observations on Russian and European history. Considering the positive aspects of the cultural development of the peoples of Europe and Russia, he at the same time notices negative trends: “Evil, in my opinion, is first of all the negation of good, its reflection with a minus sign. Evil fulfills its negative mission by attacking the most characteristic features of a culture associated with its mission, with its idea.”

“One detail is characteristic. The Russian people have always been distinguished by their diligence, and more precisely, “agricultural diligence,” the well-organized agricultural life of the peasantry. Agricultural labor was sacred.

And it was precisely the peasantry and the religiosity of the Russian people that were intensively destroyed. Russia, from the “granary of Europe,” as it was constantly called, became a “consumer of other people’s bread.” Evil has acquired materialized forms.”

The next work published in the book “Russian Culture” is “The Role of the Baptism of Rus' in the Cultural History of the Fatherland.”

“I think,” writes D.S. Likhachev, - that the history of Russian culture can generally begin with the baptism of Rus'. Just like Ukrainian and Belarusian. Because the characteristic features of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian culture - the East Slavic culture of Ancient Rus' - go back to the time when Christianity replaced paganism.”

“Sergius of Radonezh was a promoter of certain goals and traditions: the unity of Rus' was associated with the Church. Andrei Rublev writes the Trinity “in praise of the Venerable Father Sergius” and - as Epiphanius says - “so that by looking at the Holy Trinity the fear of discord in this world will be destroyed.”

This was not a large list of the most famous works of Dmitry Sergeevich. This list can be continued indefinitely. He researched and wrote a huge number of scientific papers, and works for the average person in a more understandable language. Having looked at at least one of the articles by D.S. Likhachev, you can immediately get a specific and detailed answer to your question on this topic. But in this essay, I would like to consider more specifically one of the famous and meaningful works of this author - “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”.

(Publishing house "Art", M., 2000, 440 pp.)

Summary of contents and quotes from the book

The 100th anniversary of the birth of Academician Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev (1906–1999) - an outstanding scientist of our time, philologist, historian, philosopher of culture, patriot - is the best reason to re-read his works that were once read before, as well as become familiar with those his works that I had never read before or that were not published during his lifetime.

Scientific and literary heritage of D.S. Likhachev is great. Most of his works were published during his lifetime. But there are books and collections of his articles that were published after his death († September 30, 1999), and these publications contain new articles by the scientist and works that were previously published in abbreviation.

One of these books is the collection "Russian culture", which included 26 articles by academician D.S. Likhachev and an interview with him dated February 12, 1999 about the work of A.S. Pushkin. The book “Russian Culture” is equipped with notes on individual works, a name index and more than 150 illustrations. Most of the illustrations reflect the Orthodox culture of Russia - these are Russian icons, cathedrals, temples, monasteries. According to the publishers, the works of D.S. included in this book. Likhachev reveal “the nature of the national identity of Russia, manifested in the canons of primordially Russian aesthetics, in Orthodox religious practice.”

This book is intended to help “every reader gain a sense of involvement in the great Russian culture and responsibility for it.” “The book by D.S. Likhachev’s “Russian Culture,” according to its publishers, “is the result of the ascetic path of a scientist who devoted his life to the study of Russia.” “This is Academician Likhachev’s farewell gift to all the people of Russia.”

Unfortunately, the book “Russian Culture” was published in a very small circulation for Russia - only 5 thousand copies. Therefore, the vast majority of school, district, and city libraries in the country do not have it. Considering the growing interest of the Russian school in the spiritual, scientific and pedagogical heritage of Academician D.S. Likhachev, we offer a brief overview of some of his works contained in the book “Russian Culture”.

The book opens with an article "Culture and Conscience". This work takes only one page and is typed in italics. Taking this into account, it can be considered a lengthy epigraph to the entire book “Russian Culture”. Here are three excerpts from this article.

“If a person believes that he is free, does this mean that he can do whatever he wants? No, of course not. And not because someone from the outside imposes prohibitions on him, but because a person’s actions are often dictated by selfish motives. The latter are incompatible with free decision-making.”

“The guardian of a person’s freedom is his conscience. Conscience frees a person from selfish motives. Self-interest and selfishness are external to a person. Conscience and selflessness are within the human spirit. Therefore, an act done according to conscience is a free act.”

“The environment of action of conscience is not only everyday, narrowly human, but also the environment of scientific research, artistic creativity, the area of ​​faith, the relationship of man with nature and cultural heritage. Culture and conscience are necessary to each other. Culture expands and enriches the “space of conscience.”

The next article in the book under review is called “ Culture as a holistic environment." It begins with the words: “Culture is what largely justifies before God the existence of a people and a nation.”

“Culture is a huge holistic phenomenon that makes people inhabiting a certain space from just a population into a people, a nation. The concept of culture should and always has included religion, science, education, moral and moral norms of behavior of people and the state.”

“Culture is the shrines of the people, the shrines of the nation.”

The next article is called “Two Channels of Russian Culture.” Here the scientist writes about “two directions of Russian culture throughout its existence - intense and constant reflection on the fate of Russia, on its purpose, the constant confrontation of spiritual solutions to this issue with state ones.”

“The harbinger of the spiritual destiny of Russia and the Russian people, from whom all other ideas of the spiritual destiny of Russia largely came, appeared in the first half of the 11th century. Kyiv Metropolitan Hilarion. In his speech “A Sermon on the Law of Grace” he tried to point out the role of Russia in world history.” “There is no doubt that the spiritual direction in the development of Russian culture has received significant advantages over the state direction.”

The next article is called "Three foundations of European culture and Russian historical experience." Here the scientist continues his historiosophical observations on Russian and European history. Considering the positive aspects of the cultural development of the peoples of Europe and Russia, he at the same time notices negative trends: “Evil, in my opinion, is first of all the negation of good, its reflection with a minus sign. Evil fulfills its negative mission by attacking the most characteristic features of a culture associated with its mission, with its idea.”

“One detail is characteristic. The Russian people have always been distinguished by their diligence, and more precisely, “agricultural diligence,” the well-organized agricultural life of the peasantry. Agricultural labor was sacred.

And it was precisely the peasantry and the religiosity of the Russian people that were intensively destroyed. Russia, from the “granary of Europe,” as it was constantly called, became a “consumer of other people’s bread.” Evil has acquired materialized forms.”

The following work, placed in the book “Russian Culture” - "The role of the baptism of Rus' in the history of the culture of the Fatherland."

“I think,” writes D.S. Likhachev, - that the history of Russian culture can generally begin with the baptism of Rus'. Just like Ukrainian and Belarusian. Because the characteristic features of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian culture - the East Slavic culture of Ancient Rus' - go back to the time when Christianity replaced paganism.”

“Sergius of Radonezh was a promoter of certain goals and traditions: the unity of Rus' was associated with the Church. Andrei Rublev writes the Trinity “in praise of the Venerable Father Sergius” and - as Epiphanius says - “so that by looking at the Holy Trinity the fear of discord in this world will be destroyed.”

“Having lived a long life from the very beginning of the century to its approaching end, I have not bookish, but the most direct impressions of Russian history: impressions “on my own skin.” For me, for example, Nicholas II, Alexandra Feodorovna, the Tsarevich heir, the Grand Duchesses, the old pre-revolutionary Petersburg - its artisans, ballerinas are memorable. The revolution and machine gun fire at the walls of the Peter and Paul Fortress from the side of the Artillery Museum, and then shots from revolvers at the Solovki cemetery, visions of peasant women with children hiding in the cold in Leningrad in 1932, studies of scientists crying from shame and powerlessness within the walls of the university and Pushkinsky at home, the horrors of the blockade - all this is in my visual and auditory memory.”

“My studies in history and Russian culture merged into a single, strongly emotional picture of the Russian millennium - martyrdom and heroism, quests and falls...”

Next article - "Thoughts about Russia"- begins with these words: “Russia will be alive as long as the meaning of its existence in the present, past or future remains a mystery and people will rack their brains: why did God create Russia?

For more than sixty years I have been studying the history of Russian culture. This gives me the right to devote at least a few pages to those features of her that I consider the most characteristic.”

“Now, right now, the foundations of Russia’s future are being laid. What will it be like? What should you take care of first? How to preserve the best of the old heritage? “You cannot be indifferent to your future.”
Next comes the article “Ecology of Culture”. This term came into widespread use after the publication of D.S. Likhachev on this topic in the magazine “Moscow” (1979, No. 7).

“Ecology is a view of the world as a home. Nature is the house in which man lives. But culture is also a home for man, and a home created by man himself. This includes a wide variety of phenomena - materially embodied in the form of ideas and various kinds of spiritual values.”

"Ecology is a moral problem."

“A man is left alone in the forest, in the field. He can do bad things, and the only thing that holds him back (if he does!) is his moral consciousness, his sense of responsibility, his conscience.”

"Russian intelligentsia"- this is the title of the next article in the book “Russian Culture”, this is one of the important topics for academician D.S. Likhacheva.

“So - what is the intelligentsia? How do I see and understand it? This concept is purely Russian, and its content is predominantly associative and emotional.”

“I have experienced many historical events, seen too many amazing things, and therefore I can talk about the Russian intelligentsia without giving it an exact definition, but only reflecting on those of its best representatives who, from my point of view, can be classified as intellectuals.”

The scientist saw the main principle of intelligence in intellectual freedom - “freedom as a moral category.” Because he himself was just such an intellectual. This work ends with a reflection on the aggressive “lack of spirituality” of our time.

The article presents an excellent example of research on the philosophy of Russian culture “The province and the great “small” cities.”

“One should remember one forgotten truth: it is mainly the “population” that lives in the capitals, while the people live in the country, in the country of many cities and villages. The most important thing to do when reviving culture is to bring cultural life back to our small towns.”

“In general: how important it is to return to the “structure of the small”. Because of the fascination with “the biggest”, “the most powerful”, “the most productive”, etc. - We have become extremely clumsy. We thought that we were creating the most profitable and most advanced, but in fact, in the modern world we were trying to create technical and clumsy monsters, dinosaurs - just as clumsy, just as lifeless and just as quickly and hopelessly outdated structures that now cannot be modernized.

Meanwhile, small towns, small villages, small theaters, small educational institutions of the city more easily respond to all new trends in life, are much more willing to rebuild, are less conservative, do not threaten people with grandiose catastrophes, and in every sense “adapt” more easily to a person and his needs.” .

Next job - “Local history as a science and as an activity.”

Local history is one of D.S.’s favorite topics. Likhacheva. His love for local history stemmed from his love for the Motherland, for his hometown, for his family, for his native culture as a shrine.

In local history, as in science, according to the scientist, “there are no “two levels.” One level - for scientific specialists and another - for the “general public”. Local history itself is popular.” “It teaches people not only to love their places, but also to love knowledge about their (and not only “their”) places.”

Article "Culture Values".“Culture values ​​do not age. Art knows no aging. Truly beautiful remains beautiful always. Pushkin does not cancel Derzhavin. Dostoevsky does not cancel Lermontov's prose. Rembrandt is also contemporary for us, like any brilliant artist of a later time (I’m afraid to name any name...).”

“Teaching history, literature, arts, and singing is designed to expand people’s ability to perceive the world of culture and make them happy for life.”

“In order to perceive cultural values ​​in their entirety, it is necessary to know their origin, the process of their creation and historical change, and the cultural memory embedded in them. To perceive a work of art accurately and accurately, you need to know by whom, how and under what circumstances it was created. In the same way, we will truly understand literature in general when we know how literature was created, shaped, and how it participated in the life of the people.”

The most extensive work of D.S. Likhachev in the book “Russian Culture” - this is an article "Miscellaneous about literature".

“Literature suddenly rose like a huge protective dome over the entire Russian land, covering it all - from sea to sea, from the Baltic to the Black, and from the Carpathians to the Volga.

I mean the appearance of such works as “The Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion, as “The Initial Chronicle” with a different range of works included in it, such as “The Teachings of Theodosius of Pechersk”, “The Teachings of Prince Vladimir Monomakh”, “The Lives of Boris” and Gleb”, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”, etc.

This entire range of works is marked by high historical, political and national self-awareness, consciousness of the unity of the people, which was especially valuable during the period when in political life the fragmentation of Rus' into principalities had already begun, when Rus' began to be torn apart by internecine wars of princes.”
“In no country in the world, from the very beginning of its emergence, has literature played such a huge state and social role as among the Eastern Slavs.”

“We must not lose anything from our great heritage.

“Book reading” and “book reverence” must preserve for us and for future generations their high purpose, their high place in our lives, in the formation of our life positions, in the choice of ethical and aesthetic values, in preventing our consciousness from being littered various kinds of “reading material” and meaningless, purely entertaining bad taste.”

In the article "Unprofessional about art" the scientist wrote: “Art strives to become a cross, dissolving, scattering, pushing apart the world. The cross is a symbol of the fight against death (in Christianity it is a symbol of resurrection).”

“Works of art exist outside of time. But in order to experience their timelessness, it is necessary to understand them historically. The historical approach makes works of art eternal, takes them beyond the boundaries of their era, makes them understandable and effective in our time. This is on the verge of a paradox."

“William Blake called the Bible “The Great Code of Art”: without the Bible most subjects of art cannot be understood.”

At D.S. Likhachev had no small details. Therefore, in the article "Little things of behavior" he wrote, first of all, that a person should not get carried away by any fashion fad.

“The Apostle Paul says: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind in the face of temptation.”<испытывать>you...” This suggests that one should not blindly imitate what “this age” inspires, but have other much more active relationships with “this age” - based on transforming oneself by “renewing the mind,” that is, on the basis healthy discernment of what is good and what is bad in “this age.”

There is the music of time and there is the noise of time. The noise often drowns out the music. For the noise can be immeasurably great, but the music sounds within the standards set by the composer. Evil knows this and therefore is always very noisy.”

“Care is what unites people, strengthens the memory of the past, and is aimed entirely at the future. This is not the feeling itself - it is a concrete manifestation of the feeling of love, friendship, patriotism. A person must be caring. A careless or carefree person is most likely a person who is unkind and does not love anyone.”

Article "About science and non-science". “Scientific work is the growth of a plant: first it is closer to the soil (to the material, to the sources), then it rises to generalizations. So with each work separately and so with the general path of a scientist: he has the right to rise to broad (“broad-leaved”) generalizations only in mature and elderly years.

We must not forget that behind the broad foliage lies the strong trunk of the springs, the work on the springs.”

“Blessed Augustine: “I know what it is only until they ask me what it is!”

“Faith in God is a gift.

Marxism is a boring philosophy (and primitive).

Atheism is a boring religion (the most primitive).”

“Our intolerance is perhaps out of forgetfulness of the Gospel: “Do not forbid, for whoever is not against you is for you!” (Gospel of Luke, Chapter 9, Art. 50).

Article "From the past and about the past."“It is cramped for a person to live only in the present. Moral life requires memory of the past and preservation of memory for the future - expansion here and there.

And children need to know that they will remember their childhood, and their grandchildren will pester: “Tell me, grandpa, how you were little.” Children love such stories very much. Children are generally the keepers of traditions.

“To feel like a heir to the past means to be aware of your responsibility to the future.”

In the article “On language, oral and written, old and new” D.S. Likhachev writes: “The greatest value of a people is their language - the language in which they write, speak, and think. He thinks! This must be understood thoroughly, in all the polysemy and significance of this fact. After all, this means that a person’s entire conscious life passes through his native language. Emotions, sensations - only color what we think, or push the thought in some respect, but our thoughts are all formulated in language.

The surest way to know a person - his mental development, his moral character, his character - is to listen to the way he speaks.”

“What an important task is to compile dictionaries of the language of Russian writers from ancient times!”

And here are extracts from the scientist’s notes "About life and death."“Religion either occupies the main place in a person’s life, or he does not have it at all. You cannot believe in God “in passing,” “by the way,” recognize God as a postulate and remember him only when asked.”
“Life would be incomplete if there were no sadness and grief in it. It’s cruel to think so, but it’s true.”

“What is the most important thing for me personally in Orthodoxy? Orthodox (as opposed to Catholic) doctrine of the trinity of God. Christian understanding of God-manhood and the Passion of Christ (otherwise there would be no justification of God) (by the way, the salvation of humanity by Christ was inherent in the transtemporal essence of humanity). What is important to me in Orthodoxy is the very antiquity of the ritual side of the church, traditionalism, which is gradually being abolished even in Catholicism. Ecumenism carries with it the danger of indifference to faith.”

“We rarely and too little think about death. That we are all finite, that we are all here for a very short time. This forgetfulness helps meanness, cowardice, carelessness to flourish... In human relationships, the most important thing is to be careful: do not offend, do not put another in an awkward position, do not forget to caress, smile...”

The basis of the publication "Russian culture in the modern world" based on a report read by D.S. Likhachev at the VII Congress of the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature (MAPRYAL, 1990).
“The most characteristic feature of Russian culture, running through its entire thousand-year history, starting with Rus' of the 10th–12th centuries, the common foremother of the three East Slavic peoples - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, is its universalism.”

“Speaking about the enormous values ​​that the Russian people possess, I do not want to say that other peoples do not have similar values, but the values ​​of Russian culture are unique in the sense that their artistic power lies in its close connection with moral values.”

“The significance of Russian culture was determined by its moral position on the national issue, in its ideological quests, in its dissatisfaction with the present, in the burning pangs of conscience and the search for a happy future, albeit sometimes false, hypocritical, justifying any means, but still not tolerating complacency.”

In the article “About Russian and Foreign” D.S. Likhachev wrote: “The unique and individual face of culture is created not through self-restraint and maintaining isolation, but through constant and demanding cognition of all the riches accumulated by other cultures and cultures of the past. In this life process, knowledge and understanding of one’s own antiquity is of particular importance.”

“As a result of the discoveries and research of the 20th century, Ancient Rus' appeared not as an unchanging and self-limited seven-century unity, but as a diverse and constantly changing phenomenon.”

“Every nation has its own advantages and disadvantages. You need to pay more attention to your own people than to others. It would seem that this is the simplest truth.
I have been writing this book all my life...”

The proposed review of the articles contained in the book “Russian Culture” is an invitation to familiarize yourself with the full content of the remarkable works of Academician D.S. Likhacheva. One could choose many other wonderful passages from his works. But it is obvious that all the mentioned articles are united by the deepest and sincere love for their native land and Russian culture.

Review prepared by Archpriest Boris Pivovarov

European culture - what are its main features? If you determine the geographical boundaries of Europe, this will not present any particular difficulties. This is a largely conditional matter. We can agree to count Europe as far as the Urals or the Volga...

However, it is much more difficult to determine the peculiarities of European culture and its spiritual boundaries.

The culture of North America, for example, is undoubtedly European, although it lies outside the geographical boundaries of Europe. And at the same time, we must admit: if the geographical boundaries of Europe, with all their “materiality,” are conditional, then the spiritual features of European culture are unconditional and definite.

These spiritual features of European culture can be perceived directly, and therefore their existence, from my point of view, does not require proof.

First of all, European culture is a personal culture (this is its universalism), then it is receptive to other individuals and cultures, and, finally, it is a culture based on the freedom of creative self-expression of the individual. These three features of European culture are based on Christianity, and where Christianity has been lost in one form or another, European culture still has Christian roots. And in this sense, it is clear that, by renouncing God, European culture loses these three extremely important features.

Let's touch on sensitivity to other cultures. What Dostoevsky attributed in his famous speech at the Pushkin celebrations only to the Russian people - “All-humanity”, receptivity to foreign cultures, is in fact the common basis of all European culture as a whole. A European is capable of studying and including into his orbit all cultural phenomena, all “stones,” all graves. They are all “family”. He perceives everything valuable not only with his mind, but also with his heart.

European culture is a culture of universalism, and universalism of a personal nature.

The personal nature of European culture determines its special attitude towards everything outside the boundaries of this culture. This is not only tolerance, but to a certain extent also attraction to others. Hence the principle of freedom, internal freedom.

All three principles of European culture - its personal character, its universalism and its freedom - are unthinkable without each other. As soon as one is taken away, the remaining two are destroyed. Once you take away universalism and recognize only your own culture, freedom dies. And vice versa. National Socialism and Stalinism proved this.

The basis of personality is freedom of expression. Only freedom gives a person personal dignity. A personality grows only when there is feedback from other individuals.

Society is only a society, and not a crowd, not a “population”, when it consists of individuals facing each other, capable of willingly understanding each other, and thanks to this providing others with freedom - “for something” - for self-realization in the first place . Tolerance is necessary, otherwise it is impossible for a society to exist without violence and only a society without individuals can exist, a society of officials, slaves, whose behavior is regulated only by the fear of punishment.

However, tolerance alone is not enough. Mutual understanding is necessary. Not a refusal to interfere in the spiritual life of an individual (which can be guaranteed by the state), but an understanding of the spiritual life of another, recognition of a certain truth behind it, even if incomplete.

So, there are three foundations of European culture: personality, universalism and freedom. Without one of these foundations, the other two cannot exist, but the full implementation of one of them requires the implementation of the other two.

The basis of European culture is Christianity, which solved the problem of personality. The only religion in which God is a person.

The three foundations of European culture are obviously connected with its mission: to preserve in its depths, in its science and understanding, all the cultures of mankind - both currently existing and previously existing.

Every culture and every cultural people has its own mission in history, its own idea. But it is precisely this mission and this idea that are subject to targeted attacks by evil and can turn into an “anti-mission.”

Evil, in my opinion, is, first of all, the negation of good, its reflection with a minus sign.

Evil fulfills its negative mission by attacking the most characteristic features of a culture associated with its mission, with its idea.

The stronger the good, the more dangerous its “counterweight” - evil, which carries within itself the individual traits of a culture, but again with a minus sign. So, for example, if the people are generous and their generosity is the most important feature, then the evil inclination in them will be wastefulness, extravagance. If the most noticeable feature of a people is precision, then instability, brought to complete heartlessness and spiritual emptiness, will be evil.

The illusory individuality of evil is generated by the creative individuality of good. Evil is deprived of an independent creative principle. Evil consists in uncreative denial and uncreative opposition to good.

From what I have said about the characteristic features of evil, it becomes clear why in European culture evil manifests itself, first of all, in the form of a struggle against the personal principle in culture, with tolerance, with freedom of creativity, expresses itself in anti-Christianity, in the denial of everything that constitutes basic values ​​of European culture. These are the religious confrontations of the Middle Ages and totalitarianism of the 20th century with its racism, the desire to suppress creativity, reducing it to one meager direction, the destruction of entire nations and classes.

Based on what has been said, let us turn to the traits of good and evil in Russian culture, in the Russian people.

Russian culture has always been a European culture in type and has carried all three distinctive features associated with Christianity: personal origin, receptivity to other cultures (universals) and the desire for freedom.

Slavophiles unanimously pointed to the main feature (feature) of Russian culture - its conciliarity. And this is true if we limit ourselves only to the positive side of Russian culture. Conciliarity is one of the forms of those three principles of European culture that are so characteristic of it.

Conciliarity is a manifestation of a Christian inclination towards social and spiritual principles. In music, this is the choral principle. And it is, indeed, very characteristic of church music, of operatic music (it is clearly expressed in Glinka and Mussorgsky). In economic life it is a community (but only in its best manifestations).

This goes hand in hand with tolerance in national relations. Let us remember that the legendary beginning of Rus' was marked by the joint calling of the Varangian princes, in which both East Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes participated together, and subsequently the state of Rus' was always multinational. Universalism and direct attraction to other national cultures were characteristic of both Ancient Rus' and Russia of the 18th - 20th centuries.

Here again let us remember Dostoevsky with his characterization of the Russians in his famous speech at the Pushkin celebrations.

But this is extremely typical for Russian science. The Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences created remarkable oriental studies. Great sinologists, Arabists, Mongolologists, Turkologists, and Finno-Ugric scholars worked there. St. Petersburg and Moscow were centers of Armenian and Georgian culture.

It is also worth paying attention to the fact that the old capital of Russia, St. Petersburg, was the center of various European arts. Italians, Dutch, French, Scots, and Germans built here. Germans, Swedes, French lived here - engineers, scientists, artists, musicians, decorators, gardeners...

Ancient Rus' and Moscow Russia up to the 18th century were characterized by the establishment of state life on a public basis (my statement may seem paradoxical, but this is exactly so).

The prince in Ancient Rus' began his day with a meeting with his squad, which included military and secular ones. Princely “snemas” (congresses) were constantly convened. People in Novgorod, Kyiv, Pskov and other cities gathered at veche meetings, although their exact status is not sufficiently clear. In Muscovite Rus', Zemsky and church councils are of great importance.

Repeatedly used in documents of the 15th-17th centuries. formulas - “the great sovereign spoke, but the boyars sentenced” (i.e., decided) or “the great sovereign spoke, but the boyars did not sentence” indicate the relativity of the power of the Sovereign.

The people’s desire for freedom, for “freedom” was expressed in constant movements of the population to the North. East and South. The peasants sought to escape from state power into the Cossacks, beyond the Urals, into the dense forests of the North. It should be noted that national enmity with local tribes was relatively insignificant. There is no doubt about the deep attachment of the people to antiquity, expressed in the traditionalism of the church routine and in the movement of the Old Believers.

The amplitude of fluctuations between good and evil in the Russian people is extremely large. The Russian people are a people of extremes and a quick and unexpected transition from one thing to another, and therefore a people of unpredictable history.

The heights of good coexist with the deepest gorges of evil. And Russian culture was constantly plagued by “counterbalances” to the good in its culture: mutual hostility, tyranny, nationalism, intolerance. Let me again draw attention to the fact that evil seeks to destroy what is most valuable in culture. Evil acts purposefully, and this indicates that “evil” has a “consciousness”. If the conscious principle did not exist in evil, it would have to break through only in weak areas, whereas in the national character, in national cultures, it, as I have already said, attacks the peaks.

It is amazing that in Russian culture all its European, Christian values ​​were attacked by evil: conciliarity, national tolerance, public freedom. Evil acted especially intensely in the era of Ivan the Terrible (it was not typical for Russian history), during the reign of Peter, when Europeanization was combined with the enslavement of the people and the strengthening of state tyranny. The attacks of evil in Russia reached their apogee during the era of Stalin and “Stalinism”.

One detail is typical. The Russian people have always been distinguished by their diligence and, more precisely, “agricultural diligence”, the well-organized agricultural life of the peasantry. Agricultural labor was sacred. And it was precisely the peasantry and the religiosity of the Russian people that were intensively destroyed. Russia, from the “granary of Europe,” as it was constantly called, became a “consumer of other people’s bread.” Evil has acquired materialized forms.

Let me draw your attention to one striking feature of evil in our time.

As you know, the simplest and strongest unit of society, its unity under the condition of freedom, is the family. And in our time, when Russian culture has the opportunity to extricate itself from the networks of evil - intolerance, tyranny, despotism, the shackles of nationalism and other things - it is the family, as if “for no reason”, but in fact, most likely, purposefully, that becomes the main target of evil. We all must, especially in our homeland, be aware of this danger.

Evil attacks bypassing!