“Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev lived, worked at full capacity, worked every day, a lot, despite his poor health. From Solovki he received a stomach ulcer and bleeding.

Why did he remain healthy until he was 90? He himself explained his physical stamina as “resistance.” None of his school friends survived.

“Depression - I didn’t have this condition. Our school had a revolutionary tradition, and we were encouraged to formulate our own worldview. Contradict existing theories. For example, I gave a talk against Darwinism. The teacher liked it, although he did not agree with me.

I was a cartoonist, I drew school teachers. They laughed along with everyone else. They encouraged boldness of thought and fostered spiritual disobedience. All this helped me resist bad influences in the camp. When I failed at the Academy of Sciences, I did not attach any importance to it, was not offended and did not lose heart. We failed three times!” He told me: “In 1937, I was fired from the publishing house as a proofreader. Every misfortune was good for me. The years of proofreading work were good, I had to read a lot.

They didn’t take me to the war, I had a white ticket due to a stomach ulcer.

Personal persecution began in 1972, when I spoke out in defense of the Catherine Park in Pushkin. And until that day they were angry that I was against the logging in Peterhof and the construction there. This is the sixty-fifth year. And then, in 1972, they became frenzied. They forbade me to be mentioned in print and on television.”

A scandal broke out when he spoke on television against renaming Peterhof to Petrodvorets and Tver to Kalinin. Tver played a colossal role in Russian history, how can you refuse! He said that the Scandinavians, Greeks, French, Tatars, and Jews meant a lot to Russia.

In 1977, he was not allowed to attend the congress of Slavists.

Membership was given in 1953. In 1958 they failed at the Academy, in 1969 they were rejected. He managed to save the Kremlin in Novgorod from development with high-rise buildings, saved the earthen rampart, then in St. Petersburg - Nevsky Prospect, the Ruska portico.

“The destruction of monuments always begins with arbitrariness, which does not need publicity.” He brought ancient Russian literature out of isolation, incorporating it into the structure of European culture. He had his own approach to everything: natural scientists criticize astrological predictions for being unscientific. Likhachev - because they deprive a person of free will. He did not create a doctrine, but he created the image of a defender of culture.

He told me how, while sitting at a meeting at the Academy of Sciences, he got into a conversation with the writer Leonov about a certain Kovalev, an employee of the Pushkin House, the author of a book about Leonov. “He’s mediocre,” said Likhachev, “why do you support him?”

To which he began to defend him and seriously said: “He is our leading scientist in Leonology.” They listened to a report on socialist realism. Leonov told Likhachev: “Why don’t they mention me? Socialist realism - that’s me.”

The problem of personality and power is not only a problem of the intelligentsia. This is a problem for all decent people, no matter what strata of society they come from. Decent people are intolerant not of power as such, but of injustice emanating from power.

Dmitry Sergeevich behaved quietly until his opinion had special significance for society and the authorities. He worked, tried to be inconspicuous and worried about his own conscience, about his soul, wanting to avoid as much as possible any, even the slightest, participation in contacts with the authorities, especially from participation in its unseemly affairs. Likhachev began to argue with the authorities and act publicly for the benefit of society almost as soon as he received sufficient social status, as soon as he felt his weight and realized that he was being taken into account.

His first actions noticed in society were his speeches about renaming streets and cities, in particular his speech on Leningrad television. Perm was Molotov, Samara - Kuibyshev, Yekaterinburg - Sverdlovsk, Lugansk - Voroshilovgrad, etc. Our television was then headed by Boris Maksimovich Firsov, in my opinion, a very smart and decent person. Dmitry Sergeevich’s speech was quite correct in form, but in essence it was a daring challenge to the authorities. It turned out that it was difficult to punish Likhachev for him, because it was inconvenient. Kara suffered Firsov. He was fired, and it was a big loss for the city. Thus, the problem of “speaking or not speaking” against the authorities completely unexpectedly took on a different dimension for Dmitry Sergeevich. By speaking in a newspaper or on television, he put at risk not only himself, but also those people who gave him the opportunity to express their views, addressing society and a mass audience.

The second victim of the authorities in connection with Likhachev’s speeches was the editor-in-chief of Leningradskaya Pravda, Mikhail Stepanovich Kurtynin. He was fired after Likhachev’s article in defense of parks. Kurtynin, like Firsov, was a good editor, and this event was also a loss for the city. Did Likhachev understand that other people could suffer as a result of his speeches? Maybe he understood, most likely he could not help but understand. But he could not remain silent. Of course, in both cases, both Firsov and Kurtynin themselves were well aware that they were taking risks, but, apparently, they were driven by the same thing as Dmitry Sergeevich - conscience, decency, love for their hometown, civic sense.

To remain silent or speak out, regardless of the dangerous consequences, is a difficult question not only for Likhachev, it is also a difficult question for me. This choice sooner or later faces each of us, and here everyone must make their own personal decision.

Be that as it may, Likhachev began to speak. What actually happened for him as a result? He left the shelter. For example, the problem of Tsarskoye Selo Park was not formally a problem for Likhachev as a specialist. He came into conflict with the authorities not as a professional, a specialist in ancient Russian literature, but as a cultural figure, a public figure, in the name of his civic convictions. It is significant that along this path he could have encountered not only personal troubles, but also obstacles to his scientific work. And so it happened: he became restricted from traveling abroad. I would not go beyond the scope of literary studies - I would travel abroad to various congresses and meetings. His work is a rare example in academic life. More often, people choose silence in exchange for expanded professional opportunities.

But if you take such things into account, then you need to close off any possibility of expressing your civic feelings and build relations with the authorities according to the principle “what do you want?” This is the second problem that Dmitry Sergeevich had to face, and he also solved it in favor of fulfilling his public duty.”

Granin D.A., Likhachev’s recipes / Quirks of my memory, M., “OLMA Media Group”, 2011, p. 90-93 and 98-100

Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev lived, worked at full capacity, worked every day, a lot, despite his poor health. From the Solovetsky Special Purpose Camp he received a stomach ulcer and bleeding.

Why did he remain healthy until he was 90? He himself explained his physical stamina as “resistance.” None of his school friends survived. “Depression - I didn’t have this condition. Our school had a revolutionary tradition, and we were encouraged to formulate our own worldview. Contradict existing theories. For example, I gave a talk against Darwinism. The teacher liked it, although he did not agree with me.

I was a cartoonist, I drew school teachers. They laughed along with everyone else. They encouraged boldness of thought and fostered spiritual disobedience. All this helped me resist bad influences in the camp. When I failed at the Academy of Sciences, I did not attach any importance to it, was not offended and did not lose heart. We failed three times!”

He told me: “In 1937, I was fired from the publishing house as a proofreader. Every misfortune was good for me. The years of proofreading work were good, I had to read a lot. They didn’t take me to the war, I had a white ticket due to a stomach ulcer.

Personal persecution began in 1972, when I spoke out in defense of the Catherine Park in Pushkin. And until that day they were angry that I was against the logging in Peterhof and the construction there. This is the sixty-fifth year. And then, in 1972, they became frenzied. They forbade me to be mentioned in print and on television.”

A scandal broke out when he spoke on television against renaming Peterhof to Petrodvorets and Tver to Kalinin. Tver played a colossal role in Russian history, how can you refuse! He said that the Scandinavians, Greeks, French, Tatars, and Jews meant a lot to Russia.

In 1977, he was not allowed to attend the congress of Slavists.

Likhachev was given a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences in 1953. In 1958 they failed at the Academy, in 1969 they were rejected.

He managed to save the construction of the Kremlin with high-rise buildings in Novgorod, and he saved Nevsky Prospekt and the Ruska portico in St. Petersburg. “The destruction of monuments always begins with arbitrariness, which does not need publicity.”

He brought ancient Russian literature out of isolation, incorporating it into the structure of European culture.

He had his own approach to everything: natural scientists criticize astrological predictions for being unscientific. Likhachev - because they deprive a person of free will.

He did not create a doctrine, but he created the image of a defender of culture, a true citizen

Even in dead-end cases, says Dmitry Sergeevich, when everything is deaf, when they don’t hear you, be kind enough to express your opinion. Don't remain silent, speak up. I force myself to speak so that at least one voice can be heard.

Show full text

Daniil Aleksandrovich Granin, a Russian Soviet writer and public figure, raises the problem of the ability to cope with life’s difficulties with dignity.

The problem raised by Daniil Granin is still relevant today. The author illustrated how Dmitry Likhachev overcomes life's difficulties with dignity. Ever since his school days he was encouraged for his boldness of thought, which is probably why he developed such abilities how to confront circumstances, express your opinion, defend your point of view and learn lessons from every misfortune.

The author is convinced that man having qualities inherent in Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, he will be able to survive life’s obstacles with dignity. Daniil Granin calls for learning lessons from every misfortune, not to be offended and not to lose heart.

I completely agree with the opinion of the author, who calls for having your own approach to life’s difficulties. Indeed, in order to survive the difficulties of life with dignity, you need a strong character, courage of thought, and your own point of view.

We see an example of how strong a man was in spirit, how life did not break him despite all the misfortunes that befell him, in the story “The Fate of a Man” by Mikhail Sholokhov. G

Criteria

• 1 of 1 K1 Formulation of source text problems
• 1 of 3 K2

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

Composition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev.

In these November days of 2016, we remember Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, a man of St. Petersburg, about whom it is difficult to talk without slipping into pathos. But Daniil Granin, in his essays about his contemporary, perhaps managed to do this.

DMITRY SERGEEVICH LIKHACHEV.

In the future, the Likhachev phenomenon will seem incomprehensible. Once upon a time there lived a scientist, a great scientist, who studied ancient Russian literature, essentially armchair, book science. How did he become a spokesman for the public conscience in this troubled vast country, in these troubled years? Why do both the people and the authorities take him into account? Why, finally, all the corroding time could not crush him, why did he survive, despite all the hardships, losses, persecutions?..

Daniil GRANIN

In the future, the Likhachev phenomenon will seem incomprehensible. Once upon a time there lived a scientist, a great scientist, who studied ancient Russian literature, essentially armchair, book science. How did he become a spokesman for the public conscience in this troubled vast country, in these troubled years? Why do both the people and the authorities take him into account? Is he considered a worthy representative of the Russian intelligentsia?

Why, finally, all the corroding time could not crush him, why did he resist, despite all the hardships, losses, persecutions?

Firstly, it was formed by a family of hereditary Russian intellectuals, and secondly, by school. The spiritual strength fostered by school and family helped to withstand any conditions. He himself recalled: “In our school<…>were encouraged to formulate their own worldview. Contradict existing theories. For example, I gave a talk against Darwinism. The teacher liked it, although he did not agree with me. I was a cartoonist, I drew school teachers. They laughed with everyone else." This is how spiritual fearlessness was brought up.

And there was a third thing - exile. After University, he was arrested for participating in a student group, and he spent four and a half years in Solovki. But even there he managed to study archeology, study the art of restoration, and studied the biography of street children. They admitted: “We are lying to you.” And he was interested in how they lie, what is the philosophy of self-justification. Subsequently, Likhachev wrote works about thieves' speech, about the customs of thieves playing cards.

During the siege, he managed to write, together with M. Tikhanova, the book “Defense of Ancient Russian Cities”, managed to withstand the tests of hunger, maintain dignity, although, while working on the “Siege Book”, I became convinced of how difficult it is, how hunger distorts people.

He knew how to use any of his misfortunes, defining this property with the term “resistance” - resistance.

He worked at the Pushkin House for more than 50 years. This was his style of life: to live in depth, not in breadth. He liked the settled life. He considered this a blessing. It would seem that after all the disasters, studying ancient Russian literature was an ideal refuge, a safe refuge in which he could hide from all the worries of the world. However, it didn’t work out. And for many reasons. Time and again challenged him.

In the 60s, the idea of ​​rebuilding Nevsky Prospekt arose and then I first saw D.S. Likhachev "in action". This was in the sixties. Another attack on the beauty of Nevsky has matured; another group of reformers has begun to remake the avenue. A thorough restructuring was planned. It was supposed to connect the lower floors of all the houses into one common showcase, create a special space, make it a pedestrian zone, replace buildings that “do not have much value” with new ones, etc. The project had solid supporters who wanted to commemorate their stay at the helm with something “outstanding.” And so the discussion began. Dmitry Sergeevich gave a speech. It was a brilliant speech. He proved that the restructuring of Nevsky is disastrous for the entire culture, Leningrad, Russia, through which Nevsky Prospekt passes. If I could find it, I would hang this speech up in the Architectural Department. Calmly and very tactfully, he refuted argument after argument of the chief architect and other designers, showing the inconsistency of their arguments. He tried not to offend personally, not to convict people of historical or aesthetic mistakes, but behind his words one could feel the superiority of knowledge that it became impossible to argue.

In those days, such a decisive tone of objection to the city authorities was unusual for many. Many were perplexed - what does this “ancient man”, scientist, specialist in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” want, why is he fighting? But the problem of personality and power is not only a problem of the intelligentsia. This is a problem for all decent people, no matter what strata of society they come from. Decent people are intolerant not of power as such, but of injustice emanating from power.

That disastrous project for the reconstruction of Nevsky Prospect was rejected, and this was the great merit of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev. We are accustomed to the merits of creation, the merits of restoration, but there was another merit, perhaps no less - the merit of preservation. It is no coincidence that it was he who introduced the term “ecology of culture” and imbued this concept with concern for the preservation of the cultural environment, which is necessary for the spiritual settlement of man. For moral self-discipline. Damage to the natural environment can still be restored; the destruction of cultural monuments is, for the most part, irreparable.

This is how his speeches began - in defense of Catherine Park in Pushkin, Peterhof Park. Since then, he has become an obstacle to the Leningrad authorities, to all ignorant, selfish projects. The public united around him.

For many years he was kept from traveling abroad. He was threatened. He was beaten in the entrance of the house. The apartment was set on fire. He remained adamant. In essence - just a decent person, not at all a dissident - but perhaps it was even more dangerous.

Of course, the wide audience perceived not his scientific works, not scientific, but moral authority. This is a very curious situation when a scientist becomes a conscience, a leader of the public, the intelligentsia, and perhaps, to some extent, the nation. Regardless of your scientific work. We saw something similar in the example of Sakharov. You need a person you can trust. They believed Likhachev. As falsehood is felt, so is the truth felt, people understood that there was no gap between what he says, what he believes, and what he does.

He did not call for anything, did not teach anything. And if he taught, it was through the experience of his life. This was something we had never seen or heard before. And today we don’t see, we don’t hear anymore - after Likhachev. He is irreplaceable.

Likhachev had a deep, heartfelt ability to find a way to the soul of a modern person. The road has become difficult to pass and is blocked. The soul is closed, buttoned up, protected in every possible way from attempts by various efforts to penetrate it in the name of one’s own self-interest, in the name of political considerations. It is difficult to approach a person today. Likhachev knew how to do this. I don’t fully understand what the secret is here, this is high art, which is always a secret.

He was a very big thinker. Once, at a discussion, talking about the future life, I spoke rather pessimistically. To this he noted that pessimism is the privilege of Marxism, the most pessimistic doctrine, since it believes that matter is primary and spirit is secondary, that being determines consciousness. This is pessimism - to assume that everything depends on the material world. In fact, the spirit is primary and consciousness determines existence. This is what human optimism consists of - a call to activity.

There was one more feature that is especially important today - his style of life. Likhachev’s lifestyle is a challenge from an intellectual to the entire society of acquirers. The modest city apartment in which he lived, cramped by modern standards for a world-class scientist, was littered with books. He received foreign guests from all over the world in small rooms in Komarov.

We often make excuses: “What can I do? What can we do? Everyone says it, at all levels: “I am powerless.” But Likhachev alone, having nothing at his disposal except his word and pen - he had nothing else - was able to do it.

He became a silent call to each of us: we can do much more than we do. We can be much more than we are. We can do it if we don’t look for excuses for ourselves. Life shows that it is difficult, but not hopeless.

I think it is no coincidence that D.S. Likhachev linked his fate with St. Petersburg, he was faithful all his life to the culture of our city, its beauty, its intelligence, and for the city he will remain both pride and love.

Based on materials: Granin D.A., Likhachev’s recipes / Quirks of my memory, M., “OLMA Media Group”, 2011, p. 90-93 and 98-100; Granin D. The secret sign of St. Petersburg. - St. Petersburg: Logos Publishing House, 2000. - P. 339-344.