Swim against the current

The speech of A. A. Zaliznyak, specified by the audio recording [1] at the ceremony of presenting him to the literary prize Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The ceremony took place on May 16, 2007 at the Russian Library Fund.

I thank Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn and all the Solzhenitsyn jury for the great honor that I was awarded. At the same time, I cannot but admit that this reward causes me not only pleasant feelings, but also a great embarrassment. And after the fact that I heard in [2] ( general laughter ) today, I am even a little depressed ( general laughter ).

In my life, it turned out that my most strong and long -term friendly company has developed at school - and since then those who are still alive have been friendly several times a year for more than half a century. And now it is clear to me how united we were in our inner conviction (so obvious for us that we ourselves did not formulate and did not discuss it) that high ranks and honors are something incompatible with our youthful ideals, our self -esteem and respect for each other.

Of course, the era was to blame for the fact that we had a clear consciousness: ascended to official glory - all or almost - received it with crooked ways and not deserved. We understood as follows: if the laureate of the Stalin Prize, then it is almost probably obsolete mediocrity; If an academician, then we need some completely exceptional evidence to believe that it is not a stuffy value and not a rogue ( laughter ). It was sitting tight in us and, in essence, still sits. Therefore, no titles and honors can bring us that unkind happiness that the current media will chirp in such cases. If, nevertheless, for some reason, we are given them, we are embarrassed to wear them.

“Outcorn! - They tell us. “Now everything is different, now there is an opportunity to reward worthy.” I would like to believe. And there are, of course, there are many cases when it is undoubtedly so. But in order for the fundamental principle itself already outlined and disappeared, the evidence is somehow not enough ...

Meanwhile, our perception of the Russian world was not pessimistic. We felt like this: along with the fake official hierarchy, there is an underground Hamburg account. There are persecuted artists who, of course, are better than official. There is - in Samizdat - real literature, which, of course, is higher than published. There are remarkable scientists who do not receive any official recognition. And in order to earn something on the Hamburg account, only true talent is needed; Safe and sneaking are not required.

Of course, material successes were determined by the official hierarchy, and not underground. But in accordance with the spirit of the era, we looked down on the material side of life. Western formula: "If you are smart, why are you poor?" - It was an obvious evidence of the wretchedness of this type of thinking ( laughter ) for us.

Now we have to part with this Soviet idealism. There is no big problem for the young generation. The Western formula no longer seems to them wretched. But our generation can no longer rebuild.

Now I would also like to say a few words about my book mentioned here about the “Word about Igor’s Regiment”. Sometimes they tell me about her that this is a patriotic composition ( laughter ). In the lips of some, this is praise, in the lips of others - a mockery. Both of them often call me a supporter (or even a defender) of the authenticity of the "Word of Igor's Regiment."

I strongly deny it.

I believe that I have some patriotism, but most likely such a kind that those who speak especially about patriotism would not really like it.

My experience led me to the belief that if a book on such a “hot” issue, as the origin of the “Word of Igor’s Regiment”, is written from patriotic motives, then its conclusions on real weights are already less weigh less than we would like.

After all, we do not have mathematics - all arguments are not absolute. So if the researcher has a strong deep incentive to “pull” in a certain direction, then the specifics of the case, alas, easily allows you to realize this traction - namely, it allows you to find more and more arguments in the necessary benefits, imperceptibly to fan the significance of these arguments and minimize the significance of opposite arguments.

In the case of the “word about Igor’s regiment”, unfortunately, the lion's share of argumentation is permeated with just such aspirations: those who have patriotism on the banner, it is necessary that the work is genuine; Those who are convinced of the unconditional and always Russian backwardness need to be fake. And the fact that the result is a conversation of the deaf is largely determined by this.

I will say what my opponents (as well as part of the agreeing) will most likely not believe. But this is still not the basis for not to say this at all.

The real motive, which prompted me to get involved in this difficult and confusing business, was by no means patriotism. I have no feeling that I would be somehow especially pleased with the fact that the “Word about Igor’s Regiment” was written in the XII century, or is upset from the fact that in the XVIII. If I was dissatisfied with something, then completely different-a sense of weakness and second-rate of our linguistic science, if it cannot make a reasonable diagnosis of the text in front of us for so much time.

Linguists, seemed to me, have much greater possibilities than other humanities, rely on objective facts - on strictly measured and decorated characteristics of the text. And does the text really have no objective properties that would distinguish antiquity from its imitation?

An attempt to disperse the truth from under a pile of conflicting judgments in the question of the “word about Igor’s regiment” was also largely related to more general reflections on the ratio of truth and assumptions in the humanities-thoughts generated by my participation in the critical discussion of the so-called new chronology of Fomenko, which proclaims the fake of the unit not most sources, to which Our knowledge of world history is based. Here is an approximate picture of how my work began on the "Word on Igor's Regiment."

Now a little about something else. We all understand that great moral fermentation occurs in the country. Near us on the Volokolamsk highway, where the giant slogans “Glory of the CPSU” and “The victory of communism are inevitable” were hanging over people for years, recently on the advertising shield one could see the performed by the equally huge letters “Everything can be bought!” ( laughter ). I have not seen such a targeted salvo according to traditional moral values ​​for Russia even in the most cynical advertisements.

Here is Scylla and Haribda, between which you have to look for a moral road to the current Russian man. Moral, ethical and intellectual problems here are a whole ball.

By the nature of my classes, I have the closest to me that aspect - albeit not the most dramatic, but still very significant - which concerns the attitude to knowledge.

Together with a fiercely suggested by the current advertisement, the aggressive-hedonistic idea "Take everything from life!" Many people, primarily youth, also had a noticeable shift in relation to knowledge and truth.

However, I do not want to generalize hastily and excessively. Throughout my life, starting from the age of 25 (with one not very big break), I have dealt with students in one way or another. And this communication has always been painted with great satisfaction.

Watching now the work of those quite numerous linguists that I saw in front of me at a student bench at different times, I feel that I like their attitude to science and the method of action in science. And the students with whom I deal now, in my opinion, relate to my business with no less return and enthusiasm than the previous ones.

But outside this sphere close to me, I, unfortunately, feel the spread of views and reactions, which mean a decrease in the public consciousness of the value of science in general and the humanities in particular.

Of course, in relation to the humanities, the leading role was played by the establishment of the Soviet government for direct production of these sciences for the service of political propaganda. The result is unbelief and mockery of official philosophers, official historians, and official literary critics. Now it is really very difficult to convince society that in these sciences there are conclusions that are not dictated by the authorities or not packed under their interests.

And on the contrary, all the time appearing here and there, sensational statements that one or another is completely recognized as generally recognized by the assertion of some humanitarian science, most often history, are picked up very willingly, with great readiness. The psychological basis here is the vengeful satisfaction in relation to all liars and conjuncturers, who have imposed on us their custom theories for so long.

And is it necessary to say how little people tend to check these sensations with logic and common sense.

I would like to speak out here in defense of two simple ideas, which were previously considered obvious and even just banal, and now they sound very non -notable:

1. Truth exists, and the purpose of science is its search;
2. In any question under discussion, a professional (if he is really a professional, and not just a carrier of state -owned titles) in a normal case more right than an amateur ( applause ).

They are opposed by the provisions, now much more fashionable:

1. Truth does not exist, there are only many opinions (or, speaking of the language of postmodernism, many texts);
2. On any issue, a draw does not weigh any more than the opinion of someone else. A fifth-grader girl has the opinion that Darwin is wrong, and a good tone is to submit this fact as a serious challenge to biological science.

This attachment is characteristic not only for Russia, but also for the Western world. But in Russia, it is noticeably strengthened by the situation of the post -Soviet ideological vacuum.

The sources of these now fashionable provisions are clear:

• Indeed, there are aspects of the world order where the truth is hidden and, perhaps, unattainable;
• Indeed, there are times when the layman is right, and all professionals are mistaken.

The capital shift is that these situations are not perceived as rare and exceptional, what are they really, but as universal and ordinary.

And the enormous force to the adoption and assimilation in them is their psychological profitability. If all opinions are equal, then I can sit down and immediately send my opinion on the Internet, not complicating myself with many years of teaching and a laborious acquaintance with what those who have devoted to this long years of research already know about this.

The psychological profitability here is not only for the writer, but also for a significant part of the readers: [sensational refutation of what was considered a generally accepted truth yesterday,] frees them from the sensation of their own insufficient education, puts them above those who have been pouring over the development of traditional wisdom for a long time, which, as they now learn with satisfaction, costs nothing.

From the recognition that there is no truth in some deep philosophical issue, there is a transition to the fact that there is no truth in anything - say, in the fact that in 1914 the First World War began. And now we are already reading, for example, that there has never been Ivan the Terrible or that Batu is Ivan Kalita ( laughter ). And what is much worse, regrettably a large number of people accept such news willingly.

And the current media, alas, are the first allies in the spread of such amateurish nonsense, because they speak and write first of all what should impress the mass viewer and listener and impress him - therefore, the most catchy and sensational, and by no means the most serious and reliable.

I do not experience much optimism that the vector of this movement will somehow change and the situation will correct. Apparently, those who are aware of the value of truth and the decaying power of amateurism and quackery and are trying to resist this force will continue to be in the difficult situation of those who float against the current. But hope is that there will always be those who will do this.

In conclusion, I thank Alexander Isaevich and ... (the end of the recording).

1. Elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_biblioteka/430463/430464 ;
www.rp-net.ru/book/premia/2007/textzaliznjak.php

2. Texts of performance at the ceremony: www.rp-net.ru/book/premia/2007/