Text: Ivan Esaulov
Ivan Andreevich Esaulov – Doctor of Philology, professor, theorist and literary historian. His works and monographs were published in the most respected scientific publications, and his lectures were attended by students from the best universities in the world. We asked Ivan Andreevich to write a few words for It book about his concept of Easter in Russian literature. We thank Ivan Andreevich for this material, which he agreed to write, despite the catastrophic lack of time. And for the opportunity to look at familiar texts of classical literature from a different angle.
The history of original Russian literature begins with the “Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion (11th century). Although medievalists still differ in determining when exactly this “Word...” was pronounced, something else is more important: it sounded either before the Easter morning service, or on the first day of Easter.
This means that the Easter sermon is at the same time the source of Russian literature as such. This fact has not yet been adequately comprehended; unfortunately, it has not become the subject of special scientific reflection.
This means that the Easter sermon is at the same time the source of Russian literature as such. This fact has not yet been adequately comprehended; unfortunately, it has not become the subject of special scientific reflection. Meanwhile, already at the very source of our literature one can see the affirmation of a new principle of human unity: not legal equality in the face of the impersonal Law, but the grace-filled conciliar unity of people in Christ.
Russian literature of the first seven centuries of its existence is clearly Christocentric; it was initially oriented, first of all, to the New Testament.
Russian literature of the first seven centuries of its existence is clearly Christocentric; it was initially oriented, first of all, to the New Testament. However, the deep connection with the New Testament is the main thing that constitutes the unity of Russian culture as a whole.
Recent studies by Russian scientists devoted to the study of literature emphasize the peculiar Christocentrism, inherent not only in ancient Russian literature, but also in Russian literature of modern times. However, in the top works of Russian classics, the Easter New Testament basis often disappears into the subtext of these works. I try to show exactly how in my books. Christocentrism gives rise to a kind of paradox when the same text can combine evangelical maximalism (arising from the author’s projection - voluntary or involuntary - of the “real life” of the hero of the work onto the ideal life, as it is presented in the New Testament, even if such a projection is not was fully realized by the author of the work himself) and at the same time the closing of the distance between sinners and righteous people (since both are imperfect, unworthy of Christ, and at the same time worthy of pity, love and sympathy - to the point that only in the Orthodox tradition the holy fools “for Christ’s sake” "can become saints).
However, Christocentrism is also the most important attribute of Christian culture as such. The annual liturgical cycle is focused precisely on the events of the life of Christ. The main ones are His Birth and Resurrection. Therefore, the most important events of the liturgical cycle are the celebration of Christmas and Easter. If in the Western tradition one can discern an emphasis on Christmas (and, accordingly, talk about Christmas archetype), then in the tradition of the Eastern Church the celebration of the Resurrection remains the main holiday not only in confessional, but also in general cultural terms, which allowed me to hypothesize about the presence of a special Easter archetype and its special significance for Russian culture.
in the tradition of the Eastern Church, the celebration of the Resurrection remains the main holiday not only in confessional, but also in general cultural terms, which allowed me to hypothesize about the presence of a special Easter archetype and its special significance for Russian culture.
Under archetypes in this case are understood, in contrast to K.G. Jung, not universal unconscious models, but these kinds of transhistorical “collective ideas” that are formed and gain definition in one or another type of culture. In other words, this cultural unconscious: a type of thinking formed by one or another spiritual tradition, giving rise to a whole train of cultural consequences, up to certain behavioral stereotypes. These types of thinking, which are based precisely on the cultural unconscious, are not, in our opinion, the exclusive property of individual consciousness, but are formed in the depths of deep sacred structures. Such ideas are often not recognized at a rational level by the bearers of a particular culture themselves, but can be identified as a result of a special scientific description.
F.M. Dostoevsky wrote very precisely about these ideas: “... the vast majority of the Russian people are Orthodox and live the idea of Orthodoxy in its entirety, although he does not understand this idea responsibly and scientifically. In fact(the beginning of the sentence is highlighted by the author. - I.E.) in our people there is no “idea” other than this, and everything comes from it alone, at least that’s what our people want, with all their hearts and with their deep conviction.<…>I am talking about the tireless thirst in the Russian people, always present in them, for great, universal, nation-wide, all-brotherly unity in the name of Christ. And if this unity does not yet exist, if the Church has not yet been fully created, no longer in prayer alone, but in deeds, then nevertheless the instinct of this Church and the tireless thirst for it, sometimes even almost unconscious, are undoubtedly present in the hearts of our many millions of people<…>he believes that he will be saved only in the end by universal unity in the name of Christ (emphasis added by the author - I.E.).<…>And here we can directly put the formula: whoever does not understand our people’s Orthodoxy and its ultimate goals will never understand our people themselves. Not only that: he cannot love the Russian people... but will love them as he would like to see them and as he imagines them to be.”
This and other well-known judgments of Dostoevsky continue and develop that line of Russian understanding of the spiritual essence of Russia, which is incorrectly designated as “Slavophile” - in contrast to “Westernism”. The division runs along a different line: those who accept Orthodoxy as the main “idea” of the Russian people, and those who do not accept precisely this central idea of the people (Dostoevsky himself could still write “they do not understand,” but the tragic events of the 20th century showed that They completely “understand”, which is why they recognize Orthodoxy as the main danger to themselves and their own interests). The people themselves may not reflect on this “idea,” as Dostoevsky puts it, “responsibly and scientifically,” that is, rationally (hence the author’s quotation marks on the word “idea”), but it is immeasurably more important that the people “live the idea of Orthodoxy in its entirety.” .
Let us draw attention to a fact that, as far as we know, has not been the subject of special attention. Dostoevsky begins and ends his famous discussion about the deep presence of Christ in the hearts of the people with phrases about the meaning of the unconscious:
<…>
“You may not be aware of many things, but only feel them. You can know a lot unconsciously<…>They say that the Russian people do not know the Gospel well and do not know the basic rules of faith. Of course so, but he knows and carries Christ in his heart from time immemorial<…>But the heartfelt knowledge of Christ and the true idea of Him fully exist. It is passed down from generation to generation and has merged with the hearts of people. Perhaps the only love of the Russian people is Christ, and they love His image in their own way, that is, to the point of suffering. He is most proud of the title of Orthodox, that is, one who most truly professes Christ. I repeat: you can know a lot unconsciously.”
The Easter archetype can also be found in authors who have long had a reputation as “democratic satirists.” Take, for example, the novel by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Lord Golovlevs”. However, the rapidity and external lack of motivation of the “awakening of conscience” of the central character of the novel, which gave reason to both contemporaries and later literary scholars to either reject the organic nature of the ending or talk about the uselessness of the hero’s insight, takes place in accordance with the Easter annual cycle. The central point of the poetics of the novel is the possibility of redemption by the hero and his forgiveness associated with this redemption. At the end of Holy Week, even one of the most unsightly characters in Russian literature vaguely realizes his guilt for being “dead” in view of the Passion of the Lord and asks for forgiveness. In the image of Porfiry Golovlev, the image of a neighbor is concentrated for the reader. The coming Resurrection of Christ gives hope for salvation and such a hero, who, in turn, becomes a symbol of the salvation of the entire Christian world. If the reader is ready to accept the hero’s repentance, he also accepts the possibility of the miracle of the Resurrection and all other people; if - after the “awakening of conscience” - he rejects it, and the insight itself is inclined to consider it useless, the reader thereby shows his own alienation from the Orthodox Easter tradition. This kind of reader is able to see only the journalistic image of the hero of “Judas”, while the nerve of the work is the almost instantaneous change that happened to the hero, and the very possibility, the reality of such a change. Behind the reader’s “disbelief” in the possibility of the epiphany of the most inveterate sinner as long as he is alive, hides a not always realized claim to the final condemnation of the hero even before his death, an unrighteous encroachment on the final Judgment of him, rejecting the comprehensiveness and omnipotence of Divine love, translating it into the realm of judgmental “legalism.” The almost instantaneous transformation of Judushka into Porfiry Vladimirovich indicates that the Easter archetype of Russian literature sometimes manifests itself in the pinnacle works of those authors who are usually attributed to the line of development of Russian literature, opposed to its dominant Christian vector.
I would not like to be understood in such a way that I contrast Orthodoxy with other Christian denominations. As noted above, I am based on the undoubted fact that in Russia Easter is still the main holiday not only in a confessional sense, but also in a cultural one.
I would not like to be understood in such a way that I contrast Orthodoxy with other Christian denominations. As noted above, I am based on the undoubted fact that in Russia Easter is still the main holiday not only in a confessional sense, but also in a cultural one. Whereas in Western Christianity, Easter in the cultural space seems to fade into the shadow of Christmas. This difference, it seems to us, cannot be explained only by the further advanced process of secularization in the West or, as a consequence, by the commercialization of Christmas: we are talking about deeper preferences that clearly manifested themselves in the field of culture and which cannot be eliminated without a significant distortion of the entire thousand-year history of parallel the existence of the eastern and western halves of the Christian world.
In the Western version of Christian culture, the emphasis is not on the death and subsequent Resurrection of Christ, but on His very coming into the world, the birth of Christ, which gives hope for the transformation of this earthly world. Christmas, unlike Easter, is not directly associated with death, which is inevitable on earth. Birth is significantly different from Resurrection. The coming of Christ into the world allows us to hope for its renewal and enlightenment. However, in the sphere of culture we can talk about emphasizing earthly hopes and hopes, of course, illuminated by the coming of Christ into the world; whereas Easter salvation directly points to heavenly reward. Finally, both traditions proceed from the recognition of the Theanthropic nature of Christ, but the Western branch of Christianity, apparently, is still closer to the earthly side of this nature, while Orthodoxy is closer to His Divine essence. Probably, the latter explains the frequency of prayer appeals in the Russian tradition not to Christ himself, in which, obviously, a well-known boldness is seen, but to His holy saints (for example, to St. Nicholas of Myra): those who, being holy intercessors, are still closer, according to Orthodox ideas, to the earthly concerns of people. The Easter archetype of Russian literature manifests itself by the primacy of superlegal heavenly Grace over earthly Law; iconicity over illusionism; at the “unofficial” level of culture - the dominance of foolishness over buffoonery; holiness as a guide to life above the “norm” and other cultural consequences. Each of the options does not exist as the only culture-forming factor, but is dominant, coexisting with a subdominant background. That is why we insist on emphasizing certain points, and not on their presence or absence in Christian civilization.
The archetypes I have identified, being a phenomenon of the cultural unconscious, retain their “cores”, but at the same time they are capable of modification. Thus, we understand the life-creativity of the romantics as a manifestation of the Christmas archetype. It is also the middle link between the actual religious Transfiguration and the later life-building.
Both the Easter cultural attitude and the Christmas one can be “fraught” with their own metamorphoses and pseudomorphoses, which can be explained by the general process of de-Christianization of culture. Thus, sacrifice in the name of Christ can lose its Christian meaning and be used for completely different purposes. Just like the Christmas transfiguration of the world, if its Christian meaning is washed away, it turns into a violent remaking of both the world and man himself.
The very special celebration of Easter, the Resurrection of the Lord, as is known, is the most characteristic feature of Russian culture. This feature has been noted by many writers and observers.
The very special celebration of Easter, the Resurrection of the Lord, as is known, is the most characteristic feature of Russian culture. This feature has been noted by many writers and observers. For example, the first of the numerous subsequent Russian “walks” - “The Walk to the Holy Land of Abbot Daniel” - is structured by its author in such a way that it ends with the Easter joy of the pilgrim. It is significant that, against the background of the sometimes extreme brevity of the parts preceding this Easter finale, the last days of Holy Week and the very day of the Resurrection of the Lord in Jerusalem are described by the author in great detail, indicating the hour of this or that event. Abbot Daniel transfers this Easter “great joy” to all Russian Orthodox Christians. The author places the lamp at the Holy Sepulcher not on his own behalf, but “on behalf of the entire Russian land.” In the same Easter conclusion of his “writings”, the author specially notes that “I have not forgotten the names of the Russian prince, and princesses, and their children, bishop, abbot, and boyar, and my spiritual children, and I have not forgotten all the Christians.” The living and departed “Russian princes” thereby join in the universal Easter joy, just like the readers of Abbot Daniel’s “Walking”: “Let all who read this scripture with faith and love receive a blessing from God and from the Holy Sepulcher.” Thus, readers are directly equated with pilgrims (“they will receive a reward from God equally with those who walked to this holy place”), since the vector of the spiritual path of both pilgrims and readers of “The Walk” is the same: towards the Resurrection of Christ.
Yes, for Vyach. Ivanov’s “categorical postulate of resurrection” is “a characteristic sign of our religiosity”: it is in the Easter hope of Vyach. Ivanov also saw the core of the Russian idea itself - “in its religious expression,” as understood by the “conciliar internal experience of our people.” Without further continuing a series of similar judgments of other Russian philosophers and writers, I will give only the laconic testimony of V.I. Dahl, who fixed this Easter dominant at the level of the saying: “This Easter is wider than Christmas!” The name of the day of the week - Sunday - also indicates the predominance of this archetype: in the Russian consciousness, Sunday is inextricably linked with going to church. Significant for the formation of the Easter archetype is the fact that the week after Easter itself is called holy in Russia: in the Russian language, holiness, Easter and the national ideal, which is Holy Rus', are thus linked together.
We find a shift in the Easter dominant in the culture of the “Silver Age”. The aesthetics of Russian symbolism is characterized by a fundamental change in the relationship between the dominant and subdominant poles of Orthodox Christocentrism, in which one can notice a shift in emphasis towards Christmas (a weaker attempt at such a shift is observed in the Russian Baroque era of the 17th century), accompanied by other characteristic cultural transformations. In this sense, symbolism represents a great revolution, as a result of which, probably, there was a global shift in the aesthetic and spiritual dominant of Russian culture, after which the main vector of its development itself became different.
Russian formalism, like other “avant-garde” movements, is somewhat brutal, but continues the same “Christmas” line of symbolism. Thus, the global transformation of the Russian Christian tradition was manifested in the fact that the central figure of Soviet culture - V.I. Lenin - does not need resurrection, because in a substantial sense he never died: he, as is known, is “always alive”, “more alive than anyone else” alive”, etc. Therefore, the most important event is not the “resurrection” that is redundant in this case, but the very fact of its birth, which has a clearly manifested sacred meaning and is deeply connected with the birth of a new world (which is also not going to “die” at all, being deprived of any eschatological perspective). It does not at all follow from this that the Easter archetype has ceased to be significant for Russian literature.
However, it was in the last century that such a powerful blow was dealt to the very foundation of Orthodox Russian culture, after which not only its upper tiers were corroded, but perhaps the backbone of the Russian tradition itself was broken.
However, it was in the last century that such a powerful blow was dealt to the very foundation of Orthodox Russian culture, after which not only its upper tiers were corroded, but perhaps the backbone of the Russian tradition itself was broken. The attempt at the “spiritual murder of Russia” (Fr. Sergius Bulgakov) could not but affect those of its transhistorical bonds that determined the cultural identity of our country throughout its thousand-year history. And in the 21st century we are trying to somehow recover from this terrible blow, but God knows whether we can...
Eh, I burst out here: I bought the book “Post-Soviet Mythologies: Structures of Everyday Life,” thinking that I would learn something interesting.
The only interesting thing was that there is Ivan Esaulov in the world, who is a philologist, professor and teaches at 3 universities.
There are no mythologies in the book - these are posts from his blog with comments from selected readers.
Every second post says that post-Soviet reality is a continuation of the terrible Soviet reality - in Esaulov’s opinion, nothing has changed.
Quite a strange look, don’t you think? What changes would he see?
The break with the Soviet was to be expressed in the fact that all cities and streets named under the Soviets were to be changed to new ones or to pre-revolutionary ones. While there are thousands of Dzerzhinskaya streets, and the Mausoleum stands on Red Square, the damned scoop continues.
People living in Russia, with the exception of Esaulov himself and his like-minded people, are divided into Soviets and Noviops (from the concept of “new historical community - the Soviet people”). Sovki are people confused by Soviet propaganda, and Noviops are propagandists, their descendants, and, apparently, they are, for the most part, not Russian. These include, for example, Shenderovich, Yulia Latynina and Svanidze.
It would seem that Shenderovich and Svanidze fiercely hate the USSR, but they still continue the Soviet discourse.
Only truly Russian people can truly hate the USSR, because it was specially invented by unnamed enemies in order to destroy the Russian people.
Esaulov cannot come to terms with the collapse of the USSR. He believes that Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are all Russia, and the Russians are the largest divided people in the world.
But wasn’t the USSR engaged in increasing territory? Didn't protect her? But, according to Esaulov, the USSR cannot have any merit. When asked what he would like to leave from the USSR, he replies that nothing, with a few exceptions. This exception is the Russian new martyrs.
As for the victory of the USSR in World War II, Esaulov does not consider it some kind of special victory that deserves special treatment.
The book uses posts from several years. Every May 9, Esaulov is indignant at why they celebrate so magnificently, when it should be a day of mourning and remembrance, and why the heroes of the First World War are forgotten.
The USSR will be finished when the heroes of the First World War are given the same number of monuments as the heroes of the Second World War. And we shouldn’t forget about the War of 1812.
So what are post-Soviet mythologies? After all, anti-Sovietism and nothing else is the official ideology of modern Russia?
I did not find the answer to this question. Unless, perhaps, give the Russian Orthodox Church as many rights as possible, curse the USSR forever, never even dare to suggest that there could be any achievements there, and forever moan about the loss of territories of the Russian Empire. Or maybe we should win them back? I no longer understood this.
The question remains: why did the Soviet government offend Esaulov personally so much? He was born in Kemerovo in 1960, where his prudent relatives managed to leave so as not to be repressed. In the USSR, everyone was repressed, and those who were not repressed could be repressed - iron logic. Thus, his family is a victim of repression. The fact that he graduated from the university, defended his PhD under the Soviets, and his doctorate under the vile post-Soviet regime, and teaches at the Literary Institute (created in the USSR) and a couple of other universities - this will not be enough.
At the same time, the book does not condemn Putin, brazen privatization, plunder of the country under the guise of reforms - it’s all the USSR’s fault.
It’s hard for me to understand why he’s still dissatisfied? Here is the monument to St. They put Vladimir in front of the Kremlin, and the Alexander Garden is already covered with new monuments to tsars and patriarchs, the remains of the Romanovs are solemnly buried, in Moscow almost all the streets and metro stations named during the Soviet era have already been renamed, Solzhenitsyn is studied at school - where more?
But the man has already started fighting the USSR - now he won’t stop.
And I was very stupid when I bought his book, yes.
What were people looking for in Siberia several decades ago? Could an honest person work in Soviet journalism? How did philology differ from philosophy in those years? In an interview with Pravmir, literary critic Ivan Esaulov spoke about his childhood in the Siberian outback and about his work.
Ivan Esaulov was born in 1960 in Siberia. Graduated from Kemerovo University. He defended his candidate's dissertation in 1988 at Moscow State University, his doctorate in 1996 at Moscow State Pedagogical University. Doctor of Philology, professor. Theorist and historian of Russian literature.
Author of several books and more than 200 articles, which were published in the magazines “New World”, “Moscow”, “Literary Review”, “Questions of Literature”, “Grani”, “Russian Literature”, and also published in the publishing houses of Moscow State University, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow State Pedagogical University , universities of Bergen, Zagreb, Cambridge, Oxford and others. As a visiting professor, he lectured at many universities in Western Europe and the USA. Now he is a professor at the Literary Institute and director of the Center for Literary Studies of the Russian Pedagogical University.
- Ivan Andreevich, in one of your interviews you said that your father ended up as fate would have it. Was he repressed?
No, he moved there of his own free will, but if he had not moved, most likely he would have been arrested. The fact is that at the beginning of the war he was captured and spent four years in a German concentration camp. This camp was liberated by American troops; he ended up in the American zone of occupation of Germany, which aggravated his “guilt.” He was a teacher of Russian language and literature; after the war he returned to school, but not for long.
Friends who were in charge of education told him privately that two denunciations had already been made against him. The logic is well known: anyone who was in German captivity has no right to teach Soviet children. It is not difficult to guess what awaited him after such denunciations. But the father did not wait. He left everything and left. So he ended up in Siberia. Not under escort, but voluntarily. But he remained free.
alternative reality
I was always surprised that he had the determination to change his life and profession so dramatically - he never taught again - and not at a young age. He was born in 1909, I am a late child, that is, he left for Siberia when he was over forty. There he met my mother, a native Siberian, and that’s where I was born.
- He probably went to the very outback?
Yes, before settling down, he changed several places in Southern Siberia, but all of them were not only far from cities - there was no railway anywhere. He specifically chose such places. He later explained this to me by saying that he stopped loving big cities. But I took my education seriously, I learned to read fluently very early, and when I went to school, they immediately wanted to transfer me to the third grade.
I really knew more than what we were told in the first and second grades, so I was frankly bored in the lessons, but my father believed that it was better for a child to study with peers. And now I understand him - I’m not sure that I would feel good with guys who are two or three years older than me. In childhood, this is a very significant age difference.
By the time I went to school, my father had already made up his mind - he chose a place that was equally remote from all centers, but quite cultural. I consider myself lucky with the school. We had wonderful teachers, with university education, many good clubs - I studied in history. We even organized a secret society at school and kept diaries.
We have created a whole alternative reality: a virtual state, with its own constitution, finances, culture, sports competitions, for example, multi-match chess championships. We had our own chronicle, our own holidays, etc. Before the Internet... Many of us were not lost in this life. For example, my closest friend already in post-Soviet times became the head of the administration of one of the territories of the Russian Federation.
Of course, from childhood I felt that my father was different, he was too strikingly different from the old-timers there, and I even worried about this - such is child psychology. But people respected him, and not only as an interesting conversationalist, but also as a brave person. For example, one day a woman, the mother of my school friend, went to prison. I don’t even know why, but in order to help her, it was necessary to correctly draw up the paper (there were extenuating circumstances). Her father wrote and she was released. People usually remember such things.
In general, my father did not hide, he was not afraid to say what he thought. For example, he told our guests about Europe, I remember these conversations, usually over a bottle, well - after his liberation, he spent some time among the Americans. Much in these conversations caused me an internal protest - my book world and his life experience were too different.
And I, I must say, was very immersed in this world of books, to the point of some indifference to the “here” reality. We often had “ideological disagreements” with him, if you can call a dispute involving a child that way. For example, my father very much praised the French who were in the same concentration camp with him - “cheerful guys,” he said. These inmates, like some others, simply helped Soviet prisoners of war to survive, shared with them, since they received various assistance through the Red Cross. They received it, ours didn’t.
They won’t send you further than Siberia
With me, until I was 14, my parents tried not to talk about the Soviet regime, reasonably fearing that I might later say too much at school or in the yard.
You see, we must take into account the specifics of the places where we lived. People joked: “They won’t send us further than Siberia.” And almost no one there was threatened with dismissal from work “for talking.” How can you fire, say, a blacksmith or a veterinarian - there is no one to replace them, and these professions are necessary.
Living in a remote area at that time had one undoubted advantage - the level of freedom was much higher than in the country. I appreciated this only later, while studying at university. Many things that I was used to freely discussing were not discussed at the university or were discussed in a narrow circle, in a half-whisper.
When men came to my father (and they loved to listen to him), he allowed himself very harsh statements about the woman, who never “consulted” with anyone, and no one laid him down. However, after school, I worked for a year at an alumina refinery in Achinsk (this is the Krasnoyarsk Territory), and there were also very free conversations.
Later, at the university, I was persuaded several times to join the party as an excellent student, and I did not know how to fight back other than the standard “not ready yet.” In Achinsk, workers responded to such proposals obscenely, without fear of party activists, openly mocking them. And they were not touched for it. True, it was already the end of the seventies.
Probably, if they had gone to a demonstration and unfurled a poster “Down with Soviet power” in the center of Achinsk, they would have been in trouble. But this never occurred to anyone, and people were not afraid to say what they thought about Soviet slogans and propaganda. It is often written that at that time the so-called “common people” believed Soviet newspapers, and I am perplexed every time. I don’t know in what environment the people who claim this lived lived. In the environment where I grew up - a very simple environment in general - no one believed in either “communism” or the bravura Soviet chatter.
People saw how different the daily life of propagandists was from what they proclaimed from the stands, and openly laughed at their propaganda. In the seventies for sure. Perhaps the nomenklatura and near-nomenklatura public, preoccupied with party careers or clinging to their departments, departments, theaters, or something else, led some other way of life. What could be done with the workers of the Achinsk Alumina Refinery, many of whom also had a criminal record?
I went there because I wanted to test my strength. Even though I, for example, at the same time, while studying at school, went in for sports and played in a “vocal-instrumental ensemble”, quite famous in those parts, on various instruments - from ionics to bass guitar, in many ways I still remained a homely book boy.
This is what I rebelled against when I went to work in Achinsk, the relatively large city closest to us. A very specific environment, but during the year that I worked in Achinsk, I acquired quite useful skills for life, which are not very often found among boy philologists. And I still don’t regret it.
- When did you decide to become a philologist?
My father instilled in me a love of fiction, but I did not intend to be a philologist. At school, I seriously thought about a sports career, and hesitated whether to choose football or tennis. For example, as a young man he played in an adult football team as a left midfielder, once we even won a zonal tournament, they paid some money for “travel allowances”, the girls went with us to cheer at away matches (as, indeed, with our “VIA”) - and so on, but at the age of 16 I realized that I would not become a great athlete, and if so, then there was no need to follow this path at all - in my youth I was, frankly speaking, a maximalist.
I was quite seriously interested in Russian history. I was sure that I would become a historian, completely unaware that any serious study of Russian history (especially the 20th century) in late Brezhnev times was impossible in our country. And even now...
After Achinsk, I decided to enroll in history, but, fortunately, one woman on the admissions committee sympathized with me, and she very popularly explained to me exactly why I would never be able to enroll in the history department. In general, on the last day of accepting documents, I took them from the history department and submitted them to the philology department, which was then considered much less prestigious.
I entered there without much enthusiasm, but quite quickly I became fascinated by philology. At first, however, I thought that I would become a journalist - in my first years I began to collaborate with various publications and published articles. At the same time, he diligently studied, as it was called then, at the “faculty of public professions,” eventually receiving diplomas in radio and photojournalism. And I liked the work, but was disgusted by the journalistic environment itself. I had never encountered such cynicism anywhere, and I simply became afraid that I would have to be among these cynics all my life.
Then, when confronted with party bosses, I realized that Soviet journalists were quite comparable to the cynicism of the party nomenklatura. I’m talking now about the seventies and eighties, I admit that in the twenties and thirties the nomenklatura, for all its fanaticism, was not so cynical. But how can I say it?
By the third year I realized that I definitely didn’t want to be a journalist, and decided to study Russian literature more deeply. Just like at school, I was lucky with the teachers. Many courses were taught to us by bright philologists, strong theorists, almost all of them later ended up in Moscow, some before me, some later. There were people, in the current understanding, of a left-liberal persuasion, but this is not so important. What's more important is that they're interesting. This was especially important in those dark times. Also, it must be admitted, they are quite cynical in the Soviet way - and the scientific environment is distinguished by cynicism, but not as much as the journalistic one. We also had very strong teachers in the history of literature, as well as those who were very scientifically successful in linguistics.
Wider than usual
Soon I became the chairman of the scientific student philological society, organized conferences attended by philology students from all over the country. This fascinated me in itself, and it was also important that party and Komsomol activists did not pester us. After all, organizing conferences is a kind of “social work”, which means that they can no longer be forced to do any other “social work” of an ideological nature.
It was believed that philology could not undermine the foundations. By the way, both Losev and Bakhtin, whom I loved, were forced to study philology, not philosophy - also for this reason. After all, Marxists-Leninists will not allow you to study philosophy (as well as history) seriously, but philology - with some reservations - can still be studied quite seriously.
- Do you also consider yourself not a philologist, but a philosopher?
No, I consider myself a philologist, but I understand philology itself, perhaps more broadly than is customary. It’s probably easiest to explain this using my books as an example. Each of them is a kind of challenge (or response to a challenge), although I did not set such a goal. I just understood some things differently than usual.
For example, I was the author of one of the chapters and compiler of the book “Cavalry” of Isaac Babel, published by the Russian State University for the Humanities in 1993, and last year by the publishing house “St. Kliment Ohridski" from Sofia University, my monograph "Cultural subtexts of Babel's poetics" has already been published. As you know, the sixties see in his works a kind of alternative to the Soviet system, an alternative to power, but I tried to show that not a single text by Babel questions the value of the Revolution and the need to “protect” the Revolution from all kinds of “enemies.”
He is arguing with Budyonny and other party leaders, but these are disputes within one cultural system - the Soviet one. I came to this conclusion not even on the basis of the facts of Babel’s biography, which, it should be noted, is very characteristic in its own way, but by analyzing his pinnacle works - “Cavalry” and “Odessa Stories”. This “Soviet gene” penetrated into the very poetics of his texts. But, of course, the sixties (and not only the sixties) could not like such an opinion about Babel’s work.
In 1995, the publishing house of the Russian State University for the Humanities published my book “Spectrum of Adequacy”, in which I tried to theoretically substantiate the multiplicity of interpretations of a literary work, emphasizing that philological science should not set as its goal the search for the only possible “correct” reading (assuming that all others will be accepted). this is “wrong”) and it is precisely this that is called “scientific”.
I tried to outline the possible boundaries of adequate readings dictated by the text itself. This was also a challenge, because at that time the epigones of the structural-semiotic approach were trying to prove the exact opposite, talking about “historicism” and defining “scientificness” in the way they would like to understand it.
I wrote this book not when official Soviet literary criticism was trying to push Lotman and his school into the far corner, but, on the contrary, when the structural-semiotic approach, perhaps, prevailed among us. Two decades late, we too could speak, in Saul Morson’s apt expression, of “semiotic totalitarianism,” which does not tolerate dissent, including scientific dissent.
Even Bakhtin came under suspicion as not quite a philologist and not quite a scientist (suffice it to recall a series of articles in the New Literary Review). I myself then worked at the Russian State University for the Humanities and tried to prove to my colleagues very obvious things: for example, that people with different scientific beliefs can work in the same department. Alas, I never succeeded.
It turned out that at the university, which declares its progressiveness and democracy, the ideas are in fact very Soviet, and every year this Sovietism grew (I even have a small feuilleton about this - “From the Higher School of the Arts to the Russian State University for the Humanities and back”), and in In 2010, I was finally “cleansed” from there.
Collectivism versus conciliarity
In the same 1995, the publishing house of Petrozavodsk University kindly invited me to publish the book “The Category of Conciliarity in Russian Literature.” If you remember, then some waited impatiently, others with fear, that the communists would take revenge. The prevailing mood was that conciliarity and collectivism are, in essence, one and the same thing.
In my book, I tried to show that Soviet collectivism and Russian Orthodox conciliarity are not only not synonymous, but have completely different genesis, that Soviet collectivism is a negation of Russian conciliarity. The book had a huge circulation for university publications of that time - three and a half thousand copies - and it was also perceived as a challenge.
Could you give your arguments from that book? Many people are still convinced that communism and Christianity have a lot in common.
There are different types of crops. A culture of individualism, where “I” is in the foreground. We consider it characteristic of the West, although in relation to the modern West this is not entirely true. The opposite of individualism is totalitarian collectivism, where there is “We” and the oppression of “I”, that is, any individuality, uniqueness, suppression of personality.
In conciliarity, the individual is not only not suppressed, but in every person, regardless of his intelligence, social status, even in a degraded tramp, I should see not a “little man”, not a derivative of the notorious “environmental conditions”, but even if damaged, but still still the image of God. Conciliarity is built on the formula “Thou art.”
The entire Orthodox culture grew on the basis of “You are”; it is thanks to “You are” that Russian classical literature is so attractive and loved in the world. Sobornost has nothing in common with collective farms, party and Komsomol meetings and other “achievements” of Soviet collectivism.
But after 70 years of persecution of Orthodoxy, few people understand what conciliarity is, including among humanities scholars. What remains are either the singers of the “Western” “I”, individualism, or the heirs of the Soviet “We” who oppose them.
And after the publication of the book “The Category of Conciliarity in Russian Literature,” my problems worsened with two powerful sociosystems within their own scientific and teaching community - those who respect the Soviet “achievements” of collectivism, and those who are at war with them, relying on the de-Christianized experience of Western intellectuals such as Roland Barthes.
The dust jacket of the book shows a model made by the artist Yuri Seliverstov, who died in 1990, when the restoration of the temple had not yet begun, and a slide of this model was provided to me by his widow Ekaterina Seliverstova. I'll try to briefly describe it. Gilded reinforced concrete fittings follow all the contours of the temple, and inside there is a small chapel.
Savva Vasilyevich Yamshchikov really liked this layout. It seems that even after the restoration of the temple, he believed that it would be better to implement Seliverstov’s project.
I understand him. There were talks about restoring the temple during Seliverstov’s lifetime, but he believed that if we restore this particular temple, so to speak, in the “same” form, we would make a big moral mistake. The point is not even that it will be a remake. By restoring the temple, we show that no matter how much we break or blow it up, everything can be built anew.
This, indeed, in my opinion, is not entirely correct in relation to memory. The building can be restored - now everyone is convinced of this - but the Bolsheviks practically destroyed the thousand-year-old Orthodox culture. Not completely, but to a large extent.
That's why I took Seliverstov's layout for the cover because it perfectly expresses the idea of the book - everything is destroyed. More precisely, almost everything. I proceed from the fact that Soviet culture is not a continuation of Russian Orthodox culture. All that remains of the great Russian culture is a small chapel - something indestructible.
As he wrote in “War and Peace,” when Moscow was practically destroyed after the fire, the soul of Moscow still remained. The soul remains, but the visible is destroyed. In the book I just wanted to show both the scale of destruction and the indestructible soul of Russia - as it appears in the pinnacle works of our literature.
The universal meaning of Forgiveness Sunday
I’ll give you an example not from literature, but from life. In 1991, my father died. At that time, the nearest temple was hundreds of kilometers away. I brought a priest. In those places, this was the first Orthodox funeral service in more than half a century, and some perceived this as my strange eccentricity. They said that I had studied to such an extent that I did not allow my father to be buried humanly - because the priest had brought him. So the Soviet government finally achieved something of its own - it darkened people’s consciousness to such an extent. And this is also an indicator of the destruction of Orthodox culture.
- How did you come to faith? Thanks to Russian literature or were there meetings or trials?
Literature, of course, also influenced my worldview, and I met deeply religious people, but the main thing was life circumstances. I won’t go into detail - this is very personal - but a real miracle happened in my life. Family and friends know about this.
- After this, did your views on philology somehow change?
For philology - no. Probably, thanks to faith, I was able to understand Russian classics more deeply, but although many call me a religious literary scholar, this very definition seems far-fetched to me.
I study philology, not religious philology. I am trying to show what Soviet literary criticism, for obvious reasons, could not show, but in doing so I use precisely the tools of literary criticism, although, along with this, I am trying to substantiate the need for new categories of philological understanding of Russian literature. Sometimes they coincide with the titles of my books.
In “Easternity of Russian Literature”, I tried to radically rethink the concept of the cultural unconscious. This book was published by the Moscow publishing house “Krug” in 2004, by which time a number of works by Orthodox authors had already appeared, in which Orthodoxy was actually likened to ideology, which for me is categorically unacceptable. So in this book I argue not only with the scylla of liberal progressivism, but also with the charybdis of dogmatic scolding.
Freud substantiates the individual unconscious, Jung - the collective, although even before Freud, Dostoevsky wrote about the significance of the unconscious in the life of the Russian people, including for Orthodox life. And I write about the cultural unconscious, highlighting the Easter and Christmas archetypes.
For example, Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy in the story “After the Ball” wanted to show the lies of the ball and thereby “expose” official life, which he considered wrong, “tear off the masks.” What happens during the ball turns out to be fake, and what happened after the ball turns out to be real.
However, I read this same story as a love story. The cultural unconscious in this case manifests itself in such a way that for Tolstoy’s narrator (and accuser) Ivan Vasilyevich his own sinfulness becomes insensitive, the fact that he cannot forgive Varenka. In relation to Varenka, Ivan Vasilyevich acts in his own way no less cruelly than the soldiers did with the escaped Tatar. After all, Varenka’s whole “fault” is that she is the daughter of a colonel.
I show that Tolstoy consciously dominates the position of the whistleblower, and the meaning of the story, a textbook story, is much deeper - the inability and unwillingness to forgive another person, and here also a loved one, leads to personal collapse, which the narrator himself, Ivan Vasilyevich, fully admits : “As you can see, it’s no good.”
This is not what Tolstoy consciously sought to show, but this is exactly what he showed. Forgiveness Sunday has not a social, but a universal meaning in Russian culture. As a result of the condemnation of another, Clean Monday did not become “clean” for Ivan Vasilyevich; he “went to a friend’s house and got completely drunk with him.”
Tolstoy himself fully allowed for such a possibility of rethinking when, for example, he wrote in the afterword to Chekhov’s story “Darling” that Chekhov consciously “intended to curse” his heroine, but “the god of poetry forbade him and ordered him to bless, and he blessed.” Using the example of the pinnacle works of Russian literature, I am trying to show how this happens. Whether it’s convincing or not, of course, is not for me to judge.
In this same book, I try to “split” what Bakhtin once called Carnival, to highlight in it the poles of foolishness, bordering on holiness, and buffoonery, concomitant with natural sin, that are different in their cultural origin.
Finally, this year the St. Petersburg publishing house “Aletheia” published what they consider to be my “final” monograph, “Russian Classics: A New Understanding.” There I present a new concept of the history of Russian literature, which is based on a description of the dominant type of Christian spirituality in Russia.
I am not talking about identifying one or another degree of religiosity of authors and their “ideology,” which, alas, some researchers are guilty of, nor about a mechanical translation of the system of Orthodox dogma onto a corpus of literary texts, but about a fundamentally different type of humanitarian understanding, which I distinguish from external “explanation”. You can say this: I consider Russian literature in the “big time” of Russian Orthodox culture.
Mutual bitterness will not lead to good
Have you taught a lot abroad? How interesting are your ideas to Western students? Did they seem politically incorrect to university management?
Maybe they did to someone. But in no Western university can anyone dictate to a professor what can and cannot be included in a course.
In addition, it is customary for us to talk about the West as something unified, but this is an unjustified generalization. Many people will be surprised, but perhaps most of all I liked working with American students. So, in Russia there is a stereotype that all Americans are stupid and ignorant. Like any stereotype, it has little to do with reality.
Perhaps I was lucky - I taught what we call graduate students. That is, my students already knew the basics and grasped many things on the fly, even if they had not previously studied Russian culture specifically. Of course, the people who signed up for my courses at an American university were probably already a little special - even before my lectures. But the degree of their interest was indeed of a completely different order than, unfortunately, the typical current student audience in the Russian Federation.
Not all of them are Christians, but if in some Russian universities students and teachers do not want to hear anything about Orthodoxy and resist attempts to introduce at least elective courses with similar topics and problems, in America and Europe people studying Russian literature do not need to prove separately that how important Orthodoxy is for understanding our culture. Some students fell in love with Russian culture so much that they subsequently converted to Orthodoxy. This makes me happy, but, of course, I didn’t specifically set such a goal for myself.
I will not idealize - there is a powerful anti-Christian current in Western Russian studies, as well as in life in general, and over the last 20 years, according to my observations, it has been intensifying. If earlier I wished all my Russian-study colleagues a Merry Christmas, now the picture is different. Will those for whom this Christmas is just a “winter holiday” be happy to receive my congratulations? But still, in the West they did not uproot this tradition as fiercely as we did.
Many of my colleagues and friends love Russian culture and are sympathetic to Orthodoxy, often without being Orthodox. I can’t help but mention such excellent Russian scholars as the Norwegians Justin Bertnes and Erik Egeberg - he is also an excellent translator of Russian poetry. There are excellent works by the Swede Per-Arne Budin, books by the Swede (and now American) Irene Masing-Delitzsch, the works of the Pole Jerzy Szokalski, the Croatian Josip Uzharevich and many, many others.
Of course, among my Russian colleagues I have like-minded people: Muscovites Boris Nikolaevich Tarasov, Vladimir Nikolaevich Zakharov, Alexander Nikolaevich Uzhankov, Galina Vladimirovna Mosaleva from Izhevsk, Lyudmila Grigorievna Dorofeeva from Kaliningrad and - also - many others.
Unfortunately, I also have to encounter a completely non-academic, but purely ideological rejection of my scientific ideas and concepts. Sometimes this is supported by administrative arbitrariness. I will give just one - out of many possible - example. At one time, the Russian State University for the Humanities refused to accept for defense the brilliant work of my doctoral student Svetlana Vsevolodovna Sheshunova, “The National Image of the World in Russian Literature” (the dissertation was later defended in Petrozavodsk).
The real reason was precisely that she considers the work of P. I. Melnikov-Pechersky in the Christian context of understanding. During the discussion, the head of the department, among other things, read out an email from the newly minted doctor of sciences, with a negative assessment of the work, which included lines about the dissertation candidate as a “practicing Christian.”
If anyone at any American university had said that a person should not be allowed to defend himself because he was a “practicing Christian,” or even hinted at it, I am sure he would have been fired on the second day. They cannot refuse to defend a dissertation for reasons unrelated to the scientific value of the work.
Alas, in our country people who call themselves liberals consider this to be the norm; on social networks they boast to each other that they cleverly “exterminated” such an “Orthodox” competitor. I have read similar liberal boasting even on the occasion of the “extermination” of unwanted graduate students - a spiritual orientation alien to them.
On the other hand, Orthodox Christians who are zealous beyond reason are also often ready to almost tear apart the “damned liberals.” In essence, both came out of the Soviet “overcoat”, hence the constant search for enemies and an incredible degree of bitterness.
This mutual bitterness and intransigence will not lead to good. It is necessary to learn at least minimal respect for other people's values. But, apparently, this path for our society will still be very, very long.
Interviewed by Leonid Vinogradov
The invention relates to polymer composite materials with high fire resistance, which can be used, for example, in aviation and space technology, as well as in various branches of construction. A fire-resistant polymer composite material contains a polymer base and a filler, wherein the polymer base is a perforated foam polymer, the pores of which are filled with a filler containing an organosilicon polymer having fire resistance in the temperature range from 200 to 700°C, a hardener, a stabilizer and a modifier. The filler may additionally contain solvent, pigments and flame retardants. To obtain the material, a pre-perforated base is filled with liquid filler at room temperature and cured. The resulting material has increased fire resistance with low filler consumption, is lightweight and efficient at high temperatures, due to which it has a wide range of applications. 2 n. and 15 salary f-ly, 2 ill., 1 tab., 14 pr.
Drawings for RF patent 2491318
The claimed group of inventions relates to fire-retardant materials that can be widely used in various branches of technology, for example, in aviation and space technology, as well as in numerous branches of construction. More specifically, this group of inventions relates to fire-resistant polymer composite materials that contain a polymer base and filler.
The prior art knows the use of polyorganosiloxane compounds to impart fire-retardant properties to coatings of various materials, for example, metal and wood. Polyorganosiloxane compounds are used as a film former in paint containing fire-resistant fillers, a pigment and an organic solvent, which additionally contains fire retardants, a dispersant, a curing initiator in the form of synthetic resins and a curing catalyst in the following ratio of components, wt.%: Polyorganosiloxane resin - 17-32 ; Curing initiator - 4-12; Curing catalyst - 0.8-2; Fire retardants - 5-17; Fire-resistant fillers - 15-40; Dispersant - 0.3-3; Pigment - 0.5-5 and Organic solvent - 15-30 (patent RU 2148605, IPC 7 C09D 5/18, C09D 183/04, published 05/10/2000).
From a large group of polyorganosiloxanes, only polymethylphenylsiloxane resin and methylphenylsiloxane resin were selected. In this case, the use of polyorganosiloxane resin is possible only as a film-forming component. The thickness of the coating with this composition, when applied in 2-3 layers, is only 25-50 microns. That is, this composition is not used as a filler for porous materials, but is used only as a means for protective and decorative painting of wooden and metal surfaces.
To cure the resin, a catalyst and curing initiator are used in the form of epoxy, polyurethane and phenol-formaldehyde resins in an amount of 4-12 wt.%. In addition, the same type of curing catalysts are used, namely: zinc basalt oleinate, zinc cobalt aleinate.
Stabilizers are not used, which leads to an increase in the rate of aging and a decrease in the durability of the composition. In addition, the absence of a stabilizer leads to separation and sedimentation of various components of the composition.
A fire-resistant polymer composite material is known, containing a polymer base and a filler containing synthetic rubber (patent RU 2430138, “Fire-resistant polymer composite material and method for its production”, IPC S09K 21/14, C08J 9/34, B32B 1/06 published 09.27.2011 g.), adopted as a prototype.
The disadvantages of this material are:
The main and significant disadvantage of these materials is that only synthetic rubbers are used as fillers;
Another significant disadvantage is that low molecular weight silicone rubbers are used for fillers;
High molecular weight organosilicon polymers, such as heat-resistant organosilicon varnishes, are not used;
No modified silicone resins are used.
The problem that is solved by creating the proposed material is to obtain lightweight fire-resistant materials that are operational at high temperatures. This is achieved by increasing the fire resistance of polymer composite materials and reducing filler consumption, which can significantly expand the scope of their application.
The solution to this problem is achieved by the fact that in a fire-resistant polymer composite material containing a perforated foam polymer as a base and a filler that fills its pores, containing an organosilicon polymer having fire resistance in the temperature range from 200 to 700 ° C, a hardener, stabilizer, solvent, pigments , flame retardants and a modifier selected from the group: alkyd, acrylic, polyester resins; cellulose ethers; acrylic acid esters; polyvinyl butyral.
As a polymer base, it is possible to use perforated foam polyethylene, perforated foam polystyrene, perforated foam polyurethane, perforated foam polypropylene, perforated foam polyvinyl chloride. It is possible to use perforated foamed natural or perforated foamed synthetic rubber as a polymer base.
The filler is organosilicon high-molecular polymers with inorganic main chains of macromolecules, which consist of alternating atoms of silicon and other elements (O, N, S, Al, Ti, etc.). Polyorganosiloxanes and polyelementorganosiloxanes can be used as fillers.
One type of filler is polyorganosiloxane, and they are selected from the group: polymethylphenylsiloxane, polydimethylphenylsiloxane, polymethylsiloxane, polyphenylsiloxane, polyethylphenylsiloxane.
Another type of fillers are polyelement organosiloxanes and they are selected from the group: polyaluminum phenyl siloxanes, polytitanophenyl siloxanes, polyaluminum organosiloxanes, polytitan organosiloxanes.
There is a known method for producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material, which includes the operation of introducing a filler into the base (patent RU 2430138
The disadvantages of this method are:
Only synthetic rubbers are used as fillers;
Narrow selection of hardeners; only hardeners containing oxime or alkoxy groups are used;
High molecular weight organosilicon polymers are not used as fillers.
The problem solved within the framework of the proposed method is to create a technologically simple sequence of operations that can be implemented within a short time and does not require the use of complex equipment.
The solution to this problem is achieved by the fact that in the method of producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material, which includes the operation of introducing a filler containing an organosilicon polymer having fire resistance in the temperature range from 200 to 700 ° C, into a polymer base, in which perforation is previously performed, providing a perforated surface area in a horizontal section within the range of 15-60 percent, prepare a liquid filler, the components of which are taken in the following ratio (in wt.%):
the volume of perforations is filled with liquid filler at room temperature until a composite material density of 0.25-1.0 g/cm 3 is obtained, then the composite material is cured for 20-26 hours, and the modifier is selected from the group: alkyd, acrylic, polyester resins; cellulose ethers; acrylic acid esters; polyvinyl butyral.
The hardener can be selected from the group: alkoxysilanes; solutions of organotin compounds in orthosilicic acid esters; aminoorganotriethoxysilane with tetrabutoxytitanium; aminoorganoalkoxysilanes.
As a solvent, it is possible to use aromatic hydrocarbons selected from the group: benzene, methylbenzene, vinylbenzene; and mixtures thereof with ethers and esters selected from the group: diethyl ether, ethyl acetate, methyl formate, diethyl sulfate; ketones selected from the group: propanone, butanone, benzophenone; or alcohols selected from the group: methanol, ethanol, propanol.
Active silicon oxide - aerosil - can be used as a stabilizer. Colloidal silicon dioxide acts as a stabilizer, preventing sedimentation of pigments or fire retardants and increasing the physical and mechanical properties of the filler. The introduction of aerosil allows one to avoid separation and settling of various components of the mixture, stabilizing the filler. The stabilizer reduces the rate of aging of the filler, thereby increasing the durability of the fire-resistant polymer composite material.
The following can be used as a fire retardant: magnesium oxide (MgO); calcium oxide (CaO); aluminum oxide hydrate (boehmite); natural graphite; aluminosilicates (kaolin, glauconite).
The following pigments can be used: aluminum powder;
titanium oxides; red iron oxide; cadmium red; chromium and cobalt compounds.
Modified organosilicon polymers acquire a number of valuable properties. For example, polymers containing aromatic radicals provide higher heat resistance and at the same time reduce the elasticity of the filler in the material. Additions of ethylcellulose or acrylic resin produce filler that cures at room temperature.
The use of modified organosilicon polymers makes it possible to obtain a heat-resistant layer using the conventional pouring method, for example, with a depth of up to 5-10 mm.
Thus, the invention is a technologically simple method that does not require the use of complex equipment for producing lightweight fire-resistant materials with high fire resistance.
Figure 1 shows a diagram of operations for implementing the proposed method.
Figure 2 shows a photograph of the “Plasmatron” experimental installation, in which air was used as the working fluid, and the plasma temperature in the jet core was approximately 5800°C.
The sequence of operations for producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material is shown in Fig.1. To obtain such a material of the declared composition and structure, a ready-made foamed polymer material is selected, for example, in the form of a sheet. Perforation is carried out in advance, in various ways, for example, those indicated in the prototype patent. The perforated surface area in the horizontal section of the workpiece is in the range of 15-60 percent. At the same time or in advance, a filler is prepared containing an organosilicon polymer with fire resistance in the temperature range from 200 to 700°C, intended for filling perforation volumes. The filler contains the following ingredients (in wt.%):
the perforation volumes of the foamed polymer material are filled with liquid filler until the density of the composite material is 0.25-1.0 g/cm 3 . Filling can be done using the usual pouring method. After filling the perforation volumes, the workpiece is kept at room temperature for 20-26 hours (depending on the composition of the filler), and the modifier is selected from the group: alkyd, acrylic, polyester resins; cellulose ethers; acrylic acid esters; polyvinyl butyral.
After the filler has cured, a finished sheet of fire-resistant polymer composite material is obtained.
In order to determine fire resistance when exposed to high heat flows, experimental studies of the fire resistance of the proposed fire-resistant polymer composite materials were carried out. These studies were carried out on the experimental installation “Plasmatron”, shown in Figure 2.
Air was used as the working fluid. The plasma temperature in the jet core is approximately 5800°C, which makes it possible to simulate the effects of high-energy heat sources on various fire-resistant polymer composite materials over a wide range. The lifetime of plasma with stable parameters is more than 20 minutes, which is quite enough to conduct a wide range of studies. During the test, the optimal operating mode of the installation was selected. The time of plasma exposure to the materials under study was strictly recorded in all experiments and was 60 seconds. A study of the temperature field in a plasma jet was carried out for a cross section coinciding with the surface of the material sample under study.
With a heat flow of q=0.86×10 6 W/m 2 the average integral temperature of the jet was T s =1977°C.
Temperature parameters were measured in the experiments using chromel-alumel thermocouples. One thermocouple was installed at half the thickness of the sample, and the second thermocouple was embedded into the metal substrate of the sample. The metal substrate of the sample was made of an aluminum-magnesium alloy.
Fire resistance studies were carried out in comparison: the proposed fire-resistant polymer composite materials and those already tested (patent RU 2430138, “Fire-resistant polymer composite material and method for its production”, IPC S09K 21/14, C08J 9/34, B32B 1/06 published 09.27.2011 G.).
Samples of the materials under study were installed in a special heat-resistant cassette and additionally insulated with sheet asbestos and asbestos fabric with a special heat-resistant coating.
Fire-resistant polymer composite materials were selected from the materials, namely:
Polyvinyl chloride foam PPVC-VP1 is a fire-resistant polymer composite material based on PPVC-0 with perforation to a depth of 2.5 mm. Filler based on polymethylphenylsiloxane resin and acrylic acid ester;
Porous rubber PR-VP1 is a fire-resistant polymer composite material based on PR-0 with perforation to a depth of 2.5 mm. Filler based on polymethylphenylsiloxane resin and acrylic acid ester;
Expanded polystyrene PPS-VP is a fire-resistant polymer composite material based on PPS-0 with perforation to a depth of 2.5 mm. Filler based on polyphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin;
Polyethylene foam PPE-VP is a fire-resistant polymer composite material based on PPE-0 with perforation to a depth of 2.5 mm. Filler based on polyphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin;
Polypropylene foam PPP-AVP is a fire-resistant polymer composite material based on PPP-0 with perforation to a depth of 2.5 mm. Filler: polyaluminumphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin;
Polypropylene foam PPP-VP is a fire-resistant polymer composite material based on PPP-0 with perforation to a depth of 2.5 mm. Filler polyphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin;
Polyurethane foam PPU-AVP is a fire-resistant polymer composite material based on TsPU-306 with perforation to a depth of 2.5 mm. Filler: polyaluminumphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin;
Polyurethane foam PPU-VP is a fire-resistant polymer composite material based on TsPU-306 with perforation to a depth of 2.5 mm. Filler polyphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin;
The comparison was carried out with already tested materials in the prototype patent and proposed new fire-resistant polymer composite materials,
For example - “PPU-VP polyurethane foam”. This is a fire-resistant polymer composite material obtained using the proposed method. The sample thickness was 15 mm. During the manufacture of the sample, the polymer base was perforated to a depth of 2.5 mm, followed by filling the resulting volumes with a modified organosilicon polymer. In this case, it is a mixture of a solution of polyphenylsiloxane resin in toluene and a solution of polybutyl acrylate resin (modifier) in a mixture of acetone, ethyl acetate and butyl acetate. The amount of introduced modified organosilicon polymer was selected based on obtaining a density of the impregnated layer equal to 0.3-0.35 g/cm 3 . To tighten the test conditions, pigments and fire retardants were not used in the filler. The polyurethane foam material PPU-306 was subjected to perforation.
It should be noted that all fire-resistant polymer materials with a filler containing an organosilicon polymer proposed for experimental research were subjected to perforation to a depth of only 2.5 mm - this is 2 times less than that of the materials of the prototype patent.
The results of experimental studies of the fire resistance of polymer composite materials are given in the table.
| Fire resistance of polymer composite materials | |||||
| Item no. | Polymer composite material, base type | Filler, base and modifier | Heat flow exposure time in seconds | Metal substrate temperature, °C | |
| 1 | SKTN | 35 | 300 | ||
| PPVC-SN - prototype data | |||||
| 2 | Polyvinyl chloride foam (PPVC-0 base) | 41 | 300 | ||
| PPVC-VP1 | |||||
| 3 | SKTN | 39 | 300 | ||
| PR-SN - prototype data | |||||
| 4 | Porous rubber (base PR-0) | polymethylphenylsiloxane resin and acrylic acid ester | 46 | 300 | |
| PR-VP1 | |||||
| 5 | Expanded polystyrene (PPS-0 base) | SKTN | 42 | 300 | |
| PPS-SN - prototype data | |||||
| 6 | Expanded polystyrene (base PPS-0) PPS-VP | 50 | 300 | ||
| 7 | SKTN | 45 | 300 | ||
| PPE-SN - prototype data | |||||
| 8 | Polyethylene foam (base PPE-0) | polyphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin | 56 | 300 | |
| PPE-VP | |||||
| 9 | Stirosil | 55 | 300 | ||
| PPP-S - prototype data | |||||
| 10 | Polypropylene foam (base PPP-0) | 60 | 272 | ||
| PPP-WUA | |||||
| 11 | Polypropylene foam (base PPP-0) | polyphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin | 60 | 263 | |
| PPP-VP | |||||
| 12 | Stirosil | 60 | 42 | ||
| PPU-NP - prototype data | |||||
| 13 | Polyurethane foam (base PPU-306) | Polyaluminumphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin | 60 | 39 | |
| PPU-AVP | |||||
| 14 | Polyurethane foam (base PPU-306) | polyphenylsiloxane resin and polybutyl acrylate resin | 60 | 36 | |
| PPU-VP | |||||
Consideration of the results of experimental studies makes it possible to draw the following conclusions:
1. Polymer composite materials (tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) have satisfactory fire resistance to high-energy heat flow. By the time t=35-50 seconds, the temperature of the metal substrate reaches 300°C.
2. Polymer composite materials (items 8, 9, 10, 11 tables) have good fire resistance to high-energy heat flow.
By the time t=55-60 seconds, the temperature of the metal substrate reaches 263,300°C
4. Polymer composite materials (items 12, 13, 14 of tables) have high fire resistance to high-energy heat flow. By the time t=60 seconds, the temperature of the metal substrate reaches 36–42°C
5. Polyurethane foam PGTU-VP with perforation of the material to a depth half as great as that of the prototype material, and subsequent filling of the resulting volumes with silicone polymer, has the highest fire resistance to the effects of high-energy heat flow (item 14). At time t=60 seconds, the temperature of the metal substrate is only 36°C. This is the lowest level of experimentally observed metal substrate temperatures for all types of fire-resistant polymer composite materials tested under high-intensity heat sources. Low Density Combination<1 г/см 3 и низкого коэффициента теплопроводности =0,024-0,035 Вт/м К являются одним из главных преимуществ и достоинств огнестойких полимерных композиционных материалов у которых полимерной основой является перфорированный вспененный полимер, а наполнителем кремнийорганический полимер, обладающий огнестойкостью в диапазоне температур 200-700°C.
The results of the tests show the industrial applicability of the proposed fire-resistant polymer composite material and the method for its production.
CLAIM
1. A fire-resistant polymer composite material containing a perforated foamed polymer as a base and a filler filling its pores, characterized in that the pores are filled with a filler containing an organosilicon polymer having fire resistance in the temperature range from 200 to 700°C, a hardener, a stabilizer and a modifier , selected from the group: alkyd, acrylic, polyester resins; cellulose ethers; acrylic acid esters; polyvinyl butyral.
2. Fire-resistant polymer composite material according to claim 1, characterized in that the filler additionally contains a solvent, pigments and fire retardants.
3. Fire-resistant polymer composite material according to claim 1, characterized in that the polymer base is perforated polyethylene foam.
4. Fire-resistant polymer composite material of claim 1, characterized in that the polymer base is perforated polystyrene foam.
5. Fire-resistant polymer composite material of claim 1, characterized in that the polymer base is perforated polyurethane foam.
6. Fire-resistant polymer composite material of claim 1, characterized in that the polymer base is perforated polypropylene foam.
7. Fire-resistant polymer composite material of claim 1, characterized in that the polymer base is perforated foamed polyvinyl chloride.
8. Fire-resistant polymer composite material of claim 1, characterized in that the polymer base is perforated foamed synthetic rubber.
9. Fire-resistant polymer composite material of claim 1, characterized in that the polymer base is perforated foamed natural rubber.
10. Fire-resistant polymer composite material of claim 1, characterized in that the filler contains polyorganosiloxanes and they are selected from the group: polymethylphenylsiloxane, polydimethylphenylsiloxane, polymethylsiloxane, polyphenylsiloxane, polyethylphenylsiloxane.
11. Fire-resistant polymer composite material of claim 1, characterized in that the filler contains polyelement organosiloxanes, and they are selected from the group: polyaluminum phenyl siloxanes, polytitanophenyl siloxanes, polyaluminum organosiloxanes, polytitan organosiloxanes.
12. A method for producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material, including the operation of introducing a filler containing an organosilicon polymer having fire resistance in the temperature range from 200 to 700°C into a polymer base in which perforation is pre-perforated, providing a perforated surface area in a horizontal section within 15 -60%, characterized in that a liquid filler is prepared, the components of which are taken in the following ratio, wt.%:
the volume of perforations is filled with liquid filler at room temperature until a composite material density of 0.25-1.0 g/cm 3 is obtained, then the composite material is cured for 20-26 hours, and the modifier is selected from the group: alkyd, acrylic, polyester resins; cellulose ethers; acrylic acid esters; polyvinyl butyral.
13. A method for producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material according to claim 12, characterized in that the hardener is selected from the group: alkoxysilanes; solutions of organotin compounds in orthosilicic acid esters; aminoorganotriethoxysilane with tetrabutoxytitanium; aminoorganoalkoxysilanes.
14. A method for producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material according to claim 12, characterized in that aromatic hydrocarbons and their mixtures with ethers and esters, ketones, and alcohols are used as a solvent.
15. A method for producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material according to claim 12, characterized in that active silicon oxide is used as a stabilizer.
16. A method for producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material according to claim 12, characterized in that the fire retardant is selected from the group: magnesium oxide; calcium oxide; alumina hydrate; natural graphite; aluminosilicates.
17. A method for producing a fire-resistant polymer composite material according to claim 12, characterized in that the pigment is selected from the group: aluminum powder, titanium oxide, red iron oxide, red cadmium, chromium or cobalt compounds.
) - Russian philologist. Specialist in the field of literary theory, poetics, history of Russian literature, and methodology of humanitarian research.
Doctor of Philological Sciences (1996), Professor (1998). Author of 9 monographs and approx. 300 scientific articles. Member of the Russian Academic Group in the USA and the International Dostoevsky Society. Awarded the Golden Pushkin Medal for his contribution to the development of Russian philology. Laureate of the Bunin Prize for Literature (2016).
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 1
Speech by Esaulov I.A.
Subtitles
Biography
Born on July 7, 1960 in Siberia. In 1983 he graduated from Kemerovo State University. He defended his candidate's dissertation at Moscow State University in 1989, his doctorate at Moscow State Pedagogical University in 1996. The title of professor was awarded in 1998. In 1992-2010. worked at the Department of Theoretical and Historical Poetics of the Russian State University for the Humanities, and at the same time taught for 5 years at the Department of Russian Literature of the Petrozavodsk State University. university. Before that, he taught (since 1984) at Kemerovo and Novosibirsk universities. In 2001-2005 At the same time he worked at the State Academy of Slavic Culture (GASK) as vice-rector. Since 2011, head of the department of theory and history of literature at the Russian Orthodox University of St. John the Theologian, since 2012 professor at the Literary Institute named after. A.M. Gorky and director of the Center for Literary Studies of the Russian Polytechnic University.
Scientific activity
I. A. Esaulov is developing new theoretical principles for constructing the history of Russian literature and new approaches to the interpretation of literary texts. He was the chairman of the organizing committee and organizer of a number of large-scale international conferences. Rep. editor of the publication “Post-symbolism as a cultural phenomenon” (1995 -). His scientific projects have been repeatedly supported by scientific grants (RGNF, RFBR and others). He traveled abroad several times as a visiting professor. He taught at famous universities in the USA, France, Norway, and also worked at scientific foundations in Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and the USA. In addition to works in Russian, he has also published in English (Cambridge, Oxford, London), Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Bulgarian, and Chinese. Book reviews were published in the USA, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Croatia, Japan and other countries.
Bibliography
Monographs
- Aesthetic analysis of a literary work (“Mirgorod” by N.V. Gogol). - Kemerovo, Kemerovo State University, 1991.
- "Cavalry" by Isaac Babel. - M.: Publishing House of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 1993. (co-authored with G. A. Bela and E. A. Dobrenko).
- Spectrum of adequacy in the interpretation of a literary work: “Mirgorod” by N. V. Gogol. - M.: Publishing House of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 1995.<2 изд. - 1997>.