Аннотация: What is the difference between a writer and a writer? Culturological essay
What is the difference between a writer and a writer? Culturological essay
Heinrich Schliemann lived in Russia for about 20 years.
Why does Russia need Heinrich Schliemann?
Take for example a school student. What does modern reality offer him for planning and modeling his future life?
Somehow you will not immediately answer this question.
There are probably simple tips in the style of 'to straighten the fence', 'to sweep the yard' or 'to sign a contract and to take a mortgage loan'. The simplicity of these tips is as their strength, so and their weakness.
There are more complex logical constructs.
Lets take the most harmless. "To participate in the the "Olympiades" [competitions of the increased level] for school students." After the incident with a young genius who invited relatives with him, you feel at least careful when such advice appears. I do not continue the thought further - out of caution. But, still better without such invitations ... And what, to sit at home? - to be under eyes and under control of the own family?
However, often, the complex things turn out to be simple.
For centuries, education was built on samples. Getting acquainted with a variety of biographies, a person tried to draw up a plan project for his own life.
The strength of the biography of Heinrich Schliemann is that he
1) a clearly successful person,
2) the conditions of his life in his youth are approximately the same as those of most people, or even worse.
3) he made himself (self made man).
Baron Munchausen. He pulled himself by the hair from the swamp. Only he is not fabulous, but a real. But he 'stole' the treasures from the Sultan.
We will name some qualities of Heinrich Schliemann: perseverance, systematic ability, the ability to learn and to work hard, plan your life ... Many strong, positive, useful qualities ...
Allegedly, one of the modern people who was part of the 'circle' of a famous politician (already deceased) issued an aphorism: 'people in Russia are doomed to be unhappy.'
I will neither agree with this maxim nor will refute it. I only note that Heinrich Schliemann actively did not want to be an unhappy person.
In general, he is a person with an interesting biography and acquaintance with her is useful for a variety of people.
So, Russia needs Henry Schliemann. And the inhabitants of Russia are not doomed to be unhappy. At least - Heinrich Schliemann, a resident of Russia and a subject of the Russian Empire.
But how can residents of Russia learn about the biography of Heinrich Schliemann?
A general ideas can to be known, although very rough, thanks to the films. One of the films, 'Treasure of Troy' (2007), was made with great sympathy for Heinrich Schliemann. Although the plot of the film largely 'deviates' from the real biography of the protagonist, but at the same time, the film contains several accurate psychological interpretations of the events of the life of Heinrich Schliemann.
Books on Heinrich Schliemann can provide much more information for interested parties.
I will not talk about hostile and ambiguous books about Schliemann.
The historical truth is a complex thing. One of the participants in the Great Patriotic War (artilleryman) told how he, at the request of some infantryman, helped him to 'transfer' to artillery (there were significantly more chances of surviving in artillery unit). For a loaf of bread, the artilleryman showed the infantryman how to care for the horses. Just on the artillery battery, the shortage of soldiers was. People who could to care for the horses were needed, and, thanks to the "accelerated training course", the infantryman managed to become an artilleryman.
Depending on the point of view reading this story, you can take note, or you can raise this theme and to start lecturing about a cowardice, a fraud, a dishonesty, etc.
Hostile and ambiguous books about Heinrich Schliemann are used for the production of moral lectures and moral accusations. They are using such subjects of his life as a divorce, as obtaining American citizenship, as the removing of some archaeological values from the control of the Ottoman Empire...
If you understand the context of his life, then all these accusations and trapping seem ridiculous.
Liars, swindlers, and looters are engaged in fraud. And they do not conduct archaeological excavations in the cold (at freezing temperatures and piercing winds) and in forty-degree heat (suffering from malaria at the same time), do not write books, do not arrange exhibitions and conferences, and they do not spend the own personal money for all this things and events...
So, let's turn to the positive books about Heinrich Schliemann.
Among these books, one can distinguish, firstly, the books by Igor Bogdanov (five books; the quantity can be corrected upwards). And, secondly, the book (in the singular) by Alexander Gavrilov.
In general, it's clear that these are different authors, and that these different authors have written different books.
But comparing formally, you come to the conclusion that both authors are educated, cultured people. Books are written in good faith.
How interesting can their books be to a wide readership? A difficult question ... Personally, I was interested to read them. But I read, focusing on the details of the biography of Heinrich Schliemann.
But if you return to the question: 'Does Russia need Henry Schliemann?', then in this case you begin to find the difference between the authors and between the books.
Book by A.K. Gavrilov is to a greater extent the conscientious scientific work. There are many interesting and valuable biographical finds in this book. For example, a certificate compiled by the German Embassy in St. Petersburg is mentioned. The certificate was necessary before some official actions of the German authorities and the Berlin administration regarding Heinrich Schliemann and his Trojan collection. What if Heinrich Schliemann is a criminal element?
As follows from the reference, the official authorities of Russia had no official complaints against Heinrich Schliemann. This certificate discredits speculative defamation of Heinrich Schliemann, who was engaged in the supply of materials for the military needs of the imperial army of Russia during the Crimean War of 1853-1856.
Due to the blockade imposed by the Allies, materials were delivering to ports controlled by Prussia, and across the border (were there any facts of smuggling? Were there no facts of smuggling?) were delivering to Russia.
Russia, for example, needed a lead (metal) for wage war. And Russia paid money for lead and other supplies. And not only for the lead itself, but also for its delivery.
Perhaps the problem could be solved differently ... But these questions - to Heinrich Schliemann? You may deliver. If you can, from another country in the conditions of the blockade ... for free ...
Pointless deepening in the details.
One way or another, the official authorities of Russia did not have official complaints against Heinrich Schliemann.
Yes, this certificate is an interesting document, and the book by A.K. Gavrilov is an information-rich book. But I suppose that not everyone will read her completely. And who is "everything"? Her announced circulation is not large (600 copies).
But, however, the books of I.A. Bogdanova is also information rich.
Bogdanov worked in the archives.
But perhaps A.K. Gavrilov worked in the archives. If not himself, then helpers. Judging by the book, it can be assumed that A.K. Gavrilov is an employee of the Academy of Sciences system. In any case, he is an employee of the official scientific and educational system (to write in quotes or without quotes? In this case, I will write without quotes - out of respect for A.K. Gavrilov). In the book by A.K. Gavrilov archives are mentioned - for example, the letters of an officer-Schliemann, a military serviceman of the Russian imperial army during the First World War (apparently, one of the descendants of Heinrich Schliemann), which are in the archive.
Books are informative. Authors are literate.
And yet, the difference is felt.
Perhaps the key to understanding the difference is in the actions of I.A. Bogdanov on the installation of the memorial plaque to Heinrich Shlieman (the situation is described by Igor Alekseevich Bogdanov himself. In the book by Alexander Konstantinovich Gavrilov is a photograph of the plaque).
Igor Bogdanov 'found' the fund that paid for the design, the project, the production of the memorial plaque, organized work on the project, was engaged in formalities, and contributed to the manufacture of the plaque. Finally, when it was made, he arranged for the delivery of the board up to the house where Heinrich Schliemann lived. Then he 'organized' a hoisting crane and, with the help of volunteers, set up a board.
Metaphorically speaking, I.A. Bogdanov stood next to Heinrich Schliemann. And he went with him.
A.K. Gavrilov wrote about Heinrich Schliemann - which is also important. In any case, for those who are interested in the biography of Heinrich Schliemann.
In general, to went with a successful person is not bad in itself.
Was I.A. Bogdanov a successful person?
And what is the opinion of the success of A.K. Gavrilov?
"People in Russia are doomed to be ...".
Heinrich Schliemann was a useful person and lived a useful and successful life. And persons, who could to 'promote' Heinrich Schliemann in Russia and in the world (as I.A. Bogdanov did it), they would be very useful ...
So ... there are writers (a cultural leaders) and writers (professionals in a literature sphere, literary scholars, scientists). In circle of which writers to include (and is there any reason for such an action?) of I.A. Bogdanov and A.K. Gavrilov - I leave this issue for consideration of literature lovers.
October 10, 2019 20:46
Translation from Russian into English: October 11, 2019 09:16.
Владимир Владимирович Залесский 'Чем отличается писатель от писателя? Культурологический очерк'.