The Russian medievalist Dmitry Sergeyevich Likhachov (1906–1999) is generally considered, both in his own country and abroad, as the foremost specialist in Old Russian Literature. Like many intellectuals he suffered during the times of Stalin (arrested in 1928, he spent three years in the Solovki Camp in the far North and worked for a year as a convict digging the notorious Belomor Canal), but succeeded, when allowed to return to St. Petersburg (at that time Leningrad), in securing a post at the University of St. Petersburg and gradually becoming an outstanding, internationally respected scholar. In the course of his academic career he received honorary doctorates from, among others, the universities of Oxford, Edinburgh, Bordeaux, Siena and Prague. Among his numerous publications are books that offer penetrating insights into Old Russian culture and throw light on hitherto unknown or unobserved aspects of this culture.¹

In 1973 Likhachov published Razvitie russkoi literatury X-XVII vekov. Epokhi i stili (The Development of Russian Literature from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Century. Epochs and Styles (Leningrad: Nauka)). He wrote this book to demonstrate that Russian literature, from its beginnings in the tenth century,² was connected with Europe and not with Asia, as many 19th- and 20th-century Russian scholars contended.Reference Weststeijn³ However, in his effort to describe the development of Russian literature during the first seven centuries of its existence, he realized that there were correspondences, but, owing to historical circumstances, also substantial differences between the cultural developments in Russia and those in Southern and Western Europe. No other European country, for instance was subjected to the so-called Mongol yoke for some 150 years (1200–1350) and no other country remained, at least in its own view, the ‘defender of true Christianity’ after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (Moscow as the ‘third Rome’ becoming an important feature of state and church ideology).

In his introduction to The Development of Russian Literature, Likhachov wrote that there cannot be any description of literary history without some theoretical generalization. Such a generalization can be the division of the material in chapters, periodization, the subsumption of a literary work under a period or genre, the choice of the material itself and much else. The seven centuries of Old Russian Literature have often been studied achronologically, in the first place because it is often difficult to determine in which period, let alone in which year, a certain work has been written, in the second place because some important genres, such as the saint's life or the historical chronicle did not change much during all these centuries. The development of medieval literature, Likhachov notes, was much slower than in later periods, as both writers and readers were not interested in originality and novelty per se. Literature hardly ‘moved’. Despite these obstacles to a thorough and convincing chronological description of Old Russian literature, Likhachov opts for a division of this literature in periods. He distinguishes four of them: the epoch of monumental historicism (10th to 13th century), Pre-Renaissance (14th and 15th centuries), the epoch of the second monumentalism (16th century) and the period of transition to the literature of the new times (17th century).

The most conspicuous feature of Likhachov's periodization of Old Russian literature is the absence of the Renaissance, a movement that plays an important role in the cultural development of almost all European nations.Reference Konrad⁴ In consequence of an all-powerful, conservative state, which nipped every possible cultural renewal in the bud, Russian Pre-Renaissance could not develop into real Renaissance, many aspects of which Russia realized only in the 18th century.

Interesting as Likhachov's remarks on the development of Old Russian literature might be,⁵ much more important for the present discussion is what he has to say about the general development of European culture. In the fifth and final chapter of The Development of Russian Literature, entitled ‘Baroque in Russian Literature of the Seventeenth Century’, he discusses the main periods and styles that are usually mentioned in connection with the various stages in European culture: Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Classicism, Romanticism, Realism. One of Likhachov's first remarks is that one may discern a general acceleration in the succession of styles: Romanesque art stretches over half a millennium, from the sixth to the 12th century; Gothic art, which evolved from the Romanesque in the middle of the 12th century lasted approximately three centuries, the Renaissance (14th and 15th centuries) two centuries, Baroque 150 years (at its height in the middle of the 17th century), Classicism somewhat more than a century, Romanticism half a century.

These main styles and movements are generally considered to be equal as regards their stature and importance, as they are just names for successive styles and periods. According to Likhachov, however, styles may be different in various respects: a style may be confined to only some of the arts, but sometimes it includes all the arts or even the entire culture. A style may, or may not be concerned with social milieu or ideology. Styles are different in their structure and in their historical roles.

One of Likhachov's original observations is that the development of styles is asymmetric. This asymmetry manifests itself in the fact that each style gradually changes from relative simplicity into complexity; the return from complexity into simplicity, however, is not gradual, but the result of a kind of leap. Accordingly, the alternation of styles is different: there is a slow movement from a simple style to a complex one, and a much more sudden change from a complex style into a simple one. This is, Likhachov argues, a logical development. When a style has exhausted all its possibilities and has become petrified, repeating again and again the same formal devices, the new style, which puts an end to this fossilization, has to start rather suddenly.Reference Tynyanov⁶

Likhachov illustrates his idea by discussing the development from Romanesque into Gothic and from Gothic into Renaissance. The Romanesque style gradually, in the course of 100 years (from the middle of the 12th to the middle of the 13th century), changes into Gothic. This change from ‘simple’ to ‘complex’ takes place in both styles: late Romanesque is close to early Gothic (the cathedral of Ely near Cambridge, for instance) and late Gothic is rather different from early Gothic in consequence of its greater complexity. Whereas the development from Romanesque into Gothic is very slow, the change from (late) Gothic into Renaissance is much quicker, as the latter movement offers an entirely new world-view and a new philosophy of life, together with many technical discoveries and innovations.

In the Renaissance we see the same development as in all the styles: it starts simply, but gradually becomes more complex; by way of Mannerism, the last phase of the Renaissance and which is much more complex than the early Renaissance,⁷ Renaissance slowly changes into Baroque. Baroque, in its turn, ends in the richly decorative Rococo, just as the Renaissance ended in Mannerism, and is succeeded by the entirely new style of Classicisim; Classicism gradually (through Sentimentalism) changes into Romanticism.

The gradual change from Romanesque into Gothic, from Renaissance into Baroque and from Classicism into Romanticism is the change from one style into a style that is its opposite, but that has to be considered a ‘secondary’ style, as it gradually develops from a ‘primary’ style. Its secondary quality manifests itself in the increase of decorativeness, in the inclination to irrationalism and in the possibility to ‘serve’ various, even opposite ideologies. In the secondary styles of Gothic, Baroque and Romanticism there is, particularly in their later phases, the tendency to let the form dominate the content; there is, generally, more formalization than in the primary styles, and a much looser connection with a dominant ideology. In the Baroque, for instance, we see artistic forms that support the Counter-Reformation, but also forms that express the more progressive movements of that epoch. Romanticism can be both conservative and make a plea for ultimate freedom. In general, one can say, secondary styles are more complex than primary ones.

Styles and movements, Likhachov maintains, are not self-contained, independent and unrepeatable, but always return to former styles that resemble them. The primary style of the Renaissance returns to Antiquity, the next primary style, Classicism, to Antiquity and the Renaissance; the secondary style of Baroque inclines to Gothic, Romanticism to both Baroque and Gothic. This does not mean that there are only two styles, as, for instance, Ernst Robert Curtius claims in his well-known book Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter (1969).Reference Curtius⁸ Curtius distinguishes Classicism (as a kind of primary style) and Mannerism (as a secondary one) and considers the development of European culture as a continual alternation of these movements. Other scholars, influenced by Curtius, see this alternation as a kind of swing between a ‘classical’ and a ‘romantic’ style.Reference Chizhevsky⁹ Like Curtius, they generally emphasize the repetitive elements and pay less attention to the real development of culture, which, according to Likhachov, is always closely connected with social changes.¹⁰

In his theory of literary history, Likhachov distinguishes a number of so-called ‘megaperiods’, each of which consists of a primary and secondary period or style: Romanesque – Gothic, Renaissance – Baroque, Classicism – Romanticism. The next megaperiod would start with Realism, but according to Likhachov Realism in its entirety cannot be considered a dominant style, as within Realism there exist a great number of different individual styles, so that it cannot develop into a new secondary style. The appearance of Realism, he maintains, naturally completes the alternation of great styles.

Likhachov's arguments to consider Realism as a different movement or style from the previous great styles seem to be rather weak and have been criticized by various younger scholars, in the first place his pupil Igor Smirnov. In two extensive articles, published in the journal Russian Literature and written together with his wife, the German slavist Renate Döring-Smirnova,Reference Döring and Smirnov¹¹ and in his later book Metaistoriia,¹² Smirnov easily extends Likhachov's theory of European cultural development beyond the period of Realism. He convincingly argues that from the primary style of Realism did originate a new secondary style: Symbolism. As fits a secondary style, the development of Symbolism was rather slow (in France it started in 1857, when Baudelaire, widely considered as the founder of Symbolism, published his Les fleurs du mal;Reference Smirnov¹³ at that time Émile Zola, the founder of Realism's last phase, Naturalism, had not even written his first novel) and it did not dominate European culture for a long time, reaching its height during the fin-de siècle (approximately from 1880–1910).

After the megaperiod Realism–Symbolism, the next megaperiod to be considered is Modernism–Postmodernism, with Modernism being the dominant movement in the first half of the 20th century, and Postmodernism in the second half. Smirnov did not discuss the development of culture after the period of Modernism, but it is not difficult to ascertain that Postmodernism gradually developed from Modernism and that we are living now, in the beginning of the 20th century, in a new cultural period, Postmodernism clearly having passed its summit. The name of this new cultural period has not been established, but it will certainly give expression to one or more important cultural features of our time, such as globalization, multiculturalism and/or the revolutionary changes brought about by the computer industry, resulting in the rapid development of the new media and numerous new discoveries in, for instance, astronomy and gene biology.¹⁴

In many discussions about cultural periods and movements Symbolism is not seen as a separate movement, but placed within Modernism as its first phase. It is, of course, possible, to call important representatives of Symbolism, such as Verlaine and, particularly, Mallarmé, ‘modernists’, but to deny the existence of a separate movement between the primary movements of Realism and Modernism is to shut one's eye to the culture of the fin-de-siècle, which definitely differs from both the preceding and the succeeding periods. Symbolism, which is mainly used in literary studies, is, perhaps, not the most apt term for the culture of the fin-de-siècle, but this culture, however relatively briefly it may have existed, deserves at any rate its own name. Its typical features may be better established in art and in artistic life in general than in Symbolism as a literary movement.

According to Likhachov's theory, a primary style gradually develops into a secondary one, whereas a secondary style much more suddenly changes into a primary one. Moreover, a secondary style is in many respects the opposite of the preceding primary one and is more inclined to formal devices and decoration. As regards the period of the fin-de-siècle, this theory perfectly lines up with the facts. A crucial difference between Symbolism and Realism is the way in which the representatives of the movements looked at reality. For the Realists, reality meant the surrounding world that could be grasped with the senses, the ‘really’ existing world. For the Symbolists, this ‘real’ world was not important. Starting from Baudelaire's programmatic poem ‘Correspondances’ (‘La Nature est un temple où de vivant piliers/Laissent parfois sortir de confuses paroles;/L'homme y passe à travers des forêts de symboles/Qui l'observent avec des regards familiers.’), they tried to suggest and to reach a ‘higher’ world, of which visible reality was only a shadow (symbol). Hence the predominance of abstract words and sound figures in Symbolist poetry (cf. Verlaine's dictum ‘De la musique avant toute chose’). Modernism is not concerned with this ‘double’ world.

Another typical feature of the ‘secondary’ fin-de-siècle culture is its ornamental art, which reached its height in the style of the Art Nouveau or Jugendstil. Art Nouveau is characterized by curved, undulating lines that often take the form of flowers (in Italy the style was called Stile Floreale), vine-tendrils and other sinuous objects. The style is delicate and graceful, in harmony with the ‘decadentism’ of the time (the French Symbolist poets and their contemporaries in England and Russia were often called the ‘Decadents’; the poets of Italian ‘Decadentismo’ reacted against the rationalism of ‘Realist’ Positivism and stressed subjectivism and irrationalism).

There are great differences between Realism and Symbolism, but the differences between Symbolism and Modernism are not less important and, owing to the change from a secondary to a primary movement, rather sudden and drastic. Following Smirnov, who just extends Likhachov's theory to the cultural periods after Realism, Modernism starts around 1910, when Avant-Garde movements in literature, art and music bring about a radical, unprecedented change in European (and American) culture. Characteristic for all the Avant-Garde movements is the decided break with tradition and the search for entirely new aesthetic experiences. Despite the great variety of, and even within, these movements, which include Cubism, Fauvism, Suprematism, Futurism, Expressionism, Surrealism, De Stijl, Bauhaus and many others, they can all be considered a response to the new age of the 20th century, with its ‘discovery’ of the unconscious, its rapid (cars, aeroplanes) technological development, its doubts as regards traditional values (also the result of the First World War) and its increasing awareness of non-Western cultures.¹⁵

Modernism and Postmodernism forming one megaperiod, the change from Modernism into Postmodernism is much more gradual than the change from Symbolism into Modernism (fin-de-siècle into Avant-Garde). A strict dividing-line between the two movements does not exist; artists and writers may even become representatives of both movements.¹⁶ In general, Postmodernism can be characterized as much more playful than ‘serious’ Modernism. In architecture, after the mechanical functionalism of Le Corbusier and Bauhaus, the decorative element came back; in literature irony became one of its most characteristic features.¹⁷ Such features are, in conformity with Likhachov's theory more characteristic for secondary than for primary periods (cf. the ornamentalism of Gothic, the decorative style of Art Nouveau, Romantic irony, and so on). In agreement with Likhachov's theory is also the fact that the period of Modernism as a primary one is dominated by ideology (communism, national socialism), whereas in Postmodernism we have seen the end of these ideologies. And Heidegger's philosophy is much different from that of Derrida.

Can the theory of the existence of megaperiods in European culture be instrumental in writing a history of European Literature? I am inclined to answer this question in the affirmative. In the first place, it is impossible to deny that different movements/periods/styles have existed in the history of European culture, and although you cannot draw sharp dividing-lines between the various movements, and the cultural developments in the European countries do not always run parallel, it is, I think, generally possible to connect an important artist or an important work of art with the dominating style(s) of his/its time. For instance, Russia's greatest literary genius Alexander Pushkin (1799–1837), who lived in a time when Russia – in a very short time – absorbed both already existing and new Western European cultural developments,¹⁸ has been claimed by scholars to belong to either Classicism, or Romanticism, or Realism.Reference Weststeijn¹⁹ In Pushkin's work one can find elements of all these three movements and it is possible to describe the development of his work in connection with these three movements, from the Voltairean poems in his youth to the Byronic romantic longer poems in the 1820s and the realistic prose of the 1830s. His work mirrors Russia's quick Europeanization in the 19th century and although the cultural developments in Russia do not run exactly parallel with those in England, France and Germany – Russian Romanticism, for instance, was less outspoken than in the Western countries; with its Realism, on the other hand, Russian literature reached the pinnacle of European literature – we see corresponding styles. All the national European literatures have their own development. Owing to historical circumstances a literature may sometimes ‘skip’ an entire style or ‘postpone’ it; a style or movement may be strong in one country, and weak in another,²⁰ but this does not alter the general picture of the gradual change, from movement to movement, of European culture in its entirety. No artist or writer can entirely break free from the influence of his time, which means the influence of the dominating artistic movement of his time.

If we agree that European literary history – and in modern times, with its increasing globalization, perhaps World literary history – can best be described by taking the succeeding great styles and periods as its starting-point, the theory of megaperiods may be an interesting feature of this description. In the first place, the theory distinguishes between two kinds of styles, primary and secondary ones, and postulates a different movement in these styles, secondary ones gradually growing out of the primary ones, the primary styles starting much more sudden. This pattern is repeated again and again and really throws light on the way European culture developed and is developing. Another important aspect of the theory is the general characterization of the styles or periods, the primary ones being dominated by a strong ideology, the secondary ones allowing various, sometimes even opposite ideologies at the same time. Whereas the primary styles are more focused on content and have a predilection for depicting reality, the secondary ones favour form, stylization and ornamentation and are more concerned with other realities.²¹ These general characteristics are, of course, only tendencies; styles do not repeat each other and, accordingly, develop unpredictably, but it is evident that there exists a kind of ‘rhythm’ in the cultural development. Being aware of this rhythm may lead to a better insight in what really happened in European culture, which, in its turn, may lead to a better description of the development of European literature.