The secondary nature of literary criticism is indisputable. But sometimes this secondary nature is pushed into the background. Why? Because the personality of the critic is so grandiose and multifaceted that it itself becomes the subject of interest of philologists. This is what happened to the personalities of M. Bakhtin, R. Yakobson, and Yu. Tynyanov. Same fate (thankfully!) Pyotr Mikhailovich Bitsilli also had it. One of the outstanding critics and publicists of the Russian diaspora with an incredibly broad erudition, with fundamental knowledge in the field of history, philosophy, literary studies and linguistics, returned to the context of Russian culture. This return can only be called a miracle: from the almost complete oblivion and silence of his name to the realization of his figure as one of the key figures in Russian culture in the first half of the XX century (See books: P. M. Bicilli. Izbrannye trudy po filologii [Selected Works on Philology], Moscow, 1996; P. M. Bitsilli. The Tragedy of Russian Culture, Moscow, 2000; Doronchenkov A. I. Emigration of the "first wave" on national problems and the fate of Russia, St. Petersburg, 2001, as well as publications in the journal "Russian Speech": 1994. NN 1-2; 1995. N 6). Of course, this journey is not over yet: there is still a deep understanding of his scientific, epistolary and journalistic heritage as a single whole, which includes the scientist's views on the problems of language and nation, language and state, the role of Russian culture and literature in the world. The literary and critical legacy of the scientist is extensive: he was the most published author of "Modern Notes", his works constantly appeared in" Numbers"," New City"," Russia and Slavyanism","Latest News". Moreover, he was a versatile critic: modern literature of the Russian diaspora and the mother country, modern European literature and scientific and philological publications, as well as current cultural and educational events that took ... Read more