Translated material
Two stories
It is quite difficult for a modern person to read the Holy Scriptures (as, indeed, all ancient literature). And not even because there is some difficult language. There are good translations, but they don't help much. In ancient times, people thought in slightly different categories than they do now. Our contemporary, faced with an incomprehensible phenomenon, does this. First, he collects information about him. Then (in the normal case) it checks it, filtering out the unreliable ones. Then, analyzing what has been collected, he creates a theory that explains the phenomenon. And only after testing this theory (also, unfortunately, not always) does he consider the phenomenon understandable. In ancient times, people described any of their knowledge with the help of myth [1] . The myth, as experience accumulated, could be improved and changed, but remained a myth. And it was on this, and not on positive knowledge, that man relied in his practical activities. By now, this approach has lost relevance in almost all areas. Perhaps the only exception is history. Or rather, there are two stories: scientific and mythological. The first is taught in humanitarian universities (it seems, however, not in all), the second in all other educational institutions, including secondary schools. To join the first, you need to at least partially become a historian. The second one will be driven into your head, no matter what profession you choose.
And this cannot be considered a feature of the Soviet educational system with its mandatory communist indoctrination for everyone. Back in the last century, a French historian compiled a review (unfortunately, far from complete) of how history is taught in different countries [2] . It turns out that every nation has its own historical myth. Moreover, even among peoples living on the same territory, these myths differ quite significantly not only in the assessment of historical facts, but also in the facts themselves. Myth, unlike science, without the slightest twinge of conscience, keeps silent about everything that does not fit into its concept.
Thank God, publications have recently appeared that shed light on this dualism [3] . However, all of them (I have never come across anything else) criticize mythology and require a scientific approach. On the one hand, they are obviously right. Replacing science with myth is an undoubted evil. But the evil is precisely the substitution, and not the myth itself. Agree, not every person (let alone a schoolchild) can study history in an academic course, that is, starting with the analysis of sources and ending with the analysis of various hypotheses on controversial issues. But you can’t not study history at all. Historical ignorance, as we know, leads to the repetition of the worst. That is why a myth is needed that explains to the common man who he is in terms of his nationality, what unites him with other members of his people, where this unity came from and why it should be preserved.
Another thing is the quality of this myth and its distance from reality [4] . It is good, of course, when this myth is complete, non-aggressive and more or less adequately describes the events that happened to a given people, without offending neighboring peoples. However, anything can happen. Here are just a few examples from Marc Ferro's collection. The history taught in Iran says virtually nothing about the Greco-Persian wars in the 5th century BC. e. And to young Indians, the era of the kingdoms of the Mauryas, Guptas and Harshas appears as a long (from the 4th century BC to the 7th century AD) period of prosperity, only briefly interrupted by the invasion of the Huns. And nothing is said about the fact that it was a despotic police state, the main principles of governance in which were espionage and denunciation. There are also very curious cases: some of the indigenous inhabitants of Senegal, who studied in French schools during the period of colonization, seriously consider the Gauls to be their ancestors, since they were taught the history of France as history.
Of course, the Nazi and Soviet mythologies stand apart in this series. “A lie must be total, otherwise no one will believe it,” Goebbels said, which is quite applicable to the historical myths of both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. I will not give examples of the monstrous distortion of history by the Nazis; no one seems to dispute them. But Soviet myths, it seems, have not been completely eradicated to this day. It is enough to mention 1) the “triumphant march of Soviet power”, which allegedly spread throughout the entire country in a matter of months, 2) industrialization, allegedly carried out at the expense of the profits of nationalized enterprises, and not through the free labor of prisoners and the sale of confiscated valuables abroad, 3) collectivization, supposedly ensuring the rise of agriculture, and not its destruction and new enslavement of peasants, and much more. Totality was also expressed in the strictest censorship (after all, one word of truth is enough to expose heaps of lies), the persecution of any dissent (for the same reason) and the special role assigned to cinema in the education system (after all, it is much more difficult to be critical of what you see than what you read) .
But what distinguishes both Nazi and Soviet historical myths from all others most of all is their content. However, this deserves separate consideration. What is the general content (summary, so to speak) of most historical myths? In a nutshell it can be expressed like this:
“We are the best, the most, the most, the most... (the set of positive characteristics and epithets may be different) people in the world. All other nations are also nothing... But we are the best, the best, the best.”
In modern times, some Europeans use a softened version: “We are a truly great people, although in addition to great achievements there are also dark pages in our past. But we have repented of those past sins, and this gives us hope to reach new heights.”
This gives a person who is not very educated (and does not go into details) the motivation to be proud of his belonging to a given people and to be a patriot. That's all. The totalitarian myth has a completely different tone:
“Our heroic people have always been surrounded by enemies who sought to destroy them, enslave them, assimilate them, etc. (underline as appropriate). But we always responded to all the most insidious machinations of our enemies with our heroic victories.”
Older readers will probably hear in this phrase familiar notes from a social studies course or “scientific” communism. For others, I can recommend reading any Soviet history textbook. The main thing is that the conclusion from this suggests itself to be completely different. “All the surrounding (peoples) only pretend to be our friends, but in reality they are insidious and evil enemies. So if we are not vigilant (read snitches), united (read intolerant of dissent) and devoted to power (read ready for any vileness on its orders), we will certainly be destroyed, ground into powder, etc.”
Finally, let’s open the “Handbook for preparing for the Unified State Exam 2009 in the subject history” [5] . Alas, here we encounter a mythology that is just as totalitarian as in the Soviet era. “From time immemorial, the Russian peasant has plowed the land and sowed grain [6] . But “natural processes” occurred and he needed a state, which naturally arose, headed by rulers - princes [7] . The princes, again naturally, began to quarrel with each other (as if history knows few examples to the contrary). The enemies were not slow to take advantage of this - on the one hand, the Tatar-Mongols, and on the other, Catholic missionaries with their knightly orders.” And so on.
Also important for the structure of the national historical myth is the question of where history ends. For scientific analysis of events, historians need free access to all documents of the era being described. From this point of view, our history should have ended in 1917. Since much of the later documents still remain in special storage. It is clear that this is unacceptable for mythological, popular history. And yet a border is necessary. In most countries, the following is accepted as such a boundary: the generation that took an active part in the events described must pass away (if not into another world, then at least into retirement). That is, the end of history should be 40/50 years away from the present moment. This is understandable; what follows is not history, but politics. Introduction to politics, I think, is hardly worth trusting to school. Because here the ruling party will inevitably (at least in Russian conditions) impose its political line. The family can handle this better. But this is so in the case when the goal of the course is to give a person an idea of the origin of his people. When the task is to impose a certain ideology on a person, a different approach is chosen: history continues not even until today, but until tomorrow. This is how it was in Soviet textbooks, on the last pages of which one could read what awaits us in the 21st century. Unfortunately, we see the same thing in the above-mentioned reference book. Here is a quote (p. 857) relating to the events of 2005:
“The desire of the United States to remake the world in its own image and likeness, including by force, had a negative impact on Russian-American relations. The so-called “Litvinenko case”, associated with the mysterious death of a former officer of the Russian special services, has become an additional pretext for spurring in the West the campaign of “presumption of guilt” of Russia in all troubles - from Georgia to Iran, a reason to declare Russia “the enemy of the entire civilized world.”
And on the last 859th page it is written:
“Thanks to rapid economic growth in the first years of the new century, Russia has a real opportunity to leave the category of moderately developed countries in which we were throughout the 20th century by 2020 and join the group of developed powers of the world.”
Like this. Again, everyone around is enemies. Everyone is trying to blame us for all the troubles around the world. But this is because they are jealous. And we have ensured such economic growth that by 2020 we will show them all “Kuzka’s mother.” Well, just like in stagnant times - “5 years of growth, then a congress.”
Finally, after all this criticism, I will try to say something positive. What kind of general education history would you like to see for modern Russia? Well, first of all, more truthful. Based more on historical facts than on ideological clichés. Secondly, at least not aggressive. That is, one in which relationships with neighbors would be presented not as a permanent war for survival, but as cooperation, and conflicts as annoying misunderstandings. And yet this is, so to speak, a “minimum program.” Still, we have an example of a historical myth that is much more fruitful. The people who accepted it have been existing (precisely as a people) for more than 3,000 years and are not going to stop it. We are talking about the history of the Jewish people. Of course, not the one studied by archaeologists. But not about the kind that is taught in ulpans and yeshivas. And about the one that is set out in the Holy Scriptures. After all, the Old Testament was written by Jews and for Jews. And a very definite historical myth is definitely present in it. What is its plot? Trying to get away from theology, it can be formulated as follows:
“We (Jews) are the most sinful people on earth. But not because we are worse than other nations. But because we must be the best (by virtue of God’s election) and set an example for everyone. But we are often terribly far from this highest calling.”
N.A. Berdyaev called this approach messianism [8] , contrasting it with nationalism, for which the first of these examples of this kind is more typical (we are the best). And if we can talk about some kind of Christian view of history, I think this is the approach that best expresses this view.
Now schools are faced with the problem of introducing children to faith. Although, I personally have great doubts that the school should be involved in this. Well, they couldn’t come up with anything better than introducing a special subject - the fundamentals of Orthodox culture. Why cultures? Yes, they just decided to outsmart everyone. You cannot directly teach faith - followers of other religions, especially atheism, will begin to protest (parents, of course, not children). And of course they fell into their own trap. Many years of catechesis experience show that familiarity with Orthodox culture not only does not help churching, but can even hinder [9] . Lenin, as you know, had an “excellent” in his certificate according to God’s law, and Stalin even studied at a theological seminary for some time. But a history of the messianic (in Berdyaev’s sense) type could teach children not pride in their people [10] , but responsibility for them and for their past.
[1] Please do not confuse this with the legend. Myths are often told in the form of legends. But the myth is not limited to legend. About this, see: Losev A.F. Essays on ancient symbolism and mythology. M., Mysl, 1993.
[2] Ferro M. How history is told to children in different countries of the world. M., Higher School, 1992.
[3] For some examples, see: http://scepsis.ru/tags/id_53.html
[4] By reality in this case I mean what historical science considers indisputable.
[5] M., Eksmo, 2008.
[6] Although in ancient Russia, arable farming was by no means the main occupation of the majority of the population. Due to extremely backward technology, it was almost unprofitable. The authors (p. 17) even managed to attribute the transition to the three-field system to the 8th century. Although decrees against slash-and-burn agriculture were adopted by Catherine II.
[7] That the prince at that time was not actually a ruler, but a military leader, is not only not mentioned, but the opposite is directly stated.
[8] Berdyaev N.A. “The Kingdom of the Spirit and the Kingdom of Caesar” ch. IX
[9] I say this from the personal experience of a member of the St. Alexeev Brotherhood, which is part of the Transfiguration Commonwealth of small Orthodox brotherhoods, which has been catechesis (bringing adults into the Church and teaching the fundamentals of faith) for more than 30 years.
[10] Pride in general is a very dubious quality. Christianity considers it a sin.