Without the skills of a historian

We continue the publication of materials on the dissertation of publicist Vladimir Medinsky (see criticism “Cave source studies” and an attempt to object in the selection “after the trace of publication. In defense of Medinsky”). Doctor of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of Belgorod State University Vitaly Pennskaya responded to the work of the dissertation.

A little more than six months ago, the famous politician and journalist VR Medinsky defended the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences on the topic “Problems of objectivity in the coverage of Russian history of the second half of the XV-XVII centuries”, and recently the Higher Attestation Commission decided to give the applicant the desired “crusts”. Thus, the regiment of doctors of science "from politics" arrived. I deliberately emphasize this particular circumstance, because I believed, I believe and I will believe that, somewhat paraphrasing the famous statement, it is better when the boots will be tucked by the boots and the pies bake the cake. No, in no case I am against the intervention of non -professionals in such a subtle matter as history, since personal experience shows that there are non -professionals who can easily give odds to some certified historians. But this is not the case. They can teach a lot to MGIMO, but judging by what we are dealing with in this case, they do not teach the main in the artist’s craft - the ability to work with sources. And if I also had doubts regarding this work, then after the last Internet publication of the newly-made doctor regarding Herberstein-Falseifier ( part 1 , part 2 ), they were not completely left. Involuntarily, you will remember here the famous statement that “we don’t need such hockey!”, And here it will be as much as possible.

Initially, proceeding to shifting their emotions that arose after reading the text of the abstract and one of the chapters claiming to be scientific and a new word in the science of labor of Vladimir Rostislavovich, I intended to write something like a review of an abstract according to a traditional scheme. First, praise the author, highlight the positive aspects of the work, and then, critically evaluating him, indicate the shortcomings. And as if, at first glance, the scheme had to work. Of course, there is no dispute, the topic sounds relevant - the problem of objectivity in modern historical science is more than acute, therefore it is possible and even necessary to welcome the applicant’s appeal to this topic (and not only one, since this field of activity is so wide that many and many historians will have enough work here). But already here, at the very beginning, a serious question arises - the topic made in the heading of the dissertation, as if not quite coincides with the text of the abstract. The name seems to suggest that the work will be of historiographic in nature, touching the problems of the objectivity of coverage by historians (ours, Russian, and not our, foreign) issues related to the history of Russia and the Russian society of the XV - XVII centuries.

However, from the very first pages of the abstract, it becomes clear that the applicant intends to focus on the analysis of the works of foreign travelers, diplomats, scouts, merchants, etc., i.e. The work will primarily be of a source-history nature, and historiography and source studies are still not the same. This is, to put it mildly, a puncture that should not have been present in a dissertation study of this level. In my opinion, if it is already talking about the analysis of the works of foreigners and information that they report about Russia and Russians, then this must be reflected in the name of the dissertation at least in brackets in order to remove unnecessary issues and doubts that arise during the consistent reading of the headline and then the text. Otherwise, it turns out the situation described by Kozma Prutkov: "If you read the inscription" buffalo "on the elephant cage, do not believe your eyes."

Let's move on. Justifying the relevance of the topic chosen by him for his study, the author writes that the need for this kind of work is due to “the need for new approaches to the study of the historical past of our country using an expanded information base. It is the combination of domestic research and published documentary evidence of eyewitnesses from among foreigners who came to Russia that helps to exclude unilaterality in assessments of the most important events and phenomena of Russian history, to form a panoramic view of Russian history, to enrich its study with new facts. ” Perhaps none of the historians involved in the XVII and especially the XVI centuries will object to this - who is against expanding the information base and who is against forming a “panoramic look” at domestic history? None of the historians will object to the next thesis of the author, stating that “the study of the sociocultural aspect of foreigners about Russia about Russia is very important for understanding the reasons for the modern perception of Russia and Russians in the West”, as well as against the other, “it is not enough to explore the stable representation of peoples in relation to each other in its modern interpretation. It is important to trace its origins and the reasons for its rooting in the minds of peoples for several periods of history. After all, the totality of the prevailing stereotypes affects the features of interethnic perception and harm international relations. ”

All these considerations, of course, are essentially true and do not cause objections, on the contrary, can only be approved. But then there is a phrase that causes bewilderment, namely: “The criticality of foreigners about Russia is one of the main reasons why the sources they compiled do not receive proper recognition today.” The meaning of what was said is not entirely clear - it turns out that before Vladimir Rostislavovich, historians underestimated the testimony of foreigners, tried at the slightest opportunity to bypass them, shy away from them like from the closest ones? Well, if you open the works of leading domestic historians regarding the problems of Russian history of the XVII and especially the XVI centuries. And look at the list of sources they used? And then still analyze the texts for the use of certificates of foreigners? Something tells me that this statement is unfounded, not confirmed, essentially the accusation of Russian historical science that she still has not used such a valuable information layer. And then what about the four pages of the abstract with a historiographic review, in which, in particular, the author states that, for example, N.M. Karamzin “widely used the works of S. Herberstein, M. Mekhovsky, A. Gvanyini, M. Strykovsky, Y. Duplosha (presumably, we are talking about Dlugos - V.P. ), A. Olearia and many other foreigners”. Or another statement, no less remarkable - V.O. Klyuchevsky, according to the author, “despite the doubt of the reliability of the notes of foreigners, ... on their basis compiled a summary picture of the geographical position of the Russian state in the XVI-XVII centuries, its army, the method of management, income of the treasury, legal proceedings, people's subsidiaries, trade, cities, customs, rites, etc.”

If this, according to the applicant, can be called “did not receive worthy recognition,” then what is a worthy recognition (by the way, it is worth noting that most of the evidence of foreigners introduced into circulation was first transferred then, in the XIX - early XX centuries, and if not translated, then, in any case, was used by domestic problems that did not feel the problems of reference to foreign language -language texts)?

Regarding the Soviet historical science, the author again notes that “at that time the best traditions laid down by pre -revolutionary historical science were developed: the publication of the texts of monuments at a high scientific level, source study of content, the collection of information about the authors and clarifying the circumstances of their writings about Muscovy.” And again, a perplexed question arises - and this is called "they did not receive a decent assessment"?

The next thesis of the author is also perplexed. He writes that “that there is still no comprehensive study of the entire complex (my allocation-V.P.) of the works of foreigners about the Russian state of the XVI-XVII centuries.” The doubt creeps in - does the author represent for himself, what volume of work will require a full and comprehensive analysis of at least 150 texts mentioned in the well -known list of Adeleng, not to mention their subsequent academic publication with parallel texts in the original language and in Russian, comments, etc.? It is enough to look at the last two in time, the two -volume notes of the notes of Herberstein and Staden to understand that this is not one person for one person and not one dozen (alas) years! Vladimir Rostislavovich seems to have no idea about the methodology of working with sources, which is polished by historians for more than one century.

And this is a very, very difficult matter, which is easy to make sure if you pick up any textbook or a course of lectures on the basics of source studies. For example, Academician V.I. He wrote a patch that, before using any source, it is necessary to criticize it, “external and internal. Formal external criticism of the source is limited to analysis of the appearance of documents: facial signs, paper, handwriting, time of origin and atmosphere of the appearance of one or another document. If the document refers to historical and literary works, it is necessary to find out who was the author of one or another monument: one should get acquainted, if possible, with his biography, to figure out in detail in his life, to find out his socio-economic affiliation and political ideology, since any written source is subjective by nature, and this subjectivity should be assessed by the source from its reliability and historical historical values. The internal criticism of the source is the study of its origin, its composition, content, determination of its value by content to study one or another issue. ”

And in order to fulfill all these tasks, the eminent historian continued his idea, to those who turn to the analysis of the source, “be familiar with the natural sciences, in particular with geology, paleontology, physical geography, anthropology and ethnography, with the sciences of economic, political economy, the history of economic ideas and economic life, agricultural economy, and finally, the historian should be aware of the historian and in the sciences of political and legal, in the general teaching of law and state, the history of political teachings, state and international law, as well as universal and national history of law. He must also be a linguist. It is necessary to get acquainted with the ancient and new languages, which allows you to study foreign sources in the original, and also keep abreast of the current foreign historical literature (my allocation is not noticed that there are no links not only to the studies of L. Wulf and I. Neumann, but also to the classics of the genre - the work of M. Poe, A. Kappelera and a number of others. Western European historians - V.P.

Involuntarily, a doubt arises - is the applicant capable of raising such a load, does he have proper preparation and knowledge in such a diverse areas of the science of nature and man, is he not only a connoisseur of politics, but also jurisprudence, can he act as a linguist and philologist, natural scientist and economist? The times of scientists-encyclopedists have long passed, and this, alas, is an objective reality caused by the incredible expansion of the circle of issues studied by science, the colossal volume of knowledge accumulated by the same sciences about society and man, etc.

Vladimir Rostislavovich, on the other hand, makes it a little no less, “the results of a comprehensive analysis of foreign materials containing evaluative judgments of foreigners about the medieval Russian state of the second half of the XV - XVII centuries.” (My selection is V.P.). It must be assumed that this is precisely the results of a critical comprehensive study of at least several dozen basic foreign essays about Russia of the XVI - XVII centuries. According to the parameters that were set out in the lengthy quote by V.I. PICHES?

Well, perhaps I am mistaken, or in me, professional snobbery says and I am not right, believing that the politician, the Duma figure, the author of many printed works, the debunking of all kinds of myths, etc., etc., etc., is not capable of this worthy feat of a feat? It is easy to check this is simple-you need to take the dissertation of our hero and see how he dissects any foreign “falsifier”, look, so to speak, at the results of this most complex analysis. So we will do it.

I will choose only one example, closest to my scientific and professional interests, and where I can give more or less, I hope, a qualified conclusion for this very “complex analysis” and, accordingly, the qualitative level of the work itself.

Further we will talk about the well -known essay of the English navigator and diplomat R. Chensler. As far as I know, the academic publication of his composition, similar to Herberstein’s notes, has not yet happened. And if so, then the applicant could just do a job that the previous generations of historians did not do before him, having examined the text of Chensler in detail, thereby earned the eternal gratitude and gratitude of the descendants. And, since Vladimir Rostislavovich claims the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences, he had to show a master class by demonstrating the highest aerobatics when analyzing the source (and the scheme of this analysis is clearly visible from the statement of the venerable historian above).

So, in order to make a real, responsible and sick historian, who received normal historical education even in a deposit pedagogical unit somewhere in a deaf Russian province, starting to write a study with a source-live bias? First of all, he would have been concerned about the study of the history of the essay analyzed by him, turning to the search for its original text. In our case, it would be desirable to find the Latin edition of the text of the Chersler notes along with its earliest English translation in order to accommodate both of these options with existing Russian translations, especially since Yu.V. Gauthier, who made a translation of the work of Chersler into Russian in 1935, noted (quoted) that “in the XIX century made in the 80s. Professor S. M. Seredonin, the translation of the story of Chenlore, the English language of that time is replaced by smooth Russian presentation, in which the flavor of the antiquity is not preserved at all, which, in our opinion, is detracting the dignity of translation and does not sufficiently reveal the brightness and colorfulness inherent in some pages of the chngor’s story ”and“ in this publication, the text of Chenlore and Jenkinson is completely translated and at the same time eliminated how we have been eliminated as we have been eliminated as we were eliminated as we are eliminated It seems that those individual inaccuracies, which are quite a lot in the Seredoninsky translation. ”

Already this was already alerted by the applicant, who considers himself a historian, and to encourage him not to be content with the already previously executed translations, but to turn to the original source. By the way, today it is very simple to do this - through the Internet the text of Chensler both in Latin and English is, as they say, at a time (which was made by your submissive servant in less than 5 minutes, including the time to include the computer, access to the network and a set of words in the search engine with subsequent download of files by links). Was it done by Vladimir Rostislavovich? No.

So, we take the original and translations and, as it should be for a normal historian, not politics and journalist, and compare them. And if we do this work, we will come to the conclusion - both translations, both Gauthier and the Seredonin, are unsatisfactory. And in order not to be unfounded, I will give first two Russian translations of descriptions of the tactics of the Russian army, then the Latin version and two English.

The Russian translation of 1884 says that “in the battle they (Russians - V.P. ), without any order, run hastily in heaps; Why are they to enemies and do not give battles for the most part; And if they give, then stealing, stealthily. ” Yu.V. Gauthier, who seemed to adjust the translation of S.M. Seredonina, read this place as follows: “On the battlefield, they (again Russians - V.P. ) act without any system. They run around with a scream and almost never give battles to their enemies, but act only stealthily. ”

As if correction and editing are evident. But how do both translation options correspond to the original? Did Vladimir Rostislavovich make this elementary, from the point of view of an ordinary historian, a step that is inevitable when writing sources of work? Alas, no, and - in vain. After all, picking up the originals, it is easy to notice that in Latin, that in English texts this phrase sounds a little different. Here's what it looks like in Latin: “QUOTIES CUM HOSTE Conferendum EST, Incompositi in HOSTILE AGMEN PROCURRUNT. Neque Aciem Dirigunt (Ut Mos Estris) Sad InSidiis Collocati, Adversaries Adoriuntur. " And here is her English version: “Whenever an Engagagement with the Enemy Takes Place, They Rush Forward, Without Any Fixed Order, to Attack the Hostile Ranks. They Do Not Formselves Into a Line of Battle (AS is the Custom with US), But Plating Themselves in Ambush, Attack Their Adversaries ”(both in the first and second and in the second case, and in the second case, I used The Edinburgh edition of 1886 “Chancellor's Voyage to Muscovy Being Clement Adam's Anglorum Navigatio AD Muscovitas”).

By the way, there is another English translation of the text of Chensler/Adams, the same one on which S.M. Seredonin. I will also give it for the completeness of the picture: “... as Offten as the Are to Skirmish with the Enemy, They Go forhout Any Order at All; They Make No Wings, Nor Military Divisions of Their Men, As We Do, But Lying for the Most Part in Ambush, Do Suddenly Set Upon the Enemy (The DiscoVel of Muscovy From The Collections of Richard Hakluyt "of the publication of 1889).

I emphasize once again - the English text is completely transparent and is not difficult to translation. I would translate it like this: “Often they (Russians - V.P.) , entering into a skirmish with the enemy, go forward without any order; They do not divide their ranks either into wings, or into any other units, as we do, but being mostly in ambush, suddenly rush to the enemy. ” Compare it, dear readers, with existing translations.

Was all this done in the dissertation of Vladimir Rostislavovich? Alas, no. Our hero, hypnotized by his great intention, considered all these problems not standing on his attention and limited himself to quoting the Russian translation of 1935, putting his comments on the following kind to them: “Although Chenlore did not have the opportunity to find out how the Russian warriors behave in battle, he wrote that“ they run around with a scream and almost never gives battles to their enemies, but only act only Sneak up. " There are other data in Russian sources, so the Englishman's information seems to be invented. This is indicated by the fact that the equestrian warriors that consisted of the Russian army could not run, they were supposed to jump. ”

It is interesting, what can there be claims to Chersler, if the applicant himself writes a few lines above that, according to the Englishman, “all warriors were equestrian”? And what kind of mysterious Russian sources are these, in which there are “other data” about how the royal “warriors” behaved in battle? Is it really that a treatise unknown to the hands of Vladimir Rostislavovich fell into the hands of a hitherto unknown to historical science, composed by a certain Russian governor or field charter, or instruction-improving “Tactics in combat examples. Hundred-regiment ”, approved by Ivan the Terrible and the Boyar Duma? This would be a truly real contribution to science, but, alas, the author was modestly silent about the most important thing.

Or another similar comment: “Researchers, however, believe that the number of troops in the composition of Chenlore is greatly exaggerated (it is difficult to disagree with this - V.P. ). It was a little more than 100 thousand people, since it consisted of five regiments, each of which did not exceed 20 thousand soldiers (but this is interesting - it is a pity that it is not clear from the published text where, from which of the researchers of the former or modern respected Vladimir Rostislavovich deduced the information that the Moscow army of the 16th century consisted of about 20 thousand; Having shown almost the whole literature on this topic, I, frankly, have not met such an original way of calculating the Moscow Ratya - V.P. ) ... ”

But what about, for example, with the most important of the most important problems - with sources of Chensler's information? At best, she was only outlined, but did not receive any satisfactory permission. By the way, our hero himself writes in his study that Chansler “did not have time to finish his work .... Later, he (the text of Chensler - V.P. ) was supplemented by Clement Adams, who was an educated person and taught at the university. With his help, the "Book" was written in Latin. " The very logic of source analysis, understandable and transparent for an ordinary historian, suggests in this case that it is necessary to isolate from the text of Adams what was written by Chersler himself, and what was inserted there in an inquisitive book. And knowing that Adams was a university teacher, it was necessary to find out what was a source of information for him, from where he could draw the information that the initial version of the Chansler report diluted? And how can I not recall that in 1555 a partial translation of the composition of Herberstein (including that part of the Muscovite’s military customs) into the English language, not to mention the same, was not known about the earlier editions of Herberstein. By the way, about the direct connection between the emergence of the notes of Herberstein and the expedition of Williubi and Chersler, they wrote back in 1865. I.Kh. Gamel, and in 1955 A.S. Samoilo. Therefore, it was necessary to solve the problem with the presence of borrowing borrowings from Herberstein in the text of Chensler/Adams.

Was it done? And again you have to state - no. And there are many such examples that from the abstract, from published on the website of Vladimir Rostislavovich, you can bring a lot of offhand. Proof? Please - our hero writes that Chersler could observe the sending of the Russian army to Astrakhan early in the spring of 1554. Why not have to invent what could not be? The Astrakhan expedition was departed from Nizhny Novgorod, there was a gathering of troops before going down the Volga “how the ice will open”, and the Englishman left Moscow in March 1554, still rushing to the north, and he was never in Nizhny. To draw such a conclusion, you do not need to go far, it is enough to take the Nikon's chronicle and discharge books, and everything will fall into place.

Another example is he. Vladimir Rostislavovich writes that de: "The king did not wage long wars in the winter." But what about the first and second campaigns of Ivan the Terrible on Kazan, which were just taken in winter? But these were not small campaigns, but enterprises that demanded the tension of all the forces of the state!

In a word, “flight analysis” can be continued further, not limited to catching “fleas” (claims of Vladimir Rostislavovich’s dissertations showed claims to the incorrectness of references to the used archive funds, and accusations of plagiarism), but the limited volume of review does not allow this, so I will complete.

As a basic for research, the author expressed the idea: “... Europeans who come to Russia have already had certain ideas about the life and morals of medieval Russian society, which were formed in their minds before their personal perception of the surrounding reality. As a result, they sought confirmation of their ideas, as a result of which some topics and phenomena attracted their special attention, while others remained unnoticed by them. Their stereotypical perception of Moscow life “surrounded” by personal impressions, which either refuted their initial performances or confirmed. In turn, the treatises and essays they wrote to both their contemporaries and followers a finished base already for their perception of Russia and Russians. ”

It does not seem to me unproductive. On the contrary, I also adhere to this position, supporting the opinion expressed, for example, by the historian V.M. Tyulev in his study “The Birth of Latin Christian Historiography”, about the need “... to overcome the traditional functional approach of modern historians to the works of historical prose, to stop seeing exclusively suppliers of information and evaluate an ancient or medieval historian (in our case, the writer of the Renaissance and the early New Time - Aut.) Only by his“ honesty ”,“ insincerity ”,“ irrevocability ”,“ irrevocability ”,“ irrevocability, ” "Accuracy in the selection of information." It seems more important that each writer, who took up the feather of a historian, possessed a certain sum of views on the past and present, the philosophy of history, based on which he organized historical material ... ”.

However, the implementation of the plan about the "comprehensive study of the entire set of works of foreigners about the Russian state of the XVI-XVII centuries." I think clearly unsatisfactory. The author has a very weak idea of ​​the methodology of working with sources, and this circumstance has already depreciated the conclusions made by him as built on a very shaky base, not to mention everything else. And to allow the allegations that, for example, S. Herberstein is a falsifier of Russian history, not owning the techniques of criticism of texts, at least arrogantly and irresponsible for a person who claims to be a doctor of historical sciences and has eventually received this scientific degree.