Vitaliy Pen: 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. " А вот ее английский вариант: «Whenever an engagement with the enemy takes place, they rush forward, without any fixed order, to attack the hostile ranks. They do not form themselves into a line of battle (as is the custom with us), but placing themselves in ambush, attack thence their adversaries» (и в первом, и во втором случае мною было использовано эдинбургское издание 1886 г. «Chancellor's Voyage to Muscovy being Clement Adam's Anglorum Navigatio ad Muscovitas»).

Кстати, есть и еще один английский перевод текста Ченслера/Адамса, тот самый, на который опирался С.М. Середонин. Приведу и его для полноты картины: «…as often as they are to skirmish with the enemy, they go forth without 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 Discovery of Muscovy from the collections of Richard Hakluyt» издания 1889 г.).

Еще раз подчеркну – английский текст совершенно прозрачен и не представляет сложностей для перевода. Я бы перевел его так: «Часто они (русские – В.П.) , вступая в стычку с неприятелем, идут вперед без какого либо порядка; они не разделяют свои ряды ни на крылья, ни на какие либо другие подразделения, как это делаем мы, но находясь большей частью в засаде, внезапно бросаются на врага». Сравните его, уважаемые читатели, с имеющимися переводами.

Сделано ли было все это в диссертации Владимира Ростиславовича? Alas, no. Наш герой, загипнотизированный свои великим замыслом, счел все эти проблемы не стоящими его внимания и ограничился цитированием русского перевода 1935 г., приложив к ним свои комментарии следующего рода: «Хотя у Ченслора не было возможности узнать, как ведут себя в бою русские воины, он написал, что «они с криком бегают кругом и почти никогда не дают сражений своим врагам, но действуют только украдкой». В русских источниках иные данные, поэтому информация англичанина представляется выдумкой. На это указывает хотя бы тот факт, что конные воины, из которых состояло русское войско, никак не могли бегать, им полагалось скакать».

Интересно, а какие могут быть претензии к Ченслеру, если сам соискатель несколькими строками выше пишет, что, согласно англичанину, «все воины были конными»? И что это за таинственные русские источники, в которых есть «иные данные» о том, как вели себя царские «воинники» в бою? Неужели в руки Владимира Ростиславовича попал неизвестный доселе исторической науке трактат, сочиненный неким русским воеводой или полевой устав, или инструкция-наставление-учебник «Тактика в боевых примерах. Сотня-полк», одобренный Иваном Грозным и боярской Думой? Это было бы действительно настоящим вкладом в науку, но, увы, о самом важном автор как раз скромно промолчал.

Или другой подобный комментарий: «Исследователи, правда, считают, что численность войска в сочинении Ченслора сильно преувеличена (с этим трудно не согласиться – В.П. ). Оно было чуть больше 100 тыс. человек, поскольку состояло из пяти полков, каждый из которых не превышал 20 тыс. воинов (а вот это интересно – жаль, из опубликованного текста неясно, откуда, у кого из исследователей прежних или современных уважаемый Владимир Ростиславович почерпнул сведения о том, что московское войско сер. XVI в. состояло из пяти полков, каждый из которых насчитывал около 20 тыс.; занимаясь этим вопросом с десяток лет и перелопатив практически всю литературу на эту тему, я, честно говоря, нигде не встречал столь оригинального способа исчисления московских ратей – В.П. )…».

А как быть, к примеру, с важнейшей из важнейших проблем – с источниками информации Ченслера? Она в лучшем случае только намечена, но сколько-нибудь удовлетворительного разрешения не получила. Между прочим, наш герой сам пишет в своем исследовании, что Ченслер «свой труд … не успел закончить. Позднее он (текст Ченслера – В.П. ) был дополнен Климентом Адамсом, который являлся образованным человеком и преподавал в университете. С его помощью «Книга» была написана на латыни». Сама логика источниковедческого анализа, понятная и прозрачная для рядового историка, предполагает в таком случае, что нужно вычленить из текста Адамса то, что было написано самим Ченслером, а что было вставлено туда любознательным книгочеем. И зная, что Адамс был преподавателем университета, нужно было выяснить, что явилось источником информации для него, откуда он мог почерпнуть сведения, которыми разбавил первоначальный вариант отчета Ченслера? И как тут не вспомнить, что в 1555 г. вышел частичный перевод сочинения Герберштейна (в т.ч. той его части, в которой говорилось о военных обычаях московитов) на английский язык, не говоря уже о том, что вряд ли тому же Адамсу не было известно о более ранних изданиях Герберштейна. Кстати, о прямой связи между появлением записок Герберштейна и экспедицией Уиллоуби и Ченслера писали еще в 1865 г. И.Х. Гамель, а в 1955 г. А.С. Самойло. Следовательно, необходимо было решить проблему и с наличием в тексте Ченслера/Адамса заимствований из Герберштейна.

Сделано ли это было? И снова приходится констатировать – нет. И таких примеров что из автореферата, что из опубликованного на сайте Владимира Ростиславовича можно навскидку привести множество. Proof? Пожалуйста – наш герой пишет, что Ченслер мог наблюдать отправку русского войска на Астрахань ранней весной 1554 г. Зачем выдумывать то, чего быть не могло? Астраханская экспедиция отправлялась из Нижнего Новгорода, там был сбор войск перед тем, как отправиться вниз по Волге «как лед вскроется», а Москву англичанин покинул в марте 1554 г., еще по зимнику поспешая на север, и в Нижнем он никогда не был. Чтобы сделать такой вывод, не нужно далеко ходить, достаточно взять Никоновскую летопись и разрядные книги, и все встанет на свои места.

Еще пример – вот он. Владимир Ростиславович пишет, что де: «царь не вел длительных войн в зимнее время». А как же быть с первым и вторым походами Ивана Грозного на Казань, которые как раз предпринимались зимой? А ведь это были не маленькие походы, а предприятия, потребовавшие напряжения всех сил государства!

Одним словом, «разбор полетов» можно продолжить и дальше, не ограничиваясь ловлей «блох» (в интернет-обсуждениях диссертации Владимира Ростиславовича выказывались претензии и относительно некорректности ссылок на использованные архивные фонды, и обвинения в плагиате), но ограниченный объем отзыва не позволяет сделать этого, поэтому буду завершать.

В качестве базовой для исследования автором высказана идея: «… европейцы, приезжающие в Россию, уже имели определенные представления о быте и нравах средневекового русского общества, которые сформировались в их сознании до личного восприятия ими окружающей действительности. В результате они искали подтверждение своим представлениям, вследствие чего одни темы и явления привлекали их особое внимание, а другие оставались ими незамеченными. Их стереотипное восприятие московской жизни «обрастало» личными впечатлениями, которые либо опровергали их начальные представления, либо подтверждали. В свою очередь написанные ими трактаты и сочинения предоставляли как их современникам, так и последователям готовую базу уже для их восприятия России и русских».

Мне она отнюдь не представляется непродуктивной. Напротив, я также придерживаюсь этой позиции, поддерживая мнение, высказанное, к примеру, историком В.М. Тюленевым в его исследовании «Рождение латинской христианской историографии», о необходимости «…преодолеть традиционный функциональный подход современных историков к произведениям исторической прозы, перестать видеть в них исключительно поставщиков информации и оценивать античного или средневекового историка (в нашем случае – писателя эпохи Ренессанса и раннего Нового времени – авт.) только по его «честности», «непредвзятости», «аккуратности в отборе информации». Представляется более важным, что каждый писатель, бравшийся за перо историка, обладал некоторой суммой взглядов на прошлое и настоящее, философией истории, исходя из которой, он и организовывал исторический материал…».

Однако исполнение замысла о «всестороннем исследовании всего комплекса сочинений иностранцев о русском государстве XVI-XVII вв.» я считаю явно неудовлетворительным. Автор имеет очень слабое представление о методике работы с источниками, и уже одно это обстоятельство обесценивает сделанные им выводы как построенные на весьма шатком основании, не говоря уже обо всем остальном. И позволять утверждения о том, что, к примеру, С. Герберштейн – фальсификатор русской истории, не владея приемами критики текстов, по меньшей мере, самонадеянно и безответственно для человека, претендующего на степень доктора исторических наук и получившего в итоге эту научную степень.