1/2006 Language Difficulties: How and Why We Write the History of Empires and Nations

Как российские историки XIX века интерпретировали монгольское владычество в смысле положительного опыта нациостроительства

Сеймур Беккер

1/2006

Материал публикуется на английском (на английской части сайта)

SUMMARY:

Статья Сеймура Беккера посвящена взглядам российских историков – авторов популярных учебников либо влиятельных обобщающих трудов, формировавших массовое историческое сознание XIX века, на монгольский период в истории России. Беккер рассматривает их интерпретацию монгольского “ига” как элемент создания национального нарратива. Он выделяет мотивы централизации территорий, диалога с Западом и Востоком, манипулирования монголами со стороны российских князей, что свидетельствовало об их “цивилизационном” превосходстве, темы устойчивости русских обычаев, “национальной” мобилизации против врага и проч.

Доступ

Оформите подписку, чтобы получить полный доступ к текстам

Оформить подписку

Read in English

Сноски

1.Ernest Renan. Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?↩

2.// Ernest Renan. Oeuvres completes. Vol. 1. Paris, 1947. Pp. 891, 903-904.↩

3.Charles J. Halperin. The Tatar Yoke and Tatar Oppression // Russia Mediaevalis. 1984. Vol. 5. Pt. 1. Pp. 20-39. “Golden Horde,” which like “Tatar Yoke” originated long after the end of the Mongol period, had also become standard by the nineteenth century. The subject of the present paper is treated superficially and unsystematically in Boris Ischboldin. Views of the Russian Historians on the Tatar Domination in Russia // Boris Ischboldin. Essays on Tatar History. New Delhi, 1963. Pp. 17-23.↩

4.N. M. Karamzin. Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskago. 5th edn. St. Petersburg, 1842-1843 [1818-1829]. Vol. 4. Pp. 5-12; Vol. 5. P. 222; N. I. Kostomarov. Nachalo edinoderzhaviia v drevnei Rusi // N. I. Kostomarov. Sobranie sochinenii; Istoricheskiia monografii i izsledovaniia. 21 vols. in 8 books. St. Petersburg, 1903-1906. Book 5. P. 42. Kostomarov’s article was originally published in vol.12 (1872) of the first edition of his collected works.↩

5.Karamzin. Vol. 4. Pp. 21-22, 150; N. G. Ustrialov. Russkaia istoriia. 5th edn. St. Petersburg, 1855. Vol. 1. Pp. 118-19.↩

6.Karamzin. Vol. 8. Pp. 96, 136.↩

7.N. A. Polevoi. Istoriia russkago naroda. 6 vols. Moscow, 1829-1833. Vol. 4. P. 8.↩

8.Ibid. Vol. 5. P. 604.↩

9.Ustrialov. O sisteme pragmaticheskoi russkoi istorii // Idem. Russkaia istoriia. Vol. 5. Appendix 1. P. 157.↩

10.Ustrialov. Russkaia istoriia. Vol. 1. Pp. 215, 220-221, 239-240.↩

11.Karamzin. O drevnei i novoi Rossii v ee politicheskom i grazhdanskom otnosheniiakh // Idem. Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskago. Vol. 12. Appendix. Pp. xxxix-xl.↩

12.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 3. Pp. 135-136; Vol. 4. P. 13.↩

13.Ibid. Vol. 5. P. 222.↩

14.Polevoi. Vol. 4. Pp. 13-15, 95.↩

15.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 5. Pp. 222-223.↩

16.Ustrialov. Russkaia istoriia. Vol. 1. P. 141. See also Ibid. Vol. 1. Pp. 250-251. Platonov (Lektsii po russkoi istorii. 5th edn. St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 95) saw “the definitive division of Rus’ into two halves, a northeastern one and a southwestern one,” as the most important effect of Tatar domination.↩

17.S. M. Solov’ev. O vliianii prirody russkoi gosudarstvennoi oblasti na eia istoriiu // Otechestvennye zapiski. 1850. No. 2. P. 230; Idem. Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen. 29 vols. in 15 books. Moscow, 1959-1966. Book 2. Vol. 4. Pp. 654-655. Page references are to the books of this edition, with the volume number in parenthesis. For Solov’ev’s ideas on the unity of the East European Plain, bounded by the White, Baltic, Black, and Caspian seas and the Carpathian, Caucasus, and Ural mountains and united by a network of major rivers flowing to the various seas, see Solov’ev’. O vliianii prirody. Pp. 230-31, 236. This theme was subsequently embraced by Ilovaiskii and Kliuchevskii in particular. Solov’ev’s concept of Asiatic empires as agglomerations of separate parts assembled by the sword but with little coherence is identical to that held earlier by Polevoi (Vol. 4. P. 154).↩

18.V. O. Kliuchevskii. Kurs russkoi istorii // Idem. Sochineniia. 8 vols. Moscow, 1956-1959. Vol. 3. Pp. 13, 90-91; Vol. 5. Pp. 39-40.↩

19.E.g., M. P. Pogodin. Ocherk russkoi istorii↩

20.// Idem. Istoriko-kriticheskie otryvki. Moscow, 1846. P. 24; D. I. Ilovaiskii. Kratkie ocherki russkoi istorii. 36th edn. St. Petersburg, 1912, republished as D. I. Ilovaiskii. Russkaia istoriia; Kniga dlia vsekh. Moscow, 1998. Pp. 37-38. Page references to Ilovaiskii are to the 1998 edition, unless otherwise indicated.↩

21.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 5. P. 220.↩

22.Karamzin. O drevnei i novoi Rossii. P. xli.↩

23.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 5. P. 222.↩

24.Karamzin. O drevnei i novoi Rossii. P. xli.↩

25.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 5. P. 216.↩

26.Ibid. Vol. 5. Pp. 219-220.↩

27.N. A. Polevoi. Obozrenie russkoi istorii do edinoderzhaviia Petra Velikago. St. Petersburg, 1846. Pp. xlii-xliii.↩

28.Polevoi. Istoriia. Vol. 4. Pp. 8-9; Vol. 5. Pp. 12-13.↩

29.Pogodin. Vzgliad na russkuiu istoriiu↩

30.// Idem. Istoriko-kriticheskie otryvki. Pp. 6-7.↩

31.Pogodin. Ocherk. Pp. 25-26.↩

32.Ustrialov. Russkaia istoriia. Vol. 1. Pp. 9, 110, 185.↩

33.Ibid. Vol. 1. Pp. 139, 187.↩

34.Ibid. Vol. 1. Pp. 121-122, 142-144.↩

35.Ibid. Vol. 1. P. 187.↩

36.K. D. Kavelin. Vzgliad na iuridicheskii byt drevnei Rossii // Idem. Sobranie sochinenii. 4 vols. St. Petersburg, 1897-1900. Vol. 1. P. 42, first published in: Sovremennik. 1847. Book 1.↩

37.Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 2. Vol. 4. Pp. 655-656.↩

38.Ibid. Book 1. Vol. 1. Pp. 56-58. Solov’ev’s admonition against breaking the thread of events was quoted approvingly by Platonov, p. 95.↩

39.Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 1. Vol. 1. Pp. 56, 58; Book 1. Vol. 2. P. 668. In a subsequent volume of his “Istoriia”, Solov’ev contradicted himself by placing the start of the second period of Russia’s history in 1054, with the death of Iaroslav the Wise, the last effective monocrat in Kievan Rus’ (Ibid. Book 2. Vol. 4. P. 652).↩

40.Ilovaiskii. Pp. 38-39, 57-58, 64; Ibid. 1875 edn. Pp. 211, 229, 235.↩

41.Charles J. Halperin. Kliuchevskii and the Tatar Yoke // Canadian-American Slavic Studies. 2000. Vol. 34. No. 4. Pp. 386-387. Halperin’s article provides an important corrective to this view.↩

42.Kliuchevskii. Vol. 1. Pp. 32-33.↩

43.Ibid. Vol. 2. Pp. 20, 23.↩

44.Ibid. Vol. 2. Pp. 42-43.↩

45.Platonov. P. 88.↩

46.Ibid. P. 96.↩

47.Ibid. Pp. 93-95.↩

48.Kostomarov. Mysli o federativnom nachale v drevnei Rusi”↩

49.// Idem. Sobranie sochinenii. Book 1. P. 30.↩

50.Kostomarov. Russkaia istoriia v zhizneopisaniiakh eia glavneishikh deiatelei. St. Petersburg, 1873. Vol. 1. Pt. 1. P. 169. The page reference is to the 1993 Moscow edition of vol. 1, pt. 1, published under the subtitle of the original edition – Gospodstvo doma sv. Vladimira.↩

51.Ibid.; Kostomarov. Nachalo edinoderzhaviia. P. 43.↩

52.Ibid. Pp. 43-44, 46, 42.↩

53.See my article: Russia Between East and West: the Intelligentsia, Russian National Identity and the Asian Borderlands // Central Asian Survey. 1991. Vol. 10. No. 4. Pp. 47-64.↩

54.Polevoi. Obozrenie. P. xxvi.↩

55.Ibid. Pp. xxv, xxxii-xxxiv. Polevoi’s phrase “European skill over Asian strength” is strikingly similar to Solov’ev’s “European quality and Asiatic quantity” in the latter’s Uchebnaia kniga russkoi istorii (Moscow, 1859-1860. P. 471).↩

56.Polevoi. Istoriia. Vol. 5. Pp. 10-11.↩

57.Polevoi. Obozrenie. Pp. xxxv-xxxix. For edinovlastie’s having been brought also to Russia from the East, as a result of the Tatar Yoke, see “The Mongols’ Impact on Political Development” above.↩

58.Ibid. P. lii. See also Polevoi. Istoriia. Vol. 4. P. 14.↩

59.Polevoi. Obozrenie. Pp. xl-xli.↩

60.Solov’ev. O vliianii prirody. P. 238, repeated verbatim in his Istoriia. Book 1. Vol. 1. P. 74. In Istoriia
(Book 1. Vol. 1. P. 242), Solov’ev contradicted himself by describing an unstable equilibrium between forest and steppe, between sedentary and nomadic populations, right up to the advent of the Mongols.↩

61.Kostomarov. Russkaia istoriia. Book. 2. P. 212.↩

62.Kostomarov. Mysli. P. 25.↩

63.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 5. Pp. 216-218, 225; Polevoi. Istoriia. Vol. 4. Pp. 171, 174; Vol. 5. P. 17; Ustrialov. Russkaia istoriia. Vol. 1. Pp. 141, 186, 189-190, 251; Kostomarov. Nachalo edinoderzhaviia. Pp. 42, 46; Idem. Russkaia istoriia. Vol. 1. Part. 1. Pp. 165, 168 (1993 edn.); Kavelin. Vzgliad. P. 41; Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 2. Vol. 4. Pp. 616-617; Idem. Uchebnaia kniga. P. 113; D. I. Ilovaiskii. Istoriia Rossii. 5 vols. in 7. St. Petersburg, 1876-1905. Vol. 2. P. 472; Idem. Sokrashchennoe rukovodstvo k russkoi istorii; Dlia mladshago vozrasta. 21st edn. Moscow, 1880. P. 46; K. N. Bestuzhev-Riumin. Russkaia istoriia. 2 vols. St. Petersburg, 1872-1885. Vol. 1. Pp. 471-472.↩

64.Kostomarov. Nachalo edinoderzhaviia. Pp. 42, 46; Ilovaiskii. Istoriia Rossii. Vol. 2. P. 472; Idem. Kratkie ocherki. 1875 edn. P. 242.↩

65.Kostomarov. Dve russkiia narodnosti↩

66.// Idem. Sobranie sochinenii. Book 1. Pp. 53-54.↩

67.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 5. Pp. 225-226; Solov’ev. Uchebnaia kniga. P. 333.↩

68.Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 2. Vol. 4. P. 615.↩

69.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 5. P. 217; Polevoi. Istoriia. Vol. 4. P. 174; Ustrialov. Russkaia istoriia. Vol. 1. P. 190; Ilovaiskii. Istoriia Rossii. Vol. 2. P. 472. For whatever it is worth, the Russian word knut is of Scandinavian, not Turkic or Mongol, origin according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged.↩

70.Karamzin. Istoriia. 5:226.↩

71.Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 2. Vol. 4. P. 617.↩

72.Bestuzhev-Riumin. Vol. 1. Pp. 279n., 471, 472n.↩

73.Kavelin. Vzgliad. P. 12.↩

74.Bestuzhev-Riumin. Vol. 1. Pp. 278-279.↩

75.Platonov. Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednei shkoly. Moscow, 1909-1910. Pp. 81-82.↩

76.Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 7. Vol. 13. P. 9. See also Ilovaiskii. Istoriia Rossii. Vol. 2. P. 472.↩

77.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 3. P. 136.↩

78.Ibid. Vol. 5. P. 215.↩

79.Ibid. Vol. 6. P. 85; Vol. 5. P. 234.↩

80.Ibid. Vol. 5. P. 216.↩

81.Karamzin. Istoriia. Vol. 5. Pp. 216, 229, 241.↩

82.Kliuchevskii. Vol. 2. P. 23. Hagarianism is a reference to Hagar, the mother of Abraham’s son Ishmael, progenitor of the Arabs.↩

83.Ilovaiskii. Kratkie ocherki. 1875 edn. P. 232.↩

84.Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 2. Vol. 4. P. 657; Idem. O vliianii prirody. Pp. 242-243.↩

85.Polevoi. Istoriia. Vol. 4. P. 153.↩

86.Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 3. Vol. 6. P. 476.↩

87.Platonov. Lektsii. Pp. 143-144.↩

88.Solov’ev. Istoriia. Book 7. Vol. 14. P. 413.↩

Примечания

[1]Ernest Renan. Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?

[2]// Ernest Renan. Oeuvres completes. Vol. 1. Paris, 1947. Pp. 891, 903-904.

[3]Charles J. Halperin. The Tatar Yoke and Tatar Oppression // Russia Mediaevalis. 1984. Vol. 5. Pt. 1. Pp. 20-39. “Golden Horde,” which like “Tatar Yoke” originated long after the end of the Mongol period, had also become standard by the nineteenth century. The subject of the present paper is treated superficially and unsystematically in Boris Ischboldin. Views of the Russian Historians on the Tatar Domination in Russia // Boris Ischboldin. Essays on Tatar History. New Delhi, 1963. Pp. 17-23.

[4]N. M. Karamzin. Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskago. 5th edn. St. Petersburg, 1842-1843 [1818-1829]. Vol. 4. Pp. 5-12; Vol. 5. P. 222; N. I. Kostomarov. Nachalo edinoderzhaviia v drevnei Rusi // N. I. Kostomarov. Sobranie sochinenii; Istoricheskiia monografii i izsledovaniia. 21 vols. in 8 books. St. Petersburg, 1903-1906. Book 5. P. 42. Kostomarov’s article was originally published in vol.12 (1872) of the first edition of his collected works.

[5]Karamzin. Vol. 4. Pp. 21-22, 150; N. G. Ustrialov. Russkaia istoriia. 5th edn. St. Petersburg, 1855. Vol. 1. Pp. 118-19.

[6]Karamzin. Vol. 8. Pp. 96, 136.

[7]N. A. Polevoi. Istoriia russkago naroda. 6 vols. Moscow, 1829-1833. Vol. 4. P. 8.

[8]Ibid. Vol. 5. P. 604.

Ab Imperio

Ab Imperio

Как российские историки XIX века интерпретировали монгольское владычество в смысле положительного опыта нациостроительства

Примечания