One person's bloody autocrat will always be another's constitutional monarch, I imagine.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

Hold onto your hat! (How do you say that in Russian?)

Accueil > Outils > Babel Fish Traduction > Translated Text    

Traduction Babel Fish    Aide

In English:
Aleksey Davydov DISCOVERY ALEKSANDR JANOV Me had long ago been it been desirable to be introduced to the creation of Aleksandr Janov, well-known analyst of the history of Russia, the former Russian journalist, who left Russia not of their own free will, but now professor n'yu-Yorkskogo university.

I heard about its uncommon, it is possible to say shocking, view on the history of Russia from the associate- specialists; however, everything that he previously wrote, had long ago been it radiated as bibliographical rarity. 4 by volley it read its books - "shadow of Groznyy tsar" (M., Crooke, 1997) and "Russia against Russia" (Novosibirsk, "Siberian chronograph", 1999). Moreover the life was formed in such a way that for me it was necessary to become the publishing reviewer of the prepared manuscript of his last book by the name "at the sources of our tragedy. 1480-1583 ".

On the whole, I dipped into Janov's creation with the head, and it must say that it produced to me strong impression. I do not remember, when for me for the last time it was necessary to test this sensation of freedom - and anxieties. Certainly, Janov made a discovery. But the discovery special kind. It did not simply illuminate the previously unknown pages of the epoch of Ivan III and Ivan OF THE IV, but were placed for doubt the truth of the point of view in Russia ruling in the Russian and western historiography, its culture, specific character of development. After Janov's conclusions both for the specialist and for any who is interested in Russian history does arise a complex question, as to now read studies about Russia and as to relate to the science about Russia, which was established in Russia and in the West in the last 400 years? You will agree that if scientific research makes it necessary to raise the question of this scale, it means much it stands. Well, visualize that someone suddenly to the transparency and the luster washed clean the covered with long-standing soot window, through which you, until now, looked at the past your country - and, that means to its future. It can be, we always assumed that peace after the window not such as it was seen through this turbid glass-, but accurately this they did not know. But indeed and the readers of Homer suspected, that dividing into three it must somewhere exist. But then arrived Schliemann - and dug up it. In a certain sense I would make level the discovery Janov with the results of Schliemann's excavations.

Yes, many of us, probably suspected, that Russia was borne by Europe. After digging out the mountains of myths, Janov this proved. Only in contrast to Schliemann, it still placed before us alarming, and, possibly, and the fateful question: why we so for long, by centuries did believe to myths? However that may be, I can with the clean conscience promise to the reader, that the afterward outgoing into the light trilogy A.L. of Janov, it will think about the history of its country entirely not in the manner that he thought thus far. Myth the first: Russia - not Europe In reality the historical revolution of Janov in the science is added, of course, of tens of discoveries and hundreds of devastated myths. Their one enumeration ischerpalo all limits of my essay. In order not to be lost among them, I will isolate only two.

The first of these myths is so old, that to anyone already it seems it did not occur it to verify. The discussion deals with conventional from the times Karamzina to the point of view, that from the very it began Moscow Russia, in contrast to the European states, it was autocratic. So think equally both evropeisty- occidentophiles (with the sigh) and slavophiles -pocvenniki (with the satisfaction), and marxists and their opponents, including such coryphaei of western historiography as Arnold Toynbee, to say nothing of popularizers as Richard payps. Janov verified this point of view - it is in detail, methodically, relying on the enormous number of facts of the epoch of the founder of the centralized Moscow state of Ivan THE III great (1462-1505). It verified - and - it turned out that we all believed in the myth. It turned out that in spite of this myth, left Russia from under the age-long yoke by usual northern-European state with the limited monarchy, differed little from let us assume Denmark either Sweden and where it is more politically progressive, than Lithuania or Prussia. Church reformation, the main event of the late European middle ages, Russia Ivan THE III beginning Europe's first: in the society the wide criticism of the unlimited power of church unrolled, arose the motion of nestyazhatel'skoy intelligentsia, the withdrawal of the cloister earth in favor of state began. And ran at that time people not of it to the West, but from the West - into it. And it began motion to the constitutional monarchy also first. Not by chance, of course, Ivan III - dear hero 4nova. The liberal reforms of the first Russian tsar formed in Russia the economic and juridical prerequisites of completely European market, his support to peasant predburzhuazii (through the adoption of two codes of law, the limitation of corvee, the introduction of the income tax and Yur'eva of day, the transfer of peasant duties to the money, etc.), the creation of social institutes, which bore the essential liberal element (zemstvo cathedral, the law court of jurors, the replacement of deputies -"kormlenпkov" by local krestyanskim self-guidance) actually embedded the bases of the europeanization of the country. And the main thing, autocrat it was not a bit not to the larger degree than his contemporaries Heinrich OF THE VII in England or zyat' his Grand Duke Casimir in Lithuania. It is shorter, there was any autocracy whatever in Russia for a period of entire its bright, speaking in Janov's words, European century between 1480 and 1560, from which began our state history, not. Janov contradicts against the autocratic, Eurasian tradition of Russia its own European tradition, "not a bit not less ancient and legitimate" (s. 371 of manuscript). In the Russian and western science the idea ruled, until now, that the European history of Russia began from Peter. Janov proved that it began in reality, so to speak, from the beginning, i.e.. from the very origin of Russian statehood, that it preceded autocracy. And, therefore, thrust to the European culture in Russia not was random. European gene "sat" in it originally. Janov came to the conclusion that "in first half THE XVI century, when the bases of the political history of all young European states were laid, Moscow was one of them" (s. 206). "precisely these decades were that nest, from where all European eagles departed. And all European hawks. Specifically, then left to the space of world policy young Moscow power. Swiftly prospering and being freed from the heritage of yoke, it entered the European family, pretending in it to the first roles "(s. 206). Janov reveals completely, until now, the not investigated phenomenon of "Moscow Athens" of 1490- e it is annual. He writes about the "slip of Russia in THE XVI century to the constitutional monarchy" (s. 406). I, relying on facts, it comes to the conclusion, which distinguishes its work from studies of this period of all other authors: "there is no Russia separately from Europe. It inside Russia "(s. 209).

Myth of the second: the weakness of the Russian Europeanism Neither weakness there was Russian Europeanism nor myth about his weakness not, as far as grandfather Ivan groznyy did not destroy in the course of the bloody and predatory autocratic revolution of the act of his great. Idea itself about the autocratic revolution (its kind the medieval equivalent of Bolshevik revolution), which invariably accompanied liberal reforms for the course of entire Russian history between 1565 and 1929, is for the first time introduced into the scientific revolution To the yanovym (in its early works it was called this phenomenon kontrreformoy). However to name it, however, this phenomenon completely refutes myth about the weakness of European tradition in Russia. Think, does call the readers the author, how by others could be caused all these draconic terrorist revolutions, in THE XVI century or in KHKH, if not by the force of the Russian liberalism, it is irrepressible which was being approached to return the country home - European sources? Than, if we extreme - from the point of view of imperial nationalism - by the need stop the liberal march, which promised to become irreversible? Why otherwise it would be required to cut out practically wholly the elite of the country? Why were the hecatombs of corpses and Civil Wars, destruction of intelligentsia, if not in order by any price hold the country in the desert of autocratic military empire, again and again fencing off by its Chinese wall from Europe? Fateful role of the historiography The value of the discovery Janov, however, not so much, possibly, in the creation of the new vision of the piece of the history of Russia, as in the new view on the science about Russia. Janov does not leave stone in Russia stone- from the prevailing views on the history. Examining slavophile, Eurasian (Aksakov, Trubetskoy, Savitskiy and other.) and westernizing (Kavelin, Solovyev, Chicherin and other.) views on the culture of Russia, it comes to the conclusion that also those, etc. proceed (to the different degree, also, in different ways) from the equally incorrect message - from the presence in it of one Eurasian civilizational specific character alone. Slavophiles indicate the need for developing Eurasian beginning, and occidentophiles - to inoculate western liberalism. And both tendencies, one, looking into Europe, another, turning away from Europe, but, desiring an improvement in the position in Russia, do not see European gene in most Russian culture.

Analyzing the work of the Soviet researchers of Russian statehood Of avrekha, Chistozvonova, Shapiro, Pokrovskiy, Troitsky, Saxarov, Bakhrushina, Vippera, Zimin, Skrynnikova, Makovskogo, Nosov and many others, Janov come to the conclusion about "Eurasian- Marxist nonsense", which rules in them this politically ordered nonsense justify autocracy (unlimitedness of authority) as historical need and the specific character of Russia. The author analyzes the thoughts about Russia of the foreign researchers of the different epochs: THE XIX century - Hegel, Marx, Engels, and THE XX century - Toynbee, Vittfogelya, Paypsa, Vallerstayna, etc. comes to the conclusion that they rest not so much on an objective study of historical reality, as to the long ago prevailing in the West stereotypes and the myths in the estimations of Russia. Rejecting entire alluvial in the science and creating its own view on the history of Russia, Janov attempts to revive the tradition of great Russian thinkers and oppositionists of the XV -xvii substances of Vassian patrikeyev, Andrey kurbskiy, Yuri krizhanich. The value of the istoriograficheskoy revolution of historian is difficult to overestimate - it for the first time arms the liberal motion of Russia by the knowledge of the fact that it has soil origin.

It is possible to say that because of Janov, liberal intelligentsia in Russia for the first time begins to understand, from where and why it, realizing itself as Russian phenomenon, ceases to consider its Europeanism something foreign so as not to say anti-patriotic. What from this does follow? There is no doubt, that the atrocity of Groznyy, first autocratic revolutionary (as, however, and the latter - Stalin) they root in the same cultural genetics, it would say 4, Russian statehood, that also the liberal Europeanism of Ivan III. And Janov dwells on this fateful duality of the historical roots of Russian political culture.

To us, however, is more important now another. After proving the European origin of Russia, oprovergnuv myth about the weakness of its European tradition, historian actually completed the discovery, which has not only theoretical, but also completely urgent value for us today. It is not enough that it for the first time answered whole series of the historical questions, which no one to it hit upon to assign. It explained to us, for example, from where the Europeanism of Peter undertook. Or from where never disappeared in Russia phenomenon of Russian Europeans - from Vassian patrikeyeva either Maxim grek in THE XVI century to Pushkin, Turgenev, Chekhov or Vladimir Solovyev in THE XIX. Or the origin of Russian dissidenstva - from Andrey kurbskiy to Andrey Saxarov. The alarming questions, which places before us Janov's created trilogy, still more urgent; however. And first of all the main thing of them - about the surprising ineffectiveness of Russian Europeanism. Yes, it is deeply, ineradicably placed in most political genetics of the country. Yes, it is more ancient, it is more original than the Eurasian autocracy. And, if it went to that, real "pochvennikami" are in Russia exactly evropeisty- liberals, and completely not slavophiles -derjavniki. But why in that case did prove to be these yevropeisty they were incapable for the elongation so many generations to overcome the autocratic servitude, which was tightened in Russia to the century of longer than the Mongolian? And as is connected the duration of this second yoke, if you do want, with the supremacy of those most dangerous myths, which does refute Janov? And how to overcome to us these myths today in order not to please inadvertently under even any, third yoke? I think that after the work of Janov precisely these questions must prove to be in the center of the attention of our historical science and politologii.

I think that for setting of precisely these questions bustles about Janov as scientist and as citizen. Its book this is academic science, this is that type of the analysis of the fate of Russia, which each member of our society produces for itself each day and which is for it one of the vital orientators in its daily activity. And for Janov itself first of all. Since I proved to be that implicated in the activity, connected with the publication of Aleksandr Lvovich's books, was established with it business correspondence, in which we discuss scientific questions. In one of the letters I expressed the opinion that the duration of autocratic yoke in Russia became the result of the tendency of Russian society toward the absolutization of values as to the search for the form of statics. Thus, our science in 1990- e years, having foregone the absolutization of derzhavnosti, attempted to pass to the absolutization of liberalism, from one form of statics our society moved was to another. In this connection Janov in the letter from New York this spring, giving estimation to the prospects of Russia, wrote: "there were in the world examples of the refusal of nation of derzhavnosti? They were. Best of them England, in the imperial possessions of which yet not so long ago ever not the setting sun. There were and examples of debunking mythology - France and especially Japan and Germany. But the first - native land of rationalism, and the latter traversed such "national self-destruction", which 4 no one I will wish (America, on the contrary, the case, when mythology it before our eyes begins, similarly, to overcome rationality).

Had i school, students, students, I would orient them toward the study of foreign experience from this point of view. In any case no one in the world still of similar made nothing. In your Moscow it is more in this sense of possibilities. But to learn to learn on the strange experience - only one aspect of the matter. Another - in learn on its own. In that, in order to the generation, which now on the student bench, proved to be capably of extracting fateful lessons from the experience of Russia. To understand that its European substance is infinitely weaker than the Eurasian. And on that overcoming this original duality requires the extraodinary effort - not only intellectual, but also popular, propagandistic. Chapters from "Istokov"... toward this are directed. In them, as I see, the whole agenda (program - A.D.) the study of Russian history anew. 4 I do not speak already, that in our matter there is still and the third side - political. It not only that for the change to one "statics" it would not arrive, as you correctly speak, another. But also that the country inadvertently would not roll up into the sequential political blind alley, fraught with new "collective suicide" ". In whom which bolit... Honestly speaking, sitting down for this work, altogether 4 only it intended to write usual review in "Russia against Russia", which, as the remaining parts of the trilogy, useyana by the devastated myths and are in addition nearer to our time (it treats the origin of autocratic revolution of 1917), for the such reason it is even more urgent, than the problem of the European origin of the country. But it came out in me, as you see, precisely, about this. It can be because 4 nevertheless historians of Russian culture. In whom which bolit, as the saying goes... It is shorter, thus it was written.

But I will finish as beginnings - by considerations, to which directed me (and I it were confident, it will direct still many) Janov's trilogy. Historical science is received from the side as the factual report of the life of humanity. But indeed the same facts can interpret differently. And therefore the histories of humanity there can be much. There is, however, only - let us name it after the absence of the best term "authentic history" - as basis of which lay the facts, tested by centuries-old oblivion and distortions, long and frequently triumphal life in the false interpretations, and then difficult return to their authenticity. To return to humanity although its microscopic piece "authentic history" - this fate as rewards awaits each scientist. Is only opened this piece by few - only that, who is capable to the human and scientific exploit. Fortunately, is always located the brave man, who dared to arise above the general acceptability, after stating, for example, that, you will excuse, gentlemen, but the earth completely not flat. Or that it nevertheless is twirled in spite of the obviousness. Or that the genes, in which are programmed the hereditary diseases of man (or nation), exist completely actually. That that the scientist placed to the legs of contemporaries his life, little whom he disturbs. It agitates, as a rule, another: how it - impostor - did dare to dispute indisputable? People, governments, holy inquisition, priests of archaic myths it is from time immemorial age-long they occurred before the selection: to change its own view on the peace or to plug mouth to heretic. And, of course, they, in addition, as a rule, preferred the second - they burnt it on the bonfire, they forced publicly otrech'sya, they sent to lesopoval or they evicted from the country. But to eliminate its discovery from the memory of people they no longer could. Thus, scientific work became civil act, building block into the foundation of "authentic history". And so, unfortunately, occurred in many instances discovery by humanity of authentic scientist - Giordano Bruno, Galileo, vavilova. Thus occurred - for me - the discovery Aleksandr Janov.

 

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

Excerpt:

Breaking the cycle of negative discourse does not mean devoting less time to criticizing Russia's failings, but it does mean reporting more about areas where cultural, economic, and political overlaps with the West already exist, so that they too can become a familiar part of our political discourse on Russia. If Russia's domestic debates were likened, say, to those that take place in any of a dozen other Western countries, I very much doubt that our perpetual foreboding about Russian democracy could be sustained. The "values gap" would eventually dissolve into manageable disagreements within the context of shared aspirations.

And I think I prefer this approach more than Ianov's or his supporter's.  You can go back and dig up and interpret history until you are blue in the face, but right now history is being made...  

This article argues that (fuggidabout what Russia wants to decide it is) the only way the West is ever going to treat Russia with respect is to see it as part of the West.  Interesting point, and there is a lot to be said in favor of bestowing on others the same kind attributes of rationalism (and isn't that lurking somewhere at the bottom of this East/West debate anyway?  Rationalism?) we hope others expect of us.  We must stop making Russia the Other.

And, and this goes back to some of the other diaries and what's really bugging me: what's more of a problem?  Putin's policies or our reaction to them?  I don't have the answer to that, but I do know that the ball is only in our court in one of these arenas.  So then we should focus more on that than pulling out our hair and screaming "Autocrat!" every time Putin does something we don't like.

Oh, there is also a nice run-through of these policies which are resulting in the hair-pulling.  I suppose it's all open to interpretation, but I'll say this Mr. Petro is doing nothing for my about-to-become-a-crush on Vladimir Putin.

But aside from my own neurotic preferences, this is actually a very good little op ed.  Wish the whole world could read it.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

The Variags/Varangians were instumental in uniting the tribes and organizing the state. But those involved in active ruling got quickly assimilated.

What is probably significant for our discussion, is that the Varangians have not been under full influence of Christianity by that time. Their state building was   independent of the Romans as well. When the Vikings became more "mainstream" Europeans, they were not influencing Russia anymore. So your point only underscores some distinctions - though I can't say anything definite how important (or not) that was.