The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

& #34; Civil history mad войны" or Innovative appeal to N.M. Karamzin and A.S. Pushkin's times. Review of the book: M. Veller, A. Burovsky. Civil history of mad war.



M.'s weller, BurovskiyA. Civil history of mad war. M.: ACT, 2007. - 640 pages

"CIVIL HISTORY of MAD WAR",

OR INNOVATIVE APPEAL TO NANOMETER TIMES. KARAMZINA AND EXPERT. PUSHKINA

The modern historiographic situation differs in an extreme variety of the points of view on for a long time, apparently, to the problems which settled in the estimated characteristics. Really, hardly anyone from modern researchers will challenge the "fratricidal" nature of Civil war. By analogy with the Soviet era when in all works the Civil war was treated only as the highest form of class fight of the won proletariat against the overthrown, but not destroyed bourgeoisie and landowners.

And, nevertheless, world outlook, methodological and aksiomologichesky dissociation of modern researchers - objective reality. The historiography of Civil war breaks up to a set of the competing alternative paradigms not compatible with each other of fundamental concepts. Modern judgment of Civil war is shown in continuous dialogical rivalry of scientific traditions, in fight of old concepts against new and also in the most conceptual space. At the same time four main criteria for evaluation of the competing paradigms continue to work. It is simplicity, consistency, documentary providing and a ratio with other theories. However they are values, than tough rules or algorithms of the choice in a much bigger measure.

From this point of view it is difficult not to notice active process of interpenetration each other of art and scientific literature which evidence is an emergence of historical researches of absolutely unique type. Issued from the pen of the writer-historian (and even not always the historian and not always the writer) these works apply for the status of such compositions by means of which the contemporary will be able to examine and comprehend in an available form the national tragedy of Russia of the beginning of the 20th century

In the history there is a place to repetitions. In the mid-thirties communication close until between historical prose and fiction was interrupted by of the 19th century. And if "Russian" and "Poor Lisa" of N.M. Karamzin the contemporary read the History of the State with identical ecstasy, then Pushkin "Pugachev's rebellion history" and Eugene Onegin had various reader's audiences. It was a peculiar reflection of the Russian society on penetration into its political space of the ideas of liberalism and constitutionalism. Passionate discussions about the fate of Russia, its originality and the prospects of development of a world civilization were the sign of the era preceding Great reforms of the middle of HGH of century

Within one and a half centuries the historical science and fiction developed independently of each other. In this regard specially studied this process of S. Ekshtut in the statement about inevitability negative consequences of similar isolation for formation of an image of the historical past is right. "You judge, - he fights for Mnemozina's temple in the book "Writes: Essays of intellectual history" (SPb., 2003. Page 43). - If we know something about history, then, as a rule, we get our knowledge from fiction and least of all we learn about passed from especially scientific works written by experts".

The ego can consider a statement a preamble to a conversation about M. Veller and A. Burovsky's book which appeared in 2007 "The civil history of mad war". In its summary it is promised that it will become "irreplaceable reading for everyone who heard the word "Russia", thanks to "an easy spoken language, irony and honesty on the verge of cynicism". Besides, directly is declared: this book - the first attempt to present Civil war "as the terrifying and surprising story which happened in reality".

It is known that development of historical knowledge consists in consecutive development and adoption of the scientific theories possessing as it is possible high empirical content. However all theoretical designs only promote knowledge, but do not give knowledge of reality at all.

To some extent it is connected with the fact that historical development never corresponds language to Artek to lyation by means of which society works, designates itself, interprets and anew forms. History does not reveal in a way of her understanding, and semantic structures of historical concepts are defined by perception of time.

Investigating the past, the historian vynuyadan to think not only of logic, but also of form of presentation of results of the researches, especially when he seeks to inform of "spirit" of the studied era and her own perception the reader.

Probably, the creators of this book about Civil war aspiring as they write were also guided by it, not to create the Horse-radish in Marinade label, not to write history from which "takes the breath away and the jaw droops", and to understand history, answering eleven of her questions: When? Where? What? Who? With whom? How much? Why? How? Owing to what? What for? With what ultimate goal?

Istoriopisaniye represents an image of production of identity. Because the motivation of process of designing proceeds from the subject staying in a certain social world, in a sense history is a reflection of an image of the present in the past. And in this sense all history represents a mythology form in her kulturnoantropologichesky understanding. Not accidentally authors of the book claim that from one their look "on the main points of Civil war... detectives have a rest, thrillers dried out, it is acrobatics on the minefield and sex on nails".

History as the intelligent version represents a modern scientific discourse. Each new generation writes own history, and at each generation there are competing hypotheses with different chances to become if not only then the dominating concepts.

In Veller and Burovsky's book it is extremely difficult to isolate a hypothesis. If authors try to prove that "Civil war is the October revolution which is dragged out in time", then about it thousands of pages are used already up. If they want to convince the reader that Civil war is "dense and terrible time" when "the relation to life - ha", "-give the relation to sex", "-give the relation to property here", then it is not new too.

Perhaps, vocabulary in the form of text saturation various words like "goats", "foolish decrees" and expressions, similar to this is innovative: "The Soviet republic was for Bolsheviks only the first step to creation of the Zemsharny Republic of Councils". But this vocabulary of a little general has with a discourse of an era of the October revolution even taking into account an arkhaization of that society.

It is difficult to call this vocabulary and modern meaning that it hardly dominates in modern Russian society. Most likely, it is that authors the used language designs put typical models of perception of any given events of Civil war and the stereotypified schemes of behavior. For this reason the language of the book acts not only as the tool of the description of revolutionary events nachalaHH century, but also as a part of social reality. Some kind of savoring by words "coterie of Bolsheviks", "red scorpions", "Bolsheviks are paid agents", "the Brest capitulation", "Fanny Kaplan as the most suitable candidacy on the shooter in the leader", etc. is explained by updating of studying the language processes connected with transfer by means of verbal or nonverbal communication of knowledge, social experience, certain notions of the existing reality. In other words the book - attempt of her authors not to reckon with opinion of professional reader's audience for the sake of finding of direct contact with the present.

The Kayaedy generation reconstructs a discourse according to the new bases. Therefore the history of Civil war will constantly change the form in a present discourse. The fact that remember this fratricidal tragedy depends on a way of its representation which has to correspond rather to an ability of social groups to create an image of the revolting Russia nachalaHH century, than possibilities of the researcher to awaken memories of this period of the Russian history.

It is known that in modern definitions of a discourse the lesser emphasis is placed on actually text as a part of a discourse. The attention is focused on extralinguistic, social characteristics of a discourse of an event context in which the text and also on the individual purposes, the interests and world outlook orientations of creators ground is created

go text. The discourse should be estimated first of all as a product of the human thinking formed under the influence of an event row.

As a link between historical science and fiction the metaphor as the peculiar artistic image having several trends in the development acts. They are connected with use of concepts without determination of their essence, with substitution of historical terms indistinct word formations which are used together with a concrete historical concept as opposition ("Bolsheviks" - "opponents of Bolsheviks"). Besides, creation of representation happens by means of attraction of enormous amount of the actual material.

With a metaphor in Veller and Burovsky's book obviously big problems. They hardly managed much more deeply, than to their predecessors to plunge into the history of Civil war, to change it, and, above all - to make sure and to convince the readers of the validity of written. From here - their increased ironical tonality of statement.

To some extent it is connected with conceptual judgment of history of Civil war. Stating a condition of the general chaos which captured all political, economic and social structures of the Russian society, authors, in essence, build the research on the known scheme of "disguise of heroes in anti-heroes". Responsible for everything occurring the Bolsheviks leaning "on sol - Danish-sailor's dezertirsky outlaws which brought them to power appear in Russia". About antinational policy of leaders of the White movement (it is called as "The white resistance") much, but without that ironical dominant inherent in the analysis of Bolshevist acts is also written. "Selfless red fighters" form in accelerated tempo at Veller and Burovsky "extreme and utopian communism by method of military and one-party dictatorship and cruel repressions". White as "noble knights of the movement for all sacred" owing to absence at them political strategy, according to authors, "on nothing... were necessary to the people". All their fight came down to "the ragged resistance on places".

Probably, for this reason Veller and Burovsky had a great confusion in definitions of the most Civil war and also with terms of its beginning and the termination. On the question posed "When Civil war began?" they answer: "And here somewhere in May, 1918". The ego does not prevent them to write further about the "first Civil war" which began in June, 1917 at all, and further away - about "that Civil war" which foundation was laid and "by declaration as Bolsheviks itself the only power in Russia (on October 26, 1917)", and "dispersal

The constituent assembly on January 4, 1918", and "creation of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (AREC) - on December 7, 1917".

Told in the preface under the symbolical name "Short Course of Civil History of Mad War" does not prevent Veller and Burovsky to describe further Civil war only in on at all - zharno - ardent expressions (Part I. The set on fire Russia; Part VI. The blazing Russia; Part VII. Fire. 1919; Part VIII. The flame is higher and higher (1920); Part IX. A flame over the Russian village (1921-1922); Part X. On coals of the great fire), reducing it to even to "process of expansion and reduction of territories of the state to which Russia broke up". Probably, therefore authors reduce "a result of Civil war" "to emergence of the state of new type... where romantics and slaves forged freedom and happiness for the whole world until the world became indignant".

It has to is necessary to give to Veller and Burovsky. They are ready to criticism and recognize that "the book has many shortcomings". Them they connect everything with the fact that the book is designed to liquidate "a white spot" of a domestic historiography - lack of "volume objective literature on Great Civil war". Here, however, suspicion creeps in that they are not too well familiar with literature of this.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to recognize that emergence of the book of Veller and Bu-rovsky is quite natural as is a product of crisis of the historical knowledge connected with a form and logic of statement of the received results. Works of this sort will much be born. There is a process of search of a new form of a scientific discourse when, being put into words already quoted Ekshtut, there is "a back and forth motion of a thought on space and time accompanied with change of author's intonation".

V.D. Zimina

Mark Charles Nathan
Other scientific works: