Share this article with friends
V.A. DYADICHENKO, F.E. LOS and V.G. SARBEY. The Development of Historical Science in the Ukraine (1917 - 1963)
The authors single out and analyze the principal stages in the development of historical science in the Ukraine over the past 46 years. The article illustrates the activities of a number of scientific- research institutions founded in the Ukraine in the 1920's, including the Institute of Marxism, the Republican and local committees for research in the history of the October Revolution and the Ukrainian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, the Central Archive Department, and the Institute of History of the All-Ukrainian Association of Marxist-Leninist Research Institutes, founded in the 1930's.
The development of Soviet historical science in the Republic, the article points out, was attended by an acute ideological struggle against the bourgeois-nationalist conceptions of M. Grushevsky, M. Yavorsky and their followers who tried to entrench themselves in scientific-research institutions of the Ukrainian S.S.R. Much attention and concern was shown by Soviet historical science for those bourgeois historians who tried to reappraise their views. The article emphasizes the significance of the U.S.S.R. Conference of Marxist Historians (December 1928-January 1929) as an important landmark in the promotion and strengthening of fruitful scientific contacts between historians of the various Soviet national republics.
Much attention is devoted to the new stage in the development of Soviet historiography in the Ukraine which was ushered in by the Twentieth CPSU Congress. The authors highlight the active elaboration of Party history which found its vivid reflection in the "Outline History of the Ukrainian Communist Party." Guided by the Twentieth CPSU Congress directives on the need of intensifying and deepening research in the history of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the Civil War of 1918 - 1920, the Ukrainian historians have produced a large number of monographs and collections and are now preparing for publication a fundamental work generalizing collective research in this field. At the present time, the authors point out, research in the history of socialist construction in the Ukraine is conducted along three basic lines: 1) the history of the working class, 2) the history of the collective-farm peasantry, and 3) the history of culture. Research work in the history of the Great Patriotic War is concentrated on the problem of the Ukrainian people's partisan struggle against the nazi invader. Intensive research is carried on in the most important and pressing problems of contemporary Soviet and foreign history. Significant progress has also been made in elaborating the history of the pre-socialist formations in the Ukraine.
A.V. FADEYEV. Reflections on Research in the History of Culture
The article points out that side by side with a rich variety of serious Marxist research works on the history of literature, music, painting, theatre and cinema produced in the Soviet Union, not a single generalized work embracing the entire history of the process of cultural development in pre- revolutionary Russia has so far been published. Yet it is exceedingly important to form a synthetic and integral idea of this process, to disclose its continuity and succession. This will make it possible to overcome the tendency towards encyclopedic interpretation and personification of diverse phenomena in the history of culture, which is typical of many works in this field.
Synthetic research in the culture of any historical period, A.V. Fadeyev stresses, should begin with a close analysis of the changed forms of social life, established customs and traditions, and the spiritual make-up of men. Only this approach can enable one to disclose the contradictions attending the process of cultural development. It would be wrong to restrict the whole process to highlighting the progress of democratic-culture alone, to accentuating only the activity of individual progressive thinkers and artists. In the light of Lenin's teaching on the struggle of two socially heterogeneous cultures within each national culture, the inner content of the cultural development process should be seen in the context of unceasing and bitter struggle between diverse political, ethical and esthetic theories reflecting the real progress of the class struggle.
Recognition of the class character of any cultural phenomena, the author stresses, does not imply negation of the progressive character of the cultural development process, of its continuity and succession. Contrary to the assertions of Spengler, Toynbee, Fay and other bourgeois ideologists, Marxist historians firmly adhere to the view that the process of cultural development is progressive in character.
Rejecting the patently anti-democratic theories of bourgeois ideologists concerning the "creative minority" and the "inert majority" (Toynbee), Marxist historians highly appreciate the contribution made by the popular masses to the development and advancement of culture.
In conclusion A.V. Fadeyev writes that the main task facing historians today is to put an end to the encyclopedic and personified approach to the phenomena of cultural life, to regard them as a single interconnected and interdependent process.
A.P. OKLADNIKOV. The Soviet Far East in the Light of the Latest Archeological Achievements
A.P. Okladnikov emphasizes in his article that research in the history of the vast area extending from the Urals to the Pacific is an important problem facing Soviet historical science. The history of the peoples inhabiting this territory, the author says, reflects the long road from age-old backwardness-noF infrequently from the primitive commune-to socialism and to Communist social relations. An important place in the steady advance along this road belongs to the indigenous nationalities of the Far East, whose history, owing to the most up-to-date archeological discoveries, has now been traced over a period of 20,000 - 15,000 years. The author vividly tells how Soviet archeologists discovered in the Far East an original mesolithic culture dating back to the Paleolithic era. There is a rich variety of Neolithic monuments highlighting a number of local cultures which existed in the Amur and Primorye territories at different historical periods. The monuments of the early Iron Age and Bronze Age periods date back from the end of the second millennium to the beginning of the first millennium B. C. Then follows the Mokhe epoch (I-VII centuries A.D.) and the medieval period (VIII-XVII centuries A.D.). From the viewpoint of general history, writes A. P. Okladnikov, the historical process in the Far East is noteworthy for the fact that it refutes the allegations that the peoples of the Far East have always been distinguished for their backwardness and primitive culture. In the course of millenniums they independently advanced from lower to higher stages of development. Their economy and culture (oral and written languages and the arts) were progressively developing, along with rudiments of scientific knowledge. The development of the productive forces led to the appearance, at a comparatively early date, of a class society and the state whose influence spread far beyond the borders of the Primorye and Amur territories. It is highly significant that the modern culture of the Far Eastern peoples clearly points to multivarious ties with the oldest culture dating to the Neolithic period: beautiful clay vessels adorned with ornaments typical of Nanaian, Ulchi and Nivkh-Gilyak modern national art have been discovered in several camping grounds belonging to the Neolithic era. This serves to confirm that the Amur culture is nearly 5,000 years old. At the same time, the history of the Far Eastern tribes is indicative of its links with the history of other fraternal Soviet peoples inhabiting the trans-Baikal and cis- Baikal areas, Western Siberia and Central Asia.
The Mongol invasion and the exhausting Mongol-Jurchen war, which lasted for a quarter of a century, was a fatal event in the life of the Far Eastern peoples, for it destroyed the Jurchen state and culture. The state of decline and stagnation in the Far East, the author writes in conclusion, was ended only by the Russian people who created a highly developed civilization in this extensive area. In the subsequent period following the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, the Leninist national policy of the Soviet state opened before the peoples of the Far East a bright road leading to the new, socialist life, the road to communism.
L.V. CHEREPNIN. Gogol's Historical Views
The article notes that N.V. Gogol had the highest regard for the historian and his research work. But to him the historian was not merely a scientist but also a writer. Gogol emphasized the interconnection and interdependence of historical phenomena. He repeatedly stressed that every historian must strive to avoid scholastic abstractions and be guided by the idea of historism in disclosing the compexity, multiformity and contradictory character of socio-political relations of the past. Being a progressive, dernocratically-minded writer, Gogol believed that the lessons of history furnished an extremely valuable material for educating man and society. He stressed the need for
presenting historical material in a simple and comprehensible way so as to make it accessible to the broad sections of the reading public interested in history. Particular attention was devoted by Gogol to the widest possible use of visual methods in teaching history.
Gogol, writes L. V. Cherepnin, was keenly interested both in Russian and foreign history, particularly in the history of the Middle Ages and the ancient world. He tried organically to combine the study of the past destinies of all mankind with the national history of individual states and peoples. Eurocentrism was utterly alien to the writer in his approach to the past. He understood the world-historic process in the broad sense, i.e., as the process of development of the peoples of Europe, Asia, America.
A distinctive feature of Gogol's approach to Russia's history was his attention to the past of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, his efforts to show the traditional bonds of kinship uniting the two fraternal peoples.
Gogol spent much time and energy in quest of materials for his historical works. Much importance was attached by the writer to ethnographic and folklore materials as a valuable historical source. He was indefatigable in his hunt for folk songs which he collected with loving care, firmly believing that they most fully reflect the people's past history. Among written sources much attention was devoted by Gogol to chronicles.
The article also shows that diverse monuments of painting, sculpture and architecture served as another important source enabling the writer to re-create the past.
At the same time, the article notes, in the last years of his life Gogol began to preach reactionary ideas, tried to justify the autocracy, serfdom and ideological oppression by religious dogmas, and even resorted to the lessons of history in an effort to vindicate the reactionary tsarist regime so detested and abhorred by the popular masses. Nevertheless, the works written by Gogol in the last period of his creative activity cannot eclipse his progressive ideas on history expounded in the preceding years.
A.Z. MANFRED. Jean Jacques Rousseau-A Herald of Revolution
Surveying the extensive literature devoted to Rousseau's ideological and literary heritage, the author notes that its extremely contradictory character reflects the contradictions typical of Rousseau's creative work. But what are the underlying principles and determinative features of Rousseau's heritage? How are we to explain the fact that his 250th birthday, solemnly observed all over the world in 1962, attracted so much attention in scientific and public circles in every country?
The main significance of Rousseau's ideological heritage lies in his socio-political views, which are comprehensively analyzed in this article. The author takes exception to the opinion, which became fairly widespread in Soviet historical literature some time ago, that Rousseau was an ideologist of the urban petty bourgeoisie-handicraftsmen, small proprietors, etc. The author is inclined to the view that Rousseau expressed the interests, sentiments and aspirations of the entire French people (including, of course, the multi-million peasant class) who were rising for the struggle against the system of feudal oppression. Analyzing Rousseau's conception of equality, the author shows its revolutionizing influence on contemporaries. Referring to Rousseau's idea of the people's sovereignty, the author draws attention to the fact that Rousseau was a confirmed champion of democracy and was able to rise to the understanding that in definite conditions it may become necessary to substitute democracy by some other form of political power capable of defending the people's interests, namely, by dictatorship.
Drawing a comparison between Rousseau and Mably, the author warns against a simplified, schematic approach to the question concerning Rousseau's place among representatives of 18th- century progressive social thought in France. Another important point stressed by the author is that one cannot artificially separate Rousseau's sociopolitical treatises from his works of fiction, that to form a clear understanding of Rousseau's ideological heritage one must carefully analyze and give due attention to the political, philosophical and artistic works of the eminent 18th-century French writer.
Rousseau's everlasting significance in the history of world culture and social progress should be attributed to the fact that his philosophical and artistic works, profoundly imbued with the spirit of humanism and uncompromising condemnation of violence, reaction and social injustice, had a revolutionizing effect on men's minds and hearts.
Permanent link to this publication:
LRussia LWorld Y G