Английский язык: Методическое пособие

Ф Е Д Е РАЛ Ь Н О Е АГ Е Н Т С Т В О П О О БРАЗО В АН И Ю В О РО Н Е Ж С КИ Й Г О С У Д АРС Т В Е Н Н Ы Й У Н И В Е РС И Т Е Т

М ето д и ч еск ое п осо бие п оа нгли йск ом у язы к у 020700–И стория Г С Э .Ф .01 –И ностранный я зык

В оронеж –2005

2

У тверждено научно-м етодическим советом № 10 от23.06.2005г .

историческог о

ф акультета

С оставители: В ерещ агинаЕ .Н ., Д обросоцкая А.П ., Ш ирш иковаЕ .А.

М етодическое пособие подготовлено накаф едре страноведения и иностранных я зыков историческог о ф акультета В оронежског о г осударственног о университета. Реком ендуется для студентов3 курсадневног о и вечернег о отделений.

3

Г ла ва I 1. П ро ч и та йте и п еревед и те тек ст. My Future Profession If you ask me why of all humanities I have chosen History, my answer will be: it interests me as a science because it helps one to understand and explain the processes going on in various aspects of human history. It also helps one to foresee the course of events in the future. But no one can really study any particular period of history unless he knows a lot about what preceded it, and what came after it. If one casts a retrospective look at the historical past, one can see that the entire history of human society is that of wars and struggle for power. Wars, except just ones, were always waged for the purpose of conquering other lands and peoples. All the monarchs brutally oppressed their own people, and enslaved and plundered the conquered nations. But, in the course of time, some empires and monarchies gradually came down to a downfall. As a result of democratic revolutions, some monarchs were overthrown and republics were proclaimed. I suppose we’ll soon discuss all these points at our seminars. There are many historical subjects in our program. When we are through with Ancient History, we’ll pass over to the study of the Middle Ages. As to Russian History, I think, we’ll start learning the pre-revolutionary period (the period of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century) next year, but not until we are through with the feudal period. When I am in my third year, I wish to devote myself to the special study of Modern and Contemporary History to which I am greatly attracted. It was shortly before leaving school that I made up my mind to enter this faculty and take up History seriously as my future speciality. Whether I’ll make a very good teacher or a research worker remains to be seen, But I’m sure that eventually I’ll become quite knowledgeable in the field of History and perhaps social sciences. 2. На йд и те а нгли йск и е эк ви ва ленты след ующ и хсловосоч ета ни й в тек сте. Х одсобытий; с целью ; в х оде, в течение; пасть, рух нуть; в результате чег о-то; закончить что-либо; в отнош ении, что касается ; учиться на первом курсе; посвя тить себя чем у-либо; окончить ш колу; реш ить сделать что-то; поступить в университет (на ф акультет); заня ться изучением истории; быть уверенным , что… ; быть уверенным вчем -либо; вобласти. 3. О тветьте на воп росы . 1. Did you enter the history faculty by vocation? 2. What periods of World and Russian History do you study at the faculty?

4

3. Do you take a course of America’s Modern and Contemporary History as a first-year student? 4. What history attracts you most of all: ancient, medieval or modern? 5. Do you know about the difference between “historic” and “historical”? 6. Who do you call a scholar (a specialist) in the field of history? 7. In what year of study do the students of your faculty begin their specialization? 8. What interests you most in the history of your country (your region)? 4. П о д готовьте ра сск а з осво ей б уд ущ ей п рофесси и . Г ла ва II I. Цели и за д а ч и , м ето д ы и а на ли з и сслед ова ни я 1. Введ ени е (The) Present article is about… book is about essay deals with paper is devoted to… We shall concern ourselves with (the problem of)... We are concerned with... We would like to concentrate on... ...will be observed here. The book embraces a wide range of problems. My discussion will be centred on (the following issues)... Our main (primary) concern is...

(Н астоя щ ая) статья книг а посвя щ ена курсовая работа работа М ы сосредоточим ся напроблем е…

Н асинтересует М ы х отели бы сосредоточиться на… будетрассм отрено здесь Книг а ох ватывает ш ирокий круг проблем М ой доклад будет сосредоточен на (следую щ их вопросах ) Н ас в основном (прежде всег о) интересует… The paper presents (a comparative В работе дан сравнительный анализ… analysis of...)

2. Ф о рм ули рова ни е п роблем и сслед ова ни я The problem here to be studied is... We are concerned with the problem of... We turn our attention to a new and more urgent problem. Thus the core of the problem is… To bring further light on various aspects it is necessary to...

Рассм атриваем ая проблем а заклю чается втом , что… М ы заним аем ся проблем ой М ы обращ аем наш е вним ание на новую и насущ ную проблем у Т аким образом , суть проблем ы заклю чается вследую щ ем … Д ля тог о, чтобы более г лубоко осветить различные аспекты,

5

We are facing a problem...

необх одим о… М ы столкнулись спроблем ой

3. Уста новк а объек та и сслед ова ни я We shall examine/study … We shall explore… The object of this book is… The object of our exploration is… The subject of the investigation (book) is… The topic of my investigation (exploration, work) is… … is under discussion. The following study is concerned with… It requires a detailed study of…

М ы изучим … М ы исследуем … О бъ ектом исследования данной книг и я вля ется … О бъ ектом исследования я вля ется … П редм етом исследования данной книг и я вля ется … П редм етом м оег оисследования я вля ется … … обсуждается Н астоя щ ее исследование посвя щ ено… Э то требуетдетальног оизучения …

4. О п ред елени е целей и за д а ч и сслед о ва ни я the object of our exploration is… the topic of my investigation is… the following study is concerned with… the purpose of the paper is…

объ ектом исследования я вля ется … предм етом м оег о исследования я вля ется … настоя щ ее исследование посвя щ ено… ц ель м оей работы заклю чается в…

5. Ха ра к тери сти к а п роблем ы и сслед о ва ни я This problem requires a detailed study... The key question is... This is the most difficult question of all. It is a very difficult period to study... The study of... is of primary importance. The detailed study of... is of great importance.

Э тапроблем атребуетдетальног о изучения … О сновным вопросом я вля ется … Э то сам ый трудный вопрос. Д анный периодсложно изучать… И зучение… им еетпервостепенное значение. Д етальное изучение… им еетбольш ое значение.

II. Состо яни е воп роса и сслед ова ни я 1. Изуч енностьп роблем ы Н аш е знание о… ог раничено. Our knowledge of... is limited. The problem of ...has been dealt with in П роблем а… рассм атривалась в the investigations of a number of работах ря даавторов.

6

authors. But despite of this, we do not have a Н о, несм отря наэ то, всеобъ ем лю щ ег о comprehensive investigation of... исследования не сущ ествует. The question remains unclear. В опросостается нея сным . We know little (much) about ... М ы м ало(м ног о) знаем о… Our knowledge of... is based on... Н аш е знание о… основанона… 2. О б зор ли тера туры There is a vast literature on... On this question there is an enormous literature. This question has been widely discussed in the literature. It is necessary to give a short review of... Almost all observers emphasize that... In his book, Dr. ... has done an excellent job of... and made a fine contribution to... Some authors define it as... others view it as... It has been overlooked by... (the historians).

С ущ ествуетобш ирная литература… П оданном увопросусущ ествует обш ирная литература. Э тот вопросш ирокообсуждался в литературе. Н еобх одим осделать краткий обзор… П очти все исследователи подчеркиваю т… В своей книг е доктор… проделал прекрасную работуи внесбольш ой вкладв… Н екоторые авторы определя ю тэ то как… , друг ие рассм атриваю тэ то как… Э то не было зам ечено(историкам и)…

3. Тео ри я Numerous theories were advanced to Были предложены м ног очисленные account for... теории для объ я снения … He developed the general theory of... О н развил общ ую теорию … The modern theory holds that... С ог ласно соврем енной теории… This was the theory held by... Э тутеорию разделя л… According to the traditional theories... С ог ласно сущ ествую щ им теория м … 4. Излож ени е общ еп ри няты хп олож ени й О бщ еприня то, что… У ученых по э том увопросу сущ ествует общ ее м нение… The scholars have usually recognized У ченые обычнопризнаю т, что… that... It is generally believed that... О бщ еприня то, что… It is now believed that... С ейчассчитаю т, что… It has often been claimed recently... В последнее врем я утверждали, что… It is known that... И звестно, что… It is generally accepted that... The scholars generally agree that...

7

It is a well-known fact that...

Э то х орош о известный ф акт…

III. О рга ни за ци я и си стем а ти за ци я м а тери а ла 1. П резента ци я и сточ ни к ов From the account of… we gather that… A thorough study of… annals leads to… Non-literary documents are not numerous… We have only fragments of… A contemporary chronicler wrote of… that… The chronicler has given a fuller account of the… Examination of the records shows (reveals)… The material brought together shows…

И зописания … м ы узнаем , что… Т щ ательное изучение… анналов приводитк… М атериальные пам я тники нем ног очисленны… У насим ею тся только ф рагм енты… Л етописец писал, что… Л етописец очень подробноописал… И зучение источниковпоказывает…

С обранный вм есте м атериал показывает, что… A vast amount of material concerning… В наш ем распоря жении им еется is available. м ног очисленный м атериал, относя щ ийся к… The sources which have been assembled И сточники всовокупности show… показываю т… 2. Излож ени е и ха ра к тери сти к а и м еющ и хся м а тери а лов The availability of new information leads to… We derive our information from… The information was derived from… There is some (considerable) evidence that… The data obtained were submitted to… The data used for this study were obtained…

П оя вление новых данных приводит к… М ы извлекаем инф орм ацию из… И нф орм ация былаполученаиз… И м ею тся некоторые (сущ ественные) свидетельстватог о, что… П олученные данные были подверг нуты… Д анные, использованные для э тог о исследования , были получены…

3. Ссы лк а на и сто ч ни к и The reference to… would have indeed been a very strong argument for… For a discussion of the evidence it must be suffice here to refer to…

С сылкана… действительно былабы убедительным арг ум ентом впользу… Д ля рассм отрения данных здесь вполне достаточносослаться на…

8

There are many references to… As far as I know the event refers to the time when…

И м ею тся м ног очисленные ссылки на… Н асколько м не известно, э тособытие относится к том уврем ени…

IV. Струк турно-к ом п ози ци онное оформ лени е ра б оты 1. На ч а лоп роцесса и нформ и рова ни я We shall begin by saying that… We shall begin this part of our work by discussing and comparing… We’ll begin by considering… We’ll begin with a brief consideration of… It is well to begin with a little clarification. The first point to be made is… From the very start it is necessary to point out…

М ы начнем суказания нато, что… М ы начнем э ту часть работы с обсуждения и сравнения … Н ачнем срассм отрения … Н ачнем скратког орассм отрения … С ледует начать с небольш ог о разъ я снения . П режде всег о необх одим о сказать… С сам ог о начала необх одим о отм етить…

2. П ро д олж ени е п роцесса и нформ и ро ва ни я We shall now proceed to show… Then comes the problem of… It will be clear from what has been said above… As will be seen in more details in the next chapter… It follows logically from what has been said that… All these important questions will be elucidated in the subsequent chapters… In this connection the following observation can be made… We can now pass on to…

Т еперь перейдем к… Затем возникаетпроблем а… И зсказанног останетпоня тно… К ак будет детально рассм отрено в следую щ ей г лаве… И з сказанног о лог ически вытекает, что… В се э ти важные проблем ы будут освещ ены впоследую щ их г лавах … В э той свя зи необх одим о сделать следую щ ее зам ечание… Т еперь м ы м ожем перейти к…

3. Вы ра ж ени е связи с п ослед ующ и м и злож ени ем To examine the historical consequences Ч тобы изучить исторические of… we must turn to… последствия , м ы должны обратиться к… The following stage is marked by… С ледую щ ая стадия знам енуется … When we turn to… we are confronted К ог да м ы обращ аем ся к… мы with a different set of problems… сталкиваем ся с ря дом различных

9

We shall turn our attention to…

проблем М ы обратим вним ание на…

4. Вы ра ж ени е связи с п ред ш ествующ и м и злож ени ем As we have already noted in connection with… As we have traced… As has been mentioned earlier… As we have indicated… We noted earlier that… As noted above…

К ак м ы уже отм етили всвя зи с… К ак было установлено… К ак было упом я нуто ранее… К ак было указано… М ы ранее отм ечали, что… К ак отм ечалось выш е…

5. Во звра щ ени е к вы ш еи злож енном у In order to understand the mode of Д ля тог о, чтобы поня ть образ thought of… we must turn back to… м ыш ления … м ы должны вернуться к… We may return to the question of… М ы м ожем вернуться к вопросу… As has been shown in the previous К ак было показано в предыдущ ем section… разделе… On the foregoing pages we have already Н а предыдущ их страницах было уже said that… отм ечено, что… 6. О ста новк а в п роцессе и злож ени я С ейчас давайте рассм отрим более подробно… We have now to observe… М ы сейчасдолжны изучить… In this connection it should be noted В э той свя зи необх одим о отм етить, that… что… We have now to consider a more С ейчас следует рассм отреть более important question… важный вопрос… We now turn our attention to the problem С ейчасобратим ся к проблем е… of… At this point a digression is called for… С ейчаснеобх одим оотступить от… Before passing to the next question I П режде чем перейти к следую щ ем у would like to dwell on… вопросу, м не х отелось бы остановиться на… Now let us look more specifically at…

7. Уточ нени е, ра зъяснени е О сновные х арактеристики описаны в… A brief word must be said with respect Н еобх одим о кратко осветить The basic features are defined in…

10

to… Now we can generalize and say… By this we imply… By this we mean that… In other words… It requires some explanation.

(остановиться на)… С ейчасм ожно обобщ ить и сказать… П одэ тим м ы подразум еваем … М ы им еем ввиду… И ным и словам и… Э то требуетнекоторых разъ я снений.

8. Внесени е д оп олнени й It should be added that… С ледуетдобавить, что… Before we proceed we should like to add П режде чем продолжить, необх одим о a few words about… добавить несколькослово… It requires an additional remark… Э то требует дополнительног о разъ я снения … One more point should be made in this В э той свя зи следуетдобавить, что… connection… 9. А к ти ви за ци я вни м а ни я П редставля ется важным отм етить, что… It is also important to show that… В ажно также показать, что… It is noteworthy that… П рим ечательно, что… It should also be emphasized that… Н еобх одим о также подчеркнуть… We shall lay special emphasis (stress) У делим особое вним ание… on… It is important that we should try to bring В ажно попытаться привлечь вним ание into clear focus… к… It seems essential to emphasize that…

V. П еред а ч а зна ни й 1. Излож ени е со б ственной то ч к и зрени я М ы приш ли к том у, что… М ы м ожем приня ть точку зрения , сог ласно которой… In contrast to the generally held belief we В отличие от общ еприня тог о м нения , think that… м ы считаем , что… It cannot be denied that… Н ельзя отрицать, что… All this allows us to consider… В се э то позволя ет нам рассм атривать… We come to a definite decision… М ы прих одим к определенном у реш ению … We have reason to state that… У насесть основания заявить, что… It is a mistaken view to… О ш ибочно считать, что… We have come to accept that… We may accept the view that…

11

On this point I cannot agree with…

В э том отнош ении я сог ласиться с…

не

м ог у

2. Иллюстра ци я теорети ч еск и хп олож ени й Д анный прим ер достаточно х орош о иллю стрирует… These examples will suffice to show П риведенных прим еров достаточно, that… чтобы показать, что… A characteristic example of this is… Х арактерным прим ером я вля ется … This is illustrated by the following Э то м ожно проиллю стрировать на examples… следую щ ем прим ере… The figures afford a typical picture… Д анные позволя ю т передать типичную картину… Authoritative surveys showed how… В авторитетных работах показано, что… Statistics showed… С татистикапоказывала… This example illustrates well enough…

3. Ссы лк а на а втори теты One may appropriately quote what was С ейчас ум естно процитировать то, что said about… by… the point what… былосказано о… We know it on good authorities… Н ам э то известно из достоверных источников… He comments that… О н объ я сня ет, что… As professor… remarks… К ак отм ечаетпроф ессор… Dr. … sums up the position of… in these Д -р… обобщ ает точку зрения words… относительно… следую щ им образом ... A few cases can be quoted from… М ожно привести несколько прим еров из… 4. Вы ск а зы ва ни е п ред п олож ени й Е сли предположить, что… Е стественно было бы предположить, что… It might have been supposed that… М ожно былобы предположить, что… It would be mistaken however to suppose О ш ибочно было бы, тем не м енее, that… считать, что… We have reason to believe that… И м ею тся основания полагать, что… If we assume… It might be natural to assume that…

5. О б ъяснени е This calls for further explanation…

Э то требуетдальнейш ег о разъ я снения …

12

Э то во м ног ом объ я сня ет последую щ ее… It must be kept in mind when we come to О б э том следуетпом нить, ког дам ы interpret… перех одим к трактовке… We must account for… М ы должны объ я снить… This explains much of what followed…

6. А ргум ента ци я It is now argued that… It was argued against (in favour of)… Our argument for… is based on…

С ейчасутверждаю т, что… П риводились доводы против(за)… Н аш и доводы в пользу… основываю тся на… not Д оводы впользу… неубедительны…

The arguments for… are conclusive… There are however no particular П ока ещ е нет особых arguments to be advanced for… пользу…

доводов в

7. Вери фи к а ци я И м еется ещ е одно доказательство… Д остаточно верно то, что… В некоторой степени э то м ожет быть верно… To prove this statement I shall present a Д ля подтверждения э тог о я приведу few facts… некоторые ф акты… For confirmation of… we shall turn to… Д ля подтверждения … м ы обращ аем ся к… In the light of these data, the discovery В свете данных ф актов, открытие… of… confirms the… подтверждает… The validity of this conception may be Д остоверность данног о положения readily tested by analyzing… м ожетбыть подтвержденаанализом … There is another proof that… This is true enough… To some extent this may be true…

8. Вы ра ж ени е уверенности , сом нени я It is hardly acceptable that… Е двали прием лем тотф акт, что… We have sufficient ground to assume У нас есть серьезные основания that… полагать, что… There can be no doubt as to… Н е м ожет быть сом нения в отнош ении… One can safely say that… М ожно уверенно сказать, что… It is likely/ but not certain… С корее всег о, но не точно… Almost certainly it was common for… Н есом ненно, э то было типично для … It is very doubtful how… В есьм асом нительно как…

13

9. Вы ра ж ени е оценк и In an effort to arrive at a just appreciation of the course of events it is necessary to… It was underestimated… It was overestimated… This was an evident exaggeration… The significance of this work can hardly be overestimated… A special significance is attached to… The value of… is in no sense superseded…

Д ля тог о, чтобы прийти к объ ективной оценке… необх одим о… Э то недооценили… Э то переоценили… Э то былоя вным преувеличением … Значение э той работы трудно переоц енить… О собое значение придается … Значим ость… ни в коей м ере не преувеличена…

VI. Со б ственно -и стори ч еск и е п ослед ова тельности 1. Излож ени е фа к тов. In this work accounts should be taken of the following facts… Recently new facts have been obtained about… The facts have shown that… From these facts it follows that… The facts have illuminated another aspect of the problem… These facts have given rise to new questions… These facts have been considered from various points of view… All these facts prove that… The facts about… have been grossly distorted. It is a well known fact, and there is a little to comment. The long established fact is important for… The ascertained facts give to…

В данной работе необх одим о учитывать следую щ ие ф акты… Н едавно были получены следую щ ие ф акты… Ф акты показали, что… И зэ тих ф актовследует, что… Ф акты осветили друг ой аспект проблем ы… Э ти ф акты подня ли новые вопросы… Э ти ф акты были рассм отрены сразных точек зрения . В се э ти ф акты подтверждаю т, что… Ф акты о… были сильно искажены.

Э то х орош о известный ф акт, и особых ком м ентариевне требует. Д авно установленный ф акт важен для … У становленные ф акты даю тоснования для … Э то основывалось натом ф акте, что… It rested on the fact that… Э то не соответствуетф актам , что… It does not fit the facts… О стается рассм отреть ещ е один ф акт… One fact remains to be considered… Э ти ф акты м ожноизвлечь из The fact can be known from records… источников. Let us observe some interesting facts that Д авайте рассм отрим некоторые ф акты, которые показываю т…

14

show… The fact that was a chief cause of … is … It is caused by the fact that… The facts are clear… All the facts are in favour of the belief that… We can allude to the following facts… The main facts can be simply stated… It is not necessary to cite these facts…

О сновной причиной я вилось то, что… Э то вызванотем ф актом , что… Ф акты я сны… В се ф акты подтверждаю тм нение о том , что… М ы м ожем сослаться наследую щ ие ф акты… О сновные ф акты м ожно просто перечислить. Н етнеобх одим ости приводить подобные ф акты.

2. Уста новлени е связей и ра зли ч и й м еж д у и м еющ и м и ся фа к та м и . The comparative study of … may bear Благодаря сравнительном у considerable analogy with… исследованию м ожно провести аналог ию с… The comparative study of… affords firm С равнительное исследование… grounds for studying that… я вля ется надежной основой для изучения … As compared with… П о сравнению с… It may be compared with… Э то м ожно сравнить с… When comparing… the similarity С равнивая с … видно сх одство between… it is evident that… м ежду… Here the data of the comparison В отф акты сравнения … between… Comparison of the data obtained had С равнение полученных ф актов made it possible to… позволило… In any case a comparison with … shows В лю бом случае сравнение с… that… показывает, что… Chronological parallels to make М ожно провести х ронолог ические comparison of … with… параллели с… Contrary to accepted, modern belief I В отличие от общ еприня той точки think that… зрения , я считаю , что… On the contrary… Н аоборот… Quite the contrary… К ак разнаоборот… This contrast sharply with… Э то г лубоко противоречит… This would seem to be a central В ероя тно, э то основное contradiction of … противоречие… The most important difference lies in… Н аиболее значим ое различие заклю чается в… There were also certain (important) И м елись сущ ественные различия differences in… м ежду… There are differences between… С ущ ествую тразличия м ежду… Let us note the similarities between… Д авайте рассм отрим сх одство

15

Apart from… Unlike…

м ежду… В отличие от… В отличие от…

3. Уста новлени е п ри ч и н и след стви й. The main reason for … was… The reason for this was simple. They must be reckoned as the main causes of … If we are to trace the main causes of … we must… It doesn’t follow that the fact was the cause of … This was the true reason for… The reason is clear… The biggest factor influencing the … is…

О сновной причиной … я вилась… П ричинаэ тог о проста. Э то должно считаться основным и причинам и… Д ля установления причины необх одим о… И з э тог о не следует, что данный ф акт я вился причиной… Э то былаистинная причина… П ричиная сна. Н аиболее значим ым ф актором , оказываю щ им влия ние, я вля ется … Special factors have played a big part О собые ф акторы сыг рали in… значительную роль в… For this reason it may be said that… П оэ том ум ожно сказать, что… It is for this reason that… И м енно по э той причине… 4. Вы д елени е ха ра к терны хч ерт, фа к торов, явлени й. The nature of the development of … has been determined mainly by… The nature of these (invasions) can be learnt from… account… One characteristic feature was…

Х арактер развития был в основном предопределен… О х арактере э тих (вторжений) м ожно судить по описанию … О днах арактерная черта заклю чалась в… The other thing was characteristic of … Д руг ой чертой, х арактерной для … is… я вля ется … It is the main characteristic of … Э то основная особенность… It is necessary at the point to describe the Здесь необх одим о описать основные main characteristic of… особенности… The most remarkable feature of … is… Н аиболее я ркой особенностью я вля ется … The first distinguishing feature of … is… П ервой отличительной чертой я вля ется … There are two features which Д ве черты отличали … от… differentiated it from… Some of the common and distinctive О бщ ие и различные черты features of… are… заклю чаю тся вследую щ ем … It became a decisive feature of… which Э то стало х арактерной чертой, которая

16

marked it off sharply from… отличала… от… Many of the main features of the period М ног ие основные черты э тог о периода can be most clearly seen in… обозначены в… It may be noted here that it was a vital Здесь следует отм етить, что … feature of the time… я вля ется отличительной чертой врем ени… We have now to trace the progress of … С ейчас м ы должны проследить х од in the history of the time and observe… историческог о развития тог о врем ени и осознать… Let us trace in brief outline the successful Д авайте проследим в общ их чертах steps of… последовательные ступени… We can trace the way of the development М ы м ожем проследить путь развития ( of … (causes of… )… причины)… It has been traced back to… Э то прослеживается вплоть до… Some historians nave traced these trends Н екоторые историки проследили э ти back to … я вления вплоть до… During the period under review we shall И зучая данный период, м ы проследим trace the course of the development … путь развития … It is hard to trace the influence of… on… Т рудно проследить влия ние… на… It is impossible to trace in detail the… Н евозм ожно детальнопроследить… Systematic investigation allowed us to С истем атическое исследование trace the history of… позволя етнам проследить историю … 5. Сп о собы о б озна ч ени я и сто ри ч еск оговрем ени . BC (Before Christmas) Д онаш ей э ры AD(Anno domini) Н аш ей э ры From the earliest times… С древних врем ен… Early in the … century… В начале… века… At the close of the… century В конц е… века… In the late… century… (by the end of the К конц у… века… century) … In the course of time… В течение врем ени… It dates back to… Э то датируется … VII. За к люч ени е, вы воды , п одвед ени е и тогов We must conclude that… From this we can conclude… We shall conclude this chapter with a few observations… All this allows us to conclude… It is impossible to come to any definite conclusion on this point… In conclusion I should like to express

П одводя итог , отм етим … И зэ тог о м ы м ожем сделать вывод… Закончим г лавуследую щ им и выводам и… В се э топозволя етприйти к выводу… Н евозм ожно прийти к определенном у заклю чению относительно… В заклю чение м не х отелось бы

17

выразить… Т аким образом , м ы приш ли к следую щ ем увыводу… Н аосновании проделанной работы м ы приш ли к следую щ ем увыводу… М ы бы х отели обобщ ить основные проблем ы, о которых г оворилось выш е… Sunning up the results of our research we П одводя итог и данном у would like to say… исследованию , м ы бы х отели отм етить… The main issues may usefully be О сновные вопросы м ог утбыть summarized… сведены к следую щ ем у… It is derived from the analysis of… that… И занализа… следует, что… (say)… We thus arrived at the following conclusion… On the basis of the work carried out we have come to the following conclusion… We would like to sum up the main points we made above…

Г ла ва III 1. П ро ч и та йте и п роана ли зи руйте тек ст. Излож и те егосодерж а ни е в форм е со общ ени я она уч ной ра б оте, и сп ользуя вы ра ж ени я и з гла вы II. Т екст1 IVAN THE TERRIBLE by Ronald Hingly In 1533 the Muscovite Grand Princedom passed to Ivan IV, a three year old boy and the elder son of Vasily III. Better known to a later age as Ivan the Terrible, the child eventually became the first in that sequence of especially potent, largerthan-life rulers of Russia who have fired the imagination of posterity throughout the ages. All these super rulers –who also include Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Lenin and Stalin – employed political terror in defence of their persons and governmental systems. But whereas the brutalities of a Peter, a Catherine, and even of a Lenin, were not wildly out of proportion to their political aims, Ivan the Terrible and Stalin practiced extravagant overkill, slaughtering their subjects on a scale defying rational explanation. Ivan's minority provided only sketchy hints of his terrible future. From the age of three until he was seven the infant despot lived under the regency of his mother, the Grand Princess Helen, who had become the second female ruler (after the tenth century Princess Olga) of a country later to be dominated by its eighteenth-century empresses. Herself of western Russian origin, but also reputedly a descendant of the Tatar potentate Mamay, the Regent successfully quelled domestic feuds. She also repressed alien encroachment from Lithuania and Sweden, in which policies she was aided by a politically active lover, one of the many Princes Obolensky. In 1538, however, the Princess died, reputedly murdered by poison, after which a decade of chaos ensued.

18

Now, if ever, was a time when the aristocracy of princes and boyars could have asserted a claim to power and led a movement away from autocratic absolutism. But the Russian notables of 1538-47 were too busy quarrelling and plundering the leaderless grand princedom to unite in defence of their collective interests. One effect of this period of 'boyar rule' –for which 'boyar feuding' would be a better term –was to increase the impact of later despotism by inflaming in the temporarily helpless young Grand Prince Ivan acute lifelong resentments such as prompted him to wreak a bloody vengeance many years later. Slighting, neglecting, endangering or patronising the juvenile sovereign in the 1540s, various titled hooligans helped to create in him the paranoiac mentality which eventually found its outlet in massacres sparing neither princes nor peasants. By no means passive during his boyhood, Ivan was already arranging for the murder and ill-treatment of enemies real or fancied, but such early vicious tendencies were comparatively little in evidence in the early period of his active rule (1547-60). This was the time of his first marriage, to Anastasia Zakharina –an indirect forbear of the Romanov dynasty which was later to succeed to the Russian throne. Ivan married at the age of sixteen, being crowned in the same year, 1547, with lavish ceremony in Moscow's Uspensky Cathedral as "Tsar of All Russia". He thus became the first Muscovite sovereign to be crowned with this august title. Ivan's greatest contribution to the growth of Muscovy came from military campaigns conducted against the Tatars of the east and south-east during the early years of his reign. Whereas Ivan III had slid out of the Tatar Yoke rather than overthrown it, shunning direct military conflict, his grandson now personally took the war into the enemy camp. In 1552 the Tsar stormed and captured Kazan after a sixweek siege. Four years later he made himself master of Astrakhan. Each a Tatar khanate and each partheir to the defunct Golden Horde, the two realms were absorbed by Muscovite, which now embraced the course of the Volga in its entirety. It was with this expansion, too, that Muscovy - ethnically unified by earlier rulers as the home of the Great Russians –first embarked on its remarkable career as nucleus of a multiracial state, acquiring new citizens from a variety of non-Slavic peoples in addition to the Tatar: the Bashkirs, Cheremises, Chuvashes, Mordvinians and others. These gains were followed, in the last years of Ivan's reign, by the first significant Russian penetration of Asia. The Cossack leader Yermak invaded the Tatar Khanate of Siberia at the head of a few hundred troops and destroyed it, occupying the capital, Kashlyk, in 1582. Yermak himself was ambushed and killed by the ousted Khan Kuchum, out occupation of western Siberia continued apace with the foundation of numerous Russian settlements. Taken together, the gains under Ivan and his son Theodore I (who succeeded in 1584) more or less doubled Muscovite territory through the acquisition of a huge belt of land, varying in width between 150 and 500 miles, in the east and south-east. During the early years of Ivan's reign important domestic reforms were enacted under the influence of two men of lowly origin whom the young Tsar chose as his closest counsellors. These were a priest, Sylvester, and a member of the minor gentry, Adashev. Their ascendancy saw the overhaul of the legal system with the publication of a new law code. Local government was also reformed through measures designed

19

to protect provincials from the rapacity of administrators appointed by the centre. Then there were various ecclesiastical and military reforms, the latter including a long overdue modification of the system whereby [field commands were assigned on the basis of ancestral family precedence rather than of military competence. It was also at this time that the first rudimentary Russian standing army was established]. The units concerned were the streltsy, infantry equipped with firearms and retained in permanent garrisons – by contrast with the temporary levies on which Russian military effort had hitherto depended. Other constructive achievements included the introduction of printing (1563). The death of the Tsaritsa Anastasia in 1560 heralded a marked change in Ivan's attitudes. It was now that he gradually began to earn the title of 'the Terrible', among his early victims being Sylvester and Adashev, whom he imprisoned or banished. One reason for their disgrace was probably a difference of opinion over military policy. The two advisers had wished to follow the conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan with further campaigns against the Tatars, proposing to attack the powerful Crimean Khanate, whereas the Tsar wished to revive an ambition of his grandfather's by extending his territories on the Baltic coast. Ivan's aim was to obtain easier access to western Europe, and in 1558 he accordingly mounted a campaign in the area of modem Estonia and Latvia by attacking the Livonian Order of Knights, his weakest enemy in the west. But though the Tsar won some spectacular early victories against the enfeebled Order, he also aroused the fears of Sweden as well as of PolandLithuania. Ivan continued for a quarter of a century, stubbornly and with decreasing success, to prosecute his futile drive against Sweden and Poland, after they had divided up between them the lands of the now defunct Livonian Order. Defeated, eventually, by the newly elected Polish King, Stephen Batory, Ivan was forced to make peace in 1582-83. He now yielded even those territories on the Ingrian coast which had accrued to Muscovy in his grandfather's reign, retaining only the mouth of the Neva. Ivan's war in the north-west was a failure as disastrous as his early victories over the Tatars had been glorious, while also pointing the way to the future by pursuing ambitions which were to be realized many years later under Peter the Great. Contemporary English observers have provided confirmatory evidence of the terrifying devastation inflicted on Muscovy by Ivan's later policies, as also of the comparative prosperity of his early reign. In 1553 the explorer Richard Chancellor had set sail from Gravesend and landed near the mouth of the Northern Dvina, thus pioneering a new trade route which led to the founding of Archangel thirty years later. Making his way to Moscow, Chancellor was welcomed by the Tsar, who granted the English extensive trading concessions, inspired partly by a hope of inveigling them into an anti-Polish military alliance. In this Ivan was unsuccessful (as also in his later attempts to marry Queen Elizabeth's kinswoman Lady Mary Hastings, though himself married at the time to his fifth or seventh bride). When passing through Muscovy in the early period of Ivan's reign, Chancellor had been struck by the country's size and prosperity. He found Moscow to be a city larger than London. With regard to rural conditions, Chancellor remarked that 'the country betwixt Yaroslavl and Moscow is very well replenished with small Villages, which are so well filled with people that it is a wonder to see them', In 1588, however, a

20

later English visitor, Giles Fletcher, found this same countryside 'vacant and desolate without any inhabitant', adding that the like is in all other parts of the realm'. Such, as attested by many native and other witnesses also, was the devastation inflicted on Muscovy by its first Tsar, for while waging a long and bloody war against Swedes, Poles and Livonians, he had also been engaged in warfare no less bloody against his own subjects. Ivan's chief instrument in conducting these mysterious persecutions was the Oprichnina, an army of licensed gangsters established in 1565. The Oprichniks formed, in essence, the sovereign's private army, and they amounted eventually to some five or six thousand murderous ruffians carefully picked for their loyalty to his person. Clad in black, riding black horses and carrying special emblems (a dog's head and broom), hey were entitled to rob and slaughter non-Oprichniks with impunity. Oprichnina was also the name given to extensive lands, largely in north Russia, which were now gradually detached from the realm as a whole and assigned to these cut-throats, eventually covering between a third and a half of Muscovy. Among the outrages inflicted by Oprichniks, the sack of Novgorod in 1570 was the most extensive. The appalling massacre was apparently provoked by Ivan's groundless fears that this, the second city of his realm, was engaged in betraying him to Poland. Many thousands or possibly tens of thousands of victims were slain in a five-week orgy presided over by the unhinged monarch, who also devastated Tver and other lands on his approach march as well as the country surrounding Novgorod itself. Oprichniks tortured and murdered many monks, looting numerous monasteries, besides which the Tsar had two archbishops of Novgorod executed at different times. Nor did he spare the very Metropolitan Philip of Moscow and All Russia, who had dared to denounce Ivan's excesses in public - only to find himself arraigned at a rigged trial before fellow-clerics as a preliminary to being strangled in a monastery cell by the leading Oprichnik, Malyuta ('Babe') Skuratov. Ivan differs from all the other leading later native oppressors of Russia in the extent to which he devised and even personally administered ingenious forms of death, often inflicted before an audience, as in the grim orgy over which he presided in a Moscow square on 25 July 1570, and which included the dismemberment and boiling alive of previously tormented victims. The Tsar was also remarkable in making ostentatiously tearful repentance for his evil deeds, and in assigning sums of money so that prayers might be said for the souls of his mutilated, burnt or drowned victims. Among his many other reported aberrations, the Terrible Tsar is even said to have had an elephant cut to pieces for failing to bow to him. Directly assaulting his own citizens and also involving them in the abortive Livonian War, Ivan so neglected essential defences at the centre that the Crimean Khan, Devlet-Girey, was able to burn Moscow to the ground in 1571, returning to the south with a huge haul of enslaved captives. So disastrous was the episode that the total Russian casualties were computed at 800,000, a figure which is clearly exaggerated. Be that as it may, Devlet-Girey flung his horsemen against Moscow again in the following year, only to meet decisive defeat by a Russian army under Prince Michael Vorotynsky, a hero of the conquest of Kazan. Ivan later had this same victorious general tortured by fire, personally stoking the flames, for he no doubt

21

found Vorotynsky's warlike prowess inconvenient - as Stalin was to find the military prestige of Marshals Tukhachevsky and Zhukov. Yet this event belongs to the last, and again relatively mild, years of Ivan's eign. So too does the domestic tragedy which occurred when Ivan swung his iron-tipped staff in a fit of temper and struck dead his beloved eldest son and heir, the Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich –an event which plunged the unhappy father into yet another frenzy of repentance and lamentation. Unlike many tyrants, Ivan enjoyed an extraordinary degree of popularity among his subjects - perhaps the most mysterious feature in his tantalising career. Nor has posterity been backward .-. attempts to explain his perversities as part of a wise and carefully calculated policy. According to an interpretation specially favoured in the Stalin period - when comparisons between the Oprichniks and the Soviet NKVD security police could not fail to occur to the vaguest student of Russian history - the Terrible Tsar's chief aim was to strengthen the centralised Russian state by destroying the boyars, princes and leading churchmen who constituted the chief rivals to the monarchy. This theory has the Tsar allying himself with the minor gentry in order to squeeze out the princes and boyars, who still retained traditional pretensions to grandeur. The Oprichnina, chief instrument in strengthening authoritarian control, was therefore officially described as a 'progressive' phenomenon in the outstandingly authoritarian Stalin era. Stalin himself went even further, once remarking - perhaps as a grimly ironical joke –that Ivan had wrongly wasted time over his prayers which might have been better spent slaughtering yet more boyars. Though it is indeed true that Ivan sponsored the execution of many great nobles by members of the minor gentry, he also operated in the opposite direction, for many of the minor gentry also became his victims, while princes and boyars were included among those recruited into the Oprichnina - as also were foreigners resident in Russia. Naturally enough, the Tsar's most numerous victims were found among the common people. As already noted, there was a tendency to idolise the tyrant, but even those who admired him most were well advised to do so from a safe distance. Peasants and petty townsmen accordingly fled from the persecution in their thousands, establishing themselves in the wild lands on the periphery of the south and south-east, where such freedom-seekers and fugitives from centralised terror had now become known as Cossacks. Terror, taxation and war were not the only reasons for this massive exodus from the centre and north-west of Muscovy. There was also the progressive enserfment of the peasantry, virtually bound to the soil by the end of the century through enactment's curtailing the traditional freedom to leave a master's service at the time of St. George's Day (26 November) each year. As this development indicates, late sixteenth-century Russia was rapidly evolving into a community where all, from great landowner down to meanest peasant, were becoming members of a service state and subject to the merest whims of their Tsar or of intermediary absolute masters.

22

Т екст2 Part I THE ROAD TO MOSCOW by Vincent Cronin Napoleon was reluctant to make war on Russia. He said in 1808: "There is no example in history of peoples from the south having invaded the north; it is peoples from the north who have swept over the south." He did not enjoy running counter history. But suppose he did make war? He now had a sure ally in Austria. By inflicting a decisive defeat on the Tsar's armies, a defeat like Austerlitz or Friedland, he would save the Grand Duchy of Warsaw - and with it all western Europe - from Russian invasion, and gave himself five years' peace in order to end the struggle with England where signs of strain were evident. On 24 July 1812 at Kovno, Napoleon watched the leading regiments of the Grand Army cross the River Niemen, where five years before on a tented raft he had first embraced Alexander. For eight days his troops, breaking step, marched across three pontoon bridges. There were Italians, many Poles, two Portuguese regiments. There were Bavarians, Croats, Dalmatians, Danes, Dutch, Neapolitans, north Germans, Saxons and Swiss, each national contingent with its uniform and songs. Altogether there were twenty nations. 530,000 men. Not since Xerxes had marched the nations of Asia across the Hellespont had such a large force been seen. Frenchmen composed one-third of the whole. Napoleon could see each regiment preceded by the standard he had given it. Beneath a bronze eagle with spread wings floated a square flag of white satin. Napoleon's Imperial Guard formed a self-contained elite of 45,000 men divided into the Old Guard, who were veterans, and the Young Guard, who were the cream of the conscripts. Each division was followed by a six-mile column of food supplies. The morale of this huge force was extremely high. Napoleon travelled in a green four wheeled covered carriage drawn by six Limousine horses. As he neared the Russians, Napoleon travelled with the Guard, astride his black horse Marengo. The main Russian army, some 120,000 men with 600 guns, was commanded by a slow-moving general of Scots descent, Barclay de Tolly. Napoleon hoped to fight Barclay at Vilna, fifty miles inside the Russian border. But Barclay abandoned Vilna. He was acting on orders from the Tsar who had decided to avoid a direct engagement. Napoleon pursued Barclay to Vitebsk on the Duna, but Barclay slipped away and joined Prince Bagration's Second Army on the Dnieper. Marching down the Dnieper valley, Napoleon hoped to engage the two armies separately at Smolensk. That was on 17 August. For seven weeks Napoleon had been on the march and all he had conquered was empty space. The farther he penetrated into Russia, the more aware he and his men became of empty space and silence. When they reached what on the map was a

23

village, they found it burned, and its food buried. The inhabitants had all fled. Nothing remained but space. Even the Russian sky was empty of birds. Confronted by the emptiness, Napoleon in mid-August had a choice. He could strike, as he put it at the head, at the feet, or at the heart. The head was St Petersburg, where the Tsar ruled. The feet was Kiev, the great city of the south. The heart was Moscow, the old capital, the largest city and strategically the best situated. Moscow was a long way off, twelve marches from Smolensk, 1,600 miles in a straight line from Paris. For a week Napoleon waited, assessing the situation, trying to read Alexander's mind. Then he gave an order to march on Moscow. Many units had to be left behind to guard the communication. Villages were still systematically burned, fodder was unobtainable and several thousand French horses died. But Napoleon felt reasonably confident. One day relaxing in a meadow he began to philosophise. "I have a good job, ruling the Empire. I could be in Paris, enjoying myself, lazing about... Instead, here I am with you, camping out; and in action like anyone else I can be hit by a bullet... I am trying rise above myself. Everyone in his own station must do the same. That’s what greatness mean.” Alexander meanwhile had been forced by his Ministers and opinion at court to halt the withdrawal. At all costs, they said, he must fight to save Moscow. So the Tsar replaced Barclay by General Kutuzov, a shrewd nobleman of sixty-eight, who had lost his right eye to a Turkish bullet, was extremely fat, unable to ride a horse, and campaigned in a droshky. "The dowager", as Napoleon called him, had been defeated at Austerlitz and had sworn to get his revenge. He drew up his army south of the village of Borodino, on a ridge intersected with ravines, and behind the Kolotcha, a tributary of the Moskowa, the river which flowed through Moscow, seventy-two miles east. Napoleon arrived on the slopes facing the Russians on 6 September. He was feeling unwell. He went out in the afternoon to assess the Russian lines and was observed to stop and cool his heated forehead on the wheel of a field gun. Napoleon stayed up late that night, dictating orders. He went to bed at one in the morning and was up again at three. Across the valley he could see the Russian camp fires burning. A thin cold rain fell, and a sharp wind billowed the sides of his tent. He called for hot punch, then, mounting his horse, began to reconnoitre. This was the battle he wanted, but the battlefield was not one he would have chosen. The country was wooded therefore unsuitable to cavalry, and to those brilliant flanking movements whereby Napoleon was accustomed to roll up the enemy. Secondly, the Russians had been afforded time to dig in on sloping ground: their main batteries were protected by grass redoubts and would be difficult to capture. The enemy lines stretched north and south for two and a half miles from Borodino to high ground beside the village of Utitza, on the old Smolensk-Moscow road. On the Russian right Barclay with 75,000 men held high ground protected by earthworks known to the French as the Great Redoubt, then came a dip; beyond the dip more redoubts the Three Arrows - held by 30,000 men under Prince Bagration, a daring Georgian whom Napoleon respected, and finally the wooded ground above

24

Utitza held by Tuchkov. The total Russian strength including reserves, was 120,000 and 640 guns; that of the French 133,000 and 587 guns. Napoleon decided on a simple plan. His stepson Eugene would attack the village of Borodino, as though the main French thrust was to come on the Russian right. In fact, it would come or. the Russian centre and left. There Davout would attack prince Bagration, while Prince Poniatowski's cavalry, using the old SmolenskMoscow road, would try to get round behind Bagration. As Napoleon concluded his reconnaissance, his officers were preparing for the great day. The older among them had fought back and forth across Europe, from the Tagus to the Elbe, from the snowdrifts of the St Bernard to the sun baked hills of Calabria. Many bore marks of these campaigns. They were eager to show courage and win a fresh glory. If they were brave enough today, Napoleon would promote them - colonel, general, marshal, even king like Murat the inn-keeper's son. That is why they put on their full-dress uniforms. In gold braid, scarlet or blue tunic and white breeches they were easier targets but their feats of daring would be better seen. They read to the troops the proclamation Napoleon had written the previous evening. Here at last was the battle they had been hoping for: let them fight well and win the victory that would ensure them good winter quarters and a speedy return home. Across the valley, the green-uniformed Russians were kissing the icon of the Virgin of Smolensk and listening to their commander-in-chief's proclamation. Napoleon, said Kutuzov, was anti-Christ and the enemy of God, names first accorded the French Emperor by the Russian hierarchy. Napoleon was feeling unwell. Having briefed his generals, he took up a position in front of the Guard on high ground a mile from the southern Russian redoubts. From here he could see the central third of the battlefield, the remaining two-thirds being hidden by woods. Immediately in front of him were the main French batteries. At five-thirty a.m. Napoleon ordered them to open fire. At once the Russian guns replied. They were technically excellent, slightly bigger and with a longer range, but their gunners were less skilled and their fire less accurate. More than one thousand guns blazed away, making the earth tremble. Prince Eugene led off by attacking Borodino. Then Davout and Ney hurled the infantry against the dug-in gun emplacements called the Three Arrows. As the Russians blasted the advancing ranks with grapeshot, Dovout had his horse killed under him, and was thrown unconscious. Napoleon sent Rapp to take command, but he too fell; Napoleon then sent Dessaix to replace Rapp, but he too was hit. Ney, meanwhile, seized the southernmost gun emplacement and held it against three Russian counter-attacks. Napoleon sent Murat at the head of the cavalry to help him. Napoleon was surprised by how resolutely the Russians clung to a doomed position. Where Austrians or Prussians, outnumbered, eventually surrendered, the Russians chose to die. The reason was that they were accustomed to fighting the Turks, and the Turks killed anyone they captured. This enormously complicated Napoleon's task. Of the Russian infantry he said, "They are citadels that have to be demolished with cannon." By ten o'clock Napoleon's original plan had been overtaken by events. Eugene had done better than expected; he had captured Borodino, brought up guns and was

25

pounding the Great Redoubt. But Poniatowski had fared less well than expected. Although he had battered the Russian right - General Tuchkov was dead and Bagration dying of wounds - he had run into heavy resistance in the upland copses and would be unable to take the Three Arrows from behind. It was clear then that the battle was going to consist of gun duels, frontal attacks and hand-to-hand fighting. The most promising sector was the Three Arrows. Shortly after ten o'clock Napoleon received a note from Ney begging him to order the immediate advance against the Three Arrows of all his reserves, that is, of the Guard. This alone, said Ney, would turn a limited breakthrough into victory. Ney and Murat had shown superb bravery for several hours and were pretty well exhausted. But while Napoleon was reflecting, a messenger arrived from the left. Kutuzov had thrown in his Cossack reserve cavalry, forcing Eugene to take the defensive. Now Napoleon considered the left vital for it covered his one line of communication, the main road to Smolensk. The daring thing to do would be to stake everything on a breakthrough at the Three Arrows; the prudent thing was to hold back the Guard. As Marshal Bessieres, commanding the Guard, put it: "Would you risk your last reserves 800 miles from Paris?" Napoleon could be daring when he chose, but nearly always within the larger context of prudence. "No", he replied. "Suppose there is another battle tomorrow." Napoleon gave Ney only limited help. He brought up more guns, until 400 were blasting the Three Arrows, and sent him one fresh division under General Friant. Ney was able to hold on, but at midday Napoleon continued to sweep the field with his spyglass, receive reports from the front, issue orders and move guns. The centre of action was shifting to the Great Redoubt, at fortified emplacement of twenty-seven Russian guns. So fierce was the fighting there that, according to one eyewitness, "the approaches, ditches and interior all disappeared under a mound of dead and dying, on average six to eight men piled on top of one another." In the late afternoon Prince Eugene from the north, Ney and Murat from the south, launched a combined attack on the Great Redoubt. This time they succeeded in capturing it. Then they turned round the guns and fired on the retreating Russians. Napoleon, cautious again, would not allow his troops to pursue. As dusk fell the Russians were withdrawing towards. Moscow in good order. At Borodino Russian losses in dead and the wounded were 44,000 - only 2,000 had been taken prisoner; French losses were 33,000. Arithmetically, and in the sense that the road to Moscow lay open, Borodino was a French victory, but it was not a victory of the crippling kind for which Napoleon had been hoping. Indeed, it had cost Napoleon a large number of senior officers, including forty-three generals. It was, he considered, the most terrible battle he had ever fought. Napoleon usually visited the battlefield immediately in order to see that all wounded were brought in. But after Borodino, exhausted physically by his feverish cold and mentally by the tenacity of Russian resistance, he threw himself on his camp-bed and snatched some troubled sleep. At dawn on the next day, Napoleon rode across the battlefield in silence reckoning up the dead, deputing officers to bring in this or that wounded man. During this grim procession the horse of one of his aids stumbled on a prostrate body. Napoleon, hearing a cry of pain, ordered whoever it

26

was to be put on a stretcher. "It's only a Russian," murmured the aid, whereupon Napoleon snapped back, "After a victory there are no enemies, only men." It was observed that the Russians were uncomplaining and usually pious: many of the wounded clasped to their lips an icon or a medal of St Nicholas. Napoleon continued to advance. He found no further resistance. It was on a bright sunny afternoon, the 13th of September - almost tree months after entering Russia - that the main body of the western hills to gaze at last, after so many hundred miles of empty spaces and bumed-out ruins, on a solid city of houses, palaces and almost three hundred churches. "The sun was reflected," says Sergeant Bourgogne of the Old Guard, "on all the domes, spires and gilded palaces. Many capitals I have seen, such as Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Vienna and Madrid; they only produced an ordinary impression on me. But this was quite different; the effect was to me - in fact, to everyone - magical. At that sight troubles, dangers, fatigues, privations were all forgotten and the pleasure of entering Moscow absorbed all our minds." Napoleon rode up beside his men to gaze on the largest city in Russia. "There it is at last!" he said "And high time". Part II RETREAT by Vincent Cronin Napoleon entered Moscow on 15 September 1812. He was disappointed that no Russian bowed forward, offering the city keys on a velvet cushion, no crowds lined the streets to cheer. It soon became plain that most Muscovites had been ordered by the governor, Rostopchin, to leave. Out of 250,000 only 15,000 remained, chiefly foreigners, tattered beggars and criminals released from the city prisons. In Moscow too there was space and silence. Napoleon took up lodgings in an Italian-style palace in the Kremlin, with an odd feature, its elaborate white marble staircase on the outside. He hang the portrait of his infant son over the mantelpiece and settled down to work - billeting his troops, securing fodder and, most important of all, preparing to open peace talks with Alexander. He felt sure that the Tsar would make peace after his defeat at Borodino, just as he had done after Austerlitz and Friedland. That night sporadic fires broke out in Moscow. The French could find no hoses or pumps - they had been removed on orders from Rostopchin - and had to fight them with buckets of water. Next day more houses caught fire and the French became suspicious; rightly so, for Rostopchin had armed a thousand convicts with fuses and gunpowder and told them to burn Moscow to the ground. The French with their buckets of water could not check the fires, and on the 16th, fanned by a north wind, they spread to the edge of the Kremlin. Napoleon at first refused to move. But the Guard's artillery and ammunition wagons were in the Kremlin, and as the flames leaped closer he ordered everyone to leave, his suite finding the outside marble staircase a convenient fire-escape.

27

Napoleon returned on the 18th to his lodgings in the Kremlin, one of the few districts still intact. The city was a depressing sight, blackened and charred. However, the fifth remaining part provided shelter for his troops and plenty of food was found in the cellars, so Napoleon tried to open peace talks. On the 20th he wrote on these lines to Alexander. The Tsar was in St Petersburg, so his reply could not arrive for two weeks. Two weeks elapsed and Napoleon received no reply. To an impartial observer the evidence suggested that Alexander did not wish to discuss peace. There were the blackened ruins of Moscow; and there was the pressure of the nobles, eager to resume selling corn, timber and hemp to England. Napoleon, however, sent a representative to the Tsar, repeating his offer of peace. He also sent Lauriston to try to negotiate direct with Kutuzov. When both emissaries were turned back without reaching their destinations, Napoleon was puzzled and sank into depression. He could not cope with an unexpected reaction, for example, Russian soldiers' refusal to surrender. And now he could not cope with Alexander. He never really understood Alexander's volte face, nor had he heard of it, would he have understood the promise Alexander gave his people not to make peace while a single enemy soldier remained on Russian soil: he would rather let his beard grow and eat potatoes with the serfs. What was Napoleon to do? His original plan had been to winter in Moscow: before Borodino he had told his soldiers that victory would give them "good winter quarters". In Moscow they were comfortable; they had plenty to eat and plenty to drink. Certainly winter in Moscow was the reasonable course. As for the perils of not wintering there. Napoleon was folly aware of them. He had begun to read Voltaire's History of Charles XII, n which the Swedish king, cut off from Poland and surrounded by the enemies, resolved to defy the rigours of a Russian winter. First his horses die in the snow, and without horses to drag them he has to throw most of his cannon into quagmires and rivers. Then his soldiers succumb. On one of the marches Charles sees 2,000 of his men die of cold. With the lesson literally before his eyes, why did Napoleon renounce his original plan for wintering in Moscow? The answer lies in the depths of his character. This man brimming with energy, who acted so much faster than his fellows, had the weakness of his chief quality. He was impatient. He was reluctant to play a passive role. Napoleon's first idea was to march on St Petersburg. He put this to his Council of War. His Council of War showed the grave danger of heading north with Kutuzov able to cut their lines of communication. Napoleon dropped the idea and proposed instead a withdrawal west. "We shall repeat Charles XII's mistake... when the army has rested, while the weather is still temperate, we shall return via Smolensk to winter in Lithuania and Poland." The marshals accepted this plan. They too would be glad to get out of the burned city and so they did not examine the plan objectively. All the discussion centred not on whether a winter retreat was wise but on minor problems, such as what route should be taken. Napoleon wanted to follow the milder, southern road through Kiev. But learning that the Dnieper in October sometimes flooded to a width of six

28

miles opposite Kiev, he abandoned that plan. As it happened the autumn of 1812 was to prove dry, and the Dnieper did not flood. The route by Kiev would have been best, but Napoleon decided to follow a road slightly south of the northern route by which he had come. On what date should he leave? Napoleon consulted Russian almanacs for the past twenty-five years and found that sever frosts came to the latitude of Moscow usually at the end of November. The journey out had taken almost twelve weeks and presumably the journey back would take as long. So it was time to leave at once. Every day counted. But Napoleon did not see it like that. Evidently he hoped he could speed up the return journey, and besides, with almost incredible optimism, he was still putting out peace feelers. On 15 October three inches of snow fell on the black ruins of Moscow. It was an ominous sign, but instead of leaving at once Napoleon delayed, still hoping for a word from Alexander. Then on 18 October Murat was attacked by Kutuzov's troops near Moscow; his cavalry screen was caught dozing and he lost 2,500 men. This defeat shook Napoleon out of his mood of optimism. Impatient to be off, to act, to be master of his own movements became decisive, and Napoleon gave the order to quit Moscow. That night he was noticed by his staff to be unusually excited. At two in the afternoon of 19 October the first units of the Grand Army, after a stay of thirty-five days, began to leave Moscow. Many soldiers wore sheepskin jackets, fur bonnets and fur-lined boots; they carried in their knapsacks sugar, brandy and jewelled icons, while in their wagons were Chinese silk, sables, gold ingots, suits of armour, even a prince's jewel-encrusted spittoon. Altogether there were 90,000 infantry, 15,000 cavalry, 569 cannon and 10,000 wagons containing food for twenty days, but horse fodder for less than a week. The horses, in fact, were the weak link in this chain of steel and muscle. Napoleon entrusted the wounded to his Young Guard, who were to bring up the rear. The wounded were to be treated. Napoleon told, with the utmost humanity, and he reminded that the Romans awarded civic crowns to those who saved men's lives. Napoleon left Moscow on the 19th. After his night of excitement, he had resumed his usual calm. At first things went according to plan. The march was orderly but slow because of the many wheeled vehicles on a muddy road. On the sixth day out of Moscow there was an engagement with the Cossacks. They were dispersed by two squadrons of French cavalry. Napoleon was in a very good humour. But in the days following everything went wrong. He found Kutuzov barring the route he had planned to take, and so had to swing north. Near Borodino he rejoined the road by which he had marched on Moscow, the road where most villages had been burned and all food removed. On 29 October snow fell, next night came the first severe frost, and on the 31st a bitter wind lashed snow as far as the eye could see. Horses were eating the bark of pine-trees; in a weakened condition they could not haul the guns up icy slopes, and guns began to be abandoned, just as had happened to Charles XII. The army was now 200 miles from Smolensk, its nearest place of shelter and food. On 6 November things began to look serious. That night there were 22°C of frost. "Snow fell in enormous flakes: we lost sight of the sky and the men in front of

29

us". The French were constantly harassed by the Cossacks. The Russian peasants received any French soldiers with bows, poured them plenty of brandy, put them to bed and when they were sound asleep, slit their throats and bury their bodies in the pigsty. Napoleon reached Smolensk on 9 November. So far his army had had to contend with cold and hunger, now they would have to contend with the Russians. Two fresh armies were sweeping to the attack, Wittgenstein's from the north. Admiral Tchitchagov's from the south. They were like the two jaws of a bear-trap, poised to crush Napoleon before he could get across the next major obstacle, the Beresina river. Napoleon left Smolensk on 14 November. He went on foot, carrying a birch staff, and on his head wore a red velvet hood. He was followed by Prince Eugunie, commanding the 14th Corps. A corps under Victor was farther north, holding off Wittgenstein, while another corps under Oudinot Napoleon had sent south to prevent Tchichagov seizing the key bridge across the Beresina at Borisov. On the 22d Napoleon heard that Tchichagov had burned the bridge at Borissov. In the ranks of the Grand Army there were whispers that the time had come to capitulate. Napoleon took so serious a view of the situation that he burned all his personal papers. But then he made a speech to his troops, assuring them of his determination to fight a way to the frontier. On the afternoon of the 25th, in the wake of a snowstorm, Napoleon arrived at the Beresina river. A recent thaw had turned a normally frozen in November river into a raging torrent. It was 300 yards wide, its bridge burned in three different places. Napoleon had 49,000 men still fit enough to fight and 250 guns. The pontooneers worked heroically for twenty-four hours. The infantry bridge was complete at one o'clock on the 26th. Oudinot led 11,000 men across the frail wooden life-line. By four o'clock the larger bridge was also ready, immediately Napoleon sent across guns, wagons and cavalry. By the morning of the 29th Napoleon had got all troops fit to fight across the bridge. The crossing of the Beresina is one of the most remarkable feats in the history of warfare. In appalling conditions Napoleon was able personally to inspire the pontooneers with heroism; most of those brave 400 were to die as the result of the icy twenty-four hours. Thanks to Napoleon's cool-headedness more than 40,000 men all guns got across the Beresina. At ten in the evening of 5 December Napoleon left Smorgoni by sleigh. The thermometer showed 25 *C of frost. Once in Paris Napoleon said, he had an enemy in the "colossus of Russia". "The burning of the Russian towns, the burning of Moscow, were merely stupid. Why use fire, if he (Alexander) relied so much on winter? Kutuzov's retreat is utterly ineptitude. It is the winter that has been our undoing. We are victims of the climate." Trying to justify himself Napoleon said he had made two mistakes. The first in July, when he had "thought to obtain in one year what could only be gained by two campaigns". "I should have stayed in Vitebsk. By now Alexander would have been on his knees to me". His second mistake, Napoleon said, was that, having gone to Moscow, he remained too long. "I thought that I should be able to make peace, and that the Russians were anxious for it. I was deceived and deceived myself. Again,

30

"the fine weather tricked me. If I had set out a fortnight sooner, my army would he at Vitebsk". It is interesting that Napoleon accused himself only of having failed to act quickly enough. Т екст3 INTELLIGENTSIA AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY by Richard Pipes Part I The reign of Alexander II witnessed a sharp break in Russian public opinion. The Idealist generation had still been concerned primarily with the question: who are we? The new post-1855 generation of'Positivists' or "Realists' raised the more pragmatic problem, first articulated by Novikov: what are we to do? In responding, the intelligentsia became polarized into conservative and radical wings, with a small body of liberal opinion uneasily wedged in between. Unlike the preceding era, when ideological opponents continued to meet socially and observe ordinary civilities, in the reign of Alexander conflicts of ideas became personalized and not infrequently led to bitter enmities. The occasion which brought about this change was the Great Reforms inaugurated by the new monarch. There was the emancipation of the serfs, followed by the introduction of zemstva and organs of urban self-government, a reform of the court system and the introduction of compulsory military service. This was the most ambitious effort undertaken in the history of Russia to bring society into active participation in national life short of allowing it to share in the political process. The reforms generated a tremendous sense of excitement in society, especially among the young who suddenly saw opportunities opening up for public service such as had never existed before. They could now enter the professions (law, medicine or journalism); they could work in zemstva and city governments; they could seek careers in the military service, whose officer ranks were opened to commoners; and, above all, they could establish contact with the emancipated peasant and help him to raise himself to the status of a citizen. The late fifties and early sixties were a period of rare unanimity, as left, centre and right joined forces to help the government carry out its grand reform programme. The first breach in the united front occurred in 1861 with the publication of the terms of the Emancipation settlement. The left, led by Chernyshevskii and his Contemporary, disappointed that the peasant received only half the land he had been cultivating and had to pay even for that, declared the whole Emancipation a cruel hoax. Student unrest of the early 1860s coupled with the Polish revolt of 1863 and a simultaneous outbreak of mysterious arson in St Petersburg [persuaded many conservatives and liberals that a conspiracy was afoot.] The Russian Messenger, until then an organ of moderate opinion, now swung sharply to the right and began to attack the left from a patriotic position. There was a further split within radical ranks themselves. The Contemporary launched vicious personal attacks on the intelligentsia of the older generation, accusing it of lack of serious commitment and inertia. Herzen replied in the pages of his London-based Bell, charging the younger generation with

31

chronic biliousness. Chicherin then attacked Herzen for his revolutionary predilections, while Chernyshevskii called Herzen 'the skeleton of a mammoth'. By 1865, Russian opinion was thoroughly splintered. Still, the basic debate as it unfolded was a dialogue between radicals and conservatives who could agree on nothing except their common loathing of the sensible, pragmatic men of the middle. The 1860s and 1870s were the Golden Age of Russian thought, when all the major themes which have occupied the intelligentsia ever since were stated and examined. The new radicalism developed on the basis of a 'scientific' or 'positivistic' philosophy which began to penetrate Russia from the west in the closing years of Nicholas' reign but fully conquered the radical left only under his successor. The spectacular achievements of chemistry and biology in the 1840s, notably the discovery of the laws of conservation of energy and the cellular structure of living organisms, led to the emergence in western Europe of an anti-Idealist [movement committed to a crass form of philosophic materialism.] The writings of Buchner and Moleschott, which young Russians read with a sense of revelation, told of a cosmos composed exclusively of matter in which all activity could be reduced to basic chemical or physical processes, a cosmos in which there was no room for God, soul, ideals or any other metaphysical substance. Feuerbach explained how the idea of God itself was a projection of human wishes; and his followers applied this psychological explanation to money, state and other institutions. Buckle, in the introduction to his History of Civilization in England, a best seller in Russia, promised that the science of statistics would make it possible to determine in advance with mathematical precision all manifestations of social behaviour. These ideas, seemingly backed by the prestige of natural science, suggested that the key to the understanding of man and society had at long last been found. Nowhere was their impact stronger than in Russia where the absence of a tradition of humanism and lay theology made intellectuals exceedingly vulnerable to deterministic explanations. Left-wing youths now contemptuously rejected Idealist philosophy which had sent their elders into such raptures - at any rate, they rejected it consciously, because unconsciously they retained a great deal of personal idealism and a belief in historic progress which, strictly speaking, could not be justified on empirical grounds. In Fathers and Sons, Turgenev depicted this clash of generations in a manner which the protagonists at once recognized as accurate. The young 'nihilists' viewed the world in which they found themselves as a living relic of another, earlier phase of human development, now drawing to a close. Mankind stood on the eve of the stage of 'positivism', when all natural and human phenomena would be properly understood and therefore made to subject to scientific management. The immediate task was to smash what was left of the old order, of which Idealism, as a metaphysical doctrine, was part. Dmitry Pisarev, one of the idols of radical youth of the early 1860s, urged his followers recklessly to hit about them right and left, assailing institutions and conventions, on the premiss that whatever fell in the process was not worth saving. Such 'nihilism' was motivated not by a total absence of values, as conservative critics were to charge,] but by the belief that the present already belonged to the past, and destruction, therefore, was creative.

32

Psychologically, the outstanding quality of the new generation of radicals was a tendency to oversimplify by reducing all experience to some single principle. They had no patience at all with complexities, refinements, qualifications. Perfectly reasonable objections to the philosophy of materialism Chemyshevskii and his allies shrugged off as undeserving of any attention. Needless to say, neo-Kantian criticism of mechanistic science, on which materialism was based, never reached Russian radicals, although they were closely attuned to developments in German thought. Chemyshevskii, on his death in 1889, still faithfully clung to Feuerbach and the other idols of his youth fifty years before, blissfully unaware what confusion was being spread in the field of natural science by recent discoveries. He even rejected Darwin. This selective treatment of science was very characteristic of the radical left, which shielded itself behind the prestige of science, but completely lacked the attitude of free and self-critical inquiry fundamental to genuine scientific thinking. The radicals of the 1860s wished to create a new man. He was to be totally practical, free of religious and philosophical preconceptions, a 'rational egoist', and yet, at the same time, an absolutely dedicated servant of society and fighter for a juster life. The obvious contradiction between empiricism, which insisted that all knowledge derives from observation, and ethical idealism which has no equivalent in the material world was never faced by the radical intellectuals. The religious philosopher, Vladimir Soloviev, once stated their predicament in a pseudosyllogism: 'Man is descended from the ape, and therefore we must sacrifice ourselves for one another.' Emotionally some of the radical publicists came nearer Christian idealism than the hardheaded pragmatism they claimed to admire. The hero of Chemyshevskii's What is to be Done?, Rakhmetov, is a figure straight from Orthodox hagiology: his ascetism goes so far that he builds himself a bed studded with nails. The other figures in this novel (which exerted deep influence on the young Lenin) resemble early Christians in that like them they break with their corrupted, worldly families to join brotherhoods of those who had renounced the seductions of money and pleasure. The men and women in this book experience affection but not love and certainly no sex. But it is a vacuous religiousness, all zeal and no charity. Solovev, annoyed by claims of an alleged identity of ideals of Christianity and socialism, once reminded his readers. Part II Between 1860 and 1880, the radical or, as it was then known, 'socialistrevolutionary' movement underwent constant evolution as a result of a frustrating inability to realize any of its goals. The changes concerned tactics only. The goal itself remained constant - the abolition of the state and all institutions tied to it - and so did the faith in positivist-materialist principles. But every few years, as fresh classes entered the university, new battle tactics were devised. In the early 1860s, it was believed that the mere act of breaking with the dying world was enough; the rest would take care of itself. Pisarev urged his followers to drop all other occupations and interests and concentrate on the study of natural science. Chernyshevskii exhorted them to cut ties with their families and unite in working communes. But these methods did not seem to lead anywhere,]and around 1870 radical youths

33

became increasingly interested in the newly emancipated peasant. The leading theoretical lights of this period, Michael Bakunin and Peter Lavrov, called on young people to abandon universities and go to the village. Bakunin wished them to carry the message of immediate rebellion. He believed that the muzhik was a born anarchist, and only a spark was needed to set the countryside on fire. That spark was to be carried by the intelligentsia in the form of revolutionary 'agitation'. Lavrov adopted a more gradual approach. Before he would turn into a revolutionary, the Russian peasant needed exposure to 'propaganda' which would enlighten him about the injustices of the Emancipation Edict, about the causes of his economic predicament, and about the collusion between the propertied classes, the state and the church. Inspired by these ideas, in the spring of 1874 several thousand youths quit school and went 'to the people'. Here disappointment awaited them. The muzhik, known to them largely from literary descriptions and polemical tracts, would have nothing to do with idealistic students. Suspecting ulterior motives - the only kind experience had acquainted him with –he either ignored them or turned them over to the rural constabulary. But even more disappointing than the peasant's hostility, which could be explained away by his ignorance, were his ethics. The radical youths scorned property because they largely came from propertied backgrounds: they associated concern for wealth with their parents, whom they rejected. Hence they idealized the rural commune and the artel. The muzhik, living from hand to mouth, looked at the matter quite differently. He desperately wanted to acquire property, and was not very choosy how to go about getting it. His idea of a new social order was an arrangement under which he took the part of the exploiting landlord. The intellectuals could indulge in talk of selfless brotherhood because, being supported by their families or the government (by means of stipends) they were not required to compete with one another. The muzhik, however, was always competing for scarce resources, and he treated conflict, including the use of force or duplicity, as right and proper. In response to these disappointments, the radical movement broke up into warring factions. One group, called narodniki from their unbounded faith in the narod or people, decided that it was improper for intellectuals to foist their ideas upon the masses. The toiling man was always right. Intellectuals should settle in the village and learn from the peasant instead of trying to teach him. Another group, convinced that this method would end in renunciation of revolution, began to veer towards terrorism. A third developed an interest in western Social Democracy and, having concluded that no social revolution in Russia was possible until capitalism had done its work, braced themselves for a long and patient wait. The conservative movement in Russia under Alexanders II and III arose in response to radicalism, and in struggling against it acquired many of its qualities. It was a 'radical right' movement, characterized by contempt for liberalism and a tendency to assume all-or-nothing positions. It began as a critique of the 'nihilist' whose sudden appearance threw Russian society into disarray. Who was this type who negated everything that others cherished, deliberately flaunting all convention, and what was his parentage? This was the central problem of the conservative position. The battle was in large measure

34

over Russia's future national type in which the radicals' 'new man' was confronted with a no less idealized model of a 'man with roots'. The most common diagnosis of the malaise responsible for 'nihilism' - the term being defined as a rejection of all values - was the separation of theory and theorists from raw life. In Russia, according to conservative theorists, the divorce of thought from life assumed tragic dimensions because of the method of education adopted since Peter I. The education was western, whereas native culture, still preserved intact among ordinary people, was Slav and Orthodox. By virtue of its education, Russia's upper class, of which the 'nihilist' was an offshoot, was isolated from the native soil and condemned to spiritual sterility, of which the habit of negation was a natural expression. 'Outside the national soil', wrote Ivan Aksakov, 'there is no firm ground; outside the national, there is nothing real, vital; and every good idea, every institution not rooted in the national historical soil or grown organically from it, turns sterile and becomes an old rag.' And Michael Katkov, the editor of Russian Messenger, thus diagnosed the 'nihilist' hero of Fathers and Sons: Man taken separately does not exist. He is everywhere part of some living connection, or some social organization ... Man extracted from the environment is a fiction or an abstraction. His moral and intellectual organization, or, more broadly, his ideas are only then operative in him when he has discovered them first as the organizational forces of the environment in which he happens to live and think. The conservatives completely rejected the view of Bazarov, the archetypal 'nihilist' of Fathers and Sons, that 'in a well-constructed society it will be quite irrelevant whether man is stupid or wise, evil or good.' there could be no 'wellconstructed society', unless the material was sound; and in any event, there were limits to the perfectibility of any society because man was inherently corrupt and evil. Dostoevsky, whose pessimism went further than that of most Russian conservatives, regarded humans as natural killers, whose instincts were restrained principally by fear of divine retribution after death. Should man lose belief in the immortality of his soul there would be nothing left to keep his murderous inclinations from asserting themselves. Hence, there was need for strong authority. As the conflict between the left and the regime intensified, most of the conservatives unqualifiedly backed the regime, which in itself tended to exclude them from the ranks of the intelligentsia. They also grew steadily more xenophobic and anti-Semitic. In Pobedonostsev, the power behind the throne of Alexander III, conservatism found its Grand Inquisitor. 'If you please, the Venus of Milo is more indubitable than Russian law or the principles of 1789.' This phrase of Turgenev's may appear strange at first sight. But its meaning becomes quite clear when set in the context of a crucial controversy which developed in Russia between the radical intelligentsia on the one hand and writers and artists on the other. Literature was the first human activity to break away from patrimonial subservience in Russia; and in time it was joined by other spiritual activities, the visual arts, scholarship, science. One may say that by the middle of the nineteenth century, 'culture' and the pursuit of material interest were the only two spheres which the regime allotted to its subjects reasonably free of interference; but since the pursuit

35

of material interest, as pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, tended in Russia to go in hand with complete political subservience, culture alone provided a possible base of opposition. It was natural, therefore, that it should become progressively politicized. One can state categorically that not one great Russian writer, artist, scholar or scientist of the old regime placed his work in the service of politics; the few who did, were without exception untalented third-raters. There is a fundamental incompatibility between politics, which requires discipline, and creativity, which demands freedom, for the two to make at best uneasy allies and most often, to confront one another as deadly enemies. What did happen, however, was that creative persons in Russia found themselves under immense pressure from the intelligentsia left of centre to place themselves and their work at the disposal of society. Poets were under pressure to write novels, and novelists to write social exposes. Painters were asked to use their art to bring vividly to the attention of all, especially illiterates, the suffering of the masses. Scholars and scientists were urged to occupy themselves with problems of immediate social relevance. This utilitarian approach was not unknown in contemporary western Europe, but in Russia its exponents were much more strident because of culture's, and especially literature's, unique function. In the polemic which developed between utilitarians and the exponents of 'art for art's sake', the central figure of contention was Pushkin. Until the 1860s his place in Russian culture had been unchallenged. He was revered not only as Russia's greatest poet and the founder of her literature, but as a new national type. 'Pushkin is the Russian man as he is in the course of becoming,' Gogol wrote, 'such as he may appear, perhaps, in two hundred years hence.' But Pushkin was known to have detested all who wished to make art serve some ulterior purpose. For him, 'the aim of poetry was poetry', and 'poetry stood above morality'. It is because of these sentiments that the radical critics chose him as their target, seeing in him the central bastion of that Idealism which they were determined to bring down. To Chemyshevskii, the idea of art serving itself was callous to the point of treason. For him 'the useless had no right to exist.' He attacked Pushkin on numerous occasions not only as an irresponsible and useless human being but as a second-rate poet, a mere imitator of Byron. Pisarev, the enfant terrible of his generation, called Pushkin a 'lofty cretin'. Relentless campaigns of this sort not only sent Pushkin's reputation into temporary eclipse, but had a profoundly discouraging influence on all but the very greatest literary and artistic talents. The great ones fought back. They refused to serve as propagandists, convinced that their social role, such as it was, was best fulfilled by holding up a clear mirror to life. To a friend who complained that Chekhov in his stories showed no moral preferences, the writer replied: You criticize me for objectivity, calling it indifference to good and evil, lack of ideals, and so on. You desire me, in depicting horse thieves to say: horse-stealing is an evil. But this has been known for a long time without me. Let juries judge horse thieves. My job it is only to show what kind of people they are. I write: you deal with horse thieves then know that these are not poor people but well fed ones, that they are members of a cult and that for them stealing horses is not theft but a passion. Of course, it would be nice to combine art with preaching, but for me it

36

is extremely difficult to do so and indeed for technical reasons virtually impossible. And Tolstoy put the matter succinctly in a letter to a fellow-writer: The aims of the artist are incommensurable (as mathematicians might say) with social goals. The goal of the artist lies not in solving a question in an indisputable manner, but in making people love life in its infinite, eternally inexhaustible manifestations. The quarrel had far greater import than might appear from its literary context. It was not over aesthetics but over the freedom of the creative artist - and, ultimately, that of every human being - to be himself. The radical intelligentsia, in struggling against a regime which had traditionally upheld the principle of compulsory state service, began to develop a service mentality of its own. The belief that literature and art, and to a somewhat lesser extent scholarship and science, had a primary responsibility to society became axiomatic in Russian left-wing circles. Social Democrats of both Bolshevik and Menshevik persuasion held on to it through thick and thin; and hence it was not surprising that when they came to power and got hold of the apparatus of repression which allowed them to put their theories into practice, the communists soon deprived Russian culture of that freedom of expression which it had managed to win for itself under the imperial regime. Thus the intelligentsia turned on itself, and in the name of justice for society throttled society's voice. Т екст4 The Constitution In cultivating simultaneously a private sphere united by marriage and a public world governed by republican institutions, Ragusans trod a path that might have been appreciated in a much earlier age. Devolution of responsibility was not unique in the Mediterranean world, but it was rather remarkable in that it survived here into the early modern age. Deliberate care for their marriage alliances provided Ragusans a solidly cohesive circle to which they might refer all manner of divisive issues for resolution as one might consult, and rely on, an extended family. Through civic service, membership in the Great Council, and willingness to stand for the elected office or accept appointment, noble Ragusan citizens maintained the machinery of a republican state and embarked on the secular path of patrician statecraft and governance. The apportioning of private and public responsibilities holds out some hope for resolving the sometimes disputed problem of codification of Ragusa’s laws. Seven major books of statute law were codified in 1272 (an eighth book contains new laws), and a smaller body of customs law was recorded in 1277, while Ragusans governed their city under the watchful eye of a Venetian count. The count’s role in this process is still a matter of dispute. The act of codification played usefully into the hands of the Venetians who stood to benefit from the orderly exposition of local law and ancient custom. Codification is an act of sovereignty implying that the ruler’s will and reason are superior to local and time-sanctioned customs. It may imply, to the jeopardy of local populations, that custom has the force of law only by permission of the ruler. So Venice, its own laws uncodified, has been assumed by some to have

37

dictated the law to Ragusa and to the other Dalmatian cities that collected their statute laws in this era, creating, in the words of Thomas Ashburner, the earliest full compendia of urban and maritime law in the medieval era. It must be noted that Ashburner himself saw the Ragusan statute law’s provenance as much older than Venetian influence in the thirteenth century. He fixed its origins in the ancient Rhodian sea law, but the tradition persists in Venetian historiography that Venice created small constitutional versions of its thirteenthcentury self within the Adriatic cities it ruled. Constantine Jireček, the Czech scholar who edited Ragusa’s Liber Statutorum with Valtazar Bogišić at the beginning of the twentieth century, disagreed, nothing that Ragusans respected the codified law as their own inheritance in 1272 and even after they separated themselves from Venice in 1358. The constitution was more ancient. The nobility had a first recorded mention in 1023 and, fifteen years before the Venetian-Ragusan treaty of 1205, the constitutional division of powers: “count, with judges, nobles, and the whole people… and the agreement of the Archbishop, appeared in the official correspondence of the Ragusan state.” When the law was codified in 1272, older laws governing private life were incorporated into the Statute Book; the phrase “according to the customs and the usage of Ragusa” was invoked whenever new statutes were balloted as a tradition far older than the codification itself. Statute law was living law, according to Jireček and the emerging Slavic school of historiography, amended but respected for centuries before and after Ragusa freed itself from Venetian domination. At Ragusa the Great Council, the assembled adult men of the noble circle, balloted all elected offices except a few reserved for the cives de popylo. The method of election was cumbersome since an alternative to any nomination had to be introduced to allow for balloting. The Great Council elected a senate of about forty members that oversaw foreign relations and diplomatic initiatives, and a Small Council, a legislative, judicial, and executive body that dealt with the Venetian count on a day-to-day basis until 1358. When the citizenry felt confident enough to ease itself out from under Venetian control (aided by Venice’s momentary embarrassments in warfare in the 1350s and the Ragusan Archbishop Saraca’s secret negotiations with Hungary), the Great Council replaced the count with an elected triumvirate. This mechanism soon proved awkward and was replaces by an elected rector whose executive power was effectively checked by his short term in office. In the first experiments after delivery from Venetian rule, the rectorship lasted only one month, so wary was the council of a strong executive office filled by one of their own number. This in turn proved unworkable, and a rectorship of six month was instituted, but no rector was to serve sequential terms in office. Structurally inefficient, time-consuming, and absorbing of energy, government responsibilities continued to fall to all noblemen, who learned and used “Old Ragusan,” an Italian dialect from contemporary vernacular speech. In council, they participated in a shared political exercise of discourse that affirmed the venerable nature of an ancient inherited political culture. 2. П о д готовьте со общ ени е освоей на уч ной ра б о те.

38

П рим еры: 1. My scientific work. I specialize in the history of the Middle Ages. My supervisor is Mananchikova Nelly Petrovna. My work is called “The Marti Luther’s doctrine of church”. The subject of the investigation is Germany of the 16th century and Reformation. Our task is to study Luther’s activity and its significance. It was subjected to thorough investigation. The information was derived from different scientific works, articles and books. The sources I used in my work are “95 thesis” by Martin Luther and some other documents on the history of the Middle Ages. These are basic sources which I used. On the question there is an enormous literature, for example such authors as Smirin M.M. “The Great Peasant War”, Ermolaev M.S. “The Peasantry of Germany in the 16th century.” There are three chapters in my work. The first chapter is devoted to social and political development of Germany and the beginning of Reformation. The second chapter is devoted to Marti Luther’s life. The third chapter deals with Luther’s doctrine of church. On the basis of the work carried out we have come to the conclusion that church played the main role in the people’s life at that time and Reformation was a complicated process which brought the changes in church and consequently in all people’s life. 2. My scientific work. I specialize in the Russian history from the ancient times to the modern history. My supervisor is Dinin Vladimir Ivanovich. My work is called “Pre-Christian religious beliefs of Mordvins”. It consists of four chapters. The subject of the investigation is pre-Christian beliefs and devotions of Mordvins. Our task is to study the religious beliefs and devotions connected with water, forest, dwelling and dead people. Also we are interested in magical ceremonies: sorcery and wasting disease. This question was subjected to thorough investigation by famous Russian scientists – historians such as Jelenin D.K., Mokshin N.F., Melnikov P.I., Smirnov I.N. I used their monographs in my work. The sources I used in my work are material remains, articles. There are 4 chapters in my work. The first chapter is called “Domestic way of life.” It is devoted to the study of the domestic life of Mordvins. In this chapter their dwelling, clothes and food are described. The second chapter is called “The cult of ancestry”, which is thoroughly investigated in this chapter. The third chapter deals with the religious beliefs and ceremonies of Mordvins. The fourth chapter is called “the Magestic devotions of Mordvins. The final chapter contains the description of Mordvins’ majestic ceremonies: sorcery, wasting disease, domestic magic, love magic and many others.

39

We must conclude that in the old days Mordvins personified their divinities with the natural forces. They couldn’t explain many natural phenomena, therefore they were afraid of divinities, made sacrifices to them and worshipped them.

С оставители: В ерещ агинаЕ ленаН иколаевна Д обросоцкая Анастасия П етровна Ш ирш иковаЕ катеринаАлександровна Редактор: БунинаТ .Д .