Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òåìà ãîäà 2004 annual theme:

ÀÐÕÅÎËÎÃÈß ÏÀÌßÒÈ ÈÌÏÅÐÈÈ È ÍÀÖÈÈ

ARCHEOLOGY OF MEMORY OF EMPIRE AND NATION

Ñîäåðæàíèå Contents

“ÏÐÈÌÈÐÅÍÈÅ ×ÅÐÅÇ ÏÐÎØËÎÅ: ÏÀÍÚÅÂÐÎÏÅÉÑÊÀß ÏÅÐÑÏÅÊÒÈÂÀ”

“RECONCILIATION THROUGH THE PAST: PAN-EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE”

ÌÅÒÎÄÎËÎÃÈß È ÒÅÎÐÈß I. METHODOLOGY AND THEORY 12

Îò ðåäàêöèè Ìèð ïàìÿòè? Ïðèìèðåíèå ñ ïðîøëûì è ÷åðåç 13 ïðîøëîå From the Editors Memories at Peace? Reconciliation with and through 17 the Past Íîðáåðò Ôðàé Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? Òðåòèé ðåéõ â ñîâðå- ìåííîì íåìåöêîì ñîçíàíèè 21 Norbert Frei Past Overcome? The Third Reich in Contemporary German Consciousness Øòåôàí Òð¸áñò “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâ¸ð?” Êóëüòóðà ïàìÿòè â ïîñò- êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèõ îáùåñòâàõ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû. Ïîïûòêà îáùåãî îïèñàíèÿ è êàòåãîðèçàöèè 41 Stefan Tröbst “What Sort of a Carpet?” The Culture of Memory in Post-Communist Societies of Eastern Europe. An Attempt at General Description and Categorization Interview with Jan Gross Memory and History: “The Neighbors?” 79 Èíòåðâüþ ñ ßíîì Ãðîññîì Ïàìÿòü è èñòîðèÿ: “ñîñåäè”? 3 Ñîäåðæàíèå/Contents Ðîíàëüä Ñóíè Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå: óñèëèÿ àðìÿíñêèõ è òóðåöêèõ ó÷åíûõ ïî îñìûñëåíèþ äåïîðòàöèé è ðåçíè àðìÿí âî âðåìÿ Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû 87 Ronald Suny Dialogue on Genocide: Efforts by Armenian and Turkish Scholars to Understand the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians During World War I

ÈÑÒÎÐÈß II. HISTORY 132

Agnieszka Jagodziñska Between Two Worlds: Jewish Cemetery in War- saw as a Text of Culture (1850-1900) 133 Àãíåæêà ßãîäçèíüñêà Ìåæ äâóõ ìèðîâ: åâðåéñêîå êëàäáèùå â Âàðøàâå êàê êóëüòóðíûé òåêñò (1850-1900 ãã.) Þðãèòà Ùÿó÷þíàéòå-Âåðáèöêåíå Íàøà îáùàÿ êóëüòóðà: “Âûó÷åííàÿ ïàìÿòü” î ëèòîâñêîì Èåðóñàëèìå 155 Jurgita Ðiauèiûnaitë-Verbickienë Our Common Culture: “The Learnt Memory” of Lithuanian Jerusalem Anna Lipphardt Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilno, “The Most Yiddish City in the World”, in New York, Israel, and Vilnius 167 Àííà Ëèïïõàðä Ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ Âèëüíî, “ñàìîãî èäèøèñòñêîãî ãîðîäà â ìèðå”, ïîñëå Õîëîêîñòà: â Íüþ-Éîðêå, Èçðàèëå è Âèëüíþñå Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern “The Dead Jews:” A Reflection On Useable Past 193 Éîõàíàí Ïåòðîâñêèé-Øòåðí “Ìåðòâûå åâðåè”: ðàçìûøëåíèÿ î ïðèãîäíîì ïðîøëîì Sener Akturk Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation Through the Past: The Case of Turkish Eurasianism 207 Ñåíåð Àêòþðê Êîíòð-ãåãåìîíèñòñêèå âçãëÿäû è ïðèìèðåíèå ÷åðåç ïðîøëîå: ñëó÷àé òóðåöêîãî åâðàçèéñòâà Ïàâåë Âàðíàâñêèé Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä: ñîçäàíèå åäèíîé èäåíòè÷- íîñòè â ÑÑÑÐ êàê êîíñòðóèðîâàíèå îáùåé ïàìÿòè (íà ìàòå- ðèàëàõ Áóðÿòñêîé ÀÑÑÐ) 239 Pavel Varnavskii Soviet People: The Making of a Common Identity in the USSR as the Creation of Common Memory (the Case of Buriat ASSR) Ýëüçà-Áàèð Ãó÷èíîâà Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû: ïðèìèðåíèå ñ ïðî- øëûì â ïîëèòèêå ïàìÿòè êàëìûêîâ 263 Elza-Bair Guchinova The Nation and the Discourse of Guilt: Reconciliation With the Past in the Kalmyk Politics of Memory

4 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Îëüãà Áðåäíèêîâà Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem èëè ðàçäå- ëåííàÿ ïàìÿòü ðàçäåëåííûõ ãîðîäîâ? 289 Olga Brednikova Historical Text Ad Marginem, or the Divided Memory of Divided Towns? Ene Kõresaar The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory: On the Construction of Meaning in Autobiographical Texts on the Stalinist Experience 313 Ýíå ʸðåñààð Ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î ðàçðûâå â ýñòîíñêîì íàððàòèâå ïàìÿòè: Ñìûñëîïîðîæäåíèå â àâòîáèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ òåêñòàõ îá îïûòå ñòàëèíèçìà

ÀÐÕÈ III. ARCHIVE 340 Èëüÿ Ãåðàñèìî⠓Âîñïîìèíàíèå î áóäóùåì”. Êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà è ïðîáëåìà “ñèñòåìíîé ïàìÿòè”: ìåæäó “êîíâåðãåíöèåé” è “íóëåâûì âàðèàíòîì” 341 Ilya Gerasimov “Remembering the Future.” Constitutional Project of Andrei Sa- kharov and the Problem of “System Memory:” Between “Convergence” and the “Zero Option” Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà: èþíü-íîÿáðü 1989 ã. 351 Materials for A. D. Sakharov’s Constitutional Project: June-November, 1989 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà 15 ëåò ñïóñòÿ 373 Remembering A. D. Sakharov’s Constitutional Project 15 years Later Lowry Wyman Joshua Rubenstein Äèòðèõ Áàéðàó Joanna Regulska Kimitaka Matsuzato Ãàñàí Ãóñåéíîâ Àðòåìèé Ìàãóí

ÑÎÖÈÎËÎÃÈß, ÝÒÍÎËÎÃÈß, IV. SOCIOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY, 412 ÏÎËÈÒÎËÎÃÈß POLITICAL SCIENCE

ÏÅÐÅÑÒÐÎÉÊÀ ÊÀÊ “ÌÎÌÅÍÒ ÏÀÌßÒȔ

PERESTROIKA AS A “MOMENT OF MEMORY” Åâãåíèé Àíèñèìîâ Îò Ïèêóëÿ äî “Êðóãëîãî ñòîëà” 413 Evgenii Anisimov From Pikul’ to “Round Table” 5 Ñîäåðæàíèå/Contents

Melissa F. Gayan Gorbachev’s Reforms and the Beginning of a New History in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic 419 Ìåëèññà Ãàÿí Ãîðáà÷åâñêèå ðåôîðìû è íà÷àëî íîâîé èñòîðèè â Ãðóçèíñ- êîé ÑÑÐ Kathleen E. Smith Whither Anti-Stalinism? 433 Êýòëèí Ñìèò Êóäà æå èäåò àíòèñòàëèíèçì? Harley Balzer An Acceptable Past: Memory in the Russian Extrication from Communism 449 Õàðëè Áîëçåð Ïðèåìëåìîå ïðîøëîå: ïàìÿòü è âûñâîáîæäåíèå Ðîññèè îò êîììóíèçìà Àëåêñàíäð Êóñòàðåâ Ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó â ïîñò- ïåðåñòðîå÷íîé Ðîññèè: íàððàòèâ è èíâîêàöèÿ 469 Alexander Kustarev Practices of Dealing with the Past in the Post-Perestroika Russia: Narrative and Invocation

ÀÂÑ: ÈÑÑËÅÄÎÂÀÍÈß ÈÌÏÅÐÈÈ V. ABC: EMPIRE & NATIONALISM 484 È ÍÀÖÈÎÍÀËÈÇÌÀ STUDIES

ÏÎËÅ ÁÈÒÂÛ - ÏÀÌßÒÜ: ÂÅËÈÊÎÅ ÊÍßÆÅÑÒÂÎ ËÈÒÎÂÑÊÎÅ Â ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÛÕ ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÕ ÄÈÑÊÓÐÑÀÕ È ÍÀÐÐÀÒÈÂÀÕ ÏÀÌßÒÈ ÁÅËÀÐÓÑÈ, ËÈÒÂÛ, ÏÎËÜØÈ, ÐÎÑÑÈÈ È ÓÊÐÀÈÍÛ

THE BATTLED GROUND OF MEMORY: THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA IN MODERN HISTORICAL DISCOURSES AND MEMORY NARRATIVES OF BELARUS, LITHUANIA, POLAND, RUSSIA, AND UKRAINE Àëåêñàíäð Ôèëþøêèí “Îäíà çåìëÿ, ðàçíàÿ ïàìÿòü”: Âåëèêîå Êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè Ïîëüøè, Ëèòâû, Óêðàèíû, Áåëîðóññèè è Ðîññèè 485 Alexander Filiushkin “One Land, Different Memories:” The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Historical Memories of Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Russia Èíòåðâüþ ñ Èåðîíèìîì Ãðàëåé “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå Êíÿ- æåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â ïîëüñêîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè 491 Interview with Hieronim Grala “Non-Empire:” The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Polish Historical Memory Äàðþñ Âèëèìàñ Âåëèêîå Êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå: ñòåðåîòèïû èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè â Ëèòâå 507 Darius Vilimas The Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Stereotypes of Historical Memory in Lithuania 6 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Giedrë Mickûnaitë Empire as Nostalgia or à la recherche des terres perdues 523 Ãèäðå Ìèöêóíàéòå Èìïåðèÿ êàê íîñòàëüãèÿ, èëè à la recherche des terres perdues Äìèòðèé Âûðñêèé Âåëèêîå Êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå êàê èñòî- ðè÷åñêèé îïûò: ñëó÷àé Óêðàèíû 529 Dmitrii Vyrskii The Grand Duchy of Lithuania as Historical Experience: The Case of Ukraine Èãîðü Ìàðçàëþê Âåëèêîå Êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè- ÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè áåëîðóñîâ-ðóñèíîâ: îò ñðåäíåâåêîâüÿ ê ìîäåðíó 539 Igor Marzaliuk The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Historical Memory of Byelorus- sians – Rusins: from the Middle Ages to Modernity Àëåêñàíäð Ôèëþøêèí Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåð- êàëà: Ðîññèéñêèé äèñêóðñ Âåëèêîãî Êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî 561 Alexander Filiushkin Looking into the Broken Mirror Splinters: The Russian Dis- course on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

ÍÎÂÅÉØÈÅ ÌÈÔÎËÎÃÈÈ VI. NEWEST MYTHOLOGIES 602 Ñåðãåé Óøàêèí Âìåñòî óòðàòû: ìàòåðèàëèçàöèÿ ïàìÿòè è ãåðìåíåâòèêà áîëè â ïðîâèíöèàëüíîé Ðîññèè 603 Serguei Oushakine Replacing Loss: Materialization of Memory and the Herme- neutics of Pain in Provincial Russia

ÐÅÖÅÍÇÈÈ È ÁÈÁËÈÎÃÐÀÔÈß VII. BOOK REVIEWS 640

Èñòîðèîãðàôèÿ 1. Historiography 640

Stephen Velychenko Ukrainians Rethink Their Revolutions 640 Ñòýôåí Âåëû÷åíêî Óêðàèíöû ïåðåîñìûñëèâàþò ñâîè ðåâîëþöèè

Ðåöåíçèè 2. Reviews 657

A. Kappeler, Z. E. Kohut, F. E. Sysyn, and M. Von Hagen (Eds.), Culture, Nation, and Identity. The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1600-1945) (Edmonton, Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003). 381 pp. ISBN: 1-895571-47-2. Ëèëÿ Áåðåæíàÿ 657 7 Ñîäåðæàíèå/Contents

Roman Szporluk, Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union (Stan- ford: Hoover Institution Press, 2000). xlix+438 pp. ISBN: 0-8179-9542-0. Emilian Kavalski 664 Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèí. Âëàñòü ïðîñòðàíñòâà è ïðîñòðàíñòâî âëàñòè: Ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèå îáðàçû â ïîëèòèêå è ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ îòíî- øåíèÿõ. Ìîñêâà: ÐÎÑÑÏÝÍ, 2004. 352 ñ. (Ñåð.: Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ Ðîññèè). Áèáëèîãð. Ðåç. àíãë. ISBN: 5-8243-0300-2. Cåðãåé Êèñåëåâ 668 Jan T. Gross. Revolution from Abroad. The Soviet Conquest of Po- land’s Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia (Princeton; London: Princeton University Press, 2002). Expanded edition, with a new pref- ace by the author. Xxiv+396 pp. ISBN: 0-691-09603-1. Ýðíåñò Ãûéäåë 974 Mykhailo Hrusevsky, Hystory of Ukraine-Rus’. From Prehistory to the Eleventh Century (Volume 1: Translated by Marta Skorupsky. Ed- ited by Andrzej Poppe and Frank E. Sysyn. Edmonton: Canadian In- stitute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1997); The Cossack Age to 1625 (Volume 7: Translated by Bohdan Strumiñs- ki. Edited by Serhii Plokhy and Frank E. Sysyn. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1999); The Cossack Age, 1626-1650 (Volume 8: Translated by Marta Daria Olynyk. Edited by Frank E. Sysyn, with the assistance of Myroslav Yurkevich. Edmonton and Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2002). Àëåêñàíäð Ëàâðîâ 680 Margarita M. Balmaceda, James I. Clem, and Lisbeth L. Tarlow (Eds.), Independent Belarus: Domestic Determinants, Regional Dynamics, and Implications for the West. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 2002). 483 pp. Appendix. Index. ISBN: 0-91645894-6. Anna Brzozowska 689 Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations. Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569 – 1999 (New Haven and London: Yale Uni- versity Press, 2003). 367 pp. ISBN: 0-300-09569-4. Ìàêñèì Êèð÷àíîâ 694 8 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ïðîáëåìû íàöèîíàëüíîé èäåíòèôèêàöèè, êóëüòóðíûå è ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ñâÿçè Ðîññèè ñî ñòðàíàìè Áàëòèéñêîãî ðåãè- îíà â XVIII-XX âåêàõ / Ïîä ðåä. Ð. Áþòíåð, Â. Äóáèíû, Ì. Ëåîíîâà. Ñàìàðà: “Ïàðóñ”, 2001. 284 ñ. ISBN: 5-7967-0090-1. Wim van Meurs 699 Ä. Ãóçåâè÷, È. Ãóçåâè÷. Âåëèêîå ïîñîëüñòâî. ÑÏá., Ôåíèêñ, 2003. 309 ñ. ISBN: 5-85042-073-8. Ýììàíóýëü Âàãåìàíñ 702 Yale Richmond, From Nyet to Da: Understanding the Russians (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, 2003). Third Edition. 203 pp. ISBN 1-877864-16-1. Íèêèòà Õðàïóíîâ 709 A. O. Chubarian, F. Gori, I. Yu. Novichenko, V. V. Ishchenko (Eds.), European Experience and Teaching History in Post-Soviet Russia: Seminar Materials Promoting Regional Innovation in Programs and Methodology (Moscow: IVI RAN, 1999). ISBN: 5-201-00522-5. Katya V1adimirov 716 Padraic Kenney, A Carnival of Revolution. Central Europe, 1989. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. ISBN: 0-691-05028-7. 352 pð. Magdalena ¯ó³koœ 720 Boris Kagarlitsky, Russia Under Yeltsin and Putin: Neo-Liberal Au- tocracy (London: Pluto Press, 2002). vi+303pp. ISBN: 0-74531502-X. Stephen Blank 725 Lilia Shevtsova, Putin’s Russia (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2003). 306 pp. Index. ISBN: 0-87003-202-X. Brus Bear 727 À. Á. Íèêîëàåâ. Ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ äóìà â Ôåâðàëüñêîé ðåâî- ëþöèè/ Ïðåä. Ñ. Ì. Ëÿíäðåñ. Ðÿçàíü, 2002. 302 ñ. (Ñåð. “Íî- âåéøàÿ ðîññèéñêàÿ èñòîðèÿ: èññëåäîâàíèÿ è äîêóìåíòû”. Ò. 2). ISBN: 5-944730-02-1. Ñâåòëàíà Ìàëûøåâà 730 9 Ñîäåðæàíèå/Contents Íàøè àâòîðû 736 List of Contributors 740 Miscellaneous 744 Ab Imperio – 2005 748

10 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

ÎÒ ÐÅÄÀÊÖÈÈ

ÌÈÐ ÏÀÌßÒÈ? ÏÐÈÌÈÐÅÍÈÅ Ñ ÏÐÎØËÛÌ È ×ÅÐÅÇ ÏÐÎØËÎÅ

Îòêðûâàÿ íîâóþ òåìó 2004 ãîäà â AI 1/2004, ìû ñïðàøèâàëè ñåáÿ è íàøèõ àâòîðîâ: åñòü ëè ó èìïåðèè ïàìÿòü? Åñëè ðàññìàòðè- âàòü ïàìÿòü – â ñàìîì øèðîêîì ñìûñëå – êàê àêòóàëèçàöèþ ëè÷íîãî ïåðåæèâàíèÿ ïðîøëîãî, òî âîçìîæíî ëè åäèíîå âîñïðèÿòèå ïðîøåä- øèõ ñîáûòèé â ïîëèýòíè÷åñêîì ïîëèòè÷åñêîì îðãàíèçìå? È åñòü ëè àëüòåðíàòèâà ðàçðóøèòåëüíîìó êîíôëèêòó, âûçûâàåìîìó ëåãèòè- ìèçàöèåé ìíîæåñòâåííûõ “ïàìÿòåé”, ñîñóùåñòâóþùèõ â ÿâíîì èëè ïîäàâëåííîì âèäå ⠓èìïåðñêîì” îáùåñòâå? Èíà÷å ãîâîðÿ, ìîæíî ëè äîñòè÷ü ñîãëàñèÿ ìåæäó ñóáúåêòàìè âñïîìèíàíèÿ? Ïîäâîäÿ èòîãè ÷åòûðåõ òåìàòè÷åñêèõ íîìåðîâ 2004 ãîäà, ìû äîëæíû ïðèçíàòü, ÷òî íå ñòîëüêî ïîëó÷èëè îäíîçíà÷íûå îòâåòû, ñêîëüêî îñîçíàëè íåîáõîäèìîñòü ïåðåôîðìóëèðîâàòü èñõîäíûå âîïðîñû. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ïðîáëåìà çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ íå â òîì, ñóùåñòâóåò èëè íåò íåêàÿ îñîáàÿ “èìïåðñêàÿ” ïàìÿòü, à â åå ñóùíîñòíûõ îñîáåííîñòÿõ. Ãîðàçäî ÷àùå óïðîùåííî ïîíèìàåìîé ñèòóàöèè ìîíîëèòíîé è ìîáèëèçóþùåé “íàöèîíàëüíîé ïàìÿòè” âñòðå÷àåòñÿ èìïåðñêàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ ìíîæåñòâåííûõ âåðñèé ïàìÿòè, âûíóæäåííûõ ñîñóùåñòâîâàòü â íåêîåì äîáðîâîëüíîì èëè íàñèëüñòâåííîì ñèìáèîçå. Åñëè ñîãëàñèòüñÿ ñ òåì, ÷òî èäåÿ åäèíîãî “ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñóáúåêòà” ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñêîðåå “ôàíòàçèåé, êîòîðàÿ âñåãäà ïðîòèâîðå÷èò 13 Îò Ðåäàêöèè, Ìèð ïàìÿòè? ýìïèðè÷åñêîé ðåàëüíîñòè êîíôëèêòóþùèõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ãðóïï è èíòåðåñîâ”,1 òî ñèòóàöèÿ êîíôëèêòà ìåæäó ñóáúåêòàìè ïàìÿòè îêàçûâàåòñÿ óíèâåðñàëüíîé. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, îáû÷íî ïàìÿòü ãðóïïû îôîðìëÿåòñÿ è ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ âî âçàèìîäåéñòâèè ñ äðóãèìè ãðóï- ïîâûìè íàððàòèâàìè ïàìÿòè (äèàëîãå / îòòàëêèâàíèè) è â õîäå âíóòðåííåãî äèàëîãà. Ïðîáëåìíîé è óíèêàëüíîé äîëæíà, ñêîðåå, ñ÷èòàòüñÿ ñèòóàöèÿ òîðæåñòâà íåêîé íîðìàòèâíîé âåðñèè ïàìÿòè – ïîäîáíî òîìó, êàê óíèêàëüíîé è òðåáóþùåé îñîáîãî àíàëèçà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñèòóàöèÿ ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ îáùåñòâà êàê åäèíîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñóáúåêòà / ïóáëè÷íîé ñôåðû. Íå èññëåäîâàíû âïîëíå òàêæå ìåõàíèçìû ñìåíû óíèâåðñàëèçè- ðóþùèõ íàððàòèâîâ ïàìÿòè.  ïðèíöèïå, ìîíîëîãè÷íàÿ “íàöèî- íàëüíàÿ ïàìÿòü” è åñòü îäèí èç îòâåòîâ íà äèëåììó èìïåðñêîé ñèòóàöèè, èáî îíà ïðèçâàíà ïîäàâèòü äåñòàáèëèçèðóþùåå ìíîãî- ãîëîñèå âî èìÿ îäíîé-åäèíñòâåííîé âåðñèè ïðîøëîãî. Ñèòóàöèÿ ìíîæåñòâåííîé ïàìÿòè, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, ñòîëü æå åñòåñòâåííà, ñêîëü îïàñíà è – â ïðåäåëå – äåñòðóêòèâíà. Îòñþäà – âàæíåéøàÿ ðîëü èíñòèòóòîâ è ïðàêòèê, ôîðìàòèðóþùèõ ïàìÿòü, â òîì ÷èñëå (à, ìîæåò áûòü, è â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü) – èñòîðèîãðàôèè. Î ôîðìàõ çàâèñèìîñòè êóëüòóð ïàìÿòè îò èäåîëîãè÷åñêèõ è ñòðóê- òóðíûõ ôàêòîðîâ, â ÷àñòíîñòè íà ïîñòñîâåòñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå Âî- ñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, ñì. ñòàòüþ Øòåôàíà Òðåáñòà â ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîé ðóáðèêå íàñòîÿùåãî íîìåðà. Áîëåå òîãî, îáîðîòíîé ñòîðîíîé äåìîêðàòèçèðóþùåãî ïîòåí- öèàëà ïàìÿòè, óðàâíèâàþùåé âñåõ “ñóáúåêòîâ âîñïîìèíàíèÿ” ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ëåãèòèìíîñòè èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ âåðñèé ïðîøëîãî, ÿâëÿåòñÿ æåñòêîñòü è äàæå òîòàëèòàðíîñòü ãîñïîäñòâà ïîáåäèâøåé âåðñèè. Òàì, ãäå èñòîðèêè, ïóñòü äàæå êàêàÿ-òî íåáîëüøàÿ ÷àñòü ðàöèîíàëüíî ìûñëÿùåãî ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîãî ñîîáùåñòâà, ìîãóò íàéòè îáùèé ÿçûê è íà÷àòü äèàëîã, “ðÿäîâûå” íîñèòåëè ïàìÿòè, îñîáåííî ïàìÿòè òðàâìàòè÷åñêîé è ðàçäåëÿþùåé, îêàçûâàþòñÿ íåãîòîâûìè ê êîìïðîìèññó ñ ïðîøëûì. Ýòîò ïàðàäîêñ êàê íåëüçÿ ëó÷øå èëëþñòðèðóþò ïóáëèêóþùèåñÿ â ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîì ðàçäåëå íàñòîÿùåãî íîìåðà ðàçìûøëåíèÿ Ðîíàëüäà Ñóíè î ïðîáëåìàõ àðìÿíî-òóðåöêîãî äèàëîãà î Ãåíîöèäå. Êàê ìû âèäåëè íà ìàòåðèàëàõ òåìàòè÷åñêèõ íîìåðîâ ýòîãî ãîäà, ïàìÿòü ìîæåò ñëóæèòü êàê ìîùíûì ðåñóðñîì ìåæãðóïïîâîãî

1 Harold Mah. Phantasies of the Public Sphere. Rethinking the Habermas of Historians // Journal of Modern History. 2000. Vol. 72. P. 155. 14 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êîíôëèêòà (2/2004), òàê è ôàêòîðîì, ìîáèëèçóþùåì è îáúåäèíÿ- þùåì ñîîáùåñòâî (3/2004).  ýòîì íîìåðå íàñ èíòåðåñóåò íåñêîëüêî èíîé àñïåêò: êàê êîððåêòèðóåòñÿ ïàìÿòü î ïðîøëîì â ðåçóëüòàòå èçìåíåíèÿ ñåãîäíÿøíåé êîíúþíêòóðû, èñ÷åçíîâåíèÿ áûëûõ êîíô- ëèêòîâ èëè äàæå îòäåëüíûõ èõ ó÷àñòíèêîâ? Âñëåä çà íàøèìè àâòîðàìè, ìû âûíóæäåíû ïðèçíàòü, ÷òî íàèáîëåå ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûé è “äîñòèæèìûé” âàðèàíò ïðèìèðåíèÿ êîíôëèêòíûõ âåðñèé ïàìÿòè ïðåäïîëàãàåò èíñöåíèðîâàííûé “äèàëîã ïàìÿòåé”, ìîäåëü èìïåð- ñêîé ñèòóàöèè, ãäå äîìèíàíòíûé ñóáúåêò ãîâîðèò ñðàçó îò ëèöà âñåõ ó÷àñòíèêîâ äèàëîãà. Èìåííî òàê âîçâðàùàëàñü ïàìÿòü î åâðåéñ- êîì ïðèñóòñòâèè â Åâðîïå â ïîñòõîëîêîñòíûé åâðîïåéñêèé êîíòåêñò, è òå æå ïðîöåññû ìû íàáëþäàåì ñåãîäíÿ íà ïîñòñîâåòñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå (ñì. èíòåðâüþ ñ ßíîì Ãðîññîì, à òàêæå ñòàòüè â èñòî- ðè÷åñêîé ðóáðèêå). Êîãäà â Åâðîïå ôàêòè÷åñêè íå îñòàëîñü åâðî- ïåéñêèõ åâðååâ êàê çàìåòíîãî ñóáúåêòà-íîñèòåëÿ æèâîé êîëëåêòèâíîé ïàìÿòè, ñîçäàëàñü âîçìîæíîñòü äëÿ èçîáðåòåíèÿ òîãî åâðåéñêîãî ïðîøëîãî, êîòîðîå ìîæíî äîñòàòî÷íî áåçáîëåçíåííî ïðîïèñûâàòü â íîâûå íàöèîíàëüíûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå íàððàòèâû è íàððàòèâû ïàìÿòè. Î òîì æå ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò êëàññè÷åñêàÿ íåìåöêàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ “ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî”: ñ èñ÷åçíîâåíèåì æèâûõ ñâèäåòåëåé è ó÷àñòíèêîâ âîéíû îíà ïðåâðàòèëàñü â ñèòóàöèþ “ïðèìèðåíèÿ ñ ïðîøëûì”, ïîòîìó ÷òî íûíå æèâóùåìó ïîêîëåíèþ íóæíû òàêàÿ ïàìÿòü è òàêîå ïðîøëîå, ñ êîòîðûì ìîæíî æèòü äîñòîéíî è ñïîêîéíî. Îò ëèöà óõîäÿùèõ íîñèòåëåé æèâîé ïàìÿòè î ôàøèçìå îíè çàãî- âîðèëè îá èíòèìíîé ñòîðîíå âîéíû, î íåìåöêèõ ñòðàäàíèÿõ è æåðò- âàõ, ïðèìèðÿÿñü ñ ïðîøëûì, êîòîðîãî ðàíüøå ïîëàãàëîñü ñòåñíÿòüñÿ, è âîçâðàùàÿ ïàìÿòü, ðàíåå ìàðãèíàëèçèðîâàííóþ êàê â îáùåñò- âåííîì ñîçíàíèè, òàê è â ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè (ñì. ñòàòüþ Íîðáåðòà Ôðàÿ â ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîé ðóáðèêå). Äîïîë- íèòåëüíûé èìïóëüñ ýòèì ïðîöåññàì äàëî îáúåäèíåíèå Ãåðìàíèè è ïîèñê îñíîâàíèé åäèíñòâà íåìåöêîé íàöèè. Ïðèìèðåíèå ñ ïðîøëûì â ïîçèòèâíîì ñìûñëå ñëîâà îçíà÷àåò ðàñ- øèðåíèå ãðàíèö ïàìÿòè, óìíîæåíèå àêòóàëüíûõ ñóáúåêòîâ è ñþæå- òîâ ïðîøëîãî. Äîâîëüíî ÷àñòî ýòî âëå÷åò ïðèçíàíèå ñâîåé (ëè÷íîé, ãðóïïîâîé, íàöèîíàëüíîé) âèíû è ìîðàëüíîé (à èíîãäà è þðèäè÷åñ- êîé, è ôèíàíñîâîé, êàê â ñëó÷àå ñ ðåñòèòóöèÿìè) îòâåòñòâåííîñòè. Íàñêîëüêî ðåàëèñòè÷íà óñïåøíàÿ ðåàëèçàöèÿ òàêîãî ïðîåêòà íå íà óðîâíå ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè è îôèöèàëüíîé ïîëèòèêè, íî íà óðîâíå ìàññîâîãî ñîçíàíèÿ (ïàìÿòè)? È â êàêîé ôîðìå îí âîç-

15 Îò Ðåäàêöèè, Ìèð ïàìÿòè? ìîæåí ïîìèìî “èìïåðèè ïàìÿòè” – âåäü â ïàìÿòè, êàê è â èñòîðèîã- ðàôèè, ìíîæåñòâåííûå ëèíèè âîñïîìèíàíèÿ äîëæíû ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ íåêîé åäèíîé îðãàíèçóþùåé ëîãèêå íàððàòèâà, à íå ðàñïàäàòüñÿ íà îòäåëüíûå èñòîðèè î áûëîì. Èíà÷å ñóáúåêò ïàìÿòè ðàññûïàåòñÿ íà ìíîæåñòâî ñóáúåêòîâ è òåðÿåò ñïîñîáíîñòü ê êîëëåêòèâíîìó (èëè èíäèâèäóàëüíîìó îñîçíàííîìó) äåéñòâèþ. Ýòó êîëëèçèþ îñîáåííî èíòåðåñíî èëëþñòðèðóåò ïðåäñòàâëåííûé â íîìåðå ôîðóì î Âåëèêîì êíÿæåñòâå Ëèòîâñêîì êàê îáúåêòå âîñïîìèíàíèÿ: ïàìÿòü î Âåëèêîì êíÿæåñòâå ìåíÿåò ñâîè èñòîðè÷åñêèå î÷åðòàíèÿ è ìèôîëîãè÷åñêèå ôóíêöèè â çàâèñèìîñòè îò òîãî, â êàêîé ïàðàäèãìå îíà âîñïðèíèìà- åòñÿ: “èìïåðñêîé” èëè “íàöèîíàëüíîé”. Ïðè÷åì ó ïîñëåäíåé òîæå åñòü ñâîè âàðèàöèè, ñâÿçàííûå ñî ñïåöèôèêîé ëèòîâñêîãî, óêðàèíñ- êîãî èëè áåëîðóññêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîåêòîâ. Íàêîíåö, îòäåëüíîé òåìîé íîìåðà ÿâëÿåòñÿ “ñîâåòñêîå íàñëå- äèå”, êîòîðîå, àêòóàëèçèðóÿñü, âûñòóïàåò â êà÷åñòâå ñîâåòñêîé “èì- ïåðñêîé ïàìÿòè”. Ðå÷ü èäåò î ñîâåòñêèõ ìíåìîïðîåêòàõ, òàêèõ, êàê: “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä” – ñòàòüÿ Ï. Âàðíàâñêîãî; “íàðîäû-êîëëàáîð- öèîíèñòû” – ñòàòüÿ Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâîé è äð. Îñîáîãî âíèìàíèÿ çàñ- ëóæèâàþò èññëåäîâàíèÿ î òîì, êàê îáùåå ñîâåòñêîå ïðîøëîå, ñó- ùåñòâóþùåå ñåãîäíÿ â ðàçëè÷íûõ âåðñèÿõ ïàìÿòè, íåèçáåæíî îáúå- äèíÿåò ïðîøåäøèõ ÷åðåç íåãî ëþäåé; è, íàêîíåö, î ïåðåñòðîéêå êàê ìîìåíòå ïàìÿòè (áëîê ñòàòåé â ðóáðèêå Ñîöèîëîãèÿ, Ýòíîëî- ãèÿ, Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ). Îòäåëüíàÿ ãðóïïà ìàòåðèàëîâ (àðõèâíàÿ ïóá- ëèêàöèÿ è ñëåäóþùèé çà íåé ôîðóì) ïîñâÿùåíà êîíñòèòóöèîííî- ìó ïðîåêòó Àíäðåÿ Äìèòðèåâè÷à Ñàõàðîâà, êîòîðûé ðàññìàòðè- âàåòñÿ êàê âàðèàíò ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ñîâåòñêîãî ïðîøëîãî, âî ìíîãîì îãðàíè÷åííûé äèñêóðñèâíûìè ðàìêàìè ýòîãî ñàìîãî ïðîøëîãî. Ðåäàêöèÿ AI áëàãîäàðèò Àëåêñàíäðà Ôèëþøêèíà, îðãàíèçîâàâ- øåãî ôîðóì, ïîñâÿùåííûé Âåëèêîìó êíÿæåñòâó Ëèòîâñêîìó êàê “ìåñòó ïàìÿòè”, à òàêæå Éîõàíàíà Ïåòðîâñêîãî-Øòåðíà, ëþáåçíî ñîãëàñèâøåãîñÿ ïðîêîììåíòèðîâàòü ñòàòüè, ïîñâÿùåííûå âîçâðàùåíèþ ïàìÿòè î åâðåéñêîì ïðèñóòñòâèè â ïîñòñîâåòñêîé Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïå.

Ðåäàêöèÿ Ab Imperio: È. Ãåðàñèìîâ Ñ. Ãëåáîâ A. Êàïëóíîâñêèé M. Ìîãèëüíåð A. Ñåìåíîâ 16 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Íîðáåðò ÔÐÀÉ

ÏÐÅÎÄÎËÅÍÍÎÅ ÏÐÎØËÎÅ? ÒÐÅÒÈÉ ÐÅÉÕ Â ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÎÌ ÍÅÌÅÖÊÎÌ ÑÎÇÍÀÍÈÈ*

Òàê ìíîãî Ãèòëåðà íå áûëî åùå íèêîãäà. Ïðèñóòñòâèå “ôþðåðà” â ñðåäñòâàõ ìàññîâîé èíôîðìàöèè ñïóñòÿ øåñòü äåñÿòèëåòèé ïîñëå ïàäåíèÿ “Òðåòüåãî ðåéõà” íå òîëüêî ñ ëèõâîé ïðåâîñõîäèò åãî ïóáëè÷- íóþ àêòèâíîñòü â ïîñëåäíèå ìåñÿöû ïåðåä “ãèáåëüþ”1 â áóíêåðå, íî è çàòìåâàåò âñå èíôîðìàöèîííûå âîëíû ïðîøåäøèõ äåñÿòèëåòèé.

*  îñíîâå ýòîé ñòàòüè ëåæèò òåêñò ââîäíîé ãëàâû êíèãè: Norbert Frei. 1945 und wir. Das Dritte Reich im Bewußtsein der Deutschen. München, 2005, êîòîðàÿ âûéäåò â ñâåò â ôåâðàëå ýòîãî ãîäà â èçäàòåëüñòâå C. H. Beck. Ïåðåâîä ñ íåìåöêîãî Àëåêñàíäðà Êàïëóíîâñêîãî. 1 Èãðà ñëî⠖ èìååòñÿ â âèäó ôèëüì Der Untergang (“Ãèáåëü”) íåìåöêîãî ðåæèññåðà Áåðíäà Àéõèíãåðà (Bernd Eichinger), âûøåäøèé íà ýêðàíû íåìåöêèõ êèíîòåàòðîâ â ñåíòÿáðå 2004 ã. è âûçâàâøèé ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå äèñêóññèè â ïðåññå, íà òåëåâèäåíèè, à òàêæå ñðåäè èñòîðèêîâ. Òàê, íàïðèìåð, ôèëüìó “Ãèáåëü” áûë ïîñâÿùåí îäèí èç äèñêóññèîííûõ ôîðóìîâ íà 45-ì åæåãîäíîì êîíãðåññå íåìåöêèõ èñòîðèêîâ, ïðîõîäèâøåì 14-17 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2004 ã. â Êèëå. Ñì.: http:// www.historikertag2004kiel.de/untergang.html. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. Îñíîâíûå äåáàòû ðàçâåðíóëèñü âîêðóã âîïðîñà î ïðàâîìî÷íîñòè èçîáðàæåíèÿ Ãèòëåðà êàê òðàãè÷åñêîé ôèãóðû. Àâòîðû ôèëüìà îòêàçàëèñü îò êëàññè÷åñêèõ ôîðì ñàòèðè÷åñêîãî è êàðèêàòóðíîãî èçîáðàæåíèÿ Ãèòëåðà, èçáðàâ íîâûé ÿçûê êèíîïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ, ïûòàÿñü ïîêàçàòü âîæäÿ íàöèçìà “êàê ÷åëîâåêà.” – Ïðèì. ïåðåâîä÷èêà. 21 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? Äëÿ íàñ – ïîñëåâîåííîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ – “1945 ãîä” åùå íèêîãäà íå áûë òàê áëèçîê, áëàãîäàðÿ íàïëûâó ôèëüìîâ, òåëåâèçèîííîé ïðîäóêöèè è âîñïîìèíàíèé. Ãèòëåð è íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçì ïðîäîëæàþò âîëíîâàòü ñîçíàíèå óæå “òðåòåé ãåíåðàöèè” íåìöåâ, è, ñóäÿ ïî îáúåìó ìåäèéíîé ïðîäóê- öèè, èíòåðåñ ê íèì ðàñòåò. Îäíàêî êàêîâ õàðàêòåð ýòîãî èíòåðåñà? Ñîâåðøåííî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî, êàê è ïðåæäå, íè îäíà äðóãàÿ èñòîðèêî- ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ òåìà íå áóäîðàæèò Ãåðìàíèþ â òàêîé ñòåïåíè. Çíà÷èò ëè ýòî, ÷òî íåìöû îñòàþòñÿ âåðíû òðàäèöèè è ñîõðàíÿþò ñâîþ ðåïóòàöèþ ïåðâîîòêðûâàòåëåé è ëèäåðîâ â äåëå “ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî”? Èëè ìû èìååì äåëî ñ ñîâåðøåííî èíûì ôåíîìåíîì, íåæåëè òà êóëüòóðà êðèòè÷åñêîãî îáðàùåíèÿ ñ ïðîøëûì, êîòîðàÿ ðàçâèâàëàñü â Ôåäåðàòèâíîé ðåñïóáëèêå ñ øåñòèäåñÿòûõ ãîäîâ ïðîøëîãî ñòîëåòèÿ è ôîðìèðîâàëà åå îáùåñòâî? Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, íà íàøèõ ãëàçàõ çàêàí÷èâàåòñÿ öåëàÿ ýïîõà. Ñîâðåìåííèêî⠓Òðåòüåãî ðåéõà” ñòàíîâèòñÿ âñå ìåíüøå, íàöèîíàë- ñîöèàëèçì èñ÷åçàåò èç èìåþùèõñÿ â îáùåñòâå õðàíèëèù èíäèâè- äóàëüíîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî îïûòà. Âîïðåêè ýòèì ÿâëåíèÿì, ìíîãèå ïðèçûâàþò ê äîëãó âñïîìèíàíèÿ – êàê áóäòî â íàøèõ ñèëàõ ïðåäîòâðàòèòü íåèçáåæíîå. Ýòî ñàìîîáìàí, â òî âðåìÿ êàê ïðàâäà çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî ïî÷òè íèêòî óæå íå ìîæåò ñêàçàòü: “ß âñïî- ìèíàþ”! Äëÿ áîëüøèíñòâà èç íàñ ãèòëåðîâñêàÿ Ãåðìàíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ íå ïåðåæèòûì ïðîøëûì, à èñòîðèåé. History, not memory. Òðóäíî ñêàçàòü, ñ êàêèì ñîáûòèåì ïîçäíåå áóäóò ñâÿçûâàòü ýòè ïðîèñõîäÿùèå íà íàøèõ ãëàçàõ ïåðåìåíû â îòíîøåíèè ê èñòîðèè íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà. Ñ áîëüøîé äîëåé âåðîÿòíîñòè ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî òî÷êîé îòñ÷åòà ñòàíåò ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé àêò îòêðûòèÿ â öåíòðå Áåðëèíà 10 ìàÿ 2005 ã. ïàìÿòíèêà óíè÷òîæåííûì åâðåÿì Åâðîïû. Ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêè ýòî ñîáûòèå ìîæíî îòíåñòè ê ðàçðÿäó ýêñòðàîðäèíàðíûõ. Öåëàÿ íàöèÿ ïîñëå ñïîðîâ, äëèâøèõñÿ ïî÷òè ïîëòîðà äåñÿòèëåòèÿ, îôèöèàëüíî ïðèçíàåò ñâîå âåëè÷àéøåå èñòîðè÷åñêîå ïðåñòóïëåíèå, âîçäâèãàÿ ïàìÿòíèê Õîëîêîñòó â ñàìîì öåíòðå ñâîåé ñòîëèöû. Öåðåìîíèÿ îòêðûòèÿ ïàìÿòíèêà äîëæíà ñîñòîÿòüñÿ ÷åðåç äâà äíÿ ïîñëå 60-ëåò- íåé ãîäîâùèíû îêîí÷àíèÿ âîéíû â Åâðîïå. Îíà ñòàíåò ìîìåíòîì ïåðåõîäà îò ïåðåæèòîãî îïûòà ê èñòîðèè è äëÿ Õîëîêîñòà. Áåçóñ- ëîâíî, íåêîòîðûå èç ïðåñòóïíèêîâ âñå åùå íàõîäÿòñÿ ñðåäè íàñ, è âûæèâøèå æåðòâû åùå êàêîå-òî âðåìÿ áóäóò ñ íàìè. Íî óæå ñåé÷àñ 22 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 àáñîëþòíî ÿñíî, ÷òî ñèìâîëèçèðóþò ñòåëëû, ðàñïîëîæåííûå ïî ñîñåäñòâó ñ Áðàíäåíáóðãñêèìè âîðîòàìè: ýòî çíàêîâîå âîïëî- ùåíèå áóäóùåãî, êîòîðîå îæèäàåò “ïðîøëîå” – îíî ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â íàñòîÿùåå áåç æèâûõ î÷åâèäöåâ.

I. Íà ôîíå òàêîé “ïîëèòèêè ïðîøëîãî” ñîáûòèÿ ïîñëåäíåãî äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïðåäñòàþò â íåîæèäàííî ÿðêîì ñâåòå. Ñ îäíîé ñòî- ðîíû, âîïðåêè íåêîòîðûì îïàñåíèÿì, íè â ñèìâîëè÷åñêîì 1995 ã., íè â ïîñëåäóþùèå ãîäû òàê è íå áûëà ïîäâåäåíà “èòîãîâàÿ ÷åðòà” ïîä ïðîøëûì, ÷åãî æäàëè åùå ñî âðåìåí Àäåíàóýðà. Îäíàêî, ñ äðó- ãîé ñòîðîíû, çàâåðøèâøèéñÿ ê ïÿòèäåñÿòèëåòèþ îêîí÷àíèÿ âîéíû äâåíàäöàòèëåòíèé ìåìîðèàëüíûé öèêë ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàë, ÷òî ñîäåðæàíèå è ôîðìû ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î ïðîøëîì ïðåòåðïåëè äðàìà- òè÷åñêèå èçìåíåíèÿ. Òî, ÷òî ïðîèçîøëî 8 ìàÿ 1995 ã., ìîæíî íàçâàòü “ñæàòîé èíâåíòàðèçàöèåé” (komprimierte Inventur) ïðî- øëîãî â òðàäèöèÿõ ñòàðîé Ôåäåðàòèâíîé ðåñïóáëèêè.2 Íàñêîëüêî ïî-èíîìó íàñòîÿùåå âçàèìîäåéñòâîâàëî ñ ïðîøëûì â ïðîøåäøåå äåñÿòèëåòèå! Åãî ìîæíî îïèñàòü êàê “äåêàäó î÷åâèä- öåâ”. Îáðåëè ëèöà ïàëà÷è, æåðòâû è ïîñîáíèêè, êîòîðûå äî ñèõ ïîð ôèãóðèðîâàëè â èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêèõ è ìåäèà ðåïðåçåíòàöèÿõ êàê êîëëåêòèâíûå ñóáúåêòû. Íà ïåðåäíèé ïëàí âûøëè êîíêðåòíûå ëþäè, èõ ñòðàäàíèÿ, ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ, ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î äîïóñòèìîì è î ãðàíèöàõ âîçìîæíîãî. Îíè â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ìåðå çàìåñòèëè êîìïëåêñû èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé, ñòðóêòóð è ïðîöåññîâ.3 Êàêèå ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíûå âîçìîæíîñòè ñêðûâàþòñÿ çà ýòîé ñìåíîé ïåðñïåêòèâ åùå â 1994 ã. ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàë Ñòèâåí Ñïèë- áåðã â ñâîåì âñåìèðíî èçâåñòíîì êèíîôèëüìå, ðàññêàçûâàþùåì èñòîðèþ “ðÿäîâîãî” íåìåöêîãî ãåðîÿ Îñêàðà Øèíäëåðà è ñïàñåííûõ

2 Ñì.: K. Naumann. Der Krieg als Text. Das Jahr 1945 im kulturellen Gedächtnis der Presse. Hamburg, 1998. S. 12. Íàóìàíí ðàññìàòðèâàåò þáèëåéíûé, 1995 ã., â êîí- òåêñòå ðàçâèâàâøåéñÿ ñ ñåìèäåñÿòûõ ãîäîâ ìåìîðèàëüíîé òðàäèöèè. Ñ åãî òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, îí ðåïðåçåíòèðîâàë “îáû÷íûé ðèòì çðåëîé, óñòîÿâøåéñÿ è âûñîêî ïðîôåññèîíàëèçèðîâàííîé êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè”; ñð.: Idem. Agenda 1945. Das Jahr des Kriegsendes im aktuellen Geschichtsdiskurs // B.-A. Rusinek (Hrsg.). Kriegsende 1945. Verbrechen, Katastrophen, Befreiungen in nationaler und internationaler Perspektive. Göttingen, 2004. 3 Ñì. êðèòèêó: H. Mommsen. Zeitgeschichtliche Kontroversen // Neue Politische Literatur. 2004. Bd. 49. S. 15-25. 23 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? èì åâðååâ.4 Ôèëüì “Ñïèñîê Øèíäëåðà” óñòàíîâèë íîâûå èçîáðà- çèòåëüíûå ãðàíèöû, äîïóñêàþùèå, ñêàæåì, ãíåòóùèå ñöåíû íàñè- ëèÿ â õîäå ðàçãðîìà Êðàêîâñêîãî ãåòòî èëè ïîêàç ãàçîâûõ êàìåð Îñâåíöèìà êðóïíûì ïëàíîì. Ñïèëáåðã íàðóøèë çàïðåò íà ïîêàç ôèíàëüíîãî àêòà åâðåéñêîé òðàãåäèè. À âñêîðå ïîñëå ýòîãî Äýíèýë Ãîëäõàãåí ðàäèêàëüíî ðàñøèðèë òåìàòè÷åñêèé êàòàëîã èñòîðèîã- ðàôèè Õîëîêîñòà, ñîçäàâ è îïóáëèêîâà⠓íàñûùåííîå îïèñàíèå” ïðîöåññà óíè÷òîæåíèÿ åâðååâ è èçóâåðñò⠓íåïîñðåäñòâåííûõ ïðåñòóïíèêî┠(Direkttäter). Íåñìîòðÿ íà âñå îòëè÷èÿ, ê ðàçðÿäó ìåäèàðåïðåçåíòàöèé è äèñêóñ- ñèé íîâîãî îáðàçöà ñëåäóåò îòíåñòè è ãàìáóðãñêóþ âûñòàâêó “Âîéíà óíè÷òîæåíèÿ. Ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ âåðìàõòà 1941-1944 ãã.”,5 è ñóåòó âîêðóã êîìïåíñàöèé ïðèâëåêàâøèìñÿ ê ïðèíóäèòåëüíûì ðàáîòàì (Zwangsarbeiter), è íîâåéøèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ è äåáàòû îá “àðèèçàöèè”,

4 Ñì.: D. M. Crowe. Oskar Schindler. The Untold Account of His Life, Wartime Activities, and the True Story Behind the List. Cambridge, 2004. Êðîó äîêàçûâàåò íàëè÷èå íåñêîëüêèõ ñïèñêîâ, ðåëÿòèâèðóåò ðîëü â èõ ñîñòàâëåíèè ãëàâíîãî ãåðîÿ ôèëüìà è ïîä÷åðêèâàåò, â îòëè÷èå îò Ñïèëáåðãà, àìáèâàëåíòíîñòü ôèãóðû Øèíäëåðà. 5 Ýòà âûñòàâêà (Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944) áûëà ïîäãîòîâëåíà è îðãàíèçîâàíà Ãàìáóðãñêèì Èíñòèòóòîì ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé â ðàìêàõ îáøèðíîãî ïðîåêòà “Ïåðåä ëèöîì íàøåãî ñòîëåòèÿ. Íàñèëèå è äåñòðóêòèâíîñòü â ïðîöåññå öèâèëèçàöèè” (Angesichts unseres Jahrhunderts. Gewalt und Destruktivität im Zivilisationsprozeß). Ñ 1995 ïî 2000 ãã. âûñòàâêà äåìîíñòðèðîâàëàñü â 33 ãîðîäàõ Ãåðìàíèè, Àâñòðèè è Ôðàíöèè. Çà ýòî âðåìÿ âîïðîñ î åå íàó÷íîé îáúåêòèâíîñòè, äîñòîâåðíîñòè, ëåãèòèìíîñòè è ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíîñòè íåîäíîêðàòíî îáñóæäàëñÿ â ïðåññå è íà òåëåâèäåíèè, ïàðëàìåíòàìè ôåäåðàëüíûõ çåìåëü è äâàæäû äèñêóòèðîâàëñÿ â Áóíäåñòàãå.  íîÿáðå 1999 ã. îðãàíèçàòîðû âûñòàâêè îáúÿâèëè ìîðàòîðèé íà äåìîíñòðàöèþ ýêñïîçèöèè è îáðàòèëèñü çà ïîìîùüþ ê íåçàâèñèìîé ìåæäóíàðîäíîé êîìèññèè ýêñïåðòîâ–èñòîðèêîâ. Ñïóñòÿ ãîä êîìèññèÿ âûíåñëà ñâîé âåðäèêò, îáîñíîâàííûé íà ñòðàíèöàõ îò÷åòà â ïî÷òè 100 ñòðàíèö. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, â íåì îòìå÷àëèñü áîëüøîé âêëàä âûñòàâêè â ðàçðàáîòêó èñòîðèè ïðåñòóïëåíèé âåðìàõòà è åå âàæíàÿ ðîëü â ïîëèòèêå ïàìÿòè è ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî. Ñ äðóãîé, óêàçûâàëîñü íà ãðóáûå îøèáêè â ïîäáîðå è êîììåíòèðîâàíèè ýêñïîíèðóåìûõ äîêóìåíòîâ (ïðåæäå âñåãî, ôîòîãðàôèé), à òàêæå íåóìåñòíûé äëÿ ïðîôåñ- ñèîíàëüíîãî îáðàùåíèÿ ñ èñòîðèåé ýìîöèîíàëüíûé îáåðòîí è àïðèîðíûé ïðèãîâîð âåðìàõòó. Êîìèññèÿ âûñêàçàëàñü çà óñòðàíåíèå î÷åâèäíûõ íåäîñòàòêîâ è ïðîäîëæåíèå âûñòàâêè. Ñì.: http://www.his-online.de/veranst/ ausstell/bericht_kommission.pdf. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã., è http://www.his-online.de/veranst/ausstell/vernicht.htm. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. – Ïðèì. ïåðåâîä÷èêà. 24 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âîçìåùåíèÿõ (Wiedergutmachung) è ðåñòèòóöèÿõ.6 Êàæäûé èç ïåðå- ÷èñëåííûõ ïðèìåðîâ äåìîíñòðèðóåò òåíäåíöèþ ê êîíêðåòèçàöèè è íàãëÿäíîñòè: ñëîâíî ïîä îãðîìíûì óâåëè÷èòåëüíûì ñòåêëîì íàì ïîêàçûâàþò äåòàëè èñòîðèè “òðåòüåãî ðåéõà” è âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû. Îäíîâðåìåííî ïðîèñõîäèò ñìåùåíèå ôîêóñà, â êîòîðîì îêàçûâàþòñÿ èñòîðèè ëþäåé, îïûò îòäåëüíûõ äåéñòâóþùèõ ëèö è ñóäüáû êîíêðåòíûõ ñåìåé èëè ãðóïï. Ïðè ýòîì ïîëèòè÷åñêèé è îáùåñòâåííûé êîíòåêñòû îòñòóïàþò íà çàäíèé ïëàí. Âñå âíèìà- íèå êîíöåíòðèðóåòñÿ íà âîïðîñàõ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé âèíû è ñóäüáû ëè÷íîñòè, à ïîèñê îòâåòîâ âåäåòñÿ ñêîðåå â ïëîñêîñòè èíäèâèäóàëü- íîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ, íåæåëè íà óðîâíå àíàëèçà ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ íàöèñòñêîãî ðåæèìà.7 Îäíèì ñëîâîì, îñîáóþ ïðèâëåêàòåëüíîñòü â îáùåñòâåííîì ñîçíàíèè ïðèîáðåëè âîïðîñû ìîðàëè â èñòîðèè. Îáúÿñíåíèå ýòèõ ïðîöåññîâ ëåæèò íà ïîâåðõíîñòè: ñ íåêîòîðûõ ïîð ìàëî êòî èñïûòûâàåò òðóäíîñòè, çàäàâàÿ èëè âûñëóøèâàÿ âîïðîñû, êîòîðûå ïîêîëåíèåì ïàëà÷åé è ïîñîáíèêîâ ðàñöåíèâàëèñü êàê î÷åðåäíàÿ ïîïûòêà âûíåñòè èì îáâèíåíèå. Ïîñëåâîåííîå ïîêîëåíèå âîñïðèíèìàåò ïðîøëîå áîëåå äåòàëüíî. Ðåçóëüòàòîì ýòîãî, îäíàêî, ìîæåò ñòàòü äåøåâîå ïî ñâîåé ñìåëîñòè ïðèçíàíèå, áëîêèðóþùåå èñòîðè÷åñêóþ ðåôëåêñèþ: “Íå çíàþ, êàê áû ÿ ñàì ïîñòóïèë â òîé ñèòóàöèè”. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ìû íå ìîæåì ýòîãî çíàòü, íî ýòî îòíþäü íå îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî ìû íå âåäàåì, êàê áû íàì ñëåäîâàëî ïîñòóïèòü.8 Äåøåâîå óïðîùåííîå ìîðàëèçàòîðñòâî, îáëà÷åííîå â îäåæäû áëàãîñêëîííîé ñíèñõîäèòåëüíîñòè, íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷åì-òî íîâûì, è îáðàùåíî íå òîëüêî íà íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîå ïðîøëîå. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ñ íèì ñâÿçàíà ñïåöèôè÷åñêàÿ ôîðìà çàùèòû ïðîøëîãî îò èñòîðèçàöèè. Îñîáåííî çàìåòíûì ýòî ñòàëî ñ ìîìåíòà ïîÿâëåíèÿ ãèïåðòðîôèðîâàííîé ôèãóðû î÷åâèäöà â ýëåêòðîííûõ ñðåäñòâàõ èíôîðìàöèè è â (àâòî)áèîãðàôè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå. Ïðîèçâîäèòåëè

6 Ñì. ãîòîâÿùèéñÿ ê ïå÷àòè îáçîð: C. Goschler. Schuld und Schulden. Die Politik der Wiedergutmachung für NS-Verfolgte seit 1945. Göttingen, 2005. 7 Ýòî îòíîñèòñÿ è ê âíóòðèñåìåéíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè, ñì.: H. Welzer, S. Moller, K. Tschuggnall. “Opa war kein Nazi”. Nationalsozialismus und Holocaust im Familiengedächtnis. Frankfurt a. M., 2002. Ïðèìåðîì áîëüøîãî óñïåõà ìîæåò ñëóæèòü êíèãà M. Doerry. “Mein verwundetes Herz”. Das Leben der Lilli Jahn. München, 2002. 8 Ñì.: J. Ph. Reemtsma. “Wie hätte ich mich verhalten?” und andere nicht nur deutsche Fragen. Reden und Aufsätze. München, 2002. 25 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåé ìåäèéíîé ïðîäóêöèè ïîëàãàþòñÿ íà ìíèìóþ “àóòåíòè÷íîñòü” íåïîñðåäñòâåííûõ ñâèäåòåëåé ïðîøëîãî è ñëåäóþò èõ èíäèâèäóàëüíîé ëîãèêå îáúÿñíåíèÿ, ÷òî, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, èçìå- íÿåò íàøè èñòîðè÷åñêèå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ: ïîíÿòü íàöèîíàë-ñîöèà- ëèçì îêàçûâàåòñÿ âîçìîæíûì òîëüêî íà îñíîâàíèè êóìóëÿòèâíîé ðåòðîñïåêòèâíîé ñàìîðåôëåêñèè åãî (ïîñëåäíèõ) î÷åâèäöåâ. Òàêîãî èñõîäà ìîæåò æåëàòü òîëüêî òîò, êòî íå áîèòñÿ âîçâðàòà ê èíòåðïðåòàöèîííûì ñõåìàì ïÿòèäåñÿòûõ ãîäîâ, êîãäà íåìöû ðåïðåçåíòèðîâàëè ñåáÿ êàê ïåðâûõ è ãëàâíûõ æåðòâ Ãèòëåðà.9

II. “Êòî æå íàñòîÿùèå âîåííûå ïðåñòóïíèêè?” – ðèòîðè÷åñêè âîïðîøàë â îêòÿáðå 1952 ã. Áåðíõàðä Ðàìêå íà ïåðâîé ïîñëåâîåííîé âñòðå÷å âåòåðàíîâ ÑÑ â Âåðäåíå íà Àëëåðå. Îòâåò ãåíåðàëà-äåñàíò- íèêà â îòñòàâêå îáåñïå÷èë åìó ïîïóëÿðíîñòü äàëåêî çà ïðåäåëàìè êðóãà åãî òîãäàøíèõ íåïîñðåäñòâåííûõ ñëóøàòåëåé: òå, “êòî áåç îñîáûõ òàêòè÷åñêèõ ïðè÷èí ðàçðóøàëè öåëûå ãîðîäà, êòî ñáðîñèë áîìáû íà Õèðîñèìó è êòî ïðîèçâîäèò íîâûå àòîìíûå áîìáû”.10 Ïîäîáíîå ëæåìîðàëèçàòîðñòâî ïî àäðåñó ñòðàí-ïîáåäèòåëüíèö âñòðå÷àëîñü êàê â Çàïàäíîé, òàê è â Âîñòî÷íîé Ãåðìàíèè – õîòÿ, â ïîñëåäíåì ñëó÷àå, èç ïðîïàãàíäèñòñêèõ ñîîáðàæåíèé, îíî ñòðîãî îãðàíè÷èâàëàñü ðåæèìîì êëþ÷åâûì ñëîâîì “Äðåçäåí” è êðèòèêîé ñïîñîáîâ âåäåíèÿ âîéíû àíãëè÷àíàìè è àìåðèêàíöàìè. Ïðè ýòîì, åñëè ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ÃÄÐ ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü îá èíñöåíèðîâàííûõ “ñâåðõó” ïîïûòêàõ çàðàáîòàòü ïîëèòè÷åñêèé êàïèòàë íà íîâîé êîíôðîíòàöèè Çàïàäà è Âîñòîêà, çà àíòèêîàëèöèîííîé ðèòîðèêîé â ÔÐà ñêðûâàëîñü âûðàæàåìîå “ñíèçó” æåëàíèå ïðåêðàòèòü ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ÷èñòêè, ïðîâîäèâøèåñÿ çàïàäíûìè ñîþçíèêàìè. Ýòîò ïðîòåñò âûëèëñÿ â òðåáîâàíèÿ îñâîáîæäåíèÿ âîåííûõ ïðåñòóï- íèêîâ, îñóæäåííûõ ïîñëå 1945 ã. Íà ýòîì, îäíàêî, äåëî íå çàêîí- ÷èëîñü – êàê íà Çàïàäå, òàê è íà Âîñòîêå ñóùåñòâîâàëà ïîòðåáíîñòü â áîëåå ìàñøòàáíîé ñîöèàëüíî-ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîé ðåàáèëèòàöèè.

9 Ñì.: R. G. Moeller. War Stories. The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of Germany. Berkeley, 2001; îáçîð è íåïëîõîå ââåäåíèå â òåìó ñì., ïðåæäå âñåãî: K. Naumann (Hrsg.). Nachkrieg in Deutschland. Hamburg, 2001. 10 Öèò. ïî: N. Frei. Vergangenheitspolitik. Die Anfänge der Bundesrepublik und die NS-Vergangenheit. München, 1996. S. 282. 26 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Íåñìîòðÿ íà âíåøíåïîëèòè÷åñêèå ðåçîíû îáîèõ íåìåöêèõ ãîñó- äàðñòâ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðûì ñëåäîâàëî ïîìíèòü î “æåðòâàõ íàöèîíàë- ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî íàñèëèÿ” èëè “æåðòâàõ ôàøèçìà”, áîëüøèíñòâî íåìöåâ ïî îáå ñòîðîíû äåìàðêàöèîííîé ëèíèè îæèäàëè ñàìî ñîáîé ðàçóìåþùåãîñÿ, ñ èõ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ïðèçíàíèÿ âñåõ æåðò⠖ â òîì ÷èñëå è ïðèíåñåííûõ íà àëòàðü íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà. Íàèáîëüøèé èíòåðåñ ê ïîëèòèêå óðàâíåíèÿ âèíû íàáëþäàëñÿ ó ðîæäåííûõ îêîëî 1905 ã. ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ïîêîëåíèÿ ôóíêöèîíåðîâ íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà, êîòîðûå åùå äîëãîå âðåìÿ îïðåäåëÿëè ñóäüáû Çàïàäíîé Ãåðìàíèè (à òàêæå ÃÄÐ). Êàê ïðàâèëî, ïðåäñòàâè- òåëè èìåííî ýòîé âîçðàñòíîé ãðóïïû ïðèáåãàëè ê àðãóìåíòó tu quoque è ññûëàëèñü íà áîìáàðäèðîâêè, íà èçãíàíèå è áåãñòâî â òå ìîìåíòû, êîãäà îôèöèàëüíûé Áîíí ïðèçûâàë ê îòâåòñòâåííîìó îáðàùåíèþ ñ “íåäàâíåé èñòîðèåé”. È ýòî, ïîä÷åðêíåì, ïðîèñõîäèëî íå ñïóñòÿ äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïîñëå îêîí÷àíèÿ âîéíû, à ïîñòîÿííî ñî äíÿ îñíîâà- íèÿ Ôåäåðàòèâíîé Ðåñïóáëèêè. Ðåôëåêòèâíîå îòðèöàíèå âèíû, êî- òîðîå òàêèå íàáëþäàòåëè, êàê Õàííà Àðåíäò, êîíñòàòèðîâàëè óæå â ïåðâûå ïîñëåâîåííûå ãîäû,11 à òàêæå êðàñíîðå÷èâîå ìîë÷àíèå â îòâåò íà âîïðîñû ñîáñòâåííûõ äåòåé, ëèøàëî âîçìîæíîñòè èñòèí- íîé ñêîðáè áîëüøèíñòâî ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ýòîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ, âåðèâ- øåãî â Ãèòëåðà è ó÷àñòâîâàâøåãî â ñòðîèòåëüñòâå íàöèñòñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà.12 “Ãåíåðàöèÿ ñêåïòèêî┠– Âåëåéðîâ,13 Âàëüçåðîâ,14 Ãðàññîâ è Õàáåðìàñî⠖ â ïèêó “ãåíåðàöèè îòöî┠ñîçäàëà ñîáñòâåííûé

11 H. Arendt. Besuch in Deutschland // Eadem. Zur Zeit. Politische Essays. München, 1989. S. 43-70; ñð. ñ ïåðåâåäåííûì ñ áîëüøèì îïîçäàíèåì “êëàññèêîì” æàíðà: S. K. Padover. Lügendetektor. Vernehmungen im besiegten Deutschland 1944/45. Frankfurt a. M., 1999, à òàêæå íîâîé ïóáëèêàöèåé J. Stern. Die unsichtbaren Trümmer. Eine Reise im besetzten Deutschland 1945. Frankfurt a. M., 2004. Èíàÿ îöåíêà äàåòñÿ Êàðëîì Öóêìàéåðîì: C. Zuckmayer. Deutschlandbericht für das Kriegsministerium der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika / G. Nickel, J. Schrön, H. Wagener (Hrsg.). Göttingen, 2004. 12 Ïîñòàâëåííûé â êîíöå 1960-õ ãîäîâ Ìèòøåðëèõàìè äèàãíîç îòíîñèëñÿ ê ñêðûòîé ñèìïàòèè íåìöåâ ê Ãèòëåðó è âûðîñøåé èç íåå “äåðåàëèçàöèè” íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé ýïîõè: A. und M. Mitscherlich. Die Unfähigkeit zu trauern. Grundlagen kollektiven Verhaltens. München, 1967; îá ýòîì ñì.: T. Freimüller. Der Umgang mit der NS-Vergangenheit und die “Unfähigkeit zu trauern” // F. Lartillot (Hrsg.). Die Unfähigkeit zu trauern. Le deuil impossible de Alexander et Margarete Mitscherlich. Nantes, 2004. S. 11-26. 13 Èñòîðèê Hans-Ulrich Wehler. – Ïðèì ïåðåâîä÷èêà. 14 Ïèñàòåëü Martin Walser. – Ïðèì ïåðåâîä÷èêà. 27 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? ìîðàëüíûé êîäåêñ. Ïðåæäå âñåãî, îíè äåìîíñòðàòèâíî îòêàçàëèñü îò ó÷àñòèÿ â àêòå ñàìîñîñòðàäàíèÿ íåìåöêîãî ïîñëåâîåííîãî îáùåñòâà. Çàòåì, ñ êîíöà ïÿòèäåñÿòûõ è â íà÷àëå øåñòèäåñÿòûõ ãîäîâ îíè ïðîòèâîïîñòàâèëè àïîëîãèçèðóþùåìó íàððàòèâó àëüòåðíàòèâíûé ïðîñâåùåí÷åñêèé äèñêóðñ.15 Ïðàâäà, îí íå áûë ñâîáîäåí îò âëàñò- íûõ ïðåòåíçèé, ïîñêîëüêó áûâøèå ìîëîäûå îïîë÷åíöû (Flakhelfer) è ñîëäàòû-ôðîíòîâèêè, òàêæå êàê è ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ïîêîëåíèÿ “1968-ãî ãîäà” ïðåòåíäîâàëè íà ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ è êóëüòóðíóþ ãå- ãåìîíèþ, êîòîðàÿ, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ìàíèôåñòèðîâàëàñü ⠓ïðàâèëüíîì”, òî åñòü ñàìîêðèòè÷íîì, íàððàòèâå ïðîøëîãî.  ýòîì íàððàòèâå ïî÷òè íå íàøëîñü ìåñòà äëÿ “íåìåöêèõ æåðòâ”, äëÿ ïîãèáøèõ â áîìáåæêàõ è âî âðåìÿ èçãíàíèÿ, äëÿ ïàâøèõ ñîëäàò – õîòÿ, êàê ïîêàçûâàþò îôèöèîçíûå äîêóìåíòàëüíûå ýïîïåè î áåæåíöàõ è âîåííîïëåííûõ, âðÿä ëè ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î “òàáóèçàöèè” ýòîé òåìàòèêè.16 Îäíàêî èíòåëëåêòóàëüíàÿ ðåøèìîñòü ïîêîëåíèÿ òðèä- öàòèëåòíèõ (îò ëåâûõ äî ëèáåðàëîâ) èñïîëüçîâàòü äàâëåíèå Çàïà- äà êàê “âòîðîé øàíñ” äëÿ äåìîêðàòèè òðåáîâàëà îïðåäåëåííîé ñàìîèììóíèçàöèè, ñóòü êîòîðîé ñâîäèëàñü ê òàêòèêå îòêàçà è óõî- äà îò íåïðàâèëüíî ñôîðìóëèðîâàííûõ âîïðîñîâ è ðåâèçèîíèñòñ- êèõ îòâåòîâ.  ñòàðîé Ôåäåðàòèâíîé Ðåñïóáëèêå ñ ýòèì âçãëÿäîì, ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêè, íà íåîáõîäèìóþ äèôôåðåíöèà- öèþ ìåæäó èíäèâèäóàëüíîé ïàìÿòüþ è ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ðåïðåçåí- òàöèåé èñòîðèè ñâÿçàíû êàê ñèëüíûå, òàê è ñëàáûå ñòîðîíû ïàðà- äèãìû “ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî”. Ïîñëåäíÿÿ âîçíèêëà êàê îòâåò íà ïîïûòêè âûòåñíåíèÿ èç ïàìÿòè íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî ïðîøëîãî. Òåïåðü óæå îíà ñàìà óñïåëà ñòàòü äîñòîÿíèåì èñòîðèè. Ïðè ðåòðîñïåêòèâíîé îöåíêå îáùåñòâåííîé ïîëüçû ïîëèòèêè “ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî” íåïðåìåííî ñëåäóåò ó÷èòûâàòü, ÷òî èìåííî îíà ñïðîâîöèðîâàëà îïïîçèöèþ òåõ, êòî óñìàòðèâàë â êðèòè- ÷åñêèõ ñïîðàõ î ïðîøëîì òîëüêî íàñèëüñòâåííóþ ïåäàãîãèêó

15 Ñì.: D. Moses. Die 45er. Eine Generation zwischen Faschismus und Demokratie // Neue Sammlung. H. 40 (2000). S. 234-263. 16 Ñì.: Th. Schieder (Bearb.). Dokumentation der Vertreibung aus Ost-Mitteleuropa / Hrsg. vom Bundesministerium für Vertriebene, Flüchtlinge und Kriegsgeschädigte. 5 Bde. Bonn, 1953-1961; ñì. ñåðèþ Ó÷åíîé êîìèññèè ïî èñòîðèè íåìåöêèõ âîåííî- ïëåííûõ: E. Maschke (Hrsg.). Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges. 22 Bde. Bielefeld, 1962-1974. 28 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 “ïåðåâîñïèòàíèÿ”, ðàçðóøàþùóþ, êàê èì êàçàëîñü, âîëþ íåìöåâ ê íàöèîíàëüíîìó ñàìîóòâåðæäåíèþ.17 Âîçìîæíî, íà ñîöèàëüíîé ýâîëþöèè “ïîëèòèêè ïðèìèðåíèÿ” ñêàçàëîñü ïîñòåïåííîå îñëàáëåíèå ýòîé çàùèòíîé ðåàêöèè. Íî â ãî- ðàçäî áîëüøåé ñòåïåíè íà íåé îòðàçèëîñü èçìåíèâøååñÿ ñîîòíî- øåíèå ïîêîëåíèé è óñèëèâàþùàÿñÿ ñ âîçðàñòîì ïîòðåáíîñòü ïðèìèðå- íèÿ ñ ñîáñòâåííîé áèîãðàôèåé. Áëàãîäàðÿ ýòèì ôàêòîðàì â 1990-õ ãã. íåêîòîðûå ïîáîðíèêè “ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî” ñòàëè ïîñòåïåííî îòêëîíÿòüñÿ îò åãî ýòè÷åñêèõ îñíîâàíèé. Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, îòêàç Ìàðòèíà Âàëüçåðà îò “ìåìîðèàëüíîé ñëóæáû” (1998), î êîòîðîì îí çàÿâèë â ñâîåé ðå÷è â Ïàâëîâñêîé öåðêâè,18 ÿâèëñÿ ëèøü ñàìûì ÿðêèì ïðèìåðîì ïîäîáíûõ ïåðåìåí. Îíè ñïðîâîöèðîâàëè ïîèñê èíîãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó, êîòî- ðîå áû ãàðìîíèðîâàëî ñ íîâûì status quo. Ìíîãèå, ïîäîáíî Ãþíòåðó Ãðàññó, ïîñâÿòèâøåìó îäíó èç ïîñëåäíèõ ñâîèõ íîâåëë ãèáåëè “Âèëüãåìà Ãóñòëîâà”,19 îùóòèëè ïîòðåáíîñòü â ñî÷óâñòâèè ïåðå- æèòîìó è òåì áåçâûõîäíûì îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàì, â êîòîðûõ îêàçàëñÿ ÷åëîâåê, äàæå â ýìïàòèè (â òîì ÷èñëå è) ê íåìåöêèì æåðòâàì.  ýòîì “ïåðåäâèæåíèè çàäîì íàïåðåä”20 ñìóùàåò ðèòîðè÷åñêèé òðþê Ãðàññà: áóäó÷è “îáëà÷åííûì â ñòàðûå îäåæäû”, îí òåì íå ìåíåå âûñòàâëÿåò ñåáÿ áîðöîì ñ íåñïðàâåäëèâûì “òàáó” – à èìåííî ñ ìíè- ìûì ïðåíåáðåæåíèåì ê ñòðàäàíèÿì èçãíàííûõ è äåïîðòèðîâàííûõ íåìöåâ. Ñîçäàåòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî íîáåëåâñêèé ëàóðåàò îòëîæèë â ñòîðîíó ñâîé “æåñòÿíîé áàðàáàí” è ñïåøèò â ðÿäû ïðèâåðæåíöåâ ôðèâîëüíîé è ýãîöåíòðè÷íîé “ïîëèòèêè ïðîøëîãî” ñâîåãî ñîâðå- ìåííèêà Âàëüçåðà.

17 Ñì., íàïðèìåð: C. von Schrenck-Notzing. Charakterwäsche. Die amerikanische Besatzung in Deutschland und ihre Folgen. Stuttgart, 1965; A. Mohler. Der Nasenring. Im Dickicht der Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Essen, 1989; ïîðàçèòåëüíî î÷åðåäíîå ïåðåèçäàíèå: R. Tüngel, H. R. Berndorff. Stunde Null. Deutschland unter den Besatzungsmächten. Berlin, 2004 (ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî – Hamburg, 1958). 18 Ðå÷ü Âàëüçåðà îïóáëèêîâàíà â: F. Schirrmacher (Hrsg.). Die Walser-Bubis-Debatte. Eine Dokumentation. Frankfurt am Main, 1999. S. 7-17. 19 G. Grass. Im Krebsgang. Eine Novelle. Göttingen, 2002. 20  îðèãèíàëå “Krebsgang”, îòñûëàþùèé ê íîâåëëå Ã. Ãðàññà “Im Krebsgang” (â îòçûâàõ íà ïðîèçâåäåíèå ïåðåâîäèòñÿ êàê “Ìóäðûé êðàᔠèëè “Òðàåêòîðèÿ êðàáà” – ñì., íàïð. http://www.lenta.ru/culture/2002/02/08/grass/ è http:// www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,506179,00.html. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. – Ïðèì. ïåðåâîä÷èêà. 29 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? Âñå áîëåå î÷åâèäíà òåíäåíöèÿ, ðàíåå ïðîÿâëÿâøàÿñÿ ó íåìíîãî- ÷èñëåííûõ, íî âèäíûõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ãðóïïû ñîëäàòñêèõ ñûíîâåé, äåìîíñòðàòèâíî âûñòóïàâøèõ ïðîòèâ âûñòàâêè “Ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ âåðìàõòà”.  ñðåäå ïîêîëåíèÿ “1968-ãî ãîäà”, è íå â ïîñëåäíþþ î÷åðåäü – ñðåäè òåõ, êòî íåêîãäà ïðè÷èñëÿë ñåáÿ ê ðåâîëþöèîíåðàì, ðàñòåò ãîòîâíîñòü ê âûíåñåíèþ óìåðåííîãî èëè äàæå ðåâèçèîíèñò- ñêîãî ïðèãîâîðà. Ðàäèêàëüíàÿ ñìåíà ïåðñïåêòèâû îò æåðòâ ôàøèçìà ê íåìöàì êàê æåðòâàì, êîòîðóþ áûâøèé ëåâûé ðàäèêàë Éîðã Ôðèäðèõ ïðèâåòñòâóåò â ñâîèõ ýêñïðåññèîíèñòñêèõ ïóáëèêàöèÿõ î áîìáàðäèðîâêàõ,21 âñå åùå ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñêëþ÷åíèåì íà îáùåì ôîíå. Íî åñëè ïîâíèìàòåëüíåå ïðèñëóøàòüñÿ ê ãðóïïå òåõ, êòî äî ñèõ ïîð äàæå ëè÷íóþ æèçíü òðàêòîâàë “ïîëèòè÷åñêè”, ìîæíî óñëû- øàòü àïîëèòè÷íûå ïðèçûâû ê èíäèâèäóàëèçèðóþùåìó âçãëÿäó íà èñòîðèþ, ñòèðàþùåìó ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó ïðåñòóïíèêàìè, æåðòâàìè è ïîñîáíèêàìè.  òåõ ñåìüÿõ, ãäå åùå òðèäöàòü ëåò íàçàä èñêàëè “äåäóøêó êîì- ìóíèñòà” (êàê ïðàâèëî, áåçðåçóëüòàòíî), ñåãîäíÿ ïðåîáëàäàåò ñòðåìëåíèå ê ïðèìèðåíèþ ñ ïðåñòàðåëûìè ðîäèòåëÿìè. À òàì, ãäå ýòî óæå íåâîçìîæíî, âîçíèêàþò íîâûå ñòðàäàíèÿ è ÷óâñòâî ñòûäà çà íåèñïîëüçîâàííûé øàíñ – âåäü ìû æèâåì â ýïîõó êîíêóðåíöèè ìåæäó æåðòâàìè. Ïàòåòè÷åñêàÿ ïñèõîèñòîðèÿ ïðèçûâàåò âûñëó- øàòü “ïîñëåäíèõ î÷åâèäöåâ”. Ïîä îáùèì ëîçóíãîì “ïîêà íå ïîçäíî” èíòåðâüþèðóþòñÿ âûæèâøèå æåðòâû íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà è, îäíîâðåìåííî, áåç âñÿêîé ñåëåêöèè, ýìôàòè÷åñêè ïðîâîäÿòñÿ “âñòðå÷è ñ âîåííûì ïîêîëåíèåì”.22 Íåìåöêàÿ ñîâðåìåííàÿ ëèòå- ðàòóðà òðåíäîâûì æàíðîì “ñåìåéíîãî ðîìàíà” óäîâëåòâîðÿåò ñïðîñ íà ïðèãëàæåííûå êàðòèíû èñòîðèè.23

21 J. Friedrich. Der Brand. Deutschland im Bombenkrieg. München, 2002; idem. Brandstätten. Der Anblick des Bombenkriegs. München, 2003; êðèòèêà: L. Kettenacker (Hrsg.). Ein Volk von Opfern? Die neue Debatte um den Bombenkrieg 1940-45. Berlin, 2003; èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêèé îáçîð ðåãèîíàëüíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû, èçäàííîé â ïðåääâåðèè 60-ëåòèÿ ðàçëè÷íûõ áîìáàðäèðîâîê (Bombennächte): J. Arnold. Bombenkrieg // http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2004-2-062. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 22 B. Adler. Bevor es zu spät ist. Begegnungen mit der Kriegsgeneration. Tübingen, 2004. 23 Ñì. îáçîð: H. Welzer. Schön unscharf. Über die Konjunktur der Familien- und Generationenromane // Mittelweg 36. 2004. Jg. 13. S. 53-64; ñì. òàêæå K. Naumann. An die Stelle der Anklage ist die Klage getreten. Kronzeugen der Opfergesellschaft? In zahlreichen Buchveröffentlichungen melden sich die “Kriegskinder” als eine neue Erinnerungsgemeinschaft zu Wort // Frankfurter Rundschau. 2004. 14 àïðåëÿ. 30 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Îäíàêî ñî÷óâñòâèå ïîêîëåíèÿ äåòåé ïîêîëåíèþ “ïðåñòóïíèêîâ è ïîñîáíèêîâ”, êîòîðûå òåïåðü ñòàëè “æåðòâàìè”, âûðàæàåòñÿ íå òîëüêî â ðîìàíàõ. Ñðåäè êëèåíòîâ ïðàêòèêóþùèõ ïñèõîòåðà- ïåâòîâ ïîÿâèëîñü íåìàëîå êîëè÷åñòâî “äåòåé ïàëà÷åé” (íåìöå⠓âòîðîé ãåíåðàöèè”), ïûòàþùèõñÿ ïîíÿòü ñâîèõ îòöîâ è ìàòåðåé. Ïîêîëåí÷åñêàÿ ïñèõîäèíàìèêà âåäåò ê êàðäèíàëüíîìó èçìåíåíèþ âçãëÿäà íà ïðîøëîå ó äåòåé âîéíû – âïëîòü äî ïðè÷èñëåíèÿ ñåáÿ è ñâîåé êîãîðòû ê ÷èñëó æåðòâ áîìáàðäèðîâîê, èçãíàíèÿ èëè óíàñëåäîâàííîãî ÷óâñòâà âèíû. Ýòîò ïðîöåññ ïðîãðåññèðóåò ñ óõî- äîì èç æèçíè ïîñëåäíèõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé “ïåðâîé ãåíåðàöèè”. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî èäåíòèôèêàöèÿ ñ æåðòâàìè Õîëîêîñòà, êîòîðàÿ ÿâëÿëàñü â ñâîå âðåìÿ âûðàæåíèåì ñîçíàòåëüíîãî äèñòàíöèðîâà- íèÿ îò ïîêîëåíèÿ îòöîâ, îòñòóïàåò íà çàäíèé ïëàí.24 Êàê ñëåäñòâèå, ìû èìååì äåëî ñ ìíîãîãðàííûì ïðîöåññîì äèôôóçèè è äàæå òðàíñôåðà ýìïàòèè. “Ïîêîëåíèå äåòåé” óæå íàó÷èëîñü âîñïðèíèìàòü “ïîêîëåíèå îòöî┠êàê æåðòâ íàöèçìà, ïîëíîñòüþ èíòåðèîðèçèðîâàâ ïîñëåâîåííóþ ðèòîðèêó “ïåðâîé ãåíåðàöèè”, è òðåáóåò îò ñîáñòâåííûõ äåòåé òîãî æå. È õîòÿ ïî÷òè âñå íàöèñòñêèå ïðåñòóïíèêè óæå óìåðëè,25 ïåðåæèâøèì Õîëîêîñò è äðóãèå ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ ôàøèçìà, èõ äåòÿì è âíóêàì ïðîòèâîñòîèò âñå áîëüøåå êîëè÷åñòâî íåìöåâ, êîòîðûå, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, èäåíòè- ôèöèðóþò ñåáÿ êàê æåðòâ íàöèîíàë–ñîöèàëèçìà.

III. Ñ òåõ ïîð, êàê ìîëîäûå îïîë÷åíöû (Flakhelfer) ñîøëè ñ ïîëèòè- ÷åñêîé ñöåíû è çàêàòèëàñü ýðà Õåëüìóòà Êîëÿ, â ïîëèòèêó âîøëè íîâûå ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ñ ïðîøëûì. Íå áåç ãîðüêîé èðîíèè ïðèõîäèòñÿ íàáëþäàòü, ñ êàêèì óäîâëåòâîðåíèåì ïîêîëåíèå Øðåäåðà ïðèìåðÿåò íà ñåáÿ îäåæäû òåõ, êîìó âûïàëî ñ÷àñòüå “ðîäèòüñÿ ïîçæå”. Îá ýòîì äàðå ñóäüáû ñ áëàãîäàðíîñòüþ ãîâîðèë â ñâîå âðåìÿ áûâøèé ãèòëåð-þíãå Ãþíòåð Ãàóñ, íåçàäîëãî äî òîãî,

24 Îá ýòîì ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïñèõîàíàëèçà: Ch. Schneider. Der Holocaust als Generationsobjekt. Generationsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zu einer deutschen Identitätsproblematik // M. Frölich, Y. Lapid, Ch. Schneider (Hrsg.). Repräsentationen des Holocaust im Gedächtnis der Generationen. Zur Gegenwartsbedeutung des Holocaust in Israel und Deutschland. Frankfurt a. M., 2004. S. 234-252. 25 Î ïîêîëåí÷åñêîé àñèììåòðèè ìåæäó ïðåñòóïíèêàìè è æåðòâàìè ñì.: R. Ch. Schneider. Warum ist Salomon Korn so wütend? // Tagesspiegel. 29.5.2004; F. von Aretin. Die Enkel des 20. Juli 1944. Leipzig, 2004. 31 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? êàê Õåëüìóò Êîëü ñêîìïðîìåòèðîâàë ñåáÿ àíàëîãè÷íûì ïðèçíà- íèåì â Èçðàèëå.26 Ñ òåõ ïîð ìèíóëî óæå 20 ëåò, â òå÷åíèå êîòîðûõ íåîäíîêðàòíî ïðåäïðèíèìàëèñü ðèòîðè÷åñêèå ïîïûòêè ïðîâîçãëàñèòü “êîíåö ïîñëåâîåííîé ýïîõè”. Íîâûé êàíöëåð “íîâîé Ãåðìàíèè” (âûðà- æåíèå, òàêæå óïîòðåáëÿâøååñÿ Êîëåì27 ) ñâîáîäåí ïîäíèìàòü ìíîãèå òåìû, â òîì ÷èñëå è òå, êîòîðûå âðÿä ëè áû ïðîñòèëè åãî ïðåäøåñòâåííèêàì. Íàïðèìåð, íà öåðåìîíèè ñâîåé èíàóãóðàöèè îí âûðàçèë æåëàíèå âîçäâèãíóòü ïàìÿòíèê æåðòâàì Õîëîêîñòà, ê êîòîðîìó áû “îõîòíî øëè” ëþäè.28 Êîãäà âî âðåìÿ èðàêñêîãî êîíôëèêòà Ãåðõàðä Øðåäåð çàÿâèë î ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîì “íåìåöêîì ïóòè”, êîãäà îí òðåáîâàë äëÿ Ãåðìàíèè (à íå äëÿ Åâðîïû) ïîñòîÿí- íîãî ïðåäñòàâèòåëüñòâà â Ñîâåòå Áåçîïàñíîñòè ÎÎÍ è êîãäà âî âðåìÿ ïðàçäíîâàíèÿ 60-ëåòíåé ãîäîâùèíû âûñàäêè ñîþçíèêîâ â Íîðìàíäèè ïðîçâó÷àëî çàÿâëåíèå êàíöëåðà, ÷òî íåìåöêèé íàðîä âåðíóëñÿ “â êðóã öèâèëèçîâàííîãî ñîîáùåñòâà íàöèé”,29 – âñå ýòî

26 Êîëü èñïîëüçîâàë â ñâîåì îáðàùåíèè ê Êíåññåòó 24 ÿíâàðÿ 1984 ã. ïîäãî- òîâëåííûé Ãàóñîì òåêñò: “ß âûñòóïàþ çäåñü ïåðåä âàìè êàê ÷åëîâåê, êîòîðûé íå çàïÿòíàë ñåáÿ âèíîé âî âðåìÿ íàöèçìà, ïîòîìó ÷òî ìíå âûïàëî ñ÷àñòüå ðîäèòüñÿ ïîçæå è èìåòü îñîáûõ ðîäèòåëåé”. Ïîçæå, Êîëü çàìåòèë: “Ñ òåõ ïîð ìîèì ñëîâàì íåîäíîêðàòíî ïðèäàâàëñÿ, â òîì ÷èñëå è íàìåðåííî, ïðîòè- âîïîëîæíûé ñìûñë. ß óæå ìíîãî ðàç îáúÿñíÿë, ÷òî ÿ õîòåë òîãäà âûðàçèòü: ‘ñ÷àñòüå’ âîâñå íå îçíà÷àåò ïðàâî óõîäà îò êîëëåêòèâíîé îòâåòñòâåííîñòè çà íåïðà- âåäíî ñîäåÿííîå îò èìåíè íåìåöêîãî íàðîäà. Êàê ðàç íàîáîðîò, îíî îçíà÷àåò îáÿçàííîñòü, ñêðåïëåííîå ëè÷íûì îïûòîì ïðèçâàíèå, ñäåëàòü âñå äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû íà ýòîé çåìëå íèêîãäà íå áûëî áîëüøå íåñïðàâåäëèâîñòè, íàñèëèÿ è âîéíû. Êðîìå òîãî, ‘ñ÷àñòüå’ âîâñå íå îçíà÷àåò ìîðàëüíóþ çàñëóãó ìîåãî ïîêîëåíèÿ, èçáåæàâøåãî ïðè÷àñòíîñòè ê âèíå. Ýòî áûë äàð ñóäüáû – ðîäèòüñÿ ïîñëå. È îí íå äàåò íàì ïðàâà îãóëüíî îñóæäàòü òó ãåíåðàöèþ, êîòîðàÿ óæå â ñîçíà- òåëüíîì âîçðàñòå ïåðåæèëà Òðåòèé ðåéõ è íà äîëþ êîòîðîé íå âûïàëî íàøåãî ‘ñ÷àñòüÿ’ ”: H. Kohl. “Ich wollte Deutschlands Einheit”. Dargestellt von Kai Dieckmann und Ralf-Georg Reuth. Berlin, 1996. S. 240. 27 Ïîñëå ïðèçåìëåíèÿ â àýðîïîðòó Òåëü-Àâèâà 24 ÿíâàðÿ 1984 ã. Êîëü çàÿâèë, ÷òî îí ïðåäñòàâëÿåò “íîâóþ Ãåðìàíèþ” êàê “ïåðâûé áóíäåñêàíöëåð ïîñëåâîåííîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ”. 28  ñâîåì èíòåðâüþ òåëåâèçèîííîìó êàíàëó SAT1 (1 íîÿáðÿ 1998 ã.) Ãåðõàðä Øðåäåð çàÿâèë: “ß õî÷ó ïîñòàâèòü ïàìÿòíèê æåðòâàì Õîëîêîñòà. Íî ÿ õîòåë áû âèäåòü åãî òàêèì, ÷òîáû áåðëèíöû, íåìöû íå ñòîðîíèëèñü åãî, à îõîòíî øëè ê íåìó, ÷òîáû ïîìíèòü, ÷òîáû ïîëåìèçèðîâàòü. È ÿ íàäåþñü, ÷òî íàéäåòñÿ òàêîé ïðîåêò, êîòîðûé áóäåò óñòðåìëåí íå òîëüêî â ïðîøëîå, íî è â áóäóùåå”. 29 Ðå÷ü áóíäåñêàíöëåðà íà íåìåöêî-ôðàíöóçñêîé öåðåìîíèè ïðàçäíîâàíèÿ 60-ëåòèÿ “D-Day” â Êàåíå 6 èþíÿ 2004 ãîäà: http://www.bundeskanzler.de/Reden-. 7715.663560/a.htm. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 32 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 áûëî íå òîëüêî ïðîÿâëåíèåì îáúåêòèâíûõ èçìåíåíèé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ñèòóàöèè ïîñëå 1989-1990 ãã. Ïåðå÷èñëåííûå çàÿâëåíèÿ êàíöëåðà ñëåäóåò èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü êàê âûðàæåíèå ñóáúåêòèâíî âîñïðèíè- ìàåìîé äèñòàíöèè ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê “ñòàðîé Ãåðìàíèè òåõ ÷åðíûõ äíåé”. Êàæåòñÿ, â Ãåðìàíèè ñíîâà ñòàëî ìîæíî èãðàòü “íà ïàòðèî- òèçìå” – ñòîëü ïðèâëåêàòåëüíîì ðåñóðñå ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêè. Ðîäèâøèéñÿ â 1944 ã. Ãåðõàðä Øðåäåð, ïîëóñèðîòà, âûðîñøèé â òðóäíûõ ìàòåðèàëüíûõ óñëîâèÿõ, èìååò âñå øàíñû ñòàòü íåîôè- öèàëüíûì ïðåäñòàâèòåëåì ñòðåìèòåëüíî ðàñòóùåãî ìåìîðèàëüíîãî ñîîáùåñòâà äåòåé âîéíû,30 êîòîðîå ôîðìèðóåòñÿ íà íàøèõ ãëàçàõ: “Ìîãèëó ìîåãî îòöà, ñîëäàòà, ïàâøåãî â Ðóìûíèè, ìîÿ ñåìüÿ îòûñêàëà òîëüêî ÷åòûðå ãîäà íàçàä. Ìíå íå áûëî ñóæäåíî åãî óâèäåòü”.31 Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé äåÿòåëü, äîïóñêàþùèé òàêîãî ðîäà ïðèâàòíûå ðàññóæäåíèÿ îá èñòîðèè, íå òîëüêî ïðèçíàåò ñâîþ ïðèíàäëåæíîñòü ê ãðóïïå, ñâÿçàííîé îäíîé ñóäüáîé (Schicksalslage, Schelsky), íî è ïðèíèìàåò ó÷àñòèå â ïåðåêîäèðîâêå ïðîøëîãî, â öåíòðå êîòîðîãî îêàçûâàþòñÿ íåìöû-æåðòâû. Èìåííî íà áàçå íîâîãî ïðî÷òåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî âûðîñ “Öåíòð ïðîòèâ èçãíàíèé” (Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen), ñòðîèòåëüñòâîì êîòîðîãî óæå íåñêîëüêî ëåò àêòèâíî çàíèìàåòñÿ ðîäèâøàÿñÿ â 1943 ã. Ýðèêà Øòàéíáàõ, ïðåäñåäàòåëü Ñîþçà èçãíàííûõ (Bund der Vertriebenen). Ýòà ïåðåäà÷à ýñòàôåòû îò “ïîêîëåíèÿ î÷åâèäöå┠(Erlebnisgeneration) ê “ïîêîëåíèþ ïðèâåðæåíöå┠(Bekenntnisgeneration)31 ïîëó÷èëà øèðîêóþ ïîääåðæêó ñðåäñòâ

30 Ñì., íàïð.: S. Bode. Die vergessene Generation. Die Kriegskinder brechen ihr Schweigen. Stuttgart, 2004; H. Lorenz. Kriegskinder. Das Schicksal einer Generation. München, 2003. 31 Ñì.: http://www.bundeskanzler.de/Reden-.7715.663560/a.htm 32 Êàê òåëåêàíàë ARD (“Èçãíàííûå. Ïîñëåäíèå æåðòâû Ãèòëåðà”, 2001 ã. “Die Vertriebenen. Hitlers letzte Opfer”), òàê è òåëåêàíàë ZDF (“Âåëèêîå áåãñòâî. Ñóäüáà èçãíàííûõ”, 2002 ã. “Die große Flucht. Das Schicksal der Vertriebenen”) îáðàòèëèñü ê ïåðñïåêòèâå î÷åâèäöåâ â ñâîèõ ìíîãîñåðèéíûõ äîêóìåíòàëüíûõ ýïîïåÿõ, ïî ñëåäàì êîòîðûõ áûëè âûïóùåíû ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå êíèãè. Çàìåòèì, ÷òî â 1981 ã. Áàâàðñêîå òåëåâèäåíèå âûïóñòèëî â êà÷åñòâå “îòâåòà” íà “Õîëîêîñò” òðåõñåðèéíûé äîêóìåíòàëüíûé ôèëüì “Áåãñòâî è èçãíàíèå” (“Flucht und Vertreibung”). Ïîñëå äåìîíñòðàöèè ôèëüìà âûøëà êíèãà: R. Mühlfenzl (Hrsg.). Geflohen und vertrieben. Augenzeugen berichten. Nach der Fernseh- Dokumentation. München, 1981. Íåìåöêîå ðàäèî (Deutschlandfunk) â òå÷åíèå äâóõ íåäåëü, íà÷èíàÿ ñ 29 äåêàáðÿ 2004 ãîäà, òðàíñëèðîâàëî ïåðåäà÷ó âîñïîìè- íàíèé, êîòîðîé ïðåäøåñòâîâàëî îáðàùåíèå ðåäàêöèè ê ðàäèîñëóøàòåëÿì. 33 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? ìàññîâîé èíôîðìàöèè. Äàííîå îäîáðåíèå, âíå âñÿêîãî ñîìíåíèÿ, îáúÿñíÿåò, ïî÷åìó ôåäåðàëüíîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî ïî ïàðòèéíî- òàêòè÷åñêèì ñîîáðàæåíèÿì äî ñèõ ïîð ðåøèëîñü òîëüêî íà âíåøíþþ êðèòèêó äåÿòåëüíîñòè Öåíòðà, íå êàñàÿñü ñóùíîñòè ïðîáëåì, ïîðîæäàåìûõ åãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèåì. Öåíòð ðåàëüíî ñòàíîâèòñÿ íåìåöêèì íàöèîíàëüíûì ïðîåêòîì, íåñìîòðÿ íà íàëè÷èå ñåðüåçíûõ ñîìíåíèé ó ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ãåðìàíñêèõ è çàðóáåæíûõ ñïåöèà- ëèñòîâ,33 è íàïåðåêîð îáùåñòâåííîìó ìíåíèþ â Ïîëüøå è ×åõèè. Ðàñïîëîæåííûé â ñåðäöå Áåðëèíà, îí äåìîíñòðàòèâíî êîíêóðè- ðóåò ñ åâðåéñêèì ìåìîðèàëîì è äðóãèìè ñòðîÿùèìèñÿ ïàìÿòíèêàìè æåðòâàì íàöèñòñêèõ ïðåñòóïëåíèé. Íà ýòîì ôîíå êàæóòñÿ ìàëî- óáåäèòåëüíûìè íåîäíîêðàòíûå çàâåðåíèÿ Øòàéíáàõ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðûì Öåíòð äîëæåí ðåïðåçåíòèðîâàòü ïðîáëåìàòèêó èçãíàíèé â Åâðîïå â öåëîì. Ñîãëàñíî Øòàéíáàõ, åìó ñóæäåíî ñòàòü äåé- ñòâåííûì èíñòðóìåíòîì â ìèðîâîì ìàñøòàáå, “ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòî- ðîãî ìîæíî áóäåò íàâñåãäà çàïðåòèòü èçãíàíèå è ãåíîöèä êàê ñðåäñòâà ïîëèòèêè”.34 Àêòèâíàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü Øòàéíáàõ è åå äâîéñòâåííàÿ ïîçèöèÿ ïî âîïðîñó ðåñòèòóöèîííûõ òðåáîâàíèé, âûäâèíóòûõ êðàéíå ñîìíèòåëüíîé îðãàíèçàöèåé “Ïðóññêàÿ îïåêà” (Preußische Treuhand),35 íåãàòèâíî ñêàçàëèñü íà íåìåöêî-ïîëüñêèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ è ñåðüåçíî îñëîæíèëè ïîïûòêè ñîçäàíèÿ îáùååâðî- ïåéñêîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî íàððàòèâà Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû. Ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ ñòàëèíèçìà – åùå îäíà òåìà, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðîé òàêæå âñïîìèíàþòñÿ íåìåöêèå æåðòâû è ðåëÿòèâèðóåòñÿ ïàìÿòü

 íà÷àëå ïåðåäà÷è äèðåêòîð ïðîãðàììû ýôôåêòíî è ìíîãîçíà÷èòåëüíî ïîä÷åðêíóë, ÷òî ýòà òåìà äîëãîå âðåìÿ èãíîðèðîâàëàñü. Èç ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ïóáëèêàöèé îá èçãíàííûõ è áåæåíöàõ ìîæíî âûäåëèòü: H. Hirsch. Schweres Gepäck. Flucht und Vertreibung als Lebensthema. Hamburg, 2004; ïðèìåð äåìàãîãè÷åñêîãî çàèãðûâàíèÿ ñ ìíèìûìè òàáó: K. R. Röhl. Verbotene Trauer. Ende der deutschen Tabus. Mit einem Vorwort von Erika Steinbach. München, 2002. 33 Çàìå÷àòåëüíûé ââîä â òåìó ñîäåðæèò îäèí èç òåìàòè÷åñêèõ íîìåðîâ æóðíàëà “Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft” çà 2003 ãîä: ZfG. 2003. H. 1. Themenheft: Flucht und Vertreibung in europäischer Perspektive / Hrsg. von J. Danyel und Ph. Ther. 34 Öèòèðóåòñÿ ïî http://www.bund-der-vertriebenen.de/infopool/ zentrumggvertreibung.php3. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã., èíòåðíåò- ñòðàíèöà “Ñîþçà èçãíàííûõ” (BdV), îòêðûòàÿ 6 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2000 äëÿ “Ôîíäà Öåíòð ïðîòèâ èçãíàíèé” (Stiftung Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen); ñì. òàêæå: E. Steinbach. “Zentrum soll kein Pranger sein” // Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger. 17.07.2003. 35 Ñì.: http://www.preussischetreuhand.de.vu. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 8 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. – Ïðèì. ïåðåâîä÷èêà. 34 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 î ïðåñòóïëåíèÿõ íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà. Ïðîáëåìà çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ íå òîëüêî â âîïðîñå “èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîñòè” Õîëîêîñòà è ëåãèòèì- íîñòè ñðàâíåíèé, âîêðóã êîòîðûõ â ñâîå âðåìÿ ðàçâåðíóëñÿ Historikerstreit, ñêîëüêî â óðàâíèòåëüíîì ïî ñâîåìó õàðàêòåðó òðåáîâàíèè ïðèçíàíèÿ “äâîéíîé äèêòàòóðû”. ×óâñòâî èñòîðèêî- ïîëèòè÷åñêîé îòâåòñòâåííîñòè è ïðèçûâû ïðîÿâèòü âíèìàíèå ê ñîáûòèÿì, ïðè÷èíàì è ðàçìàõó ñîâåòñêîãî òåððîðà, ïàðàäîê- ñàëüíûì îáðàçîì ïðèäàþò ïîïóëÿðíîé íà Âîñòîêå Ãåðìàíèè ïàðà- äèãìå æåðòâû îðåîë èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîñòè. Ñ÷èòàåòñÿ, ÷òî ìåìîðèà- ëèçàöèè ìåñò, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ïðåñëåäîâàíèÿìè â ñîâåò- ñêîé îêêóïàöèîííîé çîíå è â ÃÄÐ óäåëÿåòñÿ ìåíüøå âíèìàíèÿ è íåäîñòàòî÷íîå ôèíàíñèðîâàíèå ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ ìåñòàìè ïàìÿòè ïðåñòóïëåíèé íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà. Ýòà òî÷êà çðåíèÿ íàøëà ñâîå âûðàæåíèå â çàÿâëåíèè ôðàêöèè ÕÄÑ-ÕÑÑ, ïîäàííîì â ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé äåíü 17 èþíÿ 2004 ã. â Áóí- äåñòàã.  íåì ñîäåðæàëîñü òðåáîâàíèå ðàçðàáîòêè “îáùåé êîíöåï- öèè ïàìÿòè æåðòâ îáåèõ íåìåöêèõ äèêòàòóð”. Õîòÿ, êàê çíà÷èòñÿ â äîáàâëåííîé ïîñëå ïðîòåñòîâ è íåóäà÷íîé âî âñåõ îòíîøåíèÿõ îãîâîðêå, “óíè÷òîæåíèå ìèëëèîíîâ åâðååâ â Åâðîïå çàñëóæèâàåò îñîáîé ïàìÿòè”.  îñòàëüíîì, ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïîäàòåëåé çàÿâëåíèÿ, äëÿ îáåèõ íåìåöêèõ äèêòàòóð áûëà õàðàêòåðíà “íàñèëüñòâåííàÿ âëàñòü, êîòîðàÿ ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêè ïðåñëåäîâàëà è ïîäàâëÿëà öåëûå ãðóïïû íàñåëåíèÿ”. Äàæå äîâîä, ïðèâåäåííûé áûâøèì ïðàâîçà- ùèòíèêîì â ÃÄÐ Ãþíòåðîì Íîîêå â ñâîåì ïàðëàìåíòñêîì çàÿâ- ëåíèè: “Íåò íèêàêèõ ñîìíåíèé â òîì, ÷òî Áàóòöåí è Îñâåíöèì íå îäíî è òî æå!”36 – íå â ñîñòîÿíèè ðàññåÿòü îïàñåíèÿ, ÷òî òàêîãî ðîäà àðãóìåíòàöèÿ íàöåëåíà íà óðàâíèòåëüíîñòü è ñòèðàåò ïðèí- öèïèàëüíûå ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó íàñèëèåì è ãåíîöèäîì.  íåé íå ó÷èòû- âàåòñÿ, êðîìå âñåãî ïðî÷åãî, ïðîáëåìà ïîääåðæêè ðåæèìà, ëîÿëü- íîñòè è ïîñîáíè÷åñòâà ïðåñòóïëåíèÿì. Ïîäîáíàÿ ðèòîðèêà ñîïðîâîæäàåò íîâóþ ïîëèòèêó ïàìÿòè. Åå öåëü – ïåðåîïðåäåëåíèå ïðàâèë öåíçóðû (Sagbarkeitsregel) è îôè- öèàëüíàÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ êàíîíèçàöèÿ “íàöèîíàëüíîé ïàìÿòè”, ñìåùàþùàÿ èñòîðèêî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèé ôîêóñ íà ïàìÿòü î æåðòâàõ

36  ñâÿçè ñ êðèòèêîé ïðàâÿùèõ ïàðòèé çàÿâëåíèå áûëî ïåðåäàíî áåç ãîëîñîâàíèÿ â ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå êîìèññèè: Deutscher Bundestag, 15. Wahlperiode. Drucksache 15/3048; Deutscher Bundestag, 15. Wahlperiode. Stenographische Berichte. 114. Sitzung vom 17.6.2004. 35 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? íåìåöêîãî êîììóíèçìà è î áîðöàõ çà ìèðíîå ïðåîäîëåíèå ñîöèà- ëèñòè÷åñêîãî ðåæèìà. Âìåñòî íåìåöêèõ ïðåñòóïíèêîâ è ïîñîáíèêîâ íà ïåðåäíèé ïëàí âûõîäÿò íåìåöêèå æåðòâû è áîðöû çà ñâîáîäó â ñî÷åòàíèè ñ òðåìÿ äðóãèìè ïåðå÷èñëåííûìè â çàÿâëåíèè “ñîáû- òèÿìè è òåìàòè÷åñêèìè êîìïëåêñàìè”, êîòîðûì “ïî ïðàâó ïðèíàä- ëåæèò âèäíîå ìåñòî â íåìåöêîé êóëüòóðå ïàìÿòè”: “æåðòâû áåãñòâà è èçãíàíèÿ” (Opfer von Flucht und Vertreibung), “æåðòâû áîìáàðäèðî- âîê ñîþçíè÷åñêîé àâèàöèè ñðåäè ãðàæäàíñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ”, à òàêæå “ìèðíàÿ ðåâîëþöèÿ è âîññòàíîâëåíèå ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî åäèíñòâà”.37  ôåâðàëå 2003 ã., íàêàíóíå ýòîé ïîêàçàòåëüíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé äèñêóññèè â Áóíäåñòàãå (íà êîòîðóþ îòðåàãèðîâàëè â îñíîâíîì òîëüêî çàðóáåæíûå êðèòèêè38), ñàêñîíñêèé Ëàíäòàã ïðèíÿë çàêîí î ïàìÿòíûõ ìåñòàõ. Ðåàêöèè øèðîêîé îáùåñòâåííîñòè â Ãåðìàíèè íà ýòîò çàêîí íå ïîñëåäîâàëî, â òî âðåìÿ êàê Öåíòðàëüíûé ñîâåò åâðåéñêèõ îáùèí Ãåðìàíèè ïðåêðàòèë ñâîå ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâî ñ Ôîí- äîì “Ìåñòà ïàìÿòè Ñàêñîíèè” (Stiftung Sächsische Gedenkstätte) â âèäó “ðåëÿòèâèçàöèè è ñðàâíåíèÿ ïðåñòóïëåíèé íàöèîíàë-ñîöèà- ëèçìà ñ ïðåñòóïëåíèÿìè ñòàëèíèçìà è ñëóæá ãîñáåçîïàñíîñòè ÃÄД.39  íåìåöêîé ïðåññå íå âûçâàëî ñî÷óâñòâèÿ âûðàæåííîå çàìåñòèòåëåì ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Öåíòðàëüíîãî ñîâåòà åâðåéñêèõ îáùèí Ñàëîìîíîì Êîðíîì âîçìóùåíèå â ñâÿçè ñ ðå÷üþ áûâøåãî ìèíèñòðà èíîñòðàííûõ äåë Ëàòâèè è íûíåøíåãî êîìèññàðà ÅÑ Ñàíäðû Êàëíèåòå, ïðîèçíåñåííîé âåñíîé 2004 ã. íà Ëåéïöèãñêîé êíèæíîé ÿðìàðêå. Êàëíèåòå îáëè÷àëà “íàöèçì è êîììóíèçì” êàê “îäèíà- êîâî ïðåñòóïíûå” ðåæèìû. Íî ïðè ýòîì îíà óìîë÷àëà îá ó÷àñòèè ëàòûøåé â Õîëîêîñòå. Åäêàÿ ðåàêöèÿ ïóáëèêè ïîñëåäîâàëà è íà ïðî- òåñò Êîðíà ïðîòèâ âûñòàâêè “Êîëëåêöèè Ôðèäðèõà Êðèñòèàíà Ôëèêà” â Áåðëèíå,40 îðãàíèçîâàííîé “Ôîíäîì Ïðóññêîå êóëüòóðíîå

37 Òàì æå.  èíòåðâüþ Süddeutsche Zeitung, îòâå÷àÿ íà âîïðîñ î ïàìÿòíèêå æåðòâàì áîìáàðäèðîâîê, Íîîêå çàÿâèë, ÷òî ýòîò âîïðîñ, â îòëè÷èå îò èçãíàíèé, “åùå íåäîñòàòî÷íî ïðîðàáîòàí” // Süddeutsche Zeitung. 17.6.2004. S. 15. 38 Ñì., íàïð.: G. Margalit. Increased German “suffering” // Haaretz. 17.6.2004. 39 Êîììþíèêå Öåíòðàëüíîãî ñîâåòà åâðåéñêèõ îáùèí Ãåðìàíèè îò 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2004 ãîäà: http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/down/PM_Saechsische_Gedenkstaetten.pdf. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 40 Äåä êîëëåêöèîíåðà, Ôðèäðèõ Ôëèê, áûë îäíèì èç êðóïíåéøèõ ïîñòàâùèêîâ âîîðóæåíèÿ äëÿ Òðåòüåãî ðåéõà è ãëàâíûõ ôèíàíñèñòîâ íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèñòîâ. Çíà÷èòåëüíóþ ÷àñòü åãî ñîñòîÿíèÿ ñîñòàâëÿëè êîíôèñêîâàííûå ó åâðååâ ïðåäïðèÿòèÿ, íà çàâîäàõ Ôëèêà â ìàññîâîì ïîðÿäêå èñïîëüçîâàëñÿ òðóä öâàíãñàðáàéòåð. – Ïðèì. ïåðåâîä÷èêà. 36 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íàñëåäèå” (Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz) è ïîëó÷èâøåé áëàãîñëî- âåíèå áóíäåñêàíöëåðà.41 Ðå÷ü Øðåäåðà íà îòêðûòèè âûñòàâêè ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàëà, íàñêîëüêî ñâîáîäíî îí îïåðèðóåò íåìåöêèì ïðîøëûì: êàíöëåð íå òîëüêî ïîÿñíèë, ÷òî ïîääåðæèâàåò îðãàíèçàòîðîâ âûñòàâêè èç ñîîáðàæåíèé íåîáõîäèìîñòè “ãàðàíòèé” ïðîòè⠓èñòîðè÷åñêîé àìíåçèè”. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, îí ïîïðîñòó ïîìåíÿë ìåñòàìè ïðè÷èíó è ñëåäñòâèå. Êàíöëåð ñäåëàë ïðåäóïðåæäàþùèé âûïàä â ñòîðîíó ñâîèõ êðèòèêîâ: “Ïóáëè÷íûå äåáàòû, ïîäîáíûå ðàçãîðåâøèìñÿ âîêðóã âûñòàâêè è ôèãóðû êîëëåêöèîíåðà, ïîðîé ìîãóò áûòü ïðî- äóêòèâíûìè è äàæå ïîó÷èòåëüíûìè – íî íå âñåãäà”.42  ñðåäñòâàõ ìàññîâîé èíôîðìàöèè äåëî ïðèíÿëî èìåííî òàêîé îáîðîò, êîòî- ðîãî, ïî âñåé î÷åâèäíîñòè, äîáèâàëèñü øðåäåðîâñêèå spin doctors: âñå ñêàçàííîå ïî ýòîìó ïîâîäó óøëî â ïåñîê, íî íå áåç ïîñëåäñòâèé. Íåêîòîðûå íàáëþäàòåëè ðàññìàòðèâàþò âûñòóïëåíèå Ãåðõàðäà Øðåäåðà êàê çâåíî â åäèíîé öåïè ñîáûòèé, îòêðûâøåéñÿ ïðàçäíîâà- íèÿìè 60-ëåòèÿ âûñàäêè ñîþçíèêîâ â Íîðìàíäèè è î÷åðåäíîé ãîäîâ- ùèíû Âàðøàâñêîãî âîññòàíèÿ. Îíà äîëæíà çàâåðøèòüñÿ ó÷àñòèåì êàíöëåðà â ìîñêîâñêèõ ïðàçäíåñòâàõ 9 ìàÿ 2005 ã. Èíòåðïðåòèðóÿ ýòó öåïü ñîáûòèé, êîììåíòàòîð òåëåêàíàëà ZDF çàìåòèë, ÷òî ìû èìååì äåëî ñ “íåñóùèìè ÷àñòÿìè êîíñòðóêöèè çàíîâî ïîçèöèîíèðóþùåé ñåáÿ Ãåðìàíèè – ñ îñîçíàííîé ïîëèòèêîé ïðîøëîãî”.43 Îäèí èç ñàìûõ ïðåäàííûõ êàíöëåðó æóðíàëèñòîâ-èíòåðïðåòàòîðîâ èç æóð- íàëà Stern â ñòàòüå “Ïîäâîäÿ èòîã îäíîé ëåâîé” (Schlußstrich mit links) ïðåâîçíîñèò âñòóïèâøåãîñÿ çà Ôëèêà Øðåäåðà êàê “èçáàâè- òåëÿ, ïîêîí÷èâøåãî ñ ñàìîáè÷åâàíèåì, ôèêñèðîâàííûì íà ïðîøëîì, è îáëåã÷èâøåãî íîøó ïðåñòóïëåíèé íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà â òîò ìîìåíò, êîãäà îí ïåðåíåñ åãî ñ ïëå÷à, îòÿãîùåííîãî ÷óâñòâîì âèíû, íà ïëå÷î, íåñóùåå èñòîðè÷åñêóþ îòâåòñòâåííîñòü”.44

41 Îáà òåêñòà îïóáëèêîâàíû â: S. Korn. Die fragile Grundlage. Auf der Suche nach der deutsch-jüdischen “Normalität”. Zweite, erweiterte Auflage. Berlin, 2004. 42 Ðå÷ü áóíäåñêàíöëåðà íà îòêðûòèè âûñòàâêè êîëëåêöèè Ôðèäðèõà Êðèñòèàíà Ôëèêà â Áåðëèíå 21 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2004 ã.: http://www.bundeskanzler.de/Reden-. 7715.717248/a.htm. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 43 P. Frey. Der Kanzler und ein neues Klima // ZDF Politik und Zeitgeschehen 29.9.2004 http://zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/21/0.1872.2195925.00.html. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 9 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 44 H.-U. Jörges. Schlußstrich mit links // Stern. 2004. H. 46. S. 60; ñì. òàêæå Idem. Blut und Bilder // Stern. 2004. H. 39. S. 68, ãäå Éîðãåíñ âîñòîðæåííî ãîâîðèò î çàïëàíèðîâàííîì âûñòóïëåíèè êàíöëåðà íà îòêðûòèè âûñòàâêè Ôëèêà êàê îá “èñòîðè÷åñêîì ñèãíàëå”. 37 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå?

* * * Èçáàâëåíèå îò ÷óâñòâà âèíû íå çà ãîðàìè. Ïðàâûå è ëåâûå ñ íåòåðïåíèåì îæèäàþò íàñòóïëåíèÿ ýòîãî ìîìåíòà. Óæå ñëûøíû ïðîðî÷åñòâà, ÷òî äëÿ ñòðàíû, â êîòîðîé ïî÷òè íå îñòàëîñü æèâûõ ïðåñòóïíèêîâ, îòêðûâàþòñÿ íåâèäàííûå äî ñèõ ïîð âîçìîæíîñòè. Íå èñêëþ÷åíî, ÷òî ñàìûé áîëüøîé øàíñ ïîëó÷èò ýêîíîìèêà, êîòîðàÿ, â îòëè÷èå îò ïîëèòèêè, íå îãðàíè÷åíà ðàìêàìè Åâðîïû. Ïîáîðíèêè ðåøåíèÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ ïðîáëåì çà ñ÷åò èñòîðèè óæå ñäåëàëè ñâîé âûáîð: îíè ãîòîâû îòêàçàòüñÿ îò “íåìåöêîãî ñàìîðàçðóøåíèÿ”, ñâÿçàííîãî ñ ÷ðåçìåðíûì “óâëå÷åíèåì” èñòî- ðèåé45 è óñòðàíèòü ïîñëåäíåå ïðåïÿòñòâèå íà ïóòè áîëüøèõ ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ ïðîåêòî⠖ âûïëàòèòü êîìïåíñàöèè öâàíãñàðáàé- òåðàì. Ïðîðûâ â íîâóþ ïðåäïðèíèìàòåëüñêóþ êóëüòóðó, êîòîðàÿ â íà÷àëå 1990-õ ãã. (ïîä íàæèìîì ÑØÀ), êàçàëîñü, îáåùàëà ïîäíÿòüñÿ íà íîâûé óðîâåíü çíàíèÿ è èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ñîçíàíèÿ, îñòàëñÿ áëàãèì íàìåðåíèåì, åñëè íå ñ÷èòàòü ïàðû íåïðî÷èòàííûõ èñòîðèé êîíöåðíîâ. Åùå íå ñîçðåâøåå, íî óæå âïîëíå çàìåòíîå íîâîå îùóùåíèå èñòîðèè ðàñïðîñòðàíÿåòñÿ â Ãåðìàíèè.46 Áåçóñëîâíî, ïîëèòè÷åñêîå çíà÷åíèå êàïèòóëÿöèè Òðåòüåãî ðåéõà áóäåò è ñïóñòÿ 60 ëåò èìåòü òðàêòîâêó, óòâåðäèâøóþñÿ (äîâîëüíî ïîçäíî) â 1985 ã. áëàãîäàðÿ óñèëèÿì Ðèõàðäà ôîí Âàéöçåêêåðà – 8 ìàÿ áóäåò ïðàçäíîâàòüñÿ êàê äåíü îñâîáîæäåíèÿ.47 Òåì íå ìåíåå, êàê ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ìû ïåðå- æèâàåì ñìåíó ïàðàäèãì â íàøåé êóëüòóðå îáðàùåíèÿ ñ ïðîøëûì. Âðåìÿ ïîêîëåíèÿ î÷åâèäöåâ áëèçèòñÿ ê êîíöó, à ýïîõà, êîòîðàÿ ìîæåò áûòü îáðàçíî ïðåäñòàâëåíà êàê “àðåíà âîñïîìèíàíèé” (Arena der Erinnerungen),48 òîëüêî íà÷èíàåòñÿ. Áåçóñëîâíî, “ýïîõà

45 Íàïðèìåð, Õàíñ-Îëàô Õåíêåëü: H.-O. Henkel. Die Kraft des Neubeginns. München, 2004. 46  êà÷åñòâå àëüòåðíàòèâû àíàëèçó ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ïóáëèöèñòè÷åñêèõ ñòàòåé è ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêèõ äàííûõ ìîæíî óêàçàòü íà ýìïèðè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå, áàçèðóþùååñÿ íà îïðîñå áîëåå ÷åì 2000 ñòóäåíòîâ Ýññåíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà: K. Ahlheim. Bardo Heger. Die unbequeme Vergangenheit. NS-Vergangenheit, Holocaust und die Schwierigkeit des Erinnerns. Schwalbach, 2002; à òàêæå A. Silbermann. Manfred Stoffers, Auschwitz. Nie davon gehört? Erinnern und Vergessen in Deutschland. Berlin, 2000. 47 Çàìåòèì, ÷òî, åñëè ñ 1985 ã. ïðàçäíîâàíèå Äíÿ Îñâîáîæäåíèÿ â Çàïàäíîé Ãåðìàíèè âñå áîëüøå óòâåðæäàëîñü â îáùåñòâåííîì ñîçíàíèè, â ÃÄÐ ýòà äàòà ïðèîáðåëà íåãàòèâíûå êîííîòàöèè. 48 Ñì. êàòàëîã âûñòàâêè Íåìåöêîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ìóçåÿ: M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945 – Arena der Erinnerungen. 2 Bde. Mainz, 2004. 38 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âñïîìèíàíèÿ”, ó îñíîâàíèÿ êîòîðîé ñòîÿë “Îñâåíöèì”,49 íå çàêàí÷è- âàåòñÿ, íî è íå îãðàíè÷èâàåòñÿ óæå òîëüêî ýòèì èñòî÷íèêîì.  ìèðå ïåðåïëåòàþùèõñÿ ïàìÿòåé è ãëîáàëüíûõ îáðàçîâ Õîëîêîñò ïðåâðàòèëñÿ â ìåòàôîðó ñî ìíîãèìè çíà÷åíèÿìè, à Ãèòëåð, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, ñòàë ïóãàëîì ìóëüòèìåäèéíîé ïîï-êóëüòóðû.50 È â äâàäöàòü ïåðâîì âåêå ïîäîáàþùåå, òî åñòü äàþùåå îòâåòû íà íîâûå âîïðîñû, ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîì ïðîøëîì âñå åùå îñòàåòñÿ ìîðàëüíîé ïðîáëåìîé è èíòåëëåêòóàëü- íûì âûçîâîì. Îäíàêî, êðîìå ãîòîâíîñòè ê âñïîìèíàíèþ íåîá- õîäèìî åùå è çíàíèå. Ãëÿäÿ íà ñåãîäíÿøíèé äåíü, ãäå ïî÷òè óæå íå îñòàëîñü èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ âîñïîìèíàíèé î íàöèîíàë-ñîöèà- ëèçìå, ïîíèìàåøü, íàñêîëüêî íåîáõîäèìû óñèëèÿ êàê îòäåëüíûõ ëþäåé, òàê è âñåãî îáùåñòâà. È ýòî íå òîëüêî âîïðîñ êóëüòóðíîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ, íî è ïðàêòè÷åñêîãî ñìûñëà è ïîëèòè÷åñêîé âûãîäû: òîëüêî òàì, ãäå ôóíêöèîíèðóåò çðåëîå èñòîðè÷åñêîå ñîçíàíèå, ñóùåñòâóåò ïðèíöèïèàëüíàÿ âîçìîæíîñòü äåêîíñòðóêöèè êîë- ëåêòèâíûõ ìèôîâ, êîòîðûå Åâðîïà, äàæå ñïóñòÿ 60 ëåò ïîñëå îêîí÷àíèÿ Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû, âñå åùå ïûòàåòñÿ ïðåîäîëåòü.

SUMMARY

Sixty years after the end of World War II, the Nazi past is still very present in the consciousness of German society. German models of remem- brance, however, are changing. As the last generation of those who lived through the Third Reich passes away, new questions are being raised about the future meaning of its legacy. In this essay, Norbert Frei recalls the painful process of Vergangenheits- bewältigung, coming to terms with the past, which, after a decade of neglect in the 1950s, developed in West Germany from the early 1960s onwards. Reflecting on the Nazi past became an intrinsic feature of Germany’s politi- cal culture. While this era now comes to an end, Vergangenheitspolitik (policy

49 H. Rousso. La hantise du passé. Paris, 1998. 50 Êàê äàëåêî ìîæåò çàéòè æóðíàëèñòèêà, äâèãàÿñü ïî ýòîìó ïóòè, èëëþñòðèðóåò ïðèìåð çàãîëîâêà ïåðåäîâèöû èç “Bildzeitung”: “Ñåêðåòíûé ïðèêàç Ãèòëåðà ñòðîèòü ÍËÎ. Áûëè ëè îíè ëåãåíäàðíûì ÷óäî-îðóæèåì?” (“Hitler ließ heimlich Ufos bauen. War das die sagenhafte Wunderwaffe?”) // Bildzeitung. 6 äåêàáðÿ. 2004. 39 Í. Ôðàé, Ïðåîäîëåííîå ïðîøëîå? of the past) still has a future. Parallel to – if not competing with – the global memory of the Holocaust, vivid recollections of Allied bombing, and the flight and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe are regaining public salience. Driven by the protest generation of 1968, now rediscovering its war-time childhood, a readjustment of the German historical conscious- ness is under way.

40 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Øòåôàí ÒÐÅÁÑÒ

“ÊÀÊÎÉ ÒÀÊÎÉ ÊÎÂÅÐ?” ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÀ ÏÀÌßÒÈ Â ÏÎÑÒÊÎÌÌÓÍÈÑÒÈ×ÅÑÊÈÕ ÎÁÙÅÑÒÂÀÕ ÂÎÑÒÎ×ÍÎÉ ÅÂÐÎÏÛ: ÏÎÏÛÒÊÀ ÎÁÙÅÃÎ ÎÏÈÑÀÍÈß È ÊÀÒÅÃÎÐÈÇÀÖÈÈ*

I. Ïî ñëîâàì âåíãåðñêîãî ïèñàòåëÿ Ïåòåðà Ýñòåðõàçè, “â âåíãåðñêîì ÿçûêå íå ñëó÷àéíî íåò ñëîâà Vergangenheitsbewältigung”, â íåìåöêîì îçíà÷àþùåãî “ïðåîäîëåíèå ïðîøëîãî”. “Òàêîãî ñëîâà íåò, – ñ÷èòàåò àâòîð “Íåáåñíîé ãàðìîíèè”,1 – ïîòîìó, ÷òî íåò ñîîòâåòñòâó- þùèõ ïðîöåññîâ”.2 Ýñòåðõàçè êðèòèêóåò íàðîäû ñòðàí áûâøåé ñîâåòñêîé çîíû âëèÿíèÿ èìåííî çà òî, ÷òî îíè îòêàçûâàþòñÿ çàíèìàòüñÿ “ïðåîäîëåíèåì ïðîøëîãî êàê ðàáîòîé, êàê îáÿçàòåëüíîé åâðîïåéñêîé ðàáîòîé”:

* Ïåðåâîä ñ íåìåöêîãî Ê. Ëåâèíñîíà 1 P. Esterházy. Harmonia Cælestis. Berlin, 2001. 2 Idem. Also: die Keule (Rede anläßlich der Verleihung des Friedenspreises des deutschen Buchhandels am 24. Oktober, 2004) // Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2004. Nr. 237. 11. Oktober. S. 7. 41 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” Ïðîáëåìû, åñëè äàæå ìû îñìåëèâàåìñÿ íàçâàòü èõ ñâîèìè èìåíàìè, ìû çàìåòàåì ïîä êîâåð è òóò æå îòðèöàåì ýòî. “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð? Ó íàñ íåò íèêàêîãî êîâðà, – óòâåðæäàåì ìû, – åãî êîììóíèñòû óêðàëè”.3 Ñïðàâåäëèâî ëè òàêîå áåçàïåëëÿöèîííîå âûñêàçûâàíèå â îòíîøå- íèè êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè âñåõ ñòðàí Âîñòî÷íîé-Öåíòðàëüíîé, Þãî- Âîñòî÷íîé, Ñåâåðî-Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, à òàêæå âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñ- êèõ è åâðîàçèàòñêèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ ÑÍà (êîòîðûå îáúåäèíåíû çäåñü ïîä íàèìåíîâàíèåì Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû) ñïóñòÿ ïîëòîðà äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïîñëå èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïîâîðîòà 1989 ã.? Äåéñòâèòåëüíî ëè â ïîñò- êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèõ îáùåñòâàõ êîëëåêòèâíàÿ ïàìÿòü, áóäü òî êîììóíèêàòèâíàÿ, êóëüòóðíàÿ èëè ñîöèàëüíàÿ, õàðàêòåðèçóåòñÿ, ñêîðåå, âûòåñíåíèåì, à íå ðàáîòîé ñ âîñïîìèíàíèÿìè î äèêòàòóðå? È íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëè êíèãà “Èñïðàâëåííîå èçäàíèå”4 (ïîñâÿùåííàÿ ñâåäåíèþ ñ÷åòîâ ñ îäíîé ñåìüåé, ïîñîáíè÷àâøåé äèêòàòóðå) ñàìîãî Ýñòåðõàçè íàèëó÷øèì ïðèìåðîì òîãî, ÷òî âåíãåðñêîå îáùåñòâî êàê ðàç èíòåíñèâíî çàíèìàåòñÿ ïðåîäîëåíèåì ïðîøëîãî – ïî ìåíü- øåé ìåðå, íà èíäèâèäóàëüíîì, ëè÷íîì, ÷àñòíîì óðîâíå? Íàñòîÿùàÿ ñòàòüÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò îáçîð êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè â ãîñó- äàðñòâàõ âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, à òàêæå ïîïûòêó åå äèôôåðåíöèàöèè è êàòåãîðèçàöèè íà ôîíå èñòîðèêî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ ñîâåò- ñêîé ýïîõè. Íóæíî èìåòü ââèäó, ÷òî âàæíîé ÷àñòüþ ýòîãî íàñëåäèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñòîðèêî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèé ïåðåëîì 1956 ã., òî åñòü äåñòàëè- íèçàöèÿ ïðè îäíîâðåìåííîé óòðàòå ñîâåòñêèìè ðåæèìàìè â Âåíã- ðèè è Ïîëüøå ñâîåé ëåãèòèìíîñòè. Îäíàêî äî ñèõ ïîð íå ðåøåí, è äàæå íå ïîñòàâëåí òàêîé, êàçàëîñü áû, åñòåñòâåííûé âîïðîñ: êàêàÿ èç äâóõ öåçóð – “1956” èëè “1989” – îêàçàëà áîëüøåå âîçäåéñòâèå íà êóëüòóðû âîñïîìèíàíèÿ?5 Åñëè ïðèíÿòü òåçèñ Âàëüòåðà

3 Ibid. 4 Idem. Verbesserte Auflage. Berlin, 2003. 5 Îäíî èç íåìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ èñêëþ÷åíèé – A. Åman. Architecture and Ideology in Eastern Europe during the Stalin Era. An Aspect of Cold War History. New York, 1992. S. vii, à òàêæå ñì. îáùèé îáçîð â ðàáîòå: J. Foitzik (Hg.). Entstalinisierungskrise in Ostmit- teleuropa 1953-1956. Vom 17. Juni bis zum ungarischen Volksaufstand. Paderborn, 2001, è ñîîáùåíèå î êîëëîêâèóìå: M. Kaiser. Entstalinisierung in Ostmitteleuropa im Vergleich. Internationales Kolloquium vom 5. bis 8. November 1998 in Warschau // Potsdamer Bulletin für Zeithistorische Studien. 1998. Nr. 14. Dezember. S. 57-62. Îá îäíîì ñïåöèôè÷åñêîì ñëó÷àå â Âåíãðèè, ãäå ñîáûòèÿ 1956 ã. ïîëíîñòüþ ïåðåêðûëè 42 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Áåíüÿàìèíà, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó “ïèñàòü èñòîðèþ – çíà÷èò ïðèäà- âàòü êàæäîé äàòå òî èëè èíîå âûðàæåíèå ëèöà”,6 àëüòåðíàòèâà “1956 – 1989” ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â îäèí èç ãëàâíûõ, åñëè íå â ñàìûé ãëàâíûé âîïðîñ íîâåéøåé èñòîðèè Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû.

II.  íà÷àëå 1990-õ ãã., êîãäà â Ãåðìàíèè çàíîâî îòêðûëè Ìîðèñà Õàëüáâàêñà,7 âîçíèê íåîëîãèçì “êóëüòóðà ïàìÿòè”.  íàñòîÿùåé ñòàòüå ýòîò òåðìèí èñïîëüçóåòñÿ íå â òîì çíà÷åíèè, êîòîðîå ïðèäàåò åìó ßí Àññìàí (“ñîáëþäåíèå ñîöèàëüíîãî îáÿçàòåëüñòâà”, ò.å. êàê îìîíèì ars memoriae – “èñêóññòâà ïàìÿòè”),8 à â òîì, êîòîðîå ñôîðìóëèðîâàíî Õàíñîì Ãþíòåðîì Õîêåðòñîì (“íåñòðîãîå ñîáè- ðàòåëüíîå ïîíÿòèå äëÿ ñîâîêóïíîñòè íå ñïåöèôè÷åñêè íàó÷íûõ îáðàùåíèé ê èñòîðèè â îáùåñòâåííîé ñôåðå”)9 è Êðèñòîôîì Êîð- íåëèññåíîì (“àëüòåðíàòèâà ñëèøêîì ïàòåòè÷åñêîé ôîðìóëèðîâêå

ñîáîé âòîðóþ ìèðîâóþ âîéíó, ñì. G. Seewann, É. Kovács. Ungarn. Der Kampf um das Gedächtnis // M. Flacke (Hg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945 – Arena der Erinnerungen. 2 Bde. Berlin, 2004, çäåñü Bd. 2. S. 817-837, îñîáåííî S. 824; è G. Litván. Das Jahr 1956 in der heutigen politisch-wissenschaftlichen Diskussion in Ungarn // H.-H. Hahn, H. Olschowsky (Hrsg.). Das Jahr 1956 in Ostmitteleuropa. Berlin, 1996. S. 188-191; î Ïîëüøå ñì. P. Machcewicz. Polski rok 1956. Warszawa, 1993 è K. Wóycicki. Opfer und Täter – Die polnische Abrechnung mit der Geschichte nach 1989 // H. König, M. Kohlstruck, A. Wöll (Hrsg.). Vergangenheitsbewältigung am Ende des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Opladen, 1998. S. 297 (= Leviathan. Sonderheft 18). 6 R. Tiedemann (Hg.). Walter Benjamin. Das Passagen-Werk. Bd. 1. Frankfurt à.M., 1983. S. 595. 7 M. Halbwachs. Das kollektive Gedächtnis. Stuttgart, 1967. Î âàæíåéøèõ ïóáëèêàöèÿõ, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïîâòîðíûì îòêðûòèåì Õàëüáâàêñà â Ãåðìàíèè, ñì. A. Haverkamp, R. Lachmann (Hrsg.). Memoria. Vergessen und Erinnern. München, 1993; A. Assmann. Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des Gedächtnisses. München, 1999; N. Perthes, J. Ruchatz (Hrsg.). Gedächtnis und Erinnerung. Ein interdisziplinäres Lexikon. Reinbek, 2001; H. Welzer (Hrsg.). Das soziale Gedächtnis. Geschichte, Erinnerung, Tradierung. Hamburg, 2001; Idem. Das kommunikative Gedäch- tnis. Eine Theorie der Erinnerung. München, 2002; H. J. Markowitsch. Dem Gedächtnis auf der Spur. Vom Erinnern und Vergessen. Darmstadt, 2002. Ñì. òàêæå P. Ricoeur. Das Rätsel der Vergangenheit. Erinnerung – Vergessen – Verzeihen. Essen, 1998. 8 J. Assmann. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München, 1997. S. 30. 9 H. G. Hockerts. Zugänge zur Zeitgeschichte: Primärerfahrung, Erinnerungskultur, Geschichtswissenschaft // K. H. Jarausch, M. Sabrow (Hrsg.). Verletztes Gedächtnis. Erinnerungskultur und Zeitgeschichte im Konflikt. Frankfurt à. M., 2002. S. 41. 43 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” ‘ïðåîäîëåíèå ïðîøëîã).10 Ïðè ýòîì äàííûé òåðìèí (êîòîðîìó ïîðà áû íàéòè ìåñòî â òîëêîâîì ñëîâàðå,11 èáî ñåãîäíÿ åãî óæå ïî÷òèòåëüíî íàçûâàþò “âàæíåéøèì ïîíÿòèåì íåìåöêîé èñòîðèè êóëüòóðû”) ñòðîãî îòäåëÿåòñÿ îò ïîíÿòèÿ “èñòîðè÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû” ñ åãî ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè, ãíîñåîëîãè÷åñêèìè è ýñòåòè÷åñêèìè êîííîòàöè- ÿìè:12 â òî âðåìÿ êàê èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ êóëüòóðà â âîñòî÷íîé è â çàïàä- íîé Åâðîïå ôîðìèðóåòñÿ â íåêîòîðîé ñòåïåíè ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêè, êóëüòóðà ïàìÿòè, êàê ïðàâèëî, íåâîñïðèèì- ÷èâà ê òîìó, ÷òî ïèøóò èñòîðèêè.  ñâîèõ ïóáëè÷íûõ ïðîÿâëåíèÿõ, îñîáåííî â Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïå, êóëüòóðà ïàìÿòè è ïî ñåé äåíü ÿâëÿåòñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ïðîäóêòîì ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ óñèëèé ïî âíåäðå- íèþ â îáùåñòâåííîå ñîçíàíèå òåõ èëè èíûõ ñèìâîëîâ. Ïîýòîìó îíà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðÿìîé íàñëåäíèöåé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêè, êîòîðóþ äî 1989-1991 ãã. ïðîâîäèëè êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèå ïàðòèè.13 “Êóëüòóðà

10 Ch. Cornelißen, L. Klinkhammer, W. Schwentker. Nationale Erinnerungskulturen seit 1945 im Vergleich // Idem (Hrsg.). Erinnerungskulturen. Deutschland, Italien und Japan seit 1945. Frankfurt à. M., 2003. S. 12. Ñì. òàêæå Ch. Cornelißen. Was heißt Erinnerungskultur? Begriff - Methoden – Perspektiven // Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht. 2003. Jg. 54. S. 548-563; L. Hölscher. Geschichte als “Erinnerungskultur” // K. Platt, M. Dibag (Hrsg.). Generation und Gedächtnis. Erinnerungen und kollektive Identitäten. Opladen, 1995. S. 146-168; è U. Schneider. Geschichte der Erinnerungskul- turen // Ch. Cornelißen (Hrsg.). Geschichtswissenschaften. Eine Einführung. Frankfurt à. M., 2000. S. 259-270. Î ñïåöèàëüíîé èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ãðóïïå (Sonderfor- schungsbereich) “Êóëüòóðû âîñïîìèíàíèÿ” â Ãèñåíñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå, èçó÷àþùåé “ñîäåðæàíèå è ôîðìû êóëüòóðíîãî âîñïîìèíàíèÿ îò Àíòè÷íîñòè äî ÕÕ â.”, ñì. http://www.uni-giessen.de/erinnerungskulturen. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 11 Ch. Cornelißen. Was heißt Erinnerungskultur? S. 550. 12 J. Rüsen. Was ist Geschichtskultur? Überlegungen zu einer neuen Art, über Geschichte nachzudenken // K. Füßmann, H. Th. Grüttner, J. Rüsen (Hrsg.). Historische Faszination. Geschichtskultur heute. Köln, 1994. S. 3-26; Idem. Geschichtskultur // K. Bergmann u. a. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Geschichtsdidaktik. 1997. S. 38-40; B. Mütter, B. Schönemann, U. Uffelmann (Hrsg.). Geschichtskultur. Theorie – Empirie – Pragmatik. Weinheim, 2000; W. Hardtwig. Geschichtskultur // S. Jordan (Hrsg.). Lexikon Geschichtswissenschaft. Hundert Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart, 2002. S. 112-115. – Ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê áîëüøèíñòâó ñòðàí Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû íå ïðèõîäèòñÿ ãîâîðèòü î òîì ñëèÿíèè ïîíÿòèé “èñòîðè- ÷åñêàÿ êóëüòóðà” è “êóëüòóðà âîñïîìèíàíèÿ”, çà êàêîâîå âûñòóïàåò Êðèñòîô Êîðíåëèññåí (Was heißt Erinnerungskultur? S. 555). Íåâîçìîæíî îíî, ïî âñåé âèäè- ìîñòè, è äëÿ Ãåðìàíèè, êàê ïîêàçàëè Õàðàëüä Âåëüöåð è åãî êîëëåãè (H. Welzer, S. Moller, K. Tschuggnall. “Opa war kein Nazi”. Nationalsozialismus und Holocaust im Familiengedächtnis. Frankfurt à. M., 2002). 13 Ñì. îá ýòîì B. Binder, W. Kaschuba, P. Niedermüller. “Geschichtspolitik”. Zur Aktualität nationaler Identitätsdiskurse in europäischen Gesellschaften // H. Kaelble, J. Schreiner (Hrsg.). Gesellschaften im Vergleich. Forschungen aus Sozial- und Geschichtswissenschaft. Frankfurt à. M. 1998. S. 465-508. 44 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âîñïîìèíàíèÿ è èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïîëèòèêà, – ïèøóò Åâà Êîâà÷ è Ãåðõàðä Çååâàíí, èìåÿ â âèäó íå òîëüêî Âåíãðèþ, – ýòî [ ] äâå ñòîðîíû îäíîé ìåäàëè”.14 Î òîì, ÷òî â ïîñòêîììóíèñòè÷åñêèõ êîíòåêñòàõ ýòè äâå âåùè äåéñòâèòåëüíî íåðàçëè÷èìû, ñâèäåòåëüñò- âóþò è ïîñòðîåíèÿ Âîëüôãàíãà Êàøóáû, ïðèçûâàþùåãî ê “ýòíî- ëîãè÷åñêîìó ðàññìîòðåíèþ ‘èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèê蒔 â Åâðîïå íà ïÿòè “óðîâíÿõ ïðàêòèêè”: Âî-ïåðâûõ, ïóáëè÷íûé äèñêóðñ â ÑÌÈ ïî ïîâîäó (ñîáñòâåí- íîé) èñòîðèè; âî-âòîðûõ, ïðîñòðàíñòâåííàÿ è òåððèòîðèàëüíàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ðåïðåçåíòàöèè è ñèìâîëèçàöèè, ïîääàþùàÿñÿ èçó- ÷åíèþ ÷åðåç ìåñòà ïàìÿòè è ïàìÿòíèêè; â-òðåòüèõ, ñèìâîëè- ÷åñêàÿ áîðüáà çà çíàêè è èíòåðïðåòàöèè “ýñòåòèêè ïàìÿòè”; â-÷åòâåðòûõ, êàíîí ðèòóàëüíûõ è ýñòåòè÷åñêèõ ïðàêòèê “ðàáîòû âîñïîìèíàíèÿ”; è, â-ïÿòûõ, íàáîð ôîðì è ôèãóð ïåðå- äà÷è, òàêèõ êàê ðàññêàçû, ìåìóàðíûå ñåðèàëû, ôîòîãðàôèè íà ïàìÿòü, ëîêàëüíûå è îáùåíàöèîíàëüíûå ó÷åáíèêè èñòîðèè.15 Ïåòåð Ðàéõåëü ãîâîðèò î ÷åòûðåõ èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ïîëÿõ: (1) ïîëèòèêî-þðèäè÷åñêèé ðàçáîð ïðîøëîãî, (2) èñòîðèÿ ïóáëè÷- íîé êóëüòóðû âîñïîìèíàíèÿ è ïîìèíîâåíèÿ, (3) èñòîðèÿ ýñòåòè- ÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû è (4) íàó÷íîå èçó÷åíèå ïðîøëîãî.16 Ó Êðèñòîôà Êîðíåëèññåíà èõ ñíîâà ïÿòü: (1) îáùèå ñîöèàëüíûå óñëîâèÿ, (2) ïîêîëåíèÿ, (3) íàöèÿ è ïàìÿòü, (4) âåðà è èäåîëîãèè, (5) ñðåäñòâà ìàññîâîé èíôîðìàöèè.17 Ïóáëè÷íàÿ, èñòîðèêî-ïîëèòè÷åñêè äåòåðìèíèðîâàííàÿ ñîñòàâ- ëÿþùàÿ êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè è åå âòîðàÿ ïîëîâèíà – èíäèâèäóàëüíàÿ è ñåìåéíàÿ ïàìÿòü ïîñëå 1989 ã., ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ñòàëè âçàèìî- äåéñòâîâàòü äðóã ñ äðóãîì, à ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû – èõ äèõîòîìèÿ áûëà âçîðâàíà ïîëèòè÷åñêèì ïëþðàëèçìîì, ñìåíèâøèì ïàðòèéíóþ ìîíîïîëèþ. Èìåííî ýòî èìååò ââèäó Àíäðåàñ Ëàíãåíîëü, êîãäà ãîâîðèò ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ïîñòñîâåòñêîé Ðîññèè, ÷òî îíà ïðîñòî “íûðíóëà â ïëþðàëèçì âîñïîìèíàíèé, íå áóäó÷è ïîäãîòîâëåíà

14 G. Seewann, É. Kovács. Ungarn. Der Kampf um das Gedächtnis. S. 817. 15 W. Kaschuba. Geschichtspolitik und Identitätspolitik. Nationale und ethnische Diskurse im Kulturvergleich // B. Binder, W. Kaschuba, P. Niedermüller (Hrsg.). Die Inszenierung des Nationalen. Geschichte, Kultur und die Politik der Identitäten am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. Köln, 2001. S. 24. 16 P. Reichel. Vergangenheitsbewältigung in Deutschland. Die Auseinandersetzung mit der NS-Diktatur von 1945 bis heute. München, 2001. S. 9. 17 Cornelißen. Was heißt Erinnerungskultur? S. 556-559. 45 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” è ïðèñïîñîáëåíà ê ýòîìó íè ñòðóêòóðíî, íè êóëüòóðíî”.18 Êðèñòîô Êîðíåëèññåí óñëûøàë â Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïå “ïðèçûâ ê ‘èäåîëîãè- ÷åñêîé’ äåêîëîíèçàöèè, ‘ïðåäïèñàííûõ âîñïîìèíàíè钔.19 Ñîîòâåò- ñòâåííî, âîçíèêëè è íîâûå èçìåðåíèÿ êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè, êîòîðûå íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ íè ñòðîãî “ãîñóäàðñòâåííûìè”, íè “ïðèâàòíûìè”, à ìîãóò ôîðìèðîâàòüñÿ â íåäðàõ ãðàæäàíñêîãî îáùåñòâà, ïàðòèé è ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ îáúåäèíåíèé èëè ýòíîêóëüòóðíûõ ñîîáùåñòâ. Îäíàêî, ñðåäè ýòèõ ïðîìåæóòî÷íûõ èçìåðåíèé íà ïåðåäíèé ïëàí âûäâèíóëèñü ðåëèãèîçíî êîííîòèðîâàííûå ôàêòîðû. Ñ 1989 ã. âàæíåéøóþ ðîëü èãðàåò òàêæå îáðàùåíèå ê äîêîììóíèñòè÷åñêîìó ïðîøëîìó, ò.å. ê àðñåíàëó èìïåðñêèõ è íàöèîíàëüíûõ èñòîðèé, õðàíèòåëÿìè êîòîðûõ â íåêîòîðûõ ñëó÷àÿõ âûñòóïàëè ýìèãðàöèÿ è äèàñïîðà. Ïðåäñòàâëåííûé â ñòàòüå îáçîð – íåèçáåæíî íåäîñòàòî÷íî ïîäðîáíûé – ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêè îðèåíòèðîâàí íà ïðåäëîæåííûé Â. Êàøóáîé “ýòíîëîãè÷åñêèé ñïîñîá ðàññìîòðåíèÿ”: íàðÿäó ñ “ìàÿ- êàìè” ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêè è êóëüòóðû âîñïî- ìèíàíèÿ, õàðàêòåðíîé äëÿ ãðàæäàíñêîãî îáùåñòâà, çäåñü áóäåò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ òàêæå èíäèâèäóàëüíàÿ, ëè÷íàÿ, ÷àñòíàÿ è ñåìåéíàÿ ïàìÿòü. Âåäü êóëüòóðà ïàìÿòè â îáùåñòâå âîçíèêàåò, ïî ñëîâàì Êîíðàäà ßðàóøà, “èç âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ ðàññêàçîâ è êîëëåêòèâíûõ ñòèëèçàöèé [...], ïîñðåäñòâîì âûñòðàèâàíèÿ èõ â äîëãîâå÷íûå ïðåäàíèÿ”.20 Âûñêàçûâàíèå ßðàóøà âåðíî íå òîëüêî ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê èçó÷åííûì èì ïðèìåðàì íåìåöêîé ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîñòè, íî è ê âîñòî÷íî-åâðîïåéñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâàì. ßðàóø óòâåðæ- äàåò, ÷òî íàöèîíàëüíûå îáùåñòâåííûå êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè “[ÿâëÿ- þòñÿ], êàê ïðàâèëî, ðåçóëüòàòîì êîíôëèêòíîãî ñîïåðíè÷åñòâà ìåæäó ðàçíûìè ïàðòèÿìè, ïûòàþùèìèñÿ óòâåðäèòü êàæäàÿ ñâîþ âåðñèþ ïðîøëîãî è îïðåäåëèòü íà åå îñíîâå óðîêè íà áóäóùåå äëÿ âñåãî ñîîáùåñòâà”.21

III. Ñ÷èòàåòñÿ, ÷òî âçëåòû è ïàäåíèÿ ñîâðåìåííûõ äèêòàòóð, â îñî- áåííîñòè êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèõ, ÿâëÿþòñÿ “ãëàâíîé õàðàêòåðèñòèêîé

18 A. Langenohl. Erinnerung und Modernisierung. Die Rekonstruktion politischer Kollektivität am Beispiel des Neuen Rußland. Göttingen, 2000. S. 314. 19 Ch. Cornelißen. Was heißt Erinnerungskultur? S. 549. 20 K. Jarausch. Zeitgeschichte und Erinnerung. Deutungskonkurrenz oder Interdependenz? // K. Jarausch, M. Sabrow (Hrsg.). Verletztes Gedächtnis. S. 14. 21 Ibid. 46 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ÕÕ ñòîëåòèÿ”.22 Äëÿ óñïåøíîãî ïðåîäîëåíèÿ òîòàëèòàðíîãî ïðî- øëîãî ñëåäóåò èçâëå÷ü èç èñòîðèè Ôåäåðàòèâíîé Ðåñïóáëèêè è îáúå- äèíåííîé Ãåðìàíèè îäèí îñíîâíîé óðîê: íàðÿäó ñ äåÿòåëüíûì ïîêàÿíèåì è transitional justice íóæíî íàëàäèòü àêòèâíóþ ðàáîòó ïî âñïîìèíàíèþ, ñîïðîâîæäàþùóþñÿ èñòîðè÷åñêèì èçó÷åíèåì ðàçíûõ àñïåêòîâ òèðàíè÷åñêîãî ðåæèìà. Íåêîòîðûå àâòîðû ïîëàãàþò,23 ÷òî ýòó “íàóêó” – îáðàçöîâóþ “îäåðæèìîñòü [íåìöåâ] èñòîðèåé” – ìîãëè áû ïîçàèìñòâîâàòü è äðóãèå íàðîäû.24 Òèìîòè Ãàðòîí Ýø â ýòîé ñâÿçè èðîíè÷åñêè çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî ÔÐà çàäàåò “íîâûé ñòàíäàðò îñíîâàòåëüíîñòè” èñòîðèîãðàôèè,25 ïîäîáíûé íåìåöêîìó èíäóñòðèàëüíîìó ñòàíäàðòó DIN.26 Îáðàçöîâîìó è ïðîòîòèïè÷åñêîìó íåìåöêîìó ñïîñîáó ïðåîäî- ëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî äðóãèå ñòðàíû Åâðîïû ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿþò èíûå, êàê ïðàâèëî ìåíåå æåñòêèå, ôîðìû îáðàùåíèÿ ñ íàñëåäèåì äèêòà- òóðû. Åñëè ìåðèòü èõ íà íåìåöêèé àðøèí, ýòè ôîðìû, ïîçâîëÿþùèå ðåòðîñïåêòèâíóþ ðåëÿòèâèçàöèþ è äàæå “çàáâåíèå èñòîðèè”, âûãëÿäÿò ìåíåå îñíîâàòåëüíûìè. Îäíàêî îíè íå îáÿçàòåëüíî ìåíåå óñïåøíû. Òî, ÷òî â Ãåðìàíèè ïîðèöàåòñÿ êàê ìåíòàëèòåò “ïîäâå- äåíèÿ ÷åðòû”, â äðóãèõ îáùåñòâàõ ÷àñòî ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ êàê ñòðåìëåíèå “äàòü ñòàðûì ðàíàì çàòÿíóòüñÿ”, “ñìîòðåòü âïåðåä, à íå íàçàä”, â òî âðåìÿ êàê “îäåðæèìîñòü èñòîðèåé”, íàïðîòèâ, îñóæäàåòñÿ – è çà÷àñòóþ íåáåçîñíîâàòåëüíî – êàê ïîìåõà äâèæåíèþ â áóäóùåå. Íàïðèìåð, êîãäà ïåðâûé íåêîììóíèñòè÷åñêèé ïðåìüåð- ìèíèñòð Ïîëüøè Òàäåóø Ìàçîâåöêèé â ñâîåé ðå÷è â ñåéìå ïî ñëó÷àþ âñòóïëåíèÿ â äîëæíîñòü 24 àâãóñòà 1989 çàÿâèë: “Ïîä ïðîøëûì ìû ïîäâîäèì æèðíóþ ÷åðòó”,27 ÷àñòè Ñîâåòñêîé Àðìèè åùå ñòîÿëè

22 D. Schmiechen-Ackermann. Diktaturen im Vergleich. Darmstadt, 2002. S. 1. 23 Ñì., íàïðèìåð: C. Sonntag-Wolgast. Die historische Auseinandersetzung mit den kom- munistischen Diktaturen in Europa // Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Hrsg.). Nach dem Fall des “Eisernen Vorhangs”. Geschichte und Öffent- lichkeit im europäischen Vergleich. Leipzig, 2002. S. 15-30, è M. Birthler. Instrumentarien der Auseinandersetzung mit der Diktatur – ein internationaler Vergleich // Ibid. S. 73-84. 24 A. Assmann, U. Frevert. Geschichtsvergessenheit, Geschichtsbesessenheit. Vom Umgang mit deutschen Vergangenheiten nach 1945. Stuttgart, 1999. Ñì. òàêæå U. Frevert. Geschichtsvergessenheit und Geschichtsversessenheit revisited. Der jüngste Erinnerungsboom in der Kritik // Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B. 40-41. 2003. 29. September. S. 6-13. 25 T. G. Ash. Mesomnesie // Transit. Europäische Revue. Winter 2001/2002. H. 22. S. 33. 26 Idem. Strafgerichte, Säuberungen und Geschichtsstunden // Idem. Zeit der Freiheit. Aus den Zentren des neuen Europa. München, 1999. S. 309. 27 Öèò. ïî: S. Grabowski. Vergangenheitsbewältigung in Polen. Dossier und Analyse // H. König, M. Kohlstruck, A. Wöll (Hrsg.). Vergangenheitsbewältigung. S. 261-262, 279. 47 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” íå òîëüêî ó ñåâåðíûõ, âîñòî÷íûõ, þæíûõ è çàïàäíûõ ãðàíèö ñòðàíû, íî è íà òåððèòîðèè ñàìîé Ïîëüøè. Íå ãîâîðÿ óæå î ïîëüñêèõ îðãàíàõ ãîñáåçîïàñíîñòè, êîòîðûå îñòàëèñü ñî âðåìåí ïðåæíåãî ðåæèìà è áûëè âïîëíå äååñïîñîáíûìè. Íà÷àòü ñâîäèòü ñ÷åòû ñ óõîäÿùèì êîììóíèçìîì â ýòîò ìîìåíò, ïî ñëîâàì îäíîãî êîì- ïåòåíòíîãî íàáëþäàòåëÿ, “áûëî áû ñàìîóáèéñòâîì”.28 Ïîýòîìó ñïîðû î ïðîøëîì “Ïîëüñêîé Íàðîäíîé Ðåñïóáëèêè” íà÷àëèñü â Ïîëüøå òîëüêî ïîñëå òîãî, êàê ÑÑÑÐ ïðåâðàòèëñÿ â Ðîññèéñêóþ Ôåäåðàöèþ.29 Ñîïîñòàâèìûé çàïàäíîåâðîïåéñêèé ïðèìåð – Èñïàíèÿ, ãäå îòîøåäøàÿ áûëî â 1975 ã. íà âòîðîé ïëàí âîåííàÿ ýëèòà äèêòà- òîðñêîãî ðåæèìà â 1981 ã. ïîïûòàëàñü âåðíóòüñÿ íà ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ àâàíñöåíó. Ïîñëå ïàäåíèÿ äèêòàòóðû íà ïðîòÿæåíèè öåëîãî ïîêî- ëåíèÿ â Èñïàíèè ñîõðàíÿëñÿ çàãîâîð ìîë÷àíèÿ, ïîêà â 2000 ã. åãî íå íàðóøèëî âîçãëàâëÿåìîå æóðíàëèñòîì Ýìèëèî Ñèëüâîé “Îá- ùåñòâî ïî âîññòàíîâëåíèþ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè”, âñêðûâøåå áðàòñ- êèå ìîãèëû è èíèöèèðîâàâøåå øèðîêóþ îáùåñòâåííóþ äèñêóññèþ.30 Åùå íå óñïåëî âûðàñòè ïîñòêîììóíèñòè÷åñêîå ïîêîëåíèå â Âîñ- òî÷íîé Åâðîïå, êàê äèñêóññèè î ïðîøëîì âñêîëûõíóëà êíèãà àìåðèêàíñêîãî ñîöèîëîãà ïîëüñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ ßíà Ãðîññà (âûøåäøàÿ â 2000 ã.), ïîñâÿùåííàÿ ïîãðîìó â ïîëüñêîì ìåñòå÷êå Åäâàáíå â 1941 ã.31  Ïîëüøå ðàçãîðåëèñü îæåñòî÷åííûå ñïîðû îá ýòîì

28 K. Wóycicki. Diskussionsbeitrag // Stiftung Haus der Geschichte Bonn (Hrsg.). Zeit- Fragen. Nach dem Fall des “Eisernen Vorhangs” Geschichte und Öffentlichkeit im europäischen Vergleich. Bonn, 2002. S. 88. 29 Ñì. îá ýòîì ãë. “Der Streit um die Geschichte der Volksrepublik Polen” // P. Œpiewak (Hrsg.). Anti-Totalitarismus. Eine polnische Debatte. Frankfurt à. M., 2003. S. 373-466, à òàêæå B. Spinelli. Der Gebrauch der Erinnerung. Europa und das Erbe des Totalitarismus. München, 2002. S. 110-111, è K. Ruchniewicz. Zeitgeschichte in Polen nach 1989. Forschungsschwerpunkte, “weiße Flecken” und historische Kontroversen // S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung, Erinnerungspolitik und Geschichtskultur in Polen und Spanien. München, 2003. S. 39-70 (= òåìàòè÷åñêèé íîìåð Jahrbuch für Europäische Geschichte. 2003. Bd. 4). 30 E. S. Barrera. The Importance of Remembrance in the Transition to Democracy in Spain // K. Ruchniewicz, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung und nationale Selbstvergewisserung. Geschichtskulturen in Polen und Spanien im Vergleich. Wroc³aw, 2004. S. 69-74. Ñì. òàêæå Idem, S. Macías. Las fosas de Franco. Los republicanos que el dictador dejó en las cunetas. Madrid, 2003; J. Rodrigo. Amnesia and Remembrance. Coping with the History of Concentration Camps in Spain // K. Ruchniewicz, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung und nationale Selbstvergewisserung. S. 173-180; Idem. Los campos de concentración franquistas entre la historia y la memoria. Madrid, 2003. 31 J. T. Gross. S¹siedzi. Historia zag³ady ¿ydowskiego miasteczka. Sejny, 2000. 48 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïðåñòóïëåíèè ïîëÿêîâ ïðîñòèâ åâðååâ, ïðèçíàíèå êîòîðîãî ïîäðû- âàëî ìèô î ïîëüñêîì íàðîäå êàê íàðîäå-æåðòâå. Ñëåäîì íåäàâíî ñîçäàííûé Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé èíñòèòóò íàöèîíàëüíîé ïàìÿòè âûïóñòèë äâà îáúåìèñòûõ òîìà ñ äîêóìåíòàìè î ïðîèçîøåäøåì â Åäâàáíå.32 Âñå ýòî ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî “çàáâåíèå èñòîðèè” è “îäåðæè- ìîñòü èñòîðèåé” íå èñêëþ÷àþò äðóã äðóãà, à ÿâëÿþòñÿ äâóìÿ ñòî- ðîíàìè îäíîé ìåäàëè. Ýðíåñò Ðåíàí åùå 1882 ã. êîíñòàòèðîâàë ýòó äèàëåêòè÷åñêóþ ñâÿçü ìåæäó êîëëåêòèâíûì âûòåñíåíèåì òðàâ- ìàòè÷åñêèõ ïåðèîäîâ íàñèëèÿ â èñòîðèè – ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è èõ èñòîðè÷åñêèì ïðîÿñíåíèåì è àíàëèçîì – ñ äðóãîé. Îí, ïîä÷åðêèâàë ïîëîæèòåëüíûå ïîñëåäñòâèÿ çàáâåíèÿ è ïðåäóïðåæäàë, ÷òî “èñòî- ðè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå èçâëåêàåò íà ñâåò áîæèé âñå àêòû íàñèëèÿ, èìåâøèå ìåñòî ïðè çàðîæäåíèè òîãî èëè èíîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ, âêëþ÷àÿ òå, ïîñëåäñòâèÿ êîòîðûõ áûëè ñàìûå áëàãî- òâîðíûå”, è ïîýòîìó “ïðîãðåññ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ÷àñòî áûâàåò îïàñåí”.33 Óïîìÿíóòûå ïîëüñêî-èñïàíñêèå ïàðàëëåëè çà- ñòàâëÿþò çàäóìàòüñÿ î òîì, íàñêîëüêî áëèçêè è âçàèìíî ïîõîæè Çàïàäíàÿ è Âîñòî÷íàÿ Åâðîïà ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêè è êóëüòóðû âîñïîìèíàíèÿ. Èëè æå ïðàâ Ýñòåðõàçè, êîòîðûé ïîä÷åðêèâàåò ñòðóêòóðíûå ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó Ãåðìàíèåé è Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïîé?

IV. Íàðÿäó ñ ðåëèãèîçíûìè, íàöèîíàëüíûìè è ðåãèîíàëüíûìè òðàäèöèÿìè, âàæíåéøèì êîíñòèòóèðóþùèì ýëåìåíòîì âîñòî÷íî- åâðîïåéñêèõ êóëüòóð ïàìÿòè ÿâëÿåòñÿ, êîíå÷íî, äëèâøàÿñÿ äåñÿòè- ëåòèÿ êîììóíèñòè÷åñêàÿ äèêòàòóðà. Ýòî, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, îòëè÷àåò Âîñòî÷íóþ Åâðîïó îò äðóãèõ ÷àñòåé êîíòèíåíòà. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ñâåæèé, åùå íåçàðóáöåâàâøèéñÿ îïûò äèêòàòóðû ñâÿçûâàåò âîñòîê Åâðîïû íå òîëüêî ñ åå þãîì – ñ Èñïàíèåé, Ïîðòóãàëèåé è Ãðåöèåé, íî è ñ öåíòðîì, òî åñòü ñ Âîñòî÷íîé Ãåðìàíèåé, à òàêæå (ïóñòü è ñ õðîíîëîãè÷åñêèì ñìåùåíèåì) ñ Àâñòðèåé, Èòàëèåé è Çàïàäíîé

32 P. Machcewicz, K. Persak (Hrsg.). Wokó³ Jedwabnego. 2 t. Warszawa, 2002. Ñì. òàêæå E. Dmitrów, P. Machcewicz, T. Szarota. Der Beginn der Vernichtung. Zum Mord an den Juden in Jedwabne und Umgebung im Sommer 1941. Neue Forschungsergebnisse polnischer Historiker. Osnabrück, 2004. 33 E. Renan. Qu’est-ce qu’une nation? Öèò. ïî íåì. èçä.: E. Renan “Was ist eine Nation?” // M. Jeismann, H. Ritter (Hrsg.). Grenzfälle. Über neuen und alten Nationalismus. Leipzig, 1993. S. 294-295. 49 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” Ãåðìàíèåé.34 Ê ýòîìó äîáàâëÿåòñÿ îáùèé îïûò îêêóïàöèè, êîòîðóþ ïåðåæèëè â ÕÕ âåêå è òàêèå çàïàäíîåâðîïåéñêèå îáùåñòâà, êàê Íîðâåãèÿ, Äàíèÿ è Ôðàíöèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïàìÿòü î äèêòàòóðå, íåçàâèñèìî îò ôîðìàëüíûõ îòëè÷èé ìåæäó äèêòàòîðñêèìè ðåæè- ìàìè â òîé èëè èíîé ñòðàíå, ñîäåðæàíèþ è äëèòåëüíîñòè, ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáùååâðîïåéñêèì ôåíîìåíîì.  òî æå âðåìÿ, â âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñêîì ðåãèîíå îáùèé îïûò êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé òèðàíèè îêàçûâàåòñÿ íå óíèôèöèðóþùèì ôàêòîðîì, êàê ìîæåò ïîêàçàòüñÿ ïðè ïîâåðõíîñòíîì âçãëÿäå, à ñêîðåå äèôôåðåíöèðóþùèì, ðàçáèâàþùèì ýòîò ðåãèîí íà î÷åíü ðàçíûå òèïîëîãè÷åñêèå çîíû. Òîëüêî ñ ó÷åòîì èõ íàëè÷èÿ ìîæíî ïîíÿòü êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè â ñòðàíàõ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, õîòÿ íà òåêó- ùåì ýòàïå ãðàíèöû ìåæäó çîíàìè ìîæíî íàìåòèòü ëèøü ïóíêòèðíî, ïîñêîëüêó èçó÷åííîñòü ýòîé òåìàòèêè (çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì Ïîëüøè)35 îñòàâëÿåò æåëàòü ëó÷øåãî.36  öåëîì â ðåãèîíå ìîæíî âûäåëèòü ÷åòûðå òèïà êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè:

34 Ñì. îá ýòîì: S. Troebst “Diktaturerinnerungsvergleich” // K. Ruchniewicz, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung und nationale Selbstvergewisserung. S. 27-35, à òàêæå C. Kraft. “Europäische Peripherie” – “Europäische Identität”. Über den Umgang mit der Vergangenheit im zusammenwachsenden Europa am Beispiel Polens und Spaniens // S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung, Erinnerungspolitik und Geschichtskultur. S. 11-38. 35 Çäåñü ñëåäóåò, ïðåæäå âñåãî, íàçâàòü ðàáîòû ïî èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêå è êóëüòóðå ïàìÿòè äî è ïîñëå 1989 ã., âûïóùåííûå ïîçíàíüñêîé èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöåé íîâåéøåé èñòîðèè Èçàáåëëîé Ìàéí è åå âàðøàâñêèì êîëëåãîé Ïàâëîì Ñîâèíüñêèì. Ñì. I. Main. Political Rituals and Symbols in Poland, 1944-2002. A Research Report. Leipzig, 2003; Eadem. Politische Rituale und Symbole in Polen 1944-2001. Eine analytische Bibliographie // S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung, Erinnerungs- politik und Geschichtskultur S. 71-112; Eadem. Trudne œwiêtowanie. Konflikty wokól obchodów œwi¹t pañstwowych i koœcielnych w Lublinie (1944-1989). Warszawa, 2004; à òàêæå P. Sowiñski. Der 1. Mai als totalitäres Theater in der Volksrepublik Polen (1949-1954) // Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung. 1999. Jg. 48. S. 350-382; Idem. Komunistyczne œwiêto. Obchody 1 maja w latach 1948-1954. Warszawa, 2000; Idem. Gestaltung des historischen Gedächtnisses und Formung eines offiziellen Volkspolen- Bildes mittels organisierter Urlaubsreisen 1945-1989 // K. Ruchniewicz, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung und nationale Selbstvergewisserung. S. 163-171. Î ïîïûòêå èñòî- ðèêî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ ñïåöèôè÷åñêè ìîðñêîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû â Ïîëüøå â ïåðèîä ìåæäó 1920 è 2000 ãã. ñì. S. Troebst. “Intermarium” und “Vermählung mit dem Meer”. Kognitive Karten und Geschichtspolitik in Ostmittel- europa // Geschichte und Gesellschaft. 2002. H. 28. S. 435-469, îñîáåííî S. 460-468. 36 Ñì. ñåðèþ “Vademekum”, ïîñâÿùåííóþ ãîñóäàðñòâàì Öåíòðàëüíîé è Âîñ- òî÷íîé Åâðîïû è âûïóùåííóþ Ôîíäîì èçó÷åíèÿ äèêòàòóðû ÑÅÏÃ. Íà ñåãîä- íÿøíèé äåíü âûøëè â ñâåò: K. Ruchniewicz u. a. (Hrsg.). Vademekum Zeitgeschichte 50 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 1. Ê ïåðâîìó òèïó ìîæíî îòíåñòè îáùåñòâà, äëÿ êîòîðûõ õàðàê- òåðåí êîíñåíñóñ îòíîñèòåëüíî òîãî, ÷òî êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèé ðåæèì áûë íàâÿçàí èì èçâíå, áûë “÷óæäûì”, â òîì ÷èñëå è ýòíè÷åñêè ÷óæäûì. Ýòî, ïðåæäå âñåãî, Ýñòîíèÿ, Ëàòâèÿ è Ëèòâà. Çäåñü ñëåäóåò îñîáî óïîìÿíóòü òðè êðóïíûõ èñòîðèêî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ èíñòèòóòà â Òàëëèííå, Ðèãå è Âèëüíþñå, à èìåííî – “Ìóçåé îêêóïàöèé

Polen. Ein Leitfaden durch Archive, Forschungsinstitutionen, Bibliotheken, Gesellschaften, Museen und Gedenkstätten. Berlin, 2004; S. Olaru, G. Herbstritt (Hrsg.). Vademekum Contemporary History Romania. A Guide through Archives, Research Institutions, Libraries, Societies, Museums and Memorial Places. Berlin, 2004. Ñì. òàêæå: C. Burrichter, G. Schödl (Hrsg.). Ohne Erinnerung keine Zukunft. Zur Aufarbeitung von Vergangenheit in einigen europäischen Gesellschaften unserer Tage. Köln, 1992; A. Leo (Hrsg.). Die wiedergefundene Erinnerung. Verdrängte Geschichte in Osteuropa. Berlin, 1992; R. S. Esbenshade. Remem- bering to Forget. Memory, History, National Identity in Postwar East-Central Europe // Representations. 1995. Vol. 49 (Winter). Pp. 72-96; International Council on Monuments and Sites (Ed.). Bildersturm in Osteuropa. Die Denkmäler der kommunistischen Ära im Umbruch. Eine Tagung des Deutschen Nationalkomitees von ICOMOS, des Instituts für Auslandsbeziehungen und der Senatsverwaltung Berlin in der Botschaft der Russischen Föderation in Berlin, 18.-20. Februar 1993. München, 1995; D. Geyer. Erblasten und Erinnerungen. Mittel- und Osteuropa fünfzig Jahre nach der deutschen Kapitulation // Osteuropa. 1995. Jg. 45. S. 395-409; B. Unfried (Hrsg.). Spuren des “Realsozialismus” in Böhmen und der Slowakei. Monumente – Museen - Gedenktage. Wien, 1996; E. Brix, H. Stekl (Hrsg.). Der Kampf um das Gedächtnis. Öffentliche Gedenktage in Mitteleuropa. Wien, 1997; D. Gamboni. Iconoclasm and Vandalism since the French Revolution. London, 1997; Akademie der Künste Berlin (Hrsg.). Denkmale und kulturelles Gedächtnis nach dem Ende der Ost-West-Konfrontation. Dokumentation der internationalen Fachtagung vom 18. Bis 22. November 1998 in Berlin. Berlin, 1999; P. Bock, E. Wolfrum (Hrsg.). Umkämpfte Vergangenheit. Geschichtsbilder, Erinnerung und Vergangenheitspolitik im internationalen Vergleich. Göttingen, 1999; I. de Keghel, R. Maier (Hrsg.). Auf den Kehrich- thaufen der Geschichte? Der Umgang mit der sozialistischen Vergangenheit. Hannover, 1999; B. Spinelli. Der Gebrauch der Erinnerung; M. Csáky. Gedächtnis, Erinnerung und die Kons- truktion von Identität. Das Beispiel Zentraleuropa // C. Bosshart-Pfluger, J. Jung, F. Metzger (Hrsg.). Nation und Nationalismus in Europa. Kulturelle Konstruktion von Identitäten. Festschrift für Urs Altermatt. Frauenfeld, 2002. S. 25-49; J. le Rider, M. Csáky, M. Sommer (Hrsg.). Transnationale Gedächtnisorte in Zentraleuropa. Wien, 2002; R. Jaworski. Alte und neue Gedächtnisorte in Osteuropa nach dem Sturz des Kommunismus // Idem., J. Kusber, L. Steindorff (Hrsg.). Gedächtnisorte in Osteuropa. Vergangenheiten auf dem Prüfstand. Frankfurt à. M., 2003. S. 11-25; Idem. Umstrittene Gedächtnisorte in Ostmitteleuropa // H. Uhl (Hrsg.). Zivilisationsbruch und Gedächtniskultur. Das 20. Jahrhundert in der Erinne- rung des beginnenden 21. Jahrhunderts. Innsbruck, 2003. S. 181-195; F. Pine, D. Kaneff, H. Haukanes (Eds.). Memory, Politics and Religion. The Past Meets the Present in Europe. Münster, 2004; G. Gersmann, E. Wolfrum (Hrsg.). Totenkult und Erinnerungskultur in der west- und osteuropäischen Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (= òåìàòè÷åñêèé 51 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” Ýñòîíèè”, “Ëàòâèéñêèé ìóçåé îêêóïàöèè” è ëèòîâñêèé “Ìóçåé æåðòâ ãåíîöèäà”.37 Ê ýòîìó æå òèïó ïðèíàäëåæàò Õîðâàòèÿ è Êîñî- âî, ãäå ñîâåòñêàÿ ìîäåëü ñ þãîñëàâñêèìè ìîäèôèêàöèÿìè âîñ- ïðèíèìàåòñÿ êàê “ñåðáîêîììóíèçì”.38  íåêîòîðîì ñìûñëå ñþäà æå îòíîñèòñÿ è Ñëîâàêèÿ, ãäå êîììóíèçì àññîöèèðóåòñÿ ñ ÷åøñ- êèì âëèÿíèåì.39

íîìåð zeitenblicke. 2004. Jg. 3. Nr. 1) See http://www.zeitenblicke.historicum.net/2004/ 01. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005ã.; A. Corbea-Hoisie, R. Jaworski, M. Sommer (Hrsg.). Umbruch in Osteuropa. Die nationale Wende und das kollektive Gedächtnis. Innsbruck, 2004; W. Benz (Hrsg.). Wann ziehen wir endlich den Schlußstrich? Von der Not-wendigkeit öffentlicher Erinnerung in Deutschland, Polen und Tschechien. Berlin, 2004; J. Landkammer, W. C. Zimmerli, Th. Noetzel (Hrsg.). Erinnerungspolitik. Systemtrans-formation und Vergangenheitsmanagement im internationalen Vergleich. München (â ïå÷àòè); W. Höpken. Labyrinthe der Erinnerung. Kulturelle Gedächtnisse auf dem Balkan. Münster (â ïå÷àòè); Ch. Cornelissen, R. Holec, J. Pešek (Hrsg.). Diktatur - Krieg – Vertrei-bungen. Erinnerungskulturen in Tschechien, der Slowakei und Deutschland seit 1945. Essen (â ïå÷àòè); H. Altrichter (Hg.). GegenErinnerung. Geschichte als politisches Argument im Transformationsprozess Ost-, Ostmittel- und Südosteuropas. München (â ïå÷àòè). Î ìóçûêå è åå ìåñòå â êóëüòóðå âîñïîìèíàíèÿ â Þãî-Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïå ïîñëå 1989 ã. ñì.: B. B. Reuer (Hrsg.). Musik im Umbruch. Kulturelle Identität und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in Südosteuropa. München, 1999. 37 Ñì. K. Brüggemann. Von der Renationalisierung zur Demontage nationaler Helden, oder: “Wie schreibt man estnische Geschichte?” // Osteuropa. 2001. Jg. 51. S. 810-819; E.-C. Onken. Lettland. Wahrnehmung und Erinnerung. Der Zweite Weltkrieg in Lettland // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 671-686; M. Kohrs. Litauen. Von der Opfer- zur Täterdebatte // Ibid. S. 693-711. 38 H. Sundhaussen. Jugoslawien und seine Nachfolgestaaten. Konstruktion, Dekonstruktion und Neukonstruktion von “Erinnerungen” und “Mythen” // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 1. S. 373-413; M. Brkljaèiæ, H. Sundhaussen. Symbolwandel und symbolischer Wandel. Kroatiens “Erinnerungskulturen” // W. Jilge, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Staatssymbolik und Geschichtskultur im neuen Osteuropa. Stuttgart, 2003. S. 933-948 (= òåìàòè÷åñêèé íîìåð Osteuropa. 2003. Jg. 53. H. 7); D. Rihtman- Auguštin. The Monument in the Main City Square. Constructing and Erasing Memory in Contemporary Croatia // M. Todorova (Ed.). Balkan Identities. Nation and Memory. London, 2004. Pp. 180-196. 39 T. Tönsmeyer. Slowakei. Der Zweite Weltkrieg. Erfahrung und Erinnerung // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 799-812; L. Lipták. Politische Veränderungen der Denkmäler und Denkmäler der politischen Veränderungen in der Slowakei // B. Unfried (Hrsg.). Spuren des “Realsozialismus”. S. 151-187; E. Mannová. Das kollektive Gedächtnis der Slowaken und die Reflexion der vergangenen Herrschaftsstrukturen // J. Feichtinger, U. Prutsch, M. Csáky (Hrsg.). Habsburg post- colonial. Machtstrukturen und kollektives Gedächtnis. Innsbruck, 2003. S. 189-196. 52 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 2. Âòîðîé òèï îõâàòûâàåò òå ñòðàíû, â êîòîðûõ íå ñóùåñòâóåò ïîäîáíîãî áàçîâîãî êîíñåíñóñà è èäóò ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ñïîðû âîêðóã èíòåðïðåòàöèè ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî ïðîøëîãî. Ýòî, íàïðèìåð, õàðàê- òåðíî äëÿ Âåíãðèè, ãäå ìóçåé “Äîì òåððîðà”, îòêðûòûé â çäàíèè, â êîòîðîì â 1945-1955 ãã. ðàçìåùàëàñü áóäàïåøòñêàÿ øòàá-êâàðòèðà ñëóæáû ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé áåçîïàñíîñòè, âûçâàë âåñüìà îñòðóþ ïîëèòèçèðîâàííóþ äèñêóññèþ.40 Ïðîòèâíèêè ìóçåÿ ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî ýêñïîçèöèÿ, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ äèêòàòóðå óëüòðàïðàâîé Ïàðòèè Ñêðå- ùåííûõ Ñòðåë (1944-1945), ÷åé òåððîð òîæå ñâÿçàí ñ ýòèì çäàíèåì, ñäåëàíà òàì ëèøü äëÿ ïðîôîðìû. Òàêèå æå îæåñòî÷åííûå ñïîðû èìåëè ìåñòî è ïðîäîëæàþò âåñòèñü â Ïîëüøå è â ×åøñêîé Ðåñïóá- ëèêå. Âîçíèêøèå òàì èíèöèàòèâû â îáëàñòè êóëüòóðû âîñïîìè- íàíèÿ, èñõîäÿùèå îò ãðàæäàíñêîãî îáùåñòâà,41 ïîêà íàõîäÿòñÿ â çà÷àòî÷íîé ñòàäèè ìóçåéíîé èíñòèòóöèàëèçàöèè. Èëëþñòðèðóþò ñêàçàííîå Ôîíä “SocLand – ìóçåé êîììóíèçìà” â âàðøàâñêîì Äâîðöå êóëüòóðû èëè îñíîâàííûé àìåðèêàíñêèì ïðåäïðèíèìàòåëåì êîììåð÷åñêèé “Ìóçåé êîììóíèçìà” â Ïðàãå. Ê ýòîìó æå òèïó êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè, âèäèìî, ñëåäóåò îòíåñòè Ñëîâåíèþ, à òàêæå Óêðàèíó – åäèíñòâåííóþ ðåñïóáëèêó ÑÍÃ, â êîòîðîé êóëüòóðà âîñïîìèíàíèÿ ñòàëà âàæíåéøèì ïîëåì áèòâû ìåæäó äâóìÿ êðóï-

40 É. Kovács. “Das uns alle verzehrende historische Fieber” in Ungarn // Südosteuropa. 2002. Jg. 51. S. 388-411. Ñì. òàêæå C. Machos. Wem gehört “1956”? Die Auseinandersetzung der Parteien im postsozialistischen Ungarn um Erbe und Erben der Revolution // P. Bock, E. Wolfrum (Hrsg.). Umkämpfte Vergangenheit. S. 114-142; Eadem. Mythen und Rituale des ungarischen Systemwechsels // Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissen- schaften. 1992. Bd. 10. S. 210-237; G. Boros. Gloria Victis. Wiedergutmachtung auf Ungarns öffentlichen Plätzen. Die Denkmäler der Revolution von 1956 // Akademie der Künste Berlin (Hrsg.). Denkmale und kulturelles Gedächtnis. S. 199-212; E. Marosi. Sturz alter und Errichtung neuer Denkmäler in Ungarn 1989-1992 // International Council on Monuments and Sites (Hrsg.). Bildersturm in Osteuropa. S. 58-62. Î ñïåöèôèêå âåíãåðñêîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû ñì. Á. von Klimó. Nation, Konfession, Geschichtre. Zur nationalen Geschichtskultur Ungarns im europäischen Kontext (1860-1948). München, 2003. 41 Ñì. îá ýòîì Z. Gluza. Das Jahrhundert der Diktaturen dokumentieren. Das Zentrum KARTA // K. Ruchniewicz, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung und nationale Selbstvergewisserung. S. 75-81, à òàêæå K. Kaiserová. Memoiren – ein Beitrag zur Erinnerungskultur // D. Bingen, W. Borodziej, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Vertreibungen europäisch erinnern? Historische Erfahrungen – Vergangenheitspolitik – Zukunftskon- zeptionen. Wiesbaden, 2003. S. 242-247. 53 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” íûìè ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ëàãåðÿìè – ïîñòêîììóíèñòàìè è íàöèîíàë- ëèáåðàëàìè.42 3. Òðåòèé òèï êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè õàðàêòåðåí äëÿ ñòðàí, â êîòîðûõ ïðåîáëàäàåò äâîéñòâåííîå è îäíîâðåìåííî àïàòè÷íîå îòíîøåíèå ê ïðîøëîìó: êîììóíèçì, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, âîñïðèíèìàåòñÿ êàê íå÷òî íàâÿçàííîå èçâíå è “÷óæäîå” ñèñòåìå öåííîñòåé ýòîé íàöèè, íî, ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ, ÷òî êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèé ðåæèì ñïîñîáñòâîâàë ìîäåðíèçàöèè, òàê ÷òî “íå âñå áûëî òàê ïëîõî”. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, íåäàâíåå ïðîøëîå èãðàåò çäåñü âòîðîñòåïåííóþ ðîëü â ïóáëè÷íîì äèñêóðñå. Ðå÷ü èäåò, ïðåæäå âñåãî, î òàêèõ îáùåñòâàõ, â êîòîðûõ “ñòàðûå” è “íîâûå” ýëèòû ïðèìåðíî ðàâíû ïî ñèëå è ñìåíÿþò äðóã äðóãà ó âëàñòè. Íàèëó÷øèìè ïðèìåðàìè ÿâëÿþòñÿ Áîëãàðèÿ è Ðóìûíèÿ, äàëåå ñëåäóåò íàçâàòü Àëáàíèþ, Ìàêåäîíèþ è Ñåðáèþ ñ ×åðíîãîðèåé.43 Áîëüøàÿ ÷àñòü íåìíîãî- ÷èñëåííûõ ìåìîðèàëîâ, ñîçäàíûõ â ýòèõ ñòðàíàõ îðãàíèçàöèÿìè æåðòâ äèêòàòóðû, âûãëÿäÿò î÷åíü ñêðîìíî è íàöèîíàëüíîé îáùåñòâåííîñòè ïðàêòè÷åñêè íåèçâåñòíû. Îíè, ñêîðåå, ÿâëÿþòñÿ èñêëþ÷åíèÿìè, êîòîðûå ïîäòâåðæäàþò ïðàâèëî, à íå îïðîâåð- ãàþò åãî. Ïîêàçàòåëüíûé âî ìíîãèõ ñìûñëàõ ïðèìåð – âïå÷àòëÿþùèé “Ìåìîðèàë æåðòâ êîììóíèçìà è ñîïðîòèâëåíèÿ”, ñîçäàííûé

42 T. Richardson. Disciplining the Past in Post-Soviet Ukraine. Memory and History in Schools and Families // F. Pine, D. Kaneff, H. Haukanes (Eds.). Memory, Politics and Religion. Pp. 109-132; J. Scherrer. Ukraine. Konkurrierende Erinnerungen // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 719-730; C. Wanner. Burden of Dreams. History and Identity in Post-Soviet Ukraine. University Park, PA, 1998; W. Jilge. Historical Memory and National Identity-Building in Ukraine since 1991 // A. Pók, J. Rüsen, J. Scherrer (Eds.). European History. Challenge for a Common Future. Hamburg, 2002. Pp. 111-134; Â. Êðàâ÷åíêî. Áîé ñ òåíüþ. Ñîâåòñêîå ïðîøëîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ñîâðåìåííîãî óêðàèíñêîãî îáùåñòâà // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹ 2. Ñ. 329-368; Idem. Nationale Geschichtsbilder in ukrainischen Geschichtslehrbüchern. Am Beispiel der Darstellung der Kiever Rus’ // Osteuropa. 2000. Jg. 50. S. 1233-1253; J. Šapoval. Eigene Überzeugung oder Import von außen? Krieg und Frieden mit der sozialistischen Vergangenheit in den aktuellen Schulbüchern der Ukraine // I. de Keghel, R. Maier (Hrsg.). Auf den Kehrichthaufen der Geschichte? S. 151-160; E. Krylaè, S. Kul’èickij. Die Diskussionen in der Ukraine über die Schulbücher zur vaterländischen Geschichte // Ibid. S. 161-170. 43 Î Ìàêåäîíèè ñì. èññëåäîâàíèå î ìåìîðèàëüíîì êîìïëåêñå Ìå÷êèí Êàìåí â Êðóøåâå: K. Brown. The Past in Question. Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation. Princeton, Oxford, 2003, à òàêæå îáçîðíóþ ñòàòüþ S. Troebst. Geschicht- spolitik und historische “Meistererzählungen” in Makedonien vor und nach 1991 // Österreichische Osthefte. 2002. Jg. 44. S. 453-472. 54 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 â áûâøåé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé òþðüìå ìàëåíüêîãî ãîðîäêà Ñèãåòó Ìàðìà- öèåè, íà ñàìîé îêðàèíå ñòðàíû. Ýòîò ìåìîðèàë áîëüøå èçâåñòåí â Åâðîïåéñêîì Ñîþçå, ÷åì â ñàìîé Ðóìûíèè.44 4. È íàêîíåö, ÷åòâåðòûé òèï êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ ãîñóäàðñòâà, â êîòîðûõ “íîâàÿ” ýëèòà íå ïðîñòî âûøëà èç “ñòàðîé”, êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé, íî è îñòàåòñÿ â ñîþçå ñ íåé, ò.å. íàëèöî êîíòè- íóèòåò àâòîðèòàðíûõ ñòðóêòóð, íå îòìåæåâàâøèõñÿ îò êîììóíèñ- òè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêè ãîñïîäñòâà. Ýòî – Ðîññèéñêàÿ Ôåäåðàöèÿ, Ìîëäîâà è äðóãèå ãîñóäàðñòâà ÑÍÃ, à òàêæå ñòðàíû, ãäå àâòîðè- òàðíî âëàñòâóþùèå ýëèòû îòêðûòî îïèðàþòñÿ íà êîììóíèñòè- ÷åñêóþ ìîäåëü è äàæå çàÿâëÿþò, ÷òî çà íåé áóäóùåå: ÿ èìåþ â âèäó Áåëàðóñü è ôàêòè÷åñêè ñóùåñòâóþùóþ ðóññêîÿçû÷íóþ Ïðèäíåñò- ðîâñêóþ ðåñïóáëèêó â âîñòî÷íîé ÷àñòè Ìîëäîâû. Âìåñòî äåñîâå- òèçàöèè â íèõ ïðîèçîøëî ëèøü ïåðåêðàøèâàíèå ñîâåòñêîé êóëü- òóðíîé íîðìû â íàöèîíàëüíûå èëè ðåãèîíàëüíûå öâåòà.45

44 Ñì. îá ýòîì: K.-P. Schwarz. In der schwarzen Zelle. Wie Rumänien der vielen Opfer der Securitate gedenkt // Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. 2004. Nr. 35. 29. August. S. 8; Civic Academy Foundation (Ed.). The Memorial of the Victims of Commu- nism and of the Resistance, Sighet, Romania. Bucureºti s. d. Î Ðóìûíèè â öåëîì ñì.: H.-Ch. Maner. Die “andauernde Vergangenheit”. Der Umgang mit dem Vermächtnis der kommu- nistischen Herrschaft in Rumänien (1990-1996) // Osteuropa. 1998. Jg. 48. S. 1024-1040; J. Krauß. “Postkommunistischer Antikommunismus”. Wahrnehmung und Darstellung rumä- nischer Zeitgeschichte // “Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus”, Addendum; à òàêæå â èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé äèñêóññèè – M. Anghelescu, L. Schippel (Hrsg.). Im Dialog. Rumä- nische Kultur und Literatur. Leipzig, 2000. S. 179-186; L. Boia. Rumänien. Unterschiedliche Erinnerungen an den Zweiten Weltkrieg // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 541-561; Idem. Geschichte und Mythos. Über die Gegenwart des Vergangenen in der rumänischen Gesellschaft. Köln, 2003; A. Heinen. Der Tod des Diktators und die Gegenwart der Vergangenheit. Rumänien 1989-2002 // zeitenblicke. 2004. Jg. 3. Nr. 1. See http://zeitenblicke.historicum.net/2004/01/heinen/index.html. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 45 Îá àìáèâàëåíòíîé áåëîðóññêîé êóëüòóðå âîñïîìèíàíèÿ ñì. P. Rentrop. [Belarus’:] Arbeiten an der Erinnerung. Geschichte und kollektives Gedächtnis // Osteuropa. 2004. Jg. 54. S. 146-157; B. Chiari, R. Maier. Weißrußland. Volkskrieg und Heldenstädte. Zum Mythos des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges in Weißrußland // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 737-751; î ìîëäàâñêîé – V. Dumbrava. Die Rolle der Denkmäler in der MSSR/Republik Moldova bei der Identitätskonstruktion // L. Schippel (Hrsg.). Im Dialog. Rumänistik im deutschsprachigen Raum. Frankfurt à. M., 2004. S. 397-409; î ïðèäíåñòðîâñêîé – S. Troebst. “We Are Transnistrians!” Post-Soviet Identity Management in the Dniester Valley // Ab Imperio. 2003. ¹ 1. Ñ. 437-466; Idem. The “Trans- nistrian Moldovan Republic”, 1990-2002. From Conflict-Driven State-Building to State- Driven Nation-Building // European Yearbook of Minority Issues. 2002/03. Vol. 2. Pp. 5-30. 55 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” Äëÿ âñåõ ÷åòûðåõ òèïîâ õàðàêòåðíî òî, ÷òî ýòíîíàöèîíàëèçì âûñòóïàåò â íèõ ëèáî â êà÷åñòâå îñíîâíîé ñèñòåìû îòñ÷åòà, ëèáî â êà÷åñòâå åäèíîãî çíàìåíàòåëÿ äëÿ âñåãî îáùåñòâà, è ïîýòîìó äàííûé ôàêòîð íå ñëóæèò äèôôåðåíöèðóþùèì ïðèçíàêîì. Ïîäëèííîé differentia specifica â ïðåäëîæåííîé êëàññèôèêàöèè ÿâ- ëÿåòñÿ îòíîøåíèå ê êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîìó ïðîøëîìó. Ñ ýòîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ Âîñòî÷íóþ Åâðîïó ìîæíî ðàçäåëèòü íà òðè ÷àñòè, êîòîðûå, êàê è ñëåäîâàëî îæèäàòü, ñîîòâåòñòâóþò èñòîðè÷åñêè ñëîæèâøå- ìóñÿ ðàçäåëåíèþ ðåãèîíà: Þãî-Âîñòî÷íàÿ Åâðîïà è Ðîññèÿ, òî÷íåå – âîñòî÷íî-ñëàâÿíñêèå çåìëè, – îáðàçóþò “ïðàâîñëàâíóþ” çîíó ñî ñâîåé êóëüòóðîé âîñïîìèíàíèÿ, îòëè÷íîé îò âîñòîêà Öåíòðàëüíîé Åâðîïû; îò íèõ îáåèõ ñèëüíî îòëè÷àåòñÿ îñîáàÿ ñåâåðî-âîñòî÷íàÿ åâðîïåéñêàÿ çîíà, âêëþ÷àþùàÿ òðè ïðèáàëòèéñêèå ðåñïóáëèêè.46

V. Åñëè ïðèëîæèòü îïèñàííûé Òèìîòè Ãàðòîí Ýø “íåìåöêèé ñòàíäàðò” ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî ê êàæäîìó èç âûäåëåííûõ íàìè ÷åòûðåõ òèïîâ êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè, ñðàçó áðîñèòñÿ â ãëàçà, ÷òî òèïû 3 è 4 ñèëüíî îò íåãî îòñòàþò. Íî äàæå ÷åòêî “àíòèêîììóíèñòè- ÷åñêè” îðèåíòèðîâàííûé òèï 1, ñ íåìåöêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, âûãëÿäèò ïðîáëåìàòè÷íî – ÷òî ïðîÿâèëîñü, â ÷àñòíîñòè, â ðåàêöèè íåìöåâ íà Ëåéïöèãñêóþ ðå÷ü (24 ìàðòà 2004 ã.) áûâøåãî ëàòûøñêîãî ìèíèñòðà èíîñòðàííûõ äåë è êðàòêîâðåìåííîãî êîìèññàðà ÅÑ Ñàíäðû Êàëíèåòå, îçàãëàâëåííóþ “Ñòàðàÿ Åâðîïà, íîâàÿ Åâðîïà”. Èñõîäÿ èç ñâîåãî ëè÷íîãî îïûòà – à Êàëíèåòå ðîäèëàñü â ñåìüå, äåïîðòèðîâàííîé ÍÊÂÄ â Ñèáèðü,47 – îíà, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, íåóìûøëåííî, íàðóøèëà êîíñåíñóñ, öàðèâøèé â çàïàäíîãåðìàíñêîé ïîëèòèêå îòíîñèòåëüíî èåðàðõèè êîììóíèçìà è íàöèîíàë-ñîöèà- ëèçìà. Êëþ÷åâîé ïàññàæ åå ðå÷è çâó÷àë òàê: Åâðîïà òîëüêî ÷òî îñâîáîäèëàñü îò ÷óìû íàöèçìà. Íî ïîñëå êðîâîïðîëèòèÿ è âîéíû ëèøü íåìíîãèå ëþäè èìåëè ñèëó ñìîò- ðåòü â ãëàçà ãîðüêîé ïðàâäå – â ÷àñòíîñòè, ïðèçíàòü, ÷òî â îäíîé

46 Î äåëåíèè Âîñòîêà Åâðîïû íà “èñòîðè÷åñêèå ðåãèîíû”, òàêèå êàê Þãî- Âîñòî÷íàÿ, Âîñòî÷íàÿ Öåíòðàëüíàÿ, Ñåâåðî-Âîñòî÷íàÿ è ñîáñòâåííî ðóññêî- âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêàÿ Âîñòî÷íàÿ Åâðîïà, ñì. K. Zernack. Osteuropa. Eine Einführung in seine Geschichte. München 1977. S. 33-41; S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Geschichtsregionen. Concepts and Critique. Milton Park, Abingdon, 2004 (= òåìàòè÷åñêèé íîìåð European Review of History/Revue européenne d’histoire. 2003. Vol. 10. No. 2). 47 S. Kalniete. Ar balles kurpçm Sibîrijas sniegos. Riga, 2001. 56 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ÷àñòè Åâðîïû òåððîð íå çàêîí÷èëñÿ: çà æåëåçíûì çàíàâåñîì ñîâåòñêèé ðåæèì ïðîäîëæàë ãåíîöèä íàðîäîâ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû è äàæå ñîáñòâåííîãî íàðîäà. Áîëåå 50 ëåò èñòîðèÿ Åâðîïû ïèñàëàñü áåç íàñ. Ïîáåäèòåëè Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû äåëèëè âñåõ íà äîáðûõ è çëûõ, íà ïðàâûõ è âèíîâàòûõ. Òîëüêî ïîñëå ïàäåíèÿ æåëåçíîãî çàíàâåñà èññëåäîâàòåëè ïîëó÷èëè äîñòóï ê àðõèâíûì äîêóìåíòàì è áèîãðàôèÿì ýòèõ æåðòâ. Ýòè äîêóìåíòû äîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî îáà òîòàëèòàðíûõ ðåæèìà – íàöèçì è êîììóíèçì – áûëè â ðàâíîé ñòåïåíè ïðåñòóïíû. Íè â êîåì ñëó÷àå íåëüçÿ îöåíèâàòü èõ ïî-ðàçíîìó íà îñíîâàíèè òîãî ôàêòà, ÷òî îäèí èç íèõ ñòîÿë íà ñòîðîíå ïîáåäèòåëåé. Áîðüáà Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà ïðîòèâ ôàøèçìà íå ìîæåò ñëóæèòü îñíîâàíèåì äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû íàâñåãäà ïðîñòèòü åìó åãî ïðåñòóïëå- íèÿ ïðîòèâ áåñ÷èñëåííûõ íåâèííûõ æåðòâ, óãíåòåííûõ âî èìÿ êëàññîâîé èäåîëîãèè. ß óáåæäåíà, ÷òî äîëã íàøåãî ïîêîëåíèÿ – èñïðàâèòü ýòó îøèáêó. Ïðîèãðàâøèå äîëæíû ïèñàòü ñâîþ èñòîðèþ, ïîòîìó ÷òî è îíà çàñëóæèâàåò çàêîííîãî ìåñòà â èñòî- ðèè êîíòèíåíòà.  ïðîòèâíîì ñëó÷àå èñòîðèÿ Åâðîïû îñòà- íåòñÿ îäíîñòîðîííåé, íåïîëíîé è íå÷åñòíîé.48 Òðåáîâàíèÿ Ñàíäðû Êàëíèåòå ê “íîâîé” Åâðîïå, âûñêàçàííûå â ýòîé ðå÷è, à çàòåì â îòâåòå49 íà êðèòèêó â åå àäðåñ ñî ñòîðîíû áîëüøèíñòâà ëàòâèéñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ, áûëè ñóùåñòâåííî ìåíåå ñåíñàöèîííû, ÷åì ìîæíî áûëî ïîäóìàòü, ÷èòàÿ è ñëóøàÿ îòêëèêè â íåìåöêèõ ñðåäñòâàõ ìàññîâîé èíôîðìàöèè. Âåäü òî, ÷òî îíà ñêàçàëà î ðàâíîöåííîñòè íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà è êîììóíèçìà, â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ìåðå ñîâïàäàåò ñ ðàçäåëÿåìîé âñåìè ïîëÿêàìè èñòîðèêî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïîçèöèåé ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ìàññîâîé êàçíè â Êàòûíè, ñîâåðøåííîé Êðàñíîé Àðìèåé è ïðèïèñàííîé ñîâåòñêèìè

48 Öèò. ïî: Leipzig liest. Das Lesefest zur Buchmesse, 25-28. März, 2004. Dokumentation: “Es darf keinen Unterschied geben” (http://www.mdr.de/leipzig-liest/1287299-hintergrund- 1198467.html. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã.). Àíãëèéñêèé îðèãèíàë ñì. S. Kalniete. Old Europe, New Europe. Leipzig, 24. März, 2004 (http://www.mdr.de/ DL/1290734.pdf. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã.). Ñì., êðîìå òîãî, J. von Alten-bockum. Der lange Schatten. Lettland und die “Gleichsetzung” von Stalinismus und Nationalsozialismus // Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2004. Nr. 80. 3. April. S. 10. 49  ýòîì îòâåòå îíà ïîä÷åðêèâàëà, ÷òî ëèøü ïûòàëàñü “ïîçíàêîìèòüñÿ ñ íàøåé ïîäëèííîé èñòîðèåé. Ìû îùóùàåì îáÿçàííîñòü ñêàçàòü ïðàâäó”. Öèò. ïî: I. Brodersen, R. Dammann. Editorial. “Judenschmerz” // Kafka. Zeitschrift für Mittel- europa. 2004. H. 14. S. 7. 57 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” âëàñòÿìè âåðìàõòó. Ñõîæèé ïðèìåð – îòíîøåíèå â Ýñòîíèè ê íîâîìó “Ìóçåþ îêêóïàöèé Ýñòîíèè”, ò.å. ñîâåòñêîé îêêóïàöèè â 1940-1941 ãã., íåìåöêî-ôàøèñòñêîé â 1941-1944 ãã. è ñíîâà ñîâåòñêîé â 1944-1991 ãã. Ïî ñòåïåíè ïðåçðåíèÿ ê ÷åëîâåêó è æåñòîêîñòè îäíà îêêóïàöèîííàÿ âëàñòü íè÷åì íå îòëè÷àëàñü îò äðóãîé. Ýòà ñóììàðíàÿ îöåíêà ïÿòè äåñÿòèëåòèé äèêòàòóðû (1939-1989) â Ïîëüøå äàæå íàøëà ñâîå èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîå âîïëîùåíèå: õðîíîëîãè÷åñêèå ðàìêè, â êîòîðûõ ðàáîòàþò “Ñîâåò ïî ñîõðàíåíèþ ïàìÿòè î âîéíàõ è ìó÷åíè÷åñòâå” (Rada Ochrony Pamiêci Walk i Mêczeñstwa), ïîä÷èíÿâøèéñÿ ñíà÷àëà ÌÂÄ, à ïîòîì Ìèíèñòåðñòâó êóëüòóðû, è ñîçäàííûé â 2000 ã. ïðè ïðàâèòåëüñòâå “Èíñòèòóò íàöèîíàëüíîé ïàìÿòè” (Instytut Pamiêci Narodowej) îõâàòûâàþò è êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèé ïåðèîä, è ãîäû Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû.50 Äëÿ Ïîëüøè ýòà èíòåãðàëüíàÿ ïåðñïåê- òèâà óñèëèâàåòñÿ áëàãîäàðÿ òðàâìå ßëòû.  õîäå ðàçäåëà ñôåð âëè- ÿíèÿ ìåæäó òðåìÿ îñíîâíûìè ñîþçíèêàìè ïî àíòèãèòëåðîâñêîé êîàëèöèè â 1945 ã. Ïîëüøà, ñ ìîë÷àëèâîãî ñîãëàñèÿ Ëîíäîíà è Âàøèíãòîíà, âîñïðèíÿòîãî ïîëÿêàìè êàê ïðåäàòåëüñòâî, áûëà îòíåñåíà ê ñîâåòñêîé ñôåðå âëèÿíèÿ. Ïðè ýòîì Ïîëüøà ïîòåðÿëà ÷àñòü òåððèòîðèè íà âîñòîêå è ïðèîáðåëà çåìëè íà çàïàäå.51 Ìèëàí

50 Î Ïîëüñêîì Èíñòèòóòå íàöèîíàëüíîé ïàìÿòè ñì. K. Sauerland. Folgen eines Verdachts. Polen diskutiert über das Institut für Nationales Gedenken // Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2004. Nr. 282. 2 äåêàáðÿ. S. 37, à òàêæå http://www.ipn.gov.pl/. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. Êðîìå òîãî, ñî÷åòàíèå çàäà÷ ïî èññëåäîâàíèþ è êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîãî ïåðèîäà, è âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû õàðàêòåðíî äëÿ îñíîâàííîãî â 2003 ã. Ñëîâàöêîãî Èíñòèòóòà ïàìÿòè íàöèè (Ústav pamäti národa) â Áðàòèñëàâå. Ñì. îá ýòîì J. Croitoru. Die flüsternde Agentin // Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2004. Nr. 285. 6 äåêàáðÿ. S. 36, à òàêæå http://www.upn.gov.sk. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. Èíûå çàäà÷è ïîñòàâëåíû ïåðåä “Óïðàâëåíèåì äîêó- ìåíòàöèè è ðàññëåäîâàíèÿ ïðåñòóïëåíèé êîììóíèçìà”, ñîçäàííûì ïðè ÷åøñêîé ïîëèöèè â Ïðàãå (Úøad dokumentace a vyšetøování zloèinù komunismu). Ñì. îá ýòîì http://www.mvcr.cz/policie/udv/deutsch/index.html. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 51 Ñì. îá ýòîì J. Holzer. Jalta // E. Kobyliñska, A. Lawaty, R. Stephan (Hrsg.). Deutsche und Polen. 100 Schlüsselbegriffe. München, 1992. S. 401-406; S. Troebst. Jalta als polnischer Erinnerungsort // Dialog. Deutsch-polnisches Magazin. 2003. H. 62-63. S. 58-60. Îáçîð ïîëüñêèõ “ìåñò ïàìÿòè”, ñ êîòîðûìè ïîñëå 1989 ã. ñâÿçàíû áîëåçíåííûå äëÿ íàöèè îùóùåíèÿ, ñì. â ðàáîòå: K. Ruchniewicz. Die Kultur des Gedächtnisses in Polen, seine Erinnerungspolitik und die gemeinsame europäische Zukunft // D. Bingen, S. Troebst, W. Borodziej (Hrsg.). Vertreibungen europäisch erinnern? S. 261-265; à òàêæå î ñîâðå- ìåííîì âçãëÿäå ïîëÿêîâ íà âòîðóþ ìèðîâóþ âîéíó – B. Kosmala. Polen. Lange Schatten der Erinnerung. Der Zweite Weltkrieg im kollektiven Gedächtnis // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 509-530; R. Traba. Symbole pamiêci. II wojna œwiatowa w œwiadomoœci zbiorowej Polaków. Szkic do tematu // Przegl¹d Zachodni. 2000. 294. No. 1; 58 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Êóíäåðà ïðåäëîæèë îáðàçíîå âûðàæåíèå occident kidnappé, êîòîðîå îçíà÷àåò “ïîõèùåííóþ” Ñòàëèíûì ñ îäîáðåíèÿ Ðóçâåëüòà è ×åð- ÷èëëÿ ÷àñòü “Çàïàäà”, à èìåííî Âîñòî÷íî-Öåíòðàëüíóþ Åâðîïó.52 Ðåàêöèÿ íåìåöêèõ ñðåäñòâ ìàññîâîé èíôîðìàöèè íà ðå÷ü Ñàíäðû Êàëíèåòå â Áîëüøîì çàëå ëåéïöèãñêîãî “Ãåâàíäõàóçà” ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî âíóòðè ðàñøèðÿþùåãîñÿ Åâðîïåéñêîãî Ñîþçà ñóùåñòâóåò ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîå ðàçíîãëàñèå ïî âîïðîñó î ïîëèòèêå â îòíîøåíèè ïðîøëîãî.53  íåìåöêîé ïóáëè÷íîé ñôåðå äîïîëíèòåëüíûì óêàçà- íèåì íà ýòî ñòàëà ýñêàëàöèÿ îãóëüíûõ îáâèíåíèé â àíòèñåìèòèçìå â àäðåñ âñåõ âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñêèõ ñòðàí, îæèäàþùèõ ïðèåìà â ÅÑ. Îñïàðèâàíèå óíèêàëüíîñòè íàöèñòñêîãî òåððîðà ðåôëåêòîðíî ðàñöåíèâàåòñÿ êàê ðåëÿòèâèçàöèÿ Õîëîêîñòà.54 Ïðè ýòîì îáû÷íî ññûëàþòñÿ íà ðå÷ü ôðàíöóçñêîãî ïîëèòèêà, áûâøåãî ïðåçèäåíòà Åâðîïåéñêîãî ïàðëàìåíòà è æåðòâû Îñâåíöèìà Ñèìîíû Âåéëü, ïðîèçíåñåííóþ 27 ÿíâàðÿ 2004 ã., â Äåíü ïàìÿòè æåðòâ íàöèîíàë- ñîöèàëèçìà, â Áóíäåñòàãå (Áåðëèí): êàòàñòðîôà åâðåéñêîãî íàðîäà åùå íåäîñòàòî÷íî ïðè- çíàíà â íåêîòîðûõ âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñêèõ ñòðàíàõ, â ÷àñòíî- ñòè, èç-çà ìàíèïóëÿöèé ñî ñòîðîíû êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèõ ðå- æèìîâ, êîòîðûå äîëãî îñòàâàëèñü òàì ó âëàñòè. Âîñïîìèíà- íèå î ñòðàäàíèÿõ, ïðè÷èíåííûõ ýòèì íàðîäàì íàöèñòñêèìè îê- êóïàíòàìè, çàòìèëî çëî, ïðè÷èíåííîå åâðåÿì, ïðè÷åì èíîãäà äàæå ïðè òàéíîì ñîãëàñèè ýòèõ íàðîäîâ. Íóæíî âèäåòü ýòó ðåàëüíîñòü.  îñâîáîæäåííûõ òåïåðü îò êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîãî èãà âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñêèõ ãîñóäàðñòâàõ èìåþòñÿ äðóãèå âîñïîìèíàíèÿ, êîòîðûå âûñòóïàþò â êà÷åñòâå çàùèòíîãî

W. Borodziej. Erinnerung an den Zweiten Weltkrieg – 50 Jahre später // E. Kobyliñska, A. Lawaty (Hrsg.). Erinnern, vergessen, verdrängen. Polnische und deutsche Erfahrungen. Wiesbaden, 1998. S. 66-77. 52 M. Kundera. Un occident kidnappé, ou la tragédie de l’Europe Centrale // Le Débat. 1983. le 27me novembre. Pp. 2-24. Íåì. èçä.: Idem. Un Occident kidnappé oder Die Tragödie Zentraleuropas // Kommune. 1984. Jg. 2. H. 7 (Juli). S. 43-52. 53 Ñì. îá ýòîì, ïðåæäå âñåãî: D. Diner. Gedächtnis und Erkenntnis. Nationalismus und Stalinismus im Vergleich // Osteuropa. 2000. Jg. 50. S. 698-708, à òàêæå B. Kerski. Ungleiche Opfer // Kafka. Zeitschrift für Mitteleuropa. 2004. Nr. 14. S. 34-43. 54 Ñì.: D. Diner. Schulddiskurse und andere Narrative. Epistemisches zum Holocaust // Idem. Gedächtniszeiten. Über jüdische und andere Geschichte. München, 2003. S. 180-200; V. Knigge, N. Frei (Hrsg.). Verbrechen erinnern. Die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord. München, 2002; “Historikerstreit”. Die Dokumentation der Kontroverse um die Einzigartigkeit des nationalsozialistischen Judenvernichtung. München, 1987. 59 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” ýêðàíà, îòãîðàæèâàþùåãî èõ îò íåîáõîäèìîé ðàáîòû ïî âîñïîìèíàíèþ î ãåíîöèäå åâðååâ: â ñîçíàíèè ýòèõ íàðîäîâ, ïî÷òè ïîëâåêà ïîä÷èíåííûõ ñîâåòñêîìó ãîñïîäñòâó, æåðòâû êîììóíèçìà âûòåñíèëè æåðòâ íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà. Õóæå òîãî: ïàìÿòüþ è èñòîðèåé ìàíèïóëèðóþò ïîðîé òàê, ÷òî ññûëêè íà ïðè÷èíåííîå Ñîâåòàìè çëî ïðåâðàùàþòñÿ â îïðàâäàíèå àíòèñåìèòèçìà.  òî âðåìÿ, êîãäà Åâðîïà îòêðûâàåòñÿ íà Âîñ- òîê, òàêèå ñëó÷àè âûçûâàþò îñîáóþ òðåâîãó, èáî ñîïðîâîæ- äàþùèå èõ ïñåâäîèñòîðè÷åñêèå ñïîðû êàñàþòñÿ ñàìîé ñóòè áóäóùåé Åâðîïû. Âîññîåäèíåííàÿ Ãåðìàíèÿ, èñïûòàâøàÿ íà ñåáå îáå ôîðìû òîòàëèòàðèçìà, íåñîìíåííî, ìîæåò îêàçàòü íîâûì ãîñóäàðñòâàì-÷ëåíàì Åâðîñîþçà áîëüøóþ ïîìîùü â òîì, ÷òîáû âçâåøåííî ïîäîéòè ê ïðîáëåìå ïåðåêîñîâ ïàìÿòè.55  ñàìîì äåëå, ïîñòàâëåííîå íà èíäóñòðèàëüíóþ îñíîâó óíè÷- òîæåíèå åâðååâ â íàöèñòñêîé Ãåðìàíèè â êóëüòóðå ïàìÿòè Âîñòî÷- íîé Åâðîïû îöåíèâàåòñÿ èíà÷å, ÷åì â íåìåöêîé. ×åøñêî-øâåäñêèé æóðíàëèñò Òîìàø Ñíèåãîí íåäàâíî îïèñàë ÷åøñêóþ ñèòóàöèþ ôîðìóëîé “èõ Õîëîêîñò íàñ íå êàñàåòñÿ”.56 Òàêèå æå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ õàðàêòåðíû, ê ïðèìåðó, äëÿ Ëàòâèè57 èëè Áîëãàðèè,58 ñóùåñòâóþò

55 S. Veil. Fondation pour la mémoire de Shoa. Rede vor dem Bundestag, Berlin, 27. Januar 2004. See http://www.bundestag.de/bic/presse/2004/pz_0401272. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 56 T. Sniegon. Their Genocide, or Ours? The Holocaust as a Litmus Test of Czech and Slovak Identities // K.-G. Karlsson, U. Zander (Eds.) Echoes of the Holocaust. P. 192. Ñì. îá ýòîì òàêæå: J. Grohova. Czech Disinterest in the Holocaust // Transitions. 1999. Vol. 6. No. 1 (January). Pp. 66-68; M. Frankl. Alte Themen – neue Fragen? Besatzung, Widerstand, Holocaust und Zwangsaussiedlung der Deutschen im Spiegel der neuen tschechischen Geschichtslehrbücher // W. Benz (Hrsg.). Wann ziehen wir endlich den Schlußstrich? S. 135-159; W. Iggers. Tschechoslowakei/Tschechien. Das verlorene Paradies // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 781-785; Ch. Brenner. Vergangenheitspolitik und Vergangenheitsdiskurs in Tschechien 1989-1998 // H. König, M. Kohlstruck, A. Wöll (Hrsg.). Vergangenheitsbewältigung. S. 195-232; B. Unfried (Hrsg.). Spuren des “Realsozialismus”; è Ch. Cornelissen (Hrsg.). Erinnerungskulturen. 57 M. Vestermanis. Der Holocaust in Lettland. Zur “postkommunistischen” Aufarbeitung des Themas in Osteuropa // I. Lorenz, A. Herzig (Hrsg.). Verdrängung und Vernichtung der Juden unter dem Nationalsozialismus. Hamburg, 1992. 58 Ñì. àïîëîãåòè÷åñêèå ðàññóæäåíèÿ îá ýòîì T. Tzvetanov. Bulgarien. Meilensteine einer kontroversen Selbstfindung // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 1. S. 109-113, à òàêæå êðèòè÷åñêèå – S. Troebst. Antisemitismus im “Land ohne Antisemitismus”. Staat, Titularnation und jüdische Minderheit in Bulgarien 1878-1993 // M. Hausleitner, M. Katz (Hrsg.). Juden und Antisemitismus im östlichen Europa. Wiesbaden, 1995. S. 109-125. 60 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 îíè è â Âåíãðèè,59 íî ñõîæèå “ïåðåêîñû ïàìÿòè” ìîæíî íàéòè è â Çàïàäíîé èëè Þæíîé Åâðîïå. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî â Ñëîâàêèè äåëî îáñòîèò èíà÷å, ÷åì â ×åõèè,60 ÷òî â êîììóíèñòè- ÷åñêîé Ïîëüñêîé Íàðîäíîé Ðåñïóáëèêå ïàìÿòü î Õîëîêîñòå èìåëà ãîðàçäî áîëåå âûñîêóþ çíà÷èìîñòü, ÷åì ìîæåò ïîêàçàòüñÿ ñåãîäíÿ.61 Ïîñëå ïàäåíèÿ êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèõ äèêòàòóð íîâûå ìåìîðèàëû Õîëîêîñòó áûëè ñîîðóæåíû â Áóõàðåñòå, Ðèãå è Áðàòèñëàâå.62 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, è çäåñü ïðè áëèæàéøåì ðàññìîòðåíèè îáíàðóæè- âàåòñÿ, ÷òî âîïðåêè ÷àñòûì óòâåðæäåíèÿì êóëüòóðà ïàìÿòè íå ðàçäå- ëåíà ìåæäó Çàïàäîì è Âîñòîêîì, è ÷òî íåëåïî ïðèâîäèòü ýòîìó ïàðàèñòîðè÷åñêèå îáúÿñíåíèÿ, ññûëàÿñü íà îñìàíñêîå èãî, ãîñïîä- ñòâî öàðñêîé Ðîññèè è ñîâåòñêóþ âëàñòü.63 Ñêîðåå, ïåðåä íàìè ëîñêóòíîå îäåÿëî, èëè ñèñòåìà öåíòð–ïåðèôåðèÿ. Îá ýòîì æå ñâèäå- òåëüñòâóåò òîò ôàêò, ÷òî “Porrajmos” (óíè÷òîæåíèå åâðîïåéñêèõ ñèíòè è ðîìà) â ðàâíîé ñòåïåíè îòñóòñòâóåò êàê â çàïàäíîåâðîïåéñ- êîé, òàê è â âîñòî÷íîé êóëüòóðàõ ïàìÿòè.

59 É. Kovács. “Die nicht in Anspruch genommene Erfahrung”. Zwei fehlende Sätze über die ungarische Shoah // H. Uhl (Hg.). Zivilisationsbruch und Gedächtniskultur. Das 20. Jahrhundert in der Erinnerung des beginnenden 21. Jahrhunderts. Innsbruck, 2003. S. 209-221. Î ðîëè, êîòîðóþ èãðàåò â ýòîì óïîëíîìî÷åííàÿ âåíãåðñêîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà ïî âîïðîñàì íîâåéøåé èñòîðèè è äèðåêòîð áóäàïåøòñêîãî ìóçåÿ “Äîì òåð- ðîðà” Ìàðèÿ Øìèäò, ñì. G. Seewann, É. Kovács. Ungarn. Der Kampf um das Gedächtnis. S. 831. 60 Ñì. E. Nižòanský. Der Holocaust in der slwoakischen Historiographie der neunziger Jahre // Bohemia. 2003. H. 4. S. 370-388. 61 Ñì. îá ýòîì J. Huener. Auschwitz, Poland and the Politics of Commemoration, 1945-1979. Athens, 2003; Z. Wóycicka. Die Kanalisierung des Gedenkens. Die Gedenkstätte Auschwitz-Birkenau in den Jahren 1945-1955 // K. Ruchniewicz, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Diktaturbewältigung und nationale Selbstvergewisserung. S. 181-192; J. Grosfeld. Das Verhältnis der polnischen Bevölkerung zu Shoah und Judentum nach dem Zusammenbruch des kommu- nistischen Systems // C. Lenz, J. Schmidt, O. von Wrochem (Hrsg.). Erinnerungskulturen im Dialog. Europäische Perspektiven auf die NS-Vergangenheit. Hamburg, 2002; M. Kucia. Auschwitz in der öffentlichen Meinung Polens // Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung. 2002. Bd. 11. S. 198 è ñëåä.; M. C. Steinlauf. Bondage to the Dead. Poland and the Memory of the Holocaust. New York, 1997; K. Gebert. Die Dialektik der Erinnerung. Holocaust- Denkmäler in Warschau // J. E. Young (Hrsg.). Mahnmale des Holocaust. Motive, Rituale und Stätten des Gedenkens. München, 1994. S. 97-106; J. Spielmann. In Oœwiêcim wird um Auschwitz gestritten. Topographie der Erinnerung // Ibid. S. 147-152; à òàêæå ïîñâÿùåííûå Ïîëüøå ñòàòüè Ýäìóíäà Äìèòðóâà è Àäàìà Êøåìèíüñêîãî â ñá. V. Knigge, N. Frei (Hrsg.). Verbrechen erinnern. S. 176-184, 262-271. 62 H. Bredekamp. Bildakte als Zeugnis und Urteil // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 1. S. 37. Ñì. òàêæå J. E. Young (Hrsg.). Mahnmale des Holocaust. 63 Íàïðèìåð, W. Schmale. Geschichte Europas. Wien, 2001. S. 285. 61 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” Ëåéïöèãñêàÿ ðå÷ü Êàëíèåòå ðåëÿòèâèçèðîâàëà è äèõîòîìè÷åñêîå ðàçëè÷åíèå “ãîðÿ÷åãî” è “õîëîäíîãî” âîñïîìèíàíèÿ, êîòîðîå ×àðëüç Ñ. Ìýéåð ââåë äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ “ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ïåðèîäà ïîëóðàñïàäà ôàøèñòñêîé è êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè”. Ñîãëàñíî åãî òåîðèè, âîñïîìèíàíèå î ïðåñòóïëåíèÿõ íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà, ïðåæäå âñåãî, î Õîëîêîñòå, – ýòî “èñòîðè÷åñêèé ïëóòîíèé, êîòîðûé ñâîèì óáèéñòâåííûì èçëó÷åíèåì çàðàæàåò âñå âîêðóã íà ñòîëåòèå âïåðåä”, òîãäà êàê âîñïîìèíàíèå î ïðåñòóïëåíèÿõ êîììóíèçìà – ïðåæäå âñåãî, î ÃÓËÀÃå – èìååò “ãîðàçäî ìåíåå äëèòåëüíûé ïåðèîä âûïàäåíèÿ ðàäèîàêòèâíûõ îñàäêîâ, êàê, íàïðèìåð, èçîòîï òðèòèÿ”, êîòîðûé “îòíîñèòåëüíî áûñòðî èñïàðÿåòñÿ”.64 Ìýéåð îáúÿñíÿåò ýòî, âî-ïåðâûõ, òåì, ÷òî “ñîîáùåñòâî ïîìíÿùèõ” íàöèîíàë-ñîöèà- ëèçì, ò.å. åãî æåðòâ, îõâàòûâàåò âñþ Çàïàäíóþ è Âîñòî÷íóþ Åâðîïó, “â òî âðåìÿ êàê Ñîâåòû íàâÿçàëè ñâîé ðåæèì òîëüêî Ðîññèè è Âîñ- òî÷íîé Åâðîïå”. Âî-âòîðûõ, îí êîíñòàòèðóåò îòñóòñòâèå ïîñòêîì- ìóíèñòè÷åñêîãî ýêâèâàëåíòà “èíäóñòðèè Õîëîêîñòà”, î ÷åì ñâèäå- òåëüñòâóåò íåçíà÷èòåëüíîå êîëè÷åñòâî ïàìÿòíèêîâ, ìóçååâ è ïðî÷èõ ìåìîðèàëîâ êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîãî òåððîðà â Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïå.65 Â-òðåòüèõ, îí óñìàòðèâàåò êà÷åñòâåííóþ ðàçíèöó ìåæäó “öåëå- íàïðàâëåííûì òåððîðîì, [õàðàêòåðíûì äëÿ] íàöèñòñêîé ïîëèòèêè ãåíîöèäà” è “áåññèñòåìíûì òåððîðîì ïðè ñòàëèíèçìå”. Æåðòâîé ïîñëåäíåãî ìîã ïî òåîðèè âåðîÿòíîñòè ñòàòü ëþáîé ÷åëîâåê, ïåðâûé æå âûáèðàë ñâîèõ æåðò⠓ïî îäíîçíà÷íî îïðåäåëÿåìûì ïðèçíàêàì”.66 È íàêîíåö, ãëàâíîå ðàçëè÷èå, ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ Ìýéåðà, ëåæèò â ðàçíîé “ìåðå ñòûäà”: â òîì, ÷òî êàñàåòñÿ íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèçìà, ìåðà ýòà âûñîêà äàæå ó ïîêîëåíèÿ, ñìåíèâøåãî ïîêîëåíèå ïðåñòóïíèêîâ, à â ñëó÷àå êîììóíèçìà äàæå ñàìè ïðåñòóïíèêè ïî÷òè íå ñòûäÿòñÿ ñâîèõ äåéñòâèé.67 Äàæå åñëè îòâëå÷üñÿ îò òîãî, ÷òî íà ôîíå ÷åðíîáûëüñêîé êàòàñòðîôû “ÿäåðíàÿ” ìåòàôîðà Ìýéåðà ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ êðàéíå íåóäà÷íîé, åãî òåîðèÿ âûãëÿäèò ñëèøêîì “çàïàäíîé”, äàæå îðèåí- òàëèçèðóþùåé. Êðîìå òîãî, ïåðâûé è òðåòèé èç ÷åòûðåõ ïðèâå- äåííûõ èì àðãóìåíòîâ ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñêèõ æåðòâ

64 Ch. S. Maier. Heisses und kaltes Gedächtnis. Zur politischen Halbwertzeit des faschis- tischen und kommunistischen Gedächtnisses // Transit. Europäische Revue. Winter, 2001/ 2002. H. 22. S. 154. 65 Ibid. S. 160-161. 66 Ibid. S. 161-162. 67 Ibid. S. 162-163 62 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òåððîðà, âåðîÿòíî, íå èìåþò íèêàêîãî çíà÷åíèÿ, âòîðîé ìîæåò ðàñöåíèâàòüñÿ êàê ïîñëåäñòâèå êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîãî èãà, à ÷åòâåðòîå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, ïðè âñåé ñâîåé óáåäèòåëüíîñòè, ìîæåò ðàñöåíè- âàòüñÿ êàê äîïîëíèòåëüíûé àðãóìåíò â ïîëüçó ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î “÷óæ- äîì”, íàâÿçàííîì, à ïîòîìó îñîáåííî ãíóñíîì êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîì ðåæèìå.

VI. Ïðîòîòèïè÷åñêèì ïðèìåðîì âòîðîé ãðóïïû ñòðàí ÿâëÿåòñÿ Óêðàèíà, êîòîðàÿ â ïëàíå êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè ðàñïàäàåòñÿ íà äâå ÷àñòè. Ýòî îñîáåííî íàãëÿäíî âèäíî ïî òîìó, êàêèå ðàçíûå íàçâàíèÿ èñïîëüçóþòñÿ äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû.  òî âðåìÿ êàê â ñîâåòñêîé ïî ñâîåé ìåíòàëüíîñòè, ðóññêîÿçû÷íîé Âîñòî÷íîé Óêðàèíå ïðèäåðæèâàþòñÿ ñîâåòñêîé ôîðìóëû “Âåëèêàÿ Îòå÷åñòâåí- íàÿ âîéíà” (íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî “îòå÷åñòâî” ñ 1991 ãîäà – ýòî óæå íå ÑÑÑÐ, à Óêðàèíà), â Çàïàäíîé Óêðàèíå, ãäå ñèëüíî íàöèîíàëüíîå ñîçíàíèå, èñïîëüçóþò äèñòàíöèðóþùåå ïîíÿòèå “íåìåöêî-ñîâåòñêàÿ âîéíà”, èç êîòîðîãî ñëåäóåò, ÷òî Óêðàèíà, õîòÿ è áûëà çàòðîíóòà ýòîé âîéíîé, íå ïðèíèìàëà â íåé àêòèâíîãî ó÷àñòèÿ.68  äâîéñòâåí- íîé óêðàèíñêîé êóëüòóðå ïàìÿòè ñîñòàâíûå ÷àñòè, êàê ïðàâèëî, ïðîñòî ñîñåäñòâóþò, íå áóäó÷è íèêàê ñâÿçàíû äðóã ñ äðóãîì. Òàíÿ Ðè÷àðäñîí â ñâîåì èññëåäîâàíèè êîíêóðèðóþùèõ ñõåì ïàìÿòè î ñîâåòñêîì ïåðèîäå íà Óêðàèíå ïðèõîäèò ê âûâîäó, ÷òî âîçíèêøèé âî âðåìÿ Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû ïîëèòè÷åñêèé è èäåîëîãè÷åñêèé âîäîðàçäåë ìåæäó “ñî÷óâñòâóþùèìè” Êðàñíîé Àðìèè, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è ñòîðîííèêàìè ïàòðîíèðóåìûõ íåìöàìè óêðàèíñêèõ íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèõ ôîðìèðîâàíèé – ñ äðóãîé, äîâîëüíî òî÷íî âîñïðîèçâîäèòñÿ â ðàçãðàíè÷èòåëüíîé ëèíèè, ïðîõîäÿùåé ñåãîäíÿ ìåæäó äâóìÿ áîëüøèìè îáùåñòâåííûìè ãðóïïàìè, êîòîðûå, ãîâîðÿ â ñàìûõ îáùèõ ïîíÿòèÿõ, ìîæíî îáîçíà÷èòü êàê “òå, êòî çà ÑÍÔ è “òå, êòî çà Åє. Õàðàêòåðåí çàïèñàííûé åþ ðàçãîâîð îäíîé ëüâîâñêîé ó÷èòåëüíèöû èñòîðèè ñ ó÷åíèöåé: Îëåíà (ó÷åíèöà). [Ìû èçó÷àåì èñòîðèþ], ÷òîáû ðåøèòü, ÷òî äåëàòü, ïðèñîåäèíÿòüñÿ ëè íàì ê Ðîññèè è Áåëîðóññèè, èëè ìû áëèæå ê Åâðîïå. Ìû ñðàâíèâàåì ýòè âàðèàíòû, èçó÷àÿ èñòîðèþ, ÷òîáû ðåøèòü, ÷òî ëó÷øå è ÷òî ñåãîäíÿ áîëåå âûãîäíî äëÿ Óêðàèíû.

68 J. Scherrer. Ukraine. Konkurrierende Erinnerungen. S. 728. 63 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” Îêñàíà (ó÷èòåëüíèöà). È êàêîå íàïðàâëåíèå âûãîäíåå äëÿ Óêðàèíû? Îëåíà. Åâðîïà, ÿ äóìàþ. Îêñàíà. Ïî÷åìó? Îëåíà. Ïîòîìó ÷òî, åñëè ìû ïðèñîåäèíèìñÿ ê Ðîññèè, ìû âåðíåìñÿ ê òîìó æå ñàìîìó ïðîøëîìó, êàêîå ó íàñ áûëî ðàíüøå. Êîììóíèçì. Òåððîð. Ðåïðåññèè. Ñòàëèí. Ëåíèí. Ìàðêñ.69 Ýòîò ïðèìåð ïîêàçûâàåò òàêæå, ÷òî ïîäìå÷åííûé Ðè÷àðäñîí “âîäîðàçäåë” ïðîõîäèò íå òîëüêî ìåæäó ðåãèîíàìè, íî è ìåæäó ïîêîëåíèÿìè – âîñïèòàííûì ïî-ñîâåòñêè è ïîñòïåðåñòðîå÷íûì. Âçãëÿäû ïîêîëåíèÿ ðîäèòåëåé è áàáóøåê-äåäóøåê íà “ãîëîäîìîð” 1932-1933 ãã. â Óêðàèíå70 è âòîðóþ ìèðîâóþ âîéíó, âêëþ÷àÿ Õîëîêîñò,71 ñëîæèëèñü â îñíîâíîì ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì ïðåïîäàâàíèÿ èñòîðèè â øêîëàõ Ñîâåòñêîé Óêðàèíû, ïðè÷åì èì ñàìèì ýòî ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïîíÿòíî òîëüêî â äèàëîãå ñ ñîáñòâåííûìè äåòüìè è âíó- êàìè. Îäíà õàðüêîâñêàÿ ó÷èòåëüíèöà èñòîðèè òàê îòîçâàëàñü î ìåìî- ðèàëüíîé êîììóíèêàöèè â ðàìêàõ ìåæïîêîëåí÷åñêîãî äèàëîãà: Åñòü... äðóãàÿ ïðîáëåìà...: êîãäà äåòè íà÷èíàþò îáñóæäàòü ýòè âîïðîñû ñ ðîäèòåëÿìè. È äðóãîé èíòåðåñíûé àñïåêò – òî, ÷òî ðîäèòåëè íà÷èíàþò èíòåðåñîâàòüñÿ [èñòîðèåé]... åñëè åñòü õîðîøèé ó÷åáíèê, òî ÿ ðåêîìåíäóþ, ÷òîáû îíè êóïèëè åãî... è ðîäèòåëè íà÷èíàþò èçó÷àòü èñòîðèþ âìåñòå ñ äåòüìè... Íà óðîêàõ ó÷åíèêè ó÷àòñÿ îòñòàèâàòü ñâîþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ,

69 T. Richardson. Disciplining the Past. P. 118. 70 Îá óêðàèíñêîì ìåñòå ïàìÿòè “Ãîëîäîìî𔠖 ñîâåòñêîì ãåíîöèäå ïîñðåäñòâîì ãîëîäà â 1932-33 ãã., ñì. J. Öhman. From Famine to Forgotten Holocaust. The 1932-1933 Famine in Ukrainian History // K.-G. Karlsson, U. Zander (Eds.). Echoes of the Holocaust. Historical Cultures in Contemporary Europe. Stockholm, 2003. Pp. 223-253; Ã. Êàñüÿíîâ. Ðàçðûòàÿ ìîãèëà. Ãîëîä 1932–1933 ãîäîâ â óêðàèíñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè, ïîëèòèêå è ìàññîâîì ñîçíàíèè // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹ 3. Ñ. 237–269; J. Šapoval. Lügen und Schweigen. Die unterdrückte Erinnerung an den Holodomor // R. A. Mark, G. Simon (Hrsg.). Vernichtung durch Hunger. Der Holodomor in der Ukraine und der UdSSR. Berlin, 2004. S. 131-145 (= òåìàòè÷åñêèé íîìåð Osteuropa. 2004. Jg. 54. H. 12); W. Jilge. Holodmor und Nation. Der Hunger im ukrainischen Geschichtsbild // Ibid. S. 147-163. 71 Å. Èâàíîâà. Êîíñòðóèðîâàíèå êîëëåêòèâíîé ïàìÿòè î Õîëîêîñòå â Óêðàèíå // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹ 2. Ñ. 369-392. 64 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 è îíè íà÷èíàþò ñïîðèòü ñ ðîäèòåëÿìè, è òàêèì îáðàçîì íà÷è- íàþò âëèÿòü íà òî, êàê òå îöåíèâàþò îïðåäåëåííûå ñîáûòèÿ. Îíè ñëûøàò, ÷òî ãîâîðèò ó÷èòåëü, âèäÿò, ÷òî íàïèñàíî â ó÷åá- íèêå, ÷òî èõ ðîäèòåëè èì ãîâîðÿò è ÷òî ïðîèñõîäèò âîêðóã íèõ.72 Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ïðåäïðèíèìàþòñÿ ïîïûòêè íàâåñòè ìîñòû ìåæäó ðàçíûìè âåðñèÿìè ïàìÿòè â ôîðìå ñèíêðåòè÷åñêèõ, îáúå- äèíÿþùèõ âñåõ óêðàèíöåâ êîíöåïöèé. Íàïðèìåð, êóëüòèâèðóþòñÿ âîñïîìèíàíèÿ î âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíå êàê î êóëüìèíàöèîííîé ôàçå òðàãè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé, à íå êàê î áèòâå “õîðîøèõ” ñ “ïëîõèìè”. Ïðåäìåòíûì âûðàæåíèåì ýòîãî ñèíêðåòèçìà ñòàëè ïî-íîâîìó îôîðìëåííàÿ Ïëîùàäü Íåçàâèñèìîñòè (Ìàéäàí Íåçàëåæíîñòi) â Êèåâå, ñèìâîëè÷åñêàÿ íàãðóæåííîñòü êîòîðîé ïðîÿâèëàñü âî âðåìÿ ñîáûòèé, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïðåçèäåíòñêèìè âûáîðàìè 2004 ã., à òàêæå ñòîëè÷íûé ìåìîðèàëüíûé êîìïëåêñ “Íàöèîíàëüíûé ìóçåé èñòîðèè Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû 1941-1945 ãã.”, îòëè÷àþùèéñÿ íîâèç- íîé êîíöåïöèè, â êîòîðîé ïîíÿòèå “îòå÷åñòâî” îòíîñèòñÿ óæå òîëüêî ê Óêðàèíå, à íå êî âñåìó Ñîâåòñêîìó Ñîþçó.73 Ìíîæåñòâåííîñòü èëè, ïî ìåíüøåé ìåðå, ìíîãîñëîéíîñòü êóëüòóð ïàìÿòè ÿâëÿþòñÿ, íàðÿäó ñ íåïðåêðàùàþùèìèñÿ îáùåñòâåííûìè äåáàòàìè, õàðàê- òåðíûìè ÷åðòàìè ýòîãî òèïà.

VII. Áîëãàðèÿ – ïðèìåð òðåòüåãî òèïà, ãäå â ïîñòêîììóíèñòè÷åñêèé ïåðèîä “ñòàðûå” è “íîâûå” ýëèòû âçàèìîäåéñòâóþò äðóã ñ äðóãîì áåç îñîáûõ ïðîáëåì áëàãîäàðÿ òàêîé “ñìàçêå” êàê íàöèîíàëèçì. Ïðîÿâëåíèÿìè “îòñóòñòâèÿ èñòîðèè â ïîñòêîììóíèñòè÷åñêîì íàöèîíàëèçìå” (âûðàæåíèå Øàðè Äæ. Êîýí),74 ñâîåãî ðîäà êàê

72 T. Richardson. Disciplining the Past. P. 122. Î ñîâåòèçàöèè óêðàèíñêîé êóëüòóðû âîñïîìèíàíèÿ ñì. Ñ. Åêåëü÷èê. Óêðàèíñêàÿ èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü è ñîâåòñêèé êàíîí. Êàê îïðåäåëÿëîñü íàöèîíàëüíîå íàñëåäèå Óêðàèíû â ñòàëèíñêóþ ýïîõó // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹. 2. Ñ. 77–124. 73 Ñì. îá ýòîì W. Jilge. Kulturpolitik als Geschichtspolitik. Der “Platz der Unabhängigkeit” in Kiev // Osteuropa. 2003. Jg. 53. S. 33-57; J. Scherrer. Ukraine. Konkurrierende Erinnerungen // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 721-722; à òàêæå W. Jilge, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Divided Historical Cultures? World War Two and Historical Memory in Eastern Europe. Wiesbaden, 2005 (= òåìàòè÷åñêèé íîìåð Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. 2005. Bd. 53. H. 2). 74 Ñì. îá ýòîì S. J. Cohen. Politics without a Past. The Absence of History in Postcommunist Nationalism. Durham, 1999, è P. Niedermüller. Zeit, Geschichte, Vergangenheit. Zur kulturellen Logik des Nationalismus im Post-Sozialismus // Historische Anthropologie. 1997. Jg. 5. S. 245-257. 65 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” damnatio memoriae (ïðîêëèíàíèåì ïàìÿòè) ÿâëÿþòñÿ íåóäàâøèéñÿ ñíîñ â 1999 ã. ñòîÿâøåãî ñ 1950-õ ãã. â öåíòðå Ñîôèè ìàâçîëåÿ âñåìèðíî èçâåñòíîãî ïàðòèéíîãî ãåðîÿ Ãåîðãèÿ Äèìèòðîâà, èëè äåáàòû 1989 ã. î íàöèîíàëüíîì ïðàçäíèêå. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, îíè äåìîí- ñòðèðóþò îãðîìíîå çíà÷åíèå ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ýòíîöåíòðèçìà, õàðàê- òåðíîãî äëÿ Áîëãàðèè íà÷èíàÿ ñ 1960-õ ãã. Äàæå êîììóíèñòû- ðåôîðìàòîðû îòíåñëè êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèé íàöèîíàëüíûé ïðàçäíèê 9 ñåíòÿáðÿ ê ðàçðÿäó óñòàðåâøèõ, ïîñêîëüêó îí îòìå÷àëñÿ â ïàìÿòü î âñòóïëåíèè â 1944 ã. Êðàñíîé Àðìèè â Áîëãàðèþ, êîòîðàÿ çà íåñêîëüêî äíåé äî ýòîãî ðàñòîðãëà ñîþç ñ íàöèñòñêîé Ãåðìàíèåé. Õîòÿ Êîìïàðòèÿ, îñòàâøàÿñÿ ó âëàñòè â âèäå Áîëãàðñêîé Ñîöèà- ëèñòè÷åñêîé Ïàðòèè (Áúëãàðñêà Ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêà Ïàðòèÿ), è îïïî- çèöèîííûé Ñîþç Äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèõ Ñèë (Ñúþç íà Äåìîêðàòè÷åñ- êèòå Ñèëè) ïî÷òè ïî âñåì âàæíûì âîïðîñàì ïðèäåðæèâàëèñü ðàçíûõ ïîçèöèé, çàêîí îá îáúÿâëåíèè íàöèîíàëüíûì ïðàçäíèêîì 3 ìàðòà (êàê ýòî áûëî äî 1944 ã.) áûë ïðèíÿò â íà÷àëå 1990 ã. áåç ïðîáëåì. È ýòî ïðîèçîøëî íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî ñèìâîëè÷åñêàÿ äàòà “3 ìàðòà” íåñëà â ñåáå çíà÷èòåëüíûé âíåøíåïîëèòè÷åñêèé êîíô- ëèêòíûé ïîòåíöèàë.75 Çíà÷èòåëüíî áîëåå ýñòåòè÷íûé ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñî ñâîèì ìîñêîâñêèì ïðîîáðàçîì ñîôèéñêèé ìàâçîëåé Äèìèòðîâà ñ ñàìîãî íà÷àëà íå ëþáèëè íå òîëüêî ïðîñòûå áîëãàðû, íî äàæå áîëü- øèíñòâî áîëãàðñêèõ êîììóíèñòîâ. Ïðè÷èíû ýòîãî áûëè, ñ îäíîé

75 3 ìàðòà 1878 ã. ðîññèéñêèé èìïåðàòîð ïðîäèêòîâàë ïðîèãðàâøåìó âîéíó ñóëòàíó Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè óñëîâèÿ ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîãî ìèðíîãî äîãîâîðà, çàêëþ÷åííîãî â Ñàí-Ñòåôàíî (ñåãîäíÿ ïðèãîðîä Ñòàìáóëà), ñîãëàñíî êîòî- ðîìó Îñìàíñêàÿ èìïåðèÿ ëèøàëàñü ñâîèõ áàëêàíñêèõ âëàäåíèé è ñîãëàøàëàñü íà ñîçäàíèå íåçàâèñèìîãî áîëãàðñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Ýòî ãîñóäàðñòâî äîëæíî áûëî âêëþ÷àòü â ñåáÿ, íàðÿäó ñ òåððèòîðèåé ñåãîäíÿøíåé Áîëãàðèè, îáëàñòè, êîòîðûå â 1990 ã. – íà ìîìåíò ïðèíÿòèÿ çàêîíà – ïðèíàäëåæàëè Ðóìûíèè, Òóðöèè, Ãðåöèè, Àëáàíèè, à òàêæå Þãîñëàâèè (ñåãîäíÿ ýòî çåìëè ãîñóäàðñòâ- ïðååìíèêîâ Ñåðáèè, ×åðíîãîðèè, è Ìàêåäîíèè). Ïîòîì, êàê èçâåñòíî, íà Áåð- ëèíñêîì êîíãðåññå ëåòîì 1878 ã. ýòîò “âåëèêîáîëãàðñêèé” ïðîåêò áûë ïåðå- ñìîòðåí. Òåì íå ìåíåå, âîçâðàùåíèå ê 3 ìàðòà êàê ê íàöèîíàëüíîìó ïðàçäíèêó îæèâèëî ñâÿçü ìåæäó íîâîé, èäóùåé ïî ïóòè ê äåìîêðàòèè Áîëãàðèåé 90-õ ãîäîâ ÕÕ â. è õèìåðîé “ñàí-ñòåôàíñêîé Áîëãàðèè”. Ýòî îñêîðáëÿëî âñå ñîñåäíèå ãîñóäàðñòâà, îäíàêî îáà ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ëàãåðÿ âíóòðè Áîëãàðèè åäèíîäóøíî ïîøëè íà òàêîé âíåøíåïîëèòè÷åñêèé ñêàíäàë. Ñì. S. Troebst. “Fluchtpunkt San Stefano”. Nationalismus in Bulgarien // Die Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte. 1990. H. 37. S. 405-414. Ñì. òàêæå C. Weber. Auf der Suche nach der Nation. Erinnerungs- kultur in Bulgarien von 1878-1944. Münster (â ïå÷àòè). 66 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñòîðîíû, ëè÷íîãî õàðàêòåðà: Äèìèòðîâ ñ÷èòàëñÿ ñîâåòñêîé êðåà- òóðîé, à ñ äðóãîé – ðåëèãèîçíûå: áàëüçàìèðîâàíèå ïðîòèâîðå÷èò òðåáîâàíèþ ïðàâîñëàâíîé öåðêâè ïîãðåáàòü ïîêîéíèêîâ â çåìëå. Îïðåäåëåííóþ ðîëü èãðàëè òàêæå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ìîòèâû – ìàâçîëåé ðàññìàòðèâàëñÿ êàê ðåëèêò ñòàëèíñêîé ýïîõè. Ïîýòîìó ñàìè áûâøèå êîììóíèñòû è èíèöèèðîâàëè âçðûâ ìàâçîëåÿ ëåòîì 1999 ã., ñîáè- ðàÿñü îñóùåñòâèòü ñâîé ïëàí òàéíî è áûñòðî, íî ñîáëþñòè ýòè óñëîâèÿ íå óäàëàñü èç-çà ïðî÷íîñòè ìðàìîðíîé êëàäêè – ïîòðåáî- âàëèñü äëèòåëüíûå ðàáîòû ïî ðàçáîðêå ñîîðóæåíèÿ, âûçâàâøèå íåæåëàòåëüíîå âíèìàíèå ïðåññû è îáùåñòâåííîñòè.76 Áîëãàðñêèé ïðèìåð ïîçâîëÿåò ñäåëàòü äâà íàáëþäåíèÿ: âî-ïåðâûõ, èíòåãðè- ðóþùåå äåéñòâèå òàêîãî “ðàñòâîðà” êàê íàöèîíàëèçì î÷åíü ñèëüíî â îáùåñòâàõ òðåòüåãî òèïà; âî-âòîðûõ, íàöèîíàëèçì îïðåäåëÿåò òàêæå è âíåøíþþ ïîëèòèêó. Îäíàêî, åñëè ïîñìîòðåòü íà ñîñåäà Áîë- ãàðèè – Ãðåöèþ, êîòîðàÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷ëåíîì ÍÀÒÎ è ÅÑ, íà åå âíóò- ðåííþþ è âíåøíþþ (áàëêàíñêóþ) ïîëèòèêó, âîçíèêàåò âîïðîñ: ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëè èíòåãðàòèâíàÿ ôóíêöèÿ, âûïîëíÿåìàÿ íàöèîíàëüíîé èäååé, èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî âîñòî÷íî-åâðîïåéñêèì ôåíîìåíîì èëè ýòî òèïè÷íî äëÿ Åâðîïû â öåëîì?

VIII. Íàêîíåö, ÷åòâåðòûé òèï âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñêèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ õàðàê- òåðèçóåòñÿ ñîãëàñèåì è ïî÷òè ïîëíûì òîæäåñòâîì ìåæäó “ñòàðûìè” è “íîâûìè” ýëèòàìè. Òîëüêî íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä ìîæåò ïîêàçàòüñÿ, ÷òî, íàïðèìåð, â Ðîññèè ñóùåñòâóåò ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëåíèå ìåæäó “ðóññêèì”/“ðîññèéñêèì” ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû è “ñîâåòñêèì”/“êîììó- íèñòè÷åñêèì” – ñ äðóãîé. Êîíöåïöèÿ ïîëèýòíè÷åñêîé, íî îäíîâðå- ìåííî íàäíàöèîíàëüíîé êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé îáùíîñòè “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”, âûðàáîòàííàÿ â êîíöå áðåæíåâñêîé ýðû,77 îçíà÷àëà ïî ñóòè îäíîçíà÷íîå äîìèíèðîâàíèå ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà è êóëüòóðû – òî÷íî òàê æå, êàê ýòî íàáëþäàåòñÿ â ñåãîäíÿøíåé Ðîññèéñêîé Ôåäåðàöèè.78

76 M. Todorova. The Mausoleum of Georgi Dimitrov as lieu de mémoire // Journal of Modern History (â ïå÷àòè). Ñì. òàêæå N. Voukov. Monuments beyond the Representations of Power. Monuments of the Socialist Past in Post-1989 Bulgaria // A. Bartetzky, M. Dmitrieva, S. Troebst (Hrsg.). Neue Staaten - neue Bilder? Visuelle Kultur im Dienst staatlicher Selbstdarstellung in Zentral- und Osteuropa seit 1918. Köln, 2005 (â ïå÷àòè). 77 B. Lewytzkyj. “Sovetskij narod”, “Das Sowjetvolk”. Nationalitätenpolitik als Instrument des Sowjetimperialismus. Hamburg, 1983. 78 Ñì. îá ýòîì A. Langenohl. Erinnerung und Modernisierung. S. 97-98. 67 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” Îá ýòîì ãîâîðèò íå òîëüêî ïîëèòèêà Ìîñêâû ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê òàê íàçûâàåìîìó “áëèæíåìó çàðóáåæüþ”, íî è íàïðàâëÿåìàÿ ãîñóäàð- ñòâîì êóëüòóðà âîñïîìèíàíèÿ. Òàê, íàïðèìåð, ìåìîðèàëüíûé êîìïëåêñ íà Ìàìàåâîì êóðãàíå â Âîëãîãðàäå ñ ãèãàíòñêîé “Ðîäè- íîé-ìàòåðüþ”, âîçâåäåííûé â 1967 ã. êàê âñåñîþçíîå ìåñòî ïàìÿòè “Ñòàëèíãðàä”, ïðåâðàòèëñÿ ïîñëå 1991 ã. â ðîññèéñêîå ìåñòî ïàìÿòè ñ äîìèíèðóþùèìè ðóññêèìè ÷åðòàìè.79 Äëÿ óêðàèíöåâ, ëàòûøåé, òàäæèêîâ èëè àçåðáàéäæàíöåâ çäåñü áîëüøå íåò ìåñòà, äà è íåðóñ- ñêèå ðîññèÿíå – íàïðèìåð, êàðåëû, áàøêèðû è òåì áîëåå ÷å÷åíöû òóò òîæå áîëüøå íå ôèãóðèðóþò. Òåì íå ìåíåå, îòíîøåíèå ìåæäó èçíà÷àëüíî ñîâåòñêèì çàìûñëîì è ðîññèéñêîé ðåèíòåðïðåòàöèåé ìåìîðèàëà îñòàåòñÿ ïðîáëåìàòè÷íûì. Çäåñü îáíàðóæèâàåòñÿ òî, ÷òî Àíäðåàñ Ëàíãåíîëü íàçâàë “ïðèíöèïèàëüíî äî-ìîäåðíûì [ôåíîìåíîì]”, à èìåííî – “êðàéíå ðåãóëÿòèâíûå ñîâåòñêèå ïðàê- òèêè âîñïîìèíàíèÿ”, â êîòîðûõ óïîòðåáëåíèå íàöèîíàëüíûõ, íàïðèìåð, ðóññêèõ ñèìâîëîâ áûëî “íå ñîçíàòåëüíûì, à ñêîðåå ñëó÷àéíûì”, à “ñîçäàíèå ìàêðî-êîëëåêòèâíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè íèêîãäà íå ÿâëÿëîñü îñíîâíûì ïðåäíàçíà÷åíèåì, îíè [ïðàêòèêè âîñïîìè- íàíèÿ] âñåãäà ñëóæèëè ìèôîëîãèçàöèè àïïàðàòà âëàñòè”.80 Ãîâîðÿ îá èäóùåé ñ 1991 ã. ðóñèôèêàöèè ñîâåòñêîé êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè î âîéíå, Þòòà Øåððåð êîíñòàòèðóåò, ÷òî “ïàìÿòü î Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíå, ïðåæäå îáúåäèíÿâøàÿ [íàðîäû ÑÑÑÐ], èñ÷åçëà”.81

79 P. Jahn (Hrsg.). Stalingrad erinnern. Stalingrad im deutschen und im russischen Gedächtnis. Berlin, 2003; S. R. Arnold. Stalingrad im sowjetischen Gedächtnis. Kriegserinnerung und Geschichtsbild im totalitären Staat. Bochum, 1998; Eadem. “Das Beispiel der Heldenstadt wird ewig die Herzen der Völker erfüllen!” Gedanken zum sowjetischen Totenkult am Beispiel des Gedenkkomplexes in Volgograd // R. Koselleck, M. Jeismann (Hrsg.). Der Politische Totenkult. Kriegedenkmäler in der Moderne. München, 1994. S. 351-373; F. Kämpfer. Vom Massengrab zum Heroenhügel. Akkulturationsfunktionen sowjetischer Kriegsdenkmäler // Ibid. S. 333-334. Î äðóãîì ñîâåòñêîì ìåìîðèàëüíî- ìîíóìåíòàëüíîì æàíðå ñì. O. Turkina. Das Innen und das Außen. Raumfahrt- denkmäler und Rekonstruktion des kulturellen Gedächtnisses in der postsowjetischen Gesellschaft // Akademie der Künste Berlin (Hrsg.). Denkmale und kulturelles Gedächtnis. S. 125-136; ñðàâíåíèå êóëüòóð âîñïîìèíàíèÿ Ðîññèéñêîé Ôåäåðàöèè è ÔÐÃ: A. Ýòêèíä. Âðåìÿ ñðàâíèâàòü êàìíè. Ïîñòðåâîëþöèîííàÿ êóëüòóðà ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ñêîðáè â ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹ 2. Ñ. 33–76. 80 A. Langenohl. Erinnerung und Modernisierung. S. 98. 81 J. Scherrer. Sowjetunion/Rußland. Siegesmythos versus Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung // M. Flacke (Hrsg.). Mythen der Nationen. 1945. Bd. 2. S. 622. Ñì. òàêæå î íîâîì “Ïàðêå Ïîáåäû” íà Ïîêëîííîé ãîðå â Ìîñêâå: N. Schleifman. Moscow’s Victory Park. A Monumental Change // History and Memory. 2001. Vol. 13. No. 2. Ðð. 5-33; 68 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ïðè ýòîì, îäíàêî, îòñîðòèðîâàííàÿ è ïðîïàãàíäèðîâàâøàÿñÿ ïàðòèåé è ãîñóäàðñòâîì ïàìÿòü î “Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíå”, êîòîðóþ Íèíà Òóìàðêèí îõàðàêòåðèçîâàëà êàê “ñîâåòñêóþ ãðàæ- äàíñêóþ ðåëèãèþ”,82 íå ëèøèëàñü ñâîåãî ïðåäìåòà. Ñêîðåå, ýòà

M. Rüthers, C. Scheide (Hrsg.). Moskau. Menschen, Mythen, Orte. Köln, 2003. S. 183-185. Ñì. òàêæå J. Scherrer. “Sehnsucht nach Geschichte”. Der Umgang mit der Vergangenheit im postsowjetischen Rußland // Ch. Conrad, S. Conrad (Hrsg.). Die Nation schreiben. Geschichtswissenschaft im internationalen Vergleich. Göttingen, 2002. S. 165-206; Eadem. Ideologie, Identität und Erinnerung. Eine neue Russische Idee für Rußland? // Osteuropa. 2004. Jg. 54; Ê. Øåéäå. Âîñïîìèíàíèÿ î âîéíå â Ìîñêâå // È. Íàðñêèé, Þ. Õìåëåâñêàÿ, Î. Íàãîðíàÿ, Î. Íèêîíîâà (ðåä.). Âåê ïàìÿòè, ïàìÿòü âåêà. Îïûò îáðàùåíèÿ ñ ïðîøëûì â ÕÕ ñòîëåòèè. Ñáîðíèê ñòàòåé. ×åëÿáèíñê, 2004. Ñ. 507-518; Ê. Øàéäå. Êîëëåêòèâíûå è èíäèâèäóàëüíûå ìîäåëè ïàìÿòè î “Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíå” (1941–1945) // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹. 3. Ñ. 211–236; W. Hellemen (Ed.). The Russian Idea. In Search of a New Identity. Bloomington, IN, 2004; D. Schorkowitz. Geschichtspolitik, Erinnerungskultur und Historiographie in Rußland // Digitales Handbuch zur Geschichte und Kultur Russlands und Osteuropas. Themen und Methoden // Virtuelle Fachbibliothek Osteuropa (ViFaOst) See http:// www.vifaost.de/w/pdf/schorkowitz-geschichtspolitik.pdf. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿí- âàðÿ 2005 ã.; J. Reuter. Aktuelle Denkmale in Moskau und St. Petersburg. Suche nach nationalen Leitbildern // Akademie der Künste Berlin (Hrsg.). Denkmale und kulturelles Gedächtnis. S. 213-226; A. Langenohl. Erinnerung und Modernisierung; Idem. Patrioten, Verräter, genetisches Gedächtnis. Der Große Vaterländische Krieg in der politischen Deutungskultur Rußlands // M. Ritter, B. Wattendorf (Hrsg.). Sprünge, Brüche, Brücken. Debatten zur politischen Kultur in Rußland aus der Perspektive der Geschichtswissenschaft, Kultursoziologie und Politikwissenschaft. Beiträge einer internationalen und interdisziplinären Tagung. Berlin, 2002; E. Fein. Geschichtspolitik in Rußland. Chancen und Schwierigkeiten einer demokratisierenden Aufarbeitung der sowjetischen Vergangenheit am Beispiel der Tätigkeit der Gesellschaft Memorial. Münster, Hamburg, 2000; A. Ignatov. Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung in der Russischen Föderation. Köln, 1997 (= Berichte des Bundesinstituts für internationale und ostwissenschaftliche Studien. 1997. Nr. 42); Ý. Æåññà-Àíøòåò. Ïàìÿòü. Âå÷íàÿ èëè “êóðèíàÿ”? Ìåìîðèàëüíàÿ ëîãèêà â ïîñòñîâåòñêîé Ðîññèè // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹. 1. Ñ. 519–538; A. Sunder-Plaßmann. Rettung oder Massenmord? Die Repressionen der Stalin-Era in der öffentlichen Diskussion seit dem Beginn der Perestrojka. Hamburg, 2000; W. Sperling. “Erinnerungsorte” in Werbung und Marketing. Ein Spiegelbild der Erinnerungskultur im gegenwärtigen Rußland? // Osteuropa. 2001. Jg. 51. S. 1321-1341. Ïîäðîáíûé àíàëèç îòîáðàæåíèÿ ñîâåòñêîãî ïåðèîäà îòå÷åñòâåííîé èñòîðèè â ðîññèéñêèõ øêîëüíûõ ó÷åáíèêàõ ñì. ñòàòüè Í. Íàóìîâà, Ã. Ãóñåéíîâà, À. Ãîëóáåâà, Â. Êàïëàí, È. Õðîìîâîé è Ì. Õëîïîíèíà â ñá. I. de Keghel, R. Maier (Hrsg.). Auf den Kehrichthaufen der Geschichte? S. 63-150. 82 N. Tumarkin. The Living and the Dead. The Rise and Fall of the Cult of World War II in Russia. New York, 1994. P. 155. 69 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” “ãðàæäàíñêàÿ ðåëèãèÿ”, êîòîðàÿ ïî óòâåðæäåíèþ À. Ëàíãåíîëÿ áûëà “ðàñêîëîòîé”, òåïåðü ïðåâðàòèëàñü â ÷èñòî ðîññèéñêóþ.83 Äàí Äèíåð óêàçûâàåò â äàííîé ñâÿçè íà îáîðîòíóþ ñòîðîíó ðå-ðóñèôèêàöèè ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèè â öåëîì: “â ïîñòñîâåòñêîé Ðîññèè [...] óøåäøóþ â ïðîøëîå âëàñòü êîììóíèñòîâ îêðàøèâàþò â ýòíè÷åñêèå öâåòà òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñëîâíî ýòî áûë ðåæèì íåðóñ- ñêèõ ðîññèéñêèõ íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé: ðåæèì åâðååâ, êàâêàçöåâ, ïðèáàëòîâ è äðóãèõ íàðîäîâ”.84 Êðîìå òîãî, â áîëüøèíñòâå ñòðàí ÑÍÃ, â îòëè÷èå îò ñòðàí òèïîâ 1-3, ïî-ïðåæíåìó èñïîëüçóåòñÿ ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé ÿçûê êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé ýðû. Ýòî îòíîñèòñÿ äàæå ê ãðàæäàíñêèì èíèöèàòèâàì, òàêèì êàê “Ìåìîðèàë” è “Ïàìÿòü”, êîòîðûå áûëè, ïðàâäà, òèïè÷íûìè ïðîäóêòàìè âðåìåíè ïåðåñòðîéêè è ñ òåõ ïîð â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ìåðå óòðàòèëè ñâîå âëèÿíèå. Òîæå ìîæ- íî ñêàçàòü è î ñîçäàííûõ “àôãàíöàìè” ìóçåÿõ ïàâøèõ, à òàêæå î ïàìÿòíûõ ìåñòàõ è ìåìîðèàëàõ ÃÓËÀÃà.85 Êðàéíèé ñëó÷àé ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïðîâîçãëàøåííàÿ â 1990 ã. è íå ïðèçíàííàÿ ìèðîâûì ñîîáùåñòâîì äèêòàòîðñêàÿ êâàçèðåñïóáëèêà â Ïðèäíå- ñòðîâüå, êîòîðóþ óäà÷íî íàçûâàþò òî “ÑÑÑÐ ïîñëå ÑÑÑД, òî “Çîìáè-ÑÑД, òî “ìóçåé êîììóíèçìà ïîä îòêðûòûì íåáîì”.  Ïðèäíåñòðîâüå íå òîëüêî èñïîëüçóåòñÿ ñîâåòñêèé ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé ÿçûê, íî ïî÷òè íåèçìåííûì îñòàëîñü åãî êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîå èäåî- ëîãè÷åñêîå ñîäåðæàíèå.86

IX. Ñîïîñòàâèâ âûñêàçûâàíèå Ñàíäðû Êàëíèåòå î ðàâíîöåííîñòè êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé è íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèñòñêîé äèêòàòóðû è âûòå- êàþùåé èç ýòîãî íåîáõîäèìîñòè äëÿ Åâðîïû ïåðåñìîòðåòü ñâîþ ïîëèòèêó â îòíîøåíèè ïðîøëîãî ñ ñóæäåíèåì Ïåòåðà Ýñòåðõàçè î íåðåøèòåëüíîñòè Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû â äåëå ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî,

83 A. Langenohl. Erinnerung und Modernisierung. S. 155-187; J. Scherrer. Sowjetunion/ Rußland. Siegesmythos. S. 655. 84 D. Diner. Gedächtnis und Erkenntnis. S. 700. 85 Î “Ìåìîðèàëå” è “Ïàìÿòè” ñì.: E. Fein. Geschichtspolitik in Rußland; K. E. Smith. Remembering Stalin’s Victims. Popular Memory and the End of the USSR. Ithaca, 1996; C. Merridale. Night of Stone. Death and Memory in Russia. London, 2000; D. Paillard. Memorial und Pamiat – Zwei Gesichter der Erinnerung // A. Leo (Hrsg.). Die wieder- gefundene Erinnerung. S. 195-211. 86 S. Troebst. Staatlichkeitskult im Pseudo-Staat. Identitätsmanagement in Transnistrien // Osteuropa. 2003. Jg. 53. S. 963-983. 70 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ìû ïîëó÷èì íàãëÿäíîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î äèàïàçîíå ðàçáðîñà êóëüòóð ïàìÿòè â ïîñòêîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé ÷àñòè êîíòèíåíòà. Îäíîâðåìåííî ñòàíîâèòñÿ ÿñíî, ÷òî è ðåøèòåëüíîå òðåáîâàíèå ëàòâèéñêîãî ìèíè- ñòðà, è ïåññèìèñòè÷åñêîå íàáëþäåíèå âåíãåðñêîãî ïèñàòåëÿ ðåçêî îòëè÷àþòñÿ îò óïîìÿíóòîãî âíà÷àëå ñòàòüè “íåìåöêîãî èíäóñòðèàëü- íîãî ñòàíäàðòà” ïîëèòèêè ïðîøëîãî. Ñïåöèôèêà íàöèîíàëüíûõ êóëüòóð âîñïîìèíàíèÿ â åâðîïåéñêèõ ñòðàíàõ, ïåðåæèâøèõ äèêòàòóðó, îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ ìíîãî÷èñëåííûìè è èìåþùèìè ðàçíûé âåñ ôàêòîðàìè, â òîì ÷èñëå èäåîëîãèåé, èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêîé, ôîðìîé äèêòàòóðû, åå ïðîäîëæèòåëü- íîñòüþ, òåì, êàê îíà âîçíèêëà è êàê çàêîí÷èëàñü è ò.ä. Ýòà íàöèî- íàëüíàÿ ñïåöèôèêà çàìåòíà è â ïîñòêîììóíèñòè÷åñêèõ êóëüòóðàõ ïàìÿòè Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, äàæå íåñìîòðÿ íà âíåøíèå ñõîäñòâà ìåæäó íèìè – òàêèå, íàïðèìåð, êàê èðîíè÷åñêîå ïîä÷àñ îáðàùåíèå ñ ïàìÿòíèêàìè, îñòàâøèìèñÿ îò ýïîõè êîììóíèçìà,87 èëè ìàíèÿ ïåðåçàõîðîíåíèÿ âîæäåé, ïðîÿâèâøàÿñÿ â 1989 ã. è âûïîëíÿþùàÿ ñòðóêòóðîîáðàçóþùóþ ôóíêöèþ, êîòîðóþ Êýòðèí Âåðäåðè îïðå- äåëèëà êàê “ïîñòñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêàÿ íåêðîôèëèÿ”.88 Íà ýòîì ôîíå ãåðìàíñêàÿ êóëüòóðà ïàìÿòè, íåðåäêî âûñòàâëÿåìàÿ â êà÷åñòâå åâðîïåéñêîãî “ýòàëîíà”, ïðåäñòàåò ñêîðåå îñîáûì ñëó÷àåì èëè äàæå èñêëþ÷åíèåì, ïîäòâåðæäàþùèì ïðàâèëî. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, åñëè ìû êîíöåíòðèðóåìñÿ íà ðàçëè÷èÿõ ìåæäó “îñîáûì ïóòåì” êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè â ÔÐà â ãîäû õîëîäíîé âîéíû (è â íûíåøíåé îáúåäèíåííîé Ãåðìàíèè) è îïèñàííûìè çäåñü òèïàìè âîñòî÷íî-

87 Çäåñü ñëåäóåò íàçâàòü, íàïðèìåð, “Ïàðê ñòàòóé” (Szoborpark) íà îêðàèíå Áóäàïåøòà, â ðåêëàìå êîòîðîãî ïîñåòèòåëþ îáåùàþò “ãèãàíòñêèå ïàìÿòíèêè êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé äèêòàòóðû”; â ïàðêå èìååòñÿ òàêæå ìàãàçèí ñóâåíèðîâ ïîä íàçâàíèåì “Red Star Store” (http://www.szoborpark.hu. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã.). Ìîæíî óïîìÿíóòü è “Ìóçåé ñîâåòñêèõ ñêóëüïòóð” (Sovietiniø skulptûrø muziejus Grûto parkas) â ã. Ãðóòà íåïîäàëåêó îò Äðóñêèíèíêàÿ (Ëèòâà) (http://www1.omnitel.net/grutas/. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã.). Î ïðîåêòå “Lenin on Tour” ñì. òàêæå: R. Herz. Lenin on Tour. 10th September – 6th October. München, 2004. See http://www.lenin-on-tour.com. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿí- âàðÿ 2005 ã. 88 K. Verdery. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies. Reburial and Postsocialist Change. New York, 1999 (öèòàòà - ð. xiii). Ñì. òàêæå V. Naumescu. Burying Two Bishops. Legitimating the Church through the Politics of the Past in Romania // F. Pine, D. Kaneff, H. Haukanes (Eds.). Memory, Politics and Religion. Pp. 137-156; K. P. Benziger. The Funeral of Imre Nagy. Contested History and the Power of Memory Culture // History and Memory. 2000. Vol. 12. No. 2. Pp. 142-163. 71 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” åâðîïåéñêîé êóëüòóðû âîñïîìèíàíèÿ, íàøå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î ïðåäìåòå íåèçáåæíî èñêàæàåòñÿ. Âðÿä ëè åñòü ÷òî-òî ñïåöèôè÷åñêè âîñòî÷íî- åâðîïåéñêîå â àêòèâíîì îáðàùåíèè ê íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèè èëè â çàâèñèìîñòè êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè îò òèïîâ è ôîðì ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ äèêòàòóð. Íå óíèêàëüíà è äèñïðîïîðöèÿ âîñïîìèíàíèÿ è çàáâåíèÿ, âêëþ÷àÿ “çàìåòàíèå ïîä êîâåð” îñîáî ùåêîòëèâûõ ìîìåíòîâ ïðîøëîãî. Âñåîáùèé çàãîâîð ìîë÷àíèÿ, êàê è ôèêñàöèÿ íà íàöèî- íàëüíîé èñòîðèè, ÿâëÿþòñÿ, ñêîðåå, îáû÷íûìè ïðàêòèêàìè â Åâðîïå, î ÷åì ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò ñèòóàöèÿ â Èñïàíèè, Ïîðòóãàëèè è Ãðåöèè. Åñëè ïðàâ Ãåðìàí Õàéìïåëü, ñ÷èòàþùèé ñàìîé “åâðîïåéñêîé” õàðàêòåðèñòèêîé èñòîðèè Åâðîïû ñóùåñòâîâàíèå íàöèé, òîãäà êóëüòóðà ïàìÿòè â Åâðîïå áûëà è îñòàíåòñÿ, â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, íàöèîíàëüíî îêðàøåííîé.

X.  ýòîé ñâÿçè îòìåòèì, ÷òî íà÷àëî ðàñøèðåíèÿ ÅÑ íà âîñòîê îçíàìåíîâàëîñü ñðàçó äâóìÿ èíèöèàòèâàìè â îáëàñòè êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè, ÿâíî ïðåòåíäóþùèìè íà òðàíñíàöèîíàëüíî-åâðîïåéñêèé õàðàêòåð. Âîïðåêè îæèäàíèÿì, îáå èíèöèàòèâû íàöåëåíû íå íà êàíî- íèçàöèþ åâðîïåéñêèõ “ìåñò ïàìÿòè”,89 à íà êðèòè÷åñêîå èññëåäî- âàíèå îäíîãî îñîáîãî àñïåêòà “âåêà êðàéíîñòåé”, êîòîðûé â íîâûõ ìíåìîïðîåêòàõ ïðåäñòàåò êàê “âåê èçãíàíèé”. Ðå÷ü èäåò, âî-ïåðâûõ, î ñîçäàíèè ïî ïðåäëîæåíèþ ïîëüñêîãî ñåéìà “Öåíòðà ïàìÿòè íàðîäîâ Åâðîïû” ïîä ýãèäîé Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû. Ïðîåêò “Öåíòðà” ðàçðàáàòûâàåòñÿ Êîìèòåòîì ïî äåëàì ìèãðàöèè, áåæåíöåâ è íàñå- ëåíèÿ Ïàðëàìåíòñêîé Àññàìáëåè ýòîé ñòàðåéøåé ïàíåâðîïåéñêîé îðãàíèçàöèè. Òåìàòè÷åñêèì ñòåðæíåì ïðîåêòà äîëæíà áûëà ñòàòü ðåïðåçåíòàöèÿ “îáùåãî õàðàêòåðà ïðåñòóïíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè òîòàëè- òàðíûõ ðåæèìîâ, áóäü òî íàöèñòîâ èëè êîììóíèñòîâ”.90 Íî â ðåçóëü- òàòå äèñêóññèè, íà÷àâøåéñÿ â 2003 ã. â Ãåðìàíèè è ìåæäó Ãåðìà- íèåé è Ïîëüøåé ïî ïîâîäó òðåáîâàíèé “Ñîþçà èçãíàííûõ” î ñîçäà-

89 Ñì. îá ýòîì G. Lottes. Europäische Erinnerung und europäische Erinnerungsorte? // Jahrbuch für europäische Geschichte. 2002. Jg. 3. S. 81-92; G. Corni. Umstrittene lieux de mémoire in Europa im 20. Jahrhundert // Ibid. S. 93-100. 90 Ðåøåíèå ñåéìà Ðåñïóáëèêè Ïîëüøè îò 27 íîÿáðÿ 2003 ã. îá îñíîâàíèè “Öåíòðà ïàìÿòè íàðîäîâ Åâðîïû” ïîä ýãèäîé Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû. Ñì. î áîëåå ðàííåé ïîëüñêîé èíèöèàòèâå: Z. Gluza. Dokumentationszentrum der Vertreibungen im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts // KARTA. Zeitzeugnisse aus Ostmitteleuropa. Historische Zeitschrift. 2002. Nr. 3. S. 1-3. 72 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íèè “Öåíòðà ïðîòèâ èçãíàíèé” â Áåðëèíå, íàçíà÷åííûé âûøå- óïîìÿíóòûì êîìèòåòîì óïîëíîìî÷åííûé, øâåä Ìàòñ Ýéíàðññîí, ðàäèêàëüíî ñìåñòèë ôîêóñ èíèöèàòèâû Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû. Òåïåðü îíà äîëæíà îòðàæàòü òàêèå òåìû, êàê “äåïîðòàöèè, ïåðåñåëåíèå, èçãíà- íèå, âûíóæäåííàÿ ìèãðàöèÿ íàñåëåíèÿ, îáìåí íàñåëåíèÿ, ýòíè÷åñêèå ÷èñòêè” â Åâðîïå ÕÕ ñòîëåòèÿ.91 Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, Êîìèòåò ïðèíÿë äëÿ ñâîåãî äåòèùà íàçâàíèå “Åâðîïåéñêèé öåíòð ïàìÿòè [æåðòâ] âûíóæäåííîé ìèãðàöèè è ýòíè÷åñêèõ ÷èñòîê”,92 ÷òî âñòðåòèëî îäîáðåíèå èñïîëíèòåëüíûõ îðãàíîâ Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû. Ïëàíèðóåòñÿ âûíåñòè ïðîåêò íà óòâåðæäåíèå III âñòðå÷è ãëàâ ãîñóäàðñòâ è ïðà- âèòåëüñòâ ñòðàí-÷ëåíîâ Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû â ìàå 2005 ã. â Âàðøàâå. Îäíîâðåìåííî ñ ýòèì èíèöèèðîâàííûì Ïîëüøåé ïðîåêòîì Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû âîçíèêëà ñîâìåñòíàÿ íåìåöêî-ïîëüñêàÿ èíèöèà- òèâà, ïðåñëåäóþùàÿ ïðèìåðíî òå æå öåëè. Îíà ïðåäïîëàãàåò ñîçäà- íèå ñåòè èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ èíñòèòóòîâ è ãðàæäàíñêèõ èíèöèàòèâ, êîòîðûå çàíèìàëèñü áû èçó÷åíèåì ýòíè÷åñêèõ ÷èñòîê è äðóãèõ ïîëèòè÷åñêè ìîòèâèðîâàííûõ âûíóæäåííûõ ìèãðàöèé â Åâðîïå ÕÕ ñòîëåòèÿ.93 Îòïðàâíîé òî÷êîé ïðîåêòà ñòàëî ðåøåíèå Áóíäåñ- òàãà “Î ñîçäàíèè åâðîïåéñêè îðèåíòèðîâàííîãî öåíòðà ïðîòèâ èçãíàíèé” îò 4 èþëÿ 2002 ã. Îíî äàëî òîë÷îê íàó÷íûì èññëåäîâà-

91 Íåîïóáëèêîâàííûå ìàòåðèàëû Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû: Establishment of the Centre for European Nations’ Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Revised memorandum. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Committee on Migration, Refugees and Populations. Rapporteur Mr Mats Einarsson, Sweden, Group of the Unified European Left (AS/Mig (2004) 18 rev. 3 30 September, 2004 Or. Eng.). 92 Íåîïóáëèêîâàííûå ìàòåðèàëû Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû: Programme. Seminar on the Estab- lishment of the Centre for European Nations’ Remembrance under the auspices of the Council of Europe followed by a visit to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum (4 November, 2004). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Committee on Migration, Refugees and Populations. (AS/Mig (2004) 25 rev. 4 2 November, 2004). 93 Î ïðåäûñòîðèè âîïðîñà ñì. D. Bingen, S. Troebst, W. Borodziej. Erklärung zum internationalen wissenschaftlichen Kolloquium “Ein europäisches Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen. Historische Erfahrungen – Erinnerungspolitik – Zukunftskonzeptionen”, Darmstadt, 7. Dezember, 2002 // Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft. 2003. Jd. 51. S. 102- 104; M. Meckel. Gemeinsame Erinnerung als Schritt in die Zukunft. Für ein Europäisches Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen, Zwangsaussiedlungen und Deportationen – Geschichte in Europa gemeinsam aufarbeiten, Juli, 2003 (http://www.markusmeckel.de/pdf2/ zentrum-vertreibung/aufruf-europaeisches-zentrum-gegen-vertreibungen.pdf. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã.); è Bonner Erklärung. Europäisches Netzwerk Zwangsmigrationen und Vertreibungen im 20. Jahrhundert, März, 2004 (http://library.fes.de/ history/boll-eu-netzwerk-bonner.pdf. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã.). 73 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” íèÿì ïî íîâåéøåé èñòîðèè,94 à êðîìå òîãî, åãî ñëåäñòâèåì ñòàëî ñîâìåñòíîå çàÿâëåíèå ôåäåðàëüíîãî ïðåçèäåíòà Ãåðìàíèè Éîõàí- íåñà Ðàó è ïðåçèäåíòà Ïîëüøè Àëåêñàíäðà Êâàñüíåâñêîãî â Ãäàíüñêå 29 îêòÿáðÿ 2003 ã.: Åâðîïåéöàì íóæíî âìåñòå ïî-íîâîìó îöåíèòü è äîêóìåí- òèðîâàòü âñå ñëó÷àè äåïîðòàöèè, áåãñòâà è èçãíàíèÿ, êîòîðûå èìåëè ìåñòî â Åâðîïå â XX âåêå, ÷òîáû ðàçúÿñíèòü îáùåñòâåí- íîñòè èõ ïðè÷èíû, èñòîðè÷åñêóþ ïîäîïëåêó è ìíîãîîáðàçíûå ïîñëåäñòâèÿ. [...] Ìû ïðèçûâàåì ê òîìó, ÷òîáû âåñòè îòêðî- âåííûé åâðîïåéñêèé äèàëîã ïî ýòîìó âàæíîìó âîïðîñó, êàñà- þùåìñÿ íàøåãî ïðîøëîãî è íàøåãî îáùåãî áóäóùåãî, è îæè- äàåì, ÷òî ïîëüçóþùèåñÿ âûñîêèì àâòîðèòåòîì ëèöà, ïîëèòè- êè è ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ãðàæäàíñêîãî îáùåñòâà âíåñóò â íåãî ñâîé âêëàä. Îíè äîëæíû òàêæå ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü ðåêîìåíäàöèè, â êàêèõ ôîðìàõ è ñòðóêòóðàõ ìîæåò âåñòèñü ðàáîòà ïî ñáîðó äàííûõ è äîêóìåíòàöèè â åâðîïåéñêîì ìàñøòàáå.95 Âîïðåêè ñêåïòèêàì, ãîâîðèâøèì îá îáðå÷åííîñòè “ïðåæäåâðå- ìåííîé åâðîïåèçàöèè”,96 ãäàíüñêèé èìïóëüñ ïîáóäèë ïîëüñêîãî ìèíèñòðà êóëüòóðû Âàëüäåìàðà Äîìáðîâñêîãî ïðèíÿòü ïðåäëî- æåíèå ñâîåé íåìåöêîé êîëëåãè Êðèñòèíû Âàéññ97 î ðàñøèðåíèè

94 Ñì. îá ýòîì, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ñáîðíèê äîêëàäîâ êîíôåðåíöèè – D. Bingen, S. Troebst, W. Borodziej (Hrsg.). Vertreibungen europäisch erinnern? Wiesbaden, 2003; à òàêæå J. Danyel, P. Ther (Hrsg.). Flucht und Vertreibung in europäischer Perspektive (= òåìàòè- ÷åñêèé íîìåð Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft. 2003. Jg. 51. H. 1); P. Buras, P. M. Majewski (Hrsg.). Pamiêæ wypêdzonych. Grass, Beneš i œrodkowoeuropejskie rozrachunki. Antologia tekstów polskich, niemieckich i czeskich. Warszawa, 2003; à òàêæå S. Troebst. Unterwegs in Europa. Wissenschaftler plädieren dafür, die Vertreibung europäisch zu erforschen und zu erinnern // Freitag. 2004. Nr. 6. 30. Januar. S. 15; Idem. Geschichte als politisiertes Szientifikum. Ein europäisches Netzwerk zur Erforschung ethnopolitisch motivierter Zwangsmigration // F. Boll, B. Faulenbach (Hrsg.). Geschichte als Politikum. Ein europäisches Netzwerk gegen Vertreibungen. Bonn (â ïå÷àòè). 95 Erklärung von Bundespräsident Johannes Rau und dem Präsident der Republik Polen, Aleksander Kwaœniewski, Danzig, 29. Oktober, 2003. See http://195.43.53.184/ dokumente/,-93344/Rede/dokument.htm. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 96 S. Dietrich. Verfrühte Europäisierung. Die Auseinandersetzung um ein Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen geht weiter // Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2003. Nr. 162. 16. Juli. S. 10. 97 Ch. Weiss. Niemand will vergessen. Aber nur ein Netz von Geschichtswerkstätten in ganz Europa dient der historischen Aufklärung // Die Zeit. 2003. Nr. 41. 1. Oktober. S. 46; Eadem. Europa als kultureller Raum. Kulturpolitische Perspektiven der EU- Osterweiterung // Osteuropa. 2003. Jg. 53. S. 1603. 74 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ôîðìàòà âñòðå÷è ìèíèñòðîâ êóëüòóðû ãîñóäàðñòâ Âûøåãðàäñêîé ãðóïïû (Ïîëüøè, ×åøñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè, Ñëîâàêèè è Âåíãðèè) â àïðåëå 2004 ã. â Âàðøàâñêîì êîðîëåâñêîì äâîðöå.  ñîñòàâ ó÷àñò- íèêîâ áûëè âêëþ÷åíû ïðåäñòàâèòåëè Ãåðìàíèè è Àâñòðèè, à òåìà âñòðå÷è “Çà âçàèìîïîíèìàíèå” áûëà èñïîëüçîâàíà äëÿ îáñóæäåíèÿ òàêîãî ùåêîòëèâîãî âîïðîñà êàê “ïîëèòè÷åñêèå è ýòíè÷åñêèå êîíô- ëèêòû, âûíóæäåííàÿ ìèãðàöèÿ è èçãíàíèÿ ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ íàøåãî êóëüòóðíîãî íàñëåäèÿ”. Ñòîðîíû ïðèøëè ê åäèíîìó ìíåíèþ î íåîá- õîäèìîñòè âêëþ÷åíèÿ òåìàòèêè áåæåíöåâ è èçãíàíèÿ “â åâðîïåé- ñêèé êîíòåêñò” è ñîçäàíèÿ “îáùååâðîïåéñêîé ñåòè [èíñòèòóöèé], êîòîðûå áû çàíèìàëèñü èñòîðèåé Åâðîïû â ÕÕ âåêå è ñîñðåäîòî- ÷èëè ñâîþ äåÿòåëüíîñòü íà ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèè çíàíèé îá ýòîì èñòî- ðè÷åñêîì ïåðèîäå, îñîáåííî ñðåäè ìîëîäåæè”.98 Íåìåöêèé ìèíèñòð êóëüòóðû îõàðàêòåðèçîâàëà Âàðøàâñêóþ âñòðå÷ó êàê “íåîïèñóåìîå ïåðåæèâàíèå, ïîòîìó ÷òî ìû âñå îñîçíàâàëè, ÷òî âïåðâûå ñ 1945 ã. ìèíèñòðû êóëüòóðû Ãåðìàíèè, Ïîëüøè, ×åõèè, Âåíãðèè, Àâñòðèè è Ñëîâàêèè âñòðåòèëèñü, ÷òîáû ãîâîðèòü äðóã ñ äðóãîì î òàêèõ âåùàõ”.99  ðåçóëüòàòå èíòåíñèâíûõ ïåðåãîâîðîâ, âåäøèõñÿ íà ïðî- òÿæåíèè âñåãî 2004 ã., íàçíà÷åííûå ìèíèñòðàìè êóëüòóðû Ïîëüøè, Âåíãðèè è Ãåðìàíèè ïðåäñòàâèòåëè è ýêñïåðòû äîãîâîðèëèñü î íàçâàíèè ïðîåêòà: “Åâðîïåéñêàÿ ñåòü ‘Âîñïîìèíàíèå è ñîëèäàð- íîñòü’”. Îíè òàêæå ïðèíÿëè ïðîåêò ó÷ðåäèòåëüíîãî ìàíèôåñòà, â êîòîðîì çàäà÷è, ñòðóêòóðà è ïîðÿäîê ðàáîòû íîâîãî ó÷ðåæäåíèÿ îïèñàíû ñëåäóþùèì îáðàçîì: Ïðåäìåòîì [äåÿòåëüíîñòè] ñåòè ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñáîð è àíàëèç äîêó- ìåíòîâ è ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèå çíàíèé ïî èñòîðèè ÕÕ ñòîëåòèÿ, –

98 Presseerklärung Nr. 199 der Bundesbeauftragten für Kultur und Medien vom 23. April, 2004: “Konferenz zum Thema Vertreibung in Warschau: Kulturstaatsministerin Weiss zieht positive Bilanz” (http://www.bundeskanzler.de/Pressemitteilungen-.7916.641242/ a.htm?printView=y. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã.). Ñì. òàêæå P. Zachowicz. Opowiedzieæ Europejczykom historiê. Szeœæ pañstw jednym g³osem o wypêdzeniach // Rzeczpospolita. 2004. Nr. 96. 23. April. S. A7; G. Gnauck. Schwierige Debatte über Vertreibungen. Fünf Länder wollen den Austausch vertiefen // Die Welt. 2004. 23 April. S. 28; M. Ludwig. Schön reden. Korrekte Minister. Warschauer “Initiative gegen Vertreibungen” // Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2004. Nr. 96. 24. April. S. 36. 99 Interview mit Kulturstaatsministerin Christina Weiss // Die tageszeitung. 2004. 4. Mai. See http://www.bundeskanzler.de/Interviews-.7911.647138/a.htm. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 21 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 75 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” ñòîëåòèÿ âîéí, òîòàëèòàðíûõ äèêòàòóð è ñòðàäàíèé ãðàæäàí- ñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ, ñòàíîâèâøåãîñÿ æåðòâàìè âîéí, óãíåòåíèÿ, îêêóïàöèè, âûíóæäåííûõ ìèãðàöèé, à òàêæå íàöèîíàëèñòè- ÷åñêèõ, ðàñèñòñêèõ è èäåîëîãè÷åñêè ìîòèâèðîâàííûõ ðåïðåññèé. [...] Çàäà÷è “Ñåòè ‘Âîñïîìèíàíèe è ñîëèäàðíîñòü’”: a) îáúå- äèíåíèå óæå ñóùåñòâóþùèõ â îòäåëüíûõ ñòðàíàõ èíèöèàòèâ, à òàêæå îðãàíèçàöèÿ ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà ìåæäó îáùåñòâåííûìè, ãîñóäàðñòâåííûìè è íåïðàâèòåëüñòâåííûìè îðãàíèçàöèÿìè, èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèìè èíñòèòóòàìè è ìåñòàìè ïàìÿòè; á) ïîä- äåðæêà, ôèíàíñèðîâàíèå è ïðîâåäåíèå ñîâìåñòíûõ èññëåäî- âàòåëüñêèõ è îáðàçîâàòåëüíûõ ïðîåêòîâ, à òàêæå êîíôåðåí- öèé, âûñòàâîê, ïóáëèêàöèé è ïðî÷èõ ìåðîïðèÿòèé. [...] Äëÿ êîîðäèíàöèè ðàáîòû “Åâðîïåéñêîé Ñåòè ‘Âîñïîìèíàíèå è ñîëèäàðíîñòü’” ó÷ðåæäàåòñÿ ñåêðåòàðèàò â Âàðøàâå. [...] “Ñåòü ‘Âîñïîìèíàíèå è ñîëèäàðíîñòü’” ñòðåìèòñÿ ê òåñíîìó ñîòðóä- íè÷åñòâó ñ Åâðîïåéñêèì Ñîþçîì, Ñîâåòîì Åâðîïû è ñ ÎÁÑŔ.100  ïîñëåäñòâèè ìèíèñòð êóëüòóðû ×åøñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè ôàêòè- ÷åñêè âûøåë èç ïðîåêòà, à åãî ñëîâàöêèå è àâñòðèéñêèå êîëëåãè äåìîíñòðèðîâàëè áåçðàçëè÷èå ê åãî ðåàëèçàöèè. Ýòî ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î ñîõðàíåíèè ðàçëè÷èé ìåæäó åâðîïåéñêèìè îáùåñòâàìè â ñôåðå êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè.  òî æå âðåìÿ íåëüçÿ íå çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ýòîò ïðîåêò, èíèöèèðîâàííûé Ãåðìàíèåé è Ïîëüøåé è îõâàòûâàþùèé ãîñó- äàðñòâà Âûøåãðàäñêîé ãðóïïû, äî ñèõ ïîð íèêàê íå ñêîîðäèíèðîâàí ñ èíèöèàòèâîé Ñîâåòà Åâðîïû ïî ñîçäàíèþ “Öåíòðà ïàìÿòè íàðîäîâ Åâðîïû” è ñ “Åâðîïåéñêèì öåíòðîì ïàìÿòè [æåðòâ] âûíóæ- äåííîé ìèãðàöèè è ýòíè÷åñêèõ ÷èñòîê”. Îäíàêî, ëèíèè ðàñêîëà â îáîèõ ñëó÷àÿõ ïðîõîäÿò íå ìåæäó “çàïàäíîé” è “ïîñòêîììóíèñ- òè÷åñêîé” Åâðîïîé, à ìåæäó îòäåëüíûìè íàöèîíàëüíûìè ãîñóäàð- ñòâàìè (Ïîëüøà/Ãåðìàíèÿ/Âåíãðèÿ vs. ×åõèÿ/Àâñòðèÿ/Ñëîâàêèÿ), èëè ìåæäó îðãàíèçàöèÿìè (Âûøåãðàäñêàÿ ãðóïïà vs. Ñîâåò Åâðîïû). Î÷åâèäíî òàêæå, ÷òî íàöèîíàëüíûå êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè â Åâðîïå, êîòîðûå ðàíüøå âñòóïàëè â äâóñòîðîííèå êîíòàêòû äðóã ñ äðóãîì â ñèòóàöèÿõ êîíôëèêòà, òåïåðü íà÷èíàþò êîíòàêòèðîâàòü íà òðàíñ-

100 Entwurf einer Erklärung über die Gründung des Europäischen Netzwerks Erinnerung und Solidarität. Expertentreffen im Internationalen Kulturzentrum Krakau, 22. Novem- ber, 2004. 76 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íàöèîíàëüíîì óðîâíå â ïîèñêàõ êîíñåíñóñà. È òîò ôàêò, ÷òî âñå ýòî ïðîèñõîäèò èìåííî â ñâÿçè ñ áîëåçíåííîé òåìîé èçãíàíèé è äåïîðòàöèé â Öåíòðàëüíîé è Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïå (îõâàòûâàþùåé XX ñòîëåòèå, íà÷èíàÿ ñ ïåðâîé Áàëêàíñêîé âîéíû 1912-1913 ãã. è äî âîéíû â Êîñîâî â 1999 ã.), ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé, áåç ñîìíåíèÿ, ïðîðû⠖ êàê â îáëàñòè êóëüòóðû ïàìÿòè, òàê è â îáëàñòè èñòîðè- ÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêè. Âàæíî, ÷òî ñ ïîìîùüþ íàçâàííûõ èíèöèàòèâ ïåðåæèâøèå òðàâìó äèêòàòóðû îáùåñòâà Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, âìåñòå ñ íåìöàìè, îáëàäàþùèìè áîëüøèì îïûòîì â âîïðîñàõ ïðåîäî- ëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî, ïûòàþòñÿ ïåðåïðûãíóòü ÷åðåç òåíü ñîáñòâåííîãî ïðîøëîãî. È åñòü íàäåæäà, ÷òî â îáîçðèìîì áóäóùåì âñå çàáóäóò ïðî “óêðàäåííûé êîììóíèñòàìè êîâåð”.

SUMMARY

While Soviet rule was the vehicle of communist ideology in all of Eastern and Central Europe, religious, national, and regional traditions considerably transformed it in the Warsaw Pact countries as well as in the westernmost Soviet republics from the 1960s on. In the post-communist period, these pre-communist and communist variations are particularly obvious when looking at attempts to come to terms with the communist past. Four categories of post-communist cultures of remembrance can be identified in Eastern and Central Europe: (1) Societies characterized by a general consent con- cerning an “alien” communist rule forced upon from the outside – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania being prominent examples; (2) cases where such a consent does not exist and where fierce political controversies on the interpretation of the dictatorial past have taken place – as in Hungary and Poland, but also in Ukraine; (3) societies dominated by an apathetic ambivalence toward the communist past – Bulgaria, Romania and other Balkan countries belong into this category; and (4) states with a continuity of authoritarian structures and without a clear dissociation from communist 77 Ø. Òðåáñò, “Êàêîé òàêîé êîâåð?” rule – like the Russian Federation, Belarus, Moldova, and other CIS republics. That categories (1) and (2) are divided from (3) and (4) by the line separating western and eastern churches – with Ukraine cut in two – is probably less surprising than the fact that Poland is a driving force in establishing an institution of European societies’ remembrance.

78 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Interview with Jan GROSS

MEMORY AND HISTORY: “THE NEIGHBORS?”*

Serguei GLEBOV. Our first question concerns the problem of historical narrative and the relationship between history as a formalized account of the past and memory as an alternative to such an account. How do you perceive the genre of your study: is it, from your point of view, history or memory? Do you think the alternative between history and memory can be resolved? At which point does memory become history? Jan GROSS. Well, it seems to me that memory has to do with an account of the past that is produced by those who actually witnessed the event in ques- tion, while history is not really recounted by direct witnesses of the event. Of course, one can think of collective memory, but collective memory is not really a part of, as it were, historical documentation. Maybe it is an object of study, in the same way as one studies collective representations, myth, narrative, or whatever. So in that sense memory and history are very dis- tinct, because there is only a very special kind of a force that can have… that can produce a statement that may be classified as a statement that delivers memory of something, whether it’s produced twenty years after the events or a day after the events. There has to be a very transparent and

* Jan Gross is the author of the acclaimed book: Neighbors. The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland. Princeton, 2001. Interviewer Serguei Glebov.

79 Interview with Jan Gross, Memory and History: "The Neighbors?" clear relationship between the author, as it were, and the statements. History, of course, uses such statements and produces yet another narrative on the basis of recollections and memories that have been left, and it does the best it can. There are criteria of textual analysis that should be used and comparison of different statements. Sometimes I think it created a lot of debates, for example, when the text of Neighbors was published. But I was speaking about very special circumstances, which are particularly tragic episodes to which very few witnesses will ever record their recollections. So, there are these memories, or recollections, which are very unique, and one has to deal with very few sources pertaining to a certain set of events. So in that sense one might say that these are very special and dramatic circumstances and memory may at the same time be history of something because nothing else is left. Memory is just the only record of facts on occasion. SG. Correspondingly, you firmly place your own work in the realm of history rather than memory? JG. Yes, certainly, I don’t have any recollections or memory of any stories, except for events of the student protests of 1968, of which I have slight memories. SG. It wouldn’t be an overestimation to suggest that your work has become or is becoming the basis for a new historical narrative in the sense of for- malized history (even if it emerged initially as a search for memory). This new narrative helped alternative memories of the past to be marginalized (at least on the local level in Jedwabne). How do you perceive this dilemma, especially in the light of your own appeal to reconsider the past in order to gain a more inclusive version of history? JG. You know, I really don’t see this “new narrative”, as it were, as some- thing that suppresses anything. It seems to me that the novelty of this narra- tive – well, this is one variant of the historical representation of what has happened when one looks for causes and understanding – but as far as my work is concerned this new narrative essentially makes an appeal to dis- close facts, not to conceal anything. And I don’t see why it suppresses any memories. If it interferes with something, it would be a kind of a denial of facts. I don’t know if this is what you had in mind but, for example, there would be this whole stream of statements that would come literally from the Jedwabne people infuriated with this, whether it was the local priest or the historian who was sort of taken by the local committee, who would say, well, you know, this did not happen, this was just something else, it was these Germans, who came et cetera, et cetera. But this is not a memory 80 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 of anything, you know, this is a contrived and constructed falsehood, as it were. So there is the new thing, the breakthrough, it seems to me, in historiography of the Second World War and the experience of the Polish society to which this book Neighbors contributes in one small segment, namely of debunking, so to speak, paradigmatic versions of Polish-Jewish relations. The meaning of this appeal is to say: listen, we have to know the facts, just state what happened, and then we’ll reproduce some kind of a relation. And I think the effect my book had, to a large extent, is of many people sort of looking out, going after documentation, and putting out more and more factual material, which is very interesting, whether it deals with local collaboration, with the extortions, with the behavior in the country- side, or with the question of denunciations. You know, there is a whole proliferation of monographs now in Poland, which would have been quite difficult to write before, it seems, because there are all these taboo subjects. Now, in a way, once the biggest taboo has been poked and deflated more kinds of things can be put on the table. SG. Do you think that reconciliation through the past is possible in prin- ciple? For instance, your own work seems to have reconciled neither the peoples involved, nor various interpretations of the past or history and memory. Moreover, the book seems to have helped the conflict resurface, for it provoked debates and new ruptures, while on the local level the more politically correct version (e.g., the Borderland Foundation) has pushed the “Polish” version of the past and “Polish” memory to the margins. Did you foresee such an outcome? Did you forecast the social and political consequences of your book’s Polish edition? In light of the above, can you think of possible examples where a reinterpretation of the past has helped to reconcile different groups of people or different peoples? JG. Well, I of course am not an expert, and I don’t monitor how it goes in societies in which there is a very deliberate procedure to deal with the compli- cated pasts through disclosure of facts rather than punishment, for a variety of reasons. And of course I have in mind this process of the Truth Commis- sion. Obviously, this is a venue that has been chosen because presumably it produces desire for the facts, or at least this is the notion that underwrites it. I think it’s rooted quite deeply in our understanding of, I don’t know, maybe religious tradition, or morality, this act, which partly consists of clearing the air… This is not just punishment but admission of what has happened and laying out the facts. The truth is healing, and transparency of the past therefore is necessary to allow for a kind of working out and establishing 81 Interview with Jan Gross, Memory and History: "The Neighbors?" the domain of compromise between groups who have competing claims to the past, to glory, to honor, or to property. So in that sense I don’t see whether it’s anywhere (well, I don’t want to make that general statement). But there is a very strong, as it were, presumption that the truth and speaking the truth is a foundation of understanding, of mutual understanding. The response to my book in Poland was something that I completely did not anticipate. I thought it would be confined only to the circle of specialists, and it came out into the open and became a public issue. I am not sure if the only effect it had was a kind of exacerbation of conflict. I would say that various gestures, public gestures that one saw, beginning with the statement by President Kwaœniewski in Jedwabne at the anniversary ceremonies, or even some gestures of the Catholic Church… this repentance Mass that the bishops were forced to carry (by the Pope, I suppose), these were all just seeds on which things will sprout. The tremendous stride toward reconciliation that I think had taken place was not in the act of people falling into each other’s arms, but in the fact that we see this openness… is most dramatic because of the murder, humiliation, plunder stories between the two groups. And these things are now openly debated and discussed. It’s sort of legitimate to have them out. It’s not viewed, except for those who are very entrenched in their denial of reality… it’s not viewed by itself as an act of meanness, so to speak, to put it out. You know, a few years ago you couldn’t have approached the subject without people looking at you as if you are trying to look for a side, so to speak. Now there are a lot of MA theses written on this subject, on some aspects of it, whether extortionists, or killings of Jews by Poles in various places. There are these two enormous volumes, it’s an enormous amount of work that was introduced by the Insti- tute of National Memory, on circumstances surrounding the Jedwabne murder. This is a foundation. Now the plain, level zero, so to speak, of research into this subject and of historical understanding of these matters is a kind of a Mount Everest, comparing with where the point of departure would be for new students [or] people interested in the subject ten years ago. SG. Do you believe that history as scholarship and teaching practice (academic historiography and textbook writing) can be an instrument for conflict resolution in the present? JG. It seems to me that several of these conflicts which require resolu- tion and which are being pursued dramatically in various places of the world are very explicitly grounded in, so to speak, competing historical narratives,

82 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 whether it’s between Israelis and Palestinians, or the Muslim-Christian issue, or the dissolution of Yugoslavia, for example. This war that we have seen there – you could see that the rhetoric of that conflict was the rhetoric where there were words that belong to a different period, and symbols, some of which had existence in collective memory for several hundred years, were used as if they were common currency. So definitely historical knowledge and historical awareness is a very important part of learning that people have to go through in order to be able to recognize and see in the other, as it were, features that are more “like” than “different” from their own group and their own identity, and in order to find the common ground in the sense of norms that are binding us all and which cannot be violated. SG. Our first issue this year explored the problem of historical memory in a multiethnic/multinational society. Do you believe there can be a memory of empire as distinct from history (that is, a version of the past sanctioned by power groups)? JG. Well, there are some empires which are quite fondly remembered, one can think of, for example, the Habsburg Empire, which was explicitly established in order to mediate and facilitate coexistence (at some point, at least, some people thought that way) of different ethnic groups. So, there is a history of empire, but there can be memory of empire. But memory is, in a way, if I were to distinguish between memory and history, to the answer I gave you above to the difference between the two, of course, the Soviet Empire is quite different because there are still generations that had the direct experience of it, but for memory of something, there have to be actors who have been part of the events, so memory of empires that disappeared will dissipate, too. But as long as people who lived under these empires are alive, it will be there… SG. Your work has been instrumental in setting in motion a historical debate focused on Polish-Jewish relations. Do you see any possibilities to conduct debates on “problematic” histories elsewhere in the region of Central and Eastern Europe? Which areas would you designate as needing a focused debate on the past in that region? JG. I think that the question of nationalism and of ethnic relations is something that is extraordinarily important in all kinds of variations, I mean, we have seen this horribly devastating war of succession in Yugoslavia, which has been triggered with such ease by the instrumentalization of ethnic

83 Interview with Jan Gross, Memory and History: "The Neighbors?" hatred and conflict, so I think Central Europe will very much benefit from a discussion of the past as related to various nationalist outbursts. And then, local Jewish-majority population relations all over Europe is a very important subject and this is somehow a sui generis subject, a specific subject of course because of the Holocaust and because of the universal presence of Jews throughout East-Central Europe for so many centuries. That’s very unique too, that is, a minority that is not territorially bound, as it were. It’s bound by a kind of a social space that it occupies – cities, for instance, are very important enclaves, domains of life of modern society. And again, because of the Holocaust experience, Jewish history has a very special significance in light of the relationships between the two groups, and what happened between them. There is a lot to be done here and I think that as the European Community extends its boundaries in a very natural way these things will be debated, if only because they have been discussed in one place, and already now we all become part of the same scene. So these discussions of the past and its darker pages can be replicated in many places. SG. Related to the question above, I was wondering if you could talk a bit about the mythology of historical relations between Russia (in its various incarnations) and Poland. Of course, in Russian historiography and collec- tive memory there is a pronounced anti-Polish bias. I am sure that given the experience of Russian imperial rule in Poland and the Soviet experience, Polish historiography and public opinion is not likely to be very open to many things coming from the East. Do you see any possibilities for a discussion of the past in this particular area? Or, perhaps, given the situation in post- Soviet countries, it’s not time yet to conduct such debates? JG. Quite frankly, it doesn’t seem to me that there is any particular bias in Poland. Well, there is of course one particular history which has a con- sistent anti-Russian perspective but it’s not vicious, as it were, and I have of course Norman Davies in mind and his appreciation and evaluation of Poland’s place vis-à-vis the rest of Europe. Otherwise, I don’t see any particular anti-Russian trace in historical writing. Also in politics, not to speak of history, there is a sense that each of these societies – I think that the understanding of totalitarianism has been transformed and is sophisti- cated and a lot of scholars in any case and I think a lot of common people understand that every society has been subject to the regime, has been a victim of it. It’s not just Russians doing it to somebody else, but Russians them- selves much more have been victims of Soviet rule than anybody else. 84 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 It’s a very simple and trivial example: there are lots of people from all over the former Soviet Union who have been for the last ten or fifteen years working illegally in Poland, trading, and this and that, all kinds of things that Poles used to do in Germany, for instance, and I haven’t seen any back- lash in nationalist or xenophobic reaction to it. Even in that sense there is a shared understanding that these regimes have made all of the residents of that area and their lives very difficult. There is a difference between a regime and the people, and frankly I don’t see any problems in good discussions. There are some institutionalized entitled professors who from time to time would bespeak positions of the government but younger people and generally historians would not plight the trade of spokesmen, as it were, for any positions. The mainstream of writings I think is very open and kind of intelligent. SG. Just to continue on that question, you would probably believe that this general sense of a commonality of experiences under the totalitarian regime can serve as a common ground for understanding the past? JG. Absolutely. SG. Do you think that the specific debate on Polish-Jewish relations, which has given more room for memory to become operational, has been only possible due to Poland’s growing integration into the European Union? Does that mean that it was only in the context of Europeanization, that is, the weakening of the grip of the national paradigm on Poland, that such a debate could become possible at all? What does that mean for Polish national history as a formalized narrative of the past privileged by the state and society and transmitted through schools, media, literature, etc? JG. I am not sure if the European Union, as it were, in this process of Europeanization is a great factor. But definitely the collapse of communist rule and the Soviet Empire would have been, I mean, the fact that there is a kind of a moment in which for some time there is no censorship of any kind, it’s not binding and restraining debate. It also had to do with just the passage of time, so that in other words the generation that has been intimately and directly involved in it is an ever smaller minority by now. I was born after WWII and the vast majority of those who participate in these debates and who read them and were interested – they are also people who have not been directly involved in these events, did not have the experience of that horror, and may have been a really important factor here. I am not sure if expansion of the European Union mattered at all. 85 Interview with Jan Gross, Memory and History: "The Neighbors?" SG. Well, the question points to the persistence of national history and the changes that occur, apparently, in the way national histories are taught and explored once a society – Polish society in this instance – gains access to the larger community. JG. I think that you have to wait, you know, Poland… access to the European Community for these countries that are newly admitted, it’s such a recent event. Before it translates into either pedagogical practices or the way people start thinking about their own national history, it will take time. I am sure it will affect them, but probably not as of now… SUMMARY ßíà Ãðîññà, àâòîðà øèðîêî èçâåñòíîé êàê â íàó÷íîé ñðåäå, òàê è çà åå ïðåäåëàìè êíèãè “Åäâàáíý. Cîñåäè”,1 ðåäàêòîðû Ab Imperio ïðèãëàñèëè îòâåòèòü íà ñëåäóþùèå âîïðîñû: êàêèì îáðàçîì ñîîò- íîñèòñÿ ïàìÿòü è èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíàÿ èñòîðèÿ? Íàñêîëüêî ßí Ãðîññ îöåíèâàåò ñâîþ ðàáîòó êàê èññëåäîâàíèå ïàìÿòè? Ïðåäïîëàãàë ëè àâòîð, ÷òî ïîëüñêèé ïåðåâîä åãî êíèãè âûçîâåò òàêèå îñòðûå îáùå- ñòâåííûå äèñêóññèè? Ñ÷èòàåò ëè îí, ÷òî ïóáëèêàöèÿ êíèãè, îòêðûâ íîâóþ ñòðàíèöó â èññëåäîâàíèÿõ èñòîðèè åâðåéñêî-ïîëüñêèõ îòíî- øåíèé è ïîñïîñîáñòâîâàâ âîçíèêíîâåíèþ â Åäâàáíå êóëüòóðíûõ ïðîåêòîâ ïàìÿòè, ìàðãèíàëèçèðîâàëà ïîëüñêóþ âåðñèþ ïàìÿòè î âîéíå è åå æåðòâàõ? Ñóùåñòâóåò ëè, ñ åãî òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, âîçìîæíîñòü ïðèìèðåíèÿ ÷åðåç ïðèçíàíèå è èçó÷åíèå ïðîøëîãî? Êàêèå àñïåêòû èñòîðèè ïîëüñêî-ðîññèéñêèõ îòíîøåíèé òðåáóþò, ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, îñîáîãî âíèìàíèÿ? ßí Ãðîññ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî ðàçãîâîð î ïàìÿòè íåìèíóåìî ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òîáû áûëè æèâû åå íîñèòåëè, ò.å. ñâèäåòåëè ïðîèñøåäøåãî, òîãäà êàê èñòîðèÿ äåéñòâóåò ïîñðåäñòâîì âåðèôèêàöèè äàííûõ. Ñâîå èññëåäîâàíèå ßí Ãðîññ, áåçóñëîâíî, îòíîñèò ê ñôåðå èíñòèòóöèî- íàëüíîé èñòîðèè. ßí Ãðîññ íå ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî åãî èññëåäîâàíèå ìàð- ãèíàëèçèðîâàëî êàêèå-ëèáî âåðñèè ïðîøëîãî. Ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, ýòà ðàáîòà ëèøü ïðåäîñòàâèëà ôàêòû, íîâóþ èíôîðìàöèþ, ïðåæäå íåäîñòóïíóþ. Èññëåäîâàòåëü ïîä÷åðêèâàåò îòêðûòîñòü è èíòåë- ëåêòóàëüíóþ ãîòîâíîñòü ïîëüñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ ê èññëåäîâàíèþ ðàç- ëè÷íûõ àñïåêòîâ ýòîãî ïðîøëîãî.

1 Jan Tomasz Gross. S¹siedzi. Historia zag³ady ¿ydowskiego miasteczka. Sejny, 2000; Idem. Neighbors. The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland. Princeton, 2001; Ðóññêîå èçäàíèå: ßí Òîìàø Ãðîññ. Ñîñåäè. Èñòîðèÿ óíè÷òîæåíèÿ åâðåéñêîãî ìåñòå÷êà. Ìîñêâà, 2002. 86 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Ðîíàëüä ÑÓÍÈ

ÄÈÀËÎà ΠÃÅÍÎÖÈÄÅ: ÓÑÈËÈß ÀÐÌßÍÑÊÈÕ È ÒÓÐÅÖÊÈÕ Ó×ÅÍÛÕ ÏÎ ÎÑÌÛÑËÅÍÈÞ ÄÅÏÎÐÒÀÖÈÉ È ÐÅÇÍÈ ÀÐÌßÍ

ÂÎ ÂÐÅÌß ÏÅÐÂÎÉ ÌÈÐÎÂÎÉ ÂÎÉÍÛ*

 íà÷àëå 1998 ã. ìåíÿ ïðèãëàñèëè ïðî÷èòàòü ëåêöèþ è ïðîâåñòè ñåìèíàð â Óíèâåðñèòåòå Êî÷ (Koç University) â Ñòàìáóëå. Îáðàòèâ- øèéñÿ êî ìíå ÷åëîâåê – ìîé áûâøèé àñïèðàíò, à âïîñëåäñòâèè ïðî- ôåññîð ýòîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà – ïðåäëîæèë, ÷òîáû ÿ ðàññêàçàë îá àðìÿ- íàõ. Õîòÿ åãî ïðåäëîæåíèå ïîêàçàëîñü ìíå ñòðàííûì è äàæå îïàñíûì, ÿ íå ìîã ïðåíåáðå÷ü ñòîëü çàìàí÷èâîé âîçìîæíîñòüþ. ß ñòàë ñîâåòî- âàòüñÿ ñ äðóçüÿìè: íåêîòîðûå èç íèõ ïîëàãàëè, ÷òî ýòî – íàïðàñíûé ðèñê. Îäèí òóðåöêèé êîëëåãà ìåíÿ ïîîùðèë: “Íå áåñïîêîéòåñü! Åñëè ÷òî-íèáóäü ñëó÷èòñÿ, ìû ñìîæåì âûòàùèòü Âàñ îòòóäà!” Ïîäîáíûå çàâåðåíèÿ âðÿä ëè ìîãëè êîãî-òî óñïîêîèòü, íî ïîñêîëüêó ÿ òàê äîëãî äîêàçûâàë íåîáõîäèìîñòü äèàëîãà ìåæäó òóðêàìè, àðìÿíàìè è äðóãè- ìè çàèíòåðåñîâàííûìè ñòîðîíàìè ïî âîïðîñó î Ãåíîöèäå, ÿ ðåøèë ëåòåòü â Ñòàìáóë. Óíèâåðñèòåò Êî÷ – îòíîñèòåëüíî ìîëîäîå ó÷åáíîå çàâåäåíèå, ñïå- öèàëèçèðóþùååñÿ â îáëàñòè èçó÷åíèÿ áèçíåñà è ýêîíîìèêè. Ïî-ñïàð-

* Îò÷åò äëÿ íîìåðà 4/2004 æóðíàëà Ab Imperio, ïîñâÿùåííîãî ïðîáëåìå “Ïðèìèðåíèÿ ÷åðåç ïàìÿòü”. Ïåðåâîä Ì. Ëîñêóòîâîé. 87 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... òàíñêè àñêåòè÷íûå êîðïóñà ýòîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, ñîçäàííîãî íà ñðåä- ñòâà îäíîãî èç ñàìûõ áîãàòûõ ñåìåéñòâ â Òóðöèè, íàâîäíÿþò òîëïû ìîëîäûõ ëþäåé, êîòîðûõ ëåãêî ïðèíÿòü çà ó÷àùèõñÿ ëþáîãî àìåðè- êàíñêîãî êîëëåäæà. Ñòóäåíòû ïðåêðàñíî ãîâîðÿò ïî-àíãëèéñêè, ñðåäè ïðåïîäàâàòåëåé åñòü êàê òóðêè, òàê è èíîñòðàíöû, â òîì ÷èñëå ìîëî- äûå àìåðèêàíöû, êîòîðûõ îñîáåííî ìíîãî íà èñòîðè÷åñêîì ôàêóëüòå- òå è ôàêóëüòåòå ïîëèòîëîãèè. Óíèâåðñèòåò ãîðäèòñÿ ñâîåé ïðîçàïàä- íîé îðèåíòàöèåé è æèâåò â ïîñòîÿííîì ïðîòèâîðå÷èè: ñ îäíîé ñòî- ðîíû, îí ïðèâåðæåí ñâåòñêîìó, ãîñóäàðñòâåííè÷åñêîìó, ìîäåðíèçà- òîðñêîìó ïîäõîäó – òðàäèöèè, çàëîæåííîé Ìóñòàôîé Êåìàëåì; ñ äðó- ãîé – íåêîòîðûå èíîñòðàííûå ïðåïîäàâàòåëè âåñüìà êðèòè÷åñêè îò- íîñÿòñÿ ê ýòîé òðàäèöèè. ß ïðèëåòåë â Ñòàìáóë èç Âàøèíãòîíà ÷åðåç Àìñòåðäàì âî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå äíÿ 20 ìàÿ 1998 ã. Ìåíÿ âñòðåòèëè íà óíèâåðñèòåòñêîé ìà- øèíå, è ÿ ïðèáûë â Êî÷ âñåãî çà 15 ìèíóò äî íà÷àëà ëåêöèè.  áîëü- øîé àóäèòîðèè, îêðàøåííîé â ñèíå-ãîëóáûå òîíà, ìåíÿ îæèäàëî ÷å- ëîâåê 150, â áîëüøèíñòâå ñâîåì ñòóäåíòîâ, à òàêæå íåñêîëüêî ïðåïî- äàâàòåëåé è ïîñòîðîííèõ ëèö – ãîñòåé óíèâåðñèòåòà. Âñå åùå ïðèõîäÿ â ñåáÿ ïîñëå äîëãîãî ïåðåëåòà, ÿ íà÷àë âûñòóïëå- íèå ñ òîãî, ÷òî ïîáëàãîäàðèë óíèâåðñèòåò çà ïðåäîñòàâëåííóþ ìíå âîçìîæíîñòü îáñóäèòü ñòðàøíóþ òðàãåäèþ, êîòîðàÿ äî ñèõ ïîð ðàçúå- äèíÿåò àðìÿí è òóðîê. Ïåðâûå ñëîâà ìîåãî âûñòóïëåíèÿ, êàçàëîñü, ïà- ðàëèçîâàëè àóäèòîðèþ. Ïðèãëàñèâøèé ìåíÿ ÷åëîâåê ïîçäíåå çàìåòèë, ÷òî îí áûë ïîòðÿñåí ñòîëü ðåçêèì çàÿâëåíèåì â íà÷àëå ëåêöèè, ÿâíî êîíòðàñòèðîâàâøèì ñ òóðåöêèìè òðàêòîâêàìè ýòèõ ñîáûòèé: Èñòîðèêè èíòåðïðåòèðîâàëè ìàññîâûå äåïîðòàöèè è óáèé- ñòâà ñîòåí òûñÿ÷ àðìÿí â âîñòî÷íîé Àíàòîëèè â 1915 ã. êàê êîíôëèêò ìåæäó äâóìÿ âçàèìîèñêëþ÷àþùèìè íàöèîíàëèñòè- ÷åñêèìè äâèæåíèÿìè, íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèìè èäåîëîãèÿìè, êàê êîíôëèêò äâóõ íàðîäîâ èç-çà îäíîãî êëî÷êà çåìëè. Íåñêîëüêî ðàçâèâ ýòî ïîëîæåíèå, àâòîðû, îòðèöàþùèå ñàì Ãåíîöèä, òðàê- òóþò ýòè ñîáûòèÿ êàê ãðàæäàíñêóþ âîéíó ìåæäó òóðêàìè è àðìÿíàìè. ß æå óòâåðæäàþ íå÷òî ñîâñåì äðóãîå: ýòî áûëà íå ãðàæäàíñêàÿ âîéíà – ãðàæäàíñêîé âîéíû íà ñàìîì äåëå íè- êîãäà íå áûëî, îíà ñóùåñòâóåò ëèøü â âîîáðàæåíèè ïðîôåñ- ñèîíàëüíûõ ôàëüñèôèêàòîðîâ èñòîðèè. Ýòî áûë Ãåíîöèä, ñâåð- øèâøèéñÿ, êîãäà ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ âëàñòü ïðèíÿëà ðåøåíèå î âûñåëåíèè àðìÿí ñ èõ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ðîäèíû. Âûñåëåíèå áûëî

88 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 çàòåÿíî ðàäè äîñòèæåíèÿ íåêîòîðûõ ñòðàòåãè÷åñêèõ öåëåé, à èìåííî – óñòðàíåíèÿ ïðåäïîëàãàåìîé àðìÿíñêîé óãðîçû â õîäå âîéíû ñ Ðîññèåé, íàêàçàíèÿ àðìÿí çà ïîäðûâíóþ, ïîâñòàí÷åñ- êóþ – ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ òóðåöêîãî ðóêîâîäñòâà – äåÿòåëüíîñòü, è íàêîíåö, ðåàëèçàöèè ñîáñòâåííûõ àìáèöèé ïî ñîçäàíèþ íà âñåì ïðîñòðàíñòâå îò Àíàòîëèè äî Êàâêàçà è Ñðåäíåé Àçèè ïàíòþðêñêîé èìïåðèè. ß ãîâîðèë îêîëî ÷àñà. Çà ýòî âðåìÿ íåñêîëüêî ÷åëîâåê ïîêèíóëè àóäèòîðèþ. Îäèí òóðåöêèé ïðåïîäàâàòåëü, êîòîðîãî ÿ âñòðåòèë ïåðåä ñàìîé ëåêöèåé, âî âðåìÿ ìîåãî âûñòóïëåíèÿ âûãëÿäåë ñîâñåì ìðà÷- íûì. Îäíàêî àóäèòîðèÿ ñëóøàëà ìåíÿ ñ îãðîìíûì âíèìàíèåì, è êîãäà ÿ çàêîí÷èë, àïëîäèðîâàëà, êàê ìíå ïîêàçàëîñü, ñ áîëüøèì âîîäóøåâ- ëåíèåì.  òå÷åíèå ñëåäóþùåãî ÷àñà ÿ îòâå÷àë íà âîïðîñû – è îíè ñòà- ëè äëÿ ìåíÿ ñàìîé íåïðåäñêàçóåìîé ÷àñòüþ âûñòóïëåíèÿ. Îíè íå áûëè âðàæäåáíûìè. Ñëóøàòåëè, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, ïðèíÿëè ìîé òåçèñ î òîì, ÷òî â 1915 ã. èìåë ìåñòî Ãåíîöèä, ÷òî îí áûë èíèöèèðîâàí è îñó- ùåñòâëÿëñÿ ïðàâèòåëüñòâîì ìëàäîòóðîê, è ÷òî ýòè ñîáûòèÿ ïðîèçîø- ëè íå â ðåçóëüòàòå ñòîëêíîâåíèÿ äâóõ íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèõ äâèæåíèé, à ïîòîìó, ÷òî ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ âëàñòü ñòðåìèëàñü â èçìåíåííîé ôîðìå ñîõðàíèòü ñòàðóþ òóðåöêî-èñëàìñêóþ èìïåðèþ, ðàñïðîñòðàíèòü åå íà âîñòîê, âêëþ÷èâ â åå ñîñòàâ äðóãèå òþðêñêèå íàðîäû è óñòðàíèâ ôè- çè÷åñêè òåõ, êîãî ýòî ãîñóäàðñòâî ñ÷èòàëî íàèáîëåå ÷óæåðîäíûìè, íàè- áîëåå îïàñíûìè è íàèìåíåå ëîÿëüíûìè ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê îñìàíàì – à èìåííî, àðìÿí. Ñàìûé ïåðâûé âîïðîñ áûë çàäàí îäíèì èç ñòóäåíòîâ: “×òî æå òå- ïåðü ìû ìîæåì ñ ýòèì ïîäåëàòü? Êàê ìû ñåé÷àñ ìîæåì ïðåîäîëåòü âðàæäó ìåæäó òóðêàìè è àðìÿíàìè?” Ýòîò âîïðîñ âûçâàë îæèâëåííîå îáñóæäåíèå è íîâûå âîïðîñû àóäèòîðèè: ñëåäóåò ëè Òóðöèè ïðèíåñòè îôèöèàëüíûå èçâèíåíèÿ çà Ãåíîöèä àðìÿí? Êîãäà ýòî íóæíî ñäåëàòü? ×òî âûèãðàåò Òóðöèÿ îò ïðèíåñåííûõ èçâèíåíèé? ß îòâåòèë, ÷òî â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ïåðåä íåé ñòîèò ñëèøêîì ìíîãî ïðîáëåì – âîéíà ñ êóðäàìè, ïðîáëåìà Êèïðà, âñòóïëåíèå â Åâðîïåéñêèé Ñîþç, èñëàìèçì, ïðîáëåìà áåäíîñòè. Ïîýòîìó Òóðöèÿ äîëæíà ïîêîí÷èòü ñ ýòèì äàâíî íàáîëåâøèì âîïðîñîì è îôèöèàëüíî ïðèçíàòü ôàêò ñîâåðøåíèÿ Ãå- íîöèäà – ñîáûòèÿ áîëåå ÷åì 80-ëåòíåé äàâíîñòè. Ýòî ðàçðÿäèëî áû àòìîñôåðó â îòíîøåíèÿõ ìåæäó àðìÿíàìè è òóðêàìè è ñïîñîáñòâîâà- ëî áû âñòóïëåíèþ Òóðöèè íà ïðàâàõ ïîëíîïðàâíîãî ÷ëåíà â ñîîáùå- ñòâî ñîâðåìåííûõ íàöèé.

89 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... Íà âîïðîñ îá îòíîøåíèè àðìÿí ê òóðêàì ÿ îòâåòèë, ÷òî áîëüøèí- ñòâî èç íèõ íåíàâèäÿò òóðîê è çà ñîâåðøåííîå èìè çëî, è çà ïîñòîÿí- íîå îòðèöàíèå Ãåíîöèäà; ÷òî íåïðèçíàíèå ýòîãî ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ âñåãäà âûçûâàëî ïàòîëîãè÷åñêóþ ðåàêöèþ ñî ñòîðîíû îáîèõ íàðîäîâ (îäíèì èç ïðîÿâëåíèé ýòîé ðåàêöèè â ïðîøëîì áûë òåððîðèçì), è ÷òî åäèí- ñòâåííûé ñïîñîá ïðåîäîëåòü áîëü, êîòîðóþ âûçûâàþò ïîäàâëåííûå âîñïîìèíàíèÿ, – âçãëÿíóòü â ëèöî ôàêòàì è ïðèçíàòü, ÷òó ïðîèçîøëî íà ñàìîì äåëå. ß ñêàçàë ìîèì ñëóøàòåëÿì, ÷òî â Àìåðèêå ìíîãèå àðìÿíå íå ïîâåðèëè áû, ÷òî â Òóðöèè ìíå ðàçðåøèëè ïðî÷èòàòü òà- êóþ ëåêöèþ, è ÷òî îíè åùå áîëüøå óäèâèëèñü áû òîìó ïðèåìó, êîòî- ðûé îêàçàëè ìíå ñåãîäíÿ ñòóäåíòû. ß âûðàçèë ñâîå âîñõèùåíèå óíè- âåðñèòåòîì çà ïðåäîñòàâëåííóþ âîçìîæíîñòü âûñòóïèòü – ïóñòü äàæå ðå÷ü øëà âñåãî ëèøü îá îäíîé ëåêöèè îäíîãî ïðèãëàøåííîãî ñïåöèàëèñ- òà. È, ÷òîáû ñäåëàòü ñëåäóþùèé øàã íà ïóòè ê âçàèìîïîíèìàíèþ, ÿ ïðåäëîæèë îðãàíèçîâàòü øèðîêîå îáñóæäåíèå ýòèõ ñîáûòèé ñ ó÷àñòè- åì òóðåöêèõ, àðìÿíñêèõ è äðóãèõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé. Îäèí èç ñòóäåíòîâ ñïðîñèë ìåíÿ îá àðìÿíñêîì òåððîðèçìå, íà ÷òî ÿ çàìåòèë, ÷òî òàêîãî ðîäà äåÿòåëüíîñòü äàâíî ïðåêðàòèëàñü, è áîëü- øèíñòâî ó÷àñòíèêîâ òåððîðèñòè÷åñêèõ àêòîâ óíè÷òîæèëè äðóã äðóãà. Îòâå÷àÿ òîãäà íà ýòîò âîïðîñ, ÿ åùå íå ïîíèìàë, ÷òî ñòóäåíò íà ñàìîì äåëå ñïðàøèâàë ìåíÿ î ñîâðåìåííîì àðìÿíñêîì òåððîðèçìå – î ÿâëå- íèè, êîòîðîãî íà ñàìîì äåëå íå ñóùåñòâóåò, íî êîòîðîå ïîñòîÿííî óïîìèíàåòñÿ â òóðåöêîé ïå÷àòè.  Òóðöèè àðìÿí îáâèíÿëè â òîì, ÷òî îíè òàéíî ïîìîãàëè êóðäñêîìó âîññòàíèþ – äàæå ÿêîáû âîçãëàâëÿëè åãî! Äðóãîé ñòóäåíò ïîèíòåðåñîâàëñÿ, ñâÿçàíû ëè ìåæäó ñîáîþ îá- ñóæäåíèå àðìÿíñêîãî âîïðîñà è êóðäñêàÿ ïðîáëåìà. Î÷åâèäíî, îí, è ìíîãèå äðóãèå óñìàòðèâàëè îïðåäåëåííóþ ñâÿçü ìåæäó òåì, êàê òóð- êè îáîøëèñü ñ àðìÿíàìè 83 ãîäà íàçàä, è ïîëèòèêîé òóðåöêîãî ãî- ñóäàðñòâà ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê êóðäàì â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ. ß îòêàçàëñÿ ãî- âîðèòü î êóðäàõ, ñîñëàâøèñü íà òî, ÷òî ïðîâåë â Òóðöèè âñåãî ïîë- òîðà ÷àñà è çà ýòî âðåìÿ óæå óñïåë ñòàòü âðàãîì òóðåöêîãî ãîñóäàð- ñòâà! Îòâå÷àÿ íà âîïðîñû, â êàêîé-òî ìîìåíò ÿ óïîìÿíóë, ÷òî ìîé äåä ïî ìàòåðè áûë ðîäîì èç Éîçãàòà – ãîðîäà â öåíòðàëüíîé Àíàòî- ëèè, à ìîÿ áàáêà ïî ìàòåðè ïðîèñõîäèëà èç Äèàðáåêèðà – ãîðîäà, êîòîðûé àðìÿíå íàçûâàëè Äèêðàíàãåðò, è êîòîðûé ñåé÷àñ íàñåëÿþò â îñíîâíîì êóðäû. Ìîè äåä è áàáóøêà ïîêèíóëè Òóðöèþ ïîñëå ðåçíè 1894-1896 è 1909 ãã., à âñå èõ ðîäñòâåííèêè, êòî îñòàëñÿ â ñòðàíå, áûëè óáèòû âî âðåìÿ Ãåíîöèäà. Òèøèíà, íàñòóïèâøàÿ â çàëå ïîñëå ýòèõ ñëîâ, 90 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 óáåäèëà ìåíÿ â òîì, ÷òî âðÿä ëè êòî-òî èç ñëóøàòåëåé óñîìíèëñÿ â ïðàâäèâîñòè ìîåãî ðàññêàçà î ñîáûòèÿõ 1915 ãîäà. ß ïîêèíóë àóäèòîðèþ âäîõíîâëåííûé. ×åðåç äâà äíÿ êî ìíå â ãîñòèíèöó ïðèøëà æóðíàëèñòêà, ÷òîáû âçÿòü ó ìåíÿ èíòåðâüþ î Ãå- íîöèäå. Áîëåå ÷àñà ìû ãîâîðèëè ñ íåé î òîì, ÷òî èìåííî è ïî÷åìó ïðî- èçîøëî â 1915 ã. Îíà ïîîáåùàëà ìíå, ÷òî èíòåðâüþ áóäåò îïóáëèêîâà- íî ïðèìåðíî ÷åðåç íåäåëþ â âîñêðåñíîì ïðèëîæåíèè ê ïîïóëÿðíîé ãàçåòå “Ìèëëèéåò”. ß ëþáîâàëñÿ êðàñîòàìè Ñòàìáóëà, âîñõèùàëñÿ Áîñôîðîì è íàñëàæäàëñÿ õîðîøî çíàêîìûì âêóñîì òóðåöêîé êóõíè, íî ïðè ýòîì ÿ îòëè÷íî ïîíèìàë, ÷òî âûïàâøàÿ íà ìîþ äîëþ âîçìîæ- íîñòü âûñòóïèòü ñ ïîäîáíîé ëåêöèåé áûëà óíèêàëüíîé, äàæå ñòðàí- íîé. Îíà íèêàê íå ñîîòâåòñòâîâàëà ïðîöåññàì, ïðîèñõîäèâøèì òîãäà â Òóðöèè. Ñïóñòÿ íåñêîëüêî äíåé ïîñëå ìîåãî ïîñåùåíèÿ Óíèâåðñèòåòà Êî÷ Ôðàíöèÿ îôèöèàëüíî ïðèçíàëà ôàêò Ãåíîöèäà àðìÿí. Òóðåöêîå ïðà- âèòåëüñòâî ðåàãèðîâàëî íà ýòî íàáèâøèìè îñêîìèíó ôðàçàìè î ãðàæ- äàíñêîé âîéíå è óáèéñòâàõ ñ îáåèõ ñòîðîí.  ñóùíîñòè, îôèöèàëüíàÿ Òóðöèÿ ïðîäîëæàëà íàñòàèâàòü íà òîì, ÷òî Ãåíîöèäà íå áûëî, è ÷òî â ëþáîì ñëó÷àå àðìÿíå ñàìè â íåì âèíîâàòû! Ïîëíûé àáñóðä! Èç Ñòàìáóëà ÿ âûëåòåë â Òáèëèñè. Ãðóçèÿ – ñòðàíà, ïåðåä êîòî- ðîé ñòîÿò ñâîè ïðîáëåìû. Îíà ñòðàäàåò îò ìåæýòíè÷åñêèõ êîíôëèê- òîâ è ñëàáîñòè ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé âëàñòè.  Òáèëèñè òàêæå ìíîãèõ óäè- âèëî, ÷òî â Òóðöèè ìíå ïîçâîëèëè ãîâîðèòü î ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâàõ àð- ìÿí. Çäåñü, âäàëè îò Ñòàìáóëà, ðàçìûøëÿÿ î òîì, ÷òî ïðîèçîøëî, ÿ ïîíÿë, ÷òî â Òóðöèè íåîôèöèàëüíî óæå øëà äèñêóññèÿ î Ãåíîöèäå. Ýòó ïðîáëåìó åùå íåëüçÿ áûëî îáñóæäàòü â ïîëíûé ãîëîñ, ïóáëè÷íî, íî è ñòóäåíòû, è èíòåëëèãåíöèÿ óæå çíàëè î òîì, ÷òî îôèöèàëüíàÿ âåðñèÿ ñîáûòèé – ïëîõî ñðàáîòàííàÿ ëîæü. Áûëî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî â Òóð- öèè èìåëèñü ëþäè, êîòîðûå – ïîäîáíî ñòóäåíòàì èç Óíèâåðñèòåòà Êî÷ èëè æóðíàëèñòêå, áðàâøåé ó ìåíÿ èíòåðâüþ, – áûëè ãîòîâû ïîéòè íà ðèñê è óñëûøàòü ïðàâäó. Íåêîòîðûå – òàêèõ, ïðàâäà, áûëî åùå î÷åíü ìàëî – ðåøàëèñü âñëóõ ãîâîðèòü ïðàâäó î ñîáûòèÿõ 1915 ã. Ìíå âñïîì- íèëèñü äâå æåíùèíû, êîòîðûå ïîäîøëè êî ìíå ïîñëå ëåêöèè è ñêàçà- ëè, ÷òî îíè – òóðåöêèå àðìÿíêè. Âñïîìíèëñÿ ìîëîäîé ÷åëîâåê, ñîìíå- âàâøèéñÿ â òîì, ÷òî òóðêè ëåãêî ïîéäóò íà ïðèçíàíèå Ãåíîöèäà – ïî- ñêîëüêó îíè íå ÷óâñòâóþò ñåáÿ äîñòàòî÷íî óâåðåííî, èõ íàöèîíàëüíîå ñàìîñîçíàíèå ñëèøêîì ðàíèìî. Òóðêè, ïîäóìàë ÿ, äîëæíû ñàìè äëÿ ñåáÿ ðåøèòü, êòî îíè – íàöèÿ ñîâðåìåííàÿ èëè òðàäèöèîíàëèñòñêàÿ, ñâåòñêàÿ èëè èñëàìñêàÿ, ïðèíàäëåæàò ëè îíè Çàïàäó èëè Âîñòîêó – ïðåæäå ÷åì ñìîãóò äàòü îòâåò íà òðóäíûå âîïðîñû î òîì, ÷òî ñîòâî- 91 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... ðèëè èõ ïðåäêè â íà÷àëå XX â. Ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå íåêîòîðûå òóðêè íà÷àëè ïåðåîñìûñëèâàòü òî, ÷òî íå áûëî ïðèíÿòî îáñóæäàòü, íà÷àëè çàäàâàòü âîïðîñû ïðîøëîìó ñâîåãî íàðîäà, ÷òîáû ñäåëàòü åãî áóäó- ùåå áîëåå ïðèåìëåìûì äëÿ âñåõ. Ïîñëå ìîåãî âîçâðàùåíèÿ â Ñîåäèíåííûå Øòàòû ãàçåòà “Ìèëëèéåò” îïóáëèêîâàëà èíòåðâüþ, êîòîðîå ÿ äàë 14 èþíÿ 1998 ã. Âñëåä çà ýòèì àðìÿíî-àìåðèêàíñêèé æóðíàë “Àðìÿíñêèé ôîðóì”, íåäàâíî ñîçäàííûé äâóìÿ ìîèìè áûâøèìè ó÷åíèêàìè, íàïå÷àòàë ìîþ áîëüøóþ ñòàòüþ ïîä íàçâàíèåì “Èìïåðèÿ è íàöèÿ: àðìÿíå, òóðêè è êîíåö Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè”, â îñíîâó êîòîðîé ëåãëà ïðî÷èòàííàÿ ìíîþ â Ñòàìáóëå ëåê- öèÿ. Ê ìîåìó óäèâëåíèþ, ìîÿ ïîåçäêà â Òóðöèþ, èíòåðâüþ â òóðåöêîé ãàçåòå è ýòà ñòàòüÿ âûçâàëè êðàéíå âðàæäåáíóþ ðåàêöèþ – êðèòèêîâà- ëè ìåíÿ, ìîè âçãëÿäû íà Ãåíîöèä, ìîå ïðåäëîæåíèå ñîáðàòü âìåñòå òóðåöêèõ è àðìÿíñêèõ ó÷åíûõ äëÿ îáñóæäåíèÿ ñîáûòèé 1915 ã. Èðî- íèÿ çàêëþ÷àëàñü â òîì, ÷òî íàèáîëåå ðåçêî âûñêàçûâàëèñü àðìÿíñêèå æóðíàëèñòû è èññëåäîâàòåëè, à íå èõ òóðåöêèå êîëëåãè.  ñóùíîñòè, â ìîåé ñòàòüå ñîäåðæàëèñü òðè ïîëîæåíèÿ, âûçâàâøèå íàèáîëüøèå íà- ïàäêè: 1) Ãåíîöèä 1915 ã. íåëüçÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòü êàê ïðîñòîå ïðîäîëæå- íèå ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ àðìÿí òóðåöêèìè âëàñòÿìè, êîòîðûå ñëó÷àëèñü è ðàíåå – ýòî áûëà ïðèíöèïèàëüíî èíàÿ, ãîðàçäî áîëåå ðàäèêàëüíàÿ ïî- ïûòêà ðåøåíèÿ “àðìÿíñêîãî âîïðîñà”; 2) Ãåíîöèä íå ïëàíèðîâàëñÿ çà- ðàíåå, çàäîëãî äî Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû – ñêîðåå, ýòî áûëî âíåçàïíîå ðåøåíèå, ïðèíÿòîå â ðàçãàð âîéíû; 3) Ãåíîöèä áûë âûçâàí íå ñòîëüêî íåíàâèñòüþ òóðîê ê àðìÿíàì êàê ê ðàñå èëè íàöèè, ñêîëüêî àìáè- öèîçíûìè ïëàíàìè âîññîçäàíèÿ íà íîâîì ôóíäàìåíòå Îñìàíñêîé èì- ïåðèè, êîòîðûå ïðåäïîëàãàëè ïàíòþðàíñêóþ ýêñïàíñèþ íà Âîñòîêå. “Àðìÿíñêèé ôîðóì” ïðåäîñòàâèë òðåì èñòîðèêàì – äâóì òóðêàì ïî ïðîèñõîæäåíèþ è îäíîìó àðìÿíèíó – âîçìîæíîñòü âûñòóïèòü ñ çàìå- ÷àíèÿìè ïî ìîåé ñòàòüå.  “Îòâåòå ìîèì êðèòèêàì”, îïóáëèêîâàííîì â òîì æå æóðíàëå, ÿ îáðàòèëñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ê äâóì òóðåöêèì èñòîðè- êàì, ñîãëàñèâøèìñÿ ïðèíÿòü ó÷àñòèå â ýòîé áåñïðåöåäåíòíîé äèñêóñ- ñèè. ß ïîáëàãîäàðèë ïðîôåññîðà èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ôàêóëüòåòà Óíèâåð- ñèòåòà Áðàóí (Brown University) Ýíãèíà Äåíèçà Àêàðëè (Engin Deniz Akarli) çà ïðèçûâ ê èññëåäîâàòåëÿì âûéòè çà ïðåäåëû íàöèîíàëèñòè- ÷åñêèõ ïàðàäèãì, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðûõ ñôîðìèðîâàëèñü íàøè ïðåäñòàâ- ëåíèÿ î ïðîøëîì. Àêàðëè ñìåëî çàÿâèë, ÷òî Ãåíîöèä 1915 ã. íåëüçÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòü êàê ãðàæäàíñêóþ âîéíó (êàê ýòî óòâåðæäàëè íåêîòîðûå òóðåöêèå èñòîðèêè), ÷òî ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà, êîòîðûå òîãäà ïðîèçîøëè, ïî ïðàâó ñëåäóåò íàçûâàòü “Ãåíîöèäîì”.  ýòîì íàøè ïîçèöèè îêàçàëèñü 92 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 äîñòàòî÷íî áëèçêèìè. Îäíàêî ìåæäó íàìè îáíàðóæèëèñü è ïðèíöèïè- àëüíûå ðàçëè÷èÿ âî âçãëÿäàõ. Òåðìèí “ãðàæäàíñêàÿ âîéíà” äåéñòâèòåëü- íî ââîäèò â çàáëóæäåíèå – íî íå ïîòîìó, ÷òî â ïîñëåäíèé ïåðèîä ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè îáùåñòâî íå áûëî ðàñêîëîòî ïî ðåëèãèîçíîìó, êëàññîâîìó èëè ýòíè÷åñêîìó ïðèçíàêó. Òðàäèöèîííîå ïîíèìàíèå ïðèðîäû ãðàæäàíñêîé âîéíû ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî äâå ÷àñòè îáùåñòâà, âîçìîæíî, ñïëîòèâøèåñÿ âîêðóã ïðîòèâîáîðñòâóþùèõ ïî- ëèòè÷åñêèõ ñèë, ñðàæàþòñÿ äðóã ñ äðóãîì íà ðàâíûõ. Îíè äî íåêîòîðîé ñòåïåíè ñîïîñòàâèìû ïî ñâîåìó ñîöèàëüíîìó ìàñøòàáó, ïî ðåçóëüòà- òèâíîñòè ñâîèõ äåéñòâèé.  äàííîì æå ñëó÷àå ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû ìû âèäèì ãîñóäàðñòâî, à ñ äðóãîé – íåáîëüøóþ ÷àñòü îáùåñòâà; îäíà ñòîðîíà áûëà õîðîøî âîîðóæåíà è îðãàíèçîâàíà, äðóãàÿ – ïî÷òè áåçî- ðóæíà è ðàçáðîñàíà ïî ñòðàíå. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî òàêèå òåðìèíû êàê “íå- ïîâèíîâåíèå”, “ñîïðîòèâëåíèå” èëè “âîññòàíèå” ãîðàçäî áîëüøå ïîä- õîäÿò äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ ñîáûòèé, â êîòîðûõ ó÷àñòâîâàëè àðìÿíå, ïîñêîëü- êó ýòè ïîíÿòèÿ, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ïîçâîëÿþò ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî ñèëû ïðîòè- âîáîðñòâóþùèõ ñòîðîí áûëè äàëåêî íå ðàâíûìè. Àêàðëè ïðåäëîæèë àëüòåðíàòèâíîå îáúÿñíåíèå Ãåíîöèäà 1915 ã., ñâÿ- çàâ ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà ñ òîé èäåîëîãèåé, êîòîðàÿ ñëîæèëàñü ó âîæ- äåé ìëàäîòóðîê. Èõ âçãëÿäû íà ïðîáëåìó ñôîðìèðîâàëèñü ïîä âëèÿ- íèåì îïûòà ñîáûòèé íà Áàëêàíàõ, ãäå õðèñòèàíå æåñòîêî ðàñïðàâëÿ- ëèñü ñ ìóñóëüìàíàìè. Ðàçâèâàÿ ìûñëü, âûñêàçàííóþ Õàñàíîì Êàéÿ- ëè (Hasan Kayali) èç Êàëèôîðíèéñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà â Ñàí-Äèåãî (University of California, San Diego), Àêàðëè óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî ïðàâèòåëü- ñòâî Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè ïðåóâåëè÷èâàëî óãðîçó ñâîåé âëàñòè, èñõî- äÿùóþ ñî ñòîðîíû äâóõ îñíîâíûõ õðèñòèàíñêèõ îáùèí. Èìåííî ïî- ýòîìó ïîëèòèêà ïðàâèòåëüñòâà, íàïðàâëåííàÿ íà ñîõðàíåíèå ãîñóäàð- ñòâà, ïåðåðîñëà â ïëàíû ïîëíîãî óíè÷òîæåíèÿ àðìÿí íà òåððèòîðèè èì- ïåðèè.  êîíöå ñâîåé ñòàòüè Àêàðëè ïðèçíàëñÿ, ÷òî íå ìîæåò ïîíÿòü, ïî÷åìó ïðàâèòåëüñòâî Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè ïîñòóïèëî òàê, êàê îíî ïî- ñòóïèëî. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âîîáðàæåíèå èñòîðèêà ïàñóåò ïåðåä ïîäîá- íûìè èððàöèîíàëüíûìè àêòàìè âàðâàðñêîé æåñòîêîñòè. Îäíàêî, ñòðå- ìÿñü íàéòè îáúÿñíåíèå, Àêàðëè íå ïûòàëñÿ íè çàìîë÷àòü, íè îïðàâäàòü òî çëî, êîòîðîå òóðåöêèå íàöèîíàëèñòû ïðè÷èíèëè àðìÿíàì, ÷òî äå- ëàåò åìó ÷åñòü êàê ó÷åíîìó. Èñòîðèê èç Ñòàìáóëà Ñåëèì Äåðèíãèë (Selim Deringil) âûñêàçàëñÿ î ìîåé ñòàòüå ãîðàçäî êðèòè÷íåå. Ïî åãî ñëîâàì, “îò íåå [ñòàòüè – Ïå- ðåâîä÷.] ìîæíî áûëî æäàòü ãîðàçäî áîëüøåãî”: ñòàòüÿ èçîáèëóåò íå- òî÷íîñòÿìè, â íåé ìíîãî ïðîáëåì ñ ìåòîäîëîãèåé, åå àâòîð ñëèøêîì 93 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... ÿâíî âûñòóïàåò íà ñòîðîíå àðìÿí. Çà ýòî ïîñëåäíåå çàìå÷àíèå ÿ ïî- áëàãîäàðèë Äåðèíãèëà, ïîñêîëüêó àðìÿíå ñëèøêîì ÷àñòî óïðåêàëè ìåíÿ â òîì, ÷òî ÿ îòíîøóñü ê íèì ïðåäâçÿòî, áóäó÷è íà ñàìîì äåëå àðìÿíñêèì àíòè-íàöèîíàëèñòîì (ïîñëåäíåå, äåéñòâèòåëüíî, áëèæå âñåãî ñîîòâåòñòâóåò ìîèì âçãëÿäàì!). Òàê è íå äàâ ñîáñòâåííîãî îáúÿñíåíèÿ òîìó, ÷òî îí ãîòîâ íàçâàòü “ñòðàøíûì ïðåñòóïëåíèåì, ñî- âåðøåííûì ïðîòèâ àðìÿíñêîãî íàðîäà â âîñòî÷íîé Àíàòîëèè è â äðó- ãèõ îáëàñòÿõ ñòðàíû” (íî ïðè ýòîì ñòàðàòåëüíî èçáåãàÿ ñëîâà “Ãåíî- öèä”), Äåðèíãèë íàñòàèâàë, ÷òî ÿ ñèëüíî ïðåóâåëè÷èë çíà÷åíèå ïàí- òþðêèçìà èëè ïàíòóðàíèçìà. Íà ñàìîì äåëå, ÿ ãîâîðèë âîâñå íå î ïåð- âåíñòâå ïàíòþðêèçìà – èëè íàöèîíàëèçìà, èëè îñìàíèçìà. ß äîêàçû- âàë, ÷òî â ïîçäíåé Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè ñóùåñòâîâàëà “ãóñòàÿ ñìåñü” èç ðàçëè÷íûõ èäåîëîãèé, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðîé è äåéñòâîâàëè ìëàäîòóð- êè. Ïîýòîìó ñëåäóåò ó÷èòûâàòü âñå ñóùåñòâîâàâøèå òîãäà ïðîåêòû ñîõðàíåíèÿ è óïðî÷åíèÿ èìïåðèè. Èç âñåé “ñìåñè” òóðåöêèå ëèäåðû, â êîíöå êîíöîâ, èçáðàëè ðàäèêàëüíîå ðåøåíèå – ïîëèòèêó ìàññîâîãî óíè÷òîæåíèÿ àðìÿí. ß ïî-ïðåæíåìó óáåæäåí, ÷òî ïàíòóðàíñêèå ôàí- òàçèè ñûãðàëè çäåñü ñâîþ ðîëü – ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, îíè îïðåäåëÿëè ñîçíàíèå íåêîòîðûõ âåäóùèõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ èãðîêîâ. Îñîáûå âîçðàæåíèÿ ñ ìîåé ñòîðîíû âûçâàëî óòâåðæäåíèå Äåðèíãè- ëà î òîì, ÷òî ÿ ïðåäâçÿòî ïîäîøåë ê ïîçèöèè òóðåöêîé ñòîðîíû è ðàñ- ñìàòðèâàþ òóðåöêèé íàöèîíàëèçì êàê “èñêóñíûé, êîâàðíûé âîñòî÷- íûé çàãîâîð, íàïðàâëåííûé íà òî, ÷òîáû íàâÿçàòü ìèðó ïàíòóðàíñêóþ èìïåðèþ”. Òàêîå ïðî÷òåíèå ìîåé ñòàòüè áåçóñëîâíî íåïðàâèëüíî.  ìîåì ïîíèìàíèè ëþáîå íàöèîíàëüíîå äâèæåíèå, ëþáàÿ íàöèîíàëüíàÿ èäåîëîãèÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé íàððàòè⠖ ïîâåñòâîâàíèå î áûòèè êîë- ëåêòèâíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè â èñòîðè÷åñêîì âðåìåíè, îáû÷íî ñ ñîîòâåò- ñòâóþùèìè ññûëêàìè íà ñëàâíîå ïðîøëîå ýòîé îáùíîñòè ëþäåé è ñ ïðèòÿçàíèÿìè íà íåêîòîðóþ ÷àñòü ìèðîâîé íåäâèæèìîñòè, à èìåííî – íà òåððèòîðèþ ñâîåé “ðîäèíû”. ß ðàññìàòðèâàë ðàçëè÷íûå ñïîñîáû, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðûõ àðìÿíå è òóðêè îáîñíîâûâàëè ñâîè ïðåòåíçèè íà Àíàòîëèþ, îòíþäü íå ñ÷èòàÿ ïðè ýòîì, ÷òî îáëàäàíèå ýòèìè çåìëÿìè â ïðîøëîì èëè äåìîãðàôè÷åñêèé ïåðåâåñ òîãî èëè èíîãî ýòíîñà â íàñòî- ÿùåì äàþò êàêèå-òî áîëüøèå ïðàâà íà ñïîðíóþ òåððèòîðèþ, ÷òî ýòî áîëåå ñèëüíûå àðãóìåíòû ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ çàâîåâàíèåì, ïîêîðåíèåì ñîïåðíèêîâ èëè èõ óñòðàíåíèåì ïîñðåäñòâîì äåïîðòàöèè. Ïðîøëûé èñòîðè÷åñêèé îïûò ïî-ðàçíîìó ïðî÷èòûâàåòñÿ è èñòîëêîâûâàåòñÿ â ðàìêàõ ðàçëè÷íûõ äèñêóðñèâíûõ êîíñòðóêöèé, íàïðàâëåííûõ íà îïðàâ- äàíèå èëè îáîñíîâàíèå òåõ èëè èíûõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ïðèòÿçàíèé.  äàí- 94 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íîì ñëó÷àå, è àðìÿíå, è òóðêè ïî-ðàçíîìó èíòåðïðåòèðóþò îáùóþ èñ- òîðèþ. Èçâåñòíûé àðìÿíñêèé èññëåäîâàòåëü Ãåíîöèäà Âàõàêí Í. Äàäðÿí (Vahakn N. Dadrian) âîñïðèíÿë ìîþ ñòàòüþ êðàéíå âðàæäåáíî. Åãî çàìå÷àíèÿ çíà÷èòåëüíî ïðåâûñèëè ïî ñâîåìó îáúåìó ïåðâîíà÷àëüíûé òåêñò ìîåé ñòàòüè. Âî-ïåðâûõ, îí îñïîðèë ìîå óòâåðæäåíèå î òîì, ÷òî õàìèäñêèå óáèéñòâà 1890-õ ãã. îòëè÷àëàñü îò Ãåíîöèäà 1915 ã. Îí òàêæå îòâåðã ìîþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ íà Ãåíîöèä êàê íà ñïîíòàííîå ñîáûòèå, ïðîèçîøåäøåå â ìîìåíò ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ðàäèêàëèçàöèè, ïîñëåäîâàâ- øåé çà êàòàñòðîôè÷åñêèì ïîðàæåíèåì îñìàíñêîé àðìèè ïðè Ñàðûêà- ìûøå çèìîé 1914-1915 ãã. Äàäðÿí ñîâåðøåííî ñïðàâåäëèâî çàìåòèë, ÷òî ÿ íå ñîãëàñåí ñ ÷àñòî ïîâòîðÿþùèìñÿ â åãî ðàáîòàõ òåçèñîì î òîì, ÷òî ïëàíû Ãåíîöèäà ñòàëè ðàçðàáàòûâàòüñÿ åùå äî Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû.  êà÷åñòâå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà Äàäðÿí ññûëàåòñÿ íà äîíåñåíèÿ àâ- ñòðî-âåíãåðñêîãî âèöå-ìàðøàëà Ïîìÿíêîâñêîãî, êîòîðûé ÿêîáû ñëûøàë “ñïîíòàííûå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ ìíîãèõ óìíûõ òóðîê”, ÷òî ïðàâîñëàâíîå íàñåëåíèå Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè ñëåäóåò èëè îáðàòèòü â èñëàì, èëè óíè÷- òîæèòü. Äàäðÿí ññûëàåòñÿ òàêæå íà ñîîáùåíèå ïîëêîâíèêà ãåðìàíñ- êîé àðìèè Øòðàíãå, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó ìëàäîòóðêè ïðîâîäèëè äåïîð- òàöèè è óíè÷òîæåíèå àðìÿí “â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ äàâíî çàäóìàííûì ïëà- íîì”, à òàêæå íà áîëåå ïîçäíèå äîíåñåíèÿ Ìàêñà Ýðâèíà ôîí-Øóá- íåð-Ðèõòåðà è ïîñëà Éîõàííà Ìàðêãðàôà Ïàëëàâè÷èíè î òîì, ÷òî òóð- êè íàìåðåâàëèñü èñïîëüçîâàòü âîéíó äëÿ óíè÷òîæåíèÿ õðèñòèàí. Çäåñü ìû ïîäõîäèì ê îäíîìó èç ñàìûõ ñëîæíûõ âîïðîñîâ, ñâÿçàí- íûõ ñ Ãåíîöèäîì. Êîãäà èìåííî òóðåöêèì ðóêîâîäñòâîì áûëî ïðèíÿ- òî ðåøåíèå î ïðîâåäåíèè ïîëèòèêè ìàññîâîãî óíè÷òîæåíèÿ? Ñóùå- ñòâîâàëè ëè òàêèå ïëàíû äî íà÷àëà Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû, êîãäà ìëà- äîòóðêè è îñíîâíàÿ àðìÿíñêàÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ïàðòèÿ â Òóðöèè – Äàø- íàêöóòþí – åùå áûëè ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ñîþçíèêàìè? Èëè æå ýòè ïëàíû âîçíèêëè ñ íà÷àëîì âîéíû, êîãäà òóðåöêàÿ àðìèÿ ïîòåðïåëà ïîðàæå- íèå íà Êàâêàçñêîì ôðîíòå, à êëþ÷åâûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå èãðîêè â Ñòàì- áóëå ïðèøëè ê óáåæäåíèþ, ÷òî àðìÿíå ïðåäàëè èõ â ýòîé â îéíå? Ìîé îòâåò íà ýòè âîïðîñû ñîñòîèò â ñëåäóþùåì: äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ñîâåð- øåííî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî òóðåöêàÿ ýëèòà çàäîëãî äî âîéíû áûëà íàñòðîåíà ïðîòèâ àðìÿí. Òî÷íî òàêæå î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî îòäåëüíûå ýêñòðåìèñòû äàâ- íî âûíàøèâàëè ïëàíû ðàäèêàëüíîãî “ðåøåíèÿ” àðìÿíñêîãî âîïðîñà. Íåëüçÿ îòðèöàòü è òî, ÷òî âîéíà ïðåäîñòàâèëà áëåñòÿùóþ âîçìîæ- íîñòü äëÿ ïðîâåäåíèÿ â æèçíü ñàìûõ æåñòîêèõ ïëàíîâ â îòíîøåíèè àðìÿí, è ÷òî æåðòâàì áûëè ïðåäúÿâëåíû ëîæíûå îáâèíåíèÿ â ïîäãî- 95 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... òîâêå âîññòàíèÿ. Íî âñå ýòî, ïî ìîåìó ìíåíèþ, íåëüçÿ îòîæäåñòâ- ëÿòü ñ çàðàíåå ïîäãîòîâëåííûì è ðàçðàáîòàííûì ïëàíîì ïî óíè÷òî- æåíèþ àðìÿí. Åñëè áû íå ðàçðàçèëàñü Ïåðâàÿ ìèðîâàÿ âîéíà, òî íå áûëî áû è Ãåíîöèäà – è íå òîëüêî ïîòîìó, ÷òî âîéíà ïîçâîëèëà ñêðûòü ýòè ñîáûòèÿ. Âîéíà êðàéíå îáîñòðèëà ó òóðîê ÷óâñòâî ãðîçÿùåé èì ñòðàøíîé îïàñíîñòè. Áåç ýòîãî ó íèõ áûëî áû ãîðàçäî ìåíüøå ñòèìó- ëîâ ê ðàäèêàëüíîìó ðåøåíèþ âîïðîñà è áîëüøå ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ âîç- ìîæíîñòåé äëÿ äðóãèõ âàðèàíòîâ. Íàêàíóíå îáúÿâëåíèÿ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèåé âîéíû Ðîññèè òóðåöêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî âåëî ïåðåãîâîðû ñ âå- äóùåé àðìÿíñêîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïàðòèåé – Äàøíàêöóòþí – î òîì, ÷òî- áû ýòà ïàðòèÿ ïîääåðæàëà áû óñèëèÿ ïðàâèòåëüñòâà, íàïðàâëåííûå íà ïîäðûâ Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè èçíóòðè, èñïîëüçóÿ äëÿ ýòîãî àðìÿí, æè- âóùèõ â Ðîññèè. Äàøíàêè ïðîçîðëèâî îòêàçàëèñü. Òåì íå ìåíåå, â ýòîé èñòîðèè âàæíî òî, ÷òî ïåðåä ìëàäîòóðêàìè áûëî îòêðûòî ìíîæåñòâî ðàçëè÷íûõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ âîçìîæíîñòåé ðåøåíèÿ ïðîáëåìû, êîòîðûì îíè ïðåäïî÷ëè Ãåíîöèä. Êîãäà Ãåíîöèä àðìÿí âñå æå ñâåðøèëñÿ, òî ýòî ïðîèçîøëî âñëåäñòâèå íåíàâèñòè è ñòðàõà, äàâíî è ïðî÷íî ïîñåëèâøèõñÿ â ñîçíàíèè òóðîê, êàê ýëèòû îáùåñòâà, òàê è ïðîñòîãî íàðîäà. Ýòè íàñòðî- åíèÿ óñèëèëèñü ñ íà÷àëîì âîéíû è ïîðàæåíèÿìè íà ôðîíòå, èõ ïîäïèòûâà- ëè è ãðàíäèîçíûå, ôàíòàñòè÷åñêèå çàìûñëû ðóêîâîäñòâà ïàðòèè ìëàäîòó- ðîê ïî ïåðåñòðîéêå èìïåðèè è óñòðàíåíèþ ïðåäïîëàãàåìîé óãðîçû ñî ñòîðîíû àðìÿí. Îäíàêî äàæå â ïðîñòðàííîé ñòàòüå Äàäðÿíà íå ïðî- çâó÷àë âîïðîñ: â êàêîé æå âñå-òàêè ìîìåíò è êåì áûëî ïðèíÿòî ðåøå- íèå ïðîâåñòè ìàññîâûå äåïîðòàöèè è óáèéñòâà àðìÿí? Çà îòñóòñòâèåì òî÷íûõ äîêàçàòåëüñòâ, ÿ ñêëîíåí ïîëàãàòü, ÷òî òà- êîå ðåøåíèå áûëî ïðèíÿòî â êàêîé-òî ìîìåíò â ñàìîì íà÷àëå 1915 ã. íà ôîíå çèìíèõ ïîðàæåíèé íà ôðîíòå. Îáñòàíîâêà áëàãîïðèÿòñòâîâà- ëà ïîäîáíûì äåéñòâèÿì, ïîñêîëüêó ïàðëàìåíò áûë çàêðûò, â âîçäóõå âèòàëî îùóùåíèå îïàñíîñòè, ãðîçÿùåé ãîñóäàðñòâó, è àðìÿí ìîæíî áûëî ëåãêî ïðåäñòàâèòü êàê ïðåäàòåëåé, ïîìîãàþùèõ íàñòóïëåíèþ ðóñ- ñêèõ âîéñê. Êàê óáåäèòåëüíî ïîêàçàë Äàäðÿí, èíèöèàòèâà, ïîîùðåíèå è êîîðäèíàöèÿ ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ èñõîäèëè ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî èç ñà- ìîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïàðòèè ìëàäîòóðîê, à íå ïðÿìî îò ãîñóäàðñòâà èëè ñîçäàííûõ èìè ñïåöñëóæá òèïà Îñîáîé îðãàíèçàöèè (Teshkilâti Mahsusa).  ìîåé ñòàòüå è â ïîñëåäóþùèõ îòâåòàõ íà êðèòèêó, ïûòàÿñü îáíà- ðóæèòü ïðè÷èíû ñîáûòèé 1915 ã., ÿ ñòðåìèëñÿ ïîéòè äàëüøå îáû÷íûõ ññûëîê íà ãëóáîêî óêîðåíèâøèéñÿ ðàñèçì òóðîê, ïðîâîêàöèè ñî ñòî- ðîíû àðìÿí, áóäòî áû èìåâøóþ ìåñòî ãðàæäàíñêóþ âî éíó èëè ñòîë- 96 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êíîâåíèå äâóõ íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèõ äâèæåíèé è èäåîëîãèé. Ìîè âûñòóïëåíèÿ áûëè ïðèçûâîì ê áîëåå ãëóáîêîìó, äåòàëèçèðîâàííîìó, îñíîâàííîìó íà ôàêòè÷åñêèõ äàííûõ èçó÷åíèþ Ãåíîöèäà – ÷åãî íàì íèêàê íå óäàâàëîñü â ïðîøëîì. Îïèðàÿñü íà ìàòåðèàëû ïîñëåäíèõ äèñ- êóññèé îá èìïåðèè è íàöèè, î ôîðìèðîâàíèè íàöèîíàëüíîé èäåíòè÷- íîñòè, ÿ ïîïûòàëñÿ âûéòè çà ðàìêè ñëîæèâøèõñÿ íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñ- êèõ ïàðàäèãì, êîòîðûå ìåøàþò íàì ïîíÿòü ýòè ñîáûòèÿ. Ê òîìó âðåìåíè, êîãäà áûëè îïóáëèêîâàíû ìîÿ ñòàòüÿ è îòêëèêè íà íåå, ò.å. ê ëåòó 1998 ã., óæå âîâñþ øëà ðàáîòà ïî îðãàíèçàöèè öèêëà ñåìèíàðîâ, ïîñâÿùåííûõ Ãåíîöèäó, ñ ó÷àñòèåì àðìÿíñêèõ, òóðåöêèõ è äðóãèõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé. Èçâåñòèÿ îá ýòèõ ïëàíàõ ðàñïðîñòðàíèëèñü ñðåäè àðìÿí, æèâóùèõ â Ñîåäèíåííûõ Øòàòàõ. Íåêîòîðûå èç íèõ ïðè- âåòñòâîâàëè íàøå íà÷èíàíèå, íî ìíîãèå âñòðåòèëè åãî â øòûêè. Îäèí æóðíàëèñò, âîçãëàâèâøèé â ïðåññå êàìïàíèþ ïðîòèâ íàøåãî ñåìèíà- ðà, äàæå îïóáëèêîâàë íåñêîëüêî ñòàòåé ïîä îáùèì çàãëàâèåì “Òóðêè ïðèõîäÿò â ×èêàãî”. Íåêîòîðûå èç îáâèíåíèé, âûäâèíóòûõ ïðîòèâ ìåíÿ è äðóãèõ îðãàíèçàòîðîâ ñåìèíàðñêîãî öèêëà, è â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ïðîòèâ ïðîôåññîðà Ôàòìû Ìþãå Ãå÷åê (Fatma Müge Göçek), ñïåöèàëèñòà â îáëàñòè èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñîöèîëîãèè èç Ìè÷èãàíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, áûëè îòêðîâåííî êëåâåòíè÷åñêèìè.  ïåðâîì èç ïèñåì, íàïðàâëåí- íûõ ìíîþ â àðìÿíñêèå ãàçåòû, ÿ ïîïûòàëñÿ îáúÿñíèòü, ÷åãî ìû ïû- òàåìñÿ äîñòè÷ü ýòèìè ñåìèíàðàìè. Íèæå ïðèâîäÿòñÿ âûäåðæêè èç ýòèõ ïèñåì – ïåðâîå èç íèõ áûëî àäðåñîâàíî àðìÿíñêîìó âðà÷ó (ñ òóðåöêîé ôàìèëèåé), âçÿâøåìó íà ñåáÿ ðîëü æóðíàëèñòà-êîììåíòàòîðà ïî àð- ìÿíñêîìó âîïðîñó: ß íå çíàêîì ñ ä-ðîì Ìóðàòîì À÷åìîãëó (Murat Açemoglu), íî ñîçäàåòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî îí î÷åíü ìíîãîå çíàåò îáî ìíå... Ä-ð À÷åìîãëó ïîëàãàåò, ÷òî “òóðêè” ðàçðàáîòàëè íîâóþ ñòðà- òåãèþ îòðèöàíèÿ Ãåíîöèäà àðìÿí. Òóðêè ñíà÷àëà ñêðûâàëè Ãåíîöèä, çàòåì îòðèöàëè Ãåíîöèä, ïîòîì íàñòàë ïåðèîä îï- ðàâäàíèÿ ìàññîâûõ äåïîðòàöèé, âûçâàííûõ ñîîáðàæåíèÿìè ãî- ñóäàðñòâåííîé áåçîïàñíîñòè. Òåïåðü ìû âñòóïèëè â íîâûé, ÷åòâåðòûé ýòàï: òóðêè öèíè÷íî èçîáðåëè íîâûé ïîäõîä, êîòîðûé çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òîáû “óáåäèòü íåêîòîðûõ àðìÿíñ- êèõ ïðîôåññîðîâ ñîáðàòü âìåñòå òóðåöêèõ è àðìÿíñêèõ ó÷åíûõ äëÿ îáñóæäåíèÿ ñîáûòèé 1915 ã.”. Ýòî ïîçâîëèò îãðàíè÷èòüñÿ ïðèçíàíèåì ñîâåðøåííîãî Ãåíîöèäà â óçêîì àêàäåìè÷åñêîì êðóãó – âìåñòî ðåøåíèÿ ñëîæíûõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ âîïðîñîâ î äåíåæíûõ êîìïåíñàöèÿõ è òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ óñòóïêàõ. Îñ- 97 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... íîâûâàÿñü íà îäíèõ ëèøü ñïëåòíÿõ è äîìûñëàõ, ä-ð À÷åìîã- ëó ïðèøåë ê âûâîäó, ÷òî ìîÿ ëåêöèÿ è ïîñëåäîâàâøåå çà íåé èíòåðâüþ â Ñòàìáóëå áûëè ñâÿçàíû ñ ýòèì òóðåöêèì çàãîâî- ðîì. Òàê îí ïèøåò: “ïî íåïîäòâåðæäåííûì èñòî÷íèêàì, ïðè- ãëàøåíèå Ðîíàëüäà Ãðèãîðà Ñóíè â Ñòàìáóë âûñòóïèòü ïå- ðåä òóðåöêèìè ñòóäåíòàìè â Óíèâåðñèòåòå Êî÷ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷àñ- òüþ ýòîé òóðåöêîé ñòðàòåãèè”. Êîíå÷íî, î÷åíü òðóäíî îñïàðèâàòü “íåïîäòâåðæäåííûå èñ- òî÷íèêè”, íî ÿ âñå æå ïðåäïî÷òó îòâåòèòü íà áðîøåííûå ìíå ä-ðîì À÷åìîãëó îáâèíåíèÿ è ðàçúÿñíèòü, êàê âûøëî, ÷òî ìåíÿ ïðèãëàñèëè â Òóðöèþ. Ìîé áûâøèé ó÷åíèê èç Ìè÷èãàíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, ïîñëåäíèå òðè ãîäà ïðåïîäàâàâøèé â Óíèâåð- ñèòåòå Êî÷ è êàê ðàç ñîáèðàâøèéñÿ óéòè îòòóäà, ÷òîáû ïðîäîë- æèòü ñâîþ íàó÷íóþ êàðüåðó â Ñîåäèíåííûõ Øòàòàõ, ïðèãëà- ñèë ìåíÿ â Ñòàìáóë âûñòóïèòü ñ ëåêöèåé îá àðìÿíàõ. ß ñîãëà- ñèëñÿ ïðèåõàòü, ïîñêîëüêó, êàê ìíå êàçàëîñü, ýòî áûëà óíè- êàëüíàÿ âîçìîæíîñòü ïîñòàâèòü ïåðåä òóðåöêèìè ñòóäåíòàìè è èíòåëëèãåíöèåé î÷åíü âàæíûå âîïðîñû. Ïðèãëàñèâøèé ìåíÿ ìîëîäîé ïðåïîäàâàòåëü îáúÿâèë òåìó ìîåé ëåêöèè â óíèâåð- ñèòåòå, îäíàêî îí äàæå íå ïûòàëñÿ çàðó÷èòüñÿ îôèöèàëüíûì ðàçðåøåíèåì íà åå ïðîâåäåíèå ñî ñòîðîíû óíèâåðñèòåòñêîé àäìèíèñòðàöèè. ß ïðèáûë â óíèâåðñèòåò, ïðî÷èòàë ëåêöèþ, ïîëó÷èâ áîëüøîå óäîâîëüñòâèå îò âåñüìà ó÷òèâîãî ïðèåìà è çàèíòåðåñîâàííîé ðåàêöèè ñòóäåíòîâ è ïðåïîäàâàòåëåé. Äðó- ãîé àìåðèêàíñêèé ñòóäåíò, îáó÷àþùèéñÿ â Òóðöèè, – íà ýòîò ðàç èç ×èêàãñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, ãäå ÿ ñåé÷àñ ðàáîòàþ, – äîãîâîðèë- ñÿ îá èíòåðâüþ ñ òóðåöêîé æóðíàëèñòñêîé, êîòîðàÿ óæå âûñòó- ïàëà â òóðåöêîé ïå÷àòè ñ î÷åíü ñìåëûìè ñòàòüÿìè ïî ðàçíûì ñïîðíûì âîïðîñàì, â òîì ÷èñëå è ïî êóðäñêîé ïðîáëåìå. ß ïðî÷èòàë ëåêöèþ è äàë èíòåðâüþ çà íåäåëþ äî òîãî, êàê Íà- öèîíàëüíîå Ñîáðàíèå Ôðàíöèè ïðèçíàëî ôàêò Ãåíîöèäà. Ñêî- ðåå âñåãî, íè òî, íè äðóãîå íå óäàëîñü áû ïðîâåñòè ñðàçó ïîñëå ýòîãî ñîáûòèÿ. Èç-çà ýòîãî øàãà ôðàíöóçñêîãî ïàðëàìåíòà è íåðâíîé ðåàêöèè íà íåãî îôèöèàëüíûõ âëàñòåé Òóðöèè ïóá- ëèêàöèÿ èíòåðâüþ áûëà îòëîæåíà íà íåñêîëüêî íåäåëü. ß íå ïîëó÷àë íèêàêèõ îôèöèàëüíûõ ïðèãëàøåíèé íè îò îä- íîé òóðåöêîé îðãàíèçàöèè. Íèêòî íèêàê íå ïûòàëñÿ ïîâëèÿòü íà ñîäåðæàíèå ìîåãî âûñòóïëåíèÿ. Ïî÷åìó æå òîãäà ïðîòèâ ìåíÿ âûäâèãàþòñÿ ýòè ñòðàííûå íàïàäêè, ïî÷åìó ìåíÿ ñâÿçûâàþò ñ 98 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êàêèì-òî çàãîâîðîì â ïîëüçó òóðîê? Ó ýòîé äîñòàòî÷íî íåàäåê- âàòíîé ðåàêöèè íà ìîå âûñòóïëåíèå åñòü, âåðîÿòíî, íåñêîëüêî ïðè÷èí. Îäíà èç íèõ, êàê ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, çàñëóæèâàåò ïîä- ðîáíîãî ðàññìîòðåíèÿ. Âåñüìà ïîíÿòíî è ïðèñêîðáíî, íî ñðå- äè àðìÿí ñóùåñòâóþò ëþäè, èìåþùèå äîñòàòî÷íî çàñòûâøåå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î òóðêàõ – ïðåäñòàâëåíèå, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðîãî òóðêàì ïðèïèñûâàåòñÿ ïðî÷íàÿ è íè÷åì íå èñêîðåíèìàÿ íåíà- âèñòü ê àðìÿíàì, ãëóáîêàÿ âðàæäà, âîçìîæíî âíóøåííàÿ èñëà- ìîì, ê íàðîäó, èçãíàííîìó èìè èç èñòîðè÷åñêîé Àðìåíèè. Òà- êèå òóðêè íå ìîãóò ñòðåìèòüñÿ ê èñêðåííåìó äèàëîãó ñ àðìÿ- íàìè – îíè ìîãóò òîëüêî ñòðîèòü êîçíè, èñïîëüçóÿ íàèâíûõ àðìÿí, ñ öåëüþ îòâëå÷ü âíèìàíèå îò î÷åíü ñëîæíûõ è áîëüíûõ âîïðîñîâ, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ Ãåíîöèäîì. À÷åìîãëó ïèøåò êàê ðàç â ïîäîáíîì êëþ÷å: “Òóðêè, ñ èõ ñòðåìëåíèåì ê ýêñïàíñèè, ñ ïàíòþðêèñòñêîé è ïàíòþðàíèñòñêîé èäåîëîãèåé, ñ èõ âå÷íîé íåíàâèñòüþ ê àðìÿíàì, íå íàñòðîåíû íà ïîäëèííîå ïðèìèðå- íèå ñ àðìÿíàìè”. Ýòà ôðàçà ãîâîðèò î ìíîãîì. Îíà ïðèïèñûâà- åò âñåì òóðêàì îäíè è òå æå âçãëÿäû. Îíà óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî íåíà- âèñòü ê àðìÿíàì çàëîæåíà â ñàìîé ïðèðîäå ýòîãî íàðîäà. Ïî- äîáíûå âçãëÿäû íå ïîçâîëÿþò âñòóïàòü â äèàëîã èëè íà÷è- íàòü îáñóæäåíèå ïðîáëåìû. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ÿ íå ñòàë áû ðèñêîâàòü è íå ïîåõàë áû â Òóð- öèþ, åñëè áû ÿ ñ÷èòàë âñåõ òóðîê âðàãàìè àðìÿí, èëè ïîëàãàë áû, ÷òî ëþáîå îáñóæäåíèå èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïðîáëåì ñ ýòèìè ëþäüìè ñîâåðøåííî áåñïîëåçíî. Êàê â Ñîåäèíåííûõ Øòàòàõ, òàê è âî âðåìÿ ìîåãî ïðåáûâàíèÿ â Òóðöèè, ÿ èìåë âîçìîæíîñòü óáå- äèòüñÿ â òîì, ÷òî äàëåêî íå âñå òóðêè ñîîòâåòñòâóþò ñòåðåî- òèïíûì ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿì, âûñêàçàííûì çäåñü ä-ðîì À÷åìîãëó. Ñóùåñòâóþò òóðêè, îòðèöàþùèå Ãåíîöèä, òóðêè, ôàíàòè÷íî ïîä- äåðæèâàþùèå êåìàëèñòñêèé âçãëÿä íà èñòîðèþ ñòðàíû è íà ñîâðåìåííîå ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå óñòðîéñòâî Òóðöèè, òóðêè, ïðè- äåðæèâàþùèåñÿ èñëàìèñòñêîãî ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ è îñïàðèâà- þùèå ãåãåìîíèþ êåìàëèñòîâ. Íî åñòü è òàêèå òóðêè – ñðåäè íèõ ìíîãî èíòåëëèãåíöèè è ó÷åíûõ – êòî ïûòàåòñÿ â î÷åíü ñëîæíîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé îáñòàíîâêå ïåðåîñìûñëèòü ñâîþ èñ- òîðèþ, âêëþ÷àÿ èñòîðèþ ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ àðìÿí â Îñìàí- ñêîé èìïåðèè. ß íå òîëüêî óáåäèëñÿ â ÷àñòíûõ áåñåäàõ â òîì, ÷òî óíèâåðñèòåòñêèå ïðåïîäàâàòåëè è àâòîðû ìíîãèõ îïóáëè- êîâàííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé çàèíòåðåñîâàíû â ïóáëè÷íîé äèñêóñ- 99 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... ñèè î Ãåíîöèäå è ãîòîâû ïðèçíàòü ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ, ñîâåðøåí- íûå îñìàíàìè, – äâîå òóðåöêèõ ó÷åíûõ íàïèñàëè îòêëèêè íà ìîþ ñòàòüþ, êîòîðàÿ äîëæíà âûéòè ⠓Àðìÿíñêîì ôîðóìå”. Ýòè îòêëèêè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé çíà÷èòåëüíûé øàã ïî ñðàâ- íåíèþ ñ äîâîäàìè, îáû÷íî âûäâèãàåìûìè òóðåöêèìè àâòîðà- ìè, áëèæå ñòîÿùèìè ê îôèöèàëüíîé ïîçèöèè. Êàêîé ñòðàø- íîé èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé è ïîëèòè÷åñêîé îøèáêîé ñî ñòîðîíû àðìÿí áûëî áû çàõëîïíóòü äâåðü ïåðåä òåìè òóðêàìè, êòî õî- ÷åò âñòóïèòü â äèàëîã, êòî ãîòîâ ïîéòè íà ðèñê è íà ñåáå èñïû- òàòü âîçìîæíûå ðåïðåññèè ñâîåãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà, âûñòóïàÿ çà òî, ÷òîáû çàíîâî îáñóäèòü ñîáûòèÿ 1915 ã.  íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ Òóðåöêàÿ ðåñïóáëèêà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñî- áîé àâòîðèòàðíîå ãîñóäàðñòâî ñ ðåïðåññèâíûì ïîëèòè÷åñêèì àïïàðàòîì. Îäíàêî ýòî íå òîòàëèòàðíîå ãîñóäàðñòâî, â êîòî- ðîì çàïðåùåíî ëþáîå èíàêîìûñëèå, ëþáàÿ äèñêóññèÿ.  ïå- ÷àòè, â óíèâåðñèòåòàõ åñòü îòäóøèíû, ïîçâîëÿþùèå îñòîðîæ- íî âûñêàçûâàòüñÿ ïî íåîäíîçíà÷íûì âîïðîñàì.  óñëîâèÿõ öåíçóðû, êîãäà âëàñòü ïåðèîäè÷åñêè ïûòàåòñÿ âîññòàíîâèòü æåëåçíóþ äèñöèïëèíó, ïîðîé âîçíèêàþò è òàêèå ìîìåíòû, êîã- äà îòêðûâàåòñÿ âîçìîæíîñòü âûñêàçàòü èíîå ìíåíèå, âîçìîæ- íîñòü èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîãî è ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ïðîäâèæåíèÿ âïå- ðåä – íî ýòè âîçìîæíîñòè îòêðûòû òîëüêî äëÿ ëþäåé, îáëàäà- þùèõ äîñòàòî÷íûì ìóæåñòâîì, ÷òîáû ïîéòè íà ðèñê. Íåóæå- ëè íàøà ïðîôåññèÿ, ïðîôåññèÿ ó÷åíûõ, òðåáóåò îò íàñ, ÷òîáû ìû ïîâåðíóëèñü ñïèíîé ê òåì òóðêàì, êòî ïûòàåòñÿ âîññîç- äàòü áîëåå ñâîáîäíóþ èíòåëëåêòóàëüíóþ æèçíü â ñâîåé ñòðà- íå?  çàêëþ÷åíèå õîòåëîñü áû îòìåòèòü ñëåäóþùåå: ä-ð À÷å- ìîãëó, êàæåòñÿ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñòîðîííèêîì çàìàë÷èâàíèÿ ðàçëè÷èé âî âçãëÿäàõ è ïîäàâëåíèÿ èíàêîìûñëèÿ âíóòðè ñîîáùåñòâà àðìÿíñêèõ ó÷åíûõ. Ïî åãî ñëîâàì, “ïðåäîñòàâèòü ïðîôåññîðó Ñóíè âîçìîæíîñòü èçëîæèòü åãî ëè÷íûå âîççðåíèÿ, êîòîðûå âî ìíîãèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ ðàñõîäÿòñÿ ñ îáùåïðèíÿòûì ìíåíèåì áîëüøèíñòâà èññëåäîâàòåëåé è èñòîðèêîâ, áûëî áû íåöåëå- ñîîáðàçíûì”. Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, àðìÿíñêèå ó÷åíûå äîëæíû ïðè- çíàòü îáùóþ äëÿ âñåõ àðìÿí ïîçèöèþ ïî âîïðîñó î Ãåíîöèäå! À÷åìîãëó âóëüãàðèçèðóåò è èçâðàùàåò ìîè âçãëÿäû íà Ãå- íîöèä. (Ñîâåðøåííî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî îí íå ÷èòàë ìîèõ ðàáîò, õîòÿ îí è ãîòîâ âûíåñòè èì ïðèãîâîð. Ñòàòüÿ ñ èçëîæåíèåì 100 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ìîåé ïîçèöèè áóäåò âñêîðå îïóáëèêîâàíà âî âòîðîì íîìåðå “Àðìÿíñêîãî Ôîðóìà”). Îí óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî “èññëåäîâàòåëè Ãåíîöèäà ñîãëàñíû ñ òåì, ÷òî Ãåíîöèä àðìÿí èìåë ðàñîâóþ è ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ îêðàñêó, è áûë çàðàíåå çàäóìàí, îðãàíèçîâàí è ñïëàíèðîâàí òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òîáû î÷èñòèòü Àíàòîëèþ îò àðìÿíñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ, îòóðå÷èòü ýòó çåìëþ è ñîçäàòü Òóð- öèþ òîëüêî äëÿ òóðîê”. Îäíàêî íà ñàìîì äåëå äàëåêî íå âñå èññëåäîâàòåëè Ãåíîöèäà ñîãëàñíû ñ ýòèì. Ñ ìîåé òî÷êè çðå- íèÿ, ïðè÷èíû Ãåíîöèäà äî ñèõ ïîð íå áûëè íàäëåæàùèì îá- ðàçîì èçó÷åíû. Ñåãîäíÿ ñóùåñòâóåò öåëûé ðÿä âîçìîæíûõ îáúÿñíåíèé: ðàñèçì òóðîê; èõ ðåëèãèîçíàÿ íåòåðïèìîñòü; çà- âèñòü ê àðìÿíàì, ïèòàåìàÿ ïî ýêîíîìè÷åñêèì è ñîöèàëüíûì ïðè÷èíàì; îòñòóïëåíèå îò ðåâîëþöèîííîé ïîëèòèêè; ïàíòóðà- íèçì; ñòðîèòåëüñòâî èìïåðèè è ñòîëêíîâåíèå äâóõ íàöèîíà- ëèñòè÷åñêèõ èäåîëîãèé. Ìîÿ ïîçèöèÿ, íåñîìíåííî, âûçîâåò âîçðàæåíèÿ – ïîñêîëüêó âìåñòî òîãî, ÷òîáû îáúÿñíÿòü Ãåíî- öèä ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ðàñîâîé èëè ðåëèãèîçíîé íåíàâèñòüþ, ÿ óòâåðæäàþ, ÷òî äåïîðòàöèè è ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà íå áûëè çàï- ëàíèðîâàíû çàäîëãî äî ñàìèõ ñîáûòèé, à ñòàëè ðåçóëüòàòîì ðåøåíèé, ïðèíÿòûõ ïðàâèòåëüñòâîì ìëàäîòóðîê â ìîìåíò ïî- ðàæåíèÿ, êîãäà èì ïðåäñòàâèëñÿ óäîáíûé ïîâîä. Ïðèêðûâàÿñü âîåííûìè äåéñòâèÿìè, èñïûòûâàÿ ñòðàõ ïåðåä ëèöîì âîîáðà- æàåìîé óãðîçû òåððèòîðèàëüíîé öåëîñòíîñòè èìïåðèè è îáî- ðîíîñïîñîáíîñòè ñòðàíû, êîòîðàÿ áóäòî áû èñõîäèëà ñî ñòî- ðîíû àðìÿí – “ïîäðûâíîãî ýëåìåíòà”, ñîòðóäíè÷àâøåãî ñ íà- ñòóïàþùåé ðóññêîé àðìèåé, – ìëàäîòóðêè ðåøèëèñü ðàç è íàâñåãäà ïîêîí÷èòü ñ “àðìÿíñêèì âîïðîñîì”, ïîëíîñòüþ óñò- ðàíèâ àðìÿí èç âîñòî÷íîé Àíàòîëèè. Áîëåå òîãî, â ìîåé ïîñ- ëåäíåé ñòàòüå, ïîñâÿùåííîé ýòîé ïðîáëåìå, ÿ ïîïûòàëñÿ ïî- êàçàòü ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó õàìèäñêèìè ìàññîâûìè óáèéñòâàìè 1894-1896 ãã., óáèéñòâàìè â Àäàíå â 1909 ã. è Ãåíîöèäîì 1915 ã.  ïåðâîì ñëó÷àå ýòî áûëà ïîïûòêà êîíñåðâàòèâíîé ðåñòàâðà- öèè íåñïðàâåäëèâîãî è æåñòîêîãî ïîðÿäêà; âî âòîðîì ñëó÷àå ðåçíÿ ïðîèçîøëà âî âðåìÿ íàñòóïëåíèÿ êîíòððåâîëþöèîííûõ ñèë íà ìëàäîòóðîê, â òî âðåìÿ êàê Ãåíîöèä áûë óíèêàëüíîé ïî- ïûòêîé ðàäèêàëüíî èçìåíèòü äåìîãðàôè÷åñêóþ ñèòóàöèþ â Àíàòîëèè. Ìîå âûñòóïëåíèå â Ñòàìáóëå âðÿä ëè áûëî ïðèÿòíî ñëóøàòü òóðêàì. Ïîêà ÿ ãîâîðèë, â àóäèòîðèè ÷óâñòâîâàëàñü ÿâíàÿ 101 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... íàïðÿæåííîñòü. Îäíàêî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ìîëîäûå òóðêè òàê ìàëî çíàþò î Ãåíîöèäå, ÷òî îíè îòêðûòû íîâîìó, îíè õîòÿò áîëüøå óçíàòü î òîì, ÷òî òîãäà ïðîèçîøëî. Òå âåðñèè, êîòîðûå ïðåäëà- ãàþò èì ïðàâèòåëüñòâî è îôèöèàëüíûå “èñòîðèêè”, çâó÷àò íå- óáåäèòåëüíî, íî áåç äèàëîãà ñ èíîñòðàííûìè è àðìÿíñêèìè èñ- ñëåäîâàòåëÿìè èçìåíèòü ñîçíàíèå ìîëîäîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ íåâîç- ìîæíî. Ó÷åíûå äîëæíû áûòü ãîòîâû ê áîðüáå íà íàó÷íîì ôðîí- òå, äîëæíû áûòü ãîòîâû ñðàæàòüñÿ òåì îðóæèåì, êàêîå èì ïðè- ñòàëî – ñâèäåòåëüñòâàìè èñòî÷íèêîâ, äîâîäàìè ðàçóìà, ÷åñò- íîñòüþ. Æóðíàëèñòû, ÿ ïîëàãàþ, áóäóò èñïîëüçîâàòü èìåþ- ùèåñÿ â èõ àðñåíàëå ñðåäñòâà – íàäåþñü, áîëåå êà÷åñòâåííûå, ÷åì “íåïîäòâåðæäåííûå èñòî÷íèêè”.  êîíå÷íîì ñ÷åòå ðåøàòü ïîëèòè÷åñêèå, ôèíàíñîâûå è òåððèòîðèàëüíûå âîïðîñû áóäóò ãîñóäàðñòâåííûå äåÿòåëè è äèïëîìàòû. Ýòè âîïðîñû íàõîäÿò- ñÿ âíå êîìïåòåíöèè ó÷åíûõ èëè æóðíàëèñòîâ. Íî åñëè ó÷åíûå íå áóäóò ãîòîâû ê äèñêóññèè, åñëè îíè ïîïûòàþòñÿ íàâÿçàòü åäèíñòâåííûé ÷åðíî-áåëûé âçãëÿä íà ïðîøëîå, îíè îáåçîðóæàò ñàìè ñåáÿ è ëèøàò âñåõ íàñ âîçìîæíîñòè óçíàòü ïðàâäó î ïðî- øëîì. Ðîíàëüä Ãðèãîð Ñóíè ×èêàãñêèé óíèâåðñèòåò 23 àâãóñòà 1998 ã.  äðóãîì ïèñüìå, îòâå÷àÿ íà âîïðîñ ìîëîäîãî íåìåöêîãî èññëåäî- âàòåëÿ, êîòîðûé ïóáëè÷íî íàçâàë ìåíÿ “àãåíòîì òóðîê”, ÿ âûñêàçàëñÿ áîëåå ðåçêî: ß ïîòðÿñåí íåãàòèâíîé ðåàêöèåé íà ìîþ ïîïûòêó íà÷àòü äèñêóññèþ î Ãåíîöèäå. Íè àðìÿíàì, íè òóðêàì, íè íàóêå â öå- ëîì íå ïðèíåñåò ïîëüçû äèàëîã ëèøü ñ ñàìèì ñîáîé – èëè ñ òåìè, êòî ïîëíîñòüþ ðàçäåëÿåò Âàøå ìíåíèå. Èäåÿ ïðîâåñòè â áóäóùåì ãîäó ñåìèíàð ïî ïðîáëåìå Ãåíîöèäà óæå âûçâàëà îæå- ñòî÷åííûå ñïîðû – è ýòî ïðè òîì, ÷òî ê îñóùåñòâëåíèþ ñâîåãî çàìûñëà ìû åùå äàæå íå ïðèñòóïàëè. Ïåðåä íàìè ñòîèò âîï- ðîñ: ñëåäóåò ëè íàì îòêàçàòüñÿ îò íàøèõ ïëàíîâ, óêëîíèòüñÿ îò äèñêóññèè, êîòîðàÿ âûçûâàåò òàêóþ ïàòîëîãè÷åñêóþ ðåàê- öèþ, èëè æå ìû äîëæíû ïûòàòüñÿ äâèãàòüñÿ âïåðåä è âûíî- ñèòü ýòè ïðîáëåìû íà áîëåå øèðîêîå îáñóæäåíèå? 23 àâãóñòà 1998 ã.

102 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ïåðåä ñàìûì íà÷àëîì íàøåãî ïåðâîãî ñåìèíàðà ÿ îïóáëèêîâàë åùå îäèí îòâåò ìîèì êðèòèêàì: Îäèí íåìåöêèé ôèëîñîô êàê-òî ñêàçàë: “Ïðîòèâ íåâåæå- ñòâà áåññèëüíû äàæå áîãè”. Ïîìíÿ ýòîò ñîâåò, ÿ âîçäåðæóñü îò î÷åðåäíîé ïîïûòêè èñïðàâèòü âñå íåïðàâèëüíî èñòîëêîâàí- íûå è íåâåðíî ïðîöèòèðîâàííûå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ, êîòîðûå ïðè- ïèñûâàåò ìíå îäèí èç âàøèõ îáîçðåâàòåëåé. È õîòÿ ÿ íàäå- þñü, ÷òî âíèìàòåëüíûå ÷èòàòåëè ñìîãóò îòëè÷èòü æóðíàëèñòñ- êèå îáâèíåíèÿ îò íàó÷íûõ àðãóìåíòîâ, ìîè äðóçüÿ óêàçàëè ìíå íà òî, ÷òî åñëè îñòàâèòü ýòè âûñêàçûâàíèÿ áåç ðåàêöèè, íåêîòî- ðûå âàøè ïîäïèñ÷èêè ìîãóò ïðèíÿòü èõ çà èçëîæåíèå ìîèõ íàñòîÿùèõ âçãëÿäîâ. Îäèí èç ñàìûõ ñåðüåçíûõ óïðåêîâ, êîòîðûé ìîæíî áðîñèòü àðìÿíñêîìó èññëåäîâàòåëþ, – ýòî îáâèíèòü åãî â òîì, ÷òî îí ðàçäåëÿåò âçãëÿäû òåõ òóðîê, êîòîðûå îòðèöàþò ñàì ôàêò Ãåíîöèäà. Èìåííî òàêîå îñêîðáëåíèå áûëî íàíåñåíî ìíå â âàøåé ãàçåòå [“Àðìÿíñêèé ðåïîðòå𔠖 The Armenian Reporter], â âûïóñêå îò 22 ÿíâàðÿ 2000 ã. Ðîíàëüä Ñóíè – êàê çàÿâëÿåò âàø ïîñòîÿííûé îáîçðåâàòåëü – “ïðèíèìàåò òóðåöêóþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé ïëàíû Ãåíîöèäà àðìÿí íå âûíà- øèâàëèñü çàðàíåå: ñêîðåå, ýòî áûëà âíåçàïíàÿ ðåàêöèÿ ñî ñòî- ðîíû îñìàíñêèõ âëàñòåé íà îò÷àÿííîå ïîëîæåíèå, â êîòîðîì îíè îêàçàëèñü. Ïîñêîëüêó Ñóíè íå ñïåöèàëèñò â ýòîé îáëàñòè è ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè íå ÷èòàë ðàáîò èçâåñòíîãî èññëåäîâàòåëÿ Ãåíîöèäà Âàõàêíà Äàäðÿíà, òî åìó ñëîæíî ðàçëè÷àòü çàðàíåå çàäóìàííîå è çàïëàíèðîâàííîå äåéñòâèå îò ñïîíòàííîé ðåàêöèè âîåííîãî âðåìåíè. Ïîñëåäíåå – ýòî êàê ðàç òî îáúÿñíåíèå, êî- òîðîå íàì ïûòàþòñÿ âíóøèòü òóðêè”. Ïðåæäå âñåãî, ÿ ÷èòàë ðàáîòû Äàäðÿíà è äàæå íàïèñàë äëÿ àêàäåìè÷åñêîãî æóðíàëà “Ñëàâèê ðåâüþ” (Slavic Review) ðåöåíçèþ íà åãî ñàìîå çíà÷èòåëüíîå èññëåäîâàíèå. Ïðîôåññîð Äàäðÿí áûë íå â âîñòîðãå îò ìîåé êðèòè÷åñêîé îöåíêè åãî êíèãè, íî ïîäîáíîå íåñîãëàñèå âî âçãëÿäàõ ÷àñòî âñòðå÷àåòñÿ ñðåäè ó÷åíûõ. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, õîòÿ ÿ è ïðèçíàòåëåí çà åãî çíà÷èòåëüíûé âêëàä â èçó÷åíèå Ãåíîöèäà, òåì íå ìåíåå, ÿ íå ñîãëàñåí ñî ìíîãèìè åãî âçãëÿäàìè. Îäíàêî ìîè ñ íèì ðàñõîæ- äåíèÿ íèêîãäà íå âûõîäèëè çà ðàìêè àêàäåìè÷åñêîé ïîëåìèêè è ðàçðåøèòü íàøè ñïîðû ìîãóò òîëüêî èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñâèäå-

103 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... òåëüñòâà è óáåäèòåëüíàÿ àðãóìåíòàöèÿ, à íå ãîëîñëîâíûå îáâèíåíèÿ. Âî-âòîðûõ, îñíîâíûå ïóíêòû, ïî êîòîðûì ÿ ðàñõîæóñü ñ äðóãèìè èññëåäîâàòåëÿìè Ãåíîöèäà, – ýòî âðåìÿ ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ î ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâàõ è äåïîðòàöèÿõ àðìÿí è âîïðîñ î òîì, íàñêîëüêî ýòè óáèéñòâà è äåïîðòàöèè áûëè çàïëàíèðî- âàíû çàðàíåå, à òàêæå î ìîòèâàõ, êîòîðûìè ðóêîâîäñòâîâàëèñü òóðåöêèå âëàñòè... Íàêîíåö, îòâå÷àÿ íà çàäàííûé âîïðîñ... îá èñïîëüçîâàíèè ìíîþ ïîíÿòèÿ “çàðàíåå îáäóìàííûé ïëàí”, ÿ ðàçúÿñíèë ñâîå ïîíèìàíèå ýòîãî îïðåäåëåíèÿ. “Ïðèäÿ ê âëàñòè, ìëàäîòóðêè (èëè ïàðòèÿ “Åäèíåíèå è ïðî- ãðåññ”) ïîñòåïåííî îòîøëè îò îñìàíèçìà â ñòîðîíó òóðåöêîãî íàöèîíàëèçìà è ïàíòóðàíèçìà, ïûòàÿñü íàéòè íîâóþ ôîðìó- ëó äëÿ ëåãèòèìàöèè è ñòàáèëèçàöèè ðàñïàäàþùåéñÿ èìïå- ðèè.  ïåðâûå ãîäû ìèðîâîé âîéíû ìëàäîòóðêè èñïûòàëè öå- ëûé ðÿä ïîðàæåíèé íà Âîñòîêå, êîòîðûå óáåäèëè èõ â íåîòâðàòè- ìîñòè àðìÿíñêîé óãðîçû. Òîãäà îíè ðåøèëè ïðîâåñòè â æèçíü ïîðî÷íóþ ïîëèòèêó äåïîðòàöèé è ìàññîâûõ óáèéñò⠖ äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ïîëíîñòüþ î÷èñòèòü ðåãèîí îò àðìÿí. Ýòà ïîëèòèêà áûëà èíèöèèðîâàíà ãîñóäàðñòâîì â êîíòåêñòå æåñòîêîé âîé- íû è ïðåâðàòèëàñü â ìàñøòàáíóþ êàìïàíèþ óáèéñò⠖ ïåð- âûé ñëó÷àé Ãåíîöèäà â XX â.” (“Àðìÿíñêèé Ôîðóì”. ¹ 2. Ñ. 50-51). ß õîòåë ïîä÷åðêíóòü çäåñü ïðåäíàìåðåííóþ è îñîçíàí- íóþ ðîëü ãîñóäàðñòâà â ðàçâÿçûâàíèè è îñóùåñòâëåíèè Ãåíî- öèäà. Îäíàêî ó ìåíÿ îñòàþòñÿ ñîìíåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî äî- âîåííûõ ïëàíîâ ðóêîâîäñòâà ìëàäîòóðîê ïî ëèêâèäàöèè àðìÿí. ß óáåæäåí, ÷òî èìåþùèåñÿ â íàøåì ðàñïîðÿæåíèè ñâè- äåòåëüñòâà äåìîíñòðèðóþò íàðàñòàâøóþ ðàäèêàëèçàöèþ îñ- ìàíñêîé ïîëèòèêè ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê àðìÿíàì íà íà÷àëüíîì ýòàïå âîéíû. Ïîýòîìó ÿ è ãîâîðþ îá ýòèõ ñîáûòèÿõ ñêîðåå êàê î âíå- çàïíîì ðåøåíèè, íåæåëè êàê î ðåçóëüòàòå äëèòåëüíîãî ïëàíè- ðîâàíèÿ. ß ñîãëàñåí ñ òåì, ÷òî îïðåäåëåííàÿ ïðåäíàìåðåííîñòü (îïðåäåëåíèå, ïðåäëîæåííîå â õîäå ýòîé äèñêóññèè ïðîôåñ- ñîðîì Âàõàêíîì Í. Äàäðÿíîì), ò.å. íåêîòîðàÿ çàïëàíèðîâàííîñòü è ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîå îáäóìûâàíèå, èìåëà ìåñòî. È âñå æå ÿ ðàñ- õîæóñü ñ îñòàëüíûìè èññëåäîâàòåëÿìè ïî âîïðîñó î òîì, êîãäà áûëî ïðèíÿòî îêîí÷àòåëüíîå ðåøåíèå è íàñêîëüêî òùàòåëüíî 104 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñîáûòèÿ ïëàíèðîâàëèñü çàðàíåå. Èçó÷åíèå òîãî, êàê ïðîâîäèë- ñÿ Ãåíîöèä, ïðèâåëî ìåíÿ ê óáåæäåíèþ, ÷òî âîïðåêè ïðè- íÿòîé òî÷êå çðåíèÿ, ýòî áûëà ñëàáî ñêîîðäèíèðîâàííàÿ, äî- âîëüíî áåñïîðÿäî÷íàÿ àêöèÿ. Áûëî áû ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî èíòåðåñ- íî â áóäóùåì óçíàòü, íàñêîëüêî ïîäðîáíî è êàê èìåííî ïëà- íèðîâàëèñü ýòè ñîáûòèÿ. Îäíàêî íåçàâèñèìî îò òîãî, âûíà- øèâàëèñü ëè äåòàëüíûå ïëàíû Ãåíîöèäà àðìÿí äî íà÷àëà âîé- íû, èëè æå îí ïðîèçîøåë áåç ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîãî îáäóìûâàíèÿ â äíè, ïîñëåäîâàâøèå çà ïîðàæåíèåì [òóðåöêîé àðìèè ðóñ- ñêèì íà Êàâêàçñêîì ôðîíòå çèìîé 1914-1915 ãã.], íè÷òî íå ìîæåò ñëóæèòü îïðàâäàíèåì èëè îáîñíîâàíèåì ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ.  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå ðå÷ü èäåò î çëîäåéñêîì ïðåñòóïëåíèè ïðîòèâ ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà. Ìîè âçãëÿäû åäâà ëè ñîâïàäàþò ñî âçãëÿäàìè òåõ òóðîê, êòî îòðèöàåò ñàì Ãåíîöèä – ÿ ïûòàþñü ïîíÿòü ýòó ìîíóìåí- òàëüíóþ òðàãåäèþ âî âñåé åå ñëîæíîñòè. ß íå ïðèíèìàþ èññëåäîâàíèé, â êîòîðûõ àðìÿíå ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ èñêëþ÷è- òåëüíî êàê ïàññèâíûå æåðòâû, à íå êàê àêòèâíûå ïîääàííûå Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè, ñî ñâîèìè ñîáñòâåííûìè ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè îæèäàíèÿìè è îðãàíèçàöèÿìè. Âíèìàíèå ê èñòîðè÷åñêîìó êîí- òåêñòó è ìîòèâàì, êîòîðûìè ðóêîâîäñòâîâàëèñü òóðåöêèå ëè- äåðû, ðàçâÿçàâøèå ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà è äåïîðòàöèè, íå îçíà÷àåò îïðàâäàíèÿ èëè îáîñíîâàíèÿ èõ ðåøåíèé è ïîñòóïêîâ. Ïîñòûä- íî ïîëàãàòü, ÷òî ó÷åíûå, íåñîãëàñíûå ñ ãîñïîäñòâóþùèìè âçãëÿäàìè íà ýòè èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñîáûòèÿ, íåïðåìåííî ñëóæàò èíòåðåñàì ëèö, îòðèöàþùèõ ñàì Ãåíîöèä. Ïîçîðíî è ñîâåð- øåííî áåñïîëåçíî äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ Ãåíîöèäà ïîçâîëÿòü íåïðî- ôåññèîíàëàì ïðèñâàèâàòü ñåáå ïðàâî ðåøàòü, ÷òî ìîæíî îáñóæ- äàòü, à ÷òî – íåò. Ñ òàêèì æå óñïåõîì ÿ ìîã áû – íå áóäó÷è ìåäè- êîì ïî îáðàçîâàíèþ – îáúÿñíÿòü äèïëîìèðîâàííîìó âðà÷ó, êàêèå ëåêàðñòâà îí äîëæåí ïðîïèñûâàòü ïàöèåíòó. Ãåíîöèä – ýòî âîïðîñ, êàñàþùèéñÿ âñåõ àðìÿí. Ìîè ðîäíûå ïðàäåä è ïðàáàáêà, à òàêæå èõ ðîäñòâåííèêè, áûëè óáèòû â 1915 ã. â Éîçãàòå è Äèàðáåêèðå (Äèêðàíàêåðòå). Âîïðåêè òðå- áîâàíèÿì âàøåãî îáîçðåâàòåëÿ, ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàâøåãî ñâîå íåïîíèìàíèå òîãî, êàê ðàáîòàþò íàñòîÿùèå ó÷åíûå, ÿ íà- ìåðåâàþñü ïðîäîëæèòü èçó÷åíèå ïðè÷èí, ïî êîòîðûì ïîãèá- ëè ìîè áëèçêèå. Íàó÷íîå èññëåäîâàíèå – ýòî ñåðüåçíîå äåëî, îíî òðåáóåò îñîáîé ïîäãîòîâêè è êðîïîòëèâîãî òðóäà. ß ðàä, 105 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... ÷òî íà ñâåòå åñòü äðóãèå ó÷åíûå – àðìÿíå, òóðêè è ëèöà äðóãèõ íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé, – ãîòîâûå íà÷àòü äèñêóññèþ î òîì ñòðàø- íîì áåäñòâèè, êîòîðîå ïîñòèãëî àðìÿí â íà÷àëå XX â. 5 ôåâðàëÿ 2000 ã. Ïåðâûé òóðåöêî-àðìÿíñêèé ñåìèíàð ñîáðàëñÿ 17-19 ìàðòà 2000 ã. Ó÷å- íûå èç äåñÿòè ðàçëè÷íûõ óíèâåðñèòåòîâ è èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ öåíòðîâ âñòðåòèëèñü â ñêðîìíîé îáñòàíîâêå Óèëäåð-Õàóñà (Wilder House), ðàñ- ïîëîæåííîãî íà òåððèòîðèè ×èêàãñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, ÷òîáû ïðåäñòà- âèòü ñâîè äîêëàäû è îáñóäèòü ÿâëÿþùóþñÿ ïðåäìåòîì îæåñòî÷åí- íîé ïîëåìèêè òåìó “Àðìÿíå è êðàõ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè”. Ýòîò ñåìè- íàð, â îðãêîìèòåò êîòîðîãî âõîäèëè ÿ ñàì, Ìþãå Ãå÷åê (Müge Goçek), èñòîðèê ëèòåðàòóðû Êåâîðê Áàðäàêüÿí (Kevork Bardakjian), èñòîðèê è àíòðîïîëîã Øòåôàíè Ïëàòö (Stephanie Platz) è èñòîðèê Êåííåò ×åð÷ (Kenneth Church) èç Ìè÷èãàíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, ïðåâçîøåë âñå îæè- äàíèÿ: ïîëó÷èëàñü òîâàðèùåñêàÿ, íåïðåäâçÿòàÿ äèñêóññèÿ, ÷èòàëèñü î÷åíü ñåðüåçíûå äîêëàäû, à âñå ó÷àñòíèêè ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàëè äîáðóþ âîëþ è âçàèìíîå äîâåðèå. Îòêðûâàÿ ñåìèíàð, ÿ âûñòóïèë ñ íåáîëüøèì îáðàùåíèåì: Ýòî ñêðîìíàÿ, íî èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ âñòðå÷à: âïåðâûå èññëåäî- âàòåëè ðàçíûõ íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé, â òîì ÷èñëå àðìÿíå è òóðêè, ñîáðàëèñü âìåñòå, ÷òîáû ïðåäñòàâèòü äîêëàäû è îáñóäèòü, êàê ýòî ïîäîáàåò ó÷åíûì, ñóäüáó, ïîñòèãøóþ íàðîäû Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè, êîãäà ýòà èìïåðèÿ âñòóïèëà â ýïîõó óïàäêà è ðàñïà- ëàñü. Ìû ðàññìîòðèì èñòîðèþ ðÿäà íàðîäî⠖ åâðååâ, ÷åðêåñîâ, êóðäîâ, àðàáîâ, ãðåêîâ. Íî ïðåæäå âñåãî íàñ áóäóò èíòåðåñî- âàòü ëþäè è ñîáûòèÿ, êîòîðûå äî ñèõ ïîð çàìàë÷èâàëèñü â ðà- áîòàõ, ïîñâÿùåííûõ ïîçäíåîñìàíñêîé èñòîðèè – ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà è äåïîðòàöèè àðìÿí Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè, ïåðâûé Ãåíîöèä â èñòîðèè XX â. Ìû íå îæèäàåì äîñòè÷ü ïîëíîãî ñîãëàñèÿ, íî íàäååìñÿ íà ñåðüåçíîå àêàäåìè÷åñêîå îáñóæäåíèå. Ýòî – ïåðâàÿ ïîïûòêà ñôîðìèðîâàòü íîâîå ñîîáùåñòâî ó÷å- íûõ, âäîõíîâëåííîå ëèáåðàëüíûì îñìàíèçìîì, òåðïèìîñòüþ ê ðàçëè÷èÿì, îñíîâàííîå íà ðàâåíñòâå è óâàæåíèè, à íå íà èñïîëíåííîì ÷óâñòâà ñîáñòâåííîé èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîñòè, îòîðâàí- íîì îò âñåãî îñòàëüíîãî ìèðà íàöèîíàëèçìå. Ïåðâûå äîêëàäû, êîòîðûå ïðåäñòàâèëè àñïèðàíò ×èêàãñêîãî óíè- âåðñèòåòà Ìàðê Áýð (Marc Baer), èñòîðèê èç Óíèâåðñèòåòà Áîãàçè÷è

106 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 (Bogazici University) â Ñòàìáóëå Ñåëèì Äåðèíãèë (Selim Deringil), àí- òðîïîëîã èç Íàó÷íîãî ñîâåòà â îáëàñòè ñîöèàëüíûõ íàóê Íüþ-Éîðêà (Social Science Research Council in New York City) Ñåòåíè Øàìè (Seteney Shami), èñòîðèê Óíèâåðñèòåòà Áðàóí â Ïðîâèäåíñ, Ðîä Àéëåíä, Ýíãèí Äåíèç Àêàðëè (Engin Deniz Akarli), áûëè ïîñâÿùåíû ñèñòåìå “ìèëëå- òîâ”, ò.å. ñèñòåìå óïðàâëåíèÿ íàöèîíàëüíûìè ìåíüøèíñòâàìè â Îñ- ìàíñêîé èìïåðèè. Ìàðê Áýð ãîâîðèë îá èçìåíåíèÿõ â îòíîøåíèè ê åâ- ðåÿì, èìåâøèõ ìåñòî â ïåðâûå âåêà ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ èìïåðèè: â XVI â. ýòè ïîääàííûå ïîëüçîâàëèñü áëàãîðàñïîëîæåíèåì âëàñòåé, íî óæå â êîíöå XVII â. îíè ïîäâåðãàëèñü çíà÷èòåëüíîé äèñêðèìèíàöèè è ðåï- ðåññèÿì. Ñåëèì Äåðèíãèë íà÷àë ñâîå âûñòóïëåíèå ñ óòâåðæäåíèÿ: “Ýòî ñàìûé ñëîæíûé äîêëàä, êîòîðûé ÿ êîãäà-ëèáî ãîòîâèë â ñâîåé æèçíè: îáðàùåíèå ê ïðîáëåìå àðìÿíñêîãî Ãåíîöèäà ïîäîáíî ïðîãóëêå ïî ìèí- íîìó ïîëþ”. Äàëåå îí ïðåäñòàâèë ÿðêèé î÷åðê àðìÿíî-òóðåöêèõ îòíî- øåíèé, îñíîâàííûé íà âíèìàòåëüíîì èçó÷åíèè äîêóìåíòîâ, îáíàðó- æåííûõ èì â îñìàíñêèõ àðõèâàõ. Äåðèíãèë ïîêàçàë ñîáðàâøèìñÿ, ÷òî ýòè èñòî÷íèêè ìîæíî ÷èòàòü ïî-ðàçíîìó, îíè íóæäàþòñÿ â ñêðóïóëåç- íîì àíàëèçå, èõ íåëüçÿ èçó÷àòü âíå èñòîðè÷åñêîãî êîíòåêñòà, à ñàìè îíè äîëæíû ñòàòü ÷àñòüþ îáùåãî àíàëèçà ïðîáëåìû. Øàìè ïîñâÿòèë ñâîé äîêëàä îáðàçàì è ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿì, ñâÿçàííûì ñ ÷åðêåñàìè – íà- ðîäîì, êîòîðûé îáðåë íîâîå ñàìîïðåäñòàâëåíèå, íîâóþ êîëëåêòèâíóþ èäåíòè÷íîñòü, áóäó÷è èçãíàííûì èç ïðåäåëîâ Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè è çàòåì ñîñëàííûì â Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè. Àêàðëè ïîñòàâèë ïîä ñîìíå- íèå ïðèìåíèìîñòü êîíöåïòóàëüíûõ ðàìîê íàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ê ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé ïðîáëåìå è ïîêàçàë, êàêèì îáðàçîì ýòà ìîäåëü îã- ðàíè÷èâàåò íàøå ïîíèìàíèå ñëîæíûõ, ðàçëè÷íûõ ïî ñâîåìó ñîñòàâó èìïåðèé. Îí ïðèâåë ïðèìåðû èç èñëàìñêîãî ïðàâà, ïðîäåìîíñòðèðî- âàâ, êàê ïðîáëåìà âíóòðåííèõ ðàçëè÷èé â ñîñòàâå èìïåðèè ðåøàëàñü â îñìàíñêîì ñóäîïðîèçâîäñòâå. Âûñòóïàÿ ñ îáðàùåíèåì, áûâøèé ñïåöèàëüíûé ïîìîùíèê Ïðåçè- äåíòà Ðåñïóáëèêè Àðìåíèÿ Äæèðàð (Äæåðàðä) Äæ. Ëèáàðèäüÿí ( Jirair/ Gerard/ J. Libaridian) ïîä÷åðêíóë èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûå è ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ïðåïÿòñòâèÿ, ñòîÿùèå íà ïóòè áîëåå ãëóáîêîãî îñìûñëåíèÿ Ãåíîöèäà. Îí íà÷àë ñâîþ ðå÷ü öèòàòîé èç ïîýìû Åãèøå ×àðåíöà “Ïåðåêðåñòîê”: “Âàæíî íå òîëüêî òî, ÷òî ñëó÷èëîñü, íî è òî, êàê ìû ñàìè ïîíèìàåì, ÷òî ïðîèçîøëî”. Ëèáàðèäüÿí çàäàë âîïðîñ: “Ïî÷åìó íåêîòîðûì áîëü- øå íðàâèòñÿ ñàìà ïðîáëåìà, ÷åì åå ðåøåíèå?” Ñîáûòèÿ 1915 ã. è èõ ïîñëåäñòâèÿ äîëæíû áûòü âîçâðàùåíû èñòîðèè. Îáùåå ïðîøëîå áûëî ïîõèùåíî òåìè, êòî ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêîãî ïîäõîäà. 107 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... “Íåêîòîðûå èñòîðèêè, ñêàçàë Ëèáàðèäüÿí, ïîäîáíû ïàâøèì áîãàì: îíè íå âëàñòíû íàä áóäóùèì, è ïîòîìó ïûòàþòñÿ èçìåíèòü ïðîøëîå ïî ñâîåìó îáðàçó è ïîäîáèþ”. Äîêëàäû, ïðåäñòàâëåííûå âî âòîðîé äåíü ñåìèíàðà èñòîðèêîì èç ×èêàãñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Õîëëè Øèññëåð (Holly Shissler), ñîöèî- ëîãîì èç Óíèâåðñèòåòà Áîãàçè÷è Êàãëàðîì Êåéäåðîì (Caglar Keyder) è èñòîðèêîì Óíèâåðñèòåòà Ñàáàí÷è (Sabanci Uiniversity) â Ñòàìáóëå Õàëèëîì Áåðêòàåì (Halil Berktay), áûëè ïîñâÿùåíû àíàëèçó òóðåöêî- ãî íàöèîíàëèçìà.  äîêëàäå Øèññëåð ðàññìàòðèâàëèñü ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó ïàíòþðêèçìîì, òþðêèçìîì è òóðàíèçìîì. Ïðîôåññîð Êåéäåð ïîâòî- ðèë ìûñëü î òîì, ÷òî íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ çàìàë÷èâàë äåéñòâè- òåëüíî ìíîãîíàöèîíàëüíûé õàðàêòåð Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè, è ïðèçâàë ê “àêòèâíîìó âîñïîìèíàíèþ”. Ïðîôåññîð Áåðêòàé, â íàñòîÿùåå âðå- ìÿ èçó÷àþùèé òóðåöêèé íàöèîíàëèçì â èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî âàæíûé äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ ïðîáëåìû ïåðèîä ìåæäó 1908-1918 ãã., îáðàòèëñÿ ê ìàñ- ñîâîé ëèòåðàòóðå, êîòîðàÿ, êàê îí óòâåðæäàë, ñûãðàëà ãîðàçäî áîëü- øóþ ðîëü â ôîðìèðîâàíèè ñèìïàòèé è àíòèïàòèé íàñåëåíèÿ, íåæåëè ìàëîèçâåñòíûå ïóáëèêå òåîðåòèêè íàöèîíàëèçìà. Ïîïóëÿðíûé ïèñà- òåëü Îìåð Ñåéôåääèí (Omer Seyfeddin), ÷üå òâîð÷åñòâî è ðàññìàò- ðèâàëîñü â ïðåäñòàâëåííîì äîêëàäå, ðàçâèâàë èäåè òþðêèçìà, îòðè- öàÿ ðàçëè÷èÿ âíóòðè èìïåðèè è ðàññìàòðèâàÿ Çàïàä êàê “íàãëóþ ãóëÿ- ùóþ äåâêó” – ñëàáóþ, ôåìèíèííóþ öèâèëèçàöèþ, ïðèõîäÿùóþ â óïàäîê. Ãåíîöèä îêàçàëñÿ â öåíòðå ÷åòûðåõ÷àñîâîãî îáñóæäåíèÿ, âî âðåìÿ êîòîðîãî áûëè ïðåäñòàâëåíû äîêëàäû èñòîðèêà Àðàìà Àðêóíà (Aram Arkun) èç Öåíòðà Çîðàá (the Zohrab Center) â Íüþ-Éîðêå, èñòîðèêà Òàíåðà Àêñàìà (Taner Akçam) èç Ôîíäà ïîääåðæêè ðàçâèòèÿ çíàíèÿ è êóëüòóðû (the Foundation for the Development of Knowledge and Culture) â Ãàìáóðãå, ìîé äîêëàä è äîêëàä Êåâîðêà Áàðäàêüÿíà. Òùàòåëüíî èçó- ÷èâ ïðîòîêîëû ñóäåáíûõ ïðîöåññîâ ïðîòèâ ëèäåðîâ ìëàäîòóðêîâ, ïðî- õîäèâøèõ ïîñëå Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû, Áàðäàêüÿí îáíàðóæèë êîìï- ðîìåòèðóþùèå ìàòåðèàëû, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê ïëàíèðîâàíèþ è îñóùå- ñòâëåíèþ äåïîðòàöèé è ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ. Àðêóí ðàññìîòðåë ïðî- áëåìó ïîñëåäñòâèé Ãåíîöèäà â ñåâåðíîé Êèëèêèè (Cilicia). Îïèðàÿñü íà äîêóìåíòû èç îñìàíñêèõ àðõèâîâ, îí ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàë, êàê íå- óäà÷è àäìèíèñòðàöèè ñòðàí-ïîáåäèòåëüíèö â Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîé- íå íà îêêóïèðîâàííîé èìè òåððèòîðèè Òóðöèè íå ïîçâîëèëè àðìÿ- íàì äîáèòüñÿ ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè â ïîñëåâîåííûé ïåðèîä. ß æå ïðåäñòà- âèë àíàëèç Ãåíîöèäà êàê íåóäàâøåéñÿ èìïåðñêîé ñòðàòåãèè, íàïðàâ- 108 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ëåííîé íà ïåðåñòðîéêó èìïåðèè â ïàíòþðêèñòñêîì è íàöèîíàëèñòè- ÷åñêîì êëþ÷å. Òàíåð Àêñàì, ïåðâûé òóðåöêèé èñòîðèê, îáðàòèâøèéñÿ ê òåìå Ãå- íîöèäà, âîññîçäàë â äåòàëÿõ õðîíîëîãèþ ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ î äå- ïîðòàöèÿõ, îòíåñÿ ýòî ñîáûòèå ê íà÷àëó ìàðòà 1915 ã. Íàêàíóíå Ýíâåð Ïàøà (Enver Pasha), îäèí èç ãëàâíûõ ëèäåðîâ ìëàäîòóðîê, âûçâàë êîë- ëåã ïî ïàðòèè â Ñòàìáóë äëÿ ñîñòàâëåíèÿ ïëàíà ïî óñòðà íåíèþ íåìóñóëü- ìàíñêèõ ýëåìåíòîâ èç Àíàòîëèè.  ìàå-èþíå 1914 ã. ïðàâèòåëüñòâî âûñåëèëî ãðåêîâ ñ çàïàäíîãî áåðåãà Àíàòîëèè. 2 àâãóñòà 1914 ã. Öåíòðàëüíûé Êîìèòåò ïàðòèè ìëàäîòóðîê âîññîçäàë Òåøêèëàò-è-Ìàõ- ñóñà (Teshkilat-I-Mahsusa) – îñîáûé îðãàí, êîòîðûé ïîçäíåå áóäåò îðãàíèçîâûâàòü ìíîãèå äåïîðòàöèè è ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà àðìÿí.  òîò æå ìîìåíò â åãî çàäà÷è âõîäèëà ïîäðûâíàÿ ðàáîòà íà Êàâêàçå ñ öåëüþ ñïðîâîöèðîâàòü Ðîññèþ íà âñòóïëåíèå â âîéíó ïðîòèâ Òóðöèè. Ïîñëå ïîðàæåíèÿ îñìàíñêîé àðìèè ïðè Ñàðûêàìèøå â íà÷àëå 1915 ã. Öåíòðàëüíûé êîìèòåò ïðèíÿë ðîêîâîå ðåøåíèå î âûñûëêå àðìÿí. Çäåñü ñðàáîòàë äâîéíîé ìåõàíèçì: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, áûë îôèöèàëüíûé ïðèêàç Ìèíèñòåðñòâà Âíóòðåííèõ Äåë æàíäàðìñêèì óïðàâëåíèÿì íà ìåñòàõ; ñ äðóãîé – çàäåéñòâîâàëèñü íåîôèöèàëüíûå êàíàëû – ñ ñåêðåòíûìè ïðè- êàçàìè ê ãóáåðíàòîðàì ïðîâèíöèé áûëè íàïðàâëåíû ïàðòèéíûå àãåí- òû è ôóíêöèîíåðû. Ïîñëåäíèé äåíü êîíôåðåíöèè îñâåùàë ïåðèîä ïîñëå Ãåíîöèäà. Äîêëàä èñòîðèêà èç ×èêàãñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Õàêàíà Îçîãëó (Hakan Ozoglu) áûë ïîñâÿùåí âîññòàíèÿì êóðäîâ è çàðîæäåíèþ êóðäñêîãî íàöèîíàëèçìà. Ïî óòâåðæäåíèþ àâòîðà, èñòîðèÿ ïåðåõîäà îò èìïåðèè ê íàöèîíàëüíîìó ãîñóäàðñòâó íå ìîæåò áûòü íàïèñàíà áåç ó÷åòà èñ- òîðè÷åñêîãî îïûòà ýòîãî íàðîäà. Ìþãå Ãå÷åê (Müge Goçek) èçó÷èëà âîñ- ïîìèíàíèÿ àðìÿíñêèõ ïèñàòåëåé, êîòîðûå íåäàâíî âûøëè è íà òóðåö- êîì ÿçûêå. Îíà îòìåòèëà, ÷òî îêîí÷àíèå õîëîäíîé âîéíû, ëèáåðàëèçà- öèÿ òóðåöêèõ ñðåäñòâ ìàññîâîé èíôîðìàöèè è 75-ÿ ãîäîâùèíà îáðàçî- âàíèÿ Òóðåöêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè ñïîñîáñòâîâàëè òîìó, ÷òî òóðåöêèå èí- òåëëåêòóàëû ïî÷óâñòâîâàëè ñåáÿ â áîëüøåé áåçîïàñíîñòè, è òàêèì îá- ðàçîì ó íèõ ïîÿâèëàñü íåìûñëèìàÿ ðàíåå âîçìîæíîñòü äëÿ ïåðåîñ- ìûñëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî. Èñòîðèê èç Ìè÷èãàíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Äæåôô Ýëè (Geoff Eley) ñâîé çàêëþ÷èòåëüíûé êîììåíòàðèé ê äèñêóññèè íà- ÷àë ñ ðàññêàçà î òîì, êàê íàêàíóíå ñòîëêíóëñÿ â òàêñè ñ þðèñòîì. Þðèñò ïîèíòåðåñîâàëñÿ, êóäà îí íàïðàâëÿåòñÿ. Ýëè ñêàçàë: “Íà êîíôåðåí- öèþ, ïîñâÿùåííóþ Ãåíîöèäó àðìÿí”.  îòâåò íà ýòî þðèñò ñïðîñèë:

109 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... “À ÷òî, ðàçâå ñåãîäíÿ ÷òî-òî ïðîèçîøëî?” Î÷åâèäíî, ïðîäîëæèë äà- ëåå Ýëè, ïðîáëåìà çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, êàêèì îáðàçîì äèñêóññèè ó÷å- íûõ ñîîòíîñÿòñÿ ñî ñôåðîé îáùåñòâåííîãî ñîçíàíèÿ è îôèöèàëüíîé ïà- ìÿòè. Ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ Ýëè, êà÷åñòâåííûå ñîâìåñòíûå ðàáîòû, ïîäîáíûå ýòîìó ñåìèíàðó, ÿâëÿþòñÿ íåîáõîäèìîé ïðåäïîñûëêîé äëÿ èçìåíåíèÿ îáùåñòâåííîãî ñîçíàíèÿ. Îñîçíàíèþ Õîëîêîñòà åâðååâ â ãîäû Âòî- ðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû ïðåäøåñòâîâàëè ñåðüåçíûå íàó÷íûå èññëåäîâà- íèÿ. Íóæíî âîññîçäàòü õðîíèêó ñîáûòèé. Ó÷àñòíèêè ñåìèíàðà ñ ýíòóçèàçìîì ñîãëàñèëèñü ñ òåì, ÷òî îáñóæäåíèå çàòðîíóòûõ òåì äîë- æíî èìåòü ïðîäîëæåíèå.  òî âðåìÿ êàê ìû â ñâîåì ñåìèíàðå è áëèçêèå íàì ïî äóõó èñòî- ðèêè ïûòàëèñü íàëàäèòü àðìÿíî-òóðåöêèé àêàäåìè÷åñêèé äèàëîã, òóðåöêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî ïðîäîëæàëî, è äàæå àêòèâèçèðîâàëî, êàìïàíèþ ïî îòðèöàíèþ Ãåíîöèäà. Òóðåöêèå ó÷åíûå, â ÷àñòíîñòè, Òàíåð Àêñàìó, îñìåëèâøèéñÿ íàçâàòü ñîáûòèÿ 1915 ã. Ãåíîöèäîì, ïîäâåðãñÿ óãðî- çàì. Êîãäà îñåíüþ 2000 ã. Êîìèòåò ïî ìåæäóíàðîäíûì îòíîøåíèÿì ïðè Ïàëàòå ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé Êîíãðåññà ÑØÀ ïðîãîëîñîâàë çà ðåçî- ëþöèþ, ïðèçíàþùóþ ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà àðìÿí â Îñìàíñêîé èìïå- ðèè ãåíîöèäîì, íà äåíüãè Òóðöèè â Âàøèíãòîíå áûëî ñîçäàíî ìîùíîå ëîááè äëÿ ïðîòèâîáîðñòâà ýòîìó ðåøåíèþ.  ðåçóëüòàòå â Ïàëàòå ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé óäàëîñü ïðîâàëèòü ðåçîëþöèþ, ïðèçíàþùóþ ôàêò ñîâåðøåíèÿ ãåíîöèäà ïðîòèâ àðìÿí. Ñíà÷àëà Êîìèòåò ïî ìåæäóíà- ðîäíûì îòíîøåíèÿì ñîïðîòèâëÿëñÿ ìîãóùåñòâåííîìó ëîááè òóðåö- êîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà è åãî âëèÿòåëüíûì ñòîðîííèêàì, òàêèì, êàê áûâ- øèå ÷ëåíû Êîíãðåññà Áîá Ëèâèíãñòîí (Bob Livingston), Ñòåôåí Ñî- ëàðö (Stephen Solarz) è Äæåðàëüä Ñîëîìîí (Gerald Solomon). Áëàãîäà- ðÿ ñîïðîòèâëåíèþ Êîìèòåòà, Ñîåäèíåííûå Øòàòû âîøëè â ÷èñëî ñòðàí, ïðèçíàâøèõ ýòó èñòîðè÷åñêóþ òðàãåäèþ ïåðâûì â èñòîðèè XX â. Ãå- íîöèäîì. Òóðöèÿ áûëà â ÿðîñòè. Ïðåìüåð-ìèíèñòð Òóðöèè Áóëåíò Ýñå- âèò (Bulent Ecevit) óãðîæàë îñëîæíåíèÿìè â òóðåöêî-àìåðèêàíñêèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè Ïàëàòà ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé òîæå îõàðàêòåðè- çóåò ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà êàê Ãåíîöèä. Òóðåöêàÿ ïå÷àòü îñóæäàëà àð- ìÿíñêóþ âåðñèþ èñòîðèè êàê âûìûñåë, äåìîíñòðàíòû â Àäàíå ñî- æãëè àðìÿíñêèé ôëàã. Êîíãðåññ ÑØÀ, óñòóïàâøèé â ïðîøëîì äàâ- ëåíèþ ñî ñòîðîíû òåõ, êòî ãîòîâ ñîêðûòü ôàêò óíè÷òîæåíèÿ öåëîãî íàðîäà, áûë íà ýòîò ðàç ãîòîâ ïðèíÿòü ðåøåíèå, ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåå èñ- òîðè÷åñêîé ïðàâäå. Îäíàêî â êîíöå êîíöîâ àäìèíèñòðàöèÿ ïðåçèäåí- òà Êëèíòîíà óáåäèëà äîñòàòî÷íîå ÷èñëî ÷ëåíîâ Ïàëàòû ïðåäñòàâèòå- ëåé ïðîãîëîñîâàòü ïðîòèâ ðåçîëþöèè. 110 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Îñîáåííî ïîêàçàòåëüíûì áûëî ïîâåäåíèå ìîãóùåñòâåííîé àìåðè- êàíñêîé êîðïîðàöèè “Ìàéêðîñîôò”, óñòóïèâøåé òåì, êòî îòðèöàåò ðåàëüíîñòü Ãåíîöèäà.  1997-1998 ãã., ò.å. ïðèìåðíî â òî æå âðåìÿ, êîãäà “Ìàéêðîñîôò” ïðèñòóïèë ê ñîçäàíèþ “Ýíêàðòû” – ýíöèêëîïåäèè â öèôðîâîì ôîðìàòå, åå ðåäàêòîðû îáðàòèëèñü êî ìíå ñ ïðåäëîæåíèåì íàïèñàòü áîëåå äåñÿòêà ñòàòåé î ðàçëè÷íûõ ðåñïóáëèêàõ è íàðîäàõ áûâ- øåãî Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà. Âåñíîé 2000 ã. íà îäíó èç ýòèõ ñòàòåé – êðàò- êóþ èñòîðèþ Àðìåíèè – îáðàòèë âíèìàíèå ïîñîë Òóðöèè â ÑØÀ Áàêè Èëêèí (Baki Ilkin). Îí íàïðàâèë ïèñüìî â ðåäàêöèþ “Ýíêàðòû”, ïðîòåñ- òóÿ ïðîòèâ óïîòðåáëåíèÿ òåðìèíà “Ãåíîöèä” â ðàññêàçå î äåïîðòàöè- ÿõ è óáèéñòâàõ àðìÿí â 1915 ã. Ïîäîáíûå îôèöèàëüíûå ïðîòåñòû äî- ñòàòî÷íî ðàñïðîñòðàíåíû, è ÷àñòî ñîïðîâîæäàþòñÿ ïèñüìàìè îò òó- ðîê, æèâóùèõ â Àìåðèêå, è òóðåöêèõ ïàòðèîòè÷åñêèõ îðãàíèçàöèé.  ýòîé èñòîðèè, îäíàêî, íåîáû÷íûì áûëî òî, ÷òî ãëàâíûé ðåäàêòîð “Ýí- êàðòû” Ãýðè Àëüò (Gary Alt) âîñïðèíÿë ïðîòåñò ïîñëà äîñòàòî÷íî ñåðü- åçíî è ðàñïîðÿäèëñÿ, ÷òîáû åãî ñîòðóäíèêè ðàçîáðàëèñü â ýòîì âîïðî- ñå.  èòîãå Àëüò ïðèøåë ê âûâîäó, ÷òî â äàííîì ñëó÷àå äåéñòâèòåëüíî èìåëè ìåñòî “çàêîííûå äëÿ íàóêè ðàçíîãëàñèÿ âî ìíåíèÿõ”, à ïîòîìó ìîÿ ñòàòüÿ îá Àðìåíèè è ñòàòüÿ î “Ãåíîöèäå”, íàïèñàííàÿ ä-ð Õåëåí Ôåéí (Helen Fein), èñïîëíèòåëüíûì äèðåêòîðîì Èíñòèòóòà èññëåäîâàíèé Ãåíîöèäà (the Institute for the Study of Genocide), äîëæíû áûòü ïåðå- ñìîòðåíû òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òîáû îòðàçèòü ýòè “ðàçíîãëàñèÿ âî ìíåíè- ÿõ”. Òàê ÷òî ðåäàêòîð “Ýíêàðòû” ïîçâîíèë ìíå äîìîé è ïîïðîñèë ïå- ðåïèñàòü ñòàòüþ. Ïîñêîëüêó àâòîðñêèå ïðàâà íà ýòó ïóáëèêàöèþ ïðè- íàäëåæàò “Ýíêàðòå”, ñêàçàë îí ìíå, ðåäàêöèÿ èìååò ïðàâî èçìåíÿòü òåêñò ïî ñâîåìó ñîáñòâåííîìó óñìîòðåíèþ è îïóáëèêîâàòü åãî, íå óïîìèíàÿ ìîåãî èìåíè. ß çàñòàâèë ðåäàêòîðà, êîòîðûé áûë ÿâíî îáåñ- ïîêîåí òåì, ÷òî åãî âûíóæäàëè ñäåëàòü, ðàññêàçàòü ìíå, ÷òî íà ñàìîì äåëå ñòîÿëî çà òðåáîâàíèåì ïåðåïèñàòü ñòàòüþ. Âîçìîæíî, îí ðàññêà- çàë ìíå áîëüøå òîãî, íà ÷òî èìåë ïðàâî. Ïî åãî ñëîâàì, òóðåöêîå ïðà- âèòåëüñòâî óãðîæàëî àðåñòîâàòü ñîòðóäíèêîâ è çàïðåòèòü ïðîäóêöèþ êîìïàíèè “Ìàéêðîñîôò”, åñëè ñîáûòèÿ 1915 ã. áóäóò îõàðàêòåðèçîâà- íû êàê Ãåíîöèä. Ýòî ïîêàçàëîñü ìíå ñòîëü àáñóðäíûì, ÷òî ÿ çàìåòèë: “×òî æå îíè òîãäà áóäóò äåëàòü â Òóðöèè? Âåðíóòñÿ ê ïåðãàìåíòó è ãóñèíûì ïåðüÿì?” Ïîëîæåíèå, îäíàêî, áûëî íåøóòî÷íûì. Ïðàâèòåëüñòâî èíîñòðàí- íîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà âìåøàëîñü â äåëà ÷àñòíîé àìåðèêàíñêîé êîìïàíèè, ïûòàÿñü óáåäèòü åå íàæàòü íà ñâîèõ àâòîðîâ, êîòîðûå, ïðåäïîëîæè- òåëüíî, ïîëüçóþòñÿ âûñîêîé ðåïóòàöèåé â ñâîèõ îáëàñòÿõ, è çàñòà- 111 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... âèòü èõ ïåðåïèñàòü ñòàòüè òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òîáû îíè ñîîòâåòñòâîâà- ëè îôèöèàëüíîé òî÷êå çðåíèÿ íà èñòîðèþ. Íè ä-ð Ôåéí, íè ÿ íå ñîáèðàëèñü ïåðåïèñûâàòü ñâîè òåêñòû â óãîäó òóðåöêîìó ïðàâèòåëü- ñòâó, ò.å. óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî âëàñòè Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè íå áûëè çàìå- øàíû â ïëàíèðîâàíèè è îñóùåñòâëåíèè ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ â 1915 ã., ÷òî ðåçíÿ àðìÿí áûëà ïðîñòî òðàãè÷åñêèì ñëåäñòâèåì ìèôè÷åñêîé ãðàæ- äàíñêîé âîéíû ìåæäó òóðêàìè è àðìÿíàìè. Ä-ð Ôåéí è ÿ ïðåäëîæèëè ðåäàêöèè “Ýíêàðòû” îðèãèíàëüíûå âåðñèè íàøèõ ñòàòåé: ðàññêàçàâ ÷èòàòåëÿì îá óáèéñòâå áîëåå ÷åì 800 òûñ. àðìÿí (íåêîòîðûå îöåíêè ÷èñëà æåðòâ Ãåíîöèäà äîõîäÿò äî 1 ìëí. 500 òûñ. ÷åëîâåê), ÿ îòìåòèë, ÷òî áîëüøèíñòâî èñòîðèêîâ óáåæäåíû â òîì, ÷òî ïîäîáíîå îáðàùåíèå îñìàíñêîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà ñî ñâîèìè àðìÿíñêèìè ïîääàííûìè ÿâèëîñü ïåðâûì ñëó÷àåì Ãåíîöèäà â XX â. Îäíàêî ñîâðåìåííîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî Òóðöèè óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî âñå ýòè ñìåðòè ïðîèçîøëè âñëåäñòâèå ãðàæ- äàíñêîé âîéíû, ýïèäåìèé è ãîëîäà. Ê íàøåìó óäèâëåíèþ è îáëåã÷åíèþ, “Ýíêàðòà” ðåøèëà ïðèíÿòü ñòàòüè áåç èçìåíåíèé. Îäíàêî êîãäà ýòà èñòîðèÿ ïðîñî÷èëàñü â æóð- íàë “Õðîíèêà âûñøåãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ” (Chronicle of Higher Education) è áûëà ïîäõâà÷åíà òåëåâèçèîííîé ïðîãðàììîé “Moneyline” íà êàíàëå CNN, òî è “Ìàéêðîñîôò”, è ïîñîëüñòâî Òóðöèè áðîñèëèñü îòðèöàòü ôàêò óãðîç ñî ñòîðîíû òóðåöêîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà, à çàîäíî è ôàêò îòðè- öàíèÿ Ãåíîöèäà. È óæ ñîâñåì âñå áûëè èçóìëåíû, êîãäà âñëåä çà òó- ðåöêèì ïðàâèòåëüñòâîì ñàì ãëàâíûé ðåäàêòîð “Ýíêàðòû” âäðóã çàÿ- âèë, ÷òî ó÷àñòèå òóðåöêèõ âëàñòåé â ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâàõ è äåïîðòà- öèÿõ, â õîäå êîòîðûõ áûëî ëèêâèäèðîâàíî 90% àíàòîëèéñêèõ àðìÿí, ìîæíî ñ ïîëíûì ïðàâîì îñïîðèòü. Èòàê, íà ñàìîì äåëå ýòîò ðàóíä âûèãðàëè òå, êòî îòðèöàë Ãåíîöèä. Èì óäàëîñü ïðåâðàòèòü â ïðåäìåò ïóáëè÷íîé ïîëåìèêè íåîñïîðèìûé ôàêò ìàññîâîãî íàñèëèÿ ñî ñòîðî- íû ãîñóäàðñòâà – íàñèëèÿ, òâîðèìîãî íà îãðîìíîé òåððèòîðèè è çàñ- âèäåòåëüñòâîâàííîãî äîêóìåíòàëüíî íåìåöêèìè ñîþçíèêàìè Òóðöèè è íåéòðàëüíûìè àìåðèêàíñêèìè äèïëîìàòàìè. Òåì íå ìåíåå, õîòÿ ïðàâèòåëüñòâî Òóðåöêîé ðåñïóáëèêè, äåéñòâóÿ ÷åðåç ñâîèõ äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé, ÷åðåç ñâîå âûñîêîîï- ëà÷èâàåìîå ëîááè, ÷åðåç ãîðñòêó ñêîìïðîìåòèðîâàâøèõ ñåáÿ ó÷åíûõ, è ñóìåëî íà âðåìÿ èñêàçèòü ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ îáùåñòâà îá èñòîðèè, ó íàñ îñòàâàëèñü ïðèçíàêè íàäåæäû: íàïðÿæåííûå îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó Ãðå- öèåé è Òóðöèåé çàìåòíî ïîòåïëåëè, Åâðîïà ðàñïàõíóëà Òóðöèè ñâîè äâåðè, ïëàìÿ âîéíû ñ êóðäàìè ñòàëî óãàñàòü. È ïîêà îôèöèàëüíûå âëàñòè Òóðöèè íåóêëþæå ïûòàëèñü èçãëàäèòü èç íàøåé ïàìÿòè ñëåäû 112 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ãåíîöèäà, íåêîòîðûå àðìÿíñêèå è òóðåöêèå èñòîðèêè íàñòîé÷èâî ñòðåìèëèñü ê äèàëîãó, â õîäå êîòîðîãî óäàëîñü áû ïåðåéòè îò âçàèì- íûõ îáâèíåíèé è îòðèöàíèÿ ôàêòîâ ê ÷åìó-òî áîëåå êîíñòðóêòèâíî- ìó. Íàøà âòîðàÿ âñòðå÷à ïðîøëà â Ìè÷èãàíñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå ñ 8 ïî 10 ìàðòà 2002 ã. Äâàäöàòü èñòîðèêîâ, ïîëèòîëîãîâ, ñîöèîëîãîâ è àíòðî- ïîëîãîâ, èíòåðåñóþùèõñÿ ïðîáëåìàìè ïîçäíåé Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè è ñóäüáàìè åå àðìÿíñêèõ ïîääàííûõ, ñúåõàëèñü èç ðàçíûõ ìåñò – äàæå èç òàêèõ äàëåêèõ îò Ìè÷èãàíà, êàê Àíêàðà â Òóðöèè è Áîõóì â Ãåðìà- íèè. Òåìà ñåìèíàðà íàçûâàëàñü “Âîññîçäàâàÿ êîíòåêñò îïûòà àðìÿí- ñêîãî íàðîäà â Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè: îò âîéí íà Áàëêàíàõ äî íîâîé Òó- ðåöêîé ðåñïóáëèêè”. Ó÷àñòíèêè ïðåäñòàâèëè òåêñòû ñâîèõ âûñòóïëå- íèé çàðàíåå, íà ñåìèíàðå îíè èõ çà÷èòàëè, ïîñëå ÷åãî íà÷àëîñü ïðî- äîëæèòåëüíîå, î÷åíü æèâîå, íî êîððåêòíîå îáñóæäåíèå äîêëàäîâ. Öåëüþ ñåìèíàðà áûëî ïîíÿòü, ïî÷åìó ïðîèçîøåë Ãåíîöèä – à ñäåëàòü ýòî ìîæíî, òîëüêî ó÷èòûâàÿ îáùèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé êîíòåêñò. Ìû ñòðåìèëèñü îáúÿñíèòü íàïðÿæåííîñòü â îòíîøåíèÿõ ìåæäó àðìÿíàìè è òóðêàìè, ôîðìèðîâàíèå îáðàçà àðìÿí â òóðåöêîì ñîçíàíèè êàê îïàñíîãî, ïîäðûâíîãî ýëåìåíòà; ïðè÷èíû ïîðàæåíèÿ òóðåöêîé àðìèè â Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíå, óãðîçó íîâûõ ïîðàæåíèé. ß ñíîâà îòêðûâàë çàñå- äàíèå: íà ýòîò ðàç ÿ ïðåäñòàâèë îáçîð àðìÿíñêîé è çàïàäíîé èñòîðè÷åñ- êîé ëèòåðàòóðû ïî ïðîáëåìå ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ è äåïîðòàöèé 1915 ã. Ìîå âûñòóïëåíèå äîïîëíèë äîêëàä Ãå÷åê î òóðåöêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè. ß âûñêàçàë ìûñëü î òîì, ÷òî òðàäèöèîííîå èçëîæåíèå ñîáûòèé îñòàâ- ëÿåò ìàëî ìåñòà äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ âñåé ñëîæíîñòè ïðîáëåìû. Ñóùåñòâóþ- ùèå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ïîäõîäû ïûòàþòñÿ äàòü îáúÿñíåíèå ìàññîâûì óáèé- ñòâàì, ññûëàÿñü íà ðåëèãèîçíóþ âðàæäó èëè íàöèîíàëèçì, è íå ó÷èòû- âàþò â ïîëíîé ìåðå òî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, ÷òî ìëàäîòóðêè áûëè ñâåòñêè- ìè ìîäåðíèçàòîðàìè, ñòðåìèâøèìèñÿ ñîõðàíèòü èìïåðèþ âî ÷òî áû òî íè ñòàëî. Âïëîòü äî ñåãîäíÿøíåãî äíÿ àðìÿíñêàÿ èñòîðèîãðà- ôèÿ îáâèíÿåò âî âñåì òóðîê, îòâîäÿ àðìÿíàì ëèøü ðîëü ïàññèâíûõ ñòðàäàëüöåâ, è ïðåäñòàâëÿÿ âñþ èñòîðèþ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè êàê ïóòü, ñ íåèçáåæíîñòüþ âåäóùèé ê Ãåíîöèäó. Îôèöèàëüíàÿ ïîçèöèÿ òóðåöêî- ãî ãîñóäàðñòâà îòðèöàåò Ãåíîöèä è óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî “Ãåíîöèäà íå áûëî, à àðìÿíå ñàìè âèíîâàòû âî âñåì”. Äîêëàä Ãå÷åê áûë ïîñâÿùåí òåì èçìåíåíèÿì, êîòîðûå ïðîèçîøëè â îñâåùåíèè ñîáûòèé 1915 ã. â Òóðöèè: â ðàáîòàõ, ïîÿâèâøèõñÿ â ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè, ïðèçíàâàëîñü, ÷òî ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà àðìÿí äåéñòâèòåëüíî èìåëè ìåñòî, â òî âðåìÿ êàê â 113 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... èñòîðèîãðàôèè Òóðåöêîé ðåñïóáëèêè íîðìîé ñòàëî ñîçíàòåëüíîå ìà- íèïóëèðîâàíèå èñòîðè÷åñêèìè ñâèäåòåëüñòâàìè.  ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû íåêîòîðûå òóðåöêèå èñòîðèêè, âîïðåêè äàâëåíèþ âëàñòåé, ïåðåøëè ê “ïîñòíàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêîìó” íàððàòèâó è ïûòàþòñÿ ïðåäñòàâèòü áî- ëåå îáúåêòèâíûé âçãëÿä íà ýòè ñîáûòèÿ. Òàêèå èññëåäîâàòåëè, êàê èñòîðèê èç Óíèâåðñèòåòà Ñàáàí÷è (Sabanci University) â Ñòàìáóëå Õà- ëèë Áåðêòàé (Halil Berktay), Òàíåð Àêñàì (Taner Akçam), Òàíåð Òèìóð (Taner Timur) è äðóãèå îñíîâûâàþò ñâîè âçãëÿäû ïî ýòîé ïðîáëåìå íà âíèìàòåëüíîì èçó÷åíèè îñìàíñêèõ äîêóìåíòîâ. Ñîöèîëîã Âàõàêí Äàäðÿí (Vahakn Dadrian), íà ïðîòÿæåíèè ìíî- ãèõ ëåò çàíèìàâøèéñÿ èçó÷åíèåì Ãåíîöèäà, îñïîðèë ìîå òîëêîâàíèå ïðè÷èí ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ. Ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ Äàäðÿíà, ÿ íåäîîöåíèâàþ çíà÷åíèå èñëàìà. Äàäðÿí óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî èñëàì ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé íåïîäâëàñòíóþ èçìåíåíèÿì äîãìó. Áîëüøàÿ ÷àñòü ñîâåðøåííûõ óáèéñòâ ïðèõîäèëàñü íà ïÿòíèöó – äåíü, êîãäà ïîñëå ìîëèòâû ìóëëû ïðèçûâàëè ïðàâîâåðíûõ ìóñóëüìàí ê äæèõàäó ïðîòèâ àðìÿí. Çäåñü â äèñêóññèþ âìåøàëñÿ Ôèêåðò Àäàíèð (Fikret Adanûr) èç Áîõóìñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà (Ãåðìàíèÿ), îòìåòèâøèé, ÷òî èñëàì îòíþäü íå ìîíîëè- òåí – èíîãäà îí “èíñòðóìåíòàëèçèðîâàëñÿ” è ïðåâðàùàëñÿ â îðóæèå ïðîòèâ õðèñòèàí. Àäàíèðà ïîääåðæàë ìîëîäîé òóðåöêèé ó÷åíûé ñ èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ôàêóëüòåòà Éåëüñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Ñîíåð ×àãàïòàé (Soner Çaüaptay), åùå ðàç ïîâòîðèâøèé ìûñëü î òîì, ÷òî èñëàì íå îäíî- ðîäåí. Èñëàì ìîæåò áûòü âåðîé, èäåîëîãèåé, êóëüòóðîé èëè èäåíòè÷- íîñòüþ. Îñîáåííî îïàñíàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ â Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè ñëîæè- ëàñü ñ íàñòóïëåíèåì ìîäåðíîñòè (Modernity), êîãäà ñòàðûå ðåëèãèîç- íûå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ îêàçàëèñü ïîä óãðîçîé. Äî XIX â. â Òóðöèè íå áûëî ñëó÷àåâ ìàññîâîãî óíè÷òîæåíèÿ àðìÿí. Èñòîðèê èç Áåðêëè Ñòåôàí Àñ- òóðÿí (Stephan Astourian) çàìåòèë, ÷òî òûñÿ÷è àðìÿí áûëè ñïàñåíû ìó- ñóëüìàíàìè. Èñòîðèê èç Ñòýíôîðäñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Àðîí Ðîäðèãó (Aron Rodrigue) äîáàâèë, ÷òî èñëàì ñîçäàë “äèñêóðñèâíûé áàðüåð” ìåæäó ìóñóëüìàíàìè è íåìóñóëüìàíàìè – ñ åãî ïîìîùüþ ëþäè ôîðìèðîâà- ëè ñâîè ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î òåõ, êòî îòëè÷àëñÿ îò íèõ ñàìèõ. Äðóãîé èçâåñòíûé èññëåäîâàòåëü Ãåíîöèäà – èñòîðèê èç Êàëèôîð- íèéñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà â Ëîñ-Àíäæåëåñå Ðè÷àðä Õîâàííèñÿí (Richard Hovannisian) – îáúÿñíèë, ÷òî ñïåöèàëèñòû, çàíèìàþùèåñÿ èñòîðèåé Àðìåíèè, ïîäîáíî èññëåäîâàòåëÿì Õîëîêîñòà, ðàçäåëåíû íà äâà ëàãåðÿ: “èíòåðíàëèñòû” ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî òóðêè äàâíî âûíàøèâàëè ïëàíû Ãåíî- öèäà àðìÿí, à “ôóíêöèîíàëèñòû”, íàïðîòèâ, ïîëàãàþò, ÷òî ñîáûòèÿ íîñèëè äîñòàòî÷íî ñëó÷àéíûé õàðàêòåð è ïðîèçîøëè ïîä âîçäåéñòâè- 114 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 åì ïðåäñòàâëåíèé îá àðìÿíñêîé óãðîçå, âîçíèêøèõ â ãîäû Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû.  ñâîåì âûñòóïëåíèè Õîâàííèñÿí óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî ïðî- òèâîïîñòàâëåíèå ýòèõ äâóõ ïîäõîäîâ ÷ðåçìåðíî ïðåóâåëè÷èâàåòñÿ, è ÷òî ôóíêöèîíàëèñòû è èíòåðíàëèñòû ìîãóò íàéòè òî÷êè ñîïðèêîñíî- âåíèÿ. Ñðåäè âåðõóøêè ìëàäîòóðåöêîãî ðóêîâîäñòâà, íåñîìíåííî, áûëè èíòåðíàëèñòû, çàìåòèë ó÷åíûé. Ìîëîäîé èññëåäîâàòåëü èç Ñàóòãåìïòîíà (Âåëèêîáðèòàíèÿ) Äîíàëüä Áëîêñõýì (Donald Bloxham) ïðåäñòàâèë ïîëåìè÷åñêèé äîêëàä î âîçðà- ñòàíèè ðàäèêàëèçàöèè â îáùåñòâå âî âðåìÿ Ãåíîöèäà àðìÿí. Îí óò- âåðæäàë, ÷òî âîéíà ñòàëà êëþ÷åâûì êîìïîíåíòîì, ïðèâåäøèì ê ìàñ- ñîâûì óáèéñòâàì ãðàæäàíñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ. Ïîëèòèêà òóðåöêèõ âëàñ- òåé ïðèíèìàëà âñå áîëåå è áîëåå ðàäèêàëüíûé õàðàêòåð ïî ìåðå òîãî, êàê ïðàâèòåëüñòâî âñå áîëåå áûëî ñêëîííî âèäåòü â àðìÿíàõ îïàñíóþ “ïÿòóþ êîëîííó” âíóòðè ñâîåé ñòðàíû. Òîëüêî â èþíå 1915 ã., – çàÿ- âèë Áëîêñõýì, – ïîëèòèêà òóðåöêîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà ñòàëà äåéñòâèòåëü- íî ïîëèòèêîé Ãåíîöèäà – èíà÷å ãîâîðÿ, òîëüêî òîãäà äåïîðòàöèè ïåðåðîñ- ëè â ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêèå ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà. Ñîöèîëîã èç Ìè÷èãàíñêî- ãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Òàíåð Àêñàì (Taner Akçam) óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî ìëàäî- òóðêè ïðèíÿëè ðåøåíèå î äåïîðòàöèè íåìóñóëüìàí èç Àíàòîëèè óæå â ÿíâàðå 1914 ã., à íåêîòîðûå äðóãèå èññëåäîâàòåëè ïîä÷åðêíóëè çíà÷åíèå ïîðàæåíèÿ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè â âîéíàõ íà Áàëêàíàõ 1912-1913 ãã., èç- çà êîòîðûõ â îáùåñòâå óñèëèëèñü ïàíè÷åñêèå íàñòðîåíèÿ ïî ïîâîäó âîç- ìîæíîé ïîòåðè Àíàòîëèè. Ïîäâîäÿ èòîã îáñóæäåíèþ, èñòîðèê èç Ìè÷èãàíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòå- òà Äæèðàèð Ëèáàðäüÿí (Jirair Libaridian) çàìåòèë: “Ìû íå çíàåì âñå- ãî, è ìû íå ìîæåì ðåøèòü âñå âîïðîñû. È ýòî î÷åíü ïðàâèëüíûé, çäî- ðîâûé ïîäõîä”. Ñåìèíàð ïîêàçàë, ÷òî õîòÿ ñàìî ñëîâî “Ãåíîöèä” âû- çûâàåò îæåñòî÷åííûå ñïîðû, çäðàâîå îáñóæäåíèå òîãî, ÷òî ïðîèçîø- ëî â 1915 ã., âïîëíå ðåàëüíî. Ìîæíî óñòàíîâèòü ôàêòû, ìîæíî ïðèâî- äèòü äîâîäû, ÷òî âåäåò ê èçìåíåíèþ ñòåðåîòèïíûõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé îá ýòèõ ñîáûòèÿõ, “îáùèõ ïîâåñòâîâàòåëüíûõ êîíñòðóêöèé”, “ìàñòåð-íàð- ðàòèâîâ”. Ïðè ýòîì íåêîòîðûå ó÷àñòíèêè ñåìèíàðà âûñêàçûâàëè îïà- ñåíèå, ÷òî îáúÿñíåíèå Ãåíîöèäà ìîæåò ïðèâåñòè ê åãî îïðàâäàíèþ. Îäíàêî, êàê ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ñëåäóåò ðàçëè÷àòü ìåæäó ôàêòîðàìè, îáóñ- ëîâèâøèìè ñîáûòèÿ 1915 ã., è ñîáñòâåííî ïîëèòèêîé ïðàâèòåëüñòâà è ðåøåíèÿìè âëàñòåé, èç-çà êîòîðûõ Ãåíîöèä ñòàë ñâåðøèâøèìñÿ ôàê- òîì. Ôèëîñîô èç óíèâåðñèòåòà ã. Íüþ-Éîðêà Ïîë Áîãîññÿí (Paul Boghossian) ðàçâèë ýòó ìûñëü, ðàçúÿñíèâ ñîáðàâøèìñÿ, ÷òî ïðè÷èí- íîñòü è îïðàâäàíèå – ýòî äâå ðàçíûå êàòåãîðèè: ïåðâîå – ýòî äåñêðèï- 115 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... òèâíîå (îïèñàòåëüíîå) âûñêàçûâàíèå; âòîðîå æå – íîðìàòèâíîå âûñ- êàçûâàíèå. Óêàçàíèå íà ïðè÷èíû, êîòîðûå ïðèâåëè ê òåì èëè èíûì ñîáûòèÿì, ñàìî ïî ñåáå åùå íå îçíà÷àåò îïðàâäàíèÿ ýòèõ ñîáûòèé. Ðåàêöèÿ òóðîê íà ñèòóàöèþ â ñòðàíå è íà ôðîíòå â 1915 ã., çàÿâèë Áî- ãîññÿí, íèêàê íå ñîîòâåòñòâîâàëà ðåàëüíîé îïàñíîñòè. Íè÷òî íå ìî- æåò îïðàâäàòü Ãåíîöèä. Ïîñëå òðåõ äíåé ïëîäîòâîðíîé äèñêóññèè ïî ñåêöèÿì ó÷àñòíèêè ñåìèíàðà ñîáðàëèñü íà îáùåå çàñåäàíèå, âî âðåìÿ êîòîðîãî Ãå÷åê, ÿ, ñîöèîëîã Ìàéêë Êåííåäè (Michael Kennedy), äèðåêòîð Ìåæäóíàðîä- íîãî èíñòèòóòà è âèöå-ðåêòîð ïî ìåæäóíàðîäíûì îòíîøåíèÿì Ìè÷è- ãàíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà è äâà òóðåöêèõ æóðíàëèñòà – ×åíãèç Êàíäàð (Cengiz Çandar) è Õðàíò Äèíê (Hrant Dink) – ïîäåëèëèñü ñâîèìè âïå- ÷àòëåíèÿìè î ñåìèíàðå. Êàíäàð ñêàçàë, ÷òî ýòîò ñåìèíàð ñòàë “áåñ- ïðåöåäåíòíûì íà÷èíàíèåì â íàóêå” è âûðàçèë íàäåæäó íà òî, ÷òî åãî ðåçóëüòàòû ñêîðî ñòàíóò èçâåñòíû ïóáëèêå. Äèíê îòìåòèë, ÷òî àðìÿí- ñêèì æóðíàëèñòàì, æèâóùèì â Òóðöèè, òàêèì, êàê îí ñàì, î÷åíü òðóäíî ãîâîðèòü î Ãåíîöèäå: òàê ëåãêî ñòàòü âðàãîì ñâîåãî íàðîäà èëè ñâîåé ñòðàíû. Ãîâîðèòü î íåì – âñå ðàâíî, ÷òî èäòè ïî ëåçâèþ íîæà. Îäíàêî ìè÷èãàíñêèé ñåìèíàð äàë åìó íàäåæäó íà òî, ÷òî ýòà ïðîáëåìà ìîæåò áûòü ðåøåíà ïóòåì äèàëîãà ìåæäó äâóìÿ íàðîäàìè. Íåêîòîðûå èç ñî- áðàâøèõñÿ áûëè íåäîâîëüíû ñåìèíàðîì, è íàõîäèëè åãî îäíîñòîðîí- íèì è íåòåðïèìûì ê ÷óæîìó ìíåíèþ. Âûñëóøàâ æàðêèå ñïîðû ìåæ- äó ïóáëèêîé è ó÷àñòíèêàìè ñåìèíàðà, ïîëèòîëîã èç óíèâåðñèòåòà Àíêàðû Áàñêèí Îðàí (Baskûn Oran) îñòîðîæíî çàìåòèë, ÷òî ñàìà îæå- ñòî÷åííàÿ ïîëåìèêà è íàêàë ñòðàñòåé âîêðóã ïðîáëåìû íàãëÿäíî ïî- êàçûâàþò, ïî÷åìó ó÷åíûå äîëæíû ñîáèðàòüñÿ âìåñòå äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ïðîäîëæèòü ñâîè, êðàéíå íóæíûå âñåì èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Òå âçãëÿäû, êîòîðûå â êîíöå 1990-õ ãîäîâ ñëóæèëè ïðåäìåòîì îæå- ñòî÷åííîé ïîëåìèêè, ê 2002 ã. ïîëó÷èëè äîñòàòî÷íî øèðîêîå ïðèçíà- íèå â àêàäåìè÷åñêîé ñðåäå è â øèðîêèõ êðóãàõ àìåðèêàíñêèõ àðìÿí. Òóðåöêèå ó÷åíûå, ðàâíî êàê è òóðåöêàÿ îáùåñòâåííîñòü, ïðèçíàëè íåîáõîäèìîñòü ïîäîáíûõ äèñêóññèé. Ýòî ñòàëî î÷åâèäíûì èç èíòåð- âüþ ñ ó÷àñòíèêîì íàøåãî ïåðâîãî ñåìèíàðà, ïðîôåññîðîì Õàëèëîì Áåðêòàåì (Halil Berktay), êîòîðîå áûëî îïóáëèêîâàíî â òóðåöêîé ãàçå- òå “Ðàäèêàë”. Ïðîôåññîð Áåðêòàé – â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ïðåïîäàâàòåëü Óíèâåðñèòåòà Ñàáàí÷è (Sabanci University) â Ñòàìáóëå – ïîëó÷èë ñòå- ïåíè áàêàëàâðà è ìàãèñòðà ïî ýêîíîìèêå â Éåëüñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå, à äîêòîðñêóþ ñòåïåíü ïî èñòîðèè â Áèðìèíãåìñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå. Îí àâòîð òðåõ ìîíîãðàôèé íà òóðåöêîì ÿçûêå.  èíòåðâüþ Áåðêòàé ðàñ- 116 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñêàçàë ÷èòàòåëÿì î òîì èñòîðè÷åñêîì êîíòåêñòå, â êîòîðîì ïðîèçîø- ëè ñîáûòèÿ 1915 ã.: Õàëèë Áåðêòàé. Äî 1915 ã. ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà àðìÿí ïðî- èñõîäèëè â 1880-å è â 1890-å ãã.  ïðàâëåíèå Àáäóëõàìèäà II àðìÿí óáèâàëè âñÿêèé ðàç, êàê òîëüêî ïîÿâëÿëèñü ïðèçíàêè íà- öèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèõ âîññòàíèé. Àðìÿíå è Îñìàíñêîå ïðàâèòåëü- ñòâî îòíîñèëèñü äðóã ê äðóãó âðàæäåáíî.  îñîáåííîñòè íà àðìÿí íàòðàâëèâàëè êóðäñêèå ïëåìåíà è õàìèäñêèå îòðÿäû, ñîñòîÿâøèå èç êóðäîâ.  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå ⠓âåê ðàñïàäà” Îñìàíñêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî âñåãäà ïðåäïî÷èòàëî â òàêèõ ñèòóà- öèÿõ èñïîëüçîâàòü íå ðåãóëÿðíóþ àðìèþ, à âñïîìîãàòåëüíûå îò- ðÿäû, ýêñïëóàòèðóÿ â ñâîèõ èíòåðåñàõ èõ ïðèìèòèâíîñòü è ñêëîííîñòü ê íàñèëèþ.  òî æå ñàìîå âðåìÿ, â ðåçóëüòàòå ðàñ- øèðåíèÿ Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè íà Êàâêàçå øëà áîëüøàÿ ìèãðà- öèÿ ìóñóëüìàí èç ýòîãî ðåãèîíà â Àíàòîëèþ, ãäå îíè ïðèñîå- äèíÿëèñü ê ìóñóëüìàíñêèì áåæåíöàì ñ Áàëêàí. Èñïûòàííûå èìè â íåäàâíåì ïðîøëîì íåâçãîäû ðàçæèãàëè â íèõ ñòðàø- íóþ íåíàâèñòü ê íåìóñóëüìàíàì – è ýòè áåæåíöû ñåëèëèñü â îñíîâíîì â âîñòî÷íîé Àíàòîëèè. Íåîáõîäèìî òàêæå ïîíÿòü íåêîòîðûå îñîáåííîñòè âåðõóøêè âîåííîé äèêòàòóðû – íå âñåõ ÷ëåíîâ ïàðòèè “Åäèíåíèå è ïðîãðåññ”, à èìåííî âûñøåãî ðó- êîâîäñòâà, òðèóìâèðàòà Ýíâåð (Enver), Êåìàë (Cemal) è Òàëàò (Talat). Ýòî áûëè íå ñòàðûå îñìàíñêèå ñàíîâíèêè. Ýòî áûëà íîâàÿ ýëèòà. Êîððåñïîíäåíò. ×åì æå îíè îòëè÷àëèñü? ÕÁ. Îíè áûëè î÷åíü àìáèöèîçíû è æàäíû. Ïîçèòèâèñòû áåç êîðíåé: îíè âûäâèíóëèñü òîëüêî áëàãîäàðÿ ñâîåìó îáðàçî- âàíèþ è àðìèè. Îíè æèëè â îáñòàíîâêå íàñèëèÿ, â êîòîðîé îêàçàëèñü áëàãîäàðÿ ïîëèòèêå âåëèêèõ äåðæàâ è âîññòàíèÿì íà Áàëêàíàõ.  ðåçóëüòàòå îíè ñòàëè êðàéíèìè íàöèîíàëèñòà- ìè. Îíè áîðîëèñü íå íà æèçíü, à íà ñìåðòü – ðàäè ñîõðàíåíèÿ æèçíåñïîñîáíîñòè èìïåðèè. Íà ñàìîì äåëå âî âòîðîé ïîëîâè- íå XIX è íà÷àëå XX â. â Åâðîïå ïîâñþäó òîðæåñòâîâàë õèùíè- ÷åñêèé ñîöèàëüíûé äàðâèíèçì, ïðèíöèï “óáåé – èëè óáüþò òåáÿ”. Ýòî áûëî âðåìÿ ìàññîâûõ áîåí, áîëüøèõ è ìàëûõ, æåðò- âàìè êîòîðûõ ñòàëè ìíîãèå ìóñóëüìàíå-òóðêè. Âîåííàÿ äèê- òàòóðà Ýíâåðà, Êåìàëÿ è Òàëàòà áûëà ÷ðåçâû÷àéíûì ïðàâè- òåëüñòâîì, äåéñòâîâàâøèì â óñëîâèÿõ âîéíû.

117 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... Êîðð. Îñìàíñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî, âî ãëàâå êîòîðîãî ñòîÿëà ïàðòèÿ “Åäèíåíèå è ïðîãðåññ”, ïîñëå àðìÿíñêèõ âîññòàíèé äåïîðòèðîâàëî ìíîæåñòâî àðìÿí èç ýòîãî ðåãèîíà. Àðìÿíñêèå ïîâñòàíöû ïîìîãàëè Ðîññèè. Èçâåñòíî ëè, ñêîëüêî âñåãî àð- ìÿí áûëî äåïîðòèðîâàíî? ÕÁ.  òî âðåìÿ â âîñòî÷íîé Àíàòîëèè ïðîæèâàëè 1 ìëí. 750 òûñ. àðìÿí. Îôèöèàëüíîå ðåøåíèå î âûñåëåíèè àðìÿí, ïðèíÿòîå âîåííûì ðåæèìîì – ýòèì òðèóìâèðàòîì – ïðåäïî- ëàãàëî äåïîðòàöèþ èç ýòîãî ðåãèîíà âñåõ àðìÿí áåç èñêëþ÷å- íèÿ. Îá ýòîì ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò äîêóìåíòû.  íèõ íåò óïîìè- íàíèÿ î ðåçíå è ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâàõ. Ãóáåðíàòîðû è êîìàíäó- þùèå ãàðíèçîíàìè ïîëó÷èëè ïðèêàç çàñòàâèòü âñåõ àðìÿí, ïðîæèâàâøèõ íà òåððèòîðèè ñîâðåìåííîé Òóðöèè, ïåðåñåëèòü- ñÿ íà þã. Îäíàêî áûëî ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî îäíîâðåìåííî ñ ýòèìè îôè- öèàëüíûìè ïðèêàçàìè, â òî æå ñàìîå âðåìÿ, ñîòðóäíèêè ñïåö- ñëóæá ïîëó÷èëè îñîáûå óñòíûå ðàñïîðÿæåíèÿ. Ýòè ëþäè îáî- æåñòâëÿëè íàñèëèå, ó íèõ íå áûëî íèêàêîé ñîöèàëüíîé ìîðà- ëè. Êîðð. Ýòè îñîáûå ðàñïîðÿæåíèÿ êàñàëèñü óáèéñòâà àðìÿí? ÕÁ. Äà. Èñòîðèê Òàíåð Àêñàì î÷åíü õîðîøî ýòî ïîêàçàë. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû áûëî çàêîííî ïðèíÿòîå ðåøåíèå è åãî îñóùå- ñòâëåíèå, ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû – áûë çàïóùåí è äðóãîé ìåõàíèçì, íå ïîä÷èíÿâøèéñÿ çàêîíó. Êîðð. Ñêîëüêî àðìÿí ïîãèáëî âî âðåìÿ íàñèëüñòâåííîãî ïåðåñåëåíèÿ? ÕÁ. Ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå 600 òûñ. ÷åëîâåê. Êîðð. Êàê ïîãèáëè ýòè àðìÿíå? Êòî èõ óáèë? ÕÁ. Òå, êòî îòäàâàë ïðèêàçû, äåëàëè ýòî ïðè ïîìîùè îñî- áîãî àïïàðàòà – ñïåöñëóæá. Ñ÷èòàéòå, ÷òî ñïåöñëóæáû áûëè ãèáðèäîì Ñóñóðëóê (Susurluk) è Õèçáîëëà (Hizbullah). [Ïðèì. ïåðåâîä÷èêà ýòîé ïóáëèêàöèè ñ òóðåöêîãî íà àíãëèéñêèé: Ñêàí- äàëû âîêðóã Ñóñóðëóê è Õèçáîëëà êîíöà 1990-õ ãã. ïðîäåìîí- ñòðèðîâàëè ñâÿçü ìåæäó íåêîòîðûìè ãîñóäàðñòâåííûìè ñòðóê- òóðàìè Òóðöèè è îòäåëüíûìè ëèöàìè è ãðóïïàìè, ïðè÷àñò- íûìè ê ïîëèòè÷åñêèì óáèéñòâàì]. Áûëî ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî Áàõàéò- òèí Ñàêèð (Bahaittin Sakir), ðàáîòàâøèé íà Ýíâåðà, Êåìàëÿ è Òàëàòà, è âîçãëàâëÿâøèé ñïåöñëóæáû, ñîçäàë ñïåöèàëüíûå

118 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ýñêàäðîíû ñìåðòè è ìîáèëèçîâàë äîáðîâîëüöåâ â ðåãèîíå. Íåêîòîðûå èç äîáðîâîëüöåâ, ïðèâëå÷åííûõ ê ýòîé îïåðàöèè, áûëè îñóæäåííûìè ïðåñòóïíèêàìè, âûïóùåííûìè èç òþðåì, åäâà èçáåæàâøèìè âèñåëèöû. Çíàåòå, êòî ñîâåðøèë âñå ýòè óáèéñòâà? Ñåãîäíÿøíèå Éåñèëû, Àáäóëëà Êàòëè è Õèçáîëëà! [Ïðèì. ïåðåâîä÷èêà àíãëèéñêîé ïóáëèêàöèè: Éåñèë (Yesil) è Àáäóëëà Êàòëè (Abdullah Catli) – ëþäè, ïîëó÷èâøèå äèïëîìà- òè÷åñêèå ïàñïîðòà è îðóæèå îò êàêèõ-òî ñòðóêòóð ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîãî àïïàðàòà Òóðöèè ñ çàäàíèåì ñîâåðøèòü ïîëèòè÷åñêèå óáèéñòâà â Òóðöèè è Åâðîïå â 1980-1990-å ãã.]. Ýòî ñîâåðøåí- íî ÿñíî. Áàõàéòòèí áûë òèïè÷íûì Éåñèëîì èëè Êàòëè òîãî âðåìåíè. Ïîìèìî èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ïîäîáíûõ ëþäåé, îíè òàêæå ïîäòàëêèâàëè òóðåöêèå è êóðäñêèå ìóñóëüìàíñêèå ïëåìåíà ê íàïàäåíèþ íà êàðàâàíû àðìÿíñêèõ ìèãðàíòîâ. Ê ýòèì óáèé- ñòâàì ìîæíî òàêæå äîáàâèòü óæàñàþùèå ëþäñêèå ïîòåðè èç- çà ñòðàøíûõ óñëîâèé, â êîòîðûõ îêàçàëèñü âûíóæäåííûå ïå- ðåñåëåíöû. Âñþäó íà Çàïàäå âû ìîæåòå óâèäåòü ýòè ôîòîãðà- ôèè – íà íèõ íåâîçìîæíî ñìîòðåòü! Ïåðâûé ðàç, êîãäà ÿ íà- òêíóëñÿ íà ýòè èçîáðàæåíèÿ, ÿ íå ìîã âçäîõíóòü, êàêîå-òî âðå- ìÿ ÿ ïðîñòî ðûäàë. Ýòè ôîòîãðàôèè íè÷åì íå îòëè÷àþòñÿ îò òåõ, ÷òî áûëè ñíÿòû â êîíöåíòðàöèîííûõ ëàãåðÿõ âî âðåìÿ ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ è ðåçíè â Àôðèêå – òàêîå îãðîìíîå êîëè÷å- ñòâî ëþäåé íà ýòèõ ôîòîãðàôèÿõ. Êîðð. Àðåñòîâàëè ëè è íàêàçàëè ëè îñìàíñêèå âëàñòè ÷èíîâíèêîâ, îòâåòñòâåííûõ çà ñìåðòü àðìÿí? ÕÁ. Êîíå÷íî. Ýòè óáèéñòâà â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè ñîâåð- øàëèñü íå ðåãóëÿðíîé àðìèåé è íå àäìèíèñòðàòèâíûì àïïà- ðàòîì. Êàê ìû çíàåì íà ïðèìåðå äðóãèõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ýïîõ, ðåãóëÿðíàÿ àðìèÿ è áþðîêðàòèÿ íåíàâèäÿò âñÿêèå íåðåãóëÿð- íûå ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ, âîîðóæåííûå îòðÿäû, êîòîðûå ñîâåðøà- þò ïîäîáíûå çëîäåÿíèÿ, – îíè èñïûòûâàþò ïðåçðåíèå ê òàêèì îòðÿäàì. Îñìàíñêàÿ àðìèÿ è àäìèíèñòðàòèâíûé àïïàðàò ïî- íèìàëè, ÷òî ýòî áûëî ÷óäîâèùíîå ïðåñòóïëåíèå. Ñïåöñëóæ- áû, äåéñòâîâàâøèå íåçàâèñèìî îò ãóáåðíàòîðîâ è êîìàíäóþ- ùèõ ãàðíèçîíàìè, âûçûâàëè ó íèõ îòâðàùåíèå. Íåêîòîðûå ãóáåðíàòîðû è àðìåéñêèå êîìàíäèðû äàæå èçäàëè ïîñòàíîâ- ëåíèå îá àðåñòå Áàõàéòòèíà Ñàêèðà – ïîäðó÷íîãî Ýíâåðà è Òàëàòà – è ïîïûòàëèñü â 1915–1916 ãã. åãî àðåñòîâàòü.

119 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... Êîðð. Ïûòàëèñü ëè îñìàíñêèå âëàñòè ïóáëè÷íî çàùèòèòü ñåáÿ îò îáâèíåíèé? ÕÁ. Èñïûòûâàÿ óæàñ ïåðåä òåì, ÷òî ïðîèçîøëî, è ñòðåìÿñü îáåëèòü ñâîå èìÿ ïåðåä ìèðîâîé îáùåñòâåííîñòüþ, îñìàíñêàÿ àðìèÿ è ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé àïïàðàò ñäåëàëè âñå, ÷òî ìîãëè, ÷òî- áû àðåñòîâàòü è íàêàçàòü òåõ, êòî íåñ îòâåòñòâåííîñòü çà ýòó êàòàñòðîôó. Íåñîìíåííî, ÷òî íåêîòîðûå èç âèíîâíûõ ïî- íåñëè íàêàçàíèå. Ïîñëå òîãî êàê Ïåðâàÿ ìèðîâàÿ âîéíà çà- êîí÷èëàñü â 1918 ã. è òðèóìâèðàò, îòâåòñòâåííûé çà ïîðàæå- íèå èìïåðèè, áåæàë, Ïàðëàìåíò ñîçäàë êîìèññèþ ïî ðàññëå- äîâàíèþ ýòèõ ñîáûòèé. Çàòåì â Ñòàìáóëå áûë ñîçäàí âîåííûé ñóä. Ýòî áûë çíàìåíèòûé ïðîöåññ. Åãî ïðîòîêîëû îïóáëèêî- âàíû íà àíãëèéñêîì è òóðåöêîì ÿçûêàõ. Êîðð. Ñêîëüêî â òî âðåìÿ â ðåãèîíå ïîãèáëî ìóñóëüìàí? ÕÁ. Âîçìîæíî, äåñÿòü èëè äâåíàäöàòü òûñÿ÷. Ïðîáëåìà, îä- íàêî, íå â òîì, ÷òî “îíè óáèëè íå òàê ìíîãî ëþäåé, à îñìàíû óáèëè ìíîãèõ”. Ïðîáëåìà âîò â ÷åì: íàñèëèå, òâîðèìîå àð- ìÿíñêèìè ïîâñòàíöàìè, íîñèëî ñêîðåå ëîêàëüíûé õàðàêòåð. Äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ïîãèáëè ñîòíè òûñÿ÷, íóæíî, ÷òîáû òàêîå ÷èñ- ëî ëþäåé íàõîäèëîñü â îäíîì ìåñòå. Íàïàäàÿ íà ïîëÿ è ñåëà, âû íå ïîëó÷èòå áîëüøîãî ÷èñëà æåðòâ. Íåïðàâèëüíî òàêæå çà- äàâàòü âîïðîñ, îòäàâàëè ëè Ýíâåðû è Òàëàòû ïèñüìåííûå ïðè- êàçû óíè÷òîæèòü àðìÿí ðàçíûì Éåñèëàì è Êàòëè òîé ýïîõè. Òàêèõ ïðèêàçîâ îíè íå èçäàâàëè, è ïîäîáíûé äîêóìåíò íèêîã- äà íå áóäåò íàéäåí. Ïî ýòîé ïðè÷èíå î÷åíü âàæíû ñâèäåòåëü- ñòâà î÷åâèäöåâ. Ñóùåñòâóåò ìíîæåñòâî ôîòîãðàôèé è âîñïî- ìèíàíèé î÷åâèäöåâ, îòíîñÿùèõñÿ ê àðìÿíñêèì ñîáûòèÿì, êî- òîðûå íå èçâåñòíû òóðåöêîé îáùåñòâåííîñòè. Îáùåñòâåííîå ìíåíèå â Òóðöèè ïëîõî èíôîðìèðîâàíî î òîì, ÷òî óæå âèäå- ëè, î ÷åì ÷èòàëè ëþäè â Ãåðìàíèè, Àíãëèè, Ôðàíöèè è Àìå- ðèêå. Êîðð. Ïî÷åìó æå Òóðåöêàÿ ðåñïóáëèêà, ñâåðãíóâøàÿ Îñ- ìàíñêóþ èìïåðèþ, âåäåò ñåáÿ ïîäîáíî îñìàíàì è ïûòàåòñÿ ñêðûòü ýòè ñîáûòèÿ? ÕÁ. Ýòî î÷åíü ñåðüåçíûé âîïðîñ. Ýòî îøèáêà ñî ñòîðîíû Òóðåöêîé ðåñïóáëèêè. Òóðöèÿ íèêàê íå îïðåäåëèòñÿ ïî ïîâîäó ñâîåãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî è ïðàâîâîãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê Îñìàíñêîé

120 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 èìïåðèè. Òóðöèÿ íå âïîëíå îñîçíàëà è íå äî êîíöà óñâîèëà òîò ôàêò, ÷òî îíà ñâåðãëà ñòàðûé îñìàíñêèé ïîðÿäîê è íà åãî ìåñòå óñòàíîâèëà ñîâðåìåííóþ ðåñïóáëèêó. Çäåñü çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ î÷åíü ñåðüåçíîå ïðîòèâîðå÷èå. Ðåñïóáëèêà íå íåñåò îòâåòñòâåí- íîñòè çà ýòè ñîáûòèÿ. ß äóìàþ, ýòî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî ñûãðàëî î÷åíü âàæíóþ ðîëü, êîãäà Ìóñòàôà Êåìàëü áûë èçáðàí åå ëèäåðîì, ÷òîáû îðãàíèçîâàòü ñîïðîòèâëåíèå â Àíàòîëèè. Êîðð. Ïî÷åìó? ÕÁ. Î÷åíü âàæíî, ÷òî ðóêè Ìóñòàôû Êåìàëÿ íå áûëè çàïÿò- íàíû êðîâüþ àðìÿí. Êîãäà àðìÿí äåïîðòèðîâàëè, Ìóñòàôû Êåìàëÿ íå áûëî â âîñòî÷íîé Àíàòîëèè. Îí ñðàæàëñÿ íà ôðîí- òå ó Ãàëëèïîëè. Êîãäà â 1918-1919 ãã. â ïîäïîëüíûõ êðóãàõ ïàðòèè “Åäèíåíèå è ïðîãðåññ” îáñóæäàëñÿ âîïðîñ î òîì, êòî ñòàíåò ëèäåðîì ïàðòèè è âîçãëàâèò ñîïðîòèâëåíèå â Àíàòî- ëèè, áûëî ïðèíÿòî ðåøåíèå, ÷òî òàêèì ëèäåðîì äîëæåí ñòàòü Ìóñòàôà Êåìàëü. Ìóñòàôà Êåìàëü áûë îäíîâðåìåííî ãåðîåì âîéíû è ÷åëîâåêîì, íèêàê íå çàìåøàííûì â àðìÿíñêèõ ñîáû- òèÿõ. Ïîñëå Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû àðìÿíå óáèëè ëèäåðîâ ïàðòèè “Åäèíåíèå è ïðîãðåññ” Òàëàòà è Êåìàëÿ.  òî âðåìÿ ïàìÿòü îá àðìÿíñêèõ ñîáûòèÿõ áûëà åùå ñâåæà è èõ ïîâåäåíèå ìîæíî ïîíÿòü. Îäíàêî ãîäû ñïóñòÿ àðìÿíå óáèëè òóðåöêèõ äèïëîìàòîâ. Ýòî íå ïîääàåòñÿ ëîãè÷åñêîìó îáúÿñíåíèþ... Êîðð. Ïî÷åìó æå Ãåíîöèä àðìÿí ñíîâà âñòàë íà ïîâåñòêå äíÿ â ìèðå? ×òî ýòî – æåëàíèå ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè, èëè ïîäãîòîâêà ê âûäâèæåíèþ òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ ïðåòåíçèé è òðåáîâàíèé î ðå- ïàðàöèÿõ? ÕÁ.  ýòîì î÷åíü òðóäíî ðàçîáðàòüñÿ. Îäíàêî òîò ôàêò, ÷òî ýòîò âîïðîñ ñíîâà âîçíèê, çàñòàâëÿåò òóðåöêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî è îáùåñòâî çàíÿòü îáîðîíèòåëüíóþ ïîçèöèþ, çàìêíóòüñÿ â ñåáå, äåëàåò èõ ìåíåå ãèáêèìè, íåóñòóï÷èâûìè. Ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ïîëÿ- ðèçàöèÿ ïî ýòîìó âîïðîñó ñòîëü ñèëüíà, ÷òî î÷åíü ñëîæíî ðå- øèòüñÿ äàæå çàãîâîðèòü î òàêèõ âåùàõ. Íà îäíîì ïîëþñå íà- õîäÿòñÿ ïîëèòèêà, îñíîâàííàÿ íà íåîáõîäèìîñòè “ïîäòâåðäèòü, ÷òî Ãåíîöèä èìåë ìåñòî, çàíåñòè åãî â àííàëû ïàìÿòè îáùå- ñòâà”; íà äðóãîì – ïîëèòèêà “îòðèöàíèÿ Ãåíîöèäà”.  îá- ñòàíîâêå ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ, îòêóäà îòêðûâàåòñÿ ïðÿìàÿ äîðîãà ê ïîäàâëåíèþ âñÿêîãî èíàêîìûñëèÿ, ñòàíîâèòñÿ íåâîçìîæ-

121 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... íûì ïîèñê òî÷åê ñîïðèêîñíîâåíèÿ. ß ñ÷èòàþ, ÷òî áûëî áû îøèáêîé ñî ñòîðîíû Òóðöèè ïðèíîñèòü èçâèíåíèÿ. Êîíãðåññ ÑØÀ âåäåò ñåáÿ êàê ïîëèöèÿ íðàâîâ, ïðîâîäÿùàÿ ïðîâåðêó íà äåâñòâåííîñòü. Àìåðèêàíñêèé Êîíãðåññ ïîïðîñèëè âûíåñòè ðåøåíèå – “äà, ýòî áûë Ãåíîöèä” – ïî ïîâîäó ñîáûòèé, êîòî- ðûå ïðîèçîøëè 85 ëåò íàçàä â ñîâåðøåííî äðóãîé òî÷êå çåìíîãî øàðà. Ñî ñòîðîíû ëþáîãî ïàðëàìåíòà áûëî áû íåâåðîÿòíî íàèâíî ïèòàòü èëëþçèè, ÷òî ýòîò îðãàí èìååò ïðàâî ïðèíè- ìàòü ðåøåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé, êîòîðûå äîëæíû áûòü ïðåäìåòîì íàó÷íîãî àíàëèçà. Ïî ïðàâäå ãîâî- ðÿ, Òóðåöêàÿ ðåñïóáëèêà òîæå äîëæíà ïåðåñòàòü ìóññèðîâàòü àðìÿíñêèé âîïðîñ. Êîðð. Êàê îíà ìîæåò îñòàâèòü ýòó òåìó? ÕÁ. Òóðöèÿ äåëàåò ñëèøêîì ìíîãî çàÿâëåíèé ïî ýòîìó âîï- ðîñó, âñå âðåìÿ ìåíÿÿ ñâîþ ïîçèöèþ: “íè÷åãî ýòîãî íå áûëî”, “ýòî áûëî, íî èìåëà ìåñòî ñåðüåçíàÿ ïðîâîêàöèÿ”. Ïðåçèäåíò ðåñïóáëèêè áûë ïðàâ, êîãäà ñêàçàë: “Ýòîò âîïðîñ íóæíî îñ- òàâèòü èñòîðèêàì”. Òóðåöêàÿ ðåñïóáëèêà ìîæåò ñåãîäíÿ ñêà- çàòü îäíó î÷åíü ïðîñòóþ âåùü: Ðåñïóáëèêà áûëà îñíîâàíà â 1923 ã. Ýòè ñîáûòèÿ ïðîèçîøëè â 1915 ã. Àðìèÿ Òóðåöêîé ðåñ- ïóáëèêè è åå ãîñóäàðñòâåííûå îðãàíû íå ïðè÷àñòíû ê ýòèì ñîáûòèÿì. Òóðåöêàÿ ðåñïóáëèêà – ýòî íîâîå ãîñóäàðñòâî. Ñ ïðàâîâîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ îíà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðååìíèöåé íè îñìàíñêî- ãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà, íè ïðàâèòåëüñòâà ïàðòèè “Åäèíåíèå è ïðî- ãðåññ”. Íàñ – êàê ïðàâèòåëüñòâî èëè êàê ãîñóäàðñòâî – íå èí- òåðåñóåò òî, ÷òî ïðîèçîøëî â õàîñå Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû. Ìû íå ñîâåðøàëè ýòèõ çëîäåÿíèé, ìû íå íåñåì çà íèõ îòâåò- ñòâåííîñòü. Íî ýòà òåìà îòêðûòà äëÿ äèñêóññèè. Òå, êîãî ýòî èíòåðåñóåò, ìîãóò îáñóæäàòü åå òàê, êàê îíè õîòÿò. Ó íàñ íåò îôèöèàëüíîé ïîçèöèè ïî ýòîìó âîïðîñó. Ïðèçûâ Áåðêòàÿ ê äåïîëèòèçàöèè ïðîáëåìû Ãåíîöèäà è ê îòêðûòîé äèñêóññèè â Òóðöèè ïîêà îñòàåòñÿ íåóñëûøàííûì. Áåðêòàþ äàæå óã- ðîæàëè óâîëüíåíèåì èç óíèâåðñèòåòà, íî ïàòðîíåññà óíèâåðñèòåòà íå ïîääàëàñü íàæèìó. Íàø òðåòèé àðìÿíî-òóðåöêèé ñåìèíàð ïðîøåë â Óíèâåðñèòåòå øòà- òà Ìèííåñîòà 28-30 ìàðòà 2003 ã. Îðãàíèçàòîðîì ñåìèíàðà âûñòóïèë ïðîôåññîð èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ôàêóëüòåòà Ýðèê Âàéòö (Eric Weitz), çàíè-

122 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ìàþùèé ïîñò, ó÷ðåæäåííûé â ïàìÿòü Àøðàìà è Øàðëîòòû Îãàíåñ- ñÿí (the Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Professor). Íà ñåìèíàð ïðè- åõàëè ìîëîäîé ó÷åíûé èç Àðìåíèè Ðóáåí Ñàôðàñàòÿí (Ruben Safrasatyan) ñ äîêëàäîì îá èçó÷åíèè Ãåíîöèäà â åãî ðåñïóáëèêå, à òàêæå èññëåäîâàòåëè èç Åâðîïû – Õàíñ-Ëóêàñ Êèçåð (Hans-Lukas Kieser) èç Áàçåëÿ, Ôèêðåò Àäàíèð (Fikret Adanir) èç Ðóðñêîãî óíèâåð- ñèòåòà â Áîõóìå, èç Òóðöèè – Ìåòå Òóíêàé (Mete Tuncay), èç Ñîåäè- íåííûõ Øòàòî⠖ Íîðìàí Íàéìàðê (Norman Naimark) èç Ñòýíôîðäñ- êîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà è Ïèòåð Õîëêâèñò (Peter Holquist) èç Êîðíåëëà. Ê òîìó âðåìåíè ïîðÿäîê çàñåäàíèÿ è õîä îáñóæäåíèÿ óæå óñòàíîâèëèñü. Õîòÿ ñïîðû ïî îòäåëüíûì ïóíêòàì è âîçíèêàëè, àòìîñôåðà ðàöèî- íàëüíîãî îáñóæäåíèÿ, öàðèâøàÿ íà ñåìèíàðå, ïîçâîëÿëà óòî÷íÿòü íþ- àíñû, è äàæå íàõîäèòü îòâåòû íà íåêîòîðûå ñëîæíûå âîïðîñû.  íà- ñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ èäåò ðàáîòà ïî îðãàíèçàöèè ÷åòâåðòîãî ñåìèíàðà – íà ýòîò ðàç îí ïðîéäåò â Åâðîïå, â Çàëüöáóðãå, â àïðåëå 2005 ã.  îðãà- íèçàöèè ñåìèíàðà ïðèíèìàåò ó÷àñòèå Èíñòèòóò â ïîääåðæêó èñòîðè- ÷åñêîé ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè è ïðèìèðåíèÿ (Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation). Òåìà ñåìèíàðà – “Èäåîëîãèè ðåâîëþöèè, íàöèè è èìïåðèè: ïîëèòè÷åñêèå èäåè, ïàðòèè è ïðàêòèêè â ïîñëåäíèé ïåðèîä ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè, 1878-1922”. Âñêîðå áóäåò îïóáëèêî- âàí òîì èçáðàííûõ äîêëàäîâ ïî ìàòåðèàëàì ïåðâûõ òðåõ ñåìèíàðîâ. Ïðèçíàíèå ïðèõîäèò ðàçíûìè ïóòÿìè. 6 ìàðòà 2004 ã. ãàçåòà “Íüþ- Éîðê Òàéìñ” ïîìåñòèëà áîëüøóþ ñòàòüþ î Òàíåðå Àêñàìå (Taner Akcam) – î òîì, êàêèå óñèëèÿ îí ïðèëîæèë ê òîìó, ÷òîáû íà÷àòü äèñ- êóññèþ ïî âîïðîñó î Ãåíîöèäå.  ýòîé ñòàòüå áûëè óïîìÿíóòû íàø ñå- ìèíàð è åãî îðãàíèçàòîðû. ß çàêîí÷ó ñâîé îáçîð íåäàâíåé èñòîðèè íàøèõ ñîâìåñòíûõ óñèëèé, íàïðàâëåííûõ íà òî, ÷òîáû ïîëîæèòü íà÷àëî äèàëîãó ìåæäó òóðêàìè è àðìÿíàìè ïî âîïðîñó î Ãåíîöèäå, âûäåðæêîé èç ýòîé ñòàòüè, íàïèñàííîé æóðíàëèñòêîé Áåëèíäîé Êó- ïåð (Belinda Cooper): Òàíåð Àêñàì íå ïîõîæ íè íà ãåðîÿ, íè íà ïðåäàòåëÿ – õîòÿ åãî íàçûâàëè è òåì, è äðóãèì. Õóäîùàâûé, ìÿãêèé â îáùåíèè ÷åëîâåê, òùàòåëüíî ïîäáèðàþùèé ñëîâà, ã-í Àêñàì – òóðåö- êèé ñîöèîëîã è èñòîðèê, â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ïðåïîäàþùèé â Ìè÷èãàíñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå, ïèøåò î ñîáûòèÿõ, êîòîðûå ïðîèçîøëè ïî÷òè ñòî ëåò íàçàä â ñòðàíå, äàâíî óæå íå ñóùå- ñòâóþùåé íà êàðòå. Îí ïèøåò î ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâàõ àðìÿí â Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè âî âðåìÿ Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû. Îäíàêî â

123 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... ìèðå, â êîòîðîì èñòîðèÿ è íàöèîíàëüíîå ñàìîñîçíàíèå òåñíî ïåðåïëåòåíû, â êîòîðîì ïðîøëîå âòîðãàåòñÿ â ïîëèòèêó ñåãîä- íÿøíåãî äíÿ, åãî ðàáîòû, âìåñòå ñ èññëåäîâàíèÿìè äðóãèõ òóðåöêèõ ó÷åíûõ, ìûñëÿùèõ â ñõîäíîì êëþ÷å, îòêðûâàþò íîâûå ïåðñïåêòèâû. Ã-í Àêñàì, êîòîðîìó ñåé÷àñ 50 ëåò, – îäèí èç íåìíîãèõ ó÷åíûõ, îñïàðèâàþùèõ óïîðíûå çàÿâëåíèÿ ñâîåé ðîäèíû, ÷òî íèêàêîãî îðãàíèçîâàííîãî èçáèåíèÿ àðìÿí íå áûëî. Îí ïåðâûé òóðåöêèé ñïåöèàëèñò, ïóáëè÷íî óïîòðåáèâøèé ñëîâî “Ãåíî- öèä” â ýòîì êîíòåêñòå. Ýòî î÷åíü ñìåëûé øà㠖 îñîáåííî åñëè ó÷èòûâàòü, ÷òî Òóð- öèÿ óæå óãðîæàëà ïîðâàòü äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå îòíîøåíèÿ ñî ñòðà- íàìè, ïðèçíàþùèìè Ãåíîöèä àðìÿí. Íàïðèìåð, â 2000 ã. Àíêàðà ñìîãëà ñîðâàòü ïðèíÿòèå Êîíãðåññîì ÑØÀ ðåçîëþöèè, îïðåäå- ëÿþùåé óáèéñòâà 1915 ã. êàê “Ãåíîöèä”, ïðèãðîçèâ çàêðûòü äîñòóï ê âîåííûì áàçàì íà ñâîåé òåððèòîðèè. “Ìû ïðèçíàåì, ÷òî â òî âðåìÿ ïðîèçîøëè òðàãè÷åñêèå ñîáûòèÿ, êîòîðûå çàò- ðîíóëè âñåõ ïîääàííûõ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè, – çàÿâèë ñîâåò- íèê òóðåöêîãî ïîñîëüñòâà â Âàøèíãòîíå Òóëóé Òàíê (Tuluy Tanc), – îäíàêî Òóðöèÿ òâåðäî óáåæäåíà â òîì, ÷òî ýòî áûë íå Ãåíîöèä, à ñàìîçàùèòà Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè”. Òàêèå ó÷åíûå, êàê ã-í Àêñàì íàçûâàþò ïîäîáíûå çàÿâëå- íèÿ îøèáî÷íûìè è ñòðåìÿòñÿ èõ îñïîðèòü. “Ìû äîëæíû âçãëÿ- íóòü â ëèöî èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïðàâäå, êàê ýòî ñäåëàëè íåìöû ïîñëå âîéíû, – ãîâîðèò Ôèêðåò Àäàíèð, òóðåöêèé èñòîðèê, ìíîãèå ãîäû æèâøèé â Ãåðìàíèè. Ýòî î÷åíü âàæíî äëÿ çäîðîâîé äåìîêðàòèè, äëÿ ãðàæäàíñêîãî îáùåñòâà”. Áîëüøèíñòâî ó÷åíûõ çà ïðåäåëàìè Òóðöèè ñîãëàñíû ñ òåì, ÷òî ýòè óáèéñòâà áûëè ïåðâûì â èñòîðèè XX â. ñëó÷àåì “Ãåíî- öèäà”. Ñîãëàñíî îïðåäåëåíèþ Æåíåâñêîé êîíâåíöèè 1948 ã., “Ãåíîöèä” – ýòî äåÿíèÿ, ñîâåðøåííûå ñ öåëüþ óíè÷òîæåíèÿ – ïîëíîãî èëè ÷àñòè÷íîãî – íàöèîíàëüíîé, ýòíè÷åñêîé, ðàñîâîé èëè ðåëèãèîçíóþ ãðóïïû. Âî âðåìÿ Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû ïðàâèòåëüñòâî ðàñïàäà- þùåéñÿ Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè, îïàñàÿñü äåéñòâèé àðìÿíñêèõ íàöèîíàëèñòîâ, ïðîâîäèëî ìàññîâûå äåïîðòàöèè àðìÿí èç âîñòî÷íûõ îáëàñòåé ñòðàíû.  õîäå ýòèõ ñîáûòèé, â êîòîðûõ íåêîòîðûå èññëåäîâàòåëè âèäÿò ïðîîáðàç áóäóùåãî Õîëîêîñòà, ìóæ÷èíû, æåíùèíû è 124 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 äåòè áûëè âûñëàíû â ïóñòûíþ, ãäå îêàçàëèñü îáðå÷åííûìè íà ãîëîä. Èõ ñãîíÿëè â àìáàðû è öåðêâè, à ïîòîì ýòè ñòðîåíèÿ ïîäæèãàëè. Èõ ïûòàëè äî ñìåðòè èëè òîïèëè â âîäå. Ñêîëüêî â òî÷íîñòè ÷åëîâåê òîãäà ïîãèáëî òàê è íå óñòàíîâëåíî: àðìÿíå íàçûâàþò öèôðó â 1,5 ìëí. ÷åëîâåê. Òóðêè ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî óáèòûõ áûëî íåñêîëüêî ñîòåí òûñÿ÷. Ïî îôèöèàëüíîé òóðåöêîé âåðñèè, àðìÿíå ïàëè æåðòâîé ãðàæäàíñêîãî êîíôëèêòà, êîòîðûé îíè ñàìè è ñïðîâîöèðîâà- ëè, âûñòóïèâ íà ñòîðîíå ðóññêèõ, ñòðåìèâøèõñÿ òîãäà ðàñêîëîòü Îñìàíñêóþ èìïåðèþ íà ÷àñòè.  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå çâåðñòâà, òâî- ðèìûå òîãäà ïðîòèâ àðìÿí, äîêóìåíòèðîâàíû: åñòü ñâèäåòåëü- ñòâà ïå÷àòè òîãî âðåìåíè, ñâèäåòåëüñòâà óöåëåâøèõ æåðòâ, äî- íåñåíèÿ åâðîïåéñêèõ äèïëîìàòîâ, ìèññèîíåðîâ è âîåííûõ. Ïîñëå Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû ñîñòîÿëèñü ñóäåáíûå ïðîöåññû íàä ðóêîâîäñòâîì Îñìàíñêîé èìïåðèè. Îíè íå áûëè äîâåäåíû äî êîíöà, íî ïîñëå íèõ îñòàëèñü äåòàëüíûå äàííûå è äàæå ïðèçíàíèÿ íåêîòîðûõ ëèö â îòâåòñòâåííîñòè çà ñîâåðøåííûå ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ. Þðèäè÷åñêàÿ ýêñïåðòèçà, çàòðåáîâàííàÿ â ïðîøëîì ãîäó Ìåæäóíàðîäíûì öåíòðîì â ïîääåðæêó ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè â ïåðå- õîäíûé ïåðèîä (International Center for Transitional Justice), ðàñïîëàãàþùèìñÿ â Íüþ-Éîðêå, ïðèøëà ê çàêëþ÷åíèþ, ÷òî ñóùåñòâóþò äîñòàòî÷íûå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà, ïîçâîëÿþùèå – â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ìåæäóíàðîäíûì ïðàâîì – îõàðàêòåðèçîâàòü ýòè óáèéñòâà êàê “Ãåíîöèä”. Ñèòóàöèÿ â ÷åì-òî íàïîìèíàåò ïîëîæåíèå äåë â Ãåðìàíèè â ïåðâûå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïîñëå Õîëîêîñòà: Òóðöèÿ ïîñëåäîâà- òåëüíî îòðèöàåò, ÷òî óáèéñòâà àðìÿí áûëè ïðåäíàìåðåííûìè, è ÷òî òîãäàøíåå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî íåñëî çà íèõ êàêóþ áû òî íè áûëî ìîðàëüíóþ èëè þðèäè÷åñêóþ îòâåòñòâåííîñòü. Çà ìíîãèå ãîäû, ïðîøåäøèå ïîñëå ñîçäàíèÿ â 1923 ã. Òóðåöêîé ðåñïóá- ëèêè, íà ýòó ñòðàíó, – ãîâîðÿ ñëîâàìè òóðåöêîãî èñòîðèêà Õà- ëèëà Áåðêòàÿ, – îïóñòèëàñü “çàâåñà ìîë÷àíèÿ”. Òóðöèÿ èñ- ïîëüçîâàëà ñâîå âëèÿíèå êàê ñîþçíèöû ÑØÀ â ãîäû õîëîäíîé âîéíû, äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ïîìåøàòü äðóãèì ãîñóäàðñòâàì âûñêà- çûâàòü âçãëÿäû, ïðîòèâîðå÷àùèå òóðåöêîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè ýòèõ ñîáûòèé. Ã-í Àêñàì ïðèíàäëåæèò ê ÷èñëó òåõ òóðåöêèõ ó÷åíûõ, êòî ãðîì÷å âñåõ ïðîòåñòóåò ïðîòèâ ýòîãî ìîë÷àíèÿ. Ëèäåð ëåâîé 125 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... ñòóäåí÷åñêîé îïïîçèöèè ðåïðåññèâíîìó òóðåöêîìó ïðàâè- òåëüñòâó â 1970-å ãã., ã-í Àêñàì ïðîâåë ãîäû â òþðüìå çà “ðàñ- ïðîñòðàíåíèå êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé ïðîïàãàíäû”, ïðåæäå ÷åì åìó óäàëîñü áåæàòü â Ãåðìàíèþ. Òàì, îò÷àñòè ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì ïðî- äîëæàâøåéñÿ â Ãåðìàíèè áîðüáû çà ïîíèìàíèå ñâîåé ñîá- ñòâåííîé èñòîðèè, îí ïðèñòóïèë ê ïåðåîñìûñëåíèþ èñòîðèè Òóðöèè. Èçó÷àÿ ïðîöåññû íàä òóðåöêèìè ëèäåðàìè ïîñëå Ïåð- âîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû, Àêñàì íà÷àë ñîòðóäíè÷àòü ñ Âàõàêíîì Äàä- ðÿíîì – èçâåñòíûì àðìÿíñêèì èñòîðèêîì ýòèõ ñîáûòèé. Èõ íåîáû÷íàÿ äðóæáà ñòàëà òåìîé ãîëëàíäñêîãî ôèëüìà 1997 ã. “Ñòå- íà ìîë÷àíèÿ”. Òóðêè áîÿòñÿ ïðèçíàòü ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ, ñîâåðøåííûå èìè â ïðîøëîì, – ãîâîðèò ã-í Àêñàì, – ïîòîìó ÷òî ïðèçíàòü, ÷òî îñ- íîâàòåëè ñîâðåìåííîãî òóðåöêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, êîòîðûõ ñå- ãîäíÿ ïî÷èòàþò êàê ãåðîåâ, áûëè ïðè÷àñòíû ê ñîäåÿííîìó çëó, îçíà÷àåò ïîñòàâèòü ïîä âîïðîñ ñàìûå îñíîâû ëåãèòèìíîñòè ñòðàíû. “Åñëè âû íà÷íåòå çàäàâàòü âîïðîñû, âàì ïðèäåòñÿ èõ çàäàòü è â îòíîøåíèè îñíîâàòåëåé ðåñïóáëèêè”, – íàñòîé÷è- âî ïîâòîðÿåò ã. Àêñàì, ñèäÿ çà ÷àøêîé òóðåöêîãî ÷àÿ â çàñòàâ- ëåííîé êíèãàìè ãîñòèíîé ñâîåãî äîìà â Ìèííåàïîëèñå, ïîêà åãî äâåíàäöàòèëåòíÿÿ äî÷ü äåëàåò óðîêè â ñîñåäíåé êîìíàòå. Ðÿäîì â åãî êàáèíåòå àêêóðàòíî ñëîæåíû ñòîïêè âûïèñîê èç òóðåöêèõ ãàçåò 1920-õ ãã. Îí è ïîäîáíûå åìó ëþäè íàñòàèâàþò íà òîì, ÷òî ïðèçíà- íèå ïðåñòóïëåíèé, ñîâåðøåííûõ â ïðîøëîì, ñëóæèò íàñòîÿ- ùèì èíòåðåñàì Òóðöèè. Ýòè âçãëÿäû ñîâïàäàþò ñ îïûòîì Ëà- òèíñêîé Àìåðèêè, Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû è Àôðèêè, êîòîðûì ïðèøëîñü ñòîëêíóòüñÿ ñ ïîõîæèìè âîïðîñàìè ïîñëå êðàõà ðåïðåññèâíûõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ðåæèìîâ èëè êîíöà âîîðóæåí- íûõ êîíôëèêòîâ. Ïîâåðèâ â òî, ÷òî íàðîäû ìîãóò îáðåñòè äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîå áóäóùåå, ïðèçíàâ ïðîøëûå îøèáêè, ýòè ñòðàíû îòêðûëè ñâîè àðõèâû, ïðîâåëè ñóäåáíûå ïðîöåññû íàä ïðåñòóïíèêàìè è ñîçäàëè êîìèññèè ïî ðàññëåäîâàíèþ çëîäåÿíèé. Ïî ñëîâàì ã-íà Àêñàìà, â ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ áûë äîñòèãíóò íåêîòîðûé ïðîãðåññ, â îñîáåííîñòè ïîñëå òîãî, êàê íà âûáî- ðàõ 2000 ã. ê âëàñòè â Òóðöèè ïðèøëî äîñòàòî÷íî óìåðåííîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî, è ñòðàíà ïðèëàãàåò áîëüøèå óñèëèÿ äëÿ âñòóï- 126 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ëåíèÿ â Åâðîïåéñêèé Ñîþç.  êîíöå êîíöîâ, ãîâîðèò ã-í Àê- ñàì, â ïðîøëîì èíàêîìûñëèå â Òóðöèè âåëî ê òþðåìíîìó çàê- ëþ÷åíèþ èëè äàæå ñìåðòè. “Èç-çà âîïðîñà îá àðìÿíñêîì Ãå- íîöèäå íèêòî íå áóäåò âàñ óáèâàòü. Âñå ïðåïîíû ê åãî ðåøå- íèþ ñóùåñòâóþò ëèøü â íàøåì ñîçíàíèè”. Ã-í Àêñàì óáåæäåí, ÷òî ñîïðîòèâëåíèå Òóðöèè äèàëîãó ñ àðìÿíàìè îá îáùåé èñòîðèè “íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîçèöèåé áîëüøèí- ñòâà ëþäåé â ñòðàíå”. Îí öèòèðóåò ðåçóëüòàòû íåäàâíåãî îï- ðîñà îáùåñòâåííîãî ìíåíèÿ, êîòîðûå áûëè îïóáëèêîâàíû â îäíîé òóðåöêîé ãàçåòå. Îíè ïîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî 61% íàñåëåíèÿ Òóðöèè ïîëàãàåò, ÷òî íàñòàëî âðåìÿ ïóáëè÷íîãî îáñóæäåíèÿ òîãî, ÷òî â õîäå îïðîñà áûëî íàçâàíî “îáâèíåíèÿìè â Ãåíî- öèäå”.  1998 ã. Ðîíàëüä Ãðèãîð Ñóíè, àìåðèêàíñêèé ïðîôåññîð àðìÿíñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, ïðåïîäàâàòåëü ïîëèòîëîãèè â ×èêàãñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå, áûë ïðèãëàøåí ïðî÷åñòü ëåêöèþ â òóðåöêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå. “Ìîÿ ìàòü ñêàçàëà: íå åçäè òóäà, ýòèì ëþäÿì íåëüçÿ âåðèòü, – âñïîìèíàåò Ñóíè, – è ÿ èñïûòûâàë áåñ- ïîêîéñòâî ïî ïîâîäó âîçìîæíîé îïàñíîñòè”. Ê åãî óäèâëåíèþ, íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî Ñóíè îòêðûòî íàçâàë óáèéñòâà àðìÿí “Ãå- íîöèäîì”, àóäèòîðèÿ âñòðåòèëà åãî íå âðàæäåáíî, à ñ èíòåðå- ñîì. Òåì íå ìåíåå âçãëÿäû ã-íà Àêñàìà è åìó ïîäîáíûõ èññëå- äîâàòåëåé ïðîäîëæàþò ïðåäàâàòüñÿ ïðîêëÿòèþ ñî ñòîðîíû íà- öèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèõ ñèë, êîòîðûå ïî-ïðåæíåìó äîñòàòî÷íî âëè- ÿòåëüíû â Òóðöèè. Óãðîçû ñî ñòîðîíû íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèõ îðãà- íèçàöèé íåäàâíî ïðåäîòâðàòèëè ïîêàç ôèëüìà “Àðàðàò”, ñíÿ- òîãî êàíàäñêî-àðìÿíñêèì ðåæèññåðîì Àòîìîì Ýãîÿíîì (Atom Egoyan).  ýòîì ôèëüìå ðå÷ü èäåò î òîì, êàê àðìÿíñêàÿ äèàñ- ïîðà îòíîñèòñÿ ê ñâîåé èñòîðèè. Ïîïûòêà ñàìîãî ã-íà Àêñàìà âåðíóòüñÿ è ïîñåëèòüñÿ â Òóð- öèè â 1990-å ãã. ïîòåðïåëà êðàõ, êîãäà íåñêîëüêî óíèâåðñèòåòîâ, îïàñàÿñü ïðåñëåäîâàíèé ñî ñòîðîíû ïðàâèòåëüñòâà, îòêàçàëèñü ïðèíÿòü åãî íà ðàáîòó. Êîãäà â 2000 ã. â èíòåðâüþ, äàííîì îä- íîé èç âïîëíå ïðî-ïðàâèòåëüñòâåííûõ òóðåöêèõ ãàçåò, ã-í Áåð- êòàé îñïîðèë îôèöèàëüíóþ âåðñèþ ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ àðìÿí, îí ñòàë ìèøåíüþ ðàçâåðíóâøåéñÿ ïðîòèâ íåãî êàìïàíèè. Åìó ïèñàëè ïèñüìà ñ óãðîçàìè. È òåì íå ìåíåå, ïî ñëîâàì Àêñàìà, 127 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... ñðåäè ïðèõîäèâøåé ê íåìó êîððåñïîíäåíöèè ïðåîáëàäàëè ïèñüìà ïîääåðæêè. Èõ ïèñàëè òóðêè, æèâóùèå êàê â ñòðà- íå, òàê è çà åå ïðåäåëàìè. “Îíè ïîçäðàâëÿëè ìåíÿ è áëàãîäà- ðèëè çà òî, ÷òî ÿ îñìåëèëñÿ çàãîâîðèòü îá ýòîì”, – âñïîìèíàåò Àêñàì. Ñðåäè àðìÿí, æèâóùèõ â ÑØÀ è Åâðîïå, íàó÷íàÿ äèñêóññèÿ òîæå âåäåòñÿ áóäòî íà “ìèííîì ïîëå”. Ïîïûòêè íà÷àòü îáñóæ- äåíèå ìàññîâûõ óáèéñòâ àðìÿí â áîëåå øèðîêîì èñòîðè÷åñ- êîì êîíòåêñòå âûçûâàþò ñðåäè íèõ ïîäîçðåíèÿ. “Ìíîãèå èç àðìÿíñêîé äèàñïîðû ïîëàãàþò, ÷òî åñëè âû ïûòàåòåñü ïîíÿòü, ïî÷åìó òóðêè òàê ïîñòóïèëè, – ïîÿñíÿåò ã-í Ñóíè, – âû êàêèì-òî îáðàçîì îïðàâäûâàåòå èëè îáîñíîâûâàåòå ýòè óáèéñòâà”. Ïîäîáíî ñâîèì òóðåöêèì êîëëåãàì, ìîëîäîå ïîêîëåíèå àð- ìÿíñêèõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé â ÑØÀ è äðóãèõ ñòðàíàõ íå õî÷åò îñòàâàòüñÿ â ýòîì èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîì òóïèêå.  2000 ã. ã-í Ñóíè è ïðîôåññîð Ìè÷èãàíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Ôàòìà Ìþãå Ãå÷åê îðãàíèçîâàëè êîíôåðåíöèþ, êîòîðàÿ, êàê îíè íàäåÿëèñü, ñìî- æåò ïîéòè äàëüøå òîãî, ÷òî ã-í Ñóíè íàçûâàåò “áåñïëîäíûìè äåáàòàìè î òîì, áûë ëè Ãåíîöèä èëè íå áûë”. Íåñìîòðÿ íà íåêîòîðûå ðàçíîãëàñèÿ ìåæäó òóðåöêèìè è àðìÿíñêèìè ó÷àñ- òíèêàìè, ãðóïïà èññëåäîâàòåëåé, êîòîðóþ óäàëîñü ñîáðàòü íà ýòó êîíôåðåíöèþ, ïðîäîëæàåò âñòðå÷àòüñÿ, è åå ñîñòàâ âñå ðàñ- øèðÿåòñÿ. Åùå äî ýòîé êîíôåðåíöèè ã-í Àêñàì ïûòàëñÿ íàâåñòè ìîñòû ìåæäó àðìÿíñêèìè è òóðåöêèìè ó÷åíûìè.  1995 ãîäó, â Àðìå- íèè, íà êîíôåðåíöèè, ïîñâÿùåííîé Ãåíîöèäó, îí ïîçíàêîìèëñÿ ñ Ãðåãîì Ñàðêèññÿíîì (Greg Sarkissian), ñîçäàòåëåì Èíñòèòóòà Çîðÿíà (Zoryan Institute) â Òîðîíòî – èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîãî öåí- òðà, ïîñâÿùåííîãî èçó÷åíèþ àðìÿíñêîé èñòîðèè. Ýòî áûëà, ïî èõ ñîáñòâåííûì ñëîâàì, ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ýìîöèîíàëüíàÿ âñòðå- ÷à. Îíè âäâîåì ïîñåòèëè àðìÿíñêóþ öåðêîâü, ãäå çàæãëè ñâå÷è â ïàìÿòü îá óáèòûõ ðîäñòâåííèêàõ ã-íà Ñàðêèññÿíà è â ïà- ìÿòü î Õàäæè Íàëèëå – òóðêå, ñïàñøåì áàáóøêó ã-íà Ñàðêèñ- ñÿíà è åå äåòåé. Ã-äà Àêñàì è Ñàðêèññÿí ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî Õàëèë, “÷åñòíûé òóðîê”, ñèìâîëèçèðóåò âîçìîæíîñòü áîëåå êîíñòðóêòèâíûõ îò- íîøåíèé ìåæäó äâóìÿ íàðîäàìè. Íî êàê è ìíîãèå àðìÿíå, ã-í Ñàðêèññÿí ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî Òóðöèÿ äîëæíà ïðèçíàòü ñâîþ èñòî- ðè÷åñêóþ îòâåòñòâåííîñòü çà ñîäåÿííîå, ïðåæäå ÷åì ïðè- 128 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ìèðåíèå ñòàíåò âîçìîæíûì. “Åñëè îíè ýòî ñäåëàþò, – ãîâî- ðèò îí, – íà÷íåòñÿ ïðîöåññ çàæèâëåíèÿ ðàí è àðìÿíå ïåðå- ñòàíóò ãîâîðèòü î Ãåíîöèäå. Ìû áóäåì ãîâîðèòü òîãäà î Õàä- æè Õàëèëå”.

SUMMARY

“Dialogue on Genocide: Efforts by Armenian and Turkish Scholars to Understand the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians During World War I” presents R. Suny’s reflections on his efforts to initiate a Turkish- Armenian academic dialogue. The project started as a lecture he gave at Koç University, during which he saw that at least some Turks were begin- ning to rethink the unthinkable: to question their own nation’s past in order to make possible a more acceptable future. Suny’s initiative as well as his publications on the history of the 1915 Genocide provoked strong criticism from both Armenian and Turkish journalists and scholars. Next came the discussion of Suny’s reading of the Genocide in the journal The Armenian Forum, where three historians – two of Turkish origin, one of Armenian – got an opportunity to critique his article “Empire and Nation: Armenians, Turks, and the End of the Ottoman Empire,” based on his talk in Istanbul. In the article, and in his responses to all three scholars, Suny argued that his treatment of the events of 1915 was an attempt at an explanation that moves beyond the usual understanding of deep-seated Turkish racism, Armenian provocation, an imputed civil war, or a clash of nationalisms. It was a plea for a kind of enriched, thickly described, empirically-grounded study of the Genocide that had largely eluded us in the past. Employing some of the recent discussions of empire, nation, and identity-formation, he was trying to free the discussion from the constraints of the nationalist paradigms that had distorted older accounts. “Dialogue on Genocide” traces the success of this project by evaluating the discussions that took place at three work- shops bringing together Armenian, Turkish, and other scholars: “Arme- nians and the End of the Ottoman Empire” (Chicago, March 17-19, 2000); “Contextualizing the Armenian Experience in the Ottoman Empire: From the Balkan Wars to the New Turkish Republic” (University of Michigan, March 8-10, 2002); the third Armenian-Turkish workshop (University of Minnesota, March 28-30, 2003). 129 Ð. Ñóíè, Äèàëîã î Ãåíîöèäå... Thus, what had been an untouchable topic in the late 1990s had by 2002 become an acceptable, legitimate subject for discussion in the academic community and more broadly in the Armenian-American community.

130 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Agnieszka JAGODZIÑSKA

BETWEEN TWO WORLDS. THE JEWISH CEMETERY IN WARSAW AS A CULTURAL TEXT (1850-1900)*

Before the Holocaust, Europe’s largest Jewish community lived in Poland. One third of Warsaw’s pre-war inhabitants were Jews. The disappearance of such a significant portion of the population left a void in the life of post-war Poland, but also made Poland more homogeneous than before. The Jewish cemetery in Warsaw on Okopowa Street is one of the relics of that lost past that persistently reminds one of previous Jewish-Polish coexistence. Quite ironically, it also reminds of the scope of the loss, being the largest Jewish graveyard in Europe.1 Today, the cemetery functions as a special place of memory that testifies to the rich history of the Jewish community in pre-war Poland as well as

* I would like to thank Ezra Mendelsohn, Marcin Wodzinski and the AI editorial board for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Also, I am grateful to Lee Levine and Richard Cohen for their suggestions concerning various aspects of visual Judaism. Financial support for my research has been provided by the Centre for Studies of the Culture and History of East European Jews, Vilnius, Lithuania. All pictures and drawings by Agnieszka Jagodziñska. 1 According to some sources it is the second biggest Jewish cemetery after the one in £ódŸ. 133 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... to its tragic end. It stresses in a very particular way “the absence of a Jewish presence” in the post-Holocaust reality. However, this cemetery’s impor- tance reaches far beyond being a simple memorial site. One should view it not only as a reminder of annihilation and death, but rather as a complex cultural text that offers multidimensional insights into the life of the Jewish community in Warsaw.2 The semiotic method enables us to scrutinize all the elements of the cultural code that can be found within the cemetery. This article aims to demon- strate that the successful decoding of cultural markers offers the possibility to explore the inner dynamics of Warsaw’s Jewish community on the one hand and Polish-Jewish interaction on the other. The cemetery clearly reflects changes in the ideology of Warsaw’s Jews as well as their social and cultural metamorphosis. As will be shown, the semiotic approach to social history helps to understand more of the nature of modernization, acculturation, and integration of Jews in Poland. In this aspect, the past is perceived as the pro- cess of crossing different kinds of boundaries: cultural, social, and national. Therefore the cemetery is a very important source for the history of Polish Jews. It provides us with a wealth of data that helps fill in the gap concerning their history and culture. Together with the Polish, Hebrew, and Yiddish press from the period, archival collections, and statistical data, it contributes to the state of knowledge on changes in Warsaw’s Jewish community in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In this article, I wish to focus in particular on the second half of the 19th century, a period of important cultural transformation. In order to understand the specificity of the cultural milieu of the capital’s Jews, it is necessary to explain briefly their situation in Warsaw. The origins of the Jewish kehillah may be traced back to the 14th century, but there are quite justified presumptions that Jews lived there earlier – from at least the 13th century. They were usually involved in trade, craft, or propinacia (distilling and selling of alcohol) and arenda (leasing and sub-leasing of estates). The first actual source that preserves information about Warsaw’s Jews is a com- plaint from 1414 involving a rich Jewish merchant and banker Lazarus and a townsman of Czersk.3

2 For more about graveyards as a text of culture see: Jan P. Woronczak. Cmentarz ¿ydowski w Kromo³owie jako tekst kultury / Ph.D. dissertation. Vol. 1-2. Wroc³aw Univeristy, 1999; Idem. Specyfika kulturowa cmentarzy ¿ydowskich. Katowice, 1993. 3 Marian Fuks. ¯ydzi w Warszawie. ¯ycie codzienne, wydarzenia, ludzie. Poznañ, 1997. P. 55. 134 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 We know that the oldest Jewish settlement in Warsaw was located in the so-called platea Judeorum (Jewish street). There is also information about a synagogue, a ritual bath, and a cemetery that ceased to exist some time in the second half of the 15th century, probably during the pogrom of 1483.4 In 1527, King Sigizmund I granted to Warsaw’s townspeople the privilege de non tolerandis Judaeis5 and this ended the legal presence of Jews in the city for a certain period. As a result, many Jewish families settled in Polish towns under the jurisdiction of Poland’s powerful nobility that did not enjoy municipal legal rights. Beginning in 1775, the Jews were also allowed to settle and build houses in Praskie Przedmieœcie (Warsaw’s Praga suburbs).6 It was the nineteenth century that saw the most radical and far-reaching changes in Warsaw’s Jewish community. The partitions of Poland (1772-1795) opened a new chapter in the history of Poland’s Jews and dramatic shifts in the European political scene had a strong impact upon them. Their sudden entrance into absolutist empires radically changed their situation. The intro- duction of new general laws, aimed at a broad unification of Jews with the rest of the society, catalyzed social and cultural transformations. The imperial interference started to be visible in many aspects of Jewish life, like customs, language, names, clothes, appearance, and family life. The status of the Polish lands in the 19th century in general, and Warsaw in particular, is troublesome. After the third partition of Poland in 1795, the city was incorporated into the Prussian Kingdom. From 1807 to 1812 it functioned as the capital of the Duchy of Warsaw, a semi-sovereign state depending very much on Napoleon. When Napoleon was defeated in Russia, the Russian Empire occupied the Duchy for two years. As a result it was liquidated in 1815. Under the agreements of the Congress of Vienna, the Kingdom of Poland (also known as the Congress Kingdom) was created in 1815. With small exceptions, the Kingdom was a territorial continuation of the Grand Duchy. It was joined to the Russian Empire as part of a personal union, whereby the Russian Tsar also became the king of Poland. The King-

4 Ignacy Schiper. Cmentarze ¿ydowskie w Warszawie. Warszawa, 1938. Pp. 1-2; Marian Fuks. Op. cit. Pp. 56-57. 5 Pawe³ Fija³kowski. Rzekomy przywilej “de non tolerandis judaeis” a pocz¹tki osadnictwa ¿ydowskiego na Mazowszu // Krzysztof Pilarczyk (Ed.). ¯ydzi i judaizm we wspó³czesnych badaniach polskich. Kraków, 2000. Pp. 27-34. 6 Marian Fuks. Op. cit. Pp. 61, 64. 135 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... dom had its own constitution and still enjoyed some autonomy. However, the situation changed after the defeat of the November Uprising in 1831. The repressed Kingdom slowly lost its autonomy. The most dramatic moment came with the defeat of the January Uprising in 1864, when the Kingdom of Poland lost its autonomy completely, although it was never formally abolished.7 The new Privislinskii Krai – the name that Russian bureaucrats gave Poland – was fully controlled by the Russian Empire. Therefore one should remember that the inner dynamics of Warsaw (and Central Poland) were shaped under different circumstances than the rest of the Polish lands after the partitions. Respectively, various factors influenced the transfor- mation of Warsaw’s Jewish community. It is difficult to find proper terms to describe different aspects of the Jewish transformation in 19th century Western and Eastern Europe. There are many in use: emancipation, secularization, enlightenment, modernization, Germanization/Polonization/Russification, assimilation, acculturation, and integration. However, some of them, like assimilation, have been discredited by a number of scholars as too vague, too imprecise, or too value-laden. The problem of terminology is too broad and complicated an issue to be dis- cussed here.8 Only the careful explanation of what a given term is taken

7 For more about the specific character of the Kingdom of Poland, see Marcin Wodzinski. Good Maskilim and Bad Assimilationists, or Toward a New Historiography of the Has- kalah in Poland // Jewish Social Studies. 2004. Vol. 10/2. Pp. 89-92. 8 For more about the problem of terminology and the concept of assimilation, see Jonathan Frankel. Assimilation and the Jews in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Towards a New Historiography? // Jonathan Frankel, Steven J. Zipperstein (Eds.). Assimilation and Community. The Jews in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Cambridge, 1992. Pp. 1-37; Amos Funkenstein. The Dialectics. Vol. 1. No2. Pp. 1-14; Russell A. Kazal. Revisiting Assimilation. The Rise, Fall and Reappraisal of a Concept in Ame-rican Ethnic History // American Historical Review. 1995. Vol. 100. No.2. Pp. 437-471; Michael R. Marrus. Eastern Jewry and the Politics of Assimilation. Assessment and Reassessment // Bela Vago (Ed.). Jewish Assimilation in Modern Times. Boulder, 1981. Pp. 5-23; Ezra Mendelsohn. On Modern Jewish Politics. New York, 1993. P. 16; Amos Morris-Reich. Disciplinary Paradigms and Jewish Assimilation. The Jews as Object of Research in Early Formulations of Social Science / Ph.D. dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2003; David E. Stills (Ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 1-19. New York, 1968-1991. [selected entries: Assimilation, Vol. 1. Pp. 438-444; Acculturation. Vol. 1. Pp. 21-27; Integration. Vol. 7. Pp. 372-386.]. For a good example of a common misunderstanding concerning assimilation see: Yaakov Rabi. Assimilation in Western and Eastern Europe. Jerusalem, 1979. 136 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 to mean within the confines of a specific text helps avoid confusion and misunderstanding.9 In Warsaw during the second half of the 19th century, Jewish integration and acculturation into the surrounding culture was a highly visible phenome- non compared with the situation in the rest of Eastern Europe or even with the rest of the Polish lands.10 As Marcin Wodziñski argues, the first genera-

9 Therefore, I wish to explain in which sense some of the key terms are used (or understood, but not used) in this article. Assimilation would signify a process (not a political program, nor an ideaology) that in its final stage results in the disappearance of the distinctiveness of a group (or individuals) within a larger society. The culmination of the process is connected with the development of a new identity to replace a previous identity. This is usually a multi- generational phenomenon. Therefore, one should remember that it had different stages in different moments of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. However, assimilation as such is not of interest to this study. Acculturation should be understood as the process of cultural adaptation to the surrounding society, embracing outer customs and cultural patterns (e.g., language, clothes, surnames, style of worship) with the simul- taneous preservation of Jewish identity. It seems to be a more useful term because its results are more visible and measurable. I would explain the integration of a minority group into larger society as a process of descreasing social distance between two previously separate groups. The process culminates in the elimination of any social obs- tacles that kept the two groups separated. 10 For more about Jewish assimilation, acculturalion, and integration in Poland, see: Alina Ca³a. The Question of the Assimilation of Jews in the Polish Kingdom (1864-1897). An Interpretive Essay // Polin. 1986. Vol. 1. Pp. 130-150; Alina Ca³a. Asymilacja ¯ydów w Królestwie Polskim (1964-1897). Postawy. Konflikty. Stereotypy. Warszawa, 1989; Stephen D. Corrsin. Aspects of Population Change and Acculturation in Jewish Warsaw at the End of the Nineteenth Century. The Census of 1882 and 1897 // Polin. 1988. Vol. 3. Pp. 122-141; Miri Freilich. Assimilationists and Assimilation in the Polish Freethinkers Movement // Gal-Ed. 1991. Vol. 12. Pp. 37-60; Aleksander Guterman. Assimilated Jews as Leaders of the Polish Labour Movement between the Two World Wars // Gal-Ed.1995. Vol. 14. Pp. 49-65; Stefan Kieniewicz. Assimilated Jews in Nineteenth-Century Warsaw // W³adys³aw T. Bartoszewski and Antony Polonsky (Eds.). The Jews of Warsaw. A History. Oxford, 1991. Pp. 171-180; Eli Lederhendler. Modernity without Emancipation or Assimi- lation? The Case of Russian Jewry // Jonathan Frankel, Steven J. Zipperstein (Eds.). Assimilation and Community. The Jews in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Cambridge, 1992. Pp. 324-343; Joseph L. Lichten. Notes on the Assimilation and Acculturation of Jews in Poland 1863-1943 // Chimen Abramsky, Maciej Jachimczyk, Antony Polonsky (Eds.). The Jews in Poland. Oxford, 1986. Pp. 106-129; Ezra Mendelsohn. A Note on Jewish Assimilation in the Polish Lands // Bela Vago (Ed.). Jewish Assimilation in Modern Times. Boulder, 1981. Pp. 141-150; Magdalena Opalski. The Concept of Jewish Assimilation in Polish Literature of the Positivist Period // World Congress of Jewish Studies. 1986. Vol. 9. B3. Pp. 21-28 (also: Polish Review. 1987. Vol. 32. N. 4. Pp. 371-383.); Theodore R. Weeks. Poles, Jews, and Russians, 1863-1914. The Death of the Ideal of Assimilation in the Kingdom of Poland // Polin. 1999. Vol. 12. 137 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... tion of Jewish modernizers in the Kingdom of Poland (the 1820-1830s) chose integration with Polish culture as integration with a local form of a broader European context. It has to be said that they felt a strong intellectual connection with German culture and language. Due to Warsaw’s openness to different cultural milieus,11 and particularly due to the influence of Ger- man Haskalah, acculturating into Polish culture was one of the options faced by the first Jewish integrationists in Warsaw, though it was not a domi- nating one. By the second generation of integrationists, however, ideology had changed. One can notice a shift from Haskalah’s principle of loyalty to the ruler (namely, the Tsar) toward support of a particular ethnic group within the Empire (Poles). The pro-Polish direction of integration was getting stronger and finally began to be perceived as an autonomous value. Polish language became a significant cultural marker and an element of identity. An important shift took place, as the “Polish option” in the 1850s and 1860s was no longer only an element of cultural choice. It became a path to soli- darity with the Polish nation and Polish patriotism.12 The “Polish-Jewish brotherhood” of the 1860s was the climax of this process and provides clear evidence of the ideological transformation that took place.13 Even when the brotherhood failed, it left clear marks on the collective memory of that generation. The Russian Empire could support modernization but not pro-Polish acculturation of Jews. Thus the policy of Russification, which was particu- larly intensified after the fall of the January Uprising, not only mounted restrictions on Polish cultural life but also constrained the life of those Jews who chose the “Polish option”. Ezra Mendelsohn correctly wrote about the very specific situation of Jewish integration in the Kingdom of Poland, stating that here the Jewish elite were assimilating into the cultural and social life of another persecuted nation, and not into the culture of the ruling political power.14

11 After the third partition of Poland (1795), Warsaw was awarded to Prussia. 12 Marcin Wodziñski. Oœwiecenie ¿ydowskie w Królestwie Polskim wobec chasydyzmu. Dzieje pewnej idei. Warszawa, 2003. Pp. 74-80, 157-168. On the problematic issue of Polish patriotism among Jews, see also: Israel Bartal. Loyalty to the Crown or Polish Patriotism? The Metamorphosis of an anti-Polish Story of the 1863 Insurrection // Polin. 1986. Vol. 1. Pp. 81-95. 13 Israel Bartal, Magdalena Opalski. Poles and Jews. A Failed Brotherhood. Hanover, 1992. 14 Ezra Mendelsohn. Zionism in Poland. The Formative Years, 1915-1926. New Haven, 1981. P. 143. 138 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 The second half of the 19th century was a time of rapid modernization that also brought interesting and far-reaching changes to visual representa- tions of Judaism in Warsaw. The cemetery, as a cultural text, reflects important shifts that took place at that time. The first significant break with tradition dates to 1855 when the first epitaph written in Polish using the Latin alphabet appeared on a Jewish tombstone. This opened a time of moderniza- tion of the graveyard itself, which led finally to its reorganization and the emer- gence of a new type of sepulchral art as well as to changes in burial customs. Before the turn of the century, the first stage of the metamorphosis was completed.15 There had been no Jewish burial place in Warsaw after expulsion of Jews from the city in the 17th century. This changed when Jews were again allowed to settle in Warsaw’s suburbs. In 1780, Szmul (Samuel) Jakubowicz Zbytkower, a court banker, asked King Stanislav Augustus for permission to establish a cemetery in Targówek (near Warsaw’s Praga suburbs in the present- day district of Bródno), which at that time was royal land. The king agreed to grant the land to Zbytkower on a perpetual lease. The first official burial took place only after four years. However, even before the king’s decision, there were unofficial burials on the same spot.16 In 1785, Zbytkower founded Hevrah Kadishah (Heb. – a burial society), probably the second or the third one in the Warsaw area. The emergence of another organization of this kind led to many conflicts between the Warsaw and Praga communities. Warsaw’s Jews also wanted to establish their own cemetery, and in 1806 the government accepted their request. One year later the graveyard at Wola (presently Okopowa Street in Warsaw district) was already used by the Warsaw kehillah (community). It was situated next to Christian cemeteries that had existed there since 1792.17 During the 19th century, this burial place proved to be too limited for the still-growing community. Government documents from the Central Archive in Warsaw reveal important information

15 Of course, it does not mean that acculturation visible throughout the cemetery stopped suddenly at the beginning of the 20th century. However, the limits of this article and the complexity of later events (e.g., the establishment of Zionism and the socialist movement, and the further development of the cemetery) make me focus on a shorter period of time. That is why the year 1900 must be treated only as a symbolic and quite artificial date. I mention here only a few problems that go beyond the year 1900. 16 Ignacy Schiper. Cmentarze ¿ydowskie w Warszawie. Pp. 3-4. There is information about early graves from the period 1743-1760. 17 Jan Jagielski. Przewodnik po cmentarzu ¿ydowskim w Warszawie przy ul. Okopowej 49/51. Zeszyt I (Kwatery przy Alei G³ównej). Warszawa,1996. P. 8. 139 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... about problems with the graveyard’s extension.18 There were even some cases when it was enlarged and new lands were used for burials before official permission was given. On one occasion, even controversial second- layer burials took place (e.g., in 1831, 1843, 1855), when it was not possible to extend the cemetery on time.19 From the time of its establishment, the Jewish cemetery in Warsaw on Okopowa Street underwent many changes. From a rather homogeneous, traditional graveyard, it evolved into a heterogeneous burial place. Its diversity reflects that of the Jewish community in Warsaw. The cemetery is a text of a Jewish culture that was very much influenced by the surrounding gentile world. Therefore, it presents a unique mosaic containing different cultural elements, oscillating between Jewish tradition and Gentile influence. The cemetery, with its various cultural manifestations, is strongly linked to the question of the identity and self-perception of Warsaw’s Jews.

The Cemetery: Tradition and Modernity

In the 19th century, Jewish supporters of modernization (¯ydzi postêpowi) started to regard Hevrah Kadishah as a backward and superstitious organi- zation.20 This was due to the generally negative attitude of reformers toward the traditional part of the community, which was very much against change.21 However, in the second half of the 19th century, when the progressive faction gained control of Dozór Bó¿niczy,22 they managed to introduce a number

18 Archiwum G³ówne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie (AGAD) // Akta Centralnych W³adz Wyznaniowych (AGAD CWW). Files no. AGAD CWW, 1723, 1724, 1726, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733. 19 Ignacy Schiper. Cmentarze ¿ydowskie w Warszawie. P. 95. 20 To a great extent this image was shaped by public disagreements aired in the Polish- Jewish press, e.g. Izraelita. 21 For more about the attitude of Maskilim towards Hasidim in the Kingdom of Poland, see Marcin Wodziñski. Oœwiecenie ¿ydowskie w Królestwie Polskim. 2003. 22 Dozór Bó¿niczy has been translated in different ways, either literally as the ‘Inspection Committee for Synagogues” (Alexander Guterman. The Origins of the Great Synagogue in Warsaw on T³omackie Street // W³adys³aw T. Bartoszewski, Antony Polonsky (Eds). The Jews of Warsaw. A History. Oxford, 1991. Pp. 181-211) or as the “Synagogue Council” (Alina Ca³a. The Question of the Assimilation of Jews in the Polish Kingdom (1864-1897). An Interpretive Essay// Polin. 1986. Vol. 1. Pp. 130-150), or by its function – “Jewish Community Board” (Stefan Kieniewicz. Assimilated Jews in Nineteenth-Century Warsaw // W³adys³aw T. Bartoszewski, Antony Polonsky (Eds). The Jews of Warsaw. A History. Oxford, 1991. Pp. 171-180.) 140 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 of reforms. Major changes occurred in the organization and layout of the ceme- tery as well as in funeral customs. The process of the graveyard’s moderniza- tion was strongly supported by the city government. It led to many conflicts between the traditional and progressive parts of Jewish society. In particular, disagreement arose around the Warsaw Hevrah Kadishah, which up to the first half of the 19th century was fully controlled by Orthodox Jews. Izraelita, a Polish-Jewish newspaper published weekly in Warsaw, provides rich evidence of these tensions. It is important to stress that reforms proposed by the progressive faction did not make the traditional customs disappear. The division of Warsaw’s Jewish community was also visible in the sphere of burial customs. Two sepa- rate worlds existed next to each other. Innovations introduced by ¯ydzi postêpowi were boycotted by the conservative part of Jewish kehillah each time they sensed a violation of halakhah (rules shaping and regulating Jewish behavior and ritual). There were many controversial innova- tions. One new thing that became a part of modern funeral customs was the cata- falque. Cemetery re- cords note that many progressive families used it.23 The custom of exposing a body on a catafalque was accepted under the influence of the Fig. 1. The hearse in the photographs comes from the Jewish Christian tradition. community in £ódŸ. However, we know that it was made Also, the room according to the Warsaw model. where bodies were kept until the funeral was decorated in the Gentile fashion. Changes were visible in the use of hearses and in the dress of cemetery workers. As there were many complaints concerning their neglected ap- pearance, new suits were introduced. A modern-looking hearse was used (Fig. 1.). However, the new custom of a coachman sitting on top of the

23 Ignacy Schiper. Cmentarze ¿ydowskie w Warszawie. P. 181. 141 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... hearse (and not walking by its side) was strongly boycotted by traditional Jews because they found it disrespectful.24 Another controversy in the second half of the 19th century was the idea of burial in a coffin. This long-discussed issue was a bone of contention between the modern and traditional parts of the Jewish community.25 According to the rules of Jewish rabbinical law, neither this custom nor the cremation of bodies was acceptable.26 One has to realize that the struggle between the traditional and the modern was hard-fought and any detail that could change the score was of utmost importance. Izraelita reports that even the introduction of a simple bell at the cemetery gate caused contro- versy.27 Therefore, it may be quite surprising that in 1888 there was a case in which ¯ydzi postêpowi managed to conduct such a drastic violation of tradition as an autopsy.28 The cemetery enjoyed a very bad reputation both within the Jewish com- munity and outside, and the reformers also tried to address this as well. Numerous incidents of more or less serious crimes as well as tomb robbing and theft made them introduce new regulations to increase security in the grave- yard. The ever-present beggars were banned from the cemetery.29 The other problem, not easy to solve, was the low moral standards of the cemetery workers who lived at the entrance to the graveyard. They were notorious for getting drunk and behaving scandalously. The cemetery, as we read in the sources, was also a meeting spot for prostitutes and their clients.30 This created a very negative image of the Jewish community and therefore ¯ydzi postêpowi went to great efforts to change it. The sensibility of ¯ydzi postêpowi to Gentiles’ critique on Jewish “back- wardness” was significant. The elite of modernized Warsaw Jewry, who had aspirations to integrate into Polish society always took these criti- cisms very seriously. Therefore, many changes in the visual representa- tions of Judaism took place, aiming at the removal of all sorts of possible

24 Ignacy Schiper. Cmentarze ¿ydowskie w Warszawie. Pp. 101-103, 111-113. 25 Izraelita. 1872. Vol. 42. P. 338; 1886. Vol. 12. Pp. 92-93. 26 Izraelita. 1874. Vol. 16. Pp. 128-129. 27 Izraelita. 1871. Vol. 32. P. 246. 28 Izraelita. 1888. Vol. 29. Pp. 246-247. 29 Begging and the presence of beggars in the cemetery constituted a continuous problem. Expelled once, they kept coming back. See more: Izraelita 1869. Vol. 31. P. 256; 1870. Vol. 21. Pp. 165-167, Vol. 39. Pp. 310-311; 1871. Vol. 27. Pp. 205-206, Vol. 32. Pp. 246; 1872. Vol. 42. P. 339; 1876. Vol. 49. P. 391 30 Schiper 1938. P. 189. 142 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 excuses that could provoke any negative comments from the Gentile side. It is important to note that modernization’s supporters were often caught between the hammer of Jewish tradition and the anvil of Gentile expecta- tions or demands. The reorganization of the Jewish cemetery in Warsaw has to be viewed as one of these acts that responded to the idea of cultural adjustment to the standards of surrounding society. This went beyond the traditional religious concept of hilul ha-Shem – profaning and dishonoring God by improper Jewish behavior or wrong deeds – and demonstrated a new kind of awareness of and sensibility to Gentile society and opinion.

Reorganization of the Graveyard

Originally the cemetery was divided into sections, with each section further divided into rows (see Scheme ¹ 1). Women, men, and children were buried separately; families could not be placed together. Traditional matsevot (gravestones) faced east, which in the sym- bolic geography of East European Jewry meant facing Jerusalem. This expressed religious hope and expectation. In some measure it was linked to the idea of eternity or, in other words, to the open dimension of time after death. The size and shape of traditional tombstones was more or less the same. All these things we can see in the model of the traditional section – squares here symbolize the eastward direction of the graves. The reorganization of the burial place meant changes in the semiotic landscape of the cemetery.31 The traditional layout held particular meanings – being buried ¹ Scheme 1. in one place and not another conveyed certain information. When the metamorphosis started, the traditional sepulchral stratification was disturbed.

31 For more about the concept of the semiotic landscape of graveyards, see Jacek Kolbuszewski. Pejza¿ semiotyczny cmentarza I // Przegl¹d Powszechny. 1994. Vol. 11. Pp. 216-224. Idem. Pejza¿ semiotyczny cmentarza II // Przegl¹d Powszechny. 1994. Vol.12. Pp. 357-362. 143 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... New rules were introduced in the modern sections.32 In 1856, Adam Epstein, at the time a vice-chairman of the Jewish community, proposed the idea of family graves.33 It caused a lot of controversy because traditional Jews were strongly opposed to the idea. Finally, the supporters of modernization won the argument, when Rabbi Dov Ber Meisels (1798-1878) stated that such burial is not against halakhah. He recommended, however, that in order

Fig. 2. A family grave. to avoid provoking the traditional members of the community, all family graves should be located in one special place. Thus a new division was introduced into the cemetery – that of “modern” and “traditional” sections. Choosing to be buried in one section over the other was tantamount to stating one’s identification with the modernist or traditionalist camp. Tombstones in modern sections did not always face Jerusalem. They were oriented toward inner paths within a section, toward a potential passer-by.

32 In Polish sources and research they are usually called “assimilators’ sections”. However, I choose to call them modern or modernized sections because describing the people buried there as “assimilators” is not precise and in most cases wrong. 33 By family graves I understand both one matzeva for two or more people from the same family or, as is more often the case, a few separate tombstones for one family located close one to the other. 144 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 The same is true of gravestones at the outskirts of each modern section – they faced alleys that divided one section from the other. This change was also reflected in epitaphs, on which one finds phrases containing invoca- tions to a possible reader (which will be discussed later). So “the eternity direction” known from the traditional quarter was replaced here by “the present direction”. In semiotic terms, the grave was still linked to the world of living. The introduction of family graves (Fig. 2.) could change the order of tomb- stones in a row when members of the same family were buried close to each other but not in the same row. In such cases, in order to emphasize their family relationship, they had fences put around their graves – sometimes across some rows. It is significant that even after death they wished to be perceived as a family. The size and the shape of tombstones also varied to a large extent from the traditional matsevah. Sometimes modern gravestones were so huge that they broke the monotonous line of a traditional row in which all matsevot were comparable in size and shape. This was not only against the traditional layout but also against burial custom, which held that ostentatious grave- stones were unwelcome. There is yet another interesting phe- nomenon concerning the reorganization of the cemetery. One can sometimes discover an amazing thing in the modern sections where the matsevot are not oriented toward Jerusalem. In a row where tombstones generally face west, there are some that break the line and are turned to the east in the traditional manner. Taking into con- sideration the more traditional shape of these gravestones and their Hebrew inscriptions, one may be sure that their direction is not coincidental. This is a sign that somebody buried here perceived himself/herself (or were perceived by their family) as ¯yd postêpowy, because they chose to be buried in the modern Scheme ¹ 2. section of the cemetery. At the same time, they felt more connected to tradition than other people buried in the section or at least they wanted to express such a link by having the matsevah face east. To understand all the changes more clearly, let us have a look at the Scheme ¹ 2. Colors symbolize different directions: checked squares – 145 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... east, gray – west, black – north, and white – south. In a row where all the matsevot face west, there is one traditional (checked) that breaks the line and is turned to the east. We can see that the sizes of tombstones differ. Family graves are marked by a line around them, enclosing them together and cutting across rows. Sometimes a matsevah faces more than one direction (e.g. a checked/black square in the upper right corner). This happened when a tombstone was erected at the very corner of the section and face two alleys perpendicular to each other. The maskilim (enlightened Jews) made an attempt to make the cemetery look modern. In order to achieve this, they tried to remove all signs of negli- gence. In the 1850s, some hundred trees (mainly chestnuts and poplars) were planted under the supervision of the already-mentioned famous Warsaw banker Adam Epstein. However, weeds and bushes growing on the cemetery could not be removed as it was against halakhah. This caused problems because Christian cattle-keepers bribed a graveyard guard in order to graze their herds there. We know from a report from 1856 that there were at times as many as a few dozen cows in the cemetery.34

Artistic Changes

The traditional shape for tombstones was that typical of East European matsevah. Usually it was a stele with different kind of arches as a finial. An inscription was usually written on one side and separated from the rest of the stone by inner frames. Two-dimensional sculptures were more often than not placed above the inscription. Their role was either decorative or symbolic, or both. With the modernization of the cemetery came a new burial fashion (Fig. 3.). Jews from the middle and upper classes could afford to order more splendid and larger tombstones. Sometimes their size was really enormous, such as the vault on Franciszka Eiger’s grave (1895). New shapes and styles were based on patterns drawn from Christian cemeteries. Many modern Jewish tombstones were identical to Christian ones, except for the language and some symbolic motifs used. As we know, some of them were even made by Gentile tradesmen from expensive stones imported from abroad.35 Some represented different historical styles that were popular in the 19th century, for instance neo-goth- ic or neo-classical. There are even some very fine examples of art nouveau.

34 Ignacy Schiper. Cmentarze ¿ydowskie w Warszawie. Pp. 95-97. 35 Idem. P. 185. 146 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 One of the most important changes was a shift in the use of symbolic motifs. Many Gentile symbols, which had a particular meaning in their original background, were adapted to the new matrix. One may ask: were those who decided to copy certain sym- bols oblivious of their primary meaning? Proba- bly not. Even if they had been, I believe that they would not have cared much. Many examples of sepulchral Fig. 3. Shapes and styles of modern Jewish tombstones. Gentile motifs appeared in the Jewish graveyard because of the specific cemetery fashion. Many Jews might have copied them without any hesitation since these depictions had once found their way to the Jewish burial place. However, a careful selection from a variety of Gentile symbols proves that the motifs were actually well considered before they were used. Of course, there were no crosses in the Jewish cemetery, but even some non-Christian motifs that were popular in neighboring Protestant or Christian cemeteries did not appear in the Jewish cemetery. A good example here is the skull and cross- bones (tibias), a universal symbol of death, passing away, and the vanity of human life. The Jewish traditional aversion to figural art is clearly the reason why we do not find tibias displayed in the Jewish cemetery. New motifs that appeared in modern sections of the cemetery are mostly connected with the sepulchral idea of vanitas: a broken column, an urn (sometimes with a mourning veil), a sarcophagus, broken branches/a broken tree/a broken flower,36 torches, a ruined wall, a poppy-head (refering to death as the eternal sleep), a butterfly (signifying the transition of the soul from one world to the other), an owl. Some of the traditional motifs found new

36 This symbol was also present in traditional Jewish art, but was now represented differently. 147 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... forms and/or gained slightly different meanings, such as a bunch of flowers now used to depict a mourning wreath or the star of David, which was used as a national symbol following the establishment of the Zionist movement. There is also a group of emblems engraved on tombstones that refer to professions, like the snake and caduceus (pharmacology), a compasses and a set square (architecture), or a lyre (poetry) (Fig. 4.). Among the traditional motifs still present in the modern sec- tions, we find Cohen’s blessing hands, books, a candlestick, a bowl and jug for Levi’s descen- dents, a money box symbolizing Fig. 4. Fragment of a tombstone. charity (sometimes with a hand donating a coin), the Tablets, a bird (pigeon), and griffins. Modern tombstones decorated with these im- ages are still rooted in Jewish tradition. As with the choice of language for epitaphs, the choice of a particular motif can help us determine if the person buried in the modern section sympathized more with the traditionalists or progressives. Each tombstone can be an individual manifestation of an ideological outlook. The case of the Warsaw cemetery shows clearly that sepulchral art is linked to the problem of identity and different forms of its manifestation.

Language of Epitaphs

The acculturation of Warsaw’s Jews is most visible the in epitaphs they placed on their tombstones. Since the second half of the 19th century, inscrip- tions in the modern section of the cemetery can be found in Polish, Russian, German or even French, instead of – and often in addition to – the traditional Hebrew. Epitaphs were written only in Hebrew37 until the early 19th century. At this time, an initial transformation took place and the first German inscription

37 In the 19th century, we find examples of Yiddish on gravestones as well. However, according to the tradition it was Hebrew, the lashon ha-kodesh or holy language, which was meant to be the language of Jewish inscription. 148 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 (written with Hebrew characters) appeared on a tombstone: “Ruhestätte des Arthur Sewerin Goldstand, verschieden den 11.XI.1836”. By the order of Dozór Bó¿niczy, epitaphs had to be very simple and short, and contain basic information only. In a short period from 1850-1854, another eight German epitaphs appeared. One of them is worth quoting: Hier ruht Frau Salomea geb. Joseph Davidsohn verehelicht Kopel Bernstein sanften Herzens und gebildeten Geistes verschied sie, von Eltern, Geschwistern, Gatten und Kindern beweint den 10.II.1852

Here rests Mrs. Salomea, Born to Joseph Davidson, Married to Kopel Bernstein, Of tender heart and lofty spirit She departed, mourned by parents, siblings, Husband and children, On 10.II.1852 This text is more obviously quite sophisticated and goes far beyond the initial simplicity requested by Dozór Bó¿niczy. A second step was made in 1855. When Antoni Eisenbaum (1791-1852), the director of the reform rabbinical institute (Szko³a Rabinów), died in 1852, his disciples and graduates wanted to commemorate him by putting a Polish inscription on his tombstone. Dozór Bó¿niczy did not accede to their request because the proposed epitaph was not only composed in Polish, but it was to be written in the Latin alphabet. A real Kulturkampf broke out. Finally, after three years of fierce disagreement, the Ministry of Religious Matters accepted the project. In June 1855, the first Polish inscription was placed on a Jewish gravestone. Antoni Eisenbaum’s inscription was a precedent that opened wide the gate to modernization. Ever since, it became possible to choose the language of one’s epitaph. It was not only a matter of burial fashion, but also a very final decision on one’s cultural affiliation. In some periods, the language and content of an inscription can be treated as an unambiguous manifestation of political beliefs and even national identity. “The Polish-Jewish Brotherhood” of 1861 is a good example. Probably the most famous case from this period is that 149 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... of Micha³ Landy, a Jewish student who participated in a Polish-Jewish patriotic demonstration against the Russians. He was shot after taking the cross from the hand of a priest who had fallen before him and died the same day. In this situation, the use of Polish on the inscription on his grave is an interesting testimony of Jewish attitudes towards political realities. With a new language came a new outlook (Fig. 5.). It is important to note that Polish inscriptions are not translations of Hebrew ones. They represent a new sepulchral quality. In some aspects they fol- lowed the layout of Christian-Polish epitaphs, as there was no other exam- ple to be used. There were many changes not only in the organi- zation of carmina sepulcra, but also in the content. The first important element was the use Fig. 5. Polish as the language of an epitaph. of one name in Hebrew and another one in Polish to designate the same person. In Hebrew inscriptions, we always see a Jewish name with a patronymic (e.g., Moshe ben Arie Leib or Sarah bat Israel), while in Polish ones we usually find a Christian first name together with a family name (e.g., Maurycy Leibowicz or Stanis³awa Flauman) with the patronymic missing. Polish epitaphs on children’s tombstones interestingly use the father’s name together with the mother’s, something not previously seen in Hebrew epitaphs. On children’s graves, diminutives are often used, such as Wacio instead of Wac³aw. Moreover, Izraelita reports an incident connected to the prayer El male rahamim, where a cantor mentioned the Gentile name of a boy (Julijan) instead of his Jewish name.38 The fact that this story was published in a Warsaw newspaper proves how strongly the modernization of burial customs was growing.

38 Izraelita. 1881. Vol. 42. P. 348. 150 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Another interesting phenomenon is that the inscription mentions the remaining sponsor of the gravestone. According to the Jewish tradition, erecting a matsevah on the grave was a religious duty. The name of the person who did erect the tombstone is not mentioned, except when a second tombstone replaced an original tombstone that had been destroyed. Under the influence of Christian sepulchral customs, Polish-Jewish inscriptions sometimes also include information about the family of the deceased. The interpersonal emotional relations between the deceased and the living are also displayed. To understand better, let us read an example: Tu Here Spoczywaj¹ zw³oki Lies the body of B.P. IZYDORA B.P. IZYDOR GLUCKSMANN GLUCKSMANN Prze¿ywszy lat 47 Who lived 47 years Zmar³ po ciê¿kiej And died after a serious I d³ugiej chorobie And long-lasting sickness Dnia 16 Lipca 1880 r On the 16th of July 1880 Pozostawiaj¹c ¿onê Leaving his wife I dzieci w g³êbokim And children in deep Smutku Sorrow Spokój jego duszy May his soul rest in peace [emphasis by A. Jagodziñska] We can notice that a feeling of “deep sorrow” is mentioned here; “grief” (¿al) or “mourning” (¿a³oba) can be found in other epitaphs. This opens an emotional space in the semiotic landscape of the cemetery. Sometimes longer lamentations are incorporated in epitaphs, in which the remaining members of a family express their feelings of loss, sorrow, or grief. Problems with the calendar are evident in Polish inscriptions because as many as three calendar systems were in use in Warsaw in the second half of the 19th century. In Hebrew, the issue was simple and dates were written according to the Jewish calendar only. However, when creating a text in Polish, the Jews encountered a problem. Should the Jewish date be trans- ferred into a Polish inscription or should the date according to one of the Chris- tian calendar systems be used?39 The answer was not simple. On some,

39 Until the 19th century, the main calendar system used in Poland was the Gregorian (Western) system. However, the Julian (Eastern) calendar was introduced into some aspects of public life with the introduction of Russian rule in the Kingdom of Poland. 151 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... particularly early, tombstones we find clear evidence of confusion, when the month system used was Christian, but the year system was Jewish, for example: MATHIAS ROSEN MATHIAS ROSEN urodzi³ siê d. 15 sierpnia born on August 15th 5565 5565 umar³ dnia 30 grudnia died on December 30th 5626 5626 Many Christian-Polish sepulchral formulas were transferred into Jewish- Polish inscriptions. A good example is the typical formula ending the epitaph on a child’s grave: “Powiekszy³ grono anio³ków” (He joined the circle of little angels). This reflected the common belief that a (baptized) child who dies at a very young age is so innocent that he or she is treated as an angel. As we can see, this part of the epitaph, with its particular Christian context, was accepted in the Jewish cemetery. Jews who wished to have such things written on their children’s graves were either oblivious of its original Christian setting or knew the context, but did not care much about it, finding it proper for a Jewish tombstone, too. In the Christian tradition, there are two aspects when a prayer is men- tioned in an epitaph. The first is when the deceased is “asking” (in the text of an epitaph) for a prayer for their soul and the second when the remaining member(s) of the family are asking the deceased to pray for them. It is amazing to discover both aspects present in the Polish-Jewish carmina sepulcra. [1] Przechodniu gdy ko³o tego grobu wypadnie ci droga Zmów za tê zacn¹ duszê s³ów parê do boga, amen! O, passerby, when your path leads next to this grave, Pray in a few words to God for this noble soul, amen! (1910) This corresponds with what was mentioned earlier about making a tombstone faced the inner paths of the cemetery and its connection with world of living. [2] Córko nasza droga Our dear daughter Módl siê za nas u boga Pray for us in heaven A my w wiecznej ¿a³obie And we in eternal mourning Smutni p³aczem po tobie Sad, we cry after you (1875) 152 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 It is interesting that Polish poetry even found its way into the Jewish cemetery. An outstanding example is the work of Jan Kochanowski (1530-1584), one of the most famous Polish poets of the Renaissance, who created a set of laments to commemorate his daughter, who passed away at a very young age. Since then, different fragments of his poems have been used in Christian epitaphs, usually on children’s graves. In the Jewish cemetery on the monumental tomb of Franciszka Eiger (died in 1895), we find a para- phrase of the most popular Kochanowski quote, while the original poem was placed on Jakób Lipszyc’s gravestone (died in 1884). Other quotes, mainly from the Bible (e.g., Ps 119; 72; Eccl. 12; 7) or Talmud (Pirke Avot 4) also appear. In all the cases described above, we notice that the new language brought with it real challenges and not just because of linguistic difficulties. The use of Polish on Jewish gravestones was linked to a new concept of Jewish-Polish identity. And, as was mentioned, the choice of language was a visible sign of cultural choice.

Conclusion

The case of the Warsaw graveyard can be seen in two contexts – the first a European one and the second a local, Polish context. Nothing that happened to the Jewish community in Poland in the course of the 19th century could have happened without prior changes in Western European Jewry. Without Haskalah (Jewish enlightenment) and the modernization that began in the West, there would not have been any metamorphosis of Jewish culture in the King- dom of Poland. However, the case of the cemetery is linked very strongly to the situation of the Poles and their country in the 19th century. This linkage is visible in many of the phenomenon described above. The cemetery on Okopowa Street is evidence of the changes that occurred during the 19th century and later, such as secularization, acculturation, or integration into Polish culture. It also shows the heterogeneity of the Warsaw Jewish community. Together with some preserved archival documents, the graveyard enables us to understand the nature of this transition, not only in its historical but also in its social and cultural dimensions. Thanks to data on the cemetery, it may be possible to create a sociological portrait of progressive Jews. Therefore, the Warsaw cemetery is an invaluable source for Jewish history. For many of the people buried there, it may be the only place where their ideological or cultural declarations can be found. The modern sections 153 A. Jagodziñska, Between Two Worlds... of the cemetery clearly show the emergence of a new Polish-Jewish (self-)iden- tification. The role of the Polish language in expressing one’s ideological stance is significant. The adoption of Polish meant for many the definition of their own outlook. The fact that they were buried in the Jewish cemetery was a sign that in a religious sense (and probably in some others), they regarded themselves primarily as Jews. This way they remained rooted in two completely different worlds. As has been proved, the Jewish graveyard in Warsaw is not only a special memorial site, but also an unusual object of research. Therefore, all efforts should be made in order to prevent its further decay. Because of the poor condition of many sections of the cemetery, some precious information may soon be lost forever. Academic research is one of the ways to preserve this information before it disappears and also to pay tribute to this silent and persistent monument to “the absence of Jewish presence” in modern Poland.

SUMMARY Ñòàòüÿ Àãíåæêè ßãîäçèíñêîé ïîñâÿùåíà èñòîðèè åâðåéñêîãî êëàäáèùà â Âàðøàâå íà Îêîïîâîé óëèöå (ñàìîãî áîëüøîãî åâðåéñ- êîãî êëàäáèùà â Åâðîïå). Ïðî÷èòûâàÿ åãî êóëüòóðíûé êîä, àâòîð ïîêàçûâàåò äèíàìèêó åâðåéñêîé àêêóëüòóðàöèè è ìîäåðíèçàöèè, ñîöèàëüíûõ è êóëüòóðíûõ ïåðåìåí â æèçíè âàðøàâñêèõ åâðååâ. Èññëåäîâàòåëü ðàññìàòðèâàåò ìîäåðíèçàöèþ ðèòóàëà, ïðåäïðèíÿòóþ ïî èíèöèàòèâå ðåôîðìèñòñêè íàñòðîåííîé ÷àñòè âàðøàâñêîé åâðåé- ñêîé îáùèíû âî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå XIX âåêà. Íàèáîëåå ÿðêèå ïðîÿâ- ëåíèÿ ìîäåðíèçàöèè, ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþùèå òàêæå î êóëüòóðíîé îðèåí- òàöèè åâðååâ, ðàçäåëÿâøèõ öåííîñòè Õàñêàëû – åâðåéñêîãî ïðîñâå- ùåíèÿ, àâòîð îáíàðóæèâàåò íå òîëüêî â ïîÿâëåíèè ñåìåéíûõ çàõî- ðîíåíèé â ðåôîðìèñòñêîé ÷àñòè êëàäáèùà, íå òîëüêî â íàñàæäåíèè íà êëàäáèùå äåðåâüåâ èëè â èçìåíåíèè ôîðìû è òðàäèöèîííîé îðèåíòàöèè ê Èåðóñàëèìó íàäãðîáíûõ êàìíåé (ìàöåâîò), íî òàêæå â ñîäåðæàíèè è ÿçûêå ýïèòàôèé (íåìåöêîì, à ïîçäíåå – ïîëüñêîì). À. ßãîäçèíñêàÿ ïîä÷åðêèâàåò, ÷òî “òåêñò êëàäáèùà” ïîâåñòâóåò î âîçíèêíîâåíèè è íþàíñàõ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ïîëüñêî-åâðåéñêîé èäåí- òè÷íîñòè. Îíà ïðèõîäèò ê âûâîäó, ÷òî íàó÷íîå èçó÷åíèå âàðøàâñêîãî åâðåéñêîãî êëàäáèùà – îäèí èç ïóòåé ñîõðàíåíèÿ ýòîé èíôîðìàöèè, èñ÷åçàþùåé âìåñòå ñ ñàìèì “ìåñòîì ïàìÿòè”.  òî æå âðåìÿ ñåìè- îòèêà êëàäáèùà âûÿâëÿåò ïðîáëåìó “îòñóòñòâèÿ åâðåéñêîãî ïðè- ñóòñòâèÿ” â ñîâðåìåííîé Ïîëüøå.

154 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Þðãèòà ÙßÓ×ÞÍÀÉÒÅ-ÂÅÐÁÈÖÊÅÍÅ

ÍÀØÀ ÎÁÙÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÀ: “ÂÛÓ×ÅÍÍÀß ÏÀÌßÒܔ Î ËÈÒÎÂÑÊÎÌ ÈÅÐÓÑÀËÈÌÅ

Ñåãîäíÿ î åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðå â Ëèòâå ãîâîðÿò êàê îá îðãàíè÷- íîé è çíà÷èìîé ÷àñòè ëèòîâñêîé êóëüòóðû â öåëîì. Ýòî ñâèäåòåëü- ñòâóåò î ïîñòåïåííî ôîðìèðóþùåìñÿ íîâîì ïîíèìàíèè êóëüòóð- íîãî íàñëåäèÿ, êîòîðîå íå ðàçäåëÿåòñÿ íà “ñâîå” è “÷óæîå”, à âîñ- ïðèíèìàåòñÿ â ñîâîêóïíîñòè êàê “íàøå îáùåå”. Ïðîøëîå åâðååâ- ëèòâàêîâ, ïðîæèâàâøèõ â Âåëèêîì êíÿæåñòâå Ëèòîâñêîì (äàëåå – ÂÊË), ÿâëÿåòñÿ îäíîâðåìåííî ÷àñòüþ êóëüòóðû è èñòîðèè åâðååâ Ðîññèè, Áåëîðóññèè è âñåãî ìèðà. Íå âûñòðàèâàÿ òåëåîëîãè÷åñêóþ ïðååìñòâåííîñòü ìåæäó ÂÊË è ëèòîâñêîé íàöèîíàëüíîé ãîñóäàðñò- âåííîñòüþ ÕÕ â., ñëåäóåò ïðèçíàòü, ÷òî ìåæâîåííàÿ Ëèòîâñêàÿ Ðåñïóáëèêà óíàñëåäîâàëà îò ÂÊË ìíîãî àðõàè÷åñêèõ ýòíîíàöèî- íàëüíûõ è ýòíîêóëüòóðíûõ ÷åðò.1 Íàñòîÿùàÿ ñòàòüÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïîïûòêó ðåêîíñòðóèðî- âàòü äèíàìèêó ïðåäñòàâëåíèé ëèòîâöåâ î ìåñòíîé åâðåéñêîé äèàñ- ïîðå è îáîçíà÷èòü òå ôàêòîðû, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðûì ñîâðåìåííîå ëèòîâñêîå îáùåñòâî ñòðåìèòñÿ óñâîèòü êàíîíû âñïîìèíàíèÿ î åâðå- ÿõ, âîçíèêøèå â äðóãèõ ïðîñòðàíñòâàõ è êîíòåêñòàõ, è âêëþ÷àåò èõ â ñîáñòâåííîå êóëüòóðíîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî.

1 E. Aleksandravièius. Lietuviø kultûros istoriografijos slenksèiai // Praeitis, istorija ir istorikai. Vilnius, 2000. P. 274. 155 Þ. Ùÿó÷þíàéòå-Âåðáèöêåíå, Íàøà îáùàÿ êóëüòóðà... “Íàøà îáùàÿ êóëüòóðà” Ðåòðîñïåêòèâíûé âçãëÿä íà âîñïðèÿòèå åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðû â Ëèòâå â ðàçíûå ïåðèîäû ïîçâîëÿåò óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî ñîâðåìåííàÿ åå îöåíêà êàê ðàâíîïðàâíîé ÷àñòè èñòîðè÷åñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ Ëèòâû ÿâëÿåòñÿ íîâîé äëÿ ëèòîâñêîãî îáùåñòâà è íàóêè. Ýìîöèîíàëüíî äàííàÿ îöåíêà íàõîäèòñÿ ïîä ñèëüíûì âîçäåéñòâèåì ïàðàäèãìû “óíè÷òîæåííîé êóëüòóðû”, ïîñêîëüêó òðàãè÷åñêàÿ èñòîðèÿ åâðåå⠖ ëèòâàêîâ îêàçûâàåòñÿ ÷àñòüþ èñòîðèîãðàôèè Õîëîêîñòà. Ýòîãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ ïîêà èçáåæàòü íå óäàåòñÿ, õîòÿ óæå íåêîòîðîå âðåìÿ ñëûøíû ïðèçûâû íå ðàññìàòðèâàòü ìíîãîâåêîâóþ èñòîðèþ åâðååâ â Ëèòâå èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî êàê ïóòü ê êàòàñòðîôå.2 Íî íèêóäà íå óéòè îò òîãî ôàêòà, ÷òî èìåííî èçó÷àÿ è îñîçíàâàÿ Õîëîêîñò,3 ëèòîâñ- êàÿ îáùåñòâåííîñòü, è, ïðåæäå âñåãî, èíòåëëåêòóàëû-ýìèãðàíòû, îòêðûëè äëÿ ñåáÿ êóëüòóðó åâðååâ-ëèòâàêîâ, êîòîðóþ îíè ïðåæäå èãíîðèðîâàëè èëè âîñïðèíèìàëè êàê êîìïîíåíò íàöèîíàëüíîé ëèòîâñêîé êóëüòóðû. “Ïîñòõîëîêîñòíûé ïîâîðîò” â íûíåøíåé Ëèòâå íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñêëþ÷åíèåì – èìåííî òàêèì áûë ïóòü ïðîçðåíèÿ ìíîãèõ åâðî- ïåéñêèõ îáùåñòâ. Òåìàòèêà Õîëîêîñòà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñïîñîáîì àêòóà- ëèçàöèè åâðåéñêîãî ïðîøëîãî íå òîëüêî â Ëèòâå. Æóðíàëèñòêà è ïèñàòåëüíèöà Ðóôü Ýëëåí Ãðóáåð (Ruth Ellen Gruber), èçó÷àþùàÿ ïðè÷èíû æèâó÷åñòè è ïðèòÿãàòåëüíîñòè åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðû â ñîâ- ðåìåííîì ìèðå, ïðåäëàãàåò äâà âîçìîæíûõ îáúÿñíåíèÿ. Âî-ïåð- âûõ, òÿãà ê åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðå â åâðîïåéñêèõ îáùåñòâàõ ñòàëà ôîðìîé ïîêàÿíèÿ çà ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ Õîëîêîñòà. Âî-âòîðûõ, â èíòå- ðåñå ê íåé ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ ñòðåìëåíèå ê èäåàëó ìóëüòèêóëüòóðíîñòè è ê ïåðåîöåíêå ðîëè íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ è èñòîðèè.4 Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî îáà ýòèõ ïðåäïîëîæåíèÿ â ïîëíîé ìåðå ìîæ- íî îòíåñòè è ê ïåðåîñìûñëåíèþ åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðû è èñòîðèè

2 E. Aleksandravièius. Þydai lietuviø istoriografijoje // Vilniaus Gaonas ir þydø kultûros keliai. Tarptautinës mokslinës konferencijos medþiaga. Vilnius, 1997, 10-12 rugsëjo. Vilnius, 1999. P. 9. 3 Ïîäðîáíåå î ïàìÿòè Õîëîêîñòà è åãî îöåíêàõ â ñîâðåìåííîì ëèòîâñêîì îáùåñòâå ñì.: I. Ðutinienë. Holokausto (ðoa) atminties ypatumai // E. Krukauskienë, I. Ðutinienë, I. Trinkûnienë, A. Vosyliûtë. Socialinë atmintis. Minëjimai ir uþmarðtys. Vilnius, 2003. Pp. 27-42; A. Eidintas. Jews, Lithuanians and the Holocaust. Vilnius, 2003. Pp. 336-447. 4 A. Eidintas. Op. cit. Pp. 16-17, 235-236. 156 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 â Ëèòâå. Åñëè ñòåïåíü îñîçíàíèÿ îáùåñòâåííîé âèíû çà Õîëîêîñò òðóäíî îáúåêòèâíî îöåíèòü áåç ñïåöèàëüíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé (õîòÿ â àêòóàëüíîñòè ýòîãî ôàêòîðà íå ïðèõîäèòñÿ ñîìíåâàòüñÿ), òî ñîâåð- øåííî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ñîâðåìåííîå ëèòîâñêîå îáùåñòâî ãîðäèòñÿ ñâîåé ìóëüòèêóëüòóðíîñòüþ, èñòîðè÷åñêè ñëîæèâøåéñÿ â õîäå äëèòåëüíîãî ñîñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ ëèòîâöåâ, åâðååâ, òàòàð, ïîëÿêîâ, ðóññêèõ è áåëîðóñîâ. Ìóëüòèêóëüòóðíîñòü è ñîöèàëüíî-êóëüòóð- íàÿ îòêðûòîñòü ñ÷èòàþòñÿ îäíèìè èç îñíîâîïîëàãàþùèõ îáùå- ñòâåííûõ öåííîñòåé â ñîâðåìåííîé Ëèòâå. Åâðåéñêàÿ êóëüòóðà îáðåëà ëåãèòèìíîñòü âñêîðå ïîñëå äèñêðå- äèòàöèè ìîíîíàöèîíàëüíîãî èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ìåòàíàððàòè- âà, ðàññìàòðèâàâøåãî èñòîðèþ ìíîãîíàöèîíàëüíîãî ëèòîâñêîãî îáùåñòâà èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ÷åðåç ïðèçìó èñòîðèè äîìèíèðóþùåãî ëèòîâñêîãî ýòíîñà. Ïðè ýòîì èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîå ïîëå îãðàíè÷è- âàëîñü ðàìêàìè ïîëèòè÷åñêîé è ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé èñòîðèè. Âêëþ- ÷åíèå â îáùèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ êóëüòóðíîãî íàñëåäèÿ åâðååâ-ëèòâàêîâ ïðèäàëî èçó÷åíèþ ïðîøëîãî Ëèòâû íîâîå êà÷åñòâî.  ñîâðåìåííîé ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè èçó÷åíèå åâðåéñêîé èñòîðèè è êóëüòóðû ïðåâðàòèëîñü â îäíî èç ïðèîðèòåòíûõ íàïðàâ- ëåíèé. Íàèáîëüøåé ïîïóëÿðíîñòüþ ïîëüçóþòñÿ òåìû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ Õîëîêîñòîì è ñ ðàçëè÷íûìè àñïåêòàìè åâðåéñêîé æèçíè â ìåæ- âîåííîé Ëèòâå. Ýòà ðåôëåêñèÿ íå òîëüêî ïðèâåëà ê ïåðåîöåíêå ðîëè åâðååâ-ëèòâàêîâ â èñòîðèè ëèòîâñêîãî îáùåñòâà, íî è èçìåíèëà ñàìîñîçíàíèå ïîñëåäíåãî.  ôîðìèðóþùåìñÿ ñåãîäíÿ äèñêóðñå “íàøåé îáùåé êóëüòóðû” åâðåéñêàÿ è ëèòîâñêàÿ ïàðàäèãìû ñîâïàëè. Ýòî ïðîèçîøëî âïåð- âûå. Ñêàçàííîå íå îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî åâðåè Ëèòâû íå îêàçûâàëè âîç- äåéñòâèÿ íà îêðóæàþùåå îáùåñòâî. Èõ âëèÿíèå áûëî âñåãäà, âêëþ- ÷àÿ è ïîñëåâîåííûé ñîâåòñêèé ïåðèîä, êîãäà êàê áóäòî áû íè ñòà- ëî íè “ëèòîâñêîãî åâðåéñòâà”, íè “åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðû”.5 Êàê áû íå îïðåäåëÿëè ìåñòî åâðåÿ ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê äîìèíèðó- þùåé êóëüòóðå åå ïðåäñòàâèòåëè, íà÷èíàÿ ñî âðåìåí ÂÊË è âïëîòü äî êîíöà Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè â Ëèòâå, åâðåé (è åâðåéñêàÿ êóëüòó- ðà) âñåãäà îñòàâàëèñü âíåøíèìè, ÷óæäûìè, “èíûìè”, õîòÿ ñòåïåíü

5 Îäíàêî, è òîãäà ñîõðàíÿëèñü îòäåëüíûå êàíàëû êîììóíèêàöèè, òàêèå êàê æèâîïèñü, åâðåéñêàÿ ñàìîäåÿòåëüíîñòü è ëèòåðàòóðíîå òâîð÷åñòâî. Ïîñëåäíèé “êàíàë” ÿ ñ÷èòàþ îñîáåííî âàæíûì: åãî ñîçäàâàëè àâòîðû, ïèñàâøèå íà åâðåéñêóþ òåìàòèêó ïî-ëèòîâñêè, êàê Èöõàê Ìåð, è ïî-ðóññêè, êàê Ãðèãîðèé Êàíîâè÷ èëè Ìàøà Ðîëüíèêàéòå. 157 Þ. Ùÿó÷þíàéòå-Âåðáèöêåíå, Íàøà îáùàÿ êóëüòóðà... ÷óæäîñòè è ïëîòíîñòü ðàçäåëèòåëüíîé ãðàíèöû âàðüèðîâàëèñü. Íà ïðîòÿæåíèè íåñêîëüêèõ âåêîâ îñíîâíûìè ìîäåëÿìè îòíîøå- íèé êîðåííîãî íàñåëåíèÿ è íàöèîíàëüíîãî ìåíüøèíñòâà îñòàâà- ëèñü êóëüòóðíàÿ èçîëÿöèÿ è äîáðîâîëüíàÿ èëè íàñèëüñòâåííàÿ àññè- ìèëÿöèÿ.  ëèòîâñêîé èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé òðàäèöèè åâðåè ñ÷èòàëèñü ïàññèâíûì è íåöèâèëèçîâàííûì ñîîáùåñòâîì – ñèòóàöèÿ, ïîñòå- ïåííî ìåíÿâøàÿñÿ ñ õîäîì ìîäåðíèçàöèè.6 Îäíàêî òîëüêî â ìåæ- âîåííîé Ëèòîâñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêå íàìåòèëàñü òåíäåíöèÿ ê îòìèðàíèþ òðàäèöèîííûõ òðîïîâ ðåïðåçåíòàöèè åâðåéñêîãî ïðèñóòñòâèÿ â Ëèòâå, è ê ïðåîäîëåíèþ èõ êóëüòóðíîé ñåãðåãàöèè.

Îáðàç “Ëèòîâñêîãî Èåðóñàëèìà” è “âûó÷èâàíèå” ïàìÿòè Ñ ïóáëè÷íûìè ðàçìûøëåíèÿìè î Õîëîêîñòå â ëèòîâñêîì êîí- òåêñòå è î ëèòîâñêî-åâðåéñêèõ êóëüòóðíûõ ñâÿçÿõ, åñëè íå ñ÷èòàòü ìåæâîåííûõ ëèòåðàòóðîâåä÷åñêèõ ðàáîò Íàõìàíà Øàïèðû,7 âïåð- âûå âûñòóïèëè ëèòîâñêèå ýìèãðàíòû 1960-õ ãã. – áûâøèé ðåêòîð âèëüíþññêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Ìèêîëàñ Áèðæèøêà, ñîöèîëîã è ïî- ëèòîëîã Þëþñ Øìóëêøòèñ è èñòîðèê Çåíîíàñ Èâèíñêèñ. Èìåííî îíè çàãîâîðèëè î “ëèòîâñêîì Èåðóñàëèìå”. Ñèòóàöèÿ ýìèãðàöèè ñïîñîáñòâîâàëà “îòêðûòèþ” îñîáîé êóëüòóðû åâðååâ-ëèòâàêîâ è îñîçíàíèþ ïðåïÿòñòâèé, áëîêèðóþùèõ åå èçó÷åíèå ëèòîâöàìè: íåçíàíèå ÿçûêîâ, ðåëèãèîçíûå ðàçëè÷èÿ, ýêîíîìè÷åñêàÿ êîíêóðåí- öèÿ. Çåíîíàñ Èâèíñêèñ çàÿâèë, èñïîëüçóÿ ìåòàôîðó Âèíöàñà Êóäèð- êè, ÷òî â äîâîåííûé ïåðèîä ìåæäó åâðåÿìè è ëèòîâöàìè ïðîëåãàë “êóëüòóðíûé ðîâ”.8  ÷àñòíîñòè, ýòîò “ðî┠ðàçäåëÿë åâðåéñêèé è íååâðåéñêèé Âèëü- íþñ. Ïîýòîìó âîñïðèíÿòûé ñîâðåìåííîé ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèîãðà- ôèåé è ìàññîâûì ñîçíàíèåì îáðàç Âèëüíþñà êàê “Ëèòîâñêîãî Èåðóñàëèìà” – òèïè÷íûé ïðèìåð “âûó÷åííîé” ïàìÿòè î åâðåÿõ â Ëèòâå. “Ëèòîâñêèé Èåðóñàëèì”, çàíîâî “îòêðûòûé” â ýìèãðà- öèè âûõîäöàìè èç Ëèòâû, íå áûë ÷àñòüþ èõ àêòóàëüíîé ïàìÿòè.

6 V. Sirutavièius. Lietuvos þydø bendruomenës integracijos problemos XIX-XX a. // Kultûros barai. 2002. Nr. 2. Ð. 83. 7 Ñì.: N. Ðapyra. Vilnius naujojoj þydø poezijoj. Kaunas, 1935. 8 Z. Ivinskis. “Lietuva ir žydai istorijos šviesoje” // Aidai. 1972. Nr. 1. Ð. 27. Ðàçâèâàÿ ýòó ìåòàôîðó, ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ñåãîäíÿ â Ëèòâå âîçâîäèòñÿ “êóëüòóðíûé ìîñò” ìåæäó äâóìÿ íåêîãäà ðàçäåëåííûìè êóëüòóðíûìè ïðîñòðàíñòâàìè; ýòîò ìîñò äîëæåí îáúåäèíèòü èõ ⠓íàøå îáùåå” ïðîñòðàíñòâî. 158 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ëàóðåàò Íîáåëåâñêîé ïðåìèè ×åñëàâ Ìèëîø (Czesùaw Miùosz), ëèòîâñ- êèé ïîëÿê, ïðîæèâàâøèé â Âèëüíþñå â ìåæâîåííûé ïåðèîä, â ïèñü- ìå, íàïèñàííîì â 1978 ã. â Áåðêëè è àäðåñîâàííîì Òîìàñó Âåíöëî- âå, íûíå ïðîôåññîðó Éåëüñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, ðàññóæäàë î ôåíî- ìåíå åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà è ïàìÿòè íååâðåéñêèõ æèòåëåé ãîðîäà. Îí ïåðå÷èñëèë ïî÷åðïíóòûå èì èç íàó÷íîé ëèòåðàòóðû ôàêòû, èëëþñòðèðóþùèå èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîå çíà÷åíèå ãîðîäà äëÿ åâðååâ, à çàòåì ïðèçíàë, ÷òî åãî ïîêîëåíèå íå çàìå÷àëî åâðåéñêèé Âèëü- íþñ: “áóäó÷è â òàêîì áëèçêîì ñîñåäñòâå, ÿ âñå æå íè÷åãî î íåì íå çíàë”.9 Çíàêîìñòâî Ìèëîøà ñ êóëüòóðîé, èñòîðèåé è íàñëåäè- åì âèëüíþññêèõ åâðååâ, êîòîðûå îí íàó÷èëñÿ öåíèòü, ñîñòîÿëîñü óæå â Àìåðèêå.10 Îïûò ïîýòà è åãî ñàìîðåôëåêñèÿ ïîìîãàþò îñìûñ- ëèòü êîíöåïò “âûó÷åííîé ïàìÿòè”, â îñíîâå êîòîðîé ëåæèò èíòå- ðèîðèçàöèÿ âíåøíèõ ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê âñïîìèíàþùåìó ñóáúåêòó èëè ñîîáùåñòâó îáðàçîâ èñòîðè÷åñêîé/êóëüòóðíîé ïàìÿòè, â îòëè- ÷èå îò âîñïîìèíàíèé, îñíîâàííûõ íà îñìûñëåíèè, îöåíêå èëè îùóùåíèÿõ ïåðåæèòîãî îïûòà. Óæå â 1952 ã. â ñâîèõ “Ðàçìûøëåíèÿ íàðîäà î ñåáå è î ñâîåì ìåñòå ñðåäè ñîñåäåé”, èçäàííûõ â Ëîñ-Àíäæåëåñå, Ìèêîëàñ Áèð- æèøêà èñïîëüçîâàë ìåòàôîðó “Ëèòîâñêîãî Èåðóñàëèìà”, îïèñû- âàÿ Âèëüíþñ êàê “øòàá-êâàðòèðó” Áóíäà, öåíòð åâðåéñêîãî ïðî- ñâåùåíèÿ, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðîãî âîçðîæäàëñÿ èâðèò è ðàçâèâàëñÿ èäèø, êàê ãîðîä, “ðåëèãèîçíîé åâðåéñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè è èäåî- ëîãèè”.11 Îäíàêî, â ðàííèõ ðàáîòàõ ýìèãðàíòîâ ìû åùå íå íàáëþ- äàåì îêîí÷àòåëüíî ñëîæèâøåãîñÿ êàíîíè÷åñêîãî îáðàçà åâðåéñ- êîãî Âèëüíþñà. Î íåì óæå ïèøóò â íîñòàëüãè÷åñêèõ òîíàõ. Íî îí åùå íå ïðåâðàòèëñÿ â óñòîé÷èâóþ ôèãóðó è îðãàíè÷åñêóþ ÷àñòü “íàøåé îáùåé” ïàìÿòè. Ñïóñòÿ äâà äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïîñëå âûõîäà “Ðàçìûøëåíèé” Áèðæèø- êè Çåíîíàñ Èâèíñêèñ îáðàòèëñÿ ê òåìå ëèòîâñêî-åâðåéñêèõ âçàè- ìîîòíîøåíèé.  ñâîåé ñòàòüå “Ëèòâà è åâðåè â ñâåòå èñòîðèè”12

9 ×óòü áîëåå äâóõ äåñÿòèëåòèé ñïóñòÿ ×. Ìèëîø â ïðî÷èòàííîé â Âèëüíþññêîé ðàòóøå ðå÷è íàçâàë ôåíîìåí íåçíàíèÿ áëèçêîãî ñîñåäà “óìñòâåííîé äåôîðìàöèåé âçðîñëåíèÿ”. Ñì.: Cz. Miloszas. Tiesai iðtikimus þmones vëlës palieka ramybëje // Lietuvos rytas. 2000. Nr. 236. Ð. 6. 10 Cz. Miùosz. Zaczynajàc od moich ulic. Wrocùaw, 1990. Ðp. 43-44. 11 M. Birþiðka. Lietuviø tautos kelias á naujàjá gyvenimà. Ò. 1. Galvojimai apie tautà savyje ir kaimynø tarpe. Los Angeles, 1952. Ð. 36 . 12 Z. Ivinskis. “Lietuva ir žydai istorijos šviesoje” // Aidai. 1971. Nr. 10-11; 1972. Nr. 1. 159 Þ. Ùÿó÷þíàéòå-Âåðáèöêåíå, Íàøà îáùàÿ êóëüòóðà... îí ñäåëàë îáúåêòîì èçó÷åíèÿ áîëüøóþ ÷èñëåííîñòü åâðåéñêîé îáùèíû Âèëüíþñà, äåÿòåëüíîñòü Áóíäà è Õîëîêîñò. Èç ýòèõ ýëå- ìåíòîâ îí ñêîíñòðóèðîâàë îáðàç Âèëüíþñà êàê “Åâðåéñêîãî Èåðó- ñàëèìà”. Èâèíñêèñ ÿâíî èìåë â âèäó ïîïóëÿðíîå â åâðåéñêèõ êðó- ãàõ íàçâàíèå “Ëèòîâñêèé Èåðóñàëèì”, íî âîñïðîèçâåë åãî îøè- áî÷íî, ÷òî òîëüêî ïîäòâåðæäàåò õðóïêîñòü è íåóñòîé÷èâîñòü äàí- íîãî îáðàçà â ñîçíàíèè òîãî âðåìåíè. “Åâðåéñêèé Èåðóñàëèì” Èâèíñêèñà áûë ìåõàíè÷åñêè ñîáðàí èç ðàçíîðîäíûõ è ÷àñòî íå ñïå- öèôè÷åñêè âèëåíñêèõ ôåíîìåíîâ. Öåëîñòíûé îáðàç åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà óñêîëüçíóë îò âçîðà àâòîðà. Òîìàñ Âåíöëîâà, â ýìèãðàöèè îáðàòèâøèéñÿ ê èçó÷åíèþ åâðåéñ- êîãî Âèëüíþñà (â òîì ÷èñëå è ïî ìàòåðèàëàì ïåðåïèñêè ñ Ìèëî- øåì), â íåäàâíî èçäàííîì ïóòåâîäèòåëå ÿâíî ïðåóâåëè÷èë âñåìèðíî- èñòîðè÷åñêîå çíà÷åíèå ãîðîäà, îïèñàâ åãî êàê öåíòð åâðåéñêîé êóëü- òóðû, ñòàâøåé “íàèáîëåå âëèÿòåëüíîé è àêòèâíîé ãðóïïîé åâðåéñ- êîé äèàñïîðû îò Âàâèëîíà äî ñðåäíåâåêîâîé Êîðäîâû”.13 Âåíöëî- âà îáðàòèëñÿ ê ðàííåé èñòîðèè ãîðîäà â ïîèñêàõ êóëüòóðíûõ è äóõîâíûõ èñòîêîâ ðàñöâåòà åãî áîãàòîé åâðåéñêîé æèçíè. Ïî åãî óáåæäåíèþ, Âèëüíþñ XVII-XVIII ââ. ÿâëÿëñÿ “âîçìîæíî, êðóïíåé- øèì â ìèðå öåíòðîì èóäàèçìà”, à â XIX â. ãîðîä “ïðîäîëæàë îñòà- âàòüñÿ âèäíûì öåíòðîì åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðíîé è äóõîâíîé æèçíè”.  îáçîðå ëèòîâñêîé êóëüòóðû, èçäàííîì â 1990 ã. âî Ôðàíöèè, Àëüãèðäàñ Þëþñ Ãðåéìàñ ðàññìàòðèâàë “Ëèòîâñêèé Èåðóñàëèì” êàê îðãàíè÷åñêóþ ÷àñòü ìíîãîãðàííîãî è ïîëèêóëüòóðíîãî ïðîñò- ðàíñòâà Âèëüíþñà. Ïåðèîä ìåæäó 1620 è 1648 ãã. àâòîð íàçûâàåò çîëîòûì âåêîì åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà, ïîñêîëüêó, êàê îí óòâåðæäà- åò, â ýòè ãîäû â ãîðîäå æèëî áîëåå ñîðîêà èçâåñòíåéøèõ ðàââèíîâ.14 Ýòà íåîôèòñêàÿ âëþáëåííîñòü ⠓Ëèòîâñêèé Èåðóñàëèì”, è ïî ñåé äåíü õàðàêòåðíàÿ äëÿ ëèòîâñêîé ýìèãðàíòñêîé èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ýëèòû, êîíòðàñòèðóåò ñ âçâåøåííûì ïîäõîäîì ñåãîäíÿøíåé ëèòîâ- ñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè, êîòîðàÿ êðèòè÷åñêè îòíîñèòñÿ ê ïðåäñòàâëå- íèþ î òîì, ÷òî Âèëüíþñ ñòàë “Ëèòîâñêèì Èåðóñàëèìîì” áóêâàëü- íî ñ ìîìåíòà îñíîâàíèÿ åâðåéñêîé îáùèíû â ãîðîäå.15

13 T. Venclova. Vilnius. Vadovas po miestà. Vilnius, 2001. Ð. 26. 14 A. J. Greimas, S. Žukas. Lietuva Pabaltijy. Istorijos ir kultûros bruoþai. Vilnius, 1993. Ð. 68. 15 Ibid. Ðp. 67-68; U. Karvelis. Ávairiatautë Lietuvos Didþiosios Kunigaikðtystës kultûra. 1251-1772 // Y. Plasseraud, H. Minczeles (Red.). Lietuvos žydai. 1918-1940. Prarasto pasaulio aidas. Vilnius, 2000. P. 37. 160 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Äàæå ïðåäñòàâëåííûé íàìè íåáîëüøîé îáçîð âûñêàçûâàíèé ëèòîâñêîé ýìèãðàöèè î åâðåéñêîì Âèëüíþñå ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî “âû- ó÷èâàíèå” ïàìÿòè ñîïðîâîæäàåòñÿ ïîñòåïåííûì óñâîåíèåì öåëî- ãî ðÿäà îáðàçîâ, âíåøíèõ ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê íåïîñðåäñòâåííîìó îïû- òó “âñïîìèíàþùåãî”. Äëÿ ìíåìîòîïà “Ëèòîâñêèé Èåðóñàëèì” îñîáåííî ãëóáîê ðàçðûâ ìåæäó çàôèêñèðîâàííûì â òåêñòàõ ñèíõ- ðîííûì îïûòîì, “ïàìÿòüþ” è “âûó÷åííûì” îáðàçîì.16 Ðàçâèòèå â ýìèãðàíòñêîé ñðåäå îáðàçîâ åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà ïîçâîëÿëî ñî÷åòàòü “âûó÷åííóþ” (ïîçèòèâíóþ è èíêëþçèâíóþ) è “ýìïèðè- ÷åñêóþ” (íåãàòèâíóþ è ýêñêëþçèâíóþ) ïàìÿòü, õîòÿ ïîñëåäíÿÿ èñïîëüçîâàëàñü êðàéíå îñòîðîæíî è âûáîðî÷íî.17 Íàïðèìåð, Ì. Áèðæèøêà îïèñûâàë ìåæâîåííûé “Ëèòîâñêèé Èåðóñàëèì” êàê “ãðÿçíîå ãåòòî”, â êîòîðîì “áîëüøèíñòâî åâðååâ òåðïèò ëèøå- íèÿ”.18 Ìèëîø ðåòóøèðóåò ýòî ïðîòèâîðå÷èå îáðàçîâ â ïèñüìå ê Âåíöëîâå, óïîìèíàÿ òîëüêî ëàáèðèíòû óçêèõ ñðåäíåâåêîâûõ óëèö, àðêè, ñîåäèíÿþùèå äîìà, è çàìå÷àÿ ïðè ýòîì, ÷òî â Âèëü- íþñå áåäíîñòü åâðååâ áûëà ìåíåå çàìåòíà, ÷åì â äðóãèõ ìåñòàõ. Ñ ôîðìàëüíîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, “âûó÷åííàÿ” ïàìÿòü ýìèãðàöèè, à çàòåì è ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî ëèòîâñêîãî îáùåñòâà, áûëà “âûó÷åííîé” ëèøü ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ñîâåòñêîìó ïðîâàëó ïàìÿòè, êîãäà åâðåéñ- êèé Âèëüíþñ îêàçûâàëñÿ ñâÿçàííûì ñ Õîëîêîñòîì, ãåòòî, à ïîòîìó âûïàäàë èç îôèöèàëüíîãî íàððàòèâà ïàìÿòè. Ñîâåòñêàÿ ñèñòåìà áëîêèðîâàëà ìåìîðèàëüíóþ êóëüòóðó “Ëèòîâñêîãî Èåðóñàëèìà”. Åå íîâîå îñâîåíèå ñòàëî âîçìîæíûì òîëüêî â óñëîâèÿõ ýìèãðà- öèè ïîä íåïîñðåäñòâåííûì âîçäåéñòâèåì ñîáûòèé âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû è Õîëîêîñòà. Íî ìû ìîæåì ãîâîðèòü î “âûó÷åííîé” ïàìÿòè è ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê íàððàòèâàì åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà XIX â., â êîòî- ðûõ íå ñòîëüêî âûòåñíÿëè îáðàç ëèòâàêà, ñêîëüêî ñòèãìàòèçèðîâà- ëè, îò÷óæäàëè åãî è äàæå ÷àñòè÷íî ìàðãèíàëèçèðîâàëè.

16 Ê òàêîìó âûâîäó ïðèâîäèò àíàëèç ñî÷èíåíèé ëèòîâñêèõ àâòîðîâ XIX – ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíû XX â. è ïóòåâîäèòåëåé ïî Âèëüíþñó, èãðàâøèõ ðîëü íîñèòåëåé êîíöåíòðèðîâàííûõ çíàíèé è äîìèíàíòíûõ îáðàçîâ. 17 Òàêîé ïîäõîä ñîâåðøåííî íå òèïè÷åí äëÿ ñîâðåìåííîé ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè. Àíàëèçèðóÿ ïðîáëåìó ìíîãîêóëüòóðíîñòè è òîëåðàíòíîñòè äâîðÿíñêîãî Âèëüíþñà XIX â., Ñ. Ïèâîðàñ ðåàíèìèðóåò òèïè÷íûå äëÿ ýòîé ýïîõè è îáùåñòâà îáðàçû åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà. Ñì.: S. Pivoras. Bajoriðkojo Vilniaus daugiakultûriðkumas ir tolerancijos problema // Kultûros barai. 2002. Nr. 5. P. 85. 18 M. Biržiška. Îp. cit. P. 33. 161 Þ. Ùÿó÷þíàéòå-Âåðáèöêåíå, Íàøà îáùàÿ êóëüòóðà... Òàê, Þçåô Èãíàñ Êðàøåâñêèé âîññîçäàâàë òðàäèöèîííûé äëÿ ïîëüñêîãî ïðîñâåòèòåëüñêîãî äèñêóðñà ñòåðåîòèï ñðåäíåâåêîâîãî ãîðîäà, îïèñûâàÿ äîìà íà íàñåëåííûõ åâðåÿìè Íåìåöêîé, ßòêî- âîé óëèöàõ è óëèöå Ñòåêîëüùèêîâ êàê “âûñîêèå, ÷åðíûå, íåîïðÿò- íûå, ÷àñòî ñ íàâèñàþùèìè íàä óëèöàìè ïðèõîæèìè è ãàëåðåÿìè, íà êîòîðûõ âèñåëè äëèííûå âåðåâêè ñ ðàçâåøàííûì áåëüåì, à íà ãîëîâû ïðîõîæèì áåçæàëîñòíî òåêëè âîíþ÷èå ïîìîè... Íî÷üþ íèê- òî íå ðåøàëñÿ õîäèòü îäèí, êàæäûé îáõîäèë ýòè òåìíûå ïåðåóë- êè, îñîáåííî óëèöû, îáðîñøèå åâðåÿìè”.19 Ê ýòîìó åùå ñòîèëî áû äîáàâèòü îãëóøàþùèé “âèçã” è “íåâûíîñèìûé îð” íàñåëå- íèÿ óëèö.20 Ñîâðåìåííèê Êðàøåâñêîãî, Ì. Áàëèíñêèé, ïîëàãàë, ÷òî ÷èñëî åâðååâ â Âèëüíþñå ÷óòü ëè íå âäâîå ïðåâûøàëî ÷èñëî õðèñòèàí.  ñâîåì “Ñòàòèñòè÷åñêîì îïèñàíèè ãîðîäà Âèëüíþñà”21 îí æàëîâàëñÿ íà áåñïîðÿäîê, òåñíîòó è ïîñòîÿííûé ãóë ãîëîñîâ â åâðåéñêîì êâàðòàëå.  íåêîòîðûõ ïóòåâîäèòåëÿõ ïî ãîðîäó XIX âåêà (íàïð., â ïóòåâîäèòåëå À. Êèðêîðà) ïðèâîäèòñÿ ÿêîáû èñòîðè÷åñêîå íàçâàíèå åâðåéñêîé ÷àñòè Âèëüíþñà – “×åðíûé ãî- ðîä”.22 Õîòÿ íà ñàìîì äåëå íè â èñòî÷íèêàõ XIX â., íè â áîëåå ïîçäíèõ ýòî íàçâàíèå íå óïîìèíàåòñÿ, ÷òî ïîçâîëÿåò óñîìíèòüñÿ â åãî àóòåíòè÷íîñòè è ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîñòè. Ýòè îïèñàíèÿ “Ëèòîâñêîãî Èåðóñàëèìà” XIX â. ëèáî áûëè ñîâåðøåííî âûòåñíåíû ïîçäíåéøèìè ìîíîíàöèîíàëüíûìè èëè ôèëîñåìèòñêèìè íàððàòèâàìè (âåäü íîñòàëüãè÷åñêèé èäåàëüíûé ãîðîä íå ìîæåò ñîñóùåñòâîâàòü ñ íåãàòèâíûì îáðàçîì “×åðíîãî ãîðîäà”, ãäå íà ñòåíàõ çäàíèé âèäíû ñëåäû âûëèâàåìûõ íà óëèöó ïîìîåâ, à ïî óëèöàì íåâîçìîæíî íè ïðîåõàòü, íè ïðîéòè, ïîòîìó ÷òî îíè çàâàëåíû êó÷àìè ãíèëüÿ), ëèáî ïðèñóòñòâîâàëè â áîëåå ïîçäíåì íàððàòèâå â î÷åíü ñâîåîáðàçíîé ïåðåðàáîòêå. Ïðè ýòîì íàððàòèâû XIX âåêà áûëè äàëåêî íå îäíîçíà÷íû â ñâîåì îòíîøå- íèè ê ëèòîâñêèì åâðåÿì, è ýòà íåîäíîçíà÷íîñòü òîæå îêàçàëàñü ïîòåðÿííîé â ïîçäíåéøèõ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿõ. Íàïðèìåð, òîò æå Êðàøåâñêèé âïîëíå óâàæèòåëüíî îòçûâàëñÿ î ôèãóðå Âèëåíñêîãî Ãàîíà, êîòîðîãî íàçûâàë Ðàââèí Ýëèÿ è îøèáî÷íî ïîä÷åðêèâàë

19 J. I. Kraszewski. Ostatnia z xiàýiàt Sùuckich. Kronika z czasów Zygmunta trzeciego. Wilno, 1841. S. 29-30. 20 J. I. Kraševskis. Vilniaus prisiminimai 1830-1835 // Švyturys. 1989. Nr. 9. P. 26.; ýòî çàìå÷àþò: A. Juðkevièius, J. Maceika. Vilnius ir jo apylinkës. 3-å èçä. Vilnius, 1991. (1-å èçä. 1937 ã.). P. 72. 21 M. Baliñski. Opisanie statystyczne miasta Wilna. Wilno, 1835. S. 65. 22 A. H. Kirkoras. Pasivaikðèiojimai po Vilniø ir jo apylinkes. Vilnius, 1991. P. 75. 162 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ðîëü ýòîãî âåëèêîãî àâòîðèòåòà â ïðåêðàùåíèè ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ õàñèäîâ è îðòîäîêñîâ. Êðàøåâñêèé óêàçàë äàòó ñìåðòè Ãàîíà ñ òî÷- íîñòüþ äî äíÿ (28 ñåíòÿáðÿ 1797).23 Èìåííî îí âïåðâûå ðàññêàçàë íà ïîëüñêîì ÿçûêå ëåãåíäó î Ãåð Öåäåêå.24 Êèðêîð â ñâîåì ïóòå- âîäèòåëå ïåðåñêàçûâàåò ðîìàíòè÷åñêèé “åâðåéñêèé” ðàññêàç ïðî “Çàêîëäîâàííûé ïîäâàë”,25 ãëàâíûì ãåðîåì êîòîðîãî ÿâëÿåòñÿ âñå òîò æå ðàâ Ýëèÿ. Ýòè ñþæåòû ðàññêàçîâ Êðàøåâñêîãî è Êèðêîðà îêàçàëèñü ïðàêòè÷åñêè íåâîñòðåáîâàííûìè íè ñîâðåìåííèêàìè àâòîðîâ, èíòåðåñîâàâøèõñÿ åâðåéñêîé èñòîðèåé, íè ïîçäíåå, â ìåæ- âîåííîé Ëèòâå.  ýòîò ïåðèîä ôèãóðà Âèëåíñêîãî Ãàîíà ëèøàåòñÿ ñâîåãî ìèôîëîãè÷åñêîãî ôëåðà, è â ïóòåâîäèòåëÿõ îñòàþòñÿ ëèøü êðàòêèå óïîìèíàíèÿ òèïà: çäåñü ïîõîðîíåí “èçâåñòíûé âñåì åâðå- ÿì ó÷åíûé ðàââèí Ýëèÿãó Ãàîí” (â îïèñàíèè ñòàðîãî åâðåéñêîãî êëàäáèùà çà ðåêîé Íåðèñ).26 Àóãóñòèíàñ ßíóëàéòèñ,27 àâòîð ïåð- âîãî ìåæâîåííîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïî åâðåéñêîé èñòîðèè íà ëèòîâñ- êîì ÿçûêå, íå âèäåë óæå íè íèùåãî åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà, íè “Ëè- òîâñêîãî Èåðóñàëèìà”. Èñòîðèîãðàôû è àâòîðû ïóòåâîäèòåëåé ÕIÕ â. îòñåÿëè èç òåêñòîâ Êðàøåâñêîãî è Êèðêîðà “èçëèøíþþ” èíôîðìàöèþ, ïðî÷èòàâ èõ òåêñòû “ðåàëèñòè÷åñêè”. Îíè îòîáðà- ëè ëèøü îáðàçû ðåàëüíî âèäèìûõ óçêèõ ãðÿçíûõ óëî÷åê. Àâòîðû ïîïóëÿðíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé îá èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñóäüáå Âèëüíþñà è Ëèòâû (Â. Ãàéæóòèñ,28 A. Øàïîêà29 ), îïóáëèêîâàí- íûõ ïîñëå ïîëüñêîé îêêóïàöèè âî âðåìåííîé ñòîëèöå Êàóíàñå, óæå ñîâñåì íå óïîìèíàþò î ôåíîìåíå “Ëèòîâñêîãî Èåðóñàëèìà”. Ïîñëåäíèé ÿâëÿåòñÿ “ôèãóðîé óìîë÷àíèÿ” è â âåðñèè íàöèîíàëü- íîé ïàìÿòè, ñîçäàâàâøåéñÿ ëèòîâñêèìè íàöèîíàëèñòàìè, îáîñíî- âûâàþùèìè íåîáõîäèìîñòü âîçâðàùåíèÿ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñòîëèöû.30

23 J. I. Kraszewski. Wilno od poczàtków jego do roku 1750. Wilno, 1841. T. 3. S. 167-168. 24 Ibid. S. 173-181. 25 Ibid. 26 A. Juknevièius, J. Maceika. Op. cit. P. 196. 27 Ïîäðîáíåå îá ýòîì ñì.: A. Janulaitis. Žydai Lietuvoje. Bruoþai ið Lietuvos visuomenës istorijos XIV-XIX a. Kaunas, 1923. 28 V. Gaiþutis. Vilniaus reikðmë Lietuvai. Kaunas, 1923. 29 A. Ðapoka. Vilniaus reikðmë Lietuvai. Kaunas, 1924. 30 Èñêëþ÷åíèåì, çà íåêîòîðûìè îãîâîðêàìè, ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü îáçîð èñòîðèè Âèëüíþñà Ê. Áèíêèñà è Ï. Òàðóòèñà (Vilnius. 1323-1923. Istorijos apþvalgà paraðë K. Binkis ir P. Tarutis. Kaunas; Vilnius, 1923), ãäå îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó âèëåí÷àíàìè è åâðåéñêîé îáùèíîé îáñóæäàþòñÿ íà îñíîâå àíàëèçà Äîãîâîðà 1633. Îäíàêî ïåðåñêàç èñòî÷íèêà íèêàê íå âëèÿåò íà ôîðìèðîâàíèå îáðàçà åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà. 163 Þ. Ùÿó÷þíàéòå-Âåðáèöêåíå, Íàøà îáùàÿ êóëüòóðà... Îäèíîêàÿ ïîïûòêà åâðåÿ ïðîôåññîðà Íàõìàíà Øàïèðû, àâòîðà ðàáîòû “Âèëüíþñ â íîâîé åâðåéñêîé ïîýçèè” (Êàóíàñ, 1935), ñäåëàòü ýòó ïàìÿòü áîëåå èíêëþçèâíîé, ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå èìåëà íèêàêîãî ðåçîíàíñà, õîòÿ èçäàòåëü êíèãè Øàïèðû – Îáúåäèíåíèå ïî ñïàñå- íèþ Âèëüíþñà, ñðåäè ïðî÷èõ öåëåé ïóáëèêàöèè óêàçûâàëî íà íåîá- õîäèìîñòü îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå ÷èòàþùåé ïóáëèêè íà ñîâåðøåííî íåçíàêîìûé äëÿ íåå ôåíîìåí: “êðàñèâóþ è èñêðåííþþ ïîýçèþ íàøèõ åâðååâ”, è íà òîò ôàêò, ÷òî “êàê ëèòîâöû, òàê è åâðåè ëþáÿò Ëèòâó è åå ñòîëèöó”.31 Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ìåæâîåííàÿ Ëèòâà, íàðÿäó ñ òåíäåíöèåé ê íàöèîíàëèçàöèè èñòîðèè ïàìÿòè äåìîíñòðèðîâàëà è òåíäåíöèþ ê èíêîðïîðèðîâàíèþ åâðåéñêîãî ïðîøëîãî, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, â ïðî- ôåññèîíàëüíûé íàó÷íûé äèñêóðñ. Èíèöèàòèâû ïî ñîçäàíèþ â ìåæ- âîåííîì Êàóíàññêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå èìåíè Âèòîâòà Âåëèêîãî êà- ôåäðû ñåìèòîëîãèè, èäèøà è èäèøèñòñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû, à òàêæå èñòîðèè åâðåéñêîãî íàðîäà, à ïîçäíåå è êàôåäðû èäèøèñòñêîé ôèëîëîãèè â Âèëüíþññêîì Óíèâåðñèòåòå èëëþñòðèðóþò ýòó òåí- äåíöèþ. Åâðåéñêàÿ îáùèíà ñòðåìèëàñü ïîäíÿòü èóäàèêó äî óðîâ- íÿ óíèâåðñèòåòñêîé ó÷åáíîé è íàó÷íîé äèñöèïëèíû. È óíèâåðñè- òåòñêèå êîðïîðàöèè ïîääåðæàëè ýòó èíèöèàòèâó.32  ëèòîâñêîì îáùåñòâå ïîÿâèëàñü ïîòðåáíîñòü â ïðîôåññèîíàëü- íûõ çíàíèÿõ è â ñïåöèàëèñòàõ ïî åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðå. Ýòó íîâóþ ñèòóàöèþ îòìåòèë ðåêòîð Âèëüíþññêîãî Óíèâåðñèòåòà ïðîô. Ìèêîëàñ Áèðæèøêà (1940): Ìíîãî èíòåðåñíîãî è ïîëåçíîãî íàó÷íîãî ìàòåðèàëà åñòü â Åâðåéñêîì Íàó÷íîì èíñòèòóòå, êîòîðûé ÿâëÿåòñÿ íàó÷íûì öåíòðîì íå òîëüêî Ëèòâû, íî è âñåãî ìèðà. ß áû õîòåë, ÷òîáû íåêîòîðûå íàøè ñòóäåíòû íåìíîãî íàó÷èëèñü åâðåéñêîìó è îçíàêîìèëèñü ñ ýòèì ìàòåðèàëîì.33 Ïî ðàçíûì îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàì (íî íå èç-çà äèñêðèìèíàöèè åâðåé- ñêîé êóëüòóðû) ìíîãèå èíèöèàòèâû òàê è íå óäàëîñü îñóùåñòâèòü. Èñêëþ÷åíèåì ñòàëà êàôåäðà ñåìèòîëîãèè, äåéñòâîâàâøàÿ â Êàóíàñ- ñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå äî 1940 ã.  îïðåäåëåííîì ñìûñëå ìåæâîåííàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ ïîâòîðÿåòñÿ ñåãîäíÿ. Óíèâåðñèòåòû è íàó÷íûå ó÷ðåæäå-

31 N. Ðhapira. Vilnius naujojoj þydø poezijoj. Vilnius, 1935. Ïåðâàÿ íåíóìåðîâàííàÿ ñòðàíèöà. 32 Ïîäðîáíåå ñì.: I. Lempertas. Uþmirðta jidið puoselëtoja. Noacho Priluckio katedra Vilniaus Universitete // Kultûros barai. 2004. Nr. 2. Ðp. 81-84. 33 Ibid. P. 82. 164 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íèÿ Ëèòâû âíîâü íà÷èíàþò îñâîåíèå è èíñòèòóàëèçàöèþ åâðåéñ- êîé èñòîðèè ïàðàëëåëüíî ñ ðàçðàáîòêîé íîâîãî ëèòîâñêîãî íàöè- îíàëüíîãî íàððàòèâà. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ñåãîäíÿ ðå÷ü èäåò íå î âçàè- ìîäåéñòâèè ìåñòíûõ òðàäèöèé ïàìÿòè è èñòîðèîãðàôèè, à î “âû- ó÷èâàíèè” îáðàçîâ ïàìÿòè èçâíå è îá îñâîåíèè èñòîðèîãðàôèè, ñîçäàííîé, ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì, çà ïðåäåëàìè Ëèòâû. Èòàê, ñåãîäíÿøíèé åâðåéñêèé Âèëüíþñ – “âûó÷åííàÿ” ïàìÿòü ïî îòíîøåíèþ êî âñåé ïðåäøåñòâóþùåé òðàäèöèè åãî “âñïîìèíàíèÿ” (è òåì áîëåå – “çàáûâàíèÿ”). Ñòàíîâÿùèéñÿ ìàññîâûì äèñêóðñ “íàøåé îáùåé ïàìÿòè” âîîáùå íå èìåë ïðåöåäåíòîâ â ïðîøëîì. Êîììåìî- ðàòèâíûé íàððàòè⠓âûó÷åííîé” ïàìÿòè î åâðåéñêîì Âèëüíþñå îáðà- çóåò öåëûé ðÿä îòäåëüíûõ ñþæåòîâ: Âèëåíñêèé Ãàîí; àíòèõàñèäñêîå äâèæåíèå; îðòîäîêñàëüíîñòü; öåíòð ðåëèãèîçíîé è ñâåòñêîé åâðåéñêîé êóëüòóðû; íà÷àëî ñîâðåìåííîé èâðèòñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû è ïåðèîäèêè; êóëüòóðà è ÿçûê èäèø; èçäàòåëüñòâî “Âäîâû è áðàòüåâ Ðîìì”; öåíòð äåÿòåëüíîñòè ðîññèéñêèõ ñèîíèñòîâ; åâðåéñêîå Ïðîñâåùåíèå (Õàñ- êàëà); ìåñòî îñíîâàíèÿ ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî Áóíäà; áèáëèîòåêà Ì. Ñòðà- øóíà; èíñòèòóò ÈÂÎ è ò. ä. Ê ýòîìó æå ðÿäó ïðèíàäëåæàò ðàññêàçû î Ãåð Öåäåêå – ïðèíÿâøåì èóäàèçì ãðàôå Âàëåíòèíå Ïîòîöêîì, èëè âèëüíþññêîì ïðîòîòèïå äîêòîðà Àéáîëèòà Öåìàõå Øàáàäå. Ñèíòå- çèðóþùèì îáðàçîì “ïàìÿòè” çäåñü âûñòóïàåò åâðåé-ëèòâàê êàê íîñè- òåëü èäèøà è “åâðåé ñî çíàêîì êà÷åñòâà”. Èìåííî ýòîò ñîâîêóïíûé îáðàç, êîòîðûé ñîâðåìåííîå ëèòîâñêîå îáùåñòâî è íåíàìíîãî îïåðå- äèâøàÿ åãî èñòîðèîãðàôèÿ óñâîèëè â òå÷åíèå ïîñëåäíåãî äåñÿòèëåòèÿ, îëèöåòâîðÿåò åâðåéñêèé Âèëüíþñ â ìóëüòèêóëüòóðíîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå ãîðîäà. Õàðàêòåðíî, ÷òî íà ìàññîâîì óðîâíå (â ïåðèîäè÷åñêîé ïå÷à- òè) ýòîò îáðàç ðàñïðîñòðàíÿëè íå ñòîëüêî ìåñòíûå åâðåéñêèå àâòîðû, ñêîëüêî àâòîðû ëèòîâñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, òèðàæèðîâàâøèå “âûó- ÷åííûå” îáðàçû ïàìÿòè. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ñîáûòèÿ, èíèöèàòîðàìè ìåìîðèàëèçàöèè êîòîðûõ âûñòóïàëà åâðåéñêàÿ îáùèíà, ïîäõâàòû- âàëèñü ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè ëèòîâñêîé îáùåñòâåííîñòè è ñòàíîâèëèñü âàæíûì ôàêòîðîì ïåðåîñìûñëåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî Ëèòâû. Òàê, âî âðåìÿ òîðæåñòâåííîãî ïðàçäíîâàíèÿ äâóõñîòëåòèÿ ñî äíÿ ñìåðòè âèëåíñêîãî Ãàîíà Ýëèÿãó, èíèöèèðîâàííîãî åâðåéñêîé îáùèíîé, ëèòîâñêîå îáùåñòâî “îòêðûëî” äëÿ ñåáÿ ýòó ñòðàíèöó ñâîåé èñòîðèè.  ðåçóëüòàòå îñâîåíèÿ îãðîìíîãî ïîòîêà íîâîîáðåòåííîé èíôîð- ìàöèè ðîäèëàñü ôîðìóëà (àâòîðñòâî êîòîðîé òðóäíî óñòàíîâèòü), ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé Ëèòâà ìîæåò äîñòîéíî ïðåäñòàâëÿòü ñîáñòâåí- íóþ êóëüòóðó â êîíòåêñòå åâðîïåéñêîé èëè ìèðîâîé, ëèøü âêëþ- ÷èâ â íåå íàñëåäèå ëèòîâñêèõ åâðååâ.  èñòîðèîãðàôèè ýòà èäåÿ 165 Þ. Ùÿó÷þíàéòå-Âåðáèöêåíå, Íàøà îáùàÿ êóëüòóðà... ïðîïèñûâàåòñÿ êàê âêëþ÷åíèå íàñëåäèÿ ÂÊË è Âèëüíþñà â øèðî- êèå êîíòåêñòû ìèðîâîé êóëüòóðû.34 Âèëüíþñ ñòàë âîñïðèíèìàòü- ñÿ êàê îäèí èç ìèðîâûõ åâðåéñêèõ öåíòðîâ, íàðÿäó ñ Ëîíäîíîì, Àìñòåðäàìîì, Ëüâîâîì, Âàðøàâîé è ò.ä. Íàñêîëüêî óñïåøíûì ìîæåò áûòü ïðîåêò ñîçäàíèÿ “íàøåãî îáùåãî ïðîøëîãî” ïîñðåäñòâîì “âûó÷èâàíèÿ” ïàìÿòè? Ëèòîâñ- êèé îïûò ïîêà íå ïîçâîëÿåò äåëàòü îäíîçíà÷íûõ îöåíîê, à ñòàòè÷- íîñòü îáðàçîâ ïàìÿòè, øàáëîííàÿ ðèòîðèêà êîììåìîðàòèâíîãî íàððàòèâà, ðàçðûâ ìåæäó ìàññîâîé “âûó÷åííîé” âåðñèåé ïàìÿòè è èíäèâèäóàëüíîé ïàìÿòüþ ìåñòíûõ åâðååâ35 ïîðîæäàåò ñîìíåíèÿ â óñïåõå “ïðåäïðèÿòèÿ”. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ñ ïîëèòè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðå- íèÿ âêëþ÷åíèå îáðàçîâ åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíþñà â ëèòîâñêèé èñòî- ðè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ ÿâëÿåòñÿ, áåçóñëîâíî, ïîçèòèâíûì ôåíîìåíîì.

SUMMARY Today Lithuania’s Jewish heritage is considered an organic, important and renowned part of Lithuanian modern inclusive and “Europe-compatible” culture. The main framework for the return of Jewish memories today is provided by the paradigm of the “lost culture” and the recognition of the Holocaust. The article suggests another genealogy of reconciliation with the Lithuanian Jewish past, tracing tropes of memory about Lithuanian Jerusa- lem in writings of Lithuanian intellectuals of pre- and post-Holocost genera- tions. The author reconstructs the trajectory of “realistic” description, stig- matization, rejection, marginalization, etc. of the Litvaks’ presence and their culture. Then she examines the rediscovery of Lithuanian Jerusalem by Lithuanian post-war intellectual emigration, whose memory was heavily influenced by the world historiography and literature and devoid both of the original Lithuanian tradition of representing the Jewish past as well as of their actual experience in Lithuania. The author concludes that “our common past”, though politically useful and successful a project, still relies on tropes of memory and representation borrowed mostly from the West. The gap between the “acquired” popular memory of Lithuanian Jewish culture and individual Jewish and non-Jewish memories in Lithuania broadens.

34 A. Bumblauskas. Kaip galimos LDK paveldo dalybos? // Naujasis židinys. Aidai. 2003. Nr. 6. Ð. 332. 35 Âàæíî èìåòü â âèäó, ÷òî â ñîâåòñêîå âðåìÿ â Ëèòâó ïðèåõàëî ìíîãî åâðååâ èç ðàçíûõ ìåñò Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà, íå èìåâøèõ ïðÿìîé ñâÿçè ñ ëèòâàêñêèì íàñëåäèåì. 166 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Anna LIPPHARDT

POST-HOLOCAUST RECONSTRUCTION OF VILNE, “THE MOST YIDDISH CITY IN THE WORLD”, IN NEW YORK, ISRAEL AND VILNIUS

Introduction

This is the view from my old apartment in Vilnius where I lived as a student from 1993 to 1994. You can see a parking lot and a Soviet-style kindergarten with a dreary playground in front of it. My apartment building was situated on the crossroad of Vokieèiø-Þydø gatvë, in Polish the called Niemiecka- Zydowska, for its Jewish inhabitants the Daytsche gas and Yidishe gas1 – German Street and Jewish Street. I was vaguely aware that the city had been the home of a vibrant Jewish community before the war and concluded that I was probably living close to the former Jewish quarter. A few weeks after I moved in, I realized a memorial plaque on one of the buildings I passed every day on my way to university. It stated in Lithuanian and in Yiddish that this street, di yidishe gas, had been part of the Ghetto during German occupation. Later, I became aware of the fact that the kindergarten across the courtyard stood exactly where the famous Vilner Shtotshul, the Big

1 In transliterating Yiddish, I have generally followed the YIVO transliteration scheme; non-standard orthography has not been standardized. All translations are mine if not indicated otherwise. The city discussed in this article is referred to as Vilne or Vilnius interchangeably. 167 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne...

Synagogue, had been located, the center of the Shulhoyf which was the center of Litvak Orthodoxy. I lived in this townscape in the early 1990s, in the center of the Lithuanian capital, and was surrounded by an authentic, antique environment, filled as it was with baroque and renaissance architecture. At the same time, I lived in an imagined place, the site of past Jewish habitat, which had been known to the Jewish world as Vilne, its Yiddish name. Not only the Holocaust separated these two dimensions from each other, but also the almost complete denial of the city’s Jewish past and presence in public space in the 50 years after World War II. Even though I did not decide to write my dissertation on the Vilner Jews and their cultural work after the Holocaust until the year 2000, the view from my old apartment was the starting point for my project and has shaped my research paradigms: the fragmentation of spatiality/Räumlichkeit and the simultaneous, yet mostly separate existence of several Vilniuses, including a Jewish variation, Vilne. It was then that I started to get an idea

Fig. 1. In front of my house – the crossroads of Vokieèiø gatvë (German Street) and Þydø gatvë (Jewish Street), Vilnius, Fall 2003. of the fundamental ambivalence that members of the Vilne diaspora throughout the world hold for the Lithuanian capital today and came to understand that Jewish Vilnius is both present and it is not present at the same time. What is left of Vilne today is a rich and multifaceted memory, consisting of bits and pieces, and many dark or empty spaces. Survivors from Vilne 168 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 have lived within this post-Holocaust condition and reacted to it in many ways and on many different levels, both individually and collectively. The specific topography of their ex- periences offers valuable in- sights: – Into the history of Eastern European Jews after the Holo- caust, which has largely been under-researched to-date; – Into the theoretical discus- sion on collective memory that usually operates within nation- state paradigms of “the collective” using a normative perspective. Samuel Kassow has suggested, that there was no Jewish com- munity in interwar Europe that Fig. 2. Big Synagogue, 1930s. reflected on itself and the meaning of place as much as the commu- nity in Vilne, the Jerusalem of the Diaspora.2 The benefits of an analysis that takes a look on the Vilner discourses of place – before, during and after the Holocaust – transcend the boundaries of mere local Jewish historiography and can contribute to the general field of Diaspora Studies, to our under- standing of Jewish conceptions of place, to what I would like to call “Jewish local consciousness” in adaptation of Amos Funkenstein; and, last but not least, to our perception of Vilnius’ past and present as the home of a diverse, multi-ethnic population. In this paper, I want to cast a light on how survivors’ engaged with Vilne after the Holocaust and after they left the city. Vilnius was and is a beautiful place; at the same time, it was the site of German atrocities that killed 95 percent of the city’s Jewish citizens on the spot, in the middle of all the beauty. So what can be left of such a place? How do those who survived remember the city?

2 Samuel Kassow. “Interwar Vilna as a Jewish Civil Society“. Lecture at the Conference “Ir Vilna – The City of Vilnius”. 16. 09. 2003. History Department. Vilnius University, Vilnius (taped by author). Though it might be more correct to speak in this respect of an intellectual, cultural and political project of Yiddish or Yiddishist Vilna, because the Orthodox, Zionist, and Polish-speaking members of the community did not participate as actively in this discussion. 169 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne...

Beginning with a brief historical introduction to the city and centers where many of its Jewish citizens are concentrated in immigration, I will

Fig. 3. Architectural scheme. Destruction. present three “fragments” of Vilne – Leyzer Ran’s alternative city histori- ography in pictures, two city models that were built in the Ghetto and their use within exhibition frameworks, and the recent project to restore the Jewish quarter in the Vilnius old town – to show how this place has been “done” and remembered, re-enacted and memorialized among the Vilne’s Holocaust survivors now living in New York, Israel, and Vilnius proper.

Jewish Vilne before, during and after the Holocaust: Some historical and topographical coordinates

Jews have been at home in Vilnius since the Middle Ages. The city was a multiethnic commercial center and home to a vibrant Jewish community, which counted more than 60,000 inhabitants immediately after World War I. This amounted not to a mere minority, but to about one-third of the entire population of the city, which also included Poles, Russians, Belarusians, 170 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others.3 Politically and culturally Vilne was one of the most active and differentiated Jewish communities in Eastern Europe, while at the same time the social distance between its members was the smallest.4 Vilne, the “Jerusalem of Lithuania” as it was proudly called, was spared major pogroms and expulsions and figured as the center both of Litvak Orthodoxy and the Haskole (Yid.; Haskalah – Hebr.), the Jewish Enlightenment in Eastern Europe. It was also nicknamed the “capital of Yiddishland” and provided a wide range of secular, yet inherently Jewish life-styles. The Jews of Vilne were multi-lingual, speaking Yiddish, Hebrew, Russian and Polish.5 To-date, there exists no comprehensive histoire croisée of the city’s various ethnic groups – Poles, Jews, Russians, Lithuanians, Belorussians, etc.6 Interethnic contact

3 In 1931 statistical data gave a total of 195.000 inhabitants, of whom 128.600 spoke Polish, 54.600 Yiddish and/or Hebrew, 7.400 Russian, and the rest Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Belarusian, and other languages. Henri Minczeles. Vilna, Wilno, Vilnius. La Jérusalem de Lituanie. Paris, 1993. P. 148. Since the Polish authorities were interested in stressing the Polishness of the city, one has to treat these numbers cautiously. The true number of Poles was probably less and the number of Russians and Lithuanians was probably greater. 4 Arcadius Kahan. Vilna. The Sociocultural Anatomy of a Jewish Community in Interwar Poland // A. Kahan. Essays in Jewish Social and Economic History. Chicago, 1986. P. 156. 5 See the analysis of the polyphone character of Polish Jewry in Chone Shmeruk. Hebrew- Yiddish-Polish. A Trilingual Jewish Culture // Israel Gutman et al. (Eds.). The Jews of Poland Between Two World Wars. Waltham 1989. Pp. 285-311. The linguistic orientation of Vilne Jewish community differed from communities in Central Poland, the area that Shmeruk deals with in his book. Because the city belonged to Tsarist Russia up until World War I, Russian played an important role in public life, especially for the Jewish intelligentsia. After the city became part of the Polish Republic, Russian continued to be the most important cultural language for many members of the Jewish middle and upper class, though now only on an informal level. Starting with World War I, Yiddish, which had always been the language of everyday life for Vilnius’ Jews, became more important as an educational, cultural and academic language. The institutional culmination of this development was marked by the foundation of YIVO, the Yiddisher Visnshaftlekher Institut in 1925. Concerning the status of Yiddish in politics as well as the sociolinguistic framework of YIVO, which was located in Vilnius, see: Cecile Kuznitz. The Origins of Yiddish Scholarship and the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research / Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University, 2000. 6 However, several promising projects are under way: Anna Veronika Wendland. Kulturelle, nationale und urbane Identitäten in Wilna (1918-1939). Ansätze und Fragestellungen auf dem Weg zu einer integrierten Stadtgeschichte // Marina Dimitrieva, Heidemarie Petersen (Eds.). Jüdische Kultur(en) im Neuen Europa. Wilna 1918-1939. Wiesbaden, 2004. Pp. 13-33. Mindaugas Kvietkauskas from Vilnius University is working on a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature focusing on literary expressionism in Vilnius and the interplay of the local Polish, Yiddish, Russian, Lithuanian and other literatures. Ted Weeks of the History Department of the University of Illinois, Urbana/Champagne has began a large-scale project of a multiethnic histoire croisée of the city. 171 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... was evident throughout everyday life, both on a neighborly as on a bureau- cratic, economic, and political level. This could be seen in the market place, at movie theaters, in concert halls etc. The Jewish quarter with its many religious and social institutions was located in the center of the city, next to the main business street and the most important markets. In 1633, the Jewish community had been granted the privi- lege to settle the area of three adjacent streets – Jotkever, Glezer and Yidishe gas, which was not under the jurisdic- tion of the municipality, allowing for more efficient protection from attacks.7 The orders that all Christian inhabi- tants should leave the area within 15 years and that all Jews living outside the area should instead resettle in its confines, which were to be enclosed with gates, were never enforced. 8 As a consequence, Jews settled all over the city, though it was a long time before the so-called “ghetto” was officially abandoned under the Russian Fig. 3. Ruins of the Shulhoyf. administration in 1861.9 For most of its history, the Jewish quarter has been a prosperous business area, nick- named “di goldene tsigln” (“The Golden Tiles”), but the aggravated political situation and economic decline in Tsarist Russia, especially disruptions of the socioeconomic order brought on by WWI10 contributed to its demise.

7 Israel Cohen. Vilna. Philadelphia, 1943. P. 30. 8 Ibid. P. 91-92. 9 Ibid. P. 487. On the status of the Jewish quarters in Poland, which were neither de jure nor de facto closed ghettos like the ones in Italy, see comp. Feliks Tych. Ghettos in Polen // Jüdisches Museum der Stadt Wien. Wiener Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte, Kultur und Museumswesen 2001. Wien, Bozen, 2001. Pp. 69-76. Tych speaks in the Polish context of a “Quasighetto-Situation”. P. 70. 10 A detailed sociographical study on the Jewish quarter after WWI is provided by Gabriel Haus. Der Vilner geto baym hayntikn tog // YIVO Archives. Vilnius Archive – Aspirantur. RG 1, 3. Folder 3976. His analysis is based on extensive fieldwork, including participant observation, interviews, housing surveys, etc. 172 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 After the 1880s, thousands of Jews left Vilnius, mostly immigrating to the United States.11 Other destinations included South-Africa, Argentina and to a less- er extent, Palestine and France. Poverty was a constant feature in interwar Vilnius and caused many more to emigrate. At the same time, the interwar period witnessed the blossoming of Yiddish and Hebrew culture and educa- tion and are therefore often portrayed as the “golden years” of Jewish Vilne.12 After the German attack on Poland in September 1939, Vilnius’ Jewish community swelled with 15.000 Jewish refugees.13 The Wehrmacht did not occupy the city itself until the summer 1941, after the German attack on the Soviet Union. Soon two Ghettos were established on the territory of the former Jewish quarter and completely sealed off. The small Ghetto, in which the Germans and their local collaborators initially concentrated the elderly and sick as well as children, was quickly “dissolved.” Between July 11, 1941 and the end of August 1941, 35.000 Jews were deported to Ponar, a forest and popular picnic area on the outskirts of Vilnius, where they were executed. Around 12.000 Jews with so-called “Arbeitsscheinen” [work permits] remained in the big Ghetto, which encompassed seven streets.

11 In New York, the Vilners established 31 landsmanshaftn until the 1930s, ranging from orthodox synagogue congregations to mutual aid societies and leftist fraternities, see Ephim Yeshurin. Di geshikhte fun di Vilner organisatsyes in Amerike // Arbeter Ring (Ed.). Vilne. A Zamlbukh gevidmet der shtot Vilne. New York, 1935. Pp. 899-911; Isaac Rontch (Ed.). The Jewish Landsmanschaften in New York / Prep. by the Yiddish Writers’ group of the Federal Writers Project. Pub. by the I. L. Peretz Writers’ Union. New York, 1938; American Jewish Year Book. Philadelphia, 1907-1908; 1919-1920; The Jewish Communal Register of New York, 1917-1918. 2nd ed. New York, 1918; Oscar Israelowitz. The Synagogues of New York. History of a Jewish Community. New York, 2000; JGSNY Database at www.jgsny.org. Last time consulted 12 November, 2004. 12 For a detailed discussion of the interplay between cultural and socio-economic factors in the interwar period see Kahan. Vilna. The Sociocultural Anatomy; and Cecile E. Kuznitz. On the Jewish street. Yiddish Culture and Urban Landscape in Interwar Vilna // Leonard J. Greenspoon (Ed.). Yiddish Language & Culture, Then & Now. Omaha, 1998. Pp. 65-92. 13 As a consequence of the Hitler-Stalin agreement Vilnius belonged now to (Soviet) Lithuania and seemed safe for Jews. Yitzhak Arad estimates that at the moment of the German invasion there were 60.000 Jews in the city, including the refugees from Poland, while several thousand local Jews had been deported or evacuated by the Soviets into Russia or had managed to flee across the border; Y. Arad. Ghetto in Flames. The Struggle and Destruction of the Jews in Vilnius in the Holocaust. New York, 1982. P. 28. Suzkever, however, estimated that 80.000 Jews were in the city at that moment. A. Suzkewer. Das Ghetto von Wilna // Wassili Grossman, Ilja Ehrenburg (Eds.). Arno Lustiger (Ed. of the German ed.). Das Schwarzbuch. Der Genozid an den sowjetischen Juden. Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1995. P. 457. 173 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... Hunger, diseases, violence, isolation, fundamental insecurity and death made up everyday life for those imprisoned in the Ghetto. It was finally “liqui- dated” in September 1943; those strong enough to work were deported to the Klooga concentration camp, to Kaiserwald concentration camp, and others. The majority, however, were also executed in Ponar. At the end of the war, 95% of Vilnius’ Jewish population had been murdered. Yeruhsa- layim de Lita became the Jerusalem of the Ghettos and finally Vilnyus-bay- Ponar, Vilnius-next-to-Ponar, or keyver-shtot Ponar, Ponar, city of graves.14 After liberation in 1944, the losses caused by the Holocaust and the war lead to major population shifts that the city ever witnessed. Following the repatriation agreement between the Soviet Union and Poland, thousands of former Polish citizens left Vilnius – the vast majority of them ethnic Poles who had represented the city’s largest population group until then, but also surviving Jews who until 1941 had represented the second biggest population group. In turn, ethnic Lithuanians from all over the country moved in, soon constituting the absolute majority. The illegal Jewish exodus had started immediately after liberation in the summer of 1944 with the Brichah. The next stop for most was £odz, where the Union of the Vilner Jews in Poland [Farband fun Vilner Yidn in Poyln] was founded in 1946. From there, the journey continued through the displaced person camps in Germany, Austria, and Italy to receiving countries around the world where they finally settled. The survivors who reached New York did not merge into the already existing Vilner Landsmanshaftn. Three specific milieus evolved: the cultural organization Nusach Vilne, which had a Yiddishist agenda and which exists to this very day; the Friends of Vilnius for the Russian-speaking middle to upper class, which disbanded in the early 1970s; and, last but not least, YIVO, the Yidisher Vishnshaftlekher Institut or Institute for Jewish Research, which had been transferred from Vilnius to New York already in 1940. In Israel, the Union of Jews from Vilnius and its Vicinity [Irgun Yotsei Vilnah ve-haSvivah] was founded with sub-committees in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and focused mainly on providing aid to new immigrants and on memorial work. Attempts to re-establish a Jewish community in Vilnius was stopped short by Soviet authorities in 1948-1949.15 The Chorshul Synagogue was

14 The most comprehensive study on the Vilnius Ghetto is by Yizhak Arad. Ghetto in Flames. Many of my interview partners have recommended this book explicitly, arguing – in a rare case of common agreement – that “it has been exactly as Arad describes it.” 15 Sh. Kaczerginsky. Tsvishn hamer un serp. Tsu der geshikhte fun der likvidatsye fun der yiddisher kultur in Sovyet-rusland. Aroysg. fun a grupe fun fraynd fun Vilne. Paris, 1949. 174 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 the only Jewish institution officially allowed to operate until the Perestroika in the mid-1980s. Nevertheless, there was a strong Jewish presence in the city. Thousands of Jews came from all over Lithuania and other Soviet republics to live in Vilnius in a Jewish environment that was at least informally less violently persecuted than in the rest of the Soviet Union. Culturally there was little continuity. Those who knew the city and its Jewish dimensions before the Holocaust constituted only a small fraction of the new Jewish community. The cultural leaders from the pre-war and the Ghetto period had left soon after liberation. Jewish intellectuals in Soviet Vilnius went into inner exile.

FRAGMENT 1. “YERUSHALAYIM DE LITA, ILUSTRIRT UN DOKUMENTIRT” The lead article in the first newsletter of Nusach Vilne had the title “Ponar fun yidishn zeykher,” which can be roughly translated as “the total destruction of Jewish memory.”16 It was written by Leyzer Ran, a Yiddish journalist, community activist, and YIVO researcher who in his essay attacked Soviet discrimination and the further destruction of Jewish cultural life in Vilnius after the Holocaust. After criticizing political measures taken against the Jewish community by the local authorities, he turns to his main concern, the era- sure of Jewish sites, structures, and architecture from the townscape and its elimination from the local and architectural historiography produced by Soviet-Lithuanian literature, press, and academia.17 The picture book Vilnius, published in 1955 by the State Department of Architecture in Lithuanian and Russian,18 especially infuriated Ran: A Soviet album about the most Yiddish city in the world, which through many centuries acquired the name of the Yiddish

16 Leyzer Ran. Ponar fun Yidishn zeykher // Nusakh Vilne Buletin. 1956. No. 1. Pp. 3-9; see also his essay: Der Sovyetisher epilog (Ponar fun yidishn zeykher) // L. Ran. Ash fun Yeruahalayim de Lita. New York, 1959. Pp. 345-362. 17 The Soviets’ anti-Jewish policies met here with strong anti-Jewish attitudes, partly intertwined with Lithuanian nationalism among local population; for further details on this complex interplay see: Alfonsas Eidintas. Jews, Lithuanians and the Holocaust. Vilnius, 2003 and the relevant publications of Dov Levin. Disinformation and Antisemitism. Holocaust Denial in the Baltic States, 1945-1999 // John K. Roth, Elisabeth Maxwell (Eds.). Remembering for the Future. The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Vol. I. Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2001. Pp. 847-857. 18 J. Grigiene, A. Berman (Eds.). Vilnius. Achitektûra iki XX amþiaus pradžios. Vilnius, 1955. 2nd ed. 1958. 175 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... Jerusalem, does not show in its 194 photographs a single picture with a caption that would indicate that there once lived such a species as the Jews.19 For Ran this lead to what would become his life’s work, the three-volume picture album Yerushalayim de Lita, ilustrirt un dokumentirt, a “counter publication” opposing Soviet historiographers of the city in an attempt to present to the world the manifold Jewish dimensions of the city.20 Today hailed as a landmark of Jewish photography,20 the picture book appeared only in 1974 due to finan- cial reasons and severe controversies among the editorial committee. It was planned simultaneously as an in-group and as an out-group project. Vilner landslayt were encouraged to sub- scribe in advance to copies to be given to their children and grandchildren as their cultural heritage. They were also asked to sponsor a copy for a non- Jewish institution in order to correct the one-sided picture gained from Soviet publications. The book finally appeared with an accompanying text Fig. 5. Title page of Nusach Vilne Buletin in Yiddish, Hebrew, English and 1 Sept. 1956. Russian. The book has since become an indispensable source for anybody doing research on Jewish Vilnius before the war and is a much desired object among Judaica bibliophiles. The long history of its production and the analysis of the image of Jewish Vilnius that it finally constructed is a subject for an article in its own right. In the context of this article, I want to focus on the discursive framework from which it emerged. The many yizker books of destroyed Jewish communities in Eastern Europe published after the war were usually initiated by the general desire to memorialize the dead. They were imbued with a strong notion of nostalgia

19 Leyzer Ran. Ponar fun Yidishn zeykher. P. 6. 20 Leyzer Ran (Ed.). Yershalayim de Lita, ilustrirt un dokumentirt. 3 vols. New York, 1974. 21 Encyclopedia Judaica, entry on “Photography”. 176 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 and functioned for the survivors as “virtual cemeteries.”22 The book Yerush- alayim deLita, however, was the product of an ongoing, complex fight over city space and participation in its discursive construction. It was considered (and marketed) by its initiators as an act of on-going resistance. To quote from Ran’s closing lines, “Lomir ale entfern [un abonirn dem albom] azoy shnel un azoy shtark, der entfer zol derhert vern umetum, vu men vil im nisht hern – un zol a klop ton undzer trot: MIR ZAYNEN DO!” (“Let us all answer [and subscribe to a copy of the album] so fast and so powerful, that the answer will be heard everywhere, where they do not want to hear it – the earth shall tremble at our step, we are here.”)23 This refrain, adapted from the famous partisan hymn “Zog nit keynmol, az du geyst dem letstn veg,” which was written in the Vilnius Ghetto in a reac- tion to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising24 , has a powerful resonance to this day throughout the Jewish world and especially among the Vilner landslayt. Besides the call for survival, we hear the specific sense of doikeyt, of “here- ness,” which had been promoted as a political program and Weltanschauung by leftist, Yiddishist milieus in the interwar-period. During the war, this turned into a culture of resistance. The motive of doikeyt also echoes in the strongly historical and local consciousness of Jewish Vilnius before the war. Apart from the many local legends and extensive lyrical praise for a beloved hometown, there was a substantial local historiography, which also held an important position in the curricula of the secular Yiddish schools. It was pursued by cultural organizations like the Ansky Society, the Landkentenish- Bavegung and, more than by any other organization, by YIVO. These institu- tions provided Vilnius’ Jews, especially the younger generation, with the cul- tural techniques that would later enable them to memorialize their destroyed hometown in a unique manner. Leyzer Ran was a man of great persistence and far-reaching memory. On the last page of his album, he reconnected to his initial appeal originally made 18 years earlier by depicting Soviet Lithuanian publications on Vilnius’ architecture and history under the title Der sovyetisher Ponar fun yidishn

22 Jack Kugelmass, Jonathan Boyarin. Introduction // J. Kugelmass, J. Boyarin (Eds.). From A Ruined Garden. The Memorial Books of Polish Jewry. New York, 1983. Pp. 1-19; for a discussion of the distinction between yizker biker and zamlbikher see: Anne Lipphardt. Vilne, Vilne unzer heymshtot… Imagining Jewish Vilna in New York. The Zamlbukh Project of Vilner Branch 367 Arbeter Ring / Workmen’s Circle // Dimitrieva, Petersen. (Eds.) Jüdische Kultur(en) im Neuen Europa. Pp. 86-88. 23 Leyzer Ran. Ponar fun yidish zeykher. P. 8. 24 Nachman Mayzel. Hirsh Glik un zayn lid “Zog nisht keynmol.” New York, 1949. Pp. 13-14. 177 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... zeykher in Vilnyus.25 When he died in 1995, the obituary his family placed in the Yiddish forward read, “Leyzer Ran, researcher and author of works on Vilnius, his beloved hometown, especially his monumental work Yerusha- layim de Lita, ilustrirt un dokumentirt.

FRAGMENT 2. DER PLASTISHER PLAN While the album project was under way, other members of Nusach Vilne tried to initiate a permanent exhibition on their hometown in New York. On the occasion of its 30th anniversary in 1955, they proposed to YIVO an initiative to mobilize their “bnei-ir” for a “Vilnius room, a living memorial, to our unforgettable hometown, a living symbol of Hemshekh Nusach Vilne, the continuation of the Vilnius tradition on American soil.”26 YIVO reacted reluctantly to this proposal and a permanent room was not established. Nusach Vilne did not give up the project, however, and by the end of the 1960s they finally found a reliable partner in The Ghetto Fighters’ House in Israel, which was planning to extend its Holocaust exhibition with a “Vilne Room.”27 The initial idea came from Izthak “Antek” Zuckerman, one of the founders of the Kibbutz, who originally came from Vilnius and had been among the leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.28 Benjamin Anolik, who was also from Vilnius and had survived the Ghetto and the Estonian camps, was then the head of the educational center and became the project manager and mediator between various groups and individuals involved in the project. “Vilne Memorial Committees” were set up in Israel and New York in 1966, which were initially concerned with raising money. Soon after, an intense transatlantic debate on the form and content of the exhibition began.29 The correspondence indicates that it was soon decided that the central object should be a replica of the three-dimensional city model, “der plastisher

25 Leyzer Ran. Yeruahalayim de Lita. Vol. II. P. 540. 26 Letter from Nusach Vilne to the YIVO administration, 15.1.1955 // YIVO Archives. RG 1400. Bund Archive- Nusach Vilne Collection (further referred to as Bund-NV). Folder 7. 27 See initial letter from the Ghetto Fighters’ House to Nusach Vilne, May 2, 1966, repr. in Nusach Vilne Buletin. 1968-1969. No. 10 and supplemented by the Vilna Memorial Committee. Proyekt tsu fareybikn dem ondenk fun Vilne. P. 64. 28 Conversation with Benjamin Anolik, Ghetto Fighters House, 23. 3. 2004. 29 I have traced the discussion, which had continued from 1966 to 1973, according to the correspondence and protocols from the meetings found in the YIVO Archives. Bund-NV. Folders 11 and 16. 178 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 plan,” that Vilnius’ Ghetto inmates had manufactured for the German Gebietskommissar (regional commissar) in 1942.30 This model was far more than a simple architectural scheme. We know from Gabriel Sedlis, who participated as a young man in the original construction, that it was initiated by Müller, Gebietskommissar Hingst’s deputy, and by Jacob Gens, the head of the Judenrat (Jewish Council). As a reward, the Germans promised to release a group of Jews who were imprisoned in Lukiskis with their families for stealing food. If the model was finished on time, these people would not be taken to Ponar.31 Jewish engineers and artists under the guidance of architects Smorgonski and Flora Rom put all their effort in to modeling their hometown as accurately and in as much detail as possible. The project, with a planned size of 20 m², pro- vided them with a work permit and also kept them from being killed in Ponar. Furthermore they were able to leave the Ghetto in order to measure the streets and buildings, allowing them to acquire food and get in contact with the non-Jewish resistance.32 Besides these vital side effects, the plastisher plan had an important emotional and spiritual dimension. The project team stayed on after official work hours to carefully shape and paint the small buildings. The Ghetto population was thrilled by it. Herman Kruk, the famous librarian and chro- nologist of the Ghetto, delivered a lecture with the title “Why scale models and why exactly these scale models?”33 Parts of it were displayed in one of the Ghetto’s art exhibitions and many people came to the workshop to take a look. Before the first six plates – showing the city’s most inhabited quarters Zwierzyniec, Œnipizki, Mickiewicz Street, Antokol, Zarecze, Wielka Street, the ghetto area, Rosa and the New World34 – were handed over to the Gebiets- kommissar, the Ghetto held a reception in honor of it.

30 Letter [presumably by Chaim Pupko] to Benjamin Anolik. April 5, 1967 // YIVO Archives. Bund-NV. Folder 16; letter by Benjamin Anolik to Chaim Pupko. May 26,1970; Letter by Ch. Pupko to B. Anolik. June 26, 1970; Letter by B. Anolik to Ch. Pupko. July 30, 1970 // YIVO Archives. Bund-NV. Folder 11. 31 Gabriel Sedlis, Renata Gorczyñska. Jestem z Wilna [Interview] // Renata Gorczyñska. Jestem z Wilna i inne adresy. Krakow, 2003. Pp. 17-18. 32 Mark Dvorshedsky. Yerushalayim de Lita in kamf un umkum. Paris, 1947. P. 176; Gabriel Sedlis. Op. Cit. states that it was constructed of 40 plaster panels each with a size of 50 cm to 80 cm. 33 Herman Kruk. The Last Days of Jerusalem of Lithuania. Chronicles from the Vilnius Ghetto and the Camps, 1939-1944. New Haven, London, 2002. P. 449. 34 Ibid. P. 436. 179 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne...

Fifteen-year-old Yitshok Rudashevsky wrote in his diary: The Ghetto schools today went to look at a part of the bas-relief map of the city of Vilnius, which is being produced in the Ghetto as a gift for the Gebietskommissar. [...] On a table under a reflector there lies before us the center of the city of Vilnius. (…) (E)very house, every little street is marked there… Everything is beautifully colored, worked out in an exceptionally beautiful manner. The children press forward to look at the map and of course, each one looks for his house, his little street from which he came to the Ghetto. Eng. Gukhman explains to us: the Vilie, the Green Bridge, Shnipishok, and there is the Cathedral. The children look hungrily at the beautiful hilly little streets around the Vilie and the Vilenke from which they have been expelled. The bas-relief map of Vilnius is certainly a great work of art of which we may be proud because it could not have been created outside of the Ghetto. So much effort and patience was invested in the work as only a Jew can have at the present time. Since it is our work we can be certain that we shall see the beautiful Vilnius streets not only on the map but in reality.35 Yitzhak Rudashevsky was murdered in the fall of 1943, but the city model survived the war. I quoted this passage at length because it gives us an idea of the powerful feelings of belonging, collective pride, and indi- vidual hope projected onto a technical object, an architectural plaster model. It also shows the perversity of the Ghetto because only Jews fearing for their lives would invest so much effort in and pay so much attention to such a project.36

* * * Some of the people who had worked on the model in Vilnius eventually settled in Israel and wanted to re-construct it for the exhibition at the Ghetto

35 Y. Rudashevsky. The Diary of the Vilnius Ghetto, June 1941-April 1943. Tel Aviv, 1979. 2nd ed., Pp. 108-109. Entry December 20, 1942. 36 Already at the time, there had been more critical voices. Kruk wrote in his diary: “At 11 this morning, in the theater auditorium, the six plates of the Vilna map were shown for the first time.[ ] Engineer Gukhman says that he does not agree with the idea [that the ghetto is impotent, that nothing the ghetto achieves can be perfect – it is diseased]; a proof of that is the achievement of the map So, the map proved that the ghetto is perfect!” H. Kruk. The Last Days. Pp. 436-437. 180 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Fighter House.37 But there were no photographs of it or other visual materials. Several survivors had seen the model after the war in the Jewish museum before it was closed down in 1948. Rumors said it was now stored in the base- ment of the municipal water department in Vilnius, but because Israeli- Soviet relations were not overly friendly in the late 1960s, it was considered best that a landsman from New York should look into the issue of the model during a “family visit” to Vilnius. He conveniently had a friend working for the municipal water department and this friend promised to secretly take pictures of the model so that the photographs could then travel back to New York and from there to Israel.38 Neither the correspondence of Nusach Vilne with Israeli partners nor the interviews I conducted in New York, Vilnius, and Israel provided evidence that this plan was actually carried out. The above pic- ture is of the replica that was finally manufactured in Israel. Its produc- tion was accompa- nied by intense dis- cussion of the ques- tion about which Jewish sites should be mentioned in the legend and the sup- plementary printed city map. The mem- bers of Nusach Fig. 6. Postcard of the model in Bet Lohamei Vilne in New York HaGetaot. had heard that only the Ghetto would be outlined on the map. Full of indig- nation, they protested – a city as culturally rich as Vilnius with such a long

37 On March 2, 1971, a consultative meeting on the model of Vilnius took place at the Ghetto Fighters’ House. Cultural activists from Vilnius were invited, most of them survivors of the Ghetto: Rabbi Kelman Farber, Leybl Sheftel, a teacher, Dr. Marc Dvorshetski, a historian, Flora Rom, architect, Leybl Kurisky, a printer and former youth activist, Chaim Kopelavitsh, chairman of the Irgud Yotse Vilnah, poet Avram Suzkever, Sarah Volozshin, Avraham Broydes, Sima Rinsundsky et al. Letter by B. Anolik to Ch. Pupko [not dated] // YIVO Archives. Bund-NV. Folder 11. 38 Letter from B. Anolik to Ch. Pupko, September 7, 1967 // YIVO Archives. Bund-NV. Folder 16. 181 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... Jewish history could not be reduced to the Ghetto,39 which as such had indeed existed only in the Middle Ages and under the Nazis. The organizing committee in Israel finally asked all Vilnius-based organizations in Israel and in New York involved in the reconstruction project to send in lists of insti- tutions and organizations that they deemed important enough to be detailed on the replica. Based on these lists, a compromise was to be reached.40 Anolik, who always tried to settle differences among the groups, asked the New Yorkers finally to prepare the section on Yiddish institutions, especially on the Yiddish school system.41 The exhibition was finished without further quarrels and became quite a success. Visitors from New York gave enthusiastic reports when they returned home after participating in the opening ceremony on September 3, 1972, the twenty-ninth anniversary of the liquidation of the Vilnius Ghetto according to the Jewish calendar.42

* * * In the summer of 2003, I was determined to find the “plastisher Plan,” the original city model. Filmmaker Mira Van Doren saw it in the early 1990s in the Jewish Museum in Vilnius but was not allowed to take pictures of it for her documentary on Jewish Vilnius. After working my way through the complex administrative structure, Rosa Bielauskiëne, the head of the preservation department, finally told me that shortly after its foundation the Jewish Museum received the model from the Museum of Architecture in 1990, while tracing Jewish objects in Lithuanian collections. She took me to the storage area and pointed to a couple of wooden boxes that were stacked in a corner. After removing from the top some 300 dusty Russian and Yiddish books that someone had left to the museum, she opened the first box and found the following picture.

39 Basye Pupko complained to Anolik that there was no general picture of Vilne – after all, not all the streets looked like the streets of the so-called ghetto area: “Farvos zet men nit, vi Vilne hot oysgezen? Nit ale gasn hobn oysgezen vi Gleser gas oder Yotkever gas.” Basye Pupko to B. Anolik, March 26, 1973 // YIVO Archives. Bund-NV. Folder 11. 40 B. Anolik to the Vilner Memorial Committee in NYC [not dated]: “ [Mir] betn bay aykh a reshime fun ale yidishe kulturele un gezelshaftlekhe institutsiyes, un klor az nisht nor di nemen, nor oykh di adresn. Mir hobn aza resime bashtelt ba etlekhe Vilner un veln afn yasud fun ot dem material bashtimen vos darf in der maket fartseykhnt vern. Shikt she di reshime vos gikher un kargt nit keyn mi – zi darf zayn zeyr oysfirlekh.” YIVO Archives. Bund Archive. RG 1400. Nusach Vilne Collection. Folder 16. 41 Benjamin Anolik to Basye Pupko, 26. May 1970 // YIVO Archives. Bund-NV. Folder 11. 42 See: Nusach Vilne Buletin. 1973. No. 11. Supplement: Vilner tsimer (Olam-Vilne) in Kibuts Lohamei HaGetaot, Yisroyl. Especially Bayse Pupko’s report: Mir forn tsu der derefenung fun Vilne-zal in Bet Lohamei Ha Getaot in Yisroyl // Ibid. Pp. 7-9. 182 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 This image shows the main boulevard, formerly Mickiewicza, today called Gediminas Prospektas, connecting the Cathedral with the affluent Zwierzyniec neighborhood. To the right is the current location of the Sei-

Fig. 7. City model, Totalaufnahme. mas, the Lithuanian Parliament, which was shielded by demonstrators against Red Army tanks during the struggle for independence in 1991. The other plates of the modeled city look similar. The townscape was meticulously designed and is very recognizable, though most of the tiny buildings fell off from the plaster foundation and were crumpled up in corners of their respective boxes. The center piece was not among the plates received from the Museum of Architecture and is presumably lost. It showed the University area, the Jewish quarter with the shul-hoyf and the newer residential area around Great Pohulanka, which figured as the center of modern Jewish Vilnius with its many progressive Jewish institutions, such as the Yiddishe Folks- bank, HIAS, several Jewish sports clubs, and the YIVO.43 This was the former

43 Cecile Kuznitz. On the Jewish Street. Pp. 76-77. 183 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... heart of Jewish Vilnius, which during was turned into a Ghetto during the Nazi period and had disappeared, leaving a void in the model. For those living in Lithuania’s capital today who are intent on remembering Jewish, this object has little value. The agenda is filled with other, more urgent projects and the incomplete model is not considered important enough to be restored in the near future nor is there an initiative to search for the missing central piece.44

* * * For a long time I was convinced that the replica standing in the Ghetto Fighters’ House was based on the city model produced for the Gebietskom- missar in 1942. Only when I compared my photographs of the Vilnius model with pictures of the replica in Israel did I realize that they obviously differ significantly from each other in scope, outline, and style. The replica in Is- rael was based on the second model pro- duced illegally in the Ghetto, that showed only the Ghetto and nothing beyond. It bears the Jewish stamp of the Ghetto, the date 1943, and also survived the war. The origins of this second model and its fate after the Fig. 8. Bild Museum Katcherginsky war are not men- tioned in diaries or memoirs that survived the Ghetto, though there are some contemporary photographs of it. There is also no discussion about an alternative second model in the correspondence between memorial committees in New York and Israel. It is thus not clear – and, of course, it might never be – at which point the two models merged within the collective memory of the survi-

44 Oral conversation with Rosa Bielauskiëne, head of the Conservation Department of the Vilnius Gaon Jewish State Museum, September 24, 2003. 184 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 vors.45 But it is certainly the introspective Ghetto model, and not the city model – the violently reduced and isolated version of Jewish Vilnius, not the full-fledged and integrated version that symbolized citizenship, hope, and good memories – that took over and dominated the three-dimensional, spatial representation of this community in the aftermath of the Holocaust. The Ghetto model, standing for the distinctiveness of the Jews as well as for their exclusion and persecution, was exhibited. The city-model that had been so important to Ghetto inmates precisely because it did not show them the Ghetto, but the rest of the city from which they had been expelled, was stored away and forgotten. An alternative interpretation could stress that the illegal Ghetto model was produced autonomously by Jews for Jews,46 while the city model had some ambivalence, being ordered by and produced for the Germans - some critics even said “in collaboration” with the enemy.

*** When I visited Israel in the spring of 2004, I went to see the Vilne Room at the Ghetto Fighters’ House, which is situated right next to the Museum’s

45 Basye Pupkos complaints from a letter to Benjamin Anolik from Feb. 2, 1972 illustrate the complex arguments, technical issues and the ongoing trans-Atlantic confusion concerning the graphical and geographical representation of Jewish Vilnius: “Itst a por verter vegn der mape: es iz tsum lakhn! Es hot zikh ongehoybn fun a makete, vos ir aleyn, liber Binyomin, hot fargeleygt af yener, azoy vayter baratung, ven mir hobn gefregt bay aykh vos far a zakh iz meglekh tsu ton tsu faraybikn Vilne, un ir hot fargeshlogn etlekhe plener. Zaynen avek yoren, un letstns … hot men farzikhert, az es vet zayn a groyse mape vos vet beser dermonen Vilne, vi a maket. Itst kumt shoyn nit a groyse mape, nor a klenere un nit mit elektishe lemplekh. Ikh hob moyre, az fun dem alem zol nit aroyskumen ‚dem armens faynkukhn.’ Ober fun der ander zayt, bin ikh genaygt tsu zayn an optimistke, un ikh hof az der inyen fun grafisher un geografisher representirung, vet nisht durkhmakhn keyn shum metamorfoses, vos kenen … gebn a farkripeltn bagrif vegn Yerushalayim de Lita.” [Now some words on the map: one could laugh about it! It started with a three-dimensional model, which you, dear Benjamin, suggested at a meeting a long time ago when we asked you what could possibly eternalize Vilnius and you suggested several plans. Years have gone by, and lately… one has affirmed that a big map will better suit the eternalization of Vilnius than a three-dimensional model. Now it’s not even about a big map, but about a small one, without electrical bulbs. I am afraid that the outcome from all this will be of minor value. But from the other side, I tend to be an optimist and I hope that the issue of graphical and geographical representation will not undergo any changes that would … give a crippled idea of Yerushalajim de Lita.”] // YIVO Archives. Bund-NV. Folder 11. 46 One suggestion is that the second model, which also shows the canalization, might have served the partisans during the strategic planning of street fighting against the Germans. 185 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... entrance. The visitor is welcomed by photographs from the pre-war period and an enlarged version of Leiser Ran’s Yiddish city map,47 spotted by little, now unfortunately defunct electrical bulbs in yellow, red, and green to mark various Jewish institutions. Next to it, an arrangement of Israeli street names with a reference to Vilnius is on display.48 This is as far as the spatial representation of the city goes in this Vilnius exhibition, which ends before the German occupation during the first Soviet period in 1940. Where was the three-dimensional model? I finally found it in the general exhibition on Ghettos and concentration camps on the second floor. In the museum’s narrative it is thus not part of the Jewish Vilnius exhibition, but rather belongs to the world of the Holocaust.

Fig. 9. Vilnius Ghetto model. Exhibition on Ghettos and concentration camps. There is no written explanation given and neither street names nor the location of important institutions are marked. Instead one can see the marks of the time – that is, the marks of the many visitors who have handled the model and discovered it with their hands. At the moment, a fundamental re-design of the entire museum and its exhibitions is being undertaken and it is not clear yet if and where the Vilnius Ghetto model will find its place and how the Vilne Room will be integrated. Benjamin Anolik, who still works every day in the educational department, did not remember the controversies surrounding the model as they are docu- mented in the archive of Nusach Vilne in New York. According to him,

47 Map in-lay from Leyzer Ran (Ed.). Yerushalayim de Lita. Vol 1. Op. Cit. 48 Bayse Pupko noted that these Israeli street signs were the main attraction among the young Sabras visiting the Vilnius exhibition, “probably, because they discovered that the names of their streets are rooted in a city far away, about which many of them had maybe no idea.” See B. Pupko. Op. Cit. P. 9. 186 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 the model was from the very beginning designed for the Ghetto exhibition and never for the Vilne room. The model was, according to him, carried out shortly after the war by the painter Yisroel Shar, a Vilnius survivor who knew the original Ghetto model. When he emigrated from Vilnius, he took it apart and distributed it among his friends and family members who brought his replica to Israel piece-by-piece, where he finally donated it to the Ghetto Fighters’ House.49

* * * Back in New York, Nusach Vilna finally managed to establish a permanent Vilnius exhibition of its own in 2002. It is located in YIVO’s administrative offices, accessible only by appointment with the secretary, and consists of pictures from Ran’s book and memorial plaques.

Fig. 10. Vilna exhibition at YIVO, 1. Shlosbarg view.

There has been a long process of negotiation over where the exhibition should be housed. Its initiators, most of them pensioners over 70, were

49 See entry for the Ghetto model in the Ghetto Fighters’ Houses’ internal database on museum and archival holdings. 187 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... determined to finally memorialize their hometown for future generations, when the plans for the building of a new Center of Jewish History became public. On the one side, YIVO management was mainly concerned with a stable financial plan for the new Center and counted on the strong support though donations from landsmanshaftn and individuals, while Nusach Vilne’s budget is small compared to that of other Jewish organizations.50 As a result, the memory of the “most Yiddish city in the world,” YIVO’s place of birth, has literally been put aside within the walls of their office. Under these circumstances, possibilities for capturing the memory of the city in a more prominent fashion, in a more expanding, e.g. in a three-dimensional manner, never came close to fruition.

* * * Various city models of Vilnius, constructed during and after the war, carry a high symbolical value for survivors and the forms given to these models, the ways that their environments display or disclose them, bear symbolical meaning, too. In what respect is this complex and ambivalent experience of place trans- mitted to the next generation? To those who have never been to Soviet Vilnius, not to speak of Jewish Vilne? Or to those who live in Vilnius today but have barely heard anything about the city’s Jewish past? Can these models convey something about the past? Their origins are only vaguely documented and their history is not explained even when they are on display. To a viewer who has never heard about their origins, they merely illustrate the story of Jewish Vilnius and function as nice, yet run-down embellish- ments, and not as powerful embodiments of history. With the end of the Cold War, Eastern European Jewish geography has changed fundamentally. Vilnius has become a place where one can travel. After the Holocaust and the end of World War II, Vilius was turned in Western eyes into a mystic, inaccessible place that had to be evoked mainly through the stories of survivors – family narratives, memoirs, private photographs and paintings, Leyser Ran’s picture book, the fiction of Chaim Grade and Avrom Karpinowicz, the poetry of Abraham Suzkever, by pre-war publica- tions, and the post-war historiography about the city. Since Lithuania became independent in 1991, many survivors have come to visit as individual

50 Conversation with Professor Allan Nadler, former director of YIVO, who was involved in the early planning of the Center for Jewish History and the negotiations with Nusach Vilne; New York, May 22, 2003. 188 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 and in groups, often accompanied by their children or grandchildren. They visit the places of their childhoods, the former Ghetto, and Ponar. What the younger generation has heard or read about these places is suddenly made three-dimensional, enclosing and sometimes overwhelming them. Their mental mapping of the city is a very individual process, usually closely linked to their parents’ stories. The buildings of Vilnius’ Old Town cast long shadows on these stories and the miniature houses captured in the city models disappear. There has been a second important change, tipping the balance of people and place in the remembrance of Jewish Vilne: as the city re-entered Jewish geography, the last of those who remember Jewish Vilne began to depart from this world.

FRAGMENT 3. DEVELOPING A JEWISH TOPOGRAPHY FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM The Old Town of Vilnius was included in the UNESCO list of World Heritage in 1994 and the municipality initiated an ambitious preservation plan. One of its elements is the so-called “Restoration Program of Historical Jewish Ghetto Fragments of Vilnius.” It is intended to restore three fragments of the former Jewish quarter, including the Great Synagogue at the corner of Vokieèiø and Þydø Streets. The official project description aims “to foster the multi-cultural heritage of Vilnius, to renew the Old Town, and to restore its urban spaces. While restoring fragments of Jewish blocks, one of the main goals will be to reveal the image of Vilnius as a city tolerant and open to different cultures.“51 There is, however, another set of important categories to the process of negotiating a suitable Jewish Vilnius for the 21st century: “real-estate”, “urban development”, “investment”, “tourism”, and “consump- tion.” The declared aim of the municipality and the director of the Jewish museum, the main initiators of the project, is to re-create the Jewish Ghetto as a tourist attraction following the successful examples of Kazimierz in Krakow and “Jewish Prague.”52 This highly controversial project represents another state of “cultural” or “collective memory.” With the majority of survivors, the Erfahrungsge-

51 http://www.vilnius.lt/new/en/vadovybe.php?open=4&root=2&sub_cat1=146&id=125. Last consulted on January 11, 2005. 52 For a critical evaluation of “Jewish” tourist attractions that have emerged in Central and Eastern Europe since 1989, see: Ruth Ellen Gruber. Virtually Jewish. Reinventing Jewish Culture in Europe. Berkeley, 2002. 189 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... meinschaft, no longer among us, the important actors in the drama changed. The Jewish Vilnius that will be excavated, restored, and rebuilt in the city center is being negotiated and designed by architectural experts, municipal institutions, local and foreign investors, and one small Jewish interest group, while the Jewish community, representing the vast majority of the city’s Jewish population, has been excluded from this process. The new Jewish Vilnius will be reconstructed for Jewish and non-Jewish tourists from abroad and much less for the local population, the city’s Jewish community, or for the Jews from Vilnius. The Great Synagogue, for example, will most probably never fulfill its original religious mission because there is already a problem in filling the minyan at the regular synagogue, the Chorshul. According to the master plan, a Jewish restaurant, general businesses, and a memorial room for the shul-hoyf will be located in the Great Synagogue. According to the vision of the city planners, the new Jewish Ghetto of Vilnius will serve as the most powerful lieu de mémoire for local inhabitants and tourists who have no access to alternative dimensions of Jewish Vilnius via family narratives, the variegated Yiddish, Hebrew, and Polish literature and historiography (of which little has been translated into Lithuanian so far). Reconstructing the space dimension of memory, physical lieu de mémoire means the creation of simple, straightforward meaning – the creation of a stable, unequivocal, and definite structure. This implies the negotiation of “authenticity” as well as the unification of perspectives and exclusion of those deemed too controversial or too contradictory to the narrative of those in power. It also means to set an end to or at least to reduce the fundamental ambivalence since Jewish Vilnius will “be there” and “not there” at the same time. Taking a closer look a the level of symbolic language, we notice a fun- damental contradiction between the title and the political aims of the project. The “Restoration of Fragments of the Historical Jewish Ghetto in Vilnius” refers not to the open Jewish Quarter, which had for centuries been an integral part of the city, but to the medieval Ghetto and to the Ghetto that was estab- lished by the Nazis and patrolled by their local collaborators. These two periods in the city’s history are, however, to say the least, not exactly the best examples of the majority of the population’s tolerance and open- mindedness towards other local cultures. This one-sided focus on the Ghetto fosters a key epistemological problem. If we only pay so much attention to the Ghetto and neglect other concepts of Jewish historical space, we will then repeatedly see only the Ghetto and not the vast possibilities beyond it. We will keep on running into Ghetto 190 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 clichés and learn little about the reality of the people who lived in the Jewish quarter and the many Jews who successfully made their homes in other parts of the city. Writing about the Jewish Levant, Ammiel Alcalay has pointed at “the necessity of mapping out a space in which the Jew was native, not a stranger, but an absolute inhabitant of time and place.”53 This necessity exists for other past and present Jewish homelands, too. Thus, I want to suggest that the histories of the Jews in Vilnius/Wilno/Vilne be told not only as a “Ghetto history,” not only as a history of exile, isolation and persecution, but also as a Heimatsgeschichte, as a Jewish history of being at home in Vilnius, as the history of the Other home and of its denial. Vilnius/ Wilno/Vilne and Eastern Europe was – and is – a difficult home for Jews, a place Jews struggled with, fought for, and deemed worth fighting for. Yet, if we don’t know to what degree this was really home, we cannot estimate what would have been possible, what has been lost, and what needs to be protected for the entire city and all of its citizens.

SUMMARY

Âèëüíà äîâîåííîãî ïåðèîäà ñåãîäíÿ ñóùåñòâóåò â ðàçëè÷íûõ èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ è ãðóïïîâûõ âåðñèÿõ ïàìÿòè. Âûæèâøèå ïðåä- ñòàâèòåëè åâðåéñêîé îáùèíû äîâîåííîé Âèëüíû òàêæå ÿâëÿþòñÿ íîñèòåëÿìè ýòîé ïàìÿòè. Èìåííî èõ âåðñèè ïðîøëîãî, à òî÷íåå – èõ “äèñêóðñû ìåñòà” íàõîäÿòñÿ â öåíòðå âíèìàíèÿ íàñòîÿùåé ñòàòüè, ìàòåðèàëû êîòîðîé ñîáèðàëèñü ñðåäè îáùèí è îðãàíèçàöèé áûâøèõ âèëåíöåâ â Íüþ-Éîðêå, Èçðàèëå è ñîáñòâåííî â Âèëüíþñå. Ðå÷ü â ñòàòüå èäåò, ïðåæäå âñåãî, î ãèïñîâîì ìàêåòå “ãåòòî”, êîòî- ðûé áûë èçãîòîâëåí â 1942 ã. åâðåéñêèìè ìàñòåðàìè ïî ïðèêàçó íåìåöêîãî Îêðóæíîãî êîìèññàðà (Gebietskommissar). Ýòî áûëà ìîäåëü ãîðîäà, â êîòîðîì åâðåéñêèå óëèöû ÿâëÿëèñü ÷àñòüþ áîëü- øîãî Âèëüíî. Ñóùåñòâîâàëà è âòîðàÿ ìîäåëü, íåëåãàëüíî èçãîòîâ- ëåííàÿ â ãåòòî äëÿ ãåòòî è èçîáðàæàâøàÿ ëèøü ýòó èñêóññòâåííî

53 Ammiel Alcalay. Between Jews and Arabs. Remaking Levantine Culture. Minneapolis, London, 1993. P. 1. 191 A. Lipphardt, Post-Holocaust Reconstruction of Vilne... ñîçäàííóþ íåìåöêèìè îêêóïàíòàìè åâðåéñêóþ òåððèòîðèþ. Ïîñëå âîéíû ìîäåëè ãåòòî âîñïðîèçâîäèëèñü â ðàçëè÷íûõ òåêñòàõ ïàìÿòè, à òàêæå â ìóçåéíûõ ýêñïîçèöèÿõ â Èçðàèëå, äåìîíñòðèðóÿ “ìåòà- ìîðôîçû ïàìÿòè” è âîîáðàæàåìóþ ãåîãðàôèþ ìåñòà ëþäåé, ïåðå- æèâøèõ Õîëîêîñò è èõ ïîòîìêîâ. Òàê, èçðàèëüñêèé ìàêåò, âèäè- ìî, âîñïðîèçâîäèë îðèãèíàëüíóþ âåðñèþ ¹ 2, èçîáðàæàÿ ãåòòî âíå ãîðîäñêîãî îêðóæåíèÿ è òåì ñàìûì “ãåòòîèçèðóÿ” âñþ èñòî- ðèþ åâðåéñêîãî ïðèñóòñòâèÿ â Âèëüíî. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, òîò ôàêò, ÷òî â íûíåøíèõ äèñêóññèÿõ î ðåêîíñòðóêöèè åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíî îðèãèíàëüíàÿ ìîäåëü “ãåòòî â ãîðîäå” îêàçûâàåòñÿ íèêîìó íå íóæíîé, õàðàêòåðèçóåò ñèòóàöèþ, êîãäà åâðåéñêîå ïðèñóòñòâèå êîíñòðóèðóåòñÿ â îòñóòñòâèè æèâûõ íîñèòåëåé ïàìÿòè î íåì è â óãîäó íûíåøíèì ïîëèòè÷åñêèì òåíäåíöèÿì.

192 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Yohanan PETROVSKY-SHTERN

“THE DEAD JEWS:” A REFLECTION ON TWO MODELS OF USEABLE PAST

The suggested East European models of a useable past refer to two arti- facts crafted in the Vilna ghetto. As Anna Lipphardt argues in her thought- provoking article, Jews designed two replicas of Nazi occupied Vilna: one for internal consumption, and one for the Nazi town authorities. The first, commissioned by the city Gebietskomissar, modeled Vilna as a late 1930s – early 1940s urban space with the Jewish ghetto area embedded in it. To be politically correct, Anna Lipphardt sketched only too briefly this replica stored in the dark distant corner of the Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum. Yet her keen insight, plus additional outside evidence, helps to figure out what it looked like. Most probably this replica exhibited St. Ann Church and the Gediminas Tower; the old Jewish quarter and the city center; the Hebrew and Yiddish Jewish schools; local yeshivas and the Vilna cathedral; the house where the Jewish community greeted Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) in the early 1900s and the local University, the former center of Polish resistance to the Russian authorities; the buildings of the YIVO institute and the Strashun library; the Jewish cemetery and the Old Syna- gogue for centuries controlled by the Vilna kahal that Nicolas I dissolved in 1844; the prayer house whose services used to attend Elija ben Solomon (1720-1797), dubbed Gaon, the genius, the staunch opponent of Hasidism 193 Y. Petrovsky-Shtern, “The Dead Jews” and one of the greatest 18th century rabbinic authorities; the Musar study house established by Israel Salanter (1810-1883), the founder of the ethical trend in Judaism; the Vilna Rabbinic institute that the tsarist authorities established to produce Crown Rabbis, governmental puppets in Jewish communities; the Mefitsei Haskalah School based on the principles of the Jewish Enlightenment; the Bloch hosiery factory famous for its 1900s women strike; the Opera Theater, the site of Vilna student demonstrations; the German Street with its fashionable Jewish stores, and, indeed, the ghetto, the last haven of the local Jewish population.1 But there was also the second replica. It portrayed the ghetto as a city on its own. Vilna ghetto Jews designed it for themselves, pursuing both spiritual and pragmatic goals: to memorialize what they soundly considered the last dwelling of Vilna Jews, to better control the ghetto social network, and perhaps to plan with its help an efficient military resistance. This second replica exhibited residential buildings transformed into communal shelters;

1 The literature on Vilna Jewish community is vast. On the legacy of the Vilna Jews, see Vidmantë Jasukaitytë. Subaèiaus gatvë. Getas. Eilërašèiai. Vilnius, 2003; Henri Minczeles. Vilna, Wilno, Vilnius. La Jérusalem de Lithuanie. Paris, 2000; Israel Cohen. Vilna. Philadelphia, 1992; Israel Klausner. Toldot ha-kehilah ha-ivrit be-Vilna. 2 vols. Vilna, 1938 and richly illustrated Leyzer Ran. Yerusholaim de-Lita. 3 vols. New York, 1974; on Vilna Jewish writers and printing presses, see Musia Landau. Mit shraybers, bikher un mit… Vilne. Tel-Aviv, 2003 and Susanne Marten-Finnis. Sprachinseln. Jiddishe Publizistik in London, Wilna und Berlin, 1880-1930. Köln, 1999; on Eliyahu ha-Gaon, see a comprehensive monograph by Immanuel Etkes. The Gaon of Vilna. The Man and His Image. Berkeley, 2002 and a catalog of a commemorating exhibition, Aderet Eliyahu. Ha-Gaon mi-Vilna. Tel-Aviv, 1998; on the activities of the YIVO institute in Vilna, see Itzik Gottesman. Defining Yiddish Nation. The Jewish Folklorists of Poland. Detroit, 2003 and Esfir Bramson. YIVO in Wilna. Zur Geschichte des Jüdischen Wissenschaftlichen Instituts. Leipzig, 1997; for the discussion of modern Jewish identities in Vilna, see Yulian Rafes. Doctor Tsemakh Shabad. A Great Citizen of the Jewish Diaspora. Baltimor, 1999; for one of many personal narratives on pre-war Vilna, see Hirsz Abramowicz. Profiles of a Lost World. Detroit, 1999; on Jewish identity of the former Vilna dwellers, see Esther Rudomin Hautzig. Remember Who You Are. Stories About Being Jewish. Philadelphia, 1999; on Jewish sites in modern Vilnius, see Genrikh Agranovskii. Litovskii Ierusalim. Kratkii putevoditel po pamiatnym mestam. Vilnius, 1992; on popular Jewish legends from Vilna, see Joseph Prouser. Noble Soul. The Life and Legend of the Vilna ger Tsedek Count Walentin Potocki. Piscataway, 2005 and Abraham Karpinowitz. Di geshikhte fun Vilner ger tsedek Graf Valentin Pototski. Tel- Aviv, 1990. For the multiethnic and multi-lingual conference materials, see Mokslinës konferencijos “Lietuvos þydu ðvietimas ir kultûra iki Katastrofos’ medþiaga.” Vilnius, 1991. Among dissertations on Vilna Jewish culture, see, for example, Joshua Levisohn. The early Vilna Haskalah and the Search for a Modern Jewish Identity / Ph.D. diss.; Harvard University, 1999. 194 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 the Judenrat, the ghetto umbrella organization established by the Nazis in a former Jewish gymnasium and headed by the contradictory Yakov Gens (1905-1943); the public soup kitchen on Straszun Street 2, where Abba Kovner (1918-1987) discussed plans for the uprising with Ha-Shomer ha-Tsair youth; the Children’s House of Culture; the famous ghetto library that circulated more than one hundred thousand books under the Nazi occupation; the old building of the ghetto theater on Rudnicka and the new on Konska Street; the Swawelska Street communal kitchen where the Asso- ciation of Writers and Artists organized public lectures for ghetto Jews; some Jewish prayer houses and the 17th century synagogue from where people were taken directly to mass executions; narrow ghetto streets leading northward from the Big Ghetto to the Little Ghetto, whose inhabitants were liquidated in the Ponary in 1941; and the guarded gates to the ghetto routinely closed after curfew.2 While the Nazis, commissioning the first model, had in mind ways to circumscribe and control the ghetto within the Vilna urban environment, ironically they made Jews produce a replica that spoke many languages and embraced many ethnicities. Potentially, Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, and Jews could identify with it. On the contrary, designed for internal consumption, the second replica had hardly anything to do with what came to be known as Yerushalaim de-Lita, Lithuanian Jerusalem, Vilna lofty

2 On various aspects of the Vilna ghetto history and culture see, for example, Rachilë Kostanian. Spiritual Resistance in the Vilna Ghetto. Vilnius, 2002; Abba Kovner. Igeret la-shomrim ha-partisanim. Tel-Aviv, 2002; Herman Kruk. The Last Days of the Jerusalem of Lithuania. Chronicles From the Vilna Ghetto and the Camps, 1939-1944. New Haven, 2002; Maða Rolnikaitë. Ikh muz dertseyln/Ich muss erzählen. Berlin, 2002, also available in Russian, Idem. I vse eto pravda. St. Peterburg, 2002; Grigorijus Šuras. Evrei v Vilno. Khronika 1941-1944 gg. St. Peterburg, 2000; Dina Abramowicz. Guardians of a Tragic Heritage. Reminiscences and Observations of an Eyewitness. New York, 1999; Vilna Ghetto Posters. Jewish Spiritual Resistance. Vilnius, 1999; Noah Shneidman. Jerusalem of Lithuania. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Vilnius. A Personal Perspective. Oakville, 1998; Yulian Rafes. The Way We Were Before our Destruction. Lives of Jewish Students From Vilna Who Perished During the Holocaust. Baltimore, 1997; David Fishman. Embers Plucked From the Fire. The Rescue of Jewish Cultural Treasures in Vilna. New York, 1996; Irina Guzenberg. Vilniaus getas. Kaliniø sàraðai. Vilnius, 1996; Zhanna Ran-Charnyi. Neveroiatnaia pravda. Vilnius, 1993; Florian Freund, Franz Ruttner (Hg.). Ess firt kejn weg zurik. Geschichte und Lieder des Ghettos von Wilna 1941-1943. Wien, 1992; Solomonas Atamukas. Yidn in Lite. Vilne, 1990; Szmerke Kaczerginski. Diario de un guerillero. Buenos Aires, 1989; Joseph Rudavsky. To Live With Hope, to Die With Dignity. Lanham, 1987; Chaim Lazar Litai. Destruction and Resistance. New York, 1985. 195 Y. Petrovsky-Shtern, “The Dead Jews” moniker. Although its streets were recognizably Vilna streets and its inhabitants Yiddish-speaking Lithuanian Jews, the boundaries of the ghetto coincided with the boundaries of the replica, as if there was nothing outside of it. The replica offered a vision only of the Jewish habitat between 1941 and 1943, no more and no less. While the first model epitomized five centuries of Jewish presence in Vilna, the second obliterated any traces of this presence, reducing it solely to World War II. The first replica seemed to be all- embracing: it emphasized the diversity of local Jewish culture with its Jewish orthodoxy and schism, yeshivah movement and Jewish socialism, Hasidim and maskilim (harbingers of Jewish enlightenment), Zionist hopes and economic modernization, institutions of Jewish cultural integration and manifestations of Jewish-Gentile economic symbiosis. On the contrary, the second replica underscored homogeneity and a slow sliding into death. The first epitomized Jewish life in the Diaspora whereas the second, the anni- hilation of the Diaspora. The first firmly placed Jews on the map of Vilna, whereas the second created a distinct Jewish realm that seemed to bear its Lithuanian and Polish street names merely due to some strange coincidence or vexing misunderstanding. The first replica embodied what the Bundists dubbed doikeit (“here-ness”): “We are still here! You have not made the city Judenrein!” The second, taking Lithuania into consideration, painstakingly elaborated the opposite version: “We do not belong here.” The first portrayed Vilna: the urban context that simultaneously enveloped, permeated, and shaped each and every manifestation of the local Jewish presence. The second entirely removed the Gentiles: like the crown towns in the old Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth that boasted the privilege De non tolerandi Judaeos (“To not tolerate the Jews”), the second replica of the Jewish ghetto exemplified a world that finally obtained the macabre privilege De non tolerandi Goyim (“To not tolerate the Gentiles”). In post-Holocaust East Europe both replicas merged with two influential models shaping modern approaches to Jewish history. For the purpose of pure convenience one might call the first model “integrated” and the second “ghettoized.”3 As appears from Jurgita Ðiauèiûnaitë-Verbickienë’s essay,

3 While Holocaust-centered narrative on Vilna Jewry following the “ghettoized” model occupies a domineering role among the publications on the Lithuanian Jewry, recent Western scholarship elaborating the “integrated” model has considerably expanded our vision of Vilna as a multi-cultural environment. In addition to the studies on Vilna amassed in note 1, there exist a significant amount of research that integrated Vilna Jewry within a broader framework of European history. On Vilna Jews reaction to the anti-Jewish persecutions during the 1648 Cossack revolution in Ukraine, see Joel Raba. Between 196 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 in post-1989 Lithuania the integrated model was considered unattractive, and was doomed to negligence and oblivion as if its mere existence was an affront to the inhabitants and scholars of the post-war, and much more so to post-communist Vilnius. To put it on display was to acknowledge the pivotal role of Jews, Jewish culture, and Jewish economy for the pre-war city. And such acknowledgment would necessarily trigger public discussion of the Jewish impact on the rise of the local urban infrastructure. Why under- score the predominantly non-Lithuanian character of the pre-20th century Vilna that would become Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital city? Paradoxically, as the reader of Verbickienë’s article might want to believe, what was a norm for Soviet Lithuania that sheltered and published such Jewish writers as Icchokas (Itshak) Meras and Grigorii Kanovich, in the post-communist Lithuania became non-acceptable. As if for post-1989 Lithuanians to raise the issue of an integrated and complex multi-culturalism was obnoxious and could generate a discussion of Jewish communal, let alone private prop- erty restitution. Who would want to mention the Jewish role in informing

Rememberance and Denial. The Fate of the Jews in the Wars of the Polish Commonwealth During the Mid-Seventeenth Century as Shown in Contemporary Writings and Historical Research. New York, 1995; on the seventeenth-century Vilna Jewish guilds, see Mark Wischnitzer. A History of Jewish Crafts and Guilds. New York, 1965; on Vilna kahal, see Shmuel Arthur Cygelman. Jewish Autonomy in Poland and Lithuania until 1648. Jerusalem, 1997 and Eli Lederhendler. The Road to Modern Jewish Politics. New York, 1989; on Vilna Gaon and early Russian maskilim, see David Fishman. Russia’s First Modern Jews. The Jews of Shklov. New York, 1995; on Vilna impact on the development of the nineteenth-century yeshivah movement, see Shaul Stampfer. Ha-yeshivah ha-litait. Jerusalem, 1995; on Vilna years of Israel Salanter, see Emmanuel Etkes. Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement. Seeking the Torah of Truth. Philadelphia, 1993; on the Vilna years of Yehuda Leib Gordon, one of the most preeminent Russian maskilim, see first chapters of Michael Stanislawski. For Whom Do I Toil? Judah Leib Gordon and the Crisis of Russian Jewry. New York, 1988; on Vilna as the center of Jewish cultural activities, see John Klier. Imperial Russia’s Jewish Question, 1855-1881. New York, 1995; on the rabbinic institute in Vilna as the center for modern Jewish dissent, see Eric Haberer. Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Cambridge, 1995; on inter-war Vilna Jewry, see Szyja Bronstein. Polish-Jewish Relations as Reflected in Memoirs of the Inter-War Period // POLIN. 1994. No. 8. Pp. 66-88; on Vilna Jews under Soviet control, see Dov Levin. The Jews of Vilna under Soviet Rule, 19 September – 28 October 1939 // POLIN. 1996. No. 9. Pp. 107-137; on Vilna as the headquarters of the Jewish socialists groups, see Alina Ca³a. Jewish Socialists in the Kingdom of Poland // POLIN. 1996. No. 9. Pp. 3-13; Moshe Mishkinsky. Reshit tenuat ha-poalim be-rusia. Tel-Aviv, 1981, Henry Tobias. The Jewish Bund in Russia From its Origins to 1905. Stanford, 1972, and Ezra Mendelsohn. Class Struggle in The Pale. the Formative Years of the Workers’ Movement in Tsarist Russia. Cambridge, 1970. 197 Y. Petrovsky-Shtern, “The Dead Jews” the urban space of that neat, pristine, and almost overwhelmingly Catholic Lithuanian city? And why on earth would Lithuanians want to share with local Jewish survivors their independent urban space finally re-constructed and imagined as thoroughly Lithuanian? Apparently Verbickienë argues, or at least implies that East-European post-colonial memory constructed what they call in Ukrainian historiography a “state” concept (M. Hrushevs’kyi) of the national past: the Lithuanian state in its modern version was always there, and only Russia or Poland prevented it from being visible as such. The integrated model presented Jews as active social and cultural performers playing a significant role in shaping the Lithuanian historical narrative. In this model, Jews as a narrative on their own were rewriting themselves, changing both genre and style, and interacting with a variety of other narratives such as Russian or Polish. They were anything but a stable text. They were “becoming” and not “being.” And national narratives, especially those recently emancipated from the imposed communist meta-text, resisted the newly established form of the past. “Useable” implied first and foremost something that one knows how to handle or manipulate. The Russian term for “useable” should be not only “ïðèåìëåìîå” (acceptable) and “ïîëåçíîå” (useful) but also “óïðàâëÿåìîå ïðîøëîå” (manageable past). East Europeans were ready to handle the Jewish ingredient of their national narrative solely as an ossified issue. They could deal with Jews as a canonical “text,” easy to manipulate and control. They sought a “useable” past that would not be “changeable.” But this was not what the integrated model was about. First and foremost, it presupposed a shared national memory, if not a shared national property. While the Czech Republic, Hungary, and grudgingly Poland were ready to share, the post-Soviet republics were not. Therefore, the restitution of Jewish real estate after the collapse of communism, this paradoxical yet unequivocal litmus test for the readiness of a post-communist nation to create a multi-ethnic vision of itself, nowhere in Europe has gone as slowly as in Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine.4 As follows from Anna Liphardt’s article, the “inte- grated” replica of Vilna was not compatible with an egotistic attitude toward national memory and patrimony. Hence the dramatic posthumous fate of the “integrated” replica of the Vilna Jewish community. It called to mind the Jews who were still there, still alive, and who aggressively demanded their share in the national memory. It referred to a slippery present and

4 Private conversations with Israel Singer and Naftali Lavi from The World Jewish Congress in Jerusalem and New York in 1995-1999. 198 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 an unstable past. And for Jews it represented Jewish ubiquity on pre-1940s Vilna map: too pretentious, politically incorrect and dangerous idea to enter- tain. Therefore, it was hidden from the eyes of visitors as if it never existed. This was a peculiar way to construct a useable past, not entirely illogical. At the same time the ghettoized model came to play an almost un- challenged role in East European writings about Jews (I do not take into consideration the latest western publications). There appeared synthetic over- views of Jewish and East European Jewish history one third of which was dedicated to Ancient, Medieval and Modern Jewish history and two thirds covered the Holocaust.5 There have been objective circumstances inform- ing this trend, one of them the purportedly insurmountable obstacle pre- sented by books and documents in Jewish languages, an obstacle pre- cluding East European scholarly insights into the history of Haskalah (Jew- ish Enlightenment), Hasidism (revivalist pietistic Jewish movement), or the Bund (Jewish Workers Party of Lithuania, Poland, and Russia) that require an advanced level of Hebrew and Yiddish. The unfamiliarity with these languages left a narrow window for scholarly opportunities, the Ho- locaust research with its enormous amount of documents in Russian, Pol- ish, or Lithuanian vernacular turning out the best way to study Jewish issues. However, three articles discussed here present a more complex prob- lem. Agnieszka Jagodziñska, who knows Hebrew, has chosen to discuss Pol- ish Jewish cultural integration, focusing on matsevot (tombstones). Why tombstones? There were some groups of young Jews in Warsaw who, for a scholar in the West, presented a fascinating object of study of national iden- tity.6 But the Polish scholar preferred dead Jews from the Warsaw ceme- tery. Here is another example. Ðiauèiûnaitë-Verbickienë apparently resides in the city that has a small Lithuanian-speaking Jewish community, the Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum with its Lithuanian-speaking staff, the Judaica cataloguing program in the National library, young scholars offering Jew- ish studies courses in Lithuanian at the national university in Vilnius, let alone local amateur historians providing high-quality tours of the Jewish

5 See, for instance Belorussian and Ukrainian versions of local Jewish history, in both the Holocaust occupies a disproportionate place: Emmanuil Ioffe. Stranitsy istorii evreev Belorussii. Minsk, 1996 and Ia[kiv] Rabinovych. Na zlami vikiv. Do 1000-richchia prozhyvannia ievreiv v Ukraini. Kyiv, 1998. 6 See Claire Rosenson. Jewish Identity Construction in Contemporary Poland. Dialogue Between Generations // East European Jewish Affairs. 1996. Vol. 26. No. 2. Pp. 67-78 and Polish Jewish Institutions in Transition. Personalities Over Process // Zvi Gitelman et al (Eds.). New Jewish Identities. Budapest, 2003. Pp. 263-289. 199 Y. Petrovsky-Shtern, “The Dead Jews” sites of Vilna. However, for unknown reasons she chose altogether to avoid integrating them into her own version of the national narrative, preferring to analyze the appropriation of the Holocaust in the works of modern Lithua- nian intellectuals. These two examples are not exceptions. Local scholars in Poland, Belorussia, Lithuania, and to some extent Ukraine, prefer to discuss the Holocaust as the embodiment of local Jewish history and cul- ture. Professor Henry Abramson from Florida Atlantic University while working at Harvard Windener Library on his comprehensive bibliography of the Ukrainian Jews, observed en passant that the overwhelming majority of sources he explored covered the Holocaust whereas Ukraine may boast ten centuries of Jewish presence! And as far as I know he worked with the secondary and primary sources in at least half a dozen languages. I believe the problem lies not in the language barrier but in the reluc- tance to consider cumbersome issues while searching for a useable past. What do Lithuanian or Polish scholars do with Jewish-Lithuanian literary sources that ostensibly address the most challenging post-Holocaust ques- tions? How do they treat those Russian-speaking war veterans of Jewish origin who fought Lithuanian war-lords? What do they think of nine elderly Vilnius Jews going to the synagogue who claim in their reports to the Ameri- can Joint Distribution Committee that they still have a minyan (prayer quorum of ten men) and therefore deserve international charity, let alone a new synagogue building? How do they include in their narrative those young Lithuanians Jews trying to construct their self-identity by incorporating, say, Polish, Lithuanian, and Jewish elements? And how do they feel about a growing number of western publications on diverse aspects of Yerusha- layim de-Lita, Lithuanian Jerusalem, this town with its multi-language Russian-Polish-Lithuanian-Yiddish alias, Vilna/Wilno/Vilnius/Vilne? If I understand correctly the authors of the above published articles, their answer is simple: books belong in a footnote whereas Jews do not belong at all. Perhaps a received wisdom – not to be dismissed altogether – endorses the study of the victims, the Jews of the Holocaust, the Jews from the Warsaw cemetery, and the Vilna Jews equated with the 1940s ghetto Jews only because the Holocaust Jews can be easily manipulated as footnotes to the national narrative. As an “inserted novella” they can also be integrated into its text. The ghetto narrative allows expressing caritas and avoiding self-compromising inclusion of conspicuously “interactive” Jews into the grand text of national memory. Yes, Jews lived in Vilna, argues this inserted novella. Then Nazis came, put them in the ghetto, tortured and exterminated them. They, the Jews, are no more. The Lithuanian can only bemoan that ir- 200 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 retrievable loss. Perhaps Lithuanians can also strive to incorporate a narrative on Jews into their useable past. For this narrative is horrible yet well- designed story with its beginning, its momentum, and its end. Not only does it seem true, but it also looks multi-cultural since it integrated Jews. In addition, it is ethically convenient, scholarly transparent, and easy-to- handle. Moreover, it is safe. The important part of it is to narrate the story. Once it is told, those inconvenient Jews are no longer around. The story is finished; Jews are dead; good Jews are dead Jews. Now it is so easy to incorporate their story. Finally it presents no challenges to the national memory. Indeed, there still remain issues related to the involve- ment of the local population in the mass executions, yet these issues fall short of the challenges presented by the discussion of an operating modern Jewish community. Better to deal with collaboration problems than with issues related to local post-communist East European Jews. Ultimately, the Jew belongs to the ghetto. A dead Jew is better than a live Jew. Telling the Holo- caust story, a college instructor ponders for hours on the Vilna ghetto, discusses cultural entrepreneurship of the ghetto Jews, analyzes their organized resistance, translates the ghetto poetry of Avrom Sutzkever, launches the slide-show portraying the deportation from the Little Ghetto to the Ponary region, and assigns an on-line search of web-resources portraying the liqui- dation of the ghetto. Then the students will go into the street and eat ice-cream. Everybody will be happy: the instructor who spelled out the subject matter; the students who heard yet another suspense story, though not very long; and those who write national history text-books, since they managed to tell a depressing tale without undermining the affirmative national narrative. They should be proud of their accomplishment: they created an all- encompassing version of national memory exempt from remorse. Is this the reason for an extreme popularity in Poland of Bruno Schulz (1892-1942), Polish-Jewish writer and teacher, killed in his native Drohobycz during the Holocaust, and a lack of popular interest in a romantic genius Maurice Gottlieb (1856-1879), one of the most illustrious Polish-Jewish painters whose visual images of Jewish-Christian dialogue are still part of modern thinking? Are these the reasons for the enormous popularity of Holocaust classes among students on American campuses? It is nice, after all, to study Jews who are forever gone and who never challenge one’s identity, one’s present and one’s future! But why criticize scholars from Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland or Russia? Apparently they are doing their best: they turn received wisdom on Jews upside down; they learn to ignore scornful glances of their not infrequently 201 Y. Petrovsky-Shtern, “The Dead Jews” biased colleagues; they bother themselves to study basic Jewish concepts, familiarize themselves with such a challenging matter as modern Jewish history, and make inquiries about major religious Jewish terms and concepts. Are they not trying to un-ghettoize their own national narratives? Indeed, Jurgita Ðiauèiûnaitë-Verbickienë has written a curious review of ways to construct a useable past in modern Lithuanian culture. The reader, I think, would very much appreciate if the author elaborates her own understanding of Vilna Jews to contrast it with the ghettoized vision of the Jewish past she found in the works by Lithuanian scholars. Since the reflection over historical memory is on its own a construction of memory, the picture of the appro- priation of the Jewish historical past in Lithuanian thought would become more nuanced if one considers also those Vilna Jews whose activities contribute to the making of a common Lithuanian and Jewish narrative, including such paradoxical figures as Immanuelis Zingeris who supported the Saudis, represented Lithuania in the Council of European Union, and became the head of the Vilna Gaon Jewish Museum; Larisa Lempertas, a Judaic scholar, who wrote her dissertation on classical Lithuanian (Litvak) nineteenth century commentaries on the Pentateuch (Ha-emek davar by Naftali Tsevi Yehuda Berlin, 1817-1793); or Genrikh Agranovskii, an en- thusiastic researcher engaged in local history who wrote a book on Jewish sites in Vilna. It is only too well-known that Warsaw Jewish bakers, butch- ers, gangsters, beggars, drunkards, and prostitutes at the turn of the nine- teenth century were volatile individuals yet firmly embedded in the urban social texture. I doubt that they learnt from Haskalah literature those flow- ery Polish and German epitaphs they wanted to have inscribed on their tombstones. They learnt about them elsewhere, apparently without any maskilic intercession.7 And once one starts answering the question wherefrom, follow- ing the insightful research of Agnieszka Jagodziñska, one would necessarily have to look not only at the tombstones but also, for example, at Polish contemporary newspapers that often reflected the urban street life of rank-

7 Though at the end of her essay Agnieszka Jagodziñska argues in favor of Haskalah- centered model of Jewish integration, the evidence she amassed attests to the opposite. Theoretically her understanding of Jewish acculturation better fits in the British and early French models rather than the German. On the models of Jewish acculturation alternative to the German-based and Haskalah-centered model elaborated by Jacob Katz, see Todd M. Endelman. The Jews of Georgian England 1714-1830. Ann Arbor, 1999. Pp. x-xix; Benjamin Nathans. Beyond the Pale. The Jewish Encounter With Late Imperial Russia. Berkeley, 2002. P. 338, and most recently, Joe Berkovitz. Rites and Passages. The Beginning of Modern Jewish Culture in France, 1650-1860. Philadelphia, 2004. Pp. 38-39. 202 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 and-file Warsaw Jews and Jewish integration into Polish urban life much more accurately than carmina sepulchra. Finally, Anna Liphardt at cer- tain point might want not only to redefine the concept of the Jewish ghet- to but also to revisit ghettoized concepts of modern approaches to the East European Jewish past. Pondering on three Ab Imperio contributions, the reader should be reminded that Jewish studies are a relatively new phenomenon in post- communist East European scholarship. While newly emerging Judaica students were not able to catch up with their Western or Israeli colleagues, they made significant progress both in developing Jewish higher education and promoting scholarly research in the field of Jewish studies. Trends and schools emerged throughout the FSU territory. Local historians produced archival-based narrowly-focused studies of Jewish communities in Daugavpils, Grodno, Khabarovsk, Leningrad, L’viv, Moscow, Nizhnii Novgorod, Orenburg, Tbilisi, Zaporizhzhia, and many other locales.8 St. Petersburg, an old center of Russian Judaica dating back to the times of Abram Harkavy (1835-1919), the founder of Russian Judaic studies, saw creation of the whole plethora of studies on Jewish ethnography and folklore focused on the nine- teenth-century history, art, and culture of the Pale of Jewish Settlement.9 A variety of University-based Judaica programs in Moscow have attracted students working on Yiddish, Biblical Studies, Jewish mysticism, and the philology of Semitic languages. Kyiv Instytut iudaiky (Judaica Institute) issued a number of important publications on early Soviet Jewish theater and cinema and published fourteen issues of Yehupets, perhaps the best

8 See Boris Pudalov. Evrei v Nizhnem Novgorode. Nizhnii Novgorod, 1998; Semen Orlianskii. Iz istorii evreev Ukrainy. Zaporozhie, 2002; Iurii Snopov (Ed.). Evrei v Moskve. Moscow, 2003; M. Kemerov, S. Pivovarchik (Eds.). Evrei Grodno. Ocherki istorii i kultury. Grodno, 2000; V. V. Amelin. Evrei v Orenburgskom krae. Orenburg, 1998; I. Kofman. Nekotorye problemy evreev Sibiri v XIX-XX vekakh. Krasniiarsk, 2004; V. Romanova. Evrei na Dal’nem Vostoke. Khabarovsk, 2000; L. Finberh et al. (Eds.). Dolia evreis’kykh hromad Tsentral’noi ta Skhidnoi Evropy v pershii polovyni XX stolittia. Kyiv, 2004; Mikhail Beizer. Evrei Leningrada. 1917-1939. Moscow, 1999; Kolys’ Chernivtsi buly hebreis’kym mistom. Chernivtsi, 1998; Boris Volkovich. Evreiskie organizatsii v Daugavpilse. 1920-1940. Daugavpils, 1998; Eldar Mamistvashvili. Khartvel ebraelta istoria. Tbilisi, 1995; Vladimir Melamed. Evrei vo Lvove. XVII-pervaia polovina XX veka. Sobytia, obschestvo, liudi. L’vov, 1994. 9 See V. Dymshits (Ed.). Evreiskie narodnye skazki. Predania, bylichki, rasskazy, anekdoty, sobrannye E. S. Raize. St Peterburg, 1999; B. Khaimovich, V. Lukin (Eds.). 100 evreiskikh mestechek Ukrainy. Jerusalem, 1997; V. Lukin et al. Istoria evreev na Ukraine i v Belorusii. St Petersburg, 1994. 203 Y. Petrovsky-Shtern, “The Dead Jews” FSU almanach on literature, history, and art of East European, mostly Russian- speaking Jews.10 A number of FSU scholars, such as Simon Yakerson, a preeminent connoisseur of the medieval Hebrew books and manuscripts from St. Petersburg, gained international recognition.11 East European scholars of Jewish studies, as well as numerous Judaica centers that dotted the map of the FSU higher education, inform a vision of Jewish historical past that surpasses the “ghettoized” narratives on history and memory. Engaging them into discussion, Ab Imperio might have crafted a more nuanced picture of an encounter between new national narratives and Jewish historical past. At any rate the reader is advised to believe that the essays by Anna Liphardt, Jurgita Ðiauèiûnaitë-Verbickienë, and Agnieszka Jagodziñska present one of many existing historiographic approaches that should not be taken for a dominant trend in East European scholarship. Ultimately, the ghettoized memory is not necessarily a prerogative of East European scholars who grapple with their new national historical narratives. One should not forget what Liphardt discovered: when the Yad va-Shem Museum staff decided to epitomize Vilna Jewry they chose not the “inter- active” and “multi-cultural” but the “ghettoized” model of the town. Reaffirming the Jewish presence in the city, they in fact obliterated the most important feature of Vilna Jewry. Instead of visualizing Jewish integration into urban space, they again cloistered the Jews in the imaginary ghetto. Sixty years after the Holocaust the scholarship consistently casts East European Jews in a ghettoized mold. Quousque tandem? Back in East Europe recent publications demonstrate serious changes in approaches to Jewish history: Polish students turned to the study of Frankism, Hasidism, and particularly rich legacy of Polish-Jewish literature;12 Ukrainian pundits

10 See Iurii Morozov, Tatiana Derevianko. Evreiskie Kinematografisty v Ukraine. 1910- 1945. Kyiv, 2004; Moisei Loev. Ukradennaia Muza. Kyiv, 2003; Yehupets’. Literaturno- khudozhnii Al’manakh. Kyiv, 1995-2005. For the analysis of Ukrainian Judaica, see Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern. In Search of a Lost People. Jews in Present-day Ukrainian Historiography // East European Jewish Affairs. 2003. Vol. 1. No. 33. Pp. 67-82, and Idem. The Revival of the Academic Studies of Judaica in independent Ukraine // Zvi Gitelman (Ed.). Jewish Life after the USSR. Bloomington, 2003. Pp. 152-172. 11 See Simon Iakerson. Izbrannye zhemchuzhyny: unikal’nye pamiatniki evreiskoi kul’tury v Sankt-Peterburge. St.-Peterburg, 2003; Idem. Evreiskaia srednevekovaia kniga. Moscow, 2003; Idem. Reshimat sefarim bilti-ieduim mi-tekufat gerush sefarad // Manuscripta Orientalia. 1998. Vol. 1. No. 4. Pp. 17-25; Idem. Hebrew incunabula in the Asiatic Museum of St. Petersburg // Slavic and East European Information Resources. 2003. Vol. 4. No. 2-3. Pp. 37-57. 204 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 issued a number of ground-breaking studies integrating Jews into multi-ethnic Ukrainian (in fact, old Polish) historical narrative;13 and Lithiuania published a formidable volume on Vilna Gaon looking at him through various ethnic, cultural, and intellectual angles.14 It is an unequivocal attempt to reverse a “ghettoized” approach, or, metaphorically, carefully to integrate the “ghetto” into the replica of Vilna urban space. Should one dismiss the integrated model only because a Gebietskomissar commissioned it? Vilna must be portrayed as a multi-cultural urban environment with all its cross-cultural tensions. And while reconstructing Vilna’s Jewry one should keep in mind that the 17th, 18th, and 19th century Vilna Jewish merchants, kahal elders, cantors, proletarians, socialist-revolutionaries, doctors, store-owners, distillers, musicians, apostates, seamstresses, and rabbis did not necessarily end their lives in 1943 in the Vilna ghetto.

12 See Konrad Zieliñski (Ed.). Ortodoksja, Emancypacja, Asymilacja. Studia z dziejów ludnoœci ¿ydowskiej na zemiach polskich w okresie rozbiorów. Lublin, 2003; Jan Doktór. Œliadami Mesjasza-Apostaty. ¯ydowsie ruchy mesjañskie w XVII i XVIII wieku a problem konwersii. Wroc³aw, 1998; Marcin Wodziñski. Oœwiecenie ¿ydowskie w Królestwie Polskim wobec chasydyzmu. Warszawa, 2003 and Idem. Groby cadyków w Polsce. Wroc³aw, 1998; Eugenia Prokop-Janiec. Polish-Jewish Literature in the Interwar Years. Syracuse, 2003; Ryszard Löw. Znaki obecnoœci. O polsko-hebrajskich i polsko- ¿ydowskich zwi¹zkach literackich. Kraków, 1995; Monika Adamczyk-Grabowska. Polska Isaaca bashevisa Singera. Rozstanie i powrót. Lublin, 1994. 13 See especially Myron Kapral. Natsional’ni hromady L’vova XVI-XVIII st. Sotsial’no- pravovi vzaiemyny. L’viv, 2003; Iaroslav Hrytsak. Narys istorii Ukrainy. Kyiv, 1996 and Idem. Strasti za natsionalizmom. Istorychni esei. Kyiv, 2004; Vadim Skuratovskii. Problema avtorstva ‘Protokolov sionskikh mudretsov’. Kiev, 2001. Ukrainian scholars turned to Jewish scholars who contributed to the research of the Ukrainian culture, see for instance a groundbreaking publication Ieremia Aizenshtok. Avtobiohrafia. Vybrani lysty / Ed. by Stepan Zakharkin. Kyiv, 2003; Ukrainian scholarship incorporated several important studies of Ukrainian history and culture that, in turn, consider Jewish issues as firmly integrated into Ukrainian historical narrative, see, for example, chapters on Jews in Zenon Kohut. Korinnia identychnosty. Kyiv, 2004. Pp. 244-271, and George Grabowicz. Do istorii ukrains’koi literatury. Doslidzhennia, esei, polemika. Kyiv, 2003. Pp. 218-236. 14 Izraelis Lempertas. The Gaon of Vilnius and the Annals of Jewish Culture. Materials of the International Scientific Conference. Vilnius, 1998. 205 Y. Petrovsky-Shtern, “The Dead Jews” SUMMARY

É. Ïåòðîâñêèé-Øòåðí ðàçìûøëÿåò íàä òðåìÿ ñòàòüÿìè â AI, ïîñâÿùåííûìè ðàçëè÷íûì àñïåêòàì áûòîâàíèÿ è âîçâðàùåíèÿ â Âîñòî÷íóþ Åâðîïó åâðåéñêîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè. Îáðàùàÿñü ê ñòàòüå Àííû Ëèïõàðä, â êîòîðîé ðå÷ü èäåò, â ÷àñòíîñòè, î äâóõ ãèïñîâûõ ìàêåòàõ åâðåéñêîãî Âèëüíî, èçãîòîâëåííûõ â âèëåíñêîì ãåòòî âðåìåí Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû, àâòîð ïðåâðàùàåò ýòè ìàêåòû â ìåòàôîðû. “Ãåòòîèçèðîâàííàÿ” è “èíòåãðàöèîííàÿ” ãèïñîâûå ìîäåëè â ñòàòüå Ïåòðîâñêîãî-Øòåðíà ïðåäñòàþò êàê ïàðàäèãìû âîñïðèÿòèÿ åâðåéñêîãî ïðîøëîãî. Ïðåîáëàäàíèå ïåðâîé ìîäåëè àâòîð îáúÿñíÿåò òåì, ÷òî îíà íå ïðîòèâîðå÷èò íàöèîíàëèçàöèè èñòîðèè è ïàìÿòè â ñòðàíàõ ïîñòñîâåòñêîé Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû. Èçó÷åíèå “ìåðòâûõ åâðåå┠ïîçâîëÿåò ñîçäàâàòü “ïðèåìëåìîå” (àâòîð ïåðåâîäèò àíãëèéñêèé òåðìèí “usable” åùå è êàê “óïðàâëÿ- åìîå”) ïðîøëîå. “Ãåòòîèçèðîâàííàÿ” ìîäåëü òàêæå ïîçâîëÿåò ñíÿòü âîïðîñ î ïîëèòèêå â îòíîøåíèè íûíå æèâóùèõ â ðåãèîíå åâðååâ è îòêëîíèòü èõ ïðåòåíçèè íà êàê áû ïðèíàäëåæàùóþ èì “äîëþ” “íàöèîíàëüíîé ïàìÿòè”. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, èìåííî “ãåò- òîèçèðîâàííóþ” ìîäåëü ðåïðåçåíòàöèè åâðåéñêîãî ïðèñóòñòâèÿ â Âèëüíî èçáðàë ìóçåé ßä âà-Øåì â Èåðóñàëèìå, ÷òî ïðåäïîëàãàåò èíñòèòóöèàëèçàöèþ “ãåòòîèçèðîâàííîé” âåðñèè èñòîðèè åâðååâ Ëèòâû. Òàêàÿ âåðñèÿ ëèøàåò ðåãèîí åãî ìóëüòèêóëüòóðíîé äèíà- ìè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè, à åâðåå⠖ èõ áîãàòîãî óðáàíèñòè÷åñêîãî, èäåî- ëîãè÷åñêîãî, òâîð÷åñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ, ñâÿçàííîãî ñ âîñòî÷íî-åâðî- ïåéñêèì ðåãèîíîì. Àâòîð ïðèçûâàåò ê ñìåíå ïàðàäèãì – èñòîðèîã- ðàôèè, ïàìÿòè è ïîëèòèêè.  öåëîì ñòàòüÿ Ïåòðîâñêîãî-Øòåðíà äîëæíà ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê ïîïûòêà èíòåãðèðîâàòü èññëåäîâàíèÿ õîëîêîñòà â áîëåå øèðîêèé êîíòåêñò åâðåéñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè.

206 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Sener AKTURK

COUNTER-HEGEMONIC VISIONS AND RECONCILIATION THROUGH THE PAST: THE CASE OF TURKISH EURASIANISM*

Introduction

The end of the Cold War brought about a tremendous change in relations between Turkey and Russia, archrivals over the past five centuries. In 2004, thirteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, once perceived as an imminent threat to Turkey’s very survival, has become Turkey’s largest trading partner. Similarly, post-communist Russians made up the largest share of tourists in Turkey’s ever-growing tourism industry that year. The spectacular size of the unofficial “shuttle trade” between Turkey and Russia has lead to an underestimation of the volume of Turkish-Russian trade, making Russia an even more important trading partner than the offi- cial figures already suggest once unofficial trade is factored in. Moreover, the labor-intensive nature of the products exchanged in this trade demonstrates how the impact of Turkish-Russian trade may be much greater than even the stunning official figures suggest.

* Kiren A. Chaudhry, Leonid Kil, Edward W. Walker, and John Webster read previous drafts of this article and provided useful commentary. This article also benefited from the comments of the participants in the Association for the Study of Nationalities Conference in New York (April 15-17, 2003), from a presentation at the Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies Center (April 20, 2003). 207 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past Furthermore, trade and tourism are only two dimensions of a Turkish- Russian partnership that also features ever-deepening military-strategic and political aspects. Turkish generals do not talk lightly about Turkey’s foreign policy and grand strategy. But when they do, history takes notice. In a surprisingly overlooked speech, the Secretary General of Turkey’s once all-powerful National Security Council, General Tuncer Kilinc, speaking at the conference “How to Establish a Peace Belt around Turkey” held by the Military Academies Command in March 2002, expressed frustration at the European Union’s policies towards Turkey and said that Ankara needs to start looking elsewhere for new allies. He singled out Russia as poten- tially the most strategic partner of Turkey and proposed the formation of an “alliance” with this country.1 This statement, made in the middle of heated debates over Turkey’s prospective membership in the European Union (EU), came as an overwhelming shock to those who had ignored the trends and radical shifts in Turkish foreign policy and military strategy over the last decade.2 This paper looks at the origins of a newly emerging intellectual phenomenon in Turkey, namely, that of Turkish Eurasianism. This move- ment imagines, for the first time, a common future for Turkey and Russia, and places this future hope at the heart of a global geopolitical, socio- economic, and cultural vision. Given the two countries’ extraordinary eco- nomic ties as well as their burgeoning military-strategic and political coopera- tion, focused analysis of Turkish Eurasianism is all the more essential. The analysis of Turkish Eurasianism presented in this paper highlights the centrality of geopolitics to the Turkish nationalist imagination. It is an open question as to whether this over-emphasis on geographical “location” is unique to Turkish nationalism or whether there are other nationalisms that place a similar importance on geographic considerations elsewhere in the world. No matter what one’s belief, the fact that Turkey’s location in the world is part of an intense, open, and ongoing debate that occupies the center-stage in the country’s public discourse as it enters the 21st century is undeniable. Turkey’s geographical dilemma, or the severe condition of civilizational confusion that Turkey suffers from according to Samuel Huntington, is as lively and real today as it was a decade ago, if not even more so. Turkey’s

1 All major Turkish newspapers, among others, Hurriyet, Milliyet, Cumhuriyet, Yeni Safak, issues published on March 7, 2002. 2 For comprehensive coverage of negative reaction in the Turkish media, refer to Kirmizinin bilancosu // Hurriyet. 2002. March 11. 208 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ongoing engagement with the EU has intensified the urgency of the peren- nial question of “who are we?” which is intricately connected for the Turks, as this paper will argue, with the question of “where are we?”

“Reconciliation through the Past” as a Prerequisite for Building a Common Future

Weaving together analogous features of Turkish and Russian history into a master-narrative about Eurasian identity that sees the ominous West as the “other,” Turkish Eurasianism is clearly an attempt to reconcile and overcome five centuries of uninterrupted rivalry and enmity between Turkey and Russia by re-interpreting history. In the case of Turkish Eurasianism, such reconciliation is partly realized by creating, or rather resuscitating, heroes that partake in both Russian and Turkish history, such as Sultan Galiyev. The historical influence of the Crimean and Volga Tatars on the development of the Turkish intelligentsia and national consciousness provides a number of historical personalities that the Turkish Eurasianists favor in their narratives. Judging on the basis of the tone adopted by Turkish Eurasianism, this narrative appears to be “tragic” one. Turkish Eurasianism depicts Turkey and Russia as two “brother nations”, which were compelled or “fooled” to fight each other for five centuries and “bled to death” by the cunning and to the benefit of Western powers. Turkey and Russia are depicted as being naïve in opposition to a clever and evil West. Where does the need for such historic reconciliation come from? Turk- ish Eurasianism as a master-narrative is not simply descriptive, but also prescriptive. The past is reinterpreted and historical “blood feuds” are recon- ciled in order to “legitimate a common future”. To illustrate with a domes- tic analogy, in order for two families to initiate a marriage between their children, they first have to confront and settle any serious feuds they may have had in the past, legitimizing the future in terms of the past. Reconcil- iation through the past by historical reinterpretation is a necessary compo- nent, in fact an absolute prerequisite, for the realization of a future “Eur- asian state”.

Turkish Eurasianism as the “Fourth Pole” of the Turkish Intellectual Landscape

Scholars who study Turkish nationalism and identity formation in its historical context have identified three intellectual currents in respect to Turkey’s identity and place in the world: Pan-Turkism, Pan-Islamism, and 209 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past Westernism, of which the latter can also be described as Pan-Westernism today in light of Turkey’s ongoing bid to join the European Union, the penul- timate Western entity in this regard. Yusuf Akçura, a prominent Turkish na- tionalist ideologue second only to Ziya Gökalp in his impact, discussed these three intellectual trends and argued in favor of Turkism in his ex- tremely influential Üç Tarz-û Siyaset.3 Already in 1918, Gokalp attempted a synthesis of these categories in Türkleºmek, Èslamlaºmak, Muassûrlarºmak (Turkification, Islamification, Contemporanization4), proving that these cat- egories had already achieved widespread acceptance even then.5 This tripartite model of thinking about Turkish identity persists to this day in the work of both Turkish and Western scholars.6 Some scholars, such as Samuel Huntington, believe that these divisions represent the incom- pleteness of Turkish identity formation and indicate a recipe for disaster,

3 Yusuf Akçura. Üç Tarz-û Siyaset. Ankara, 1976; David Thomas. Yusuf Akçura and the Intellectual Origins of Üç Tarz-û Siyaset // Journal of Turkish Studies/Turkluk Bilgisi Arastirmalari. 1978. Vol. 2. Literal translation of the title of this book reads “Three Kinds of Politics.” 4 Contemporanization is a key word for the Turkish nationalist, and later Kemalist dis- course. It means becoming contemporary with the level of advanced civilization. It is interchangeable with modernization. 5 Ziya Gökalp. Türkleºmek, Èslamlaºmak, Muassûrlarºmak. Èstanbul, 1918. Even though he was careful enough to use “becoming contemporaneous” instead of “Westernization”, a closer reading of Gökalp’s writings on Turkish nationalism demonstrates that he was unable to maintain the difference between the two. Especially when he distinguishes between “culture” (hars) and “civilization” (medeniyet) and claims that Turks should adopt Western civilization while preserving a Turkish culture, it is clear that he confuses the meanings of “high” and “low” culture with civilization and culture, respectively. Ziya Gökalp. The Programme of Turkism // Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization. Selected Essays of Ziya Gökalp. Westport, 1981 [1959]. Ziya Gökalp. Hars ve Medeniyet. Ankara, 1964. Ziya Gökalp. Türkçülüüün Esaslarû. Ankara, 1970. 6 Hugh Poulton. Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crescent. Turkish Nationalism and the Turkish Republic. New York, 1997; Suna Kili. The Ataturk Revolution. A Paradigm of Moder- nization. Istanbul, 2003; Kemal H. Karpat. The Politicization of Islam. Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State. New York, 2001; Karpat documents the transition from the Ottomanist-Islamist paradigm to the Turkist paradigm and his unique contribution is the tripartite categorization of Turkish thinkers, a division which itself mirrors the Turkist/Westernist/Ottomanist division. In Karpat’s discussion, Ziya Gökalp appears as a Western leaning Turkist whereas Russian émigrés headed by the Kazan Tatar Yusuf Akçura appear to be “ur-Turkists.” In contrast, Fuat Köprülü, who represents the third pole in this narrative, appears to be more amicable towards accepting “Ottoman history as Turkish history”, which both Gökalp and Akçura, and the ideologues of the new Turkish Republic avoided. 210 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 making Turkey “the most obvious and prototypical torn country” in its cultural disorientation.7 Yet even Huntington, in taking the Islamist-Westernist- Turkist division as his referential frame, testifies to the widespread legiti- macy this trinity commands. Conceptualizing Turkey’s options after the Cold War, he strictly adheres to the three classical options: “Having rejected Mecca [Islamism] and then being rejected by Brussels [Westernism], where does Turkey look? Tashkent [Turkism] may be the answer.”8 What Hun- tington or anyone else could not have imagined at the time was that, in fact, some intellectuals – the so-called Eurasianists – have suggested “Moscow”. This paper will trace the emergence of Eurasianism as a “fourth pole” within the historically tripartite division of the Turkish intelligentsia. Turkish Eurasianism, which started first among a marginal clique of socialist leaning Kemalists, later rapidly spread to include ever broader circles of socialists and Kemalists and influenced substantial groups of Turkist nationalists and even some Islamists, while provoking vociferous reactions from the Westernizers. Because the definition of Eurasianism is vague, it will be broadly defined as a geopolitical, socio-economic, and cultural/civilizational vision for the purposes of this paper, premised on the cooperation of Turkey and Russia or Turkic and Slavic peoples, as the dominant Eurasian nations. This is how Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetzkoy, the chief progenitor of Eurasianism, defined the ideology in the 1920s.9 The definitional criteria of Eurasianism will be elaborated on further throughout this paper as its different dimensions are discussed with reference to the work of Attila Ilhan.

Conjectures, More Conjectures10: From the Particular to the General and Vice Versa

The next section of the paper will put forward a few conjectures that will place Turkish Eurasianism in its particular (Turkish) and general (theore- tical) context: First, it should be noted that Eurasianism itself is likely to mirror

7 Samuel P. Huntington. The Clash of Civilizations? // Foreign Affairs. Summer 1993. Pp. 42-45. 8 Ibid. P. 42. Brackets added. 9 Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetzkoy. The Legacy of Genghis Khan and Other Essays on Russia’s Identity. Ann Arbor, 1991. 10 The title of these remarks was inspired by the humble titles of Francesco Moretti’s two articles, Conjectures on World Literature // New Left Review. 2000. No. 1 and his later article, More Conjectures // New Left Review. 2003. No. 20. 211 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past post-Ottoman, latent imperial ideology, which Ilhan considers Pan-Turkism and Pan-Islamism to similarly represent. Second, Eurasianism differs even as an imperial vision from Pan-Turkism, Pan-Islamism, and Ottomanism in that previous imperial ideologies were premised on explicit Turkish leader- ship, whereas a tacit acceptance of Turkey’s participation, not as leader, but as partner or assistant (even as the most important one) to a superior great partner in the form of Russia is evident for the first time in Eurasianism. Third, Eurasianism and Europeanism are conceived of in dialectic opposi- tion, as the Eurasian Idea is mostly a “reaction” to an established and evolv- ing European Idea that has gone on the offensive. As such, Eurasianism replicates the idealistic and universalistic features of the European Idea, even as it inverts these so as to preserve its counter-hegemonic posture, cleansing itself from ethnic, racial, and religious overtones to the extent that the European Idea is free from these particularistic elements.11 Fourth, given their semi-peripheral or maybe even peripheral role in the world economy and culture with pressures of globalization increasing on peripheral nations, it is possible for Turkey and Russia to adopt whatever the predominant counter-hegemonic discourse happens to be at any historical juncture, be Slavophilism or Eurasianism, Pan-Turkism or Pan-Islamism. It is also possible that under democratic conditions, the elitist Westernizing discourse will not be sustainable in Turkey and perhaps even less so in Russia. Fifth, a new kind of “regionalism” is introduced both as an expression of the processes of globalization and as a reaction against these processes.12 In this connection, it was a novel suggestion from the socialist perspective to propose a new conference to unite Third World nation-states resisting hegemonic globalization.13 Sixth, it would make intuitive sense if the success of Turkey’s bid to join the EU were to be inversely correlated with the appeal of Turkish

11 Trutbezkoy’s views on the use of civilization as a discursive device by the West are noteworthy in this connection. In his “Europe and Mankind,” he argues that the Romano- Germanic (i.e. European) people use “civilization” and “humanity” to denote their own particular civilization and their own particular humanity, but they use these terms in a univer- salized fashion without any scruples because they only consider themselves to be human and to be civilized. Trubetzkoy. The Legacy of Genghis Khan. Pp. 1-64. 12 James H. Mittelman and Richard A. Falk. Global Hegemony and Regionalism // The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. Princeton, 2000; James H. Mittelman. Globalization: Critical Reflections. Boulder, 1996. 13 Leo Panitch. Rethinking the Role of the State // Globalization. Critical Reflections. Boulder, 1996. 212 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Eurasianism; however, that relationship may be more complicated than simple inverse correlation. On the contrary, Turkey’s ongoing engage- ment with the European Idea provides – and will continue to provide even in the event of acceptance and integration with the EU – a pool of resentment and antagonism that could serve to attract people to Turkish Eurasianism. Seventh, Turkish Eurasianism as an imperial ideology is an example of a prolonged “post-imperial trauma.” Post-imperial traumas survive longer and are even reinforced further when the former imperial center remains as an independent country and does not bear the brunt of foreign occupation, military humiliation, and the subsequent post-war re-education from above by an outside power as was the case not only with all three belligerents of World War II, but also with the liberated Eastern and Western Europe, consequently reconstructed and re-educated by the United States and the USSR. As Kemalists, socialists, and Turkists never tire of proudly boasting, Turkey has never been occupied and never lost its independence as such. In fact, Turkey is the only country among the losers of both World Wars, which rejected the post-war settlement and reversed its final outcome through successful military campaigns.14 Germany’s effort in World War II was an attempt in this direction, but of course, it failed, and along with it failed the similar revisionist visions of its collaborators in that war, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria, all of them losers from World War I.15 As a consequence,

14 “Where else among the defeated imperial powers did a movement emerge, capable of challenging the armed might of the enemy and obliging him to conclude a satisfactory peace settlement, securing the independence and integrity of the nation… In Germany, cowed and humiliated by defeat, the leaders of the recently established Weimer Republic were obliged to accept the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles (1919), a fertile source of future conflict. In Russia, the recently installed Bolshevik government… was obliged by the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary, to accept the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918), sacrificing extensive territories in western Russia, the Baltic and Ukraine, while in Austria-Hungary a settlement loosely based on the principle of a natio- nality was simply imposed… with little or no consideration for the interests of the former imperial powers.” A. L. Macfie. Ataturk. London, 1994. P. 2. 15 The Hungarian post-imperial trauma of the 1920s and 1930s is suggestive in its analogous features to the Turkish case. Indeed, Hungarian nationalists and imperial visionaries distanced themselves from the framework of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which after all, proved unsustainable and failed. They sought to recover an imperial heritage, a remote and esoteric genealogy, pointing to a golden age as removed from the Hungarian condition as possible at the time. “Turanian” imagination was safely distant enough, and sufficiently glorious so as to sustain an otherwise impossible imperial past and its projection into the future. 213 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past all had imperial visions of one kind or another exorcised out of public discourse in the course of post-war “re-education”, undertaken by the U.S. in Western Europe (West Germany and Italy) and by the USSR in Eastern Europe (Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, part of Austria). None of the losers in both world wars voluntarily gave up their visions of imperial grandeur. They all had to be subjected to full-scale foreign occupation and wholesale re-education from above by an outside power.16 Eighth, a movement such as Turkish Eurasianism and the Turkish-Russian analogies posited by Attila Ilhan should provoke us to rethink the notions of Middle Eastern and Post-Communist Studies. We may need to consider redrawing the boundaries of these areas of academic inquiry. This process is already underway. Ilhan suggests that Turkey and Russia the systems most similar to each other and, even if one does not agree with Ilhan’s argument, one can still follow his provocative suggestion in considering Turkey and Russia as more alike than either Turkey and Saudi Arabia (as the Middle Eastern Studies would suggest) or Russia and Slovenia (as the post-Communist Studies would suggest). In this paper, Turkish Eurasianism will be outlined and discussed in detail with reference to the thinking of Attila Ilhan, the chief progenitor of Turkish Eurasianism. It was Ilhan who consistently wrote on the subject of the Turkish- Russian alliance, even during the fervently Russophobic Cold War, and who single-handedly popularized the idea of a historically embedded Turkish-

Positing Japan as the other sword of Turan, and even linking up with the Ottoman past, Hungarian. Turanians were rather creative. The unusually interesting feature of a comparison between the Hungarian and the Turkish case is that, by virtue of their common Ural- Altaic origins, the Turks and the Hungarians in fact both experimented with (Pan-)Turanian ideology as an imperial vision. As such, the comparative value of this particular case is blurred due to the apparent similarity of the ideologies in question. 16 Russia, even though it lost the Cold War due to internal collapse, has never been invaded and re-educated; hence, imperial ideologies continue to survive even to the present day. The somewhat unique experiences of Turkey and Russia are comparable with the experiences of Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Japan, and other countries that have suffered the trauma of losing their empires. At first sight, the only variable that seems to distinguish the former group from the latter is that they were not occupied by foreign powers. These post-imperial comparisons should be pursued further, but the limitations of this paper do not allow for that. There has been at least one effort in this direction, which tangentially addressed some of the issues mentioned here. Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen (Eds.). After Empire. Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building. The Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman Empires. Boulder, CO, 1997. 214 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Russian alliance preordained by geopolitics and nature. He reintroduced future heroes of Turkish Eurasianist thinking, such as Sultan Galiyev, Mulla Nur Vahidov, and Ismail Gasprinskiy, from complete obscurity. The present form of Turkish Eurasianism owes its existence to him. Even as Turkish Eurasianism became relatively popular in the late 1990s, it was his writings in which Turkish Eurasianist thinking found its most articulate and refined argument as a “master-narrative”, as an ideology distinct from all others.

Attila Ilhan: The Father of Turkish Eurasianism

Attila Ilhan17 (born 1925) drew impressive parallels between the histori- cal and present conditions of Russia and Turkey throughout his voluminous works18, weaving these analogous features together into a “grand narrative” that is both descriptive and prescriptive. His value-laden division of Turkish history into certain periods provides an appropriate starting point in analyzing his work:

17 Attila Ilhan (born 1925) is one of the most famous Turkish poets of the 20th century. Apart from his poetry, he is also known as the writer of screenplays, journalist, movie critic, novelist, and a highly political (democratic socialist, and Kemalist) and polemical intellectual-at-large. Born in Menemen, a western Anatolian town near Izmir, he traveled extensively throughout Turkey during his childhood because his father, a civil servant, served as the appointed governor of several Anatolian towns. At the age of 16, he was dismissed from high school when it was discovered that he was sending the poems of Nazim Hikmet, Turkey’s most famous 20th century poet and a convicted communist, to a girl that he admired (Hikmet spent the last years of his life in exile, traveling the Communist bloc, from Cuba to Bulgaria, and eventually died and was buried in Novo- Devichii cemetery in Moscow, his Turkish citizenship renounced and never returned. To escape imprisonment, Ilhan was reported to be “mentally ill” and spent time in a mental institution instead of serving a term in juvenile prison. In 1946, he won second place in the Republican Peoples Party’s (RPP) poetry competition, his poems being secretly sent to the competition by his uncle. He wanted to refuse the award as it came from the very institution that was persecuting socialists like himself , but he eventually accepted it. After dropping out of Istanbul University Law School, he went to Paris in what became the first of his routine pilgrimages to the French capital, each of which lasted a few years. In this period, he gained a comprehensive knowledge of French history, society, and politics, and he was heavily influence by radical Paris of the 1950s and 1960s, at the height of the anti-colonial struggles. 18 He has written 20 volumes of political essays alone, not including his even more voluminous literary works, mostly poetry, novels and screenplays. For more information, refer to http://www.bilgiyayinevi.com.tr, the site of the publishing house which published the vast majority of his works. Last visited January 5, 2005.

215 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past

TURKISH HISTORY ACCORDING TO ATTILA ILHAN:

ILHAN’S VALUE JUDGMENT PERIOD I: 1800S (1838)-1919, “PROLOGUE” Tanzimat Reforms/ Informal Colonization of the Ottoman Empire. Diagnosis of “capitalist WORST underdevelopment” most clearly observed. Russia and Ottoman Turkey “bleed to death” in perpetual warfare.

PERIOD II: 1919-1938, “FOUNDATIONAL MOMENT / DOUBLE REVOLUTION AND THE ‘GOLDEN AGE’” Bolshevik Revolution & Turkish Indepen- dence War / Kemalist Revolution. Kemalist BEST Turkey & Bolshevik Soviet Russia: strongest alliance. Western imperialism defeated. Third World revolution initiated.

PERIOD III: 1938-1990S, “INTERREGNUM: COUNTER-REVOLUTION AND IMPERIALIST COOPTATION” Counter-revolution at home & co-optation abroad in both countries. Turkey joins NATO. BAD Liberalization and “dependent development”. Pro-Western Turkey used as a peon of imperi- alism against USSR. PERIOD IV: 1990S-PRESENT, “REVIVAL: PREPARING FOR THE ‘SECOND COMING’ OF EURASIANISM” History repeats itself: conditions of the 1920s reemerge. West breaks down USSR. OPTIMISTIC Attempts to “divide and control” Turkey. Ke- malist revival in Turkey. Putin revives Eurasi- anism in Russia. Increasingly anti-Western Tur- key rapidly moves closer to Russia. Instead of going over his meticulous interpretive description of each period one by one, it is more useful to focus on the general theses and themes that Ilhan develops and pursues throughout his description of the four periods. 216 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Prologue: The Semi-Colonial Structure of Ottoman Turkey and Tsarist Russia

Historically, the perpetual warfare and “blood feuds” between Tsarist Russia and Ottoman Turkey is blamed on the the cunning of British and French diplomacy, which sought to protect Europe from “the two barbarians at its gates” by perpetuating the conditions under which Turkey and Russia fought and “bled” each other “to death,” allowing Europe to survive and to advance its interests eastward into formerly Russian and Ottoman spheres of influence: In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire lost its previous glory Such that for the Christian, capitalist, and imperialist West, the old Eastern Danger slowly turned into the Eastern Question, which meant “partitioning”. The real danger emerged to be Russia, which was expanding it was a simple thing that the West had to do. It had to keep the Ottoman Empire under its control and use it against Russia! This was the strategic calculation behind the Tanzimat reforms; in fact, Reshit Pasha’s special advisor, M. Cor, does not hide this truth, saying “ We think it to be imperative that the Ottoman Empire constitute a barrier against Russia.” The “system” forced the two great Eastern powers to bleed to death as it was wringing its hands with pleasure. This is the common observation of Ghazi Mustafa Kemal [Atatürk] and Vladimir Ilich [Lenin] in the 1920s and it is true; after all, isn’t it this observation that brought the two young states, the Turkish Republic and the USSR, together in a common struggle against imperialism?19 What is interesting about Ilhan’s interpretation is not that he “discovers” the British/French (and later American) geopolitical motives to support Turkey in containing Russia, but that he presents them as if they were the result of a giant conspiracy. Implicitly counterfactual, Ilhan claims that if it had not been for the cunning of Western imperialism, Russia and the Ottoman Empire would not fight each other but would rather fight against the West. The period of the Ottoman Empire’s semi-colonization starts with the Tanzimat reforms and the Baltalimani Free Trade agreement with England,

19 Attila Èlhan. Ufkun Arkasûnû Görebilmek (Cumhuriyet Söyleºileri:2). Èstanbul, 1999. Pp. 163-64. Unless otherwise noted, all the quoted passages from Turkish sources are translated from their Turkish original by the author of this paper. 217 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past both of which took place in 1838, representing Turkey’s political and eco- nomic integration into the capitalist world-system. Ilhan’s approach to eco- nomic liberalization, both in the late Ottoman and post-1945 republican periods, bears striking resemblance to neo-Marxist and dependency schools of thought.20 He emphasizes the de-industrialization and the “development of under-development” through economic liberalization, both in the Ottoman Empire and in post-1945 Turkey. As such, he shares much in common with the major economic historians of the Middle East, though his inter- pretation is more laden with negatively evaluation.21 Ilhan argues, along with a long list of contemporary Turkish intellectuals, that the European Customs Union, of which Turkey became a member in 1996, simply brought back the “capitulations regime” of the 1838 treaty, which led to the pauper- ization of the Ottoman/Turkish economy and society.22 Using “analogi- cal argumentation”, Ilhan forecasts the destruction of the Turkish economy and society at the hands of the European Customs Union. Ilhan argues that in a semi-colonial country like the late Ottoman Empire or post-1950s Turkey, seeming political/ideological divisions are merely reflections of competing imperialisms (British, French, Russian, American, European, etc.) and not representative of the popular will.23 He provides lists of grand viziers, each of whom was identified via his alle- giance to a European power. For example, Sait Halim Pasha, Mustapha Resit Pasha, and most of all the grand viziers were pro-British; Enver- Cemal-Talat Pashas of the Committee on Union and Progress (CUP) were all blatantly pro-German; Mahmut Nedim Pasha was known as “Nedi- mov” due to his Russophilia (the only one in this category)! For Ilhan, it

20 Andre Gunder Frank. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil. New York, 1969; Immanuel Wallerstein. Modern World- System. New York, 1974; Peter Evans. Dependent Development. The Alliance of Mul- tinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, 1979; Samir Amin. Re-Reading the Postwar Period. An Intellectual Itinerary. New York, 1994. Samir Amin is the only neo-Marxist that Ilhan explicitly refers to as someone whom he has read. 21 Charles Issawi. De-Industrialization and Re-Industrialization in the Middle East since 1800 // International Journal of Middle East Studies. 1980. Vol. 12. No. 4. Pp. 469-479. Roger Owen. The Middle East in the World Economy, 1800-1914. New York, 1993. 22 Attila Èlhan. Sultan Galiyef. Avrasya’da dolaºan hayalet (Cumhuriyet Söyleºileri: 3). Èstanbul, 2000. Pp. 283-290; Erol Manisali. Soüuk Savaº Sonrasûnda Türkiye’nin Seçenekleri. Èstanbul, 2002; Metin Aydogan. Yeni Dunya Duzeni, Kemalizm, ve Turkiye. Èstanbul, 2002. 23 Attila Èlhan. Bir Sap Kûrmûzû Karanfil (Cumhuriyet Söyleºileri: 1). Èstanbul, 1998. Pp. 239-291. Also, Idem. Sultan Galiyef. P. 260. 218 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 is impossible for genuine democracy to develop under these conditions. Even the most formally democratic arrangements will simply allow for a freer expression and reflection of the international balance of power in a supposedly “national” parliamentary forum. Hence, the Tanzimat reforms of the 1830s (pro-British) and the constitutional revolution of 1908 (pro- German) did little else than ease the realization of Western imperial plans vis-à-vis Turkey. Only a radical break with the capitalist-imperialist sys- tem at home and abroad, and a concomitant change in Turkey’s foreign relations, the only example of which Ilhan finds in the Kemalist revolu- tion, can bring about “true” democratization and the free expression of the popular will. One of the most distinctively analogous features of Turkey and Russia is the cultural/civilizational gap between the elite and the masses, which again, like all “evil”, has in its origins in efforts to Westernize the countries during the Tsarist and the late Ottoman periods.24 Political and economic liberalization during the late Ottoman period, especially the so-called Consti- tutional period, was detrimental to Turkish society because it created an alien, Westernized bourgeoisie, composed of European levantens25 and local Christians: The bourgeoisie during the constitutional period26 was either levanten or outright foreign. In any case, it was monarchist. Following Independence, the place they left was filled by Muslim and some Jewish “locals” who came from Rumelia (the Balkans). Ankara tried to produce a national bourgeoisie from this core... in fact, this proved a difficult task because these are both a la franca, and mostly

24 Ilhan. Sultan Galiyef. P. 85ff. The origins of this gap between the elite and the masses goes as far back as the reign of Selim III in the Ottoman case and maybe even as far back as Peter the Great in the Russian case, though Ilhan does not discuss the origins of the Rus- sian problem in as much detail as the Ottoman case. 25 Certainly a stock term for Attila Ilhan, levanten denotes those Europeans, mostly French and Italian, who settled in the commercial port cities of the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul, Salonica, Izmir, Beirut, Alexandria) becoming “local” foreigners. They established prosperous and distinctly European quarters in many cities. Levanten comes from the French word, levant, meaning “East”; levanten, meaning “Easterner.” 26 The first Ottoman constitution was proclaimed in 1876, but did not last longer than two years because Sultan Abdulhamid autocratically suppressed it. The second constitution was proclaimed in 1908 and remained in effect until the end of World War I in 1918. In referring to the constitutional period, it is more likely that Ilhan meant the entire Tanzimat period (1838-1918). 219 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past freemason. They viewed Anatolia like the foreign merchants they replaced.27 The Westernizing reforms of the Tanzimat period incorporated the Otto- man Empire into the capitalist world economy as a semi-colonial and peripheral entity. Yet Tanzimat also created a “psychological rupture”, a cul- tural estrangement between the intellectuals turned elites and the masses who nonetheless look to the intellectuals for their salvation: Who warns the people against the political and economic oppres- sion of foreigners? The intellectuals! That’s why the “system” at- tempted to “domesticate” the intellectuals from the very beginning. To this end, it used cultural alienation. Missionary schools constituted beachheads of this widespread alienation... There were 30 British schools with 2,996 students; 60 French schools with almost 9,000 students; 15 German schools with about 1,500 students; and 435 American schools with around 20,000 students in the late Ottoman period...28 The cultural alienation of the elites in general and intellectuals in particular has been a popular subject in Tsarist / Russian, Ottoman / Turkish, and Safavid / Iranian discourse ever since their encounter with the West.29 The charac- ters of Bazarov in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons, Felatun Bey in Ahmet Mithad’s Felatun Bey and Rakým Efendi, and Ja’far Khan in Hasan Moqaddam’s Ja’far Khan is back from Europe are all literary caricatures of elites who slavishly imitate the Western ways of living, corrupting themselves and society.30 In the case of Russia, the cultural break between the elite and the masses, sometimes referred to as the “hour-glass society” or “torn country”

27 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. P. 56. 28 Ibid. P. 72. Quoted from Tevfik Çavdar, Osmanlûlarûn Yarû Sömürge Oluºu. Istanbul, 1970. Pp. 85-105. 29 Russian, Turkish, and Iranian encounters with the West show variations in their beginnings and subsequent intensity. Russia’s encounter with the West can be traced back as far as Peter the Great’s reforms, whereas the first effort at Western-style modernization in the Ottoman Empire was the “Tulip Period” (1718-1730). For Iran, the critical encounter came much later. Despite these wide variations in the timing and nature of their encounter with the modern West, it is remarkable that these three countries all had a constitutional revolution within three years (Russia, 1905; Iran, 1906; Turkey, 1908), which may be interpreted as a sign of the closing gaps between them in terms of their degree of Westernization. 30 Mehrzad Boroujerdi. The Ambivalent Modernity of Iranian Intellectuals // Intellectual Trends in Twentieth-Century Iran. A Critical Survey. Gainesville, 2003. 220 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 phenomenon is probably more profound than in most other countries, including Turkey.31 In sum, Attila Ilhan argues that the difference between elite and masses is only one of “degree” in “normal” Western countries, where the elite is simply materially better off than the masses, but shares the same “culture”. In contrast, in Russia and Turkey, there is a difference in “kind” (i.e. na- ture) between the elite and the masses, where the elite has a Western culture and belongs to a different civilization than the non-Western, Asiatic / Eurasian culture of the masses. The same conditions holds even more so for the intelli- gentsia, and since the intelligentsia plays a key role in both Russia and Turkey, most important of these countries’ woes result from the elites’ cultural alienation from the masses.32 Ilhan’s remedy is the same in both cases: the elite should shrug off the alien culture and articulate its own “national cultural synthesis” in a modern framework.33 The rupture between the elite and the masses is also important in that this rupture profoundly impedes genuine democratization in both countries. A reason why egalitarian (Bolshevik and Kemalist) revolutions degenerated into bureaucratic authoritarianisms in both countries is because the “Wester- nized bureaucratic elite” and “comprador bourgeoisie” (Ilhan’s own usage) stubbornly defended its privileges through institutions that are thoroughly anti-democratic and are designed to prevent a breakthrough to power by the masses.34 The elitist/nuclear, secretive/exclusionary, anti-democratic / oppressive structure of Turkish and Russian political parties is due to the Narod- naya Volya influence and to the nihilism of Nechayev, which infused the Russian system and influenced the Turkish party system through the Balkans,

31 Richard Rose. Russia as an Hour-Glass Society. A Constitution without Citizens // East European Constitutional Review. 1995. Vol. 4. No. 3. Also Huntington. Clash of Civilizations. 32 Ilhan’s criticism of the “Proletkult” in Soviet Russia and “Garip” and “Ikinci Yeni” movements in Turkey is based on the same argument. Ilhan is critical of “Proletkult” as a cultural elitism, tracing it from Bogdanov to Mayakovsky and Yesenin and arguing that “Proletkult” artists simply aped Dadaist-Futurist-Surrealist movements in Western Europe, demonstrating their degree of disconnection and alienation from Russia. Ilhan. Ufkun Arkasini Gorebilmek. Pp. 81-82. He then juxtaposes the elitist-Westernist “Proletkult” with the “national” line, which he observes in the work and theses of Herzen, Dobruluibov, Chernyshevsky, and Plekhanov, among others. Ibid. Pp. 85-86. Overall, he seems to agree with Lenin and, ironically, with Stalin, who took a stance against the “Proletkult” based on somewhat similar arguments. 33 Attila Ilhan. Ulusal Kültür Savaºû. Istanbul, 1998; Idem. Hangi Batû? (Anilar ve Acilar: 2). Istanbul, 2001. Especially the quote from Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the preface. 34 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. Pp. 148-150. 221 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past especially through Romanian and Bulgarian (“Centralists”) guerrillas.35 Even worse, the first Turkish political parties (the Young Turks and the Committee on Union and Progress) aped the secrecy of the Italian Masonic Lodges and Carbonari around Thessalonica.36 Asserting direct and personal connec- tions between Narodnaya Volya and the under-development of Turkish de- mocracy and civil society, Ilhan traces Nechayev’s corrosive nihilist-narod- nik influence on Turkish political system to Hüseyinzade Ali, who studied in Petersburg and later became one of the founders of the CUP, the first and most influential political party in Ottoman Turkey.37 The CUP became the prototypical model for all Turkish political parties that followed, begin- ning with Republican People’s Party (RPP) in the Republican Era. The elitist, secretive, and conspiratorial organizational form is responsible for the rise of the apparatchik.

Moment of Founding: Confrontation with the West; Revolution and Golden Age

According to Ilhan, the foundational moment for both Russia and Turkey came in their simultaneous confrontation with the imperialist West and their “double” revolutions (1917 Bolshevik; 1919 Kemalist). This inaugurated a “golden age” of peace and prosperity, and the beginnings of a new world order. Kemalism, Turkism, and Leninism are all different expressions of the same anti-imperialist struggle. “Turkism” originated in Russia, among the Tatar intelligentsia of the Crimea and Volga region in reaction to Russian imperialism. Yet, according to Ilhan, “original” Turkism was anti-imperialist, but not anti-Russian! This is espe- cially difficult to understand since it was the Russian Empire these original Turkists were reacting against. Here, Ilhan supports his claim with quotes from the most renowned Jadids, especially the Crimean Tatar intellectual, Ismail Bey Gasprinski, “Imagine that Russia established friendly ties with Turkey and Iran… If it can get the support of Turkey and Iran, Russia would be a relative of all eastern Muslims and undoubtedly will become the leader of the Muslim nations and civilizations…”38

35 Ibid. Pp. 132-133. 36 Ibid. Pp. 132-133. 37 Attila Ilhan. Ufkun Arkasûnû Görebilmek (Cumhuriyet Söyleºileri: 2). Istanbul, 1999. Pp. 32-33. 38 Ibid. Pp. 239-240. Quoted from Sergey Zenkovsky. Rusya’da Pan/Turkizm ve Müslümanlûk. Istanbul, 1983. 222 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ismail Gasprinski is one of the figures that Ilhan rehabilitated and raised to heroic stature. Gasprinski is extremely Russophilic and is nonetheless respected as one of the progenitors of a Turkish consciousness and nationalism. Gasprinski is unequivocally supportive of Russophilic visions, claiming that “my travels and observations have convinced me that no people treats a subjugated and generally alien tribe as humanely and as sincerely as do our big brothers, the Russians.”39 The great role of the Crimean and Volga Tatars in the making of Turkish nationalism creates the aura of a mystic connection between the modern Turkish nation and the Russian lands.40 As a socialist who places his egalitarian ideology at the heart of his Eurasianist vision, Ilhan wants to recover anti-imperialism as the original “core” of Turkism. From Gasprinski to Akçura, from Resulzade to Velidov, from Gökalp to Agaev, he finds that Turkism had staunchly anti-imperialist beginnings.41 Yet he strenuously tries to depict the anti-imperialism of origi- nal Turkism as being anti-Western and not anti-Russian, a difficult position to sustain. He then accuses Turkists of having deviated from their original position during and after World War II, when Turkism became a “stooge” of German42 and American imperialism.43 “What a tragic fate,” Ilhan ex- claims, “to set off on the journey from the anti-systemic ‘Turkish Hearths’ and arrive at the ‘Idealist Hearths’ in the end, subservient to the very sys- tem that you set out to oppose.”44 He mentions that an earlier precedent was set by the German cooption of the Young Turks and their use of Pan-Turkism against Russia in World War I, or even the earlier German cooption of Abdulhamit’s Pan-Islamism against both Russia and the British Empire.45 In his usual narrative style, these analogous features of Turkish history are used to foreshadow and argue against the attempt by the United

39 Daniel Rancour-Laferniere. Assimilationism in Relation to Ethnic Hatred // Ab Imperio. 2000. Vol. I. No. 1. P. 137. 40 Yusuf Akçura. Yeni Türk Devletinin Öncüleri:1928 Yazûlarû. Ankara, 1981; Alan Fisher. The Crimean Tatars. Stanford, 1978; Azade Ayse Rorlich. The Volga Tatars. A Profile in National Resilience. Stanford, 1986; Adeeb Khalid. The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform. Jadidism in Central Asia. Berkeley, 1998; ªengül Hablemitoülu and Necip Hablemitoülu. ªefika Gaspûalû ve Rusya’da Türk Kadûn Hareketi. Ankara, 1998. 41 Ilhan. Ufkun Arkasini Gorebilmek. Pp. 97-100. 42 “The prestige of the Axis in World War II, the attractive force of their victories, dragged old Turkists towards a racism that the Turks have never adopted throughout their history.” Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. P. 81. 43 Ibid. Pp. 79-82, 236-238. 44 Ibid. P. 82. 45 Ibid. Pp. 239-241. 223 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past States to use Pan-Turkism against a much weakened Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.46 Via these historical comparisons, Ilhan appropriates the cherished tradi- tion of Pan-Turkism for the Eurasianist vision. He downplays the differences between Turkists, socialists, and Kemalists and imagines all of these groups to be united in a “Gramscian historical bloc” (Ilhan’s own usage) against Western imperialism as was the case during the Turkish Independence War. This historical bloc has Russia at its core.

The October Revolution, The Turkish War for Independence, and the Connection to “Sultan Galiyev”

In his writings, Ilhan is mostly concerned with recovering a relatively small slice of history, namely the 1920s and early 1930s, especially the time of the Turkish War for Independence (1919-1922). His interpretation of Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Atatürk) and Vladimir Ilich (Lenin) as “self- conscious comrades in the same struggle against the West” is at the core of his appropriation of his most cherished period in modern Turkish history. By appropriating the Turkish War for Independence in conjunction with the October Revolution for his Eurasianist vision, Ilhan hopes to show how the existence of Turkey and Russia were (and still are) tied via this defining moment of history. Finally, he discovers Sultan Galiyev, the Tatar Muslim National Communist from Kazan, and elevates him to saintly status, bestowing him with a messianic message and giving him the honor of having began the process of Third World liberation. Bringing Eurasianism and socialism together in the title of his recent book, Ilhan suggestively para- phrases the first line of the Communist Manifesto: “Sultan Galiyev: The Ghost Haunting Eurasia.” Sultan Galiyev, a Tatar communist from Kazan, saw a basic flaw in Euro- centric Marxism. “There is no blessing in the Western proletariat; revolu- tion will definitely come from the oppressed nations, that is, colonial or semi-colonial Eastern nations. And that’s why we should primarily give a hand to these countries.”47 Acting upon this observation, Galiyev consistently urged and allegedly convinced Lenin that a world revolution is possible only through liberating the Third World.48 To this end, Galiyev, Vahidov,

46 Ibid. P. 107ff. 47 Galiyev quoted in Ibid. P. 98. 48 Ilhan introduces and extensively quotes a series of interesting documents and events in this connection. He mentions that, contrary to the staunchly anti-communist Turkist beliefs 224 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 and other Tatar Muslim National Communists suggested creating a “Turan Socialist Republic” as the springboard for the socialist revolution in “the Mus- lim East and Asia, whose peoples are proletariat by nature”: While I was examining Sultan Galiyev and Nur Molla Vahidov, I discovered to my amazement that in the first union treaty that the Volga Tatars persuaded Lenin and Trotsky to accept that the first Turkish Republic that would join the USSR was supposed to be a great Turan Socialist Republic, encompassing Kazan, Crimea, and the Bukhara Khanates. This is what later made Stalin an enemy of Galiyev.49 The mythical agreement between Galiyev and Lenin is elevated to the stature of a sacred “covenant” of Third World revolutionary socialism in an Eurasianist framework. It is repeatedly mentioned as a factual reminder of Lenin’s original wish and a source of legitimacy for the Galiyev’s cause.50 In another counterfactual implication, Ilhan suggests that world revolution could have been achieved had the Soviet Union followed Galiyev’s Third Worldist interpretation of socialism. He also claims that the League of Non- Aligned Nations and the Third World socialist movements of the 1960s were but a “dispassionate replay of Galiyev’s vision” of an Oppressed Peo- ples’ International or a Colonial International.51 of the Cold War, there is a strong and tangible link between Turkism and socialism/ communism during the 1920s. Apparently, it was Sultan Galiyev, whom the Turkists also admire as a nationalist leader, who wrote the obituary for Mustafa Suphi, the founder of the Turkish Communist Party who the Turkists detest, entitled “Mustafa Suphi: Ego Rabota” (“Mustafa Suphi: His Work”) in the Zhizn’ natsional’nostei (The Life of Nationalities). Again, it was Sultan Galiyev, who published an interview with Mustafa Suphi in the journal Krasnoe znamia (Red Flag). Ilhan’s laborious efforts in turn led to an ever expanding interest in Sultan Galiyev and Tatar Muslim National Communism in Turkey. Renad Muhammedi’s biography of Galiyev was published in Turkish (Renad Muhammedi. Sûrat Köprüsü Sultan Galiyev. Istanbul, 1993). A documentary was made about him and aired on TGRT television. The journal Ulusal followed Ilhan’s lead in asserting that Mustafa Kemal and Sultan Galiyev, “these two revolutionary, historical personalities’ ideas will have to be the guide of the ‘Eurasian Project’ ” (Ulusal. Fall 1997. P. 72; quoted in Ilhan. Sultan Galiyef. P. 151). Hanefi Muzaffer, one of Galiyev’s comrades, wrote “Muslim people, that is colonial people, are proletariat en masse under Russian colonialism therefore nationalist movements in Muslim Turkish countries have the nature of social revolutionary movements.” (from Znamia Revolutsii, 1918). Pp. 155-156. 49 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. P. 78. 50 Ibid. P. 217. 51 Ilhan. Ufkun Arkasini Gorebilmek. P. 53. The Turkish original reads “Mazlum Milletler Enternasyoneli” and “Sömürgeler Enternasyoneli,” respectively. 225 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past Ilhan argues that Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) and Vladimir Ilich (Lenin) perceived each other to be fighting on the same front against Western impe- rialism. Atatürk was not pro-Western, but was rather the anti-Western fore- runner of Third World liberation with a very Leftist ideology. Realizing that the real contradiction is between the oppressor and the oppressed nations, and noting that the Turks are an oppressed nation, both Atatürk and Sultan Galiyev downplayed class differences among the Turks and mobilized the nation as if of one class because it was one class in relation to the West. ...at the stage in which the anti-imperialist struggle found itself in the 1920s, Mustafa Kemal was of the opinion that class contradictions could be pushed into a secondary position. In this he is in agreement with Sultan Galiyev, just as he is in agreement with Dr. Sefik Husnu in his analysis of the class structure in Turkey! Since the non-Muslim and comprador bourgeoisie was purged in 1920’s Turkey and the es- tates and wealth of Greek and Armenian merchants and landlords were distributed among the people, it is debatable whether we can talk about an opposition based on class distinction...52 Ilhan makes ample use of Mustafa Kemal’s statements in the same vein: I feel the need to confirm, once again, that Turkey’s struggle today does not belong to Turkey alone...Turkey is making a great and impor- tant effort. Because what Turkey is defending is the cause of all the oppressed nations, of all the East, Turkey is confident that the Eastern nations that are with him will remain with him until this effort bears fruit... (July 1922)53 In a much more celebrated and famous passage after the War for Inde- pendence, Atatürk says: Look at the sun that is about to rise from the East! Today, just as I see the dawn breaking, I see the awakening of all Eastern nations from afar. There are many brother nations that will arrive at their sovereignty and freedom 54 In this connection, Lenin was fully supportive of Mustafa Kemal’s Third Worldist vision:

52 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. Pp. 66-67. 53 Mustafa Kemal Pasha [Ataturk] quoted in Ibid. P. 15. 54 Ibid. P. 99. 226 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Vladimir Ilich [Lenin]... told Aralof [the Soviet ambassador to Ankara]: “he [Mustafa Kemal] is fighting a war for independence against invaders; I believe that he will break the pride of imperialism, and will wipe out the sultan and his entourage. We should help him, that is, the Turkish people.55 The Muslim National Communist, Sultan Galiyev is again the first to endow the Eurasianist vision with a Marxist-socialist legitimacy by claiming that the real Marxist “contradiction” is between the oppressor and oppressed nations. “The real great (majeur)56 contradiction is between the Turkish na- tion and the capitalist system, and Mustafa Kemal observed this very well and has acted upon it.”57 Thus, while not being identical, Kemalism is “open” to socialism: Kemalism and socialism – and even communism – are not one and the same. One of them was a national democratic revolution, the other one an international revolution. Nonetheless, what is not to be forgot- ten and paid attention to? Is it that both of them were anti-imperialist? This is still the common denominator.58 In his usual style, Ilhan sometimes gives a personal story linking his theoretical construct about Third World socialism with real life experiences of revolutionary characters. The character Borodin in Andre Malraux’s Les Conguerants is a real Bolshevik according to Tibor Mende’s Des Mandarins a Mao (Le Seuil, Paris, 1962) the same Borodin lived in Ankara during the War for Independence: “...Mikhail Borodin, who has been in similar missions in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal, came with the military and civilian experts to help re-organize the Kuomintang.”59

55 Ibid. P. 15. 56 As a matter of style and apparently deriving from his multiple stays in Paris, Ilhan makes ample use of French equivalents of Turkish words in parentheses. Other stylistic curiosities of Ilhan include his seemingly excessive use of obsolete Ottoman Turkish terms and phrases, which in turn are derived from either Arabic or Persian. Ilhan published extensively on matters of style as well, outlining his views on change and continuity in the Turkish language, but his equally voluminous and interesting work in this field falls beyond the practical limitations of this paper. 57 Ibid. P. 140. 58 Ibid. Pp. 16, 13-15. 59 Ibid. P. 92. Quoted from Yön. 1967. 4 June. Pp. 66-67. 227 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past

The “real” character of Borodin thus connects the three revolutions that shook the world in the early 20th century, namely, the Russian, the Chinese and the Turkish, also lumped together by an American philosopher at the time.60 Ilhan weaves these connections, real or mythical, into a grand narrative of world revolution and liberation. Ilhan lays claim to Kemalism, socialism, and Turkism are claimed in their “original” forms, translating them into Eurasianism in foreign policy and international relations. The distinctive feature and core of Atatürk’s foreign policy consisted of a strong alliance with the Soviet Union bolstered by a web of regional security networks in the Balkans and the Middle East. The “golden age of Kemalism”61 is inextricably linked to cooperation with the Soviet Union, not only in foreign policy, but also in domestic affairs. Most impor- tantly, the planned economy and rapid industrialization, a remarkable achievement of Kemalism in the 1930s, is attributed to the recommenda- tions of Soviet planners: a Soviet delegation, headed by the skilled Soviet expert, Professor Orlof, came to Turkey and within a relatively short period of three to four months, provided us with a positive and practical plan The team of Soviet experts, even more importantly, suggested the need to enter into the iron and steel industries and they assured us that our country is capable of establishing this industry 62 Ilhan contrasts the positive and well-intentioned recommendations of the Soviet experts with the negative and baleful recommendations of Western economic advisors, who discouraged Turkey from pursuing heavy industri- alization and rather urged the development of agriculture, transportation, and light industries with the ominous ulterior motive of keeping Turkey as an underdeveloped, agricultural Third World country.

60 John Dewey. Impressions of Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World, Mexico – China – Turkey. New York, 1929. 61 The golden age of Kemalism in this narrative spans the period of Atatürk’s term as the president of the republic, which covers the 15 years from the establishment of the Republic to his death (1923-1938). It may even be suggested that the depiction of this period in Attila Ilhan’s Kemalist/socialist historiography is reminiscent of the Age of Eternal Happiness (Saadet-i Ebediyye) in Islamic historiography, which denotes the time when the Prophet Muhammad himself was alive and at the head of the Muslim ummah. 62 Ilhan. Sultan Galiyef. P. 292. 228 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Interregnum (1938-1990s): Counter-Revolution and Imperialist Cooption

The “golden age” of Turkish-Soviet cooperation was abandoned imme- diately after Atatürk’s death, when “Ismet Pasha, the fascist” hurried to ally Turkey with the West, first cutting secret deals with Nazi Germany against the USSR, then signing onto the anti-Soviet Atlantic Declaration after World War II.63 Interestingly enough, the two ideologies that supported the golden age, Leninism and Kemalism, were subverted and degenerated into personality cults in a strikingly similar fashion, by Stalin and Inönü, both of them evil dictators in Ilhan’s view.64 The Kadro65, an intellectual group attempting to formulate Kemalism as a social revolutionary ideology with an international dimension that stood for the “true” followers of Atatürk’s message, were ruthlessly purged by “Inönü, the fascist”, just as the “true” followers of Lenin were purged by Stalin.66 Ilhan adds organizational and cultural dimensions to his thesis of the “subver- sion of the Kemalist doctrine”. He argues that while Kemalism as imple- mented by Atatürk was a bottom-up democratic process that gave sovereignty to the people, Inönü reorganized the party top-down following Atatürk’s death, bureaucratizing it with a strict hierarchy and trying to emulate the Nazism and Fascism that he and his associates, especially Recep Peker, admired.67 In fact, Recep Peker, after his visit to Nazi Germany proposed the reorganization of the RPP along the lines of the NSDAP, a proposal that was rejected with fury by Atatürk.68 Following Atatürk’s death, Inönü became

63 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. Pp. 246-249. 64 Attila Èlhan. Sosyalizm Asûl ªimdi. Èstanbul, 1995. Pp. 109-111. 65 In fact, Ilhan traces his own Kemalist-socialist affinities to the Kadro movement in the 1930s and the Yön movement in the 1960s, hence constructing an intellectual trajectory of true Kemalism. Interestingly enough, according to Barlas, the Kadro movement itself was very much influenced by an early version of the dependency school of thought as articulated by the Romanian scholar Mihaulescu, who visited Turkey and had conversations with the cadre of the Kadro. Dilek Barlas. Etatism and Diplomacy in Turkey: Economic and Foreign Policy Strategies in an Uncertain World, 1929-1939. New York, 1998. Regarding the Yön movement, again formed around a journal with the same name “Kadro”, the most succinct observation is that of Hikmet Özdemir who characterized Yön as a Turkish attempt at Ba’athism and African socialism of the kind espoused by figures such as Ghana’s legendary president Nkrumah. Hikmet Özdemir. Kalkûnmada bir Strateji Arayûºû: Yön Hareketi. Ankara, 1986. 66 Ilhan. Ufkun Arkasini Gorebilmek. Pp. 41-50. 67 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. Pp. 137, 142-159. 68 Ibid. P. 143. 229 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past president and Peker his prime minister and the two, with the support of General Fevzi Pasha, realized their plan for a reorganization along Fascist lines.69 The democratic, progressive, mass party that was Atatürk’s RPP was transformed into an elite, regressive, and reactionary party by a Turkish apparatchik, by Inönü. Apart from exorcising the democratic spirit that infused the revolutionary organization that was Atatürk’s RPP, Inönü superimposed an elitist, pro- Western cultural program based on a Greco-Roman culture alien to the Asiatic Muslim Turks. Whereas Atatürk tried to synthesize an original, modern culture out of the cultural and historical sources of the Muslim Turks, Inönü copied and superimposed a ready made modern culture based on Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian sources. Atatürk attempted to synthesize a modern, secular cultural out of the Turks’ Seljuk-Ottoman heritage that was distinct but related toArab-Persian Islamic civilization. Inönü’s betrayal of Atatürk’s cultural policy is a major theme of most of Ilhan’s writings on culture and literary criticism.70 In sum, the subversion of the original socialist-Leninist and Kemalist doctrines is yet another analogical construction of Ilhan’s thought. The un- faithful followers (Inönü and Stalin) of Atatürk and Lenin distorted the original message of their predecessors’ revolutionary ideologies, exorcis- ing their anti-systemic spirit. Moreover, they also turned these ideologies upside-down, making them serve the exact opposite of their original pur- pose. In this vein, Stalin subverted socialism into a tool of Russian imperi- alism with a totalitarian agenda, while Inönü subverted Kemalism into a pro-Western cultural policy that in fact serves, rather than challenges, West- ern imperialism.

Revival (1990s-Present): Preparing for the “Second Coming” of Eurasianism

There is an inextricable link between Ilhan’s historical analysis of the Turkish War for Independence and the Bolshevik Revolution, on the one hand, and his prescriptions for the present-day Turkey and Russia, on the other. Ilhan’s argument is an aesthetic construction that posits a perfect, flaw- less, and impeccable analogy between the socio-economic and political struc-

69 Ilhan. Sultan Galiyef. P. 137. 70 Attila Ilhan. Ikinci Yeni Savaºû. Istanbul, 1996; Idem. Ulusal Kültür Savaºû. Istanbul, 1998; Idem. Hangi Edebiyat? Ankara, 1993; Idem. Hangi Laiklik? (Anûlar ve Acûlar 7). Istanbul, 1995. 230 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ture of present day Turkey and the prevailing structures of the late Ottoman period, especially during the Turkish War for Independence. During the War for Independence, Islamists, liberals, and ethnic separatists were aligned with the Western occupying powers and the pro-Western Sultan in Istan- bul, much as these same groups are aligned with the European Union, the United States, and the pro-Western bourgeoisie in Istanbul in present-day Turkey. Ottoman Turkey’s semi-colonization went hand in hand with politi- cal and economic liberalization, just as is the case in present-day Turkey according to Ilhan. More importantly, Ilhan perceives the position of Turkey and Russia in the post-Cold War international system to be identical to their position in the 1920’s. Having built these one-to-one analogies, Ilhan anticipates that, since Turkey is going through the exact same political and economic pro- cesses and realignments that it went through in the late Ottoman period, then it will also reach the exact same climax: the attempted partition of Turkey by Western powers, hopefully to be followed by Turkey’s libera- tion from Western imperialism by a bloc of Kemalists, socialists, Turkists, and anti-Western, “genuine” Muslims with the help of Russia, the original and perennial ally of Turkey against the West. Ilhan’s entire work can be interpreted as preparing for that fateful confrontation with the West, when Turkey and Russia should and will be on the same side. Ilhan argues that the threats Turkey faces in the post-Cold War context are identical to the ones Turkey faced in the late Ottoman period that even- tually culminated in the War for Independence. History is repeating itself. The USSR and Yugoslavia were victims of Western imperialism; Turkey is next on the agenda, but the resilience of Kemalism has protected it so far. Ilhan asks “why did the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia disintegrate?” The masters of the New World Order are not only enemies of socialism, a country that is big and nationalist – even if it is capitalist and liberal – is not to their benefit. They cannot forget what a disaster Japan caused. That is why they find it in their interest to divide up big or potentially big countries, even if these countries choose the most atrocious forms of liberalism. The disasters that befell Russia and Yugoslavia in the last decade of the 20th century are open evidence of this. But of Turkey?71

71 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. P. 109. Article titled “Why did Russia and Yugoslavia disintegrate?” 231 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past Ilhan then proceeds to explain how the West, “the system”, has been trying to carve up Turkey since the founding of the republic, as a “blood feud” exists between the imperialist system and Republican Turkey, seen as the first Third World country to defy the system. Western efforts to divide up Turkey intensified after the Cold War: there is a plan, and everything is made to proceed towards its realization let’s remember Tagaris’s report, Onus Probandi, The Burden of Proof General Achille Tagaris is the president of the Greek Strategic Research Institute and his report is a direct prepara- tion of how Turkey could be broken up. Do you know what this man focusing on mosly? Turkey’s demographic structure! First, the num- bers that the Turks give in population censuses are wrong [Tagaris claims]. We are exaggerating these numbers. There aren’t 40-46 mil- lion Turks in Anatolia because Asia Minor is home to a very mixed group of nations and peoples. There are at least ten million people among the minorities, such that we should count the Kurds, Arme- nians, Arabs, Cherkess, Bulgarians Isn’t it a fact that these people living in Asia Minor were living there even before theTurks came and conquered these places? Of course, it is their right to establish independent states he deals most with the Armenians and the Kurds.72 Following the Turkish takeover of Northern Cyprus, “the system” real- ized that Turkey became “unnecessarily strong” for its subservient role and “the Cold War against Turkey” began. It began with Armenian (ASALA) terrorist attacks against Turkish diplomats in the 1960s, “when the Turkish Armenians showed the decency not to respond to these provocations, it continued with provocations aimed at the Kurds.”73 At the level of foreign policy, the Turkish prime ministers Menderes and Demirel were toppled by pro-American military takeovers in 1960 and 1980 after they announced their intention to pursue better relations with the USSR and the Arab south.74

72 Ibid. P. 105. Quoted from his own article in Dünya. 1978. 11 September. 73 Quoting Bulent Ecevit, the leader of the Democratic Leftist Party and four-time prime minister, Ilhan asserts that “the 77-year-long aim of the United States is to establish autonomous regions based on racial differences in Turkey During the Cold War, the US hid this aim because it needed Turkey’s unity and strength, but today [after the Cold War] it does not feel the need to hide it anymore The real aim of the US is to establish an autonomous Kurdish region in southeastern Anatolia ” Ilhan. Ufkun Arkasini Gorebilmek. Pp. 251-252. 74 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. P. 106. 232 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 In contrast, Presidents Yeltsin and Özal were neo-liberal peons of the West who attempted to expedite the disintegration of their respective coun- tries through economic and political liberalization. Their unanticipated, early fall shows the crisis of the Western project.75 Putin, on the contrary, is on the right track to build Eurasia as the “fourth pole” against the United States and Europe while East Asia will constitute the third pole with which Eur- asia will cooperate in balancing the other two poles.76 In stark contrast, Ilhan interprets the European Customs Union agree- ment that Turkey signed in 1996 as a replay of the 1838 Baltalimani trade agreement that the Ottoman Empire signed with Britain, stipulating the opening of the Ottoman economy to British goods, which led to the rapid demise of Ottoman industries. Following his usual “analogical argumenta- tive” style, Ilhan anticipates the total pauperization and peripheralization of the Turkish economy.77 By arguing that there is a deliberate Western plan to partition Turkey, just as there was a plan to divide up Yugoslavia and the USSR, Ilhan explicitly asserts a unity of interests and a common destiny between Turkey and Russia (and to a lesser extent, Yugoslavia) vis-à-vis Western imperialism. He further warns that if Turkey does not renounce its EU candidacy, market liberalism, pro-Western cultural policy (foreign language education, etc.) and the like, it will disintegrate and pro-Western Kurdish and Armenian entities will be cre- ated in its midst, while some Turks themselves may be Christianized.78

75 In the same article, entitled “A Bitter Comparison”, Ilhan argues that “the system, just as it made Yeltsin play a particular role against Gorbachev in the last stage of its cold warfare against the USSR, made Özal play a similar role against Demirel in Cold War Turkey ” He mentions how Özal cooperated with the US in the first Gulf War and how he opened discussions of transforming Turkey into a Turkish-Kurdish Federation, which would expand to include Iraqi Kurdistan, allowing the US to use a pro-American Tur- key to expand its influence in the region. Ilhan’s “witness”, Iranian ambassador Bagheri says, “They want to divide Turkey and Iran They want to establish a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq and take territory away from Turkey and Iran to reinforce this entity.” Ibid. Pp. 114, 116. 76 Attila Ilhan. Cumhuriyet. 2000. November 6-17-22-24; also and especially December 7, 2001. Commenting on Russian Premier Mikhail Kasyanov’s visit, Ilhan argued that Russian President Putin is offering a Turkish-Russian strategic partnership in the Eurasi- anist vein and that it is up to the Turkish government to accept it, bringing Turkish foreign policy “back to its original Kemalist framework.” 77 Ilhan, Sultan Galiyef. Pp. 283-290. Ilhan, Ufkun Arkasini Gorebilmek. P. 251. 78 According to Ilhan, Christian proselytizing serves many functions at once. It profound- ly widens the cultural gap between the elite and the Turkish Muslim masses, whereas prose-lytizing ethnic minorities (i.e. Kurds) contributes to the same process by pressuring the Turkish Muslim “middle” between a Christianized elite and Christianized minorities, 233 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past Turkey’s bid to join the European Union is the culmination of six decades of counter-revolution aimed at reversing Atatürk’s anti-imperialist, anti- Western program of modernization. Ironically, it amounts to surrendering Turkey’s sovereignty to the very European great powers that Turkish natio- nalists headed by Mustafa Kemal fought against in the War for Indepen- dence (Britain, France, Italy, and Greece). Turkey is going through another independence war against the European Union and the United States, and the only international configuration that will allow Turkey to win this second war is an alliance with Russia – its same ally from the first war for independence. I would briefly suggest that Ilhan’s fervent opposition to the European Union, which distinguishes him and some socialists, most Kemalists, and almost all Turkists from the liberal pro-Western camp in Turkey, is the primary reason why his Eurasianist message found and still finds an ever expanding audience. What unites a Maoist such as Perinçek with an anticommunist Turkist such as Zeybek and a Kemalist “dinasaur”79 such as Çeçen and the Bonapartist, Kemalist youth of the Türk Solu around a Eurasianist project sharing the common features of Attila Ilhan’s thinking is precisely their opposition to Turkey’s membership in the European Union, which has been the central issue of Turkish politics since Turkey’s entry into the European Customs Union in 1996.

Essentialist Claims about Turkey and Russia (on Race, Culture, and Geopolitics)

Ilhan contends that there is no discrimination on the basis of race, reli- gion, or language in the “essence” of Turkish civilization. Quoting Niyazi Berkes, he argues that Traditionally with the Turks, race, religion, blood, heritage, and even language have not been the foundation of social unity. Since Turks accept pluralism in all of these categories and reject creating “artificial” conflicts and thus Balkanizing/Lebanonizing Turkey. Ilhan fervently argues against Christian proselytizing, also mentioning that Atatürk outlawed Christian missionary activity, since he saw the imperialist purposes behind it. In this respect, he uses Ömer Turan’s Avrasya’da Misyonerlik (Missionary Activity in Eurasia. Ankara, 2002) as a reference. 79 A pejorative adjective widely used in the mainstream liberal-Western Turkish media to identify the statist Kemalist “old left,” represented by the Cumhuriyet newspaper and the like. 234 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 uniformity the essence of their societal unity has been either “occupational unity” or “administrative-state unity”. The Turk, in history, exists mostly within these two concepts. Turks never established theocratic, aristocratic, or racial regimes Turks are indeed deserving of attention as a humanistic people, but these qualities make them vulnerable against two events, when their economy or their state is shaken. Once their economy or state is destroyed, they completely lose their sense of direction 80 Ilhan makes a similar case for Russian civilization, in which he imitates scholars who emphasize the “service state” nature of the Russian state, Russia’s tolerance towards Muslims, or Russia’s benign tendencies toward assimilating minorities.81 He seems to agree with Gasprinski’s contention that “there is no nation on Earth which treats alien subjects as humanely as Russia”, though one would suspect Ilhan to think that Turkish-Islamic civi- lization is even more tolerant than Russian civilization. Ilhan’s view is some- what similar to that of Trubetzkoy, the “father of Eurasianism” because Trubetzkoy himself argues against racism in his article On Racism, implicit- ly maintaining that racial politics is alien to Eurasian peoples, Russians and Turanians alike since Eurasians are a mixed people by nature of their com- position.82 Ilhan argues that the Turkish-Islamic and the Russian-Orthodox civili- zations are inherently similar to each other and different from and opposed to the Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian Western civilization. Implicit in this “analogical argumentation” is the hope that their similar worldview as such

80 Ilhan. Bir Sap Kirmizi Karanfil. Pp. 286-287. 81 Rancour-Laferniere. Assimilationism in Relation to Ethnic Hatred. 82 “As for the ‘racist’ program it would be ridiculous for us Russians even to discuss them. Negroes have interbred with Russian very rarely and when this has occurred, we have had no cause for complaint. Negro blood flowed in the veins of our greatest poet, A. S. Pushkin marriages between Russian noblemen and Gypsies were not infre- quent. As far as I know, their descendants did not display any particular genius, but they were in no way inferior to average Russians without admixtures of Gypsy (*i.e., Indian) blood. As for marriages between Russians and Caucasian highlanders, Georgians, and Armenians, these have always had the very best results and to inhibit them would mean to raise a sort of Great Wall of China between the Caucasus and the rest of Russia- Eurasia, to cultivate the view of the Caucasus as a colony, a view held by many pre- Revolutionary administrators, but now, fortunately, abandoned Eurasianism rejects economic materialism and finds no reason to embrace anthropological materialism, whose philosophical foundation is far weaker than that of economic materialism. Trubetzkoy. The Legacy of Genghis Khan. Pp. 286-287. 235 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past will inevitably draw Turks and Russians together. To the extent that this argument is made explicit, it is inextricably linked to the absence of racism and similar homogenizing tendencies in Turkish and Russian civilizations. Quoting Alphonse de Lamartine’s83 evaluation of the Ottoman Empire, Ilhan notes that Lamartine finds the Ottoman Empire’s failure to assimilate and homogenize its subjects into the Turkish-Islamic culture to be its most important flaw and the main reason behind its ultimate demise. Lamartine further claims that this assimilationist/homogenizing tendency, or the lack thereof, to be the distinguishing feature between the successful Greco-Roman tradition and the inferior Asiatic Empires. Ilhan accepts Lamartine’s argu- ment as it is and turns it on its head by asserting that the lack of a homoge- nizing tendency in the Turkish and other Asiatic civilizations, including Russian civilization since he considers Russia to be Asiatic, to be the proof of their inherent humanism, which he critically contrasts with Western civilization. In Ilhan’s writing, geopolitics is posited as a scientific discipline with a geographically determinist, inevitable logic. According to this logic, Turkey and Russia are essentially bound to ally against the West. Geopoli- tics conceived as such also constitutes the theoretical core of Russian Eur- asianism, whether in its classical form found in Trubetzkoy’s writings or in the expressions of contemporary Eurasianism by its leader, Aleksandr Dugin.84

Conclusion: “Alternative Globalizations” and “Counter-Hegemonic Visions” in Post-Communist Eurasia: The Example of Turkish Eurasianism

In concluding this brief, introductory examination of Turkish Eurasianism, one has to reemphasize two aspects in particular that were already men- tioned briefly at the beginning of this paper. First, Turkish Eurasianism, maybe even more than its Russian counterpart, has to be considered as a

83 Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869) was a French historian, statesman, poet and novelist whose Histoire de la Turquie (History of Turkey) is regarded as a popular and influential work in Turkey. 84 Trubetzkoy. The Legacy of Genghis Khan. Aleksandr Dugin. Osnovy geopolitiki. Geopoliticheskoe budushchee Rossii. Moscow, 1997. One could only conjecture Ilhan’s sympathy for a geographical determinism of this kind to be an extension of his stringent belief in historical materialism and determinism. 236 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 counter-hegemonic vision. Counter-hegemonic visions usually emerge in reaction to existing hegemonic projects: Visions of African Unity, the Bandung Conference85 and the League of Non-Aligned Nations, pan-Arabism of dif- ferent stripes, “Bolivarism” and Latin American Unity, the Soviet Union itself and even Yugoslavia, visions for Balkan Unity and Baltic coopera- tion, and even the anti-imperialist pan-Islamism of Jamaleddin Afghani and likeminded aspirants. Secondly, Turkish Eurasianism is a good example of the alternative glo- balizations that are currently underway albeit unnoticed by the mainstream media and the scholarly community alike. Globalization is often misper- ceived as the interaction of “local” cultures with a global “standard” tech- no-culture (read “Anglo-American culture”). Even if the resultant culture is described as being mutually constituted by the Anglo-American “stan- dard” and “local” cultures, this depiction suggests a very “centralized” and unipolar vision of globalization that supposedly produces a suspiciously homogenous mongrel culture around the world. However, Turkish Eurasia- nism exemplifies an attempt, also part of the globalizing processes, by some of these “locals” to forge a new understanding of their past, present, and future interaction with other “locals”, and to construct a supra-nationalist myth around these new understandings. What is excluded from this new identity construct is the presumably omnipresent Anglo-American culture. Western European identity is present by being rejected, as Turkish Eurasia- nism, like its Russian counterpart, is build on a negation of what Ilhan calls the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman civilization and what Trubetzkoy calls the Romano-Germanic civilization.

85 Bandung Conference was the meeting of representatives of 29 African and Asian nations, held at Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955. The aim – to promote economic and cul- tural cooperation and to oppose colonialism – was more or less achieved in an atmo- sphere of cordiality. China played a prominent part and strengthened its friendly rela- tions with other Asian nations. Not invited to the conference were South Africa, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, and North Korea. The conference ultimately led to the establish- ment of the Nonaligned Movement in 1961. See The Columbia Encyclopedia. Sixth Edition, 2001. 237 S. Akturk, Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past

SUMMARY

 ñòàòüå àìåðèêàíñêîãî èññëåäîâàòåëÿ Ñåíåðà Àêòþðêà èññëå- äóåòñÿ ôåíîìåí òóðåöêîãî åâðàçèéñòâà êàê îòíîñèòåëüíî íîâîãî ïðîåêòà ïðèìèðåíèÿ äâóõ â ïðîøëîì âðàæäåáíûõ äðóã äðóãó èìïåðñêèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ. Èëëþñòðèðóÿ òåçèñ îá èçìåíèâøåìñÿ õàðàêòåðå ðîññèéñêî-òóðåöêèõ îòíîøåíèé, Àêòþðê îòìå÷àåò ðåçêî âîçðîñøèé òîâàðîîáîðîò ìåæäó Ðîññèåé è Òóðöèåé, à òàêæå âñå áîëåå çíà÷èòåëüíîå ñòðàòåãè÷åñêîå ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâî, âêëþ÷àÿ âîåííî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîå âçàèìîäåéñòâèå. Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà, òóðåö- êîå åâðàçèéñòâî â ýòîì êîíòåêñòå ñòàíîâèòñÿ îäíèì èç êëþ÷åâûõ ýëåìåíòîâ èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîãî ëàíäøàôòà ñîâðåìåííîãî òóðåöêîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ, íàðÿäó ñ ïàíòþðêèçìîì, ïàíèñëàìèçìîì, è çàïàä- íè÷åñòâîì. Àêòþðê ïîäðîáíî îáñóæäàåò âçãëÿäû âåäóùåãî ïðî- ïàãàíäèñòà òóðåöêîãî åâðàçèéñòâà, ïîýòà, ïèñàòåëÿ è ïóáëèöèñòà Àòòèëû Èëüõàíà, êîòîðûé íå òîëüêî âåðíóë â öåíòð îáùåñòâåí- íîãî âíèìàíèÿ Òóðöèè çíàêîâûå “åâðàçèéñêèå ôèãóðû” (Ìèðñà- èä Ñóëòàí-Ãàëèåâ, Ìóëëà-Íóð Âàõèòîâ, Èñìàèë-áåé Ãàñïðèíñêèé), íî è ïîñòîÿííî ïðîâîäèò ïàðàëëåëè ìåæäó èñòîðè÷åñêèì ðàçâè- òèåì Òóðöèè è Ðîññèè, êîòîðûå ñêëàäûâàþòñÿ â òåêñòàõ Èëüõàíà â ñòðóêòóðèðîâàííûé íàððàòèâ î ñóäüáàõ Åâðàçèè. Ýòîò íàððàòèâ âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ ïåðèîä ïîëóôåîäàëüíîé çàâèñèìîñòè îò Çàïàäà, ðåâîëþöèîííûé ïåðèîä îñíîâàíèÿ “íåçàâèñèìûõ” Òóðöèè è ÑÑÑÐ, ïåðèîä êîîïòàöèè Òóðöèè èìïåðèàëèñòè÷åñêèìè ñèëàìè, è, íàêîíåö, îïòèìèñòè÷åñêèé ïðîãíîç áëåñòÿùåãî áóäóùåãî äâóõ ñòðàí â ñîâìåñòíîì ïðîåêòå îðãàíèçàöèè Åâðàçèè. Èññëåäóÿ èäåè Èëü- õàíà îòíîñèòåëüíî ñòðóêòóðíîãî ðîäñòâà ðîññèéñêîé è îñìàíñêîé öèâèëèçàöèé (îòñóòñòâèå àññèìèëÿòîðñêèõ òåíäåíöèé è ãîìîãåíè- çàöèè, îòíîñèòåëüíàÿ òîëåðàíòíîñòü â îòíîøåíèè ìåíüøèíñòâ, è ò.ä.), Àêòþðê îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî ñòðóêòóðíîé îñîáåííîñòüþ òóðåöêîãî åâðàçèéñòâà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ìûñëü î ñîâìåñòíîé áîðüáå Ðîññèè è Òóð- öèè ïðîòèâ ðàçðóøèòåëüíîãî Çàïàäà. Ðåçóëüòàòîì ýòîé áîðüáû äîë- æíî ñòàòü îáúåäèíåíèå Åâðàçèè ñîþçîì ñëàâÿíñêèõ è òþðêñêèõ íàðîäîâ, êîòîðûé ñèìâîëèçèðóþò Ðîññèÿ è Òóðöèÿ. Ïî ìíåíèþ àâ- òîðà, ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î òóðåöêîì åâðàçèéñòâå êàê “êîíòð-ãåãåìî- íèñòñêîì” ïðîåêòå, ñðîäíè ïðîåêòàì àôðèêàíñêîãî èëè ëàòèíîà- ìåðèêàíñêîãî åäèíñòâà, âûçâàííîãî ðàñòåðÿííîñòüþ è ñëàáîñòüþ ïåðåä ëèöîì çàïàäíîé öèâèëèçàöèè. 238 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Ïàâåë ÂÀÐÍÀÂÑÊÈÉ

ÑÎÂÅÒÑÊÈÉ ÍÀÐÎÄ: ÑÎÇÄÀÍÈÅ ÅÄÈÍÎÉ ÈÄÅÍÒÈ×ÍÎÑÒÈ Â ÑÑÑÐ ÊÀÊ ÊÎÍÑÒÐÓÈÐÎÂÀÍÈÅ ÎÁÙÅÉ ÏÀÌßÒÈ (ÍÀ ÌÀÒÅÐÈÀËÀÕ ÁÓÐßÒÑÊÎÉ ÀÑÑÐ)*

 ïîñëåäíèå ãîäû ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ âñå áîëüøå èññëåäîâàíèé, ïîñâÿùåí- íûõ èçó÷åíèþ íàöèîíàëüíîãî âîïðîñà â ÑÑÑÐ. Èíòåðåñ ê äàííîé ïðîáëåìàòèêå îáóñëîâëåí, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ïîïûòêàìè îáúÿñíèòü áåññëàâíûé êîíåö ìîãóùåñòâåííîé äåðæàâû. Îñíîâíûì ðåôðåíîì ðàáîò íà ýòó òåìó ÿâëÿåòñÿ ìûñëü î ïðîòèâîðå÷èâîñòè (ýòíî)íàöèî- íàëüíîé ïîëèòèêè, ïðîâîäèâøåéñÿ ñîâåòñêèì ðóêîâîäñòâîì. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, îíî àêòèâíî ñïîñîáñòâîâàëî ôîðìèðîâàíèþ íàöèîíàëüíûõ èäåíòè÷íîñòåé. Ñ äðóãîé – äîâîëüíî ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî ïðîâîäèëî êóðñ íà ñîçäàíèå åäèíîé ñîâåòñêîé îáùíîñòè. Ðåçóëüòàòîì ðåàëèçàöèè ïåðâîé òåíäåíöèè ñòàëî òî, ÷òî, ïî ñëîâàì Ñ. Â. ×åøêî, “â ìàññîâîå ñîçíàíèå íà ôîíå ïðîïàãàíäû èíòåðíàöèîíàëèçìà âíåäðÿëèñü íîðìû íàöèîíàëèçìà.  òå÷åíèå äåñÿòèëåòèé ïîêîëåíèÿì ñîâåòñêèõ ãðàæäàí ãîñóäàðñòâî âòîëêîâûâàëî, ÷òî îíè íå ïðîñòî ëþäè è ãðàæäàíå, à åùå è ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ‘íàöèé è íàðîäíîñòåé’, îáëàäàþùèõ îïðåäåëåííûìè

* Ñòàòüÿ íàïèñàíà ïðè ïîääåðæêå ãðàíòà ÐÃÍÔ ¹ 02-01-00263à. 239 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... è ðàçëè÷íûìè ñòàòóñàìè”.1 Îäíîâðåìåííî, â ïðîòèâîâåñ àêòóàëèçàöèè íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêîãî äèñêóðñà, êîììóíèñòû ñòðåìèëèñü ðåàëèçîâàòü äîêòðèíó “ïðîëåòàðñêîãî èíòåðíàöèîíàëèçìà”, ñóòü êîòîðîé çàêëþ- ÷àëàñü â òîì, ÷òî, ïî âûðàæåíèþ Â. À. Òèøêîâà, “ñîëèäàðíîñòü òðóäÿùèõñÿ Ðîññèè âî èìÿ îáùåãî ðåâîëþöèîííîãî äåëà òðåáóåò èõ îáúåäèíåíèÿ â åäèíîì ãîñóäàðñòâå”.2 Ýòà, âòîðàÿ òåíäåíöèÿ, áûëà íàïðàâëåíà íà èíòåãðàöèþ ïîëèêóëüòóðíîãî îáùåñòâà â ãðàæäàíñêóþ íàöèþ è ïðåäñòàâëÿëà ñîáîé, ïî îïðåäåëåíèþ Ñ. Å. Ðûáàêîâà, “ñàìîå îáû÷íîå íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâî, ëèøü îêðàøåííîå ⠑êàìóôëÿæíûé’ êëàññîâûé öâåò”.3 Êàê îòìå÷àåòñÿ èññëåäîâàòåëÿìè, îáå óêàçàííûå òåíäåíöèè, â ïðèíöèïå, ÿâëÿëèñü “÷àñòüþ îáùåé ïîëèòèêè ìîäåðíèçàöèè îáùå- ñòâà, îñóùåñòâëÿâøåéñÿ ñòàëèíñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì”.4 Îäíàêî, â îòëè÷èå, íàïðèìåð, îò êëàññè÷åñêîãî ñëó÷àÿ Çàïàäíîé Åâðîïû, ãäå ïðîöåññ íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâà ñòàë âàæíûì ñðåäñòâîì ìîäåðíèçàöèè, ñîâåòñêàÿ “äîãîíÿþùàÿ” ìîäåëü ìîäåðíèçàöèè, íàïðîòèâ, ñòàâèëà ñâîåé ãëàâíîé öåëüþ ñîçäàíèå “íàöèîíàëüíûõ” îáùíîñòåé è âåí÷àþùåãî èõ “ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà”. Ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ïðàêòèêà íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâà ïðè ýòîì îïðåäåëÿëàñü áûñòðî çàêîñòåíåâøèìè èäåîëîãè÷åñêèìè äîãìàìè êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîãî ðåæèìà.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì âîçíèêàåò íàñòîÿòåëüíàÿ ïîòðåáíîñòü â èçó÷åíèè ñîâåòñêîé èäåîëîãèè – êàêèì îáðàçîì îíà èñïîëüçîâàëàñü â ïðîöåññàõ íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâà è êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ “íàöèîíàëüíûõ” è “íàäíàöèîíàëüíûõ” ôîðì èäåíòè÷íîñòè? Òåì áîëåå âîñòðåáîâàííîñòü òàêîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ îáóñëàâëèâàåòñÿ ñîçðåâøåé ê ñåãîäíÿøíåìó ìîìåíòó íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ, ïî ìíåíèþ ðÿäà èññëåäîâàòåëåé, “âîçâðàùåíèÿ èäåîëîãèè è ïîëèòèêè â îáùèé àíàëèç ñîâåòñêîãî ïåðèîäà”.5 Åñëè èñõîäèòü èç òîãî, ÷òî ëþáàÿ èäåíòè÷íîñòü âî ìíîãîì îïèðàåòñÿ íà îñîçíàíèå âñåìè ÷ëåíàìè îáùíîñòè åäèíñòâà ñâîåãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ è èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñóäüáû, èíûìè ñëîâàìè, åñëè ñ÷èòàòü, ÷òî â îñíîâå èäåíòè÷íîñòè ëåæèò êîíöåïò èñòîðèè, òî òîãäà

1 Ñ. Â. ×åøêî. Ðàñïàä Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà. Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ñ. 212. 2 Â. À. Òèøêîâ. Íàöèîíàëüíîñòè è íàöèîíàëèçì â ïîñòñîâåòñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå. (Èñòîðè÷åñêèé àñïåêò) // Ýòíè÷íîñòü è âëàñòü â ïîëèýòíè÷íîì ãîñóäàðñòâå. Ìîñêâà, 1994. Ñ. 16. 3 Ñ. Å. Ðûáàêîâ. Ôèëîñîôèÿ ýòíîñà. Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ñ. 312. 4 Ñ. Â. ×åøêî. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 207-208. 5 Ñ. Ã. Ãëåáîâ, À. Ñ. Ñåìåíîâ. Îò ðåäàêöèè. Ïîëèòèêà, èìïåðèÿ è íàöèîíàëèçì â ðàííåñîâåòñêèé ïåðèîä (Ïðåäèñëîâèå ê ïóáëèêàöèè) // Ab Imperio. 2002. ¹ 2. Ñ. 343. 240 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïðîáëåìó èçó÷åíèÿ èäåîëîãèè â ñîâåòñêîé èìïåðèè ìîæíî, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü â âèäå ïðåäëàãàåìîãî â ñîâðåìåííîé íàóêå íàáîðà âîïðîñîâ: “×òî ïðîèñõîäèò â èìïåðèè ñ ìíîæåñòâåííûìè àëüòåðíàòèâàìè âèäåíèÿ ïðîøëîãî, õàðàêòåðíûìè äëÿ îáðàçóþùèõ èìïåðèþ íàðîäîâ: èìïåðèÿ ýòè ‘îáðàçû ïðîøëîãî’, ïîäàâëÿåò, ñèíòåçèðóåò, èåðàðõèçèðóåò? Âîçìîæíî ëè ñóùåñòâîâàíèå îáùåé èìïåðñêîé ïàìÿòè êàê îñíîâû îáùåñòâåííîãî è ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà â èìïåðèè? Èëè â èìïåðñêîì êîíòåêñòå ìíîæåñòâåííûå àëüòåðíàòèâíûå ‘ïàìÿòè’ ñóùåñòâóþò â îïïîçèöèè ê èìïåðñêîìó èñòîðè÷åñêîìó ‘ãîñóäàðñòâåííîìó’ íàððàòèâó?”.6 Îñîáåííîñòüþ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà â ÑÑÑÐ ñòàëî òî, ÷òî êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèé ðåæèì àêòèâíî èñïîëüçîâàë ýòíè÷íîñòü äëÿ òåððèòîðèàëüíî-àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîãî ñòðóêòóðèðîâàíèÿ ñòðàíû. Ïîýòîìó îí ïðèëàãàë íåìàëî óñèëèé è ñðåäñòâ äëÿ ðàçâèòèÿ ñîâåòñêèõ ýòíîíàöèé. Äëÿ èíñòèòóàëèçàöèè è ñïîíñèðîâàíèÿ êóëüòóðíîãî ìíîãîîáðàçèÿ â ÑÑÑÐ áûëî âëîæåíî ìíîãî ìàòåðèàëüíûõ, íàó÷íûõ è ïðîïàãàíäèñòñêèõ ðåñóðñîâ. Áûëà âûðàáîòàíà ñâîåîáðàçíàÿ íîìåíêëàòóðà íàðîäî⠖ ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêèõ íàöèé è íàðîäíîñòåé, ðàíæèðîâàííûõ ïî ñâîåìó ýòíîïîëèòè÷åñêîìó ñòàòóñó îò ñîþçíûõ ðåñïóáëèê äî àâòîíîìíûõ îêðóãîâ. Áîëüøèíñòâî ñîâðåìåííûõ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ ñîãëàøàþòñÿ ñ òåì, ÷òî “ñîâåòñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî, íåñìîòðÿ íà åãî äåêëàðèðóåìóþ èíòåðíàöèîíàëüíóþ, êëàññîâóþ ïðèðîäó, îñóùåñòâèëî ýòíèçàöèþ ïîëèòèêè è äàæå âíóòðåííåãî àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîãî óñòðîéñòâà ”.7 Ïðàâÿùàÿ ïàðòèÿ èìåëà äîïîëíèòåëüíûé ðåñóðñ äëÿ îñóùåñòâëåíèÿ ýòíîíàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðèíöèïà â ïîëèòèêå è ãîñóäàðñòâåííî-àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîì óñòðîéñòâå ñòðàíû, ïîñêîëüêó ñîçäàëà õîðîøî îòëàæåííóþ êàðàòåëüíóþ ñèñòåìó è æåñòêóþ óïðàâëåí÷åñêóþ ñòðóêòóðó ãîñóäàðñòâà. Íàöèîíàëüíàÿ ïîëèòèêà êîììóíèñòîâ îáúÿñíÿëàñü íå ñòîëüêî èõ èñêðåííèì ñòðåìëåíèåì ê ïîäëèííîìó ðàñöâåòó è îñâîáîæäåíèþ íàðîäîâ, ñêîëüêî, êàê îòìåòèë Ò. Ìàðòèí, ïîíèìàíèåì òîãî, ÷òî “íàöèîíàëüíîå ñîçíàíèå ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåèçáåæíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ôàçîé, êîòîðóþ âñå íàðîäû äîëæíû ïðîéòè íà ïóòè ê èíòåðíàöèîíàëèçìó”.8

6 Åñòü ëè ó èìïåðèè “ïàìÿòü”? Ïðèãëàøåíèå ê äèñêóññèè. (Îò ðåäàêöèè) // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹ 1. Ñ. 11-12. 7 Â. À. Òèøêîâ. Ðåêâèåì ïî ýòíîñó. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïî ñîöèàëüíî-êóëüòóðíîé àíòðîïîëîãèè. Ìîñêâà, 2003. Ñ. 523. 8 Ò. Ìàðòèí. Èìïåðèÿ ïîçèòèâíîãî äåéñòâèÿ. Ñîâåòñêèé Ñîþç êàê âûñøàÿ ôîðìà èìïåðèàëèçìà? // Ab Imperio. 2002. ¹ 2. Ñ. 61. 241 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... Ïî ñëîâàì È. Â. Ñòàëèíà, áîëüøåâèêè ïðåäïðèíèìàëè äåéñòâèÿ, íàïðàâëåííûå íà “ìàêñèìàëüíîå ðàçâèòèå íàöèîíàëüíîé êóëüòóðû, ñ òåì, ÷òîáû îíà èñ÷åðïàëà ñåáÿ äî êîíöà, è ÷òîáû çàòåì áûëà ñîçäàíà áàçà äëÿ îðãàíèçàöèè ìåæäóíàðîäíîé ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû”.9 Áîëåå òîãî, ýòíîíàöèîíàëüíàÿ ñòàäèÿ ðàçâèòèÿ èìåëà ïîçèòèâíûé ñìûñë, ïîñêîëüêó îíà, êàê âåðíî ïîäìå÷åíî Ò. Ìàðòèíîì, ñîîòíîñèëàñü ñ ïðîöåññîì ìîäåðíèçàöèè: “ Óêðåïëåíèå íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñòàòóñà ñòàëî àññîöèèðîâàòüñÿ ñ èñòîðè÷åñêèì ïðîãðåññîì. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ôîðìèðîâàíèå íàöèé âîñïðèíèìàëîñü êàê íåèçáåæíàÿ è ïîçèòèâíàÿ ñòàäèÿ â ìîäåðíèçàöèè Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà”.10 Íåìàëîâàæíîé ïðè÷èíîé, ïîäòîëêíóâøåé êîììóíèñòîâ ê îïûòó ýòíè÷åñêîãî ôåäåðàëèçìà, ñòàëî òàêæå æåëàíèå ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü ìèðîâîìó ñîîáùåñòâó èäåàëüíîñòü íàöèîíàëüíî-ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óñòðîéñòâà Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà. Ýòîò ïðîöåññ î÷åíü òî÷íî îïèñàí À. Ä. Ñèíÿâñêèì, îòìå÷àâøèì, ÷òî áîëüøåâèêè ïîøëè “íà óñòóïêè ôåäåðàëèçìó, ñ òåì, ÷òîáû ñîçäàòü Èìïåðèþ, íîâóþ, èíòåðíàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêóþ è ïîòîìó ïðî÷íóþ èìïåðèþ. Ýòè óñòóïêè íè÷åì íå ãðîçèëè åäèíñòâó, à íàïðîòèâ åãî óêðåïëÿëè, è îäíîâðåìåííî ïðåâðàùàëè Ñîâåòñêèé Ñîþç â íåêóþ èäåàëüíóþ ìîäåëü áóäóùåãî êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîãî ìèðîóñòðîéñòâà Òðåáîâàëîñü, ÷òîáû ýòîò ïðîîáðàç áûë íàñòîëüêî ïðåêðàñåí, íàñòîëüêî ñâîáîäåí îò íàöèîíàëüíûõ ðàçíîãëàñèé, ÷òî âåñü ìèð óñòðåìèëñÿ áû ê ïîäîáíîé ãàðìîíèè”.11  ðåçóëüòàòå â ÑÑÑÐ êîíöåïöèÿ íàöèîíàëüíîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè óòâåðäèëàñü íà óðîâíå ýòíîòåððèòîðèàëüíûõ àâòîíîìèé, à çàäà÷à “íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâà” îêàçàëàñü â èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì àðñåíàëå ýòíè÷åñêè îáîçíà÷åííûõ âíóòðèãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ îáðàçîâàíèé, íàä êîòîðûìè, âïðî÷åì, ñîõðàíÿëñÿ âñåîáúåìëþùèé ïîëèòèêî-èäåîëîãè÷åñêèé è êàäðîâûé êîíòðîëü ñî ñòîðîíû ïðàâÿùåé ïàðòèè. Êàê îòìå÷àåò â ýòîé ñâÿçè Â. À. Òèøêîâ, “ ñîâåòñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî ïîøëî íàñòîëüêî äàëåêî â ýêñïåðèìåíòàõ ñ ýòíè÷íîñòüþ, ÷òî ñïóñòèëî êðàéíå âàæíóþ ìåòàôîðó íàöèè ñ îáùåãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óðîâíÿ íà óðîâåíü ýòíè÷åñêèõ îáùíîñòåé”. È, ÷òî îñîáåííî âàæíî, ýòîò ñóùåñòâåííûé ýëåìåíò ïîëèòèêè èäåíòè÷íîñòè áûë çàìåíåí “ïðîïàãàíäîé îáùåñîâåòñêîãî ïàòðèîòèçìà, à çàòåì ïîíÿòèåì ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà êàê íîâîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé îáùíîñòè ëþäåé”.12 Íàñàæäàÿ äàííûå èäåîëîãåìû,

9 È.Â. Ñòàëèí. Ìàðêñèçì è íàöèîíàëüíî-êîëîíèàëüíûé âîïðîñ. Ìîñêâà, 1939. Ñ. 211. 10 Ò. Ìàðòèí. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 62. 11 À. Ä. Ñèíÿâñêèé. Îñíîâû ñîâåòñêîé öèâèëèçàöèè. Ìîñêâà, 2001. Ñ. 338-339. 12 Â. À. Òèøêîâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 523. 242 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êîììóíèñòû, ôàêòè÷åñêè, ñòàëè âûñòóïàòü â ðîëè ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ íàöèîíàëèñòîâ â ìàñøòàáàõ ÑÑÑÐ è ñòðåìèëèñü îñóùåñòâèòü ñâîé íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèé ïðîåêò, êîòîðûé ïî ïðè÷óäëèâîé ëîãèêå “ìàðêñèñòñêî-ëåíèíñêîé äèàëåêòèêè” ïîçèöèîíèðîâàëñÿ â êàòå- ãîðèÿõ èíòåðíàöèîíàëèçìà. Ìîæíî óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî çà ôàñàäîì ñîâåòñêîãî ôåäåðàëèçìà è ýòíîíàöèîíàëüíîãî ìíîãîîáðàçèÿ ñêðû- âàëàñü äîâîëüíî îò÷åòëèâî ïðîñëåæèâàåìàÿ òåíäåíöèÿ ê óíèôè- êàöèè è óíèòàðèçìó, ýêñïëèöèòíûì ïðîÿâëåíèåì êîòîðîé ñòàëî âíåäðåíèå â îáùåñòâåííîå ñîçíàíèå ñîâåòñêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè. Ïðàâÿùèé ðåæèì ñòðåìèëñÿ ïðîâîäèòü ïîëèòèêó ïîëèòè÷åñ- êîé è êóëüòóðíîé êîíñîëèäàöèè íàñåëåíèÿ Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà.  ôîðìèðóåìîì èì èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì äèñêóðñå ïðîèçâîäèëîñü àê- òèâíîå ìàíèïóëèðîâàíèå èñòîðè÷åñêèì ìàòåðèàëîì, ïîñðåäñòâîì ÷åãî ñîçäàâàëñÿ åäèíûé âçãëÿä íà èñòîðèþ ÑÑÑÐ. Ýòèì äëÿ âñåõ íàðîäîâ ñîâåòñêîé èìïåðèè êîíñòðóèðîâàëàñü îáùàÿ èñòîðè÷åñ- êàÿ ïàìÿòü. Áûë ðàçðàáîòàí ðÿä èäåîëîãåì, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðûõ àêòóàëèçèðîâàëîñü îáùåñîâåòñêîå ñîçíàíèå. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, êàê îòìå÷àåò È. Íàðñêèé, “îáðàçû ‘ñîáèðàíèÿ çåìåëü’ è ‘âîññîåäèíåíèÿ’, ‘áðàòñêîé ïîìîùè’ è ‘äðóæáû íàðîäîâ’, îòíþäü íå íåñóùèå òîòàëèòàð- íûé ïîòåíöèàë, – âïîëíå ýôôåêòèâíîå ñðåäñòâî íàäíàöèîíàëüíîé ìî- áèëèçàöèè”.13 Îñîáàÿ ðîëü â ïðîöåññå êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ îáùåé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ñòàëà ïðèíàäëåæàòü êîíöåïòó “äðóæáû íà- ðîäîâ”, ïîÿâèâøåìóñÿ â õîäå ïåðåîñìûñëåíèÿ (êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ) èñòîðèè ñ ïîçèöèé îðòîäîêñàëüíîãî ñîâåòñêîãî ìàðêñèçìà. Ñòà- íîâëåíèå åäèíîãî ñîâåòñêîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ ïðîèñõîäèëî òàêæå ÷åðåç àêòóàëèçàöèþ èäåîëîãåìû “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”.

Äðóæáà íàðîäîâ Ïðîïàãàíäèðóÿ èäåîëîãåìó “äðóæáû íàðîäîâ”, ãîñóäàðñòâî ñòðåìèëîñü óáåäèòü íàñåëåíèå ñòðàíû â òîì, ÷òî âñå îíî, íåñìîò- ðÿ íà ýòíîêóëüòóðíûå ðàçëè÷èÿ, èìååò åäèíóþ èñòîðè÷åñêóþ ñóäü- áó. Äëÿ ýòîãî èñïîëüçîâàëñÿ ñòàíäàðòíûé ïðèåì èç àðñåíàëà íà- öèîíàëèçìà, êîãäà ìíîæåñòâî ëîêàëüíûõ èñòîðèé – èñòîðèé íàðî- äîâ ÑÑÑÐ – ñëèâàëèñü â åäèíûé ïîòîê. Âíèìàíèå â íàó÷íîé, ó÷åá- íîé è ïðîïàãàíäèñòñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå àêöåíòèðîâàëîñü íà ñîâìåñò- íûõ äåéñòâèÿõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ðàçíûõ ýòíîñîâ, íàïðèìåð: “Äðóæáà

13 È. Íàðñêèé.  “èìïåðèè” è ⠓íàöèè” ïîìíèò ÷åëîâåê. Ïàìÿòü êàê ñîöèàëüíûé ôåíîìåí // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹ 1. Ñ. 87. 243 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... íàðîäîâ Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè ñâîå íà÷àëî áåðåò åùå â äîðåâîëþöèîí- íîì ïðîøëîì. Èìååòñÿ ìíîãî èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ î ñîâìåñ- òíûõ âûñòóïëåíèÿõ íàðîäîâ, íàñåëÿâøèõ òåððèòîðèþ íàøåé ðåñ- ïóáëèêè, ïðîòèâ èíîçåìíûõ çàõâàò÷èêîâ. Ìîíãîëüñêèå õàíû è ìàíü- ÷æóðî-êèòàéñêèå çàâîåâàòåëè ñîâåðøàëè íåîäíîêðàòíûå íàáåãè ñ öåëüþ ïîä÷èíåíèÿ è ãðàáåæà íàðîäîâ Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè. Îäíàêî îíè ïîëó÷àëè äðóæíûé îòïîð ñî ñòîðîíû áóðÿò, ðóññêèõ è ýâåíêîâ”.14 Îñîáåííî âàæíóþ ðîëü â ïðîöåññå âûðàáîòêè îáùåé èñòîðè- ÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè, åñòåñòâåííî, èãðàëà íàóêà. Àíàëèçèðóÿ áóðÿòñêèé ñîâåòñêèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ, ìîæíî ïðèéòè ê âûâîäó, ÷òî öåëüþ îôèöèàëüíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè áûëî îáîñíîâàíèå íåñêîëü- êî âàæíûõ â ïîëèòè÷åñêîì ñìûñëå ïîëîæåíèé. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ó÷å- íûå äîêàçûâàëè óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü çàêîíîìåðíîñòåé ðàçâèòèÿ èñòî- ðè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà âîîáùå, è, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ïðèìåíèìîñòü ìàð- êñèñòñêîé ìåòîäîëîãèè äëÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèè ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñ- êîé è ïîëèòè÷åñêîé èñòîðèè Áóðÿòèè. Âî-âòîðûõ, íà êîíêðåòíîì èñòîðè÷åñêîì ìàòåðèàëå äåìîíñòðèðîâàëîñü, ÷òî ñëîæåíèå åäè- íîé ñîöèàëüíîé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé, ïîëèòè÷åñêîé îáùíîñòè â ãðàíè- öàõ èìïåðèè øëî óæå äàâíî è ðåàëèçîâûâàëîñü îäíîâðåìåííî ïîñðåä- ñòâîì êîíñîëèäàöèè â ñîöèàëüíîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå ñëîÿ ýêñïëóàòàòî- ðîâ è îñîçíàíèåì åäèíñòâà ñâîèõ èíòåðåñîâ ýêñïëóàòèðóåìûì íà- ñåëåíèåì èìïåðèè. Ýòíîêóëüòóðíûé àñïåêò ïðè ýòîì îòõîäèë íà çàäíèé ïëàí, óñòóïàÿ ïî çíà÷èìîñòè èäåå ñîöèàëüíî-êëàññîâûõ àíòàãîíèçìà èëè ñîëèäàðíîñòè. Íàïðèìåð, â 1934 è 1952 ãã. ñîñòîÿëèñü äâà ñîâåùàíèÿ áóðÿòñ- êèõ èñòîðèêîâ. Ñîâåòñêèìè èäåîëîãàìè ïîä÷åðêèâàëàñü èõ ïîëè- òè÷åñêàÿ âàæíîñòü, çàêëþ÷àâøàÿñÿ â òîì, ÷òî â õîäå ðàáîòû ýòèõ ñîâåùàíèé áûëè îòñå÷åíû âñå âîçìîæíûå àëüòåðíàòèâû âèäåíèÿ èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà â Áóðÿòèè (ê ñëîâó ñêàçàòü, àëüòåðíàòèâ ýòèõ áûëî íå òàê ìíîãî è, â êîíå÷íîì ñ÷åòå, âñå îíè ñòðîèëèñü, îïÿòü-òàêè, íà îñíîâå ìàðêñèñòñêîãî ïîäõîäà ê èñòîðèè). Áûë ïðèíÿò óíèôèöèðîâàííûé – îôèöèàëüíî ïðèçíàííûé è äî- ïóñòèìûé – âçãëÿä íà èñòîðè÷åñêîå ðàçâèòèå áóðÿòñêîãî íàðî- äà. Êàê îòìå÷àëè ñàìè ó÷àñòíèêè ñîâåùàíèÿ 1934 ã., îäíà èç åãî âàæíåéøèõ çàäà÷ çàêëþ÷àëàñü ⠓ïðåîäîëåíèè áóðæóàçíîé èñòî- ðèîãðàôèè”. Íåîáõîäèìî áûëî äàòü “îòïîð íåâåðíûì óñòàíîâêàì, âñêðûòü ðÿä ñóùåñòâåííûõ èçâðàùåíèé â ïîíèìàíèè èñòîðè÷åñ-

14 Ä. Ö. Öûðåìïèëîí. Ïîä çíàìåíåì ñòàëèíñêîé äðóæáû íàðîäîâ // 25 ëåò Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëüñêîé ÀÑÑÐ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1948. Ñ. 42. 244 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êîãî ïðîöåññà, è â ýòîì åãî [ñîâåùàíèÿ] áîëüøàÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ çíà÷èìîñòü”.15 Ïðåîäîëåíèå áóðæóàçíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè âûðàæà- ëîñü â ïðåñå÷åíèè ðàçãîðàâøåéñÿ áûëî ñðåäè áóðÿòñêèõ èñòîðè- êîâ äèñêóññèè îá îñîáåííîñòÿõ ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé èñòî- ðèè Áóðÿòèè. Íåêîòîðûå ïûòàëèñü óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî â Áóðÿòèè íå áûëî ôåîäàëüíîé ôîðìàöèè. Èç ïåðâîáûòíî-ðîäîâîãî ñòðîÿ ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì ðîññèéñêîãî êîëîíèàëèçìà îíà ñðàçó ÿêîáû ïå- ðåøëà ê êàïèòàëèñòè÷åñêèì îòíîøåíèÿì. Ïîäîáíûå “çàáëóæäå- íèÿ” áûëè ðåøèòåëüíî ðàçâåí÷àíû: “ñòðîé îáùåñòâåííî-ýêîíî- ìè÷åñêèõ îòíîøåíèé â Áóðÿòèè XVII, XVIII è íà÷àëà XIX ñòîëå- òèé ïîêàçûâàåò íàì íàëè÷èå âñåõ òåõ ïðîòèâîðå÷èé, êîòîðûå ñâîé- ñòâåííû âñÿêîìó ôåîäàëèçìó ”.16 Íà ñîâåùàíèè 1952 ã. òàêæå îòìå÷àëîñü, ÷òî “Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèÿ, êàê è âñÿ íàøà ñòðàíà, ïðîøëà äëèòåëüíûé è ñëîæíûé ïóòü èñòî- ðè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ îò ïåðâîáûòíî-îáùèííîãî ñòðîÿ ê ñîöèàëèñòè- ÷åñêîìó îáùåñòâó.  åå èñòîðèè ïðîÿâëÿþòñÿ êàê îáùèå çàêîíî- ìåðíîñòè èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà, òàê è ìåñòíûå îñîáåííîñòè èñ- òîðè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ”. Âîïðîñ î íàëè÷èè ôåîäàëèçìà ðåøàëñÿ â êîíòåêñòå áîëåå øèðîêîé ïðîáëåìû ïåðèîäèçàöèè èñòîðèè ÑÑÑÐ: “Íåîáõîäèìî íà îñíîâå ìàðêñèñòñêî-ëåíèíñêîé ìåòîäîëîãèè äàòü òàêóþ ïåðèîäèçàöèþ [Áóðÿòèè], êîòîðàÿ ñî÷åòàëàñü áû ñ ïåðèîäè- çàöèåé èñòîðèè âñåé íàøåé ñòðàíû ”.17 Ðåàëèçàöèÿ òàêîé çàäà÷è âûçûâàëà âïîëíå çàñëóæåííóþ êðèòèêó ñî ñòîðîíû íåìíîãèõ èñ- ñëåäîâàòåëåé: “ ïåðèîäèçàöèÿ èñòîðèè áóðÿòñêîãî íàðîäà ñòðî- èòñÿ ïî õðîíîëîãè÷åñêèì ïåðèîäàì èñòîðèè ðóññêîãî íàðîäà. [Òîã- äà êàê â íåé] äîëæíû áûòü îòðàæåíû ìåñòíûå îñîáåííîñòè”, ïîä êîòîðûìè, âïðî÷åì, ïîíèìàëèñü âñåãî ëèøü áîëåå “ìåäëåííûå òåìïû ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî è îáùåñòâåííîãî ðàçâèòèÿ êðàÿ â ñðàâíå- íèè ñ öåíòðîì Ðîññèè”.18

15 Ê èñòîðèè Áóðÿòî-Ìîíãîëèè. Ìàòåðèàëû äèñêóññèè, ñîñòîÿâøåéñÿ â èþíå 1934 ã. â Óëàí-Óäý / Ïîä ðåäàêöèåé À. Â. Øåñòàêîâà è À. È. Ëîìàêèíà. Ìîñêâà, Ëåíèíãðàä, 1935. Ñ. 12. 16 Ï. Õàïòàåâ. Ñïîðíûå âîïðîñû èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà Áóðÿòî- Ìîíãîëèè // Ê èñòîðèè Áóðÿòî-Ìîíãîëèè. Ìàòåðèàëû äèñêóññèè. Ñ. 33. 17 Ô. À. Êóäðÿâöåâ. Ê âîïðîñó î ïåðèîäèçàöèè èñòîðèè Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè // Ñîâå- ùàíèå ïî îñíîâíûì âîïðîñàì èñòîðèè Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè ïðè Èíñòèòóòå èñòîðèè Àêàäåìèè Íàóê ÑÑÑÐ. 27 îêòÿáðÿ 1952 ãîäà. Òåçèñû äîêëàäîâ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1952. Ñ. 4. 18 Ê. Ì. Ãåðàñèìîâà. Ìîñêîâñêîå ñîâåùàíèå ïî îñíîâíûì âîïðîñàì èñòîðèè ÁÌÀÑÑÐ (Îòäåëüíûé îòòèñê èç “Çàïèñîê Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëüñêîãî íàó÷íî- èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîãî èíñòèòóòà êóëüòóðû”. Âûï. XVII). Óëàí-Óäý, 1953. Ñ. 106. 245 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... Êàê íàì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ðåøåíèÿ, ïðèíÿòûå íà ñîâåùà- íèÿõ ïî ïðîáëåìàì èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ Áóðÿòèè è áóðÿòñêî- ãî íàðîäà, èìåÿ èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð, ïðåñëåäîâàëè âïîë- íå êîíêðåòíûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå öåëè. Çàäàííûå íà íèõ ïðèíöèïû ôîð- ìèðîâàíèÿ îôèöèàëüíîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî íàððàòèâà ïîçâîëÿëè ïî- ìåñòèòü ëîêàëüíóþ áóðÿòñêóþ èñòîðèþ â îáùèé èñòîðèêî-èìïåð- ñêèé êîíòåêñò, è òåì ñàìûì çàäàâàëè âçãëÿä íà íåå êàê íà íåîòúåì- ëåìóþ ÷àñòü èñòîðèè ÑÑÑÐ. Îòñþäà ïðîèñòåêàë óæå âïîëíå èíñò- ðóìåíòàëüíûé âûâîä, ïðåâðàùàâøèé èñòîðèþ ⠓ñëóæàíêó” ïîëè- òèêè è èäåîëîãèè, â íàäåæíîå ñðåäñòâî, ïîçâîëÿâøåå âëàñòè êîíò- ðîëèðîâàòü è êîððåêòèðîâàòü îáùåñòâåííîå ñîçíàíèå è ïàìÿòü â íóæíîì äëÿ íåå (âëàñòè) íàïðàâëåíèè. Êàê óòâåðæäàë îäèí èç ó÷à- ñòíèêîâ äèñêóññèè 1934 ã., èñòîðèê Ï. Õàïòàåâ, òðàíñëèðóÿ îôè- öèàëüíóþ èäåîëîãè÷åñêóþ óñòàíîâêó: “Íàäî äðàòüñÿ çà îâëàäå- íèå âûñîòàìè èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêè, ñ òåì, ÷òîáû èñòîðèÿ íå ñëó- æèëà ìîñòîì ïðîòàñêèâàíèÿ òåîðèé, âðàæäåáíûõ ìàðêñèçìó-ëå- íèíèçìó. Ïîðà ïðèâëå÷ü èñòîðèþ íà ñëóæáó ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà”.19 Ïîìåùåíèå ëîêàëüíîé èñòîðèè â óíèâåðñàëèñòñêèé êîíòåêñò ìèðîâîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà ñîçäàâàëî ôèëîñîôñêèé è ìèðîâîç- çðåí÷åñêèé ôóíäàìåíò, íà îñíîâå êîòîðîãî ìîãëà, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ðàçâèâàòüñÿ èäåÿ î êîíñîëèäàöèè íàñåëåíèÿ Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè. Çàäàííûé ìàðêñèñòñêîé ìåòîäîëîãèåé ïðèîðèòåò êëàññîâîãî íàä íàöèîíàëüíûì / ýòíè÷åñêèì îáóñëîâëèâàë è ñïîñîá èíòåðïðåòàöèè ýòîé êîíñîëèäàöèè. Ñ÷èòàëîñü, ÷òî èíòåãðàöèîííûå ïðîöåññû, èìåâøèå ìåñòî â èìïåðñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå, ïðîòåêàëè âíóòðè ñîöèàëüíûõ êëàññîâ. À ìåæýòíè÷åñêîå âçàèìîäåéñòâèå ðàññìàòðèâà- ëîñü êàê ÿâëåíèå âòîðîñòåïåííîå è îïîñðåäîâàííîå êëàññîâîé áîðüáîé. Ñëîæåíèå åäèíîé ñîöèàëüíîé îáùíîñòè â èìïåðèè îôèöèàëüíûé èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ ðàññìàòðèâàë îòäåëüíî, ïî äâóì ñåãìåíòàì. Ïîñòóëèðîâàëîñü, ÷òî, â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, â èíòåãðàöèîííûå ïðîöåññû áûëè âîâëå÷åíû ýêñïëóàòàòîðñêèå âåðõóøêè êîëîíèçèðîâàâøåãî (ðóññêèé öàðèçì) è êîëîíèçèðóåìîãî (áóðÿòñêèå ôåîäàëû – íîéîíû, ëàìû, à ïîçæå è íàðîæäàþùèéñÿ êëàññ áóðÿòñêèõ êàïèòàëèñòîâ) ñîîáùåñòâ. Îáúåäèíåíèå ýêñïëóàòàòîðîâ ÿêîáû îñíîâûâàëîñü íà îáùåì ýêîíîìè÷åñêîì è ïîëèòè÷åñêîì èíòåðåñå. Êàê ïèñàë óæå óïîìèíàâøèéñÿ Ï. Õàïòàåâ, “ öàðèçì âñÿ÷åñêè ïîääåðæèâàë

19 Ï. Õàïòàåâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 52. 246 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 è ïîîùðÿë íîéîíñòâî. Ýòî èìåëî äâîÿêîå çíà÷åíèå: âî-ïåðâûõ, ïîääåðæêà è ïîîùðåíèå íîéîíñòâà... óìíîæàëè ñèëó è ìîãóùåñòâî öàðèçìà; âî-âòîðûõ, ñîõðàíåíèå è óêðåïëåíèå èíñòèòóòà íîéîíñòâà áûëè íåîáõîäèìû äëÿ öàðèçìà â öåëÿõ ôåîäàëüíîé ýêñïëîàòàöèè Áóðÿòèè”.20 Ýòîò ñîâìåñòíûé èíòåðåñ ÷óòü ïîçæå áóäòî áû ïðèâåë ê òåñíîé ñïàéêå â ðàìêàõ åäèíîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ñèñòåìû èìïåðèè, ïðè÷åì ýòî åäèíåíèå îñîçíàâàëîñü ñàìèìè ýêñïëóàòàòîðàìè. Êàê ïðîçâó÷àëî â âûñòóïëåíèè â ïðåíèÿõ íà äèñêóññèè 1934 ã. èñòîðèêà Î. Äàøèäîíäîáå, “Òàéøèíñêî-íîéîíñêàÿ âëàñòü, áóäó÷è ôåîäàëüíîé ïî ñâîåìó ñóùåñòâó, îðãàíè÷åñêè ñëèëàñü ñ îáùèì êðåïîñòíè÷åñêèì ðåæèìîì ðóññêîãî öàðèçìà, íàõîäÿ â ïîñëåäíåì íàäåæíóþ îïîðó è âäîõíîâèòåëÿ. Òàéøèíñêî- íîéîíñêàÿ êàñòà ïîìîãàëà öàðèçìó ðóñèôèöèðîâàòü áóðÿòñêèå ìàññû ïóòåì ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèÿ õðèñòèàíñòâà, ïåðåâîäà íàñåëåíèÿ íà çåìëåäåëèå âìåñòî ñêîòîâîäñòâà”.21 Âìåñòå ñ òåì, îôèöèàëüíàÿ èñòîðèîãðàôèÿ àêöåíòèðîâàëà âíèìàíèå è íà îäíîâðåìåííî ïðîèñõîäèâøåé êîíñîëèäàöèè ýêñïëóàòèðóåìûõ: “Ïàðàëëåëüíî ñ ïðîöåññîì ñáëèæåíèÿ áóðÿòñêîé ôåîäàëüíîé âåðõóøêè ñ ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè öàðñêîé âëàñòè, íà ìåñòàõ øëî ñáëèæåíèå íàðîäíûõ ìàññ ðóññêèõ, áóðÿò è ýâåíêîâ íà ïî÷âå îáùåé áîðüáû ïðîòèâ óãíåòåíèÿ è ýêñïëóàòàöèè ñî ñòîðîíû ôåîäàëüíî-êðåïîñòíè÷åñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà è åãî àãåíòîâ â ëèöå âîåâîä è ïðèêàçíûõ”.22 Ýòîò àñïåêò èñòîðè÷åñêîãî äèñêóðñà áûë îñîáåííî âàæíûì äëÿ ðàçâèòèÿ èäåîëîãåìû “äðóæáû íàðîäî┠è êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ â åå êîíòåêñòå îáðàçà îáùåãî äëÿ âñåõ íàðîäîâ ãåðîè÷åñêîãî ïðîøëîãî. Ãëàâíûì ýëåìåíòîì, èíòåãðèðóþùèì îòäåëüíûå èñòîðèè â åäèíîå öåëîå, â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ìàðêñèñòñêî-ëåíèíñêîé òåîðèåé, ñòàíîâèëàñü ïðè ýòîì êëàññîâàÿ áîðüáà íàðîäîâ. Ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëåíèå ýêñïëóàòèðóåìûõ è ýêñïëóàòàòîðîâ âûâîäèëî íà ïðîáëåìó îñîçíàíèÿ èíòåðíàöèîíàëüíîãî åäèíñòâà òðóäÿùèõñÿ ìàññ: “Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî öàðñêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî è ýêñïëóàòàòîðû âñåìè ìåòîäàìè ðàçæèãàëè âðàæäó ìåæäó íàðîäàìè, îáùàÿ íåíàâèñòü ê ýêñïëóàòàòîðñêèì êëàññàì è âíåøíèì âðàãàì ñïîñîáñòâîâàëè óêðåï- ëåíèþ ýòîé äðóæáû è âçàèìîïîíèìàíèÿ” (Ä. Ö. Öûðåìïèëîí).23 Àïåëëèðóÿ ê êîíêðåòíîìó èñòîðè÷åñêîìó ìàòåðèàëó (íàïðèìåð,

20 Ï. Õàïòàåâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 32. 21 Î. Äàøèäîíäîáå. [Âûñòóïëåíèå â ïðåíèÿõ] // Ê èñòîðèè Áóðÿòî-Ìîíãîëèè. Ìàòåðèàëû äèñêóññèè. Ñ. 114. 22 Ô. À. Êóäðÿâöåâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 7-8. 23 Ä. Ö. Öûðåìïèëîí. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 43. 247 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... ê áðàòñêîìó âîññòàíèþ 1696 ã.), áóðÿòñêèå ó÷åíûå äîêàçûâàëè, ÷òî äàæå â XVII âåêå “äâèæåíèå íàðîäíûõ íèçîâ ïðèâîäèò ê îáúåäè- íåííûì âûñòóïëåíèÿì”, â êîòîðûõ “ïðèíÿëè ó÷àñòèå è ðóññêèå, è áóðÿòû, è ýâåíêè”. Ïðè ýòîì ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü, ÷òî “îðãàíèçî- âàííûé õàðàêòåð âûñòóïëåíèÿ îïðîâåðãàåò âåðñèþ î åãî ñòèõèé- íîñòè è ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î ïðî÷íîñòè ñâÿçåé, óñòàíîâèâøèõñÿ ìåæäó ðóññêèìè è áóðÿòàìè íà ïî÷âå îñîçíàíèÿ åäèíñòâà èíòå- ðåñîâ â áîðüáå ñ îáùèìè èõ óãíåòàòåëÿìè”.  ðåçóëüòàòå äåëàëñÿ âûâîä, ÷òî óæå òîãäà “âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó ðóññêèì è áóðÿòñ- êèì íàñåëåíèåì íàñòîëüêî óïðî÷èëèñü, ÷òî ñòàëè âîçìîæíû ñî- âìåñòíûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå âûñòóïëåíèÿ, îòðàæàâøèå îáùíîñòü èí- òåðåñîâ, âñå áîëåå îñîçíàâàåìóþ è ðóññêèìè, è áóðÿòàìè”.24 Åäèíñòâî èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñóäüáû âûðàæàëîñü íå òîëüêî â íàëè- ÷èè îáùåé èñòîðèè, íî è îáùåãî íàñòîÿùåãî.  îôèöèàëüíîì äèñ- êóðñå ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü, ÷òî äëÿ ñîâåòñêîé Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè õàðàê- òåðíûì ñòàë “êðåïêèé ñîþç è ïîëíàÿ ñîëèäàðíîñòü ðàáî÷èõ è êðå- ñòüÿí, êàê ðóññêèõ, òàê è áóðÿò”.25 Óñïåøíàÿ íàöèîíàëüíàÿ ïîëè- òèêà Êîìïàðòèè ïðèâåëà ê òîìó, ÷òî “âðåìåíà íàöèîíàëüíîé ðîç- íè, âçàèìíîãî íåäîâåðèÿ áåçâîçâðàòíî óøëè â ïðîøëîå. Äðóæáà âñåõ íàðîäîâ ÑÑÑÐ, ñêðåïëåííàÿ ãîäàìè ñîâìåñòíîãî ñòðîèòåëü- ñòâà õîçÿéñòâà è êóëüòóðû ñâîåé ðîäèíû, ñòàëà íåðóøèìîé”.26  ðåçóëüòàòå â Áóðÿòèè, êàê è âñþäó â Ñîâåòñêîì Ñîþçå, ìîæíî íà- áëþäàòü “îáðàçîâàíèå ìîðàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî åäèíñòâà íàðîäîâ íàøåé Ðîäèíû, ñïëîòèâøèõñÿ âîêðóã ïàðòèè è ñîâåòñêîãî ïðà- âèòåëüñòâà”.27 Âåäóùóþ ðîëü â äåëå êîíñîëèäàöèè ðàçíîðîäíîãî â ýòíîêóëüòóðíîì îòíîøåíèè íàñåëåíèÿ ïîëèòèêè, à ñ èõ ïîäà÷è è èñòîðèêè îòäàâàëè “òðóäÿùèìñÿ ìàññàì”: “â òÿæêèõ èñïûòàíè- ÿõ âûêîâûâàëñÿ âåëèêèé äðóæåñêèé ñîþç íàðîäîâ, íî çà÷àòêè åãî îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ è â äàëåêîì ïðîøëîì, â æèçíè íàðîäíûõ íèçîâ”.28 Êàê ïîêàçûâàåò ïðèâåäåííûé âûøå ìàòåðèàë, õàðàêòåðíîé ÷åð- òîé îôèöèàëüíîãî èäåîëîãè÷åñêîãî äèñêóðñà, ôîðìóëèðîâàâøå-

24 Å. Ì. Çàëêèíä. Íåðóøèìàÿ äðóæáà áóðÿò-ìîíãîëüñêîãî è ðóññêîãî íàðîäîâ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1943. Ñ. 7, 11. 25 Òðåòèé ñúåçä Ñîâåòîâ Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëüñêîé Àâòîíîìíîé Ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé Ñîâåòñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè (25 ìàðòà-3 àïðåëÿ 1927 ã.). Âåðõíåóäèíñê, 1927. Ñ. 1. 26 Å. Ì. Çàëêèíä. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 28. 27 Ä. Ö. Öûðåìïèëîí. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 47. 28 Å. Ì. Çàëêèíä. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 5. 248 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ãîñÿ âëàñòüþ â 40-å ãã. ÕÕ â., ñòàëî òî, ÷òî ñóáúåêòàìè äåéñòâèÿ â íåì ÷àñòî âûñòóïàëè íå ñîâåòñêèå ãðàæäàíå, à “ñàìîîïðåäåëèâ- øèåñÿ” íàðîäû, ò.å. íàðîäû, ïîëó÷èâøèå íàöèîíàëüíóþ ãîñó- äàðñòâåííîñòü è âûñòóïàâøèå â êà÷åñòâå êîëëåêòèâíûõ ÷ëåíîâ ÑÑÑÐ. Êîíå÷íî, ê ðåàëüíîé þðèäè÷åñêî-ïðàâîâîé ïðàêòèêå, ãäå ãëàâíûì ñóáúåêòîì îñòàâàëñÿ âñå æå îòäåëüíûé ãðàæäàíèí-èíäèâèäóóì, ýòà îñîáåííîñòü äèñêóðñà íå èìåëà íèêàêîãî îòíîøåíèÿ, íî â ïîëèòèêî- èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì ïëàíå îíà ïðèçâàíà áûëà ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü ïðàâîìî÷íîñòü è ðàâåíñòâî ñîâåòñêèõ íàöèé. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, “èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïîáåä â äåëå ñòðîèòåëüñòâà íîâîé ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé æèçíè” äîáèâàëîñü íå ñîîáùåñòâî ãðàæäàí, à “áóðÿò-ìîíãîëüñêèé íàðîä ïðè ïîìîùè âåëèêîãî ðóññêîãî è äðóãèõ áðàòñêèõ íàðîäîâ Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà”;29 âîéíó ñ ôàøèñòñêîé Ãåðìàíèåé âåëè íå ïðîñòî ãðàæäàíå ÑÑÑÐ, à “áóðÿò-ìîíãîëüñêèé íàðîä âìåñòå ñî âñåìè íàðîäàìè Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà ”;30 èíòåíñèâíîå ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíî- ìè÷åñêîå ðàçâèòèå ÑÑÑÐ øëî çà ñ÷åò “ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà íàðîäîâ â ñèñòåìå åäèíîãî ñîþçíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà”.31 Êîãäà ðå÷ü øëà î “ñàìîîïðåäåëèâøèõñÿ íàöèÿõ”, òî ñîâåòñêàÿ îáùíîñòü ïîíèìàëàñü â êà÷åñòâå åäèíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî è èäåîëî- ãè÷åñêîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà è îáîçíà÷àëàñü â ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ òåðìèíàõ. Áóðÿò-ìîíãîëû, ïîëó÷èâøèå ñâîþ íàöèîíàëüíóþ ðåñïóáëèêó, â åå ëèöå ñòàíîâèëèñü “íåîòúåìëåìîé, ñâÿçàííîé êðîâíûìè óçàìè ñî âñåé ñòðàíîé, ÷àñòüþ Âåëèêîãî Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà”.32 Âàðèàíòàìè íàçâàíèÿ åäèíîé ñîâåòñêîé îáùíîñòè â äàííîì êîíòåêñòå ìîãëè âûñòóïàòü “ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîå îòå÷åñòâî” (“ áóðÿò-ìîíãîëüñêèé íàðîä, âìåñòå ñî âñåìè íàðîäàìè Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà, îòñòàèâàåò ñâîáîäó è íåçàâèñèìîñòü ñâîåãî ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî Îòå÷åñòâà ”33 ) ëèáî “ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêàÿ ðîäèíà – ÑÑÑД (“Áóðÿò-ìîíãîëüñêèé íàðîä áåñïðåäåëüíî ëþáèò ñâîþ ïðåêðàñíóþ ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêóþ Ðîäèíó – ÑÑÑД).34

29 Ñ. Ì. Èâàíîâ. Äâàäöàòü ëåò ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè // ÕÕ ëåò ÁÌÀÑÑÐ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1943. Ñ. 21. 30 À. Ó. Õàõàëîâ. Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèÿ â äíè îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû // ÕÕ ëåò ÁÌÀÑÑÐ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1943. Ñ. 23. 31 Ä. Ö. Öûðåìïèëîí. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 47. 32 Ñ. Ì. Èâàíîâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 7-8. 33 À. Ó. Õàõàëîâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 23. 34 À. Â. Êóäðÿâöåâ. Ê 25-ëåòèþ Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëüñêîé ÀÑÑÐ // 25 ëåò Áóðÿò- Ìîíãîëüñêîé ÀÑÑÐ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1948. Ñ. 9. 249 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... Òàêèì îáðàçîì, îôèöèàëüíûé èäåîëîãè÷åñêèé äèñêóðñ ôîðìè- ðîâàë â ñîçíàíèè íàñåëåíèÿ ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î òîì, ÷òî Ñîâåòñêèé Ñîþç ÿâëÿëñÿ ñîîáùåñòâîì íå ñòîëüêî ãðàæäàí, ñêîëüêî ñîâåòñ- êèõ íàöèé è íàðîäíîñòåé. Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, â êîíòåêñòå èäåîëîãå- ìû “äðóæáà íàðîäî┠ñîâåòñêàÿ îáùíîñòü âûðàæàëàñü, ïðåæäå âñåãî, â åäèíñòâå ýòèõ íàöèé è íàðîäíîñòåé, à ñîâåòñêàÿ èäåíòè÷- íîñòü ïðåäñòàâëÿëà ñîáîé ñóììó êîëëåêòèâíûõ èäåíòè÷íîñòåé âñåõ ýòíîíàöèé, îáðàçóþùèõ ÑÑÑÐ. Ïîæàëóé, ýòî áûë íåîáõîäèìûé ýòàï â ïðîöåññå êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ åäèíîé ñîâåòñêîé îáùíîñòè, êîòîðàÿ íå îáëàäàëà ýòíè÷åñêîé áàçîé îò ïðèðîäû, íî â èäåàëå îáðåëà áû åå, ïî ìåðå òîãî êàê íàñåëåíèå, íàõîäèâøååñÿ ïîä ãîñ- ïîäñòâîì äàííîé ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ôîðìàöèè, “ýòíèçèðî- âàëîñü”, ò.å. íà÷àëî ïðåäñòàâëÿòü ñåáÿ â ïðîøëîì èëè â áóäóùåì òàê, êàê åñëè áû îíî îáðàçîâûâàëî åñòåñòâåííîå ñîîáùåñòâî, êàê òàêîâîå îáëàäàþùåå èäåíòè÷íîñòüþ èñòîêîâ, êóëüòóðû è èíòåðå- ñîâ, ñòîÿùåé âûøå èíäèâèäîâ è ñîöèàëüíûõ óñëîâèé”.35 Èìåííî ñ ýòîé öåëüþ ñîâåòñêàÿ ïðîïàãàíäà ñî âðåìåíåì ñòàëà âñå ìåíüøå âíèìàíèÿ óäåëÿòü êîíöåïòó “äðóæáû íàðîäî┠è âñå àêòèâíåå ðàç- âèâàëà èäåîëîãåìó “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”.

Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä ×òî æå ïðåäñòàâëÿë ñîáîé “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”, êîãäà ïîÿâèëñÿ ýòîò òåðìèí â îôèöèàëüíîì èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì äèñêóðñå è êàêèìè õàðàêòåðèñòèêàìè îí íàäåëÿëñÿ? Êàê óêàçûâàåò Ñ. Â. ×åøêî, “ñóòü êîíöåïöèè ‘ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà’ çàêëþ÷àëàñü â òîì, ÷òî íà ñòàäèè ðàçâèòîãî ñîöèàëèçìà â ÑÑÑÐ ñëîæèëàñü íîâàÿ ñîöèàëüíàÿ îáù- íîñòü, õàðàêòåðíàÿ èìåííî äëÿ ýòîé ôàçû îáùåñòâåííîãî ðàçâèòèÿ è âûäåëÿþùàÿñÿ ðÿäîì ïðèçíàêîâ”.36 Êëàññè÷åñêèì îïðåäåëåíèåì ýòî- ãî ïîíÿòèÿ, ñôîðìóëèðîâàííûì ñîâåòñêèì îáùåñòâîâåäåíèåì è èñïîëüçîâàâøèìñÿ â èäåîëîãè÷åñêîé ðèòîðèêå, ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü ñëåäóþùåå. Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä, ýòî – “âîçíèêøàÿ è óòâåðäèâøàÿñÿ â ðåçóëüòàòå ïîáåäû ñîöèàëèçìà â ÑÑÑÐ ñîöèàëüíî-êëàññîâàÿ è èíòåðíàöèîíàëüíàÿ îáùíîñòü, îõâàòûâàþùàÿ âñå êëàññû, ñî- öèàëüíûå ãðóïïû, íàöèè è íàðîäíîñòè ñòðàíû, èìåþùàÿ åäèíîå Îòå÷åñòâî, áàçèðóþùàÿñÿ íà åäèíîé ýêîíîìèêå, òåððèòîðèè, ìíîãî-

35 Ý. Áàëèáàð, È. Âàëëåðñòàéí. Ðàñà, íàöèÿ, êëàññ. Äâóñìûñëåííûå èäåíòè÷íîñòè. Ìîñêâà, 2003. Ñ. 112. 36 Ñ. Â. ×åøêî. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 148. 250 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 îáðàçíîé, íî åäèíîé ïî ñîäåðæàíèþ êóëüòóðå, èìåþùàÿ åäèíîå ìàðêñèñòñêî-ëåíèíñêîå ìèðîâîççðåíèå è äóõîâíûé îáëèê, åäèíóþ öåëü – ñòðîèòåëüñòâî êîììóíèçìà”.37 Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî âûøåïðèâåäåííàÿ äåôèíèöèÿ òåñíî êîððåëèðóåò ñ îïðåäåëåíèÿìè “íàöèè” Ñòàëèíûì è “ýòíîñà” Þ. Â. Áðîìëååì. Òàêîå ïîíèìàíèå ñêëàäûâàâøåéñÿ â ÑÑÑÐ îáùíîñòè òåîðåòè- êàìè è ïðàêòèêàìè ñîâåòñêîé èäåîëîãèè ìîæíî èíòåðïðåòèðî- âàòü êàê èìïëèöèòíîå ïîìåùåíèå êàòåãîðèè “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä” â îäèí ñåìàíòè÷åñêèé ðÿä ñ èíûìè ýòíè÷åñêèìè îáùíîñòÿìè. Êàê ïîä÷åðêèâàåò ðÿä ñîâðåìåííûõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé, êîíöåïöèÿ åäèíîé ñîâåòñêîé îáùíîñòè áûëà íå òîëüêî èäåîëîãè÷åñêèì êîí- ñòðóêòîì âëàñòè, íî è, â îïðåäåëåííîé ìåðå, êîððåëèðîâàëà ñ ñîöè- àëüíîé ðåàëüíîñòüþ. Òàê, Â. À. Òèøêîâ îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî äîêòðèíà “åäèíîé îáùíîñòè ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé” ïîÿâèëàñü íå ñëó÷àéíî, à â ðåçóëüòàòå îñìûñëåíèÿ îáùåñòâåííî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ïðîöåññîâ, ïðèâåäøèõ ê “ôîðìèðîâàíèþ ñõîäíûõ ñîöèàëüíî-ïðîôåññèî- íàëüíûõ ñòðóêòóð è ìíîãèõ îáùèõ êóëüòóðíûõ è öåííîñòíûõ îðèåíòàöèé ñðåäè ñîâåòñêèõ íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé”.38 Ñ. Â. ×åøêî ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî îôèöèàëüíàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà “íå áûëà ïîëíîñòüþ íåâåðíîé, ïîñêîëüêó ñóùåñòâîâàë ñàì ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä êàê íàðîä-îáùåñòâî, ïðîäóêò äëèòåëüíîãî ðàç- âèòèÿ åäèíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà”.39 Ñðåäè ïðèçíàêîâ, îáúåäèíÿâøèõ íàñåëåíèå ÑÑÑÐ, èññëåäîâàòåëü âûäåëÿåò ïðèíàäëåæíîñòü ê åäè- íîìó ãîñóäàðñòâó è äîñòàòî÷íî äëèòåëüíóþ èñòîðè÷åñêóþ òðà- äèöèþ åäèíîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè. Ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, “ýòîò ôàê- òîð âûðàáàòûâàë è çàêðåïëÿë â ïîêîëåíèÿõ ïðèâû÷êó æèòü âìåñòå, áûòü ïîääàííûì îáùåãî öàðÿ èëè îáùåãî ãåíñåêà, ãðàæ- äàíàìè îäíîé ñòðàíû”,40 íà÷àâøóþñÿ ôîðìèðîâàòüñÿ êóëüòóðíóþ îáùíîñòü. Ó÷åíûé ïèøåò, ÷òî: “Ðàçâèòèå ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîé êóëü- òóðû, â òîì ÷èñëå ó íàðîäîâ, íå èìåâøèõ åå ïðåæäå, òàêæå äåéñòâîâàëî êàê èíòåãðèðóþùèé ôàêòîð.  óñëîâèÿõ èíäóñòðèàëèçàöèè îáùå- ñòâà ñîêðàùàëàñü ñôåðà òðàäèöèîííî-áûòîâîé, ëîêàëüíîé êóëü- òóðû è ñîîòâåòñòâåííî ðàñøèðÿëàñü îáëàñòü ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèÿ ìàñ- ñîâîé êóëüòóðû â åå ñîâåòñêîì, îáùåãîñóäàðñòâåííîì âàðèàíòå”.

37 Â. È. Çàòååâ. Íàöèîíàëüíûå îòíîøåíèÿ ïðè ñîöèàëèçìå. Óëàí-Óäý, 1975. Ñ. 173. 38 Â. À. Òèøêîâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 28. 39 Ñ. Â. ×åøêî. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 189. 40 Òàì æå. Ñ. 187. 251 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... Òàê æå áîëüøóþ ðîëü èãðàë “ðóññêèé ÿçûê, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðîìó ñóùåñòâîâàëà åäèíàÿ ñèñòåìà êîììóíèêàöèè”.41 Êàê îòìå÷àåò À. Ã. Âèøíåâñêèé, “âïîëíå ìîæíî áûëî îæèäàòü, ÷òî ýêîíîìè÷åñêàÿ è ñîöèàëüíàÿ ìîäåðíèçàöèÿ îêàæåò íà ñîâåòñ- êîå îáùåñòâî ïðèìåðíî òàêîå æå âîçäåéñòâèå, êàêîå îíà îêàçàëà â ñâîå âðåìÿ â ñòðàíàõ Çàïàäíîé Åâðîïû”. Âåäü â ðåçóëüòàòå ìîäåð- íèçàöèîííûõ ïðîöåññî⠓ðóøèëèñü ìíîãèå âíóòðåííèå ïåðåãîðîä- êè ìåæäó îáëàñòÿìè è íàðîäàìè, îíè ñáëèæàëèñü, ðîæäàëèñü íî- âûå, èíûå, íåæåëè ïðåæäå, ñèëû èíòåãðàöèè, êîòîðûå êàçàëîñü áû, äîëæíû áûëè ñïåêàòü âûõîäöåâ èç ðàçíûõ êðàåâ èìïåðèè, èç ðàçíûõ åå ýòíîñîâ â åäèíóþ è íåäåëèìóþ íàöèþ”.42 Ãîâîðÿ î âðåìåíè ïîÿâëåíèÿ èäåè “ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà”, Ñ. Â. ×åøêî, âñëåä çà Ã. Ñìèòîì, ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî îíà “âïåðâûå ïðîçâó÷àëà â âûñòóïëåíèè Í. Ñ. Õðóùåâà íà XXII ñúåçäå ÊÏÑÑ, íî íå ïîëó÷èëà îòðàæåíèÿ â èòîãîâûõ äîêóìåíòàõ ñúåçäà. Ïîñëåäíåå ñîñòîÿëîñü íà XXIII ñúåçäå óæå ïðè Áðåæíåâå”.43 À. Ã. Âèøíåâñêèé îòíîñèò åå âîçíèêíîâåíèå ê åùå áîëåå ïîçäíåìó ïåðèîäó: “çà íåñêîëüêî ëåò äî ðàñïàäà Ñîþçà â ÑÑÑÐ áûë ââåäåí â îáîðîò ïðîïàãàíäèñòñêèé òåçèñ î ÿêîáû ñëîæèâøåéñÿ ‘íîâîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé îáùíîñòè ëþäåé – ñîâåòñêîì íàðîäå’ – åå ìîæíî áûëî òðàêòîâàòü êàê íå÷òî, âðîäå àìåðèêàíñêîé èëè ôðàíöóçñêîé íàöèè, ê ôîðìèðîâàíèþ êîòîðîé è ïîäîøëî íàñåëåíèå ÑÑÑД.44 Îäíàêî êîíêðåòíûé èñòîðè÷åñêèé ìàòåðèàë, â ÷àñòíîñòè áóðÿò- ñêèé, ïîçâîëÿåò óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî èäåÿ îáùåñîâåòñêîãî åäèíñòâà âîçíèêëà ãîðàçäî ðàíüøå, à òåðìèí “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä” íà÷àë ôèãóðè- ðîâàòü, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ñî âðåìåí Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû. Åùå íà òðåòüåì ñúåçäå ñîâåòîâ ÁÌ ÀÑÑÐ (1927) îòìå÷àëîñü, ÷òî îäíîé èç âàæíåéøèõ çàäà÷ ñîâåòñêîãî îáùåñòâà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîäãîòîâêà “âïîëíå ñîçíàòåëüíûõ ãðàæäàí Ñîþçà”.45  ýòîì êîíòåêñòå ñèìïòîìàòè÷íûì ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü ñîñòîÿâøååñÿ òîãäà æå îáñóæäåíèå ïðîåêòà êîíñòèòóöèè Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëüñêîé ðåñïóáëèêè (òàê, âïðî÷åì, è íå ïðèíÿòîé), â õîäå êîòîðîãî áûëà âûñêàçàíà ìûñëü î òîì, ÷òî áóðÿò-ìîíãîëüñêàÿ, êàê è ëþáàÿ äðóãàÿ ñîâåòñêàÿ àâòîíîìèÿ, “íå åñòü íå÷òî çàñòûâøåå è ðàç è íàâñåãäà äàííîå”. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ôåäåðàòèâíîå óñòðîéñòâî

41 Òàì æå. Ñ. 188. 42 À. Ã. Âèøíåâñêèé. Ñåðï è ðóáëü. Ìîñêâà, 1998. Ñ. 345. 43 Ñ. Â. ×åøêî. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 183-184. 44 À. Ã. Âèøíåâñêèé. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 344. 45 Òðåòèé ñúåçä Ñîâåòîâ Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëüñêîé Àâòîíîìíîé Ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé Ñîâåòñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè. Ñ. 7. 252 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñîâåòñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, à çíà÷èò, è ñóùåñòâîâàíèå íàöèîíàëüíûõ ðåñïóáëèê è ñîáñòâåííî íàöèîíàëüíûõ èäåíòè÷íîñòåé ðàññìàòðè- âàëîñü êàê âðåìåííîå ÿâëåíèå: “ôåäåðàöèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïåðåõîäíîé ôîðìîé ê ïîëíîìó åäèíñòâó òðóäÿùèõñÿ ðàçíûõ íàöèé”.46 Ñàì òåðìèí “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”, ïîæàëóé, âïåðâûå â âûñòóïëå- íèÿõ ìåñòíîé ýëèòû ïîÿâèëñÿ â 1943 ã.47 Ïðèìåðíî ñ ýòîãî âðåìåíè â Áóðÿòèè íà÷èíàåò îçâó÷èâàòüñÿ èäåÿ îáùíîñòè, îñíîâàííîé íà êëàññîâîé ñîëèäàðíîñòè íàñåëåíèÿ è åãî ëîÿëüíîñòè ê ñîâåòñ- êîìó ãîñóäàðñòâó. Äàííûé èäåíòèôèêàöèîííûé óðîâåíü áûë áîëåå “ïåðñîíèôèöèðîâàííûì”, ò.å. îñíîâíûì ñóáúåêòîì çäåñü âûñòóïàë íå íàðîä, à îòäåëüíàÿ ëè÷íîñòü, ðåïðåçåíòàöèÿ êîòîðîé ïðîèçâî- äèëàñü â ñîöèàëüíî-êëàññîâûõ òåðìèíàõ. ×ëåíîì ýòîé îáùíîñòè ÿâëÿëñÿ “êàæäûé ãðàæäàíèí – ñâîáîäíûé è ïîëíîïðàâíûé ó÷àñò- íèê ñòðîèòåëüñòâà ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî îáùåñòâà”, êîòîðûé “àêêóðàòíî âûïîëíÿÿ ñâîè îáÿçàííîñòè ïåðåä ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì”, óêðåïëÿë “ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ, ýêîíîìè÷åñêóþ è âîåííóþ ìîùü ñâîåé Ðîäèíû”.48 Ñòàíäàðòíûìè òåðìèíàìè ñàìîèäåíòèôèêàöèè ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ïîíÿòèÿ “ðàáî÷èé” è “êðåñòüÿíèí”: “ ìû, ðàáî÷èå è êðåñòüÿíå, ñòðîèì ñâîþ æèçíü íà ïîëüçó ñâîåìó ãîñóäàðñòâó”.49 Äàííûå ñîöè- àëüíûå ãðóïïû, îáúåäèíåííûå òåðìèíîì “òðóäÿùèåñÿ”, íåïîñðåä- ñòâåííî è ñîñòàâëÿëè “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”: “Òðóäÿùèåñÿ Áóðÿò- Ìîíãîëèè îòäàþò ñåáå ïîëíûé îò÷åò â òîì, ÷òî îêîí÷àòåëüíàÿ ïîáåäà íàä îçâåðåëûìè áàíäàìè ãèòëåðîâñêîãî ðàçáîéíè÷üåãî èìïåðèàëèçìà ïîòðåáóåò åùå ìíîãî æåðòâ, ëèøåíèé è íàïðÿæåíèÿ âñåõ ñèë ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà”.50 Èç äàííîé öèòàòû âèäíî, ÷òî îáùíîñòü “òðóäÿùèåñÿ Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè” èìïëèöèòíî ïðåäïîëà- ãàëàñü êàê ÷àñòü îáùíîñòè “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”. Òåðìèí “Áóðÿò- Ìîíãîëèÿ” íå íåñ â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ýòíè÷åñêîé ñìûñëîâîé íàãðóçêè, à ëèøü óòî÷íÿë àäìèíèñòðàòèâíî-òåððèòîðèàëüíóþ ïðèíàäëåæ- íîñòü “òðóäÿùèõñÿ” (ñðàâíèòå, íàïðèìåð: “òðóäÿùèåñÿ Ìîñêâû”, “òðóäÿùèåñÿ çàâîäà”).

46 Òàì æå. Ñ. 87. 47 Ñ. Ì. Èâàíîâ. Äâàäöàòü ëåò ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè. Ñ. 21; À. Ó. Õàõàëîâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 37, 40. 48 Ñ. Ì. Èâàíîâ. Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå óñòðîéñòâî ÁÌÀÑÑÐ // 25 ëåò Áóðÿò- Ìîíãîëüñêîé ÀÑÑÐ. Óëàí-Óäý,1948. Ñ. 39. 49 Òðåòèé ñúåçä Ñîâåòîâ Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëüñêîé Àâòîíîìíîé Ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé Ñîâåòñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè. Ñ. 7. 50 Ñ. Ì. Èâàíîâ. Äâàäöàòü ëåò ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé Áóðÿò-Ìîíãîëèè. Ñ. 21. 253 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... “Êëàññîâàÿ” ðèòîðèêà åùå áîëåå óñèëèëàñü â èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì äèñêóðñå 70-80-õ ãã. ÕÕ âåêà. Îòìå÷àÿ ìíîãîíàöèîíàëüíûé ñîñòàâ íàñåëåíèÿ, ðåñïóáëèêàíñêèå ïàðòèéíûå ëèäåðû âìåñòå ñ òåì ïîâòî- ðÿëè ñëîâà Ãåíñåêà ÊÏÑÑ: “ íàøåé ñòðàíå ðîäèëîñü è îêðåïëî âåëèêîå áðàòñòâî ëþäåé òðóäà, îáúåäèíåííûõ, íåçàâèñèìî îò èõ íàöèîíàëüíîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè, îáùíîñòüþ êëàññîâûõ èíòåðåñîâ è öåëåé”.51  îôèöèàëüíûõ òåêñòàõ òîãî âðåìåíè âñå íàñåëåíèå Áóðÿòñêîé ÀÑÑÐ ðåïðåçåíòîâàëîñü êàê íåêàÿ åäèíàÿ ñîöèàëüíàÿ îáùíîñòü – “òðóäÿùèåñÿ Áóðÿòèè”;52 ïðè ýòîì îñîáî ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü, ÷òî “õîçÿåâà íîâîé ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé Áóðÿòèè” – ýòo “ðàáî÷èå, êðåñòüÿíå, èíòåëëèãåíöèÿ”.53 Íàêîíåö, â íàó÷íûõ òåêñòàõ áûë ñôîðìóëèðîâàí ñëåäóþùèé òåçèñ: “Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä, ÿâëÿÿñü âîïëîùåíèåì ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêî- ãî èíòåðíàöèîíàëüíîãî åäèíñòâà âñåõ îáùåñòâåííûõ ãðóïï è íà- öèîíàëüíîñòåé ÑÑÑÐ, âûðàæàåò è îëèöåòâîðÿåò èíòåðåñû è êîì- ìóíèñòè÷åñêèå èäåàëû ðàáî÷åãî êëàññà”. È õîòÿ è ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî ýòà îáùíîñòü ÿâëÿåòñÿ îäíîâðåìåííî ñîöèàëüíî-êëàññîâîé è èí- òåðíàöèîíàëüíîé – “âîçíèêíóâ íà áàçå äðóãèõ îáùíîñòåé (êëàñ- ñîâ è íàöèé), îíà âûñòóïàåò êàê äâóåäèíàÿ, ñèíòåçèðóþùàÿ èõ”,54 îäíàêî ïðè ýòîì ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ, ÷òî ñîöèàëüíî-êëàññîâàÿ ñóùíîñòü ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà ãîðàçäî âàæíåå, ò.ê. “ìàðêñèçì óñòàíîâèë ïðè- ìàò êëàññîâîãî ìîìåíòà íàä íàöèîíàëüíûì êàê âàæíåéøèé ìåòî- äîëîãè÷åñêèé ïðèíöèï”.55 Èìåííî ïîýòîìó ãðàíèöû îáùíîñòè “ñî- âåòñêèé íàðîä” êîíñòèòóèðîâàëèñü ïîñðåäñòâîì êëàññîâîé, à íå ýòíè÷åñêîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè è, â ÷àñòíîñòè, âñÿ ñîâåòñêàÿ èñòîðèÿ èíòåðïðåòèðîâàëàñü êàê “ñâèäåòåëüñòâî ãåðîè÷åñêèõ äåë ñîâåòñêî- ãî íàðîäà, â òîì ÷èñëå è òðóäÿùèõñÿ Áóðÿòèè”.56 Ïîðà äîìèíèðîâàíèÿ èäåè “ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà” â îôèöèàëüíîì èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì äèñêóðñå ïðèõîäèòñÿ íà ýïîõó “ðàçâèòîãî ñîöèà- ëèçìà”. Ñëîæèâøèéñÿ â ýòî âðåìåíè ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèé êîí- òåêñò ïîäòàëêèâàë âëàñòü ê ïîèñêó ñïîñîáîâ óêðåïëåíèÿ âíóòðè- ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî åäèíñòâà. Âîçìîæíî, óñèëåíèþ çíà÷èìîñòè ýòîé

51 À. À. Áàäèåâ. Îáðàçîâàíèå è ðàçâèòèå Áóðÿòñêîé ÀÑÑÐ – òîðæåñòâî ëåíèíñêîé íàöèîíàëüíîé ïîëèòèêè //  áðàòñêîé ñåìüå íàðîäîâ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1974. Ñ. 22. 52 60 ëåò Áóðÿòñêîé ÀÑÑÐ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1984. Ñ. 9. 53 Òàì æå. Ñ. 22. 54 Â. È. Çàòååâ. Íàöèîíàëüíûå îòíîøåíèÿ ïðè ñîöèàëèçìå. Ñ. 174. 55 Òàì æå. Ñ.167. 56 À. À. Áàäèåâ. Îáðàçîâàíèå è ðàçâèòèå Áóðÿòñêîé ÀÑÑÐ. Ñ. 21. 254 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 èäåè ñïîñîáñòâîâàëè òàêæå èçâåñòíûå çàÿâëåíèÿ êîììóíèñòè÷åñ- êèõ ëèäåðîâ î òîì, ÷òî áëèæàéøèå ïîêîëåíèÿ ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé “áóäóò æèòü ïðè êîììóíèçìå”. Äëÿ ïîëèòèêè èäåíòè÷íîñòè ýòî ìîãëî îçíà÷àòü, ÷òî â áëèæàéøåé ïåðñïåêòèâå íàñåëåíèå Ñîâåòñ- êîãî Ñîþçà äîëæíî ïðåâðàòèòüñÿ â åäèíóþ ñîöèîêóëüòóðíóþ îá- ùíîñòü. Äàííûé êîíöåïò áîëåå âñåãî ïîäõîäèë äëÿ àêòóàëèçàöèè îáùåñîâåòñêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè íà èíäèâèäóàëüíîì óðîâíå, ïîñêîëüêó, ìèíóÿ ýòíîêóëüòóðíûé óðîâåíü, äîëæåí áûë âûçâàòü ÷óâñòâî ñîëèäàðíîñòè ó êàæäîãî æèòåëÿ ÑÑÑÐ, àïåëëèðóÿ ê åãî ñîöèàëüíî- êëàññîâîìó ñàìîñîçíàíèþ. Äîêòðèíà “ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà”, òàêèì îáðàçîì, êîíöåïòóàëèçè- ðîâàëàñü ñ ïðåòåíçèåé íà çàìåíó ñîáñòâåííî ýòíè÷åñêîãî ñàìîñîç- íàíèÿ áîëåå îáùåé, íî íå ìåíåå ýìîöèîíàëüíî çíà÷èìîé ôîðìîé ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ. Ýòî ïîçâîëèëî íåêîòîðûì èññëåäîâàòåëÿì óòâåðæ- äàòü, ÷òî ñîâåòñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî ñòðåìèëîñü ê ñîçäàíèþ íåêîåãî áåçýòíè÷åñêîãî Homo Sovieticus’à, à íàöèîíàëüíàÿ ïîëèòèêà êîììó- íèñòî⠓ïðåñëåäîâàëà öåëü ëèêâèäèðîâàòü íàöèîíàëüíûå ðàçëè- ÷èÿ è ñëèòü íàðîäû ñòðàíû â êàêóþ-òî áåçíàöèîíàëüíóþ îáùíîñòü”.57 Îäíàêî, êàê ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ïðàâèëüíåå áûëî áû ãîâîðèòü, ÷òî êîíñòðóèðóåìàÿ êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé ýëèòîé îáùíîñòü ÿâëÿëàñü êàê ðàç íå “áåçíàöèîíàëüíîé”, à èìåííî “íàöèîíàëüíîé” – â ñîâðå- ìåííîì ïîíèìàíèè òåðìèíà “íàöèÿ”. Ò.å. â îïðåäåëåííîé ñòåïåíè îíà äîëæíà áûëà ïðåäñòàâëÿòü ñîáîé íå÷òî àíàëîãè÷íîå çàïàäíûì íàöèÿì-ñîãðàæäàíñòâàì. Ïî ñëîâàì À. Ã. Âèøíåâñêîãî, “ãëàâíîé äåêëàðèðóåìîé çàáîòîé ýòîé [âíóòðåííåé] ïîëèòèêè âñåãäà áûëà íàöèîíàëüíàÿ êîíñîëèäàöèÿ âñåãî íàñåëåíèÿ ÑÑÑÐ, ïðàâäà, ïî-äðóãîìó íàçûâàåìàÿ. Êîãäà ñîâåòñêèå ïîëèòèêè è èäåîëîãè ðàçìûøëÿëè î åãî áóäóùåì, ïåðåä èõ ìûñëåííûì âçîðîì îáû÷íî ñòîÿëî íå÷òî, î÷åíü ïîõîæåå íà çàïàäíûå íàöèè, õîòÿ ñàì òåðìèí ‘íàöèÿ’ â òàêîì ñìûñëå â ÑÑÑÐ îáû÷íî íå óïîòðåáëÿëñÿ, ‘íàöèî- íàëüíîå’ çäåñü, êàê ìû âèäåëè, áûë ñèíîíèìîì ‘ýòíè÷åñêîãî’. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ìíîãî ãîâîðèëîñü è ïèñàëîñü î ðàñòóùåé ñîöèàëüíîé îäíîðîäíîñòè ñîâåòñêîãî îáùåñòâà, îá èíòåðíàöèîíàëèçàöèè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé è îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè, î ðóññêîì ÿçûêå êàê ÿçûêå ìåæíàöèîíàëüíîãî îáùåíèÿ, ïîñòîÿííî ïîâòîðÿëèñü ñëîâà Ëåíèíà î ‘ñáëèæåíèè è ñëèÿíèè íàöèé’ è ò.ä.”.58

57 À. Áàðñåíêîâ, A.Âäîâèí. Ðóññêèå èíòåðåñû â ìåæíàöèîíàëüíûõ îòíîøåíèÿõ // Ýòíîïîëèñ. 1993. ¹ 1. C. 35. 58 À. Ã. Âèøíåâñêèé. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 344. 255 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... Åùå áîëåå îäíîçíà÷íî ôîðìóëèðóåò ýòó ìûñëü Ñ. Â. ×åøêî: “ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïðèíÿòûõ â ñîâðåìåííîì ìèðå ïîíÿòèéíûõ íîðì, ñëåäóåò ïðèçíàòü íå òîëüêî ðåàëüíîå ñóùåñòâîâàíèå â ÑÑÑÐ ‘ñîâåò- ñêîãî íàðîäà’, íî è ïðèçíàòü åãî â êà÷åñòâå îáû÷íîé ïîëèýòíè÷åñêîé íàöèè – ñîâåòñêîé íàöèè”. Îäíàêî òàêîìó ïðèçíàíèþ ìåøàëè çàêîñòåíåâøèå äîãìû ñôîðìóëèðîâàííîé åùå Ñòàëèíûì è ñ òåõ ïîð ãîñïîäñòâîâàâøåé â ñîâåòñêîé íàóêå “òåîðèè íàöèè”: “Ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ òðàäèöèè ñîâåòñêîãî îáùåñòâîâåäåíèÿ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé íàöèÿ – ýòî ìîíîýòíè÷åñêèé ñîöèàëüíûé îðãàíèçì, îäíà èç ôîðì è ñòàäèé ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ ýòíîñà, òàêîé âûâîä ìîæåò, íàâåðíîå, âûãëÿäåòü íåñëûõàííîé åðåñüþ ñ îòòåíêîì ‘àññèìèëÿòîðñòâà’”.59 Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, íàõîäÿñü â ïëåíó ïðèìîðäèàëèñòñêèõ óñòàíîâîê, íà îñíîâå êîòîðûõ ñòðóêòóðèðîâàëîñü âñå ýòíîïîëèòè÷åñêîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî ÑÑÑÐ, ïðàâÿùèé ðåæèì òàê è íå ñìîã ñôîðìóëèðî- âàòü ïîëíîöåííóþ èäåþ íàöèè-ñîãðàæäàíñòâà. Íàïðîòèâ, èäåî- ëîãè âñÿ÷åñêè èçáåãàëè îïðåäåëÿòü “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä” â õîòü ñêîëüêî- íèáóäü áëèçêîé ê ýòîé èäåå ôîðìå, íàïðèìåð: “ñëåäóåò ñ÷èòàòü íåïðàâèëüíûìè ïîïûòêè ðàññìàòðèâàòü ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä êàê ïðîñòîå îáúåäèíåíèå ñîâåòñêèõ íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé, êàê èõ ñóììó.  ïîäîáíîì òîëêîâàíèè ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä êàê ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè- ÷åñêàÿ êàòåãîðèÿ îòîæäåñòâëÿåòñÿ ñ êàòåãîðèåé ‘íàñåëåíèå ÑÑÑВ”, êàê ïîíÿòèå äåìîãðàôèè è ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ãåîãðàôèè” (Â. È. Çàòååâ).60 Îäíîâðåìåííî îòðèöàëcÿ è ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûé ïîäõîä. Ïî ñëîâàì òîãî æå Â. È. Çàòååâà, “íåîáõîäèìî îòìåòèòü îøèáî÷íîñòü ïîëî- æåíèé, áóäòî ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä ÿâëÿåòñÿ íîâîé ýòíè÷åñêîé îáùíî- ñòüþ ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä – ýòî íå ýòíè÷åñêàÿ, à ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëè- òè÷åñêàÿ îáùíîñòü”.61 Îäíàêî, ñëåäóÿ ëîãèêå ýòíîíàöèîíàëèçìà, ÿâëÿâøåãîñÿ êðàåóãîëüíûì êàìíåì ñîâåòñêîé íàöèîíàëüíîé ïîëè- òèêè, èäåîëîãè áûëè âûíóæäåíû èçîáðåòàòü íå÷òî, ÷òî ìîãëî áû èãðàòü ðîëü “îáùåñîâåòñêîé ýòíè÷íîñòè”, ò.å. ñóáñòàíöèè, îäèíàêîâî ïðèñóùåé âñåìó íàñåëåíèþ Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà è îáëàäàþùåé íåêèìè êóëüòóðíûìè ïàðàìåòðàìè. Ïîýòîìó ñëîæåíèå ñîâåòñêîé îáùíîñòè ðåïðåçåíòîâàëîñü êàê ðåçóëüòàò ïðîöåññà “âñåñòîðîííåãî ñáëèæåíèÿ ñîâåòñêèõ íàöèé, ðîñòà èõ èíòåðíàöèîíàëüíûõ ÷åðò”.62 Càì “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä” ñòàë

59 C. Â. ×åøêî. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 189. 60 Â. È. Çàòååâ. Íàöèîíàëüíûå îòíîøåíèÿ ïðè ñîöèàëèçìå. C. 173. 61 Òàì æå Ñ. 172. 62 Òàì æå. Ñ. 175. 256 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íàäåëÿòüñÿ îïðåäåëåííûìè “ýòíîîáðàçíûìè” õàðàêòåðèñòèêàìè, è â ñîäåðæàòåëüíîì îòíîøåíèè â îïðåäåëåííîì ñìûñëå ïðåâðà- òèëñÿ â ñâîåãî ðîäà “êâàçèýòíè÷íîñòü”. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ãîñóäàðñòâî, âçÿâøååñÿ çà ñîçäàíèå åäèíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè, è, ïðè ýòîì, íå âîñ- ïðèíèìàâøåå â êà÷åñòâå èíòåãðèðóþùåé èäåþ ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñî- ãðàæäàíñòâà, ñ íåèçáåæíîñòüþ äîëæíî áûëî âñòàòü íà ïóòü êîí- ñòðóèðîâàíèÿ íîâîé “ýòíè÷íîñòè”. Âåäü ïîñëåäíÿÿ “äëÿ èäåàëüíîé íàöèè íåîáõîäèìà, ïîòîìó ÷òî áåç íåå íàöèÿ îñòàâàëàñü áû âñåãî ëèøü èäååé èëè ïðîèçâîëüíîé àáñòðàêöèåé: ïàòðèîòè÷åñêèé ïðèçûâ íå èìåë áû àäðåñàòà”.63 Êîíñòðóèðîâàâøàÿñÿ êîììóíèñòàìè “êâàçèýòíè÷íîñòü” èìåëà â ñâîåì ôóíäàìåíòå äâà îñíîâàíèÿ: ÿçûê è êóëüòóðó, à “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä” ìîæíî áûëî îïðåäåëèòü êàê “ãðóïïó ëþäåé, êîòîðûå îáëàäàþò îáùèìè êîììóíèêàòèâíûìè íîðìàìè è, ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, âûñîêîé ñòåïåíüþ âçàèìîïîíèìàíèÿ ïî øèðîêîìó êðóãó âîïðîñîâ. ×àùå âñåãî è òî è äðóãîå äîñòèãàåòñÿ ïîñðåäñòâîì îáùåãî ÿçûêà è, ÷òî åùå áîëåå ñóùåñòâåííî, îáùåé êóëüòóðû”.64 ßçûêîì ñîâåòñêîé îáùíîñòè, ïî èçâåñòíûì èñòîðè÷åñêèì è ïîëèòè÷åñêèì ïðè÷èíàì, ñòàë ðóññêèé. Ïîæàëóé, ýòî áûë åäèíñòâåííûé ïàðàìåòð, íà îñíî- âàíèè êîòîðîãî ìîæíî áûëî íàñòàèâàòü íà ðóñèôèêàòîðñêîé ñóùíîñòè ïðîâîäèìîé êîììóíèñòàìè ïîëèòèêè èäåíòè÷íîñòè. ×òî æå êàñàåòñÿ êóëüòóðû, òî çäåñü, îñòàâèâ â ñòîðîíå ñëîæíóþ ìíîãîàñïåêòíóþ ïðîáëåìó íàëè÷èÿ/îòñóòñòâèÿ êóëüòóðíîãî åäèíñòâà íà ïðîñòîðàõ áûâøåãî ÑÑÑÐ, ïîïûòàåìñÿ âûÿñíèòü, ÷òî ïîäðàçó- ìåâàëîñü ïîä åäèíîé êóëüòóðîé ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà â èäåîëîãè- ÷åñêîì äèñêóðñå. Óæå â 1970-å ãã. ñîâåòñêàÿ èäåîëîãèÿ ñòàëà íàñòàèâàòü íà òîì, ÷òî â ÑÑÑÐ “óòâåðäèëàñü, ñòàëà ðåàëüíîé äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòüþ íîâàÿ èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ îáùíîñòü ëþäåé – ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”.65 Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ïîäðàçóìåâàëîñü, ÷òî ñîâåòñêîå îáùåñòâî äîñòèãëî è êóëüòóðíîãî åäèíñòâà: “ñîöèàëèçì óòâåðæäàåò åäèíóþ äëÿ âñåãî ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà, äëÿ âñåõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ãðóïï êóëüòóðó – ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêóþ ïî ñîäåð-

63 Ý. Áàëèáàð, È. Âàëëåðñòàéí. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 112. 64 Ê. Äîé÷ Íàöèîíàëüíàÿ èíòåãðàöèÿ. Îáçîð íåêîòîðûõ êîíöåïöèé è èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ïîäõîäîâ // À. À. Ïðàçàóñêàñ (ñîñò.) Ýòíîñ è ïîëèòèêà. Õðåñòîìàòèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ñ. 194. 65 Ë. È. Áðåæíåâ. Î ïÿòèäåñÿòèëåòèè Ñîþçà Ñîâåòñêèõ Ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêèõ Ðåñïóáëèê // XXIV ñúåçä ÊÏÑÑ. Åäèíñòâî òåîðèè è ïðàêòèêè. Ìîñêâà, 1973. Âûï. 1. Ñ. 24. 257 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... æàíèþ, íàöèîíàëüíóþ ïî ôîðìå, èíòåðíàöèîíàëüíóþ ïî ñâîåé ñóùíîñòè”.66 Õàðàêòåðíîé îñîáåííîñòüþ îáùåñîâåòñêîé êóëüòóðû ÿâëÿëîñü òî, ÷òî îíà “âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ íàèáîëåå öåííûå ÷åðòû è òðàäè- öèè êóëüòóðû è áûòà êàæäîãî èç íàðîäîâ”.67 Òî åñòü, êóëüòóðà ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà ïðåïîäíîñèëàñü êàê íåêèé ñèíòåç ýòíîíàöèî- íàëüíûõ êóëüòóð âñåõ íàðîäîâ ÑÑÑÐ. Îäíàêî ñîâåòñêàÿ êóëüòóðíàÿ îáùíîñòü ñîñòîÿëà íå ïðîñòî èç ñîâîêóïíîñòè ýòíè÷åñêèõ òðàäèöèé ðàçíûõ íàðîäîâ, à “âêëþ÷àëà â ñåáÿ åäèíûå èäåîëîãè÷åñêèå öåëè è óñòðåìëåíèÿ è òàêîå ñîäåðæàíèå íàöèîíàëüíûõ êóëüòóðíûõ öåí- íîñòåé, êîòîðîå ïðèäàåò èì çíà÷åíèå öåííîñòåé îáùåñîâåòñêèõ”.68 Ñîäåðæàíèå íàöèîíàëüíûõ êóëüòóð, îáðàçîâûâàâøèõ êóëüòóðó îáùåñîâåòñêóþ, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, îïðåäåëÿëîñü “ìàðêñèñòñêî-ëåíèí- ñêèì ìèðîâîççðåíèåì è ïðèíöèïàìè ïðîëåòàðñêîãî èíòåðíàöèî- íàëèçìà, óñòîÿìè ñîöèàëèçìà”, çà ñ÷åò ÷åãî äîñòèãàëñÿ “åäèíûé äóõîâíûé îáëèê ñîâåòñêèõ íàöèé è íàðîäíîñòåé”.69 Íàïîëíåíèå ñîâåòñêîé êóëüòóðû øëî “â ðóñëå óñâîåíèÿ è òâîð÷åñêîãî âîñïðèÿ- òèÿ âñåãî íîâîãî, ïåðåäîâîãî, ÷òî ðîæäåíî è ðîæäàåòñÿ â õîäå ñîâìå- ñòíîé áîðüáû íàðîäîâ âñåé ñòðàíû çà ñîöèàëèçì è êîììóíèçì”,70 îíà ðàçâèâàëàñü “â óñëîâèÿõ áåðåæíîãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê òðàäèöèÿì êàæäîãî íàðîäà â ðåâîëþöèîííîé è íàöèîíàëüíî-îñâîáîäèòåëüíîé áîðüáå ”.71  ïðîöåññå êóëüòóðîòâîð÷åñòâà îñîáî ïîä÷åðêèâàëàñü íåîáõî- äèìîñòü è âàæíîñòü òîãî, ÷òîáû ïðåâðàùàòü “ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêèå òðàäèöèè” îòäåëüíûõ íàðîäîâ ⠓äîñòîÿíèå âñåõ ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé”, à òàêæå “âñåìåðíî ðàçâèâàòü íîâûå, åäèíûå äëÿ âñåõ íàöèé ðåâî- ëþöèîííûå òðàäèöèè ñòðîèòåëåé êîììóíèçìà ”.72 Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, â ýòî âðåìÿ ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïîïóëÿðíîé òåìà íîâîé ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé îáðÿäíîñòè: “Íîâûå ãðàæäàíñêèå îáðÿäû, ïðàçäíèêè è òðàäèöèè

66 Ì. Á. Ìèòèí. Ìàðêñèçì-ëåíèíèçì è ñîâðåìåííàÿ èäåîëîãè÷åñêàÿ áîðüáà // XXVI ñúåçä ÊÏÑÑ î ïðîáëåìàõ ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ è ñîâðåìåííàÿ èäåîëîãè÷åñêàÿ áîðüáà. Óëàí-Óäý, 1983. Ñ. 37. 67 À. À. Áàäèåâ. Îáðàçîâàíèå è ðàçâèòèå Áóðÿòñêîé ÀÑÑÐ Ñ.18. 68 Ñ. À. Ìàêñàíîâ. Êóëüòóðà Áóðÿòèè â óñëîâèÿõ ðàçâèòîãî ñîöèàëèçìà. Íîâîñèáèðñê, 1983 Ñ. 14. 69 Á. Ñ. Ñàíæèåâ. Î êîíñîëèäàöèè áóðÿòñêîé ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé íàöèè êàê ñîñòàâíîé ÷àñòè íîâîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé îáùíîñòè ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà //  áðàòñêîé ñåìüå íàðîäîâ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1974.Ñ. 88. 70 Ë. È. Áðåæíåâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 302. 71 Ì. Á. Ìèòèí. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 35. 72 Â. È. Çàòååâ. Ôîðìèðîâàíèå è ðàñöâåò áóðÿòñêîé ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé íàöèè. Óëàí-Óäý, 1961. Ñ. 183. 258 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 îòðàæàþò ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêóþ èäåîëîãèþ, îáîãàùàþòñÿ äåìîêðà- òè÷åñêèìè ýëåìåíòàìè íàðîäíîé êóëüòóðû. Ïîâñåìåñòíî óòâåðäè- ëèñü â æèçíè íîâûå ðåâîëþöèîííûå, îáùåñòâåííî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèå, ïðîèçâîäñòâåííî-áûòîâûå è ñåìåéíûå ïðàçäíèêè – 7 íîÿáðÿ, 1 ìàÿ, 8 ìàðòà, Äåíü Ïîáåäû è ò.ä.”.73 Ïîëèòèêè è ó÷åíûå âûñòóïàþò ñ ïðîïàãàíäîé “èíòåðíàöèîíàëèçàöèè íå òîëüêî ñîñòàâà íàñåëåíèÿ, íî è âñåãî óêëàäà îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè”.74 À â îòäåëüíûõ ñëó÷àÿõ âûäâèãàåòñÿ äàæå èäåÿ ñëîæåíèÿ â Ñîâåòñ- êîì Ñîþçå íîâîé ýòíè÷åñêîé îáùíîñòè. Òàê, â ñòàòüå èçâåñòíîãî áóðÿòñêîãî èñòîðèêà Ï. Ò. Õàïòàåâà: “Ê âîïðîñó î ñáëèæåíèè è ñëè- ÿíèè íàöèé” ñòàâèòñÿ âîïðîñ íå ïðîñòî î íàëè÷èè â ÑÑÑÐ ïîëèòè- ÷åñêîé îáùíîñòè, âêëþ÷àþùåé â ñåáÿ ìíîæåñòâî “ñîâåòñêèõ íàöèé è íàðîäíîñòåé”, íî î íà÷àëå íîâîãî ýòíîãåíåòè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà â ñòðàíå.75 Ýòî åùå ðàç ïîäòâåðæäàåò âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî, âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, â ñâîèõ êðàéíèõ ïðîÿâëåíèÿõ, êîíöåïöèÿ “ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà” ïðåäïîëàãàëà ñîçäàíèå íåêîé îáùíîñòè, êîòîðàÿ ïî ñâîèì ñîöèîêóëü- òóðíûì õàðàêòåðèñòèêàì íàïîìèíàëà áû îáùíîñòü ýòíè÷åñêóþ. Èòàê, ôîðìèðîâàíèå ñîâåòñêîé êóëüòóðû âåëîñü çà ñ÷åò âíåäðåíèÿ â îáùåñòâåííîå ñîçíàíèå è ïàìÿòü “ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêèõ” òðàäèöèé, ïðèîáðåòåííûõ íàðîäàìè ÑÑÑÐ âî âðåìÿ ðåâîëþöèîííîé áîðüáû è ñòðîèòåëüñòâà íîâîãî îáùåñòâà. Ò.å. åå îñíîâíîå ñîäåðæàíèå ñîñòîÿëî èç èäåîëîãè÷åñêè íàïîëíåííûõ êóëüòóðíûõ ñèìâîëîâ, èçîáðåòåííûõ çà ïåðèîä ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ ÑÑÑÐ, è íå èìåâøèõ íèêà- êîãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê ðåàëüíûì ýòíè÷åñêèì êóëüòóðàì. Êàê òî÷íî îòìå÷àåò Ñ. Â. ×åøêî, “îáùíîñòü ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà çàêëþ÷àëàñü â ëîÿëüíîñòè ê äîìèíèðîâàâøèì èäåîëîãè÷åñêèì ñèìâîëàì”.76 Îñîáåííî î÷åâèäíûì ïîñëåäíåå óòâåðæäåíèå ñòàíîâèòñÿ â êîí- òåêñòå èäåîëîãè÷åñêîé ðèòîðèêè, ðàçâèâàþùåé èäåþ ñîáñòâåííî ñîâåòñêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè. “Ãäå áû íè æèë, ãäå áû íè ðàáîòàë ïðåäñòà- âèòåëü ëþáîé íàöèè ÑÑÑÐ, – ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèìè ëèäåðàìè, – îí ïîëíîïðàâíûé ÷ëåí åäèíîé âåëèêîé ñåìüè è ñ÷èòàåò ñåáÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî ñîâåòñêèì ãðàæäàíèíîì, ñîâåòñêèì ÷åëîâåêîì”.77

73 Ò. Ì. Ìèõàéëîâ. Ñîâåòñêèé îáðàç æèçíè è ðîñò ìàññîâîãî àòåèçìà // Âåëèêèé Îêòÿáðü è ðàçâèòèå áóðÿòñêîãî íàðîäà. Óëàí-Óäý, 1987. Ñ. 165. 74 Á. Ñ. Ñàíæèåâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ.82. 75 Ï. Ò. Õàïòàåâ. Ê âîïðîñó î ñáëèæåíèè è ñëèÿíèè íàöèé //  áðàòñêîé ñåìüå íàðîäîâ. Óëàí-Óäý, 1974. 76 Ñ. Â. ×åøêî. Óêàç ñî÷. Ñ. 188. 77 Ë. È. Áðåæíåâ Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 310. 259 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... Òàêîå “õàðàêòåðíîå äëÿ ñîâåòñêîãî îáùåñòâà ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîå è ìîðàëüíîå åäèíñòâî êëàññîâ è ñîöèàëüíûõ ãðóïï” ñ÷èòàëîñü ñëåä- ñòâèåì ïðèñóùåãî âñåìó íàñåëåíèþ Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà “îáùåãî êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîãî ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ”.78 Èìåííî íà åãî îñíîâå “â Áó- ðÿòñêîé ÀÑÑÐ ôîðìèðóþòñÿ îáùèå äëÿ âñåõ ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé îñîáåííîñòè îáùåñòâåííîãî è èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî ñîçíàíèÿ, èäåîëî- ãèè è ìîðàëè”.79  âûñòóïëåíèÿõ ïîëèòèêîâ è òåêñòàõ ó÷åíûõ êàæäûé ðàç ïî- âòîðÿëîñü, ÷òî îñíîâíûì ñîäåðæàíèåì ñîâåòñêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè ÿâëÿåòñÿ “ïðåäàííîñòü äåëó êîììóíèçìà, ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêèé ïàò- ðèîòèçì, ïðîëåòàðñêèé èíòåðíàöèîíàëèçì”, à èíòåíñèâíîå ÷óâ- ñòâî ïàòðèîòèçìà, êîòîðîå, ÿêîáû, èñïûòûâàþò ñîâåòñêèå ãðàæ- äàíå ê ñâîåìó ãîñóäàðñòâó, îáóñëàâëèâàåòñÿ, â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, åãî “ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé” ïðèðîäîé: “ó âñåõ íàöèé è íàðîäíîñòåé ÑÑÑÐ ñëîæèëîñü è óêðåïèëîñü îáùåçíà÷èìîå ÷óâñòâî ãîðäîñòè çà ñâîþ ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêóþ Ðîäèíó ”.80 Íàïîëíåíèå èäåíòè÷íîñòè èäåîëîãè÷åñêèìè ñìûñëàìè ïîçâî- ëÿëî êîíñòðóêòîðàì ñîâåòñêîé îáùíîñòè èçáàâèòü íàñåëåíèå îò ïðèâÿçàííîñòè ê èäåå ýòíîíàöèîíàëèçìà è òåì ñàìûì “âûâåñòè ìûøëåíèå âñåõ ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé çà ïðåäåëû îáûäåííûõ ïîíÿòèé ‘ìîå’, ‘ðåñïóáëèêàíñêîå’, ‘íàöèîíàëüíîå’, ðàñêðûòü ïåðåä ñîâåòñ- êèìè ëþäüìè øèðîêèå ãîðèçîíòû èíòåðíàöèîíàëüíîé áîðüáû çà êîììóíèçì, ïîìî÷ü èì ãëóáæå îñîçíàòü åäèíñòâî èíòåðåñîâ âñåõ íàðîäîâ ÑÑÑД.81 Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, îôèöèàëüíûé äèñêóðñ, àêòóà- ëèçèðóÿ èäåþ èäåîëîãè÷åñêîãî åäèíñòâà âñåãî íàñåëåíèÿ Ñîâåòñ- êîãî Ñîþçà, ïðèçâàí áûë ïåðåíàïðàâèòü åãî (íàñåëåíèÿ) èäåíòè- ôèêàöèîííûå ïðåäïî÷òåíèÿ ñ “òðàäèöèîííûõ” îáúåêòî⠖ ýòíî- íàöèé, – íà “íîâûé” êîíñòðóêò – ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä: “îáùåñòâåííîå ñîçíàíèå ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé íà äåëå äåìîíñòðèðóåò âîñïèòàííîå ïàðòèåé è âîøåäøåå â ïëîòü è êðîâü ñîâåòñêîãî ÷åëîâåêà óìåíèå äóìàòü ïðåæäå âñåãî îá èíòåðåñàõ âñåãî ñîâåòñêîãî íàðîäà, ñïî- ñîáíîñòü ïîä÷èíÿòü òåêóùèå âðåìåííûå íàöèîíàëüíûå èíòåðåñû êîðåííûì îáùåñîâåòñêèì, èíòåðíàöèîíàëüíûì èíòåðåñàì”.82

78 Êóëüòóðà Áóðÿòèè Ñ. 8. 79 È. À. Àñàëõàíîâ, Ñ. À. Ìàêñàíîâ, Å. Å. Òàðìàõàíîâ. Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè Áóðÿòñêîé ÀÑÑÐ ïåðèîäà ðàçâèòîãî ñîöèàëèçìà. Íîâîñèáèðñê, 1983. Ñ..281 80 Â. È. Çàòååâ. Íàöèîíàëüíûå îòíîøåíèÿ ïðè ñîöèàëèçìå. Ñ. 178. 81 Òàì æå. Ñ. 175. 82 Òàì æå. Ñ.178. 260 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé (èíòåð)íàöèîíàëèçì Åñëè èñõîäèòü èç òîãî, ÷òî íàöèîíàëèçì – ýòî ïîíÿòèå, “êîòîðîå ñëóæèò äåëó èäåîëîãè÷åñêîãî îïðàâäàíèÿ è ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ëåãèòè- ìèçàöèè îïðåäåëåííûõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î òåððèòîðèàëüíîì, ïîëè- òè÷åñêîì è êóëüòóðíîì åäèíñòâå”,83 òî ïîëèòèêó èäåíòè÷íîñòè, ïðîâîäèâøóþñÿ â ÑÑÑÐ, âïîëíå îáîñíîâàííî ìîæíî îïèñûâàòü è èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü â êîíòåêñòå íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêîé äîêòðèíû. Äëÿ îôèöèàëüíîãî äèñêóðñà, â êîòîðîì êîíñòðóèðîâàëèñü ãðàíèöû îáùíîñòè “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”, õàðàêòåðíûì áûëî îáùåå äëÿ ëþáîãî íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêîãî äèñêóðñà ñòðåìëåíèå ê “ýêñïëèöèòíîìó (âûðà- æåííîìó) ïðèíÿòèþ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ñèìâîëîâ è ýêñïëèöèòíàÿ âîëÿ èñêëþ÷àòü, ïîäàâëÿòü èëè ôèëüòðîâàòü îòðèöàòåëüíóþ èíôîðìà- öèþ è îòäàâàòü ïðåäïî÷òåíèå ñîîáùåíèÿì, óòâåðæäàþùèì îáðàç èíòåãðèðîâàííîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé îáùíîñòè”.84 Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âûñ- òðàèâàÿ ýòîò “èíòåãðèðîâàííûé îáðàç”, ïðàâÿùèé ðåæèì àêòèâíî ìàíèïóëèðîâàë îáùåñòâåííîé ïàìÿòüþ, èñòîðèåé è êóëüòóðîé äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû äîáèòüñÿ ìàêñèìàëüíî âîçìîæíîé èíòåãðàöèè ðàçíîøåðñòíîãî â ýòíîêóëüòóðíîì îòíîøåíèè íàñåëåíèÿ ÑÑÑÐ. Ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü, ÷òî â îôèöèàëüíîì èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì äèñêóðñå êîíñòðóèðîâàëàñü äâóõóðîâíåâàÿ ñèñòåìà îáùåñîâåòñêîé èäåíòè÷- íîñòè. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ñîâåòñêàÿ îáùíîñòü ïîíèìàëàñü êàê ñî- äðóæåñòâî ñàìîîïðåäåëèâøèõñÿ íàöèé, íàðîäîâ-ïàðòíåðîâ. Ïðè ýòîì ïðèõîäèëîñü ñìèðÿòüñÿ ñ íàëè÷èåì ëîêàëüíîãî ýòíîíàöèî- íàëüíîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ, è äàæå â îïðåäåëåííîé ñòåïåíè àêòóàëè- çèðîâàòü åãî.  ýòîì ñëó÷àå îáúåäèíÿþùèìè ñòàíîâèëèñü òàêèå òåðìèíû êàê “Ñîâåòñêèé Ñîþç”, “ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîå îòå÷åñòâî”, “ÑÑÑД. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ýòà îáùíîñòü ïðåïîäíîñèëàñü êàê ñîãðàæäàíñòâî (ïðè âñåé óñëîâíîñòè ïðèìåíèìîñòè äàííîãî ïîíÿòèÿ ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ñîâåòñêîìó îáùåñòâó) òðóäÿùèõñÿ ìàññ, íå ðàçäå- ëÿåìûõ ïî ýòíè÷åñêîìó ïðèçíàêó è îáúåäèíåííûõ ñâîåé ñîöèàëüíî- êëàññîâîé áëèçîñòüþ è èäåîëîãèåé.  äàííîì êîíòåêñòå èñïîëü- çîâàëñÿ òåðìèí “ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä”. Îáà óðîâíÿ ôóíêöèîíèðîâàëè ïàðàëëåëüíî, íî äî 50-õ ãã. ïðèîðèòåò îòäàâàëñÿ ïåðâîìó óðîâíþ, à àêòóàëèçàöèÿ âòîðîãî ïðèøëàñü íà 60-å – 80-å ãã. ïðîøëîãî ñòîëåòèÿ.

83 Ê. Íàãåíãàñò Ïðàâà ÷åëîâåêà è çàùèòà ìåíüøèíñòâ. Ýòíè÷íîñòü, ãðàæäàíñòâî, íàöèîíàëèçì è ãîñóäàðñòâî // Ýòíè÷íîñòü è âëàñòü â ïîëèýòíè÷íûõ ãîñóäàðñòâàõ. Ìîñêâà, 1994. Ñ. 177. 84 Ê. Äîé÷. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 192. 261 Ï. Âàðíàâñêèé, Ñîâåòñêèé íàðîä... Îñîáåííîñòüþ ñîâåòñêîãî èäåîëîãè÷åñêîãî äèñêóðñà ñòàëî òî, ÷òî, â îòëè÷èå îò êëàññè÷åñêîãî íàöèîíàëèçìà, êîíñòèòóèðóþùåãî ãðàíèöû îáùíîñòè íà îñíîâå ýòíîêóëüòóðíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè èëè èäåè ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñîãðàæäàíñòâà, â Ñîâåòñêîì Ñîþçå, ãäå “êëàññ áûë áîëüøèì, ÷åì àáñòðàêòíàÿ êàòåãîðèÿ êëàññîâîãî àíàëèçà”, à “êëàññîâàÿ ïðèíàäëåæíîñòü áûëà ãëóáîêî íðàâñòâåííîé ïðîáëå- ìîé”,85 åäèíàÿ îáùíîñòü âûñòðàèâàëàñü íà îñíîâå ñîöèàëüíî-êëàñ- ñîâîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè ñ íåïðåìåííûì ïîä÷åðêèâàíèåì åå “èíòåð- íàöèîíàëüíîãî” õàðàêòåðà.  óñëîâèÿõ ìóëüòèêóëüòóðíîãî è ïîëèýò- íè÷íîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ýòî áûë, ïîæàëóé, åäèíñòâåííî âîçìîæíûé è äîñòóïíûé äëÿ êîììóíèñòîâ ñïîñîá êîíñîëèäàöèè íàñåëåíèÿ. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ñîâåòñêàÿ èäåíòè÷íîñòü âêëþ÷àëà â ñåáÿ è êóëüòóðíîå èçìåðåíèå, êîòîðîå, ïðèçâàíî áûëî ïðèäàòü åé áîëüøóþ ýìîöèî- íàëüíóþ çíà÷èìîñòü, íî, âïðî÷åì, òàêæå îïðåäåëÿëîñü ñîöèàëèñ- òè÷åñêîé èäåîëîãèåé ñîâåòñêîãî îáùåñòâà.

SUMMARY Varnaskii effirmes that the Communist party made ethnicity and ethno- nations into a cornerstone of its policies. He explores the application of the concept of “friendship of peoples” to the historical writing in the Buriat Autonomous Republic as a means to create and promote supranational mem- ory. In particular, class universalism was one of the elements in the construc- tion of a supranational narrative of the past. This was reflected in the early 1950s in discussions of periodization of Buriat history and its specific (in the context of USSR) path. Varnavsky provides various examples of how Soviet historiography underscored growing solidarity of Russians and Buriats against their common exploiters within the empire. However, as ethnic identities became rooted, the Soviet discourse paid less and less attention to the notion of the friendship of peoples. Instead, it focused on the new entity, “the Soviet people”. Varnavskii argues that official definitions of the Soviet people as- cribed to it the same qualities as to ethnic nations. The author sees the intro- duction of the concept and its subsequent use as a means of Soviet nation- building. The impossibility to put forward a concept of Soviet nation based on civic community prevented the Soviet authorities from formulating Soviet nationalism, while ideological (communist) contents of Soviet culture allowed the authorities to temper ethno-national identities.

85 Ì. Êèâèíåí. Ïðîãðåññ è õàîñ. Ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêèé àíàëèç ïðîøëîãî è áóäóùåãî Ðîññèè. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2002. Ñ. 82-83. 262 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Ýëüçà-Áàèð ÃÓ×ÈÍÎÂÀ

ÍÀÖÈß È ÄÈÑÊÓÐÑ ÂÈÍÛ: ÏÐÈÌÈÐÅÍÈÅ Ñ ÏÐÎØËÛÌ Â ÏÎËÈÒÈÊÅ ÏÀÌßÒÈ ÊÀËÌÛÊÎÂ

Èñòîðèÿ Êàëìûêèè ñîâåòñêîãî ïåðèîäà äîëãîå âðåìÿ âêëþ÷àëà äâà ñþæåòà, íåæåëàòåëüíûõ äëÿ ïóáëè÷íîãî îáñóæäåíèÿ è èñêëþ- ÷åííûõ èç îôèöèàëüíîãî íàððàòèâà ïðîøëîãî, íî ïðèñóòñòâîâàâ- øèõ â êîëëåêòèâíîì ñîçíàíèè. Ýòî – èñòîðèÿ Êàëìûöêîãî êàâà- ëåðèéñêîãî êîðïóñà (äàëåå – ÊÊÊ),1 âîåííîãî êîëëàáîðàöèîíèñò- ñêîãî ñîåäèíåíèÿ, è äåïîðòàöèÿ êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà â 1943-1956 ãã. Êàê èçâåñòíî, èìåííî îáâèíåíèå â êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìå ñòàëî îñíî- âàíèåì äëÿ òîòàëüíîé äåïîðòàöèè êàëìûêîâ. Îïåðàöèÿ ïî äåïîð- òàöèè, â ðåçóëüòàòå êîòîðîé âñå êàëìûêè îò ìàëà äî âåëèêà áûëè íàñèëüñòâåííî ïåðåñåëåíû íà âîñòîê ñòðàíû, íà÷àëàñü 28 äåêàáðÿ 1943 ã.  òå÷åíèå íåñêîëüêèõ ìåñÿöåâ áûëè âûñëàíû êàëìûêè Ðîñòîâñêîé è Ñòàëèíãðàäñêîé îáëàñòåé è îòîçâàíû ñ ôðîíòà ñîë- äàòû è îôèöåðû.2 Áåñïðàâíàÿ æèçíü â íå÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ óñëîâèÿõ,

1 Î ñîöèàëüíîì ñîñòàâå è èñòîðèè ÊÊÊ ñì.: Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà. Óëèöà “Kalmuk Road”. Èñòîðèÿ, êóëüòóðà è èäåíòè÷íîñòè êàëìûöêîé îáùèíû ÑØÀ. Ñàíêò- Ïåòåðáóðã, 2004. 2 Ñì.: Í. Ô. Áóãàé. Îïåðàöèÿ “Óëóñû”. Ýëèñòà, 1991; Â. Á. Óáóøàåâ. Êàëìûêè. Âûñåëåíèå è âîçâðàùåíèå. 1943-1957 ãã. Ýëèñòà, 1991; Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà. Ïîñòñîâåòñêàÿ Ýëèñòà. Âëàñòü, áèçíåñ è êðàñîòà. Î÷åðêè ñîöèàëüíî- êóëüòóðíîé àíòðîïîëîãèè. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2003. 263 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû âûñîêàÿ ñìåðòíîñòü îò ãîëîäà, õîëîäà è áîëåçíåé âîñïðèíèìàëèñü êàê íàêàçàíèå êàëìûêàì â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü çà äåÿíèÿ Êàëìûöêîãî êîðïóñà. Òðèíàäöàòèëåòíèé ñòàòóñ íàðîäà-èçãîÿ, áîëüøèå ÷åëî- âå÷åñêèå ïîòåðè, à ïîçæå ïóáëè÷íûå ñóäåáíûå ïðîöåññû íàä îôèöå- ðàìè ÊÊÊ â êîíöå 1960-õ – 1970-õ ãã. çàêðåïèëè â îáùåñòâåííîì ñîçíàíèè ÷óâñòâî “êîëëåêòèâíîé âèíû”. Èñòîðèÿ ÊÊÊ – ãëàâíîãî èíñòèòóòà êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìà, çà êîòîðûé, ñîáñòâåííî, è íåñëè êàëìûêè ñâîþ “âèíó”, áûëà âûòåñíåíà èç îôèöèàëüíîãî íàððàòèâà ïðîøëîãî, íî ïðîäîëæàëà æèòü â ìèôàõ ïàìÿòè. Ìîæíî âûäåëèòü íåñêîëüêî âåðñèé ïðîøëîãî, ñôîðìèðîâàâ- øèõ êóëüòóðíóþ ïàìÿòü êàëìûêîâ î êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìå. Îäíà èç íèõ, îôèöèàëüíàÿ, áûëà ñôîðìóëèðîâàíà â 1943 ã. Óêàçîì Ïðåçè- äèóìà Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ÑÑÑÐ “Î ëèêâèäàöèè Êàëìûöêîé ÀÑÑÐ ” è ïîëó÷èëà ñâîå çàâåðøåíèå â ðèòîðèêå ñóäåáíûõ ïðî- öåññîâ íàä êîðïóñíèêàìè. Åé ïðîòèâîñòîèò àíòèñîâåòñêàÿ âåðñèÿ ýòîãî ïåðèîäà èñòîðèè, ñôîðìóëèðîâàííàÿ æèâøèìè çà ðóáåæîì ëèäåðàìè êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìà. Êðîìå ýòèõ âçàèìîèñêëþ÷àþùèõ âàðèàíòîâ ïðîøëîãî, ïðåäñòàâëåííûõ ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíûìè íàððà- òèâàìè, ñóùåñòâóþò åãî “ìåñòíûå” è “ëîêàëüíûå” âåðñèè, ïåðåäà- âàåìûå â ñåìüå, â êðóãó äðóçåé èëè ñîñëóæèâöåâ. Ñ ðàñïàäîì ÑÑÑÐ, îñëàáëåíèåì èäåîëîãè÷åñêîãî êîíòðîëÿ Êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé ïàðòèè, ðàçëè÷íûå èíòåðïðåòàöèè èñòîðèè Êàëìûêèè ñòàëè îäèíàêîâî äîñòóïíû. Ýòîò ïðîöåññ îòêðûòîãî ñòîëêíîâåíèÿ ðàçëè÷íûõ âåðñèé ïðîøëîãî ïðîèñõîäèò íà ôîíå êðèñòàëëèçàöèè íà ïîñòñîâåòñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå íàöèîíàëüíûõ èñòîðèé, ïîèñêà íîâûõ ôîðì ðàññêàçà î ïðîøëîì, â öåíòðå êîòî- ðîãî íàõîäèòñÿ íàöèÿ. Öåëü äàííîé ñòàòüè – ïîêàçàòü, êàê ÷óâñòâî âèíû çà äåéñòâèÿ êîðïóñà îòðàçèëîñü â ïðàêòèêå ïàìÿòè êàëìûö- êîãî îáùåñòâà, â êîòîðîì íàöèîíàëüíàÿ èñòîðèÿ è åå ôîðìèðîâàíèå íàïðÿìóþ çàâèñÿò îò òîãî, íàñêîëüêî îáùåñòâî ñìîæåò “ïðèìè- ðèòüñÿ” ñî ñâîèì ïðîøëûì.  íàïèñàíèè ñòàòüè áûëè èñïîëüçî- âàíû ïîëåâûå ìàòåðèàëû, ñîáðàííûå ñðåäè êàëìûêîâ Ðîññèè (Ýëèñòà, Ìîñêâà), ÑØÀ (Ôèëàäåëüôèÿ) è Ãåðìàíèè (Ìþíõåí), ìàòåðèàëû Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî àðõèâà ÐÔ (Ìîñêâà), àðõèâà ÓÔÑÁ ïî Ðåñïóáëèêå Êàëìûêèÿ (Ýëèñòà), Ôåäåðàëüíîãî âîåííîãî àðõèâà Ãåðìàíèè (Ôðàéáóðã). Îôèöèàëüíàÿ èëè èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíàÿ ïàìÿòü î ïðîèñøåäøåì âî âðåìÿ Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû âîïëîùàåòñÿ ñåãîäíÿ â îôèöèîçå ñóäåáíûõ ïðîöåññîâ, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è â íå ìåíåå èäåîëîãèçè- 264 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ðîâàííîé ïîçèöèè ïðîòèâíèêîâ ñîâåòñêîãî ðåæèìà, ïðåäñòàâëåííîé, â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, íåìåöêèì âîåííûì èñòîðèêîì É. Õîôôìàíîì. Äëÿ îáåèõ âåðñèé õàðàêòåðíî âîñïðèÿòèå ëþäåé â âîåííîé ôîðìå êàê âèíòèêîâ ñèñòåìû, êîòîðûìè äâèæóò ëèøü ïîëèòè÷åñêèå öåëè. Õîôôìàí â ñâîåé ìîíîãðàôèè “Íåìöû è êàëìûêè. 1942-1945” äîêà- çûâàë, ÷òî êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçì ÷àñòè êàëìûêîâ áûë ñëåäñòâèåì íàöèîíàëüíîé ïîëèòèêè Ñîâåòñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà è èìåë èñêëþ- ÷èòåëüíî îñâîáîäèòåëüíóþ ìîòèâàöèþ. Êàê ñ÷èòàë Õîôìàí, äåëî áûëî íå ñòîëüêî â íåáëàãîíàäåæíîñòè íåêîòîðûõ íàðîäîâ, ñêîëüêî â îáùåì êðàõå íàöèîíàëüíîé ïîëèòèêè ÑÑÑÐ.3 Èññëåäîâàíèå Õîôôìàíà îïèðàëîñü íå òîëüêî íà àðõèâíûå ìàòå- ðèàëû, íî è íà âîñïîìèíàíèÿ áûâøèõ êîðïóñíèêîâ, ñòàâøèõ ýìèã- ðàíòàìè. Èìåííî â êàëìûöêîé ýìèãðàíòñêîé ñðåäå ñôîðìèðîâàëîñü òðàíñëèðîâàííîå Õîôôìàíîì ñîáñòâåííîå, ðàäèêàëüíî îòëè÷íîå îò ñîâåòñêîãî âèäåíèå ïðîøëîãî. Ïîêà áûâøèå êîðïóñíèêè æèëè â Áàâàðèè â ñòàòóñå ïåðåìåùåííûõ ëèö,4 îíè îõîòíî ñîòðóäíè÷àëè ñ ìþíõåíñêèì Èíñòèòóòîì ÑÑÑÐ, ïðèíÿâ îáðàç áîðöîâ çà ñâîáîäó è äåìîêðàòèþ. Îäíàêî, ïåðååõàâ â ÑØÀ è ïîëó÷èâ ãðàæäàíñêèé ñòàòóñ, îíè ïðåäïî÷èòàëè ñâîþ âîåííóþ áèîãðàôèþ íå âñïîìèíàòü.  1997-1998 ãã. ÿ ïðîâîäèëà èññëåäîâàíèå â êàëìûöêîé îáùèíå ÑØÀ è âñòðå÷àëàñü ñ òåìè, êòî ïîêèíóë Êàëìûêèþ â 1943 ã. “Íîâûå” ýìèãðàíòû íåîõîòíî ãîâîðèëè î âîåííûõ ñòðàíèöàõ ñâîåé áèîãðàôèè. Ïîñëå ïîäðîáíîãî îïèñàíèÿ äîâîåííîé æèçíè îíè ñðàçó ïåðåñêàêèâàëè ê îïèñàíèþ æèçíè â ëàãåðÿõ äëÿ ïåðåìåùåííûõ ëèö. Äàæå òå, êòî áûë ãîòîâ ê ðàññêàçó î ñîáûòèÿõ 1942-1945 ãã., âñå-òàêè, ÷òîáû íå íàãîâîðèòü ëèøíåãî, ïðåäïî÷èòàëè ìîíîëîãó îòâåòû íà ïîñòàâëåííûå ìíîþ âîïðîñû. Èç ìîèõ ñîáåñåäíèêîâ òîëüêî Ä. Àðáàêîâ, êîòîðûé â 1998 ã. ÿâëÿëñÿ ïîñëåäíèì æèâûì ëèäåðîì êîëëàáîðàöèîíèñòîâ, îòêðûòî îáñóæäàë èñòîðèþ êîð- ïóñà, îñòàâàÿñü óâåðåííûì â ñâîåé ïðàâîòå. Áûâøèé íà÷àëüíèê øòàáà ÊÊÊ Ä. Àðáàêîâ èçáåæàë ðåïàòðèà- öèè, ïðèñîåäèíèëñÿ ê êàëìûêàì ïåðâîé âîëíû ýìèãðàöèè è ïîñëå íåñêîëüêèõ ëåò æèçíè â ëàãåðå äëÿ ïåðåìåùåííûõ ëèö ïåðåáðàëñÿ â ÑØÀ. Êîãäà ÿ áåñåäîâàëà ñ íèì â 1998 ã., åìó áûëî 85 ëåò. Ñîãëàøàÿñü íà âñòðå÷ó, îí áûë óâåðåí, ÷òî îò “ïðèåõàâøåé èç Ðîñ- ñèè æåíùèíû”, êàê ìåíÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿëè, âðÿä ëè ìîæíî îæèäàòü

3 J. Hoffmann. Deutsche und Kalmuken 1942 bis 1945. Freiburg, 1974. S. 167. 4 Displaced persons – ïåðåìåùåííûå ëèöà. 265 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû áåñïðèñòðàñòèÿ. Ïàìÿòü Àðáàêîâà ìåíÿ ïîðàçèëà. Îí îò÷åòëèâî ïîìíèë âñå èìåíà, äîëæíîñòè, çâàíèÿ, äàòû è ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèå íàçâàíèÿ. Åãî ðå÷ü, ëîãè÷åñêè âûñòðîåííàÿ è ñíàáæåííàÿ íåîá- õîäèìûìè èñòîðè÷åñêèìè äàííûìè, ñ ìîåé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, áûëà íå òîëüêî ñëåäñòâèåì äîëãèõ ðàçäóìèé, íî è ðåçóëüòàòîì íåîäíîê- ðàòíîãî åå âîñïðîèçâåäåíèÿ.  êà÷åñòâå íàððàòèâà ïàìÿòè Àðáàêîâ ïðåäñòàâëÿë, òàê ñêàçàòü, îôèöèàëüíóþ ëåãåíäó. Ñîãëàñíî åé, íà÷àëîì óíè÷òîæåíèÿ êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà áûëà èíèöèàòèâà, ïðîÿâëåííàÿ ãåíåðàë-ïîëêîâíèêîì Îêîé Ãîðîäîâèêîâûì.5 Äàëåå Àðáàêîâ ñîîáùàë äàííûå î ñîñòàâå è ÷èñëåííîñòè êàëìûöêèõ ÷àñòåé, áðîøåííûõ ïðîòèâ íåìöåâ, è îáðàùàë âíèìàíèå íà ñëàáîñòü âîîðóæåíèé è âîåííîé ïîäãîòîâêè, íà áåñïåðñïåêòèâíîñòü ñîïðî- òèâëåíèÿ â òàêèõ óñëîâèÿõ è íà òåððîð Ñîâåòñêèõ âëàñòåé:  ýòî âðåìÿ ìû âåëè îáîðîíèòåëüíûå áîè ïðîòèâ äî çóáîâ âîîðóæåííîé äèâèçèè ÑÑ: 20 òûñ. áîéöîâ, 500 òàíêîâ è áîëåå 100 ñàìîëåòîâ. Æèâûå ëþäè ïðîòèâ æåëåçà. Ìû áûëè îáðå÷å- íû íà ïîëíóþ ãèáåëü. Íàø òûë îõðàíÿëñÿ âîéñêàìè ÍÊÂÄ, îòñòóïàòü íåëüçÿ áûëî íè øàãó. Êòî îñìåëèâàëñÿ, òåõ óáèâàëè ýíêàâåäåøíèêè. Äèâèçèÿ ïîòåðÿëà 1000 ÷åëîâåê óáèòûìè, 300 ïëåííûìè, òûñÿ÷à áîéöîâ áåæàëà äîìîé, íåñìîòðÿ íà ÍÊÂÄ, òàê êàê èç äîìà ïèñàëè, ÷òî ñåìüè ãîëîäàþò è óìèðàþò. Ñîãëàñíî âîñïîìèíàíèÿì Àðáàêîâà, â òî âðåìÿ, êàê êàëìûöêèå ÷àñòè âîåâàëè ïðîòèâ íàöèñòîâ, ñîâåòñêèå âëàñòè ïðîâîäèëè àíòèêàëìûöêèå àêöèè: Êàëìûöêèé îáêîì è ÑÍÊ ïî ðàñïîðÿæåíèþ Ìîñêâû âûíåñ ïîñòàíîâëåíèå îá óãîíå ñêîòà íà âîñòîê, çà Âîëãó, è îá ýâà- êóàöèè çåðíîâûõ ïðîäóêòîâ. Ëþäè ãîëîäàëè, ïóõëè, ïèñàëè ñâîèì ñûíîâüÿì è ìóæüÿì î ñìåðòè äåòåé îò ãîëîäà, ïðîñèëè èõ áûñòðåå âåðíóòüñÿ äîìîé. Ýòî áûëî â èþëå. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ïîñòàíîâëåíèå î âûñûëêå êàëìûêîâ â Ñèáèðü áûëî ïîä- ãîòîâëåíî Áåðèåé åùå â èþíå. Ïî íåïðîâåðåííûì äàííûì, â òîì ÷èñëå ïî ðàññêàçàì Âèêòîðà Áóðëèöêîãî (ìàðò 1954 ã.,

5 Ãîðîäîâèêîâ Îêà Èâàíîâè÷ (1879-1960), âîåííûé äåÿòåëü, îðãàíèçàòîð äåïîðòàöèé, ãåíåðàë-ïîëêîâíèê (1940), Ãåðîé Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà (1958). Ñûí êðåñòüÿíèíà-êàëìûêà. Ãîðîäîâèêîâ áûë îäíèì èç îðãàíèçàòîðîâ äåïîðòàöèé, è åìó ïðèíàäëåæàëà èíèöèàòèâà ïî ñîçäàíèþ äâóõ êàâàëåðèéñêèõ äèâèçèé, ñôîðìèðîâàííûõ èç êàëìûêîâ. 266 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ìþíõåí), Áåðèÿ äîëîæèë Ïîëèòáþðî, ÷òî êàëìûöêàÿ äèâèçèÿ ñäàëàñü íåìöàì ïîëíîñòüþ... Ïëàí ñîçäàíèÿ äâóõ äèâèçèé – ýòî òðàãåäèÿ. Àðáàêîâ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî “Ñîâåòñêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî ïðîÿâèëî âåëè- êîäåðæàâíûé øîâèíèçì ñ öåëüþ óíè÷òîæèòü íàðîä è çàõâàòèòü òåððèòîðèþ äëÿ ñîñåäíèõ îáëàñòåé, êîòîðûì áûëè íóæíû ïàñò- áèùà. Ïîýòîìó è îòïðàâëÿëè ëþäåé íà ôðîíò.” Òî, ÷òî ïîìíèò Àðáàêîâ, ðàáîòàåò íà âåðñèþ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé Ñîâåòñêîå ïðàâè- òåëüñòâî ïîñòàâèëî êàëìûêîâ â óñëîâèÿ, êîãäà îíè ïðîñòî âûíóæ- äåíû áûëè ïåðåéòè íà ñòîðîíó íåìöåâ:  òå÷åíèå ñåìè òÿæåëûõ áîåâûõ äíåé êîìàíäîâàíèå 51-é àðìèè Þæíîãî ôðîíòà íå îêàçûâàëî ïîìîùè ÎÊÊÄ6 íè îäíèì òàíêîì, íè îäíèì ñàìîëåòîì. Ìû áûëè îáðå÷åíû íà ãèáåëü. Ïëþñ âûãîí ñêîòà èç ðåñïóáëèêè, ãîëîä ðîäèòåëåé íèêàê íå íàñòðàèâàë ñîëäàò âåñòè ãåðîè÷åñêóþ áîðüáó. Òûñÿ÷à áîéöîâ âåðíóëàñü â ðåñïóáëèêó.  èþëå-àâãóñòå ñêîò èç Ñòàâ- ðîïîëüÿ, Êðàñíîäàðñêîãî êðàÿ, Ðîñòîâñêîé îáëàñòè óæå ñòàëè âûãîíÿòü çà Âîëãó. Âåðíóâøèåñÿ ñîëäàòû 110-é íà÷àëè îòáè- ðàòü ýòîò ñêîò è êîðìèòü ñåìüè. Òàì è òóò âîçíèêëè äî ñòà ðàçëè÷íûõ ãðóïïèðîâîê èç 15-20 ÷åëîâåê, êîòîðûå îòáèðàëè ñêîò ñîñåäíèõ îáëàñòåé è êîðìèëè íàðîä. Ñîâåòû èõ íàçâàëè áàíäèòàìè. Ê ïðèõîäó íåìöåâ óæå ñóùåñòâîâàëè êàâàëåðèéñêèå îòðÿäû – êîðìèëüöû íàðîäà. Î÷åâèäíî, Àðáàêîâ ïûòàåòñÿ ïðåäñòàâèòü âîåâàâøèõ â êîðïóñå íå êàê ñòîðîííèêîâ íàöèñòñêîé Ãåðìàíèè, à êàê çàùèòíèêîâ èíòå- ðåñîâ ñàìîãî êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà: Êàëìûöêàÿ ðåñïóáëèêà ñâîèìè ñèëàìè ñòðîèëà øîññåéíóþ äîðîãó Ýëèñòà – Äèâíîå ïðîòÿæåííîñòüþ ïî÷òè â 100 êì, è âñÿ ðåñïóáëèêà âûñòàâèëà ñâîèõ ðàáî÷èõ è òðàíñïîðò, òåõíèêè íå áûëî íèêàêîé. Ýòî òîæå ïîäîðâàëî ýêîíîìèêó ðåñïóáëèêè. Ê îñåíè 1941 ã. ïîëîâèíà óðîæàÿ íå áûëà ñîáðàíà, è ñêîò îñòàëñÿ áåç êîðìà. Ìàëî òîãî, îñåíüþ 1941 êàëìûêîâ íàïðà- âèëè íà Äîí, ÷òîáû îíè ïðèíÿëè ó÷àñòèå â ñòðîèòåëüñòâå îáî- ðîíèòåëüíîé ñèñòåìû Äîíà. Ýòî áûë íàïðàñíûé òðóä, òàê êàê ëåâûé áåðåã Äîíà – ëóãîâîé, ñóïåñ÷àíî-ãëèíèñòûé. Ñåãîäíÿ

6 Îòäåëüíûå Êàëìûöêèå Êàâàëåðèéñêèå äèâèçèè. 267 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû âûíåøü ïåñîê, à íà çàâòðà – ïðîâàëû. Âçðîñëîå íàñåëåíèå ïðèìåðíî òðè ìåñÿöà ïðîäîëæàëî ýòè ðàáîòû. Ìàëî òîãî, Ìîñêâà ñèëàìè êàëìûêîâ ðåøèëà ïîñòðîèòü íîâóþ ñòðàòåãè- ÷åñêóþ æåëåçíóþ äîðîãó Êèçëÿð – Àñòðàõàíü, 150 êì ïî êàëìûö- êîé òåððèòîðèè. È îïÿòü íàñåëåíèå ñâîèìè ïðèìèòèâíûìè ñèëàìè ñòðîèëî ýòó äîðîãó. Ìàëî òîãî, ïî ãîñóäàðñòâåííûì ïîñòàâêàì çàáèðàëè êîæó, ìÿñî, øåðñòü. Çíàÿ ýòî, Îêà Ãîðî- äîâèêîâ íå äîëæåí áûë âûäâèãàòü èäåþ îðãàíèçàöèè äâóõ êàë- ìûöêèõ äèâèçèé. Òåïåðü íàì ÿñíî, ÷òî ýòî áûëà âåëèêîäåð- æàâíàÿ ïîëèòèêà Ñîâåòñêîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà. Íî ýòî ñòàëî ïîíÿòíî òîëüêî ïîñëå òðàãåäèè 1943 ã.  äàííîé âåðñèè êàëìûöêèé êîðïóñ ïðåäñòàåò êàê àâàíãàðä îñâîáîäèòåëüíîé áîðüáû ïðîòèâ ñîâåòñêîé èìïåðèè, ïëàíèðîâàâøåé óíè÷òîæåíèå êàëìûöêîé íàöèè. Èìåííî áîëüøåâèñòñêàÿ âëàñòü íåñåò îòâåòñòâåííîñòü çà âîçíèêíîâåíèå êàëìûöêèõ ÷àñòåé, ñðàæàâ- øèõñÿ íà ñòîðîíå ãèòëåðîâñêîé Ãåðìàíèè: Íå íåìöû ñîçäàëè òàê íàçûâàåìûé Êàëìûöêèé êîðïóñ, à ñîâåòñêàÿ ñèñòåìà ëîãè÷åñêè ñîçäàëà ýòîò Êîðïóñ. Ïîýòîìó îáâèíåíèå Ñîâåòñêîé âëàñòè íåòî÷íî. Èçìó÷åííûé íàðîä æäàë âíåøíåãî âðàãà, ÷òîáû èçáàâèòüñÿ îò ýòîãî òîòàëèòàð- íîãî ðåæèìà. Ýòè âîåííûå âìåñòå ñ ìåñòíûìè æèòåëÿìè áåæàëè â êîíöå 1942 ã.  îáîçå ñëåäîâàëî îêîëî 10 òûñ. ÷åëîâåê.  ÿíâà- ðå 1943 ã. íà ñòàíöèè Äèâíîå âûïàë áîëüøîé ñíåã, è ëþäÿì áûëî òðóäíî äâèãàòüñÿ íà çàïàä. ß õîäèë ïî îáîçàì, óãîâàðèâàÿ ëþäåé âåðíóòüñÿ äîìîé. Ìû ðåêîìåíäîâàëè èì âåðíóòüñÿ äîìîé: âïåðåäè íåèçâåñòíûé ïóòü. Åäâà ëè áóäåò âîçìîæíîñòü êîðìèòü ñêîò.  òîæå âðåìÿ, ïî âîñïîìèíàíèÿì Àðáàêîâà, íåìåöêèå âëàñòè âåëè âïîëíå óñïåøíóþ ïðîïàãàíäó ñðåäè êàëìûêîâ: Íåìåöêàÿ ðàçâåäêà õîðîøî ðàáîòàëà. Íåìåöêèé àïïàðàò áûë õîðîøî çíàêîì ñ òðàäèöèÿìè êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà. Ãëàâ- íûì îáðàçîì îíè îáðàáàòûâàëè áóääèéñêèõ ñâÿùåííèêîâ, ÷òîáû òå ïåðåäàâàëè ìåñòíîìó íàñåëåíèþ, ÷òî íåìåöêàÿ àðìèÿ, áåçóñëîâíî, ïîáåäèò êîììóíèçì è êàëìûöêèé íàðîä ïðèîá- ðåòåò ñâîþ ñâîáîäó. Îêîëî äâóõ äþæèí íàøèõ ñâÿùåííèêîâ ñòàëè ïðîâîäíèêàìè íåìåöêîé ïðîïàãàíäû. Îíè óáåæäàëè íàñåëåíèå, ÷òî íåìåöêàÿ àðìèÿ íåñîìíåííî ïîáåäèò êîììó- 268 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íèçì, ïîýòîìó êàëìûêè äîëæíû ëþáûìè ñðåäñòâàìè ïîääåð- æèâàòü îêêóïàöèîííóþ âëàñòü. Êàëìûêè áûëè èçìó÷åíû êîëõîçíî-ñîâõîçíîé ñèñòåìîé, ìîðàëüíî ïîäàâëåíû ïîñëå ðàçðóøåíèÿ áóääèéñêèõ õðàìîâ. Ïî âîñïîìèíàíèÿì Àðáàêîâà, ìèô î êîðïóñå êàê àêòèâíîé áîåâîé åäèíèöå – ïðîäóêò ñîâåòñêîé ïðîïàãàíäû, è íè â êàêèõ ïðåñòóïëåíèÿõ ïðîòèâ ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà èëè â áîåâûõ äåéñòâèÿõ ïðîòèâ Êðàñíîé Àðìèè êàëìûöêèå áîéöû íå ó÷àñòâîâàëè: Íàêîíåö â ôåâðàëå 1943 ã. ìû ñîáðàëèñü â ñòàíèöå Áóäå- íîâêà Òàãàíðîãñêîãî îêðóãà, íà áåðåãó Àçîâñêîãî ìîðÿ, è òàì ïðîèñõîäèëî òàê íàçûâàåìîå ôîðìèðîâàíèå êàëìûöêîé âîèíñêîé ÷àñòè. Âåðõîâûõ êàâàëåðèñòîâ áûëî ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî 2 òûñ., îñòàëüíûå – ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî 3 òûñ. – áåæåíöû. Ñïåðâà ýòî ñîåäèíåíèå íàçûâàëîñü Êàëìûöêîå ñîåäèíåíèå, êîòîðûì ðóêîâîäèë äîêòîð Äîëë,7 îí æå Ðóäîëüô Âåðáà, ñóäåòñêèé íåìåö. Îí îòëè÷íî âëàäåë ðóññêèì ÿçûêîì, áûë õîðîøî çíàêîì ñ òðàäèöèÿìè êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà, â òîì ÷èñëå ñ áóääèçìîì. Ïîçæå ýòî ñîåäèíåíèå áûëî ïåðåèìåíîâàíî â Êàëìûöêèé êàâàëåðèéñêèé êîðïóñ äîêòîðà Äîëëà. Ýòîò òàê íàçûâàåìûé êîðïóñ íèêàêîé âîåííîé ñèëû íå èìåë. Îí ñîñòîÿë èç îêîëî äâóõ òûñ. ñîëäàò â âîçðàñòå îò 18 äî 60 ëåò, îñòàëüíûå – æåíùèíû è äåòè. Íàøà ñëóæáà çàêëþ÷àëàñü â îõðàíå òûëîâûõ îáúåêòîâ: æåëåçíîäîðîæíûõ ëèíèé, ìîñòîâ è âîåííûõ ñêëàäîâ.  òå÷åíèå òðåõ ëåò ìû òîëüêî òðè ðàçà ó÷àñòâîâàëè â òàê íàçûâàåìûõ áîÿõ. Ïåðâûé ðàç – â Çàïîðîæñêîé îáëàñòè ïðîòèâ ñîâåòñêèõ ïàðòèçàí, ãäå ó÷àñòâîâàëî îêîëî 300 íàøèõ ñîëäàò. Âòîðîé ðàç – ëåòîì 1944 ã. â ðàéîíå Ëþáëèíà, ãäå ó÷àñòâîâàëî îêîëî 300 ñîëäàò ïðîòèâ Ñîâåòñêîé àðìèè, òàì ä-ð Äîëë ïðîïàë áåç âåñòè. Òðåòèé ðàç – â áîþ çà æåëåçíîäîðîæíûé ìîñò â ðàéîíå Ñïàðæèñêî Êàìåííà, ãäå ìû ïîòåðÿëè 19 ÷åëîâåê. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, òàê íàçûâàåìûé Êàëìûöêèé êîðïóñ – ýòî ðàçäóòûé ñîâåòñêîé ðàçâåäêîé ìèô. Ìû íè â êàêèõ áîÿõ íå ó÷àñòâîâàëè. Ñîâåòñêàÿ ïðåññà îáâèíèëà íàñ â êàðàòåëüíûõ äåéñòâèÿõ ïðîòèâ ìåñòíîãî íàñåëåíèÿ â òåõ ìåñòàõ, ãäå ìû äâèãàëèñü íà çàïàä. Ïðèâîäÿò àñòðîíîìè÷åñêèå öèôðû. ßêîáû îòäåëüíûå

7 Òàê ïðîèçíîñèë Ä. Àðáàêîâ. Ïðàâèëüíîå ïðî÷òåíèå “Doll” – Äîëëü. 269 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû âîåííûå ýòîãî êîðïóñà ïðîèçâîäèëè ìàññîâûå óáèéñòâà è îòïðàâêó íàñåëåíèÿ â Ãåðìàíèþ. Íè îäíî ãîñóäàðñòâî â ìèðå íå äîïóñòèò, ÷òîáû êàêèå-ëèáî âîåííûå, ãðàæäàíå ÷óæîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, ó÷èíÿëè ðàçãðîìû è óáèéñòâà ìåñòíîãî íàñåëåíèÿ, òåì áîëåå, ÷òîáû íåìåöêîå êîìàíäîâàíèå äîïóñòèëî ñòåïíîìó êàëìûêó ãîñïîäñòâîâàòü íàä ìåñòíûì íàñåëåíèåì. Ýòî ñàìè ñëóæàùèå òàéíîé ðàçâåäêè äîïóñêàëè ýòè çâåðñòâà è êðè÷àëè íà íàñ – äåðæè âîðà. Íàì áîëüíî è îáèäíî, ÷òî íàñ îáâèíÿþò â ýòèõ ëîæíûõ ïðåñòóïëåíèÿõ. Ìû íå èìåëè íèêàêèõ àäìèíè- ñòðàòèâíûõ è âîåííûõ ïðàâ êîìàíäîâàòü íàä ìåñòíûì íàñå- ëåíèåì. Âåçäå è âñþäó ìåñòíîå íàñåëåíèå íàõîäèëîñü ïîä êîìàí- äîâàíèåì âîåííîé íåìåöêîé êîìåíäàòóðû, îíè æå íàñèëüíî îòïðàâëÿëè ëþäåé íà ðàáîòû â Ãåðìàíèþ. Èòàê, âåðñèÿ ïàìÿòè ýòîãî èäåéíîãî ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿ âòîðîé ýìèã- ðàöèè êàëìûêîâ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëîãè÷åñêè çàâåðøåííûì íàððàòèâîì, êîòîðûé ïîâåñòâóåò î òîì, êàê ñîâåòñêàÿ àíòèêàëìêñêàÿ ïîëèòèêà ïðèâåëà ê ñîçäàíèþ ÊÊÊ – íå êîëëàáîðàöèîíèñòñêîãî, à àíòè- ñîâåòñêîãî, íàöèîíàëüíî-îñâîáîäèòåëüíîãî ïîäðàçäåëåíèÿ. Ýìèã- ðàíòñêàÿ âåðñèÿ ïàìÿòè î ÊÊÊ â ãîäû âîéíû ðèñóåò îäíîçíà÷íóþ êàðòèíó, ïðåäñòàâëÿÿ êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçì êàê âûíóæäåííûé àêò âûæèâàíèÿ, èäåîëîãè÷åñêè îçíà÷àþùèé çàùèòó íàöèîíàëüíûõ èíòåðåñîâ îò âðàæäåáíîé ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê êàëìûêàì ñîâåòñêîé âëàñòè. Ïðè ýòîì ïàìÿòü ýìèãðàíòîâ îáõîäèò ñòîðîíîé òàêèå ñîáûòèÿ, êàê ó÷àñòèå â áîÿõ ïðîòèâ Êðàñíîé Àðìèè, èëè ïîñëåâî- åííóþ àäàïòàöèþ â óñëîâèÿõ äåíàöèôèêàöèè â Ãåðìàíèè.  ïàìÿòè ýìèãðàíòîâ áîéöû êîðïóñà – æåðòâû îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ è çàùèòíèêè íàöèîíàëüíûõ èíòåðåñîâ êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà.  ýòîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè, íàïðèìåð, íèêàê íå ó÷èòûâàåòñÿ ñâÿçü ìåæäó ïåðâîé è âòîðîé êàëìûöêîé ýìèãðàöèåé. À âåäü ñðåäè ëèäåðîâ Êàëìûöêîãî êîðïóñà áûëè áûâøèå ðåýìèãðàíòû, óæå èìåâøèå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îá óðîâíå è êà÷åñòâå æèçíè â Åâðîïå. Òàêæå Àðáàêîâ óïóñêàåò, ÷òî àêòèâíîìó ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâó ñ îêêóïàíòàìè ñïîñîáñòâîâàëà äåÿòåëüíîñòü Êàëìûöêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî êîìè- òåòà, ñîçäàííîãî ýìèãðàíòàìè ïåðâîé âîëíû. Íàêîíåö, â êîðïóñå îêàçàëèñü ìíîãèå ðîäñòâåííèêè ýìèãðàíòîâ ïåðâîé âîëíû, êîòî- ðûõ ïðèòåñíÿëè çà ðîäñòâî ñ êëàññîâûì âðàãîì. Êòî æå áûëè ëþäè, îò ëèöà êîòîðûõ â êîíöå 1990-õ ãã. “ïîìíèë” ïîñëåäíèé î÷åâèäåö Àðáàêîâ? Áûë ëè èõ “êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçì”

270 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âûíóæäåííûì îòâåòîì íà äåéñòâèÿ ñîâåòñêîãî âîåííîãî ðóêîâîäñòâà, ïðèêàçîì ¹ 260 îò 17 àâãóñòà 1941 ã. îòêàçàâøåãî ñâîèì âîèíàì â ïðàâå íà æèçíü, íå ïîäïèñàâøåãî Æåíåâñêóþ êîíâåíöèþ, èç-çà ÷åãî èç 5,7 ìëí. ïîïàâøèõ â ïëåí ñîâåòñêèõ âîåííîñëóæàùèõ ïîãèáëè èç-çà ãîëîäà è áîëåçíåé 3,3 ìèëëèîíà? Çíà÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷àñòü êàëìûöêèõ êîëëàáîðàíòîâ áûëà çàâåðáî- âàíà ⠓Ostlegionen” èç ëàãåðåé äëÿ âîåííîïëåííûõ. Âíà÷àëå èì ïðåäëàãàëîñü èäòè íà ñëóæáó â ñåâåðîêàâêàçñêèå ëåãèîíû, ñ 1943 ã. – â 1-é è 2-é òóðêåñòàíñêèå ëåãèîíû, îòêóäà èìè äîóêîìëåêòîâûâàëè êîðïóñ.8 Óñïåõ òàêèõ âåðáîâîê, ïî âûðàæåíèþ Ï. Ïîëÿíà, “çàâèñåë òîëüêî îò îäíîãî ôàêòîðà – îò óðîâíÿ àäà, êîòîðûé â äàííîì ëàãåðå ñóùåñòâîâàë”. Íàèáîëåå âåðîÿòíîé àëüòåðíàòèâîé êîëëà- áîðàöèîíèçìó äëÿ ñîâåòñêîãî âîåííîïëåííîãî áûëà ñìåðòü. Î òîì, íàñêîëüêî áåñ÷åëîâå÷íûìè áûëè óñëîâèÿ â íåìåöêèõ ëàãåðÿõ äëÿ âîåííîïëåííûõ, ãîâîðÿò íåîäíîêðàòíî çàôèêñèðîâàííûå ôàêòû êàííèáàëèçìà.9 Ñðåäè êîðïóñíèêîâ áûëè òàêèå, êîòîðûå øëè ñëóæèòü íåìöàì, ÷òîáû ïîòîì ñáåæàòü ê “ñâîèì”. Ýòè ëþäè ñòàëè ãåðîÿìè ôðàí- öóçñêîãî Ñîïðîòèâëåíèÿ è ïàðòèçàíñêîãî äâèæåíèÿ â Þãîñëàâèè.

Ñîâåòñêàÿ ðèòîðèêà îáâèíåíèÿ Îáðàòèìñÿ òåïåðü ê ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîé âåðñèè ïàìÿòè î Êàëìûö- êîì êîðïóñå.  1963 ã., êîãäà, êàçàëîñü áû, âîéíà, äåïîðòàöèÿ è ëàãåðÿ áûëè â ïðîøëîì, â ñîâåòñêîé ïðåññå íà÷àëàñü àêòèâíàÿ êàìïàíèÿ, ðàçîáëà÷àâøàÿ äåÿíèÿ ÊÊÊ. Ñóäåáíûå ïðîöåññû â Êàëìûêèè íå áûëè èñêëþ÷åíèåì. Ïîäîáíûå àêöèè øëè ïî âñåé ñòðàíå â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ïîñòàíîâëåíèåì, îòìåíÿþùèì ñðîê äàâíî- ñòè ïî âîåííûì ïðåñòóïëåíèÿì.  òî æå âðåìÿ, îíè õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè ñîâïàëè ñ âñïëåñêîì íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ ïîñëå âîçâðà- ùåíèÿ íàêàçàííûõ íàðîäîâ è âîñïðèíèìàëèñü êðàéíå áîëåçíåííî. Ïðîöåññû èìåëè öåëüþ ñäåðæàòü âîçðîñøèå ñ Îòòåïåëüþ îæèäàíèÿ êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà: ïîëó÷èâ îáðàòíî ñâîþ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòü, íàáëþäàÿ èíâåñòèöèè ñîþçíîãî öåíòðà â ðåñïóáëèêàíñêóþ íàóêó, îáðàçîâàíèå, òåàòð, ïå÷àòü, êàëìûêè îæèäàëè ïîëíîé òåððèòî-

8 Àðõèâ ÓÔÑÁ ïî Ðåñïóáëèêå Êàëìûêèÿ. Ô. 9. Îï. 52. Ä. 8. Ò. 3. Ë. 13. 9 Ï. Ïîëÿí. Æåðòâû äâóõ äèêòàòóð. Îñòàðáàéòåðû è âîåííîïëåííûå â Òðåòüåì Ðåéõå è èõ ðåïàòðèàöèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 1996. Ñ. 228.

271 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû ðèàëüíîé ðåàáèëèòàöèè, òî åñòü âîçâðàùåíèÿ äâóõ ýêîíîìè÷åñêè ñèëüíûõ ðàéîíîâ, îñòàâøèõñÿ â ñîñòàâå Àñòðàõàíñêîé îáëàñòè, è âîññîçäàíèÿ Êàëìûöêîãî ðàéîíà â ñîñòàâå Ðîñòîâñêîé îáëàñòè. Äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ïðåñå÷ü òåððèòîðèàëüíûå òðåáîâàíèÿ, ñòîèëî íàïîìíèòü êàëìûêàì îá èõ âèíå ïåðåä ãîñóäàðñòâîì. Ê òîìó æå, ýòî áûë áû è õîðîøèé óðîê äëÿ îñòàëüíûõ “ïðîâèíèâøèõñÿ” íàðîäîâ. Êàìïàíèÿ íà÷àëàñü ñ ïóáëèêàöèè â ñàìîé ÷èòàåìîé â ðåñïóá- ëèêå ãàçåòå “Ñîâåòñêàÿ Êàëìûêèÿ” ñòàòüè: “Ñëåäû âåäóò íà çàïàä”.  íåé èñïîëüçîâàëèñü ïî÷òè âñå èäåîëîãè÷åñêèå øòàìïû âîåííûõ ëåò: “áàíäà óáèéö”, “êàðàòåëåé è âåøàòåëåé”, “ãèòëåðîâñêèå íàé- ìèòû”, “÷óäîâèùíûå çâåðñòâà”, “êðîâàâûé ìàðøðóò ïàëà÷åé”. Ñîñòàâ êîðïóñà õàðàêòåðèçîâàëñÿ êàê “ïðèòàèâøèåñÿ äî ïîðû äî âðåìåíè âðàãè Ñîâåòñêîé âëàñòè, áûâøèå áîãàòåè, óãîëîâíèêè, ìîðàëüíî ðàçëîæèâøèåñÿ ëþäè”.10  ìåñòíûõ îòêëèêàõ íà ýòó ñòàòüþ âûðàæàëñÿ ãíåâ è íåíàâèñòü ê îòùåïåíöàì è ôàøèñòñêèì õîëóÿì. Àâòîðû îòçûâî⠖ êàëìûêè äèñòàíöèðîâàëèñü îò áûâøèõ êîðïóñ- íèêîâ èäåîëîãè÷åñêè è íàöèîíàëüíî. Ó÷àñòíèêè êîðïóñà áûëè íå ïðîñòî âðàãàìè ñîâåòñêîé âëàñòè, îíè èçîáðàæàëèñü è êàê ïðåäàòå- ëè íàöèîíàëüíûõ èíòåðåñîâ êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà. Âîò îòðûâîê èç ñòàòüè “Èì íåò ïîùàäû”, ïîìåùåííîé ïîä ðóáðèêîé “Óáèéö è ïðåäàòåëåé ðîäèíû – ê îòâåòó!”: Èõ áûëî, êîíå÷íî, íåìíîãî. Ýòî áûëè ëþäè, äàâíî ïîòå- ðÿâøèå ñòûä è ñîâåñòü, æèâøèå øêóðíûìè èíòåðåñàìè, ñ íåíà- âèñòüþ â äóøå ñìîòðåâøèå, êàê íàø íàðîä ïîä ðóêîâîäñòâîì ïàðòèè Ëåíèíà àêòèâíî ó÷àñòâóþò â ñòðîèòåëüñòâå íîâîé æèçíè. Òå èç ýòèõ ïàëà÷åé, êòî óñïåë óäðàòü íà Çàïàä, íàøëè ñåé÷àñ íîâûõ õîçÿåâ è âåðíî ñëóæàò èì, óñåðäíî ó÷àñòâóÿ â ðàáîòå àíòèñîâåòñêèõ îðãàíèçàöèé, âûäàâàÿ ñåáÿ çà “ïðåä- ñòàâèòåëåé” êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà. Íî îíè íèêîãî íå îáìàíóò. Íè÷òî íå ñâÿçûâàåò èõ ñ íàøèì íàðîäîì, êîòîðûé ïðîêëÿë èõ åùå äâàäöàòü ëåò íàçàä.11  1966-1974 ãã. ïðîøëî ñåìü ñóäåáíûõ ïðîöåññîâ íàä áûâøèìè êîìàíäèðàìè êîðïóñà, êîòîðûå áûëè ðåïàòðèèðîâàíû, îñóæäåíû è ê òîìó âðåìåíè åùå îòñèæèâàëè â ëàãåðÿõ ñâîè ñðîêè èëè íåäàâíî

10 Èì íåò ïîùàäû // Ñîâåòñêàÿ Êàëìûêèÿ (äàëåå – ÑÊ). 1963. 7 äåêàáðÿ. 11 Èì íåò ïîùàäû // ÑÊ. 1963. 18 äåêàáðÿ. 272 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 îñâîáîäèëèñü. Åñëè ïåðâûå ïðèãîâîðû âûíîñèëèñü çà çàêðûòûìè äâåðÿìè è îáíàðîäîâàíèþ íå ïîäëåæàëè, òî ïðîöåññ 1968 ã. áûë ïóáëè÷íûì. Îí åùå òîëüêî íà÷àëñÿ, à ãàçåòû óæå çíàëè åãî èñõîä. Êàê ïèñàëà “Ñîâåòñêàÿ Êàëìûêèÿ”, ñëåäñòâèåì óñòàíîâëåíî, ÷òî â àâãóñòå 1942 ã. èç áàíäèòîâ, íàöèîíàëèñòîâ, ðåàêöèîííî íàñòðîåí- íûõ àâòîðèòåòîâ áóääèéñêîãî äóõîâåíñòâà, äåçåðòèðîâ, êîíîêðà- äîâ è äðóãîãî óãîëîâíîãî è àíòèñîâåòñêîãî ýëåìåíòà ãåðìàíñêèìè ðàçâåäûâàòåëüíûìè îðãàíàìè áûëî ñîçäàíî êàðàòåëüíîå ôîðìè- ðîâàíèå, êîòîðîå â íà÷àëå 1943 ã. ñòàëî ïðåäíàìåðåííî âûäàâàòüñÿ íåìöàìè çà íàöèîíàëüíîå ñîåäèíåíèå ïîä íàçâàíèåì “Êàëìûöêèé êàâàëåðèéñêèé êîðïóñ”. ÊÊÊ â ãàçåòå ïðåäñòàâàë êàê áàíäà ðàçáîé- íèêîâ è ãîëîâîðåçîâ, óïðàâëÿâøàÿñÿ îòäåëüíûìè îçâåðåëûìè ñàäèñòàìè.12 Íà ñàìîì äåëå â 1968 ã. íà ñêàìüå ïîäñóäèìûõ îêàçàëèñü Ñ. À. Êî- íîêîâ, áûâøèé êàäðîâûé îôèöåð Êðàñíîé Àðìèè, Ø. Á. Ìóêó- áåíîâ, áûâøèé íàðîäíûé ñóäüÿ ßøêóëüñêîãî ð-íà, Á. È. Õàäæè- ãîðîâ, áûâøèé çàììèíèñòðà çäðàâîîõðàíåíèÿ ðåñïóáëèêè, Ñ. À. Íåì- ãóðîâ, äî âîéíû ðàáîòàâøèé â îðãàíàõ ìèëèöèè. Êàê ïîêàçàëî ñëåäñòâèå, Êîíîêîâ ëåòîì 1942 ã. äåçåðòèðîâàë èç 110-é ÎÊÊÄ è ïîñòóïèë â êîðïóñ â äåêàáðå òîãî æå ãîäà. Îñòàëüíûå òðîå ïîïàëè â ïëåí è îêàçàëèñü â êîðïóñå, óæå èìåÿ îïûò ñëóæáû â äðóãèõ ÷àñòÿõ âåðìàõòà: Ìóêóáåíî⠖ â îòðÿäå Îãäîíîâà, Õàäæèãîðî⠖ â Òóð- êåñòàíñêîì ëåãèîíå, Íåìãóðî⠖ â 1-ì Äîíñêîì êàçà÷üåì ïîëêó. Ðåïîðòåðû, îñâåùàâøèå ïðîöåññ, êîíå÷íî, íå ìîãëè ïðèâîäèòü â ïîäðîáíîñòÿõ è ñåðüåçíî êîììåíòèðîâàòü ìîòèâû, òîëêàâøèå ïîäñóäèìûõ ê ïðèíÿòèþ ðåøåíèÿ ïåðåéòè íà ñòîðîíó ïðîòèâíèêà: Ïî÷òè ïîëòîðà äíÿ ðàññêàçûâàë Õàäæèãîðîâ î òîì, êàê ñäàâàëñÿ â ïëåí íåìöàì, èçìåíèë ðîäèíå, êàê îêàçàëñÿ ⠓Òóðêåñòàíñêîì ëåãèîíå”... è íàêîíåö ïåðåøåë íà ñëóæáó ⠓êîðïóñ”. Ñóä òåðïåëèâî âûñëóøèâàë è ýòîãî óáèéöó. Ïðèêè- äûâàÿñü íåâèííîé îâå÷êîé, îí âñïîìèíàåò, ÷òî åãî íà êàæäîì øàãó ðàçäèðàëè “ñîìíåíèÿ” è ÷òî îí äàæå “èñêàë” ñëó÷àÿ áðîñèòü áàíäó óáèéö è âñòàòü â ðÿäû çàùèòíèêîâ Ðîäèíû.13 Òîíîì îáñóæäåíèÿ è ïðèñóòñòâèåì äåòåé ïîäñóäèìûõ, êîòîðûå ïóáëè÷íî äîëæíû áûëè îòðåêàòüñÿ îò îòöîâ, ýòîò ñóäåáíûé ïðîöåññ î÷åíü íàïîìèíàë ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ïðîöåññû 1930-õ ãã. Äîñòàòî÷íî

12 Ïðåñòóïíèêî⠖ ê ñóðîâîìó îòâåòó // ÑÊ. 1968. 5 ÿíâàðÿ. 13 Êëóáîê ïðåñòóïëåíèé ðàñïóòûâàåòñÿ // ÑÊ. 1968. 18 ÿíâàðÿ. 273 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû âçãëÿíóòü íà ïèñüìî â ðåäàêöèþ ãàçåòû, âðÿä ëè íàïèñàííîå ÷åëî- âåêîì, ïåðåæèâàþùèì ñåìåéíóþ òðàãåäèþ, ïî äîáðîé âîëå: Õàäæèãîðîâ, ñèäÿùèé ñåé÷àñ íà ñêàìüå ïîäñóäèìûõ, ëèøü ôîðìàëüíî ÿâëÿåòñÿ ìîèì îòöîì, à ÿ – åãî äî÷åðüþ. Ýòîò ÷åëî- âåê íèêîãäà íå áûë íàñòîÿùèì îòöîì è ïîðÿäî÷íûì ñåìüÿ- íèíîì. Îí íå òîëüêî ðàññòðåëèâàë è óáèâàë ìèðíûõ, íåâèííûõ ëþäåé, íî è èñêàëå÷èë æèçíü ìîåé ìàòåðè, æåíùèíû, ðîäèâ- øåé îò íåãî ÷åòâåðûõ äåòåé. ß ñàìàÿ ñòàðøàÿ â ñåìüå è ïîýòîìó ïîçíàëà è ïåðåæèëà âìåñòå ñ ìîåé ìàìîé âñå åå ãîðå è âåñü ïîçîð òàê íàçûâàåìîãî îòöà.  1941 ã., êîãäà íà÷àëàñü Âåëèêàÿ Îòå÷åñòâåííàÿ âîéíà, ìíå èñïîëíèëîñü 8 ëåò. ß óæå òîãäà ÷óâñòâîâàëà, ÷òî â ñåìüå òâîðèòñÿ ÷òî-òî íåëàäíîå, ÷àñòî âèäåëà, êàê ìàòü ïëà÷åò. Âïîñëåäñòâèè óçíàëà, ÷òî îòåö åùå äî âîéíû ïèë, ãóëÿë, èçìå- íÿë ìàìå, èçäåâàëñÿ íàä íåé, ñòàðàÿñü ïðåâðàòèòü â äîìàøíþþ ðàáûíþ. À áåäíàÿ ìàòü âñå íàäåÿëàñü, ÷òî îí îáðàçóìèòñÿ, ñî âðåìåíåì ñòàíåò õîðîøèì ìóæåì, ëþáÿùèì îòöîì. Îí æå ñîâåðøàë îäíó ïîäëîñòü çà äðóãîé... Ìíå ñòîèëî îãðîìíîãî íàïðÿæåíèÿ âûñèäåòü â çàëå ñóäà, ñëóøàÿ èç åãî óñò, èç óñò ïîòåðïåâøèõ è ïîäñóäèìûõ î òåõ çëîäåÿíèÿõ è ïðåñòóïëåíèÿõ, êîòîðûå Õàäæèãîðîâ, ÷åëîâåê, èìåíóþùèé ñåáÿ ìîèì îòöîì, ñîâåðøèë â ãîäû Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû, áóäó÷è íà ïîçîðíîé ñëóæáå ó ôàøèñòîâ. Îí è ñåé÷àñ ïûòàåòñÿ ëãàòü, èçâîðà÷èâàòüñÿ. Ñëåäîâàëî áû âàì, Õàäæè- ãîðîâ, õîòü îäèí ðàç áûòü ìóæ÷èíîé, ÷èñòîñåðäå÷íî ïðèçíàòü ñâîþ âèíó ïåðåä Ðîäèíîé, ðàññêàçàòü ëþäÿì, ñîâåòñêîìó ñóäó âñþ ïðàâäó î ñåáå è ñâîèõ ïðåñòóïëåíèÿõ â ïåðèîä Îòå÷åñòâåí- íîé âîéíû. ß äàâíî îòðåêëàñü îò òàêîãî îòöà. Îòöîì áûëà äëÿ íàøåé ñåìüè Ñîâåòñêàÿ âëàñòü, è ìû ãîðäèìñÿ ýòèì. Íàøà ëþáèìàÿ ìàìà íå ùàäèëà çäîðîâüÿ, ñâîåé æèçíè, ìîëîäîñòè, ÷òîáû âûðàñòèòü íàñ íàñòîÿùèìè ñîâåòñêèìè ëþäüìè.  ýòîì åé ïîìîãàëà Ñîâåòñêàÿ âëàñòü, ñîâåòñêèå ëþäè, íî íå Õàäæèãîðîâ. ß òðåáóþ îò ñâîåãî èìåíè, îò èìåíè ñâîåé ñåìüè, ñåñòðû, åå ñåìüè, îò èìåíè ñîòåí áåçâèííî çàìó÷åííûõ ëþäåé, ïîãèá- øèõ îò ðóê ïàëà÷à, îò èìåíè âñåãî êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà âûíåñòè èçìåííèêó Ðîäèíû Õàäæèãîðîâó ñàìûé ñïðàâåäëèâûé ïðèãî- âîð – âûñøóþ ìåðó íàêàçàíèÿ.14

14 Ïðàâäà î ìîåì îòöå // ÑÊ. 1968. 20 ÿíâàðÿ. 274 Ab Imperio, 4/2004  õîäå ñëóøàíèé ñîñòîÿëàñü âûåçäíàÿ ñåññèÿ Âåðõîâíîãî Ñóäà Êàëìûöêîé ÀÑÑÐ â Êðèâîì Ðîãå, ïîòîìó ÷òî òàì êîãäà-òî äèñëî- öèðîâàëñÿ ÊÊÊ, è ìíîãèå ñâèäåòåëè åãî ïðåñòóïëåíèé áûëè æèâû. Îíè ðàññêàçûâàëè æóòêèå ïîäðîáíîñòè: Ïàëà÷è íå ïðîñòî áåç ñóäà è ñëåäñòâèÿ ðàññòðåëèâàëè ñâîè æåðòâû, à ïåðåä ýòèì ãëóìèëèñü íàä íèìè.  ñåëå Æóðàâèíî ïî÷òè ó âñåõ ïîãèáøèõ íà øåÿõ áûëè çàòÿíóòû ðåìíè èëè âåðåâêè, ðàçáèòû ãîëîâû, îòðåçàíû óøè è âûðâàíû ÿçûêè, à ó ó÷èòåëüíèöû Ìåëüíè÷ îòðåçàíû ãðóäè.15 ×èòàòü â 1968 ã. î òàêèõ çâåðñòâàõ æèòåëÿì ðåñïóáëèêè áûëî ñòðàøíî. Ñîòðóäíèêè ÊÃÁ è ïðîêóðàòóðû, ïðèíèìàâøèå ó÷àñòèå â ñëåäñòâèè è ïðèñóòñòâîâàâøèå íà çàñåäàíèÿõ, è íûíå îòêàçû- âàþòñÿ ãîâîðèòü íà ýòó òåìó. Ìåíÿ ïîðàçèë àðãóìåíò “ìíå áûëî íåèíòåðåñíî”, êîòîðûé ÿ ñëûøàëà îò íåñêîëüêèõ îôèöåðîâ. Êàê æå ìîãëî èì áûòü íåèíòåðåñíî? Íî, âèäèìî, ïîäðîáíîñòè çâåðñòâ, ó÷èíåííûõ êîðïóñíèêàìè, áûëè ñòîëü óæàñàþùèìè, ÷òî íå ïîçâî- ëÿëè êàëìûêàì-îôèöåðàì ÊÃÁ ðàöèîíàëüíî îáñóæäàòü èõ. Âî ìíî- ãîì ýòî ìîãëî áûòü ñâÿçàíî è ñ ýòíè÷åñêèì àñïåêòîì ïðåñòóïëåíèé – íå òàê äàâíî êàëìûêîâ âåðíóëè èç ìåñò âûñåëåíèÿ. Ïîäðîáíîñòè íîâûõ äåë ìîãëè âíîâü ïðèâåñòè ê íàêàçàíèþ âñåãî íàðîäà. Îäíàêî ñòîèò çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ñóäåáíûå ðàçáèðàòåëüñòâà ïðîõî- äèëè íå âî âñåì ãëàäêî è îäíîçíà÷íî. Ðàññêàçûâàþò, ÷òî êîãäà ó îäíîãî ñâèäåòåëÿ ñïðîñèëè íà ñóäåáíîì ïðîöåññå â Êðèâîì Ðîãå: “Âû óçíàåòå ïàëà÷åé?”, ýòîò æèòåëü Óêðàèíû óâåðåííî ñêàçàë: “Äà”, è óêàçàë ðóêîé íà ãðóïïó êàëìûöêèõ ñóäåé è ñîòðóäíèêîâ ïðîêóðàòóðû, êîòîðûå áûëè ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî òàêîãî æå âîçðàñòà, ÷òî è ïîäñóäèìûå â ãîäû âîéíû.  ýòîé àíåêäîòè÷åñêîé èñòîðèè, ðàññêàçàííîé þðèñòàìè, îòðàæåíî ñîìíåíèå â ïîäëèííîñòè ñâè- äåòåëüñêèõ ïîêàçàíèé. Îòêðûòûé ñóäåáíûé ïðîöåññ 1968 ã. ïðîõîäèë â ñàìîé áîëü- øîé àóäèòîðèè Ýëèñòû – â çäàíèè Êàëìûöêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî òåàòðà. Âñå îáùåñòâåííûå îáâèíèòåëè: âåòåðàí âîéíû è ïåðñî- íàëüíûé ïåíñèîíåð, çíàòíûé æèâîòíîâîä è ïèñàòåëü òðåáîâàëè âûñøåé ìåðû íàêàçàíèÿ. Òî æå ñàìîå ïèñàëè ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ÷èòà- òåëè “Ñîâåòñêîé Êàëìûêèè”. Ëþäè îïàñàëèñü, ÷òî ñóä íàä êîðïóñ- íèêàìè ïåðåðàñòåò â ðàñïðàâó íàä êàëìûöêèì íàðîäîì. Ïîýòîìó

15 Ñóä ïðîäîëæàåòñÿ // ÑÊ. 1968. 17 ôåâðàëÿ. 275 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû ïîäñóäèìûõ ðàññìàòðèâàëè êàê èñêóïèòåëüíîå æåðòâîïðèíîøå- íèå: ÷òîáû ñïàñòè íàðîä è åãî ÷åñòíîå èìÿ, íàäî áûëî ïîêàðàòü ýòèõ ÷åòûðåõ ñòàðèêîâ, êîòîðûå, î÷åâèäíî, áûëè òàê èëè èíà÷å âèíîâàòû. Ñàìè ïî ñåáå, êàê ëè÷íîñòè, îíè óæå íèêîãî íå èíòåðå- ñîâàëè, ñòàâ ñâîåîáðàçíîé æåðòâîé íà àëòàðü íàöèîíàëüíîãî äîñ- òîèíñòâà. Âñå ïîäñóäèìûå äî ýòîãî óæå îòñèäåëè ñâîè “ñðîêà”, íî áûëè íàêàçàíû âíîâü è ïîëó÷èëè âûñøóþ ìåðó íàêàçàíèÿ.  âîçäóõå âèñåë âîïðîñ: “Ñíîâà â Ñèáèðü?”. Òîãäà êàëìûêè ïîëó÷èëè äîïîë- íèòåëüíûé ñòèìóë íå âñïîìèíàòü íè èñòîðèþ êîðïóñà, íè ñóäû íàä åãî ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè. Ìíîãèå âûñòóïëåíèÿ íà ïðîöåññå 1968 ã. òðàíñëèðîâàëèñü ïî ðàäèî. Æèòåëè ðåñïóáëèêè ñòàëè àññîöèèðîâàòü êàëìûêîâ ñ âîåí- íûì êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìîì. Ó÷àñòèëèñü ìàññîâûå äðàêè ìåæäó ìîëîäûìè ëþäüìè êàëìûöêîãî è ðóññêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ. ×òîáû ñíèçèòü ñòåïåíü ìåæýòíè÷åñêîé íàïðÿæåííîñòè, íà ïðåäïðèÿòèÿõ Ýëèñòû âûñòóïàëè ñïåöèàëüíî ïîäãîòîâëåííûå ëåêòîðû èç ÊÃÁ, ðàçúÿñíÿâøèå ëþäÿì ðàçíèöó ìåæäó ÊÊÊ è íàðîäîì. Îäèí èç ñåìè ïðîöåññîâ áûë îðãàíèçîâàí òàê, ÷òî íà ñêàìüå ïîäñóäèìûõ îêàçà- ëèñü êîëëàáîðàíòû ñëàâÿíñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, ñëóæèâøèå ïîëè- öàÿìè íà òåððèòîðèè Êàëìûêèè. Ýòèõ ëþäåé, êàê ÿ ïîíÿëà, ñïå- öèàëüíî ðàçûñêèâàëè ñîòðóäíèêè ÊÃÁ êàëìûöêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, ÷òîáû ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçì – ÿâëåíèå èíòåðíàöèî- íàëüíîå, è íå îäíèõ êàëìûêîâ ìîæíî â íåì îáâèíÿòü. Ïîñëåäíèé ïðîöåññ ñîñòîÿëñÿ â 1983 ã., êîãäà ñóäèëè êîðïóñíèêà Ëóêüÿíîâà, ê òîìó âðåìåíè ãðàæäàíèíà Áåëüãèè, ïðèåõàâøåãî ñ òóðèñòè÷åñêîé öåëüþ â ÑÑÑÐ. Ñïóñòÿ ñîðîê ëåò íà ñóäå â Ýëèñòå åãî îïîçíàë ñâèäåòåëü âîåííûõ ïðåñòóïëåíèé íà Óêðàèíå. Âîåííûé òðèáóíàë Ñåâåðî-Êàâêàçñêîãî âîåííîãî îêðóãà ïðèãîâîðèë 79-ëåò- íåãî ïîäñóäèìîãî ê ñìåðòíîé êàçíè – ðàññòðåëó.16

Ñåìåéíàÿ è ìåñòíàÿ ïàìÿòü Çàâåñó ìîë÷àíèÿ âîêðóã èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ ñóäåá âîåííîïëåííûõ è îñòàðáàéòåðîâ â ãîäû çàñòîÿ ïðîðâàëà ðóññêàÿ ïðîçà.17 Òà æå ðîëü âûïàëà êàëìûöêîé ëèòåðàòóðå ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê òåìàòèêå êàëìûö- êîãî êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìà.  1978 ã. âûøëà ïîâåñòü À. Áàäìàåâà

16 Íå óéòè îò âîçìåçäèÿ // Ñîâåòñêàÿ Ðîññèÿ. 1983. 17 Ï. Ïîëÿí. Op. cit. Ñ.17. 276 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 “Áåëûé êóðãàí”, ñðåäè ïåðñîíàæåé êîòîðîé áûëè êîëëàáîðàíòû, ïîïàâøèå â ïëåí è çàâåðáîâàííûå â âîñòî÷íûå ëåãèîíû. Àâòîð îöåíèâàåò ñîòðóäíè÷àâøèõ ñ îêêóïàíòàìè ëþäåé ñ ïîçèöèé òðàäè- öèîííîé êàëìûöêîé ýòèêè. Íåâàæíî, êàêîé ìóíäèð íîñèò ãåðîé, âàæíî, ðîäñòâåííèê ýòî èëè íåò, äîáðûé èëè çëîé ÷åëîâåê, ãîòîâ ëè îí âõîäèòü â ïîëîæåíèå äðóãèõ ëþäåé è ïîìîãàòü èì, èëè íåò. Ñ ïîäîáíûõ ïîçèöèé è îöåíèâàþò ñóäüáû êîðïóñíèêîâ â ìàñ- ñîâîì ñîçíàíèè ñîâðåìåííîé Êàëìûêèè. Äåéñòâèÿ ÊÊÊ â öåëîì îñóæäàþòñÿ, à áèîãðàôèè åãî îòäåëüíûõ ó÷àñòíèêîâ èçâåñòíû ñëàáî. Áîëåå-ìåíåå äåòàëüíî ëþäè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñåáå ñóäüáû ñâîèõ ðîäñòâåí- íèêîâ, î êîòîðûõ, ïî îïðåäåëåíèþ, íåëüçÿ ãîâîðèòü ïëîõî. Îíè ïîïàëè â íåáëàãîïðèÿòíûå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà, èì íå ïîâåçëî. Íî íåïðî- õîäèìîé ãðàíèöû ìåæäó “íèìè” è “íàìè” áûòü íå ìîæåò. Ïðàâäà, ÷àñòî ðåïàòðèèðîâàííûå êîðïóñíèêè ñêðûâàþò ñâîå ïðîøëîå äàæå îò ñîáñòâåííûõ äåòåé. Èçâåñòíû ñëó÷àè, êîãäà èõ âçðîñëûå äåòè ïðèõîäèëè â âîåíêîìàòû ñ æàëîáîé, ÷òî èõ îòåö – ó÷àñòíèê âîéíû – çàáûò è íå ïîëó÷àåò ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ ëüãîò. Ïðè ðàçáèðàòåëüñòâå âûÿñíÿëîñü, ÷òî îí ñëóæèë â ÊÊÊ. Êàê-òî â èíòåðâüþ æåíùèíà ðàññêàçûâàëà, ÷òî åå îòåö áûë óãíàí â Ãåðìàíèþ â 1943-ì è óïîìÿíóëà, ÷òî îí ñïàñ åâðåéñêóþ ñåìüþ: çíàÿ, ÷òî óòðîì èõ æäåò ðàññòðåë, îí èõ íî÷üþ îñâîáîäèë. Òàêóþ âîçìîæíîñòü ìîã èìåòü òîëüêî âîåííîñëóæàùèé êîðïóñà.  àíåêäîò ïðåâðàòèëàñü èñòî- ðèÿ íåêîåãî ÷åëîâåêà, êîòîðîìó óäàâàëîñü ñêðûâàòü ñâîþ ñëóæáó â âåðìàõòå, íî êàê-òî âûïèâ, îí ñòàë ðàññêàçûâàòü âîåííûå áàéêè, è íà âîïðîñ, êàêèå æå “íàøè ñàìîëåòû òàê êðàñèâî ïëàíèðîâàëè – ÈËû èëè ÌÈÃè?”, îí ãîðäî îòâå÷àë: “Íåò, Þíêåðñû!”.18 Èíîãäà â íàðîäíûõ ìèôàõ î êîðïóñå åãî ñóäüáà “êîððåêòèðóåòñÿ” â áîëåå áëàãîïîëó÷íóþ ñòîðîíó. Íàïðèìåð, â Êàëìûêèè åñòü ëåãåíäà î ÷åëîâåêå, êîòîðûé íå îñòàëñÿ íà ÷óæáèíå êàê ïðåñòóïíèê (òîãäà ñ÷èòàëîñü, ÷òî íà çàïàäå îñòàâàëèñü ëèøü òå, êòî áûë êàðà- òåëåì), íî è èçáåæàë ðåïàòðèàöèè. Îí â íåìåöêîé æå ôîðìå (?) è ñ îðóæèåì ïåøêîì äîøåë äî ðîäíûõ ìåñò è æèë ñàì ïî ñåáå âîëü- íûì îõîòíèêîì. Äàæå êîãäà êàëìûêè âåðíóëèñü èç Ñèáèðè, îí ïðîäîë- æàë îáèòàòü îòøåëüíèêîì âíå íàñåëåííûõ ïóíêòîâ. Íî êîãäà ó íåãî êîí÷àëèñü ïðîìûøëåííûå òîâàðû, îí ÿâëÿëñÿ â ñåëüñêèé ìàãàçèí ñðåäü áåëà äíÿ, ñ âèíòîâêîé ÷åðåç ïëå÷î, è ñïîêîéíî ïîêóïàë âñå,

18 Ïîëåâûå ìàòåðèàëû àâòîðà (äàëåå ÏÌÀ). Àíîíèìíûé èíôîðìàíò. Ýëèñòà, 2003. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 277 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû ÷òî íóæíî. Äàæå ïîñëå äåíåæíîé ðåôîðìû ó íåãî áûëè êóïþðû íîâîãî îáðàçöà, ÷òî îçíà÷àëî òàéíóþ ïîääåðæêó íàñåëåíèÿ. Óìåð îí, ÿêîáû, â 1980-õ ãã. Îðãàíû ÍÊÂÄ áóäòî áû çíàëè î íåì è ïîìíèëè òàêæå, êàêîé îí ìåòêèé ñòðåëîê. Ïîýòîìó îáëàâû, êîòîðûå îíè óñòðàèâàëè, áûëè ôîðìàëüíûìè – åìó êàæäûé ðàç äàâàëè óéòè.19  îòñóòñòâèè òî÷íîé èíôîðìàöèè î êîðïóñå â íàðîäå âîçíèêëà è äðóãàÿ “ìÿãêàÿ” âåðñèÿ. Êàê áóäòî áû ÊÊÊ òîëüêî íàçûâàëñÿ “êàëìûöêèì”, à êàëìûêîâ â íåì áûëî íå áîëüøå 20%, òàê ÷òî íàðîä ïîñòðàäàë íè çà ÷òî, çà ÷óæèå ãðåõè.20 Ñåìåéíîå èçìåðåíèå ïàìÿòè î êîðïóñå îñòàâàëîñü, âñå æå, ñàìûì ñòàáèëüíûì è ðåàëèñòè÷íûì. Ýòîìó ñïîñîáñòâîâàëî è òî, ÷òî íàëè- ÷èå ðîäñòâåííèêîâ-êîëëàáîðàíòîâ âëèÿëî íà ñóäüáó ïîñëåâîåííîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ. Êàê ìíå ðàññêàçûâàë áûâøèé ñîòðóäíèê ÊÃÁ, â 1970-å ãîäû ïî ðàçíàðÿäêå â ðåñïóáëèêó ïðèøëî çâàíèå Ãåðîÿ ñîöèàëèñ- òè÷åñêîãî òðóäà äëÿ æåíùèíû-êàëìû÷êè. Îäíà çà äðóãîé áûëè ðàññìîòðåíû òðè êàíäèäàòóðû, íî âñå îòêëîíåíû èç-çà òîãî, ÷òî êòî-ëèáî èç ðîäñòâåííèêîâ êàæäîé êàíäèäàòêè áûë ñâÿçàí ñ êîð- ïóñîì èëè â ãîäû âîéíû íàõîäèëñÿ â îêêóïàöèè.  èòîãå áûëî ðåøåíî ïðèñâîèòü ýòî çâàíèå æåíùèíå ñëàâÿíñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, êîòîðóþ, êàê áûëî ñêàçàíî, “è ïðîâåðÿòü íå íàäî”.21 Ìíîãèå æèòåëè ðåñïóáëèêè çíàþò èëè ñëûøàëè ÷òî-íèáóäü î êîðïóñíèêå èç èõ ðîäíîãî ñåëåíèÿ. Îòíîøåíèå ê òàêèì ëþäÿì áûëî ñëîæíûì.  íàðîäíîì ñîçíàíèè îíè îñòàëèñü óìíûìè, ñèëüíûìè, õðàáðûìè, íåîðäèíàðíûìè, è â òî æå âðåìÿ çëîâåùèìè ôèãóðàìè, êîòîðûå èìåëè òÿæåëóþ ñóäüáó, çíàëè, ÷òî òàêîå óáè- âàòü ëþäåé. Îíè äîñòîéíî ïåðåíåñëè íàêàçàíèå, ìíîãèå îòñèäåëè ïî 25 ëåò. Íàïðèìåð, â ïîñ. Õ ñ îñòîðîæíûì óâàæåíèåì îòíîñè- ëèñü ê ñòàðèêó ïî èìåíè Çàìã Áàäæèãàåâ, èìåâøåìó â âåðìàõòå ÷èí îáåð-ëåéòåíàíòà. Ïîìíèëè, ÷òî âî âðåìÿ îêêóïàöèè îí èíîãäà ìèëîâàë çåìëÿêîâ, õîòÿ è ðàññòðåëèâàë ÷óæàêîâ. Íî õîðîøåå îòíîøåíèå ê îäíîñåëü÷àíàì åìó çà÷ëîñü. Ïî ñëóõàì, âìåñòå ñ äðóãèì êîðïóñíèêîì îí â âîåííûå ãîäû ñïàñ èçâåñòíîãî â ðåñïóá- ëèêå áóääèéñêîãî ñâÿùåííèêà Íàìêó Êè÷èêîâà, êîòîðûé íå çàáûë îá ýòîì è âñþ æèçíü ñ÷èòàë ñåáÿ îáÿçàííûì îáîèì ñïàñèòåëÿì. Îäíîñåëü÷àíå âîñïðèíèìàëè ñëóæèâøèõ â ÊÊÊ êàê îñîáåííûõ

19 ÏÌÀ. Ì. Ãîðÿåâ. Ýëèñòà, 2003.Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 20 ÏÌÀ. Ñ. Ä. Ñåëüâèí. Ýëèñòà, 2003. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 21 ÏÌÀ. Àíîíèìíûé èíôîðìàíò. Ýëèñòà, 2003. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 278 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ëþäåé, æèâóùèõ ïî äðóãèì çàêîíàì, ÷åì âñå îñòàëüíûå. Íàïðè- ìåð, â Êàëìûêèè ðàññêàçûâàþò, ÷òî òîò æå Áàäæèãàåâ ïîñëå îñâî- áîæäåíèÿ èç çàêëþ÷åíèÿ íèãäå íå ðàáîòàë, íî æèë õîðîøî, åçäèë íà “Æèãóëÿõ”, äàæå íà ôåðìå õîäèë â êîñòþìå-òðîéêå, à êîãäà óìåð, îñòàâèë äî÷åðÿì ïî 25 òûñÿ÷ ðóáëåé.22 Íåñìîòðÿ íà ñîâåòñêóþ ïðîïàãàíäó, ñîãëàñíî ìåñòíûì âåðñèÿì ïàìÿòè, äàëåêî íå âñå ñâÿùåííèêè áûëè êîëëàáîðàíòàìè. Ïî îäíîé ëåãåíäå, â 1942 ã. ä-ð Äîëëü óïàë ñ ëîøàäè, è âðà÷ òèáåòñêîé ìåäè- öèíû, ñâÿùåííèê Áþð÷èåâ, âûëå÷èë åãî.  áëàãîäàðíîñòü Äîëëü ïðåäëîæèë Áþð÷èåâó âîçãëàâèòü äóõîâíóþ àêàäåìèþ, íî îí îòêà- çàëñÿ. Ëþäè çàïîìíèëè åãî ñëîâà: “ðûæàÿ ñîáàêà êàê ïðèøëà, òàê è óéäåò”, òî åñòü îêêóïàöèÿ áóäåò âðåìåííîé.23 Ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî â èçó÷åííûõ íàìè ìåñòíûõ è ñåìåéíûõ âåð- ñèÿõ ïàìÿòè î êîðïóñå åãî ó÷àñòíèêè ïðåäñòàþò êàê ïîëóìèôè- ÷åñêèå ôèãóðû, íå ïîäâëàñòíûå îáûäåííîìó õîäó ñîáûòèé. Îíè îáëàäàëè ñïîñîáíîñòüþ æèòü ïî ñâîèì, îñîáåííûì ïðàâèëàì è çàêîíàì, ðåçêî êîíòðàñòèðîâàâøèì ñ ñîâåòñêîé äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòüþ. Ïðè÷èíû èõ âñòóïëåíèÿ â êîðïóñ îïðåäåëÿþòñÿ â íàðîäíûõ ðàññêà- çàõ, ëåãåíäàõ è àíåêäîòàõ ÷åðåç ëè÷íûå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà, à íå ñ ïîìî- ùüþ íàâÿçàííûõ èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíûõ êîíöåïöèé “ïðåäàòåëüñòâà” èëè “íàöèîíàëüíîãî îñâîáîæäåíèÿ”.  òî æå âðåìÿ, íåïîñðåäñò- âåííûå ó÷àñòíèêè ñîáûòèé ïðåäïî÷èòàëè ñêðûâàòü ïîäðîáíîñòè ñâîåãî ó÷àñòèÿ â íèõ äàæå îò ñàìûõ áëèçêèõ ëþäåé.

Íàöèîíàëüíàÿ ïàìÿòü è äèñêóðñ âèíû Èñòîðè÷åñêèé ýïèçîä ñ Êàëìûöêèì êîðïóñîì ïðèñóòñòâóåò â ðàçëè÷íûõ òåêñòàõ, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ñóäüáîé êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà. Îáâèíåíèå öåëîìó íàðîäó, ïîäêðåïëåííîå ãðîìêèìè ñóäåáíûìè ïðîöåññàìè, îñòàâèëî íåñìûâàåìîå “ïÿòíî” íà ðåïóòàöèè êàëìûêîâ. Îñîáåííî àêòóàëüíî ýòî “ïÿòíî” â ñâÿçè ñ îáîñòðåíèåì ìåæíàöèî- íàëüíûõ îòíîøåíèé â ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè, êîãäà èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü ñòàíîâèòñÿ àðãóìåíòîì â ïîëèòèêå. Óïðåê â ïîñîáíè÷åñòâå îêêóïàíòàì äåðæàò íàãîòîâå è ìîëîäûå ðîññèéñêèå ðàñèñòû.  ñîïåð- íè÷åñòâå ôóòáîëüíûõ ôàíàòîâ ýëèñòèíñêîé êîìàíäû “Óðàëàí” è àñòðàõàíñêîé êîìàíäû “Âîëãàðü” ïîñëåäíèå íàøëè ìåñòî è èñòî-

22 ÏÌÀ. Àíîíèìíûé èíôîðìàíò. Ìîñêâà, 2003. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 23 ÏÌÀ. Ä. Ïþðâååâ. Ìîñêâà, 2003. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 279 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû ðè÷åñêèì àðãóìåíòàì. Íàïàäåíèÿ è èçáèåíèÿ êàëìûöêèõ áîëåëü- ùèêîâ àñòðàõàíöû îïðàâäûâàëè òåì, ÷òî: Âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿ êàëìûêîâ è æèòåëåé Àñòðàõàíñêîé îáëàñòè èñïîð÷åíû óæå äàâíûì-äàâíî. Åùå âî âðåìÿ âîéíû 1941-1945 ãã. ïðè îáîðîíå ñåëà Õóëõóòà èìåëè ìåñòî ôàêòû íàãëîãî ïåðåõîäà êàëìûêîâ íà ñòîðîíó ôàøèñòîâ è îêàçûâàíèå ãèòëåðîâöàì íåõèëîãî ïðèåìà â ïðîöåññå çàõâàòà êàëìûöêèõ ñåëåíèé.24 Íåñëó÷àéíî, ýòè “ôàêòû” èñòîðèè ñòàëè “âñïîìèíàòü” âíóêè âîåííîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ. Îíè âñïëûëè êàê ðåàêöèÿ íà âîïðîñ î íåâîç- âðàùåííûõ êàëìûêàì îáëàñòÿõ Àñòðàõàíñêîé îáëàñòè. ×òîáû îáåçîïàñèòü ñåáÿ îò ðåàëüíûõ è âîîáðàæàåìûõ òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ ïðèòÿçàíèé êàëìûêîâ íà îáëàñòè, ïðèãîäèëèñü àðãóìåíòû ýïîõè ñòàëèíèçìà: Ê òîìó æå, êàëìûêè øàëèëè è â ìèðíîå âðåìÿ. Íå ñåêðåò, ÷òî äî îïðåäåëåííîãî âðåìåíè Ëèìàíñêèé ðàéîí áûë ÷àñòüþ Êàëìûêèè, íî ïîòîì áûë ïðèñîåäèíåí ê íàì. Êàëìûêè æå, äîáèâàÿñü âîçâðàòà òåððèòîðèé, ÷àñòåíüêî ïîõàæèâàëè ⠓ãîñòè” ê àñòðàõàíöàì â Ëèìàíñêèé ðàéîí è çàíèìàëèñü èõ âûðåçàíèåì (â óäà÷íîì ñëó÷àå “ïîðåçàíèåì”).25 Îáëè÷èòåëüíûå ïóáëèêàöèè î êîðïóñå, íàïèñàííûå â ýòîì æå ñòèëå, ïîÿâëÿëèñü â öåíòðàëüíîé ïðåññå â ïåðèîäû, êîãäà îáñóæ- äàëèñü Óêàç î ðåàáèëèòàöèè ðåïðåññèðîâàííûõ íàðîäîâ, à òàêæå ëüãîòû è êîìïåíñàöèè, êîòîðûå ìîãëè áû áûòü âûäåëåíû ãîñó- äàðñòâîì â ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì óêàçîì. Òàê, â 1991 ã. ⠓Ñîâåòñêîé Ðîññèè” âûøëà áîëüøàÿ ñòàòüÿ ïî÷åòíîãî ÷åêèñòà ÑÑÑÐ Ä. Òàðàñîâà: “Áîëüøàÿ èãðà. Ñòðåíîæåííûå ýñêàäðîíû”.26 Àâòîð ïîâåñòâóåò î òîì, êàê áûëà ñîðâàíà îïåðàöèÿ ïî âûñàäêå âîçäóøíîãî äåñàíòà èç 36 êàëìûöêèõ ýñêàäðîíîâ, êîòîðûå äîëæíû áûëè ïîäíÿòü âîññòàíèå â ñîâåòñêîì òûëó. Ñòàòüÿ âûçâàëà îòêëèê êàëìûöêèõ æóðíàëèñòîâ:

24 Ñì.: http://volga-poachers.boom.ru/Action/Kalmik2.htm. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 26 îêòÿáðÿ 2004 ã. 25 Òàì æå. 26 Â. Òàðàñîâ. Áîëüøàÿ èãðà. Ñòðåíîæåííûå ýñêàäðîíû // Ñîâåòñêàÿ Ðîññèÿ. 1991. 29 èþíÿ.

280 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ×òî æå ìåíÿ çàñòàâèëî âçÿòüñÿ çà ïåðî? Ïðèçíàþñü, îáèäíî ÷èòàòü òàêîå. Ïîñëå òîãî êàê ïðèíÿò çàêîí î ðåïðåññèðîâàííûõ íàðîäàõ, ïåðåä ñúåçäîì ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ýòèõ íàðîäîâ ïîÿâè- ëàñü äëÿ âÿùåé óáåäèòåëüíîñòè ñòàòüÿ, íàïèñàííàÿ ÷åêèñòîì. Ìíå äóìàåòñÿ, ÷òî íå ïðîñòî òàê íàïèñàíà “Áîëüøàÿ èãðà”, è íå ïðîñòî òàê íà÷èíàåòñÿ ñî ñòðåíîæåííûõ ýñêàäðîíîâ. Íàì, êàëìûêàì, “äîêóìåíòàëüíûì”, ñóõèì âûäåðæàííûì ÿçûêîì óêàçûâàþò íà ÿêîáû ïîçîðíîå ïðîøëîå, ãäå-òî ïîäâåð- ãàÿ ñîìíåíèþ ñâÿùåííûé äëÿ êàëìûêîâ çàêîí î ðåïðåññèðî- âàííûõ íàðîäàõ. Ãàçåòà ðàñêðûâàåò ãëàçà íàøèì ñîñåäÿì, îñîáåííî àñòðàõàíöàì, ñ êîòîðûìè âîçíèêàþò òåððèòîðè- àëüíûå ñïîðû... Ïðèìóò ëè íà âåðó ëþäè â Ðîññèè, ÷òî òàê êðóïíîìàñøòàáíà áûëà îïåðàöèÿ ïî âûñàäêå öåëîãî êîðïóñà êàëìûêîâ â êàëìûöêèå ñòåïè? Ìîãóò. Âåðèëè âåäü â íà÷àëå íåçëîáèâûå ñèáèðÿêè, ÷òî åäóò ïåðåñåëåíöû ñ êèíæàëàìè ó ïîÿñà, ëþáèòåëè ïîëàêîìèòüñÿ ÷åëîâå÷èíîé... Êàê çíàòü. Ìîæåò, íà ýòîò ðàç èíîé ÷èòàòåëü õìûêíåò: íàäî æå, 36 ýñêàä- ðîíîâ õîòåëè îòêðûòü ãåðìàíñêèé ôðîíò â íàøåì òûëó. Îíî-òî ÿñíî, êàëìûêîâ æå âûñåëÿëè íå ïðîñòî òàê.27 Ýòè äèñêóññèè îòðàæàþò “ïîëèòèêó âèíû” è “ïîëèòèêó ïàìÿòè” â ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè â öåëîì, è â êàëìûöêîì îáùåñòâå, â ÷àñò- íîñòè. Ìàññîâûé êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçì ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé Ð. Êîíêâåñò ðàñöåíèë êàê ïëåáèñöèò.28 Îäíàêî, ïî ñïðàâåäëèâîìó çàìå÷àíèþ Ï. Ïîëÿíà, ðåçóëüòàòû ïëåáèñöèòà âñåãäà çàâèñÿò îò êîíêðåòíûõ óñëîâèé åãî ïðîâåäåíèÿ. Ñàìûé àêòóàëüíûé âîïðîñ èñòîðèè êîðïóñà – ýòî îñîáåííîñòè åãî ëè÷íîãî ñîñòàâà: êòî áûëè ñëóæèâ- øèå â íåì è, ãëàâíîå, ñêîëüêî èõ áûëî? Òî, ÷òî êîðïóñ âîáðàë â ñåáÿ îòðÿäû “ñàìîîáîðîíû”, ò. å. äåçåðòèðîâ, ïðÿòàâøèõñÿ â êàìûøàõ, äàëî îñíîâàíèÿ íåêîòîðûì íàçûâàòü âñåõ êîðïóñíèêî⠓êàìûøàò- íèêàìè”. Ïðè ýòîì ñóùåñòâóåò âåðñèÿ, ÷òî çíà÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷àñòü êîð- ïóñà áûëà ïðåäñòàâëåíà òîðãóòàìè, è òàêèì îáðàçîì ñîçäàåòñÿ ìèô î êîíôëèêòå âíóòðè ðàçíûõ ýòíîòåððèòîðèàëüíûõ ãðóïï êàëìûö- êîãî íàðîäà – î “âîéíå óëóñîâ”,29 ÷òî ñàìî ïî ñåáå ïðîâîöèðóåò íîâûé êîíôëèêò. Êàê ïîêàçàë È. Õîôôìàí è êàê ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò

27 Ì. Êîíååâ. Ñòðåíîæåííàÿ ïðàâäà ⠓Áîëüøîé èãðå” // Êîìñîìîëåö Êàëìûêèè. 1991. 19 èþíÿ. 28 R. Conquest. The Soviet Deportation of Nationalities. London. 1970. P. 188. 281 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû ñîòðóäíèêè ÔÑÁ, èìåþùèå ñïèñîê êîðïóñíèêîâ íå òîëüêî “ïîèìåííî, íî è ïîóëóñíî, è ïîõîòîííî”,30 ñîñòàâ êîðïóñà ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíî îòðàæàë ýòíè÷åñêèé ñîñòàâ íàðîäà.31  àðõèâå ÓÔÑÁ ïî Ðåñïóáëèêå Êàëìûêèÿ õðàíèòñÿ ñïèñîê ëè÷íîãî ñîñòàâà ÊÊÊ, â êîòîðîì ÿêîáû óêàçàíû 3254 ÷åëîâåêà, ñëóæèâøèõ ñ îðóæèåì â ðóêàõ. Êðîìå òîãî, ïðè êîðïóñå íàõîäè- ëàñü òàê íàçûâàåìàÿ öèâèëüíàÿ ãðóïïà, íàñ÷èòûâàâøàÿ 800 ÷åëîâåê. Ýòè ëþäè äîëæíû áûëè ñòèðàòü, ÷èíèòü è øèòü îäåæäó è îáóâü, êîðìèòü è óõàæèâàòü çà æèâîòíûìè. Çà ïåðåäà÷ó ýòîãî ñïèñêà â ÍÊÂÄ âíåäðåííûé àãåíò Ý. Áàòàåâ, áóäòî áû, ïîëó÷èë îðäåí áîåâîãî Êðàñíîãî Çíàìåíè.32 Ìîè ýëèñòèíñêèå êîëëåãè ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî ýòè ïî÷òè ÷åòûðå òûñÿ÷è ÷åëîâåê è åñòü ñàìûé ïîëíûé ëè÷íûé ñîñòàâ ÊÊÊ. Äëÿ íèõ, êàê è äëÿ ìíîãèõ æèòåëåé ðåñïóáëèêè, âàæíî ÷òîáû êîëè÷åñòâî ïåðå- øåäøèõ íà ñòîðîíó âðàãà íå áûëî “çíà÷èòåëüíûì”. Íå ìîòèâû êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìà, à êîëè÷åñòâî êîëëàáîðàíòîâ ïðîäîëæàåò îñòàâàòüñÿ ãëàâíûì âîïðîñîì äëÿ ñòàðøåãî ïîêîëåíèÿ, ïðåäñòà- âèòåëè êîòîðîãî ñîâåòîâàëè ìíå íàçûâàòü êîðïóñ íå èíà÷å êàê “òàê íàçûâàåìûì êîðïóñîì”. Íà ìîå âîçðàæåíèå, ÷òî ýòî – ñàìîíàçâàíèå, ìíå îòâå÷àëè, ÷òî àðìåéñêèé êîðïóñ – ýòî òðè äèâèçèè ÷èñëîì â 30 òûñ., è êòî-íèáóäü îáÿçàòåëüíî ïîéìåò ïðåâðàòíî è áóäåò íåáëàãîïðèÿòíûì äëÿ íàðîäà îáðàçîì èñïîëüçîâàòü ýòè äàííûå â ëèòåðàòóðå. “Ïîìíè, ÷òî òû êàëìû÷êà, íàðîä òåáÿ ïðîêëÿíåò, åñëè òû íàïèøåøü íåïðàâäó”, – ïðåäîñòåðåãàë ìåíÿ ïðîôåññîð Êàëìûöêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Â. Á. Óáóøàåâ. Åãî ïî- ñëàíèå áûëî âïîëíå êîíêðåòíûì: íå êîíöåíòðèðóé âíèìàíèå íà çëî- äåÿíèÿõ, èñïîëüçóé êîëè÷åñòâåííî íàèìåíüøèå äàííûå î êîðïóñå. Äàííûå, ïîëó÷åííûå â îêòÿáðå 1944 ã. â Êàëìûöêîì ïðåä- ñòàâèòåëüñòâå Êàëìûöêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî êîìèòåòà (äàëåå –

29 À. Ñåðåíêî. Âîéíà óëóñîâ // Íåçàâèñèìàÿ ãàçåòà. 1999. 26 ÿíâàðÿ. 30 Õîòîí – íåáîëüøîå ïîñåëåíèå, óëóñ, â äàííîì ñëó÷àå – ðàéîí. 31 ÏÌÀ. Àíîíèìíûé èíôîðìàíò. Ýëèñòà, 2003. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 32 Èçâåñòíû íåêîòîðûå ïîäðîáíîñòè áèîãðàôèè Ý. Áàòàåâà. Îí ÷åòûðåæäû ïåðå- õîäèë ëèíèþ ôðîíòà, â ïîñëåäíèé ðàç êîìàíäîâàíèå âûíóæäåíî áûëî åìó ñîîáùèòü, ÷òî åãî ñåìüÿ ïîãèáëà âî âðåìÿ äåïîðòàöèè. Ê ýòîìó âðåìåíè îí áûë ïîâÿçàí êðîâüþ. Êàê îôèöåðà, åãî çàñòàâèëè ïðè ñâèäåòåëÿõ ðàññòðå- ëèâàòü ìèðíûõ æèòåëåé, ÷òî äåëàëî ïóòü íàçàä íåâîçìîæíûì. Ïîòåðÿâ ñâÿç- íèêà, îí ïåðåñòàë âûïîëíÿòü ñâîè îáÿçàííîñòè. Áûë ðåïàòðèèðîâàí, ïîëó÷èë 25 ëåò êàòîðãè, èç íèõ îòñèäåë 23 ãîäà. (ÏÌÀ. Â. Á. Óáóøàåâ. Ýëèñòà, 2003.) 282 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 KÍÊ)33 òàêîâû: â áàòàëüîíàõ (âèäèìî, â êîðïóñå) ñðàæàëîñü øåñòü òûñÿ÷ êàëìûêîâ, ñðåäè âîñòî÷íûõ ðàáî÷èõ èõ áûëî 500 ÷åëîâåê, è åùå 1500 âîåííîïëåííûõ.34 Ñðåäè âñòóïèâøèõ â êîðïóñ áûëî 125 êîììóíèñòîâ, è òàêæå ÷åòûðå òûñÿ÷è ÷åëîâåê áûëè óãíàíû êàê îñòàðáàéòåðû.35 Ñþæåòû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ èñòîðèåé ÊÊÊ, äî ñèõ ïîð ïî-ðàçíîìó âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ â äèàñïîðå, â Ðîññèè è â ðåñïóáëèêå. Îòíîñè- òåëüíîå ñîãëàñèå âîçíèêàåò ëèøü âîêðóã îïðåäåëåíèÿ “òðàãåäèÿ”, ñ êîòîðûì ñîãëàñóþòñÿ ðàçíûå âåðñèè ïðîøëîãî. Ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü îá îñëàáëåíèè èíñòèòóöèîíàëèçèðîâàííûõ íàððàòèâîâ è î ïðåîá- ëàäàíèè ìåñòíîé è ñåìåéíîé íàä ýìèãðàíòñêîé èëè ñîâåòñêîé âåð- ñèÿìè ïàìÿòè. Òåì íå ìåíåå, îöåíêè ïðîøëîãî çàâèñÿò è îò ïîêî- ëåí÷åñêîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè. Áîëüøàÿ ÷àñòü ëþäåé, ÷üè âîççðåíèÿ íà ïðîøëîå ñôîðìèðîâàëèñü âî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå äâàäöàòîãî âåêà, è ñåãîäíÿ âñå-òàêè ïðèçíàåò âèíó çà êîðïóñîì: Åñëè áû ïðîñòî òàê óåõàëè... Âñå-òàêè îíè áåñ÷èíñòâîâàëè. Ìíå áðàò ðàññêàçûâàë, îí áûë â ñîñòàâå 3-ãî Óêðàèíñêîãî ôðîíòà, îíè ïðîõîäèëè ïî òåððèòîðèè Çàïîðîæüÿ. Êîãäà, ãîâîðèò, îñâîáîæäàåì óêðàèíñêèå ñåëà, îíè òàê ðàäîñòíî âñòðå÷àþò À ïîòîì âèäÿò, ÷òî àçèàòû, ñïðàøèâàþò, êòî âû ïî íàöèîíàëüíîñòè. Êàëìûêè, – îòâå÷àëè. Óêðàèíöû ãîâîðÿò: áûëè òóò âàøè êàëìûêè, òî äåëàëè, ýòî äåëàëè. Ïîñëå ýòîãî îíè ñòàðàëèñü íå ãîâîðèòü, ÷òî êàëìûêè. Èì íåóäîáíî áûëî ïðèçíàâàòüñÿ, ÷òî îíè êàëìûêè. Òî, ÷òî ìû ïîïàëè â Ñèáèðü, êîíå÷íî, îíè ñûãðàëè [ðîëü]. Åñëè áû îíè íå óõîäèëè, ìîæåò áûòü, íàñ è íå ñîñëàëè áû.36 Åùå áîëåå çíà÷èòåëüíî òî, ÷òî óâÿçêà èñòîðèè êîðïóñà ñ äåïîð- òàöèåé êàëìûêîâ 1943 ã., ò.å. òðàêòîâêà âòîðîé òðàãåäèè êàê ñëåä- ñòâèÿ ïåðâîé, äî ñèõ ïîð îñòàåòñÿ ãîñïîäñòâóþùåé â îáùåñòâåííîì

33 Êàëìûöêèé íàöèîíàëüíûé êîìèòåò (ÊÍÊ) – êîëëàáîðàöèîíèñòñêàÿ îðãàíèçàöèÿ ýìèãðàíòîâ ïåðâîé âîëíû, ðàáîòàëà â Áåðëèíå ñ 1942-1945 ãã. ïîä ýãèäîé Âîñòî÷íîãî ìèíèñòåðñòâà. 34 È. À Ãèëÿçîâ. Íà äðóãîé ñòîðîíå. (Êîëëàáîðàöèîíèñòû èç ïîâîëæñêî- ïðèóðàëüñêèõ òàòàð â ãîäû âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû). Êàçàíü. 1998. Ñ. 83. “Âîñòî÷íûå ðàáî÷èå” – Ostarbeiter – ëèöà, óãíàííûå íà ðàáîòû â Ãåðìàíèþ. ÊÍÊ âåë ó÷åò âîñòî÷íûõ ðàáî÷èõ – êàëìûêîâ, òàê æå êàê è êàëìûêîâ- âîåííîïëåííûõ. 35 À. Íåêðè÷. Íàêàçàííûå íàðîäû. Íüþ-Éîðê, 1978. Ñ. 74. 36 ÏÌÀ. Ï. Ý. Àëåêñååâà. Ýëèñòà, 2000. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 283 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû ñîçíàíèè íàðîäà. Îòâåòñòâåííîñòü êîðïóñíèêîâ çà âûáîð â ïîëüçó ïðîòèâíèêà ñ÷èòàëàñü íå ïîâîäîì ê äåïîðòàöèè, à åå ïðè÷èíîé. Êàêèå ñòðàòåãèè áîðüáû ñ êîìïëåêñîì âèíû áûëè äîñòóïíû êàëìûêàì â ñîâåòñêîå âðåìÿ? Êàê óæå îòìå÷àëîñü âûøå, ÷òîáû ïðîòèâîñòîÿòü äèñêóðñó “ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ è íàêàçàíèÿ”, êàëìûöêèå èñòîðèêè – ìíîãèå èç íèõ áûëè ôðîíòîâèêàìè è âñå èìåëè îïûò âûñåëåíèÿ – îáðàùàëèñü ê òåìå ó÷àñòèÿ êàëìûêîâ â Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíå, îñîáåííî ê èñòîðèè 110-é ÎÊÊÄ.37. Îáû÷íî îíè ïîä÷åðêèâàëè, ÷òî åñëè â êîðïóñå íàñ÷èòûâàëîñü åäèíîâðå- ìåííî íå áîëüøå ïÿòè òûñÿ÷ áîéöîâ, òî çà 1941-1943 ãã. â Êðàñíóþ Àðìèþ áûëè ìîáèëèçîâàíû âñå ìóæ÷èíû ïðèçûâíîãî âîçðàñòà, ãîäíûå ê íåñåíèþ âîèíñêîé ñëóæáû. Ïî ïîäñ÷åòàì Â. Óáóøàåâà, â äåéñòâóþùåé àðìèè íàõîäèëîñü ïðèìåðíî 30 òûñ. êàëìûêîâ, à â òûëó âðàãà íà îêêóïèðîâàííûõ òåððèòîðèÿõ ñðàæàëîñü 20 ïàðòè- çàíñêèõ îòðÿäîâ.38 Èçó÷åíèå èñòîðèè ÊÊÊ, ñòàâøåå âîçìîæíûì â ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ, äîëæíî ïîìî÷ü ñíÿòü êîìïëåêñ âèíû, êîëëåêòèâíîå áðåìÿ îòâåòñòâåí- íîñòè çà “÷üþ-òî èçìåíó ðîäèíå” â ñëîæíûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ îáñòîÿ- òåëüñòâàõ, ñïîñîáñòâîâàëî áû “ïðèìèðåíèþ ñ ïðîøëûì”. Îäíàêî ïåðåâåñòè òåìàòèêó ÊÊÊ ñ óðîâíÿ ïîëóòàáóèðîâàíîé “ïàìÿòè” íà óðîâåíü îòêðûòûõ îáùåñòâåííûõ äèñêóññèé è ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè îêàçûâàåòñÿ íå òàê-òî ïðîñòî. Äëèòåëüíîå óìîë- ÷àíèå î êîðïóñå è ñâÿçàííûé ñ íèì êîìïëåêñ âèíû ïðèâåëè ê òîìó, ÷òî â íàðîäíîì ñîçíàíèè çàêðåïèëñÿ ñòðàõ îáùåñòâåííîãî ðàñêîëà: åñëè ïî ïðîøåñòâèè ñòîëüêèõ ëåò îáíàðîäîâàòü ñïèñêè êîðïóñíèêîâ, ìíîæåñòâî ñåìåé âûÿñíÿò, ÷òî èõ ðîäñòâåííèêè áûëè ïî ðàçíûå ñòîðîíû ëèíèè ôðîíòà. Òàêèì îáðàçîì òàáó, íàëîæåííîå íà èñòî- ðèþ êîðïóñà, ÿêîáû ïîìîãàëî è ïîìîãàåò ïðåäîòâðàùàòü íåèç- áåæíûå êîíôëèêòû ñðåäè ïîñëåâîåííîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ. Äî ñèõ ïîð ñàìè êàëìûêè ðàçäåëÿþò àáñòðàêòíóþ èäåþ “êîëëåêòèâíîé âèíû” – â êàëìûöêîì îáùåñòâå îòñóòñòâóåò ïîíèìàíèå òîãî, ÷òî âèíà âñå- ãäà ïåðñîíàëüíà è äîëæíà áûòü äîêàçàíà â ñóäåáíîì ïîðÿäêå. Êîëëåêòèâíàÿ âèíà – ýòî èäåîëîãè÷åñêèé êîíñòðóêò, êîòîðûé èñïîëüçóåòñÿ ñèëüíîé âëàñòüþ äëÿ íàêàçàíèÿ ñëàáûõ íàðîäîâ.  Êàëìûêèè ïðåäïî÷èòàþò íå ïîäíèìàòü òåìó êîðïóñà â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü èç-çà ñàìîãî ôàêòà èçìåíû ðîäèíå, êîòîðûé äëÿ ìíîãèõ

37 ÎÊÊÄ – Îòäåëüíàÿ êàëìûöêàÿ êàâàëåðèéñêàÿ äèâèçèÿ. 38 Öèò. ïî: Ï. Ä. Áàêàåâ. Î òðàãåäèè â èñòîðèè êàëìûöêîãî íàðîäà. Ýëèñòà, 2003. Ñ. 54. 284 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ëþäåé íå ìîæåò áûòü îïðàâäàí èëè ïðîùåí. Ýòî òàêæå ñâÿçàíî ñ òåì, ÷òî ýòíè÷åñêàÿ èäåíòè÷íîñòü êàëìûêîâ òåñíî óâÿçàíà ñ ãðàæ- äàíñêîé. Êàê ýòíè÷åñêàÿ îáùíîñòü êàëìûêè ñôîðìèðîâàëèñü ïîñëå ïðèõîäà íà Âîëãó, ÷òî íàøëî îòðàæåíèå â èçìåíåíèè ýòíîíèìà. Îéðàòû ñòàëè íàçûâàòü ñåáÿ “êàëìûêàìè”, à äëÿ ìîíãîëüñêîãî ìèðà îíè ñòàëè “âîëæñêèå êàëìûêè / Èæëèí õàëüìãóä”, èëè “ðîññèéñêèìè êàëìûêàìè / Àðÿñÿí õàëüìãóä”. Äëÿ ïîêèíóâøèõ Ðîññèþ îäíî ñëîâî èç ýòîãî ñëîâîñî÷åòàíèÿ, îïðåäåëÿþùåãî èõ ýòíè÷åñêóþ èäåíòè÷íîñòü, îêàçàëîñü ëèøíèì. Òðè ñòîëåòèÿ ïðîæè- âàíèÿ ñîòåí òûñÿ÷ êàëìûêîâ â Ðîññèè ïåðå÷åðêèâàëèñü èñõîäîì ìàëîé ãðóïïû. Òàêæå áûëî ñóùåñòâåííûì, ÷òî Êàëìûöêîå õàíñòâî âîøëî â ñîñòàâ Ðîññèéñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, ïðèíÿâ îáÿçàòåëüñòâî âîåííîé ñëóæáû.  íàðîäå âñåãäà ãîðäèëèñü ïîáåäàìè êàëìûöêîé êîííèöû â ñîñòàâå ðîññèéñêîé àðìèè. Âïåðâûå çà ìíîãîâåêîâóþ èñòîðèþ êàëìûöêîå ñîåäèíåíèå îêàçàëîñü â ñîñòàâå àðìèè ïðîòèâ- íèêà, è èìåííî ýòî âûçûâàëî ÷óâñòâà âèíû è ñòûäà. È ñàìè êîðïóñ- íèêè ó÷èòûâàëè ýòè íàñòðîåíèÿ: êîïèðóÿ íàöèñòñêèå ëîçóíãè â ñâîåé ãàçåòå, îíè ïðèçûâàëè “âñåìè ñèëàìè è ñðåäñòâàìè” áîðîòüñÿ íå ñ Ðîññèåé, à ñ “æèäîêîììóíèçìîì” è “áîëüøåâèçìîì”.39 Êîìïëåêñ âèíû óêðåïëÿëè âîøåäøåå â ñîçíàíèå âñåõ ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé îòíîøåíèå ê Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíå êàê ê ñâÿòûíå, à òàêæå ñàêðàëèçàöèÿ ïàìÿòè åå æåðòâ. Âîïðîñ îá îòâåòñòâåííîñòè çà ÷åëîâå÷åñêèå ïîòåðè çàìåùàëñÿ óâåêîâå÷åíèåì ïàìÿòè î ïîãèá- øèõ, êîëè÷åñòâî æåðòâ îáîñíîâûâàëî âåëè÷èå ïîáåäû. “Ñâÿùåí- íàÿ” âîéíà, òèðàæèðîâàííàÿ ó÷åáíèêàìè, ëèòåðàòóðîé è êèíî íà ïðîòÿæåíèè ïÿòè äåñÿòèëåòèé, äîïóñêàëà îäèí ñöåíàðèé: ñìåðòü èëè ïîáåäà. Àëüòåðíàòèâà “æèçíü è ïëåí” íå ðàññìàòðèâàëàñü. Ïàò- ðèîòè÷åñêîå âîñïèòàíèå ïðåäïîëàãàëî íå ëþáîâü ê ðîäèíå, à ëþ- áîâü ê ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîé ðîäèíå. Ïðåîäîëåòü ýòè ïîäõîäû äî ñèõ ïîð íåïðîñòî, íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî Ãëàñíîñòü ñäåëàëà èçâåñòíûìè ìíîæåñòâî ïðèìåðîâ íåçàñëóæåííî æåñòîêîãî îòíîøåíèÿ ñîâåò- ñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ê ñâîèì ãðàæäàíàì. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, â ìîëîäåæíîé ñðåäå ÷óâñòâî âèíû òðàíñôîð- ìèðóåòñÿ â êîìïåíñàòîðíóþ ãîðäîñòü çà êîëëàáîðàöèîíèñòîâ. Çäåñü ìîæíî óñëûøàòü ñåòîâàíèÿ íà òî, ÷òî ñ íåìöàìè óøëè íå âñå êàëìûêè, à òî áû æèëè ñåé÷àñ â ïðîöâåòàþùèõ ñòðàíàõ. Èíîãäà

39 Õàëüìã Äaa÷. 1944. ¹ 4. 23 ñåíòÿáðÿ. Ñ. 4. Íàçâàíèå ïåðåâîäèòñÿ êàê “Êàëìûöêèé âîèí”. Ïå÷àòíûé îðãàí êàëìûöêèõ äîáðîâîëüöåâ, âûõîäèë â Ïîòñäàìå. 285 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû îáíàðóæèâàåòñÿ ñêðûòîå âîñõèùåíèå æåñòîêîñòüþ êàëìûöêèõ “êàðàòåëåé”. Íàïðèìåð, ãðóïïà ñòóäåíòîâ-ñòðîéîòðÿäîâöåâ îêàçàëàñü íà Óêðàèíå â êàêîì-òî äîìå, è ó åäèíñòâåííîãî ñòóäåíòà ñ àçèàòñêîé âíåøíîñòü ñòàðóõà-õîçÿéêà ñïðîñèëà, íå êàëìûê ëè îí. Ïàðåíü äîãàäàëñÿ, ïî÷åìó ñòàðóõà èç âñåõ âîñòî÷íûõ íàðîäîâ ÑÑÑÐ âûäå- ëèëà êàëìûêîâ, è ñïðîñèë: “×òî, áûëè çäåñü êàëìûêè?” – “Áûëè, îõ, ëþòîâàëè”, – ïîñëåäîâàë îòâåò.40 Êîëëåãà, ðàññêàçàâøèé ìíå ýòó èñòîðèþ, ñëîâî “ëþòîâàëè” ïðîèçíîñèë ñ íåñêðûâàåìûì óäîâîëüñòâèåì è òîðæåñòâîì. Åãî ðàññêàç çâó÷àë êàê ïðîÿâëåíèå êîëîíèàëüíîãî êîìïëåêñà: âû (“ðóññêèå”) ñ÷èòàëè íàñ äèêàðÿìè, à äî ñèõ ïîð ïîìíèòå ñâîé ñòðàõ. Ïîäîáíûå ðàäèêàëüíûå ïåðåîöåíêè ïðîøëîãî îïûòà õàðàê- òåðíû äëÿ âñåãî ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà, à èõ ìàñøòàáû íåñîïîñòàâèìû ñ êàëìûöêèìè. Òàê, äåíü ñîçäàíèÿ ëàòûøñêîãî ëåãèîíà ñòàë íàöèîíàëüíûì ïðàçäíèêîì â Ëàòâèè, è ïîêà íå ïîÿâè- ëàñü ïåðñïåêòèâà âîéòè â Åâðîïåéñêèé Ñîþç, â Ðèãå â ýòîò äåíü ïðîõîäèë âîåííûé ïàðàä. Îäíà èç óëèö Ëüâîâà íîñèò èìÿ Ñ. Áàí- äåðû è ò.ä. Ïåðåâîä ñâÿçàííûõ ñ èñòîðèåé êîìïëåêñîâ è ïðåäñòàâëåíèé íà ÿçûê ðàöèîíàëüíîãî íàó÷íîãî àíàëèçà ïðîñòî íåîáõîäèì. Îäíèì èç èíñòðóìåíòîâ òàêîãî ïåðåâîäà ìîæåò áûòü àíàëèç “ñòðàõîâ”, êîòîðûå èñïûòûâàëè êàëìûêè, óõîäèâøèå âî âðàæåñêèå âîåííûå ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ è áåæàâøèå íà Çàïàä. Ýòîò ïîäõîä ïîçâîëÿåò îáúåäè- íèòü îáå ïåðñïåêòèâû – âçàèìîîòíîøåíèå êîëëàáîðàöèîíèñòà ñ ñîá- ñòâåííûì ãîñóäàðñòâîì è ñ àðìèåé îêêóïàíòîâ, è ëó÷øå ïîíÿòü ïðîøëîå. Ñòðàõè êàëìûêîâ áûëè ñâÿçàíû â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ñ òåì, ÷òî ìíîãî ëþäåé íå ñìîãëè ýâàêóèðîâàòüñÿ è îñòàëèñü íà îêêóïè- ðîâàííîé òåððèòîðèè, ÷òî ñàìî ïî ñåáå áûëî íàêàçóåìî. Êîëëåê- òèâíîé îòâåòñòâåííîñòè áîÿëèñü ðîäñòâåííèêè “ïîñîáíèêî┠îêêó- ïàíòîâ, à âåäü îïðåäåëåíèå ðîäñòâà ó êàëìûêîâ î÷åíü øèðîêîå. Äðóãèå ñòðàõè âûçâàëèñü ñëóõàìè î òîì, ÷òî â Êðàñíîé Àðìèè çâåðñòâîâàëè “êèòàéñêèå ÷àñòè”, áåçæàëîñòíûå êî âñåì, íî ê êàëìû- êàì îñîáåííî, âåäü â ìèôîëîãè÷åñêîì ñîçíàíèè âñåõ ìîíãîëîâ êèòàéöû âûñòóïàþò ñîñðåäîòî÷åíèåì ìèðîâîãî çëà.  íàðîäå áîÿëèñü, ÷òî â Êðàñíóþ Àðìèþ çàáåðóò âñåõ ïàðíåé, à, âîçìîæíî, è äåâóøåê, ïîòîìó ÷òî ïàðíåé íå õâàòàëî.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì äåâóøêè îïàñàëèñü âîçìîæíûõ íàäðóãàòåëüñòâ.

40 ÏÌÀ. À. Ãîðÿåâ. Ýëèñòà, 1999. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 286 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Êàëìûöêèé êîðïóñ òîëüêî íà÷èíàåò ñòàíîâèòüñÿ ïðåäìåòîì èñòîðè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé. Ïåðâûì, êòî íàïèñàë ñåðèþ ìîíî- ãðàôèé î êîëëàáîðàöèîíèñòàõ Êàâêàçà, Ñðåäíåé Àçèè, Óðàëà è Ïîâîëæüÿ è Êàëìûêèè áûë óæå óïîìèíàâøèéñÿ â ýòîé ñòàòüå É. Õîôôìàí.41 Ïðèíèìàÿñü çà ìîíîãðàôèþ î ÊÊÊ, îí ñ÷èòàë, ÷òî ñïóñòÿ 30 ëåò ñòðàñòè óòèõëè è ëþäè ñìîãóò äèñòàíöèðîâàòüñÿ îò èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé. Èñòî- ðèþ âîåííîãî êîëëàáîðàöèîíèç- ìà ïëîäîòâîðíî èçó÷àåò Ê. Àëåê- ñàíäðîâ, à È. Ãèëÿçîâ42 èññëåäóåò èñòîðèþ ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà ñ íåìöàìè â ãîäû Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû âîëãî-óðàëüñêèõ òàòàð. Íå ñëó÷àé- íî åãî ðàáîòà óâèäåëà ñâåò â Òàòàðñòàíå (Êàçàíü), ãäå äîêòðèíà ãðàæäàíñêîãî íàöèîíàëèçìà âûã- ëÿäèò îäíîé èç íàèáîëåå ïðîäó- ìàííûõ â ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè. Èëë. 1. Êîðïóñíèêè. Ôîòîãðàôèÿ èç Êàê ïîêàçàë Á. Àíäåðñîí, äëÿ ôîíäîâ Ôåäåðàëüíîãî âîåííîãî óñïåøíîãî ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ íàöèè àðõèâà Ãåðìàíèè (ã. Ôðàéáóðã). íàðîä äîëæåí íå òîëüêî ïîìíèòü ñâîþ èñòîðèþ, íî è êîå-÷òî èç íåå çàáûâàòü. Íàïðèìåð, ôðàíöó- çàì íóæíî áûëî çàáûòü î Âàðôîëîìååâñêîé íî÷è, àìåðèêàíöàì – î Ãðàæäàíñêîé âîéíå.43 Íî “çàáûòü” â ýòîì êîíòåêñòå çíà÷èò íå “ñòåðåòü èç ïàìÿòè”, à èçáàâèòüñÿ îò íåãàòèâíûõ ýìîöèé, ïðèíÿòü ïðîèñøåäøåå êàê èñòîðè÷åñêèé ôàêò, îáñóäèòü ïðîøëîå, èçâëå÷ü èç íåãî óðîêè. Èñòîðèÿ êîðïóñà ñòàëà “íàâÿç÷èâîé èäååé ïðîøëîãî”, êàëìûö- êèì “ñèíäðîìîì Âèøè”. À. Ðóññî, ââåäøèé â îáîðîò ýòîò òåðìèí

41 J. Hoffmann. Die Ostlegionen. 1941-1943. Freiburg 1986; J. Hoffmann. Kaukasien 1942/43. Das deutsche Heer und die Orientvolker der Sowjetunion. Freiburg, 1991; É. Õîôôìàíí. Èñòîðèÿ Âëàñîâñêîé àðìèè. Ïàðèæ, 1990. 42 Ê. Ì. Àëåêñàíäðîâ. Ïðîòèâ Ñòàëèíà. Ñáîðíèê ñòàòåé è ìàòåðèàëîâ. Ñàíêò- Ïåòåðáóðã, 2003; È. Ãèëÿçîâ. Op. cit. 43 Á. Àíäåðñîí. Âîîáðàæàåìûå ñîîáùåñòâà. Ìîñêâà, 2001. Ñ. 216-218. 44 Öèò. ïî: Ï. Ðèêåð. Ïàìÿòü, èñòîðèÿ, çàáâåíèå. Ìîñêâà, 2004. Ñ. 621. 287 Ý.-Á. Ãó÷èíîâà, Íàöèÿ è äèñêóðñ âèíû ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìó âî Ôðàíöèè, ïðèçûâàë ñîâðå- ìåííèêîâ ïåðåéòè îò áåñêîíå÷íîãî ýêçîðöèçìà ê ðàáîòå ïàìÿòè, êîòîðàÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ òàêæå è ðàáîòîé ñêîðáè.44 Âîçìîæíî, äëÿ íîð- ìàëèçàöèè ïðîøëîãî ÊÊÊ íóæíà âðåìåííàÿ äèñòàíöèÿ, êîòîðàÿ ïîçâîëèò ñíÿòü ýìîöèè, ìåøàþùèå ðàöèîíàëüíîìó ðàññìîòðåíèþ èñòîðèè êîðïóñà. Ñîâðåìåííûé êàëìûöêèé ìíåìîïðîåêò, íåîá- õîäèìûé äëÿ (ïåðå)ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ íàöèîíàëüíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè, äîëæåí áûòü îòêðûòûì è îðèåíòèðîâàòüñÿ íà íåèäåîëîãè÷åñêîå ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîå èçó÷åíèå “íåóäîáíîãî ïðîøëîãî”, ÷òî ïîçâîëèò âêëþ÷èòü åãî â èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ íàðîäà.

SUMMARY

Elza-Bair Guchinova discusses collective memory of the Kalmyk people as expressed in debates focusing on two defining events of Kalmyk history: the organization and activities of the Kalmyk Cavalery Corps (KKK), which operated under the Nazi occupation regime in the USSR, and the deporta- tion of the Kalmyks from their historical lands in contemporary Kalmykia. Guchinova analyzes various interpretations of events related to KKK and the deportation, including ways in which representatives of the Kalmyk emigration, the Soviet official version of the past, and the Kalmyk private memory recalled these events. According to the author, in post-Communist Kalmykia the issue of the past overshadowed by the memory of collabora- tion and the concept of collective guilt remains a highly sensitive topic. These events are still used to justify anti-Kalmyk rhetoric by Russian nationalists. At the same time, the very Kalmyk national consciousness depends on interpretations of the past imbued with collective guilt. Many Kalmyks privately believe that participants in KKK just responded to the hardships of the war and to the real lack of choice at a given time, while others share the Soviet version of events and treat participants in the KKK as traitors.

288 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Îëüãà ÁÐÅÄÍÈÊÎÂÀ

ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÉ ÒÅÊÑÒ AD MARGINEM ÈËÈ ÐÀÇÄÅËÅÍÍÀß ÏÀÌßÒÜ ÐÀÇÄÅËÅÍÍÛÕ ÃÎÐÎÄÎÂ?

Èññëåäóÿ ïðèãðàíè÷üå Ìîäåðíèñòñêèé ïðîåêò ñòðîèòåëüñòâà íàöèîíàëüíûõ ãîñó- äàðñòâ îêàçàëñÿ âåñüìà óñïåøíûì, è ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î ìèðå êàê î ðàçíîöâåòíîé ìîçàèêå îòëè÷íî èíòåðèîðèçèðîâàëîñü. Ìèð äëÿ ñîâðåìåííîãî ÷åëîâåêà – ýòî êàðòà, íàñûùåííàÿ ÿðêèìè öâåòàìè- ëîãîòèïàìè. Äëÿ øêîëüíèêà íåòðóäíî ðàçóêðàñèòü êîíòóðíóþ êàðòó, íàïîëíèâ öâåòîì ïóñòûå ïðîñòðàíñòâà, îòäåëåííûõ äðóã îò äðóãà íåðîâíûìè ëèíèÿìè. Êñòàòè, çàòóøåâûâàòü îãðîìíîå ïÿòíî Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà íåæíûì ëîñîñåâûì öâåòîì áûëî íåëåã- êèì è äîâîëüíî ñêó÷íûì çàíÿòèåì. Îäíàêî íûíå ýòî ïðîñòðàí- ñòâî ñæàëîñü, çàïåñòðåâ ïî êðàÿì èíûìè öâåòàìè, ïîÿâèëîñü áîëüøå èçëîìàííûõ êîíòóðîâ-ãðàíèö. Òàêèå “êðèâûå ëèíèè” è “èíûå öâåòà” âûñòóïàþò â êà÷åñòâå “ëèíèé ðàçðûâà” ïðîñòðàíñòâà, êîòîðîå îêàçûâàåòñÿ äèñêðåòíûì, ðàçäåëåííûì ìåæäó íàöèî- íàëüíûìè ãîñóäàðñòâàìè. Ñàìè æå “ìåñòà ðàçëîìà” ñòàíîâÿòñÿ óíèêàëüíûì ïëàöäàðìîì äëÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, ìåñòîì ïðîâåðêè ðàçëè÷íûõ òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ êîíñòðóêöèé, êîòîðûå ìîãóò õîðîøî ðàáîòàòü â öåíòðå “öåíòðîñòðåìèòåëüíî îðãàíèçîâàííûõ”

289 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... íàöèîíàëüíûõ ãîñóäàðñòâ, íî çà÷àñòóþ ñîìíèòåëüíû íà ïåðèôå- ðèè è â ïðèãðàíè÷íûõ çîíàõ. Íà÷èíàÿ ñ 1990-õ ãîäîâ, áëàãîäàðÿ “òåêòîíè÷åñêèì ñäâèãàì”, ïåðåêðîèâøèì ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêóþ êàðòó ìèðà, èññëåäîâàíèÿ ãðàíèö è ïðèãðàíè÷íûõ òåððèòîðèé ñòàëè â ñîöèàëüíûõ íàóêàõ íåîáûê- íîâåííî ïîïóëÿðíûìè: “Ïàðàäîêñàëüíî, íî òåìà ãðàíèö ïðèâëå- êàåò áîëüøå âíèìàíèÿ, ÷åì ðàíüøå, âî âðåìÿ ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ æå- ëåçíîãî çàíàâåñà”.1 Åå àêòóàëüíîñòü îáúÿñíÿåòñÿ íå òîëüêî ïîÿâ- ëåíèåì ñîâðåìåííûõ ðóáåæåé è èñ÷åçíîâåíèåì/îòêðûòèåì ñòàðûõ, êîãäà òîâàðû, êàïèòàëû, ëþäè, èíôîðìàöèÿ è ïðî÷åå ìîãóò îòíî- ñèòåëüíî ñâîáîäíî ïåðåäâèãàòüñÿ ïî íîâûì ìàðøðóòàì. Èçìåíÿ- þòñÿ òàêæå ñìûñëû è çíà÷åíèÿ ãðàíèö. Ñåé÷àñ ýòî – “â ìåíüøåé ñòåïåíè îãðàíè÷åíèå, íî ìåñòî âñòðå÷è, ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà è ñîñåäñòâà”.2 Êðîìå òîãî, èñ÷åçëà èëè ðåòåððèòîðèçèðîâàëàñü ðàíåå ñòàòè÷íàÿ äèõîòîìèÿ “Âîñòîê-Çàïàä”. Ãîñóäàðñòâà, àññîöèèðóþùèåñÿ ñ ýòèìè áëîêàìè, ïîòåðÿëè, à çàòåì âíîâü îáðåëè, íî óæå èçìåíåííûé, ïåðåôîðìóëèðîâàííûé è èçìåíèâøèéñÿ èìèäæ “Äðóãîãî”.  ýòîé ñâÿçè àêòóàëèçèðóåòñÿ íàó÷íûé èíòåðåñ ê ïðîñòðàíñòâó, ãðàíèöàì è èäåíòè÷íîñòÿì êàê ê ïðîáëåìå âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ è êîíñòðóèðî- âàíèÿ “äðóãîãî”.3 Ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñå, èçó÷àâøèå ãðàíèöû è ïðèãðàíè÷íûå òåððè- òîðèè, âíå çàâèñèìîñòè îò ôîêóñà èññëåäîâàíèÿ, îòìå÷àþò îñî- áûé ñòàòóñ ïðèãðàíè÷üÿ, âûäåëÿÿ åãî îò îñòàëüíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà íàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà è íàäåëÿÿ îñîáûìè çíà÷åíèÿìè. Óíè- êàëüíîñòü ïðèãðàíè÷üÿ ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ñ âíåøíåé è âíóòðåííåé èçîëÿöèåé òåððèòîðèè, ñ äðóãîé – ñ áëèçîñòüþ ñîñåä- íåé ñòðàíû, ÷òî, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, âûçûâàåò ïðîöåññû âçàèìîäåé- ñòâèÿ, âçàèìîïðîíèêíîâåíèÿ è âçàèìîâëèÿíèÿ. Ïðèãðàíè÷íûå òåð- ðèòîðèè, áëàãîäàðÿ ñâîåìó îêðàèííîìó ìåñòîïîëîæåíèþ, îêàçû- âàþòñÿ îãðàíè÷åííûìè íå òîëüêî “èçâíå”. Ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü è î âíóò- ðåííåé “èçîëÿöèè”, âûçâàííîé öåíòðàëèçàöèåé ñîâðåìåííûõ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ãîñóäàðñòâ, ÷òî îñîáåííî õàðàêòåðíî äëÿ Ðîññèè, à

1 J. Langer. Towards a Conceptualization of Border. The Central European Experience // H. Eskelinen, I. Liikanen (Eds.). Curtains of Iron and Gold. New York; Dehli, 1998. P. 25. 2 S. Medvedev. Across the Line // H. Eskilinen, I. Liikanen (Eds.) Curtains of Iron and Gold. New York; Dehli. 1998. P. 54. 3 A. Paasi. The Finnish-Russia Border in the World of De-territorization. Working Papers of NUPI on North European and Baltic Sea Integration. Oslo, 1999. 290 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òàêæå î “òÿãîòåíèè ê ñîñåäíåìó ãîñóäàðñòâó”, êîãäà ñîöèàëüíàÿ æèçíü â ïðèãðàíè÷üå âî ìíîãîì îðãàíèçóåòñÿ áëàãîäàðÿ áëèçêîìó ïðèñóòñòâèþ “ñîñåäåé”.4 Âñå ïðîñòðàíñòâî ïðèãðàíè÷üÿ ãóñòî ìàð- êèðîâàíî íàöèîíàëüíîé ñèìâîëèêîé. Ê òîìó æå ïåðåñå÷åíèå ãðà- íèöû íàïîìèíàåò î íàöèîíàëüíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè, èáî ïîñòîÿííî âîñòðåáóþòñÿ åå äîêóìåíòàëüíûå ïîäòâåðæäåíèÿ, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ïàñïîðò. Ïîýòîìó ìíîãèå èññëåäîâàòåëè èñõîäÿò èç òîãî, ÷òî: “Ïðèãðàíè÷íûå ðåãèîíû ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïðèâèëåãèðîâàííûì ìåñòîì àðòèêóëÿöèè íàöèîíàëüíûõ ðàçëè÷èé Ýòî íàðöèññèçì ïî Ôðåéäó”.5 Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, óíèêàëüíîñòü ïðèãðàíè÷üÿ ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ èìåííî ñ äâîéñòâåííîñòüþ, ñ îäíîâðåìåííîé îòäåëåííîñòüþ è áëè- çîñòüþ ñîñåäíåãî ãîñóäàðñòâà.  íîâåéøèõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ íà÷è- íàåò äîìèíèðîâàòü ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î êðåàòèâíîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå òðàíñãðàíè÷íîñòè.6 Ïî ìíåíèþ Ý. Çåðóáàâåëÿ, ïðèãðàíè÷íûå çîíû ðàñïîëîæåíû ⠓íåñêîëüêèõ ìåíòàëüíûõ îáëàñòÿõ îäíîâðåìåííî”. Òàêîå ïðîìåæóòî÷íîå ïîëîæåíèå äåëàåò ïðîñòðàíñòâî ïðèãðàíè÷üÿ àìáèâàëåíòíûì.7 Ïðèãðàíè÷üå – íå ïðîñòî çîíà ðàçìûâàíèÿ æåñòêèõ êëàññèôèêàöèîííûõ ñòðóêòóð (â ÷àñòíîñòè, õàðàêòåðíûõ äëÿ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ãîñóäàðñòâ), íå “àíàëèòè÷åñêè ïóñòàÿ òðàíçèòíàÿ çîíà, íî ìåñòî êðåàòèâíîãî êóëüòóðíîãî ïðîèçâîäñòâà”.8 Ïðèãðà- íè÷íûå òåððèòîðèè ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ êàê öåíòðû ãëîáàëèçàöèè, âûïîëíÿþùèå èíòåãðàöèîííûå ôóíêöèè è ïðîèçâîäÿùèå òðàíñ- ãðàíè÷íûå ñîöèàëüíûå ãðóïïû, îñîáûå ñòèëè æèçíè è èäåíòè÷íîñòè. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, â ñîâðåìåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ ïðèãðàíè÷íûõ çîí ïðåäïðèíèìàåòñÿ ïîïûòêà ïðåîäîëåòü áèíàðíîñòü âîñïðèÿòèÿ ãðàíèöû. Îäíèì èç ïðèìåðîâ óñïåøíîé ðåàëèçàöèè òàêîãî ïîäõîäà ìîæåò ñëóæèòü èññëåäîâàíèå Ãëîðèè Àíçàëäóà, êîòîðîå êîíöåíòðèðóåòñÿ íà îïûòå æèçíè â ìåêñèêàíî-àìåðèêàíñêîì ïðèãðàíè÷üå. Îíî ïðåä-

4 Ñì. íàïðèìåð, D. Berdahl. Where the World Ended. Re-unification and Identity in the German Borderland. Berkley, 1997. 5 P. Sahlins. Boundaries. The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkley, 1989. P.14. 6 Ol. Ruiz. Visiting the Mother Country. Border-Crossing as a Cultural Practice // D. Spener and K. Staudt (Eds.). The U.S. – Mexico Border. Transcending Divisions, Contesting Identities. London, 1998. Pp. 105-120. 7 E. Zerubavel. The Fine Line. Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. New-York, 1991. 8 R. Rosaldo. Culture and Truth. The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston, 1989. P. 208. 291 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... ñòàâëÿåò ñïåöèôè÷åñêóþ èñòîðèþ ìåêñèêàíñêèõ ÷èêàíîñ (chicanîs) – íàñåëåíèÿ ïðèãðàíè÷íîé çîíû, èìåþùèõ îñîáóþ êóëüòóðó è “ïðîìåæóòî÷íóþ èäåíòè÷íîñòü”, ñâÿçàííóþ ñ óíèêàëüíîñòüþ ïðàêòèê ïîñòîÿííîãî ïåðåñå÷åíèÿ ãðàíèöû.9 Ñîãëàñíî Àíçàëäóà, çäåñü “æèçíåííàÿ êðîâü äâóõ ìèðîâ, ñëèâàÿñü, ôîðìèðóåò òðå- òüþ ‘ñòðàíó’ – ïîãðàíè÷íóþ êóëüòóðó”. Æèòåëè ïðèãðàíè÷üÿ ïî- ñòîÿííî “ãóëÿþò” îò îäíîé êóëüòóðû ê äðóãîé, è äëÿ íèõ íå ñòîëü ïðèíöèïèàëüíà îêîí÷àòåëüíàÿ “ïðèïèñêà” ê òîé èëè èíîé îáù- íîñòè, áëàãîäàðÿ ÷åìó è âîçíèêàåò îñîáàÿ ïðèãðàíè÷íàÿ êóëü- òóðà ñ àìáèâàëåíòíîñòüþ èäåíòè÷íîñòåé, òîëåðàíòíîñòüþ ê èíà- êîâîñòè, ðàçäåëåííîé èëè ïðîñòî íåîïðåäåëåííîé ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîé ëîÿëüíîñòüþ è ò.ä. Àâòîð õàðàêòåðèçóåò ýòó “ñòðàíó” êàê “ïîòåðÿííóþ çåìëþ ñ äåñòàáèëèçèðóþùèì [ïîëèòè÷åñêèì] ïîòåí- öèàëîì”.10 Èòàê, ñîâðåìåííûå äèñêóññèè î ïðèãðàíè÷üå âûñòðàèâàåòñÿ âîêðóã äâóõ öåíòðàëüíûõ òåçèñîâ: 1) Ñèòóàöèÿ ïðèãðàíè÷üÿ ãåíåðèðóåò ôðåéäîâñêèé “íàðöèñ- ñèçì”, àêòóàëèçèðóÿ ïîèñê îòëè÷èé îò æèòåëåé ñîñåäíèõ ãîñó- äàðñòâ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ôîðìèðóåòñÿ îïðåäåëåííàÿ ãðàíèöà ìåæäó “íàìè” è “íèìè”, ñîâïàäàþùàÿ ñ ïðåäåëàìè íàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñó- äàðñòâà; 2) Ïðèãðàíè÷üå – ýòî “çàçåðêàëüå”. Òàì ïðîèñõîäèò íåêîå îòðàæåíèå, ïåðåòåêàíèå îáðàçöîâ, ìîäåëåé ïîâåäåíèÿ, ñòèëåé æèçíè è ïð. Èäåíòè÷íîñòü, îñíîâàííàÿ íà ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè ê íàöèî- íàëüíîìó ãîñóäàðñòâó, â ïðèãðàíè÷íûõ òåððèòîðèÿõ ðàçìûâàåòñÿ, è ôîðìèðóåòñÿ íåêîòîðîå åäèíîå òðàíñãðàíè÷íîå ñîöèàëüíîå ïðî- ñòðàíñòâî, ïðîìåæóòî÷íîå ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê íàöèîíàëüíûì ãîñó- äàðñòâàì. Òàê èëè èíà÷å, îáà òåçèñà èñõîäÿò èç ïðèíöèïèàëüíîãî ôàêòà “ïðèçíàíèÿ ñîñåäà”, æèâóùåãî ïî äðóãóþ ñòîðîíó ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîé ãðàíèöû, ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê êîòîðîìó êîíñòðóèðóþòñÿ ïðèãðà- íè÷íûå èäåíòè÷íîñòè.  äàííîé ðàáîòå ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ ñëó÷àé âîñòðåáîâàííîñòè “ñîñåäà” â ïðîöåññå íàïèñàíèÿ/ñîçäàíèÿ èñòî- ðè÷åñêèõ íàððàòèâîâ â ïðèãðàíè÷íûõ ãîðîäàõ.

9 G. Anzaldua. Borderlands / La Frontera. The New Mestiza. San-Francisco, 1999. 10 Ibid. P. 25. 292 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ðàçäåëåííûé ãîðîä

Íîâîå ïîñòñîâåòñêîå ïðèãðàíè÷üå11 ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ óíèêàëüíûì ïîëèãîíîì äëÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, ãäå ïðîòåêàþò ñèíõ- ðîííûå, îäíàêî, ðàçíûå ïî ñìûñëó, çíà÷åíèþ è ñîöèàëüíûì ïîñëåä- ñòâèÿì ïðîöåññû ðàñõîæäåíèÿ áûâøèõ “ñâîèõ”, ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ “äðóãîãî” â õîäå íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâà, óêðåïëåíèÿ ãðàíèöû.  ôîêóñå âíèìàíèÿ äàííîé ðàáîòû êàê ðàç òàêîå ïðîáëåìàòè÷íîå ïðèãðà- íè÷íîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî – òàê íàçûâàåìûå “ðàçäåëåííûå ãîðîäà”, Èâàíãîðîä è Íàðâà, ðàñïîëîæåííûå íà ðîññèéñêî-ýñòîíñêîé ãðà- íèöå. Äëÿ Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà, êîòîðûé ñåãîäíÿ âñïîìèíàåòñÿ / âîñïðèíèìàåòñÿ êàê äîñòàòî÷íî ãîìîãåííîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî, áûëà õàðàêòåðíà âíóòðåííÿÿ ãåòåðîãåííîñòü: îò ýêçîòè÷åñêèõ âîñòî÷- íûõ áàçàðîâ Ñðåäíåé Àçèè äî ñîáñòâåííîé “çàãðàíèöû” Ïðèáàë- òèêè, àññîöèèðóåìîé ñ çàïàäíîåâðîïåéñêîé êóëüòóðîé. Äî ñèõ ïîð ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ ïàìÿòü îá àðîìàòíîì êîôå â êîôåéíÿõ Òàðòó, î ÷èñòîòå ñòàðèííûõ óëî÷åê Òàëëèííà è î âåæëèâûõ àâòîìîáèëèñòàõ Ïÿðíó. Îäíàêî ýòî áûë âçãëÿä ñòîðîííåãî íàáëþäàòåëÿ, òóðèñòà, êîòî- ðûé â ïîèñêàõ “ïðàçäíèêà èíàêîâîñòè” ñ óäîâîëüñòâèåì ïåðåñåêàë “Ìîñò äðóæáû”12 è èç ïðîâèíöèàëüíîãî ðîññèéñêîãî Èâàíãîðîäà áóêâàëüíî çà ïÿòü ìèíóò ïîïàäàë ⠓ïî÷òè çàãðàíè÷íóþ” Íàðâó. Äëÿ ìåñòíîãî æèòåëÿ ðåàëèè áûëè è îñòàþòñÿ íåñêîëüêî èíûìè. Èòàê, â ñîâåòñêîå âðåìÿ ìåæäó Èâàíãîðîäîì è Íàðâîé ïðîõî- äèëà òåððèòîðèàëüíî-àäìèíèñòðàòèâíàÿ ãðàíèöà, ðàçäåëÿâøàÿ äâå ñîþçíûå ðåñïóáëèêè. Ïðè ýòîì ãîðîäà îáúåäèíÿë îáùèé ðûíîê òðóäà è îáùàÿ èíôðàñòðóêòóðà.  ÷àñòíîñòè, åùå äî 1999 ã. òàì ðàáîòàëà åäèíàÿ ñèñòåìà âîäîñáîðà è âîäîî÷èñòêè. Êðîìå òîãî, îíè ñîñòàâëÿëè åäèíîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî ïîâñåäíåâíîñòè, òî åñòü îáùåå ïðîñòðàíñòâî ëîêàëèçàöèè ðóòèííûõ ïîâñåäíåâíûõ ïðàêòèê. Ëþäè ðàáîòàëè, æèëè, õîäèëè çà ïîêóïêàìè, âîäèëè äåòåé â øêîëó, èìåëè

11 Íîâîå ïðèãðàíè÷üå – ïðèãðàíè÷íûå òåððèòîðèè, ïîÿâèâøèåñÿ â ñâÿçè ñ íàöèî- íàëüíûì ñòðîèòåëüñòâîì è ôîðìèðîâàíèåì íîâûõ ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ ãðàíèö íà ïîñòñîâåòñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå.  íàó÷íîé ëèòåðàòóðå, ïîñâÿùåííîé äàííîé òåìàòèêå, òåðìèí óæå ñòàë êîíâåíöèîíàëüíûì. Îí ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåòñÿ ò.í. “ñòàðîìó ïðèãðàíè÷üþ” – ïðèãðàíè÷íûì ðåãèîíàì ïî ïåðèìåòðó áûâøåãî ÑÑÑÐ, ãäå, ïî ìíåíèþ èññëåäîâàòåëåé, èäóò êà÷åñòâåííî èíûå ñîöèàëüíûå ïðîöåññû. 12 Òàê â ñîâåòñêèå âðåìåíà íàçûâàëñÿ ìîñò ÷åðåç ðåêó Íàðîâà / Íàðâà, ïî êîòîðîé íûíå ïðîøëà ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ ãðàíèöà. 293 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... îãîðîäû, õîðîíèëè áëèçêèõ è ïð. è â òîì, è â äðóãîì ãîðîäå. Íàïðèìåð, êðóïíåéøåå ïðåäïðèÿòèå “Êðåíãîëüìñêàÿ ìàíóôàêòóðà”, ðàñïîëîæåííîå â Íàðâå, ñòðîèëî æèëüå äëÿ ñâîèõ ðàáîòíèêîâ â Èâàíãîðîäå. Îòëè÷èÿ ãîðîäîâ îáóñëîâëèâàëèñü ðàçíîé àäìèíèñ- òðàòèâíîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòüþ, îïðåäåëÿâøåé, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, èñòî÷- íèêè ôèíàíñèðîâàíèÿ, ñíàáæåíèÿ è ïðî÷åå. Êðîìå òîãî, ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î èõ ñòàòóñíîì ðàçëè÷èè: åñëè Èâàíãîðîä – ìàëûé ïåðè- ôåðèéíûé ãîðîä Ðîññèéñêîé Ôåäåðàöèè, òî Íàðâà ÿâëÿëàñü òðåòüèì ïî âåëè÷èíå ãîðîäñêèì öåíòðîì â Ýñòîíèè. Ñåé÷àñ â Íàðâå ïðîæèâàåò îêîëî ñåìèäåñÿòè òûñÿ÷ æèòåëåé. Íà÷èíàÿ ñ 1990 ã. êîëè÷åñòâî íàñåëåíèÿ óìåíüøèëîñü íà äåñÿòü òûñÿ÷ ÷åëîâåê.13 Ýêîíîìè÷åñêóþ îñíîâó Íàðâû ñîñòàâëÿþò òåê- ñòèëüíàÿ ïðîìûøëåííîñòü è ýíåðãåòèêà. Íàèáîëåå êðóïíûå ïðåäïðèÿòèÿ – “Êðåíãîëüì Õîëäèíã”, Íàðâñêàÿ ýëåêòðîñòàíöèÿ è “Áàëòè Åє. Èõ ïîëîæåíèå, ïî ìíåíèþ ýêñïåðòîâ, îòíîñèòåëüíî ñòàáèëüíîå. Íàðÿäó ñ êðóïíîé ïðîìûøëåííîñòüþ, â ãîðîäå àêòèâíî ðàçâèâàþòñÿ ìàëûé è ñðåäíèé áèçíåñ, îòíîñÿùèéñÿ ê ñôåðå òîð- ãîâëè, îáðàáîòêè ñûðüÿ è îáñëóæèâàíèÿ. Òåì íå ìåíåå, Íàðâà, íàðÿäó ñ ïðî÷èìè ãîðîäàìè, âõîäèò â ýêîíîìè÷åñêè íåáëàãîïî- ëó÷íûé ðåãèîí Ñåâåðî-Âîñòîêà Ýñòîíèè (Èäà-Âèðóìàà). Ýñòîíñ- êèå è ðîññèéñêèå ÑÌÈ ãëàâíîé ïðîáëåìîé Íàðâû ñ÷èòàþò òÿæå- ëóþ ñèòóàöèþ ñ ãðàæäàíñòâîì. Ñåé÷àñ ñðåäè æèòåëåé Íàðâû ãðàæäàíå Ýñòîíèè ñîñòàâëÿþò 35,9%, ðîññèéñêèå ãðàæäàíå – 29% è íå èìåþùèå ãðàæäàíñòâî (ò.í. “èíîñòðàíöû” èëè òå, êòî èìååò “ñåðûå ïàñïîðòà”) – 34,7%. Áîëüøîé ïðîöåíò ðîññèéñêèõ ãðàæäàí è “íåîïðåäåëèâøèõñÿ” îáúÿñíÿåòñÿ, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, “íàñëåäèåì” ñîâåòñêèõ âðåìåí, êîãäà â Íàðâå ïðîæèâàëî äî 70% ðóññêèõ, êîòî- ðûå ñåé÷àñ ïî ðàçíûì ïðè÷èíàì íå ìîãóò/íå õîòÿò ïîëó÷èòü ýñòîíñêîå ãðàæäàíñòâî; ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, áëèçîñòüþ ãðàíèöû. ×èñëåííîñòü íàñåëåíèÿ Èâàíãîðîäà íà ïðîòÿæåíèè ïîñëåäíèõ äåñÿòè ëåò îòíîñèòåëüíî ïîñòîÿííà è ñîñòàâëÿåò îêîëî äâåíàäöàòè òûñÿ÷ ÷åëîâåê.14 Ïðè÷èíà ïîäîáíîé ñòàáèëüíîñòè – â ïîëîæè- òåëüíîì ñàëüäî ìèãðàöèè.  ñðåäíåì, åæåãîäíî â ãîðîä ïðèáûâàåò

13 Èñòî÷íèê èíôîðìàöèè – îôèöèàëüíûé ñàéò ã.Íàðâû: www.narva.ee. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 15.05.2003 ã., à òàêæå ñáîðíèê: Íàðâà â öèôðàõ 2001. Íàðâà, 2001. 14 Èñòî÷íèê èíôîðìàöèè – îôèöèàëüíûé ñàéò ìóíèöèïàëüíîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ ã. Èâàíãîðîä: www.adm.ivangorod.ru. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 23.12.2003. 294 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íà 75 ÷åëîâåê áîëüøå, ÷åì âûáûâàåò.15 Äî êîíöà 1980-õ ãã. â Èâàí- ãîðîäå ôóíêöèîíèðîâàëî òðè êðóïíûõ ãðàäîîáðàçóþùèõ ïðåäïðè- ÿòèÿ â îòðàñëÿõ ìåòàëëîîáðàáîòêè, ìàøèíîñòðîåíèÿ è ëåãêîé ïðî- ìûøëåííîñòè, îäíàêî, ñåãîäíÿ îíè ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå äåéñòâóþò. Ñåé÷àñ â ýêîíîìèêå ãîðîäà ëèäèðóåò ñôåðà òîðãîâëè, ïðåäñòàâ- ëåííàÿ ìàëûìè ïðåäïðèÿòèÿìè è èíäèâèäóàëüíûìè ïðåäïðèíè- ìàòåëÿìè, â îñíîâíîì, ñêîíöåíòðèðîâàííûìè íà Èâàíãîðîäñêîì ðûíêå.  2002 ã. â Èâàíãîðîäå áûëî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàíî 173 áåçðà- áîòíûõ îäíàêî, ïî ñóáúåêòèâíûì îöåíêàì èíôîðìàíòîâ, â î÷åíü áîëüøèõ ìàñøòàáàõ ñóùåñòâóåò ñêðûòàÿ áåçðàáîòèöà. Óðîâåíü æèçíè â Èâàíãîðîäå îäèí èç ñàìûõ íèçêèõ ïî Ëåíèíãðàäñêîé îáëàñòè, òàê êàê ïî áþäæåòíîìó îáåñïå÷åíèþ è ïî äîõîäàì íà äóøó íàñåëåíèÿ ãîðîä çàíèìàåò 24 ìåñòî, à ïî óðîâíþ ñðåäíåìå- ñÿ÷íîé çàðàáîòíîé ïëàòû – 28 èç 29 ìóíèöèïàëüíûõ îáðàçîâàíèé Ëåíèíãðàäñêîé îáëàñòè. Õîòÿ â ñîâåòñêîå âðåìÿ ôîðìàëüíûå àäìèíèñòðàòèâíûå ãðàíèöû ÷àñòî íå âëèÿëè íà ïîâñåäíåâíóþ æèçíü, ñóùåñòâîâàëè ñèìâîëè- ÷åñêèå ãðàíèöû, îñíîâàííûå íà èåðàðõèè ïðåñòèæíîñòè ïðîæèâà- íèÿ â òîé èëè èíîé ðåñïóáëèêå èëè ðåãèîíå. Òàê, â Íàðâå áûëî æèòü ïðåñòèæíåå, ïîòîìó ÷òî Ýñòîíèÿ ñîâåòñêèì ÷åëîâåêîì âîñ- ïðèíèìàëàñü êàê “ñâîÿ çàãðàíèöà”. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ðåàëüíîñòü àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîé ãðàíèöû ïîñòîÿííî ïîäòâåðæäàëàñü ÷åðåç ìèô î ðàçëè÷èÿõ â ïîâñåäíåâíîé êóëüòóðå ìåæäó Ðîññèåé è Ýñòîíèåé. Õîòÿ òàêèå îòëè÷èÿ íà ñàìîì äåëå ïðàêòè÷åñêè îòñóòñòâîâàëè, îíè ôîð- ìèðîâàëè êóëüòóðíóþ ãðàíèöó, ñîâïàäàâøóþ ñ àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîé. Ñåãîäíÿ Íàðâà è Èâàíãîðîä âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ êàê “ôîðìàëüíî ðàçâåäåííàÿ, íî íåðàçëó÷íàÿ ïàðà” (èç èíòåðâüþ ñ æèòåëüíèöåé Íàðâû, 47 ëåò). Íåñëîæíûé ýêñïåðèìåíò ïîäòâåðæäàåò èõ “íåðàç- ëó÷íîñòü”: â èíòåðíåòîâñêîé ãàçåòíîé áàçå äàííûõ16 çà 2003 ãîä êîëè÷åñòâî ïóáëèêàöèé â ÑÌÈ ñî ñëîâîì Èâàíãîðîä ôàêòè÷åñêè ñîâïàäàåò ñ êîëè÷åñòâîì ïóáëèêàöèé ñî ñëîâîñî÷åòàíèåì Èâàí-

15 Ìíîãèå ýêñïåðòû, â èõ ÷èñëå çàìåñòèòåëü íà÷àëüíèêà îòäåëà ïî ñîöèàëüíîé ïîëèòèêå àäìèíèñòðàöèè Èâàíãîðîäà è äèðåêòîð óíèòàðíîãî ïðåäïðèÿòèÿ “Òðàíçèò-Ñåðâèñ”, ñâÿçûâàþò ýòîò ïîêàçàòåëü ñ áëèçîñòüþ ãðàíèöû, òàê êàê â Èâàíãîðîäå “ñêàïëèâàþòñÿ ëþäè, æåëàþùèå ïåðååõàòü â Ýñòîíèþ, íî êîòîðûå ïî êàêèì-ëèáî ïðè÷èíàì íå ìîãóò ýòî ñäåëàòü. Âîò îíè è âûæèäàþò ïîäõîäÿùóþ ñèòóàöèþ”. 16 Ñì. http://www.public.ru. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 12 ìàÿ 2004 ã. 295 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... ãîðîä è Íàðâà. Âïðî÷åì, íåîáõîäèìî îòìåòèòü, ÷òî Íàðâà âûñòóïàåò è êàê ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíàÿ åäèíèöà è íå îáÿçàòåëüíî óïîìèíàåòñÿ âìåñòå ñ Èâàíãîðîäîì, â òî âðåìÿ êàê Èâàíãîðîä ïî÷òè âñåãäà ñîïðîâîæ- äàåòñÿ óïîìèíàíèåì Íàðâû.  öåëîì, â äèñêóðñå ðîññèéñêèõ ÑÌÈ, ýòè ãîðîäà ñóùåñòâóþò êàê íå÷òî ñîâìåñòíîå, à íàèáîëåå óïîòðå- áèìûì îïðåäåëåíèåì ÿâëÿåòñÿ “ðàçäåëåííûé ãîðîä”. Ó÷åíûå â îò- íîøåíèè Íàðâû è Èâàíãîðîäà, êàê ïðàâèëî, èñïîëüçóþò êàòåãî- ðèè “äâîéíîãî” (double town) èëè “áèíàöèîíàëüíîãî” (binational town) ãîðîäà, òåì ñàìûì âíîñÿ ñâîé âêëàä â âîñïðîèçâîäñòâî ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î åäèíñòâå èëè, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, î òåñíîé ñâÿçè ýòèõ ãîðîäîâ.17  äàííîé ðàáîòå áóäåò ðàññìîòðåí ëèøü îäèí ôðàãìåíò âçà- èìîîòíîøåíèé ìåæäó äâóìÿ ãîðîäàìè, à èìåííî – “äèàëî㔠â ïðîöåññå íàïèñàíèÿ “íîâîé èñòîðèè”, òî åñòü ïîÿâëåíèå, òî åñòü ïîÿâëåíèå è ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå íîâûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ íàððàòè- âîâ, îòðàæàåìûõ â ïîïóëÿðíûõ (ÿ áû äàæå ñêàçàëà “ïîïñîâûõ”) àðòåôàêòàõ èñòîðèè.  ñèòóàöèè ïðèãðàíè÷üÿ îñîáåííî âàæíî ïîíÿòü äèàëîãè÷íîñòü òàêèõ íàððàòèâîâ, êîãäà ñîâìåñòíîå ïðî- øëîå è ïðîñòðàíñòâåííàÿ áëèçîñòü “äðóãîãî” âëèÿåò íà èëè äàæå ôîðìèðóåò âåðñèè ìåñòíîé è íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèè.

Àðòåôàêòû èñòîðèè: ñîçäàíèå “ïîïóëÿðíîãî” íàððàòèâà Íà ïàìÿòè ñîâðåìåííûõ ðîññèÿí èñòîðèÿ óæå íå ðàç ïåðåïèñû- âàëàñü. Ïðè ýòîì íå òîëüêî ïðîèñõîäèëà ïåðåèíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ñîáû- òèé, íî òàêæå ïðèâëåêàëèñü íîâûå, ðàíåå íåèçâåñòíûå ìàòåðèàëû. Ïîñòñîâåòñêîå ïîêîëåíèå ñîöèàëèçèðóåòñÿ óæå ïðè ïîìîùè íîâûõ ó÷åáíèêîâ. È õîòÿ äëÿ âçðîñëûõ øêîëüíûå ó÷åáíèêè è óðîêè èñòî- ðèè îñòàëèñü â äàëåêîì ïðîøëîì, òåì íå ìåíåå, âñå òàê èëè èíà÷å âîâëå÷åíû â ïðîöåññ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïåðåèíòåðïðåòàöèè. Íàèáîëåå ìàññîâûìè è äîñòóïíûìè âñåì àðòåôàêòàìè, ó÷àñòâóþùèìè â ðåï- ðåçåíòàöèè èñòîðèè, ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïàìÿòíèêè, ìóçåéíûå êîìïîçèöèè è ñóâåíèðû. Áåçóñëîâíî, ïî ñâîåìó çíà÷åíèþ îíè íå ðàâíîöåííû è îðèåíòèðîâàíû íà ðàçíûå àóäèòîðèè. Òåì íå ìåíåå, îíè – “ìà- òåðèàëüíûå ñâèäåòåëüñòâà èñòîðèè”, êóñî÷êè ïàççëà, ñêëàäûâà- þùèåñÿ â îáùóþ êàðòèíêó, èñòîðèçèðóþùóþ ïðîñòðàíñòâî.

17 Ñì. íàïðèìåð, N. Ehlers, J. Buursink. Binational Cities. People. Institutions and Structures. Border, Region and People. London, 2000. 296 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Äàëåå ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî áóäóò ïðîàíàëèçèðîâàíû ìóçåéíûå êîì- ïîçèöèè, ïàìÿòíèêè è ñóâåíèðû, ïðåäñòàâëåííûå â Íàðâå è Èâàí- ãîðîäå. Ïðè ýòîì çàäà÷à äàííîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ íå ñòîëüêî îòâå- òèòü íà âîïðîñ: “êàê äåëàåòñÿ èñòîðèÿ”, ñêîëüêî ïîíÿòü ïðè÷èíû è öåëè ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ åå ñòîëü ðàçíîîáðàçíûõ âåðñèé è îáðàçîâ.

Íàðâà

ÌÓÇÅÉÍÀß ÊÎÌÏÎÇÈÖÈß Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ìóçåéíûå êîìïîçèöèè ìîæíî ðàññìàòðèâàòü êàê íàèáîëåå êîíöåíòðèðîâàííóþ è êîíöåïòóàëüíî îôîðìëåííóþ ðåï- ðåçåíòàöèþ ðàçíûõ âåðñèé èñòîðèè. Ïîïûòàåìñÿ “ïðî÷èòàòü” “ïîñëàíèÿ ïîòîìêàì”, ïðåäñòàâëåííûå â ìóçåå Íàðâû. Íàðâñêèé ìóçåé ðàñïîëîæåí â ñòàðèííîé ñðåäíåâåêîâîé êðå- ïîñòè, â âûñîêîé óçêîé áàøíå, íà ðàçíûõ ýòàæàõ êîòîðîé íàõî- äÿòñÿ òåìàòè÷åñêèå çàëû. Ýòî ïîçâîëÿåò ñîçäàâàòü îòäåëüíûå, ñàìî- äîñòàòî÷íûå è ëîãè÷åñêè çàâåðøåííûå, íî çà÷àñòóþ íå ñâÿçàííûå ìåæäó ñîáîé èñòîðè÷åñêèå îáðàçû.  ìóçåå äîìèíèðóþò äâà èñòî- ðè÷åñêèõ íàððàòèâà, îòíîñÿùèõñÿ ê ðàçíûì ïåðèîäàì: “Íàðâà – øâåäñêèé ãîðîä” è “Íàðâà íà÷àëà ïðîøëîãî âåêà”. Äîâîëüíî áîëüøàÿ è, ïîæàëóé, ñàìàÿ âïå÷àòëÿþùàÿ ýêñïîçè- öèÿ íîñèò íàçâàíèå “Íàðâà – øâåäñêèé ãîðîä”. Îíà ñóùåñòâóåò ñ 2000 ã. è ïîäàðåíà ìóçåþ ïðàâèòåëüñòâîì Øâåöèè. Òàê íàçûâàå- ìûé Øâåäñêèé ïåðèîä äëèëñÿ îêîëî 120 ëåò, è ñåé÷àñ ýòî âðåìÿ íàçûâàþò “çîëîòûì âåêîì Íàðâû”, ñâÿçûâàÿ åãî ñ áûñòðûì ðàç- âèòèåì òîðãîâëè, ðåìåñëåííè÷åñòâà è íàóêè. Êëþ÷åâàÿ èäåÿ ýêñ- ïîçèöèè çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â äåìîíñòðàöèè ïðîöâåòàíèÿ ãîðîäà â ýòîò ïåðèîä. Ýêñïîçèöèÿ ñäåëàíà ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì ñîâðåìåííûõ ìóçåé- íûõ òåõíîëîãèé, ìóçûêè, ñâåòîâûõ ýôôåêòîâ, èíòåðàêòèâíûõ ìàêåòîâ è ïðèâëåêàåò ê ñåáå ìíîæåñòâî ïîñåòèòåëåé. Ñëåäóþùèé ïî çíà÷èìîñòè îáðàç ãîðîäà – “Íàðâà íà÷àëà ïðîø- ëîãî âåêà”. Ïåðåä ïîñåòèòåëÿìè ïðåäñòàåò ãîðîä ñ íàñûùåííîé êóëüòóðíîé æèçíüþ, â êîòîðîé àêòèâíî ïðèíèìàëà ó÷àñòèå ïåòåðáóðãñêàÿ õóäîæåñòâåííàÿ, ïîýòè÷åñêàÿ è àðòèñòè÷åñêàÿ èíòåëëèãåíöèÿ, ïðèåçæàâøàÿ íà îòäûõ â Óñòü-Íàðâó. Ôîòîãðà- ôèè çíàêîìûõ ïåðñîíàæåé Ñåðåáðÿíîãî âåêà ïîìåùåíû â êîí- òåêñò ñïîêîéíûõ ìîðñêèõ ïåéçàæåé Óñòü-Íàðâû è âèäîâ ñòàðîé Íàðâû. Ýêñïîçèöèÿ îôîðìëåíà â æåëòî-áåæåâûõ òîíàõ “ñòàðûõ ôîòîãðàôèé” è, ñîãëàñíî åå êîíöåïöèè, äîëæíà âûçûâàòü “ëåãêóþ

297 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... íîñòàëüãèþ” î ñïîêîéíîé, êðàñèâîé è ñòèëüíîé, êóëüòóðíî íàñû- ùåííîé æèçíè ðåãèîíà â íà÷àëå ïðîøëîãî âåêà. Áåçóñëîâíî, â ìóçåå åñòü è èíûå ýêñïîçèöèè, âîñïðîèçâîäÿùèå ðàçíûå èìèäæè ãîðîäà, â ÷àñòíîñòè – îáðàçû ñðåäíåâåêîâîé ðûöàð- ñêîé Íàðâû è Íàðâû êóïå÷åñêîé. Ïðè ýòîì ïðàêòè÷åñêè âî âñåõ êîìïîçèöèÿõ ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ îñîáàÿ ðîëü Íàðâû êàê “òðàíçèò- íîãî” ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêîãî è êóëüòóðíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Êðîìå òîãî, â ìóçåå äîâîëüíî ìíîãî âðåìåííûõ, ÷àñòî ñìåíÿåìûõ ýêñïîçèöèé, êîòîðûå çàïîëíÿþò âåðõíèå ýòàæè êðåïîñòè èëè ïóñòîå ïðîñòðàí- ñòâî êîðèäîðîâ, ñîåäèíÿþùèõ îñíîâíûå âûñòàâî÷íûå êîìïîçè- öèè. Íàïðèìåð, ìåæäó ïåðâûì è âòîðûì ýòàæîì ìóçåÿ ñåé÷àñ ðàñïî- ëîæåíà ýêñïîçèöèÿ “Íàðâà è òàòàðû”. Îäíàêî ýòè îáðàçû, ñêîðåå, ïåðèôåðèéíû, îíè íå ñòîëü àêöåíòèðîâàíû è çàìåòíû, êàê ïðåä- ñòàâëåííûå îñíîâíûìè ýêñïîçèöèÿìè “øâåäñêàÿ Íàðâà” è “Íàðâà ñåðåáðÿíîãî âåêà”. Íåîáõîäèìî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ýêñïîçèöèè, êàê ïðàâèëî, íå ñâÿçàíû ìåæäó ñîáîé, åäèíñòâåííàÿ ñâÿçóþùàÿ íèòü –ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü ýïîõ, õðîíîëîãè÷åñêîå òå÷åíèå âðåìåíè. Îáðàçû Íàðâû, ñêîðåå, àâòîíîìíû è ñàìîðåôåðåíòíû. Ìîæíî äàæå îòìåòèòü íåêîå íåñî- îòâåòñòâèå, ïðîòèâîðå÷èå îöåíîê â èíòåðïðåòàöèè îäíèõ è òåõ æå ñîáûòèé. Íàïðèìåð, â ðûöàðñêîì çàëå îäèí èç ïîñëåäíèõ ïèñü- ìåííûõ êîììåíòàðèåâ ýêñïîçèöèè ãëàñèò: “Çàòåì øâåäñêèå âîéñêà çàâîåâàëè è ðàçîðèëè Íàðâó”. È òóò æå ñëåäóþùèé çàë ïîâåñòâóåò î “çîëîòîì âåêå” øâåäñêîé Íàðâû.  ýòîé íåñèñòåìíîé ìîçàèêå ïî÷òè îòñóòñòâóåò îáðàç ñîâåòñêîãî ãîðîäà. Åãî íå “îòâåðãàþò”, ñ íèì íå “ñïîðÿò”, íàä íèì íå “èðîíè- çèðóþò”, íå âñïîìèíàþò “óæàñû òîòàëèòàðíîãî ðåæèìà”. “Ñîâåò- ñêîé Íàðâû” ïðîñòî íåò. Ýòîò ôåíîìåí îòìåòèëà Ä. Õàïàåâà ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê áîëåå øèðîêîìó ïîñòñîâåòñêîìó êîíòåêñòó. Îíà îáðàòèëà âíèìàíèå íà ñïàä ñòîëü ðåçêî âîçðîñøåãî â ãîäû Ïåðåñòðîéêè èíòåðåñà ê ñîâåòñêîé ýïîõå, êîòîðûé ñìåíèëñÿ çàìàë- ÷èâàíèåì, “èçúÿòèåì èç èñòîðèè ÷àñòè ïðîøëîãî”.18 Ïðèñóòñòâèå Èâàíãîðîäà â ýêñïîçèöèÿõ ìóçåÿ ïðàêòè÷åñêè íåçàìåòíî. Ëèøü ìàêåò äâóõ êðåïîñòåé îòðàæàåò áëèçîñòü “ñîñåäà”, èáî ýòî âàæíàÿ ñîñòàâëÿþùàÿ óíèêàëüíîñòè ìåñòà: “Íàðâñêàÿ è Èâàíãîðîäñêàÿ êðåïîñòè – ñàìûå áëèçêîðàñïîëîæåííûå äðóã ê

18 Ä. Õàïàåâà. Âðåìÿ êîñìîïîëèòèçìà. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2002. Ñ. 135.

298 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 äðóãó âðàæåñêèå êðåïîñòè â ìèðå” – ãëàñèò êîììåíòàðèé ê ìàêå- òàì.  ñîâåòñêèå âðåìåíà êðåïîñòè ïðåäñòàâëÿëè ñîáîé åäèíûé òóðèñòè÷åñêèé êîìïëåêñ, è òóðèñòû îáÿçàòåëüíî ïîñåùàëè îáà ôîðïîñòà.19 Ïðè ýòîì îáðàç äâóõ êðåïîñòåé ÿâëÿåòñÿ óñòîÿâøèìñÿ è ðàñòèðàæèðîâàííûì.  ÷àñòíîñòè, ñåãîäíÿ íèêîãî íå ñìóùàåò òîò ôàêò, ÷òî íà ïÿòèêðîíîâîé ýñòîíñêîé êóïþðå èçîáðàæåíû îáå êðåïîñòè, áëàãîäàðÿ ÷åìó äàæå ïðîèñõîäèò íåêîòîðîå ñèìâîëè- ÷åñêîå “ðàñøèðåíèå” ïðåäåëîâ ýñòîíñêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîñòðàí- ñòâà. Èâàíãîðîä óïîìèíàåòñÿ òîëüêî â ýêñïîçèöèè ïî ðàííåé èñòîðèè Íàðâû â ñâÿçè ñ “áîðüáîé Íàðâû è Èâàíãîðîäà çà ïåðâåí- ñòâî â Ïðèíàðîâüå”. Ïðè ýòîì àêöåíò äåëàåòñÿ íà òîì ôàêòå, ÷òî Íàðâà áûëà îñíîâàíà íà äâåñòè ëåò ðàíüøå Èâàíãîðîäà. Ñîñåäñòâî ñ “ðóññêèìè” ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå àðòèêóëèðóåòñÿ.  ìóçåé- íîé ýêñïîçèöèè ëèøü îäíàæäû óïîìèíàåòñÿ ýòà ýòíè÷åñêàÿ êàòå- ãîðèÿ. Îäèí èç êîììåíòàðèåâ âûñòàâêè “Íàðâà – øâåäñêèé ãîðîä” çâó÷èò òàê: “Ïîñëå çàõâàòà Íàðâû øâåäñêîé àðìèè áûëî äàíî íà ðàçãðàáëåíèå ãîðîäà 24 ÷àñà, â õîäå êîòîðûõ óáèâàëè êàê ðóñ- ñêèõ, òàê è ìèðíûõ ãîðîæàí”. Áåçóñëîâíî, ýòó ôðàçó ìîæíî èíòåð- ïðåòèðîâàòü è êàê îãîâîðêó, è êàê ñîçíàòåëüíîå ïðîòèâîïîñòàâ- ëåíèå “ðóññêèõ” “ìèðíûì ãîðîæàíàì”. Òàê èëè èíà÷å, ýòî åäèí- ñòâåííàÿ àïåëëÿöèÿ ê íàöèîíàëüíîñòè “ñîñåäà”, à òàêæå è èñêëþ- ÷èòåëüíàÿ åãî êàòåãîðèçàöèÿ. Ïðè ýòîì â ýêñïîçèöèè, ïîñâÿùåí- íîé Íàðâå Ñåðåáðÿíîãî âåêà, ïðèñóòñòâóþò íå “ðóññêèå” èëè “ðîñ- ñèéñêèå” ïîýòû è õóäîæíèêè, à çíà÷èìûå è óçíàâàåìûå ôèãóðû, íå èìåþùèå íàöèîíàëüíîé èëè ýòíè÷åñêîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè. Îäíàêî, íåñìîòðÿ íà ôàêòè÷åñêîå îòñóòñòâèå “ñîñåäà” â âûñòà- âî÷íûõ ýêñïîçèöèÿõ, â íèõ ïðèñóòñòâóåò ãðàíèöà. Çà ïîñëåäíèå ÷åòûðå ãîäà â Íàðâñêîì ìóçåå ïðîõîäèëî, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, äâå âûñòàâêè, íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ñ íåé ñâÿçàííûå. Îäíà áûëà ïîñâÿùåíà ãðàíèöå ñ Ñîâåòñêîé Ðîññèåé â 1920-1940-å ãã., äðóãàÿ – êîíòðà- áàíäå ñïèðòà. Ïðè ýòîì âûñòàâêè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò äîñòàòî÷íî âåñå- ëûé, íî îòíþäü íå äðàìàòè÷íûé îáðàç ïîãðàíè÷íîãî ðóáåæà. Îíè óñòðîåíû, ñêîðåå, êàê àòòðàêöèîíû, ïîçâîëÿþùèå âåñåëî ïðîéòè ìèìî ÷àñîâîãî ÷åðåç øëàãáàóì, ïîñòàâèòü ñìåøíóþ ïðîïóñêíóþ ïå÷àòü íà ëàäîíè èëè ïîðàäîâàòüñÿ èçîáðåòàòåëüíîñòè êîíòðà- áàíäèñòîâ.

19 Êñòàòè, äî ìîìåíòà îòäåëåíèÿ îáû÷íî ýêñêóðñèè çàêàí÷èâàëèñü íà “ìîñòó Äðóæáû”, îòêóäà îòêðûâàåòñÿ êðàñèâàÿ ïàíîðàìà íà îáå êðåïîñòè. 299 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem...

ÏÀÌßÒÍÈÊÈ Çíà÷èìûìè àðòåôàêòàìè, ó÷àñòâóþùèìè â ðåïðåçåíòàöèè ðàçëè÷- íûõ îáðàçîâ ãîðîäà, â êîòîðûå âïèñàíà è îïðåäåëåííûì îáðàçîì èíòåðïðåòèðóåòñÿ èñòîðèÿ, ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïàìÿòíèêè. Èõ çíà÷åíèå òåì áîëåå âåëèêî â ïîñòñîâåòñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå â ñâÿçè ñ òåì, ÷òî îíè, ñîãëàñíî Áåíåäèêòó Àíäåðñîíó, èãðàþò âàæíóþ ðîëü â ñòðîèòåëü- ñòâå íàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà.20  Íàðâå çà ïîñëåäíåå äåñÿòè- ëåòèå ïîÿâèëîñü äâà íîâûõ ïàìÿòíèêà. Ïåðâûé – ïàìÿòíèê Àëåê- ñàíäðó Ïóøêèíó, óñòàíîâëåííûé íà îäíîé èç öåíòðàëüíûõ óëèö ãîðîäà áëèç öåíòðàëüíîé ïëîùàäè. Ñîãëàñíî èñòîðèè ãîðîäà, ïàìÿòíèê Ïóøêèíó îäíàæäû óæå áûë óñòàíîâëåí íà ýòîì æå ìåñòå â 1899 ã. â ÷åñòü ñòîëåòíåãî þáèëåÿ ïîýòà, ïî èíèöèàòèâå è íà äåíüãè ãîðîæàí. Çàòåì îí áûë ðàçðóøåí è, ñïóñòÿ ñòîëåòèå, “âîññòàíîâëåí”. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïîÿâëåíèå ïàìÿòíèêà íà ñòàðîì ìåñòå îáðåòàåò çíà÷åíèå “âîçâðàùåíèÿ ê áûëîìó”. Ïðè ýòîì Ïóøêèí âîñïðèíè- ìàåòñÿ íå êàê “âåëèêèé ðóññêèé ïîýò”, íî, ïîäîáíî ïåðñîíàæàì Ñåðåáðÿíîãî âåêà èç Íàðâñêîãî ìóçåÿ, êàê ñèìâîë óíèâåðñàëüíîé êóëüòóðû, êàê “îáùå÷åëîâå÷åñêîå äîñòîÿíèå”. Òåì íå ìåíåå, â ñèòó- àöèè íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà â Ýñòîíñêîé ðåñïóáëèêå Ïóø- êèí íåèçáåæíî àêòóàëèçèðóåò ïðîáëåìó ñîõðàíåíèÿ “ðóññêîé êóëü- òóðû”, î ÷åì àêòèâíî èäåò äèñêóññèÿ è â Ýñòîíèè âîîáùå, è â ðóñ- ñêîÿçû÷íîé Íàðâå, â ÷àñòíîñòè. Âòîðîé ïàìÿòíèê áûë óñòàíîâëåí â 2000 ã. ïî èíèöèàòèâå è çà ñ÷åò ïðàâèòåëüñòâà Øâåöèè è ïîñâÿùåí øâåäñêîìó ïåðèîäó Íàðâû, ýòî òàê íàçûâàåìûé “øâåäñêèé ëåâ”. Îí ðàñïîëîæåí íåñêîëüêî â îòäàëåíèè îò îñíîâíûõ ãîðîäñêèõ óëèö, â ïàðêå, è ïîýòîìó íå òàê î÷åâèäåí, êàê ïàìÿòíèê Ïóøêèíó. Ëèøü ÷åòâåðòûé èç âñòðå÷åííûõ ìíîþ ïðîõîæèõ ñìîã óêàçàòü åãî ìåñòîïîëîæåíèå. Ïðè ýòîì áëèç ïàìÿòíèêà íåò íèêàêîé ïîÿñíèòåëüíîé íàäïèñè, è åãî “ïîñëàíèå” ìîæåò áûòü íå ïðî÷èòàíî “íåïîñâÿùåííûìè”. Èíòåðåñíà èñòîðèÿ ïàìÿòíèêà Ëåíèíó, êîòîðûé ðàíåå ñòîÿë íà öåíòðàëüíîé ïëîùàäè ãîðîäà. Íåñêîëüêî ëåò íàçàä åãî âûêó- ïèë õîçÿèí ðåñòîðàíà, ðàñïîëîæåííîãî â êðåïîñòè, è ïîñòàâèë ïîáëèçîñòè îò ðåñòîðàíà, âíóòðè êðåïîñòíîãî äâîðà. Ìåñòîïîëî- æåíèå ðÿäîì ñ ãîðîäñêèì ìóçååì, áåçóñëîâíî, ïðåâðàùàåò ñêóëüï- òóðó ⠓ýêñïîíàò”. Ñîãëàñíî ëåãåíäå, ïðèäóìàííîé è àêòèâíî

20 Á. Àíäåðñîí. Âîîáðàæàåìûå ñîîáùåñòâà. Ìîñêâà, 2001. 300 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïðîïàãàíäèðóåìîé õîçÿèíîì ïàìÿòíèêà, òîò, íà êîãî Ëåíèí óêàçûâàåò ðóêîé, îáÿçàòåëüíî îáàíêðîòèòñÿ, êàê ýòî óæå ñëó÷à- ëîñü ñ Êðåíãîëüìñêîé ìàíóôàêòóðîé èëè åãî ðåñòîðàíîì. Òåïåðü ïàìÿòíèê ðàçâåðíóò â ñòîðîíó Èâàíãîðîäà è “òàì âñå ñîâñåì ïëîõî”.

ÑÓÂÅÍÈÐÛ Ñóâåíèðû, ðåïðåçåíòèðóþùèå è òèðàæèðóþùèå îáðàçû ãîðî- äà, òàêæå ó÷àñòâóþò ⠓íàïèñàíèè” ðàçíûõ âåðñèé èñòîðèè. Áåçóñ- ëîâíî, îíè áîëåå îáðàùåíû âîâíå, íà òóðèñòîâ, ïîñåùàþùèõ ãîðîä. Ïðèâåçåííûå èç òóðïîåçäêè äîìîé, ñóâåíèðû ñòàíîâÿòñÿ êîíöåíòðèðîâàííûì âîïëîùåíèåì îïûòà, ïîëó÷åííîãî òóðèñòîì. Íåîáõîäèìî îòìåòèòü ðàçíîîáðàçèå íàðâñêèõ ñóâåíèðîâ, êîòî- ðûå àïåëëèðóþò ê ðàçíûì òåìàì, êîíñòèòóèðóþùèì ïðîñòðàíñòâî.  ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ëîòêàõ âîêðóã öåíòðàëüíîé ïëîùàäè è â ìàãà- çèí÷èêàõ â êðåïîñòè ìîæíî óâèäåòü ïàñõàëüíûå ÿéöà ñ èçîáðàæå- íèåì Íèêîëàÿ II, èêîíû, ñîâåòñêèõ îëîâÿííûõ ñîëäàòèêîâ è áþñ- òèêè Ëåíèíà, ìàòðåøåê è áàëàëàéêè, âàðåæêè è êîôòû ñ ýñòîíñêè- ìè óçîðàìè, áóäèëüíèêè ñ âèäàìè Íàðâû è òàê äàëåå. Ýòî ðàçíî- îáðàçèå è ïîä÷àñ êàæóùàÿñÿ íåñîâìåñòèìîñòü îòðàæàþò è ðåïðå- çåíòèðóþò ñîâðåìåííóþ Íàðâó. ×åðåç ïðåäëàãàåìûå ñóâåíèðû ìîæíî ïðî÷èòàòü èñòîðèþ ãîðîäà, êîòîðóþ “ðàñïðîäàþò” òóðèñòàì. Íà ëîòêè âûñòàâëÿþòñÿ ðàçíîîáðàçíûå îáðàçû ãîðîäà – “äîðå- âîëþöèîííàÿ Íàðâà”, “ñîâåòñêèé ãîðîä”, à òàêæå “ýñòîíñêàÿ” è “ðóññêàÿ” Íàðâà. Äîðåâîëþöèîííàÿ èñòîðèÿ ïðåäñòàâëåíà, â îñíîâíîì, ñòàðûìè àíòèêâàðíûìè âåùàìè, ïðîèñõîæäåíèå êîòî- ðûõ íåèçâåñòíî. Íî òîò ôàêò, ÷òî îíè ïðîäàþòñÿ èìåííî çäåñü, ïîçâîëÿåò ïðîåöèðîâàòü, ïðîâîäèòü ïàðàëëåëè è ñâÿçûâàòü, ñêàæåì, ñòàðèííîå êðåñëî ñ Íàðâîé íà÷àëà äâàäöàòîãî âåêà.  çíà÷èòåëüíîì êîëè÷åñòâå ïðåäñòàâëåíû ñîâåòñêèå ñóâåíèðû. Îíè ñòàëè óíèâåðñàëüíûìè ìàðêåðàìè âñåãî ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Èõ ïîïóëÿðíîñòü ñðåäè èíîñòðàííûõ òóðèñòîâ áîëåå èëè ìåíåå ïîíÿòíà è ñâÿçàíà ñ ýêçîòè÷íîñòüþ. Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî îíè ïîëüçóþòñÿ ñïðîñîì è ñðåäè ñàìèõ æèòåëåé ïîñòñîâåòñêîé Íàðâû. Êàê ñêàçàëà ìîëîäàÿ æåíùèíà, ïîêóïàþùàÿ ãîðí â ïîäàðîê êîìó-òî íà äåíü ðîæäåíèÿ: “Ýòî æå ñìåøíî!”. Ïîäîáíàÿ èðîíèÿ ñâÿçàíà ñ îáðåòåíèåì âëàñòè íàä âðåìåíåì, ïðèðó÷åíèåì ñâîåãî ïðîøëîãî è äèñòàíöèðîâàíèåì îò íåãî. Ýòî ïîêàçàòåëü òîãî, ÷òî äàííûé èñòîðè÷åñêèé ïåðèîä çàêîí÷åí, îñìûñëåí, à åãî ñèìâîëû óæå ñóâåíèðèçèðóþòñÿ è ðàñïðîäàþòñÿ. Íàðâà, êàê è âñå ïîñòñîâåòñêîå 301 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... ïðîñòðàíñòâî, âêëþ÷åíà â ýòîò ïðîöåññ. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ïîäîá- íîå îòíîøåíèå ê “ñîâåòñêîìó” äèñòàíöèðóåò îò íåãî, ñ äðóãîé, ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáúåäèíèòåëüíûì ìàðêåðîì “ïîñòñîâåòñêîñòè”. Íàëè÷èå ñîâåòñêèõ ñóâåíèðîâ â Íàðâå âïîëíå ïîíÿòíî – ýòî ñëèøêîì íåäàâíåå ïðîøëîå, êîòîðîå åùå æèâî â ïàìÿòè. Òåì íå ìåíåå, òàì ïðîäàþòñÿ è “èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ðóññêèå” ñóâåíèðû: èêîíû, ìàòðåøêè, áàëàëàéêè, óøàíêè è ïðî÷åå. Êîíå÷íî, ïðîäàæà òàêèõ ñóâåíèðîâ ñâÿçàíà ñ èõ âîñòðåáîâàííîñòüþ òóðèñòàìè. Î÷åâèäíî, èõ ìîæíî âñòðåòèòü ãäå óãîäíî,21 îäíàêî ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ èêîíà, ïðè- âåçåííàÿ èç ïóòåøåñòâèÿ â Íàðâó, ñêàæåì, ñêàíäèíàâñêèì òóðèñ- òîì, áóäåò ñîçäàâàòü ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î òîì, ÷òî Íàðâà – ïðîñòðàí- ñòâî ïðàâîñëàâèÿ, òî åñòü “ðóññêèé ãîðîä”. Èìåííî ïîýòîìó ñóùåñò- âîâàíèå òàêèõ ñóâåíèðîâ â íàðâñêèõ òóðèñòè÷åñêèõ ìàãàçèí÷èêàõ ôèêñèðóåò ïðîñòðàíñòâî ãîðîäà êàê “ïðîñòðàíñòâî ïðàâîñëàâèÿ”, “ïðîñòðàíñòâî ðóññêèõ”. “Ýñòîíñêèå” ñóâåíèðû ïðåäñòàâëåíû, ïðåæäå âñåãî, âåùàìè ñ ãî- ñóäàðñòâåííîé ñèìâîëèêîé: çàæèãàëêè, ðó÷êè, âèçèòíèöû è äðóãèå ñàìûå ðàçíûå âåùè ìàðêèðîâàíû ýìáëåìàìè ýñòîíñêîãî ôëàãà, ãåðáà è äðóãèõ ñèìâîëîâ Ýñòîíñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè. Ïîìèìî ãîñóäàð- ñòâåííîé ñèìâîëèêè, “ýñòîíñêîñòü” ïðî÷èòûâàåòñÿ â âåùàõ hand-made.  ÷àñòíîñòè, êîôòû, øàïî÷êè è ðóêàâèöû óêðàøåíû “íàöèîíàëüíûìè” óçîðàìè. Ïîäîáíûå ñóâåíèðû ïðîäàþòñÿ ïî âñåé Ýñòîíèè. Èõ ñóùå- ñòâîâàíèå â Íàðâå íèêàê íå ñâÿçàíî ëîêàëüíûìè îñîáåííîñòÿìè, íî ñòðåìèòñÿ îáîçíà÷èòü “íàöèîíàëüíóþ ïðèíàäëåæíîñòü” ãîðîäà.

Èâàíãîðîä

ÌÓÇÅÉÍÀß ÊÎÌÏÎÇÈÖÈß Ãîðîäñêîé ìóçåé Èâàíãîðîäà ìåíÿëñÿ â ñâÿçè ñ ïîÿâëåíèåì ãðà- íèöû è ïåðåñòðóêòóðèðîâàíèåì ïðîñòðàíñòâà áëèç ïîãðàíè÷íîé è òàìîæåííîé çîí. Ãîðîäñêîé ìóçåé Èâàíãîðîäà íåñêîëüêî ðàç ïåðå- åçæàë. Ñåé÷àñ îí çàíèìàåò ïîëîâèíó íåáîëüøîãî çäàíèÿ íåäàëåêî îò êîíòðîëüíî-ïðîïóñêíîãî ïóíêòà ãðàíèöû è àâòîâîêçàëà. Î÷åâèäíî, ñîòðóäíèêè ìóçåÿ ïûòàëèñü âïèñàòü â èçìåíåííîå ìóçåéíîå ïðîñòðàí- ñòâî óæå îôîðìëåííûå ðàíåå ýêñïîçèöèè, è â ýòîé ñâÿçè ñêëàäûâà- åòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî â èâàíãîðîäñêîì ìóçåå íåò åäèíîé êîíöåïöèè ðåï- ðåçåíòàöèè îáðàçîâ ãîðîäà è åãî èñòîðèè, ëèáî æå îòäåëüíûõ, íî ëîãè÷åñêè çàêîí÷åííûõ, ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íûõ è àâòîíîìíûõ îáðàçîâ.

21 ß âñòðå÷àëà ìàòðåøåê íà ñóâåíèðíûõ ëîòêàõ äàæå â Èíäèè. 302 Ab Imperio, 4/2004  èâàíãîðîäñêîì ìóçåå íåò åäèíîé êîíöåïöèè ðåïðåçåíòàöèè îáðàçîâ ãîðîäà è åãî èñòîðèè, íè â öåëîì, íè â âèäå îòäåëüíûõ, ëîãè÷åñêè çàêîí÷åííûõ, ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íûõ è àâòîíîìíûõ îáðàçîâ. Ýêñïîçèöèÿ âûãëÿäèò ýêëåêòè÷íîé – â îäíîì çàëå, â îäíîì ýêñïîçè- öèîííîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå ñîñóùåñòâóþò ñàìûå ðàçíûå ýïîõè è èñòî- ðè÷åñêèå ñîáûòèÿ. Íàïðèìåð, ñòåíäû îá èñòîðèè èâàíãîðîäñêîé ëüíî-äæóòîâîé ôàáðèêè ñîñåäñòâóþò ñ âèòðèíàìè ìèíåðàëîâ è ýêñïî- çèöèåé, ïîñâÿùåííîé áûòó ðóññêèõ êðåñòüÿí. Ïðè ýòîì ïðîñòðàíñòâî íèêàê íå çîíèðîâàíî, â íåì íå ïðèñóòñòâóþò òå íåçàìåòíûå “ãðà- íèöû”, êîòîðûå ôîðìèðîâàëè áû ëîãè÷åñêèå è ñìûñëîâûå íèøè, ïîçâîëÿëè áû ñòðóêòóðèðîâàòü è êîíöåïòóàëèçèðîâàòü îòäåëüíûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñîáûòèÿ è ôàêòû. Ïîæàëóé, íàèáîëåå àêöåíòèðîâàí- íûì è ïðîäóìàííûì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ çàë, ïîñâÿùåííûé äîáëåñòè àðìèè Ïåòðà Ïåðâîãî è êîðàáëåñòðîåíèþ â ïåòðîâñêóþ ýïîõó. Ñîâåòñêàÿ èñòîðèÿ ïî÷òè íå çàìåòíà, íå âûäåëåíà â îòäåëüíûé êîì- ïîçèöèîííûé çàë. Îäíàêî, â îòëè÷èå îò Íàðâû, îíà õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè âïëåòåíà â äðóãèå òåìû è ýêñïîçèöèè, íàïðèìåð, ïîñâÿùåííûå èñòî- ðèè ëüíî-äæóòîâîé ôàáðèêè. Íåîáõîäèìî îòìåòèòü, ÷òî â ìóçåå òàêæå èìååòñÿ õîòü è íåáîëüøîé, çàäâèíóòûé â óãîë, íî òåì íå ìåíåå òåìàòè÷åñêè âûäåëåííûé ðàçäåë ïî Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíå. Ìóçåéíàÿ êîìïîçèöèÿ ïðîèçâîäèò âïå÷àòëåíèå óíèôèöèðîâàí- íîñòè èñòîðèè ïî âñåìó ïðîñòðàíñòâó Ðîññèè. Íàïðèìåð, â ýêñïî- çèöèè, ïîñâÿùåííîé áûòó êðåñòüÿí íà÷àëà XVIII â., â êà÷åñòâå ïðèìåðà âîñïðîèçâåäåí ìàêåò äîìà ðóññêîãî êðåñòüÿíèíà Òâåðñ- êîé ãóáåðíèåé. Ôàêò “îòäàëåííîñòè” Èâàíãîðîäà èëè åãî ñâÿçè ñ Òâåðñêîé ãóáåðíèåé íèêàê íå îáîñíîâûâàåòñÿ. Çäåñü íå îáñóæ- äàåòñÿ ñõîäñòâî èëè ðàçëè÷èå èâàíãîðîäñêèõ èëè òâåðñêèõ êðå- ñòüÿíñêèõ äîìîâ. Ïðèñóòñòâèå îäíîé ëèøü âåðñèè, îäíîãî ìàêåòà ñîçäàåò ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îá îäèíàêîâîñòè, îäíîîáðàçèè è óíèôèöè- ðîâàííîñòè “ðóññêîé êóëüòóðû”. Âîïðåêè êàæóùåéñÿ íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä ýêëåêòè÷íîñòè âñåé êîìïî- çèöèè, â Èâàíãîðîäñêîì ìóçåå âñå-òàêè ïðî÷èòûâàåòñÿ îáúåäèíÿþ- ùàÿ èäåÿ, êîòîðàÿ ñâÿçûâàåò âîåäèíî âåñü ìàðøðóò ïî ìóçåéíûì çàëàì. Ñîãëàñíî ýêñïîçèöèè, íà ïðîòÿæåíèè âñåé èñòîðèè ñóùåñòâî- âàíèÿ Èâàíãîðîäà îí âûïîëíÿë åäèíñòâåííóþ, íî èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî âàæíóþ ìèññèþ – îõðàíó çàïàäíûõ ðóáåæåé Ðîññèéñêîé äåðæàâû. Èâàíãîðîä – ýòî, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ôîðïîñò è îáîðîíèòåëüíàÿ êðåïîñòü. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, â îòëè÷èå îò Íàðâû, êîíöåïöèÿ èâàíãîðîäñêîãî ìóçåÿ ïðèíöèïèàëüíî èíàÿ. Îíà îñíîâàíà íå íà ðåêîíñòðóêöèè 303 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... è êîíöåïòóàëüíîì îôîðìëåíèè òîãî èëè èíîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïåðèîäà, íî íà ïîèñêå “àäåêâàòíîãî ãåðîÿ”, âîêðóã êîòîðîãî ñîçäàåòñÿ îïðåäåëåííûé èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ. Ïðè ýòîì “ãåðîé” äîëæåí íå òîëüêî è íå ñòîëüêî áûòü âîâëå÷åííûì â èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñîáûòèÿ Èâàíãîðîäà, íî ïðåæäå âñåãî, áûòü ïðè÷àñòíûì ê “áîëüøîé èñòîðèè” âñåé Ðîññèè, òî åñòü áûòü íå ëîêàëüíîãî, ìåñòå÷êîâîãî, íî “ãëîáàëüíîãî” îáùåðîññèéñêîãî ìàñøòàáà. Äèðåêòîð ìóçåÿ, ðàññêàçûâàÿ î ïëàíàõ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ íîâûõ ýêñïîçèöèé, äåëàë àêöåíò íà òîì, êàêèå çíàìåíèòûå ëþäè ðîäèëèñü, áûâàëè, ïðîåç- æàëè ìèìî è îòìå÷àëè êðàñîòû Èâàíãîðîäà è ò.ä. Íàïðèìåð, âàæíî, ÷òî äÿäÿ Ãåîðãà Îòñà æèë â Èâàíãîðîäå è ïåë â ãîðîäñêîì õîðå, à ïëåìÿííèê íåîäíîêðàòíî íàâåùàë åãî; çàñëóæèâàåò óïîìèíàíèÿ è òîò ôàêò, ÷òî áàðîí À. Ë. Øòèãëèö (îñíîâàòåëü Ðóññêîãî áàíêà è Ìóõèíñêîãî ó÷èëèùà), ÷üÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü ïðîòåêàëà â Ïåòåðáóðãå, ïîõîðîíåí â ñåìåéíîì ñêëåïå â Èâàíãîðîäå. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, îñî- áåííîñòè ëîêàëüíîãî, óíèêàëüíîñòü ìåñòà âûñòðàèâàåòñÿ íà èäåå “ïðè÷àñòíîñòè ê âåëèêîìó”, ê íåêîé “áîëüøîé èñòîðèè”.

ÏÀÌßÒÍÈÊÈ Çà ïîñëåäíåå äåñÿòèëåòèå â Èâàíãîðîäå, êàê è â Íàðâå, áûëî óñòàíîâëåíî äâà ïàìÿòíèêà, ïðè÷åì îíè îáðàùàþòñÿ èñêëþ÷è- òåëüíî ê ïåòðîâñêîìó ïåðèîäó ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèè. Âîò êàê êîììåíòèðóåò èõ çíà÷èìîñòü äèðåêòîð èâàíãîðîäñêîãî ìóçåÿ: Ó íàñ â Èâàíãîðîäå â ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ, áóêâàëüíî â 2000 ãîäó, îòêðûò ïàìÿòíèê ïîãèáøèì ñîëäàòàì Ïåòðà I. Âîò îí ðàíüøå áûë ïîñòàâëåí, íî ìû åãî îòêðûëè èìåííî 19 íîÿáðÿ 2000 ãîäà. Îáîçíà÷èëè íà ìðàìîðíîé òàêîé äîñêå, ÷òî çäåñü ïîêîÿòñÿ ñîë- äàòû Ïåòðà I, ïîãèáøèå â õîäå íåóäà÷íîãî øòóðìà êðåïîñòè Èâàíãîðîäà â àâãóñòå 1704 ãîäà. À åùå äî ýòîãî ìû îòêðûëè òàêîé ïàìÿòíûé êðåñò [íà ìåñòå], ãäå áûëà ñòàâêà Ïåòðà I. [â Èâàíãîðîäå] ïàìÿòíèêîâ äîëæíî áûòü çíà÷èòåëüíî áîëüøå ß ëè÷íî ïîäíèìàë âîïðîñ î ïàìÿòíèêå Ïåòðó I. Ïîäõîäèë ëè÷íî ê ãóáåðíàòîðó Ëåíîáëàñòè, êîãäà îí çäåñü áûë, ãîâîðþ: “Âàëåðèé Ïàâëîâè÷, õîòåëîñü áû âîò ïàìÿòíèê â ÷åñòü âçÿòèÿ Íàðâû”. Îí ïîäóìàë è îòâåòèë: “Íó, Íàðâà-òî òåïåðü íå íàøà”. Âñå, çíà÷èò, êàêîé ïàìÿòíèê? Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, íàäî âñå-òàêè ïàìÿòíèê. Íó ÷òî, îí [Ïåòð Ïåðâûé] â Ïåòðîçà- âîäñêå ïîáûë îäèí äåíü – ïàìÿòíèê. Òàì áóêâàëüíî îäèí äåíü, à òóò ó íåãî äâå áèòâû áûëî, îí çäåñü ÷àñòî áûâàë! 304 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ïåòð Âåëèêèé – èñêëþ÷èòåëüíûé ãåðîé, çà íåãî äàæå ìîæåò âåñòèñü êîíêóðåíöèÿ ñ Ïåòðîçàâîäñêîì èëè äðóãèì ãîðîäîì. Âàæíî òî, ÷òî ýòîò ãåðîé íåñîìíåííûé, ïðèçíàííûé âñåìè ñèìâîë ðîññèé- ñêîé èñòîðèè. Èìåííî ïîýòîìó â Èâàíãîðîäå îí âîñòðåáîâàí êàê âûèãðûøíûé ðåñóðñ.  êà÷åñòâå äðóãèõ âîçìîæíûõ êàíäèäàòîâ ⠓ïàìÿòíèêè” íàçûâàëèñü è õóäîæíèê È. ß. Áèëèáèí – óðîæåíåö Èâàíãîðîäà, è áàðîí Øòèãëèö, ïîõîðîíåííûé â Èâàíãîðîäå.  çàêëþ÷åíèå ïðèâåäó åùå îäíà öèòàòó èç èíòåðâüþ ñ äèðåêòî- ðîì èâàíãîðîäñêîãî ìóçåÿ, èëëþñòðèðóþùóþ ìåõàíèçì ðîæäåíèÿ ëåãåíä è, ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ïàìÿòíèêîâ: È èç ïîñëåäíèõ ïðèîáðåòåíèé èñòîðè÷åñêèõ – öàðñêèé äóá â ïàðêå áàðîíà Øòèãëèöà. Ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî îí âûñàæåí Ïåòðîì I. Ïî÷åìó? Ïîòîìó ÷òî â òîì ìåñòå êàê ðàç áûëà ïåðåïðàâà â 1700 ãîäó, [ïåðåïðàâëÿëèñü] ýòè 1000 ïîãèáøèõ âñàäíèêîâ. Ñêîðåå âñåãî, ïîýòîìó. Ïîòîìó ÷òî Ïåòð I çäåñü áûâàë è ïîñàäèë åãî. Îí è âûãëÿäèò ñîëèäíî, íà 300 ëåò. Òîëñòûé, îãðîìíûé äóá òàêîé. Òàì ñåé÷àñ êóðÿòíèêè, êîðîâíèêè è òàê äàëåå. Âîò òàêîé ÿâíî öàðñêèé äóá [ñìååòñÿ] Ïåòðà I. À òàì íàõîäèòñÿ åùå äóá íà Ïàðóñèíêå â Èâàíãîîäå, äóá îãîðîæåííûé, ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî åãî âûñàäèë Àëåêñàíäð III â 1890 ãîäó. Íî òîò òàêîé áîëåå õèëûé äóá, à ýòîò ÿâíî öàðñêèé.22

ÑÓÂÅÍÈÐÛ Èâàíãîðîä è åãî èñòîðèÿ ôàêòè÷åñêè íå ïðåäñòàâëåíû ïîñðåä- ñòâîì ñóâåíèðîâ. È ýòî âîïðåêè òîìó, ÷òî Èâàíãîðîäñêàÿ êðåïîñòü è ìóçåé, õîòÿ è íå ñòîëü ÷àñòî êàê Íàðâà, íî âñå æå ïîñåùàþòñÿ òóðèñòàìè. Íà ñêðîìíîé ñóâåíèðíîé âèòðèíå â ìóçåå ïðåäëàãàþòñÿ ëèøü “èñêîííûå” ïàñõàëüíûå ÿéöà è ìàòðåøêè, êîòîðûå íåñóò, ñêîðåå, óíèâåðñàëüíóþ íàöèîíàëüíóþ ñìûñëîâóþ íàãðóçêó, íî ëèøåíû âñÿêîãî âûðàæåíèÿ ëîêàëüíîñòè. Ïðè ýòîì ñîâåòñêèõ ñóâåíèðîâ íå ïðîäàåòñÿ âîâñå.

Ðàçíûå èñòîðèè äëÿ ðàçíûõ ïðîåêòîâ? Êàê èçâåñòíî, èñòîðèÿ, áóäó÷è àêàäåìè÷åñêèì (è áîëåå øèðîêî – ñîöèàëüíûì) êîíñòðóêòîì, ñîçäàåòñÿ â ñèòóàöèè “çäåñü è ñåé÷àñ”,

22  âûñêàçûâàíèè ïðî÷èòûâàåòñÿ åùå îäíà íåìàëîâàæíàÿ òåìà – “èåðàðõèÿ” ðîññèéñêèõ öàðåé. 305 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... ò.å. ýòî – âñåãäà ïðîåêò, ïðè÷åì ïðîåêò âðåìåíè íàñòîÿùåãî. Ìû ïèøåì èñòîðèþ, ñîîòâåòñòâóþùóþ íàì ñåãîäíÿøíèì, ñ íàøèìè íûíåøíèìè ñòðàòåãè÷åñêèìè öåëÿìè è äîëãîñðî÷íûìè îæèäà- íèÿìè. Èìåííî ïîýòîìó èñòîðèÿ â áîëüøåé ñòåïåíè ãîâîðèò íàì î íàñòîÿùåì, íåæåëè î ïðîøëîì. Î êàêîì íàñòîÿùåì ïîâåñòâóþò èñòîðè÷åñêèå îáðàçû Íàðâû è Èâàíãîðîäà? Îáíàðóæèâàåì ëè ìû íåêèé îáùèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ïîãðàíè÷üÿ, íåñâîäèìûé ê ïðîñòîé ñóììå äâóõ íàöèîíàëüíûõ íàððàòèâîâ?

ÈÑÒÎÐÈß, ÍÀÏÈÑÀÍÍÀß Â ÍÀÐÂÅ Èñòîðè÷åñêèå íàððàòèâû Íàðâû, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé íåêóþ ïåñòðóþ, ðàçíîîáðàçíóþ ìîçàèêó ôàêòîâ, ðåôåðåí- öèé, çíà÷èìûõ ôèãóð. Áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîé ïåñòðîòå è ðàçíîîáðàçèþ, òå÷åíèå èñòîðè÷åñêîãî âðåìåíè â Íàðâå íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ëèíåé- íûì èëè ýâîëþöèîííûì. Åå îáðàçû è èìèäæè ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå ñâÿ- çàíû ìåæäó ñîáîé, íî àâòîíîìíû è ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íû. Áîëåå òîãî, îíè ñàìîðåôåðåíòíû è ñàìîöåííû, èáî ó íèõ íåò îáùåãî çíàìåíà- òåëÿ, â òîì ÷èñëå ìîðàëüíîãî. “Ïðàâèëüíîé” è “õîðîøåé” îêàçû- âàåòñÿ è “êóëüòóðíàÿ Íàðâà íà÷àëà äâàäöàòîãî âåêà”, è “êóïå÷åñêàÿ Íàðâà”, è “ðûöàðñêàÿ Íàðâà”. Ýòè ðàçëè÷íûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå èìèäæè íå êîíêóðèðóþò ìåæäó ñîáîé, íå âûñòðàèâàþòñÿ â èåðàðõèè ïî çíà÷èìîñòè ñîáûòèé, îíè ðàâíîïðàâíî ñîñóùåñòâóþò è ñîïðèñóò- ñòâóþò. Íåäàâíî âîññòàíîâëåííîå â Íàðâå íåìåöêîå êëàäáèùå ñ çàõîðîíåíèÿìè âðåìåí Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû ïðèçâàíî, ñêîðåå, “âîññòàíîâèòü ñïðàâåäëèâîñòü”, íî íå ïîìåíÿòü êàðäè- íàëüíî îöåíêè ïðîøëîãî. Âàæíûì ïîäòâåðæäåíèåì ýòîãî ÿâëÿåò- ñÿ òîò ôàêò, ÷òî êëàäáèùå ñîâåòñêèõ âîèíîâ íå ðàçðóøåíî è íå çàáûòî. Ïîýòîìó ðåñòàâðàöèÿ íåìåöêîãî êëàäáèùà èëëþñòðèðóåò, ñêîðåå, èçìåíåíèå àêöåíòîâ è ïåðåïèñûâàíèå èñòîðèè “Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû” êàê èñòîðèè “Âòîðîé Ìèðîâîé”. Îñòàëü- íîé ñîâåòñêèé ïåðèîä, âûòåñíåííûé èç ìóçåéíûõ ýêñïîçèöèé, àê- òóàëèçèðóåòñÿ ÷åðåç ñóâåíèðû. Îêàçûâàåòñÿ, ÷òî âñÿ ìîçàèêà îáðà- çîâ è èìèäæåé ïðîøëîãî Íàðâû ìîæåò áûòü âîñòðåáîâàíà ðàç- ëè÷íûìè àóäèòîðèÿìè. Ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ èíòåðåñíûì è çíà÷èìûì, ÷òî â ñèòóàöèè àêòèâ- íîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà íàöèîíàëüíàÿ èñòîðèÿ Íàðâû îòíþäü íå çàíèìàåò äîìèíèðóþùåé ïîçèöèè, îíà ñóùåñòâóåò íàðÿäó ñî “øâåäñêîé” èëè “òàòàðñêîé” èñòîðèåé ãîðîäà. Ñêëà- äûâàåòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî â Íàðâå áîëåå çíà÷èìà è âîñòðåáóåòñÿ 306 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñîáñòâåííàÿ ëîêàëüíàÿ, íåæåëè óíèôèöèðîâàííàÿ âñåíàöèîíàëü- íàÿ èñòîðèÿ. Èìåííî â ëîêàëüíûé íàððàòèâ, íàðÿäó ñ ïðî÷èìè, âïèñàíà è “íàöèîíàëüíàÿ ñîñòàâëÿþùàÿ”.  ñîâðåìåííîé âåðñèè èñòîðèè Íàðâû îòñóòñòâóåò îáðàç ãåðîÿ, â ÷àñòíîñòè ãåðîÿ-âîèíà èëè çàùèòíèêà Îòå÷åñòâà. Îòäåëüíûå ïåðèîäû èñòîðèè ëèáî àíîíèìíû, ëèáî çàñåëåíû çíà÷èìûìè ôèãó- ðàìè, ñðåäè êîòîðûõ íåò öåíòðàëüíîãî ïåðñîíàæà. Òàêèì îáðà- çîì, íåëüçÿ ãîâîðèòü î ãåðîèçàöèè èñòîðèè, ñòîëü ïîïóëÿðíîé â ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèè. Äëÿ ñîçäàíèÿ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ èìèäæåé â Íàðâå ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå âîñ- òðåáóåòñÿ îáðàç “äðóãîãî”. Áëèçêîå ïðèñóòñòâèå ñîñåäíåãî ãîñó- äàðñòâà âîîáùå, è Èâàíãîðîäà â ÷àñòíîñòè, ïî÷òè íå èãðàåò ðîëè â åå èñòîðè÷åñêîì íàððàòèâå. Èñïîëüçóÿ ìåòàôîðó Ýðõàðäà Øòåëüòèíãà,23 ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî Íàðâà “ñìîòðèò â äðóãóþ ñòî- ðîíó îò ãðàíèöû”. Ñîâìåñòíîå ïðîøëîå îáðåòàåò âàæíîñòü ëèøü â êîíòåêñòå îáùåé ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèè, íî îíî åäèíî äëÿ âñåãî ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà, è íå êîíêðåòèçèðîâàíî áëèçîñòüþ Èâàíãîðîäà. Îäíàêî çà ôàñàäîì ðåïðåçåíòèðóåìîé âåðñèè èñòî- ðèè, â ïîâñåäíåâíîì äèñêóðñå, ïðèñóòñòâèå Èâàíãîðîäà è ðóññêèõ “ñîñåäåé” âåñüìà î÷åâèäíî. Òàê, ñìîòðèòåëüíèöà Íàðâñêîãî ìóçåÿ êîììåíòèðóåò: “Ñìîòðèòå, êàêèìè ÿäðàìè ïóëÿëèñü ðóññêèå”.  äàííîé ñèòóàöèè äàæå íå ñòîëü âàæíà îöåíî÷íàÿ íàãðóæåííîñòü âûñêàçûâàíèÿ. Âàæåí ôàêò íîìèíàöèè, àêöåíòóàöèè è êàòåãîðè- çàöèè, âûäåëåíèÿ “äðóãîãî”. Ïðè ýòîì îòìåòèì, ÷òî êîììåíòàðèé áûë ñäåëàí íà ðóññêîì ÿçûêå äëÿ ïîñåòèòåëåé ìóçåÿ, òîæå ãîâîðÿ- ùèõ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî íà ðóññêîì. ß ïîëàãàþ, ÷òî ïîäîáíóþ ñòðàòåãèþ íàïèñàíèÿ èñòîðèè Íàðâû ñëåäóåò ðàññìàòðèâàòü êàê ïîëèòèêó òîæäåñòâ. Îáðàùåíèå ê ëî- êàëüíîìó ïîçâîëÿåò ïåðåñòóïèòü îãðàíè÷åííûé, óçêî îðèåíòèðî- âàííûé íàöèîíàëüíûé ïîäõîä è ñîçäàòü øèðîêèé ñïåêòð âñåâîç- ìîæíûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ âåðñèé.  Íàðâå àêòóàëèçèðóåòñÿ íå ïîëè- òèêà ðàçëè÷åíèÿ è ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëåíèÿ, òî åñòü ôàêòè÷åñêîå ñîçäà- íèå íîâûõ è ðàçíûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ãðàíèö, íî ïîëèòèêà òîæäåñòâà â ñâÿçè ñ âîñòðåáîâàííîñòüþ ñàìûõ ðàçíîîáðàçíûõ îáðàçîâ è èìèä- æåé, ÷òî, â êîíå÷íîì èòîãå, ïîçâîëÿåò áûòü “êàê ìíîãèå”, íî ïðè ýòîì íå ïðîòèâîñòîÿòü êîìó-òî îäíîìó. Î÷åâèäíî, ïîëèòèêà

23 Ýð. Øòåëüòèíã. Ñîöèàëüíîå çíà÷åíèå ãðàíèö // Òðóäû ÖÍÑÈ. ¹ 7 / Ïîä ðåä. Î. Áðåäíèêîâîé, Â. Âîðîíêîâà. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1999. Ñ. 5-8. 307 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... ðàçëè÷åíèÿ íå ïîçâîëèëà áû ñîçäàòü ñòîëü ïåñòðóþ ìîçàèêó âåðñèé èñòîðèè. Ðàçëè÷íûå ãðóïïû â îïðåäåëåííûõ ñèòóàöèÿõ è êîíòåêñòàõ ìîãóò âîñòðåáîâàòü íàèáîëåå ïîäõîäÿùèé, íàèáîëåå àäåêâàòíûé ñèòóàöèè âàðèàíò, è ÷åì áîëüøå ïðåäëàãàåìûõ âåðñèé, òåì øèðå âîçìîæíîñòè èäåíòèôèêàöèè. À ëîêàëüíîñòü, èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîñòü è óíèêàëüíîñòü ìåñòà ìîæíî ñêîíñòðóèðîâàòü è ÷åðåç ðàçíîîáðàçèå, ýêñïîíèðóåìîå è òðàíñëèðóåìîå âîâíå. ß ïîëàãàþ, ÷òî ïîäîáíàÿ ñòðà- òåãèÿ âñòðàèâàåòñÿ â áîëåå ãëîáàëüíûé ïðîåêò âõîæäåíèÿ â Åâðîïó, âíóòðè êîòîðîé ãðàíèöû ðàçìûòû, íî âîñòðåáîâàíû, ñêîðåå, òî÷å÷- íûå, ëîêàëüíûå ðàçíîîáðàçíûå èäåíòè÷íîñòè è, ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ðàçíîîáðàçíûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå âåðñèè. Ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî â íåêî- òîðîì ñìûñëå, Íàðâà óæå äàæå “áîëåå â Åâðîïå”, ÷åì îñòàëüíàÿ Ýñòîíèÿ, èáî îíà ïåðåñòóïàåò íàöèîíàëüíûé óðîâåíü (íàïðèìåð, âñïîìíèì èäåíòèôèêàöèþ ñî Øâåöèåé) è ëåã÷å âïèñûâàåòñÿ â ïåðñ- ïåêòèâíûé è áîëåå “çàìàí÷èâûé” åâðîïåéñêèé ïðîåêò.24 Ïðè ýòîì âîïðåêè ïðåäëàãàåìîìó ðàçíîîáðàçèþ ðåïåðòóàðà èäåíòè÷íîñòåé, áëèçîñòü ðóññêîãî “ñîñåäà” íå ïðèâëåêàåòñÿ è íå âîñòðåáóåòñÿ.

ÈÑÒÎÐÈß ÄËß ÈÂÀÍÃÎÐÎÄÀ Èñòîðèÿ Èâàíãîðîäà ñîçäàåòñÿ ïîä äðóãîé ïðîåêò. Ó íåå èíûå öåëè è çàäà÷è. Ïðåæäå âñåãî, íåîáõîäèìî îòìåòèòü åå ñòðîéíîñòü, íåïðîòèâîðå÷èâîñòü è ëîãè÷íîñòü. Ýòî – ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíàÿ è ñâÿçíàÿ èñòîðèÿ ôîðïîñòà çàïàäíûõ ðóáåæåé Ðîññèè; ýòî, îäíîçíà÷íî, âîåííàÿ èñòîðèÿ, â êîòîðîé îñíîâíûå ìîðàëüíûå îöåíêè ñâÿçàíû

24 Ïðèâåäó äâà ïðèìåðà èç íàñòîÿùåãî âðåìåíè. Íà äîñêå îáúÿâëåíèé îäíîãî èç íàðâñêèõ Äîìîâ êóëüòóðû âèñèò ñëåäóþùàÿ ðåêëàìà ÿçûêîâûõ êóðñîâ: “Ýñòîíñêèé ÿçûê – ãàðàíòèðîâàííàÿ ñäà÷à ýêçàìåíîâ íà ãðàæäàíñòâî! Àíãëèéñêèé ÿçûê – íîâåéøèå êîììóíèêàöèîííûå ìåòîäèêè!”.  ýòîì îáúÿâ- ëåíèè î÷åâèäíû àêöåíòû è ïðèîðèòåòû – àíãëèéñêèé äëÿ îáùåíèÿ, à ýñòîíñêèé èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî äëÿ ôîðìàëüíûõ ïðîöåäóð. Îâëàäåíèå ðàçíûìè ÿçûêàìè ïðèç- âàíî ðåøèòü ðàçíûå ïðîáëåìû, ïðè ýòîì äëÿ êîììóíèêàöèè âûáðàí óíèâåð- ñàëüíûé àíãëèéñêèé, â òî âðåìÿ êàê ýñòîíñêèé ïðåäíàçíà÷åí äëÿ êîíêðåòíîé çàäà÷è, íî îòíþäü íå äëÿ äîëãîñðî÷íîé ïåðñïåêòèâû. Ñòàíîâëåíèå ÷àñòüþ Åâðîïû îçíà÷àåò òàêæå ïðèíÿòèå åå ðèñêîâ è ïðîáëåì. Ó÷èòåëüíèöà íàðâñêîé ãèìíàçèè ðàññêàçûâàëà, ÷òî ñðàçó æå ïîñëå âñòóïëåíèÿ â Åâðîñîþç íà ïåðâîì ïåäñîâåòå äèðåêòîð îçâó÷èë íîâûå ïðîôåññèîíàëüíûå çàäà÷è: “Ìû âñå äîëæíû áûòü ãîòîâû ê òîìó, ÷òî ñ íîâîãî ó÷åáíîãî ãîäà ó íàñ ïîÿâÿòñÿ ó÷åíè- êè èç äðóãèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ, â ÷àñòíîñòè, òóðêè”. Ïðîáëåìà åùå íå âîçíèêëà, îíà ãèïîòåòè÷íà, îäíàêî, áóäó÷è åâðîïåéöàìè è ðàçäåëÿÿ îáùèå îáÿçàííîñòè è îòâåòñòâåííîñòü, êîëëåêòèâ øêîëû ãîòîâ èñêàòü ïóòè åå ðàçðåøåíèÿ. 308 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñ êàòåãîðèÿìè “äîáëåñòè” è “âåðíîñòè Îòå÷åñòâó”.  èñòîðè÷åñ- êîì íàððàòèâå Èâàíãîðîäà ìîãóò ìåíÿòüñÿ îáðàçû âðàãà, íî íåèç- ìåííûì îñòàåòñÿ ãëîáàëüíîå ïðåäíàçíà÷åíèå ãîðîäà – íîñèòåëÿ âàæíîãî è èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîãî ñòàòóñà “çàùèòíèêà Ðîäèíû”. Èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ ñîçäàåòñÿ ÷åðåç ôîðìóëèðîâàíèå îá- ðàçà ãåðîÿ, âîêðóã êîòîðîãî âûñòðàèâàåòñÿ âñÿ êîíöåïöèÿ èñòî- ðèè. Ïðè ýòîì ðå÷ü èäåò, ïðåæäå âñåãî, î ãåðîå-âîèíå. Îí äîëæåí áûòü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíûì è íåîñïîðèìûì. Òàêèì ÿâëÿåòñÿ Ïåòð I, èìèäæ êîòîðîãî óæå ñôîðìèðîâàí, à ìîðàëüíûå îöåíêè è èíòåð- ïðåòàöèè ñòàëè îáùåïðèçíàííûìè. Çà íåãî èäåò äàæå íåêîòîðàÿ êîíêóðåíöèÿ. Ýêñïëóàòàöèÿ îáðàçà ëåãèòèìèçèðóåòñÿ òåì, ÷òî Ïåòð I “íå ðàç áûâàë áëèç Èâàíãîðîäà”.  ýòîé ñâÿçè, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, èíòåðåñíî ìåñòî ñîâåòñêîãî ïåðèîäà â èâàíãîðîäñêîì èñòîðè÷åñêîì íàððàòèâå. Åãî âûòåñíåíèå, âîç- ìîæíî, ñâÿçàíî íå ñòîëüêî ñ èäåîëîãè÷åñêèì îòðèöàíèåì, ñêîëüêî ñ íåêîòîðîé íåîïðåäåëåííîñòüþ îöåíîê. Áûñòðûé è êàðäèíàëüíûé ïåðåñìîòð è ïåðåèíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ïðîèñõîäèâøåãî ñòàâèò ïîä ñîìíå- íèå öåííîñòü ñîâåòñêîãî âðåìåíè. Èç íåãî îêàçûâàåòñÿ âîñòðåáîâàí- íûì ëèøü ìîðàëüíî “áåññïîðíûé” ïåðèîä Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé, êîòîðûé, ê òîìó æå, ïîçâîëÿåò íàõîäèòü “íåñîìíåííûõ ãåðîå┠è èñïîëüçîâàòü ïåðñîíèôèöèðîâàííóþ ñòðàòåãèþ íàïèñàíèÿ èñòîðèè. Ïðîøëîå Èâàíãîðîäà âïèñàíî â îáùåíàöèîíàëüíóþ óíèôè- öèðîâàííóþ èñòîðèþ, îáùóþ äëÿ âñåãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà Ðîññèè. Èìåííî ïîýòîìó íå ñòîëü âàæíî, ÷òî â ìóçåå Èâàíãîðîäà âûñòàâëåí ìàêåò äîìà êðåñòüÿíèíà Òâåðñêîé ãóáåðíèè, à â ñóâåíèðíîé ëàâêå ïðîäàþòñÿ óíèôèöèðîâàííûå è áåçëèêèå “ðóññêèå” ñóâåíèðû. Âàæåí êàê ðàç ôàêò èõ ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè áîëüøîé Ðîññèè. Âîçìîæíî, â òàêîì îòíîøåíèè ïðîãëÿäûâàåò “êîìïëåêñ” ïîãðàíè÷üÿ, êîòî- ðîå îñòàëîñü íåïîëíîöåííûì, ïîòåðÿâ áîëåå “êóëüòóðíîãî” ñîñåäà, è íå îáðåòÿ ðåàëüíîé òåñíîé ñâÿçè ñ heartland. Ïðîèçâîäñòâî ëîêàëüíîñòè Èâàíãîðîäà, òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñâÿ- çàíî íå ñ ðåïðåçåíòàöèåé óíèêàëüíîñòè, íî ñ êîíñòàòàöèåé îñîáîé ìèññèè ãîðîäà â ðîññèéñêîì ãîñóäàðñòâåííîì íàöèîíàëüíîì ïðîåêòå.  ýòîé ñâÿçè èçáðàíà ïîëèòèêà ñîïðè÷àñòíîñòè “áîëü- øîé èñòîðèè” Ðîññèè. Çíà÷èìîñòü ãîðîäà ïî-ïðåæíåìó îïðåäåëÿ- åòñÿ ïðèñóòñòâèåì â íåì òåõ “ãåðîå┠ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè, êîòîðûå äåëàþò åå èñòîðèþ “â öåíòðå”: Ïîäóìàéòå, ìàëî ëè ãîðîäîâ â Ðîññèè, îñîáåííî òàêèõ êðîøå÷íûõ êàê Èâàíãîðîä! Íî ñþäà è Åëüöèí ñ Ñîá÷àêîì 309 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... íà âåðòîëåòå ïðèëåòàëè, è Æèðèíîâñêèé áûë. È ñàì Ïóòèí, êîãäà åùå ñ Ñîá÷àêîì ðàáîòàë, òóò áûë. (æèòåëüíèöà Èâàíãî- ðîäà, 34 ãîäà).  Èâàíãîðîäå, òàê æå êàê è â Íàðâå, áëèçêîå ïðèñóòñòâèå “ñîñåäåé” õîòü è íå àêöåíòèðîâàíî, íî òåì íå ìåíåå ïðî÷èòûâàåòñÿ.  ðåêëàìíîé áðîøþðêå Èâàíãîðîäñêîé êðåïîñòè ÷èòàåì: “Íûíå âìåñòå ñ ýñòîíñêèìè ñîñåäÿìè, âìåñòå ñ Íàðâîé, Èâàíãîðîä ñàìîé èñòîðèåé ïðèçâàí êóëüòóðíîìó âçàèìîîáîãàùåíèþ è óêðåïëåíèþ äîáðûõ îòíîøåíèé ñ ñîñåäíèìè íàðîäàìè”. Ýòî âûñêàçûâàíèå, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, äåìîíñòðèðóåò íåêóþ ñîïðè÷àñòíîñòü è ñîëèäàð- íîñòü ñ Íàðâîé ÷åðåç ôîðìóëèðîâàíèå îáùåé öåëè – “ âìåñòå ñ ýñòîíñêèìè ñîñåäÿìè”, à ñ äðóãîé – â íåì ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ ýòíè÷- íîñòü ñîñåäåé, ïðèçíàåòñÿ èõ èíàêîâîñòü. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ýñòîíñêèé ñîñåä íå ñòîëü âîñòðåáîâàí, èñòîðèÿ Èâàíãîðîäà ðåôåðåíòíà èñ- òîðèè Ðîññèè, äëÿ íåãî ãîðàçäî âàæíåå “áûòü ñîïðè÷àñòíûì” ïðî- øëîìó áîëüøîé ñòðàíû. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, Èâàíãîðîä áîëåå âêëþ- ÷åí â ïðîåêò íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà, íåæåëè Íàðâà. Èòàê, â Íàðâå è Èâàíãîðîäå âîñòðåáóþòñÿ ðàçíûå èñòîðèè, èõ íàïèñàíèå ñòàâèò ðàçíûå öåëè, è îíè âïèñàíû â ðàçíûå ïðîåêòû. Âàæíî, ÷òî èñòîðèè “ðàçäåëåííûõ ãîðîäî┠ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå âñòó- ïàþò â äèàëîã, íå êîíêóðèðóþò è íå ñîëèäàðèçèðóþòñÿ â èíòåð- ïðåòàöèè ñîâìåñòíûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé.  ïðåäëàãàåìûõ âåð- ñèÿõ èñòîðèè íå âîñòðåáóþòñÿ “áëèçêèå ñîñåäè” äàæå ñ öåëüþ òîãî, ÷òîáû âûñòóïàòü â êà÷åñòâå “äðóãîãî”, íåêîé îñè êîîðäèíàò äëÿ ïîçèöèîíèðîâàíèÿ â îòíîøåíèè äðóã äðóãà. Äëÿ Íàðâû è Èâàí- ãîðîäà âàæíû èíûå ðåôåðåíöèè, çíà÷èòåëüíî “ðàçíåñåííûå” â ïðîñòðàíñòâå. Ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî Íàðâà è Èâàíãîðîä “ñìîòðÿò â ðàçíûå ñòîðîíû”, è åñëè Íàðâà îáðàùåíà ê Åâðîïå, ìèíóÿ íàöè- îíàëüíûé óðîâåíü, òî Èâàíãîðîä “ñìîòðèò” â ñòîðîíó Ðîññèè, ó÷à- ñòâóÿ âî âíóòðèíàöèîíàëüíîì ïðîåêòå.

 ïîèñêàõ àäåêâàòíûõ îáúÿñíèòåëüíûõ ñõåì (âìåñòî çàêëþ÷åíèÿ) Ñîöèàëüíûå òðàíñôîðìàöèè íà ïîñòñîâåòñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå êîí- öåïòóàëèçèðóþòñÿ ïî-ðàçíîìó. Îäíîé èç ãëàâíûõ ïàðàäèãì çäåñü îêàçûâàåòñÿ èäåÿ íàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðîé îñîáîå çíà÷åíèå ïðèîáðåòàåò èçó÷åíèå ñîçäàíèÿ ñîáñòâåííûõ íàöèî- íàëüíûõ èñòîðèé è ãåðîåâ. Äðóãàÿ âëèÿòåëüíàÿ íàó÷íàÿ ïåðñïåêòèâà 310 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñâÿçàíà ñ ïîñòêîëîíèàëüíûìè è èìïåðñêèìè èññëåäîâàíèÿìè. Ñîãëàñíî ýòîìó ïîäõîäó, èäåíòè÷íîñòü â ïîñòèìïåðñêèõ óñëîâèÿõ óòâåðæäàåòñÿ “äèôôåðåíöèàëüíî”, ÷åðåç èãðó ñðàâíåíèé è êîíòðà- ñòîâ, è âñÿ ïîñòêîëîíèàëüíàÿ òåîðèÿ â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ìåðå âûñòðîå- íà âîêðóã ïîíÿòèÿ è êîíöåïòóàëèçàöèè “äðóãîãî”.25 Ñîâåðøåííî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ýòè êîíöåïöèè îáëàäàþò îïðåäåëåí- íîé îáúÿñíèòåëüíîé ñèëîé è ýâðèñòè÷åñêèì ïîòåíöèàëîì. Áåçóñ- ëîâíî, â Òàëëèííå èëè Òàðòó ïèøóòñÿ íåñêîëüêî äðóãèå èñòîðèè, à â Ïåòåðáóðãå èëè Ìîñêâå èñïîëüçóþòñÿ èíûå ñòðàòåãèè êîíñò- ðóèðîâàíèÿ îáðàçîâ, íåæåëè â Íàðâå è Èâàíãîðîäå. È ýòè “äðóãèå èñòîðèè” âïîëíå âïèñûâàþòñÿ â ïåðå÷èñëåííûå âûøå îáúÿñíèòåëü- íûå ñõåìû. Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ïîêàçàòåëüíûì ïðèìåðîì ìîæåò ñëó- æèòü ôðàãìåíò îáçîðíîé ýêñêóðñèè ïî Òàðòó, â êîòîðîì íûíå íåïðåìåííî ôèãóðèðóåò “íàöèîíàëüíûé ãåðîé” – ïîëêîâíèê Äóäàåâ, îòêàçàâøèéñÿ â 1991 ã. âûâîäèòü âîéñêà ïðîòèâ ìåñòíîãî íàñåëå- íèÿ. È ýòà îöåíêà îòëè÷íî èëëþñòðèðóåò ñèòóàöèþ “îòçåðêàëèâà- íèÿ” (êîãäà â Ðîññèè è Ýñòîíèè îäíà è òà æå ôèãóðà íàäåëÿåòñÿ äèàìåòðàëüíî ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûìè îöåíêàìè), âàæíóþ äëÿ ïîíè- ìàíèÿ ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâà. Îáùåèçâåñòíî, ÷òî ñëàáîñòü “ãëîáàëüíûõ” òåîðèé, ïðåæäå âñåãî, â èõ âûñîêîé ñòåïåíè ãåíåðàëèçàöèè, â ÷àñòíîñòè, îíè íå èñ÷åðïû- âàþò ñïåöèôèêó ïðîñòðàíñòâ ad marginem. Êàê áûëî ïðîäåìîíñò- ðèðîâàíî âûøå, îñîáåííîñòü ïðèãðàíè÷íûõ òåððèòîðèé èññëåäî- âàòåëè ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ñâÿçûâàþò èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ñ áëèçîñòüþ “ñîñåäåé”, êîãäà ñîöèàëüíàÿ æèçíü âî ìíîãîì îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ êîí- òåêñòîì íå ñòîëüêî ñîáñòâåííîãî, ñêîëüêî ñîñåäíåãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Îäíàêî îêàçûâàåòñÿ, ÷òî â ñòðàòåãèÿõ íàïèñàíèÿ íîâûõ èñòîðèé è, áîëåå øèðîêî, â ïîëèòèêàõ èäåíòè÷íîñòåé è Íàðâà, è Èâàíãîðîä ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå íóæäàþòñÿ äðóã â äðóãå. Ïðè ýòîì îíè äî ñèõ ñîñòàâëÿþò åäèíóþ çîíó ïîâñåäíåâíîñòè è ïðîñòðàíñòâî ïëîòíûõ òðàíñãðàíè÷íûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ñâÿçåé è ñåòåé.  ýòîì ñëó÷àå èñïîëü- çîâàíèå ïîäõîäîâ è êîíöåïöèé ïðèãðàíè÷íûõ òåððèòîðèé òàêæå íå ìîãóò ïðåäñòàâèòü àäåêâàòíûå îáúÿñíèòåëüíûå ñõåìû. Äëÿ îñìûñëåíèÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ òðàíñôîðìàöèé Íàðâû è Èâàíãî- ðîäà, î÷åâèäíî, íåîáõîäèìî ó÷èòûâàòü íåêîòîðûå ëîêàëüíûå îñîáåííîñòè ãîðîäîâ ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ñîáñòâåííûì ãîñóäàðñòâàì.  ÷àñòíîñòè, áîëüøóþ ðîëü èãðàåò “êîìïëåêñ” Èâàíãîðîäà – ìàëîãî ãîðîäà â ñîöèàëüíîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå Ðîññèè, èëè æå íåïðî-

25 Ñì. â ÷àñòíîñòè: H. Bhabha (Ed.). Nation and Narration. London, 1990 è äðóãèå. 311 Î. Áðåäíèêîâà, Èñòîðè÷åñêèé òåêñò ad marginem... ñòàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ ñ ãðàæäàíñòâîì â Íàðâå, ïðåâðàùàþùàÿ ãîðîä â ïðîáëåìíóþ çîíó â ñîáñòâåííîì ãîñóäàðñòâå (îòñþäà – àïåëëÿöèÿ Íàðâû ê “òðåòåéñêîìó ñóäüå” – Åâðîñîþçó).  ýòîé ñâÿçè àäåêâàò- íûì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ òðåõóðîâíåâûé ïîäõîä, ñ ó÷åòîì ãëîáàëüíîãî / òðàíñíàöèîíàëüíîãî, íàöèîíàëüíîãî è ëîêàëüíîãî êîìïîíåíòîâ ïîëèòèêè èäåíòè÷íîñòè. Äëÿ îñìûñëåíèÿ âçàèìîîòíîøåíèé äâóõ ãîðîäîâ ýâðèñòè÷íûì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ èñïîëüçîâàíèå ìåòàôîð. Íûíå ãðàíèöà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ “çåðêàëîì”, êîãäà ñóùåñòâóåò âçàèìîçàâèñèìîñòü, êîãäà íåîáõî- äèìî ïðèñóòñòâèå “äðóãîãî”, à îòíîøåíèÿ ôàêòè÷åñêè îòçåðêàëèâà- þòñÿ, îòðàæàþò äðóã äðóãà, õîòÿ, âîçìîæíî, ñ ðàçíûìè “çíàêàìè”. Ãðàíèöà òàêæå è íå “âèòðèíà”, êîãäà öåëü âçàèìîîòíîøåíèé – ïðåäñòàâèòåëüñòâîâàòü, ýêñïîíèðîâàòü íå÷òî âîâíå. ß ïîëàãàþ, ÷òî â èññëåäóåìîé ñèòóàöèè íàèáîëåå àäåêâàòíîé ÿâëÿåòñÿ ìåòàôîðà “îêíà”. Ãðàíèöà ñòàíîâèòñÿ “îêíîì”, çà ïðåäåëàìè êîòîðîãî òå÷åò ñîáñòâåííàÿ æèçíü.  ýòî “îêíî” ìîæíî çàãëÿäûâàòü, íî ñìîò- ðÿùèé îñòàíåòñÿ ñòîðîííèì íàáëþäàòåëåì, òàê êàê íàáëþäåíèå íå åñòü ó÷àñòèå. Îò “ïîäñìàòðèâàíèÿ” íå èçìåíèòñÿ æèçíü íè ïî òó, íè ïî äðóãóþ ñòîðîíó “îêíà”, èáî êàæäîå äåéñòâóþùåå ëèöî çà- íÿòî ñîáñòâåííûì ïðîåêòîì.

SUMMARY Virtually all researchers of borderlands, independent of their specific focus, note the special status of border territories. On the one hand, the unique situation of a borderland is connected with its external and domestic isolation. On the other hand, it is also connected to the proximity of a neighboring state, which leads to mutual interaction and influences. The new, post-Soviet borderlands appear as a unique object for social research. This work explores the interrelations between Ivangorod and Narva, two cities straddling the Russian-Estonian border. The author discusses differences in the manner of creating historical images of the once unitary municipal space. At the center of the author's attention is a narrative presented in museums and in mass produced souvenirs that represent the past. The author argues that Narva and Ivangorod “look in two different directions”. Narva addresses Europe directly, while Ivangorod “looks to Russia” and participates in a domesti- cally inspired national project. Neither the shared pre-Soviet nor the Soviet past can provide a point of mutual reference for the post-Soviet historical narratives of the two cities. 312 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Ene KÕRESAAR

THE NOTION OF RUPTURE IN ESTONIAN NARRATIVE MEMORY: ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF MEANING IN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL TEXTS ON THE STALINIST EXPERIENCE

Introduction This article will examine “rupture” as one of the central categories of Estonian narrative memory.1 I analyze the meaning and significance of rupture in the autobiographical re-constructions of Estonian experiences with Stalinism. In so doing, I am placing the concept of rupture into the wider context of the Estonian textual community. Afterwards, I shall analyze the cultural meaning assigned to the concept of rupture in Estonian history and memoirs. Finally, I shall draw conclusions on how the representation of the Soviet occupations as the “Great Rupture” is used to provide both content and meaning to the whole of 20th century Estonian history. Rupture is one of the key concepts used to explain the past in post- socialist Estonian society. The domination of the concept of rupture and

1 The research for this article was carried out under the auspices of Estonian Science Foundation Grant 5322. I would like to thank Kaido Orula for his helpful comments and useful insights. 313 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... the lack of continuity in political, social, cultural, and other spheres has been used to explain specific traits and consequences of the post-Soviet transition. The cultural trauma theory of Piotr Sztompka, a well-known theoretician of East European transition, provides an example of the inter- pretation of post-socialist rupture for Estonian social scientists.2 According to this theory, The year 1989 was not only a political break from an autocratic, mono-party regime toward a parliamentary, multiparty system – the ultimate victory of democracy; nor was it an economic break from a socialist, planned command economy, to a basically free, capitalist market – the second birth of capitalism. Neither was it the radical transformation of institutions, or the restitution of some earlier social order – the return to Europe, to the West, to normality or whatever. Rather, [...] it was a major cultural and civilizational break, a beginning of the reconstruction of the deepest cultural tissue as well as civilizational surface of society, the slow emergence of the new post-Communist culture and civilization.3 Sztompka emphasizes that, in comparison with other components of social change, cultural trauma has the greatest inertia and it may take several generations to overcome its effects. A milder version of cultural trauma has been used by Estonian social scientists to interpret the social experiences of Estonians in the 20th century. For example, the sociologist Aili Aarelaid used biographical interviews to demonstrate the difficulty of retrospectively recounting one’s life in the Soviet period, as a result of which the whole period has been experienced as a sequence of rupture with preceding norms. Lives lived and stories told under one ruler had to be reconsidered and revised under a new ruler every time the political leadership changed. This has been an obstacle to the creation of a coherent image of the Soviet period.4

2 M. Lauristin. Contexts of Transition // Marju Lauristin, Peeter Vihalemm, Karl Erik Rosengren, Lennart Weibull (Eds.). Return to the Western World. Cultural and Political Perspectives on the Estonian Post-Communist Transition. Tartu, 1997. Pp. 36-40. 3 P. Sztompka. Looking Back. The Year 1989 as a Cultural and Civilizational Break // Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 1996. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 120. See also Idem. Cultural Trauma. The Other Face of Social Change // European Journal of Social Theory. 2000. Vol. 3. No 4. Pp. 449-466. 4 A. Aarelaid. Metodoloogilisi probleeme nõukogudeaegsete elulugude interpreteerimisel. Unpublished paper delivered at the 5th Estonian Social Science Conference. Tartu, 12-13 November, 2004. 314 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 In late 20th century, such historical ruptures constitute the main concept used by Estonian social sciences for interpreting personal experiences. Rupture as narrative template is not new and did not emerge with the fall of communism, but is characteristic of the Estonian national, historical, and cultural consciousness in general. The perception of Estonian history and culture as a sequence of ruptures appeared with the emergence of pre- professional, national-romantic history writing in the 19th century. The esteemed Estonian historian Ea Jansen, when analyzing Estonian historiography in the framework of conflicting ideologies, argued that Estonian history writing has to a great extent been teleological. When public opinion, the state or any another influential socio-political actor has accepted certain values, then history has been reconstructed as the constant, linear move- ment toward the realization of those values. The understanding of history has been subordinated to the quest for evidence to prove the timelessness and inevitability of these values.5 In the patriotic tradition, the goal is clearly national independence and statehood. The writing of Estonian national his- tory is founded on a pattern of continuity “ruptured” by foreign invasion. Estonian history is divided into periods according to which foreign authorities ruled the country,6 with every interference from outside interpreted as an affront to history even when European states in general claimed their legiti- macy on dynastic rather than national principles. In this regard, use of the term “ancient struggle for independence” to describe the fighting that followed the crusader invasions between 1208 and 1227 is a good example. The period preceding the invasion is portrayed and is widely accepted in Estonian national memory as an ancient golden age of freedom, an initial Estonian independence where any form of dependence was non-existent, that was ruptured and destroyed by invasion.7 The main historical myths surrounding the concept of historical rupture were fashioned during the national awakening in the second half of the 19th century in opposition to prevailing Baltic-German historical

5 E. Jansen. Hajamõtteid eesti ajaloo uurimisest // Kleio. Ajaloo ajakiri. 1997. Vol. 1. No. 19. P. 39. 6 The division of Estonian history into periods based on which foreign powers ruled the country arose from Baltic German historical traditions and was later adopted by Estonian historians. The so-called Swedish period from the 16th to the 17th century and the Russian or Tsarist period lasting from 1710 to 1917 have notably endured. Analogically, the period of Soviet occupation is also called the Russian period. 7 A. Selart. Vene ike ja muistne priius. Eesti-Vene suhete historiograafiast // Vikerkaar. 2000. Nos. 8-9. Pp. 98-104. 315 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... traditions. Reflecting the Herderian influence on professional writing of Estonian national history, a special role was assigned to the myth of a golden age. In the early decades of the Estonian national movement, this myth had political connotations as well. Moreover, it became widespread through promotion in literature and newspapers. Many similar myths also came to flourish, such as the myth of “the night of the seven hundred years of slavery” (regarding to the period after the Catholic conquest in the 13th century), the myth that Estonian history was a fight between the forces of darkness and light, good and evil; or the myth of the extraor- dinary bravery demonstrated by the Estonians in their fight against the Crusaders. Later, a myth grew up around the national awakening that made heroes of the “great” individuals of the 19th century national move- ment. Myths associated with the national awakening itself acted as one of the important reservoirs of national memory in the 20th century.8 In 1996, the Estonian writer Hasso Krull outlined an image of Estonian culture as a culture of rupture: Estonian culture is originally built on the motif of rupture. The first positive rupture is when Estonians detached themselves from the Baltic- German cultural community and from German cultural commu- nity in general.9 The first negative rupture involved the historical myth of a lost, ancient national independence. All the following [ruptures] have been to a lesser or greater extent variations on these themes.10 In the 1990s, Estonian cultural discourse focused on two historical “ruptures.” On the one hand, the regaining of political independence was interpreted as a positive rupture with the previous, undesirable Soviet norm.11 On the other hand, much stress has been put on the negative rupture that began with Soviet occupation and annexation, and continued throughout the Stalinist era. Professional historical study of autobiographical texts from this period portray these events as the Great Rupture.

8 T. Gross. Anthropology of Collective Memory: Estonian National Awakening Revisited // TRAMES. 2002. Vol. 4. No. 6. 9 That is, the National Awakening from the second half of the 19th century. 10 H. Krull. Katkestuse kultuur. Tallinn, 1996. P. 7. 11 T. Anepaio. Eesti mäletab!? Repressiooniteema retseptsioon Eesti ühiskonnas // E. Kõresaar, T. Anepaio (Eds.). Mälu kui kultuuritegur: etnoloogilisi perspektiive. Tartu, 2003. Pp. 206-230. 316 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 The aim of the current article is to analyze the cultural content of autobio- graphical accounts of the Stalinist era in Estonia that were written in the 1990s. In the course of this analysis, the images commonly used by autobiographers to convey the essence of their experiences will be revealed and explained within their historical background. The article will also demonstrate how the creation of certain images expresses the needs of a shared group identity. This article will treat rupture as a narrative template,12 in keeping with a broader school of thought on how to interpret the past as presented in memoirs. The autobiographical interpretation of certain historical periods will be treated as historical images13 or a complex of images that formed as a result of retro- spective selection and evaluation, and an understanding of historical realities based on the knowledge of the unanimity of temporality.14 The term collective tradition has been applied in ethnology to denote the meaning given to a historical image15 by members of a certain group as well as to refer to the complexes of meanings and explanations inherent in different interpre- tations of the past.16

The Renovation of History and the Collection of Autobiographical Texts

My analysis is based on life stories written by Estonians born in the 1920s who were responding to public appeals made between 1989 and 1999. This was part of an undertaking initiated by the Estonian Life Histories Association and its predecessors17 at the end of 1980s and in the 1990s.

12 J. V. Wertsch. Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge, 2002. 13 F. Heins. Über Geschichtsbilder in Erinnerungserzählungen // Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. 1993. No. 89. Pp. 63-77. 14 M. Fulbrook. German National Identity After the Holocaust. Cambridge, 1999. 15 A. Eriksen. Collective Tradition and the Individual // ARV. Nordic Yearbook of Folklore. 1997. No. 53. Pp. 71-85. 16 Myth can be considered as a parallel term in its oral history application. The term “social script” used in psychology can also be understood as a variation of myth. 17 The Estonian Life Histories Association was officially founded on March 6, 1996. The first public appeal for the submission of memoirs, “Do you remember your life story?,” was announced in the largest Estonian newspapers and more popular Russian newspapers already at the end of summer 1989. On the history of collecting memoirs in Estonia, see R. Hinrikus. Eesti elulugude kogu ja selle uurimise perspektiive // A. Krikmann, S. Olesk (Eds.). Võim ja kultuur. Tartu, 2003. Pp. 171-214; R. Hinrikus, E. Kõresaar. A Brief Overview of Life History Collection and Research in Estonia // T. Kirss, E. Kõresaar, M. Lauristin (Eds.). She Who Remembers, Survives. Interpreting Estonian Women’s Post-Soviet Life Stories. Tartu, 2004. Pp. 19-34. 317 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... These efforts were part of a national discourse focusing on individual perspec- tives and experiences of national history. Without going into the details of the broader context of memory and life-stories’ collection, it should be noted that the boom in the writing of memoirs and in the gathering of autobio- graphies in Estonia since the 1980s cannot be separated from the rather similar process of the rewriting and nationalization of history observed in all post-socialist countries.18 However, it would be a mistake to maintain that the means and methods of these processes were identical. The symbolic “recovery” of history in the discursive practices of Central and Eastern Europe at the end of 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s was synonymous with individualization of everyday experiences and consciousness, and the growth of plurality in society. As a result, one can understand the “autobiographical boom” as a distinctive feature of post-socialist societies.19 Individual lives have been used to illustrate broader historical processes. They had to demon- strate that, despite all kind of repression under the Communist regime, the pluralism of historical consciousness and experience existed and that history was not homogenous despite official efforts to make it so. The decen- tralization of history and the privatization of the past are strategies that were meant to confront the official, socialist version of the past and construct “a new history” from individual and group-specific experiences. In this con- text, Estonia has a special position because of active role played by the Estonian population in response to public appeals by various institutions for the submission of memoirs. In other countries, the oral history method is dominant.20 The remarkable success of the public appeal in Estonia has to be understood as a result of the long standing tradition of other methods requiring active public participation (the beginning of this tradition is usu- ally seen in a similar public appeal made by Jakob Hurt in 1888). 21 Also,

18 P. Niedermüller. Zeit, Geschichte, Vergangenheit. Zur kulturellen Logik des Nationalismus im Postsozialismus // Historische Anthropologie. Kultur. Gesellschaft. Alltag. 1997. No. 2. S. 245-267. 19 R. Humphrey, R. Miller, E. Zdravomyslova (Eds.). Biographical Research in Eastern Europe. Altered Lives and Broken Biographies. Ashgate, 2003. Pp. 1-24. 20 Among post-socialist countries, Poland is exceptional for having a long tradition of collecting written life stories. 21 This is significant in the light of the current article. Jakob Hurt was a legendary person from the first National Awakening of the 19th century, an intellectual who initiated a broad campaign to collect folk traditions. At the end of 1980s, the Estonian national elite turned directly to his texts and started a campaign to collect the historical tradition, especially memories about the events that had been classified and censored in the Soviet history writings. 318 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 the fact that the institutions behind these public appeals are perceived as nationally important institutions, such as The Estonian Literary Museum and The Estonian National Museum, helped guarantee a significant public response. Regarding topics, rhetoric, and audience, the appeals made between 1989 and 1999 were under the decade in which they were made, resulting in the individualization and diversification of Estonian history in the 20th century.22 The first appeal, entitled “Estonian Life Histories,” was made in 1989 by the Cultural-Historical Archives of the Estonian Literary Museum and emphasized the importance of collecting autobiographies for Estonia’s social and collective memory. The appeal provided a brief explanation of the concept of the autobiography.23 The appeal pointed out that each individual fate is part of the history of the Estonian nation. In the following years, the archive repeatedly published similar appeals in the press. Following their attempts, the collection of memoirs and autobiographies receded for a few years until the Estonian Life Histories Association was founded in 1996 and announced a competition to collect autobiographical texts and stories, this time entitled “My Destiny and the Destiny of those Close to Me in the Labyrinths of History.” This competition resulted in the largest collec- tion of stories and concentrated on domestic life and the changes wrought by revolutionary times. In the context of the 1990s, the expression “labyrinths of history” specifically meant wars, revolutions, deportations, or some other kind of violence, focusing on events immediately before and after World War II. The last major campaign to collect autobiographies in the 1990s, “One Hundred Lives of a Century” (1998), was launched with the end of the century in mind. The aim was to compile an anthology of autobiographies that would represent the experience of the 20th century. This appeal again focused on the right of Estonians to tell their life stories and the identifica- tion of these autobiographical texts with the broader historical context of the 20th century. The appeal claimed, “All in all, [this is synonymous with] the history and the story of the nation.” Contrary to the two previous appeals, this campaign revealed the possibility for conflicting public and

22 P. Niedermüller. Zeit, Geschichte, Vergangenheit. By reunification, I mean the nationalization of history in the early 1990s, the establishment of political, ethnic and social myths of origin and legalization of the social order through the historical continuity, created by means of myth. In a more informal interpretation, the channels of publication refer to this nationalization. While the 1989 appeal for life stories was published in both Estonian newspapers and larger ones in Russian, whereas the appeals in the second half of the 1990s were published in the Estonian language. 23 R. Hinrikus. Only eesti elulugude kogu ja selle uurimise perspektiive. P. 179. 319 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... private interpretations of not only in the Soviet occupation, but also the period of Estonia’s interwar independence. Approximately 300 life stories of people born in the 1920s were submitted in reply to the Estonian Life Histories Association’s different appeals. This article is based on analysis of 100 of these life stories. They are of different length, from a few to over three hundred pages. The autobiographies published in life story anthologies between 1997 and 2003 also provided important background information.24

The Conflict over History in the (Re)emergence of Rupture Memoirs written by older Estonians in the 1990s are marked by a strong sense of nationalism, a close connection with the national version of history, and the consequent use of national and political repertoire when interpreting events from their individual lives, which are given a testimonial quality. The urge to remove the “coverings from the blind spots” (the ultimate catch- word of the 1988-1991 drive for independence) of national history by com- mitting one’s life story to paper was the main motivation for Estonia’s auto- biographical boom in the 1990s.25 In the public rhetoric of the early 1990s, each individual Estonian was treated as an integral part of the national body. The call to give history back to the Estonians meant simultaneously rethinking history and placing Estonian nationhood at its centre; that is, writing “real” history by placing an emphasis on the collective experience that it reflected.26 The decentralization, renovation, and nationalization of history during the period from the end of perestroika to Estonia’s “singing revolution”, was an attempt to fill in history’s “blind spots.” This can be fittingly described as the (re-)emergence of the concept rupture in Estonian collective memory. This inevitably led to a conflict between Marxist and nationalist approaches to history. The nationalist approach used the strategies men- tioned above to oppose the official, socialist version of history. In fact, this was itself part of a broader rewriting of history.

24 E. Annuk. Naised kõnelevad. Tartu, 1997; M. Karusoo (Ed.). Kured läinud, kurjad ilmad. Tartu, 1997; R. Hinrikus (Ed.). Me tulime tagasi. Tartu, 1999; Idem. (Ed.). Eesti rahva elulood I-II. Sajandi sada elulugu kahes osas. Tallinn, 2000; Idem. (Ed.). Eesti rahva elulood III. Elu Eesti NSV-s. Tallinn, 2003. 25 R. Humphrey et al. Biographical Research. 26 M. Laar. Veidi meie ajaloolisest mälust // Kultuur ja Elu. 1988. No. 4. Pp. 11-13. 320 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 During the Soviet occupations of 1940-1941 and 1944-1991, the writing and teaching of history was subordinated to the needs of the centralized, totalitarian political regime. The official Soviet understanding of history was in conflict with previous Estonian historiography. If the writing of history and especially its teaching in schools was structured according to nationalist principle during the Estonian Republic (1918-1940), then the purpose of history during the Soviet period was the formation of a national consciousness and awareness of Soviet citizenship. Historical research and the teaching of history became part of the ideology of class struggle, with the paramount aim being to develop a Soviet patriotism and a sense of Soviet nationhood. The Soviet approach to history was dictated by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Soviet regime, and Estonian unification with Russia, which were pre- sented as the end goal of historical processes. This approach did contain some connections with earlier traditions, especially the Slavophile approach to Estonian history, which stressed the “urge, will, and wish” of the peasantry in the Baltic States to join the Russian Orthodox religion and live in a big, friendly family under Russian leadership. This idea was expressed in Soviet historical writing through the myth of the ancient friendship of the Esto- nian and Russian peoples. The main Soviet historical myth that Estonian nationalist opposed was the myth that class struggle was the determining factor in the history of the Estonian people and the leading cause for the Soviet regime’s victorious accession to power in Estonia.27 Significantly, two contradictory interpretations of the Stalinist period existed in the Estonian SSR. The historical events that most affected families were omitted from the official version of the history of the Estonian SSR. These included the War for Independence (1918-1920), the names of Estonia’s interwar government leaders (especially President K. Päts), the secret protocol of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, the Forest Brethren movement after the Second World War (1944-1951), the mass flight of Estonians to the West to escape the Soviet invasion in 1944, and, most of all, the repression and mass deportations of the Stalinist period. These events and persons were suppressed in the Communist regime’s official history. In the discourse of the so-called new national awakening at the end of the 1980s, they obtained the status of blind spots, the “filling in” of which stressed the illegality and illegitimacy of the Soviet order in Estonia. History became an argument providing for national consolidation and national independence. The univocal image of the Soviet period as a “rupture” with

27 E. Jansen. Op. Cit. Pp. 40-41. 321 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... a true national past was opposed to the previous Soviet interpretation of the Stalinist period as a “socialist revolution and construction”.28 This (re-)emergence of the concept of historical rupture represented a total shift in the understanding of the Soviet period’s place in 20th century Esto- nian history. The common understanding of the pre-war and post-war periods shifted from being official positive to being strictly negative. In official Soviet history and officially recognized biographies, the victory of the Com- munist regime was considered to be the beginning of a new, better, more just life. The nationalist approach saw the Communist regime as the starting point of national degradation and disaster, the disruption of the natural development of the nation.

The Textual Community and the Conceptualization of Rupture in Estonian Autobiographies

Using one autobiography as an example, I will demonstrate the working of the concept of rupture in connection with the Stalinist era and how this idea of rupture structures the history of Estonia in the 20th century. This will be examined in the context of how the Stalinist era is remembered as a rupture with a natural historical order and how this relates to the wider “culture of rupture” in Estonian historical narratives. In this relation, the role of the textual community in the conceptualization of rupture in 1980’s and 1990’s Estonia will be spelled out. The concept of the textual community revolves around questions of how different semiotic codes are used to organize memory. This article’s analysis is based on the work of James Wertsch, which claims that members of a group share a certain representation of the past because they share textual resources. The outcome of the use of a shared “canon” may be the formation of homo- geneous, complementary, or contested memory, but the key to the question of the distribution or transmission of memory is to understand the role and shared knowledge of texts in this process.29 A textual community, a notion very close to the shared knowledge of certain texts, has been applied by Vieda Skultans in her interpretation of Latvian memoirs, especially as they pertain to childhood memories.30 The textual community is a micro-society organized

28 M. Laar, L. Vahtre, H. Valk. Kodu lugu. 2. Loomingu raamatukogu 42/43 (1662/1663). Tallinn, 1989. 29 J. V. Wertsch. Op. Cit. Pp. 25-27. 30 V. Skultans. The Testimony of Lives. Narrative and Memory in Post-Soviet Latvia. London, 1998. 322 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 on the basis of a shared understanding of certain texts. Through participa- tion in a textual community, the individual can experience the textual mate- rials around which the community has organized itself without necessarily having read the texts himself or herself.31 Historical and cultural environ- ments that fashion the frames for autobiographical stories consist not only of the present, but depend on traditions formed by the mutual influences of the past and the present.32 The cultural discourse of the so-called New National Awakening at the end of the 1980s was based on a shared a group of shared texts that originated in the previous national awakening in the second half of the 19th century. This shared textual basis provides a certain national logic to the resulting culture. The first National Awakening created a remarkable number of myths that became firmly lodged in Estonian historical consciousness, in the end becoming a myth in its own right. This myth of the first National Awakening served as an anchor during the Soviet period, preserving national identity, in part because it was not a topic prohibited by the Communist ideology or regime. Such myths and texts functioned as the carriers of feelings of identity.33 Kalevipoeg (The Son of Kalev), compiled by Friedrich Reinhold Kreutzwald between 1857 and 1861, became an Estonian national epic and played an important role in providing imagery for the New National Awakening. Kreutzwald originally designed Kalevipoeg as a monument to a dying language. In Estonian historiography Kalevipoeg is regarded as a harbinger of changes in the consciousness of the Estonian peasantry that resulted from a comprehensive complex of reforms. Consequently, according to the established view, “Estonians started to increasingly analyze their position [in the world] and think about the future of their people.”34 Kalevipoeg’s influence on Estonian culture is complex; it has been successfully employed by different systems and ideologies. In the 1930s, Kalevipoeg was the symbol of Estonian diligence. In the 1950s, it was harnessed to support the building of socialism.35 Kalevipoeg is the main hero. His archenemy, the Warlock, is invoked to personify various foreign powers at different periods in Estonian history. In the 1930s, the Warlock

31 J. V. Wertsch. Op. Cit. P. 27. 32 T. Jaago. Individuaalsed valikud ja sotsialiseerumine. Unpublished paper delivered at the 5th Estonian Social Science Conference. Tartu, 12-13 November, 2004. 33 E. Jansen. Op. Cit. P. 40. 34 A. Adamson, S. Valdmaa. Eesti ajalugu gümnaasiumile. Tallinn, 1999. P. 111. 35 U. Uibo. Küll siis Kalev jõuab koju! (Enn Vetemaa abiga) // Keel ja Kirjandus. 1986. No. 6. Pp. 342-350. 323 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... was interpreted as the German crusader of the medieval war for indepen- dence. During Soviet times, Hitler was presented as the Warlock. In post- Soviet times, Stalin has come to represent the Warlock. Significantly, the Kalevipoeg epic is fraught with various “ruptures.” At the end of the epic, Kalevipoeg looses his great powers and he is chained to the front gates of Hell to guarantee that the Warlock will never again enter the human world. The absence of Kalev's son is portrayed as a rupture with the natural order, which will be abolished when Kalevipoeg returns home. For Estonian nationa- lism, the return of Kalevipoeg is the vision of an independent nation-state.36

Memoirs as National Epics

The following example of an autobiography written in the 1990’s uses the plot and poetic form of the epic Kalevipoeg to recreate the ruptures in the lives of Estonians in the 20th century. The author submitted his memoir to the Estonian Life Histories Association in 1991, shortly after the estab- lishment of Estonian independence.37 He was born in the southern Estonian countryside in 1925. Later, his family moved to a small town on the southeastern border where his parents ran a restaurant. He spent his summers on the farm where he was born and enthusiastically recounts these experiences. He depicts the political events of 1940-1941, the first year of Communist occupation, in great detail. He describes the “nationalization” of his family’s property, his fear of being deported to Russia, and the contempt he felt toward the representatives of the new Soviet regime. In 1943 he enlisted in the German army and was imprisoned by the Soviets in 1945. He was subsequently released from prison camp in 1952. In 1945 his father was arrested and his mother was deported to Siberia in 1949. Both parents returned home in 1956. This part of his memoir has been described meticulously with a great number of facts. In 1955 he married. In his memoirs he describes the rest of his life in just few words – life was getting normal. His story ended with a very topical theme for the 1990s, that of the restoration of confiscated property, in relation to which he explained the necessity to once more in [his] lifetime feel himself to be the master. The following poem was included with this memoir. In an accompanying letter, the author wrote that it was his intention to concentrate on events that

36 P. Petersen. Kalevipoeg tänapäeval Bühe tulevase Euroopa kultuuri document humain. Psühholoogilis-antropoloogilisi aspekte // Akadeemia. 2003. Pp. 1559-2591. 37 Estonian Cultural Archives in the Estonian Literary Museum. Life stories collection. KM EKLA. F. 350, 274. 324 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 mirrored his destiny and the destiny of many others. The poem is presented in the form of a table as follows. Explanatory remarks in the right column are based on insights gained through the extensive study of Estonian autobiographies written in the post-Soviet period.38

The strongest son of Kalev’s clan The present is the starting point for Is standing on a steep shore reflexion and reminiscence. Thoughts of past times upon his mind Kalev’s return home represents Of past times good and bad the regaining of Estonian inde- pendence.

Remembers crops flourishing Pastoral images dominate the de- in the fields piction of the interwar Estonian Healthy goose on the meadows Republic, the dominant activity Stores, which were full of grain being that of building. Cellars packed with vegetables

But then sorcerers together Reference to the Molotov-Ribben- Made a secret plan trop Pact from August 23, 1939 Divided lands and woods and its secret protocol that divided And countries, nations, parishes Europe. This has been a popular issue with the Estonian public since 1987 and served as a trigger for the New National Awakening.

They rushed over the borders World War II starts in 1939. Esto- Robbed what hands could take nia’s annexation and occupation Rushed headlong and destroyed by the USSR in 1940. The use of The farm in the western valley the image of the state as a farm.

Children, women, grannies, grandpas The first mass deportations of Esto- And anyone who could be caught nians from June 14, 1941. Were thrown into prison Sent to the Cold Land

38 E. Kõresaar. Memory and History in Estonian Post-Soviet Life Stories. Private and Public, Individual and Collective from the Perspective of Biographical Syncretism. Dissertationes Ethnologiae Universitatis Tartuensis 1. Tartu, 2004. 325 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory...

Who fell ill and passed away Was left there on the way Was thrown out of the carriage Was thrown on the track Now on that long track there are hundreds of nameless graves No crosses, no gravestones No names on the mounds. What a trouble. What can you do, your soul bleeding and mind bitter Can you once again find your distant relatives

But then the sorcerers, tails straight, The outbreak of the war between Rammed their horns together Germany and the USSR. Hostili- Moaned and groaned ties on Estonian territory. So measured their strength Strikes banged aloud Waters and rocks rumbled Cities were full of fire and tar Land and earth were jumbled up In that enormous fight Both sorcerer and witch took poison The end of WWII and the death The other sorcerer then had a party of Hitler. He was the winner in the west and east The end of World War II with Sta- lin’s victory, completing the divi- sion of Europe.

Countries were cut into sheaves The second occupation of Estonia with a sickle and incorporation of Soviet state And beaten together with a hammer symbols, the hammer and sickle, Were forced into one Union into the poem. One state was formed

Those who had more schooling Seen the ancient time The beginning of Stalinist repres- sion (including the second mass

326 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Were gathered together deportation from March 25, 1949). And sent into slavery They are portrayed in connection with the self-identification of the older generation (the – interwar generation as the main victims of Again the senders were the same – repression). The followers, workmen of the sorcerer They did not have mercy, nor favour Portrayal of the division of national Only derision and tin bullets collectivism.

Years passed Ignoring the period of mature socialism...

And came the end ...and identifying the Stalinist period to the Devil’s government and rule in Estonia as a rupture with Esto- He turned to dust like a mortal man nia’s past. Mature socialism is pre- Who has stood in the way of others sented as an extension of Stalinism. for a long time The Warlock is synonymous with Stalin and with Communist power The ceiling of hell was torn up in Estonia. and cracked The power of the sorcerers had come to an end Was torn here and broken there Cracked all over the world Suddenly the life in camps changed The Soviet period is presented with the image of people “being in camps.” New hope was born for people The hope for regaining indepen- Long and hard was the way dence is represented as a home- To get home, over land and sea coming (or restoration).

So then Kalev, too, came home And looked in front of him The national hero Kalev has come He stood on the cliff home and the Estonian people And thought his troubled thoughts have found themselves. The re- establishment of the independence of the Estonian Republic in 1991.

327 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory...

The strongest son of Kalev’s clan is standing on the edge of a cliff. He looks at the sea, he looks at the land He looks what has become of Estonia. He frowns, his mind is bitter The outcome of Soviet rule is because his farm has been destroyed. evaluated. The interruption, deterio- He stands, looks, and plans ration, and destruction of the na- can it be built anew? tional way of life is represented The strongest son of Kalevs clan by the farm. throws wandering thoughts out of his head he rolls up his sleeves and starts working. He toils a day or two and going home gets more beautiful. The restoration of the national He adds more eagerness to his work home by means of hard work. This and the land becomes as new is in keeping with slogans of the New National Awakening in the late If only God gave peace, 1980s and beginning of the 90s, work full of energy i.e. the construction of the nation- Then everything can be put in order state through necessary hardship. fields, woods and governing body.

The popular view of Estonia’s 20th century history is represented in the poem in lines with the beliefs of the New National Awakening. The poem invokes rhetoric from the regaining of national independence in the early 1990s. The period from 1939 until 1991 can be summarized in the Estonian national narrative as the “Great Rupture” witnessed in different waves of repression, the destruction of the national way of life, and individual lives spent in physical and mental, literal and figurative camps. The events of the 1940s are portrayed as annexations and occupations. The disastrous rupture with the national past caused by the Soviet and German invasions are presented in sharp contradiction to the harmonious national develop- ment of the interwar period. The meaning of this rupture is derived from later developments in Estonia, especially from the positive “rupture” of 1991 that returned things to their previous, natural order.

328 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 This autobiographical poem was probably written in 1991 to honor the regaining of independence and vividly illustrates how the understanding of the Stalinist experience as a rupture with the natural order occupies a central position within Estonian twentieth century narratives. It also endows previous and subsequent periods with meaning. Hereafter, the article will more closely analyze the cultural content of rupture motifs in memoirs and will explore the historical imagery of the Stalinist period. A far-reaching conclusion on the position of the Stalinist “rupture” in the Estonian narrative memory will be attempted.

The Repertoire of Rupture in Estonian Memoirs

It is important to point out that the portrayal of the Stalinist experience as a rupture with the natural order is based on culture and ethnicity. The central questions for autobiographers revolve around symbols, morality, and national integrity. Whereas in documents presenting institutionalized memory (texts, books, etc.), the political repertoire (annexation and occupation) is used to characterize change in times of “rupture,” a story line revolving around “the coming of the Russians,” an ethnically defined image, predominates in personal memoirs. The latter originates from Estonian national historio- graphic traditions, specifically the tradition of organizing Estonian history into the periods of Baltic German rule. The so-called last Russian period, a phrase taken from the title of a popular book written by a professional historian39 refers not only to a political period in Estonian history, but also to the cultural meaning bestowed on the Soviet period (Russian is synony- mous with Soviet in the sense of being bad, absurd, poor, low-class, and irrational). It also alludes to the ethnic changes wrought by migration. The published autobiographies include many references to popular Estonian myths as well as moral values that convey specific meanings and provide a clear-cut judgment on events. The selection of specific types of people to personify certain periods of life is – like the selection of events – symbolic in exemplifying the world’s cruelty and injustice or its basic benevo- lence towards the narrator. Autobiographical narratives double as morality plays both in the underlying design of the story and in the mythical, national elements presented through the use ofpersonal memories. Specific elements, chosen to demonstrate the collective destiny, in testimonio, in the Stalinist

39 L. Vahtre. Elu-olu viimasel vene ajal. Riietus ja mööbel, toit ja tarberiistad, sõiduvahendid, eluase ja muu. Tallinn, 2002. 329 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... experience, are organized with the concept of rupture which serves as the main narrative template for understanding the past. Below, some central cultural themes of rupture are explored using the above-mentioned poem as an example.

Rupture as The Depiction of the Interwar Estonian State Using Pastoral Images

The childhood remembrances of elderly Estonians are the main surviving personal memories of Estonia’s first period of independence. Historical images that express a collective understanding of historical reality and a shared knowledge of modernity are important factors in the formation of the generation’s identity. Estonians born in the 1920s acquired their child- hood and adolescent experiences in the environment of national moderniza- tion. During the subsequent period of Soviet occupation, the memories of this experience were crystallized and served as a patriotic anti-reality opposed to the dominant reality. This gave rise to a type of narrative that can be classified as the national childhood. The childhood memories of the interwar period reached a profound popularity during national restoration at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. Given the socio-political develop- ments of the later 1990s, these memories lost their wider social signifi- cance, though they continue to be vital carriers of group-specific values. In Estonian autobiographies, childhood villages are linked to such es- teemed social values as solidarity, mutual help, respect, and informal equality. The village is construed as an ideal national society where no person domi- nates or assumes a position of power. As equal members of society they cooperate to ensure the harmonious operation of society. Just as the farm is presented as the scene for a proper childhood envi- ronment, the organization of life and social relationships in the rural home represents an ideal order. The farm is a metaphor for the proper, self-deter- mined nation-state, focused on internal purity and an economy of national resources. The way to self-determination is presented as honesty and diligence, wise calculation, the optimum division of labor, and advanced planning (so-called peasant wisdom). This is considered to be the ideal model for the functioning of both the state and private institutions like the family.40

40 E. Kõresaar. Private and Public, Individual and Collective in Linda’s Life Story // T. Kirss, E. Kõresaar, M. Lauristin (Eds.). She Who Remembers, Survives. Interpreting Estonian Women’s Post-Soviet Life Stories. Tartu, 2004. Pp. 89-111. 330 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 The Concept of Rupture as an Encounter between National Symbols and Cultural Conflict

The portrayal of national symbols and institutions such as the Estonian national flag, legendary state leaders, and national mass-organizations is central to the historical images of the interwar Estonian Republic. It is characte- ristic that their portrayal occurs when the narrator reaches the point of rup- ture. For example, when the narrator comes to describe the events of 1939 and 1940, he or she returns to the time of the first republic and starts remi- niscing about his or her life, invoking national symbols and activities connected to them. Or, vice versa, the rupture is portrayed through the fall of national symbols. The theme of state symbols in decline occurs in different emotional contexts that serve various strategic functions. First of all, irony and ridicule are used in order to portray the establishment of Soviet power in Estonia as illegal and illegitimate. This strategy is more common in memoirs written in the first half of the 1990s and is obviously connected to popular attitudes during the co-called juridical period41 at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s.42 A crucial part is played by the portrayal of national integrity, which is contrasted with an ideological and ethnic other. Initial concerns about non- Estonians or those lacking the most important features of proper “Estonianess” are described by contrasting national characters. The Estonians are portrayed as diligent with a love for hard work, mastery of the soil, and peasant wisdom, which expresses a natural skepticism toward Communist ideology. Tales of the invasion by Soviet troops and the first personal encounters with Soviet soldiers portray ethnically and culturally based contrasts and comparisons. The Soviets are characterized as lacking culture and having poor hygiene, a portrayal that continued to be prevalent in popular discourse throughout the 1990’s. Pille Runnel’s research on popular discourse on Estonia’s inte- gration into the European Union demonstrates a continuation of these images. 43 Soviet soldiers are presented as dirty individuals, poorly dressed, lacking knowledge of the world, ignorant, uncultivated and ideologically brain- washed. This image of a culturally unacceptable invasion and anecdote-like

41 Before closer public examination of the central historical events of 1939 and 1940 was undertaken in Estonia, legal professionals and historians evaluated these events from the point of view of international law. 42 A. Rahi. 1949.aasta märtsiküüditamine Tartu linnas ja maakonnas. Tartu, 1998. 43 P. Runnel. Europe as a Measure of Change. Soviet-Time Values and the Construction of Estonias Post-Communist Turn to Europe // Pro Ethnologia. 2003. No. 16. Pp. 113-134. 331 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... stories about Soviet soldiers that first encounter the civilized world in Estonia have also been used by professional historians in popular history books.44 Another dominant emotion connected to the concept of rupture as demon- strated in the downfall of national symbols is the anxiety and feeling of powerlessness that are expressed in the light of the repression and Soviet occupation that followed World War II. In this context, the Soviet/Stalinist period is demonized from its very beginning as an essentially evil empire with images of constant secret surveillance and oppression – images of NKVD men in black leather jackets and exile in Siberia that formed a part of the “Great Martyrdom.”

Exile in Siberia as Rupture – Rupture as Suffering

The symbolic capital and political currency of exile to Siberia was an important feature of Estonian public discourse in the early 1990s.45 There was a well-developed repertoire of commemoration among the Estonian diaspora in the West (novels, anniversaries, commemoration rituals, etc.). During the period of Soviet domination in Estonia, they paid more attention to the first mass deportation in 1941. The focus was similarly on the events of 1939-1941 during the emergence of historical debate at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s.46 During the 1990s, different experiences of repression melded together to form a single narrative of suffering. To begin with, audiences came to perceive different waves of repression and deportation as one event. Rutt Hinrikus, the compiler of We Came Back, a collection of stories from Siberian exile, claimed in her later analysis of the responses that the book generated a perception of uniform experience of exile on the side of the readers. All of the deportations are lumped in the popular memory into one “Great Martyrdom,” toward which one is expected to show compassion and horror. This was the dominant impression from the book despite the fact that it contained stories of people deported at different times and under different. All of the people who suffered, regardless

44 M. Laar. Eesti iseseisvus ja selle having. Album. I osa. Sari: Eesti riik ja rahvas XX sajandil. Tallinn, 2000. 45 T. Anepaio. Op. Cit. 46 This, in turn, was related to the so-called juridical period and to discussions of the illegality of Soviet power in Estonia. 332 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 of the time, the reasons, or the degree of their suffering, were united in readers’ minds as having shared one event.47 In the narrative of suffering, destiny (saatus) is accorded a large role with strong implications for Estonian historical consciousness as a small nation. The research by linguist Leena Huimas, whose 2002 comparative study of the frequency and valence of the word saatus as a linguistic ste- reotype and metaphor in Estonian and Finnish women’s memoirs demon- strates a similar point.48 A key aspect of the meaning and use of these terms is the degree of agency that the writer attributes to herself in shaping the course of her life. Tiina Kirss has also shown in her study of the role of Siberian exile in Estonian women’s memoirs that the connotations and to- nality of the Estonian word saatus closely resemble that of the Latvian lik- tenis, examined by Vieda Skultans in regards to post-Soviet Latvian autobiographies.49 The term liktena stasti – literally translated as tales of des- tiny – is used to denote the autobiographies of the politically repressed. Although it can be used in everyday speech with a more neutral or attenu- ated meaning, saatus has the valence of ineluctability and inevitability, if not determinism. When fate enters the scene, the protagonist is left with a limited number of options. Expectations and agency are largely subverted as the course of life is disrupted from without. On an emotional level, saa- tus almost invariably signifies darkness, sadness, and loss – doom rather than good fortune.50 Kirss suggests that, in light of the signals latent in the word “destiny” and its frequent use in the titles of biographies, memoirs should be read with attention to stylistic and structural clues pointing to a metanarrative of fateful suffering.51 Invoking human suffering to portray the concept of historical rupture has an interesting dynamic. In the autobiographies written in the first half of the 1990s, the concept of rupture is primarily focused on the events of 1940–1941. This probably has to do with the so-called juridical period in

47 R. Hinrikus. Deportation, Siberia, Suffering, Love. The Story of Heli // T. Kirss, E. Kõresaar, M. Lauristin (Eds.). She Who Remembers, Survives. Interpreting Estonian Women’s Post-Soviet Life Stories. Tartu, 2004. Pp. 62-77. 48 L. Huima. Saatuse tahtel // Mäetagused. 2002. No. 16. See http://www.folklore.ee/ tagused/authors/lhuima.htm Last consulted 25 December 2004. 49 T. Kirss. Three Generations of Estonian Women. Selves, Lives, Texts // T. Kirss, E. Kõresaar, M. Lauristin (Eds.). She Who Remembers, Survives. Interpreting Estonian Women’s Post-Soviet Life Stories. Tartu, 2004. Pp. 112-143; Skultans. Op Cit. P. 48. 50 T. Kirss. Op Cit. P. 117. 51 Ibid.

333 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... historical debates as well as the newly available possibilities for practicing public commemoration. There was a 50th anniversary of the first mass deportation in 1991, which was preceded by a movement to re-establish monuments destroyed by Soviet authorities in 1940 and 1941. In the memoirs collected at the end of the 1990s, the Soviet re-occupation after World War II is presented as the main historical point of rupture. Again, it could be assumed that the date of the second mass deportation in 1949, the 50th com- memoration of which was held in 1999, goes a long way to explaining this shift in focus. Although the wider public had largely lost its interest in Estonia’s history of suffering by the second half of the 1990s,52 it by no means meant the end of the collection of autobiographies, a movement that had already reached significant proportions by that time and had contributed to the formation of a “narrative of suffering”.53 There is also a demographic aspect to this shift in focus as there are more survivors of the 1949 deportation still living in the late 1990’s. The topic of forced collectivization is tightly connected to Soviet repression and is portrayed in memoirs as the destruc- tion of family farms.54 The inappropriateness of collectivization was a power- ful argument in the de-collectivization and privatization processes of the 1990s that in turn served as a trigger for the memories of many people.

Conclusion

The main purpose of this article has been to demonstrate the important symbolic role that rupture plays in the Estonian national narrative. In constructing various historical “ruptures,” the Estonian national narrative builds on earlier cultural memory, drawing on a textual community that has been forming from the 19th century in order to give meaning to autobiographies written in the last decade of the 20th century. It is interesting that the interpretation of Stalinism as a historical rupture was established at a time that was itself a historical rupture, albeit one that was positively perceived.55 Filling-in “gaps” in Estonian history took a leading role in the discourse of the so-called New National Awakening that started

52 T. Anepaio. Op. Cit. 53 R. Hinrikus. Op. Cit. 54 P. Hinnov. Kui need talud tapeti. Lehekülgi ühe küla ajaloost. Tartu, 1998. 55 This statement is valid concerning debates in Estonia. Among the diaspora in the West, the interpretation of pre- and post World War II Estonia as a time of rupture has a far longer history, beginning already at the end of the World War II. 334 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 at the end of the 1980s. The national-normative approach to history confronted the Soviet version of history. To form a counter-weight to the official Soviet picture of the Stalinist period as a period of socialist construction, the image of the same period as a rupture with national tradition supported a national approach to the rewriting of Estonian history. In the discourse of “rupture,” historical memories were evaluated in order to rehabilitate a national sense of memory. This historical memory was primarily under- stood as the destiny of a small nation that had suffered greatly. At the same time, the problem of the continuity of history was brought to the fore of public discourse in the popular sense that Estonian society was returning to history – to the independence of the interwar period. This return to history was common in most post-Socialist countries. The reconstruction of events, situations, and status following the new national ideology of the late 1980s and early 1990s was synonymous with the effort to reestablish things as they were before the Soviet period, with the goal to overcome the burdens of an unwanted past. Both in the public discourse and in autobiographies, the concept of rupture became fixed as the dominant narrative template for explaining the Stalinist period. This image is made up of dominating events and processes – such as repression, ideological pressure and persecution, nationalization, collectiviza- tion, etc. – that define the collective “fate” of Estonian society in the 1940s and the early 1950s.56 Within these collective events, individual lives are described as endangered by external forces and characterized by a lack of ability to control one’s fate. The Soviet state is a constant and threatening presence. As a rule, this part of the life story is narrated by the autobiographer from a collective standpoint – the nation – using reference points from Estonian public discourse. A strong rhetoric of victimization accompanies the image of rupture both in public discourse and in individual memoirs. Rupture as the dominant narrative template for the Stalinist period has multiple meanings and functions, interacting with other historical images in the life stories of elderly Estonians. First of all, rupture constitutes the glasses through which the previous period of national independence is represented as a time of national harmony and prosperity.

56 F. Schütze. Kognitive Figuren autobiographischen Stegreiferzählens // M. Kohli, G. Robert (Hrsg.). Biographische und soziale Wirklichkeit. Neue Beiträge und Forschung- sperspektiven. Stuttgart, 1984. Pp. 78-117; Idem. Pressure and Guilt. War Experiences of a Young German Soldier and Their Biographical Implications // International Sociology. 1992. Vol. 7. No. 2. Pp. 187-208. 335 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... Secondly, the concept of rupture became part of political discourse at the end of the 1980’s and in the early 1990’s. This can be seen in popular autobiographers’ responses to social processes, such as land reform and compensation, and in Estonian political debates, such as accusations that the West betrayed Estonia during and after the Second World War and discussions about forced migration in the USSR. On the other hand, the present enters into autobiographies as a motivator and stimulator of certain themes, as demonstrated when the concept of rupture is intertwined with the downfall of certain symbols and exile in Siberia. In political discourse, the interpretation of the Stalinist period as a rupture with natural order is expanded to the entire Communist period. This was especially dominant during the period of the so-called New National Awakening at the end of the 1980s. During the first half of the 1990s, when history lost its importance in the public sphere,57 the expanded notion of rupture was used in liberal economic and socio-political discourses as an argument for restructuring the labor market. The main focus of the argument was, again, based on cultural elements – it stressed the genuine inability of Soviet experi- ence of work, and the Soviet mentality in general, to be adaptable to the needs of a future capitalist Estonia. This corresponds to the ideology of rupture as the destruction of the national way of life and the invasion of alien norms and habits. This is reflected in life stories written at the end of 1980s and at the beginning of 1990s. The memoir analyzed in this article, for example, portrayed Soviet Estonia in its entirety as “being in [the] camps.” The expan- sion of the concept of rupture to the Soviet period makes the entire period a kind of interruption separating two periods of national independence. In conclusion, the 1990s saw the development of a so-called collective tradition based on interpretations of the recent past.58 This is especially true regarding the rise of the concept of rupture as the dominant historical concept. Collective tradition means that official history writing, popular discourse, and individual life stories all remember the 1940s and 1950s in a relatively coherent way. It is possible to replace one with another with- out changing the meaning assigned to the interwar, Soviet, and post-Soviet periods. At the end of the 1980s and throughout the 1990s, when this use of rupture as a historical paradigm was at its peak, the right or wrong of fact- centered remembrances became debated. Facts themselves existed, but included a meaning that could only be right (national) or wrong (Communist).

57 T. Anepaio. Op. Cit. 58 A. Eriksen. Op. Cit. 336 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Although the relationship between the public and the private, the collective and the individual, is more complex, most of the memories and testimonies of the older generation have played a significant role in establishing rupture as the leading historical image of the Stalinist period. The notion of the Stalinist era as a negative, unnatural rupture has helped establish an Estonian national narrative and forms the center of Estonian self-identification for more than one generation.59 Official history writing and the autobiographical interpretation of the past concur unconditionally in this case.60 Reasons for this can be sought in the magnitude of Stalinist era events as well as in the framework of later interpretation of these experi- ences. First of all, Estonians suffered significant loss of human life in the Second World War and the Soviet and German occupations. According to recent data, 17.5 % of the pre-war population of Estonia died.61 In addition, later Soviet repression has to be taken into consideration as well as the loss of property that resulted from Soviet occupation. It has influenced the life of many generations and is strongly emphasized in the memoirs. The other side of the coin is the positive rupture that took place at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, the ultimate positive change in terms of nationalist ideology.62 National ideology stresses the continuity of national and political independence, and uses a selection of events that constitute a “rupture,” to verify the illegality and illegitimacy of the Soviet regime in Estonia. In this process, professional history writing has been backed by autobio- graphical memory and vice versa. The latter has been directed towards the publicly accepted version of events and interpretations. Even legal proce- dures support this understanding of Stalinist repression – from the privatization of nationalized enterprises in the 1990s to benefits provided to the repressed in the spheres of health care and transportation in 2004. The study of rupture as a narrative template is a continuously intriguing problem in light of the theory of cultural trauma. How many negative ruptures are acknowledged to have taken place in Estonian history? Here, the period of Soviet occupation again plays the penultimate role. Just to

59 R. Hinrikus. Eesti elulugude kogu ja selle uurimise perspektiive. 60 There is only one memoir in the Estonian Literary Museum Cultural Historical Archives that does not use the rupture scheme in depicting personal experience of the Stalinist era. 61 A. Rahi-Tamm. Teise maailmasja järgsed massirepressioonid Eestis. Allikad ja uurimisseis. Tartu, 2004. P. 36. 62 The aforementioned autobiographer who did not use the interpretive schema of rupture expressed clearly his negative attitude towards the ideology and politics of national restoration. 337 E. Kõresaar, The Notion of Rupture in Estonian Narrative Memory... touch shortly on some aspects of the problem: for many of older Estonians, whose life stories were compiled in the second half of the 1990s, the Esto- nia of the transition period has also become a time of negative rupture, while the positive picture of the new start has continued to be portrayed in public. A conflict between these meanings became evident at the level of everyday life and at a more systemic level.63 The same observation is true for the development of a coherent image of the history of the later Soviet period, an experience which is shared by a notably larger number of people than the interwar and Stalinist era. The experience of the older gen- eration in the 1990s has been eliminated from this process because their recollections of the interwar period do not fit the standard image. The pro- cess itself continues in the words and imagery adopted by younger genera- tions. Younger generations of professionals and those interested in history have also questioned the pillars of the older generation’s identity – the picture of a nationally unified pre-World War II Estonian republic. The expansion of the concept of rupture as a narrative template to cover the entire Communist period makes the latter a kind of time in between that separates the two periods of national independence from each other. Different value assessments are applied that make the remembering of the late Soviet period highly contested throughout Estonian society, whereas there is agree- ment in society on all levels about the Stalinist period.

SUMMARY

 èññëåäîâàíèè Ýíå ʸðåñààð àíàëèçèðóþòñÿ áèîãðàôèè ýñòîí- öåâ â êîíòåêñòå âîñïîìèíàíèÿ î ñòàëèíñêîì ïåðèîäå. Ïðèìåíÿÿ ðàçëè÷íûå òåîðåòè÷åñêèå ìîäåëè, êîíöåïòóàëèçèðóþùèå âçàèìî- îòíîøåíèÿ ëè÷íîãî âîñïîìèíàíèÿ áèîãðàôèè è ñîöèàëüíî-êóëü-

63 E. Kõresaar. A Time Ignored? About the Role of the Soviet Period in Life Stories of Older Estonians // Ethnologia Fennica. 2001. No. 29. Pp. 45-55; Idem. Towards a Social Memory of Work. Politics and Being a Good Teacher in Soviet Teachers’ Life Stories // K. Roth (Hrsg.). Arbeit im Sozialismus – Arbeit im Postsozialismus. Erkundungen der Arbeitswelt im östlichen Europa. Freiburger Sozialanthropologische Studien Vol. 1. Münster, Berlin, 2004. Pp. 291-310. 338 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òóðíûõ ðàìîê êîëëåêòèâíîé ïàìÿòè, ʸðåñààð èññëåäóåò êîíñò- ðóèðîâàíèå ýñòîíñêîé èñòîðèè è ýñòîíñêèõ ÷àñòíûõ áèîãðàôèé. Ïî ìíåíèþ èññëåäîâàòåëÿ, êëþ÷åâûì ýëåìåíòîì ýòîãî êîíñòðóè- ðîâàíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ òåìà “ðàçðûâà”, ïðåðûâíîñòè íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèè è ÷àñòíûõ áèîãðàôèé. Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðîâ âîñïîìèíà- íèé è ðåñïîíäåíòîâ, ýòè ðàçðûâû íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèè ëèøèëè ýñòîíöå⠓åñòåñòâåííîé” èñòîðèè íàöèè è ñäåëàëè íåâîçìîæíûì ïîñòîÿííûé äîñòóï ê “íàöèîíàëüíûì öåííîñòÿì”. Ðàçðûâû íàöèî- íàëüíîé èñòîðèè â êîëëåêòèâíîé ïàìÿòè è ÷àñòíûõ áèîãðàôèÿõ ôóíêöèîíèðóþò êàê ñòðóêòóðèðóþùèå ýëåìåíòû, ïðèäàâàÿ íàð- ðàòèâíûé õàðàêòåð âîñïîìèíàíèþ, îäíîâðåìåííî ÿâëÿÿñü èäåî- ëîãè÷åñêè íàãðóæåííûìè ýëåìåíòàìè âîñïðèÿòèÿ ïðîøëîãî. Èññëåäîâàòåëü îáñóæäàåò âçàèìîñâÿçü ÷àñòíûõ áèîãðàôèé è êîë- ëåêòèâíîé (íàöèîíàëüíîé) ïàìÿòè è ñòàâèò âîïðîñ î ïðàêòè÷åñ- êîì ñîâïàäåíèè â ýñòîíñêîì ñëó÷àå “íàððàòèâíûõ ìîäåëåé” ïàìÿòè èíäèâèäóàëüíîé è ïàìÿòè êîëëåêòèâíîé.

339 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Èëüÿ ÃÅÐÀÑÈÌÎÂ

“ÂÎÑÏÎÌÈÍÀÍÈÅ Î ÁÓÄÓÙÅ̔. ÊÎÍÑÒÈÒÓÖÈÎÍÍÛÉ ÏÐÎÅÊÒ À. Ä. ÑÀÕÀÐÎÂÀ È ÏÐÎÁËÅÌÀ “ÑÈÑÒÅÌÍÎÉ ÏÀÌßÒȔ: ÌÅÆÄÓ “ÊÎÍÂÅÐÃÅÍÖÈÅɔ È “ÍÓËÅÂÛÌ ÂÀÐÈÀÍÒÎ̔

Îòêðûâàÿ â íîìåðå 1/2004 ãîäîâóþ òåìó, ïîñâÿùåííóþ ïðîáëåìå èçó÷åíèÿ ïàìÿòè â ãåòåðîãåííûõ (ïîëèêîíôåññèîíàëüíûõ, ìíî- ãîíàöèîíàëüíûõ è ò.ï.) îáùåñòâàõ, ìû ïèñàëè î ïåðåñòðîéêå 1980-õ ãã. â ÑÑÑÐ êàê î ïàðàäèãìàëüíîì ïðèìåðå ïðåâðàùåíèÿ “ïàìÿòè” â î÷åíü âëèÿòåëüíûé ôàêòîð ïîëèòè÷åñêîé, êóëüòóðíîé, íàöèîíàëüíîé è êîíôåññèîíàëüíîé ìîáèëèçàöèè.1 Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, [æèâàÿ è ïîäëèííàÿ] ïàìÿòü îêàçàëàñü ðåøàþùèì àðãóìåíòîì â ðàçâåí÷àíèè [ëæèâîé] îôèöèàëüíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè, äåëåãèòè- ìèçàöèè [ïðåñòóïíîãî] ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ðåæèìà è êðàõå [ôàëüøèâîé] èäåîëîãèè. Íà îáëîìêàõ íåêîãäà åäèíîé ñèñòåìû ïàìÿòü îäíîâðå- ìåííî ñòàíîâèëàñü îñíîâîé ñîëèäàðèçàöèè íîâûõ (ïðåæäå âñåãî, íàöèîíàëüíûõ) êîëëåêòèâîâ. Îäíàêî âîçíèêàåò âîïðîñ: à ìîãëà ëè

1 Îò ðåäàêöèè. Åñòü ëè ó èìïåðèè “ïàìÿòü”? Ïðèãëàøåíèå ê äèñêóññèè // Ab Imperio. 2004. ¹ 1. Ñ. 16-18. 341 È. Ãåðàñèìîâ, “Âîñïîìèíàíèå î áóäóùåì” ñóùåñòâîâàòü íåêàÿ ïðîìåæóòî÷íàÿ àëüòåðíàòèâà, ñâÿçàííàÿ ñ ðåôîðìèðîâàíèåì – íå ðàçðóøåíèåì – ïðåæíåãî åäèíîãî ïðî- ñòðàíñòâà? Èíûìè ñëîâàìè – â êîíòåêñòå íûíåøíåé òåìû ãîäà – ìîæåò ëè ïàìÿòü ñëóæèòü ñðåäñòâîì “ïðèìèðåíèÿ ÷åðåç ïðîøëîå”, ìîæíî ëè áûëî ðåôîðìèðîâàòü ÑÑÑÐ, ïðèçíàâàÿ ïðè ýòîì ñóùåñò- âîâàíèå ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ, ïîä÷àñ êîíôëèêòíûõ, “ïàìÿòåé” î ïðîø- ëîì ñòðàíû? Ñóäüáà ïîïûòêè êîíñòèòóöèîííîé ðåôîðìû ÑÑÑÐ â êîíöå 1980-õ ãîäîâ è, ïðåæäå âñåãî, êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà àêàäå- ìèêà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà êàê íåëüçÿ íàãëÿäíåå âîïëîùàåò ýòó êîëëèçèþ. Ïðè ýòîì âñêðûâàåòñÿ åùå îäèí àñïåêò ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ “ïàìÿ- òè”, îáû÷íî íàõîäÿùèéñÿ â òåíè áîëåå î÷åâèäíûõ åå ôóíêöèé (êàê äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîãî ðåñóðñà ëåãèòèìíîñòè è âäîõíîâèòåëÿ ïðÿìîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî äåéñòâèÿ), à èìåííî – “ïàìÿòü” êàê ñèñòå- ìîîáðàçóþùèé ôàêòîð.  äàííîì ñëó÷àå ðå÷ü èäåò î ïàìÿòè ñèñ- òåìíîé, à íå ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé, ïàìÿòè èíñòèòóòîâ è ñòðóêòóð, à íå èíäè- âèäóóìîâ è êîëëåêòèâîâ. Ó åäèíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà ÑÑÑÐ áûëà, â òîì ÷èñëå, è ñâîÿ ñòðóêòóðíàÿ ïàìÿòü, ïîýòîìó êàæäûé, êòî õîòåë ðåôîðìèðîâàòü ñèñòåìó, äîëæåí áûë ðåøèòü âîïðîñ î òîì, ÷òî äåëàòü ñ ýòîé ñèñòåìíîé èíåðöèåé, ñ êîííîòàöèÿìè, íàêîïèâøè- ìèñÿ ó ïðèâû÷íî î÷åð÷åííîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà è çíàêîìûõ èíñòèòóòîâ. Ïî ñàìîé ñâîåé ïðèðîäå êîíñòèòóöèÿ, êàê íàèáîëåå åìêîå è êðàòêîå îïèñàíèå ñèñòåìû, äîëæíà áûëà ðåøàòü ýòó ïðîáëåìó “ñèñòåìíîé ïàìÿòè”. Ïðåäëàãàåìàÿ âíèìàíèþ ÷èòàòåëåé ïóáëèêàöèÿ îõâàòûâàåò ïîñëåäíèå ïîëãîäà æèçíè À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà, ñ êîíöà ìàÿ 1989 ã. (ïîäãîòîâêà è îòêðûòèå Ïåðâîãî ñúåçäà íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ ÑÑÑÐ) äî 14 äåêàáðÿ, êîãäà îáîðâàëñÿ è íåïðåðûâíûé ïðîöåññ ðàáîòû Ñàõàðîâà íàä ïðîåêòîì êîíñòèòóöèè “Ñîþçà Ñîâåòñêèõ Ðåñïóáëèê Åâðîïû è Àçèè” – åäèíñòâåííûì ïîëíîöåííûì àëüòåð- íàòèâíûì ïëàíîì ïåðåóñòðîéñòâà ÑÑÑÐ, ðîæäåííûì â ãîäû ïåðåñòðîéêè. Õîòÿ òåêñò ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè (â ðàçëè÷íûõ ðåäàêöèÿõ) áûë íàïå÷àòàí íà ðóññêîì ÿçûêå è øèðîêî äîñòóïåí â èíòåðíåòå,2 ìû âïåðâûå ïóáëèêóåì åå ïåðåâîä íà àíãëèéñêèé ÿçûê: íàì õîòåëîñü áû ââåñòè ýòîò âàæíûé äîêóìåíò â ìåæäóíà-

2 http://www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/6485; http://www.polit.ru/research/2004/12/14/ sakharov_konst.html; http://www.yabloko.ru/Themes/History/sakharov_const.html. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 25 ÿíâàðÿ 2005 ã. 342 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ðîäíûé íàó÷íûé îáîðîò, âûéäÿ çà ïðåäåëû äîñòàòî÷íî óçêîãî êðóãà ðóññêîÿçû÷íûõ ýêñïåðòîâ. Òåêñòó êîíñòèòóöèè ïðåäøåñòâóþò òðè àðõèâíûõ äîêóìåíòà, êîòîðûå îò÷àñòè ðàñêðûâàþò ïðîöåññ êîíñòèòóöèîííîé ìûñëè Ñàõàðîâà. Çàâåðøàåò æå ðóáðèêó íåáîëü- øîé ôîðóì, ïîñâÿùåííûé ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè, â êîòîðîì ïðèíÿëè ó÷àñòèå ïîëèòîëîãè, èñòîðèêè, þðèñòû è ïðàâîçàùèòíèêè èç ðàçíûõ ñòðàí – ïðîîáðàç áîëüøîãî è áîëåå ïðåäñòàâèòåëüíîãî ôîðóìà, êîòîðûé, âåðîÿòíî, êîãäà-íèáóäü ñîáåðåòñÿ äëÿ îáñóæäå- íèÿ ýòîãî âàæíîãî òåêñòà. Ïîäîáíûé ôîðìàò àðõèâíîé ïóáëèêàöèè íåîáû÷åí äëÿ AI, êàê íåîáû÷íû è ïóáëèêóåìûå äîêóìåíòû: ñîáûòèÿ 15-ëåòíåé äàâíîñòè åùå âïîëíå ñâåæè â íàøåé ïàìÿòè, ìû áûëè ñâèäåòåëÿìè, åäâà ëè íå ó÷àñòíèêàìè òîãî, î ÷åì ãîâîðèòñÿ â ýòèõ äîêóìåíòàõ. Íàäååìñÿ, ÷òî â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ñòîëêíîâåíèå èñòîðè÷åñêîé ýêñïåðòèçû è ëè÷íîé ïàìÿòè ïîñëóæèò ñêîðåå íàãëÿäíîé èëëþñòðàöèåé ñïåöè- ôè÷åñêîé èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ñèòóàöèè (î ÷åì øëà ðå÷ü â ýòîì è äðó- ãèõ íîìåðàõ æóðíàëà â 2004 ã.), íåæåëè èñòî÷íèêîì î÷åðåäíîãî êîíôëèêòà èíòåðïðåòàöèé. Ìû ïîëàãàåì, ÷òî êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà èí- òåðåñåí íå òîëüêî êàê ðåëèêò óøåäøåé ýïîõè, î êîòîðîì ðèòóàëü- íî âñïîìèíàþò ñ ïðèáëèæåíèåì îñíîâíûõ äàò ìåìîðèàëüíîãî öèê- ëà, ñâÿçàííîãî ñ åãî èìåíåì. Îäíàêî àêòóàëüíîñòü åãî íå î÷åâèä- íà, è ëèøü ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíàÿ äèñêóññèÿ ìîæåò îïðåäåëèòü ñòå- ïåíü àêòóàëüíîñòè èäåé Ñàõàðîâà äëÿ íàñòîÿùåãî ìîìåíòà. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî ñóäüáà ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè íåîáû÷íà: ïðè åãî æèçíè äîêóìåíò êàçàëñÿ ÷åðåñ÷óð ðàäèêàëüíûì äàæå áëèæàéøèì ïîëèòè÷åñêèì ñîðàòíèêàì Ñàõàðîâà. Ïðîøëî ìåíåå äâóõ ëåò – è íà ôîíå ðàñïàäà ÑÑÑÐ ïðîåêò “ñîþçà” “ñîâåòñêèõ” ðåñïóáëèê ïðå- âðàòèëñÿ â áåçíàäåæíûé àíàõðîíèçì.  1990-õ ãã. ñïåöèôè÷åñ- êèé ïàôîñ è ãëîáàëüíûé ìàñøòàá ñàõàðîâñêîãî êîíñòèòóöèîííî- ãî ïðîåêòà äåëàëè åãî òðóäíî ñîâìåñòèìûì ñ âåñüìà êîíêðåòíûìè ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ïðîáëåìàìè âïîëíå êîìïàêòíîé ê òîìó âðåìåíè Ðîññèéñêîé Ôåäåðàöèè. Îäíàêî íà íàøèõ ãëàçàõ ýòîò äîêóìåíò âíîâü ïðèîáðåòàåò çíà÷åíèå, âûõîäÿùåå çà ïðåäåëû îáùåé äåêëà- ðàöèè ãðàæäàíñêèõ ïðàâ: äå-ôåäåðàëèçàöèÿ Ðîññèè è ïîñëåäîâà- òåëüíàÿ êîìïðîìåòàöèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ 1990-õ ãã. ïó- òèíñêèì ðåæèìîì “çà÷èùàåò” ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ñôåðó â ñòðàíå.  ýòîé ñèòóàöèè åùå íåäàâíî ëèøåííûé íåïîñðåäñòâåííîé ðåëåâàíòíî- ñòè è îòîäâèíóòûé â ñôåðó àêàäåìè÷åñêèõ øòóäèé ïëàñò ïîëèòè- 343 È. Ãåðàñèìîâ, “Âîñïîìèíàíèå î áóäóùåì” ÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû (îò ñî÷èíåíèé Àëåêñèñà äå Òîêâèëÿ äî ðàáîò Àíäðåÿ Ñàõàðîâà) îêàçûâàåòñÿ ñòîëü æå ðåëåâàíòíûì (èëè íåâî- ñòðåáîâàííûì), êàê è Êîíñòèòóöèÿ ÐÔ 1993 ã. è åëüöèíñêèå ïðàê- òèêè âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ ñ ðåãèîíàìè. Ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî ñà- õàðîâñêèé ïðîåêò âåðíåòñÿ â àêòèâíûé ïîëèòè÷åñêèé äèñêóðñ â ñêîðîì áóäóùåì, êîãäà âñòàíåò âîïðîñ î âîçìîæíîñòè (è öåíå) ñî- õðàíåíèÿ åäèíñòâà Ðîññèéñêîé Ôåäåðàöèè íà ôîíå ïîëíîñòüþ ñêîìïðîìåòèðîâàííîé öåíòðàëèçîâàííîé ñèñòåìû. Îäíàêî âåðíåìñÿ ê ãëàâíîé òåìå ýòîé ïóáëèêàöèè: êîíñòèòó- öèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà êàê ïîïûòêà óðåãóëèðîâàòü êîíô- ëèêò ìåæäó ðåâîëþöèîííûì ïîòåíöèàëîì “ïàìÿòåé” ëþäåé è èíåðöèåé “ïàìÿòè” ñèñòåìû. Ïåðâûé ïóáëèêóåìûé äîêóìåíò, ÷åðíîâèê âûñòóïëåíèÿ àêàäåìèêà Ñàõàðîâà íà Ïåðâîì ñúåçäå íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ ÑÑÑÐ, ñðàçó æå çàäàåò êîíòåêñò, â êîòîðîì ôîðìèðîâàëèñü åãî êîíñòèòóöèîííûå èäåè. Ñúåçä íàðîäíûõ äåïó- òàòîâ ïîòåíöèàëüíî ìîã îáåðíóòüñÿ ëåãàëüíîé ðåâîëþöèåé (â îïðå- äåëåííîì ñìûñëå îí è ñûãðàë ðåâîëþöèîíèçèðóþùóþ ðîëü), è À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâ ïûòàëñÿ â ïîëíîé ìåðå âûñâîáîäèòü ýòîò ðåâîëþ- öèîííûé ïîòåíöèàë. Ãëàâíàÿ òåìà åãî âûñòóïëåíèÿ íà ñúåçäå – ïðèçûâ ïðèíÿòü “äåêðåò î âëàñòè”, îáúÿâëÿþùèé ñúåçä âûñøèì îðãàíîì ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé âëàñòè â ñòðàíå. Íàñ æå èíòåðåñóåò, êàêèì îáðàçîì ýòîò êîíòåêñò ðåâîëþöèîííîé ñèòóàöèè è ðàäè- êàëüíîé äåìîêðàòèçàöèè ïðîÿâëÿëñÿ â åãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿõ î íàöèî- íàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîì óñòðîéñòâå ÑÑÑÐ.  âûñòóïëåíèè î÷åâèäíû äâà àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ òðîïà: ïëîäî- òâîðíîå íàñëåäèå äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé è “ñîâåòñêîé” ðåâîëþöèè 1917 ãîäà (ñð. ðèòîðèêó “äåêðåòà î âëàñòè”, êëè÷à “âñÿ âëàñòü ñîâåòàì”) è íåãàòèâíîå íàñëåäèå èìïåðèè è ñòàëèíèçìà.  ñèòóàöèè îæèäàåìîãî íîâîãî ñîâåòñêîãî âîññòàíèÿ è óñòàíîâëåíèÿ ðåæèìà ïðÿìîé äåìîêðàòèè ðàäèêàëèçóåòñÿ è ïðîáëåìà âûáîðà “ïðàâèëüíîãî” íàñëåäèÿ è îòêàçà îò íåïðàâåäíîãî. Êëþ÷åâîé âîïðîñ äèëåììû ïàìÿòè èìïåðèè/íàöèè – êòî ñóáúåêò è ëåãèòèìíûé íîñèòåëü ïàìÿòè? – ðàçðåøàåòñÿ À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâûì â èþíå 1989 ã. íàèáîëåå ðåâîëþöèîííûì ïóòåì: âñå è êàæäûé. Ýòî ìîæíî íàçâàòü “íóëåâûì âàðèàíòîì” ðåøåíèÿ ïðîáëåìû ìíîæåñòâåííîñòè “ïàìÿòåé”, ïîñêîëüêó íè îäíîé èç âåðñèé íå îòäàåòñÿ ïðåäïî÷òåíèÿ. Èäåàë ïðÿìîé äåìîêðàòèè íå äîïóñêàåò öåíçà ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñóáúåêòîâ, ïîýòîìó Ñàõàðîâ ïðåäóñìàòðèâàåò “ïðåäîñòàâëåíèå âñåì ñóùå- ñòâóþùèì íàöèîíàëüíî-òåððèòîðèàëüíûì îáðàçîâàíèÿì, âíå 344 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 çàâèñèìîñòè îò èõ ðàçìåðà è íûíåøíåãî ñòàòóñà, ðàâíûõ ïîëèòè- ÷åñêèõ, þðèäè÷åñêèõ è ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ ïðàâ Ðàçëè÷èÿ â ðàçìåðàõ è ÷èñëåííîñòè íàñåëåíèÿ ðåñïóáëèê è îòñóòñòâèå âíåøíèõ ãðàíèö íå äîëæíû ñìóùàòü”. Êàæäàÿ òåððèòîðèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ åäèíèöà ìîæåò ñòàòü ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíûì ñóáúåêòîì ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîñòè, ïðåæíèå èåðàðõèè îòìåíÿþòñÿ, à çíà÷èò, è âñÿêîå âëèÿíèå “èçâíå” – òàêèì îáðàçîì, åäèíñòâåííûì ñòðóêòóðèðóþùèì íà÷àëîì îñòàåòñÿ âíóòðåííåå îùóùåíèå åäèíñòâà ýòîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ, òî åñòü “íàñëåäèå” (êóëüòóðà, ýòíîêîíôåññèîíàëüíàÿ îáùíîñòü, ðåãèîíàëüíàÿ ñîëèäàðíîñòü è ïð.) è ïàìÿòü î íåì. Ïåðåìåùåííûå íàðîäû è ïðåñëåäóåìûå êîíôåññèè òàêæå ñòàíî- âÿòñÿ ïîëíîïðàâíûìè ñóáúåêòàìè, âîññòàíîâëåííûìè âî âñåõ ñâîèõ óòðà÷åííûõ ïðàâàõ. Áóäó÷è ëèøåííûìè îôèöèàëüíî èíñòèòóöèî- íàëèçèðîâàííîé ñòðóêòóðû, ýòè ñóáúåêòû ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà è íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâà ïî÷òè èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî îïðåäåëÿþòñÿ ÷åðåç íàëè÷èå ãðóïïîâîé ïàìÿòè è îñîáîãî “èñòîðè÷åñêîãî” íàñëåäèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ðåâîëþöèÿ îêàçûâàåòñÿ îáóñëîâ- ëåííîé è äàæå ñêîíôèãóðèðîâàííîé “ïàìÿòÿìè” ãðóïï, îêàçàâ- øèõñÿ åå ñóáúåêòàìè. Êàê îòìå÷àþò è ó÷àñòíèêè íàøåãî ôîðóìà, íåèçáåæíûì ñëåä- ñòâèåì ýòîé ðåâîëþöèè ñóáúåêòîâ è èõ [êîíôëèêòóþùèõ] óñòðåì- ëåíèé è âîñïîìèíàíèé äîëæíà áûëà ñòàòü ãðàæäàíñêàÿ âîéíà íà âñåõ ôðîíòàõ. Âîçâðàùåíèå “ê ðîäíûì ìåñòàì” (“ìåñòàì ïàìÿòè” â ñàìîì áóêâàëüíîì ñìûñëå) ïåðåñåëåííûõ íàðîäîâ ïðîâîöèðóåò ÿðîñòíîå ñîïðîòèâëåíèå ñòàâøåãî óæå “ìåñòíûì” íàñåëåíèÿ, à ïðåäïîëîæåíèå î íåîáõîäèìîñòè â áóäóùåì “óòî÷íåíèÿ ãðàíèö îáðàçîâàíèé è ñîñòàâà Ôåäåðàöèè” íåìåäëåííî âûçûâàåò îáðàçû Þãîñëàâñêîé âîéíû. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî “ïðèìèðèòü” êîíôëèêò ïàìÿòè ìîæåò ëèáî äîïóùåíèå âûñøåé ñîçíàòåëüíîñòè “ñóáúåêòî┠íîâîãî íàöèîíàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà, ëèáî èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîå ðåãóëèðîâàíèå. Âòîðîé ïóáëèêóåìûé äîêóìåíò òðóäíî äàòèðîâàòü òî÷íî, ýòî – ÷åðíîâûå çàìåòêè äëÿ ñîâìåñòíîé äåêëàðàöèè Ìåæðåãèîíàëüíîé äåïóòàòñêîé ãðóïïû (ÌÄÃ), îäíèì èç ïÿòè ñîïðåäñåäàòåëåé êîòîðîé À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâ áûë èçáðàí â êîíöå èþëÿ 1989 ã. Çàìåòêè ôèêñèðóþò âàæíåéøóþ ýâîëþöèþ â êîíñòèòóöèîííûõ çàìûñëàõ Ñàõàðîâà: âåðîÿòíî, â ðåçóëüòàòå äèñêóññèé â äîñòàòî÷íî êîíñåðâàòèâíîé ñðåäå ÌÄÃ, îí êîððåêòèðóåò ñâîé ïåðâîíà÷àëüíûé ïëàí ýãàëèòàðíûõ ñóáúåêòîâ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè – ïðîñòî ïåðå÷åðêèâàÿ åãî. 345 È. Ãåðàñèìîâ, “Âîñïîìèíàíèå î áóäóùåì” Áûëî: ÌÃÄ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî îñíîâíûìè ïðèíöèïàìè íàö.-êîíñò. ðåôîðìû äîëæíû áûòü À) ïðèçíàíèå ïðèîðèòåòíîãî çíà÷åíèÿ ïðèíöèïà ñàìîîï- ðåäåëåíèÿ íàöèé Á) íåîáõîäèìîñòü íîâîãî Ñîþçíîãî Äîãîâîðà ìåæäó íàöèî- íàëüíûìè [è] íàöèîí.-òåððèòîðèàëüíûìè îáðàçîâàíèÿìè ÑÑÑÐ (ñîþçíûõ ðåñïóáëèê, àâòîíîìíûõ ðåñïóáëèê, àâòîíîìíûõ îáëàñòåé, íàöèîíàëüíûõ îêðóãîâ). Ñòàëî: 2. ÌÃÄ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî îñíîâíûìè ïðèíöèïàìè íàö.-êîíñò. ðåôîðìû äîëæíû áûòü À) ïðèçíàíèå ïðèîðèòåòíîãî çíà÷åíèÿ ïðèíöèïà ñàìîîï- ðåäåëåíèÿ íàöèé Á) íåîáõîäèìîñòü íîâîãî Ñîþçíîãî Äîãîâîðà á) ÍÒ-îáðàçîâàíèÿ äîáðîâîëüíî îáúåäèíÿþòñÿ, îáðàçóÿ ðåñïóáëèêè (íàïðèìåð ÍÎ îáúåäèíÿþòñÿ ñ ÑÐ) â) Ðåñïóáëèêà ÿâëÿåòñÿ åäèíñòâåííîé íàöèîíàëüíî-òåððèòîð. åäèíèöåé 2) Ðåñïóáëèêè îáúåäèí. â Ñîþç íà îñíîâå Ñîþçíîãî Äîãîâîðà. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïî-ïðåæíåìó âîçëàãàÿ áîëüøèå íàäåæäû íà ñîçíàòåëüíîñòü ñóáúåêòîâ ïîëèòèêè (è ïàìÿòè), êîòîðûå äîëæ- íû îáúåäèíÿòüñÿ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî íà äîáðîâîëüíîé îñíîâå, À. Ä. Ñà- õàðîâ ê êîíöó ëåòà – íà÷àëó îñåíè 1989 ã. ãîòîâ ïðèçíàòü òàêîâûìè ëèøü îáðàçîâàíèÿ, ñîïîñòàâèìûå ïî ìàñøòàáó ñ ïðåæíåé ñîþçíîé ðåñïóáëèêîé. Ê ìîìåíòó âñòóïëåíèÿ â íîâûé Ñîþç ðåñïóáëèêè äîëæíû áûëè ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî óðåãóëèðîâàòü âíóòðè ñåáÿ âçàèìíûå ïðåòåíçèè è ñïîðû “ìëàäøèõ ñóáúåêòîâ”. Ìåëêèì àäìèíèñòðà- òèâíûì åäèíèöàì, âðîäå îáëàñòåé è îêðóãîâ, íè÷åãî íå îñòàâàëîñü êàê âñòóïèòü â òó èëè èíóþ ðåñïóáëèêó, ïîòîìó ÷òî ñàìè ïî ñåáå îíè óæå íå ðàññìàòðèâàëèñü â êà÷åñòâå ïîëíîöåííûõ “ñóáúåêòîâ”, êàêèì áû ïîòåíöèàëîì ëåãèòèìèçàöèè ñóâåðåíèòåòà íè îáëàäàëà èõ “ïàìÿòü”. (Ìîæíî ïðåäñòàâèòü ñåáå, ÷òî âåðíóâøèåñÿ â Êðûì êðûìñêèå òàòàðû çàõîòåëè óñòàíîâèòü ñîáñòâåííóþ ãîñóäàðñòâåííóþ ñòðóêòóðó; îíè áûëè áû âûíóæäåíû èñêàòü ñåáå ìåñòî â ðàìêàõ Êðûìñêîé àâòîíîìèè è äàëåå – Ðîññèéñêîé Ôåäåðàöèè èëè Ðåñïóáëèêè Óêðàèíà). Òàêèì îáðàçîì, “èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíàÿ ïàìÿòü” 346 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íà ýòîì ýòàïå îêàçûâàåòñÿ íå ìåíåå çíà÷èòåëüíûì èñòî÷íèêîì ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñóâåðåíèòåòà, ÷åì ïàìÿòü êîëëåêòèâà: ìîæíî ïðåäïîëîæèòü, ÷òî íîâûå ñîþçíûå ðåñïóáëèêè âî ìíîãîì ïîâòî- ðÿëè áû êîíôèãóðàöèè ñîþçíûõ ðåñïóáëèê ÑÑÑÐ (ñàìà ãåîãðàôèÿ îãðàíè÷èâàåò êîëè÷åñòâî âîçìîæíûõ âàðèàíòîâ), à çíà÷èò, “èìïåðñêîå íàñëåäèå” îêàçûâàëîñü áû íå ìåíåå âàæíûì ôàêòîðîì, ÷åì ñâîáîäíîå âîëåèçëèÿíèå íàñåëåíèÿ. Òðåòèé äîêóìåíò äàòèðîâàí ñîâåðøåííî îäíîçíà÷íî – ýòî ñòåíîã- ðàììà çàñåäàíèÿ Êîíñòèòóöèîííîé êîìèññèè, ñîçäàííîé ïî ðåøå- íèþ Ïåðâîãî ñúåçäà íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ, âî ìíîãîì ïî èíèöèàòèâå À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà. Âå÷åðîì 27 íîÿáðÿ 1989 ã. îí âûñòóïèë íà êîìèññèè ñ ïðåçåíòàöèåé ñîáñòâåííîãî êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà. Äåéñòâóþ- ùèé â èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîé ëîãèêå ïðåäñåäàòåëü êîìèññèè Ì. Ñ. Ãîð- áà÷åâ ïðåäïîëàãàë, ÷òî êîìèññèÿ êàê ñïåöèàëüíûé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé îðãàí äîëæíà âûðàáàòûâàòü ñîâìåñòíûé è åäèíñòâåííûé òåêñò íîâîé êîíñòèòóöèè; ìûñëÿùèé â ïàðàäèãìå ïëþðàëèçìà À. Ä. Ñàõà- ðîâ íàñòàèâàë, ÷òî íåîáõîäèìî ðàññìàòðèâàòü öåëûé ðÿä àëüòåð- íàòèâíûõ ïðîåêòîâ, â äîïîëíåíèå ê åãî ñîáñòâåííîìó.  ïåðâîì ñëó÷àå ìîæíî áûëî îæèäàòü, ÷òî íàèáîëüøåå âëèÿíèå íà òåêñò êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà îêàæóò ñàìûå “ñèñòåìíî”-ìûñëÿùèå (è èíòåãðèðîâàííûå) ÷ëåíû êîìèññèè; âî âòîðîì ñëó÷àå, îñòàâàëîñü òîëüêî ãàäàòü, êàêîâ äîëæåí áûë áûòü ìåõàíèçì îïðåäåëåíèÿ ëó÷øåãî ïðîåêòà ñðåäè ïîëíîöåííûõ àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ (âíîâü âîçíè- êàåò äèëåììà: âûñøàÿ ñîçíàòåëüíîñòü – èåðàðõèçàöèÿ ñóáúåêòîâ). Ïðåäñòàâëÿÿ îñíîâíûå èäåè ñâîåãî êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà, À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâ ñëåäóåò ïàðàäèãìå “íóëåâîãî âàðèàíòà” ðåøåíèÿ ïðîáëåìû ìíîæåñòâåííîñòè ñóáúåêòîâ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñòðîè- òåëüñòâà (è ëåãèòèìèðóþùèõ èõ “ïàìÿòåé”). Ñàõàðîâ ïðÿìî ãîâîðèò, ÷òî “íàøå ãîñóäàðñòâî äîëæíî ñîçäàâàòüñÿ â êàêîì-òî ñìûñëå ñíîâà”, ïîýòîìó íåîáõîäèìî ïîäïèñàíèå íîâîãî ñîþçíîãî äîãî- âîðà è äàæå íîâîå íàçâàíèå äëÿ ñòðàíû. (“Ýòî ñâÿçàíî ñ òåì, ÷òî íàøå ðàçâèòèå øëî ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî áîëåçíåííî.  õîäå ýòîãî ðàçâèòèÿ ñîâåðøåíû êîëîññàëüíûå îøèáêè, ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ.”) Òàêèì îáðàçîì, îòìåíÿþòñÿ âñå ñóùåñòâóþùèå ïðèíöèïû ëåãèòèìàöèè ñóâåðåíè- òåòà (÷åðåç èíåðöèþ ñèñòåìû / ñîâåòñêîå èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîå íàñëåäèå) è ñîçäàíèå íîâîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ìûñëèòñÿ “íà îñíîâàíèè îäíîãî åäèíñòâåííîãî ïðèíöèïà – ïðèíöèïà ñàìîîïðåäåëåíèÿ íàöèé è íàðîäîâ, ïðèíöèïà íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñàìîîïðåäåëåíèÿ”. Îäíàêî ïðèíöèï ñàìîîïðåäåëåíèÿ “íàöèé è íàðîäî┠íå òîëüêî 347 È. Ãåðàñèìîâ, “Âîñïîìèíàíèå î áóäóùåì” óãðîæàåò êàòàñòðîôè÷åñêèìè ïîñëåäñòâèÿìè äëÿ ñòàáèëüíîñòè ëþáîãî ïîëèýòíè÷åñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, î ÷åì ìû óæå ãîâîðèëè, íî è îãðàíè÷èâàåò ñàìó ïàðàäèãìó “íóëåâîãî âàðèàíòà”. Äåéñòâè- òåëüíî, â òî âðåìÿ, êàê áûâøèå ðåñïóáëèêè èëè öåíòðàëüíûå îðãàíû ãîñóäàðñòâà ïðèçíàþòñÿ íàñëåäèåì, îò êîòîðîãî íàäî îòêàçàòüñÿ, íàöèè è íàðîäû “ñàìîîïðåäåëÿþòñÿ” ïóòåì àêòóàëèçàöèè ñâîåãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ – êîòîðîå, â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè, ôîð- ìèðîâàëîñü è êóëüòèâèðîâàëîñü íûíå äèñêðåäèòèðîâàííûìè èíñòèòóòàìè. Ïîýòîìó æåëàåìîå ðàâåíñòâî âîçìîæíîñòåé “íà ñòàðòå” îêàçûâàåòñÿ íåäîñòèæèìûì äàæå òåîðåòè÷åñêè: ëèøü íåáîëü- øàÿ ÷àñòü èç ôèêñèðîâàâøèõñÿ ïåðåïèñÿìè íàñåëåíèÿ “íàöèîíàëü- íîñòåé” ÑÑÑÐ èìåëà ðåàëüíûé ïîòåíöèàë äëÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñàìîîïðåäåëåíèÿ (ñîáñòâåííóþ ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ýëèòó è èíñòèòóöèî- íàëèçèðîâàííûå êàíàëû ìîáèëèçàöèè). Ñîáñòâåííûé èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûé ãîðèçîíò àâòîðà êîíñòèòó- öèîííîãî ïðîåêòà îêàçûâàåòñÿ äðóãèì åñòåñòâåííûì áàðüåðîì íà ïóòè ðàäèêàëüíîãî ðàçðûâà ñ “ïàìÿòüþ ñèñòåìû”. Ñàìî íàçâàíèå íîâîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, ïðåäëîæåííîå À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâûì – “Ñîþç Ñîâåòñêèõ Ðåñïóáëèê Åâðîïû è Àçèè” – ôèêñèðóåò ïðååìñòâåí- íîñòü ñ ðàííåñîâåòñêèì ïåðèîäîì, è ïðÿìàÿ ññûëêà Ñàõàðîâà íà àâòîðèòåò Â. È. Ëåíèíà âðÿä ëè ÿâëÿåòñÿ âñåãî ëèøü ðèòîðè- ÷åñêèì ïðèåìîì, ðàññ÷èòàííûì íà ïðèñóòñòâóþùåãî Ãåíåðàëüíîãî Ñåêðåòàðÿ ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ. Âïîëíå ëîãè÷íî â ýòîì âûñòóïëåíèè À. Ä. Ñà- õàðîâà çâó÷èò èäåÿ, âïåðâûå ïîÿâèâøàÿñÿ â óïîìèíàâøèõñÿ âûøå ÷åðíîâûõ çàìåòêàõ, – î ïðèçíàíèè ïîëíîöåííîãî ñóâåðåíèòåòà òîëüêî çà íîâûìè ðåñïóáëèêàìè. Ââîäÿ íà ðàçíûõ óðîâíÿõ îãðà- íè÷åíèå ïðèíöèïà ðàâíîãî ñóâåðåíèòåòà è ðàâåíñòâà ñóáúåêòîâ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà, À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâ âûñòðàèâàë ïàðà- äèãìó, êîòîðóþ ìîæíî óñëîâíî íàçâàòü “êîíâåðãåíöèåé” (ïðîèç- âîëüíî ðàñøèðÿÿ çíà÷åíèå ðåàëüíî èñïîëüçîâàâøåãîñÿ èì ïîíÿòèÿ).  äàííîì ñëó÷àå ðå÷ü èäåò íå î êîíâåðãåíöèè ìèðîâûõ ñîöèàëüíî- ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñèñòåì, à î ïðèìèðåíèè èäåàëüíîé ìîäåëè è ïîëè- òè÷åñêîé ðåàëüíîñòè, “ïàìÿòåé” ñ÷èòàþùèõñÿ óãíåòåííûìè íàöèî- íàëüíûõ ãðóïï è àêòóàëèçèðóþùåãîñÿ íàñëåäèÿ ñòàðîãî ðåïðåñ- ñèâíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Îáå ïàðàäèãìû – “íóëåâîãî âàðèàíòà” è “êîíâåðãåíöèè” – âïîëíå ÷åòêî ïðîïèñàíû â âûñòóïëåíèè À. Ä. Ñàõà- ðîâà íà çàñåäàíèè êîíñòèòóöèîííîé êîìèññèè, è òî÷íî òàêæå îíè ñîñóùåñòâóþò â ïðîåêòå êîíñòèòóöèè, íàä êîòîðûì îí ðàáîòàë äî ñàìîé ñìåðòè.  íåé óæèâàþòñÿ ïðèíöèïû ïðÿìîé äåìîêðàòèè 348 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 è ðàâåíñòâà ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñóáúåêòîâ (ñòàòüè 16, 17) ñ ôàêòè÷åñêèì ïðèçíàíèåì ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ “òèòóëüíûõ íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé” è èåðàðõè÷åñêè ïîä÷èíåííûõ ãðóïï (ñòàòüÿ 24). Âîïðîñ î ðåñïóáëè- êàíñêèõ ãðàíèöàõ îñòàåòñÿ îòêðûòûì, ïðèçíàåòñÿ ïðàâî ñåöåññèè. Îäíàêî âåñü ïðîåêò ïðîíèêíóò óáåæäåíèåì â òîì, ÷òî ïðåäîñòàâ- ëåííûå ñàìèì ñåáå íîâûå íàöèîíàëüíî-ãîñóäàðñòâåííûå îáðàçî- âàíèÿ äîáðîâîëüíî ïîæåëàþò îáúåäèíèòüñÿ â íîâûé Ñîþç è áóäóò ðåøàòü âîçìîæíûå ñïîðû ìåæäó ñîáîé ñîçíàòåëüíî è öèâèëèçîâàííî. Î ñòåïåíè ðåàëèñòè÷íîñòè è âíóòðåííåé íåïðîòèâîðå÷èâîñòè êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà ðàçìûøëÿþò ó÷àñòíèêè çàâåðøàþùåãî ïóáëèêàöèþ ôîðóìà. Íàñ æå ýòîò äîêóìåíò èíòå- ðåñóåò, ïðåæäå âñåãî, êàê ïðåäëîæåííàÿ âûäàþùèìñÿ ìûñëèòåëåì àáñòðàêòíàÿ ìîäåëü, ïðèçâàííàÿ ðåøèòü êîíêðåòíûå ïðîáëåìû, ñòîÿâøèå ïåðåä íàøèì îáùåñòâîì 15 ëåò íàçàä. Íàêëàäûâàÿ ñàõà- ðîâñêèé ïðîåêò íà ðåàëèè åãî âðåìåíè – è çíàÿ òî, ÷òî çíàåì ìû ñåãîäíÿ î ïîñëåäóþùèõ ñîáûòèÿõ – ñïðîñèì ñåáÿ: âîçìîæíî ëè ïðè- ìèðåíèå ÷åðåç ïàìÿòü? Êàêèì îáðàçîì îñâîáîæäåíèå äåìîêðàòè- ÷åñêîãî è ðàäèêàëüíîãî ïîòåíöèàëà ÷àñòíûõ è êîíôëèêòóþùèõ “ïàìÿòåé” (ò.å. ïðèçíàíèå ðàâíîïðàâíûìè ñóáúåêòî⠓âñïîìèíà- íèÿ”) ìîæíî âïèñàòü â íåêîå îáùåå ïðîñòðàíñòâî? Ïî÷åìó ïðè- çíàíèå îòâåòñòâåííîñòè çà Ãîëîäîìîð, îêêóïàöèþ 1939-1940 ãã., òáèëèññêóþ òðàãåäèþ 1989 ã. è ò.ï. äîëæíî ïîäòîëêíóòü õðàíÿùèå ïàìÿòü î ïðîøëûõ òðàãåäèÿõ íàðîäû ê âñòóïëåíèþ â íîâûé ãîñó- äàðñòâåííûé ñîþç? Äàæå ïîâåðõíîñòíûé àíàëèç ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèîííîé ìûñëè ïðåäëàãàåò íåñêîëüêî âîçìîæíûõ îòâåòîâ. ×åñòíîå è íåîãðàíè÷åííîå îáðàùåíèå ê èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè â ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïëîñêîñòè ïðåäóñìàòðèâàåò “íóëåâîé âàðèàíò”: âñå âåðñèè ïðîøëîãî è âñå ñóáúåêòû “âñïîìèíàíèÿ” ïðèçíàþòñÿ ðàâíî ëåãèòèìíûìè è ñóâåðåííûìè, ïðè ýòîì òîëüêî âûñî÷àéøàÿ ñîçíàòåëüíîñòü ýòèõ “ñóáúåêòî┠äàåò íàäåæäó èçáåæàòü æåñòîêèõ ñîöèàëüíûõ êîíôëèêòîâ, îáóñëîâëåííûõ êîíôëèêòíûìè “ïàìÿòÿìè”. Îáúåäèíåíèå æå (ïðèìèðåíèå / ñèíòåç ðàçíûõ âåðñèé ïàìÿòè) âîçìîæíî ëèøü ïðè óñëîâèè, ÷òî ñàìà ýòà èäåÿ â ðàâíîé ñòåïåíè ïðèñóòñòâóåò ó âñåõ ñóáúåêòîâ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ è ìíåìîíè÷åñêèõ ïðîöåññîâ. Èñòîðèÿ ðàñïàäà Þãîñëàâèè è ÑÑÑÐ ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ýòî – ìàëîâåðîÿòíàÿ ïåðñïåêòèâà. Äðóãîé êðàéíîñòüþ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïàðàäèãìà “êîíâåðãåíöèè”: åäèíñòâî ïðîñòðàíñòâà îáùåé ïàìÿòè è ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà 349 È. Ãåðàñèìîâ, “Âîñïîìèíàíèå î áóäóùåì” äîñòèãàåòñÿ çà ñ÷åò öåíçóðû, îãðàíè÷åíèÿ ñóâåðåíèòåòà ñóáúåêòîâ ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî äåéñòâèÿ è ïàìÿòè. Ñòàáèëèçèðóþùèì ýëåìåíòîì âûñòóïàåò èíåðöèÿ ñèñòåìû, “ïàìÿòü ñòðóêòóðû”, êîòîðàÿ ïîä- äåðæèâàåò ëåãèòèìíîñòü ñóùåñòâóþùåãî ïîðÿäêà è îãðàíè÷èâàåò ïàðàìåòðû ðàçðåøåííîé “ïàìÿòè”. Íå÷òî ïîõîæåå ïðîèñõîäèò â ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè, êîãäà èìåííî ñèñòåìíàÿ, ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ òðàäèöèÿ îáúÿâëÿåòñÿ “ïðèìèðÿþùèì” îáùèì çíàìåíàòåëåì ðàçëè÷íûõ íàöèîíàëüíûõ è ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ãðóïï. Ñóùåñòâóåò (âñå ñîêðàùàþùèéñÿ) êàòàëîã ëåãàëüíûõ ñóáúåêòîâ ïîëèòèêè è ïàìÿòè, à òàêæå æåñòêèå ðàìêè ðàçðåøåííîãî ê âñïîìèíàíèþ. Êàê ìû ïîíèìàåì òåïåðü, îãëÿäûâàÿñü íà îïûò 1990-õ ãã., ýòà ñèñòåìà ìîæåò áûòü ñðàâíèòåëüíî äèíàìè÷íîé è (ïàðàäîêñàëüíûì îáðàçîì) óñòîé÷èâîé. Ðåàëèè ïóòèíñêîé Ðîññèè ïîäñêàçûâàþò åùå îäèí âûâîä: åñëè ïðè êîíâåðãåíöèè äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè è èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîé èíåðöèè äîìèíèðóåò ïîñëåäíÿÿ, ñèñòåìà óòðà÷èâàåò ýëàñòè÷íîñòü è ñòàíîâèòñÿ óÿçâèìîé äëÿ íîâîé ðåâî- ëþöèè – â òîì ÷èñëå è ðåâîëþöèè ïàìÿòåé. Ðåäàêöèÿ Ab Imperio áëàãîäàðèò Òàòüÿíó ßíêåëåâè÷, äèðåêòîðà Ñàõàðîâñêîé Ïðîãðàììû ïðàâ ÷åëîâåêà, Öåíòð Äýâèñà äëÿ ðîñ- ñèéñêèõ è åâðàçèéñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ïðè Ãàðâàðäñêîì Óíèâåðñè- òåòå (Êåìáðèäæ, Ìàññà÷óñåòòñ, ÑØÀ) è Áýëó Êîâàëü, çàâåäóþùóþ Àðõèâîì Ñàõàðîâà (Ìîñêâà, Ðîññèÿ), çà ïîìîùü â îðãàíèçàöèè ýòîé ïóáëèêàöèè. Ìû áëàãîäàðèì Åëåíó Áîííýð çà ðàçðåøåíèå îïóáëèêîâàòü îòîáðàííûå äîêóìåíòû.

350 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

ÌÀÒÅÐÈÀËÛ ÊÎÍÑÒÈÒÓÖÈÎÍÍÎÃÎ ÏÐÎÅÊÒÀ À. Ä. ÑÀÕÀÐÎÂÀ:

ÈÞÍÜ-ÍÎßÁÐÜ 1989 Ã.

I. ×åðíîâèê âûñòóïëåíèÿ À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà íà Ïåðâîì Ñúåçäå Íàðîäíûõ Äåïóòàòîâ ÑÑÑÐ

9 èþíÿ 1989 Ã.1 Óâàæàåìûå íàðîäíûå äåïóòàòû!

Ñúåçä ñ ïåðâûõ äíåé íå èñïîëüçóåò ñâîè êîíñòèòóöèîííûå ïðàâà è ëèøàåò ñåáÿ ðîëè â ôîðìèðîâàíèè ïîëèòèêè ñòðàíû. Ìû íà÷àëè ñòðîèòü íàø ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé äîì ñ êðûøè, íå çàëîæèâ ôóíäà- ìåíò è íå âîçâåäÿ ñòåíû. Ìû áåç âûáîðà âûáðàëè Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà è åãî çàìåñòèòåëÿ è çàòåì òî÷íî òàê æå Âåðõîâíûé Ñîâåò. Íî åñëè â ïåðâûõ ñëó÷àÿõ ìû çíàëè, î êîì èäåò

1 Äîêóìåíò ïðåäñòàâëÿåò èç ñåáÿ 4 ñòðàíèöû ìàøèíîïèñíîãî òåêñòà ïîä êîïèðêó è íåñêîëüêî îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò âåðñèè, îïóáëèêîâàííîé â Ñòåíîãðàôè÷åñêîì îò÷åòå (ò. 3. Ìîñêâà, 1989). Sakharov Archive at Harvard University Library. *2004M-12. Box 67. S.II.2.7.17.0. © Elena Bonner, 2005. 351 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà ðå÷ü, òî ïðè âûáîðå Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà äåïóòàòû áûëè âûíóæäåíû ãîëîñîâàòü âñëåïóþ. Ïî áîëüøèíñòâó äåëåãàöèé ïðîèñõîäèëî ïðîñòî íàçíà÷åíèå, à çàòåì ôîðìàëüíîå óòâåðæäåíèå ñúåçäîì ëþäåé, èç êîòîðûõ ìíîãèå íå ãîòîâû ê çàêîíîäàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. ×ëåíû Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà äîëæíû îñòàâèòü ñâîþ ïðåæíþþ ðàáîòó òîëüêî “êàê ïðàâèëî”, – íàðî÷èòî ðàñïëûâ÷àòàÿ ôîðìóëèðîâêà, ïî êîòîðîé â Âåðõîâíîì Ñîâåòå îêàçûâàþòñÿ “ñâàäåáíûå ãåíåðàëû”. Òàêîé Âåðõîâíûé Ñîâåò áóäåò – êàê ìîæíî îïàñàòüñÿ – ïðîñòî øèðìîé äëÿ ðåàëüíîé âëàñòè Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà. Ïðåäñåäàòåëü Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ïî äåéñòâóþùåé êîíñòèòóöèè îáëàäàåò àáñîëþòíîé, ïðàêòè÷åñêè íè÷åì íå îãðàíè÷åííîé ëè÷íîé âëàñòüþ. Ñîñðåäîòî÷åíèå òàêîé âëàñòè â ðóêàõ îäíîãî ÷åëîâåêà êðàéíå îïàñíî, äàæå åñëè ýòîò ÷åëîâåê – èíèöèàòîð ïåðåñòðîéêè. À åñëè êîãäà-íèáóäü ýòî áóäåò êòî-òî äðóãîé?  ñòðàíå â óñëîâèÿõ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ è ìåæíàöèîíàëüíûõ òðóä- íîñòåé ïðîèñõîäÿò ìîùíûå è îïàñíûå ïðîöåññû, îäíèì èç ïðîÿâ- ëåíèé êîòîðûõ ÿâëÿåòñÿ âñåîáùèé êðèçèñ äîâåðèÿ íàðîäà ê ðóêî- âîäñòâó ñòðàíû. Åñëè ìû áóäåì ïëûòü ïî òå÷åíèþ, óáàþêèâàÿ ñåáÿ âèäèìîñòüþ ðàáîòû è íàäåæäîé ïîñòåïåííûõ ïåðåìåí ê ëó÷øåìó â äàëåêîì áóäóùåì, íàðàñòàþùåå íàïðÿæåíèå ìîæåò âçîðâàòü íàøå îáùåñòâî ñ ñàìûìè òðàãè÷åñêèìè ïîñëåäñòâèÿìè. Òîâàðèùè äåïóòàòû, íà âàñ ñåé÷àñ, èìåííî ñåé÷àñ, ëîæèòñÿ îãðîìíàÿ èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ îòâåòñòâåííîñòü. Íåîáõîäèìû ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ðåøåíèÿ, áåç êîòîðûõ íåâîçìîæíî óêðåïëåíèå âëàñòè ñîâåòñêèõ îðãàíîâ íà ìåñòàõ, è ðåøåíèå ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ, ñîöèàëüíûõ, ýêîëîãè- ÷åñêèõ, íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðîáëåì. Åñëè Ñúåçä Íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ ÑÑÑÐ íå ñìîæåò âçÿòü âëàñòü â ñâîè ðóêè çäåñü, òî íåò íè ìàëåéøåé íàäåæäû, ÷òî åå ñìîãóò âçÿòü Ñîâåòû â ðåñïóáëèêàõ, îáëàñòÿõ, ðàéîíàõ è ñåëàõ. Ñúåçä äîëæåí ïðèçâàòü çàùèòèòü äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèå ïðèíöèïû íàðîäîâëàñòèÿ è òåì ñàìûì – íåîáðàòèìîñòü ïåðå- ñòðîéêè è ãàðìîíè÷åñêîå ðàçâèòèå â íàøåé ñòðàíå. ß âíîâü îáðà- ùàþñü ê Ñúåçäó ñ ïðèçûâîì ïðèíÿòü “äåêðåò î âëàñòè”. ÄÅÊÐÅÒ Î ÂËÀÑÒÈ Èñõîäÿ èõ ïðèíöèïîâ íàðîäîâëàñòèÿ, Ñúåçä Íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ íà ñâîåé ïåðâîé ñåññèè çàÿâëÿåò: 1. Ïðèíÿòèå çàêîíîâ ÑÑÑÐ ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíûì ïðàâîì Ñúåçäà íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ ÑÑÑÐ. Íà òåððèòîðèè Ñîþçíîé ðåñïóáëèêè çàêîíû ÑÑÑÐ ïðèîáðåòàþò þðèäè÷åñêóþ ñèëó ïîñëå

352 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 óòâåðæäåíèÿ âûñøèì çàêîíîäàòåëüíûì îðãàíîì Ñîþçíîé ðåñ- ïóáëèêè. 2. Âåðõîâíûé Ñîâåò ÑÑÑÐ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðàáî÷èì îðãàíîì Ñúåçäà. 3. Êîìèññèè è Êîìèòåòû äëÿ ïîäãîòîâêè çàêîíîâ î ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîì áþäæåòå, äðóãèõ çàêîíîâ è äëÿ ïîñòîÿííîãî êîíòðîëÿ çà äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ îðãàíîâ, íàä ýêîíîìè÷åñêèì, ñîöèàëüíûì è ýêîëîãè÷åñêèì ïîëîæåíèåì â ñòðàíå – ñîçäàþòñÿ Ñúåçäîì è Âåðõîâíûì Ñîâåòîì íà ïàðèòåòíûõ íà÷àëàõ è ïîäîò- ÷åòíû Ñúåçäó. 4. Èçáðàíèå è îòçûâ âûñøèõ äîëæíîñòíûõ ëèö ÑÑÑÐ, à èìåííî: Ôîðóì ïðîõîäèë ñ 27 îêòÿáðÿ ïî 1 íîÿáðÿ 1989 ã. 1. Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ÑÑÑÐ, 2. Çàìåñòèòåëÿ Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ÑÑÑÐ, 3. Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Ñîâåòà Ìèíèñòðîâ ÑÑÑÐ, 4. Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ è ÷ëåíîâ Êîìèòåòà êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî íàäçîðà, 5. Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Âåðõîâíîãî Ñóäà ÑÑÑÐ, 6. Ãåíåðàëüíîãî ïðîêóðîðà ÑÑÑÐ, 7. Âåðõîâíîãî àðáèòðà ÑÑÑÐ, à òàêæå 1. Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ ÊÃÁ ÑÑÑÐ, 2. Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî Êîìèòåòà ïî òåëåâèäåíèþ è ðàäèîâåùàíèþ, 3. Ãëàâíîãî ðåäàêòîðà ãàçåòû “Èçâåñòèÿ” – èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîå ïðàâî Ñúåçäà. Ïîèìåíîâàííûå âûøå äîëæíîñ- òíûå ëèöà ïîäîò÷åòíû òîëüêî Ñúåçäó è íå ñâÿçàíû â ñâîèõ äåéñòâèÿõ ðåøåíèÿìè ÊÏÑÑ. 5. Êàíäèäàòóðû íà ïîñò Çàìåñòèòåëÿ Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà è Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Ñîâåòà Ìèíèñòðîâ ÑÑÑÐ ïðåäëàãàþòñÿ ïðåäñåäàòåëåì Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ÑÑÑÐ è àëüòåðíàòèâíî íàðîä- íûìè äåïóòàòàìè (Ñúåçäîì). Ïðàâî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ êàíäèäàòóð íà îñòàëüíûå ïîèìåíîâàííûå ïîñòû ïðèíàäëåæèò Ñúåçäó. 6. Ôóíêöèè ÊÃÁ îãðàíè÷èâàþòñÿ çàäà÷àìè çàùèòû ìåæäóíà- ðîäíîé áåçîïàñíîñòè ÑÑÑÐ. Ïðèìå÷àíèå: â áóäóùåì íåîáõîäèìî ïðåäóñìîòðåòü ïðÿìûå îáùåíàðîäíûå âûáîðû Ïðåäñåäàòåëÿ Ïðåçèäèóìà Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ÑÑÑÐ è åãî Çàìåñòèòåëÿ íà àëüòåðíàòèâíîé îñíîâå. 353 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà ß ïðîøó äåïóòàòîâ âíèìàòåëüíî èçó÷èòü òåêñò Äåêðåòà è ïî- ñòàâèòü åãî íà ãîëîñîâàíèå ÷åðåç 3 äíÿ. ß îáðàùàþñü ê ãðàæäàíàì ÑÑÑÐ ñ ïðîñüáîé ïîääåðæàòü Äåêðåò â èíäèâèäóàëüíîì è êîëëåêòèâíîì ïîðÿäêå, ïîäîáíî òîìó, êàê îíè ýòî ñäåëàëè ïðè ïîïûòêå ñêîìïðîìåòèðîâàòü ìåíÿ è îòâëå÷ü âíèìàíèå îò âîïðîñà îá îòâåòñòâåííîñòè çà àôãàíñêóþ âîéíó. Ïðîäîëæàþ. Óæå äàâíî íåò îïàñíîñòè âîåííîãî íàïàäåíèÿ íà ÑÑÑÐ. Ó íàñ ñàìàÿ áîëüøàÿ àðìèÿ â ìèðå. ß ïðåäëàãàþ ñîçäàòü êîìèññèþ äëÿ ïîäãîòîâêè ðåøåíèÿ î ñîêðàùåíèè ñðîêà ñëóæáû â àðìèè (îðèåíòèðîâî÷íî â äâà ðàçà äëÿ ðÿäîâîãî è ñåðæàíòñêîãî ñîñòàâà, ñ ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèì ñîêðàùåíèåì âñåõ âèäîâ âîîðóæåíèÿ, íî ñî çíà÷èòåëüíî ìåíüøèì ñîêðàùåíèåì îôèöåðñêîãî êîðïóñà), ñ ïåðñïåêòèâîé ïåðåõîäà ê ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîé àðìèè. Òàêîå ðåøåíèå èìåëî áû îãðîìíîå ìåæäóíàðîäíîå çíà÷åíèå äëÿ óêðåïëåíèÿ äîâå- ðèÿ è ðàçîðóæåíèÿ, âêëþ÷àÿ ïîëíîå çàïðåùåíèå ÿäåðíîãî îðóæèÿ, à òàêæå îãðîìíîå ýêîíîìè÷åñêîå è ñîöèàëüíîå çíà÷åíèå. ×àñòíîå çàìå÷àíèå: íàäî äåìîáèëèçîâàòü ê íà÷àëó ýòîãî ó÷åáíîãî ãîäà âñåõ ñòóäåíòîâ, âçÿòûõ â àðìèþ ãîä íàçàä. Íàöèîíàëüíûå ïðîáëåìû. Ìû ïîëó÷èëè â íàñëåäñòâî îò ñòàëè- íèçìà íàöèîíàëüíî-êîíñòèòóöèîííóþ ñòðóêòóðó, íåñóùóþ íà ñåáå ïå÷àòü èìïåðñêîãî ìûøëåíèÿ è èìïåðñêîé ïîëèòèêè “ðàçäåëÿé è âëàñòâóé”. Æåðòâîé ýòîãî íàñëåäèÿ ÿâëÿþòñÿ ìàëûå Ñîþçíûå ðåñïóáëèêè è ìàëûå íàöèîíàëüíûå îáðàçîâàíèÿ, âõîäÿùèå â ñîñòàâ Ñîþçíûõ ðåñïóáëèê ïî ïðèíöèïó àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîãî ïîä÷èíåíèÿ. Îíè íà ïðîòÿæåíèè äåñÿòèëåòèé ïîäâåðãàëèñü íàöèîíàëüíîìó óãíåòåíèþ, ñåé÷àñ ýòè ïðîáëåìû äðàìàòè÷åñêè âûïëåñíóëèñü íà ïîâåðõíîñòü. Íî íå â ìåíüøåé ñòåïåíè æåðòâîé ÿâèëèñü áîëüøèå íàðîäû, â òîì ÷èñëå ðóññêèé íàðîä, íå ïëå÷è êîòîðûõ ëåã îñíîâíîé ãðóç èìïåðñêèõ àìáèöèé è ïîñëåäñòâèé àâàíòþðèçìà è äîãìàòèçìà âî âíåøíåé è âíóòðåííåé ïîëèòèêå.  íûíåøíåé îñòðîé ìåæíàöèî- íàëüíîé ñèòóàöèè íåîáõîäèìû ñðî÷íûå ìåðû.  êà÷åñòâå îäíîé èç âîçìîæíûõ ìîäåëåé, íàðÿäó ñ äðóãèìè âàðèàíòàìè ðåøåíèÿ, ÿ ïðåäëàãàþ îáñóäèòü ïåðåõîä ê ôåäåðàòèâíîé (ãîðèçîíòàëüíîé) ñèñòåìå íàöèîíàëüíî-êîíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîãî óñòðîéñòâà. Ýòà ñèñòåìà ïðåäóñìàòðèâàåò ïðåäîñòàâëåíèå âñåì ñóùåñòâóþùèì íàöèîíàëüíî- òåððèòîðèàëüíûì îáðàçîâàíèÿì, âíå çàâèñèìîñòè îò èõ ðàçìåðà è íûíåøíåãî ñòàòóñà, ðàâíûõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ, þðèäè÷åñêèõ è ýêîíî- ìè÷åñêèõ ïðàâ, ñ ñîõðàíåíèåì òåïåðåøíèõ ãðàíèö (ñî âðåìåíåì

354 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âîçìîæíû è âåðîÿòíî áóäóò íåîáõîäèìû óòî÷íåíèÿ ãðàíèö îáðà- çîâàíèé è ñîñòàâà Ôåäåðàöèè, ÷òî è äîëæíî ñòàòü âàæíåéøèì ñîäåðæàíèåì ðàáîòû Ñîâåòà Íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé). Ýòî áóäåò Ñîþç ðàâíîïðàâíûõ Ðåñïóáëèê, îáúåäèíåííûõ Ñîþçíûì Äîãîâîðîì, ñ äîáðîâîëüíûì îãðàíè÷åíèåì ñóâåðåíèòåòà êàæäîé ðåñïóáëèêè â ìèíèìàëüíî íåîáõîäèìûõ ïðåäåëàõ (âîïðîñàõ îáîðîíû, âíåøíåé ïîëèòèêè è íåêîòîðûõ äðóãèõ). Ðàçëè÷èÿ â ðàçìåðàõ è ÷èñëåííîñòè íàñåëåíèÿ Ðåñïóáëèê è îòñóòñòâèå âíåøíèõ ãðàíèö íå äîëæíû ñìóùàòü. Ïðîæèâàþùèå â ïðåäåëàõ îäíîé Ðåñïóáëèêè ëþäè ðàçíûõ íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé äîëæíû þðèäè÷åñêè è ïðàêòè÷åñêè èìåòü ðàâíûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå, êóëüòóðíûå è ñîöèàëüíûå ïðàâà. Íàäçîð çà ýòèì äîëæåí áûòü âîçëîæåí íà Ñîâåò íàöèîíàëüíîñòåé. Âàæíîé ïðîáëåìîé íàöèîíàëüíîé ïîëèòèêè ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñóäüáà íàñèëüñòâåííî ïåðåñåëåííûõ íàðîäîâ. Êðûìñêèå òàòàðû, íåìöû Ïîâîëæüÿ, òóðêè- ìåñõè, èíãóøè è äðóãèå äîëæíû ïîëó÷èòü âîçìîæíîñòü âåðíóòüñÿ ê ðîäíûì ìåñòàì. Ðàáîòà êîìèññèè Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ïî ïðîáëåìå êðûìñêèõ òàòàð áûëà ÿâíî íåóäîâëåòâîðèòåëüíîé. Ê íàöèî- íàëüíûì ïðîáëåìàì ïðèìûêàþò ðåëèãèîçíûå. Íåäîïóñòèìû ëþáûå óùåìëåíèÿ ñâîáîäû ñîâåñòè. Ñîâåðøåííî íåäîïóñòèìî, ÷òî äî ñèõ ïîð íå ïîëó÷èëà îôèöèàëüíîãî ñòàòóñà Óêðàèíñêàÿ Êàòîëè÷åñêàÿ Öåðêîâü. Âàæíåéøèì ïîëèòè÷åñêèì âîïðîñîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ óòâåðæäåíèå ðîëè ñîâåòñêèõ îðãàíîâ è èõ íåçàâèñèìîñòè. Íåîáõîäèìî îñóùåñòâèòü âûáîðû ñîâåòñêèõ îðãàíîâ âñåõ óðîâíåé äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèì ïóòåì.  èçáèðàòåëüíûé çàêîí äîëæíû áûòü âíåñåíû óòî÷íåíèÿ, ó÷èòû- âàþùèå îïûò âûáîðîâ Íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ ÑÑÑÐ. Èíñòèòóò îêðóæíûõ ñîáðàíèé äîëæåí áûòü óíè÷òîæåí è âñåì êàíäèäàòàì äîëæíû áûòü ïðåäñòàâëåíû ðàâíûå âîçìîæíîñòè äîñòóïà ê ñðåäñòâàì ìàññîâîé èíôîðìàöèè. Ñúåçä äîëæåí, ïî ìîåìó ìíåíèþ, ïðèíÿòü ïîñòàíîâëåíèå, ñîäåð- æàùåå ïðèíöèïû ïðàâîâîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Ê ýòèì ïðèíöèïàì îòíî- ñÿòñÿ: ñâîáîäà ñëîâà è èíôîðìàöèè, âîçìîæíîñòü ñóäåáíîãî îñïà- ðèâàíèÿ ãðàæäàíàìè è îáùåñòâåííûìè îðãàíèçàöèÿìè äåéñòâèé è ðåøåíèé âñåõ îðãàíîâ âëàñòè è äîëæíîñòíûõ ëèö â õîäå íåçàâè- ñèìîãî ðàçáèðàòåëüñòâà; äåìîêðàòèçàöèÿ ñóäåáíîé è ñëåäñòâåííîé ïðîöåäóð (äîïóñê àäâîêàòà ñ íà÷àëà ñëåäñòâèÿ, ñóä ïðèñÿæíûõ); ñëåäñòâèå äîëæíî áûòü âûâåäåíî èç âåäåíèÿ ïðîêóðàòóðû – åå çàäà÷à ñëåäèòü çà èñïîëíåíèåì Çàêîíà. ß ïðèçûâàþ ïåðåñìîòðåòü çàêîíû

355 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà î ìèòèíãàõ è äåìîíñòðàöèÿõ, î ïðèìåíåíèè âíóòðåííèõ âîéñê è íå óòâåðæäàòü óêàç îò 8 àïðåëÿ. Ñúåçä íå ìîæåò ñðàçó íàêîðìèòü ñòðàíó. Íå ìîæåò ñðàçó ðàçðå- øèòü íàöèîíàëüíûå ïðîáëåìû. Íå ìîæåò ñðàçó ëèêâèäèðîâàòü áþäæåòíûé äåôèöèò. Íå ìîæåò ñðàçó âåðíóòü íàì ÷èñòûé âîçäóõ, âîäó è ëåñà. Íî ñîçäàíèå ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ãàðàíòèé ðåøåíèÿ ýòèõ ïðîáëåì – ýòî òî, ÷òî îí ìîæåò ñäåëàòü óæå ñåé÷àñ íà ýòîé ñåññèè. È îí îáÿçàí ýòî ñäåëàòü. Èìåííî ýòîãî îò íàñ æäåò ñòðàíà. Âñÿ âëàñòü Ñîâåòàì!

II. ×åðíîâûå çàïèñè, íîÿáðü 1989 ã.2

2. ÌÃÄ3 ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî îñíîâíûìè ïðèíöèïàìè íàö.-êîíñò. ðåôîð- ìû4 äîëæíû áûòü À) ïðèçíàíèå ïðèîðèòåòíîãî çíà÷åíèÿ ïðèíöèïà ñàìîîïðåäå- ëåíèÿ íàöèé 5 Á) íåîáõîäèìîñòü íîâîãî Ñîþçíîãî Äîãîâîðà [Ïåðå÷åðêíóòî êðåñò-íàêðåñò: Ìåæäó íàöèîíàëüíûìè [è] íàöèîí.-òåððèòîðèàëüíûìè îáðàçîâàíèÿìè ÑÑÑÐ (ñîþçíûõ ðåñïóáëèê, àâòîíîìíûõ ðåñïóáëèê, àâòîíîìíûõ îáëàñòåé, íàöèîíàëüíûõ îêðóãîâ). 3.  êà÷åñòâå ïðåäïîñûëêè Ñîþçíîãî Äîãîâîðà6 äîëæíà áûòü ïðîâîçãëàøåíà íåçàâèñèìîñòü ÍÒÎ. 4. ÍÒÎ äîáðîâîëüíî îáúåäèíÿþòñÿ, îáðàçóÿ ] 3) ÌÃÄ ñ÷èòàåò7 íåîáõîäèìûì ñîçäàíèå ïðè Ñîâåòå Íàöèîíàëü- íîñòåé Êîìèññèè ïî íàöèîíàëüíî-êîíñòèò. ðåôîðìå.

2 Ðóêîïèñíûå çàïèñè íà áëàíêàõ “Nobel Laureates Forum in Japan”, ïðîíóìåðîâàííûõ “2” è “3”, ïåðâûé ëèñò îòñóòñòâóåò. Ôîðóì ïðîõîäèë ñ 27 îêòÿáðÿ ïî 1 íîÿáðÿ 1989 ã. Sakharov Archive at Harvard University Library. *2004M-12. Box 67. S.II.2.7.33. © Elena Bonner, 2005. 3 ÌÃÄ – Ìåæðåãèîíàëüíàÿ ãðóïïà äåïóòàòîâ. Îôîðìèëàñü âî âðåìÿ Ïåðâîãî Ñúåçäà Íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ 7 èþíÿ 1989 ã., 30 èþëÿ À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâ áûë èçáðàí îäíèì èç ïÿòè ñîïðåäñåäàòåëåé ÌÄà (áîëåå ðàñïðîñòðàíåííàÿ àááðåâèàòóðà) íà Ïåðâîé îáùåé êîíôåðåíöèè Ìåæðåãèîíàëüíîé ãðóïïû. 4 Äàëåå çà÷åðêíóòî: “ÿâëÿþòñÿ”. 5 Äàëåå çà÷åðêíóòû âàðèàíòû ôîðìóëèðîâêè. 6 Äàëåå çà÷åðêíóòî: “Íåçàâèñèìîñòü ÍÒΔ 7 Äàëåå çà÷åðêíóòî: “âàæíûì”. 356 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 2-îé Ñúåçä äîëæåí8 îáðàçîâàòü òàêóþ êîìèññèþ è äàòü åé ïîðó÷åíèÿ ðàçðàáîòàòü [çà÷åðêíóòî, íåðàçáîð÷èâî] äëÿ Òðåòüåãî ñúåçäà9 Äåêðåò î ÍÊÐ.10 Òðåòèé Ñúåçä òàêèì îáðàçîì ñìîæåò îñóùåñòâèòü ÍÊÐ. 4) ÌÃÄ ñ÷èòàåò âîçìîæíûì ïðåäëîæèòü äëÿ îáñóæäåíèÿ âàðèàíò ïðîâåäåíèÿ ÍÊÐ ïî ñëåäóþùåé ñõåìå à) Òðåòèé ñúåçä11 ïðîâîçãëàøàåò íåçàâèñèìîñòü íàöèîíàëüíî-òåðð. îáðàçîâàíèé (ÑÐ, ÀÐ, ÀÎ, ÍÎ)12 á) ÍÒ-îáðàçîâàíèÿ äîáðîâîëüíî îáúåäèíÿþòñÿ, îáðàçóÿ ðåñïóá- ëèêè (íàïðèìåð ÍÎ îáúåäèíÿþòñÿ ñ ÑÐ) â) Ðåñïóáëèêà ÿâëÿåòñÿ åäèíñòâåííîé íàöèîíàëüíî-òåððèòîð. åäèíèöåé

2) Ðåñïóáëèêè îáúåäèí. â Ñîþç íà îñíîâå Ñîþçíîãî Äîãîâîðà.

III. Ñòåíîãðàììà çàñåäàíèÿ Êîíñòèòóöèîííîé êîìèññèè13 27 íîÿáðÿ 1989 ãîäà, 17.30 Êðåìëü, çàë çàñåäàíèé Ïðåçèäèóìà

Ïðåäñåäàòåëüñòâîâàë – òîâ. ÃÎÐÁÀ×Å Ì. Ñ. – Ïðåäñåäàòåëü Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ÑÑÑÐ, Ãåíåðàëüíûé Ñåêðåòàðü ÖÊ ÊÏÑÑ

ÃÎÐÁÀ×Å Ì. Ñ. ß õîòåë áû âàñ ïîïðèâåòñòâîâàòü, ýòî íàøå ïåðâîå çàñåäàíèå. ß íå õî÷ó ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ìû òîëüêî íà÷èíàåì íàøó ðàáîòó, à èìåííî çàñåäàíèå ïåðâîå. Ðàçðåøèòå íàøå çàñåäàíèå îáúÿâèòü îòêðûòûì.

8 Äàëåå çà÷åðêíóòî: “ïîðó÷èòü”. 9 Äàëåå çà÷åðêíóòî: “îáíîâë Ðàçðàáîòêó çàêîíîïðîåêò”. 10 Ò.å. íàöèîíàëüíî-êîíñòèòóöèîííîé ðåôîðìå. 11 Äàëåå çà÷åðêíóòî: “îáúÿâëÿåò”. 12 Ò.å. ñîþçíûå ðåñïóáëèêè, àâòîíîìíûå ðåñïóáëèêè, àâòîíîìíûå îêðóãà è íàöèîíàëüíûå îêðóãà. 13 Âûäåðæêè èç ñòåíîãðàììû ïóáëèêóþòñÿ ïî ìàøèíîïèñíîé êîïèè (Ñ. 1, 28-32), õðàíÿùåéñÿ â ìîñêîâñêîì Àðõèâå À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà. Ô.1. Îï.3. Åä. õð.128. Ëë. 34-39. 357 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà Ó âàñ åñòü ïîâåñòêà äíÿ. Îíà íàñòîëüêî îáùà, ÷òî ïîçâîëÿåò íàì ïðîâåñòè øèðîêèé îáìåí. Íî âìåñòå ñ òåì ìíå õîòåëîñü áû è ðàìêè íàøåãî çàñåäàíèÿ îáðèñîâàòü. ß õîòåë áû â ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì âûñêàçàòü íåêîòîðûå ñîîáðàæåíèÿ è òåì ñàìûì ïðåäëîæèòü ìûñëè äëÿ îáñóæäåíèÿ ÷ëåíàì Êîíñòè- òóöèîííîé êîìèññèè. Ïåðâîå. Ó íàñ ñ âàìè åñòü ïîðó÷åíèå ïåðâîãî Ñúåçäà íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòîâ ÑÑÑÐ, ïðèíÿâøåãî ðåøåíèå î ïîäãîòîâêå íîâîé Êîíñòèòóöèè ÑÑÑÐ. Î÷åâèäíî, âû ñîãëàñèòåñü, ÷òî ìû äîëæíû áûëè ïðîéòè î÷åíü âàæíûé ýòàï íå ñòîëüêî, ÿ áû ñêàçàë, â ñàìîé Êîìèññèè, íî ïðåæäå âñåãî â îáùåñòâå. ß áû íàçâàë ýòîò ýòàï – ïåðèîä íàêîïëåíèÿ þðèäè÷åñêèõ, ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ, ïðàêòè÷åñêèõ çíàíèé, ñîîòâåòñòâóþ- ùåãî ìàòåðèàëà, ïîñêîëüêó ýòî òîëüêî è ìîæåò äàòü íàì âîçìîæ- íîñòü ïðîâåñòè íà ïåðâîì çàñåäàíèè îáÿçàòåëüíûé îáìåí. [ ] ÃÎÐÁÀ×Å Ì. Ñ. Ïîæàëóéñòà, Àíäðåé Äìèòðèåâè÷. ÑÀÕÀÐΠÀ. Ä. Êîãäà ìåíÿ âûäâèíóëè â ýòó êîìèññèþ, ÿ ñêàçàë, ÷òî áóäó ðàáîòàòü íàä àëüòåðíàòèâíûì ïðîåêòîì. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ýòî âàæíî ïðèíöèïèàëüíî. Ñåé÷àñ ïåðåä íàìè ñòîèò î÷åíü ñëîæíàÿ çàäà÷à, îïðåäåëÿþùàÿ ñóäüáó ñòðàíû íà î÷åíü äëèòåëüíûé ñðîê. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ î÷åíü âàæíà ðàçðàáîòêà äâóõ, à ìîæåò áûòü è òðåõ àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ ïðîåêòîâ, ðàçðàáîòêà êîíöåïòóàëüíàÿ è ðàçðàáîòêà äåòàëüíàÿ è êðèòè÷åñêàÿ, äîâåäåííàÿ äî äåòàëè ñ òåì, ÷òîáû ìû èìåííî íà ñòàäèè ðàçâèòèÿ àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ ðåñïóáëèê [òàê â òåêñòå], ò.å. ïðîåêòà ñîñòÿçàòåëüíîñòè, ìîãëè íàéòè ïðàâèëü- íîå ðåøåíèå òåõ î÷åíü ñëîæíûõ âîïðîñîâ, ñòîÿùèõ ïåðåä ñòðàíîé. Îäèí èç ïðèíöèïèàëüíûõ âîïðîñîâ, êîòîðûé ìíå êàæåòñÿ îñîáåííî âàæíûì, ýòî âîïðîñ î òîì, êàê ìû áóäåì ñòðîèòü íàøå ãîñóäàðñòâî â íàöèîíàëüíî-êîíñòèòóöèîííîì ñìûñëå. ß ñ÷èòàþ, ÷òî íàäî èñõîäèòü èç ïðèíöèïà ñîþçíîãî äîãîâîðà, íîâîãî ñîþçíîãî äîãîâîðà, ïîñêîëüêó äîãîâîð 22 ãîäà, íà îñíîâà- íèè êîòîðîãî îðãàíèçîâàí áûë ÑÑÑÐ, âî ìíîãî ñåé÷àñ óæå ñîâåð- øåííî íå àêòóàëåí, íå äåéñòâóåò. È íà ñàìîì äåëå íàøå ãîñóäàðñòâî äîëæíî, ñ ìîåé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ñîçäàâàòüñÿ â êàêîì-òî ñìûñëå ñíîâà, íî, êàê ïðàâèëüíî ñêàçàë Ìèõàèë Ñåðãååâè÷, ìû äîëæíû èñõîäèòü èç ñóùåñòâóþùåé ðåàëüíîñòè. È òîëüêî òàêèì îáðàçîì ìû ìîæåì èçáåæàòü áîëüøèõ ïîòðÿñåíèé è êàòàêëèçìîâ.

358 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Èòàê, ÿ ïûòàëñÿ ñîñòàâèòü ïðîåêò Êîíñòèòóöèè, ãäå îäíèì èç ïóíêòîâ ÿâëÿåòñÿ èäåÿ ñîþçíîãî äîãîâîðà, èäåÿ, êîòîðàÿ âûäâè- ãàëàñü óæå âî ìíîãèõ ðåñïóáëèêàõ. È ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ æèçíåííî âàæíîé äëÿ íàøåãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Âòîðàÿ èäåÿ – ÷òî â ãîñóäàðñòâå íå äîëæíî áûòü íàöèîíàëüíî- òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ äåëåíèé. Äîëæíû áûòü òîëüêî ðåñïóáëèêè êàê åäèíñòâåííàÿ íàöèîíàëüíî-òåððèòîðèàëüíàÿ åäèíèöà ãîñóäàðñòâà. Òàêàÿ îðãàíèçàöèÿ ãîñóäàðñòâà ïîäðàçóìåâàåò òî, ÷òî ñóùåñòâó- þùèì íàöèîíàëüíî-òåððèòîðèàëüíûì åäèíèöàì îáúÿâëÿåòñÿ èõ íåçàâèñèìîñòü, è îíè âíîâü âñòóïàþò â îòíîøåíèÿ Ñîþçà íà îñíîâå ñîþçíîãî äîãîâîðà, òàê, êàê îíè ñàìè ñ÷èòàþò ýòî íåîáõîäèìûì. Ìîæåò áûòü, îáúåäèíÿþòñÿ ìåæäó ñîáîé. Íàöèîíàëüíûå îêðóãà â îñíîâíîì íå ìîãóò ñóùåñòâîâàòü êàê îòäåëüíûå ðåñïóáëèêè. Íî ýòî – èõ äåëî. È ðå÷ü èäåò î òîì, ÷òî âñòóïëåíèå – ýòî åñòü íîâûé ïîëèòè÷åñêèé àêò, âñòóïëåíèå ðåñïóáëèê â Ñîþç – ýòî åñòü ïîëèòè÷åñêèé àêò, êîòîðûé ïðèíèìàåòñÿ ïî ðåøåíèþ íàðîäà äàííîé ðåñïóáëèêè. Ïðè ýòîì ýòî – ñóâåðåííûå ãîñóäàðñòâà, âñòóïàþùèå ìåæäó ñîáîé â ñîþç, êîòîðûå äîáðîâîëüíî ÷àñòü ñâîåãî ñóâåðåíèòåòà, ÷àñòü ñâîèõ ñóâåðåííûõ ôóíêöèé ïåðåäàþò öåíòðàëüíîìó ïðàâèòåëüñòâó â òåõ ìàñøòàáàõ, â êîòîðûõ ýòî íåîáõîäèìî äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ýòî áûëî åäèíîå ãîñóäàðñòâî. ß ñ÷èòàþ áåñïëîäíûìè ñïîðû òåðìèíîëîãè÷åñêèå – ôåäåðà- òèâíîå ýòî èëè êîíôåäåðàòèâíîå ãîñóäàðñòâî. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ðå÷ü èäåò íå îá ýòîì. À ðå÷ü èäåò î òîì, ÷òîáû ýòî áûëî ãîñóäàðñòâî æèçíåííîå, êîòîðîå âûäåðæèò ïðîâåðêó èñòîðèè. È òóò ìû äîëæíû ïðîÿâèòü êîëëåêòèâíóþ ìóäðîñòü è íàéòè òå ôîðìû, òå îãðàíè÷åíèÿ ñóâåðåíèòåòà, êîòîðûå èìåþò ìåñòî. Ñåé÷àñ âî âñåì ìèðå, íàïðèìåð â Åâðîïå, èäåò ïðîöåññ êîíñî- ëèäàöèè. Äëÿ íàñ ýòîò ïðîöåññ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé íå áëèæàéøèé ìîìåíò.  áëèæàéøèé ìîìåíò íàì íóæíà îïðåäåëåííàÿ äåöåíò- ðàëèçàöèÿ, ïîñêîëüêó íàøå îáùåñòâî áîëüíî, áîëüíûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ â íàöèîíàëüíîì ñìûñëå, è ýòè áîëåçíè ìû ìîæåì ëå÷èòü. Ëå÷èòü ìîæåì íà îñíîâàíèè îäíîãî åäèíñòâåííîãî ïðèíöèïà – ïðèíöèïà ñàìîîïðåäåëåíèÿ íàöèé è íàðîäîâ, ïðèíöèïà íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñàìîîïðåäåëåíèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì íàäî ïîñòðîèòü íîâóþ Êîíñòèòóöèþ. Ó ìåíÿ åñòü ïðîåêò, òîò ïðîåêò, êîòîðûé ðîçäàí ñåãîäíÿ. Ýòî óæå íå îêîí- ÷àòåëüíûé ìîé ïðîåêò – ÿ ïîñëå îáñóæäåíèÿ, êîòîðîå áûëî íå î÷åíü

359 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà øèðîêèì, âíåñ óòî÷íåíèÿ, äîïîëíåíèÿ, èçìåíåíèÿ è â ðåäàêöèîííîì, è â êîíöåïòóàëüíîì ïëàíå (ýòî âîïðîñ âòîðîñòåïåííûé). Áîëåå ñóùåñòâåííûì ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ñëåäóþùåå. Äåéñòâè- òåëüíî íóæíà ðàçðàáîòêà àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ ïðîåêòîâ. È îíà äîëæíà áûòü îðãàíèçàöèîííî îôîðìëåíà. È äîëæíà áûòü ïîääåðæêà è íàó÷íûõ êîëëåêòèâîâ, ïîòîìó ÷òî ìû âñå ïîíèìàåì, ÷òî òàêîé ñëîæíûé âîïðîñ, êàê ïîäãîòîâêà Êîíñòèòóöèè, íå ìîæåò áûòü îñóùåñòâëåí áåç øèðîêîé þðèäè- ÷åñêîé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé, ïîëèòîëîãè÷åñêîé êîíñóëüòàöèè è ò.ä. ß ïðîñòî õî÷ó ïîääåðæàòü ïðèíöèï ðàçðàáîòêè äâóõ èëè òðåõ, åñëè íàéäóòñÿ äðóãèå ëþäè, êîòîðûå ñîãëàñíû ýòî îðãàíèçîâàòü, àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ ïðîåêòîâ Êîíñòèòóöèè. Ïîñëåäíåå, ÷òî ÿ õîòåë ñêàçàòü – î íàçâàíèè. ß ñ÷èòàþ, ÷òî íåîáõîäèìî íîâîå íàçâàíèå äëÿ íàøåãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Ýòî ñâÿçàíî ñ òåì, ÷òî íàøå ðàçâèòèå øëî ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî áîëåçíåííî.  õîäå ýòîãî ðàçâèòèÿ ñîâåðøåíû êîëîññàëüíûå îøèáêè, ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ. È ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî âîïðîñ î íàçâàíèè – ýòî âîïðîñ ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî âàæíûé íà ñàìîì äåëå. ß áû ïðåäëîæèë òàêîå íàçâàíèå – Ñîþç Ñîâåòñêèõ Ðåñïóáëèê Åâðîïû è Àçèè. Îòðàçèâ ñîâåòñêèé õàðàêòåð íàøåãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, ñîþçíûé åãî õàðàêòåð è îòðàçèâ òó áàçó íàöèîíàëüíî-êóëüòóðíûõ, íðàâñòâåííûõ òðàäèöèé, íà îñíîâàíèè êîòîðûõ ñòðîèòñÿ íàøå ãîñóäàðñòâî. Ýòî íàçâàíèå ïðåäëàãàëîñü â ñâîå âðåìÿ Âëàäèìèðîì Èëüè÷åì Ëåíèíûì. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ýòà ìûñëü áûëà ïðàâèëüíîé, ÷òîáû äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî ýòî Ñîþç Ðåñïóáëèê Åâðîïû è Àçèè. ß ïðåäëàãàþ ýòî â êà÷åñòâå âàðèàíòà äëÿ îáñóæäåíèÿ. Ñ ÌÅÑÒÀ.14  ïðîåêòå íîâîé Êîíñòèòóöèè ìû óøëè15 îò äëèí- íûõ îáúÿñíåíèé: îò ÷åãî, ÷åãî è ïî÷åìó. ß äóìàþ, ÷òî íóæíî ñäåëàòü òàê, ÷òîáû îíà áûëà êàê ìîæíî êîðî÷å è ïîíÿòíåå: ÷åëîâåê

14 Î÷åâèäíî, ðåïëèêà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà ñ ìåñòà â ïðîäîëæåíèå åãî âûñòóïëåíèÿ. Îá àâòîðñòâå ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò êàê ñòèëèñòèêà ðåïëèêè, ñîäåðæàùàÿ õàðàê- òåðíûå äëÿ ðå÷è Ñàõàðîâà ðèòîðè÷åñêèå ïðèåìû, òàê è äîñòàòî÷íî ñïåöèôè- ÷åñêàÿ äëÿ ñîñòàâà Êîíñòèòóöèîííîé êîìèññèè ÷åòêàÿ ïðàâîçàùèòíàÿ íàïðàâ- ëåííîñòü âûñêàçûâàíèÿ. 15 Âåðîÿòíî, îá àâòîðñòâå êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà ãîâîðèòñÿ âî ìíîæåñò- âåííîì ÷èñëå ïîñëå îãîâîðêè â õîäå âûñòóïëåíèÿ: “Ýòî óæå íå îêîí÷àòåëüíûé ìîé ïðîåêò – ÿ ïîñëå îáñóæäåíèÿ, êîòîðîå áûëî íå î÷åíü øèðîêèì, âíåñ óòî÷íåíèÿ ” (ñì. âûøå ïî òåêñòó). 360 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 èìååò ïðàâî è ÷åëîâåê íå èìååò ïðàâà, ãîñóäàðñòâî èìååò ïðàâî è ãîñóäàðñòâî íå èìååò ïðàâà. Åùå õîòåëîñü áû îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà òî, ÷òîáû â ñàìîé Êîíñòèòóöèè áûë çàëîæåí àâòîìàò, àâòîìàò äåéñòâèÿ, ÷òîáû ëþáîå íàðóøåíèå Çàêîíà ñðàçó áûëî ïðåêðàùåíî àâòîìàòè÷åñêè. È, êîíå÷íî, ÿ ïîääåðæèâàþ òî, ÷òî ñêàçàë Ìèõàèë Ñåðãååâè÷, ÷òî ñàìûì áîëüøèì ðàçäåëîì Êîíñòèòóöèè äîëæíû áûòü ïðàâà ÷åëîâåêà, åãî îáÿçàííîñòè ïåðåä ãîñóäàðñòâîì, êàê ÷åëîâåê áóäåò æèòü â ýòîì ãîñóäàðñòâå. ÁÎÃÄÀÍΠÈ. Ì.16 Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ïðè âñåé ïðèâëåêàòåëü- íîñòè èäåè è ìûñëè, êîòîðàÿ ñåé÷àñ âûñêàçûâàåòñÿ, ìû ïîøëè ïî íåïðàâèëüíîìó ïóòè. ÃÎÐÁÀ×Å Ì. Ñ. Ãîòîâû Âàñ ïîñëóøàòü.

IV.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNION OF SOVIET REPUBLICS OF EUROPE AND ASIA*

1. The Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia (the European- Asian Union, or, in its abbreviated form, the Soviet Union) shall be a volun- tary union of sovereign republics (states) of Europe and Asia. 2. The aim of the people of the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia shall be to ensure a happy and full life, material and spiritual

16 Èãîðü Ìèõàéëîâè÷ Áîãäàíîâ (ðîä. â 1952 ã.), êîìñîìîëüñêèé àêòèâèñò è ïåäà- ãîã, â 1989 ã. áûë èçáðàí Äåïóòàòîì Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ÑÑÑÐ. Â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ äèðåêòîð ñðåäíåé øêîëû â Íèæíåì Íîâãîðîäå, äåïóòàò Ãîðîäñêîé Äóìû. * A discussion draft by Andrei D. Sakharov, prepared in December, 1989. Translation by Lowry Wyman, Associate, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University. 361 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà freedom, prosperity, peace, and security for all citizens of the country and for all people on Earth, regardless of their race, nationality, sex, age, or social status. 3. The European-Asian Union shall be guided in its development by the moral and cultural traditions of Europe and Asia and all humanity – all races and all peoples. 4. The Union, through its government bodies and citizens, shall strive to maintain peace throughout the world, to maintain a habitable environment, to maintain the external and internal conditions for the existence of humanity and life on the whole Earth, and to ensure harmony in economic, social, and political development throughout the world. Global aims for the survival of humanity shall have priority over any regional, state, national, class, party, group or individual aims. Over the long run, the Union through its government bodies and citizens shall strive to bring about a pluralistic rapprochement (convergence) of the socialist and capitalist systems, as a means of reaching a unified and coordinated decision of global and internal problems. Such rapprochement shall, in the future, find its political expression in the cre- ation of a world government. 5. All people have the right to life, liberty, and happiness. It shall be the aim and duty of citizens and the state to uphold the social, economic, and civil rights of the individual. In exercising their rights, citizens must not infringe upon the rights of others, or the interests of society as a whole. Citizens and organizations must act in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the Union and republics and the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. International laws and treaties adopted by the USSR and the Union, including the Covenants on Human Rights of the United Nations and the Constitution of the Union, shall be directly enforceable on the territory of the Union and shall prevail over the laws of the Union and the republics. 6. The Constitution of the Union guarantees the following civil rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and informational exchange, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of emigra- tion and the right to return to one’s country, freedom to travel abroad, freedom of movement, the right to freely choose one’s domicile, vocation, and education within one’s country, the right to privacy and the security of one’s abode, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and unsubstantiated compulsory medical treatment or psychiatric hospitalization. No one shall

362 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 be subjected to criminal or administrative sanctions for actions associated with one’s personal convictions if these actions are not violent, do not include appeals to violence, do not otherwise infringe upon the rights of others, or do not constitute high treason. The Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state and the noninterference of the state in one’s internal church life. 7. The principles of pluralism and tolerance shall be the foundation of the political, cultural, and ideological life of society. 8. No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel treatment. Capital punish- ment shall be prohibited on the territory of the Union during peacetime. Medical and psychological experiments without the consent of those undergoing the experiments shall be prohibited. 9. The presumption of innocence shall be the fundamental principle underlying judicial examination of any charges against any person. No one shall be deprived of any rank [honors] or membership in any organization, or be publicly declared guilty of having committed a crime, until there is a court decision [on the matter] that has entered into legal force. 10. On the territory of the Union there shall be no discrimination in wages or access to particular employment, or in admission to educational institutions or access to particular forms of education, whether on the basis of nationality, religious or political convictions, or (except as specifically provided by law) on the basis of sex, age, health, or prior criminal record. On the territory of the Union there shall be no discrimination in the provi- sion of housing or medical care, or with respect to other social matters, whether on the basis of sex, nationality, religious or political convictions, age or health, or prior criminal record. 11. No one shall live in poverty. Pensions for the elderly, and for disabled war veterans, disabled workers, or persons disabled in child- hood, shall not be below the minimum living standard. Benefits and other forms of social welfare must guarantee a level of life for all mem- bers of society that is not below the minimum standard. Medical care for citizens, and the educational system, shall be based on principles of social equity, so that minimally sufficient medical care (free and paid), [schools], and places of rest and recreation, without regard to material wealth, place of residence, or occupation, shall be available to everyone. 363 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà

At the same time, paid systems of the highest levels of medical care, and schooling based on competition, shall also exist in the Union. 12. The Union shall not have any expansionist, aggressive, or messianic aims. Its Armed Forces shall be developed according to the principle of defense sufficiency. 13. The Union affirms the principle of refusing to be the first to employ nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons of whatever type and power shall be employed only with the approval of the Commander in Chief of the country’s Armed Forces, upon having found sufficient evidence of the intentional use of nuclear weapons by an adversary and upon the exhaustion of other means of resolving the conflict. The Commander in Chief shall have the right to call off a nuclear attack undertaken by mistake, and in particular to destroy in flight intercontinental missiles and other means of nuclear attack launched by mistake. Nuclear weapons shall be only a means of staving off a nuclear attack by an adversary. The long-range goal of the Union shall be the complete elimination and prohibition of nuclear weapons and other means of mass annihila- tion, on conditions of parity in ordinary weapons, upon resolving regional conflicts and upon the overall reduction of all factors giving rise to ten- sion and mistrust. 14.The operation of any secret services to protect the social and state order shall be prohibited in the Union. Secret activity outside the Union shall be limited to gathering intelligence and counterintelligence. Secret political, subversive, and disinformational activity shall be prohibited. State troops of the Union shall participate in the international struggle against terrorism and trade in narcotics. 15. A basic and supreme right of each nation and republic shall be the right to self-determination. 16. A republic shall join the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia on the basis of a Union treaty adopted in accordance with the will of its population as expressed in a decision by its supreme legisla- tive body. Additional terms for a republic joining the Union shall be set forth in a special protocol in accordance with the will of its population. The Consti- tution does not contemplate any national-territorial entities other than republics, but a republic may be divided into separate administrative- economic regions. 364 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 A decision on whether a republic shall join the Union shall take place at the Founding Congress of the Union or at a Congress of People’s Deputies of the Union. 17. A republic shall have the right to secede from the Union. The decision on a republic’s secession from the Union shall be made by the supreme legislative body of the republic in accordance with a referendum held on the territory of the republic no earlier than one year after the republic has joined the Union. 18. A republic may be expelled from the Union. The expulsion of a republic from the Union shall take effect upon the decision of at least a 2/3 majority of the Congress of People’s Deputies of the Union, in accordance with the will of the population of the Union, and no earlier than three years after the republic has joined the Union. 19. Republics joining the Union shall adopt the Constitution of the Union as their Fundamental Law, as having effect on the territory of the republic along with the republic’s constitution. Republics shall entrust to the Central Government the pursuit of the basic goals of the country’s foreign policy and defense. One monetary system shall be in effect throughout the Union. Republics shall accord to the Central Government the power to operate Union-wide systems of transportation and communications. In addition to those conditions already mentioned for a republic joining the Union, individual republics may grant other functions to the Central Government, and may completely or partially join together the governmental bodies of their constituent republics. Such additional conditions for a particular republic’s membership in the Union shall be formulated in a protocol to the Union treaty and shall be based on a referendum taken on the territory of that republic. A republic may establish republican citizenship, which shall be concurrent with Union citizenship. 20. The defense of the country from external attack shall be entrusted to the Armed Forces, which shall be raised on the basis of Union law. In accor- dance with a special protocol, a republic may have republican military forces or other armed services, which shall be recruited from the population of the republic and deployed on its territory. Republican military forces and subunits shall be part of the Union military forces and subject to one command. All supplies for the Armed Forces – armaments, equipment, and food – shall be centrally controlled and provided from the Union budget. 365 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà

21. A republic may have a republican monetary system, which shall operate in conjunction with the Union monetary system. In this instance, republican bank notes must be accepted on the territory of the republic. Union bank notes must be used in all Union establishments, and may be used in all other establishments. Only the Central Bank of the Union shall have the right to issue or withdraw Union and republican bank notes. 22. Unless otherwise stated in a special protocol, a republic shall possess full economic independence. All decisions relating to economic affairs and economic development, except for those relating to functions entrusted to the Central Government, shall be made by the appropriate bodies of the republic. No development of Union significance can occur without the consent of the republic’s executive agencies. All taxes and other revenues from industry and the population on the territory of the republic shall go to the budget of the republic. A sum determined by the Union’s Budget Committee, on the basis of conditions contained in a special protocol, shall be taken from the republican budget to support the functions entrusted to the Central Government. The remaining financial resources of the budget shall be made fully available to the Government of the republic. A republic shall have the right to establish direct international eco- nomic contacts, including direct trade relations, and to organize joint enterprises with foreign partners. Customs rules shall remain Union in nature. 23. A republic shall have its own bodies of law enforcement (police, ministry of internal affairs, correctional system, procuracy, and court system), which shall be independent of the Central Government. Decisions in criminal cases may be annulled in the form of a pardon by the President of the Union. Union laws, provided they have been approved by the republic’s supreme legislative body, and the laws of the republic, shall be in effect on the territory of the republic. 24. The language of the nationality indicated in the name of a republic shall be the official language on the republic’s territory. If two or more nationalities are indicated in the name of the republic, two or more lan- guages shall be used as official languages on the republic’s territory. In all republics of the Union the official language of inter-republican relations shall be the Russian language. The Russian language shall be

366 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 used in all republics of the Union as the official language of inter-repub- lican relations. The Russian language shall have equal status with the offi- cial language of the republic in all institutions and enterprises under Union control. The language used between nations and nationalities shall not be determined as a constitutional principle. In the Russian republic the Russian language shall be both the official language of the republic and the lan- guage of inter-republican relations. 25. The original constituent parts of the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia shall be the union and autonomous republics, the national autonomous regions, and the national districts of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The national-constitutional process shall begin with a declaration of the independence of all the national-territorial structural parts of the USSR that make up the sovereign republics (states). On the basis of a referendum, some of these parts may join one another. The division of a republic into administrative-economic regions shall be determined by the constitution of the republic. 26. The borders between republics shall remain fixed for the first ten years following the Founding Congress. Later, any alteration of borders between republics, the amalgamation of republics, and the division of republics into smaller units shall be effected in accordance with the will of the population of these republics and the principle of self-determina- tion of nations, in the course of peaceful negotiations with the participa- tion of the Central Government. 27. The Central Government of the Union shall be situated in the capital (a major city) of the Union. No capital of a republic, including the capital of Russia, can at the same time be the capital of the Union. 28. The Central Government shall comprise: (1) the Congress of People’s Deputies of the Union; (2) the Council of Ministers of the Union; (3) the Supreme Court of the Union. The head of the Central Government of the Union shall be the President of the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia. The Central Government shall possess the full extent of the supreme power in the country and shall not share it with the leading bodies of any party. 29. The Congress of People’s Deputies shall have two chambers. The first Chamber – the Chamber of the Republics (400 deputies) – shall be

367 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà elected on a territorial basis, with one deputy from each electoral district, and with each constituency having a more or less equal number of voters. The second Chamber – the Chamber of Nationalities – shall be elected on a national basis. Voters of every nationality with their own language shall elect a specific number of deputies, based on one deputy per two million voters of a given nationality, with two additional deputies for that nationa- lity. This overall quota shall be spread among [the various] voting dis- tricts. Elections to both chambers shall be on the basis of universal and direct suffrage, with a choice of candidates, and shall be for a term of 5 years. Both chambers shall sit jointly, but on various questions – raised according to the internal rules of the Congress – the chambers shall vote separately. When adopting laws or resolutions, a decision of both chambers shall be required for their passage. 30. The Congress of People’s Deputies of the Union of Soviet Repub- lics of Europe and Asia shall possess the highest legislative power of the country. Laws of the Union that do not touch upon provisions of the Constitution shall be adopted by a simple majority of the deputies on the roster of both chambers and shall take precedence over all legislative acts of the Union, except for the Constitution. Laws of the Union that touch upon provisions of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia, as well as other amendments to the text of the Constitution, shall be adopted by a qualified majority of not less than 2/3 of the deputies on the roster of both chambers of the Congress. Decisions adopted in this manner shall take precedence over all other legislative acts of Union-wide application. 31. The Congress shall consider the budget of the Union and amend- ments thereto, using the report presented by the Congress Budget Com- mittee. The Congress shall appoint the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Union, the ministers of foreign affairs and defense, and other high officials of the Union. The Congress shall establish a Com- mission to fulfill various duties, such as the preparation of legislation and the review of situational conflicts. The Congress shall establish standing Committees to elaborate future plans for the country’s develop- ment, for preparing the budget, and for supervising the work of execu- tive bodies. The Congress shall regulate the work of the Central Bank.

368 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Unbalanced issuances of Union and republican bank notes, or the with- drawal of bank notes from circulation, can be effected only with the sanction of the Congress. 32. The Congress shall elect a Presidium from its body. The members of the Presidium of the Congress shall chair the Congress and fulfill organizational functions, securing the proper functioning of the Congress, its Commissions, and Committees. The members of the Presidium shall not have any other functions and shall not hold any other leading posts in the Government of the Union, the republics, or [any] parties. 33. The Council of Ministers shall include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Defense Industry, the Minis- try of Finance, the Ministry of Union Transportation, the Ministry of Union Communications, as well as other ministries required to fulfill other func- tions entrusted to the Central Government by individual republics in accor- dance with special protocols appended to the Union treaty. The Council of Ministers shall also include Committees under the Council of Ministers of the Union. Candidates for all the posts of minister, except for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defense, shall be proposed by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and confirmed by the Congress. The Chairmen of the Committees under the Council of Ministers shall be appointed in the same manner. 34. The Supreme Court of the Union shall have four chambers: (1) the chamber for criminal cases; (2) the chamber for civil cases; (3) the chamber for arbitrazh;17 (4) a constitutional court. The Chairman of each chamber shall be elected by the Congress of People’s Deputies on the basis of alternative candidates. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to problems and cases of a union and inter-republican character. 35. The President of the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia shall be elected for a term of five years in direct and general elections on the basis of alternative candidates. Before the election, each candidate for

17 Perhaps, handling commercial disputes, as during the Soviet era.

369 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà

President shall name a Deputy, who shall run for election on the same ballot as the President. The President shall not combine his post with a leading post of any party. The President can be removed from office in accordance with a referen- dum on the territory of the Union, the decision for which must be made by the Congress of People’s Deputies of the Union by a majority of not less than 2/3 of the roster of deputies. A vote to hold a referendum shall occur upon the demand of no fewer than 60 deputies. In the case of the death of the President, or his removal from office, or his inability to carry out his duties because of illness or other reasons, his powers shall be transferred to his Deputy. 36. The President shall represent the Union in international negotia- tions and ceremonies. The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Union. The President shall have the right of legislative initiative with respect to Union laws and shall have the right to veto any laws and resolutions adopted by fewer than 55 per- cent of the deputies on the roster of the Congress of People’s Depu- ties. The Congress may put a vetoed law to a repeat vote, but not more than twice. 37. The economic structure of the Union shall be based on a pluralistic integration of state (republican, inter-republican, and Union), coopera- tive, stock, and private (individual) ownership of the means of produc- tion; on all forms of industrial and agricultural technology; on industry, roads, and means of transportation; on the means of communication and informational exchange, including the mass media; on property for per- sonal use, including housing; and on intellectual property, including copy- rights and patents. State enterprises may be transferred to collectives or private persons on term leases or leases for an unlimited term. 38. The land, its minerals, and water resources shall be the property of the republic and of those nations (peoples) who live on its territory. Land may be transferred without the use of middlemen, for use for an unlimited [indefinite] term, to private persons, or state, cooperative, or stock organi- zations, upon payment of a land tax into the republic’s budget. Private indi- viduals shall be guaranteed the right to bequeath to their children and their close relatives the use [and possession] of land. Land whose use is in private hands can be returned to the republic only upon the consent of the user or upon violation of the rules relating to the use of land or upon the need of the state

370 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 to use the land, [which shall be] determined by a decision of the legislative body of the republic and [shall include] compensation to the user. 39. Land may be sold as property to a private person and to work collectives. Restrictions upon the resale and other conditions relating to the use of land that is privately owned shall be determined by the law of the republic. 40. The amount of private property that any individual may own, including inventions, acquisitions, or inheritance acquired without violating the law, shall not be restricted (except in the case of land). The unrestricted right to inheritance shall be guaranteed with respect to private property in homes and apartments, with the unrestricted right to bequeath them to one’s heirs, as well as with respect to any and all means of production and financial resources such as bank notes and stocks. The right to inherit intellectual property shall be defined by the laws of the republic. 41. Everyone shall have the right to be the master of his own physical and intellectual abilities. 42. Private individuals, cooperatives, and stock or state enterprises shall have the right to employ an unlimited number of people in accordance with labor law. 43. The use of water resources and other recoverable resources by state, cooperative, leased, and privately-owned enterprises, and by private indi- viduals, shall be paid for by a tax into the budget of the republic. The use of non-recoverable resources shall be paid for, with the money going into the budget of the republic. 44. Enterprises, irrespective of their form of ownership, shall enjoy equal economic, social, and legal rights, and shall have the benefit of equal and complete independence in the distribution and use of their income after taxes, the planning of production, the nature and output of production, the supply of raw materials, the preparation of workpieces, semi-finished items, and standard parts, as well as in personnel matters and in determining prices and wages; uniform taxes shall be levied, but not to exceed 30 percent of actual profit, and enterprises shall in equal measure bear responsibility for the ecological and social consequences of their activity. 45. The management system for the supply and sale of products in industry and agriculture, with the exception of Union enterprises and 371 Ìàòåðèàëû êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà organizations, shall be organized in the interests of the direct producers by the bodies of management responsible for the supply and marketing of products. 46. The principles of the market and competition shall form the basis for economic regulation in the Union. State regulation of the economy shall be exercised through the economic activity of state enterprises and through legislative support for market principles, pluralistic competition, and social justice.

372 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

ÂÑÏÎÌÈÍÀß ÊÎÍÑÒÈÒÓÖÈÎÍÍÛÉ ÏÐÎÅÊÒ À. Ä. ÑÀÕÀÐÎÂÀ 15 ËÅÒ ÑÏÓÑÒß

REMEMBERING A. D. SAKHAROV’S CONSTITUTIONAL PROJECT 15 YEARS LATER

Lowry WYMAN

SAKHAROV’S CONSTITUTION*

1989 will be remembered as an extraordinary year – a year in which millions took to the streets to demand freedom, a year in which revolutionary governments started dismantling the apparatus of totalitarian socialism. The struggle is far from over, but its beginnings have been marvelous to behold. Andrei D. Sakharov helped to foster these beginnings. For years, he tirelessly championed the rights and liberties of people all over the world, but especially in the Soviet Union. He paid a terrible price for his efforts. Suffering exile, he also shouldered the burden of bringing the even greater suffering of others to world attention. Fortunately he lived long enough

* This essay was written shortly after Academician Sakharov’s death and reflects one American lawyer’s scholarly perception of the Sakharov’s constitutional draft in the late Soviet period. As such, it is a valuable historical document in itself, serving as a natural link between the two epochs, the past and the present. For further discussion on this and related subjects, see the site of the Jurlandia Institute: www.jurlandia.org/sak-concom.htm. Last visited on February 19, 2005. 373 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... to witness the early fruits of his painful labors, and was able to participate in the earliest stages of his country’s, and Eastern Europe’s, social and political reforms. Sakharov died on December 14, 1989, worn out. Among his last labors, he prepared a draft constitution for a new Soviet Union. It was a “discus- sion draft” frequently revised, even in his final days – that attempted to articulate the great themes and necessary details of a new compact among 300 million people of a hundred nationalities, with scores of languages and numerous alphabets, all sharing a common heritage of bondage to a lawless, totalitarian theocracy. Sakharov’s draft differs fundamentally from the tone, organization, and preoccupations of the U.S. Constitution. It is both broader and narrower than our Constitution, addressing lofty global concerns as well as highly particularized elements that we would consider more “legislative” than “con- stitutional” (although some of our own states’ constitutions also cover numerous “legislative” details). It should be read in light of the political and historical circumstances that faced Sakharov, the realities of current Soviet experience, as well as in light of its tentative, heuristic character. Although I believe that key features of U.S. constitutional theory, practice, and “style” suggest vital improvements – a theme I shall return to – this draft is a powerful point of departure, a poignant gift from a good and great man. Its first paragraphs, particularly, project a vision of global political goals and arrangements that is bold, refreshing, and as revolutionary in its time as the U.S. Constitution was two centuries ago. Sakharov’s draft was entirely his own. Although appointed to a committee that President Gorbachev commissioned to write a new Constitution, Sakharov declined to participate on a joint draft, believing that the committee as a whole would fail to address many important issues. According to one of Sakharov’s close friends, Gorbachev was quite worried by this and dispatched an emissary to determine whether Sakharov was accepting or declining committee membership. Sakharov answered that he was not declining, he merely wished to write a draft of his own. As of early February 1990, the Committee had still not met. Sakharov’s Constitution is the only draft in existence. As suggested, this draft was intended to stimulate debate on the key issues Sakharov believed had to be resolved in order to set up a workable government. In preparing it, however, Sakharov also suggested specific ingredients of a balance among lofty principles, pragmatic governance, and Soviet experience. This was no simple task, as each day’s news confirms. 374 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 There are many who doubt that a workable compromise – whether along lines suggested by Sakharov, or any others – can ever be achieved. Sakharov was not among them. He focused upon identifying and addressing the questions that such a compromise would have to resolve. His proposed constitution, albeit tentative, deserves respectful consideration. Sakharov’s draft would create a new, voluntary Union – the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia. Contemplating that its constituent republics might wish to join on different terms, the draft permits special protocols to be appended to the Union treaty signed by each joining republic. (Recall that Texas joined the United States under a special protocol.) It even contemplates republics combining their respective governments. It subsumes questions of “sovereignty” within innovative permutations of federation and confederation – all within the context of a Union that is itself explicitly governed by world norms of lawful government, individual rights, envi- ronmental protection, peaceful dispute resolution, etc. In this and several instances, Sakharov seems to be asserting that the problem, as currently framed, may be insoluble, but that by changing the context of the problem, by transcending the terms of the old insoluble debates, a basis for pragmatic accommodation might be found. Language, as an extension of the nationalities problem, is similarly prob- lematic. How does one govern a vast geographic area without a common language? Yet Russian, having been imposed, is hated by many of the con- stituent nations. Sakharov’s draft deftly provides that each republic may choose whatever official language or languages it wishes; the draft further asserts that “the language used between nations and nationalities shall not be determined as a constitutional principle”; yet the draft also provides that Russian shall be “the official language of inter-republican relations.” Thus, each national group may use its own language; as between national groups, any language is permissible; but as between the governments of the constituent republics, a single language being necessary, Russian is designated. Because Sakharov was attempting to establish a different kind of govern- ment and social system – a non-totalitarian, non-socialist society – he found it necessary to prohibit specific evils of the current system, and to define specific rights and relationships that would remedy current flaws. If adopted, these provisions might some day appear as anachronistic as our third amend- ment, which prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes during peacetime. Yet at this juncture of Soviet history, these provisions are needed. For example, Sakharov’s draft states that the “President shall not combine 375 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... his post with a leading post of any party.” (Paragraph 35) Even though this draft eliminates the current Constitution’s famous Paragraph 6, which grants primacy to the Communist Party, as well as other provisions that undergird the current socialist theocracy, and even though Paragraph 7 of the draft appears to prescribe a multiparty system, the draft’s explicit Paragraph 35 prohibition targets a specific evil well known to Soviet experience, namely, the confusion between politics and government and the conflict of interest inherent in a party boss being chief of state. Currently, Gorbachev is General Secretary of the Communist Party, head of the legislature, and head of state. He was chosen by the newly constituted Congress of People’s Deputies to serve as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, which is elected by the Congress; under the current Constitution, the Chair- man of the Supreme Soviet also serves as head of state. Currently, the Council of Ministers is the “supreme executive power” of the government; the chair- man of that body is the Prime Minister – that is, the chief executive officer of the government (currently, Nikolai Ryzhkov). Nothing in the current Constitution bars Gorbachev from also serving as Prime Minister, thereby serving as head of the party, head of the legislature, head of the govern- ment, and head of state. Stalin did. Sakharov’s constitution draws clearer lines among these various roles, although it also establishes areas of shared power. It vests supreme legislative power in a Congress of People’s Deputies, which is a bi-cameral legislature (one chamber representing territories, the other, national groups). The Con- gress elects a smaller body (number not specified), called the Presidium, which merely serves to coordinate congressional activity. This new approach contrasts sharply with current law, under which the Presidium has frequently usurped legislative powers. Furthermore, Sakharov’s draft forbids Presidium members from holding “any other Leading posts in the Government of the Union, the republics, or [any] parties.” Sakharov’s constitution elimi- nates the Supreme Soviet, and therefore also eliminates the position of its elected Chairman as head of Congress and head of the Union. The draft retains the Council of Ministers. Its members, including the Chairman (Prime Minister), are appointed by the Congress. The President of the Union, elected by direct popular vote for a five-year term, is the head of state. He is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and represents the Union in foreign affairs. He has the “right of legislative initiative with respect to Union laws” and veto power “with respect to any laws and deci- sions adopted by fewer than 55 percent” of the Congress. 376 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Sakharov’s draft offers only three sentences regarding the judiciary. These include a reference to a constitutional court, whose jurisdiction “shall include the review of problems and cases of a Union and inter-republican character” (but does not explicitly include interpreting the Constitution, or determining the constitutionality of legislation). The current Constitu- tion does not provide for any such court at all, however. Thus we see that Sakharov was groping towards the rudiments of a tripartite government, with judicial review. But he did so more in terms of rejecting the old – seeking to avoid manifest errors from the past – than of embracing what American constitutional theorists would deem a wholly satisfactory new political compact. In the spirit of the debate that Sakharov hoped to stimulate, I here offer some observations and criticisms. Again, the first few paragraphs are very powerful indeed. Possibly they should appear as a preamble. The structure of the remaining document needs refinement. In general, a constitution should serve above all to provide the ordinarily intelligent reader with a clear overview of how the government functions; what its parts can and cannot do, and how those parts check and balance each other. Sakharov’s draft adopts many elements of a tripartite model, of a federal structure, and of a bill of rights, but these elements are not presented in a sufficiently orderly or organized fashion, and in some cases are not sufficiently elaborated. The powers of the Congress, for example, are barely mentioned (with the exception of budgetary oversight and control of the Central Bank). As indicated, the judicial power is also barely mentioned, although the draft prescribes judicial review “of problems and cases of a union and inter- republican character.” Given the current status of the judiciary in the Soviet Union, this subject should receive greater attention. Currently, the judiciary has no real power; indeed, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet has inter- preted its own prerogatives to include interpreting and enforcing the Constitu- tion. Given that the Congress and the Supreme Soviet are often not in session, the Presidium is sometimes (in effect) both maker and interpreter of the law. This problem has caused difficult confrontations between the republics and the Central Government. Recently, for example, in response to republics passing their own laws on the rights of citizens with respect to voting and residency, the Presidium passed resolutions holding those laws unconstitu- tional. These resolutions were accompanied by orders to the republics to rescind those laws. 377 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà...

Similarly, lack of credible judicial oversight of governmental activities, such as prosecutions, leads to prevalent abuses of individual rights. That is why Soviet citizens must frequently resort to international media and world opinion to effectively redress violations of their constitutional rights. It is also why government officials often assert that rights enumerated in the Consti- tution and the International Covenants on Human Rights are not directly enforceable. Because of this problem, the many rights enumerated in Sakharov’s draft run the risk of not being enforced. For example, the draft guarantees “the right to be the master of [one’s] own physical and intellectual abilities.” This provision addresses the problem of compulsory labor. Under current law, including the Constitution, everybody must work. Nobody may refuse to accept a bureaucrat’s job assignment, and the criminal law provides stiff penalties for evading “socially useful” work. This permits prosecutors and bureaucrats to define work as they choose, and to compel people to fulfill Party or State directives. For example, Nobel Laureate Josef Brodsky, a poet, was prosecuted for evading socially useful work because he spent his intellectual and creative energies as he chose, not as directed. Under Sakharov’s Constitution, Brodsky would theoretically be free to “work” as he chose, but he might not be able to enjoy this right unless the courts were explicitly empowered to enforce it. This point leads to my main criticism of Sakharov’s draft. In another document produced during this same period – a draft law on governmental powers during war or civil emergencies – a working group under Sakharov’s direction adopted a style of composition that differs from other USSR laws and differs also from his draft constitution. In this style, the “freedom format,” the citizens tell their government what it may or may not do, not vice versa. In broadest terms, this style asserts that whatever is not explicitly prohibited to citizens, by the “limited” government of their creation, is per- mitted. This style’s alternative asserts that whatever is not explicitly per- mitted, is prohibited. A constitution whose format “enables the citizenry” has to be very long and detailed if its purpose, in fact, is to limit the government. Its format is efficient only for constitutions of enslavement. This stylistic point is especially impor- tant when, as in Sakharov’s draft, the heretofore terra incognita of economic rights and freedoms must guarantee, indeed encourage and celebrate, a multi- foliate diversity of activities previously condemned and proscribed. The broad features and particulars of Sakharov’s constitution, preceded with a preamble composed of his first powerful paragraphs, modified 378 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 otherwise along lines here suggested, should be poured into a “freedom format” that clearly enumerates the limited powers of the Union govern- ment, specifies the allocation of responsibility among its parts, and informs the government what it may, and may not, do. Probably the best way to accomplish this last, crucial goal, is by way of a Bill of Rights. So modified, Sakharov’s constitution could become a truly historic political charter.

Joshua RUBENSTEIN

A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION BY ANDREI SAKHAROV*

At the behest of Mikhail Gorbachev, Andrei Sakharov began to formulate ideas for a new constitution for the Soviet Union in the final months of his life. It was the fall of 1989. By then, Sakharov had been back in Moscow for nearly three years following release from his illegally imposed exile in Gorky. Sakharov had been impressed by Gorbachev when he first saw him speak on television and he was even more impressed by the palpable changes in Soviet life that he experienced in Moscow. His return to the capital in December 1986 was followed by a publicly declared policy that all political prisoners would soon be released. Glasnost in particular – which

* The observations in this brief commentary entirely belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization. 379 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... led to an unprecedented, almost unfathomable rush to print of works of litera- ture and history that had long been suppressed – deeply affected Sakharov. As he wrote in his memoirs, “While we were still in Gorky, we began to notice astonishing changes in the press, the movies, and television.” And in Moscow, he confessed to a Western reporter that “I’m reading all the journals and magazines with great interest now... Every day we’re amazed because our standards and our points of reference are different. Total glasnost will come when we stop being astonished.” Those years, 1986 to 1989, marked the beginning of a vivid period of Soviet history, when the country, under the leadership of the General Secretary of the Communist Party, seemed committed to genuine, democratic reform. The momentum lodged with the reformers, who controlled the levers of national power. And though this project was initiated “from above,” Sakharov recognized the possibilities connected to what Gorbachev was trying to do and he decided to support him even when other veteran human rights campaigners remained more skeptical. At the same time, Sakharov did not hesitate to challenge Gorbachev when he believed that the General Secretary was not going fast enough or far enough in his reform efforts. The most vivid example of Sakharov’s defiance under Gorbachev was his call to abolish Paragraph 6 of the Brezhnev Constitution that granted the Communist party sole authority over the country’s institutions. It is in this context that Sakharov’s draft of a new constitution needs to be understood. Sakharov had always been one of a handful of human rights activists who not only campaigned for the release of individual prisoners of conscience but also tried to articulate a broader critique of the country’s problems and a broader set of policies for the country’s future. (Andrei Amalrik, Valentin Turchin, and, in his own way, Alexander Solzhenitsyn also advanced broad visions for reform of the Soviet Union based on their respective ideological or cultural assumptions. It is worth remembering Amalrik’s prophetic vision in particular, which he articulated as long ago as 1969, when he described the possible break-up of the Soviet Union as a result of a political crisis or a war with China. “Party officials among the various nationalities... will aim for national separateness,” hoping “to preserve their own privileged positions.”) Sakharov wanted to avoid what Amalrik so presciently foresaw. Watching Gorbachev, Sakharov appreciated the effect of having a reform-minded leader- ship at the center, in Moscow, within a unified country. Perestroika exerted pressure for reform everywhere. At the same time, Sakharov was not a revo- lutionary. He always advocated gradualist options, wanting to avoid political or economic dislocations that would disorient or even harm large parts 380 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 of the population. The Soviet people had already suffered more than enough from one grandiose experiment. He did not want to contribute to another. So he was against the break-up of the Soviet Union and hoped that a more flexible, federal system would be attractive enough politically to sustain the support of the country’s constituent republics. In this way, he wanted to provide a structure where human rights guarantees, which form one explicit foundation for his constitution, would mean applying the Universal Decla- ration of Human Rights throughout the country. Contemporary life almost everywhere in the former Soviet Union confirms both Amalrik’s and Sakharov’s worst fears. With the exception of the now independent Baltic states and the hopeful possibilities that are now unfolding in Ukraine, the prospects for democracy in the former Soviet Union seem increasingly grim. And the predominant power – the Russian Federation – seems indifferent, if not hostile to democratic reform in its “near abroad.” The political situation in Central Asia, Belarus, and Russia itself reflect the failure of democratic institutions to emerge after the break-up of the Soviet Union. But unlike the heady days under Gorbachev, there is no longer a govern- ment at the “center” with the vision to promote democracy.

Äèòðèõ ÁÀÉÐÀÓ

ÊÎÍÑÒÈÒÓÖÈÎÍÍÛÉ ÏÐÎÅÊÒ ÑÀÕÀÐÎÂÀ: ÈÄÅÀËÛ ÏÅÐÅÑÒÐÎÉÊÈ, ÎÒËÈÒÛÅ Â ÏÀÐÀÃÐÀÔÀÕ*

 ýòîé ðåïëèêå ìíå áû õîòåëîñü ïîãîâîðèòü î òåêñòå ïðîåêòà êîí- ñòèòóöèè êàê îá èñòîðè÷åñêîì äîêóìåíòå, êîòîðûé ïîçâîëÿåò îöåíèòü

* Ïåðåâîä Ýëëû Êàïëóíîâñêîé. 381 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... êóëüòóðíûé ãîðèçîíò ñîâåòñêîãî èíòåëëåêòóàëà-äèññèäåíòà è èñòî÷- íèêè èõ ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ìûøëåíèÿ. Ïðîåêò êîíñòèòóöèè èñõîäèò èç âîçìîæíîñòè îáíîâëåíèÿ Ñîâåòñêîãî Cîþçà íà îñíîâå ïðèíöèïà èñ- òèííîãî ôåäåðàëèçìà è ïîëèòèêè ðàçðÿäêè â äóõå âíóòðåííèõ è âíå- øíèõ èäåàëîâ ïåðåñòðîéêè. Âñå ýòî áûëè èäåàëû, ïðåæäå âñåãî, äèñ- ñèäåíòîâ ëèáåðàëüíîãî è äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîãî ñïåêòðà. Ê íèì îòíîñÿòñÿ îñíîâíûå ãðàæäàíñêèå ïðàâà (ïàðàãðàôû 5-11), ñîáëþäåíèå ìåæäó- íàðîäíûõ è íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðàâ ÷åëîâåêà (ïàðàãðàô 4), îòêàç îò àãðåñ- ñèè è ýêñïàíñèè, çàïðåò íà ïðèìåíåíèå àòîìíîãî îðóæèÿ, êóðñ íà ðà- çîðóæåíèå (ïàðàãðàôû 13-14), òðåáîâàíèå ñîáëþäåíèÿ ïðèíöèïà ðàç- äåëåíèÿ âëàñòåé (ïàðàã-ðàôû 28-36) è íå â ïîñëåäíþþ î÷åðåäü çàêî- íîäàòåëüíîå çàêðåïëåíèå ïëþðàëèçàöèè ôîðì ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé äåÿòåëü- íîñòè – ðàâíîïðàâíîå ñîñóùåñòâîâàíèå ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé, êîîïåðàòèâ- íîé è ÷àñòíîé ñîáñòâåííîñòè (ïàðàãðàôû 37-45) ñ ýëåìåíòàìè äåìîê- ðàòèçàöèè ïðîèçâîäèòåëåé (ïàðàãðàô 44). Ïîñëåäíþþ ñòàòüþ ìîæíî âïîëíå èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü êàê ñëàáóþ ïîïûòêó îæèâëåíèÿ äåìîêðàòèè ñîâåòîâ (â ñìûñëå äåìîêðàòèè ïðîèçâîäèòåëåé) èëè êàê îòãîëîñêè îñ- íîâíûõ ïðèíöèïî⠓ñîöèàëüíîé äåìîêðàòèè” â Öåíòðàëüíîé è Ñåâåð- íîé Åâðîïå. Ìîðàëüíûé ïàôîñ è íàèâíàÿ âåðà â áëàãîðîäñòâî ïðèíöèïîâ ÎÎÍ, à òàêæå â ãàðìîíèþ ìåæäó (ôèêòèâíûìè) ãëîáàëüíûìè è îòäåëüíûìè ãîñóäàðñòâåííûìè èíòåðåñàìè, êàê ýòî çíà÷èòñÿ â ïàðàãðàôå 4, ïîë- íîñòüþ ñîîòíîñÿòñÿ ñ äóõîì ñêîðåå ìîðàëüíîãî, íåæåëè ïîëèòè÷åñêî- ãî ïðîòåñòà äèññèäåíòñêîé êóëüòóðû. Êðîìå òîãî, îáðàùàåò íà ñåáÿ âíèìàíèå òî, ÷òî íåêîòîðûå ñòàòüè èìåþò öåëüþ ðåôîðìèðîâàíèå ïðèíöèïîâ è îòäåëüíûõ ïðîöåññóàëüíûõ ïðàâèë ñîâåòñêîé êîíñòèòó- öèè, íåîäíîêðàòíî ïîäâåðãàâøèõñÿ êðèòèêå. Áåçóñëîâíî, ñàõàðîâñêèé ïðîåêò áûë íàïðàâëåí íà óñòðàíåíèå ñèñ- òåìíûõ îøèáîê ñîâåòñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè ñîãëàñíî çàïàäíûì êðèòåðè- ÿì. Îñîáî ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü ïðèíöèï ðàçäåëåíèÿ âëàñòåé, îòäåëåíèÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ ôóíêöèé îò ïàðòèéíûõ è îãðàíè÷åíèå ïîëíîìî÷èé ðåôîðìèðîâàííûõ îðãàíîâ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé áåçîïàñíîñòè. Íåñîìíåí- íî ýòî îòíîñèòñÿ è ê ïðèíöèïó “âåäóùåé ðîëè ïàðòèè”, ê âíåïîäñóä- íîñòè ïàðòèè è ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ èíñòèòóòîâ è ê çëîóïîòðåáëåíèÿì âëàñ- òüþ ÍÊÂÄ è ÊÃÁ. Îáðàùàåò íà ñåáÿ âíèìàíèå â òåêñòå ïðîåêòà ñêîðåå òî, ÷òî â íåì ïðàêòè÷åñêè îòñóòñòâóåò âûðàæåííàÿ ñâÿçü ñ ïðîøëûì – íàïðèìåð, â ôîðìå ïðåàìáóëû, â êîòîðîé áû ïîäâîäèëàñü ÷åðòà ïîä áåñïðàâèåì è òåððîðîì â ïðîøëîì. 382 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ß äóìàþ, ÷òî ïðîåêò êîíñòèòóöèè âïîëíå ìîã áû ñòàòü ìîäåëüþ è ïðèìåðîì äëÿ Ðîññèéñêîé Ôåäåðàöèè, ïîñêîëüêó â íåì ãîðàçäî ÷åò÷å, ÷åì â äåéñòâóþùåé ôåäåðàëüíîé êîíñòèòóöèè, íå ãîâîðÿ óæå î ïðàê- òèêå, îãîâàðèâàåòñÿ îãðàíè÷åíèå êîìïåòåíöèé è ïîëíîìî÷èé ìåæäó ìûñëÿùèìèñÿ êàê ñóâåðåííûå ðåñïóáëèêàìè è ñîþçíûì öåíòðîì. Äàæå åñëè ñîâðåìåííûå ðåñïóáëèêè, òàêèå êàê Òàòàðñòàí, Áàøêîðòîñòàí è äð., íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ “ñóâåðåííûìè”, îñòàåòñÿ íåðàçðåøåííîé ïðîáëåìà áîëåå ÷åòêîãî ðàçãðàíè÷åíèÿ ôóíêöèîíàëüíûõ, ïðàâîâûõ è ôèíàíñî- âûõ êîìïåòåíöèé è îïðåäåëåíèÿ çàêîíîäàòåëüíûõ ïðàêòèê â ñïîðíûõ ñëó÷àÿõ. Âîïðîñ î òîì, äåëåãèðóþò ëè ðåñïóáëèêè (è îáëàñòè) ñîþç- íîìó öåíòðó èëè íûíåøíåé ôåäåðàöèè òîëüêî áþäæåòíûå, íàëîãîâûå è ôèíàíñîâûå ïðåðîãàòèâû, ÿâëÿåòñÿ îäíîâðåìåííî ñïîðíûì â ïîëè- òè÷åñêîì è êîíñòèòóöèîííî-ïðàâîâîì îòíîøåíèÿõ. Áåçóñëîâíî, åñòü ìíîæåñòâî âàðèàíòîâ åãî ðåøåíèÿ. Îäíàêî, ýòó ïðîáëåìó íåîáõîäèìî îòêðûòî îáîçíà÷èòü, à íå ïîäìåíÿòü äåìàãîãè÷åñêèìè ðàçãîâîðàìè îá “óñèëåíèè âåðòèêàëè âëàñòè”. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ÑØÀ ïîñëóæèëè ïðèìåðîì äëÿ êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ ôîðì îòíîøåíèé ìåæäó öåíòðîì è ðåñïóáëèêàìè è ó÷ðåæäåíèåì êîí- ñòèòóöèîííûõ îðãàíîâ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïðîåêò êîíñòèòóöèè èìååò “ýòàòèñòñêèé” õàðàêòåð, â ñèëó ÷åãî îí íå ìîæåò áûòü ïðèìåíèì äëÿ ðåøåíèÿ ïðîáëåì ìåæýòíè÷åñêîãî âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ è ýòíè÷åñêèõ ìåíü- øèíñòâ. Ïîñêîëüêó ýòà ïðîáëåìà – çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì ïóíêòà î âîçìîæ- íîé ïåðåêðîéêå ãðàíèö – íèêàê íå îãîâàðèâàåòñÿ, ìîæíî ïðåäïîëî- æèòü, ÷òî Ñàõàðîâ áûë óáåæäåí, ÷òî “ðåøåíèå” – êàê è â êëàññè÷åñ- êèõ çàïàäíûõ êîíñòèòóöèÿõ – ëåæèò â çàêîíîäàòåëüíîì çàêðåïëåíèè îñíîâíûõ åñòåñòâåííûõ ïðàâ. Îãîâîðèì, ÷òî ýòî ëåãèòèìíûé, íî íå åäèíñòâåííûé ïîäõîä – íà Çàïàäå ïðàêòèêóþòñÿ ðàçíûå âàðèàíòû ãàð- ìîíèçàöèè îáùèõ è îáóñëîâëåííûõ ýòíè÷åñêîé ñïåöèôèêîé ïðàâ (ìîæ- íî ñîñëàòüñÿ íà ïðèìåð Þæíîãî Òèðîëÿ â Èòàëèè, Âåðõíåé Ñèëåçèè â Ïîëüøå èëè Áîñíèè è Ãåðöåãîâèíû).

383 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... Joanna REGULSKA

A VISION FOR A BETTER BUT CENTRALIZED UNION

Andrei D. Sakharov’s vision knew no limits; the human rights fighter, a true believer in the possibility of peace and disarmament across the world had completed, just before his sudden death, a draft of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia. This bold document was submitted by Sakharov to the Constitutional Commission and although it wasn’t acted upon, its many visionary provisions did stimulate significant debates. No doubt the repealing of the infamous Paragraph 6 of the USSR Constitution and thus the collapse of the Communist Party monopoly and subsequent dissolution of the Soviet empire are direct outcomes of Sakharov’s tireless efforts to foster political change. Like many drafts of new constitutions written in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this draft also reflects a particular point in time: it is visionary and forward looking and yet also strongly embedded in the past.1 What makes this draft different from others is Sa- kharov’s commitment to global governance, an unusual approach in a doc- ument that usually serves national needs. Throughout decades of dissident activism, Sakharov became deeply committed to the struggle for freedom and security of humankind regardless of social, racial or ethnic markings;

1 A. E. Dick Howard (Ed.). Constitution Making in Eastern Europe. Washington, DC, 1993; Wiktor Osiatynski. Legal Reform in Postcommunist Europe: The View from Within // East European Constitutional Review. 1996. Vol. 5. No. 1. Pp. 78-83; Ulrich K. Preuss. Patterns of Constitutional Evolution and Change in Eastern Europe // Joachim Jens Hesse and Nevil Johnson (Eds.). Constitutional Policy and Change in Europe. Chap. 4. Oxford,1995; J. Regulska. Self-Governance or Central Control? Rewriting Constitutions in Central and Eastern Europe // A. E. Dick Howard (Ed.). Constitution Making in Eastern Europe. Pp. 133-161. 384 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 for him all citizens of the world do have a right to basic freedoms without consideration of age, sex, or health. Thus, in his draft he unveils an image of a peaceful and disarmed world, where the survival of humanity is the primary goal and where a convergence of socialism and capitalism could take place. Such visionary images, often difficult to achieve as reality has since shown, envisage a governance that goes beyond the powers of any one particular nation-state and even beyond the supranational forms such as the Union proposed in this document. Achieving fundamental transfor- mations on the global level, he believed, would lead eventually to the es- tablishment of a world government. Parallel to his visions of the future was Sakharov’s concern with re- dressing the injustices of the past. Thus he puts especially strong emphasis on freedoms, such as the freedom of belief, action, mobility, choice and bodily integrity, and rights such as that to privacy. Yet, at the same time there are few specifics on how these will be guaranteed and on what rights individuals will have to secure these freedoms. Further, several provisions do speak directly to the need for redistributive justice that must take place in order for past violence, discrimination, and abuse of individuals and groups to be compensated. Thus Sakharov speaks at length about wages and em- ployment, and access to education, housing, and medical care. These “aspi- rational rights” are usually considered more as measures protecting citi- zens’ welfare and as more appropriately belonging to a bill of social rights (which often is contained in a separate from the constitution document such as the European Social Charter (http://conventions.coe.int)); the exception here is the Constitution of the Czech Republic which contains one of the most detailed lists of fundamental social rights. Because the guarantee of such entitlements is often difficult to achieve, putting them into the consti- tution is in a sense problematic, yet the acknowledgement of these rights in the most significant document of any country reflects the political will to guarantee these rights. Although such prospective provisions are unique to the region of the former socialist bloc, their unquestionable visibility in the Sakharov’s draft not only speaks to the role that political ideologies and institutions have played in the past in constructing notions of citizenship, but also reflects the fear that such rights might again be lost. As is typical, this draft does address the rights and obligations of differ- ent levels of government. Reflecting past experiences, but also believing that social justice needs institutional structures that can deliver and monitor it, Sakharov preserved in the document a strong role of the state. This will be of course a different, a redefined state, a state that is more concerned 385 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... with the provision of welfare for its citizens then with the surveillance, interference, and control of their lives. But Sakharov is primarily concerned with central and regional governments only. This is not entirely unexpected if one looks at other federalist constitutions; indeed India’s is the only fed- eral state constitution where local government provisions are explicitly ad- dressed. In other cases, such as those of Germany or France, local govern- ment is only implicitly addressed, although it did gain a secure place in these documents. Yet, given that constitutions are seen also as political doc- uments that attempt to provide for stability, legitimacy, and enhancement of national capacities for self-governance, elements that were clearly not present under the communist regime, the lack of attention to the local level in Sakharov’s draft is worth noticing, as it stands in contrast to the great majority of new and revised, after 1989, constitutions of Central and East- ern Europe. The failure to present a framework for intergovernmental relations and to explicitly reinforce centralized or decentralized forms of government does de facto indicate that Sakharov felt more comfortable with a centralized form of governance. This tendency for centralization comes across when starting with Paragraph 15 Sakharov discusses the responsibilities that the regional level should undertake and the rights that republics will have. Nowhere in this discussion is their local level mentioned, and in fact, Paragraph 16 eliminates the possibility for the creation of lower level units. Neither is local autonomy discussed nor is decentralization of power and fiscal recourses provided for. Here one may speculate that the fear of ethnic conflicts and separatist movements prevented Sahkarov from taking a step forward and embracing local self-determination as he did at the level of the republic (Paragraph 15). Similarly, while citizens’ participation is called upon in several instances, as they are asked to voice their opinions through referenda and to express their will, citizens’ input is limited. So while they are given the right to decide which segments of their lives will be governed by the central level, there is no provision that would allow them to decide if these affairs should be run locally. Thus they have an option to decide what responsibilities should be moved upward, but could not shape lives in their immediate local communities (Paragraphs 17, 19). This tendency for centrali- zation and difficulties in conceptualizing decentralized central-local relations has in fact been common in the early stages of post-1989 regime changes. As Central and East European countries attempted to move past highly controlled practices, central institutions were also afraid to give away their power and resources as de facto it meant for many the end of their existence. 386 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Similarly, while Sakharov is committed to self-determination, for him it ends at the level of republic. There are some other provisions where ambiguities can be noticed. Such is the case of Paragraph 20, where despite Sakharov’s commitment to peace he proposed, at the level of each republic, the establishment of military forces and other armed services. Or, in another instance, certain contradic- tions emerged when on the one hand he states that foreign policy will be the prerogative of the central level (Paragraph 19), and yet each republic will be able to establish direct international economic contacts (Paragraph 22). By opening access to international and global markets, republics will di- rectly engage in shaping the context and application on the ground, in fact at the local level, of economic foreign policies and they will become agents of foreign policies. Despite these points of contestation, Sakharovs’ constitution is a vision- ary and formidable document committed to the rule of law, social justice, equality among all, and respect for human rights and basic freedoms. It is also a document that not only illustrates the density of Sakharov’s thought and the search for a democratic and humanistic future for the entire world but also reflects late Soviet dissidents’ worldview. In that sense, the docu- ment is a memorial to the great historical moment of social and political transformations of the late 20th century that Sakharov so much helped to spearhead.

Kimitaka MATSUZATO

ETHNO-TERRITORIAL FEDERALISM AND A. D. SAKHAROV’S CONSTITUTIONAL DRAFT

It is often difficult for contemporaries to understand what is going on in front of them. This is also true for the foreign observers of an event. When Gorbachev’s economic reforms and their painful consequences were at- 387 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... tracting worldwide attention, both the citizens of the USSR and foreign observers thought that the idea of reform was good, but that Gorbachev lacked the strong will to realize it in full or that he was encountering resis- tance by the nomenklatura. Several years after the collapse of the USSR, scholars began to argue convincingly that Gorbachev’s reforms themselves were destructive by their intention (to create a market economy without imposing adequate risks on enterprises) and implementation (voluntarism and leapfrogging changes in policies).1 In contrast to Gorbachev’s hyper-reformism, Sakharov’s constitutional draft (for the expected Union of Republics of Europe and Asia) impresses us by its conservatism, if we read it as a guideline for state building. Yet it is another example of how difficult it is for contemporaries to understand the real reasons for the crises they face. The draft confirms the traditional idea of ethno-territorial federalism, which premises the coincidence of fed- eral constituents (union republics and other administrative territorial units) and the spatial distribution of ethnicities (Paragraphs 17 and others). Ac- cording to this approach, each federal constituent has its titular nation, the members of which are more or less privileged in “their” republic.2 Remem- ber that almost all the republics in the USSR, both union and autonomous, were named for some titular nation.3 The Russian Empire was built on a purely territorial principle. To be more precise, the Russian empire tried hard to avoid overlapping the ad- ministrative territorial boundaries with the ethnic distribution of the popu- lation. Imperial officials thought that ethnically homogeneous regions would provoke separatism among the population and make inter-ethnic relations more complex (a compromise between a population distribution of 90 per- cent and 10 percent is often more difficult to achieve than that between 60 percent and 40 percent). There were few exceptions to this principle: for example, the introduction of Kovno (Kaunas) Province in the 1840s and the Steppe Governor-Generalship in the 1880s. However, both of them had

1 Michael Ellman and Vladimir Kontorovich (Eds.). The Destruction of the Soviet Economic System. An Insiders’ History. Armonk, NY, 1998. 2 Therefore, the fact that in present-day Tatarstan ethnic Tatars, who compose only half of the population but make up 80 percent of the political elites, is a result of the realization (not distortion) of ethno-territorial federalism. 3 The only examples named after the place name were Crimea and Dagestan. But Crimea had its title nation (Crimean Tatars) and multiethnic Dagestan had and continues to have fourteen title nations. Therefore, we cannot regard these as exceptions of ethno-territorial federalism 388 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 limited, concrete purposes: the former was planned to sever Lowland Lithua- nians (Žemaitis) from the influence of Poles and Polonized Highland Lithua- nians.4 The latter was introduced to tackle deteriorating Russo-Chinese re- lations.5 Recent studies pay attention to the fact that even in bureaucratic circles there were projects to make administrative boundaries closer to eth- nic ones,6 but we should not ignore the fact that these projects had a per- sonal element. Autonomist claims following the 1905 Revolution came from the anti-government camps. As is well known, Lenin and the Bolsheviks proposed the idea of na- tional territorial autonomy before the Revolution of 1917, and debated the principle of cultural autonomy (individual, non-territorial solution of na- tional problems) with the Austrian Marxists. At that time, however, the Bolsheviks intended nothing more than to use nationalist movements for revolutionary purposes. Astonished by the nationalist claims in the former territories of the Russian Empire during 1917-1921, and the unexpectedly easy collapse of the Habsburg Empire, the Bolsheviks began to think that it would be better to give the population groups national territorial autono- mies, political institutions, the chance to raise national elites, and literal languages from above, rather than to agree unwillingly with nationalist claims from below.7 This was the turning point from the purely territorial to the ethno-territorial principle of state building, which would later be universalized over the socialist countries. The state and Communist Party defined the categories of nations and ethnicities and ranked them. Accord- ing to this ranking, newly defined nations and ethnicities were vested with various levels of autonomy, budgets, national historiographies, and possi- bilities for language and ethno-cultural education. Sakharov’s constitution is absolutely unconscious of the problems of this Leninist mechanism of

4 Darius Staliunas. Problema administrativno-territorial’nykh granits v “natsional’noi politike” imperskoi vlasti. Kovenskaya guberniya v seredine XIX veka // Rossiiskaya imperiya. Strategii stabilizatsii i opyty obnovleniya. Voronezh, 2004. Pp. 147-166. 5 Kimitaka Matsuzato. General-gubernatorstva v Rossiiskoi imperii. Ot etnicheskogo k prostranstvennomu podkhodu // Novaya imperskaya istoriya postsovetskogo prostranstva. Kazan, 2004. Pp. 427-458. 6 Leonid Gorizontov. V poiskakh vnutrennego ravnovesiya. Vopros ob izmenenii territorial’no-administrativnogo deleniya Rossiiskoi imperii v 1830-40-e gody. Paper presented at the annual congress of the Japanese Society for the Study of Russian History. Hokkaido University, 21-23 October 2004. 7 Terry Martin. The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939. Ithaca and London, 2001. Pp. 5-6. 389 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... ethno-territorial self-definition, and as a result, brings these problems to the extreme.For example, having experienced numerous bloody events in the former socialist territories, one may easily imagine the possible conse- quences of Paragraph 26 on changes of territorial borders between union republics “according to the population’s will.” Moreover, the draft includes an overtly primordial paragraph (38) declaring that the land belongs to the “nations” living in the republic (the paragraph, no doubt, bears in mind titular nations, though the plural noun, “nations,” is used).8 Obviously, Sakharov and other Soviet democrats did not recognize that ethno-territorial federalism was a specific version of federalism, deriving from Lenin. They assumed that the inter-ethnic and inter-republican con- flicts at that time were caused by distortions of some ideal; ethno-territorial federalism. They believed that if an ethno-territorial federation was created on democratic and voluntary principles, it would guarantee the stable and peaceful functioning of the state. As a matter of fact, the successful func- tioning of ethno-territorial federalism (for example, in Belgium) has been an exception in modern history. More often, it has turned out to be a pre- lude to the peaceful (the Habsburg and Czechoslovakian cases) or bloody (the Yugoslavian and, possibly, Indonesian case) split of “federal” states. Ethno-territorial federalism is centrifugal by its nature. If the USSR and Yugoslavia were able to exist for a relatively long time, it was because in these countries the Communist Party (or Union) functioned as the provider of the definitions of nations and the oppressor of national separatism. When this condition was lost, the idea of ethno-territorial federalism turned out to be a theoretical basis to justify regional conflicts. The Leninist principle of ethno-territorial federalism, which had actual- ly been progressive until a certain stage of Soviet history, completely dis- credited itself by the experiences in the former USSR and Yugoslavia and today faces powerful external and internal criticisms. The external criti- cism comes from the EU. Having been committed to the tragedy of the former Yugoslavia and suffering from its own separatisms in the Basque region, Northern Ireland, etc., the EU is not ready to have additional rea- sons for headache. Therefore, the EU advises the former socialist countries

8 Possibly, Sakharov wished to provide a device to ecological movements or to improve the situation of native populations in the Far North by this paragraph. However, if we remember that the Abkhazian, Nagorno-Karabakh and other conflicts in the USSR and former Yugoslavia began with academic debates around the indigenous-ness of the population groups (“who began to live there first?”), this paragraph appears ominous. 390 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 to build the state purely territorially and regulate minority issues by affir- mative action targeted at individual members of ethnic minorities. For ex- ample, the EU has been quite critical against the request for territorial au- tonomy raised by the Hungarian minority in Romanian Transylvania. In- ternal criticism of ethno-territorial federalism derives from Russian Presi- dent Putin. Many political scientists have predicted that a more fundamen- tal federal reform will follow the already proposed one (the introduction of an almost appointment system of governors and republican presidents). They mean the amalgamation of regions and republics. If a gigantic region, for example, of “Mid-Volga” is formed, national republics such as Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Chuvash, and Marii-El and Russian oblasts such as Samara and Ulyanovsk, will be incorporated into it. Inevitably, the enlarged region will not have any titular nation. Thus the enlargement of regions will imply the rejection of the Leninist principle of ethno-territorial federalism. It seems paradoxical but unsurprising that both actors intending to re- store security in the Eurasian continent (the EU and the Putin administra- tion) by renewing one or another kind of imperial order propose to forsake ethno-territorial federalism and recommend a purely territorial method of state building, which reminds us of the one once adopted by the Russian Empire. Because of space limitations, I cannot analyze another democratic ste- reotype at that time, namely the introduction of semi-presidentialism with the preservation of an omnipotent Assembly (s”ezd narodnykh deputatov). A clear proposal for semi-presidentialism (Paragraph 35), Sakharov’s con- stitution was more advanced than the introduction of the post of the Presi- dent elected by the parliament by Gorbachev. Nevertheless, Sakharov’s con- stitution contains no provisions to regulate relations between the branches of power. For example, it is unclear what to do if the parliament rejects the candidate for prime minister proposed by the president. Therefore, if Sa- kharov’s constitution had been adopted, what took place in Russia during 1992-93 would have taken place in the “Union of Europe and Asia” in almost the same manner. It seems useless to expect the then Soviet demo- crats to understand that in democracy, mechanism and management often matter more than goodwill and enthusiasm. As a whole, Sakharov’s consti- tutional draft reveals that the institutional disease from which the Soviet state was suffering had almost nothing to do with the public debate and dominant democratic discourse at the time.

391 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... Ãàñàí ÃÓÑÅÉÍÎÂ

ÏßÒÍÀÄÖÀÒÜ ËÅÒ “ÑÀÕÀÐÎÂÑÊÎÌÓ ÏÐÎÅÊÒÓ ÊÎÍÑÒÈÒÓÖÈȔ. ÐÀÇÌÛØËÅÍÈß ÏÎ ÏÎÂÎÄÓ ÏÓÁËÈÊÀÖÈÈ ÊÎÍÑÒÈÒÓÖÈÎÍÍÎÃÎ ÏÐÎÅÊÒÀ  AB IMPERIO

Íà÷íåì ñ òîãî, ÷òî â 1989 ãîäó, êàê è ñåãîäíÿ, 15 ëåò ñïóñòÿ, ìîæíî óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî ñîâåòñêèé èíòåëëåêòóàë-äèññèäåíò ðàç- ìûøëÿë â î÷åíü áîëüøîé ñòåïåíè íà ïîëèòè÷åñêè-ïðàâîâîì ïîëå ñóùåñòâîâàâøåãî ðåæèìà. Ìåæäóíàðîäíûé îïûò ïðàêòè÷åñêè èãíîðèðîâàëñÿ.  ÷àñòíîñòè, â Ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè àìåðè- êàíñêàÿ ñîñòàâëÿþùàÿ èìååòñÿ, à åâðîïåéñêèõ ñîâñåì íå âèäíî. Î÷åíü ñèëüíà âíóòðåííÿÿ óâåðåííîñòü â öåëîñòíîñòè ñòðàíû, â òîì, ÷òî èíòåðåñû è ÷àÿíèÿ ëþäåé íà âñåì ïðîñòðàíñòâå ÑÑÑÐ áîëåå èëè ìåíåå îäèíàêîâû. Ãîñóäàðñòâåííè÷åñêàÿ ðèòîðèêà ñî÷åòàåòñÿ çäåñü ñ ïðàâîçàùèòíîé. Ìåæäó ñòðîê ïðî÷èòûâàåòñÿ óâåðåííîñòü â òîì, ÷òî îãðîìíîå ãîñóäàðñòâî óäàñòñÿ ñîõðàíèòü. Íàöèîíàëüíî- ðåãèîíàëüíûå êîíôëèêòû ïðåäñòàþò â äîêóìåíòå êàê ðàçðåøèìûå ïðîñòûìè îðãàíèçàöèîííûìè ìåòîäàìè. Ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ ìåæäó îñíîâîïîëàãàþùèìè äåêëàðàöèÿìè òðóäíî óñòðàíèìû. Òàê, â ïàðà- ãðàôå 2 ãîâîðèòñÿ, ÷òî öåëü íàðîäà Ñîþçà – “...ìèð è áåçîïàñíîñòü äëÿ ãðàæäàí ñòðàíû, äëÿ âñåõ ëþäåé íà Çåìëå íåçàâèñèìî îò èõ ðàñû è ò.ä.” Ïàðàãðàô 12, îäíàêî, ãëàñèò: “Ñîþç íå èìååò íèêàêèõ öåëåé ýêñïàíñèè, àãðåññèè è ìåññèàíñòâà”, à óæ ïåðñïåêòèâà ñîçäà- íèÿ “Ìèðîâîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà” (ïàðàãðàô 4) ïîïðîñòó îòìåíÿåò àíòèìåññèàíñêèå äåêëàðàöèè. Ìîæíî ëè íàçâàòü ýòó Êîíñòèòóöèþ ôîðìóëîé ïðèìèðåíèÿ íà îñíîâå îáùåãî ïðîøëîãî è íåóäàâøåéñÿ ïîïûòêîé ñîçäàíèÿ

392 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ðåôîðìèðîâàííîãî (ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî) Ñîþçà, îñíîâàííîé íà âñïîìèíàíèè è ïðèçíàíèè âñåõ òåìíûõ ãëàâ ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèè? Êîíå÷íî, â òåêñòå èìåþòñÿ ñëåäû èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé. Íàïðèìåð, ó÷èòûâàåòñÿ îïûò çëîóïîòðåáëåíèÿ ïñèõèàòðèåé â ÑÑÑÐ èëè íàñèëüñòâåííîãî ïðèñîåäèíåíèÿ ðåñïóáëèê è íàðîäîâ ê ÑÑÑÐ, çàìåòíû ñëåäû äèñêóññèé îá “ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîñòè” ðåãèîíîâ (ïàðàãðàô 22). Íåêîòîðûå îñîáåííîñòè ñîâåòñêîãî ñòðîÿ, êàçàâøèåñÿ â 1980-õ ãã. îäíèì èç êëþ÷åâûõ íóæäàâøèõñÿ â èçìå- íåíèè îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ, ïîòðåáîâàëè ÿâíî èçáûòî÷íûõ ôîðìóëèðîâîê. Òàê, èç äåâÿòè ïîçèöèé â ñïèñêå ãàðàíòèðóåìûõ ïðîåêòîì ãðàæ- äàíñêèõ ïðàâ òðè çàíÿòû ñâîáîäîé ïåðåäâèæåíèÿ âíóòðè ñòðàíû è çà ðóáåæîì. Ñòðóêòóðà ñîâåòñêîé íåñâîáîäû çäåñü âîîáùå îòðà- æåíà î÷åíü äîñòîâåðíî. Íî äîñòàòî÷íî ëè ýòîãî äëÿ óñòðîéñòâà íîâûõ ñâîáîä? Àâòîð ïðîåêòà èñõîäèë èç âîçìîæíîñòè ðàçðóøèòü íåñâîáîäó îäíèìè îðãàíèçàöèîííûìè ìåðîïðèÿòèÿìè. Áåç ó÷åòà òîãî, êòî è êàê áóäåò îñóùåñòâëÿòü ýòè ìåðîïðèÿòèÿ. Ýòî, ïî-ìîåìó, êëþ÷åâàÿ ñëàáîñòü ïðîåêòà. Îí íå ïðèíèìàåò âî âíèìàíèå ôàêòîðà èñïîëíèòåëüñêîé ðåàëüíîñòè. È â ýòîì ñìûñëå ÿâëÿåòñÿ óòîïè÷åñêèì.  1988 ãîäó â ðåäàêöèè æóðíàëà “Âåê ÕÕ è ìèð” ó íàñ ñîñòîÿëàñü äèñêóññèÿ ñ Àíäðååì Äìèòðèåâè÷åì Ñàõàðîâûì, ó÷àñòèå â êîòî- ðîé áûëî äëÿ ìåíÿ âûñîêîé ÷åñòüþ. Íåêîòîðûå ñëåäû åå ïîïàëè â ïóáëèêàöèþ (1-é íîìåð æóðíàëà çà 1989 ãîä). Âñïîìèíàÿ îá ýòîì ñåãîäíÿ, ñëåäóåò ó÷èòûâàòü, ÷òî òî áûëî âðåìÿ âñ¸ åùå ïîëíîãî ãîñïîäñòâà îôèöèàëüíîé èäåîëîãèè â áîëüøèíñòâå ÑÌÈ, ÷òî â Êîíñòèòóöèè ÑÑÑÐ èìåëàñü 6-ÿ ñòàòüÿ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé èäåî- ëîãè÷åñêèå ïðåäïèñàíèÿ ñòðàíå äàåò åäèíñòâåííàÿ ïðàâÿùàÿ ïàðòèÿ – ÊÏÑÑ, íó è òàê äàëåå. Òàê âîò, îäíîé èç öåíòðàëüíûõ òåì ïîëåìèêè äëÿ ìåíÿ áûë âîïðîñ î êîíâåðãåíöèè äâóõ ñèñòåì – ñîâåòñêîãî ñîöèàëèçìà è çàïàäíîãî êàïèòàëèçìà. Òî, çà ÷òî â 1960-1980-å ãîäû âëàñòè äåðæàëè À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà âî âñ¸ óãëóáëÿþ- ùåéñÿ îïàëå, ïîñòåïåííî ñòàíîâèëîñü òåìîé, î êîòîðîé ìîæíî áûëî ãîâîðèòü âñëóõ. Ñàõàðîâ óïîðíî îòñòàèâàë òðåáîâàíèå íîâîé îòêðûòîñòè. Ëèáåðàëüíàÿ èíòåëëèãåíöèÿ âèäåëà â îñóùåñòâëåíèè ýòîãî òðåáîâàíèÿ ãëàâíûé øàã íà ïóòè ê ñâîáîäå. Êàê áû ìû ñåãîäíÿ íè îòíîñèëèñü ê ïîñëåäíèì ãîäàì ÑÑÑÐ, ýòî áûëî àáñî- ëþòíî íåîáõîäèìîå óñëîâèå, è À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâ áûë åäèíñòâåííûì âûñîêîïîñòàâëåííûì ïðåäñòàâèòåëåì ñâîåãî êëàññà – íàõîäÿùèìñÿ íà ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ñëóæáå ó÷åíûì ñ ìèðîâûì èìåíåì, – îòäàâ- øèì âñåãî ñåáÿ äîñòèæåíèþ ýòîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé öåëè. 393 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà...  1989 ãîäó ëþäè ïîêîëåíèÿ À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà îêàçàëèñü êàê íèêîãäà áëèçêè ê ýòîé öåëè. Ñàõàðîâñêîé èäåå êîíâåðãåíöèè ñîîò- âåòñòâîâàëà ãèïîòåçà àìåðèêàíöà Ôðýíñèñà Ôóêóÿìû, èçâåñòíàÿ ïîä íàçâàíèåì “Êîíöà èñòîðèè”. Âìåñòå ñ òåì, èìåííî â êîíöå 1980-õ ãîäîâ îáåèì êîíöåïöèÿì áûë íàíåñåí ñîêðóøèòåëüíûé óäàð. Âìåñòî “êîíâåðãåíöèè” íà ïîâåñòêó äíÿ âñòàëà “ãëîáàëèçà- öèÿ”, à âìåñòî “êîíöà èñòîðèè” çàïàäíûé ìèð îêàçàëñÿ íà íîâîì âèòêå ìåæêóëüòóðíûõ è ìåæðåëèãèîçíûõ êîíôëèêòîâ. Ñîâåòñêèé Ñîþç ïðîâàëèëñÿ, åñëè óãîäíî, ñðàçó â äâå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ïðîïàñòè. Îäíà – ýòî ïðîïàñòü íàöèîíàëèçìà: ðàñïàä ÑÑÑÐ ïî íàöèî- íàëüíûì ãðàíèöàì, ìó÷èòåëüíîå ïðåâðàùåíèå â íàöèîíàëüíîå ãîñóäàðñòâî ñàìîé Ðîññèè – áûâøåãî îïëîòà èìïåðèè. Äðóãàÿ – ýòî âñòóïëåíèå áîëüøåé ÷àñòè áûâøåãî ÑÑÑÐ â ýïîõó ãëîáàëèçà- öèè íå â ñîñòàâå äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîãî Çàïàäà, à àâòîêðàòè÷åñêîãî Âîñòîêà, íå êàê ÷àñòü ïðîöâåòàþùåãî Ñåâåðà, à êàê ÷àñòü îòñòàëîãî Þãà. Àíäðåþ Äìèòðèåâè÷ó áûëà ãëóáîêî âðàæäåáíà ìûñëü î òîì, ÷òî áîëåå âåñîìûìè ïðè âûðàáîòêå ðåøåíèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé âàæ- íîñòè ñòàíóò íå èíòåëëåêò ÀÍ ÑÑÑÐ è åãî ëè÷íî, à èíñòèíêòû ìåëêîòðàâ÷àòûõ ñîâåòñêèõ ÷èíîâíèêîâ. Ñàõàðîâ, ÿ ïîëàãàþ, íèêîãäà íå ïîääåðæàë áû èäåéíûå îñíîâàíèÿ Áåëîâåæñêîãî ñîãëàøåíèÿ. Íå ïîääåðæèâàë îí è èäåþ (âûíóæäåííîé) êîíâåðãåíöèè Ðîññèè è ñòðàí “òðåòüåãî ìèðà”. È óæ âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, îí íå îêàçàë áû ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïîääåðæêè ïðåâðàùåíèþ Ðîññèè â íàöèîíàëüíîå ãîñóäàðñòâî “æèðèíîâñêîãî ïîøèáà”. Ñìåðòü ýòîãî âåëèêîãî ÷åëîâåêà èçáàâèëà åãî îò íåîáõîäèìîñòè ñàìîîïðåäåëåíèÿ â íîâîé ñèòóàöèè. Îäíàêî, êðèòè÷åñêîìó ÷èòàòåëþ ïðîåêòà Ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè áðîñàåòñÿ â ãëàçà òîò æå ïîäõîä ê Ðîññèè, êîòîðûé ãîñïîäñòâîâàë íà âñåì ïðîòÿæåíèè ÕÕ âåêà. Ðîññèÿ – ýòî ëèøü îñíîâàíèå íîâîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ, ðóññêèé ÿçûê – ëèøü ñðåäñòâî êîììóíèêàöèè. 15 ëåò ñïóñòÿ è ïîñëå 13 ëåò ðóññêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà òåêñò Êîíñòèòóöèè âûãëÿäèò êàê ñîâåòñêèé àíàõðîíèçì.  èäåàëå, âíåíàöèîíàëüíîå ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå îáðàçîâàíèå – èìïåðèÿ èëè êîíôåäåðàöèÿ – âîçìîæíî, ïðåäïî÷òèòåëüíåé íàöèî- íàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà è ñ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, è ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïðèíöèïèàëüíîé âîçìîæíîñòè îòäåëèòü ýòíè÷åñêîå ïðîèñ- õîæäåíèå ÷åëîâåêà îò åãî ïðàâîâîãî ñòàòóñà. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, Ñîâåòñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî, ðàñïîëàãàâøåå áåñïðèìåðíûìè îðãàíèçà- öèîííûìè ðåñóðñàìè è äàæå îïèðàâøååñÿ íà îôèöèàëüíóþ èäåîëî- 394 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ãèþ “äðóæáû íàðîäîâ”, ïîòåðïåëî ïîðàæåíèå èìåííî â îáëàñòè íàöèîíàëüíî-ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà. Êàê áûëî íåîäíîê- ðàòíî ïîêàçàíî â èññëåäîâàíèÿõ ïîñëåäíèõ ëåò, ÑÑÑÐ òàê è íå ñìîã ðàçðåøèòü îñíîâîïîëàãàþùåå ïðîòèâîðå÷èå ñâîåãî óñòðîéñòâà: ðóññêîå áîëüøèíñòâî íàñåëåíèÿ áûëî ïðèó÷åíî ñ÷èòàòü ñåáÿ áàçîé íàäíàöèîíàëüíîé îáùíîñòè, íî ïðåäñòàâèòåëè âñåõ îñòàëüíûõ íàðîäîâ (è îñîáåííî èõ ïðàâÿùèå ýëèòû) âîñïðèíèìàëè ñåáÿ â ðîëè “ìëàäøèõ áðàòüå┠èìåííî ïðàâÿùåãî ðóññêîãî áîëüøèíñòâà. Âîïðîñ íå â òîì, íàñêîëüêî ñïðàâåäëèâî áûëî ôàêòè÷åñêîå íàïîë- íåíèå òàêîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ, à â òîì, ÷òî èìåííî îíî îêàçàëîñü ìîòîðîì öåíòðîáåæíîãî äâèæåíèÿ âòîðîé ïîëîâèíû 1980-õ ãîäîâ. Ïðîåêò Êîíñòèòóöèè, ïðåäëîæåííûé âåëèêèì ó÷åíûì, èãíîðèðóåò ïîýòîìó íå ïðîñòî ñëàáîñòè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ïðèðîäû, íî è âåñü ïîëèòè÷åñêèé îïûò ñîâåòñêîãî ïåðèîäà. Îí íåäîîöåíèë íè âîëè ðóññêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ ê ñîõðàíåíèþ ñâîåé èìïåðèè êàê íàöèîíàëüíî- ðåëèãèîçíîãî ñâåðõãîñóäàðñòâà, íè îòíîøåíèÿ ìàëûõ íàðîäîâ ê äåñîâåòèçàöèè êàê ê äåðóñèôèêàöèè. Äî íåêîòîðîé ñòåïåíè ïîïûòêè ðåàëèçîâàòü ôðàãìåíòû ñàõà- ðîâñêîãî ïðîåêòà íàáëþäàþòñÿ â íûíåøíåé Ðîññèè. Îäíàêî è çäåñü öåíòðàëüíîå ïðîòèâîðå÷èå îñòàåòñÿ òåì æå, ÷òî è â îáñóæäàåìîì ïðîåêòå Êîíñòèòóöèè: äåêëàðàöèÿ î íàìåðåíèÿõ íå ìîæåò áûòü ïîäêðåïëåíà îðãàíèçàöèîííî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ìåðîïðèÿòèÿìè. Ìîæíî ñêàçàòü ïðÿìî: ðóêîâîäñòâî Ðîññèè ïîñëå ðàñïàäà ÑÑÑÐ ïûòàåòñÿ ñíÿòü ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ, ðàçðóøèâøèå Ñîþç. Èçáðàííûé ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèåé ïóòü â èçâåñòíîì ñìûñëå – êîìïðîìèññíûé. Ðóññêîìó áîëüøèíñòâó íàñåëåíèÿ ÐÔ ïðåäëàãàþò ñîãëàñèòüñÿ íà ñàìîíàçâàíèå “ðîññèÿíèí”, âêëþ÷àþùåå â ñåáÿ è ðóññêèõ, è ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ìåíüøèíñòâ. Ìåíüøèíñòâàì ïðåäëàãàþò îòêàçàòüñÿ îò ñòàòóñà ðàâíîïðàâíûõ ñ ðóññêèìè ó÷àñòíèêîâ ôåäåðàöèè.  èäå- àëüíîé ïåðñïåêòèâå íîâîå ðîññèéñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî äîëæíî áûëî áû îòêàçàòüñÿ îò íàöèîíàëüíî-òåððèòîðèàëüíîé àâòîíîìèè è ïåðåéòè ê ÷èñòî òåððèòîðèàëüíîé, íî – êóëüòóðíî îêðàøåííîé ýòíè÷åñêèì ñâîåîáðàçèåì ìåñòíîãî íàñåëåíèÿ â íåñêîëüêèõ ðåãè- îíàõ. Íåóäà÷è íà ïóòè îñóùåñòâëåíèÿ ýòîãî â âûñøåé ñòåïåíè ðàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîåêòà îáóñëîâëåíû “÷åëîâå÷åñêèì ôàêòîðîì” íà âñåõ óðîâíÿõ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà. Îáúåêòèâíî â Ðîññèè ïðîäîëæàåò äåéñòâîâàòü öåíòðîáåæíàÿ èíåðöèÿ ðàñõèùåíèÿ ïîñòñîâåòñêîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè. Âëàñòè îäíàêî æå àïåëëèðóþò ê âèðòóàëüíîìó ñóáúåêòèâíî ÷åñòíîìó 395 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... æåëàíèþ âûñòðîèòü ÷óäåñíóþ, ñèëüíóþ è âñåì î÷åâèäíóþ âåëèêóþ äåðæàâó èëè äàæå ñâåðõäåðæàâó. Òðàãè÷åñêîé èëëþñòðàöèåé ïðîèñõîäÿùåãî â Ðîññèè â ðàìêàõ ðåôîðìû ôåäåðàëèçìà ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñîáûòèÿ â ×å÷íå. Âìåñòî öèâèëè- çîâàííûõ ïàðòíåðîâ ïî ïåðåãîâîðàì, êàêèìè ìîãëè áû ñòàòü, íàïðèìåð, ãëàâà ãîñóäàðñòâà è óìåðåííûé ëèäåð ñåïàðàòèñòîâ, â ðåàëüíîé ïðàêòèêå ïðîòèâîñòîÿò äðóã äðóãó êîëëåêòèâû ýêñòðå- ìèñòîâ, âîçãëàâëÿåìûå ìàñêàìè “ïîëêîâíèêà Áóäàíîâà”, “Êàäû- ðîâà” è “Áàñàåâà”.  ðåôîðìèðóåìîé íûíå Ðîññèè, êàê è â Êîíñòèòóöèè Ñàõàðîâà, îòìåòàåòñÿ âåñü ïåñòðûé îïûò ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà, èìåâøèéñÿ ó èìïåðèè, â ñîñòàâ êîòîðîé, íàïðèìåð, Âåëèêîå Êíÿ- æåñòâî Ôèíëÿíäñêîå èëè Öàðñòâî Ïîëüñêîå âõîäèëè íà èíûõ îñíîâàíèÿõ, ÷åì Çàêàâêàçñêèå õàíñòâà, Áóõàðà èëè Õèâà. Ñòðóêòóðà íîâîãî ðîññèéñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà (íåñêîëüêî êðóïíûõ ãóáåðíèé), âåðîÿòíî, áîëåå ïðîãðåññèâíàÿ, ÷åì 89 “ñóáúåêòîâ ôåäåðàöèè”, ÷àñòü êîòîðûõ ñîçäàâàëàñü ïî íàöèîíàëüíîìó ïðè- çíàêó. Íî ïåðåõîä îò îäíîãî ê äðóãîìó îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ ìåòîäîì ãðóáîãî àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîãî ïðîèçâîëà. Ïîýòîìó ðåçóëüòàò ñíîâà ïîëó÷àåòñÿ îáðàòíûé æåëàåìîìó. Âåäü íàñåëåíèå ñîîòâåòñòâóþ- ùèõ ðåãèîíîâ ïîëó÷àåò ñâîþ ðåôîðìó â òîé æå óïàêîâêå ñòðóê- òóðíîãî íàñèëèÿ, êîòîðàÿ ðàçâàëèëàñü ïðè ïåðâîé æå ïîïûòêå áåëîâåæñêèõ ïîëèòôîêóñíèêîâ ññàäèòü ñ êîðàáëÿ ñîâðåìåííîñòè Ìèõàèëà Ãîðáà÷åâà – åäèíñòâåííîãî ìåæäóíàðîäíî ïðèçíàííîãî íà 1991 ãîä ëèäåðà ñâåðõäåðæàâû. Ãîðáà÷åâ ñîøåë íà áåðåã, à êîðàáëü ïîøåë êî äíó. Âñ¸ ýòî À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâ, íåñîìíåííî, ïðåä÷óâñòâîâàë, ïûòàëñÿ ýòîìó ïðîòèâîñòîÿòü. Îòñþäà ñîäåðæàùèåñÿ â ïðîåêòå Êîíñòèòóöèè ùåäðûå ïîäàðêè íàöèîíàëüíûì ðåñïóáëèêàì (ïàðàãðàôû 19-21) – â âèäå ðàçðåøåíèÿ ðåãèîíàì ââîäèòü ñâîþ äåíåæíóþ åäèíèöó è æàíäàðìåðèþ, ïîëüçîâàòüñÿ ïîëíîé ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ñàìîñòîÿòåëü- íîñòüþ è ò.ï. Íî îäíî ïåðå÷èñëåíèå ýòèõ ïîäàðêîâ ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î òîì, ÷òî íè î êàêîé “ôåäåðàöèè” â åãî ïðîåêòå ðå÷è íåò. Ýòî – âñ¸ òîò æå Ñîâåòñêèé Ñîþç. Âîçìîæíî, îïðåäåëåííóþ ðîëü ñûãðàëà òóò è îðèåíòàöèÿ Ñàõàðîâà íà äðóãóþ ñâåðõäåðæàâó – ÑØÀ, à íå íà åâðîïåéñêèå ìîäåëè è óæ âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå – íå íà ìîäåëü Åâðî- ñîþçà. Ìîãó ñåáå ïðåäñòàâèòü ïîòðÿñåíèå Ñàõàðîâà, åñëè áû îí ìîã óâèäåòü, êàê îáðàçöàìè äëÿ ðîññèéñêîé Êîíñòèòóöèè ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ñíà÷àëà ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå óñòðîéñòâî Ôðàíöóçñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè, 396 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 à çàòåì – è Âòîðîé Èìïåðèè. Îí ïðîñòî íå ñìîã áû ñìèðèòüñÿ ñ ñîâñåì óæ êàðèêàòóðíûì áîíàïàðòèçìà “÷åòâåðòîé ïåðåëèöîâêè”.

* * * Ìîé êîíòàêò ñ À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâûì è Å. Ã. Áîííýð ñîñòîÿëñÿ â 1988 ãîäó â ñâÿçè ñ ñîáûòèÿìè âîêðóã Íàãîðíîãî Êàðàáàõà. Êàê ÷åëîâåê ñ àçåðáàéäæàíñêèìè êîðíÿìè, îïóáëèêîâàâøèé ëåòîì 1988 ã. ñòàòüþ, ïðîíèêíóòóþ ñèìïàòèåé ê ñòðåìëåíèþ àðìÿí Íàãîðíîãî Êàðàáàõà îáðåñòè íåçàâèñèìîñòü îò Àçåðáàéäæàíñ- êîé ÑÑÐ, à ìîæåò áûòü – äàæå ïðèñîåäèíèòüñÿ ê Àðìÿíñêîé ÑÑÐ, – ÿ ïîçèöèîíèðîâàë ñåáÿ (õîòÿ òîãäà ñëîâà “ïîçèöèîíèðîâàòü” â ðóñ- ñêîì ïîëèòè÷åñêîì ñëîâàðå åùå íå áûëî) íå êàê “ìîñêîâñêèé àçåð- áàéäæàíåö”, à êàê “êîñìîïîëèò” (÷åìó, âîçìîæíî, ñïîñîáñòâîâàëà è ìîÿ åâðåéñêàÿ “ïîëîâèíêà”). Äðóãèìè ñëîâàìè, ïðîáëåìà íàðó- øåíèÿ ïðàâ àðìÿíñêîãî ìåíüøèíñòâà â Àçåðáàéäæàíå (êàê è àçåð- áàéäæàíñêîãî – â Àðìåíèè) áûëà äëÿ ìåíÿ ïðèìåðîì ôóíäàìåí- òàëüíîãî èçúÿíà ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óñòðîéñòâà, êîòîðûé, êàê ìíå òîãäà êàçàëîñü, ìîæíî áóäåò èñïðàâèòü. Îò ýòîé èëëþçèè ÿ îñâî- áîæäàëñÿ â ðåàëüíîì âðåìåíè èìåííî â õîäå îáñóæäåíèÿ ïðîáëåìû íà çàñåäàíèÿõ “Ìîñêîâñêîé òðèáóíû” è äðóãèõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ êëóáîâ. Ñòîëêíóâøèñü òîãäà ñ ïîòîêîì “íàöèîíàëüíûõ âîçðîæ- äåíèé”, ÿ ïîïðîñòó ñáåæàë ñ ïîëÿ áèòâû, ïîíÿâ, ÷òî ãðàæäàíñêîå îáùåñòâî â ìîåé ñòðàíå áóäåò ïîñòðîåíî ëèøü ïîñëå òîãî, êàê èìïåðèÿ ðàñïàäåòñÿ. Âåñü âîïðîñ òîëüêî â îäíîì – êàê îíà áóäåò ðàñïàäàòüñÿ. Îòäàâàÿ ñåáå ïîëíûé îò÷åò âî ìíîãèõ äîñòîèíñòâàõ èìïåðèè, ÿ ïîíèìàë: òî, ÷òî ìíå íðàâèòñÿ, âîâñå íå îáÿçàòåëüíî îñòàíåòñÿ â ñèëå, à òî, ÷òî ìíå êàæåòñÿ ðàçóìíûì, íå îáÿçàòåëüíî ïðàâèëüíî îïèñûâàåò äàííûé èñòîðè÷åñêèé ïîâîðîò. Íî Ñàõàðîâ èñêàë òîãäà, â 1988 ãîäó, àçåðáàéäæàíöåâ, êîòîðûå ìîãëè áû õîòü ÷óòü-÷óòü îòîæäåñòâèòü ñåáÿ ñ ÷àÿíèÿìè àðìÿí, è àðìÿí, êîòîðûå ìîãëè áû õîòü êàïåëüêó îòîæäåñòâèòü ñåáÿ ñ ÷àÿ- íèÿìè àçåðáàéäæàíöåâ. Ñàõàðîâ ìå÷òàë î ïîëèòè÷åñêîì óñïåõå íà îñíîâå îòêàçà îò ñèëîâûõ ìåð è ïðîâåäåíèÿ ñîâåðøåííî íîâîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé äèñêóññèè. Îí ïðåäïðèíÿë ïîåçäêó â Àðìåíèþ è Àçåðáàéäæàí. Ïðèíÿòü â íåé ó÷àñòèå ìåíÿ äîëãî óãîâàðèâàëà îðãàíèçàòîð ïîåçäêè Ãàëèíà Âàñèëüåâíà Ñòàðîâîéòîâà, ïàâøàÿ âïîñëåäñòâèè æåðòâîé äî ñèõ ïîð íå ðàñêðûòîãî çàãîâîðà. Âñþ ýòó ïîåçäêó ÿ ñ÷èòàë ïîëèòè÷åñêèì ëèõà÷åñòâîì, îñíîâàííûì íà ñëàáîì çíàíèè òîëùè ðåñïóáëèêàíñêèõ àïïàðàòîâ âëàñòè. Ãàëèíà Âàñè- 397 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... ëüåâíà áûëà ïðåêðàñíûì ýòíîãðàôîì, íî ýòíîëîãèþ ñîâåòñêîãî ðåæèìà – îñîáåííî â åãî íàöèîíàëüíî-ðåñïóáëèêàíñêîì îáëè÷üå – îíà ïîïðîñòó èãíîðèðîâàëà. Åé êàçàëîñü, ÷òî îãðîìíûé ìîðàëüíûé àâòîðèòåò îïàëüíîãî â ïðîøëîì ó÷åíîãî ïîçâîëèò âçîðâàòü ïðè- âû÷íûå îòíîøåíèÿ, ïðîáèòü êîðêó îôèöèàëüùèíû è ïðîðâàòüñÿ ê ñåðäöàì è óìàì ïðîñòûõ ëþäåé. Òîãäà â íèõ ïðåêðàñíûì öâåòêîì ðàñïóñòèòñÿ ñòèõèéíûé ðóññîèçì è – ïîâåðõ ãîëîâ ðåñïóáëèêàíñêèõ ïàðòèéíûõ áîíç – íàðîäû ïðîòÿíóò äðóã äðóãó ðóêè. ×èñòî òåõíè- ÷åñêè, îäíàêî, Ñòàðîâîéòîâà è Ñàõàðîâ ðàññ÷èòûâàëè íà “âîñòî÷- íóþ äèïëîìàòèþ”: ìåñòíûå ëèäåðû, êàçàëîñü èì, çàõîòÿò ñîõðà- íèòü ëèöî è ïîéäóò íà êîìïðîìèññ, êîòîðûé ñî âðåìåíåì óäàñòñÿ ïîääåðæàòü óæå èç Ìîñêâû. Ìíå êàçàëàñü, ÷òî ó ìèññèè íå áûëî íèêàêèõ øàíñîâ íà óñïåõ. Áîëåå òîãî – ÷òî îíà ìîæåò ïðèâåñòè ê óõóäøåíèþ ñèòóàöèè. È ÿ îòêàçàëñÿ îò ïîåçäêè. ß ñîâåðøèë òîãäà åùå áîëåå ãðóáûé àêò äåçåðòèðñòâà, óåõàâ ñíà÷àëà â ÑØÀ, à ïîòîì – íà ìíîãî ëåò â Ãåðìàíèþ. Ñåãîäíÿ ÿ ñìîòðþ íà ñâîé îòêàç íåñêîëüêî èíà÷å: èíîãäà, âèäèìî, âñ¸-òàêè íóæíî èäòè íà íåêîíñòðóêòèâíûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå äåéñòâèÿ, èñïûòûâàòü ñèòóàöèþ ñîáñòâåííûì ïîðà- æåíèåì. Ñàõàðîâ, áåçóñëîâíî, óìåë ýòî äåëàòü è ïîãèá êàê áîåö íà ïîñòó. Îí ïûòàëñÿ îñòàíîâèòü ðàñïàä ÑÑÑÐ âñåìè äîñòóïíûìè ñïîñîáàìè, íî áþðîêðàòè÷åñêàÿ äèíàìèêà ðàñïàäà, òåëîäâèæåíèÿ ëþäåé, ñòîÿâøèõ ó ðû÷àãîâ óïðàâëåíèÿ, ïðîñòî ôèçè÷åñêè ðàç- äàâèëè ëèøåííûé êàêèõ áû òî íè áûëî ïîëíîìî÷èé ìîãó÷èé èíòåëëåêò.

398 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Àðòåìèé ÌÀÃÓÍ

ÍÀ ÑÃÈÁÅ ÐÅÂÎËÞÖÈÈ: ÊÎÍÑÒÈÒÓÖÈß ÑÀÕÀÐÎÂÀ  ÊÎÍÒÅÊÑÒÅ ÏÐÎÁËÅÌÛ ÏÎËÈÒÈ×ÅÑÊÎÉ ÐÅÏÐÅÇÅÍÒÀÖÈÈ

Ñàõàðîâñêèé ïðîåêò êîíñòèòóöèè èíòåðåñåí ñâîåé ïåðåõîäíîñòüþ.  íåì, íàðÿäó ñî “ñòàíäàðòíûìè” ëèáåðàëüíûìè íîðìàìè, ïðèñóò- ñòâóþò òàêæå “ñîâåòñêèå” è ïîä÷åðêíóòî “àíòèñîâåòñêèå” ïîëî- æåíèÿ, à òàêæå ýëåìåíòû, íàïîìèíàþùèå î áîðüáå çà âëàñòü â ïåðèîä ñîçäàíèÿ äîêóìåíòà.  ýòîì ñìûñëå êîíñòèòóöèÿ Ñàõàðîâà èìååò, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ïðåèìóùåñòâî ïåðåä òîé êîíñòèòóöèåé ÐÔ, êîòîðàÿ áûëà ïðèíÿòà âïîñëåäñòâèè: îíà íå àáñòðàêòíà, à îòñûëàåò ê êîíêðåòíîìó èñòîðè÷åñêîìó îïûòó. Èíñòèòóòû, ïðåäëîæåííûå â íåé, íåñóò â ñåáå èìïóëüñ ðåâîëþöèîííîãî ðàçâîðîòà. ×òîáû ïîëíîñòüþ îöåíèòü ðåàëüíûå è ïîòåíöèàëüíûå âîçìîæíîñòè â àíòèñîâåòñêîé/ïîñòñîâåòñêîé ðåâîëþöèè, íàì íåîáõîäèìî ïðåæäå âñåãî îáðàòèòüñÿ ê òåîðèè ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ðåïðåçåíòàöèè è ê ïðîáëå- ìàì, ñ êîòîðûìè ñòàëêèâàþòñÿ ñåãîäíÿ â ìèðå ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíûå èíñòèòóòû. Ãîñïîäñòâóþùàÿ ñåãîäíÿ â ìèðå ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ôîðìà – êîí- ñòèòóöèîííàÿ ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíàÿ äåìîêðàòèÿ. Îíà ñîîòâåòñòâóåò èíñòàíöèè êîëëåêòèâíîé ñóáúåêòèâíîñòè íàðîäà, óïðàâëÿþùåãî ñîáîé, äèêòóþùåãî ñåáå çàêîíû è ñàìîìó ñåáå îòäàþùåìó îò÷åò – ñëîâîì, íàðîäà, êîíñòèòóèðóþùåãî ñåáÿ â êà÷åñòâå åäèíñòâà. Êîíñòèòóöèÿ, òî åñòü çàêîí, äàííûé íàðîäîì ñàìîìó ñåáå, åñòü 399 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... ôîðìà (ñàìî)ðåïðåçåíòàöèè, òî÷íî òàê æå, êàê è ñîáñòâåííî “ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíûå” èíñòèòóòû ïàðëàìåíòà è ïðåçèäåíòà. Âî âðåìÿ ðåâîëþöèè ðåïðåçåíòàöèÿ íîâîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ïðåä- ïîëàãàåò òàêæå è ðåïðåññèè ïðîøëîãî, êàê â áóêâàëüíîì, ôèçè- ÷åñêîì, òàê è â ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêîì ñìûñëå. Ñóáúåêò ñòðåìèòñÿ ê òîìó, ÷òîáû îáîñíîâàòü ñåáÿ ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî, à çíà÷èò ñ ÷èñòîãî ëèñòà. Íî ÷òîáû ýòî ñäåëàòü, åìó íåîáõîäèìî, âî-ïåðâûõ, äîñòè÷ü îòðèöàòåëüíîé ðåïðåçåíòàöèè ñâîåãî ïðîøëîãî, à âî-âòîðûõ, îïåðåòüñÿ íà íå÷òî, ÷òî íå îòíîñèòñÿ íè ê ïðîøëîìó (êîòîðîãî óæå íåò), íè ê áóäóùåìó (êîòîðîãî åùå íåò), íè íà óæå íå ëåãèòèìíûõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ñòàðîãî ðåæèìà, íè íà åùå íå ëåãèòèìíûõ ïðåäñòà- âèòåëåé íîâîãî. Ýòî íåïðåäñòàâèìîå íå÷òî, ëåæàùåå â îñíîâå ñóáúåêòèâíîñòè, è åñòü ñàìî ðåâîëþöèîííîå ñîáûòèå. Ñåãîäíÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ðåïðåçåíòàöèÿ íàõîäèòñÿ â ãëóáîêîì êðèçèñå. Ñóáúåêò áîëüøå íå óçíàåò ñåáÿ â îáðàçàõ åäèíñòâà îáùå- ñòâà, èõ åâõàðèñòè÷åñêàÿ ñèëà óñòàðåëà. Ïðîèñõîäèò ýìàíñèïàöèÿ îáðàçà-îçíà÷àþùåãî îò èçîáðàæàåìîãî-îçíà÷àåìîãî.1 Íàëèöî ýñòåòèçàöèÿ ïîëèòèêè è ïåðåíîñ íà íåå ëîãèêè òåëåâèçèîííîãî çðåëèùà. Òàê, ïî ìíåíèþ Áåðíàðäà Ìàíåíà,2 öåíòðàëüíûì ðåïðå- çåíòàòèâíûì èíñòèòóòîì äåìîêðàòèè â XIX â. áûë ïàðëàìåíò, â ÕÕ â. åãî çàìåíèëà ïàðòèÿ, à ñ êîíöà ÕÕ â. öåíòð ðåïðåçåíòàöèè ïåðåõîäèò â ÑÌÈ, ãäå ãëàâíîé ôèãóðîé ñòàíîâèòñÿ ìåäèà-ýêñïåðò. Íî, íåñìîòðÿ íà êðèçèñíûå ÿâëåíèÿ è ïåðåõîä ïðåäñòàâèòåëüñêîé ôóíêöèè ê ÑÌÈ, íà Çàïàäå ñ íèìè ïî-ïðåæíåìó ñîñóùåñòâóþò îòëàæåííûå ñõåìû ïàðëàìåíòñêîé è ïðåçèäåíòñêîé ðåïðåçåíòàöèè, àêòèâèñòñêèå ñòðóêòóðû îáùåñòâåííûõ äâèæåíèé.  Ðîññèè æå ñåãîäíÿ ïðîèñõîäèò îòêàò ê ïàòåðíàëèñòñêîé ìîäåëè ðåïðåçåíòàöèè, õàðàêòåðíîé åùå äëÿ ñðåäíåâåêîâûõ ñîñëîâíûõ ìîíàðõèé: êîðîëü ïóáëè÷íî ðàññìàòðèâàåò æàëîáû ãðàæäàí, âûñòó- ïàÿ ïðåæäå âñåãî êàê âåðõîâíûé ñóäüÿ, íîñèòåëü ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè.

1 Ïðè ýòîì íåîáõîäèìî ó÷èòûâàòü, ÷òî äëÿ êðèçèñà ðåïðåçåíòàöèè åñòü îáúåêòèâíûå ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ïðåäïîñûëêè, íàðàñòàþùèå â ïðîöåññå ãëîáàëèçàöèè. Ðàçðóøàåòñÿ êóëüòóðíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ îäíîðîäíîñòü íàöèîíàëüíûõ ãîñóäàðñòâ, èäåò ñîöèàëüíàÿ ôðàãìåíòàöèÿ – â òî âðåìÿ êàê óðîâåíü ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèé óõîäèò “íàâåðõ”, â ìåæäóíàðîäíûå îðãàíèçàöèè. Öåíòðàëüíóþ ðîëü â îïîñðåäîâàíèè ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà èãðàåò êàïèòàë, êîòîðûé, ïðàâäà, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîñðåäíèêîì â ñàìîîòíîøåíèè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ñóáúåêòà, íî íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ íè÷üèì ïðåäñòàâèòåëåì (ó íåãî íåò ëèöà, ïåðñîíû). 2 Bernard Manin. Principes du government représentatif. Paris, 1996. P. VI. 400 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Íî, ñòðàííîå äåëî: åñëè ìû ïîñìîòðèì íà ñòàâøèé ñåé÷àñ â Ðîññèè ñàìûì âàæíûì ïðåäñòàâèòåëüíûé èíñòèòóò – åæåãîäíûé òåëåñåàíñ îòâåòîâ ïðåçèäåíòà íà âîïðîñû ãðàæäàí – òî çàìåòèì ñõîäñòâî ìåæäó ýòèì ðèòóàëîì, êîãäà êîððåñïîíäåíòû ñîáèðàþò ïåðåä êàìåðîé ãðàæäàí â ðàçëè÷íûõ êîíöàõ ñòðàíû, è òåëåïðîãðàììàìè âðåìåí ïåðåñòðîéêè (íàïð., “Âçãëÿä”). Òîãäà æóðíàëèñòû òîæå ñîáèðàëè âîêðóã êàìåðû ëþäåé èç/â ïðîâèíöèàëüíûõ ãîðîäîâ, èëè ïðîâîäèëèñü ñúåìêè ñòèõèéíûõ ñîáðàíèé â îòäåëüíûõ íàñåëåííûõ ïóíêòàõ, íà êîòîðûõ ãðàæäàíå ïóáëè÷íî æàëîâàëèñü íà òó èëè èíóþ õîçÿéñòâåííóþ ïðîáëåìó. Áåçóñëîâíî, êîðíè ñåãîäíÿøíåé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû ñëåäóåò èñêàòü â ïåðèîäå ïåðåñòðîéêè è â ñîâåòñêîì îïûòå, êîòîðûé îíà îòðèöàåò. Ðàçðóøåíèå ñîâåòñêîãî ñòðîÿ Ìèõàèëîì Ãîðáà÷åâûì ïðîøëî ïîä ëîçóíãîì: “Âñÿ âëàñòü ñîâåòàì”. Êàçàëîñü áû, çäåñü èäåò ðå÷ü î ïîâåðõíîñòíîé, íå÷åñòíîé èìèòàöèè – çàåâøèåñÿ áþðîêðàòû àïåëëèðîâàëè ê áóðíîìó ðåâîëþöèîííîìó ïðîøëîìó ñòðàíû. Íî íà ïðàêòèêå “ñîâåòñêàÿ”, à íå ïàðëàìåíòñêàÿ ñòðóêòóðà ñîçäàí- íûõ Ãîðáà÷åâûì îðãàíîâ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé âëàñòè, ñûãðàëà áîëüøóþ ðîëü â èíòåíñèâíîñòè ïîñëåäîâàâøèõ ðåâîëþöèîííûõ ñîáûòèé. ×òîáû ïðèäàòü îáùåñòâó ìîáèëèçàöèîííûé èìïóëüñ è îïåðåòüñÿ íà íàðîä â áîðüáå ñ áþðîêðàòèåé, Ãîðáà÷åâ ïðåäïî÷åë íå ñîçäàâàòü ïàðëàìåíòñêóþ ñèñòåìó çàïàäíîãî òèïà, íî óñîâåðøåíñòâîâàòü çàëîæåííóþ â Êîíñòèòóöèè ÑÑÑÐ ìîäåëü ñîâåòîâ, äîáàâèâ ê íåé (ñóùåñòâîâàâøèé â ðåâîëþöèîííûå ãîäû) èíñòèòóò Ñúåçäà Íàðîä- íûõ Äåïóòàòîâ è ðåàëüíóþ ñîñòÿçàòåëüíîñòü âûáîðîâ. Õîòÿ, ïî åãî æå ñëîâàì, öåëüþ áûëî ïîñòðîèòü “ïðàâîâîå ãîñóäàðñòâî”, áëèçêîå ê çàïàäíîìó òèïó, Ãîðáà÷åâ áåçóñëîâíî ñ÷èòàë, ÷òî ìîäåëü ñîâåòîâ áóäåò áîëåå óïðàâëÿåìîé, à ïåðåõîä ê íåé – áîëåå ïëàâíûì. Ðåôîðìà 1988 ã. ââåëà èíñòèòóò Ñúåçäà íàðîäíûõ äåïóòàòî⠖ îãðîìíîãî íåïðîôåññèîíàëüíîãî îðãàíà, îáðàçóåìîãî ÷àñòè÷íî ïðÿìûì ãîëîñîâàíèåì, à ÷àñòè÷íî îôèöèàëüíûìè “îáùåñòâåííûìè îðãàíèçàöèÿìè”. Ñúåçä çàñåäàë íåðåãóëÿðíî, à â ïðîìåæóòêå ïîëíîòîé âëàñòè îáëàäàë èçáðàííûé èì Âåðõîâíûé Ñîâåò. Äåïó- òàòû ìîãëè áûòü îòîçâàíû (äåéñòâîâàë “èìïåðàòèâíûé ìàíäàò”, îòñóòñòâóþùèé â çàïàäíûõ ïàðëàìåíòàõ, ïîñêîëüêó îí ïðîòèâî- ðå÷èò ïðèíöèïó ñîâåùàòåëüíîñòè). È – ñàìîå ãëàâíîå – çàêîí óòâåðæäàë ïîëíîâëàñòèå ñîâåòîâ (“Âñÿ âëàñòü ñîâåòàì!”), òî åñòü ïî ñóòè èõ íåîãðàíè÷åííûé ñóâåðåíèòåò. 401 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... Äàëüíåéøåå èçâåñòíî. Õîòÿ Ñúåçä è ñîõðàíèë ëîÿëüíîñòü Ãîðáà- ÷åâó, åãî òåëåòðàíñëÿöèè ïðåäîñòàâèëè òðèáóíó ïóáëè÷íîé êðèòèêå âëàñòè ïàðòèè è äàëè íàãëÿäíûé ïðèìåð ïîëèòè÷åñêîé áîðüáû, ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàâ ìîáèëèçàöèþ è ïîëÿðèçàöèþ îáùåñòâà. Èñïîëüçóÿ âëàñòü ýëåêòðîííûõ ìåäèà, ñîâåòû ñûãðàëè ïîäëèííî ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíóþ ðîëü ñàìîïðåäúÿâëåíèÿ è ñàìîêîíñòèòóèðîâàíèÿ ñóáúåêòà.  äàëüíåéøåì òèðàæèðîâàíèå ñîþçíîãî çàêîíîäàòåëüñòâà â ðåñïóáëèêàõ ñäåëàëî èç ðåñïóáëèêàíñêèõ Ñúåçäîâ àëüòåðíàòèâíûå öåíòðû ìîíîïîëüíîé âëàñòè, êîòîðûå ýêñïðîïðèèðîâàëè åå ó ñîþç- íûõ è ïàðòèéíûõ îðãàíîâ. Ïîñëå ðàñïàäà ÑÑÑÐ ïðåçèäåíò Ðîññèè Áîðèñ Åëüöèí âñòóïèë â îñòðóþ êîíôðîíòàöèþ ñî Ñúåçäîì è Âåðõîâ- íûì Ñîâåòîì Ðîññèè, êîòîðûå îòñòàèâàëè ñâîþ ìîíîïîëüíóþ âëàñòü, â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ áóêâîé è äóõîì âîçðîæäåííîãî èíñòèòóòà ñîâåòîâ. Ýòà áîðüáà áûëà äîïîëíèòåëüíî äåòåðìèðîâàíà èäåîëî- ãè÷åñêè: Ñúåçä è Âåðõîâíûé Ñîâåò âîîðóæèëèñü ðåàêöèîííî- íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêîé ðèòîðèêîé, à Åëüöèí – ëèáåðàë-ðåôîðìèñòñêîé. Íî ïîäëèííîé ïîäîïëåêîé èõ ñòîëêíîâåíèÿ, ïî ìíåíèþ ìíîãèõ íàáëþäàòåëåé,3 áûëî ñóùåñòâîâàíèå äâóõ èíñòèòóòîâ, ïðåòåíäó- þùèõ íà ïîëíîâëàñòèå.  1993 ã. Åëüöèí ïîøåë íà îòêðûòîå ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèå ñ Âåðõîâ- íûì Ñîâåòîì, ïîáåäèë â íåì è äîáèëñÿ ïðèíÿòèÿ íà ðåôåðåíäóìå íîâîé êîíñòèòóöèè, óíè÷òîæàþùåé ñîâåòñêèå ôîðìû è ââîäÿùåé ñòàíäàðòíûé äâóõïàëàòíûé ïàðëàìåíò çàïàäíîãî òèïà (íèæíÿÿ ïàëàòà êîòîðîãî, ïðàâäà, áûëà íàçâàíà “Äóìîé”, ïî îáðàçöó äîðåâîëþöèîííîé Ðîññèè). Ëèáåðàëüíàÿ ïå÷àòü ïîñâÿòèëà ñåáÿ â òå ìåñÿöû êðèòèêå ñîâåòîâ êàê ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ôîðìû è ïðèâåòñòâî- âàëà “äåñîâåòèçàöèþ” êàê âîçâðàò ê “íîðìàëüíîé”, ò.å. ïðèíÿòîé íà Çàïàäå ïàðëàìåíòñêîé ôîðìå. Ïîñëå ýòèõ ñîáûòèé ðåæèì Åëüöèíà ñòàë ðåçêî òåðÿòü ëåãèòèìíîñòü è âñå áîëüøå îïèðàòüñÿ íà íåäåìîêðàòè÷åñêèå ôîðìû óïðàâëåíèÿ. Çàìåòèì, ÷òî äî 1993 ã. íè Ãîðáà÷åâ, íè Åëüöèí íå ðåøàëèñü ïðèíÿòü íîâóþ êîíñòèòóöèþ, õîòÿ ââîäèëè â ñòàðûå êîíñòèòóöèè ÑÑÑÐ è ÐÑÔÑÐ èçìåíåíèÿ, ïîëíîñòüþ ìåíÿâøèå èõ ñìûñë. Îíè îïàñàëèñü àêòà, ìàðêèðóþùåãî ðàçðûâ ýïîõ è îòêðûòî ïðèçíàþ- ùåãî ðåâîëþöèîííîñòü ïåðåìåí. Ýòà íåñïîñîáíîñòü çàíÿòü ÷åòêóþ

3 Èãîðü Øàáëèíñêèé. Ïðåäåëû âëàñòè. Áîðüáà çà ðîññèéñêóþ êîíñòèòóöèîííóþ ðåôîðìó (1989-1995). Ìîñêâà, 1997. 402 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïîçèöèþ ïðèâåëà ê äðåéôó áîëüøîé ÷àñòè îáùåñòâà â îïïîçèöè- îííûé ïîëèòè÷åñêèé ëàãåðü, ãäå ðåàêöèîíåðû, æåëàâøèå âîçâðàòà íàçàä, îáúåäèíèëèñü ñ äåìîêðàòàìè.  îäíîé èç ñâîèõ ñòàòåé4 ÿ ðàçâèë ýòó ìûñëü, ïîêàçàâ, ÷òî ïîëèòèêî-èäåîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ â Ðîññèè 1990-õ ãã. (ìåëàíõîëèÿ, ïîçèöèîííàÿ âîéíà, ñòàãíàöèÿ) áûëà âî ìíîãîì îáóñëîâëåíà áåññîçíàòåëüíîñòüþ, ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé íåàðòèêóëèðîâàííîñòüþ ïðîèñøåäøåé ðåâîëþöèè. Àíäðåé Äìèòðèåâè÷ Ñàõàðîâ áûë îäíèì èç íåìíîãèõ àêòèâèñòîâ ïåðåñòðîéêè, êîòîðûé âûñòóïàë êàê ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíûé ðåâîëþ- öèîíåð. È ïðîåêò êîíñòèòóöèè, ïðåäëîæåííûé èì, ïðåäñòàâëÿë ñîáîé âàæíóþ àëüòåðíàòèâó, ñèëà êîòîðîé çàêëþ÷àëàñü êàê ðàç â ðåâîëþöèîííîé ïåðåõîäíîñòè, ñî÷åòàþùåé ÷åðòû ñîâåòñêîãî óñòðîéñòâà, ðåâîëþöèîííîå îòðèöàíèå è õàðàêòåðèñòèêè ëèáå- ðàëüíûõ êîíñòèòóöèé, ïðè÷åì òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òî âñïîìèíàþòñÿ ðåâîëþöèîííûå èñòîêè ýòèõ ñàìûõ êîíñòèòóöèé. Ñàõàðîâ ñîõðàíÿåò èíñòèòóò Ñúåçäà Ñîâåòî⠖ ïðàâäà, ñîêðàùàÿ åãî êîëè÷åñòâåííûé ñîñòàâ è íå îãîâàðèâàÿ ñïåöèôè÷åñêèå äåòàëè, òàêèå êàê èìïåðàòèâíûé ìàíäàò. Îí âêëþ÷àåò â êîíñòèòóöèþ ðÿä íîðì (íàïðèìåð, çàïðåò íà ïðèíóäèòåëüíîå ïñèõèàòðè÷åñêîå ëå÷å- íèå), îòðèöàòåëüíî îòñûëàþùèõ ê êîíêðåòíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ðåàëü- íîñòè – íàïðàâëåííûõ íà òî, ÷òîáû êàòàñòðîôè÷åñêèé îïûò ïðîøëîãî íå ïîâòîðèëñÿ (à âåäü óêàçàííûå ðÿäîì “ñòàíäàðòíûå” ëèáåðàëüíûå ïðàâà – æèçíü, ñîáñòâåííîñòü è ò.ä. òîæå êîãäà-òî îòñûëàëè ê êîíêðåòíûì çëîóïîòðåáëåíèÿì!).  öåëîì, ýòà êîíñòèòóöèÿ ìîãëà áû ñòàòü ýôôåêòèâíûì àêòîì îñíîâàíèÿ, ïîñêîëüêó îíà íåñåò íà ñåáå îòìåòèíû ñâîåãî ðîæäåíèÿ, ïàìÿòü î ðåâîëþöèîííîì ñîáûòèè, çàïðåùàþùåì âîçâðàò â ïðîøëîå. Ñàõàðîâñêèé äîêóìåíò – ïðîäóêò òâîð÷åñêîé ìûñëè, èñõîäÿùåé èç ñèòóàöèè, ÷òî âûãîäíî îòëè÷àåò åãî îò íàáîðà àáñòðàêòíûõ øàáëîíîâ, èñïîëüçîâàííûõ â äåéñòâóþùåé êîíñòèòóöèè 1993 ã. è ïîðîäèâøèõ â ðåàëüíîñòè ñòðóêòóðó áåçîòâåòñòâåííîãî ñóïåð- ïðåçèäåíòñòâà, êîòîðàÿ åå àâòîðàì è â ãîëîâó íå ïðèõîäèëà. Ïðè ýòîì, êîíå÷íî, ïîäîáíî âñåì ðåâîëþöèîííûì äîêóìåíòàì, ñàõàðîâñêàÿ êîíñòèòóöèÿ îòìå÷åíà ïðîòèâîðå÷èåì ìåæäó ïðîãðàìì- íîé óñòàíîâêîé íà îñíîâàíèå íîâîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñóáúåêòà è ëèáåðàëüíûì ñòðåìëåíèåì îãðàíè÷èòü è îñëàáèòü ýòîãî ñóáúåêòà,

4 Àðòåì Ìàãóí. Îïûò è ïîíÿòèå ðåâîëþöèè // Íîâîå Ëèòåðàòóðíîå Îáîçðåíèå. 2003. ¹. 64. 403 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... ÷òî ïîäîãðåâàëîñü ïàìÿòüþ î çëîóïîòðåáëåíèÿõ ïðîøëîãî ðåæèìà. Ýòè äâå ïðîãðàììû ìîãëè ñîñóùåñòâîâàòü òîëüêî ïðè ñîõðàíåíèè ñàìîçàáâåííîé ðåâîëþöèîííîé ìîáèëèçàöèè, îáúåäèíÿþùåé íàðîä â ãëàâíîì è ïîçâîëÿþùåé çàêðûâàòü ãëàçà íà ÷àñòíîñòè. Êîãäà æå ðåâîëþöèÿ ñòèõàåò, óõîäèò âíóòðü, ñòîëêíîâåíèå ëèáåðàëüíîé è îáúåäèíèòåëüíîé òåíäåíöèé ïðèâîäèò ê ìåòàíèÿì, êðèçèñàì, çàñòîÿì è âîéíàì. Åñòü íåêàÿ èðîíèÿ â òîì, ÷òî èíñòèòóò ñîâåòîâ, â ñâîå âðåìÿ (1905, 1917-1921) – îðãàí ðåâîëþöèîííîé äåìîêðàòèè,5 â äàëü- íåéøåì áûë ïîäàâëåí è çàêîíñåðâèðîâàí â ôîðìå ïðåäñòàâè- òåëüñòâà — ÷àñòè÷íî äåêîðàòèâíîãî, ÷àñòè÷íî ñîñëîâíîãî. Ïîïûòêà 70 ëåò ñïóñòÿ èñïîëüçîâàòü ýòîò èíñòèòóò, ïðèíèìàÿ åãî âñåðüåç, è ïðèâåëà ê ðåàêòèâàöèè ðåâîëþöèîííîãî ïîòåíöèàëà ñîâåòîâ, à çàòåì ê ñàìîóíè÷òîæåíèþ è ãîñóäàðñòâà, è äàííîãî èíñòèòóòà. “Ñîâåòñêàÿ” èñòîðèÿ (òî åñòü èñòîðèÿ “Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà”, ÷üå íàçâàíèå îòñûëàëî íå ê êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé èäåîëîãèè, à ê ðåâî- ëþöèîííîé äåìîêðàòèè è ïðåâðàòèëîñü ïîýòîìó â öèíè÷íóþ ëîæü) îãðàíè÷åíà äâóìÿ ïåðèîäàìè, â êîòîðûå îíà äåéñòâèòåëüíî óïðàâ- ëÿëàñü ñîâåòàìè: 1917-1921 è 1989-1993 ãã. Ñîâåòû – ýòî íàø “íåçàâåðøåííûé ïðîåêò”, òàêæå êàê ñàõàðîâ- ñêàÿ êîíñòèòóöèÿ. Ñåãîäíÿ, â òðóäíóþ ìèíóòó äëÿ Ðîññèè, ìíîãèå èíòåëëèãåíòû ãîòîâû ñïèñàòü íåóäà÷ó ðåâîëþöèè 1990-õ ãã. íà âåêîâîé ïàòåðíà- ëèçì ðîññèéñêîãî íàðîäà. È ýòè ëàìåíòàöèè çâó÷àò êàê ðàç òîãäà, êîãäà, ïîñëå ìíîãîëåòíåãî ïåðåðûâà, â ñòðàíå âíîâü íà÷èíàþòñÿ ìàññîâûå âîëíåíèÿ – ïðîòåñòû ïðîòèâ îòìåíû ëüãîò. Àêòèâíûé, îòâåòñòâåííûé ëèáåðàëüíûé ñóáúåêò, êîòîðîãî ìû âèäèì ñåãîäíÿ íà Çàïàäå, êîíå÷íî ïðèâëåêàòåëåí. Íî ýòîò ñóáúåêò, ñàì ïî ñåáå, íå ïîäõîäèò äëÿ ðåâîëþöèé, òî åñòü íå ìîæåò ñàì ñåáÿ îñíîâûâàòü. Äëÿ ðåâîëþöèè íóæåí è ðåàêòèâíûé àôôåêò, íå òîëüêî àêòèâíîå äåéñòâèå. Åñòü ðàçíèöà ìåæäó þðèäè÷åñêîé, ïåðôîðìàòèâíîé âëàñòüþ, ÿêîáû òâîðÿùåé èç íè÷åãî – à íà äåëå âîñïðîèçâîäÿùåé ñòàòóñ êâî – è âëàñòüþ, äåéñòâóþùåé íàñïåõ è íàóãàä, äëÿ êîòîðîé ñèëà è ïðî- äâèæåíèå âïåðåä âàæíåå, ÷åì åå ïðîäóêò, âëàñòüþ, êîòîðàÿ (â îáîèõ

5 Íî ïðè ýòîì âñå ðàâíî ñîõðàíÿâøèé ÷åðòû ñîñëîâíîãî ïðåäñòàâèòåëüñòâà: ïîñëå ðåâîëþöèè ñîâåòû äîëãîå âðåìÿ îñòàâàëèñü “ñîâåòàìè ðàáî÷èõ, ñîëäàòñêèõ, êðåñòüÿíñêèõ, è êàçà÷üèõ äåïóòàòîâ”. 404 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñìûñëàõ ñëîâà) çàáûâàåòñÿ. Èìåííî òàêîâà ó÷ðåäèòåëüíàÿ âëàñòü, êîòîðàÿ òðàíñôîðìèðóåò ñóùåñòâóþùèå èíñòèòóòû, äîâîäÿ èõ äî ïðåäåëà è ïåðåïîëíÿÿ èõ ñîáîé.6 (Ñàìîçàáâåíèå – âîò îïðåäåëåíèå ó÷ðåäèòåëüíîé âëàñòè, â ïðîòèâîâåñ ñàìîîò÷åòó ó÷ðåæäåííîé). Ïîëèòè÷åñêîå áûëî â ñâîå âðåìÿ îòêðûòî Ìàêêèàâåëëè íå â ãóìà- íèçìå àêòèâíîãî îòâåòñòâåííîãî ñóáúåêòà, à â ïîíÿòèè ïåðìàíåíò- íîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî êðèçèñà (ôîðòóíû), êîòîðûé òðåáîâàë èííî- âàöèîííûõ, ò.å. íåôîðìàëüíûõ, ÷àñòî àäàïòèâíûõ, íî ïîñòîÿííî ìåíÿþùèõ íàïðàâëåííîñòü äåéñòâèé. Ó Ìàêêèàâåëëè èìåííî ïîòîìó åùå íå èäåò ðå÷ü î ñëåïîì àêòèâèçìå íîâîåâðîïåéñêîãî ñóáúåêòà, ÷òî îí íå îòäåëÿåò àêòèâíîñòè îò àôôåêòà. Òàê ÷òî èäåÿ èíñòèòóòà ñîâåòîâ íå òîëüêî “åñòåñòâåííî” íàñëå- äîâàëàñü ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèåé ó ñîâåòñêîãî ðåæèìà â ëîêàëü- íîé ïîñòñîâåòñêîé ñèòóàöèè. Ñîâåòû ïðèâëåêàþò ìíîãèõ ñîâðå- ìåííûõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ òåîðåòèêîâ (êàê ïðàâèëî, ïðîïàãàíäèñòîâ è ýíòóçèàñòîâ ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî) êàê ëîêóñû ðåàëüíîãî ñàìîóïðàâ- ëåíèÿ ëþäåé, èõ ñîâìåñòíîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé àêòèâíîñòè. Ñðåäè êðóï- íåéøèõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ìûñëèòåëåé ÕÕ âåêà, óäåëèâøèõ ñîâåòàì îñîáîå âíèìàíèå, Õàííà Àðåíäò, êîòîðàÿ â ñâîåé ðàáîòå “Î Ðåâî- ëþöèè”7 ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîâåòû êàê ðåàëüíóþ àëüòåðíàòèâó òðàäè- öèîííîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ðåïðåçåíòàöèè. Ñîâåòû ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ëþäåé â èõ àêòèâíîì êà÷åñòâå, à ïàðëàìåíòû – â ïàññèâíîì, â ðîëè íîñè- òåëåé ÷àñòíûõ èíòåðåñîâ èëè èäåé. Ñîâåòû, â ñèëó öåïíîãî, äèô- ôóçíîãî, à íå èåðàðõè÷åñêîãî òèïà äåëåãèðîâàíèÿ, ñîçäàþò ðåàëüíîå åäèíñòâî îáùåñòâà, à íå ïîä÷èíÿþò åãî åäèíñòâó ñèìâîëà. Íàêîíåö, ñîâåòû âîçíèêàþò, ïî ìíåíèþ Àðåíäò, ñïîíòàííî,8 áóäòî èç íè÷åãî, à çíà÷èò, ÿâëÿþòñÿ âûñøèì ïðîÿâëåíèåì ñâîáîäíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Ïîðàæåíèå ñîâåòîâ Àðåíäò ñâÿçûâàåò ñ èõ íåñïîñîáíîñòüþ çàíè- ìàòüñÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèì ìåíåäæìåíòîì. Çäåñü îíà ïðèìåíÿåò õàðàê- òåðíûé äëÿ åå íàó÷íîãî ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ èìïåðàòèâ ðàçäåëåíèÿ ïîëèòèêè è ýêîíîìèêè. Äðóãîé ïî÷èòàòåëü ñîâåòî⠖ Àíòîíèî Íåãðè – â ðàáîòå “Ó÷ðå- äèòåëüíàÿ âëàñòü. Îá àëüòåðíàòèâàõ ñîâðåìåííîñòè”,9 íàïðîòèâ,

6  ýòîì “ñòèõèéíî-ýíåðãåòè÷åñêîì” ïîíèìàíèè ó÷ðåäèòåëüíîé âëàñòè ìû áëèçêè Àíòîíèî Íåãðè: Antonio Negri. Le pouvoir constituant Paris, 1992. 7 Hannah Arendt. On Revolution. Harmondsworth, 1965. 8 Hannah Arendt. Op.Cit. Pp. 239, 249, etñ. 9 Op.Cit. 405 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... ïèøåò î òîì, ÷òî ñîâåòû îáúåäèíÿþò ïîëèòè÷åñêîå òâîð÷åñòâî ñ òâîð÷åñòâîì ýêîíîìè÷åñêèì, ò.å. ïðîèçâîäñòâîì. Ñîâåòû ïðîäîë- æàþò “àëüòåðíàòèâíóþ” èñòîðèþ ïîëèòèêè, êîòîðàÿ áûëà âïåðâûå ïðîäóìàíà, ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ Íåãðè, Íèêîëî Ìàêêèàâåëëè – ïåðâûì òåîðåòèêîì ó÷ðåäèòåëüíîé âëàñòè, çàòåì – Äæåéìñîì Õàððèíãòîíîì, Áåíåäèêòîì Ñïèíîçîé è Ýäìîíäîì. Ïðè ýòîì, ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ Íåãðè, ñîâåòû è àíàëîãè÷íûå èì îðãàíû ïî ñóòè ÿâëÿþòñÿ íå ÷ðåç- âû÷àéíîé, à ïîòåíöèàëüíî ðåãóëÿðíîé ôîðìîé ó÷ðåäèòåëüíîé âëàñòè. Íî, êàê è Àðåíäò, îí íàñòàèâàåò íà ñïîíòàííîñòè è àêòèâ- íîñòè ýòèõ èíñòèòóòîâ. Îäíàêî ñîâåòñêèé è ðîññèéñêèé îïûò, â òîì ÷èñëå ïåðåñòðîå÷íûé (âêëþ÷àÿ ñàõàðîâñêóþ êîíñòèòóöèþ), ïîçâîëÿåò ïîñïîðèòü ñ òåçè- ñàìè Àðåíäò è Íåãðè îá óíèâåðñàëüíîé àêòèâíîñòè è ñïîíòàííîñòè ñîâåòîâ. Ïàðàäîêñ êàê ðàç çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî òå æå (ïî ôîðìå) èíñòèòóòû, êîòîðûå ïðåêðàñíî ñî÷åòàëèñü ñ ïàññèâíîñòüþ ïîääàí- íûõ, ïðè îïðåäåëåííûõ óñëîâèÿõ ñòàíîâÿòñÿ îðóäèåì ðåâîëþöèè ãðàæäàí. Ðå÷ü èäåò íå ñòîëüêî î òâîðåíèè èç íè÷åãî, ñêîëüêî î ïåðåâîðîòå â ñîçíàíèè è â äåéñòâèè, â îïîðå íà ñâåðøèâøèéñÿ çåìíîé ôàêò, à íå íà èäåàëüíóþ íîðìó. Ïàññèâíàÿ, ðåàêòèâíàÿ íåãàòèâíîñòü æàëîáû ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â íåïðèìèðèìóþ áåñêîíå÷íóþ íåãàòèâíîñòü ðåâîëþöèè (à ïîçèòèâíîñòü – äîñòîÿíèå êàê ðàç ó÷ðåæ- äåííîé, ðåãóëÿðíîé âëàñòè). Ñóáúåêòèâíîñòü â èñòîêå ñâîåì – íå âåùü è íå àêò, à ñîáûòèå. Ìû ñåé÷àñ æèâåì â âûâåðíóòîì íàèçíàíêó ñîâåòñêîì îáùåñòâå, è âðåìÿ äëÿ íàñ èäåò, âî ìíîãîì, â îáðàòíîì íàïðàâëåíèè. Òî, ÷òî äëÿ ñîâåòñêèõ ëþäåé áûëî íåçàâåðøåííûì ïðîåêòîì, ïåðñïåêòèâîé (äâèæåíèå ê êîììóíèçìó), äëÿ íàñ ñòàëî ïðîøëûì, ïðèâëåêàòåëüíûì â ñâîåé çàâåðøåííîñòè. Çåðêàëüíàÿ èçíàíî÷íîñòü ñâÿçûâàåò íàñ è ñ Çàïàäîì. Òàêîâà èäåîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ïîäêëàäêà íàøåé ëåãèòèìíîñòè è ñóáúåêòèâíîñòè. Ñåðüåçíàÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ïîçèöèÿ ñåãîäíÿ íå ìîæåò íå âîçâðàùàòüñÿ, ñíîâà è ñíîâà, ê òîìó äâóñìûñëåííîìó, ïðîòèâî- ðå÷èâîìó ìåñòó ïîâîðîòà, êîòîðûì áûëà ïåðåñòðîéêà.  ÷àñòíîñòè, âîçâðàùàòüñÿ ê Ñàõàðîâó è äðóãèì åå äåÿòåëÿì – ôèãóðàì, êîòîðûå ìîãóò íàì êàçàòüñÿ ñåãîäíÿ èäåîëîãè÷åñêè íàèâíûìè. Íî îíè, â ñâîåì âðåìåíè è ìåñòå, ÷óòêî óëîâèëè íåêèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé ðèòì è çàíÿëè òó ðåâîëþöèîííóþ ïîçèöèþ, áåç êîòîðîé íàøå ñåãîäíÿøíåå ïîëèòèêî-èñòîðè÷åñêîå ñîçíàíèå âîîáùå áûëî áû íåìûñëèìî.

406 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 SUMMARY

Ôîðóì “Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà 15 ëåò ñïóñòÿ” ïîñâÿùåí ïðîåêòó êîíñòèòóöèè, íàä êîòîðûì Àíäðåé Ñàõàðîâ ðàáîòàë â êîíöå 1980-õ ãã. Ôîðóì îòêðûâàåòñÿ íå ïóáëè- êîâàâøåéñÿ ðàíåå ñòàòüåé þðèñòà Ëîóðè Óèìàí, ñ 1989 ã. èçó÷àþ- ùåé ðåôîðìèðîâàíèå ñîâåòñêîãî è ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî çàêîíîäàòåëüñòâà, èçìåíåíèÿ â ñèñòåìå þðèäè÷åñêîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ è ïðîáëåìû äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà â Ðîññèè â öåëîì. Ïóáëèêóåìàÿ ñòàòüÿ áûëà íàïèñàëà â íà÷àëå 1990 ã., ñðàçó ïîñëå ñìåðòè À. Ä. Ñàõà- ðîâà, è îòðàæàåò ïîçäíåñîâåòñêîå âîñïðèÿòèå åãî êîíñòèòóöèîí- íîãî ïðîåêòà. Ëîóðè Óèìàí ðàññìàòðèâàåò òåêñò êîíñòèòóöèè â êîíòåêñòå ñîâåòñêîé þðèäè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè è àìåðèêàíñêèõ êîí- ñòèòóöèîííûõ íîðì. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñòàòüÿ Óèìàí ñàìà ÿâëÿåòñÿ öåííûì èñòîðè÷åñêèì äîêóìåíòîì, ðåêîíñòðóèðóþùèì èíòåëëåê- òóàëüíûé êîíòåêñò ñîçäàíèÿ ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè. Îíà âûñ- òóïàåò ñâÿçóþùèì çâåíîì ìåæäó ïîñòñîâåòñêèì ïðîøëûì è íà- ñòîÿùèì. Êîììåíòàðèè Äæîøóà Ðóáåíñòàéí, àìåðèêàíñêîãî ïðàâîçàùèò- íèêà è èññëåäîâàòåëÿ, çàäàþò íåñêîëüêî íåîáû÷íûé ðàêóðñ âîñ- ïðèÿòèÿ ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè. Ñ åãî òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ñ ïîìî- ùüþ êîíñòèòóöèè Ñàõàðîâ ïûòàëñÿ óñêîðèòü äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèå ïðåîáðàçîâàíèÿ è ñîçäàòü ãàðàíòèè ñîáëþäåíèÿ ïðàâ ÷åëîâåêà âî âñåõ ñîâåòñêèõ ðåñïóáëèêàõ, èñïîëüçóÿ äëÿ ýòîãî ðåôîðìèñòñêèé ïîòåíöèàë öåíòðàëüíîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà è ñî÷óâñòâåííîå îòíîøåíèå Ìèõàèëà Ãîðáà÷åâà. Äæîøóà Ðóáåíñòàéí ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî â êà÷åñòâå àâòîðà êîíñòèòóöèè Ñàõàðîâ ñòðåìèëñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ê çàùèòå ïðàâ îòäåëüíûõ ãðàæäàí, à íå ïðàâ íàöèé íà ñóâåðåíèòåò. Íåìåöêèé èñòîðèê Äèòðèõ Áàéðàó ðàññìàòðèâàåò òåêñò êîíñòè- òóöèè êàê èñòîðè÷åñêèé èñòî÷íèê, ðèñóþùèé ïåðåñòðîå÷íîå ìèðîâîççðåíèå è ìåíòàëüíîñòü ñîâåòñêîãî èíòåëëåêòóàëà-äèññè- äåíòà.  êà÷åñòâå õàðàêòåðèñòèê ïîñëåäíåé îí âûäåëÿåò ïðèîðèòåò ìîðàëüíûõ èìïåðàòèâîâ íàä ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè è þðèäè÷åñêèìè ðåàëèÿìè, èäåàëèçàöèþ çàïàäíûõ ñòàíäàðòîâ è îòñóòñòâèå îùó- ùåíèÿ ðàäèêàëüíîãî ðàçðûâà ñ ñîâåòñêèì ïðîøëûì. Ïîëèòîëîã Äæîàííà Ðåãóëüñêà ïîìåùàåò ñàõàðîâñêóþ êîíñòè- òóöèþ â êîíòåêñò ïîñòêîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé êîíñòèòóöèîííîé ýâîëþ-

407 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà... öèè â ñòðàíàõ Âîñòî÷íîé-Öåíòðàëüíîé Åâðîïû. Îíà ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ìíîãèå, íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä, ñâîåîáðàçíûå ÷åðòû ýòîãî äîêóìåíòà âïîëíå òèïè÷íû äëÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííîãî òâîð÷åñòâà â ïîñòñîöèà- ëèñòè÷åñêèõ îáùåñòâàõ. Èç èçâåñòíûõ ñåãîäíÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûõ ïðîåêòîâ, ñîçäàííûõ â ðåãèîíå, ïðîåêò Ñàõàðîâà, ïî ìíåíèþ Ðûãóëüñêîé, âûäåëÿåò åãî áåçðàçëè÷èå ê âîïðîñàì ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ è äåÿòåëüíîñòè ìåñòíûõ îðãàíîâ óïðàâëåíèÿ, à òàêæå âçàèìîäåé- ñòâèÿ ðàçíûõ óðîâíåé âëàñòè. Ýòî ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î ïðèâåðæåí- íîñòè Ñàõàðîâà Ðîññèéñêîé/ñîâåòñêîé öåíòðàëèçàòîðñêîé ìîäåëè. Îäèí èç âåäóùèõ ýêñïåðòîâ â îáëàñòè ðåãèîíàëèçìà (èñòîðèè è ïîëèòèêè) â Ðîññèéñêîé Èìïåðèè è ÑÍÃ, ÿïîíñêèé èññëåäîâàòåëü Êèìèòàêà Ìàöóçàòî íàñòàèâàåò, ÷òî êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò Àíäðåÿ Ñàõàðîâà ñòðîèëñÿ íà ïðèíöèïå ýòíî-òåððèòîðèàëüíîãî ôåäåðàëèçìà, âîñõîäÿùåãî ê ëåíèíñêîé òðàäèöèè. Öåíòðîáåæíûé ïî ñâîåé ïðèðîäå ýòíî-òåððèòîðèàëüíûé òèï ôåäåðàëèçìà ñîçäàåò äîïîëíèòåëüíûå îñíîâàíèÿ äëÿ ñåöåññèè, íàäåëÿÿ íàöèîíàëüíóþ ãðóïïó ëåãèòèìíûìè òåððèòîðèàëüíûìè ãðàíèöàìè. Ìàöóçàòî ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî äàííîå ñâîéñòâî ýòíî-òåððèòîðèàëüíîãî ôåäåðàëèçìà íå îñòàâëÿëî áîëüøèõ øàíñîâ ñàõàðîâñêîìó Ñîþçó Ñîâåòñêèõ Ðåñïóáëèê Åâðîïû è Àçèè. Êðîìå òîãî, çàëîæåííàÿ â êîíñòèòóöèè ñåìè-ïðåçèäåíòñêàÿ ìîäåëü ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ðåæèìà áûëà ÷ðåâàòà ñåðüåçíûìè êîíñòèòóöèîííûìè êîíôëèêòàìè, ïðèìåð êîòîðûõ äàë âñêîëûõíóâøèé Ðîññèéñêóþ Ôåäåðàöèþ ïîëèòè÷åñêèé êðèçèñ 1993 ã. Ïîçèöèÿ Ãàñàíà Ãóñåéíîâà â ôîðóìå îñîáåííàÿ: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, îí ïðèíàäëåæèò ê ãðóïïå èíòåëëåêòóàëîâ, ñïîñîáñòâîâàâøèõ óãëóá- ëåíèþ ïåðåñòðîéêè, à ñ äðóãîé – ê ñîîáùåñòâó èñòîðèêîâ, ïðîôåñ- ñèîíàëüíî åå èçó÷àþùèõ. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, åãî îòíîøåíèå ê ñàõà- ðîâñêîìó êîíñòèòóöèîííîìó ïðîåêòó îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ êàê èíäèâèäó- àëüíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòüþ, òàê è ñîâðåìåííûìè àíàëèòè÷åñ- êèìè íàó÷íûìè ìîäåëÿìè. Öåíòðàëüíàÿ òåìà åãî ýññå – âîçìîæíîñòü èçìåíåíèÿ îáùåñòâà áåç äåçèíòåãðàöèè ñòðàíû: êàê ýòà âîçìîæ- íîñòü âîñïðèíèìàëàñü â êîíöå 1980-õ ãã., è êàê åå ñëåäóåò îöåíè- âàòü ñåé÷àñ. Ïîñëåäíÿÿ ñòàòüÿ â ôîðóìå ïðèíàäëåæèò Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêîìó ôèëîñîôó Àðòåìèþ Ìàãóíó, êîòîðûé ðàçáèðàåò öåíòðàëüíûé ýëåìåíò ñàõàðîâñêîé êîíñòèòóöèè: ñîâåòû êàê èíñòèòóò ïîëèòè- ÷åñêîãî ïðåäñòàâèòåëüñòâà. Ñîâåòû ìîãóò ñëóæèòü ôîðìîé ïðåä- ñòàâèòåëüñòâà ðåâîëþöèîííûõ ìîáèëèçîâàííûõ ãðàæäàí èëè 408 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 îáñëóæèâàòü îòíîñèòåëüíî ñòàáèëüíóþ ñèñòåìó, ìàíèïóëèðóþùóþ êîíôîðìèñòñêè íàñòðîåííûìè ãðàæäàíàìè. Àêòóàëüíîñòü êîíñòè- òóöèîííîãî ïðîåêòà Ñàõàðîâà áóäåò îñòàâàòüñÿ âûñîêîé ïîêà æèâû ñàìà èäåÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ðåïðåçåíòàöèè è ïîòðåáíîñòü â íåé (è â äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèõ ðåæèìàõ).

409 Âñïîìèíàÿ êîíñòèòóöèîííûé ïðîåêò À. Ä. Ñàõàðîâà...

SUMMARY

The forum “Remembering A. D. Sakharov’s Constitutional Project 15 Years Later” that focuses on the constitutional draft written by Andrei Sakharov in the late 1980s, is opened by Lowry Wyman, the lawyer who has worked since 1989 on Soviet and post-Soviet law reform, legal-education reform, and the problem of democracy building generally. Her essay was written at the beginning of 1990, shortly after Academician Sakharov’s death, and thus reflects perceptions of the Sakharov’s Constitution project during the late Soviet period. Lowry Wyman introduces the text of the con- stitutional draft against the background of the USSR legal tradition and US constitutional norms. As such, this essay is a valuable historical document in itself that reconstructs the intellectual context in which Sakharov’s constitution was created, and that serves as a natural link between the two epochs, the past and the present. Comments by Joshua Rubenstein, American human rights activist and scholar, offer a somewhat unusual approach to Sakharov’s Constitution. Rubenstein reads this document as an attempt by Sakharov to foster demo- cratic changes and security of human rights throughout the republics of the USSR using the reformist potential of the central government and a rather benevolent attitude of Mikhail Gorbachev. To Joshua Rubenstein, the major concern of Sakharov as the author of this document seems to be the desire to secure human rights of the individual citizens, rather than the rights of nations aspiring to sovereignty. The German historian, Dietrich Beyrau, approaches the text of the Con- stitution as a historical source, a testament to the Perestroika-time world- view and mentality of the Soviet dissident intellectual. This includes the priority of moral imperatives over sober political and legal require- ments, the idealization of western standards and the absence of the sense of a closure, a radical rupture with the Soviet past. Political scientist, Joanna Regulska, puts Sakharov’s Constitution into the context of post-communist constitutional process in the countries of East-Central Europe. She points out that many alleged peculiarities of Sa- kharov’s project were quite typical for the societies struggling with the leg- acy of socialism. At the same time, Sakharov’s indifference to the forma- tion and operation of local governments and the intergovernmental rela- tions set his project aside from the majority of post-socialist constitutions 410 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 in the region. To Regulska, this testifies to Sakharov’s adherence to the Russian/Soviet legacy of centralization. Kimitaka Matsuzato is one of the leading experts on regionalism history and politics in Russian Empire and NIS. He argues that the constitutional project of Andrei Sakharov was built on the principle of ethno-territorial federalism that derives from the Leninist tradition. Centrifugal by nature, ehtno-territorial federalism provides a double justification for a secession, providing a national community with legitimate territorial boundaries. According to Matsuzato, this left few chances for the stability of the future Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia, while the semi-presiden- tialist model of political regime chosen for the new state promised severe constitutional conflicts of the type that shocked Russian Federation in 1993. Gasan Gusejnov occupies a unique position in the forum: he belongs both to the group of intellectuals who pushed the limits of Perestroika, and to the community of scholars that analyzes that epoch professionally. Hence, his attitude to the Sakharov’s constitutional project combines the concern with personal – not collective (historical) – memory, and the application of analytical models available to scholars today. The central theme of his essay – the problem of changing the society that would not lead to the ulti- mate disintegration of the country, how such a change was perceived in the late 1980s and how it is seen now. The final contribution to the forum belongs to St. Petersburg political philosopher, Artem Magun, who gets to the core of Sakharov’s Constitu- tion – the idea of political representation, that can exist in a variety of forms, from a revolution of mobilized political subjects to a seemingly stable sys- tem built upon manipulation of conformist citizens. The constitutional project of Andrei Sakharov is relevant today to the extent to which the idea of – and demand for – political representation and democratic regime are alive.

411 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Åâãåíèé ÀÍÈÑÈÌÎÂ

ÎÒ ÏÈÊÓËß ÄÎ “ÊÐÓÃËÎÃÎ ÑÒÎËÀ”

Ìîÿ ïåðåñòðîéêà íà÷àëàñü â 1986-1987 ãã. ñ ëåêòîðñêîé äåÿòåëü- íîñòè è êðèòèêè ðîìàíèñòèêè Âàëåíòèíà Ïèêóëÿ. Òàê ñëó÷èëîñü, ÷òî â ýòî âðåìÿ åãî äîâîëüíî ïîñðåäñòâåííûå è íèçêîõóäîæåñòâåí- íûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ðîìàíû î Ðîññèè XVIII – XIX ââ., êîòîðûå îí ïëîäèë ñ íåîáûêíîâåííîé áûñòðîòîé, îêàçàëèñü â öåíòðå âíè- ìàíèÿ ÷èòàþùåé ïóáëèêè. Îíè ñòàëè ÷óòü ëè íå åäèíñòâåííûì èñòî÷íèêîì çíàíèé äëÿ ìèëëèîíîâ ëþäåé îá ýòîé ýïîõå. Ïîìíþ, íà ïóáëè÷íûõ ëåêöèÿõ ïî èñòîðèè âîïðîñ î äîñòîâåðíîñòè ðîìàíîâ Ïèêóëÿ áûë îäíèì èç ñàìûì ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûõ. Òîãäà íàñòóïèë èñòèííûé áóì ëåêöèîííîé ïóáëè÷íîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè äëÿ ìíîãèõ èñòîðèêîâ, ÿ ñàì ÷èòàë öèêëû ëåêöèé î ðóññêèõ èìïåðàòîðàõ íà ìíîæåñòâå ïðåäïðèÿòèé (â îñíîâíîì ÷åðåç ò.í. Îáùåñòâà êíèãî- ëþáîâ) è áûë ïîòðÿñåí, êîãäà íà ìîè âûñòóïëåíèÿ â Öåíòðàëüíûé ëåêòîðèé åæåíåäåëüíî ïðèõîäèëà îãðîìíàÿ òîëïà, äî 700 ÷åëîâåê. À êàêèå ýòî áûëè áëàãîäàðíûå ñëóøàòåëè! Êàêîå ýòî áûëî íàñëàæ- äåíèå ÷èòàòü äëÿ íèõ! Ìîðå òàêèõ ìèëûõ, èíòåëëèãåíòíûõ, ëåíèí- ãðàäñêèõ, â îñíîâíîì æåíñêèõ, ëèö ÿ ïîòîì íèêîãäà íå âèäåë, ðàçâå òîëüêî ñåé÷àñ íà Îáùåäîñòóïíûõ êîíöåðòàõ â Ôèëàðìîíèè. Íå ðàç ïîñëå ëåêöèé êî ìíå ïîäõîäèëè ëþäè ñ òåòðàäî÷êàìè, â êîòîðûõ áûë êðàòêèé êîíñïåêò òîãî èëè èíîãî ðîìàíà Ïèêóëÿ è ïðîñèëè ÷òî-òî óòî÷íèòü èç âûïèñàííûõ äàò èëè ñîáûòèé. Ýòî áûëî íåîáûêíîâåííî òðîãàòåëüíî. À âîïðîñàì íå áûëî êîíöà. ß äî ñèõ

413 Å. Àíèñèìîâ, Îò Ïèêóëÿ äî “Êðóãëîãî ñòîëà” ïîð õðàíþ äåñÿòêè çàïèñî÷åê, êîòîðûå ïðèõîäèëè èç çàëà, íàèâíûõ, ñëîæíûõ, íåëåïûõ, íî ãîâîðÿùèõ îá îäíîì: ëþäè ñòðàäàëè îò íåçíà- íèÿ, æàæäàëè îòâåòîâ íà ñàìûå ðàçíûå âîïðîñû, êàê êîíêðåòíûå, òàê è àáñòðàêòíûå. Ïîìíþ, êàê-òî êî ìíå ïðèøëà çàïèñêà: “À êàê âû äóìàåòå, ÷òîáû ñëó÷èëîñü, åñëè áû øòóðìîì âçÿëè íå Çèìíèé, à Ñìîëüíûé?”. Èç àòìîñôåðû ýòèõ ëåêöèé áûëî îò÷åòëèâî âèäíî, ÷òî îáùåñòâî èññòðàäàëîñü ïî èñòîðè÷åñêèì çíàíèÿì, êîòîðûå äåñÿòèëåòèÿìè óòàèâàëèñü âëàñòüþ îò ëþäåé èëè íàõîäèëèñü ïîä òàêèì ñïóäîì, ÷òî ïðîñòîìó ÷èòàòåëþ áûëè íåäîñòóïíû. È òîãäà ëþäè äåëàëè êîíñïåêòû ðîìàíà Ïèêóëÿ, ïûòàÿñü îòäå- ëèòü ôàêòû îò èíòåðïðåòàöèé è âûäóìêè ðîìàíèñòà, è ïðèõîäèëè êî ìíå çà ñîâåòîì. È âîò ÿ, íàêîíåö, ñîáðàëñÿ, ñ òðóäîì îñèëèë íåñêîëüêî íàèáî- ëåå èçâåñòíûõ ðîìàíîâ Ïèêóëÿ è ñòàë ÷èòàòü ëåêöèè î åãî ðîìà- íèñòèêå, òî÷íåå, î ñâîåîáðàçèè åãî ðîìàíîâ, îñîáåííîñòÿõ îáðà- ùåíèÿ àâòîðà ñ èñòîðè÷åñêèìè ôàêòàìè. ×òåíèÿ ýòè áûëè âåñüìà ïîïóëÿðíû â ãîðîäå, âûçûâàëè ïîëåìèêó è äàæå ññîðû â çàëå – íàñòîëüêî îñòðîé áûëà òåìà èñòîðèè è åå èíòåðïðåòàöèè. Ê òîìó æå ðîìàíû Ïèêóëÿ îò÷åòëèâî ïîâàíèâàëè êñåíîôîáèåé è íàöèîíà- ëèçìîì, ïîýòîìó èõ êðèòèêà âîñïðèíèìàëàñü êàê ïîëèòè÷åñêèé, èäåîëîãè÷åñêèé àêò. Ýòî ÿ îñîáåííî õîðîøî ïî÷óâñòâîâàë ïî ðå- äàêöèîííîé ïî÷òå æóðíàëà “Çíàìÿ”, ãäå Ã. ß. Áàêëàíîâ îïóáëè- êîâàë ìîþ ñòàòüþ î ðîìàíàõ Ïèêóëÿ.  îòâåò ïðèøëî íåñêîëüêî ñîò ïèñåì, â êîòîðûõ àâòîðû îáðóøèëèñü íà ìîþ êðèòèêó èõ ëþáè- ìîãî ðîìàíèñòà. Ïîìíþ, ÷òî ïîñëàíèÿ ñîäåðæàëè ìàññó îñêîðá- ëåíèé â ìîé àäðåñ, ïîðîé íåçàñëóæåííûõ è íåïðèñòîéíûõ, íî îäè- íàêîâî íåïðèâû÷íûõ ìíå. Áûëî è ìíîãî çàáàâíîãî. Îäèí “Âåòå- ðàí ÂΔ èç Êàëèíèíà ïèñàë â çàùèòó Ïèêóëÿ: “È òû ñâîåþ ÷åð- íîé êðîâüþ íå ñìîåøü ïîýòà ïðàâåäíóþ êðîâü. ß âñòàíó ïåðåä èì!”. Ïèñüìà ïîääåðæêè øëè ïî÷òè èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî îò òåõ, êîãî â èì- ïåðñêîé Ðîññèè íàçûâàëè “èíîðîäöàìè”. À ïèêîì ìîåé “àíòèïè- êóëåâñêîé êàìïàíèè” ñòàë çàïðåò Îáêîìà ïàðòèè íà ïðîâåäåíèå ëåêöèè â Äîìå ïèñàòåëåé ñ âîçâðàùåíèåì íåñîñòîÿâøèìñÿ ñëóøà- òåëÿì áèëåòîâ. Ïîçæå ëåêöèÿ âñå æå ñîñòîÿëàñü, à ñàì ñêàíäàë, êàê ýòî ÷àñòî áûâàåò, òîëüêî ïðèâëåê âíèìàíèå ê íåé ïóáëèêè. Âîò òîãäà-òî ÿ, âîëåþ ñóäüáû, îêàçàëñÿ ⠓ïåðåäîâîì îòðÿäå” ïåðåñòðîéùèêîâ è ïîçíàêîìèëñÿ ñ Þ. Í. Àôàíàñüåâûì, ñòàâøèì ðåêòîðîì ÌÈÀÈ, è çàãîâîðèâøèì íåîáûêíîâåííî ñìåëî è îòêðûòî 414 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 î ñîñòîÿíèè èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêè â ÑÑÑÐ. Åñëè åãî ïåðâàÿ ñòàòüÿ íà ýòó òåìó â æóðíàëå “Êîììóíèñò” ïîêàçàëàñü ìíå äîâîëüíî îñòî- ðîæíîé è ãëàäêîé, òî ïîñëåäóþùèå ïóáëèêàöèè è èíòåðâüþ (îñîáåííî ⠓Ìîñêîâñêèõ íîâîñòÿõ”) ìîæíî íàçâàòü îòâàæíûìè. Òîãäà ÿ, êàê è äðóãèå, ïîíèìàë, ÷òî âñå ýòî íåñëó÷àéíî – êòî-òî “ñâåðõó” áëàãîïðèÿòñòâóåò íîâîìó äâèæåíèþ. È ýòî òàêæå âîî- äóøåâëÿëî. Àôàíàñüåâ îðãàíèçîâàë â ñâîåì èíñòèòóòå èñòîðè÷åñ- êèå ÷òåíèÿ, íà êîòîðûå ëîìèëîñü ïîë-Ìîñêâû. ß âûñòóïàë òàì æå ñî ñâîèìè ëåêöèÿìè î Ïèêóëå. Ýòî áûëî âðåìÿ îøåëîìèòåëüíîãî îùóùåíèÿ ñâîáîäû. Ïîìíþ, ÷òî íà ëåêöèþ î Ñòàëèíå ëþäè ëåçëè â îêíî. Òîãäà æå ÿ ïîçíàêîìèëñÿ ñ Íàòàíîì Ýéäåëüìàíîì, ÷åëîâåêîì áëåñòÿùèì, ÿðêèì. Ýòî áûëî åãî âðåìÿ è îí îêàçàë çíà÷èòåëüíîå âëèÿíèå íà ðàñêðåïîùåíèå èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêè, ïðîáóæäåíèå èñòî- ðè÷åñêîãî ñîîáùåñòâà. Îäíàæäû ÿ âåë âå÷åð â Ïåòåðáóðãå ñ åãî ó÷àñòèåì. Êàê îí òàëàíòëèâî ãîâîðèë ïåðåä çàñòûâøèì îò âíèìà- íèÿ è îáîæàíèÿ çàëîì! È âîëíû ýòîé ñèìïàòèè äîêàòûâàëèñü äî ñöåíû, îíè áûëè ïî÷òè ôèçè÷åñêè îùóòèìû, è Ýéäåëüìàí ïîäçàðÿæàëñÿ îò çàëà è òîò÷àñ âîçâðàùàë åìó ñâîþ ýíåðãèþ. Âïðî÷åì, â îôèöèàëüíîì èñòîðè÷åñêîì ñîîáùåñòâå íè÷åãî îñîáåííîãî íå ïðîèñõîäèëî. Âñå áûëî êàê âñåãäà. Äîëãîå âðåìÿ Àêàäåìèÿ íàóê âîîáùå íå ðåàãèðîâàëà íà ïðîèñõîäÿùèå çà åå òîëñòû- ìè ñòåíàìè äóíîâåíèÿ ñâåæåãî âåòðà.  íàøåì èíñòèòóòå äåéñòâî- âàë íåáîëüøîé ñåìèíàð ïî àêòóàëüíûì ïðîáëåìàì èñòîðèè, è ÿ áûë ïðè÷àñòåí ê åãî ðóêîâîäñòâó. Êàê-òî ðàç ìåíÿ âûçâàë äèðåêòîð è íåðâíî çàïðåòèë ïðîâîäèòü çàñåäàíèå ñ äîêëàäîì Â. È. Ñòàðöåâà î Ëåíèíå è åãî âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿõ ñ Èíåññîé Àðìàíä.  1986 ã. ÿ íàïèñàë êíèæêó îá èìïåðàòðèöå Åëèçàâåòå Ïåòðîâíå è ïûòàëñÿ îïóáëèêîâàòü åå â èçäàòåëüñòâå “Íàóêà”, íî åãî íà÷àëüñòâî îòâåðãëî ìîþ “ñàìîäåÿòåëüíîñòü”.  ìîñêîâñêîì ÐÈÑÎ âàæíûé àêàäåìè- ÷åñêèé ÷èíîâíèê íàçèäàòåëüíî ïîó÷àë ìåíÿ, ãîâîðÿ, ÷òî èìÿ Åëè- çàâåòû Ïåòðîâíû íå ìîæåò ñòîÿòü íà îáëîæêå êíèãè ñîâåòñêîãî èñòîðèêà. Íà íàèâíûé âîïðîñ, êàêèå æå èìåíà öàðåé ìîãóò ñòîÿòü íà îáëîæêå, ìíå âàæíî ñêàçàëè, ÷òî òîëüêî Èâàí Ãðîçíûé, Áîðèñ Ãîäóíîâ è Ïåòð Ïåðâûé. Îñîáåííî ïîðàçèëñÿ ÿ ïðèñóòñòâèåì Áîðèñà Ãîäóíîâà â ñïèñêå ðàçðåøåííûõ öàðñêèõ èìåí. Âåðîÿòíî, ïðè÷èíà ñåãî êàçóñà â çíàìåíèòîé ïüåñå À. Ñ. Ïóøêèíà, ìîçîëèâ- øåé ãëàçà íà ñîâåòñêèõ òåàòðàëüíûõ àôèøàõ – ãåíèé íåâîëüíî ââåë 415 Å. Àíèñèìîâ, Îò Ïèêóëÿ äî “Êðóãëîãî ñòîëà” íåäîñòîéíîãî íàó÷íîé îáëîæêè Áîðèñà â ðàçðåøåííûé êîììóíè- ñòàìè ïåðå÷åíü èìåí. Âïå÷àòëåíèå ìîå îò ýòîãî áûëî îòâðàòèòåëüíîå. Âïðî÷åì, äåëî ïîïðàâèëîñü äîâîëüíî ñêîðî. Áëàãîäàðÿ äîáðîìó îòíîøåíèþ êî ìíå Í. È. Ïàâëåíêî, êíèæêó âçÿëî èçäàòåëüñòâî “Ìûñëü”, ïðè÷åì îïÿòü èìÿ âåñåëîé öàðèöû íà îáëîæêó íå ïîïàëî. Ãëàâíûé ðåäàêòîð èñòîðè÷åñêîé ðåäàêöèè ïîñàäèë ìåíÿ â ñâîåì êàáèíåòå, ñêàçàë, ÷òî îí óõîäèò íà 3-4 ÷àñà íà ïàðòñîáðàíèå (òîãäà øëè ïàðòèéíûå “áîè” âîêðóã ëèíèè ïàðòèè), à ÿ äîëæåí ñî÷èíèòü äåñÿòü íàçâàíèé êíèãè áåç èìåíè Åëèçàâåòû. Ïîòîì ìíå óêàçûâàëè è ñîâåòîâàëè, ÷òî óáàâèòü, à ÷òî äîáàâèòü “èç ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè- ÷åñêîé æèçíè”, è ÿ ïðàâèë ïîñëóøíî – óæ î÷åíü õîòåëîñü âûïóñ- òèòü êíèãó.  îáùåì, ïîä êàêèì-òî íåâûðàçèòåëüíûì íàçâàíèåì êíèãà âûøëà è ïîëó÷èëà õîðîøóþ îöåíêó â ðåöåíçèè Í. Í. Ïîê- ðîâñêîãî ⠓Âîïðîñàõ èñòîðèè”. Ïîìíþ, ÷òî ýòî ìåíÿ íåîáûêíî- âåííî âîîäóøåâèëî. Âïîñëåäñòâèè, êîãäà “Ìîëîäàÿ ãâàðäèÿ” ïðåä- ëîæèëà ìíå îïóáëèêîâàòü Åëèçàâåòó ⠓ÆÇ˔, ÿ ñåë áûëî ïåðåíî- ñèòü ñòàðûé òåêñò â ýëåêòðîííóþ âåðñèþ, íî ïîòîì áðîñèë ýòî äåëî – âñå íàïèñàííîå áûëî òàê óæàñíî, ÷òî ÿ ïåðåïèñàë êíèãó çàíîâî. Îäíàæäû, ïî-ìîåìó, â íà÷àëå 1988 ã., ÿ ïîëó÷èë ïðèãëàøåíèå èç æóðíàëà “Âîïðîñû èñòîðèè”. Òàì ðåøèëè âçÿòüñÿ çà ïåðåñòðîé- êó â èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêå è ïðèãëàñèëè íåñêîëüêèõ ìîñêîâñêèõ è ëåíèíãðàäñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ íà êðóãëûé ñòîë, ìàòåðèàëû êîòîðîãî áûëè îïóáëèêîâàíû â ìàðòå 1988 ã. Ïîòîì áûëî ìíîæåñòâî äðó- ãèõ “ñòîëî┠è êîíôåðåíöèé. È ÿ áû íå âñïîìèíàë îá ýòîì ìåðîï- ðèÿòèè, åñëè áû âñêîðå íå âûÿñíèëîñü, ÷òî ïóáëèêàöèÿ ìàòåðèà- ëîâ ýòîãî îáñóæäåíèÿ ïîëó÷èëà îãðîìíûé ðåçîíàíñ â ÑÑÑÐ è çà ðó- áåæîì. Íå ðàç ìíå î íåì ïèñàëè êîëëåãè èç Àìåðèêè, è åùå äîëãî íàïîìèíàëè ñàìûå ðàçíûå ëþäè, ïðè÷àñòíûå ê èñòîðèè. Ïîìíþ, ÷òî çà ñòîëîì â ðåäàêöèè ñîáðàëàñü ïåñòðàÿ, èíòåðåñ- íåéøàÿ êîìïàíèÿ. Çäåñü ïðèñóòñòâîâàëè àêàäåìè÷åñêèå áîññû âðîäå Ì. Ï. Êèìà è Þ. À. Ïîëÿêîâà, ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû – èçãîè, “íåïðèêàñàåìûå” è íåèñïðàâèìûå È. ß. Ôðîÿíîâ, Â. È. Ñòàðöåâ è Ï. Â. Âîëîáóåâ, ðåçêèé Í. È. Ïàâëåíêî. Áûëè Â. Ï. Äàíèëîâ, Ê. Ô. Øàöèëëî è åùå êòî-òî.  ýòî áëåñòÿùåå îáùåñòâî çàòåñàëñÿ è ÿ. Çàñåäàíèå íà÷àëîñü ñ óòîìèòåëüíîé, òèïè÷íî ñîâåòñêîé ðå÷è àêàäåìèêà Êèìà, êîòîðûé öèòèðîâàë Ì. Ñ. Ãîðáà÷åâà è ïðèâû÷íî ëèçàë ó ïàðòèè âñå íóæíûå ìåñòà. Ïîìíþ, ÷òî ýòî ìåíÿ ïðèâåëî 416 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 â ñîñòîÿíèå êðàéíåãî ðàçäðàæåíèÿ. ß íàïèñàë çàïèñêó íà èìÿ âåäóùåãî çàñåäàíèå ãëàâíîãî ðåäàêòîðà À. À. Èñêàíäåðîâà, ÷òî åñëè è äàëüøå äåëî ïîéäåò â òàêîì ñîâåòñêî-àêàäåìè÷åñêîì ñòèëå, òî ìû – ðÿä òîâàðèùåé, ïîêèíåì çàñåäàíèå. ß ïåðåäàë ýòó çàïèñêó Ïàâëåíêî, Ôðîÿíîâó è Ñòàðöåâó, êîòîðûå ïîñòàâèëè ïîä òåêñòîì è ñâîè ïîäïèñè. Èñêàíäåðîâ îòðåàãèðîâàë ìãíîâåííî – ïðåðâàë Êèìà è ïåðåâåë ñòðåëêè íà “íåïðèêàñàåìûõ”. È íà÷àëîñü Áûëî îäíî óäîâîëüñòâèå ñëóøàòü. Âûñòóïëåíèÿ îêàçàëèñü ðåçêèå è ïî òåì âðåìåíàì íåîáûêíîâåííî ñìåëûå. Ìåíÿ òîæå ïîíåñëî, è ïî÷òè âñå, ÷òî ÿ òàì íàãîâîðèë, áûëî îïóáëèêîâàíî. “Ïî÷òè”, ïîòîìó ÷òî êîãäà ÿ ñëè÷èë òåêñò ñâîåé ðå÷è ñ ïóáëèêàöèåé, òî óâèäåë, ÷òî â òîì ìåñòå, ãäå ñêàçàíî î “ðàçíîñíûõ” èñòîðèÿõ ñ ïóá- ëèêàöèÿìè êíèã ðàçíûõ èñòîðèêîâ, îñòàëîñü óïîìèíàíèå î êàì- ïàíèè ïðîòèâ Ôðîÿíîâà, íî èñïàðèëñÿ àáçàö î “äåëå Çèìèíà” è “äåëå Âîëîáóåâà”. Âèäíî, ⠓Âîïðîñàõ èñòîðèè” äðàçíèòü Îòäåëåíèå èñòîðèè íå õîòåëè – ìîë, è òàê óæ ìíîãî íàãîâîðåíî! Íî âñå ðàâíî, Èñêàíäåðîâ áûë òîãäà áîëüøîé ìîëîäåö. “Âîïðîñû èñòîðèè” íà êàêîå-òî âðåìÿ ñòàëè ñàìûì ïåðåäîâûì èñòîðè÷åñ- êèì æóðíàëîì. À ïîòîì ÿ óæå îñîáåííî è íå ñëåäèë çà ïðîöåññîì ïåðåñòðîéêè èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêè – ìíå ýòî ñòàëî íåèíòåðåñíî. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ÿ áûë âíóòðè îáíîâëÿâøåéñÿ ñèñòåìû è ïîòîìó ÿâëÿëñÿ íàáëþäà- òåëåì íåîáúåêòèâíûì. Ñ äðóãîé, êàæäûé äåíü ïðèíîñèë ãðàíäèîç- íûå ïåðåìåíû, áëèçèëñÿ 1991 ãîä è íîâàÿ ýïîõà. Òîãäà ÿ áîëüøå æèë íå êàê èñòîðèê, à êàê ãðàæäàíèí è ñâèäåòåëü íîâîé ðåâîëþ- öèè. Ýòî áûëî íåîáûêíîâåííîå âðåìÿ, æèçíü øëà ïî Ïóøêèíó – óäîâîëüñòâèå îò îùóùåíèÿ “áåçäíû íà êðàþ”. Ïîìíþ, â àâãóñòå 1991 ã. ÿ âûïóñòèë ñáîðíèê ìåìóàðîâ èç ýïîõè äâîðöîâûõ ïåðå- âîðîòîâ è â ïðåäèñëîâèè ïèñàë, ÷òî, íàì, ñîâðåìåííûì ëþäÿì, òåïåðü, 250 ëåò ñïóñòÿ, òðóäíî ïðåäñòàâèòü ñåáå, ÷òî çíà÷èò ïðîñíóòüñÿ íà ñëåäóþùåå óòðî ïîñëå íî÷íîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ïåðåâîðîòà. Òóò-òî ÿ è ïðîñíóëñÿ

417 Å. Àíèñèìîâ, Îò Ïèêóëÿ äî “Êðóãëîãî ñòîëà”

SUMMARY

In his essay Evgenii Anisimov recalls his participation in perestroika. In particular, he discusses the way in which history was politicized and drawn into public debates, and the way in which professional historians attempted to cope with this situation. The narrative covers the time from the upsurge of interest in the works of Soviet writer Valentin Pikul’ to the roundtable in Voprosy Istorii in 1988.

418 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Melissa GAYAN

GORBACHEV’S REFORMS AND THE BEGINNING OF A NEW HISTORY IN THE GEORGIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC

The Politburo’s 1985 election of Mikhail Gorbachev as the General- Secretary of the Soviet Union initiated a period of monumental reforms designed to reignite the economy and erase the stagnation in Soviet politics and society. His policies of perestroika (restructuring), glasnost (openness) and demokratizatsiia (democratization) made changes to the structure of Soviet government and society, welcomed free and uninhibited communi- cation, and enacted electoral reforms. Perestroika brought the most sweeping changes to the Soviet Union, with economic, political, and social spheres being restructured. The purpose of perestroika was to simplify the post- Stalinist Soviet state and return it to what Gorbachev considered to be its original Bolshevik goals, but his policies failed to recreate Soviet life as Gorbachev intended. Instead, these changes railed against the authoritarian systems of rule and destroyed Soviet citizens’ sense of certainty and reliance upon their government. These changes also allowed for the unprecedented expression of anti-governmental views that encouraged the state’s numerous nationalities to demand autonomy and independence, facilitating the even- tual dissolution of the Soviet Union. Glasnost and perestroika allowed the titular nationalities of the Soviet republics to freely express and disseminate their ideas and goals for the con- 419 M. Gayan, Gorbachev’s Reforms and the Beginning of a New History... ceptions of a homeland that had not previously been possible. In Georgia’s case, this discourse sped up the nation-building process among ethnic Geor- gians that eventually resulted in a newly independent Georgian republic. However, there were many non-titular ethnic groups, long similarly suppressed by Soviet domination that also began asserting their claims to statehood. This last result prolonged the nation-building process in Georgia, turning the nation-building process violent and casting doubt on the legitimacy of the entire undertaking. Gorbachev’s reformist policies alone did not recreate an independent Georgian republic, but created the conditions of relative political freedom that fostered various organizations and movements that further galvanized Georgian nationalist sentiments, particularly after the 1989 Tbilisi Massacre. This event became a pivotal point in the Georgian national consciousness. Gorbachev’s reforms also influenced rejuvenated separatist efforts by both the Abkhazian and Ossetian minorities in Georgia. These nationalist senti- ments also allowed for a change in the leadership of Georgia, transitioning from a Communist-dominated government to one led by an elected presi- dent, in the first case Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who came out of the Round Table/Free Georgia coalition.

Gorbachev and the “True Soviet” Nationality Policy: Between the “Soviet Man” and National Self-Determination Since the Soviet Union’s breakup, many scholars have tried to assess Gorbachev’s views about the country’s various nationalities. It appears that Gorbachev was not equipped to deal with such national differences. He spent over twenty years working in the Stavropol krai (district) before arriving in Moscow. The fact that 90 percent of Stavropol’s population was Russian and that Gorbachev therefore had little experience working with other nationalities was to prove significant.1 Gorbachev’s own records, however, suggested otherwise. He strongly emphasized how his time in Stavropol was valuable training for under- standing the Soviet Union’s complex multi-national composition. He also recounted how assisting the return of Stalin’s North Caucasian deportees affected him. It was at this dramatic moment that Gorbachev decided that

1 Nadia Diuk and Adrian Karatnycky. New Nations Rising. The Fall of the Soviets and the Challenge of Independence. New York, 1993. P. 10; Robert G. Kaiser. Why Gorbachev Happened. His Triumphs and His Failure. New York, 1991. P. 34. 420 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Stalinist repression did not solve problems and determined never to use such tactics.2 Despite Gorbachev’s assertions that he was prepared to deal with nationality issues because of his work in Stavropol, it was doubtful that he encountered much diversity during his twenty years of service there. Scholars have disagreed about Gorbachev’s competence concerning these issues. Robert Strayer and Robert Kaiser both clearly asserted that Gorbachev was ill prepared to handle the expression of nationalist sentiment and ethnic violence of the late 1980s. Kaiser determined that nationality problems as one of the two main issues, the other being economic, that led to Gorbachev’s downfall in August 1991. Also according to Kaiser, it took five years for Gorbachev to realize that national divisions actually existed within the Soviet Union. By 1990, however, nationalists throughout the country had begun to use his reforms against central government efforts to separate their home- lands from Soviet authority.3 Other scholars credited Gorbachev’s failures in nationality policy to the fact that he truly believed in the concept of a “Soviet citizen” and, therefore, ignored the problem. Yaroslav Bilinsky stated that Gorbachev simply refused to face the reality of the Soviet Union’s troubled ethnic landscape and the country experienced nationalist disturbances between 1988-9. When commenting on these disturbances, Gorbachev merely reaffirmed the situa- tion’s status quo, failing to deal with the underlying problems. He simplis- tically concluded that “Our party advocates a large and strong federal state, being convinced that this is in the interests of all peoples who have joined in the Soviet Union.”4 Nadia Diuk and Adrian Karatnycky also agreed that Gorbachev, and many top leaders in his administration, never expected nationality issues to threaten the Soviet Union, mistakenly believing that the system had solved the nationality problem.5

2 Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev. On My Country and the World. Trans. George Shriver. New York, 2000. P. 84; Mikhail Gorbachev. Memoirs / Georges Peronansky and Tatjana Varvasky (Trans.). New York, 1995. Pp. 326-327. 3 Robert G. Kaiser. Why Gorbachev. Pp. 416-417; Robert Strayer. Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? Understanding Historical Change. Armonk, 1998. Pp. 149-150. 4 Yaroslav Bilinsky. A Successful Perestroika in Nationality Relations? Or, An Essay to Grasp a Disintegrating Subject // Alfred J. Rieber and Alvin Z. Rubinstein (Eds.). Perestroika at the Crossroads. Armonk, NY, 1991. P. 236; M. S. Gorbachev. Vystuplenie General’nogo sekretaria TsK KPSS na Plenume TsK KPSS 19 sentiabra 1989 goda // Pravda. 1989. September 20. 5 Nadia Diuk and Adrian. Karatnycky. New Nations. P. 9. 421 M. Gayan, Gorbachev’s Reforms and the Beginning of a New History... Some of these same scholars also alluded to Gorbachev’s cultural insen- sitivity and sometimes called him an outright Russian nationalist. According to John Dunlop, Gorbachev’s “Soviet Man” was synonymous with a Rus- sian man. In addition, he consistently interchanged “Russian” for “Soviet” during his tenure as General-Secretary. Bilinksy also called Gorbachev pro- Russian because of the leader’s frequent appointments of Russian national- ists to his government and public praise of Russian literary legends, namely Dostoevsky (also a Russian nationalist).6 Perhaps the most famous example of his cultural mishaps occurred in Kazakhstan during the anti-corruption measures of 1986. Gorbachev replaced the longtime First-Secretary of the Kazakh Communist Party, Dinmukhamed Kunaev, whose two decades in power were full of patronage and corruption. It was expected, according to past Soviet policy, that an ethnic Kazakh would replace Kunaev. Instead, Gorbachev named Gennadi Kolbin, a Chuvash whom the Kazakhs considered to be a Russian, to replace Kunaev. The Kazakhs rioted in Almaty. In spite of the immediate and alarming violence, Gorbachev only replaced the Russian with an ethnic Kazkh, Nursultan Nazarbaev, three years later. Despite admitting that he ignored cultural sensitivities when appointing Kolbin, he still expressed shock at the level of protest in Almaty.7 Not only did the Kazakhs resent the fact that governmental decisions were made on behalf of their republic in Moscow, they also protested increased Russian domination in their political lives. Gorbachev’s own words, of course, portrayed him in a different light. He clearly believed in the notion of a unified Soviet citizenry. He also con- sidered the national question solved because of the level of unity achieved within the country. He thought this unity was impossible to accomplish without the cooperation of all and every of its more than one hundred nationalities. In 1988, he said that If the nationality question had not been solved in principle, the Soviet Union would never have had the social, cultural, economic, and defense potential it has now. Our state would not have survived if the republics

6 Ibid. Pp. 10-11; John B. Dunlop. Russia. Confronting a Loss of Empire. 1987-1991 // Political Science Quarterly. 1993-1994. Vol. 108. P. 609; Bilinsky. Successful Perestroika. Pp. 241-244. 7 Nadia Diuk and Adrian Karatnycky. New Nations. Pp. 10-11; R. Kaiser. Why Gorbachev. Pp. 150-151. Ben Eklof. Soviet Briefing Gorbachev and the Reform Period. Boulder, CO, 1989. P. 166; M. Gorbachev. My Country. P. 86. Gorbachev. Memoirs. Pp. 330-331. Gorbachev noted that Kunaev suggested Kolbin as his replacement. 422 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 had not formed a community based on brotherhood and cooperation, respect and mutual assistance.8 Despite scholarly condemnation of Gorbachev’s understanding of nationality issues, his writings on the topic revealed contradictions in his attitude. He believed, at least in theory, that every national culture was a treasure that the Soviet Union must protect. He spoke out against too much federal interference in the republics, which he thought contributed to ethnic tensions. At the same time, he warned nationalist groups against the separatism that inflamed differences and threatened the Soviet Union’s security. 9 Gorbachev’s actions also showed that he at least paid minimal attention to the Soviet Union’s national tensions. One of the earliest resolutions on the national question came during the 19th All-Party Conference of the Com- munist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in 1988. The resolution “On Rela- tions Between Soviet Nationalities” recognized the need to loosen central control of the republics and autonomous areas in order to ensure a cooperative national diversity rather than a forced unification. It also called for expanded opportunities for ethnic groups to fulfill national and cultural needs in com- munication, education, art, etc.10

Georgian Responses to Gorbachev’s Reforms

Gorbachev’s changes helped Georgia increase the legacy of political activism. The radical changes to the rigid structure of the Soviet govern- ment left many channels open for change. Consequently, the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (GSSR) experienced other types of protests during Gorbachev’s tenure. Many important events and groups emerged during this time, including environmental associations, organizations formed in honor of great Georgian historical figures, such as Ilia Chavchavadze, and, not surprisingly, movements in support of the Georgian language. Green movements flourished during the late 1980s and were particularly strong in Georgia. Perestroika, glasnost, and the Chernobyl catastrophe forced the Communist Party to face the environmental damage and legacy

8 Mikhail Gorbachev. Perestroika. New Thinking for Our Country and the World. New York, 1988. P. 104. 9 Ibid. Pp. 104-106. 10 Ibid. Pp. 282-285. Note the date of the resolution, at least three years after Gorbachev’s assumption of office. 423 M. Gayan, Gorbachev’s Reforms and the Beginning of a New History... its policies created and subsequently ignored. Gorbachev’s Soviet Union could not ignore environmental degradation because it became nationalized. Environmental protesters leveled charges against the central government concerning the reallocation of funds for environmental projects, the use of imported Russian labor over resident nationals in the republics, and ethnic discrimination in environmental issues.11 The protest over the Caucasian Mountain Railway (KPZhD) in August 1988 was a good example of both the changes Gorbachev’s reforms made in the political discourse of the republics and the strength of such environ- mental causes (or the futility of the central government’s environmental policy). The KPZhD was originally a nineteenth century proposal that the Bol- sheviks had reinvigorated three times by 1947. The plans lay dormant until 1984 when Moscow included it as part of the 1986-1990 Five-Year Plan. The railway was to extend over 300 miles, included eleven tunnels, and eighty-five bridges.12 Despite the fact that the railway would reduce the distance to the North Caucasus by at least 1600 miles, reducing travel time by eight hours, employ thousands of workers, and further develop the republic’s economy, many Georgian writers, academics, and scientists rallied against the govern- ment’s efforts. These protests were similar to the dissent emerging from environmental problems in other republics as well. Besides the common- place concerns that construction would damage indigenous flora and fauna, protesters cited archeological sites and at least one hundred historical monu- ments stood in railway’s path. They also argued that imported Russian workers would overwhelm isolated mountain communities and, most importantly, central planners failed to consult with Georgian experts and leaders before planning construction.13 Concerns about destruction of archeological and historical monuments, and more undue control from Moscow attracted Georgian nationalists to this debate. In May 1988, Dzhumber Patiashvili,14 the First-Secretary of the Com- munist Party of Georgia (CPG), showed a un-reformist attitude when he

11 Stephen F. Jones. The Caucasian Mountain Railway Project. A Victory for Glasnost? // Central Asian Survey. 1989. Vol. 8. P. 49. 12 Ibid. P. 50. 13 Ibid. Pp. 51-52. 14 Patiashvili replaced Shevardnadze as first secretary of the Georgian Communist Party (GCP) when the latter left Georgia to become Gorbachev’s foreign minister. The men had very divergent leadership philosophies that would become evident in the 1989 massacre. 424 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 unilaterally declared anyone against the KPZhD to be an enemy of the people and refused to allow any open dialogue about the project. The protesters persisted though and sent a petition with approximately 800 signatures to Moscow complaining about the Georgian leadership’s unwillingness to debate the issue. The Georgian-language newspaper Komunisti (Commu- nist) reported on August 29, 1988 that the government was delaying the project for one year. The protesters considered this a victory, even though the central government still expressed a commitment to the railway.15 The KPZhD protest, however, was small and relatively unimportant to the majority of Georgians. Intellectuals dominated the debate and the sup- posed risks were too obscure to motivate the general populace. This protest was similar to Gamsakhurdia’s campaigns in the 1970s to preserve Georgian cultural sites. The argument, nevertheless, demonstrated to many Georgians that there were new ways to conduct politics that the party leadership, especially the local leadership, had to acknowledge and accommodate. The CPG lost credibility with the populace after failing to resolve the railway problem and other demonstrations concerning proposed changes to the federal constitution. In an effort to regain its standing with the Georgian people, the party enacted the State Program for the Georgian Language on November 3, 1988. This policy called for the Georgianization of all state and cultural institutions. It allowed for a greater use and expression of Georgian historical symbols, such as the flag.16 These moves by the CPG were so extraordinary that some Georgian Soviet dissidents, such as Eduard Gudava, found it hard to hide his disbelief (and joy) that the CPG was able to implement these changes. Referring to the growth of the Georgian libera- tion movement in 1989, he said, “It developed and blossomed organiza- tionally, captured the spirit of the people and, most significantly, began to dominate with its ideological strength to which even Georgia’s Communist authorities and their agitprop were subordinated.”17 More importantly, these changes expanded on the growing trend of reexamining Georgian history. The local party actually printed two articles defending the reinterpretation of the republic’s history that addressed such

15 Jones. The Caucasian Mountain Railway Project. Pp. 54-55. 16 Stephen F. Jones. Glasnost, Perestroika and the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic // Armenian Review. 1990. Vol. 43. Pp. 135-136. Georgian motives regarding this policy elicited deep-seated resentment and suspicion from the autonomous South Ossetian and Abkhazian areas, with bloody consequences. 17 Eduard Gudava. Georgia. 1989 // Nationalities Papers. 1989. Vol. 17. P. 236. Emphasis mine. 425 M. Gayan, Gorbachev’s Reforms and the Beginning of a New History... politically sensitive issues as the 1921 Bolshevik invasion, the purges of the 1930s, and Georgian responsibility in the purges.18 Georgian historians contributed significantly to this movement. Akaki Surguladze charged that the 1921 Bolshevik invasion occurred because of the machinations of Stalin and Sergo Ordzhonikidze, not because of internal revolt as the official govern- ment record stated. Ushangi Sidamonidze built on Surguladze’s statements on the seventieth anniversary of the birth of the First Georgian Republic. He publicly asserted that many governments relegated key events in history, such as the dubious legitimacy of the Bolshevik invasion, to oblivion to political order. Sidamonidze declared that glasnost allowed Georgians to com- memorate the May 26th holiday, the anniversary of the First Republic, as the rebirth of Georgian independence.19 Unlike what was occurring in the Bal- tics, no one in Georgia was publicly prepared to call the Soviet annexation illegal. However, historical reassessment meant that academics were more comfortable publicly discussing things unfavorable to the Soviet government. Just as important was the emergence and public existence of many Geor- gian nationalist groups. The Center for Democracy in the USSR listed 23 different nationalist movements in Georgia at the beginning of 1990.20 While this fact was not unusual for the Soviet republics at the time, what was significant in Georgia’s case was that many of these groups reconnected with Georgia’s past as part of efforts to build its future. The most prolific group was the Ilia Chavchavadze Society, founded in October 1987. Described as a moderately centrist organization that initially focused on language, reli- gion, and the fatherland, it suffered a bitter split in March 1988. Gamsa- khurdia and Kostova founded a splinter group, the Society of St. Ilia the Righteous, also named after Chavchavadze. Other groups of this nature included the David Agmashenebeli (the Builder) Party21, with the motto “happiness for everybody,” and another called I.V. Stalin, which employed the motto “respect for the old, building the new.” The use of such potent historical symbols, according to Suny, reinforced and inflamed ethnic

18 This stage of the Georgian historical inquiry only touched the surface of the problems in Soviet versions of its history and how it would remember monumental characters such as Stalin, Beria, and Ordzhonikidze. 19 Elizabeth Fuller. Georgian Historians Reassess 1918 Declaration of Georgian Independence // RFE/RL. 1988. Pp. 3-4. Fuller accused the Georgians of lagging behind their cohorts in the Baltics and the Ukraine in reassessing their history. 20 Eduard Gudava. Georgia, 1989. 21 Members named this party after the Georgian King called David the Rebuilder (1089- 1125), who oversaw the unification of the Georgian kingdom in the early twelfth century. 426 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 divisions in the republic because they reminded Georgians of better times when their great kingdom was independent. However, these symbols also disturbed Georgia’s minorities and reminded them of how they were still politically subservient to Georgia.22

Consequences of Reform – The Tbilisi Massacre and Gamsakhurdia in Power

The changing political environment in Georgia further highlighted two significant events that occurred late in the Gorbachev era that profoundly impacted its relations with the Soviet Union and the minority populations in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Tbilisi Massacre and Gamsakhurdia’s rise to power both occurred because of ethnic tensions. Both events would inflame ethnic relations to the point of war, providing Russia with an avenue to remain involved in Georgia’s sovereign affairs after the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Georgian ability to conduct political protests relatively unimpeded would end in April 1989. Abkhazians feared the renewed Georgian patriotism that Moscow was no longer interested in suppressing and attempted to exploit the relaxed political structure for their own gain. In June 1988, during the 19th All-Party Conference of the CPSU, Abkhazians demanded the right to secede from Georgia and be absorbed into the Russian Federated Soviet Socialist Republic (RFSSR). Georgians responded with protests. Abkhazian leaders further fueled Georgian anger by declaring the autonomous region’s inde- pendence and equality with the Georgian state. Georgians again took to the streets in an effort to protect the territorial integrity of the republic.23 They would not accept Abkhazians, who comprised less than one-fifth

22 Jones. Glasnost, Perestroika. Pp. 142-145; Paata Javakhishvili (Ed.). International Centre for Civic Culture. Political Parties of Georgia Directory. Tbilisi, 1998. Pp. 37-38, 54, 76-77, 117-118; Ronald Suny. The Making of the Georgian Nation. Bloomington, 1994. P. 318. As a fundamental participant in the South Ossetian conflict, the Society of St. Ilia the Righteous showed the radicalization of Gamsakhurdia’s nationality policies. There were numerous political parties in Georgia during this time. They demonstrated how Georgian nationalists took advantage of their ensconced history to legitimize actions taken towards its independence. The Political Parties of Georgia Directory was an informative source, listing the structure, membership, platforms, and contact information for seventy- three officially registered parties that answered the institute’s questionnaire. Current political parties in Georgia number over 200. 23 Suny. The Making of the Georgian Nation. Pp. 322-323. Héléne Carrére d’Encausse. The End of the Soviet Empire. The Triumph of Nations. New York, 1993. Pp. 77-79. 427 M. Gayan, Gorbachev’s Reforms and the Beginning of a New History... of Abkhazia’s population in 1989, making demands for an area that Geor- gians considered an integral part of their state. On April 1, 1989, Abkhazians attacked a bus, which shuttled Chavcha- vadze Society members from Tbilisi to demonstrations in Abkhazia, causing an increase in the size and popularity of the Georgian protest. Within three days, the society mobilized more than 100,000 Georgians to demonstrate against Abkhaz separatism, paralyzing municipal services. Héléne Carrére d’Encausse and Jonathan Aves noted that Georgian political demands shifted from autonomy to complete independence at this time.24 The government’s actions during this protest (April 1-9) were, of course, difficult to authenticate. By April 8, the number of protesters in Tbilisi had dwindled considerably, but large demonstrations in Kutais and Sukhumi frightened the local administration. Patiashvili tried to mediate with the pro- testers, but failed to connect with popular sentiment as Shevardnadze had been able to do in 1978.25 Fearing more instability, the government decided to repress the rally in Tbilisi. At approximately four in the morning on April 9, government forces (mostly Soviet military forces with some support from Georgian police) tried to move the protesters off the city square. Using sharpened trench shovels, government forces attacked the protesters, many of whom were praying. Most sources claim that 16 to 20 people were killed and almost 300 wounded. Furthermore, government forces gassed the protesters, poisoning thousands.26

24 D’Encausse. The End of the Soviet Empire. P. 79. Jonathan Aves. The Rise and Fall of the Georgian Nationalist Movement, 1987-91 // Geoffrey A. Hosking, Jonathan Aves and Peter J. S. Duncan (Eds.). The Road to Post-Communism: Independent Political Move- ments in the Soviet Union 1985-1991. London, 1992. P. 161; Mark R. Beissinger. Natio- nalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge, 2002. Pp. 182, 184. 25 In 1978, Moscow proposed a new constitution for the Georgian SSR. One change included removing the Georgian language as the national language. This proposition resulted in the first large-scale political demonstration in Tbilisi on April 14, 1978. The pro- testers cursed Shevardnadze, then head of the GCP, when he first tried to address the crowd. Shevardnadze was able to return later that day to announce the withdrawal of the con- tentious change. The same pattern of events occurred later in Armenia and Azerbaijan. See Suny. The Making of the Georgian Nation. P. 309. 26 D’Encausse. The End of the Soviet Empire. Pp. 79-81. Beissinger. Nationalist Mobilization. Pp. 351-352; Diuk and Karatnycky. New Nations. P. 146; Bilinsky. Successful Perestroika. Pp. 244-245. All reports of dead are within this range but, none of the sources agreed on the same number. There also were reports of Georgian police trying to protect protesters after the attack began. Also, doctors complained afterwards that the government did not release details about the gases used on demonstrators, delaying effective medical treatment. This refusal to disclose vital information also occurred during the 2002 Moscow theatre siege. 428 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 The backlash against the Soviet government was immense. Gorbachev and his entourage, including Shevardnadze, returned from an official visit to London the day before the killings. Aides immediately informed him of events in Tbilisi. Shevardnadze and another aide were to leave the next day to negotiate with the protesters, but Patiashvili informed them in the evening that the situation was under control and Moscow’s intervention was no longer needed. Gorbachev vigorously maintained that the army was sent to Georgia without his knowledge and speculated that the local government in Georgia fell victim to Moscow’s political intrigues.27 In the light of the resulting deaths, the perpetrators of the massacre created a political nightmare for Gorbachev. The Georgian Supreme Soviet com- missioned Georgian professor Tamaz Shavgulidze to conduct an indepen- dent inquiry into the incident. The subsequent report described the govern- ment’s actions not as the dispersal of a meeting, but as an unlawful and criminal decision to bring an end to the protests. The event resulted in changes in Moscow as well. Gorbachev declared that the military would be forbidden from participating further in local matters without direct approval from the General-Secretary. He stayed true to his word, only sending the mili- tary into Azerbaijan on the pretext of protecting Armenians during one of the numerous violent episodes in Nagorno-Karabakh.28 Regardless of who was to blame for the purported Tbilisi Massacre, government dissenters used the tragedy and seventy years of simmering nationalism to galvanize more of the population against the central govern- ment. In an ancient land of warriors and blood feuds, Georgian nationalists categorized the memory of Tbilisi as a vital one for the national conscious- ness, just as important as the Treaty of Georgivesk, the 1801 Russian annexation, and certainly the 1921 Bolshevik invasion.29

27 Gorbachev. My Country. Pp. 94-95; Pavel Palazhchenko. My Years With Gorbachev and Shevardnadze. The Memoir of a Soviet Interpreter. University Park, 1997. Pp. 124-125; Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev Answers Critics // Izvestiia. 1989. May 26 // The Current Digest of the Soviet Press. 1989. June 21. P. 16. Dmitri Yazov, a general and Politburo member who was involved in the decision regarding Tbilisi, also participated in the August 1991 coup. This fact suggests that the army did act without Gorbachev’s knowledge and purposely did so to weaken him politically. 28 T. G. Shavgulidze. Zakliuchenie komissii Verkhovnogo Soveta Gruzinskoi SSR po rassledovaniiu obstoiatel’stv. imevshikh mesto 9 aprelia 1989 roda v gorode Tbilisi // Zaria Vostoka. 1989. October 5; Bilinsky. Successful Perestroika. Pp. 244-245; Gorbachev. My Country. P. 96. 29 Refer to G. Patsuriia. 9 Aprelia. Dokumental’nye svidetel’stva o tragicheskikh sobu- tiiakh v Tbilisi. Tbilisi, 1990 for the recorded Georgian response to the Tbilisi Massacre. 429 M. Gayan, Gorbachev’s Reforms and the Beginning of a New History... Gorbachev’s reforms and their consequences had one final outcome for Georgia’s impending independence, the loosening of local political controls that helped bring Gamsakhurdia to power. The Tbilisi Massacre finally ensured that Georgians lost all faith in the local communist party. Feeling betrayed by the central government and in fear of losing its power, the party did an about face after April 1989, allying itself with the Georgian nationalists. The Georgian Supreme Soviet issued a report in October 1989 censuring the central government’s actions in April. They also asserted Georgia’s right to internally handle its ethnic instability and to veto any all- Union laws that did not benefit Georgia. Givi Gumbaridze, Patiashvili’s replacement as CPG First-Secretary after the Tbilisi incident, affirmed that the CPG’s main goal was the restoration of the country’s independence. The Georgian Supreme Soviet declared in November 1989 its intent to secede from the Soviet Union by 1990 and declared that Georgia was illegally annexed by Bolshevik military intervention and occupation in 1921.30 This episode reflected similar events in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1989 when local leaders declared the 1940 Soviet annexation of the Baltic coun- tries illegal and invalid. These actions by the Supreme Soviet coincided with the first elections since the central government installed Gorbachev’s substantial electoral reforms under demokratizatsiia. These changes were another attempt to awaken political discourse and obtain a younger, more democratically minded cadre for the Soviet apparatus.31 The Georgians took this election opportunity seriously and responded with widespread political mobilization. Gamsakhurdia’s Free Georgia Round Table coalition won over 50 percent of the parliamentary vote in the October 1990 elections and resulted in his election as chairman of the Georgian Supreme Soviet. The Communist Party, which won nearly 30 percent of the vote, voluntarily entered into a coalition with the Round Table members.32 Gamsakhurdia’s tenure as head of Georgia’s Supreme Soviet led to the April 1991 referendum that restored Georgia’s independence based on the independence declaration from May 26, 1918. Riding on most Georgians’ hopes for freedom and prosperity, Gamsakhurdia was elected president of

30 Revaz Gachechiladze. The New Georgia. Space. Society. Politics. College Station, 1995. P. 38; Suny. The Making of the Georgian Nation. Pp. 323-324. 31 Strayer. Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? Pp. 110-111. 32 Aves. The Rise and Fall. Pp. 171-172; Independence Movement Gains the Georgian Round Table a Coalition Oflative [sic] Elections in the Transcaucasian Republic // Facts on File World News Digest. New York. 1990. November 2. 430 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 the republic the following May.33 Once he was securely in power, the true nature of Gamsakhurdia’s political objectives became clear. His quick proc- lamation of “Georgia for the Georgians” helped secure that ethnic support. Georgian nationalists supported him because he fought to restore Georgian independence. The country’s non-Georgian minorities, however, feared losing their power.34 Gamsakhurdia’s rise to power in part proves that Gorbachev’s reforms had just as much an effect on local government as well as it did on the Soviet federal government. The greater expression of divergent views without fear of government backlash and the restructuring of the political system that made room for more than just communist candidates were the main two reforms that most influenced the future Republic of Georgia. Glasnost not only enhanced opportunities for the traditional Soviet elites to express them- selves, but also expanded the opportunity for participation by non-elites in the process as well.35 Georgians saw a way to reclaim their statehood, stolen in the the early twentieth century, for the first time in seven decades. The victims of the Tbilisi Massacre clearly demonstrated that Georgian protests drew on a wide spec- trum of the population, including students and women. On the other hand, non-titular minorities such as the Ossetians and Abkhazians believed that they had to fight against Georgian efforts to assimilate them, which they regarded as attempted ethnic cleansing. With little legal recourse as ethni- cally defined autonomous areas, these groups appealed directly to Moscow for assistance. The uncertainty surrounding the last years of the Soviet Union severely polarized these diverging perceptions. These various groups turned debates about the new world order and turned them into battles for the very

33 D’Encausse. The End of the Soviet Empire. Pp. 262-263; Francis X. Clines. Secession Decreed by Soviet Georgia // New York Times. 1991. April 10. 34 Svetlana Chervonnaya. Conflict in the Caucasus. Georgia. Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow. Glastonbury, 1994. 35 D’Encausse. The End of the Soviet Empire. Pp. 262-263; Francis X. Clines. Secession Decreed by Soviet Georgia. New York Times. 1991. April 10. Gamsakhurdia continued his pro-Georgian tendencies by declaring in June 1990 in Literaturuli sakartvelo (a Georgian language literary newspaper) that mixed ethnic marriages were a threat to the Georgian nation. In that same publication in October he stated that the Republic of Georgia could only guarantee the safety of non-Georgians if they did not violate interests of the Georgian people. For more information see Julian Birch. The Georgian / South Ossetian Territorial and Boundary Dispute // John F. F. Wright, Suzanne Goldberg, and Richard Scholfield (Eds.). Transcaucasian Boundaries. New York, 1995. Pp. 166-168. Peter Nasmyth. Georgia in the Mountains of Poetry. New York, 1998. P. 191. James Brooke. As Centralized Rule Wanes, Ethnic Tensions Arise Anew in Soviet Georgia. New York Times. 1991. October 2. 431 M. Gayan, Gorbachev’s Reforms and the Beginning of a New History... existence of their respective nations’ ancient and glorious pasts. Claiming the right to preserve their nations became a battle to determine the rightful and historical owner of the disputed territories. The upcoming instability in this former Soviet republic revealed future foreign policy dilemmas for the fledgling Russian Federation. How the Russians decided to confront these problems clearly affected the outcome of these crises. Gorbachev’s perestroika policies had both negative and positive ramifi- cations in many areas. The policy’s relaxation of many repressive Soviet regulations helped shape ethnic relations within the Republic of Georgia. On the one hand, it did help provide groups as well as individuals with long-missing rights, such as the freedoms of speech, religion, and expres- sion (even if not absolute). These same freedoms, however, failed to address problems that the lack of these freedoms caused over the Soviet Union’s existence. Consequently, there was no model according to which these ethnic groups could cooperate without the mediation and/or interference of the central government in Moscow.

SUMMARY

Ïåðåñòðîéêà è, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ïîëèòèêà ãëàñíîñòè, óñêîðèëà ïðîöåññ ãðóçèíñêîãî íàöèåñòðîèòåëüñòâà, ÷òî â êîíå÷íîì èòîãå ïðèâåëî ê íåçàâèñèìîñòè Ãðóçèè. Îäíàêî ïàðàëëåëüíûå ïðîöåññû íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîáóæäåíèÿ ïðîèñõîäèëè â ñðåäå íåòèòóëüíûõ íàðîäîâ Ãðóçèè, ïðîâîöèðóÿ íàñèëèå è ïîäðûâàÿ ëåãèòèìíîñòü ãðóçèíñêîãî äâèæåíèÿ. Àâòîð ðàññìàòðèâàåò âûçðåâàíèå ýòîãî êîíôëèêòà â óñëîâèÿõ ïåðåñòðîéêè. Ì. Ãàÿí àíàëèçèðóåò âçãëÿäû Ãîðáà÷åâà ïî íàöèîíàëüíîìó âîïðîñó â ÑÑÑÐ, ðàññìàòðèâàåò, êàê ãðóçèíñêàÿ îáùåñòâåííîñòü èñïîëüçîâàëà ïðåäîñòàâëåííûå ïåðå- ñòðîéêîé âîçìîæíîñòè, àíàëèçèðóåò âëèÿíèå íà êóðñ íàöèåñòðîè- òåëüñòâà òàêèõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé. Âàæíåéøåé ñôåðîé íàöèî- íàëüíîé àêòèâíîñòè â Ãðóçèè ñòàëà èñòîðèîãðàôèÿ. Èññëåäîâà- òåëü äåëàåò âûâîä, ÷òî â òî âðåìÿ êàê ãðóçèíñêîå íàöèîíàëüíîå äâèæåíèå âñå áîëüøå îòâîðà÷èâàëîñü îò Ìîñêâû, äâèæåíèÿ íåòè- òóëüíûõ íàðîäîâ (îñåòèí è àáõàçîâ) ñîïðîòèâëÿëèñü àññèìèëÿöèè è âîçëàãàëè ñâîè íàäåæäû íà Ìîñêâó. Ãîðáà÷åâñêàÿ ìîäåëü ðåøåíèÿ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðîáëåì íå ïðåäëàãàëà ìåõàíèçìà ðàçðåøåíèÿ ïîäîáíûõ êîíôëèêòîâ è ìîäåëè âûõîäà èç íèõ. Åäèíñòâåííûì ñïîñîáîì îñòàâàëîñü ïîñðåäíè÷åñòâî/âìåøàòåëüñòâî Ìîñêâû. 432 Whither Anti-Stalinism? Kathleen E. Smith

“If we agree that the symbols of the preceding epochs, including the Soviet epoch, must not be used at all, we will have to admit then that our mothers’ and fathers’ lives were useless and meaningless, that their lives were lived in vain. Neither in my head nor in my heart can I agree with this.” Vladimir Putin, 2000 “I share the anger and indignation of all Soviet people about the mass repressions which occurred in the thirties and forties and for which the party-state leadership of the time is to blame. But common sense resolutely protests against the monochrome depiction of contradictory events which has become prevalent in some press organs…” [1] Nina Andreeva, 1988

Have the views of Nina Andreeva, as expressed in her famous anti-glasnost epistle, now become more popular than ever? In justifying his support for preserving the music of the old Soviet anthem, President Putin similarly called for a generous approach to remembering the communist era. Indeed, Nina Andreeva’s preference for a national history in which unfortunate events remained in the shadows while feats of labor, military valor, and artistic accomplishment took center stage seems little different from Putin’s ideal portrayal of Russia’s past. Yet, it would be intemperate to dub Putin a neo-Stalinist or to place him in the camp of socialist diehards. What Putin shares with perestroika era conservatives, I would argue, is disaffection with anti-Stalinism rather than admiration for Stalinism. This essay comments on the fate of anti-Stalinism in the post-perestroika period and offers an interpretation as to its present unpopularity. Rereading in 2004 Nina Andreeva’s impassioned protest against sensationalist stories of Stalinist crimes, one is struck by the artful fashion in which she posed her argument in favor of a positive version of national history. Nina Andreeva introduced herself to readers as a teacher concerned about the patriotic upbringing of young people. She framed her fears about anti-Stalinism with the example of students questioning a decorated veteran of World War II about repressions in the army. Nina Andreeva cited some listeners’ disappointment and disbelief when the colonel told them that he had not encountered any. “Now that it has become topical,” she warned, “the subject of repressions has been blown out of all proportion in some young people’s imagination and overshadows any objective interpretation of the past.” She went on to observe that criticism of the past had ballooned to the extent that, “Industrialization, collectivization, and cultural revolution, which brought our country into the ranks of great world powers, are being forcibly squeezed into the formula ‘cult of personality’.” She vehemently rejected the idea that the purges should color perceptions of a whole complex era. In her carefully crafted letter, Nina Andreeva placed herself in the same camp as the experienced old veteran. She contrasted his real memories (and her family’s experiences) with the media-generated false impressions held by naпve youths. In this morality tale, the teacher and the colonel stood for patriotism and wisdom. In trying times they were defending the achievements of socialism and continuing the Party tradition of service by mentoring the new generation. As an experienced moral guide [vospitatel’nitsa], Nina Andreeva was warning Gorbachev that the young generation was alienated from reform and that obsession with repressions was producing nihilistic attitudes. By directly connecting interest in past crimes and current pessimism, Nina Andreeva was explicitly challenging Mikhail Gorbachev’s rationale for permitting discussion of socialism’s mistakes. During the years of perestroika, Gorbachev consistently took a very pragmatic stance toward Soviet history. Soviet people needed, in his view, to be cognizant of shortcomings of past Soviet leaders and policies. Complacency could not mobilize the “human factor.” Therefore, Party leaders had to take the initiative in pointing out problems and their historical roots. Though he endorsed glasnost as a means to promote constructive criticism, Gorbachev himself did not test its bounds. Even as Memorial chapters sprang up across the Soviet Union and as intellectuals began to identify the roots of Stalinism in Leninism, Gorbachev continued to approach criticism of the past as a tool for motivating reformers, not as an inherently good thing. He epitomized reformism on the subject of Stalinism. Though his own evaluation of Stalin was clearly negative, he was not deaf to conservatives’ pleas for restraint. He too feared that reform might gather too much momentum and sweep away the foundations of socialism. Gorbachev was right to worry. Anti-Stalinism often did lead to anti-Sovietism. Indeed, disappointment with Gorbachev’s cautious approach to coming to terms with past repressions served as a catalyst for radicalization for many people. Party officials’ hindrance of measures to commemorate victims of Stalinism, their reluctance to countenance a reevaluation of collectivization, combined with ever more revelations in the press about the horrors of the Soviet past bred disillusionment about the Soviet system’s capacity for change. In some people, continued dissembling about the extent of past repressions [2] inspired an increasingly fierce commitment to total democratization. By the time of the first Congress of People’s Deputies in March 1990, Soviet citizens were attuned to debates about the past and the future. At the Congress, the nation was bombarded with harsh truths from the podium and it seemed as if a turning point had been reached. Even a conservative crackdown would not be able to erase new understandings about the consequences of the socialist experiment in Russia. Defenders of Stalin and Stalinism had been pushed to the margins. With a sense of success, activists who had begun by organizing around the issue of commemorating Stalin’s victims shifted their [3] attention to more contemporary political topics. Ironically, however, the emotional catharsis achieved by glasnost and its tidal wave of truth-telling about Russia’s painful past had started to dissipate by the time of the actual downfall of the Soviet system. By 1991, even faithful readers of liberal editions seemed weary of history, impervious to tragic tales, and understandably preoccupied with their own survival in a precarious economy. Capitalist woes may have fostered nostalgia for Brezhnev era prices and stability, but I would argue that ultimately disenchantment with anti-Stalinism had more to do with the actions and inaction of politicians and propagandists. While Gennadii Ziuganov and other communists sought to rehabilitate the Party’s record of leadership, liberal intellectuals and politicians focused on other issues. In my opinion, the Yeltsin administration squandered the opportunity to institutionalize a revised version of Soviet history in the process of creating a new state. I see two primary reasons for this failure: first, Yeltsin and his advisors thought that an anti-Soviet (including anti-Stalinist) consensus had been firmly consolidated by 1991; second, they considered propaganda (including promotion of a national identity) to be one of the ignoble aspects of totalitarian regimes. Democrats believed, therefore, that they neither needed to nor ought to use state resources in promoting a politicized version of the past. In my book, Mythmaking in the New Russia, I examine lack of official commemoration of the August Coup defeat, the belated trial of the Communist Party before the Constitutional Court, and the feeble celebration of Russia’s new national day for evidence of liberal politicians’ laissez faire attitudes toward crafting legitimating myths for the new Russian state. Lack of anti-Stalinist initiative was most evident in the genesis of the so-called “trial of the CPSU” – which stemmed not from democrats’ interest in evaluating the past, but from Communists’ desire to save their old party organization. In the first years in power, the Yeltsin government eschewed pompous parades and displays of state symbolism, but did not create new national celebrations. Liberals mocked communists love of public demonstrations and banners, but did not mobilize their supporters in any way. In the early years of the new Russian state, few liberal politicians were disturbed by polemics defending Stalin and Lenin. It was easy to dismiss rants by Viktor Anpilov, Ziuganov, and others as the last words of a dying ideology. Even the KPRF’s strong showing in the 1993 parliamentary election evoked mostly ridicule in the form of references to a communist electorate of brainwashed pensioners. Not surprisingly, however, one of the few people to react strongly to the resurgence of the Communist Party was Aleksandr Iakovlev, the most liberal of Gorbachev’s former advisors. In 1988, Iakovlev had written the authoritative response to Nina Andreeva’s missive. In that unsigned Pravda editorial, Iakovlev had defended anti-Stalinism and attacked the notion of patriotism based on the search for internal enemies. He wanted to see a new patriotism grounded in constructive deeds for the good of the country and a new morality based on respect for the truth. Liberals did not disdain the contributions of millions of ordinary citizens during the Stalin era, he argued, but – unlike Nina Andreeva and her ilk – neither did they interpret honest labor and loyal service as indications of popular support for Stalinist [4] illegality. By 1993, Iakovlev was clearly worried that nostalgia for the past might be conducive to a whitewashing of Stalinism. In the aftermath of the disappointing parliamentary election results, for instance, he pushed Yeltsin to take the step of publicly rehabilitating the participants in the Kronstadt uprising of 1921. Speaking for the President, Aleksandr Iakovlev emphasized that the decree was intended to confirm the view that repressions, executions, and deportations of civilians began already under Lenin. He sought to force the Communists, and by inference their supporters, to “look at the bloody trail you [5] left and to draw a lesson.” Meanwhile, the Russian Communist Party blithely followed the template demonstrated by Nina Andreeva; it kept positive slogans such as “for our Soviet motherland,” while declaring that it was not “the party of Trotsky and Beria, Vlasov and Iakovlev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin.” In the new Russia unpleasant truth-telling seemed to be losing out to facile scapegoating in the struggle for popular support. In the 1990s, the KPRF and other nationalists were winning popular acclaim for their defense of trophy art and for their attacks on Western cultural colonization. Conservative nationalists and reformed communists had captured the patriotic high ground with their rhetoric about the Great Patriotic War. Finally, with the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of victory in World War II, the Yeltsin government seemed to bow to the need for some state patriotism to compete with the Communists’ claims to represent national pride. Liberals had tried to dispel any nostalgia for the old Soviet-style celebrations by recalling the pompous nature of official events and war memorials under the old regime. Under communism, after all, official commemorations had focused first on Stalin then on Brezhnev rather than on the contributions of ordinary soldiers. The new Russian government had not paraded on Red Square. The notion that Victory Day should be marked in low key celebrations by former soldiers and their families was intended to appeal to veterans’ pride in their own actions and also to reinforce the democrats’ preferred version of victory as having come in spite of the Stalinist state. But, as competition between democrats and Communists over patriotic credentials heated up, democrats reconsidered their earlier experimentation with untraditional forms of marking Victory Day. In 1995, the Yeltsin administration invested considerable financial and diplomatic resources in marking the jubilee anniversary of Victory Day with showy military parades. Both the use of Red Square and the presence of foreign dignitaries added to the authority of the ceremonies. Besides reviving the form of celebrating through a display of military might, the Russian government also “rehabilitated” Soviet symbols perceived to be close to the hearts of veterans. In 1995, they allowed the red victory banner with its five-pointed star to be hung alongside the Russian tricolor; and in 1996, the military parade featured the actual Soviet flag that flew over the Reichstag in 1945. Moreover, in his 1996 address Yeltsin declared that, “All the country now clearly sees the continuity of times contained in our symbols, the proud [6] spirit of the motherland in the unity of generations, in each of us.” Despite Yeltsin’s proclamation of patriotic continuity with the Soviet period and his revival of old authoritative political rituals and symbols, he and other liberals retained their untraditional perspective that the Soviet Union had won the war in spite of, not because of, Stalin. Though by 1995 liberals had begun to tone down reminders of the horrors of war and to avoid explicit critiques of wartime policies, they continued to recall the USSR’s defeats, as well as its victories, on the battlefields of World War II. And they traced the roots of Russia’s present woes back to the totalitarian system, which they argued had begun in 1917 and which had been inadvertently strengthened by [7] the USSR’s victory in the war. The new patriotic mix, however, did not always ring true. A Nezavisimaia Gazeta correspondent complained of the contradictory messages sent by the 1995 ceremonies: “...the synthesis of great power status [derzhavnichestva] and democracy clearly did not succeed. The ritual of the first parade of the “democratic epoch”: the leader on the mausoleum, the minister of defense inspecting the columns of soldiers from an open car to a loud “hurrah” – was totally in accord with the scenarios of Soviet times. The Red banners with hammers and sickles supplanted the tricolor, and Soviet marches and songs sounded out more often [8] than the Russian hymn.” In other words, the ceremonies were now too Soviet, and yet still did not accomplish their goal of uniting all Russian citizens. Indeed, political opponents of the Yeltsin regime, although pleased for veterans’ sakes with the return of the Red flag to the official celebrations, ridiculed democrats for hanging garlands over Lenin’s name on the mausoleum. “Recycling” Soviet symbols had pitfalls for those who had scorned them so vigorously in the recent past. Nevertheless, Yeltsin soon found himself again turning to the past as a resource in his 1996 election campaign. Initially, Yeltsin followed the advice of those in his inner circle who advocated against an anticommunist strategy. In his early speeches, Yeltsin told voters that, “We have ceased to see the world in terms of red and white. Before our eyes it became multicolored, vivid, and [9] bright.” Billboards proclaiming “Yeltsin is our Presi-dent” and “Yeltsin is the President of All Russia” proliferated. But with his main opponent running on a platform that combined nostalgia for the Soviet past and Russian nationalism, Yeltsin could not avoid taking a stance on national history. In this case, however, he was able to mobilize divisive collective memories to his advantage. Despite the forward-looking campaign envisioned by his advisors, Yeltsin’s most powerful advertisements made striking use of black and white images, group portraits of young people taken in the 1940s and 1950s, and more recent photos of veterans. The smiling faces of today’s grandparents were accompanied by the simple handwritten text: “I believe, I love, I hope” and Yeltsin’s signature. Television clips from the same series featured old family snapshots and voice-overs recalling the good and bad of the past, followed by a contemporary shot of the speaker explaining, often in less than enthusiastic terms, why despite the difficulties of the present he or she would vote for Yeltsin. Carefully choosing excerpts that focused on the hardships of the past and hopes for the future, the ads’ designers skimmed over the problems of the present day, problems that might easily be ascribed to Yeltsin’s administration. The unadorned personal histories collected by the Yeltsin campaign contrasted sharply with the official, faceless version of the past long propagated by Soviet history textbooks. Although the short clips did not provide complex narratives of the past, they did directly challenge the nostalgia for the Brezhnev era promoted by the KPRF. Yeltsin’s “Vote or Lose” posters were also calculated to draw on differences between life before and after the end of the Soviet system. They juxtaposed a denim jacket versus a prisoner’s striped coat, a globe versus a coil of barbed wire, and a person’s feet shod in sneakers versus the bronze legs of a statue. Thus, designers placed once rare western consumer goods next to objects evoking two of the most disliked aspects of Soviet life – the GULAG and the cult of the leader. The “Vote or Lose” posters not only recalled consumerist pleasures, they also reminded young people of the sorts of freedom – to travel, to speak out, to enjoy foreign cultures – that their parents had not had. Without actually using political symbols, the ads drew a sharp contrast between the ideological monopoly of the past and the freedom of the present, and hence contributed to the Yeltsin team’s emerging theme that this election constituted a choice between polar opposite political systems, not just between personalities or policies. Toward the end of the campaign, the Yeltsin team moved beyond gentle reminders of stagnation to frighten viewers with the prospect of a second communist revolution complete with bloodshed, turmoil, even civil war. The same advisor who had discouraged anticommunist campaigning in April 1996 was telling journalists in June that Russian Communists had not evolved into social democrats as in Poland. On the contrary, he argued, their program reeked “not even of Khrushchev’s era, but of long ago Stalinist times, of the 1930s.” He accused the KPRF of trying to hide its real face, which was that its orthodox communist members, like the supporters of the GKChP conspiracy [10] Varennikov and Luk’ianov. Rather than addressing Ziuganov’s record or program, the president’s team articulated negative aspects of the CPSU’s whole seventy-year history. “Either back to revolution and upheaval, or forward to stability and well-being,” as Yeltsin announced after the conclusion of the first [11] round of voting. Yeltsin won with his creation of a stark choice between the past and the present. Yet just a few weeks after winning reelection, President Yeltsin would announce that Russia needed a national idea. He asserted that, unlike every other period of modern Russian history, the new democratic era had no ideology. Hence, he called upon his supporters to “think about what national [12] idea, what national ideology is the most important for Russia.” His administration quickly assembled a commission to head the search, and Rossiiskaia Gazeta immediately initiated a year-long contest for readers to identify or compose a set of principles capable of inspiring Russian citizens to unite as a nation. The notion that Russia was suffering from an identity crisis came as no surprise to the politically aware in 1996. The simultaneous collapse of Communist rule and the Soviet empire in late 1991 had given new life to centuries-old intellectual debates on the nature of Russia’s national interest and the proper definition of the nation. But what motivated the members of the Yeltsin administration to admit that they had failed to unite citizens around democratic or other values at a juncture when they might have rested on their laurels? In part, I would argue, the political establishment was motivated by the fear that the anti-Stalinist and anti-Communist rhetoric employed so frequently in Yeltsin’s 1996 campaign would not suffice in the future to mobilize voters around economic reformers. Although Yeltsin’s advertising designers cleverly used individual life stories, rather than national narratives, to present reasons for voters to stick with the president in 1996, these ads reflected democrats’ inability to distill personal stories into simple symbols or historical analogies. Neither the Yeltsin administration nor liberal political parties had been able to discover or “manufacture” some potent, meaningful [13] shorthand to communicate their principles to the public. Communists, by contrast, were seen as having at their disposal a symbolic repertoire replete with flags, songs, and myths of past military, scientific, and economic achievements. Few elements of the Communists’ patriotic armory appealed to the liberals per se, but some democrats now embraced the notion of having a set of positive memories to invoke as markers of a shared political identity. As Yeltsin’s future advisor on the Russian idea put it on the eve of the presidential election, “When totalitarianism was being destroyed, the idea of ideology was being destroyed, too. The idea was formed that a national idea was a bad thing. But the baby was thrown out with the [14] bath water. Our Kremlin polls show that people miss this.” In other words, whereas the Communists, in effect, had partially compensated for the unpopularity of Marxism-Leninism by rapidly embracing patriotism, democrats had mistakenly shunned patriotic rhetoric and rituals as somehow exclusive to totalitarian regimes. When Yeltsin stepped down as president three years later, however, he had not found a new “idea for Russia” and the contest initiated by his advisors had been quietly discontinued without a winner. One problem was that the broad, abstract nature of the enterprise allowed for extreme diversity and encouraged high-minded rhetoric. Readers’ ideas for the nation ranged from “communication” to “repentance” to “empire.” Others tried to coin modern versions of the old imperial slogan “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality.” For instance, one person suggested “Health, Unity (or sobornost’), Charity” as a [15] new statement of priorities. To a certain extent, the contest entries simply mirrored Russian society’s diverse concerns about economic development, Russia’s status in the world, federalism, the environment, and so forth. Yet, unlike the Communists’ invocation of specific heroes and concrete collective memories, the liberals’ discussion of cultural traditions did not excite any patriotic fervor. Lists of virtues or sets of priorities neither provided blueprints for action nor sparked strong emotional reactions. It seemed that myths of national character could not substitute for narratives about statehood. Despite the fact that the oceans of ink spent printing ruminations about Russia’s special path produced no winning pithy formula or catchy slogan, the “idea for Russia” contest did offer several revelations about the potential grounds for “democratic patriotism.” Not surprisingly, as a source of positive role models or moral lessons, the Soviet period was conspicuously absent. On the anniversary of the October Revolution in 1996, Yeltsin spoke of a “Year of Reconciliation.” But his recasting of the anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution as an occasion for forgiveness and mutual tole-rance appealed to neither Communists nor anti-Stalinists. A second interesting feature of the “idea for Russia” contest was its revelation of a strong disdain on the part of many “liberal” patriots for the dissident tradition. The contest’s opening announcement quoted Andrei Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, implying that contest participants might find the roots of a democratic Russian patriotism in the brave actions and intriguing philosophies of those who had dared to challenge Soviet rule. Yet, not only did few participants point to the dissidents as heroes, but also several authors denigrated their role in the history of democratization. In a series of sharply written articles, political scientist, member of Yeltsin’s Commission on Human Rights, and frequent Rossiiskaia Gazeta contributor, Aleksei Kiva explained that the former dissidents had no place in modern Russian society. Having been accustomed to fighting authority and to mistrusting officials, they, according to Kiva, had little to offer now that the time had come for constructive work. He alleged that, “For a long time, if not forever, they will feel closer to the person on the defendant’s bench than to the person who guards him.” Hence, he thought that they made unsuitable candidates for government service. Indeed, just as Solzhenitsyn’s return in 1994 had provoked a fair amount of scorn for the would-be moral authority who came to Russia with harsh criticism for all politicians only after reform was well under way, so too did the whole dissident tradition come under fire from supporters of the Yeltsin regime for being overly judgmental. The dissidents’ highly developed consciences had led them to hold all governments to strict standards. Such attitudes, Kiva believed, led former dissidents like Sergei Kovalev to exa-cerbate Russian relations with the breakaway republic of Chechnya by siding with the underdogs, rather than supporting the guardians of law and order. Kiva felt that too often human rights activists praised the West and scorned the idea of love for state and army. In short, he blamed the dissidents, along with radical democrats, for fostering Russians’ inferiority [16] complex. In sum, from a variety of commentators in the late 1990s came the sentiment that previous liberal attitudes toward the national past had been too critical. Outspoken anti-Soviet stances no longer garnered praise. Though purveyors of a new patriotism certainly did not rush to embrace the Soviet period, they wanted all Russian citizens to be able to take satisfaction in their long shared history. Indeed, although Yeltsin did not directly contribute to the “idea for Russia” contest, he seemed to signal an important change of heart toward dealing with the past with his call for reconciliation on the 1996 anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. The president, who had fiercely opposed amnesty for his political opponents in 1994 and who had recently campaigned with harsh anti-Communist rhetoric, now appeared ready to adopt a more forgiving attitude for the sake of harmony. In practice, however, reconciliation promised to carry its own difficulties. Besides burying Nicholas II, and not interring Lenin, the Yeltsin government did not realize its idea of making conciliatory gestures for the sake of creating or reinforcing patriotic culture. Vladimir Putin from the very first eschewed Yeltsin’s relatively laissez faire style of mythmaking. In one of his first appearances as prime minister, Putin warned Moscow State University students that, “Sausage and freedom” [17] would not do as an idea for Russia. Neither a market zealot nor a Western-style liberal, Putin’s view on national history is probably closer to Egor Ligachev’s than to Aleksandr Iakovlev’s. Looking back after the end of the USSR, Ligachev has argued that, “At first this striving to restore historical justice was salutary: it emancipated people’s minds, liberated them from a feeling of fear, and generated initiative… But later, the stress shifted and some writers started talking about past lawlessness caustically, gloatingly; with castigation rather than healing… In so doing, they were leading the readers to a single conclusion: the social system was guilty of everything, and therefore had to be [18] changed.” Putin has benefited from the new political system, but as an ardent patriot he is suspicious of anyone who dwells on national misfortunes. He probably shares the mistaken, in my opinion, view that anti-Stalinists were gloating over every new tragic revelation about the past. (It seems to me that anti-Stalinists’ sometimes exultant tone was more often due to joy and triumph at having rescued another piece of long hidden information.) Putin’s attitudes toward Soviet history became clear in the debate over the Russian anthem. Liberal politicians and intellectuals accused Putin of pandering to public opinion and of honoring a repressive regime with the restoration of the Soviet anthem. Even Yeltsin criticized his heir: “The president of a country should not blindly follow the mood of the people. On the contrary, [19] it is up to him to actively influence it.” But Putin defended the compromise that finally brought Russia a full set of state symbols. In terms reminiscent of Ziuganov’s campaign speeches, the president reminded opponents of the anthem that the Soviet period had consisted of more than “Stalin’s prisons and repression.” He cited Soviet achievements in space and culture, while noting [20] that the tsarist regime “had repressed peoples and dissidents of its own.” Yeltsin had been willing to appease veterans by producing the red banner on Victory Day. But it was one thing to recognize a historic relic as such, and another thing to adopt an old symbol as relevant and fitting in the present. Liberals never endorsed forgetting that Russians had fought, sometimes died, and finally triumphed in World War II under the communist flag. But they had come to power based on a promise to replace the Soviet regime with a democratic variant and, even though that promise had not been fully realized, they could not look at the old system as anything other than a foil to what they wanted to create. Yeltsin had tried to mend the breach between those who looked back with nostalgia and those who scorned the past by urging depoliticization of history. By burying the Romanovs, he removed one locus of acrimony, but Yeltsin and his allies could not really reconcile with the Soviet era. Putin, by contrast, seems free of the liberal habit of soul-searching. He has expressed no regrets or qualms about his own career in the KGB, apparently seeing no contradictions between his past work and his more recent service in ostensibly democratic administrations – first under Sobchak in St. Petersburg and then under Yeltsin. As befit his personal history, Putin easily endorsed an amalgam of Soviet and Russian symbols for the state. In this, he clearly showed that he did not share earlier democratic leaders’ self-consciousness about borrowing from the Soviet political repertoire or their discomfort with patriotic pomp. Yet Putin’s disdain for invoking “inverse legitimacy,” that is, for holding up the old regime as a negative example, should not be ascribed solely to a more tolerant attitude toward communism. It also reflects the priority that the new president has given to strengthening state power. Whereas Yeltsin was motivated by the tasks of transition to underscore breaks with the past, Putin acts in accordance with the idea that consolidation can be promoted by [21] avoiding divisive memories whenever possible. In theory, both transition and consolidation could involve extracting positive lessons from the past, but Russian liberals never identified some “golden age” from which to draw guidance or inspiration. Some intellectuals were happy to live without historic myths – preferring critical approaches to the past to patriotic simplifications – but humility regarding the nation’s common history created the impression of weakness and even shame, sentiments unappealing to statebuilders. Does this statist approach to mythmaking mean the inevitable rehabilitation of Stalin? Not necessarily. Putin has not echoed Ziuganov’s praise for Stalin as a great military leader, sincere nationalist, or nurturer of Russian culture. Nor has he endorsed the logic behind positive reinterpretations of Stalin’s leadership. But the statist motivation does require remembering industrialization and the conduct of World War II at the very least as unmitigated successes. While liberals and historians still ask to what extent Stalinist policies facilitated or undermined these processes, these questions are to be absent from state commemorations of the past. Without such analysis, in my opinion, one gets a dumbed-down, overly simplistic and hence fragile patriotism. National myths that do not allow for complexity cannot hold up well in the complexities of the real world. An insistence on honoring the positive also allows for a creeping rehabilitation of Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, and other historical figures who have some record of state service amidst their myriad of disservice to individuals. Like Yeltsin, Putin would prefer to focus on the contributions of more ordinary people to the achievements of the Soviet state. Yet given his determination to weld disaffected Russian citizens into a patriotic collective, Putin seems nostalgic for the 1930s and 1940s (or at least for their cinematic version) as a time of apparent unity, mobilization, militancy, and morality. The fact that horrible totalitarian excesses also characterized these decades is not denied, but simply ignored. All the negative events take place off screen in this historical drama. Putin’s attempt to have the best of both worlds with the national anthem – keeping the form while changing the content – is unlikely, however, to have the desired effect of resolving the controversy over state symbols. The multiplicity of Russia’s anthems – from “God save the Tsar” to the “Internationale” to Stalin’s anthem to Glinka’s “Patriotic Song” – rightfully reflects the nation’s turbulent history. Twice Russia even had music without words: first, after Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin, when lyrics praising the late leader proved an embarrassment; and in 1991, when a new melody was chosen, but suitable words could not be found. Given the fundamental divisions in Russia today, the writer Vladimir Voinovich contended that the recent absence of words in the national song was appropriate. The words of the anthem should express national identity, he noted. Yet, “What image can we have if we ourselves do not know who we are? We know what the Soviet Union was, and tsarist Russia also. But what is Russia today? Some pray to Jesus Christ, while others bow down before the chief atheist in the [22] mausoleum.” Putin’s pragmatic approach to overcoming the deadlock on state symbols by granting concessions to the Soviet part of the Russian people could not end the battle over what to take from the past. It simply reaffirmed the extent of divisions. The emotions unleashed by the reinstatement of Stalin’s anthem, complete with new lyrics by one of the co-authors of the original, serve as a reminder that historical amnesia has not prevailed in Russia. When Communists, liberals, and statists have attempted to strip symbols of their context, all have encountered resistance. Images of the past are not infinitely malleable. The Russian experience shows that politicians can neither escape the past, nor mold it completely to their will. Collective memories are shaped gradually and hence the struggle over interpretations of the nation’s common history will persist as Russians continue to forge new identities. In the future critical approaches to the Stalinist past may come back in fashion. For the present, anti-Stalinists can console themselves with the knowledge that all the historical revelations of the past two decades cannot be stuffed back into Pandora’s box.

[1] Quotations are from: Patrick E. Tyler. Soviet Hymn is Back, Creating Much Discord // New York Times. 2000. December 6. P. A1; Nina Andreeva. Ne mogu postupat’sia printsipami // Sovetskaia Rossiia. 1988. March 13. [2] For a fascinating analysis of individual motivations for pro-democracy sentiments, Alexander Lukin. The Political Culture of the Russian “Democrats”. Oxford, 2000. [3] On the decline of the Memorial Society, see: Kathleen E. Smith. Remembering Stalin’s Victims. Popular Memory and the End of the USSR. Ithaca, NY, 1996. [4] Printsipy perestroiki. Revoliutsionnost’ myshleniia i deistvii // Pravda. April 5. 1988. [5] Cited by Serge Schmemann. Yeltsin Extols 1921 Rebellion // New York Times. 1994. January 11. P. 3. [6] Cited in Lee Hockstader. Politics in the Aftermyth of War // Washington Post. 1996. May 10. P. A32. [7] For liberal mythologizing about the war, see: Evgenii Aleksandrov. Nastoiashchii prazdnik ne otmenit nikto. 9 maia – Den’ pobedy // Nezavisimaia Gazeta. 1994. May 7. P. 1; Otto Latsis. My ne zabudem, kto bral Berlin, dazhe esli komu-to ne khochetsia ob etom vspominat’ // Izvestiia.1994. May 7. P. 1. [8] Evgenii Krasnikov. Oppozitsiia // Nezavisimaia Gazeta.1995. May 11. P. 1. [9] Speech of April 9, 1996, reproduced in: Obshcherossiiskoe dvizhenie obshchestvennoi podderzhki B. N. El’tsina na vyborakh Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Moscow, 1996. Pp. 5-20. Quote p. 6. [10] Interview with Filatov // Vercherniaia Moskva.1996. June 9. [11] B. El’tsin. Vmeste – my pobedim! // Rossiiskaia Gazeta. 1996. June 18. [12] El’tsin o nasional’noi idee // Nezavisimaia Gazeta.1996. July 13. P. 1. [13 Regarding awareness of the need to translate ideas into “a language of images, metaphors,” see: Aleksandr Rubtsov. V ozhidanii idei // Nezavisimaia Gazeta.1997. November 4. P. 5; see also Michael Urban’s discussion of “technologies of discourse” which shape the social world by establishing the ensemble of words, expressions and symbols that can be meaningfully communicated about it. Michael Urban. Remythologising the Russian State // Europe-Asia Studies. 1998. Vol. 50. No 6. P. 969. [14] Georgii Satarov cited in David Remnick. Hammer, Sickle, and Book // New York Review of Books. 1996. May 23. P. 46; see also: Viacheslav Kostikov. Vremia vlastvovat’ postupkami // Moskovskie Novosti. 1996. September 22-29. P. 28. [15] Iurii Grechishkin. Akh muzhik, davai poobshchaemsia! // Rossiiskaia Gazeta. 1996. September 10. P. 3; Valentin Miloserdov. Vsiu zhizn’ ia byl kulach’em nedobitym // Ibid. 1996. December 19. P. 3; Aleksei Firsanov. Ne putaite imperiiu chuvstv, bankov ili sala s velikoi derzhavoj // Ibid. 1996. December 5. P. 5; Vladimir Mordashev. My, konechno, ne amerikantsy. No ne glupee zhe ikh // Ibid. 1996. September 17. P. 5. [16] Aleksei Kiva. Blesk i nishcheta // Rossiiskaia Gazeta. 1997. February 20. P. 5; 1997. February 21. Pp. 4, 5. For another typical attack on the role of dissidents in contemporary Russia, see: Viktoria Sharinova. Pravozashchitniki i sovremennaia Rossiia // Segodnia. 1996. August 17. P. 10. [17] Vladimir Putin. Lozung “kolbasa i svoboda!” ne mozhet byt’ natsional’noi ideei // Izvestiia. 1999. September 2. P. 1. [18] Yegor Ligachev. Inside Gorbachev’s Kremlin / Trans. Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, Michele A. Berdy, and Dorochna Dyrcz-Freeman. New York, 1993. P. 285. [19] Cited in Patrick Lannin. Yeltsin Derides Anthem Proposal as Vote Looms // Moscow Times. December 8, 2000. P. 4. [20] Ibid. [21] J. Samuel Valenzuela. Democratic Consolidation in Post-Transitional Settings. Notion, Process, and Facilitating Conditions // Scott Mainwaring, Guillermo O’Donnell and J. Samuel Valenzuela (Eds.). Issues in Democratic Consolidation. Notre Dame, 1992. Pp. 78-80. [22] Vladimir Voinovich. I moi gimn // Izvestiia. 2000. December 7. P. 1.

Куда же идет антисталинизм Кэтлин Смит SUMMARY: В своей статье Катлин Смит рассматривает проблему отношения к советскому прошлому и, в частности, к сталинизму в контексте политического развития от перестройки до В. Путина. Смит отмечает изменение отношения к связи истории и идеологии в постсоветский период в России и трудности, связанные с установлением общественного консенсуса о природе нового государства и общества. Рассматривая постельцинскую эпоху, Смит анализирует мотивацию и пути выработки нормализованного образа советского прошлого в новом нарративе государственности. Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Harley BALZER

AN ACCEPTABLE PAST: MEMORY IN THE RUSSIAN EXTRICATION FROM COMMUNISM

Every revolution is incomplete. In the century after the French Revolu- tion, at the same time that the peasants were turning into Frenchmen (or per- haps Frenchpersons), French society was riven by a split between clerical and anti-clerical groups that burst into public scandal with the Dreyfus Af- fair. These issues still resonate in highly charged debates over head scarves and other religious symbols in French schools. We should not expect any regime to ultimately resolve questions of memory and meaning. Each gen- eration tends to open the box and reconfigure the questions in its own way, to meet its own needs or suit its own concerns. The standard for a society is not the way it resolves questions of memory and history, but the way it structures the framework for discussing those questions. In one of his last works, Freud explored the issue of a society failing to confront its past, arguing that such failure constitutes an act of collective repression.1 Freud did not suggest that individuals or societies needed to construct a single narrative. In the Soviet case, one of the serious prob- lems was that the government sought to define the correct line, even if it changed repeatedly over time. The key issue for Freud is the need to analyze and

1 Sigmund Freud. Civilization and its Discontents. New York, 1961. 449 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... debate the significance of historical experience. Agreement about the “truth” of blank spots is far less important than acknowledging their existence, “filling them in” in ways that permit balanced discussion. Official Russian and Soviet policy has nearly always had difficulty with unbridled discussion. Outside of a few months in 1917, the freedom of the Russian press and publishers was always something to be negotiated. The word “Glasnost’ ” would not have been necessary if either Alexander II or Gorbachev had wished to establish freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Glasnost’ was always intended to be partial. In this, at least, Gorbachev succeeded. If he wanted freedom of speech, he could have said so. Glas- nost’ meant something different, making the incomplete nature of Gorbachev’s revolution inherent from the outset. Gorbachev rather quickly lost control of the process, being outflanked by politicians and cultural figures willing to go much further in posing difficult questions and analyzing the Sovi- et past. The period from 1987 to 1990 was one of incessant pushing back of the limits. Outside of Russia, the limits vanished. But in Russia, counterre- forms appeared quickly. The potential for limited or controlled change, whether dependent on Gorbachev or not, was eliminated by the same event that destroyed the Soviet Union – the August 1991 coup. The GKChP’s failed coup so weakened the mechanisms of control that everything be- came possible – even if it sometimes took a while for people to realize that the cage doors were open. Memories of this period are inevitably selective and political. Those who argue that people who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it might want to remember that after Interior Ministry troops attacked dem- onstrators in Tbilisi on April 9, 1989, one of the criticisms directed against the police authorities was their refusal to divulge to medical personnel the composition of the gas that had been used. The folks who ordered the as- sault on the Dubrovka theater would probably prefer to forget this earlier episode. In Putin’s second term with a largely rubber-stamp legislature, it is difficult to believe that from May 25 to June 9, 1989, during the First Ses- sion of the USSR Congress of People’s Deputies, public interest was so intense that work stopped in many places. Factory production declined 20% during the period. On June 26 live coverage of Supreme Soviet legislative sessions was ended due to the negative impact on productivity. One way for me to remember the incomplete and often chaotic charac- ter of Glasnost’ is to go back to the journal that I kept during my visits to the USSR. Being married to an anthropologist reinforced the impulse 450 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 to keep a daily, or at least frequent, written record of my impressions. I began this practice during my first visit to the Soviet Union in 1974, and have continued it since. In 1974 and 1975-1976, the entries were handwritten. When I returned for a year in 1985-1986, I took along one of the first IBM “portable” computers – a box weighing some 9 kilograms with a small screen that was not so much portable as “lugable.” While it was a constant companion at night, by day we endeavored to keep its existence unnoticed. By 1987 notebook models were available, though reaction to my efforts to use one in the Lenin Library produced some episodes worthy of being re- counted by Voinovich. Drawing on excerpts from some of my journals is a way for me to re- cover how it felt to watch the efforts to open topics for discussion and explore historical issues that had been off the agenda. Even Gorbachev had difficulty determining just where appropriate boundaries lay. In a speech in Khabarovsk in 1986, he rejected the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s as sources for models for Soviet development. Then he went on to suggest that the 1960s and 1970s did not provide much guidance either.2 Some of us were com- pletely non-plussed: it seemed that the only remaining alternatives were NEP, War Communism, or the pre-Revolutionary era. It seems appropriate to begin with Chernobyl. I was living in Moscow at the time, and was able to monitor both Soviet and Western coverage. More important, Chernobyl became both an example of the limitations of Glasnost’ and an important stimulus to greater openness. It created the first Soviet TV news personality in Alexander Krutov.3 I started to record my impressions about a week after the accident: Moscow, May 10, 1986: Today was a notable day for Soviet nuclear news. The main nightly television news program Vremia confirmed (the Reagan administration would say “admitted”) that the Chernobyl reactor has been having a graphite fire. They did not add that the “lying” Western press deduced this ten days ago. But this is how one acquires information here. The press reveals momentous facts as if they were long known and of no great significance. Hey folks, by the way, its been a graphite fire all along, but now the temperature is low enough so it will probably go out by itself – eventually.

2 Gorbachev speech at a conference of the Khabarovsk regional party organization (July 31, 1986) // Pravda. 1986. August 2. 3 Ellen Mickiewicz. Split Signals. Television and Politics in the Soviet Union. New York, 1988. P. 60-68. 451 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... The entire episode has been fascinating – especially since I have been largely cut off from Western news for the past month. My newspaper and magazine subscriptions would still be going to Leningrad, if they were being delivered (strike in Finland has again interrupted mail delivery); the Embassy has been getting fewer newspapers, and later; and I foolishly left my short-wave radio in Leningrad. But even with only shreds of information, I have known more than my Soviet friends about what is going on there. The science staff at the Embassy have filled me in a few times, and some of the other Americans listened to the BBC. And, of course, it has been possible to monitor how concerned the Soviet authorities are by what they have dredged up regarding nuclear “incidents” in the West. When Pravda resurrected Karen Silkwood, we knew they had a serious problem on their hands On the other hand, my Soviet friends know much more about what is going on in Kiev. Two days after the accident, people began to have entire families from Kiev arrive to stay with them. Some have two whole “extra” families in their two-room apartments. Soviet coverage of the incident in the first days after it occurred was alternately comic and tragic. They took a TV crew to a collective farm 40 kilometers SOUTH of Kiev (Chernobyl is about 100 km. NORTH of Kiev) and filmed work proceeding normally in the fields. The next day, they showed a village where people had been resettled. A man was interviewed and spoke calmly about four extra people having been moved into his apartment. He said everything was just fine. At least twice the TV coverage has included statements about the evacuees having been given jobs and housing in their new locations – giving the very strong impression that they are not going “home” any time soon. But no official statistics. The hardest thing to swallow has been the swinish and extremely defensive reaction to Western coverage. Most of the news Soviet citizens have gotten about the accident has been in the form of official reactions to and refutations of Western press accounts. We seem to have performed a real service, providing them with extravagant claims that they can refute so the actual disaster almost appears reasonable. For ten days they have announced daily that the temperature inside the reactor and the level of radiation in the vicinity of the site have “significantly lowered.” Even my friends/ 452 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 acquaintances who belong to the Party have asked me how high it had to have been to drop “significantly” ten times and still be a problem. On the other hand, not everyone was worried about Chernobyl. Returned to my hotel room (in the Akademicheskaia) from the library around 7:00. The room had not been touched all day. I didn’t mind very much that my bed had not been made, but I was a bit perturbed that the towels had not been changed for several days. So I asked the woman on duty for some clean ones. I waited about ten minutes for her to return. When she came back, she asked how long I had had a pillow case in place of the dish towel. I had noticed that one of the dish towels was a bit strange, but there are many stranger things in this country, so I didn’t pay much attention. It turned out that the woman had stayed at work two hours later than usual trying to find the missing pillow case. They have to account for every piece of linen, towel, etc. that passes through their hands, and she was desperate to find out why one piece was missing. They had spent several hours yesterday, and several more today searching for the lost pillow case. I gently suggested that if she had tidied up my room today (and perhaps changed the towels?) she would certainly have noticed the mistake. But the truly astounding aspect of the situation is that at least three people evidently spent at least five hours dealing with a missing piece of material worth perhaps five rubles. And they are not finished. When I went to get some supper they were writing a full description of the incident in their book, and preparing to figure out precisely who was responsible for putting a pillow case on the towel rack. They asked me to help deduce when the offending linen appeared, so they could pinpoint the culprit, but I developed a bad memory for such details. Due to the strike in Finland, I was not able to send or receive mail for a number of weeks, and therefore did not write up my notes for some time. I got back to the Chernobyl issue more than a month later: Moscow June 22, 1986: The anti-alcohol campaign continues. So does a lot of drinking. And a lot of standing in line. The intelligentsia has pretty much given up bothering with the occasional bottle of wine or vodka – it just isn’t worth the trouble. Although a few friends who never drank before have now taken it up as a sort 453 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... of political statement. The people who really want to drink spend one to three hours in a line. For emergencies (a birthday, a foreign guest, etc.) it is possible to go to a restaurant and buy a bottle of vodka for 15 rubles from a waiter. No lines, but a 100% mark-up. For the first time in my visits here, some friends have specifically asked me to get a bottle at a Beriozka when I come to visit. Previously, no one would think of asking a guest to bring something specific, much less something that required hard currency. Marji and I went to a quite nice Georgian restaurant together. At first, we were seated a table with three prostitutes. After they left, three middle-aged patrons were put across from us. They ordered, and asked for two bottles of cognac. When the waiter brought them, they told him he needn’t open the second one right away. He responded that he had to open it, but then winked and said he would bring back the plastic cap later. So the requirements of socialist legality were observed, but the diners got a bottle for another occasion without two hours in line. Hardly know where to begin regarding Chernobyl. I took the whole thing pretty calmly until a few days ago. As long as the wind blew away from Moscow, I assumed we were safe. And the Embassy brought in a team to monitor radiation, which found no indications that there was anything abnormal. Friends are disgusted at their government’s mishandling of the disaster. Some equate it with the failure to be prepared when the Germans invaded in 1941. Lots of credence to the rumor that the locals did not inform Moscow for a day or so, and then called to say there was a minor problem. After the Swedes demanded an explanation for why their readings had gone off the scale, Moscow called back and said “now about that minor problem ...” I was inclined to believe that version at first. However, I now tend to think it is fairly subtle disinformation – a way of smearing some local cadres to protect the leadership. It sounds too much like “If the Tsar only knew.” It is Gorbachev’s job to know. A friend who has been appointed to one of the growth industry commissions to work on consequences of the disaster offered some other information: - The reactor is still spewing radioactivity. - It is not a power plant. It is a military reactor that was used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. 454 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 - The melt-down has hit the water table, which means the Pripet’ and Dnepr rivers are contaminated, and the Kiev water supply is affected. I checked this “reliable” information with Embassy science folks. They consider half of it true: it is a breeder reactor, and is still emitting radiation. And will for some time. The exaggeration about “military” reactor and contaminated water shows the sort of rumor-mongering that results from the secrecy the Soviets try to impose. If it is true, the health effects will turn out to be massive. Same source also adds that preliminary signs of radiation sickness have appeared in 4000 of the evacuated children. Remember that they went to school for the first two days after the accident, and that on May Day everyone was out in the streets celebrating. Other fallout from the accident included a report that all the pregnant women in Minsk were ordered to have abortions. A friend going on an Academy of Sciences trip to Tallinn attended a pre-trip briefing at which they were all told to wear a hat or some other type of head covering at all times. Soviet media is reporting about the measures to check produce at peasant markets in Ukraine and Belorussia. As each seller arrives, an official with an electronic radiation detection device pokes the probe into the cucumbers, tomatoes, etc. Going rate for the device to be turned off while the probe is inserted has been 5-10 rubles. If one were keeping score, the media seem to have been well ahead of the government. But the most important lesson may be the combination of a desire by the authorities that the media demonstrate a sense of respon- sibility and adhere to limits, while the media found the authorities to be guilty of far more egregious irresponsibility. Both “sides” were groping toward something new without understanding or trusting the other. In 1986 most foreign observers were still obsessed with the question of whether Gorbachev was “for real.” At about the same time I recorded these comments about Chernobyl, we attended the most interesting theatri- cal production of the year, “Govori” (Speak or Talk): It is set in the early 1950s – just before and just after the death of Stalin. In act one we see an oblast’ chairman who runs the place very much like a private satrapy. When they requisition too much 455 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past...

grain from the peasants, one brave 2nd secretary of a raikom proposes apologizing and giving it back. The Stalinist says no, (we never make mistakes). The good guy presses for a vote, and he and a writer/ journalist friend are overwhelmingly defeated. His career is in danger. But then Stalin dies. In act two the hero has become first secretary, and is striving to change the way things are done. But the Stalinist patterns are very deeply ingrained. In one very moving scene a friend from Moscow visits and recites brave and open-minded poetry by a new young writer named Evgenyi Evtushenko. The para- llels with a transition period are almost too blatant. When the new secretary seeks to deal with the problems, he finds that the entire system has been structured to dissuade people from working. The plan and targets are so stringent that it is actually better to produce less, rather than to seek to increase output. In area after area, the rule is, “the worse, the better.” Climax is a raikom conference. Speakers stand at a podium reading dull prepared speeches. (Audience reaction to this parody of Party meetings was very enthusiastic. In fact, audience reaction in general was fascinating.) Finally, the hero can take it no more. He walks up to a woman mumbling dull slogans and statistics, and asks her why her speech is so uninspired. She replies that she didn’t have time to write a report, so she is reading last year’s. (Audience roars and applauds.) Then our hero talks about the problems at one of the collective farms, walks forward on the stage, and, looking at the audience, asks if anyone from that farm is present. A few brave spectators our night yelled back, “yes.” Then he walks to the podium, takes the paper away from the woman, and says, “govori!” Curtain. Two-thirds of the audience loved it. The person next to me, a young man in sunglasses, was ecstatic. The other third seemed either confused or offended. Rumors abound that Gorbachev went to see the play – the theater is a five-minute walk from the Kremlin. No reports on his review. Those of us who thought there was a learning curve after Chernobyl had our own learning curve after 1991 and 1993. These events have not fared well either in popular mythology or in historical recounting. In both cases, an initial narrative of heroic defense of democracy has been chipped away by assertions that Yeltsin was no democrat and that there were few sup- porters of democracy. 456 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Space does not permit a full discussion of both of these events, so I will limit myself to the one for which I have better documentation, the August 1991 coup. I was in the USSR (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tallinn and Yakutsk) for about six weeks in the summer of 1991. When I departed on July 3, I wrote the following: I have to confess that I came back from this trip even more confused than before. The contradictions just keep getting sharper. I was more impressed than ever at the extent of changes, the new possibilities opening, the number of talented people trying to do new things, and the potential for a real shift. On the other hand, I was also depressed at the inability of reformers to break the power of the troglodytes. Gorbachev still has the same gang of thugs who were brought in between October 1990 and February 1991 – Yanaev, Pavlov, Pugo, and of course Luk’ianov. Galina Starovoitova and her assistant Liudmila told me that the explanation for the March 1991 crisis – when there were troops and tanks in the streets – was that Luk’ianov told Gorbachev that the crowds were trying to seize the Kremlin. At every turn there is both potential and obstruction. When I asked high-level officials about this, they usually replied that things would be settled when the new Union Treaty is signed. But in the discussions about this crucial document, they have repeatedly put off resolution of the most important issues. If 80% of the questions have been resolved, the 20% remaining include virtually all of the key topics – who has the tax power, whose laws take precedence, and other little issues of that ilk. In other words, they have not answered the most basic questions. One of the most disturbing myths about August 1991 is the claim that few people supported Yeltsin and the resistance. It might be understandable that in the aftermath of economic dislocations, the shelling of the White House under Yeltsin’s orders in October 1993, and general dissatisfaction with the course of change in Russia, people’s memories have blurred. But this does not explain the treatment of the subject by Western scholars. Jerry Hough tells us: “Everyone agrees that there was no significant resistance outside Moscow and that the storming of the White House would have been a relatively easy military operation.”4 With no supporting evidence,

4 Jerry Hough. Democratization and Revolution in the USSR. 1985-1991. Washington, 1997. P. 443. 457 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... Hough’s “everyone agrees” should set off the same sort of warning signals we were used to whenever Pravda began a paragraph with, “kak izvestno.” Michael McFaul states, “Resistance organizations, however, did not form nationwide. On the contrary, only democratic activists in Moscow and St. Petersburg publicly mobilized against the Emergency Committee. In other cities, democratic activists followed their local leaders in adopting a wait- and-see approach.”5 Like Hough, McFaul offers no evidence for this claim. His sole reference is to an article by James Gibson, which McFaul describes as discussing “varying levels of popular resistance to the coup.”6 Yet Gib- son states quite clearly that while “activism was indeed greater in Moscow and Leningrad… political activity clearly was not confined to Moscow and Leningrad, even if the proportions of respondents engaging in political pro- test were smaller elsewhere.”7 Gibson’s main theoretical point is “that atti- tudinal commitments to the preservation of democracy in Russia motivated people to take action against the August coup.”8 The most thorough stu- dent of the politics of protest, Mark Beissinger, is more nuanced: Strikes in protest of the coup broke out in many places, but outside Moscow and Leningrad demonstrations involving more than fifty thousand were rare (occurring only in Kishinev and Sverdlovsk) – in part because many preferred to wait and see whether the regime would enforce its ban on demonstrations, in part because outside of Moscow the State Emergency Committee did so little to warrant major street action.9 Beissinger sets a rather high bar by making 50,000 the measure for sig- nificant protest. To get that many people onto the streets without causing chaos requires more than a single day’s planning. The “conventional wisdom” that only a small number of property-grab- bing Yeltsinites in the two capitals resisted the putsch suffers from two drawbacks. First, it ignores a significant body of evidence that people

5 Michael McFaul. Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin. Ithaca and London, 2001. P. 109. 6 Ibid. P. 109. Note 141. Gibson’s article is James L. Gibson. Mass Opposition to the Soviet Putsch of August 1991. Collective Action, Rational Choice, and Democratic Values in the Former Soviet Union // American Political Science Review. 1997. Vol. 91. No. 3. Pp. 671-684. 7 J. Gibson. Op. cit. P. 675. 8 Ibid. P. 672. 9 Mark R. Beissinger. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge and New York, 2002. P. 427. 458 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 did protest. These protests were not always well-organized, and may not have resulted directly from the blandishments of “democratic activists.” But should we really expect to have found a well-organized protest move- ment within the first 36 hours? The coup was over before many “activists” managed to return from their dachas (this was, after all, mid-August, and even Gorbachev was on vacation).10 Second, a focus on public demonstra- tions of opposition may ignore other, equally important reasons for the coup’s failure. In addition to direct confrontation, there was an enormous amount of indirect resistance to and subversion of the GKChP, and this was at least as important in determining the outcome.11 But it is also much more sus- ceptible to memory erosion. Public demonstrations were only part of the story. During a visit to Moscow in November 1991, several friends claimed that people had stayed out on the streets after curfew as a way to protest during the August coup. There is not really any way to verify this “memory.” But it is quite plausi- ble: there were many instances of resistance to the coup that took indirect forms. Izvestiia published two different editions on August 20. The first (No. 197) printed the resolutions of the GKChP; the second (No. 198) con- demned the coup, sided with Yelstin, and devoted much of its space to accounts of resistance to the coup across the USSR.12 Several accounts at the time reported that someone in Kriuchkov’s office alerted Yeltsin’s staff to his impending arrest, allowing him to leave his dacha and get to the White House before police arrived. Without the subversion, there would have been no direct confrontation. One personal story may have influenced my own perception of this pe- riod. A young man, Sergei, worked for me as a driver during my visits to Moscow over the previous two years. When I arrived in Moscow in Sep- tember 1991, a few weeks after the coup, he informed me that on August 19 he had taken his store of hard currency (money he was saving to open his own business) and bought a Kalashnikov for $1,500. He claimed that had the coup been more successful, he would have used the weapon to defend

10 Gibson makes a similar point, see J. Gibson.Op. cit. P. 675. Note 8. 11 For a recent Russian scholar’s confirmation of this view see V. V. Sogrin. Politicheskaia istoriia sovremennoi Rossii. 1985-2001. Ot Gorbacheva do Putina. Moskva, 2001. Pp.89-90. “Among their main errors in the first instance was the inability of the GKChP to realistically evaluate the potential reaction to its activity on the part of the Russian population, which did not support them, and a majority of whom demonstrated support for Yeltsin.” 12 RFE/RL Daily Report. 1991. No. 163. August 28. 459 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... his right to private economic activity. At the end of August he sold the gun for 25,000 rubles (about the same value as the purchase price, but not in hard currency). Lacking detailed survey research, we have no way of knowing how many Sergeis there were in Moscow or elsewhere. But it is striking that this was the reaction of someone who only hoped some day to have his own business, not someone who already was operating one. The timing of protest is as important as its mere existence. A variation on the “little support for Yeltsin” argument is that many people, and partic- ularly many political figures, opposed the coup only after it was clear that it would fail. The difference between August 20th, when things were far from clear, and the 21st, when the coup crumbled, is crucial. But so is the time differential across the USSR. Events in the Far East, six hours “ahead” of Moscow, were not always a response to the drama in the Capital. In a world where media presence is a crucial element in determining what is news, the concentration of Western press representatives reinforced an impression that everything of real importance transpired in the capital, or at most in the two capitals. But August 1991 was not just about Mos- cow.13 Coal miners in Vorkuta and the Kuzbass quickly heeded Yeltsin’s call for a strike, and closed their mines on the morning of August 20. Dem- onstrations took place in many cities on the 20th. By the 21st, the list ex- panded. Omsk and Yakutsk opened information centers on August 20. In Tomsk the regional government declared its support for Yeltsin on the 20th. On August 21, there was a rally by 5-6,000 people. In Vladivos- tok some 2000 residents rallied on August 20. The Voronezh local govern- ment declared support for Yeltsin on August 20, and called for a general strike against the GKChP. Local TV was clearly pro-Yeltsin. On August 21, local papers came out pro-Yeltsin, published RSFSR materials, and ignored communications and demands from the GKChP. In Nizhnii Novgorod on August 20, one paper published Yelstin’s decree, a second was censored and published a blank page, but put the Decree on its public information board. Several rallies were held in support of a strike against the GKChP, including at GAZ (Gorkii Automobile Factory). On August 21 hundreds of people picketed a session of the local Soviet to protest against the GKChP. Ekaterinburg, Yeltsin’s home town, experienced essentially continuous rallies beginning on August 20. On August 21 there were rallies at more than 400 enterprises. A large meeting attracted over 100,000. In Tiumen,

13 The following account is drawn from “Express Khronika” and from Interior Ministry Press Center reports. 460 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 more than 1000 people signed a petition against the GKChP. In Tula opponents of the putsch organized a protest march. In Murmansk the merchant marine declared a strike on August 20, announcing they would deliver only essential goods. There were rallies described as “large” in Novosibirsk and Barnaul. The night of August 20-21 was decisive in Moscow, and probably de- termined the fate of the USSR. Despite the deaths of three demonstrators, there was no widespread violence and the troops failed to attack. By the morn- ing of August 21 Moscow time, rumors reported the leaders of the putsch being in jail or having fled to Central Asia (they were actually en route to see Gorbachev to seek a way out of their dilemma). But when Echo Moskvy went off the air around 1:00 a.m. on the 21st, the most fraught mo- ment in Moscow, it was already morning in the Far East. In Novokuznetsk 3000 people showed up at a demonstration on August 21. A Magadan rally on August 21 attracted more than 5000. In Vladivostok there was a rally by more than 5000 people. Paratroopers arrived that night, but 3000 rallied for Yeltsin the next day (August 22). On August 22 there were large rallies in Ivano-Frankovsk, Krasnoyarsk, Yakutsk and Aldan.14 In the week following the coup, many leaders who had supported the GKChP were targets of protests. In many of the non- Russian republics of the RSFSR, including Chechen-Ingush, Buriatia, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, and Mordova, crowds demanded the removal of leaderships that had failed to support Yeltsin.15 Some 30,000 people signed a petition in Kazan’s Central Square demanding that Mintimer Shaimiev resign for supporting the putsch.16 Large meetings were held by two groups: one organized by the Republic leadership called “Sovereignty” demanding that Tatarstan sign the Union Treaty as independent entity; the other by democ- rats demanding resignation of the Republic’s Communist government.17 Not only the number but also the character of the opposition to the coup is a subject of serious dispute. The flimsy barricades rapidly constructed by coup opponents could not possibly have deterred tanks. Hence, the oppo- sition must not have been serious. This argument misses the moral and car- nivalistic elements in the resistance to the coup. While most of the rallies were attended by fewer than 5000 people, a much larger number simply

14 Interior Ministry Press Center Reports. 15 RFE/RL Daily Report. 1991. August 29. No. 164; 1991. September 2. No. 166. 16 Shaimiev met with putsch leader G. Yanaev on August 18, and returned to Kazan as a supporter of the GKChP. One member of his inner circle in a personal communication has suggested that Shaimiev’s support for the coup was secured by a promise to elevate Tatarstan to the status of a 16th Union Republic. 17 RFE/RL Daily Report. 1991. Aug. 30. No. 165. 461 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... refused to support the GKChP. Resistance and subversion were among the most important weapons employed by those who opposed a restoration of Communist power. It is, of course, possible to argue that these people were simply hedging their bets in an effort to make sure that they were not on the losing side. Even if this was the case, the effect was the same – absence of support for the putsch. In contrast to writing on 1991, some of the best analysis of 1989 draws on this approach.18 During a visit to Tallinn in June 1991 I was shown the granite boulders that had been carted to key intersections during the January 1991 assaults in Riga and Vilnius. These large rocks appeared to have been chosen as much on aesthetic as practical grounds. They would have been at most a minor inconvenience for armored vehicles (and detouring around them would prob- ably have caused much greater property damage than using the streets). These “barricades” were now arranged in sculptural ways that seemed to have more to do with evoking memory than with their possible use in a future attack. But they had an enormous emotional significance. The bar- ricades were a statement of resistance, a symbol of willingness to confront the unequal power configuration, and a clear indication that victory for the coup would require bloodshed. It was psychological warfare. One Amer- ican at the White House who asked people how they knew how to construct the makeshift barricades was told that they drew on the example of defend- ers of the Lithuanian parliament in January 1991: “Vilnius taught us.”19 When the forces supporting a coup lack a sense of their own legitimacy, symbolic resistance can be enough. Valeriia Novodvorskaia, who was in Lefortovo prison during the August coup, reported that her prison guards disapproved of the coup and of Kriuchkov in particular.20 Many of those on the streets of Moscow who talked with soldiers riding in the tanks got the impression that they would not shoot. As one soldier told a TV inter- viewer, “I’m human too.”21 Some defenders of the White House carried

18 Michael D. Kennedy. Cultural Formations of Post-Communism. Emancipation, Transition, Nation, and War. Minneapolis and London, 2002; Padraic Kenney. A Carnival of Revolution. Central Europe 1989. Princeton and Oxford, 2002. 19 Mark H. Teeter. An American’s Diary // Woodrow Wilson Center Report. 1991. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 3. 20 Interview in “Literaturnaia gazeta”. 1991. No. 28. Reported in REF/RL Daily Report No. 168. September 4, 1991. 21 Mark H. Teeter. Op. cit. P. 3. Beissinger’s analysis of the coup’s success depending on avoiding significant numbers of casualties corroborates the importance of symbolic opposition. Making it clear that a GKChP victory was not possible without bloodshed was probably enough to cause their defeat. 462 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 signs saying “Glory to the RSFSR tank drivers.” Even a carnival can in- clude psychological warfare. Why does the currently prevailing view of August 1991 emphasize the weakness rather than the strength of the opposition to the GKChP? Perhaps because so many people are dissatisfied with the results of the subse- quent decade. Kathleen Smith notes that by 1996 conservatives had gained greater confidence in interpreting August 1991 as a tragedy due to destruc- tion of USSR. (I have always been struck by their failure to consider that if the end of the USSR was a tragedy, the coup plotters were the ones pri- marily responsible for this outcome.) Smith cites polls by Moskovskii Kom- somolets indicating that in 1993, 78% of Muscovites said they supported Yeltsin in his confrontation with the legislature, but in (retrospective) polls in 1996, only 39% claimed to have supported him.22 We do not have compa- rable survey data for 1991. Smith cites data indicating that in 1999 only 9% viewed 1991 as a victory for democracy, while most thought of it as one more struggle among competing elites. This represents a major shift from the survey data from 1992-93 reported by Gibson. Politics alone does not explain the prevailing image of August 1991. Another reason for the flawed accounts involves the treatment of history during Perestroika. The fashion for examining blank spots was neither uni- linear nor all-pervasive. Smith noted that exploration of the Stalinist past “peaked” before 1991, and declined thereafter.23 In the West, historians did a somewhat better job coping with the Gor- bachev era than political scientists.24 Some specialists on the 19th century were more open to the possibilities for change than scholars whose main focus had been the career biographies of regional Party leaders. This was the diametrical opposite of the pattern in the USSR, where most of the estab- lished historians had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the era of Glas- nost’. In the early years of Glasnost’, virtually all the interesting historical writing in the Soviet Union appeared in newspapers and novels. The first books to be published exhibiting the “new” history were a translation of Steve

22 Kathleen E. Smith. Mythmaking in the New Russia. Politics and Memory During the Yeltsin Era. Ithaca and London, 2002. Pp. 49, 53. 23 Kathleen E. Smith. Remembering Stalin’s Victims. Popular Memory and the End of the USSR. Ithaca and London, 1996. Chapter 8. 24 Notable exceptions were Jerry Hough and Archie Brown, both of whom forecast the rise of Gorbachev and subsequent significant reforms. The “mainstream” was reflected by Severyn Bialer’s conclusion to the 1983 CSIS collective volume “After Brezhnev,” where he discounted the likelihood of any significant change in the foreseeable future. 463 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... Cohen’s biography of Bukharin and some of the works by Roy Medvedev. Soviet historians found it difficult to adapt, at most participating in “round table” discussions outlining an agenda of what needed to be done.25 Some of the most interesting and important new work did not appear until 1993.26 As Rubie Watson notes, much of the story of Glasnost’, and of 1989 in particular, was about “recovering” the past.27 One is tempted to joke that in the 21st century far more effort is being devoted to re-covering the past. Rather than filling in the blank spots, leaders are endeavoring to establish their own narratives as the dominant interpretations of events, both recent and more distant. Restoring some perspective to accounts of 1991 and 1993 would be an important step toward a more general examination of complex issues in Russia’s history, and would help to reverse a disturbing trend away from open debate. The Putin government is devoting much energy to restoring limits. Putin himself appears to hope that this can be largely voluntary – that Russians will recognize what is “right” and will choose to behave “re- sponsibly.” During Putin’s first term, press minister Lesin often sounded like Gorbachev in his calls for journalists to voluntarily recognize the need to write “responsibly.” But defining responsibility is not easy. It most often seems to be an instance of “I know it when I see it.”28 The contradiction showed up clearly in one of the most important policy reforms of Putin’s second term, the conversion of social benefits to cash payments. This reform is desperately needed. Studies indicate that about half of the funds allocated for social programs never reach the intended recipients. In the case of housing subsidies, 80% of the benefits go to the most affluent 20% of the population, in other words, to people who

25 Kruglyi stol: Istoricheskaia nauka v usloviiakh perestroiki // Voprosy istorii. 1988. No. 3. Pp. 3-57; Istoriki i pisateli o literature i istorii. Materialy konferentsii // Voprosy istorii. 1988. No. 6. Pp. 3-114. 26 The monographs in series “First Monograph” are particularly valuable. For examples see Edvard Vishnevskii. Liberal’naia oppozitsiia v Rossii nakanune pervoi mirovoi voiny. Moskva, 1993; E. Iu. Zubkova. Obshchestvo i reformy. 1945-1964. Moskva, 1993; O. V. Khlevniuk. Stalin i Ordzhonikidze. Konflikty v Politbiuro v 30-e gody. Moskva, 1993; V. P. Buldakov, V. A. Mau, and A. S. Tsipko. Rossiiskaia imperiia, SSSR, Rossiiskaia Federatsiia. Istoriia odnoi strany. Moskva, 1993. The journal “Istoriia KPSS” did publish an impressive amount of archival material, but it was not accompanied by much analysis. 27 Rubie S. Watson. Memory, History, and Opposition under State Socialism. An Intro- duction // Idem (Ed.). Memory, History, and Opposition under State Socialism. Santa Fe, NewMexico, 1994. P. 6. 28 I discuss the intentionally arbitrary aspects of the Putin regime in Harley Balzer. Managed Pluralism. Vladimir Putin’s Emerging Regime // Post-Soviet Affairs. 2003. Vol. 19. No. 3. Pp. 189-227. 464 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 do not need them. Well-organized rackets derive enormous profits from corruption in the prescription drug system. The clearly necessary benefits reform touches just about every family in the country. It is also unimaginably complex, involving changes to some 200 existing laws. The Russian government and its policy consultants are so intimidated by the intricacy and sensitivity of the legislation that they hurried it through the Duma quickly, in the summer, when many people are on vacation and less inclined to pay attention to politics. (The government also took advantage of high oil prices, and of Putin’s recent re-election. In two years, his lame duck status might make it more difficult to sway reluctant legislators. The government took no chances, cutting off the ref- erendum option and resorting to a plethora of dirty tricks to distract if not eliminate Communist opponents.) As so often in complex policy changes, the problems are too intricate and too important to be left to the “specialists.” One of the most damaging legacies from Soviet times is the belief that five experts sitting around a table are capable of solving complex problems. This is hardly unique to Soviet Union – technocracy enjoyed its fullest exposition in the U.S. and Germany, and tech- nocratic policy approaches appear with depressing regularity. But the USSR elevated positivism to the level of an administrative religion. Colleagues involved in the reforms told me directly that in Russian conditions it would not be possible to permit extensive public debate – it would kill the legislation. But the costs of precluding public debate are high, both in terms of legitimacy and in practical elements of the legislation. For example, the first draft of the new legislation provided for payments to invalid children under age 18, and payments to adults certified as invalids, but it failed to provide coverage for children who turned 18 and lost their status as child invalids. This can be fixed, and probably will be fixed in the second or third reading. But how many more oversights and omissions are there that will be discovered only after the legislation is approved? The point is that public discussion and debate would make it possible to increase understanding of the intent and to identify genuine problems with the draft laws.29 In any society, the fashion for particular episodes or figures from the past is as telling an indicator as the “spin” imparted to them. Gorbachev’s reforms drew historians’ attention to the “reform era” of Alexander II. Vladimir Putin’s

29 Among the scholars who have documented the need for public discussion of complex projects, two of the best are Loren R. Graham. What Have We Learned About Science and Technology from the Russian Experience. Stanford, 1998 and James C. Scott. Seeing Like A State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven and London, 1998. 465 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... regime has stimulated a cottage industry of books about Petr Stolypin. This is rather curious. Just what is it about Stolypin that is so “relevant”? His agra- rian reforms, which sought to help “strong and sober” peasants escape the con- tinuing embrace of village communes? Perhaps his program to encourage migration to Siberia? His repression of those involved in the 1905 Revolu- tion, when the hangman’s noose came to be called “Stolypin’s necktie”? His role as a strong Prime Minister serving a Tsar generally considered to be lacking in strength of character? Surely not his death at the hands of an assas- sin? One suspects that what most resonates about Stolypin is the speech he delivered to the Duma when he took office, proclaiming that “we need a great Russia.” Like Putin, he did not consider it necessary to define greatness. Vladimir Putin has embraced all of Russian and Soviet history, refusing to judge any of it.30 In some instances, this may be a wise course. Leaving Lenin’s body where it is until most of the aging communists who care passionately about the issue are gone could be viewed as a reasonable solu- tion to a thorny problem. But in many cases the refusal to make judgments entails explicit acceptance of behavior that deserves to be condemned. In all cases, the failure to engage in frank, open-ended discussion of the is- sues represents the most serious problem. Small signals matter. One of Putin’s first acts as President was to restore the bust of Yurii Andropov to its place in the FSB headquarters. In early 2003 he instructed officials to alter the memorial to WWII hero cities, replacing the name Volgograd with Stalingrad. Claims that this represents a correction to the historical record must be weighed against the costs incurred by sending such signals. It produces an atmosphere in which the police authorities in St. Petersburg feel free to describe hate crimes as mere hooliganism.31

30 Kathleen Smith noted that “In the aftermath of August 1991 those loyal to the old regime could be observed seeking to salvage their dreams by rejecting some aspects of the past and embracing others.” (Smith. Mythmaking. P. 3.) At least this involved choices – a selective approach endeavoring to retain that which was positive while rejecting the elements that deserved to be condemned (or that were politically inconvenient). One might dispute the basis for the choices or the validity of specific decisions, but at least there were choices. Embracing everything creates a moral vacuum. 31 Criticism of anti-Semitism would seem to confirm the arguments about its lack of official support and relative decline in the 1990s put forward by James Gibson and Marc Howard. See, James L. Gibson and Marc Morjé Howard. Russian Anti-Semitism and the Scapegoating of Jews. University of Strathclyde Studies in Public Policy. No. 397. Glasgow, 2004. Failure to publicly condemn violence against immigrants provides additional evidence for the arguments in: Harley Balzer. Demography and Democracy in Russia. Human Capital Challenges to Democratic Consolidation // Demokratizatsiya. 2003. Vol. 11. No. 1. Pp. 95-109. 466 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Having resolutely condemned a mailbox bombing “hate crime” during his first term, the President’s silence on these issues is also a signal. Without moral leadership, the entire government becomes not merely technocratic and soul- less, but, as Freud suggested, morally dysfunctional. Smith notes that “study of the mobilization of collective memories by an elite can provide insight into an important aspect of the process of form- ing a national identity – the proffering of potentially acceptable beliefs about what it means to be a member of a certain nation.”32 I share this view, and a concern with ways an elite defines an “acceptable past” Gorbachev initially undertook changes as a way to increase political and military power, and to restore the international competitiveness of the socialist system. He wanted to make sure the Soviet Union could con- tinue to be a world power. He was never able to resolve the inherent con- tradiction in this effort: the things the USSR was required to do to com- pete in the increasingly complex global knowledge economy were inevita- bly things that undermined its ability to be the Soviet Union. Vladimir Pu- tin faces the same conundrum: he wants to get things back under control, and then gradually permit freedom and initiative in ways that serve the “gen- eral” interest. The goal may be laudable, and he is doing a pretty good job of convincing his own entourage and even some foreigners that this is a rea- sonable approach that accords with Russian traditions. Unfortunately, it is also a dead end. Across a range of issues, the effect is to stifle the very initiative and development that is so desperately needed. While a case may be made that processes of disintegration had been allowed to go too far, once these genies were out of their bottles, stuffing them back in by force does more than merely restore a semblance of control. It decisively undermines the creative processes that bring about real de- velopment. Regional leaders, who were beginning to understand that fail- ure to improve their local economies could produce electoral defeat, now have learned that if they satisfy Moscow’s demand for loyalty they are free to loot their fiefdoms. Big business has learned that maximizing profit is a less desirable strategy than satisfying the wishes of political leaders. Entrepreneurs have learned that bribes to local officials represent a less risky strategy than building independent businesses. Russia’s neighbors are finding that fealty to Moscow is more important than their economic develop- ment. Educators have been shown that the new “general line” takes prece- dence over critical thinking. Students are being told that choosing a narrow specialty and making it their career is more important than using their knowl-

32 Smith. Mythmaking. P. 8. 467 H. Balzer, An Acceptable Past... edge to maximize their potential. In realm after realm, creativity and spon- taneity are being sacrificed to control. The control is not absolute, and there are lots of ways to work around the obstacles. Persistent entrepreneurs can function and prosper. Some re- gions are doing better economically. Destroying Russia’s most efficient oil company may put some assets in the hands of other firms. But the overall result is to impede the economic development and creative potential on which Russia’s future prosperity and therefore international competitive- ness depend. Janet Vaillant noted the irony in the Russian government re- calling the one history text that successfully implements the techniques called for in the strategy for “modernizing” Russian education.33 The Rus- sian education system may excel at imparting factual knowledge, but it has done less well in the realms of conceptual skills. Russian students are taught what to think, not how to think. In the absence of a Party line, this produces a Dostoyevskian search for someone to save them from the burden of choice. Freud did not argue that a nation necessarily needed to agree about its past. The key issue was the need to confront it, perhaps even argue vehe- mently about it. The problems arise when the past is repressed: when elites/ leaders signal that topics are better left untouched. Attempts to define an acceptable past represent at best a temporary fix. As each generation reexamines basic questions about identity, issues of history must be recon- sidered. Freud’s warning helps us to understand that relying on a historical tradition of limiting the discourse cannot be a solution. SUMMARY Êàæäàÿ ðåâîëþöèÿ, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà, íîñèò íåçàâåðøåííûé õàðàêòåð. Ïàìÿòü î íèõ òîæå âñåãäà ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåïîëíîé è èäåîëîãè- çèðîâàííîé. Èçíà÷àëüíàÿ íåçàâåðøåííîñòü ãîðáà÷åâñêîé ðåâîëþ- öèè âîïëîùåíà, â ÷àñòíîñòè, â òåðìèíå “ãëàñíîñòü”, íå ÿâëÿþùèìñÿ íåïîñðåäñòâåííûì ñèíîíèìîì ñâîáîäû ñëîâà. Àâòîð ñòàòüè îáðàòèëñÿ ê äíåâíèêó, êîòîðûé âåë â õîäå âèçèòîâ â ÑÑÑÐ-Ðîññèþ â 1990-å ãã. Îí ïûòàåòñÿ ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàòü ýâîëþöèþ “ãëàñíîñòè”, è â êà÷åñòâå íàèáîëåå çíàêîâûõ ýïèçîäîâ âûäåëÿåò ×åðíîáûëüñêóþ êàòàñòðîôó è Àâãóñòîâñêèé ïóò÷ 1991 ã. Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà, îáðà- ùåíèå ê ïàìÿòè ñåãîäíÿ íåîáõîäèìî êàê ïðîòèâîâåñ èäåîëîãè÷åñêîé óíèôèêàöèè, íàâÿçûâàíèþ “ïðèåìëåìîãî ïðîøëîãî” è ïîäàâëåíèþ îáùåñòâåííûõ äåáàòîâ, õàðàêòåðíûõ äëÿ ïóòèíñêîãî âðåìåíè.

33Janet Vaillant. Revised... Again. The Politics of History // Perspective. 2004. Vol. XIV. No. 4. 468 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Àëåêñàíäð ÊÓÑÒÀÐÅÂ

ÏÐÀÊÒÈÊÈ ÎÁÐÀÙÅÍÈß Ê ÏÐÎØËÎÌÓ Â ÏÎÑÒÏÅÐÅÑÒÐÎÅ×ÍÎÉ ÐÎÑÑÈÈ: ÍÀÐÐÀÒÈÂ È ÈÍÂÎÊÀÖÈß

In my childhood, Britishness was associated with ruling the world, and the families of those who exercised Imperial power were deeply respected1

Êòî ñòàðîå ïîìÿíåò, òîìó ãëàç âîí.2

Ðîññèéñêèé íàððàòèâ íàñûùåí èñòîðè÷åñêèì ìàòåðèàëîì. Íåäàâíåå ïðîøëîå ñòðàíû äðàìàòè÷íî è òðàâìàòè÷íî. Îíî áîãàòî èçìåíåíèÿìè â îáðàçå æèçíè. Ðîññèÿ êàê äåðæàâà ïåðåæèëà ðåçêîå

1 John Keegan, âèäíûé àíãëèéñêèé èñòîðèê, âîåííûé ðåäàêòîð ãàçåòû “Äåéëè Òåëåãðàô”, ðåöåíçèðóÿ â TLS (“Òàéìñ ëèòåðàðè ñàïïëåìåíò”) íåäàâíþþ êíèãó î ìåëêèõ èìïåðñêèõ ñëóæàùèõ â Èíäèè. 2 Ýòà óãðîçà âîçíèêëà, âåðîÿòíî, êàê ïðèñëîâüå, îðêåñòðóþùåå ìèðíîå ñîãëàøåíèå ìåæäó â÷åðàøíèìè âðàãàìè, íî âïîñëåäñòâèè ñòàëà èñïîëüçîâàòüñÿ áîëåå ÷àñòî è íåðàçáîð÷èâî, ÷òî îòðàæàåò, âîîáùå ãîâîðÿ, ñêëîííîñòü îáûäåííîãî ñîçíàíèÿ ñêîðåå çàáûâàòü, ÷åì ïîìíèòü, èëè, ïî ìåíüøåé ìåðå, íå îáÿçàòåëüíî âñïîìèíàòü âñå. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ýòà ñòîðîíà äåëà ñîâåðøåííî èãíîðèðóåòñÿ â ðàññóæäåíèÿõ î ïðàêòèêàõ ïàìÿòè. 469 À. Êóñòàðåâ, Ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó... ïîâûøåíèå è ïîíèæåíèå ñòàòóñà. Åå æèòåëÿì â ïîñòïåðåñòðîå÷íîå âðåìÿ åñòü ÷òî âñïîìèíàòü. È ãîñóäàðñòâî, è îáùåñòâî îñòðî íóæ- äàþòñÿ â êîíöåïòóàëèçàöèè ñâîåãî ïîñòïåðåñòðîå÷íîãî ñîñòîÿíèÿ.  ïîèñêàõ ðåøåíèÿ ýòîé ïðîáëåìû îíè îáðàùàåòñÿ ê èñòîðè- ÷åñêîìó îïûòó (ñâîåìó è ÷óæîìó), ÷òî äàëî ïîâîä À. Ýòêèíäó íà ñòðàíèöàõ Ab Imperio (¹ 1/2004) ãîâîðèòü îá “èñòîðèöèçìå” èëè äàæå “ãèïåðèñòîðèöèçìå” ñîâðåìåííîãî ðîññèéñêîãî ñàìîñîç- íàíèÿ. Êàê áû ìû íè îöåíèâàëè ñòåïåíü “èñòîðèöèçìà” â ðîñ- ñèéñêîì ñëó÷àå, î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî â îáùåñòâåííîì ñîçíàíèè åãî äîëÿ ïîâûøàåòñÿ, à ñòðóêòóðà – óñëîæíÿåòñÿ. Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó ìíîæàòñÿ, è èõ èíòåíöèè ñòàíîâÿòñÿ âñå áîëåå ðàçíîîáðàçíûìè. Ñðåäè íèõ íàèáîëåå èíòåðåñíà ïðàêòèêà èíâîêàöèè ê ïðîøëîìó. Ìû îáðàòèìñÿ ê äâóì åå êîíêðåòíûì ïðèìåðàì: ìàññîâûì èðîíè÷åñêèì àëëþçèÿì ê ñîâåòñêîìó ïðî- øëîìó è ê ýïèçîäè÷åñêîé èíâîêàöèè – ñîïîñòàâëåíèþ ïîñòïåðåñò- ðîå÷íîé Ðîññèè 1990-õ ãã. è ðåæèìà Ëóè Ôèëèïïà âî Ôðàíöèè. Íî ïðåäâàðèòåëüíî íåîáõîäèì íåêîòîðûé òåîðåòè÷åñêèé êîì- ìåíòàðèé.

* * * Èçíà÷àëüíàÿ ïðàêòèêà ïàìÿòè – âñïîìèíàíèå. Êàê ýìîöèîíàëüíî- êîãíèòèâíûé àêò, îíî ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðåðîãàòèâîé èíäèâèäà. Òàì, ãäå êîí÷àåòñÿ æèâàÿ ïàìÿòü, íà÷èíàåòñÿ íàïîìèíàíèå. Ýòî – ôóíêöèÿ íàððàòèâà.  îòíîøåíèè èíäèâèäà è îáùåñòâà ê ïðîøëîìó ðåàëè- çóåòñÿ èõ ïîòðåáíîñòü â ñàìîèäåíòèôèêàöèè.  òðàäèöèîííîì îáùåñòâå ñ åãî ýïè÷åñêèì âå÷íûì ïðîøëûì è õðàíèâøåé åãî óñòíîé òðàäèöèåé ýòèì äåëî è îãðàíè÷èâàëîñü. Îáùåñòâî ìîäåðíà ñîçíàåò, ÷òî îíî êîãäà-òî áûëî èíûì. Îíî ñîçäàåò ñâîé õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè îðãàíèçîâàííûé íàððàòèâ,3 îòðàæà- þùèé åãî ýâîëþöèþ. Îíî çíàêîìî ñ òàêèìè æå íàððàòèâàìè äðó- ãèõ îáùåñòâ. Îíî èìååò äåëî ñ îãðîìíûì è ýêñïîíåíöèàëüíî íàðàñòàþùèì “êîëè÷åñòâîì ïðîøëîãî”, ïðè÷åì – äîêóìåíòèðî- âàííîãî. Îòíîøåíèÿ ñ ïðîøëûì óñëîæíÿþòñÿ è íàäñòðàèâàþòñÿ

3 “Íàððàòèâîì” â ýòîì ýññå îáîçíà÷àåòñÿ ëèáî âñÿ ñîâîêóïíîñòü òåêñòîâ è ñèìâîëîâ îáùåñòâà î ñàìîì ñåáå; ëèáî – òîëüêî ñâîä òåêñòîâ; ëèáî – òîëüêî ñâîä ðàçíûõ âàðèàöèé îáùåé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ëåãåíäû; ëèáî – òîëüêî êàíîíè÷åñêàÿ (îôèöèàëüíàÿ èëè êîíâåíöèîíàëüíàÿ) ëåãåíäà. 470 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íåêîòîðûìè âòîðè÷íûìè ìàíèïóëÿòèâíûìè ïðàêòèêàìè, òàêèìè êàê ïàññåèçì è èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó. Ïàññåèçì ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñîçíàòåëüíûì ïîãðóæåíèåì â ïðîøëîå (îäíî èç “ïðîøëûõ”), ýñêåéïèçìîì, ñâîåîáðàçíîé “ýìèãðàöèåé” – ïåðå- ìåíîé ñàìîèäåíòèôèêàöèè. Èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó ââîäèò ïðîøëîå â íàñòîÿùåå. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, èíâîêàöèÿ – ýòî ýìîöèîíàëüíî- êîãíèòèâíûé àêò, êàê è âñïîìèíàíèå èíäèâèäà. Ñ äðóãîé – íàïî- ìèíàíèå. Èíâîêàöèÿ – àêò ñàìîèäåíòèôèêàöèè àãåíòà,4 íî, ïîìèìî ýòîãî, îíà îðèåíòèðîâàíà íà èçìåíåíèå îáùåñòâåííîãî íàñòðîåíèÿ (åñëè óãîäíî, ñåìèîòè÷åñêîé ñðåäû).  íåé åñòü õàðèçìàòè÷åñêèé ýëåìåíò. Îíà èìååò èíòåíöèþ, îíà äèäàêòè÷íà. Èíâîêàöèÿ – ýòî ðèòîðè÷åñêàÿ ôèãóðà, îöåíêà, àðãóìåíò â ïîëåìèêå, ïðîâîêàöèÿ, òî åñòü æèâîå ñîöèàëüíîå äåéñòâèå. Òîò, êòî çàõî÷åò äàòü ñòðîãîå èäåàëüíî-òèïè÷åñêîå îïðåäåëå- íèå èíâîêàöèè, äîëæåí áóäåò çàäóìàòüñÿ íàä âîïðîñàìè: â ÷åì åå ñóùåñòâî – â ñàìîì ñîïîñòàâëåíèè íàñòîÿùåãî ñ ïðîøëûì èëè â åãî èíòåíöèè? Èëè â ñòèëèñòèêå? Ñîáëàçíèòåëüíî îòëè÷àòü “èíâîêàöèþ” êàê ïðàêòèêó îáûäåííîé ìàññîâîé êîììóíèêàöèè îò “ñðàâíåíèÿ” êàê ñòàíäàðòíîé àêàäåìè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêè. Íî “èñòî- ðèÿ” âñåãäà áûëà ïîëåì, ãäå ýòè äâå ñôåðû ïåðåïëåòàëèñü ñàìûì áåçíàäåæíûì îáðàçîì. Êðîìå âñåãî ïðî÷åãî, ëþáîå, äàæå ñàìîå íåâèííîå, ñîïîñòàâëåíèå ìîæåò âîñïðèíèìàòüñÿ êàê èíâîêàöèÿ, èëè ïðåâðàùàòüñÿ â èíâîêàöèþ â ðåçóëüòàòå ïåðåìåíû êîíòåêñòà. Ó èíâîêàöèè âñåãäà åñòü èíèöèàòîð. Êàê è â ñëó÷àå “àíåêäîòîâ”, èíèöèàòîð ïîïóëÿðíîé èíâîêàöèè íåðåäêî áûñòðî ñòàíîâèòñÿ íåèçâåñòåí. Íî ñóáêóëüòóðíîå êëåéìî íà èíâîêàöèè ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ, è ýòî î÷åíü âàæíî äëÿ íàáëþäàòåëÿ, ïîñêîëüêó çà èíâîêàöèåé îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ ÷üè-òî öåííîñòè, èíòåðåñû è îïûò. Îãðîìíîå áîëüøèíñòâî èíâîêàöèé, êàê è ëè÷íûõ âñïîìèíàíèé, îäíàêî, íå âûõîäÿò çà ïðåäåëû ñâîé ñóáêóëüòóðíîé ñðåäû, ñëóæàò öåëÿì ñàìîèäåíòèôèêàöèè òîãî, êòî èìè ïîëüçóåòñÿ, è îñòàþòñÿ áåç ïîñëåäñòâèé. Íî â îòäåëüíûõ ñëó÷àÿõ èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó ñòàíîâèòñÿ ôàêòîðîì, èëè äàæå ïàðàäèãìîé, øèðîêîãî è äëèòåëü- íîãî ïðîöåññà ñîöèàëüíûõ è êóëüòóðíûõ èçìåíåíèé, â îñîáåííîñòè –

4 Âîîáùå âñå ýòè ïðàêòèêè ðåäêî îñóùåñòâèìû â ÷èñòîì âèäå. Ãîðàçäî ÷àùå îíè ñîâìåùåíû, èíîãäà âïëîòü äî ñèíêðåòè÷íîñòè. Òàê ÷òî ýòî åùå è íåêîòîðûå ñòîðîíû “ïðàêòèêè ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ” èíäèâèäà. 471 À. Êóñòàðåâ, Ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó... ðåâîëþöèé. Ïàðàäèãìîé Ðåíåññàíñà áûëà èíâîêàöèÿ ê àíòè÷íîñòè. Ìîùíûì ôàêòîðîì àíãëèéñêîé ðåâîëþöèè áûëà èíâîêàöèÿ ê “merry old England” ñ åå ñâîáîäàìè è “áåññåíüåðñòâîì”; ôðàíöóçñêîé ðåâîëþöèè – èíâîêàöèÿ ê àíòè÷íîñòè; ðóññêîé ðåâîëþöèè (êàê, âïðî÷åì, è òóðåöêîé, è ìåêñèêàíñêîé) – èíâîêàöèÿ ê ôðàíöóçñêîé. Íà èíâîêàöèÿõ ê ïðîøëîìó ñòðîèëè ñâîþ èäåîëîãèþ è êîëî- íèàëüíûå íàðîäû. Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, òå èç íèõ, ó êîãî áûëî ñâîå ïðîøëîå è ñâîé íàððàòèâ, ïîäàâëåííûé â õîäå èõ ïðåáûâàíèÿ ïîä ÷óæîé “êðûøåé”. Ìàòåðèàë äëÿ èíâîêàöèè ìîæåò ÷åðïàòüñÿ êàê èç õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè äàëüíåãî è çàáûòîãî ïðîøëîãî, òàê è èç õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè áëèçêîãî, íî çàâåðøåííîãî (ïðåäïîëîæèòåëüíî çàâåðøåííîãî), òî åñòü ñòðóê- òóðíî (òèïîëîãè÷åñêè) äàëüíåãî ïðîøëîãî, íî ñîõðàíèâøåãîñÿ â ïàìÿòè òåõ, ÷üÿ ëè÷íàÿ æèçíü (åñëè óãîäíî, ëè÷íûé õðîíîòîï) ïðîñòèðàåòñÿ ÷åðåç ãðàíèöó ìåæäó âðåìåíàìè. Âî âòîðîì ñëó÷àå èíâîêàöèÿìè ìîãóò áûòü (õîòÿ ìîãóò è íå áûòü) íàñûùåíû ìåìóàðû. Îíè â öåëîì ìîãóò áûòü ñòèëèçîâàíû êàê èíâîêàöèÿ. Èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó ìîæåò áûòü ñêðûòîé èëè îòêðûòîé. Îíà àðòèêóëèðóåòñÿ êàê ìèìîëåòíàÿ àëëþçèÿ, êàê ÷àñòíàÿ àíàëîãèÿ èëè êàê ðàçâåðíóòàÿ àíàëîãèÿ. Öåëûé ïàðòèêóëÿðíûé íàððàòèâ (ôðàãìåíò íàððàòèâà) ìîæåò áûòü íå áîëåå ÷åì îðêåñòðîâêîé èíâîêàöèè. Öåëûé òåìàòè÷åñêèé äèñêóðñ ìîæåò âäîõíîâëÿòüñÿ èíâîêàöèåé, îòêðûòî íå àðòèêóëèðîâàííîé. Èíâîêàöèÿ ýêñïëóàòèðóåò äâå ñòîðîíû ïðîøëîãî. Âî-ïåðâûõ, òî, ÷òî ïðîøëîå – ýòî “åùå îäíî”, “äðóãîå”.  ýòîì ñëó÷àå èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó – ýòî âàðèàíò èíâîêàöèè ê ÷óæîìó. Ñðàâíèâàÿ “ñâîå” ñ ýòèì “÷óæèì”, ìû, ÿêîáû, ïîëó÷àåì øàíñ íàó÷èòüñÿ íà ÷óæîì îïûòå. À åñëè ýòî “÷óæîå” ê òîìó æå åùå è “ïðîøëîå”, âîçìîæåí ñïåöèôè÷åñêèé óðîê, èìåíóåìûé “óðîêîì èñòîðèè”. Õîòÿ ìû è íå óñòàåì ïîâòîðÿòü, ÷òî èñòîðèÿ íè÷åìó íå ó÷èò, íàøà íàäåæäà, ÷òî èç ïðîøëîãî ìîæíî èçâëå÷ü óðîêè, íà ñàìîì äåëå ñîâåðøåííî íåóíè÷òîæèìà. È, âîïðåêè ïåññèìèñòè÷åñêîé îáûäåííîé ìóäðîñòè, âïîëíå îïðàâäàíà. Òî, ÷òî îáðàùåíèå ê èñòîðè÷åñêèì ïðåöåäåí- òàì ïîêà íå áûëî ñëèøêîì óñïåøíûì, íè÷åãî íå äîêàçûâàåò. Êðîìå âñåãî ïðî÷åãî, ïðàãìàòè÷åñêè-èíñòðóìåíòàëüíûé àíàëèç ïðîøëîãî òîëüêî-òîëüêî íà÷àëñÿ è, ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ïåøêîì ïîä ïèñüìåííûé ñòîë õîäèò. È åñëè óæ ðàäèêàëüíî ïåðåïèñûâàòü èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàð- ðàòèâ, òî â ðàñ÷åòå íà òî, ÷òîáû îí áûë ïðèãîäåí äëÿ ïðîåêòèðî-

472 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âàíèÿ áóäóùåãî, à íå ðàäè ñïèðèòè÷åñêèõ ñåàíñîâ. Ò.å. äâèæåíèå èäåò íàçàä (èëè âïåðåä?) îò íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêè îðèåíòèðîâàííîãî èñòî- ðè÷åñêîãî íàððàòèâà ê ôóòóðèñòè÷åñêè îðèåíòèðîâàííîìó ïðè- êëàäíîìó ñðàâíèòåëüíîìó èñòîðèçìó. Êàæåòñÿ, òàê ýòî è ïðî- èñõîäèò. Âî-âòîðûõ, â èíâîêàöèÿõ èñïîëüçóåòñÿ òîò ôàêò, ÷òî îäíî èç ñîïîñòàâèìûõ áûëî “ðàíüøå”, òî åñòü ïåðåä äðóãèì ñîïîñòà- âèìûì. Ýòîò ôàêò ñòàíîâèòñÿ ìíîãîçíà÷èòåëüíûì â ñâåòå îñîáîé èñòîðèîñîôèè, ïðåäïîëàãàþùåé, ÷òî îáùåñòâà ó÷àñòâóþò â íåêî- òîðîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ãîíêå âïåðåä è ââåðõ, îòñòàâàÿ äðóã îò äðóãà, äîãîíÿÿ è ïåðåãîíÿÿ äðóã äðóãà. Êàêîâû áû íè áûëè ñîìíåíèÿ â êîððåêòíîñòè ïîíÿòèÿ “ïðîãðåññ”, íåëüçÿ íå âèäåòü, ÷òî â èñòî- ðè÷åñêè ñðåäíåñðî÷íûõ ôëóêòóàöèÿõ (ïî ìåíüøåé ìåðå) îáùåñòâî ìîæåò ìåíÿòüñÿ è â ñàìîì äåëå ìåíÿåòñÿ íàïðàâëåííî è â ëó÷øóþ ñòîðîíó, ïðîõîäÿ îïðåäåëåííûå ñòàäèè. Áîëåå òîãî, åñòü óáåæ- äåíèå, ÷òî âñå îáùåñòâà (èëè îáùåñòâà îäíîãî êóëüòóðíîãî êðóãà) ðàçâèâàþòñÿ â îäíîì íàïðàâëåíèè. Ñòàëî áûòü, íåïëîõî áû çíàòü, íà êàêîé òðàåêòîðèè è íà êàêîì åå îòðåçêå íàõîäèìñÿ ìû. Ó âñÿêîé àíàëîãèè, ðàçóìååòñÿ, åñòü îöåíî÷íûé è àíàëèòè÷åñêèé ïîòåíöèàë. Êàêîé èç íèõ ðåàëèçóåòñÿ áîëüøå, çàâèñèò îò ìíîãèõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ, è, ïðåæäå âñåãî, îò íàìåðåíèé àãåíòà è ñîîòâåòñòâó- þùåãî âûáîðà ñòèëèñòèêè. Îöåíî÷íûå èìïëèêàöèè àíàëîãèé ìîãóò áûòü óìûøëåííûìè èëè íåêîíòðîëèðóåìûìè. Âî âòîðîì ñëó÷àå äàëåêî íå âñå çàâèñèò îò àêòèâíîãî àãåíòà. Òîò, êòî ïîëüçó- åòñÿ àíàëîãèåé, ìîæåò ñòàðàòüñÿ èçî âñåõ ñèë ñäåëàòü åå áåçîöå- íî÷íîé, íî òîò, êîìó îíà àäðåñîâàíà (êàê ñêåïòè÷åñêè ïðåäóïðåæ- äàåò Ï. Áóðäüå), ìîæåò ñâîåé ïðèñòðàñòíîñòüþ ñâåñòè âñå ýòè óñè- ëèÿ íà íåò. Ýòî ïðîèñõîäèò äàæå â ïðåäåëàõ ðèãîðèñòè÷åñêîé àêàäåìè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêè. À â ìàññîâîé êîììóíèêàöèè îöåíî÷íûé ýëåìåíò èíâîêàöèé ê ïðîøëîìó íåóñòðàíèì. Èíâîêàöèÿ ìîæåò áûòü õâàëîé ïðîøëîìó â óêîð íàñòîÿùåìó.  îáûäåííîé ïðàêòèêå îòñûëêà ê àâòîðèòåòó ïðîøëîãî – ïîñòîÿí- íûé êîìïîíåíò ðàçãîâîðà. Ìîæíî ñîñòàâèòü îáøèðíóþ êîëëåêöèþ ðàçãîâîðíûõ êëèøå è ïîãîâîðîê, óòâåðæäàþùèõ àâòîðèòåò ïðîøëîãî. Âåðà â ýòîò àâòîðèòåò ìîæåò áûòü ïðîñòî ïðèâû÷êîé, óíàñëåäîâàííîé îò òðàäèöèîííîãî îáùåñòâà. Åå ýìîöèîíàëüíî ïîäêðåïëÿåò íîñòàëüãèÿ ïî óøåäøåìó âðåìåíè, ÷òî äëÿ èíäèâèäà ïðåæäå âñåãî – âðåìÿ óøåäøåé ìîëîäîñòè. È âîîáùå, êàê èçâåñòíî:

473 À. Êóñòàðåâ, Ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó... “×òî ïðîøëî, òî áóäåò ìèëî”.5 Íî â ìîäåðíå, ðàçóìååòñÿ, àâòîðèòåò ïðîøëîãî íå áåçóñëîâåí, è ó èíâîêàöèè ê ïðîøëîìó ìîæåò áûòü ðàçíûé çíàê. Îíà ìîæåò âûñòóïàòü èëè êàê ïåññèìèñòè÷åñêîå âîñïîìèíàíèå îá “óòðà÷åííîì ðàå”, èëè êàê îïòèìèñòè÷åñêîå íàïîìèíàíèå î “áåãñòâå èç àäà”. Èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó êàê ïðèò÷à ñïîñîáíà áûòü è áîëåå èíòåëëåêòóàëüíî èçîùðåííîé. Îíà ìîæåò îçíà÷àòü, íàïðèìåð: “Âîò âèäèòå, òàê óæå áûâàëî, òàê ÷òî íè÷åãî îñîáåííîãî”; èëè: “Òàê óæå áûâàëî, è ïóñòü ýòî âàì áóäåò ïðåäîñòåðåæåíèåì”; èëè: “Òàê áûâàåò, íî ýòî íå íàâñåãäà”, èëè: “Âîò êàê íàäî áûëî, à íå òàê êàê ó íàñ” – è òàê äàëåå è òîìó ïîäîáíîå. Òàêîãî ðîäà èíâîêàöèè – ðåçóëüòàò âëèÿíèÿ “íàó÷íûõ” ïðàêòèê èíòåðïðåòàöèè ïðîøëîãî. Ìîæíî îæèäàòü, ÷òî èõ áóäåò âñå áîëüøå ïî ìåðå òîãî, êàê â èñòî- ðè÷åñêîé íàóêå ðàçâèâàþòñÿ ñðàâíèòåëüíûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ.

* * * Ðàçíûå ñòîðîíû ïðàêòèêè èíâîêàöèè õîðîøî èëëþñòðèðóåò íèæåñëåäóþùèé ýïèçîä.6  ñàìîì êîíöå 2000, èëè â ñàìîì íà÷àëå 2001 ã. â åæåíåäåëüíèêå “Die Zeit” ïîÿâèëèñü ðÿäîì äâå ñòàòüè. Àâòîð îäíîé èç íèõ, Ðóäîëüô Âàëüòåð (Rudolph Walther), ÿçâèòåëüíî êðèòèêîâàë ðåæèì êàíöëåðà Êîëÿ. Àâòîð äðóãîé, Ìèõàýëü Òóìàíí (Michael Thumann), êîììåíòèðîâàë ïðîèñõîäèâøåå â Ðîññèè â ìîìåíò ïåðåäà÷è âëàñòè îò Åëüöèíà ê Ïóòèíó. Ð. Âàëüòåð ïîñòðîèë ñâîå ýññå íà øèðîêîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé èíâî- êàöèè, ñðàâíèâàÿ Ãåðìàíèþ êàíöëåðà Êîëÿ ñ Ôðàíöèåé Ëóè- Ôèëèïïà. Îí âñïîìíèë çíàìåíèòóþ ôîðìóëó Ìàðêñà, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé: “Èþëüñêàÿ ìîíàðõèÿ – íè÷òî èíîå, êàê îãðîìíàÿ àêöèî-

5 Ñðàçó ïîñëå Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû áûë ðàñïðîñòðàíåí òàêîé àíåêäîò: â Ìàëîì òåàòðå (èëè ÌÕÀÒå?) èäåò ïîëèòèíôîðìàöèÿ. Ïàðòîðã ðàçúÿñíÿåò ñóùíîñòü êîììóíèçìà. Ïðåñòàðåëîé àðòèñòêå Ñ. Â. ßáëî÷êèíîé åãî ðàçúÿñíåíèÿ êàæóòñÿ ñëèøêîì ìóäðåíûìè, è îíà ïðîñèò îáúÿñíèòü åé âñå íà ïàëüöàõ. Ïàðòîðã: “Íó, ïðîùå ãîâîðÿ, êîììóíèçì – ýòî êîãäà âñåãî ìíîãî: ïðîäóêòîâ, íàðÿäîâ, æèëïëîùàäè”. ßáëî÷êèíà: “Àãà, ïîíÿòíî, ýòî êàê ïðè öàðå áûëî?” À ÷åðåç ïîëâåêà ïîÿâèëñÿ òàêîé àíåêäîò. Ñèäÿò òðîå ìóæèêîâ è âñïîìèíàþò: “Ïîìíèøü, ÷òî ìîæíî áûëî íà òðåøêó êóïèòü? È ïîëáàíêè. È òàêñè. È â ðåñòîðàí ñõîäèòü”. Ïîâçäûõàëè, ïîâñïîìèíàëè, è îäèí ãîâîðèò: “Ýõ, ìóæèêè, ïðîøåëåñòåë íàä íàìè êîììóíèçì, à ìû è íå çàìåòèëè”. 6 ß ðèñêóþ ïðèáåãíóòü â ýòîì ôðàãìåíòå ê æàíðó “âñïîìèíàíèÿ î ïðîèñøåäøåì ñëó÷àå”, ïîñêîëüêó îí âîñïðîèçâîäèò ðåàëüíóþ òðàåêòîðèþ “äâèæåíèÿ èíâîêàöèè â ïîëå ñîâîêóïíîãî íàððàòèâà” êàê áóòûëêè, áðîøåííîé â ìîðå. 474 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íåðíàÿ êîìïàíèÿ äëÿ ýêñïëóàòàöèè ôðàíöóçñêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî áîãàòñòâà, ÷üè äèâèäåíäû ðàñïðåäåëÿþòñÿ ìåæäó ìèíèñòðàìè, ïàëàòàìè, 240.000 èçáèðàòåëåé è èõ êëåâðåòàìè, à Ëóè Ôèëèïï – äèðåêòîð êîìïàíèè”. Äëÿ òåõ, êîìó Ìàðêñà ìàëî, Âàëüòåð àïåë- ëèðîâàë åùå è ê ìíåíèþ À. Òîêâèëÿ, êîòîðûé õàðàêòåðèçîâàë ðåæèì Ëóè Ôèëèïïà êàê ñóùåñòâóþùèé òîëüêî âî èìÿ ñîõðàíåíèÿ âëàñòè è ñîáñòâåííûõ áîãàòñòâ. Äàëüøå – áîëüøå: ðåæèì êîëåáëåòñÿ òî âïðàâî, òî âëåâî ñ åäèí- ñòâåííîé öåëüþ: íå óòðàòèòü ïîääåðæêè áîëüøèíñòâà. Ýëèòû çàê- ðåïëÿþò ñâîè ïðåèìóùåñòâà, à ïðåìüåð-ìèíèñòð Ôðàíñóà Ãèçî ñâîäèò ïîëèòèêó ê ñîõðàíåíèþ ñòàòóñ êâî è ïðèãîâàðèâàåò: îáî- ãàùàéòåñü, êðåïèòå ñâîè èíñòèòóöèè, ñòðîéòåñü. Êîíñåðâàòèâíîå ìûøëåíèå ïðè Ãèçî óâåðîâàëî, ÷òî ðûíî÷íûå ñèëû – ýòî ïðèðîäíûå ñèëû, ÷òî îíè ãàðàíòèðóþò ðàçâèòèå, è ÷òî â ýòîì ñîñòîèò áîæüå ïðîâèäåíèå. Ðóññêèé ÷èòàòåëü íå ìîã íå ïîðàçèòüñÿ òîìó, êàê íàðèñîâàííàÿ Âàëüòåðîì êàðòèíà ïîäõîäèëà ê Ðîññèè 1990-õ ãã. Íà ðóññêèé ãëàç – ãîðàçäî áîëüøå, ÷åì ê ðåæèìó Êîëÿ. Íî Òóìàííó òàêàÿ èíâîêà- öèÿ â îòíîøåíèè Ðîññèè ñîâåðøåííî íå ïðèõîäèëà â ãîëîâó, íåñìîòðÿ íà åãî íåçàóðÿäíóþ (ïî ìåðêàì çàïàäíîé ïðåññû) îñâå- äîìëåííîñòü â ðîññèéñêèõ äåëàõ. Åãî êîððåñïîíäåíöèÿ èç Ìîñêâû ïåðåæåâûâàëà âîïðîñ: íàñêîëüêî ðåæèì Ïóòèíà ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèì – íà 51%, íà 49%, èëè òîëüêî íà 22%?  ñòàòüå âîñïðîèçâîäèëèñü âûñêàçûâàíèÿ åãî ìîñêîâñêèõ ñîáåñåäíèêîâ, è áûëî âèäíî, ÷òî èì òîæå èíâîêàöèÿ ê ýïîõå Ëóè Ôèëèïïà ñ ïðè- ëèïøèìè ê íåìó êëèøå enrichissez-vous è juste milieu íè íà ñåêóíäó íå ïðèõîäèëà â ãîëîâó. Ñîñåäñòâî ýòèõ òåêñòîâ, íàïèñàííûõ äâóìÿ íåìöàìè, ïðîèçâåëî íà ìåíÿ, êàê íà ðóññêîãî ÷èòàòåëÿ, îñîáåííî ñèëüíîå âïå÷àòëåíèå. Õîòåëîñü èõ îáúåäèíèòü.7 Êîå-êîìó ýòà èíâîêàöèÿ â îòíîøåíèè Ðîññèè, îäíàêî, ïðèøëà â ãîëîâó óæå òîãäà. Ïî÷òè îäíîâðåìåííî ñ ïóáëèêàöèÿìè ⠓Die Zeit” ìíå ïîïàëàñü êîðîòêàÿ ïóáëèêàöèÿ ⠓Le Monde” (6 ÿíâàðÿ 2001 ã.). Åå àâòîð, Àëåêñàíäð Ìåëüíèê (Alexandre Melnik) ïèñàë, ÷òî ðåæèì Ïóòèíà íàïîìèíàåò åìó just milieu ïðè Ëóè Ôèëèïïå. Ìåëüíèê, ïðàâäà, îãðàíè÷èëñÿ àíàëîãèåé ïî îäíîìó ôàêòó:

7 Îïàñàþñü, ÷òî åñëè áû ðóññêèé ÷èòàòåëü ïîïûòàëñÿ îáúÿñíèòü ýòî Âàëüòåðó, Òóìàííó è ðåäàêòîðó “Die Zeit”, âñå îíè ðàçäðàæåííî ïîñìîòðåëè áû íà íåãî êàê íà ïèæîíà. 475 À. Êóñòàðåâ, Ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó... ñíà÷àëà ïðè Ïóòèíå âîññòàíîâèëè äâóãëàâîãî îðëà è òðèêîëîð, ïîòîì ñîâåòñêèé ãèìí. È íàøèì è âàøèì, çîëîòàÿ ñåðåäèíà, just milieu – ðàâíîóäàëåííîñòü... À ÷åðåç íåñêîëüêî ëåò èìåëî ìåñòî åùå îäíî ñîâïàäåíèå: â êîíöå 2004 ã. ÿ îáíàðóæèë â ïå÷àòè îäíîâðåìåííî äâå ðàáîòû, ñðàâíè- âàâøèå Ðîññèþ ðóáåæà ÕÕ è XXI âåêîâ è Ôðàíöèþ ñåðåäèíû XIX â. Ýòî áûëè ñòàòüÿ À. Ýòêèíäà â æóðíàëå Ab Imperio (¹ 1/2004 ã.) è ïóáëèêàöèÿ Ä. Òðàâèíà â åæåíåäåëüíèêå “Íîâîå âðåìÿ” (¹ 48 îò 28 íîÿáðÿ 2004 ã.). Ìîæíî äóìàòü, ÷òî îíè ïðîèñõîäÿò èç îäíîé è òîé æå èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé êîòåðèè, è ÷òî îá ýòîì òåïåðü “ãîâîðÿò”. Ýòî çíà÷èò, ÷òî â áëèæàéøåì áóäóùåì ñîïîñòàâëåíèå Ðîññèè 1990-õ ãã. ñ Ôðàíöèåé ñåðåäèíû XIX â. ñòàíåò âëèÿòåëüíûì è ÷àñòî ïîâòîðÿþùèìñÿ òðîïîì. Ä. Òðàâèí “âñïîìèíàåò” îïûò Èþëüñêîé ìîíàðõèè âî Ôðàíöèè (1830-1848) è ïîñëåäîâàâøåé çà íåé Òðåòüåé èìïåðèè (1856-1871), îáñóæäàÿ ïåðñïåêòèâû áèçíåñà â ñîâðåìåííîé Ðîññèè. Îòâåðãàÿ îïàñåíèÿ ïî ïîâîäó ïîâòîðíîé îòìåíû ÷àñòíîé ñîáñòâåííîñòè è äàæå ìàññîâîé äåíàöèîíàëèçàöèè, Òðàâèí, îäíàêî, õàðàêòåðè- çóåò íûíåøíèé ïîðÿäîê â Ðîññèè êàê “àâòîðèòàðíûé” è çàäàåòñÿ âîïðîñîì: êàêîâû îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó áèçíåñîì è ãîñóäàðñòâîì â îòñóòñòâèå ðàçâèòîãî ãðàæäàíñêîãî îáùåñòâà è ýôôåêòèâíîé äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé ïðîöåäóðû? Òóò è âñïëûâàåò àíàëîãèÿ ñ Èþëüñ- êîé ìîíàðõèåé. Òðàâèí ïèøåò ñëåäóþùåå: Èíòåðåñû áèçíåñà áûëè òîãäà ÿðêî ïðåäñòàâëåíû â ïàðëà- ìåíòå, à ïðàâèòåëüñòâî ïûòàëîñü ñ ýòèì áèçíåñîì âñòóïàòü â ðàçíîãî ðîäà ñäåëêè. ...Ó îëèãàðõè÷åñêîãî ïåðèîäà ðàçâèòèÿ êàïèòàëèçìà âñåãäà åñòü îäíà íå ñëèøêîì ïðèÿòíàÿ îñîáåí- íîñòü – âûñîêàÿ ñòåïåíü êîððóïöèè è óâåëè÷åíèå ãîñóäàð- ñòâåííûõ ðàñõîäîâ íà öåëè, îòðàæàþùèå èíòåðåñû äåëîâîé ýëèòû.  ïåðèîä Èþëüñêîé ìîíàðõèè ïðàâèòåëüñòâî àêòèâíî èñïîëüçîâàëî ãîñóäàðñòâåííûå çàêàçû è êîíöåññèè äëÿ ïðè- âëå÷åíèÿ íà ñâîþ ñòîðîíó ãðóïïû âëèÿòåëüíûõ äåïóòàòîâ, íåîáõîäèìîé äëÿ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ïàðëàìåíòñêîãî áîëüøèíñòâà... Òàê ÷òî ðîññèéñêàÿ Ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ äóìà âðåìåí íàøåãî îëèãàðõè÷åñêîãî êàïèòàëèçìà áûëà íå áîëåå ÷åì íåñêîëüêî èçìåíåííîé êîïèåé ôðàíöóçñêîé ïàëàòû. Êîí÷èëîñü äåëî ýêî- íîìè÷åñêèì êðèçèñîì, î÷åðåäíîé ðåâîëþöèåé è ïåðåõîäîì âëàñòè ê õàðèçìàòèêó – Íàïîëåîíó III, ïðè êîòîðîì áûñòðî ðîñ ÂÂÏ, à ïðàâî íà êîððóïöèþ è ñîçäàíèå îñîáî äîõîäíûõ 476 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ôèíàíñîâûõ ñòðóêòóð îêàçàëîñü ìîíîïî-ëèçèðîâàíî ïðèäâîð- íîé ãðóïïèðîâêîé, êîòîðîé ïîêðîâèòåëüñòâîâàë ñàì èìïåðàòîð. Àíàëîãèè ñ ðîññèéñêîé äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòüþ çäåñü áîëåå ÷åì î÷åâèäíû. À. Ýòêèíä ïîä÷åðêèâàåò, ÷òî â òå âðåìåíà âî ôðàíöóçñêîé îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè áûëè î÷åíü ñèëüíû èñòîðè÷åñêèå ðåìèíèñ- öåíöèè, à èñòîðèêè (Ýòêèíä íàçûâàåò Ôðàíñóà Ãèçî, Æþëÿ Ìèøëå, ìîã áû íàçâàòü è Ëóè Àäîëüôà Òüåðà) èãðàëè âàæíóþ ðîëü â ïîëèòèêå. Ýòîò ôàêò åùå áîëüøå óñèëèâàåò ñõîäñòâî Ôðàíöèè 30-õ ãã. XIX â. ñ Ðîññèåé 90-õ ãã. ÕÕ â. Èíâîêàöèÿ ê ôðàíöóçñêîé Èþëüñêîé ìîíàðõèè èìååò ñëåäóþ- ùèå èìïëèêàöèè. Âî-ïåðâûõ, èç íåå âèäíî, ÷òî ðîññèéñêàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ âîâñå íå óíèêàëüíà, è óæå â ñèëó ýòîãî íå äîëæíà âûçûâàòü áîëåç- íåííîãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ, ÷òî “ó íàñ îïÿòü âñå íå êàê ó ëþäåé”. Òðàâèí ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî “íà ñàìîì äåëå ïîäàâëÿþùåå áîëüøèíñòâî ãîñóäàðñòâ íà òîì èëè èíîì ýòàïå ñâîåãî ðàçâèòèÿ ñòðàäàëî îò ýòîé áîëåçíè.” Âî-âòîðûõ, èíâîêàöèÿ ê Èþëüñêîé ìîíàðõèè âûñâå÷èâàåò ðåàëü- íûå îïàñíîñòè ïîäîáíîé ñèòóàöèè: “Åñëè ñòàíîâëåíèå ãðàæäàíñ- êîãî îáùåñòâà ó íàñ ñèëüíî çàòÿíåòñÿ, âîçìîæíû ñàìûå íåïðèÿòíûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ïîâîðîòû” (Òðàâèí). Íàêîíåö, îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, ÷òî ýòà èíâîêàöèÿ âîçíèêàëà êàê â îòíîøåíèè Ãåðìàíèè Ãåëüìóòà Êîëÿ, òàê è Ðîññèè Åëüöèíà- Ïóòèíà, âîçáóæäàåò âîîáðàæåíèå, è ïîçâîëÿåò âîñïðèíèìàòü ÷óòü ëè íå âåñü ñåãîäíÿøíèé ìèð êàê ïðåñëîâóòóþ “Èþëüñêóþ ìîíàðõèþ”. Åñëè òàê, òî ÷òî áû ýòî ìîãëî çíà÷èòü? Âîîáùå, ïàðàëëåëè ìåæäó Ôðàíöèåé è Ðîññèåé 1990-õ ãã. ìîãóò áûòü óìåñòíû âïëîòü äî ìîìåíòà ïðèõîäà ê âëàñòè äå Ãîëëÿ íà ôîíå àëæèðñêîé ýïîïåè è âûñåëåíèÿ èç Àëæèðà “÷åðíîíîãèõ”. Âåäü êàê Ôðàíöèÿ XIX â., òàê è Ðîññèÿ ÕÕ â. – îáðàçöîâûå ïîñëåðåâîëþ- öèîííûå îáùåñòâà â ïîèñêàõ íîâîãî ïîðÿäêà è èíñòèòóöèîíàëü- íîãî òâîð÷åñòâà,8 òî åñòü ïðîõîäÿùèå ÷åðåç ðàçíûå ôàçû è çèãçàãè. Ïåðåñòðîéêà è ïîñòïåðåñòðîå÷íàÿ ýïîõà (òàê ýôôåêòíî ñðàâíèâà- åìàÿ, êàê ìû âèäåëè, ñ “èþëüñêîé ìîíàðõèåé”) – îäíà èç òàêèõ ôàç. Ñ ýòîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ôðàíöóçñêèå èíâîêàöèè ìîãóò ñóùåñòâåííî äîïîëíèòü óæå óñòîÿâøèåñÿ èíâîêàöèè, îñíîâàííûå íà ïàðàëëåëÿõ ìåæäó îñîáûì ïóòåì (Sonderweg) òðàíñôîðìàöèè íåìåöêîãî è ðîñ-

8 “Ðóòèíèçàöèè õàðèçìû” â òåðìèíîëîãèè Ìàêñà Âåáåðà. 477 À. Êóñòàðåâ, Ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó... ñèéñêîãî îáùåñòâà.  ðîññèéñêîì êîíòåêñòå ïðîäóêòèâíû áûëè áû è èíâîêàöèè ê èñòîðèè Èñïàíèè, Ìåêñèêè è Òóðöèè, íà ÷òî, êàæåòñÿ, âîîáùå íèêòî ïîêà íå îáðàùàë âíèìàíèÿ, åñëè íå ñ÷èòàòü ïîïóëÿðíûõ â íåêîòîðîé ñðåäå èíâîêàöèé ê ôðàíêèçìó (ñ ïîëî- æèòåëüíûì çíàêîì).

* * * Ïàðàëëåëüíî ñ èíâîêàöèÿìè, ïîäñêàçûâàþùèìè âîñïðèÿòèå ïîñòïåðåñòðîå÷íîé Ðîññèè êàê ïîñëåðåâîëþöèîííîé, ðàñïðîñòðà- íÿþòñÿ èíâîêàöèè, íîðìàëèçóþùèå íûíåøíþþ ñèòóàöèþ. Ýòîò ýëåìåíò âåñüìà ñèëåí â èðîíè÷åñêèõ àëëþçèÿõ è ðåìèíèñöåíöèÿõ, ìàíèïóëèðóþùèõ ðåàëèÿìè “íàøåãî ñîâåòñêîãî ïðîøëîãî”. Òîò, êòî âíîñèò â ýòè èíâîêàöèè ýëåìåíò èðîíèè, ñ èõ ïîìîùüþ ñòàâÿò ñåáÿ (è ýìôàòè÷íîãî ÷èòàòåëÿ) âûøå ðåâîëþöèé è ðåàêöèé, âîîáùå âûøå òîé æèçíè, ÷àñòüþ êîòîðîé îíè âìåñòå áûëè. Èðîíè÷åñêèå èíâîêàöèè ê ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèè íàõîäÿòñÿ â ðóñëå îáùåé ïîñòñî- âåòñêîé ñòèëèñòè÷åñêîé òåíäåíöèè. Îíà âîçíèêëà íå íà ïóñòîì ìåñòå è áûëà ïîäãîòîâëåíà ïðåäûäóùèì ðàçâèòèåì, ïðåæäå âñåãî, èíòåëëèãåíòñêîé óñòíîé òðàäèöèè, â êîòîðîé ïðîèçîøëî ñìåøåíèå “âåðõà” è “íèçà”.9 Ýëèòàðíûå àìáèöèè “áîëòàþùèõ êëàññî┠(chattering classes íà ïîëåìè÷åñêè-ïîëèòè÷åñêîì àíãëèéñêîì ñëýíãå) ïðèâåëè ê ýëèòàðèçàöèè êàðíàâàëà, ê îñìîçèñó âûñîêîãî è íèçêîãî, è ê âîçíèêíîâåíèþ, òàê ñêàçàòü, “âûñîêîé ïîïñû” èëè “âûñîêîãî êèò÷à” ñ ñèëüíûì ýëåìåíòîì ïàðîäèè.10 Ïî-âèäèìîìó, ýòî è áûë ðóññêèé ïóòü â ïîñòìîäåðí.  ïàðîäèéíîì ñòèëå èäåò èíêîðïîðè- ðîâàíèå ñîâåòñêèõ ðåàëèé â ïîñòñîâåòñêèé íàððàòèâ. ×åìïèîíàìè ýòîé ïðàêòèêè ñòàëè Êîìàð-Ìåëàìèä è Âàéëü-Ãåíèñ.11 Óñèëåííàÿ ýêñïëóàòàöèÿ ïðîøëîãî â ðîññèéñêîì èíòåëëåê- òóàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîì ðàçãîâîðå î÷åíü çàìåòíà. À. Ýòêèíä â ñâîåé

9 Êóëóàðíûå (êóõîííûå) ðàçãîâîðû â ïèñüìåííîì îáùåñòâå, ãàçåòíûå òåêñòû, òåëåýêðàí, à òåïåðü åùå è èíòåðíåò ìîãóò ñ÷èòàòüñÿ ðàçíîâèäíîñòüþ óñòíîé òðàäèöèè, åå “ñìåæíèêàìè”, åå “èíîñóùåñòâîâàíèåì”, åå äîêóìåíòàöèåé èëè ïðîñòî ïîäîáèåì óñòíîé òðàäèöèè â êëàññè÷åñêîì (ýòíîëîãè÷åñêîì) ñìûñëå ñëîâà. Òóò âîçìîæíû è áîëåå ðàçâåðíóòûå ðàññóæäåíèÿ â ïîèñêàõ äåôèíèöèé è ïîñòðîåíèÿ òèïîëîãèé. 10 Ìîæíî äóìàòü, ÷òî Ì. Áàõòèí áûë âûøå ýòîé ñóåòíîé ïðàêòèêè, íî ìîæíî òàêæå ïðåäïîëàãàòü, ÷òî è îí òóò îêàçûâàëñÿ íå áåç ãðåõà. 11 Èõ ïðîäóêò ñêîðåå ìåìóàð, ÷åì ÷èñòàÿ èíâîêàöèÿ. Íî ýòî êàê ðàç ñëó÷àé ñîâìåùåííîñòè äâóõ ïðàêòèê. 478 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñòàòüå â Ab Imperio íàçûâàåò åå “ãèïåðèñòîðèöèçìîì”. Ýòî ñïðà- âåäëèâîå è âàæíîå íàáëþäåíèå, íàäî íàäåÿòüñÿ, áóäåò öèòèðîâàòüñÿ, íî è êîððåêòèðîâàòüñÿ òîæå. À. Ýòêèíä, ïî ìåíüøåé ìåðå, íàìåêàåò íà óíèêàëüíîñòü Ðîññèè â ýòîì îòíîøåíèè. ×òîáû ñóäèòü îá ýòîì óáåäèòåëüíî, íóæíî áû ñäåëàòü êîå-êàêîé ñðàâíèòåëüíûé êîíòåíò- àíàëèç. Ïîêà æå èíñòèíêòèâíîå âïå÷àòëåíèå òàêîâî, ÷òî ýòîò ñàìûé “èñòîðèöèçì” (“ãèïåð” èëè íå “ãèïåð”) ïîâñåìåñòåí. Èñòîðèþ, îñîáåííî íåäàâíþþ, âñïîìèíàþò âåçäå è ïîñòîÿííî. Ó ðàçíûõ ñòðàí, êîíå÷íî, ðàçíàÿ íåäàâíÿÿ èñòîðèÿ, è ýòî ñêàçûâàåòñÿ íà ýìî- öèîíàëüíîé è êîëîðèñòè÷åñêîé êîìïîíåíòå (íå ó âñåõ åùå â÷åðà áûë Ãóëàã12 ) “èñòîðèöèðóþùåãî äèñêóðñà”, íî íå áîëåå òîãî. Èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ äîêóìåíòàëèñòèêà, ïðåæäå âñåãî â æàíðå “áèîãðàôèè”, è ìåìóàðèñòèêà íåèìîâåðíî ïîïóëÿðíû ïîâñþäó; íà Çàïàäå, êàæåòñÿ, äàæå áîëüøå, ÷åì â Ðîññèè. Èíòåðåñ ê èñòîðèè ñòèìóëèðóþò àðò- èíäóñòðèÿ è èíôîòåéíìåíò. Îò “ðàññêàçîâ èç èñòîðèè” ïóáëèêà æäåò ðàñêðûòèÿ òàéí, ðàçîáëà÷åíèé, ïîäðîáíîñòåé ÷àñòíîé æèçíè èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ãåðîåâ è ò. ï. È, òåì íå ìåíåå, òðóäíî èçáàâèòüñÿ îò âïå÷àòëåíèÿ, ÷òî òàêîãî ðîäà èíâîêàöèè ê ïðîøëîìó, êàê ñâîåìó, òàê è ÷óæîìó, îñîáåííî õàðàêòåðíû äëÿ ðîññèéñêîé îáùåñòâåííî- íàöèîíàëüíîé æèçíè (íàððàòèâà). Ðîññèÿ, óæå ñî âðåìåí Ïåòðà I – ïðÿìî-òàêè ïîëèãîí èíâîêàöèé. Òàê êàê æå îòíîñèòüñÿ ê ýòîìó èñòîðèöèçìó (ãèïåðèñòîðèöèçìó, åñëè óãîäíî) è îñîáåííî – ê ïîñòïåðåñòðîå÷íîìó òðàâåñòèéíîìó èñòîðèöèçìó? Ïî ìíåíèþ À. Ýòêèíäà, ñêëîííîñòü ê èñòîðèöèçìó âûòåñíÿåò äðóãèå äèñêóðñû, à èìåííî äèñêóðñû î íàñòîÿùåì. Ó÷å- íûé íå äàåò ýòîìó îöåíêè, íî îíà íàïðàøèâàåòñÿ ñàìà ñîáîé, è âåñüìà ïëà÷åâíàÿ. Íî íå ïîòîìó, ÷òî ðàññêàçûâàÿ èñòîðèè (ñ ëþáûì çíà- êîì) èç ïðîøëîãî, ìû çàáûâàåì î íàñòîÿùåì. À ïîòîìó, ÷òî ìåòîä èíâîêàöèè íå çàìåíÿåò äðóãèõ ìåòîäîâ îáñóæäåíèÿ íàñòîÿùåãî. Èíâîêàöèÿ êàê ðèòîðè÷åñêèé ïðèåì è êàê àíàëîãèÿ ñòèìóëèðóåò ðåôëåêñèþ è àíàëèç, íî òðåáóåò ïðîäîëæåíèÿ, åñëè íå õî÷åò îñòàòüñÿ ïðîñòûì ñîòðÿñåíèåì âîçäóõà èëè “ïîòðÿñåíèåì îñíîâ”.

12 Õîòÿ â ×èëè èëè Àðãåíòèíå îí áûë, ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, åùå “ñåãîäíÿ óòðîì”. Íå ãîâîðÿ óæå î íåìåöêîì íàöèçìå. À òåïåðü â ýòîò êëóá ïîïàëà è Ôðàíöèÿ, ãäå íåäàâíî âñïîìíèëè î ôðàíöóçñêîì êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìå è ïðÿìîì ó÷àñòèè ⠓îêîí÷àòåëüíîì ðåøåíèè” åâðåéñêîé ïðîáëåìû. Âî âñåõ ýòèõ ñòðàíàõ âîñïîìèíàíèÿ î òðàâìàòè÷åñêîì ïðîøëîì íå îñòûëè, à âî Ôðàíöèè äàæå îæèâèëèñü. Áîëåå òîãî, ïðèçíàêè èõ îñòûâàíèÿ âûçûâàþò ïîâòîðíûå êîíâóëüñèè. À ÷òî ìû çíàåì îá Èíäîíåçèè, î Áèðìå, íàïðèìåð? 479 À. Êóñòàðåâ, Ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó... Ó èðîíè÷åñêè-ïàðîäèéíûõ èíâîêàöèé ê ñîâåòñêîìó ïðîøëîìó, ïðè âñåé èõ íåñêîëüêî óáëþäî÷íîé ñíîáèñòñêî-ïîïóëèñòñêîé èíòîíàöèè, åñòü êàê áóäòî áû è ïîëåçíàÿ ôóíêöèÿ – íîðìàëèçà- òîðñêàÿ, òåðàïåâòè÷åñêàÿ. Îíè ñíèìàþò íàïðÿæåíèå ìåæäó ðîñ- ñèéñêèì íàñòîÿùèì è ñîâåòñêèì ïðîøëûì è, íèêîãî íå ùàäÿ, íî âìåñòå ñ òåì íèêîãî íå îáèæàÿ, îáåñïå÷èâàþò íåêîòîðóþ èñòî- ðè÷åñêóþ ïðååìñòâåííîñòü. Ïîñëå ðåâîëþöèè 1917 ã. íàä ïðîøëûì íå ïîñìåèâàëèñü. Åãî óíè÷òîæàëè ôèçè÷åñêè. Òàê ÷òî õâàëà ïðîâè- äåíèþ, ïîäêèíóâøåìó íàì òåïåðü ýòîò ñïîñîá ðàñ÷åòîâ ñ ïðåäêàìè. Âïðî÷åì, ïðåóâåëè÷èâàòü ïîçèòèâíóþ ôóíêöèþ èðîíè÷åñêè- êàðíàâàëüíûõ èíâîêàöèé ê ñîâåòñêîìó ïðîøëîìó â ñòèëå ïîñò- ìîäåðíèñòêîãî ñòåáà íå õîòåëîñü áû. Ýòî, âñå-òàêè, ïàëëèàòèâ. Îí åñòü ñèìïòîì ñìÿã÷åíèÿ íðàâîâ, íî è óìñòâåííîé ëåíè è äàæå íåêîòîðîãî êâèåòèçìà, ÷òî ëè. Ïðîáëåìó âêëþ÷åíèÿ ñîâåòñêîé ýïîõè â îáùåðîññèéñêèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàððàòèâ îí íå ðåøàåò. Íî çäåñü âîçíèêàåò íîâûé âîïðîñ. Íóæåí ëè ïîñòïåðåñòðîå÷íîé Ðîññèè, âðîäå áû ïåðåæèâøåé âñå ðåâîëþöèè, òàêîé ãåíåðàëüíûé íàððàòèâ? Ìîæåò ëè îí âîîáùå áûòü ñîçäàí? Íà ýòîò ñ÷åò ñóùå- ñòâóåò ñèëüíàÿ è âîëíóþùàÿ (äàæå, ìîæåò áûòü, òðåâîæíàÿ) íåîïðå- äåëåííîñòü. Îáèëèå èðîíè÷åñêèõ èíâîêàöèé ê ñîâåòñêîìó ïðî- øëîìó ìîæåò ñèãíàëèçèðîâàòü î ïðåêðàùåíèè ðîññèéñêîãî íàð- ðàòèâà. Åñëè ýòî âåðíî – ÷òî òîãäà? Åñòåñòâåííî ïîèíòåðåñîâàòüñÿ, åñòü ëè ïîäîáíûå ñèìïòîìû â äðóãèõ àâòîðèòåòíûõ íàððàòèâàõ. Ôðàíöóçñêèé, êàæåòñÿ, îñòà- åòñÿ â öåëîì ïðåèñïîëíåí ñàìîóâàæåíèÿ è ìó÷èòåëüíî ñåðüåçåí.  íåìåöêîì è â àíãëî-àìåðèêàíñêîì íàððàòèâå î÷åíü ñèëüíû “àíòèíàöèîíàëüíûå” êðèòè÷åñêèå âåðñèè íàððàòèâà, øèðîêî èñïîëüçóþùèå ñàðêàçì, ôàðñ, öèíè÷åñêîå ñíèæåíèå. Íî îíè íå ñìåøèâàþòñÿ ñ îôèöèîçîì (ãîñóäàðñòâåííûì èëè ãðàæäàíñêèì). Àíãëèéñêèé íàððàòèâ íàõîäèòñÿ ïîä ñèëüíûì äàâëåíèåì êàðíà- âàëà è òðàâåñòèè óæå äàâíî, íî øóòîâñêîé âàðèàíò áðèòàíñêîãî ìèôà ñóùåñòâóåò âïîëíå ïàðàëëåëüíî êîíâåíöèîíàëüíîìó. Äëÿ ñîâðå- ìåííîãî ðîññèéñêîãî íàððàòèâà, êàæåòñÿ, õàðàêòåðåí èìåííî îñìîçèñ äâóõ âàðèàíòîâ â ñàìîì “öåíòðå êóëüòóðû”. Åñëè ýòî âïå÷àòëåíèå ïðàâèëüíî, òî âîçíèêàåò íåñêîëüêî âîïðîñîâ: ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ëè Ðîññèÿ ñîáîé â ýòîì ñìûñëå óíèêóì? Èëè æå ðîññèéñêèé íàððàòèâ ïðîêëàäûâàåò ïóòü âñåì îñòàëüíûì àâòîðèòåòíûì íàððàòèâàì?

480 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Äåìîêðàòèçàöèÿ è óðàâíåíèå â ïðàâå íà “ñâîþ èñòîðèþ” ñàìûõ ðàçíîîáðàçíûõ ñóáêóëüòóð (ýòíè÷åñêèõ, êëàññîâûõ, ïðîôåññèî- íàëüíûõ ìîðàëüíî-êîíôåññèîíàëüíûõ, ïîêîëåí÷åñêèõ) ïîâñåìåñòíî ïîäîðâàëè îñíîâû ãåãåìîíèñòñêîãî (â ïîíèìàíèè Àíòîíèî Ãðàìøè) íàððàòèâà.  äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîì ïëþðàëèñòè÷íîì îáùåñòâå ãåíå- ðàëüíûé íàððàòèâ ñîñòàâèòü âñå òðóäíåå. ×òîáû óãîäèòü âñåì, åãî ïðèõîäèòñÿ ëèáî ïåðåãðóæàòü èíôîðìàöèåé, ëèáî, íàîáîðîò, âûõîëàùèâàòü, ëèáî ïîñòîÿííî ïåðåïèñûâàòü. Ïî èíåðöèè îí ïðî- äîëæàåò ñîñòàâëÿòüñÿ è ñóùåñòâîâàòü, íî, ïî ñâîåìó îáúåìó è çíà÷å- íèþ, ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ ïî÷òè â ãåðàëüäè÷åñêèé ñèìâîë – íàðÿäó ñ ãåð- áîì è ôëàãîì.13 Ïóáëèêà ñàìà åãî ôîðìèðóåò.  Àíãëèè, íàïðèìåð, ïðîøëî íåñêîëüêî âñåíàðîäíûõ òåëåâèçèîííûõ ãîëîñîâàíèé íà òåìó “10 ñàìûõ âåëèêèõ àíãëè÷àí”, “10 ñàìûõ âåëèêèõ ïèñà- òåëåé” è ò. ï.  ãëàâíîì êîíêóðñå ïåðâûå òðè ìåñòà çàíÿëè Óèíñòîí ×åð÷èëëü, èíæåíåð Èçàìáàð Áðóíåëü è ïðèíöåññà Äèàíà – âîò âàì è âåñü “àíãëèéñêèé íàððàòèâ”. Òåì íå ìåíåå, “öåíòð” îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè òàêîé íàððàòèâ ïðîäîëæàåò çàíèìàòü, êîëü ñêîðî òàì åãî íå ìîæåò çàìåíèòü íè îäèí ÷àñòíûé íàððàòèâ. À ÷àñòíûå íàððàòèâû îñòàþòñÿ íà ïåðèôåðèè, ãäå îíè êîíêóðèðóþò è ïîëåìèçèðóþò äðóã ñ äðóãîì, íî è âçàèìíî îáîãàùàþòñÿ – â ÷àñòíîñòè ÷åðåç èíâîêàöèè. Èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó, êîòîðîãî ñàì àãåíò ëè÷íî íå ïîìíèò, íåèçáåæíî åñòü îäíîâðåìåííî öèòèðîâàíèå íàððàòèâà. Ýòî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó îäíîâðåìåííî åñòü è îáðàùåíèå ê ñïåöèôè÷åñêîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè ïðîøëîãî. Èíâîêàöèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó è öèòèðîâàíèå íàððàòèâî⠖ ñïîñîá èõ ñîñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ.  ñâîèõ êðàéíèõ âûðàæåíèÿõ ïåðåä íàìè, êîíå÷íî, äâå ðàçíûå ïðàêòèêè. Íî êîãäà ïðîøëîå èçâåñòíî àãåíòó èíâîêàöèè òîëüêî ïî íàððàòèâó, îíè ñîâìåùàþòñÿ, õîòÿ îäíà èç íèõ ìîæåò áûòü ýêñïëèöèðîâàíà, à äðóãàÿ íåò, è, âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, îíè â ðàçíîé ìåðå çàìåòíû. Ïðè òîì, ÷òî íè îäèí ÷àñòíûé íàððàòèâ ïî îïðåäåëåíèþ (è â ñèëó êîíâåíöèè) íå ìîæåò ñòàòü îáùèì, îíè ðàíæèðóþòñÿ ïî ñòåïåíè áëèçîñòè ê öåíòðó, ò.å. ïî âëèÿòåëüíîñòè è ïðåäñòàâèòåëüíîñòè. Îäíè íàððàòèâû ðàñïîëàãàþòñÿ íà ðàçíîì ðàññòîÿíèè îò öåíòðà óæå ïðè ñâîåì ðîæäåíèè è òàì îñòàþòñÿ íàâñåãäà. Äðóãèå ïåðå-

13 ß îòâëåêàþñü îò ãåíåðàëèçîâàííûõ íàððàòèâîâ êàê ëèòåðàòóðíîãî æàíðà, èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîãî ýêñïåðèìåíòèðîâàíèÿ è àíàëèòè÷åñêîãî èíñòðóìåíòà. Èõ ñòàíîâèòñÿ âñå áîëüøå, íî èìåííî ýòî è åñòü îáîðîòíàÿ ñòîðîíà êðèçèñà ãåíåðàëüíîãî íàððàòèâà. 481 À. Êóñòàðåâ, Ïðàêòèêè îáðàùåíèÿ ê ïðîøëîìó... ìåùàþòñÿ ñ ïåðèôåðèè ê öåíòðó, îò öåíòðà íà ïåðèôåðèþ (âïëîòü äî êðàéíåé ïåðèôåðèè – ÷èñòî ðàçãîâîðíîé ïðàêòèêè), à ïîòîì îáðàòíî ê öåíòðó. Ýòî ïðîèñõîäèò ïî èäåîëîãè÷åñêèì ìîòèâàì, â ñèëó ïåðåìåíû àêàäåìè÷åñêîé ìîäû èëè ïðîñòî â ñèëó óñòàðåâà- íèÿ/âûìèðàíèÿ íîñèòåëÿ.  ýòîì “êðóãîâîðîòå íàððàòèâî┠êîëîñ- ñàëüíà ðîëü èíâîêàöèé. Ïðèìåð èäåîëîãè÷åñêè “çàáðàêîâàííîãî”, íî âîçâðàùàþùåãîñÿ íàððàòèâà – èìïåðñêèé íàððàòèâ. Ïðîäîëæàÿ æèòü â âèäå íîñòàëü- ãè÷åñêèõ è ïî÷òè íå÷àÿííûõ “âñïîìèíàíèé” (ñì. ýïèãðàô), îí âûõî- äèò íà ïîâåðõíîñòü â âèäå ðåâèçèîíèñòñêèõ èíâîêàöèé è öèòàò, à çàòåì è öåëèêîì, õîòÿ, êîíå÷íî, â èçìåíåííîì âèäå. Ýòî ïðîèñõîäèò ñåé÷àñ ñ áðèòàíñêèì èìïåðñêèì íàððàòèâîì. Ýíåðãèÿ ðàñêàÿíèÿ â èìïåðèàëèñòè÷åñêîì ïðîøëîì, êàæåòñÿ, èññÿêëà. Ïîëîæèòåëüíûõ èíâîêàöèé ê èìïåðñêîìó ïðîøëîìó ñòàíîâèòñÿ âñå áîëüøå, à íåäàâíî èìïåðñêèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàð- ðàòèâ åùå ðàç íàïîìíèë î ñåáå â ïîïóëÿðíîé êíèãå Íàéàëà Ôåðãþ- ñîíà, íàïèñàííîé ïî ñëåäàì åãî æå òåëåâèçèîííîãî (sic!) ñåðèàëà.14 Ïîõîæå îáñòîèò äåëî ñ ðîññèéñêèì âåëèêîäåðæàâíûì (ñâåðõ- äåðæàâíûì) íàððàòèâîì.15 Îí ïðîäîëæàåò ñóùåñòâîâàòü â ïåðè- ôåðèéíûõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñåêòàõ, âäîõíîâëÿþùèõñÿ “âñïîìèíà- íèÿìè” è ñòèëèçóþùèõ ñâîè íàððàòèâû êàê èíâîêàöèè. Ýòà ïðàê- òèêà ó âñåõ íà âèäó. Áëèæå ê öåíòðó ñêðûòóþ è î÷åíü íàñòîé÷èâóþ èíâîêàöèþ ê ýòîìó âåëèêîäåðæàâíîìó ïðîøëîìó ìîæíî óñìîòðåòü â ðîññèé- ñêîì äèñêóðñå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ îòíîøåíèé. Çäåñü ðåçêî ïðåîáëà- äàþò ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêèé è ýòíî-áèîëîãè÷åñêèé (âäîõíîâëÿþùèéñÿ Ëüâîì Ãóìèëåâûì) äèñêóðñû – íå òîëüêî â ñâîáîäíîì îáùå- ñòâåííîì ðàçãîâîðå, íî è â àêàäåìè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêå, õîòÿ èìåííî â ýòîé ñôåðå ãðàíèöà ìåæäó ôîëüêëîðîì è íàóêîé ñåé÷àñ ñîâåð- øåííî ñòåðëàñü. Âîçìîæíî, ãîâîðÿùèå èíäèâèäû ïðîñòî íå ðàñïî- ëàãàþò èíûìè èíòåëëåêòóàëüíî-äèñêóðñèâíûìè ðåñóðñàìè. Íî ýòî, êîíå÷íî, çíà÷èò è òî, ÷òî ëþäè òîñêóþò ïî áûëîìó âåëè÷èþ Ðîññèè êàê ñâåðõäåðæàâû.

14 N. Ferguson. Empire. The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. New York, 2003. Ýòà êíèãà ïîÿâèëàñü íà ôîíå îæèâëåíèÿ ðàçãîâîðîâ îá “óòðà÷åííîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè” è íåîáõîäèìîñòè åå âîññòàíîâëåíèÿ. 15 Âîñïîëüçóåìñÿ ýòèìè ñëîâàìè âìåñòî ñëîâà “èìïåðñêèé”, ÷òîáû èçáåæàòü êîíòðîâåðç ïî ïîâîäó òðàêòîâêè ÑÑÑÐ êàê èìïåðèè. 482 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Óäàëÿÿñü îò öåíòðà, íàððàòèâû ïðîøëîãî íå èñ÷åçàþò ñîâñåì. Îäíè ëåæàò â êóëüòóðíîì ñëîå è ìîãóò áûòü â ëþáîé ìîìåíò îòêîïàíû, êàê ýòî ïðîèçîøëî ñ “àíòè÷íîñòüþ”. Äðóãèå ñîõðàíÿ- þòñÿ â óñòíîé òðàäèöèè, êîòîðàÿ òåïåðü íàïîìèíàåò íå ñòîëüêî îáùèíó ïåðåñêàç÷èêîâ Êàëåâàëû (Singers of Tales Ëîðäà), ñêîëüêî ñîîáùåñòâî “èìåíè Ðýÿ Áðýäáåðè”, ãäå îòòåñíåííûå íà ïåðèôåðèþ ãðàìîòåè çàïîìèíàþò íàèçóñòü è ÷èòàþò äðóã äðóãó âñëóõ çàïðå- ùåííûå èëè ïðîñòî óòðà÷åííûå êíèãè. Ýòà ñðåäà ïîñòîÿííî èçâåð- ãàåò â ìàññîâóþ êîììóíèêàöèþ öèòàòû èç íàððàòèâîâ è èíâîêàöèè ê ïðîøëîìó – ïî îòäåëüíîñòè è â ñìåñÿõ. Ïðèìåð òàêîé ñðåäû – ðàçãîâîðíàÿ îáùèíà ñîâåòñêîé èíòåë- ëèãåíöèè â ýïîõó Áîëüøîé öåíçóðû. Íå ñëó÷àéíî ðîìàí Ð. Áðýäáåðè “451° ïî Ôàðåíãåéòó” áûë â íåé òàê ïîïóëÿðåí. Àëëþçèè, âûçâàííûå èì ê æèçíè, ñëóæèëè ñâîåãî ðîäà ñðåäñòâîì ìàçîõèñòñêîé ñàìî- èäåíòèôèêàöèè äëÿ èíòåëëèãåíöèè ñ åå êóëüòîì ÷òåíèÿ. Èìåííî ýòà ñðåäà õðàíèëà îáðûâêè “áûâøåãî” èñòîðè÷åñêîãî íàððàòèâà è, áîëåå òîãî, óñòíî (èëè “â ñòîë”) ôîðìèðîâàëà àëüòåðíàòèâíûé íàððàòèâ.  êà÷åñòâå ïðèìåðà ìîæíî ñîñëàòüñÿ íà èñòîðè÷åñêèå ýêçåðñèñû Àëåêñàíäðà Ñîëæåíèöûíà. Èìåííî ïîäîáíûå êîíñò- ðóêòû, à íå æèâàÿ ïàìÿòü î òîì, ÷òî “íà ñàìîì äåëå” ñëó÷èëîñü ïðè Ñîâåòñêîé âëàñòè, áûëî èñòî÷íèêîì àâòîðèòåòà è íàäåæä, âîçëàãàâøèõñÿ íà èíòåëëèãåíöèþ â íà÷àëå ýïîõè ãëàñíîñòè. Ãîðà ðîäèëà ìûøü, íî ýòî óæå äðóãîé ðàçãîâîð

SUMMARY

The essay proceeds from the assumption that the Russian post- Perestroika society is “hyper-historisised”. In its attempts to make sense of the post-Perestroika condition Russia is turning to a different range of historical experiences from its own and other countries and nations’ past. The practices of turning to the past multiply, while their intentions diversify. The article investigates the practice of invocation to the past. First the author introduces the theoretical concept of invocation and then he scrutinizes two examples of the letter: the mass ironic allusions to the Soviet past and the episodic invocation allowing to compare the post-Perestorika Russia of the 1990s to the French regime under Louis Philippe. 483 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Àëåêñàíäð ÔÈËÞØÊÈÍ

“ÎÄÍÀ ÇÅÌËß, ÐÀÇÍÀß ÏÀÌßÒܔ: ÂÅËÈÊÎÅ ÊÍßÆÅÑÒÂÎ ËÈÒÎÂÑÊÎÅ Â ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÎÉ ÏÀÌßÒÈ ÏÎËÜØÈ, ËÈÒÂÛ, ÓÊÐÀÈÍÛ, ÁÅËÎÐÓÑÑÈÈ È ÐÎÑÑÈÈ

25 íîÿáðÿ 1795 ã. ïîñëåäíèé êîðîëü Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé Ñòàíè- ñëàâ Ïîíÿòîâñêèé âî äâîðöå â ã. Ãðîäíî ïîäïèñàë àêò îòðå÷åíèÿ. Çäàíèÿ, â êîòîðûõ ñòîÿë êîðîëåâñêèé òðîí è çàñåäàë ñåéì, áûëè îòäàíû ðîññèéñêîìó âîåííîìó âåäîìñòâó. Ãðåíàäåðû ñáèëè ñ ôàñàäà äâîðöà êàìåííûé ãåðá Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé è ñáðîñèëè åãî ñî ñêëîíà ïî êðóòîìó áåðåãó ð. Íåìàí. Äî âîäû, ïðàâäà, ðàñêîëîâøèéñÿ íà íåñêîëüêî ÷àñòåé ãåðá íå äîëåòåë. Îí òàê è ëåæàë â çåìëå íà áåðåãó Íåìàíà ïî÷òè äâåñòè ëåò, ïîêà íå áûë îòêîïàí ìåñòíûìè ýíòó- çèàñòàìè. Îíè ïûòàëèñü ïåðåäàòü åãî íà õðàíåíèå â Èñòîðè÷åñ- êèé ìóçåé ã. Ãðîäíî, ðàñïîëîæåííûé â Ñòàðîì Çàìêå. Îäíàêî ðóêîâîäñòâî ìóçåÿ ïî÷åìó-òî îòêàçàëîñü âïóñòèòü â çàìîê ñòîëü ñèìâîëè÷íûé ýêñïîíàò. È ïî ñåé äåíü îáëîìîê ãåðáà, íà êîòîðîì ÿñíî âèäíà ñèìâîëèêà Ïîëüøè – Îðåë, è Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî (äàëåå – ÂÊË) – âñàäíèê ñ çàíåñåííîé â ðóêå ñàáëåé (òàê íàçûâàåìàÿ “Ïîãîíÿ”) âàëÿåòñÿ â êðàïèâå ñ âíåøíåé ñòîðîíû çäàíèÿ, ïîäàëüøå îò ÷ðåçìåðíî ëþáîïûòñòâóþùèõ ïîñåòèòåëåé.

485 À. Ôèëþøêèí, “Îäíà çåìëÿ, ðàçíàÿ ïàìÿòü” ... ×üè-òî çàáîòëèâûå ðóêè ïîäòàùèëè êàìåíü ïîä íàâåñ, ñïàñàÿ åãî îò äîæäÿ. Ñóäüáà ýòîãî ðàñêîëîòîãî ãåðáà ñåìèîòè÷íà. Íåçàäîëãî äî òîãî, êàê ïîä ðàäîñòíûå êðèêè ðîññèéñêèõ ñîëäàò “Ïîãîíÿ” è “Ïîëüñêèé îðåë” ïîëåòåëè â Íåìàí, ãîñóäàðñòâî, îáúåäè- íèâøåå â ñåáå â 1569 ã. Êîðîëåâñòâî Ïîëüñêîå è Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå, ïðåêðàòèëî ñâîå ñóùåñòâîâàíèå è áûëî ðàñ÷ëåíåíî. Âõî- äèâøèå â íåãî íàðîäû íèêîãäà áîëüøå íå áûëè ñîáðàíû â ðàìêàõ åäè- íîé äåðæàâû. Îòäåëü- íûå òåððèòîðèè Ïîëü- øè äî åå ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîãî âîçðîæäåíèÿ íàõî- äèëèñü â ñîñòàâå Àâñò- ðèè, Ïðóññèè, Ðîññèè. Áûâøèå çåìëè ÂÊË ñî- ñòàâèëè çíà÷èòåëüíóþ ÷àñòü Ëèòâû, Áåëàðóñè, Óêðàèíû, à òàêæå Ïîëüøè è Ðîññèè. Èëë. 1. Ãåðá Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, ñáðîøåí- Èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü íûé ðîññèéñêèìè âîéñêàìè ñ Íîâîãî Çàìêà î ÂÊË ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñî- ã. Ãðîäíî â 1795 ã. Ãðîäíî, ïîä ñòåíàìè Ñòà- áîé äîâîëüíî íåîáû÷íîå ðîãî Çàìêà. Ôîòî Àëåêñàíäðà Ôèëþøêèíà, ÿâëåíèå. Ñîáñòâåííî èñ- 2003 ã. òîðèÿ ÂÊË èçó÷åíà ÿâíî íåäîñòàòî÷íî. Ìíîãèå åå àñïåêòû íàõîäÿòñÿ â òàêîì æå çàáâåíèè, êàê è ãðîäíåíñêèé ãåðá Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, âàëÿþùèéñÿ ñðåäè ñîð- íÿêîâ. Îäíàêî ó êàæäîé èç ñòðàí, äëÿ êîòîðûõ ÂÊË ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷àñòüþ èñòîðèè, ñóùåñòâóåò ñâîÿ èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü î ïðîøëîì, âîñòðå- áîâàííàÿ â ìîäåðíûõ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðîåêòàõ äàííûõ äåðæàâ. Ïðè ýòîì íåâîçìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî êàêîå-ëèáî èç ñîâðåìåííûõ ãîñóäàðñòâ ÿâëÿåòñÿ áåññïîðíûì íàñëåäíèêîì èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà.

486 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Íàöèîíàëüíûå ïðîåêòû, â îñíîâå êîòîðûõ ëåæèò äèñêóðñ ÂÊË, âûñòðàèâàþòñÿ ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì âîêðóã òðåõ îñíîâîïîëàãàþùèõ êàòåãîðèé: “çåìëÿ”, “íàðîä” è “ãîñóäàðñòâî”. Äëÿ Ðîññèè è Óêðàèíû ïåðâè÷íà èäåÿ ðóññêîé (óêðàèíñêîé) çåìëè, îñâîåííîé åùå â ýïîõó Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè (èç êîòîðîé îáå ñîâðåìåííûå äåðæàâû âûâîäÿò ñâîè êîðíè) è çàòåì îêàçàâøåéñÿ â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË, à ïîòîì âîçâðàùåí- íîé â ðåçóëüòàòå ðóññêîãî èëè óêðàèíñêîãî ýòíî- è íàöèîãîñóäàð- ñòâåííîãî ñòðîèòåëüñòâà. Äëÿ íàçâàííûõ äåðæàâ áîëüøèíñòâî çåìåëü ÂÊË – èçíà÷àëüíî è âñåãäà íàøè, ëèøü ïî ñòå÷åíèþ îáñòîÿ- òåëüñòâ ïîä÷èíåííûå Âåëèêîìó êíÿæåñòâó. Çåìëÿ çäåñü âûñòóïàåò ïðèìîðäèàëèñòñêîé êàòåãîðèåé, íåðàñ- òîðæèìî ñâÿçàííîé ñ íàñåëÿþùèì åå íàðîäîì. Äëÿ ðîññèéñêîãî, áåëîðóññêîãî è óêðàèíñêîãî íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðîåêòîâ íàèáîëåå âàæíî, ÷òî çíà÷èòåëüíóþ äîëþ (ïî íåêîòîðûì óòâåðæäåíèÿì, äî 70%) íàñåëåíèÿ ÂÊË ñîñòàâëÿëè ðóññêèå, çàïàäíîðóññêèå, ðóñèíû, áåëîðóñû, óêðàèíöû (âàðèàíòû ýòíîíèìîâ çàâèñÿò îò íàöèî- íàëüíûõ èñòîðèîãðàôèé). Íàñåëåííîñòü òåððèòîðèè Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà ðóññêèì íàðîäîì ñîñòàâëÿëà îäíó èç âàæíåéøèõ àïîðèé, ëåæàùèõ â îñíîâå êàê ýêñïàíñèîíèñòñêîé ïîëèòèêè Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè â Çàïàäíîì êðàå, òàê è èäåè ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ñòðîè- òåëüñòâà â Áåëàðóñè. Íåäàðîì îäíèì èç ïåðâûõ ñèìïòîìîâ íà÷àëà áîðüáû áåëîðó- ñîâ çà íåçàâèñèìîñòü ñòàëî äåêëàðèðîâàíèå “çàêîííîãî ïðàâà ÁÑÑÐ íà Âèëüíþñ è Âèëüíþññêèé êðàé”, ñ êîòîðûì 23 ìàðòà 1990 ã. âûñòóïèë Ïðåçèäèóì Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà ÁÑÑÐ. Íàèáîëåå ñèìïòîìàòè÷íîé ïîïûòêîé “âîñõèùåíèÿ” èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ÂÊË ñòàëî ïðèíÿòèå â 1991 ã. Âåðõîâíûì ñîâåòîì Áåëîðóññêîé ðåñïóáëèêè ïî èíèöèàòèâå “Îïïîçèöèè Áåëîðóññêîãî íàðîäíîãî ôðîíòà” ñèìâîëèêè ÂÊË – ãåðáà “Ïîãîíÿ” è áåëî-êðàñíî-áåëîãî ôëàãà – â êà÷åñòâå ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ ñèìâîëîâ Ðåñïóáëèêè Áåëà- ðóñü. Îíè âñêîðå ïîÿâèëèñü íà áàíêíîòàõ, ìèëèöåéñêèõ øåâðî- íàõ, àðìåéñêèõ êîêàðäàõ, â ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ ó÷ðåæäåíèÿõ. Íà îñ- íîâå èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè î ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè ÂÊË Áåëàðóñü ïûòàëàñü îáðåñòè ñâîþ ãîñóäàðñòâåííóþ èäåþ, ïðè ýòîì ïîä÷åð- êèâàÿ ñëàâÿíñêèé, çàïàäíîðóññêèé, à íå ëèòîâñêèé ýòíè÷åñêèé ñîñòàâ íàñåëåíèÿ ÂÊË. Âåêòîð ýòîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ ðàçâèòèÿ áåëî- ðóññêîãî íîâåéøåãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîåêòà áûë èçìåíåí â 1994 ã. À. Ëóêàøåíêî, ñèìâîëîì ÷åãî ñòàë çàïðåò “Ïîãîíè” è áåëî-êðàñ-

487 À. Ôèëþøêèí, “Îäíà çåìëÿ, ðàçíàÿ ïàìÿòü” ... íîãî ôëàãà êàê ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ ñèì- âîëîâ Ðåñïóáëèêè Áåëàðóñü. Äëÿ ñîâðåìåííîãî ëèòîâñêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîåêòà äèñêóðñ ÂÊË âûñòóïàåò êàê íåñîìíåííûé è åäèí- ñòâåííî ëåãèòèìíûé êîíöåïò ñòðîè- òåëüñòâà ëèòîâñêîé äåðæàâû, èñòîðè- ÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü î âåëè÷èè è ìîãóùå- ñòâå êîòîðîé ÿâëÿåòñÿ çàëîãîì áóäó- ùåãî ñîâðåìåííîé Ëèòâû. Äëÿ ïîñ- ëåäíåé (êàê, âïðî÷åì, è äëÿ Áåëàðóñè) ÂÊË – ýòî âåëèêèé ïðåäîê, ñìûñë ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ êîòîðîãî áûë â îáúå- äèíåíèè íàðîäîâ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû â èõ ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèè àãðåññèâíîìó âîñòî÷íîìó ñîñåäó, Ðîññèéñêîé èìïå- ðèè. Ïîýòîìó àíòèèìïåðñêèé äèñ- êóðñ ÂÊË îêàçûâàåòñÿ â îñíîâå ñîâðå- ìåííûõ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðîåêòîâ äàí- íûõ ñòðàí.  òî æå âðåìÿ, åñòü êîí- öåïöèè ÂÊË êàê óíèòàðíîé èìïåðèè, â îñâîáîæäåíèè èç-ïîä âëàñòè êîòîðîé îáðåòàëà ñâîþ èäåíòè÷íîñòü, ê ïðè- Èëë. 2. Óñòàíîâêà ãåðáà “Ïîãî- ìåðó, óêðàèíñêàÿ íàöèÿ. íÿ” íà çäàíèè Âåðõîâíîãî Ñîâåòà Äëÿ Ïîëüøè æå ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé Áåëîðóññêîé ÑÑÐ. 1991 ã. Ôîòî- àñïåêò èìååò ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì ìåìî- ãðàôèÿ ïðåäîñòàâëåíà Ñåðãååì ðèàëüíîå çíà÷åíèå (ïàìÿòü î “ìîíàð- Ñàëååì. õèè ßãåëëîíî┠êàê îäíîé èç ñàìûõ êðàñèâûõ è ñîâåðøåííûõ â Åâðîïå). Çàòî â ïîëüñêîì íàöèîíàëüíîì ïðîåêòå â ïîëíîé ìåðå àêòóàëèçèðîâàí êóëüòóðîëîãè÷åñêèé àñïåêò ðîëè ÂÊË â ðàçâèòèè ñíà÷àëà óíèéíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Êîðîëåâñòâîì Ïîëüñêèì, à çàòåì è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. Äëÿ Âàðøàâû íàèáîëåå âàæíà óíèêàëüíîñòü äàííîãî ïðîåêòà êàê ñâîåîáðàçíîãî âàðèàíòà êîíñîëèäàöèè ïîëè- ýòíè÷åñêîé è ïîëèêîíôåññèîíàëüíîé îáùíîñòè â ðàìêàõ åäèíîé äåðæàâû. Ðåäàêöèÿ AI ïðèãëàñèëà àâòîðîâ èç ïÿòè ñòðàí ïîðàçìûøëÿòü íàä ñâîåîáðàçèåì ïðèñóòñòâèÿ ÂÊË â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè è íàöè- îíàëüíûõ ïðîåêòàõ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû.  ÷àñòíîñòè, äëÿ îáñóæ- äåíèÿ áûëè ïðåäëîæåíû ñëåäóþùèå ïðîáëåìû: ïðèìåíèìà ëè 488 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ê ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ïàðàäèãìà êîíòèíåíòàëüíîé, ìóëüòè- íàöèîíàëüíîé èìïåðèè? ßâëÿëàñü ëè ìîäåëü ÂÊË óíèêàëüíîé èëè óíèâåðñàëüíîé â êà÷åñòâå êîíãëîìåðàòà ýòíîñîâ, êîíôåññèé, êóëüòóð? Êàêîâî ìåñòî äèñêóðñà ÂÊË â íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðîåêòàõ íîâîãî è íîâåéøåãî âðåìåíè ñòðàí-“íàñëåäíèêîâ”? Êàêèå îòäåëü- íûå àñïåêòû äèñêóðñà ÂÊË âîñòðåáîâàíû â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ãîñóäàðñòâ è íàðîäîâ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû? Îòêðûâàåò ôîðóì èíòåðâüþ ñ êîíñóëîì Ðåñïóáëèêè Ïîëüøà â Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãå, äîêòîðîì èñòîðèè Èåðîíèìîì Ãðàëåé.  íåì îáñóæäàåòñÿ òðàêòîâêà Êîðîëåâñòâà Ïîëüñêîãî è Âåëèêîãî êíÿ- æåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî êàê “óíèêàëüíîãî ïðèìåðà íåèìïåðñêîãî ìóëü- òèíàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà”, êàòåãîðè÷åñêè îòâåðãàåòñÿ âîç- ìîæíîñòü ïðèìåíåíèÿ ê Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ïàðàäèãìû ìóëüòèíà- öèîíàëüíîé èìïåðèè, ïîêàçûâàåòñÿ âîñòðåáîâàííîñòü êóëüòóðíîãî îïûòà, ïðèîáðåòåííîãî â óíèè Ïîëüøè è Ëèòâû, äëÿ èõ íàðîäîâ è ãîñóäàðñòâ. Ëèòîâñêàÿ èñòîðèîãðàôèÿ ïðåäñòàâëåíà ñòàòüåé äîêòîðà èñòî- ðèè Èíñòèòóòà Íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèè Ëèòâû (Âèëüíþñ) Äàðèóñà Âèëèìàñà, ïîñâÿùåííîé ñòåðåîòèïàì èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè î ÂÊË, àêòóàëèçèðóåìûì íà ðàçíûõ ýòàïàõ ñòðîèòåëüñòâà ëèòîâñêîé ãîñó- äàðñòâåííîñòè.  î÷åðêå äîêòîðà ôèëîñîôèè Îòäåëåíèÿ òåîðèè è èñòîðèè èñêóññòâ Âèëüíþññêîé Àêàäåìèè Èñêóññòâ Ãåäðû Ìèöêóíàéòå ðàññìîòðåí íîñòàëüãè÷åñêèé âàðèàíò ïàìÿòè î ÂÊË, êîòîðûé èãðàåò âàæíóþ ðîëü â ôîðìèðîâàíèè íàöèîíàëüíîé ñàìî- èäåíòè÷íîñòè ëèòîâöåâ. Äëÿ èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû, êàê ïîêàçàíî â ñòàòüå ñòàðøåãî íàó÷- íîãî ñîòðóäíèêà Èíñòèòóòà èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû ÍÀÍ (Êèåâ) Äìèòðèÿ Âûðñêîãî, äèñêóðñ ÂÊË ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïåðèôåðèéíûì. Îí âîñ- òðåáîâàí ïðè îïèñàíèÿõ ÷àñòíûõ ñëó÷àåâ èñòîðè÷åñêîãî îïûòà óêðàèíñêîãî íàðîäà, íî íå ñòàë ñèñòåìîîáðàçóþùèì â ôîðìè- ðîâàíèè íè èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè, íè ìîäåðíîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîåêòà â Óêðàèíå. Ñòàòüÿ äîêòîðà èñòîðè÷åñêèõ íàóê, çàâåäóþùåãî êàôåäðîé àðõåîëîãèè è ñïåöèàëüíûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ äèñöèïëèí Ìîãèëåâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà (Áåëàðóñü) Èãîðÿ Ìàðçàëþêà ïîñâÿùåíà ôîðìèðîâàíèþ â ÕVI-ÕVII ââ. ðóñèíñêîãî, áåëîðóñ- ñêîãî êîìïîíåíòà ÂÊË, ïðåæäå âñåãî êóëüòóðíî-ýòíè÷åñêîãî.  ìàòåðèàëå äîöåíòà Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà (Ðîññèÿ) Àëåêñàíäðà Ôèëþøêèíà ïîêàçàíî ôîðìè- 489 À. Ôèëþøêèí, “Îäíà çåìëÿ, ðàçíàÿ ïàìÿòü” ... ðîâàíèå â ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè è ïîëèòè÷åñêîì äèñêóðñå êîíöåïòà “ðóññêîñòè” ÂÊË è èäåè îá “èñêîííîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè” åãî çåìåëü Ðóñè êàê â òåððèòîðèàëüíîì, òàê è ýòíè÷åñêîì ïëàíå.

SUMMARY

Alexander Filiushkin's introduction to the discussion on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an object of historical memory and professional historiog- raphy points out that the Grand Duchy's history proper has been understudied. At the same time, confusion reigns as to which particular state – Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, or Ukraine – has the right to claim the legacy of the Grand Duchy. Filiushkin suggests that the national projects claiming the legacy of the Duchy rest on three primary categories of “land”, “people”, and “state”. Thus, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Russian national projects focus on “land” (for Grand Duchy of Lithuania included territories that belonged to Kievan Rus and thus considered as their “ancestry domain” by Russia, Belarus and Ukraine). The category of "land" in these projects is inextricably linked to that of the “people”, and the abovementioned projects point out that the majority of the Grand Duchy's population were “Russian” In the Lithuanian national project the Grand Duchy is a glorious ances- tor, whose main task was to unite the peoples of Eastern Europe against the aggression of Muscovy, whereas in the Polish national project the Grand Duchy is an example of a uniquely successful cultural project, a shining page of European history. Filiushkin lists contributions to the forum and briefly outlines questions posited before the participants.

490 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Èíòåðâüþ ñ Èåðîíèìîì ÃÐÀËÅÉ

“ÍÅ-ÈÌÏÅÐÈߔ: ÂÅËÈÊÎÅ ÊÍßÆÅÑÒÂÎ ËÈÒÎÂÑÊÎÅ Â ÏÎËÜÑÊÎÉ ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÎÉ ÏÀÌßÒÈ*

Ðåöåïöèè èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè, â êîòîðûõ ôèãóðèðóåò Âåëè- êîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå, òåñíî ñâÿçàíû ñ ëèòîâñêèì, áåëîðóññêèì, óêðàèíñêèì íàöèîíàëüíûìè ïðîåêòàìè. Ïîæàëóé, òîëüêî ðóññêàÿ è ïîëüñêàÿ ìûñëü ïûòàëèñü âûéòè çà íàöèîíàëüíûå ðàìêè è ñîç- äàòü íàäíàöèîíàëüíóþ, êóëüòóðíî-ýòàòèñòñêóþ ìîäåëü îïèñàíèÿ ÂÊË. È åñëè äëÿ ðîññèéñêîãî âàðèàíòà çäåñü ðå÷ü â áîëüøåé ñòå- ïåíè èäåò îá èìïåðñêîì äèñêóðñå è ïîïûòêàõ îñâîåíèÿ èì èñòîðèè Çàïàäíîãî êðàÿ èìïåðèè (÷òî áîëåå àêòóàëüíî äëÿ ÕVIII - ÕIÕ ââ.), òî äëÿ ïîëüñêîãî ïðîåêòà êàê ðàç áîëåå âàæåí ïåðèîä ïîëüñêî- ëèòîâñêèõ óíèé, îò Êðåâñêîé (1385), êîãäà áûë ñäåëàí ïåðâûé øàã ê ñëèÿíèþ Ëèòâû è Ïîëüøè, äî Ëþáëèíñêîé (1569), ïðèâåäøåé ê ñîçäàíèþ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. Äàííàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ïðèíöèïèàëüíî îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðñêîé ìîäåëè. Ïðî÷òåíèå èñòîðèè Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ïðåäëàãàåò ïîñòèæåíèå óíèêàëüíîãî èñòîðè÷åñ- êîãî îïûòà ñîçäàíèÿ ìóëüòèíàöèîíàëüíîãî è ïîëèêîíôåññèîíàëü- íîãî êðóïíîìàñøòàáíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, ñ ÿâíûì äîìèíèðîâàíèåì â êóëüòóðíîì è ïîëèòè÷åñêîì ïëàíå îäíîãî ýòíîñà, – äåðæàâû,

* Áåñåäó âåë Àëåêñàíäð Ôèëþøêèí. 491 Èíòåðâüþ ñ È. Ãðàëåé, “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... êîòîðàÿ, îäíàêî, íå ñòàëà èìïåðèåé. Òàêàÿ òðàêòîâêà Êîðîëåâ- ñòâà Ïîëüñêîãî è Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî êàê “óíèêàëü- íîãî ïðèìåðà íåèìïåðñêîãî ìóëüòèíàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà” îáñóæäàëàñü â áåñåäå ñ êîíñóëîì Ðåñïóáëèêè Ïîëüøà â Ñàíêò-Ïå- òåðáóðãå, äîêòîðîì èñòîðèè Èåðîíèìîì Ãðàëåé.

* * * Àëåêñàíäð ÔÈËÞØÊÈÍ. Ïðèìåíèìà ëè ê èñòîðèè Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé â ïåðèîä ïîçäíåãî ñðåä- íåâåêîâüÿ è ðàííåãî íîâîãî âðåìåíè ïàðàäèãìà ìóëüòèíàöèîíàëü- íîé, êîíòèíåíòàëüíîé èìïåðèè? Èåðîíèì ÃÐÀËß. Åñëè îïðåäåëÿòü óíèþ Êîðîëåâñòâà Ïîëüñêîãî è Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî (ñ 1385 ã.), à â äàëüíåéøåì Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòóþ (1569-1795) êàê ñîçäàíèå èìïåðèè, òî èç ýòîãî âûòåêàëî áû, ÷òî Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå (äàëåå – ÂÊË) ÿâëÿëîñü âñåãî-íàâñåãî êðóïíåéøåé ïðîâèíöèåé Ïîëüøè. Íî åñòü ëè îñíîâàíèÿ äëÿ òàêîé ïîñòàíîâêè âîïðîñà? ß ñ÷èòàþ, ÷òî Ïîëüñêî-Ëèòîâñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî – íå èìïåðèÿ, à ëîêàëüíàÿ äåðæàâà, âîçíèêøàÿ íà îñíîâå äîáðîâîëüíîãî ñîãëàñèÿ äâóõ íåçàâèñèìûõ ãîñóäàðñòâ íà òî, ÷òî â îïðåäåëåííûå ìîìåíòû ìåæäó íèìè íà÷èíàþò äåéñòâîâàòü ñîþçíûå äîãîâîðåííîñòè â ïîëèòè÷åñêîé, âîåííîé è êîíôåññèîíàëüíîé ñôåðàõ. Ýòî áîëüøîå ìîíàðõè÷åñ- êîå ãîñóäàðñòâî ñ ìóëüòèíàöèîíàëüíûì ñîñòàâîì, íàëè÷èåì íå- ñêîëüêèõ êîíôåññèé, ñ àêòèâíîé âíåøíåé ïîëèòèêîé.  íåì íåëüçÿ íàéòè íèêàêèõ ýëåìåíòîâ èìïåðñêîé èäåîëîãèè. Âîîáùå, âðÿä ëè ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ýòîé ýïîõå ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü îá îáùåé èäåîëîãèè è îáùåé ïîëèòèêå íà òåððèòîðèè âñåé Ïîëüøè è Ëèòâû. ßðêèé ïðèìåð: îíè íå ìîãëè âûñòàâèòü îáùåãî âîéñêà, ñîáðàííîãî ïî ïðèêàçó êîðîëÿ. Äàæå â âîéíàõ ñ òàêèì áåçóñëîâíûì âðàãîì, êàê Òåâòîíñêèé îðäåí, â ðåøàþùóþ òàê íàçûâàåìóþ 13-ëåòíþþ âîéíó (1454-1466), îò Ëèòâû â ïîõîä èäóò òîëüêî äîáðîâîëüöû. Êîðîëü íå èìååò ïðàâà ïðîâåñòè â Ëèòâå ìîáèëèçàöèþ! Ìàëî òîãî, ïîêà ïîëüñêèå âîéñêà â áèòâàõ ñ ðûöàðÿìè ðåøàþò ñóäüáó ãîñóäàðñòâà, ëèòîâñêàÿ çíàòü, ñîõðàíÿÿ íåéòðàëèòåò â îò- íîøåíèÿõ ñ îðäåíîì, ïðèêèäûâàåò, êàê áû ïîëîâ÷åå, âîñïîëüçî- âàâøèñü ìîìåíòîì, îòòîðãíóòü ó Ïîëüøè ñïîðíóþ òåððèòîðèþ – Ïîäîëüå. Êàêàÿ æå ýòî èìïåðèÿ? Àíàëîãè÷íîé áûëà ñèòóàöèÿ è â ãîäû Ëèâîíñêîé âîéíû (1558-1583), êîãäà êîðîëü íå ìîã çàñòà- âèòü øëÿõòó èäòè âîåâàòü, åñëè îíà òîãî íå õî÷åò, è âûíóæäåí áûë 492 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ëèáî çàñòàâëÿòü åå çàùèùàòü ñâîå ãîñóäàðñòâî ñ ïîìîùüþ äåíåæ- íûõ âûïëàò, ëèáî íà òå æå äåíüãè íàíèìàòü íàåìíèêîâ. Ðàçâå â ðàìêàõ èìïåðñêîé ñèñòåìû ìûñëèìû òàêèå âîëüíîñòè â îòíîøå- íèè ìîáèëèçàöèè, îáúÿâëÿåìîé âåðõîâíûì ïðàâèòåëåì? Áûëà ëè ó Ïîëüñêî-Ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà åäèíàÿ ãîñóäàðñò- âåííàÿ èäåÿ? Íåò. Ñ áîëüøèì òðóäîì ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î âíóòðåí- íåé èäåå óíèè, è òî êàæäàÿ èç ñòîðîí âèäåëà ýòó óíèþ ïî-ñâîåìó. Äàæå îòíîñèòåëüíî òðàêòîâêè ãëàâíîé èäåè Êðåâñêîãî àêòà (1385), îáúÿâèâøåãî äèíàñòè÷åñêóþ óíèþ Ïîëüøè è Ëèòâû, äî ñèõ ïîð ñðåäè èñòîðèêîâ è ïîëèòèêîâ ðàçíûõ ñòðàí íåò ñîãëàñèÿ.  òåêñòå äîãîâîðà ñòîèò òåðìèí “applicare”. ×òî îí îáîçíà÷àåò? Åñëè ïåðå- âîäèòü áóêâàëüíî – ÷òî Ïîëüøà ïðèñîåäèíÿåò ÂÊË. Íåñêîëüêî ëåò òîìó íàçàä ëèòîâñêèå èñòîðèêè ïîïûòàëèñü îáúÿâèòü Êðåâñêèé àêò ñôàëüñèôèöèðîâàííûì. Ëèòâà íå ìîæåò ñîãëàñèòüñÿ ñ èñòîðè- ÷åñêèì íàìåêîì íà ñâîå ïîä÷èíåííîå ïîëîæåíèå â ñîñòàâå ïîëüñêî- ëèòîâñêîé óíèè. Õîòÿ, êàê äîêàçàíî ñïåöèàëèñòàìè â îáëàñòè äèï- ëîìàòèêè, àóòåíòè÷íîñòü îðèãèíàëà äîêóìåíòà íå âûçûâàåò íè- êàêèõ ñîìíåíèé. Äëÿ ïîëüñêîé êîðîííîé øëÿõòû ïîíÿòèå èìïåðèè â ÕV-ÕVI ââ. áûëî îòðèöàòåëüíûì. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ó õðèñòèàíñêîãî ìèðà – îáùíî- ñòè åâðîïåéñêèõ êàòîëè÷åñêèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ, ê êîòîðûì ïðèíàäëå- æàëà è Ïîëüøà – èìïåðàòîð ìîã áûòü òîëüêî îäèí, óòâåðæäåí- íûé ðèìñêèì ïàïîé. Èì ÿâëÿëñÿ òîëüêî èìïåðàòîð Ñâÿùåííîé Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèè, è íèêòî áîëåå íå ìîã ïðåòåíäîâàòü íà äàííûé òèòóë. Ýòî, êñòàòè, îáúÿñíÿåò, ïî÷åìó â Ïîëüøå, êàê è â Ñâÿùåí- íîé Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèè è Âàòèêàíå, îòêàçûâàëèñü ïðèçíàâàòü öàðñ- êèé òèòóë ðóññêèõ ìîíàðõî⠖ èõ ñ÷èòàëè ñàìîçâàíöàìè, ïûòàâ- øèìèñÿ íåçàêîííî ïðèñâîèòü ñåáå èìïåðàòîðñêèé òèòóë (öàðü = öåñàðü = èìïåðàòîð). Îòíîøåíèÿ æå Ïîëüøè ñ èìïåðèåé â ÕV-ÕVI ââ. ñêëàäûâàëèñü î÷åíü íåïðîñòî èç-çà ïîñòîÿííîãî ñîïåðíè÷åñòâà ßãåëëîíîâ è Ãàá- ñáóðãîâ çà çåìëè Öåíòðàëüíîé è Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû. Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî èìïåðàòîðû íåñêîëüêî ðàç ïûòàëèñü ëèáî ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî çàíÿòü ïîëüñêèé ïðåñòîë, ëèáî ïîñàäèòü òóäà êîãî-íèáóäü èç ñâîèõ ðîä- ñòâåííèêîâ. Îòñþäà è íàñòîðîæåííî âðàæäåáíîå, íåãàòèâíîå âîñ- ïðèÿòèå â Ïîëüøå è Ñâÿùåííîé Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèè, è èìïåðñêîé èäåè âîîáùå. Âñå àíàëîãèè ìåæäó èìïåðñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâåííûì ïîðÿäêîì Ãàáñáóðãîâ è äåðæàâîé ßãåëëîíîâ ñ íàó÷íîé òî÷êè çðå- íèÿ âåñüìà ñîìíèòåëüíû. 493 Èíòåðâüþ ñ È. Ãðàëåé, “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... Ñëåäóåò åùå ó÷èòûâàòü, ÷òî â ðàìêàõ îäíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñóùåñòâîâàëè äâå ýëèòû, ïîëüñêàÿ è ëèòîâñêàÿ. Îíè ñåðüåçíî ðàçëè- ÷àëèñü ïî êðóãîçîðó, èíòåðåñàì, óðîâíÿì ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ. Ýòî ïðîÿâëÿëîñü è â îòíîøåíèè ê èìïåðèè. Ïîëüñêàÿ øëÿõòà, óñâîèâøàÿ ëàòèíîÿçû÷íóþ ïðàâîâóþ êóëüòóðó, áûëà çíàêîìà ñ åâðîïåéñêîé ñåìàíòèêîé ïîíÿòèÿ “èìïåðèÿ”, áûòîâàâøåãî è â ñðåä- íèå âåêà, è â ýïîõó Ðåíåññàíñà. Ïîëèòè÷åñêîå ìûøëåíèå ïîëüñêîé àðèñòîêðàòèè â äàííîé ñôåðå ìîæíî ñðàâíèòü ñ ïðàâîñîçíàíèåì àíãëèéñêîãî è ôðàíöóçñêîãî äâîðÿíñòâà, êîòîðîå èñõîäèëî èç ôîðìóëû: “Èìïåðàòîð â õðèñòèàíñêîì ìèðå îäèí, íî êîðîëü – èìïåðàòîð â ñâîåì êîðîëåâñòâå” (Rex in regno suo imperator). Îäíàêî âñåõ ýòèõ îñîáåííîñòåé ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ íåëüçÿ íàéòè â ýëèòå ÂÊË, êîòîðàÿ áûëà â ñâîåì áîëüøèíñòâå ðóññêîÿçû÷íîé è ðóññêîêóëüòóðíîé, íåçíàêîìîé ñ åâðîïåéñêèìè ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè è ïðàâîâûìè ó÷åíèÿìè. È â äàííîé ñôåðå ëèòîâñêàÿ ýëèòà òÿíó- ëàñü çà ïîëüñêîé, ñòàðàëàñü íà íåå áûòü ïîõîæåé, õîòÿ ýòî è íå âñåãäà ïîëó÷àëîñü. ÂÊË ïî ñòåïåíè çðåëîñòè ñâîåé ïîëèòè- ÷åñêîé êóëüòóðû â ÕIV - ÕV ââ. íå ìîãëî áûòü àäåêâàòíûì ïàðò- íåðîì Ïîëüøè. Âíóòðè ÂÊË íå áûëî åäèíñòâà, à ñóùåñòâîâàëè ñåðüåçíûå ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ ìåæäó ðóññêîé çíàòüþ, – ïîòîìêàìè àðè- ñòîêðàòèè âðåìåí Êèåâñêîé äðåâíåðóññêîé äåðæàâû, è ñîáñòâåí- íî ëèòîâñêèìè ïàíàìè. Êîíå÷íî, îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó ïîëüñêîé è ëèòîâñêîé ýëèòàìè íåëüçÿ õàðàêòåðèçîâàòü êàê îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó ýëèòàìè ìåòðîïî- ëèè è êîëîíèè (ïðîâèíöèè). Íî èåðàðõèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñîçíà- íèÿ âñå æå íàëèöî. Ïîýòîìó ìîæíî ñ óâåðåííîñòüþ ãîâîðèòü, ÷òî åñëè èìïåðñêàÿ èäåÿ íå ìîãëà ïóñòèòü êîðíåé â Ïîëüøå, òî òåì áîëåå îíà íå ìîãëà ïðèæèòüñÿ â ÂÊË. Íè â èñòîðèè Êîðîëåâñòâà Ïîëüñêîãî, íè â èñòîðèè ÂÊË èëè Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ìû íå íàõî- äèì ïîïûòîê âåí÷àòüñÿ èìïåðàòîðñêîé êîðîíîé, çàìàøåê íà èì- ïåðàòîðñêèé òèòóë, ðàâíî êàê è îáðàùåíèé ê ðèìñêîìó ïàïå ñ çàï- ðîñîì îá óòâåðæäåíèè êîðîëåâñêîãî è âåëèêîêíÿæåñêîãî òèòóëà. ÀÔ. À êàê æå êîðîíàöèÿ âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ ëèòîâñêîãî Ìèíäîâãà ïîñëàìè ðèìñêîãî ïàïû â 1253 ã., î êîòîðîé òàê ëþáÿò ãîâîðèòü ëèòîâñêèå èñòîðèêè, äîêàçûâàÿ èçíà÷àëüíóþ îðèåíòàöèþ Ëèòâû íà åâðîïåéñêèå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå öåííîñòè, íà åå èììàíåíòíîå ñòðåì- ëåíèå âîéòè â ñîñòàâ çàïàäíîãî ìèðà, “õðèñòèàíñêîé èìïåðèè”?

494 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ÈÃ. Íî âåäü ê ñþæåòó êîðîíàöèè Ìèíäîâãà îáðàùàþòñÿ â îñ- íîâíîì èñòîðèêè ÕIÕ-ÕÕ ââ.!  ÕIV-ÕVI ââ. â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ÂÊË ýòîò ýïèçîä áûë ïî÷òè çàáûò. Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, äèñêóðñ êîðîíàöèè Ìèíäîâãà “îò Ðèìà” íå èãðàåò íèêàêîé ðîëè â ïîëè- òè÷åñêîé êóëüòóðå ÂÊË â ïåðèîä åãî íàèáîëüøåãî ðàñöâåòà – ìîíàðõèè ßãåëëîíîâ. Îíè íå àïåëëèðîâàëè ê êîðîíàöèè Ìèíäîâãà êàê ê èñòî÷íèêó ëåãèòèìíîñòè ñâîåé âëàñòè. Ëèòîâñêàÿ âåëèêî- êíÿæåñêàÿ øàïêà êàê êîðîíà áûëà àáñîëþòíî ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íà, è â ñîçíàíèè ñîâðåìåííèêîâ íå íóæäàëàñü íè â êàêèõ óòâåðæäå- íèÿõ. Ïîñìîòðèòå íà òèòóëàòóðó âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé ëèòîâñêèõ! Ðàçâå â íåé ìîæíî íàéòè õîòü êàêîé-òî íàìåê íà ïðèíÿòèå â ÕIII â. îñíîâàòåëåì ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà êîðîíû îò ïàïû? ÀÔ. Êàê, â òàêîì ñëó÷àå, ìîæíî îõàðàêòåðèçîâàòü åâðîïåé- ñêóþ èäåþ “ìîíàðõèè ßãåëëîíîâ”? ÈÃ. Ïîä êîíöåïòîì “ìîíàðõèè ßãåëëîíî┠îáû÷íî ïîíèìàþò ñåðèþ êîíêðåòíûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñèòóàöèé, êîãäà ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ýòîé äèíàñòèè ïîëüñêèõ êîðîëåé ñàäèëèñü íà ïðåñòîëû â ñîñåäíèõ ãîñóäàðñòâàõ: Âåíãðèè è ×åõèè. Îäíàêî – çàìåòüòå, ÷òî íàñëåäèå ßãåëëîíîâ, ñòàâøèõ âåíãåðñêèìè è ÷åøñêèìè êîðîëÿìè, íå áûëî ïîäâëàñòíî ïîëüñêîìó ìîíàðõó. Çà ÷åøñêèé è âåíãåðñêèé ïðåñòîëû ðàçâåðíóëàñü áîðüáà ñûíîâåé ßãåëëîíîâ, çàíèìàâøèõ ýòè òðîíû. È Êîðîëåâñòâî Ïîëüñêîå íå ìîãëî óïîòðåáèòü âëàñòü, ÷òîáû ðåøèòü èñõîä äàííîé áîðüáû â ñâîþ ïîëüçó. Íàçîâèòå ìíå èìïå- ðèþ, â êîòîðîé áûëà áû âîçìîæíà àíàëîãè÷íàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ? Ïîëüñêàÿ êîðîííàÿ ïîëèòèêà ïðîâîäèëàñü íåçàâèñèìî îò âåí- ãåðñêîé è ÷åøñêîé ïîëèòèêè îòäåëüíûõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ðîäà ßãåëëîíîâ. ÀÔ. Îäíàêî, åñëè î Êðåâñêîé óíèè 1385 ã. ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü êàê î äèíàñòè÷åñêîé, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðîé íåëüçÿ áûëî ïîñòðîèòü íè èìïåð- ñêîãî, íè óíèòàðíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, òî â 1569 ã. Êîðîëåâñòâî Ïîëüñêîå è ÂÊË ñëèëèñü â åäèíîå öåëîå – Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòóþ ÈÃ. Êîíå÷íî, ïîñëå Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè 1569 ã. ñèòóàöèÿ ìåíÿåòñÿ. Ëèòîâñêàÿ ýëèòà ñòàíîâèòñÿ ÷àñòüþ êîðîííîé, îñîáåííî â ïðèñîåäèíåííûõ ê Ïîëüøå óêðàèíñêèõ ïðîâèíöèÿõ è â Ïîäëÿ- øüå. Ïðîèñõîäèëà ïîñòåïåííàÿ êóëüòóðíàÿ è èíòåëëåêòóàëüíàÿ äèôôóçèÿ ïîëüñêîé è ëèòîâñêîé çíàòè. Ïðè÷åì âåêòîð ýòîãî ïðî- öåññà îäíîçíà÷íî áûë íàïðàâëåí â ñòîðîíó Ïîëüøè. Ó íàñ íåò

495 Èíòåðâüþ ñ È. Ãðàëåé, “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... ïðèìåðîâ ñêîëü-ëèáî ìàñøòàáíûõ ïåðåìåùåíèé ïîëüñêîé øëÿõòû íà âîñòîê, â Ëèòâó, à òàêæå ïðèìåðîâ êàðüåðû ïîëüñêèõ øëÿõ- òè÷åé â ñðåäå ëèòîâñêîé çíàòè. Çàòî åñòü ìàññà ïðèìåðîâ, êàê ðóñ- ñêàÿ ýëèòà ÂÊË àêòèâíî è ñ ýíòóçèàçìîì âëèâàåòñÿ â êóëüòóðíóþ ñðåäó ïîëüñêîé ýëèòû. Ýòî – ïðîöåññ êóëüòóðíîé àäàïòàöèè, à íå èìïåðñêîãî ïîãëîùåíèÿ îäíîé ýëèòû äðóãîé. Ïðè÷åì ïðîèñõîäÿ- ùèé ïî èíèöèàòèâå è ïî æåëàíèþ ëèòîâñêîé øëÿõòû è ðóññêî- ëèòîâñêîé çíàòè, êîòîðàÿ ïîëüñêîé øëÿõòîé íåðåäêî âîñïðèíè- ìàëàñü êàê ïîëèòè÷åñêèé áàëëàñò. Åñëè îöåíèâàòü âîçíèêíîâåíèå Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé êàê ðîæäåíèå èìïåðèè, òî âîçíèêàåò âîïðîñ: ãäå êîëîíèè ýòîé èìïåðèè? Ñóùå- ñòâîâàëà ëè â ïîëüñêîì îáùåñòâå êîëîíèàëüíàÿ èäåîëîãèÿ? Èçâåñòíàÿ ôðàçà ïîëüñêîãî èññëåäîâàòåëÿ “ñàðìàòñêîé ýïîõè” (ÕVII â.) ïðîôåññîðà ß. Ãàçâèðà ãëàñèò: “Ãäå íàøè Èíäèè? Íàøè Èíäèè – ýòî Óêðàèíà”. Èëè øèðå: “Íàøè Èíäèè – ýòî Âîñ- òî÷íàÿ Åâðîïà”. Âîñïðèíèìàòü äàííûå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ áóêâàëüíî íåêîððåêòíî. Êîíå÷íî, ïåðåä Ðå÷üþ Ïîñïîëèòîé ïî ìåðå íàçðåâà- íèÿ âíóòðè ãîñóäàðñòâà ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ è ñîöèàëüíûõ ïðîáëåì âñòà- âàë âîïðîñ î íåîáõîäèìîñòè êîëîíèçàöèè. Íî îíà ñ÷èòàëàñü âòî- ðè÷íûì ðåñóðñîì, âíóòðåííåé êîëîíèçàöèåé ãîñóäàðñòâà è ïðîèñ- õîäèëà ñòðîãî â ðàìêàõ óæå ñóùåñòâîâàâøèõ ãðàíèö äåðæàâû. Òî åñòü “íàøè Èíäèè” äàâíûì-äàâíî íàõîäèëèñü â ãðàíèöàõ Ïîëüñêî-Ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòàÿ íå îñóùåñòâ- ëÿëà íèêàêèõ êîëîíèàëüíûõ çàâîåâàíèé. ÀÔ. Íî åñëè ðàçíûå ýòíîñû, êîíôåññèè, îáëîìêè äðåâíèõ ãîñó- äàðñòâ áûëè îáúåäèíåíû â ðàìêàõ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé â íåêîå åäèíîå öåëîå, êàêîâû áûëè ñêðåïû, ñòÿãèâàþùèå ñòîëü ðàçíîðîäíûå ÷àñòè ýòîãî öåëîãî? Êîðîëåâñòâî Ïîëüñêîå, ÂÊË, Ìàçîâèÿ, Ãàëè- öèÿ, Óêðàèíà, Ëèâîíèÿ, Êóðëÿíäèÿ, Ïðóññèÿ – è âñå â ðàìêàõ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé? Êàê ïðàâèòåëÿì Ïîëüøè è ÂÊË óäàëîñü äîáèòüñÿ åäèíñòâà ñòîëü ìóëüòèêóëüòóðíîé äåðæàâû, íå îïèðàÿñü íà èìïåð- ñêèé ïðèíöèï? ÈÃ. Áûëî íåñêîëüêî òàêèõ ñêðåï. Ïðåæäå âñåãî, ýòî îñîáûé õàðàêòåð ñîñëîâíîãî ñòðîÿ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. ×òî îáúåäèíÿëî? Ïðåæäå âñåãî, îñîçíàíèå òîãî ôàêòà, ÷òî â Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ñóùåñòâîâàë ãîðàçäî áîëåå âûñîêèé ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ äðóãèìè åâðîïåéñêèìè ñòðàíàìè ïðîöåíò øëÿõòû. Ýòî – ãîñóäàðñòâî îïðå- äåëåííîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî íàðîäà, êîòîðûé èìåë ñâîè öåëè è ñïî- ñîáû èõ âûðàæåíèÿ. 496 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ñ ÕIV â. íîñèòåëåì ýòîé êóëüòóðû áûëà êîðîííàÿ øëÿõòà, íî â ðàìêàõ êóëüòóðíîé äèôôóçèè ÕV - ÕVII ââ., à òàêæå ïåðåìå- ùåíèÿ ïðîâèíöèé, äàííîå ÿâëåíèå ïîñòåïåííî ðàñïðîñòðàíÿëîñü è íà äðóãèå îáëàñòè ñòðàíû. Ãëàâíûì ñòèìóëîì äëÿ íåïîëüñêîé çíàòè (íàïðèìåð, äëÿ ëèòîâñêîé è ðóññêîé àðèñòîêðàòèè ÂÊË) â ýòîì ïðîöåññå áûëî ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèå íà íåå ïîëüñêèõ øëÿõåòñ- êèõ ïðèâèëåãèé. Ñòðåìëåíèå ïðè÷àñòèòüñÿ ïîëüñêîé äåìîêðàòèè, ïîëó÷èòü äëÿ ñåáÿ ñîñëîâíûå ïðèâèëåãèè ïîëüñêîãî äâîðÿíñòâà áûëî îäíîé èç ãëàâíûõ ñêðåï, ïðåæäå âñåãî, äëÿ ýëèòû ÂÊË. Ýòè ïðèâèëåãèè ïðîñòèðàëèñü ñòîëü äàëåêî, ÷òî òåîðåòè÷åñêè ëþáîé øëÿõòè÷ ìîã â ïðèíöèïå ïðåòåíäîâàòü íà êîðîëåâñêèé ïðå- ñòîë è ó÷àñòâîâàòü â âûáîðàõ ìîíàðõà êàê â êà÷åñòâå ó÷àñòíèêà èçáèðàòåëüíîãî ñåéìà, òàê è âûäâèíóòü ñâîþ êàíäèäàòóðó â êîðîëè. Îäèí èç èíîñòðàíöåâ ïèñàë, ÷òî â Ïîëüøå æåíùèíû î÷åíü ãîðäû, ïîòîìó ÷òî êàæäàÿ ïàííà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñåáå, ÷òî îíà â ëþáîé ìîìåíò ìîæåò ñòàòü ïîëüñêîé êîðîëåâîé. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, æåíà ëþáîãî øëÿõòè÷à òåîðåòè÷åñêè èìåëà òàêóþ âîçìîæíîñòü. È ýòà èäåÿ ñïëà÷èâàëà çíàòü Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. Íåäàðîì â ÕV-ÕVII ââ. æèòåëè ýòîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà áûëè óâåðåíû, ÷òî èõ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ñèñòåìà – ñàìàÿ ñîâåðøåííàÿ â ìèðå. Õàðàêòåðíûé ýïèçîä: êîãäà âîéñêà Ãàáñáóðãîâ ïðîèãðàëè ïîëÿêàì ñðàæåíèå ïîä Áû÷èíîé â 1588 ã., òî êîìàíäèðó ïîëüñêîãî âîéñêà êàíöëåðó ßíó Çàìîéñ- êîìó ãåðìàíñêèé èìïåðàòîð â êà÷åñòâå âçÿòêè ïðåäëîæèë èìïåðñ- êèé êíÿæåñêèé ÷èí. Íà ÷òî Çàìîéñêèé, íå áåç ñàðêàçìà, êîíå÷íî, îòâåòèë, ÷òî ëþáîé èìïåðñêèé êíÿçü íå äîñòîèí íåñòè â êà÷åñòâå ïàæà îðóæèå çà ïîëüñêèì øëÿõòè÷åì! Ïðè ýòîì øëÿõåòñòâî áûëî ôîðìàëüíî óðàâíåíî â ïðàâàõ. Îáðàòèòå âíèìàíèå: â Ïîëüøå íå áûëî êíÿçåé ïîëüñêîãî ïðîèñ- õîæäåíèÿ. Ëþáàÿ òèòóëîâàííàÿ çíàòü èìåëà èíîñòðàííîå ïðîèñ- õîæäåíèå: ëèáî ýòî ïðåäñòàâèòåëè åùå äðåâíåðóññêèõ êíÿæåñêèõ ðîäîâ èç ÂÊË, ëèáî ïðåäñòàâèòåëè èìïåðèè (ãðàôû, áàðîíû è ò.ä., íàïðèìåð, èçâåñòíûå Ðàäçèâèëëû).  îñòàëüíîì æå ñðåäè øëÿõòû ãîñïîäñòâîâàëî ðàâåíñòâî – è ýòî î÷åíü âàæíûé ïðèíöèï, ñëóæèâ- øèé äëÿ àðèñòîêðàòèè âñåõ çåìåëü, âõîäèâøèõ â ýòî ãîñóäàðñòâî, îáúåäèíÿþùèì íà÷àëîì. Ìîíàðõèÿ ßãåëëîíî⠖ åäèíñòâåííàÿ äåðæàâà â Åâðîïå, êîòîðàÿ ñ ìîìåíòà ñâîåãî âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ äîëæíà áûëà ñðàçó è â î÷åíü ñëîæ- íîì êîíòåêñòå ðåøàòü âîïðîñ î ïîëèêîíôåññèîíàëüíîñòè íàñåëÿâ- øèõ åå íàðîäîâ. Ïðîáëåìó ýòó óíàñëåäîâàëà è Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòàÿ 497 Èíòåðâüþ ñ È. Ãðàëåé, “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... ïîñëå ñâîåãî âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ â 1569 ã. Äëÿ äðóãèõ åâðîïåéñêèõ ñòðàí òàêîé ïðîáëåìû äî Ðåôîðìàöèè íå ñóùåñòâîâàëî, à êîãäà îíà ïîÿâèëàñü – òî ðàçðåøåíèå áûëî íàéäåíî â öåëîé ñåðèè êðîâî- ïðîëèòíåéøèõ ðåëèãèîçíûõ âîéí, ïîòðÿñàâøèõ êîíòèíåíò â ÕVI-ÕVII ââ.  Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ñèòóàöèÿ îêàçàëàñü ïðèíöèïèàëüíî èíîé. Áëàãîäàðÿ ðåëèãèîçíîé òîëåðàíòíîñòè, îïðåäåëåííîìó ìåæêîí- ôåññèîíàëüíîìó ïîðÿäêó, êîòîðîãî ïðèäåðæèâàëàñü êîðîíà, ðå- ëèãèîçíàÿ âðàæäà â ðàìêàõ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ìîãëà ïðîÿâëÿòüñÿ òîëüêî â ìåëêèõ ñòû÷êàõ íà áûòîâîì óðîâíå, íî íèêîãäà íå äîñòè- ãàëà ìàñøòàáîâ èäåéíîãî è, òåì áîëåå, âîåííîãî ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ ñ ðåëèãèîçíûì è ýòíè÷åñêèì ïîäòåêñòîì. Íåäàðîì Ïîëüøó ñîâðå- ìåííèêè íàçûâàëè “ãîñóäàðñòâîì áåç êîñòðîâ”. Âñå ïîïûòêè íåêîòîðûõ èñòîðèêîâ ïðåäñòàâèòü âîññòàíèå Õìåëüíèöêîãî êàê ðåëèãèîçíóþ âîéíó ïðàâîñëàâíûõ è êàòîëèêîâ îêàçàëèñü íåñîñòîÿòåëüíû. Ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ ýëèòà áûëà ïðîòè⠓Õìåëüíèò÷èíû”, à âîò â ðÿäàõ âîññòàâøèõ âîåâàëî íåìàëî êàòî- ëèêîâ, îñîáåííî èç ìåñòíûõ äâîðÿí, ïðèòîì íåðåäêî – èç êîðåí- íûõ ïîëÿêîâ. Ñåãîäíÿ, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, óêðàèíñêèå êîëëåãè îá ýòîì ïîðîé çàáûâàþò. ×òî ÿâëÿåòñÿ ãëàâíûì äîñòèæåíèåì ïîëüñêîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ìûñëè òåõ âðåìåí, åå âêëàäîì â ìèðîâîå ïîëèòè÷åñêîå ðàçâèòèå? Îáû÷íî ñðàçó íàçûâàþò Êîíñòèòóöèþ 3 ìàÿ 1791 ã., îäíó èç ïåð- âûõ â ìèðå, ïîòîì ãîâîðÿò î Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè 1569 ã. Íî ïðè ýòîì ÷àñòî çàáûâàþò î Âàðøàâñêîé êîíôåäåðàöèè 1573 ã., êîãäà ïðåäñòàâèòåëè øëÿõòû âñåõ âåðîèñïîâåäàíèé äîãîâîðèëèñü î ðå- ëèãèîçíîì ìèðå ìåæäó ñîáîé, è â äàëüíåéøåì íåðóøèìî ñîáëþ- äàëè ýòîò ïðèíöèï. Ïðè âûáîðàõ íà ïîëüñêèé ïðåñòîë â 1572 ã. ôðàíöóçà Ãåíðèõà Âàëóà çàñòàâèëè ïðèíåñòè êëÿòâó â òîì, ÷òî îí áóäåò ñîáëþäàòü ïðàâà âñåõ ðåëèãèé.  Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ëþ- áûå ãîñóäàðñòâåííûå äîëæíîñòè, âïëîòü äî ñàìûõ âûñîêèõ, ìîã çàíèìàòü è êàòîëèê, è ïðîòåñòàíò, è ïðàâîñëàâíûé.  îòäåëüíûõ ïðîâèíöèÿõ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé äåëîïðîèçâîäñòâî âåëîñü íà ðàçíûõ ÿçûêàõ – ëàòèíñêîì, ïîëüñêîì, ðóññêîì, íåìåö- êîì è ò.ä. Ýòî ïîä÷åðêèâàëî óâàæåíèå ìîíàðõèè ê ïðàâàì ðåãèî- íîâ è îòäåëüíûõ ýòíîñîâ, è òàêæå ñëóæèëî îïðåäåëåííîé ñêðåïîé â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ïðèíöèïîì âçàèìíîãî äîâåðèÿ è ïðèçíàíèÿ ðàâ- íîãî ñòàòóñà ñîñòàâíûõ ÷àñòåé åäèíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà.

498 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ÀÔ.  êàêîì âèäå ñîâðåìåííàÿ êóëüòóðíàÿ ïàìÿòü ïîëÿêîâ âîñò- ðåáóåò ñþæåòû è îáðàçû ïîëüñêî-ëèòîâñêîãî ïðîøëîãî, ñâÿçàí- íîãî ñ óíèåé Ïîëüøè è Ëèòâû? ÈÃ.  âîñïðèÿòèè èñòîðèè ÂÊË ïîëÿêàìè è ëèòîâöàìè ñóùåñò- âóþò î÷åíü ïîêàçàòåëüíûå íåñòûêîâêè. Êîãäà â Âèëüíþñå â Ëèòîâ- ñêîé íàöèîíàëüíîé ãàëåðåå áûëà âûñòàâëåíà êàðòèíà ßíà Ìàòåéêè “Ãðþíâàëüä”, âèäíûé ëèòîâñêèé äåÿòåëü êóëüòóðû, âñåãäà î÷åíü ñêåïòè÷åñêè îòçûâàâøèéñÿ î ðîëè Ïîëüøè â èñòîðèè ÂÊË, âíè- ìàòåëüíî èçó÷èâ èçîáðàæåíèå íà êàðòèíå êíÿçÿ Âèòîâòà, êîòîðûé ñ÷èòàåòñÿ îäíèì èç ãëàâíûõ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ãåðîåâ Ëèòâû, çàìå- òèë: “ß òåïåðü ïîíèìàþ, ÷òî èñòîðè÷åñêîå ñåðäöå Ëèòâû áüåòñÿ â Ïîëüøå”. Âû âäóìàéòåñü – ãëàâíûì ãåðîåì ãëàâíîãî ïîëüñêîãî èñòîðè- ÷åñêîãî æèâîïèñíîãî ïîëîòíà ÕIÕ â., òî åñòü êàê ðàç òîãî âðåìåíè, êîãäà ïîëÿêè ïîñëå ðàñïàäà ãîñóäàðñòâà áîðîëèñü çà ñâîþ èñòî- ðè÷åñêóþ ïàìÿòü, ÿâëÿåòñÿ êíÿçü ÂÊË! Ïðè÷åì íå ßãàéëî, êîòîðûé îáúåäèíèë Ïîëüøó è Ëèòâó â Êðåâñêîé óíèè 1385 ã., à Âèòîâò, êîòîðîãî è ñîâðåìåííèêè, è ïîòîìêè âîñïðèíèìàëè êàê àíòàãî- íèñòà ßãàéëî, êàê ñåïàðàòèñòà, ñòðåìèâøåãîñÿ ðàçäåëèòü ÂÊË è Êîðîëåâñòâî Ïîëüñêîå! Íî âîçüìèòå êðóïíåéøåãî ïîëüñêîãî õðîíèñòà ÕV â. ßíà Äëóãîøà. Êòî, ñ åãî òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ íàöèîíàëüíûì ãåðîåì ñâîåé ýïîõè? Íå îñíîâàòåëü äèíàñòèè ßãåë- ëîíîâ ßãàéëî, à Âèòîâò, êîòîðîãî, ñóäÿ ïî åãî ïîëèòèêå, òðóäíî íàçâàòü ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíûì äðóãîì Ïîëüøè. Îäíàêî èìåííî ëèòî- âåö Âèòîâò ñèìâîëèçèðóåò â ãëàçàõ Äëóãîøà ðûöàðñêèé ñîþç Ïîëüøè è Ëèòâû. Ïðè ýòîì ëèòîâåö ïî ïðîèñõîæäåíèþ ßãàéëî êàê áû ïðåâðàòèëñÿ â ïîëÿêà, à Âèòîâò îñòàëñÿ ëèòîâöåì – è ýòè äâà ìå÷à, ïîëüñêèé è ëèòîâñêèé, ñîêðóøèëè êðåñòîíîñöåâ ïîä Ãðþíâàëüäîì. Äîáàâëþ åùå (ÿ õîðîøî ïîíèìàþ ðåôëåêñèþ ìîåãî ëèòîâñêîãî êîëëåãè): âî âñåé ëèòîâñêîé æèâîïèñè íåò ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ, êîòîðîå áû òàê ïîêàçàëî èñòîðè÷åñêîå âåëè÷èå Ëèòâû, êàê ýòî áûëî ñäå- ëàíî ïîëüñêèì õóäîæíèêîì, êñòàòè, â æèëàõ êîòîðîãî òåêëà ÷åøñêàÿ êðîâü  Ïîëüøå Ëþáëèíñêàÿ óíèÿ âîñïðèíèìàåòñÿ êàê ñîâåðøåííûé ïîëèòè÷åñêèé àêò, äîáðîâîëüíûé ñîþç äâóõ ãîñóäàðñòâ. Âî ìíî- ãèõ ïîëüñêèõ ãîðîäàõ åñòü ïëîùàäü Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè. Ïîëÿêè âîñ- ïðèíèìàþò èñòîðè÷åñêóþ ïàìÿòü î ðîæäåíèè Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé

499 Èíòåðâüþ ñ È. Ãðàëåé, “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... ÷åðåç îáðàçû êàðòèíû òîãî æå ßíà Ìàòåéêè “Ëþáëèíñêàÿ óíèÿ”. Öåíòðàëüíîé ôèãóðîé íà íåé ÿâëÿåòñÿ êîðîëü Ñèãèçìóíä Àâãóñò, êîòîðûé êàê áû ðàñïÿò íàä âñåìè ïðèñóòñòâóþùèìè, âîçâûøàåòñÿ íàä íèìè, äåðæà â îäíîé ðóêå êðåñò. Âñÿ ñöåíà èñïîëíåíà âåëè÷èÿ. È òîëüêî âíèìàòåëüíûé íàáëþäàòåëü ìîæåò çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ëèäåð ëèòîâñêîé è ðóññêîé çíàòè – ßí Õîäêåâè÷ – íà êàðòèíå ïëà÷åò. ÂÊË ïðîòèâèëîñü ñîþçó äî ïîñëåäíåãî ìîìåíòà, è Ìàòåéêà çàôèêñèðîâàë ðåàêöèþ íà óíèþ êàê òðàãåäèþ äëÿ ëèòîâöåâ. Ýòà íåîäíîçíà÷íàÿ îöåíêà óíèè íå âñåãäà âûõîäèò íà ïåðâûé ïëàí, íî î íåé ïîìíÿò. Íåäàðîì Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè íå ïîñâÿùåíî íè îä- íîãî èç çíà÷èòåëüíûõ ïðîèçâåäåíèé ïîëüñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû. Âòî- ðîñòåïåííûå ñî÷èíåíèÿ åñòü, à âîò òàëàíòëèâûõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ íåò. È ýòî ïîêàçàòåëüíî. Ïîëÿêè ñìîòðÿò íà Ëþáëèíñêóþ óíèþ ãëàçàìè ãðàæäàí Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ïîñëå ðàçäåëîâ Ïîëüøè â êîíöå ÕVIII â. – ýòî ìûø- ëåíèå îñòàëîñü äî ñèõ ïîð. Äàâàéòå îòêðîåì ãëàâíîå ïðîèçâåäå- íèå ïîëüñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû âî âñå âðåìåíà – “Ïàíà Òàäåóøà” Àäàìà Ìèöêåâè÷à. Ñ êàêèõ ñëîâ íà÷èíàåòñÿ ýòîò ðîìàí? Ñî ñëîâ: “Ëèòâà – ìîå Îòå÷åñòâî”. Êîãäà ×åñëàâà Ìèëîøà ñïðîñèëè, “Êòî Âû – ëèòîâåö èëè ïîëÿê?”, îí îòâåòèë: “ß ãðàæäàíèí Âåëèêîãî êíÿæå- ñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî”. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ïîëÿêîâ ñóùåñòâóþò äâå ðàçíûå Ëèòâû. Ïåðâàÿ – Ëèòâà ýïîõè óíèè è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, êîòîðóþ ñïåðâà âîñïðèíèìàëè êàê àëüòåðíàòèâíûé öåíòð ãîñó- äàðñòâà ñî ñòîëèöåé â Âèëüíî, à ïîòîì – êàê ìëàäøåãî ïàðòíåðà â åäèíîé äåðæàâå, áîëåå ñëàáîãî, à ïîòîìó è áîëüøå ñòðàäàâøåãî. Ëèòîâöåâ îöåíèâàëè êàê: “Ýòî æå íàøè áðàòüÿ! Ìû èõ îáíèìà- ëè!”. Íå âñåãäà ïðè ýòîì ïîìíèòñÿ, ÷òî îáúÿòèÿ ìîãóò áûòü è ìåä- âåæüèìè. Íî íàëåò ñåíòèìåíòàëèçìà â îöåíêå îòíîøåíèé Ëèòâû è Ïîëüøè â ïåðèîä Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé çíà÷èòåëåí äî ñèõ ïîð. Äëÿ ïîëÿêà âîñïîìèíàíèå î âðåìåíè åäèíñòâà Êîðîëåâñòâà Ïîëüñêîãî è ÂÊË – ýòî î÷åíü äîðîãîå âîñïîìèíàíèå, êàê ìèô î áûëîé äåð- æàâíîñòè. Äî ñèõ ïîð â ïîäñîçíàíèè æèâåò ìûñëü, ÷òî åñëè áû ìû ñîõðàíèëè ÷èñòîòó óíèè è ïîëèòè÷åñêîå åäèíñòâî, åñëè áû îñòà- ëèñü áðàòüÿìè, òî íèêòî áû èç âðàãîâ íàñ íå îäîëåë. Îäíàêî åñòü è ïàìÿòü î äðóãîé Ëèòâå, ïðåäàâøåé Ïîëüøó â ñå- ðåäèíå ÕVII â. âî âðåìÿ øâåäñêîãî “Ïîòîïà”, êîãäà øâåäñêèå âîéñêà øëè ê Âàðøàâå, à ëèòîâñêàÿ çíàòü ôàêòè÷åñêè ñîâåðøèëà

500 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ãîñóäàðñòâåííóþ èçìåíó. Ýòîò ñþæåò òàêæå íàøåë âîïëîùåíèå â ëèòåðàòóðíûõ îáðàçàõ, èçâåñòíûõ êàæäîìó ïîëüñêîìó èíòåëëè- ãåíòó. Âñå ïîìíÿò îïèñàíèå ⠓Ïîòîïå” Ñåíêåâè÷à äðàìàòè÷åñêîé ñöåíû, êîãäà Âèëåíñêèé âîåâîäà ßíóø Ðàäçèâèëë ïðèíÿë ðåøå- íèå ïîääåðæàòü øâåäñêîãî êîðîëÿ, è êðèê ïàíà Çàãëîáû: “Ïðåäà- òåëü! Àðõèïðåäàòåëü!”. ÀÔ. Êàê Âû ìîæåòå îöåíèòü òðàêòîâêó ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè Âåëè- êîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî êàê “àëüòåðíàòèâû èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ðàç- âèòèÿ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû”, áóäòî áû ïðåäëàãàâøåéñÿ ÂÊË? ÈÃ. Âñå òåððèòîðèè Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû ðàçâèâàëèñü ïîñòóïà- òåëüíî è ïàðàëëåëüíî. Âðÿä ëè åñòü îñíîâàíèÿ äëÿ èõ ïðîòèâîïîñ- òàâëåíèÿ èìåííî â àñïåêòå “àëüòåðíàòèâû ðàçâèòèÿ”. Ìîäíûå îäíî âðåìÿ, â òîì ÷èñëå è â ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè, êîíöåïöèè “Âòî- ðîé Ðóñè”, “Òðåòüåé Ðóñè”,“Äðóãîé Ðóñè” âðÿä ëè ñîñòîÿòåëüíû – áûëà “Ðóñü”, è âñå. Âíóòðè Äðåâíåðóññêîé äåðæàâû ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó Êèåâîì è Íîâãîðîäîì áûëè ñèëüíåå, ÷åì â ÕV-ÕVI ââ. ìåæäó Ñåâåðñêèìè ãîðîäàìè, âõîäèâøèìè â ñîñòàâ ÂÊË, è ïóíêòàìè ïîãðàíè÷üÿ Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ìîñêîâñêîãî. Ìåæäó òåì, íàñåëåíèþ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, îñîáåííî ðóññêîìó â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË, â ÕV-ÕVII ââ., äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ïðåäëàãàëèñü ðàç- íûå ïðîãðàììû è ïåðñïåêòèâû îñóùåñòâëåíèÿ ñâîåé èñòîðè÷åñ- êîé ñóäüáû. Îäíó ïðîãðàììó îáúåäèíåíèÿ ïîä ñâîåé ýãèäîé ðóñ- ñêèõ çåìåëü â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË ïðåäëàãàëà Ìîñêâà, ïðè÷åì åå àïïåòèòû ïî àííåêñèè òåððèòîðèè ñâîåãî çàïàäíîãî ñîñåäà ðîñëè. À âîò ñóùåñòâîâàëè ëè ÷åòêî ñôîðìóëèðîâàííûå ëèòîâñêèå àëüòåðíàòèâ- íûå èäåè äëÿ æèòåëåé ÂÊË? ×òî âêëàäûâàëîñü â ïîëèòè÷åñêîå ïîíÿòèå “Ðóñü” â Âèëüíî? Áîþñü, ÷òî òàêèõ ðàçâèòûõ êîíöåïöèé íå áûëî, õîòÿ ðåëèãèîçíàÿ è êóëüòóðíàÿ ñïåöèôèêà ðóññêèõ çåìåëü ÂÊË îò÷åòëèâî ïîíèìàëàñü âñåìè ñîâðåìåííèêàìè. È â ýòîì Ëèòâà â ÕV-ÕVI ââ. ïðîèãðûâàëà îáúåäèíèòåëüíóþ êàìïàíèþ Ìîñêâå. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî ó ýëèòû ñîáñòâåííî ÂÊË áûëà ñâîÿ ñïåöèôèêà.  ñòîëè÷íóþ ýëèòó âõîäèëè, â îñíîâíîì, ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ëèòîâñ- êîãî ýòíîñà, à ïðîâèíöèàëû áûëè ïðåäñòàâëåíû ðóñèíàìè. Îòñþäà äëÿ ðóññêîé çíàòè ãîðàçäî áîëåå çàìàí÷èâîé êàçàëàñü èäåÿ ïîë- íîé óíèè ñ Ïîëüøåé, ïîñêîëüêó ïðåäñòàâèòåëü ðóññêîé àðèñòîê- ðàòèè ëåã÷å ðåàëèçîâûâàë ñåáÿ â Ïîëüøå, ÷åì â Ëèòâå. Íî ýòî òîæå íåëüçÿ â ïîëíîì ñìûñëå íàçâàòü “àëüòåðíàòèâîé ðàçâèòèÿ”. Èäåî- ëîãè÷åñêîãî îôîðìëåíèÿ äàííàÿ òåíäåíöèÿ íå ïîëó÷èëà.

501 Èíòåðâüþ ñ È. Ãðàëåé, “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... ÀÔ.  ðîññèéñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå êîíöà 1980 – íà÷àëà 1990-õ ãã. áûëà ïîïóëÿðíà èäåÿ î ÂÊË êàê î íîñèòåëå îïðåäåëåííîé ìîäåëè ñîöèàëüíûõ è ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ îòíîøåíèé, àëüòåðíàòèâíîé Ìîñêîâèè: ìàãäåáóðãñêîå ïðàâî â ëèòîâñêèõ ãîðîäàõ ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿëîñü óíèòàðèçìó ìîñêîâñêîé âîåâîäñêîé âëàñòè, ëèòîâñêèé ñåéì è ïàíîâ ðàäà – àáñîëþòèñòñêîé òèðàíèè Êàëèòè÷åé è ò.ä. Êàê Âû ìîæåòå ýòî ïðîêîììåíòèðîâàòü? ÈÃ. Ïðîöåññ óíèôèêàöèè ðàçëè÷íîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî è ñîöèàëü- íîãî ïîðÿäêà â ðàçíûõ ìåñòíîñòÿõ ÂÊË øåë òðóäíî è íåðàâíî- ìåðíî, ïîýòîìó îòâåò íà ýòîò âîïðîñ íå áóäåò ñòîëü îäíîçíà÷- íûì. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, òàêàÿ ïîñòàíîâêà âîïðîñà, âðîäå áû, êà- æåòñÿ âåðíîé, ïîñêîëüêó àðåàë ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèÿ ìàãäåáóðãñêîãî ïðàâà íåäàðîì ñ÷èòàþò èíäèêàòîðîì ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè ê çàïàäíî- åâðîïåéñêîé öèâèëèçàöèè. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, â ðàçâèòèè ñîöèàëü- íîãî ñòðîÿ ãîðîäîâ ÂÊË áûëî ñëèøêîì ìíîãî ñòèõèéíîñòè è åãî íåëüçÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿòü êàê áåçáîëåçíåííîå è ëåãêîå óñâîåíèå ñòåðåî- òèïîâ è ïðàâèë åâðîïåéñêîãî ìèðà. Òî æå êàñàåòñÿ è îöåíêè ñîöè- àëüíîãî ïîðÿäêà â ÂÊË â öåëîì. Îí âîâñå íå áûë ñòîëü ïðåêðàñåí, ÷òîáû ñ÷èòàòüñÿ “äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé àëüòåðíàòèâîé”. Èíà÷å áû äâî- ðÿíå ÂÊË íå ñîáèðàëè áû ñåéìû (âñïîìíèòå, ê ïðèìåðó, ñúåçä øëÿõòû ïîä Âèòåáñêîì â 1562 ã.), íà êîòîðûõ îáñóæäàëè, êàê èõ ïðèòåñíÿþò ëèòîâñêèå ìàãíàòû, è íå ïðîâîçãëàøàëè áû ñâîèì èäåàëîì ïîëüñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå è ñîöèàëüíîå óñòðîéñòâî. Äåìîê- ðàòèçì â ÂÊË ñòàë ðåçóëüòàòîì ïîëíîöåííîãî óñâîåíèÿ ïîëüñêîé ìîäåëè. Äî ýòîãî êëþ÷åâûì ñòðóêòóðíûì ïðèíöèïîì ÂÊË áûëà âåðíîñòü òðàäèöèÿì, “ñòàðèíà”. À åñëè â ãîñóäàðñòâå ãîñïîäñòâóåò ïðèíöèï âåðíîñòè “ñòàðèíå”, òî, êàê îíî ìîæåò ÿâëÿòüñÿ îáðàç- öîì ìîäåðíèçàöèîííîé ìîäåëè ðàçâèòèÿ, êîòîðóþ è èìåþò â âèäó àâòîðû, ñî÷èíÿþùèå êîíöåïöèè “àëüòåðíàòèâíîñòè” èñòîðè÷åñ- êîãî ïóòè ÂÊË? ÀÔ. Êòî èç ñåãîäíÿøíèõ ïðåòåíäåíòîâ íà “íàñëåäèå Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî”, íà Âàø âçãëÿä, áîëåå ëåãèòèìåí? ÈÃ. Íèêòî. ß ìîãó ðàñøèðèòü âîïðîñ: à êòî ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëåãèòèì- íûì íàñëåäíèêîì Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé? Ìû íå ìîæåì îòíÿòü ó ïîëÿ- êîâ, ëèòîâöåâ, óêðàèíöåâ, áåëîðóñîâ, ëàòûøåé, ýñòîíöåâ èñòîðè- ÷åñêîãî ïðàâà áûòü íîñèòåëÿìè óñâîåííîé äàííûìè ýòíîñàìè ÷àñ- òè ïîëèòè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè, âûðàáîòàííîé â ãîäû èõ ïðåáûâàíèÿ â ñîñòàâå Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. Âîïðîñ, íàñêîëüêî îíè ýòîãî õîòÿò. 502 Ab Imperio, 4/2004  òî æå âðåìÿ, ïî÷åìó Ïîëüøà íå ïðåòåíäóåò íà ïðàâî íàñëåäî- âàíèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ òðàäèöèé Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè, ðàç îíà ìíî- ãèå ãîäû áûëà â åå ñîñòàâå? Ïîòîìó ÷òî ýòî íàõîæäåíèå íå áûëî äîáðîâîëüíûì. Äëÿ ÂÊË æå è äðóãèõ ÷àñòåé Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé âõîæäåíèå â ñîñòàâ ïîñëåäíåé ÿâëÿëîñü äîáðîâîëüíûì è îñîçíàí- íûì âûáîðîì. Îíè ñ÷èòàëè ñåáÿ ïîëíîïðàâíûìè ó÷àñòíèêàìè, ñóáúåêòàìè ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà, íå ïîñëåäíèìè àêòåðàìè â ðåà- ëèçàöèè èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ñöåíàðèÿ, èçáðàííîãî Ðå÷üþ Ïîñïîëèòîé. Íî çäåñü ñòîèò ïîä÷åðêíóòü – ñöåíàðèÿ, èçáðàííîãî èìåííî Ðå÷üþ Ïîñïîëèòîé, à íå ÂÊË. Óêðàèíñêèå, áåëîðóññêèå, ëèòîâñêèå è ëà- òûøñêèå çåìëè âîøëè â ñîñòàâ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé â ðåçóëüòàòå çàê- ëþ÷åíèÿ îïðåäåëåííîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî êîíòðàêòà, à ÂÊË èõ çà- âîåâûâàëî. Êîìó ïðèÿòíî âñïîìèíàòü, êàê òåáÿ çàâîåâàëè, ïîä÷è- íèëè, ïîêîðèëè? Ïîýòîìó ìîæíî óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî óñâîåíèå ãîñó- äàðñòâåííîé òðàäèöèè, î êîòîðîé ãîâîðèëîñü âûøå, ñîâðåìåííûìè ñòðàíàìè, óñëîâíî èìåíóåìûìè íàñëåäíèêàìè, øëî íå ÷åðåç ÂÊË, à ÷åðåç Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòóþ. ÀÔ.  êàêîé ñòåïåíè ïðèíóäèòåëüíîå ñóæåíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî / Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé â ðåçóëüòàòå ÷óæåçåìíûõ çàâîåâàíèé äî ñîáñòâåííî ïîëüñêèõ ãðàíèö ïîâëèÿëî íà ðàçâèòèå ïîëüñêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîåêòà â Íîâîå âðåìÿ? ÈÃ. Ïîëüñêàÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ìûñëü ïåðèîäè÷åñêè îáðàùàåòñÿ ê ïðîåêòó Ïîëüøè “îò ìîðÿ è äî ìîðÿ”, èçâåñòíîìó òàêæå êàê “ßãåë- ëîíñêàÿ ìîäåëü”. Ýòîò ïðîåêò êàê ðàç àïåëëèðóåò ê èñòîðè÷åñêîìó íàñëåäèþ ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé è êîíöåïòó ìîíîíàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà â åãî íåáîëüøèõ, íî çàòî åñòåñòâåííî îïðåäåëÿåìûõ ãðàíèöàõ. Êîðíè ýòèõ èäåé ñëåäóåò èñêàòü â íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêèõ êîíöåïöèÿõ ÕIÕ â., ñîãëàñíî êîòîðûì äëÿ Ïîëüøè ïîëåçíûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ èçáàâëåíèå îò âñÿêèõ ýòíè÷åñêè è êóëüòóðíî ÷óæäûõ ýëåìåíòîâ, ïîñòðîåíèå íàöèîíàëüíî îäíîðîäíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà.  1920-å ãã., ïðè âîññòàíîâëåíèè ïîëüñêîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè Ïèë- ñóäñêèì, âñòàë âîïðîñ î ãðàíèöàõ íîâîé Ïîëüøè. È çäåñü ïîëüñêàÿ ýëèòà èñïûòàëà ñèëüíîå ðàçî÷àðîâàíèå: “Ìû èäåì ñ îòêðûòûìè ëàäîíÿìè ê òåì, ñ êåì íåêîãäà æèëè â îäíîì ãîñóäàðñòâå, ê áåëî- ðóñàì, ëèòîâöàì, óêðàèíöàì – à îíè íå õîòÿò!”. Ýìîöèîíàëüíî ýòî îöåíèâàëîñü êàê èçìåíà, ïðåäàòåëüñòâî èäåàëîâ íàøåãî ñîâìåñò- íîãî õîðîøåãî ïðîøëîãî â Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. Ïîñëå 1945 ã. ïîëüñêàÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòü âîñòðåáîâàëà èäåè íàöèîíàëüíîé óíèòàðíîñòè, ïîñêîëüêó êàê-òî íóæíî áûëî îáúÿñ- 503 Èíòåðâüþ ñ È. Ãðàëåé, “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... íèòü è ñìèðèòüñÿ ñ ïîòåðåé Ãàëèöèè è Ëüâîâà (à òàêæå è Âèëüíî!), êîòîðûå çàíèìàþò äî ñèõ ïîð î÷åíü âàæíîå ìåñòî â ïîëüñêîé êóëü- òóðå. Ñåãîäíÿ íèêòî â Ïîëüøå íå îñïàðèâàåò ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ïðè- íàäëåæíîñòè Âèëüíî, Ëüâîâà è äðóãèõ öåíòðîâ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. Íî ìû ïðîòåñòóåì, êîãäà çàìàë÷èâàþò è ïûòàþòñÿ îòíÿòü íàø âêëàä â èõ ðàçâèòèå, îñòàâëåííîå íàìè êóëüòóðíîå íàñëåäèå, êîãäà íàì ãîâîðÿò: “Ýòî íå âàøå, ýòî ÷óæîå”. Íåò, ýòî òàêæå è íàøå! Åñòü òàêàÿ ãåíèàëüíàÿ ôðàçà Ïèëñóäñêîãî: “Ïîëüøà êàê áóáëèê. Âñå ëó÷øåå â íåé ñîñðåäîòî÷åíî íà ãðàíèöàõ”. Íå íàäî ðàñòàñêè- âàòü ïî íàöèîíàëüíûì äîìàì òîò óíèêàëüíûé êóëüòóðíûé ñïëàâ, êîòîðûé äàëà ìèðó Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòàÿ â ëèöå ãåíèåâ ëèòåðàòóðû, èñêóññòâà, ïîëèòèêè, ÷üè äîñòèæåíèÿ íåâîçìîæíî îòäåëèòü îò ïîëüñêîé êóëüòóðû. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, ñåãîäíÿ ïðåîáëàäàåò òåíäåíöèÿ ðàñêîëà èñòîðè- ÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè î ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ïî îòäåëüíûì íàöèî- íàëüíûì êâàðòèðàì. Ïðèâåäó ëèøü îäèí ïðèìåð. Íà Óêðàèíå òâîð- ÷åñòâî Ñåíêåâè÷à, îïèñûâàþùåãî êðîâîïðîëèòíåéøóþ âîéíó ìåæäó ïîëÿêàìè è êàçàêàìè, îöåíèâàåòñÿ êàê àíòèóêðàèíñêîå. Ìåæäó òåì, ÿ íå çíàþ äðóãîãî ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ ïîëüñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû, ãäå áû ñ òàêîé ëþáîâüþ ãîâîðèëîñü îá Óêðàèíå. Âñÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ Ñåíêåâè÷à âûðàæåíà â îäíîé ôðàçå, êîòîðóþ ãîâîðèò â ðîìàíå ñòàðûé ðóñèí Çàöâèëèõîâñêèé: “Áîæå, äî ÷åãî ìû äîøëè! Âîéíà ìåæäó íàìè! À ÿ âåäü ïîìíþ, êàê ãóñàðû ïàíà Ëþáîìèðñêîãî øëè ïîä Õîòè- íîì íà ÿíû÷àðîâ, è çàïîðîæöû ïðûãàëè íà ñâîè âîçû è êðè÷àëè Ñàãàéäà÷íîìó: ‘Ïóñêàé, áàòüêî, ñ ëÿõàìè óìèðàòè!’”. Ðàçâå ýòî – óêðàèíîôîáñêàÿ ïîâåñòü? À ïîñëåäíÿÿ ôðàçà “Îãíåì è ìå÷îì” ïðî íåíàâèñòü, êîòîðàÿ íàäîëãî îòðàâèëà áðàòñêóþ êðîâü – ýòî ðàçâå íå ìàíèôåñòàöèÿ èäåàëîâ íàöèîíàëüíîé òîëåðàíòíîñòè? Ïîëüñêèé íàöèîíàëüíûé ïðîåêò íåìûñëèì áåç äèôôóçèè, ïåðå- ìåùåíèÿ ðàçëè÷íûõ êóëüòóð. Ýòî, ïðåæäå âñåãî, êóëüòóðíûé ïðîåêò. È â ýòîì ñìûñëå èñòîðè÷åñêîå íàñëåäèå ÂÊË/Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé èì âîñòðåáîâàíî. ÀÔ. Íà òåððèòîðèè ïîëüñêî-ëèòîâñêîé óíèè ôóíêöèîíèðîâàëà êðóïíåéøàÿ åâðåéñêàÿ îáùèíà. Êàêîå ìåñòî îíà çàíèìàëà â ãîñó- äàðñòâåííîé è îáùåñòâåííîé ìîäåëè Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâ- ñêîãî/Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé? ÈÃ. Çäåñü íàäî áîëüøå ãîâîðèòü ñêîðåå î âðåìåíè ïîñëå Ëþá- ëèíñêîé óíèè, òî åñòü îïÿòü-òàêè â áîëüøåé ñòåïåíè î Ðå÷è Ïîñ- 504 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïîëèòîé, ÷åì î ÂÊË. Êàê ðàç òîãäà ïðîèñõîäèò áîëüøîå ïåðåñåëå- íèå åâðåéñêîãî ýòíîñà íà óêðàèíñêèå çåìëè, ÷òî ïîòîì âûëèëîñü â êðîâàâûå ïîãðîìû è ðåçíþ âðåìåí õìåëüíèò÷èíû. Îäíàêî îïûò ïðîæèâàíèÿ åâðåéñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ â ñîñòàâå Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé èìååò ñâîè óíèêàëüíûå îñîáåííîñòè, ïðè÷åì óíèêàëüíûå íå äëÿ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, à äëÿ åâðååâ.  ÕVI-ÕVII ââ. äàííîå ãîñóäàðñòâî áûëî åäèíñòâåííîé ñòðàíîé â ìèðå, ãäå ó åâðååâ áûëè îôèöèàëüíî çàêðåïëåííûå øèðîêèå ïðàâà è ñàìîóïðàâëåíèå, ôèñêàëüíûé è ñóäåáíûé èììóíèòåò, ñâîåîáðàçíûé ïàðëàìåíò – òàê íàçûâàå- ìûé “Âààä”, “ñåéì ÷åòûðåõ çåìåëü”, è ò.ä. Ýòîò îïûò äàë åâðåéñ- êîìó íàðîäó íå òîëüêî ïåðåäûøêó â ñêèòàíèÿõ ïî Åâðîïå, íî è âîçìîæíîñòü ïîëíîöåííî ôóíêöèîíèðîâàòü â ðàìêàõ îïðåäåëåí- íîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ñèñòåìû, ÷àñòü êîòîðîé áûëà ñîçäàíà ñàìèìè åâðåÿìè. Õîòÿ õðèñòèàíñòâî è èóäàèçì äàëåêî íå âñåãäà ìèðíî ñòûêîâàëèñü, è ìèð åâðååâ ñóùåñòâîâàë îòäåëüíî îò äðóãèõ êóëü- òóðíî-ýòíè÷åñêèõ îáùíîñòåé â ðàìêàõ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, âñå æå æèçíü äàííîãî íàðîäà çäåñü ñèëüíî îòëè÷àëàñü îò ñðåäíåâåêî- âûõ ãåòòî. Åâðåè Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé îñîçíàâàëè ñâîé îñîáûé ñòàòóñ ïî ñðàâ- íåíèþ ñ ñîïëåìåííèêàìè, æèâøèìè â äðóãèõ ñòðàíàõ. Íåäàðîì íàçâàíèå “Ïîëüøà” ïîðîé âîçâîäÿò ê èâðèòñêîìó “ïîëèí” – “çäåñü îòäîõíåøü”. Äëÿ ïîëüñêèõ åâðååâ áûë, â ïðèíöèïå, îòêðûò ïóòü â øëÿõåòñêîå ñîñëîâèå, è âîçíèêàë îñîáûé ñîáëàçí ïðèíÿòü êàòî- ëè÷åñòâî è ïðåâðàòèòüñÿ â øëÿõòè÷à. Ïðîöåíò òàêèõ âûêðåñòîâ áûë íåâåëèê, íî åâðåè ñî âðåìåíåì ñòàëè ÷óâñòâîâàòü ñåáÿ ïîëíî- öåííîé ÷àñòüþ ïîëüñêîãî îáùåñòâà. Êîãäà â 1794 ã. À. Â. Ñóâîðîâ áðàë ïðåäìåñòüå Âàðøàâû – Ïðàãó, òî ñðåäè îáîðîíÿâøèõñÿ âîñ- ñòàâøèõ áûëè ñîëäàòû Åâðåéñêîãî ïîëêà, íàáðàííûå íà äîáðî- âîëüíîé îñíîâå (åâðåè â Ïîëüøå áûëè îñâîáîæäåíû îò âîåííîé ñëóæáû). Îíè çàùèùàëè ñòîëèöó ñâîåé ïðèåìíîé ìàòåðè-Ðîäèíû è ïîëåãëè íà åå âàëàõ ÷óòü ëè íå äî ïîñëåäíåãî ÷åëîâåêà. È òàêèõ ñëó÷àåâ õâàòàëî. Êîãäà Ïàñêåâè÷ øåë íà Âàðøàâó â 1831 ã., â ðàì- êàõ ïîëüñêîãî îïîë÷åíèÿ ôîðìèðîâàëèñü åâðåéñêèå ïîäðàçäåëå- íèÿ óëè÷íûõ ñòðàæåé ïîðÿäêà, ïðè÷åì èç åâðåéñêîé áåäíîòû. Îñîáûì ïîëèòè÷åñêèì îïûòîì è äëÿ åâðååâ, è äëÿ ïîëÿêîâ ñòà- ëà õìåëüíèò÷èíà. Âû ïîìíèòå ëîçóíã: “Ëÿõ, æèä è ñîáàêà – âåðà îäèíàêà”. Êîãäà ïîä íîæ îäèíàêîâî øëè è ïîëüñêèå äâîðÿíå, è åâðåéñêèå ïîñåëåíöû, èõ îáúåäèíÿëà îáùíîñòü òðàãè÷åñêîé ñóäüáû, îáùàÿ óãðîçà, ñòðàäàíèå. Ïîõîä êíÿçÿ ßðåìû Âèøíåâåöêîãî, 505 Èíòåðâüþ ñ È. Ãðàëåé, “Íå-èìïåðèÿ”: Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... êîãäà îí âûâåë èç çîíû âîññòàíèÿ Õìåëüíèöêîãî èç-çà Äíåïðà íåñêîëüêî òûñÿ÷ ÷åëîâåê, áîëåå âñåãî âîñïåâàë åâðåéñêèé ïèñà- òåëü Íàòàí Õàíîâåð, êîòîðûé íàïèñàë öåëûé òðàêòàò “Ãëóáîêàÿ êëîàêà”, ïîñâÿùåííûé ñïàñåíèþ Âèøíåâåöêèì áîãîèçáðàííîãî íàðîäà, åâðååâ, èç ïàñòè íîâûõ ôèëèñòèìëÿí – óêðàèíöåâ. Ïîýòîìó Âèøíåâåöêèé – ñïåðâà ñïàñèòåëü èóäååâ, à òîëüêî ïîòîì ïîëÿê è ïàí. Ïîñëå õìåëüíèò÷èíû îòíîøåíèÿ ïîëÿêîâ è åâðååâ ïåðåøëè â èíóþ ïëîñêîñòü. Èñòîðèÿ çíàåò äàæå ïîëüñêèõ àðèñòîêðàòîâ, âñåðüåç îáñóæäàâøèõ âîçìîæíîñòü ïåðåõîäà â èóäàèçì. Íàïðèìåð, îäèí èç Ðàäçèâèëëîâ õîòåë ñòàòü ìåññèåé åâðåéñêîãî íàðîäà (ïðàâäà, âñêîðå áûë îáúÿâëåí ñâîåé ñåìüåé ñóìàñøåäøèì è ïîñàæåí ïîä çàìîê). Õîòÿ îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó ìàãíàòàìè è åâðåÿìè áûëè íå áå- çîáëà÷íûìè, çäåñü íå âñåãäà ìîæíî ðàçäåëèòü ýòíè÷åñêèå è ñîöè- àëüíûå ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ. Ïîìèìî ïðèçíàíèÿ çà åâðåéñêèìè îáùèíàìè âàæíîé ñîöèàëü- íîé è ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ðîëè â Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, ñòîèò óïîìÿíóòü, ÷òî ïðèîáðåòåííûé ïîëüñêèìè åâðåÿìè ïîëèòè÷åñêèé îïûò ñûã- ðàë âàæíóþ ðîëü â ñîçäàíèè ãîñóäàðñòâà Èçðàèëü. Âñïîìíèì, ÷òî ïåðâàÿ ãåíåðàöèÿ äåïóòàòîâ Êíåññåòà ñïîðèëà ïî-ïîëüñêè – íå ñòîëüêî â ñèëó ñâîåãî ïîëüñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, ñêîëüêî èñõî- äÿ èç âîñòðåáîâàííîñòè äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèõ òðàäèöèé Ðå÷è Ïîñïî- ëèòîé è, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ïîëüñêîãî ïàðëàìåíòàðèçìà.

SUMMARY

Hieronim Gralja proves the concept, that Rzech Pospolita and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) were a unique non-imperial model of associa- tion of the different peoples, religions, political formations. The main con- solidating forces were the freedom of aristocracy. It had attractive force, which rallied ethnic elites around of the king. The cultural influence of Poland to GDL was extraordinary great, and also was the factor of associa- tion. The role of an image of GDL as parts of the Polish national project of the19th - 20th centuries consists in romantic memoirs about the ancient great- ness of the incorporated state. But it is more important cultural, than political contents of the Polish historical memory about GDL for the Polish project.

506 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Äàðþñ ÂÈËÈÌÀÑ

ÂÅËÈÊÎÅ ÊÍßÆÅÑÒÂÎ ËÈÒÎÂÑÊÎÅ: ÑÒÅÐÅÎÒÈÏÛ ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÎÉ ÏÀÌßÒÈ Â ËÈÒÂÅ

Ñîçäàíèå Âåëèêîãî Êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî (ÂÊË) è ðàñöâåò ìîãó÷åãî ãîñóäàðñòâà â ñåðåäèíå XV â. âî âñå ïîñëåäóþùèå âðåìåíà ñ÷èòàëñÿ “çîëîòûì âåêîì” â èñòîðèè Ëèòâû. Ïîýòîìó èñòîðè÷åñ- êàÿ ïàìÿòü îá íåêîãäà âåëèêîì ëèòîâñêîì ãîñóäàðñòâå “îò ìîðÿ äî ìîðÿ” èãðàëà îïðåäåëÿþùóþ ðîëü â ëèòîâñêîì ñàìîñîçíàíèè âî âðåìÿ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ñîâðåìåííîé ëèòîâñêîé íàöèè â êîíöå XIX â. è â XX â. Ïîïûòêà ïðî÷òåíèÿ èñòîðè÷åñêîãî îïûòà ÂÊË ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðåäìåòîì ðàññìîòðåíèÿ äàííîé ñòàòüè.1 XIX ñòîëåòèå ÷àñòî íàçûâàþò âåêîì ïðîáóæäåíèÿ íàöèé â Öåíò- ðàëüíîé è Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïå. Ëèòîâöû, êàê è ìíîãèå äðóãèå íàðîäû ýòîãî ðåãèîíà, âñòðåòèëè åãî, íå èìåÿ ñâîåé ãîñóäàðñò- âåííîñòè. Ïîëîæåíèå îñëîæíÿëîñü åùå è òåì, ÷òî èìåÿ äàâíþþ è ñëàâíóþ èñòîðèþ, ëèòîâñêèé íàðîä ïîòåðÿë ñâîþ ýëèòó, â ñóù- íîñòè äåãðàäèðîâàâ íà óðîâåíü ýòíîñà.  õîäå ÷åòûðåõñîòëåòíèõ ñâÿçåé ñ Ïîëüøåé ëèòîâñêîå øëÿõåòñòâî îêîí÷àòåëüíî îïîëÿ÷è- ëîñü íå òîëüêî â ÿçûêîâîì, íî è â êóëüòóðíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîì

1  ýòîé ñòàòüå íå áóäåò îòäåëüíî ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ âëèÿíèå õóäîæåñòâåííîé ëèòåðàòóðû íà ôîðìèðîâàíèå ñòåðåîòèïîâ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ÂÊË. 507 Ä. Âèëèìàñ, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... îòíîøåíèè.  êîíöå XVIII â., ïåðåä ðàçäåëàìè, Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòàÿ ñìîòðåëà íà Ëèòâó êàê íà îäíó èç èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïðîâèíöèé Ïîëüøè.  íåìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ëèòîâñêèõ ãîðîäàõ ïðåîáëàäàëè åâðåè è/èëè ïîëüñêî-ÿçû÷íûå æèòåëè. Ïðèìå÷àòåëüíî òî, ÷òî èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü î áûëîì ÂÊË ìîùíûì ýõîì çâó÷àëà â èäåî- ëîãèè âîññòàíèé 1831 è 1863-1864 ãã. Îäíàêî â ïðîãðàììàõ ëèòîâ- ñêèõ ïîâñòàíöåâ íå áûëî äàæå íàìåêà íà ãîñóäàðñòâåííóþ îáî- ñîáëåííîñòü îò äàâíåãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïàðòíåðà – Ïîëüøè. Ïîñëå ïîäàâëåíèÿ âîîðóæåííûõ âûñòóïëåíèé öàðñêèå âëàñòè ïðèíèìàëè ìåðû, íàïðàâëåííûå íà èñêîðåíåíèå ïîëüñêîãî âëèÿíèÿ â òàê íàçû- âàåìîì Ñåâåðî-Çàïàäíîì êðàå. Îäíàêî èõ ðåçóëüòàò áûë ïðÿìî ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûì îæèäàíèÿì: ïîëüñêîå âëèÿíèå èëè êîíñåðâè- ðîâàëîñü, èëè äàæå âîçðàñòàëî. Áîëüøóþ ðîëü çäåñü èãðàëî êà- òîëè÷åñòâî. Çàêðûòèå Âèëåíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà â 1832 ã. îòíÿëî ó èìïåð- ñêèõ âëàñòåé âîçìîæíîñòü âëèÿòü íà îáðàçîâàíèå îáùåñòâà, à çàïðåò êíèãîïå÷àòàíèÿ íà ëèòîâñêîì àëôàâèòå íå òîëüêî âûçâàë áóðíûé ðîñò íåëåãàëüíîé ëèòîâñêîé ïå÷àòè, íî è ïîìîã ïîëüñêîìó äóõîâåíñòâó â êîíöå XIX – íà÷àëå XX ââ. ôîðñèðîâàííûìè òåì- ïàìè ïðîâîäèòü ïîëîíèçàöèþ â Çàïàäíîé Áåëàðóñè è Âîñòî÷íîé Ëèòâå.  ïåðâûå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïîñëå ëèêâèäàöèè Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü âñåãî ëèøü î ñîõðàíåíèè ñòîéêîé óíèéíîé òðàäèöèè ñðåäè øëÿõòû Çàïàäíîãî êðàÿ, è îá îòáëåñêå ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðè- ÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ñðåäè ìåùàíñòâà (óæå ïåðåíÿâøåãî ïîëüñêèé ÿçûê) è êðåñòüÿí. Íî èìåííî â ýòè ãîäû ñðåäè ÷àñòè ëèòîâñêîãî äâî- ðÿíñòâà ïðîáóäèëñÿ ñî÷óâñòâåííûé èíòåðåñ ê ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèè è ëèòîâñêîìó ÿçûêó. Îí áûë ÷àñòè÷íî íàâåÿí èäåÿìè åâðîïåéñêîãî ðîìàíòèçìà, ÷àñòè÷íî – òåì îáñòîÿòåëüñòâîì, ÷òî îïðåäåëåííàÿ ÷àñòü øëÿõòû, îñîáåííî ìåëêîé, åùå íå çàáûëà ëèòîâñêèé ÿçûê (îñîáåííî â çàïàäíîé ÷àñòè Ëèòâû, Æîìîéòèè). Ñèëüíîå âëèÿíèå íà îáùåñòâåííóþ ìûñëü îêàçûâàë è äåéñòâóþùèé òîãäà Âèëåí- ñêèé óíèâåðñèòåò, êóëüòóðíûé è íàó÷íûé öåíòð ðåãèîíà. Ïåðâîé ëàñòî÷êîé íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîáóæäåíèÿ ñòàëî êóëüòóðíî- íàðîäíîå äâèæåíèå òàê íàçûâàåìûõ “ó÷åíûõ æìóäçèíî┠(æîìîé- òîâ). Õîòÿ åãî ïðåäñòàâèòåëè è ïèñàëè íà ïîëüñêîì ÿçûêå, îíè áûëè ïåðâûìè, îáðàòèâøèìè âíèìàíèå íà ëèòîâñêèé ÿçûê è ëèòîâñêóþ èñòîðèþ.  ýòîé ñâÿçè ìîæíî îòìåòèòü ïðîñâåòèòåëüíûé êðóæîê âîêðóã Æîìîéòñêîãî åïèñêîïà Èîñèôà Àðíóëüôà Ãåäðîéòÿ, 508 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïîýòîâ Ä. Ïàøêåâè÷à (Ïîøêó),2 Ñ. Ñòàíåâè÷þñà,3 À. Äðîçäîâñ- êîãî (Ñòðàçäàñà)4 è äðóãèõ. Äàæå ïîñëå çàêðûòèÿ Âèëåíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà â óñëîâèÿõ æåñò- êîé ðóñèôèêàöèè èíòåðåñ ê ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèè è ê ëèòîâñêîìó ÿçûêó íå îñëàá, à äàæå óñèëèëñÿ.  ýòîé ñâÿçè íåîáõîäèìî îòìåòèòü òðóäû Ò. Íàðáóòà,5 È. Äàíèëîâè÷à,6 È. Îíàöåâè÷à,7 Þ. ßðîøå- âè÷à,8 Ì. Áàëèíñêîãî,9 È. Ëåëåâåëÿ.10 Òîãäà æå ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ è ïåðâûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïî èñòîðèè Ëèòâû, íàïèñàííûå íà ëèòîâñêîì ÿçûêå (Ñ. Äàóêàíòàñ11 è Ì. Âîëîí÷åâñêèé (Âàëàí÷þñ)12 ). Ñèòóàöèÿ â êîðíå ìåíÿåòñÿ ïîñëå 19 ôåâðàëÿ 1861 ã., êîãäà ëèòîâñêèå êðåñòüÿíå ïîëó÷èëè ëè÷íóþ ñâîáîäó. Ïðè ýòîì îáðåë â ñèëó çàïðåò íà êíèãîïå÷àòàíèå íà ëèòîâñêîì àëôàâèòå, äåé- ñòâîâàâøèé 40 ëåò (1864-1904). Çàïðåò âûçâàë ìîùíûé âçðûâ ëè- òîâñêîãî êíèãî- è ãàçåòîïå÷àòàíèÿ â ñîñåäíåé Âîñòî÷íîé Ïðóññèè (òàê íàçûâàåìîé Ìàëîé Ëèòâå).  ëèòîâñêîì ÿçûêå ïîÿâèëîñü

2 Ïîøêà (Ïàøêåâè÷) Äèîíèçèé (1765-1830), ïèñàòåëü, ïðîñâåòèòåëü. Ïèñàë ñòèõè, ñòàòüè, îäû. Ñîáèðàë äðåâíîñòè, êîòîðûå ïîìåñòèë â äóïëå ñòàðîãî äóáà (òàê íàçûâàåìûé Áàóáëÿé), ãäå â 1812 ã. îòêðûë ìàëåíüêèé ìóçåé (ñîõðàíèëñÿ äî íàøèõ äíåé). 3 Ñòàíåâè÷þñ Ñèìîíàñ Òàäàñ (1799-1848), èçâåñòíûé ïîýò, ñîáèðàë ëèòîâñêèé ôîëüêëîð, íàðîäíûå ïåñíè, áàñíè. Âîñïåâàë ñëàâíîå ïðîøëîå Ëèòâû, îñóæäàë êðåïîñòíè÷åñòâî è íàöèîíàëüíîå óãíåòåíèå. 4 Ñòðàçäàñ Àíòàíàñ (Äðîçäîâñêèé) Àíòàíàñ (1760-1833), êñåíäç, ïîýò. Åäèíñòâåí- íûé èç óïîìÿíóòûõ ëèö, êîòîðûé áûë ðîäîì íå èç Æîìîéòèè, à èç Àóêøòàéòèè. Âûõîäåö èç êðåïîñòíûõ êðåñòüÿí. Íåêîòîðûå åãî ñòèõîòâîðåíèÿ áûëè íàñòîëüêî ïîïóëÿðíû, ÷òî ñòàëè íàðîäíûìè ïåñíÿìè. 5 T. Narbutt. Dzieje narodu litewskiego. Wilno, 1835-1841. T. 1-9. 6 I. Dani³owicz. Skarbiec dyplomatów papieskich, cesarskich, królewskich, ksi¹¿êcych; uchwa³ narodowych, postanowieñ ró¿nych w³adz i urzêdów pos³uguj¹cych do krytycznego wyjaœnienia dziejów Litwy, Rusi litewskiej i oœciennych im krajów. T. 1-2. Wilno, 1860-1862. 7 I. Onacewicz. Rzut oka na pierwotne dzieje Litwy. 1846; Idem. Rzut oka na dzieje Wielkiego Ksiæstwa Litewskiego. 1849-1850. 8 J. Jaroszewicz. Obraz Litwy pod wzgædem jej cywilizacji. Wilno, 1844-1845. T. 1-3. 9 M. Baliñski. Historia miasta Wilna. Wilno, 1836. T. 1-2; M. Baliñski. Dawna Akademia Wileñska. Petersburg, 1862. 10 J. Lelewel. Dzieje Litwy i Rusi a¿ do unii s Polsk¹. Paris, 1839. 11 S. Daukantas. Bûdas senovës lietuviø kalnënø ir þemaièiø. Peterburgas, 1845; S. Daukantas. Lietuvos istorija. Plymouth, Pa., 1893-1897. D. 1-2; S. Daukantas. Darbay senuju Lietuviøyr Þemaicziu. Kaunas, 1929; S. Daukantas. Istorija þemaitiðka. Vilnius, 1995. T.1-2. 12 M.Woùonczewskis. Þemaijtiø wyskupystë. Vilnius, 1848. D.1-2; M.Valanèius. Raðtai. T. 2. Þemaièiø vyskupystë. Vilnius, 1972. 509 Ä. Âèëèìàñ, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... óíèêàëüíîå ñëîâî “êíèãíåøèñ”, îçíà÷àâøåå ÷åëîâåêà, íåñóùåãî (÷åðåç ãðàíèöó) çàïðåùåííûå êíèãè. Êàçåííûå ðóññêèå øêîëû ÷àñòî áîéêîòèðîâàëèñü, èõ çàìåíèëè òàéíûå ÷àñòíûå ëèòîâñêèå øêîëû. Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî íàñåëåíèå èãíîðèðîâàëî êàçåííûå ó÷åáíûå çàâåäåíèÿ, ïåðåïèñü íàñåëåíèÿ Ðîññèéñêîé ãóáåðíèé â 1897 ã. îòìå÷àåò â ëèòîâñêèõ ãóáåðíèÿõ îäèí èç ñàìûõ âûñîêèõ óðîâíåé ãðàìîòíîñòè. Åñëè â Âèëåíñêîé ãóáåðíèè, ââèäó åå ãåîãðàôè÷åñ- êîé îòäàëåííîñòè îò öåíòðîâ ëèòîâñêîãî êíèãîïå÷àòàíèÿ, âëèÿíèå ëèòîâñêîé ïå÷àòè áûëî ñëàáåå, â Êîâåíñêîé è â ñåâåðíîé ÷àñòè Ñóâàëêñêîé ãóáåðíèÿõ àâòîðèòåò ïîäîáíûõ èçäàíèé áûë îãðîìåí.  ïîñëåäíåé ÷åòâåðòè XIX â. ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ ïåðâûå íåëåãàëüíûå ëèòîâñêèå ãàçåòû (â 1883 ã. ïå÷àòàëàñü ëèøü “Àóøðà” (Ðàññâåò)).  1890-õ ãã. èõ óæå íåñêîëüêî, ìíîãîêðàòíî âîçðàñòàþò òèðàæè è ÷èñëî ëèö, çàäåðæàííûõ ïðè ïåðåõîäå ãðàíèöû ñ íåëåãàëüíîé ëèòåðàòóðîé èëè ïûòàþùèõñÿ åå ðàñïðîñòðàíÿòü ñðåäè ñåëüñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ.  ÷èñëå ñîòðóäíèêîâ ýòèõ èçäàíèè âûäâèíóëèñü ìíîãèå áóäóùèå ëèòîâñêèå ïîëèòèêè. Ñðåäè íèõ áûëè íå òîëüêî ïàòðèàðõè ëèòîâñêîãî Âîçðîæäåíèÿ (Â. Êóäèðêà, É. Áàñàíàâè÷þñ è äð.), íî è ìíîãèå áóäóùèå ñèãíàòàðû13 àêòà 16 ôåâðàëÿ 1918 ãîäà. Íåëåãàëüíàÿ ëèòîâñêàÿ ïå÷àòü ñûãðàëà îãðîìíóþ ðîëü â ñòàíîâëåíèé ñîâðå- ìåííîé ëèòîâñêîé íàöèè. È õîòÿ â ñîäåðæàùåéñÿ íà åå ñòðàíèöàõ òðàêòîâêàõ ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèè âñòðå÷àëèñü è ñàìûå ôàíòàñòè÷åñ- êèå òåîðèè (íàïðèìåð, êîíöåïöèÿ È. Áàñàíàâè÷þñà î ðîäñòâå äðåâ- íèõ ëèòîâöåâ è òðàêîâ,14) íåëåãàëüíàÿ ïå÷àòü – îò ðåëèãèîçíûõ êíèæåê äî ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêèõ ëèñòîâîê – ôîðìèðîâàëà ìàññîâóþ èñòîðè÷åñêóþ ïàìÿòü ëèòîâöåâ. Îíà âîñïåâàëà ñëàâíîå èñòîðè- ÷åñêîå ïðîøëîå Ëèòâû. Âñïîìèíàëèñü ëåãåíäàðíûå êíÿçüÿ-ÿçû÷- íèêè, âåëèêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî “îò ìîðÿ äî ìîðÿ”. Íåäàðîì â ïåñíþ Â. Êóäèðêè, ïîçæå ñòàâøóþ íàöèîíàëüíûì ãèìíîì Ëèòîâñêîé

13 ×ëåíû Ëèòîâñêîé Òàðèáû (Ñîâåòà), êîòîðûå ïðîâîçãëàñèëè íåçàâèñèìîñòü Ëèòâû 16 ôåâðàëÿ 1918 ã. 14 Ïàòðèàðõ ëèòîâñêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî âîçðîæäåíèÿ, ìåäèê ïî ñïåöèàëüíîñòè, äð. Éîíàñ Áàñàíàâè÷þñ (1851-1927) íåñêîëüêî äåñÿòåëåòèé æèë çà ãðàíèöåé, â òîì ÷èñëå è â Áîëãàðèè. Íàïèñàë ìíîãî èññëåäîâàíèé ïî èñòîðèè, àðõåîëîãèè, ôîëüêëîðèñòèêè è ýòíîãðàôèè, êîòîðûì ñâîéñòâåíåí ðîìàíòèçì, ÷èñòî íàó÷íàÿ öåííîñòü èõ íåâåëèêà. Èìåííî â Áîëãàðèè ñîçäàíà ðîìàíòè÷åñêàÿ ãèïîòåçà É. Áàñàíàâè÷þñà î ïðîèñõîæäåíèé ëèòîâöåâ èç òðàêîâ-ôðèãîâ (Lietuviðkai-trakiðkos studijos, 1898; Apie trakø prygø tautystæ ir jø atsikëlimà Lietuvon, 1921 è äð.). 510 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ðåñïóáëèêè, âîøëè ñëîâà “èç ïðîøëîãî òâîè ñûíîâüÿ ïóñòü ÷åðïàþò ñèëû”.15 Êîíåö ïîçàïðîøëîãî âåêà çíàìåíóåò ñîáîé è êîíåö “âå÷íîé” ïîëüñêî-ëèòîâñêîé äðóæáû. Íåëüçÿ óòâåðæäàòü îäíîçíà÷íî, ÷òî ýòî áûëà “çàñëóãà” èìïåðñêèõ âëàñòåé. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî â ýòî âðåìÿ íà÷àëè ðàñõîäèòüñÿ îöåíêè íàöèîíàëüíîãî áóäóùåãî îáîèõ íàðî- äîâ. Âäîáàâîê, êàòîëè÷åñêèé êëèð Âèëåíñêîãî åïèñêîïñòâà óïîðíî íå õîòåë ïðèçíàâàòü ïðàâà ëèòîâñêèõ ïðèõîæàí ìîëèòñÿ íà ðîäíîì ÿçûêå. Âûÿñíåíèå îòíîøåíèé ïåðåðîñòàëî â ïóáëè÷íóþ áðàíü è äàæå äðàêè â êîñòåëàõ. Æàëîáû ïî ýòîìó ïîâîäó äîøëè äî Ïàïû Ðèìñêîãî. Íåëüçÿ ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ëèäåðû ëèòîâñêîãî âîçðîæäåíèÿ íå ïûòà- ëèñü ñêëîíèòü íà ñâîþ ñòîðîíó ïîëüñêîÿçû÷íóþ àðèñòîêðàòèþ Ëèòâû. Îäíàêî èõ ïðèçûâû ê øëÿõåòñòâó ïîääåðæàòü ëèòîâñêîå íàöèîíàëüíîå âîçðîæäåíèå áûëè ðåçêî îòâåðãíóòû è âñòðå÷åíû ïå÷àëüíî èçâåñòíûì “Przenigdy!”. Ñòàëî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî áîëüøàÿ ÷àñòü ïîòîìêîâ äàâíåé ýëèòû ÂÊË íå â ñîñòîÿíèè îñîçíàòü âîçìîæ- íîñòü ðàçâèòèÿ Ëèòâû âíå ðàìîê ïîëüñêîé Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé (áûëè ðåäêèå èñêëþ÷åíèÿ èç îáùåé òåíäåíöèè, íî îá ýòîì ÷óòü ïîçæå). Ðÿäîì ñî ñòîðîííèêàìè ïîëíîé èíòåãðàöèè â Ïîëüøó ñòîÿëè è òàê íàçûâàåìûå “êðàåâöû”, êîòîðûå ïðåäëàãàëè ñâîåîáðàçíûé òðåòèé ïóòü ðàçâèòèÿ (øèðîêàÿ àâòîíîìèÿ Ëèòâû â ñîñòàâå áóäóùåé Ïîëüøè èëè ñîþç Áàëòèéñêèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ ñ ó÷àñòèåì Ïîëüøè).16 Áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîìó ñòîëêíîâåíèþ â íà÷àëå XX â. â ñðåäå ýòíè÷åñ- êèõ ëèòîâöåâ ôîðìèðóåòñÿ íåñêîëüêî èíîé îáðàç èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè, îòëè÷àþùèéñÿ îò ïðåîáëàäàâøåãî â ÕIÕ â., ïîñëå ãèáåëè Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. Ëèòîâöû íà÷àëè îñîçíàâàòü ñâîþ íàöèîíàëüíóþ èäåíòè÷íîñòü, îòëè÷àåìóþ îò êîíôåññèîíàëüíîé.  êîíöå XIX â. áûòü êàòîëèêîì óæå íå îçíà÷àëî àâòîìàòè÷åñêè áûòü ïîëÿêîì. Èíòåðåñíàÿ äåòàëü – åùå â 1869 ã. îòìå÷àíèå òðåõñîòëåòèÿ

15 Ëèòâà, íàøà Ðîäèíà, òû çåìëÿ ãåðîåâ Èç ïðîøëîãî òâîè ñûíîâüÿ ïóñòü ÷åðïàþò ñèëû Ïóñòü òâîè äåòè èäóò ëèøü ïî òðîïàì äîáðîäåòåëè (÷åñòíîñòè) Ïóñòü ðàáîòàþò íà òâîå áëàãî è íà áëàãî ëþäåé 16 Ñì., íàïðèìåð: Rimantas Miknys. Vieningos Europos samprata krajovcø ideologijoje (XX a. pirma pusë) // Europos idëja Lietuvojeþ Istorija ir dabartis. Vilnius, 2002. Pp. 149-160; Idem. Vilniaus autonomistai ir jø 1904-1905 m. Lietuvos politinës autonomijos projektai // Lietuviø atgimimo studijos. Vilnius, 1991. T. 3. Lietuvos valstybës idëja (XIX – XX a. pradþia). Pp. 175-186. 511 Ä. Âèëèìàñ, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè ïðèâëåêëî ìíîæåñòâî ëþäåé èç Çàíåìàíñêîé Ëèòâû (îíà òîãäà â àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîì îòíîøåíèé ïðèíàäëåæàëà öàðñòâó Ïîëüñêîìó èëè Ïðèâèñëèíñêîìó êðàþ), êîòîðûå ïðîøëè ÷åðåç ðåêó Íåìàí òîðæåñòâåííîé ïðîöåññèåé, ñ öåðêîâíûìè ñòÿãàìè è ïåñíîïåíèåì (“Áîæå, õðàíè Ïîëüøó”) ê Êàóíàñó (Êîâíî), ãäå èõ æäàëà ëèêóþùàÿ òîëïà.  íà÷àëå ÕÕ â. ÷èñëî ó÷àñòíè- êîâ òàêèõ ïðîöåññèé ðåçêî óìåíüøèëîñü.  ãîäû Ïåðâîé Ìèðîâîé âîéíû âåðõóøêà äâèæåíèÿ íàöèîíàëüíîãî âîçðîæäåíèÿ ëåëåÿëà íàäåæäó, ÷òî âîéíà ïðèâåäåò ê êðóøåíèþ Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè, è íà åå îáëîìêàõ óäàñòñÿ âîññîåäèíèòü âñå òåððèòîðèè, ãäå æèâóò ýòíè÷åñêèå ëèòîâöû. Åùå â ãîäû ðåâîëþöèè 1905 ã. Âåëèêèé ñåéì ëèòîâöåâ, ñîáðàâøèéñÿ â Âèëüíþñå, ñâîåé öåëüþ îáúÿâèë ñîçäàíèå Ëèòâû, ïîëüçóþùåéñÿ øèðîêîé êóëüòóðíîé àâòîíîìèåé.  êîðîò- êèé ïåðèîä óñïåõîâ ðóññêèõ âîéñê íà âîñòî÷íîì ôðîíòå ðîäèëàñü òàê íàçûâàåìàÿ “ßíòàðíàÿ äåêëàðàöèÿ”, â êîòîðîé âûíàøèâàëàñü èäåÿ ïðèñîåäèíåíèÿ ê ëèòîâñêèì ãóáåðíèÿì è òåððèòîðèè Âîñòî÷- íîé Ïðóññèèè, ãäå ïðåîáëàäàëè ëèòîâöû.  êîíöå âîéíû, â íîÿáðå 1918 ã., îáùåñòâåííûå ëèäåðû Ìàëîé (èëè Ïðóññêîé) Ëèòâû ïîâòîðèëè òå æå òðåáîâàíèÿ, æåëàÿ âîññîåäèíèòü ëèòîâñêèå óåçäû Âîñòî÷íîé Ïðóññèè ñ Ëèòâîé. Ïîñëå ñîáûòèé 1917-1918 ãã. è Ðîññèÿ, è Ãåðìàíèÿ áûëè èñòî- ùåíû, òîãäà è ðîäèëàñü èäåÿ ñîçäàíèÿ Ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ïîä âåðõîâíîé ýãèäîé Ãåðìàíèè. Ëèòâà äîëæíà áûëà ñòàòü êîðîëåâ- ñòâîì (ýòî ìîæíî îáúÿñíèòü óñòóïêîé ãåðìàíñêèì âëàñòÿì). Ëþ- áîïûòíî, ÷òî ìîíàðõ, êîòîðîãî Ëèòîâñêàÿ Òàðèáà ïëàíèðîâàëà ïðèçâàòü íà ëèòîâñêèé ïðåñòîë, äîëæåí áûë êîðîíîâàòüñÿ ïîä èìåíåì Ìèíäàóãàñà II. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñîçäàâàëàñü ìíèìàÿ ïðè- åìñòâåííîñòü ìåæäó ïåðâûì (è ïîñëåäíèì) êîðîëåì Ëèòâû è íîâûì ìîíàðõîì, õîòÿ ñàì áóäóùèé êîðîëü ÿâëÿëñÿ áû íåìöåì – âþðòåíþáåðãñêèì ãðàôîì Âèëãåëüìîì Óðàõîì. Òàê â íà÷àëå XX â. ñèìâîëè÷íî ïðîìåëüêíóëà òåíü ñîçäàòåëÿ Ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàð- ñòâà XIII âåêà. Ïîñëå ðåâîëþöèè â Ãåðìàíèè è îêîí÷àíèÿ Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû ìîíàðõè÷åñêèå ïðîåêòû óñòðîéñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, åñòåñòâåííî, áûëè çàáûòû. Ãëàâíîé ïðîáëåìîé ìîëîäîãî ãîñó- äàðñòâà ñòàëà çàùèòà ñâîèõ ãðàíèö. Åñëè îò áîëüøåâèñòñêîãî äàâëåíèÿ è áàíä áåðìîíòñêîé àðìèè óäàëîñü îòáèòüñÿ, òî äåëà ñ Ïîëüøåé îáñòîÿëè ñëîæíåå. Âî ãëàâå âîçðîæäåííîé Ïîëüøè ñòîÿë ìàðøàë Þ. Ïèëñóäñêèé, êàê áû îëèöåòâîðÿâøèé äðåâíþþ ãîñó- 512 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 äàðñòâåííóþ òðàäèöèþ ïîëüñêîÿçû÷íîé øëÿõòû ÂÊË. Ïîòîìîê ëèòîâñêîé àðèñòîêðàòèè, Ïèëñóäñêèé âñþ æèçíü óïîðíî íàçûâàë ñåáÿ “ëèòâèíîì” è äàæå çíàë ëèòîâñêèé ÿçûê. Íî èìÿ ýòîãî ÷åëî- âåêà ñòàëî íàðèöàòåëüíûì â ìåæâîåííîé Ëèòîâñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêå. Ïîñëå íàñòóïëåíèÿ Ãåðìàíèè íà âîñòî÷íîì ôðîíòå è çàõâàòà åþ âñåé èñòîðè÷åñêîé Ëèòâû, ïîëüñêèå îáùåñòâåííûå ëèäåðû ïðèçûâàëè æèòåëåé áûâøåãî ÂÊË ïîääåðæàòü èäåþ âîññîçäàíèÿ èñòîðè÷åñêîé Ïîëüøè. Èìåëàñü â âèäó Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòàÿ â ãðà- íèöàõ 1772 ã. Ïîýòîìó íà âñå ïîïûòêè ñîçäàíèÿ ëèòîâñêîãî ýòíè- ÷åñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ïîëÿêè ñìîòðåëè ñ íåñêðûâàåìûì ïîäîçðå- íèåì. Áîëüøèíñòâó èç íèõ áûëî ñîâåðøåííî íåïîíÿòíî, ïî÷åìó èñêîííûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñîþçíèêè-ëèòîâöû âäðóã êàòåãîðè÷åñêè îòêàçûâàþòñÿ ñîçäàâàòü íîâóþ óíèþ ñ Ïîëüøåé.  ñòðåìëåíèÿõ ñîçäàòü íàöèîíàëüíóþ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòü ïðèâåðæåíöû îòñòàëîãî óíèéíîãî ìûøëåíèÿ âèäåëè íå åñòåñòâåííûå æåëàíèÿ ëèòîâöåâ, à ëèøü çëûå ïðîèñêè âåëèêèõ çàïàäíûõ (Ãåðìàíèÿ) è âîñòî÷íûõ (Ðîññèÿ) ñîñåäåé. Ñâîè ïðàâà íà ïîëüñêîÿçû÷íûé Âèëüíþñ (Âèëüíî) è åãî êðàé ïîëÿêè äîêàçûâàëè ýòíîëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèìè, à ëèòîâöû – èñòîðè÷åñêèìè àðãóìåíòàìè. Íà÷àëàñü âîîðóæåííàÿ êîíôðîíòàöèÿ. Âïåðâûå ïîëÿêè çàíÿëè Âèëüíþñ âåñíîé 1919 ã., îòáèâ ãîðîä ó áîëüøåâèêîâ. Ëèòîâñêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî åùå äî ïðèõîäà Ñîâåòîâ ïåðååõàëî â Êàóíàñ. Ïîïûòêè ñêëîíèòü åãî íà ñâîþ ñòîðîíó íå óâåí÷àëèñü óñïåõîì. Ïðîâàëèëñÿ âîîðóæåííûé ïóòü ïîäïîëüíîé Polskoj Organizacji Wojskowej (ÏÎÂ), ñòàâèâøåé öåëüþ ñâåðæåíèå Ëèòîâñêîãî ïðà- âèòåëüñòâà è ïðèñîåäèíåíèå êðàÿ ê Ïîëüøå. Çàãîâîð áûë ðàñêðûò, ìíîãèå åãî ó÷àñòíèêè àðåñòîâàíû, îñòàëüíûå áåæàëè íà òåððèòî- ðèþ, êîíòðîëèðóåìóþ Ïîëüøåé. Ìåæäó Ëèòâîé è Ïîëüøåé íå áûëî âîéíû, íî ïîñòîÿííî ïðî- èñõîäèëè ñïîðû î ãðàíèöàõ, ÷òî ó÷ëà ñîâåòñêàÿ Ðîññèÿ, êîãäà ëèòîâñêî-ñîâåòñêèì ìèðíûì äîãîâîðîì îòäàëà Ëèòîâñêîé Ðåñïóá- ëèêå íå òîëüêî ÷èñòî ýòíè÷åñêèå, íî è ýòíîãðàôè÷åñêèå ëèòîâñêèå òåððèòîðèè. Ïîëüøà íîâûõ ãðàíèö íå ïðèçíàëà. Ïîñëå ïîðàæå- íèÿ ñîâåòñêèõ âîéñê ïîä Âàðøàâîé íà÷àëñÿ èõ ñòðåìèòåëüíûé îòêàò íà âîñòîê. Ëèòîâñêèå è ïîëüñêèå âîéñêà ñíîâà âîøëè â ñîïðè- êîñíîâåíèå. Ïîñëå íåóäà÷íûõ äëÿ ëèòîâñêîé ñòîðîíû ñòû÷åê 7 îê- òÿáðÿ 1920 ã. áûëî ïîäïèñàíî Ñóâàëêñêîå ïåðåìåðèå, ïî êîòîðîìó Âèëüíþñ îñòàâàëñÿ íà ëèòîâñêîé ñòîðîíå. Íî óæå 9 îêòÿáðÿ íà÷àëñÿ “áóíò” äèâèçèè Ë. Æåëèãîâñêîãî, ïîñëå êîòîðîãî ïîëüñêèå âîéñêà 513 Ä. Âèëèìàñ, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... âçÿëè Âèëüíþñ è äàæå ïîïûòàëèñü ñòðåìèòåëüíûì áðîñêîì çàíÿòü Êàóíàñ, íî áûëè îòáðîøåíû. Ïîñëå ïîïûòîê ñîçäàíèÿ òàê íàçû- âàåìîé ìàðèîíåòî÷íîé “Ñðåäíåé Ëèòâû” (ñàìó Ëèòîâñêóþ Ðåñ- ïóáëèêó ïîëÿêè íàçûâàëè Ëèòâîé Êîâåíüñêîé) â 1923 ã. çàõâà÷åííûå òåððèòîðèè áûëè ïðèñîåäèíåíû ê Ïîëüøå. Êàê áû â îòâåò, ëèòîâöû â òîì æå ãîäó, ïîñëå ìîëíèåíîñíîãî “Êëàéïåäñêîãî âîññòàíèÿ” çàíÿëè Êëàéïåäñêóþ îáëàñòü. Ïðàâèòåëüñòâî ðåñïóáëèêè íå ñìè- ðèëîñü ñ ïîòåðåé Âèëüíþñà. Òî, ÷òî Êàóíàñ ÿâëÿëñÿ âñåãî ëèøü âðåìåííîé ñòîëèöåé Ëèòâû, îòìå÷àëîñü âî âñåõ äîâîåííûõ êîí- ñòèòóöèÿõ. Ïîëüøà åùå ðàç ïîïûòàëàñü âûäâèíóòü èäåþ îãðàíè- ÷åííîé óíèè (ïëàíû Ãèìàíñà)17 , íî îïÿòü âñòðåòèëà êàòåãîðè÷åñêèé îòêàç ëèòîâñêîé ñòîðîíû. Òàêîâ áûë âíåøíèé êîíòåêñò ñîáûòèé. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî âñå èõ ó÷àñòíèêè â áîëüøåé èëè ìåíüøåé ñòåïåíè ðåôëåêòèðîâàëè îáðàç ñðåäíåâåêîâîãî ÂÊË. Äàæå áîëüøåâèêè ñîçäàëè Ëèòîâñêî-Áåëîðóñ- ñêóþ ÑÑÐ (Ëèòáåë). Ñåãîäíÿøíèìè ëèòîâñêèìè èñòîðèêàìè ýòî âîñïðèíèìàåòñÿ êàê èñêóññòâåííàÿ ïîïûòêà âîçðîæäåíèÿ ÂÊË. Î÷åíü óïîðíî, ñ ïîìîùüþ îðóæèÿ, áûâøèå çåìëè Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëè- òîé “ñîáèðàëè” ïîëÿêè. Èì ïî÷òè óäàëîñü âîññîçäàòü “Ïîëüøó” â ãðàíèöàõ 1772 ã., íî ïðè ýòîì îíè ïåðåññîðèëèñü ñî âñåìè ñîñå- äÿìè ïî áûëîìó “îáùåìó äîìó”: ëèòîâöàìè, áåëîðóñàìè, óêðà- èíöàìè. Äàæå ëèòîâñêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî íàìåðåâàëîñü ðàçûãðàòü êàðòó ÂÊË, ðàññ÷èòûâàÿ íà ïðèñîåäèíåíèå áåëîðóññêèõ òåððèòî- ðèé.  ïåðâûå ãîäû â ëèòîâñêîì ïðàâèòåëüñòâå áûë “ìèíèñòð áåç ïîðòôåëÿ” ïî áåëîðóññêèì äåëàì, à â Êàóíàñå íå òîëüêî ïîñòî- ÿíííî âûõîäèëè áåëîðóññêèå ãàçåòû è æóðíàëû, íî è íåêîòîðîå âðåìÿ æèëè ÷ëåíû ýìèãðàöèîííîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà ÁÍÐ.18 Äàëü- íåéøàÿ êîíñîëèäàöèÿ ëèòîâñêîé íàöèè ïðîèñõîäèëà ïîä ëîçóí- ãîì îáúåäèíåíèÿ ïåðåä óãðîçîé àãðåññèè âíåøíèõ âðàãî⠖ Ïîëüøè, Ãåðìàíèè, Ðîññèè. Ýòî íå òîëüêî ïîìîãàëî ñïëà÷èâàòü îáùåñòâî, íî è ïîáóæäàëî ê ïåðåîñìûñëåíèþ èñòîðèè Ëèòâû,

17 Èìååòñÿ â âèäó äâà ïëàíà óðåãóëèðîâàíèÿ ëèòîâñêî-ïîëüñêèõ îòíîøåíèé, ñîñòàâëåííûõ áåëüãèéñêèì ìèíèñòðîì èíîñòðàííûõ äåë (îí æå è ïðåäñåäàòåëü ñîâåòà Ëèãè Íàöèè) Ïîëåì Ãèìàíñîì â 1921 ã. Ïî ýòèì ïëàíàì Âèëüíþñ ïåðåäàâàëñÿ â ñîñòàâ Ëèòâû, íî ñàìà Ëèòâà äîëæíà áûëà âîéòè â òåñíóþ ôåäåðàöèþ (ñîþç) ñ Ïîëüøåé, à ãîñóäàðñòâî ôîðìèðîâàëîñü íà îñíîâå ïîëóíåçàâèñèìûõ îáëàñòåé (êàíòîíîâ) íàïîäîáèè Øâåéöàðèè. 18 Îá ýòîì íàïèñàíà îòäåëüíàÿ ìîíîãðàôèÿ, ñì.: Edmundas Gimþauskas. Baltarusiø veiksnys formuojantis Lietuvos valstybei 1915-1923 metais. Vilnius, 2003. 514 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 îñîáåííî ðàííåé. Êàê ðàç â òî âðåìÿ ñòðåìèòåëüíî âîçðàñòàåò èíòåðåñ ê âåëèêèì êíÿçüÿì ëèòîâñêèì. Èçäàþòñÿ ðàáîòû î âåëè- êèõ êíÿçüÿõ: Ìèíäàóãàñå, Àëüãèðäàñå, Êåñòóòèñå, Ãåäèìèíàñå è äðóãèõ.  ëèòîâñêîé àðìèè ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ ïîëêè è áàòàëüîíû, íîñÿùèå èìåíà íå òîëüêî âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé, íî è âåëèêèõ êíÿæåí ëèòîâñêèõ. Òàêîé ñïîñîá óâåêîâå÷èâàíèÿ ïàìÿòè ïðàâèòåëåé ÂÊË ñîõðàíèëñÿ äî íàøèõ äíåé. Èõ èìåíà ñòàëè ñèìâîëàìè íàöèîíàëü- íîé ãîðäîñòè. Çàáåãàÿ âïåðåä, ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî èìåíà âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé íîñèëè íå òîëüêî ïîñëåâîåííûå ëèòîâñêèå ïàðòèçàíñêèå ïîäðàçäåëåíèÿ, íî è îòðÿäû êðàñíûõ ïàðòèçàí ïåðèîäà Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû. Ìåæâîåííàÿ Ëèòîâñêàÿ Ðåñïóáëèêà ïðåäëîæèëà ñâîþ êîìïëåêñ- íóþ âåðñèþ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè î ÂÊË. Âåðñèè ïàìÿòè “ñíèçó” ïðè ýòîì ðåãóëèðîâàëèñü è ôîðìàòèðîâàëèñü âëàñòÿìè, çàèíòåðå- ñîâàííûìè â çàùèòå íàöèîíàëüíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè, ÷òî òðåáîâàëî ñîçäàíèÿ ñèìâîëèêè, âîïëîùàþùåé òðàäèöèþ ëèòîâñêîé ãîñó- äàðñòâåííîñòè. Ñ ïîìîùüþ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðàçäíèêîâ, ãåðîåâ è ìèôîâ, îòñûëàþùèì ê ÂÊË, âñåì ïîòåíöèàëüíûì ÷ëåíàì íàöèè ïðèâèâàëîñü ÷óâñòâî îáùíîñòè.19 Îñîáåííî àêòóàëüíûì ýòîò âîï- ðîñ ñòàë ïîñëå ïðèõîäà ê âëàñòè ïðåçèäåíòà Àíòàíàñà Ñìåòîíû â êîíöå 1926 ãîäà. Äëÿ ëåãèòèìàöèè âîæäèñòêîãî20 ðåæèìà òàóòè- íèíêîâ21 , âñòàâøåãî âî ãëàâå Ëèòâû â ðåçóëüòàòå âîåííîãî ïåðå- âîðîòà, ïîòðåáîâàëñÿ êóëüò “âîæäÿ íàöèè”, ïðàâÿùåãî êðåïêîé ðóêîé è ïîëüçóþùåãîñÿ ïðåäàííîé ëþáîâüþ ñâîèõ ãðàæäàí. 1930 ã. áûë îáúÿâëåí ãîäîì Âèòàóòàñà (â ñâÿçè ñ 500-ëåòíåé ãîäîâ- ùèíîé åãî ñìåðòè). Áûëî ïðîâåäåíî ìíîæåñòâî îôèöèàëüíûõ òîð- æåñòâ, èçäàíû èëè ïåðåèçäàíû èññëåäîâàíèÿ î Âèòàóòàñå è åãî ýïîõå, à òàêæå î äðóãèõ âåëèêèõ êíÿçüÿõ.  ãîðîäàõ è ìåñòå÷êàõ Ëèòâû ïîñòðîèëè ìíîæåñòâî ïàìÿòíèêîâ Âèòàóòàñó.

19 Dangiras Maèiulis. Lietuvos valstybës kultûros politika 1927-1940 metais. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius, 2002. P. 230. 20  ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè áûëî ïðèíÿòî íàçûâàòü ýòîò ðåæèì ôàøèñòêèì, îäíàêî òàêîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå ÿâëÿåòñÿ îøèáî÷íûì. Ïîëèòè÷åñêèé ðåæèì 1926-1940 ãã. â Ëèòâå ìîæíî îõàðàêòåðèçîâàòü êàê ìÿãêèé “àâòîðèòàðèçì” ñ óêëîíîì íà óñèëåíèå ëè÷íîé âëàñòè À. Ñìåòîíû. 21 Òàóòèíèíêàé (íàöèîíàëèñòû), îò ñëîâà “òàóòà”, ò.å. íàðîä, íàöèÿ – ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ïàðòèÿ ïðåäâîåííîé Ëèòâû, âîçãëàâëÿåìàÿ À. Ñìåòîíîé. Äî ïåðåâîðîòà 1926 ã. èìåëà ìàëî âåñà â ïàðëàìåíòñêîé æèçíè Ëèòîâñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè. 515 Ä. Âèëèìàñ, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... Ñîáñòâåííî, êóëüò Âèòàóòàñà âîçíèê, êîíå÷íî, íå â 1930-å ãîäû. Åãî èñòîêè âîñõîäÿò ê íà÷àëó XVI âåêà.22 Ýïîõà ïðàâëåíèÿ Âèòàó- òàñà çàñëóæåííî ñ÷èòàëàñü çîëîòûì âåêîì ÂÊË. Ñ ðàçíîé èíòåí- ñèâíîñòüþ åãî êóëüò áûë âîñòðåáîâàí è â ïîñëåäóþùåå âðåìÿ. Îäíàêî ñ íà÷àëîì íàöèîíàëüíîãî âîçðîæäåíèÿ â êîíöå XIX â. îáðàç Âèòàóòàñà ïðèîáðåòàåò íîâûå ÷åðòû. Îí êîíñòðóèðóåòñÿ êàê èäåàëüíûé ëèòîâåö, à ïîñëå ñîçäàíèÿ Ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà – êàê çàùèòíèê ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè è âñåõ ëèòîâöåâ. Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî â Ïîëüøå îáðàç Âèòàóòàñà íå ïðîòåðïåë ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ èçìå- íåíèé: îí, êàê è ïðåæäå, ñ÷èòàëñÿ ñîþçíèêîì ïîëÿêîâ, è îòíîøåíèå ê íåìó áûëî äîâîëüíî áëàãîñêëîííîå. Êàê óòâåðæäàþò ñîâðåìåííûå èññëåäîâàòåëè, êàìïàíèÿ 1930-õ ãã. ïî ãåðîèçàöèè Âèòàóòàñà ïðåñëåäîâàëà äâîéíóþ öåëü. Âî-ïåðâûõ, äåéñòâèòåëüíî îòäàâàëàñü äàíü óâàæåíèÿ ñèëüíåéøåìó ïðàâèòåëþ Ëèòâû, âî âðåìåíà êîòîðîãî ÂÊË äîñòèãëà çåíèòà ñâîåãî ìîãó- ùåñòâà. Íî ãëàâíîå, îáðàç Âèòàóòàñà êàê “êðåïêîé ðóêè” ïðåäëà- ãàëñÿ â êà÷åñòâå ïðèìåðà äëÿ ñîâðåìåííèêîâ. Íå ñëó÷àéíî ïîä- ÷åðêèâàëèñü ïàðàëëåëè ìåæäó ñèëüíîé ëè÷íîñòüþ Âèòàóòàñà è ïðå- çèäåíòîì À. Ñìåòîíîé.23 È òîò, è äðóãîé äîëæíû áûëè îëèöåòâî- ðÿòü ñîáîé ìóäðîãî ïðàâèòåëÿ è âîæäÿ íàöèè. Ê òîìó æå ìåæäó- íàðîäíàÿ îáñòàíîâêà, íàëè÷èå ÿâíûõ èëè ñêðûòûõ âðàãîâ (âðàæ- äåáíîñòü Ïîëüøè, à ïîñëå 1933 ã. è ïðîèñêè ïðîíàöèñòêèõ îðãà- íèçàöèé íåìöåâ Êëàéïåäñêîãî êðàÿ, äâîéíàÿ èãðà ÑÑÑÐ) ÿâíî áëàãîïðèÿòñòâîâàëè ñîçäàíèþ òàêîãî êóëüòà.  òî âðåìÿ è ïîÿâèëñÿ òåðìèí “Âèòàóòàñ Âåëèêèé”, êîòîðûé â íàøè äíè ïðîèçíîñèòñÿ óæå àâòîìàòè÷åñêè. Îáðàç ïàòðèîòà Âèòàóòàñà êàê áû ïðîòèâîïîñ- òàâëÿëñÿ ßãàéëå, îöåíêà äåÿòåëüíîñòè êîòîðîãî ïî÷òè ïîâñåìåñòíî áûëà íåãàòèâíîé24 . Îí ðèñîâàëñÿ ïðåäàòåëåì, ðàäè êîðîëåâñêîãî òðîíà ïîæåðòâîâàâøèì èíòåðåñàìè ÂÊË.  ëèòåðàòóðå òîãî âðå- ìåíè ìîæíî íàéòè ñðàâíåíèå ßãàéëû ñ ìàðøàëîì Þçåôîì Ïèë- ñóäñêèì – îáå ýòè ëè÷íîñòè, ëèòîâöû ïî ïðîèñõîæäåíèþ, ñòàëè ïðà- âèòåëÿìè Ïîëüøè è íàíåñëè óðîí Ëèòâå. Íàðÿäó ñ êóëüòîì

22 Alvydas Nikþentaitis. Vytauto ir Jogailos ávaizdis Lietuvos ir Lenkijos visuomenëse. Vilnius, 2002. Ñ. 19-25. Ñì. òàêæå ïîëüñêóþ âåðñèþ ýòîãî òðóäà: Witold i Jagieùùo: Polacy i Litwini we wzajemnej stereotypie. Poznañ, 2000. 23 Ïîÿâèëàñü äàæå ïî÷òîâàÿ ìàðêà, ãäå ðÿäîì áûëè èçîáðàæåíû îáå ýòè èñòîðè÷åñêèå ëè÷íîñòè. 24 A. Nikžentaitis. Jogàilos ávaizdis Lietuviø visuomenëje // Lietuvos atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vilnius, 2001. T. 17. Nacionalizmas ir emocijos. Pp. 56-67. 516 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Âèòàóòàñà ñîçäàâàëñÿ è ïàðàëåëüíûé êóëüò Æàëüãèðèñà (Ãðþí- âàëüäñêîé áèòâû 1410 ã.), êîòîðûì ÷óòü ïîçæå, â ñîâåòñêèå ãîäû, ïûòàëèñü çàìåíèòü êóëüò Âèòàóòàñà. Îäíàêî èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü î Æàëüãèðèñå ñòàëà ëèøü ñîñòàâíîé ÷àñòüþ ïî÷èòàíèÿ Âèòàóòàñà. Äîáàâèì, ÷òî è äî çàõâàòà Ãåðìàíèåé Êëàéïåäñêîãî êðàÿ â 1939 ã. ìîòèâ ïîëüñêî-ëèòîâñêîé äðóæáû íå áûë ïîïóëÿðåí. Âèëüíþñ ñòàë âòîðûì âàæíåéøèì íàöèîíàëüíûì ñèìâîëîì ìåæâîåííîé Ëèòâû.  ýòè ãîäû ñîçäàâàëèñü ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå îáùåñòâà ïîìîùè ëèòîâöàì âèëüíþññêîãî êðàÿ. Îñîáåííîé ïîïó- ëÿðíîñòüþ ïîëüçîâàëñÿ Ñîþç îñâîáîæäåíèÿ Âèëüíþñà (äàëåå – ÑÎÂ), îòäåëû êîòîðîãî äåéñòâîâàëè â êàæäîì ëèòîâñêîì ñåëå. “Ìû áåç Âèëüíþñà íå óñïîêîèìñÿ”, – ïåëîñü òîãäà â ïîïóëÿðíîé ïåñíå. È õîòÿ ïîñëå 1938 ã. ÑΠáûë ðàñïóùåí, ýòî òîëüêî óñèëèëî îáèäó íà Ïîëüøó, “óêðàâøóþ” ó ëèòîâöåâ èõ èñòîðè÷åñêóþ ñòî- ëèöó. Âèòàóòàñ áûë îáúÿâëåí ïåðâûì îñâîáîäèòåëåì Âèëüíþñà, çàùèòíèêîì è ñèìâîëîì âñåãî ëèòîâñêîãî.  ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, ïîñëå ñìåðòè Ïèëñóäñêîãî Ïîëüøà óæåñòî÷èëà ñâîå îòíîøåíèå ê íàöèîíàëüíûì ìåíøèíñòâàì. Ñåêðåòíàÿ èíñòðóê- öèÿ âèëåíñêîãî âîåâîäû Ëþäâèêà Áîöÿíñêîãî 1935 ã. èìåëà öåëüþ ïðîâåäåíèå òîòàëüíîé ïîëîíèçàöèè ìåñòíûõ ëèòîâöåâ. Áûëè çàêðûòû ïî÷òè âñå ëèòîâñêèå øêîëû è áèáëèîòåêè, äàæå ÷àñòíûå, óæåñòî÷èëàñü öåíçóðà â ëèòîâñêèõ ãàçåòàõ è æóðíàëàõ, ðåçêî îãðàíè÷èâàëàñü äåÿòåëüíîñòü ëèòîâñêèõ îáùåñòâåííûõ îðãàíèçà- öèè è ò.ï.25 Âåñòè î ïðåñëåäîâàíèÿõ ëèòîâñêîãî ÿçûêà è ëèòîâöåâ, äîõîäèâøèå äî Êàóíàñà, òîëüêî óêðåïëÿëè îáðàç Ïîëüøè-âðàãà è ñîäåéñòâîâàëè ðîñòó àíòèïîëüñêèõ íàñòðîåíèé. È õîòÿ âåñíîé 1938 ã. ïóòåì óãðîçû ïðÿìîé âîåííîé èíòåðâåíöèè Ïîëüøå óäàëîñü âîñ- ñòàíîâèòü äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå îòíîøåíèÿ ñ Ëèòâîé, ýòî óæå íå ìîãëî èçìåíèòü ñòåðåîòèï “ïîëüñêîãî ïàíà-âðàãà”.  1930-å ãã. áûëà ñôîðìóëèðîâàíà è ïåðâàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ëèòîâñ- êîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè. Åå àâòîð, Àäîëüôàñ Øàïîêà, áóäóùèé ðåäàê- òîð êîëëåêòèâíîé èñòîðèè Ëèòâû, èçäàííîé â 1936 ã., åùå â 1932 ã. çàÿâèë: “íàéäåì ëèòîâöåâ â ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèè”.26 Òàêèì îáðàçîì,

25 Bronius Makauskas. Vilnijos lietuviai 1920-1939 metais. Vilnius, 1991. Pp. 207-214; Ïîëüñêàÿ âåðñèÿ ýòîãî òðóäà, ñì.: Bronisùaw Makowski. Litwini w Polsce 1920-1939. Warszawa, 1986. 26 Adolfas Šapoka. Raskime lietuvius Lietuvos istorijoje // Naujoji Romuva. 1932. Nr. 2. P. 482. 517 Ä. Âèëèìàñ, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... ãëàâíîé öåëüþ èññëåäîâàòåëåé ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèè ñòàíîâèëñÿ ïîèñê ýòíè÷åñêèõ ëèòîâöåâ, ïîñêîëüêó âñå äðóãèå íàðîäû, ïèñàâ- øèå èñòîðèþ ÂÊË, ñòàðàëèñü èõ íå çàìå÷àòü èëè ïðåóìåíüøàëè èõ äîñòèæåíèÿ27 . “Èñòîðèÿ Ëèòâû” ñòàëà íàñòîÿùèì áåñòñåëëåðîì. Îíà íå òîëüêî îïðåäåëèëà öåëü äàëüíåéøèõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïîèñêîâ, íî è î÷åðòèëà ãëàâíåéøèå ñòåðåîòèïû, êîòîðûå ïðî÷íî çàñåëè â ìàññîâîì èñòî- ðè÷åñêîì ñîçíàíèè ëèòîâñêîãî íàðîäà, ïî ìåíüøåé ìåðå, íà ïîë- âåêà. Êîðîòêî îñòàíîâèìñÿ íà òðàêòîâêå èñòîðèè ÂÊË, ïîñêîëüêó îíà ïðåîáëàäàëà â ìàññîâîì ñîçíàíèè è â ïîñëåäóþùèå ãîäû. Ïî ìíåíèþ Øàïîêè, ðîëü ëèòîâöåâ â èñòîðèè ÂÊË ïðåäíàìå- ðåííî ïðèóìåíüøàëàñü. Óíèÿ ñ Ïîëüøåé, â êîíå÷íîì ñ÷åòå, ÿâëÿ- ëàñü çëîì, ïîòîìó ÷òî ñïîñîáñòâîâàëà ïîëîíèçàöèè ïðàâÿùåé ýëèòû, ò.å. øëÿõåòñòâà, è ïîëîæèëà íà÷àëî áóäóùåé àíàðõèè â Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé. Èìåííî ýòà àíàðõèÿ è ïðèâåëà ê ñòîëü áåññëàâíîé ãèáåëè ãîñóäàðñòâà.  êíèãå íàøëî îòðàæåíèå è íåãàòèâíîå îòíîøåíèå ê Ïîëüøå, ïîðîæäåííîå Âèëüíþññêèì êîíôëèêòîì, è íåäîâåðèå ê Ðîññèè è Ãåðìàíèè. Äàííûå îñíîâíûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñòåðåîòèïû, êàñàþùèåñÿ ÂÊË, è ïî ñåé äåíü æèâû â ìàññîâîì èñòîðè÷åñêîì ñîçíàíèè. Âàæíåé- øóþ ðîëü â èõ ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèè ñûãðàëè “íàöèîíàëüíûå ïðàçä- íèêè”, êàê ðàç è âîçíèêøèå â 1930-å ãã. Îíè ñòàâèëè ñâîåé öåëüþ ïîä÷åðêíóòü ñâÿçü ìåæäó ïðîøëûì è íàñòîÿùèì, êîíñîëèäèðîâàòü îáùåñòâî, è ÿâëÿëèñü ñðåäñòâîì ïàòðèîòè÷åñêîãî âîñïèòàíèÿ.28  òàêîì ñîñòîÿíèè Ëèòâà âñòðåòèëà ñîâåòñêîå âòîðæåíèå 1940 ã.  ïåðèîä ïîëóâåêîâîé ñîâåòñêîé îêêóïàöèè ñòðàíû èñòîðèÿ ÂÊË íàõîäèëàñü ïîä ñòðîãèì èäåîëîãè÷åñêèì êîíòðîëåì. Áîëü- øèíñòâî ïàìÿòíèêîâ, íàïîìèíàâøèõ î íåçàâèñèìîé Ëèòâå è ÂÊË, áûëè ïðîñòî óíè÷òîæåíû. Âñå äîâîåííûå êíèãè ïî èñòîðèè Ëèòâû îêàçàëèñü çàïðåùåíû è ñäàíû â ñïåöõðàí, ÷àñòü èç íèõ óíè÷òîæåíà. Îñîáåííî òÿæåëûì ïðîñòóïêîì ñ÷èòàëîñü ÷òåíèå “Ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèè” 1936 ã. Çà ýòî ìîæíî áûëî ëèøèòüñÿ ñâîáîäû. Èç ó÷åá- íèêîâ ïî èñòîðèè Ëèòâû, êîòîðûå òåïåðü ñèëüíî ïîõóäåëè, èñ÷åçëî

27 Ïîõîæèå ïîñòóëàòû åñòü è ⠓Èñòîðèè Ëèòâû”, ñì.: Lietuvos istorija / Red. A. Šapoka. Kaunas, 1936. Pp. 9-10. 28 Vladas Sirutavièius. Ðventës nacionalizavimas. “Tautos ðventës” atsiradimas Lietuvos Respublikoje XX amþiaus 4-ajame deðimtmetyje // Lietuviø atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vilnius, 2001. T. 17. Nacionalizmas ir emocijos. P. 145. 518 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âñå, ÷òî ìîãëî âûçûâàòü íåíóæíûå âîïðîñû, âêëþ÷àÿ âñþ èñòîðèþ ÂÊË, îñîáåííî åãî âîéíû ñ Ìîñêîâñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì è ïðè÷èíû åå ãèáåëè.  íîâîé èñòîðèè Ëèòâû äîêàçûâàëîñü, ÷òî, íàïðèìåð, Æàëüãèðñêóþ (Ãðþíâàëüäñêóþ) áèòâó 1410 ã. âûèãðàëè... òðè ñìî- ëåíñêèõ (ò.å. ðóññêèõ) ïîëêà; èëè ÷òî ïðèñîåäèíåíèå Ëèòâû ê Ðîñ- ñèè ïîñëå ðàçäåëîâ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé áûëî ïðîãðåññèâíûì ÿâëå- íèåì, ïîòîìó ÷òî ñïóñòÿ áîëåå ÷åì 100 ëåò ëèòîâñêîìó íàðîäó âìåñòå ñ ðîññèéñêèì íàðîäîì áûëî ëåã÷å áîðîòüñÿ ñ êëàññîâûì óãíåòåíèåì. Îôèöèàëüíîé ñîâåòñêîé ïðîïàãàíäîé ïîä÷åðêèâàëàñü ôåîäàëüíàÿ, ò.å. ðåàêöèîííàÿ ñóùíîñòü áûëîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Äàæå ãîâîðÿ î êàêîé-íèáóäü êîíêðåòíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ëè÷íîñòè, áóäü òî êíÿçü èëè ìàãíàò, ïîñëå èçëîæåíèÿ ïîëîæèòåëüíûõ ÷åðò è äåÿíèé îáÿçàòåëüíûì áûëî óïîìèíàíèå î òîì, ÷òî îí áûë “÷åëîâåêîì ñâîåé ýïîõè”, à çíà÷èò, ôåîäàëîì è ýêñïëóàòàòîðîì. Òàêèõ ýïèòå- òîâ óäîñòîèëñÿ äàæå Âèòàóòàñ, íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî ïðèçíàâàëàñü åãî ðîëü â ðàçãðîìå êðåñòîíîñöåâ ïîä Æàëüãèðèñîì.29 Ïîïûòêà ñäåëàòü èç Æàëüãèðñêîé áèòâû ñèìâîë ïîáåäû íàä íåìåöêèìè30 çàõ- âàò÷èêàìè âûãëÿäåëà èñêóññòâåííîé, ïîñêîëüêó òóò íàäî áûëî ïîðîäíèòü äâå íåïðèìèðèìûå ñèëû – ïîëÿêîâ è ðóññêèõ (ìîñêâè- òÿí).31 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ðåäêèå â òî âðåìÿ óïîìèíàíèÿ ÂÊË ñëóæèëè óêðåïëåíèþ “áðàòñêîãî èíòåðíàöèîíàëèçìà” èëè çàäà÷àì êëàñ- ñîâîé áîðüáû. Ëèòîâñêàÿ êîìïàðòèÿ, âî ãëàâå êîòîðîé âñåãäà ñòîÿëè ìåñòíûå, à íå “ïðèâîçíûå” êîììóíèñòû, íå ìîãëà ïîëíîñòüþ âû÷åðêíóòü èç ïàìÿòè íàðîäà ÂÊË. Òàê, â ýïîõó çðåëîãî ñîöèàëèçìà áûë îòñòðîåí Òðàêàéñêèé çàìîê, õîòÿ ðóêîâîäèòåëè ðåñïóáëèêè è ïîëó- ÷èëè èç Ìîñêâû ìíîãî óïðåêîâ íà ýòîò ñ÷åò. Íî îíè îïðàâäûâà- ëèñü òåì, ÷òî “òîëüêî â ñîâåòñêèå ãîäû áûë ðåñòàâðèðîâàí óíè- êàëüíûé ïàìÿòíèê àðõèòåêòóðû, ÷åãî íå ìîãëè è íå õîòåëè ñäåëàòü

29 Êñòàòè, åñëè ãîâîðèòü î “Æàëüãèðèñå”, òî ýòîò òåðìèí ñòàë ñâîåãî ðîäà ñèíîíèìîì ñëàâû âðåìåí ÂÊË, ïåðåíåñåííûì íà ïðîñòîé îáûâàòåëüñêèé óðîâåíü. Ïîñêîëüêó âîîðóæåííîå ñîïðîòèâëåíèå áûëî ñëîìëåíî, ïîäïîëüíàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà îòñóòñòâîâàëà, à äèññèäåíòñêîå äâèæåíèå îãðàíè÷èâàëîñü óçêèì êðóãîì áîðöîâ çà êîíôåññèîíàëüíûå ïðàâà, ìàññîâûì ñèìâîëîì íàöèîíàëüíîé ãîðäîñòè ñòàë Æàëüãèðèñ – íî íå ìåñòî áèòâû, à îäíîèìåííûé áàñêåòáîëüíûé êëóá, ïîáåäû êîòîðîãî íàä ñîïåðíèêàìè, â îñîáåííîñòè íàä ìîñêîâñêèì ÖÑÊÀ, êàê áû ñèìâîëèçèðîâàëè äàâíèå ïîáåäû ëèòîâöåâ. 30 Vytautas Tininis. Sovietinë Lietuva ir jos veikëjai. Vilnius, 1994. P. 113. 31 A. Nikžentaitis. Vytauto ir Jogailos. Pp. 60-66. 519 Ä. Âèëèìàñ, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... áóðæóàçíûå ïðàâèòåëè”. Ïðè ýòîì ñàì ôàêò âîññòàíîâëåíèÿ çàìêà ñïîñîáñòâîâàë ðîñòó íàöèîíàëüíîé ãîðäîñòè, îñíîâàííîìó íà ïðåä- ñòàâëåíèè î áûëîì ìîãóùåñòâå ÂÊË. È õîòÿ â ÷åñòü 650-ëåòèÿ Âèëü- íþñà íà ïëîùàäè íàïðîòèâ êàôåäðàëüíîãî ñîáîðà áûë ïîñòàâëåí ëèøü ñêðîìíûé êàìåíü, ïðàâèòåëüñòâî Ëèòîâñêîé ÑÑÐ âûäåëÿëî íåìàëûå ñðåäñòâà íà ðåñòàâðàöèþ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ðàéîíîâ Âèëüíþñà, Êàóíàñà, Êëàéïåäû è Êåäàéí, áûë îòðåìîíòèðîâàí àðõèòåêòóð- íûé àíñàìáëü Âèëüíþññêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, îòñòðîåí âèëüíþññêèé Àðñåíàë è Áàñòåÿ. Öåíòðàëüíàÿ âëàñòü ÷àñòî óïðåêàëà ìåñòíóþ â ðàñòî÷èòåëüíîñòè, íî â îòâåò çâó÷àëè òå æå àðãóìåíòû: “òîëüêî â ãîäû ñîâåòñêîé âëàñòè ”32 Ðàñïàä ÑÑÑÐ è âîññòàíîâëåíèå íåçàâèñèìîñòè Ëèòâû áûëî âîñïðèíÿòî ëèòîâñêèì îáùåñòâîì êàê íå÷òî ñàìî ñîáîé ðàçóìåþ- ùååñÿ. Ëèòâà âñåãäà îñîçíàâàëà ñâîå êóëüòóðíîå îòëè÷èå îò äðóãèõ ñîâåòñêèõ ðåñïóáëèê, à ïàìÿòü î ïðåäâîåííîé Ëèòâå ïîðîæäàëà íàäåæäû íà ðåçêîå óëó÷øåíèå óñëîâèé æèçíè â íåçàâèñèìîì ãîñó- äàðñòâå (ìíîãèå èç êîòîðûõ îêàçàëèñü íåñáûòî÷íûìè). Ñîçäàíèå Ñàþäèñà è âîçâðàùåíèå ñâîáîäû ñëîâà äàëè ìîùíûé òîë÷îê ïå- ðåîñìûñëåíèþ âñåé ëèòîâñêîé èñòîðèè. Ìàññîâûìè òèðàæàìè ïåðåèçäàâàëèñü ìíîãèå ïðåäâîåííûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå êíèãè (â òîì ÷èñëå è “Èñòîðèÿ Ëèòâû” À. Øàïîêè), èçäàåòñÿ ìíîãî íîâûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, â òîì ÷èñëå è ïî èñòîðèè Ëèòâû èëè ÂÊË.33 Áîðöàìè çà íåçàâèñèìîñòü áûëè âîñòðåáîâàíû ñèìâîëû ÂÊË. Òàê, âîññòà- íîâëåíà Ïîãîíÿ – ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé ãåðá ïðåäâîåííîé è ñåãîäíÿøíåé Ëèòîâñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè, ïîçàèìñòâîâàííûé èç ñèìâîëèêè ÂÊË. Ëèòîâñêèå ãîðîäà è ìåñòå÷êè âîçâðàùàþò ñâîè ñòàðûå ãåðáû, òàêæå âîñõîäÿùèå êî âðåìåíàì ÂÊË. Âåðíóëèñü íà ïðåæíèå ìåñòà èñòîðè÷åñêèå ïàìÿòíèêè, óíè÷òîæåííûå â ñîâåòñêèé ïåðèîä. Ê ñëàâíîìó íàöèîíàëüíîìó ïðîøëîìó îòñûëàþò è íîâûå ïàìÿò- íèêè (íàïðèìåð, êîðîëþ Ìèíäàóãàñó è Ãåäèìèíàñó). Íåäàâíî áûëà óñòàíîâëåíà è ñòàëà òîðæåñòâåííî îòìå÷àòüñÿ ïðèìåðíàÿ äàòà

32 V. Tininis. Op. cit. Ð. 117. 33 Íàïðèìåð, Z. Kiaupa, J. Kiaupienë, A. Kuncevièius. Lietuvos istorija iki 1795 metø. Vilnius, 1995. Âòîðîå èçäàíèå ýòîé êíèãè âûøëîâ 1998 ãîäó, à â 2000 ã. îíà èçäàíà è íà àíãëèéñêîì ÿçûêå. Ñì. òàêæå E.Gudavièius. Lietuvos istorija. Nuo seniausiø laikø iki 1569 metø. Vilnius, 1999; Z. Kiaupa. Lietuvos valstybës istorija. Vilnius, 2003; òîæå íà àíãëèéñêîì, ñì.: Z. Kiaupa. History of Lithuania. Vilnius, 2002. Òåïåðü íà÷àòà ïîäãîòîâêà èçäàíèÿ íîâîé àêàäåìè÷åñêîé 12-òîìíîé èñòîðèè Ëèòâû, êîòîðóþ ïëàíèðóåòñÿ âûïóñòèòü ê 2009 ãîäó. 520 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êîðîíàöèè Ìèíäàóãàñà – 6 èþëÿ. Íîâîå îñìûñëåíèå ïîëó÷èëî è ïðàçäíîâàíèå ãîäîâùèíû Æàëüãèðñêîé áèòâû (15 èþëÿ). Äàæå äåíü íåñîñòîÿâøåéñÿ êîðîíàöèè Âèòàóòàñà – 8 ñåíòÿáðÿ – îòìå÷àåòñÿ êàê ïàìÿòíûé äåíü Âèòàóòàñà Âåëèêîãî.

* * * Òàêèì îáðàçîì, èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü î ÂÊË ìíîãèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ñëóæèëà óêðåïëåíèþ ÷óâñòâà íàöèîíàëüíîãî äîñòîèíñòâà è ãîð- äîñòè ëèòîâñêîãî íàðîäà. Ðîìàíòèçèðîâàííûé, à ÷àñòî è ãèïåð- áîëèçèðîâàííûé îáðàç áûëîãî ìîãóùåñòâà ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàð- ñòâà èñïîëüçîâàëñÿ èäåîëîãàìè ëèòîâñêîãî íàöèîíàëèçìà äëÿ îáúåäèíåíèÿ íàöèè. Ëèøü íåäàâíî ñòàëè ïîÿâëÿòüñÿ íîâûå êîí- öåïöèè, ãîâîðÿùèå î íà÷àëå ïåðåñìîòðà óòâåðäèâøèõñÿ âåðñèé ïàìÿòè. Åñëè íà ìàññîâîì ñîçíàíèè îíè åùå íèêàê íå îòðàæàþòñÿ, òî ñðåäè ýëèòû íàìåòèëñÿ îòêàç îò èäåàëèçàöèè âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé ëèòîâñêèõ è îò âîñïðèÿòèÿ ÂÊË êàê òâîðåíèÿ ìîíîýòíè÷åñêîé ëèòîâñêîé äèíàñòèè. ÂÊË ñòàëà âèäåòüñÿ êàê ðîäèíà íåñêîëüêèõ íàðîäîâ ðåãèîíà. Íîâûé ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêèé êîíòåêñò äèêòóåò îòíî- øåíèå ê Ïîëüøå: âñå ÷àùå ïîä÷åðêèâàþòñÿ íå ñòàðûå îáèäû, à êóëü- òóðíî-èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ îáùíîñòü îáåèõ ñòðàí, çàòóøåâûâàåòñÿ ðåçêîå ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëåíèå Âèòàóòàñà è ßãàéëû.  èñòîðè÷åñêîì ñîçíàíèè íà÷èíàåò îôîðìëÿòüñÿ íîâûé îáðàç ßãàéëû – íå ïðåäàòåëÿ Ëèòâû, à òàëàíòëèâîãî äèïëîìàòà, çàáîòèâøåãîñÿ íå òîëüêî îá èíòåðåñàõ Ïîëüøè, íî è î ñâîåé ðîäèíå – ÂÊË. Íàêîíåö òî, ÷òî Ëèòâà âñòó- ïèëà â ñîñòàâ ÅÑ è ÍÀÒÎ, ñ÷èòàåòñÿ ëîãè÷åñêèì çàâåðøåíèåì ïðîöåññà, íåêîãäà íà÷àòîãî Ìèíäàóãàñîì è Âèòàóòàñîì. Âîçâðà- ùåíèå Ëèòâû â ñåìüþ åâðîïåéñêèõ íàðîäîâ êàê áû çàâåðøàåò ïîèñêè ëèòîâñêîé íàöèîíàëüíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè.

SUMMARY

Every nation is susceptible to the influence of stereotypes produced within its own unique historical memory. These stereotypes not only demonstrate the outward attitudes of one particular people toward other nations or his- torical partners, but also determine the way a nation perceives itself, that is, 521 Ä. Âèëèìàñ, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå... its own self-assessment, affecting profoundly the national psychological image. The article discusses the evolution of historical memory about the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania and basic historical stereotypes in the Lithuanian national consciousness. In chronological order, the author overviews the two-hundred-year history of the making of the Lithuanian nation and points at a transfer of old stereotypes of historical memory about the vanished glorious past of the mighty Grand Dutchy, inherited from the times of the estate-based Lithuanian polity. The article reveals new peculiarities and motives within the historical memory of Lithuanians, which are typical only for stereotypical perceptions prevailing in the twentieth century. New tendencies in stereotypization, that is, the production of new stereo- types and the downplay of previous ones, are also briefly touched upon. The facts presented by the author give one the right to suppose that historical memory of the once-mighty Grand Dutchy has been a permanent determining, if not decisive, factor in forging a new Lithuanian national identity. In many cases, the image of the old mighty state and its rulers has been consciously used for the purpose of consolidating the nation and has served as a symbol worth imitating for Lithuanian politicians and public figures in modern history.

522 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Giedrë MICKÛNAITË

EMPIRE AS NOSTALGIA, OR A LA RECHERCHE DE TERRES PERDUES

Some twenty years ago, I visited my grandparents during the school holidays. What I remember of that day was of something important about to happen. And it did happen, in the small room of a typical Soviet two- room apartment. Grandma invited me into the room, took a key, and unlocked the only drawer with a lock. A simple paper box lay there preserving trea- sures from the interwar period: the coat of arms, the three-coloured flag, the national anthem, few coins, and a map. The first four items were proof of Lithuanian independent statehood, but the map featured the Grand Duchy of Lithuania “from sea to sea.” That evening I read History of Lithuania, compiled by Adolfas Šapoka and published in 19361 and, of course, banned in those days. I begin with this autobiographical sketch about my “introduction” to Lithua- nianess because of the tokens of memory that the story displays so vividly and because roots of these tokens go far beyond the interwar period. Skip- ping the first attributes of the Lithuanian Republic, let me concentrate on the last one, the map. As said, this map featured the Grand Duchy of Lithua- nia of the early fifteenth century. This period has been generally under- stood as Lithuania’s golden age, the peak of the country’s glory and power: territories extending from the Baltic to the Black Sea and Vytautas/ Vitovt (1392—1430) holding the grand ducal seat. As it happens, the golden

1A. Šapoka (Ed.). Lietuvos istorija. Kaunas, 1936. 523 Giedrë Mickûnaitë, Empire as Nostalgia... age is a lost age. This statement holds true in regard to Lithuanian conscious- ness as well. Historical research can hardly prove an existence of Lithua- nian imperial policy. Even though the title of Stephen C. Rowell’s book indicates that Lithuania was a “pagan empire,”2 neither his study, nor any other historical study has succeeded in tracing Lithuanian imperialism. As to the attempts, perhaps Josef Pfitzner’s monograph on Vytautas main- tains this imperial claim and even labels the grand duke’s government as absolutism.3 However, all these concepts expose an understanding of the 1930s rather than the fifteenth century. Hence, a natural question arises about the purpose of this essay. I think the reason lies in the associative nature of human thought. By definition, empires occupy vast territories inhabited by various peoples. Territorial expansion is a characteristic feature of medieval and, to some extent, of early modern Lithuania. Thus, one may legitimately probe questions of Lithua- nian imperialism. However, the second part of the same definition holds that an empire is sustained by an imperial policy implemented throughout an entire space (whether over land or sea), thus subjecting people and their territories to an emperor. It is my conviction that Lithuania never developed an imperial policy and never was an empire. The failure in imperial thought resulted in a kind of nostalgia for empire that never existed but perhaps could have. Based on examples from the early modern period I shall try to show the deep roots of this nostalgia. From the late fifteenth century, Lithuania started losing vast Slavic lands at nearly the same speed that she acquired them. The sixteenth century witnessed especially grave losses in territory, and the literature of this time can be distinguished for a kind of topographical memory. In 1550, Micha- lonus Lithuanus (later identified as Venclovas Mikalonis, (ca. 1490-1560)) addressed Sigismund Augustus (1544-1572) with a treatise concerned with government and traditions. This text is known only from ten fragments published in Basel in 1615 under the title of De moribus Moschorum, Tartarorum et Lithuanorum.4 This text praises the customs of Muscovites

2 S. C. Rowell. Lithuania Ascending. A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345. Cambridge, 1994. 3 Josef Pfitzner. Grosürst Witold von Litauen als Staatsman. Schriften der Philosophichen Fakultät der Deutschen Universität in Prag 6. Brno, Prague, Leipzig, Vienna, 1930. 4 Michalonus Lituanus / Mykolas Lietuvis. De Moribus Tatarorum, Lituanorum et Moschorum. Fragmina X, multiplici historia referata nunc primum per Iac. Grasserum, C.P. ex manuscripto Authentico edite/Apie totoriø, lietuviø ir maskvënø paproèius. Deðimt ávairaus istorinio turinio fragmentø, Lituanistinë Biblioteka. Vilnius, 1966. 524 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 and Tatars and contrasts them to the habits of Lithuanians. Michalonus reproaches Lithuania for having abandoned traditions of the past and lists traces of Lithuanian power in Muscovite territories and the steppes beyond. There, the author says one may still find hills and valleys, roads and bridges, buildings and strongholds bearing the names of Gediminas/Gedimin (1314-1341) and Vytautas.5 Long and exhausting wars over the Livonian lands (1558-1583) made territorial losses more apparent and hence more painful. Many authors of that time discuss warfare and rejoice over Lithuanian victories. Wartime highlighted certain periods of the past, and sixteenth-century Lithuania found the promise of victory in the deeds of Grand Duke Vytautas. It was him who appeared in soldiers’ dreams and predicted success on the battlefield.6 Place names preserved his footsteps, which soldiers were to follow deep into Muscovite territory. Certain buildings and cities reminded Lithua- nian soldiers of the grand duke and inspired them to re-establish territorial justice. Among all such episodes the story of the town of Porkhov is the best known. In 1581, the Lithuanian army, led by Christopher Radvila/Radziwi³³ the Thunderer (1547/48-1603), reached this town. Radvila forbade his troops to invade the town, which he thought was founded by Vytautas, and rejoiced at following the grand duke’s path.7 Interestingly enough, Russian historical memory preserves Vytautas’ visit to Porkhov in a saying “Yagnova pushka svoikh pobivaet” (noting the gun-master’s death at the explosion of a cannon).8

5 Ibid. P. 29. 6 Johan Radvanus / Jonas Radvanas, Radvilias/Radviliada. Bibliotheca Baltica Lithvania. Vilnius, 1997. P. 152. 7 Franciscus Gradovius. Hodeoporicon Moschicvm illvstrissimi principis ac domini, domini Christophori Radiwilonis, dvcis in Birza & Dubinga, Castellani Trocensis, Vicecavcelarij & Campiductoris in Magno Ducatu Lituaniae, Capitanei Borissouiensis & Solecensis, &c. Vilnius, 1582; Diiij/v-E/r; Andrzei Rymsza. Dekretos akroama to iest diesiæcoroczna powiesct woiennych spraw oswieconnego ksiàzecia y Pana Pana Krysztofa Radzwila ksiàzecia na Birzach y Dubinet Pana Trockiego Podkanclezego Wielkiego Ksiæstwa Litewskiego y hetmana Polnego Borysowskiego Solieckiego az Starosty. Rutemu po rugi niesstorych Rotmistrzow y ludzi Rycerskich pod sprawa Jego Mci bedàcych sà przypominione ymiona napisane. Kthora sie poczyna od Roku po narodzeniu Panu Chrystusowym 1572 az do roku pisano 1582. Vilnius, 1585. Pp. 55-56; Pavllus Oderbornius. Ioannis Basilidis Magni Moscoviae ducis vita. Witebergae, 1585. R8/r-v. 8 See Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei. Vol. 27. Sokrashchennye letopisnye svody kontsa XV veka / Ed. by A. N. Nasonov. Moscow; Leningrad, 1962. Pp. 101-102. 525 Giedrë Mickûnaitë, Empire as Nostalgia... The success in the Livonian wars has been interpreted as a just restitu- tion of territories. On 3 November 1580, the city of Vilnius greeted a vic- torious Stefan Bathory (1576-1586). The king was glorified not only for defending his country but also for returning back its distant lands. Indeed, one performance was held during which children dressed in Muscovite cloth- ing begged the triumphant king for mercy. This “show” took place by the triumphal arch, featuring figures of Vytautas and his cousin King Jogaila/ Yagailo on its top.9 The early modern theatre of the state not only displayed the gains of the victory but also associated these lands with their subjects and hinted that Bathory’s victory was a return to historical justice. The beginning of the seventeenth century was a rather successful period for Lithuania. In 1611, the capitalize duchy’s army recaptured Smolensk and the feeling of domains returning back to their owners must have been widespread in the country. It was then when Nicholas Christopher Radvila the Orphan (1549-1616) commissioned the map of the grand duchy. This thorough, informative, and for that time highly advanced map was printed in Amsterdam in 1613. The entire enterprise was meant to demonstrate the vastness of Lithuania’s lands. Indeed, in 1613 the country still occupied quite extensive territories. Yet, the map had one particular addition – the layout of the Dnepr River was given separately. The accompanying legend mentioned the motive for this: the Dnepr was there to indicate the country’s boundaries under Vytautas.10 Moreover, the map itself featured places bearing or referring to the grand duke’s name. These and alike references to places, buildings, and even natural objects are associated with the golden age of an empire never built and by then lost for ever. Witnessing gradually shrinking boundaries, and feeling the appeal of distant sites bearing traces of or associations with the deeds of the rulers of the past, the citizens of the grand duchy sank into a kind of historical nostalgia. In Christian thought this feeling can be compared to that of par- adise lost. In the Lithuanian case, this paradise had much more mundane expressions, associated with military might and territorial expansion. With time, the entire motif has been abbreviated to the well-known formula “from sea to sea.” In such concentrated form, this historical nostalgia has

9 Stephani Poloniæ regis literæ, quibus res a se in bello Moschico, post captum Vielico Lukum, gestas. & Consilia rerum deinceps gerendarum explicat. & Comitia Vvarsoviensia indicit. Item De Legatione Turcicj & Tartaricij Imp. Mense Nouembri, Vilnæ audita. Et alia lectu non iniucunda. Np., 1581. B/v-B2/r. 10 Algirdas Gustaitis. Dniepro upë ir aplinka nuo prieš-Kristiniø laikø. N.p., 1991. P. 6.

526 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 survived until today and the imperial theme still arouses curiosity. Even though a Lithuanian Empire has never entered history, it has survived in memory as a desirable and almost tangible motif frequently displayed on maps and heard in songs. It has survived in the form of multiple memorabilia and perhaps is even echoed in the words from the Lithuanian national anthem: “From the past let your sons draw their strength.” Returning to the sketch at the beginning of this essay, I would like to once again look at the tokens of Lithuanian statehood that my grandparents laboriously preserved. Any historian would immediately note the obvious inconsistency of the items in the box and this is a historically correct observation. However, patriotic memory does not care for historic preci- sion. Surprisingly, the memorial strategies of Lithuanian citizens have outlived not only the empire that never existed, but also the periods of lost statehood.

SUMMARY

“Çîëîòîé âåê” Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî (ÂÊË) â èñòî- ðè÷åñêîì ñîçíàíèè Ëèòâû ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ ñ ýïîõîé íà÷àëà XV â., âðåìåíåì ñëàâû è ìîãóùåñòâà ÂÊË, êîãäà îíî ïðîñòèðàëîñü îò Áàë- òèéñêîãî äî ×åðíîãî ìîðåé.  èñòîðèîãðàôèè èäåÿ “ëèòîâñêîé èìïåðèè” íå ïîëó÷èëà áîëüøîé ïîïóëÿðíîñòè. ÂÊË íèêîãäà íå âåëî óñïåøíîé èìïåðñêîé ïîëèòèêè, íè÷åãî â èñòîðèè êíÿæåñòâà è íå óêàçû- âàåò íà åãî èìïåðñêèé õàðàêòåð. Ýòà èäåÿ ïðîÿâèëàñü êàê íîñòàëüãèÿ ïî âðåìåíè âåëè÷èÿ ñòðàíû, îáúåäèíÿâøåé â ñåáå ðàçíûå òåððè- òîðèè, íàðîäû êîíôåññèè, ìèðíî óæèâàâøèåñÿ ìåæäó ñîáîé – âðåìåíàì, êîãäà ñòðàíà èìåëà èìïåðñêèé øàíñ. Ýïîõà çàâîåâàíèé Ãåäèìèíà (1314-1341) è Âèòîâòà (1392-1430) çíàìåíóåò ñîáîé âûñ- øóþ òî÷êó èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ ÂÊË. Ïîýòîìó, êîãäà â êîíöå XV – XVI ââ. Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî ñòàëî íåñòè òåððèòîðèàëüíûå ïîòåðè â âîéíàõ ñ Ìîñêîâèåé, èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü îáðàòèëàñü èìåííî ê îáðàçàì Âèòîâòà è äðóãèõ âåëèêèõ ëèòîâñêèõ êíÿçåé äëÿ óêðåïëåíèÿ ëèòîâñêîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé èäåè, ìå÷òàíèé î íîâûõ ïîáåäàõ ëèòîâñêîãî îðóæèÿ. Ïîñëåäíèé âñïëåñê ïîáåä áûë ñâÿçàí ñ èìåíåì Ñòåôàíà Áàòîðèÿ (1576-1586), êîòîðîãî ñ÷èòàëè ïðîäîë-

527 Giedrë Mickûnaitë, Empire as Nostalgia... æàòåëåì ñëàâíûõ äåë ßãàéëî è Âèòîâòà, êîðîëåì, âîññòàíîâèâøèì èñòîðè÷åñêóþ ñïðàâåäëèâîñòü. Òîïîãðàôè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ÂÊË ÿñíî îòðàæàåò êàðòà 1613 ã., çàêàçàííàÿ Íèêîëàåì Ðàäçèâèëëîì. Íà íåé ïðåäñòàâëåíà ÂÊË â ãðàíèöàõ íà÷àëà XVII â. Ïðè ýòîì çåìëè, ëåæàùèå çà Äíåïðîì, áûëè ïîêàçàíû îòäåëüíî (Äíåïð âîñïðèíè- ìàëñÿ êàê ãðàíèöà ÂÊË ïðè Âèòîâòå). Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî íîñòàëüãèÿ ïî èìïåðñêîìó øàíñó ÂÊË îêàçàëàñü áîëåå äîëãîâå÷íîé, ÷åì ñàìî ãîñóäàðñòâî. Áîëåå òîãî, òîïîãðà- ôè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü îêàçàëàñü ïðî÷íåå íåçàâèñèìîñòè è ãîñóäàð- ñòâåííîñòè.

528 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Äìèòðèé ÂÛÐÑÊÈÉ

ÂÅËÈÊÎÅ ÊÍßÆÅÑÒÂÎ ËÈÒÎÂÑÊÎÅ ÊÀÊ ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÉ ÎÏÛÒ: ÑËÓ×ÀÉ ÓÊÐÀÈÍÛ*

Íàéøëè, Íåñëè, íåñëè ç ÷óæîãî ïîëÿ ² â Óêðà¿íó ïðèíåñëè Òàðàñ Øåâ÷åíêî

Ìû äîëæíû ëþáèòü íàñëåäñòâî íàøèõ îòöîâ, íî êàêîå? Òîìàø Ìàñàðèê

Ãîñïîäñòâóþùèå òåíäåíöèè â âîñïðèÿòèè Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî (äàëåå – ÂÊË) â Óêðàèíå ìîæíî ïðåäñòàâèòü ïåðå÷- íåì ñëåäóþùèõ êîíöåïòîâ. Ïðåæäå âñåãî, ýòî ðàññìîòðåíèå åãî ðîëè êàê áåçóñëîâíî åâðîïåéñêîé (õîòü è ïîãðàíè÷íî-“óêðàèííîé”) äåðæàâû, íàñëåäíèêà Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè, ãäå ïðîèçîøåë ñèíòåç çàïàäíî- è âîñòî÷íîõðèñòèàíñêèõ òðàäèöèé, ïîáåäèòåëÿ Çîëîòîé Îðäû

*  îñíîâó äàííîé ñòàòüè ïîëîæåí äîêëàä, ñäåëàííûé àâòîðîì íà ìåæäóíàðîä- íîì êðóãëîì ñòîëå “Èñòîðèÿ èçó÷åíèÿ Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî â 1991- 2003 ãã.”, êîòîðûé ïðîõîäèë 16-18 ìàÿ 2003 ã. â Ãðîäíî (Áåëàðóñü). 529 Ä. Âûðñêèé, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå êàê èñòîðè÷åñêèé îïûò... è áîðöà çà âûõîä ê ×åðíîìó ìîðþ. Áûòóåò ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îá îáùå- ñòâå ÂÊË êàê ñîöèóìå ñ âûñîêîé ñîöèàëüíîé ìîáèëüíîñòüþ íà åãî “íèæíèõ” ýòàæàõ è ñ äîñòàòî÷íî ñòàáèëüíîé îëèãàðõè÷åñêîé “êðûøåé” (ðåàëèÿ, äî áîëè çíàêîìàÿ èññëåäîâàòåëþ ïîñòñîâåòñ- êîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà). ÂÊË âèäèòñÿ êàê ïðîåêò ðåãèîíàëüíîãî “óíèâåðñàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà” (ïî òåðìèíîëîãèè À. Òîéíáè), àëüòåðíàòèâíîãî ïîëüñêîé “øëÿõåòñêîé äåìîêðàòèè” è ðîññèéñ- êîìó “ñàìîäåðæàâèþ” (îïðåäåëèòü ïîñëåäíþþ ìîæíî êàê êâàçè- êëàññè÷åñêóþ, â ñìûñëå áåçóñëîâíîé çàïîçäàëîñòè, “ôåîäàëüíóþ èìïåðèþ”).1 Èçó÷åíèå ÂÊË â óêðàèíñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè èìååò ñâîè ñïåöè- ôè÷åñêèå îñîáåííîñòè. Îñíîâíîå âíèìàíèå èññëåäîâàòåëè óäåëÿþò òîìó, ÷òî îòíîñèòñÿ íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ê Óêðàèíå â åå íûíåøíèõ òåððèòîðèàëüíî-ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ðàìêàõ è îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ ÷åðåç ïîíÿòèå “êóëüòóðíî-èñòîðè÷åñêîå íàñëåäèå”. Èç-çà óäàëåííîñòè Óêðàèíû îò Ëèòâû âîïðîñ î ïðîèñõîæäåíèè ÂÊË âûçûâàåò, ñêîðåå, âÿëûé àêàäåìè÷åñêèé èíòåðåñ. Òàê, íàïðèìåð, íå âûçûâàåò îñîáåí- íîãî ýíòóçèàçìà ïîïóëÿðíàÿ â Áåëàðóñè íîâîâàðÿæñêàÿ òåîðèÿ “ïðèêëèêàíüÿ Ìèíäîâãà” íà ôîíå îò÷àÿííîé áîðüáû Ãàëèöêî- Âîëûíñêîãî êíÿæåñòâà ñ ëèòîâñêîé àãðåññèåé. Íàñëåäèå “Ëèòâû ÿçû÷åñêîé”, ñòîëü ìèëîå ñåðäöó ðÿäîâîãî ëèòîâöà, âîîáùå íå âèäèòñÿ óêðàèíöàì êàê íå÷òî çíà÷èòåëüíîå è ñàìîöåííîå, à ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ ëèøü â ñâÿçè ñ ìåññèàíñêîé ðîëüþ

1 Basic book, èëè íàèáîëåå ïîïóëÿðíûìè ñîâðåìåííûìè èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêèìè òåêñòàìè â Óêðàèíå ïî äàííîé ïðîáëåìàòèêå ñ÷èòàåì, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ñëåäóþùèå ðàáîòû: ². Ëèñÿê-Ðóäíèöüêèé. Ïðîáëåìè òåðì³íîëî㳿 ³ ïåð³îäèçàö³¿â óêðà¿íñüê³é ³ñòîð³¿. Ôåîäàë³çì // ². Ëèñÿê-Ðóäíèöüêèé. ²ñòîðè÷í³ åñå. Êè¿â, 1994. Ò. 1. Ñ. 41-46, 47-52; Ô. Ì. Øàáóëüäî. Çåìëè Þãî-Çàïàäíîé Ðóñè â ñîñòàâå Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî. Êè¿â, 1987; ß. Äàøêåâè÷. Óêðà¿íà íà ìåæ³ ì³æ Ñõîäîì ³ Çàõîäîì (XIV-XVIII ñò.) // Çàïèñêè Íàóêîâîãî Òîâàðèñòâà ³ì. Øåâ÷åíêà. 1991. Ò. ÑÑÕÕ²². Ñ. 28-44; Í. Ì. ßêîâåíêî. Óêðà¿íñüêà øëÿõòà ç ê³íöÿ XIV äî ñåðåäèíè XVII ñò. (Âîëèíü ³ Öåíòðàëüíà Óêðà¿íà). Êè¿â, 1993; Â. ². Óëüÿíîâñüêèé. ²ñòîð³ÿ öåðêâè òà ðåë³ã³éíî¿ äóìêè â Óêðà¿í³. Ñåðåäèíà XV – ê³íåöü XVI ñò. Êí.1-2. Êè¿â, 1994; Í. Ì. ßêîâåíêî. Íàðèñ ³ñòî𳿠Óêðà¿íè. Ç íàéäàâí³øèõ ÷àñ³â äî ê³íöÿ ÕVIII ñòîë³òòÿ. Êè¿â, 1997; Î. Â. Ðóñ³íà. ѳâåðñüêà çåìëÿ ó ñêëàä³ Âåëèêîãî êíÿç³âñòâà Ëèòîâñüêîãî. Êè¿â, 1998; Î. Â. Ðóñ³íà. Óêðà¿íà ï³ä òàòàðàìè ³ Ëèòâîþ. (Ñåð³ÿ: Óêðà¿íà êð³çü â³êè. Ò. 6). Êè¿â, 1998; Ä. Íàëèâàéêî. Î÷èìà Çàõîäó: Ðåöåïö³ÿ Óêðà¿íè â Çàõ³äí³é ªâðîï³ XI-XVIII ñò. Êè¿â, 1998; Í. Ì. ßêîâåíêî. Ïàðàëåëüíèé ñâ³ò. Äîñë³äæåííÿ ç ³ñòî𳿠óÿâëåíü òà ³äåé â Óêðà¿í³ XVI-XVIII ñò. Êè¿â, 2002. 530 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âîñòî÷íîãî õðèñòèàíñòâà. Ñþæåò “âûáîðà âåðû” ëèòîâöàìè ñâÿçû- âàåòñÿ ñ íåðåàëèçîâàííîé àëüòåðíàòèâîé ïðåâðàùåíèÿ Âèëüíþñà ⠓íîâûé Êèåâ”. Êàòîëèçàöèÿ Ëèòâû âûçûâàåò îáâèíåíèÿ ⠓èçìåíå” ïåðñïåêòèâå ñîâìåñòíîé ëèòîâñêî-ðóñêîé2 “åâðîèíòåãðàöèè” èëè äàæå íåêîé “âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñêîé” öèâèëèçàöèîííîé àëüòåðíà- òèâå Çàïàäó. Çäåñü ìû íàáëþäàåì èñêðåííèé “êèåâîðóñêèé èìïå- ðèàëèçì”3 â ÷èñòîì âèäå. Äîâîëüíî íàòóæíî óêðàèíåö âîñõèùàåòñÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíî “íàðîä- íîé” äëÿ ëèòîâöåâ è áåëîðóñîâ ýïîïååé ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ íåìåöêèì êðåñòîíîñíûì îðäåíàì. Âîîáùå, êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî âîéíû â Ïðèáàëòèêå, â êîòîðûõ ó÷àñòâîâàëè âîèíû, íàáðàííûå íà çåìëÿõ ñîâðåìåííîé Óêðàèíû, èìåþò çäåñü ñòîéêóþ íåãàòèâíóþ ðåïóòàöèþ. Ìàëî êàêîé óêðàèíñêèé èññëåäîâàòåëü îòêàæåòñÿ ïðè èõ ðàññìîòðåíèè ïîðîïòàòü íà ìåñòíûé êëèìàò è íåñîîòâåòñòâèå áàëòèéñêèõ ðåàëèé ëó÷øèì âîèíñêèì êà÷åñòâàì óêðàèíñêîãî íàðîäà. Ïåðìàíåíòíàÿ êîíôðîíòàöèÿ ÂÊË ñ Âåëèêèì êíÿæåñòâîì Ìîñêîâñêèì, âîñïðèÿòèå åãî êàê “íàñëåäñòâåííîãî âðàãà”, òàêæå èìååò â Óêðàèíå íåìíîãî àïîëîãåòîâ, åñëè íå ñ÷èòàòü îòêðîâåííûõ âóëüãàðèçàòîðîâ, óñìàòðèâàþùèõ çäåñü îòðàæåíèå âåêîâîãî óêðà- èíñêî-ðîññèéñêîãî ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ. Ïîýòîìó ó÷àñòèå “ñâîèõ” ïðåäêîâ â ëèòîâñêî-ìîñêîâñêèõ âîéíàõ óêðàèíöû ÷àñòî òðàêòóþò êàê ïðîÿâëåíèå ìîëîäå÷åñòâà, ïî-íàñòîÿùåìó èíòåðåñíîãî ðàçâå ÷òî èññëåäîâàòåëÿì ìåñòíûõ âîèíñêèõ òðàäèöèé. Äàæå ãåðîé ýòèõ âîéí – êíÿçü Êîíñòàíòèí Èâàíîâè÷ Îñòðîæñêèé – óâàæàåì â Óêðàèíå çà äðóãèå äåëà, íå ñâÿçàííûå ñ “ìîñêîâñêèìè”. Îáðàçíî ãîâîðÿ, “Âèøíåâåö 1512” (ïîáåäà íàä òàòàðàìè) ïî çíà÷åíèþ ïðåâîñõîäèò “Îðøó 1514” (ïîáåäó íàä ðóññêèìè). Îáùåñòâåííàÿ ìûñëü Óêðàèíû ñïîêîéíî îòíîñèòñÿ ê ôàêòàì ñëóæåíèÿ îáåèì ñòîðîíàì, øèðîêî ïðåäñòàâëåííûì â ìåæãîñóäàð- ñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèÿõ Ëèòâû-Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé è Ìîñêâû-Ðîññèè ñî âðåìåí Îëåëüêîâè÷åé äî ïîçäíåé ïîðû Çàïîðîæüÿ. Ïîïûòêè äîñòèæåíèÿ ñîãëàñèÿ ìåæäó ïðîòèâîáîðñòâóþùèìè ñòîðîíàìè –

2 Íå ïóòàòü ñ ëèòîâñêî-ðóññêîé. 3 Ïîä êèåâîðóññêèì èìïåðèàëèçìîì ïîíèìàåì ïîïóëÿðíîå âîñïðèÿòèå Êèåâà (÷àñòî = Óêðàèíà) êàê “âå÷íîé” ìåòðîïîëèè-ìåññèè (÷òî-òî âðîäå “Ìîñêâà – òðåòèé Ðèì”) äëÿ ãîñóäàðñòâ è íàðîäîâ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû èëè, ðåëüåôíåé, õîòÿ áû òåððèòîðèè çàøòðèõîâàííîé â ó÷åáíèêàõ êàê Êèåâñêàÿ Ðóñü (ïðèñòàâêà “êàáèíåòíîãî” ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ – Êèåâñêàÿ – òóò àêöåíòèðîâàíà è ìèôîëîãèçèðîâàíà). 531 Ä. Âûðñêèé, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå êàê èñòîðè÷åñêèé îïûò... Ìîñêâîé è Ëèòâîé – ïîëó÷àþò â Óêðàèíå îäîáðèòåëüíóþ îöåíêó. Áîëåå òîãî, óêðàèíöû ñêëîííû âèäåòü êîðíè ëèòîâñêèõ “áåä” â ñàìîóñòðàíåíèè âëàñòåé ÂÊË îò áîðüáû çà äðåâíåðóññêîå íàñëåäèå è íåñïîñîáíîñòè èíòåãðèðîâàòü “ðóñêîå” íàñåëåíèå ãîñóäàðñòâà ⠓âåëèêîëèòîâñêèé” ñîöèóì.  ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòü ýòîìó, êîãäà ðå÷ü çàõîäèò î “þæíîì ôðîíòå” ÂÊË, óêðàèíñêîå ñåðäöå íà÷èíàåò áèòüñÿ ÷àùå. Àêòèâíîå âìåøàòåëüñòâî âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà â áîðüáó çà çîëîòîîðäûíñêîå íàñëåäñòâî âî âðåìåíà Âèòîâòà èìååò â Óêðàèíå ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ àïîëîãåòîâ. Òàêæå ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ âåðõîâåíñòâî âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ íàä Êðûìîì âðåìåí óòâåðæäåíèÿ äèíàñòèè Ãèðååâ. Ýòîò ôàêò èñïîëüçóåòñÿ äëÿ ïîä÷åðêèâàíèÿ èñòîðè÷åñêîé âçàèìîâûãîäíîñòè óêðàèíñêî-êðûìñêîãî ïàðòíåðñòâà. Êðîìå òîãî, ñ âèòîâòîâûìè âðåìåíàìè ñâÿçûâàþò è ðàñöâåò ÷åðíîìîðñêîé òîðãîâëè. Ôàêòû ñòðîèòåëüñòâà ñîáñòâåííûõ ïîðòîâ (Õàäæèáåé – ïðåäòå÷à Îäåññû è ò.ä.), ïîäúåì ïîäíåïðîâñêèõ ãîðîäîâ ñ Êèåâîì âî ãëàâå, èñïîëü- çîâàíèå çàïàäíûõ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ (èòàëüÿíñêèõ êóïöîâ-êîëîíèñòîâ) äëÿ òåñíåéøèõ êîíòàêòîâ ñ Åâðîïîé è îðãàíèçàöèè õëåáíîãî ýêñïîðòà ïî ×åðíîìó ìîðþ âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ êàê ïðåäâåñòíèêè ñîá- ñòâåííî óêðàèíñêîãî áóäóùåãî. Íåäàâíî â óêðàèíñêîé èñòîðèîãðà- ôèè óòâåðäèëàñü ìûñëü î ëèòîâñêî-òàòàðñêîì êîíäîìèíèóìå (äâîéíîì ñþçåðåíèòåòå) íàä çåìëÿìè Óêðàèíû, êîòîðûé ñëîæèëñÿ ïîñëå 1362 ã., áûë ïîäòâåðæäåí â 1395 ã. è íàïîìèíàë î ñåáå â âûïëà- òàõ òàê íàçûâàåìûõ “óïîìèíêî┠êðûìñêîìó õàíó (“çà âëàäåíèå ðóñêèìè çåìëÿìè”) íà ïðîòÿæåíèè XVI-XVII ââ. Ãðàæäàíñêóþ âîéíó 1432-1440 ãã. â ÂÊË ñîâðåìåííûå ó÷åíûå ñêëîííû ðàññìàòðèâàòü â êîíòåêñòå âîçðîæäåíèÿ “óêðàèíñêèõ” àìáèöèé, êîòîðûå îïèðàëèñü íà óñïåøíîå õîçÿéñòâåííîå ðàçâèòèå êðàÿ, à ïîðàæåíèå Ñâèäðèãàéëà íà Øâÿíòå ïîä Âèëüêîìèðîì â 1435 ã., – êàê êðàõ âûøåóïîìÿíóòîãî “êèåâîðóñêîãî èìïåðèà- ëèçìà” è óêðàèíñêîãî ñâåòñêîãî ìåññèàíñòâà.  äàëüíåéøåì ñâåò- ñêèå óêðàèíöû ïðåòåíäóþò â îáùåì-òî ëèøü íà ãîñïîäñòâî “â ñâîåé ñòîðîíöå”.4 Ïîýòîìó ëèêâèäàöèÿ âåëèêîêíÿæåñêîé âëàñòüþ Êèåâñêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Îëåëüêîâè÷åé â 1471 ã. ðàñöåíèâàåòñÿ ñîâðå- ìåííîé îòå÷åñòâåííîé èñòîðèîãðàôèåé êàê óäàð â ñïèíó. Çàãîâîðû óêðàèíñêèõ àðèñòîêðàòîâ, âïëîòü äî âîññòàíèÿ Ì. Ãëèíñêîãî âêëþ÷èòåëüíî, è ïîòåðÿ âëèÿíèÿ â Êðûìó è íà ×åðíîì ìîðå

4 Îáðàç èç òåêñòà ñîâðåìåííîãî ãèìíà Óêðàèíû. 532 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ êàê ïðàâîìåðíàÿ ðàñïëàòà çà ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ áëèçîðóêîñòü. Íåâíèìàíèå âåëèêîêíÿæåñêîé âëàñòè ê “äàëåêèì çåìëÿì”,5 ïî ãîñïîäñòâóþùèì íà äàííûé ìîìåíò ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿì, çàñòàâèëî óêðàèíöåâ ïî-íîâîìó îöåíèòü ïåðñïåêòèâû óêðàèíñêî-ïîëüñêîãî ïàðòíåðñòâà. Ïîýòîìó, åñëè ïðè èçó÷åíèè ïîëüñêî-ëèòîâñêèõ òðåíèé â XIV-ÕV ââ. è ïîïûòîê íàâÿçûâàíèÿ Ëèòâå ïðîåêòîâ óíèè â èíòå- ðåñàõ Ïîëüñêîé Êîðîíû óêðàèíñêàÿ èñòîðèîãðàôèÿ òðàäèöèîííî ñòîÿëà ãîðîé çà ëèòâèíîâ, îöåíêè ïðîåêòîâ ïîëèòè÷åñêîé óíèè ÕVI â. êàðäèíàëüíî ìåíÿþòñÿ. Âî âçãëÿäàõ íà Ëþáëèíñêóþ óíèþ 1569 ã. íà äàííûé ìîìåíò äîìèíèðóåò ïîçèòèâíûé íàñòðîé. Ïîä÷åð- êèâàåòñÿ, â ÷àñòíîñòè, àñïåêò îáúåäèíåíèÿ ïî÷òè âñåõ ýòíè÷åñêèõ óêðàèíñêèõ çåìåëü â åäèíîì ãîñóäàðñòâåííîì îáðàçîâàíèè. Ïîýòîìó íåîäíîçíà÷íîå ïîâåäåíèå óêðàèíñêèõ àðèñòîêðàòîâ íà ñåéìå â Ëþáëèíå, â êîòîðîì ðàíåå ÷àñòî óñìàòðèâàëè “ïðåäàòåëüñòâî” èíòåðåñîâ Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà, ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ êàê íà÷àëüíûé ýòàï ïðîöåññà îñîçíàíèÿ óêðàèíöàìè ñåáÿ îòäåëüíîé íàöèåé. Ñðåäè èññëåäîâàòåëåé, îáîçðåâàþùèõ ïîñëåëþáëèíñêèå âðåìåíà, íîñòàëüãèÿ ïî ÂÊË âîâñå íå ðàñïðîñòðàíåíà. ÂÊË â èõ ðàáîòàõ âûñòóïàåò ÷àùå âñåãî êàê îáúåêò ýêñïàíñèè – ðåàëèçîâàííîé èëè ïëàíèðîâàâøåéñÿ. Ïðèïîìèíàþò ïðè ñëó÷àå è Ìîçûðùèíó, è äàæå óêðàèíñêóþ Áåðåñòåéùèíó, “íåäîðåçàííóþ” ê Êèåâñêîìó âîåâîä- ñòâó ïîñëå Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè, îòêðîâåííî ðàäóþòñÿ ïîïûòêàì Á. Õìåëüíèöêîãî ïðåâðàòèòü Þæíóþ Áåëàðóñü â íåêîå ïîäîáèå “êðîìâåëåâñêîé Èðëàíäèè” äëÿ ñâîèõ âåòåðàíîâ. Âîîáùå, èñòî- ðèêè ñêðóïóëåçíî èíòåðåñóþòñÿ áîðüáîé ìåæäó ðàçíûìè ïîëèòè- ÷åñêèìè ñèëàìè çà “äóøè” áåëîðóñî⠖ äðóãîé (êðîìå óêðàèíöåâ) ÷àñòè êîãäà-òî ñëàáî äèôôåðåíöèðîâàííûõ “ðóñèíîâ”. Îáùèå ñ “ëèòâèíàìè” àêöèè äëÿ ýòîãî ïåðèîäà ìûñëÿòñÿ óæå òîëüêî êàê ïàðèòåòíûå (íàïðèìåð, ïåðåãîâîðû Á. Õìåëüíèöêîãî î ñîþçå ñ Ðàäçèâèëëàìè). Ïðè ýòîì “ëèòîâñêîå íàñëåäñòâî” âîñïðè- íèìàåòñÿ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïîçèòèâíî: çäåñü ìîæíî óïîìÿíóòü æåëà- íèå Õìåëüíèöêîãî ïîëó÷èòü äëÿ êàçàêîâ ñòàòóñ “òàòàð ëèòîâñêèõ”, ïðîåêòû “Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ðóñêîãî” è ò.ä. Âìåñòå ñ òåì, îñóæ- äàåòñÿ ðîëü ëèòâèíîâ â ñðûâå Ãàäÿ÷ñêîé óíèè 1659 ã. ÂÊË XVIII â. ïðàêòè÷åñêè ïîëíîñòüþ èñ÷åçàåò ñ ãîðèçîíòîâ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè, êîòîðàÿ ïèòàåò íàöèîíàëüíûå ÷óâñòâà

5 Òðàäèöèîííûé â ëèòîâñêèõ èñòî÷íèêàõ ÿðëûê äëÿ óêðàèíñêèõ çåìåëü. 533 Ä. Âûðñêèé, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå êàê èñòîðè÷åñêèé îïûò... óêðàèíöåâ. Îáû÷íî Ëèòâà è Áåëàðóñü óïîìèíàþòñÿ òóò ëèøü â êîí- òåêñòå äðóãèõ, êðîìå Óêðàèíû, “æåðò┠èìïåðñêèõ àìáèöèé Ðîññèè. Âïðî÷åì, âîçðàñòàåò èíòåðåñ ê ìàãíàòñêèì êëàíàì (â ò.÷. “âåëèêî- ëèòîâñêîãî” ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ), ïîä ÷üèì ïàòðîíàòîì ïðîèñõîäèëî ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêîå âîçðîæäåíèå “ðóêîòâîðíîé ïóñòûíè” Ïðàâîáåðåæíîé Óêðàèíû â XVIII â. Èññëåäîâàòåëè îáðàùàþòñÿ è ê áûñòðî íàáèðàþùåé ïîïóëÿðíîñòü ïðîáëåìàòèêå êóëüòóðû îëèãàðõè÷åñêèõ “äâîðî┠àðèñòîêðàòèè ïîñëåäíèõ âðåìåí ÂÊË. Êðîìå ýòîãî, óêðàèíöû áëàãîäàðíû ëèòâèíàì çà Ôèëèïïà Îðëèêà – ãåòìàíà â èçãíàíèè è îñíîâîïîëîæíèêà óêðàèíñêîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ýìèãðàöèè. Ñëåäóåò ïðèïîìíèòü è ðîëü “ëèòîâñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ” ⠓äâîðÿíñêèõ” ðîäîñëîâíûõ óêðàèíñêèõ ñòàðøèíñêèõ ñåìåé Ãåòìàíùèíû. Âåäü â êîíöå ÕVIII â. – ïåðâîé òðåòè Õ²Õ â. óêàçàíèå óêðàèíöåì íà ñâÿçü ñâîåãî ðîäà, íàïðèìåð, ñ ýêñ-“âåëèêî- ëèòîâñêîé” Áåëàðóñüþ áûëî çíà÷èòåëüíûì êîçûðåì â ñïîðàõ ñ ðîñ- ñèéñêîé Ãåðîëüäèåé (óòâåðæäàâøåé, ÷òî â Óêðàèíå “íåò áëàãî- ðîäíûõ”). Ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ñòðóêòóðû ÂÊË âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ óêðàèíñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèåé êàê òèïîëîãè÷åñêè áëèçêèå äðóãîìó ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîìó ïðîåêòó “ïñåâäîðèìëÿí” – Ñâÿùåííîé Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèè, âïîñëåäñòâèè Àâñòðî-Âåíãðèè. “Àâñòðèéñêèé îïûò” â Óêðàèíå îáñóæäàåòñÿ äîâîëüíî àêòèâíî, õîòü è áåç îñîáåííîãî ïèåòåòà (çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì ðàçâå Ãàëè÷èíû è Áóêîâèíû). Âåäóùèìè òåìàìè òóò âûñòóïàþò ïîëèòèêà îòíîñèòåëüíî íàöèîíàëüíûõ ìåíüøèíñòâ â óñëîâèÿõ íåìíîãî÷èñëåííîñòè òèòóëüíîé íàöèè, ñîöèàëüíûé êîí- ñåðâàòèçì êàê ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ñòðàòåãèÿ, ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå îëèãàð- õè÷åñêèõ ýëèò è ðîëü õàðèçìû ìîíàðõà â îáùåñòâå. Îáùèì ìåñòîì óêðàèíñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè ñòàëî ïîä÷åðêèâàíèå “÷åëîâå÷íîñòè” ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñòðóêòóð êàê ÂÊË, òàê è Àâñòðî-Âåíãðèè ïî ñðàâ- íåíèþ ñ Âåëèêèì êíÿæåñòâîì/öàðñòâîì Ìîñêîâñêèì è Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèåé. Íàèáîëåå ëþáîïûòíûì è, áåçóñëîâíî, çëîáîäíåâíûì, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáñóæäåíèå “îëèãàðõè÷åñêîé” ïðîáëåìàòèêè â Óêðàèíå, êîòîðàÿ òåñíî ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ ñ “îïûòîì ÂÊ˔. Ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü, ÷òî èíòåðåñ ê èññëåäîâàíèÿì ïàòðîíàëüíî-êëèåíòàðíûõ ñâÿçåé, ñîöèàëüíûõ ðèòóàëîâ, èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ è ãðóïïîâûõ êàðüåð- íûõ ñòðàòåãèé âûçûâàåò â ñîâðåìåííîì óêðàèíñêîì îáùåñòâå íå òîëüêî àêàäåìè÷åñêèé èíòåðåñ. 534 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Òî æå ñàìîå ìîæíî ñêàçàòü è î ðàñòóùåì âíèìàíèè ê òðàäèöèÿì èíäèâèäóàëüíîé áëàãîòâîðèòåëüíîñòè è ìåöåíàòñòâà, âÿëîå âîçðîæ- äåíèå êîòîðûõ â Óêðàèíå âîñïðèíèìàåòñÿ ñ ïîâûøåííûì ýíòó- çèàçìîì. Òóò îñîáåííî ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü “êóëüòû” êíÿçÿ Ôåäîðà Êîðèàòîâè÷à, îñíîâàòåëÿ Ìóêà÷åâñêîãî ìîíàñòûðÿ, è Ãàëøêè Ãóëåâè÷åâíû, êîòîðàÿ ñòîÿëà ó èñòîêîâ Êèåâî-Ìîãèëÿíñêîé àêàäåìèè. Îáùåïðèçíàííûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ âêëàä ÂÊË â ãåíåçèñ óêðàèíñêîãî êàçà÷åñòâà – âàæíåéøåãî ìîòèâà íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè Óêðàèíû. Âîçðîæäåííàÿ â ñîâðåìåííîé óêðàèíñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè “áîÿðñêàÿ òåîðèÿ”,6 êîòîðàÿ óòâåðæäàåò ïðîèñ- õîæäåíèå êàçàêîâ èç íèæíèõ ñëîåâ ôåîäàëüíîãî êëàññà âåëèêîê- íÿæåñêîé Ëèòâû, ëèøü ïîä÷åðêíóëà “ëèòîâñêîå íàñëåäñòâî” ýòîé “íàöèåòâîðÿùåé” ñîöèàëüíîé ãðóïïû. Áîëüøîå çíà÷åíèå “îïûòó ÂÊ˔ îòâîäèòñÿ â Óêðàèíå è â ñâÿçè ñ ïðîáëåìàòèêîé ïðàâîâîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Àâòîðèòåò Ëèòîâñêèõ ñòàòóòîâ êàê “çàêîíîâ, äîñòîéíûõ ñâîáîäíîãî íàðîäà”7 âûñòóïàåò ñîâåðøåííî íåîïðîâåðæèìûì, à èíîãäà – è ýòî îñîáåííî áðîñàåòñÿ â ãëàçà â ó÷åáíèêàõ äëÿ óêðàèíñêèõ þðèñòî⠖ ïîäàåòñÿ àïîëîãå- òè÷åñêè. Çíà÷èòåëüíî ìåíüøèé ýíòóçèàçì ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ âîåííî-ïîëè- òè÷åñêèì è ïðàâîâûì àñïåêòàìè “âåëèêîëèòîâñêîãî îïûòà” âûçû- âàþò â Óêðàèíå äîñòèæåíèÿ ÂÊË â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé è êóëüòóðíîé ñôåðàõ. Âïðî÷åì, èññëåäîâàòåëè ïîñòåïåííî îáðàùàþòñÿ ê îïûòó “èíòåãðàöèè” â ìèðîâóþ ýêîíîìè÷åñêóþ ñèñòåìó, ê ðîëè èíîñò- ðàííîãî êàïèòàëà â õîçÿéñòâåííîì ðàçâèòèè, à òàêæå ðåàëèçàöèè òðàíçèòíîãî ïîòåíöèàëà òåððèòîðèè ñòðàíû.  öåíòðå âíèìàíèÿ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ ïî èñòîðèè êóëüòóðû òðàäèöèîííî îñòàþòñÿ ãîðîä- ñêèå áðàòñòâà, ðåëèãèîçíûå äâèæåíèÿ (â ÷àñòíîñòè, ñëåäóåò îòìå- òèòü èíòåðåñ ê ïðîòåñòàíòèçìó íà çåìëÿõ ÂÊË) è öåðêîâíûå èíñòè- òóöèè.8 Ïðè÷åì ïîïóëÿðíî ïîä÷åðêèâàíèå ñâÿçåé êóëüòóðíûõ ïðîöåññîâ ñ ïðîÿâëåíèÿìè ýëåìåíòîâ ãðàæäàíñêîãî îáùåñòâà.

6 Òåîðèÿ îáîñíîâàíà â ðàáîòàõ Ñåðãåÿ Ëåïÿâêî (ñì., â ÷àñòíîñòè: Ñ. Ëåï’ÿâêî. Êîçàöüê³ â³éíè ê³íöÿ XVI ñò. â Óêðà¿í³. ×åðí³ã³â, 1996). 7 Òàêèì îáðàçîì êàçàöêàÿ ñòàðøèíà â 1763 ã. îõàðàêòåðèçîâàëà ëèòîâñêèå çàêîíû ïåðåä ðîññèéñêèì ïðàâèòåëüñòâîì. 8 Ñëåäóåò îñîáî îòìåòèòü íåäàâíþþ ìîíîãðàôèþ Áîðèñà Ãóäçÿêà: Á. Ãóäçÿê. Êðèçà ³ ðåôîðìà. Êè¿âñüêà ìèòðîïîë³ÿ, Öàðãîðîäñüêèé ïàòð³àðõàò ³ ãåíåçà Áåðåñòåéñüêî¿ óí³¿. Ëüâ³â, 2000. 535 Ä. Âûðñêèé, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå êàê èñòîðè÷åñêèé îïûò... Èíòåðåñíûìè îñîáåííîñòÿìè îòëè÷àþòñÿ â Óêðàèíå ïåðñî- íàëüíûå “êóëüòû” äåÿòåëåé ÂÊË. Òàê, “ãåðîÿìè” óêðàèíöåâ äîâîëüíî ðåäêî ñòàíîâÿòñÿ Ãåäèìèíîâè÷è, êîòîðûå ðåàëüíî âëàäåëè âåëè- êîêíÿæåñêèì òèòóëîì.9 Íàâåðíîå, êðîìå Îëüãåðäà – ïîáåäèòåëÿ òàòàð ïðè Ñèíèõ Âîäàõ â 1362 ã. è Âèòîâòà – “÷åðíîìîðñêîãî ìå÷- òàòåëÿ”, íè îäèí èç âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé ëèòîâñêèõ íå ïîëüçóåòñÿ ïîïó- ëÿðíîñòüþ. Âìåñòå ñ òåì, îôèöèàëüíûå “îòñòóïíèêè”, “áóíòîâ- ùèêè” è “çàãîâîðùèêè” – ïîäîëüñêèå Êîðèàòîâè÷è, “ìÿòåæíûé” Ñâèäðèãàéëî, “ãóñèòñêèé êîðîëü” Ñèãèçìóíä Êîðèáóòîâè÷, êèåâñ- êèå Îëåëüêîâè÷è è ñåâåðÿíñêèå Áåëüñêèå âûçûâàþò ïîëíåéøåå ñî÷óâñòâèå. Ðèòîðèêà “íåïîíèìàíèÿ ïðàâèòåëüñòâîì” è “îñêîðá- ëåíèÿ â ëó÷øèõ ÷óâñòâàõ” ÿâëÿåòñÿ òðàäèöèîííîé â ïîäà÷å îáðàçîâ íàèáîëåå ÷òèìûõ “ñâîèõ” ôåîäàëî⠖ Ìèõàèëà Ãëèíñêîãî, Äìèòðèÿ Âèøíåâåöêîãî è äâîèõ ëþáèìåéøèõ èç Îñòðîæñêèõ – Êîíñòàíòèíà Èâàíîâè÷à è Âàñèëèÿ-Êîíñòàíòèíà.  çàêëþ÷åíèå íàäî ñêàçàòü è îá îñîáåííîñòÿõ ðåöåïöèè “ëèòîâ- ñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ” â ðàçíûõ óêðàèíñêèõ ðåãèîíàõ. Ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî íàèáîëåå ïîïóëÿðíà ëèòîâñêàÿ òåìàòèêà íà Âîëûíè è â Ïîëåñüå, êîòîðûå âî âðåìåíà ÂÊË ïðèíàäëåæàëè ê îòíîñèòåëüíî “öèâèëè- çîâàííûì” ðàéîíàì ãîñóäàðñòâà. Ïðè÷åì èñòîðèåé ýòèõ ðåãèîíîâ àêòèâíî çàíèìàþòñÿ è ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ñòîëè÷íîãî íàó÷íîãî èñòåáëèøìåíòà. Ïðè çíà÷èòåëüíîé ïîääåðæêå Êèåâà íà Âîëûíè, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ðàçâåðíóëñÿ àìáèöèîçíûé ïðîåêò âîññîçäàíèÿ Îñòðîæ- ñêîé àêàäåìèè, äî ïîñëåäíåãî âðåìåíè íàïðÿìóþ ñâÿçàííûé ñ âîç- ðîæäåííîé Êèåâî-Ìîãèëÿíñêîé àêàäåìèåé. Ðåãèîíàëüíàÿ ïðîáëå- ìàòèêà ÿâëÿåòñÿ îäíîé èç ãëàâíûõ äëÿ Îáùåñòâà èññëåäîâàòåëåé Öåíòðàëüíî-Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, êîòîðîå âîçãëàâëÿåò èçâåñòíàÿ óêðàèíñêàÿ èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöà Íàòàëüÿ ßêîâåíêî. Äðóãèìè “àêàäåìè÷åñêèìè” öåíòðàìè óêðàèíñêîé ëèòóàíèñòèêè ÿâëÿþòñÿ îòäåë ñðåäíèõ âåêîâ Èíñòèòóòà èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû ÍÀÍ Óêðàèíû, ãäå ëèòóàíèñòè÷åñêîå íàïðàâëåíèå âîçãëàâëÿåò Åëåíà Ðóñèíà,

9 Íàèáîëåå ïîêàçàòåëüíûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ øèðîêî èçâåñòíîå èçäàíèå èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû â ëèöàõ (Ëèòîâñêî-ïîëüñêàÿ ýïîõà) [²ñòîð³ÿ Óêðà¿íè â îñîáàõ: Ëèòîâñüêà ïîëüñüêà äîáà. Êè¿â, 1997], â êîòîðîì â ðóáðèêå “‘Óêðà¿íí³’ ìîæíîâëàäö³” ïîäàíû áèîãðàôè÷åñêèå î÷åðêè ëèøü î Âëàäèìèðå Îëüãåðäîâè÷å Êèåâñêîì, åãî ïîòîìêå Îëåëüêå è Îëåëüêîâè÷àõ âîîáùå, î Øåìÿ÷è÷àõ è Ìîæàéñêèõ, Ìèõàèëå Ãëèíñêîì, Êîíñòàíòèíå Îñòðîæñêîì è Äìèòðèè Âèøíåâåöêîì. 536 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 è Êèåâñêèé óíèâåðñèòåò èì. Ò. Øåâ÷åíêî, ãäå ïëîäîòâîðíî ðàáîòàåò ïðîñåìèíàðèé Âàñèëèÿ Óëüÿíîâñêîãî. Äîñòîéíî îñîáîãî óïîìèíàíèÿ è êîíôåðåíöèîííîå äâèæåíèå íà çåìëÿõ èñòîðè÷åñêîé Êèåâùèíû è Âîëûíè. Ïðè÷åì îíî âñå áîëüøå îõâàòûâàåò íå òîëüêî îáëàñòíûå, íî è ïðîâèíöèàëüíûå öåíòðû. Êàê ïðèìåð ìîæíî ïðèâåñòè “Ñàíãóøêîâñêèå ÷òåíèÿ” â ã. Ñëàâóòå. Äðóãèì ðåãèîíîì, ãäå ê “ëèòîâñêîìó íàñëåäèþ” îòíîñÿòñÿ ñî çíà÷èòåëüíûì ïèåòåòîì, îñòàåòñÿ Ïîäîëüå. Ïðè÷åì, ïî ïîíÿòíûì ïðè÷èíàì, îíî ÿâëÿåòñÿ öåíòðîì ïî÷èòàíèÿ êíÿçåé Êîðèàòîâè÷åé.  ÷àñòíîñòè, îäíà èç öåíòðàëüíûõ óëèö Êàìÿíöà-Ïîäîëüñêîãî íàçâàíà â èõ ÷åñòü. Ýòîò êóëüò èìååò ñâîå îòâåòâëåíèå â Çàêàðïàòüå, ïðè÷åì ñëåäóåò óêàçàòü, ÷òî íà íåì â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ìåðå äåðæèòñÿ ÷óâñòâî óêðàèíñêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè ýòîãî ðåãèîíà, äîëãîå âðåìÿ “îòðåçàííîãî” îò “Áîëüøîé Óêðàèíû”.  Ïîäíåïðîâüå “ëèòîâñêèå âîñïîìèíàíèÿ” àêòóàëèçèðóþòñÿ ïðè îïðåäåëåíèè âðåìåíè îñíîâàíèÿ òîãî èëè èíîãî èç ãîðîäñêèõ ïîñåëåíèé, íàïðÿìóþ ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïîïóëÿðíîñòüþ þáèëååâ. Ïðèìåðîì òóò ìîæåò ïîñëóæèòü ìîÿ ìàëàÿ ðîäèíà – ã. Êðåìåí÷óã íà Ïîëòàâùèíå. Ïîèñêè ìåñòîíàõîæäåíèÿ çàìêà Âèòîâòà, èñòî- ðè÷åñêèå äàííûå î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè êîòîðîãî îòíþäü íå áåññïîðíû, áóäîðàæàò ìåñòíóþ îáùåñòâåííóþ ìûñëü. Íà Ïîëòàâùèíå òàêæå ëþáÿò âñïîìèíàòü áèòâó íà Âîðñêëå 1399 ã., îäíàêî íè îäíî ðåàëüíîå èññëåäîâàíèå, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, íà ìåñòå áèòâû (äî ñåãî äíÿ íå óñòàíîâëåííîì), åùå íå ïðîâåäåíî. Êóëüò Âèòîâòà äîñòèã äàæå Íèêîëàåâùèíû, î ÷åì ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ðàáîòà ìåñòíîé èññëåäîâàòåëüíèöû Ñ. Ã. Êîâàëåâîé, êîòîðàÿ ðàññìîòðåëà çäåøíþþ òîïîíèìèþ, íàïîìèíàþùóþ î ëèòîâñêèõ âðåìåíàõ (Âèòîâòîâà áàëêà, Âèòîâòîâêà, Âèòîâòîâà áàíÿ).10 Èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ Ñåâåðùèíà ñ ×åðíèãîâîì, èçâåñòíûì ñâîèì ñòà- òóñîì “óêðàèíñêîé Ðàâåííû” (òóò, êàæåòñÿ, ñîõðàíèëîñü áîëüøå âñåãî äðåâíåðóññêèõ ïàìÿòíèêîâ), äî ïîñëåäíåãî âðåìåíè âÿëî èíòåðåñîâàëèñü ñâîèì “ëèòîâñêèì íàñëåäñòâîì”. Èíèöèàòèâà åãî èçó÷åíèÿ èñõîäèëà áîëüøåé ÷àñòüþ èç Êèåâà, ãäå íàä ýòîé ïðîáëå-

10 Ñ. Ã. Êîâàëüîâà. ϳâäåííîóêðà¿íñüê³ çåìë³ ³ îñíîâí³ íàïðÿìêè åâîëþö³¿ ñóñï³ëüíî-ïîë³òè÷íîãî æèòòÿ ³ äåðæàâíîñò³ Âåëèêîãî êíÿç³âñòâà Ëèòîâñüêîãî â ² òðåòèí³ ÕV ñòîë³òòÿ // ²ñòîð³ÿ ϳâäíÿ Óêðà¿íè â³ä íàéäàâí³øèõ ÷àñ³â äî ñó÷àñíîñò³. Çá. í. ïð. ó ²²² ÷. ×. ²². Ìèêîëà¿â; Îäåñà, 1999. Ñ. 5-10. 537 Ä. Âûðñêèé, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå êàê èñòîðè÷åñêèé îïûò... ìàòèêîé ïëîäîòâîðíî ðàáîòàåò âûøåóïîìÿíóòàÿ Å. Ðóñèíà. Âïðî÷åì, óñèëèÿìè Ñåðãåÿ Ëåïÿâêî è ñâÿçàííîãî ñ íèì æóðíàëà “Ñ³âåðÿíñüêèé ë³òîïèñ” ïðîáóæäàåòñÿ, â ÷àñòíîñòè, èíòåðåñ ê òåìà- òèêå âîéí çà Ñåâåðùèíó ìåæäó Âèëüíî è Ìîñêâîþ íà ïðîòÿæå- íèè ÕVI â. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýâðèñòè÷åñêèé ïîòåíöèàë ÂÊË êàê “èñòîðè÷åñ- êîãî îïûòà” Óêðàèíû ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî âûñîêèì. ÂÊË âêëþ÷åíî êàê â ãëîáàëüíûé è ðåãèîíàëüíûé, òàê è â îáùåíàöè- îíàëüíûé óðîâíè ìèðîâîñïðèÿòèÿ ñîâðåìåííîãî óêðàèíöà. Ïðè÷åì ýòîò îïûò ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåòñÿ ïîïóëÿðíûì ïàñòîðàëüíûì îáðàçàì “õóòîðÿíñêîé Óêðàèíû”, ýòíîãðàôè÷åñêîé è àâòàðêèéíîé, íåâîñïðèèì÷èâîé ê ëþáûì ìîäåðíèçàöèîííûì ïðîöåññàì. Ðàçíî- îáðàçèå ñôåð ïðèìåíåíèÿ “âåëèêîëèòîâñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ”, åãî íåïîñ- ðåäñòâåííàÿ ñâÿçü ñ êóëüòóðíûìè òðàäèöèÿìè ïîçâîëÿåò ñ îïòè- ìèçìîì îöåíèâàòü ïåðñïåêòèâû ðàçâèòèÿ ëèòóàíèñòèêè â Óêðàèíå.

SUMMARY

The article is devoted to the problems of perception of historical experience of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) at the level of Ukrainian national consciousnesses. The author focuses on the analysis of Ukrainian “visions” of the key questions of “Grandlithuanian” history, while the most attention is paid to their features (as such weak interest to the problem of the begin- nings of GDL, the ambivalent relation to the Lithuanian-Moscow opposi- tion, exaggerated interest to “the Black Sea policy” of GDL, etc.). At the same time, specificity of personal “cults” of public figures of GDL taking place in Ukraine is considered. Regional features of perception of “Grandlithua- nian” inheritance are analyzed and prospects of deployment Lithuanian’s studies in the Ukrainian regions are considered. The conclusion about significant potential of historical experience of GDL for the construction of the intellectual concept of modern Ukraine is made.

538 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Èãîðü ÌÀÐÇÀËÞÊ

ÂÅËÈÊÎÅ ÊÍßÆÅÑÒÂÎ ËÈÒÎÂÑÊÎÅ Â ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÎÉ ÏÀÌßÒÈ ÁÅËÎÐÓÑΖÐÓÑÈÍÎÂ: ÎÒ ÑÐÅÄÍÅÂÅÊÎÂÜß Ê ÌÎÄÅÐÍÓ

Áåëîðóññêèé îáðàç Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî (äàëåå – ÂÊË) ñåãîäíÿ – ýòî âåñüìà êîìïëèìåíòàðíûé äëÿ áåëîðóñîâ, âî ìíî- ãîì ýòíîöåíòðè÷íûé è ìèôîëîãèçèðîâàííûé, îáðàç “æåëàåìîé èñòîðèè”, äëÿ êîòîðîãî ïðèñóùè ñëåäóþùèå îñíîâîïîëàãàþùèå òåçèñû.1 Âî-ïåðâûõ, óæå ñ ìîìåíòà ñâîåãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ ÂÊË áûëî íå òîëüêî ëèòîâñêèì, íî è áåëîðóññêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì. Áåëîðóñ- ñêèå çåìëè âîøëè â åãî ñîñòàâ ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ìèðíûì ïóòåì. Âî-âòîðûõ, èíèöèàòèâà ñîçäàíèÿ âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà èñõîäèëà îò ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêîé çíàòè Áåëîðóññêîãî Ïîíåìàíüÿ.  íàèáîëåå ðàäèêàëüíûõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ óòâåðæäàåòñÿ, áóäòî áû îíè ïîä÷èíèëè è çàâîåâàëè ñîáñòâåííî ëèòîâñêèå çåìëè.

1 Íàèáîëåå äåòàëüíûé àíàëèç íàöèîíàëüíîé áåëîðóññêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè ñìîòðè: Rainer Lindner. Historiker und Herrschaft. Nationsbildung und Geschichtspolitik in Weißrußland im 19 und 20. Jahrhundert. München, 1999; Ïåðåâîä äàííîãî òðóäà íà áåëîðóññêèé ÿçûê îñóùåñòâëåí â ïðîøëîì ãîäó. Ñì.: Ðàéíýð ˳íäíýð. óñòîðûê³ ³ ¢ëàäà. Íàöûÿòâîð÷û ïðàöýñ ³ ã³ñòàðû÷íàÿ ïàë³òûêà ¢ Áåëàðóñ³ XIX – XX ñò. ̳íñê, 2003. 539 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... Â-òðåòüèõ, áåëîðóññêàÿ êóëüòóðà â ÂÊË áûëà äîìèíèðóþùåé, à áåëîðóñû ÿâëÿëèñü ñâîåîáðàçíûìè êóëüòóðòðåãåðàìè ïî îòíî- øåíèþ ê ëèòîâöàì. Âåñüìà èíòåðåñíî ïðîñëåäèòü âðåìÿ âîçíèê- íîâåíèÿ è èñòîêè äàííûõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé, ñîïîñòàâèòü ýòîò îáðàç “ñâîåé” èñòîðèè, áûâøèé õàðàêòåðíûì äëÿ âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêîé ýëèòû ÂÊË, ñ ñîâðåìåííûì áåëîðóññêèì èñòîðè÷åñêèì ñàìîñîç- íàíèåì. Àíàëèçó äàííîé ïðîáëåìû ïîñâÿùåíà íàøà ñòàòüÿ. Êàê èçâåñòíî, Êðåâñêàÿ óíèÿ 1385 ã. è õðèñòèàíèçàöèÿ Ëèòâû â êàòîëè÷åñòâî â 1387 ã. ïåðå÷åðêíóëè âîçìîæíîñòü êóëüòóðíîé àññèìèëÿöèè áàëòîâ-ëèòîâöåâ ïî ïðàâîñëàâíîìó – “ðóñèíñêîìó” îáðàçöó. Îíè ñîçäàëè ñèòóàöèþ äèñêðèìèíàöèè ïðàâîñëàâíûõ íîáèëåé, è îñòàíîâèëè ìèññèîíåðñêóþ äåÿòåëüíîñòü ïðàâîñëàâ- íîé öåðêâè íà áàëòñêèõ çåìëÿõ âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà. Ýòî ñðàçó âûç- âàëî íåãàòèâíóþ ðåàêöèþ â ñðåäíåâåêîâîé ïðàâîñëàâíîé áåëîðóñ- ñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè. Êàê ïðèìåð ìîæíî ïðèâåñòè Ëåòîïèñåö ðóñ- ñêèõ öàðåé (èçâåñòíûé òàêæå ïîä íàçâàíèåì Ëåòîïèñåö Ïåðåÿñëàâ- ëÿ Ñóçäàëüñêîãî), ïîñëåäíåé ÷åòâåðòè ÕIV – íà÷àëå ÕV â. Äëÿ ïàìÿòíèêà õàðàêòåðíà ïîëåìè÷åñêàÿ çàîñòðåííîñòü ñòàòåé, íàïðàâëåííûõ ïðîòè⠓ëàòèííèêîâ”, ïîä÷åðêèâàíèå áîëüøåé ðàçâèòîñòè è äðåâíîñòè ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé òðàäèöèè “ðóññêèõ” çåìåëü ÂÊË ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ ëèòîâñêèìè. Àâòîð õðîíèêè óêàçûâàë íà èñêîííóþ çàâèñèìîñòü îò Ðóñè ëèòîâñêèõ ïëåìåí. “ Ïå÷åðà, Èìü, Ëèòâà, èñïðúâà èñêîíí³è äàííèöè è êîíîêîðúìöè, Çèìãîëà, Êîðñü, Íåðîìà ñèðå÷ü Æåìîèòü, Ëèáü”.2 Âàæíåéøåé öåëüþ àâòîðà “Ëåòîïèñöà” áûëî ñòðåìëåíèå ïîä÷åðê- íóòü âûñøèé ñòàòóñ âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèõ çåìåëü áûâøåé Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè, âîøåäøèõ â ÂÊË, â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ýòíè÷åñêîé Ëèòâîé. Ðåàëè- çàöèè äàííîãî çàìûñëà äîëæíà áûëà ñïîñîáñòâîâàòü òèòóëàòóðà ïðàâèòåëåé, êîòîðóþ èñïîëüçîâàë ñîçäàòåëü ïàìÿòíèêà, ãîâîðÿ î Ðþðèêîâè÷àõ è îñíîâàííîì èìè ãîñóäàðñòâå: “öàðü”, “öàðñòâî”, ëèòîâñêèõ æå ïðàâèòåëåé îí íàçûâàåò ïðîñòî “êíÿçüÿìè”.3

2 Ëåòîïèñåö Ïåðåÿñëàâëÿ-Ñóçäàëüñêîãî. Ìîñêâà, 1851. Ñ. 2. 3 Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî ñëîâî “Öàðü” (â îòëè÷èå îò èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ñâåòñêîãî òèòóëà “öåçàðü”) èìåëî â Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè ÿðêî î÷åð÷åííûé ñàêðàëüíûé õàðàêòåð è ñâè- äåòåëüñòâîâàëî òàêæå î áîãîèçáðàííîñòè ãîñóäàðñòâà (“Öàðüãðàä” – ýòî íå òîëüêî ðåçèäåíöèÿ èìïåðàòîðà, íî è “ãîðîä Õðèñòà”). Òèòóëàòóðû “Öåçàðü” è “êîðîëü” â âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêîé òðàäèöèè ðàññìàòðèâàëèñü êàê ÷èñòî ñâåòñêèå, êîòîðûå èìåëè áîëåå íèçêèé ñòàòóñ â ñðàâíåíèè ñî ñëîâîì “Öàðü”, êîòîðîå áûëî çàèìñò- âîâàíî íåïîñðåäñòâåííî èç Áèáëèè. Ïîêàçàòåëüíî è ïîä÷åðêèâàíèå ñëàâÿíñêîé 540 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ñëåäóþùèé òåêñò, ñîäåðæàâøèé èíòåðåñóþùèå íàñ èäåè – Áåëîðóññêî-ëèòîâñêàÿ ëåòîïèñü 1446 ã., êîìïèëÿöèÿ, ñîñòàâëåííàÿ íà îñíîâå Ñìîëåíñêîé õðîíèêè, “Ïîõâàëû Âèòîâòó”, ïðîäîëæåíèÿ Ëåòîïèñöà Âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé Ëèòîâñêèõ è êðàòêèõ çàïèñåé ïðî ñîáû- òèÿ 1432-1445 ãã.4  äàííîé õðîíèêå îòðàæåíû èñòîðè÷åñêèå âçãëÿäû ïðàâîñëàâíîãî ðóñèíñêîãî íîáèëèòåòà ÂÊË. Ïåðåä íàìè ïðåäñòàåò åùå îäíà ñõåìà èñòîðèè Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðî- ïû, â êîòîðîé Êèåâñêàÿ Ðóñü âûñòóïàåò êàê ïåðâîíà÷àëüíàÿ ôîðìà ëè÷íîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè ðóñèíîâ ÂÊË. Âèëüíî òîëüêî ïåðåíÿë êèåâñêèå òðàäèöèè. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ÂÊË ïðåäñòàâëåíî êàê ëåãè- òèìíûé ïðàâîïðååìíèê Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè, êàê “ñâîå” ãîñóäàðñòâî. Ïîêàçàòåëüíî, ÷òî â äàííîé ëåòîïèñè íèãäå íå ãîâîðèòñÿ î ïåðâî- íà÷àëüíîì ãåíåçèñå ÂÊË, è î êàêèõ áû òàì íè áûëî çàâîåâàíèÿõ ëèòîâñêèõ êíÿçåé íà ñîâðåìåííîé òåððèòîðèè çàïàäíî-âîñòî÷íîé è þãî-âîñòî÷íîé Áåëàðóñè. Âñå ñîáûòèÿ òðàêòóþòñÿ â ðàìêàõ ôîð- ìèðîâàíèÿ åäèíîãî ëèòîâñêî-ðóñèíñêîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî íàðîäà, êîòîðîå øëî êàê ðàç â ñåðåäèíå – âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå ÕV âåêà.5 Ýòà êîíöåïöèÿ ïîçæå áóäåò ïîëîæåíà â îñíîâó îôèöèàëüíîé âåðñèè áåëîðóññêîé íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè. Ïðàâäà, áåëî- ðóññêèå èñòîðèêè, íà÷èíàÿ ñ Îñèïà Òóð÷èíîâè÷à è Àäàìà Êèðêî- ðà, íà ìåñòî Êèåâà íà÷íóò ñòàâèòü Ïîëîöê.6 Ïðè÷åì, äëÿ îáîñíî- âàíèÿ ýòîãî òåçèñà îíè âûíóæäåíû áóäóò îáðàòèòüñÿ ê ïîçäíèì ëåòîïèñíûì ñâîäàì, ñîçäàííûì â Ìîñêîâñêîì ãîñóäàðñòâå. Èìåí-

èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîñòè. Óæå îäèí èç ïåðâûõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé “Ëåòîïèñöà”, Ä. Ïîëÿêîâ, îáðàòèë âíèìàíèå íà òó îñîáåííîñòü, ÷òî “‘Ëåòîïèñåö Ðóñêèõ Öàðåé’ íà÷è- íàåòñÿ íå êîñìîãðàôèåé, êàê ó Íåñòîðà, ýòî çíà÷èò, íå ñ ñûíîâ Íîÿ, à ïðÿìî ñî ñëàâÿí” (È. Í. Äàíèëåâñêèé. Ìîã ëè Êèåâ áûòü Íîâûì Èåðóñàëèìîì? // Îäèññåé. ×åëîâåê â èñòîðèè. Ëè÷íîñòü è îáùåñòâî. Ïðîáëåìû ñàìîèäåí- òèôèêàöèè. Ìîñêâà, 1998. Ñ. 146.). Èìåííî ñëàâÿíå äëÿ ñîçäàòåëÿ ýòîãî èñòî÷íèêà ÿâëÿþòñÿ åäâà ëè íå åäèíñòâåííûìè íàñëåäíèêàìè “ïëåìåíè Àôåòîâà”. 4 Âäîõíîâèòåëåì ñîçäàíèÿ Ñìîëåíñêîé õðîíèêè áûë åïèñêîï (ïîçæå ìèòðîïîëèò) Ãåðàñèì, ïàòðèîò ÂÊË è ñòîðîííèê ñîõðàíåíèÿ åãî öåëîñòíîñòè. (Í. Í. Óëàùèê. Ââåäåíèå â èçó÷åíèå Áåëîðóññêî-Ëèòîâñêîãî ëåòîïèñàíèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 1985. Ñ. 27; S. Smolka. Najdawniejsye pomniki dziejopisarstwa rusko- litewskiego // Pamiêtnik Akademii Umiejêtnoœci. T. VIII. S. 1-55). 5 J. Suchocki. Formowanie siê i sk³ad narodu politycznego w Wielkim Ksiêstwie Litewskim pó¿nego œredniowiecza // Zapiski historyczne. 2001. T. LXVI. Z. 4. S. 31-77; Jerzy K³oczowski M³odsza Europa. Warszawa, 1998. S. 452. 6 Æèâîïèñíàÿ Ðîññèÿ. Ìèíñê, 1993. Ò. 3. ×. 2. Ñ. 290-293; Â. Ãàëóáîâ³÷. Ïåðûÿäûçàöûÿ ÿê ïðàáëåìà ã³ñòàðûÿãðàô³³ Áåëàðóñ³ // óñòàðû÷íû àëüìàíàõ. Ãðîäíà, 2002. Ò. 7. Ñ. 5. 541 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... íî â Ìîñêâå áûë ñîçäàí ìèô î ïðîèñõîæäåíèè ëèòîâñêîé äèíàñòèè îò ïîëîöêèõ êíÿçåé. Ñîãëàñíî åìó, Ãåäèìèíîâè÷è íå èìåëè ïðàâ íà çåìëè, êîòîðûå âõîäèëè â ñîñòàâ Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè, à òîëüêî íà Ïî- ëîöê êàê èõ “âîò÷èíó”. Íà ïåðåãîâîðàõ 1562 ã. î Ëèâîíèè ìîñêîâ- ñêàÿ ñòîðîíà çàÿâëÿëà: Òîëüêî âñïîìíèòü ñòàðèíó, êàêèì îáðàçîì ãåòìàíû ëèòîâ- ñêèå Ðîãâîëîäîâè÷åé Äàíèëà äà Ìîâêîëüäà íà Ëèòîâñêîå êíÿ- æåñòâî âçÿëè è êàêèì îáðàçîì âåëèêîìó ãîñóäàðþ Ìñòèñëàâó Âëàäèìèðîâè÷ó Ìîíîìàøó ê Êèåâó äàíü äàâàëè, òî íå òîëüêî ÷òî Ðóññêàÿ çåìëÿ âñÿ, íî è Ëèòîâñêàÿ çåìëÿ âñÿ – âîò÷èíà ãîñóäàðÿ íàøåãî.7 Íåêðèòè÷åñêîå çàèìñòâîâàíèå ýòîãî òåçèñà ïðèâåëî ê âîçíèê- íîâåíèþ äîñòàòî÷íî øèðîêî ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîãî ìèôà â îòå÷åñòâåí- íîé ïîïóëÿðíîé ëèòåðàòóðå î áåëîðóññêîì ïðîèñõîæäåíèè âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé ëèòîâñêèõ.8 Ñâîÿ èñòîðèêî-ãåíåòè÷åñêàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ, â êîòîðîé áûëà âûñêà- çàíà ïðåòåíçèÿ íà çåìëè ÂÊË, âîçíèêëà è â Êîðîíå Ïîëüñêîé. Íàè- áîëåå ÿðêèì åå ïðåäñòàâèòåëåì ñ÷èòàåòñÿ ßí Äëóãîø (1415-1480), íàïèñàâøèé “Èñòîðèþ”, â êîòîðîé ãîâîðèëîñü î “ðóññêèõ” è “ëè- òîâñêèõ” ïðîâèíöèÿõ Ïîëüøè. Ïî ñëîâàì õðîíèñòà, ëåãåíäàðíûé “Ðóñ”, ïðåäîê ðóñèíîâ, áûë íå áðàòîì, à îäíèì èç ïîòîìêîâ ðîäî- íà÷àëüíèêà ïîëÿêî⠖ Ëåõà. Ïîýòîìó ïîòîìêè Ðóñà òðàêòîâàëèñü Äëóãîøåì êàê ÷àñòü ïîëüñêîãî íàðîäà. Êèåâñêèõ ïîëÿí îí îòîæäåñò- âëÿë ñ ïîëÿêàìè, à Êèÿ íàçûâàë ïîëüñêèì êíÿçåì. Àñêîëüä è Äèð, ñîãëàñíî “Èñòîðèè”, ÿâëÿëèñü ïîòîìêàìè Êèÿ. Íî îíè ïîãèáëè îò ðóê çàõâàòèâøèõ âëàñòü âàðÿæñêèõ êíÿçåé. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýêñïàíñèîíèñòñêàÿ âîñòî÷íàÿ ïîëèòèêà Êîðîíû â îòíîøåíèè Ãàëèöêî-Âîëûíñêîé Ðóñè è ñòðåìëåíèå ÂÊË ê èíêîðïîðàöèè, ïîä ïåðîì Äëóãîøà âûãëÿäåëî êàê âîññòàíîâëåíèå ñòàðèííîé ñâÿçè ìåæäó ÷àñòÿìè êîãäà-òî åäèíîãî íàðîäà.  ñî÷èíåíèè òàêæå ñîäåðæàëàñü ëåãåíäà, ÷òî ëèòîâöû è ñàìà- ãèòû – íàðîäû ëàòèíñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ. Îíè áåæàëè ñ Àïåí- íèíñêîãî ïîëóîñòðîâà âî âðåìåíà ãðàæäàíñêèõ âîéí ñïåðâà Ìà- ðèÿ è Ñóëëû (89-87 ãã. äî í. ý.), çàòåì – Þëèÿ Öåçàðÿ è Ïîìïåÿ (49-48 ãã. äî í. ý.). Äàòîé èñõîäà ïîëüñêèé èñòîðèê íàçûâàåò 714 ã.

7 Öèòàòà ïî: Ñ. Ì. Ñîëîâüåâ. Ñî÷èíåíèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 1989. Êí. III. Ò. 5-6. Ñ. 556. 8 Ì. ². Åðìàëîâ³÷. Ñòàðàæûòíàÿ Áåëàðóñü. Ïîëàöê³ ³ Íîâàãàðîäñê³ ïåðûÿäû. ̳íñê, 1990. Ñ. 315-325; Idem. Ïà ñëÿäàõ àäíàãî ì³ôà. ̳íñê, 1991. Ñ. 56-81. 542 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 îò îñíîâàíèÿ Ðèìà, òî åñòü 39 ã. äî í. ý. Ðóêîâîäèë ïåðåñåëåíöàìè êíÿçü Âèëèé. Ïî åãî èìåíè áûëà íàçâàíà ñòîëèöà – Âèëüíî. Íîâóþ ðîäèíó ñòàëè èìåíîâàòü “L’Italia”, “Ëèòàëèÿ”. Ïîçæå ýòî ñëîâî òðàíñôîðìèðîâàëîñü ⠓Ëèòâó”. Äàííàÿ ëåãåíäà áûëà íàïðàâëåíà ïðîòèâ áàëòñêîé ýëèòû ÂÊË, êîòîðàÿ îòñòàèâàëà â òî âðåìÿ íåîá- õîäèìîñòü ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà. Äëóãîø ïèñàë, ÷òî ñáåæàâøèå èç Èòàëèè ïðåäêè ëèòîâöåâ ïîñå- ëèëèñü íà çåìëå, êîòîðàÿ ïðèíàäëåæàëà ðóññêèì êíÿçüÿì, è æèëè òûñÿ÷ó ëåò ïîä èõ âëàñòüþ êàê “servile vulgus”. Ó÷èòûâàÿ, ÷òî “ðóñ- ñêèå” – ÷àñòü ïîëüñêîãî íàðîäà, òî ïîëó÷àëîñü, ÷òî ëèòîâöû æèëè íà èñêîííî ïîëüñêèõ çåìëÿõ.9 Èìåííî äëÿ îïðîâåðæåíèÿ è ìîñêîâñêîé, è ïîëüñêîé êîíöåï- öèé áûëà ñîçäàíà ëåãåíäàðíàÿ ÷àñòü Âòîðîãî áåëîðóññêî-ëèòîâ- ñêîãî ñâîäà. Ïîä ïåðîì ëåòîïèñöåâ ìèô î ðèìñêîì ïðîèñõîæäå- íèè ëèòîâöåâ ïðèîáðåë ÷åòêóþ àíòèïîëüñêóþ íàïðàâëåííîñòü.  íåì ïîä÷åðêèâàëèñü áîëåå âûñîêèé ñòàòóñ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè ÂÊË â ñðàâíåíèè ñ Ïîëüøåé è áëàãîðîäñòâî ëèòîâñêîé øëÿõòû. Îí áûë ïðèçâàí ïîäòâåðäèòü ôàêò ïðÿìîé ïåðåäà÷è âëàñòè èç èì- ïåðñêîãî Ðèìà â Ëèòâó, è òàêèì îáðàçîì ïîä÷åðêíóòü “èññòàðè” áîëåå âûñîêèé ñòàòóñ ëèòîâñêèõ ìîíàðõîâ è íîáèëåé â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ïîëüñêîé àðèñòîêðàòèåé.10  íàèáîëåå ðàçâåðíóòîé è çàâåðøåííîé ôîðìå ýòà êîíöåïöèÿ íàøëà îòðàæåíèå â Òðåòüåì áåëîðóññêî-ëèòîâñêîì ëåòîïèñíîì ñâîäå, “Õðîíèêå Áûõîâöà”.  ñîäåðæàùåìñÿ â íåì ðàññêàçå î âûäà÷å ïîëüñêèõ ãåðáîâ ëèòîâñêîé àðèñòîêðàòèè íåäâóñìûñëåííî ïîä÷åð- êèâàëàñü ïåðâîíà÷àëüíàÿ “ïðîñòîòà” è “ïëåáåéñòâî” ïîëüñêîé øëÿõòû â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ëèòîâñêîé.11 Âñòóïëåíèå â ãåðáîâûå ïîëüñêèå ñîþçû òðàêòîâàëîñü àâòîðîì “Õðîíèêè Áûõîâöà” íå êàê àêò íîáè- ëèòàöèè ëèòîâñêîé çíàòè ïîëüñêîé øëÿõòîé, à êàê æåñò äîáðîé âîëè, íàïðàâëåííûé íà óêðåïëåíèå “áðàòñòâà” ïðèâèëåãèðîâàííûõ ïîëîæåíèé Ëèòâû è Êîðîíû. Ëåòîïèñåö ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿë îáðàç ßãàéëî, êàê ëåãèòèìíîãî ïðàâèòåëÿ Ëèòâû, ñîáèðàòåëüíîìó îáðàçó ïîëÿêîâ, ïîëüñêîé øëÿõòû. Ïðèçûâ ïîëÿêàìè ßãàéëû íà êîðîëåâ-

9 Á. Í. Ôëîðÿ. Ðóñü è “ðóññêèå” â èñòîðèêî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîé êîíöåïöèè ßíà Äëóãîøà // Ñëàâÿíå è èõ ñîñåäè. Ýòíîïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèå ñòåðåîòèïû â ñðåäíèå âåêà. Ìîñêâà, 1990. Ñ. 16-28. 10 M. Zachara-Wawrzyñczyk. Geneza legendy o rzymskim pochodzeniu Litwinów // Zeszyty Historyczne Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. T. III. Warszawa, 1963. S. 5-35. 11 Áåëàðóñê³ÿ ëåòàï³ñû ³ õðîí³ê³. ̳íñê, 1997. C. 106. 543 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... ñêèé ñòîë ïîä ïåðîì õðîíèñòà âûãëÿäèò êàê âûíóæäåííûé øàã, îáóñ- ëîâëåííûé âîåííûìè óñïåõàìè Ëèòâû, åå ïîáåäàìè íàä ïîëÿêàìè.12 Îòñóòñòâèå ðîäîâèòûõ ïðåäêîâ, ïåðâîíà÷àëüíàÿ “ïðîñòîòà”, ïëåáåéñêîñòü ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, ïî ñðåäíåâåêîâûì ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿì, ñïîñîáñòâîâàëà è ñîâåðøåíèþ íåáëàãîðîäíûõ ïîñòóïêîâ: íåâû- ïîëíåíèþ âàññàëüíûõ îáÿçàííîñòåé, òðóñîñòè, íåáëàãîâèäíîìó ïîâåäåíèþ. ×åðåç “Õðîíèêó Áûõîâöà” êðàñíîé íèòüþ ïðîõîäèò èäåÿ î áîëüøåì áëàãîðîäñòâå è ìóæåñòâå íîáèëåé ÂÊË ïî ñðàâíå- íèþ ñ ïîëÿêàìè. Èìåííî âîéñêî ÂÊË ÿâëÿåòñÿ ãëàâíûì ïîáåäè- òåëåì â Ãðþíâàëüäñêîé áèòâå (1410). “Ëÿõè” âûñòóïàþò ëèøü ïàñ- ñèâíûìè çðèòåëÿìè â íàèáîëåå êðèòè÷åñêèå ìîìåíòû. Òîëüêî îäèí êàìîðíûé (îõðàííûé) êîðîëåâñêèé ãóô ßãàéëî ïðèíèìàåò ó÷àñ- òèå â ñðàæåíèè.13 Ïîëüñêèå ïàíû èçîáðàæàþòñÿ â ìðà÷íûõ òîíàõ, êàê êëÿòâîîòñòóïíèêè, ñïîñîáíûå äëÿ îñóùåñòâëåíèÿ ñâîèõ öåëåé ïîéòè íà óáèéñòâî ñâîèõ ãåðáîâûõ “áðàòüåâ”, ïàíîâ ëèòîâñêèõ.14 Ïîä÷åðêèâàíèå ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîñòè Ëèòâû è åå ïîáåä íàä òàòà- ðàìè âî âðåìåíà íàøåñòâèÿ Áàòûÿ áûëî íàïðàâëåíî è ïðîòèâ Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, èáî çàâèñèìîñòü îò Îðäû íà ñòîëåòèÿ èñêëþ÷èëà åå ïðàâèòåëåé èç êðóãà ðàâíîïðàâíûõ ñóâåðåíîâ, ñäå- ëàëà èõ äàííèêàìè õàíà. Íàïîìèíàíèå î ïðîøëîé çàâèñèìîñòè â Ìîñêâå âîñïðèíèìàëè î÷åíü áîëåçíåííî, êàê îñêîðáëåíèå. Êîãäà â 1566 ã. ïîñëû Æèãèìîíòà Àâãóñòà, ññûëàÿñü íà õðîíèêè, íàïîì- íèëè î çàâèñèìîñòè Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà îò Îðäû, òî â îòâåò îò äüÿêà Ï. Ãðèãîðüåâà óñëûøàëè: “È ìû òîãî íå ñëûõàëè, ÷òîáû òàòàðîâå Ìîñêâó âîåâàëè, òîãî íå íàïèñàíî íèãäå, à â ñâîè êðîíè- êè ÷òî çàõîòèòå, òî ïèøèòå!”.15 Âìåñòå ñ òåì, â áåëîðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèõ ëåòîïèñÿõ, ñîçäàííûõ â XVI â. è ñîäåðæàùèõ ëåãåíäàðíóþ ÷àñòü î ïðîèñõîæäåíèè âåëè- êèõ êíÿçåé ëèòîâñêèõ, áîëüøîå çíà÷åíèå ïðèäàâàëîñü íå òîëüêî îáîñíîâàíèþ ëåãèòèìíîñòè ïðàâëåíèÿ ëèòîâñêîé äèíàñòèè íàä âîñ- òî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèìè çåìëÿìè êíÿæåñòâà, íî è ó÷èòûâàëèñü èíòåðåñû ïðàâîñëàâíîé çíàòè ãîñóäàðñòâà, ñîñòàâíîé ÷àñòè “ïîëèòè÷åñ- êîãî íàðîäà ÂÊ˔.  ëåãåíäàðíîé ÷àñòè õðîíèê ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü, ÷òî ïðèñîåäèíåíèå òåððèòîðèè ñîâðåìåííîé þãî-çàïàäíîé Áåëà-

12 Òàì æå. Ñ. 124 13 Òàì æå. Ñ. 120 14 Òàì æå. Ñ. 141. 15 Öèòàòà ïî: Ë. À. Þçåôîâè÷. “Êàê â ïîñîëüñêèõ îáû÷àÿõ âåäåòñÿ ”. Ìîñêâà, 1988. Ñ. 26. 544 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ðóñè ïðîèçîøëî ìèðíûì ïóòåì. Ëèòîâñêàÿ äèíàñòèÿ ïðèøëà íà ýòè çåìëè ïîñëå îïóñòîøåíèÿ èõ òàòàðàìè è âûñòóïèëà êàê îñâîáîäè- òåëü îò õàíñêîãî ãíåòà, à íå êàê çàâîåâàòåëü è çàõâàò÷èê.16 Âñå ëåòî- ïèñè ïîä÷åðêèâàëè, ÷òî ëèòîâñêèå âåëèêèå êíÿçüÿ çàâëàäåëè þãî- çàïàäîì Áåëàðóñè, íå âñòðå÷àÿ íèêàêîãî ñîïðîòèâëåíèÿ ñî ñòîðî- íû ìåñòíîãî íàñåëåíèÿ è äàæå ïðè åãî ïîääåðæêå. Âîéíû ïðîòèâ âîëûíñêèõ êíÿçåé è òàòàð ïîêàçàíû êàê îáîðîíèòåëüíûå.17 Î÷åíü áîëüøîå âíèìàíèå è çíà÷åíèå â õðîíèêàõ ïðèäàâàëîñü Íîâîãðóäêó è íîâîãðóäñêèì äðóæèíàì. Ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü, ÷òî ïîë- íîå îáúåäèíåíèå òðåõ ñîñòàâíûõ ÷àñòåé ãîñóäàðñòâà ïðîèçîøëî ïðè ëåãåíäàðíîì íîâîãðóäñêîì êíÿçå Øâèíòîðîãå, êîòîðûé ïîñëå ñìåðòè Óòåíóñà ñòàë òàêæå êíÿçåì Ëèòâû è Æìóäè. Ïîñëå ýòîãî ãîñóäàðñòâî ñòàëî íàçûâàòüñÿ Âåëèêèì Êíÿæåñòâîì Ëèòîâñêèì, Æåìîéòñêèì, Íîâîãðóäñêèì è Ðóññêèì. Ïðè÷åì, îáúåäèíåíèå ïðîèçîøëî áåç èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ñèëû. Ðîëü Íîâîãðóäñêîé çåìëè â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ñîáñòâåííî Ëèòâîé è Æìóäüþ, êàê ïîêàçàë Í. Í. Óëàùèê, âîçâåëè÷èâàåò òàêæå ïðåäà- íèå î Ïàëåìîíå è åãî ïîòîìêàõ. Ïàëåìîíîì áåëîðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèå ëåòîïèñè íàçûâàþò ðîäñòâåííèêà èìïåðàòîðà Âåëèêîãî Ðèìà Íåðîíà, êîòîðûé íå âûíåñ òèðàíèè æåñòîêîãî ïðàâèòåëÿ è áåæàë èç Èòàëèè ñ 500-ìè ñïóòíèêàìè â ïîèñêàõ íîâûõ çåìåëü. Áåãëåöû îáëþáîâàëè ñåáå çåìëè â Æåìàéòèè, Ëèòâå è Íîâîãðóä÷èíå. Ïîòîì- êè Ïàëåìîíà ïðàâèëè â ýòèõ çåìëÿõ è îñíîâàëè äèíàñòèþ ëèòîâñ- êèõ ãîñóäàðåé. Îêîëî 80% òåêñòà ëåãåíäû êàñàåòñÿ Íîâîãðóäêà è Íîâîãðóäñêîãî êíÿæåñòâà. Åãî ïðàâèòåëè íîñèëè òèòóë âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ.  ëåãåíäå ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü, ÷òî ïðàâèëè Íîâîãðóäêîì, è òîëü- êî èì, ïðÿìûå ïîòîìêè Ïàëåìîíà. À êíÿçüÿ Ëèòâû è Æìóäè – ïîòîìêè âàññàëîâ Ïàëåìîíà, ÿâëÿëèñü âòîðîðàçðÿäíûìè äåÿòåëÿìè.18

16 Â. Ò. Ïàøóòî. Îáðàçîâàíèå Ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Ìîñêâà, 1959. Ñ. 71; Í. Í. Óëàùèê. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 152-154. 17 Í. Í. Óëàùèê. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 155; Ç. Þ. Êàïûñê³. Áåëàðóñêà-ë³òî¢ñê³ÿ ëåòàï³ñû XV-XVI ñòñò. ÿê ïîìí³ê³ ã³ñòàðû÷íàé äóìê³ // Âåñö³ Àêàäýì³³ íàâóê. Ñåðûÿ ãðàìàäñê³õ íàâóê. Ìèíñê, 1986. ¹ 4. Ñ. 80-87. 18 Í. Í. Óëàùèê. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ.143, 150-156, 159, 167; À. È. Ôèëþøêèí. Ê âîïðîñó î ðåäàêöèÿõ áåëîðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèõ ëåòîïèñåé. ( ñâÿçè ñ ðàçâèòèåì ëåãåíäû î Ïàëåìîíå) // Ñòàðîíê³ ã³ñòîðû³ Ìàã³ëåâà. Ìàã³ëå¢, 1998. Ñ. 41-50; åãî æå. Ëåãåíäàðíûå ðîäîñëîâöû âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé ëèòîâñêèõ è âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé ìîñêîâñêèõ // Ðóññêèé ðîäîñëîâåö. Ìîñêâà, 2001. Âûï. 1. Ñ. 6–14; åãî æå. Ñêàçêè î Ëèòàëèè // Ðîäèíà. Ðîññèéñêèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé æóðíàë. 2003. ¹ 11. Ñ. 51-54; Â. Ïàçäíÿêî¢. Ïàëåìîí // ÁÃÝ. ̳íñê, 1999. Ò. 5. Ñ. 384. 545 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... Íå ìåíåå âàæåí è äðóãîé ìîìåíò. Íè ó îäíîãî èç ëåòîïèñöåâ íå âûçâàë ñîìíåíèÿ òîò ôàêò, ÷òî ëåãèòèìíûìè âëàäåëüöàìè âîñòî÷íîåâðîïåéñêèõ çåìåëü “èññòàðè” ÿâëÿëèñü èìåííî “êèåâñêèå ìîíàðõè”. È òîëüêî íàøåñòâèå Áàòûÿ èçìåíèëî ñèòóàöèþ â ïîëüçó ëèòîâñêèõ ïðàâèòåëåé. Âîéíû òåõ æå âîëûíñêèõ êíÿçåé ïðîòèâ ìèôè÷åñêèõ ëèòîâñêèõ êíÿçåé Ðèíãîëüòà, Ñêèðìóíòà êàê ðàç âûç- âàíû ïîïûòêîé ðåñòàâðàöèè “äåäè÷íûõ” ïðàâ âîëûíöåâ íà çåìëè, êîòîðûå îíè ïîòåðÿëè â ðåçóëüòàòå ñâîåé ëè÷íîé ñëàáîñòè, îáóñ- ëîâëåííîé ïîä÷èíåíèåì òàòàðàì.19 Ïðàâèòåëè ÂÊË ïðîñòî “ïîäî- áðàëè” ýòó âëàñòü. Î ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîñòè ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î ìèðíîì ïðèñîåäèíåíèè âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèõ çåìåëü ê Ëèòâå â îêðóæåíèè ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ýëèòû êíÿæåñòâà ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò è ïóáëèöèñòè÷åñêèé ïàìÿòíèê ÕVI â. “Ðàçãîâîð Ïîëÿêà ñ Ëèòâèíîì”.  íåì óòâåðæäàåòñÿ, ÷òî “Ðóñü” äîáðîâîëüíî, ïîñëå ïîáåäû ëèòîâöåâ íàä òàòàðàìè, âñòó- ïèëà â ïîääàíñòâî ê Ëèòâå.  äàííîì ñëó÷àå èíòåðåñíî òî, ÷òî ïîäîáíûå âçãëÿäû îçâó÷èâàë íå ðóñèí, à âèëåíñêèé âîéò Àâãóñ- òèí Ðàòóíäóñ.20 Òåçèñ î äîáðîâîëüíîì ïðèñîåäèíåíèè áûë ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî âàæåí â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü äëÿ ðóñèíñêîãî íîáèëèòåòà ÂÊË. Îí ïîçâîëÿë óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî èõ âëàäåíèÿ – íå çàâîåâàííûå ÷óæèå ïðîâèíöèè, à ÷àñòèöà áîëåå îáøèðíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, êîòîðîå ñîõðàíÿëî ïîë- íîïðàâíûé ñóâåðåíèòåò â ñðåäíåâåêîâîì ïîíÿòèè in dominium Suum rex imperator est (ò. å. ïîääàííûé ïðèçíàåò âûñøåãî ïðàâèòåëÿ ñ óñëî- âèåì ñîõðàíåíèÿ íåîãðàíè÷åííîãî âëàñòâîâàíèÿ íà ëè÷íîé òåð- ðèòîðèè). Î òîì, êàêàÿ âàæíîñòü ïðèäàâàëàñü èìåííî ìèðíîìó ïðèñîåäèíåíèþ, äîñòàòî÷íî êðàñíîðå÷èâî ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò ïðèìåð Æìóäè.  1554 ã. íà Âèëåíñêîì âàëüíîì ñåéìå â îòâåòàõ âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ íà ïðîñüáû Æìóäè ãîâîðèëîñü: èæ íà ïðèâèëåþ ïðåäêîâ åãî êðîëåâñêîå ìèëîñòè, ñëàâ- íîå ïàìåòè êîðîëåé èõ ìèëîñòè, âåëèêèõ [êíÿçåé], íèêòî âàì ïðèìîâëÿòè íå ìàåòü, àáû åñòå ÷åðåç ìå÷ àáî çáðîþ áûëè äîáûòû è êó ïîñëóøåíñòâó ïðåäêîâ åãî êðîëåâñêîå ìèëîñòè

19 Ïîëíîå ñîáðàíèå Ðóññêèõ ëåòîïèñåé (äàëåå – ÏÑÐË). Ìîñêâà, 1980. Ò. 35. Ñ. 92, 130, 147. 20 À. Ñ. Ìûëüíèêîâ. Êàðòèíà ñëàâÿíñêîãî ìèðà. Âçãëÿä èç Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1999. Ñ. 238. 546 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïðûâåðíåíû, àëå ïðåäêîâå âàøû ñàìè äîáðîâîëüíî ïðåäêîì åãî êðîëåâñêîå ìèëîñòè ïîäàëè ñÿ ñóòü.21 Ïîäîáíûå èäåè áûëè øèðîêî ðàñïðîñòðàíåíû è â ïåðâîé ïîëî- âèíå XVII â. â ïðàâîñëàâíîé óêðàèíñêîé ýëèòå, êîòîðàÿ äåêëàðè- ðîâàëà ôàêò äîáðîâîëüíîãî, à íå ïðèíóäèòåëüíîãî ïðèñîåäèíå- íèÿ óêðàèíñêèõ çåìåëü ê Êîðîíå Ïîëüñêîé.22  ñåðåäèíå ÕVI â. â ëèòîâñêîé íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè è ëåãåíäà î ðèìñêîì ïðîèñõîæäåíèè ëèòîâöåâ, è èçîáðàæåíèå èñòîðèè ïðèñîåäèíåíèÿ âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèõ çåìåëü ê ÂÊË ïðèîá- ðåëè âûðàçèòåëüíóþ “àíòèðóñèíñêóþ” íàïðàâëåííîñòü. Ó Ìèõà- ëîíà Ëèòâèíà23 ðóñèíû âûñòóïàþò êàê íàðîä, êóëüòóðíî è öèâè- ëèçàöèîííî íåðàçâèòûé â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ëèòîâöàìè. Ýòîò àâòîð, îïèðàÿñü íà ïðåäàíèå î ðèìñêîì ïðîèñõîæäåíèè ëèòîâöåâ è èõ ÿçûêà, ïîä÷åðêèâàë èíîðîäíîñòü ñòàðîáåëîðóññêîé ÿçûêîâîé òðàäèöèè äëÿ ëèòîâöåâ, íàçûâàë ñòàðîáåëîðóññêóþ êèðèëëèöó ìîñêîâñêèì ïèñüìîì.24 Òîëüêî ëèòîâöû, ñ åãî òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ÿâëÿ- ëèñü ñîçäàòåëÿìè ÂÊË. Îíè, è òîëüêî îíè, áåç ïîìîùè ìåñòíîãî ðóñèíñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ îñâîáîäèëè çåìëè ñîâðåìåííîé Óêðàèíû è Áåëàðóñè îò ìîíãîëî-òàòàð.25

21 Ðîññèéñêàÿ Èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ áèáëèîòåêà (äàëåå – ÐÈÁ). Þðüåâ, 1914. Ò. 30. Ëèòîâñêàÿ Ìåòðèêà. Êíèãè ïóáëè÷íûõ äåë. Îòäåëû 1-2. ×. 3. Ò. 1. Ñ. 259. 22 Ñ. Âåëè÷åíêî. Âîëîäàð³ ³ êîçàêè: Çàì³òê³ äî ïðîáëåìè ³ñòîðè÷íî¿ ëåã³òèìíîñò³ ³ òÿãëîñòè â óêðà³íñêîé ³ñòîðèîãðàô³¿ XVII - XVIII ñò. // Mediaevalia Ucrainica. Ìåíòàëüí³ñòü òà ³ñòîð³ÿ ³äåé. Êè¿â, 1992. Ò. 1. Ñ. 117-121. 23 Ìèõàëîí Ëèòâèí – àâòîð òðàêòàòà “Î íðàâàõ òàòàð, ëèòîâöåâ è ìîñêâèòÿí” – ïðîèçâåäåíèå íàïèñàíî äî 1550 ã., ñîõðàíèëîñü 10 áîëüøèõ ôðàãìåíòîâ, èçäàííûõ â 1615 ã. íà ëàòèíñêîì ÿçûêå â òèïîãðàôèè Ãðàññåðà â Áàçåëå (Øâåéöàðèÿ). Àâòîðîì òðàêòàòà íåêîòîðîå âðåìÿ ñ÷èòàëè ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî äåÿòåëÿ è äèïëîìàòà, ïðàâîñëàâíîãî ïî âåðîèñïîâåäàíèþ Ìèõàèëà Òûøêåâè÷à, ïîòîì – Íèêèôîðà Ãðèíüêà Ëàâåéêîâè÷à, ïî ïðîçâèùó Ìèõàéëî. Òåïåðü îáùåïðèíÿòà âåðñèÿ Åæè Îõìàíüñêîãî, ÷òî Ìèõàëîí Ëèòâèí – ýòî Âåíöåñëàâ Íèêîëàåâè÷ (îêîëî 1490-1560 ãã.), ëèòîâåö, êàòîëèê, ëàòèíñêèé ñåêðåòàðü âåëèêîêíÿæåñêîé êàíöåëÿðèè â 1534-1542, 1547-1555 ãã., ñòàðîñòà Ñêèðñòûìîéíñêèé è Ðîñèåíñêèé â 1540-å ãîäû (ñì.: Ìèõàëîí Ëèòâèí. Î íðàâàõ òàòàð, ëèòîâöåâ è ìîñêâèòÿí. Ìîñêâà, 1994; Å. Îõìàíüñêèé. Ìèõàëîí Ëèòâèí è åãî òðàêòàò î íðàâàõ òàòàð, ëèòîâöåâ è ìîñêâèòÿí ñåðåäèíû XVI â. // Ðîññèÿ, Ïîëüøà è Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüå â XV - XVIII ââ. Ìîñêâà, 1979; Àëüá³íà Ñåìÿí÷óê. ̳õàëîí ˳òâ³í // Ýíöûêëàïåäûÿ ã³ñòîðû³ Áåëàðóñ³. ̳íñê, 1999. Ò. 5. Ñ. 214-215). 24 Ìèõàëîí Ëèòâèí. Î íðàâàõ òàòàð, ëèòîâöåâ è ìîñêâèòÿí. Ñ. 86. 25 Òàì æå. Ñ. 87. 547 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... Äàííàÿ ñõåìà ðóñèíñêîé èñòîðèè ïðîòèâîðå÷èëà êîíöåïöèè “Êðîíèêè ” Ìàöåÿ Ñòðûéêîâñêîãî.26 Çíàìåíèòûé õðîíèñò ñòðå- ìèëñÿ ïîêàçàòü èñòîðèþ Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè â íåïðåðûâíîì åäèíñòâå ñ èñòîðèåé Ëèòâû. Îí âûñòóïàë çàùèòíèêîì èäåè ìíîãîýòíè÷åñ- êîãî “ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî íàðîäà” ÂÊË.27 Ó íåãî íå âûçâàë ñîìíåíèé òîò ôàêò, ÷òî íàñëåäíèêàìè èñòîðè÷åñêîé Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè ÿâëÿþòñÿ ðóñèíû, íàñåëåíèå áåëîðóññêèõ è óêðàèíñêèõ çåìåëü âåëèêîãî êíÿ- æåñòâà. Âìåñòå ñ òåì, Ñòðûéêîâñêèé ïîä÷åðêèâàë áîëüøóþ äðåâ- íîñòü è èçâåñòíîñòü ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé òðàäèöèè è èñòîðèè Ðóñè â ñðàâíåíèè ñ ýòíè÷åñêîé Ëèòâîé. Ïîêàçàòåëüíî, ÷òî íè îäèí ñïè- ñîê îáùåãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ëåòîïèñè Âòîðîãî ñâîäà XVI â. íå ñîäåð- æèò äàæå óïîìèíàíèÿ î ïåðâîíà÷àëüíîé çàâèñèìîñòè ëèòîâñêèõ ïëåìåí îò Ðóñè. Ñòðûéêîâñêèé æå äåòàëüíî îïèñàë èçíà÷àëüíóþ äàííè÷åñêóþ çàâèñèìîñòü ëèòîâñêèõ ïëåìåí îò ðóñèíîâ, ìíîãî- ÷èñëåííûå ïîáåäû âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèõ êíÿçåé íàä ñâîèìè ñîñåäÿìè- áàëòàìè, ïîä÷åðêèâàë ïåðâîíà÷àëüíîå êóëüòóðíîå ïðåèìóùåñòâî Ðóñè íàä Ëèòâîé.28 Òîëüêî âíóòðåííèå ðàñïðè ñðåäè “ðóññêèõ” êíÿçåé è ìîíãîëî-òàòàðñêîå íàøåñòâèå, ñ åãî òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ïðèâåëè ê òîìó, ÷òî ïðåæíèå âåëèêèå “ðóññêèå” ïðàâèòåëè äîëæíû áûëè ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ ñâîèì äàííèêàì, à ñëàâíàÿ òðàäèöèÿ êèåâñêîé ìîíàð- õèè ïåðåøëà ê Âèëüíî.29

26 Ñòðûéêîâñêèé Ìàöåé (1547-1590), ïîëüñêèé èñòîðèê, õðîíèñò, ïîýò.  1563 ã. ïåðååõàë â ÂÊË, â 1563-1573 ãã., âåðîÿòíî, ñëóæèë â âîéñêå ÂÊË íà ìîñêîâñêîé ãðàíèöå â êà÷åñòâå ðûñêóíà (ðàçâåä÷èêà). Ïðåäïîëîæèòåëüíî, ó÷àñòâîâàë âî âçÿòèè Óëû (àâãóñò 1568 ã.) è îáîðîíå Âèòåáñêà (ñåíòÿáðü 1568 ã.  1572-1574 ãã. ñëóæèë â âèòåáñêîì ãàðíèçîíå ïîä êîìàíäîâàíèåì À. Ãâàíüèíè è ðàáîòàë íàä èñòîðèåé ÂÊË è ñîñåäíèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ. Àâòîð èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïðîèçâåäåíèé “Î âîëüíîñòè Êîðîíû Ïîëüñêîé è Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî” (1575 ã.), “Î íà÷àëàõ, âûâîäàõ, ìóæåñòâå, äåëàõ ðûöàðñêèõ è äîìàøíèõ ñëàâíîãî íàðîäà ëèòîâñêîãî æåìîéòñêîãî è ðóññêîãî” (èçä. â 1978 ã.), “Î ïîðàæåíèè 30 òûñÿ÷ Ìîñêâû ñ êíÿçåì Ïåòðîì Øóéñêèì âîåâîäîì ïîëîöêèì â ïîëå Èâàíñêèì íàä ðåêîé Óëîé 1564 ã.” (íåîïóáëèêîâàí, ðóêîïèñü õðàíèòñÿ â Ïóøêèíñêîì Äîìå â Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãå). Ãëàâíûé òðóä Ñòðûéêîâñêîãî – “Õðîíèêà ïîëüñêàÿ, ëèòîâñêàÿ, æåìîéòñêàÿ è âñåé Ðóñè” (1582) – ïåðâàÿ ïå÷àòíàÿ èñòîðèÿ ÂÊË. Ñì.: Àëüá³íà Ñåìÿí÷óê. Ñòðûéêî¢ñê³ // Ýíöûêëàïåäûÿ ã³ñòîðû³ Áåëàðóñ³. ̳íñê, 2001. Ò. 6. Êí. 1. Ñ. 433. 27 J. Bardach. Studia z ustroju i prawa Wielkiego Ksiêstwa Litewskiego XIV-XVII w. Warszawa, 1970. S. 70-72. 28 M. Stryjkowski. Kronika Polska, Litewska, módska i wszystkiej Rusi. Warszawa, 1846. T. 1. S. 202, 217, 219-221, 233, 234. 29 Ibidem. S. 216. 548 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, Ñòðûéêîâñêèé, áåçóñëîâíî, âåðèë, â ðèìñêîå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå ëèòîâöåâ, èñïîâåäîâàë ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé ëèòâèí- ñêèé ïàòðèîòèçì è ñ óìèëåíèåì âîñïåâàë ñëàâíîå ïðîøëîå Ëèòâû è Æìóäè. Ñ äðóãîé, îí ïîä÷åðêèâàë ôàêòû ìóæåñòâà è ñëàâíîé âîåííîé èñòîðèè “ðóññêèõ” ñëàâÿíñêèõ íàðîäîâ åùå ñî âðåìåí Àëåêñàíäðà Ìàêåäîíñêîãî, èõ ïîáåäû íàä âèçàíòèéñêèìè èìïå- ðàòîðàìè è î÷åíü ðàííåå îáðåòåíèå ñëàâÿíñêèì ÿçûêîì ïèñüìåí- íîãî ñòàòóñà, íà÷àëî èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ãëàãîëèöû “Ðóñàêàìè, Ìîñê- âîé è Áîëãàðàìè” ãîðàçäî ðàíüøå, ÷åì âîçíèêíîâåíèå ïèñüìåí- íîñòè ó ïîëÿêîâ.30 Èìåííî ïîýòîìó “Êðîíèêà ” Ñòðûéêîâñêîãî ïîëüçîâàëàñü áîëüøîé ïîïóëÿðíîñòüþ íà áåëîðóññêèõ è óêðàèí- ñêèõ çåìëÿõ. Íèêàêîé äðóãîé òåêñò íå ñïîñîáñòâîâàë óêðåïëåíèþ ðóñèíñêîé ñàìîèäåíòè÷íîñòè áîëüøå, ÷åì ýòî çíàìåíèòîå ïðîèç- âåäåíèå. Áëàãîäàðÿ ïå÷àòíîìó ñòàíêó, òðóä ïîëó÷èë øèðîêîå ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèå íå òîëüêî â øëÿõåòñêèõ, íî è ìåùàíñêèõ êðóãàõ. Ìîæíî ñ óâåðåííîñòüþ óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî íà÷àëî ñâîåé èñòîðè÷åñ- êîé òðàäèöèè îáðàçîâàííàÿ ÷àñòü íàñåëåíèÿ Áåëàðóñè â XIV – XVI ââ. îäíîçíà÷íî ñâÿçûâàëà ñ Êèåâñêîé Ðóñüþ. Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî â áåëî- ðóññêî-óêðàèíñêèõ õðîíîãðàôàõ (ò.í. çàïàäíîðóññêèõ) åñòü âûäå- ëåííûå â îñîáûé ðàçäåë ñâåäåíèÿ ïî èñòîðèè Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè, íî ïðàêòè÷åñêè îòñóòñòâóåò èíôîðìàöèÿ î Ìîñêîâñêîì ãîñóäàðñòâå. Ýòî ïðè òîì, ÷òî â õðîíîãðàôàõ òîãî âðåìåíè èìåëîñü ðàçâåðíó- òîå îïèñàíèå èñòîðèè çàïàäíîåâðîïåéñêèõ è çàïàäíîñëàâÿíñêèõ íàðîäîâ, ñîñòàâëåííîå íà îñíîâå õðîíèêè Ì. Áåëüñêîãî.31 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, èñòîðè÷åñêîå íàñëåäèå Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè áûëî “àêòóàëüíûì ïðîøëûì”, âàæíûì äëÿ ñîñòàâèòåëåé õðîíîãðàôîâ, â îòëè÷èå îò èñòîðèè âîñòî÷íîãî, ìîñêîâñêîãî ñîñåäà.  XVI â. íà òåððèòî- ðèè Áåëàðóñè, âèäèìî, èìåë õîæäåíèå áûëèííûé ýïîñ “êèåâñêîãî öèêëà”, îñòàòêè êîòîðîãî ïðîñëåæèâàëèñü â áåëîðóññêîì ôîëüê- ëîðå äàæå â êîíöå XIX – íà÷àëå XX ââ.32 Ïðåîáëàäàþùåå áîëüøèíñòâî íîáèëèòåòà è ìåùàíñòâà áåëî- ðóññêèõ çåìåëü â ñåðåäèíå XV – XVI â. óæå âîñïðèíèìàëî ÂÊË êàê “ñâîå” ãîñóäàðñòâî è âûðàæàëî ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ëîÿëüíîñòü åå ïðàâèòåëÿì. Áåëîðóññêàÿ ýëèòà “ãðå÷åñêîé âåðû” óæå âî âðåìåíà Êàçèìèðà ßãàéëîâè÷à (Âåëèêèé êíÿçü ÂÊË – 1440-1492, êîðîëü

30 Ibidem. S. 89-90, 95-113. 31 Î. Â. Òâîðîãîâ. Äðåâíåðóññêèå õðîíîãðàôû. Ëåíèíãðàä, 1975. Ñ. 200-201. 32 ß. Êàðñê³. Áåëàðóñû. ̳íñê, 2001. Ñ. 553-561. 549 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... ïîëüñêèé – 1447-1492) ñòàëà ñîñòàâíîé ÷àñòüþ “ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî íàðîäà” ÂÊË, à â XVI â. åå ïîçèöèè åùå áîëåå îêðåïëè.33 Ïðàâîñëàâ- íîé ñâåòñêîé çíàòè, áîÿðñòâó, äóõîâåíñòâó è ìåùàíñòâó áûë ïðèñóù ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé ïàòðèîòèçì.34 Ïîêàçàòåëüíîé ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñèòóàöèÿ, êîòîðàÿ ñëîæèëàñü â Ñìîëåíñêå â íà÷àëå XVI â. Îðòîäîêñàëüíîå ñìîëåíñêîå äóõîâåíñòâî â ãîäû áîðüáû çà Ñìîëåíñê (1512-1514) äåìîíñòðèðîâàëî ïðåäàííîñòü “ñâîåìó” êàòîëè÷åñêîìó (!) ïðàâè- òåëüñòâó â Âèëüíî, à íå åäèíîâåð÷åñêîé Ìîñêâå. Ñìîëåíñêèé âëà- äûêà Âàðñîíîôèé ïðèêàçàë âî âðåìÿ îñàäû ãîðîäà ñëóæèòü âî âñåõ ãîðîäñêèõ öåðêâÿõ ñëóæáû î äàðîâàíèè Áîãîì ïîáåäû íàä ìîñ- êîâñêèì íåïðèÿòåëåì. Çàõâàò Ñìîëåíñêà â 1514 ã. äîñòàòî÷íî êðàñ- íîðå÷èâî ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàë, êàêóþ âëàñòü ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ ýëèòà ãîðîäà ñ÷èòàëà ñâîåé – 50 áîÿðñêèõ ðîäîâ ñáåæàëî îò ìîñêîâñêèõ ïîðÿäêîâ íà òåððèòîðèþ ÂÊË.35 Ñìîëåíñêîå áîÿðñòâî ïîëó÷èëî âëà- äåíèÿ â ðàéîíå Íàðî÷è è íà òåððèòîðèè ýòíîãðàôè÷åñêîé Ëèòâû.36 Äîñòàòî÷íî îäíîçíà÷íîå îòíîøåíèå ê ñìîëåíñêîé âîéíå (1512-1514) è çíàìåíèòîé ïîáåäå Ëèòâû íàä ìîñêîâèòàìè ïîä Îð- øåé 8 ñåíòÿáðÿ 1514 ã. íàøëî îòðàæåíèå â Âîëûíñêîé êðàòêîé

33 À. Ï. Ãðûöêåâ³÷. Ïàë³òû÷íàå ñòàíîâ³ø÷à Áåëàðóñ³ ¢ ýïîõó Ñêàðûíû // Ñïàä÷ûíà Ñêàðûíû. Çáîðí³ê ìàòýðûÿëࢠïåðøûõ ñêàðûíà¢ñê³õ ÷ûòàííÿ¢ (1986). Ìèíñê, 1989. Ñ. 21-29; J. Suchocki. Formowanie siê i sk³ad narodu politycznego w Wielkim Ksiêstwie Litewskim pó¿nego œredniowiecza // Zapiski historyczne. 1963. T. XLVIII. Z.1-2. S. 31-77. 34 Ñ. Â. Äóìèí. Äðóãàÿ Ðóñü (Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå è Ðóññêîå) // Èñòîðèÿ Îòå÷åñòâà. Ëþäè, èäåè, ðåøåíèÿ. Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè Ðîññèè IX – íà÷àëà XX âåêà. Ìîñêâà, 1991. Ñ. 77-78, 120, 124-125; Ñ. Äóì³í. Ïðà âûâó÷ýííå ã³ñòîðû³ Âÿë³êàãà êíÿñòâà ˳òî¢ñêàãà // Ç ã³ñòîðûÿé íà “Âû”. Ìèíñê, 1991. Âûï.1. Ñ. 28-35; Ì. Ì. Êðîì. Ìåæ Ðóñüþ è Ëèòâîé. Ìîñêâà, 1995. Ñ. 114-118, 183-190, 198-199, 219; Ã. Ãðàëÿ. Ïðàäçÿðæà¢íàå âåðàâûçíàííå? Äîë³ é íÿäîë³ “ãðýöêàé âåðû” ¢ Âÿë³ê³ì Êíÿñòâå ˳òî¢ñê³ì // Àëüòýðíàòû¢íàÿ óñòîðûÿ. Áåëàðóñêà- ïîëüñêàÿ ñóñòðý÷à. Âàðøàâà, 2001. Ñ. 15-23; H. Jablonowski. Westrussland zwischen Wilen und Moskau. Leiden, 1955. S. 51-55. 35 Ì. Ì. Êðîì. Ïðàâîñëàâíûå èåðàðõè ìåæäó Âèëüíî è Ìîñêâîé. (Ñìîëåíñêèé åïèñêîï Âàðñàíîôèé. 1509-1514 ãã.) // Íàø Ðàäàâîä. Ãðîäíà, 1992. Êí. 4. ×. 2. Ñ. 262-266. 36 Lietuvos Metrika (1499-1514). Kn. ¹ 8. Uþraðumø knyga 8. Vilnius, 1995; Ëèòîâñêàÿ ìåòðèêà (1427-1506). Êí. Çàï. ¹ 8. Âèëüíþñ, 1995. C. 172, 200-201, 329, 358-359; Lietuvos Metrika (1518-1523). Kn. ¹11. Uzrasumu knyga 11. Vilnius, 1997; Ëèòîâñêàÿ ìåòðèêà (1518-1523). Êí. Çàï. ¹ 11. Âèëüíþñ, 1997. Ñ. 101,102; Lietuvos Metrika (1522-1530). 4-oji Teismu bylu knyga. Vilnius, 1997; Ëèòîâñêàÿ ìåòðèêà (1522-1530). 4-ÿ êí. Ñóäí. Äåë. Âèëüíþñ, 1997. Ñ. 356, 394, 396. 550 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ëåòîïèñè. Äëÿ ïðàâîñëàâíîãî ðóñèíà, íàïèñàâøåãî ïàíåãèðèê çíà- ìåíèòîìó ãåòìàíó ÂÊË Êîíñòàíòèíó Èâàíîâè÷ó Îñòðîæñêîìó, òîðæåñòâî ëèòîâñêîãî îðóæèÿ íàä ìîñêîâñêèì âîéñêîì îçíà÷àëî ïîáåäó íàä âðàãàìè âåðû Õðèñòîâîé: Òàê ñâîåþ âåðíîþ ïîñëóãîþ ãîñïîäàðþ ñâîåìó, âåëèêîìó êîðîëþ Æèêãèìîíòó ðàäîñòü â÷èíèë: íàïðúâåè öåðêâè áîæüè õðèñòèàíüñêèè è ìíîãûõ ìóæåè è æîí îò èõ íàñèëîâàíüÿ îáî- ðîíèë. Âåëèêîñëàâíîìó ãîñïîäàðþ êîðîëþ Æèêãèìîíòó Êàçèìèðîâè÷ó áóäè ÷åñòü è ñëàâà íà âåêû, ïîáåäèâøåìó íå- äðóãà ñâîåãî âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ Âàñèëèà ìîñêîâñêîãî, à ãåòìàíó åãî, âäàòíîìó êíÿçþ Êîñòÿíòèíó Èâàíîâè÷ó Îñòðîçñêîìó äàè áîæå çäîðîâüå è ùàñòüå âïåðåä ëåïøåå êàê íûíå; ïîáèë ñèëó âåëèêóþ ìîñêîâñêóþ, àáû òàê ïîáèâàë ñèëíóþ ðàòü òàòàðñ- êóþ, ïðîëèâàþ÷è êðîâ èõ áåñóðìåíüñêóþ.37 Êàê ðåçîííî çàìåòèë ðîññèéñêèé èññëåäîâàòåëü Ñòàíèñëàâ Äóìèí, “ñëîâà ýòè íàïèñàíû íå íà ëàòûíè, íå ïî-ïîëüñêè: îíè ïðèíàäëåæàò “ðóñèíó”, êîòîðûé âèäåë â Âåëèêîì êíÿæåñòâå Ëèòîâ- ñêîì è Ðóññêîì ñâîå ãîñóäàðñòâî, à â Ìîñêîâñêîì Âåëèêîì êíÿ- æåñòâå – ïðîòèâíèêà, òàêîãî æå íåáåçîïàñíîãî, êàê õèùíûå êðûì- ñêèå ìóðçû”.38 Ëèâîíñêàÿ âîéíà (1558-1583) íå ïðèâåëà ê èçìåíåíèþ íàñòðîå- íèé â ïîëüçó Ìîñêâû ó íàñåëåíèÿ Áåëàðóñè. Ìåùàíå è øëÿõòà îñòàëèñü âåðíûìè ßãåëëîíàì.39 Ïîëîöêàÿ øëÿõòà ìàññîâî óáåãàëà ñ îêêóïèðîâàííûõ âîéñêàìè Èâàíà IV çåìåëü, ñîõðàíÿÿ ïðåäàí- íîñòü ïðàâèòåëüñòâó ÂÊË.40 Ïðàâîñëàâíûå ðóñèíû èç áåëîðóñ- ñêèõ çåìåëü ïðèíèìàëè àêòèâíîå ó÷àñòèå â ðàçâåäûâàòåëüíûõ ìåðîïðèÿòèÿõ ïðîòèâ Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, ñîñòàâëÿëè êîñ- òÿê òåõ “øïåãîâ” è “ðûñêóíîâ”, êîòîðûå, ðèñêóÿ ñâîåé æèçíüþ, äîáûâàëè öåííóþ èíôîðìàöèþ, çàõâàòûâàëè ìîñêîâñêèõ “ÿçû-

37 ÏÑÐË. Ò. 35. Ñ. 126-127. 38 Ñ. Â. Äóìèí. Äðóãàÿ Ðóñü. Ñ. 121. 39 À. ßíóøêåâ³÷. Âàéíà ³ ãðàìàäñòâà. Àäíîñ³íû íàñåëüí³öòâà ïà¢íî÷íà- ¢ñõîäíÿãà ïàìåææà ÂÊË äà ïàë³òûê³ äçÿðæà¢íàé óëàäû ¢ ïåðûÿä ²íôëÿíöêàé âàéíû 1558-1570 // Castrum, urbis et bellum. Çáîðí³ê íàâóêîâûõ ïðàö. Áàðàíàâ³÷û, 2002. Ñ. 415-421. 40 Ìåòðûêà Âÿë³êàãà Êíÿñòâà ˳òî¢ñêàãà. (1544). Êí. Çàï. ¹ 44. Ìèíñê, 2001. Ñ. 95-99, 101. 551 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... êîâ”.41 Êîíòèíãåíò ýòèõ ëþäåé áûë ñàìûì ðàçíîñòîðîííèì. Íî íå ïîñëåäíåå ìåñòî ñðåäè íèõ çàíèìàëè “ìåñòè÷è” èç áåëîðóññêèõ ãîðîäîâ. Îñîáåííî îòëè÷èëñÿ ïðàâîñëàâíûé ãîðîæàíèí èç Áîðè- ñîâà Ôåäîð ßêèìîâè÷. Ñîáðàííàÿ èì ðàçâåäûâàòåëüíàÿ èíôîð- ìàöèÿ î ìîñêîâñêîì âîéñêå íàèñóùåñòâåííåéøèì îáðàçîì ñïî- ñîáñòâîâàëà áëåñòÿùåé ïîáåäå âîéñê ÂÊË íà Óëå â ÿíâàðå 1564 ã. Çà ñâîé ïîñòóïîê Ô. ßêèìîâè÷ â 1568 ã. áûë íîáèëèòèðîâàí.42  òîì æå ãîäó çà àíàëîãè÷íûå çàñëóãè îò “ãîñïîäàðà” (ïî ðåêî- ìåíäàöèè îðøàíñêîãî ñòàðîñòû Ôèëîíà Êìèòû ×àðíàáûëüñêîãî) ïîëó÷èë “äâà ñåëöû çà Äíåïðîì íà ãðàíèöû Ìîñêîâñêîè” îðøàíñ- êèé ìåùàíèí Èãíàò Ìèõàéëîâè÷.43 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ôàêòû ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò, ÷òî ïðàâîñëàâíîå ðóñèíñêîå íàñåëåíèå âîñïðèíèìàëî ÂÊË êàê “ñâîå” ãîñóäàðñòâî, è áûëî ãîòîâî ïðîëèâàòü çà íåãî êðîâü. Îäíàêî, âåëèêîå êíÿ- æåñòâî âîñïðèíèìàëàñü èìè òîëüêî êàê “ñîâðåìåííàÿ Ðîäèíà”, êîòîðàÿ â êîíòåêñòå îïðåäåëåííûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ çàíÿëà ìåñòî “ñòàðèííîé Ðîäèíû” – Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè. Ïîñëåäíÿÿ íå ðàññìàòðè- âàëàñü â êà÷åñòâå ñâÿçóþùåãî çâåíà, “îáùåãî ïðåäêà” ñ Ìîñêîâ- ñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì. Ýòà ñèòóàöèÿ ñóùåñòâåííî íå èçìåíèëàñü è â XVII â.  ïðîòåñòå Âèëåíñêîãî Ñâÿòî-Äóõîâñêîãî áðàòñòâà ïðîòèâ Èïàòèÿ Ïàòåÿ (1601) íàøëè âûðàçèòåëüíîå îòðàæåíèå ïàðàìåòðû èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñàìîèäåíòè÷íîñòè ïðàâîñëàâíûõ ðóñèíîâ: âåäîìî åñòü è åãî êîðîëåâñêîé ìèëîñòè íå åñòåñüìî ñåê- òàðå, àíè ÿêîå íîâîå âåðû, îäíî ñòàðîæèòíîå ðåëèãèè, êîòî- ðóþ âåðó ïðèíÿëè ïðîäêîâå íàøè â òîé Ìàëîé Ðîññèè çà îêðåùåíüåì âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ Âîëîäèìèðà – ñàìîäåðæöà Ðóñêîå çåìëè, îò ïàòðèàðõè Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîãî Ôîòåÿ, êîòîðûé ïàòðèàðõ çàðàç ç ñòîëèöû ïîäàë äî Êèåâà ïåðøîãî ìèòðîïîëè- òà Ëåîíòåÿ, ïîä êîòîðûì áëàãîñëîâåíñòâîì, ïî îêðåùåíèè òûõ ïàíñòâ, ñòàòå÷íå òðâàåò ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ âåðà áîëüø øåñòè ñîò ëåò. Òà ñâåòàÿ âåðà âñõîäíîå öåðêâè Áîæîå ïîä ìîíàð-

41 Ó. Êàíàíîâ³÷. ²íôàðìàöûéíà-âûâåäíàÿ ñëóæáà ¢ Âÿë³ê³ì Êíÿñòâå ˳òî¢ñê³ì ó ïîçí³ì ñÿðýäíÿâå÷÷û // Castrum, urbis et bellum. Çáîðí³ê íàâóêîâûõ ïðàö. Áàðàíàâ³÷û, 2002. Ñ. 195-218. 42 Lietuvos Metrika (1566-1574). Kn ¹ 51. Uzrasumu knyga 51. Vilnius, 2000; Ëèòîâñêàÿ ìåòðèêà (1566-1574). Êí. Çàï. ¹ 51. Âèëüíþñ, 2000. Ñ. 160-161. 43 Òàì æå. Ñ. 164. 552 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 õèåþ èõ ìèëîñòåé ïàíîâ íàøèõ íàÿñíåéøèõ êîðîëåé ïîëüñêèõ è âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé Ëèòîâñêèõ âöàëå, íåíàðóøíå ïî óâåñü ÷àñ òðûâàëà, îò âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ Âîëîäèìåðà àæ äî ñåãî ÷àñó.44 Ñèëüâåñòð Êîñîâ, êîòîðûé ïðîèñõîäèë èç Áåëàðóñè, è ìíîãî ëåò áûë ïðàâîñëàâíûì åïèñêîïîì Ìñòèñëàâñêèì, Îðøàíñêèì è Ìîãèëåâñêèì, â ñâîåì èçâåñòíîì “Ïàòåðèêîíå” çàñâèäåòåëüñòâî- âàë àíàëîãè÷íûå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ îá èñòîðè÷åñêîì ïðîøëîì áåëî- ðóññêî-óêðàèíñêîé Ðóñè. Äëÿ íåãî Êèå⠖ èñêîííàÿ “ñòîëèöà êíÿ- æåñòâ íàðîäîâ ðóññêèõ”.45 Ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ðóêîïèñíûå ñáîðíèêè ýíöèêëîïåäè÷åñêîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ, ñîçäàííûå íà òåððèòîðèè Áåëàðóñè â XVI – XVII ââ., êàê ïðàâèëî, íà÷èíàëèñü èñòîðè÷åñêîé ÷àñòüþ: “Ñêàçàíèåì î ðóñ- ñêèõ êíÿçüÿõ îò êîãî êòî ðîäèëñÿ”, ãäå ïåðå÷èñëÿëèñü âñå âåëèêèå êíÿçüÿ êèåâñêèå.  ×åòüÿõ-Ìèíåÿõ, äðóãèõ æèòèéíûõ ñáîðíèêàõ, ñîçäàííûõ â áåëîðóññêèõ ñêðèïòîðèÿõ â XVI – XVIII ââ., îáÿçà- òåëüíî ðàçìåùàëàñü “Ïîõâàëà” êíÿçþ Âëàäèìèðó Êðåñòèòåëþ è åãî áàáóøêå êíÿãèíå Îëüãå, æèòèÿ Áîðèñà è Ãëåáà. Ýòà òðàäèöèÿ áûëà îäèíàêîâî õàðàêòåðíà è äëÿ ïðàâîñëàâíûõ, è äëÿ óíèàòîâ.46 . Íåîáû÷àéíî öåííûì ïàìÿòíèêîì áåëîðóññêî-óêðàèíñêîé èñòî- ðèîãðàôèè ÿâëÿåòñÿ “Âåëèêàÿ õðîíèêà”, õðîíîãðàô ýïîõè áàðîê- êî, ñîñòàâëåííûé â ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíå XVII â. Ïî àâòîðèòåòíîìó ìíåíèþ Â. ×åìåðèöêîãî, ðàííÿÿ ðåäàêöèÿ ïàìÿòíèêà – ýòî ðåäàê- öèÿ áåëîðóññêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, áîëåå ïîçäíÿÿ – óêðàèíñêîãî.47 Äàííàÿ êîìïèëÿöèÿ, êîòîðàÿ âîçíèêëà â ïåðèîä îæåñòî÷åííîé áîðüáû ìåæäó ïðàâîñëàâíûìè è óíèàòàìè â íà÷àëå XVII â., ïðåäñòàâëÿåò òó âåðñèþ èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïðîøëîãî, êîòîðàÿ ñ÷èòà- ëàñü “ñâîåé” â ïðàâîñëàâíîé ðóñèíñêîé ýëèòå. Ñîçäàòåëü “Õðîíè- êè ” ïîä÷åðêèâàë áîëüøóþ äðåâíîñòü èñòîðè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè Ðóñè â ñðàâíåíèè ñ Ëèòâîé, àêöåíòèðîâàë âíèìàíèå íà ïåðâîíà-

44 Àêòû Âèëåíñêîé Àðõåîãðàôè÷åñêîé Êîìèññèè (äàëåå – ÀÂÀÊ). Âèëüíî, 1875. Ò. VIII. Ñ. 44-45. 45 Ñ. Êîñîâ. Ïàòåðèêîí. Êèåâ, 1635. Ë. 3 // Ìóçåé Êíèãè Ðîññèéñêîé Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé Áèáèëîòåêè (äàëåå – ÌÊ ÐÃÁ). 46 Òîðæåñòâåííèê XV ñò. // Îòäåë Ðóêîïèñåé Ðîññèéñêîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé áèáëèîòåêè (äàëåå – ÎÐ ÐÃÁ). Ô. 256. ¹ 435. Ë. 395; Ïðîëîã XVI ñò. // ÎÐ ÐÃÁ. Ô. 256. ¹ 325. Ë. 746îá.-749; Ñëóæåáíèê óíèàòñêèé. Ãîìåëü. 1768. // ÎÐ ÐÃÁ. Ô. 256. ¹ 404. Ë. 608-609. 47 Â. À. ×àìÿðûöê³. Âÿë³êàÿ Õðîí³êà // Ýíöûêëàïåäûÿ ã³ñòîðû³ Áåëàðóñ³. Ìèíñê, 1994. Ò. 2. Ñ. 437. 553 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... ÷àëüíîé äàííè÷åñêîé çàâèñèìîñòè ëèòîâñêèõ ïëåìåí îò “ðóññêèõ” ìîíàðõîâ: Åäíàê æå òîé íàðîä ëèòîâñêèé ïðåç ÷àñ äîëãèé îò ïî÷àòêó ñâîåãî ïàíîâàíÿ íåçíà÷íûé áûë. Ðóñü ìåëà íàä íèìè çâåðõ- íîñòü è òðèáóò îò íèõ îòáèðàëà, à ìåíîâèòå: âñå ïàíóþ÷èè êíÿ- æàòà êèåâñêèå çåìëå Ðóñêîé ìîíàðõèè îòáèðàëû îò íèõ â äàíå âåíèêè è ëûêà íà âåðîâêè, à òî äëÿ íåäîñòàòêó è íåïëîäíîñòè çåìëå, êîòîðàÿ åùå íå áûëà âûïðàâíà, è àáû òîëêî ìîíàðõà ðóñêèé ñâîþ çâåðõíîñòü íàä íèìè îêàçîâàë.48 Ïðîöåññ âõîæäåíèÿ áîëüøèíñòâà ðóñèíñêèõ çåìåëü â ñîñòàâ ÂÊË â äàííîì ñî÷èíåíèè òðàäèöèîííî ïîêàçàí êàê ìèðíûé, îáóñ- ëîâëåííûé ñëàáîñòüþ “ðóññêèõ” êíÿæåñòâ ïîñëå íàøåñòâèÿ Áàòûÿ. Íî ïðè ýòîì äëÿ ñîçäàòåëÿ “Âåëèêîé Õðîíèêè” êèåâñêèé ïåðèîä èñòîðèè ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ êàê íàèâàæíåéøèé, êàê ïåðâûé ïåðèîä èñòîðè÷åñêîãî áûòèÿ ðóñèíîâ. Êèåâñêàÿ Ðóñü çäåñü òðàêòóåòñÿ íå ïðîñòî êàê êíÿæåñòâî, íî êàê öàðñòâî, êîòîðîå â ðåçóëüòàòå èñòîðè÷åñêèõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ ñíà÷àëà äåãðàäèðîâàëî äî óðîâíÿ êíÿæåñòâà â ñîñòàâå Âåëèêîãî Êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî, à ïîòîì äî âîåâîäñòâà.49 Ïðè ýòîì, êàê è èõ ïðåäøåñòâåííèêàì â XVI â., ñîçäàòåëÿì “Âåëèêîé Õðîíèêè” áûë, áåçóñëîâíî, ïðèñóù ëèòâèíñ- êèé ïàòðèîòèçì. Òàê, ⠓Õðîíèêå Ëèòîâñêîé è Æåìîéöêîé” äåéñòâèÿ “ìîñêàëåé” âî âðåìÿ Ëèâîíñêîé âîéíû òðàêòîâàëèñü êàê çàõâàò- íè÷åñêèå. Îïèñûâàÿ âîçâðàùåíèå Ïîëîöêà â ñîñòàâ ÂÊË, àâòîð ðàññìàòðèâàë ýòó àêöèþ êàê îñâîáîäèòåëüíóþ: “È òàê Ïîëîöê, ñëàâíàÿ ñòîëèöà êíÿæàò äàâíûõ ç ðóê ìîñêîâñêèõ âûäåðòàÿ åñòú”.50  èçäàííûõ ïðàâîñëàâíûì âèëåíñêèì áðàòñòâîì ïðîèçâåäåíè- ÿõ ïîëåìè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû: Àíòèãðàôí (1608), Ñèíîïñèñ (1632) Supplementum Synopsis (1632) – ñîäåðæàëñÿ ýêñêóðñ â èñòîðèþ “ïðàâ è âîëüíîñòåé íàðîäó Ðóñêîãî” îò Âëàäèìèðà Êðåñòèòåëÿ è äî ñî- âðåìåííîé àâòîðàì ýïîõè. Óòâåðæäàëàñü, ÷òî èìåííî Âëàäèìèð âûäàë âñå ïðèâèëåãèè, ãàðàíòèðîâàâøèå “ïðàâà, ñâîáîäû è âîëü- íîñòè” áåëîðóññêî-óêðàèíñêîé Ðóñè. Âåëèêèå æå êíÿçüÿ ëèòîâñ- êèå è êîðîëè ïîëüñêèå òîëüêî ïîäòâåðæäàëè ýòè ïðàâà è çàòåì âûñòóïàëè èõ ãàðàíòàìè. Èìåííî ïîñëåäíåå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, ïî ìûñëè

48 ÏÑÐË. Ìîñêâà, 1975. Ò. 32. Ñ. 17. 49Òàì æå. Ñ. 214. 50 Òàì æå. Ñ. 118. 554 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïðàâîñëàâíûõ ïîëåìèñòîâ, è ñïîñîáñòâîâàëî äîáðîâîëüíîìó ïîä- äàíñòâó Ðóñè ßãåëëîíàìè. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, èäåÿ ïàêòà, äîáðîâîëü- íîãî äîãîâîðà Ëèòâû ñ Ðóñüþ, êàê îñíîâíîãî ïóòè âõîæäåíèÿ âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèõ çåìåëü â ÂÊË, ïîëó÷àëà çäåñü äàëüíåéøåå ðàç- âèòèå.51 Ïðè÷åì â äàííûõ òåêñòàõ âíîâü ïîä÷åðêèâàëñÿ ôàêò êóëü- òóðíîãî ïðåâîñõîäñòâà Ðóñè íàä ëèòîâñêèìè çåìëÿìè. Ðóñèíû ïðåäñòàþò â âèäå êóëüòóðòðåãåðîâ ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ëèòîâöàì – îíè çíàêîìÿò èõ ñ õðèñòèàíñêîé âåðîé è ïèñüìåííîñòüþ. Âåñüìà ïîêàçàòåëüíà â ýòîì ïëàíå è ïîçèöèÿ Ìåëåòèÿ Ñìîò- ðèöêîãî, èçëîæåííàÿ â åãî ïîëåìè÷åñêîì ïðîèçâåäåíèè Obrona verificaciey (1621). Äëÿ íåãî íåò ñîìíåíèé, ÷òî â Ëèòâå ïåðâîíà- ÷àëüíî ðàñïðîñòðàíÿëàñü “ â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü âåðà õðèñòèàíñêàÿ ñ Âîñòîêà îò Êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîé ñòîëèöû”. Ñìîòðèöêèé îáðà- ùàåò âíèìàíèå íà ïðàâîñëàâíîå êðåùåíèå Îëüãåðäà, ïîä÷åðêèâàåò, ÷òî êíÿçü ïîñëåäíèé â Âèòåáñêå ïîñòðîèë äâà ïðàâîñëàâíûõ êàìåí- íûõ õðàìà, à æåíû åãî áûëè “ðåëèãèè ãðå÷åñêîé”. Ïîýòîìó, ïåðå- ÷èñëÿÿ ïðèòåñíåíèÿ è ãîíåíèÿ ïðîòèâ ïðàâîñëàâíûõ ðóñèíîâ, Ñìîòðèöêèé ïèøåò: “ Îääàëà áû òî Ëèòâà Ðóñêîìó íàðîäó, à Ïîëüøà Ãðå÷åñêîìó (îò êîòîðûõ çà ëàñêàé Áîæåé âåðîé õðèñ- òèàíñêîé íàèïåðâåå ïðîñâåùåíû)”.52 Ïåðâûìè êðèòèêàìè ïîäîáíûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ âîççðåíèé ñòàëè óíèàòû. Òàê, â èçäàííîì â Âèëüíî â 1632 ã. âèëåíñêèì óíèàòñêèì áðàòñòâîì Ñâÿòîé Òðîèöû ïîëåìè÷åñêîì ñî÷èíåíèè Ednosc swiêta äîêàçûâàëàñü íåîáîñíîâàííîñòü çàÿâëåíèé îá èçâå÷íîì ñóùå- ñòâîâàíèè, ñî âðåìåí Âëàäèìèðà Ñâÿòîñëàâîâè÷à, öåðêîâíûõ è ñâåòñêèõ èììóíèòåòîâ ó ïðàâîñëàâíûõ ðóñèíîâ. Óíèàòû ïîä÷åðêè- âàëè, ÷òî ïðàâà äóõîâíûå, öåðêîâíûå ïðèâèëåãèè – èñòîðè÷åñêîå äîñòîÿíèå êàòîëè÷åñêîé öåðêâè, à íå ïðàâîñëàâíûõ “îòùåïåíöåâ”, êîòîðûå èõ íèêîãäà íå èìåëè. ×òî êàñàåòñÿ ñâåòñêîé æèçíè, òî ïîä- ÷åðêèâàëîñü ïðèíöèïèàëüíîå îòëè÷èå æèçíè ïîääàííûõ ÂÊË è Êîðîíû Ïîëüñêîé îò “ìîñêîâñêèõ” ïðàâîâûõ ïîðÿäêîâ. Íàëè- ÷èå ñâåòñêèõ ïðàâ ó ðóñèíñêîé øëÿõòû è ìåùàíñòâà îáúÿâëÿëîñü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ðåçóëüòàòîì çàïàäíûõ, ëàòèíñêèõ çàèìñòâîâàíèé.53

51 Àêòû, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê èñòîðèè Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè, ñîáðàííûå è èçäàííûå Àðõåîãðàôè÷åñêîé êîìèññèåé (äàëåå – ÀÇÐ). Êèåâ, 1887. ×. 1. Ò. 7. Ñ. 535, 539, 543, 547, 638; ÐÈÁ. Ò. 19. Êí. 3. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1903. Ñ. 1152, 1154. 52 ÀÇÐ. ×. 1. Ò. 7. Ñ. 414, 438. 53 Ednosc swiêta cerkwie Wschodniey y Zachodniey.Wilno, 1632. S. 1-4. 555 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... Îáðàòèìñÿ òåïåðü ê àíàëèçó íàððàòèâà, ñîçäàííîãî â ÕVII â. ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè âîñòî÷íî-áåëîðóññêèõ ìåùàí. Îí ñîäåðæèò ìàòå- ðèàë äëÿ ðåêîíñòðóêöèè ýòíè÷åñêîé è ïîëèòè÷åñêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè ãîðîäñêèõ ñëîåâ ÂÊË. Äëÿ ìîãèëåâñêîãî ïîýòà Ôîìû Èåâëåâè÷à, íàïèñàâøåãî ïîýìó “Ëàáèðèíò” â 1627 ã., “Ðóñü” – íå òîëüêî Áåëà- ðóñü, íî è Óêðàèíà. Äëÿ íåãî “ñâîè” ãîðîäà – ýòî è Âèëüíî, è Êèåâ, è Ãàëè÷, è Ëüâîâ. Êèåâñêàÿ òðàäèöèÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè âîñïðè- íèìàåòñÿ èì êàê ðîäíàÿ, êîòîðîé îí ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåò “áàéêè” î æåëåçíîì âîëêå.54 Èãíàòèé Èåâëåâè÷ ñîçäàë ïîëüñêîÿçû÷íûé èñòîðè÷åñêèé òðàê- òàò î ñóäüáàõ ñëàâÿíñòâà âîîáùå è Áåëàðóñè â ÷àñòíîñòè (1659). Òðàêòàò èìååò ëàòèíîÿçû÷íûé çàãîëîâîê “Quod felix faustum fortunatum” (“Ïî÷åìó ñ÷àñòëèâîìó ñîïóòñòâóåò ñóäüáà”). Íåñìîòðÿ íà î÷åâèäíóþ çàâèñèìîñòü òåêñòà îò ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ Ñòðûéêîâñêîãî, îòìå÷åííóþ åùå Ã. Ãîëåí÷åíêî,55 ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî èíòåðåñíà êîíöåï- öèÿ òîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïðîøëîãî, êîòîðîå Èåâëåâè÷ ñ÷èòàë “ñâîèì”. Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî îí çàíÿë âî âðåìÿ “Ïîòîïà” ìîñêâîôèëü- ñêóþ ïîçèöèþ è ïðîâîçãëàøàë ñâîþ ïðåäàííîñòü ìîñêîâñêîìó öàðþ Àëåêñåþ Ìèõàéëîâè÷ó. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ìû èìååì âîçìîæ- íîñòü ïîçíàêîìèòüñÿ ñ ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿìè àâòîðà, ëîÿëüíîãî Ðîñ- ñèè, ñîçäàâàâøåãî ñâîå ïðîèçâåäåíèå â Ïîëîöêå, êîòîðûé áûë ïîä- êîíòðîëåí íà òîò ìîìåíò ìîñêîâñêîìó ïðàâèòåëþ.

54  äàííîì ñëó÷àå ðå÷ü èäåò î “Ñíå Ãåäåìèíà” – ëåãåíäå îá îñíîâàíèè Âèëüíî, ïîìåùåííîé â áåëîðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèõ ëåòîïèñÿõ âòîðîãî ñâîäà, ïî êëàññèôèêàöèè Â. À. ×åìåðèöêîãî. “È â ìàëûõ ÷àñåõ ïîåõàë ïîñëå òîãî êíÿçü âåëèêèè Êãèäèìèí â ëîâû îò Òðîêîâ çà 4 ìèëè, è íàèäå ãîðó êðàñíó íàä ðåêóþ Âèëíåþ, íà êîòîðîè íàèäå çâåðÿ âåëèêîãî òóðà, è óáüåò åãî íà òîè ãîðå, ãäå íûíå çîâóò Òóðÿ ãîðà. È âåëìè áûëî ïîçíî äî Òðîêîâ åõàòè è ñòàíåò íà ëóöå íà Øâèíòîðîçå, ãäå ïåðâøèõ âåëèêèõ êíÿçåè æèãàëè, è îáíî÷îâàë. È ñïÿ÷è åìó òàì, ñîí âèäå,øòî æ íà ãîðå, êîòîðóþ çâàëè Êðèâàÿ, òîïåð Ëûñàÿ, ñòîèò âîëê æåëåçíûè âåëèê, à â íåì ðåâåò, êàê áû ñòî âîëêîâ áûëî. È î÷þòèëñÿ îò ñíà ñâîåãî è ðå÷åò âîðîæáèòîì íàâûøøèì, ïîòîì ïîãàíñêèì: ‘Âèäåõ äåè ñîí äèâíûè’, è ñïîâåäà åìó âñå, øòîñ ÿ åìó âî ñíå âèäåëî. È òîò Ëèçäåèêî ðå÷å ãîñïîäàðþ: ‘Êíÿæå âåëèêèè. Âîëê æåëåçíûè çíàìåíóåòñÿ ãîðîä ñòîëå÷üíûè òóò áóäåò, à øòî â íåì âíóòðè ðåâåò, òî ñëàâà åãî áóäåò ñëûíóòè íà âåñü ñâåò’. È êíÿçü âåëèêèè Êãèäèìèí íàçàâòðåå æ, íå îòåæäÿþ÷è, ïîñëàë ïî ëþäèì çàëîæèë ãîðîä îäèí íà Øâèíòîðîçå Íèæíèè, à äðóãèè íà Êðèâîè ãîðå, êîòîðóþ íûíå çîâóò Ëûñîþ, è íàðå÷åò èìÿ òûì ãîðîäîì Âèëíÿ”. (ÏÑÐË. Ò. 35. Ñ. 201). Â. Â. Ñòàðîñòåíêî. “Ëàáèðèíò” Ôîìû Èåâëåâè÷à. Ìîãèëåâ, 1998. Ñ.15-16. 55 Ã. ß. Ãîëåí÷åíêî. Èäåéíûå è êóëüòóðíûå ñâÿçè âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèõ íàðîäîâ â XVI – ñåðåäèíå XVII â. Ìèíñê, 1989. Ñ. 129-130. 556 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Òåêñò íà÷èíàåòñÿ ñ îïèñàíèÿ âîéíû â 790 ã. ìåæäó ãðå÷åñêèì öåçàðåì “Êóðîïëàòîñîì, Ìèõàèëîì èìåíåì” ñ “Áîëãàðàìè, Ñëîâàêàìè, íàðîäó Ðóñêîãî”, êîòîðûå ïîáåæäàþò â áèòâàõ ãðå- êîâ.  ðåçóëüòàòå, ïîñëåäíèå âûíóæäåíû èñêàòü ñ íèìè ñîãëà- øåíèÿ è “ïðèÿòåëüñòâà”, è íà ïàìÿòü îá ýòîì ïîëó÷èëè îò ãðåêîâ àëôàâèò, ãëàãîëèöó.  ðåçóëüòàòå “Áîëãàðû, Ñåðáû, Äîëìàòû, Õîð- âàòû è Ðóñàêè” “òåìè áóêâàìè äåëà ñâîè è õðîíèêè ïèñàòü íà÷à- ëè”.56 Äàëåå Èåâëåâè÷ ïîä÷åðêèâàë, ÷òî ïîëÿêè îáðåëè ñâîþ ïèñü- ìåííîñòü îò “Ðèìà” òîëüêî â 967 ã. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, óòâåðæäà- ëîñü, ÷òî Ðóñü îïåðåæàëà ïîëÿêîâ è ïî äàâíîñòè ñâîåé èñòîðèè, è ïî äàâíîñòè ïèñüìåííîñòè.57 Íà ïîñëåäíèõ ñòðàíèöàõ â òðàêòàòå ïåðåñêàçûâàëñÿ ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ïîïóëÿðíûé â ñëàâÿíñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè ÕVII â. ñþæåò îá èñêëþ- ÷èòåëüíîé âîèíñòâåííîñòè ñëàâÿí âî âðåìåíà Àëåêñàíäðà Ìàêå- äîíñêîãî, ðàçâèòûé â ëåãåíäå îá “Àëåêñàíäðîâîì äàðå” – ìèôè- ÷åñêîé ãðàìîòå, ÿêîáû äàííîé “ïðàâèòåëåì ìèðà” ñëàâÿíàì íà âå÷- íîå âëàäåíèå èõ çåìëÿìè. Èåâëåâè÷ óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî “Ñàðìàòû Ðóñ- öû” íåîäíîêðàòíî ïîáåæäàëè ðèìñêèõ öåçàðåé.58 Ýòîò òåçèñ îï- ðîâåðãàë óòâåðæäåíèÿ Äëóãîøà î çàâèñèìîñòè “ðóññêèõ” êíÿçåé îò Ðèìà. Ïîëåìèçèðóÿ ñ ïîëüñêèì õðîíèñòîì, Èåâëåâè÷ óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî “ðóññêèå” êíÿçüÿ íèêîãäà Ðèìó íå ïîä÷èíÿëèñü.59 Îí îòâåðãàë è óòâåðæäåíèÿ î “õóäîðîäíîñòè” “ðóññêèõ” êíÿçåé: ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, Ðþðèê, Ñèíåóñ è Òðóâîð âåëè ñâîå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå “ñ ðèìñêèõ ïà- íîâ öåñàðñêîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ”, êàê è “âåëèêèå êíÿçüÿ ìîñêîâñêèå”, êîòîðûå ïðîèñõîäèëè îò “ðóñêèõ” êíÿçåé. Áîëåå òîãî, óòâåðæäàë Èåâëåâè÷, îòñþäà ñëåäóåò, ÷òî îíè áûëè ëèáî ïðÿìûìè ïîòîì- êàìè Ïàëåìîíà, ëèáî åãî áëèæàéøèìè òîâàðèùàìè, è âìåñòå ñ 500 ðîäàìè ðèìñêîé øëÿõòû ïðèïëûëè â Æìóäü.60 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, â òðàêòàòå îáîñíîâûâàëîñü, ÷òî çåìëè ÂÊË íà îñíîâàíèè ïåðâîðîä- ñòâà äîëæíû ïðèíàäëåæàòü ïîòîìêàì äèíàñòèè Ðþðèêîâè÷åé, êî- òîðûå çäåñü îáúåäèíåíû ñ íàñëåäíèêàì ëåãåíäàðíîãî Ïàëåìîíà.

56 Ðîññèéñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé àðõèâ Äðåâíèõ àêòîâ (äàëåå – ÐÃÀÄÀ). Ô. 381. Îï. 1. Åä. õð. 389. Ë. 4. 57 Òàì æå. 58 Òàì æå. Ë. 8. 59 Òàì æå. Ë. 9 îá. 60 Òàì æå. Ë. 10. 557 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... Ãîâîðÿ î ëåãåíäàðíûõ ïîòîìêàõ ïðàîòöà ñëàâÿíñêèõ íàðîäî⠓Ìîñîõà, ñûíà ßôåòàâà è âíóêà Íîåâà”,61 Èåâëåâè÷ íà ïåðâîå ìåñòî ñðåäè íèõ ïî ñòàðøèíñòâó ñòàâèò Ðóñà, à ïîòîì Ëåõà è ×åõà, îò êîòîðûõ ïðîèñõîäÿò “âñå Ðóñàêè, Ïîëÿêè, Ìîñêâà, Áîëãàðû, ×åõè” è äðóãèå ñëàâÿíñêèå íàðîäû.62 “Ñâîÿ” èñòîðèÿ äëÿ Èåâëå- âè÷à – ýòî, â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, èñòîðèÿ Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè. Ïåðâûå “ðóñ- ñêèå êíÿçüÿ” – Êèé, Ùåê è Õîðèâ. Ïîçæå ïðîèñõîäèò ïðèãëàøå- íèå âàðÿ㠖 è îò Ðþðèêà, Ñèíåóñà è Òðóâîðà ïðîèñõîäÿò âñå “ðóñ- ñêèå” è “ìîñêîâñêèå” êíÿçüÿ63 . Âëàäèìèð Ñâÿòîñëàâîâè÷ – ýòî “íàø” êíÿçü, êðåñòèâøèé “íàøó” Ðóñü.64 Ïîäîáíûì æå îáðàçîì âûãëÿäåëà èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ñàìîèäåíòèôè- êàöèÿ è ìîãèëåâñêîãî õðîíèñòà XVII â. Òðîôèìà Ñóðòû, è ñîñòà- âèòåëåé íàïèñàííîé â XVIII â. âèòåáñêîé ëåòîïèñè Ïàíöèðíîãî è Àâåðêè.65 Ïðàâäà, Òðîôèì Ñóðòà, îòíîñÿ ñâîé íàðîä ê Ðóñè è íàçûâàÿ âàæíåéøèìè ãîðîäàìè Ðóñè “Êèåâ, ×åðíèãîâ è Ìîãè- ëåâ”, âìåñòå ñ ýòèì îòñòàèâàë èäåþ ýòíè÷åñêîé îñîáåííîñòè óêðà- èíöåâ.  çàïèñè çà 1682 ã. îí óïîìèíàåò “ãîðîä ×èãèðèí, óêðàèí- ñêóþ ñòîëèöó, ÷òî áûëà ïîä âëàñòüþ Ìîñêâû”.66 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü áåññïîðíûì òîò ôàêò, ÷òî â ÕVI – ÕVII ââ. íàñåëåíèå è áåëîðóññêèõ, è óêðàèíñêèõ çåìåëü ðàññìàò-

61 Ìîñîõ, ñûí Èàôåòà, áèáëåéñêèé ïåðâîïðåäîê ñëàâÿí.  ïîëüñêîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ìûñëè âåðñèþ î Ìîñîõå êàê î ïåðâîïðåäêå ñëàâÿí âûäâèíóë Áåðíàðä Âàïîâñêèé, ýòà òî÷êà çðåíèÿ áûëà ïðèíÿòà ïîëüñêèì èñòîðèêîì Ìàðöèíîì Áåëüñêèì (îêîëî 1495-1575 ãã.) è Ìàöååì Ñòðûéêîâñêèì. Ñðåäè çàïàäíî-åâðîïåéñêèõ àâòîðîâ XVI â., ðàçäåëÿâøèõ ïîäîáíóþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ, ìîæíî íàçâàòü èòàëüÿíöà Ãîëüåëüìî Ïîñòàëëî (1510-1581) è íåìåöêîãî èñòîðèêà Èîãàííà Êàðèîíà (1499-1537).  XVII â. âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèå ó÷åíûå êíèæíèêè àäàïòèðóþò èç ïîëüñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè èäåè î Ìîñîõå êàê îáùåì äëÿ âñåõ ñëàâÿí ïåðâîïðåäêå. Îñîáåííî àêòóàëüíî ýòî áûëî äëÿ Áåëàðóñè è Óêðàèíû â óñëîâèÿõ áîðüáû ïðîòèâ îïîëÿ÷èâàíèÿ è îêàòîëè÷èâàíèÿ, çà ýòíîêóëüòóðíóþ ñàìîáûòíîñòü áåëîðóññêî-óêðàèíñêèõ çåìåëü. Ïðèçíàíèå âåòõîçàâåòíîãî Ìîñîõà îáùåñëàâÿíñêèì “ïðàîòöåì” ïðîòèâîñòîÿëî øëÿõåòñêîé êîíöåïöèè ñàðìàòèçìà è ïîä÷åðêèâàëî ðàâíîå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå ñëàâÿí âíå çàâèñèìîñòè îò âåðîèñïîâåäàíèÿ (ñì.: À. Ñ. Ìûëüíèêîâ. Êàðòèíà ñëàâÿíñêîãî ìèðà. Âçãëÿä èç âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû. Ýòíîãåíåòè÷åñêèå ëåãåíäû, äîãàäêè, ïðîòîãèïîòåçû XVI – íà÷àëà XVII âåêà. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2000. Ñ. 24-31). 62 ÐÃÀÄÀ. Ô. 381. Îï. 1. Åä. õð. 389. Ë. 4 îá. 63 Òàì æå. 64 Òàì æå. Ëë. 4 îá.-7; ÐÃÀÄÀ. Ô. 381. Îï.1. Åä. õð. 390. Ë. 95. 65 Áåëàðóñê³ÿ ëåòàï³ñû ³ õðîí³ê³. Ñ. 259-260, 284-285. 66 Òàì æå. Ñ. 300. 558 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ðèâàëî èñòîðè÷åñêîå íàñëåäèå ïåðâîãî Êèåâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà êàê “ñâîþ” ïàìÿòü, õîòÿ äàëüíåéøàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ñîáûòèé â ÕVI è ÕVII ââ. è â áåëîðóññêî-ðóñèíñêîé è ëèòâèíñêîé ýòíè÷åñêèõ ãðóï- ïàõ ñóùåñòâåííî îòëè÷àëèñü. Âîñïðèÿòèå “êèåâñêîãî” è “ëèòîâñ- êîãî” íàñëåäèÿ êàê “ñâîåé” èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè â ñîçíàíèè íàðîäà ñëèâàëîñü â îäíî îðãàíè÷íîå öåëîå, ÷òî íàøëî íàèáîëåå êðàñíî- ðå÷èâîå îòðàæåíèå â áåëîðóññêîé ïåñíå, äîøåäøåé äî íàñ â çàïèñÿõ XIX â. Åå èñòî÷íèêîì áûëà àïîêðèôè÷íàÿ “Èåðóñàëèìñêàÿ áåñåäà”.  òåêñòå áåëîðóññêîãî âàðèàíòà ýòîé ïåñíè âñòàþò ñëèòûå â îäíó ëè÷íîñòü äâà åäâà ëè íå ñàìûõ âåëèêèõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïåðñîíàæà ýïîõè Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè è Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî – Âëàäèìèð Ñâÿòîñëàâîâè÷ è Âèòîâò Êåéñòóòîâè÷.67 Èíòåðåñíåéøèì ïðèìåðîì ðåôëåêñèè èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè âûñòóïàåò èíòåðìåäèÿ 1689 ã. íà ãåðá Îãèíñêèõ “Áðàìà”, ñîçäàí- íàÿ è ïîñòàâëåííàÿ ìîëîäûìè øëÿõòè÷àìè – ó÷åíèêàìè ìèíñêîé èåçóèòñêîé êîëëåãèè â ÷åñòü ñâîåãî ôóíäàòîðà, êàíöëåðà ÂÊË êíÿçÿ Ìàðòèàíà Îãèíñêîãî. Ñîãëàñíî ïîñòàíîâêå, êíÿçüÿ Îãèíñ- êèå ïðîèñõîäÿò îò “Ãëåáà è Áîðèñà, êíÿæàò ðóññêèõ, ìó÷åíèêîâ Õðèñòîâûõ”, ïî ïðÿìîé ëèíèè. À èõ ãåðá “Áðàìà” – íå ÷òî èíîå, êàê ðîäîâîé ãåðá, ïîëó÷åííûé èìè â íàñëåäèå îò ñâÿòûõ êíÿçåé. Ìèíñêèå øêîëÿðû èñïîëüçîâàëè äëÿ èíòåðìåäèè ñþæåò èç “Ïîâåñòè âðåìåííûõ ëåò” ïðî óáèéñòâî Ñâÿòîïîëêîì Îêàÿííûì áëàãîðîäíûõ ïðåäêîâ äîìà Îãèíñêèõ.  èíòåðìåäèè ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü, ÷òî è êíÿçüÿ Îãèíñêèå, è êíÿçüÿ Äðóöêèå ïðîèñõîäÿò îò “Ñâÿòîãî Âëàäèìèðà Åäèíîäåðæàâöà Ðóññêîãî”. Íà ïîëüñêîì ÿçûêå ñ ïîäìîñòêîâ èåçóèòñ- êîãî øêîëüíîãî òåàòðà îæèâàëà èñòîðèÿ Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè, êîòîðàÿ åùå â ýòî âðåìÿ, êàê âèäèì, áûëà “ñâîåé” è äëÿ Ìàðòèàíà Îãèíñ- êîãî, è äëÿ ìîëîäûõ áåëîðóññêèõ øëÿõòè÷åé, èåçóèòñêèõ øêîëÿ- ðîâ. Âñå îíè ðàçãîâàðèâàëè ïî-ïîëüñêè è áûëè êàòîëèêàìè, íî èõ èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàìÿòü åùå íå ïîçâîëÿëà èì çàáûòü ýòíè÷åñêèå êîðíè è ïðåäûäóùóþ êîíôåññèîíàëüíóþ ïðèíàäëåæíîñòü. Ñòîèò ïîä÷åðêíóòü, ÷òî èìåííî â XVI – ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíå XVII â. îôîðìèëèñü àðõåòèïû âñåõ âàæíåéøèõ êîíöåïöèé ãåíåçèñà ÂÊË, êîòîðûå â ÕIÕ – ÕÕ ââ. ïîçæå áûëè âîïëîùåíû â íàöèîíàëüíûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ êîíöåïöèÿõ êàæäîãî èç íàðîäîâ, ïðåòåíäîâàâøèõ íà íàñëåäèå ýòîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà.  îïðåäåëåííûõ ìîäèôèêàöèÿõ îíè äîæèëè äî ñåãîäíÿøíåãî äíÿ. Ýòî îòíîñèòñÿ, âî-ïåðâûõ, ê ñîá-

67 ß. Êàðñê³é. Áåëàðóñû. ̳íñê, 2001. Ñ. 567. 559 È. Ìàðçàëþê, Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè... ñòâåííî ëèòîâñêîé, ìîíîöåíòðè÷íîé âåðñèè, â êîòîðîé òîëüêî ëè- òîâöû âûñòóïàþò ñîçäàòåëÿìè ýòîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Âî-âòîðûõ, äàííûå êîíöåïöèè ñîçâó÷íû êîìïðîìèññíûì èäåÿì, îçâó÷åííûì â ïàìÿòíè- êàõ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ëåòîïèñàíèÿ ÂÊË XVI â.  íèõ ïîêàçàíà èñêëþ- ÷èòåëüíàÿ ãîñóäàðñòâîîáðàçóþùàÿ ðîëü ëèòîâñêèõ êíÿçåé è çíàòè, íî ïðè ýòîì ïîä÷åðêèâàåòñÿ ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ìèðíûé õàðàêòåð âõîæäå- íèÿ çåìåëü Áåëàðóñè â ñîñòàâ ÂÊË. Òðåòüåé êîíöåïöèåé íàäî íàçâàòü áåëîðóññêî-óêðàèíñêóþ âåðñèþ, îçâó÷åííóþ â ïàìÿòíèêàõ ïîëåìè- ÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíû XVII â.  íåé óòâåðæäàëñÿ öåëè- êîì äîáðîâîëüíûé õàðàêòåð âõîæäåíèÿ Ðóñè â ñîñòàâ ÂÊË è ãàðàíòè- ðîâàííûé ïðèâèëåãèÿìè âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé ëèòîâñêèõ îñîáûé ïðàâîâîé ñòà- òóñ, êîòîðûé ⠓ïîñïîëèòñòâå” èìåëà “ðóññêàÿ” öåðêîâü è “ðóññêàÿ” ýëèòà.

SUMMARY

In his article Igor Marzaluk traces the development of a historical image of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Rusin-Byelorussian historical scholar- ship from the 14th century to the period of modern nation-building. The author claims that the main foundations of Byelorussian historical narrative were laid from the 14th to 17th centuries and therefore focuses on an in-depth analysis of the chronicles and polemical works from this period. Marzaluk reconstructs a peculiar perception of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on the side of Rusin elites, which claimed a role for Rusin element in the foundation and development of this polity and fostered a loyalty to this historic community. The author argues that the perception of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as “own” polity was possible due to the narrative of the uninter- rupted development of Slavic statehood from the Kievan Rus’ to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

560 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Àëåêñàíäð ÔÈËÞØÊÈÍ

ÂÃËßÄÛÂÀßÑÜ Â ÎÑÊÎËÊÈ ÐÀÇÁÈÒÎÃÎ ÇÅÐÊÀËÀ: ÐÎÑÑÈÉÑÊÈÉ ÄÈÑÊÓÐÑ ÂÅËÈÊÎÃÎ ÊÍßÆÅÑÒÂÀ ËÈÒÎÂÑÊÎÃÎ*

Õîòÿ Ðîññèÿ è íå îáðåìåíåíà ïðåòåíçèÿìè íà ðîëü íàñëåäíèêà Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî (äàëåå – ÂÊË), ïîñëåäíåå çàíè- ìàåò âàæíîå ìåñòî â ðóññêîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè. Ãîâîðÿ î ðîñ- ñèéñêîì äèñêóðñå ÂÊË, ëó÷øå âñåãî ïðèáåãíóòü ê îáðàçó ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà. Åãî îñêîëêàìè Ìîñêâà âåðòèò è òàê, è ýäàê, ñêëàäûâàåò â ðàçëè÷íûõ êîìáèíàöèÿõ. È êàðòèíû âûõîäÿò ñàìûå ðàçíûå, íî ñõîäíûå â îäíîì. Ðîññèÿ âèäèò â ýòîì ëèòîâñêîì “çåðöàëå èñ- òîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè” ïðåæäå âñåãî ñàìó ñåáÿ. Åùå â ñåðåäèíå ÕIÕ â. Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ ïèñàë: “ ìû ñëåäèì, ïî åå (èñòîðèè ÂÊË – À.Ô.) óêàçàíèÿì, çà ïîñòåïåííûì ðàçâèòèåì ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî îðãàíèç- ìà, ÷òîáû ïîñòèãíóòü îñíîâíûå íà÷àëà ñâîåé íàðîäíîñòè ìû èùåì â íåé îòâåòà íà âåëèêèé âîïðîñ, ÷òî òàêîå Ðîññèÿ?”.1

* Ðàáîòà âûïîëíåíà ïî ïðîåêòó AZ 08/SR/04 “Der historische Diskurs um den Livlandkrieg (1558-1583)”, ïîääåðæàííîìó Gerda Henkel Stiftung. 1 Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ. Èññëåäîâàíèå âîïðîñà, êàêîå ìåñòî â ðóññêîé èñòîðèè äîëæíî çàíèìàòü Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå? Ñî÷èíåíèå Í. Óñòðÿëîâà, ÷èòàííîå íà òîðæåñòâåííîì àêòå â Ãëàâíîì ïåäàãîãè÷åñêîì èíñòèòóòå 30 äåêàáðÿ 1838 ã. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1839. Ñ. 5-6. 561 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... Íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä, ïðè÷èíû âîñòðåáîâàííîñòè ðóññêîé ìûñëüþ äèñêóðñà ÂÊË ëåæàò íà ïîâåðõíîñòè. Îíè âñåãäà íàïðÿìóþ çàâèñåëè îò ïîëèòè÷åñêîé êîíúþíêòóðû. Ïðåäïîëàãàëîñü, ÷òî ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè íóæíî áûëî ïîäâåñòè èñòîðè÷åñêîå îáîñíîâàíèå ïîä ðàçäåëû Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé (1772, 1793, 1795 ãã.), ïîäàâëåíèå ïîëüñêèõ âîññòàíèé 1830 è 1863 ãã., âòîðæåíèå íà òåð- ðèòîðèè Çàïàäíîé Óêðàèíû è Áåëîðóññèè, à òàêæå â Ïðèáàëòèêó â 1939-40 ãã.2 Ýòèì è áûë âûçâàí âñïëåñê èíòåðåñà ê èñòîðèè ÂÊË è â 1830-40-å ãã., è ïîñëå 1863 ã., è ïîñëå îêîí÷àíèÿ Âòîðîé ìèðî- âîé âîéíû. À êîãäà â ïîñòñîâåòñêîå âðåìÿ îáíàðóæèëàñü “êàêàÿ-òî â äåðæàâå íàøåé ãíèëü”, ðîññèéñêàÿ ìûñëü, â òîì ÷èñëå, îáðàòè- ëàñü ê îïûòó “çàïàäíûõ ðóññêèõ”.  ÂÊË ñòàëè èñêàòü “èñòèííóþ”, “ïðàâèëüíóþ” ñèñòåìó îðãàíèçàöèè ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé æèçíè ðóñ- ñêîãî íàðîäà. Íåñîìíåííî, íà óðîâíå îáñëóæèâàíèÿ èñòîðèêàìè ïðîïàãàí- äèñòñêèõ çàäà÷ äåëî îáñòîÿëî èìåííî òàêèì îáðàçîì. Îäíàêî ñòîèò çàìåòèòü, ÷òî äàëåêî íå âñÿ ðîññèéñêàÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ìèôîëîãèÿ â îòíîøåíèè ÂÊË áûëà ïðîäóêòîì èìïåðñêîé (èëè àíòèèìïåðñ- êîé) èäåîëîãèè. Åå íåëüçÿ ñâîäèòü òîëüêî ê ïðîñòîìó îáñëóæèâà- íèþ ýêñïàíñèîíèñòñêèõ óñòðåìëåíèé âëàñòåé. Áîëåå ïåðñïåêòèâ- íûì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ èçó÷åíèå âçàèìîñâÿçè ãåíåçèñà äèñêóðñà ÂÊË ñ ñèñòåìîñîçèäàþùèìè ïàðàäèãìàìè ðóññêîé èñòîðèè, êîãäà îáðàç ÂÊË îêàçûâàëñÿ âîñòðåáîâàí äëÿ èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûõ è äóõîâíûõ èñêàíèé îòå÷åñòâåííûõ ìûñëèòåëåé.

Äèñêóðñ ïåðâûé: “Ðóññêèå çåìëè êàê æåðòâà ëèòîâñêîé îêêóïàöèè” Ñî âðåìåí ñðåäíåâåêîâüÿ Ðîññèÿ èäåíòèôèöèðóåò ñåáÿ êàê ñòðàíà, êîòîðóþ ïîñòîÿííî êòî-òî õî÷åò ïîðàáîòèòü: îò ìîíãîëî- òàòàð è íåìåöêèõ ðûöàðåé äî ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ “òàéíûõ àãåíòîâ âëèÿíèÿ” è “ïÿòûõ êîëîíí”. Ýòèì ïåðìàíåíòíûì ïåðåæèâàíèåì èëè ñàìîé èíîçåìíîé àãðåññèè, èëè åå îæèäàíèÿ ÷àñòî îïðàâäû- âàëñÿ äîãîíÿþùèé òèï ðàçâèòèÿ Ðîññèè. Ìîë, ñîçèäàòü è ñîâåð-

2 Áèáëèîãðàôèÿ ðàáîò, ñîäåðæàâøèõ äàííûå èäåîëîãè÷åñêèå óñòàíîâêè (õîòÿ è ñ ðàçíîé ñòåïåíüþ èñêðåííîñòè), çàíÿëà áû ñëèøêîì ìíîãî ìåñòà, ïîýòîìó îãðàíè÷èìñÿ ïåðå÷èñëåíèåì íàèáîëåå çíà÷èòåëüíûõ àâòîðîâ: Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ, Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâ, Ì. Â. Äîâíàð-Çàïîëüñêèé, Å. Ô. Øìóðëî, Â. Á. Àíòîíîâè÷, Ì. Î. Êîÿëîâè÷, Ñ. Ô. Ïëàòîíîâ, À. Å. Ïðåñíÿêîâ, Â. Ò. Ïàøóòî, Á. Í. Ôëîðÿ è äð. 562 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 øåíñòâîâàòüñÿ íàì íåêîãäà, íàäî îáîðîíÿòüñÿ Ñîãëàñíî äàííîìó äèñêóðñó, èìåííî âíåøíÿÿ óãðîçà íå äàëà Ðîññèè ïðîÿâèòü â ìèðî- âîé èñòîðèè âåñü ñâîé ïîòåíöèàë. Ìû íå áåðåìñÿ ñóäèòü, íàñêîëüêî òàêàÿ ïàðàäèãìà ñëîæèëàñü ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì äåéñòâèòåëüíûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ, à íàñêîëüêî ÿâëÿëàñü äèñêóðñîì, èñïîëüçîâàâøèìñÿ äëÿ ñàìîîï- ðàâäàòåëüíûõ ïðàêòèê. Íàì ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî â ëþáîì ñëó÷àå ðóññêèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé ïðîåêò ìûñëèëñÿ êàê ïåðèîäè÷åñêîå ñàìî- îùóùåíèå Ðîññèè ïîä èíîçåìíûì (à òàêæå è ñîöèàëüíûì) ãíåòîì ðàçíîãî õàðàêòåðà, áîðüáà ñ êîòîðûì îêàçûâàëàñü îñíîâíûì ñîäåðæàíèåì èñòîðèè ðóññêîãî íàðîäà. Ïðè îñìûñëåíèè ìåñòà ÂÊË â ðóññêîé èñòîðèè îòå÷åñòâåííûìè ìûñëèòåëÿìè ÕIÕ-ÕÕ ââ. îíî áûëî âïèñàíî â ýòîò äèñêóðñèâíûé êîíòåêñò. Âêëþ÷åíèå áûâøèõ çåìåëü Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè â ñîñòàâ âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà â ÕIII-ÕV ââ. â ðóññêîì íàððàòèâå ÕIÕ-ÕÕ ââ. èçîáðàæàëîñü êàê ÷òî-òî íåñïðàâåäëèâîå, èñòîðè÷åñêè ñëó÷àéíîå: ëèòîâöû âîñïîëü- çîâàëèñü îñëàáëåíèåì Ðóñè îò ìîíãîëî-òàòàðñêîãî çàâîåâàíèÿ è ïîñïåøèëè îêêóïèðîâàòü áåççàùèòíûå êíÿæåñòâà. ÂÊË íàñèëüíî íàñàæäàëî íà àííåêñèðîâàííûõ èñêîííî ðóññêèõ çåìëÿõ ÷óæäóþ, êàòîëè÷åñêóþ èëè óíèàòñêóþ ðåëèãèþ, èíîçåìíóþ êóëüòóðó, èçâðàùåííûå, îòëè÷íûå îò Ìîñêîâñêîé Ðóñè ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè- ÷åñêèå è ïîëèòè÷åñêèå îòíîøåíèÿ.  ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ ÕIII-ÕVI ââ., âñëåä çà Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâûì, îòå÷åñòâåííûå ìûñëèòåëè íå âèäåëè íè÷åãî, êðîìå: òÿãîñòíîãî èãà, êîòîðîå äîñòàëîñü â óäåë öåëîé ïîëîâèíå Ðóññêîãî íàðîäà è îêîëî ÷åòûðåõ âåêîâ, êàê ëþòàÿ ÿçâà, òåð- çàëî ñòðàíó, ãäå âîçíèêëà è â ïîëíîì áëåñêå ðàçâèëàñü Ðóñ- ñêàÿ æèçíü, ãäå áûëî èñòèííîå íàøå îòå÷åñòâî, ãäå ïîêîÿòñÿ è áðåííûå îñòàíêè íàøèõ êíÿçåé, ïðîñëàâèâøèõ Ðóññêîå èìÿ â ñòðàíàõ îòäàëåííûõ, è íåòëåííûå ìîùè Ñâ. óãîäíèêîâ, õðàíè- òåëåé Ðóññêîãî íàðîäà. Âèäåòü, êàê ñòðàäàëà Ðóñü ïîä ÿðìîì êàê èçíåìîãàëà, ïàäàëà, èçîáðàçèòü âñå áåäñòâèÿ íàøèõ èíîï- ëåìåííèêîâ åñòü, áåç ñîìíåíèÿ, îäíà èç âàæíåéøèõ çàäà÷ äëÿ Ðóññêîãî áûòîïèñàòåëÿ ïóñòü æå ïîêàæåò íàì è çëî- ñ÷àñòíóþ äîëþ åäèíîâåðíîé, åäèíîïëåìåííîé íàì Ðóñè çàïàäíîé 3

3 Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ. Èññëåäîâàíèå âîïðîñà, êàêîå ìåñòî â ðóññêîé èñòîðèè äîëæíî çàíèìàòü Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå? Ñ. 37-38, 42. 563 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... Ãëàâíûì äèñêðåäèòèðóþùèì îáñòîÿòåëüñòâîì â èñòîðèè ÂÊË ðîññèéñêèå ó÷åíûå âèäåëè åãî ñáëèæåíèå ñ Ïîëüøåé.  ñâåòå ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ â èìïåðèè â ðåçóëüòàòå ïîëüñêèõ âîññòàíèé 1830 è 1863 ã. óñòîé÷èâîãî îáðàçà ïîëÿêà êàê èíñóðãåíòà, áóíòîâùèêà è âðàãà Ðîññèè ïî îïðåäåëåíèþ, óíèè ëèòîâöåâ è ðóñèíîâ ñ ïîëÿ- êàìè, äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ñìîòðåëèñü ÿâíûì ïÿòíîì íà ðåïóòàöèè “ðóñ- ñêî-ëèòîâñêîãî íàðîäà”. Íàïðèìåð, Å. Ô. Øìóðëî, â ïðèíöèïå ïðèçíàâàâøèé âîçìîæíîñòü è Ìîñêâû, è Âèëüíî áûòü öåíòðîì îáúåäèíåíèÿ ðóññêèõ çåìåëü, ïèñàë, ÷òî êàê òîëüêî Ëèòâà ñáëèçè- ëàñü ñ Ïîëüøåé – îíà óòðàòèëà ìîðàëüíîå ïðàâî áûòü ñîáèðàòå- ëåì ðóññêèõ çåìåëü, è îíî îäíîçíà÷íî ïåðåøëî ê Ìîñêâå: Ïî ñîñåäñòâó, â ðîäíîé çåìëå, íàñåëåííîé åäèíîâåðíûìè ðîäíûìè áðàòüÿìè, óòâåðäèëñÿ ëàòèíñêèé êðûæ Òàê âîç- íèê âîïðîñ î “âîçâðàùåíèè çàïàäíî-ðóññêèõ îáëàñòåé”, ïå÷àëü- íûé “ñïîð ñëàâÿí ìåæäó ñîáîþ”, ïðîäîëæàâøèéñÿ öåëûõ òðè âåêà è îêîí÷èâøèéñÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ñìåðòüþ îäíîãî èç ñîïåð- íèêîâ. Ðàíüøå áîðüáà ìîñêîâñêèõ êíÿçåé ñ ëèòîâñêèìè íîñèëà õàðàêòåð ÷èñòî ìåñòíîé âðàæäû çà óäåëû, çàáîòû î ðàñøèðå- íèè ñâîåé îò÷èíû. Èñòèííî ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé ñìûñë áîðüáû íàöèîíàëüíîé è ðåëèãèîçíîé ïîëó÷èëà îíà òîëüêî ñ Èâàíà III è åãî ñûíà è ñîõðàíÿëà åãî âïëîòü äî êîíöà.4 Ïî ìíåíèþ Øìóðëî, Ëèâîíñêàÿ âîéíà (1558-1583) áûñòðî ïåðå- ðîñëà èç ëîêàëüíîãî ñòîëêíîâåíèÿ Ìîñêâû ñ ÂÊË â ìàñøòàáíóþ âîéíó ñ Ïîëüøåé, “áëàãîïðèÿòíûé äëÿ ïîëÿêîâ èñõîä ýòîãî ñîñòÿçà- íèÿ ïîðîäèë ó Áàòîðèÿ è Ðèìñêîé êóðèè ãðàíäèîçíûé ïëàí çàâîå- âàíèÿ âñåãî Ìîñêîâñêîãî öàðñòâà”.5 Âûòåñíåíèå îáðàçà íåäðóãà-ëèòîâöà ôèãóðîé âðàãà-ïîëÿêà õî- ðîøî âèäíî íà ïðèìåðå âçãëÿäîâ Ì. Î. Êîÿëîâè÷à. Îí ñ÷èòàë ëèòîâöåâ íå ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíûì ýòíîñîì, à ÷àñòüþ (“ïëåìåíåì”) çàïàäíîðóññêîãî íàðîäà, íàðÿäó ñ áåëîðóñàìè è ìàëîðîñàìè. Èõ îáëèê ó Êîÿëîâè÷à íå êñåíîôîáåí, à áëàãîðîäåí: ýòî “ñòîðî- æåâîé ïîëê Ðóññêèé”, çàùèùàâøèé Ðóñü îò ïðóññêèõ è ëèâîíñêèõ ðûöàðåé. Èñòîðèÿ ÂÊË â êîíöå ÕIV – ÕV ââ. âèäåëàñü ó÷åíîìó êàê ñåðèÿ ïðîðóññêèõ ìÿòåæåé ïðîòèâ ñîþçà Ëèòâû ñ Ïîëüøåé:

4 Å. Ô. Øìóðëî. ÕVI âåê è åãî çíà÷åíèå â ðóññêîé èñòîðèè. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1891. Ñ. 26. 5 Å. Ô. Øìóðëî. Êóðñ ðóññêîé èñòîðèè. Ðóñü è Ëèòâà. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1999. Ñ. 10-11. 564 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ýòî âîññòàíèÿ Àíäðåÿ Ïîëîöêîãî è Ñâÿòîñëàâà Ñìîëåíñêîãî (îê. 1386), Ãëåáà Ñìîëåíñêîãî, Êîðèáóòà Ñåâåðñêîãî, Âëàäèìèðà Âîëûíñêîãî, Ôåäîðà Ïîäîëüñêîãî è Ñâèäðèãàéëî (âñå – ïîñëå 1393). À â ÕV â. íà Ëþáëèíñêîì (1447), Ïàð÷åâñêîì (1451), Ñãîðîäñêîì (1452), Ïàð÷åâñêîì è Ïåòðîêîâñêîì (1453) ñåéìàõ ðóññêèå è ëèò- âèíû, îáúåäèíèâøèñü ïðîòèâ ïîëüñêîãî çàñèëüÿ, òðåáîâàëè èñêëþ- ÷èòü èç ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ àêòîâ ñëîâà: “îáà ãîñóäàðñòâà ÿâëÿþò îäèí íàðîä, îäíî òåëî, îáà ãîñóäàðñòâà ñëèâàþòñÿ â îäíî”. Ïðè Àëåê- ñàíäðå Êàçèìèðîâè÷å ãëàâíûì ãîñóäàðñòâåííûì äåÿòåëåì Ëèòâû Êîÿëîâè÷ îáúÿâèë Ìèõàèëà Ãëèíñêîãî, “ëèäåðà Ðóññêîé ïàðòèè”, íå ïîáîÿâøåãîñÿ ïîäíÿòü ìÿòåæ â åå çàùèòó. Ïðè÷èíîé âîññòàíèé èññëåäîâàòåëü âèäåë òî, ÷òî “ëèòâèíû-ëàòèíÿíå ïîñòàâëåíû – â ïîëîæåíèå ãîñïîä, Ðóññêèå-ïðàâîñëàâíûå – â ïîëîæåíèå ðàáîâ ïîëîæåíèå Ðóññêèõ ïðàâîñëàâíûõ î÷åíü ïîõîäèëî íà ïîëîæåíèå õðèñòèàí â Òóðåöêîé èìïåðèè”6 . Ïî Êîÿëîâè÷ó, åäèíñòâåííûé èñòîðè÷åñêèé øàíñ äëÿ ðóññêèõ- ëèòâèíîâ â ïåðâîé ïîë. ÕVI â. ñëèòüñÿ ñ Ðîññèåé áûë â Ðåôîðìà- öèè. Èìåííî ïðîòåñòàíòñòâî, íå èìåâøåå ñåðüåçíûõ ïðîòèâîðå÷èé ñ ïðàâîñëàâèåì, ìîãëî ïîçâîëèòü âûðâàòüñÿ èç-ïîä âëàñòè ïîëÿ- êîâ-êàòîëèêîâ. Íî ñëèÿíèå ñ Ïîëüøåé â ðåçóëüòàòå Êðåâñêîé (1385) è Ëþáëèíñêîé (1569) óíèé, ïî ìíåíèþ Êîÿëîâè÷à, ñòàëî ðîêîâûì : “ñåé÷àñ æå ñòàëè ïîäãîòîâëÿòüñÿ ýëåìåíòû ê ðàçëîæåíèþ Ðóññêî- Ïîëüñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà”.7 Ïî Êîÿëîâè÷ó, çà Ëþáëèíñêóþ óíèþ èñòîðèÿ îñîáåííî êàðàåò ñëàâÿíñêîå áðàòñòâî: “êàê æåñòîêî êàçíèò èñòîðèÿ çà ñâÿòîòàò- ñòâåííîå ïðèçíàíèå ñîâåðøåííî ðàçëè÷íûõ ñòðàí!” Âèíîé âñåìó íàïëûâ â âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî êàòîëè÷åñòâà:  íåì íàðîä óçíàë è ïîíÿë Ëþáëèíñêóþ óíèþ. Îí óâèäåë, ÷òî îíà, ñãóáèâøàÿ åãî äèíàñòèþ, àðèñòîêðàòèþ, áîÿðñòâî ïîäîøëà ê íåìó ñ ïîëíîé ÷àøåþ ÿäó. Âîò, ïî÷åìó îí ñòàë âñòà- âàòü íà íîãè, êàê òîëüêî ñòàëî âúåäàòüñÿ â åãî æèçíü èåçóèò- ñòâî è óíèÿ, è ñòàë ðâàòü öåïè, ïðèêîâàâøèå åãî ê Ïîëüøå.8

6 Ì. Î. Êîÿëîâè÷. Ëåêöèè ïî èñòîðèè Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè. Ìîñêâà, 1864. Ñ. 147, 156, 160-161, 174-175, 178, 183-184, 186. 7 Òàì æå. Ñ. 48, 63, 65, 253. 8 Ì. Î. Êîÿëîâè÷. Ëþáëèíñêàÿ óíèÿ, èëè ïîñëåäíåå ñîåäèíåíèå Ëèòîâñêîãî êíÿæåñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêèì êîðîëåâñòâîì íà Ëþáëèíñêîì ñåéìå â 1569 ãîäó. Ñàíêò- Ïåòåðáóðã, 1863. Ñ. 87. 565 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà...  ðàáîòàõ ðîññèéñêèõ èìïåðñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ êîíöà ÕIÕ â. ÷àñòî ìîæíî âñòðåòèòü óïðåêè â òîì, ÷òî â ÂÊË è Ïîëüøå êðåïîñòíîå ïðàâî ïîÿâèëîñü ðàíüøå, ÷åì â Ðîññèè, â ÕIV â. Çäåñü, ñ íàøåé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ïðîÿâëÿëàñü êðèòèêà íå ñòîëüêî ïîëüñêîãî, ñêîëüêî ðîññèéñêîãî êðåïîñòíè÷åñòâà, ïîñëå 1861 ã. ñìåëî îñóæäàåìîãî ó÷å- íûìè ìóæàìè. Ñèëüíî ïðåóâåëè÷èâàÿ ìàñøòàáû çàêðåïîùåíèÿ êðåñòüÿí â ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, ðîññèéñêèå èñòîðèêè îáëè- ÷àëè åãî êàê áû âìåñòî ñîáñòâåííîãî ïðîøëîãî, âûìåùàÿ “êðåïî- ñòíè÷åñêèå” êîìïëåêñû ñâîåé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè ÷åðåç êîíöåïò íàöèîíàëüíîãî è ñîöèàëüíîãî ïîðàáîùåíèÿ èíîçåìöàìè ðóññêîãî íàðîäà â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË. Âàæíî ïîä÷åðêíóòü ñëåäóþùèé ïðèíöèïèàëüíûé àñïåêò, ñòàâ- øèé îäíèì èç íåñóùèõ ýëåìåíòîâ êîíñòðóêöèè ðîññèéñêîé èñòî- ðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè î ÂÊË. “Êðîâîïèéöàìè” è ýêñïëóàòàòîðàìè â âåëèêîì êíÿæåñòâå, è çàòåì â Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, âûñòóïàëè ëèòîâ- ñêèå è ïîëüñêèå ïàíû, ìó÷èâøèå ðóññêèõ (óêðàèíñêèõ, áåëîðóñ- ñêèõ) êðåñòüÿí. Íàïðèìåð, Ô. Åëåíåâ â ïîïóëÿðíîé, ïðîïàãàíäèñ- òñêîé áðîøþðå, ïðåäíàçíà÷åííîé äëÿ îáó÷åíèÿ øêîëüíèêîâ, öèòèðîâàë ëèòâèíà Àíäðåÿ Ìîäðæåâñêîãî (1554-1559), ñ÷èòàÿ íèæåïðèâîäèìûå ñëîâà èñ÷åðïûâàþùåé õàðàêòåðèñòèêîé ñîöèàëü- íîãî è íàöèîíàëüíîãî ãíåòà ðóññêèõ â ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé: È ñ âàøåãî ÿçûêà íå ñõîäèò ñëîâî ñâîáîäà, òîãäà êàê ó âàñ íåò íè÷åãî äðóãîãî, êðîìå äèêîãî ðàáñòâà, îòäàâøåãî æèçíü ÷åëîâåêà íà ïðîèçâîë åãî ãîñïîäèíà. Øëÿõòà ñ÷èòàåò ïîñå- ëÿí è âñåõ ïðîñòîëþäèíîâ ñîáàêàìè; ýòî îáùåïðèíÿòîå âûðàæåíèå ó ýòèõ ãíóñíûõ ëþäåé; åñëè øëÿõòè÷ óáüåò êðåñòü- ÿíèíà, êîòîðîãî îí âåëè÷àåò õëîïîì, òî åñòü îòâåðæåíöåì, îí ãîâîðèò: “ß óáèë ñîáàêó”. Ïîìåùèê-äåñïîò áåçíàêàçàííî íàñè- ëîâàë êðåñòüÿíñêèõ æåí è äî÷åðåé â ïðèñóòñòâèè îñêîðáëåí- íûõ ìóæåé è îòöîâ. Ïîìåùèê-äåñïîò íàâëåêàë íà ñåáÿ îòëó- ÷åíèå îò öåðêâè, èçãîíÿë ïðèõîäñêîãî ñâÿùåííèêà, îñêâåð- íÿë àëòàðü; ðàñïîëàãàÿ ñîâåñòü êðåñòüÿí, îí ïðèïèñûâàë èì ñâîþ ðåëèãèþ – ðàáñòâî è áàðùèíó.9 Èäåÿ ýêñïëóàòàöèè ïîëüñêèìè è ëèòîâñêèìè ïàíàìè ïîðàáî- ùåííîãî ðóññêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ â ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè íîâîãî

9 Ô. Åëåíåâ. Ïîëüñêàÿ öèâèëèçàöèÿ è åå âëèÿíèå íà Çàïàäíóþ Ðóñü. Èçäàíî â ïîëüçó íàðîäíûõ øêîë çàïàäíî-ðóññêîãî êðàÿ. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1863. Ñ. 8. 566 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âðåìåíè ïåðåðîñëà â òåçèñ î “ïîõèùåíèè” Ëèòâîé ó îêêóïèðîâàí- íûõ áûâøèõ çåìåëü Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè èõ “èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñèëû”, æèçíåííîãî ïîòåíöèàëà. Åå íàèáîëåå êîíöåïòóàëüíî îáîñíîâàë À. Å. Ïðåñíÿêîâ. Åãî êóðñ áûë ïðî÷èòàí â 1908-1910 ãã., è èçäàí â ÑÑÑÐ â 1939 ã. Îí íà÷èíàëñÿ ñ îïèñàíèÿ ðàñïàäà Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè è ñèòóàöèè â Ãàëèöêî-Âîëûíñêèõ çåìëÿõ.10 È òîëüêî ïîòîì èç ïðî- øëîãî Ãàëèöèè, Âîëûíè, à òàêæå Ïîëîöêà âûâîäèëàñü èñòîðèÿ âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ ÂÊË. Òåì ñàìûì îíî âîñïðèíèìàëàñü ÷èòàòåëåì êàê ãîñóäàðñòâî-ïàðàçèò, êîòîðîå íà÷àëî ðàñòè ëèøü áëàãîäàðÿ ïîòðåáëåíèþ ïèòàòåëüíûõ æèçíåííûõ ñîêîâ äðåâíåðóññêèõ êíÿæåñòâ: “Çàïàäíîé Ðóñè ãîòîâèëàñü ñóäüáà ïîéòè ìàòåðèàëîì íà ñòðîåíèå íîâîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî çäàíèÿ – âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî ê êîòîðîé îáëàñòè ðóññêèå ïðèìêíóëè, êàê àííåêñû”.11 Ïðè÷åì ýòîò “ïàó÷èé” çàìûñåë âûñîñàòü èç Ðóñè âñå æèçíåí- íûå ñîêè, ïî ìíåíèþ ìíîãèõ ðîññèéñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ, â Ïîëüøå è ÂÊË âûíàøèâàëñÿ äàâíî. Ì. Â. Äîâíàð-Çàïîëüñêèé ïèñàë: “ïî÷òè ïîëòîðàñòà ëåò èñòðà÷åíî áûëî ïîëÿêàìè íà òî, ÷òîáû â ãîñóäàðñòâåííîì ñìûñëå îñóùåñòâèòü óíèþ, çàäóìàííóþ â 1385 ã., è îñóùåñòâèòü ýòó èäåþ ïðèøëîñü èì ñðåäè âîïëåé è ïðîêëÿòèé çíà÷èòåëüíîé ÷àñòè çàïàäíî-ðóññêîãî îáùåñòâà”.12 Ô. Åëåíåâ óòâåðæäàë: Ïîëüøà “íå òîëüêî îáåçîðóæèëà ñâîåãî ñàìîãî îïàñ- íîãî âðàãà, çàïàäíóþ Ðóñü, íî ñäåëàëà åå îñíîâîþ ñâîåãî íàðóæ- íîãî ìîãóùåñòâà”.13  ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè òåçèñ î ëèòîâñêîé îêêóïàöèè Ðîññèè áûë åùå áîëüøå çàîñòðåí. ÂÊË îäíîçíà÷íî ïðè÷èñëÿëîñü ê ÷óæèì, âðàæäåáíûì ñòðàíàì. Êàê ïèñàë ïàòðèàðõ ñîâåòñêîé ëèòóàíèñòèêè Â. Ò. Ïàøóòî (êóðñèâ íàø – À. Ô.): Äðåâíÿÿ Ðóñü ñòàëà èñòîðè÷åñêîé êîëûáåëüþ òðåõ áðàòñ- êèõ íàðîäî⠖ âåëèêîðóññêîãî, óêðàèíñêîãî è áåëîðóññêîãî ýòî áûëè òðè âàðèàíòà çàêîíîìåðíîãî, íî íåðàâíîìåðíîãî ðàçâèòèÿ íàðîäîâ, äëèòåëüíîå âðåìÿ îñëîæíåííîãî èíîçåìíûì

10 À. Å. Ïðåñíÿêîâ. Ëåêöèè ïî ðóññêîé èñòîðèè. Ìîñêâà, 1939. Ò. II. Âûï. 1. Çàïàäíàÿ Ðóñü è Ëèòîâñêî-ðóññêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî. Ñ. 22-43. 11 Òàì æå. Ñ. 45. 12 Ì. Â. Äîâíàð-Çàïîëüñêèé. Ïîëüñêî-ëèòîâñêàÿ óíèÿ íà ñåéìàõ äî 1569 ãîäà. Ìîñêâà, 1897. Ñ. 1-2, 6. 13 Ô. Åëåíåâ. Óêàç. ñî÷. Ñ. 22-24. 567 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... ãîñïîäñòâîì Çîëîòîé Îðäû, Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî, Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, Âåíãðèè, Àâñòðèè è ò.ä.14 Ëèòâà íåðåäêî èçîáðàæàëàñü íå òîëüêî îêêóïàíòîì, íî êîâàð- íûì âðàãîì, èãðàþùèì íà îòäåëüíûõ ïðåäàòåëüñêèõ ýëåìåíòàõ â ðóññêîì îáùåñòâå, æåëàþùèì îòíÿòü ó Ðóñè åå ëó÷øóþ ÷àñòü è òåì ñàìûì ïîðóøèòü âåëèêîå äåëî ñîáèðàíèÿ ðóññêèõ çåìåëü. Íåäàðîì èçìåííèêè ìîñêîâñêèì ãîñóäàðÿì áåæàëè â ÂÊË ëèáî ïîîäèíî÷êå, êàê êíÿçü Àíäðåé Êóðáñêèé, ëèáî õîòåëè ïåðåäàòüñÿ öåëûì ãîðîäîì, êàê Âåëèêèé Íîâãîðîä â 1471 è 1569 ãã. Ïîêàçà- òåëüíî, ÷òî îñîáîå ìåñòî (òðåòü ïåðâîé ÷àñòè!) â êíèãå Ã. Ô. Êàð- ïîâà, ñïåöèàëüíî ïîñâÿùåííîé ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèì îòíîøåíèÿì â ÕV â., çàíèìàåò ãëàâà î ïðèñîåäèíåíèè Èâàíîì III Íîâãîðîäà, è î ïîïûòêàõ ëèòîâöåâ ñêëîíèòü íîâãîðîäöåâ ê èçìåíå.15 Î÷åíü ïîêàçàòåëüíà ëåêñèêà ñî÷èíåíèé ÕIÕ-ÕÕ ââ., ïîñâÿùåí- íûõ ïðîáëåìàòèêå ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêîãî ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ. Àâòîðû, âîçìîæíî, íå âñåãäà îòäàâàÿ ñåáå â ýòîì îò÷åò, àêòèâíî èñïîëüçî- âàëè àðõåòèïè÷íûå êîìïîíåíòû “äèñêóðñà âðàãà” â ðóññêîé ìûñëè. Ëèòîâöû ïî áûâøèì çåìëÿì Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè “ðûñêàþò”, “êàê ïî ñâîèì ñîáñòâåííûì”, “íàâîäíÿþò” èõ. Îíè “õîçÿéíè÷àþò” â ðóññêèõ ãîðîäàõ, “÷èíÿò íàñèëèå”, ïðåæäå âñåãî ñâÿùåííèêàì, æåíùèíàì, äåòÿì è ñòàðèêàì. Îòðÿäû âîèíîâ ÂÊË èìåíóþòñÿ íå èíà÷å, êàê “øàéêàìè”. Çàêîííûõ ïðàâèòåëåé ðóññêèõ êíÿæåñòâ ëèòîâöû “âûãîíÿþò”. ßãåëëîíû íàçûâàþòñÿ “ôàíàòè÷åñêèìè ïðî- ïàãàíäèñòàìè êàòîëèöèçìà è âìåñòå ñ òåì òèðàíàìè”.16 Äîâíàð- Çàïîëüñêèé ïðåçðèòåëüíî îòçûâàëñÿ î ïðàâîñëàâíûõ êíÿçüÿõ â Ëèòâå, ñëóæèâøèõ ïîëÿêàì: “ðóññêîå óäåëüíîå êíÿæüå”.17 Íî è ó Ïðåñíÿêîâà, è ó Äîâíàð-Çàïîëüñêîãî, è ó äðóãèõ ïðè- ñóòñòâóåò ïðèíöèïèàëüíûõ ýëåìåíò äèñêóðñà î ïåðìàíåíòíûõ ïîïûòêàõ ïîðàáîùåíèÿ ðóññêîãî íàðîäà âñÿêèìè èíîçåìöàìè: âðåìåííàÿ ïîáåäà íå èäåò ïîðàáîòèòåëÿì âïðîê. Îêêóïàöèÿ ðóñ- ñêèõ çåìåëü ìîæåò îçíà÷àòü ëèøü êðàòêîå òîðæåñòâî íåïðèÿòåëÿ;

14 Â. Ò. Ïàøóòî, Á. Í. Ôëîðÿ, À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷. Äðåâíåðóññêîå íàñëåäèå è èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñóäüáû âîñòî÷íîãî ñëàâÿíñòâà. Ìîñêâà, 1982. Ñ. 5. 15 Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâ. Èñòîðèÿ áîðüáû Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêî- Ëèòîâñêèì: 1462 – 1508. Ìîñêâà, 1867. ×. 1. Ñ. 41-96. 16 Ì. Ê. Ëþáàâñêèé. Î÷åðê èñòîðèè Ëèòîâñêî-ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà äî Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè âêëþ÷èòåëüíî. Ñ ïðèëîæåíèåì òåêñòà õàðòèé, âûäàííûõ Âåëèêîìó êíÿæåñòâó Ëèòîâñêîìó è åãî îáëàñòÿì. Ìîñêâà, 1915. Ñ. 19, 20, 30. 17 Ì. Â. Äîâíàð-Çàïîëüñêèé. Ïîëüñêî-ëèòîâñêàÿ óíèÿ íà ñåéìàõ äî 1569 ãîäà. Ñ. 4. 568 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 è ÿâëÿåòñÿ òî÷êîé îòñ÷åòà îáðàòíîãî ïðîöåññà, îñâîáîäèòåëüíîãî äâèæåíèÿ, íåèçáåæíî âåäóùåãî ñóïîñòàòîâ ê ãèáåëè. ÂÊË îêêó- ïèðîâàëî ÷àñòü òåððèòîðèé Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè â ÕIII-ÕV ââ. Ðîññèéñ- êàÿ èìïåðèÿ ïîãëîòèëà ïî÷òè âñå âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî è áîëüøóþ äîëþ Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé â 1795 ã. Äëÿ îêêóïàíòîâ ïðèøëà ðàñïëà- òà – òàêîâ áûë ïàôîñ áîëüøèíñòâà îòå÷åñòâåííûõ ðàáîò. Åñòåñòâåííî, ÷òî ñïðàâåäëèâîé ðåàêöèåé íà ëèòîâñêóþ îêêóïà- öèþ ìîã áûòü òîëüêî îòâåòíûé óäàð, ðóññêèé “ìàðø íà Çàïàä”. È çäåñü äèñêóðñ ÂÊË áûë âîñòðåáîâàí êàê âàæíåéøàÿ êîìïîíåí- òà ðóññêîãî ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ìûøëåíèÿ.

Äèñêóðñ âòîðîé: Ïîãëîùåíèå çåìåëü Âåëèêîãî Ëèìèòðîôà êàê çàïàäíûé ïðîåêò Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè  ðîññèéñêîé ìåíòàëüíîé êàðòèíå ìèðà â íîâîå âðåìÿ ïàìÿòü î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè ÂÊË ïðèâîäèëà ê íåêîòîðûì ïðîáëåìàì. Íà÷è- íàÿ ñ ðåôîðì Ïåòðà I è ïðîâîçãëàøåíèÿ èçâåñòíîãî ëîçóíãà Åêà- òåðèíû II, ÷òî Ðîññèÿ “åñòü åâðîïåéñêàÿ äåðæàâà”, äëÿ ðîññèÿí äîâîëüíî îñòðî çâó÷àë âîïðîñ, ãäå íà÷èíàåòñÿ Åâðîïà. Îòâåò íà ýòîò âîïðîñ ìîæíî áûëî äàòü, ðàññìàòðèâàÿ ïðîáëåìó òîëüêî â èñòîðè÷åñêîì êëþ÷å, ÷åðåç ïðèçìó ïàìÿòè î áûëîì åäèíñòâå âîñ- òî÷íîñëàâÿíñêîãî ìèðà, êîòîðûé òîãäà ëåãêî âïèñûâàëñÿ â Åâðîïó ïî ïðàâó ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ.18 Íî â ñðåäíåâåêîâüå è ðàííåå íîâîå âðåìÿ íîñèòåëÿìè äàííîãî åäèíñòâà âûñòóïàëè îäíîâðåìåííî äâå äåð- æàâû – ÂÊË (ñïåðâà ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî, çàòåì â ñîñòàâå Ðå÷è Ïîñ- ïîëèòîé) è Ðîññèéñêîå öàðñòâî. Êóäà â òàêîì ñëó÷àå íàäëåæàëî ïîìåùàòü ÂÊË?  Åâðîïó íà ðàâ- íûõ (èëè – íåðàâíûõ) ïðàâàõ ñ Ðîññèåé?  ÷èñëî ñóâåðåííûõ ëîêàëüíûõ ãîñóäàðñòâ, ïðåãðàäèâøèõ ïóòü Ìîñêîâèè íà Çàïàä? Èëè îòíîñèòü òåððèòîðèè ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ê îñîáîé áó- ôåðíîé, ïðîìåæóòî÷íîé çîíå ìåæäó ìèðàìè, èìïåðèÿìè, öèâèëè- çàöèÿìè? Êàêèå áû îòâåòû íå äàâàëèñü íà äàííûå âîïðîñû, äëÿ ðóññêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîåêòà íåñîìíåííûìè áûëè äâà ïîëîæåíèÿ.

18 Ïåðåä çàïàäíûìè ìûñëèòåëÿìè íîâîãî âðåìåíè ñòîÿëè òå æå ïðîáëåìû îïðåäåëåíèÿ âîñòî÷íûõ ãðàíèö Åâðîïû è ïðåäåëîâ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû. Ïðåäëàãàåìûå èìè îòâåòû íà âîïðîñû ïðîàíàëèçèðîâàíû â áëåñòÿùåì èññëåäîâàíèè Ë. Âóëüôà – Ë. Âóëüô. Èçîáðåòàÿ Âîñòî÷íóþ Åâðîïó. Êàðòà öèâèëèçàöèè â ñîçíàíèè ýïîõè Ïðîñâåùåíèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 2003. 569 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... Ïåðâîå – âîñïðèÿòèå òåððèòîðèé ÂÊË êàê èñêîííî ðóññêèõ. Åãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèå óõîäèò êîðíÿìè â ýïîõó ñðåäíåâåêîâüÿ, è áóäåò ðàññìîòðåíî íàìè íèæå. Âòîðîå – ñàìî ïîÿâëåíèå ÂÊË ÿâëÿëîñü âðåìåííûì èñòîðè÷åñêèì íåäîðàçóìåíèåì. Ýòà ýòíîãîñóäàðñòâåí- íàÿ îáùíîñòü íå èìåëà îïðàâäàíèÿ ñâîåìó ñóùåñòâîâàíèþ. Íåîá- õîäèìî áûëî ìàêñèìàëüíî äèñêðåäèòèðîâàòü â ãëàçàõ ðîññèÿí èñòîðèþ ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, ÷òîáû íåíàðîêîì íå çàêðà- ëàñü ìûñëü î íåïðàâîìåðíîñòè àííåêñèè èõ òåððèòîðèé â ÕVII - ÕVIII ââ. ×òîáû ñëàáîå è íåëåïîå ãîñóäàðñòâî, òåì áîëåå òÿæåëî âèíîâàòîå ïåðåä ðóññêèì íàðîäîì, íèêîìó áû íå áûëî æàëêî Îòñþäà î÷åíü ðàíî âîçíèêàåò äèñêóðñ èñòîðè÷åñêîé è ñîöèàëüíîé íåïîëíîöåííîñòè ÂÊË êàê äåðæàâû, ïðîñòî îáðå÷åííîé íà ïðèñî- åäèíåíèå ê áîëåå âûñîêîðàçâèòîé Ðîññèè. Íà÷èíàÿ ñ ïåðâûõ ðîññèéñêèõ ðàáîò, ñïåöèàëüíî ïîñâÿùåííûõ ÂÊË, â íèõ íåèçìåííî ïðèñóòñòâóåò óêàçàíèå íà òîò èëè èíîé àñïåêò óùåðáíîñòè ñðåäíåâåêîâîé Ëèòâû ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ Ìîñêîâñêèì öàðñòâîì è òåì áîëåå ñ èìïåðèåé. Ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñå ïîçèòèâíîå, ÷òî áûëî â èñòîðèè ÂÊË, îáúÿâëÿëîñü ëèáî ïëîäàìè òðóäîâ ðóñ- ñêîãî ïðàâîñëàâíîãî íàñåëåíèÿ ÂÊË, ëèáî – ðåçóëüòàòîì îáó÷åíèÿ ëèòîâöåâ ó ðóññêèõ. Ìíîãèå ðîññèéñêèå èñòîðèêè ÕIÕ - íà÷. ÕÕ ââ. íå âèäåëè â âåëèêîì êíÿæåñòâå ñâîåãî, à íå çàèìñòâîâàííîãî ó Ðîññèè âíóòðåííåãî ñòåðæíÿ. Ó ÂÊË, ñ èõ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, íå áûëî ñâîåãî “ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî íàðîäà” (åñëè èñêëþ÷èòü òðàêòîâêè, êîãäà òàêîâûì íàðîäîì â ÂÊË èçîáðàæàëñÿ ðóññêèé íàðîä). Íàïðè- ìåð, Ì. Ê. Ëþáàâñêèé ïèñàë: “ ðóññêîé îáùåñòâåííîñòè ëèòîâñ- êèå êíÿçüÿ, ïî âñåì ïðèçíàêàì, ìîãëè ïî÷åðïàòü áîëåå ñèë è ñðåäñòâ äëÿ óòâåðæäåíèÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè, ÷åì â îáùåñòâåííîñòè ëèòîâñêîé”.19 Èññëåäîâàòåëè êðèòè÷åñêè îòçûâàëèñü î ñàìîé ñïîñîáíîñòè ïðàâèòåëåé ÂÊË ñïðàâèòñÿ äàæå ñî ñâîèìè âíóòðåííèìè ïðîáëå- ìàìè. Íàïðèìåð, Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâ óòâåðæäàë: “Ññîðû êíÿçåé ëèòîâ- ñêèõ íå ðàçðåøàë èõ ãîñóäàðü, è çà ýòî äåëî âçÿëñÿ Èâàí Âàñèëüå- âè÷ Ëèòîâñêî-ïîëüñêèé ãîñóäàðü, êàê Ãîñóäàðü ìíîãèõ ñàìîñòîÿ-

19 Ì. Ê. Ëþáàâñêèé. Îñíîâíûå ìîìåíòû èñòîðèè Áåëîðóññèè: Äîêëàä, ÷èòàííûé íà ïåðâîì ïóáëè÷íîì çàñåäàíèè Áåëîðóññêîãî íàó÷íî-êóëüòóðíîãî îáùåñòâà â Ìîñêâå 1/14 èþëÿ 1918 ãîäà. Ìîñêâà, 1918. Ñ. 15. Ýòà æå ìûñëü ïðîâîäèëàñü â ñî÷èíåíèè: È. Ìàëèíîâñêèé. Ðàäà Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî â ñâÿçè ñ Áîÿðñêîé äóìîé Äðåâíåé Ðîññèè. Òîìñê, 1904. ×. II. Ðàäà Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî. Ñ. 3. 570 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òåëüíûõ íàðîäîâ, íå ìîã ðóêîâîäèòü ðàçíîîáðàçíûìè èõ èíòå- ðåñàìè, ïîýòîìó ïðåäîñòàâèë ñâîèì íàðîäàì ñàìèì çàáîòèòüñÿ î ñåáå”.20 Òî÷íî òàêæå ðîññèéñêèìè èñòîðèêàìè îòêàçûâàëîñü èíòåëëåê- òóàëàì ÂÊË (åñëè âîîáùå òàêîâûå áûëè) â âîçìîæíîñòè ôèêñàöèè ñîáñòâåííîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè: Ëèòîâñêîå êíÿæåñòâî íå èìååò ñâîåãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî èñòîðèêà. Âñå, ÷òî óçíàëà î íåì Åâðîïà, âñå ïî÷åðïíóòî èç ìóò- íîãî èñòî÷íèêà, èç Ïîëüñêèõ ëåòîïèñöåâ íå ñòàðåå êîíöà ÕVI ñòîëåòèÿ, êîãäà Ïîëÿêè óæå ïðèâûêëè ñ÷èòàòü Ëèòâó ñâîåþ äðåâíåþ ïðîâèíöèåþ íîâåéøèå ïèñàòåëè ïîëüñêèå óòàèëè âñå ñèè îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà, è, ðàçíûìè ñîôèçìàìè çàïóòàâ èñòî- ðèþ Ëèòîâñêîãî êíÿæåñòâà, óñïåëè âíóøèòü Åâðîïå ìûñëü, ÷òî îíî èçäðåâëå ñîñòàâëÿëî ÷àñòü Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé ïîëüñêèå ïîíÿòèÿ âçÿëè âåðõ è ââåëè â çàáëóæäåíèå íàñ ñàìèõ (Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ).21 Ëèòîâöû, ïî ìíåíèþ íåêîòîðûõ îòå÷åñòâåííûõ èñòîðèêîâ, íå ìîãëè ñîçäàòü ïîëíîöåííûå èñòîðè÷åñêèå ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ, ñïî- ñîáíûå àäåêâàòíî îòðàçèòü èõ íàöèîíàëüíóþ èñòîðèþ: âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, Ëèòîâñêàÿ Ìåòðèêà, â ñðàâíåíèè ñî [ìîñêîâñêèìè] Ñòàòåéíûìè ñïèñêàìè, íå èìååò íèêàêîãî ïðà- âà ðàâíÿòüñÿ ñ íèìè ïî äîñòîèíñòâó: îíà îòëè÷àåòñÿ íè÷òîæ- íîñòüþ ñîîáùàåìûõ åþ èçâåñòèé è ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî äóðíîé ðå- äàêöèåé. Ëèòîâñêàÿ Ìåòðèêà, ïðè ñóùåñòâîâàíèè Ñòàòåéíûõ ñïèñêîâ, ìîæåò ñëóæèòü òîëüêî íåêîòîðûì, íî âåñüìà íåçíà- ÷èòåëüíûì äîïîëíåíèåì ê íèì (Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâ).22 Ïðè÷èíó êðàõà ÂÊË â ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè íàèáîëåå ÷åòêî îáîçíà÷èë Â. Á. Àíòîíîâè÷,23 õîòÿ òà æå ìûñëü çâó÷èò è ó äðó- ãèõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé: íå íàäî áûëî òàê ÷ðåçìåðíî ðàñøèðÿòüñÿ,

20 Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâ. Èñòîðèÿ áîðüáû Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêî- Ëèòîâñêèì. ×. 1. Ñ. 13, 21, 28; åãî æå. Èñòîðèÿ áîðüáû Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêî-Ëèòîâñêèì. ×. 2. Ñ. II. 21 Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ. Èññëåäîâàíèå âîïðîñà, êàêîå ìåñòî â ðóññêîé èñòîðèè äîëæíî çàíèìàòü Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå? Ñ. 29, 31-32. 22 Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâ. Èñòîðèÿ áîðüáû Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêî- Ëèòîâñêèì. ×. 2. Ñ. IV. 23 Â. Á. Àíòîíîâè÷. Î÷åðê èñòîðèè Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî äî ïîëîâèíû ÕV ñòîëåòèÿ. Êèåâ, 1878. Âûï. I. Ñ. 1-3. 571 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... ñîáèðàòü â ñåáå ñòîëüêî çåìåëü, ñòðàí è íàðîäîâ. Íå òðîãàëè áû äðåâíåðóññêèå çåìëè, íå áðàòàëèñü áû ñ Ïîëüøåé, íå àííåêñèðî- âàëè áû Ëèâîíèþ, íå óäåðæèâàëè áû íàñèëüíî Óêðàèíó – ãëÿäèøü, ÂÊË è óöåëåëî áû Òî åñòü ïðèçíàåòñÿ ïðàâî ëèòîâñêîé ãîñóäàð- ñòâåííîñòè íà ñîçäàíèå ëîêàëüíîé íàöèîíàëüíîé äåðæàâû. À âîò ïðåðîãàòèâà ñîáèðàíèÿ çåìåëü Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû ìîæåò ïðèíàä- ëåæàòü òîëüêî Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè. Ýòè âçãëÿäû, â îáùåì-òî, ðàçäåëÿëà è ñîâåòñêàÿ ëèòóàíèñòèêà. Òàê, À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷ ïèñàëà, ÷òî ïåðåëîì â ñîçíàíèè êðóïíûõ ëèòîâñêèõ ôåîäàëîâ íàñòóïèë â 1484 ã., êîãäà ïîëêè ÂÊË íå ñìîã- ëè îòðàçèòü êðûìñêîãî íàøåñòâèÿ. “Íåñïîñîáíîñòü âîéñêà Âåëè- êîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî ïðîòèâîñòîÿòü íàáåãàì êðûìöåâ ïîä- ðûâàëà âåðó â öåëåñîîáðàçíîñòü ïðåáûâàíèÿ êðóïíåéøèõ ôåîäà- ëîâ â ýòîì ïîëèòè÷åñêîì îáðàçîâàíèè”. È îíè ñòàëè îòúåçæàòü â Ìîñêâó.24 Ïî ìíåíèþ èñòîðèêà: Ê êîíöó ÕV â. Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå ÿâëÿëî ñîáîþ íåêîòîðûé àíàõðîíèçì, ïîäîáíûé, ïîæàëóé, Ñâÿùåííîé Ðèì- ñêîé èìïåðèè ãåðìàíñêîé íàöèè.  òó ýïîõó, êîãäà â îñòàëü- íûõ ñòðàíàõ Åâðîïû ôîðìèðîâàëèñü íàöèîíàëüíûå öåíòðà- ëèçîâàííûå ãîñóäàðñòâà, Ëèòîâñêîå êíÿæåñòâî, êàê è Ãåðìàí- ñêàÿ èìïåðèÿ, îñòàâàëàñü íåöåíòðàëèçîâàííûì ïîëèýòíè÷íûì îáðàçîâàíèåì. Òðàäèöèîííîå ñîõðàíåíèå “ñòàðèíû” ñîçäàâàëî áàçó äëÿ ñîõðàíåíèÿ îáîñîáëåííîñòè çåìåëü, à ìàãäåáóðãñêîå ïðàâî – äëÿ îáîñîáëåííîñòè ãîðîäîâ. Øèðîêèå ïîëíîìî÷èÿ ôåîäàëîâ ñóæàëè ñôåðó äåÿòåëüíîñòè ãîñïîäàðÿ. Åãî ïîëèòèêà áûëà íàïðàâëåíà ëèøü íà ñîõðàíåíèå â ïðåäåëàõ êíÿæåñòâà “ðóññêèõ” çåìåëü. Ðàäè ýòîãî âåëèêîêíÿæåñêàÿ âëàñòü ïðåäà- âàëà èíòåðåñû ñîáñòâåííîãî íàðîäà (Êëàéïåäñêèé êðàé è Çàíå- ìàíüå ïî-ïðåæíåìó îñòàâàëèñü â ðóêàõ Ëèâîíñêîãî îðäåíà) è øëà íà ñîþç ñ âðàæäåáíûìè è åé, è øèðîêèì ìàññàì íàñåëå- íèÿ Ëèòâû Îðäåíñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì è Êðûìñêèì õàíñòâîì.25 Ïîñëåäíåé, óæå ïîñòñîâåòñêîé, íî ñîâåðøåííî îðèãèíàëüíîé êîíöåïöèåé, ïðåäñòàâëåííîé â ðàáîòàõ ìîñêîâñêîãî ôèëîñîôà Â. Ë. Öûìáóðñêîãî è âîðîíåæñêîãî èññëåäîâàòåëÿ Ñ. Â. Õàòóíöåâà,

24 Â. Ò. Ïàøóòî, Á. Í. Ôëîðÿ, À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷. Äðåâíåðóññêîå íàñëåäèå è èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñóäüáû âîñòî÷íîãî ñëàâÿíñòâà. Ñ. 142. 25 À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷. Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå // Èñòîðèÿ Åâðîïû. Ìîñêâà, 1992. Ò. 2. Ñðåäíåâåêîâàÿ Åâðîïà. Ñ. 436-437. 572 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ÿâëÿåòñÿ îòíåñåíèå çåìåëü ÂÊË ê îñîáîé “òåððèòîðèè-ïðîëèâó”, â ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêîì ñìûñëå îòäåëÿþùåìó “îñòðîâ Ðîññèþ”, êàê îòäåëüíóþ öèâèëèçàöèþ, îò äðóãèõ öèâèëèçàöèé.27 ÂÊË, êàê îáðàçîâàíèå, ðàñïîëàãàâøååñÿ îò Êàðïàò äî Ïðèáàëòèêè, ñóùåñò- âîâàëî âíóòðè Âåëèêîãî Ëèìèòðîôà – ãèãàíòñêîãî ìåæöèâèëè- çàöèîííîãî ïîÿñà, îïîÿñûâàþùåãî ïëàíåòó è ïðîõîäÿùåãî â òîì ÷èñëå ÷åðåç Âîñòî÷íóþ Åâðîïó. Òåðìèí “ëèìèòðîô” òðàêòóåòñÿ Ñ. Â. Õàòóíöåâûì êàê ïðîèçâîäíîå îò ïîíÿòèÿ “ëèìåñ”, êîòîðûì îáîçíà÷àëèñü ïîãðàíè÷íûå ðàéîíû Âåëèêîé Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèè, ñ îñîáûì ðåæèìîì, ñòàòóñîì, èíîãäà – ñ äâîéíûì ïîä÷èíåíèåì, ÷åðåç êîòîðûå èìïåðèÿ ñîïðèêàñàëàñü ñ îêðóæàþùèìè ìèðàìè, âûáîðî÷íî âòÿãèâàÿ èõ â îðáèòó ñâîåãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ. Çàìåòèì, ÷òî âñå ýòî âïîëíå îòíîñèìî ê ÂÊË: íåñîìíåííî åãî ïîëîæåíèå ìåæäó ðàçíûìè öèâèëèçàöèîííûìè îáðàçîâàíèÿìè, îáóñëîâëåííûé ýòèì îñîáûé ñòàòóñ ðàçëè÷íûõ ðåãèîíîâ â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË, àäàïòàöèÿ âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà ê êóëüòóðíî-öèâèëèçàöèííûì âîçäåéñòâèÿì è Àçèè (÷åðåç âëèÿíèå Êðûìñêîãî õàíñòâà è Òóð- öèè), è Åâðîïû (÷åðåç Ïîëüøó, Ïðóññèþ, Ëèâîíèþ), è Ðîññèè. Èñòîðèÿ äåìîíñòðèðóåò íàì íåîäíîêðàòíûå (åñëè íå öèêëè÷íûå!) êîëåáàíèÿ ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ïóòè êàê ñàìîãî ÂÊË, òàê è íàñåëå- íèÿ íà áûâøèõ çåìëÿõ ÂÊË â ñòðîíó êàê Çàïàäà, òàê è Âîñòîêà. Ïðèìå÷àòåëüíî, ÷òî äàííàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ, ïîìåùàþùàÿ Ëèòîâñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî â Âåëèêèé Ëèìèòðîô, è îïðåäåëÿþùàÿ èñòîðè÷åñêóþ ìèññèþ Ðîññèè êàê ïîãëîùåíèå Âåëèêîãî Ëèìèòðîôà, õîòÿ è

26 Â. Ë. Öûìáóðñêèé. Îñòðîâ Ðîññèÿ. (Ïåðñïåêòèâû ðîññèéñêîé ãåîïîëèòèêè) // Ïîëèñ. 1993. ¹ 5. Ñ. 6-30; îí æå. Öèêëû ïîõèùåíèÿ Åâðîïû. (Áîëüøîå ïðèìå÷àíèå ê “Îñòðîâó Ðîññèÿ”) // Èíîå. Õðåñòîìàòèÿ íîâîãî ðîññèéñêîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 1995; Ñ. 126-134; îí æå. Çåìëÿ çà Âåëèêèì Ëèìèòðîôîì. Îò “Ðîññèè – Åâðàçèè” ê “Ðîññèè â Åâðàçèè” // Â. Ë. Öûìáóðñêèé. Ðîññèÿ – Çåìëÿ çà Âåëèêèì Ëèìèòðîôîì. Öèâèëèçàöèÿ è åå ãåîïîëèòèêà. Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ñ. 13-20; Ñ. Â. Õàòóíöåâ. Íîâûé âçãëÿä íà ðàçâèòèå öèâèëèçàöèé è òàêñîíîìèþ êóëüòóðíî-èñòîðè÷åñêèõ îáùíîñòåé // Öèâèëèçàöèîííûé ïîäõîä ê èñòîðèè. Ïðîáëåìû è ïåðñïåêòèâû ðàçâèòèÿ. Âîðîíåæ, 1994. ×. 1. Ñ. 72. Ñëåäóåò îòëè÷àòü êîíöåïöèþ Âåëèêîãî Ëèìèòðîôà îò èäåîëîãåìû, áóäòî áû ÂÊË è Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòàÿ áûëè áàðüåðîì ìåæäó Ðîññèåé è Åâðîïîé, àêòèâíî ìóññèðîâàâøåéñÿ ïîëüñêîé ïðîïàãàíäîé íà÷èíàÿ ñ ÕVI â. è ïîòîì ïîïàâøåé âî ìíîãèå, îñîáåííî åâðîïåéñêèå, èñòîðè÷åñêèå òðóäû (ñì., íàïð.: O. Halecki. Borderlands of Western Civilization: A History of East Central Europe. New York, 1952). Ëèìèòðîô – ýòî íå íåïðåîäîëèìàÿ ãðàíèöà, à ïåðåõîäíàÿ, ìàðãèíàëüíàÿ çîíà ìåæäó ìèðàìè. 573 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... íå ïîñâÿùåíà ñïåöèàëüíî ðàññìîòðåíèþ èñòîðèè ÂÊË, íî âñå ðàâíî îòêàçûâàåò åìó â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñàìîöåííîñòè, îòíîñÿ ê “òåððèòî- ðèÿì-ïðîëèâàì”, ÷üÿ èñòîðèÿ ñâîäèòñÿ ê êîëåáàíèÿì îò îäíîé èìïåðèè (öèâèëèçàöèè) ê äðóãîé è îáðàòíî.

Äèñêóðñ òðåòèé: “Íàøè çåìëè” Èñòîðèÿ ëþáîé ñòðàíû è íàðîäà êîíñòðóèðóåòñÿ èññëåäîâàòå- ëÿìè ïî ñõåìå, â êîòîðóþ äîëæíû âïèñûâàòüñÿ êàê óæå ñëó÷èâøè- åñÿ, òàê è ïðåäïîëàãàåìûå ñîáûòèÿ. Îíà ïðèçâàíà ïðîäåìîíñòðèðî- âàòü öèêëè÷íîñòü, ïîâòîðÿåìîñòü õîäà èñòîðèè äëÿ äàííîãî ýòíî- ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ïðîåêòà. Äëÿ Ðîññèè, íà÷èíàÿ ñ Í. Ì. Êàðàìçèíà, îñîáóþ ðîëü èãðàëà ïàðàäèãìà “âîññîåäèíåíèÿ ðóññêèõ çåìåëü”, êîòîðûå Ðîññèÿ ïåðèîäè÷åñêè óòðà÷èâàëà èç-çà àãðåññèè èíîçåì- íûõ ñóïîñòàòîâ, íî çàòåì íåèçìåííî íàõîäèëà â ñåáå ñèëû âíîâü ñîáðàòü âîåäèíî. Ïîòîì îïÿòü òåðÿëà, ïîòîì âíîâü îáðåòàëà – è òàê íåñêîëüêî ðàç. Óâëå÷åíèå â èñòîðè÷åñêîì íàððàòèâå ïîäîáíûìè ïîñòðîåíèÿìè äàæå ïîðîäèëî àôîðèçì: “Ðîññèÿ – ãîñóäàðñòâî ïóëüñèðóþùåå”. Âûøåîïèñàííûé ïîäõîä ê ïåðñïåêòèâàì ðàçâèòèÿ Ðîññèè áûë ïðîíèêíóò èñòîðè÷åñêèì îïòèìèçìîì, ïîñêîëüêó ïðåäïîëàãàë íåèçáåæíîñòü âîçâðàùåíèÿ ëþáûõ ïîòåðÿííûõ òåððèòîðèé. Äàí- íûé äèñêóðñ îêàçàëñÿ âîñòðåáîâàííûì êàê â ÕVII-ÕIÕ ââ. ïðè ñòðî- èòåëüñòâå Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè, òàê è â ÕÕ â. ïðè ñîçäàíèè ÑÑÑÐ. Îí âî ìíîãîì îïðåäåëÿåò ïðèíöèïû ïîëèòèêè Ðîññèéñêîé Ôåäå- ðàöèè íà ïðîñòðàíñòâå ÑÍà è â ïîñòñîâåòñêîå âðåìÿ. Ïîãëîùåíèå Ðîññèåé ÂÊË ïîä ëîçóíãîì âîçâðàòà áûâøèõ çåìåëü Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè ÿâèëîñü èäåàëüíîé ðåôëåêñèåé äàííîãî äèñêóðñà â ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêå. Îòå÷åñòâåííîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòüþ îêàçàëèñü âîñòðåáîâàíû èìåííî òå ñòðàíèöû èñòîðèè ÂÊË, êîòî- ðûå áûëè ñâÿçàíû ñ ïàðàäèãìîé “âîññîåäèíåíèÿ òåððèòîðèé”: âîéíû, äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå ñïîðû, ïîëîæåíèå â ÂÊË ïðàâîñëàâíîãî íàñåëåíèÿ è ò.ä. Ïðè ýòîì ðîññèéñêèé äèñêóðñ ÂÊË êàê “Ðóññêîé çåìëè” íà ïðîòÿæåíèè ÕV-ÕÕ ââ. ìåíÿëñÿ. Åãî ñîäåðæàíèå ïðå- òåðïåëî ýâîëþöèþ îò òîëåðàíòíîé èäåè äóõîâíî-ðåëèãèîçíîé îáùíîñòè (â ñðåäíåâåêîâüå) äî êîíôðîíòàöèîííîé (ñî âòîðîé ïîë. ÕVI – ÕVIII ââ.) è äàæå íàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêîé (ÕIÕ – ÕÕ ââ.) èäåîëîãèè.  íà÷àëå ÕIV â. åâðîïåéöû, åùå ïî÷òè íè÷åãî íå çíàÿ î Ìîñêî- âèè = Ðîññèè, òî åñòü Ñåâåðî-âîñòî÷íîé Ðóñè, óæå áûëè çíàêîìû 574 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñ Ðóòåíèåé-Ðóñüþ â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË.27 Íà ïîðòîëàíå Ïåòðà Âèñêîíòè (1311) Ðóòåíèÿ (Ðóñèÿ) ðàçìåùàëàñü ìåæäó Âèñëîé è Äíåïðîì, ðÿäîì ñ Ïîìåðàíèåé, Ïîëüøåé, Âåíãðèåé, Gotia Barbarica. Ïðè ýòîì íèêàêîé Ðóñè âîñòî÷íåå äàííûõ çåìåëü Âèñêîíòè íå çíàë. Íà äðó- ãèõ ïîðòîëàíàõ, êàê ïðàâèëî, îòäåëüíî èçîáðàæàëñÿ Íîâãîðîä êàê îñîáûé ãîðîä-ãîñóäàðñòâî (íàïð., íà êàðòå Êàðèãíàíî, êàðòå Ïèççèãàíî è ò.í. Àòëàñå Ìåäè÷è). Èíôîðìàöèÿ î “çåìëå ðóòå- íî┠â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË ïðèøëà â Åâðîïó, ïî âñåé âèäèìîñòè, ÷åðåç Êîðîëåâñòâî Ïîëüñêîå. Äëÿ ïðàâèòåëåé ÂÊË ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî áîëüøóþ ðîëü èãðàëà ãåî- ãðàôè÷åñêàÿ, ÷åì ýòíîêîíôåññèîíàëüíàÿ ñîñòàâëÿþùàÿ. “Ðóñü” ãåîãðàôè÷åñêè âîøëà â ñîñòàâ Ëèòîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà â õîäå ïîä÷èíåíèÿ åãî âëàñòèòåëÿìè â ÕIII-ÕIV ââ. êèåâñêèõ, ïîëîöêèõ, ãàëèöêèõ, âîëûíñêèõ, ÷åðíèãîâñêèõ, ñåâåðñêèõ è äð. çåìåëü. “Ðóññêàÿ çåìëÿ” êàê îòäåëüíîå âëàäåíèå êîðîíû óïîìèíàåòñÿ óæå â 1340 ã. â äîãîâîðíîé ãðàìîòå ßâíóòà, Êåéñòóòà, Ëþáàðòà Ãåäèìèíîâè÷åé, Þðèÿ Íàðèìóíòîâè÷à è Þðèÿ Êîðèàòîâè÷à ñ ïîëüñêèì êîðîëåì Êàçèìèðîì è ñ ìàçîâåöêèìè êíÿçüÿìè Ñåìî- âèòîì è Êàçèìèðîì Òðîéäåíîâè÷àìè.28 Ñ ñåðåäèíû ÕIV â. òèòóë “Ðóññêèé” ñòàë íåèçìåííîé ñîñòàâíîé ÷àñòüþ òèòóëàòóðû ïðà- âèòåëåé ÂÊË. Âïëîòü äî êîíöà ÕV â. íåëüçÿ íàéòè ñâèäåòåëüñòâ, ÷òî Âåëèêèì êíÿæåñòâîì Ìîñêîâñêèì îñïàðèâàëàñü “ðóññêàÿ” ïðèíàäëåæíîñòü äàííûõ âëàäåíèé ÂÊË è âîîáùå âûäâèãàëàñü ïðåòåíçèÿ íà åãî çåìëè êàê íà “ðóññêèå”. Ñî âðåìåí Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâà â ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèîã- ðàôèè ãîñïîäñòâóåò ïðåäñòàâëåíèå, áóäòî áû ïîëèòèêà îáúåäèíèòü âñþ Ðóñü, “â òîì ÷èñëå Ëèòâó êàê Ðóñü”, âåëàñü óæå Èâàíîì Êàëè- òîé (1325-1340), à ñî âðåìåí Äìèòðèÿ Äîíñêîãî (1359-1389) ìîñ- êîâñêèå ãîñóäàðè “ïîñòîÿííî âûðàæàëè ìûñëü, ÷òî Ëèòîâñêîå êíÿ- æåñòâî, çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì Ëèòâû, ò.å. íå áîëåå 12 ÷àñòè åãî, åñòü ðîäîâàÿ èõ îò÷èíà”.29 Äàííûé òåçèñ îøèáî÷íî âûâîäèëñÿ èç ïîÿâ- ëåíèÿ êàê ðàç â íà÷àëå ÕIV â. â òèòóëå âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé âëàäèìèðñ-

27 L. Bagrow. A History of the Cartography of Russia up to 1600 / Ed. By H.W. Castnew. Wolfe Island, Ontario, 1975. Ðp. 22, 27. 28 Àêòû, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê èñòîðèè Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè, ñîáðàííûå è èçäàííûå Àðõåîãðàôè÷åñêîé êîìèññèåþ (äàëåå – ÀÇÐ). Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1846. Ò. 1. 1340-1506 ãã. Ñ. 1. ¹ 1. 29 Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ. Èññëåäîâàíèå âîïðîñà, êàêîå ìåñòî â ðóññêîé èñòîðèè äîëæíî çàíèìàòü Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå? Ñ. 20, 21. 575 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... êèõ îïðåäåëåíèÿ “âñåÿ Ðóñè”. Íî êàê ïîíèìàëè ïîñëåäíåå âûðà- æåíèå êíÿçüÿ ðóññêîãî ñðåäíåâåêîâüÿ, à íå èñòîðèêè èìïåðàòîðñ- êîé Ðîññèè? Ïî ñïðàâåäëèâîìó ìíåíèþ À. À. Ãîðñêîãî, îïðåäåëåíèå “âñåÿ Ðóñè” ñòàëè âêëþ÷àòü â òèòóë âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ âëàäèìèðñêîãî â íà- ÷àëå ÕIV â. â ïîäðàæàíèå òèòóëó ïðàâîñëàâíîãî ìèòðîïîëèòà “âñåÿ Ðóñè”, ÷òî ìîæíî ñâÿçàòü ñ ïåðååçäîì ðåçèäåíöèè ìèòðîïîëèòà èç Êèåâà âî Âëàäèìèð (1299).30 Ïåðâûì âåëèêèì êíÿçåì âëàäèìèð- ñêèì è “âñåÿ Ðóñè” èìåíîâàëñÿ òâåðñêîé êíÿçü Ìèõàèë ßðîñëàâè÷ â 1305-1317 ãã. Äîáàâèì, ÷òî, âîçìîæíî, çäåñü ñûãðàëà ñâîþ ðîëü è òðàêòîâêà ñòàòóñà âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ âëàäèìèðñêîãî êàê ïðàâèòåëÿ, íàäåëåííîãî Îðäîé âëàñòüþ íàä âñåìè ðóññêèìè çåìëÿìè. Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, â ëåòîïèñíûõ òåêñòàõ ïðè îïèñàíèè âðó÷åíèÿ õàíàìè ïåðâûõ ÿðëû- êîâ óïîòðåáëÿåòñÿ èìåííî ýòà ôîðìóëà (êóðñèâ íàø – À.Ô.): “Áóäè òû ñòàðåé âñåì êíÿçåì â ðóññêîì ÿçûöå” (1243 ã., ðå÷ü Áàòûÿ ê ßðîñëàâó Âñåâîëîäè÷ó); “ïðèêàçàøà Êûåâ è âñþ Ðóñüñêóþ çåìëþ” (1249 ã., ðàñïîðÿæåíèå ìîíãîëüñêîãî èìïåðàòîðà î ïîëíî- ìî÷èÿõ Àëåêñàíäðà ßðîñëàâîâè÷à Íåâñêîãî); “Òîÿ æå çûìû êíÿçü âåëèêèé Àëåêñàíäð ßðîñëàâè÷ü ïðèèäå èç Îðäû îò Êàíîâû÷ü íà âåëèêîå êíÿæåíèå íà Êèåâ è íà âñþ Ðóñêóþ çåìëþ” (1249 ã.).31  ÕIV – ïåðâîé ïîë. ÕV â. âåëèêèìè êíÿçüÿìè âëàäèìèðñêèìè ôîðìóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” â âåëèêîêíÿæåñêîì òèòóëå óïîòðåáëÿëàñü äî- âîëüíî áåññèñòåìíî. Íåëüçÿ óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî îí ÿâëÿëñÿ åãî ïî- ñòîÿííûì ýëåìåíòîì. Òàê, â ëåòîïèñÿõ âûðàæåíèå “âñåÿ Ðóñè” âñòðå÷àåòñÿ ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì ëèáî â òîðæåñòâåííûõ îïèñàíèÿõ âîñøåñòâèÿ íà ïðåñòîë íîâîãî ïðàâèòåëÿ, ëèáî â ïàíåãèðèêàõ óìåð- øèì âåëèêèì êíÿçüÿì.32 Ãîðàçäî ðåæå ýòà òèòóëàòóðà ïðèìåíÿ- ëàñü â ìåæêíÿæåñêèõ äîêîí÷àíèÿõ.33 Èç àíàëèçà ñëó÷àåâ óïîòðåáëåíèÿ â âåëèêîêíÿæåñêîì òèòóëå ñëî⠓âñåÿ Ðóñè” â ÕIV – ïåðâ. ïîë. ÕV â. ìîæíî ñäåëàòü âûâîä,

30 À. À. Ãîðñêèé. Ðóññêèå çåìëè â ÕIII-ÕIV âåêàõ. Ïóòè ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 1996. Ñ. 45-46. 31 Ïîëíîå ñîáðàíèå ðóññêèõ ëåòîïèñåé (äàëåå – ÏÑÐË). Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ò. 1. Ñòá. 470, 472; ÏÑÐË. Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ò. 15. Ñòá. 396. 32 ÏÑÐË. Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ò. 3. Ñ. 363; ÏÑÐË. Ò. 15. Ñòá. 44, 52, 62, 63, 156, 416-417. 33 Äóõîâíûå è äîãîâîðíûå ãðàìîòû âåëèêèõ è óäåëüíûõ êíÿçåé XIV-XVI ââ. Ìîñêâà, 1950 (äàëåå – ÄÄÃ). Ñ. 11. ¹ 2 (1350-1351 ãã.); Ñ. 39. ¹ 14 (1390 ã.).

576 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ÷òî â äàííûé ïåðèîä îíè ñèìâîëèçèðîâàëè íå ïåðñïåêòèâíóþ ïðî- ãðàììó îáúåäèíåíèÿ Ìîñêâîé âñåõ ðóññêèõ òåððèòîðèé, à ïðåòåí- çèþ íà âîçâûøåíèå âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé âëàäèìèðñêèõ (ñ 1370-õ ãã. èìè ñòàíîâèëèñü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ìîñêîâñêîãî ðîäà Êàëèòè÷åé) íàä îñòàëüíûìè êíÿçüÿìè. Ýòî ñî÷åòàëîñü ñ ïåðåõî- äîì íà âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ ÷àñòè ìèòðîïîëè÷üåé õàðèçìû â ñâÿçè ñ ïåðå- íîñîì â Ìîñêâó ìèòðîïîëè÷üåãî ñòîëà. Ïî âðåìåíè ïåðååçä ìèò- ðîïîëè÷üåé ðåçèäåíöèè â Ìîñêâó â 1326 ã. ñîâïàë ñ íà÷àëîì èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ìîñêîâñêèìè êíÿçüÿìè òèòóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” – âïåð- âûå îí çâó÷èò ó Èâàíà Êàëèòû. Âïëîòü äî ñåðåäèíû ÕV â. ïîëèòè- ÷åñêàÿ àêòóàëèçàöèÿ äàííîé òèòóëàòóðû áûëà ñâÿçàíà ñ âíóòðè- ðóññêèìè ïðîáëåìàìè è íå èìåëà îòíîøåíèÿ ê ñôåðå ðóññêî- ëèòîâñêèõ îòíîøåíèé. Ïîíÿòèå “âñÿ Ðóñü” ñòàëî àêòèâíî ôèãóðèðîâàòü â ïîëåìèêå ìåæäó Ìîñêîâñêèì êíÿæåñòâîì è ÂÊË â ñâÿçè ñ îáðåòåíèåì Ðóñ- ñêîé ïðàâîñëàâíîé öåðêîâüþ àâòîêåôàëèè â 1448 ã. è ðàñïðîñò- ðàíåíèåì óíèè íà çåìëÿõ Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî âî âòî- ðîé ïîëîâèíå ÕV â.34  ïîñëàíèè ìîñêîâñêîãî âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ Âàñèëèÿ II êîíñòàíòèíîïîëüñêîìó ïàòðèàðõó Ìèòðîôàíó â 1441 ã. îá îòñòóïëåíèè îò ïðàâîñëàâèÿ ìèòðîïîëèòà-óíèàòà Èñèäîðà “Ðóññêàÿ çåìëÿ” íàçâàíà “îòå÷åñòâèåì íàøèì”.35  ãðàìîòå ìèò- ðîïîëèòà Èîíû êèåâñêîìó êíÿçþ Àëåêñàíäðó Âëàäèìèðîâè÷ó (1449-1454) ïðèâîäèòñÿ èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïàðàëëåëü: âî âðåìåíà “ñâÿ- òàãî ñàìîäåðæöà âñåÿ Ðóññêèÿ çåìëÿ âåëèêîãî êíÿçÿ Âëàäèìåðà íà Êèåâå” ìèòðîïîëèò ñòàâèëñÿ íà âñåõ äðåâíåðóññêèõ êíÿæå- ñòâàõ. È åãî êàíäèäàòóðà äîëæíà â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ñîãëàñîâû-

34 Îá ýòîì ñì.: M. Papierzynska-Turek. Koœció³ prawos³awny na ziemiach Litwy i Korony // Przemyskie Zeszyty Historyczne. R. 6-7. 1989-1990. S. 139-162; Á. Ãóäçÿê. Ãðåöüêèé Ñõ³ä, êè¿âñüêà ìèòðîïîë³ÿ ³ Ôëîðåíò³éñüêà óí³ÿ // Çàïèñêè Íàóêîâîãî òîâàðèñòâà ³ìåí³ Òàðàñà Øåâ÷åíêà. Ò. ÑÑXXVIII. Ïðàö³ ³ñòîðè÷íî- ô³ëîñîôñüêî¿ ñåêö³¿. Ëüâ³â, 1994. Ñ. 48-60; Í. ². Êî÷àí. Ôëîðåíò³éñüêà óí³ÿ ³ Êè¿âñüêà ìèòðîïîë³ÿ. Äî õàðàêòåðèñòèêè ðîçâèòêó òà âò³ëåííÿ ³äå¿ óí³¿ öåðêîâ // Óêðà¿íñüêèé ³ñòîðè÷íèé æóðíàë. 1996. ¹ 1. Ñ. 28-44; O. Halecki. Od unii florenckiej do unii brzeskiej. Lublin, 1997. T. 1-2; A. Mironowicz. Koœció³ prawos³awny w pañstwie Piastów i Jagiellonów, Uniwersytet w Bia³ymstoku, Bia³ystok, 2003; I. À. Ìàðçàëþê. Ëþäçi äàóíÿé Áåëàðóñi. Ýòíàêàíôåñiéíûÿ i ñàöûÿêóëüòóðíûÿ ñòýðýàòûïû (X – XVII ñòñò.). Ìàãië¸ó, 2003; etc. 35 Àêòû èñòîðè÷åñêèå, ñîáðàííûå è èçäàííûå Àðõåîãðàôè÷åñêîþ êîìèññèåþ. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1841. Ò. 1: 1334-1598 ãã. (äàëåå – ÀÈ). Ñ. 71, 75. ¹ 39.

577 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... âàòüñÿ íå ñ êîðîëåì Êàçèìèðîì, à ñ âåëèêèì êíÿçåì ìîñêîâñêèì Âàñèëèåì II.36 Ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèå öåðêâåé çàâåðøèëîñü ôàêòè÷åñêèì ðàçäåëîì ñôåð âëèÿíèÿ. Íî, ÷òî âàæíî, ïðè ýòîì è â ÂÊË, è â Ìîñêîâñêîé Ðóñè îêðåïëî ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î òîæäåñòâåííîñòè ïîíÿòèé “ðóññêèé” è “ïðàâîñëàâíûé”. Ïðè åãî ýêñòðàïîëÿöèè â ñôåðó ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêè ñòðàíà, ïðåòåíäóþùàÿ íà ðîëü îõðàíèòåëÿ èñòèííîé âåðû, äîëæíà áûëà íåèçáåæíî ïðèäòè ê èäåå ñòðîèòåëüñòâà Ðóñ- ñêîãî ïðàâîñëàâíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà íà òåððèòîðèàëüíîé îñíîâå âñåõ çåìåëü, íàñåëåíèå êîòîðûõ èñïîâåäóåò èëè èñòîðè÷åñêè èñïîâåäî- âàëî ïðàâîñëàâèå. Íî ãîâîðèòü î ðàçâèòèè íà Ðóñè òàêîé èäåè ìû ìîæåì íå ðàíü- øå ïîñëåäíåé ÷åòâåðòè ÕV â. È, ÷òî âàæíî, îíà âîçíèêëà íå îä- íîìîìåíòíî, åå ãåíåçèñ áûë ðàñòÿíóò êàê ìèíèìóì íà ïîëâåêà.  ïëîñêîñòü ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêè ñòðîèòåëüñòâà åäèíîãî Ðóñ- ñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà òèòóë “âñåÿ Ðóñè” áûë ïåðåíåñåí â ñâÿçè ñ íàñ- òóïëåíèåì Ìîñêâû íà Íîâãîðîäñêóþ ðåñïóáëèêó. Ôîðìàëüíî ïîñëåäíÿÿ, ðàç ïëàòèëà îðäûíñêóþ äàíü, äîëæíà áûë ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ îáëàäàòåëþ òàòàðñêîãî ÿðëûêà íà âëàñòü íàä Ðóñüþ âåëèêîìó êíÿçþ âëàäèìèðñêîìó. Êîãäà äàííûé òèòóë â 1370-å ãã. ìîíîïîëèçèðî- âàëè ìîñêîâñêèå êíÿçüÿ, Íîâãîðîä âñòóïèë ñ íèìè â ñåðüåçíûé êîíôëèêò, íà÷àâøèéñÿ ñ ïîõîäà Äìèòðèÿ Äîíñêîãî íà ðåñïóáëèêó â 1386 ã.  ïðîòèâîâåñ âåëèêîêíÿæåñêîìó òèòóëó äàæå – óíèêàëü- íûé ñëó÷àé – âîçíèêëà òèòóëàòóðà ãîðîäà: åãî òåïåðü èìåíîâàëè “Ãîñïîäèí Âåëèêèé Íîâãîðîä”. Èìåþùèéñÿ â íàøåì ðàñïîðÿæåíèè ìàòåðèàë íå ïîçâîëÿåò ãîâîðèòü î òîì, ÷òî òèòóë “âñåÿ Ðóñè” áûë îôèöèàëüíî ïðèíÿò, íà÷èíàÿ ñ îïðåäåëåííîãî ãîäà, êàê èíîé ðàç óïðîùåííî óòâåðæäà- åòñÿ â ëèòåðàòóðå.37 Ñóäÿ ïî èñòî÷íèêàì, âíåäðåíèå òèòóëàòóðû

36 ÀÈ. Ò. 1. Ñ. 95. ¹ 47. 37 Ñð. ó À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷, êîòîðàÿ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî “âñåÿ Ðóñè” íå òîëüêî âõîäèëî â âåëèêîêíÿæåñêèé òèòóë, íî è áûëî îôèöèàëüíûì íàçâàíèåì Ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà: “Íàçâàíèå Ðóñè, äà åùå ñ îïðåäåëåíèåì “âñåÿ” (óòâåðäèâøèìñÿ âíóòðè ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ 1479 ã., à âî âíåøíèõ ñíîøåíèÿõ ñ 1485 ã.), ñêðûâàëî çà ñîáîé ïðîãðàììó âîññîåäèíåíèÿ â ïîëíîì îáúåìå Äðåâíåðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà” (À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷. Ðóññêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî â ñèñòåìå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ îòíîøåíèé êîíöà ÕV – íà÷àëà ÕVI â. Ìîñêâà, 1980. Ñ. 85.) Îñòàåòñÿ òîëüêî äîãàäûâàòüñÿ, ïî÷åìó âûáðàíû èìåííî ýòè äàòû: îïðåäåëåíèå “âñåÿ Ðóñè” óïîòðåáëÿëîñü è ðàíüøå 1479 ã., à ïåðåðûâû â åãî èñïîëüçîâàíèè â äèïëîìàòè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêå ñëó÷àëèñü è ïîñëå 1485 ã. 578 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïðîèñõîäèëî ïîñòåïåííî è íå åäèíîâðåìåííî, â ñâÿçè ñ êîíêðåò- íûìè ýïèçîäàìè ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêè è ñîâåðøåíñòâîâàíèåì èäåîëîãèè âåðõîâíîé âëàñòè. Âðÿä ëè, ïî àíàëîãèè ñ íîâûì âðå- ìåíåì, ñòîèò ïîä ïðèíÿòèåì òèòóëà ïîäðàçóìåâàòü íåêèé ãîñóäàð- ñòâåííûé àêò, èìåþùèé ÷åòêóþ õðîíîëîãè÷åñêóþ è ñîáûòèéíóþ ïðèâÿçêó. Âèäèìî, òèòóë “âñåÿ Ðóñè” èãðàë îñîáî âàæíóþ ðîëü â ìîñêîâ- ñêî-íîâãîðîäñêèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ, ïîòîìó ÷òî ñòðåìèòåëüíûé ðîñò ÷àñòîòû óïîòðåáëåíèÿ Èâàíîì III òèòóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” ïðèõîäèòñÿ êàê ðàç íà ðàçãàð àíòèíîâãîðîäñêîé êàìïàíèè â 1460-å – íà÷. 1470-õ ãã. Ïîäàâëÿþùåå áîëüøèíñòâî ñëó÷àåâ óïîòðåáëåíèÿ ýòîãî òèòóëà ñêîíöåíòðèðîâàíî êàê ðàç â òåêñòàõ, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïîëèòèêîé â îò- íîøåíèè íåïîêîðíîé ðåñïóáëèêè. Èíòåíñèâíîñòü èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ òèòóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” Èâàíîì III â îòíîøåíèÿõ ñ äðóãèìè îáëàñòÿìè ñòðàíû íàðàñòàåò ñ 1479 ã. Ïðèìå÷àòåëüíî, ÷òî òåïåðü îí îêàçû- âàåòñÿ âîñòðåáîâàí âî âíóòðåííèõ ãðàìîòàõ çàêîíîäàòåëüíîãî õàðàêòåðà, äëÿ ïîä÷åðêèâàíèÿ ïðàâà âåðõîâíîé þðèñäèêöèè âå- ëèêîãî êíÿçÿ íà ìåñòàõ.38 Îáùèì ìåñòîì ìíîãèõ ðàáîò, îñîáåííî ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèî- ãðàôèè èìïåðñêîãî è ñîâåòñêîãî ïåðèîäîâ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîñòóëàò î âîé- íàõ Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ëèòâîé çà ïîãðàíè÷íûå çåìëè êàê ïðîÿâëåíèå øèðîêîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïðîãðàììû âîññîåäèíåíèÿ ðóññêèõ çåìåëü â ðàìêàõ åäèíîãî Ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà êàê áûâ- øèõ çåìåëü Êèåâñêîé Ðóñè. Âðåìÿ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ýòîé ïðîãðàì- ìû èñòîðèêè îòíîñÿò ê ïðàâëåíèþ Èâàíà III (1462-1505), åå ðåàëè- çàöèþ – ê ñåðèè ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèõ ïîãðàíè÷íûõ (ò.í. “ïîðóáåæ- íûõ”) âîéí 1487-1494, 1500-1503, 1507-1508, 1512-1520, 1530-1534 ãã.39 Íî êàêîâû îñíîâàíèÿ äëÿ óòâåðæäåíèÿ î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè ïðè Èâàíå III òàêîé ïðîãðàììû â îòíîøåíèè ÂÊË? Èõ âèäÿò ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì â ïðèíÿòèè Èâàíîì Âàñèëüåâè÷åì òèòóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè”. Îäíàêî ïðè êîíòàêòàõ ñ ÂÊË âïëîòü äî 1492 ã. Èâàí III íàçûâàë

38 Íàïð.: Àêòû þðèäè÷åñêèå, èëè ñîáðàíèå ôîðì ñòàðèííîãî äåëîïðîèçâîäñòâà. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1838. Ñ. 4. ¹ 3 (Ïðàâàÿ ãðàìîòà Ôåðàïîíòîâó ìîíàñòûðþ, îê. 1485-1505 ãã.); Ñ. 8. ¹ 5 (òî æå, 1490 ã.); Ñ. 10. ¹ 6 (Ïðàâàÿ Êèðèëëî-Áåëîçåðñêîìó ìîíàñòûðþ, îê. 1490 ã.). 39 Îáçîð ëèòåðàòóðû ïî äàííîìó âîïðîñó ñì.: Ì. Ì. Êðîì. Ìåæ Ðóñüþ è Ëèòâîé. Çàïàäíîðóññêèå çåìëè â ñèñòåìå ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèõ îòíîøåíèé êîíöà ÕV – ïåðâîé òðåòè ÕVI â. Ìîñêâà, 1995; Â. À. Âîëêîâ. Âîéíû Ìîñêîâñêîé Ðóñè êîíöà ÕV – ÕVI ââ. Ìîñêâà, 2001. 579 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... ñåáÿ “âåëèêèì êíÿçåì è ãîñóäàðåì ìîñêîâñêèì”40, à íå “ãîñóäàðåì âñåÿ Ðóñè”. Ýòî íå ìåøàëî åìó îäíîâðåìåííî óïîòðåáëÿòü òèòó- ëàòóðó “âñåÿ Ðóñè” â îòíîøåíèÿõ ñî Ñâÿùåííîé Ðèìñêîé èìïå- ðèåé ñ 1488-89 ãã.41 è â îòäåëüíûõ ãðàìîòàõ ÷àñòíûì ëèöàì â Êðûì, íàïð., Çàõàðüå Ñêàðüå â Êàôó îò 14 ìàðòà 1484 ã. èëè Õîçå Àñàíó â Êðûì îò èþëÿ 1485 ã.42 Äàííûå ôàêòû ãîâîðÿò î òîì, ÷òî âïëîòü äî íà÷àëà 1490-õ ãã. êîíöåïò “âñåÿ Ðóñè” äëÿ Ìîñêîâñêîé Ðóñè íå îçíà÷àë äåêëàðàöèþ ïðåòåíçèé íà ðóññêèå çåìëè â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË êàê íà ñîñòàâíóþ ÷àñòü “âñåé Ðóñè”, õîòÿ âíóòðè ñòðàíû, â ÷àñòíî- ñòè, â îòíîøåíèÿõ ñ Íîâãîðîäîì îí, íåñîìíåííî, â ýòî âðåìÿ óæå ÿâëÿëñÿ ýëåìåíòîì “îáúåäèíèòåëüíîãî” äèñêóðñà. Ðàííèì ïîÿâëåíèåì ïðî÷òåíèÿ òèòóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” êàê ñèìâîëà ïðåòåíçèè íà ðóññêèå çåìëè ÂÊË ìû âî ìíîãîì îáÿçàíû íåìåö- êîìó äèïëîìàòó Íèêîëàþ Ïîïïåëþ.  1488 ã. ðûöàðü ïåðåäàë Èâàíó III ñåêðåòíîå ïðåäëîæåíèå èìïåðàòîðà î äàðîâàíèè ìîñ- êîâñêîìó ãîñóäàðþ êîðîëåâñêîãî òèòóëà.  íåì âïåðâûå è ïðî- çâó÷àëà ìûñëü: êîëè êðàëü ïîëüñêèé òî ñðîçóìååò, âî äíè è â íîùè áóäåò äî öåñàðÿ ïîñèëàòè ñ âåëèêèìè äàðû, àáû òîãî öåñàðü òâîåé ìèëîñòè íå óäåëàë: ëÿõîâå òîãî áîÿòñÿ âåëüìè, êîëè òâîÿ ìèëîñòü êðàëåì áóäåøü, èæ òîãäû âñÿ Ðóñêàÿ çåìëÿ, ÷òî ïîä êðàëåì Ïîëüñêèì, îòñóïèò îò íåãî, è òîâåé ìèëîñòè áóäóò ïîñëóøíè.43

40 Ìàòåðèàëû ïîñîëüñòâà Ìèõàèëà Åðîïêèíà, ÿíâàðü 1488 ã., ïîñîëüñòâà Ô. Ïàëåöêîãî, ìàðò 1488 ã.; ïîñîëüñòâà îò Êàçèìèðà Ò. Ìîñàëüñêîãî, ìàðò 1488 ã., ïîñîëüñòâà â Ëèòâó Àíäðåÿ Êàðàìûøåâà â èþëå 1488 ã., îòâåò áîÿðèíà Äìèòðèÿ Âëàäèìèðîâè÷à ïîñëó Âîéòêó Êëî÷êó â ìàå 1492 ã. – Ïàìÿòíèêè äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ñíîøåíèé Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêî-ëèòîâñêèì. Ò. I (ñ 1487 ïî 1533 ãîä) / Ïîä ðåä. Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâà // Ñáîðíèê Ðóññêîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî îáùåñòâà (äàëåå – Ñá. ÐÈÎ.). Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1882. Ò. 35. Ñ. 6, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 59. 41 Ïàìÿòíèêè äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ñíîøåíèé Äðåâíåé Ðîññèè ñ äåðæàâàìè èíîñòðàííûìè. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1851. Ò. I. Ïàìÿòíèêè äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ñíîøåíèé ñ èìïåðèåþ Ðèìñêîþ (ñ 1488 ïî 1594 ãîä). (äàëåå – ÏÄÑ. Ò. I). Ñòá. 15, 23-24. 42 Ïàìÿòíèêè äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ñíîøåíèé Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Êðûìñêîþ è Íîãàéñêîþ îðäàìè è ñ Òóðöèåé. Ò. I. Ñ 1474 ïî 1505 ãîä, ýïîõà ñâåðæåíèÿ ìîíãîëüñêîãî èãà â Ðîññèè / Ïîä ðåä. Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâà // Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ñàíêò- Ïåòåðáóðã, 1884. Ò. 41. Ñ. 41, 45. 43 ÏÄÑ. Ò. I. Ñòá. 2-3, 11. 580 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, åñëè èñõîäèòü ñòðîãî èç àíàëèçà èñòî÷íèêîâ, òåçèñ, êîòîðûé ñ÷èòàåòñÿ àêñèîìàòè÷íûì, î ïðèíÿòèè Èâàíîì III òèòóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” äëÿ çàõâàòà ðóññêèõ çåìåëü â ñîñòàâå Ïîëüøè, áûë âïåðâûå îçâó÷åí â 1488 ã. âîâñå íå êåì-ëèáî èç ìîñêîâñêèõ ïîëèòèêîâ, à èìïåðñêèì ïîñëîì. Íèêàêèõ áîëåå ðàííèõ ïîäîá- íûõ ôîðìóëèðîâîê äàííîé èäåè â ðóññêèõ òåêñòàõ ÕV â. íàì íåèçâåñòíî. Íà çàÿâëåíèå Ïîïïåëÿ â 1488 ã. Èâàí III îòðåàãèðîâàë ñîâåð- øåííî áåçðàçëè÷íî. Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, îòâåò ðóññêîé ñòîðîíû, çàïèñàííûé â ïîñîëüñêîé êíèãå, íå äàåò íèêàêèõ îñíîâàíèé äëÿ óòâåðæäåíèé, ÷òî íåìåöêèé ðûöàðü äàë õàðàêòåðèñòèêó âíåøíå- ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ óñòðåìëåíèé Ðîññèéñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Çàòî èäåÿ ãåð- ìàíñêîãî ïîñëà îêàçàëàñü îõîòíî ïîäõâà÷åíà èñòîðèêàìè íîâîãî âðåìåíè, êîòîðûì Ïîïïåëü òàê õîðîøî “îáúÿñíèë” ñóòü èìïåðñ- êèõ ïðåòåíçèé ìîëîäîé Ðîññèè. Ïåðåíîñ òèòóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” â ñôåðó ìîñêîâñêî-ëèòîâñêèõ îòíî- øåíèé íà ñàìîì äåëå áûë ñâÿçàí íå ñ “ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ïðîãðàììàìè” (ñàìà âîçìîæíîñòü ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ êîòîðûõ â ñîâðåìåííîì çíà÷å- íèè ñëîâà “ïðîãðàììà” â ÕV â. âåñüìà ñîìíèòåëüíà), à ñ êîíêðåò- íîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñèòóàöèåé êîíöà 1480-õ – 1490-õ ãã. Ðå÷ü èäåò îá îòúåçäå ê Èâàíó III êíÿçåé ïîãðàíè÷íûõ çåìåëü ÂÊË ñî ñâîèìè âîò÷èíàìè (Âîðîòûíñêèõ, Áåëüñêèõ è äð.). Ýòî âûíóäèëî ïðàâè- òåëåé Ëèòâû ïîñòàâèòü âîïðîñ î íåðóøèìîñòè ãðàíèö ÂÊË: êàê ñëóæèëè íàì ñî ñâîèìè îò÷èíàìè è äîêîí÷àíüå è ïðè- ñÿãó íàì äàëè ñëóæèòè èì íàì ê íàøîìó îñïîäàðüñòâó ê âåëè- êîìó êíÿçñòâó Ëèòîâñêîìó è ñ ñâîèìè îò÷èíàìè íåîòñòóïíî îíè ïàê òûõ ñâîèõ ÷àñîâ çàïàìÿòàâøè äîêîí÷àíüÿ è ïðèñÿã îòöîâ ñâîèõ, òàêåæ è ñâîèõ, áèëè òîáå ÷åëîì â ñëóæáó, è íûíå òîáå ñëóæàò ñî îò÷èíàìè ñâîèìè è ç íàøèì æàëîâàíüåì, ç ãîðîäû è ñ âîëîñòìè, ÷òî åñìî ïîäàâàëè îòöîì èç íàøîå ëàñêè íàì â ñëóæáó (Ðå÷ü êîðîëÿ Êàçèìèðà â èçëîæåíèè ïî- ñîëüñòâà Ò. Ìîñàëüñêîãî â èþëå 1489 ã.).44 Ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ïðèñîåäèíåíèþ Âåðõîâñêèõ, à çàòåì Ñåâåð- ñêèõ, Âÿçåìñêèõ, Ñìîëåíñêèõ çåìåëü â êîíöå ÕV – íà÷. ÕVI ââ. Ìîñêâà ìîãëà àïåëëèðîâàòü òîëüêî ê èäåå ñîáèðàíèÿ “âñåÿ Ðóñè”, ïîñêîëüêó äàííûå çåìëè áûëî íåâîçìîæíî îòíåñòè ê ñîáñòâåííî

44 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 35. Ñ. 53. Ñð.: ÀÇÐ. Ò. 1. Ñ. 126-128. ¹ 109. 581 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... ðîäîâîé âîò÷èíå ìîñêîâñêèõ êíÿçåé. Íî, ïîä÷åðêíåì, ýòî áûëà èäåÿ “âñåÿ Ðóñè” êàê âîò÷èíû ìîñêîâñêîãî “ãîñóäàðÿ âñåÿ Ðóñè”, à íå “ïðîãðàììà” ñîáèðàíèÿ ýòíîãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ ïîä íàçâàíèåì “Ðóñü”. Ðå÷ü øëà î âåëèêîêíÿæåñêîé âîò÷èíå, à íå î ãîñóäàðñòâå â ìîäåðíîé òðàêòîâêå ýòîãî ïîíÿòèÿ. ÂÊË ïûòàëîñü â 1489 ã. â îòâåò íà óãðîçó óòðàòû ïðèãðàíè÷- íûõ òåððèòîðèé ïîñòàâèòü âîïðîñ î âîò÷èííîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè ßãåëëîíàì Íîâãîðîäñêîé çåìëè, Ðæåâû è Âåëèêèõ Ëóê. Ýòî âûç- âàëî ðåçêèé îòâåò Ìîñêâû.  ïðîåêòå äîãîâîðà Ðîññèè ñî Ñâÿùåí- íîé Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèåé îò 16 àâãóñòà 1490 ã. âïåðâûå ïðîçâó÷àëî (êóðñèâ íàø – À.Ô.): òàêæå è ìû, îæ äàñò Áîã, êàê ó÷íåì äîñòàâàòè ñâîåãî îò- ÷úñòâà, âåëèêîãî êíÿæåíèÿ Êèåâñêîãî, ÷òî çà ñîáîþ äðúæèò Êàçèìèð, êîðîëü Ïîëüñêèé è åãî äåòè, íàøåãî ãîñóäàðñòâà Ðóñêèõ çåìåëü.45 Òàê Ëèòâà è Ìîñêîâñêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî ïðèøëè ê ñïîðó çà ðóñ- ñêèå çåìëè â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË êàê çà âîò÷èíó Ðþðèêîâè÷åé èëè ßãåë- ëîíîâ.  êîíöå ÕV – ïåðâ. ïîë. ÕVI â. ñ îáîèõ ñòîðîí øëà êîíöåï- òóàëèçàöèÿ äàííîãî äèñêóðñà.  ÿíâàðå 1493 ã. â íàêàçå ïîñîëü- ñòâó Äìèòðèÿ Çàãðÿçñêîãî â îòíîøåíèÿõ ñ ÂÊË âïåðâûå áûë óïîò- ðåáëåí òèòóë “Áîæüåé ìèëîñòüþ ãîñóäàðü âñåà Ðóñè è âåëèêèé êíÿçü”.46 Ëèòâà óñìîòðåëà â èçìåíåíèè òèòóëà ïðîâîêàöèþ, ïîêó- øåíèå íà âîò÷èííûå âëàäåíèÿ âåëèêèõ êíÿçåé ëèòîâñêèõ, è îòêà- çàëàñü åãî ïðèçíàâàòü. ÂÊË â 1503 ã. ïîòðåáîâàëî â ïåðåìèðíîé ãðàìîòå çàïèñàòü Êèåâ è äðóãèå ëèòîâñêèå ãîðîäà “âîò÷èíàìè”, íà ÷òî ðóññêàÿ ñòîðîíà âîñïðîòèâèëàñü: íàäî ïèñàòü “çåìëÿìè”.47 Ëèòîâöû íå íàñòàèâàëè, íî â äàííîì ýïèçîäå óæå, äåéñòâèòåëüíî, âèäíà íåêîòîðàÿ ïðèí- öèïèàëüíàÿ ïîçèöèÿ: íåïðèçíàíèå Êèåâà âîò÷èíîé, òî åñòü íà- ñëåäñòâåííûì âëàäåíèåì ßãåëëîíîâ. Íà ïåðåãîâîðàõ ñ ïîñîëü- ñòâîì Ñ. Ãëåáîâà 1504 ã. ïîíÿòèå “Ðóññêîé çåìëè” Ìîñêâîé áûëî ðàñêðûòî: èõ [ßãåëëîíîâ] îò÷èíà – Ëÿòñêàÿ çåìëÿ äà Ëèòîâñêàÿ [à] âñÿ Ðóññêàÿ çåìëÿ, Êèåâ, è Ñìîëåíåñê, è èíûå ãîðîäû, êîòî- ðûå îí [ïðàâèòåëü ÂÊË Àëåêñàíäð – À.Ô.] çà ñîáîþ äåðæèò ê

45 ÏÄÑ. Ò. I. Ñòá. 37. 46 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 35. Ñ. 80-81, 82. 47 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 35. Ñ. 398. 582 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ëèòîâñêîé çåìëå, ñ Áîæüåé âîëåþ, èç ñòàðèíû, îò íàøèõ ïðà- ðîäèòåëåé íàøà îò÷èíà. Íà ïåðåãîâîðàõ 1503 ã. èç óñò ìîñêîâñêèõ äèïëîìàòîâ âïåðâûå ïðîçâó÷àëî òðåáîâàíèå: è êîëè ïîõî÷åò ñ íàìè áðàò íàø è çÿòü Àëåêñàíäð êîðîëü è âåëèêèé êíÿçü áûòè â áðàòñòâå è â ëþáâè è â ïðî÷íîé äðóæáå, è îí áû íàì íàøèå îò÷èíû, Ðóññêèå çåìëè âñåå, Êèåâà è Ñìîëå- íåñêà è èíûõ ãîðîäîâ, êîè äåðæèò ê Ëèòîâñêîé çåìëå, îòñòó- ïèëñÿ.48 Ñ êîíöà ÕV â. ðóññêàÿ äèïëîìàòèÿ çàíèìàëà ïðèíöèïèàëüíóþ ïîçèöèþ: “Ç Áîæèåþ âîëåþ, ãîðîäû è çåìëè ãîñóäàðü íàø äåðæèò çà ñîáîé ñâîþ îò÷èíó, à Æèãèìîíò êîðîëü ãîðîäû è çåìëè ðóñêèå è íûíå äðúæèò çà ñîáîþ ãîñóäàðÿ íàøåãî îò÷èíó”.49 Ñòîèò ïîä- ÷åðêíóòü, ÷òî äëÿ Ìîñêâû â ïåðâ. ïîë. ÕVI â. êîíöåïò “âñåÿ Ðóñè” ñòàë äåêëàðàöèåé, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîé òåððèòîðèàëüíûå çàõâàòû îïðàâäûâàëèñü, íî íå ïëàíèðîâàëèñü. Ïåðèîäè÷åñêîå òðåáîâàíèå Êèåâà áûëî ïîëåìè÷åñêèì ïðèåìîì (“Ñîãëàøàéòåñü ñ íàìè â ìà- ëîì, íå òî ïîòðåáóåì áîëüøåãî”) íà äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ äåáàòàõ. Íî â ìîñêîâñêèõ èñòî÷íèêàõ íåò íèêàêèõ óêàçàíèé íà ïðàêòè÷åñ- êóþ ïîäãîòîâêó ðóññêèìè ïîõîäà íà Êèåâ. Î òàêîé óãðîçå ãîâîðÿò òîëüêî ñëóõè, ïåðèîäè÷åñêè âîçíèêàâøèå â ÂÊË. Ïî ñïðàâåäëè- âîìó çàìå÷àíèþ Ê. Ðàñìóññåíà, åñëè ïåðåìèðèÿ ðàç çà ðàçîì ïðî- äëåâàëèñü, òî íè Ìîñêâà, íè Âèëüíî íå âèäåëè â îáîçðèìîì áóäó- ùåì íåîáõîäèìîñòè âîåííîãî ðåøåíèÿ òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ ïðîáëåì.50 Ïîñòåïåííî, èç-çà òîãî, ÷òî ïîñòàíîâêà âîïðîñà íîñèëà äåêëà- ðàòèâíûé è óæå â êàêîé-òî ñòåïåíè ðèòóàëüíûé õàðàêòåð, ñòîðî- íû ïðèøëè ê åãî ÷àñòè÷íîìó ðåøåíèþ.  íà÷àëå ÕVI â. ÂÊË, õîòü è ñ ÿâíîé íåîõîòîé, ïðèçíàëî çà ìîñêîâñêèìè ïðàâèòåëÿìè òèòóë “âñåÿ Ðóñè”.  ïåðåìèðíûõ ãðàìîòàõ 1537 è 1542 ãã. Ëèòâà è Ìîñêâà áðàëè îáÿçàòåëüñòâà íå íà÷èíàòü âîéíó ñ öåëüþ çàõâàòà Íîâãîðîäà, Ïñêîâà, Êèåâà, Ñåâåðñêèõ çåìåëü.

48 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 35. Ñ. 460. 49 Ðå÷ü Èâàíà Âàñèëüåâè÷à Øóéñêîãî íà ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèõ ïåðåãîâîðàõ ñ ó÷àñòèåì ïîñëîâ Âàòèêàíà è Ñâÿùåííîé Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèè 25 îêòÿáðÿ 1526 ã. // Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 35. Ñ. 725. 50 K. Rasmussen. Die livlandische Krise 1554-1561. Copenhagen, 1973. S. 47. 583 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... Ïðè ýòîì ìîñêîâñêàÿ ñòîðîíà íà ïðîòÿæåíèè âñåãî ðàññìàòðè- âàåìîãî ïåðèîäà íå âûñêàçûâàëà íèêàêèõ ñîìíåíèé â óïîòðåáëå- íèè ïðàâèòåëåì ÂÊË òèòóëà “âåëèêèé êíÿçü Ðóññêèé”, ÷òî âûãëÿ- äèò íåêîòîðûì ïàðàäîêñîì. Åñëè äîïóñòèòü, ÷òî â òèòóëå “âñåÿ Ðóñè” ïðè Èâàíå III áûëà çàëîæåíà ïðîãðàììà âîññîåäèíåíèÿ âñåõ ðóññêèõ çåìåëü, òî ïî÷åìó ñî ñòîðîíû Ìîñêâû íå áûëî íè ìàëåé- øèõ âîçðàæåíèé ïðîòèâ òèòóëàòóðû “âåëèêèå êíÿçüÿ Ëèòîâñêèå è Ðóññêèå” ïðàâèòåëåé ÂÊË? Îíà ôèãóðèðóåò ïðàêòè÷åñêè âî âñåõ ìîñêîâñêèõ ãðàìîòàõ êîíöà ÕV – ïåðâîé ÷åòâåðòè ÕVI â., ãäå êîðîëü ïèñàëñÿ ñ ïîëíûì òèòóëîì, è íèêîãäà íå îñïàðèâàëàñü Ìîñêâîé. Ê ñåðåäèíå ÕVI â. è ó Ëèòâû, è ó Ìîñêîâèè ñëîæèëèñü îïðåäå- ëåííûå êîíöåïöèè “èäåàëüíîé” ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêîé êîíôèãóðàöèè ãîñóäàðñòâ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû. Íà ñïåöèàëüíîì çàñåäàíèè Áîÿðñ- êîé äóìû 27 ÿíâàðÿ 1549 ã. áûëî ïðèíÿòî ïðèíöèïèàëüíîå ðåøåíèå: âîò÷èíà íàøà èçâå÷íàÿ Êèåâ è Âîëûíñêàÿ çåìëÿ, è Ïîë- òåñê è Âèòåáñê, è èíûå ãîðîäû ðóññêèå ìíîãèå çà êîðîëåì Çàíæå, òîëêî íûíå ñäåëàòè ìèð âå÷íûé, è âïåðåä óæå ÷åðåç êðåñòíîå öåëîâàíèå ñâîèõ âîò÷èí èñêàòè íåëçå, çàíæå êðåñò- íîãî öåëîâàíèÿ íèêàê ïîðóøèòè íå õî÷þ. È ïðèãîâîðèë ñ áîÿðû âå÷íîãî ìèðó ñ êîðîëåì íå äåëàòè äëÿ äîñòàâàíüÿ ñâî- èõ ñòàðèííûõ âîò÷èí, à âçÿòü ñ êîðîëåì ïåðåìèðüå íà âðåìå.51 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïóáëè÷íîå àðòèêóëèðîâàíèå íàìåðåíèÿ âîîðó- æåííîé áîðüáû Ìîñêâû çà îáúåäèíåíèå ðóññêèõ çåìåëü, íàõîäÿ- ùèõñÿ ïîä âëàñòüþ ÂÊË, ñòîèò îòíîñèòü íå êî âðåìåíè Èâàíà III (åñëè íå ñ÷èòàòü ïðîåêòà ðóññêî-èìïåðñêîãî äîãîâîðà 1489 ã.), à ê ïðàâëåíèþ åãî âíóêà, Èâàíà IV. Õîòÿ çäåñü ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ïðàê- òèêà îïåðåæàëà èäåîëîãèþ – ïåðâûå çàõâàòû òåððèòîðèé ÂÊË áûëè, âñå æå, îñóùåñòâëåíû åùå ïðè Èâàíå III (1462-1505) è Âàñè- ëèè III (1505-1533). Íî îñìûñëåíèå èõ çíà÷åíèÿ è ïîäâåäåíèå êîí- öåïòóàëüíîé îñíîâû ïðîèçîøëî ïîçæå.52 Ãåíåçèñ èäåè “âñåÿ Ðóñè”

51 Ïàìÿòíèêè äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ñíîøåíèé Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêî- Ëèòîâñêèì. Ò. II (ñ 1533 ïî 1560 ãîä) / Ïîä ðåä. Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâà // Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 59. Ñ. 278. 52 Ìíåíèå, ÷òî äëÿ ñòðîèòåëüñòâà ðîññèéñêîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè ÕVI â. áûëî õàðàêòåðíî ïðèíöèïèàëüíîå “çàïàçäûâàíèå” èäåîëîãè÷åñêîãî îôîðìëåíèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêè, ìû ïûòàëèñü îáîñíîâàòü â ñòàòüå: À. Ôèëþøêèí. Ïðîáëåìà ãåíåçèñà Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè // Íîâàÿ èìïåðñêàÿ èñòîðèÿ ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Ñá. ñòàòåé / Ðåä è ñîñò.: È. Ãåðàñèìîâ, Ñ. Ãëåáîâ, À. Êàïëóíîâñêèé, Ì. Ìîãèëüíåð, À. Ñåìåíîâ. Êàçàíü, 2004. Ñ. 375-408. 584 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñ âêëþ÷åíèåì â íåå ïðåòåíçèé íà ðóññêèå çåìëè â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË çàíÿë âñþ ïåðâóþ ïîëîâèíó ÕVI â. À â ñåðåäèíå ñòîëåòèÿ Ìîñêâà óæå áûëà ãîòîâà îáúÿñíèòü è ñàìîé ñåáå, è îêðóæàþùåìó ìèðó, ïî÷åìó ÷àñòü òåððèòîðèè ÂÊË íà ñàìîì äåëå äîëæíà ïðèíàäëå- æàòü ðóññêîìó öàðþ. È ãðîçèòü, ÷òî âåëèêèé ãîñóäàðü âîò-âîò äâè- íåò àðìèþ “äîçèðàòè ñâîèõ âîò÷èí”. Íàñêîëüêî êðóïíåéøàÿ ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêàÿ âîéíà ÕVI â. – Ëèâîíñ- êàÿ (1558-83) – ìîæåò ñ÷èòàòüñÿ êàìïàíèåé ïî âîïëîùåíèþ â æèçíü äîêòðèíû âîññîåäèíåíèÿ ðóññêèõ çåìåëü, â òîì ÷èñëå âõîäÿùèõ â ÂÊË? Òàêàÿ òðàêòîâêà âîéíû íåîäíîêðàòíî âûñêàçûâàëàñü è îòå÷åñòâåííûìè, è çàðóáåæíûìè èñòîðèêàìè.53 Âèäèìî, îäíèì èç ïåðâûõ åå ñôîðìóëèðîâàë Å. Ô. Øìóðëî, êîòîðûé ïèñàë: “Ïðî- äâèãàÿñü ê Áàëòèéñêîìó ìîðþ, ïîñèëüíî ðàçðåøàÿ çàäà÷ó êóëü- òóðíóþ, Èâàí IV ïðàêòè÷åñêè ïîäõîäèò ê äðóãîé ïðîáëåìå: âîñ- ñîåäèíåíèþ Çàðóáåæíîé Ðóñè”.54 Íî îñîáîãî ðàçâèòèÿ äàííûé òå- çèñ íå ïîëó÷èë. Åãî çàñëîíèëî ïîíèìàíèå Ëèâîíñêîé âîéíû êàê áîðüáû çà âûõîä Ðîññèè ê Áàëòèéñêîìó ìîðþ. Ïðàâäà, ñîâðåìåí- íîé áåëîðóññêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè ñâîéñòâåííà òåíäåíöèÿ ïðåäñòà- âèòü Ëèâîíñêóþ âîéíó êàê àãðåññèþ Ðîññèè ïðîòèâ ÂÊË – ïðåä- øåñòâåííèêà ñîâðåìåííîãî áåëîðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà.55 Îäíàêî ñòîèò çàìåòèòü, ÷òî, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, â íà÷àëå Ëèâîí- ñêîé âîéíû, íà ýòàïå çàâîåâàíèÿ òåððèòîðèè îðäåíà Ðîññèÿ áûëà ãîòîâà îòêàçàòüñÿ îò âñåõ òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ ïðåòåíçèé ê ÂÊË (è äàæå îò “êèåâñêîé âîò÷èíû”) â îáìåí íà ìèð è âîåííûé ñîþç ñ Ëèòâîé, íàïðàâëåííûé ïðîòèâ Êðûìà. Ìîñêâà äåëàëà òàêèå ïðåä- ëîæåíèÿ íà ïåðåãîâîðàõ ñ ëèòîâñêèì ïîñîëüñòâîì ßíà Âîë÷êà

53 Îáçîð çàðóáåæíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè ñì.: E. Tiberg. Zur Vorgeschichte des Livlandischen Krieges. Die Beziehungen zwischen Moskau und Litauen 1549-1562. Uppsala, 1984 [Acta Universitatis Upsaleinsis. Studia Historica Upsaliensia. Bd.134]. S. 6-10. 54 Å. Ô. Øìóðëî. Êóðñ ðóññêîé èñòîðèè. Ðóñü è Ëèòâà. Ñ. 86. 55 À. Ì. ßíóøêåâ³÷. ²íôëÿíöêàÿ âàéíà 1558-1582 ã. ó ñàâåöêàé ã³ñòàðûÿãðàô³³ // Áåëàðóñê³ ã³ñòàðû÷íû àãëÿä. 1999. Ò. 6. Ñø. 1-2 (10-11). Ñ. 222-243; åãî æå. ²íôëÿíöê³ íàïðàìàê çíåøíÿé ïàë³òûê³ Âÿë³êàãà Êíÿñòâà ˳òî¢ñêàãà ¢ ñÿðýäç³íå XVI ñò. // Âíåøíÿÿ ïîëèòèêà Áåëàðóñè â èñòîðè÷åñêîé ðåòðîñïåêòèâå: Ìàòåðèàëû ìåæäóíàð. íàó÷í. êîíô. Ìèíñê, 2002. Ñ. 126-134.  ðóñëå ýòîé òðàêòîâêè íàõîäèòñÿ è îòìå÷àíèå íåêîòîðûìè îáùåñòâåííûìè îðãàíèçàöèÿìè äíÿ Îðøàíñêîé áèòâû (1514 ã.), â êîòîðîé àðìèÿ ÂÊË ðàçáèëà ïîëêè Âàñèëèÿ III, êàê äíÿ ñëàâû áåëîðóññêîãî îðóæèÿ (ñîîáùåíî Ñåðãååì Ñàëååì). 585 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà...

Èëë. 1. Ïðîåêòû èäåàëüíûõ ãðàíèö Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî è Ðóññêîãî è Ðîññèéñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà â êîíöå ÕV - ÕVI ââ. © À. È. Ôèëþøêèí, 2004. 586 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 â èþíå-èþëå 1558 ã.56 , ñ ïîñîëüñòâîì Âàñèëèÿ Òèøêåâè÷à â ìàðòå 1559 ã.57  èþíå 1559 ã. íà ïåðåãîâîðàõ â Âèëüíî ðóññêèé ïîñîë Ð. Ïèâîâ ïî-íîâîìó ïîñòàâèë âîïðîñ è î äíåïðîâñêèõ çåìëÿõ (êóð- ñèâ íàø — À.Ô.): à áóäåò î Äíåïðå ìåæ ãîñóäàðåé ïèñìà íåò, â ÷üåé îí ñòî- ðîíå, èíî òî îí Áîæåé, êòî çàõî÷åò, òîò íà íåì ñòîèò, à ïî ñåì âðåìÿ òîãî åñìÿ íå ñëûõàëè, ÷òî ïðîòèâ Êðûìà Äíåïð êîðîëåâ, à íàì ñÿ âèäèò, ÷òî Äíåïð ãîñóäàðÿ íàøåãî, ïîòîìó ÷òî òå÷åò èç ãîñóäàðÿ íàøåãî çåìëè.58 Ýòî áûëî ïðèíöèïèàëüíûì èçìåíåíèåì ïîçèöèè. Òðåáîâàíèÿ âîç- âðàòà “ðóññêèõ çåìåëü ÂÊ˔ äåêëàðèðîâàëèñü óæå ïî÷òè ïîëâåêà, è 10 ëåò íàçàä, â 1549 ã., Ìîñêâà çàÿâèëà î ïðèíöèïèàëüíîì îòêàçå îò “âå÷íîãî ìèðà”, êîòîðûé ñâÿçàë áû åé ðóêè â áóäóùåì “ïîèñ- êå ñâîèõ âîò÷èí”. Òåïåðü æå – â îáìåí íà Ëèâîíèþ è ñîþç ïðîòèâ Êðûìà Ðîññèÿ áûëà ãîòîâà “çàáûòü” î ïðàâîñëàâíûõ åäèíîâåðöàõ â ÂÊË è äðåâíåðóññêîé “âîò÷èíå Ðþðèêîâè÷åé”.  ìàðòå 1559 ã. ãëà- âà ìîñêîâñêèõ äèïëîìàòîâ À. Ô. Àäàøåâ îòîçâàëñÿ î ïðîøëûõ ðóñ- ñêî-ëèòîâñêèõ òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ ñïîðàõ äîâîëüíî ñàðêàñòè÷åñêè: ó÷íåì ó âàñ Êðàêîâà (sic ! – À.Ô.) à Êèåâà è Âîëûíñêóþ çåìëþ, è Ïîäîëüå, è Ïîëòåñê, è Âèòåïñê, è èíûå âñå ãîðîäà ðóñêèå ó÷íåì çâàòè ãîòîâîþ âîò÷èíîþ ãîñóäàðÿ ñâîåãî, òî èçâå÷íàÿ ñòàðèíà ãîñóäàðåé íàøèõ, êàê òîãî íå îòäàòè? À âû ó÷íåòå ïðîñèòè Ñìîëåíñêà äà Ñåâåðû, à Íîâãîðîä Âåëèêîé òàêæå ó÷íåòå â çàïðîñ ïðîñèòè, è òåìè áåçëåïîòüíûìè ðå÷ìè äåëî çäåëàåòúëèñÿ? Îäíàêî ëèòîâöû íàîòðåç îòêàçàëèñü ìèðèòüñÿ áåç ðåøåíèÿ òåð- ðèòîðèàëüíîé ïðîáëåìû.  îáîñíîâàíèå ñâîåé ïîçèöèè îíè äàæå ïðèâåëè ïðèò÷ó: Ó íåêîåãî ÷åëîâåêà â ïîäâîðüå áûëà çìåÿ, äà ñüåëà ó íåãî äåòè è æåíó, äà îùî çàõîòåëà ñ òåì ÷åëîâåêîì âìåñòå æèòè. È òîò íûíåøíåé ìèð êîì óæ ïîäîáåí: ñúåä÷è çìåå æåíó è äåòè, ñúåñòü åìó è ñàìîãî.

56 Ïàìÿòíèêè äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ñíîøåíèé Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêî- Ëèòîâñêèì. Ò. II (ñ 1533 ïî 1560 ãîä) / Ïîä ðåä. Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâà // Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 59. Ñ. 558-559. 57 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 59. Ñ. 572-574. 58 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 59. Ñ. 583. 587 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... Àäàøåâ â ñåðäöàõ îáîçâàë ðå÷è äèïëîìàòîâ ÂÊË “ãíèëûìè ñåìåíàìè”, êîòîðûå è “âî ñíå íå ãðåçèò”. Íî èõ ïîçèöèÿ áûëà òâåð- äîé: ìèð âîçìîæåí, òîëüêî åñëè Ðîññèÿ âåðíåò çåìëè, çàõâà÷åííûå â ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíå ÕVI â. Ýòè àííåêñèè ïîñëû íàçâàëè “ãðåõàìè ïðåäêî┠Ãðîçíîãî, è ïîêà îí èõ “ñ äóøè íå ñâåäåò”, ìèðà íå áóäåò. Ïåðåãîâîðû íå óäàëèñü, è âîéíà Ðîññèè ñ Ëèâîíñêèì îðäåíîì ñòðå- ìèòåëüíî ïåðåðîñëà â î÷åðåäíóþ ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêóþ âîéíó, â ãîäû êîòîðîé òåððèòîðèàëüíûå ñïîðû ðåøàëèñü â òðàäèöèîííîì êëþ÷å: íåñáûòî÷íûå äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå äåêëàðàöèè è óãðîçû ñî÷åòàëèñü ñ âîåííûìè íàïàäåíèÿìè, êîòîðûå èíîãäà (êàê â ñëó÷àå Ïîëîöêà â 1563-79 ãã.) áûëè ðåçóëüòàòèâíûìè.  äåêàáðå 1563 ã. íà ïåðåãîâîðàõ ñ ïîñîëüñòâîì ÂÊË, ïðèáûâ- øèì â Ìîñêâó îáñóæäàòü ñèòóàöèþ, ñëîæèâøóþñÿ ïîñëå âçÿòèÿ Èâàíîì IV Ïîëîöêà, â õîäå äåáàòîâ î öàðñêîì òèòóëå áîÿðå ñäå- ëàëè î÷åíü âàæíîå äëÿ íàøåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ çàÿâëåíèå. Ðàññóæ- äàÿ î íåëåïîì íåæåëàíèè Ñèãèçìóíäà íàçûâàòü Ãðîçíîãî öàðåì, ïå÷àòíèê È. Ì. Âèñêîâàòûé ñêàçàë (êóðñèâ íàø — À.Ô.): À ìû ñâîå öàðñêîå èìÿ íè îò êîãî èçîáðåëè, íè ó íåãî áðà- òà ñâîåãî îòíÿëè, íè íàä íèì áðàòîì ñâîèì ïîâûøàÿñÿ, íè íàä åãî áðàòà ñâîåãî çåìëÿìè çîâó÷èñÿ öàðåì.59 Ýòè ñëîâà ïðèíöèïèàëüíû. Çíà÷èò, âîïðåêè èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñ- êèì êîíñòðóêöèÿì ÕIÕ-ÕÕ ââ., íà ñàìîì äåëå ðóññêàÿ ñòîðîíà â ÕVI â. íå òðàêòîâàëà öàðñêèé òèòóë êàê ïðåòåíçèþ íà âåðõîâåí- ñòâî ðóññêîãî “öàðÿ = öåñàðÿ = èìïåðàòîðà” íàä ïîëüñêèì êîðî- ëåì, è òåì áîëåå êàê òèòóë, äàþùèé ïðåèìóùåñòâåííûå ïðàâà íà ðóññêèå çåìëè â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË. Íà Êèåâ è Âîëûíü Èâàí Âàñèëüå- âè÷ ïðåòåíäîâàë, èñõîäÿ èç âîò÷èííîãî äèñêóðñà, ñâÿçàííîãî ñ êè- åâñêèì ïðîèñõîæäåíèåì ðîäîâûõ âëàäåíèé Ðþðèêîâè÷åé, à âîâñå íå ïî ïðàâó íîøåíèÿ öàðñêîãî òèòóëà, ïðèíÿòîãî â 1547 ã. Ëåãèòè- ìàöèþ òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ çàõâàòîâ â ÂÊË ÷åðåç àïåëëÿöèþ ê âåð- õîâåíñòâó öàðñêîãî òèòóëà íàä êîðîëåâñêèì Èâàíó IV ïðèïèñàëè èñòîðèêè ÕIÕ â. Ïîëèòèêè æå ÕVI â. ñìîòðåëè íà âåùè èíà÷å. Çàêîííîñòü ïðàâ Ðþðèêîâè÷åé íà ðóññêèå çåìëè â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË Ìîñêâîé âûâîäèëàñü, êðîìå âîò÷èííîãî äèñêóðñà, è èç ñðåäíåâå-

59 Ïàìÿòíèêè äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ñíîøåíèé Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñ Ïîëüñêî- Ëèòîâñêèì. Ò. III (1560-1571 ãã.) / Ïîä ðåä. Ã. Ô. Êàðïîâà // Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ñàíêò- Ïåòåðáóðã, 1892. Ò. 71. Ñ. 200. 588 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êîâûõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé îá èåðàðõèè äèíàñòèé. Äèïëîìàòû àïåëëè- ðîâàëè ê ãåíåàëîãè÷åñêèì ëåãåíäàì, ïî êîòîðûì ïîëüñêèå è ëèòîâ- ñêèå ïðàâèòåëè èñòîðè÷åñêè äîëæíû áûëè ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ Ðþðèêî- âè÷àì â ñèëó “õóäîðîäíîñòè” ñâîåãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, ìåíüøåé çíàòíîñòè äèíàñòèè ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ âåëèêèìè êíÿçüÿìè âëàäè- ìèðñêèìè è ìîñêîâñêèìè, ïðåöåäåíòîâ ïîä÷èíåííîñòè äðåâíèõ ëèòîâñêèõ êíÿçåé ðóññêèì êíÿçüÿì (âïëîòü äî äàííè÷åñêîé çàâè- ñèìîñòè). Íàïðèìåð, â ïîñëàíèè âèëåíñêîìó àðõèåïèñêîïó Âàëå- ðèàíó è âèëåíñêîìó âîåâîäå Í. Ðàäçèâèëëó îò èìåíè áîÿð (1562 ã.) ãîâîðèëîñü: À òîëêî, ïàíîâå, âîñïîìÿíóòè ïðåæíèå îáû÷àè, êîòîðûì îáû÷àåì ãåòìàíû ëèòîâñêèå Ðîãâîëäîâ÷åâ Äàâèëà íà Ìîâ- êîëäà íà Ëèòîâñêîå êíÿæåñòâî âçÿëè è êîòîðûì îáû÷àåì âåëèêîìó ãîñóäàðþ Ìñòèñëàâó Âîëîäèìåðè÷þ Ìàíàìàøó ê Êèåâó äàíü äàâàëè èíî ïîòîìó íå òîêìî ÷òî Ðóñêàÿ çåìëÿ âñÿ, íî è Ëèòîâñêàÿ çåìëÿ âñÿ âîò÷èíà ãîñóäàðÿ íàøåãî: çàíæå ïî÷èí îò âåëèêîãî ãîñóäàðÿ Âëàäèìåðà, èæå ïðîñâåòèâøàãî Ðóñêóþ çåìëþ ñâÿòûì êðåùåíèåì, äàæå è äî íûíåøíÿãî âåëè- êîãî ãîñóäàðÿ íàøåãî äî åãî öàðüñêîãî âåëè÷åñòâà, íàøè ãîñó- äàðè ñàìîäåðæöû íèêåì íå ïîñàæåíû íà ñâîèõ ãîñóäàðüñòâàõ, íî îò âñåìîãóùèà Áîæèà äåñíèöû ãîñóäàðè, òà êè íûíå íà ñâîèõ ãîñóäàðñòâàõ ãîñóäàðè, à âàøè ãîñóäàðè ïîñàæåííûå ãîñóäàðè, èíî êîòîðûå êðåï÷å, âîò÷èííîé ëè ãîñóäàðü, èëè ïîñàæåíîé ãîñóäàðü, ñàìè òî ðàçñóäèòå.60 Êàê áûëî ñêàçàíî âûøå, òèòóë “öàðÿ è ãîñóäàðÿ âñåÿ Ðóñè” ïåð- âîíà÷àëüíî íå ñ÷èòàëñÿ Ìîñêâîé àðãóìåíòîì â òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ çàõâàòàõ.  òî æå âðåìÿ, è â ÂÊË, è â Ïîëüøå, è â Ñâÿùåííîé Ðèìñêîé èìïåðèè òåðìèí “öàðü” òðàêòîâàëñÿ èìåííî êàê ñèìâî- ëèçàöèÿ èìïåðñêèõ ïðåòåíçèé Èâàíà Ãðîçíîãî íà âñå ðóññêèå çåìëè, â òîì ÷èñëå ñîñòàâå ÂÊË. Åñòåñòâåííî, ÷òî åãî ïðèçíàíèå áûëî èñêëþ÷åíî, ÷òî, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, ñîçäàâàëî î÷åðåäíóþ êîíôëèêò- íóþ ñèòóàöèþ. Ìû ìîæåì ãîâîðèòü î ñèòóàöèè âçàèìíîãî íåïî- íèìàíèÿ, îáóñëîâëåííîé ñòîëêíîâåíèåì ðàçíûõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ äèñêóðñîâ. Çàòî èìåííî â äåêàáðå 1563 ã. âïåðâûå îòêðûòûì òåêñòîì èç óñò ðóññêèõ áîÿð ïðîçâó÷àëà èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ òèòóëà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” êàê

60 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 71. Ñ. 108. 589 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... ñèìâîëà ïðåòåíçèé íà áûâøèå âîò÷èííûå çåìëè Ðþðèêîâè÷åé. Ïðè÷åì îíà áûëà äàíà çàäíèì ÷èñëîì, ñïóñòÿ ïîëâåêà, óïîòðåáëå- íèþ îáîðîòà “âñåÿ Ðóñè” Èâàíîì III: êîãäà Èâàíà III â äîãîâîðå ñ Àëåêñàíäðîì Êàçèìèðîâè÷åì íàïèñàëè “ãîñóäàðåì âñåÿ Ðóñè”, òî ýòî îçíà÷àëî, ÷òî îí ãîñóäàðü “è òîé Ðóñè, êîòîðûå ãîðîäû ðóñ- êèå íûíå çà ãîñóäàðåì âàøèì”.61 Íîâûé âèòîê äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèõ ñïîðîâ î “Ðóññêîé çåìëå” íà÷àëñÿ â 1566 ã., íà ïåðåãîâîðàõ ñ ëèòîâñêèì ïîñîëüñòâîì Þ. Õîäêå- âè÷à â Ìîñêâå. Ïîñëû ïåðåäàëè ïîñëàíèå êîðîëÿ Ñèãèçìóíäà, â êî- òîðîì îí ïèñàë ïî âîïðîñó î ðóññêèõ çåìëÿõ â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË, ÷òîáû Èâàí IV: òåõ ïðåæíèõ äåë íå ïðèïîìèíàë, çàíæå îòöû è äåäû íàøè è ïðàäåäû, íà ñâîèõ ãîñóäàðñòâàõ áóäó÷è, ãîñóäàðñòâà ñâîè óïðàâëÿëè, è èç èõ ãîñóäàðñòâ íà îáå ñòîðîíû ãîðîäû è âîëî- ñòè ïåðåìåíÿëèñÿ ïî Áîæèþ èçâîëåíèþ, è îíè ïðîìåæ ñåáÿ, áóäó÷è ãîñóäàðè, êîòîðûå äåëà ìåæ íèõ äåëàëèñü, òå óæü èìè- íóëèñÿ, à ñàìè îíè íà Áîæåé ñóä îòîøëè, èíî æèâûì ìåðòâûõ ñóäèòè ïðèãîæå ëè, è êàêîå òî õðåñòüÿíñòâî, øòî Áîæåé ñóä âîñõèùàòè.  îòâåò áîÿðèí Â. Ì. Þðüåâ çàÿâèë, ÷òî Ñèãèçìóíä: íàøó èç ïðàðîäèòåëåé âîò÷èíó äåðæèò çà ñîáîþ, çàíæå äâà æåðåáüÿ â Ëèòîâñêîé çåìëå è äî ïîëüñêèå ãðàíèöû, è Ïîäî- ëüå, òî âñÿ âîò÷èíà íàøà, è áðàò áû íàø òî ç äóøè ïðåäêîâ ñâîèõ ñâåë, òîãî áû íàì ïîñòóïèëñÿ, øòîá òî íà äóøå ïðåä- êîâ åãî íå ëåæàëî.62 Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñïîð ïåðåøåë â ïëîñêîñòü õðèñòèàíñêîé ýòèêè. Çàõâàò ðóññêèõ çåìåëü Ìîñêâà îáúÿâèëà ãðåõîì ïåðâûõ êíÿçåé ÂÊË, êîòîðûé òåïåðü äîëæíû èñêóïèòü èõ ïîòîìêè! Íî ýòî áûëî ñäåëàíî, ïîä÷åðêíåì, òîëüêî â 1566 ã. Âîïðîñ î “âñåé Ðóñè” áûë àêòóàëèçèðîâàí ëèòîâñêîé ñòîðîíîé ïðè çàêëþ÷åíèè ßì-Çàïîëüñêîãî ïåðåìèðèÿ (1582 ã.).  ïåðåìèð- íîé ãðàìîòå, ïðèâåçåííîé â èþíå 1582 ã. â Ìîñêâó ïîñîëüñòâîì ß. Çáàðàæñêîãî, Èâàí IV áûë íàïèñàí áåç “öàðÿ” è “âñåÿ Ðóñè”. Ïðè÷åì íà âîïðîñ î ïðè÷èíàõ òàêîãî óìàëåíèÿ òèòóëà ëèòîâñêèå

61 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 71. Ñ. 270. 62 Ñá. ÐÈÎ. Ò. 71. Ñ. 357. 590 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïîñëû ãîðäî îòâåòèëè: ïîòîìó ÷òî Ñòåôàí Áàòîðèé, “ãîñóäàðü íàø, äåðæèò çà ñîáîé ãëàâó ðóññêèõ ãîðîäîâ Êèåâ”. Ðóññêàÿ ñòîðîíà ðàçäðàæåííî ïàðèðîâàëà ýòîò âûïàä: òèòóë “âñåÿ Ðóñè” åùå â íà- ÷àëå ÕVI â. ïðèçíàëè ßãåëëîíû, è íå õóäîðîäíîìó “ñåìèãðàäñêî- ìó âûñêî÷êå” Ñòåôàíó ìåíÿòü “ñòàðèíó”.63 Ïîçèöèþ Áàòîðèÿ íåñêîëüêî ïðîÿñíÿåò “íàóêà”, äàííàÿ ïîñîëü- ñòâó ß. Çáàðàæñêîãî â Ðèãå 28 ìàðòà 1582 ã. Îíà ñîäåðæàëà êàòå- ãîðè÷åñêèé îòêàç ïðèçíàâàòü òèòóë “öàðü âñåÿ Ðóñè”, ïîñêîëüêó “åãî êîðîëåâñêàÿ ìèëîñòü íå òîëêî ñòîëèöû Ðóñêèõ çåìåëü, àëå è áîëøóþ ÷àñòü êðàèí îíûõ ïîä ïàíîâàíüåì ñâîèì çäàâíà è òåïåðü ìàåò”. Îäíàêî åñëè Ãðîçíûé îòäàñò Ñìîëåíñê è Ñåâåðùèíó, Áàòî- ðèé ñîãëàñèòñÿ ïðèçíàòü çà íèì òèòóë “öàðÿ Ðóññêîãî” (íî íå “âñåÿ Ðóñè”!). Êñòàòè, äàííûé ïàññàæ åùå ðàç îïðîâåðãàåò òåîðåòè÷åñ- êèå âûêëàäêè ñîâðåìåííûõ èñòîðèêîâ, áóäòî áû öàðñêèé òèòóë íå ïðèçíàâàëñÿ ÂÊË èç-çà òîãî, ÷òî “öàðü = öåñàðü” â ïîëèòè÷åñ- êîé èåðàðõèè òîãî âðåìåíè áûë âûøå “êîðîëÿ”. Ñòåôàí Áàòîðèé, êàê ÿâñòâóåò èç “íàóêè ïîñëîì”, òàêèõ âçãëÿäîâ íå ïðèäåðæèâàëñÿ.64 Êàê âèäíî èç íàøåãî íåáîëüøîãî îáçîðà íàèáîëåå ÿðêèõ ïðè- ìåðîâ ìîñêîâñêî-ëèòîâñêèõ ñïîðîâ èç-çà ðóññêèõ çåìåëü â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË, íà ïðîòÿæåíèè ÕIV – ÕVI ââ. èõ ñîäåðæàíèå è âëèÿíèå íà íèõ ðàçëè÷íûõ äèñêóðñîâ íå áûëè íåèçìåííûìè. Ìåíÿëîñü è çíà÷å- íèå êîíöåïòà “âñåÿ Ðóñè”, è ðîëü òèòóëàòóðû ìîñêîâñêèõ ïðàâè- òåëåé, è öåëè è çàäà÷è âíåøíåé ïîëèòèêè è Ìîñêâû, è ÂÊË. Èñòî- ðèêè æå íîâîãî è íîâåéøåãî âðåìåíè ÷àñòî íå ó÷èòûâàëè äèíàìèêè è õàðàêòåðà ýòèõ èçìåíåíèé, à óïðîùàëè ïðî÷òåíèå ïðîøëîãî, òðàêòóÿ åãî êàê âåêîâóþ áîðüáó çà âîçâðàò ðóññêèõ çåìåëü â ëîíî ðîäíîé Ðîññèè èç-ïîä âëàñòè ëèòîâñêèõ àãðåññîðîâ. Ïðè ýòîì õàðàê- òåðèñòèêè îáúåäèíèòåëüíîãî ïðîöåññà âî ìíîãîì âûâîäèëèñü íå èç ñðåäíåâåêîâûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ, à èç ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïðàêòèêè ÕIÕ-ÕÕ ââ., ñâÿçàííîé ñ ïîäàâëåíèåì ïîëüñêèõ âîññòàíèé 1830 è 1863 ãã., èí- òåãðàöèåé â èìïåðèþ Çàïàäíîãî êðàÿ, ïîäâåäåíèåì èäåîëîãè÷åñ- êîé îñíîâû ïîä ñóùåñòâîâàíèå “áðàòñêîé ñåìüè” ðåñïóáëèê ÑÑÑÐ.

63 Ìàòåðèàëû ïðèåìà ïîñîëüñòâà ß. Çáàðàæñêîãî, èþíü 1582 ã. // Ðîññèéñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé àðõèâ äðåâíèõ àêòîâ. Ô. 79. Îï.1. Ä.14. Ëë. 186 îá.-187. 64 Êîðîëåâñêàÿ “Íàóêà ïàíîì ïîñëîì”, ß. Çáàðàæñêîìó ñî òîâàðèùè, îò 28 ìàðòà 1582 ã. // Êíèãà ïîñîëüñêàÿ ìåòðèêè Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî, ñîäåðæàùàÿ â ñåáå äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå ñíîøåíèÿ Ëèòâû â ãîñóäàðñòâîâàíèå êîðîëÿ Ñòåôàíà Áàòîðèÿ (ñ 1573 ïî 1580 ãîä) / Èçä. Ì. Ïîãîäèíûì è Ä. Äóáåíñêèì. Ìîñêâà, 1845. ¹ 91. Ñ. 248-249. 591 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... Àâòîðû è íå ñêðûâàëè, ÷òî àêòóàëèçàöèÿ èçó÷åíèÿ çàïàäíîðóñ- ñêèõ çåìåëü ñâÿçàíà ñ ñîâðåìåííûìè èì ñîáûòèÿìè èìïåðñêîé èñòîðèè. Íàïðèìåð, Êîÿëîâè÷ â 1864 ã. ïèñàë, ÷òî ðàíüøå ãîâî- ðèòü î “ðóññêîñòè” çàïàäíîãî êðàÿ ìîæíî áûëî òîëüêî ñ àðõåîëî- ãè÷åñêèõ ïîçèöèé, àïåëëèðóÿ ê äðåâíîñòÿì êèåâñêîãî ïåðèîäà. Òåïåðü æå: âñòàëè òàì ïåðåä íàìè öåëûå ìèëëèîíû ëþäåé – Ðóññêèõ äóøîé è æèçíèþ ëó÷øèå èç íèõ, êàê èçâåñòíî, çàïå÷àòëåëè êðîâèþ ïðèçíàíèå, ÷òî îíè Ðóññêèå. Âåñü Ðóññêèé íàðîä âñåé Ðîññèè îòêëèêíóëñÿ íà ýòî ïðîáóæäåíèå Çàïàäíîðóññêîé æèçíè.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì, ïî ìíåíèþ Êîÿëîâè÷à, è ðàçâèâàåòñÿ ïîòðåá- íîñòü â çíàíèè – ÷òî æå ýòî çà Çàïàäíàÿ Ðîññèÿ? Ñòèìóëîì ê “îò- êðûòèþ ãëàç” çäåñü îò÷àñòè ïîñëóæèëî Ïîëüñêîå âîññòàíèå 1863 ã. Êîÿëîâè÷ ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò, ÷òî â ðîññèéñêîì îáùåñòâå â 1860-å ãã. áûëà ïîïóëÿðíîé èäåÿ: ïîëÿêàì íàäî ïîñòàâèòü ïàìÿòíèê, ÷òî îíè ðàñêðûëè ðîññèÿíàì ãëàçà íà Çàïàäíóþ Ðîññèþ.65 Ïðè îáðàùå- íèè ê èñòîðèè èìïåðñêèìè ó÷åíûìè óòâåðæäàëîñü, ÷òî, íåñìîòðÿ íà âõîæäåíèå â ñîñòàâ ÂÊË è çàòåì Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé, äðåâíåðóñ- ñêèå êíÿæåñòâà íå óòðàòèëè ñâîåé “ðóññêîñòè”: Ëèòâèí èñ÷åçàë â îãðîìíîé ìàññå Ðóññêîãî íàðîäà, íå ìîã ïåðåäàòü åìó íè ñâîåé âåðû, íè ñâîåãî ÿçûêà, ñàì çàèìñòâî- âàë îò íåãî è òî, è äðóãîå Òàì âñå áûëî Ðóññêîå, è âåðà, è ÿçûê, è ãðàæäàíñêèå óñòàâû, ñàìûå êíÿçüÿ Ëèòîâñêèå, ðîæ- äåííûå îò Ðóññêèõ êíÿæåí, æåíàòûå íà Ðóññêèõ êíÿæíàõ, êðå- ùåííûå â ïðàâîñëàâíóþ âåðó, êàçàëèñü ñîâðåìåííèêàì ïîòîì- êàìè Âëàäèìèðà Ñâÿòîãî (Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ).66

ïðè âñåì âíåäðåíèè ïîñòîðîííåãî ýëåìåíòà Ðóñü Ëèòîâ- ñêàÿ è â ýòîò ïåðèîä ïðîäîëæàåò îñòàâàòüñÿ ðóññêîþ, è åñëè îíà ìåíÿåò ñâîè ãîñóäàðñòâåííûå è ñîöèàëüíûå óñòîè, òî ïî- ïðåæíåìó ïðîäîëæàåò – â ÿçûêå, â áûòå, â ïðàâîâûõ ïîíÿòè-

65 Ì. Êîÿëîâè÷. Ëåêöèè ïî èñòîðèè Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè. Ñ.7-8. Ýòà òî÷êà çðåíèÿ àêòèâíî ïðîïàãàíäèðîâàëàñü îôèöèàëüíûìè èìïåðñêèìè êðóãàìè. Ñð. ïðîïàãàíäèñòñêóþ áðîøþðó: Î ðóññêîé ïðàâäå è ïîëüñêîé êðèâäå. Ìîñêâà, 1863. Ñ. 4-5. 66 Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ. Èññëåäîâàíèå âîïðîñà, êàêîå ìåñòî â ðóññêîé èñòîðèè äîëæíî çàíèìàòü Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå? Ñ. 16-17. 592 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ÿõ, â ëèòåðàòóðå, â îòíîøåíèè ñâîèõ ðåëèãèîçíûõ ñâÿçåé ñ Ðóñüþ Ìîñêîâñêîé – èñõîäèòü, êàê è òà, èç òåõ æå íà÷àë, êàêèå çàëîæåíû áûëè â ñîçíàíèè ðóññêîãî íàðîäà åùå íà ñàìîé çàðå åãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ (Å. Ô. Øìóðëî).67 Åùå áîëåå îïðåäåëåííî âûñêàçûâàëñÿ Êîÿëîâè÷ â ñïåöèàëüíîì èçäàíèè, âûøåäøåì â 1865 ã. ïàðàëëåëüíî íà ðóññêîì è ôðàíöóç- ñêîì ÿçûêàõ, öåëüþ êîòîðîãî áûëî ïðåïîäàòü Åâðîïå “ïðàâèëü- íóþ” âåðñèþ èñòîðèè çàïàäíîðóññêèõ çåìåëü ïîñëå ïîäàâëåíèÿ Ïîëüñêîãî âîññòàíèÿ 1863 ã.: Íàçâàíèÿ Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè — Ðóòåíèÿ, Ðóòåíñêèé íàðîä — ñîâåðøåííî íå îñíîâàòåëüíû. Íàðîä Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè íå çíàåò è íèêîãäà íå çíàë ýòèõ âûäóìàííûõ íàçâàíèé. Îí âñåãäà íàçûâàë ñåáÿ Ðóññêèì íàðîäîì, ñâîé ÿçûê — Ðóññêèì ÿçûêîì, ñâîþ âåðó — Ðóññêîþ âåðîþ ýòî îäíî è òîæå èìÿ è òîãî íàðîäà, êîòîðûé äàë áûòèå Ðóññêîé èìïåðèè, è òîãî, êîòîðûé íåñ÷àñòíûìè îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàìè îòîðâàí îò âîñòî÷íîé ñâîåé âåòâè è ïîïàë ñïåðâà ïîä âëàñòü Ëèòîâñêóþ, à ïîòîì Ïîëüñêóþ.68 Ïî÷åìó æå ñòàëî âîçìîæíûì íàñèëüñòâåííîå îòòîðæåíèå îäíîé ÷àñòè ðóññêîãî íàðîäà îò äðóãîé? Áîëüøèíñòâî èññëåäîâàòåëåé ïðèäåðæèâàëèñü çäåñü òî÷êè çðåíèÿ Ëþáàâñêîãî, ÷òî çàïàäíîðóñ- ñêèå çåìëè “ïðèñëîíèëèñü” ê Ëèòâå òîëüêî â ñèëó òîãî, ÷òî óòðà- òèëè ñâîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé öåíòð, à î÷åíü íóæäàëèñü â ñèëüíîé ðóêå, êîòîðàÿ áû èõ îáúåäèíèëà.69 Ýòè ñëîâà çâó÷àëè óïðåêîì ïðîøëûì è ïðåäîñòåðåæåíèåì áóäóùèì ïðàâèòåëÿì Ðîññèè: ÷óòü òîëüêî îñëàáíåò îáùåðóññêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé öåíòð, êàê ñðàçó æå âîçíèêíóò ðàçíîãî ðîäà “âåëèêèå êíÿæåñòâà” è ðàñòàùàò èìïå- ðèþ ïî êóñî÷êàì.

67 Å. Ô. Øìóðëî. Êóðñ ðóññêîé èñòîðèè. Ðóñü è Ëèòâà. Ñ. 7. 68 [Ì. Êîÿëîâè÷] Èñòîðè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå î Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè, ñëóæàùåå ïðåäèñëîâèåì ê äîêóìåíòàì, îáúÿñíÿþùèì èñòîðèþ çàïàäíî-ðóññêîãî êðàÿ è åãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê Ðîññèè ê Ïîëüøå = Etudes Historiques sur la Russie Occidentale. Introduction aux Documents servant a éclaircir l’histoire des provinces occidentales de la Russie ainsi que leurs rapports avec la Russie et la Pologne. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1865. Ñ. ÕIV, ÕVI. 69 Ì. Ê. Ëþáàâñêèé Î÷åðê èñòîðèè Ëèòîâñêî-ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà äî Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè âêëþ÷èòåëüíî. Ñ. 35. 593 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà...  òðóäàõ îòå÷åñòâåííûõ èñòîðèêîâ çâó÷àëà ñâîåîáðàçíàÿ îáèäà íà ÂÊË, ÷òî îíî ñìîãëî îáúåäèíèòü è ñîõðàíèòü áîëüøóþ ÷àñòü “êèåâñêîãî íàñëåäñòâà”, è î÷åâèäíîå îáëåã÷åíèå, ÷òî íîðìàëüíûé õîä ñîáûòèé áûë â èòîãå âîññòàíîâëåí, ó ÂÊË îòîáðàëè èñêîííûå ðóññêèå çåìëè, à ñàì “ðàñõèòèòåëü” êàíóë â ëåòó. Ýòèì áûëà âîñ- ñòàíîâëåíà èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ñïðàâåäëèâîñòü, ïîñêîëüêó: Ïîäâëàñòíûé èì (ëèòîâöàì – À.Ô.) Ðóññêèé íàðîä íåîäíîê- ðàòíî âûðàæàë æèâåéøåå æåëàíèå âèäåòü ñâîèì Ãîñóäàðåì Öàðÿ ïðàâîñëàâíîãî. Ýòî æåëàíèå ñòàëî ÿñíî îáíàðóæèâàòüñÿ ñ òåõ ïîð, êîãäà ïîòîìêè Êàëèòû ñâåðãëè ñ ñåáÿ íåíàâèñòíîå äëÿ Ðóññêèõ èãî òàòàðñêîå, è îçàðåííûå ñëàâîþ äåë, ÿâèëèñü äîñòîéíûìè âëàäûêàìè Ðóññêîãî íàðîäà.70  ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè, ðàçäåëÿâøåé è ðàçâèâàâøåé âûøåïðèâåäåííûå òðàêòîâêè, îíè áûëè äîïîëíåíû òåçèñîì î êëàñ- ñîâîì õàðàêòåðå áîðüáû çà íàöèîíàëüíîå îñâîáîæäåíèå ðóññêèõ çåìåëü â ñîñòàâå ÂÊË.  ïðèíöèïå, ñõîäíàÿ ìûñëü çâó÷àëà åùå ó Êîÿëîâè÷à, êîòîðûé ñâÿçûâàë ïðîáóæäåíèå ðóññêîãî íàðîäà â Çàïàäíîì êðàå ñ îòìåíîé êðåïîñòíîãî ïðàâà â Ðîññèè â 1861 ã., ÷òî âûçâàëî íàöèîíàëüíûé ïîäúåì, êîòîðîìó ïðîòèâèëàñü ïîëüñêàÿ øëÿõòà, ÷òî â èòîãå è ïðèâåëî ê âîññòàíèþ 1863 ã.71  òðóäàõ ñîâåòñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ áûëà ïðåäëîæåíà êëàññè÷åñêàÿ ñõåìà: íàðîä ÂÊË, òî åñòü êðåñòüÿíñòâî, ãîðîæàíå, ìåëêàÿ è ñðåä- íÿÿ ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ øëÿõòà âûñòóïàëè çà âîññîåäèíåíèå ñ Ìîñêîâ- ñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì. Ïðîòèâ æå áûëà êðóïíàÿ øëÿõòà, à òàêæå ìàãíàòû – ëàòèôóíäèñòû, îïàñàâøèåñÿ â Ðîññèè ëèøèòüñÿ ñâîèõ îãðîìíûõ âîò÷èí. Ïîýòîìó ýòè ñðåäíåâåêîâûå “îëèãàðõè” è òÿíóëè ê Ïîëüøå ñ åå äâîðÿíñêèìè âîëüíîñòÿìè. Êàê ïèñàë Á. Í. Ôëîðÿ, “Óêðàèíñêèå è áåëîðóññêèå ôåîäàëû ðàäè çàùèòû ñâîèõ ïðàâ è ïðèâèëåãèé çàíÿëè ïî ñóùåñòâó àíòèíàöèîíàëüíóþ ïîçèöèþ”, ïðè ýòîì îáìàíûâàëè ñâîé íàðîä, è åìó “áûëî íåëåãêî” ïîíÿòü, êòî åãî èñòèííûé äðóã, à êòî âðàã.72

70 Í. Ã. Óñòðÿëîâ. Èññëåäîâàíèå âîïðîñà, êàêîå ìåñòî â ðóññêîé èñòîðèè äîëæíî çàíèìàòü Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå? Ñ. 24-25. 71 Ì. Êîÿëîâè÷. Ëåêöèè ïî èñòîðèè Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè. Ñ. 10. 72 Â. Ò. Ïàøóòî, Á. Í. Ôëîðÿ, À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷. Äðåâíåðóññêîå íàñëåäèå è èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñóäüáû âîñòî÷íîãî ñëàâÿíñòâà. Ñ. 174-175. Ñì. áëåñòÿùóþ êðèòèêó èñêóññòâåííîñòè ïîäîáíûõ ïîñòðîåíèé â ðàáîòå: Ì. Ì. Êðîì. Ìåæ Ðóñüþ è Ëèòâîé. Çàïàäíîðóññêèå çåìëè â ñèñòåìå ðóññêî-ëèòîâñêèõ îòíîøåíèé êîíöà ÕV – ïåðâîé òðåòè ÕVI â. Ìîñêâà, 1995. 594 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Äèñêóðñ ÷åòâåðòûé: “Äåñïîòè÷åñêàÿ Ðîññèÿ ìîãëà áû ñòàòü äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé ïî îáðàçöó ÂÊ˔ Ïîÿâëåíèå â ðîññèéñêîé ìûñëè îñîáîãî äèñêóðñà ÂÊË êàê “Ðóñ- ñêîé çåìëè”, ñêðûòîé çà ÷óæåçåìíûì íàçâàíèåì, áûëî òàêæå ñâÿçà- íî ñ ìåíòàëüíûìè ïðîöåññàìè êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ èäåàëüíîé ïîëè- òè÷åñêîé ðåàëüíîñòè. Îíè îñîáåííî îáîñòðÿëèñü â ïåðèîäû ðåâî- ëþöèé è ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ ïåðåâîðîòîâ, “ïåðåñòðîåê”, êîãäà îáùå- ñòâî îáóðåâàëè ñîìíåíèÿ â ïðàâèëüíîñòè èçáðàííîãî êîãäà-òî ïóòè, è øåë ïîèñê áîëåå ñîâåðøåííûõ îáðàçöîâ ðàçâèòèÿ.  ðàìêàõ ïîäîáíûõ ðàçìûøëåíèé è âîçíèêëî ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î ÂÊË êàê îá àëüòåðíàòèâíîé ïðîçàïàäíîé äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé ìîäåëè ðóññêîé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè, ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåìîé ìîñêîâñêîé âîñòî÷íîé äåñïîòèè. Åùå â 1910 ã. Ëþáàâñêèé ïèñàë, ÷òî: êàê ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíûé ïðîöåññ, èñòîðèÿ Ëèòîâñêî-Ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ïîðàæàåò ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòüþ ñâîåãî íàïðàâ- ëåíèÿ è ñâîèõ ðåçóëüòàòîâ ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ èñòîðèåé äðóãîãî ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà – Ìîñêîâñêîãî. Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàð- ñòâî, êàê èçâåñòíî, ðàçâèâàëîñü â íàïðàâëåíèè ìîíàðõè÷åñ- êîãî àáñîëþòèçìà è àäìèíèñòðàòèâíîé öåíòðàëèçàöèè Âå- ëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå ðàçâèâàëîñü â íàïðàâëåíèè êîí- ñòèòóöèîíàëèçìà è ïîëèòè÷åñêîé äåöåíòðàëèçàöèè.73  ýòèõ ñëîâàõ óæå ìîæíî âèäåòü çàðîæäåíèå êîíöåïöèè ÂÊË êàê äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé àëüòåðíàòèâû ìîñêîâñêîìó äåñïîòèçìó. Ñëåäóþùèé ñåðüåçíûé øàã ê íåé áûë ñäåëàí â ñîâåòñêîé èñòî- ðèîãðàôèè â òðóäàõ À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷. Îáõîäÿ îñòðûå óãëû, îíà îñòîðîæíî ïèñàëà, ÷òî, â îòëè÷èå îò óêðåïëåíèÿ åäèíî- äåðæàâèÿ â Ñåâåðî-âîñòî÷íîé Ðóñè, â ÂÊË êíÿçüÿ ñòðîèëè ñâîè îòíîøåíèÿ ñ ãîðîäàìè íà äîãîâîðíîé îñíîâå, ðîñëî çíà÷åíèå ãîðîäñêîãî ñàìîóïðàâëåíèÿ, ìàãäåáóðãñêîãî ïðàâà, øëÿõåòñêèõ ñåéìîâ è ò.ä.74  ïîñòñîâåòñêîå âðåìÿ â Ðîññèè ïðèîáðåëà îïðåäåëåííóþ ïîïó- ëÿðíîñòü êîíöåïöèÿ ÂÊË êàê “äðóãîé Ðóñè”, óñâîèâøåé, â îòëè-

73 Ì. Ê. Ëþáàâñêèé Î÷åðê èñòîðèè Ëèòîâñêî-ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà äî Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè âêëþ÷èòåëüíî. Ñ. 2. 74 Â. Ò. Ïàøóòî, Á. Í. Ôëîðÿ, À. Ë. Õîðîøêåâè÷. Äðåâíåðóññêîå íàñëåäèå è èñòîðè÷åñêèå ñóäüáû âîñòî÷íîãî ñëàâÿíñòâà. Ñ. 74-75. 595 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... ÷èå îò Ðóñè Ìîñêîâñêîé, êóëüòóðíûå, äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèå è ïðàâî- âûå êîíâåíöèè åâðîïåéñêîãî ìèðà, ñóìåâøåé ðåàëèçîâàòü äåìîê- ðàòè÷åñêóþ ìîäåëü ðàçâèòèÿ, àëüòåðíàòèâíóþ ìîñêîâñêîìó àâòî- ðèòàðèçìó75 . Ïî ñëîâàì Ñ. Â. Äóìèíà: Îïûò Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî è Ðóññêîãî ïîêàçû- âàåò, ÷òî íà âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêèõ çåìëÿõ áûëî âîçìîæíî ñî- çäàíèå íå òîëüêî àçèàòñêîé äåñïîòèè Èâàíà Ãðîçíîãî, íî è äîñòàòî÷íî ýôôåêòèâíîå ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèõ èíñòèòóòîâ ìíîãîíàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, â òå÷åíèè äëè- òåëüíîãî ïåðèîäà äîâîëüíî óñïåøíî ðåøàâøåãî ñâîè ìíîãî- ÷èñëåííûå ïðîáëåìû.76 Äðóãîé èíñòèòóò, ïðèâëåêàâøèé ðîññèÿí êîíöà ÕÕ â. â ñðåä- íåâåêîâîì ÂÊË – ôåäåðàëèçì, îáû÷íî ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåìûé ðîñ- ñèéñêîé èìïåðñêîñòè è óíèòàðíîñòè. Õîòÿ â ñâîèõ îöåíêàõ ôåäå- ðàòèâíîãî óñòðîéñòâà ÂÊË ðîññèéñêèå àâòîðû îïèðàëèñü â îñ-

75 Ñì. òàêîãî ðîäà êîíöåïöèè è èõ êðèòè÷åñêèå îöåíêè â ðàáîòàõ: Ñ. Â. Äóìèí. Äðóãàÿ Ðóñü. (Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå è Ðóññêîå) // Èñòîðèÿ Îòå÷åñòâà. Ëþäè, èäåè, ðåøåíèÿ. Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè Ðîññèè IÕ - íà÷àëà ÕÕ â. / Ñîñò. Ñ. Â. Ìèðîíåíêî. Ìîñêâà, 1991. Ñ. 76-126; À. Þ. Äâîðíè÷åíêî, Þ. Â. Êðèâîøååâ. “Ôåîäàëüíûå âîéíû” èëè äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèå àëüòåðíàòèâû? // Âåñòíèê Ñàíêò- Ïåòåðáóðãñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà. Ñåð. 2. Èñòîðèÿ. ßçûêîçíàíèå. Ëèòåðàòóðîâåäåíèå. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1992. Âûï. 3. Ñ. 3-12; Ì. Ì. Êðîì. Ðîññèÿ è Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå. Äâà ïóòè â èñòîðèè // Àíãëèéñêàÿ íàáåðåæíàÿ, 4. Åæåãîäíèê, 2000. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2000. Ñ. 73-100; Ì. Å. Áû÷êîâà. Ðóññêîå ãîñóäàðñòâî è Âåëèêîå êíÿæåñòâî Ëèòîâñêîå ñ êîíöà XV â. äî 1569 ã. Îïûò ñðàâíèòåëüíî-èñòîðè÷åñêîãî èçó÷åíèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñòðîÿ. Ìîñêâà, 1996; Ê. È. Ìîãèëåâñêèé. Îòíîøåíèÿ Òâåðñêîãî âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà ñ Ëèòîâñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì. (Ñåðåäèíà XIII - êîíåö XV âåêà) // Äíè ñëàâÿíñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè è êóëüòóðû. Òâåðü, 1997. Âûï. 3. Ñ. 29-49; Ä. Í. Àëåêñàíäðîâ. Ïîëèöåíòðèçì îáúåäèíèòåëüíûõ òåíäåíöèé â Þæíîé, Þãî-Çàïàäíîé, Þãî-Âîñòî÷íîé è Çàïàäíîé Ðóñè (XIII-XIV âåêà) / Àâòîðåôåðàò äèñ. ä-ðà èñò. íàóê. Ìîñêâà, 2001; À. È. Ôèëþøêèí. Èçó÷åíèå Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé â ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè 1990-õ ãã. Ïðîáëåìû, òåíäåíöèè è ïåðñïåêòèâû // Âÿëiêàå êíÿñòâà Ëiòî¢ñêàå. Ãiñòîðûÿ âûâó÷ýííÿ ¢ 1991-2003 ãã. Ìàòýðûÿëû ìiæíàðîäíàãà êðóãëàãà ñòàëà (16-18 òðà¢íÿ 2003 ã., ã. Ãðîäíà) = Grand Duchy of Lithuania.History of research, 1991-2003. Proceedings of the International Round table. (16-18 May 2003, Grodna, Belarus) / Ðýäêàë.: Ñ.Á. Êà¢í (àäêàçí. Ðýä.) i iíø. Ìiíñê, 2004. Ñ. 8-15; etc. 76 Ñ. Â. Äóìèí. Äðóãàÿ Ðóñü. Ñ. 123. 596 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íîâíîì íà êëàññè÷åñêèå òðóäû äîðåâîëþöèîííûõ èñòîðèêîâ, äî- áàâèâ ê íèì ìàëî íîâîãî.77 Îäíàêî â öåëîì êîíöåïöèÿ “äåìîêðàòè÷åñêîé àëüòåðíàòèâû ÂÊ˔ â ðàçâèòèÿ íå ïîëó÷èëà, êàê â ñèëó ðàçî÷àðîâàíèÿ ðîññèéñ- êîãî îáùåñòâà â ñàìîì ïîíÿòèè äåìîêðàòèè, òàê è ïîòîìó, ÷òî ñî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíû 1990-õ ãã. èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèé èíòåðåñ ê èñòî- ðèè ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé â Ðîññèè íà÷àë ñïàäàòü. Èõ èñòîðèÿ îêàçàëàñü, îáðàçíî âûðàæàÿñü, “áîìæåì” â ïîñòñîâåòñêîé ðîññèéñ- êîé íàóêå. Âìåñòå ñ êóðñîì “èñòîðèè ÑÑÑД èñ÷åç ðàçäåë “èñòîðèÿ íàðîäîâ ÑÑÑД, è â ñîâðåìåííûõ âóçîâñêèõ êóðñàõ ïî èñòîðèè Ðîññèè, ðàâíî êàê è â àêàäåìè÷åñêèõ ñåêòîðàõ ïî ñïåöèàëüíîñòè “èñòîðèÿ Ðîññèè” ÂÊË è íàñåëÿâøèå åãî íàðîäû íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñïå- öèàëüíûì ïðåäìåòîì èçó÷åíèÿ. Îäíàêî êàôåäðû è öåíòðû ïî ñðåäíåâåêîâîé è íîâîé èñòîðèè åâðîïåéñêèõ ñòðàí, à òàêæå ñëà- âÿíñêèõ ñòðàí ê äàííîé ïðîáëåìàòèêå îáðàùàþòñÿ êóäà ìåíåå àêòèâíî, ÷åì ñëåäîâàëî áû. Ýòî ïîðîäèëî â íåêîòîðîì ñìûñëå ïàðàäîêñàëüíóþ ñèòóàöèþ – ñåãîäíÿ â ðîññèéñêîé íàóêå ãîðàçäî ïëîäîòâîðíåå èçó÷àåòñÿ èñòî- ðèÿ çåìåëü ÂÊË â ñîñòàâå Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè, òî åñòü â ÕIÕ – íà÷. ÕÕ ââ. (ðàáîòû Ë. Å. Ãîðèçîíòîâà, Ì. Ä. Äîëáèëîâà, À. È. Ìèëëåðà è äð.).78 Ïðåäûäóùèé æå ïåðèîä, íåñìîòðÿ íà áîëüøîå

77 Îïðåäåëåíèå ÂÊË êàê ôåäåðàòèâíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà íàèáîëåå ïîëíî â îòå- ÷åñòâåííîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè áûëî äàíî â ðàáîòàõ: Ì. Â. Äîâíàð-Çàïîëüñêèé. Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå õîçÿéñòâî Âåëèêîãî êíÿæåñòâà Ëèòîâñêîãî ïðè ßãåëëîíàõ. Êèåâ, 1901. Ò. I. Ñ. 800-802; Ì. Ê. Ëþáàâñêèé. Îáëàñòíîå äåëåíèå è ìåñòíîå óïðàâëåíèå Ëèòîâñêî-Ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà êî âðåìåíè èçäàíèÿ Ïåðâîãî Ëèòîâñêîãî ñòàòóòà. Èñòîðè÷åñêèå î÷åðêè Ìîñêâà, 1892; îí æå. Î÷åðê èñòîðèè Ëèòîâñêî-ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà äî Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè âêëþ÷èòåëüíî. Ñ. 82-94. Èç çíà÷èòåëüíûõ ñîâðåìåííûõ îòå÷åñòâåííûõ òðóäîâ ñòîèò âûäåëèòü òîëüêî èññëåäîâàíèå Í. Á. Øåëàìàíîâîé, îòíîñÿùååñÿ åùå ê ñîâåòñêîìó âðåìåíè – Í. Á. Øåëàìàíîâà. Îáðàçîâàíèå çàïàäíîé ÷àñòè òåððèòîðèè Ðîññèè â ÕVI â. â ñâÿçè ñ îòíîøåíèÿìè ñ Âåëèêèì êíÿæåñòâîì Ëèòîâñêèì è Ðå÷üþ Ïîñïîëèòîé: Àâòîðåôåðàò äèññ. êàíä. èñò. íàóê. Ìîñêâà, 1971.  ïîñò- ñîâåòñêèé ïåðèîä èçó÷åíèåì ôåäåðàòèâíîãî óñòðîéñòâà ÂÊË çàíèìàþòñÿ â îñíîâíîì áåëîðóññêèå, ïîëüñêèå, ëèòîâñêèå èñòîðèêè. 78 Ñì. íàïð.: Ë. Å. Ãîðèçîíòîâ. Ïàðàäîêñû èìïåðñêîé ïîëèòèêè: Ïîëÿêè â Ðîññèè è ðóññêèå â Ïîëüøå (ÕIÕ – íà÷àëî ÕÕ â.). Ìîñêâà, 1999; Ì. Ä. Äîëáèëîâ. Êîíñòðóèðîâàíèå îáðàçîâ ìÿòåæà. Ïîëèòèêà Ì.Í. Ìóðàâüåâà â Ëèòîâñêî- Áåëîðóññêîì êðàå â 1863-1865 ãã. êàê îáúåêò èñòîðèêî-àíòðîïîëîãè÷åñêîãî àíàëèçà // Actio Nova 2000. Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ñ. 338-408; À. È. Ìèëëåð “Óêðàèíñêèé âîïðîñ“ â ïîëèòèêå âëàñòåé è ðóññêîì îáùåñòâåííîì ìíåíèè: (Âòîðàÿ ïîëîâèíà ÕIÕ â.). Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2000; etc. 597 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... êîëè÷åñòâî ðàáîò, îêàçûâàåòñÿ èññëåäîâàííûì âåñüìà ôðàãìåí- òàðíî.  ñîâðåìåííîé ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè ÂÊË ìàëî ôóí- äàìåíòàëüíûõ ðàáîò, è ìíîãî “áåëûõ ïÿòåí”, îñîáåííî ïðè èçó÷å- íèè ÕVII-ÕVIII ââ.

Âìåñòî çàêëþ÷åíèÿ: “Ñêàçàòü âñþ ïðàâäó î Âåëèêîì êíÿæåñòâå Ëèòîâñêîì!”  ðóññêîé èñòîðèè åñòü íåñêîëüêî ñþæåòîâ, áåñêîíå÷íàÿ èíòåð- ïðåòàöèÿ è ðåèíòåïðåòàöèÿ êîòîðûé âñåãäà áóäåò ïðîèñõîäèòü ïîä ëîçóíãàìè: “Îòêðûòü ãëàçà!”, “Ñêàçàòü âñþ ïðàâäó!”. ×àùå âñåãî ýòî âîïðîñû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ íàöèîíàëüíûìè èñòîðèÿìè, ïîëîâèí÷àòûå îòâåòû íà êîòîðûå íåèçáåæíî óùåìëÿþò ÷üå-ëèáî ñàìîëþáèå. Ê íèì îòíîñÿòñÿ è ìíîãèå ñþæåòû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ ÂÊË. Íåçíàíèå â Ðîññèè èñòîðèè ÂÊË áûëî ïðèçíàíî ïðîáëåìîé â ñâÿçè ñ ïîëüñêèì âîññòàíèåì 1863 ã. è íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ èìïåðñêîé êîíòðïðîïàãàíäû. Ìåòîä áûë èçáðàí ñàìûé ïðîñòîé è ýôôåêòèâ- íûé: âñå, ÷òî ãîâîðèëè èíîñòðàíöû îá èñòîðèè Çàïàäíîãî êðàÿ (â îñíîâíîì ïîëÿêè, äðóãèõ íàöèîíàëüíûõ èñòîðèîãðàôèé åùå íå áûëî) îáúÿâëÿëîñü ëîæüþ, à ïîäëèííàÿ èñòîðèÿ áûâøèõ çåìåëü ÂÊË è Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé – íåïîçíàííîé. Íàïðèìåð, â óæå óïîìè- íàâøåéñÿ ïðîïàãàíäèñòñêîé êíèãå Êîÿëîâè÷à “Èñòîðè÷åñêîå èññëå- äîâàíèå î Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè” (1865) áûë ïîìåùåí öåëûé ìàíèôåñò, ïðèçûâàþùèé ê îòêðûòèþ “ïîäëèííîé” èñòîðèè Çàïàäíîãî êðàÿ, êîòîðîå ìîãóò ñäåëàòü òîëüêî ðîññèéñêèå èñòîðèêè: Ðóññêàÿ íàóêà íå ìîæåò îñòàâàòüñÿ â ìîë÷àíèè ïðè âèäå òàêèõ íåïðàâèëüíûõ ïîíÿòèé î Çàïàäíîì êðàå Ðîññèè, êàêèå ðàñïðîñòðàíèëèñü ïî Åâðîïå è çàòåìíÿþò ñàìûå î÷åâèäíûå è íåñîìíåííûå ôàêòû çàïàäíî-ðóññêîé èñòîðèè è æèçíè. Äåñÿòü ìèëëèîíîâ ëþäåé, æèâóùèõ ìåæäó âåëèêîé Ðîññèåé è Ïîëüøåé, íå ïîíÿòû Çàïàäíîé Åâðîïîé, íå ïðèçíàíû äîñ- òîéíûìè ñåðüåçíîãî âíèìàíèÿ, íåñìîòðÿ íà èõ áîãàòóþ ñîáû- òèÿìè èñòîðèþ îíè ïðè÷èñëåíû ê ïîëÿêàì ñ òàêèì ëåãêî- ìûñëèåì, ïðèìåðà êîòîðîìó íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåò íàì èñòîðèÿ ñ òåõ ïîð, êàê ïåðåñòàëè ñìîòðåòü íà íàðîäû êàê íà ñòàäî, êîòîðîå ìîæíî ïðèãíàòü, êóäà âçäóìàåòñÿ.79

79 [Ì. Êîÿëîâè÷] Èñòîðè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå î Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè, ñëóæàùåå ïðåäèñëîâèåì ê äîêóìåíòàì, îáúÿñíÿþùèì èñòîðèþ çàïàäíî-ðóññêîãî êðàÿ è åãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê Ðîññèè ê Ïîëüøå. Ñ. IV. 598 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Îäíàêî ðåôëåêñèÿ ïîëüñêîãî âîññòàíèÿ 1863 ã. ïîðîäèëà áîëüøå ïóáëèöèñòè÷åñêèõ è ïðîïàãàíäèñòñêèõ, ÷åì èñòîðè÷åñêèõ òðóäîâ. Ñïóñòÿ ïîëâåêà, â 1910 ã., Ëþáàâñêèé ïèñàë: “ Ëèòâà è Çàïàäíàÿ Ðóñü âñå åùå ïðîäîëæàþò îñòàâàòüñÿ terra incognita, è íå òîëüêî äëÿ øèðîêîé ïóáëèêè, íî è äëÿ ó÷åíîãî ìèðà, èñêëþ÷àÿ íåìíîãèõ ñðàâ- íèòåëüíî ñïåöèàëèñòîâ”.80 Ñðåäè ñîâåòñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ èçó÷åíèå èñòîðèè ñðåäíåâåêîâîé Ëèòâû íå áûëî ïîïóëÿðíî â ñèëó íåÿñíîñòè ïîëîæåíèÿ ÂÊË íà èñòî- ðè÷åñêèõ ìåíòàëüíûõ êàðòàõ íîâåéøåãî âðåìåíè. Ðàññêàçû î ïðî- øëîì îòäåëüíûõ ðàéîíîâ äàííîé äåðæàâû îêàçàëèñü âîñòðåáîâàíû â íåñêîëüêèõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñöåíàðèÿõ, ëåæàùèõ â îñíîâå èçîáðà- æåíèÿ êëþ÷åâûõ ìîìåíòîâ èñòîðèè ÑÑÑÐ: “áîðüáà íàðîäîâ ÑÑÑÐ ïðîòèâ àãðåññèè êðåñòîíîñöåâ”, “âîññîåäèíåíèå ðóññêèõ çåìåëü ïîä ýãèäîé Ìîñêâû”, “áîðüáà óêðàèíñêîãî êàçà÷åñòâà ïðîòèâ ïîëüñêî- ëèòîâñêîé øëÿõòû è çà îáúåäèíåíèå ñ Ìîñêîâñêèì öàðñòâîì” etc. Îäíàêî â ìîíóìåíòàëüíîì ñöåíàðèè èñòîðèè íàðîäîâ ÑÑÑÐ ñ äðåâ- íåéøèõ âðåìåí íå íàøëîñü ìåñòà ñþæåòó, ïîñâÿùåííîìó èñòîðèè ÂÊË è òåì áîëåå Ðåñü Ïîñïîëèòàÿ â öåëîì. Ïðîèçîøëà ôðàãìåí- òàöèÿ èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè îá ýòîì ãîñóäàðñòâå. ÂÊË îòíîñèòñÿ ê òåì íåñ÷àñòíûì èñ÷åçíóâøèì äåðæàâàì, èñ- òîðè÷åñêîå ëèöî êîòîðûõ òðóäíîóëîâèìî â ñèëó íåðàçâèòîñòè èëè äàæå îòñóòñòâèÿ âëèÿòåëüíîé òðàäèöèè ñàìîîïèñàíèÿ ñâîåãî ïðî- øëîãî. Çàòî ó ïðîòèâíèêîâ ýòèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ íàêàïëèâàåòñÿ áîãàòûé ìàòåðèàë. È åñëè èì óäàåòñÿ ïåðåæèòü ñâîèõ ñîïåðíèêîâ, òî îíè ïèøóò èõ èñòîðèþ êàê èñòîðèþ ñâîèõ âðàãîâ.  ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèè ìîæíî íàçâàòü äâà îáðàçîâàíèÿ, îêàçàâøèõñÿ æåðòâàìè ïîäîáíîé ñèòóàöèè: ÂÊË è Çîëîòóþ Îðäó.  ýòîì ïëàíå êîíôåäåðàòèâíîñòü ÂÊË ñûãðàëà ñ íèì äóðíóþ øóòêó: åãî èñòîðèÿ, äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ëèøåíà èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêîé öåëüíîñòè. Ýòî îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà, êîòîðûå ñòðàíû-íàñëåä- íèêè ñêëàäûâàþò, êàê õîòÿò. Íî ó íèõ âñå âðåìÿ ïîëó÷àåòñÿ íå îáëèê ðåàëüíîãî ÂÊË, à “êíÿæåñòâî êðèâûõ çåðêàë”, êðèâèçíà êîòîðûõ îáóñëîâëåíà äèñêóðñàìè ñîâðåìåííûõ ëèòîâñêîé, ïîëüñêîé, áåëîðóññêîé, óêðàèíñêîé, ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèé. Ïîýòîìó èçó÷åíèå ïðîøëîãî Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû âðÿä ëè âîçìîæ-

80 Ì. Ê. Ëþáàâñêèé. Î÷åðê èñòîðèè Ëèòîâñêî-ðóññêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà äî Ëþáëèíñêîé óíèè âêëþ÷èòåëüíî. Ñ. I. 599 À. Ôèëþøêèí, Âãëÿäûâàÿñü â îñêîëêè ðàçáèòîãî çåðêàëà... íî â êà÷åñòâå íàöèîíàëüíûõ èñòîðèé. Çäåñü íåîáõîäèì èññëåäîâà- òåëüñêèé èíñòðóìåíòàðèé íîâîé èìïåðñêîé èñòîðèè.82 Áåç ìíîãî- âàðèàíòíîñòè èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ îïòèê àäåêâàòíûé àíàëèç èñòî- ðèè ÂÊË íåâîçìîæåí. Âìåñòî ïðèìèðåíèÿ íàöèîíàëüíûõ èñòîðè- ÷åñêèõ ïàìÿòåé î ÂÊË áóäåò êîíôëèêò ýòèõ ïàìÿòåé, êîòîðûé ìû è íàáëþäàåì âïëîòü äî íàøåãî âðåìåíè. Ìàëî òîãî, íà ïðèìåðå ðîññèéñêîãî äèñêóðñà ÂÊË âèäíî, ÷òî äàííûå âñïîìèíàíèÿ î âå- ëèêîì êíÿæåñòâå è èõ èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêèå èíòåðïðåòàöèè ìíîãî- âàðèàíòíû äàæå â ðàìêàõ îòäåëüíîé èñòîðè÷åñêîé ïàìÿòè, â äàí- íîì ñëó÷àå ðîññèéñêîé.

SUMMARY

The subject of Alexander Filjushkin’s research is the discourses of Russian Historiography and political studies about the place of Great Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) in Russian history. The author describes four discourses. First – “Russian lands were the victim of the Lithuanian occu- pation”. Second – “The absorption of lands of the Great Limitroph as Western project of the Russian empire”. Third – “The lands of the GDL from most ancient times were Russian lands, the hereditary possession of the Moscow princes. The author in detail studies the development of con- cept “Vseja Rusi” (“of All Russia”) and the genesis of its contents from the end of the 15th till the end of the 16th centuries. A separate subject of study is a role of Livonian war (1558-1583) in the development of the idea “Vseja Rusi”. Fourth discourse – “The GDL was the model of democratic alternative of the Authoritarian type of power in Russia”. In the conclu- sion the author describes the low level of modern investigations of GDL in Russian. Therefore he names the image of GDL in historiographies

81 Ñì.: Â ïîèñêàõ íîâîé èìïåðñêîé èñòîðèè // Íîâàÿ èìïåðñêàÿ èñòîðèÿ ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Ñá. ñòàòåé. Ñ. 7-32. 600 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 and political doctrines of East-European countries as “The Kingship of curve mirrors”: each of the countries sees the image GDL, which fre- quently is rather far from a reality, but depends from the political dis- courses of the 19th and 20th centuries.

601 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Ñåðãåé ÓØÀÊÈÍ

ÂÌÅÑÒÎ ÓÒÐÀÒÛ: ÌÀÒÅÐÈÀËÈÇÀÖÈß ÏÀÌßÒÈ È ÃÅÐÌÅÍÅÂÒÈÊÀ ÁÎËÈ Â ÏÐÎÂÈÍÖÈÀËÜÍÎÉ ÐÎÑÑÈÈ*

Ïðèñêîðáíî, íî ïàìÿòü – ýòî åäèíñòâåííûé äîñòóïíûé íàì ñïîñîá îòíîøåíèé ñ óìåðøèìè. Ñþçàí Çîíòàã1

Îñåíüþ 2001 ã., âî âðåìÿ ïîëåâîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ â Áàðíàóëå, ÿ âçÿë èíòåðâüþ ó Ñâåòëàíû Ïàâëþêîâîé, áåññìåííîé ðóêîâîäè- òåëüíèöû è îñíîâàòåëüíèöû Àëòàéñêîãî êîìèòåòà ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé. Âî âðåìÿ áåñåäû ìàòü Ãåðîÿ Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà, ïîãèá- øåãî â Àôãàíèñòàíå â 1988 ã. “ïðè èñïîëíåíèè âîèíñêîãî äîëãà”,

* Èññëåäîâàíèå ïðîâåäåíî ïðè ïîääåðæêå Ñîâåòà ïî èññëåäîâàíèÿì â îáëàñòè îáùåñòâåííûõ íàóê (International Dissertation and Research Fellowship, Dissertation Write-up Fellowship) è Êîëóìáèéñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà (Columbia University Dissertation Traveling Grant). 1 Susan Sontag. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York, 2003. P. 115.

603 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... ñóììèðîâàëà îñíîâíîå íàïðàâëåíèå äåÿòåëüíîñòè â Àëòàéñêîì Êîìèòåòå ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé ñëåäóþùèì îáðàçîì: ...ÿ âñåãäà ãîâîðþ è âñåì, è âåçäå, ÷òî ïîêà åñòü ïàìÿòü î íà- øèõ ñûíîâüÿõ, îíè, ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü, ÷òî æèâû. Êàê òîëüêî ïàìÿòü áóäåò çàáûòà, âñå, – çíà÷èò, îíè ïîãèáëè íà ñàìîì äåëå. À íà ñåãîäíÿ åñòü êòî-òî, êòî ïîìíèò è ïðîäîëæàåò èõ äåëî. È ìîÿ æèçíü áûëà ïîñâÿùåíà ýòîìó... è âîò, [âåòåðàíû- àôãàíöû] ìåíÿ çîâóò “ìàìà Ñâåòà”, è ÿ ãîðæóñü ýòèì. È ñ÷è- òàþ, íó, ÷òî æèçíü ìîÿ íå çðÿ ïðîæèòà.2 Íåñìîòðÿ íà âñþ ïðåäñêàçóåìîñòü ïîäîáíîé ðèòîðèêè, àêöåíò íà ïàìÿòè è ñåìåéíûõ ñâÿçÿõ â ðàáîòå Êîìèòåòà ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé (äàëåå – ÊÑÌ) äîâîëüíî íåòèïè÷åí. Áëàãîäàðÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòè ðÿäà ðåãèîíàëüíûõ îòäåëåíèé, – ïðåæäå âñåãî, â Ìîñêâå è Ïåòåðáóðãå – Êîìèòåòû ïðèîáðåëè óñòîé÷èâóþ ðåïóòàöèþ îïïîçèöèè ñëî- æèâøåìóñÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêîìó ðåæèìó. Ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ïóáëèêà- öèè â ïðåññå è ðåïîðòàæè íà òåëåâèäåíèè ñäåëàëè èç Ìàòåðåé “îïîçíàâàòåëüíûé” çíàê “àíòèàðìåéñêîé íàïðàâëåííîñòè”, ñâîå- îáðàçíóþ âèçèòíóþ êàðòî÷êó, ÷åòêî ôèêñèðóþùóþ êàòåãîðèè èõ ñîöèàëüíîãî è äèñêóðñèâíîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ.3 Âî ìíîãîì ñëåäóÿ èìåííî ýòîìó ñòåðåîòèïó, äåïóòàò Ãîñäóìû Âèêòîð Àëêñíèñ çàÿâèë íåäàâíî ðàäèîñòàíöèè “Ýõî Ìîñêâû” î ïîäãîòîâêå îôèöèàëüíûõ äåïóòàòñêèõ çàïðîñîâ â Ãåíïðîêóðàòóðó è Ìèíèñòåðñòâî þñòèöèè ñ ïðîñüáîé ïðîâåðèòü äåÿòåëüíîñòü Ñîþçà êîìèòåòîâ ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé. Êàê ïîÿñíÿë äåïóòàò: Ìîé çàïðîñ è ïðîòîêîëüíîå ïîðó÷åíèå ñâÿçàíû ñ òåì, ÷òî óæå íà ïðîòÿæåíèè, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, äåñÿòè ëåò â Ðîññèè îñó- ùåñòâëÿåò àêòèâíóþ äåÿòåëüíîñòü îðãàíèçàöèÿ, êîòîðàÿ ôè- íàíñèðóåòñÿ íà çàïàäíûå äåíüãè... Ó÷èòûâàÿ, ÷òî îðãàíèçà- öèÿ âåäåò àêòèâíóþ àíòèàðìåéñêóþ êàìïàíèþ, ÿ ìîãó óòâåðæ- äàòü, ÷òî êîìèòåò ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé âûïîëíÿåò ïîëèòè÷åñ-

2 Èíòåðâüþ ñî Ñâåòëàíîé Ïàâëþêîâîé. Áàðíàóë, îêòÿáðü 2001 ã. 3 Îáçîð èñòîðèè ÊÑÌ: Íàòàëèÿ Äàíèëîâà. Ïðàâî ìàòåðè. Èíñòèíêò çàáîòû èëè ãðàæäàíñêèé äîëã? // Ðåä., ñîñò. Ñ. Óøàêèí. Ñåìåéíûå óçû. Ìîäåëè äëÿ ñáîðêè. Ìîñêâà, 2004. Ò. 2. Ñ. 188-210; Èðèíà Àðèñòàðõîâà. Ìàòåðèíñêàÿ ïîëèòèêà. http://www.mailradek.rema.ru/aris.htm. Àíàëèç ïîëèòè÷åñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè Ìàòåðåé ñì. òàêæå: Julie Hemment. The Riddle of the Third Sector. Civil Society, International Aid, and NGOs in Russia // Anthropological Quarterly. 2004. Vol. 77. No. 2. Pp. 215-241. 604 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êèé çàêàç òåõ, êòî äàåò èì äåíüãè... Íèêàêîãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê ñîëäàòñêèì ìàòåðÿì ýòè æåíùèíû íå èìåþò, ýòî ïðîôåññèî- íàëüíûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ðàáîòíèêè, êîòîðûå ïîëó÷àþò çàðï- ëàòó, ñîäåðæàò ñîòíè îôèñîâ ïî âñåé Ðîññèè, îñóùåñòâëÿþò àêòèâíóþ ïðîïàãàíäèñòñêóþ, èçäàòåëüñêóþ äåÿòåëüíîñòü.4 Ïîëèòèêà ðåïðåçåíòàöèè, îçâó÷åííàÿ Àëêñíèñîì, ñîñòîèò èç äâóõ îñíîâíûõ øàãîâ. Ñíà÷àëà äåéñòâèÿ Ìàòåðåé, – òî÷íåå èõ èäåíòè÷- íîñòü, – ïîäâåðãàþòñÿ òîòàëüíîé ïîëèòèçàöèè (“ýòî ïðîôåññèî- íàëüíûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ðàáîòíèêè”), à çàòåì ýòà – óæå “ñóãóáî” ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ – äåÿòåëüíîñòü/èäåíòè÷íîñòü ïîëÿðèçóåòñÿ â êîí- òåêñòå äèñêóññèè î ïàòðèîòèçìå.  èòîãå ñïåêòð âîçìîæíûõ ïîçè- öèé îãðàíè÷èâàåòñÿ âïîëíå ïðåäñêàçóåìîé öåïüþ óòâåðæäåíèé: “àíòèàðìåéñêàÿ” íàïðàâëåííîñòü Ìàòåðåé ñòàíîâèòñÿ ñèíîíè- ìè÷íîé íàïðàâëåííîñòè “àíòèðîññèéñêîé”, à ïîòîìó “ïðîçàïàä- íîé” è/èëè “ïðî÷å÷åíñêîé”. Ïîêàçàòåëüíî, ÷òî ïîëèòèêà â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ïîíèìàåòñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, êàê îòíîøåíèå èíäèâèäà è ãîñó- äàðñòâà. Âîïðîñ î òîì, ÷òî ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü ìîæåò áûòü ñëåäñòâèåì ñèíõðîíèçàöèè èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ èíòåðåñîâ, çäåñü íå ïðåä- ïîëàãàåòñÿ â ïðèíöèïå.  ðàìêàõ äàííîé ñòàòüè ìíå áû õîòåëîñü ðàñøèðèòü ðåïåðòóàð äèñêóðñèâíûõ ñðåäñòâ ðåïðåçåíòàöèè ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé. Ïðîäîë- æàÿ òåìó ïàìÿòè, îáîçíà÷åííóþ Ñ. Ïàâëþêîâîé, ÿ õî÷ó ïðèâëå÷ü âíèìàíèå ê òåì àñïåêòàì äåÿòåëüíîñòè ýòîé îðãàíèçàöèè, êîòî- ðûå òðàäèöèîííî îñòàþòñÿ âíå ïîëÿ çðåíèÿ èññëåäîâàòåëåé. È õîòÿ ðå÷ü òàêæå ïîéäåò î ïîëèòèêå, èíòåðåñîâàòü ìåíÿ áóäåò íå ñòîëüêî íåïîñðåäñòâåííàÿ (èëè äàæå îïîñðåäîâàííàÿ) ìîòèâàöèÿ äåÿòåëü- íîñòè Ìàòåðåé, ñêîëüêî ïðàêòèêè ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ïîëÿ êîëëåêòèâ- íûõ îòíîøåíèé, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðûì èõ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü, ñîáñòâåííî, è ñòàíîâèòñÿ âîçìîæíîé.  ôîêóñå ìîåãî âíèìàíèÿ, èíûìè ñëîâàìè, áóäåò íå âîïðîñ î òîì, ïî÷åìó Ìàòåðè âûáèðàþò òó èëè èíóþ ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ïîçèöèþ èëè ôîðìó äåÿòåëüíîñòè, íî ïðîáëåìà, êàê îíè ýòî äåëàþò.

4 Äåïóòàò Ãîñäóìû ÐÔ Âèêòîð Àëêñíèñ îáâèíÿåò Ñîþç êîìèòåòîâ ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé â âûïîëíåíèè ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî çàêàçà ñî ñòîðîíû Çàïàäà ïî îñëàáëåíèþ îáîðîíîñïîñîáíîñòè Ðîññèè // Ýõî Ìîñêâû. 20 îêòÿáðÿ 2004 ã.: http://echo.msk.ru/news/211841.html. 605 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû...  ñòàòüå ÿ ïîñòàðàþñü ïîêàçàòü, êàê ïðàêòèêè ïåðåâîäà ëè÷- íîé ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé óòðàòû íà ÿçûê ïóáëè÷íûõ ðèòóàëîâ, êîììóíè- êàöèîííûõ îáìåíîâ è åæåäíåâíîé ðóòèíû, òî åñòü ìàòåðè-àëèçà- öèÿ ïàìÿòè, – ñòàëè äëÿ Ìàòåðåé è ìåõàíèçìîì ïðîèçâîäñòâà íîâûõ ãðóïïîâûõ/èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ èäåíòè÷íîñòåé, è ïðèíöèïèàëü- íûì ñïîñîáîì êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ íîâîãî ïóáëè÷íîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Áåçóñëîâíî, ñàìî âîçíèêíîâåíèå òàêèõ ðèòóàëüíûõ ñòðàòåãèé ìîæåò âîñïðèíèìàòüñÿ â êà÷åñòâå îòðàæåíèÿ îáùåãî ïðîöåññà äåïîëèòè- çàöèè ñîâðåìåííîé ðîññèéñêîé ïðîâèíöèè.5 ß áû õîòåë, îäíàêî, ïðåäëîæèòü íåñêîëüêî èíóþ èíòåðïðåòàöèþ. Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ⠓ðà- áîòå ñêîðáè” Ìàòåðåé ìîæíî âèäåòü èñòîðè÷åñêèé ïðèìåð òîãî, ÷òî Õàííà Àðåíäò íàçûâàëà “ïîëèòèêîé æàëîñòè”,6 ò.å. ïðèìåð ðåàëèçàöèè ïóáëè÷íîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè, êîòîðàÿ ñòðîèòñÿ íà îñíîâå è ïîääåðæèâàåòñÿ ïðè ïîìîùè îäíîãî è òîãî æå ìåõàíèçìà – ìåõàíèçìà êîîðäèíàöèè àôôåêòà è îïûòà ñòðàäàíèé. Ýôôåêò âçàèìíîñòè è ïðèçíàíèÿ äîñòèãàåòñÿ â äàííîì ñëó÷àå â ïðîöåññå “ñëèÿíèÿ (fusion) ñèëû àôôåêòà ñ äîñòóïíûìè (prescribed) ñðåäñòâàìè îáùåíèÿ”.7 Ïðîâîçãëàøåííîå ñàìîîïèñàíèå ýòîé ãðóïïû æåíùèí – ñîëäàòñêèå ìàòåðè – èçíà÷àëüíî ìåòîíèìè÷åñ- êè îáîçíà÷èëî èõ ñîöèàëüíóþ èäåíòè÷íîñòü. Ñî âðåìåíåì ýòà ìåòîíèìèÿ ïðåâðàòèëàñü â ìåòàôîðó, â ìîùíûé ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé êîä, ñïëàâèâøèé âîåäèíî “ïîëèòè÷åñêîå” è “÷àñòíîå”.8 Ìàòåðèàëàìè äëÿ ñòàòüè ïîñëóæàò èíòåðâüþ ñ ðàáîòíèöàìè Êîìèòåòîâ ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé è àðõèâíûå äîêóìåíòû, êîòîðûå ìíå óäàëîñü ñîáðàòü â Áàðíàóëå (Àëòàéñêèé êðàé) â òå÷åíèå

5 Ñì. íàïðèìåð: Þðèé Ëåâàäà. Îáùåñòâî è ðåôîðìû. Ñòàáèëüíîñòü è íåñòà- áèëüíîñòü // Îáùåñòâåííûå íàóêè è ñîâðåìåííîñòü. 2003. ¹ 10. Ñ. 5-11; Àëåêñàíäð ßíîâ. Áîðüáà ñ àïàòèåé êàê ïëàòôîðìà ëèáåðàëîâ // Íåçàâèñèìàÿ ãàçåòà. 2003. 14 ÿíâàðÿ; E. Carnagha. Alienation, Apathy, or Ambivalence? “Don’t knows’’ and Democracy in Russia // Slavic Review. 1996. Vol. 55. No. 2. Pp. 325-363. 6 Hannah Arendt. On Revolution. New York, 1963. Pp. 85-90; îáñóæäåíèå ýòîé êîíöåïöèè ñì.: Luc Boltansky. Distant Suffering. Morality, Media, and Politics. Cambridge, 1999. P. 3. 7 Nadia C. Seremetakis. Durations of Pain. The Antiphony of Death and Women’s Power in Southern Greece. Ritual, Power and the Body // Nadia C. Seremetakis (Ed.). Historical Perspectives on the Representation of Greek Women. New York, 1993. P. 124. 8 Ïîäðîáíåå îá èñïîëüçîâàíèè ìåòàôîðû è ìåòîíèìèè â îðãàíèçàöèè ñîöèàëüíîé æèçíè ñì.: Serguei Oushakine. Crimes of Substitution. Detection and the Late Soviet Society // Public Culture. Vol. 15. No. 3. Pp. 426-452. 606 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 2001-2002 ãã.9 Âíèìàíèå ê äåÿòåëüíîñòè ïðîâèíöèàëüíîãî ÊÑÌ, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, äàåò âîçìîæíîñòü íåñêîëüêî èíà÷å âçãëÿíóòü êàê íà ðîëü è ôóíêöèè Êîìèòåòà â æèçíè Ìàòåðåé, òàê è íà ðîëü ïàìÿòè â ôîðìèðîâàíèè ïîëèòè÷åñêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè è ïîëèòè- ÷åñêîãî ó÷àñòèÿ. Îòíîñèòåëüíî íèçêèé îáðàçîâàòåëüíûé è ïðî- ôåññèîíàëüíûé óðîâåíü ó÷àñòíèö, èõ óäàëåííîñòü îò öåíòðîâ ïîëèòè÷åñêîé æèçíè, îòñóòñòâèå íàâûêîâ ïîèñêà “ñïîíñîðñêèõ” ñðåäñòâ, – âñå ýòî â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè îãðàíè÷èëî è ïðîäîë- æàåò îãðàíè÷èâàòü ñîöèàëüíûå è ïîëèòè÷åñêèå âîçìîæíîñòè Ìàòåðåé â Áàðíàóëå.  ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, ýêîíîìè÷åñêàÿ ñòàãíàöèÿ â Àëòàéñêîì êðàå (ïî óðîâíþ äîòàöèé èç ôåäåðàëüíîãî öåíòðà Àëòàé óñòóïàåò â Ðîññèè òîëüêî Äàãåñòàíó)10 è îòñóòñòâèå ïîòåí- öèàëüíûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ áëàãîòâîðèòåëüíîñòè âî ìíîãîì óñóãóáëÿþò ôèíàíñîâóþ è ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ïîä÷èíåííîñòü íåïðàâèòåëüñòâåííûõ îðãàíèçàöèé êðàåâûì è ãîðîäñêèì àäìèíèñòðàòèâíûì ñòðóêòóðàì. Çàâèñèìîñòü îò ìåñòíûõ èíñòèòóòîâ è ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî êëèìàòà, èíûìè ñëîâàìè, ñòàíîâèòñÿ òåì áàçîâûì óñëîâèåì, òåì èçíà÷àëüíûì êîíòåêñòîì, ïðåäåëû êîòîðîãî îïðåäåëÿþò íàïðàâëåíèå è ñîäåð- æàíèå ñòðàòåãèé ïóáëè÷íîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ. Ñòàòüÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷àñòüþ áîëåå øèðîêîãî ïðîåêòà.  åå ðàìêàõ ÿ ïîñòàðàþñü îòâåòèòü íà äâà îñíîâíûõ âîïðîñà. Ïåðâûé âîïðîñ ñâÿçàí ñî ñòðóêòóðíûìè îñîáåííîñòÿìè äâèæåíèÿ Ìàòåðåé, è ìîæåò áûòü ñôîðìóëèðîâàí â ñëåäóþùåé ôîðìå: “Êàê, ñ ïîìîùüþ êàêèõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ìåõàíèçìîâ, ó÷àñòíèöû ÊÑÌ ñìîãëè ñîçäàòü æèçíå- ñïîñîáíóþ îðãàíèçàöèþ â óñëîâèÿõ îòñóòñòâèÿ èäåîëîãè÷åñêîé, ïîëèòè÷åñêîé, ñîöèàëüíîé è ò.ï. ïîääåðæêè?” Èíà÷å ãîâîðÿ: “Êàêèì îáðàçîì äàííàÿ ãðóïïà íàõîäèò / ñîçäàåò äëÿ ñåáÿ ìåñòî

9 Ôàêòè÷åñêè â Áàðíàóëå â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ äåéñòâóþò äâà Êîìèòåòà ìàòåðåé. Îäèí èç íèõ, îñíîâàííûé Ñ. Ïàâëþêîâîé, îáúåäèíÿåò ðîäèòåëåé, ÷üè ñûíîâüÿ ïîãèáëè â ×å÷íå è Àôãàíèñòàíå.  1991 ã. â Áàðíàóëå áûë ñîçäàí åùå îäèí êîìèòåò, ñïåöèàëèçèðóþùèéñÿ íà ðàáîòå ñ ïðèçûâíèêàìè è ñ ñåìüÿìè, ÷üè ñûíîâüÿ ïîãèáëè â ðåçóëüòàòå “íåóñòàâíûõ” îòíîøåíèé â àðìèè.  õîäå ïîëåâîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ ÿ èíòåðâüþèðîâàë è íàáëþäàë ðàáîòíèö â îáîèõ Êîìèòåòàõ, ìåìîðèàëèçàöèÿ ïîãèáøèõ (íåçàâèñèìî îò óñëîâèé ñìåðòè) ÿâëÿåòñÿ âàæíîé ñîñòàâëÿþùåé â äåÿòåëüíîñòè îáåèõ îðãàíèçàöèé.  öèòèðóåìûõ ôðàãìåíòàõ, çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì èíòåðâüþ ñ Ïàâëþêîâîé, âñå èìåíà èíôîðìàíòîâ èçìåíåíû. 10 Äåôèöèò êîíñîëèäèðîâàííîãî áþäæåòà Àëòàéñêîãî êðàÿ â 2004 ã. óâåëè÷èòñÿ â äâà ðàçà // Altay Daily Review. 2003. 28 íîÿáðÿ: http:// www.bankfax.ru/page.php?pg=22254. 607 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... â ñëîæèâøåìñÿ ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå?” Âòîðîé âîïðîñ êàñàåòñÿ ïñèõîàíàëèòè÷åñêîé äèíàìèêè òðàâìû, êîòîðóþ ïåðåæèëè Ìàòåðè. Ñ ïîìîùüþ êàêèõ ïðàêòèê è ïðîöåññîâ òðàâ- ìàòè÷åñêèé îïûò Ìàòåðåé âïèñûâàåòñÿ â ñòðóêòóðó èõ ïîâñåä- íåâíîé æèçíè. Êàêèì îáðàçîì ñèìâîëèçèðóåòñÿ ïîòåðÿ ñûíîâåé? Êàê “íîðìàëèçóåòñÿ” ýòà óòðàòà?

“Ñûíà Ñàøó õîòü íåìíîãî, íî óâåêîâå÷èëè” Ðàçóìååòñÿ, ñåãîäíÿøíèå âîåííûå ïîòåðè íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ ÷åì-òî íåîáû÷íûì â ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèè. Ïðèíöèïèàëüíî èíûì â íàøè äíè ïðåäñòàåò ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèé è êóëüòóðíûé êîíòåêñò, â êîòîðîì ýòè ïîòåðè îñìûñëÿþòñÿ. Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî ñìåðòè â àðìèè â îôèöèàëüíî “ìèðíîå âðåìÿ” ñòàëè ðåçóëüòàòîì ñîîòâåòñò- âóþùåé ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ïîëèòèêè, ýòè ïîòåðè íå ñîïðîâîæäàþòñÿ êàêîé áû òî íè áûëî îïðàâäàòåëüíîé èäåîëîãè÷åñêîé ðèòîðèêîé, ñòîëü òèïè÷íîé, íàïðèìåð, äëÿ ðåïðåçåíòàöèè ïàâøèõ íà ôðîí- òàõ Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû.11 Îòñóòñòâèå “îôèöèàëüíîé” èëè “îáùåïðèíÿòîé” èíòåðïðåòàöèè ïîñëåäñòâèé îðãàíèçîâàííîãî íàñèëèÿ ïîðîäèëî ñïåöèôè÷åñêóþ êóëüòóðíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ñèòóà- öèþ. Ïóáëè÷íàÿ ñèìâîëèçàöèÿ àðìåéñêèõ ïîòåðü ïîñëåäíèõ äâóõ äåñÿòèëåòèé, êîíñòðóèðîâàíèå ñåìèîòè÷åñêîãî êîíòåêñòà, ñïîñîá- íîãî ïðèäàòü ãèáåëè ñîëäàò ñîöèàëüíóþ è ëè÷íîñòíóþ çíà÷èìîñòü, ñòàëè ïðîäóêòîì äåÿòåëüíîñòè ñàìèõ Ìàòåðåé. Îäíàêî íåæåëàíèå/íåâîçìîæíîñòü àëòàéñêèõ Ìàòåðåé èñïîëü- çîâàòü â ñâîåé ðèòîðèêå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ìåòàôîðû ïðèâåëè ê òîìó, ÷òî ïîòåðè áëèçêèõ àðòèêóëèðóþòñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, â òåðìèíàõ èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ áèîãðàôèé è ïåðñîíèôèöèðîâàííûõ ýìîöèîíàëü- íûõ ñîáûòèé.  ïðîöåññå ýòîé ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé äîìåñòèêàöèè òðàâìû òðàäèöèîííûé äèñêóðñèâíûé ïîèñê âèíîâíîãî òðàíñôîðìèðîâàëñÿ â íàáîð ìåìîðèàëüíûõ ðèòóàëîâ. Òðàäèöèîííûå âîïðîñû “Êòî âèíîâàò?” è “Êòî çà ýòî îòâåòèò?” ïîñòåïåííî áûëè âûòåñíåíû âîïðîñîì: “Êàê ìû áóäåì èõ ïîìíèòü?”.

11 Äèñêóññèþ î ñîâåòñêèõ ôîðìàõ ìåìîðèàëèçàöèè ñì., íàïðèìåð: Catherine Merridale. Night of Stone. Death and Memory in Twentieth-Century Russia. New York, 2000; Nina Tumarkin. The Living and the Dead. The Rise and Fall of the Cult of the World War II in Russia. New York, 1994; Nurit Schleifman. Moscow’s Victory Park. A Monumental Change // History and Theory. 2001. Vol. 13. No. 2. Pp. 5-34. 608 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ïðèâåäó ïîêàçàòåëüíûé ïðèìåð. Íà÷èíàÿ ñ 1991 ã., Ìàòåðè, ñîâìåñòíî ñ îðãàíèçàöèåé âåòåðàíîâ-àôãàíöåâ, ïðàêòè÷åñêè åæåãîäíî ïðîâîäÿò ìèòèíãè ïàìÿòè â ñàìîì öåíòðå Áàðíàóëà. Íåðåäêî îíè ïðèóðî÷åíû ê 1 èþíÿ, Ìåæäóíàðîäíîìó äíþ çàùèòû äåòåé.12 Îïèøåì îäèí èç òàêèõ ìèòèíãîâ. 1 èþíÿ 1996 ã. îðãàíèçàòîðû ìåðîïðèÿòèÿ ïðèãíàëè íà ïëîùàäü áðîíåòðàíñïîðòåð, êîòîðûé èñïîëüçîâàëè â êà÷åñòâå ñöåíû. Íà ôîíå áîëüøîãî ïàííî, èçîáðà- æàþùåãî ïðàâîñëàâíûå öåðêâè, ïåðå÷åðêíóòûå ïðèâåòñòâèåì “Çäðàâñòâóé, ìàìà!”, ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå âûñòóïàâøèå ãîâîðèëè î ïîãèáøèõ â ×å÷íå è Àáõàçèè. Îäíàêî â èõ ðå÷àõ ãèáåëü ñîëäàò áûëà ëèøåíà ñêîëüêî-íèáóäü î÷åâèäíîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî êîíòåêñòà. Âåòåðàí àôãàíñêîé âîéíû Íèêîëàé Øóáà, çàíèìàâøèé ïîñò Ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿ Ïðåçèäåíòà ÐÔ íà Àëòàå, â ñâîåì âûñòóïëåíèè, íàïðèìåð, ïðèçâàë âîçäåðæàòüñÿ îò áûñòðûõ âûâîäîâ î ïðè÷èíàõ ïîòåðü. Ïî ñëîâàì ïîëèòèêà: Ñàìîå ãëàâíîå äëÿ íàñ – ýòî ïàìÿòü... È ñåãîäíÿ ìû âñïî- ìèíàåì òåõ, êòî îòäàë ñâîé ãðàæäàíñêèé äîëã â ×å÷íå è Àáõàçèè... È íå íàäî ñåãîäíÿ äàâàòü íèêàêèõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ îöåíîê. Ìû äàåì ñåãîäíÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîå îòíîøåíèå ê òîìó, ÷òî ñäåëàíî ýòèìè ëþäüìè. ...Ðàçíûå åñòü ïîëèòè÷åñêèå îöåíêè, íî âñå-òàêè ìû ñäåëàëè íà Àëòàå âñå, ÷òî ñìîãëè ñäåëàòü äëÿ [ïàìÿòè] ýòèõ ëþäåé. Ñâåòëàíà Ïàâëþêîâà, ñìåíèâøàÿ âåòåðàíà ó ìèêðîôîíà, òàêæå ïîñòàðàëàñü èçáåæàòü ïîëèòèçàöèè ñîëäàòñêèõ ñìåðòåé, ñìåñòèâ àêöåíò íà ñåìåéíóþ ðèòîðèêó: “Ñåãîäíÿ â íàøåé áîëüøîé ñåìüå, êîòîðàÿ ñîñòîÿëà èç ðåáÿò-àôãàíöå⠖ à ýòî îêîëî 4 òûñÿ÷ ÷åëîâåê – è ñåìåé âîèíîâ, ïîãèáøèõ â Àôãàíèñòàíå (144 ÷åëîâåêà), åùå ïðèáàâèëàñü ñåìüÿ âîèíîâ, ïîãèáøèõ â ×å÷íå è âîåâàâøèõ â ×å÷íå. Ýòî 76 ÷åëîâåê ïîãèáøèõ è îêîëî 2000 ÷åëîâåê, êîòîðûå ïðîøëè ýòó âîéíó...”.13 Ïîáëàãîäàðè⠓àôãàíöå┠è êðàåâóþ àäìèíèñòðà- öèþ çà ïîìîùü â ñîçäàíèè Äîìà âåòåðàíîâ (Èëë. 1), Ïàâëþêîâà ïåðåøëà ê îñíîâíîé ÷àñòè ìèòèíãà – ê îòêðûòèþ ïàìÿòíûõ äîñîê ñ èìåíàìè ïîãèáøèõ â ×å÷íå, Òàäæèêèñòàíå è Àáõàçèè (Èëë. 2).

12 Òàìàðà Äìèòðèåíêî. 1 èþíÿ â Áàðíàóëå çàùèùàëè äåòåé è ìàòåðåé // Ñâîáîäíûé êóðñ. 2004. 3 èþíÿ. 13 Öèò. ïî: Âèäåîôèëüì î ìèòèíãå ïàìÿòè 1 èþíÿ 1996 ã. â ã. Áàðíàóë. Àëòàéñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé êðàåâåä÷åñêèé ìóçåé ÀÃÊÌ. Ôîíä îòäåëåíèÿ âîåííîé èñòîðèè ÕÕ âåêà. 609 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... Ìåðîïðèÿòèå áûñòðî ïåðåðîñëî â ýìîöèîíàëüíîå ïîìèíàíèå ïàâøèõ, ñîñòîÿùåå èç ïëà÷à, ñòîíîâ è ïðè÷èòàíèé ìàòåðåé è îñòàëüíûõ ó÷àñòíèêîâ ìèòèíãà. Ýòîò ïðèìåð âî ìíî- ãîì îòðàæàåò îáùèé íàñòðîé Ìàòåðåé. Âîï- ðîñû î ïîëèòè÷åñêîé îò- âåòñòâåííîñòè âëàñòåé – êàê, íàïðèìåð, è òåìà ìàòåðèàëüíîé êîìïåí- ñàöèè – îêàçàëèñü çäåñü â òåíè äðóãèõ ýìîöèî- íàëüíûõ ôîðì ñèìâîëè- çàöèè óòðàòû.  îòëè- ÷èå îò ñòîëè÷íûõ Êîìè- òåòîâ, Àëòàéñêèé ÊÑÌ çà âñå âðåìÿ ñâîåãî ñó- ùåñòâîâàíèÿ íå èíèöè- èðîâàë íè îäíîãî ñóäåá- íîãî ñëó÷àÿ ïðîòèâ âî- åííûõ èëè ãðàæäàíñêèõ Èëë. 1. Äîì Âåòåðàíîâ è Âå÷íûé îãîíü â ïàìÿòü âëàñòåé.14  àëòàéñêîì î ïîãèáøèõ â ëîêàëüíûõ âîéíàõ ÕÕ âåêà. Êîìèòåòå íåò íè îäíîãî Áàðíàóë, 2003 ã. Ôîòî àâòîðà. ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîãî þðèñòà, ïñèõîëîãà èëè ñîöèàëüíîãî ðàáîòíèêà. Åãî îñíîâíîé àêòè⠖ ìàòåðè, ÷üè ñûíîâüÿ ïîãèáëè âî âðåìÿ ñëóæáû â àðìèè. Âî ìíîãîì ïîäîáíîå ñòðåìëåíèå èçáåæàòü ïîëèòèçàöèè ïðîáëå- ìû ãèáåëè ñîëäàò åñòü ñëåäñòâèå îïðåäåëåííîé ñîöèàëüíîé è äèñ- êóðñèâíîé ñèòóàöèè. Ñèìâîëèçàöèè ãîðÿ â äàííîì ñëó÷àå îêàçû- âàåòñÿ îãðàíè÷åííîé äâóìÿ ïðîòèâîðå÷èâûìè îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàìè. Ãîñóäàðñòâî, ïîëèòèêà êîòîðîãî è ïðèâåëà ê ãèáåëè ñûíîâåé, îäíîâðåìåííî îêàçûâàåòñÿ èíñòèòóòîì, îñóùåñòâëÿþùèì æèç- íåííî âàæíóþ ïîääåðæêó Ìàòåðåé. Êîíòåêñòóàëèçàöèÿ òðàâìû, òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â ñëîæíûé ïðîöåññ ñî÷åòàíèÿ “ïóáëè÷íîé” ïîëèòèêè è “÷àñòíûõ” ÷óâñòâ. Ìàòåðè-àëèçàöèÿ

14 Íàïðèìåð, òîëüêî â 2002 ã. ìîñêîâñêàÿ îðãàíèçàöèÿ “Ïðàâî ìàòåðè” ó÷àñòâîâàëà â 98 ñóäåáíûõ ðàçáèðàòåëüñòâàõ. Ñì.: http://www.hro.org/ngo/ mright/rep02.htm. 610 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïàìÿòè äåéñòâóåò êàê ñîöèàëüíî ïðèåìëåìûé ñïîñîá äåìîíñòðàöèè èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîé è èíäèâèäóàëüíîé / ñåìåéíîé ëîÿëüíîñòè â ïîñò- ñîâåòñêîì ïðîâèíöèàëüíîì ðîññèéñêîì ãîðîäå, íå èìåþùåì íè óñòîé÷èâûõ òðàäèöèé ãðàæäàíñêîãî îáùåñòâà, íè ðàçâèòîé ñåòè èíñòèòóòîâ ñîöèàëüíîé ïîìîùè, íè äåéñòâåííîãî è íåçàâèñèìîãî îáùåñòâåííîãî ìíåíèÿ. Ïðèíöèïèàëüíûì â ýòèõ ïîïûòêàõ Ìàòåðåé ñòðîèòü ñâîþ æèçíü ïîñëå ïîòåðè áëèçêèõ â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ îïðåäåëåííûìè äèñêóðñàìè ñòàëî íå ñòîëüêî æåëàíèå íàéòè âåñêèå ïðè÷èíû, ñïîñîáíûå îïðàâäàòü ñìåðòü ñûíîâåé, ñêîëüêî ñòðåìëåíèå ïðèìèðèòüñÿ ñ ôàêòîì ñìåðòè. Ðèòóà- ëû ïàìÿòè – êàê è äåéñòâèÿ ïî ìàòå- ðèàëèçàöèè ïàìÿòè – îêàçàëèñü ñâîå- îáðàçíûì ñîöèàëüíûì, ïîëèòè÷åñ- êèì è ñèìâîëè÷åñêèì ðåøåíèåì, ïîçâîëèâøèì òåìàòèçèðîâàòü óòðàòó “íå ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ñìåðòè ðàäè êà- êîé-òî öåëè, íî ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ñàìîé ñìåðòè”.15 Èìåííî â õîäå ýòîãî ïðè- âûêàíèÿ ê æèçíè ñ òðàâìîé è ñëîæè- ëîñü ñîîáùåñòâî óòðàòû. Íåñìîòðÿ íà âñþ ñâîþ ñïåöèôè÷- íîñòü, ïîäîáíàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ, ê ñîæàëå- Èëë. 2. Ïàìÿòíàÿ äîñêà ñ èìåíàìè àëòàéñêèõ ñîëäàò, ïîãèáøèõ íèþ, âðÿä ëè óíèêàëüíà. Íî, ïî êðàé- â ãîðÿ÷èõ òî÷êàõ. Áàðíàóë, Äîì íåé ìåðå, äâà ìîìåíòà îòëè÷àþò Âåòåðàíîâ. 2003. àëòàéñêèõ Ìàòåðåé îò ñõîäíûõ ïî- ëèòè÷åñêèõ äâèæåíèé ìàòåðåé â Àðãåíòèíå èëè Íèêàðàãóà.16 Ïåðâûé ìîìåíò ñâÿçàí ñ òåì, ÷òî Ñëàâîé Æèæåê íàçûâàåò “ïî-

15 Reinhart Koselleck. The Practice of Conceptual History. Timing History, Spacing Concepts / Trans. by Todd Samuel Presner and îthers. Stanford, 2002. Ð. 312. Êóðñèâ ìîé – Ñ.Ó. 16 Ñì. ïîäðîáíåå: Marguerite Guzman Bouvard. Revolutionizing Motherhood. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo. Wilmington, 1994; Lorraine Bayard de Volo. Mothers of Heroes and Martyrs. Gender Identity Politics in Nicaragua 1979-1999. Baltimore, 2001. 611 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... çèòèâèçàöèåé óòðàòû”,17 ò.å., ñ ïðåâðàùåíèåì íåãàòèâíîãî îïû- òà â òîò èëè èíîé âèä ïîëîæèòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Óòðàòà ñòà- íîâèòñÿ èñõîäíîé òî÷êîé, îñíîâíûì ìîòèâèðóþùèì ïðèíöèïîì, îñíîâíûì “ñþæåòíûì ïðèåìîì” âñåé ïîñëåäóþùåé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Âòîðîé ìîìåíò ñîïðÿæåí ñ îñîáåííîñòÿìè ãðóïïîâîé è èíäè- âèäóàëüíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè, âîçíèêøèìè â ïðîöåññå ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ñîîáùåñòâà óòðàòû. Óòðàòà â äàííîì ñëó÷àå íå ìîæåò áûòü ïðåîäî- ëåíà áåç îäíîâðåìåííîé ïîòåðè òîãî îñíîâíîãî ïðèíöèïà, íà êîòî- ðîì âîçíèêëî äàííîå ñîîáùåñòâî.18 Ïîñòîÿííàÿ ðåïðåçåíòàöèÿ óòðàòû âûïîëíÿåò çäåñü äâîéíóþ ôóíêöèþ. Âî-ïåðâûõ, îíà ñòàíî- âèòñÿ òåì (ïîçèòèâíûì) ñèìâîëè÷åñêèì îðóäèåì, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòî- ðîãî äàííîå ñîîáùåñòâî êîíñòèòóèðóåò ñåáÿ, ò. å. îáîçíà÷àåò è ïîä- äåðæèâàåò ñâîè ãðàíèöû â ïóáëè÷íîé ñôåðå. Ýòî íåóñòàííîå âîñ- ïðîèçâîäñòâî óòðàòû, îäíàêî, íå ñâîäèòñÿ ê äåìàðêàöèè (äëÿ âíåø- íèõ íàáëþäàòåëåé) ïðåäåëîâ ïóáëè÷íîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ äàííîé ãðóï- ïû. Âîñïðîèçâîäñòâî óòðàòû (“ïàìÿòü î ïîãèáøèõ”) òàêæå ÿâëÿåòñÿ è îñíîâíîé ôîðìîé (âíóòðåííåãî) ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ äàííîãî ñîîáùåñòâà. Íà ïðàêòèêå ïîçèòèâèçàöèÿ óòðàòû ïðîÿâèëàñü â äåÿòåëüíîñòè Ìàòåðåé, ïðåæäå âñåãî, êàê íåïðåõîäÿùåå ñòðåìëåíèå çàôèêñèðîâàòü, îáîçíà÷èòü, óâåêîâå÷èòü èìåíà ïîãèáøèõ è, òåì ñàìûì, ñîáñòâåííîå îòíîøåíèå ê ýòèì ñìåðòÿì.  1991 ã. âìåñòå ñ îðãàíèçàöèåé âåòå- ðàíîâ Àôãàíñêîé âîéíû Àëòàéñêèé ÊÑÌ îòêðûë â öåíòðå Áàðíàóëà Äîì Âåòåðàíîâ è Ìåìîðèàë, ïîñâÿùåííûé ïîãèáøèì â Àôãàíñêîé âîéíå.  1992 ã. ñîâìåñòíî ñ âåòåðàíàìè-àôãàíöàìè è ìåñòíûìè æóðíàëèñòàìè ÊÑÌ ïîäãîòîâèë ê ïå÷àòè è èçäàë ïåðâóþ Êíèãó Ïàìÿòè “Ñûíû Àëòàÿ”, ñîäåðæàùóþ ôîòîãðàôèè è êðàòêèå áèîãðà- ôèè 144 ñîëäàò Àëòàéñêîãî êðàÿ, ïîãèáøèõ â Àôãàíèñòàíå.  1994 ã. ÊÑÌ è âåòåðàíû-“àôãàíöû” îñóùåñòâèë ïåðåçàõîðîíåíèå îñòàíêîâ âîèíîâ-èíòåðíàöèîíàëèñòîâ íà ñïåöèàëüíî ñîçäàííîé Àëëåå Ñëàâû íà îäíîì èç êëàäáèù Áàðíàóëà.  1996 ã. ÊÑÌ, âåòåðàíû- àôãàíöû è ó÷àñòíèêè ñîáûòèé â ×å÷íå óñòàíîâèëè íà Äîìå Âåòå- ðàíîâ ìåìîðèàëüíûå äîñêè ñ èìåíàìè ñîëäàò, ïîãèáøèõ â ãîðÿ÷èõ òî÷êàõ.  1999 ã. áûëà îïóáëèêîâàíà åùå îäíà Êíèãà Ïàìÿòè “Ìû æäàëè âàñ, ñûíîâüÿ...”, ïîñâÿùåííàÿ ïàâøèì â ×å÷íå.  íà÷àëå 2000-õ ãã. áûëè îòêðûòû íîâûå ìåìîðèàëüíûå äîñêè, è â íàñ-

17 Slavoj Žižek. Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism. Five Interventions in the (Mis)use of a Notion. London, 2001. Ð. 149. 18 Judith Butler. Afterword. After Loss, What Then? // David Eng and David Kazanjian (Eds.) Loss. Berkeley, 2003. Ð. 468. 612 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òîÿùåå âðåìÿ ãîòîâÿòñÿ ê ïóáëèêàöèè åùå íåñêîëüêî àíàëîãè÷íûõ Êíèã Ïàìÿòè. Âî ìíîãîì ïîäîáíîå ñòðåìëåíèå ê óâåêîâå÷èâàíèþ ïîãèáøèõ, ê îáúåêòèâèçàöèè óòðàòû â ïàìÿòíèêàõ è ðèòóàëàõ ïîíÿòíî è îáúÿñíèìî. Êàê îòìå÷àë àìåðèêàíñêèé ôèëîñîô Ñòýíëè Êàâåëë, “Ñîñòàâíîé ÷àñòüþ èññëåäîâàíèÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ ñòðàäàíèé îáÿçà- òåëüíî äîëæíî ñòàòü èññëåäîâàíèå ìîë÷àíèÿ ñî ñòîðîíû îáùåñòâà, êîòîðûì ýòè ñòðàäàíèÿ îêðóæåíû”.19 Ñîáñòâåííî, Ñîþç êîìèòåòîâ ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé Ðîññèè, âîçíèêøèé â êîíöå 1980-õ ãã., áûë îïðåäåëåííîé ðåàêöèåé íà ìîë÷àíèå ñî ñòîðîíû îáùåñòâà. Ïîñòîÿí- íûì ëîçóíãîì ãàçåòû Ôîíäà “Ïðàâî Ìàòåðè”, íàïðèìåð, ñòàëà ôðàçà: “Èíôîðìàöèÿ îáúåäèíÿåò ðîäèòåëåé ïîãèáøèõ ñîëäàò”.20  ñõîäíûõ óñëîâèÿõ ôîðìèðîâàëñÿ è Àëòàéñêèé ÊÑÌ. Ñ. Ïàâ- ëþêîâà ðàññêàçûâàëà, êàê â 1989 ã. îíà ðåøèëà ñîáðàòü ìàòåðåé ñîëäàò, ïàâøèõ â Àôãàíèñòàíå: “Âîò ýòîò ñëåò ìàòåðåé â 89 ãîäó, îí áûë î÷åíü íóæåí ïîòîìó, ÷òî âîéíà ïðîøëà äåñÿòü ëåò êàê. È äåñÿòü ëåò ëþäè áûëè êàê áû çàáûòûå. Íó, òî åñòü, êàæäûé ïî ñâîåìó óãëó ñèäåë. È âäðóã èõ ñîáðàëè, è ñòîëüêî èì ðàññêàçàëè îá èõ ïðàâàõ, î òîì, ÷òî âîîáùå åñòü òàêèå æå ëþäè. ×òî åñòü ãîðå...”21 Èìåííî òåìà ãîðÿ, êîòîðîå íå áûëî âûñêàçàíî, èìåííî òåìà áîëè, ñ êîòîðîé “êàæäûé ñèäåë â ñâîåì óãëó” äåéñòâóåò êàê îñíîâíîé ñòðóêòóðèðóþùèé ïðèíöèï, îñíîâíîé ñþæåòíûé “ïðèåì” â äåÿòåëü- íîñòè Ìàòåðåé. Âîçìîæíîñòü âûðàçèòü ñâîþ áîëü, òî÷íåå – âîçìîæ- íîñòü âûðàçèòü ñâîþ áîëü ïóáëè÷íî ïîðîæäàåò ìîùíûé ýôôåêò ñîëèäàðíîñòè, êîòîðûé, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü èíñòèòóöèàëèçèðóåòñÿ â âèäå “àôôåêòèâíîãî àíêëàâà”, â âèäå “ñîîáùåñòâà áîëè”.22 Êàê îòìå÷àåò ãðå÷åñêàÿ àíòðîïîëîã Íàäÿ Ñåðåìåòàêèñ, àíêëàâû òàêîãî ðîäà äåéñòâóþò êàê “öåííîñòíî-çàðÿæåííàÿ (value-charged) ïîçè- öèÿ, ñ êîòîðîé æåíùèíû àïåëëèðóþò ê îáùåñòâåííîìó ïîðÿäêó”.23

19 Stanley Cavell. Comments on Veena Das’s Essay “Language and Body. Transactions and Construction of Pain.” // Arthur Kleinman, Veena Das and Margaret Lock (Eds.). Social Suffering. Berkeley, 1997. P. 95. 20 Ñì.: Ïðàâî Ìàòåðè. Åæåìåñÿ÷íàÿ ãàçåòà Ôîíäà: http://www.hro.org/editions/ mright/paper148.htm. 21 Èíòåðâüþ ñî Ñâåòëàíîé Ïàâëþêîâîé. Áàðíàóë, îêòÿáðü 2001 ã. 22 C. Nadia. Seremetakis. Durations of Pain. P. 146. 23 Idem. Ñì. òàêæå: Antonius C. G. M. Robben. The Politics of Truth and Emotion Among Victims and Perpetrators of Violence // Carolyn Nordstrom, Antonius C. G. M. Robben (Eds.). Fieldwork Under Fire. Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival. Berkeley, 1995. Pp. 81-104. 613 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... Ïóáëè÷íîå èñïîëíåíèå ðèòóàëîâ ïîìèíîâåíèÿ, êàê ïðàâèëî, ïîðîæäàåò ïðîÿâëåíèå ìàññîâîé ïîääåðæêè è ñî÷óâñòâèÿ ñî ñòî- ðîíû òåõ, êòî íå èñïûòàë ïîäîáíûõ óòðàò, è òåì ñàìûì ïîçâîëÿåò ñêîíñòðóèðîâàòü òî, ÷òî â àíòðîïîëîãèè òðàäèöèîííî îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ êàê “õîðîøàÿ ñìåðòü” (good death), ò.å. ñìåðòü â ïðèñóòñòâèè ñâè- äåòåëåé, ñìåðòü, èçáåæàâøàÿ çàáâåíèÿ.24 Îäíà èç Ìàòåðåé â ñâîåì ïèñü- ìå îòðàçèëà ýòî ñòðåìëåíèå ê çàìåíå óòðàòû íà ñèìâîë: “[Ñûíà] Ñàøó õîòü íåìíîãî, íî óâåêîâå÷èëè. Åãî èìåíåì íàçâàíà íàøà óëèöà”.25 Ïîêàçàòåëüíî, ÷òî êîíñòðóèðîâàíèå “õîðîøåé ñìåðòè” ðåàëè- çóåòñÿ Ìàòåðÿìè â ïðîöåññå îáìåíà îïûòîì ñòðàäàíèé: èíäèâè- äóàëüíàÿ áîëü ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â êîëëåêòèâíóþ ïàìÿòü, êîòîðàÿ çàòåì ìàòåðèàëèçóåòñÿ â âèäå àìàëüãàìû ïðåäìåòîâ, ìåñò è ðèòóà- ëîâ, â âèäå “ìàòåðèàëüíûõ ìåñò àôôåêòèâíîãî îïûòà”.26 Åêàòå- ðèíà Ì., àêòèâíàÿ ó÷àñòíèöà îòäåëåíèÿ Àëòàéñêîãî ÊÑÌ, ñâÿçàí- íîãî ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ñ íåóñòàâíûìè îòíîøåíèÿìè â àðìèè, îáúÿñíÿëà ìíå, êàê ïîòðàòèëà íåñêîëüêî ìåñÿöåâ íà òî, ÷òîáû äîáèòüñÿ îò âëàñòåé ïîìîùè â óñòàíîâêå ïàìÿòíèêà íà ìîãèëå ñûíà, ñîãëàñíî îôèöèàëüíûì äîêóìåíòàì, “óòîíóâøåãî” âî âðå- ìÿ ñëóæáû â àðìèè: ...òóò, ïðèõîäèò ìíå áóìàæêà, êîìèòåò [ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòå- ðåé] òîëüêî-òîëüêî íà÷èíàë îðãàíèçîâûâàòüñÿ è ìíå èçâåùå- íèå, êàê áû, ïðèøëî, ÷òîáû ÿ ïðèøëà ñþäà íà êîíôåðåí- öèþ. ß îïåøèëà, ÷òî òàì çà êîíôåðåíöèÿ â îáùåì, íî ïîøëà. Ïîøëè ìû âìåñòå ñ ìóæåì íà êîíôåðåíöèþ, ïðèøëè. À ÷åãî, òàì êàæäàÿ ìàòü âûñêàçûâàåò ñâîþ áîëü: êàê ïîãèá åå ñûí, êàê ÷òî ß ïîñèäåëà, ñëåçû ó íàñ òàì ñèëüíî ó âñåõ áûëè: ýòó âñþ áîëü âûñëóøàòü, ó êîãî êàê ïîãèá, êàê ïîõîðîíèëè. Î÷åíü òÿæåëî. Íó, ìû âñå íàâçðûä, êîíå÷íî ðûäàëè. Âîò. Íó, è ïîñ- ëå ýòîãî ÿ ñòàëà ñþäà âîò èíîãäà ïðèõîäèòü. Íó, êàê-òî ïðè- øëà, à Îëüãà Ïåòðîâíà, óæå ïðåäñåäàòåëåì åå èçáðàëè íà ýòîé êîíôåðåíöèè, âîò. Ïðèøëà, îíà ãîâîðèò: “Âîò êîìíàòó áû

24 Nadia C. Serematakis. The Last Word. Women, Death and Divination in Inner Mani. Chicago, 1991. P. 101; Loring Danforth. The Death Rituals of Rural Greece. Princeton, 1982. P. 125. 25 Ïèñüìî Ðîäèîíîâîé (íå äàòèðîâàíî). ÀÃÊÌ. Àðõèâ Ñ. Ïàâëþêîâîé (íå ðàçîáðàí). 26 Jonathan Flatley. Moscow and Melancholia // Social Text. 2001.Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 91. 614 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïàìÿòè íàì ñäåëàòü, âîò êîìíàòó áû ïàìÿòè”. À ó ìåíÿ ñûí ðèñóåò, âîò, ñòàðøèé-òî, ó ìåíÿ èõ òðîå. Ìëàäøåìó ñåé÷àñ 21 ãîä, îí â àðìèè íå áûë. Ó íåãî ñåëåçåíêè íåò, â îáùåì. È íå ïîëîæå- íî åìó ñëóæèòü, òàê êàê îäèí ïîãèá â àðìèè. Åñëè êòî-òî ïîãèá, âîò, ñëåäóþùèõ íå áåðóò â àðìèþ, âîò. Äâå ïðè÷èíû ó íåãî, â îáùåì. Íó, è âñå. ß ñþäà ïðèäó, ñÿäó ïîñèæó. Çäåñü êàê ðàç ×å÷íÿ ýòà íà÷àëàñü, òóò àâðàë òàêîé. ß ñÿäó â ñòîðîíêå, ïîñèæó... À ïîòîì Ïåòðîâíà ãîâîðèò, ÷òî íàäî Êîìíàòó ïàìÿòè. ß ïðèøëà äîìîé, ñûíó ãîâîðþ, òàê è òàê, òû óæ õîòü ÷òî-òî íàðèñóåøü? Îí: “Íó, ëàäíî”. ß ïðèøëà è çäåñü Îëüãå-òî ïîîáåùàëà. Ãîâîðþ: “Âñå, ó ìåíÿ ñûí ïîîáåùàë íàðèñîâàòü”. À êàê? ×òî? À ðàç ÿ ñëîâî äàëà, ÿ äîëæíà âûïîëíÿòü. È íà÷à- ëîñü ó ìåíÿ ñ ýòîãî (ñìååòñÿ), âîò ýòî ìîÿ êîìíàòà è îôîðìëå- íèå ýòîé êîìíàòû. ß çà ñûíà – ñûí íå çíàåò, ÿ äàâàé íà ðàáîòå ê õóäîæíèêó ïîäõîäèòü... È âîò õóäîæíèê ó ìåíÿ íà ðàáîòå âîò ýòîò ïëàí-òî è ïðåäëîæèë. ...Âîò ýòè, âîò, èêîíû, ... ýòîãî Íèêîëàÿ Óãîäíèêà. Ïîòîì, âîò ýòà, âîò: Ãåîðãèé Ïîáå- äîíîñåö. Îí çàùèùàåò àðìèþ, âîò. Íó, è çäåñü åùå îäíà èêîíà áûëà – Ìàòåðè Ïðåñâÿòîé Áîãîðîäèöû... Ìóæ çàêàçàë ýòè, âîò, ðåå÷êè âñå, ãäå-òî ó ñåáÿ òàì íà ðàáîòå. Ñòåíä òîæå, ìîæåò, çà áóòûëêó èëè çà äâå ëè ñäåëàë, ýòîò, âîò, ñòåíä... Ïðèâåçëè ê ñåáå äîìîé, è îíè ó íàñ äîìà ïðîñòîÿëè ãäå-òî ïîë- ãîäà, íàâåðíîå, â êâàðòèðå, ïîòîìó ÷òî çäåñü è ðåìîíòà íå áûëî, è â îáùåì, çäåñü åùå, íó, íè÷åãî íå áûëî ó íàñ. À ýòà êîìíàòà... çäåñü êàêèå-òî êîììåðñàíòû áûëè. Ïîòîì Îëüãà Ïåòðîâíà âñå æå âûáèëà ýòó êîìíàòó íàì, âîò. Çäåñü íàäî áûëî äåëàòü è ðåìîíò, è âñå òóò äåëàòü íàäî áûëî... Âîò ïðèäåøü, ïîñèäèøü, âîò, êàê ñåãîäíÿ, ÿ ïðèøëà, ïîñèäåëà. Íó, êàêóþ- òî ðàáîòó ñäåëàåøü. Ôîòîãðàôèè, âîò, ýòè, âîò, äàâàé äåëàòü, ïîðòðåòû. Ýòîò õóäîæíèê ìíå ñêàçàë, – êàêèå ïîðòðåòû, êàêîãî ôîðìàòà äåëàòü. ß ïîøëà ïî ãîðîäó èñêàòü – êòî âîçüìåòñÿ íàì ýòè ïîðòðåòû äåëàòü... [Îñòàëüíûå ðàáîòíèêè Êîìèòåòà] îíè âîò ïðèåì âåäóò òàì, ñ æèâûìè ðàáîòàþò, à ÿ-òî, â îñíîâíîì âîò òàê âîò, ñ ìåðòâûìè ðàáîòàþ. Ôîòîãðàôèè äåëàþ, ...íó ñåé÷àñ óæå ìàëî ïîðòðåòîâ, òàê 27 ß áû õîòåë ïîä÷åðêíóòü äèñêóðñèâíóþ òðàåêòîðèþ âûðàæåíèÿ óòðàòû â äàííîì èíòåðâüþ. Ñîöèàëüíàÿ èçîëÿöèÿ (“ìîë÷àíèå

27 Èíòåðâüþ ñ Åêàòåðèíîé Ì., ÀÊÑÌ. Áàðíàóë, íîÿáðü 2001 ã. 615 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... ñî ñòîðîíû îáùåñòâà”) ïðåîäîëåâàåòñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ïóòåì àðòè- êóëÿöèè áîëè. Îäíàêî ñêîðáü, âîñïðîèçâåäåííàÿ â ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ðàññêàçàõ ìàòåðåé (“êàæäàÿ ìàòü âûñêàçûâàåò ñâîþ áîëü”), ïðè ýòîì íå ñòàíîâèòñÿ îáùåñòâåííîé ïðîáëåìîé. Óòðàòà ëîêàëèçóåòñÿ – ïðåæäå âñåãî, ïðîñòðàíñòâåííî: â âèäå êîìíàòû ïàìÿòè, â âèäå àëëåè ìîãèë, â âèäå äîìà âåòåðàíîâ. Ñîçäàíèå “ìèêðî-ìîðàëüíî- ãî îêðóæåíèÿ”28 – áóäü òî ìåñòî ñêîðáè èëè ÷åòêî î÷åð÷åííîå ñî- îáùåñòâî óòðàòû – ïðèîáðåòàåò ãîðàçäî áîëüøåå çíà÷åíèå, ÷åì èäåíòè÷íîñòü ïîãèáøèõ.29 Ïðèâåäó åùå îäèí ïðèìåð. Ñâåòëàíà Ïàâëþêîâà îáúÿñíÿëà â èíòåðâüþ, ÷òî èäåÿ ïåðåçàõîðîíåíèÿ îñòàíêîâ ñîëäàò ïðèøëà ê íåé âî âðåìÿ ïîåçäêè â Ìèíñê â íà÷àëå 1990-õ ãã.; òîãäà åå ïîðàçèëî òî, ÷òî “ó íèõ âñå [ìîãèëû ïîãèáøèõ] îáúåäèíåíû”. Óâèäåííîå ñòàëî òîë÷êîì äëÿ ñîáñòâåííûõ äåéñòâèé:  òî âðåìÿ æ âñå ïðÿòàëè. Çàõîðîíèëè [ïîãèáøèõ] íå íà ñàìîé àëëåå, ...íå â ñàìîì öåíòðå, à ñîâñåì â äðóãîé ñòî- ðîíå, â ãëóøè.  80-é ãîä Ñòåïàíîâ ó íàñ áûë ïîõîðîíåí òîæå â ãëóøè, â äðóãîì êîíöå êëàäáèùà, íî â ãëóøè. È âîò, ìû èõ êàê ðàç îòòóäà è âçÿëè. ... îáùåì, [ñíà÷àëà] 5 ÷åëîâåê ìû ïåðåçàõîðîíèëè, à Ìàêñèìîâà êàê áû îòêàçàëàñü. Ïîòîì, ÷åðåç íåñêîëüêî ëåò, îíà, âèäèò, ÷òî ìû âñå ïðèõîäèì íà àëëåþ, à åå ñûí, êàê áû, îñòàåòñÿ â ñòîðîíå. Ïîòîìó, ÷òî, íó, êàæäûé ðàç òóäà íå ïîáåæèøü Íó, ïðèáåæèò Ïàâëþêîâà, íàïðèìåð, à âñåõ ðåáÿò òóäà íå çàçîâåøü. È îíè ïîíÿëè, íàñêîëüêî ýòî õîðîøî, êîãäà, âîò, ÷åñòâóþò ðåáÿò, è òîæå ïåðåçàõîðîíèëè. È Áàñåíêîâ ó íàñ áûë ñ Î÷êèíûì ðÿäîì, íî îí – ñ îòöîì ïîõî- ðîíåí. È ìàìà åãî âñå íå õîòåëà, à ïîòîì îíà âñå-òàêè òîæå çàõîòåëà, ÷òîáû åå ñûíà êàê áû âèäåëè... È âîò àëëåÿ òåïåðü ó íàñ íà ýòîé àëëåå ðàáîòàëè âñå ðåáÿòà, âîåííî-ïàòðèîòè- ÷åñêèå êëóáû è ðîäèòåëè. Òóò ÷åòêî ó íàñ áûëî. Îãðîìíûå êëåíû òàì è îãðîìíàÿ êàíàâà. Òî åñòü, êàê çà ìîèì [ïîõîðî- íåííûì] ñûíîì, è çà âñåé ýòîé àëëååé, òàì òàêàÿ îãðîìíåé- øàÿ êàíàâà, âñþ åå çàòàñêèâàëè çåìëåé... (Èëë. 3.) 15 ôåâðà-

28 Arthur Kleinman. Writing at the Margin. Discourse Between Anthropology and Medicine. Berkeley, 1995. P. 123. 29 Îáñóæäåíèå ñõîäíîé òåíäåíöèè â èíîì êîíòåêñòå ñì.: Patric Laviolette. Landscaping Death. Resting Places for Cornish Identity // Journal of Material Culture. 2003. Vol. 8. No. 2. Pp. 215-240. 616 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ëÿ ó íàñ îáÿçàòåëüíî ïàíèõèäà, ýòî îáÿçàòåëüíî: ïàíèõèäà, ïîñåùåíèå êëàäáèùà. Íó, ìû ðàíüøå â Ïîêðîâñêèé ñîáîð õîäèëè íà ïàíèõèäó, à òåïåðü íà êëàäáèùå æå ÷àñîâíÿ åñòü, è ìû íèêóäà áîëüøå íå õîäèì. Ïðèäåì ê ÷àñîâíå, îíà ñâîÿ, ïîñòàâèëè âñå ñâå÷å÷êè; ïîñòîÿëè, íèêòî íå çàñòûíåò ñîâñåì, ïðîøëèñü ïî âñåìó êëàäáèùó, ïîòîì ïðèåõàëè, ïîìÿíóëè. Ñòîë íàêðûâàåòñÿ ïîìèíàëüíûé.30 Ýòà ðåîðãàíèçàöèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà, ðàçóìååòñÿ, êàñàåòñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, æèâûõ. Ïåðåçàõîðîíåíèå ñîçäàåò è óïîðÿäî÷èâàåò ñîîáùå- ñòâî, ïðîâîäÿ ÷åòêóþ ãðàíü ìåæäó ñêîðáÿùèìè è âñåìè îñòàëüíû- ìè.31 (Èëë. 4.) Ïîêàçàòåëüíî, êàê â õîäå ýòèõ ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ èçìåíåíèé ðàäèêàëüíûì îáðàçîì ìåíÿåòñÿ èõ êîíôèãóðàöèÿ:

Èëë. 3. Àëëåÿ Ñëàâû âîèíîâ, ïîãèáøèõ â Àôãàíèñòàíå. Áàðíàóë, 2003. Ôîòî àâòîðà. “èç ãëóøè – â öåíòð”. Îáîçíà÷àÿ ñîîáùåñòâî óòðàòû, ïîõîðîí- íûå ðèòóàëû, òåì ñàìûì ñâÿçûâàþò âîåäèíî ðåêîíôèãóðàöèþ ïåé- çàæà è ðåêîíôèãóðàöèþ îáùåñòâà.32

30 Èíòåðâüþ ñ Ñ. Ïàâëþêîâîé. ÀÊÑÌ, Áàðíàóë, îêòÿáðü 2001 ã. 31 Ñì.: Katherine Verdery. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies. Reburial and Postsocialist Change. New York, 1999. P. 108. 32 Ïîäðîáíåå î ÿâíîì è ñêðûòîì ïàðàëëåëèçìå ìåæäó ñîçäàíèåì “ñîîáùåñòâà óìåðøèõ” è “ñîîáùåñòâà æèâûõ” ñì., íàïðèìåð: Robert Hertz. Death and the Right Hand. A Contribution to the Study of the Collective Representation of Death. Glencoe, 1960. P. 71; Clive Seale. Constructing Death. The Sociology of Dying and Bereavement. Cambridge, 1998. Pp. 65-67. 617 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... Àìåðèêàíñêàÿ àíòðîïîëîã Êàòåðèíà Âåðäåðè â ñâîåé ðàáîòå î ïîñòñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêèõ ïåðåçàõîðîíåíèÿõ îòìå÷àëà, ÷òî òàêàÿ ðåêîíôèãóðàöèÿ ïîñòòðàâìàòè÷åñêîãî (è ïîñòñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêîãî)

Èëë. 4. Ïîõîðîííûå ðèòóàëû êàê ñïîñîá ðåîðãàíèçàöèè ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Áàðíàóë, 1996 ã. Àëòàéñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé êðàåâåä÷åñêèé ìóçåé. Ôîíä ¹16804/2

ïåéçàæà íåðåäêî ñòàíîâèòñÿ îñíîâîé, ïåðâîé ñòóïåíüþ áîëåå øèðîêîãî ïðîöåññà “ðåîðãàíèçàöèè ìîðàëè”, ïðåâðàùåíèÿ íîâîãî ìàòåðèàëüíîãî ïîðÿäêà â ìîðàëüíîå îñíîâàíèå íîâîé æèçíè, â êîòîðîé òåëà ïîãèáøèõ ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ìîë÷àëèâûì ïðèçûâîì ê âîç- ìåçäèþ è ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè.33 Ïîäîáíûå òðàíñôîðìàöèè, áåçóñëîâíî, íå òîëüêî âîçìîæíû, íî è èçâåñòíû â ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèè. Èìåíà ïàâøèõ íåðåäêî

33 Katherine Verdery. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies. P. 111. Î ðåêîíôèãóðàöèè ïóáëè÷íîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà êàê îòðàæåíèè ïîñòñîâåòñêèõ ïåðåìåí ñì.: Jonathan Flatley. Moscow and Melancholia; Bruce Grant. New Moscow Monuments, or States of Innocence // American Ethnologist. 2001. Vol. 28. No. 2. P. 332-362; Caroline Humphrey. A Sketch of Consumption and Cultural Identity in Post-Soviet Landscape // Caroline Humphrey. The Unmaking of Soviet Life. Everyday Economies After Socialism. Ithaca, 2002. Pp. 175-201; Âëàäèìèð Ïàïåðíûé. Ìîñ-Àíäæåëåñ. Ìîñêâà, 2004; Ìèõàèë Ðûêëèí. Ïðîñòðàíñòâî ëèêîâàíèÿ. Òîòàëèòàðèçì è ðàçëè÷èå. Ìîñêâà, 2002. 618 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñòàíîâèëèñü ïîñëåäíèì äîâîäîì â òðåáîâàíèè îñóæäåíèÿ ïðåñòóï- ëåíèé âëàñòè – è â äîêëàäå Í. Ñ. Õðóùåâà íà ÕÕ ñúåçäå ïàðòèè, è â ñåãîäíÿøíåé äåÿòåëüíîñòè îáùåñòâà “Ìåìîðèàë”.34 ß áû õîòåë îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà ïðîòèâîïîëîæíóþ òåíäåíöèþ â äåÿòåëüíîñòè Ìàòåðåé. Òåíäåíöèþ, êîòîðàÿ ïîçâîëÿåò óñîìíèòüñÿ â óíèâåð- ñàëüíîñòè ïðèíöèïà ïåðåõîäà îò ïðîöåññà ñêîðáè ê ïðîöåññó ñòðîèòåëüñòâà íîâûõ ìîðàëüíûõ îñíîâàíèé. Ïîëèòèêà, íàïðàâ- ëåííàÿ íà “ïîäâåäåíèå ñ÷åòî┠îòâåòñòâåííîñòè,35 ìîæåò áûòü ýôôåêòèâíî áëîêèðîâàíà “ïîëèòèêîé æàëîñòè”,36 êîðåíÿùåéñÿ â äåéñòâåííîì æåëàíèè ñîõðàíèòü ýìîöèîíàëüíóþ “âåðíîñòü ðàíàì”.37 Îñîçíàííî èëè íåîñîçíàííî “ïðèâíîñÿ ñòðóêòóðó ñòðàñòè â ïóáëè÷íîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî”,38 Ìàòåðè ñîçäàëè èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíûé è êóëüòóðíûé êîíòåêñò, â êîòîðîì èõ ñîöèàëüíûé ñòàòóñ ñòàë èòîãîì îáùåñòâåííîãî ïðèçíàíèÿ èõ óòðàòû. Àêòèâíîå ñòðåìëåíèå Ìàòåðåé ê ðåîðãàíèçàöèè ïóáëè÷íîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà, ñâÿçàííîãî ñ ïîãèáøèìè ñûíîâüÿìè, âî ìíîãîì ìîæåò áûòü èíòåðïðåòèðîâàíî êàê ïîïûòêà âåðíóòü ñåáå êîíòðîëü íàä ñèòóàöèåé, â êîòîðîé äî ñèõ ïîð åäèíñòâåííî äîñòóïíîé äëÿ íèõ ðîëüþ áûëà ðîëü ïàññèâíîãî íàáëþäàòåëÿ.39 Îäíàêî èìåííî ýòî ó÷àñòèå Ìàòåðåé â ðèòóàëàõ ðåîðãàíèçàöèè ìàòåðèàëüíîãî ìèðà, ïðèçâàííûõ ðåïðåçåíòèðîâàòü ïîãèáøèõ, è ïðèâîäèò ê òîìó, ÷òî óòðàòà âîçâîäèòñÿ â ñòàòóñ îñíîâíîãî èíòåãðàòèâíîãî ïðèíöèïà, îñíîâíîãî îðãàíèçóþùåãî íà÷àëà, “âîêðóã êîòîðîãî, – êàê îòìå÷àë â ñõîäíîì ñëó÷àå Ñëàâîé Æèæåê, – è ñòðóêòóðèðóåòñÿ çäàíèå ñîöèóìà (social edifice)”.40 Ôîðìèðîâàíèå ñîöèàëüíî-ïðîñòðàíñòâåí- íîé ñâÿçè ìåæäó ïîãèáøèìè (“Àëëåÿ Ñëàâû”) âîñïðîèçâîäèòñÿ

34 Ïîñòñîâåòñêèå ïðèìåðû ñõîäíîãî ïðîöåññà ñì., íàïðèìåð: Irina Paperno. Exhuming the Bodies of Soviet Terror // Representations. 2001. Vol. 75. Pp. 89-119. 35 Ñì.: John Borneman. Settling Accounts. Violence, Justice and Accountability in Postsocialist Europe. Princeton, 1997. Îáñóæäåíèå ðàçëè÷èé ìåæäó ïîëèòèêîé æà- ëîñòè è ïîëèòèêîé ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè ñì. Luc Boltansky. Distant Suffering. Pp. 3-4. 36 Ñì.: Hannah Arendt. On Revolution. Pp. 85–90. 37 Wendy Brown. States of Injury. Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Princeton, 1995. 38 Luc Boltansky. Distant Suffering. P. 53. 39 Îáñóæäåíèå âçàèìîñâÿçè êîíòðîëÿ è ìåñò ïàìÿòè ñì.: Mary Bradbury. Representations of Death. A Social Psychological Perspective. London, 1999; Reinhart Koselleck. The Practice of Conceptual History. P. 294. 40 Slavoj Žižek. Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism. P.149. Ñì. òàêæå: Andreas Huyssen. Present Past. Urban Palimpsest and the Politics of Memory. Stanford, 2003. 619 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... íà óðîâíå îðãàíèçàöèè ñàìèõ Ìàòåðåé. Òðàíñôîðìàöèÿ ïóáëè÷íîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà (êëàäáèùå) â ïðîöåññå ïåðåçàõîðîíåíèÿ îñòàíêîâ ñîëäàò çàâåðøàåòñÿ ñîçäàíèåì â áóêâàëüíîì ñìûñëå “ñâîåãî ìåñòà” (÷àñîâíè) äëÿ Ìàòåðåé. Íîâàÿ ñòðóêòóðà ïóáëè÷íîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà îïðåäåëÿåò è ëîãèêó ïîâåäåíèÿ ñîîáùåñòâà (“ïðèäåì ê ÷àñîâíå”, “ïîñòàâèëè âñå ñâå÷å÷êè”, “ïîñòîÿëè”, “ïðîøëèñü ïî êëàäáèùó”, “ïîòîì ïðèåõàëè, ïîìÿíóëè”). Ñîáñòâåííî, áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîé òîïîã- ðàôèè ñìåðòè, áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîìó ïåðåïëåòåíèþ ìèðà ñåìåéíûõ îòíîøåíèé, ìèðà ïîëèòèêè è ìèðà âíå ïðåäåëîâ äîñÿãàåìîñòè è âîçíèêàåò íîâàÿ èäåíòè÷íîñòü, íåîäíîêðàòíî îáîçíà÷åííàÿ ñàìèìè Ìàòåðÿìè, êàê “ìàòü ñîëäàòà, êîòîðîãî íåò â æèâûõ”. (Èëë. 5.)

Ãåðìåíåâòèêà áîëè Îñîáåííîñòè îáúåêòèâèçàöèè “âîîáðàæàåìîãî ñîîáùåñòâà” Ìàòåðåé âàæíû íå òîëüêî òåì, ÷òî îíè àêöåíòèðóþò ðîëü ìàòå- ðèàëüíûõ îáúåêòîâ â ïðîöåññå ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ êîëëåêòèâíîé ïàìÿòè. Ñóùåñòâåííûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ è òî, êàê Ìàòåðè ìîäèôèöèðóþò ñëîæèâ- øèåñÿ òðàäèöèè èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ñòðàäàíèé â ïîëèòèêå. Íàïîìíþ, ÷òî â ñâîåé ðàáîòå “Î ðåâîëþöèè” Õàííà Àðåíäò ïðèâëåêëà âíèìàíèå ê òîìó, ÷òî ñî âðåìåí Âåëèêîé Ôðàíöóçñêîé ðåâîëþöèè òåçèñ î “ñòðà- äàíèÿõ íàðîäà” áûë îñíîâíîé äâèæóùåé ñèëîé ïóáëè÷íîé ïîëè- òèêè. Îáû÷íî àïåëëÿöèè ê ÷óæèì ñòðàäàíèÿì âûçûâàþò äâà âèäà ðåàêöèè: ñîñòðàäàíèå (ò.å. ñïîñîáíîñòü “çàðàçèòüñÿ ÷óæîé áîëüþ”) è æàëîñòü (ò. å. òî îáîáùåííîå ÷óâñòâî, êîòîðîå çàïîëíÿåò äèñ- òàíöèþ ìåæäó ñòðàäàþùèìè, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è “ñîîáùåñòâîì, ïðîÿâëÿþùèì èíòåðåñ ê óãíåòåííûì è ýêñïëóàòèðóåìûì”, ñ äðóãîé). Ïî çàìå÷àíèþ Àðåíäò, ñîñòðàäàíèå, êîðåíÿùååñÿ â íåïðîèçâîëü- íîñòè ðåàêöèè, óäèâèòåëüíî íåìíîãîñëîâíî, â îòëè÷èå îò “êðàñíî- ðå÷èÿ æàëîñòè”, ñïîñîáíîãî óâëå÷ü øèðîêóþ àóäèòîðèþ ñâîèì ïðîñëàâëåíèåì ÷óæèõ ñòðàäàíèé.  ýòîé äèñêóññèè î ðîëè ýìîöèé â ïîëèòèêå äëÿ ìåíÿ âàæíû äâà ìîìåíòà. Ïåðâûé ñâÿçàí ñ ñåíòèìåíòàëüíûì õàðàêòåðîì æàëîñòè è òèïè÷íûì äëÿ ýòîé ýìîöèåé ñòðåìëåíèåì ê îáîáùåíèþ åå ñîáñòâåííîãî èñòî÷íèêà: “îáåçäîëåííûå”, “óíèæåííûå” è “íåèìó- ùèå” ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ñîöèàëüíîé êàòåãîðèåé, ñîöèàëüíûì òèïîì, ëè- øåííûì èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ îñîáåííîñòåé. Âòîðîé ìîìåíò êàñàåòñÿ ðåïðåçåíòàöèîííîãî, ïðåäñòàâèòåëüñêîãî àñïåêòà æàëîñòè è òîé äèñòàíöèè, êîòîðàÿ óñòàíàâëèâàåòñÿ â ïðîöåññå äèôôåðåíöèàöèè

620 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ìåæäó òåìè, êòî ñòðàäàåò è òåìè, êòî îñóùåñòâëÿåò ïîëèòèêó æàëîñòè. Êàê çàêëþ÷àåò Àðåíäò: “áåç íåñ÷àñòèé è íåóäà÷, æàëîñòü íå ìîãëà áû ñóùåñòâîâàòü; ïîýòîìó îíà çàèíòåðåñîâàíà â íàëè÷èè íåñ÷àñòíûõ òî÷íî òàê æå, êàê è æàæäà âëàñòè çàèíòåðåñîâàíà â ñóùåñòâîâàíèè ñëàáûõ”. Îäíàêî, â îòëè÷èå îò les hommes faibles, ÷üÿ îáåçäîëåííîñòü, ñîáñò- âåííî è ñòàëà îïðàâäàíèåì ðàäè- êàëèçìà Ôðàíöóçñêîé ðåâîëþ- öèè,41 ñîëäàòñêèå Ìàòåðè âðÿä ëè ÿâëÿþòñÿ îáúåêòîì âíåøíåé ýìî- öèîíàëüíîé ïîëèòèêè, âäîõíîâ- ëåííîé èõ ñîáñòâåííîé áîëüþ. Ðåïðåçåíòàöèè áîëè, îïûò ñòðàäà- íèé è ïîïûòêè ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü è ñôîðìèðîâàòü äëÿ ñåáÿ íîâóþ ñî- öèàëüíóþ ïîçèöèþ îêàçàëèñü â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ñëèòûìè âîåäèíî. Îïèðàÿñü íà ñîáñòâåííûé îïûò óòðàòû, Ìàòåðè ñàìè èñïîëüçóþò Èëë. 5. Ðåïðåçåíòàöèÿ ïîãèáøèõ ñòàíîâèòñÿ îðãàíèçóþùèì ïðèí- ïîëèòèêó æàëîñòè äëÿ êîíñòðóè- öèïîì, âîêðóã êîòîðîãî ôîðìè- ðîâàíèÿ óçíàâàåìîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ðóåòñÿ ñîîáùåñòâî óòðàòû. Ìîãèëà èäåíòè÷íîñòè â ñèòóàöèè, êîãäà ñîëäàòà, ïîãèáøåãî â ×å÷íå. Áàðíàóë, òðàäèöèîííûå ñïîñîáû èäåíòèôè- 2004. Ôîòî àâòîðà. êàöèè, ìîäåëè ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ðåï- ðåçåíòàöèè è ôîðìû ñîöèàëüíîãî îáìåíà íåäîñòóïíû èëè íåýô- ôåêòèâíû. Òðàäèöèîííîå äåëåíèå íà òåõ, êòî ñòðàäàåò, è òåõ, êòî ñî÷óâ- ñòâóåò, õàðàêòåðíîå äëÿ ïîëèòèêè æàëîñòè, òàêæå ïðèñóòñòâóåò â äåÿòåëüíîñòè Ìàòåðåé. Íî ýòî äåëåíèå ïðèîáðåëî èíîå àâòîðñòâî è èíóþ ôóíêöèþ. Àëòàéñêèå Ìàòåðè, ôîðìèðóÿ â ïðîöåññå àðòè- êóëÿöèè òðàâìàòè÷åñêîãî îïûòà ñâîè ýìîöèîíàëüíûå ñåòè, îêà- çàëèñü íå â ñîñòîÿíèè èñïîëüçîâàòü ðèòîðèêó â êà÷åñòâå ñâîåãî “íåíàñèëüñòâåííîãî îðóæèÿ, ñïîñîáíîãî ïîðàçèòü ñîçíàíèå îáùå-

41 Ñì.: Hannah Arendt. On Revolution. Pp. 85, 88-90. Elisabeth Spelman. Fruits of Sorrow. Framing Our Attention to Suffering. Boston, 1999. Pp.82-89. 621 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... ñòâåííîñòè”,42 êàê ýòî ñäåëàëè, íàïðèìåð, àðãåíòèíñêèå Ìàòåðè ñ ïëîùàäè äå Ìàéî, ïóáëè÷íî îáëè÷àâøèå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ïîõè- ùåíèÿ, ïðàêòèêîâàâøèåñÿ àðãåíòèíñêîé õóíòîé. Âìåñòî ýòîãî óñòàíîâêà Ìàòåðåé íà âñåîáùíîñòü è âçàèìíîñòü ñòðàäàíèé ñòàëà ãëàâíîé îáúåäèíÿþùåé èäååé è îñíîâíûì êðèòåðèåì èñêëþ÷åíèÿ ÷óæèõ. Âíåøíåå ñîîáùåñòâî ïðåâðàòèëîñü â îáúåêò ïðîåêòèâíîé èäåíòèôèêàöèè, ⠓ýêñòåðèîðèçàöèþ âíóòðåííåãî” ìèðà.43  îñíîâó îòíîøåíèé ñ äðóãèìè ëåãëî ñòðåìëåíèå îáíàðóæèòü îòðàæåíèå ñîáñòâåííîãî (òðàâìàòè÷åñêîãî) îïûòà â æèçíè ÷óæèõ ëþäåé.44 Òàòüÿíà Ì., àêòèâíàÿ ó÷àñòíèöà ÊÑÌ, âñïîìèíàëà î òîì, êàê ýòîò äèàëîã ýìîöèé îñóùåñòâëÿëñÿ íà ïðàêòèêå â íà÷àëå åå ðàáîòû â Êîìèòåòå: ...Îäíàæäû ïîëó÷èëîñü òàê, ÷òî Îëüãà Ïåòðîâíà ãîâîðèò ìíå: “Ñàäèñü, Òàòüÿíêà, ïðèíèìàé”. Âîò åå ñëîâà áûëè. Ïðè- õîäÿò, òàì, ðîäèòåëè âîåííîñëóæàùèõ, òàêèõ æå ïîãèáøèõ, èëè ïî ïðèçûâó ðîäèòåëè ïðèõîäèëè. Íó, ìàëî ëè êàêèå ïðè- ÷èíû ó ðîäèòåëåé? À ÿ ãîâîðþ: “À ÷òî æå ÿ áóäó äåëàòü, Îëüãà Ïåòðîâíà?” ...ß ðàáîòàëà âîîáùå â äåòñêîì ñàäèêå, ñ ëþäüìè ðàáîòàëà. Âîò, à çäåñü, ïîñòîÿííî ãîðå, ïîýòîìó Îíà ìíå: “Ñàäèñü çà ñòîë. Ìàìà ïðèøëà, ïëà÷åò è òû ñ íåé ïëà÷ü”. Âîò. Íó, è òàêèì îáðàçîì ÿ íà÷àëà ðàáîòó.45  ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, ñàìà Îëüãà Ïåòðîâíà, ÷åé ñûí, ñóäÿ ïî âñåìó, áûë óáèò â àðìèè ñîñëóæèâöàìè, îïèñûâàåò ðàííþþ ñòàäèþ ñâîåé äåÿòåëüíîñòè â ÊÑÌ òàê: â 91 ãîäó ìû çàðåãèñòðèðîâàëèñü, ñòàëè îáùåñòâåííîé îðãàíèçàöèåé. Íó, ïåðâûì äåëîì, ÿ ñòàëà çíàêîìèòüñÿ ñ àäìè- íèñòðàöèåé, ÿ ðàáîòàëà òîãäà â èíñòèòóòå ïðîåêòíîì, êàê-òî â âûñøèõ êðóãàõ òàêèõ íå îáùàëàñü, íå âðàùàëàñü, íå çíàëà. ß ñâîè ïðîåêòû çíàëà, à òàì äëÿ ìåíÿ áûëî íîâîå âñå. ß òîãäà ïðèõîäèëà è ãîâîðèëà, ÷òî ìàòü ïîãèáøåãî â àðìèè â ìèð- íîå âðåìÿ. Îáû÷íî îòêðûâàëè ãëàçà, ãîâîðèëè: “À ðàçâå òàêèå

42 Marguerite Guzman Bouvard. Revolutionizing Motherhood. P. 131. 43 Luc Boltansky. Distant Suffering. P. 82. 44 Ïîäðîáíåå î ïðîåêòèâíîé èäåíòèôèêàöèè ñì.: Allan Young. Suffering and the Origin of Traumatic Memory // Arthur Kleinman, Veena Das and Margaret Lock (Eds.). Social Suffering. Berkeley, 1997. P. 257-258; Serguei Oushakine. The Fatal Splitting. Symbolizing Anxiety in Post/Soviet Russia // Ethnos. Journal of Anthropology. 2001. Vol. 66. No. 3. Pp. 291-319. 45 Èíòåðâüþ ñ Òàòüÿíîé Ì. ÀÊÑÌ, Áàðíàóë, ñåíòÿáðü 2001. 622 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 åñòü?” “Ðåáÿòà, êîíå÷íî, åñòü. Âû ÷òî?” Ïîñëå ÿ îðãàíèçî- âàëà àëüáîì, òàêîé àëüáîì, çíà÷èò, ãäå íàøè ïîãèáøèå, ãäå íàøà áîëü, â îñíîâíîì, àëüáîì áîëè. Ïîðòðåòû òàì, ôîòî- ãðàôèè, îòîáðàíû, òàì âñå. È ñòàëà ïðèõîäèòü ê àäìèíèñòðà- òîðàì, çíàêîìèòüñÿ äàþ ïîðòðåò, ÷òîáû ñìîòðåëè, ñìîòðþ íà ðåàêöèþ. Åñëè îíè ïîñìîòðåëè, íó, òàê, ñ âíèìàíèåì, ÿ íà÷è- íàþ äàëüøå ðàçãîâàðèâàòü. Åñëè îíè ïðîñòî òàê ëèñòàëè, ÿ çàáè- ðàëà àëüáîì è óõîäèëà. Ìåíÿ, îáû÷íî, ñïðàøèâàëè: “Æåí- ùèíà, à âû çà÷åì ïðèõîäèëè?” ß ãîâîðèëà: “À âàì íå èíòå- ðåñíî”. Âîò. È, â îáùåì-òî, áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîìó àëüáîìó, ÿ, â îáùåì, íàøëà ëþäåé, êîòîðûå çàèíòåðåñîâàíû. Íå òî, ÷òî çà- èíòåðåñîâàíû, à ïîìîãëè. Ïîíèìàþò ýòó áîëü, ïîìîãàþò.46 Ýòî “ýìîöèîíàëüíîå ïðî÷òåíèå äðóãèõ”,47 äîñòèãíóòîå ïîñðåäñ- òâîì ñïëàâëåíèÿ àôôåêòà è íîñèòåëÿ èíôîðìàöèè (“àëüáîì áîëè”) íàöåëåíî, ïðåæäå âñåãî, íà ôîðìèðîâàíèå “ñòðóêòóðû âíèìàíèÿ”,48 íà èíèöèèðîâàíèå ýìîöèîíàëüíîãî îòâåòà îïðåäåëåííîãî ðîäà. Âçàèìíîñòü òðàâìàòè÷åñêîãî îïûòà, âçàèìíîñòü ñòðàäàíèé ñòàíî- âèòñÿ ñîöèàëüíîé è ýìîöèîíàëüíîé îñíîâîé, íà êîòîðîé è âîçíè- êàåò ñîîáùåñòâî óòðàòû. Ñêîîðäèíèðîâàííîñòü ýìîöèîíàëüíîé ðåàêöèè ðàçíûõ ëþäåé, èíûìè ñëîâàìè, âîñïðèíèìàåòñÿ êàê ñëåäñòâèå ñêîîðäèíèðîâàííîñòè èõ ëè÷íîãî îïûòà. Èíâåñòèöèè Ìàòåðåé â ïîñòîÿííîå ïðîèçâîäñòâî “öåííîñòíî- çàðÿæåííûõ” ñóáúåêòíûõ ïîçèöèé, êàê è èõ ó÷àñòèå â èíòåíñèâíîé öèðêóëÿöèè ýìîöèé, êîòîðóþ ïðåäïîëàãàþò ýòè ñóáúåêòíûå ïîçè- öèè, åñòåñòâåííî, èìååò ñâîþ öåíó. Âýíäè Áðàóí, àìåðèêàíñêàÿ ïîëèòîëîã-ôåìèíèñò, íàïðèìåð, îòìå÷àëà â ñõîäíîé ñèòóàöèè, ÷òî ïîëèòèçàöèÿ èäåíòè÷íîñòè, ïðåâðàùåíèå èäåíòè÷íîñòè â ôîðìó ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ó÷àñòèÿ âîçìîæíî ëèøü öåíîé ïîñòîÿííîé äðàìà- òèçàöèè ñâîåé áîëè. Ïðèñóòñòâèå â ïîëå ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ îòíîøåíèé ñòàíîâèòñÿ â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ïðîèçâîäíûì îò ïîñòîÿííîãî “âïèñûâàíèÿ ñâîåé áîëè â ïîëèòèêó”. Êàê îòìå÷àåò ïîëèòîëîã, òàêàÿ èäåíòè÷íîñòü íå çàèíòåðåñîâàíà â áóäóùåì – ñâîåì èëè ÷óæîì – â êîòîðîì “ýòà áîëü óñïåøíî ïðåîäîëåíà”.49

46 Èíòåðâüþ ñ Îëüãîé Ïåòðîâíîé Ñ. ÀÊÑÌ, Áàðíàóë, íîÿáðü 2001. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 47 Sarah Ahmed. Collective Feelings: Or, the Impression Left by Others // Theory, Culture & Society. 2004. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 26. 48 Arthur Kleinman. Writing at the Margin. Discourse Between Anthropology and Medicine. Berkeley, 1995. P. 124. 49 Wendy Brown. States of Injury. Ð. 74. 623 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... Ôîðìèðîâàíèå ýìîöèîíàëüíûõ ñåòåé âîêðóã ïåðñîíàëüíûõ èñòîðèé î òðàâìàòè÷åñêîì îïûòå çà÷àñòóþ ïðèâîäèò ê òîìó, ÷òî “âíåøíåå îêðóæåíèå” íà÷èíàåò âîñïðèíèìàòüñÿ ëèøü ïîñòîëüêó, ïîñêîëüêó îíî ñïîñîáíî ñëóæèòü “îòðàæåíèåì” óòðàòû, ñïîñîáíî âñòóïèòü â ýìîöèîíàëüíûé îáìåí. Òàêàÿ “ïîëèòèêà æàëîñòè”, íàïðàâëåííàÿ íà ñîõðàíåíèå è ïîñòîÿííóþ ïîääåðæêó ýìîöèî- íàëüíîé ñâÿçè ñ òðàâìàòè÷åñêèì è òðàâìèðóþùèì îïûòîì â èòîãå ñòèðàåò ãðàíü ìåæäó ñîñòðàäàíèåì è ñîáñòâåííî ñòðàäàíèåì. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, è îòñóòñòâèå âíèìàíèÿ ê ñåáå ñî ñòîðîíû îáùåñòâà, òî÷íåå, ó÷àñòèÿ â ÷óæîé ñóäüáå (“íå òî, ÷òî çàèíòåðåñîâàíû, à ïîìîãëè”), Ìàòåðè ÷àñòî ñêëîííû âîñïðèíèìàòü êàê íåñïîñîáíîñòü ëþäåé “óñëûøàòü èõ áîëü”, êàê èõ íåæåëàíèå “îòðàçèòü” ñïðîåöè- ðîâàííóþ íà íèõ ñêîðáü, êàê îòêàç ïîñòàâèòü ñåáÿ íà ìåñòî Ìàòåðåé. Íàïðèìåð, Ñ. Ïàâëþêîâà æàëîâàëàñü â èíòåðâüþ ñî ìíîé íà òî, ÷òî ìàòåðè ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ ïðèçûâíèêîâ íå âûðàæàþò íèêàêîãî æåëàíèÿ ó÷àñòâîâàòü âî âñòðå÷àõ ñ âîåííûìè, êîòîðûé ÊÑÌ ïåðèîäè÷åñêè ïðîâîäèò äëÿ íèõ: ...âîò, Êîìèòåò ñîëäàòñêèõ ìàòåðåé ñîáèðàë â Òåàòðå îïå- ðåòòû âñåõ ìàòåðåé, ó êîãî êàê áû áóäóò áóäóùèå ñîëäàòû. È ïî÷òè íå ïðèøëî íàðîäó, î÷åíü ìàëî ïðèøëî. Õîòÿ ïðèåõàëè ñ âîèíñêèõ ÷àñòåé, äàæå âîò, ñ òîé æå ×èòû, ñ Âëàäèâîñòîêà ïðèåõàëè ñ ÷àñòåé êîìàíäèðû, à îêàçàëîñü, ÷òî?.. Íó, íè ê ÷åìó âñå ýòî áûëî. Ëþäè íå ïðèøëè. Îíè äóìàþò, ÷òî ñåãîäíÿ òâî- åãî æå ñûíà â ×å÷íþ áåðóò, à íå ìîåãî. À â êîíöå-òî êîíöîâ ýòî – íàøà åäèíàÿ áîëü. Ñåãîäíÿ îí ìàëåíüêèé, à âîéíà-òî äëèòñÿ, ìàìà ðîäíàÿ, äîëãî. È ïîýòîìó â ðåçóëüòàòå ïîëó÷à- åòñÿ, ÷òî äàæå íàøè âíóêè ìîãóò ïîéòè. Ñåãîäíÿ ìîåìó âíóêó 14 ëåò, è ÿ, íó, äàæå, ìîæåò áûòü, äàæå íå ñîìíåâàþñü, ÷òî ìîæåò ñëó÷èòüñÿ òàê, ÷òî ìîé âíóê ïîéäåò â Àôãàí. Âû ïîíèìàåòå, òðè ãîäà, âîò, ÷åòûðå ïðîéäåò, íåçàìåòíî âîò òàê ïðîëåòèò. È êòî çíàåò, ÷òî ñåãîäíÿ ñ Àôãàíîì ó íàñ ñëó÷èòüñÿ?..50 ...Ñåãîäíÿ íàøè èäóò ñûíîâüÿ, çàâòðà âíóêè ïîéäóò. Âîò, âñå âîò ýòîò ìèð ó íàñ íåò ìèðà ó íàñ íèêàê. È âîò ýòî ñòðàøíî 51 Êîãäà ÿ ïîïûòàëñÿ óçíàòü ó Ïàâëþêîâîé, çà÷åì íóæíî “èäòè” íà âîéíó, áóäü òî “Àôãàí” èëè ×å÷íÿ, è êàêèå èìåííî öåííîñòè

50 Èíòåðâüþ ïðîâîäèëîñü âî âðåìÿ àìåðèêàíñêèõ íàëåòîâ â Àôãàíèñòàíå îñåíüþ 2001 ãîäà. 51 Èíòåðâüþ ñ Ñ. Ïàâëþêîâîé. ÀÊÑÌ, Áàðíàóë, îêòÿáðü 2001. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 624 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ìû òàì îòñòàèâàåì, îíà ñìóòèëàñü. Ñ òðóäîì ïîäáèðàÿ ñëîâà, îíà îòðûâèñòî ïðîèçíåñëà ñåðèþ êîðîòêèõ ôðàç: “Äà, âîò êàê áû ñêàçàòü ýòî? Êàê áû âûðàçèòüñÿ-òî? ×åãî-òî ó íàñ íåò. Ðàíüøå ìû çà ÷òî-òî áûëè... Äà, íó íåò êàêîãî-òî èäåàëà, ðàäè ÷åãî ìû æèâåì. Íó, ÿ, â îáùåì-òî, çíàåòå, ÿ ïàòðèîò ñâîåé Ðîäèíû. Íó, è äëÿ ìåíÿ Ðîññèÿ âñå ðàâíî îñòàåòñÿ Ðîäèíîé”. Ýòî àïåëëÿöèÿ ê ïàòðèîòèçìó êàê ïîñëåäíåìó è ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íîìó àðãóìåíòó, ïîêàçàòåëüíà. Îòñóòñòâèå æèçíåííûõ èäåàëîâ è íåâîçìîæíîñòü îïðàâäàòü ñìåðòè ñûíîâåé äèñêóðñèâíî òðàíñôîðìèðóþòñÿ â òåðìèíû íàöèîíàëüíîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè, òî÷íåå – â òåðìèíû íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà, êîòîðîå “âñå ðàâíî îñòàåòñÿ Ðîäèíîé”. Ïîäâåäó ïðåäâàðèòåëüíûé èòîã. Ñëîæíîñòü ãåðìåíåâòèêè áîëè, àêòèâíî ïðàêòèêóåìîé Ìàòåðÿìè, ïðîáëåìàòè÷íîñòü èõ ñîöèàëüíîé îðãàíèçàöèè, îñíîâàííîé íà “ñìåøåíèè” è “ñïëàâëåíèè” àôôåêòà è äîñòóïíûõ ñðåäñòâ îáùåíèÿ, çàêëþ÷àþòñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, â òîì, ÷òî òàêàÿ ïîëèòèêà æàëîñòè äåëàåò íåïðèåìëåìûìè ïóáëè÷íûå ïîïûòêè ïðîàíàëèçèðîâàòü êàê èñòî÷íèê ñòðàäàíèé, òàê è ïðè÷èíû, âåäóùèå ê ïîñòîÿííîìó âîñïðîèçâîäñòâó óòðàòû. Âîêàëèçàöèÿ áîëè è îáìåí ìíåíèÿìè î ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ èñòî÷íèêàõ ýòîé áîëè îêàçûâàþòñÿ ñîöèàëüíî, ãåîãðàôè÷åñêè è äèñêóðñèâíî èçîëèðî- âàííûìè. Îñíîâíîé öåëüþ äèàëîãè÷åñêîé öèðêóëÿöèè ýìîöèé ñòàíîâèòñÿ íå èíôîðìàöèîííûé îáìåí, íî ñòðåìëåíèå ñôîðìèðîâàòü ïðîñòðàíñòâî äëÿ ýìîöèîíàëüíîãî ñîó÷àñòèÿ52 â ñèòóàöèè ñîöèàëü- íîé ïîëÿðèçàöèè ïî ïîâîäó ïðè÷èí, âûçâàâøèõ ëè÷íûå òðàâìû. Ñòàâ ýôôåêòèâíûì òàêòè÷åñêèì ñðåäñòâîì â óñëîâèÿõ îòñóòñòâèÿ ñòðàòåãè÷åñêîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé öåëè, ïîëèòèêà æàëîñòè â öåëîì è ãåðìåíåâòèêà áîëè â ÷àñòíîñòè âûñòóïèëè ìîùíûì ìåõàíèçìîì ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ èíäèâèäóàëüíîé è êîëëåêòèâíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè.

Ìåòîíèìèè óòðàòû Êàê ÿ óæå îòìå÷àë, óñòàíîâêà Ìàòåðåé íà äèàëîãèçì áîëè è âçàèìíîñòü ðåïåðòóàðà àôôåêòèâíûõ ôîðì äàåò èì âîçìîæíîñòü ñôîðìèðîâàòü ýôôåêòèâíóþ ñåòü ñîöèàëüíûõ è ýìîöèîíàëüíûõ îòíîøåíèé â ñèòóàöèè, êîãäà äðóãèå ôîðìû ïóáëè÷íîé ñàìî-

52 Luc Boltansky. Distant Suffering. P. 42; Dimitri Tsintjilonis. Words of Intimacy. Re- Membering the Dead in Buntao // Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute. 2004. Vol. 10. P. 376. 625 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... ðåïðåçåíòàöèè ëèáî íåäîñòóïíû, ëèáî íåâîçìîæíû. Òàêîé àêöåíò íà ýìîöèîíàëüíîé ñîñòàâëÿþùåé ïîëèòèçàöèè èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî òðàâìàòè÷åñêîãî îïûòà, îäíàêî, òðåáóåò äîïîëíèòåëüíîé ïîä- äåðæêè ñî ñòîðîíû ìàòåðèàëüíûõ àðòåôàêòîâ, ñïîñîáíûõ çàôèêñè- ðîâàòü, îáúåêòèâèðîâàòü, ïîäòâåðäèòü ïîíåñåííóþ óòðàòó è ìàòå- ðèàëèçîâàòü õàðàêòåð ýìîöèîíàëüíûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ îáìåíîâ. Àêòèâíîå ó÷àñòèå Ìàòåðåé â ñîçäàíèè Ìåìîðèàëà âîèíàì, ïîãèá- øèì ⠓ëîêàëüíûõ âîéíàõ”, èçäàíèå Êíèã ïàìÿòè, îòêðûòèå ïàìÿò- íûõ äîñîê è ò.ï. – âñå ýòî ìîæåò áûòü èíòåðïðåòèðîâàíî êàê ÷àñòü îáùåãî ñòðåìëåíèÿ íå ñòîëüêî “âîçìåñòèòü” ïîòåðþ ñûíà, ñêîëüêî ìàòåðèàëèçîâàòü åå ñëåäû. È õîòÿ ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ðèòóàëû è ìèòèíãè, îðãàíèçîâàííûå Ìàòåðÿìè â Áàðíàóëå, áåçóñëîâíî, ÿâëÿþòñÿ âàæíûì êîìïîíåíòîì èõ äåÿòåëüíîñòè, ìíå áû õîòåëîñü îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà èíîé, ãîðàçäî ìåíåå ïóáëè÷íûé îïûò ìàòåðèàëèçàöèè ïîòåðè, íà îïûò âñòðàèâàíèÿ òðàâìû â ñòèëèñòèêó ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíè. Âíèìàíèå ê ïîäîáíûì ïðîöåññàì, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, îñîáåííî âàæíî äëÿ ïîíè- ìàíèÿ òîãî, êàê ëþäè, èñïûòàâøèå òðàâìó, íàõîäÿò ñ íåé, òàê ñêàçàòü, “îáùèé ÿçûê” áåç êàêîé áû òî íè áûëî ïîìîùè ñî ñòîðîíû ñîöèàëüíûõ èëè ïñèõîòåðàïåâòè÷åñêèõ ñëóæá. Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, âîïðîñ, êîòîðûé âîëíóåò ìåíÿ â äàííîé ñèòóàöèè, êàñàåòñÿ òîãî, êàê “íîðìàëèçóåòñÿ” òðàâìà. Êàê ÿ ïîïûòàþñü ïîêàçàòü íèæå, íåäîñòóïíîñòü äèñêóðñà î ãðàæäàíñêèõ ïðàâàõ èëè ïîëèòè÷åñêîé îòâåòñòâåííîñòè è íåñïî- ñîáíîñòü / íåæåëàíèå ïîëàãàòüñÿ íà òåðàïåâòè÷åñêèé äèñêóðñ ñîöèàëüíîé ïîìîùè è ðåàáèëèòàöèè äëÿ àðòèêóëÿöèè ñîáñòâåí- íîãî òðàâìàòè÷åñêîãî îïûòà íåðåäêî ïðèâîäèò Ìàòåðåé ê àêòè- âèçàöèè äèñêóðñà î ïàìÿòè. Óòðàòû Ìàòåðåé, ñïðîâîöèðîâàííûå ãîñóäàðñòâîì, èíêîðïîðèðóþòñÿ â ïîâñåäíåâíóþ æèçíü ïîñðåäñòâîì àêòèâàöèè “ôóíêöèè îáúåêòàëèçàöèè”, êàê åå íàçûâàåò ôðàíöóçñêèé ïñèõîàíàëèòèê Àíäðý Ãðèí.53 Ñ ïîìîùüþ ñìûñëîâûõ íàãðóçîê54

53 Andre Green. The Work of the Negative / Trans. by Andrew Weller. London, 1999. P. 85. 54 Æ. Ëàïëàíø è Æ.-Á. Ïîíòàëèñ â ñâîåì ñëîâàðå ïî ïñèõîàíàëèçó òàê îïðåäåëÿþò “íàãðóçêó” (íåì.: Besetzung; ôðàíö.: investissement; àíãë.: cathexis): ýòî “ïðèëîæåíèå íåêîòîðîé ïñèõè÷åñêîé ýíåðãèè ê ïðåäñòàâëåíèþ èëè ãðóïïå ïðåäñòàâëåíèé, ê ÷àñòè òåëà, ê ïðåäìåòó è ò. ï.”: Æ. Ëàïëàíø, Æ.-Á. Ïîíòàëèñ. Ñëîâàðü ïî ïñèõîàíàëèçó / Ïåð. Í. Àâòîíîìîâîé. Ìîñêâà, 1996. Ñ. 239.

626 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 è ïñèõè÷åñêèõ âîñïîëíåíèé,55 Ìàòåðè “âïèñûâàþò” óòðàòó â ïåðñî- íàëèçèðîâàííûå ìàòåðèàëüíûå îáúåêòû, òåì ñàìûì ïîääåðæèâàÿ óæå ñëîæèâøèéñÿ ïîðÿäîê âåùåé, è, îäíîâðåìåííî, ôîðìèðóÿ “äëÿùóþñÿ ñâÿçü” ñ ïîãèáøèìè.56 Ïàìÿòü â äàííîì ñëó÷àå äåéñòâóåò íå ñòîëüêî, êàê “ñïîñîá ïåðåîöåíêè ñìûñëà ïðîøåäøåãî”,57 ñêîëüêî êàê ïðîöåññ âêëþ÷åíèÿ ïðîøëûõ òðàâì â ïîâñåäíåâíûå ïðàêòèêè íàñòîÿùåãî.  êà÷åñòâå îäíîãî ïðèìåðà ïðîöèòèðóþ ïèñüìî, àäðåñîâàííîå Ñ. Ïàâëþêîâîé. Àâòîð ïèñüìà – ìàòü, ñûí êîòîðîé, êàê è ñûí Ïàâëþêîâîé, ïîãèá â êîíöå 1980-õ ãã. â Àôãàíèñòàíå. Ïèñüìî õðàíèòñÿ â Àëòàéñêîì êðàåâîì ìóçåå ëîêàëüíûõ âîéí, íå èìååò äàòû, íî îðèåíòèðîâî÷íî îòíîñèòñÿ ê 1990-1992 ãã. (îðôîãðàôèÿ è ïóíêòóàöèÿ îðèãèíàëà ïåðå- äàíû áåç èçìåíåíèé): Äîáðûé äåíü ìîÿ ìèëàÿ Ñâåòëàíà Ãðèãîðüåâíà è Ãðèãî- ðèé Ãåðàñèìîâè÷ áîëüøîé ïðèâåò ñûíó ñ ñåìüåé. À òàê-æå ïðèìèòå áîëüøîé ïðèâåò îò ìåíÿ è îò ìîåé ñåìüè. Âëàäèìèðà Èãíàòüå-âè÷à Ñåðåæè è Ëàðèñû. È âñå ìû âàì æåëàåì òîëüêî õîðîøåå, ïëîõîå ïóñòü óéäåò äàëåêî îò âàøåãî äîìà. Êàê âû ïîæèâàåòå ìîè õîðîøèå. Êàê âàøå çäîðîâüå. Ñâåòëàíà ìû æèâåì ïîìàëåíüêó, ïîïëà÷ó è îïÿòü æèâó. Æèòü íàäî ðàäè ïàìÿòè íàøèõ ìèëûõ ñûíîâåé. Ñâåòëàíà ìèëàÿ ìîÿ [âàø ñûí] Êîñòÿ â íàøåé ñåìüå âå÷íî æèâîé è æèâåò âìåñòå ñ íàøèì ñûíîì. Âå÷åðîì ÿ èõ óêëàäûâàþ ñïàòü âñåõ ñâîèõ ñûíî÷êîâ, à óòðîì ïîäíèìàþ è öåëûé äåíü æèâó ïàìÿòüþ î èõ. Èõ ïðè- ëåòåëî ñî âñåãî Ñîþçà 20 ÷åë. â ìîå òåïëîå ãíåçäûøêî. Èõ ìû äîëæíû ïîìíèòü âñåõ ïî èìåííî. Ýòî îíè çàñëóæèëè. Ïðî- ÿâèâ ñòîéêîñòü è ìóæåñòâî. ß ÷àñòî çàäàþ ñåáå îäèí âîïðîñ?

55 Î ïðèðîäå âîñïîëíåíèÿ ñì. Æàêà Äåððèäà: “Âîñïîëíåíèå åñòü òî, ÷òî äîáàâëÿåòñÿ, ýòî èçáûòîê, ïîëíîòà, êîòîðàÿ îáîãàùàåò äðóãóþ ïîëíîòó... Íî âîñïîëíåíèå âîñïîëíÿåò, ò. å. äîáàâëÿåòñÿ ëèøü êàê çàìåíà. Îíî âòîðãàåòñÿ, çàíèìàÿ ÷óæîå ìåñòî; åñëè îíî è íàïîëíÿåò íå÷òî, òî ýòî íå÷òî – ïóñòîòà. Îíî ñïîñîáíî ïðåäñòàâëÿòü èëè èçîáðàæàòü íå÷òî ëèøü ïîòîìó, ÷òî íàëè÷èå èçíà÷àëüíî îòñóòñòâóåò”. Æàê Äåððèäà. Î ãðàììàòîëîãèè / Ïåð. Í. Àâòîíîìîâîé. Ìîñêâà, 2000. Ñ. 295-296. 56 Î äëÿùåéñÿ ñâÿçè (continuing bond) â ñîâðåìåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ ñêîðáè è ñìåðòè ïîäðîáíî ñì.: D. Klass, P. R. Silverman, S. L. Nickman. Continuing Bonds, New Understanding of Grief. Washington, 1996. 57 Michael G. Kenny. A Place for Memory. The Interface Between Individual and Collective History // Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1999. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 434. 627 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... Ïî÷åìó âñå íå òàê? Âðîäå âñå, êàê âñåãäà... Òîæå íåáî, îïÿòü ãîëóáîå. Òîò-æå ëåñ, òîò-æå âîçäóõ È òà-æå âîäà. Òîëüêî îíè íàøè ìèëûå ðåáÿòà íå âåðíóëèñü èç áîÿ. Íî òàê óñòðîåíà æèçíü. Ñâåòëàíà ïîëó÷èëà êâàðòèðó îò âîåí- êîìàòà 50%. Âúåçæàòü áóäåì ê 7 íîÿáðÿ. Ìèëîñòè ïðîøó â ãîñòè êî ìíå. Ñâåòëàíà ÿ î÷åíü ïðîøó ïðèøëèòå ìíå ôîòî Êîñòè. Ó ìåíÿ åñòü íî î÷åíü ìàëåíüêîå. ß äåëàþ àëüáîì “Ïàìÿòü ðåáÿòàì îòäàâøèì æèçíü çà ñâîáîäó Àôãàíèñòàíà”. È íà òóì- áî÷êó òîæå íàäî ìíå Êîñòþ. Âñåõ ÿ ïîñòàâëþ íà òóìáî÷êó â ðàìî÷êè, à êðóãîì öâåòû. Êâàðò. íà 9 ýò. â 12-è ýòàæíîì äîìå â öåíòðå Îìñêà. 2õ êîìí. 32 êâ.ì. Ëàðèñà ó÷èòñÿ íà âòî- ðîì êóðñå â ó÷èëèùå. 2 ìåñÿöà îòðàáàòûâàëà ïðàêòèêó â Êðàñíî- äàðñêîì êðàå óáèðàëè îâîùè è ôðóêòû. Ïðèåõàëà 29 àâãóñòà. Ïèøèòå êàê âû æèâåòå. Êàê âàøè âíóêè. Ïèøåò–íåò âàì ïèñü- ìà Ëþáóøêà. Áóäåòå åé ïèñàòü ïèñüìî, áîëüøîé ìàòåðèíñ- êèé ïðèâåò åé ïåðåäàéòå îò ìåíÿ. Íàïèøèòå, ÷òî Êîñòþ è åå ïîìíÿò è çíàþ è æäóò â ãîñòè â ã. Îìñêå íà Èðòûøå. Ñâåòëàíà ìèëàÿ ìîÿ áåðåãè ñåáÿ. Ìåíüøå ïëà÷ü. Ëèøíèé ïðîæèòûé äåíü, ýòî ëó÷øàÿ ïàìÿòü äëÿ íàøèõ ðåáÿò. Ýòî ìû ëèøíèé öâåòîê ïîñàäèì è óíåñåì íà ìîãèëêó íàøèì äîðîãèì ñûíî÷- êàì. Î÷åíü òÿæåëî, ñëîâ íåò. Íî æèòü íàäî. Ñòèñíóâ çóáû îò áîëè æèòü, æèòü, æèòü. Æèòü ïàìÿòüþ íàøèõ äåòåé. Äîñâè- äàíèÿ ìîè ìèëûå. Êðåïêî îáíèìàþ è æäó îòâåòà. Ñ óâàæåíèåì Ëþáîâü Èâàíîâíà. ã. Îìñê.58 Ýòî ïèñüìî – áåçóñëîâíî, íå èñêëþ÷åíèå â êîëëåêöèè Ìóçåÿ, íàñ÷èòûâàþùåé áîëåå 200 ïîñëàíèé ìàòåðåé.  áîëüøèíñòâå èç íèõ òåìà óòðàòû è áîëè ïîñòîÿííî ïåðåïëåòàåòñÿ ñ òåìîé ïîâñåäíåâíûõ ñîáûòèé, ñ îïèñàíèåì íîâûõ êâàðòèð, òåëåâèçîðîâ, õîëîäèëüíèêîâ, óðîæàåâ êàðòîøêè, áîëåçíåé èëè ïîãîäû. Òðàâìàòè÷åñêèé îïûò â ýòèõ ïèñüìàõ ïîñòîÿííî ïóëüñèðóåò – òî óõîäÿ â òåíü, òî ïðîÿâ- ëÿÿñü â êà÷åñòâå îñíîâíîé òåìû. Ëîêàëèçîâàâøèñü âî ìíîæåñòâå ìàòåðèàëüíûõ âåùåé, òðàâìà îêàçûâàåòñÿ, òåì íå ìåíåå, “ðàçáèòîé” íà ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå îáúåêòû ïðèâÿçàííîñòè.

58 Ëþáîâü Èâàíîâíà Ôóðöåâà. Ïèñüìî Ñ. Ã. Ïàâëþêîâîé. Áåç äàòû // ÀÃÊÌ, Áàðíàóë. Ôîíä Ñ. Ã. Ïàâëþêîâîé (íå ðàçîáðàí). 628 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ïîäîáíàÿ ñòðàòåãèÿ íîðìàëèçàöèè óòðàòû – ïóòåì åå ëîêàëè- çàöèè è ôðàãìåíòàöèè – îäíàêî, íå äîëæíà ñêðûâàòü è åùå îäíîãî âàæíîãî ìåõàíèçìà, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîãî àðòèêóëèðóåòñÿ è ïîçè- òèâèðóåòñÿ ïîòåðÿ. Ðå÷ü èäåò î ñåðèè ñîöèàëüíûõ îáìåíîâ, îáî- çíà÷åííûõ â ïèñüìå (êâàðòèðà, ôîòîãðàôèè, âèçèòû, öâåòû); îá- ìåíîâ, êîòîðûå èíèöèèðîâàíû óòðàòîé. Òðàâìà îáðåòàåò ôîðìó öèðêóëÿöèè ýìîöèé, íîñèòåëåì êîòîðûõ ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ìàòåðèàëüíûå îáúåêòû.  îòëè÷èå îò ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, óêàçûâàþùèõ íà òî, ÷òî òðàâìàòè÷åñêèé îïûò îáû÷íî ñòàíîâèòñÿ îáúåêòîì àêòèâíîãî ïñèõè÷åñêîãî è äèñêóðñèâíîãî öåíçóðèðîâàíèÿ è âûòåñíåíèÿ, ïðåâðàùàÿñü â èòîãå ⠓òåìíîå ïÿòíî”, â îïûò, êîòîðûé ñîïðî- òèâëÿåòñÿ ñèìâîëèçàöèè,59 â äàííîì ñëó÷àå òðàâìà äåéñòâóåò êàê îñíîâíîé ñòðóêòóðèðóþùèé ìåõàíèçì òåêñòà, êàê îñíîâíîé íàððà- òèâíûé ïðèåì, êîòîðûé, ñîáñòâåííî, è ñâîäèò âîåäèíî ðàçîðâàííóþ èñòîðèþ. Óòðàòà – íå âûòåñíåííàÿ, íî è íå âîñïîëíåííàÿ – ïåðåíå- ñåíà çäåñü â èíóþ ïëîñêîñòü. Îáìåíû â äàííîì ñëó÷àå íå ñâÿçàíû íàïðÿìóþ ñ êîìïåíñàöèåé – òî åñòü, ñ îïðåäåëåíèåì “ïðàâèëüíîãî” ìàòåðèàëüíîãî ýêâèâàëåíòà, ñïîñîáíîãî ëèáî “îïðàâäàòü” ñìåðòü, ëèáî ðåïðåçåíòèðîâàòü åå. Ñêîðåå, îáìåíû, – ò. å. ïîñòîÿííàÿ öèðêóëÿöèÿ ýìîöèé, äèñêóðñîâ è ïðåäìåòîâ, – âûïîëíÿþò òóò ðîëü “ñïîñîáà ñèìâîëèçàöèè, êîòîðûé îäíîâðåìåííî è ýêîíîìè÷åí, è çíà÷èì”,60 ôîðìèðóÿ â èòîãå öåïü àêòîâ ïóáëè÷íîãî ïðèçíàíèÿ óòðàòû. Ïðèâåäó åùå îäèí ïðèìåð èç òîé æå ñàìîé êîëëåêöèè ïèñåì. Ïèñüìî íàïèñàíî â àïðåëå 1999 ã. (îðôîãðàôèÿ è ïóíêòóàöèÿ îðèãèíàëà ïåðåäàíû áåç èçìåíåíèé): Äîðîãàÿ Ñâåòëàíà Ãðèãîðüåâíà... 15 ôåâðàëÿ åçäèëè â [ðàé- îííûé öåíòð] Êëþ÷è ïîìèíàòü ñâîèõ äåòåé. Òàì íàì äàëè äåíüãè. Áûëè â öåðêâè, ïîñòàâèëè ñâå÷è, åçäèëè íà êëàäáèùå, õîäèëè ê ïàìÿòíèêó è ïîòîì ïîåõàëè â ñòîëîâóþ ïîìèíàòü. À ó ìîåãî ñûíà áûëè 12 ôåâðàëÿ. Ïðèåõàëè ñ ïîëÿíû, ñúåçäè- ëè íà êëàä-áèùå, ïîòîì ïîåõàëè íà ïîëÿíó, òàì áûë êîíöåðò ïåëè ïåñíè ïðî Àôãàíèñòàí. Îò ñîâõîçà äàëè 2 êã ïøåíà, 1 êã ãðå÷êè, 1 ïà÷êó ÷àÿ. Âäîâû ïîëîæèëè öâåòû íà êëàäáèùå. ß òîæå ïîëîæèëà öâåòû ê ïàìÿòíèêó â Êëþ÷àõ. Íà ùåò ëå÷åíèÿ

59 Ñì., íàïðèìåð: Caruth Cathy (Ed.). Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Baltimore, 1995. 60 Jean-Joseph Goux. Symbolic Economies After Marx and Freud / Trans. by Jennifer Curtis Cage. Ithaca, 1990. P. 4. 629 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... ó ìåíÿ íè÷åãî íå ïîëó÷èòñÿ. Ñåé÷àñ îãîðîä ñàæàòü â ìàå áó- äåì. Ïàõàòü îãîðîäû. Ìíå áû òàê ïîåõàòü â Êëþ÷è, òàì áû êóïèòü ëåêàðñòâî. ß áû äîìà ïèëà. Êîãäà ñ Êëþ÷åé ïðèåçæàëè â ïîëÿíó, ïðèâîçèëè ìíå ëüãîòíûå óäîñòîâåðåíèÿ, ÿ ó íèõ ñïðîñèëà, ìîæíî ó íèõ â Êëþ÷àõ âçÿòü ëèêàðñòâî, îíè ìíå ñêàçàëè îäèí ðàç â ãîä, è òî åâî òàì íåò. Âîò è âñå ëåêàðñòâî. Ïîêà õîäèì, áóäåì õîäèòü, êîãäà íå ñìîæåì õîäèòü, òîãäà áóäèì ëå÷èöà. ß æèâó ñ ñûíîì, ñûí îäèí áåç æåíû. À ñåé÷àñ íà÷íåöà ïàõîòà, îí òðàêòîðèñò. Íàäî ñóìêè ãîòîâèòü â ñòåï. Ó ìåíÿ âñå. Äîñâèäàíèå. Æàáèíà 1999, 24.04. Êëþ÷è. Ñëèÿíèå ñèìâîëè÷åñêîãî è ìàòåðèàëüíîãî/ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî â ýòèõ îáìåíàõ (äåíüãè – ñâå÷è – ñòîëîâàÿ – ïåñíè – ãðå÷êà – öâåòû – ëåêàðñòâà) ìîæåò áûòü îáúÿñíåíî è åùå îäíèì ôàêòîðîì. Ñòðåìëåíèå Ìàòåðåé ê îáùåñòâåííîìó ïðèçíàíèþ èõ òðàâì è ñòðàäàíèé íåðåäêî ðåàëèçóåòñÿ â ñèòóàöèè, êîãäà ñîáñòâåííî äîñòî- âåðíîå çíàíèå òîãî, ÷òî ïðîèçîøëî ñ èõ äåòüìè, íåäîñòèæèìî. Âî ìíîãèõ ñëó÷àÿõ Ìàòåðÿì íåèçâåñòíû îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà ãèáåëè ñûíîâåé.  ðÿäå ñëó÷àåâ îíè äàæå íèêîãäà íå âèäåëè èõ òåë. Êàê ïèñàëà â îäíîì èç ïèñåì ìàòü ïîãèáøåãî: “Íàì îñòàëîñü îò ñûíîâåé áîëü, ãîðäîñòü è îðäåí”.61  ýòîé ñèòóàöèè äîìåñòèêàöèÿ òðàâìû, åå äåïîëèòèçàöèÿ è ðåêîíòåêñòóàëèçàöèÿ â çíàêîìûõ ðàìêàõ ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíè ñòàíîâèòñÿ åäèíñòâåííîé ñòðàòåãèåé ñèìâîëèçàöèè, êîòîðàÿ èìååò ñìûñë. Ñõîäíàÿ ñòðàòåãèÿ âîñïðîèçâîäñòâà çíà÷èìûõ îáúåêòîâ áûëà èñïîëüçîâàíà Ìàòåðÿìè è åùå â îäíîì òèïå òåêñòî⠖ â ñáîðíèêàõ íåêðîëîãîâ ñîëäàò ñ Àëòàÿ, ïîãèáøèõ â Àôãàíèñòàíå è ×å÷íå. “Ñûíû Àëòàÿ”, ïåðâàÿ Êíèãà Ïàìÿòè, îïóáëèêîâàííàÿ ÊÑÌ â 1992 ã., ñîäåðæèò 144 áèîãðàôèè ñ ôîòîãðàôèÿìè ñîëäàò ñ Àëòàÿ, êîòîðûå ïàëè â Àôãàíèñòàíå.  îïðåäåëåííîé ñòåïåíè Êíèãà ñòàëà òåêñòóàëüíûì ýêâèâàëåíòîì êîëëåêòèâíîãî çàõîðîíåíèÿ, ñâîåîá- ðàçíîé ìîäèôèêàöèåé “áðàòñêîé ìîãèëû”, èçáåæàâøåé òðàäèöè- îííîé ó÷àñòè ãðóïïîâîé àíîíèìíîñòè. Ïî ñëîâàì Ïàâëþêîâîé, ïóáëèêàöèÿ Êíèãè ñòèìóëèðîâàëà ôèçè÷åñêóþ êîíñîëèäàöèþ îñòàí- êîâ ñîëäàò. Èçäàíèå íåðåäêî èñïîëüçóåòñÿ Ìàòåðÿìè â êà÷åñòâå

61 Ëþáîâü Èâàíîâíà Ôóðöåâà. Ïèñüìî Ñ. Ã. Ïàâëþêîâîé. Áåç äàòû // ÀÃÊÌ. Ôîíä Ñ. Ã. Ïàâëþêîâîé (íå ðàçîáðàí). 630 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñèëüíîãî âèçóàëüíîãî äîâîäà â äèñêóññèè ñ âëàñòÿìè. Îíî ÷àñòî óïîìèíàåòñÿ â ïèñüìàõ. Ìàòåðè è âåòåðàíû ïðèíîñÿò åãî íà ìèòèíãè ïàìÿòè. Ñòèëèñòè÷åñêè Êíèãà Ïàìÿòè ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ñîåäèíåíèå äâóõ îñíîâíûõ òðàäèöèé. (Èëë. 6.) Ôîðìà âî ìíîãîì ïîâòîðÿåò ýñòåòè÷åñêèå êàíîíû îôèöèàëüíîé ìåìîðèàëèçàöèè ïîãèáøèõ â ãîäû Âåëèêîé Îòå÷åñòâåííîé âîéíû. Êàê è â ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ áóêëåòàõ, ïëàêàòàõ è íàáîðàõ îòêðûòîê ñîâåòñêèõ âðåìåí, â íåé ïîìåùàþòñÿ íåáîëüøèå ñòàíäàðòíûå ôîòîãðàôèè ïîãèáøèõ è èõ êðàòêèå áèîãðàôèè. Íî ñîäåðæàíèå òåêñòîâ ñëåäóåò èíîé, ìåíåå ôîðìàëüíîé, òðàäèöèè ñîëäàòñêîãî (“äåìáåëüñêîãî”) Àëüáîìà, ñ åãî âíèìàíèåì ê íåîôèöèàëüíîé ñîñòàâëÿþùåé â àðìåéñêîé æèçíè ñîëäàòà.62 Áèîãðàôèè-íåêðîëîãè íå îòëè÷àþòñÿ ðàçíîîá- ðàçèåì, èõ áîëüøàÿ ÷àñòü ñòðîèòñÿ ïî ñõîäíûì ìîäåëÿì, íàïðèìåð: Ìàçóðèí Ñåðãåé Ïåòðîâè÷. 18.04.60 – 10.07.80. Ïåðåä óõîäîì â àðìèþ Ñåðãåé ñâîèìè ðóêàìè ñäåëàë êîëî- äåö: “Ýòî äëÿ òåáÿ, ìà- ìóëüêà. Áóäåøü âîäó íàáè- ðàòü è âñïîìèíàòü ìåíÿ”. À åùå õðàíèò Àëåêñàíäðà Èâàíîâíà ÷àñû, êîòîðûå êóïèë Ñåðåæà ñ ïåðâîé ïîëó÷êè, çàðàáîòàííîé íà êàíèêóëàõ ïîñëå ñåäüìîãî êëàññà. Ñåðåæà ëåòîì íå ëþáèë áåçäåëüíè÷àòü: òî íà ïîëèâå, òî íà çàêëàäêå Èëë. 6. Ñòðàíèöû èç Êíèãè Ïàìÿòè ñèëîñà ðàáîòàë. Äîìàøíåé “Ñûíû Àëòàÿ”. ðàáîòû òîæå íå ñòåñíÿëñÿ. Ïîñëå âîñüìè êëàññîâ ïîñòóïèë â ÑÏÒÓ-75, ïîëó÷èë òàì ñïå- öèàëüíîñòü òðàêòîðèñòà-ìàøèíèñòà øèðîêîãî ïðîôèëÿ. Íîâûé, 1980 ãîä Ñåðãåé âñòðåòèë â Àôãàíèñòàíå. Îá ýòîì ôàêòå ðîäèòåëè óçíàëè òîëüêî â ìàðòå. Äî ýòîãî ïðèõîäèëè

62 Î ñîëäàòñêèõ àëüáîìàõ ñì.: Êîíñòàíòèí Áàííèêîâ. Àíòðîïîëîãèÿ ýêñòðåìàëüíûõ ãðóïï. Äîìèíàíòíûå îòíîøåíèÿ ñðåäè âîåííîñëóæàùèõ ñðî÷íîé ñëóæáû Ðîññèéñêîé àðìèè. Ìîñêâà, 2002. Ñ. 205-216; Äåìáåëüñêèé àëüáîì. Ðóññêèé Àðò Áðþò. Ìåæäó êóëüòóðîé è êíèãîé õóäîæíèêà / Ïîä ðåä. Ìèõàèëà Êàðàñèêà. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2001. 631 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... ïèñüìà ñî ñòðàííûìè îáðàòíûìè àäðåñàìè. Ïîñëåäíåå ïèñüìî ïðèøëî â êîíöå èþíÿ, â êîòîðîì Ñåðåæà îáìîëâèëñÿ, ÷òî ÷àñòü ïåðåäâèãàåòñÿ â ñòîðîíó ïàêèñòàíñêîé ãðàíèöû. Ñëåäîì íàïèñàë êîìàíäèð ÷àñòè: “Ïîäðîáíîñòåé ìû ñîîáùèòü íå ìîæåì, íåëüçÿ, ìîãó ñêàçàòü îäíî: Âàø ñûí ïðè âûïîëíåíèè áîåâîãî çàäàíèÿ ïîêàçàë îáðàçåö ìóæåñòâà è îòâàãè... Ëè÷íûõ âåùåé ïî ðÿäó îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ íå îñòàëîñü. Ôîòîãðàôèþ ïîñòàðàåìñÿ âûñëàòü...”. Òàêîâû â òå ãîäû áûëè òåêñòû “ïîõîðîíîê”. Ìëàäøèé ñåðæàíò Ìàçóðèí áûë íàâîä÷èêîì îðóäèÿ. Ìåñòà ñëóæáû – Êàáóë, Êàíäàãàð, Ãàçíè. Ñêîí÷àëñÿ îò ïîòåðè êðîâè íà ïîëå áîÿ. Ïîõîðîíåí íà ðîäèíå – â ñåëå Âåñåëîÿðñê Ðóáöîâñêîãî ðàéîíà. Íàãðàæäåí îðäåíîì Êðàñíîé Çâåçäû (ïîñìåðòíî).63  ýòèõ áèîãðàôèÿõ, ñ èõ ñòðåìëåíèåì ê ïåðñîíàëèçàöèè òåêñòà ïðè ìèíèìóìå èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ äåòàëåé, íå ñîäåðæèòñÿ íè ïîëè- òè÷åñêèõ îáâèíåíèé âëàñòÿì, íè òðàäèöèîííûõ ïîïûòîê ãåðîèçè- ðîâàòü ñìåðòü ñîëäàò.  ñèòóàöèè, êîãäà “ëè÷íûõ âåùåé íå îñòà- ëîñü”, à “ïîäðîáíîñòåé ãèáåëè ñîîáùèòü íåëüçÿ”, ñòðåìëåíèå îñîç- íàòü ãëóáèíó óòðàòû íåèçáåæíî òðàíñôîðìèðóåòñÿ â ïîïûòêè ïåðåîöåíèòü òî, ÷òî ñîõðàíèëîñü.64 Ìåòîíèìè÷åñêàÿ ëîãèêà ýòèõ ñëåäîâ óòðàòû (“êîëîäåö”, “÷àñû”) â èòîãå ïðîèçâîäèò äâîéíîé ýôôåêò. Àêöåíòèðóÿ ñâÿçü ïîãèáøåãî è åãî áëèçêèõ è ðîäíûõ, ìåòîíèìèè óòðàòû ïîçâîëÿþò â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè ìàðãèíà- ëèçèðîâàòü ñìåðòü.65 Ïðèíöèïèàëüíûì çäåñü îêàçûâàåòñÿ ñïîñîá- íîñòü “óäåðæàòü” îçíà÷àþùåå (“ñëåä óòðàòû”), ÷åòêî îñîçíàâàÿ ïðè ýòîì, ÷òî íè îçíà÷àåìîå (“ñìûñë óòðàòû”), íè ðåôåðåíò (“îáúåêò óòðàòû”) óæå íèêîãäà íå áóäóò äîñòóïíû.  îòñóòñòâèå ñõåìû, ñïîñîáíîé îêàçàòü â ïîñòñîâåòñêèõ óñ- ëîâèÿõ ìèôîëîãèçèðóþùóþ èëè èäåîëîãè÷åñêóþ ïîääåðæêó,66

63 Ñûíû Àëòàÿ. Êíèãà Ïàìÿòè. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1992. 64 Ñì. ïîäðîáíåå: David Eng and David Kazanjian. Introduction. Mourning Remains // David Eng and David Kazanjian (Eds.). Loss. Berkeley, 2003. 65 Jacques Derrida. The Work of Mourning / Ed. by Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Chicago, 2001. P. 61. 66 Ïîäðîáíóþ äèñêóññèþ îá îòñóòñòâèè àäåêâàòíîãî ñèìâîëè÷åñêîãî îôîðìëåíèÿ ïîñòñîâåòñêîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà ñì. â ñòàòüÿõ: Serguei Oushakine. In the State of Post-Soviet Aphasia. Symbolic Development in Contemporary Russia // Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 52. No. 6. P. 991-1016; Idem. The Quantity of Style. Imaginary Consumption in the Post-Soviet Russia // Theory, Culture and Society. Vol. 17. No. 5. Pp. 97-120. 632 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òðàâìà, ñòàâøàÿ ïîñëåäñòâèåì ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ïîëèòèêè, ðåïðå- çåíòèðóåòñÿ â âèäå îáû÷íîé, ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíè, êîòîðàÿ îêàçà- ëàñü íàñèëüñòâåííî è òðàãè÷åñêè ïðåðâàííîé. È âðÿä ëè ñëó÷àéíûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ òî, ÷òî èìåííî ýòà ÷àñòíàÿ æèçíü, èìåííî ýòîò ïîâñåä- íåâíûé ïîðÿäîê âåùåé ñòàíîâèòñÿ òîé ìîäåëüþ, íà áàçå êîòîðîé è ñòðîèòñÿ ãðàæäàíñêàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü. Ñîçäàííîå âîêðóã òåìû ñìåðòè ñîîáùåñòâî ýìîöèîíàëüíîé ïîääåðæêè ñòàíîâèòñÿ äëÿ ìíîãèõ Ìàòåðåé åäèíñòâåííîé íèòüþ, ñïîñîáíîé âûâåñòè èõ èç ñîñòîÿíèÿ ñîöèàëüíîé èçîëÿöèè. Åêàòåðèíà Ì., îôîðìèâøàÿ Êîì- íàòó Ïàìÿòè, â èíòåðâüþ òàê ðàññêàçàëà î ñâîèõ ÷óâñòâàõ: ...Êîãäà ìû ýòî âñå îôîðìèëè, ìû ïðèãëàñèëè ðîäèòåëåé íà îòêðûòèå íàøåé Êîìíàòû Ïàìÿòè. È ïðèøåë ê íàì áàòþøêà ñþäà, áàòþøêà íàì âîò ýòó âîò èêîíó ïîäàðèë, Ïðåñâÿòóþ Áîãîðîäèöó, Ìàòü Óñïåíüÿ ïîäàðèë. Îñâÿòèë íàì êîìíàòó ýòó. Íó, è ïîñëå ýòîãî ñòàëè ê íàì ðîäèòåëè ïðèõîäèòü. Îíè è äî ýòîãî ê íàì õîäèëè, íî òîëüêî ïîñëå êîíôåðåíöèè ñòàëè ê íàì ðîäèòåëè õîäèòü ÷àùå. Íó, êàê, íó, íå âñå, êîíå÷íî, íî ìíîãèå ïðèõîäÿò. Âîò ìàòü, îíà äîìà, íå ñ êåì åé ïîìÿíóòü ñûíà, ó íåå äóøà çàáîëåëà, ÷åãî-òî ó íåå íå õâàòàåò, îíà ñþäà èäåò. Îíà ïðè- øëà ñþäà ñî ñâîèì óçåëî÷êîì, òàì êîíôåò, ïå÷åíüÿ ïðèíåñëà, íó, áûâàåò èíîãäà è ñ áóòûëî÷êîé, êîíå÷íî, íå áåç ýòîãî. Âîò ìû ñÿäåì, ïî 50 ãðàìì, ìû çäåñü íèêòî íå ïüåì, íó, êàê Îëüãà ãîâîðèò: “×èñòî ñèìâîëè÷åñêè, ïî 50 ãðàìì”. Âûïüåì, ïîìÿíåì, íó, à ýòîãî ðåáåíêà ìû ïîìÿíóëè è îäíîâðåìåííî âñåõ, âîò. Ñâå÷êè çàæãëè, ïîñòîÿëè, âñå. È ìàìà âûòåðëà ñâîè ñëåçû è êàê- òî çàóëûáàëàñü è äîìîé ïîøëà ëó÷øå, åé ëåã÷å, âîò... À ÿ âîò òåïåðü âîò ýòèì êîìèòåòîì è æèâó. Ñþäà âîò áåãó. Åñëè ÿ íå ïðèøëà, òî âñå Íó, áûâàåò èíîé ðàç, à áûâàåò è äâà, è òðè ðàçà ïðèáåæèøü â íåäåëþ, ñìîòðÿ ïî îáñòàíîâêå: êàê äîìà, êàê ýòî íà äà÷å. Íà äà÷å îòèðàëàñü, åñòåñòâåííî ñþäà ðåæå õîäèëà, ñåé÷àñ äà÷à êîí÷èëàñü, òàê ÷àùå ñþäà áåæèøü. Ñêó÷àþ ïî ñâî- èì æåíùèíàì, ïî ìàëü÷èøêàì. Ïðèäåøü, âîò êàê-òî ïîîá- ùàåøüñÿ ñ íèìè è ëåã÷å. Ñ ñûíîì ïîãîâîðèøü... íó, âðîäå áû è ëåã÷å. Ñâå÷êó ïîñòàâèøü, ê ñòåíäàì ïîäîéäó, ïîãëàæó åãî [ôî- òîãðàôèþ]. Ñðàçó ìíå ñäåëàëè íàâåðõ [ò. å. ïîâåñèëè ôîòîãðàôèþ â âåðõíèé ðÿä], åìó ââåðõó êàê áû ëó÷øå. ß åãî ñâåðõó ñíÿëà ïîíèæå, òîëüêî, ÷òîá ðóêîé äîñòàòü äî íåãî, ñûíî÷êà ñâîåãî.

633 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... Ñòîëêíîâåíèå ñî ñìåðòüþ áåç ïîääåðæêè ðèòóàëîâ íåðåäêî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî, êàê îòìå÷àåò ñîöèîëîã Òîíè Óîëòåð, “ïåðåä ëèöîì ñìåðòè àâòîðèòåòîì ñòàíîâèòñÿ íå òðàäèöèÿ, íî ñàì ÷åëîâåê (the self)”.67  èòîãå, â îòñóòñòâèå åäèíîãî ñòèëÿ èëè îáû÷àåâ, êðàñíàÿ çâåçäà â Êîìíàòå Ïàìÿòè ìèðíî ñîñåäñòâóåò ñ èêîíîé Áîãîðîäèöû, ïëàñò- ìàññîâûå êðàñíûå ãâîçäèêè – ñ öåðêîâíûìè ñâå÷àìè. Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, èìåííî ýòîò “ñåìèîòè÷åñêèé âîëþíòàðèçì” (semiotic volunteerism),68 ýòè ôðàãìåíòèðîâàííûå, íî ñìåæíûå îòíîøåíèÿ ñ ðåàëüíîñòüþ, óñòàíîâëåííûå ïðè ïîìîùè ìàòåðèàëüíûõ îáúåêòîâ, çíà÷èìûõ ïðåäìåòîâ, êîòîðûå ìîãóò ñôîðìèðîâàòü ñâÿçíóþ, íî íå îáÿçàòåëüíî ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíóþ êàðòèíó è ïîçâîëÿþò Ìàòå- ðÿì âûñòîÿòü â ñèòóàöèè, ëèøåííîé ñèìâîëè÷åñêîãî ïîðÿäêà. Ñëåäû áåç ðåôåðåíòà, ýòè îáúåêòèâèðîâàííûå ïðîäóêòû ñèìâî- ëèçàöèè, òåì íå ìåíåå óñòàíàâëèâàþò ãðàíèöû ïîëÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ îòíîøåíèé, ôîðìèðóþò êîí- òåêñò è äàæå èíîãäà ñëóæàò ðóêîâîäñòâîì ê äåéñòâèþ. Ïðîèçâîäñòâî ïðåäìåòîâ, çàìåùàþùèõ óòðàòó, ìîæåò îáúÿñíèòü, ïî÷åìó ñêîðáü â äàí- íîì ñëó÷àå íå ñîïðîâîæäàåòñÿ ïîñòåïåííûì îñëàáëåíèåì áîëåç- íåííîãî ïåðåæèâàíèÿ ïîòåðè, êàê ýòî ïðåäïîëàãàþò òðàäè- öèîííûå òðàêòîâêè òðàâìû. Îñöèëëÿöèÿ Ìàòåðåé ìåæäó ìàòåðèàëüíûìè îçíà÷àþùèìè è îòñóòñòâóþùèìè ðåôåðåíòàìè ïîçâîëÿåò èì îñòàâàòüñÿ ñ “ìàëü- ÷èøêàìè” â ïîñòîÿííîì êîí- òàêòå (“ðóêîé äîñòàòü”), è òåì ñàìûì ëîêàëèçîâàòü ñâîþ óòðàòó. Íî ýòî ðèòóàëèçèðîâàííîå âîñ- ïðîèçâîäñòâî ýìîöèîíàëüíîãî Èëë. 7. Àôãàíñêèå ïàëàòêè â àëòàéñêîì îïûòà òðàâìû, ýòîò ýñòåòèçèðî- ìóçåå. Ôîòî àâòîðà, 2002 ã.

67 Tony Walter. The Revival of Death. London, 1994. P. 188. 68 Michel De Certeau, Luce Giard and Pierre Mayol. The Practices of Everyday Life. Vol. 2. Living and Cocking / Trans. by Timothy Tomasik. Minneapolis, 1998. P. 32. 634 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âàííûé àêöåíò íà óòðàòå è ñêîðáè, îäíîâðåìåííî äåëàåò ðèòîðè- ÷åñêè íåóìåñòíûìè âîïðîñû î ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ðåøåíèÿõ, êîòîðûå ïðèâåëè ê ýòèì ñìåðòÿì. Çàë Ïàìÿòè âîèíîâ, ïîãèáøèõ â Àôãàíèñòàíå, – ÷àñòü ïîñòîÿííîé âûñòàâêè â Àëòàéñêîì ãîñóäàðñòâåí- íîì êðàåâåä÷åñêîì ìóçåå â Áàðíàóëå, ÿâëÿåòñÿ, ïîæàëóé, îäíèì èç íàèáî- ëåå ÿðêèõ ïðèìåðîâ ïîäîáíîé òåí- äåíöèè âîñïðèíèìàòü è êîíñòðóèðî- âàòü ïóáëè÷íîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî êàê ìîçàèêó ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ñèìâîëèçìà è ÷àñòíîé æèçíè. Çàë áûë îòêðûò â íà÷àëå 1990-õ ãã., è äâå åãî êîìíàòû ñîäåðæàò ñòàíäàðòíûé íàáîð èç ñî- âåòñêîé ïðàêòèêè ìåìîðèàëèçàöèè. ×àñòü ñòåíû çàíÿòà òðàäèöèîííîé âèòðèíîé ñ êàïñóëàìè, íàïîëíåííû- Èëë. 8. ×åðíûå òþëüïàíû è ìè çåìëåé ñ ìîãèë ñîëäàò íà êëàä- ÷åðíûå êðåñòû. ÀÃÊÌ. Áàðíàóë. áèùàõ êðàÿ.  öåíòðå îäíîé èç êîì- Ôîòî àâòîðà, 2002 ã. íàò íàõîäèòñÿ ãàëåðåÿ ñòàíäàðòèçè- ðîâàííûõ ôîòîãðàôèé ïîãèáøèõ. Íàêîíåö, åñòü çäåñü è âïîëíå îæèäàåìûé ïëàíøåò ñ àíîíèìíûì ñòèõîòâîðåíèåì, îçàãëàâëåííûì “Ðîäèíå”. Íàïèñàííûé îò ëèöà ïîãèáøåãî ñîëäàòà, ñòèõ îáðàùàåòñÿ ê òåì, êòî âûæèë: Ïîìÿíè íàñ, Ðîññèÿ, â äåêàáðüñêóþ ñòóæó, Ïåðåä òåì, êàê ñîáðàòüñÿ çà ïðàçäíè÷íûé ñòîë. Âñïîìíè òåõ, êòî ïðèñÿãó òåáå íå íàðóøèë, Êòî áåðåã òåáÿ âå÷íî, è â âå÷íîñòü óøåë. Ïîìÿíè íàñ, çàñûïàííûõ ïåïëîì è ïûëüþ, Ïóëåìåòàìè âðåçàííûõ â ñêàëüíóþ òâåðäü. Çàïèøè íàñ â èñòîðèþ ãîðåñòíîé áûëüþ. È ðóáöîì ìàòåðèíñêîå ñåðäöå îòìåòü.... Îäíîâðåìåííî â Çàëå Ïàìÿòè ðàçìåùåíû îáúåêòû, íå âïèñûâà- þùèåñÿ â òðàäèöèîííûé ìóçåéíûé ôîðìàò.  óãëó îäíîé êîìíàòû, íàïðèìåð, áûëà ðàçâåðíóòà ïàëàòêà, â êîòîðîé ñïàëè ñîëäàòû âî âðåìÿ âîéíû â Àôãàíèñòàíå. (Èëë. 7.) Îêîííûå ðàìû áûëè îôîðìëåíû â âèäå êðåñòîâ ñ ñèëóýòàìè ÷åðíûõ òþëüïàíîâ, ñèì- 635 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... âîëèçèðóþùèõ ñàìîëåòû, òðàíñïîðòèðîâàâøèå ãðîáû ñ òåëàìè ïîãèáøèõ ñîëäàò â Ñîâåòñêèé Ñîþç. (Èëë. 8.) Ðåëèãèîçíûé ñèì- âîëèçì îòðàæàëñÿ è â ðàñïîëîæåíèè ëàìï íà ïîòîëêå (Èëë. 9.) è â ïîäñâå÷íèêàõ, êîòîðûìè ñîïðîâîæäàëèñü ôîòîãðàôèè ïîãèáøèõ ñîëäàò. (Èëë. 10.) Êóðàòîð âûñòàâêè íàñòàèâàëà, ÷òî ðåëèãèîçíóþ ñèìâîëèêó â ãî- ñóäàðñòâåííîì ìóçåå íå ñòîèò âîñïðèíèìàòü áóêâàëüíî: ìíîãî- ÷èñëåííûå êðåñòû ïðèçâàíû ñèì- âîëèçèðîâàòü “íàäåæäó â ñàìîì øèðîêîì ñìûñëå ýòîãî ñëîâà”.69  ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, îäíà èç Ìàòåðåé îïèñàëà ïîñåùåíèå Çàëà òàê: “È, âîò, â ïðàçäíèêè çàõîäèì, êàæ- äîìó ìîæåì çàæå÷ü ñâå÷ó. Ýòî çàë – çàë Ïàìÿòè. Òî åñòü, âêëþ- ÷àåòñÿ “Àâå, Ìàðèÿ” òàì èëè ÷òî- òî åùå, è âñå íà÷èíàåòñÿ...” Îòñóòñòâèå ãðàæäàíñêîãî äèñ- êóðñà è/èëè àíàëèòè÷åñêîé äèñ- òàíöèè, ñïîñîáíîé ïðèäàòü ïîòå- ðÿì ñîöèàëüíûé ñìûñë, òàêèì îáðàçîì, êîìïåíñèðóåòñÿ ïðè ïî- ìîùè ñåíòèìåíòàëüíîé õîðåîã- Èëë. 9. Êðåñòû îñâåùåíèÿ. ÀÃÊÌ. ðàôèè âèçóàëüíûõ è àóäèî- Áàðíàóë. Ôîòî àâòîðà, 2002 ã. ñðåäñòâ. Ïîëèòè÷åñêîå íàñèëèå ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â ëè÷íóþ òðàâìó, à ìóçåé – â ìåñòî ñêîðáè, â ñâîåîáðàçíóþ ñâåòñêóþ öåðêîâü. Íåõâàòêà ëåãèòèìèðóþùèõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñöåíàðèåâ, ñïîñîáíûõ ïðèäàòü ñìåðòè ñûíîâåé îïðåäåëåííîå îáùåñòâåííîå çâó÷àíèå, ÿâëÿåòñÿ âàæíîé ïðè÷èíîé îáîçíà÷åííîé òåíäåíöèè ê äåïîëèòè- çàöèè. Òåì íå ìåíåå, íåðàçâèòîñòü ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî äèñêóðñà âðÿä ëè ìîæåò îáúÿñíèòü, ïî÷åìó äåïîëèòèçàöèÿ ðåàëèçóåòñÿ â ôîðìå “îáúåêòàëèçàöèè”, ò. å. ïóòåì ñîçäàíèÿ óñòîé÷èâîé ýìîöèîíàëü- íîé ñâÿçè ìåæäó Ìàòåðÿìè, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è ìàòåðèàëüíûìè îáúåêòàìè – ñ äðóãîé. Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ðàáîòû Äîíàëüäà Âèííèêîòòà,

69 Èíòåðâüþ ñ Èðèíîé Ä., êóðàòîðîì êðàåâåä÷åñêîãî ìóçåÿ. Áàðíàóë, ìàðò 2002 ã. Àðõèâ àâòîðà. 636 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 áðèòàíñêîãî ïñèõîòåðàïåâòà è ïñèõîàíàëèòèêà, ñîäåðæàò ïîëåçíóþ òåîðåòè÷åñêóþ ñõåìó, ñïîñîáíóþ îáúÿñíèòü ñóòü òåíäåíöèè, îáîçíà÷åííîé Ìàòåðÿìè.  èññëåäîâàíèè “Èñïîëü- çîâàíèå îáúåêòà è ïîñòðîå- íèå îòíîøåíèé ÷åðåç èäåíòè- ôèêàöèþ” Äîíàëüä Âèííè- êîòò ïðîâîäèò ðàçãðàíè÷å- íèå ìåæäó äâóìÿ òèïàìè ïðàêòèêè. Ïîä îáúåêòíûìè îòíîøåíèÿìè ïñèõîòåðàïåâò ïîíèìàåò òàêîå âçàèìîäåé- ñòâèå ìåæäó èíäèâèäîì (“ñóáúåêòîì”) è ïðåäìåòîì / ïðåäñòàâëåíèåì (“îáúåê- òîì”), â õîäå êîòîðîãî ïðî- èñõîäÿò “îïðåäåëåííûå èç- Èëë. 10. Ìóçåé êàê ñâåòñêàÿ öåðêîâü: ïîäñâå÷íèêè ó ïîðòðåòîâ ïîãèáøèõ ìåíåíèÿ â ëè÷íîñòè”.  ðå- ñîëäàò. ÀÃÊÌ, Áàðíàóë. Ôîòî àâòîðà, çóëüòàòå ïîäîáíûõ èçìåíå- 2002 ã. íèé “â ëè÷íîñòè” îáúåêò íà- äåëÿåòñÿ (“íàãðóæàåòñÿ” è “âîñïîëíÿåòñÿ”) ïåðñîíàëüíî çíà÷èìû- ìè âîñïîìèíàíèÿìè, àññîöèàöèÿìè è ôàíòàçèÿìè. Âàæíûì äëÿ Âèí- íèêîòòà ÿâëÿåòñÿ òî, ÷òî, ôîðìèðóÿ ñ ïîìîùüþ îïåðàöèé ïðîåê- öèè è èäåíòèôèêàöèè óçû àôôåêòèâíîé ïðèâÿçàííîñòè ê îáúåêòó, “ñóáúåêò îïóñòîøåí äî òàêîé ñòåïåíè, ÷òî ÷àñòü ñóáúåêòà îáíàðó- æèâàåòñÿ â îáúåêòå. Õîòÿ ïðè ýòîì ñóáúåêò îáîãàùàåòñÿ â ýìîöè- îíàëüíîì ïëàíå”.70 Ðàçóìååòñÿ, íàáëþäåíèå Âèííèêîòòà âî ìíîãîì î÷åâèäíî è çíàêîìî ëþáîìó, êòî èñïûòàë ïîòåðþ ëþáèìîãî ïðåäìåòà èëè çàäàâàëñÿ âîïðîñîì î ñîáñòâåííîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè. Âàæíîñòü îáúåêòà ïðèâÿçàííîñòè, êàê ïðàâèëî, îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ åãî ñïîñîá- íîñòüþ âûñòóïàòü â ôîðìå “ýêðàíà”, êîòîðûé ñïîñîáåí óäåðæèâàòü ïðîåêöèè èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ ôàíòàçèé è âîîáðàæàåìûõ êîíñòðóêöèé. Ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî îáúåêòíûå îòíîøåíèÿ âàæíû äëÿ Âèííèêîòòà íå òîëüêî êàê ïðèìåð áûòîâîãî ôåòèøèçìà. Ãëàâíûì äëÿ íåãî ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðèíöèïèàëüíîå îòëè÷èå îáúåêòíûõ îòíîøåíèé îò äðóãîé ôîðìû âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ, êîòîðàÿ òàêæå ñôîêóñèðîâàíà íà îáúåêòå

70 Ñì.: Äîíàëüä Âèííèêîòò. Èãðà è ðåàëüíîñòü. Ìîñêâà, 2002. Ñ. 158. 637 Ñ. Óøàêèí, Âìåñòî óòðàòû... èäåíòèôèêàöèè. Ïîíÿòèå “ïðèìåíåíèå îáúåêòà”, ñîõðàíÿÿ âî ìíî- ãîì ñõîäñòâà ñ “îáúåêòíûìè îòíîøåíèÿìè”, ïîçâîëèëî Âèííè- êîòòó àêöåíòèðîâàòü ðîëü îáúåêòà â äèíàìèêå îòíîøåíèé ìåæäó èíäèâèäîì è ïðåäìåòîì. Êàê îòìå÷àë ïñèõîàíàëèòèê: ...êîãäà ÿ ãîâîðþ î ïðèìåíåíèè îáúåêòà, ÿ ïðèíèìàþ îáúåêò- íûå îòíîøåíèÿ êàê äàííîñòü, íî äîáàâëÿþ íîâûå êà÷åñòâà, êîòîðûå çàòðàãèâàþò ïðèðîäó ïîâåäåíèÿ ñàìîãî îáúåêòà. Íàïðèìåð, îáúåêò, ÷òîáû åãî ìîæíî áûëî èñïîëüçîâàòü, äîë- æåí áûòü ðåàëüíûì, ÿâëÿòüñÿ ÷àñòüþ âíåøíåé, ðàçäåëåííîé ìåæäó ëþäüìè ðåàëüíîñòè, à íå íàãðîìîæäåíèåì ïðîåêöèé... îòíîøåíèÿ ìîæíî îïèñàòü ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ñóáúåêòà, êîòîðûé îòäåëåí îò îêðóæàþùåãî ìèðà, à ïðèìåíåíèå – ëèøü èñõîäÿ èç òîãî ôàêòà, ÷òî îáúåêò ñóùåñòâîâàë âñåãäà è íåçàâèñèìî îò ñóáúåêòà.71  ñâîèõ ðàáîòàõ Âèííèêîòò íåîäíîêðàòíî ïîä÷åðêèâàåò, ÷òî ïåðåõîä îò ôàíòàçìàòè÷åñêèõ “îáúåêòíûõ îòíîøåíèé” ê ðåàëèñ- òè÷åñêîìó “ïðèìåíåíèþ îáúåêòà” ïðåäïîëàãàåò îïðåäåëåííóþ óâåðåííîñòü â îêðóæàþùåì ïðîñòðàíñòâå, îïðåäåëåííóþ ñïîñîá- íîñòü ñóáúåêòà êàðòîãðàôèðîâàòü ìèð çà ïðåäåëàìè åãî ôàíòàçèé è ýìîöèé, îïðåäåëåííîå æåëàíèå äåêîäèðîâàòü ðàçíîîáðàçíûå êîíòåêñòû, ÷àñòüþ êîòîðûõ è ÿâëÿþòñÿ îáúåêòû ïðèâÿçàííîñòè. Óäà÷íàÿ íàâèãàöèÿ òàêîãî ïåðåõîäíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà, óêàçûâàåò Âèííèêîòò, “çàâèñèò îò ïåðåæèâàíèé, êîòîðûå âåäóò ÷åëîâåêà ê äîâåðèþ”. Îòñóòñòâèå äîâåðèÿ, êàê è ñèòóàöèÿ áëîêèðîâàííîãî “ïåðåõîäà” ìîãóò âåñòè ê “ðåçìåðíîé ýêñïëóàòàöèè” îáúåêòîâ ôàíòàçìàòè÷åñêîé / ýìîöèîíàëüíîé ïðèâÿçàííîñòè.72 Ìîäåëü îáúåêòíûõ îòíîøåíèé, ïðåäëîæåííàÿ Âèííèêîòòîì, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ïîçâîëÿåò êîíöåïòóàëèçèðîâàòü ñïîñîá ñèìâîëè- çàöèè óòðàòû, èñïîëüçóåìûé Ìàòåðÿìè.  îòñóòñòâèå äîâåðèÿ ê “âíåøíåìó ìèðó” è “ðàçäåëåííîé” ðåàëüíîñòè, ôîðìèðîâàíèå èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ è ãðóïïîâûõ èäåíòè÷íîñòåé Ìàòåðåé ïðîèñõîäèò âî ìíîãîì ïðè ïîìîùè ðåêîíòåêñòóàëèçàöèè óòðàòû.  õîäå ïðîåêöèé ìàòåðèàëüíûå îáúåêòû ïðåâðàùàþòñÿ â ñèìâîëè÷åñêèå – ìåòîíèìè÷åñêèå – ñâèäåòåëüñòâà ãèáåëè ñûíîâåé.  òî æå ñàìîå, âðåìÿ ìàòåðèàëüíûé õàðàêòåð ýòèõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ ïîçâîëÿåò

71 Òàì æå. Ñ.159-160. 72 Òàì æå. Ñ. 186. 638 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âñòðàèâàòü èõ â ðóòèíó ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíè. Äåìîíñòðèðóÿ è îáúåêòè- âèðóÿ íàëè÷èå ñóùåñòâåííîé ýìîöèîíàëüíîé ñâÿçè ìåæäó èíäè- âèäîì è ïðåäìåòîì, îáúåêòíûå îòíîøåíèÿ ðàçâèâàþòñÿ êàê ñîáûòèå âíóòðåííåé æèçíè èíäèâèäà, ñ òðóäîì ïðèîáðåòàÿ áîëåå øèðîêèé ñîöèàëüíûé ñìûñë. Ýìîöèîíàëüíî çàðÿæåííàÿ ãåðìåíåâòèêà áîëè ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïîäàâëÿþùåé ôîðìîé êîììóíèêàöèè ñ îêðóæàþùèì ïðîñòðàíñòâîì. È âñå æå, êàê ÿ ïûòàëñÿ ïîêàçàòü, ïîäîáíîå èñïîëüçîâàíèå ýìîöèé â ïîëèòèêå èìååò âïîëíå îïðåäåëåííûé ïîëîæèòåëüíûé ýôôåêò. Äåÿòåëüíîñòü ïðîâèíöèàëüíûõ ÊÑÌ ñòîèò ðàññìàòðèâàòü íå òîëüêî ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ìîáèëèçàöèîííûõ ñïîñîáíîñòåé ýòèõ Êîìèòåòîâ. Íå ìåíåå âàæíûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ è òî, ÷òî ïîëèòèêà æàëîñòè è ïðàêòèêè ëîêàëèçàöèè òðàâìû, ðàññìîòðåííûå âûøå, ñëóæàò, ïðåæäå âñåãî, îäíèì èç íåìíîãèõ äîñòóïíûõ ñðåäñòâ, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðûõ Ìàòåðè ñìîãëè ïðåîäîëåòü ñâîþ ðàçðîçíåííîñòü è ñîöè- àëüíóþ èçîëÿöèþ. Êàê îòìå÷àë Ýìèëü Äþðêãåéì: “Åäèíåíèå â ñêîðáè – ýòî òîæå åäèíåíèå”.73

SUMMARY

By analyzing the activity of the Altai Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, the article explores how people deal with the political trauma caused by the Chechen and Afghan wars in a situation of public ambiguity about the policies that led to these casualties. The author examines why the Com- mittee’s response to the losses produced by state-organized violence is framed almost exclusively in terms of family relations, biographical facts, and personalized emotional events. In this case, the domestication and materialization of loss function first of all as a means of self-organization, capable of shaping otherwise amorphous groups. The lack of civic discourse, the article suggests, is often mitigated by powerful and emotionally charged rituals of remembrance and commemoration.

73 Emile Durkheim. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life / Trans. by Joseph Ward Swain. New York, 1967. Ð. 448. 639 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions

Stephen VELYCHENKO

UKRAINIANS RETHINK THEIR REVOLUTIONS

Óêðà¿íñüêà ðåâîëþö³ÿ 1917 - ïî÷àòîê 1918. Ïðîáëåìè ïîøóêè óçà- ãàëüíåííÿ / Ïîä ðåä. Ô. Ã. Òóð÷åíêî. Çàïîð³ææÿ: Ïðîñâ³òà, 1998. 261 ñ.; Ô. Ã. Òóð÷åíêî, Ã. Ô. Òóð÷åíêî. Ïiâäåííà Óêðà¿íà: Mîäåðí³çàö³ÿ, ñâ³òîâà â³éíà, ðåâîëþö³ÿ (ê³íåöü Õ²Õ ñò. - 1921 ð.). ²ñòîðè÷í³ íàðèñè. Êè¿â: ¥åíåçà, 2003. 304 ñ. ISBN: 966-504-317-X.

Since 1991 historians of the Russian Revolution, much like historians of the French Revolution before them, have been publishing works departing markedly from earlier analytical frameworks. At least five major shifts can be identified. First, historians have extended their temporal framework back to 1914 and forward to 1922. Second, they attempt to place Russian events in a broader European context. Third, they study daily life and devote more attention to events outside Moscow and Petrograd. Fourth, they look at previously ignored groups like women and white-collar workers, and fifth, they study peoples’ subjective understanding of events. Before 1991 Ukrainian historians had been isolated from the rest of the world. They were ignorant of non-Stalinist analytical frameworks, and for sixty years only a chosen few had access to archival materials relating either 640 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 to non-Bolshevik parties and organizations or to pre-1929 Ukrainian- language works on the revolution. Post-independence scholars had much catching up to do but moved quickly.1 Among the more important publica- tions that have appeared since 1991 are five collections of documents,2 a social analysis of the Ukrainian National Republic’s officer corps, and a biographical guide to the members of the Central Rada.3 Also noteworthy are new archival studies relating to the Bolshevik terror,4 and valuable primary-source / archival-based examinations of hitherto unstudied or little- studied subjects: the national governments’ secret-police and intelligence services,5 their foreign policies,6 their policies toward urban industrial workers

1 For a bibliography see: T. Sosnovska. Ukrainska tsentralna rada. Storinky istorii. Bibliohrafichyi pokazhnyk. Kharkiv, 1999. 2 V. Shevchenko (Ed.). Ukrainski politychni partii kintsia XIX-pochatku XX stolittia. Kyiv, 1993; V. Verstiuk (Ed.). Ukraiinska tsentralna rada. Dokumenty i materiialy u dvokh tomakh. Kyiv, 1996; V. Serhiichuk (Ed.). Pohromy v Ukraini 1914-1920. Kyiv, 1998; idem. Neusvidomlennia Ukrainy. Stanovlennia svitu do Ukrainskoi derzhavnosti. Pohliad u 1917-1921 roku z analizom siohodennia. Lviv, 2003; V. Verstiuk, et al. Ukrainskyi natsionalno-vyzvolnyi rukh berezen – lystopad 1917 roku. Dokumenty i materialy. Kyiv, 2003. See also: V. Serhiichuk (Ed.). Ukrainska sobornist. Vidrodzhennia ukrainstva v 1917-1920. Kyiv, 1999. This is a collection of statements from Ukrainians living outside Kyiv, Volyn’, Podillia, Chernihiv and Poltava provinces supporting the Central Rada. 3 Ia. Tynchenko. Ukrainske ofitserstvo: shliakhy skorboty ta zabuttia. Ch. 1 biohrafichno-dovidkova. Kyiv, 1995; V. Verstiuk, T. Ostashko (Eds.). Diiachi Ukrainskoi tsentralnoi rady. Biohrafichnyi dovidnyk. Kyiv, 1998. V. Ialansky, L. Verovka. Nestor i Halyna. Rozpovidaiut fotokartky. Kyiv, 1999 is a collection of previously unpublished photos of and documents relating to Makhno and his relations, incorporating his wife’s letters and interviews with her and other survivors. The book is based primarily on state and private archives, but does not systematically identify all its sources. 4 S. Bilokin’ (Ed.). Massovyi teror iak zasib derzhavnoho upravlinnia v SRSR (1917-1941 rr.). Kyiv, 1999 includes a chapter on the fate of the members of the Central Rada (Pp. 236-46). P. Bachynsky (Ed.). Dokumenty trahichnoi istorii Ukrainy (1917-1927 rr.). Kyiv, 1999 contains primarily, but not only, Bolshevik secret-police materials concerning Ukrainian issues. 5 V. Sidak. Natsionalni spetssluzhby v period Ukrainskoi revoliutsii 1917-1921 rr. Kyiv, 1998; O. Tymoshchuk. (Ed.). Okhronnyi aparat ukrainskoi derzhavy kviten- hruden 1918 r. Kharkiv, 2000. 6 M. S. Derzhaliuk. Mizhnarodne stanovyshche Ukrainy ta ii vyzvolna borotba u 1917-1922 rr. Kyiv, 1998. The subject has been well studied abroad, but Derzhaliuk’s is the first Ukrainian synthesis based extensively on Ukrainian archives. 641 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions and churches,7 self-governing “village republics”,8 the otamany,9 Jewish political parties,10 the important wartime émigré political organization League for the Liberation of Ukraine, and the role of Masonic ties in high politics.11 Valery Soldatenko, meanwhile, published a three-volume mono- graph integrating Soviet and non-Soviet accounts into an interpretation reaffirming the synthesis created in exile during the 1920s by the former socialist leaders/ministers Mykhailo Hrushevksy, Pavlo Khrystiuk, Volody- myr Vynnychenko and Mykola Shapoval. Although he focuses on elite political and intellectual history in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Lviv, Soldatenko’s study will remain the definitive and indispensable work on the subject for the foreseeable future. His 38-page bibliography includes 56 Ukrainian dissertations written since 1991.12 The two books under review provide an example of work done outside the capital; specifically, in Zaporizhzhia, Odessa, and Simferopol. They show that unlike in Soviet times, when the only significant scholarship was done in Kyiv, and to a lesser extent

7 B. Andrusyshyn. U poshukakh sotsialnoi rivnovahy. Kyiv, 1995; idem. Tserkva v Ukrainskyi derzhavi 1917-1920 rr. (Doba Dyrektorii UNR). Kyiv, 1997; V. Ulianovsky. Tserkva v Ukrainskyi derzhavi 1917-1920. Kyiv, 1997. 2 vols. 8 Iu. Kotliar. Povstanskyi rukh selian na Pivdni Ukrainy. Vysunska ta Bashtynska respubliky (1919-1920). Mykolaiv, 1999. 9 P. Isakov. Zvedena tablytsia selianskykh povstanskykh zahoniv, shcho diialy na Sumshchyni ta Chernihivshchyni // Siverianskyi litopys. 1997. No. 3. Pp. 10-25; idem. Prohramni dokumenty selianskykh povstanskykh zahoniv, shcho diialy na livoberezhnii Ukraini v 1919-1921 rokakh // Siverianskyi litopys. 1999. No. 3. Pp. 47-75; idem. Selianskyi antykommunistychnyi povstanskyi rukh na livoberezhnyi Ukraini u 1919 rotsi: zahalna kharakterystyka // Siverianskyi litopys. 1999. No. 6. Pp. 157-162; R. Koval. Otamany haidamatskoho kraiu. 33 biohrafii. Kyiv, 1998 is a sympathetic treatment of the subject based on archival sources and containing dozens of previously unpublished photos. 10 O. Ia. Naiman. Evreiski partii ta obiednannia Ukrainy (1917–1925). Kyiv, 1998. 11 I. Pater. Soiuz vyzvolennia Ukrainy. Problemy derzhavnosti i sobornosti. Lviv, 2000; S. Bilokin’. Masony i Ukraina // Pamiatky Ukrainy. 2002. No. 2. Pp. 181-97. Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Pavlo Skoropadsky, Dmytro Doroshenko, Simon Petliura and Alexander Kerensky were Masons. 12 V. Soldatenko. Ukrainska revoliutsiia. Kyiv, 1997, 1999. 2 vols.; idem. Ukrainska revoliutsiia. Istorychnyi narys. Kyiv, 1999. Although Soldatenko’s interpretation is leftist-inclined, he pays due attention to the important writings of the Ukrainian conservative Dmytro Doroshenko. A short one- volume account published by the old, now renamed, Institute of Party History provides a summary of the current generally accepted post-independence political history of events: T. A. Bevzo et al. Ukrainska revoliutsiia i derzhavnist. Kyiv, 1998. 642 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 in Lviv, today scholars throughout the entire country are publishing impor- tant work that their counterparts abroad cannot ignore.13 Whereas the first book contains primary-source based studies and descrip- tive surveys, the second is a collection of five analytical-interpretive essays based mostly on recent Ukrainian and foreign-language secondary sources. As indicated by their titles, the first book covers all tsarist Ukraine while the second, focusing on southern Ukraine, is an example of post-indepen- dence regional history.14 Called “New Russia” when it was annexed to the tsarist empire, the region was later divided into Katerynoslav (Ekateri- noslav), Kherson, and Taurida provinces. Both books share common themes. They cover all sides of the conflict and incorporate research on previously unstudied subjects. They draw attention to similarities between Ukrainian and European developments, and differences between Ukraine and Russia in 1917-1922. Both give some attention to national minorities, and the first two chapters of the second book discuss socio-economic issues in detail. Both books focus on national political and intellectual history, and only the second book gives any attention to women. Ukrainska revoliutsiia opens with a review of Ukrainian language historiography centered on the interpretations of seven important issues; among them, the actual achievements of the Central Rada, the relationship between Ukrainian socialists and conservatives, the degree of indigenous support for Bolshevism, and the relationship between social justice and national liberation. The official Soviet interpretation imposed after 1930, which highlighted the similarities between events in Ukraine and Russia and claimed the Bolsheviks had massive Ukrainian support after October 1917, they stress, was simply wrong. Since 1991 the consensus among historians has been that local Bolsheviks had limited support and would never have been able to take over what had been tsarist Ukraine without the support of the invading Red Army (Pp. 8, 10, 57). Reaffirming the validity

13 For a survey of recent published foreign scholarship see: Ia. Hrytsak. Ukrainska revoliutsiia, 1914-1923. Novi interpretatsii // Ukraina moderna. 1999. No. 2/3. Pp. 254-272. 14 See also: V. Boiko. 1917 rik na Chernihivshchyni: istoryko-kraieznavchyi narys. Chernivtsi, 2003; Iu. V. Kotliar. Povstanstvo. Selianskyi rukh na Pivdni Ukraïny (1917- 1925). Mykolaiiv, 2003; D. Vyrsky. Kremenchuh 1917-1920 rr. Provintsiini obrazy revoliutsii. Kyiv, 2003; O. Zavalniuk. Lytsari voli: povstanskyi rukh na Podilli u personaliiakh. 20-i roky XX st. Vynnytsia, 2000; V. I. Semenenko. Istoriia Skhidnoi Ukrainy. Ponovlennia kaidanov (1917-1922). Kharkiv, 1995; A. N. Zinukhov (Ed.). Provinstialnaia Cheka. Sbornik statei i materialov. Kharkiv, 1994. 643 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions of the pre-Stalinist Soviet and émigré views, serious historians today divide over the same issue as their predecessors: was political indepen- dence (the national question) more important than land reform (the social question)? The authors are inclined to support the first view, claiming that countries that successfully separated from empires and avoided communist revolutions after World War I demonstrated that only national statehood and a market economy could resolve socio-economic problems (P. 44). The authors note that the peasantry, as well as white-collar and industrial workers, remains unstudied (Pp. 37-38). Chapter two reviews the programs and relative strengths of imperial (All-Russian), autonomist, and separatist parties, and the author regrets that so few of Ukraine’s political leaders were separatists in 1917. He reminds us that the Bolsheviks supported the Rada only in so far as it opposed the Provisional Government, and includes in his work original research on the Ukrainian branches of non- Bolshevik Russian parties. Although these parties all included groups willing to support Ukrainian autonomy, the author claims their influence was neg- ligible. To make his point he adds that, in reaction to the Rada’s declaration of autonomy in December 1917 (The Third Universal), Russians in Ukraine formed an umbrella organization called the Great Russian Council to unite Bolsheviks and monarchists in the common cause of imperial territorial integrity (Pp.73-74). Both of these issues deserve more detailed study before any conclusive generalizations can be made about Russian attitudes to the Rada in 1917, however. An examination of Ukraine’s 751 Russian- language newspapers, for instance – of which only 25 were Bolshevik – would undoubtedly shed more light on this subject and is much overdue.15 Similarly, it would be useful to collate and then classify the complete results of the July 1917 municipal elections not according to nationality, but according to parties’ positions on Ukrainian autonomy. Chapter three reminds readers of the phenomenon of “multiple loyalties” and that many “Little Russian” professionals and landowners initially supported the Rada. Yet, throughout the first months of the revolution, its Ukrainian socialist leaders rejected their overtures – but not their financial donations – and denied them representation (Pp. 145-46, 153). By autumn, the moment for compromise had passed. Bolshevik agrarian radicalism had forced Ukrainian leaders to make their hitherto moderate agrarian policy fit their radical rhetoric and most “Little Russian” landowners and professionals,

15 V. Ihnatienko. Ukrainska presa (1816-1923 rr.). Kyiv, 1926; H. Rudyi. Hazetna periodyka – dzherelo vyvchennia problem Ukrainskoi kultury 1917-1920 rr. Kyiv, 2000. 644 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 faced with dispossession and destitution under the Rada, decided first to support Russian parties/organizations, and then to topple the Rada. This chapter is particularly valuable because it directs us to the crucial issue of 1917 in Ukraine: did social radicalism nullify Ukrainians’ attempt to estab- lish a national state because it alienated important potential supporters, or was state building possible only thanks to the energies unleashed by social radicalism? Although the title of the next chapter suggests it deals with minorities, the author focuses on non-Ukrainian political parties in Ukraine. Polish, German-Mennonite, and Jewish party leaders, as a rule supported the Rada and Ukrainian autonomy. Russified Jews in Russian parties tended to oppose it. Only Polish parties supported Ukrainian independence. Although the author recognizes that not all Jews necessarily shared the opinions of their politi- cal leaders, she makes no such distinction for other nationalities. The most valuable section of this chapter are the pages, based on an unpublished thesis, that indicate no more than 10% (P. 14) of Ukraine’s city soviets recognized the Bolsheviks after they took power and even these still con- sidered the Rada the highest political authority in Ukraine (P. 177). The weakest section is the one devoted to the Russian parties. The author characterizes Russian parties as uniformly anti-Rada before the Bolshevik coup and pro- Rada afterwards, yet implies that despite this shift little had changed in reality because their recognition was based only on anti-Bolshevism – as if politi- cal moves motivated by tactical considerations rather than principles are unimportant or insignificant. Generals Kornilov and Alexiev allowed the Ukrainization of military formations not because they sympathized with the Rada but because they were convinced that this would improve morale and battle-worthiness. Did their motives lessen the beneficial consequenc- es of their actions for Ukraine? The author tends to equate Russian parties with Russians in Ukraine, to ignore the distinction between Russians and Russian speakers and the impact of the Provisional Government’s recogni- tion of the Rada just before the municipal elections of July 1917 on Rus- sians and Russian speakers. She also ignores divisions that existed within the Ukrainian branches of all the Russian parties, except the extremist-na- tionalist ones, on the issue of Ukrainian autonomy, and implies all Russian speakers shared the opinions of the extremist parties. Chapter five examines the Orthodox Church and the relationship of those who wanted a national Ukrainian church with the Rada. Using local mate- rials it suggests a high level of popular religiosity and support for a national church. Despite their toleration of religious ceremonies during their 645 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions proclamations of autonomy in Kyiv, the author notes, Ukraine’s agnostic anti-clerical socialist leaders were indifferent, if not hostile, toward the reli- gious aspirations of the common people. Both leaders and Orthodox national activists favored the separation of church and state during the first months of 1917, and initially the Rada refused to establish a religious affairs ministry or to exploit the state-building potential of a national church. This weakened the Ukrainian cause. Both sides came to a working agreement in November and the Rada did finally support the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Rada fell before taking a formal decision on the legal separation of church and state. The author mentions that in light of Ukraine’s historical circumstances such a separation was undesirable (Pp. 221, 223), but some elaboration on the relationship between this principle and the problems of revolutionary state and nation building would have been useful. The last chapter reviews Ukrainian-Russian relations up to January 1918. The author does not relate the Provisional Government’s policies toward the Rada to its leaders’ attitudes toward Ukrainian issues, as most do, but to political circumstances. Thus, Petrograd decided on the restrictive “Temporary Instructions” of August 1917 due to the stabilization at the front and the failure of “the July days.” Reiterating earlier conservative critics of Ukraine’s socialist leaders, she concludes that Bolshevik armies con- quered Ukraine not because few would fight for the Rada, but because of its leaders’ political mistakes. She then claims that the Ukrainian National Republic was bound to collapse because it could not possibly have with- stood all of its foreign enemies (P. 257). The first opinion is shared by the editor (P. 40) and the author of the second chapter, Oleksandr Starukh. He draws attention to, but does not develop, a central related issue of modern Ukrai- nian history with his claim that the Rada’s populist leaders invented and promulgated a myth about Ukrainians being underdeveloped and unprepared for independence in 1917 to excuse their own failures (P. 109). The pessi- mistic determinism of her second claim is unwarranted. What if General Skoropadsky, for instance, had decided not to resign on December 25 (January 6) but had instead successfully led a coup against the Rada – as the Rada feared he might?16 Grouping remaining Ukrainian troops around

16 Fearful of his political intentions the Rada hoped to dissolve his 20,000-strong corps by refusing him rations, fuel, and clothing in Kyivan depots. Delivery was still possible that December because the rail unions were pro-Rada and on good terms with Skoropadsky. He actually resigned after a personal meeting with Porsh, the minister of war, convinced him he would get nothing. The Rada thereby successfully destroyed the strongest Ukrainian military force available to it. J. Pelensky (Ed.). Pavlo Skoropadsky. Spohady. Kinets 1917 - hruden 1918. Kyiv, 1995. Pp. 95, 98-101. 646 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 the still-disciplined units of his First Army Corps, he could have then stopped the Bolshevik offensive, kept Ukraine on the Entente side during the last year of the war, and become a Ukrainian Mannerheim or Pi³sudski. The chapters in Pivdenna Ukraina may each be read separately as studies in their own right. The first covers modernization-related issues, the second outlines the local socio-economic impact of the war, while the next three focus on regional elite political history. All the chapters attempt to situate southern Ukrainian events into their broader contexts and mention non- Ukrainians. The book begins with a section demonstrating that from Kyivan times the northern Black Sea littoral was ethnically and culturally, if not politically, Ukrainian. Those who might consider this archaic should know that the authors’ home town, Zaporizhzhia (Aleksandrovsk), was one of the last to switch from Moscow to Kyiv time after 1991, and that today it remains a center for people who still think that there is a “Little Russia” that should be part of a “Great Russia.” The authors remind us that southern Ukraine had more towns, urban dwellers, rural Russians, and literate males in the early twentieth century than Ukraine’s other six provinces. The region had ten of Ukraine’s 15 stock markets and received more government investment than other Ukrainian provinces, while its peasants were better-off and its workers better paid. He might have added that of the nine Ukrainian provinces, these three had fewer landless and poor peasants, the smallest number of rural dwellers engaged in non-agricultural work, the fewest internal work-passports issued per capita, and the most co-operatives. The authors note that official tsarist categories did not reflect the real level of urban- ization in the empire. Using corrected figures they show that in 1917 at least 20% of Ukraine’s population, and 32% of its southern population, was urban (Pp. 29-30). Subsequently, however, the authors revert to using the official categories and thus do not adequately describe socio-economic conditions and trends. At the turn of the century in the eight Ukraine provinces there were approximately 100 settlements with trade and manufacturing each inhabited by more than 2,000 inhabitants. These were officially listed as “towns” and contained approximately 12% of Ukraine’s total population But, in reality, Ukraine had at least 700 settlements with more than 3,000 inhabitants where at least 50% of the labor force worked in manufacturing, processing, or trans- port. On average, 60% of industrial workers lived in such “villages” and the majority of peasant migrants sought their fortunes there rather than 647 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions the official “towns”.17 In Kiev province, for example, Mankivka, with 4156 inhabitants, two schools, a clinic and pharmacy, a weekly fair, barber- shop, 3 tailors and 3 small factories was officially a “village,” while Antonivka with 1734 people, one school, and 2 mills was a “town.” Poko- tylova and Khrystynivka both had just over 3,000 inhabitants and approxi- mately the same number of mills, fairs, schools, clinics, small shops and factories. Khrystanivka even had a railway repair garage and telegraph office. Yet, the former was officially a “town” while the latter was a “village.” Places like Hulai Pole, Iuzivka, and Kryvyi Rih (Krivoi Rog), with big factories and populations of over 10,000, were officially “villages.” As is known, the smaller the town the higher the percentage of Ukrainian speakers living in it. The author would have strengthened his point about modernization had he added that Hulai Pole in 1914 was not the sleepy backwater that it was in 1994. With 16,000 inhabitants it was within an hour’s ride of a train station. It had three high schools, ten elementary schools, two churches, a synagogue, library, bank, theater and printing press, 50 retail stores, a tele- graph and post office, a resident doctor, pharmacist, and lawyer, dozens of windmills, two steam mills, and two big agricultural-machinery factories (converted to armaments works during the war).18 Correctly revised total urban population figures for Ukraine might reveal that as much as 25% of its population lived in towns by 1914. This could not be compared with countries like Britain or Germany. But it would be comparable with Canada, the United States, and smaller European countries Accordingly, until someone regroups the tsarist data from 1897 and 1910-1914 and counts the de facto urban-type settlements officially listed as “villages” as towns instead, all generalizations derived from official tsarist statistics concerning issues like assimilation, urbanization, and moderni- zation in Ukraine must be considered provisional. In light of the faulty statistics upon which it is based, the claim that Ukrainian political indepen- dence in 1917 was beyond the nation’s possibilities because people were

17 P. G. Ryndzionskii. Krestiane i gorod v kapitalisticheskoi Rossii vtoroi poloviny XIX veka. Moscow, 1983. Pp. 151, 156, 171, 176, 230. This book examines the entire USSR and includes the three southern Ukrainian provinces with two Russian ones into its “southern region” – where 395 de-acto urban-type settlements were officially classified as “villages.” I know of no similar work devoted exclusively to the Ukrainian provinces. Statisticians before the revolution had pointed out the shortcomings of the official definition of “town” but the definition was not changed. V. Semenov- Tian-Shanskii. Gorod i derevnia v Evropeiskoi Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1910. 18 Ialansky, Verovka. Nestor i Halyna. Pp. 26-34. 648 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 not “mobilized,” their social structure was “deformed”, they were poorly represented in towns and culturally and educationally under-developed, is open to serious doubt. The authors examine three issues of particular importance in modern Ukrainian history using the official categorizations. First, they argue that the three southern provinces were integrating with their six northern neigh- bours into a single Ukrainian national economic unit, and not with the imperial Russian economy (Pp. 32, 278). Second, they conclude that although Ukrainians were initially reluctant to take jobs in nearby cities because they had a higher standard of living on their farms, they did begin to enter the urban labor force in considerable numbers in the decade before the war (Pp. 45-46). And third, again, using the official tsarist categorizations, they conclude that Ukrainians were supposedly weakly represented in the mod- ernized sectors of the economy and that capitalism was not “becoming Ukrainian” (Pp. 50, 59, 61). The authors do not examine whether the mass influx of peasants into towns in the decades before the war was “ruralizing” the towns, or whether these towns were “urbanizing” the peasants. Finally, the authors draw attention to the fact that although the Russian extreme right was very strong in the south, non-Ukrainian regionalism was stronger here than in other Ukrainian provinces (Pp. 62, 69). As regards the first issue, the authors might have found it useful to examine whether local market networks and rail-tariff policies reinforce or weaken their claim. A quantitative description of the communications network (tele- phones, telegraphs, the postal system, paved roads, rail lines, and newspa- pers) would have been informative also. In so far as nothing conclusive can be said about issues two and three until we re-examine the underlying statistical data, there is little point in dwelling further upon them except to say that the authors fail to place them within the context of an important debate at the time. Namely, Petr Struve’s claim that Ukrainian nationality had no future because “Little Russians” had been unable to organize their own trade and manufacturing, and because “capitalism spoke Russian.” The authors leave this question open but lean toward Struve’s position (Pp. 50, 59, 68). They link capitalism with Russian/Russophone southern- Ukrainian regionalism, not to the Ukrainian national movement. The authors cite an article by Hordienko on this issue, but do not mention that this was Mykola Porsh’s pseudonym or that he had written a long and detailed reply to Struve arguing that capitalism was making peasants “Ukrainian.” Porsh echoed the ideas of Karl Renner and Otto Bauer, who had claimed that the development of the proletariat was conducive to the formation of modern 649 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions nations. He explained that capitalism created nations and nationalized cities by dispossessing peasants and forcing them to migrate to towns where they had to sell their labor cheap. Their numbers ensured that landless Ukrainian migrants would assimilate Russian immigrants, while the rise of national consciousness would eventually nationalize capitalism in towns. He claimed that good business sense was already leading Russian companies in Ukraine to advertise in Ukrainian. Industrialization involved foreign capital in all coun- tries, Porsh continued, and in Ukraine, where Russian capital represented only a small percentage of total foreign investment, native capital would eventually displace it and all others –as had happened elsewhere. If Rus- sian was the dominant language in Ukraine it was because of governmental policy, not “capitalism,” whose language would be determined by the local Ukrainian markets, merchants, and labor force.19 Issue four also deserves more consideration. Recent work on pre-war political parties, for instance, suggests that Russian extremists were more extreme and liberals were more moderate in Ukraine than in Moscow or St. Petersburg. Was this indeed so and is this perhaps why the extreme right experienced such a phenomenal decline in Ukraine after 1907, while the liberals continued to represent a serious political alternative? Discussion of the co-op movement, divided between regional / Ukrainian and imperial / Russian orientations, would have been useful. In chapter two the authors note that during the war fewer men were mobilized from the three southern provinces than the six northern ones, and that the percentage of Ukrainian speakers among urban workers remained stable. The burden of agricultural work fell on women after 1914. Comprising on average 10% of the regional war-time heavy-industrial labor force, they averaged 5% of the total urban work force. While the number of workers increased during the war, wages and productivity declined. This led to shortages and government regulation, but comparatively, the south remained more stable than the north because its peasants were better off, more food was available, and the differences between wages and prices were not as big as further north (P. 113). Due to war-time changes the empire’s

19 M. Porsh. P. Struve v Ukrainskii spravi // Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk. May, 1912. Vol. 58. Pp. 333-341, abridged in: M. Hordienko [pseud]. Kapitalizm i russkaia kultura na Ukraine // Ukrainskaia zhizn. 1912. Vol. 9. Pp. 16-32, 20-28. His argument echoes that of Freidrich List and Struve was one of List’s Russian enthusiasts. P. B. Struve. Obshcherusskaia kultura i ukrainskii partikularizm // Russkaia mysl’. January, 1912. Pp. 65-86. 650 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 main north-south rail line ran through Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia and, con- sequently, the southern population was well informed about events in the rest of the country. The authors note that an inflow of approximately 300,000 refugees and prisoners of war into the southern provinces was matched by the deportation of an unspecified number of local non-naturalized Germans in 1915. It is reasonable to assume, as the authors do, that contact with refugees and prisoners also broadened local peoples’ horizons, but some evidence for this would have been welcome. Although the influx of new- comers generated ethnic tensions this did not overflow into violence before 1917 (P. 95). The authors do not discuss the attitudes or fate of these new- comers or of the region’s long-settled non-Ukrainians. The next three chapters focus on the political history of the region to 1922. The authors make little attempt to relate events to the socio-economic trends they identified in the first chapter. Their main theme is that although Rus- sian Bolsheviks ultimately won political control over most of the tsarist empire, Ukrainian resistance forced them to recognize that Kharkiv, Kherson, and northern Taurida provinces were not “New Russia” but “southern Ukraine,” and to attach these territories not to the Russian Republic but to the Ukrainian SSR. They might have added that even local Russians and Russian speakers disgruntled with Ukrainian independence today don’t think in terms of “Novaia Rossiia.” The authors classify Russian and Jewish parties in Ukraine as “oppo- nents of the Ukrainian movement” and are critical of the Provisional Govern- ment for refusing to give Kyiv jurisdictional authority over the three examined southern provinces in August 1917 – despite the desires of the region’s ma- jority, clearly expressed via the ballot box. The authors do not think that Petrograd’s recognition of the Rada’s authority over the six other provinces that month had an appreciable impact on non-Ukrainians’ attitudes toward the Rada. These changed only after the Bolshevik seizure of power three months later, which forced local parties to choose between Ukrainian, imperial, or regional-territorial orientations (Pp. 145-49). They do not men- tion that all Russian parties, except the Monarchists and extreme right, were divided on the issue of Ukrainian autonomy, but do note that after the Bolshe- vik coup the majority of Ukraine’s soviets and city Dumas, dominated by the Mensheviks and Russian SR’s, supported the Rada as the local center of power according to the terms of the August agreement with the Provi- sional government. The entire subject of Russian and Russian speakers’ attitudes in 1917, however, as noted above, deserves more study.

651 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions

The authors reaffirm the generally accepted interpretation of Bolshevik triumphs in Ukraine that winter. They attribute it to armed might, the weakness of the Ukrainian national movement outside the Kyiv region, weak socio-economic ties between Kyiv and other Ukrainian provinces, and the Rada’s failure to devote more attention to administration (Pp. 131, 135). Like the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks did not consider southern Ukraine part of the Ukrainian National Republic. The authors remind us that only in March 1918, to a great degree because of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, did they decide to dissolve the Odessa, Donetsk-Kryvyi Rih, and Taurida Soviet Republics into the Ukrainian SSR, which until then was limited to the five northern Ukrainian provinces. But even then the Bolshe- viks explicitly stated: “We never regarded the Ukrainian Soviet Republic as a national republic [sic] but exclusively as a soviet republic on Ukrainian territory” (P. 172). Chapter four examines the role of southern Ukraine in foreign affairs. It explains how Bolshevik policies alienated the local rural population and drove them into the armies of Hryhoriiv and Makhno. These men made and broke alliances with each other as well as with every other interested group and ultimately both were defeated. In the interim, however, the Bol- sheviks could not control southern Ukraine in the summer of 1919. Having to simultaneously deal with a White offensive in the region, their armies could not march west in support of the Hungarian Communists led by Bela Kun. Without Russian support the Hungarians had to withdraw from Slovakia in July and their armed attempt to extend the communist revolution in central Europe that year failed. The final chapter examines the relationship between Makhno and the Ukrai- nian Directory, and how the Bolsheviks finally subdued southern Ukraine. Using recent research the authors demonstrate that after two years of war and requisitions by Whites and Bolsheviks, more southern Ukrainian peasants than before knew about Ukrainian independence and were prepared to support it primarily those on the western side of the Dnipro (P. 240). The Whites under Vrangel had also changed and were prepared, at last, to recognize Ukrainian independence. Makhno himself, based on the eastern side of the Dnipro, was inclined to fight alongside Ukrainian National Republic forces, but was unable to sway his closest associates who regarded the Direc- tory as a “counter-revolutionary bourgeois” state and preferred to side with the Bolsheviks, who destroyed Makhno’s army after defeating Vrangel and occupying the Crimea in late 1920. National leaders in Kyiv, meanwhile, 652 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 were unable to accept the southern peasantry’s economic demands and considered Makhno a bandit. Thus, two major Ukrainian forces never united in a common cause (P. 270). The decisive factor in Makno’s defeat was famine. Incessant requisi- tions, a bad harvest in 1920, and then drought led to hunger in 1921. Although the Bolsheviks controlled southern Ukrainian towns by then, they neither lowered procurement rates nor provided relief. They did this deliberately to cause famine, argue the authors – and almost all Ukrainian historians agree. By the end of 1921 an estimated two million people in southern Ukraine had died of starvation and armed resistance stopped (Pp. 248-253). As there are still some who doubt Bolshevik intent, it is worth noting that recent work on Bolshevik policies elsewhere shows they were not very concerned with niceties when it came to imposing their authority. Faced with strong resistance they used poison gas against the civilian population in Tambov province, and in February-March 1919 systemati- cally executed every inhabitant of the Don Region they could capture in what amounted to intentional genocide.20 After independence Ukrainian historians quickly assimilated earlier non- Soviet historiography and then integrated it with the empirical findings of Soviet-era scholarship. At the risk of oversimplifying, Iaroslav Hrytsak in 1996 might be identified as the first historian to look at Ukrainian events in their European context and raise doubts in print about events or develop- ments that most had routinely until then considered unique or particular to Ukraine.21 Other historians were not far behind him and were already going to the sources with new questions. The reviewed books indicate that historians today are more interested in determining contexts and “what happened” than in pondering the old questions: “why did we lose?” or “how did we win?” The opening chapters of Pivdenna Ukraina give us a glimpse of the insights that socio-economic studies can provide into Ukraine’s revolutions. Yet, historians still write within the framework of national history. Few know, and fewer have applied, new methodologies.22 Most con- centrate on political and intellectual history, while few write on social history in general or on peasants as subjects in particular. Someone has yet

20 P. Holquist. Making War Forging Revolution. Russia’s Continuum of Crisis 1914-1921. Cambridge, 2002. 21 Ia. Hrytsak. Narys istorii Ukrainy. Formuvannia modernoi Ukrainskoi natsii XIX – XX stolittia. Kyiv, 1996. Pp. 159-65. 22 S. Bilokin’. Massovyi terror. Pp. 181-203. Bilokin’ examines the ubiquitous Soviet personnel questionnaires and census as state-surveillance tools for the post-1921 period. 653 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions to write a history of wages and prices during these crucial years. The anarchist Mariia Nikiforova (“Marusia”), meanwhile, would appear to be an ideal subject for post-modernist feminist examination. A hermaphrodite born in Katerynoslav province, Marusia was imprisoned for the first time when she was 17. She then fled to Paris where she had her male parts surgically removed and in 1914 joined the French Foreign Legion. After completing an officers’ course she returned to Ukraine in 1917 where she joined Makhno. With a reputation as one of his most vicious commanders, at one point she shot 34 men with her own hand. Nonetheless, he transferred her out of the front and put her in charge of his schools, hospitals, and nurseries. Married to a Polish anarchist who worked for the Bolsheviks, she had a weakness for sweets, which she would devour by the handful in the cafes and bakeries her troops expropriated. Probably hung by the Whites in 1919, people thought she led anti-Bolshevik uprisings through 1921, although the Bolsheviks considered her a hero after her death.23 Ukrainian historians are held back methodologically in part because neither they nor libraries can afford to purchase foreign books. But influential as well are underlying attitudes about the purpose of historical writing in general. As an American recently noted, Ukrainian historians still judge the significance of people, events, ideas, and institutions in 1917-1921 according to their role in the national-state project. In Ukraine’s major historical journal, Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal, only seven out of 86 articles on the revolution were devoted to peasants or workers between 1991 and 1998.24 Between 1998 and 2003 none of its 23 articles on the revolution dealt with either of these subjects. Of 25 articles in Istoriia Ukrainy: malovidomi imena, podii, fakty (2001-2003), and Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zbirnyk (1997-2000), only four dealt with peasants. Somewhat better is the regional journal Siverianskyi Litopys published in Chernihiv, which in general includes more writing on social history than do central journals. It published six articles on peasants between 1995 and 2003 out of 31 about the revolution.25

23 B. Belenkin. Avantiuristy velikoi smutty. Moscow, 2001. Pp. 187-214. V. Chop. Marussia Nikiforova. Zaporizhzhia, 1998 was unavailable to me. 24 M. Baker. Beyond the National. Peasants, Power and Revolution in Ukraine // Journal of Ukrainian Studies. Summer. 1999. No. 1. Pp. 43–44. Unavailable to me at time of writing was: V. Verstiuk (Ed.). Problemy vyvchennia istorii Ukrainskoi revoliutsii 1917-1921 rr. Kyiv, 2002. 25 Unavailable to me were several periodicals: “Problemy istorii Ukrainy XIX – pochatku XX st., “Rozbudova derzhavy” and “Ukrainskyi selianyn. Pratsi naukovoho-doslidnoho instytutu selianstva.” 654 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 In a collection of 45 articles on the Central Rada, none mention the peasants and only three deal with social issues.26 Given Ukraine’s past this lacuna is understandable. But the country is now independent. With each passing year more people become acquainted with foreign literature and fewer remain of those who still doubt the existence of a Ukrainian nation. Accordingly, the new generation of historians will be more knowledgeable and less defensive. They will inevitably move beyond political history and the national paradigm and devote more attention to the non-national aspects of events in 1917-1921. Their work will pro- vide vital raw material for the long overdue social history of Ukraine’s revolutions.

SUMMARY

 ñòàòüå íà êîíêðåòíûõ ïðèìåðàõ ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ íîâûå íàïðàâëåíèÿ â èçó÷åíèè ðåâîëþöèîííûõ ïðîöåññîâ è ñîöèàëüíûõ ïîñëåäñòâèé ðåâîëþöèîííûõ òðàíñôîðìàöèé â Óêðàèíå â 1917-1921 ã. Àâòîð àíàëèçèðóåò èõ íà ôîíå îáùåãî èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêîãî êîí- òåêñòà, ñëîæèâøåãîñÿ ïîñëå îáðåòåíèÿ Óêðàèíîé íåçàâèñèìîñòè â 1991 ã.  öåíòðå âíèìàíèÿ ïåðâîé ðàáîòû – àñïåêòû ñîöèàëüíîé è ïîëè- òè÷åñêîé èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû â íà÷. ÕÕ â.; îöåíêà óðîâíÿ ïîääåðæêè íåçàâèñèìîñòè; âçàèìîñâÿçü ñîöèàëüíîãî ðàäèêàëèçìà ìàññ è íàöèî- íàëüíîé íåçàâèñèìîñòè. Âòîðàÿ ðàáîòà, ðàññìàòðèâàåìàÿ â ñòàòüå, ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé îïûò íàïèñàíèÿ ðåãèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèè. Âåëû÷åíêî âûäåëÿåò îñ- íîâíûå ñïîðíûå ïîëîæåíèÿ ìîíîãðàôèè, ñâÿçàííûå ñ èíòåðïðå- òàöèåé ïðîöåññîâ ìîäåðíèçàöèè, àäåêâàòíîñòè èõ ñòàòèñòè÷åñêîé ðåïðåçåíòàöèè, à òàêæå ïîä÷åðêèâàåò íåîáõîäèìîñòü äàëüíåéøèõ

26 V. Smolii (Ed.). Tsentralna Rada i Ukrainskyi derzhavotvorchyi protses. Kyiv, 1997. 2 vols.; Ia. Malyk. Totalitarizm v Ukrainskomu seli. Persha sproba vprovadzhennia. Lviv, 1996; O. I. Hanzha. Ukrainske selianstvo v period stanovlennia totalitarnoho rezhimu. 1917-1927. Kyiv, 2000, deal only with Bolshevik rule. 655 S. Velychenko, Ukrainians rethink their revolutions èññëåäîâàíèé, ïîäòâåðæäàþùèõ òåçèñ î âçàèìîñâÿçè ðåãèîíàëèçàöèè èìïåðñêîé ýêîíîìèêè â Óêðàèíå è óñïåõà íàöèîíàëüíîãî äâèæåíèÿ. Ïîäîáíîãî ðîäà èññëåäîâàíèÿ äîëæíû, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà ñòàòüè, ó÷è- òûâàòü ñïåöèôèêó ïîëèòè÷åñêîé áîðüáû óêðàèíñêèõ àâòîíîíîìèñòñ- êèõ, áîëüøåâèñòñêèõ, ðåãèîíàëüíûõ è ïðîèìïåðñêèõ èíòåðåñîâ. Âåëû÷åíêî íàìå÷åò âîçìîæíûå íàïðàâëåíèÿ äàëüíåéøèõ èññëå- äîâàíèé â ñâåòå ñîâðåìåííûõ òåíäåíöèé â çàïàäíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè, ïðèçûâàÿ îòå÷åñòâåííûõ óêðàèíñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ âûõîäèòü çà óçêèå ïðåäåëû íàöèîíàëüíîé ïàðàäèãìû è ðàññìàòðèâàòü ðåâîëþöèîííûå òðàíñôîðìàöèè ñêâîçü ïðèçìó áîëåå åìêèõ ñîöèàëüíûõ è ýêîíîìè- ÷åñêèõ ïðîöåññîâ.

656 Ab Imperio, 4/2004

Ëèëÿ ÁÅÐÅÆÍÀß and Russia in Their Historical Encounter (1992), èçäàííûì íà Andreas Kappeler, Zenon E. Ko- îñíîâå ìàòåðèàëîâ êîíôåðåí- hut, Frank E. Sysyn, and Mark von öèè 1981 ã. â Õàìèëüòîíå. Ýòà Hagen (Eds.), Culture, Nation, and æå ñóäüáà ïîñòèãëà êíèãó Identity. The Ukrainian-Russian Culture, Nation, and Identity. Encounter (1600-1945) (Edmonton, The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrai- (1600–1945), óâèäåâøóþ ñâåò nian Studies Press, 2003). 381 pp. ñïóñòÿ âîñåìü ëåò ïîñëå ñåðèè ISBN: 1-895571-47-2. íàó÷íûõ ñåìèíàðîâ â Íüþ- Éîðêå è Êåëüíå. Âñòðå÷è ó÷åíûõ  èçäàòåëüñòâå Êàíàäñêîãî áûëè ïîïûòêîé îñìûñëèòü èíñòèòóòà óêðàèíñêèõ èññëåäî- ðàñïàä Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà è ïðî- âàíèé ñëîæèëàñü òðàäèöèÿ: âîçãëàøåíèå íåçàâèñèìîñòè ìàòåðèàëû êîíôåðåíöèé ïî èñòî- Óêðàèíû. Åñòåñòâåííî, ÷òî çà ðèè ðîññèéñêî-óêðàèíñêèõ îò- ïðîøåäøèå ãîäû êîíòåêñò ðîñ- íîøåíèé âûõîäÿò â ñâåò ñ áîëü- ñèéñêî-óêðàèíñêèõ îòíîøåíèé øèì çàïîçäàíèåì. Ñ îäíîé ñòî- ñóùåñòâåííî èçìåíèëñÿ. Ê òîìó ðîíû, ýòî ïðèäàåò âçâåøåííîñòü æå, íåêîòîðûå èññëåäîâàòåëè, è ñîëèäíîñòü ïóáëèêóåìûì íå äîæäàâøèñü âûõîäà ìàòåðè- ñòàòüÿì è äîêëàäàì, ñ äðóãîé – àëîâ ñåìèíàðîâ, óñïåëè îïóáëè- äèñòàíöèðóåò èõ îò ïðîöåññà êîâàòü òåêñòû äîêëàäîâ íà ñòðà- óñêîðåííîãî ðàçâèòèÿ, ñâîéñò- íèöàõ äðóãèõ ñáîðíèêîâ è æóð- âåííîãî íîâåéøåé èñòîðèîãðà- íàëîâ. Îòäåëüíûå ïóáëèêàöèè ôèè. Òàê áûëî ñî ñáîðíèêîì äàæå ñòàëè êëàññèêîé. Ï. Ïîòè÷íîãî, Ì. Ðàåâà, ß. Ïå- Îäíàêî ðåçåðâ âðåìåíè ïî- ëåíñêîãî è Ã. Æåêóëèíà Ukraine çâîëèë âûïóñòèòü êíèãó, íîâà-

657 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews òîðñêóþ âî ìíîãèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ. Îïóáëèêîâàííûå ñòàòüè îñâå- Àâòîðû ðåöåíçèðóåìîãî ñáîð- ùàþò òðè èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïåðèî- íèêà – ïîæàëóé, íàèáîëåå âûäà- äà: ðàííåìîäåðíûé, èìïåðñêèé þùèåñÿ ñïåöèàëèñòû â îáëàñòè è XX ñòîëåòèå. Êíèãà íà÷èíà- ëèòåðàòóðîâåäåíèÿ, èñòîðèè è åòñÿ ñòàòüåé èçâåñòíîãî ðîññèéñ- ïîëèòîëîãèè.  îñíîâíîì, ýòî êîãî ìåäèåâèñòà Âèêòîðà Æè- óêðàèíèñòû èç Êàíàäû, Ðîññèè, âîâà The Question of Ecclesiastical ÑØÀ, Ãåðìàíèè, Àâñòðèè è Jurisdiction in Russian-Ukrainian Óêðàèíû. Ðîññèéñêàÿ ñòîðîíà relations (Seventeenth and Early îêàçàëàñü ïðåäñòàâëåíà ñêðîìíî Eighteenth Centuries). Ïðîáëåìà (òðè àâòîðà), ÷òî, òåì íå ìåíåå, âëèÿíèÿ ðóñèíñêîé êóëüòóðû íà íå ïîìåøàëî åé ñäåëàòü êà÷åñò- ôîðìèðîâàíèå ðîññèéñêîé èì- âåííûé âêëàä â äèñêóññèþ. ïåðñêîé òðàäèöèè äàâíî âîëíóåò Ñàìè ðåäàêòîðû ïðèçíàþòñÿ âî ó÷åíûõ.1 Æèâîâ íàõîäèò íåî- Ââåäåíèè, ÷òî èì áûëî òðóäíî áû÷íûé ðàêóðñ åå ðàññìîòðå- ïðèâëå÷ü ê ó÷àñòèþ â ïðîåêòå íèÿ, âûäåëÿÿ äâå “èìïåðñêèå” ðîññèéñêèõ è íåìåöêèõ ñïåöèà- ìîäåëè îòíîøåíèé öåðêîâíîé è ëèñòîâ, ÷òî ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîêàçàòå- ñâåòñêîé âëàñòåé â ðîññèéñêîì ëåì ñîâðåìåííîãî ñîñòîÿíèÿ ãîñóäàðñòâå. Ïåðâàÿ áàçèðîâà- èññëåäîâàíèé (Ð. ix). Íåñìîòðÿ ëàñü íà èäåå õðèñòèàíñêîé èì- íà ýòî, ãëàâíàÿ çàäà÷à, ñòîÿâ- ïåðèè, â êîòîðîé ìîíàðõ îáúå- øàÿ ïåðåä êîëëåêòèâîì èçäàòå- äèíÿë ïîä ñâîèì ñêèïåòðîì íà- ëåé è îðãàíèçàòîðàìè êîíôå- ðîäû ïðàâîñëàâíîé Ýéêóìåíû. ðåíöèé, – îáúåäèíåíèå óñèëèé Òàêàÿ ìîäåëü ñîîòâåòñòâîâàëà ðóñèñòîâ è óêðàèíèñòîâ, à òàê- èäåîëîãèè ïðàâëåíèÿ Àëåêñåÿ æå ïðèâåðæåííîñòü ìåæäèñöèï- Ìèõàéëîâè÷à. Âòîðàÿ ìîäåëü ëèíàðíûì ïîäõîäàì – áûëà, ïîäðàçóìåâàëà âçàèìîîòíîøå- áåçóñëîâíî, ðåøåíà. Ðåäàêòîðàì íèÿ ìåæäó öàðåì è êîíñòàíòè- óäàëîñü âîâëå÷ü ó÷àñòíèêîâ â íîïîëüñêèì ïàòðèàðõîì, ïðè êî- äèàëîã êàê íà èíñòèòóöèîíàëü- òîðûõ ïîñëåäíèé âîçâûøàëñÿ íîì, òàê è íà ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîì äî ðîëè ãëàâû Âîñòî÷íîé Öåð- óðîâíå. Äèñêóññèè áûëè ñôîêó- êâè (P. 3). Ýòà êîíöåïöèÿ áûëà ñèðîâàíû íà ïðîáëåìàõ èäåí- áîëåå ñîçâó÷íîé âðåìåíè íèêî- òè÷íîñòè, ñîöèàëüíîé èñòîðèè íîâñêèõ ðåôîðì, êîòîðûå â îï- è êîìïàðàòèâèñòèêè. ðåäåëåííîé ñòåïåíè çàòðîíóëè

1 Êëàññè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå â ýòîé îáëàñòè – êíèãà: Ê. Â. Õàðëàìïîâè÷. Ìàëîðîññèéñêîå âëèÿíèå íà âåëèêîðóññêóþ öåðêîâíóþ æèçíü. Êàçàíü, 1914; Ãààãà, Ïàðèæ, 1968. 658 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òàêæå è Êèåâñêóþ ìèòðîïîëèþ. îïåðèðóåò êàòåãîðèÿìè ñèìâî- Ïåòðîâñêèå ïðåîáðàçîâàíèÿ ïî- ëè÷åñêîé ãåîãðàôèè è èñòîðè- âåðíóëè êîëåñî èäåîëîãèè ÷åñêîé àíòðîïîëîãèè, óâû, ïîêà âñïÿòü, âûäâèíóâ íà ïåðâûé åùå íîâûìè äëÿ ëåêñèêîíà ïëàí ïàðàäèãìó èìïåðàòîðà – óêðàèíèñòîâ. “Áîæåñòâåííàÿ “öåðêîâíîãî ïðàâèòåëÿ”. Èíòå- àëõèìèÿ” áàðî÷íûõ ïðîèçâå- ðåñíî, ÷òî óñïåøíîå ôóíêöèî- äåíèé ÷åðíèãîâñêîãî àðõèåïèñ- íèðîâàíèå îáåèõ ìîäåëåé âî êîïà èìååò, â ïðåäñòàâëåíèè ìíîãîì çàâèñåëî îò âëèÿíèÿ Ôðèêà, ïàðàëëåëè â òâîð÷åñòâå óêðàèíñêîãî îêðóæåíèÿ íà öà- åâðîïåéñêèõ ðîçåíêðåéöåðîâ ðåé. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, Æèâîâ îáõî- (Pp. 53-54). Äàííûé êóëüòóðíûé äèò ìîë÷àíèåì ýòîò àñïåêò ïðî- ôåíîìåí ðàçâèâàåòñÿ â êîíòåêñòå áëåìû, èçó÷åíèå êîòîðîãî ñïî- ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé êîíöà ñîáíî ïðîëèòü íîâûé ñâåò íà XVII â., äèïëîìàòè÷åñêîé êîí- èñòîðèþ óêðàèíñêî-ðîññèéñêèõ ôðîíòàöèè Ïîðòû ñ Ìîñêîâñ- êîíòàêòîâ â XVII – XVIII ââ. êèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì è êàçàöêèõ Îäíà èç ñòàòåé ñáîðíèêà âîéí. Ôðèê ïðèõîäèò ê âûâîäó, ïðèíàäëåæèò Äýâèäó Ôðèêó, ÷òî ãîâîðèòü ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê àâòîðó èçâåñòíîé ìîíîãðàôèè òîìó âðåìåíè î êîíôåññèîíàëè- î Ìåëåòèè Ñìîòðèöêîì. Íà ýòîò çàöèè ýëèòû ðóñèíñêîãî îáùå- ðàç àìåðèêàíñêèé ñëàâèñò àíàëè- ñòâà áûëî áû áåçîñíîâàòåëüíî. çèðóåò ìàëîèçó÷åííûå ïðîèçâå- Êåì ñ÷èòàë ñåáÿ Áàðàíîâè÷, äåíèÿ ÷åðíèãîâñêîãî àðõèåïèñ- ïîëÿêîì èëè ðóñèíîì, êàòîëèêîì, êîïà Ëàçàðÿ Áàðàíîâè÷à. Òåìà- ïðàâîñëàâíûì èëè óíèàòîì, òè÷åñêèé ôîêóñ ñòàòüè è ìåòî- íå çíàåò íèêòî. Äëÿ Ôðèêà îí äîëîãèÿ àâòîðà ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ÿâëÿåòñÿ òèïè÷íûì ïðåäñòàâè- îñîáåííûé èíòåðåñ äëÿ ÷èòàòåëÿ. òåëåì äóõîâíîé ýëèòû ïåðåõîä- Ôðèêó óäàëîñü ðàññìîòðåòü íîãî ïåðèîäà.2 îáðàç Áàðàíîâè÷à â êîíòåêñòå Òðè ïóáëèêàöèè (ñòàòüè Çå- îñîáåííîñòåé ðóñèíñêîé êóëü- íîíà Êîãóòà, ïîêîéíîãî Õàíñà – òóðû âðåìåí òðàíñôîðìàöèè Éîàõèìà Òîðêå è Ôðýíêà Ñû- Ìîñêîâñêîãî öàðñòâà â èìïå- ñèíà) ïîñâÿùåíû ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿì ðèþ. Àìåðèêàíñêèé ó÷åíûé ðóññêèõ è óêðàèíöåâ äðóã î äðóãå

2 Ñì. äðóãèå ïóáëèêàöèè Ä. Ôðèêà íà ýòó òåìó: The Works of Meletij Smotric’kyi // Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature. Cambridge. 1987. Vol. 1; Misinterpretations, Misunderstandings, and Silences. Problems of Seventeenth Century Ruthenian and Muscovite Cultural History // S. H. Baron, N. Sh. Kollmann (Eds.). Religion and Culture in Early Modern Russia and Ukraine. DeKalb, 1997. Pp. 149-168; Zyzanij and Smotryc’kyj (Moscow, Constantinople, Kiev). Episodes in Cross-Cultural Misunderstanding // Journal of Ukrainian Studies. 1992. Vol. 17. No. 1-2. Pp. 67-93. 659 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews â XVII – XVIII ââ. Êîãóò ïðåä- ìîñêîâñêîé êóëüòóðû.  òî æå ëàãàåò ÷èòàòåëþ ñàìîìó îöå- âðåìÿ, íåìåöêèé ó÷åíûé íå ñêëî- íèòü, â êàêîé ñòåïåíè ïåðñåï- íåí ïðåóâåëè÷èâàòü âîçäåéñòâèå òèâíûå êîíñòðóêöèè è áûòîâàâ- ðóñèíñêèõ òåîëîãîâ íà ïðîöåññû øèå ñòåðåîòèïû ñîïîñòàâèìû ñ åâðîïåèçàöèè âðåìåí Ïåòðà I. äðóãèìè òåîðåòè÷åñêèìè “íà- Îí ïîä÷åðêèâàåò, ÷òî ðîññèéñ- öèîíàëüíûìè” ìîäåëÿìè òîãî êèé èìïåðàòîð îðèåíòèðîâàëñÿ, âðåìåíè (îïûòîì Ðå÷è Ïîñïî- â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, íà ïðîòåñòàí- ëèòîé, èëëèðèçìîì, áðèòàíñ- òñêóþ òðàäèöèþ ñåâåðî-çàïàä- êîé èäåíòè÷íîñòüþ). Îí ïðè- íîé Åâðîïû, â îòëè÷èå îò öàð- øåë ê âûâîäó, ÷òî êîíöåïöèè ñòâåííûõ áðàòà è ñåñòðû, äåëàâ- ðóññêî-óêðàèíñêîãî åäèíñòâà øèõ ñòàâêó íà êàòîëè÷åñêóþ ÕVII – ÕVIII ââ. áûëè ëèøü ïî- Ðå÷ü Ïîñïîëèòóþ (P. 105). ïûòêîé íàéòè èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîå Ñûñèí ïðåäëàãàåò ÷èòàòåëþ îáîñíîâàíèå ìíîãîóðîâíåâûõ ñèñòåìíûé àíàëèç îáðàçà Ðîññèè èäåíòè÷íîñòåé ðóñèíîâ (P. 85). è ðóññêî-óêðàèíñêèõ îòíîøåíèé â Ñòàòüÿ Òîðêå çàòðàãèâàåò òå ïðîèçâåäåíèÿõ ðóñèíñêèõ õðîíè- æå ïðîáëåìû, îäíàêî ðàññìàò- ñòîâ 1670-1720 ãã. Åãî èíòåðåñóåò ðèâàåò èõ ñ ïîçèöèè Ìîñêîâñ- òåðìèíîëîãèÿ è ñèñòåìà îáðàçîâ, êîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, äîïîëíÿÿ è êîòîðóþ èñïîëüçîâàëè ïðåäñòàâè- îïðîâåðãàÿ âûâîäû Æèâîâà. òåëè êàçàöêîé ñòàðøèíû. Íà îñ- Òîðêå óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî âëèÿíèå íîâå ñòðóêòóðíîãî àíàëèçà ëåòî- ðóñèíñêîé òðàäèöèè íà ìîñêîâ- ïèñåé Ñàìîâèäöà, Ãðàáÿíêî è Âå- ñêóþ êóëüòóðó XVII â. áûëî ëè÷êî êàíàäñêèé ó÷åíûé ïðèõî- îáóñëîâëåíî, â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, äèò ê âûâîäó î òîì, ÷òî ïîèñêè öåðêîâíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèì ôàêòî- ðåãèîíàëüíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè ïî- ðîì. Îí âèäèò â ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿõ çâîëèëè ðóñèíàì ïåðåîñìûñëèòü óêðàèíñêî-áåëîðóññêîé ñðåäû ñîáñòâåííóþ èñòîðèþ (P. 141).3 íîñèòåëåé áàðî÷íîé òðàäèöèè, Îäíà èç íàèáîëåå îðèãèíàëü- çíàìåíîâàâøåé ìîäåðíèçàöèþ íûõ ñòàòåé, îòêðûâàþùàÿ ðàçäåë

3 Î òîì, íàñêîëüêî îòëè÷àþòñÿ ïîäõîäû òðåõ ó÷åíûõ â èçó÷åíèè ñõîäíîé òåìà- òèêè, ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò àíàëèç “Ñèíîïñèñà” (1670-1674), àâòîðñòâî êîòîðîãî ïðèïèñûâàåòñÿ Èííîêåíòèþ Ãèçåëþ. Äëÿ Êîãóòà ýòî ïðîèçâåäåíèå – ïðèìåð äèíàñòè÷åñêîé õðîíèêè, â êîòîðîé äîìèíèðóåò èäåÿ âêëþ÷åíèÿ Ìàëîðîññèè âî âñåðîññèéñêèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé êîíòåêñò (Ñ. 65-66). Òîðêå âèäèò ⠓Ñèíîï- ñèñå” îñîáåííîñòè ìèðîâîñïðèÿòèÿ è ñìåøàííîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè èíîñòðàíöà Ãèçåëÿ, ðàâíîäóøíîãî ê “ïàòðèìîíèè” Êèåâà â ðóñèíñêîé èñòîðèè (P. 95). Ñûñèíà áîëåå âñåãî èíòåðåñîâàëà èñïîëüçóåìàÿ òåðìèíîëîãèÿ è êîíöåïöèÿ “êèåâñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ” (P. 111). Êàíàäñêèé èñòîðèê âûñòóïàåò ïðîòèâ óïðîùåííîãî âçãëÿäà íà “Ñèíîïñèñ” êàê ïàìÿòíèê, â êîòîðîì íàøëà ñâîå âûðàæåíèå ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì èäåÿ îáùåñëàâÿíñêîãî åäèíñòâà. 660 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 èìïåðñêîãî ïåðèîäà â ñáîðíèêå, Àíäðèåâñêè, àâòîðà ñòàòüè ïðèíàäëåæèò ïåðó ïðîôåññîðà The Russian-Ukrainian Discourse Éåëüñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Ïîëó and the Failure of the “Little Áóøêîâè÷ó. Èçâåñòíûé ñëàâèñò Russian Solution,” 1782-1917. îêàçàëñÿ åäèíñòâåííûì àâòîðîì, Îíà ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî ðîññèéñêàÿ çàèíòåðåñîâàâøèìñÿ âîïðîñîì èäåíòè÷íîñòü, äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ðóññêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè â êîí- áàçèðîâàëàñü íà êîíöåïöèÿõ òåêñòå îòíîøåíèé ñ Óêðàèíîé. äèíàñòè÷åñêîé ãîñóäàðñòâåí- Ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, ðóññêàÿ èäåí- íîñòè, ñëàâÿíîôèëüñòâà è îôè- òè÷íîñòü íåìûñëèìà âíå ïîíÿòèé öèàëüíîãî íàöèîíàëèçìà. Îäíà- “ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòü” è “äèíàñ- êî èññëåäîâàòåëü îáðàùàåò âíè- òèÿ”. Åãî ñòàòüÿ íå âïèñûâàåòñÿ ìàíèå íà çàìåòíóþ ðîëü â ýòîé â ïðèâû÷íûå ñõåìû èçó÷åíèÿ ñèñòåìå ïðàâîñëàâèÿ. Îíà òàêæå íàöèîíàëèçìà è îòâåðãàåò ñëî- ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ðîññèéñêî- æèâøèåñÿ èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêèå óêðàèíñêèé äèñêóðñ ñåðåäèíû êëèøå. Êàê ñ÷èòàåò Áóøêîâè÷, è âòîðîé ïîëîâèíû XIX â. îò- âêëàä Ïåòðà I â ôîðìèðîâàíèå ëè÷àëñÿ ñåðüåçíîé àñèììåòðèåé, èìïåðèè ñîñòîèò â çàìåíå ïàðà- ñ î÷åâèäíîé ðîññèéñêîé äîìè- äèãìû äèíàñòèè íà èäåîëîãèþ íàíòîé.  ãëàçàõ ðîññèéñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè, à òåðìèí îáùåñòâà 1830-1860 ãã. ìàëîðîññ “èìïåðàòîð” â òî âðåìÿ âîîáùå ñòàë ñèíîíèìîì êðåñòüÿíèíà èìåë ìàëî îáùåãî ñ ñîâðåìåííûì (P. 201). ïîíÿòèåì “èìïåðèÿ” (P. 149). Ïîäðîáíåå íà ýòó òåìó ïèøåò “Áàðî÷íûé ñëàâèçì” íå îêàçàë Àíäðåàñ Êàïïåëåð.  ñòàòüå ñåðüåçíîãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ íà ñòà- Mazepintsy, Malorossy, Khokhly: íîâëåíèå ðîññèéñêîé íàöèî- Ukrainians in the Ethnic Hierarchy íàëüíîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè (P. 152), of the Russian Empire4 îí àíàëè- à “óâàðîâñêàÿ òðèàäà” áûëà çèðóåò, êàê óêðàèíöû âïèñûâà- âñåãî ëèøü îôèöèàëüíîé èäåîëî- ëèñü â ìíîãîóðîâíåâóþ ñèñòåìó ãèåé, ÷óæäîé “êîñìîïîëèòñêîìó èåðàðõèé Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè. ìîíàðõèçìó” ýëèòû (Pp. 153-154). Êàïïåëåð âûäåëÿåò òðè òèïà Òî÷êà çðåíèÿ Áóøêîâè÷à òàêèõ ñòðóêòóð: ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ, êàæåòñÿ ñïîðíîé äëÿ Îëüãè ñîöèàëüíî-ñîñëîâíóþ è êóëüòóð-

4 Ðóññêèé âàðèàíò ñòàòüè îïóáëèêîâàí â ñáîðíèêå: Ðîññèÿ – Óêðàèíà. Èñòîðèÿ âçàèìîîòíîøåíèé / Ïîä ðåä. À. Ìèëëåðà. Ìîñêâà, 1997. Ñì. òàêæå: A. Kappeler. “Great Russians” and “Little Russians”. Russian-Ukrainian Relations and Perceptions in Historical Perspective // The Donald W. Treadgold Papers in Russian, East European and Central Asian Studies. 2003.Vol. 39. 661 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews íóþ èåðàðõèè (P. 163). Ñîãëàñíî íèÿ â êîíòåêñòå ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ îäíîìó èç ãëàâíûõ òåçèñîâ ó÷å- óêðàèíñêîé èäåíòè÷íîñòè è ñòà- íîãî, â ñèñòåìå “êîíöåíòðè÷åñ- íîâëåíèÿ ëèòåðàòóðíîãî êàíîíà. êèõ êðóãî┠âñå ïðàâîñëàâíûå Ãðàáîâè÷ ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî “êîòëÿ- ñëàâÿíå âêëþ÷àëèñü â åäèíûé ðåâùèíà” îêàçûâàëà âëèÿíèå öåíòð, ïîýòîìó óêðàèíöû íå íå òîëüêî íà äîøåâ÷åíêîâñêóþ âû÷ëåíÿëèñü è íå óùåìëÿëèñü ëèòåðàòóðó, êàê ñ÷èòàëîñü ðàíåå, íè ïî êîíôåññèîíàëüíûì, íè íî è íà âåñü óêðàèíñêèé ëèòå- ïî ýòíè÷åñêèì ñîîáðàæåíèÿì. ðàòóðíûé ïðîöåññ â òå÷åíèå Î ñàìîñîçíàíèè ðóññêîãî è äâóõ ñòîëåòèé, âîçðîäèâøèñü â óêðàèíñêîãî êðåñòüÿíñòâà ïèøåò ñòèëå ñîöðåàëèçìà (P. 228). Êðèñòèí Âîðîáåö. Äåéñòâè- Åêåëü÷èê îáðàòèëñÿ ê ãèìíà- òåëüíî, “õîõëû” ñ÷èòàëèñü çè÷åñêèì ó÷åáíèêàì èñòîðèè âòîðîðàçðÿäíûì ñîñëîâèåì êàê èñòî÷íèêó ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè. Íî èõ óêðàèíñêîãî è ðîññèéñêîãî ñòàòóñ áûë íè÷åì íå õóæå ðîñ- íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ. ñèéñêèõ êðåñòüÿí (P. 268). Óãëóá- Ñòàòüÿ ñîñòîèò èç äâóõ ÷àñòåé. ëÿÿ è äîïîëíÿÿ èäåè, âûñêàçàí-  ïåðâîé àâòîð ïðåäñòàâëÿåò íûå Êàïïåëåðîì, Âîðîáåö ïðè- ïîïóëÿðíûå ó÷åáíèêè è ñîäåð- çûâàåò áîëåå øèðîêî èñïîëüçî- æàùèåñÿ â íèõ êîíöåïöèè óêðà- âàòü ìåòîäû ñîöèàëüíîé èñòî- èíñêîé èñòîðèè. Âî âòîðîé ÷àñ- ðèè äëÿ èçó÷åíèÿ ìåíòàëüíîñòè òè îí çàäàåòñÿ âîïðîñîì, êàê è ïîëîæåíèÿ êðåñòüÿíñòâà. èìïåðñêèé èñòîðè÷åñêèé íàððà- “Ëèòåðàòóðíàÿ” ÷àñòü ñáîð- òèâ ïîâëèÿë íà ñòóäåí÷åñêèå íèêà ïðåäñòàâëåíà òðåìÿ î÷åíü óìû. Ýòîò ðàçäåë ïîñâÿùåí ó÷è- èíòåðåñíûìè ñòàòüÿìè, ðàçëè÷- òåëÿì è ñòóäåíòàì ìàëîðîññèé- íûìè ïî òåìàòèêå è ïîäõîäàì. ñêèõ ãóáåðíèé. Ñðåäè íèõ îêà- Ýòî ïóáëèêàöèè Äæîðäæà çàëèñü Íèêîëàé Êîñòîìàðîâ, Ãðàáîâè÷à, Ñåðãåÿ Åêåëü÷èêà Ìèõàèë Ãðóøåâñêèé, Âëàäèìèð è Îëåãà Èëüíèöêîãî. Ãðàáîâè÷ Àëåêñàíäðîâè÷, Âÿ÷åñëàâ èññëåäóåò ñîöèàëüíûå è êóëü- Ëèïèíñêèé, â ñâîèõ ïîçäíèõ òóðíûå ìåòàìîðôîçû “êîòëÿ- èññëåäîâàíèÿõ îáîñíîâûâàâ- ðåâùèíû”, áóðëåñêíîãî ñòèëÿ, øèå èäåþ îñîáîãî óêðàèíñêîãî íàçâàííîãî â ÷åñòü óêðàèíñêîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïóòè (P. 241). ïîýòà ðóáåæà XIX – XX ââ. Èâà-  ïóáëèêàöèè Èëüíèöêîãî íà Êîòëÿðåâñêîãî. Àìåðèêàí- èññëåäóåòñÿ ñîîòíîøåíèå âåëèêî- ñêèé ëèòåðàòóðîâåä ïîïûòàëñÿ ðóññêîé è óêðàèíñêîé êóëüòóð- âûÿâèòü ñåìàíòèêó ýòîãî ÿâëå- íûõ ïàðàäèãì. Íàïèñàííàÿ ñïó-

662 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñòÿ íåñêîëüêî ëåò ïîñëå ïðîâîç- êëþ÷åâóþ ðîëü èãðàë äîãîâîð ãëàøåíèÿ íåçàâèñèìîñòè Óêðàè- ìåæäó Ðîññèåé è Óêðàèíîé. Îí íû ñòàòüÿ ïîñòóëèðóåò êîí÷èíó òàêæå ôîðìóëèðóåò ïðîáëåìó âåëèêîäåðæàâíîé èäåè åùå â íà- ñîâåòñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ è ñèìâîëèêè ÷àëå XX â. Èëüíèöêèé ñâÿçû- ÓÍÐ â èñòîðèè íåçàâèñèìîé âàåò ñìåíó êóëüòóðíûõ ìîäåëåé Óêðàèíû (P. 344). Ì. ôîí Õàãåí ñ âîçíèêíîâåíèåì óêðàèíñêîãî ðàññìàòðèâàåò ïîëèòè÷åñêèå è ñèìâîëèçìà (P. 304). íàöèîíàëüíî-îñâîáîäèòåëüíûå  ðàçäåë èñòîðèè XX â. ïðîöåññû â õîäå Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âêëþ÷åíû ñòàòüè Äèòåðà Ïîëÿ âîéíû è ñóäüáó ýòíîïîëèòè÷åñêî- Russians, Ukrainians, and German ãî íàñëåäèÿ Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè Occupation Policy, 1941-43; Þðèÿ â áîëüøåâèñòñêîì ãîñóäàðñòâå. Øàïîâàëà The GPU-NKVD as an Çàêëþ÷èòåëüíàÿ ñòàòüÿ Instrument of Counter-Ukrain- Ìàðêà Ðàåâà ñóììèðóåò âûâîäû ization in the 1920s and 1930s; àâòîðîâ è íàìå÷àåò ïåðñïåêòèâû Ñòàíèñëàâà Êóëü÷èöêîãî The Phe- èññëåäîâàíèé ðîññèéñêî-óêðà- nomenon of Soviet Statehood è èíñêèõ êîíòàêòîâ. Ñòàðåéøèíà Ìàðêà ôîí Õàãåíà States, ñëàâèñòèêè ïðåäîñòåðåãàåò Nations, and Identities: The Russian- èñòîðèêîâ îò íåîáäóìàííûõ Ukrainian Encounter in the First ïðîãíîçîâ è íåóìåñòíîãî óïîò- Half of the Twentieth Century. ðåáëåíèÿ òåðìèíà “íàöèîíà- Íåìåöêèé ó÷åíûé ïîäðîáíî ëèçì”, êîòîðîå âûãëÿäèò ïîëè- àíàëèçèðóåò àðõèâíûå äàííûå òè÷åñêè íåêîððåêòíûì è ïðîòè- îá îêêóïàöèîííîé ïîëèòèêå âîðå÷èò îñíîâíûì ïðèíöèïàì íà Óêðàèíå. Íà îñíîâàíèè èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêè. îáøèðíîãî ñòàòèñòè÷åñêîãî Ìàòåðèàëû ñáîðíèêà ïðåä- ìàòåðèàëà îí äåëàåò âûâîä î òîì, ñòàâëÿþò íàèáîëåå àêòóàëüíûå ÷òî íàöèñòñêàÿ ïîëèòèêà âî ìíî- íàïðàâëåíèÿ èññëåäîâàíèé ðîñ- ãîì ñïîñîáñòâîâàëà ðóñèôèêà- ñèéñêî-óêðàèíñêèõ îòíîøåíèé. öèè óêðàèíñêèõ çåìåëü. Øàïîâàë Îäíàêî ïðîáëåìû íàöèîíàëüíîãî ðàáîòàåò â ðóñëå ñõîäíîé òåìà- ñàìîñîçíàíèÿ íå ïîêðûâàþò âåñü òèêè, ïîêàçûâàÿ, êàê îðãàíû ñïåêòð âçàèìîäåéñòâèé. Ýêîíî- ÃÏÓ-ÍÊÂÄ ðåàëèçîâûâàëè ìè÷åñêèå, äåìîãðàôè÷åñêèå, èñòî- àíòèóêðàèíñêóþ ïîëèòèêó ìåòî- ðèêî-àíòðîïîëîãè÷åñêèå àñïåêòû äàìè òåððîðà â áîëåå ðàííèé îñòàþòñÿ ìàëîèçó÷åííûìè, è ìî- ïåðèîä. Êóëü÷èöêîãî èíòåðåñóåò ãóò ñòàòü îáëàñòüþ ïðèëîæåíèÿ ïðîöåññ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ñîâåòñ- óñèëèé íîâîãî ïîêîëåíèÿ ãóìà- êîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, â êîòîðîì íèòàðèåâ.

663 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews

Emilian KAVALSKI ties issues and relationships between Russia and Ukraine during both the Roman Szporluk, Russia, Soviet and post-Soviet periods. Ukraine, and the Breakup of the So- The author himself admits that this viet Union (Stanford: Hoover Insti- book needs to be read as “a record tution Press, 2000). xlix+438 pp. of one scholar’s efforts over a period ISBN: 0-8179-9542-0. of years to understand the develop- ment of the Soviet Union which, The seeds of the Soviet as time went by, began to appear Union’s decline were planted as its decline and then fall” (P. xx). at the moment of [its] greatest triumph – in 1945. This was not The reader, unfortunately, is more so clear during the post-war often than not left with mixed feelings. decade, but matters changed in On the one hand, there is the pleasure the post-Stalin years. The Soviet of engaging ideas and evaluating Union’s new geopolitical the significance of corollaries made environment began to exercise subversive long-term effect on the three decades earlier. On the other country’s domestic ethnopolitcs. hand, it is not apparent how this is (P. xxiv) relevant for current discourse. Perhaps the prescience and insights of the volu- In the context of current inquiries me would have been made more per- on the prospective developments in tinent as well as poignant if the indi- the post-Soviet space, it is a poten- vidual essays were reconsidered in tially riveting experience to take light of developments going on at stock of the processes underscoring the time of publication. Instead, they their direction. This is what Roman are presented in the form in which Szporluk has attempted in his book they were written (some of them Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup a good thirty years ago). Thereby, of the Soviet Union. The epigraph the trajectories of the decline of above seems to encapsulate the gist the USSR and the construction of of his argument. The volume repre- post-Soviet independent states sents a collection of essays published would have been stressed in a more between 1972 and 1997; thereby, relevant context for current analysis. it makes a reflection of the last two In effect, this is one of the main decades of the USSR and subse- shortcomings of the volume: it is not quently its breakup, with a particu- apparent what it is about: is it about lar emphasis on the Russian Federa- Russia, Ukraine, the breakup of tion and Ukraine. Szporluk’s volume, the USSR, or all of these, or some- therefore, focuses on the nationali- thing else?

664 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 The book includes sixteen of text of the dominant position of Rus- Szporluk’s essays arranged chrono- sian ethnicity and language. logically. However, they seem to fol- These patterns are discussed low not only temporal, but also a the- within the context of a Ukrainian matic logic. Chapters 1 and 2 out- identity challenged both by Poland line the problematic nexus between and Russia. The former has treated Soviet modernity and the concept Ukraine as “Little Poland” and the lat- of ethnicity; chapters 3, 4, and 5 center ter as “Little Russia”. The noteworthy on the issues stirred by the Ukraini- implications deriving from this prob- an idiosyncrasies of this relationship, lematique are that again it is not only whereas chapters 6, 7, and 8 empha- the distinct historical experience of sise the Russian perspectives; chap- Western and Eastern Ukraine that ters 9, 10, and 11 focus on a number matters, but also the context of their of Soviet points of view, and the national movements and the way remaining chapters discuss different that they were brought together for aspects of post-Soviet existence. In spite the legitimation of the Ukrainian of this organizing logic and the merit Soviet Socialist Republic. Szporluk of the individual chapters, the volume attempts to distinguish between as a whole fails to make a convincing linguistic and ethnic identities impression. (Pp. 109-139) in Ukraine and con- Szporluk’s interpretation of the trasts these developments with trends relationship between modernity and in Belorussia. However, the context ethnicity in the USSR elicits the im- of his inferences fails to make a pact of Stalin for maintaining and convincing case due to the lack of: perpetuating the Soviet model. (i) an interpretation of post-Soviet This model is interpreted as an attempt patterns; and (ii) a general discussion to set a pattern for relations in the larger of the implications of the Soviet socialist community at the time. federal framework on identity-forma- However, especially after World tion in the former USSR. War II, it became very difficult to Similar issues are foregrounding sustain the viability and centrality the construction of Russian identity of the Soviet Union in such symbolic in the USSR. In Chapter 7, “Dilem- framework of interactions. As Szpor- mas of Russian Nationalism”, Szpor- luk argues, this is not simply the luk outlines the main political and result of a departure from 1920s constitutional issues underscoring internationalism, but also the out- the relations between Russia and the come of a deeper ideational and mate- Soviet Union. The following chapter, rial crisis within the USSR in the con- “The Imperial Legacy and the Soviet

665 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews

Nationalities Problem” tackles the state [and] that would stand above issue of the “de-Sovietization of the nationalities” (P. 265, emphasis Russia” (P. 238). In effect, Szpor- in the original). Szporluk puts forward luk challenges the perception that ethnic Germans and Armenians as the USSR was engaging in supra- possible consolidating factors in nationalism, rather than nationalisms. the USSR, which, however, have His claim is that “supra-nationalism been alienated from the central in one country, just as socialism in one mechanisms of power. Probably country, is nationalism” (P. xxxv). the most prescient essay in this sec- His proposition is suggested in the tion (and in the entire volume) is context of experiential knowledge: chapter 9, “The Soviet West – or Far “For decades, Sovietism was a way Eastern Europe?” It attempts a of being Russian politically” (P. 357). conceptualization of the political, Again the figure of Stalin looms emotional, and intellectual geogra- large in Szporluk’s analysis of the phy of national imagination. Thus, relationship between economic per- Szporluk sees the real conflict in Rus- formance and political legitimacy. sia between “the inertia of society” Overall, Szporluk insists, the econo- and “the forces of change” (P. 265). mic failure of the USSR ultimately However, for him this conflict has challenged the viability of a “Soviet a geographic dimension as well: people”. “the political and cultural legacies of After the discussion of the indi- the Soviet West, that is the European vidual Ukrainian and Russian cases, Far East, are richer, more democratic Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup and more pluralistic than those of the of the Soviet Union goes on dis- Soviet imperial centre” (P. 261). In spite cussing different aspects of the Soviet of the potentialities suggested by this experience relating to the dissolution statement, there is very little empirical of the USSR. Szporluk’s main argu- evidence (both in the essay and in the ment is that the failure of “Sovietism” volume) to substantiate its claims. derived from its inability to articu- Finally, the volume concludes late and suggest a non-territorial with five essays on post-Soviet ethnic group in charge of the policy- developments, again mainly in the process as “the potentially most Soviet context of Russia and Ukraine. cosmopolitan force” (P. 266, empha- According to Szporluk the most sis in the original). He insists that pertinent issues for this period are besides the army, the central bureau- the binaries of: (i) independence and cracy, and the police, there were “no democratization; (ii) ethnicity and other, broader societal forces that are citizenship; and (iii) language and interested in saving a unitary Soviet national identity. It is their interac- 666 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 tion that intuits the patterns of post- to deal with empire” (P. 357). Szpor- 1991 relations in the former Soviet luk intuits that both contentions are yet space. For both Russia and Ukraine to be resolved, however, he claims the main issue is the extent to which that post-Soviet Russia has tended independent statehood allows for to make a mess of the issues rather the introduction of the values and than be a constructive partner to their practices of democratic government. solution. First, it has helped the rise In other words, Szporluk attempts of ethnopolitics: “The real meaning to fathom whether independence is of the ‘Russian rights’ issue – ‘the simply a disguise for the continuation plight of the 25 million Russians’ – of “Soviet” rules and procedures. is to deprive the successor states of In the context of Ukraine he suggests the USSR of the right to define them- that the “real problem” is the estab- selves in a territorial or civic sense. lishment of a national consensus Instead, it proposes their ethniciza- about the question of reform; that is, tion” (P. 339). Second, as a result “Ukraine is faced with the choice of Russia has tended to re-create its surviving as a political entity or imperial trappings both in real and becoming like Bosnia” (P. 330). identity politics, which has tended Chapter 13, “Reflections on Ukraine to scupper its reform process: “if Rus- after 1994: The Dilemmas of Nation- sia becomes an empire… it cannot hood” asserts that there are many be a democracy at the same time” reasons for the post-independence (P. 331). Szporluk’s suggestion is stagnation in Ukraine: that “Gorbachev, not Tito, would One is a failure of political prove to be ‘the last of the Habsburgs’” leadership. Another is the general (P. 352), however he fails to make sense that Ukraine’s population a convincing speculation on whether is not ready to accept radical the imperial relations centered on reforms and that indeed large the Kremlin ended with the dissolu- segments of it remain attached tion of the Soviet Union or are carried to Soviet values and institutions. on in the “new” Russian Federation. There are indications that there But it is probably the shortcomings is a split between those ready of Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup to accept reforms and those who of the Soviet Union that draw out oppose them and that this split the importance of Szporluk’s effort. has a territorial and even ethnic The conceptual and empirical lacunae dimension. (P. 328) evident in the volume can be inter- For Russia, the dilemma is “how preted as possibilities for further to deal with communism, and how intellectual advance on these issues. 667 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews

One possible direction is the prob- to the end of the Soviet Union. How- lematization of Szporluk’s inferences ever, perhaps it is the shortcomings in the context of current international of Szporluk’s analysis that are most developments in the region of the valuable since they indicate the pos- former Soviet Union, which some sible avenues for further inquiry. have interpreted as taking a more ominous turn. For instance, it would be beneficial to analyze not only the implications of Vladimir Putin’s “presidential vertical” for relations within the Russian Federation, but also on the impact it has had on its rela- tionship with its neighbours. For instance, the pressure the Russian Ñåðãåé ÊÈÑÅËÅ President exerted on Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in September 2003 Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèí. Âëàñòü ïðîñò- to sign a far-reaching agreement ðàíñòâà è ïðîñòðàíñòâî âëàñòè: for a “single economic space”, which Ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèå îáðàçû â ïîëè- was followed by the unexpected òèêå è ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ îòíîøå- attempt to build a causeway into íèÿõ. Ìîñêâà: ÐÎÑÑÏÝÍ, 2004. the Kerch strait by Russian naval 352 ñ. (Ñåð.: “Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ Ðîñ- forces, apparently to seize control ñèè”). Áèáëèîãð. Ðåç. àíãë. of an island and the adjacent ship- ISBN: 5-8243-0300-2. ping channel from Ukraine (sus- pended only after Ukraine rushed Îäèí èç ðóññêèõ ëèòåðàòîðîâ in reinforcements), are only two êîíöà XIX â. ñ ãîðå÷üþ çàìåòèë, interesting cases for consideration. ÷òî â èñòîðèè ðîññèéñêîãî Such developments call for a recon- èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîãî äâèæåíèÿ sideration of the relationship between íåò íè÷åãî ïå÷àëüíåå ñóäüáû democracy, empire, and indepen- ñëàâÿíîôèëüñòâà. Ïî÷åìó-òî dence in the post-Soviet space. ýòà ôðàçà ïîñòîÿííî âñïëûâàåò Therefore, Russia, Ukraine, and â ñîçíàíèè, êîãäà çíàêîìèøüñÿ the Breakup of the Soviet Union ñ ðåäêèìè â îòå÷åñòâåííîé would be of benefit to any student ëèòåðàòóðå íîâèíêàìè, ïîñâÿ- of the relations between the states ùåííûìè âîïðîñàì òåîðèè è that emerged after the dissolution ìåòîäîëîãèè ñîâðåìåííîé ãåî- of the USSR. It provides both an ãðàôèè. Âîçìîæíî, ïîòîìó, ÷òî intellectual as well as chronological èìåííî äàííàÿ îáëàñòü çíàíèÿ overview of the processes that led â íàèáîëüøåé ñòåïåíè èñïûòû- 668 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âàëà èäåîëîãè÷åñêîå äàâëåíèå âûäåðæàííàÿ è óñòîÿâøàÿñÿ è êîíòðîëèðîâàëàñü íåïîñðåäñò- ãåîãðàôè÷åñêàÿ òåîðèÿ áûëà âåííî ðóêîâîäñòâîì ñîâåòñêîãî ìàëî ïðèâëåêàòåëüíà äëÿ íàó÷- ãåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ñîîáùåñòâà. íîé ìîëîäåæè, êîòîðàÿ â ìàññå Íà ïðîòÿæåíèè äåñÿòèëåòèé ñâîåé îòíþäü íå ñòðåìèëàñü ê èñêëþ÷èòåëüíûì ïðàâîì íà íèñïðîâåðæåíèþ êëàññèêîâ ïóáëè÷íîå îáñóæäåíèå âîïðî- ìàðêñèçìà. ñîâ òåîðèè â ýòîé ñôåðå îáëàäàë Ñèòóàöèÿ ïðèíöèïèàëüíî äîâîëüíî óçêèé êðóã ó÷åííûõ, èçìåíèëàñü íà ðóáåæå 1980-õ ãã. ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ñòîëè÷íûõ, Ýòî áûëî âðåìÿ ïåðåõîäà îò äîñòóï âíóòðü êîòîðîãî áûë ýïîõè çàñòîÿ ê ýïîõå ïåðåñòðîé- ñòðîãî ëèìèòèðîâàí. êè. Åùå î÷åíü ñèëüíû áûëè Ñðåäè ÷ëåíîâ äàííîé íàó÷íîé ïîçèöèè íàó÷íîãî äîãìàòèçìà, êîðïîðàöèè íå áûëî ìîíîëèò- îäíàêî ìîëîäûå èíòåëëåêòóàëû íîãî åäèíñòâà. ×àñòü åå ïðåä- óæå íå áîÿëèñü âûñêàçûâàòü ñòàâëÿëè ó÷åíûå, èñïîâåäóþùèå ñâîþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ, ïîäâåðãàòü ðàçíûå âçãëÿäû: Ñ. Á. Ëàâðîâ, êðèòèêå îáùåïðèçíàííûå íàó÷- Â. Ñ. Ïðåîáðàæåíñêèé Á. Á. Ðîäî- íûå èñòèíû. Ìíîãèå îêàçàëèñü ìàí, èëè, íàïðèìåð, Þ. Ã. Ñàóø- òîãäà ïîä âëèÿíèåì “îáàÿíèÿ” êèí, îáðàòèâøèé âíèìàíèå íà çàïàäíîé ãåîãðàôè÷åñêîé íàóêè íåîáõîäèìîñòü ðàçâèòèÿ ìåòà- è, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ãóìàíèòàðíîé ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé. ãåîãðàôèè, êîòîðàÿ êàçàëàñü, Ñ íèìè ïîëåìèçèðîâàëè ñïåöèà- íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä, ñâîáîäíîé ëèñòû òèïà Á. Í. Ñåìåâñêîãî, îò èäåîëîãè÷åñêèõ äîãì è áîëåå óòâåðæäàâøåãî, ÷òî åäèíñòâåííî ïðèáëèæåííîé ê æèçíè ðåàëü- âîçìîæíîé ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîé íîãî ÷åëîâåêà. Äðóãîå äåëî, ÷òî áàçîé ãåîãðàôèè â öåëîì è ñèñ- ó áîëüøèíñòâà “íåîôèòî┠òåìû îáùåñòâåííî-ãåîãðàôè÷åñ- çíàíèå êîíöåïöèé çàïàäíîé êèõ íàóê â ÷àñòíîñòè ìîæåò ãåîãðàôèè áàçèðîâàëîñü â îñíîâ- áûòü òîëüêî äèàëåêòèêî-ìàòå- íîì íà ìàòåðèàëàõ ðåôåðàòèâ- ðèàëèñòè÷åñêàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ. íûõ æóðíàëîâ è íåìíîãî÷èñëåí- Ëþáûå æå äðóãèå âçãëÿäû – íûõ ïåðåâîäíûõ èçäàíèÿõ. îøèáî÷íû, òàê êàê îíè íå óêëà- Èìåííî â 1980-å ãã. â óìàõ äûâàþòñÿ â ìàðêñèñòñêî-ëåíèí- ìîëîäûõ ãåîãðàôîâ ñôîðìèðî- ñêóþ òåîðèþ.1 Ñêó÷íàÿ, ñóõàÿ, âàëàñü òà áåñïëîäíàÿ è òðóäíî çàíóäíàÿ, íî èäåîëîãè÷åñêè óñâàèâàåìàÿ ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêàÿ

1 Á. Í. Ñåìåâñêèé. Î ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ çàêîíîìåðíîñòÿõ è ïóòÿõ ìîäåëèðîâàíèÿ ïðîöåññîâ // Ïðîáëåìû òåîðåòè÷åñêîé ãåîãðàôèè. Ëåíèíãðàä, 1978. Ñ. 10, 11. 669 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews ìåøàíèíà èç ñîâåòñêîãî òåîðå- (ñèñòåìàõ) ñîâðåìåííûõ íàó÷íûõ òè÷åñêîãî íàñëåäèÿ è “íîâåé- çíàíèé”, – óòâåðæäàåò âî ââåäå- øèõ èäåé çàïàäíîé ãåîãðàôèè”, íèè ê ñâîåé íîâîé ìîíîãðàôèè èíåðöèÿ êîòîðîé âûòàëêèâàåò “Âëàñòü ïðîñòðàíñòâà è ïðîñò- ãåîãðàôèþ çà ïðåäåëû íàóê, ðàíñòâî âëàñòè” èçâåñòíûé ìîñ- ñïîñîáíûõ ñåãîäíÿ îòâå÷àòü íà êîâñêèé ãåîãðàô Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèí âûçîâû âðåìåíè. Êðèçèñ óñó- (Ñ. 3-4). ãóáëÿåòñÿ è ñîõðàíÿþùåéñÿ Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà, ñðåäñòâîì, äîíûíå äèñïðîïîðöèåé ìåæäó ñïîñîáíûì èçìåíèòü ñèòóàöèþ åñòåñòâåííî-ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèì è â ãåîãðàôèè, ïðèâëå÷ü åå ê ðåøå- ãóìàíèòàðíûì ðàçäåëàìè äàííîé íèþ çíà÷èìûõ îáùåñòâåííûõ íàóêè. Ïðåîäîëåòü åãî, âåðíóòü ïðîáëåì, ÿâëÿåòñÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ãåîãðàôèè ñòàòóñ ôóíäàìåí- ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ îáðàçîâ, àêòèâíî òàëüíîé äèñöèïëèíû âîçìîæíî ðàçðàáàòûâàåìàÿ èì â ïîñëåä- ëèøü ïðè óñëîâèè ðåøèòåëüíî- íèå ãîäû. Ñëåäóåò ïîä÷åðêíóòü, ãî ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîãî ïðîðûâà ÷òî ýòà êîíöåïöèÿ íîñèò èñêëþ- çà ïðåäåëû ïîðî÷íîãî êðóãà ÷èòåëüíî àâòîðñêèé õàðàêòåð. óñòàðåâøèõ òåîðèé, ðàñøèðåíèÿ Ïî óðîâíþ ãëóáèíû, ïðîäóìàí- åå ïðåäìåòíîé îáëàñòè èññëåäî- íîñòè äåòàëåé è øèðîòå îõâàòà âàíèÿ. Ïðåäïîñûëêè äëÿ òàêîãî îíà ñîâåðøåííî óíèêàëüíà. ïðîðûâà óæå ïðîñìàòðèâàþòñÿ. Êðîìå òîãî, àâòîð òðàòèò çíà- “Íà íàø âçãëÿä, íåîáõîäèìî ÷èòåëüíûå óñèëèÿ äëÿ ïðîïàãàí- èçìåíåíèå ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîé è äû ñâîåé òåîðèè çà ïðåäåëàìè òåîðåòè÷åñêîé ñèòóàöèè â ãåîãðà- ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîãî ñîîáùåñòâà. ôèè ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê îáùåñòâåí- Ê ýòîìó åãî, âåðîÿòíî, ïîáóæ- íûì è ãóìàíèòàðíûì íàóêàì, äàåò êàê òðàäèöèîííûé êîíñåð- èáî åå äàëüíåéøåå ñîõðàíåíèå, âàòèçì ãåîãðàôîâ, òàê è òî, ÷òî êîíñåðâàöèÿ áóäóò âåñòè ê âñå Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèí äîâîëüíî ÷åòêî áîëüøåìó ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîìó ïðåäñòàâëÿåò âîçìîæíîãî ïîòðå- è òåîðåòè÷åñêîìó îòñòàâàíèþ áèòåëÿ ñâîèõ èäåé. Ýòîò ïîòðå- ñîâðåìåííîé ãåîãðàôèè îò îáùå- áèòåëü îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ äîñòàòî÷íî ãî, äîñòàòî÷íî âûñîêîãî ìåòî- åìêèì ïîíÿòèåì “âëàñòü”, êîòî- äîëîãè÷åñêîãî óðîâíÿ ñîâðå- ðàÿ â èäåàëå äîëæíà âûñòóïàòü ìåííîãî íàó÷íîãî ìûøëåíèÿ, â îáðàçå ãåîêðàòèè, ò.å. òàêîãî ê âñå ìåíüøåé ýôôåêòèâíîñòè òèïà âëàñòè, êîòîðûé ðåïðåçåí- ðåøåíèÿ ñîáñòâåííûõ òåîðåòè- òèðóåò ñåáÿ ÷åðåç ïðîñòðàíñòâî. ÷åñêèõ è ïðèêëàäíûõ çàäà÷, ê ×åì æå ìîæåò ïðèâëå÷ü ïîñòåïåííîé ìàðãèíàëèçàöèè âëàñòü àáñòðàêòíàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ïîëîæåíèÿ ãåîãðàôèè â ñèñòåìå ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ îáðàçîâ, ðîäèâ- 670 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 øàÿñÿ â íåäðàõ “íàóêè äëÿ Ìèò- ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ âî âñåõ 16 ãëàâàõ ðîôàíóøåê”? Âåäü íå ñëó÷àéíî îñíîâíîãî òåêñòà. Äëÿ òåõ, êòî æå ìîíîãðàôèÿ Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèíà ñëåäèò çà òâîð÷åñòâîì Ä. Í. Çàìÿ- âûøëà â ñåðèè “Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ òèíà (à òàêèå èìåþòñÿ, â èõ ÷èñëå Ðîññèè”? Äàäèì ñëîâî àâòîðó: è àâòîð ðåöåíçèè), áîëüøèíñòâî “Èíñòðóìåíòîì îñâîåíèÿ è èç ýòèõ ãëàâ çíàêîìû ïî ïðåäû- ïðèñâîåíèÿ âëàñòüþ ïðîñòðàíñ- äóùèì ïóáëèêàöèÿì â ðàçëè÷- òâà âûñòóïàþò ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèå íûõ èçäàíèÿõ. Ñîáðàííûå æå îáðàçû, ò.å. óñòîé÷èâûå ïðîñòðàí- ïîä îäíîé îáëîæêîé îíè, íà íàø ñòâåííûå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ, êîòî- âçãëÿä, ñïîñîáíû îòïóãíóòü ðûå ôîðìèðóþòñÿ â ðåçóëüòàòå ÷èòàòåëÿ, âïåðâûå âçÿâøåãî â êàêîé-ëèáî ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé äåÿòåëü- ðóêè êíèãó ïî ãóìàíèòàðíîé íîñòè (êàê íà áûòîâîì, òàê è ãåîãðàôèè, ñâîåé ÷ðåçìåðíîé íà ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîì óðîâíå). (ïî÷åìó-òî õî÷åòñÿ íàïèñàòü Îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ, êàê ïðàâèëî, ïàòîëîãè÷åñêîé) ïåðåãðóæåí- êîìïàêòíûìè ìîäåëÿìè îïðå- íîñòüþ òåðìèíàìè. Ïîýòîìó äåëåííîãî ãåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî íå ñëó÷àéíî â êîíöå ìîíîãðà- ïðîñòðàíñòâà (èëè ãåîãðàôè÷åñ- ôèè ïðèâåäåí òåðìèíîëîãè÷åñ- êîé ðåàëüíîñòè), ñîçäàííûìè êèé ñëîâàðü, ñîäåðæàùèé îïðå- äëÿ áîëåå ýôôåêòèâíîãî äîñòè- äåëåíèÿ îñíîâíûõ ïîíÿòèé, æåíèÿ êàêîé-ëèáî ïîñòàâëåí- èñïîëüçóåìûõ àâòîðîì â äàí- íîé öåëè. Êà÷åñòâî ýòèõ îáðàçîâ íîé ðàáîòå. Ñëîâàðü, êàê è êàæ- ïîêàçûâàåò ýôôåêòèâíîñòü äàÿ èç ãëàâ êíèãè, ñàìîäîñòàòî÷åí ïîëèòèçàöèè ãåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî è ñïîñîáåí äàòü äîâîëüíî ïîë- ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Ïåðåôðàçèðóÿ íîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î êîíöåïöèè èçâåñòíîå âûðàæåíèå, ìîæíî ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ îáðàçîâ. ñêàçàòü, ÷òî êàæäàÿ âëàñòü èìååò ×òî æå êàñàåòñÿ ñòðóêòóðû òå ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèå îáðàçû, êîòî- ìîíîãðàôèè, òî îíà äîñòàòî÷íî ðûå îíà çàñëóæèâàåò” (Ñ. 5). ïðîñòà è ëîãè÷íà: ïåðâûå äâå Åñòåñòâåííî, ÷òî äåéñòâóþùàÿ ãëàâû ïîñâÿùåíû âîïðîñàì âëàñòü çàñëóæèëà ïðàâî íà ìåòîäîëîãèè ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ íàèáîëåå êà÷åñòâåííûå ãåîãðà- îáðàçîâ, èõ ðåïðåçåíòàöèè è ôè÷åñêèå îáðàçû. Ìîäåëèðîâà- èíòåðïðåòàöèè â ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íèå æå èõ âîçìîæíî ëèøü ïðè íàóêàõ; ñ òðåòüåé ïî ñåäüìóþ óñëîâèè ñòðîãîãî ñëåäîâàíèÿ ãëàâó èññëåäóþòñÿ ãåîïîëèòè- êîíöåïöèè Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèíà. ÷åñêèå è ïîëèòèêî-ãåîãðàôè- Ìîíîãðàôèÿ èìååò ÷åòêî ÷åñêèå îáðàçû ìèðîâîãî ðàçâè- âûðàæåííóþ äèñêóðñèâíóþ òèÿ; â âîñüìîé ãëàâå îáîñíîâû- íàïðàâëåííîñòü, êîòîðîé àâòîð âàþòñÿ ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèå ïðèí- 671 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews öèïû ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ îáðàçîâ ðàíñòâ. Íàïðèìåð, îäèí èç ðàç- ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ãðàíèö; äåâÿòàÿ – äåëîâ äåñÿòîé ãëàâû ïîñâÿùåí ñàìàÿ îáúåìíàÿ ãëàâà êíèãè – ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêèì è ãåîêóëüòóð- ïîñâÿùåíà ìîäåëèðîâàíèþ ãåî- íûì îáðàçàì Óêðàèíû. Àâòîð ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ñèòóàöèé âòîðîé äàåò äîâîëüíî îáøèðíûé ïåðå- ïîëîâèíû XIX â. â òàêîì êëþ÷å- ÷åíü îáðàçîâ, îïðåäåëÿþùèõ âîì ðåãèîíå Åâðàçèè, êàê Öåí- ìàñøòàá ñàìîé Óêðàèíû. Ýòî òðàëüíàÿ Àçèÿ; â ãëàâàõ ñ äåñÿ- îáðàçû Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, òîé ïî äâåíàäöàòóþ ðàññìàò- Âèçàíòèè, Åâðîïû â öåëîì, à ðèâàþòñÿ âîïðîñû ãåîãðàôè- òàêæå îáðàçû Ðîññèè, Òóðöèè, ÷åñêîãî ìîäåëèðîâàíèÿ îáðàçà Ïîëüøè è äàæå Øâåöèè (Ñ. 173). ñòðàíû, è, íàêîíåö, ïîñëåäíèå Èõ âçàèìîäåéñòâèå è èíòåðôå- ÷åòûðå ãëàâû ïîñâÿùåíû èçó÷å- ðåíöèÿ ïîðîæäàåò ìåòàîáðàç íèþ ñïåöèôèêè ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ Óêðàèíû êàê ôðîíòèðà Âîñòî÷- ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ îáðàçîâ ðåãèî- íîé Åâðîïû. Âíóòðåííèå ïàðà- íîâ íà ïðèìåðå Ðîññèè. ìåòðû ñòðàíû, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà, Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷èòàòåëþ çàäàþòñÿ òàêèìè ãåîãðàôè÷åñ- ïðåäëàãàåòñÿ âñåîõâàòíàÿ ñèñ- êèìè îáðàçàìè, êàê Äíåïð, òåìà ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêèõ, ïîëèòèêî- Êèåâ, Ëüâîâ, ñòåïè, Ñåâåðíîå ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ, ýêîíîìèêî- Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüå (êîòîðîå ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ è ãåîêóëüòóðíûõ âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ áîëüøóþ ÷àñòü îáðàçîâ, ñïîñîáíûõ ñóùåñòâî- ñòåïíûõ ïðîñòðàíñòâ Óêðàèíû), âàòü â ãåîóíèâåðñóìå íà âñåõ à òàêæå îáðàçàìè, õàðàêòåðèçó- åãî óðîâíÿõ – îò ãëîáàëüíîãî äî þùèìè èñòîðèþ è êóëüòóðó ëîêàëüíîãî. Êîíöåïöèÿ Ä. Í. Çà- ìÿòèíà ñòðîéíà, ëîãè÷íà, íå ñòðàíû: Áîãäàíà Õìåëüíèöêîãî, ïðîòèâîðå÷èâà è çàêîí÷åíà! Ãðèãîðèÿ Ñêîâîðîäû, Òàðàñà Íà ýòîì ìîæíî áûëî áû è îñòà- Øåâ÷åíêî, Íèêîëàÿ Ãîãîëÿ, íîâèòüñÿ, îäíàêî êíèãà ïîðîæ- ëèòåðàòóðíîãî ãåðîÿ Òàðàñà äàåò ìàññó âîïðîñîâ, ÷òî ëèøíèé Áóëüáû, áûòîâûõ, ôîëüêëîðíûõ ðàç ïîä÷åðêèâàåò íåîðäèíàð- è òðàäèöèîííûõ êóëüòóðíûõ íîñòü ïîäõîäîâ åå àâòîðà. ñèìâîëîâ ãîïàêà, “ãîðèëêè”, Ïåðâîå îùóùåíèå îò çíà- “óêðàèíñêîé ìîâû” è ò. ä. Âîç- êîìñòâà ñ òåêñòîì êíèãè – ýòî ìîæíî, âñå ýòî (êàê è ìíîãîå óáåäèòåëüíîñòü ïðèåìîâ òåîðå- äðóãîå, ïîñêîëüêó ñïèñîê ìîæåò òè÷åñêîãî îáîñíîâàíèÿ îñíîâíûõ áûòü îáøèðåí) âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ ïîëîæåíèé êîíöåïöèè è, ìÿãêî îáðàçû Çàïàäà è Âîñòîêà Óêðà- ãîâîðÿ, íåâíÿòíîñòü ïîïûòîê åå èíû, Çàêàðïàòüÿ è Êàðïàò, ïðèìåíåíèÿ ê îïèñàíèþ ðåàëü- Ãàëè÷èíû è óêðàèíñêîãî Ïîëå- íûõ ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ïðîñò- ñüÿ, ÿðêîé Îäåññû è Íîâîðîññèè, 672 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 áëàãîñëîâåííîãî Êðûìà è ïðî- ìåòàôèçèêîé ïðîñòðàíñòâà, êî- ìûøëåííî-ðàçâèòîãî Äîíåöêî- ðåííûì íåñîîòâåòñòâèåì èñòî- Ïðèäíåïðîâñêîãî ðåãèîíà, à òàê ðè÷åñêîé è ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé æå – Ñâÿòîãî Âëàäèìèðà è Ìàçå- òåððèòîðèè, òåì âíóòðåííèì ïû, Ìèõàèëà Ãðóøåâñêîãî è ðàñêîëîì, êîòîðûé ìîæåò áûòü Íèêèòû Õðóùåâà, è, íàêîíåö, ñíÿò ëèáî ðàçäåëîì åäèíîãî ãëàâíîãî, èçâåñòíîãî âî âñåì ãîñóäàðñòâà, ëèáî ïðîåêòîì åãî ìèðå óêðàèíñêîãî ñèìâîëà – ìîäåðíèçàöèè, íèêàê íå ñâÿçàí- ñàëà. Ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå, íûì ñ òåìè óêðàèíñêèìè êàðòèí- ÷òî ñèñòåìà îáðàçîâ Óêðàèíû êàìè, êîòîðûå ïðèâîäèò àâòîð. áûëà ñôîðìèðîâàíà ó àâòîðà Ìû óæå ïîä÷åðêèâàëè, ÷òî ïîä âîçäåéñòâèåì ñëó÷àéíîé êîíöåïöèÿ Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèíà íîñèò ñòàòüè èç ïóòåâîäèòåëÿ èëè ÿðêî âûðàæåííûé àâòîðñêèé ïîïóëÿðíîãî ñïðàâî÷íèêà. õàðàêòåð. Îäíàêî âñå æå âûçû- Îáðàçíî-ãåîãðàôè÷åñêàÿ âàåò óäèâëåíèå òîò ôàêò, ÷òî íàñûùåííîñòü Óêðàèíû, åå â ïåðâîé ãëàâå ìîíîãðàôèè, ñóùåñòâîâàíèå â âèäå ñàìîñòîÿ- ÿâëÿþùåéñÿ, ïî ñóòè, ìåòîäî- òåëüíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà ñïîñîá- ëîãè÷åñêèì êëþ÷îì êî âñåìó ñòâóåò òîìó óíèêàëüíîìó ïðî- èññëåäîâàíèþ, â îáçîðå ðàçâèòèÿ öåññó, êîòîðûé Êàðë Øìèòò ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î ïîíÿòèè “îáðàç” îïðåäåëÿë êàê ïðîäóöèðîâàíèå â ãåîãðàôèè è ïîíÿòèè “ãåîãðà- íîâûõ ïðîñòðàíñòâ. Ýòîò ïðîöåññ ôè÷åñêèé îáðàç” â ñìåæíûõ îòêðûâàåò äëÿ ó÷åíîãî, âîîðó- íàóêàõ îòñóòñòâóþò óïîìèíàíèÿ æåííîãî ìåòîäîëîãèåé êîíöåï- î êîíöåïöèè èêîíîãðàôèè Æ. Ãîò- öèè ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ îáðàçîâ, òìàíà èëè ó÷åíèè î õðîíîòîïàõ ïëîäîòâîðíîå è íåîáúÿòíîå Ì. Ì. Áàõòèíà, ïî ìíîãèì ïàðà- ïîëå äëÿ èññëåäîâàíèé. Îãðàíè- ìåòðàì ïåðåñåêàþùèìèñÿ ñ èäåÿ- ÷èâàòüñÿ æå êîíñòàòàöèåé ìåòà- ìè Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèíà. Íè÷åãî íå ïè- îáðàçà ôðîíòèðà Âîñòî÷íîé øåò àâòîð îá èçâåñòíîé êàæäîìó Åâðîïû, êàêèì Óêðàèíà áûëà ãåîãðàôó-ãóìàíèòàðèþ ðàáîòå âî âðåìåíà Çàïîðîæñêîé Ñå÷è, “Îáðàç ìåñòà” Í. Í. Ìèõàéëîâà, à ñåãîäíÿ íè â áóêâàëüíîì, íè óäîñòîèâø åãî, êàê è Ì. Ì. Áàõ- â òåðíåðîâñêîì ñìûñëå èì íå ÿâ- òèíà, åäèíñòâåííîé ññûëêè â ëÿåòñÿ, – çíà÷èò, óïîäîáëÿòüñÿ Ïðèìå÷àíèÿõ. Íèêòî, êîíå÷íî, íå òåì ïðèìèòèâíûì óêðàèíñêèì ïðèçûâàåò ìåòîäîëîãà Ä. Í. Çàìÿ- ãåîïîëèòèêàì, êîòîðûõ êðèòè- òèíà ñòàíîâèòüñÿ åùå è èñòîðè- êóåò ñàì Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèí. Ïîëè- îãðàôîì. Îäíàêî, íàâåðíîå, òè÷åñêèå ïðîöåññû, ïðîèñõîäÿ- äàæå è ãèãàíòó ìûñëè äîëæíî ùèå íà Óêðàèíå, îïðåäåëÿþòñÿ áûòü êàê-òî íåóäîáíî “ñòîÿòü” íå ñòîëüêî ôèçèêîé, ñêîëüêî íà ñâîèõ ñîáñòâåííûõ ïëå÷àõ. 673 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews Îñîáîãî âíèìàíèÿ çàñëóæè- èäåàëüíàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ äëÿ èäåàëü- âàåò ïîíèìàíèå àâòîðîì ãåî- íîé âëàñòè. Íî ïðîáëåìà-òî â ïîëèòèêè êàê ãåîïîëèòîëîãèè òîì, ÷òî âëàñòü â Ðîññèè ðåàëü- (Ñ. 5). Ðåäóêöèîíèçì ãåîïîëè- íà, ò.å. èìååò êîíêðåòíûå ôîðìû. òè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ìîñêîâñ- êîé øêîëû ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ãåî- ãðàôèè, âîçãëàâëÿåìîé Â. À. Êî- ëîñîâûì, îðèåíòèðîâàí íà ïîëó- ÷åíèå êîíêðåòíîãî íàó÷íîãî ðåçóëüòàòà. Îäíàêî ïðîáëåìà â òîì, ÷òî ýòîò ðåçóëüòàò èìååò ÷èñòî àêàäåìè÷åñêèé èíòåðåñ, Ýðíåñò ÃÛÉÄÅË ïîýòîìó ìàëî ïðèâëåêàòåëåí äëÿ ðîññèéñêîãî ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî Jan T. Gross, Revolution from èñòåáëèøìåíòà, êîòîðûé âîñ- Abroad. The Soviet Conquest of Po- ïðèíèìàåò ñåãîäíÿ ãåîïîëèòèêó land’s Western Ukraine and Western ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî â òðàêòîâêå Belorussia (Princeton; London: À. Ã. Äóãèíà êàê íàóêó î âëàñòè Princeton University Press, 2002). è äëÿ âëàñòè.2 Expanded edition, with a new Ñîâðåìåííûå ïðàâèòåëè â preface by the author. xxiv+396 pp. Ðîññèè âðÿä ëè ñïîñîáíû â ISBN: 0-691-09603-1. ñâîåé ïðàêòèêå ó÷èòûâàòü ñëîæíûé ìèð ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ è Ñ îïðåäåëåííîñòüþ ìîæíî ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêèõ îáðàçîâ, êîí- óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî ïåðâîå èçäàíèå ñòðóèðóåìûõ Ä. Í. Çàìÿòèíûì. êíèãè àìåðèêàíñêîãî èñòîðèêà Ãîñóäàðñòâî â Ðîññèè ñòðåìèòñÿ ßíà Ãðîññà, âûøåäøåå â 1988 ã., ê ïðåîáðàçîâàíèþ ïðîñòðàíñòâà â ñâîå âðåìÿ ïîëó÷èëî íåçàñëó- ñòðàíû â èçîòðîïíóþ ïîâåðõ- æåííî ìàëî âíèìàíèÿ. Èç âåäó- íîñòü, ⠓ãëàäêîå ïîëå, ãäå âîëÿ ùèõ ìèðîâûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïðàâèòåëüñòâà íå âñòðå÷àåò æóðíàëîâ ðåöåíçèåé íà íåå ïðåãðàä”.3 Ïîýòîìó ìîæíî êîí- îòêëèêíóëñÿ òîëüêî American ñòàòèðîâàòü, ÷òî êîíöåïöèÿ Ä. Historical Review. Òàì, â îñíîâ- Í. Çàìÿòèíà âðÿä ëè îêàæåòñÿ íîì, ïåðåñêàçûâàëîñü ñîäåðæà- âîñòðåáîâàííîé çà ïðåäåëàìè íèå è àêöåíòèðîâàëîñü âíèìà- àêàäåìè÷åñêîé àóäèòîðèè. Ýòî íèå íà ñþæåòàõ, êîòîðûå ñàì

2 À. Ã. Äóãèí. Îñíîâû ãåîïîëèòèêè. Ãåîïîëèòè÷åñêîå áóäóùåå Ðîññèè. Ìîñêâà, 1997. Ñ. 13. 3 Ï. Âàëóåâ. Äóìà ðóññêîãî // Ðîäèíà. 1995. ¹ 3/4. Ñ. 144. 674 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 àâòîð ñ÷èòàë äàëåêî íå ãëàâ- ðåæèìîâ è èõ ïðåñòóïëåíèé, íûìè.1 Äðóãèì ðàáîòàì Ãðîññà, ðàâíî êàê è ïîèñê îòâåòà íà âîï- íå ãîâîðÿ óæå îá åãî íàøóìåâ- ðîñ, êàêîé æå èç äâóõ òîòàëèòà- øåé (îñîáåííî â Ïîëüøå)2 êíèãå ðèçìîâ áûë áîëüøèì çëîì4 , “Ñîñåäè” (2001), íà âíèìàíèå âûçûâàþò íåðåäêî îñóæäàþ- íàó÷íîé îáùåñòâåííîñòè âåçëî ùóþ (êàê ïðàâèëî, ìîðàëüíóþ, çíà÷èòåëüíî áîëüøå. Êàê à íå íàó÷íóþ) ðåàêöèþ. Ñâèäå- ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, âûçâàíî ýòî òåëüñòâî òîìó – æàðêèå äèñêóñ- áûëî òåì, ÷òî èñòîðèê, àâòîð ñèè âîêðóã èçâåñòíîé “×åðíîé äâóõ êíèã îá îêêóïàöèîííûõ êíèãè êîììóíèçìà” ïîä ðåä. ðåæèìàõ â Ïîëüøå â ãîäû Âòî- Ñòåôàíà Êóðòóà,5 ïåðåâåäåííîé ðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû (íåìåöêîì íà ìíîãèå ÿçûêè. â 1939-1944 ãã.3 è ñîâåòñêîì â Âòîðîå, ðàñøèðåííîå èçäàíèå 1939-1941 ãã.), â Revolution from Revolution from Abroad óâèäåëî Abroad ïðèøåë ê êàòåãîðè÷åñ- ñâåò â óñëîâèÿõ áîëåå áëàãîïðèÿò- êîìó âûâîäó – ñòàëèíñêèé, ëåâûé íîé äëÿ àâòîðà êîíúþíêòóðû – òîòàëèòàðèçì áûë çíà÷èòåëüíî êàê èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé, òàê è “õóæå”, ðåïðåññèâíåé è îïàñíåé, ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé. Îíî ïðåäñòàâ- ÷åì ãèòëåðîâñêèé, ïðàâûé òîòà- ëÿåò ñîáîé âîñïðîèçâåäåíèå ðà- ëèòàðèçì.  1988 ã. òàêèå âçãëÿ- áîòû 1988 ã., áåçî âñÿêèõ èçìåíå- äû â àìåðèêàíñêîé èíòåëëåêòó- íèé, äîïîëíåííîå íîâûì ïðåäèñ- àëüíîé ñðåäå âûçûâàëè â áîëü- ëîâèåì àâòîðà è ïðèëîæåíèåì – øèíñòâå ñëó÷àåâ íåïðèÿòèå, à èõ ñòàòüåé Ãðîññà A Tangled Web î àâòîð çàíîñèëñÿ â ðÿäû êîíñåð- ïîëüñêî-åâðåéñêèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ â âàòîðîâ, à òî è ðåàêöèîíåðîâ. 1938-1948 ãã. Çäåñü îí ïîâòîðÿåò Âïðî÷åì, è ñåé÷àñ ñàìà ïîñòà- è óãëóáëÿåò ãëàâíûé âûâîä íîâêà âîïðîñà î ñðàâíåíèè äâóõ “Ñîñåäåé”: ïîëÿêè òîæå íåñóò

1 See: Anna M. Cienciala. Review of “Revolution from Abroad. The Soviet Conquest of Poland’s Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia,” by Jan T. Gross // American Historical Review. 1990. Vol. 95. No. 1. Pp. 206-207. 2 Ñì. âåëèêîëåïíóþ ïîäáîðêó íà http://www.pogranicze.sejny.pl/jedwabne/ index.html. Ïîñëåäíåå ïîñåùåíèå 1 äåêàáðÿ 2004 ã., à òàêæå: The Neighbors Respond. The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland / Antony Polonsky and Joanna B. Michlic (Eds.). Princeton, 2004. 3 Jan T. Gross. Polish Society under German Occupation. The Generalgouvernment, 1939-1944. Princeton, 1979. 4 Ì. Ðûêëèí. Ïðîñòðàíñòâà ëèêîâàíèÿ. Òîòàëèòàðèçì è ðàçëè÷èå. Ìîñêâà, 2002. 5 Le Livre noir du communisme. Crimes, terreur, répression / Robert Laffont (Ed.). Paris, 1997; Êîììóíèçì, òåððîð, ÷åëîâåê. Äèñêóññèîííûå ñòàòüè íà òåìó “×åðíîé êíèãè êîììóíèçìà”/ Ñîñò. Ñ. Êðîéöáåðãåð, È. Ìàííòîéôåëü, À. Øòåéíèíãåð, Þ. Óíçåð. Ïåð. ñ íåì. Êèåâ, 2001. 675 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews îòâåòñòâåííîñòü çà Õîëîêîñò Ãëàâíîé îñîáåííîñòüþ ìîíî- (P. 287).6 ãðàôèè ÿâëÿåòñÿ åå èñòî÷íèêî-  Revolution from Abroad ðàñ- âàÿ áàçà. Ýòî îêîëî äâàäöàòè ñìàòðèâàåòñÿ ïðîáëåìà çàâîåâà- òûñÿ÷ îïðîñîâ (àâòîð ðàáîòàë íèÿ òåððèòîðèè è óñòàíîâëåíèÿ ñ íèìè â Èíñòèòóòå Ãóâåðà), íà íåé ñâîåãî ðåæèìà òîòàëèòàð- ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì, ïîëÿêîâ, êîòî- íûì ãîñóäàðñòâîì.  ìèðîâîé ðûå ïåðåæèëè ñîâåòñêóþ îêêó- èñòîðèîãðàôèè òåìà îêêóïàöèè è ïàöèþ Çàïàäíûõ Áåëîðóññèè è êîëëàáîðàöèîíèçìà âî âðåìÿ Óêðàèíû è â 1942 ã., áëàãîäàðÿ Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû ïðåäñòàâ- ïîòåïëåíèþ îòíîøåíèé ìåæäó ëåíà ìíîãî÷èñëåííûìè ðàáîòà- Ñòàëèíûì è ïîëüñêèì ýìèãðà- ìè, êîòîðûå, â îñíîâíîì, ïîñâÿ- öèîííûì ïðàâèòåëüñòâîì, îêà- ùåíû ïðîèãðàâøåé ñòîðîíå – çàëèñü â Èðàíå â ñîñòàâå àðìèè ãèòëåðîâñêîé Ãåðìàíèè è åå ñî- Àíäåðñà. Äàííûé ïðîåêò, îòíî- þçíèêàì. Òåìà îêêóïàöèîííûõ ñÿùèéñÿ â æàíðîâîì îòíîøåíèè, ðåæèìîâ ïîáåäèòåëåé è ñîòðóä- êàê áû ìû ñêàçàëè ñåãîäíÿ, ê íè÷åñòâî ñ íèìè äëèòåëüíîå âðå- oral history, ïðîâîäèëñÿ ïî ïðÿ- ìÿ áûëà íåïîïóëÿðíîé. Òîëüêî ìîìó óêàçàíèþ ïîëüñêîãî ëîí- ïîñëå íå ñòîëü óæ äàâíåãî “Ñïî- äîíñêîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà èç ñóãóáî ðà èñòîðèêî┠(Historikerstreit) â ïðàêòè÷åñêèõ ñîîáðàæåíèé. ÔÐà âïåðâûå áûëà ïîäíÿòà òåìà Âî-ïåðâûõ, åãî èíòåðåñîâàëî, îêêóïàöèîííûõ ðåæèìîâ ñîþç- êóäà èñ÷åçëè îêîëî 15 òûñ. îôè- íèêîâ è èõ ìåñòà â èñòîðè÷åñêîé öåðîâ, êîòîðûå â 1939 ã. îêàçà- ïàìÿòè çàïàäíûõ íåìöåâ. Áîëü- ëèñü â ñîâåòñêèõ ðóêàõ. Âî-âòî- øîå êîëè÷åñòâî ðàáîò íàïèñàíî ðûõ, è ýòî ñàìîå ãëàâíîå, â ñîâåòñ- îá àìåðèêàíñêîì îêêóïàöèîí- êî-ïîëüñêîì ñîþçíè÷åñêîì äîãî- íîì ðåæèìå â ßïîíèè, íî èç-çà âîðå 1941 ã. Ìîñêâà îñóäèëà ïàêò ÿçûêîâîãî áàðüåðà îíè òàê è îñ- Ìîëîòîâà-Ðèááåíòðîïà, íî äîãî- òàþòñÿ ÿâëåíèåì ëîêàëüíîé, âîð íå÷åòêî îïðåäåëÿë ñóäüáó òåõ ÿïîíñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè. À âîò ïîëüñêèõ òåððèòîðèé, êîòîðûå ñîâåòñêî-áðèòàíñêàÿ îêêóïàöèÿ áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîìó ïàêòó ïîëó÷èë Èðàíà âñå åùå îæèäàåò ñâîåãî èñ- ÑÑÑÐ.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì Âàðøàâà è ñëåäîâàòåëÿ. Ïîýòîìó â ñèëó ðåøèëà ñîáðàòü êàê ìîæíî áîëü- ñâîåé òåìàòèêè êíèãà Ãðîññà øå ìàòåðèàëîâ äëÿ âîçìîæíîãî ÿâëÿåòñÿ çàìåòíûì, íî åäèíè÷íûì îáñóæäåíèÿ ýòîé ïðîáëåìû â áó- èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêèì ñîáûòèåì. äóùåì. Íå âñå ñîáðàííûå ñâèäå-

6 Ýòà ñòàòüÿ áûëà îïóáëèêîâàíà ðàííåå: István Deák, Jan T. Gross, and Tony Judt (Eds.). The Politics of Retribution in Europe. World War II and its Aftermath. Princeton, 2000. 676 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 òåëüñòâà ñîõðàíèëèñü – ÷àñòü Äîïîëíèòåëüíûå ìó÷åíè÷åñêèå ïîãèáëà ïðè òðàíñïîðòèðîâêå, íîòêè ïîâåñòâîâàíèþ ïðèäàåò ìíîãî äîêóìåíòîâ áûëî êîíôèñ- òî, ÷òî ïåðåä íàìè ñâèäåòåëüñòâà êîâàíî ñîâåòñêîé ñòîðîíîé. ïîëÿêîâ. Íà òåððèòîðèè Çàïàä- Revolution from Abroad – ýòî íå íûõ Áåëîðóññèè è Óêðàèíû, ãäå âçãëÿä “ñâåðõó” (top-view), íå áîëüøèíñòâî íàñåëåíèÿ ñîñòàâ- î÷åðê âîåííî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîé è ëÿëè íàöèîíàëüíûå ìåíüøèí- äèïëîìàòè÷åñêîé èñòîðèè ñîâåò- ñòâà Ïîëüøè (óêðàèíöû, áåëî- ñêîãî çàâîåâàíèÿ áûâøèõ âîñ- ðóñû è åâðåè), èìåííî ïîëÿêè òî÷íûõ òåððèòîðèé ãîñóäàðñòâà. áûëè ýòíè÷åñêèì ìåíüøèí-  êíèãå îïèñàíà ñîöèàëüíàÿ ñòâîì, íî ïðèâèëåãèðîâàííûì. èñòîðèÿ ýòîãî ïðîöåññà, òî åñòü Ïî ìíåíèþ Ãðîññà, â ïåðâûå äíè êàê îêêóïàöèîííûé ðåæèì ïîñëå 17 ñåíòÿáðÿ 1939 ã. çäåñü âîñïðèíèìàëñÿ è ïåðåæèâàëñÿ ñîçðåëè âñå ïðåäïîñûëêè äëÿ ïðîñòûìè îáû÷íûìè ëþäüìè. íà÷àëà ãðàæäàíñêîé âîéíû Èìåííî ýòà îñîáåííîñòü ðàáîòû, ìåæäó ïîëÿêàìè è äèñêðèìèíè- íàïèñàííîé íà ñòûêå æàíðîâ ðîâàííûì çà ìåæâîåííûé ïå- history from below è oral history, ðèîä áîëüøèíñòâîì. Îòñòóïàâ- äåëàåò åå ñòîëü èíòåðåñíîé. øèå ïåðåä ñîâåòñêèìè âîéñêàìè Îïûò ñîâåòñêîé îêêóïàöèè ïîëüñêèå ïîäðàçäåëåíèÿ íåðåäêî (17 ñåíòÿáðÿ 1939 – 22 èþíÿ 1941 ãã.), ñîâåðøàëè ãðàáåæè è íàñèëèÿ â ïåðåæèòûé îáû÷íûìè ëþäüìè, îòíîøåíèè óêðàèíöåâ, åâðååâ è ðàçäåëåí íà øåñòü ÷àñòåé – “Çà- áåëîðóñîâ. Ïîñëåäíèå âîñïðèíè- âîåâàíèå”, “Âûáîðû”, “Ïàðà- ìàëè ýòî êàê çàêîíîìåðíûé èòîã äèãìà ñîöèàëüíîãî êîíòðîëÿ”, ïðåäûäóùåé ïî÷òè äâàäöàòè- “Ñîöèàëèçàöèÿ”, “Òþðüìû”, ëåòíåé ïîëüñêîé äèñêðèìèíà- “Äåïîðòàöèè”. Ñòðàíèöû êíèãè öèîííîé ïîëèòèêè è îòâå÷àëè ÷èòàþòñÿ êàê ñïëîøíîé ìàðòè- âçàèìíûì íàñèëèåì. Ýòíè÷åñêàÿ ðîëîã. ×òî è íå óäèâèòåëüíî, íåíàâèñòü, ïî ìíåíèþ Ãðîññà, èáî Ãðîññ ðàññêàçûâàåò ñâîþ íå âûëèëàñü â ïîëíîìàñøòàá- èñòîðèþ ãîëîñàìè æåðòâ ñîâåò- íóþ âîéíó òîëüêî èç-çà áûñòðî- ñêîãî ðåæèìà, âûæèâøèõ æåðòâ. ãî íàñòóïëåíèÿ Êðàñíîé Àðìèè,  êíèãå îáèëüíî öèòèðóþòñÿ èõ êîòîðóþ ðàäîñòíî âñòðå÷àëè ñâèäåòåëüñòâà – îíè ïðèñóòñòâóþò íàöèîíàëüíûå ìåíüøèíñòâà. ïðàêòè÷åñêè íà êàæäîé ñòðàíèöå.  íåé âèäåëè îñâîáîäèòåëåé îò Ïîýòîìó, ÷èòàÿ åå, òÿæåëî îñòà- ïîëÿêîâ, èëè çàùèòó îò íåìöåâ òüñÿ ýìîöèîíàëüíî áåçó÷àñò- (â åâðåéñêîì ñëó÷àå). íûì – îíà îñòàâëÿåò âïå÷àòëå- Àâòîð ïîíèìàåò, ÷òî èñòî÷- íèå íå ìåíüøåå, ÷åì “Ñîñåäè”. íèêîâàÿ áàçà îäíîâðåìåííî è

677 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews øèðîêà, è îãðàíè÷åíà. Øèðîêà íèñòû è êðèìèíàëèòåò. Èç èõ ñðå- â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî îíà îõâàòû- äû ìíîãèå ïîëó÷èëè ìåñòà â âàåò ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñå ñòîðîíû àäìèíèñòðàöèè, ïðè÷åì, êàê ýòî æèçíè íà òåððèòîðèè, îêêóïè- íå ïàðàäîêñàëüíî, êàê ïðàâèëî, ðîâàííîé ÑÑÑÐ, â ðàññìàòðè- â îðãàíàõ îõðàíû ïðàâîïîðÿäêà. âàåìûé ïåðèîä. À îãðàíè÷åíà Ýïèëî㠓Spoiler State” ÿâëÿåòñÿ, ïîòîìó, ÷òî Ãðîññ èñïîëüçóåò ïîæàëóé, íàèáîëåå ñèëüíûì èñòî÷íèêè, â îñíîâíîì ïðîèñ- ðàçäåëîì êíèãè. Çäåñü äàåòñÿ õîäÿùèå èç îïðåäåëåííîé ñîöè- áëèñòàòåëüíûé êîìïàðàòèâíûé àëüíîé è íàöèîíàëüíîé ñðåäû: àíàëèç ñòàëèíñêîãî è íàöèñòñ- â àáñîëþòíîì áîëüøèíñòâå ýòî êîãî îêêóïàöèîííûõ ðåæèìîâ ïîëÿêè, ñðåäíèå èëè ìåëêèå íà òåððèòîðèè áûâøåé Ïîëüøè. ÷èíîâíèêè, ïðåäïðèíèìàòåëè, Ïî âñåì ïàðàìåòðàì ñîâåòñêèé çàæèòî÷íûå êðåñòüÿíå è ò.ä. ðåæèì ïðåâîñõîäèë íåìåöêèé. Òî åñòü ïåðåä íàìè ëþäè, êîòî- È òîëüêî â îäíîì, ñîãëàñíî ðûì áûëî ÷òî òåðÿòü ïðè Ñîâåò- âûâîäàì Ãðîññà, ñîâåòñêèé ðåæèì ñêîé âëàñòè, è êîòîðûå, êàê ïðåäñòàåò ìåíåå áåñ÷åëîâå÷íûì – ïðàâèëî, âñå è òåðÿëè. Êàê îòìå- â îòñóòñòâèè óãíåòàþùåé è âñå- ÷àåò Ãðîññ, òå íåìíîãî÷èñëåí- ïðîíèêàþùåé àòìîñôåðû íûå ñâèäåòåëüñòâà, êîòîðûå îí Ñâåðõ÷åëîâåêà (Übermensch). ëè÷íî ñîáðàë ñðåäè ñåâåðîàìå- Êàê îòìå÷àåò èññëåäîâàòåëü, ðèêàíñêèõ óêðàèíñêèõ ýìèãðàí- ñîâåòñêàÿ âëàñòü, â îòëè÷èå îò òîâ, ïåðåæèâøèõ ñîâåòñêóþ íàöèñòñêîé, âåëà ñåáÿ íà íîâî- îêêóïàöèþ, ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîâåò- ïðèñîåäèíåííûõ òåððèòîðèÿõ ñêèé ðåæèì â íåãàòèâíûõ, íî òàê æå, êàê è âî “âíóòðåííåì” äàëåêî íå ñòîëü ÷åðíûõ êðàñêàõ. Ñîâåòñêîì Ñîþçå. Ñîâåòñêèé Èç êíèãè îñòàåòñÿ íåÿñíûì, ðåæèì íå ðàññìàòðèâàë “ñâîè ñóùåñòâîâàëà ëè âîîáùå êàêàÿ-òî äåéñòâèÿ êàê äèñêðèìèíàöèîí- ãðóïïà íàñåëåíèÿ, êîòîðàÿ áû íûå; åãî íàìåðåíèÿ íå áûëè ïî- âûèãðàëà îò ñîâåòñêîé îêêóïà- ðî÷íûìè èëè ïàãóáíûìè – íà- öèè. Ýòîò âîïðîñ, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, îáîðîò, ýòî áûëî åãî îáû÷íîå àâòîðà íå èíòåðåñóåò, âèäèìî, ïîâåäåíèå (their actions as èç èìïëèöèòíîãî ñîîáðàæåíèÿ, discriminatory; their intentions ÷òî îò ââåäåíèÿ òîòàëèòàðíîãî were not vicious or evil – rather, it ðåæèìà ïðîèãðûâàþò âñå. È âñå was all ordinary behaviour)” (P. 230). æå, êîñâåííî, èç òåêñòà ñëåäóåò,  êîíòåêñòå ñåãîäíÿøíåãî äíÿ, ÷òî, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, äâå êàòå- íàâåðíîå, âàæíûìè áûëè áû ãîðèè ïîëüñêîãî îáùåñòâà îò äðóãèå ñðàâíåíèÿ. Íàïðèìåð, îêêóïàöèè âûèãðàëè – êîììó- áûëî áû óìåñòíûì ñîïîñòàâëå-

678 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íèå ñîâåòñêîãî çàâîåâàíèÿ Çà- òåì ñàìûì èñïîëüçîâàòü ðåïðåñ- ïàäíîé Áåëîðóññèè è Çàïàäíîé ñèâíûé àïïàðàò òîòàëèòàðíîãî Óêðàèíû ñ ïàðàëëåëüíûìè ïðî- ãîñóäàðñòâà äëÿ èçìåíåíèÿ öåññàìè â Ïðèáàëòèêå è Áåññàðà- ñóäüáû äðóãîãî. Èìåííî ïîýòî- áèè. Èëè ñðàâíåíèå ñîáûòèé ìó êàæóùèéñÿ ñòîëü õàîòè÷íûì 1939-1941 ãã. ñ ýïèçîäîì ñîâåòñ- ñîâåòñêèé òåððîð áûë íàñòîëüêî êî-ïîëüñêîé âîéíû 1920 ã., êîã- ýôôåêòèâåí. Äðóãîé âàæíûé äà Ìîñêâà ïî÷òè íà äâà ìåñÿöà âûâîä Ãðîññà – îïðîâåðæåíèå çàâîåâàëà â Ïîëüøå ïðèáëèçè- íà ìàòåðèàëå Ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèè òåëüíî òå æå òåððèòîðèè, ÷òî è èçâåñòíîãî ïîëèòîëîãè÷åñêîãî â 1939 ã. Òîãäà, â 1920 ã., çäåñü ïîñòóëàòà, áóäòî áû ëþáàÿ ñèñ- èñïîëüçîâàëàñü äðóãàÿ òàêòèêà. òåìà ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ èíñòèòóöèé, Íàïðèìåð, â Çàïàäíîé Óêðàèíå, èñõîäÿ èç ýëåìåíòàðíîé ïîòðåá- ïî ïðåäëîæåíèþ Ñòàëèíà, áûëà íîñòè áûòü æèçíåñïîñîáíîé, ñîçäàíà îòäåëüíàÿ ñîâåòñêàÿ ðåñ- îáÿçàíà íàçíà÷àòü íà âëèÿòåëü- ïóáëèêà – Ãàëèöêàÿ ÑÑÐ.7 íûå è îòâåòñòâåííûå äîëæíîñòè Îòìåòèì, ÷òî Ãðîññ àêöåí- òàëàíòëèâûõ è êîìïåòåíòíûõ òèðóåò ïîëåìè÷åñêîå çíà÷åíèå ëþäåé. Èñòîðèÿ ÑÑÑÐ äåìîíñò- ñâîåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ, ïûòàÿñü ðèðóåò, ÷òî íà ïðàêòèêå äåëî ñäåëàòü âêëàä â ðàçâèòèå òåîðèè îáñòîÿëî íå ñîâñåì òàê. òîòàëèòàðèçìà. Çäåñü îí ñïîðèò Êíèãà Ãðîññà íå áûëà ïåðå- ñ Õàííîé Àðåíäò, ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî âåäåíà íà ðóññêèé ÿçûê. Î ÷åì îïûò ñîâåòñêîé îêêóïàöèè, ïðèõîäèòñÿ òîëüêî ñîæàëåòü, ïåðåæèòûé è îïèñàííûé îáû÷- èáî Revolution from Abroad ïîìî- íûìè ëþäüìè, äîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ãàåò ëó÷øå ïîíÿòü ìåõàíèçì òîòàëèòàðíîå ãîñóäàðñòâî íå òîãî, êàê ñîâåòñêîå òîòàëèòàðíîå ïîãëîùàåò, à ïðèâàòèçèðóåò ãîñóäàðñòâî íàñàæäàëî ñâîþ ïóáëè÷íóþ ñôåðó (public realm). âëàñòü íàä îáùåñòâîì, è óäåð- Òàê íàçûâàåìàÿ “óðàâíèëîâêà”, æèâàëî åå íå òîëüêî íà îêêóïè- ïðîâîçãëàøåííàÿ â ÑÑÑÐ êàê ðîâàííûõ, íî íà “âíóòðåííèõ” ïðèíöèï ñîöèàëüíîé ïîëèòèêè, òåððèòîðèÿõ Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà. ïî ìíåíèþ Ãðîññà, äåéñòâèòåëüíî Àâòîð è êíèãà çàñëóæèâàþò ñóùåñòâîâàëà, ïîñêîëüêó êàæ- âûñîêóþ îöåíêó è ñ òî÷êè çðå- äûé èìåë â ñâîåì ðàñïîðÿæåíèè íèÿ “êóõíè èñòîðèêà”, ÿâëÿÿ ïðè- ðàâíûé äîñòóï ê âëàñòè ÷åðåç ìåð óäà÷íîãî èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ìå- âîçìîæíîñòü ñäåëàòü äîíîñ è òîäà è èñòî÷íèêîâ oral history.

7 Ñì.: Â. Âåðèãà. Ãàëèöüêà Ñîö³àë³ñòè÷íà Ñîâºòñüêà Ðåñïóáë³êà (1920 r.). Ïåðøà áîëüøåâèöüêà îêóïàö³ÿ Ãàëè÷èíè. New York, 1986. 679 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews Àëåêñàíäð ËÀÂÐΠâ êîòîðîì òàêæå ÿðêî îòðàçèëèñü ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ïðîöåññû êîíöà Mykhailo Hrusevsky, Hystory ÕIÕ – íà÷àëà ÕÕ ââ. è ôàêòû of Ukraine-Rus’. From Prehistory to èç ëè÷íîé áèîãðàôèè ó÷åíîãî. the Eleventh Century (Volume 1: Êîãäà Ãðóøåâñêèé, çàíÿâøèé Translated by Marta Skorupsky. â 1894 ã. êàôåäðó óêðàèíñêîé Edited by Andrzej Poppe and èñòîðèè âî Ëüâîâñêîì óíèâåð- Frank E.Sysyn). (Edmonton: Cana- ñèòåòå, âûïóñòèë ïåðâûé òîì dian Institute of Ukrainian Studies ñâîåãî òðóäà (1898 ã.), ñàìîñòîÿ- Press and Ukrainian Academic òåëüíîå ïîëèòè÷åñêîå áûòèå Press, 1997). ISBN: 1895571197 Óêðàèíû ïðåäñòàâëÿëîñü ëèøü The Cossack Age to 1625 (Volu- ñìåëûì ïðîåêòîì. Çàâåðøåíèå me 7: Translated by Bohdan Stru- ðàáîòû ïðîèñõîäèëî â ïåðèîä miñski. Edited by Serhii Plokhy and âîåííûõ è ðåâîëþöèîííûõ ïî- Frank E.Sysyn). (Edmonton: Cana- òðÿñåíèé. Âûõîä âòîðîé ÷àñòè dian Institute of Ukrainian Studies âîñüìîãî òîìà (1916 ã.), ïîñâÿ- Press and Ukrainian Academic ùåííîé ïðåäûñòîðèè âîññòàíèÿ Press, 1999). ISBN: 1895571286 Õìåëüíèöêîãî, ïðèøåëñÿ íà îäèí The Cossack Age, 1626-1650 èç òÿæåëåéøèõ ìîìåíòîâ íàó÷- (Volume 8: Translated by Marta íîé è ïîëèòè÷åñêîé áèîãðàôèè Daria Olynyk. Edited by Frank èññëåäîâàòåëÿ. Èñòîðèê, â ìî- E.Sysyn, with the assistance of ìåíò íà÷àëà Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé Myroslav Yurkevich). (Edmonton âîéíû îêàçàâøèéñÿ â Èòàëèè, and Toronto: Canadian Institute of âîçâðàòèëñÿ âî Ëüâîâ, òàì áûë Ukrainian Studies Press, 2002). íåìåäëåííî àðåñòîâàí è ñîñëàí ISBN: 1895571324. â Ñàðàòîâ, ãäå, â îòðûâå îò àðõè- âîâ è ñîáñòâåííûõ ìàòåðèàëîâ, Êàíàäñêèì èíñòèòóòîì óêðà- äîïèñàë î÷åðåäíûå ãëàâû òðóäà. èíñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé (Ýäìîí- Íå áåç ãîðüêîé èðîíèè îí âêëþ- òîí) ïîäãîòîâëåíû è èçäàíû ÷èë â ñâîå ïîâåñòâîâàíèå óïî- òðè òîìà àíãëèéñêîãî ïåðåâîäà ìèíàíèå î íåêîåì “äîáðîì ÷åëî- “Èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû-Ðóñè” Ìèõà- âåêå Ãðóøåâñêîì”, ïîñëàííîì â èëà Ãðóøåâñêîãî (1866-1934). çàëîæíèêè âî âðåìÿ êàçàöêîé Ýòîò òðóä ÿâëÿåòñÿ óíèêàëüíûì îñàäû Î÷àêîâà â 1641 ã. (Ò. 8, P. ïàìÿòíèêîì èñòîðè÷åñêîé ìûñëè, 276).1 Ðàáîòà àâòîðà íàä òðåòüåé,

1 Öèòàòû ñâåðåíû ñ óêðàèíñêèì ïîäëèííèêîì; â ñëó÷àå, êîãäà àíãëèéñêèé ïåðåâîä îòêëîíÿåòñÿ îò ðóññêîãî ïåðåâîäà óêðàèíñêîãî òåêñòà, êîòîðûé ïîëó÷àåòñÿ ó ìåíÿ, îòëè÷èÿ îãîâàðèâàþòñÿ îñîáî. 680 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîé ÷àñòüþ âîñüìîãî ðèêîâ íåèçáåæíî “îòòåñíèëè” òîìà, ïîñâÿùåííîé íà÷àëüíîìó áû Ãðóøåâñêîãî. ×òî æå êàñà- ýòàïó Õìåëüíè÷èíû, ïðèøëàñü åòñÿ óñòàðåâøèõ ïîëîæåíèé íà 1916-1921 ãã., ñîâïàâ ñ äâóìÿ “Èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû – Ðóñè” èëè ðîññèéñêèìè ðåâîëþöèÿìè è îáíîâëåíèÿ áèáëèîãðàôèè, òî êðàòêîâðåìåííûì ïåðèîäîì íå- ðåäàêòîðû îáíîâèëè íàó÷íûé çàâèñèìîñòè Óêðàèíû. Çà ýòî àïïàðàò, à òàêæå ñäåëàëè ïðåäèñ- âðåìÿ ðåâîëþöèÿ “ïðèçâàëà” ëîâèÿ è ïîñëåñëîâèÿ ê òåêñòó. Ãðóøåâñêîãî â Êèåâ (êàê îí íà- Ïîñêîëüêó ðå÷ü èäåò î êëàñ- ïèøåò â ïðåäèñëîâèè ê èçäàíèþ ñè÷åñêîé ðàáîòå, îêàçàâøåé 1921 ã.), ñäåëàëà ïðåäñåäàòåëåì èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîå âëèÿíèå íà óê- Öåíòðàëüíîé ðàäû è ïðåçèäåí- ðàèíñêóþ èñòîðèîãðàôèþ, òî òîì Óêðàèíñêîé íàðîäíîé ðåñ- çàäà÷ó ðåöåíçåíòà ìîæíî áûëî ïóáëèêè. Çàêëþ÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷àñòü áû ñâåñòè ê õàðàêòåðèñòèêå òî÷- âîñüìîãî òîìà ñäàâàëàñü â ïå- íîñòè ïåðåâîäà, ðåäàêòîðñêèõ ÷àòü â 1922 ã. óæå Ãðóøåâñêèì- ïðèìå÷àíèé è ïðåäèñëîâèé. ýìèãðàíòîì. Âïåðåäè áûëî âîç- Ýòîìó ìåøàåò îäíî îáñòîÿòåëü- âðàùåíèå â Êèåâ (1924 ã.), ñòîë- ñòâî. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî ðîññèéñêèì êíîâåíèå ñ ñîâåòñêîé öåíçóðîé ÷èòàòåëÿì, êîòîðûì è àäðåñîâàíà è èäåîëîãè÷åñêèì äèêòàòîì, âû- ýòà ðåöåíçèÿ, Ãðóøåâñêèé çíàêîì ñîêóþ ñòåïåíü íåçàâèñèìîñòè îò ïëîõî.  óçêîì êðóãó àêàäåìè÷åñ- êîòîðûõ Ãðóøåâñêèé äåìîíñò- êîé ñðåäû ïî-ïðåæíåìó äîìè- ðèðîâàë äî êîíöà æèçíè. íèðóåò îñòàâøååñÿ â íàñëåäñòâî Ìîæíî ïîíÿòü, ïî÷åìó èçäà- îò ñîâåòñêîãî âðåìåíè ïðåäñòàâ- òåëè îòêàçàëèñü îò òðàäèöèîí- ëåíèå îá èñòîðèêå êàê î “íàöèî- íîãî, ðåïðèíòíîãî âîñïðîèçâå- íàëèñòå”. Øèðîêîé ÷èòàþùåé äåíèÿ óêðàèíñêîãî îðèãèíàëà ïóáëèêå Ãðóøåâñêèé ìàëîäîñòó- “Èñòîðèè”, â ïîëüçó òðóäîåì- ïåí. Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî ðîññèé- êîãî àíãëèéñêîãî ïåðåâîäà. ñêèå èçäàòåëè â ïîñëåäíåå äåñÿòè- Áëàãîäàðÿ èõ óñèëèÿì òðóäó ëåòèå íå ïîáîÿëèñü âûïóñòèòü Ãðóøåâñêîãî âîçâðàùàåòñÿ íåñêîëüêî çàâåäîìî “íå÷èòà- èçíà÷àëüíî ïðèñóùàÿ åìó ðîëü áåëüíûõ” ìíîãîòîìíûõ èçäàíèé âóçîâñêîãî ó÷åáíèêà. Îò ñòóäåí- (íàïðèìåð, “Èñòîðèþ ýëëèíèçìà” òîâ êàíàäñêîãî, àìåðèêàíñêîãî È. Ã. Äðîéçåíà), òðóä Ãðóøåâñ- èëè àíãëèéñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà êîãî îñòàåòñÿ îáîéäåííûì âíè- òðóäíî òðåáîâàòü íà ïåðâîì èëè ìàíèåì. Äàæå ñðàâíèòåëüíàÿ âòîðîì “êóðñå” ÷òåíèÿ íàó÷íîé ëåãêîñòü ïåðåâîäà è âûñîêèå ëèòåðàòóðû íà ÿçûêå îðèãèíàëà. ëèòåðàòóðíûå äîñòîèíñòâà îðè- Ïîýòîìó òðóäû íûíåøíèõ èñòî- ãèíàëà, êàæåòñÿ, íå çàèíòåðåñî- 681 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews âàëè â ïîñëåäíèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ìåííèêè ðàññóæäàëè ïîä÷àñ íè îäíî ðîññèéñêîå èçäàòåëüñòâî. áåçàïåëëÿöèîííî) èñòîðèê ïðî-  ýòîì ñìûñëå, ðèñêíó ïðåäïî- ÿâëÿåò áîëüøóþ ñäåðæàííîñòü. ëîæèòü, ÷òî èìåííî àíãëèéñêèé Ãðóøåâñêèé îòìå÷àåò ïî ýòîìó ïåðåâîä ìîæåò, íàêîíåö, ñûãðàòü ïîâîäó, ÷òî “ñîâðåìåííûå åâðî- ðîëü ïîñðåäíèêà, è ÷òî òðóä ïåéñêèå íàðîäû” äåìîíñòðèðóþò Ãðóøåâñêîãî õîòÿ áû òàêèì, ìíîãîîáðàçèå àíòðîïîëîãè÷åñ- îêîëüíûì ïóòåì, îáðåòåò â Ðîññèè êèõ òèïîâ (Ò. I. P. 6). Êàæåòñÿ, ñâîþ ÷èòàòåëüñêóþ àóäèòîðèþ. îäèí ðàç îí îòõîäèò îò ýòîãî Ó÷èòûâàÿ ýòî, ÿ ïîïûòàþñü â âçãëÿäà, âìåøàâøèñü â äèñêóñ- íåñêîëüêèõ ñëîâàõ îõàðàêòåðè- ñèþ î òîì, áûëè ëè ïåðâîíà- çîâàòü àâòîðñêóþ êîíöåïöèþ ÷àëüíûå ñëàâÿíå áðàõèöåôàëàìè êàæäîãî òîìà, à çàòåì ïåðåéòè ê èëè äîëèõîöåôàëàìè, íî òóò æå õàðàêòåðèñòèêå ñàìîãî èçäàíèÿ. çàìå÷àåò, “÷òî îêîí÷àòåëüíî Ïåðâûé òîì ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ðåøèòü” ýòîò âîïðîñ “ïîêà íåâîç- êîíöåïöèþ èñòîðèè Êèåâñêîé ìîæíî” (Ò. I. P. 235). Ðóñè, øèðîêî èçâåñòíóþ áëàãîäà- Âçãëÿäû Ãðóøåâñêîãî ïðåä- ðÿ îäíîé èç ñòàòåé Ãðóøåâñêîãî.2 ñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé íåêóþ “çîëîòóþ Êîíå÷íî, èìåííî îíà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñåðåäèíó” â ñîïîñòàâëåíèè ñ äî- íàèáîëåå óñòàðåâøåé, ïîñêîëüêó ìèíèðîâàâøèìè ìíîãèå ãîäû â äîñòèæåíèÿ àðõåîëîãèè è ëèíã- ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè êîí- âèñòèêè ïîñëåäíèõ äåñÿòèëåòèé öåïöèé Í. ß. Ìàððà è Á. À. Ðû- ñåðüåçíî èçìåíèëè ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ áàêîâà. Îò èñòîðèêà, çàïîäîç- ïî÷òè îáî âñåõ åå ïîëîæåíèÿõ. ðåííîãî â ñîâåòñêîå âðåìÿ â Îäíàêî íà ôîíå èñòîðèîãðàôèè ïðîÿâëåíèè “íàöèîíàëèçìà”, êîíöà ÕIÕ – íà÷àëà ÕÕ ââ. ðàáîòà ìîæíî áûëî áû îæèäàòü çà÷èñ- Ãðóøåâñêîãî âûãëÿäèò “íà ëåíèÿ â ïðåäêè âîñòî÷íûõ ñëà- óðîâíå”. Ýòî, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ñâÿ- âÿí (èëè óêðàèíöåâ) âñåõ íàðî- çàíî ñ òåì, ÷òî â êëàññèôèêàöèè äîâ Ñåâåðíîãî Ïðè÷åðíîìîðüÿ, ýòíè÷åñêèõ ñîîáùíîñòåé ÿçû- óïîìÿíóòûõ àíòè÷íûìè, âèçàí- êîâàÿ òàêñîíîìèÿ îêàçûâàåòñÿ òèéñêèìè è àðàáñêèìè àâòîðàìè. ó íåãî íåèçìåííî íà ïåðâîì ìåñòå. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ãîâîðÿ, ê ïðèìåðó,  òî æå âðåìÿ â âîïðîñå î “ðàñî- î ïðîèñõîæäåíèè ãóííîâ, Ãðó- âûõ” ñòîðîíàõ ýòíè÷íîñòè (î êî- øåâñêèé ðåøèòåëüíî îòâåðãàåò òîðîì ìíîãèå èìåíèòûå ñîâðå- “ñëàâÿíñêóþ òåîðèþ” è çàíèìàåò

2 Ì. Ãðóøåâñüêèé. Çâè÷àéíà ñõåìà “ðóñüêî¿ èñòîði¿” è ñïðàâà ðàöiîíàëüíîãî óêëàäó iñòîði¿ ñõiäíüîãî ñëîâ’ÿíñòâà // Ñòàòüè ïî ñëàâÿíîâåäåíèþ. Ñàíêò- Ïåòåðáóðã, 1904. Ò. 1. C. 298-304. 682 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïîçèöèþ, óäèâèòåëüíî áëèçêóþ öèðóÿñü ïîä åãî âëèÿíèåì, ýòà ñîâðåìåííîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè, êîëîíèçàöèÿ ïîëíîñòüþ ñîõðà- óïîìèíàÿ î òîì, ÷òî ãóííû áûëè íèëà â íåì ýòîò ñëàâÿíñêèé ýò- “ïåðåäîâîé îðäîé òþðêî-(óãðî)- íè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð” (Ò. I. P. 140). ôèíñêîãî ïîõîäà” (Ò. I. P. 115).3 Íåòðóäíî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî çäåñü Äîñàäíûì èñêëþ÷åíèåì ÿâëÿ- âûâîäû Ãðóøåâñêîãî ïðîòèâî- åòñÿ çäåñü ñþæåò îá àíòàõ. Ïðî- ðå÷àò îòñòàèâàâøåìóñÿ â ñîâåò- òèâîðå÷à ñîáðàííûì èì ñàìèì ñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè âûâîäó î óêàçàíèÿì èñòî÷íèêîâ (â êîòî- ñêëàäûâàíèè â Êèåâñêèé ïåðèîä ðûõ ïîñëåäíåå óïîìèíàíèå îá íà îñíîâå îòäåëüíûõ âîñòî÷íîñ- àíòàõ äàòèðîâàëîñü 602 ã.), èñòî- ëàâÿíñêèõ ïëåìåí åäèíîé “äðåâ- ðèê ñòðåìèòñÿ âèäåòü â àíòàõ íåðóññêîé íàðîäíîñòè”. Çàêî- “ïðåäêîâ óêðàèíñêèõ ïëåìåí” íîìåðíûì ïðîäîëæåíèåì ýòîãî (Ò. I. P. 134). Íà ñîâðåìåííîå âçãëÿäà ÿâëÿåòñÿ “óìåðåííûé ñîñòîÿíèå èçó÷åíèÿ âîïðîñà óêà- àíòèíîðìàíèçì” Ãðóøåâñêîãî çûâàåò â ñâîåì ïîñëåñëîâèè ê (åñëè èñïîëüçîâàòü âûðàæåíèå ïåðâîìó òîìó À. Ïîïïý: “Àíòû À. Ïîïïý). Õîòÿ ñàì èñòîðèê è íå áûëè ýòíîíèìîì, íî îáîçíà- ïðèçíàåò, ÷òî àíòèíîðìàíèçì ÷àëè òåððèòîðèàëüíóþ è ïîëè- ñ÷èòàåòñÿ “âåðíûì ñèìïòîìîì òè÷åñêóþ ñâÿçü ñî ñëàâÿíñêîé íåíàó÷íîãî ìûøëåíèÿ”, îí âñå ïðàâÿùåé ñòðàòîé, èçâåñòíîé ðàâíî ñêëîíåí ïðèóìåíüøàòü ïîä ýòèì èìåíåì” (Ò. I. P. 420, ðîëü íîðìàííîâ â ôîðìèðîâà- êîììåíòàðèé). Çäåñü ãèïîòåçû íèè Êèåâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Ãðóøåâñêîãî ïðÿìî ïðåäøåñò- Åñëè ïåðâûé òîì Ãðóøåâñêî- âóþò “àíòñêèì” ïîñòðîåíèÿì ãî ïðåäñòàâëÿåò åãî êîíöåïöèþ Á. À. Ðûáàêîâà,4 îòâåðãíóòûì “êíÿæåñêîãî” ïåðèîäà èñòîðèè ñîâðåìåííîé íàóêîé. Óêðàèíû, çà êîòîðûì ñëåäóåò Ãðóøåâñêèé óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî “ëèòîâñêèé”, òî ñåäüìîé è ðóññêèé íàðîä ñîçäàëñÿ “íà ôèíñ- âîñüìîé äàþò áîëåå èëè ìåíåå êîé ïî÷âå” â õîäå “íîâãîðîäñêî- ïîëíîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î òðåòüåì êðèâè÷ñêîé è êðèâè÷ñêî-âÿòè÷- ïåðèîäå, “êàçàöêîì âðåìåíè”. ñêîé êîëîíèçàöèè”. “Àññèìèëè- Ïðîèñõîæäåíèå êàçà÷åñòâà ðóÿ ôèíñêîå íàñåëåíèå, ìîäèôè- Ãðóøåâñêèé ñâÿçûâàåò êàê ñ

3 Ñð.: Â. ß. Ïåòðóxèí, Ä. Ñ. Ðàåâñêèé. Î÷åðêè èñòîðèè íàðîäîâ Ðîññèè â äðåâíîñòè è ðàííåì ñðåäíåâåêîâüå. Ìîñêâà, 1998. 4 Á. À. Ðûáàêîâ. Äðåâíèå ðóñû. (Ê âîïðîñó îá îáðàçîâàíèè ÿäðà äðåâíåðóññêîé íàðîäíîñòè â ñâåòå òðóäîâ È. Â. Ñòàëèíà) // Ñîâåòñêàÿ àðõåîëîãèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 1953. Ò. ÕVII. Ñ. 23-104. Ñð.: “Ðóñû – ÷àñòü àíòî┠(Òàì æå. Ñ. 42). 683 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews òàòàðñêîé êîëîíèçàöèåé, òàê è ùàíñêèå è ñåëÿíñêèå ýëåìåíòû” ñ ïðîäîëæåíèåì äðåâíåðóññêèõ (Ò. VII. P. 102). òðàäèöèé (îá ýòîì, â ÷àñòíîñòè, Äëÿ èñòîðèêà Ðîññèè ðàííåãî ïèñàëè óêðàèíñêèå èñòîðèêè- íîâîãî âðåìåíè åñòü âñå îñíîâà- ïðåäøåñòâåííèêè Ãðóøåâñêîãî). íèÿ ïðîðàáîòàòü ýòîò òîì “Èñòî- Îäíè ðàññìàòðèâàëè ãåíåçèñ ðèè Óêðàèíû-Ðóñè” ñ êàðàíäà- êàçà÷åñòâà â XV – XVI ââ. â ðàì- øîì â ðóêàõ. Âî-ïåðâûõ, äîñòîé- êàõ êàçàöêî-êíÿæåñêîé òåîðèè íî âíèìàíèÿ óïîìèíàíèå î âìå- (Â. Àíòîíîâè÷, Ì. Êîÿëîâè÷), øàòåëüñòâå óêðàèíñêîãî êàçà÷å- âèäÿ â êàçàêàõ “âîîðóæåííûå ñòâà â ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ æèçíü íàðîäíûå îáùèíû ïîä ðóêîâîä- Ìîëäàâèè, ãäå îíî ïîïåðåìåííî ñòâîì ìåñòíûõ êíÿçåé-ãåòìàíîâ”. ïîääåðæèâàëî òîãî èëè èíîãî Äðóãèå – ñêëîíÿëèñü ê ïðèíÿòèþ ïðåòåíäåíòà íà ãîñïîäàðñêèé “ïðîòèâîêíÿæåñêîé” òåîðèè ïðåñòîë. Ýòî ëåãêî îáúÿñíÿåò è (Í. Äàøêåâè÷), ñâÿçûâàþùåé îáðàùåíèå Ëæåäìèòðèÿ I ê çàïî- âîçíèêíîâåíèå êàçàöêèõ ñîîá- ðîæñêîìó êàçà÷åñòâó, è ïîñëåäó- ùåñòâ ñ “àíòèêíÿæåñêèì äâèæå- þùóþ ðîëü óêðàèíñêèõ êàçàêîâ íèåì XIII â. è îáùèíàìè, êîòîðûå â ïîääåðæêå ðîññèéñêèõ ïðåòåí- ïîðâàëè ñ êíÿæåñêî-äðóæèííûì äåíòîâ íà ïðåñòîë. Âî-âòîðûõ, ñòðîåì è ïîä÷èíèëèñü ïîä íå- Ãðóøåâñêèé óïîìèíàåò èíñòèòóò ïîñðåäñòâåííóþ âëàñòü òàòàð...” ïðèñòàâñòâà, ñóùåñòâóþùèé ó (Ò. VII. P. 57). Ãðóøåâñêèé çàíè- óêðàèíñêèõ êàçàêîâ (ïåðåâîä÷è- ìàåò çäåñü êîìïðîìèññíóþ ïîçè- êè íàçûâàþò åãî: “temporary öèþ, ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿÿ êàçà÷å- billets” (Ò. VII. P. 138)) – “ïðàâî ñòâî êàê “îáðàç æèçíè” êàçà÷å- êàçàöêèõ âîåííûõ êîíòèíãåíòîâ ñòâó êàê “îðãàíèçîâàííîé ñîöè- íà êâàðòèðû è ïðîæèâàíèå â êî- àëüíîé ãðóïïå” (‘stratum’ â àíã- ðîííûõ âëàäåíèÿõ çà èõ ñëóæáó ëèéñêîì ïåðåâîäå) (Ò. VII. P. 58). ãîñóäàðñòâó è îõðàíó þæíûõ Êàê “îáðàç æèçíè” êàçà÷åñòâî ãðàíèö” (Ò. VII. P. 198).  Ñìóò- ñóùåñòâîâàëî íà ñòåïíîé ãðàíè- íîå âðåìÿ êàçàêè ïîïûòàëèñü öå âñåãäà. “Êðèñòàëëèçàöèÿ” æå ïåðåíåñòè ýòîò èíñòèòóò íà åãî êàê ñîöèàëüíîé ãðóïïû ìîñêîâñêóþ ïî÷âó. Ðîññèéñêèå ïðîèñõîäèò òîëüêî â 1560-õ ãã., èñòîðèêè ñëèøêîì ÷àñòî ãîâî- êîãäà äâîðÿíå è ìåùàíå íà÷è- ðÿò î êàçàêàõ âîîáùå, çàáûâ íàþò àêòèâíî ïðîòèâîäåéñòâî- óïîìÿíóòü, èäåò ëè ðå÷ü î äîíöàõ âàòü ôèñêàëüíûì ïîáîðàì è èëè î çàïîðîæöàõ. Êðîìå òîãî, ïðîèçâîëó ìåñòíîé àäìèíèñò- ñàìî ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëåíèå ðàöèè. Íà èñòîðè÷åñêîé ñöåíå ïîëüñêèõ “íàåìíèêî┠è óêðà- ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ “ïîêàçà÷åííûå ìå- èíñêèõ êàçàêîâ êàê äâóõ ðàçëè÷- 684 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íûõ ÷àñòåé âîéñêà Ëæåäìèòðèÿ I, ÷òîáû ñêëîíèòü êàçàêîâ ê ó÷àñ- õàðàêòåðíîå äëÿ ðîññèéñêîé èñ- òèþ â åùå îäíîé âîéíå ïðîòèâ òîðèîãðàôèè, íå ó÷èòûâàåò òîãî, Ìîñêîâñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà, íåîá- ÷òî ãðàíü ìåæó òåìè è äðóãèìè õîäèìî áûëî ñäåëàòü ñóùåñòâåí- îñòàâàëàñü çûáêîé, ÷òî äîâîëüíî íûå óñòóïêè â êîíôåññèîíàëüíîì ÷åòêî ÿâñòâóåò èç èçëîæåíèÿ Ãðó- âîïðîñå. Ãðóøåâñêèé àðãóìåí- øåâñêîãî (Ò. VII. P. 252). òèðîâàííî ïîä÷åðêèâàåò õðóï- Óñëóãè, îêàçàííûå óêðàèíñ- êîñòü “ðåëèãèîçíîãî êîìïðî- êèì êàçà÷åñòâîì Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëè- ìèññà” 1632 ã.: åñëè ïðàâîñëàâíûå òîé âî âðåìÿ Ñìóòû è, îñîáåííî, ðàññìàòðèâàëè åãî êàê áåçóñëîâ- âî âðåìÿ ïîõîäà Ñàãàéäà÷íîãî íóþ îñíîâó äëÿ äàëüíåéøåãî íà Ìîñêâó, ïîâûñèëè ðîëü êàçà- ñîñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ, òî óíèàòû è ÷åñòâà.  ðåçóëüòàòå îíî, ñîãëàñ- êàòîëèêè íå çàáûâàëè î òîì, ÷òî íî Ãðóøåâñêîìó, ñìîãëî “ïîñòà- ýòî âûíóæäåííàÿ óñòóïêà, îáóñ- âèòü ïåðåä ñîáîé òó çàäà÷ó, êîòî- ëîâëåííàÿ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíûìè ðóþ íà ïðîòÿæåíèè ÷åòâåðòè ñòî- îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàìè (Ò. VIII. P. 147). ëåòèÿ áûëà ïðåäìåòîì íåóñòàí- Ãðóøåâñêèé ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî “ðåëè- íîé, óïîðíîé, íî áåçóñïåøíîé ãèîçíûé êîìïðîìèññ” “ïðèíöè- áîðüáû óêðàèíñêîé èíòåëëèãåí- ïèàëüíî ïîøàòíóë ïîëîæåíèå öèè” – âîññòàíîâëåíèå ïðàâî- óíèàòñêîé öåðêâè, óíè÷òîæèâ ñëàâíîé èåðàðõèè (Ò. VII. P. 303). ñàì ñìûñë (â àíãëèéñêîì ïåðå- Ïîâåñòâîâàíèå ñëåäóþùåãî, âîäå ‘basis’) åå ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ” âîñüìîãî òîìà “Èñòîðèè Óêðàè- (Ò. VIII. P. 333). íû-Ðóñè” íà÷èíàåòñÿ ñ ðàññêàçà Ê ëó÷øèì ñòðàíèöàì âîñü- î “ðåëèãèîçíîì êîìïðîìèññå” ìîãî òîìà îòíîñèòñÿ õàðàêòåðè- 1632 ã. (ïðèçíàíèè Ðå÷üþ Ïîñïî- ñòèêà óêðàèíñêîé êîëîíèçàöèè. ëèòîé ïðàâîñëàâíîé èåðàðõèè). Ãðóøåâñêèé ñîçäàåò âïå÷àòëÿþ- Çäåñü æå Ãðóøåâñêèé óêàçûâàåò ùóþ êàðòèíó ïîëîæåíèÿ íà íà ïðè÷èíû âîññòàíèÿ Õìåëü- ñòåïíîé ãðàíèöå ïîñëå ðàçãðîìà íèöêîãî è ðàññìàòðèâàåò åãî 1637-1638 ãã. è â ïåðèîä “çîëîòîãî ðàçâèòèå äî çàêëþ÷åíèÿ Çáîðîâ- äåñÿòèëåòèÿ” (1638-1648 ãã.). Îí ñêîãî ìèðà â 1649 ã. Ó÷åíîìó óäà- ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ñàìà èäåÿ ñîâìå- ëîñü òî÷íî óëîâèòü âçàèìîñâÿçü ñòíîé îáîðîíû þæíîé ãðàíèöû – âíåøíå- è âíóòðèïîëèòè÷åñêèõ “îáîðîíû îáîèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ è ôàêòîðîâ è ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî êàòà- îáîèõ óêðàèí îò îáùåãî âðàãà” ëèçàòîðîì ðåëèãèîçíîãî êîìï- (Ò. VIII. P. 293) – íå áûëà èçîá- ðîìèññà ñòàëî íå òîëüêî áåñêî- ðåòåíèåì îòäåëüíûõ ïîëèòè- ðîëåâüå, íî è íà÷àëî Ñìîëåíñêîé ÷åñêèõ äåÿòåëåé. Ýòà òî÷êà çðå- âîéíû (Ò. VIII. P. 125). Äëÿ òîãî, íèÿ ïðèñóòñòâîâàëà â ðàáîòàõ 685 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews ñîâåòñêèõ èñòîðèêîâ, ïîä÷åðêè- íàïîëíåííîé “óêðàèíñêèì ñî- âàâøèõ â ýòîì ñëó÷àå ðîëü äåðæàíèåì è íàðîäíîé óêðàèí- Þðèÿ Êðèæàíè÷à èëè À. Ë. Îð- ñêîé ñòèõèåé” (Ò. VIII. P. 285). äèíà-Íàùîêèíà. Ñàìî ïî ñåáå Ñðåäè íåïîñðåäñòâåííûõ ïîäîáíîå ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâî áûëî ïðè÷èí Õìåëüíèò÷èíû Ãðóøåâ- íåáåçîïàñíî êàê äëÿ Ìîñêîâñêîãî ñêèé âûäâèãàë íà ïåðâûé ïëàí ãîñóäàðñòâà, òàê è äëÿ Ðå÷è ðåëèãèîçíûå è ñîöèàëüíûå: Ïîñïîëèòîé, ïîñêîëüêó çàïî- ïðåæäå âñåãî, óïðî÷åíèå è òåð- ðîæöû ìîãëè ïîìîãàòü äîíöàì ðèòîðèàëüíóþ ýêñïàíñèþ ãîñ- âî âðåìÿ êîíôëèêòîâ ñ Ìîñêâîé ïîäñêîãî ðåæèìà â ïåðèîä “çîëî- (Ò. VIII. P. 275). òîãî äåñÿòèëåòèÿ”. Ãðóøåâñêèé ñðàâíèâàåò îñâî- Êàæäîìó òîìó ïðåäïîñëàíî åíèå ñòåïíîé îêðàèíû â Ìîñ- îäíî èëè íåñêîëüêî ïðåäèñëîâèé. êîâñêîì ãîñóäàðñòâå è â Ðå÷è  ïðåäèñëîâèè ê ïåðâîìó òîìó Ïîñïîëèòîé. Îòìå÷àÿ ñõîäñòâî (“Ââåäåíèå ê “Èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû- îáåèõ êîëîíèçàöèé, îí íå çàáû- Ðóñè”. Ò. 1. Pp. XXII- XLII). âàåò äàòü áîëåå âûñîêóþ îöåíêó Ô. Ñûñèí ñîïîñòàâëÿåò ðîëü öåíòðàëèçîâàííîñòè è ñïëî÷åí- “Èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû-Ðóñè” ñî íîñòè Ìîñêîâñêîé êîëîíèçàöèè. çíà÷åíèåì, êîòîðîå èìåëà “Èñòî- Åñëè â Ðå÷è Ïîñïîëèòîé áåññèëèå ðèÿ” Ôðàíòèøêà Ïàëàöêîãî äëÿ èñïîëíèòåëüíîé âëàñòè âîñïîë- ÷åøñêîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî äâè- íÿëîñü àêòèâíîñòüþ íàðîäíûõ æåíèÿ. Îí îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî èñòîðè- ìàññ, êîòîðûå è “îáîðîíó íàëà- îãðàôè÷åñêè ðàáîòà Ãðóøåâñêî- äèëè, è êîëîíèçàöèþ îñóùå- ãî “áûëà óêîðåíåíà â íàðîäíè- ñòâèëè”, òî â Ìîñêîâñêîì ãîñó- ÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè XIX â., êîòî- äàðñòâå íàðîäíîé ñàìîäåÿòåëü- ðàÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî, ðàññìàòðèâà- íîñòè áûëî ìåíüøå.  ðåçóëüòàòå ëà óêðàèíñêóþ èñòîðèþ êàê èñ- “óêðàèíñêèé äåìîñ” îïåðåäèë òîðèþ îáäåëåííûõ... Ýòîò “âåëèêîðóññêóþ íàðîäíîñòü”. Îí âçãëÿä ïîâëèÿë íà èññëåäîâàíèå îñâîèë ïðîñòîðû Ìîñêîâñêîé ïåðèîäîâ, â òå÷åíèå êîòîðûõ óê- Óêðàèíû, “ïåðåõâàòèâ ó âåëèêî- ðàèíöû îáëàäàëè ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè ðóññêîé íàðîäíîñòè ýòè òåððè- ñòðóêòóðàìè è ýëèòàìè, ïðåäñòàâ- òîðèè, êîòîðûå ãåîãðàôè÷åñêèìè ëÿâøèìèñÿ â íåãàòèâíîì ñâåòå” è ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè îáñòîÿòåëüñò- (Ò. 1. P. ÕÕÕIII). Ô. Ñûñèíó âàìè áûëè ïðåäíàçíà÷åíû åé äëÿ âòîðèò Ñ. Ïëîxèé, âûäåëÿþùèé êîëîíèçàöèè” (Ò. VIII. P. 299). â êà÷åñòâå äâóõ âàæíåéøèõ àñïåê-  ðåçóëüòàòå ìîñêîâñêàÿ ñõåìà òîâ òðóäà Ãðóøåâñêîãî “ôèëî- îáîðîíû þæíûõ ãðàíèö îêàçà- ñîôñêèé ïîçèòèâèçì” è “populism” ëàñü, ñîãëàñíî Ãðóøåâñêîìó, (êîòîðûé ÿ â äàííîì ñëó÷àå 686 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïåðåâåë áû êàê “íàðîäíè÷å- Ãðóøåâñêîãî êàê èñòîðèêà Êèåâ- ñòâî”). Ñ. Ïëîõèé ïèøåò, ÷òî ñêîé Ðóñè (Ò. I. P. XLII-LIV). Ãðóøåâñêèé “ðàññìàòðèâàë ýêî- Ñðàâíèâàÿ ïåðâûé òîì Ãðóøåâ- íîìè÷åñêóþ, êóëüòóðíóþ è äóõîâ- ñêîãî ñ “Ãåðîäîòîâîé Ñêèôèåé” íóþ æèçíü íàðîäà êàê îñíîâíóþ Á. À. Ðûáàêîâà, À. Ïîïïý íå ìî- òåìó èñòîðè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé, æåò óäåðæàòüñÿ îò âîñêëèöàíèÿ: è îòîäâèãàë èñòîðèþ ãîñóäàðñòâà “Íàñêîëüêî ïðåâîñõîäÿùèìè è ýëèò íà ïåðèôåðèþ âíèìàíèÿ ïî êà÷åñòâó îêàçûâàþòñÿ ñîáñò- èñòîðèêà” (Ò.VII. P.ÕÕIÕ). âåííûå íàáëþäåíèÿ Ãðóøåâñ- Èìåííî ýòèì îáóñëàâëèâàëàñü è êîãî î ñêèôñêîì ðàññêàçå Ãåðî- ïîëåìèêà Ãðóøåâñêîãî ñ “ãîñó- äîòà!” (Ò. I. P. LIII). Èíòåðåñíî, äàðñòâåííîé” øêîëîé óêðàèíñ- íàñêîëüêî àóòåíòè÷íà ëåíèíñ- êèõ èñòîðèêîâ è, ïðåæäå âñåãî, êàÿ öèòàòà, õàðàêòåðèçóþùàÿ ñ Âÿ÷åñëàâîì Ëèïèíñêèì. Ô. Ñû- Ãðóøåâñêîãî êàê “íîñèòåëÿ àíòè- ñèí ïðîñëåæèâàåò ðåöåïöèþ “Èñ- íàó÷íûõ áóðæóàçíî-íàöèî-íàëè- òîðèè Óêðàèíû-Ðóñè” – îò ïåð- ñòè÷åñêèõ òåîðèé” (Ò. I. P. LIV)?5 âûõ ðåöåíçèé è ïîëåìè÷åñêèõ Åñëè îíà íàñòîÿùàÿ, òî ïî÷åìó îòêëèêîâ, äî áîëåå ÷åì ïîëóâåêî- åé íå ïîëüçîâàëèñü ñîâåòñêèå âîãî ñîâåòñêîãî çàïðåòà, âêëþ÷àÿ “çàïðåòèòåëè” Ãðóøåâñêîãî? áåçóñïåøíûå ïîïûòêè “ðåàáèëè- Åñëè ýòî àïîêðèô, òî èíòåðåñíî òàöèè” íàñëåäèÿ Ãðóøåâñêîãî â áûëî áû óñòàíîâèòü, êîãäà è ñ 1960-x ãã. è òàèíñòâåííîå èñ÷åç- êàêîé öåëüþ îí áûë ñôàáðèêîâàí. íîâåíèå íåîïóáëèêîâàííîé ðóêî- Îïðåäåëåííàÿ êîìïîçèöèîí- ïèñè âòîðîé ÷àñòè äåñÿòîãî òîìà, íàÿ òðóäíîñòü ïðåäèñëîâèé òàê íàçûâàåìîãî “îäèííàäöàòîãî ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî àâòîðàì ïðè- òîìà”, â 1970-õ ãã., è òðèóìôàëü- õîäèòñÿ äàâàòü õàðàêòåðèñòèêó íîå ïóáëè÷íîå âîçâðàùåíèå ðà- è ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåãî òîìà Ãðó- áîòû â 1989 ã., êîãäà áûëî ïðè- øåâñêîãî, è òîãî ïåðèîäà â äåÿ- íÿòî ðåøåíèå î ðåïðèíòíîì ïå- òåëüíîñòè èñòîðèêà, â òå÷åíèå ðåèçäàíèè “Èñòîðèè”. êîòîðîãî îí áûë íàïèñàí.  ïðåäèñëîâèè ê ïåðâîìó Õìåëüíèò÷èíà, îäíà èç ñêâîçíûõ òîìó À. Ïîïïý ïðåäñòàâëÿåò òåì Ãðóøåâñêîãî íà ïðîòÿæåíèè

5  ïîñëåäíåì ñîâåòñêîì ñîáðàíèè ñî÷èíåíèé Ëåíèíà òàêàÿ öèòàòà îòñóò- ñòâóåò. Îäíàêî íà ýòîì îñíîâàíèè ñëîæíî äåëàòü âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî îí íè÷åãî ïîäîáíîãî íå óòâåðæäàë. Ìíå óäàëîñü íàéòè òîëüêî îäíî (âïîëíå íåéò- ðàëüíîå) óïîìèíàíèå î Ãðóøåâñêîì, ïðè÷åì íå êàê îá èñòîðèêå, à êàê î ïîëè- òè÷åñêîì äåÿòåëå. Ñì.: Â. È. Ëåíèí. Ðåçîëþöèÿ Ñîâåòà íàðîäíûõ êîìèññàðîâ î ïåðåãîâîðàõ ñ Ðàäîé (12 äåêàáðÿ 1917 ã.) // Â. È. Ëåíèí. Ïîëíîå ñîáðàíèå ñî÷èíåíèé. 5-å èçä. Ìîñêâà, 1962. Ò. 35. Ñ. 182. 687 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews âñåé åãî æèçíè, êàê ðàç ïëîõî êîâ Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, ïèøó- âïèñûâàåòñÿ â ïîäîáíûé ïîäõîä. ùèõ íà àíãëèéñêîì ÿçûêå. Ê îò- Âïðî÷åì, èìåííî â äàííîì ñëó- äåëüíûì íåòî÷íîñòÿì ïåðåâîäà ÷àå ñîïîñòàâëåíèå ïðåäèñëîâèÿ, ñëåäóåò îòíåñòè ãîñïîäñòâî â ñæàòîì âèäå ïðåäñòàâëÿþùåãî nation/national, ïðè÷åì ïîñëå- âûñêàçûâàíèÿ Ãðóøåâñêîãî- äíèìè ïåðåâîäÿòñÿ è íàðîä/íà- ïóáëèöèñòà î Õìåëüíèöêîì, ñ ðîäíèé è íàöiÿ/íàöiîíàëüíèé óê- òåêñòîì ñàìîãî âîñüìîãî òîìà ðàèíñêîãî îðèãèíàëà. Íàïðè- îêàçûâàåòñÿ âåñüìà ïëîäîòâîð- ìåð, óêðà¿íñüêèé íàðîä ïåðåâî- íûì. Îñîáî ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü äèòñÿ êàê Ukrainian nation, ÷òî òàêæå ïîìåùåííûé èçäàòåëÿìè íåñêîëüêî ìîäåðíèçèðóåò òåêñò. î÷åðê ðîññèéñêîé, ïîëüñêîé è  íåêîòîðûõ ñëó÷àÿõ ñòîèëî áû, óêðàèíñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè î÷åâèäíî, ñîõðàíèòü popular. âîññòàíèÿ Õìåëüíèöêîãî è îá- Ýòî æå îòíîñèòñÿ è ê óêðàèíñ- øèðíóþ áèáëèîãðàôèþ íà çàïàä- êîìó ñëîâó âåðñòâà (ãðóïïà), íîåâðîïåéñêèõ ÿçûêàõ. êîòîðîå ïåðåâîäèòñÿ àíãëèéñ- Ïðàêòè÷åñêè áåçóêîðèçíåí- êèì stratum, â ðåçóëüòàòå ÷åãî â íûì ìîæíî áûëî áû íàçâàòü òåêñò Ãðóøåâñêîãî çàêðàäûâà- àíãëèéñêèé ïåðåâîä. Çàëîãîì åòñÿ íåñâîéñòâåííàÿ åìó ñîöèî- óñïåõà â ðàáîòå ïåðåâîä÷èêîâ ëîãè÷åñêàÿ òåðìèíîëîãèÿ à la ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñîñòàâëåííûé èçäàòå- Ïèòèðèì Ñîðîêèí. Ê íåñêîëüêî ëÿìè öåëûé ñëîâàðèê ñîöèàëü- çàáàâíûì íåòî÷íîñòÿì ñëåäóåò íî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîé è âîåííîé ëåê- îòíåñòè ïåðåâîä çíàìåíèòîãî ñèêè (óêðàèíñêîé, ïîëüñêîé è áåëãîðîäñêîãî êèñåëÿ êàê fermented ðóññêîé) ñ ïðèâåäåíèåì àíãëèé- pudding (Ò. I. Pp. 183, 205). Íàïîì- ñêèõ àíàëîãîâ. Êàæäûé òåðìèí íþ, ÷òî â òåêñòå “Ïîâåñòè âðå- ïåðåâîäèòñÿ íå îäíèì èëè äâóìÿ ìåííûõ ëåò” ðå÷ü èäåò î öåæå è àíãëèéñêèìè ñëîâàìè, à âñåãäà ñûòå. Åñëè ñ ñûòîé ïî÷òè âñå îäíèì è òåì æå (Ò. I. P. [LV]; ÿñíî, òî öåæü Ä. Ñ. Ëèõà÷åâ è Ò. VII. P. LIII-LVI; Ò. VIII. Á. À. Ðîìàíîâ ïåðåâîäÿò êàê áîë- Pp. LÕÕ-LÕÕV). Ìîæíî ïðåä- òóøêà èëè êèñåëüíûé ðàñòâîð. ïîëàãàòü, ÷òî ýòîò ñëîâàðèê Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, ÿñíî, ÷òî è òî, áóäåò èìåòü çíà÷åíèå íå òîëüêî è äðóãîå ïî÷åðïîøà, ëüÿøà è äàæå äëÿ èçäàíèÿ “Èñòîðèè Óêðàèíû- íàëüÿøà â êîð÷àãó,6 òî åñòü è òî Ðóñè”, íî ïîñëóæèò ñïðàâî÷íûì è äðóãîå – æèäêîñòè. Èíîãäà ìàòåðèàëîì äëÿ ìíîãèõ èñòîðè- àâòîðû ñëèøêîì áóêâàëüíî

6 Ïîâåñòü âðåìåííûõ ëåò. Òåêñò è ïåðåâîä / Ïåðåâîä Ä. Ñ. Ëèõà÷åâà è Á. À. Ðîìàíîâà. Ìîñêâà; Ëåíèíãðàä. 1950. ×.1. Ñ. 87-88 (òåêñò); Ñ.287-288 (êîììåíòàðèé). 688 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ñëåäóþò ïåðåâîäàì èíîÿçû÷íûõ Anna BRZOZOWSKA òåêñòîâ, êîòîðûå ïðåäëàãàåò Ãðóøåâñêèé. Òàê, Ãðóøåâñêèé Margarita M. Balmaceda, James I. ïåðåâîäèò chudy pachî³åê êàê áåä- Clem, and Lisbeth L. Tarlow (Eds.), íûé ÷åëîâåê, ïåðåâîä÷èêè âñëåä Independent Belarus: Domestic çà íèì – êàê poor man (Ò. VII. Determinants, Regional Dynamics, P. 161), à ìîæíî áûëî áû áåäíûé and Implications for the West. ñëóãà (â äðóãîì ìåñòå óêðàèíñêîå (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard ñëîâî ïàõîëîê áûëî áîëåå ïðà- University Press, 2002). 483 pp. Ap- âèëüíî ïåðåâåäåíî êàê footman, pendix. Index. ISBN: 0-91645894-6. ëàêåé (Ò. VIII. P. 119)). Îäíàêî âñÿêèé ïåðôåêöèîíèçì äîëæåí The volume offers an in-depth çíàòü ìåðó, è íåëüçÿ òðåáîâàòü îò analysis of contemporary Belarus, ïåðåâîä÷èêîâ òîãî, ÷òîáû îíè focusing on four basic aspects: domes- åùå è “èñïðàâëÿëè” Ãðóøåâñêîãî. tic politics, economy, security, and Òðóä èçäàòåëåé, ïåðåâîä÷è- possible challenges for the West. êîâ è êîììåíòàòîðîâ çàñëóæè- It contributes in a significant sense âàåò âûñîêîé ïîõâàëû. Ìîæíî to an understanding of the Belaru- ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ìåæäó “Èñòîðèåé sian puzzle, which has been dis- Óêðàèíû-Ðóñè” è ñîâðåìåííûì cussed in the historiography since ÷èòàòåëåì îñòàëñÿ åäèíñòâåííûé the early 1990s.1 áàðüåð – îáúåì òåêñòà. Ðåöåíçè- What is of great importance and ðóåìûå òðè òîìà óæå âêëþ÷àþò value, the analysis is based on com- áîëåå äâóõ òûñÿ÷ ñòðàíèö. È åñëè parisons between Belarus and other ðàçäåëû, ïîñâÿùåííûå ñîöèàëü- central and east European countries. íîé èñòîðèè, ÷èòàþòñÿ òàê, êàê Thanks to this approach, it is possible áóäòî áû îíè áûëè íàïèñàíû to notice Belarusian exceptionalism, íàøèì ñîâðåìåííèêîì, òî èçî- which consists, as the authors claim, áèëóþùèå ïîäðîáíîñòÿìè îïè- of the weakness of Belarusian ñàíèÿ âîåííûõ äåéñòâèé äîñòà- national identity and the dominant òî÷íî óñòàðåëè. role of the president, Aleksandr

1 See f.i.:. Kathleen Mihalisko. The Outlook for Independent Belarus // RFE/RL Research Report. 12 June 1992. Vol. 1. No. 24. Pp. 7-13; Jan Zaprudnik. Belarus. At the Crossroads in History. Boulder, 1993. Recent publications on the topic include the edited volume dealing with security problems and two collections of articles on politics, economy and international relations. See: Sherman W. Garnett, and Robert Legvold (Eds.). Belarus at the Crossroads, Washington, 1999; Elena A. Korostoleva, Colin W. Lawson, and Rosalind J. March (Eds.). Contemporary Belarus. Between Democracy and Dictatorship. London, 2003; Ann Lewis (Ed.). The EU and Belarus. Between Moscow and Brussels. London, 2002; David R. Marples. Belarus. A Denationalized Nation. London, 1999. 689 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews

Lukashenka. Another significant issue tative analyses to those employing dealt with in the volume is the “export- qualitative and deconstructive metho- ability” of Belarusian experience. dologies. At the same time, it should It has been neglected, the book argues, be noticed that the texts are of unequal that the country, ignored frequently academic standard. in the international sphere, can become Within the domestic politics sec- a role model for other economically tion (part one of the volume), public troubled former Soviet republics. opinion analysis conducted by Col- The articles selected by Balma- ton brings some interesting conclu- ceda try to address the complexity of sions. Educated and better-off classes the Belarusian situation. Importantly, are not, aïs one might expect, prone the book argues that it is short-sighted to welcome the national ideology. to perceive the rule of Lukashenka Surprisingly, the Belarusian language as the effect of the application of force does not provide the basis for national and violence. Rather, Lukashenka self-assertion either. Colton claims, gained his position and power at least furthermore, that the West functions to some extent due to real popular in Belarus as a menace, rather than support. Thus, the contributors of the the model to be emulated. He sees volume dispute what the editors call “friendlier” and more linguistically “a comforting picture of a long-suf- accessible Western broadcasts to Be- fering Belarusian society oppressed larus as a potential step that might by an authoritarian despot lacking ameliorate the situation. popular support – and of a popular Linder addresses the “Lukashenka and united opposition” (P. 9). This phenomenon”, and attributes the attempt to challenge the stereotypical coming to power of this “post-Soviet perception of Belarus is one of the most non-politician” (P. 79) to the failed important contributions of the volume. process of elite formation in Belarus. Moreover, there is a practical aim that The contemporary Belarusian leader- the authors seem to aspire to: they try ship recalls the nomenklatura of to present those elements of Belarusian the past era, lacking the intellectual reality that can provide the basis for and reflective capabilities that would democratic changes and propose con- attract the population. This absence crete actions. The nuanced view of of a modern functional elite helps Belarusian domestic and international Lukashenka win. Because the isolation politics allows for discovering the of Belarus by the West may result “cracks in the monolith” that can be cre- in dangerous “exportability” of her atively exploited by Western policies. experience to near neighbours, Linder Inevitably, the volume contains proposes it is necessary to reinstitu- numerous academic approaches, tionalize dialogue with the Belarusian ranging from traditional and quanti- administration. He believes that the 690 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 internal contradictions visible in Be- The current economic situation is larusian political declarations pro- seen to be the effect of the “conser- duce opportunities for influencing the vative revolution” of 1994 when situation in the country in a peaceful Lukashenka came to power. Zlotni- way. Participating in international kov compares his election to the events conferences, fairs, and meetings that took place in 1917 in Russia and could broaden Lukashenka’s hori- in 1933 in Germany. He maps the par- zons and “integrate” him into the con- ticular mindset of the Belarusian voter temporary democratic scene. This who, while not necessarily against approach seems justifiable to Linder the market economy is hostile to as he recognizes the significance of capitalism and businessmen (P. 129), the support that Lukashenka still votes for Lukashenka, displaying manages to garner among his people. paradoxically at the same time a Although it is necessary to demand tolerant and democratic mentality. the preservation of human rights in Thus a significant trait of the popu- Belarus, it is as well justifiable to treat lation is its appreciation of egali- the country in the same way as China, tarian values and equality, even if Cuba, and North Korea, he concludes, this means “equality in poverty”. that is, to allow for some economic Zlotnikov sees the possibilities of in- and political engagement. creasing the “democratic” electorate The second part, devoted to eco- by capturing hesitant voters. It is still nomic matters, illustrates the country’s possible as the great part of the popu- dependence on Russia and her sub- lation is torn by contradictory expec- sidies and oil. The location of Be- tations. larus may be seen as its great asset, One of the articles in this section, but is not taken advantage of as authored by Drakokhrust and Furman, the country decided to limit itself to deserves attention due to analysis transit links involving solely Russia. of the “virtual” integration process The construction of the Yamal pipe- between Belarus and Russia. Com- line may bring new elements into mon dependencies described in the Belarusian-Russian relations. The pipe- previous texts do not lead to a coherent line is likely to affect the Lukashenka political line. Rather, one may observe regime. It may vindicate his position a puzzling process in which periodi- through new employment opportu- cal bilateral negotiations culminate in nities and investments. On the other meaningless agreements (P. 233). hand, as Balmaceda argues, tensions Lukashenka advocates simulta- are likely to mount as Russian oil neously both full unification and companies will certainly demand sovereignty, accusing Russia at rights to buy the shares in Mozyr and times of lacking integrationist zeal Novopolotsk refineries. and denouncing her ambition to 691 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews make the sovereign Belarus one of of military cooperation. Russia’s regions. The authors sug- The three chapters that follow gest that integration was, indeed, deal with the perception of Belarus a game played by Yeltsin and in Ukraine, Lithuania, and Poland. Lukashenka and that no one was truly Perepelytsia reminds us that in the interested in the ultimate resolution, mid-1990s both Ukraine and Belarus focusing rather on the benefits that promoted the idea of creating a could arise from a “struggle for inte- nuclear-free zone in Central and gration”. For Yeltsin the rhetoric of Eastern Europe. Ukraine was vitally unification was a way of diverting interested both in reducing the inten- public opinion from the failures of the sity of Belarusian-Russian accords Chechen war, whereas for Lukash- and in engaging Belarus in regional enka it was a method of extracting cooperation. The Ukrainian side was financial assistance and securing concerned over the activities of cheap energy supplies. The appear- Lukashenka aimed at advertising ance of Putin is perceived by the au- “the Belarusian model” in the Ukrai- thors as the harbinger of new direc- nian regions with pro-Russian and tions in the integration processes. pro-Soviet tendencies. Perepelytsia The third part of the book takes up concludes his chapter by sketching the problem of security in the region out several possible scenarios for and the policies that neighbouring future developments. It is surprising states adopt vis-à-vis Belarus. A lot that he includes among feasible op- is said about the dangers of the mili- tions such unrealistic solutions as tary union between Belarus and Rus- restoration of the Soviet Union or sia, but, as Reppert argues, the impact Belarus joining NATO. Generally, of the alliance is mainly psychologi- his scenarios are grossly simplified cal because “Russian ICBMs are and ignore more complex possibilities. currently capable of striking any Gricius examines the differenc- point on the globe, and a 300-mile es between Belarusian and Lithua- forward movement would mean, in nian national identities that resulted the case of the United States for from alternative interpretations of example, that warning time would history, particularly of the period be reduced from 30 minutes to 29 mi- between 1918 and 1940. He points nutes” (P. 261). That is the only at co-dependency between the two point, however, where the main- countries, for Belarus is Lithuania’s stream interpretation of the union is export partner and relies on Lithua- challenged by the author. In the re- nia’s electricity (25% of total nation- maining part of the chapter he limits al consumption). Also it is signifi- himself to a conventional description cant to Lithuania as a transit route 692 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 to Ukraine and Russia. Although the on the occasion. Nevertheless, since stability and democratization of Be- 1998 Poland has been trying to larus are very much in Lithuania’s avoid the freezing of relations with interest, contacts between the par- Belarus as she comprehends the dan- ties and political organizations from ger of becoming a frontline state in two countries are weak. Besides, case contacts deteriorate. Lithuania’s foreign policy priorities The fourth part of the book fo- and visions of state organization dif- cuses on the possible strategies of fer from those of Belarus. Neverthe- the West’s engagement in Belarus. less, Gricius claims that relations It opens with an article by Hans- between Belarus and Lithuania are Georg Wieck, a former ambassador much more advanced than between of the OSCE to Belarus. The analy- Belarus and Ukraine or Poland. sis offered by Wieck is overbur- Magdziak-Miszewska explicates dened with details and vagueness. differences in historical “trajectories” The data he quotes seem to be se- of two parts of Belarus – the one that lected with certain bias; for exam- was Soviet in the interwar period and ple he refers to the 1999 “Zerkalo” the one that formed part of Poland. opinion poll to show a low level of She mentions as well the feeling of support for Lukashenka (P. 368). He injury that was produced by the fact does not mention at all the numer- that Poles constituted a dominant ous studies and polls that suggest social stratum in the Belarusian-pop- exactly the opposite, i.e., a stable and ulated regions. She attempts to un- significant (even if melting) popu- derstand what prevented Poland larity of the president. The chapter from a more constructive foreign passes in silence over the ambiva- policy towards Belarus, particularly lent attitude of Belarusians (including in the early 1990s. On the one hand, the political opposition) to the AMG Poland was focusing her attention OSCE and its role in Belarus. solely on the West, yet on the other, Sherman Garnett presents the the- cool reaction from the Belarusian sis that he developed in Belarus at side made her even less willing to the Crossroads, namely, that the West engage. Moreover, some political categorized Belarus as a space of forces, such as the Belarusian Popular no importance, and, consequently, Front, in their effort to resuscitate ignored its possible destabilizing national identity, turned against the influence in the region. He perceives Poles, accusing them of imperialistic the constraints on Belarus’s integra- ambitions. Even children from Cher- tion with Russia. Political and eco- nobyl sent to Poland for health rea- nomic differences between the coun- sons were claimed to be “Polonized” tries, antagonisms between the inte- 693 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews gration supporters, and strong oppo- Ìàêñèì ÊÈÐ×ÀÍΠsition to the process are listed as the most evident obstacles. He is Timothy Snyder, The Recon- also aware of the change coming struction of Nations. Poland, with the new generation of more Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, educated and demanding Belaru- 1569 – 1999 (New Haven and Lon- sians, who perceive themselves as don: Yale University Press, 2003). citizens of an independent state. At 367 pp. ISBN: 0-300-09569-4. the same time he acknowledges that beneath the corrupt referenda and  êíèãå ïðîôåññîðà Éåëüñ- elections under Lukashenka lies a êîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà Òèìîòè “solid political majority that brought Ñíàéäåðà “Ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ íà- him to power in a fair election in öèé. Ïîëüøà, Óêðàèíà, Ëèòâà, 1994” (P. 401) yet warns against the Áåëàðóñü, 1569-1999” ðàññìàò- isolationist attitude that might affect ðèâàþòñÿ âîïðîñû, íàõîäÿùèåñÿ the stability of the region. íà ñòûêå ñëàâÿíñêèõ è áàëòèéñ- Generally, the book provides êèõ èññëåäîâàíèé. Ýòî âûäåëÿåò abundant material and information äàííóþ ðàáîòó ñðåäè ïóáëèêà- useful for students of Belarus. Its öèé êîìïàðàòèâíîãî õàðàêòåðà. strength consists in bringing together  öåíòðå âíèìàíèÿ àâòîðà academics and practitioners, and ìîíîãðàôèè, ñîñòîÿùåé èç òðåõ both Western and Belarusian authors. ÷àñòåé (“Îñïàðèâàåìîå Ëèòîâ- As a result, we do not lack the in- ñêî-áåëîðóññêîå Îòå÷åñòâî”, sider’s perspective. The second asset “Çàùèùàþùååñÿ Óêðàèíñêîå of the volume is its clearly pragmatic ïîãðàíè÷üå” è “Âîññîçäàííàÿ ambition to serve those who might Ïîëüñêàÿ Ðîäèíà”) – òðàíñ- be in a position to alter the interna- ôîðìàöèÿ íàöèîíàëüíûõ èäåé, tional isolation of Belarus and foster ïðè÷èíû ýòíè÷åñêèõ ÷èñòîê è democratization within the country. ïîèñê óñëîâèé äëÿ íàöèîíàëü- Still. the unequal quality of the chap- íîãî ïðèìèðåíèÿ. Ìîòèâèðóÿ ters undermines the academic value âûáîð îáúåêòîâ èññëåäîâàíèÿ è of the book. Next to profound analy- îáîñíîâûâàÿ íåîáõîäèìîñòü ses supported by arguments and èçó÷åíèÿ ñòîëü áîëüøîãî õðî- coherent hypotheses one can find íîëîãè÷åñêîãî ïåðèîäà, Ñíàé- purely descriptive texts. Another äåð óêàçûâàåò íà òî, ÷òî èõ problem is related to the repetitive- îáúåäèíÿåò êàê ýïîõà ñîâìåñò- ness of some sections; better editing íîãî ïðîøëîãî â ðàìêàõ èñòî- would have improved the volume. ðèè Ëèòîâñêî-Ïîëüñêîãî ãîñó-

694 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 äàðñòâà, òàê è îáùåå áóäóùåå âíèìàíèå. Òàê, íà÷àëî ëèòîâ- â ñîñòàâå åäèíîé Åâðîïû è ñêîé êóëüòóðíî-íàöèîíàëüíîé ÍÀÒÎ (Pp. 1, 12). àêòèâèçàöèè äàòèðîâàíî 1863 ã., Ïåðåä òåì, êàê ïåðåéòè ê àíà- êîãäà ëèòîâöû ïîïûòàëèñü ïðî- ëèçó íàöèîíàëüíûõ ïðîáëåì, âîäèòü ïîëèòèêó, íåçàâèñèìóþ Ñíàéäåð ðàññìàòðèâàåò èñòî- îò ïîëÿêîâ. Ñíàéäåð ïîêàçûâàåò, ðèþ ðåãèîíà ñ XVI äî ñåðåäèíû ÷òî íà ðàííèõ ýòàïàõ èìïåðñêèå XIX â. Îí óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî Ëèò- âëàñòè ðàññìàòðèâàëè ëèòîâ- âà ðàçâèâàëàñü êàê ïðàâîñëàâ- ñêîå äâèæåíèå êàê ïîìîùü â íîå âîñòî÷íîñëàâÿíñêîå ãîñó- áîðüáå ñ ïîëÿêàìè. Âåðîÿòíî, äàðñòâî, è ñòàâèò ïîä ñîìíåíèå ýòèì è îáúÿñíÿëàñü ïîëèòèêà, òåçèñ î áûñòðîé ïîëîíèçàöèè íàïðàâëåííàÿ íà óâåëè÷åíèå ëèòîâñêîé çíàòè. Ýêñêóðñ â èñòî- ÷èñëà ëèòîâñêèõ ñòóäåíòîâ â ðèþ Ëèòâû çàâåðøàåòñÿ îáðà- ðîññèéñêèõ óíèâåðñèòåòàõ è, ùåíèåì ê ïðîáëåìå âîññòàíèÿ ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, ñîêðàùåíèå èõ 1863 ã., êîòîðîå â ïðåäñòàâëåíèè êîëè÷åñòâà â ïîëüñêèõ. Î÷å- àâòîðà ìîíîãðàôèè ÿâëÿåòñÿ âèäíî, ÷òî ãëàâíûìè îïïîíåí- íåóäà÷íîé ïîïûòêîé ñîþçà òàìè ëèòîâñêèõ íàöèîíàëèñòîâ ïîëüñêîÿçû÷íîãî äâîðÿíñòâà ñ ÿâëÿëèñü èìåííî ïîëÿêè. Ïðè- ëèòîâñêîÿçû÷íûì èëè áåëî- ìå÷àòåëüíî, ÷òî ñàì ïðîöåññ ðóññêîÿçû÷íûì êðåñòüÿíñòâîì ïîëîíèçàöèè ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ â (Pp. 15-30). Àíàëèçó ïðîáëåìà- ìîíîãðàôèè â íîâîì äëÿ èñòî- òèêè, ñâÿçàííîé ñ Óêðàèíîé, ðèîãðàôèè êëþ÷å. Åñëè ðàíüøå ïðåäïîñëàí êðàòêèé î÷åðê óêðà- ïîä ïîëîíèçàöèåé ïîäðàçóìå- èíñêîé èñòîðèè. Îòëè÷èòåëü- âàëñÿ îäíîçíà÷íûé ïåðåõîä íîé ÷åðòîé ïîñëåäíåé, ïî ìíå- ëèòîâñêèõ êðåñòüÿí ñðàçó íà íèþ Ñíàéäåðà, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñîçíà- ïîëüñêèé ÿçûê, òî, ñîãëàñíî òåëüíàÿ ïåðåîðèåíòàöèÿ íà Çà- èíòåðïðåòàöèè, ïðåäëîæåííîé ïàä, ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèå êàòîëè- Ñíàéäåðîì, ëèòîâöû ñíà÷àëà öèçìà è ïðîòåñòàíòèçìà. Âïðî- ïåðåêëþ÷àëèñü íà áåëîðóññêèé ÷åì, ïîñòåïåííûé “çàêàò” ñîá- ÿçûê, è òîëüêî ïîòîì ïîñòå- ñòâåííî óêðàèíñêèõ òðàäèöèé ïåííî ïåðåõîäèëè íà ïîëüñêèé. àâòîð ñâÿçûâàåò óæå ñ ðîññèéñ- Ñíàéäåð àíàëèçèðóåò ðÿä êîé ïîëèòèêîé XVIII â. ïðîáëåì, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ àíàëîãè÷- Ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü, ÷òî ïðîá- íûìè ïðîöåññàìè â Óêðàèíå. ëåìå âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ è ðàçâèòèÿ Åñëè â ëèòîâñêîì “íàöèîíàëü- íàöèîíàëüíûõ äâèæåíèé â ðå- íîì ïðîáóæäåíèè” îñîáóþ ðîëü ãèîíå óäåëåíî çíà÷èòåëüíîå èãðàëè êàòîëè÷åñêèå èíòåëëåê-

695 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews òóàëû, òî â Óêðàèíå èõ ìåñòî áà îñëàáëåíèÿ ïîëüñêîãî âëèÿ- çàíÿëè óíèàòñêèå ñâÿùåííèêè. íèÿ, (ïðè ýòîì, ñàìè ïîëÿêè, Èìååòñÿ, âïðî÷åì, è åùå îäíî ðàçóìååòñÿ, ñ÷èòàëèñü ãëàâíûì ñóùåñòâåííîå îòëè÷èå: åñëè ëè- âðàãîì), òî áåëîðóñû âîîáùå íå òîâñêèå íàöèîíàëèñòû ñòðåìè- ïðèíèìàëèñü âî âíèìàíèå êàê ëèñü ìàêñèìàëüíî îòñòðàíèòüñÿ ñåðüåçíûé ïîëèòè÷åñêèé ôàê- îò âñåãî ïîëüñêîãî, òî óêðàèíñ- òîð è òðàêòîâàëèñü èñêëþ÷è- êîå äâèæåíèå íåðåäêî îáðàùà- òåëüíî êàê ñîñòàâíàÿ ÷àñòü ðóñ- ëîñü ê ïîëüñêîìó îïûòó ðàäè ñêîé íàöèè (Pp. 42- 45). óìåíüøåíèÿ ðóññêîãî âëèÿíèÿ. Îñîáåííîñòè îòíîøåíèé  ïðîöåññå “ðåêîíñòðóêöèè” ìåæäó ëèòîâöàìè è ïîëÿêàìè Ñíàéäåð ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå îáðà- ïðîñëåæèâàþòñÿ íà ïðèìåðå ùàåòñÿ ê èñòîðè÷åñêèì èçûñêà- áîðüáû çà “ñèìâîëè÷åñêîå” íèÿì ëèòîâñêèõ íàöèîíàëèñòîâ, îáëàäàíèå Âèëüíþñîì. Ðîëü îãðàíè÷èâàÿñü óïîìèíàíèåì ëèòîâöåâ â ãîðîäå áûëà, êàê èç- Ñ. Äàóêàíòàñà. Îäíàêî ïðè âåñòíî, ìèíèìàëüíà, ÷òî ïîçâî- àíàëèçå èñòîêîâ óêðàèíñêîãî ëÿëî ïðåäúÿâëÿòü ïðåòåíçèè íà íàöèîíàëüíîãî äâèæåíèÿ îí íå íåãî äàæå ñî ñòîðîíû áåëîðóñ- ìîæåò îáîéòè ðîëü Ì. Ãðóøåâ- ñêèõ íàöèîíàëèñòîâ. Îäíàêî ñêîãî â ñîçäàíèè “óêðàèíñêîãî ïîñëåäíèå âûáûëè èç áîðüáû èñòîðè÷åñêîãî íàððàòèâà” èç-çà ñâîåé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ñëàáî- (Pp. 124-130). ñòè (Pp. 52-61).  äàëüíåéøåì, Ïàðàëëåëüíîå îïèñàíèå êàê îòìå÷àåò Ñíàéäåð, ñïîðû Ñíàéäåðîì ïðîöåññîâ ñòàíîâëå- âîêðóã Âèëüíþñà øëè íà ôîíå íèÿ íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñîçíàíèÿ â ñîáûòèé Ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû Áåëîðóññèè â XIX â. òàêæå è ïîñëåäîâàâøåé çà íåé ðåâîëþ- äåìîíñòðèðóåò èõ íåêîòîðûå öèè. Èñòîðèê ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî õàðàêòåðíûå ÷åðòû.  îòëè÷èå ïîëüñêèé íàöèîíàëèçì îêàçàë- îò ïîëüñêèõ è ëèòîâñêèõ äåÿòå- ñÿ ñèëüíåå, è Âèëüíî âîøëî â ëåé, êîòîðûå óæå äîñòàòî÷íî ñîñòàâ ïîëüñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. ÷åòêî îïðåäåëÿëè ñâîè ïîëèòè- Ýòî ïðèâåëî ê òîìó, ÷òî ëèòîâ- ÷åñêèå öåëè, áåëîðóñû êîëåáà- öû è áåëîðóñû ñòàëè æèòü íà ëèñü ìåæäó “ïðèâëåêàòåëüíîé òåððèòîðèè íåñêîëüêèõ ñòðàí. ïîëüñêîé êóëüòóðîé è ðàñòó- Îäíàêî åñëè áåëîðóñû â Áåëî- ùèì ðóññêèì âëèÿíèåì”. Ïîçè- ðóññêîé ÑÑÐ è ëèòîâöû â Ëèòâå öèÿ ðîññèéñêèõ âëàñòåé èìåëà â ïîëó÷èëè âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ íà- ýòîì ñëó÷àå îñîáîå çíà÷åíèå. öèîíàëüíîãî ðàçâèòèÿ, òî â Åñëè ëèòîâñêîå äâèæåíèå ðàñ- Ïîëüøå òàêèå óñëîâèÿ îòñóòñò- ñìàòðèâàëîñü â êà÷åñòâå ñïîñî- âîâàëè (Pp. 68-72). 696 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Îêîí÷àòåëüíîå ðåøåíèå çóëüòàòû (Pp. 139-149). Èìåííî ⠓âèëüíþññêîãî âîïðîñà” àâòî- ïîëîæåíèè óêðàèíöåâ â ìåæ- ðîì ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ ñ íà÷àëîì âîåííîé Ïîëüøå àâòîð óñìàòðè- Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû.  òî âàåò èñòîêè âîîðóæåííîãî âðåìÿ îòìå÷àëàñü àêòèâèçàöèÿ ïîëüñêî-óêðàèíñêîãî ïðîòèâî- áåëîðóñîâ, ïîëàãàâøèõ, ÷òî ñòîÿíèÿ, êîòîðîå èìåëî ìåñòî â ãîðîä âîéäåò â ñîñòàâ ÁÑÑÐ. ïåðèîä Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû. Îäíàêî ñîâïàäåíèå ëèòîâñêèõ è Îòëè÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷åðòà àâòîðñêîé ñîâåòñêèõ èíòåðåñîâ â 1939 ã. èíòåðïðåòàöèè ñîáûòèé ñîñòîèò ïðèâåëî ê òîìó, ÷òî Âèëüíþñ â òîì, ÷òî Ñíàéäåð âèäèò â äàí- îòîøåë Ëèòâå, êîòîðàÿ áûëà íîì êîíôëèêòå ýëåìåíòû ãðàæ- íàöèîíàëèçèðóþùèìñÿ ãîñó- äàíñêîé âîéíû (Pp. 169-178). äàðñòâîì. Ïîñëåäóþùèå ñîáû- Àíàëèçèðóÿ òðàíñôîðìàöèþ òèÿ ëèøü ñïîñîáñòâîâàëè òîìó, ëèòîâñêîãî íàöèîíàëèçìà ïîñëå ÷òîáû Âèëüíî ïðåâðàòèëîñü â 1939 ã., Ñíàéäåð ñòðåìèòñÿ îòâå- Âèëüíþñ.  ðàìêàõ ýòîé òåìû òèòü íà âîïðîñ: “êàê Âèëüíî, àâòîð ðàññìàòðèâàåò äåìîãðà- ãîðîä ñ íåáîëüøèì ëèòîâñêèì ôè÷åñêèå ïåðåìåíû, ïðîèçîøåä- ìåíüøèíñòâîì, ñòàë ê 1991 ã. øèå â ãîðîäå (Pp. 79-84). Âèëüíþñîì, ñòîëèöåé ëèòîâñ- Ó óêðàèíöåâ, êàê è ó ëèòîâ- êîãî íàöèîíàëüíîãî ãîñóäàð- öåâ, áûëè ñîáñòâåííûå èñòîðè- ñòâà”? Îïèñûâàÿ ïîëèòèêó, ïðî- ÷åñêèå ðàçíîãëàñèÿ ñ ïîëÿêàìè, âîäèìóþ ëèòîâñêèìè êîììóíè- ñâÿçàííûå â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ñ ñòàìè, àâòîð ìîíîãðàôèè îòìå- ïðàâîì íà îáëàäàíèå Ëüâîâîì. ÷àåò, ÷òî ãîðîä ïîäâåðãñÿ êóëü- Íåóäà÷à óêðàèíñêîãî íàöèî- òóðíîé àññèìèëÿöèè. Äåïîëî- íàëüíîãî äâèæåíèÿ â ïåðâîé íèçàöèÿ Âèëüíî – ïîâîðîòíûé ïîëîâèíå XX â. ïðèâåëà ê òîìó, ìîìåíò â åãî èñòîðèè. Ñòîëèöà ÷òî â ñîñòàâå ïîëüñêîãî ãîñó- Ëèòâû ñ 1945 ã. ñòàëà ëèòîâñêîé äàðñòâà óêðàèíöû îêàçàëèñü è â êóëüòóðíîì àñïåêòå. Î÷å- äèñêðèìèíèðóåìûì ìåíüøèíñ- âèäíî, ÷òî ëèòóàíèçàöèÿ Âèëüíî, òâîì. Èìåííî ïðîòèâ ïîëüñêîãî â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, ÿâëÿëàñü ðåçóëü- çàñèëüÿ äåéñòâîâàëà ÎÓÍ, íà òàòîì êîìïðîìèññà ìåæäó ìåñò- èñòîðèè êîòîðîé Ñíàéäåð îòíî- íûìè êîììóíèñòàìè è Ìîñêâîé ñèòåëüíî ïîäðîáíî îñòàíàâëè- (Pp. 90-102). âàåòñÿ.  òî æå âðåìÿ îí îòìå- Ñíàéäåð òàêæå îáðàùàåòñÿ ê ÷àåò, ÷òî â ÓÑÑÐ ñëîæèëàñü ïðîáëåìàì ìåæíàöèîíàëüíûõ èíàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ, è ïðîöåññ óêðà- îòíîøåíèé â Ïîëüøå è ðàññìàò- èíèçàöèè èìåë ïîçèòèâíûå ðå- ðèâàåò îñîáåííîñòè íàöèî- 697 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews íàëüíîãî ïîëüñêîãî ñàìîñîçíà- è Ðîññèè, à, ñ äðóãîé, ñïîñîá- íèÿ ïîñëå 1945 ã., óêàçûâàÿ íà ñòâóþò ïðèìèðåíèþ íàöèé ðîëü ïàðèæñêîãî æóðíàëà “Êóëü- (Pp. 256- 293). òóðà”, ñî÷åòàâøåãî ôåäåðàëèçì Åùå îäíà îòëè÷èòåëüíàÿ è íàöèîíàëèçì. Îñîáîå âíèìà- ÷åðòà èññëåäîâàíèÿ Ñíàéäåðà – íèå ó÷åíûé óäåëÿåò îæèâëå- îáðàùåíèå ê èñòîðèè åâðååâ íèþ íàöèîíàëüíîãî ñîçíàíèÿ ê ðåãèîíà. Èíòåðåñíû òå ãëàâû êîíöó 1980-õ ãã. (Pp. 222-230). ðàáîòû, ãäå Âèëüíþñ ðàññìàò-  êîíöå êíèãè Ñíàéäåð ïû- ðèâàåòñÿ êàê êóëüòóðíûé è ðå- òàåòñÿ îáîáùèòü îñîáåííîñòè ëèãèîçíûé öåíòð ìåñòíîé åâðåé- ëèòîâñêîãî, ïîëüñêîãî, óêðàèí- ñêîé îáùèíû, íàáëþäàâøåé ñêîãî è áåëîðóññêîãî äâèæåíèé. ñòàíîâëåíèå íåñêîëüêèõ íàöèî- Îòëè÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷åðòà ñîâðåìåí- íàëèñòè÷åñêèõ òðàäèöèé. Ê åâ- íîãî ïåðèîäà (1990-å ãã.) – ðîñò ðåÿì îòíîñèëèñü áåç äîëæíîãî íàöèîíàëèçìà â ðàçíûõ ôîðìàõ: óâàæåíèÿ, ÷òî áûëî îñîáåííî îò íàöèîíàëüíîé ýéôîðèè ïî õàðàêòåðíî äëÿ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ïîâîäó î÷åðåäíîãî âîçâðàùå- ïîëüñêîãî è óêðàèíñêîãî íàöèî- íèÿ Ïîëüøè â çàïàäíîå ñîîáùå- íàëüíûõ äâèæåíèé. ñòâî, íàöèîíàëüíîãî ïîäúåìà â Äëÿ êíèãè Ñíàéäåðà, îäíàêî, Ëèòâå â ñâÿçè ñ îáðåòåíèåì õàðàêòåðàíà íåîäíîðîäíîñòü íåçàâèñèìîñòè, äî ðîñòà ðåâàí- ïîâåñòâîâàíèÿ. Åñëè ãëàâû, ïî- øèçìà â Óêðàèíå è Áåëàðóñè. ñâÿùåííûå Ëèòâå è Óêðàèíå,  êà÷åñòâå ôàêòîðà, îáúåäèíÿ- þùåãî ýòè ñòðàíû, àâòîð íàçû- ñîäåðæàò êðàòêèå ýêñêóðñû â âàåò ïîñòåïåííîå äâèæåíèå íà èñòîðèþ ýòèõ ñòðàí, òî òàêîâûå Çàïàä.  ýòîì îòíîøåíèè îñî- îòñóòñòâóþò â ðàçäåëàõ, ïîñâÿ- áåííî ïðåóñïåëè Ëèòâà è ùåííûõ Ïîëüøå è Áåëàðóñè. Ïîëüøà. Ïðè ýòîì Óêðàèíà è Áîëåå ñóùåñòâåííîå íàøå çà- Áåëàðóñü ìîãóò èñïîëüçîâàòü ìå÷àíèå ñâÿçàíî ñ ñîìíåíèåì â Ïîëüøó êàê ñâîåîáðàçíûé ïðàâîìåðíîñòè ãåîãðàôè÷åñêî- “ìîñò” äëÿ âõîæäåíèÿ â çàïàä- ãî “îáúåäèíåíèÿ” â ðàìêàõ îä- íîå ñîîáùåñòâî. Îöåíèâàÿ çíà- íîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ èñòîðèè ÷åíèå âñòóïëåíèÿ Ïîëüøè è ñòîëü ðàçíûõ ñòðàí. Òàêîé ïîä- Ëèòâû â ÅÑ, Ñíàéäåð îòìå÷àåò, õîä ïðèâîäèò ê óïóùåíèþ ëî- ÷òî ïðèñîåäèíåíèå ýòèõ ñòðàí ê êàëüíûõ îñîáåííîñòåé íàöèî- åâðîïåéñêèì èíñòèòóòàì, ñ îäíîé íàëüíûõ äâèæåíèé. À îñîáåííî- ñòîðîíû, äåìîíñòðèðóåò äîñòè- ñòè, õàðàêòåðíûå äëÿ îäíîé æèìîñòü èäåàëà äëÿ èõ âîñòî÷- ñòðàíû, àâòîð ìåõàíè÷åñêè ðàñ- íûõ ñîñåäåé, Óêðàèíû, Áåëàðóñè ïðîñòðàíÿåò íà âñå îñòàëüíûå. 698 Ab Imperio, 4/2004  ðàáîòå Ñíàéäåðà îòñóòñòâóþò Wim van MEURS óïîìèíàíèÿ î áëèçêîé ê Ïîëüøå Ëàòãàëå. Àñïåêòû ëàòûøñêîé Ïðîáëåìû íàöèîíàëüíîé èñòîðèè â ìîíîãðàôèè ôàêòè- èäåíòèôèêàöèè, êóëüòóðíûå è ÷åñêè íå ïðåäñòàâëåíû. Íàðÿäó ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ñâÿçè Ðîññèè ñî ñ åâðåÿìè, íåìàëàÿ ðîëü â ðåãè- ñòðàíàìè Áàëòèéñêîãî ðåãèîíà îíå ïðèíàäëåæàëà íåìåöêîé è â XVIII-XX âåêàõ / Ïîä ðåä. Ð. Áþò- ðóññêîé äèàñïîðàì, êîòîðûå íåð, Â. Äóáèíû, Ì. Ëåîíîâà. òàêæå âûïàëè èç ñôåðû âíèìà- Ñàìàðà: “Ïàðóñ”, 2001. 284 ñ. íèÿ àâòîðà. Çà ðàìêàìè èññëå- ISBN: 5-7967-0090-1. äîâàíèÿ îñòàëàñü è ïðîáëåìà- òèêà, ñâÿçàííàÿ ñ èñòîðèåé Óê- Russian-Baltic relations are by ðàèíñêîé è Áåëîðóññêîé ÑÑÐ no means a neglected topic in na- ïîñëå 1945 ã. tionalism studies, history, political Êî âñåìó ïðî÷åìó, Ñíàéäåð science, or international relations. ñîâåðøåííî íå óäåëÿåò âíèìà- Yet, the topic has witnessed some íèÿ òåîðåòè÷åñêèì àñïåêòàì paradigmatic changes in the past de- ïðîáëåìû ðåãèîíàëüíûõ ðàçíî- cade or two. The 22 authors of the âèäíîñòåé íàöèîíàëèçìà. Áîëåå present volume (most of them in ãëóáîêîå îñìûñëåíèå åå, êàê, their thirties) are young enough not âïðî÷åì, è êðèòè÷åñêèé âçãëÿä to be inhibited by the traditional per- íà ñîâðåìåííûå ïîäõîäû ê èçó- spective charged with ideological ÷åíèþ ôåíîìåíà íàöèîíàëèçìà anti-communism, belief in the righ- â ìóëüòèýòíè÷íîì ðåãèîíå, íà teousness of national liberation, and êîòîðîì ñôîêóñèðîâàí íàððà- more often than not, anti-Russian òèâ Ñíàéäåðà, ìîãëè áû, íåñîì- sentiment. At the same time, they are íåííî, ïðèäàòü åãî ðàáîòå ìåòî- experienced enough as researchers äîëîãè÷åñêóþ ñîëèäíîñòü. to have witnessed the initial wave Ïîäáîð èñòî÷íèêîâ, íà îñíî- of studies of the early 1990s on âå êîòîðûõ íàïèñàíà ìîíîãðà- national identity and state building ôèÿ, äåìîíñòðèðóåò åùå îäèí in the Baltic region based on the theo- èçúÿí â ìåòîäîëîãèè àâòîðà. Îí ries of the Gellner-Anderson-Hob- ïî÷òè ïîëíîñòüþ ïðåíåáðåã òåê- sbawm triumvirate. Conversely, a ñòàìè íà ëèòîâñêîì è áåëîðóñ- large part of studies on the Baltic ñêîì ÿçûêàõ. Ïîïûòêà êîìïåí- region published in the Russian ñèðîâàòü èõ îòñóòñòâèå àíãëî- Federation after the demise of the ÿçû÷íûìè ïóáëèêàöèÿìè ñåáÿ USSR tended to reflect partisan posi- ÿâíî íå îïðàâäûâàåò. tions on the fate of the new Russian 699 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews diaspora. Thus, a volume with con- between entities within the Russian tributions by younger researchers Empire, and between ethnic groups. from Russia, the US, Germany, Karsten Brüggemans dissects the Latvia, Estonia, and the UK is complexities of Estonian-White uniquely placed to define a new Army collaboration against the Bol- research agenda. The authors have shevik regime in the Russian Civil made a determined effort to counter War around Petrograd. His measuring the predominantly negative per- stick, however, is not a one-dimen- ception of Russian-Baltic relations sional contrast between a movement today. for national liberation and the impe- The fact that most articles are rialistic strategy of the White gene- either in Russian or English and rals. The intricacies of the regional some in German (without summa- and local level put both movements ries) may be a consequence of the and their objectives into a different quasi-samizdat character of the book. perspective. The analysis moves Thus, some articles may be inac- beyond generic conclusions on cessible to some readers, but at least “the Estonians” or “the Whites” and the authors themselves have used a also includes insights on the politi- wide variety of sources – ranging cal thinking of the leaders involved. from Estonian and Russian archives Plans to lure the Estonians into to academic literature in a dozen lan- joining the White attack on Petro- guages. It is, however, puzzling why grad as well as the White forces neither the Russian and English titles serving as Estonia’s “border guards” nor the introductions in both lan- both upset typical narratives of guages are identical. Or why it is national history. “social thought” in the title, “obsh- Bradley Woodworth’s contribu- chestvennaia mysl’” in the Russian tion on the monument for Peter the and “political thought” in the English Great erected in Tallinn in 1910 and table of contents. Quite remarkably, torn down in 1922 is typical for the however, the authors’ collective volume. The topic may be highly managed to publish the book in 2001, specific, but it acquires a broader only a few months after the confe- relevance as it demonstrates and rence “Political and cultural relations differentiates attitudes of Baltic between Russia and the countries of Germans, Russian officialdom, and the Baltic region, 1700 – 2000.” Estonians toward the tsarist empire. The articles in the first half of The Ritterschaft, the Estonian- the book deal with the political and dominated Tallinn city council and military relations between states, the tsarist administration all joined

700 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 forces in this project, but for a wide overtones of moral or national indig- variety of (opposite) reasons. The nation. author not only identifies typical The odd one out in the volume is motives such as restating the privi- the contribution by Susanne Nies leges granted by the famous tsar from Berlin. This brief and superfi- (Baltic Germans), the alliance with cial chapter on 20th century Baltic- Petersburg as a counterweight to Russian relations mainly features Baltic German dominance (the Es- rhetoric on “caesuras and conti- tonians), and Russia’s role in Bal- nuities”, “bridges and barriers.” tic history (local Russian officials), The chapter actually underlines the but also dissects more subtle diver- quality of the other contributions, gences and shifts within these mostly based on thorough knowledge groups. Thus, this example indi- of the relevant historiography in cates that the process of nation different languages, the broader his- building in these regions was neither torical context, and specific archival premeditated nor unequivocal. research. Unlike the others, Nies Unlike most other chapters, Lea refers to “north-south and east-west Lennik’s contribution on the role lines of confrontation” cutting of the Governor General in three through the Baltic region – “a civi- centuries of Baltic history is rather lizational contact-zone like the Bal- descriptive. This may be due to her kans.” This terminology not only contention that the Governor General reveals Huntingtonian views, but is obligatorily mentioned in history also serves as a basis for national and textbooks, but hardly ever studied moral judgements, e.g., concerning in much detail. At the very least, the Council of Europe’s (actually: her hypothesis that this position the OSCE’s) continuous pressure for was, on the one hand, a transition a modification of Latvian and Esto- belt for all-Russian trends towards nian laws “seemingly inimical to centralization, uniformity and Rus- Russian-speaking minorities.” One sification in administration, educa- may debate the political motives and tion, justice and taxation, but an historical background of the post- advocate of Baltic interests in St. communist laws, but that they were Petersburg, on the other hand, de- not – nor intended to be – minority- serves closer scrutiny. The focus on friendly is an undisputable fact. a multifaceted process of modern- Denis Trapido argues this very point ization puts the usual philippics in the same volume: although there against Russification in a broader is no legal discrimination on the basis perspective, without the obligatory of race, ethnicity, or religion for

701 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews citizens of Estonia, the rights of non- Ýììàíóýëü ÂÀÃÅÌÀÍÑ citizens are limited. He thus identi- fies a far more interesting question – Ä. Ãóçåâè÷, È. Ãóçåâè÷. Âåëè- why did opposite parties on the issue êîå ïîñîëüñòâî. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåð- of the Russophones’ rights in Estonia – áóðã: Ôåíèêñ, 2003. 309 ñ. ISBN: by Estonians favouring segregation 5-85042-073-8. and by those sceptical of the methods of integration – meet in their rejec-  ñâÿçè ñ ïðàçäíîâàíèåì tion of the 1998 integration program? òðåõñîòëåòíåãî þáèëåÿ Ñàíêò- Those criticizing the potential outcome Ïåòåðáóðãà â Ðîññèè ïîÿâèëèñü of integration intend to uphold the ðàçëè÷íûå èçäàíèÿ, ïîñâÿùåí- ethnic concept of the Estonian state, íûå èñòîðèè ýòîãî ãîðîäà, â nation, and democracy and fear the ÷àñòíîñòè, ñàìîìó ðàííåìó åå successful completion of integration. ïåðèîäó – ýïîõå Ïåòðà Âåëè- Those criticizing the current process êîãî. Ê ýòîìó æå ñîáûòèþ Ãîë- of integration, however, accept the ëàíäñêî-ðîññèéñêèé àðõèâíûé objective of integration, but object öåíòð ïðè Ãðîíèíãåíñêîì óíè- to the dominant, paternalistic role âåðñèòåòå ïðèóðî÷èë ïóáëèêà- ascribed to the state (rather than the öèþ áèáëèîãðàôèè, ïîäãîòîâ- respective segments of civil society) ëåííîé Ý. Âàãåìàíñîì (E. Waege- in achieving it. mans) è Õ. âàí Êîííèãñáðþããå Overall, the book has some of the (H. van Konningsbrugge) è ïîñâÿ- typical qualities and drawbacks of ùåííîé ðîññèéñêî-ãîëëàíäñêèì samizdat: most topics are too specific ñâÿçÿì.1 Áûëà ïîäãîòîâëåíà ê and the composition is too arbitrary ïå÷àòè è áèáëèîãðàôèÿ, ñîñòàâ- to be easily accessible for the gen- ëåííàÿ Âåðíåðîì Ñõåëòüåíñîì eral reader. Yet, for those involved (Werner Scheltjens).2 Ó ðîññèéñ- in the field the volume offers quite êèõ è çàïàäíûõ ó÷åíûõ, ðàçóìå- a number of interesting insights, åòñÿ, áóäåò âîçìîæíîñòü äàòü stimulating further research in the îöåíêó äàííûì ïóáëèêàöèÿì; field; we are bound to meet some of íàñ æå, ïðåæäå âñåãî, èíòåðåñóþò the volume’s authors again in future îðèãèíàëüíûå íîâàòîðñêèå academic debates. ðàáîòû.

1 Ý. Âàãåìàíñ, Õ. âàí Êîíèíãñáðþããå. Ðóññêàÿ áèáëèîãðàôèÿ î Ãîëëàíäèè è ðóññêî-ãîëëàíäñêèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2003. 2 Âåðíåð Ñõåëòüåíñ. Áèáëèîãðàôèÿ íèäåðëàíäñêîé ëèòåðàòóðû íà ðóññêîì ÿçûêå. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2003.

702 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî äî íà- áûëè ïðè÷èíû, ïîáóäèâøèå ÷àëà Ôðàíöóçñêîé ðåâîëþöèè Ïåòðà I îòïðàâèòüñÿ â ýòî ïóòå- ýïîõà Ïðîñâåùåíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ øåñòâèå? ×òî, êðîìå ó÷àñòèÿ õîðîøî äîêóìåíòèðîâàííûì ñàìîãî öàðÿ, îòëè÷àåò ýòîò äèï- ïåðèîäîì ðîññèéñêîé èñòîðèè, ëîìàòè÷åñêèé âîÿæ îò ïðåäûäó- îíà âñå æå òàèò â ñåáå ìíîãî çà- ùèõ ïîåçäîê, êîòîðûå òàêæå ãàäîê è íåðàçðåøåííûõ âîïðî- ÷àñòî èìåíîâàëèñü “âåëèêèìè ñîâ. Òàê, íàïðèìåð, åùå òîëüêî ïîñîëüñòâàìè”, êàê, íàïðèìåð, ïðåäñòîèò óâèäåòü ñâåò äåòàëü- ìèññèÿ È. Ñ. Ïðîçîðîâñêîãî â íîìó èññëåäîâàíèþ èñòîðèè Øâåöèþ â 1658 ã.? Ïî ìíåíèþ Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà, ðåêîíñò- àâòîðîâ êíèãè, Âåëèêîå Ïîñîëü- ðóèðóþùåìó øàã çà øàãîì ñòâî Ïåòðà íå áûëî ñîáñòâåííî ïóòåøåñòâèå Ïåòðà Ïåðâîãî â äèïëîìàòè÷åñêîé ìèññèåé: öàðü Ãîëëàíäèþ â 1697–1968 ãã. Òàêîé îòïðàâèëñÿ íà Çàïàä íå ñòîëüêî òðóä äîëæåí áûòü ñâîáîäåí îò çà òåì, ÷òîáû ïðîñèòü î ïîä- òîãî, ÷òî àìåðèêàíöû íàçûâàþò äåðæêå ñâîåé àíòèòóðåöêîé êîà- “wishful thinking” – íåäîñòàòêà, ëèöèè, ñêîëüêî äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ñâîéñòâåííîãî, ê ïðèìåðó, ðàáî- ñîâåðøèòü òåõíîëîãè÷åñêèé òàì ïàòðèîòè÷åñêè íàñòðîåí- grand tour. Ïðè÷åì çàäà÷åé íûõ èñòîðèêîâ êàê â Ðîññèè, òàê ñàìîäåðæöà áûëî íå îçíàêîì- è â Íèäåðëàíäàõ. ëåíèå ñ èñêóññòâîì ñâîåãî âðå- Îäíà èç ïîïûòîê ïðîäåëàòü ìåíè, à èçó÷åíèå ñîâðåìåííîé ïîäîáíûé òðóä áûëà ïðåäïðè- òåõíèêè. íÿòà æèâóùèìè è ðàáîòàþùè- Êàê îòìåòèë Åâãåíèé Àíè- ìè â Ïàðèæå ðîññèéñêèìè èñòî- ñèìîâ, àâòîð ïðåäèñëîâèÿ ê ðèêàìè Äìèòðèåì è Èðèíîé ìîíîãðàôèè, ýòî áûëî “ïóòå- Ãóçåâè÷àìè. Èõ ñîâìåñòíàÿ ðà- øåñòâèå çà ïðîôåññèîíàëüíûìè áîòà áûëà îïóáëèêîâàíà â ñåâåð- çíàíèÿìè, çà èíôîðìàöèåé, â íîé ñòîëèöå Ðîññèè ïîä íàçâà- êîòîðîé îñòðî íóæäàëàñü Ðîñ- íèåì “Âåëèêîå Ïîñîëüñòâî” â ñèÿ” (Ñ. 7). Òàêèì îáðàçîì, íîâîé ñåðèè “Êîðíè Ïåòåð- Âåëèêîå Ïîñîëüñòâî áûëî, â áóðãà”, ê âûïóñêó êîòîðîé ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü, îáðàçîâàòåëü- ïðèñòóïèëî èçäàòåëüñòâî “Ôå- íîé ïîåçäêîé: Ïåòð îòïðàâèëñÿ íèêñ”.3 Àâòîðîâ, â ïåðâóþ î÷å- â Íèäåðëàíäû è Àíãëèþ, ÷òîáû ðåäü, èíòåðåñóåò ïðåäûñòîðèÿ îñíîâàòåëüíî è ñî ñâîéñòâåí- Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà. Êàêîâû íûì åìó íåóòîëèìûì ëþáî-

3 Ä. Ãóçåâè÷, È. Ãóçåâè÷. Âåëèêîå ïîñîëüñòâî. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2003.

703 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews ïûòñòâîì îñìîòðåòü âñå, ÷òî àâòîðîâ ìîíîãðàôèè, èäåÿ î ìîãëî ïðèãîäèòüñÿ â îñóùåñòâ- ïóòåøåñòâèè âîçíèêëà âåñíîé ëåíèè òîãäà åùå ñìóòíûõ ïëàíîâ 1695 ã., à åå àâòîðîì áûë Ôðàíö îòíîñèòåëüíî ïðåîáðàçîâàíèÿ Ëåôîðò. Ðîññèè. Àíèñèìîâ âèäèò îñíîâ- Ãóçåâè÷è äàæå óòâåðæäàþò, íóþ çàñëóãó Ä. è È. Ãóçåâè÷åé ÷òî äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå öåëè Âåëè- èìåííî â ðàçðàáîòêå ýòîé ãèïî- êîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà áûëè íà ñàìîì òåçû. Êàê ïîä÷åðêèâàåò èñòî- äåëå “äûìîâîé çàâåñîé” (Ñ. 29), ðèê, èíòåðåñ Ïåòðà ê çàïàäíûì ñêðûâàâøåé èñòèííûå öåëè ñòðàíàì áûë øèðîê, íî âîâñå íå ïîåçäêè, è ññûëàþòñÿ íà àâòî- áåçãðàíè÷åí. Òàê, öàðÿ íå èíòå- ðèòåòíîãî ðîññèéñêîãî èñòîðèêà ðåñîâàëè “äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèå” XIX â. Â. Î. Êëþ÷åâñêîãî, êîòî- èíñòèòóòû ýòèõ ñòðàí – îí ñáå- ðûé ãîâîðèë î “íàñòîÿùåé æàë ñ çàñåäàíèÿ àíãëèéñêîãî âîðîâñêîé ýêñïåäèöèè (ðåêîã- ïàðëàìåíòà è ïîêèíóë ðàíüøå íîñöèðîâêå) çà çàïàäíîé íàóêîé” âðåìåíè çàñåäàíèå Ãåíåðàëü- (Ñ. 30). Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ðå÷ü, íûõ Øòàòîâ. Ñâîáîäà ñëîâà íå îïÿòü-òàêè, èäåò íå î äèïëîìà- ïðåäóñìàòðèâàëàñü äëÿ ïîä- òè÷åñêîì, à îá îáðàçîâàòåëüíîì äàííûõ ñàìîäåðæöà. Íàïðîòèâ, ïóòåøåñòâèè öàðÿ (Ñ. 36). åãî î÷åíü èíòåðåñîâàëè èíñòè- Âî âòîðîé ãëàâå ìû óçíàåì, òóòû àáñîëþòèñòñêîé Øâåöèè, ÷òî óæå â ñàìîì íà÷àëå ìàðø- èç êîòîðûõ îí ìíîãèå ïîçàèì- ðóò áûë ÷åòêî ðàçðàáîòàí, è ÷òî ñòâîâàë. öåëüþ áûëà è Àíãëèÿ. Ýòî óòâåð-  ïåðâîé ãëàâå àâòîðû èññëå- æäåíèå ïðîòèâîðå÷èò ìíåíèþ äîâàíèÿ ïîäðîáíî îñòàíàâëèâà- íåêîòîðûõ èñòîðèêîâ, ïîëàãàâ- þòñÿ íà ïðåäûñòîðèè Âåëèêîãî øèõ, ÷òî Ïåòð ïëàíèðîâàë ïîñå- Ïîñîëüñòâà. Ïðè ýòîì îíè òèòü òîëüêî Íèäåðëàíäû (è â ïîëàãàþòñÿ íà äîêóìåíòû, èç èòîãå áûë ðàçî÷àðîâàí â ãîë- êîòîðûõ ñëåäóåò, ÷òî Ïåòð ëàíäñêèõ êîðàáëåñòðîèòåëÿõ, äîëãî âûíàøèâàë ïëàí áîëü- îêàçàâøèõñÿ ñëàáûìè â òåîðèè). øîãî ïóòåøåñòâèÿ, íî åìó äëÿ È óæ ñîâñåì óäèâèòåëüíî óçíàòü, îòïðàâëåíèÿ íà Çàïàä íóæíà ÷òî Ïåòð áûë íå ïðîòèâ ïîñå- áûëà ïîáåäà íàä òóðêàìè ïîä òèòü è Ôðàíöèþ (Ñ. 41), ÷òî Àçîâîì, ÷òîáû åãî ìîãëè âîñ- òàêæå ïðîòèâîðå÷èò èçâåñòíûì ïðèíèìàòü â åâðîïåéñêèõ ñòðà- óòâåðæäåíèÿì î òîì, ÷òî Ëþäî- íàõ ñ óâàæåíèåì. Âåäü äî òåõ âèê XIV êàòåãîðè÷åñêè îòêà- ïîð íè îäèí ðóññêèé ïðàâèòåëü çûâàëñÿ ïðèíèìàòü “ìîñêîâèò- íå ïîêèäàë ñòðàíó! Ïî ìíåíèþ ñêîãî âàðâàðà”.

704 Ab Imperio, 4/2004  òðåòüåé ãëàâå êíèãè íå òàê âëàñòè Ðèãè áûëè åäèíñòâåí- óæ ìíîãî óäåëÿåòñÿ âíèìàíèÿ íûìè, êòî íå ïîæåëàë ó÷àñòâî- äèïëîìàòè÷åñêîé àêòèâíîñòè âàòü â íàèâíîé èãðå è ïîçâîëèòü Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà, ïîñêîëüêó Ïåòðó ñîáèðàòü ñâåäåíèÿ îá óê- àâòîðîâ áîëåå èíòåðåñóåò ëåãàëü- ðåïëåíèÿõ ãîðîäà. Îíè óñìîòðå- íàÿ è ïîäïîëüíàÿ øïèîíñêàÿ ëè â ÿêîáû íåâèííîì ïåòðîâñ- äåÿòåëüíîñòü ìèññèè. Îíè ñïðà- êîì ëþáîïûòñòâå øïèîíàæ.  âåäëèâî çàäàþòñÿ âîïðîñîì: äðóãèõ ãîðîäàõ íè÷òî è íèêòî áûëà áû âîçìîæíà Ñåâåðíàÿ íå ìåøàë Ïåòðó è åãî ïîñîëüñòâó, âîéíà áåç Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà? íàñ÷èòûâàâøåìó ñîòíè ÷åëîâåê. Âåäü èìåííî âî âðåìÿ âñòðå÷è Îäíàêî, êàê óòâåðæäàþò èññëå- Ïåòðà ñ Àâãóñòîì II â ïåðâûé äîâàòåëè, èìåëè ìåñòî è ðåàëü- ðàç âîçíèêëà ìûñëü îá îáúÿâëå- íûå ñëó÷àè øïèîíàæà: “À áûëè íèè âîéíû Øâåöèè. Îáà ìîíàð- ëè â õîäå Ïîñîëüñòâà äåéñòâèÿ, õà ñìîãëè âïîëíå óñïåøíî äåð- êîòîðûå ÿâíî âûõîäèëè çà ðàì- æàòü çàêëþ÷åííûé de facto ïàêò êè ëåãàëüíîé ðàçâåäêè? Áûëè. â òàéíå îò ñîáñòâåííîãî îêðó- Ïðè÷åì, ÷àñòü èç íèõ ñîâåðøà- æåíèÿ (Ñ. 51). ëàñü òàéíî, â íàðóøåíèå ñîîò-  ïîñëåäóþùèõ ðàçäåëàõ äå- âåòñòâóþùèõ ïèñàíûõ èëè òðà- òàëüíî èññëåäóåòñÿ, ÷òî èìåííî äèöèîííûõ íîðì, à íà ÷àñòü äåð- Ïåòð èçó÷àë íà Çàïàäå (ãëàâà IV), æàòåëè èíôîðìàöèè è âëàñòü è ÷òî ó÷àñòíèêè Âåëèêîãî ïðîñòî-íàïðîñòî çàêðûâàëè Ïîñîëüñòâà ïðèâåçëè ñ ñîáîé èç ãëàçà, òåì ñàìûì, ïåðåâîäÿ ýòè ïóòåøåñòâèÿ (ãëàâà V). Àâòîðû äåéñòâèÿ ñ óðîâíÿ øïèîíàæà íà ãîâîðÿò î “ïîñëàõ-òóðèñòàõ” è óðîâåíü ëåãàëüíîé ðàçâåäêè” î “ëåãàëüíîé ðàçâåäêå” (ãëàâà VI). (Ñ. 208). Òîò ôàêò, ÷òî ïðîèçîø-  ãëàâå VII ðå÷ü èäåò î íàéìå ëî î÷åíü ìàëî èíöèäåíòîâ, èíîñòðàííûõ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ íà îáúÿñíÿåòñÿ ïðîñòî: “Åâðîïåé- ðóññêóþ ñëóæáó, â ãëàâå VIII – ñêèå äåðæàâû ñàìè åìó âñå ïîä- î çàêóïêàõ ìàòåðèàëîâ, îáîðó- íîñèëè – áåðè, íå õî÷ó” (Ñ. 210). äîâàíèÿ è êîëëåêöèé. Äåâÿòàÿ Çàñëóæèâàåò âíèìàíèÿ òàêæå ãëàâà ïîñâÿùåíà àíàëèçó çàêëþ- îäèííàäöàòàÿ ãëàâà, â êîòîðîé ÷åííûõ Âåëèêèì Ïîñîëüñòâîì ïîäðîáíî ðàññêàçûâàåòñÿ îá êîíòðàêòîâ è ìîíîïîëèÿì.  îòïðàâëåííûõ äëÿ îáó÷åíèÿ íà êîðîòêîé äåñÿòîé ãëàâå îáñóæ- Çàïàä ìîëîäûõ ëþäÿõ. Îíè íå äàåòñÿ âîïðîñ î êîíñïèðàöèè è ó÷àñòâîâàëè â Âåëèêîì Ïîñîëü- øïèîíàæå. Àâòîðû ðàáîòû ñòâå, à íàïðàâèëèñü çà ðóáåæ ñïðàâåäëèâî óêàçûâàþò, ÷òî âñëåä çà ýòîé ìèññèåé.  äâåíàä-

705 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews öàòîé ãëàâå îïèñûâàþòñÿ ðå- ãàñòðîíîìèÿ, áûò, öåðåìîíèàë, çóëüòàòû Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà, êîñòþì, ïîëèòèêà, ÿçûêè, ôè- èìåþùèå çíà÷åíèå êàê äëÿ Ðîñ- íàíñû è áàíêîâñêîå äåëî, ïðàâî, ñèè, òàê è äëÿ îñòàëüíîãî ìèðà. ýêîíîìèêà, ìåäèöèíà, ïåðèî- Îòìåòèì, ÷òî áûëè ðóññêèå, äè÷åñêàÿ ïå÷àòü, ãåîãðàôèÿ, êîòîðûå, ïîáûâàâ íà Çàïàäå, è êíèãà, êóëèíàðèÿ, êîëëåêöèî- ïîëó÷è⠓ïðèâèâêó” åâðîïåéñêîé íèðîâàíèå è ìóçåéíîå äåëî, êóëüòóðû, òåì íå ìåíåå, â äàëü- ìóçûêà, ñåëüñêîå õîçÿéñòâî, íåéøåì îêàçàëè ðåøèòåëüíîå àðõèòåêòóðà, ýòíîãðàôèÿ, ñàäî- ñîïðîòèâëåíèå âåñòåðíèçàöèîí- âîäñòâî, ñîöèàëüíîå ïðèçðåíèå, íûì ïëàíàì Ïåòðà. Íàïðèìåð, îáðàçîâàíèå...” (Ñ. 232). Ðåçóëü- ñðåäè òàêèõ ìîæíî íàçâàòü òàòîì ýòîãî ñòàëà âîçíèêøàÿ â ó÷àñòíèêîâ äåëà öàðåâè÷à òðàäèöèîííîé ðóññêîé êóëüòóðå Àëåêñåÿ – Àëåêñàíäðà Êèêèíà îïïîçèöèÿ íîâîé, ðîññèéñêîé è Àáðàìà Ëîïóõèíà (Ñ. 227). êóëüòóðå, êóëüòóðå Ðîññèéñêîé Ñâîþ ðàáî÷óþ ãèïîòåçó àâòî- èìïåðèè. ðû êíèãè îïèñûâàþò ñëåäóþùèì Àâòîðû èññëåäîâàíèÿ ñïðà- îáðàçîì: Âåëèêîå Ïîñîëüñòâî âåäëèâî óêàçûâàþò íà òîò ôàêò, áûëî “ðåâîëþöèåé çíàíèÿ”. ÷òî âíåøíèå äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå Îíî ïðåäñòàâëÿëî ñîáîé “ñèëî- öåëè Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà ëåã- âîé ïðîðûâ, îñóùåñòâëÿåìûé êî äîñòèãàëèñü áû è áåç ëè÷íî- ïî äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèì êàíàëàì ãî ïðèñóòñòâèÿ öàðÿ è áåç òåõ ïîä ëè÷íûì ðóêîâîäñòâîì öàðÿ; îãðîìíûõ çàòðàò, êîòîðûõ ñòî- ...ìàññèðîâàííóþ àêöèþ ïî çàõ- èëî ïîñîëüñòâî.  êîíöå êîíöîâ, âàòó è ïåðåíîñó â Ðîññèþ òåõíè- ðîññèéñêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî äî ÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ â íåâèäàííûõ ýòîãî áîëåå 200 ëåò îòïðàâëÿëî ðàíåå ìàñøòàáàõ” (Ñ. 232). Ýòîò äèïëîìàòîâ â Âåíó è Ðå÷ü Ïî- “ïåðåíîñ çíàíèÿ” êàñàëñÿ ïðàê- ñïîëèòóþ, è îíè ñ óñïåõîì âû- òè÷åñêè âñåõ àñïåêòîâ æèçíè ïîëíÿëè ñâîè çàäà÷è, ïóñòü è íà îáùåñòâà, êîòîðûå ó÷àñòíèêè ãîðàçäî áîëåå íèçêîì ïðåäñòà- ïîñîëüñòâà íàáëþäàëè âìåñòå ñ âèòåëüñêîì óðîâíå (Ñ. 234). Ïåòðîì â òå÷åíèå íåñêîëüêèõ Âïîëíå î÷åâèäíî, äëÿ Ïåòðà ìåñÿöåâ: “èçîáðàçèòåëüíîå è áûëè âàæíû íå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå è ïðèêëàäíîå èñêóññòâî, òåàòð, äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå êîàëèöèè, à ëèòåðàòóðà, àäìèíèñòðàöèÿ, òðàíñôåðò çíàíèÿ. Èìåííî ïî- öåðêîâü, äèïëîìàòèÿ, íàóêà è åå ýòîìó àâòîðû âûäâèãàþò ñëåäó- îðãàíèçàöèÿ, íàòóðàëüíàÿ èñòî- þùóþ ãèïîòåçó: “Ìàññîâûé ïå- ðèÿ, ìàòåìàòèêà, àñòðîíîìèÿ è ðåíîñ òåõíè÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ

706 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 óäàëñÿ ïîä äûìîâîé çàâåñîé ñî- ÷èõ. Ýòó ìûñëü áåç îáèíÿêîâ êðóøèòåëüíûõ äèïëîìàòè÷åñ- âûñêàçûâàåò ãîëëàíäñêèé àâòîð êèõ ïîðàæåíèé” (Ñ. 236). “Çà- Ãåððèò ßí Ãîíèã â ïåðåâåäåí- ïàäíûå ñòðàíû çàêðûâàëè íà íîé íà ðóññêèé ÿçûê ïüåñå, [ýòîò ïåðåíîñ çíàíèÿ] ãëàçà, ðàñ- íàïèñàííîé ïî ñëó÷àþ äâóõñîò- ñìàòðèâàÿ [åãî] êàê ñïîñîá ïîä- ëåòèÿ Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà.4  ñëàñòèòü ïèëþëþ, êàê ïëàòó çà Çààíäàìå, ãäå Ïåòð ðàáîòàåò íà äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå îòêàçû, è íå âåðôè, íåêîòîðûå âîð÷àò (“Ìíå îòäàâàÿ ñåáå îò÷åòà â òîì, ÷òî óæàñíî íå íðàâèòñÿ, êîãäà ýòè ñîçäàþò òåõíè÷åñêóþ áàçó äëÿ èíîñòðàíöû øíûðÿþò çäåñü: ðîñòà áóäóùåãî êîíêóðåíòà – âûñìîòðÿò âñþ ïîäíîãîòíóþ äèïëîìàòè÷åñêîãî, âîåííîãî, íàøåé íàóêè, à òàì... ïîìèíàé ïðîìûøëåííîãî, òîðãîâîãî” èõ êàê çâàëè”) èëè âûñêàçûâàþò (Ñ. 236-237). îïàñåíèÿ: “ß íå ðàç ñòàâèë ñåáå Ïðè ýòîì èññëåäîâàòåëè âîïðîñ: ïðàâèëüíî ëè ìû ïîñòó- ñïðàâåäëèâî îòìå÷àþò, ÷òî â ïàåì, ïîêàçûâàÿ âñå âåëèêîìó äíè ïîñîëüñòâà ñëîæíî áûëî êíÿçþ è íàó÷àÿ åãî âñåì íàøèì ïðåäñòàâèòü ñåáå, êàêîé ïðûæîê ðåìåñëàì è èñêóññòâàì, à òàêæå ñîâåðøèò Ðîññèÿ. Íàèáîëåå ïðèíèìàÿ â íàøó ñëóæáó ýòó äàëüíîâèäíûìè îêàçàëèñü èíîçåìíóþ ìîëîäåæü. È ÿ ïîëà- âëàñòè øâåäñêèõ ïîãðàíè÷íûõ ãàþ, ÷òî ïîòîì îêàæåòñÿ, ÷òî çåìåëü – Ðèãè è Íàðâû. Íî òåì ìû íàíåñëè áîëüøîé âðåä íàøåé ñàìûì îíè, ïîõîæå, íàíåñëè ñòðàíå òåì, ÷òî îòïóñòèëè áîëüøèé âðåä ñîáñòâåííîé ñòîëüêî äåëüíûõ ëþäåé â Ðîññèþ ñòðàíå, ÷åì Ðîññèè! È â ýòîì è óñòóïèëè åé ñòîëüêî îáðàçöîâ ñîñòîèò îïðåäåëåííûé ïàðà- ðàçëè÷íûõ ìåëüíè÷íûõ ïðîèç- äîêñ Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà. Åùå âîäñòâ, òêàöêèõ ñòàíêîâ è âîîá- ïðè Ïåòðå I íà Çàïàäå ëþäè ùå ðàçíûõ ôàáðè÷íûõ òàéí” íà÷àëè îñîçíàâàòü, ñîó÷àñòíè- (Ñ. 36, 54).5 êàìè êàêîãî ïðîöåññà îíè âñå  çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîé ãëàâå îêàçàëèñü.  Íèäåðëàíäàõ äà- (“Ïåòåðáóðã è åãî êîðíè”) àâ- ëåêî íå âñå ðàäîâàëèñü èñõîäó òîðû îáðàùàþò âíèìàíèå íà ñîòåí êâàëèôèöèðîâàííûõ ðàáî- ñâÿçü ìåæäó Âåëèêèì Ïîñîëü-

4 Ã. ß. Ãîíèã. Ïèòð Ìèõàéëîâ. Èñòîðèêî-áûòîâûå êàðòèíêè ãîëëàíäñêîé æèçíè XVII âåêà â 4 äåéñòâèÿõ ñ ïðîëîãîì. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 1898. 5 Îá ýòîì ñì. ïîäðîáíî â ìîåé êíèãå: Emmanuel Waegemans. Peter de Groote in de Oostenrijkse Nederlanden. Antwerpen, 1998. Ñ. 78-105 (ãëàâà “Îáðàç “öàðÿ- ïëîòíèêà” â ëèòåðàòóðå”). 707 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews ñòâîì è âîçíèêíîâåíèåì Ñàíêò- íàçâàíèå “Ïèòåð” ñóùåñòâîâàëî Ïåòåðáóðãà. Íå áóäü Âåëèêîãî âñåãäà, äàæå â òå÷åíèå êîììóíè- Ïîñîëüñòâà, ïîëó÷èëà ëè áû ñòè÷åñêîãî ïåðèîäà.  ïðèëèâå Ðîññèÿ â ñâîå âëàäåíèå Èíãåð- ýéôîðèè äîáðûõ ÷óâñòâ ê Íè- ìàíëàíäèþ, ãäå áûë ïîñòðîåí äåðëàíäàì, Ä. è È. Ãóçåâè÷è ãîðîä? Ñìîã áû Ïåòð ïîñòðîèòü çàêëþ÷àþò: “À ïîñëåäíèé ðîñ- ñâîé “‘ïàðàäèç’ íà Çåìëå – ñèíòåç ñèéñêèé èìïåðàòîð – ïîëóíå- ìîðÿ, ðåê è êàíàëî┠(Ñ. 245)? Íå ìåö, ïîëóäàò÷àíèí è ïðàâîñëàâ- áóäü Âåëèêîãî Ïîñîëüñòâà, Ïåòð íûé âåëèêîðóññêèé ïàòðèîò, íå âìåñòî Áàëòèéñêîãî ìîðÿ îáðàòèë ðàçîáðàâøèñü â ãîëëàíäñêèõ è áû ñâîé âçîð íà Þã, íà ×åðíîå íåìåöêèõ êîðíÿõ ñ ðóññêèì ïðî- ìîðå, è âîåâàë áû ïðîòèâ òóðîê, íîíñîì, çàìåíèë [èìÿ ãîðîäà] â à íå ïðîòèâ øâåäîâ. Âåðîÿòíî, 1914 ã. íà Ïåòðîãðàä. Ñ ÷åãî è îí ïîñòðîèë áû íîâûé ãîðîä ñ íà÷àëèñü áåäû” (Ñ. 252). ïðî÷íîé è íåïðèñòóïíîé êðåïî- Èññëåäîâàíèå Ä. è È. Ãóçåâè- ñòüþ, íî ýòîò ãîðîä çâàëñÿ áû íå ÷åé ñîäåðæèò ïîäðîáíóþ áèá- “Âåíåöèåé Ñåâåðà”, íå “Íîâûì ëèîãðàôèþ è èíòåðåñíûå ïðè- Àìñòåðäàìîì”, à êàêèì-íèáóäü ëîæåíèÿ (â ÷èñëå êîòîðûõ ñîñòà⠓âîñòî÷íûì Ìàðñåëåì”. è ìàðøðóò Ïîñîëüñòâà). Àâòîðû Íî Ïåòð íå æåëàë ãîðîäà íà ïîäðîáíî ïðîðàáîòàëè ñóùåñò- þãå, åìó íóæíû áûëè íå âîðîòà âóþùóþ ëèòåðàòóðó â ïîèñêàõ íà Âîñòîê, à îêíî íà Çàïàä. Õî- ïîëåçíîé èíôîðìàöèè. Åñëè áû ðîøî èçâåñòíî âûñêàçûâàíèå êíèãà áûëà ïåðåâåäåíà íà ãîë- Ïåòðà, äîíåñåííîå äî íàñ Íàð- ëàíäñêèé ÿçûê, îíà áû áåñ- òîâûì: “Åñëè Áîã ïðîäëèò ñïîðíî óäîñòîèëàñü ìíîãèõ æèçíü è çäðàâèå, Ïåòåðáóðã áó- ïîõâàë. Æàëü òîëüêî, ÷òî â èç- äåò äðóãîé Àìñòåðäàì” (Ñ. 251).6 äàíèè íåò óêàçàòåëÿ è èëëþñò- Äàæå ñàìî èìÿ ãîðîäà áûëî ãîë- ðàöèé. Âîçìîæíî, ñëåäîâàëî áû ëàíäñêèì – ñíà÷àëà îíî çâó÷àëî ïîä÷åðêíóòü ñïåöèôè÷åñêóþ êàê Ñàíêò-Ïèòåð-Áóðõ, îáðóñåâ òåìó èññëåäîâàíèÿ â ïîäçàãî- ñî âðåìåíåì è ïðåâðàòèâøèñü â ëîâêå, ÷òîáû ÷åò÷å âûäåëèòü Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã. Íî íàðîäíîå äîñòîèíñòâà äàííîé ðàáîòû.

6 Ãîëëàíäñêî-ðîññèéñêèé àðõèâíûé öåíòð âûïóñòèë â þáèëåéíîì ãîäó ïîä- ðîáíîå èññëåäîâàíèå ðîññèéñêîãî èñòîðèêà àðõèòåêòóðû Ñåðãåÿ Ãîðáàòåíêî, ïîñâÿùåííîå ýòîé óäèâèòåëüíîé ìå÷òå Ïåòðà: Ñåðãåé Ãîðáàòåíêî. Íîâûé Àìñòåðäàì. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã è àðõèòåêòóðíûå îáðàçû Íèäåðëàíäîâ / Sergey Gorbatenko. New Amsterdam. St. Petersburg and Architectural Images of the Netherlands. Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2003. 708 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Íèêèòà ÕÐÀÏÓÍΠíàëüíîñòåé Ñîâåòñêîãî Ñîþçà è Ðîññèè (Pp. xxiv, xxv, 21, 22). Yale Richmond, From Nyet to Ñëåäóåò, îäíàêî, óòî÷íèòü ýòó Da: Understanding the Russians äåôèíèöèþ: î÷åâèäíî, “Rus- (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, sians” â äàííîì ñëó÷àå – ðóññêî- 2003). Third Edition. 203 pp. ISBN: ÿçû÷íûå æèòåëè ãîðîäîâ áûâ- 1-877864-16-1. øåãî ÑÑÑÐ è ïîñòñîâåòñêèõ ãîñóäàðñòâ. Îäíàêî â êíèãå íå-  1970-80-å ãã. â Ñîâåòñêîì ðåäêè îòñûëêè è ê îñîáåííîñòÿì Ñîþçå îãðîìíîé ïîïóëÿðíîñòüþ ãðóçèíñêîé, òàòàðñêîé è èíûõ ïîëüçîâàëèñü òðàâåëîãè æóð- êóëüòóð. Ìåæäó òåì, ñàì àâòîð íàëèñòà-ìåæäóíàðîäíèêà Âñå- ïðèçíàåò, ÷òî “íàñòîÿùàÿ” Ðîñ- âîëîäà Îâ÷èííèêîâà “Âåòêà ñà- ñèÿ íà÷èíàåòñÿ çà ïðåäåëàìè êóðû” (1970-1971) è “Êîðíè áîëüøèõ ãîðîäîâ (Pp. 170-171). äóáà” (1979-1980). Òîãäà Ñîâåò- Íî îíà, ïî-âèäèìîìó, îñòàëàñü ñêèé Ñîþç êàçàëñÿ âå÷íûì, à ïðàêòè÷åñêè íåèçâåñòíîé Ðè÷- ßïîíèÿ è Àíãëèÿ – ÷åì-òî î÷åíü ìîíäó èç-çà ñïåöèôèêè êðóãà ïðèâëåêàòåëüíûì è îäíîâðå- îáùåíèÿ, êîòîðûé ñëîæèëñÿ âî ìåííî íåäîñòóïíûì. Èìåííî âðåìÿ åãî ðàáîòû â àìåðèêàíñ- ïîýòîìó ñîâåòñêèå ëþäè îòêðû- êîì ïîñîëüñòâå â Ìîñêâå. âàëè ñ èíòåðåñîì äëÿ ñåáÿ äðó- Îòìåòèì, ÷òî êíèãà àäðåñî- ãèå ñòðàíû è êóëüòóðû ÷åðåç âàíà, ïðåæäå âñåãî, àìåðèêàí- êíèãè, óäèâëÿÿñü îòëè÷èÿì öàì. Åå àâòîð âèäèò ñâîþ çàäà- ìåæäó îêðóæàþùåé ïîâñåäíåâ- ÷ó â òîì, ÷òîáû ïîêàçàòü ÷èòà- íîñòüþ è çàãðàíè÷íîé äåéñòâè- òåëþ ðàçíèöó ìåæäó àìåðèêàí- òåëüíîñòüþ. Âåðîÿòíî, ñõîäíîå öàìè è ðîññèÿíàìè, îáúÿñíèòü âïå÷àòëåíèå ìîæåò âîçíèêíóòü ïðè÷èíû ïîâåäåíèÿ ïîñëåäíèõ ó àìåðèêàíöåâ ïîñëå ïðî÷òåíèÿ (Pp. xxi), à òàêæå äàòü ðåêîìåí- êíèãè Éåéëà Ðè÷ìîíäà, îïèñû- äàöèè ïåðâûì, ñîçäàòü ñâîåãî âàþùåãî îñîáåííîñòè ðóññêîé ðîäà “êðàòêèé êóðñ ïîâåäåíèÿ â êóëüòóðû, áûòà, èñòîðèè è íàöèî- Ðîññèè ïðè îáùåíèè ñ åå æèòå- íàëüíîãî õàðàêòåðà. ëÿìè”. Îñîçíàâàÿ íàëè÷èå ðàç- Àâòîð óêàçûâàåò, ÷òî, õîòÿ íîîáðàçíûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ãðóïï ñëîâà “ðóññêèé” è “ñîâåòñêèé” ðîññèéñêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ è îòëè- îáû÷íî èñïîëüçóþòñÿ êàê ñèíî- ÷èÿ ìåæäó íèìè, Ðè÷ìîíä ñòà- íèìû è â Ðîññèè, è â Àìåðèêå, ðàåòñÿ ïîêàçàòü ÷åðòû êóëüòóðû îí ïèøåò ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì î è õàðàêòåðà, êîòîðûå, ïî åãî “ðóññêèõ”, íå óäåëÿÿ âíèìàíèÿ ìíåíèþ, ÿâëÿþòñÿ íàèáîëåå ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿì äðóãèõ íàöèî- õàðàêòåðíûìè (P. xvi). 709 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews ×òîáû ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü ñðåäíåãî êëàññà. Îíà îñòàëàñü ñâîåîáðàçèå ïîâåäåíèÿ ðóññêèõ, îãðîìíîé, îáðàùåííîé â ïðîø- àâòîð ñðàâíèâàåò èõ ñ àìåðèêàí- ëîå àãðàðíîé èìïåðèåé, íàõî- öàìè. Òàêîé ïðèåì ïîêàçûâàåò äèâøåéñÿ ïîä âëàñòüþ àâòîðè- ñõîäñòâî è ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó òàðíîé ìîíàðõèè ñ ìåññèàíñêè- äâóìÿ êóëüòóðàìè, à òàêæå íàìå- ìè óñòðåìëåíèÿìè è ñîïóòñòâó- ÷àåò ïóòè ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ýòèõ ðàç- þùåé èì êñåíîôîáèåé (Pp. 5-8). ëè÷èé, îáúÿñíÿåò ïðè÷èíû âîç- Ðè÷ìîíä äåëàåò ðÿä âûâîäîâ, íèêíîâåíèÿ ïðîáëåì â îáùå- êîòîðûå ìîãóò âûçâàòü óëûáêó íèè, áûòó, áèçíåñå è ò. ï. Òåîðå- ó ðîññèéñêîãî ÷èòàòåëÿ. Òàê, òè÷åñêèå ðàññóæäåíèÿ èëëþñò- ñåâåðíûé êëèìàò Ðîññèè îáúÿñ- ðèðóþòñÿ ïðèìåðàìè èç æèçíè íÿåò, ïî÷åìó äîëãèå ïåðèîäû àâòîðà è åãî çíàêîìûõ, ÷òî äå- ïàññèâíîñòè åå æèòåëåé ñìåíÿ- ëàåò ïîâåñòâîâàíèå áîëåå æèâûì. þòñÿ íåîæèäàííûìè âûáðîñà- Ñëåäóåò ñêàçàòü, ÷òî, ïî ìíå- ìè ýíåðãèè. Îñîáåííîñòè ñóðî- íèþ àâòîðà, ëèöî Ðîññèè îïðå- âîé ñåâåðíîé ïðèðîäíîé ñðåäû äåëèëè òå èëè èíûå “äîëãîâðå- îáóñëîâèëè ñïåöèôèêó ðóññêîãî ìåííûå” ôàêòîðû (ïðèðîäíî- íàöèîíàëüíîãî õàðàêòåðà. Çàâåð- êëèìàòè÷åñêèå, èñòîðèêî-êóëü- øàåòñÿ “åñòåñòâåííîíàó÷íûé” òóðíûå è ðåëèãèîçíûå), íàïðè- ðàçäåë êíèãè ñïîðíûì óòâåðæ- ìåð, ñóùåñòâîâàíèå îáùèíû, äåíèåì, ÷òî çèìîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîå ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûé õàðàêòåð íåäîâîëüñòâî â Ðîññèè äîñòèãàåò ýêîíîìèêè è ïð. ñâîåãî ïèêà (Pp. 8-10). Èçûñêàíèÿ Ðè÷ìîíäà, êàê Îãðîìíûå ðîññèéñêèå ðàñ- âèäèì, âðÿä ëè ìîãóò ñ÷èòàòüñÿ ñòîÿíèÿ è îãðàíè÷åííûé äîñòóï íîâûì ñëîâîì â èñòîðèîãðà- ê ìèðîâîìó îêåàíó, êàê ñ÷èòàåò ôèè. Îí ïèøåò, ÷òî îòðåçàííàÿ Ðè÷ìîíä, íå ìîãëè íå ñêàçàòüñÿ îò Çàïàäà íà ïðîòÿæåíèè áîëü- íà çàâèñèìîñòè îò äîðîãîãî è øåé ÷àñòè ñâîåé èñòîðèè, Ðîñ- ñëîæíîãî â ýêñïëóàòàöèè íàçåì- ñèÿ ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå èñïûòàëà íîãî òðàíñïîðòà. Áîãàòñòâî âëèÿíèå ïðîöåññîâ, õàðàêòåð- ïðèðîäíûõ ðåñóðñîâ è ñàìîäî- íûõ äëÿ åâðîïåéñêîé öèâèëèçà- ñòàòî÷íàÿ ýêîíîìèêà íå ñïîñîá- öèè: Ðåíåññàíñà, Ðåôîðìàöèè, ñòâîâàëè ðàçâèòèþ òîðãîâûõ óðáàíèçàöèè, ðàçâèòèÿ ñîâðå- ñâÿçåé. Êîíòàêòû ñ îêðóæàþùèì ìåííîãî ñåëüñêîãî õîçÿéñòâà è ìèðîì ñâîäèëèñü ê îáùåíèþ ñ òîðãîâëè, íàó÷íîé ðåâîëþöèè, ñîñåäíèìè ñòðàíàìè. Îãðîìíàÿ ëèáåðàëèçàöèè ýêîíîìèêè, ïðè- ïðîòÿæåííîñòü ãðàíèö è ñîñåä- çíàíèÿ ñâîáîä ëè÷íîñòè è ïîëè- ñòâî ñ åâðàçèéñêîé ñòåïüþ äå- òè÷åñêèõ ñâîáîä, âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ ëàëè Ðîññèþ óÿçâèìîé. Óïðàâ- 710 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ëåíèå òàêîé òåððèòîðèåé áûëî Ïî ìíåíèþ Ðè÷ìîíäà, ïðè- âîçìîæíî òîëüêî â óñëîâèÿõ âåðæåííîñòü ýòèêå âñåîáùåãî öåíòðàëèçîâàííîãî, âîåíèçèðî- ðàâåíñòâà îñòàåòñÿ ãëàâíîé ÷åð- âàííîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Ïðè÷åì òîé ðóññêîãî ìåíòàëèòåòà è ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ ñëóæáà ñòàëà ïîñëå ïàäåíèÿ êîììóíèçìà. îáÿçàííîñòüþ è çíàòè, è êðåñ- Âñåìó âèíîé êðåñòüÿíñêàÿ îá- òüÿí. Ïîñòîÿííûå âîéíû ïðè- ùèíà (Pp. 35-40). Àâòîð óäåëÿåò âåëè ê ïîäîçðèòåëüíîìó îòíî- åé î÷åíü ìíîãî âíèìàíèÿ, íå øåíèþ ê ñîñåäÿì, èõ êóëüòóð- çàáûâàÿ, êîíå÷íî, ïðîâåñòè íûì è òåõíîëîãè÷åñêèì äîñòè- ïàðàëëåëü ìåæäó îáùèííûì æåíèÿì, à òàê æå ê ôîðìèðîâà- áûòîì è êîììóíèñòè÷åñêèìè íèþ ó ðóññêèõ ìåíòàëèòåòà èäåÿìè. Ðóññêèì âîîáùå ñâîéñ- ïåðìàíåíòíûõ æåðòâ âíåøíåé òâåííû êîíñåðâàòèçì è îñòî- àãðåññèè (Pp. 10-14). ðîæíîñòü – òàêîâî áðåìÿ æèçíè  òå÷åíèå ìíîãèõ ñòîëåòèé â ñóðîâîì êëèìàòå, ñ íåïðîñòîé Ðîññèÿ îñòàâàëàñü àãðàðíîé èñòîðèåé, äà åùå è ñî ñêåïòè- ñòðàíîé, ýòàêîé ñîâîêóïíîñòüþ ÷åñêèì îòíîøåíèåì ê æèçíè êðåñòüÿíñêèõ îáùèí. Ïîâåäåíèå (Pp. 40-42). Êñòàòè, ðàçäåë î ïåñ- ðóññêèõ, ñ÷èòàåò Ðè÷ìîíä, äî ñèìèçìå ïî÷åìó-òî ñâîäèòñÿ ê ñèõ ïîð ñëåäóåò ïðèíöèïàì ñðàâíèòåëüíîìó àíàëèçó ãîðîñ- îáùèííîé ýòèêè è ñâÿçàííûì ñ êîïîâ è ðàññóæäåíèþ î ñëîâàõ íåé îòðèöàíèåì èíäèâèäóà- “ñòðàõ” è “íîðìàëüíî”. Âûâîä ëèçìà, îòñóòñòâèåì òàáó íà ôè- â ýòîé ãëàâå áîëåå îïòèìèñòè- çè÷åñêèå êîíòàêòû ìåæäó íåçíà- ÷åí: íåëüçÿ îòêàçûâàòü ðóññêèì, êîìûìè ëþäüìè (?), âìåøàòåëü- ïåðåæèâøèì ìíîãèå òÿæåëåé- ñòâîì â ëè÷íûå äåëà äðóãèõ è ò.ä. øèå èñòîðè÷åñêèå èñïûòàíèÿ, â (Pp. 14-20). Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà äóõîâíîé ñèëå. êíèãè, 70 ëåò ñîâåòñêîé âëàñòè Ãîâîðÿ î íàöèîíàëüíîé íå ñìîãëè óíè÷òîæèòü ïðàâî- ñêëîííîñòè ê êðàéíîñòÿì è ïðî- ñëàâíûå òðàäèöèè ðóññêîé êóëü- òèâîðå÷èÿì â ïîâåäåíèè, àâòîð, òóðû è ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ. Ïðàâäà, îäíàêî, íè÷åãî íå ãîâîðèò î â ýòîé ñâÿçè íåñêîëüêî ñòðàí- ïðè÷èíàõ âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ äàí- íûì êàæåòñÿ âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî íîé îñîáåííîñòè, îãðàíè÷èâàÿñü ñîâðåìåííûå óâëå÷åíèÿ ðîññèÿí “ãëóáîêîé” ìûñëüþ î òîì, ÷òî àñòðîëîãèåé, õèðîìàíòèåé è ðóññêèõ âå÷íî áðîñàåò â êðàé- îêêóëüòèçìîì ÿâëÿþòñÿ íàñëå- íîñòè. Ñëîæíîå è íåáëàãîäàð- äèåì ÿçû÷åñêîãî, äîõðèñòèàíñ- íîå äåëî îïðåäåëåíèÿ ñâîéñòâ êîãî ïðîøëîãî (P. 28). ðóññêîé äóøè àâòîð ñâîäèò ê

711 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews ïîñòóëèðîâàíèþ ïðèíöèïîâ òðàëèçàöèþ óïðàâëåíèÿ, ãîñ- ãîñïîäñòâà ÷óâñòâ íàä ðàçóìîì, ïîäñòâî ñèëû íàä çàêîíîì, ãî- âîñïðèèì÷èâîñòè ê ÷óâñòâàì ñóäàðñòâåííóþ èäåîëîãèþ, äðóãèõ ëþäåé, õðàáðîñòè, à òàê- îïðåäåëÿþùóþ íîðìû ñîöèàëü- æå ìîðàëüíîé ñòîéêîñòè è äîá- íîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ, ïðèìàò îáùè- ðîäåòåëÿì àãðàðíîãî îáùåñòâà íû íàä ëè÷íîñòüþ, îãðîìíóþ (Pp. 47-51). ðîëü ñïåöñëóæá è ïð. Ïðîòèâî- Îäèí èç ðàçäåëîâ ïîñâÿùåí ðå÷èÿ ñîâðåìåííîé æå Ðîññèè òàêîìó ôåíîìåíó ðóññêîé æèçíè, êîðåíÿòñÿ, ïî ìíåíèþ Ðè÷ìîíäà, êàê ãèãàíòîìàíèÿ, è åå ïðîÿâëå- â òîì, ÷òî îíà íàõîäèòñÿ íå íèÿì â âèäå, íàïðèìåð, íåñòðå- òîëüêî ìåæäó Åâðîïîé è Àçèåé, ëÿþùåé Öàðü-ïóøêè, ñòàòóè íî è ìåæäó èíäóñòðèàëüíûìè “Ðîäèíû-ìàòåðè” íà Ìàìàåâîì ñòðàíàìè (ñ èõ ïðîìûøëåííîñ- êóðãàíå, î÷åðåäåé ⠓Ìàêäî- òüþ, íàóêîé, ÂÏÊ, îáðàçîâàííû- íàëüäñ” è îãðîìíîé ðîññèéñêîé ìè ñëîÿìè îáùåñòâà) è òðåòüèì àðìèè. Ïðè÷èíû äàííîãî ôåíî- ìèðîì (ñ åãî áåäíîñòüþ, íèçêèì ìåíà àâòîð âèäèò â ðàçìåðàõ óðîâíåì ïðîèçâîäñòâà è ïð.). ñòðàíû. Ãèãàíòîìàíèÿ íåðåäêî Ðàññóæäåíèÿ Ðè÷ìîíäà î ïðèâîäèò ê íåôóíêöèîíàëüíûì êîððóïöèè è ìàôèè â Ðîññèè ðåçóëüòàòàì. Ïîýòîìó Ðè÷ìîíä äîâîëüíî áàíàëüíû. Åñòü, ïðàâ- çàäàåòñÿ íåñêîëüêî íåòðàäèöèîí- äà, îðèãèíàëüíûå ìîìåíòû: íûì âîïðîñîì: íåóæåëè ñîâðå- îêàçûâàåòñÿ, êîðíè ðóññêîé ìåííûå ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå ðåôîðìû – ìàôèè ñëåäóåò èñêàòü íå â Èòà- ýòî ïðîñòî ïîñëåäíèé ïðèìåð ëèè, à â ñîâåòñêîé ñèñòåìå. Ìà- ìàñøòàáíîñòè ðóññêîãî ìûøëå- ôèÿ – ýòî ïðîäóêò ñîþçà ìåæäó íèÿ? (Pp. 52-54). Âîïðåêè íåî- ïðåñòóïíîñòüþ è áûâøèìè äíîêðàòíî âûñêàçûâàåìîìó êîììóíèñòàìè-íîìåíêëàòóð- ìíåíèþ î ñâîéñòâåííîì Ðîññèè ùèêàìè è ÊÃÁ (P. 83). Åùå îäíà êîíñåðâàòèçìå, èññëåäîâàòåëü îñîáåííîñòü ðîññèéñêîãî îáùå- ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî òåðïåíèå ðóñ- ñòâà (â ñðàâíåíèè ñ àìåðèêàíñ- ñêèõ èíîãäà äàåò òðåùèíó. È êèì) – îòñóòñòâèå ïðàâîâîé òîãäà íà÷èíàåòñÿ áóíò, îòðàæà- êóëüòóðû è åäâà çàìåòíîå ïðè- þùèé íåñòàáèëüíîñòü è íåñïðà- ñóòñòâèå þðèñòîâ íà ïîëèòè÷åñ- âåäëèâîñòü óñòðîéñòâà ðóññêî- êîé àðåíå. Õîòÿ èñòîðè÷åñêè è ãî îáùåñòâà (Pp. 63-65). çàïàäíîå, è ðóññêîå ïðàâî îñíî- Íåñìîòðÿ íà âñå óñèëèÿ áîëü- âàíû íà ðèìñêîì, îòëè÷èÿ øåâèêîâ ïî ïåðåóñòðîéñòâó ìåæäó íèìè îáúÿñíÿþòñÿ â ìèðà è ÷åëîâåêà, îíè ñîõðàíè- êíèãå âëèÿíèåì Âèçàíòèè è ëè ñâîéñòâåííûå öàðèçìó öåí- ïðàâîñëàâèÿ. Àâòîð ïðèõîäèò ê 712 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 ïàðàäîêñàëüíîìó âûâîäó: àâòîð óñëîæíÿåò ñèòóàöèþ, ïû- ïðîáëåìà Ðîññèè â òîì, ÷òî â òàÿñü ñîçäàòü íåêèé “íàöèî- íåé ñëèøêîì ìíîãî çàêîíîâ, íàëüíûé êîëîðèò” èç íè÷åãî. ðåãóëèðóþùèõ âñå àñïåêòû  ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíè ðóñ- æèçíè (P. 94). ñêèõ, ïî Ðè÷ìîíäó, ñóùåñòâóåò Îòäåëüíàÿ ãëàâà ïîñâÿùåíà ìíîæåñòâî ïðåäïèñàíèé. Ïîâå- îñîáåííîñòÿì êóëüòóðû îáùå- äåíèå, íàðóøàþùåå ýòè íåãëàñ- íèÿ â Ðîññèè. Ïîõîæå, îíà îñíî- íûå ïðàâèëà, îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ ñëî- âàíà èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî íà ñîáñòâåí- âîì “íåêóëüòóðíî”. Àâòîðà íîì îïûòå àâòîðà, è ïîýòîìó íå óäèâëÿåò çàïðåò íà ïðèåì ïèùè îòëè÷àåòñÿ îáúåêòèâíîñòüþ. â îïðåäåëåííûõ ñèòóàöèÿõ, èëè Ðîññèéñêèå ãîðîäà ïåðåïîëíåíû íà æåâàíèå ðåçèíêè â øêîëüíîì ëþäüìè, ñ÷èòàåò Ðè÷ìîíä, îä- êëàññå. Ïîðàçèëî åãî è òðåáîâà- íàêî áîëüøèíñòâî èõ æèòåëåé – íèå íàäåâàòü âå÷åðíåå ïëàòüå ãîðîæàíå òîëüêî â ïåðâîì, âòî- ïðè ïîñåùåíèè òåàòðà èëè îïåðû. ðîì èëè òðåòüåì ïîêîëåíèè, Æèòåëè ÑØÀ ïîëó÷àþò, â ÷àñò- ñîõðàíèâøèìè ìíîãèå êðåñòü- íîñòè, íàñòàâëåíèå: â òåàòðå, ÿíñêèå ïðèâû÷êè. Ðóññêèå æèâóò ïðîõîäÿ ê ñâîåìó ìåñòó, ñëåäóåò äâóìÿ æèçíÿìè: îäíîé äîìà, ïîâîðà÷èâàòüñÿ ëèöîì ê ñèäÿ- äðóãîé – çà åãî ïðåäåëàìè. Äîìà ùèì, èíà÷å ðóññêèå âàñ íå ïîé- îíè òàêèå, êàêèå îíè åñòü.  êíè- ìóò (Pp. 132-133). ãå îïèñûâàþòñÿ îñîáåííîñòè  çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîé ÷àñòè ðóññêîãî ãîñòåïðèèìñòâà (òðà- ãëàâû êîíñòàòèðóåòñÿ, ÷òî, íå- äèöèÿ ïðèíîñèòü ñ ñîáîé ïîäàð- ñìîòðÿ íà âñå ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó êè è ñèäåòü íà êóõíå, îáñóæäàòü ðóññêèìè è àìåðèêàíöàìè, íå- ñåìåéíûå äåëà è ïðîñìàòðèâàòü ñìîòðÿ íà ïåðèîäû îõëàæäåíèÿ ôîòîãðàôèè). Âûÿñíÿåòñÿ, ÷òî îòíîøåíèé ìåæäó ãîñóäàðñòâà- èíîñòðàíåö äîëæåí áûòü ãîòîâ ìè, íà ëè÷íîì óðîâíå ðóññêèå ê ðóññêîìó ÷àåïèòèþ ñ ñàìîâà- òåïëî îòíîñÿòñÿ ê àìåðèêàíöàì. ðîì è ïîäñòàêàííèêàìè (P. 121). Òàê ÷òî ïðîáëåì â îáùåíèè íå Åìó æå àäðåñóþòñÿ ðåêîìåíäà- âîçíèêàåò, îñîáåííî åñëè îíî öèè ïî ïðîèçíåñåíèþ òîñòîâ èäåò çà êóõîííûì ñòîëîì. (Pp. 121-123). Îäíà èç îñîáåííî- Ðàçìûøëåíèÿ îá èñòîðèè ñòåé ðóññêîé æèçíè – “vranyo”. Ðîññèè, ïîäûòîæèâàåò Ðè÷ìîíä, Ðóññêèå ëãóò ÷àñòî, à ïîòîìó âñåãäà áóäóò óïèðàòüñÿ â äèñêóñ- âðàíüå íå âîñïðèíèìàåòñÿ êàê ñèè î ñòåïåíè åå óíèêàëüíîñòè. áåñ÷åñòèå. Ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà,  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå îñîáîå çíà÷åíèå ýòî ñëîâî íå èìååò àíãëèéñêîãî èìååò âëèÿíèå äîëãîâðåìåííûõ ýêâèâàëåíòà (P. 128). Äóìàåòñÿ, ôàêòîðîâ, êîòîðûå ñôîðìèðî- 713 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews âàëè åå êàê ñòðàíó: ãåîãðàôè÷åñ- nyekulturno (Pp. 132, 133), íî: êîãî ïîëîæåíèÿ, èñòîðèè, ðåëè- nomenklatura (Pp. 76, 177), ãèè, êóëüòóðû, ôîðì óïðàâëå- spekulatsiya (P. 40). Ïîäîáíîå íèÿ. Ðîññèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷åì-òî âíèìàíèå ê ïðîáëåìàì òðàíñëè- óíèêàëüíûì, íå Åâðîïîé è íå òåðàöèè è ïåðåâîäà ìîæåò ïîêà- Àçèåé. Îíà âñåãäà îñòàíåòñÿ íå çàòüñÿ íåóìåñòíûì ïðèìåíè- ïîõîæåé íà ÑØÀ. òåëüíî ê êíèãå, íå ÿâëÿþùåéñÿ, Îòëè÷èòåëüíàÿ ÷åðòà êíèãè – ñîáñòâåííî íàó÷íûì ñî÷èíåíè- àêòèâíîå èñïîëüçîâàíèå ðóñ- åì. Îäíàêî èìåííî ýòà íåâíèìà- ñêèõ, â òîì ÷èñëå æàðãîííûõ òåëüíîñòü àâòîðà ê “ìåëî÷àì” ñëîâ áåç ïåðåâîäà, òàêèõ, íàïðè- ìîæåò ìíîãîå ñêàçàòü î õàðàê- ìåð, êàê “blat” è ïð. Èíîãäà àâ- òåðå ðåöåíçèðóåìîé êíèãè. òîð ÷åðåñ÷óð óâëåêàåòñÿ ýòîé Åùå îäíà îñîáåííîñòü èçäà- ýêçîòèêîé – íàïðèìåð, ñëîâî íèÿ – îáèëèå öèòàò èç ïðîèçâå- “ïðîòîêîë” ïðåïîäíîñèòñÿ êàê äåíèé ðàçëè÷íûõ àâòîðîâ, ðóñ- íå èìåþùåå àäåêâàòíîãî àíã- ñêèõ è çàðóáåæíûõ. Îíè èñïîëü- ëèéñêîãî ýêâèâàëåíòà (P. 160). çóþòñÿ êàê ýïèãðàôû èëè âíóò- Íà ñàìîì æå äåëå, àíãëèéñêîå ðèòåêñòîâûå âñòàâêè (“Ïîñëå- “protocol” ñîîòâåòñòâóåò çíà÷å- ñëîâèå” âîîáùå öåëèêîì ñîñòîèò íèÿì ðóññêîãî “ïðîòîêîë”, óêà- èç öèòàò) è äåìîíñòðèðóþò íå çàííûì êàê â ðåöåíçèðóåìîé òîëüêî çíàíèå ðóññêîé ëèòåðà- êíèãå, òàê è â îñíîâíûõ òîëêî- òóðû è äàæå àíåêäîòîâ, íî âûõ ñëîâàðÿõ.1 Ðè÷ìîíä î÷åíü èíîãäà, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, è íåäîñ- øèðîêî ïðèìåíÿåò ïåðåäà÷ó òàòî÷íîå âëàäåíèå ïðåäìåòîì. ðóññêèõ ñëîâ â òðàíñëèòåðàöèè –  ÷àñòíîñòè, ñðåäè ýïèãðàôîâ âåðîÿòíî, êàê äëÿ áîëüøåé âû- îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ ñëåäóþùèå: ðàçèòåëüíîñòè, òàê è â òåõ ñëó- “Russian proverbs”: “If men could ÷àÿõ, êîãäà îí íå ìîæåò íàéòè foresee the future, they would still òî÷íîãî ýêâèâàëåíòà â àíãëèé- behave as they do now” (P. 69) è ñêîì. Îäíàêî ïðèíöèï òðàíñëè- “If all laws perished, the people òåðàöèè íå âñåãäà ÿñåí. Íàïðè- would live in truth and justice” ìåð, â ñëîâå kupyechestvo (P. 37) (P. 87). Íå âïîëíå ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî ðóññêîå “å” ïåðåäàåòñÿ ïî-ðàç- çà “ðóññêèå ïîñëîâèöû” èìåë â íîìó; ñð. nyet (Pp. 1, 141), âèäó àâòîð, íî, ïîõîæå, îòûñ-

1 Ñì. íàïðèìåð: Webster’s New World Dictionary & Thesaurus. Oxford, 1998. S. v. protocol 1; Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow, 1995. S. v. protocol; cð.: Ñ. È. Îæåãîâ, Í. Þ.Øâåäîâà. Òîëêîâûé ñëîâàðü ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà. Ìîñêâà, 1999. 4-å èçä. S. v. ïðîòîêîë 1. 714 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 êàòü èõ â ñîáðàíèÿõ ðîññèéñêèõ íèå, à ñî÷èíåíèå æóðíàëèñòà, ïîñëîâèö è ïîãîâîðîê áóäåò íå- îòêðûâàþùåãî äëÿ ñåáÿ è ñâîèõ ïðîñòî. ÷èòàòåëåé íåèçâåñòíóþ ñòðàíó è Ïðèâåäåì åùå îäèí ïðèìåð, êóëüòóðó. Òåì îíà è èíòåðåñíà. êîãäà ïðèâåäåííîå àâòîðîì Ýðóäèöèÿ àâòîðà è åãî ñòðåìëå- íàáëþäåíèå, êàæóùååñÿ, íà ïåð- íèå ðàçáàâëÿòü ôàêòû èñòîðèÿìè âûé âçãëÿä, îáîñíîâàííûì, èç ëè÷íîãî îïûòà äåëàþò ÷òå- ÿâëÿåòñÿ â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè íèå âåñüìà çàíèìàòåëüíûì. ñëåäñòâèåì ýëåìåíòàðíîãî íåçíà- Çäåñü Ðè÷ìîíä ìîæåò ðàññêà- íèÿ. Ðàññóæäàÿ î ðóññêîì ìåí- çàòü ðóññêèì îá àìåðèêàíöàõ òàëèòåòå, àâòîð óêàçûâàåò íà áîëüøå, ÷åì àìåðèêàíöàì î ðóñ- ñëåäóþùóþ îñîáåííîñòü ðóñ- ñêèõ.  èñïîëüçîâàííîì àâòî- ñêîãî ÿçûêà: ñëîâî “mir” èìååò ðîì ìåòîäå ïîçíàíèÿ êóëüòóðû â íåì òðè çíà÷åíèÿ: “ñåëüñêàÿ ÷åðåç ñðàâíåíèå, ñëîâíî â çåð- îáùèíà”, “âñåëåííàÿ”, “íå êàëå, îòðàæàþòñÿ àìåðèêàíñêèå âîéíà”. Ýòî íàáëþäåíèå Ðè÷- ïðèâû÷êè, îáû÷àè è ìèðîâîñï- ìîíä äåëàåò, èñõîäÿ èç ïðåä- ðèÿòèå. È åñëè àâòîðà ìíîãîå ñòàâëåíèÿ îá îãðîìíîé ðîëè óäèâëÿåò â ïîâåäåíèè ðóññêèõ, êðåñòüÿíñêîé îáùèíû â æèçíè òî íàñ äîëæíî áû óäèâèòü ðîññèéñêîãî îáùåñòâà è åå ïåð- èìåííî òî, ÷òî ýòî åãî óäèâëÿåò. ìàíåíòíîì âëèÿíèè íà óêëàä Äóìàåòñÿ, êíèãà çàñëóæèâàåò æèçíè â Ðîññèè (P. 15f). Îäíàêî èçäàíèÿ â ðóññêîì ïåðåâîäå ýòî íå ñîâñåì òàê.  ðóññêîì õîòÿ áû äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ó ðîñ- ÿçûêå äî ðåâîëþöèè ýòè òðè ñèÿí áûëà âîçìîæíîñòü âçãëÿ- ïîíÿòèÿ îïðåäåëÿëèñü ðàçëè÷íû- íóòü íà ñåáÿ ñî ñòîðîíû, è â î÷å- ìè ñëîâàìè: ïåðâîå è âòîðîå – ðåäíîé ðàç ïîñìîòðåòü íà “ìiðú”, òðåòüå – “ìèðú”.2 È òîëü- àìåðèêàíöåâ è, â îñîáåííîñòè, êî áîëüøåâèñòñêàÿ ðåôîðìà íà òî, êàêèìè îíè ñàìè ñåáå îðôîãðàôèè 1918 ã. ñäåëàëà èç êàæóòñÿ. äâóõ ñëîâ îäíî, íàäåëèâ åãî òðå- Ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü äîáðîæå- ìÿ çíà÷åíèÿìè.3 ëàòåëüíîå îòíîøåíèå àìåðè- Èòàê, êíèãà Ðè÷ìîíäà – ýòî, êàíñêîãî àâòîðà ê Ðîññèè è åå êîíå÷íî, íå íàó÷íîå èññëåäîâà- æèòåëÿì. Îäíàêî îí, ïîõîæå,

2 Â. È. Äàëü. Òîëêîâûé ñëîâàðü æèâîãî âåëèêîðóññêîãî ÿçûêà. Ìîñêâà, 1999. Ò. 2. S. v. ìèðèòü (ìèðú); ìiðú. 3  ýòîé ñâÿçè îáðàòèì âíèìàíèå íà èçâåñòíûé casus translatii: íàçâàíèå ðîìàíà Ëüâà Òîëñòîãî “Âîéíà è ìiðú” îáû÷íî ïåðåâîäèòñÿ íà àíãëèéñêèé êàê “War and peace”, â òî âðåìÿ êàê ñëåäîâàëî áû – “War and society”. 715 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews

íå èçáåæàë âëèÿíèÿ òðàäèöèîí- tion in Programs and Methodology.” íîãî çàïàäíîãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î Although the seminar materials were Ðîññèè è ñâÿçàííîé ñ íåé ìèôî- primarily intended for high school ëîãèè è ñèìâîëèêè. Ïðè áëè- and college teachers, as well as other æàéøåì ðàññìîòðåíèè îêàçûâà- interested parties, the main objective åòñÿ, ÷òî îáùåãî ìåæäó íàøèìè was to introduce Russian students to íàðîäàìè ãîðàçäî áîëüøå, ÷åì the methodologies of European êàæåòñÿ Ðè÷ìîíäó. Ïàðàäîê- historiography. Despite the fact that ñàëüíîñòü åãî ïîäõîäà î÷åâèäíà: this is indeed a much-needed task, ãîâîðÿ î ïðåîäîëèìîñòè ýòèõ the resultant volume is unfortunately ðàçëè÷èé, îí, òåì íå ìåíåå, íå rather one-dimensional. Social and óïóñêàåò âîçìîæíîñòè ïîä÷åðê- economic histories are given a dis- íóòü èõ. proportionately small space, while political history occupies an unduly large portion of the collection. The seminars taught by Maurice Aymard and Giulio Sapelli are the most thought provoking selections. From the former, Russian readers learn how to analyze Russian history as part of the history of world civili- Katya VLADIMIROV zations by employing the broader and more inclusive approach intro- A. O. Chubarian, F. Gori, I. Yu. No- duced by F. Braudel (Pp. 67-102). vichenko, V. V. Ishchenko (Eds.), Aymard argues for the urgent need European Experience and Teaching for new definitions of nation and History in Post-Soviet Russia: Semi- state, nationality and minority, and nar Materials Promoting Regional center and periphery. These are all Innovation in Programs and Methodo- essential concepts for students of logy (Moscow: IVI RAN, 1999). history. He insists, for example, that ISBN: 5-201-00522-5. new history writing demands that one question the necessity of the This publication includes articles institution of the state and that one by foreign authors (selected and reject nationality as a required format translated into Russian by the editors) for historical analysis. In their stead, presented at the TACIS seminars on Aymard offers studies of localities the “European Experience and and inter-state relationships as pos- Teaching History in Post-Soviet sible methods of historical research Russia: Promoting Regional Innova- (Pp. 67-69). He also returns his 716 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 students to Braudel’s insistence on pretation? What becomes important history as the study of the person, over time and how do people reflect not of political institutions and on it? To tell history is to act and dogmas. Unfortunately, the material such actions are hard to analyze. presented is rather limited in scope Only through a multi-disciplinary because Aymard only introduces approach, argues Tonkin, can spe- Braudel’s work without making spe- cialists penetrate deep into the past cific use of Braudel’s actual texts. and present (Pp. 159-184). Sapelli’s seminar also contributes While participants of the Aymard refreshing approaches to new metho- and Sapelli seminars search for new dological perspectives in the social approaches, others circle around sciences (Pp. 101-126). The partici- familiar themes regarding the politi- pants use anthropology, cultural cal ideologies of Stalinism and studies, and oral history in their case totalitarianism, as well as the com- studies of communities. Mauss, for parative identities of Russia and the instance, uses social morphology West. Some of the participants demon- and thereby demonstrates how the strate great skill in their interpretive study of the seasons and environ- analyses. Mark Von Hagen’s contri- mental change led to changes in the bution is a comprehensive analysis social and demographic history of of the influences of Stalinism on Inuit communities (Pp. 127-140). post-Soviet politics (Pp. 12-43). Dobbin’s study of Asian entrepre- Russians, he argues, believe that the neurs allows historians to learn more dilemmas of Stalinism are central to about world trade from the perspec- Russian history, which forces them tive of the peripheral relationship to debate it continuously. Not only between East and West (Pp. 141-159). historians but also economists, poli- Tonkin shows the importance of ticians, journalists – even movie direc- oral history and orature for estab- tors and novelists – participate in this lishing the fragile connection between passionate discussion of Stalinism a person, his/her memory, and the and its impact (P. 12). M. von Hagen formulation of the past. Tonkin poses sees amazing similarities between a variety of crucial questions: What the Russian controversies regarding is history and how do we distinguish this topic and the ones in the West our past experiences from it? Is his- (P. 20). He suggests that some of the tory just a clumsy reflection of our writers concentrate on the personality experiences and, if it is to be more of Stalin, while others wonder about than this, what do we then choose the magic appeal of Stalinism to the as the criterion for a correct inter- larger masses (Pp. 22, 27, 29, 31, 35).

717 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews

While some choose peasants as inno- connected with the teaching of his- cent victims of the conquering tory in the classroom and its preser- doctrines of Marxism and Bolshe- vation for future generations. He vism, others argue that young argues that Russia lacks many basic workers corrupted the original vision resources and that students conse- with their patriarchal notions and quently suffer from a shortage of thus destroyed the revolutionary teachers and textbooks, which results transformation (Pp. 29-30). While in an alarming level of ignorance some praise the results of industriali- (P. 46). In 1995 only 34% of the zation, others concentrate on the price school children knew, for example, of the GULAG system (Pp. 15, 28). about the Stalinist camps in compari- M. von Hagen skillfully uses film son with 82% who claimed such and literature to demonstrate the knowledge in 1992 (P. 44). Further- growth of public interest in Stalinism more, in the climate of the new Rus- (Pp. 16, 39). Regretfully, his analy- sia, students prefer to concentrate on sis only covers the period from the more practical, career-oriented dis- late 1980s through the early 1990s ciplines at the expense of the hu- and does not extend to the current de- manities. But Russians only follow cade. It would be interesting to in- the models offered to them by the vestigate whether Russians in the West. After all, a majority of uni- 21st century still see Stalinism as a versity students in the United States watershed event. are more ignorant about Vietnam R. W. Davies’s study of history then Russian students are about teaching and writing in Russia during Stalinist camps, and some students the Yeltsin period offers a slightly do not even know who won World different picture. He confirms that War II. The situation is not much there are still debates between different in the West than it is in Russian historians concerning the Russia. In both places historical Russian empire, the Revolution, knowledge is protected by a small Leninism, Stalinism, the Great group of underpaid teachers. Patriotic war, nationality policies, History writing and teaching in and changes brought about by the end Russia went through painful and sys- of the Soviet era (Pp. 44-64). But tematic system disintegration. Yet the main concern today regards stu- what excuse does the West have for dents and their level of historical its absurdly low levels of historical knowledge. competence? The study of history Davies reminds the reader that will only survive if school programs scholarly writings are intrinsically enforce it as part of their core cur-

718 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 riculum. Curricular choices com- As a result, Lieven’s version of manded by market forces threaten to “correct” Russian history is a mé- eliminate the study of history alto- lange of biased interpretations of gether. Davies also believes that random events, names, and con- Russian history writing, unlike its cepts. It is an exercise in outdated practice in the West, is largely pro- Cold War propaganda with a tected from politics (P. 64). In the Slavophile touch. West, it has been already traumatized One wonders why he would have by the interference of bureaucrats chosen to study Russia and the Soviet and politicians. If this unfortunate Union. His Russian readers will be trend continues and is imported to surprised to learn that modern Rus- Russia, the latter will once again sia is nothing more than a country succumb to a failing path. covered with “snow” where people Most problematic is the seminar live in “a smoky atmosphere poisoned taught by Dominic Lieven, a politi- by vodka and bureaucracy” (P. 242). cal scientist who is convinced that Lieven is nostalgic about an imagi- he has important insights into the nary old Russia, filled with birch history of Russia. He calls himself trees and pure Slavic believers in “a historian” no less than thirty times Orthodox Christianity (Pp. 196-197). throughout the hundred pages of the Lieven seems to have conveniently published text. He proudly an- “forgotten” his original point that the nounces that “he is not a leftist his- Russian Empire was corrupt and torian” and rejects any research done oppressive and that the majority of by his opponents (P. 240). He criti- its population had never been Rus- cizes the so-called American revi- sian or Christian. sionists for their “weird” views and Lieven compensates for his lack accuses them of being obedient ser- of research with copious moral judg- vants of the American government ments, including his division of (Pp. 222-223, 226, 235). He is equally empires into “good” ones and “bad” dismissive of contemporary Russian ones. While “good” empires enrich historiography, philosophy, and lite- their inhabitants and only engage in rature. And yet he believes that this small-scale massacres, “bad” empires void could be filled by conservative impoverish people and subject them views from Russia’s own “imperial to grandiose disasters (Pp. 188-189, heritage” as well as with wisdom 190-191). Consequently, Great Brit- derived from dubious sources like ain has Lieven’s stamp of approval former tsarist ministers and a grand because it did not conquer but instead duke (Pp. 221, 225, 240). brought civilization to barbaric coun-

719 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews tries (Pp. 198-199). The Soviet Magdalena ¯Ó£KOŒ Union, however, only damaged those it colonized and thereby did not proper- Padraic Kenney, A Carnival of ly bear “the white men’s burden.” Revolution. Central Europe, 1989. While every “good” country Princeton: Princeton University perpetually marches towards en- Press, 2002. ISBN: 0-691-05028-7. lightenment, i.e., capitalism and 352 pð. democracy, “bad” Russia deviated and errantly built socialism (P. 237). The dissident movements that Lieven does not question the goal of developed in post-war Central and the march, or the worthiness of the Eastern Europe (CEE), as well as the collectivization of peoples into grand intellectual and ideational currents movements of historical marches, that inspired them, have been recur- regardless of their goals. Further- rently highlighted and theorized more, he does not define either so- upon as acts of independent social cialism or capitalism nor does he self-organization in the pursuit of question the Soviet type of socialism, achieving public freedom and ethi- compare contemporary socialist cally informed politics under autho- views, or explain the popularity of ritarian communist regimes. Most of socialist ideologies in many recent those studies, however, reflect simi- elections. lar patterns of analysis and focus on His readers are also left wonder- opposition activities subsequent to ing why the collapse of the Soviet the Prague Spring in 1968 (associa- Union did not bring much relief to ted with the ultimate failure of at- people in its aftermath and why cap- tempts at reform), which took on italism does not ipso facto resolve novel forms of “anti-politics” and the problems of poverty, corruption, “new evolutionism” and which re- and the alienation of social groups. sulted in, inter alia, the formation While the objective of the publi- of Solidarity in Poland and its unpre- cation is honorable, it lacks coordi- cedented victory – brought to a halt nation and does not represent the full with the introduction of martial law spectrum of new approaches. Russian in 1981. Subsequently, there has students and teachers are overly been a striking lack of scholarly inte- familiar with the politics of new “in- rest in later forms of dissident expres- terpretations” and “revisions.” What sion. This has created the impression they need is good research methods that the 1980s in CEE witnessed a and open forums for discussion and prolonged impasse between the com- debate. munist authorities and a substantially

720 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 weakened, underground, and uni- views and samizdat and tamizdat form opposition. publications in original languages), This impression, we learn from Kenney’s book consists of three Padraic Kenney’s recent book, is main parts: (i) a detailed description erroneous and highly misleading. and careful analysis of the pre-1989 His A Carnival of Revolution tells a “carnival movements” (P. ii) a “hoto fascinating and thus far untold story essay” (a collection of pictures doc- of the “new generation” of dissidents umenting opposition activities in that emerged in Poland, Czechoslo- 1988 and 1989) and (iii) a factual vakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Slovenia, presentation of “16 scenes” from the and the GDR in the post-Solidarity final phases of regime change. Ken- era. Taking the Bakhtinian notion of ney’s book – with its multiplicity of carnival as a point of departure, actors, movements, and events - cap- Kenney develops a picture of diverse tures well the complexity and speci- and vibrant civic movements that ficity of alternative dissidence. It also emerged, but also distanced them- manages to picture its cross-border selves from, the revisionist ethos of commonalities and analogies (with the 1970s, and remained critical of increased mobility and international its hegemonic oppositional discourse contacts as two crucial characteris- and the “seriousness” with which it tics), and at the same time empha- addressed the communist regime. He sizes the particular national contexts labels them “carnival movement” and predilections that determined and the “konkretny generation” (i.e., different paths. (Thus he emphasizes realist or pragmatic in contrast with for instance that it was in highly reli- the ideational dissidents of the gious Poland and Slovakia that 1970s). Kenney’s introductory thesis Catholic communities became cen- is that the changing international ters of opposition, or in relatively politics, economic failures, and open Slovenia that different identity intellectual activities in CEE will not groups – gay, feminist, etc.– suffice as explanatory factors of the emerged). 1989 revolutions unless placed in the Kenney’s perspective accentuates context of the novel dynamics of that alternative dissidence was in fact dissidence of the “carnival move- a (late and unplanned) child of the ments” that developed throughout oppositional culture that had deve- the whole European communist region. loped a decade earlier. Just as the Based on an impressive variety generation of Havel and Michnik of sources (e.g., numerous inter- redefined politics as an act of public

721 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews conciliation, negotiation, and engage- A characteristic trait of Kenney’s ment (as opposed to “the business study is the focus on Poland, with of government”), and emphasized the implicit suggestion of its centra- that the very act of social mobiliza- lity to dissident activity throughout tion or rejection to consent with re- the region. Thus the emphasis is gime propaganda becomes political, placed on the relatively frequent representatives of the young genera- cross-boundary interactions, assis- tion (Jakubczak, Budrewicz, Hren, tance, and the inspirational role of Orbán, Maranová, Dvoøák, etc.) Poles in the formation of the alter- brought this claim even further and native dissident movements in practiced it more radically. They Ukraine (the Lion Society, Doviria), politicized artistic happenings, eco- Czechoslovakia (the Independent logical and gender issues, religious Peace Association NMS, the Slovak events, hippy lifestyle and punk Union of Protectors of Nature and music, etc., and consequently “broke the Land SZOPK) and Hungary free of the usual opposition sites [as] (Fidesz). Regardless of whether this in this revolution, opposition could is a correct observation, it might be take place anywhere” (P. 5). They partially attributed to Kenney’s differed from the former generation specific national and local perspec- of idealists and “truth-tellers” in that tive – as is his focus on the city of they did not direct their activities at Wroc³aw, which in his account be- the regime. On the contrary, they comes the birthplace of the remained self-focused and indifferent “konkretny generation”. This, in toward official reactions, and even fact, gains a truly symbolic mean- somehow flippant and cynical about ing: while Warsaw gave rise to the their own actions. If one tries to intellectual and ideational opposi- define dissidence as an attempt to tion, and Gdañsk was the center of practice social freedom under autho- worker protests and Solidarity’s ritarian conditions that in their very hometown, it was Wroc³aw – with definition deny its achievement, then its vibrant cultural and artistic life, for the “konkretny generation” this cosmopolitan appeal and historical- freedom is not longer realizable ly close German and Czech ties – that through self-organization or “living became the hub of alternative dis- in truth.” Rather, it becomes synony- sidence in the 1980s. mous with being able “to make politi- One of the main problems about cal statements, to ridicule (or ignore) this otherwise highly educational political ideas, or simply to enjoy and valuable book is that it remains oneself” (P. 163). imprecise about the actual role that

722 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 the “carnival movements” played in per se, but it does suggest a refor- the events of 1989. Kenney’s initial mulation of the causality question assumption is that it is impossible to into a seemingly more modest que- capture the complexity of the demise ry about the dynamics of dissidence of communism in CEE without prior in CEE and their evolution. As indi- discernment of the civic movements cated above, it is the context of the of the 1980s, as they “created the former oppositional paradigms and framework, and the language” (P. of their political and ideological nar- 13) of the subsequent transition. rations that provides potentially Nevertheless, in spite of his meticu- more fruitful material for the study lous analysis, Kenney fails to con- of the 1980s movements, rather than vince the reader about any signifi- the future-oriented perspective of the cant causal links between the coun- 1989 events, which happened some- tercultural dissidence in the 1980s how alongside and without close re- and actual regime change. Rather, as lation to those forms of dissidence he himself reluctantly admits in the that Kenney describes. Without the Polish case (Pp. 250-251), the con- artificial assumptions that close clusive negotiations (necessitated by explanatory links need to be identi- both the economic and international fied and that they can actually con- political factors) included represen- tribute to our understanding of regime tatives of the older generation of collapse in CEE, emphasis can be oppositionists rather than delegates placed on the impact that the of the student and artistic milieus. “konkretny generation” has had on The popular unrest might have taken the postcommunist political diver- the form of “carnival”, and be a cru- sification, redefinition of oppositional cial “catalyst to dialogue” (P. 300), politics, and cultural (and counter- but it was the recognized and “seri- cultural) drifts. ous” dissidents that partnered soft- Another problem is whether the line authorities in the Round Table book fulfils the – admittedly not dialogues. Thus the impact of the explicit – promise to present the new “konkretny generation” is unavoid- forms of dissidence as “carnival ably reduced to imply (i) the societal movements” and the 1989 events as pressure on the authorities throughout a “carnival revolution”. It is slightly the 1980s and – through its diverse disappointing that even though Ken- forms - to introduce (ii) “the idea of ney invokes the Bakhtinian notion internal pluralism” (P. 301) into of carnival, he hardly explains to the postcommunist politics. This does reader his understanding of it, and not diminish the value of the book does not operationalize this concep-

723 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews tion in the particular late-communist here to capture the hilarity, joyful- context. (Besides, to describe these ness, and nonchalance of the par- movements in terms of carnival is ticipants, the grotesque forms of hardly a novelty per se, but rather a their artistic expression, the negation reiteration of their own self-reference). of cultural uniformity, the increased For instance the very interesting crossborder interactions, etc., but claim (Pp. 4-5) that carnival con- the analysis does not go beyond notes a ceremony of the breakdown the contestation that the dissidence of borders (understood as an action in 1980s fits into the carnivalesque of merging discourses officially paradigm (a very interesting excep- considered as disparate or even con- tion is a description we find on tradictory) is not developed in the P. 191 of an Orange Alternative book. Bakhtin emphasizes that car- happening, at which the previously nival is initiated through interactions imprisoned Fydrych becomes between its participants, and that car- hailed as “Papa Smurf” – a contem- nival does not relate to the everyday porary realization of the carnival poli-tical and social reality in terms rolereversion at which a jester be- of mere imitation or caricature. Rath- comes the king). er, it is of independent existence in The point here is that Kenney the sense that it creates a situation be- does not exploit fully the potential yond the everyday language of the of Bakhtin’s conception of carnival official aesthetic or religious order. because he does not bring into play Its rituals of putting on masks and all of its essential components (for costumes bring up metamorphic rep- instance the public, universal but resentations and epitomize process- also ambivalent carnival laughter; es of completion, bereavement, not tantamount to the mood of irony death, reincarnation, and new life. and hilarity that Kenney recalls), Carnivalesque ceremonies express a and, what is more important, he does belief in the termination of a given not explicate the meaning and sig- era and the beginning of a new one; nificance of the juxtaposition of car- and in this sense they gain an almost nival and the late-communist oppo- prophetic quality in the late-commu- sition. These minor drawbacks, nist context. Unfortunately, from however, do not prevent one from Kenney’s study of civic movements evaluating his book as an informa- and the “konkretny generation,” we tive and a highly original contribu- learn little about the transformative tion to the study of European dis- potential of the ritual of carnival. The sidence. conception of carnival is employed 724 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Stephen BLANK are essential preconditions for Rus- sia’s freedom. Thus this critique is Boris Kagarlitsky, Russia Under supposed to set the cognitive Yeltsin and Putin: Neo-Liberal Au- grounds for this process. Naturally, tocracy (London: Pluto Press, 2002). this is not the prevailing or neces- vi+303pp. ISBN: 0-74531502-X. sarily the most insightful way to understand contemporary Russia. It has never been easy to advance But Kagarlitsky is not deterred by a credible Marxist analysis or critique this challenge. of Russian politics. The overwhel- Given the circumstances, it is ming dominance of the state, which therefore somewhat surprising that is an everpresent reality of Russian much of Kagarlitsky’s critique of life, cannot easily be shoehorned into Yeltsin’s and to a lesser degree Putin’s a critique that takes as its point of Russia is in many respects not unlike departure the primacy of the force those offered by numerous Western of production and the relations that critiques. Much will sound familiar grow out of it. Where the state domi- to Western writers: the debauchery nates the economy, it proves diffi- of democracy, and the destruction of cult to make a credible critique. One social equality and previously need only remember the kind of vio- achieved levels of social security, lent surgery Lenin had to do on even if imperfect. Likewise, of Marxism in order to justify that Rus- course, Kagarlitsky parallels much sia was not just a capitalist state but of other writers’ critiques of the oli- one that was ready for socialism. Not garchs who got rich off of privatiza- surprisingly, the violence done to the tion and state contacts at the expense reality of Russia’s mnogoukladnost’ of the country as a whole. ultimately claimed millions of sacri- But even when he is treading fices on the altar of ideological rec- along familiar lines Kagarlitsky fre- titude. quently uses those avenues of criti- Although Kagarlitsky is certainly cism to insert original and telling not a Leninist, he is a Marxist and points to strengthen his insights. seeks to advance a Marxist-like cri- Thus he makes the unique point that tique of Russia after 1991. Moreover the very act of privatization and the he openly expresses his belief that determination of who was to get the recovery of “social being” and a what inevitably strengthened the genuine collectivism, along with state over civil society. Thus the left-wing radicalism – terms that are redistribution of social assets and nowhere to be defined in the book – capital had to be resubordinated 725 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews again to the dictates of state power. autocracy grows out of the circum- This is the point of departure by stances of privatization, of Yeltsin’s which the state and those who could single-minded obsession with hanging capture state power could assume a onto his power, and of the depen- preeminent position in Russia. Simi- dence of the new oligarchical class larly he is always intent on situating on favors from above and opportu- his critique in Russian history. Unlike nities for exploitation of the old state so many Western observers who economy. should know better, Kagarlitsky as- As one would expect in a neo- serts that this history did not begin Marxist analysis, Kagarlitsky moves with Gorbachev or even with Lenin from his focus on the state to an and Stalin and observes ironically assessment of the media and intelli- that Russia today is not unlike Russia gentsia. While his analysis of the so- under Nicholas II, a peripheral state called information wars of the 1990s within the capitalist world system. is not that different from other non- Similarly he is acutely aware of the Marxist assessments, its power is historical Russian tendency by enhanced by virtue of its connection which Western and democratic to the struggle for power and to the forms are transplanted into facades fact hat he sees the succession for autocracy in Russia. struggle of 1999 that led to Putin’s These kinds of insights abound assumption of power as the coup throughout the book alongside calls d’etat from above that it actually for a left-wing collective movement was. Naturally this coup involved and lend it considerable power. Thus the threat of war and violence, which Kagarlitsky is able to diagnose many ultimately exploded in Chechnya. of the pathologies afflicting contem- Unfortunately on Chechnya he fal- porary Russia from a standpoint that ters. Any objective study of Chech- is more informed than that of many nya must concede that by 1998-99 other observers who are certainly terrorist phenomena throughout the cognizant of the same phenomena province were in full flower. It is but lack an explanatory framework easy to ascribe this to the refusal of within which to set their observa- the regime to deal adequately with tions. Not surprisingly, Kagarlitsky’s the problems posed by Chechnya’s intellectual honesty also obliges him attempted secession or with the oppor- to focus on the role of the state be- tunity afforded by the Khasvayurt cause the circumstances surrounding agreements of 1996. Nonetheless, its birth precluded the emergence of that fact cannot be avoided. a genuine bourgeoisie, capitalist Still, the existence of a real terro- class, or worse, democracy. This rist threat does not excuse the regime’s 726 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 unwillingness to deal with Chechnya basis, as at least some in Putin’s after 1996 or its clear efforts to incite government seem to want, then it a violent denouement in Dagestan may well be possible to create a and Chechnya in 1998-99, particu- genuine civil society and socio- larly in 1999 as part of a strategy to economic basis for democracy. But promote a succession tailored to the unless we are ready to countenance Yeltsin’s regime’s preferences. The the violence that is necessarily nationalist violence of the war attendant upon radicalism, we do not against Chechnya, materially aided in fact have many other alternatives and stimulated by the fear incited by that we can credibly offer or that can bombings in Moscow, were decisive be credibly built in today’s Russia. in creating a mood and atmosphere that allowed Putin and his political bloc to win the elections of 1999. Kagarlistky calls for a left-wing radicalism and a recovery of social being to be based upon a mixed economy. But a Marxist critique of Russia, for all its power, inevitably falters when confronted with the fact Bruce BEAN that it has nothing to offer in the future. Whatever promise Marxism Lilia Shevtsova, Putin’s Russia may have had was long ago negated (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endow- by its materialization in reality. We ment for International Peace, 2003). may detest the Russia we see before 306 pp. Index. ISBN: 0-87003-202-X. us today but as other acute analysts understand, this is the only Russia There is an interesting anecdote we have and the society’s potential from the early 1970’s when Henry for violence, as seen in the repeated Kissinger was National Security cases of internal strife since 1991, is Advisor to President Richard Nixon. too enormous to justify radical calls On one of his ground-breaking trips for revolution. Since this is the only to China Kissinger asked Zhou Enlai Russia we have, a psuedo-democracy for his opinion of the French Revo- or psuedo-constitutionalism as Max lution. Zhou replied: “It is too early Weber described the late Tsarist re- to tell.” gime, any pressure for democratiza- This view from the Middle King- tion must start from here. Moreover, dom is extreme for most Westerners. if the economy’s growth can be In 1999, several months prior to the shifted onto a more self-sustaining resignation of Boris Yeltsin, Lilia 727 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews

Shevtsova published Yeltsin’s Russia. for generalizations, and crafts labels, Notwithstanding the fact that just to see how they will sound and Yeltsin’s formal term as President how they might fit in the final ver- had more than a year to run, Yeltsin’s sion of the work. This book, then, is Russia was an excellent review of not an account of Russia under this period of current Russian history, Vladimir Vladimirovich or even the perhaps because Yeltsin’s early years first few chapters of that story. It is were much more important than his rather a unique opportunity to observe second term. Shevtsova thus suc- Shevtsova as she begins to assemble cessfully established that Zhou Enlai’s her account of Russia’s continuing unique perspective was not essential transition from rule by the Commu- for a useful work on current Russian nist Party of the Soviet Union to history. In her latest book, Putin’s whatever form of government Rus- Russia, however, one might con- sia is to have. clude that Shevtsova has pushed this In this book Shevtsova repeatedly historical perspective too far. After describes the views and attitudes of only three years of what she and the various groups important to the analy- rest of the world believe will be at sis of this transition. Thus she refers least an eight year reign for Presi- to, and often criticizes, the views of dent Putin, Putin’s Russia has what she labels “civil society,” the appeared.In fact, however, Putin’s “elites,” the “intelligentsia,” “ordi- Russia is not a parallel volume to nary people,” the “political class,” Yeltsin’s Russia. Doubtless it was the the “ruling class,” “society,” publisher who believed the parallel “thinking circles,” and the “wan- title would enhance sales. dering mass.” There is nothing in This volume is neither history nor this work, however, which defines a comprehensive account of Putin’s or even begins to describe these first three years in office. What we groups. We must hope that when her have is a collection of journalistic definitive study of Russia under Putin notes, often interesting, sometimes is published, these terms will be inconsistent, and occasionally wrong more fully described and distin- on the facts, which Shevtsova her- guished. self first labels as a “political diary” It is apparent that Shevtsova’s and later characterizes as “rumina- final version of Putin’s Russia will tions.” Rather than a consideration have as its dominant theme her of Putin’s first years in office, Putin’s analysis of how close the Putin years Russia is Shevtsova’s private diary, bring Russia to “liberal democracy.” in which she tries out commentary, We have scores of comments in this conclusions, and hypotheses, reaches work on this theme of achieving, 728 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 or perhaps, failing to achieve, Rutskoi from the race the day before “liberal democracy.” A few exam- the election.” Then she notes: “And ples: Putin is accused of having be- after all that, the Kremlin did not come “hostage to his ratings” and of finish the job. Rutskoi was removed rejecting or postponing unpopular from the ballot but the Kremlin’s actions “because they threatened to candidate did not win in Kursk; the ruin his ratings”; she blames Putin victor was a Communist, an anti- for “trying to appeal to all forces Semite, and most likely a thief too.” simultaneously”; she accuses Putin The serious reader is left with of including representatives of various genuine doubt as to the point competing groups in the Presidential Shevtsova would like to make. If op- Administration; Putin is criticized posing a corrupt governor through for “commercializing” Russia’s the application of law for political foreign policy. purposes was appropriate, was it One wonders what definition of wrong to accept the decision of the liberal democracy Shevtsova con- electorate? In some Western democ- templates. Seeking to be “all things racies, prominently including the to all people” is a hallmark, if not US, convicted criminals and repre- the essence, of modern democracies. hensible corrupt officials can be and Commercialization of foreign policy are elected to office. This Rutskoi has long been practiced by major anecdote is best taken as an example European powers and was finally of a journalist’s jottings for a headline- achieved by the U.S. in the Clinton grabbing news story. It is appropriate administration. in a “political diary” containing Shevtsova describes how A. Ruts- notes for a news article intended for koi, governor of Kursk and one of that part of the entertainment industry the leaders of the 1993 parliamentary known as commercial journalism. mutiny against Yeltsin, was seeking Without much more discussion and reelection early in Putin’s term. analysis, however, it is not appro- Rutskoi’s candidacy was challenged priate for serious study of Russia in the courts and he was finally re- under Putin. moved from the ballot the day prior This book desperately needs an to the election. Shevtsova writes: entire chapter on what Shevtsova “No one doubts that Rutskoi… was believes is the standard by which she corrupt. But the Kremlin did not will evaluate Russia’s progress to know how to get rid of him. So Putin’s “liberal democracy.” A careful defi- people chose the simplest path: nition will be the keystone of her The Kremlin put up its own candi- analysis of Putin’s years as leader of date... and used the courts to remove Russia. And this definition must 729 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews accept, or at least deal with, the timely, and worth reading. Those of generally accepted view that liberal us outside the Middle Kingdom, democratic politics is, regretfully, however, look forward to her more never more than the art of the possi- complete view of contemporary ble; the triumph of pragmatic com- Russia, because Shevtsova is one of promise over ideological purity. As the few able to present a coherent Russians, more than most, have view of Russia’s enormously com- learned in the past century, the single- plex transition under Putin. minded enforcement of the “correct, ideologically pure solution,” does not yield democracy. The story of Putin’s Russia will necessarily focus on the continuing transition of Russian institutions and society from Mikhail Gorbachev’s “perestroika” through Putin’s “managed” democracy. The analy- sis of Putin’s years must distinguish Ñâåòëàíà ÌÀËÛØÅÂÀ between what he should have done and what was not possible. It is, for À. Á. Íèêîëàåâ. Ãîñóäàðñòâåí- example, meaningless to blame Putin íàÿ äóìà â Ôåâðàëüñêîé ðåâî- for Yeltsin’s 1993 Constitution. ëþöèè / Ïðåä. Ñ. Ì. Ëÿíäðåñ. Furthermore, undeveloped social Ðÿçàíü, 2002. 302 ñ. (Ñåð. “Íîâåé- institutions are not obviously Putin’s øàÿ ðîññèéñêàÿ èñòîðèÿ: Èññëå- fault. Civil interest groups, which äîâàíèÿ è äîêóìåíòû”. Ò. 2). play an essential role in the checks ISBN: 5-944730-02-1. and balances of a functioning democ- racy, must evolve over time. They Êíèãà À. Íèêîëàåâà îïóáëè- cannot be imposed from above by êîâàíà â âûõîäÿùåé ñ 2001 ã. Putin or anyone else. Modern democ- ñåðèè “Íîâåéøàÿ ðîññèéñêàÿ racies are dynamic, continually èñòîðèÿ: èññëåäîâàíèÿ è äîêó- evolving and never complete or per- ìåíòû” (ðåäàêòîðû: Ä. Âóëüô fect. If the process in the United (Ãåðìàíèÿ/Ðîññèÿ), Ñ. Ëÿíäðåñ States has been underway for more (ÑØÀ), Ï. Òðèáóíñêèé (Ðîñ- than 225 years, the English example ñèÿ)). Âûïóñê ïîñëåäíåé ñâÿçàí spans a millennium. Lilia Shevtsova ñ ïîñòîÿííî äåéñòâóþùèì ìåæ- is a shrewd observer of the Kremlin äóíàðîäíûì ñåìèíàðîì (îðãà- chaos we know as Russian democ- íèçàòîðû: Ñ.Ëÿíäðåñ, À.Ñìî- racy. That makes this book interesting, ëèí è Â.×åðíÿåâ). 730 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 Ðàáîòà À. Íèêîëàåâà ïîñâÿ- íîñòü òàêèõ øàãîâ, êàê ïðîâå- ùåíà èçó÷åíèþ íåñêîëüêèõ äåíèå çàñåäàíèé Ñîâåòà ñòàðåé- ôåâðàëüñêèõ äíåé ðåâîëþöèè øèí è ×àñòíîãî ñîâåùàíèÿ ÷ëå- 1917 ã., âî âðåìÿ êîòîðûõ ïðîè- íîâ Äóìû. Íà ïîñëåäíåì áûë çîøåë ïåðåõîä âëàñòè â ðóêè ñîçäàí Âðåìåííûé êîìèòåò. Âðåìåííîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà. Ðåøåíèÿ, ïðèíÿòûå íà ýòèõ çà- Âíèìàíèå àâòîðà ñîñðåäîòî÷åíî ñåäàíèÿõ, íîñèëè âàæíûé ñèì- íà âàæíåéøèõ àêòîðàõ ýòîãî âîëè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð, îáîçíà- ïðîöåññà – Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ÷èâ íå òîëüêî ïîääåðæêó ðåâî- äóìå, ñîçäàííîì åþ Âðåìåííîì ëþöèè Äóìîé, íî è åå ðåøè- êîìèòåòå Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé ìîñòü âîçãëàâèòü ðåâîëþöèîí- äóìû (ÂÊÃÄ), åãî Âîåííîé íûé ïðîöåññ. Äóìà íå îãðàíè÷è- êîìèññèè è èíñòèòóòå êîìèññà- ëàñü ñèìâîëè÷åñêèìè æåñòàìè, ðîâ. Èñòîðèê çàäàëñÿ öåëüþ íî è îñóùåñòâèëà âàæíûå ïðàê- íàéòè îòâåò íà âîïðîñ: “Êàêóþ òè÷åñêèå øàãè. Îñîáåííîå çíà- ðîëü â ñîáûòèÿõ Ôåâðàëüñêîé ÷åíèå, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðà, èìåëè ðåâîëþöèè ñûãðàëà Ãîñóäàðñ- òàêèå ìåðîïðèÿòèÿ Âîåííîé òâåííàÿ äóìà, èçáðàííàÿ íà îñ- Êîìèññèè ÂÊÃÄ, êàê ñîçäàíèå íîâå òðåòüåèþíüñêîãî îãðàíè- ðåâîëþöèîííûõ îòðÿäîâ, çàõâà- ÷èòåëüíîãî èçáèðàòåëüíîãî çàêî- òèâøèõ íåêîòîðûå ãîðîäñêèå íà?” (Ñ. 9). Ïîñòàíîâêà äàííîé îáúåêòû è ðàçãðîìèâøèõ îïîð- ïðîáëåìû, êàçàëîñü áû, àïðèîð- íûå ïóíêòû ñòàðîé âëàñòè. íî ïðåäïîëàãàåò îòâåò, çâó÷à- Íîâàÿ âëàñòü äîëæíà áûëà ùèé â óíèñîí ñ ïîëîæåíèÿìè îòñòàèâàòü ïðàâî íà ñóùåñòâî- ñîâåòñêîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè ïðî- âàíèå, äåìîíñòðèðóÿ ñïîñîá- øëûõ ëåò: Äóìà áûëà ïîä÷åðê- íîñòü ðåøàòü ïðîäîâîëüñòâåí- íóòî êîíòððåâîëþöèîííà, ÷òî íûå ïðîáëåìû. Íèêîëàåâûì îáóñëîâëèâàëîñü åå ïðîèñõîæ- ïîêàçàíà ðàáîòà îáúåäèíåííîé äåíèåì è ñîñòàâîì. Îäíàêî ñîâåòñêî-äóìñêîé Ïðîäîâîëü- âûâîäû, ê êîòîðûì ïðèõîäèò ñòâåííîé êîìèññèè, è ðîëü Ãîñ- À. Íèêîëàåâ, ïðîòèâîðå÷àò äóìû â ïîïûòêàõ ñìÿã÷èòü ýòîìó óòâåðæäåíèþ. Ó÷åíûé ïðîäîâîëüñòâåííûé âîïðîñ. ïèøåò èìåííî îá àâàíãàðäíîé Îäíàêî àâòîð âåñüìà ñïðàâåä- è ðåâîëþöèîííîé ðîëè Äóìû è ëèâî çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî îáåñïå÷åíè- åå Âðåìåííîãî êîìèòåòà â íà- åì ïðîäîâîëüñòâèåì ñîëäàò, âû- ÷àëüíûé ïåðèîä âîññòàíèÿ. øåäøèõ íà óëèöû è íå âåðíóâ- Îïèñûâàÿ ìåðîïðèÿòèÿ øèõñÿ â êàçàðìû, ãîðîä áûë âî Äóìû 27 ôåâðàëÿ 1917 ã., Íèêî- ìíîãîì îáÿçàí ñòðàõó ãîðîæàí, ëàåâ ïîä÷åðêèâàåò ðåâîëþöèîí- ïðåäïî÷èòàâøèõ “îòêóïèòüñÿ” 731 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews îò âîçìîæíîãî ïðîèçâîëà è ìà- êîé ìèëèöèè, êîòîðàÿ ñïîñîá- ðîäåðñòâà òàêèìè “ïðåâåíòèâ- ñòâîâàëà ïðîäîëæåíèþ äèàëîãà íûìè” ìåðàìè, êàê îðãàíèçàöèÿ Äóìû è Ñîâåòîâ. Îäíàêî ïðåä- ñïåöèàëüíûõ ÷àéíûõ è ñòîëî- ïîëîæåíèÿ àâòîðà î ñíèæåíèè âûõ äëÿ âîåííîñëóæàùèõ. Êðîìå ðîñòà ïðåñòóïíîñòè áëàãîäàðÿ òîãî, “ïðîäîâîëüñòâåííîå äåëî ìåðàì Âîåííîé êîìèññèè, íà íà áëàãî ðåâîëþöèè” ñòàëî, êàê íàø âçãëÿä, íå ïîäêðåïëåíû çàìåòèë Íèêîëàåâ, ñâîåîáðàç- ñóùåñ-òâåííûìè äîêàçàòåëü- íîé è äîâîëüíî áåçîïàñíîé ñòâàìè. ôîðìîé ó÷àñòèÿ ãîðîæàí â ðå- Ðàáîòà Íèêîëàåâà âûïîëíåíà âîëþöèè è äåìîíñòðàöèè ñâîåé â ëó÷øèõ òðàäèöèÿõ “ëåíèíã- ëîÿëüíîñòè íîâîé âëàñòè. ðàäñêîé øêîëû” èññëåäîâàòå- Àâòîð êíèãè íåîäíîçíà÷íî ëåé ðåâîëþöèè, êîòîðàÿ ñëàâíà îöåíèâàåò ïîëèòèêó è ïðàêòèêó íå òîëüêî êîíöåïòóàëüíûìè àðåñòîâ, èíèöèèðîâàííûõ Ãîñäó- ïðîðûâàìè, ïîòðÿñøèìè â 1960- ìîé è åå ñòðóêòóðàìè. Îí óêà- 1970-å ãã. îñíîâû ñîâåòñêîé èñ- çûâàåò íà çíà÷åíèå äóìñêîé òîðèîãðàôèè ðåâîëþöèè, íî è ïîëèòèêè ⠓ðàçãðîìå ïîëèöåé- êðîïîòëèâîé èñòî÷íèêîâåä÷åñ- ñêèõ öåíòðîâ öàðèçìà â Ïåòðîã- êîé ðàáîòîé ñ äîêóìåíòàìè, ðàäå” (Ñ. 200). Íî îäíîâðåìåííî æèâûì èíòåðåñîì ê èñòîðè÷åñ- àâòîð ðàçâåí÷èâàåò ìèô îá ýòèõ êèì “äåòàëÿì”, èç êîòîðûõ àðåñòàõ êàê î “ñïàñàòåëüíîé ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ ìîçàèêà èñòî- ìèññèè” â îòíîøåíèè ñòîðîííè- ðè÷åñêîãî ôàêòà. Ñâèäåòåëü- êîâ öàðñêîãî ðåæèìà, êîòîðûì ñòâî ýòîìó – íå òîëüêî ñîäåðæà- ãðîçèëè ñàìîñóäû: âåäü èíèöè- íèå ñàìîé ðàáîòû, â êîòîðîé ñî- èðîâàâøèåñÿ Äóìîé è åå ñòðóê- áûòèÿ ðåâîëþöèè ðåêîíñòðóè- òóðàìè àðåñòû ñïðîâîöèðîâàëè ðóþòñÿ ñ òî÷íîñòüþ äî ÷àñîâ è âîëíó ðåâîëþöèîííîãî íàñèëèÿ äàæå ïîëó÷àñà, íî è ïðèëîæåí- ïî âñåé ñòðàíå. Ó÷àñòâîâàâøèå íûé ê ìîíîãðàôèè ïîäðîáíûé â ñàìî÷èííûõ ðåïðåññèÿõ ñîë- ïîèìåííûé îáùèé ñïèñîê Âîåí- äàòû ñòàëè îäíèì èç ñåðüåçíåé- íîé êîìèññèè ÂÊÃÄ – âñåãî 446 øèõ èñòî÷íèêîâ ñîöèàëüíîé èìåí èçâåñòíûõ è çàáûòûõ ó÷à- íàïðÿæåííîñòè. Äóìå è åå ñòíèêîâ ñîáûòèé Ôåâðàëÿ, ñ ÂÊÃÄ ïðèøëîñü áîðîòüñÿ ñ ïðå- êðàòêèìè áèîãðàôè÷åñêèìè õà- ñòóïíîñòüþ êàê ìèëèöèîííûìè, ðàêòåðèñòèêàìè. Ïðèâåðæåí- òàê è âîåííûìè ñðåäñòâàìè. íîñòü àâòîðà àêàäåìè÷åñêîìó Íèêîëàåâ ñòàâèò â çàñëóãó “ëåíèíãðàäñêîìó ñòèëþ” õîðî- ÂÊÃÄ è åãî Âîåííîé êîìèññèè øî äåìîíñòðèðóåò è åãî òùà- ñîçäàíèå Ïåòðîãðàäñêîé ãîðîäñ- òåëüíàÿ ðàáîòà ñ èñòî÷íèêàìè, 732 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 íàïðèìåð, ñ ìàòåðèàëàìè ïå÷àòè, ñèè âîñïîìèíàíèé èñòèííûìè, à òàêæå îñîáûé èíòåðåñ – âå- à äðóãèå – “íåïðàâäîïîäîáíû- ðîÿòíî, âîñõîäÿùèé ê òðóäàì ìè” (Ñ. 50). Êðèòåðèåì èñòèííî- Â. Ñòàðöåâà – ê èñòî÷íèêàì ñòè ïðè ýòîì âûñòóïàåò, êàê ïðà- ëè÷íîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ. âèëî, òî, ÷òî àâòîð ïîíèìàåò ïîä  òî æå âðåìÿ, èñòî÷íèêîâåä- “ëîãèêîé ñîáûòèé”. Íà ìîé ÷åñêèé àíàëèç Íèêîëàåâà íå âçãëÿä, ñòîëü ïðÿìîëèíåéíî âñåãäà áåçóïðå÷åí. Òàê, îïîðà çàäàâàåìûé âîïðîñ: “Êòî èç íà ýãî-äîêóìåíòû îáóñëîâèëà ìåìóàðèñòîâ áûë ïðàâ?” îáåä- íå òîëüêî ïðåèìóùåñòâà êíèãè, íÿåò èñòîðè÷åñêîå èññëåäîâà- íî è íåêîòîðûå åå íåäîñòàòêè. íèå. Áîëåå óìåñòíûì â ìîíîãðà-  íåêîòîðûõ èç åå ãëàâ òåêñò ôèè áûë áû àíàëèç òàêèõ âîï- íåñêîëüêî ïåðåãðóæåí ñðàâíå- ðîñîâ: ïî÷åìó ó÷àñòíèêè ñîáû- íèåì ôàêòîâ èç âîñïîìèíàíèé òèÿ ïî-ðàçíîìó ôèêñèðîâàëè ñîâðåìåííèêîâ ñîáûòèé ðåâî- ïåðåæèòîå? Ïî÷åìó îäíà èç âåð- ëþöèè. Ðåêîíñòðóèðóÿ ñîáûòèÿ, ñèé áûëà, ïî ñëîâàì Íèêîëàåâà, àâòîð âûáèðàåò íàèáîëåå âåðî- “âïîñëåäñòâèè ïðèíÿòà ðóêî- ÿòíûå, ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, âåðñèè, âîäñòâîì Äóìû â êà÷åñòâå îôè- âñëåäñòâèå ÷åãî ñòðàíèöû ìîíî- öèàëüíîé” (Ñ. 50)? Çàìåòèì, ÷òî ãðàôèè ïåñòðÿò ôðàçàìè “ïðåä- èçëèøíåå “óïîðÿäî÷èâàíèå” ïîëîæèòåëüíî”, “ìîæíî ïðåä- ñîáûòèé ïîñòôàêòóì è “âïèñû- ïîëîæèòü”, “ëîãè÷íî áûëî áû âàíèå” â êîëëåêòèâíóþ ïàìÿòü ïðåäïîëîæèòü” è ïð. (Ñ. 49-53, ëèøü îäíîé òðàêòîâêè ïðîø- 58-59. è ò.ä.). Ýòî ñîçäàåò âïå- ëîãî ìîæåò ïðèâåñòè ê ñîçäà- ÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî èññëåäîâàòåëü íèþ íîâûõ èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ìèôîâ. ïèøåò èñòîðèþ ñîáûòèé, èñõî- Ïðîòèâîðå÷èâîñòü ìåìóàðíûõ äÿ íå èç çíàìåíèòîãî ðàíêåàíñ- ñâèäåòåëüñòâ ìîãëà áûòü îáóñ- êîãî ïðèíöèïà – “wie es ëîâëåíà íå òîëüêî “íåèñêðåííî- eigentlich gewesen [war]” – “êàê ñòüþ” èëè “çàáûâ÷èâîñòüþ ìå- ýòî, ñîáñòâåííî, áûëî” (òàê õà- ìóàðèñòà”, íî è òàêèìè ôàêòî- ðàêòåðèçóåò ðåöåíçèðóåìûé ðàìè, êàê îòñóòñòâèå åäèíîãî òðóä Íèêîëàåâà â ñâîåì ïðåäèñ- ðóêîâîäñòâà âîññòàâøèìè è, â ëîâèè Ñ. Ëÿíäðåñ), à èç ïîëîæå- ÷àñòíîñòè, íåñîáëþäåíèåì íè- íèÿ “êàê ýòî, ñîáñòâåííî, ìîãëî êàêîãî ïîðÿäêà ïðè “âçÿòèè” áû áûòü”. Íàïðèìåð, èçó÷àÿ Òàâðè÷åñêîãî äâîðöà òðèäöàòè- “çàíÿòèå” çäàíèÿ Òàâðè÷åñêîãî òûñÿ÷íîé òîëïîé. Î÷åâèäíî, äâîðöà 27 ôåâðàëÿ, èñòîðèê ïîä- ÷òî â çàâèñèìîñòè îò ìåñòîïî- õîäèò ê ìåìóàðàì ÷èñòî èíñòðó- ëîæåíèÿ ó÷àñòíèêîâ çàõâàòà è ìåíòàëüíî, ïðèçíàâàÿ îäíè âåð- âðåìåíè ïîäõîäà òîé èëè èíîé 733 Ðåöåíçèè/Reviews ãðóïïû ðåâîëþöèîíåðîâ îíè Äàëåå óòâåðæäàåòñÿ, ÷òî “äëÿ âèäåëè ðàçíûå ôðàãìåíòû ïðî- îáúåêòèâíîé õàðàêòåðèñòèêè èñõîäÿùåãî è îöåíèâàëè åãî ïî- Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé äóìû ñïîðû î ðàçíîìó. “ñòèõèéíîì” è “ñîçíàòåëüíîì” Óÿçâèìà è èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñ- â ðåâîëþöèè ðåøàþùåãî çíà÷å- êàÿ ñîñòàâëÿþùàÿ èññëåäîâà- íèÿ íå èìåëè” (Ñ. 10). Âðÿä ëè íèÿ. Îñîáåííî ýòî êàñàåòñÿ îá- ñåãîäíÿ íóæíî äîêàçûâàòü, ÷òî ùåé òåíäåíöèè ðàññìàòðèâàòü è ñïîð î ñòèõèéíîñòè è ñîçíàòåëü- îöåíèâàòü ìíåíèÿ îòå÷åñòâåí- íîñòè â 1920-å ãã. áûë íå ñòîëüêî íûõ è çàðóáåæíûõ èñòîðèêîâ ïî ñïîðîì íàó÷íûõ êîíöåïöèé, òîìó èëè èíîìó âîïðîñó âíå èñ- ñêîëüêî ñòîëêíîâåíèåì ìåòîäîâ òîðèîãðàôè÷åñêîãî êîíòåêñòà, ëåãèòèìàöèè âëàñòè áîëüøåâè- áåç ó÷åòà âðåìåíè è ìåñòà íàïè- êîâ ñ èõ îïïîíåíòàìè. Ðåçóëü- ñàíèÿ ðàáîòû, èìåâøåéñÿ èñòî÷- òàòû äàííîãî ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ íèêîâîé áàçû, íàó÷íîãî íà- îêàçàëè âåñüìà çíà÷èìîå âëèÿ- ïðàâëåíèÿ, ê êîòîðîìó ïðèíàä- íèå íà âñþ ïîñëåäóþùóþ ñîâåò- ëåæàë èññëåäîâàòåëü, áåç âíèìà- ñêóþ èñòîðèîãðàôèþ ðåâîëþ- íèÿ ê åãî ïîëèòè÷åñêèì âçãëÿ- öèè 1917 ã. äàì è ïðèñòðàñòèÿì. Ýòà àáñò- Îáçîð ýìèãðàíòñêîé è çàðó- ðàãèðîâàííîñòü îò èñòîðèîãðà- áåæíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè â ìîíî- ôè÷åñêîé ñèòóàöèè ïðîÿâèëàñü ãðàôèè ìàëîðåïðåçåíòàòèâåí. êàê â îòäåëüíûõ î÷åðêàõ êíèãè, Óïîìèíàþòñÿ ëèøü òî÷êè çðåíèÿ òàê è â èñòîðèîãðàôè÷åñêîì Ï. Í. Ìèëþêîâà è Ì. Ñìèëã- îáçîðå âî ââåäåíèè. Òàêîé Áåíàðèî áåç óêàçàíèé âëèÿíèÿ ïîäõîä íåðåäêî ïðèâîäèò àâòîðà íà èõ ñóæäåíèÿ ïàðòèéíîé ïðè- ê óïðîùåííûì ñóæäåíèÿì î ðàç- íàäëåæíîñòè.  êà÷åñòâå äîêà- âèòèè èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêè. Òàê, çàòåëüñòâà òîãî, ÷òî “ïîñòåïåííî äèñêóññèÿ î ñîîòíîøåíèè “ñòè- â çàïàäíîé èñòîðèîãðàôèè ñòàëà õèéíîãî” è “ñîçíàòåëüíîãî” â ïðåîáëàäàòü âûñîêàÿ îöåíêà Ôåâðàëüñêîé ðåâîëþöèè, ðàç- äåÿòåëüíîñòè Ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé âåðíóâøàÿñÿ â 1920-å ãã., èí- äóìû è åå îðãàíîâ â ñîáûòèÿõ òåðïðåòèðóåòñÿ Íèêîëàåâûì Ôåâðàëÿ 1917 ã.” (Ñ. 16) ïðèâî- (ñî ññûëêîé íà ñòàòüþ Î. Í. äèòñÿ ìîíîãðàôèÿ Ã. Ì. Êàò- Çíàìåíñêîãî 1970 ã.!), êàê ñïîð êîâà (1967 ã.), êîòîðàÿ, ñêîðåå, íàó÷íûõ êîíöåïöèé, çàêîí÷èâ- áûëà ìàðãèíàëüíûì, ÷åì òèïè÷- øèéñÿ “ê íà÷àëó 1930-õ ãã. ïîáå- íûì, ÿâëåíèåì ⠓çàïàäíîé äîé ñòîðîííèêîâ êîíöåïöèè î èñòîðèîãðàôèè” 1960-õ ãã. – íå ðóêîâîäÿùåé ðîëè ïàðòèè áîëü- òîëüêî â ñèëó ýìèãðàíòñêîãî øåâèêîâ â ðåâîëþöèè” (Ñ. 9). ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ àâòîðà, íî è åãî 734 Ab Imperio, 4/2004 âåñüìà ñïîðíûõ âçãëÿäîâ.  ìî- âêëàäûâàëèñü â ýòè äîêóìåíòû íîãðàôèè â îñíîâíîì ïðåäñòàâ- èõ ñîçäàòåëÿìè. Íåîáõîäèìî ëåíû òî÷êè çðåíèÿ èññëåäîâàòå- îáðàòèòüñÿ ê ïðîáëåìàì ðåöåï- ëåé èç ÑØÀ. Ïðè÷åì â áîëü- öèè äîêóìåíòîâ, âñòóïèâøèõ â øèíñòâå ñëó÷àåâ À. Íèêîëàåâ îáùåñòâåííóþ êîììóíèêàöèþ. ññûëàåòñÿ íå íà ñàìè ðàáîòû, à Ññûëêè íà “øèðîêóþ ïîääåðæ- íà ìàòåðèàëû ðåôåðèðîâàíèÿ. êó âíóòðè ñòðàíû” ÂÊÃÄ, îñíî- Íå ïðåäñòàâëåíà åâðîïåéñêàÿ âàííûå íà òàêîì èñòî÷íèêå, êàê èñòîðèîãðàôèÿ. Îñîáåííî óäèâ- ñîîáùåíèÿ “Èçâåñòèé Êîìèòå- ëÿåò îòñóòñòâèå ññûëîê íà íå- òà ïåòðîãðàäñêèõ æóðíàëèñòî┠ìåöêèõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé ðåâî- 2 ìàðòà 1917 ã. (Ñ. 76), íå âñåãäà ëþöèè – Ä. Ãàéåðà, Ä. Áàéðàó, êîððåêòíû, à ñ èñòî÷íèêîâåä- Ì. Õèëüäåðìàéåðà, Á. Áîíâå÷à, ÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ åùå è ïî- Ê. Àëüòðèõòåðà è äðóãèõ. âåðõíîñòíû. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, àâòîð Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî â ñâîåé òîëüêî óïîìÿíóë, íî íå ïðîàíà- êíèãå À. Íèêîëàåâ èçíà÷àëüíî ëèçèðîâàë êîìïëåêñ èñòî÷íè- ñòàâèë çàäà÷åé èçó÷åíèå äîâîëü- êîâ, ò. í. “÷åòûðå àðøèíà” (áî- íî óçêîãî ïåðèîäà èñòîðèè ëåå 20 òûñÿ÷) ïðèâåòñòâåííûõ òåëåãðàìì Ãîñäóìå (Ñ. 236). À òà- îòäåëüíî âçÿòîãî èíñòèòóòà, íà êîå èññëåäîâàíèå ìîãëî áû ñïî- ìîé âçãëÿä, áîëüøîå çíà÷åíèå ñîáñòâîâàòü ðåêîíñòðóêöèè âîñ- èìåëî áû òàêæå âîññîçäàíèå ïðèÿòèÿ Äóìû è åå øàãîâ íå îáðàçà Äóìû, ñêëàäûâàâøåãîñÿ òîëüêî â Ïåòðîãðàäå, íî è â ïðî- â ìàññîâîì ñîçíàíèè. Âåäü äëÿ âèíöèè. ðàçâèòèÿ ðóññêîé ðåâîëþöèè Ýòè çàìå÷àíèÿ íè â êîåé ìåðå “íàðîäíàÿ” îöåíêà äåÿòåëüíîñòè íå óìàëÿþò çíà÷åíèÿ ðàáîòû Äóìû èìåëà ðåøàþùåå çíà÷å- À. Íèêîëàåâà è ïðåäñòàâëåííîé íèå. Âàæíî íå òîëüêî êàê ñåáÿ èì îðèãèíàëüíîé, ïîäðîáíîé ïîçèöèîíèðîâàëà Äóìà â ïåð- êàðòèíû íåñêîëüêèõ ñóäüáîíîñ- âûå äíè ðåâîëþöèè, íî è êàê åå íûõ äëÿ Ðîññèè äíåé Ôåâðàëÿ. ðåøåíèÿ âîñïðèíèìàëèñü è èí- Ìîíîãðàôèÿ À. Íèêîëàåâà, òåðïðåòèðîâàëèñü íàñåëåíèåì îñíîâàííàÿ íà ãëóáîêîì ïðî- Ïåòðîãðàäà è ïðîâèíöèè. Äóìà- ôåññèîíàëüíîì àíàëèçå áîãàòîãî åòñÿ, ÷òî èñòî÷íèêîâåä÷åñêèé èñòî÷íèêîâîãî ìàòåðèàëà, áåçóñ- àíàëèç õîðîøî èçâåñòíûõ èñòî- ëîâíî, ñòàëà âàæíûì èñòîðèîã- ðèêàì ðåâîëþöèè äîêóìåíòîâ ðàôè÷åñêèì ôàêòîì, êîòîðûé ñåãîäíÿ óæå íåëüçÿ ñâîäèòü íå ñìîæåò îáîéòè ñâîèì âíèìà- òîëüêî ëèøü ê âûÿâëåíèþ òîãî íèåì íè îäèí ñîâðåìåííûé èñòî- ñìûñëà è çíà÷åíèÿ, êîòîðûå ðèê ðåâîëþöèè 1917 ã.

735