L. N. Gumilev is one of the most cited Russian historians of the second half of the 20th century. However, few researchers have thought that when referring to L. N. Gumilev, he sometimes refers not to him, but to the editors of modern editions of his books. Comparison of the lifetime editions of L. N. Gumilyov's works with the reprints (all of them posthumous) showed that the latter contain not only typos, but also unexplained changes in the author's text. The article examines all identified cases of discrepancies between the original editions of L. N. Gumilyov's works and their reprints, and offers an explanation of their origin: editorial arbitrariness, the author's own instructions; in some cases, an adequate explanation could not be found. We also investigated the most significant typos in reprints, which, once made, are then replicated over many years and in tens of thousands of copies of books. Thus, at present, there is no more reliable way to use the works of L. N. Gumilyov than using their first editions.
Keywords: L. N. Gumilev, original edition, reprint, misreading, manuscript, "Xiongnu", "Ancient Turks", "From Russia to Russia", "The End and the beginning again".
WHOSE WORKS WE READ UNDER THE NAME OF LEV N. GUMILEV?
ANDREY SARAEV
The paper considers the question of Lev N. Gumilev's written heritage. L.N. Gumilev is one of the more famous and at the same time controversial Russian historians of the second part of the twentieth century. But a few of scholars have paid attention to the quality of the reprints of his works. Nevertheless there are inexplicable variant readings between the reprints and the first editions of Gumilev's works. While all of the reprints are posthumous, we should know what changes in them belong to the author. In some cases such changes were made by the author himself. In other cases these textual changes were made by the editors. In few examples I was not able to find the reasons of variant readings. In addition, there are many errata in Gumilev s works reprints which are reproduced in each following edition. At the moment there is no other way to refer to Gumilev's works than to use their first editions.
Keywords: L.N. Gumilev, first edition, reprint, variant readings, manuscript, "Khunnu", "Ancient turks", "From Russ to Russia", "The end and start again".
The scientific community has developed a rather wary attitude towards the scientific heritage of L. N. Gumilyov. Among scientists of various specialties, there are those who treat his works positively, and those who harshly criticize them. However, regardless of the attitude towards L. N. Gumilyov, it is unlikely that anyone will dispute the very fact of the high demand for his works [Voronovich, 2012, pp. 861-909] .1 Meanwhile, the question has not yet been explicitly raised: which L. N. Gumilev do we know?
SARAEV Andrey Sergeevich (Cheboksary) - candidate of Kazan State University of Culture, andrejsaraev@yandex.ru.
Andrey SARAEV - PhD Applicant, Kazan State University of Culture, andrejsaraev@yandex.ru.
1 The list is far from complete, but it allows us to estimate the quantitative scope of research that somehow affects the personality and scientific heritage of L. N. Gumilyov.
page 96
The problem of quality and reliability of publications of L. N. Gumilyov's works really exists. You can approach it in two ways. On the one hand, there is a purely technical problem: to check a quote (or reference) from the work of L. N. Gumilyov, it is necessary to have at hand a specific publication for which the quote or reference is given.
The scale of the problem will be clear if you imagine how many reprints of L. N. Gumilyov's works exist. For more than twenty years, they have been published annually, and in parallel in different publishing houses. Some modern publishing houses (AST, Eksmo, Kristall, etc.) publish the same books by L. N. Gumilyov in various series, as well as out of series, and always in different designs. As a result, if necessary, refer to L. N. Gumilyov (if we are not talking about the first editions of his works) it turns out that the standard elements of the bibliographic description are not enough: even if the year of publication and publisher coincide, the page numbers may differ 2.
On the other hand, there is another difficulty associated with using the works of L. N. Gumilyov, which, it seems, the overwhelming majority of researchers did not even think about. At first, accidentally noticed discrepancies between the reprints of L. N. Gumilyov's works led me to the need for purposeful comparison with the original editions. As a result, the main problem was revealed, which is not even in typos that multiply from edition to edition (they were also present in the first editions; more on this below), but in numerous distortions and in no way stipulated changes to the author's text, which are available in the overwhelming number of reprints of L. N. Gumilyov's works.
PUBLICATIONS AND REPRINTS OF L. N. GUMILYOV'S WORKS
During the lifetime of L. N. Gumilev, eleven of his independent books were published: seven of them were monographs ("The Xiongnu", Moscow, 1960; "Ancient Turks", Moscow, 1967; "Search for a Fictional Kingdom", Moscow, 1970; "The Xiongnu in China", Moscow, 1974; " Ethnogenesis and the Earth's Biosphere3; "Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe", Moscow, 1989; "Millennium around the Caspian Sea", Baku, 1991 (1990)), three popular science publications ("Discovery of Khazaria", Moscow, 1966; "Geography of ethnos in the historical period", Moscow, 1990; "From Russia to Russia", L., 1992); one-album on art ("Old Buryat painting", M., 1975). In addition, small publications were published separately: the pamphlet " The Feat of Bahram Chubina "(published by the State Hermitage Museum, Moscow, 1962); the essay " From the History of Eurasia "(Moscow, 1993 (1992)), published the next year after the death of L. N. Gumilev, but undoubtedly prepared by him4; the book- dialogue co-authored with A. M. Panchenko " So that the candle does not go out "(Moscow, 1990). This completes the list of L. N. Gumilyov's own books. Everything that came out after 1992 was either reprints of these works, or collections of articles and interviews.
Already in 1992-1993, in a single design, despite the fact that the names of publishing houses were different (the Partnership "Klyshnikov-Komarov and Co." and the Partnership "Michel and Co."), reprints of five monographs by L. N. Gumilev were published: "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe" (Moscow, 1992), "In search of a Fictional kingdom" (Moscow, 1992), "Millennium around the Caspian Sea" (Moscow, 1993), "Ethnogenesis and Biosphere of the Earth" (Moscow, 1993), "Ancient Turks" (Moscow, 1993). All these publications are listed as pirated (Novikova, 1999). Regarding the first three books, it can be said that they do not contain significant IP-
2 For this reason, in this article, when referring to L. N. Gumilyov, not only the author's surname and year of publication are indicated, but also the beginning of the title of the work.
3 The only book published in two editions during the author's lifetime: the first one was published by the Leningrad University Press, and the second one was published in Gidrometeoizdat (1990).
4 The output data reads :" Completed on 9.03.1992". L. N. Gumilyov died on June 15, 1992.
page 97
They are mostly copies of original publications. The latter two will be discussed below.
Often on sale in second-hand bookstores you have to see a kind of five-or six-volume book by L. N. Gumilev in a light gray cover with gold lettering: "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe "(Moscow, 1989, 1992, 1993), "From Russia to Russia" (Moscow, 1992, 1994), " Rhythms Eurasia" (Moscow, 1993)," Ethnosphere: history of people and history of nature "(Moscow, 1993)," Black Legend "(Moscow, 1994)," Xiongnu: steppe trilogy " (St. Petersburg, 1993). Despite the fact that there are no pirated editions among the listed books, there is no single collection. The only authentic edition - "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe" - was published in 1989 by the publishing house "Mysl" and it was also reprinted in 1992 and 1993.5.
All other publications only copy the "gray-gold" design and were released after the author's death by other publishers (Ecopros and Time-Out).
"XIONGNU "
The monograph "Xiongnu" was reprinted thirty-three years after the first edition was published (Gumilev and Xiongnu, 1993). Both in the early 1990s and now, the original edition of" Xiongnu", released in a circulation of 2500 copies, is not available everywhere, even in libraries. Hence, the assessment given to the reissue by S. B. Lavrov is quite understandable:
"Only after the death of L. N. <Gumilyov> in 1993 did the "Xiongnu" really appear in mass circulation... It was a copy of the books of the "light-gray" elegant and high-quality Moscow series, but it was no longer made in Ecopros..., but in St. Petersburg, under the scientific editorship of a student of L. N., Candidate of Geographical Sciences Vyacheslav Ermolaev. In the preface, it was noted that the book is published uncut in the editorial office of L. N. Gumilyov himself " [Lavrov, 2000, p. 156].
Contrary to the above statement, the number of notes and inserts that are not related to the original in this edition exceeds all imaginable limits. This edition should be recognized as the most unreliable of all the reprints of "Xiongnu" and in general reprints of the works of L. N. Gumilyov. Unfortunately, it is most often (in addition to the original edition) appears in the literature lists of various researchers.
Consider the most important inconsistencies of the 1993 edition to the original.
The first thing that catches your eye is the lack of notes in this edition. Notes of an exclusively bibliographic nature are replaced by references indicating the number in the main list of references at the end of book 6; text notes are either not reproduced at all, or are raised to the main text, but in a very peculiar way - by replacing some part of it 7.
It was the latter "feature" that led S. B. Lavrov astray, who wondered why in the" Xiongnu " (according to the 1993 edition) the number of Huns is defined as
5 With added pointers. The first edition stipulated that they "will be published in subsequent editions" (Gumilyov, 1989, p. 759). Due to a misunderstanding, the note was also preserved in the second edition (1992) and naturally copied in the pirated edition [Gumilev, Ancient Russia, 1992, p .509].
6 There was no consolidated bibliography in the first edition of the Xiongnu . The list compiled in the 1993 edition is incomplete, as it does not include literature from deleted notes.
7 For example, the note on the discovery of Hunnic objects in Europe [Gumilev, 1960, p. 36] was added to the main text [Gumilev and Hunnu, 1993, p.30], but the three subsequent paragraphs were removed instead (cf.: [Gumilev, 1960, p. 36-37]). A large note about the Yuezhi [Gumilev, 1960, p. 39-40] is simply not included in the reprint (cf.: [Gumilev and Xiongnu, 1993, p. 32]). Instead of the note on the culture of tile graves [Gumilev, 1960, p. 47], a paragraph completely alien to the author's text is inserted [Gumilev and Xiongnu, 1993, p.38]. Removed the note [Gumilev, 1960, p. 71 ]about Usuns (cf.: [Gumilev, Xiongnu, 1993, p. 58]). A note with a poetic quotation from Li Bo Gumilev, 1960, p. 132] was moved to the main text [Gumilev and Xiongnu, 1993, p. 108], and with a different breakdown into lines and a modified author's commentary. The note [Gumilyov, 1960, p.142] explaining another verse of Li Bo was added to the text [Gumilyov and Xiongnu, 1993, p. 117]), while most of the next paragraph was removed (cf.: [Gumilyov, 1960, p. 143]). Removed a large note [Gumilev, 1960, p. 219-220] about the Ban Chao campaigns (cf.: [Gumilev and Xiongnu, 1993, p. 174]).
page 98
1.5 million people, and in other works of L. N. Gumilyov - 300 thousand. [Lavrov, 2000, p. 167, 377 (approx. 98)]. The fact is that in the original edition, the first figure given according to Chinese sources is called too high [Gumilev, 1960, p. 79], and then in the note, which is not included in the reprint (cf.: [Gumilev and Xiongnu, 1993, p. 71]), the number of Huns in 300 thousand is indicated as more realistic. man [Gumilyov, 1960, p. 88].
Also excluded from the 1993 edition: 1) the author's preface, replaced by a text cut from the introductory chapter "Millennia around the Caspian Sea"; 2) a chronological table that occupied thirty pages in the first edition (!); 3) a dictionary of ethnonyms. The reissue of" Xiongnu " contains non-specified editorial additions in the spirit of passion theory (some pages: [Gumilev, Xiongnu, 1993, p. 38, 65, 68, 200-201]). This explains V. N. Demin's seemingly paradoxical statement about the repeated appearance of the term "passionarity" in the Xiongnu monograph [Demin, 2007, p. 124]. N. N. Kradin, comparing the two editions, noted the difference between them, but attributed the appearance of" passionarity " in the reprint to a late publication. according to the author's interpretation [Kradin, 2002, p. 24]. However, this interpretation has nothing to do with the author.8
In the copy of the 1993 edition, kept in the apartment-museum of L. N. Gumilyov, there is a postscript made by the author's widow-N. V. Gumilyova 9. It follows that all the changes made by the editor are gross and unacceptable and have nothing to do with what the author himself intended to correct. And what L. N. Gumilyov wanted to change can be understood from the postscripts, but already in a copy of the original edition of "Xiongnu" from the library of the L. N. Gumilyov apartment-museum. The corrections were made by the author's own hand, there are not many of them, they relate to typos made in the first edition and some special clarifications.
An example of one such refinement can be found in all the reprints of "Xiongnu" in the Dictionary of ethnonyms (except for the 1993 edition, in which the dictionary is not included). Among other ethnic groups, the Yuezhi are listed there:
"...the people who settled Hexi in the fifth century BC. In the second century BC, he was pushed back by the Huns to Central Asia and occupied Bactria. Ethnic identity-the Sogdians, who conquered Dzungaria around the fifth century BC (see: Gumilev L. N. S. I. Rudenko and modern ethnogeography of the arid zone... / / Collection of Ethnography of the peoples of the USSR, L., GO USSR, 1971, pp. 10-12). The language is unknown. His homeland was Dzungaria" [Gumilyov, Istoriya naroda, 1998, p. 255; Gumilyov, Istoriya naroda, 2002, p. 340-341; Gumilyov and Khunnu, 2003, p.260].
Considering that the first edition of the Xiongnu was published in 1960, it is rather strange to see in it a reference to a 1971 article. However, in the first edition we read:"<...> Ethnicity is not established. The language is not known. His homeland was Dzungaria" (Gumilev, 1960, p. 252). The difference is obvious, but its origin is not specified anywhere.
This is where the case of copyright edits occurs. The reference to the 1971 article included in the reprints is attributed by the author's own handwriting on page 252 of his own copy of the Xiongnu. The same applies to other minor changes, some of which are included in all reissues, some of which are not.
For example, the text of the publication "Iris-press" takes into account an edit that is not found in other reprints, which means that the publishers had an author's copy of "Xiongnu"in their hands. The fact is that in the first edition of the Xiongnu, the density of the Hun army on the battlefield with the Chinese was incorrectly calculated (200 BC). With the size of the field 30 × 40 km and the number of troops (according to Chinese sources) in 400 thousand horsemen, the author did-
8 These additions could be attributed to the restored bills mentioned in the editorial preface. However, the study of L. N. Gumilyov's camp manuscript, which formed the basis of "Xiongnu", shows that there is nothing similar to the editorial inserts in the 1993 edition [Saraev, 2014].
9 Reference of the researcher of the apartment-museum L. N. Gumilyov, candidate of Cultural studies A. V. Bondarev, to whom I bring my gratitude.
page 99
It was concluded that there were only 30 square meters per rider. m fields [Gumilev, 1960, p. 66], from which it was concluded that the Huns with such a large number simply would not have had anywhere to turn around. In a note to his copy of "Xiongnu", L. N. Gumilev changed the last number to the correct one-3000 sq. m. This was taken into account in the reissue of "Iris-press" [Gumilev, Xiongnu, 2003, p. 71]. However, a purely mechanical correction rendered meaningless the idea of the author, who sought to show that the Chinese source exaggerates the number of Huns by an order of magnitude. Apparently, this is true, but an incorrect calculation could not help the proof, and in the "updated" text (with the specified 3000 sq. m. m per warrior) the author's mistake becomes even more obvious. To make a correction, it was necessary either to rewrite the entire paragraph (which is impossible without the author), or to make an editorial note, but not to change only one digit.
Thus, modern publishers should be blamed for making changes to the text (even if they are copyrighted) mechanically, without any explanation. At the same time, the very need to make changes to posthumous publications needs serious justification. Thus, a careful study of L. N. Gumilyov's later works reveals that he has already made a number of edits to these editions that he noted in his copy of the Xiongnu.
Summarizing the above, I will note three main points. 1) The first reprint of "Xiongnu" (1993) is absolutely unreliable and unsuitable not only for scientific use, but also for acquaintance with the views of L. N. Gumilyov. 2) All other reprints to one degree or another take into account minor copyright edits from his copy of "Xiongnu". The text edited on their basis was published for the first time in 1998 in the series "Bibliotheca Gumilevica". 3) Despite the fact that among the reissues of "Xiongnu" there are 11 better or worse ones, there is not a single one that fully corresponds to the original edition.
"ANCIENT TURKS"
The situation is no better with the reprints of the monograph "Ancient Turks". This work - a purely professional one with a full-fledged scientific apparatus - was not intended for the general reader at all, so it would be difficult to expect its high-quality reprint in mass series.
As in the case of the Xiongnu ,the first reissue of the Ancient Turks set the tone for all subsequent editions. It was released in 1993 in the "pirate" series. Speaking about this series above, I focused on the fact that "Ancient Turks" and "Ethnogenesis and Biosphere of the Earth" differ from other books included in it - just copies from the first editions.
The reprint of the monograph "Ethnogenesis and the Earth's Biosphere" indicates that it was prepared with the participation of "DI-KART" [Gumilev, Ethnogenesis, 1993, p. 2], i.e. a publishing house headed by A. I. Kurkchi, which soon carried out its own reprint of L. N. Gumilev's works in the "Bibliotheca Gumilevica"series. This can explain the unusual beginning of the book - a text called " My Voice "[Gumilev, Ethnogenesis, 1993, p. 3-13], which is, apparently, a transcript of a tape recording that A. I. Kurkchi repeatedly, by his own admission, made during conversations with L. N. Gumilev [Kurkchi, 2006,p. 3-13]. p. 506]. On this basis, at least, this publication
10 For example, the fall of the Shang Dynasty in the Xiongnu is dated 1123 [Gumilev, 1960, p. 19], and in the reprint the author planned to change the date to 1027, which he did, but in another book [Gumilev, 1991, p.54]. Gumilev took into account the correction about the Sughd origin of the Yuezhi (with reference to the 1971 article) even earlier (Gumilev, 1974, p.8).
11 The Iris-press publication could be considered to be more technically accomplished than others if it did not reprint the same blunder from year to year: instead of the map of Tangshihai's campaigns [Gumilev and Xiongnu, 2003, p. 247], it publishes a map from the monograph "The Xiongnu in China", which is then repeated in the correct place in this edition [Gumilev and Xiongnu, 2003, p. 478].
page 100
it can only be conditionally considered "pirated", since A. I. Kurkchi, who participated in its preparation, published L. N. Gumilyov's books officially. Taking into account the possible participation of A. I. Kurkchi in the preparation of the reprint of "Ancient Turks", I will try to explain the oddities present in it.
The small "From the author" section that opens the book already differs from the original edition:
I will always remember those who helped me do this job and who are no longer among us,
about my wonderful predecessor G. E. Grumm-Grzhimailo, about my mentors N. V. Kuehner, A. Y. Yakubovsky and Academician V. V. Struve.
about my wonderful predecessor, my friend G. E. Grum-Grzhimailo, who glorified the history of the peoples of Central Asia and died waiting for recognition, about my mentors N. V. Kuehner, A. Y. Yakubovsky and Academician V. V. Struve, who helped me in the difficult camp years.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my teacher M. I. Artamonov, ... to my friends L. A. Voznesensky, and D. E. Alshibaya [Gumilev, 1967, p. 3].
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my teacher M. I. Artamonov, ... to my friends L. A. Voznesensky, D. E. Alshibaya, who spent their time together with me in the camps of Norilsk and Karaganda [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1993, p. 3; Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1999, p. 213].
As you can see, the italicized fragments highlighted in the quote from the reprint are missing from the original edition, and their origin is not specified in any way. In contrast to the similar situation with "Xiongnu", we do not know a copy of" Ancient Turks", which would contain notes for future reprints. Perhaps A. I. Kurkchi had such a copy or some other handwritten materials at his disposal. It should only be noted that any mention of the author's prison term in the mid-1960s would not have been missed in print anyway.12 Therefore, we can only assume that the second version of the text L. N. Gumilev wrote exclusively for himself.
However, there are still some problems. For example, the mention of friendship with Grumm-Grzhimailo caused surprise among Sergey Lavrov: "One thing is not clear to me here: when could L. N. Gumilev have met and even more so become friends with Grumm-Grzhimailo, who was over 70 at that time (30s)?"[Lavrov, 2000, p. 378, ed. 157]. It can be noted that even in the original version of the "From the author" section, only those whom L. N. Gumilev knew personally are listed ("I will keep the memory of those..."), and there is no reason to make an exception for G. E. Grumm-Grzhimailo. Something else is doubtful. L. A. Voznesensky and D. E. Alshibaya mentioned by Gumilev, who were really connected with him exclusively by their stay in the camp, did not serve their sentences in Norilsk. L. N. Gumilev was in Norilsk in 1939-1943, when D. E. Alshibaya (1921-1992) and L. A. Voznesensky (born in 1926) were too young to enter the camp at all. In addition, it is known for certain that the former met Gumilev in Karaganda [Voznesensky, 2006, p.174], and the latter - in Omsk [Mamaladze, 2008, p. 323]. From Norilsk solagernikov Gumilyov in the list of thanks "Ancient Turks" is not mentioned
12 I do not proceed from general ideas about that time, but from a specific example. In the congratulatory note for the 60th anniversary of L. N. Gumilyov, of course, there is not a word about his camp term. To somehow indicate this period of the hero of the day's biography, the authors had to resort to a trick: "...in 1930, he began working as a collector in the Central Research Institute and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the USSR, where he received a general geological education, which allowed him to work for a number of years... in the Soviet Arctic... " [Kalesnik et al., 1972, p. 166].
page 101
none 13. Gumilyov, of course, could not have made a mistake about who and where he was serving his sentence.
Even less reason to trust other text changes. P. P. Azbelev (Azbelev, 2008) found the largest of them in the reprints of "Ancient Turks" 14. For example, let's compare several paragraphs:
Ancient Turks, 1967, pp. 63-64
Ancient Turks, 1993, pp. 63-64; 1999, pp. 273-274
A. N. Bernshtam came to the conclusion that the social system of the ancient Turks "is an early form of primitive feudal relations" [A. N. Bernshtam, Socio-economic system..., p. 145]. This statement contradicts both the actual data and the unequivocal statements of F. Engels ' opinion on the formation of military democracy at the highest stage of barbarism. < ... > All of the above gives grounds for classifying the Turkyutovs as such.
A. N. Bernshtam came to the conclusion that the social system of the ancient Turks "is an early form of composition of primitive feudal relations" [Gumilev L. N. Socio-economic system of the Orkhon-Yenisei Turks in the VI-VIII centuries L., 1946, p. 145]. This statement contradicts both the actual data and the entire theoretical anthropology created by German, English and American (L. G. Morgan) scientists in the 19th century, who divided different phases of development into barbarism and democracy. < ... > It is necessary to classify the Turkyuts to this stage.
Describing the highest stage of barbarism, Engels notes the following features. "All cultured peoples are experiencing their own heroic era - the era of the iron sword" [f. Engels, The Origin of the family, Private Property, and the State, p. 162]. This can also be attributed to the Turkuts, who used iron smelting and processing. "Wealth grew rapidly, but as the wealth of individuals" [ibid., p. 163]. And this phenomenon is described by us. "Slavery... it is now becoming an essential component of the social system" [ibid.]. Slavery among the Turkyuts experienced precisely this stage of development [N. Ya. Bichurin, Collection of information..., vol. II, p. 300; S. P. Tolstov, Ancient Khorezm, p. 261].
Describing the highest stage of barbarism, F. Engels, for example, notes the following: "All cultured peoples are experiencing their own heroic era - the era of the iron sword" [Engels F. The origin of the family, private property and the state / / Marx K., Engels F. Essays, vol. 21, p. 32]. This can also be attributed to the Turkuts, who used iron smelting and processing. "Wealth grew rapidly, but as the wealth of individuals" (Gumilev L. N. The specific ladder system among the Turks in the VI-VIII centuries, p. 17). And this phenomenon is described by us. "Slavery... it is now becoming an essential component of the social system" [ibid., p. 19]. Slavery among the Turkyuts experienced precisely this stage of development [ibid., p. 19].
So, the fragment of the reprint has serious textual differences from the fragment of the first edition, and in addition, the links are clearly mixed up in it. So, after the quote from Engels in the reprint, there is a link to the work of L. N. Gumilyov himself, and on the specified page Engels is not quoted (there are discussed issues of the political history of the ancient Turks). In the original edition, when referring to slavery among the Turks, the author refers to N. Ya. Bichurin and S. P. Tolstov. In the reissue, in a similar place, there is again a reference to the same work of Gumilev. At the same time, the note about slavery is still preserved, but there is no reference to it in the text itself (after the reference 48, 50 immediately follows).
13 For example, N. A. Kozyrev, S. A. Snegov, or V. N. Abrosov [Belavskaya, 2008, pp. 292-293].
14 According to the text on the website Gumilevica [Gumilev, Ancient Turks]. In the comments to the article by P. P. Azbelev, I have for the first time presented the discrepancies found between the editions of "Xiongnu". http://centaurito.livejournal.com/135214.html?thread=1720366#t1720366. My comment is listed as "anonymous". - A. S.
page 102
Surprisingly, Gumilev in the reprint is attributed to the monograph of A. N. Bernshtam, which he criticized, and in the 1999 edition the initials of the latter are "shortened" to " Ya. Bernshtam" [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1999, p. 273].
Finally, L. G. Morgan's name is repeatedly mentioned in the text of the reprint, 15 although he is not mentioned once in the original edition (!). It is easy to see that in the text of the reprint, Morgan's name appears in the place of Engels in the original edition. It is noteworthy that in two other cases the reference to Morgan replaces references to Engels [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1993, p. 64, 73]; cf.: [Gumilev, 1967, p. 64, 74]. Nevertheless, Morgan is not listed in the bibliography or in the index of reprints [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1993, p. 478, 499]16, which further confirms the artificiality of inserts with his name. Isn't this gross interference in the author's text explained by the desire of the editors, who followed the current trend in 1993, to reduce the share of Marxism in the book?
The distortion and chaotic nature of the text in the reprints of " Ancient Turks "cannot be justified by any"restoration of banknotes". Even if the publishers had some author's copy of the book with notes or other materials at their disposal, all of them were misunderstood, so P. P. Azbelev's opinion about the low value of the "edits" made in the reissue is true: "... as a result, there are zero benefits, no essential changes, but the good thing is somewhat damaged " [Azbelev, 2008].
The fragment that is considered below will not be as large-scale as the previous one, but it is no less important for using "Ancient Turks" as a monograph, and not just a book for reading. In the context of the turmoil in the Western Turkic Khaganate, L. N. Gumilev mentioned the rise of the Bulgarians: "On the western edge of the khaganate of Dulu orientation, the Bulgarians-Unnogundurs, whose leader Kubrat, visiting in 619, were holding on. (all italics are mine - A. S.) Constantinople and having received the rank of patrician there, refrained from baptism" [Gumilev, 1967, p. 202]. Then, in the note, the question of identifying the ruler who arrived in Constantinople in 619 is considered in more detail: "A certain" Hunnic prince "was baptized in 619, but neither the Bulgarians nor the Avars had independent princes at that time; therefore, the Turkyut appanage prince of the westernmost region of the khaganate was baptized" [Gumilev, 1967, p. 202].
However, in all reissues, one (!) specified date is replaced by a whole series of them. So, according to the edition of "Iris-press" and all based on it (editions of "Crystal" and ACT), you can understand that the text and note are talking about different events. The main text says: "...the Bulgarians are the Unnogundurs, whose leader Kubrat visited in 610. Constantinople ... abstained from baptism." In the note: "A certain "Hunnic prince"was baptized in 619..."[Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 2002, p. 223].
In the 1993 and 1999 editions, there are no discrepancies between the text and the note, but the dates were "corrected" in the wrong direction - the event was dated 610, and the Hunnic prince was left without quotation marks, although their use by the author is completely logical (no Huns existed by that time) [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1993, p. 202; Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1999, p. 429, 436 (ed. 55)]17.
L. N. Gumilev, touching only in passing (within the framework of the history of the Western Khaganate) on the question of the formation of Great Bulgaria, relied on the works of G. V. Vernadsky and M. I. Artamonov; but they held different points of view. The first one considered that in
15 In addition to the correct spelling - once "L. T. Morgan" (Gumilyov, Ancient Turks, 1993, p. 73), and in the 1999 edition also "G. T. Morgan". Morgan" [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1999, p. 273].
16 It is already included in the index of the Iris-Press publication [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 2002, p. 540]. The abstract says that the book is being published according to the "first lifetime edition". Although the confused references and initials have been corrected (including references to Engels), the reference to Morgan in the main text has been preserved (Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 2002, pp. 71-72).
17 It is interesting that the chapter containing the quoted fragment was also published separately [Russian..., 1994, pp. 148-168], and the date is indicated there without distortion-619. [Russian..., 1994, p. 159].
page 103
Kurt (Kubrat) arrived in Constantinople in 619 and was baptized there together with his subjects [Vernadsky, 1952, p. 198, 200]. M. I. Artamonov mentioned this point of view [Artamonov, 1962, p. 157-158], but then rejected it, suggesting that Kubrat's uncle Organa personally arrived in Constantinople he was not baptized [Artamonov, 1962, p. 164]. In any case, the date of the "Huns '" embassy itself is unambiguous (619) and in all reprints of the "Ancient Turks", unlike the original edition, it is indicated incorrectly. So, in the reprints of L. N. Gumilyov's monograph "Ancient Turks", as well as in the reprints of" Xiongnu", there are inconsistencies with the first edition: 1) the introductory section "From the author", which contains references to the camp past of L. N. Gumilev; 2) a completely distorted section on the social system of the ancient Turks; 3) the incorrectly dated Bulgarian embassy in Constantinople. The depth of misrepresentations and typos varied from edition to edition, and the text of the 1999 edition should be considered the most distorted [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 1999]. Attempts to restore some order in the preparation of the 2002 edition. [Gumilev, Ancient Turks, 2002] for some reason did not lead to the restoration of the text from the original edition (contrary to the publisher's annotation), but only corrected the previous distortions in some way.
"FROM RUSSIA TO / TO RUSSIA"
The situation with L. N. Gumilyov's last book published during his lifetime cannot be compared with the cases of distortions in the reprints of the monographs "Xiongnu" and "Ancient Turks". In fact, there are two different texts of it, published under a slightly different title - "From Russia to / to Russia". Comparing any corresponding pages of these publications, it is easy to see that they say the same thing, but in different ways. Here are just a few examples:
From Russia to Russia, 1992
From Russia to Russia, 1992
Today we have an unprecedented growth of interest in the history of our Homeland (p.13).
Today, there is an unprecedented growth of interest in history in our country (p. 7).
The new Khazarian government, which overthrew the Turkic military nobility, maintained troops from Gurgan as a military force (p. 39).
The Jewish government of Khazaria, which overthrew the Turkic military nobility, used the services of troops from Gurgan (p. 38).
..then the Bulgarian villages were attacked by the Suzdalians and Muromians. They made captured children their laborers, and took captive Bulgars as wives. Ivans and Marys were born (p. 52).
..then the Bulgarian villages were attacked by the Suzdalians and Muromians. They made captured children their laborers, and took captive Bulgars as wives. Vseslavs and Lubavs were born (pp. 53-54).
The tenth-century Pechenegs, enemies of the Russians and allies of Byzantium, were pagans (p. 57).
The enemies of the Russians and Byzantium, the Pechenegs, were pagans in the tenth century (p. 60).
One might ask: why did Nikon rely not on its friends, but on visiting Ukrainian monks? < ... > From an ethnological point of view, the answer is not difficult. < ... > "Ancient Piety" could have been a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism and corresponded to the ideal of the Third Rome, "Holy Russia". <...> The Orthodoxy of Habakkuk, therefore, could not connect the superethnos as a cluster of close but different peoples... (p. 231).
An interesting question is: why did Nikon rely not on its friends, but on visiting Ukrainian monks? < ... > From an ethnological point of view, the answer is very simple. < ... > "Ancient piety" could be a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism and corresponded to the ideal of the Third Rome, "bright Russia". < ... > The Orthodoxy of Habakkuk, thus, it could not be the connecting basis of a superethnos as a cluster of close but different peoples (p. 267).
page 104
As you can see, the differences between fragments are not only stylistic, but also factual. If the spelling "bright Rus" instead of "holy" can be explained by a typo, and the replacement of "Ivanov da Mari "with" Vseslav da Lubav" is just a curiosity, which, in general, does not change anything; then the attribution (in one of the publications) of the Pechenegs as enemies of both Russia and Byzantium is definitely wrong (cf.: [Vasilevsky, 2010, pp. 8-9]).
There are many other differences between the publications. So, in one of them, "obscuration" and "homeostasis" are named as the final phases of ethnogenesis [Gumilev, From Russia to..., p.21], in the other - "memorial phase" [Gumilev, From Russia to..., p. 18]. Translation of the poem of the Chinese Princess, which is published in the St. Petersburg edition ("before Russia") corresponds to the subscript [Bichurin, 1950, p. 240] and his first publication [Gumilev, 1967, p. 136] 18, in the Moscow edition ("to Russia") contains "corrected" text:
From Russia to Russia (p. 17)
From Russia to Russia (p. 13)
Glory and honor precede misfortune, Because the laws of the world are grass on water.
Glory and honor precede misfortune, Because the laws of the world are circles on the water.
Some content fragments of the same type were included in different paragraphs of the two editions. 19 Most of the differences are in the paragraph "Prince Alexander and Khan Batu": in "From Russia to Russia" it contains two pages about the causes of internal division in the Mongol Empire (p. 114-115), completely absent in "From Russia to Russia" (p. 126-127Otherwise, the text of this paragraph in both editions only conditionally coincides. Moreover, the statement that caused so much damage to the reputation of L. N. Gumilev about the twinning of Alexander Nevsky and Sartak, the son of Batu, is present exclusively in the Moscow edition, and it was thanks to "From Russia to Russia" that this opinion became widely known. The St. Petersburg edition says something completely different:
From Russia to Russia (p. 116)
From Russia to Russia (p. 127)
The prince went to Batu's headquarters and became friends with his son Sartak. Obviously, Batu himself fully trusted Alexander.
In 1251, Alexander came to the Horde of Batu, became friends, and then fraternized with his son Sartak, as a result of which he became the adopted son of the khan.
The idea of twinning, although expressed earlier by Gumilev [Gumilev, 1970, p. 155, 201, 393; Gumilev, 1977, p. 257], remained virtually unnoticed for a long time 20. However, just a year before the publication of "From Russia to Russia", the historian V. A. Kuchkin questioned the historicity of this fact in a popular pamphlet [Kuchkin, 1991, p.7]21. Gumilyov knew about this criticism, and probably not without its influence corrected his position in the new book.
18 The translation dates back to 1937 [Gumilyov, To svecha..., 2002, p. 551]. At that time Gumilyov could only use Bichurin's edition of the 19th century. In the Ancient Turks, the source of the translation is already the second edition.
19 Thus, a fragment about the similarity of the superstitions of the Slavs, Turks and Finno-Ugric peoples in the St. Petersburg edition is found in the section "The New Way" of chapter 111 [Gumilev, From Russia to..., p. 55-56], in the Moscow edition - in the section "Vseslav Polotsky and Yaroslavichi" of chapter IV [Gumilev, From Russia to..., p. 55-56]. 73]. Mismatches in the arrangement of individual paragraphs and sentences occur when comparing paragraphs: "The wisdom of compromise", "Change"," In search of allies","Father and Son".
20 Even B. A. Rybakov, in his devastating review of The Search for a Fictional Kingdom, did not pay any attention to the statement contained in the book about the twinning of Alexander and Sartak (Rybakov, 1971). The only early response to this opinion of Gumilyov is quite in agreement with him:"...Sartak, according to Armenian sources, was baptized according to the Nestorian rite and was a sister city (Anda) of Alexander Nevsky" (Munkuev, 1972, p. 186).
21 The author refers to L. N. Gumilyov's interview with the Izvestia newspaper in 1988.
22 The library of L. N. Gumilyov contains not only this pamphlet, but also two more monographs by V. A. Kuchkin.
page 105
The idea of "From Russia to Russia" was much broader than defending a particular private opinion. The book was conceived by the author as a kind of scientific and ideological testament [Lavrov, 2000, p. 285 (epigraph)]. However, it was thanks to one of the publications (From Russia to Russia) that the controversial opinion about the twinning of Alexander Nevsky and Sartak spread among a huge number of readers.
One could argue that if Gumilyov had written about twinning before, then the absence of references to it in one of the editions of his latest book is not proof of the authenticity of this particular edition. So we need more evidence.
The main thing that, without a doubt, determines the advantage of " From Russia to Russia "is the absence of errors that were still present in its proofreading (stored in the museum - apartment of L. N. Gumilyov), as well as in" From Russia to Russia " and in all subsequent editions. This is a fragment in which the author, based on the evidence of one of the sources, makes an assumption about the presence of Genghis Khan in Jurchen captivity (the plot played out in the feature film "Mongol"by S. Bodrov Sr.):
From Russia to Russia (p. 91)
From Russia to Russia (p. 101)
...the gap in historical knowledge may well be filled with information from the informative book " Men-da Bei-lu "("Complete Description of the Mongol-Tatars").
...the gap in historical knowledge may well be filled with information from the informative book " Men-da Bei-lu "("Secret History of the Mongols").
As is known, the anonymous "Secret History of the Mongols" is "Yuan-chao bi-shi" (in Chinese) or "Mongol-un niucha tobchan" (in Mongolian) [Vladimirtsov, 1934, p. 6]. "Men-da Bei-lu" is an essay whose author is known (Zhao Hong), and its name translates as "Complete description of the Mongol-Tatars" (Vladimirtsov, 1934, p. 9). By this mistake alone, if it were an author's mistake, it would be possible to accuse L. N. Gumilyov of obvious unprofessionalism. However, it is in the St. Petersburg edition, as shown above in the comparison, that the name "Men-da Bei-lu" is translated quite correctly. Since such an edit could only have been made by the author himself, I consider the St. Petersburg edition to be authentic.
In that case, where did this and all the other discrepancies between editions of the same book come from?
To solve the problem, let's pay attention to the output data of books. Although both editions were published in 1992, only the St. Petersburg edition can be considered a lifetime edition. From its output data, it follows that the text was typed during the author's lifetime - at the end of 1991, and signed for publication on July 6, 1992, i.e. just three weeks after his death. The output of "From Russia to Russia" is different: the book was published on September 8, 1992 (almost three months after the author's death), and signed for publication on September 28. The speed of text preparation is extraordinary.
Light on the problem is shed by the memoirs of Gumilev's student, V. Y. Ermolaev. As far as can be judged, they have not yet attracted the attention of researchers, so it is appropriate to cite a rather lengthy quote [Ermolaev, 2012, p. 212]:
"In 1991, at the request of Lev Nikolaevich and by his agreement with a small St. Petersburg publishing house "Yuna", I edited Gumilev's last book - "From Russia to Russia". The difficulty was that there was no original manuscript. In fact, the "editing" was reduced to me compiling a text from ... Gumilyov's "Russian lectures", making editorial changes to this text, and approving or disapproving individual finished chapters by Gumilyov. Lev Nikolaevich simply did not have the strength for anything more. When the work finally ended, the director of the publishing house, N. V. Dubrovskaya, found it unnecessary to pay for it. Even worse, my last name as editor was removed from the book... I, of course, immediately left the publishing house and reported the incident to Gumilyov. But Lev Nikolaevich did not dare to risk the finished book and
page 106
he chose not to quarrel with the publisher, which he told me directly, without any ambiguity. I also directly expressed my opinion to Lev Nikolayevich... As a result, the book was published under a meaningless title and with shameful mistakes." Below, in a note, it says: "The publishers, it seems, did not bother to read the finished manuscript devoted to the problem of the transition from ancient Russia to Russia. As a result, the book, which mostly includes a description of the history of Russia in the 13th and 17th centuries, was called "From Russia to Russia". However, it was hard to expect these people to understand the nuances. Already after Gumilyov's death, I managed to carry out an authentic publication with an afterword by S. B. Lavrov: Gumilyov L. N. From Russia to Russia: essays on ethnic history. Moscow: Ekopros, 1992".
Of course, the memories of a participant in events cannot be objectively unbiased. Moreover, they are not without contradictions. Thus, after giving as a positive fact S. B. Lavrov's participation in the publication "From Russia to Russia" in a few pages, the author described him quite differently: "former secretary of the party Committee", "former" gray cardinal" not only of the Faculty of Geography, but also of the NIIG<eografiya>", "former pillar of the Soviet economic policy". geography" [Ermolaev, 2012, p. 216]. I cannot verify the validity of other assessments of the author of the memoirs, including his own role in the events described. Nevertheless, the very comparison of the two editions of the book allows us to understand a lot.
Thus, in the publication prepared by V. Y. Ermolaev, he is indeed listed as a scientific editor [Gumilev, From Russia to..., p. 6]. In "From Russia to Russia" it is indicated that "the book is published in the author's editorial office", but it is also specified that " the candidate of geographical Sciences participated in the preparation of the manuscript for publication V. Y. Ermolaev " [Gumilev, From Russia to..., p. 5]. In addition, the reviewers of "From Russia to Russia" are named Academician A.M. Panchenko and the same S. B. Lavrov. In this case, is V. Y. Ermolaev completely honest in his indignation about the position of the Yuna publishing house? I don't think so.
The second position of V. Y. Ermolaev-the title "From Russia to Russia" is "meaningless", because the book is devoted "for the most part" to the history of Russia of the XIII-XVII centuries. Maybe L. N. Gumilev thought that the preposition k in the title of the book was more appropriate, but whether he explained his motivation in the same way as his student is unknown. In any case, the book is clearly divided not into two, but into three parts, of which only the second can rightfully be called "from Russia to Russia", while the first is completely devoted to Russia, and the third - to Russia itself (until the end of the XVII century).
Recent criticism of B. M. Kloss confirms the conclusion about the advantage and authenticity of the St. Petersburg edition of the book:
"Chapter III... It is called "The Emergence of Russia" and tells about Russian history from the beginning of the XIV century to the Battle of Kulikovo. Although real Russians did not yet know the name Russia at this historical stage, L. N. Gumilev did say the word. .. Without defining the term itself (Russia - A. S.), L. N. Gumilev formulated his main conclusion: "in place of the old Kievan Rus, a completely new ethnic group has emerged - the Great Russian, with its own ethno-social system-Moscow Rus." Note, however, that we can speak about the emergence of a new ethnic group in the conditions of the XIV century... it was a little early... " [Kloss, 2012, p. 13].
It is of fundamental importance that B. M. Kloss refers to the Moscow edition, since in the St. Petersburg edition a fragment similar to the criticized one looks different: "It was at this time, in the XV century, that Russia received the name "Saint". The characteristic epithet indicated that in place of the old Kievan Rus, a new Rus - Moscow-emerged" [Gumilev, From Rus to..., p. 132]. As you can see, there is no "Great Russian ethnos" or "Russia", but only "Rus" and the XV century. Thus, for every point of B. M. Kloss's disagreement with the text "From Russia to Russia", "From Russia to Russia" contains a completely different interpretation, which probably would not have caused his criticism.
page 107
V. Y. Ermolaev's opinion about the" shameful mistakes " of the St. Petersburg edition in the light of the above facts does not need further refutation. However, this does not mean that there are no errors left in the text of the book even after the author's edits.
For example, the premises of the Khazar fortress Sarkel on the Volga should be considered an annoying typo [Gumilev, From Russia to..., p. 40]. That this is a typo is evident not only from the fact that Sarkel is called "the support of the Khazars in the west" (if it were on the Volga, it would be "the support in the east"), but also because after a few pages the fortress is correctly placed on the Don [Gumilev, From Russia to..., p. 45]. In this respect, the Moscow edition has no advantages - the error in it has not been corrected [Gumilev, From Rus to..., p. 39].
Thus, we have evidence of the editor's not entirely honest and competent work. Helping L. N. Gumilyov with the work on the book, V. Y. Ermolaev considered himself entitled to continue editing it not only after his dismissal from the publishing house that prepared the book, but also after the author's death. Editing without the author's participation was limited to stylistic "editing" (hence the striking differences between the texts of the two editions). At the same time, errors noticed and corrected by the author in the signal copy of the St. Petersburg edition (replacing the "Secret History of the Mongols "with" Full Description of the Mongol-Tatars", etc.)23, V. Y. Ermolaev could not fix it and published everything as it was. Of course, there is no question of authenticity here.
Unfortunately, all reprints (regardless of the preposition in the title) are based exclusively on the Moscow edition - "From Russia to Russia" - and the truly authentic text of the book was published only once and has not been reprinted again.
"GEOGRAPHY OF AN ETHNIC GROUP IN THE HISTORICAL PERIOD" / "THE END AND THE BEGINNING AGAIN"
Another later book by L. N. Gumilyov - "Geography of ethnos in the historical period" - was subsequently reprinted exclusively under the title "The End and the Beginning again". This change, however, is explicable 24, but other differences between the first and subsequent editions, as in the cases discussed earlier, need special study.
Thus, the "tram anecdote", repeatedly voiced by L. N. Gumilev during his lectures [Lavrov, 2000, p. 328; Gumilev, 2007, p. 37, 410-411], is transmitted differently in different editions of the book.
For example, a violent drunk gets on the same tram and starts hooliganism. What will happen?
Well, a Russian, let's say, will sympathize, say: "You, fellow countryman, come out before they take you away." The Caucasian, most likely, will not stand it, and may hit. The Tatar, in all likelihood, will step aside and not get involved. A Westerner will try to resort to a policeman [Gumilyov, Geografiya..., 1990, p. 12; Gumilyov, Konts..., 1994, p. 40].
Well, the Russian, of course, will sympathize, say: "You, keryukha, come out before they take you away." The Caucasian will not stand it and will give in the teeth. The Tatar will step aside and not get involved. A Westerner will immediately call a policeman [Gumilyov, Konts..., 2001, p. 22; Gumilyov, Konts..., 2008, p. 28].
You should immediately make a reservation that both versions of the text are author's: the version placed in the reprints was also published during the author's lifetime, but in a popular magazine
23 L. N. Gumilev received a signal copy of "From Russia to Russia" in May 1992, while already in the hospital. See: [Kozyreva, 2006, p. 608; Novikova, 2011].
24 In a 1990 interview, L. N. Gumilyov commented on the title of the book as follows: "Now in proofreading... a book that the USSR Academy of Sciences called very discordantly: "Geography of an ethnic group in the historical period". And I wanted it to be called "The end and the beginning again" " Gumilev, So that the candle..., 2002, p. 14].
page 108
[Gumilyov, No mysticism, 1990, p. 4] 25. The difference between the above versions of" anecdote " indicates the nature of editing the text of the future book. Because " Geography of an ethnic group..."was a publication of a lecture course, when it was prepared in the publishing house "Science" one of the directions of editing was the replacement of colloquial or jargon phrases to more literary ones. An example of such a replacement (on the causes of the decline of the Tang Empire):
Then there was discord between civilian officials and the military. It would seem that the military (from among the Turks. - A. S.) have real power..., but the Chinese began to write denunciations, and they wrote very cleverly. <...>
And the Turks protested and even killed informers and traitors. But then they were sent the next ones. Thus, a complete ethnic discrepancy was revealed [Gumilyov, Geografiya..., 1990, pp. 79-80].
The Chinese are used to this: just think-a snitch! But the Turks couldn't stand it: how is that? Is he my comrade-in-arms or a snitch? Just one thing, and if they found out someone was a snitch, they killed him. But then they were sent the following: in this way, a complete ethnic discrepancy was revealed [Gumilyov, Konts..., 2001, pp. 119-120].
In the above quote, the difference between the fragments is not just stylistic-the fragment of the reissue is obviously more voluminous. This is probably the rare case when a publisher warns about changes to the text they publish. Reprints of the book in 1994 and 2000. authors report that the text is printed according to the author's manuscript with the restoration of notes made during the first edition [Gumilyov, Konts..., 2001, p. 4]. Contrary to what was stated in the announcement of the 1994 edition [Russian..., 1994, p. 42], it does not differ textually from the first edition [Gumilev, End of..., 1994]. It only expands the last chapter, but only by including a number of articles by the author26. Another thing is the text prepared by the Iris-Press publishing house, and all subsequent ones published on its basis. It is indeed, as was shown above, different from the text of the lifetime edition.
The archive of the L. N. Gumilyov museum-apartment contains several copies of the layout of " Geography of Ethnos...". I did not specifically compare them, but it can be assumed that one of these variants formed the basis of the publication published by "Iris-press". Does it have any advantages? Undoubtedly, its text is more complete, but the restored notes announced by the publishing house do not represent something particularly valuable. Often these are just excluded colloquial phrases. For example:
System analysis is a method of analysis when attention is paid not to the persons or individuals that make up the species, but to the relationships between individuals [Gumilev, Geografiya..., 1990, p. 26].
A system is a method of analysis where attention is drawn not to the persons that make up the species, for example, not to specific dogs or cats, but to the relationships that exist between dogs or cats [Gumilev, Konts..., 2001, p. 41].
There are, however, more significant differences. So, in the second chapter of "Geography of ethnos..." there is no large paragraph "Two biographies", available in the publication "Iris-
25" Anecdote " attracted criticism from ethnographers, which emphasized first of all its ethnological inconsistency [Shnirelman, 2006(1), p. 4; Shnirelman, 2006 (2), p. 10; cf.: Belyakov, 2012, pp. 468-469]. However, the validity of the "joke" was also indirectly confirmed by ethnographers. N. L. Zhukovskaya, a Mongolian scholar, wrote in a book published simultaneously with the Geography of Ethnos...: "Living in society, a person almost every hour faces etiquette situations-greetings, goodbyes, ... behavior in the house, on the street, in transport, etc. - in which ethnic differences are most pronounced (emphasis added-A. S.)" [Zhukovskaya, 1990, p.10]. Moreover, in her book, the author herself has repeatedly resorted to modeling such "anecdotal" situations.
26 This revision of the text formed the basis for the publication of the book on the Gumilevica website (Gumilyov, 1998).
page 109
press "[Gumilyov, Konts..., 2001, p. 49-60]. It is dedicated to the images of passionaries-Alexander the Great and Sulla. In the first edition, a hint of it was preserved only in the last two paragraphs of the paragraph "Irresistible Force" [Gumilev, Geografiya..., 1990, p. 34], which, in turn, are absent in the reprint. In the first edition there is a paragraph "Field in the system" [Gumilyov, Geografiya..., 1990, pp. 34-36], which, on the contrary, is not in the reprint.
In rare cases, the reissue version of the text should be considered more successful:
None of the biologists know (Bertalanffy was a biologist) what a species is. ...there is a dog, and there is a crow...
Everyone knows this, but no one can determine what it is, except for narrow specialists-scientists [Gumilyov, Geografiya..., 1990, p. 25-26].
Everyone knows this, but no one can determine what it is [Gumilyov, Konts..., 2001, p. 41].
In the reissue, the phrase looks more logical. Since the author did not express his own opinion here, but Bertalanffy's, the addition of a seemingly insignificant clarification to it in the 1990 edition made the entire logic of the phrase meaningless. In my opinion, this particular editorial failure does not detract from the overall advantages of the first edition of the book.
Thus, in the presentation of Oriental subjects, basic for L. N. Gumilyov, " Geography of an ethnic group..."gives an example of a more thorough study of the text in comparison with later editions. Let's consider two variants of the final characteristics of the Tang Empire:
So, the phenomenon of a chimeric empire is not like ancient times, nor its neighbors, nor anything else. The individuality of such processes is determined by local conditions, local ethnography, and local geography, i.e. it is a natural phenomenon, not a social one [Gumilev, Geografiya..., 1990, p. 81].
As you can see, it doesn't look like antiquity, nor the neighbors, nor anything else. Thus, we can see how the individuality of these processes is determined by local conditions, local ethnography, local geography, etc. [Gumilev, Konts..., 2001, p. 121].
The phrase " chimeric empire "is not found in any other work of L. N. Gumilyov, except for the first edition of" Geography of Ethnos...". And this is again the case when the first edition is able to disavow biased criticism.
It is known that Gumilev is often accused of introducing the term "chimera" solely to justify the idea that Jews are incompatible with other peoples [Shnirelman and Panarin, 2000; Chernykh, 2009, p.520]. This is usually justified by the example of Gumilev's depiction of the Khazar Khaganate, which he really considered a chimera. At the same time, it is not mentioned that Gumilev also considered chimeras: nomadic kingdoms in northern China (IV-V centuries), the First Bulgarian Kingdom, Seljuk and Mamluk sultanates of the Middle East. It is now established that the Tang Empire is integrated into this series, and the quoted fragment gives an important clarification that in each case the "chimeric" processes are individual. All this is the opposite of what the critics accuse Gumilev of doing.
The following example will deal with just one punctuation mark, the presence or absence of which, as is often the case, completely changes the meaning. In the section" The Forgotten Past", L. N. Gumilev developed the idea expressed by him in The Ancient Turks (Gumilev, 1967, p. 23) that the legend of the origin of the Turks, known from Chinese sources, contains a deaf echo of information about the European Huns (about their fall in the middle of the fifth century and migration back to the east).:
..there is a legend that the last Hun prince... was thrown into a swamp...
he inseminated a she-wolf that escaped to the Altai and left descendants of the Huns there [Gumilev, Geografiya..., 1990, p. 170].
he inseminated a she-wolf, which then fled to the Altai and left descendants of the Huns there [Gumilev, Konts..., 2001, p. 249].
page 110
A dash in the text of the reprint makes the descendants of the she - wolf and the Hunnic prince-Huns. This is absurd. According to legend, the ancient Turks descend from the wolf, which is correctly conveyed in the first edition, where the dash is missing.
Evaluating the first edition of the book " Geography of Ethnos...", A. I. Kurkchi wrote: "... the book published in the Nauka publishing house in Leningrad was based on a shortened lecture course and did not contain the entire volume of public speeches of the scientist" [Gumilev, Konts..., 1994, p.536]. However, even with the "restored bills", the text did not contain the material of all the lectures 27. It seems that the author, when preparing the book for publication, did not set such a goal. On the contrary, "Geography of Ethnos..." was intended to convey to the reader in a brief summary the main ideas of the large monograph "Ethnogenesis and the Earth's Biosphere". The author reports this directly [Gumilyov, Geografiya..., 1990, p. 7] 28.
In the output data of " Geography of an ethnic group..."it is reported that the book "is published in the author's editorial office" [Gumilyov, Geografiya..., 1990, p. 2]. There is no reason not to trust the note of the lifetime edition. It follows from the interview quoted above that, apart from the cumbersome title given by the publishing house, the publication itself did not raise objections from L. N. Gumilyov. Therefore, it is impossible to prefer the earlier version of the text, on the basis of which all books under the title "The End and the Beginning again" are now published, just because it contains fragments that were not included in the first edition. As it was shown above, this edition, although it has a larger volume, generally represents a not yet fully developed version of the text of the book. The result of the author's editorial team was the book (albeit under a not very successful title) "Geography of an ethnic group in the historical period".
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
It is impossible to say with complete certainty that the cases considered exhaust possible inconsistencies in the reprints of L. N. Gumilyov's works. For example, I still haven't fixed the usual technical typos, although they can distort the meaning of a particular text.
There are especially many typos in the books of the Bibliotheca Gumilevica series. Some of them are particularly notable. For example, the Discovery of Khazaria omits a large note that ends the first chapter of the book. Although the note number is indicated in the text, there are no end notes at the end of the book (all books in the Bibliotheca Gumilevica series have end notes) [Gumilev, 1996, p. 40, 145 (notes)], and it is by no means optional for the book 29.
S. I. Rudenko's preface to the original edition is not reproduced in "Search for a Fictional Kingdom", which opens the entire Bibliotheca Gumilevica series. In addition, I found three significant typos in this publication, the nature of which requires special consideration:
Search for a Fictional Realm, 1970
Search for a Fictional Realm, 1994 (1997)
So, the methodical chain is four-termed: 1) how (written)? 2) what (was it really)? 3) why (happened exactly like this)? and 4) what's what? - the completed product of production (p. 17).
So, the methodological chain is four-membered: 1) how (is it written)? 2) what (was it really)? and what's the point? - the completed product of production (p. 88).
27 The transcript of two versions of the lecture course - audio (1978) and video (1989) - was published under the title "String of History" (Gumilyov, 2007). In many ways coinciding with the text of the publication "The End and the beginning again", this book significantly exceeds it in volume.
28 For some unknown reason, the author's introduction to the book is missing from the Iris Press publication.
29 The notes are not found in the publication on the Gumilevica website [Gumilyov, Otkritie...]. In other reprints it is available [Gumilyov, Otkritie..., 2001, p. 64]. In this note, the author reproduces his speech to M. I. Artamonov about the need to continue searching for traces of Khazars on the Lower Volga (Gumilev, 1966, p. 33).
page 111
In addition, not all Russian principalities were defeated. Smolensk, Polotsk, Lutsk, and all of Black Russia were not affected by the Mongols, nor was the Novgorod Republic (p.329).
In addition, not all Russian principalities were defeated. Smolensk, Polotsk, Lutsk and all the Russian principalities were defeated, affected by the Mongols. The Novgorod Republic too (p. 375).
In the first case, the reader of the reprint is faced with the fact that out of the four elements of the methodological chain, the author names three, of which only two are numbered. On this basis, a critic would come to the conclusion that L. N. Gumilyov's constructions are illogical. However, when compared with the first edition, it is clear that the reissue is just a technical omission of the text.
In the second pair of fragments, the text of the reissue looks meaningless, and this should already alert you. If you carefully re-read this passage, it is not difficult to see that there was a displacement of one line, which, of course, was not in the original.
The third omission case concerns notes. In the notes to chapter Five ("The Broken Silence") the number 100 is immediately followed by 114 [Gumilev, 1997, p. 200], while in the main text all numbers of missing notes are placed (numbers between 100 and 114) [Gumilev, 1997, p.165-169]. According to the original edition, where the notes are footnotes, the omission is easily restored [Gumilev, 1970, pp. 102-107 (numbers 46 to 58)]. Since the AST publishing house publishes many of L. N. Gumilyov's books based on the texts of the Bibliotheca Gumilevica series, it replicates the same errors and even adds something to them. In Search of a Fictional Realm, the AST editors did some work. Faced with an apparent link numbering glitch, instead of checking the original edition and restoring the missing notes, they simply "corrected" the numbers.: we removed the "empty" reference numbers in the text (from 101 to 113) [Gumilev, 2010, p. 106-112], then in the list of end notes after the chapter [Gumilev, 2010, p. 150-151] we assigned note 114 the number 101, etc. As a result, a whole paragraph was left without notes, and even without their numbers, which would indicate, as in the edition of the Bibliotheca Gumilevica series, their omission.
Another typo concerns the date. To quote a passage about the ban on foreign cults in the Tang Empire: "But in China, where Nestorianism was tolerated from 635, in 945 ...it was outlawed... "[Gumilyov, 1997, p. 116; Gumilyov, 2010, p. 47]. In fact, the ban followed in 845 [Pelliot, 1931, p. 17]. In the first edition, also in the edition of "Iris-press", the date is indicated correctly [Gumilev, 1970, p. 48; Gumilev, 2004, p. 48] 30.
Typos were also found in the lifetime editions of L. N. Gumilyov's works, especially in publications at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, when the quality of publishing work fell sharply. Most of the typos were found in bibliographic references and dates. For example, in the book "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe", the surname of the Byzantinist I. S. Chichurov is given as " Chicherov "[Gumilev, 1989, p.45, 88], and that of the Africanist Yu. M. Kobishchanov - "Kobyshchanov" [Gumilev, 1989, p. 109]. The date of the Avar fortification in Pannonia (Gumilyov, 1989, p.45) is also incorrectly stated there - 668 instead of 568, although it is clear from the neighboring dates that this is exactly a typo. Another Byzantinist, M. Ya. Syuzyumov, is named "Sozyumov" in the "Geography of Ethnos..." [Gumilev, Geografiya..., 1990, p.258]31. In the Millennium around the Caspian Sea, the author specifically recommends the book Constellation of Orion (Moscow, 1980) by L. Salaadze (Gumilev, 1991, p.228). However, the correct surname is "Saldadze".
30 "Search for a Fictional Kingdom" is lucky in comparison with other publications of L. N. Gumilyov's works, as there are many correct reprints of them: among them are the "pirated" ones [Gumilyov, In Search of..., 1992; Gumilyov, In Search of..., 1994], and the "Iris-press" edition is the most popular. the highest quality of all reissues.
31 Incorrect spelling is repeated in all reprints, except: [Gumilyov, Konts..., 1994, p. 466].
page 112
The works of these authors are available in L. N. Gumilyov's personal library (books by Yu. M. Kobishchanov and L. G. Saldadze even with gift inscriptions), so it cannot be assumed that Gumilyov could not have known the correct spelling of their surnames. In this case, these errors should be attributed to set errors. In general, such minor typos could be ignored if they were not persistently reprinted from year to year in all reprints of L. N. Gumilyov's works.
SOME TOTALS
Based on all the above, it is no exaggeration to say that the scientific heritage of L. N. Gumilyov was held hostage by the reprints of his works. Even texts that are not directly related to his authorship are published under the name of L. N. Gumilyov. There are even more fragments in the reprints, which are strikingly different from the text of the original editions. At the same time, changes in the text are often not specified by modern publishers, and an analysis of the content of these changes makes it possible to doubt their authenticity.
I focused mainly on the reprints of the early 1990s, because they should have contained texts identical to the first editions of L. N. Gumilyov's books. There was nothing else publishers could have relied on at the time. Instead, it is in the first reissues that all the main distortions and typos are found. To date, not a single publishing house has been preserved from those that carried out the first reprints of L. N. Gumilev's works. Most of them did not survive even to the turn of the 1990-2000s.Nevertheless, the distortions and errors inherent in them continue to be broadcast in all modern publications. In addition to the previous misrepresentations, you can find only new typos, but not attempts to verify the texts based on the first publications.
Independent value due to the availability of additional materials (early and poorly accessible articles by L. N. Gumilyov, correspondence materials and other archival documents) are publications of the Bibliotheca Gumilevica series. The forewords and comments of the series ' publisher, A. I. Kurkchi, who knew L. N. Gumilev well, are valuable. However, the texts of L. N. Gumilyov's works prepared within the framework of this series should be treated with great distrust. Simply put, it is better not to use the texts of L. N. Gumilyov's monographs.
Iris-press publications are more reliable and well-executed. Many of them are published on the basis of first editions, but not all of them. Therefore, the books of "Iris-press" are characterized, albeit to a lesser extent, by the same shortcomings as other reprints of the works of L. N. Gumilyov.
Until a scientific collection of L. N. Gumilyov's works, verified from the surviving manuscripts and first editions (if any), appears, researchers who use L. N. Gumilyov's works for scientific, rather than informational purposes (no matter whether they relate positively or negatively to the author) have only one option. the infallible option is to refer to the first editions.
list of literature
Azbelev P. P. Text reconciliation / / URL: http://centaurito.livejoumal.com/135214.html (accessed: 08.07.2015).
Russian view. Book 1. (Series of almanacs "Arabesques of History") / Comp., ed. by A. I. Kurkchi. Moscow: DI-DIK-Tanais, 1994.
Artamonov M. I. Istoriya khazar [History of the Khazars]. Hermitage Museum, 1962.
Belavskaya A. P. O Vasili Nikiforovich Abrosov [About Vasily Nikiforovich Abrosov]. Emails... / Comp. by G. M. Prokhorov, St. Petersburg: Pushkin House Publishing House, 2008.
Belyakov S. S. Gumilyov son of Gumilyov, Moscow: Astrel Publ., 2012.
page 113
Bichurin N. Ya. (Iakinf). Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times. Vol. 1. Moscow-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.
Vasilievsky V. G. Izbrannye trudy po istorii Vizantii [Selected works on the History of Byzantium]. In 2 kn. Kn. 1 / Ed. - Comp. M. V. Graziansky, P. V. Kuzenkov, Moscow: Dar, 2010.
Vladimirtsov B. Ya. Public order of the Mongols. Mongolian Nomadic Feudalism, Leningrad: LN USSR Publishing House, 1934.
Voznesensky L. A. "Can I answer with poems?" / / " Living in foreign words...": memoirs of L. N. Gumilev / Compiled by V. N. Voronovich and M. G. Kozyreva, St. Petersburg: Rostok Publ., 2006.
Voronovich A.V. Materials to the bibliography of works on L. N. Gumilev / / L. N. Gumilev: pro el contra. St. Petersburg: RKHGA; NOKO, 2012.
Gumilev L. N. Geografiya etnosa v istoricheskom period [Geography of ethnos in the historical period].
Gumilev L. N. Drevniye tyurki [Ancient Turks], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1967.
Gumilev L. N. Drevniye tyurki [Ancient Turks], Moscow: Klyshnikov-Komarov & Co., 1993.
Gumilev L. N. Drevniye tyurki [Ancient Turks]. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/OT/ot05.htm#ot05text44 (accessed: 08.07.2015).
Gumilev L. N. Ancient Turks. In 2 books of Books 1. Moscow: DIK-DIK, 1999.
Gumilev L. N. Drevniye tyurki [Ancient Turks], Moscow: Rolf (Iris-press), 2002.
Gumilev L. N. Drevnyaya Rus 'i Velikaya step' [Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe]. Moscow: Mysl', 1989.
Gumilev L. N. Drevnyaya Rus 'i Velikaya step' [Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe], Moscow: Klyshnikov-Komarov & Co., 1992.
Gumilyov L. N. Konts i rez nachalo [The End and the beginning again]. Moscow: DIK-DIK-Tanais Publ., 1994.
Gumilev L. N. The end and the beginning again. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/EAB/index.html (accessed on 28.07.2015).
Gumilyov L. N. Konts i rez nachalo [The End and the beginning again], Moscow: Rolf (Iris-prsss), 2001.
Gumilyov L. N. Konts i rez nachalo [The End and the beginning again]. Moscow: AST, 2008.
Gumilev L. N. No mysticism // Youth. 1990. N 2.
Gumilev L. N. Ot Rusi do Rossii [From Russia to Russia], St. Petersburg: Yuna Publ., 1992.
Gumilev L. N. Ot Rusi k Rossii [From Russia to Russia]. Moscow: Ekopros, 1992.
Gumilev L. N. Otkritie Khazarii [The Discovery of Khazaria]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1966.
Gumilev L. N. Otkritie Khazarii [The Discovery of Khazaria]. Moscow: DIK-DIK, 1996.
Gumilev L. N. Otkrytie Khazarii [The Discovery of Khazaria]. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/articles/dk01.htm#1 (accessed: 1.08.2015).
Gumilev L. N. Otkritie Khazarii [The Discovery of Khazaria], Moscow: Rolf (Iris-prsss), 2001.
Gumilev L. N. Search for a fictional kingdom (The Legend of the "state of Prester John"). Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970.
Gumilev L. N. In Search of a Fictional Kingdom, Moscow: Klyshnikov-Komarov & Co., 1992.
Gumilev L. N. In search of a fictional kingdom. St. Petersburg: Abris Publ., 1994.
Gumilev L. N. Search for a fictional kingdom / Comp. and commonly. edited by A. I. Kurkchi, Moscow: Institut DI-DIK, 1994(1997).
Gumilev L. N. Search for a fictional kingdom (The Legend of the "state of Prester John"). Moscow: Iris-press, 2004.
Gumilyov L. N. Poiskii vymytalnogo tsardva [Search for a Fictional Kingdom]. Moscow: AST; Astrel, 2010.
Gumilev L. N. From the point of view of Clio // Friendship of peoples. 1977. N 2.
Gumilev L. N. Struna istorii [The String of History]. Lectures on Ethnology, Moscow: Iris-press, 2007.
Gumilev L. N. Millennia around the Caspian Sea. Baku: Azernsshr Publ., 1991.
Gumilev L. N. Khunnu, Moscow: Publishing House of Oriental Literature, 1960.
Gumilyov L. N. Khunnu. Steppe Trilogy, St. Petersburg: Time-OUT-COMPASS Publ., 1993.
Gumilev L. N. Istoriya naroda xiongnu: v 2-kh kn. Kn. 1. M.: Institut DI-DIK, 1998.
Gumilev L. N. Istoriya naroda xiongnu: v 2 kn. Kn. 1. Moscow: AST, 2002.
Gumilyov L. N. Khunnu. The Huns in China, Moscow: Iris-Press, 2003.
Gumilev L. N. Huns in China, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1974.
Gumilev L. N. So that the candle does not go out. Moscow: Iris-press, 2002.
Gumilyov L. N. Etnogenez i biosfera Zemli [Ethnogenesis and Biosphere of the Earth].
Demin V. N. Lev Gumilev, Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya Publ., 2007.
Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov: shtrikhi k portretu [Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov: shtrikhi k portretu]: pro et contra. St. Petersburg: RKHGA; NOKO, 2012.
Zhukovskaya N. L. The fate of nomadic culture. Stories about Mongolia and Mongols, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1990.
Kalesnik S. V., Svarichevskaya Z. A., Semevsky B. N., Chochia N. S. Istorik, geograf, etnologiya (k 60-lstyu Lva Nikolaevich Gumilyov) [Historian, geographer, ethnologist (to the 60th anniversary of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov)]. 1972. N 24. Issue 4.
Kloss B. M. O proiskhozhdenii imeni "Rossiya" [On the origin of the name "Russia"], Moscow: Rukisnye pamyatniki Drevnoi Rus', 2012.
Kozyreva M. G. Osnovnye daty zhizni i deyatel'nosti L. N. Gumilyov [The main dates of L. N. Gumilyov's life and activity] / Compiled by V. N. Voronovich and M. G. Kozyreva, St. Petersburg: Rostok Publ., 2006.
Kradin N. N. The Xiongnu Empire, 2nd ed., reprint. Moscow: Logos Publ., 2002.
page 114
Kurkchi A. I. The last son of the Silver Age / / " Living in foreign words...": memories of L. N. Gumilev / Compiled by V. N. Voronovich and M. G. Kozyreva, St. Petersburg: Rostok Publ., 2006.
Kuchkin V. A. Rus under the yoke: what was it like? Moscow: Panorama Publ., 1991.
Lavrov S. B. Lev Gumilev. Fate and Ideas, Moscow: Svarog & Co., 2000.
Mamaladze I. V. Durmishkhan // Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev. Emails... / Comp. by G. M. Prokhorov, St. Petersburg: Pushkin House Publishing House, 2008.
Munkuev N. TS. [Rec. on:] L. N. Gumilev. Search for a fictional kingdom... // Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1972. N 1.
Novikova O. G. List of "pirated publications" by L. N. Gumilyov// http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/fund/fund10.htm (accessed: 30.05.2015).
Novikova O. G. Chronicle of the life and work of L. N. Gumilev, N. S. Gumilev and A. A. Akhmatova in comparison with the events of the history of the XX century. http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/NOG/nog07.htm (accessed on 15.07.2015).
Rybakov B. A. On Overcoming self-deception (About the book by L. N. Gumilyov "The Search for a Fictional Kingdom"...) // Questions of history. 1971. N 3.
Saraev A. S. Orientalist roots of L. N. Gumilyov's theory of ethnogenesis and the logic of his scientific creativity // Bulletin of the Kazan State University of Culture and Arts. 2014. N 4-1.
Chernykh E. N. Steppe Belt of Eurasia: The Phenomenon of Nomadic Cultures, Moscow: Rukpisnye pamyatniki Drevnoi Rus', 2009.
Shnirelman V. A. Introduction // Ethnographic review. 2006. N 3.
Shnirelman V. A. Lev Gumilyov: ot "passionnarnogo napryazheniya" do "incompatibility of cultures". 2006. N 3.
Shnirelman V. A., Panarin S. A. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev: founder of ethnology? // Vestnik Evrazii. 2000. N 3.
Pelliot P. La Haute Asie. Paris, 1931.
Vernadsky G.V. Ancient Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952.
page 115
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2023-2025, LIBRARY.KG is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Kyrgyzstan |