Grammar of Civilizations. Braudel F.
M.: 2008. - 552 p.
The work of the outstanding historian Fernand Braudel, the largest representative of the French historical school of the Annales, is devoted to the development of the civilizations of the West and the East. The book is published in Russian for the first time. “The Grammar of Civilizations” was written in 1963 and was intended by the author as a textbook for the secondary education system in France. However, it turned out to be too complex for a textbook, but it was received with great interest by the scientific community of the world, as evidenced by translations into many languages. Unlike other fundamental studies of the author, it is written in a much more accessible form, which facilitates the perception of Braudel’s concept not only by specialists, but also by a wide readership. It is also recommended for history teachers at all levels of education.
Format: pdf
Size: 3.6 MB
Watch, download:yandex.disk
CONTENT
From the publisher 10
Braudel teaches history. Maurice Emard I
Instead of a preface 23
Introduction. History and present 28
SECTION I. GRAMMAR OF CIVILIZATIONS
Chapter 1. Changes in terminology 33
Chapter 2. Civilization is defined in relation to other sciences about man 39
Civilizations as geographical and cultural spaces 39
Civilizations as social formations 45
Civilizations as economic structures 48
Civilizations as different collective thoughts 51
Chapter 3. Continuity of Civilizations 54
A look at civilizations from everyday life 54
Civilizations and their structures 57
History and civilizations 63
SECTION II. CIVILIZATIONS OUTSIDE EUROPE
PART ONE. ISLAM AND THE MUSLIM WORLD
Chapter 1. What history teaches 66
Islam, a new form in the Middle East 66
History of the Middle East 68
Muhammad, Koran, Islam 70
Arabia: the problem of a barely urbanized culture 74
Chapter 2. What geography teaches 79
Lands and Seas of Islam 79
Intermediate continent or space-movement: cities 86
Chapter 3. The greatness and decline of Islam (VIII-XVIII centuries) 92
Absence of Muslim civilization until the 8th or 20th century 92
Golden Age of Islam: VIII-XII centuries 96
Science and Philosophy 103
Stoppage or decline: XII-XVIIIBB 107
Chapter 4. Modern revival of Islam 113
The end of colonialism and the youth of national identity 113
Various Muslim states in the modern world 122
Muslim civilization in the 20th century 130
PART TWO. BLACK CONTINENT
Chapter 1 Past 138
Geographical spaces 138
Through the past of the Dark Continent 146
Chapter 2 Black Africa; today and tomorrow 156
Awakening Africa 156
Economic and social problems 162
Art and literature 165
PART THREE. FAR EAST
Chapter 1. Introduction 170
What does geography say 170
Barbarism against civilization: evidence of history 178
Long-standing origins: reasons for cultural conservatism 182
Chapter 2. Classical China 185
Religious parameters 185
Political parameters 197
Economic and social parameters 203
Chapter 3. China yesterday and today 210
Times of Unequal Treaties: Humiliated and Suffering China (1839-1949) 210
New China 215
Chinese civilization in the modern world 222
Chapter 4. India yesterday and today 227
Classical India (before English colonization) 227
English India (1757-1947): old
economic structure that came into conflict with the modern West 244
Will India build an economy through a Chinese-style revolution? 252
Chapter 5. Primorsky Far East: Indochina, Indonesia, Philippines, Korea, Japan 262
Indochina 263
Indonesia 267
Philippines 274
Korea 275
Chapter 6. Japan 281
Primitive Japan before the beginning of Chinese civilization 281
The Impact of Chinese Civilization on Japan 285
Modern Japan 293
SECTION III. EUROPEANCIVILIZATIONS
PART ONE. EUROPE
Chapter 1. Space and freedom 305
The European space is defined: V-XIII centuries 305
Freedom or - more precisely - freedom: XI-XVI11 centuries 312
Chapter 2. Christianity, humanism, scientific thought 328
Christianity 328
Humanism and humanists 333
Scientific thought before the twentieth century 355
Chapter 3. Industrialization of Europe 362
At the origins of the first industrial revolution 362
The spread of industrialization in Europe (and outside Europe) 371
Socialism and industrial society 376
Chapter 4. Components of Europe 386
Brilliant Ingredients: Art and Intelligence 386
Reliable Ingredients: Economics 393
Aleatory (problematic) components: politics. . . 400
Europe in 1981 Notes by Paula Braudel 409
PART TWO. AMERICA
Chapter 1. Another New World: Latin America 411
Space, nature and society: literary evidence 411
Facing the Race Problem: Almost Brotherhood 418
Civilizations tested by economics... 424
Chapter 2. America Par excellence: The United States 440
Life-giving past: the total of the chances received 442
Colonization and independence 442
Conquest of the Far West 450
Industrialization and urbanization 454
Chapter 3. Ghosts and difficulties: yesterday and today 462
An Old Nightmare: The Race Question or a Population You Can't Get Rid of 462
Capitalism: from trusts to state intervention and oligopolies 466
United States and the rest of the world 476
Chapter 4. About the English world order 485
In Canada: France and England 485
South Africa: Dutch, English and Black Africans 489
Australia and New Zealand or England,
finally left alone 494
PART THREE. OTHER EUROPE
Other Europe: Muscovy, Russia, USSR 500
Chapter 1. From the origins to the revolution of 1917 501
Kievan Rus 501
Orthodox religion 505
Russian Empire 508
Chapter 2. USSR from 1917 to the present day 518
From Karl Marx to Lenin 518
Marxism and Soviet civilization today 526
October Congress of the CPSU (1961) 537
The need to explain the decision to publish this book, written in the 60s of the last century, in Russian is not obvious, but it is advisable to do so. Among the major works of the classic of the Annales school, Fernand Braudel, the book The Grammar of Civilization is the last to be published in Russia. With the fundamental works Material Civilization and Capitalism; What is France?; Our readers became acquainted with the Mediterranean Sea and the Mediterranean world in the era of Philip II in 1986-2003. So was it necessary to translate the book after five turbulent decades radically changed the face of the world that the French historian knew then, and about the fate of which he wrote in his Grammar? Moreover, the author created the book as a textbook (which is described in detail in the author's preface and in the foreword by Maurice Aimard), although many considered it too complex for this genre. We were convinced of the need to make this work accessible to Russian readers when we started work (unfortunately, for various reasons, it took significantly longer than we planned), and we only became stronger in this opinion by the time the book was published.
The main thing is that, despite all the changes in the world, Braudel’s text (which the author never managed, fortunately, to turn into a textbook) has not become outdated; moreover, in many respects it has acquired the character of a confirmed foresight. The analysis of long-term trends in social development, given by the author in the 60s, turned out to be frighteningly accurate on many problems and, because of this, requires the most careful attention. The five decades that separate us from the time of the creation of this text are our advantage. Such a significant time distance allows us to see that some of Braudel’s assessments twenty years ago would certainly have seemed completely erroneous to the reader, but were completely confirmed over the next twenty years. And this is a lesson for the reader, to whom today something in Braudel’s assessments and forecasts about the nature of civilizational development will again seem untenable. Maybe we need to wait a couple more decades?
|
Producer: "State Literary Museum" Episode: "Theme" The work of the outstanding historian Fernand Braudel, the largest representative of the French historical school of the Annales, is devoted to the development of the civilizations of the West and the East. The book is published in Russian for the first time. "The Grammar of Civilizations" was written in 1963 and was intended by the author as a textbook for the secondary education system in France. However, it turned out to be too complex for a textbook, but it was received with great interest by the scientific community of the world, as evidenced by translations into many languages. Unlike other fundamental studies of the author, it is written in a much more accessible form, which facilitates the perception of Braudel’s concept not only by specialists, but also by a wide readership. It is also recommended for history teachers at all levels of education. ISBN:978-5-7777-0642-3 Publisher: "State Literary Museum" (2014)
He revolutionized historical science with his proposal to take into account economic and geographical factors when analyzing the historical process. Layed the foundations. A prominent representative of the French historiographic school “Annals”, which was engaged in a thorough study of history in the social sciences. Works
|
FROM BOOK:
FERNAND BRAUDELE. GRAMMAR OF CIVILIZATIONS.
M., 2008. pp. 33-53.
I. GRAMMAR OF CIVILIZATIONS
Chapter 1. Changes in terminology
How nice it would be to give a clear and simple definition of the word “civilization”
just as we define a straight line, a triangle, a chemical element...
Unfortunately, the terminological dictionary of human sciences does not allow
use too categorical definitions. This doesn't mean that all the concepts are here
uncertain or in the process of becoming. Just most terms
are not defined initially, they change depending on
authors who use them and do not stop evolving before our eyes. How
says Lévi-Strauss, “words are the instruments that each of us has the will to
use at his own discretion, provided, however, that he explains his
intentions." This means that in disciplines related to the human sciences (such as
however, in philosophy), the simplest words change their meaning depending on
the thought that gives them life and uses them.
The word "civilization", which is a neologism,
appears late, in the 18th century, and unnoticed.
It arose as a derivative of the adjective “civilized,
cultural”, from the verb “to civilize, to introduce to culture”, which had previously already
existed for a long time even in the 16th century. were already in use. The word "civilization" dates back to 1732.
remained a purely legal term and meant a judicial act or judicial
a decision that turned a criminal trial into a civil one. Modern
the expression - in the sense of “transition to a civilized state” - arose later, in
1752, under the pen of Turgot, who at that time was preparing his work on world history,
but he never published it himself. This word first appeared in printed text in
work "The Friend of the People, or a Treatise on Population" (1756) by Mirabeau, who was the father
famous revolutionary tribune. The talk there was about “tools of civilization” and even about
"the luxuries of a false civilization."
It’s funny, but Voltaire did not use the word “civilization,” “although he himself was one
the man who actually created this concept in his book Essay on Morals and
spirit of nations (1756) and made the first sketch of a general history of civilization"
(I. Huizinga).
In its new meaning, civilization is opposed to barbarism. With one
On the one hand, there are civilized peoples, on the other hand, there are wild, primitive peoples,
or barbaric. Even the concept of “good savages”, so dear to some authors
XVIII century does not mean civilized. There is no doubt that French society
in the era of the end of the reign of Louis XV, the new word “civilization” is not seen with
satisfaction with the portrait of his time, which even now, after centuries, is still
may seem tempting to us. Whatever it is, this word arose because
2
that they needed him. Before this word, polite, culturally aware, courteous,
civilized in the sense of cultured (i.e. those who had good manners and knowledge
light) did not correlate with any noun. The word police meant
rather, public order, which was quite far in meaning from the adjective
poli (well-mannered, polite, cultured, secular), the meaning of which is Universal
Antoine Furetiere's dictionary (published in 1690) defined it as follows:
“Used in a moral sense and means civilized. Civilize,
to ennoble morals, to introduce them to culture and society... Nothing civilizes or
ennobles a young man, just like communicating with ladies.”
Civilization and culture. Having gone beyond the borders of France, the word
"civilization" is quickly becoming a common word in Europe. His
accompanied by the word “culture”.
This word came to England in 1772, and perhaps even earlier, and acquired
the spelling civilization replaces the word civility, which has been in use for a long time. Without
labor it also conquers Germany (Zivilisation), where it coexists with the old word
Bildung. In Holland, on the contrary, it collides with the noun beschaving,
derived from the verb beschaven, which means “to refine the taste, to ennoble,
civilize". Beschaving, used with approximately the same meaning, easily takes on
itself the concept of civilization and successfully resists the foreign word, although sometimes
It is also used in the spelling civilisatie. The same opposition and for the same reasons
reasons met a new word even when it crossed the Alps: in Italy it was already
the old and beautiful word civilta existed and quickly came into use as “civilization”,
which was also used by Dante himself. Once in place, the Italian word civilta
prevented the introduction of a new foreign word into colloquial speech, but could not
prevent heated discussions around the concept itself. In 1835 Romanosi made
a failed attempt to introduce the word incivilmento, which in the understanding of this author
meant the transition to civilization, as well as civilization itself.
Spreading across Europe, the new word “civilization” went alongside the old one -
culture (Cicero also wrote: “Culture is the soul of philosophy”), which was “younger” and
acquired almost the same meaning as civilization. For a long time the word culture
remained, as it were, a duplicate of the word “civilization.” Thus, in his lectures in Berlin
University in 1830 Hegel uses both words equally. But the day has come
when it became necessary to distinguish between them.
The concept of civilization actually has at least a double meaning.
It means both moral and material values. Karl Marx, for example,
distinguished infrastructures (material) from superstructures (spiritual), which were
interdependent. Charles Senobos joked: “Civilization is roads, ports and
berths,” thereby wanting to say that civilization is not only the mind (spirit). "This
all human knowledge,” argued Marcel Mauss, and the historian Eugene Cavaignac
said: “This is the minimum of science, art, order and virtue...”
So civilization has at least two levels. Hence the attempt of many
the authors distinguish between two words - culture and civilization, presenting the matter in this way,
that one word carries a spiritual meaning, and the other means material benefits. But
it so happened that no one finally accepted such a division: in different countries and even
in one country, at different times, different authors interpreted these words in their own way.
In Germany, after some period of hesitation, priority was practically
given to the word “culture” (Kultur) with a deliberate devaluation of the word “civilization”. For
F. Tönnies (1922) and Alfred Weber (1935), “civilization” means only unity
3
technical and practical knowledge, a set of tools for influencing nature; against,
“culture” represents normative principles, values, ideals - one
in a word, mind (spirit).
These positions explain a remark that is strange at first glance for a Frenchman
German historian Wilhelm Mommsen: “Today (1951) man’s duty is to
to prevent civilization from destroying culture, and technology from destroying the human being.”
This phrase surprises us because in our country, like in England or the USA, the word
“civilization” remains dominant, while in Poland and Russia, similarly
Germany and under its influence, the first place is occupied by the word “culture”. In France the word
“culture” retains its meaning only when denoting “any personal form
spiritual life" (Henri Marroux): we are talking about culture, not about the civilization of the Field
Valerie. Civilization means, above all, collective values.
To all these difficulties let us add one more - the last and most significant.
Beginning with E. B. Tylor (Primitive Culture, 1874), Anglo-Saxon anthropologists
tried to use the term to designate the primitive societies they studied,
which would be different from the term "civilization"; The British usually use it to designate
modern societies. They would rather say (and all anthropologists will repeat after them),
primitive cultures to distinguish them from the civilizations of developed societies.
Fortunately, the commonly used adjective cultural, invented in
Germany by 1850, all this does not apply. Its meaning includes both
civilization and culture. In this case, speaking of civilization (or culture),
imply that it is a set of cultural goods, its geographical
the location is a cultural space, its history is history
culture, and borrowings from one civilization from another are borrowings or
transfers of culture, and they can be both spiritual and material
character. This adjective turns out to be too light and therefore annoying:
it is considered too crude and too general. But until he is
found a worthy replacement, you don’t have to worry about its future. It remains
one of a kind.
By 1819 the term "civilization", previously used in
singular becomes plural.
Since that time, the term “seeks to acquire something new, and something completely different.”
meaning: a set of characteristics characteristic of the collective life of a particular
group or a particular era." They talk about the civilization of Athens in the 5th century or about
French civilization in the age of Louis XIV. State the problem of civilization and
civilization means facing another complexity, and an important one.
In the thinking of our contemporary of the 20th century. the term “civilization” dominates,
which, more than the term "civilization", reflects his personal experience.
Museums take us beyond the boundaries of one country in time; here we are almost completely
We dive into the eras of past civilizations. Moving from country to country
more fully felt in space: to cross the Rhine or the English Channel, to approach
The Mediterranean Sea from the North is an unforgettable experience that demonstrates
multiplicity of the concept under consideration. We are, of course, talking about civilizations.
But if we are asked to define the term civilization, then
doubts. Indeed, the use of the word "civilization" in the plural
corresponds to the disappearance of a certain concept, the gradual attenuation of a certain idea,
characteristic of the 18th century, namely that civilization that is confused with the idea of progress,
supposedly inherent only to some privileged peoples or some
4
privileged groups of people - the “elite”. Fortunately, the 20th century. got rid of some
superficial judgments and no longer takes the courage to determine the best (based on
what criteria?) from civilizations.
In this context, civilization in the singular has lost its former luster.
From now on, this is no longer a high, not the highest moral and intellectual value, as
it was interpreted in the 18th century. Today, for example, in terms of linguistic
the heinous act would be called a crime against humanity rather than
a crime against civilization, although the meaning remains the same. But modern language
experiences a certain reticence in using the word "civilization" in his
the old meaning of exclusivity, human superiority.
Doesn’t the term “civilization,” taken in the singular, reflect the general
a commons, even if unevenly distributed, that is shared by all
civilizations, namely, what is “preserved in human memory forever”?
Fire, writing, counting, domestication of plants and domestication of animals - all this
from now on is the property of humanity, the collective property of Civilization.
The dissemination of common cultural goods among all humanity acquires
the modern world has a special scope. Western-created technical innovations
are exported all over the world and are happily accepted. They create a single image
world: buildings made of concrete, glass and steel, airfields, railways with stations and
loudspeakers, huge cities where the majority of the population is concentrated
planets. Does all this technology unite the world? Raymond Aron wrote: “We are on that
stages of development when we simultaneously discover relative truth
the concept of civilization and the need to overcome this concept... Phase
civilizations end and humanity moves, for better or worse, to a new
stage of development...", the stage of a single civilization capable of spreading throughout
The Universe.
At the same time, the “industrial civilization” exported by the West is
just one of the characteristic features of Western civilization. Accepting this side of her
the rest of the world does not accept this entire civilization at all. Past of Civilizations
is a history of constant borrowing from each other over the centuries, which is not at all
excluded them from preserving their indigenous characteristics and identity. Let's face it,
however, that for the first time the dominant aspect of any one civilization willingly
borrowed by all civilizations of the world, especially since the speed of modern
communications contributes to the speed and efficiency of this borrowing. We
We believe that the penetration of the above-mentioned industrial civilization into
collective civilization of the planet. The result of this penetration was, becomes,
will be the process of restructuring the structures of each civilization.
In short, even if we assume that all world civilizations will be able to early or
it’s too late to adapt technical innovations and use them to unify your image
life, will still coexist sharply for a long time
civilizations that differ from each other. For a long time the word “civilization” in the conceptual
meaning will preserve singular and plural. In this matter the historian
can safely be categorical.
Chapter 2. Civilization is defined in relation to others
human sciences
The concept of “civilization” can only be defined in relation to all
human sciences, including history. But in this chapter we focus on history especially
We won't stop.
Let's try to define the concept of civilization by calling for help -
alternately - geography, sociology, economics, collective psychology. We
Let's also turn to disciplines that are not related. However received
the answers will get closer to each other.
Civilizations as geographical and cultural spaces
Regardless of its size, too large or insignificantly small,
civilizations can always be localized on a geographical map. Their real
existence largely depends on the advantages or disadvantages in their geographical
locations.
Of course, this location has been developed by man for centuries,
often thousands of years. Any landscape bears the imprint of this constant labor:
generations of people adapted it to their needs, so to speak -
capitalized. In the process of this work, the person himself changed under the influence of “this
his powerful work on himself,” as Michelet said, or, in other words, this
“the production of man by man,” as Karl Marx wrote.
To talk about civilizations means to talk about spaces, lands,
reliefs, climate diversity, vegetation, fauna,
inherited or acquired advantages.
And about all the consequences of this for humans: agriculture, animal husbandry,
food, houses, clothing, communications, industry... The stage on which
these endless theatrical productions are played out, partly determines their course,
explains their features; people come and go, but the scene remains more or less the same
same.
For the Indologist Hermann Goetz, two Indias oppose each other: India with
humid climate, characterized by heavy rainfall, lakes, swamps, water
plants and flowers, forests and jungles, India of people with dark skin; and contrasting with
first India with a relatively dry climate, including the middle Indus and
middle Ganges, India - a country of people with fair skin, possessing a warlike
character. India as a whole seems to be a place of dialogue, of struggle between these two
spaces, two human types.
It is natural that the presence of both natural and man-made
the natural environment does not imply narrow determinism. The environment does not explain everything, although
is an important factor in the form of natural or acquired advantages.
If we talk about natural advantages, then every civilization arose
based on existing advantages, what a person took advantage of at the dawn
of its existence. Thus, the river civilizations of the Ancient world flourished along the banks
Yellow River, or Yellow River (Chinese civilization), Indus (pre-Indian civilization),
Euphrates and Tigris (Sumerian kingdom, Babylon, Assyria), Nile (Egyptian
6
civilization). In a similar way, thanks to the proximity of the sea, coastal
civilizations: Phenicia, Greece, Rome (if Egypt is a gift of the Nile, then they
owe everything to the Mediterranean Sea) or the strong civilizations of Northern Europe,
originating in the Baltic and North Sea basins. Can we forget about the Atlantic?
ocean and its civilizations: the bulk of the current West is grouped around
ocean, just as the Roman Empire was once concentrated around the Mediterranean Sea.
These classic cases of the emergence and development of civilizations prove
the primacy of communication routes. No civilization can exist without them, without
civilization-enriching trade exchanges and fruitful contacts. World of Islam,
for example, it is impossible to imagine without the movement of caravans across huge “waterless seas”,
without desert and steppe spaces; it is also difficult to imagine without swimming on
Mediterranean Sea, without sea voyages across the Indian Ocean to the shores of China.
But by listing all these successes, we go beyond the natural advantages
and we find ourselves at the so-called origins of civilizations. Overcome Hostility
deserts, the sudden wrath of the Mediterranean, use the winds of the Indian Ocean,
building a dam on a river requires enormous human effort and therefore can
be considered as acquired, or rather conquered, advantages.
But why were some people capable of such acts, while others were not, why
In some territories this became possible, but in others it did not, and why did this continue in
over many generations?
Arnold Toynbee offers a tempting hypothesis about this:
human success always requires a challenge and a response to the challenge (that is,
translated from French it sounds like accepting a challenge and fighting back); nature needs
seemed to a person in the form of an surmountable difficulty. If a person answers
given a challenge, its response creates the very foundations of civilization.
However, if we logically develop this theory, we can conclude: what
The more significant the challenge posed by nature to man, the more powerful his response should be.
But this statement is questionable. Civilized Man XX
Braudel unit history
13
There are three reasons for its external success, which I will allow myself to dwell on in more detail.
Like many others, this book has its own history, and to understand it, you need to return to the historical context of its appearance, namely to the end of the 1990s. Post-war efforts to rebuild the country and modernize it led by the end of the 1980s to a revision of the fundamental structures of French society, the inadequacy of which seemed obvious at that time to an enlightened “elite” open to foreign influences.
What was true for politics was also true for the school and higher education system, which was under unprecedented external pressure from primary school to university. It had to accommodate an increased number of children (a result of the post-war population explosion) and provide a longer period of study, as well as integrate a larger number of teachers, which was not an easy task, given the half-empty classrooms immediately after the end of the war. Students had to study, and teachers used different methods to teach, subjects that were significantly updated. This requirement for qualitative and quantitative progress in education had to be taken into account when training national personnel, primarily engineers and doctors. It was then that the need arose for reforms that took place under the slogan to manage means to foresee. The reforms themselves divided opinion, consumers and specialists. Some of these reforms in the field of teaching mathematical and technical sciences and medicine were then brought to their logical conclusion. Others ended in failure or were only partially carried out. Teaching history was among these latter.
The principle of reforming the history curriculum was adopted even before the fall of the Fourth Republic; the first changes took place in 1957 and affected the VI grade programs in 1962. The reforms also affected the graduate school programs. The principle was simple. The previous scheme of studying history, introduced in 1945, was a division of history into successive, alternating periods of development from the study of the history of Mesopotamia and Egypt to the study of the so-called modern history in the last two classes
1789-1851 - in the penultimate grade and
1851
-
1939 - in the last. The new scheme, adopted on July 19, 1957, was different: the last two classes of the school taught the history of the major modern civilizations, while the study of modern history
(1789-1871 and 1871-1945) began a year earlier. This
14 Grammar of Civilizations The subject, called Major Modern Civilizations, included, according to the Official Bulletin of July 25, six major worlds - Western, Soviet, Muslim, Far Eastern, Asian (South-East) and African (Black Africa proper. Their study was preceded by an introductory course ", designed to clarify the concept and meaning of the subject, it had to first of all define the concept of civilization, explain the form of study and include for each of the listed worlds three main aspects of the basis, the main factors of development, the characteristic modern features of each civilization."
In the eyes of F. Braudel, this list was more a correction of previous mistakes than a real victory. Forced at that time to leave the post of chairman of the jury of the competition for filling positions of teachers in secondary educational institutions, where he fully saw the difficulties of the upcoming reform of competitive selection, he accepted Henri Longchambon's offer to write the part of the report on the state of scientific research in France devoted to the social sciences, necessary for the compilation five-year development plan. But the project he presented for a small faculty of economic, social and political sciences encountered opposition from the then existing faculties of a similar profile (faculties of philology and law, which were threatened by competition. The text of the final report presented to the government in 1957 (I didn’t really believe in it, seeing the apathy and systematic resistance of all the then institutions, citing their fears and sanity) interpreted the problem as a long-term reform, possible within the framework of a general adaptation of the structures.The text prepared by F. Braudel was published in the first issue of the journal Annals for 1958 under the title Social Sciences in France .Result, program.
However, this first failure had two consequences, brought to life by the initiative of the then director of the Office of Higher Education, Gaston Berger. A project arose to create in Paris the House of Human Sciences (or the House of Social Sciences, since both of these names were officially used at that time in 1958), which was intended to become a place for uniting research around a single library and common administrative services (mechanography).
ical center and cartographic laboratory. Another project is a project to reform the curricula of the final classes of lyceums, which were supposed to prepare students for entering higher educational institutions and for them to understand the essence of modern
Ersdeg teaches history
15
little world. The reform of the programs should also explain to students - through the concept of civilization - that the study of history itself should be accompanied by familiarity with the achievements of the related social sciences of geography, demography, economics, sociology, anthropology and psychology."
But this approach meant for some the opportunity, albeit short-term, at least for one year, to push the study of history itself into the background; the proposed reform turned out to be too radical for everyone to accept it in this form, and resistance was not slow to appear. Two years later, it became necessary to find a solution acceptable to everyone. In the new text (June
1959 d) the subject of civilization of the modern world united the Far East and Southeast Asia into a single world of the Indian and Pacific oceans, adding a final part in the form of global problems of today. Period 1914-1945 was again included in the graduate program, taking up an entire academic quarter, which upset the overall balance of the program. Although the battle was not completely lost, it was not won either, as evidenced by the obstacles created in the preparation of methodological developments, the definition of topics to be studied, etc. Let us recall at least one example during the period of overcoming the colonial past, during the period when new independent states tried to create own history, the decree of August 10, 1965 simply excluded any mention of the African world.”
Restraint towards the new program became more and more obvious as the date of its introduction into the educational process approached. Realizing that this program completely breaks with previous approaches in school and higher education (higher education of that time did not include the study of many of the mentioned social sciences), its opponents from among the leaders of school education asked how it was possible to teach history without a detailed account of events, without clear and controlled knowledge at the time of the exam They talked about the need to choose between facts, on the one hand, and chatter, abstraction, on the other. The authors of newly appearing or updated textbooks openly expressed concern and distrust. Let's re-read the introduction of one of the most popular textbooks of that time (Ed. -voatier, 1962), which was a manual for students of preparatory courses at the most prestigious higher educational institutions in France The interest of this program is beyond doubt, the study of the modern world is attractive for school graduates, but nevertheless its difficulties
16
Gramushika civilizations implementation is undeniable. Many technical concepts will require explanation. It should be simpler Having cited the opinions of specialists from among university teachers and graduate students who wrote individual articles in this textbook, the authors of the introduction continue. The team of specialists has set itself the goal of creating the simple and clear work that we all want. They wanted to show only major directions of historical development, to understand and explain. Starting on the th page, when we come to the history of civilizations, which seems more complex than a simple story of historical facts, a list of arguments in bold type complements the text. It can become a table of contents, brief but sufficient, for a student in a hurry who would like to quickly familiarize himself with the structure of the lesson. At the end of the book, the final, pedagogical part seeks to answer the understandable concerns of applicants.bI apologize in advance for this long quotation, in which I have emphasized the most significant expressions; the quotation is not present here to blame anyone or to renew the Manichaean dispute between adherents Old and New. It best illustrates the meaning of the subject of discussion, as well as the concerns that this fascinating but pretentious program raises. By creating this textbook, F. Braudel seemed to enter into an argument, without harboring any illusions regarding the position of his opponents. He deliberately chose a difficult path, devoting his work to great civilizations, those. the issue that has generated the most criticism and controversy. In his introductory part devoted to history and the present time, in which pedagogical logic should give preference to reading after the first part of the program (history from 1914 to the present day) when the study of great civilizations should begin, he does not hesitate to assert that the modern world should be understood in the totality of its components, taking into account the demanding study of great civilizations.
In general, it can be said that at the time of publication this textbook was different from others; it was a book written in order to cause controversy. It was necessary to defend positions that did not coincide with the positions of colleagues; it was necessary not to impose one’s own opinion, but to act by persuasion, explaining that deficiencies in knowledge existed at all times, that neither students, nor programs, nor textbooks could be blamed for them. Difficulties in mastering a new subject - and they are constantly talked about - are not hushed up or downplayed. They are spoken about directly
It may seem that F. Braudel set out on this path in vain, that defeat awaited him in advance, since at that time the inertia in the school education system was still strong; moreover, it was aggravated by the rapid growth of the teaching staff, accompanied by an increase in the duration The teaching crisis was brewing even before the events of 1968. One might also think that it would be preferable to argue at another level, at the level of scientific research, especially since then the most advanced history was grouped, according to L. Febvre, around the developing VI section of the Practical School of Higher Scientific Research. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to conduct the discussion within the walls of higher education, which still refused to allow him to participate in the awarding of academic titles. The voice of reason, as it might seem, should have forced him to follow precisely the paths of conducting scientific research, updating historical science by linking it with other social sciences, stimulating the entry of the best scientific researchers into the higher education system, thereby contributing to the updating of educational programs and the expansion of The list of science studied at universities also improves the training of future teachers. It would be a path of slow change. But F. Braudel did not like to obey what seemed the most reasonable.
To be convinced of this, it is enough to remember the last words that he uttered in public in Chateauvallon on October 20, 1985. People with whom I had a good attitude told me, “You should finally be more reasonable.” And what do you think, I followed them advice legon d "h is to ired eFern a n dBraudel, Chateauvaflon
,
octob rel98 5.
Paris,
Arthaun Hammarion, p. 224). Behind his inherent irony was hidden what he considered to be the main thing. With regard to education (in this case the study of history, but also other disciplines), the main thing for him was the conviction that reform cannot be partial. To be successful, it should not be limited to any one level, for example primary or secondary school, university.It is necessary that it affects the entire education system.
But be that as it may, F. Braudel still had the impression - quite justified, however - that he had failed in reforming the content of school education. Even before the new official texts were removed from graduate classes and the previous factual study of modern history from 1914, then from 1939 to the present time, F. Braudel’s textbook was restored
(“Braudel,” as he was called) was actually blacklisted and ceased to be sold in bookstores. In his eyes, the problem was not the book; the problem was how to teach history. This question worried him until the end of his days.
Even on the eve of his death, he continued to criticize new and recent history programs. Four or five years before the article reproduced here appeared in
Corriere della Sera (1983) he outlined his objections during a discussion in which J-P took part. Schevenmann, M. Debreu and A. Decaux. In his last speech at Chateauvallon he repeated his arguments. There is also a video recording of his speech to students in Toulon, where he spoke about the famous siege of the city in 1707 (he devoted many pages to this event in his book What is France?. However, he addressed his words not only to students. On October 17, he answered some questions from teachers regarding the study of history, the place of science and technology in it, regarding the history of art, the history of geography, as well as regarding school history programs.
My colleague Gilbert Bouguy recorded his answers, which showed that his position was unchanged. He again said that history should be open to other sciences about man, but not to be confused with them, since it alone studies the past precisely as the past, which allows it to better understand the present. He again insisted on his disagreement with curriculum writers who manage to pose problems in the opposite order to the way in which they are solved. In primary school - a new story. Then traditional history with narration, presentation of events, chronology, wars. In his opinion, the opposite approach was required, which he spoke about in Chateauvallon: If I were in charge, then first I would teach traditional history, history-narrative: a story is told, then it is interrupted, explanations are given for the most important things, given from time to time notes from the field of sociology, social economics. I would concentrate the study of modern and contemporary history up to the present in graduate classes. I also think it is completely wrong that children are asked questions regarding the period 1945-1985 in the GCSE exam. If I were an examiner, I would fail any historian at such an exam. However, if I asked myself, I would fail myself too!”
These words are not a joke uttered in the heat of controversy. An article in the Italian newspaper quoted here expresses the same thoughts even more clearly.
In his characteristic manner, F. Braudel throughout his life affirmed his faith in the creation of such a pedagogical project, which
18
Gramushika iivishzacii
Ersdep teaches history
1
9
One would allow history to take a central place in school education, using it as the preferred tool for explaining and understanding the world, for connecting past and present. He also never ceased to repeat that traditional history - a narrative based on precise chronology - is the only discipline capable of attracting the attention of the youngest students - children, whom he contrasted with adults. high school students - to instill in them the necessary understanding of time. This is not a random statement, not an attempt on behalf of an incomprehensible ecumenism to connect traditional history and new history, which would run counter to his desire as a researcher and scientific administrator to separate them. He simply wanted to deflect accusations from that historical science, which he himself called advanced (like the way they talk about advanced technical and mathematical sciences) and which was reproached for everything, let us remember that it was she who was accused of contributing to the occurrence of the May 1968 events.
With age, taking into account the accumulated experience and bitterness of defeat, F. Braudel clarified and strengthened his position on this issue. But its origins must be sought in the initial period of his activity, in the experience he accumulated while being a secondary school teacher for ten or twelve years in Algeria and Paris (from 1923 to 1935. He always believed that research work stimulates and enlivens history, but at the same time believed that history must be taught. That is why one of his first lectures (at the Institute of Education of São Paulo, Brazil, September 1936) was called Methods of Teaching History, the text of the lecture was published in Portuguese in the magazine
Archives
of this institute, was republished in the Historical Journal of São Paulo (Revista de historia, 1955, No. 23.
pp. 2-21). At that time, he had already begun to write his book about the Mediterranean) and in this lecture (I still want to say “Braudel to Brode
la") he succinctly expressed what he never tired of repeating over the next 50 years.
To turn a school novel into an adventure novel, I freely translate from Portuguese) simplicity is necessary in explaining the main thing, we are not talking about “the simple simplicity that distorts the truth, fills the void and covers up mediocrity, but about that simplicity that represents clarity, the light of intellect. always consider something specific as part of a single civilization: Greece as part of the civilization of the Aegean from Thrace to Crete, and not just as part of the Balkan Peninsula, Egypt as
20 Grammar of Civilizations
Review of: Russian translation of "The Grammar of Civilizations" by Fernand Braudel. (Fernand Braudel, Grammar of Civilizations. M.: Ves mir, 2008).
Badly published foreign books are, alas, a common, almost routine thing. Perhaps this time it was worth giving up. If only such a book had not been damaged and if the damage had not been so blatant. Below we will talk about Fernand Braudel’s masterpiece “The Grammar of Civilizations” and what the publishing house “The Whole World” did with it.
Let me make a reservation right away that my complaints are least of all addressed to the translation. The translator approached the matter in good faith. True, Braudel’s elegant and precise language disappeared behind the ponderous and sometimes not very intelligible constructions of the Russian text. But you can get to the meaning, fortunately there are not many semantic errors in translation (more on them a little later), and what more could you want in a situation where the mass of translated books is frankly a meaningless collection of words?
So, my complaints, or, if you will, bewilderments, are addressed primarily to the editors and publishers of this book. The latter took the meaning of the word “textbook” too literally in relation to the work of Fernand Braudel. “The Grammar of Civilizations”, in fact, was created for first-year university students and therefore can be considered a textbook. But, unlike the textbooks familiar to our compatriots since Soviet times, the great historian’s book is completely devoid of crude didactics. The original text is not broken down (through indentation, bold font, etc.), which helps lazy students separate the “important” from the “secondary.” If Braudel wants to emphasize a point, he puts it in italics. But the Russian editors felt that they knew better than the author which points of his narrative were more important and, therefore, should be highlighted. Guided by the criteria they know best, they take a sentence or two out of context and, through indentation and bold font, invite the reader to see the text through their eyes. The fabric of the text turned out to be studded with ridiculous buttons of quasi-paragraphs. However, I would like to remind you that such violence against the original is incorrect not only intellectually, but also legally. Rights holders may well sue for misrepresentation of the intent of the work.
In section three, which talks about Europe, Braudel pays much attention to the question of freedom as a constitutive element of European civilization. The idea of freedom for him does not boil down to a set of formal legal guarantees (no matter how important these freedoms, i.e. rights, may be). Likewise, the idea of liberalism cannot be reduced to the body of provisions of the ideology that appropriated this name. Braudel insists on making this distinction. Liberalism in the first sense of the word is one thing, and liberalism as a designation of political and economic doctrine is another thing. Liberalism, he says, is “more than the ideology of one party.” This is the "social atmosphere". This is a philosophy that states that Homo homini res sacra. This is the belief that man is an end and not a means. And this (universal) belief should not be confused with (particular) ideology. The author's thoughts, however, are completely obscured by the dissection to which the editors subject his text. First, they type in bold the passage that says “ the concept of freedom... became the ideology of liberalism”, and then attract the reader’s eye to the following judgment:
« At the same time, throughout the first half of the 19th century. liberalism served as a cover for establishing the political dominance of the bourgeoisie and business aristocracy, the dominance of the propertied class».
As a result, Braudel looks almost like a modern Russian anti-liberal. What did the publishers want to achieve with this? To please the mass sentiments in which the word “liberal” is inseparable from the word “Chubais”? Help educate the younger generation in the spirit of hatred towards the “liberals”?
However, in places while reading the book I got the impression that the editors were not spoiling the original out of malice. They just have such brains. Having formed in the era of the undivided dominance of “Marxism-Leninism”, they cannot help but alter the text they publish in their own way, understandable to them. Hence, in particular, the following set of pearls.
Original: « Collective psychology, consciousness...».
Russian version: « Collective psyche, growing consciousness...».
Original: « Civilizations as societies».
Russian version: « Civilizations as social formations».
Original: « The end of colonialism and the emergence of new nationalist movements».
Russian version: « The end of colonialism and the youth of national identity».
In a word, a pure stream of associations of those who were socialized under the influence of either Sholokhov’s “Virgin Soil Upturned”, or Stalin’s “Short Course”, or the Diamat / Historical Math textbook of the Brezhnev era.
I repeat that the lion's share of responsibility for such reinterpretations lies, first of all, with the editors. (The translator can be forgiven a lot, given the usual amount of the fee).
But there are traces of new spiritual trends in the book published by the publishing house “The Whole World”. I mean the obsession of public consciousness in today's Russia with the idea of a culture war. Talking about the fate of Byzantium, Braudel touches on the theme of the mutual idiosyncrasy of Eastern and Western Christianity. For Byzantium, it was easier to give in to the onslaught of the Turks than to accept defeat from its sworn rival.
« The Orthodox Church (...) chose to surrender to the Turks rather than unite with the Latins", notes the French historian. But this thought does not fit into the mind of the translator (or, perhaps, the editors who corrected the translation?). After all, the Turks are representatives of a civilization hostile to Christianity. It seems that it was precisely this conviction that led to the fact that in the Russian version of the book we read:
« The Orthodox Church (...) preferred unity with the Latins - the only thing that could save it from submission to the Turks».
By the way, the preference given by the Byzantine Church to the Turks was explained not only by the intolerance of the thought of losing ground to the “Latins,” but also by a completely rational consideration: the indifference of Islamic Turkey to the religious subtleties of the “infidels.” After all
« The Turks gave the Greek Church complete freedom of action».
« the pope gave the Greek church complete freedom of action».
However, the Russian mass consciousness - I mean, including the masses of those who call themselves “intellectuals” - in many ways inherits the worst Soviet models. This consciousness is characterized, for example, by spontaneous sexism. That is why, where the original speaks of the freedom of “his or her faith,” or, in other words, “ freedom to believe as he or she wishes,” the Russian edition talks about “freedom to believe as he or she wishes.”"; [italics hereinafter are mine - V.M.]). True, on the same page we have the opportunity to make sure that post-Soviet ideological realities did more harm than good to our publishers. If they had prepared their translation of “The Grammar of Civilizations” during the Soviet period, they would certainly have tried to avoid stylizing the author as a cultural chauvinist. In particular, when Braudel talks about the Protestant Church in America, he notes that “in the old, exclusive [my italics - V.M.] sense of the word, there is only one church - this is the Catholic Church.” In the Russian version, this remark looks much more straightforward and aggressive: “the only real Church in the sense familiar to us remains the Catholic one.”
In conclusion, I will give several illustrations of stylistic and semantic flaws, which, with all due respect to the thankless work of translation, remain on the conscience of B. A. Sitnikov.
« Christianity was also born along with Christ and at the same time before him" In original: " Christianity arose with Christ, and yet, in a sense, precedes Him».
« God is a rose without blemishes" In Islamic poetry - and in Braudel - it is the other way around: “ A rose without blemishes is God».
« Natural and acquired advantages" Braudel, like any author knowledgeable in the social sciences and humanities: “ Natural and acquired benefits».
« The term capitalism is not so archaic" In original: " The word “capitalism” is not too much of an anachronism here" (We are talking about the admissibility of using this term in relation to the Arab East of the 9th - 13th centuries).
And if you go in the opposite direction, the picture will be like this.
Braudel: « The study of civilization includes all human sciences».
Translation: « Civilization is defined in relation to other human sciences».
Braudel: « must be paid when knighting the eldest son».
Translation: « need help during knighting of eldest son»
Braudel: « dowry must be given when marrying the eldest daughter».
Translation: « need to provide assistance during the wedding of the eldest daughter"(ibid.).
Braudel: « “No taxation without representation” is an element of the English political tradition"(No taxation without representation = those who are deprived of representation in parliament do not pay taxes).
Translation: " English political tradition says that taxes cannot be introduced without the consent of taxpayers».
And finally, the “right to insurrection,” which was included in the American Declaration of Independence in accordance with the famous principle of J. Locke and which appears in the Russian text as the “right to indignation.”
And now the question is: are the readers who have been waiting 45 years for the Russian version of the “Grammar of Civilizations” ready to come to terms with all this? Or will they decide to wait until more responsible and qualified people take on the publication of Braudel’s work?