The publishing house "Science - Eastern Literature" published the first two volumes (second and seventh) of the new ten-volume "History of China", created by a large scientific team of domestic scientists. The idea is reminiscent of The Cambridge History of China, but does not copy it.

HISTORY OF CHINA FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE BEGINNING OF THE XXI CENTURY
in ten volumes Chief Editor
academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S. L. Tikhvinsky

Main editorial board
academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences M. L. Titarenko(Deputy Chief Editor),
Candidate of Philology S. M. Anikeeva,
corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences V. I. Vasiliev,
academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A. P. Derevianko,
academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences V. S. Myasnikov,
corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences V. V. Naumkin,
Doctor of Historical Sciences I. F. Popova,
academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences B. L. Riftin

Here is what he writes about the goals, objectives and content of the new "History of China" of her Chief Editor- Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S. L. Tikhvinsky (excerpt from the introductory article "To the Reader", Vol. VII, pp. 6–7):

The six-volume encyclopedia "Spiritual Culture of China" edited by Academician M. L. Titarenko (M., 2006–2010), created by a team of domestic sinologists, evoked a wide response from readers and was awarded the State Prize of the Russian Federation for 2010.

The ten-volume “History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century”, proposed to the reader, will undoubtedly arouse no less interest among the Russian public, on which scientists from various academic institutions and universities of Russia worked (Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Asian and African Countries of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, etc.). The authors, scientific editors of the volumes, and members of the Chief Editorial Board, realizing the complexity of the task set to contain the multi-thousand-year history of Chinese civilization within ten volumes, tried to reflect the main events in the history of China - from the Paleolithic sites and the first Neolithic settlements to the modern life of the PRC with its universally recognized international authority. Each volume averages about 60 a. l., chronological tables, lists of illustrations and maps, selected bibliography, indexes of names and geographical names.

The history of China in ten volumes is divided into chronological periods.

T. I. The most ancient and ancient history, Shang-Yin, Zhou: according to archaeological data. Rep. editor - acad. A.P. Derevyanko (Institute of Archeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk).

T. II. The era of Zhangguo, the Qin and Han empires: V c. BC e. - III century. n. e. Rep. editor - d. i. n. L. S. Perelomov (Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow).

T. III. Three Kingdoms, Southern and Northern Dynasties, Sui, Tang: 220–907. Rep. editors - d.i. n. I. F. Popova, Ph.D. n. M. E. Kravtsova (Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg).

T. IV. Five Dynasties Period, Song Empire, Liao, Jin, Xi Xia states: 907–1279. Rep. editor - d. i. n. I. F. Popova (Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg).

T. V. The Yuan and Ming Dynasties: 1279–1644. Rep. editors - d.i. n. A. Sh. Kadyrbaev, Doctor of Science n. A. A. Bokshchanin, Doctor of Philosophy n. AI Kobzev (Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow).

T. VI. Qing dynasty: 1644–1911 Rep. editor - d. i. n. O. E. Nepominin (Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow).

T. VII. Republic of China: 1912–1949 Rep. editor - d. i. n. N. L. Mamaeva (Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow).

T. VIII. People's Republic of China: 1949–1976 Rep. editor - d. i. n. V. N. Usov (Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow).

T. IX. People's Republic of China: 1976–2009 Rep. editor - Dr. polit. n. A. V. Vinogradov (Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow).

T. X. Taiwan, Xianggang (Hong Kong), Macau (Macao), Chinese diaspora abroad. Rep. editors - d.i. n. L. M. Gudoshnikov, Ph.D. n. G. A. Stepanova (Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow).

In the prefaces to the volumes, along with a summary of the main content, information is provided on significant historical events that took place during the described period in Asia, Europe and America.

The presented work will allow our reader to get acquainted with the history of China, which will contribute to the development of further mutual understanding and friendship between the neighboring peoples of the Russian Federation and China. People's Republic.

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S. L. Tikhvinsky
May 2013

• History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In ten volumes. T. II: The era of Zhangguo, Qin and Han (V century BC - III century AD) / Ch. ed. S. L. Tikhvinsky; Rep. ed. volumes L. S. Perelomov; Russian Academy Sciences, Institute of the Far East. - M.: Nauka - Eastern Literature, 2013. - 687 pp. ISBN: 978-5-02-036530-8; 978-5-02-036531-5 (vol. 2)

  Annotation:

  The second volume of "History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century" is devoted to three periods that occupy a special place in the history of China, since it was in these centuries that the foundations of Chinese civilization were laid. During the Zhangguo period (the Warring States, V-III centuries BC), known as the “golden age” of Chinese philosophical and legal thought, two ethical and political schools emerged that offered various models of social and state structure: “the people for the state "(legists) or "the state for the people" (Confucians). The victory of the Legists was marked by the unification of the country and the creation of the Qin Empire (221-207 BC). The founder of the empire, Qin Shi Huang, carried out a number of economic and political reforms, but the exorbitant exploitation of the people and cruel laws caused numerous uprisings that contributed to the collapse of the empire. The founders of the new Han Dynasty learned from the history of the Qin Empire. During the Han period (206 BC - 220 AD), Confucianism becomes the state ideology, knowledge through the practice of state examinations enters the management system, attempts are made to implement social utopia Confucius - creating a society of small prosperity xiaokang.

  Bibliographic information:

• History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In ten volumes. Vol. VII: Republic of China (1912–1949) / Ch. ed. S. L. Tikhvinsky; Rep. ed. volumes by N. L. Mamaev; Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of the Far East. - M.: Science - Eastern Literature, 2013. - 863, p., p. incl. ISBN: 978-5-02-036530-8; 978-5-02-036532-2 (vol. 7)
  Circulation: 1000 copies. (500 - 1st plant)

  Annotation:

  The seventh volume of "History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century" covers the period from the proclamation of China as a republic in 1912 to the formation of the People's Republic of China in 1949. Like the previous volumes, it is devoted to comprehensive study China in all the diversity of the life of society and the state. In accordance with the task set, the subject of research goes far beyond the framework of political history, which is intertwined in the text, as well as in real life, with the history of the economy, political, legal and administrative processes, with events military history, history of diplomacy and foreign policy of the Republic of China, with social history, history of culture, with the activities of prominent personalities of national and global scale.

On Friday November 10, 2017 The presentation of the unique historical scientific work of Russian sinologists "History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century" edited by Acad. S.L. Tikhvinsky. All 10 volumes, each containing 1000 or more pages, were presented to the participants of the event.

Opening the presentation, Sergey Luzyanin, director of the Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, emphasized that the long-term work of Russian Sinologists was crowned with complete success. According to him, this complex, but very productive work has brought good results, thanks to the work of a large team of scientists working in different research institutes and universities of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Novosibirsk.

He also noted the huge contribution of the editors and printers of the publishing house "Science - Eastern Literature".

At the same time, S. Luzyanin emphasized the role of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.L. Tikhvinsky, a well-known Russian sinologist, author of numerous historical works on China, an honored diplomatic worker who worked in Beijing and personally presented documents on the recognition of the People's Republic of China by the Soviet Union and the establishment of diplomatic relations with it.

S.L. Tikhvinsky was the chief editor of this gigantic 10-volume historical encyclopedia and head of the editorial board. At the last presentation, the Russian academician, who turned 99 two months ago, gave detailed description each volume of this historical encyclopedia, while not forgetting to highly appreciate the contribution of each executive editor who was responsible for the preparation and publication of individual volumes of the History of China.

Chairman of the Russian-Chinese Friendship Society, member of the Federation Council Dmitry Mezentsev, in turn, stressed that the release of this remarkable work by Russian sinologists is of great importance for Russian-Chinese relations. According to him, the presentation of the 10-volume book was "an event in modern Russian-Chinese relations." He called Sergei Leonidovich Tikhvinsky a unique person, a person amazing fate, a great scientist and diplomat, whose efforts and work have always been aimed exclusively at ensuring the interests of his country.

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of China to Russia Li Hui congratulated Russian scientists and Academician S.L. Tikhvinsky with the completion of work on the multi-volume history of his country. He said that such selfless work has become a remarkable contribution to the foundation of Russian-Chinese relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction.

Director of the First Asian Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry Andrey Kulik called the published 10-volume "History of China" an amazing educational project and a remarkable event in international sinology. "The history of China," he stressed, "is constantly present in our diplomatic work." He especially noted the work of scientists, editors, publishers, printers, calling their contribution "organizational exploits of Russian Sinologists."

Acting Director of Nauka Publishing House Dmitry Korotkov spoke in detail about the work of editors, printers, publishers, who faced a huge amount of information that had to be put on paper in the face of insufficient funding for the project.

The executive editors of individual volumes of the "History of China" spoke about the difficulties in work, overcoming problems: Doctor of History, Head of the Center for the Study recent history China and its relations with Russia N.L. Mamaeva, Doctor of History , senior researcher of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.Sh.Kabyrdaev, Ph.D. Head of the Center for Political Research and Forecasts A.V. Vinogradov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chief Researcher, IFES RAS Yu.M. Galenovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chief Researcher, IFES RAS L.S. Fractures. Representatives of the Nauka publishing house spoke about the difficulties of printing this unique work.

It should be said that research on the history of a neighboring country of this magnitude was undertaken in Russia for the first time. In the 20-30s of the last century, the first essays on the history of China appeared in our country. Then there were textbooks on the history of this country for universities, began to be published scientific work on the history of China, fundamental and popular books on the history of China. But in a collected, systematized form, such a comprehensive scientific work in Russian is published for the first time. Its authors, and these are dozens of scientists, have processed a huge array of original materials, the works of Chinese, Soviet and Russian sinologists. They tried to fit 5,000 years of Chinese civilization into 10 volumes. It turned out daunting task but it has been implemented.

There is only one historical work in the world with which the new Russian "History of China" can compete. This is a 15-volume history of China, which is published in Cambridge. However, the Cambridge story is not yet finished, 13 volumes have been released so far, and work on it is still ongoing.

Russian sinologists are also not going to stop there. It is logical to assume that the Russian historical science of the development of Chinese civilization will be replenished with additional volumes.

• Presentation of the ten-volume "History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century" // Journal "China", 2017-11-13.
• Sputnik(卫星社) 所有权利均受保护, 09:00 2017年11月18日

Review of the fifth volume of the ten-volume "History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century"

HISTORY OF CHINA FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE BEGINNING OF THE XXI CENTURY.

In 10 vols. Ch. ed. S.L. Tikhvinsky.

T. V. YUAN AND MING DYNASTY (1279 - 1644)

Rep. ed. A.Sh. Kadyrbaev, A.A. Bokschanin. M.: Institute of Oriental Studies RAN, 2016. 678 p., ill.

At the end of 2016, the largest project of Russian Sinology in the second decade of the 20th century approached the final stage. - publication of the 10-volume "History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century" (hereinafter "History of China"). Three of its most important volumes were published: 1st, 4th and 5th, which made up a third of the entire published corpus of 9 volumes and chronologically marked, on the one hand, the ancient origins of the original Chinese civilization, and on the other hand, the completion of its independent development in imperial uniform caused by falling into mid-seventeenth V. the last national dynasty and the end of the Ming era.

In 2017, it remains only to wait for the appearance of the yet unreleased 8th volume, dedicated to the Mao Zedong period of the PRC 1949-1976, which, due to the party-ideological conflict between the two communist giants of the USSR and the PRC, which even grew into a military-political confrontation and armed clashes, it is most difficult to make objective assessments in the current political situation, which, obviously, slows down the publication, oriented by the editor-in-chief of the entire 10-volume edition, Academician S.L. Tikhvinsky to deepen the provisions of the 2001 Treaty of Good Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China.

Although some experts expressed reasonable doubt about the very possibility of implementing this project, since “it is possible that now domestic Sinology is not able to prepare an academic “History of China”” [Dmitriev, 2014, p. 575], while others proposed to preliminarily formulate the principles of creating academic history [Ulyanov, 2014, p. 546-548], this extremely ambitious enterprise claimed to surpass the famous 15-volume "The Cambridge History of China" ("The Cambridge History of China"). Chief editor of the 10-volume book S.L. Tikhvinsky confidently asserted that "our work will be distinguished by greater completeness and attachment to the present" [Russian sinology - oral history, p. 361]. Alas, there can be no question of any greater completeness here, and “attachment to modernity” resulted in a slow reaction to acute problems and an obsessive repetition at the beginning of each volume of the already obviously outdated message of the editor-in-chief about “the official visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Moscow March 22, 2013".

The volumes of the "History of China" were published out of order, by different institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and two publishing houses ("Nauka" and "Oriental Literature"). The first was published in 2013. The 2nd volume, unfortunately, vividly illustrated the Russian proverb “The first pancake is lumpy”, which is shown in detail and convincingly in an extensive collection (more than 150 pages, i.e. approx. 10 a. l.) his hard-hitting assessments by well-known experts from Russia and abroad [Epohi Zhangguo…, 2014, p. 462-616], as well as in our long article “The History of China as a Mirror of Russian Sinology” [Kobzev, 2014, p. 462-517] (see also [Kobzev, 2016, pp. 159-212]) and reviews [Kobzev, 2015, p. 193-212].

Analyzing this deplorable beginning, which revealed a rich bouquet of all kinds of vices up to plagiarism, I had to make bitter observations about the situation with Sinology in general (see, for example, [Kobzev, 2016, pp. 9-82, 213-280]). When such a number of already undisguised symptoms are present and a representative council says that it is too late to drink Borjomi, it would seem, following the instinct of self-preservation, for the sake of one's own salvation, and not the ghostly setting of a world record, if not self-improvement self-criticism, then at least adequate self-esteem from scammers, should have sounded, who, according to a fair description of one of the competent participants in the discussion, “they themselves put weapons into the hands of our enemies”, who only get the opportunity, as a result of analyzing one of the volumes of the History of China, “to openly accuse all Russian sinology of backwardness, insanity, helplessness and banal bad faith , in fact, to raise the question of the meaningfulness of state support for such a “science”” [Dmitriev, 2014, p. 575].

However, all these fairly timely fears and remarks for the most part remained in vain. One of the last in the "History of China", the 5th volume, with its clumsiness and hack-work, surpassed even the pioneering 2nd volume in this respect, completely unworthy of looping a project that was quite sound in design and in some parts useful. The vicious similarity of both volumes immediately betrays their record-breaking thinness for the publication. In vol. 2 - 687 pages, and in vol. 5 - 678 (here even the numbers are the same), while in vol. 1 - 974, in vol. 3 - 991, in vol. 4 - 942, and in v. 9 - almost a thousand (996) pages. Such brevity, alas, is not the “sister of talent”, contrasts unpleasantly with the significance of the periods described: v. 2 is devoted to the “golden age” of Chinese culture (Zhanguo), the first centralized empire (Qin), the longest and most exemplary empire (Han), and 5 - the epochs of the world power of China conquered by the Mongols (Yuan) and the highest flowering of autochthonous civilization during the last national dynasty (Ming).

In the review of vol. 2, we have already noted the confusion in the translation and interpretation of the same terms, characteristic of the entire 10-volume edition, as designations for dynasties, states (empires) and eras (periods) [Kobzev, 2015, p. 197-198]. A vivid example of such a discord is demonstrated by the very title of the newly published volume 4 “The Period of the Five Dynasties, the Song Empire, the states of Liao, Jin, Xi Xia (907-1279)”, denoting phenomena of the same order in different ways (“dynasty”, “empire”, “state ”) and is different from the nomenclature of other volumes, where not “empires” (like the Song), but “dynasties” appear (Ming and Qing in vols. 5 and 6).

The same nominative defect suffers to the full extent from v. 5, in which the main terms "Yuan" and "Ming" appear as designations for dynasties, empires, epochs and periods. It goes without saying that this fundamental and critically highlighted problem should be dealt with first, since it causes authors to constantly contradict themselves and each other. For example, A.Sh. Kadyrbaev in the same paragraph managed to report that the Yuan Empire was ruled by the Chinggisid dynasty, called the Yuan dynasty (pp. 125-126). If we translate this oriental wisdom into the language of native birches, it turns out that in Russian Empire ruled by the Romanov dynasty, called the Russian dynasty. It is unlikely that the “Russian public”, which is addressed by this popular science publication by its editor-in-chief, will cope with such a puzzle (pp. 6-7).

Equally incorrect and misleading "a wide circle of readers" is the named A.Sh. Kadyrbaev’s “literal” translation by the word “colour-eyed” (p. 149, 668) of the fundamental for the Yuan era category of Western foreigners se-mu 色目 (se-mu-ren 色目人), who occupied a middle position between the superior Mongols and the inferior Chinese. In itself, the idea of ​​dividing people according to the color or colorlessness of the eyes seems fantastic, because the latter do not exist in nature. This simple consideration should have prompted the author and the responsible editor in one person to make inquiries and discover that in this combination, used hundreds of years before Yuan times, the characters se and mu do not mean "color" and "eye", but, accordingly, "look, variety” and “code, nomenclature”, which is why se-mu (se-mu-jen) are different types (people or peoples) separated into a common (ethno-social) category, which, if desired, to preserve the color semantics of se can be called “ suit "with an overtone of privilege, conveyed by the derivative word" suitability ". For example, since the Tang era (618-907), Se-mu people called "examination board flowers" (bang-hua 榜花), i.e. Chinese who successfully passed the state exams with ordinary eyes, but rare surnames. Such information is easy to find in any reference and specialized literature, where, however, the cited A.Sh. Kadyrbaev, a very dubious synonym for se-mu and se-mu-jen - se-ren (色人).

The gaping white spots of vol. 2 were revealed by us earlier, and after the publication of vol. 1 in 2016, it additionally became clear that the most important period of Chunqiu (VIII-V centuries BC) generally “fell between two chairs”, without receiving any worthy reflection either in the 1st or in the 2nd volume. This failure is connected with the change of the title of Vol. covered the entire Zhou era, including not only Chunqiu, but also Zhangguo (V-III centuries BC) [History of China, vol. II, 2013, p. 7], and eventually became “Ancient and ancient history (according to archaeological data): from the Paleolithic to the 5th century BC. BC.". When the plan was realized, there was a retreat into the historical depth from the 3rd to the 5th centuries. BC. formally without the loss of Chunqiu, however, the general clarification "according to archaeological data" made it possible to reduce to an unacceptable minimum the description of this most important period, no less than globally connecting China with the world "axial time".

The chronological framework of vol. 2, entitled "The era of Zhangguo, Qin and Han (V century BC - III century AD)", excluded Chunqiu de jure from it, although de facto due to personal predilection executive editor L.S. Perelomov, Confucius (552/551-479 BC), who lived in this period, received a residence permit there. Of course, the achievements of one, even so outstanding personality, the significance of the Chunqiu period is not limited, and its one-sided reflection in both volumes can by no means be considered satisfactory.

Moreover, the 1st volume has another chronological imbalance. Its executive editor A.P. Derevyanko in his "Introduction" attributed the Neolithic era in China to the V-III millennium BC. (p. 13), but in further text its beginning is dated as much as four millennia earlier and, accordingly, part 3, written by D.V. Deopik and M.Yu. Ulyanov, bears the title "Neolithic (IX - the middle of the III millennium BC)" (p. 151-362).

Unfortunately, our bitter prediction of 2014 also came true, that due to the flux-like professionalism of the compilers in volume 1, “history will be suppressed by archeology” [Extract…, 2014, p. 606]. Two years later, this was confirmed by the very first review of it: “For the 10-volume project of the History of China, the resulting volume is inferior (because history is reduced to archeology)” [Blumchen, 2016, p. 248].

These systemic failures are undoubtedly caused by the main flaw of the entire publication - the lack of a single concept and effective leadership for its implementation. For example, the editor-in-chief S.L. Tikhvinsky first suggested that S. Kuchera become the executive editor of vol. 1, but then he appointed A.P. Derevianko (see [Excerpt…, 2014, p. 611]). This scientific and moral miscalculation, first of all, excluded the most authoritative and competent specialist on this issue from work on the volume. An attempt to compensate for such a serious individual loss at the start was (apparently, consecrated by the dialectical law of the transition from quantity to quality) the formation of the widest possible team of authors. He reached a record 40 people with a typical value several times less, as, for example, 11 authors in vol. 10, 13 - in vols. 2 and 5, 14 - in volume 6.

The flip side of this transition from high performance sports to mass sports Naturally, there was a significant decrease in the consistency of the author's views and combined materials, up to a direct conflict of positions and interests. In turn, this problem was to be solved by the creation, in addition to the main editorial board, of a special editorial board. this volume, which is not found in any of the other volumes. It included eight people: two academicians - A.P. Derevianko and V.I. Molodin, two doctors of sciences - P.M. Kozhin and M.V. Shunkov, four candidates of sciences - S.V. Alkin, S.A. Komissarov, E.A. Solovyov and M.Yu. Ulyanov, of whom only five are Orientalists (according to the dictionary of S.D. Miliband), three are sinologists, and seven are the authors of the volume.

Despite the unprecedented introduction of a supernumerary regulatory body, the group of authors broke up into debating camps according to typical oppositions: center - periphery, capital - province, West - East, Europe - Asia, Muscovy - Siberia, Moscow - Novosibirsk; Research Institute - university, RAS - SB RAS, NSU - MSU; archeology - history, empiricism - theory. The largest and dominant camp was headed by the owner of the main administrative resource A.P. Derevyanko (scientific supervisor of the Institute of Economics and Engineering of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who gave him a stamp), and a smaller, but the most creative camp was formed around D.V. Deopika and M.Yu. Ulyanova (both from ISAA MGU). Between them, “the differences in understanding the essence and direction of those processes that are being analyzed” turned out to be so great that, again, in a unique way for the entire project, the responsible editor had to specifically stipulate them in the “Introduction” (p. 17). About half of the volume has been written by the authors of the “Moscow” camp, but their views are characterized as insufficiently substantiated and “methodologically dubious” “hypotheses” (ibid.), which contradicts the general idea of ​​the publication, which is intended to collect only firmly established facts and undeniable theories.

In particular, according to A.P. Derevianko, “the idea of ​​transferring the center of the formation of Chinese civilization from the Huang He Valley to the regions of Eastern and Southern China is also methodologically doubtful” (ibid.). However, a little further, in the 1st part of the volume, V.E. Larichev, S.A. Komissarov and P.V. Martynov refuted the statement of the editor-in-chief and the head of the editorial board, arguing that in South and East China, which enjoy “increased attention from Russian archaeologists and sinologists”, “independent civilizational centers have been identified” and “the study of this promising area was started by R.F. Itsom, S. Kucheroy and D.V. Deopik, joined by M.Yu. Ulyanov, S.A. Komissarov, Yu.A. Azarenka, S.V. Laptev, E.A. Girchenko” (p. 55), and all those who joined are the authors of vol. 1.

In an almost mystical way, the idea of ​​the multi-centric origin of Chinese civilization divided the centers of Russian sinology. Responding to this extraordinary situation and realizing that “if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mark 3.25), the capital’s “hypotheseers” were forced to further explain and argue their extraordinary position in a special publication [Deopik D. V., Ulyanov M.Yu., 2017], where, contrary to the opinion of A.P. Derevianko, made the Chinese Neolithic age even more ancient, attributing its beginning to the 10th millennium BC.

With the formation of the leadership of the authors' teams of the 5th and 8th volumes, a leapfrog similar to volume 1 took place. Without announcing the reasons, which involuntarily gives rise to assumptions about extra-scientific intrigues, their responsible editors changed. Contradictory information about them was published in different volumes: in volume 5, among those, along with A.Sh. Kadyrbaev and A.A. Bokshchanin at one time was listed as A.I. Kobzev, and V.N. Usov, then - Yu.M. Galenovich and, finally, again - V.N. Usov is already together with A.G. Yurkevich. If the deputy executive editor of the 1st volume P.M. Kozhin (1934-2016) just did not have time to see it published, then one of the nominal executive editors of the 5th volume of A.A. Bokschanin (1935-2014) did not participate at all in its final compilation and editing.

Although due to the unnatural unity of command in the preparation of volume 5, the problems of “diversity of centers” and “long discussion” did not arise, as in volume 1, this did not save him from gaps, almost larger than in the first two volumes. With the absolute predominance of political history, it contains only homeopathic doses of economics, law, religion, science, art, literature, education, language and other fundamental components of material and spiritual culture, and some are practically absent. For example, philosophy is shrouded in a complete veil of silence, with the exception of inadequate one and a half pages (pp. 457-459), although it was in the Ming era that its traditional form reached its highest development, which is described in detail in our monograph [Kobzev, 2002], indicated in the bibliography ( p. 627). The same helpless gaps yawn in the uncompensated absence of the sections “Legislation of the Ming Era” and “Chinese Art of the Yuan and Ming Periods”, specially written for the volume by the main Russian experts in these areas, N.P. Svistunova and M.A. Neglinskaya. And the oblivion of the Yuan theater and its one-page description in the Ming era, illustrated by a “drawing of the 13th century.” (p. 578-579), in the presence of several monographs specializing on this topic, but in no way, even bibliographically, not mentioned by S.A. Gray looks more than indecent. Leaving aside the pseudoscience and harmfulness of homeopathy, let us recall that, according to the standard adopted for the entire publication, half of the volume should be historical and cultural information, to which only four chapters are devoted in non-standard volume 5 (I.5, I.6, II.4, II .7), occupying a total of 106 s., i.e. 15% of all text.

Accordingly, the architectonics of the volume is simply ugly. First of all, the reasonable ratio of its two parts, covering the Yuan (1279-1368) and Ming (1368-1644) eras, is violated. The first lasted 89 years and is described on 333 pages (Part I, pp. 8-340), and the second is three times longer, 277 years, and played a much larger role in the history of China proper, but occupies only 262 pages (Part I). II, pp. 341-603), including the off-chronological section on Yuan literature (pp. 550-577). This blatant disproportion is easily explained by a harmful human factor, as in vol. 2, where 4 times fewer pages are allocated to the entire period of Zhangguo than Confucius, who is generally inappropriate here. The reason for such an anachronism was nothing more than the personal interest of the executive editor L.S. Perelomov, who wrote a lot about Confucius. The situation is similar in volume 5. It was published only by one of the two responsible editors indicated on the title - A.Sh., who dealt with the Yuan era and the Central Asian peoples adjacent to China. Kadyrbaev, since the second, a specialist in the Ming era and China proper - A.A. Bokschanin reposed two years earlier, and before that he had been seriously ill for several years and was not engaged in this work.

Part I vol. 5 was almost entirely prepared by one author, who too freely exercised his privilege of being virtually the only responsible editor and did not subject either his texts or the entire necessary procedure of scientific discussion. Among the most negative results of such a disregard for the matter can be called an unjustified and even defiant skimping on the works of distinguished scientists. In the section “Main sources and historiography for the Yuan era” (p. 20-28) A.Sh. Kadyrbaev himself noted that “the contribution to the study of the era of Mongol rule in China by the Sinologist N.Ts. Munkuev” and this topic “are devoted to the substantive works of E.I. Kychanova, M.V. Vorobiev, B.L. Riftina, T.I. Sultanova, I.T. Zograf, M.V. Kryukov, V.V. Malyavina, M.V. Sofronova, A.A. Bokshchanina, L.L. Viktorova, L.A. Borovkova, L.I. Duman, N.P. Svistunova, G.V. Melikhova, S. Kuchery, V.F. Sorokina, S.A. Shkolyara, I.S. Usmanova, V.A. Tyurina, A.Sh. Kadyrbaeva, S.V. Dmitrieva, N.N. Kradina, T.D. Skrynnikova, V.V. Trepavlova, R.P. Khrapachevsky, R. Pochekaev”, as well as for some reason separately named V.E. Eremeev (p. 25, 27), however, only three of this solid list of domestic colleagues were honored to become co-authors of the executive editor in writing the yuan part: V.E. Eremeev, S.V. Dmitriev and R.Yu. Pochekaev, probably due to the special complexity of their subjects (science, metropolitan urban planning and law).

This riddle has a simple but obscene answer. The necessary works of these specialists are included incognito in the publication with varying degrees of modification and without paying attention to the subtleties of copyright. For example, listed under the name A.Sh. Kadyrbaev, the section “The Conquest of the Chinese Empire of the Southern Song” (pp. 113-125) is a slightly edited article by N.P. Svistunova "The death of the state of the Southern Suns" [Svistunova, 1977, p. 282-305], and the section endowed with the same authorship “Revolts against the Mongol conquerors in China in the XIV century. and the Fall of the Yuan Empire” (pp. 331-340) - an abridged article by L.A. Borovkova "On the struggle of the Chinese people against the Mongol conquest in the middle of the XIV century." [Borovkova, 1977, p. 447-461]. It is easy to continue the list of examples, referring first of all to the collection “Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe” created almost half a century ago (M., 1970; supplemented reprinted in 1977).

Vol. 5 is distinguished not only by the shameless appropriation of other people's texts, especially those belonging to departed scientists, but also by their dashing processing. So, in the mentioned article by the late L.A. Borovkova said that “when the new Ming dynasty reigned, one of the Nan (South Chinese. - A.K.) advisers of Zhu Yuan-chang - Li Shan-chang, in the preface to “Yuan shi” taught wisdom and virtues allegedly inherent in the Yuan dynasty, which resorted to the confiscation of the wealth of landowners and merchants much less frequently than it was done during the Han, Tang and Song dynasties" [Borovkova, 1977, p. 450]. L.A. Borovkova, having given a link to the publication "Yuan shi" ("History of the [epoch] Yuan", in the series "Si-bu bei-yao". Shanghai, 1936 [ibid., p. 460, note 24]), retold in her own words Chancellor Li Shan-chang (李善長, 1314-1390), expressed by him after the accession of Zhu Yuan-chang. In the turned version of A.Sh. Kadyrbaev, this teaching without reference to the source, but in the form of a quotation was conveyed by direct speech and attributed to the time before the accession of Zhu Yuanzhang: the Yuan dynasty, which resorted to the confiscation of the wealth of landowners and merchants much less frequently than it was done under the Han, Tang and Song dynasties” (p. 332). The absurdity of this hacky alteration is emphasized by the past tense, clumsily repeated in the pseudoquotation (“were inherent”) in the characterization of the not yet overthrown “Yuan dynasty”.

In the next paragraph of Vol. 5, another unaddressed quote is given: “Chinese historiography attempts to prove that for the Chinese peasants and landowners of the Yuan Empire, only their class interests, and not the struggle against Mongol rule, were of decisive importance. And therefore, the uprisings that eventually overthrew the power of the Mongols in China were “first of all, the class struggle of the Chinese peasantry against the feudal lords” (p. 332). The archaic pathos of this naphthalene passage, reeking of vulgar sociologization of the bad memory of times, is easily explained by the original L.A. Borovkova, written during the worst period of Soviet-Chinese relations, immediately after the armed clashes on the border in 1969, and aimed against PRC historians hostile to the USSR, who “have had this page of history, along with others, began to be used to justify chauvinistic claims to land neighboring countries and peoples” [Borovkova, 1977, p. 447]. The original text that aroused A.Sh. Kadyrbayeva’s passion for unjustified quoting, reports on the desire of Chinese historians “to prove that for the Chinese peasants and feudal lords of the Yuan Empire, only their class interests were of significant importance, but not contradictions with the Mongol conquerors. And therefore, the uprisings at the end of the Yuan were only a class war between the peasants and the feudal lords” [ibid., p. 450]. In support of his words, L.A. Borovkova referred only to one journal article by Chen Gao-hua published in 1964 [ibid., p. 460, note. 26], and A.Sh. Kadyrbaev did not refer to anyone at all, and from her retelling of a publication more than half a century ago, he concocted a self-made quote that supposedly characterizes modern Chinese historiography. This used to be done only in Odessa.

In the historiographic section "Sources and scientific literature on the History of China in the Ming Period” (pp. 349-356) part II v. 5 A.A. Bokschanin also mentioned a number of authoritative colleagues who have written on this topic since the second half of the 20th century: N.I. Konrad, L.I. Duman, L.V. Simonovskaya, N.I. Fomin, E.V. Stuzhin, L.A. Borovkov, V.V. Malyavina, O.E. Nepomnina, V.B. Menshikov, Z.G. Lapin, A.A. Pisareva, N.P. Svistunov, B.G. Doronina, A.I. Korotkov, A.S. Martynova, M.V. Kryukova, M.V. Sofronova, D.V. Dubrovskaya, V.E. Eremeeva, A.I. Kobzeva, V.Ts. Golovacheva, O.V. Zotova, E.I. Kychanova, L.S. Savitsky, Yu.I. Drobysheva, D.G. Kukeyeva, M.A. Neglinskaya, T.B. Arapov and A.M. Pastukhov. Of this, even more impressive than that of A.Sh. Kadyrbaev, the list by co-authors of the second executive editor A.A. Bokshchanin in writing the Minsk part was also awarded to a few, only five people: V.Ts. Golovachev, Yu.I. Drobyshev, D.V. Dubrovskaya, O.V. Zotov and V.E. Eremeev.

Both enumerations of Russian specialists, despite their apparent multi-composition, are flawed by their obvious incompleteness and one-sidedness, and besides, they are blatantly dissonant with the List of authors of the volume (p. 672) both by the negligible presence of the indicated names in it, and by the presence in them for some reason not specified, namely: E.F. Bayaliyeva, V.S. Myasnikova, B.L. Riftin and V.F. Sorokin, among which, in particular, two academicians.

Yes, and the achievements of researchers are presented strangely. For example, in the historiographic introduction by A.A. Bokshchanin incorrectly said about the two parts of the translation of N.P. Svistunova "Laws of the Great Ming Dynasty" (p. 354 with inaccurate spelling of "great" with a lowercase letter), and in the bibliography it is correct - about three (p. 623); the same introduction reports that “A.A. Korotkova studied the aggravation of the internal political situation in the Ming Empire at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. (pp. 354-355), but where and how she did it is not specified and her work is missing from the bibliography; further in the same place it is said that “the articles of A.I. Kobzev “The Study of Wang Yangming in Russia and the Specificity of Chinese Philosophy”, “Chinese Mysticism” (p. 355), however, the bibliography (p. 627) contains other works by this author and is much more important than the indicated articles (of which the second is on a completely different topic - mysticism) his missing both here and in the bibliography is a special monograph "The Teaching of Wang Yangming and Classical Chinese Philosophy" (M., 1983).

For the time of publishing the 10-volume edition, the executive editors of the 5th (A.A. Bokshchanin) and 10th (L.M. Gudoshnikov) volumes, as well as two members of the main editorial board (B.L. Riftin, M.L. Titarenko). In previous volumes, their names placed on the title and introductory pages were surrounded by mourning frames, but in vol. all deserve a black frame.

Again, a parallel arises with the ill-fated 2nd volume, where at the beginning, in the list of members of the main editorial board of the 10-volume edition (p. 2), the name of B.L. Riftin, but at the end, the list of authors of the volume (p. 683) does not contain the dates of the life of the dead. In subsequent volumes, including the 5th (p. 672), this omission is corrected, but, as in vol. 2, where A.G. Aleksanyan is erroneously named a candidate of historical (instead of philosophical) sciences (p. 683), in v. 5 the degrees of the authors are confused: E.F. Bayalieva is presented as a candidate of historical (instead of philosophical) sciences, and V.F. Sorokin - doctor of philosophical (instead of philological) sciences (p. 672).

The amazing arithmetic illiteracy characteristic of volume 2, whose executive editor was not even able to accurately calculate the duration of the Han era, the main one for the volume, was not overcome here, increasing it one and a half times (p. 639). In volume 5, contrary to all common sense, the beginning of the Yuan era on the title, in the bibliographic description, annotation, conclusion of the Yuan part (part I) and table of contents of the book is dated 1279 (pp. 3, 4, 7, 340, 673), and in special chronological appendices - 1260 and 1271. (pp. 608, 620).

Our criticisms of the creators of volume 2 nevertheless had a certain, albeit strange, effect on the successors of this work. For example, we pointed out the absence of the “lists of illustrations and maps” promised in the preface by the editor-in-chief [Kobzev, 2015, p. 205]. In response, instead of carrying out the proposals put forward by S.L. Tikhvinsky of obligations and the compilation of these lists, the word “lists” was removed from his preface.

Another example from the field of chronology, concerning “a systemic error resulting from mixing real terms of government with their official fixations, marked, in particular, by the mottos of government (nian-hao)”, and easily eliminated “with the help of an excellent reference book by L.R. Kontsevich [Kontsevich, 2010], which the authors impermissibly missed and did not mention in the bibliography” [Kobzev, 2015, p. 197]. The reaction to our remark was the “clarification” of the “Chronological Tables” in vol. 5 according to the indicated book by L.R. Kontsevich (p. 620-621). However, such a clarification can make the average reader dizzy.

First, contrary to the title dating of the Yuan era 1279-1368. and the laws of logic in the Chronological Tables, its beginning is indicated by two other dates: 1260 and 1271. Aggravating this numerical chaos, A.Sh. Kadyrbaev, in a brief conclusion of the Yuan part, entitled "Instead of an epilogue", gave three possible dates for the beginning of the "dominion of the Mongol conquerors in China": 1215, 1234 and 1279, as if not noticing his own "Chronological Tables" with other dates.

Secondly, the compiler of the tables, stepping on the same rake as the authors of Vol. 2, confused the real terms of reign with the years marked by their mottos, for example, the same 1295 dated the beginning of the reign of Cheng-zong / Temur (1294 -1307) and his adoption of the motto Yuan-zhen (1295-1297), i.e. in the first case he made a mistake by a year (p. 620). The same mistake with Ren-zong/Ayurbaribada (1311-1320) looks even more absurd, since 1312 is given as the beginning of his reign, and the establishment of the motto Huang-qing is attributed to 1311/1312, which allows for the opposite reality of the proclamation of the motto of government before the reign itself, and the meaning of the slash between the dates is not explained in any way. The founder of the Shih Tzu / Khubilai dynasty had such a discrepancy as much as 12 years (1260-1271). The end dates are also confused, for example, the reign of Shi-zu / Khubilai under the motto Zhi-yuan, which opened the Yuan era, ended in 1294, not 1295, and the last reign of Hui-tsun / Togon-Temur under the motto Zhi-zheng - in 1370 , not 1368 (p. 620).

On the whole, like vol. 2 (see: [Kobzev, 2015, pp. 199-202]), vol. 5 demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the traditional Chinese calendar, which is generally erroneously called lunar rather than lunisolar. In particular, citing the message "Yuan shi" about the event that occurred in the "8th moon" of 1328, A.Sh. Kadyrbaev explained that he meant August (p. 310). It is even hard to believe that a sinologist and doctor of historical sciences is not aware that the "8th moon" of the traditional Chinese calendar does not at all coincide with the 8th month of the European calendar. Even broad strata of the population, who are interested in the time of the celebration of the Chinese New Year (chun-jie), which differs significantly from both the Julian and the Gregorian, have now been spared such naive incompetence. Speaking specifically, the “8th moon” in 1328 corresponds to the period from September 5 to October 3 according to the Julian calendar [Tsybulsky, 1987, p. 263]. This chronological blunder turned into a direct anti-historicism, since it was about what happened after the death of Yesun-Temur (1223-1328), and in August 1328 he was still alive.

Another similar example of ignorant distortion of fact is contained in the "Introduction" by A.Sh. Kadyrbaev to the Minsk part (part II), where it is said that Zhu Yuan-zhang (1328-1398) proclaimed the creation of the Ming Empire "January 23, 1368 according to European reckoning (and according to the Chinese lunar calendar - on the first day of the new year)" (p. 341). It is enough to refer to the simplest reference book to find out what corresponds to the European 1368/1369 chinese year wu-shen began on January 20, 1368 according to the Julian calendar [Tsybulsky, 1987, p. 270] and, consequently, Zhu Yuanzhang performed this ritual not on the first, but on the fourth day of the new year.

In addition to this chronological confusion, the Chinese name of Yesun-Temur - Tai-din-di (Emperor Tai-ding), derived from the motto of the reign of Tai-ding (1324-1328), is erroneously called a temple name (p. 620), although the assignment of such his opponents just interfered, who in the same 1328 overthrew his eight-year-old son Aragibag, who had been sitting on the throne for only a month, and declared them both illegal rulers. Aragibag, like his father, is officially named according to the motto of the reign of Tian-shun-di (Emperor Tian-shun), however, he, casually called Aragibag (p. 620) and Aragibaga (p. 311), is assigned the missing temple name, and not own, and common noun - Yu-zhu 幼主, literally meaning "juvenile ruler" (p. 620). For this little highly artistic amateur performance, L.R. Kontsevich is not responsible, because he does not have such a strange “temple name” (Kontsevich, 2010, p. 544), and it, along with a number of the above inaccuracies in dating, is apparently taken from another “ Chronological table» [Spiritual culture of China, vol. 4, 2009, p. 869], which, in turn, came from some Chinese reference book of the first years of the PRC, when they did not pay attention to the subtleties of imperial names (see, for example, [Wan Guo-ding, 1958: 109]).

Volume 5 of The History of China is also distinguished by much more slovenly borrowings. For example, in the written by A.Sh. Kadyrbaev and D.V. Dubrovskaya section "Religions of confessional minorities: Islam, Christianity, Judaism" says: "From the time of the Ming, Chinese Jews had both Chinese and Jewish names. In 1421, the Ming emperor allowed the physician Yen Cheng to restore the synagogue and donated incense for it. In 1461, the synagogue was destroyed by a flood and restored only in 1489, which is recorded in the inscription of the same year on the stele, which gives the names of 17 leaders of the Jewish community” (p. 467). Here the question immediately arises about the logical connection between Chinese and Jewish names, the medical profession and the synagogue with incense. Further, I would like to know: Yen Cheng is a Chinese or Hebrew name.

To clarify this obscure passage, one should first of all turn to the encyclopedic article “Chinese Jews” available on the Internet [Brief Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 4, 1988, stb. 319-325], from where it, together with the accompanying text, was rewritten shamelessly (without quotes) and clumsily (in violation of logic). A more informative and coherent original reads: “In 1390, the founder of the Ming Dynasty, Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang granted the Jews land and certain privileges. For the merit of a Jew who exposed a conspiracy in the imperial family in 1420, Chinese Jews received the right to bear Chinese family names (the adoption of Chinese names by foreigners was not encouraged at the beginning of the Ming era). In 1421, the emperor allowed the physician Yen Cheng to restore the synagogue and donated incense for it. In 1461, the synagogue was destroyed by the flood of the Yellow River and restored only in 1489, which is recorded in the inscription of the same year on the stele, which gives the names of 17 leaders of the community.

For complete clarity, one can refer to a solid sinological dictionary, which contains an adventurous biography of the correctly named leader of the Jewish community in Kaifeng, the physician An San 俺三 (or Yan San in accordance with a different reading of the first character 俺), whose name in the original, apparently, resembled Arabic Al-Hasan or Al-Hussein. In November 1420, he exposed the plot of his commander, the blood prince Zhu Su (1361-1425), who was the fifth son of Zhu Yuanzhang and the ruler of Kaifeng. However, the very next year, An / Yan San received permission from the forgiven prince to restore the synagogue, first built in 1163, and incense for it, and in 1423 he was awarded a high rank in the Life Guards and the purely Chinese name Zhao Cheng 趙誠 .

Thus, the clumsy name Yen Cheng was sloppily extracted by A.Sh. Kadyrbaev and D.V. Dubrovskaya from the Concise Jewish Encyclopedia, where his prototype Yen Cheng came from the Western transcription of Yen Tsheng, which corresponds to Yan Cheng in Cyrillic. You wonder how two professional sinologists failed to correctly transcribe Chinese characters, apparently mistaking them for a Jewish name, although an explanatory dictionary is indicated in the bibliography, vol. 5 (p. 634).

Here we again come to the most unpleasant topic of gross plagiarism, which was also revealed earlier in vol. 2 [Kobzev, 2015, p. 208-209]. As an illustrative example, we can point to the section “Southwestern neighbors: “Land of mountains and snows” Tibet, the Shan principalities of Burma and the Ming empire” (p. 488-493), almost completely and verbatim, but without quotes and references, rewritten by A.Sh . Kadyrbaev from the book by E.I. Kychanova and L.S. Savitsky "People and Gods of the Land of Snows. Essay on the history of Tibet and its culture” (M., 1975, p. 73-85). The obscenity of this activity is exacerbated by its slovenliness. The text contains one quoted quote, but with reference to Vanka Zhukov's manner: “According to Tibetan sources, “the statement that the Chinese emperors of the Ming Dynasty inherited the rights to Tibet from their Mongol predecessors is not historically substantiated” (p. 489). The quotation itself shows what comes not from the original source, but from the research literature. True, for A.Sh. Kadyrbaev, the book by E.I. Kychanova and L.S. Savitsky, where the above phrase is taken from [Kychanov, Savitsky, 1975, p. 76], correctly formatted there with reference to an English-language book by the Tibetan politician and scholar V.D. Shakabpa (1907-1989) . A special piquancy of the situation is given by the mention in another connection of V.D. Shakabpa on the same page of v. 5 and an indication of the Russian translation of his book [Shakabpa, 2003] in the bibliography (p. 631).

With the greatest popularity of kidnapping in v. 5, there are also reverse, but no less shameful cases of throwing other people's children, as a rule, to unrequited authors who have passed away. For example, half of the section “Chinese science in the Yuan era. On the influence of the Mongols and Semu on musical culture China. Calligraphy and painting” (pp. 294-299), standing under the name of V.E. Eremeev, form fragments (pp. 297-299) of articles now alive by N.Yu. Ageeva [Ageeva, 2009, p. 390-396] (v. 5 is missing in the bibliography) and S. Kuchera [Kuchera, 2012, p. 330-336] (in the bibliography of v. 5 on p. 628, the 1st edition of 1972 is indicated). In addition to the bleak picture, this section (p. 299) distorts the surname, name and years of life of the famous poet and calligrapher Xianyu Shu (鲜于樞, 1246/1257-1302), presented as Xian Yushu (1257-1307), although in " Index of Names” (p. 645) his data taken from the encyclopedic index [Spiritual Culture of China, vol. 6, 2010, p. 932], are given correctly, however, with an erroneous reference to p. 578, where there is no mention of him.

In conclusion, regarding the entire 5th volume of the “History of China”, one can repeat the assessment previously addressed to the 2nd volume: “The mountain gave birth to a mouse”, moreover, a “dead mouse” [Extract ..., 2014, p. 606]. The only difference is that in the first case spontaneous hack-work was carried out, and in the second - planned.

Literature

1. Ageeva N.Yu. Chinese folk instrumental music and musical instruments during the Song (960-1279) and Yuan (1279-1368) dynasties // Society and the state in China. T. XXXIX. M., 2009.
2. Blumkhen S.I. Reflections on the first volume of "History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century" // Society and state in China. T. XLVI, part 2. M., 2016.
3. Borovkova L.A. On the struggle of the Chinese people against the Mongol conquest in the middle of the XIV century. // Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe. 2nd ed. M., 1977.
4. Wan Guo-ding 萬國鼎. Zhong-guo li-shi chi-nian-biao (Historical tables of China). Beijing, 1958.
5. Extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Department of China, devoted to the discussion of volume 2 of the "History of China" // Society and the state in China. T. XLIV, part 2. M., 2014.
6. Deopik D.V., Ulyanov M.Yu. History of the main historical and cultural zones East Asia V X-I thousand. BC. in the first volume of "The History of China": Approaches and Concepts // Society and State in China. T. XLVII, part 1. M., 2017.
7. Dmitriev S.V. Reflections on the 2nd volume of the "History of China" // Society and State in China. T. XLIV, part 2. M., 2014.
8. Spiritual culture of China: an encyclopedia. [T. 1.] Philosophy. M., 2006.
9. Spiritual culture of China: an encyclopedia. T. 2. Mythology. Religion. M., 2007.
10. Spiritual culture of China: an encyclopedia. T. 4. Historical thought. Political and legal culture. M., 2009.
11. Spiritual culture of China: an encyclopedia. T. 5. Science, technical and military thought, health care and education. M., 2009.
12. Spiritual culture of China: an encyclopedia. T. 6. Art. M., 2010.
13. History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In 10 tons / ch. ed. S.L. Tikhvinsky. T. I. Ancient and ancient history (according to archaeological data): from the Paleolithic to the 5th century. BC. / resp. ed. A.P. Derevianko. Institute of Archeology and Ethnography SB RAS. M., 2016.
14. History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In 10 tons / ch. ed. S.L. Tikhvinsky. T. II. The era of Zhangguo, Qin and Han (V century BC - III century AD) / otv. ed. L.S. Fractures. Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M., 2013
15. History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In 10 tons / ch. ed. S.L. Tikhvinsky. T. III. Three Kingdoms, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, Sui, Tang (220-907) / holes. ed. I.F. Popova, M.E. Kravtsov. M., 2014.
16. History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In 10 tons / ch. ed. S.L. Tikhvinsky. T. IV. The period of the Five Dynasties, the Song Empire, the states of Liao, Jin, Xi Xia (907-1279) / holes. ed. I.F. Popov. M., 2016.
17. History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In 10 vols. T. VI. Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) / rev. ed. O.E. Nepomin. M., 2015.
18. History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In 10 tons / ch. ed. S.L. Tikhvinsky. T. IX. Reforms and modernization (1976-2009) / ed. ed. A.V. Vinogradov. M., 2016.
19. History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In 10 tons / ch. ed. S.L. Tikhvinsky. T. X. Taiwan, Xianggang (Hong Kong), Macao (Macau), overseas Chinese diaspora / holes. ed. L.M. Gudoshnikov, G.A. Stepanova. M., 2014.
20. Kobzev A.I. Wang Yangming's Teachings and Classical Chinese Philosophy. M., 1983.
21. Kobzev A.I. "History of China" as a Mirror of Russian Sinology // Society and State in China. T. XLIV, part 2. M., 2014.
22. Kobzev A.I. [Rec. on:] History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century. In 10 tons / ch. ed. S.L. Tikhvinsky. T. II. The era of Zhangguo, Qin and Han (V century BC - III century AD) / otv. ed. L.S. Fractures. Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M., 2013 // Vostok (Oriens). 2015. No. 2.
23. Kobzev A.I. Dramas and farces of Russian Sinology. M., 2016.
24. Kontsevich L.R. Chronology of Eastern and Central Asia. M., 2010.
25. Kuchera S. The problem of continuity of the Chinese cultural tradition during the Yuan dynasty // he. History, culture and law of ancient China. Collection of works. M., 2012.
26. Kychanov E.I., Savitsky L.S. People and Gods of the Land of Snows. Essay on the history of Tibet and its culture. M., 1975.
27. Miliband S.D. Orientalists of Russia: XX - beginning of the XXI century: bio-bibliographic dictionary: in 2 books. M., 2008.
28. Russian sinology - oral history. Sat. interviews with leading Russian sinologists of the XX-XXI centuries. / ed. V.Ts. Golovachev. T. 1. M., 2014.
29. Svistunova N.P. The death of the state of the Southern Suns // Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe. 2nd ed. M., 1977.
30. Ulyanov M.Yu. Notes on the new history book Ancient China(on the way to the creation of academic history) // Society and state in China. T. XLIV, part 2. M., 2014.
31. Tsybulsky V.V. The lunisolar calendar of the countries of East Asia with a translation to the dates of the European calendar (from 1 to 2019 AD). M., 1987.
32. Shakabpa V.D. Tibet: a political history. SPb., 2003.
33. The eras of Zhangguo, Qin and Han in the "History of China": discussion and reviews // Society and the state in China. T. XLIV, part 2. M., 2014, p. 462-616.
34. Dictionary of Ming Biography, 1368-1644 / ed. by C. Goodrich. Vol. 1, 2. N.Y., L., 1976.
35. Shakabpa W.D. Tibet: A Political History. New Haven, London, 1967.

• Publisher: M.: Nauka
• ISBN: 978-5-02-039991-4
• Year: 2017
• Quantity pages: 821
• Circulation: 1000

COST: 2 992 rub.

Book Description:

The eighth volume of the publication "History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century" is devoted to the first quarter of a century of the existence of the People's Republic of China (1949-1976). This period begins with the coming to power in the country of the Communist Party of China and ends with the death of Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China Mao Zedong. Already a few years after the formation of the PRC, a number of problems for the restoration and development of the country's economy were solved, and large-scale construction began. This was followed by a decade of searching for a path of development and inner-party struggle regarding the general course of the CPC, a decade of the "cultural revolution", which caused enormous damage to the country's population and enormous damage to the economy. For historians-sinologists, specialists in the field international relations, all those interested in the history and culture of China.

To the Reader (Academician S.L. Tikhvinsky) ………. 5

Foreword (Yu.M. Galenovich) ………. 9

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA in 1949–1960 (V.N. Usov)

Chapter 1. Formation of the People's Republic of China.

First years. 1949–1952………. 19

Proclamation of the People's Republic of China ………. 19

Suppression of the “counter-revolution” ………. 29

Campaign against the "three evils" and "five abuses" ………. 32

“Re-education” of the intelligentsia………. 36

Korean War………. 40

Agrarian reform ………. 44

Economic fundamentals………. 48

Chapter 2. Transition to socialist construction. 1953–1956………. 54

"General line". The Constitution of the People's Republic of China………. 54

First Five Year Plan. 1953–1957 ………. 61

“The Case of Gao Gang – Zhao Shushi” ………. 64

Transformations………. 70

Eighth Congress of the CCP ………. 78

"One Hundred Flowers" ………. 91

"Ordering Style". The struggle against the “right” ………. 98

Policy towards religious organizations ………. 106

Results of the first five-year plan ………. 108

Science, education, culture and art ………. 110

Chapter 3. The Great Leap Forward. 1957–1960………. 118

Preparation ………. 118

Start ………. 121

Economy ………. 142

"The Case of Peng Dehuai" ………. 149

Culture, art and science ………. 158

Consequences ………. 162

Chapter 4. The USSR and the People's Republic of China in 1949–1960. ………. 169

Formation of relations ………. 169

Soviet-Chinese cooperation………. 184

Chinese atomic bomb ………. 192

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THE "SETTLEMENT" PERIOD

Second half of 1960–1965 (V.N. Usov)

CHAPTER 1. Course towards "settlement". Second half 1960–1962………. 199

Search ………. 199

Clarification ………. 222

Efforts to "settle" the economy………. 235

Chapter 2. Collision of tendencies. 1963–1965………. 247

Disagreements………. 247

10th plenum. 1962………. 251

"Four purges" ………. 262

"Preparing for War" ………. 282

“Anti-revisionist” campaigns………. 302

Chapter 3. Culture, education, science and technology. 1961–1965………. 309

Culture, art and social sciences ………. 309

Education ………. 330

Nuclear weapon ………. 339

Chapter 4 Foreign policy China. 1961–1965………. 343

Relations between the USSR and China ………. 343

"CULTURAL REVOLUTION". 1966–1976 (V.N. Usov)

Chapter 1. The first stage. 1966–1969………. 348

Preparation………. 348

Start………. 359

Hongweibings………. 376

"Chaos………. 406

"Seizure of power" ………. 415

"Revolutionaries" ………. 440

“The Case of Liu Shaoqi” ………. 456

IX Congress of the CPC………. 461

Chapter 2. The second stage. 1969–1973………. 467

Strengthening the role of the army and preparing for war ………. 467

“The Case of Lin Biao” ………. 479

X Congress of the CCP ………. 485

Chapter 3. The third stage. 1973–1976………. 496

“Criticism of Lin Biao and Confucius………. 496

"Settlement"………. 512

"Criticism of Deng Xiaoping" ………. 523

"April events" of 1976 ………. 531

Chapter 4. Impact of the “cultural revolution” ………. 539

Culture, education and science………. 539

Foreign Policy of the People's Republic of China and Relations between the USSR and the People's Republic of China ………. 550

Consequences………. 561

Foreign Policy of the People's Republic of China (A.O. Vinogradov) ………. 566

Help Soviet Union(I.N. Sotnikova) ………. 590

Friendship societies (G.V. Kulikova) ………. 620

Sino-Soviet Friendship Society………. 620

Society of Soviet-Chinese Friendship………. 627

Physical culture and sports in China (N.Yu. Demido) ………. 655

Personalities. Political and public figures (V.N. Usov) ………. 669

Chronology of the main events (Yu.M. Galenovich) ………. 746

Index of names (A.A. Verchenko) ………. 793

Index of geographical names (A.A. Verchenko) ………. 806

Selected bibliography ………. 814

You have not selected any issue of the magazine

Rep. editors - d.h.s. I.F. Popova, Ph.D. M.E. Kravtsov (IVR RAS, St. Petersburg).

// M.: "Eastern Literature". 2014. 992 p. ISBN 978-5-02-036530-8

[ annotation: ]

The third volume of "The History of China from Ancient Times to the Beginning of the 21st Century" covers two global historical periods, each of which has played a key role in the history of Chinese civilization in its own way. The first is the so-called period of political fragmentation (or the era of the Six Dynasties), which lasted from the 3rd to the end of the 6th century. During this period, which began after the death of a powerful ancient empire Han, there was a partial conquest of the country by "small peoples" and the transfer of the center of national civilization from the basin of the river. Huanghe's southern regions China (south of the Yangtze). At this time, the formation of Taoism as a national religion and the formation of the Chinese-Buddhist tradition took place, the mechanism of interaction of the Three Teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism) took shape, which led to religious syncretism, which became one of the most specific phenomena of China and the entire Far East. The second historical period covers the Sui and Tang empires, during which the restoration of the political and cultural unity of the country and the establishment of imperial statehood in its qualitatively new version took place. The Tang era is also associated with the strengthening of the administrative and bureaucratic foundations of the Chinese empire and the "golden age" in many important areas of artistic culture (poetry, fine arts, music and dance art).