On January 26, the section on the history of the USSR up to the XIX century discussed the layout of the course on the history of Moldova (part I, chapters up to the XIX century, sections I-III).
The discussion was opened with an introductory report by the Minister of Public Education of the Moldavian SSR A. M. Lazarev.
The Moldovan people, A. M. Lazarev pointed out, did not have their own written history until now. This task became possible only after the formation of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. A. M. Lazarev drew attention to the lack of monographs and studies on the history of the Moldavian people. The small literature available is mostly of a nationalistic nature and covers issues in a biased manner, even denying the very existence of the Moldovan people. Biased, and so are most sources. The commission working on the history of Moldova course had to overcome these difficulties. "In its work," says A. M. Lazarev, " the commission was guided by the instructions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism on the history of peoples, as well as the comments of I. V. Stalin, S. M. Kirov and A. A. Zhdanov on the summary of the textbook of the history of the USSR.
Much attention is paid in the course to the question of the ethnogenesis of the Moldovan people. Having correctly posed in special chapters the problem of the autochthonous nature of the ancestors of Moldovans and the Slavic roots of the Moldavian people, the author of these chapters V. M. Senkevich did not fully support his position with specific historical material. This was noted by a corresponding member. Academy of Sciences of the USSR M. N. Tikhomirov, A. N. Nasonov, N. G. Berezhkov, V. T. Pashuto, I. U. Budovnits, F. A. Grekul.
V. T. Pashuto drew attention to the fact that V. M. Senkevich calls the Volokhs the ancestors of Moldovans and contrasts the latter with the Slavs. This juxtaposition is unfounded and contradicts the sources ' data. The claim that the ancestors of Moldovans were Romanized Volokhs should be recognized as incorrect. V. T. Pasuto proposed to replace the term " Romanized Volokhs "with the term"Slavic-Moldavian elements".
I. U. Budovnits pointed out that the author builds all the arguments solely on linguistic material, without involving archaeological, ethnographic and anthropological materials.
Corresponding member. M. N. Tikhomirov of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR also noted the paucity of the cited historical data.-
historical facts to substantiate the hypothesis about the ethnogenesis of the Moldavian people. The course mixes questions about the origin of Moldovans with questions about the origin of Romanians. It is not clear what the Scythians have to do with Moldovans.
Editors of the History of Moldova course corresponding member. A.D. Udaltsov and Professor L. V. Tcherepnin agreed with the instructions of the speakers that the question of the ethnogenesis of the Moldavian people cannot yet be considered settled. To solve this problem, A. D. Udaltsov said, the most accurate archaeological material is needed, and the territory of Moldova is only just beginning to be studied archaeologically. The Institute of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences is working on solving this problem, and an expedition has already been organized to study the history of the Transnistrian Slavs.
The course puts forward a thesis about the entry of Moldavia into Kievan, then Galician and Galician - Volyn Rus in the X-XIII centuries. Unfortunately, numerous sources supporting this correct statement were not used. V. T. Pashuto pointed out many of the data available in sources on the history of Galician Rus and not used by the author.
V. M. Senkevich unsatisfactorily describes in the course the economic development, political system and culture of Galician Rus of the XI-XIII centuries. Many of the sources that provide information on these issues are not used by the author. The international significance of Galician-Volhynian Rus ' has remained completely overlooked. The scanty data provided by V. M. Senkevich contains many factual errors.
The exposition of the history of the XIV-XVIII centuries did not raise any fundamental objections from the speakers (I. U. Budovnits, A. A. Novoselsky, I. I. Meshcheryuk, B. B. Kafengauz, E. I. Zaozerskaya, P. K. Alefirenko, T. K. Krylova, N. V. Ustyugov), but many particular shortcomings were noted: uneven distribution of data on cities, on the state of handicrafts, the peasantry, and culture in certain periods. B. B. Kafengauz and P. K. Alefirenko pointed out the lack of specific historical material on the state of serf manufacture in the XVIII century. The correct thesis about the origin of capitalist relations in the eighteenth century is not sufficiently concretized by actual data. There is absolutely no data on the population size in the eighteenth century, no description of peasant allotments, etc.
All the speakers recognized the correct solution to the problem of periodization of the history of the Moldovan people. The only objection was raised by T. K. Krylova. She suggested that the beginning of a new period should be considered the 70s of the XVII century, the time when Turkish aggression intensified. Since Krylova was rightly opposed by I. V. Bereznyakov (author of the XI chapter) and N. V. Ustyugov. They believe that the foreign policy factor is not decisive in determining the periodization. The line chosen by the author-the beginning of the XVIII century, the period of Phanariot domination-is more correct, since this period is associated with a further increase in economic oppression.
M. N. Tikhomirov and I. I. Meshcheryuk consider the lack of information about Moldova's relations with Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and other Balkan countries to be a disadvantage. This problem, which has not only scientific but also political significance, should be covered in the history of Moldova course.
Many comments were made about errors of style and inaccurate wording, sometimes distorting the essence of the issue.
*
On January 27, the IV, V and VI sections of the history of Moldova course were discussed at a meeting of the History of the USSR sector of the XIX - early XX century.
Sections covering the social and political movements and culture of the 19th century, as well as the economy and culture of the early 20th century, were considered weak and require a lot of refinement.
V. K. Yatsunsky, L. M. Ivanov and L. V. Cherepnin in their speeches noted that the economic situation of the country at the beginning of the XX century. it is not covered specifically enough.
According to V. K. Yatsunsky, the course completely ignores the dynamics of agricultural production, does not address the issues of capitalist rural growth during the Stolypin reform, and does not provide data on the agricultural markets of Moldova and their relations with the markets of Russia.
L. M. Ivanov drew attention to the lack of factual material in covering the history of Moldova at the beginning of the XX century. The question of the connection and friendship between the Moldavian and Russian peoples during the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905 has completely disappeared, and there is no material on the struggle of the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks in 1905. The issue of friendship between the Moldovan and Ukrainian peoples has not been touched upon at all. The biggest drawback of the course L. M. Ivanov considers the lack of a chapter on the culture of Moldova at the beginning of the XX century. Fuzzy is aware of many formulations.
According to L. V. Cherepnin, the weakest section is devoted to the period 1907-1917. There is almost no material specifically related to the history of Moldova.
B. P. Kozmin, K. V. Sivkov, V. K. Yatsunsky, L. M. Ivanov, and L. V. Cherepnin have raised many objections to the chapters devoted to the social movement and culture of the XIX century.
In the course, B. P. Kozmin said, the correct position is put forward that in the 19th century Romanian culture and social thought developed under the direct influence of the Russian revolutionary movement and Russian advanced culture. But this provision does not find sufficient justification. There are very few concrete facts of this influence, and the available ones are inconclusive. -
However, the exact assessments of Moldovan cultural figures are not always kept up to date. Thus, the public face of the Moldovan writers Creande and Stamati-Ciurea is unclear.
L. M. Ivanov noted that the beneficial influence of advanced Russian culture on the Moldovan one is depicted in the course superficially and simplistically. It refers only to those writers who lived on the territory of Moldova or wrote about it. Meanwhile, this influence was much deeper, and it should be not only about the external, but also about the internal cultural connection.
V. K. Yatsunsky and K. V. Sivkov pointed out the need for greater clarity in the wording when covering cultural issues of the XIX century.
L. M. Ivanov also considers the lack of a section" on the formation of the Moldovan nation " to be a disadvantage of the course.
V. K. Yatsunsky considers the principle of territorial division of Moldova incorrect for the 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus, Budusak, which is mentioned in the course, was never part of Moldova, and Khotyn Uyezd, which belonged to Ukraine,was not part of Moldova.
K. V. Sivkov and A. M. Stanislavskaya, who made a critical analysis of the chapters on foreign policy, recognized them as correct, but made a number of specific factual comments.
The discussion showed that the layout of the history of Moldova course can generally be considered satisfactory. The task of authors and editors in preparing the course for publication is to provide more detailed arguments for the propositions put forward, provide more factual material, and correct factual and other errors. The chapters on the ethnogenesis of the Moldavian people and the formation of feudal relations need to be radically revised.
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
 |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
 Moldovian Digital Library ® All rights reserved.
2019-2025, LIBRARY.MD is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Moldova |
|
US-Great Britain
Sweden
Serbia
Russia
Belarus
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Estonia
Russia-2
Belarus-2
