Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2013, 472 p.

After the publication of A. A. Vigasin's monograph "The Study of India in Russia (Essays and Materials)" in 2008, Russian science was enriched by another fundamental study of India, written by one of the luminaries of Soviet and Russian Indology, L. B. Alaev. The relevance and scientific importance of historiography in general and historiography of Indian history in particular cannot be overestimated: in the context of globalization, informatization and a certain " end of history "(both as a progressive development of society and as a social practice of studying such development), the study of the origins of the formation of a modern scientific picture of the historical past emphasizes the importance of life, evolution as a process, It reveals the zigzags, delusions and fluctuations inherent in knowledge in the relativity of the achieved knowledge, shows the stability of stereotypes in thinking and the importance of the social environment for the formation of historians ' personalities and concepts.

L. B. Alaev begins the monograph with the following injunction::

"The science of history must necessarily look back at itself, analyze the path it has traveled, and be its own judge. Otherwise, the judges come from outside, their trial is not only harsh, but also unfair, because they are not familiar with the efforts that were made to get closer to the historical truth" (p.5, italics by L. B. Alaev).

Here, the current state of historical science is expressed in a concentrated form, the challenges made by modernity to this social practice (profession and type of knowledge) and some assumptions of the author of the monograph are outlined. Today, the Internet devalues the ability to create texts - it is enough to copy and compile fragments of texts already posted on the Web. The Internet creates the illusion of omniscience, when any question, it would seem, can be answered in search engines (Google or Yandex). The Internet, in a sense, blurs the differences between books published today and a hundred or two hundred years ago: they are equivalent for search networks and for users. We can say that it "levels" time, which is the main category of history, because historians study human societies of the past.

History as a social practice is challenged: will it continue in the future? Reducing funding for historical research, spreading near-scientific, pseudoscientific, or even openly anti-scientific literature, including online publications, semi-official recognition of innovations as the meaning of cognitive, scientific activities and a fashionable way of life (you need to "be modern"), blurring the line between the known and the unknown-all this makes the issue as urgent as possible. Blok: "Papa, explain to me why history is needed "[Blok, 1986, p. 6].

L. B. Alaev states that judges come and, in his opinion, their trial is unfair. He believes (and I would like to join him) that there is a historical truth that can be approached. However, we can also remember that each generation writes history anew. And that the result of the observation depends on the point of view of the observer. Then the historical truth for Aurelius Augustine and for the Russian of the beginning of the XXI century are different truths. If we add to this the proposition that knowledge changes the knower himself ("From much wisdom comes much sorrow, and he who multiplies knowledge multiplies sorrow"), then the question arises: can the science of history be its own judge, or is it nothing more than an attempt by a particular researcher to present a set of disparate concepts, practices, and facts as an approximation to that reality? the historical picture that has formed in his head as a result of analysis and which is considered by him at the time of writing the historiographic work as the closest approach to historical truth?

Since the answer to this question may turn out to be dialectical, and the genre of the review requires brevity, I will move on to the monograph. It consists of an introduction, five chapters, " Historiographical Works "(a list of references), and an index of names.

The work is based on the chronological principle. The author identifies four periods in the historiography of India: from the end of the XVIII century to the beginning of the XX century, between the two world wars, the second half of the XX century, and the beginning of the XXI century (pp. 7-8). The following chapters are organized in accordance with them: "Study of the History of India in the XIX century", "Historiography between the two World Wars", "Soviet Historiography of the History of India in the second half of the XX century", "Historical Science of independent India and Pakistan", "The Last"¹. Thus, the chronological approach is combined with the identification of national schools, the first place among which is occupied by the British one in terms of origin. Within the chapters, the national-chronological approach is supplemented by a problematic and biographical one, which seems to be an accurate reflection of the actual study of India conducted by specific people in well-defined historical circumstances, times and countries.

L. B. Alaev excludes the historiography of Ancient India from consideration, referring to the works of A. A. Vigasin [Vigasin, 2002; Vigasin, 2008; Vigasin, 2009], philological, cultural and economic studies (not quite consistently, but always explainably), historical representations and historiography of pre-colonial India (pp. 13-14). The object of study is the study of the history of India in the Middle Ages, modern and modern times. Thus, the title of the monograph is somewhat broader than its content, but "it is impossible to embrace the vast".

Chapter 1 has two sections - "British Historiography" and "The Birth of Indian Historiography". The origin of British historiography is associated with the activities of W. Jones, who founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Bengal). The sections "Early Indian Histories" and "Regional Studies" provide brief reviews of the biographies of colonial leaders.

¹ Perhaps the fifth chapter should have been called "Modern Historiography", although in the light of the trends noted above, its title may be prophetic.

historians and their ideas revolved around questions about the beneficence of colonial power and the status of pre-colonial communities in India.

The paragraph "The emergence of the historiographical phenomenon of the "Indian rural community" " contains the formulation of the idea of such a social institution: it "seems to have existed "from time immemorial," was a completely isolated "microcosm" and represents the original cell of human organization." Unfortunately, the paragraph does not contain a clear statement of the reasons for the emergence of such an idea about the Indian community; instead, it refers to "several biased ideas of British officials of the late 18th and early 19th centuries" (p.51) and sets out the views of G. M. Meng, M. M. Kovalevsky and B. G. Baden - Powell. L. B. Alaev gives a more detailed description of the "Indian community myth" in the section "Karl Marx and Indian History" (pp. 86-87).

The following paragraphs in Chapter 1, "The role of Ethnology and Field Research in British Historiography," "The Development of Archaeology and Epigraphy," and "Coverage of the Indian liberation Movement," show the emergence of empirical research in the second half of the nineteenth century through the biographies of anthropologists, philologists, archaeologists, epigraphists, and journalists, such as R. Caldwell, A. Cunningham, and I. V. Chirol.

The first section of chapter 1 concludes with an essay on Karl Marx, which, along with outlining his views on the Indian community, contains a brief description of the influence of Hegel on Marx's teaching, Marx's theory of formations and the place of the Asian mode of production in the evolution of mankind, Marx's arguments on colonialism and its consequences and on the functions of Eastern despotism. L. B. Alaev rightly emphasizes the possibility of using Marx's works both to criticize and to praise British colonial policy (pp. 94-95) and their contradictory influence on subsequent generations of Marxist historians:

"They not only gave the first Marxists a point of reference in developing their own concepts of pre-colonial and colonial development of the country, but also caused them a lot of trouble, because many of Marx's beliefs about the Asian order, both in the past and in the present, were unacceptable to nationalist or anti-imperialist ideology, and they had to be hushed up" (p. 96).

Second section The Birth of Indian Historiography is necessarily brief and biographical. It describes the activities of the writer B. Chottopadhyay, the historians R. G. Bhandarkar and V. Kanagasabhei, and the political figures D. A. Chottopadhyay. Naoroji, R. C. Datta, Sayyid Ahmad Khan, although it is said that there are many books on the history of individual dynasties, the main features of which can be considered the predominant attention to the chronology of reigns, genealogies of kings, idealization of rulers, and especially conquerors who thought "about the unity of India", ignoring the specifics and unhistorical perception of societies of the past (p. 103).

Chapter 2, "Historiography between the Two World Wars," opens with a brief section on British historiography, describing the Cambridge History of India and the writings of W. H. Moreland on the economics of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. The second section "Indian Historiography" describes the life and work of historians of that time, first of all J. Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, the emergence of Muslim historians, in particular M. Habib. In a separate paragraph, the historiography of South India is highlighted, represented by the names of K. V. Subrahmanya Ayyar, S. K. Ayyangar, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and others. Another paragraph in this section concerns the study of the liberation movement and the emergence of the official history of the Indian National Congress by P. Sitaramai.

The final section of this chapter - "Soviet Historiography" - is significantly more detailed than the previous ones, despite the author's admission: "The formation of the school can only be attributed to the late 40s-early 50s" (p. 149). The works on India published in the interwar period are characterized by partisanship, i.e., by fighting the class enemies of the Soviet government and following the guidelines of the CPSU (b) and the Comintern. The first paragraph, "Political Problems of modern Times", describes the life and works of M. N. Roy, A. Mukhardzhi (archival material of the Russian State Academy of Natural Sciences and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences is introduced in relation to him), A. Savdar, M. Pavlovich (M. V. Veltman), V. A. Gurko-Kryazhin, D. Nagiyev, R. A. Ulyanovsk, A. E. Snesareva. It was A. E. Snesarev who "knew Indian history like no one else in the USSR at that time", and future luminaries of Oriental studies A. M. studied with him. Osipov and A. A. Huber. Separate sub-paragraphs of the paragraph include discussions about the role of M. Gandhi, the study of the workers 'and peasants' movement, and problems of colonial policy.

The second paragraph of the section "First attempts to address the pre-colonial period" describes the activities of the" founder of the school of Soviet historical Indology " I. M. Reisner (p. 186), whose efforts began the study of modern times in India (Mughal Empire), E. A. Belyaev and G. I. Safarov.

Chapter 3, "Soviet Historiography of the History of India in the second half of the XX century", as well as Chapter 4, occupies a leading place in the monograph. L. B. Alaev notes the "huge step forward" made by Indology (p. 191), which was reflected in a significant expansion of research topics, various discussions in the conditions of the Khrushchev "thaw", the addition of scientific schools. At the same time, science remained a "scientific and political phenomenon" (p.196). V. V. Balabushevich, Head of the India Department of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, was an outstanding organizer of science in the 1950s-1970s.

The chapter's paragraphs are devoted to specific problems. The first of them tells about the turn in the characterization of the Indian national bourgeoisie caused by the XX Congress of the CPSU-from denying it any progressive role to recognizing its duality: it is both progressive and reactionary. At the same time, Soviet historians began to recognize the positive role of M. Gandhi. The next section provides "Assessments of the colonial policy and economic relations of the mother country and colonies", including recognition of the complex foreign-national character of the Indian and Pakistani bourgeoisie (V. I. Pavlov, S. F. Levin), and a biography of A. I. Levkovsky. The section "Problems of the National Liberation Movement" mainly consists of biographies of A. M. Dyakov, P. M. Shastitko, A.V. Raikov and Yu. V. Gankovsky who were engaged in them. At the end of the paragraph, L. B. Alaev states:

"After the publication of the New History of India [1961] and the Modern History of India [1959], the interest of Russian indologists in the colonial period sharply decreased... The new cadres focused either on the study of modernity or on the Middle Ages" (p. 219).

"The study of spiritual processes", like other research areas, went primarily through class analysis, identifying progressive and reactionary forces, along with recognizing the sometimes complex nature of certain spiritual processes.

The section "Studying the political process in independent India" describes the works of A. I. Chicherov, E. N. Komarov, and A. G. Volodin. At the same time, the author, speaking about the contradictory assessment of the development of independent India - both successful, progressive, and reactionary due to the development of private entrepreneurship and concessions to it from the authorities, calls the situation "schizophrenic" (p.227). This medical term is unfortunate. First, the question remains: did the authors themselves recognize this ambivalence and inconsistency? Secondly, we need to look for an explanation for the fact that in Soviet culture contradictory judgments were found quite regularly in the same texts. In fact, the law of the excluded third party did not apply (Paperny, 2006).

The section "Studying the economic development of independent India" is devoted to the formation of the idea of the dual nature of the Indian economy in the works of A. P. Kolontaev, discussions on the agricultural development of India between G. G. Kotovsky, G. A. Schmidt (with their biographies) and V. G. Rastyannikov, and assessments of the role of the public sector in the development of the Indian economy. The section "The problem of the level of development of India in the early Modern period" shows the opposition of two main concepts: the absence of the rudiments of capitalism in India on the eve of the colonial conquest (K. A. Antonova ², V. I. Pavlov) and their folding (A. I. Chicherov). Brief biographies of these researchers are given.

The section "The problem of the rural community" traces the transition from dogmatic adherence to the views of M. M. Kovalevsky - K. Marx on this institution (R. A. Ulianovsky) to awareness of the uniqueness of the Indian community (M. K. Kudryavtsev, L. B. Alaev) due to regional research and the use of sociological works by foreign authors. The section "The problem of land ownership" describes the works of K. Z. Ashrafyan and M. K. Kudryavtsev. Only the author vainly reproaches M. K. Kudryavtsev for rejecting the concept of feudalism in medieval India and "did not offer a name for the system he imagined" (p.286) - on p. 277 it is said that he "put forward the idea of a "communal mode of production" in ancient and medieval India". Thus, if we consider the method of production as the basis for determining

² Reviewing the 1952 book by K. A. Antonova "Essays on Social relations and the Political system of Mughal India in the time of Akbar (1556-1605)", the author gave a reference to the section by I. M. Reisner in "World History" (p. 250).

If we are talking about the social system and/or formation, then we should talk about the communal system (whatever that means). But this is clearly out of place from the well-known primitiveness, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, communism and is formed by analogy with the "Asian mode of production", which was and remains for many a designation of the social system of the Eastern countries in the pre-capitalist era. The section "Studying the Early Medieval period" is devoted to the activities of A.m. Osipova, E. M. Medvedeva and Yu. Ya. Tsygankova.

It is surprising that with such a thorough review of Soviet historiography, l ...B. Alaev never mentioned the final monograph of K. A. Antonova, G. M. Bongard-Levin and G. G. Kotovsky "History of India (A Short sketch)" (1973), which was repeatedly published in English and many other languages.

Chapter 4, "The Historical Science of Independent India and Pakistan," opens with a general description of post-war historical science, which tends to "rewrite history" as opposed to colonial British scholars, and to view Indian history from an Indian point of view, as exemplified in the 10-volume History and Culture of Indian People edited by R. C. Majumdar. "History of India" by N. K. Sinha and A. C. Bansrji3, "Review of Indian History" by K. M. Panikkar are analyzed. After that, the Marxist historiography of India is described (R. P. Dutt, D. P. Mukherjee, Muhammad Habib, Sushobhan Sarkar).

The first paragraph "Study of the Early Medieval period" captures the peculiarities of national historiography: anti-historicism, traditionalism, descriptiveness, exaltation of the pre-colonial past, partisanship. The section "Discussions on Feudalism in India" covers the works of prominent Marxist historians D. D. Kosambi and R. S. Sharma and their followers, as well as their opponents, in particular D. C. Sircar and X. The Mukhis, who, unlike Kosambi and Sharma, denied the applicability of the term "feudalism" to Indian history. The section "South Indian Studies and discussion of the state" is devoted to the concept of the segmental state by B. Stein, its criticism, the use of statistical methods in the study of South Indian epigraphy (N. Karashima, I. Subbarayalu, T. Matsui, S. Talbot, G. Kulke), and discussions on the role of cities (K. Karashima, I. Subbarayalu, T. Matsui, S. Talbot, G. Kulke). Hall, R. Champakalakshmi, N. Karashima), University of Kerala (c. Pillai, M. G. S. Narayanan, and K. Veludath).

The second section "The Study of the Late Middle Ages" begins with a description of the life and works of representatives of the" Aligarh " Marxist school, in particular K. M. Ashraf, I. Habib, M. Athar Ali and S. Nurul Hassan. After the biographical part, the history of mutual influence of the Soviet and Indian historical schools is briefly described, although their "mutual enrichment... it didn't happen" (p. 352)⁴. The discussion about the level of development of India on the eve of the British conquest, or "the problem of the XVII century", is described in detail, the main question of which boils down to whether there was a decline in the economy and what is the role of colonial rule in the history of the Indian economy.

The third paragraph, " A study of the colonial period and the national liberation movement," shows how biased the perception of this era is in India. The idea of a colonial tribute allegedly levied by the British has become almost commonplace. The Sepoy uprising of 1857-1859 is controversial: it is presented as either progressive, reactionary, national, or a combination of heterogeneous processes (sepoy rebellion and popular uprising). The activities of terrorist revolutionaries are "presented as heroic" (p. 367). L. B. Alaev describes in detail the Struggle for Freedom series, which, under the pen of Tara Chand, glorifies radicals, in particular B. G. Tilak, and condemns M. K. Gandhi and Muslims. Local (state) histories of the" Freedom Struggle " either find its origins in the Mauryan era (Orissa), or include among the irreconcilable fighters all representatives of the era who were actually loyal subjects of the British authorities. The change of power in India leads to the persecution of dissidents, as the example of S. Sarkar and K. N. Abramovich shows. Panikkar, who prepared a collection of documents on behalf of the Indian Council for Historical Research, which showed that Hindu organizations "interfered in every possible way with the' struggle for freedom ' "(E. 371). Nationalists and Marxists see colonialism as the source of all the ills of independent India, and nationalism as a regenerating force. On the contrary, the" Cambridge School " of sci-

³ The date of N. K. Sinha's death - 1974-was omitted, and the name of Bansrji-Anil-became Ltul (p. 294).

⁴ L. B. Alaev meticulously records the mention of works and names of Soviet researchers by Indian ones, primarily the works of A. I. Chichsrov and V. I. Pavlov (pp. 358-360, passim).

Indian nationalism itself melts away as a child of the colonial era, noting its superficiality and lack of independence.

A separate paragraph is devoted to the" Pakistani Historiography of the History of India", whose common features are the emphasis on the progressiveness of Islam and Muslims, the historical predetermination of the division of British India, and significant ideologization, expressed in the silence of the events of the independence era, which is also characteristic of Indian historiography.

The section "Subaltern Studies" covers the works of historians, in particular R. Guha, who consider it possible and necessary to study the role and actions of subordinates (p.379), subordinate groups of the population as an independent driving force of history.

The section "Indian History of Modernity" essentially covers what is not there: "The period of independence has never been the subject of historical research" (p. 390). Here are presented the views of political scientists, sociologists and economists on the development of the Republic of India (the latter, in contrast to the rest of the monograph, anonymously-pp. 394-396).

Chapter 5 has an ominous title - " The Last." It covers how to "Study the History of India in other countries" throughout the 20th century (USA, UK, Germany, Japan)⁵ and "Post-Soviet Historiography", which is a list of studies with a brief description of them, and "The Fate of History in India". This paragraph is most significant for understanding that historiography is a social practice. L. B. Alaev states that "the fate of history as a science in India remains under threat" (p.428) due to the gradual strengthening of religious fundamentalists, or communalists - adherents of Hinduism, Hindutva. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which was in power in 1998-2004, also belongs to them. In India, the historical consciousness is thoroughly imbued with the religious myths of Hinduism, which "cannot be criticized" (p. 418), otherwise you will be accused of anti-patriotism, and which excludes the rationalistic version of history: "the Indian public does not need historical truth", and " historians, i.e. people who are trained to study sources and analyze them rationally, form a narrow a stratum that does not enjoy authority" (pp. 426-427).

It must be admitted that historical truth is not needed by anyone except historians - historians of the Western European type, supporters of the rationalistic procedure for criticizing sources and advocates of establishing "how it really was". A. Dugin in his 2009 book recorded a systematic transition to a new paradigm of thinking - postmodernism (A. I. Neklessa wrote about this on the pages of the magazine "Vostok"), but hardly many historians seriously thought about what was actually happening.

We can talk about the mythologization of thinking, the new Middle Ages, the struggle between progressive and reactionary forces, the victory of obscurantism, and similar phenomena and concepts. Behind them lies a fundamental fact of modern culture - the loss of science (and philosophy in its Western European understanding) of the status of the highest form of knowledge. Once a methodologist of science, Paul Feyerabend, remarked that in science, any method is applicable - " Anything goes "(everything works, everything fits). In fact, it turned out that "everything fits" not only in science, but also in any field of activity (just turn on the TV or the Internet to make sure of this). Postmodernism has long begun to fight against any hierarchy, declaring it "fascism" (in order not to be unfounded, I refer to the works of J. Deleuze and F. Guattari). Science as the highest form of knowledge ceases/has ceased to be considered as such by both the authorities and pop culture.

Such devaluation threatens history/historiography more than practically oriented sciences. The story does not bring immediate material benefits, i.e. money. History makes us doubt the eternity of any social institution or their system. History shows that there are no only positive and only negative characters, but there are just people with all their inherent qualities. History interferes with apologetics and mythology.

⁵ The absence of France may be explained by the fact that French historians did not deal with the issues of the Indian community, the level of development of the country before and during the British conquest, and even more so with the medieval history of South India - the main topics of L. B. Alaev's research. However, the history of the French East India Company is very important for studying the "dark eighteenth century" (Haudrerc, 1989; Haudrerc, 2006).

History shows that the main value of postmodernism is the idea of complete liberation from any hierarchy, which in turn forms a different hierarchy in the form of a ban on any hierarchical categorization. Therefore, history is under threat not only in India, but all over the world.

Returning to the monograph of L. B. Alaev, I have to state that there are some annoying omissions in it. Almost none, with the exception of M. K. Kudryavtsev, Leningrad / St. Petersburg historians, in particular S. A. Maretina and I. Y. Kotin [Maretina and Kotin, 2011]. Of course, we can say that they are primarily ethnographers, but I. Y. Kotin also wrote books on Islam in India, Sikhs, and others. [Kotin, 2005; Uspenskaya and Kotin, 2007]. The reviewed publication is saddened by the lack of summary in English, editing, as well as a small print run (200 copies).

Some formulations in the monograph are not accurate. Thus, according to L. B. Alaev, the Bolshevik slogan "the right of nations to self-determination up to secession ""contributed to the collapse of the Russian Empire during the Civil War" (p.146). It would be necessary to write to the former Russian Empire, since as early as September 1(14), 1917. The Provisional Government proclaimed the Russian Republic, so the Russian Empire did not exist during the Civil War (regardless of whether its beginning was connected with the October Revolution of 1917 or with the uprising of the Czechoslovak Corps on May 25, 1918).

The spelling of some names is perplexing. So, the author of the History of British India, James Mill, is the father of the famous philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill, but the reader of the reviewed work will not even think about this, since the historian's surname is written Mill (p.22, passim). The name of Bentham's utilitarian philosopher Jeremiah is rendered as Jeremiah (pp. 22-23). This, of course, is consistent with the rules of the English language, but Russian has its own well-established spellings, and you don't need to change them. Double spelling of the surname of the Scottish thinker D. Riccardo and Ricardo (p. 23, approx. 12; 25). The surname Cunningham is passed on to Kashshngham (p. 43), although Joseph Davs was the elder brother of the famous Taxila-finding archaeologist Alexander Cunningham (listed in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary under the surname Kenningham) (for whom see pp. 69-73) and the writer Peter Cunningham.

These remarks do not in any way detract from the merits of the monograph. It is without exaggeration fundamental, and any subsequent study of India without acquaintance with it is unthinkable, at least for a scientist of the Western European type of rationality. This is entirely due to its author, whose work always awakens thought.

list of literature

Llok M. Apologiya istorii, ili craft istorika [Apology of History, or the craft of a historian]. Note: and an article by A. Y. Gursvich. 2nd ed., additional Moscow, 1986 (Monuments of historical thought).

Vigasin A. A. Istoriografiya istorii Drevnoi Indii [Historiography of the history of Ancient India] / / Historiography of the history of the Ancient East: Iran, Central Asia, India, China / Ed. by V. I. Kuzishchina. SPb.: Alstsya, 2002.

Vigasin A. A. Studying India in Russia (essays and materials). Moscow: MSU, ISAA, publisher Stspansnko, 2008.

Vigasin A. A. Ancient India // V. I. Kuzishchin,A. A. Vigasin, M. A. Dandamasv et al., Istoriografiya istorii drevnogo Vostoka: V 2-x g. Vol. 2, Moscow: Vysshaya shkola Publ., 2009.

Dugin A. Postfilosofiya [Postphilosophy]. Tri paradigmy v istorii mysli [Three Paradigms in the History of Thought]. Moscow: Evraziyskoe dvizhenie, 2009.

Islam in South Asia. Saint Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie-Azbuka Publ., 2005.

Maretina S. A., Kotin I. Y. Tribes in India. St. Petersburg: Nauka Publ., 2011.

Papsakov V. Kul'tura dva [Culture of Two], Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2006.

Sikhism, St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie-Azbuka Publ., 2007.

Haudrcrc, Philippe. La Compagnle francaise des lndes au XVIII ^e siecle (1719-1795). P.: Librairic dc l'lnde, 1989.

Haudrcrc, Philippe. Les Compagnies des lndes orientales : Trois siecles de rencontre enlre Orientaux el Occidentaux (1600-1858). P. : Dcsjonqucrcs, 2006.

Permanent link to this publication: