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

In 10 volumes, Chief editor S. L. Tikhvinsky.

Vol. II. THE ZHANGUO, QIN, AND HAN ERA (V century BC-III century AD)

L. S. Perelomov, Moscow: East Lit., 2013. 687 p., ill.

A complete description of Chinese history in China itself has a history of more than two thousand years, beginning with the great work of Sima Qian (II-I centuries BC): "Shi ji "("Historical Notes"), the first complete Western translation of which was published in Russian (vol. 1-9 / translated by R. V. Vyatkin, V. V. Yushin). S. Taskina, A.M. Karapetyants et al., Moscow, 1972-2010) (for details, see: Vyatkin, 2010, pp. 333-339; Kozhin, 2012, pp. 160-167). In the West, serious attempts to translate the Shi Chi and describe the entire history of China began in the 19th century, culminating in the publication of the 15-volume Cambridge History of China (The Cambridge History of China; by 2009, 13 books had been published with the Cambridge History of Ancient). China, 1999). In Russia, the first brief general essays on Chinese history began to appear in the 1920s and 1930s. The achievements of Russian sinologists were most fully and systematically reflected in the 6-volume encyclopedia " Spiritual Culture of China "(Moscow, 2006-2010), and historians-first of all in vol. 4 " Historical Thought. Political and Legal Culture "(Moscow, 2009) (for details, see: [Archive of Russian Sinology, vol. I, 2013; Zhanguo, Qin and Han Eras..., 2014, pp. 462-615]).

The next equally large-scale project was the ten-volume "History of China from ancient Times to the beginning of the XXI century" edited by Academician S. L. Tikhvinsky, three volumes of which (2nd, 7th and 10th) were published in 2013.

Volume 2, which opens this series, is almost entirely a compilation of the works of Soviet Sinologists of the 1960s and 1980s, of whom Tros has already died: N. N. Cheboksary (1907-1980), N. T. Fedorenko (1912-2000), I. S. Lisevich (1932-2000). The main body consists of incoherent excerpts from a very small number of books: [Perelomov, 1962; Perelomov, 1982; Kryukov et al., 1983; Malyavin, 1983; Lisevich, 1979; Titarenko, 1985]. All these works belong to qualified specialists and are distinguished by scientific quality. The only trouble is that they were written in the paradigm of ideologized and underinformed Soviet science, were based on factual data from half a century ago and reflected only a small part of the achievements of not only world, but even domestic sinology and not only today, but also their time.

To the credit of these authors, it must be said that small inclusions in the volume of new models are significantly inferior in quality to their products, which, in turn, is a degraded version of their previous publications. The idea of turning scientific texts into popular science has clearly failed due to poor tools - their simple abbreviations and elimination of footnotes and footnotes. As you know, writing a good popular science book is much more difficult than writing a good scientific book, because it also requires literary talent. Here, however, it was all reduced to primitive scissors work, and even then it was done sloppily. Places where names, proper names, and terms that are no longer clear to the reader in the saved texts were first introduced with translation, dating, and explanation were often shortened. But the footnotes are not completely removed and sometimes refer to publications that are not listed in the Selected Bibliography (see, for example, pp. 42, 43, 49, 50). The volume would look good as another almanac of the Archive of Russian Sinology.

With the genre of the almanac, it is also related to the freedom, if not to say haphazardness, of architectonics. Historical chapters that are not proportional to each other and their object are interspersed with thematic ones, and where it is difficult to separate one from the other, metaphorical titles are used

page 193
(like "Battle of the Titans" with the full ambiguity of the concept of "titans"). The chronological sequence is also not all right. For example, after the historical and thematic sections on the Qin and Han eras, a chapter on Zhanguo literature suddenly appears, even though this era before them was described five hundred pages earlier. At the same time, only 14 pages are devoted to two and a half centuries of its history, and of these, the last two are prehistories of the Qin Empire, 100 pages are devoted to two decades of which, that is, 7 times more. The opening part of Part 1 of "Battle of the Titans" includes only one chapter on history and four chapters on philosophy, which were supposed to fall into a completely different section - spiritual culture, as it was done for the rest of the periods. There is a part with this title (Part 5), but already at the end of the book, and it covers only "everyday aspects of spiritual culture", and the language and literature (in an inadequate presentation) are transferred to the next part (Part 6), as if they, like philosophy, have nothing to do with spiritual culture. In the chapter "Legalism"is inserted a paragraph about the Confucianist Mencius. Art, mythology, religion, science, and law are probably, in the opinion of the compiler (executive editor), generally outside the history of China, since this volume is not presented in any way.

Therefore, its comparison with the corresponding volume of "Ancient China" by L. S. Vasiliev (vol. 3, Moscow, 2006) is completely lost, where, in addition to the above, the political history of the most important kingdoms is presented in a differentiated way, which directly reveals the meaning of the designation "Struggling Kingdoms" (Zhanguo), and also the ancient Chinese mentality and its cardinal transformation within the framework of the concept of a global axial time, which would also be very useful in this volume, which presupposes the inclusion of China in world history. Even sadder is the comparison with Cambridge History, where Volume 1 (1986), devoted to the Qin and Han eras, contains more detailed sections not only on political, social, and economic history, but also on law, religion, mythology, philosophy, and pedagogy. Wang Chun, Zou Yang, Yang Xiong, Huan Tan, Wang Fu, religious Taoism and Buddhism, which, alas, our "History" cannot boast of, although there are publications about all this in Russia, and in the volume itself there are phrases about the flourishing of the cults of Lao Tzu and Buddha in the Han era (p. 316). This is especially surprising when compared with the simultaneously published volumes of the same "History of China": in volume 7 there is an appendix" Biographies of famous figures", and in volume 10 each part ends with the section"Personalities". This inconsistency is not good in itself and is clearly not in favor of volume 2.Its composition is characterized by an asymmetry: the description of Zhanguo is mainly devoted to philosophy and its history, while the description of Han, on the contrary, is mainly devoted to history without any attention to philosophy.

With such gaping gaps, 53 pages, i.e. 4 times more than the entire Zhanguo period, are devoted to Confucius, who, according to the chronology adopted in the volume, does not belong in it at all, since he lived in the previous Chunqiu period. The place belongs to Confucianism, but there is no chapter on it. This anachronism can only be explained by the professional interest of L. S. Perelomov himself, who is considered one of the leading Confucian scholars in Russia. At the same time, the author's competence did not prevent him from making an extremely dubious and self-contradictory statement in the very first lines of the chapter on Confucius, where he is placed "on a par with the founders of world religions: Jesus Christ, Buddha and Muhammad" (p. 26), because the next two pages are devoted to proving the non-religious nature of Confucianism, in which "there was never neither a personified deity nor an institution of the church" (p. 26), and describing its creator as an "earthly man" rather than a prophet. What was the original statement for? Only to refute it later? Would it not be more reasonable, as is customary in science, to compare Confucius with the first philosophers, and not with the prophets or even the gods?

Similarly contradictory are the characteristics of the main work of Confucianism - "Lun Yu". On the one hand, this "literary work" is said to be different from the Bible (p.26), and on the other hand, it is said to be similar to "sacred books, be it the Bible, the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita" (p. 27). However, both the difference and similarity are completely untenable. The difference is that "Lun yu ""was bound to be known down to every hieroglyph by any educated person" (p. 26), and the similarity is that "the Teacher's personality is at the center" and the monument "carries the charge of teaching" (p.27). In the traditional Christian world, "any slightly educated person" was also required to know by heart the Bible texts of at least "Lun yu" (about 16,000 characters), and the "teacher's personality" is at the center not only of sacred books, but also, for example, the "Pedagogical Poem" of the atheist A. S. Makarenko, and there is a "charge of teaching" in "Doctor Aibolit" or "Moidodyr" by K. I. Chukovsky. It's strange to remind an authoritative sinologist,

page 194
that the fundamental difference between "sacred books "and" literary works " is inspiration, and their heroes are gods, not people. L. S. Perelomov's fundamental lack of understanding of the specifics of the holy Book was clearly manifested in the translation of "Lun yu", from the Introduction to which the considered provisions are taken and repeated (Perelomov, 1998). It is preceded by a frivolous epigraph: "In memory of our kayaking friends... and also, unfortunately, A. B. Altshuler, who did not swim with us." Is it possible to imagine such lines before translating the Bible or the Koran? In the latter case, the author would face the fate of S. Rushdie or French humorists.

Further, on the one hand, he claims that "Lun yu" is the "judgments" (lun ) and "conversations" (yu ) of Confucius, written down and compiled by students, which is why the title of the treatise should be translated as "Judgments and Conversations" (p. 26), on the other hand, he agrees with the opinion of the academician According to N. I. Konrad, "Lun Yu" is "not a record of 'judgments and conversations'", but an "internally monolithic" and "specially processed ""literary work" (pp. 26-27). The Soviet academician is right, but not in the interpretation of L. S. Perelomov, who saw the unity of "Lun yu" in the presence of a single hero Confucius (p. 27). A single hero can also be found in "notes on the cuffs" or "motley stories". The specific integrity of" Lun yu " is indicated by its very name, which includes the term lun , but not as a homogeneous term with yu , but as its definition. This important methodological term in Russian sinology was studied in detail by V. S. Spirin, who defined it as a "summing conclusion" [Spirin, 1976, p. 146], and Yu. L. Krol, who defined it using a quote from Wang Chong, who also included lun in the title of his work ("Lun heng", ch. 83) - as a "dispute" involving a clash of two " (races)of judgments, so that "it is clear which is fair and which is not" "[Spiritual Culture of China ... Vol. 5, 2009, p. 972].

It is noteworthy that the prerequisite for the correct understanding of the title and translation of "Lun Yu" is contained in the volume under consideration, where another author (unfortunately, not specified by M. V. Sofronov) provides evidence from the biography of Yang Xiong in "Han Shu", according to which he "considered" Lun Yu " to be the main work among the legends and therefore wrote "Fa yan" ("Exemplary Speeches")" (p. 541). The translation of the name "Fa yan", where the analog of lun -fa is the definition of the analog of yu -yan , should serve as a hint for the grammatically correct translation of "Lun yu". A more accurate reading is also suggested by the translation of Lun Heng adopted by another author as "Scales of Judgments", and not "Judgments and Weighings" (p. 624). Comparison with even closer analogues, first of all " Guo yu "("State Speeches") and " Kung-tzu jia yu "("Confucius Family Speeches"), definitely confirms the grammatical connection of the hieroglyphs in the title "Lun yu", where lun is the definition, which is different from the translation by L. S. Perelomov to yu. Hence, taking into account the indicated semantics of lun, the variants of an adequate translation follow: "Discussed speeches", i.e., "Discussed speeches".e. specially selected speeches by students, or "Speeches [containing] judgments [in dispute establishing the truth]", i.e. "Polemical speeches", or" Reasoned/theoretical/conceptual speeches", since in Chinese philosophy lun is an analog of the Western terms "reasoning", "theory" and"concept".

On the whole, Chapters 2 and 3 of Part 1, which belong to L. S. Perelomov, are nothing more than exact copies of the first three chapters of his 2007 book Confucianism and the Modern Strategic Course of the PRC, the core task of which is not to adequately describe the historical reality of two thousand years ago, but to " promptly explain to the mass reader what is meant by the officially proclaimedbuilding socialism with Chinese characteristics "in the author's opinion, the construction of Confucian market socialism is taking place" (abstract).

In connection with expressions about the "charge of teaching" or the "traditional matrix of succession", I recall the advice from the Russian classics: "Arkady, don't speak beautifully!". Why are there some unknown "titans"? It would be better to simply clarify and unify the terminology, for example: noble husband-shi (p. 11) or jun-tzu (p. 46, 321), tse-passing certificate (p. 21) or credential tag (p. 23), tao-chia-Taoists (p. 10) or Taoists (p. 118), ming-chia - school of logicians (p. 126) or nominalists (p. 110), Gongsun Lun - Confucian (p. 33), or nominalist (p. 110), fa-chia-legists (p. 78) or lawyers (p. 109) Xiao Gong or Xiao gong, since the Ching-gong, Ai-gong, etc. (where gong is "prince"; see index), etc., because the untrained reader is not obliged to conduct an investigation, identifying one with the other, and may not know that the " son of Heaven "(p. 15) is the emperor, the "Huaxia man" (p. 15). 9) a Chinese, and Kung-tzu (p. 31) or a Teacher ( p. 9) is Confucius.

But explanations of terms are often inaccurate, incomplete, and confusing. For example, the most important socio-cultural category of shi is covered with fog. In addition to the fact that it was translated several times-

page 195
However, when the book contains contradictory words and phrases: "noble husband" and "ideal bureaucrat", "warrior or petty official" and "scribe", "servant" and "proto-intellectual", etc., its interpretation suffers from a clear logical imbalance. One author (L. S. Perelomov) first says that "it was in the Han era that the Shi culture was formed" (p. 11), and then - that this "new social stratum" appeared in the VIII-VI centuries BC and in the VI-III centuries BC "joined in active intellectual activity" (p. 11). 28), i.e. it formed its own culture long before the Han. Another author (V. V. Malyavin) immediately shocks the reader with mutually exclusive statements: "medieval historians did not see the division into Shi and commoners in Han society at all" and "the term "shi" was a common self-designation of the upper Han society", respectively attributing to the Shi cultural tradition "universality of a truly "oceanic " scale" and "elite exclusivity" (pp. 320-321), and then an unexpected statement about "the formation of shi ideology... as a process of rationalization of archaic religion" (p. 321) makes this culture even more ancient than L. S. Perelomov, who linked it to the Han era with reference to him (p. 11). It is unlikely that the inexperienced "Russian public", which the editor-in-chief focused on in the ten-volume book (p.5-6), will be able to understand such intricacies.

When describing the bibliographic categories of "Qi lue" ("Seven Categories/Compilations") it is written: "works on the art of divination shu shu, works on the technique of Fang chi" (p. 549), although the section of shu shu includes not only mantics, but also science and philosophy: mathematics, astronomy, astrology, natural philosophy, mythology, various types of occultism, and fang chi -medicine, pharmacy, erotology, alchemy, magic. By the way, the spelling of the terms here does not correspond to the previous one (cf. shu shu, zhu zi and dao jia - separately, and Huaxia, fazia and mingjia-together). The author's (M. V. Sofronov's) explanations are not only inaccurate, but also contradictory. In particular, he writes that in the affirmative sentence of the ancient Chinese language, "there is no bundle that somehow indicates existence. In a negative sentence, the conjunction "not to be" is used, indicating the absence of existence" (p. 520). This linguistic asymmetry is hard to believe. Unlike Indo-European languages, in which the verb "to be" has a special grammatical and semantic role, which simultaneously acts as a universal copula and the highest ontological category, and therefore assumes the existence of the affirmed and the non-existence of the denied, in Wenyang both affirmative and negative sentences do not indicate either the existence or its absence. The contradictory judgment is explained: 1) a free interpretation of the word faye as a copula, although it could only be a negative particle with an affirmative copula, and there is no such thing, and 2) a practically valid, but theoretically incorrect translation by means of the negative form of the verb "to be" (with the particle "not", which can correspond to faye), which carries the idea of existence. An elementary replacement of the translation "not to be" with "not to be" immediately eliminates false associations. Wordfei really only reports that something is not a carrier of some attribute or an element of some set (or that the statement of this is false, since its nominal meaning is "false"), and not about the existence of something.

On pages 623-627, I. S. Lisevich, with the participation of L. V. Stezhenskaya, repeatedly mentions and quotes, but does not mention by name, the treatise of Yang Xiong, and earlier (p.541) three of his works were indicated, so the reader is left confused in three pines. The reason is simple: this chapter is mechanically transferred from the book of I. S. Lisevich [Lisevich, 1979], where the title of the mentioned treatise of Yang Xiong was reported earlier. Evidence of a superficial and mechanistic attitude to the texts used is often found. In particular, the same Yang Xiong is called a "rationalist philosopher" in the "Chronology of Some Major Events" (p. 644), although it would be enough to cite the title of his main work-"The Canon of the Great Mystery" ("Tai-Xuan Ching") to doubt this characteristic of a philosopher who represented the world as a Great Mystery. And this assessment arose not as a result of philosophical or sinological incompetence, but simply inattention. I. S. Lisevich constructed two adjacent sentences in such a way that he used instead of the name of Wang Chong, his permanent epithet of that time "rational philosopher" could be understood as referring to the mentioned Yang Xiong (p. 625), from which, apparently, this definition was forwarded to the "Chronology".

Even the executive editor's Introduction, which by definition assumes extreme accuracy of wording, contains both anachronism and alogism, namely: the phenomenon of "the last centuries BC" is confirmed by a quote from Confucius, who lived in the middle of the 1st millennium BC.,

page 196
and it is said that "Rome was interested in Han products" with reference to Tiberius ' edict banning Chinese silk (pp. 9-10). Very curious is the origin of these absurdities. There is a peculiar sense of humor in the fact that two-thirds of the Introduction (p. 8-10) verbatim reproduce the Conclusion from the Ancient Chinese... [Kryukov et al., 1983, p. 361-364]. L. S. Perelomov copied word for word, but without quotation marks, two sections of the Conclusion whose authorship is not indicated there for some reason, but which probably, they belong to the pen of M. V. Kryukov. In a couple of places, L. S. Perelomov showed a creative initiative, in particular by inserting a quote from the Confucius dear to him, which turned out to be an anachronism that was absent from the original source. In the case of silk, the effect of alogism was reversed by reducing the source text from the same source [ibid., pp. 126-127].

The collective Conclusion of the volume is no better, where, contrary to the Chronology (p. 643-644) and Chronological Tables (p. 649-650), which determine the duration of the Han Era in 410 years (206 BC - 8 AD, 25-220) with a break of Xin (9-25) or a maximum of 426 years without it, it is stated that "The 600-year history of the Han Empire " (p. 639). There's nowhere else to go, just go to the 1st grade to study arithmetic. I wonder how the "Russian public" would react to a report in the academic "History of Russia" about the 500-year rule of the Romanovs? The piquancy of the situation also lies in the fact that the authors of such a Conclusion identified four doctors of sciences (L. S. Perelomov, M. V. Kryukov, M. V. Sofronov, V. V. Malyavin), although, apparently, the above passage belongs to L. S. Perelomov personally, who did his colleagues a disservice. Such a blunder, apparently, really has the character of a child's calculation of 3 + 3 = 6 based on the dating "III century BC-III century AD" (p. 635), from which the sum of six centuries was obtained, which differs from the real one by almost two centuries.

The simple-minded carelessness of handling numbers is also indicated by the dating of "Qin and Han (III century BC - IV century AD)", which differs from reality by 100 years, given on the same page 635, where the end of Han is marked with the III century AD, and the too loose rounding (p. 641) in the Afterword 673 years of the Zhanguo-Qin-Han era up to "almost a millennium", although this number is clearly closer to half a millennium. With such unabashed calculations, shortening the life of Cao Cao (155-220) by at least two decades by assigning it only to the second century without specifying the exact dates of birth and death (p. 622) seems child's play, although it can significantly distort the idea of the role of this "military hegemon" in the collapse of the Han, since his last act is also dated II century-196, after which it is written: "In 220, the Emperor Hsien-di abdicated in favor of Cao's son Cao-Cao Pi. Thus ended the Han Dynasty era. In the next half-century, the country was divided into three states, and this period in the history of China was called the "Three Kingdoms "" (p. 257). It turns out that one of the main characters of the historical Three Kingdoms and its literary reflections was not involved in it, having left the scene in the last II century.

Even Chronological tables, the whole point of which is correct dating, contain an unforgivable fundamental defect for historians - in the column "Years of government", as a rule, inaccurate dates are indicated, for example: Hui-di (by the way, not unified with the writing of Hui-tzu or Hui, which contains the same hieroglyph; cf. pp. 343, 675) 195-187 instead of 195-188, Gao-hou 187-180 instead of 188-180, Wen-di 179-156 instead of 180-157, Jing-di 156-141 instead of 157-141, Wu-di 140-87 instead of 141-87, etc. (p. 649). Apparently, the authors themselves did not trust these tables too much, since the Chronology gives the correct dating of Wu-di 141-87 (p. 643), in the Conclusion-a more accurate Wen-di 179-157 (p. 636), and in the main body it is directly stated about the death of Hui-di in 188 (p. 240) and gives the following data: the correct dates of the reigns of Wen-di (180-157), Jing-di (157-141), and Wu-di (141-87) (p. 241), etc., are not just a matter of carelessness, but a systemic error resulting from the confusion of real terms of government with their official fixations, marked, in particular, by the mottos of the board (nyan-hao). Moreover, this error is easily noticed by carefully viewing the Chronological tables themselves, which contain the column "Mottos of the board". The extreme dates in it completely coincide with the dates in the "Years of rule" column, which is contrary to common sense, since mottos were announced at the beginning of the year, as evidenced by the literal meaning of the term nyan-hao - "annual symbol", and the rulers left the throne at different times, not necessarily by the new year. All these errors could have been easily avoided with the help of the excellent reference book by L. R. Kontsevich (Kontsevich, 2010), which the authors were not allowed to skip and did not mention in the bibliography.

After that, I don't even want to talk about the widespread confusion in the designation of dynasties and states in the volume, which is present even in the Table of Contents, where the "Qin Empire" is adjacent

page 197
with the "Han Dynasty", although Qin and Han are one-order concepts. For the unsophisticated reader, phrases like: "Liu Bang, becoming the ruler of Han... he created a dynasty of the same name" (p. 240). The same name to what: his surname Liu or the name of the state of Han? If the latter, then why him, and not his surname, and why then is it a dynasty, and not an empire, and what does the expression "Han emperor" mean (p. 241; cf.: "Romanov emperor")?

Such terminological, factual and simply logical sloppiness is completely unacceptable in a popular publication designed for a wide range of readers. Less blatantly disrespectful to the reader is expressed in the fact that from him, as from a small child, they hid unsophisticated details of important historical events. For example, the fact that Lu Buwei may have been the natural father of Qin Shi-huang, who forced him to commit suicide, and Lao Ai, who was attached to the Qin queen, gained her favor and power in a special way-due to his phenomenal sexual power (the ability to turn a tung tree wheel on a huge oud) combined with the fictitious status of a eunuch ("Shi ji", tsz. 85) [Sima Qian, T. VFI, 1996, pp. 298-299]. Instead, the reader, who was protected from obscenities, was told in a teacher-like and simple way that the creation of the Qin Empire by fire and sword "was a progressive step in the history of Chinese society" (pp. 24-25). Such a style is vicious not only in itself, but also as it contradicts the modern deepening of historical knowledge in everyday specifics.

Although not classified as a spiritual culture, but placed in the first place, philosophy is presented just as incomplete and inadequate. The main feature of the initial period of development of Chinese philosophy and, in fact, its golden age was the " rivalry of a hundred schools "(bai-chia cheng-ming ), noted already in Chuang Tzu (ch.33). Among them, authentic classifications ("Xun-tzu", ch. 6;" Chuang-tzu", ch. 33;" Shi chi", ch. 130;" Han shu", ch. 30) identified ten or at least six (lu-sho , lu-jia ) main directions of philosophical thought however, instead of all this rich palette, only four schools of the Zhanguo period are partially described, and the philosophy and religion of the Han era are not independently covered at all, although it was then that such fundamental new formations as official Confucianism, religious Taoism and Buddhism appeared in this area, as a result of which the spiritual basis of all traditional China appeared in the form of these " three exercises " (San-jiao ).

However, after the chapter on Taoism of the Zhanguo period, such abstinence seems to be a blessing. Even a lapidary statement on this topic: "At the beginning of the second century BC, Taoism became the most popular teaching at the court and in the country in general, which at that time was usually called the teaching of Huang-Lao (abbreviation of the names of the emperor and Lao-tzu)" (p. 241), reveals a fantastic ignorance, namely, the idea that the binomial Huang-Lao includes the hieroglyph huang means "emperor", while in fact it is his homonym - "yellow", meaning Huang-di-the Yellow Emperor. This confusion also works in the opposite direction, i.e. huang-di - "the august emperor-the first ancestor" is identified with Huang-di, as, for example, on p. 197, where in the same quotation the binomial huang-di is presented both as Huang-di and as huangdi (emperor), and in the same quotation the binomial huang-di is represented as both Huang-di and huangdi (emperor). In the Index of Names, Huang di (the Yellow Emperor) is associated with this page, but not with page 241, where he is actually adjacent to Lao Tzu (p.675).

Against the background of such illiteracy, it is no longer necessary to go into the essence of the matter, which consists in the fact that in the chapter "Taoism" (p. 116-137) it is identified with the early ("philosophical") teachings of the "Tao - te ching" and "Chuang tzu", or "proto-Taoism", and the teaching of Huang-tse is called "Taoism".Lao is not mentioned at all, although it is referred to as the "unification of Taoism", or "unification of various Taoist trends into a single tradition" in the Han era (pp. 136-137). By the way, Taoism and pro-Taoist trends are two different things that should not be confused, since one wonders whether Han Taoism was formed from various variants of early Taoism (Proto-Taoism) or a much wider range of teachings that had only common features with early Taoism. The sloppiness of the publication also suggests a pseudoscientific effect of a banal spelling error-the reduction of "Proto-Daos directions" to "pro-Daos". If what is printed reflects the author's intention, it should have been clarified and coordinated with the text of another author (V. M. Mayorov) about the teachings of Huang-Lao, which in reality is not just Taoism, as he wrote, but, on the contrary, an alternative to the early version of Taoism, a synthetic current that equally absorbed the provisions of legism (fa-chia), the "school of names" (ming-chia) and the "free school [of eclecticism]".encyclopedia]" (za-jia) [Spiritual Culture of China, vol. 1, 2006, p. 487]. It was thanks to the effective management technology of legalism integrated by him that it gained the indicated, but not explained, special popularity at court.

page 198
Focusing on the "Tao te nzin" in the chapter "Taoism" also did not guarantee against inaccuracy and incompleteness. Let's take its general description for example: "Compositionally, the Tao te Ching consists of 5,000 characters and 81 chapters; often the text is divided into the Tao Ching ("Book of Tao") and the Te Ching ("Book of Te"), although the discovery in the 70s of the last century in Mawangdu The most ancient lists of the Tao te Ching show us a different breakdown of the text" (p. 119). First, the reader is disoriented by the translations "The Book of Tao" and "The Book of Te", which are inexplicably and significantly different from the one presented in the previous paragraph - "The Book of Tao and Te". Secondly, 5000 characters is not a real volume of text, which varies from 4999 to 5748 characters, but a conditional formula that goes back to Sima Qian ("Shi ji", ts. 63: "five thousand plus words") [Sima Qian, vol. VII, 1996, p. 38]. Third, it is not clear what is meant by"a different breakdown of the text". It was the Mawangdu manuscripts that confirmed Sima Qian's earlier but not generally accepted division of the "Tao-te ching" into two parts, although in a different sequence: first about te, then about tao, but nothing is said about this. They also confirmed the validity of the division into 81 chapters(zhang), and a different division at this level was revealed much earlier, for example, by Wu Cheng (1249-1333) and Wei Yuan (1794-1856/7), who divided the text into 68 zhangs.

The statement about the author of the Tao te Ching that precedes this quotation is completely unintelligible: "As for the authorship attributed to Lao Tzu (mentioned in Li chi as the Teacher of Confucius), the semantics of the very name Lao Tzu-the Old (or Venerable) Sage" (p. 119). First, in Li chi (ch. 5/7), it is said only that Confucius helped at the funeral of Lao Dan and received advice from this obscure character, whom not all commentators identify with Lao Tzu, which, in particular, was noted by J. R. R. Tolkien. Legg [The Li Ki, p. 325, n. 1] and would be worth noting here. By the way, in this section on the Tao te Ching, Lao Tzu is called Li Er, but not Lao Dan, and there is no identification of the two in the entire volume. Secondly, it is well known that the semantics of the name Lao Tzu is based on the oxymoron Old Child and the corresponding legend of his birth as an elder. Third, the name Old (or Venerable) Sage does not imply the authorship of the Tao te Ching, otherwise, according to this logic, it would imply the authorship of all ancient Chinese classics. Lao Tzu as the author of the "Tao-te ching" is attested by its original name "Lao Tzu" and the statements of ancient authors, especially Sima Qian. Fourth, the traditional dating of Lao Tzu's life in the sixth century B.C., adopted here and confirmed on page 610, was already doubtful by Sima Qian, who assumed that he was identical with the fourth-century B.C. Tai-shi domain historian Zhou Dan ("Shi ji", tsz. 63) [Sima Qian, Vol. VII, 1996, p. 39], and even more so it raises doubts among modern scientists (for details, see: [Kobzev, 2010, p.131-137]). In the chapter on Taoism, the Tao te Ching is assigned to the fourth century BC, thus being stripped of the authorship of Lao Tzu and recognized as later than Chuang Tzu, and the life of the philosopher who gave it its name is dated to the "end of the fourth and middle of the third centuries BC" (p. 119, 125). With such statements, the "Tao-te ching" should be attributed to the third or, at the very least, to the end of the fourth century BC, but such an anachronism is in the general series of happy non-observation of hours, years and centuries in this "History", as will be discussed later.

Deviations from the main topic in the chapter on Taoism are like careless steps in a minefield. Ming-chia is referred to here as a "school of logicians", not "nominalists", as in the previous chapter (p. 110), or the "school of names" as it should be, and from this very erroneous translation, as in the case of Lao Tzu, the conclusion is drawn about " consistency, analyticity... its founder, Hui Shih, has a strong propensity for strict, logically grounded discourse, often resulting in pure formalism", although before this, his paradoxes are quoted, such as "The sky is on the same level as the earth" or "Yue has no border and still has a border", and the characteristic given to him in Chuang Tzu: "His teaching was fanciful, and his speeches led astray" (pp. 126-127). Such mind games are at best suited for medieval realism, rather than ancient Chinese "nominalism", although the Hui Shi paradox or Gongsun Long's "Chicken has three legs" can be interpreted " realistically "as a recognition of the ontological equality of two physical legs with the word"leg". Of course, there is no pure formalism or pure logic in relativistic paradoxes, just as there was no such thing in the entire philosophy of traditional China. Therefore, her discovery here should be recognized as a failure of the next "ontological proof".

Some statements about science are equally unfortunate. In particular, instead of at least a brief story about the first full-fledged in China and the most perfect in the world at that time "calendar [years] The Great Beginning "(Tai-chu li , 104 BC), in the development of which Sima Qian participated, it is reported only that under the Han emperor Wu-di "was introduced

page 199
a new calendar with the beginning of the year from the first month" (p. 244). What can this meaningless phrase, the meaning of which is hardly clear to the author himself, give the reader? In which system is "first" and does it correspond to January? You may even get the impression that before that, as at the spaceport, a countdown was being conducted. It is not for nothing that one of the authors was a staunch supporter of the idea of ancient Chinese contacts with extraterrestrials (see: [Lisevich, 1981, pp. 68-82]).

First of all, the above is a truism, since all calendars in the world start from the first month. Another thing is that the specificity of the ancient Chinese calendars was the identification of the first, or rather the initial, or" guiding"," head "month (zheng-yue , zheng-sui, sui-shou ) of the tropical year (hui-gui-nian) with different lunar months in the system of 12 "earth branches" (di-zhi ). According to Sima Qian, in the Xia era, the month of Yin (3rd) was considered the starting month, under Yin-chou (2nd), under Zhou-tzu (1st), under Qin, as under the first ancestor / emperor (di) Zhuan-xu (grandson of Huang-di), hai (12), and under Wu-di, as during the ancient reign of Xia, yin (3) became the first again. Thus, it made more sense to say that the new calendar began with the 3rd (yin) month, and not with the 12th (hai), as under Qin, and not with the 1st (zi), although its introduction determined a rare coincidence at the beginning of the middle (second) winter (chung-tung) of the month of tzu 105 B.C. winter solstice (tung-chih ) with the first day of the 60-day cycle - chia-tzu (December 25), the designation of which includes the" earth branch " of Tzu. But since the choice of the starting month in Wu-di has become a tradition, the starting months of other calendars can be indicated relative to the yin month as the first, then, for example, it turns out that in the previous Qin era, the year began with the tenth month. Without taking these relations into account, everything gets confused, and the reader will only be perplexed if you read in addition the comment of the translators of Shi Ji: "According to the views of the ancients, each dynasty began counting the year in its own way: the house of Xia - from the 13th moon, the house of Yin - from the 12th moon, the house of Zhou-from the 11th- th of the moon... After founding the dynasty, Shi Huang decides to move the beginning of the year to the moon under the sign of hai - i.e., to the 10th moon "[Sima Qian, vol. 2, 2003, p. 346, note. 75] 1.

By the way, the modern Western correlation of seasons with the numbering of months, in which winter begins with the 12th, and spring-with the 3rd month, is identical to the ancient Chinese marking of "moons" with "earth branches", but not to the more harmonious and established in the Far East principle of the Xia-Han calendar, according to which winter begins with 10spring-from the 1st month, in our calculation floating in the range from January to March and most coinciding with February, i.e. the 2nd month. Such explanations are not only necessary in themselves, but also correspond to the general idea of the volume, where "Chronology of some major events of the fifth century BC-third AD" (pp. 642-645) correlates Chinese history with world history.

Given the general looseness of the volume's architectonics, it is not surprising that more detailed data about the Tai Chu calendar pops up after 250 pages in the chapter "Folk Culture". Putting them under this heading is not just disorderly, but erroneous, since we are talking about the court sphere of elite science and state ritual, controlled by the emperor himself. What kind of folk culture is there? It seems that the text explicitly states that the calendar "was reformed in 104 BC by Wu-di" (p. 496), i.e., by the emperor, and not by the masses or barefoot astronomers. It is possible to accept his interpretation as a people's emperor, like the people's princess Lady Di, but there is no evidence of such a breadth of views in the volume. Sloppiness is also distinguished by the information provided, and not just their location. First of all, on one page it says that "the text of the calendar dated this year has come down to our days", and on the next - "it can be judged by the extant calendar dated 63 BC" (pp. 496-497). It goes on to say that the latter differs from another calendar of 134 BC (p.498), which is also indicated on the previous page (p. 497). Thus, in the section " Fundamentals of the Han calendar "(pp. 495-496), only one calendar of 104 BC is named (although without its name Tai-chu), and in the next paragraph "Twenty - four seasons of the year" (pp. 496-498), two others appear-134 and 63 BC., and the relationship between them is not clear. As a result, instead of information about the existence of two more Han calendars: Si-fen 85 and Qian-xiang 206, misinformation is given about two imaginary ones-134 and 63 BC.

1 For explanatory information, see: [Spiritual Culture of China, vol. 5, 2009, pp. 148-149; Ageev, 2012, pp. 226-227; Kontsevich, 2010, pp. 34-37, 130, note 11].

page 200
In addition, a special feature of the U-di calendar of 104 BC is the introduction of "24 seasons of the year", which for some reason under the changed name "24 periods of the year" are immediately presented in Table 10 (p. 497). However, contrary to the previous statement that the Emperor Wu-di "introduced a new calendar with the beginning of the year from the first month" (p. 244), the "period/season" of dong-zhi ("winter solstice") and the 11th (winter) month are the first to appear in it, and not, as usual, the "winter solstice". it should be li-chun ("the beginning of spring") and the 1st (spring) month (cf.: [Spiritual Culture of China, vol. 5, 2009, p. 151]). Therefore, it is difficult for the reader to understand that the holiday of the beginning of Spring described at the beginning of the next paragraph "Beginning of Spring" is nothing more than a New year's holiday. The reason for all this confusion is again simple - thoughtless rewriting from an old book of 1983, which in this case was based on a journal publication of 1974 [Kryukov et al., 1983, pp. 248-252] with all its shortcomings and even spelling errors, thanks to which the calendar of 104 BC, as Lieutenant Kizhe, was elevated to the next rank of the older calendar 134 BC

It would be very useful to explain the meaning and symbolism of choosing a particular month as the starting month. During the reign of Wu-di, it was associated with a large-scale religious reform, described in detail by Sima Qian (Shi Ji, ch. 12) [Sima Qian, vol. 2, 2003, pp. 254-285] and in recent years studied by M. E. Kravtsova, V. N. Bargacheva, A. A. Manucharova and V. V. Bashkeev (see: [Spiritual Culture of China, vol. 2, 2007, pp. 656-657; Process of formation..., 2012, pp. 317-324, 336-339; On the Way beyond the Chinese Wall, 2014, pp. 480-481]). However, the phrase about the calendar is preceded only by a vague passage without any dates: "Wu-di climbed Mount Taishan and made sacrifices to Heaven and Earth there. Ancestral cults and the order of sacrifices to various spirits were unified" (p. 244). For comparison, let's turn to the noticeably different original: "The day of the winter solstice, which fell on the day under the signs of chia-tzu (December 25, 105), coincided with the first day of the eleventh moon, and scientists who were engaged in calculating the calendar took this date as the basis [for calculations]. The Son of Heaven personally arrived at Mount Taishan, and since the winter solstice coincided with the first of the eleventh moon under the signs of Chia Tzu, he offered sacrifices to the supreme lord in Mingtang Hall, but did not build altars to Heaven and Earth. At the sacrifice, the following eulogy was uttered: "Heaven has once again granted the Sovereign Emperor wonderful divination sticks for calculating the Great Beginning. The circle ended, and a new one began. I, the Sovereign Emperor, respectfully bow to the spirit of the Great One-Tai-yi "" ("Shi ji", ch. 12) [Sima Qian, vol. 2, 2003, pp. 280-281].

The most important religious and political event, which resulted in the introduction of a new system of state cults, in particular the Great One (Tai- i), the establishment of new rituals and temples, reflected the formally archaizing change of the complex of symbols of the beginning of winter, i.e. the month of meng-dong of the "earth branch" hai (12), as the initial one in the annual cycle. a complex of symbols of the beginning of spring, i.e. the month of meng-chun of the "earth branch" yin (3). The first corresponds to the north, water, black color, the first ancestor-Emperor Zhuan-xu and other correlates of the element of water, and the second-to the east, blue-green color, the oldest first ancestor / emperor Fu-xi and others correlates of the tree element [Liushi chunqiu, 2001, pp. 71-72, 153-154].

Identification of the Qin rule with water was based on the theory of the cycle of mutually overcoming (mutually conquering - xiang-sheng , xiang-ke ) five elements (primary elements - wu-xing ), set out in the Qin encyclopedia " Lu-shi chun qiu "(XIII, 2) (see translation by R. V. Vyatkin and G. A. Tkachenko: [Ancient Chinese philosophy, vol. 2, 1973, p. 300; Liushi chunqiu, 2001, p. 183]). There, the Xia era was associated with wood, and the Zhou era was associated with fire, which is overcome by water, which in turn is overcome by soil (in an inaccurate translation: earth). Accordingly, the accession of Qin instead of Zhou was interpreted as the victory of water over fire, which also required moving the beginning of the year to the subordinate first winter month of hai ("Shi ji", ch. 6) [Sima Qian, vol. 2, 2003, p. 63]. The Han rule established after Qin should have been identified with the soil, as Sima Qian repeatedly wrote (Shi Ji, ch. 26, 96) [Sima Qian, vol. IV, 1986, pp. 109-111; Sima Qian, vol. VIII, 2002, pp. 166-167; cf.: [The process of formation..., 2012, p. 321; Bilsky, 1975, p. 291], or with a tree, according to the calendar of the Great Beginning. But the literary chapter of I. S. Lisevich says otherwise: "The Han Dynasty, which succeeded the house of Qin Shi Huang, denied only the "cosmic" claims of the "usurper", but not the theory itself - on the contrary, it was further developed under it. It has become customary to associate the reign of the Han with the element of fire, the reign of the next Wei dynasty with the element of earth, etc. " (p. 610). In the original version [Lisevich, 1979, p. 209], this text is based on a quote from the imperial edict given in the historical work of the Wei dignitary Yu Huan (III century) "Wei

page 201
lue" ("Essay of Wei") and preserved in the encyclopedia "Tai-ping yu-lan" [Tai-ping yu-lan..., vol. 1, 1960, p. 85].

This gives rise to a whole series of questions that were not noticed by the creators of the volume. First, the edict presents a different identification of Han-not with soil, but with fire. Secondly, the resulting sequence "water-fire-soil" does not indicate the development, but, on the contrary, a violation of the very theory of the cycle of mutually overcoming elements, since it refers to a different order (in our nomenclature, the 4th main or the reverse of the 5th main; for details, see: [Kobzev, 1994, p. 287-338]). And also, in the previous paragraph, with reference to " Kung-tzu jia yu "(II c. B.C.-III century; here the title is incorrectly translated as "Sayings of the Disciples of Confucius", although the Spiritual Culture of China (vol. 2, p. 113) gives a more correct translation of the same I. S. Lisevich - "Home Teachings of Confucius"), also, according to" Tai-ping yu-lan" (in the same place)), it is said that "the change of rulers and dynasties since ancient times occurred in accordance with the alternation of the elements of wood, metal, water, fire and earth", i.e. the order is already given in full (in our nomenclature - the reverse of the 5th main one), which contradicts the theory of mutual overcoming. Third, it is not clear how to interpret the binding of the Han calendar to the element of wood. In fact, behind this discord is a complex historical reality that is not understood and not covered in the volume, namely, the intense ideological struggle in Ancient China for the application of the five elements doctrine (wu-hsing), special articles about which are published in three volumes of " Spiritual Culture of China "(vol. 1, pp. 451-457; vol. 2, pp. 110-113; vol. 5, pp. 803-825).

In a strange way, these materials were ignored when describing exactly the era when this teaching flourished and became a worldview paradigm. It is even more surprising that neither I. S. Lisevich, nor L. V. Stezhenskaya, who edited his text, nor L. S. Perelomov, who edited it, noticed that both quotations from "Tai-ping yu-lan" reflect the same order of elements, although the compilers of the encyclopedia understood this and put them side by side. They may even be genetically related, since the obscure origin of the treatise "Kung-tzu jia-yu" was edited, and according to some assumptions, compiled by the Wei dignitary Wang Su (195-256). According to both texts, the order of elements popularized under the Wei rule (220-265) is found in various variations not only in the authors of the previous Han era (Dong Zhongshu, Ban Gu, Wang Chong), but also earlier - in the "Lu-shi chun qiu", i.e. it is synchronous to the order of overcoming, and in the "Kun-shi Chun qiu".tzu jia yu " was elevated by Confucius to Lao Dan (Lao Tzu). Our study revealed its great structural significance in the complex system of interrelations of the five elements as one of the four main system-forming orders (for details, see [Kobzev, 1994, pp. 311-312]). The specifics of the natural philosophical semantics of this order remained unclear, but the reconstruction clearly showed its structural connection with the element of the tree as the initial element [ibid., pp. 312-315, 385-386, ch.66-68], which directly corresponds to the ideological meaning of the spring beginning of the year in the Tai-chu calendar.

Since the executive editor accepted A. Toynbee's comparison of the Zhanguo period with the twentieth century (p. 27) and linked the Zhanguo-Qin-Han era with Chinese modernity in the Afterword (p. 641), even writing a little comically about the "traditional succession matrix" embodied in the slogans of the 18th CPC Congress (2012), it would be appropriate It should be noted, for example, that the proclamation of the People's Republic of China obviously did not happen by chance on the first day of the tenth month of 1949, thus revealing the continuity between Mao Zedong and his beloved tyrant Qin Shi-huang long before the excesses of the "cultural revolution", the exaltation of the odious emperor and the struggle against Confucianism.

The system of worldview canons (jing ), which developed in the Han era and determined the specifics of Chinese spiritual culture, education, and public administration, is also presented very sparsely and one-sidedly in the chapter on language, writing, and philology (pp. 537-538), although there are excellent studies of its formation in Russian literature up to its subsequent transformation into a "Thirteen-Canon". Nothing intelligible is said about the philosophical and general ideological content of such canons as "Shu Jing", "Shi Jing", "Li ji" and "Zuo Zhuan", fundamental encyclopedic treatises as "Guan tzu", "Lu-shi chun qiu" and "Huainan Tzu", although they are fully or partially translated into Russian and thoroughly studied here.

Even the Chinese Book of Books is the Canon of Change ("I Ching" or "Zhou yi") is ignored, although it has already been translated into Russian only five times, and a whole school of I Ching has developed in domestic Sinology, while in world Sinology the largest discoveries of recent decades are associated with its study. However, this does not seem to be the worst, since

page 202
its accidental mention on page 598 in the section "Language and literature" is accompanied by continuous errors. In particular, it says: "The concept and, which was included in the title of the "Book of Changes"and was identified in the letter, as B. Karlgren suggests, with the image of a lizard or chameleon, denoted variability." First, such an exposition is illiterate. The name includes not a concept, but a word, and denotes not a concept, but a word that was not identified with the image of a lizard, but was etymologically erected to it, and not by Karlgren, but by Xu Shen in" Sho-wen tse-tzu " almost 19 centuries earlier, and Karlgren only joined this point of view. in 1940, with reservations. Secondly, this Old Testament etymology has long been rejected by science, and the original one has been repeatedly published in our literature (for example: [Spiritual Culture of China, vol. 2, 2007, pp. 147-148]).

Further, a certain essay "Ducks of Change" ("Yiwei") is quoted. However, this designation refers not to one, but to several works, and the quote given by the author belongs to "Qian Zuo du" ("The [Celestial]Penetration System Creativity"): "And is lightness (the same and but in a different sense. - A. K.), change and change (byan- i) and immutability (bu- i)." Instead of an adequate translation of the definition on page 598, there is some nonsense: "Changes are changes, changes in changes and immutability." Below is an equally fantastic translation of a phrase from the Xi-chi chuani (a section of the "Canon of Changes", not the "treatise"), where the unambiguously understood (in the text there is its definition: "leaving and coming without restriction is called penetration") hieroglyph tun ("penetration") is interpreted as "constancy". Moreover, from his own translation: "with change [comes] constancy (tun)" - the author managed to draw a conclusion that is directly opposite to the sequence reflected in it: "the stage of constant quality - tun - can, in turn, be considered as a kind of preparatory period for the subsequent change - bian." And all these ambiguities, errors and alogisms are only on one page.

And there are a lot of such pages. Earlier (p.537), the "I Ching" was described with a brevity worthy of better application (a paragraph of 11 lines) and completely unscientifically as the creation of the mythical Emperor Fu-xi. The cryptic statement about some "own meaning" of the" break in the interrupted lines " of trigrams is further continued by a quote that is equally incomprehensible to the average reader: "The Book of Changes has spread ten wings" (p. 538). Even the grammatically correct spelling - "Ten wings" could suggest that we are not talking about the mysterious flights of the "Canon of Changes", but about a certain text. But instead of doing this and further reporting that "Ten Wings" is the essence of 10 sections of the commentary section ("Yi Zhuan") of the "Canon of Changes", the author (again unnamed M. V. Sofronov), due to carelessness or lack of awareness, put the reader on the wrong track of exotic metaphoricity, defining the quoted simply as "figurative expressions" (p. 538). The quotation from Liu Xie similarly refers to the other canons of the Pentacanony (Wu Ching), from which the unnamed author drew a dizzying conclusion: "From this list, it follows that the Confucian canon in its original form contained only one text, Chun Qiu, created directly by Confucius" (p. 539).

First, the notion that Confucius directly wrote Chun Qiu is a Confucian myth that goes back to Mencius (III B, 9), which was already corrected by Sima Qian, who qualified its role as" arrangement in order " (ci ), i.e. editing, and dispelled by critical Qing scholars (all this was described in detail by A. M. Karapetyants back in 1977 and repeated in the reprints of 1999 and 2010-see: [Karapetyants, 2010, pp. 359-363]). Confucius also edited other canons in the same way, and this activity in relation to the Shi Ching was noted by the author, as was his editing of the Chun Qiu (p.538). Oddly enough, on the next page, he expressed a different point of view.

Secondly, the author is confused in his own terms. Two pages earlier, he explained that the ching ("canon") means "ancient written texts whose authority was recognized by all the schools of social thought of that time", i.e., the era of Confucius (p. 536). But he went on to say that "these texts form the' six books '(Liu jing) of the Confucian canon " (p.537). It turns out that the" canon "(Jing) is both a separate highly authoritative book and a collection of such books, and the" Confucian canon "is specifically the"six books". From this it follows irrefutably that in principle there can be no "Confucian canon" from "one Chun Qiu text". It is difficult to find a reasonable explanation for why, after an authoritative quotation from Liu Xie's Wen-hsin diao-lun, the term ching has a special interpretation of the meaning of "canon" and differentiates it from the terms shu - "book" and wei - "apocrypha" (pp. 544-545), the names of classics including Ching such as "I ching" are included"Shi Jing", "Shu jing", etc., respectively, are not translated as "Canon of Changes", "Canon of Poems/Songs", "Canon of Writings/documents", etc., but are presented as "books": "Book

page 203
changes" , etc. Such a simple and natural solution would protect against these simultaneously illogical and false judgments. After all, one wonders when reading about the " Confucian canon, which in its original form contained only one text "Chun Qiu"", when it is well known that this text was traditionally considered the "youngest" in the " Six - "or" Five-Canon", appeared much later than the "Shu Jing" or "Shi Jing" and It does not contain the Jing character in its name.

Third, the authors of "History"do not know that in the times they describe the binom chun qiu ("spring and autumn") meant not a specific text, but a kind of chronicle records and can be translated as"chronicle". Hence, in addition to "Chun qiu" - "Lu-shi chun qiu" and "Yan-zi chun qiu". Our historians ' ignorance of this historical fact was not harmless. Another author (I. S. Lisevich with the participation of L. V. Stezhenskaya) in the next chapter of the philological part (Part 6, Chapter 2) fell into a non-existent, self-invented contradiction, talking about "Lu-shi chun qiu": "Its title clearly echoed the title of the main work of Confucius "Spring and autumn" ("Chunqiu" [so in the text, where in general the spelling of Sinisms is not unified. A. K.]), in the content - a considerable discrepancy with the principles of Confucianism " (p. 602). It is clear that if chun qiu is a general term, and not the name of the Confucian canon, then there is nothing in the title" Lu-shi chun qiu "that prevents"divergence from the principles of Confucianism."

The canons for the responsible editor also became a stumbling block. First, he did not bother to unify: he translated the Liu Jing as "Six Canons" rather than "Six Books", designated one of them as "Yue ji" rather than "Yue Jing", and dated the period covered in the Chunqiu (together) rather than "Six Books". in Chun Qiu (separately), the years 722 to 481 (p.35), not 479 (p. 537-538). Secondly, on one page, he formulated two mutually exclusive propositions: 1) "all Chinese researchers are unanimous" in recognizing Confucius as the author of "Chunqiu" and 2) in "Chinese Confucian studies, two polar points of view coexisted for a long time", representatives of one of which "denied any involvement of Confucius in the writing of the" Six Canons"", of course, including "Chunqiu" (p. 36). Continuing, he also controversially agreed with the view that "although the Six Canons were not written by Confucius himself, all of them were edited by him", despite the fact that on the previous page he described in detail how Confucius, contrary to his self-assessment: "I transmit, but I do not create", created by writing "his main work" - "Chunqiu" and "putting in it the ideas of his latest concept (Zheng Ming)" (p. 35). By the way, the term zheng ming, which suddenly appeared earlier on p. 30, is not translated until p. 71, where it receives two non-unified translations at once: "name correction" and "name ordering", although it is clear from the context and explanations that it does not mean "correction" or "ordering", but "correct". use".

From the passages quoted, it is difficult for the reader to understand that the main canon of the Book of Changes is the Zhou yi, which was first mentioned on page 19 in the following surprising context: "Some Chu natives who studied in the north of the country later became known throughout China. These include, first of all, Jian Bi, who is considered by modern researchers to be the author of the book "Zhou yi". Like the real hero of the volume, Lieutenant Kizhe, the author of "Zhou Yi" named Jian Bi did not exist at all, which is indirectly confirmed by his absence from the Index of Names. This is the distorted name of a certain chuset Han Bi (Han Bei/Han-bi) Zi-Hong (Zi-Gong) (), which is only mentioned in Shi ji (tsz. 67) and "Han shu" (ts. 88) as a follower of Confucius, either in the third or fourth generation, who inherited his tradition of studying "(Zhou) yi". Since there is no longer any information about him, he can in no case be recognized as " known to all of China." Strictly speaking, on the contrary, it is unknown to the whole of China. Short-term fame for a modest scientist from the "barbarian" Chu came more than two thousand years later, in the middle of the twentieth century, thanks to the efforts of Guo Mozho (1892-1978), hidden in the above quote under the designation "modern researchers", although he quite long ago, back in the 1930s and 1940s, put forward the extravagant hypothesis implied here about When creating the canonical part of "Zhou yi" (by the way, it is the "Canon" - "Ching", but not the whole book) and, not being supported by anyone, remained a" researcher " in the singular.

This bold conclusion was published in the article "On the time of the creation of Zhou Yi", which was included in his 1945 collection "The Bronze Age" ("Qing-tong shi-dai"), which was published in Russian translation two years after its publication in Beijing in 1957 (Moscow, 1959, p. 106-110), where the surname Han Bi was represented on one page (p. 106) by two incorrect transcriptions at once-

page 204
qiyami - Qian and Jian. It can be assumed that as a fiction writer with a rich imagination, in such a hypothesis, Guo Mogo reflected "literary dreams" inspired by the history of his own Hakka family, who came from the lands of Fujian, which in ancient times belonged to Chu. According to V. M. Kryukov's fair assessment, " Guo Mozho was primarily a poet and only secondarily a researcher. His unbridled creative imagination often clearly prevented him from calmly and comprehensively analyzing specific facts. He himself recognized this sin, constantly speaking with self-criticism about his scientific research" [Kryukov, 2009, p. 125].

To give the unknown hero more authority, Guo Mo-jo identified him with the equally named Tzu-gong, mentioned by Xun-tzu together with Confucius (Zhong-ni) himself in describing the main six teachings (lu-sho) of ancient Chinese philosophy ("Xun-tzu", Chapter 6). However, he translated this book into Russian. V. F. Feoktistov, on the contrary, identified the chapter "Fei shi-er tzu" ("Against the Twelve Thinkers") with Tzu-Gong, who had a homonymous, but hieroglyphically different nickname, Tzu-Gong, a prominent disciple of Confucius, who was half a century older than the Yijinist [Feoktistov, 1976, pp. 189, 273, note. 15; Feoktistov Publ., 2005, pp. 217, 323, ed. 15; Drevnekitayskaya filosofiya, vol. 2, 1973, pp. 149, 354, note 17]. Since V. F. Feoktistov did not explain his decision, one can only guess whether he proceeded from the special significance of the thinker paired with Confucius, and deliberately ignored the difference in the Gong characters () or simply did not notice it.

In the modern science of "Zhou yi", the Guo Mozho hypothesis is not even mentioned, and Han Bi, according to Zhang Shoujie (VIII century), who referred to Ying Shao (II century), is considered only as a possible disciple of the famous disciple of Confucius - Tzu-Xia (Bu Shang, b. 507 BC) and presumably the author of the last commentary attributed to Zhou yi - "Zhou yi [zhuan]" (Nielsen, 2003, pp. 97-98).

These are the opaque and dubious sources from which the "modern studies" of the "History of China"come. The specialist is taken aback by this, and the unsophisticated reader will simply fall into disbelief. Apparently, the haste and carelessness in the preparation of this volume did not allow us to think about this. For an example, let's turn to the very beginning, where in the first line of the first chapter (p.12) the dating of the Zhanguo period - 453-221 BC - is given and its characterization as one of the "little-studied pages in the history of China", which should be considered rather as an assessment of the authors ' own knowledge about this time. Without explanation, the question of the origin of the name of this period and its initial date (453) is left, although the normative encyclopedia" Spiritual Culture of China "takes a different beginning, dating back to Sima Qian - 475. Experts also know other dates: from 481 to 403, dating back to Sima Guang and accepted in the Cambridge School of Literature. stories", so you need to somehow explain your choice. Moreover, in this case, it is connected with the division of the state of Jin, which actually occurred in 453, but was formally recognized in 403. On the next page (p. 13) it is precisely stated: "In 403 BC, Zhou Wang had to officially recognize the legitimacy of the emergence of three new possessions on the site of Jin," but there is no word about the connection of this event with 453. By the way, for a non-Chinese person, it is completely unclear who Zhou Wang is. From the very beginning, the text regularly contains references to ancient Chinese works, the names of which are transcribed and not translated, the authorship and dating are not indicated, and translations and literature about them are not included in the bibliography, which is extremely inconvenient for the reader.

The entire publication was supposed to be richly illustrated, devoting up to 10% of its volume to visual materials, so the editor-in-chief's preface even specifically stipulates the presence of "lists of illustrations and maps" (p. 7). However, volume 2 does not contain not only such lists, but also the maps themselves, even if there is a special paragraph about maps (p. 354-355). But there are illustrations, including 80 colored ones on the insert. Unfortunately, their captions leave much to be desired. Thus, on p. 18 "Liuji made of green jade" - under the image of the ritual disk-bi; on p. 328 "Working model of the chariot" - under the image of the compass invented by Zhang Heng in the form of a cart (zhi-nan-che); on p. 420 of the seven coins depicted, three are incorrectly attributed, and their casting is mixed up with coinage (for details, see [Zhanguo Eras..., pp. 573-574]).

With this approach, the interests of not only readers, but also authors were neglected. The latter are listed three times in the volume: in the Introduction by L. S. Perelomov (p. 11), in the List of authors of the volume (p.683) and in the Table of Contents (p. 684-687). Although their circle is narrow, unfortunately limited mainly to current and former employees of the Institute of Internal Medicine of the Russian Academy of Sciences, even in this small number there is no need to-

page 205
of my uniformity. For example, the List of authors of a volume includes I. T. Fedorenko, who is absent from the other two lists, and the Table of Contents, on the contrary, includes E. A. Korotko, who is absent from the List of authors of the volume. The authorship of Chapter 1 of part 6 "Language, writing, philological science", with the exception of one subsection, is not indicated at all. And the late author of the next chapter (I. S. Lisevich) is placed in a very uncomfortable and simply indecent position. The text signed with his name begins with the following, completely unthinkable self-assessment: "Of all the domestic studies on the history of Chinese literature, this era, in our opinion, is best reflected in the work of I. S. Lisevich "Literary Thought "" (pp. 555-556). It is even more striking that such a highly regarded book is not mentioned in the Selected bibliography, which does not contain any of his works at all.

It may be suspected that this was done intentionally, since the book was published in 1979, and therefore requires a special explanation of the use of the work of almost forty years ago, when there are and even published in the encyclopedia "Spiritual Culture of China" much more recent and modern works, for example, M. E. Kravtsova. By the way, strictly speaking, the book of I. S. Lisevich, as its very name suggests, is generally devoted not to literature, but to literary thought, i.e. literary studies, and more specific essays on Chinese literature of the corresponding period belong to N. I. Konrad, L. D. Pozdneeva, B. L. Riftin, M. V. Kryukov, S. Kucera. Why these high-quality works were not used is anyone's guess.

Equally mysterious is the involvement of A. G. Aleksanyan, who was seriously engaged in Manichaeism and Nestorianism in China, but not in Taoism, to write the chapter "Taoism", which naturally turned out to be very weak and 90% consisting of a retelling and quoting of "Tao te Ching "and" Chuang Tzu", although it was possible to use ready-made articles by E. A. Torchinova, G. A. Tkachenko, V. V. Malyavina, S. V. Filonov, A. I. Kobzeva, who have studied this subject for many years. The preference for these specialists was not due to any respect for A. G. Aleksanyan himself, who was mistakenly presented as a candidate of historical sciences (instead of philosophical ones) in the List of authors (p. 683), but in the Introduction of the responsible editor, worse, separated from "those who participated in the writing of the volume" and ranked among "those who took an active part in the work". that is, he was relegated from being an author to an activist (p. 11). Most of the chapter "Taoism" consists of quotations translated by V. V. Malyavin, who is a leading Russian expert on early Taoism and one of the main authors of the volume, called "famous Russian Sinologists" in the Introduction (p.11). In such a situation, this chapter should have belonged to him, but for some reason it turned out differently (for details, see: [Zhanguo Eras..., pp. 584-599]).

However, even a failed chapter on Taoism may seem like an innocent whim compared to the 14 pages on Zhanguo, which were forced out of themselves and from the texts, thank God, of K. V. Vasiliev, who was unaware of this, by L. S. Perelomov and V. M. Mayorov, who did not specifically deal with this historical period as such, despite the fact that in Russian sinology there are obviously the best time-tested essays: both detailed by L. S. Vasiliev or K. V. Vasiliev, and short by M. V. Kryukova or S. Kucheri.

But even where the compiler turned to real specialists, the unwillingness to check and clarify the old material led to gross errors. Thus, in the section "Maps of the Han Period", based on the 1983 edition (p. 39), it is said that "two maps were found in Mawangdu" (p. 355), while the encyclopedia "Spiritual Culture of China" (vol. 5, 2009, p. 232-233) clarified and showed that there were two maps in Mawangdu " (p. 355). we found three maps. The fact that the chapter on Zhanguo contains references to the results of archaeological excavations no later than 1957, and the year is 2015, is also indicative of the antiquity of these data, and recently Chinese archaeology has broken all imaginable records.

The selected bibliography clearly demonstrates the insufficient use of even domestic, not to mention foreign, literature, especially in recent decades. It lacks fundamental translations and research. None of the five translations of the I Ching mentioned above, including the much-reprinted classic by Yu. K. Shchutsky, is available. There are no old classics like V. M. Stein's" Guan-tzu "(Moscow, 1959) and N. I. Konrad's twice-published "Sinology" (Konrad, 1977; Konrad, 1995), nor translated classics: [Grane, 2004; Grane, 2008; Fitzgerald, 1998; Fitzgerald, 2005; Loewe, 2005]; no" old " (XX century) translations: [Drevnekitayskaya filosofiya, in 2 volumes, 1972-1973; Drevnekitayskaya filosofiya..., 1990; Katalog gori i morei, 1977; 2004; Iz knigi sages..., 1987; Bambukovye paginy...,1994]; no new (XXI century):

page 206
[Liushi chunqiu..., 2001; Philosophers from Huainan..., 2004; Kucera, 2012; Establishment of the Zhou Dynasty..., 2010; Bamboo Annals..., 2005; Ulyanov, 2011; Zouyanshu..., 2013; Tseluiko, 2011].

There are no major works of authoritative Russian sinologists: not a single work by T. V. Stepugina, who has been writing about the Zhanguo-Qin-Han epochs for more than half a century, defended two historical dissertations on them (her doctoral thesis in 1990 in 600 pages) and published the corresponding sections in "World History" (Vol. 1. Moscow, 1956) and " History ancient world" (Part 1. Moscow, 1983). There are no references to the works of: [Bykov, 1966; Spirin, 1976/2006; Lisevich, 1969; Lisevich, 1979; Lisevich, 2010; Berezkina, 1980; Yanshina, 1984; Tkachenko, 1990; Tkachenko, 2008; Torchinov, 1993/1998; Kobzev, 1994; Poetry of Ancient China, 1994; History of Chinese Culture,1994]. 1999; History of Chinese Art, 2004; Kravtsova, 1994; Kravtsova, 1999; Kravtsova, 2004; Yeremeyev, 2002, Yeremeyev, 2005; Karapetyants, 2010; Pozdneeva, 2011; Kucher, 2012] and many other publications, in particular a number of very informative and theoretically thorough collections, for example, devoted to N. I. Konradu [China. Japan..., 1961; Historical and philological studies, 1974] or V. P. Vasiliev [History and Culture of China, 1974], Taoism [Tao and Taoism..., 1982] or Chinese anthropology [The Problem of Man..., 1983].

It may seem that the whole point is in the "chosen" bibliography, limited space, etc.By no means. For example, it presents such exotics as the outdated and hard-to-reach essay of P. S. Popov 1879/1880 (p. 653) or the not outdated, but hardly necessary for a non-specialist depositor of the translation of E. P. Sinitsyn to INION (Moscow, 1987), by the way, instead of his fundamental works on Qin published in sufficient circulation (Sinitsyn, 1974; Sinitsyn, 1982].

Moreover, the bibliography is given quite enough pages - 21 (pp. 651-671), i.e. almost twice as much as the entire two-century-old history of Zhanguo. Therefore, the problem is not at all in tightness, but, on the contrary, in reckless "revelry in the open". Contrary to the declared popular science format, the main focus is on foreign-language literature, which occupies 83% of the total volume: 17.5 out of 21 pages, including 8 in Chinese and Japanese. The claim that this is unnecessary for 99% of the "mass reader"does not require proof. For the most part, the above is not necessary for specialists either, since, for example, they indicate Chinese classics ("Lun Heng", "Zhan-guo tse", "Huainan Tzu", "Han Shu", etc.) in rare editions of the 1930s, although they were repeatedly published with the best comments in the media. available up-to-date publications. Their appearance here is no more than a tribute to the personal library of some old author or the result of mechanical transfer from other books, especially "Ancient Chinese in the era of centralized empires". The presence in the Bibliography of this specialized edition of 1983 (p. 383) of Xia Nai's article from the journal of 1972 (Kao-gu. 1972, N 2), which is available only in the two main libraries of Russia (see: [Index..., 1979, p. 89]), is normal, but in the popular edition of 2013 it seems a mockery of the reader or an absurdity. The section "In Western European Languages", which occupies the lion's share of the bibliography, almost entirely consists of English-language literature, among which there are also many rarities and exotics, for example, the translation into English of 1950, which is not related to the topic and is not mentioned in the text of the treatise of Diogenes Laertes (p.656). If it were needed for some special purpose, then a beautiful Russian translation from 1979 or an ancient Greek original would be much better suited. Even in the aptly quoted translation by J. R. R. Tolkien, Legge (p. 660) provides a lot of unnecessary details of the publication: the series, sub-series, its number, publisher, publisher, etc., but not the names of the translated works themselves.

The worst way is the smallest (only 3.5 seconds) section "In Russian". The above-mentioned incompleteness is combined in it with an obscenely bizarre selectivity. It is easy to guess that it contains the greatest number of the compiler's publications (p. 653), although, for example, his book "Confucianism and the modern strategic course of the PRC" is clearly superfluous here, since it is a simplified version of the "Confucianism and Legalism in the Political History of China" indicated next to it (Moscow, 1981) and is reproduced verbatim in the volume itself. An equally meaningless duplication is the addition of V. A. Rubin's collected works [Rubin, 1999] to his first edition of 1993 and the book [Rubin, 1970], which are themselves difficult to access, and their contents are fully included in the 1999 publication. For some reason, the bibliography lists a completely inappropriate book by J. G. Gray, "The History of Ancient China" (Moscow, 2006)-apparently only because of its inadequate title, since it is devoted to China of the XIX century and in the English original of 1878 has a completely different name, not related to the subject of the volume.

page 207
The conclusion, alas, is disappointing: the Selected bibliography is a bibliographically unprofessional and synologically inept list of largely random literature that does not correspond to either the scientific or popular scientific format. From a scientific point of view, it is too poor, and from a popular science point of view, it is both poor and redundant at the same time. The latter case is the most unpleasant, since feeding a hungry person with cakes is fraught with vomiting. Apparently, the compiler himself, realizing or feeling this, concealed from the reader the authorship of such an unsuitable product. And in order to create a high-quality bibliography, it was not necessary to go far. Both "Selected Bibliography on the History of Ancient China" by M. Y. Ulyanov and selected bibliographies for six volumes of "Spiritual Culture of China" by the leading expert in this field V. P. Zhuravleva have already been published. However, its own will not know its own.

The "Index of Names" was also made in a hurry. It omits not only the names mentioned, but also those quoted in the text (p. 21, 26, 28, 42, 71, 75, 93, 246, 345, 373, 555 well-known specialists L. A. Borovkova, K. V. Vasiliev, Russian Federation. Its, I. I. Konrad, J. Legg, I. S. Lisevich, A. S. Martynov, T. A. Metzger, G. S. Pomerants, V. A. Rubin, V. M. Stein, etc., but there are well-known non-specialists A. Akhmatova (p. 672), A. Voznesensky (p. 672), A. Men (p. 674) F. Engels (p. 677) and Antiphon (p. 672). The latter refers to p. 10 and 636, while p. 10 mentions an Antiphon, and p. 636 does not contain either an Antiphon or an Antiphon. Apparently, according to the authors of the Index of Names who did not conceal their names (E. A. Korotkov, V. M. Mayorov), the ordinary reader does not care: what is Antiphon, what is Antiphon. Here one person disappeared under different names, as well as under the names of Zhang Jian (p. 246) and Zhang Qian (p. 408), the same first Chinese explorer Zhang Qian ( 195-114/113 BC), who "opened the way to foreign countries", but did not find a place in the "Index of Names". In other cases, different people appear under the same name. For example, Zhang Yi (s. 676) - not only a third-century philologist (p. 543), but also an unknown witness to the second-century transaction (p. 171, where the motto of the Jian-ning government is inaccurately rendered as Jiangning), and a well-known ideologist of the political and diplomatic school of tsung-heng-jia-Zhang Yi, who lived in the fourth century BC. (p. 561). But the other founder of this school, Su Qin (p. 561), mentioned along with the latter, as well as the philosopher Gao-tzu, named Guo-tzu, were not included in the Index of Names at all.

Therefore, for the sake of accuracy and to match the "Chronology of some major events", the Selected bibliography should be renamed to "Favorites from some major literature", and the "Index of Names" - to "Index of some major names".

In general, the most unfortunate thing is that, contrary to S. L. Tikhvinsky's optimistic statement about the significant superiority of the publication he edited over the Cambridge History: "our work will be distinguished by greater completeness and attachment to modernity" [Russian Sinology-oral History..., 2014, p. 361], the domestic pancake came out lumpy. The reviewed volume does not compare with the British model even thirty years ago. The rosy promise to use the "vast array of information accumulated by Chinese scientists" that has emerged over the years (ibid., p. 362) has not been fulfilled, and the advantage is that the Cambridge History was" written by a team from different countries", while ours was "written only by representatives of Russia" (ibid., p. 361)., in general, it looks like a strange anachronism from the times when Russia was considered the birthplace of elephants. This approach also turned out to be useless pseudo-patriotism, because the hastily and clumsily assembled collage of outdated, precocious and incomplete publications did not reflect many remarkable achievements not only of modern Western and Chinese Sinologists, but also of the last generations of domestic Sinologists. In particular, talented modern researchers who have formed entire schools, for example, the St. Petersburg school that developed in the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences and St. Petersburg State University (V. S. Spirin, E. A. Torchinov, M. E. Kravtsova, A. E. Terekhov, etc.), or the Moscow school that developed in the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow State University, and RSUH (D. V. Deopik, A. M. Karapetyants, S. A. Starostin, V. G. Belozerova, M. Yu. Ulyanov, S. V. Dmitriev, M. V. Korolkov, S. Yu. Rykov, S. I. Blumchen, V. V. Bashkeev, M. S. Tseluiko, V. B. Vinogrodskaya, G. S. Popova, etc.). Meanwhile, it is their work based on the latest data and methods that correspond to the current level of studying the history and culture of Ancient China. Alas, it does not correspond in any way to the volume considered.

Moreover, in conclusion, we have to point out the most unpleasant thing, which is generally incompatible with the academic stamp. In accordance with the unfortunate trend of the time, this publication is marked by gross plagiarism. Thus, a very significant text from the last paragraph of p. 13 to the third paragraph of p. 16 inclusive, without quotation marks and without any changes, is borrowed from the book of K. V. Vasiliev [Vasiliev, 1998, p. 249, after paragraph-p. 252], and the text from the second paragraph of p. 21 to the second paragraph of p. 22 - from the same place (p. 226, 2nd page). above - p. 227, the penultimate paragraph.

page 208
inclusive). In other words, at least a third of the chapter "The Struggling Kingdoms" belongs to K. V. Vasiliev (1932-1987), who is not designated as its author, and thus has rights to it even quantitatively no less than the two specified authors, which, alas, he can no longer defend. By the way, these borrowings also explain the dating of Zhanguo (ibid., p. 212).

A mockery of another deceased and therefore equally defenseless author, I. S. Lisevich, looks not only too free treatment of his legacy, but also plagiarism attributed to him. Not only is his name (with the participation of L. V. Stezhenskaya) signed by a chapter (Part 6, Chapter 2) with ill-fated self-promotion, but there is also an insert and" insert " incognito in the first person (apparently, the responsible editor who compiled the volume) gave completely inappropriate in the laconic format of the publication and, most importantly, disorienting details:"The specificity of I. S. Lisevich's research is that he managed to reveal the mechanism of artistic creativity of the ancient Chinese of the Zhanguo-Qin-Han era... That is why I have inserted the chapter "Literature and Time. Antiquity and modernity. From ethical criteria to aesthetic ones" (p. 556). The book from which this chapter was taken, without covering the Zhanguo era, dealt only with "Han and Wei (end of the third century BC - beginning of the third century AD)" [Lisevich, 1979, p. 5], and the" History " included fragments not only from this chapter, but also from other chapters and even from another book by I. S. Lisevich, not listed in the Selected Bibliography [Lisevich, 1969], the very name of which reveals a connection with the section "Yuefu Music Chamber" (pp. 591-594). So why specify one source and hide the other?

However, there are still good reasons for secrecy. The chapter attributed to I. S. Lisevich without asking includes a significant volume (pp. 576-591) and completely foreign section devoted to Qu Yuan and his poem "Li Sao". The entire text, except for one and a half pages, is occupied by the poem itself translated by A. A. Akhmatova with comments by N. T. Fedorenko, which clearly does not belong to the creative heritage of I. S. Lisevich, but this is not the problem, since the real authors are still named. The trouble is that the poem is preceded by a page and a half (pp. 576-577), without quotation marks and links word for word rewritten, but most likely downloaded on the Internet from vol. 5 "The Formation of Asian States", a compilation of "World History" in 24 volumes, compiled by Belarusian publicists (Badak A. N., Voynich E. L., Volchek N. M., etc.) and regularly published in Minsk (1998; 2000; 2005, p. 39). These are purely commercial products of the AST and Harvest publishing houses, which are notorious for low-quality publications, out-of-the-ordinary errors and copyright infringement. The text borrowed from this muddy source is reminiscent of the openly ideologized and little-contained writings of N. T. Tolstoy. As a forerunner of the CCP's ideas, Wu Qu Yuan " had an immense love for his native land, for man, a deep belief in the triumph of good and noble forces over evil and dishonor, and a belief in the triumph of reason and conscience... The poet raises his voice in defense of his people, who suffered from incompetent rulers, and with fiery words he stigmatizes the black forces" [Fedorenko, 1954, pp. 7-8]. Let's compare it with the Belarusian amateur activity, which attracted Moscow scientists to the point of obscenity: "Qu Yuan's poems are imbued with high citizenship and true nobility of soul. They sound faith in the ultimate triumph of good over evil, honor over meanness, faith in the victory of reason and conscience... This is like a lyrical confession of the poet, in which he inspiringly and mercilessly exposes the royal court, the evil and injustice that reigns around "(p. 577), and the real I. S. Lisevich: "The poem is a poetic reproduction of visions of the narcotic trance of the ritual" journey " of the court shaman Qu Yuan to the other world-travel, obligatory in the practice of shamanic kamlaniya and having quite definite stereotypes" [Lisevich, 1979, p. 163].

The situation looks even more insane if we take into account that all these complex problems were studied in detail even after I. S. Lisevich by M. E. Kravtsova, who repeatedly published the results obtained by her and other specialists, which meet modern scientific requirements and new data on the specific Chu culture in general and the work of Qu Yuan in particular. Why, instead of these high-quality materials, in particular, presented by several articles in volume 4 of the encyclopedia "Spiritual Culture of China", prepared in the same IDV, reason and morality were contrary to reason borrowed old stupidity and senseless plagiarism was carried out-a mystery that goes beyond science.

In general, the attitude to this encyclopedia is puzzling - a unique achievement not only of Russian, but also of world sinology, from which it would be possible to draw a lot of valuable information. All the main authors of this volume participated in its creation, and

page 209
its basic meaning for the entire ten-volume book is specifically emphasized in the preface of the editor-in-chief (p.6), but the responsible editor pointedly ignored it.

We have to admit that the rights of another living creator of the "Ethnic History of the Chinese", M. S. Sofronov, who, although he was included in the list of authors, were also violated not so rudely as I. S. Lisevich's, thank God. Of the 40-page chapter (part 6, chapter 1, pp. 516-555), which is an easy adaptation of the chapter he wrote in the basic for the entire volume of the collective monograph "Ancient Chinese in the era of centralized Empires" (Chapter 7, pp. 278-325), his authorship is indicated only in the nine-page section (pp. 516-525). However, the remaining sections are not attributed to anyone else and look washed out.

L. S. Perelomov reacted to the duties that were really difficult and difficult, formally, without initiative and uncollegially, without fulfilling even the minimum requirements stated by the editor-in-chief. The resulting deplorable result is his fault and the general misfortune. In general, it is not clear why this topic was monopolized by IDV, which specializes in modern history. That is why the period, which is well studied in the world and even in Russian sinology, seemed to be poorly studied by the IDV staff. An attitude of carelessness and violation of the norms of scientific ethics led to the fact that the appeal to the materials of the "Spiritual Culture of China" prescribed by the main editorial board was also ignored. It is quite obvious that the creation of a multi-volume "History of China" is a very important and urgent task, but, as you know, a fly in the ointment spoils the honey barrel. And if there are also a lot of such spoons? A purist may even see here spoiling a spoonful of honey with a barrel of tar. However, without falling into hypercriticism, I would like to note that in accordance with the well - known compiler's principle of "correct [use] of names", the book under consideration deserved a more modest name-with the addition of the words "Essays", "Materials" or "Introduction". In this case, she would have avoided many complaints.

As a final touch to the bleak picture that has been drawn, we can add a rhetorical question: why did the publishing company Vostochnaya Literatura of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which published the book under review and was headed by a sinologist, a member of the main editorial board S. M. Anikeeva, not find a Sinologist editor and a competent proofreader (instead of one or even four such editors, as in vol. 10, here only the superiors are indicated - the head. proofreading), finally, just an attentive eye that can notice such obvious and shameful semantic and meaningless blunders. In general, they wanted to be better than Cambridge, but it turned out as always.

Seeing the publication as a mirror of Russian Sinology, we can say that it showed an old and crooked image, but we still hope that this is an old mirror abandoned by the state (see: [Gabuev, 2014, p. 18-24]), and not the reality of both Ancient China and modern Russia reflected in it.

list of literature

About six ancient Chinese calendars / / 42nd scientific conference "Society and State in China".Vol. XLII. 4.3. M, 2012.

Archive of Russian Sinology, vol. I-II. / Comp. by A. I. Kobzev, Moscow, 2013.

Bamboo Annals: an ancient text (Gu ben zhu shu ji nian) / Ed. text, translated from Chinese, introduction, commentary. and appended by M. Y. Ulyanov with the participation of D. V. Deopik and A. I. Tarkina. Moscow, 2005.

Bamboo pages. Anthology of Ancient Chinese Literature / Translated from Ancient Chinese, comp., art. by I. S. Lisevich, Moscow, 1994.

Berezkina E. I. Mathematics of Ancient China, Moscow, 1980.
Bykov F. S. Origin of socio-political and philosophical thought in China, Moscow, 1966.
On the way over the Chinese Wall. To the 60th anniversary of A. I. Kobzev / Sost.: S. V. Dmitriev // Scientific notes of the Department of China. Issue 12. Moscow, 2014.

Vasiliev K. V. Istoki kitayskoi tsivilizatsii [The Origins of Chinese Civilization], Moscow, 1998.

Vyatkin A. R. Full Russian translation of "Historical Notes" (Shi ji) Sima Qian: preliminary results / / 40th Scientific Conference "Society and the State in China", Vol. XL. Moscow, 2010.

Gabuev A. Gosudarstvo ukhlo iz sinaistiki [The state has left Sinology]. Power. 2014. N 41.

Granet M. Kitayskaya mysl ' [Chinese Thought], Moscow, 2004.

Granet M. Kitayskaya tsivilizatsiya [Chinese Civilization], Moscow, 2008.
Tao and Taoism in China, Moscow, 1982.
Ancient Chinese philosophy. In 2 volumes, Moscow, 1972-1973.

page 210
Ancient Chinese philosophy. Epoch of Han, Moscow, 1990.

Spiritual Culture of China, Vol. 1. Filosofiya, Moscow, 2006.

Spiritual culture of China. Vol. 2. Mythology. Religion. Moscow, 2007.

Spiritual culture of China. Vol. 5 Science, technical and military thought, health care and education. M.,2009.

Eremeev V. E. Symbols and Numbers of the "Book of Changes", Moscow, 2002; 2nd ed.: 2005.

From the books of the sages. Prose of Ancient China / Translated by V. Sukhorukov, Moscow, 1987.

Istoriko-filologicheskie issledovaniya [Historical and Philological Research], Moscow, 1974.
History and Culture of China, Moscow, 1974.
History of Chinese Art. St. Petersburg, 2004.

Cultural history of China. St. Petersburg, 1999.

Karapetyants A.M. U istokov kitayskoy slovesnosti [At the origins of Chinese Literature], Moscow, 2010.
Catalog of Mountains and Seas (Shan hai ching) / Foreword, translated and commented by E. M. Yanshina, Moscow, 1977.

China. Japan. Istoriya i filologiya [History and Philology], Moscow, 1961.

Kobzev A. I. Dangerous similarity, or the problem of kinship of the" two founders " - Lao Tzu and Buddha. 2010. N 2.

Kobzev A. I. Zerkalo i zazerkal'ne otechestvennoy sinaistiki, ili sprut s glinozema [Mirror and Looking Glass of domestic Chinese studies, or octopus from alumina]. Vol. XLV. Ch. 1. Moscow, 2015.

Kobzev A. I. The doctrine of symbols and numbers in Chinese classical Philosophy, Moscow, 1994.
Kozhin P. M. Sima Qian. "Historical Notes" (Shiji). 9 volumes / / Vostok (Oriens). 2012. N 3.

Konrad N. I. Sinology, Moscow, 1977; [Reprint], Moscow, 1995.

Kontsevich L. R. Khronologiya stran Vostochnoy i Tsentralnoy Azii [Chronology of Eastern and Central Asian Countries]. Moscow, 2010.

Kravtsova M. E. Khrestomatiya po literatury Kitay [A textbook on Chinese Literature]. St. Petersburg, 2004. (2).

Kravtsova M. E. Poezii Drevnego Kitay [Poetry of Ancient China]. St. Petersburg, 1994.

Kravtsova M. E. Istoriya kul'tury Kitay [History of Chinese Culture]. St. Petersburg, 1999.

Kravtsova M. E. Istoriya iskusstva Kitay [History of Chinese Art]. St. Petersburg, 2004.

Kryukov V. M. The Inexorable worm of knowledge: selected thoughts on the history and culture of China and Russia. Moscow, 2009.

Kryukov M. V., Perelomov L. S., Sofronov M. V., Cheboksary N. N. Ancient Chinese in the era of centralized empires. Moscow, 1983.

Kucera S. History, culture and law in Ancient China. Sobranie trudov, Moscow, 2012.
Levet M. China of the Han Dynasty. Byt, religion, and Culture, Moscow, 2005.
Lisevich I. S. Drevniye mifi glazami cheloveka kosmicheskoi eri [Ancient Myths through the Eyes of a Man of the cosmic Era].

Lisevich I. S. Ancient Chinese poetry and Folk Song (Yuefu late 3rd century BC-early 3rd century AD). Moscow, 1969.

Lisevich I. S. Literary thought of China at the turn of the Ancient and Middle Ages. Moscow, 1979.

Lisevich I. S. Mosaika drevnekitayskoi kul'tury [Mosaic of Ancient Chinese Culture], Moscow, 2010.

Liushi chunqiu (Spring and Autumn of Mr. Liuya) / Translated by G. A. Tkachenko. Comp. by I. V. Ushakov, Moscow, 2001.

Malyavin V. V. The Death of the Ancient Empire, Moscow, 1983.
Perelomov L. S. The Qin Empire - the first Centralized State in China, 221-202 BC Moscow, 1962.

Perelomov L. S. Confucianism and Legalism in the political history of China. Moscow, 1982.

Perelomov L. S. Confucianism and the modern strategic course of the PRC. Moscow, 2007.

Perelomov L. S. Confucius: "Lun yu", Moscow, 1998.
Pozdneeva L. D. Istoriya kitayskoi literatury [History of Chinese Literature], Moscow, 2011.

Poetry of Ancient China. St. Petersburg, 1994.

Problema cheloveka v traditsionnykh kitayskikh ucheniyakh [The Human problem in traditional Chinese Teachings].
The process of forming the Official ideology of Imperial China / Comp. by M. E. Kravtsov, St. Petersburg, 2012.

Russian Sinology-Oral History, Collection of Interviews with leading Russian Sinologists of the XX-XXIV centuries, vol. 1, ed. by V. Ts. Golovachev, Moscow, 2014.

Rubin V. A. Lichnost 'i vlast' v Drevnem Kitae [Personality and Power in Ancient China]. Moscow, 1999.

Rubin V. V. Ideologiya i kul'tura Drevnego Kitay [Ideology and Culture of Ancient China]. Moscow, 1970.

Sinitsyn, E. P. Confucianism in the Qin era / / History and Culture of China, Moscow, 1974.
Sinitsyn E. P. Ob authenticnosti istochnikov po istorii epokhi Qin [On the authenticity of sources on the history of the Qin Era]. 1982. N 5.

Spirin V. S. Postroenie drevnekitayskikh tekstov [Construction of Ancient Chinese texts]. Moscow, 1976; 2nd ed.: SPb., 2006.

Сыма Цянь. Historical Notes ("Shiji"). Vol. VII / Trans. Translated from English by R. V. Vyatkin, commentary by R. V. Vyatkin, and A. R. Vyatkina, Moscow, 1996.

Сыма Цянь. Istoricheskie zapiski [Historical Notes], Vol. 2, translated from the Chinese by R. V. Vyatkin and V. S. Taskin. 2nd ed. Moscow, 2003.

Сыма Цянь. Historical notes. (Shi ji), vol. VIII, translated by R. V. Vyatkin and A.M. Karapetyants, Moscow, 2002.

page 211
(The highest review of [years] of Tai-ping [shin-go 976-984]). Tai-ping yu-lan V. 1. Peking, 1960.

Titarenko M. L. Drevnekitayskiy filosof Mo Di, ego shkola i uchenie [Ancient Chinese Philosopher Mo Di, his school and teaching]. Moscow, 1985.

Tkachenko G. A. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works], Moscow, 2008.
Tkachenko G. A. Cosmos, music, ritual, Moscow, 1990.
Torchinov E. L. Taoism. SPb., 1993; 2nd ed.: 1998.

Index of periodicals in Chinese in the collections of libraries in Moscow and Leningrad, Moscow, 1979.
Ulyanov M. Y. Data from Chun qiu Zuo zhuan ("Zuo's Commentary on Spring and Autumn") 41-ya nauchnaya konferentsiya "Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae" [41st scientific conference "Society and State in China"]. Scientific Notes of the China Department. Issue 3., Moscow, 2011.

Establishment of the Zhou Dynasty (Zhou Li) / Translated from the kit., introduction. article, comment. and applications of S. Kucheri, Moscow, 2010.

Fedorenko N. T. Introductory article / / Qu Yuan. Poems, Moscow, 1954.
Feoktistov V. F. Philosophical and socio-political views of Sun Tzu. Research and Translation, Moscow, 1976.
Feoktistov V. F. Philosophical treatises of Xun-tzu. Research. Translation. Reflections of a Chinese Scholar, Moscow, 2005.
Philosophers from Huainan / Huainanzi / Translated by L. E. Pomerantseva, Moscow, 2004.

Fitzgerald S. P. Istoriya Kitay [History of China], Moscow, 2005.
Fitzgerald C. P. China: A brief history of culture. St. Petersburg, 1998.

Tseluiko M. S. Qin epigraphic monuments from Shuihudi: Private (official-personal) chronicle of Mr. Xi "Bian nian ji" (late 3rd century BC). Issue 5. Moscow, 2011.

Zouyanshu ("Collection of judicial requests paleographic documents of Ancient China / Ed. text, translated from Chinese, introductory articles, comments, adj. by M. V. Korolkova. Moscow, 2013.

Epochs of Zhanguo, Qin and Han in the "History of China": discussion and reviews / / 44th Scientific Conference "Society and State in China", Vol. XLIV. Ch. 2. Moscow, 2014.

Yanshina E. M. Formirovanie i razvitie drevnekitayskoi mifologii [Formation and development of Ancient Chinese mythology]. Moscow, 1984.

Bilsky L. J. The State Religion of Ancient China. Vol. 2. Taipei, 1975.

Nielsen B. A Companion to Yi Jing Numerology and Cosmology. L., 2003.

The Li Ki / Transl. by J. Legge // The Sacred Books of the East. Vol. 27 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/liki/).

page 212

Permanent link to this publication: