Uvarov and Russian tour of the university idea. Historian Pavel Uvarov: “For a publisher there is no greater delicacy than a negative review.” Major publications in recent years

Question: People of what faiths can come to the lectures?

Answer: Any. There are no religious restrictions.

Question: Does your department train clergy, and for whom?

Answer: No. The department does not train clergy. The Department of Theology is interdisciplinary. Several general humanities courses are taught there. Their visits are at the choice of students.

Uvarov Pavel Yurievich

Pavel Yurievich Uvarov- Russian historian, specialist in the field of Western European history of the Middle Ages and early modern times. He studies the history of France, the history of Russian-French relations, the history of universities, historiography, and the social history of Europe. Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences since May 25, 2006 in the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences.

Graduated from the Faculty of History of the Moscow Humanitarian Pedagogical Institute. IN AND. Lenin (1978), in 1983 he defended his thesis “University of Paris and public life medieval city(on French-language university works)", in 2003 - a doctoral dissertation "French society of the 16th century: experience of reconstruction based on notarial acts." Main Researcher Institute of World History Russian Academy Sciences, Head of the Department of Western European Middle Ages and Early Modern Times. Head of the Russian-French Center for Historical Anthropology named after. M. Blok of the Russian State humanitarian university(2006-2010). Member of the International Commission on the History of Universities (ICHU) International Committee historical sciences, is a member of the academic councils of the Institute of History and Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian State University for the Humanities. Since 2013 - Chairman of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation for History and the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Man in Everyday Life: Past and Present".

Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities (teaches courses in the history of France, cultural history and historiography); also teaches a course on the history of the Middle Ages at the State Academic University of Humanities. Since 2009, head of the department of social history of the Faculty of History of the National research university « graduate School economy". Visiting Professor at the Graduate School of Science and Technology social sciences(Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris) and the universities Paris4-Sorbonne, Paris1-Panteon, Rennes-2. Professor Emeritus a number of Russian universities (Tomsk, Voronezh, Yekaterinburg, Tyumen, Kazan, Stavropol). Head of a number of summer schools.

Since 2015 - Professor at the Department of Theology of National Research Nuclear University MEPhI.

Executive editor of the magazine "Middle Ages", member of the editorial boards of the magazine "Russian History" and the almanacs "Odysseus: a man in history", "French Yearbook", "Historical Research". Editor of volume II of the academic “World History” (2012).

Basic scientific works and major publications for last years:

French society in the era of cultural turning point: From Francis I to Louis XIV / Under. ed. P.Yu. Uvarov and E.E. Berger. M., IVI RAS, 2008. 284 p. (18 p.l.);

Margeret Jacques. State Russian Empire. J. Margeret in documents and research: (Texts, comments, Articles) / Ed. An. Berelovich, V.D. Nazarova, P.Yu. Uvarov. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic Cultures, 2007. 552 p. (Studia historica);

France 16th century Experiments in reconstruction based on notarial acts. M.: Nauka, 2004. 35 pp.

French society in an era of cultural change: From Francis I to Louis XIV. / answer ed. the author will enter. articles, translations and comments - P.Yu. Uvarov. M. IVI RAS, 2008. (Supplement to the journal "Middle Ages". Issue 3). 284 pp.;

Feudalism: concept and realities / ed. AND I. Gurevich, S.I. Luchitskaya, P.Yu. Uvarov. M., IVI RAS, 2008;

Social identities medieval man/ Ed. A.A. Svanidze, P.Yu. Uvarov. M.: Nauka, 2007.

Pavel Yuryevich Uvarov is a major specialist in the field of medieval studies and early modern times, well known both in our country and abroad, the author of more than 250 works. History of France - home research topic Pavel Yuryevich. This is evidenced by his monographs “The French of the 16th Century: A View from the Latin Quarter” (M., 1994), “France of the 16th Century: Experience of Reconstruction Based on Notarial Acts” (M., 2004), “Under the Arches of the Palace of Justice. Seven legal conflicts in France of the 16th century" (Moscow, 2017), as well as a doctoral dissertation, written on the basis of a scrupulous study of notarial acts. The study of notarial acts allowed him to show France and the French of the 16th century through the prism of social, legal, anthropological and micro-history.
Pavel Yuryevich is one of the “practicing historians” - those who like to work directly with the source, draw inspiration from it and can use it to see a person from the distant past. It is not without reason that some of his works are devoted to the problem of “restoring” the individual destinies of people of the past and, thus, understanding a specific personality. This “restoration” is one of the main merits of P.Yu. Uvarov as a historian.
Pavel Yuryevich, as a researcher, has the ability to look at an event in history in a special way - from different sides. This is evidenced by a number of important studies carried out by him. scientific conferences and in particular, international Conference"Bartholomew's Night. Event and Controversy" (1997), followed by the publication of its materials, which collected various approaches to this resonant event of the 16th century against the backdrop of the era Religious wars in France.
Another side of the scientific creativity of P.Yu. Uvarov is his attention to the problem of elite intellectual labor and medieval universities. PhD thesis Pavel Yurievich, defended in 1983 at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after. IN AND. Lenin, was devoted precisely to this issue. The University of Paris in his research is in many ways the focus of European universalism, a corporation that is not only capable of teaching dialogue with royal power, but is also a kind of “school of representation.”
Not ignored by P.Yu. Uvarov and historiographical issues.
He professionally examines what, and most importantly, why and how to write
historians. In his works he demonstrates what evolution is
lution of the historiographical process in France and other countries,
explores the specifics of various areas of historical knowledge
in modern Russian medieval studies. The monograph “Between “hedgehogs” and “foxes” is devoted to the peculiarities of the scientific creativity of French and domestic medievalists (R. Munier, E. Le Roy Ladurie, A.Ya. Gurevich, O.I. Varyash, etc.), problems of historiography. Notes on historians" (M., 2015).
P.Yu. Uvarov heads the Department of Western European Middle Ages and Early Modern Times at the Institute of Historical Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and is the executive editor of the main scientific journal of domestic medievalists, “The Middle Ages.” He is also a member of the International Commission on the History of Universities, a member of the editorial boards of such publications as the French Yearbook and Historical Studies.

- Please tell us about your scientific biography.

IN Lately I don't like talking about mine scientific career. I no longer do much as a practicing historian and share my experience too much and tell all sorts of “historical anecdotes.” I recently published a book, “Between Hedgehogs and Foxes.” Notes about historians” and everything is told there. There were no special zigzags in my scientific destiny. I graduated not from Moscow University, but from the Lenin Moscow Pedagogical Institute, which in the 30s was called the “Second Moscow State University.” I still found remnants of former luxury. There were such outstanding teachers as Sergei Lvovich Utchenko, Eduard Nikolaevich Burdzhalov, Vladimir Borisovich Kobrin - names that would do honor to modern Moscow State University. Then he worked at a school on assignment for three years. At the same time, he studied in correspondence graduate school at the Department of History Ancient world and the Middle Ages of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute.. After working for three years, he left for the Department rare book Libraries of foreign literature. After school it seemed like heaven to me. Then he defended himself, returned to the department at Moscow State Pedagogical Institute and was an assistant there for some time. In 1985 I went to work at the Institute of World History, which I do not regret. Although, when I transferred, I was already deputy dean of the evening department of the history department. The HR department told me: “Do you understand that you are being demoted?” I've been sitting here in the same place since 1985. So the biography is alien to any kind of romance.

- You have done a lot of research on French universities. P.N. Miliukov wrote that the university was one of the main embryos of European democracy. Why do you think modern Russian universities do not perform the function of promoting democratic practice in our society?

First, about democracy. There is a healthy reaction among university historians to reject myths about universities. One of them is the myth that autonomy is always good and lack of autonomy is always bad. In fact, the glass is half empty and half full. University autonomy can be a blessing, but it can also be an obstacle to the development of science and education. There are many known cases when a person seizes power at a university, then changes the academic council to suit himself and can sit until the end of his years. They are trying to remove him, but they can’t, because we have autonomy, and there are quite a lot of such examples. By the way, when in France under Sarkozy there was a reform that strengthened autonomous principles - the president of the university had more rights, and the university as a whole received more prerogatives, freed from the tutelage of the ministry - French intellectuals rebelled against this “expansion of democracy.” They said: “You are making us hostage to the president of the university. He will promote his favorites. It’s better to let the ministry take care of maintaining justice.”

If universities were only breeding grounds for democracy, they would remain a purely Western phenomenon. Human rights, parliamentarism, freedom of speech, democracy and so on, as experience shows, outside the Western context do not always take root and take on bizarre forms. But the university is taking root everywhere. In Iran - please. In Africa - yes, as much as you like. Chinese universities are generally excellent. The university is a form that adapts very well to the requirements of the environment, while maintaining, of course, the impulse of democracy that is inherent in universities from the very beginning. Even in the USSR, if a person from the Soviet structure, where everything was really decided by the CPSU, came to the Academy or university, then he saw that it was still a little different here, not the way he was used to. Everything seems to be clear. There is party discipline. For example, the “opinion” is announced that A.D. should be deprived. Sakharov, the title of academician. It seems that the majority of people voting are communists. They had to listen to this “opinion” according to party discipline. But since the voting is secret, it seems that the President, Academician Alexandrov, said that there would be a negative vote. Then the science department of the Central Committee played back. Still, the academic environment has its own characteristics. Therefore, the topic of universities is always interesting and always relevant. We need to see how the adaptation goes university idea, university tradition to environment. This is one of the big mysteries

- Please tell us about your work at the Higher Attestation Commission

I ended up at the Higher Attestation Commission by coincidence. Suddenly, the vacancies of both the chairman and deputy chairman of the Expert Council became vacant. The director of our institute proposed my candidacy, although this did not arouse my enthusiasm, because the structure was not entirely clear. I, one might say, “got caught” because several times in my articles I gave advice on how to change the defense procedure and so on. It turned out that I give advice, but when they offer me to do something, I refuse it. Well, in general, they “took it lightly.” Soon it will be three years since I sit on the Higher Attestation Commission. At first I really didn't like it there. Now I'm used to it. You understand that from inside the system you see the mechanisms of its operation, invisible from the outside. Get rid of myths and preconceived opinions. The most interesting thing is that you can observe live the “historiographic process”, the change in historical fashion.

An important point is the fight against written-off dissertations. Many thanks to Dissernet. We haven't had any problems with them so far. We checked the appeals they made, and they were confirmed. Although, of course, the absence of directly copied large pieces of text in itself does not guarantee the quality of the dissertation. Unfortunately, we cannot reject a dissertation on the grounds that it is bad. We may not recognize it if the procedure is violated. Let's say the dissertation candidate indicated that this was a Vakov journal, but it was not a Vakov journal. We can find fault with this. But to say: “You know, there is nothing new in the dissertation,” is very difficult for us, even if the author read four books but did not copy them, but retold them in his own words. Unfortunately, there is no platform from which to address scientific councils and the scientific community. There is only ultimatum language: “We do not recommend the dissertation for defense, we do not agree with the decision of the dissertation council.” In this case, the dissertation candidate is called to the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission. This seems like a last resort. Although it happens that the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, having sorted it out, lets the person go in peace.

Here typical situation. Recently there have been many dissertations on foreign policy Russia first half of the 19th century V. Sometimes it is clear that the author does not know French. And the sources, as you understand, are mostly in French, since this was the language of diplomatic paperwork. How can we wrap up this dissertation on this basis? It was easier before. Previously, the expert council had the right to call to its meeting and talk with the author of the work. Within half an hour you can get an idea of ​​how independent the work is. Now, by government decision, we have been deprived of this right. We turned the arrows to the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission. And this - complete disaster. I sit on the podium as a representative of our expert council. The meeting begins at 11 o'clock, and sometimes ends at six o'clock, and sometimes later. Cases are being considered regarding the opening of academic councils and scientific journals, and on approval of defenses. But the lion's share of the time is a stream of dissertation candidates from all social and humanitarian disciplines who are called in for interviews. They languish in the corridor for hours waiting for a call. Gray-haired men, ardent youths, women on last month pregnancy. I feel very sorry for them all. These are mostly economists. They are at least two-thirds of the entire suffering crowd of dissertation candidates. Several dozen people pass through each day. You can spend no more than 5-10 minutes on each. Invite into the hall, ask questions, remove from the hall, make a decision, call again to the courtroom and solemnly announce the verdict. What can you find out during this time? If the old system is returned, this will increase the level of expertise. This will not be the current tedious and meaningless assembly line of 50 people from different scientific specialties per day, but two or three dissertation candidates with whom specialists will talk. Then they will make a decision, with which the Presidium will either agree or not. But for this it is necessary to cancel the previous decision, and either the Ministry or the Government stubbornly refuses to do this.

Or the notorious VAK list of journals. According to the new order, it goes not through a permit, but through an application. Probably to avoid corruption. But this does not mean that registering a journal has become easier, on the contrary. You need to collect 37 different documents, otherwise the application will be automatically rejected by the computer database. Including an agreement with the Book Chamber on legal deposit rights, statutory documents, an agreement with the publishing house, an agreement on the issuance of ISSN, and so on. And the older the publication, the more difficult it is to collect all the papers. What statutory documents might our journal “Middle Ages” have? We have been publishing since 1942. But if the documents are collected, then the Higher Attestation Commission does not have the right to refuse registration. That is, we are obliged to register any magazine, even an obviously hacky one. For Academician Nikolai Nikolaevich Kazansky, a classical philologist, who sits on the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, the approval of journals is simply torment. Publishers love to give Latin names, sometimes making four mistakes in two words of the title. And we cannot refuse.

We managed to assemble a working team of HAC experts. Yesterday, for example, there was a meeting for which 60 cases had accumulated over the holidays. We sat for a very long time, but the procedure did not degenerate into a formal stamping of decisions. The experts really tried to delve into the content and point out typical errors. Most often, the dissertation was still recommended to be approved, but sometimes, however, patience ran out, the work was either sent for additional examination, or it was recommended to call the dissertation candidate to the Presidium. But, most importantly, the council tries to discuss certain scientific norms, determining what is permissible and what is not. This is the process of development of science, its important component. I keep wishing that someone would record this. That is, not a final decision, but a discussion taking place at the Council, and then it would somehow be broadcast to the scientific community (even without indicating names). I even wanted to keep such a “diary of the chairman” on the page of the Free Historical Society. It’s not working yet, which is a pity. I repeat, we really need a channel of communication with both scientists and technical services dissertation councils. Well, for example, from somewhere a fashion arose to write a phrase about the applicant’s personal contribution to the preparation of the work, which “consisted of personal participation at all stages of the preparation of the dissertation.” This is complete nonsense. Obviously, the wording was copied from some general recommendations related to natural science disciplines, when a whole laboratory or creative team can work, but only one person defends himself. But for historians it makes no sense. But don’t “cut” all the work because of this! And it is also a pity to reprimand the council only on this basis, since after the third remark the council is closed. So we need an informal communication channel to explain at least such things, not to mention more serious cases.

- Does the Higher Attestation Commission have a procedure for checking for plagiarism? Or can we just rely on Dissernet?

This is the responsibility of dissertation committees. They send a certificate of verification of the dissertation through Anti-Plagiarism. If necessary, if, for example, appeals are received, we check ourselves. But we have a presumption of innocence; it is customary to trust dissident councils. In general, they have long been saying that the Higher Attestation Commission should be abolished and all matters should be transferred to dissertation councils. At Moscow State University, at St. Petersburg State University, and then at other centers, everyone will award their own degrees, following the example of American and other universities. This was a popular idea in the 1990s. Then they abruptly cut it off, deciding that this was a tearing apart of a single scientific space. But legal problems are also inevitable. Is Ulan-Ude required to hire “MSU doctors”? Let’s say they will accept him there, but then, in turn, they will demand that the local degree be automatically recognized in Moscow if a person with a Ulan-Uda degree decides to work at Moscow State University. It is easy to foresee some friction.

Control by the Higher Attestation Commission, alas, is justified. And the new requirements that dissertation students and dissertation councils complain about still increase scientific level protection For example, we managed to change the procedure for appointing opponents. Until recently, this was not controlled in any way. Very often, the Dissertation Council, or more precisely, the supervisor or the dissertation candidate himself, appointed opponents on the principle of loyalty. There is the concept of a “duty opponent” who reliably comes to the defense and in return knows that he will be provided with the same services. Now it is still necessary to show that the opponent is engaged in this topic, he has done such and such work on this subject over the past five years. Unfortunately, we have the right to control this choice only after the fact, after the dissertation has been defended. There was a story about a dissertation on an exotic specialty that required knowledge of a certain ancient language. It turned out that the opponents are very good historians, but none of them knows this language, although there are such specialists in the country. The dissertation had to be sent for additional examination; a lot of effort, time and nerves were spent. But the dissertation is not bad at all, and if we had been consulted in advance, many problems could have been avoided

- How often does plagiarism occur in history dissertations?

There was a lot until Dissernet started working. There were “factories” for the production of dissertations. They still exist, they just began to work more subtly. Previously, they simply took large pieces from different works and assembled them. By the way, the concept of plagiarism is also historical. Try applying “Anti-Plagiarism” to any work by a medieval author or a Renaissance titan. Machiavelli might have passed, and even then with great difficulty, but the rest, with their centon-paraphrase method, would have been declared plagiarists. Today, computer technology undoubtedly contributes to plagiarism. Previously, you had to go through the hassle of rewriting and retyping, but now, with one click of the mouse, the problem is solved. But Anti-Plagiarism catches texts in Russian, and we're talking about mostly about dissertations rather than monographs or articles. Although now the technical capabilities of this system are growing. But if the dissertation candidate takes English text, translates it into Russian and passes it off as his own, then “Anti-plagiarism” is powerless here. Only colleagues can identify this practice.

The biggest impudence is this fictitious publication. This is a well-thought-out strategy, because if you publish an article with “borrowings”, they may read it and grab their heads. And if it exists only in links, then, in fact, no one will check it. There were many such links on the topic “Youth policy in the 90s in such and such an area.” It is unlikely that there will be a crowd of people willing to read such an article. This was the intention.

- Were there many links to non-existent articles?

Yes. As a matter of fact, it was because of them that the scandal began. Of course, the scandal had a pronounced political connotation - they checked, first of all, officials and politicians, but at the same time they began to check not only eminent people, but all dissertation candidates who defended themselves in this “highlighted” council. It turned out that this is a common practice. We are still depriving degrees for work from 2009-2011 on this basis. Most often, appeals are received. We check quite thoroughly. This is hard and unpleasant work. Until recently, we did not have access to the dissertation database at all. Now it has appeared. In general, the work of an expert is good, but unpaid. Sitting at meetings twice a month is already a lot. And to spend additional time on “ homework"in databases - it's quite a shame. By the way, travel expenses are not paid either. If a university sends an expert, say, from Transbaikalia, to the Higher Attestation Commission, it must pay for his travel and accommodation. Which, in general, looks quite strange. None scientific foundation there is no such.

After Dissernet developed vigorous activity, did the number of officials defending dissertations decrease?

Very much. This is evident from the subject matter. Previously, there was a wave of dissertations about youth policy, about the development of democracy in such and such an area in such and such years. Now this fashion has passed. The remaining dissertations on this topic are now being checked with special care. Now there are a lot of dissertations on the history of education. This is already starting to worry. Dissertations are local, written on the archives of one region. Nowhere is it written that the topic should cover the entire country. In any case, we still do not have as many cases of plagiarism as economists and lawyers.

When did this mass plagiarism appear, since the 1990s or already in the 2000s due to the massive use of computers and the Internet?

There was plagiarism in Soviet time. Technically it was different. It couldn't be copied. It was possible to reprint, and when reprinting there were usually some author's insertions. There were no controls then. Only the victim himself could recognize his text in someone else's work. Plagiarism has always existed, but its scale has increased due to computers. But the problem is not only in the copying technique. A scientific degree is still prestigious, and many people want to decorate their business card inscription "Doctor of Science". Demand creates supply. There are a huge number of disadvantaged intellectuals who need to earn a living. As a result, “criminal schemes” arise that feel quite confident. I still get calls email tempting offers, and you see advertisements for “turnkey dissertations” on the Internet, and sometimes there are simply advertisements in the subway: “Help in writing dissertations: consulting services, success guaranteed, payment after defense.” No one goes to the prosecutor's office with these announcements. Now the situation has changed. Sometimes the dissertation candidate suddenly asks to have his work removed from defense. It happens that a person actually defended his degree several years ago, and now asks to be deprived of his degree. It's better to give up your degree than to become the hero of a scandal.

- And if plagiarism is found not in the dissertation, but in an article or monograph. Are there any ways to influence it?

We do not have. The Council at the Higher Attestation Commission decides on qualification issues. Although sometimes we really want to expand the scope of our activities. Sometimes you read a review of a dissertation and realize that your opponent is simply illiterate and does not understand what historical research is. But we cannot deprive opponents of their degrees for what they wrote in their review. It is important for reputational mechanisms to work so that a scientific environment is formed that is intolerant of plagiarism and hack work. Heated controversy over these questions are coming V in social networks. For my discipline - medieval studies, I am still trying to invite the authors of bright “network” statements on our topics to write reviews for our magazine “The Middle Ages”. Sometimes it works. No for publisher more delicacy, how negative review. An archaeologist's treasure is a trash heap, a publisher's treasure is a dirty article. Of course, not for the sake of scandal. As a result, the positive meaning of such discussions emerges. Especially if the person being criticized responds, a debate ensues. In your magazine “Historical Expertise” I read with great pleasure the abusive reviews. It is important. True, I haven’t read the answers yet. Maybe those who are being criticized don’t read the “Historical Expertise”?

Well, then there will be a normal discussion if they read this and don’t brush it aside. There is a single context. The problem here is not so much with the authorities, not with the Higher Attestation Commission, or even with the swindlers. The problem is that a single scientific space, a single context, has been destroyed. Somewhere it is believed that you need to know French to study foreign policy Russia. And somewhere it doesn’t count. And in those councils where this is not considered, it passes, and there is no way to explain to them that this is unacceptable. I was impressed by the question at the dissertation defense, again about the politics of Russia in the 19th century: “How did the Kremlin treat such and such?” The Kremlin's policy in the 19th century was strong.

It turns out that we can influence plagiarists of articles and monographs only by creating a moral climate. Are there any legal procedures?

There is a court. An employee of our institute, Elena Aleksandrovna Melnikova, is a well-known specialist in the Viking Age and Ancient Rus', won several cases. She found publications where her texts were published without permission, filed a case and won several cases

- What were the court decisions?

The court took some measures against the publisher. In addition, it is recognized that the author of the publication is not its author - this is a scandal. You can no longer list it in your list of publications. This is, in general, an unpleasant thing. In addition, there is a fine. The money may be small, but still...

- What, in your opinion, should be borrowed from the international experience of defending dissertations?.

It would be nice to adopt the German experience. In Germany, you cannot defend yourself at your place of work and it is difficult to defend yourself at your place of study. This increases the independence of the examination. We generally lack university mobility. Needed where was born. In many Russian universities Only graduates of these universities work. This hinders the development of science for many reasons. It is worth introducing a jury system. Now the Dissertation Councils consist of 20 to 30 people. If three people understand the topic of the dissertation being defended, then this is already good. The rest either listen with half an ear or go about their own business. Responsibility is dispersed among at least two dozen people, most often relying on the opinions of opponents, who do not make decisions, relying, in turn, on the opinions of the members of the Dissertation Council. In the West, the jury consists of 5 people who are truly experts on the topic, and they take full responsibility for the quality of the work being discussed. This is more logical.

Of course, the current form of defense at a large council has its advantages - scientists broaden their horizons, and the dissertation author, in principle, must present his theses in such a way that not only narrow specialists can understand him. But the Dissertation Councils do not have to be dissolved; they may or may not approve the jury’s decision. So it will be a combined system. I dream about international protections, and himself participated in defenses in France several times. Yes, we will have many problems, first of all, language problems. It is necessary to pay considerable travel expenses, and the problem of mutual recognition of diplomas arises, at least at the defense level. That is, admit that the owner scientific degree The Princeton University doctor is no less competent than the Russian doctor, and therefore can be an opponent in the defense.

Well, in general, you need to understand that examination costs money, and savings here come at a cost. All attempts to find one criterion, such as the Hirsch index, lead to an imitation of scientific activity. We have a brilliant people. He will immediately come up with a lot of ways to get around all this, how to ensure the publication of publications in high-ranking magazines from Bangladesh for very little money. This time is wasted at the expense of doing science. An example of a truly well-thought-out examination system was shown by the Higher School of Economics. They spent money on due diligence for their own internal purposes to figure out who to pay premiums for publications. To do this, they compiled a rating of magazines. They did this for their own purposes, which is why regional publications are poorly represented there. But the idea itself seems promising. They have a blacklist where journals go, where they take money for publication, where there is no double review. Publications in journals where you are not taken into account Chief Editor, for me this is bad, but actually fair. They had leading experts who did not speak out themselves, but each named 15 other experts. And based on their assessments, a rating was compiled. I’m glad that our “Middle Ages” got there, despite the fact that our citation index is low. And this is understandable, we are a highly specialized magazine, not many people will refer to us. But the experts took into account the quality of the articles published by us.

- In what other countries does a system similar to the Higher Attestation Commission exist?

Our system has been adopted in Tajikistan. We review and approve Tajik dissertations. This is a separate story. A system similar to ours exists in France. Universities confer degrees there, but the ministry controls this process and there have been cases of protection being revoked. In addition, in France there is a parallel government system competitive certification for a teaching position - aggregation. In general, if the Higher Attestation Commission is canceled today, the number of academic degree holders will rapidly approach the country’s population, and nothing can be done about it.

Let's talk about the Department of the Middle Ages of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. What challenges do you face as the head of this department?

Do you want to publish my interview in many volumes of your magazine? I can talk about this for a very long time. To determine the topics and even the staff of our department, oddly enough, the problem of periodization is very important. Periodization exists everywhere, in every country, for every national history. Several years ago I had a conversation with specialists in Russian history. I asked them if there were Middle Ages in Russian history. Everyone present responded positively, although not all experts think so. But when I asked: “From what century to what?” - without hesitation, all three answered at the same time, but each answered differently. And then they looked in surprise not only at me, but also at each other. That is, we do not have periodization national history, let alone non-domestic. In Soviet times, the Middle Ages were identical to the concept of feudal formation. Since the late 1930s, the upper limit was first established according to the date of the Great French Revolution, and then it was shifted to the so-called English Revolution the middle of the 17th century, although the British themselves do not believe that they had a revolution. In the post-Soviet era, the medievalists themselves said: “But let’s do it, as in the West and as it was in pre-revolutionary Russia, we will return the border of the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 16th century.” In words it was easy to do, but when it turned into the division of hours in universities, it turned out that the departments New history and the Middle Ages are fighting over the border between periods. But it's not just about mercantile interests. A person who studies, say, Dante, he will understand the 17th century. It will not be easy for a person who studies Helmut Kohl to understand the specifics of the 16th century. It is possible to distinguish “Early Modern Time” into a separate period. But then we need to create new departments and change programs. Our medievalists have not yet decided to what century our competence extends. Of course, there were incidents in Soviet times. Western scholars laughed when it turned out that our specialist on the Thirty Years' War worked at the department of the Middle Ages. At the same time, this gave our specialists the opportunity to see some processes in development and continuity, which they could not do in the West.

The same problems surfaced during the preparation of the new edition of World History. Despite all the shortcomings, this is quite useful work. It gave me the opportunity to take a fresh look at historical process and find some kind of national point of view. After all, although science is international, no one has canceled national historiography. This does not mean that it is necessary to prove that Russia is the homeland of elephants. This can be done with great success even without scientists, and scientists only get in the way here. But we need to find our own view. Unfortunately, our specific view is not visible to many people in the world. And Livanov is right when he talks about the very low citation rate of our scientists in the West. We do very little to fit in global community. The legacy of a great power, which, in its opinion, had the most advanced teaching, is telling. Hungarians and Poles have long been publishing their research on world history in English and other international languages. We need to do the same. We have lost our leading positions even in Byzantine studies. Until the 1970s, it was the norm for Byzantinists around the world to know Russian. Now they don’t know him and they hardly read our historians. This is not a conspiracy against Russian science. We do virtually nothing to promote our work abroad. In Soviet times, there was a publishing house called Progress, which was engaged, in particular, in publishing translations of our scientists into other languages. In addition, our historians were transferred to the GDR, in a European language understandable to many. Now it turns out: you are interested, you translate. I can translate my article with some effort, but it will take me a year to translate my monograph into French. I don't have time for this. For this purpose, public and private funds should be created, as is done in many countries. We need “soft power” when you broadcast your culture to other countries. There are no grants available for this activity.

There are many quirks in current grant policy in general. On interdisciplinarity, gender, “cultural bridges” and other trendy topics, it is easier to get a grant for a conference than, say, a conference on the “Economic State of Russian society end XIX beginning XX century". I'm not even talking about the conference called: “What is feudalism?” Although this is a popular topic. As soon as she appears at the conference, there is a full house. We still need to understand: did feudalism exist or not? This is also necessary for Russian history. In general, the work of specialists in the history of the medieval West is needed to understand Russian history.

I’ve already talked and written about this several times, but I still can’t resist telling you about a recent curiosity. In 2013, when the whole country celebrated the 400th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty on an unprecedented scale, we decided to hold a conference on the history of our representative bodies - Zemsky Sobors, but show this phenomenon in a European context. I was asked to send out invitations to European colleagues. But when I started writing letters, I realized that for some reason I couldn’t translate any European language the term "estate-representative monarchy". I turned to Wikipedia. In it, say, the term “absolutism” is translated into 60 languages. Of course, articles in these languages ​​differ from each other, but they are there. If you type “estate-representative monarchy,” then Wikipedia will show that there are articles in only two languages ​​- Russian and Ukrainian. That's all. Mikhail Anatolyevich Boytsov, a very interesting medievalist with a malicious mindset, wrote an article on this subject in which he found the author of this term. It was invented by Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev on turn of the 19th century and 20th centuries At that time, the topic of representation in the class-based Russian Empire was relevant. So he introduced it as an example from Russian history that had Western parallels. The Soviet government picked up this term. Today, all specialists in Russian history believe that this is a Western term and a Western institution, which was either transmitted to us from the West, or is some kind of original national phenomenon that we compare with Western patterns. But in the West there is no term “estate-representative monarchy.” There is a concept of “representation”, since deputies more often represented not their classes, but the whole country. When we tried to translate the topics of our reports, funny situations arose with our foreign colleagues. They asked: “What is a class monarchy?” “Well, corporate,” we tried to explain. “Corporate state? This is under Mussolini! We've never had that." This example shows that we need to constantly understand terminology and bring it into line with world historiography.