No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sinology in Russia during the Soviet and Post-Soviet Periods: Research and Politics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2022
Abstract
This paper follows the developments in Chinese studies in Moscow and Leningrad–Saint Petersburg during the Soviet and post-Soviet decades. It provides an overview of institutions and key currents in research conducted in these two cities, while also contextualizing the general political conditions under which Sinology existed. The paper examines the ways researchers responded to the ideological requirements placed upon them in the early Soviet period, then outlines the main trends in Chinese studies after the establishment of the PRC and during the Sino-Soviet split, and, finally, traces the continuities and changes of the late Soviet and post-Soviet years. This article provides some information on existing bibliographical publications, conferences, and journals as an aid for following China-related research conducted in Russia. It also demonstrates that, while many problems continue to hamper the development of Sinology in Russia, this field has sound foundations and many promising tendencies.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 Russian names are transliterated using ALA-LC style, with the exception of different spellings used in the authors’ own publications.
2 For example, I͡u.V. Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a v Institute vostokovedenii͡a RAN” [Establishment and Development of Sinology at the Institute of Oriental Studies of RAS], Orientalistica 1.3–4 (2018), 424–60; Christoph Harbsmeier, “Vasilii Mikhailovich Alekseev and Russian Sinology,” T'oung Pao, Second Series, 97.4–5 (2011), 344–70; Kim, Alexander, “The Life and Works of N.Ia. Bichurin, a Pioneer of Russian Sinology,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 66.2 (2013), 163–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A.I. Kobzev, Dramy i farsy rossiĭskoĭ kitaistiki [Dramas and Farces of Russian Chinese Studies] (Moscow: IOS RAS, 2016); N.L. Mamaeva, ed., Osnovnye napravlenii͡a i problemy rossiĭskogo kitaevedenii͡a [Main Directions and Problems of Russian Sinology] (Moscow: Pami͡atniki istoricheskoĭ mysli, 2014); V.N. Nikiforov, Sovetskie istoriki o problemakh Kitai͡a [Soviet Historians on Matters of China] (Moscow: Nauka, Glavnai͡a redakt͡sii͡a vostochnoĭ literatury, 1970); I.F. Popova, ed., Aziatskiĭ muzeĭ—Institut vostochnykh rukopiseĭ RAN: putevoditelʹ [Asiatic Museum—Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of RAS: Guidebook] (Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo vostochnoĭ literatury, 2018); David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, Russian Orientalism. Asia in the Russian Mind from Peter the Great to the Emigration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010); P.E. Skachkov, Ocherki istorii russkogo kitaevedenii͡a [Outline of History of Soviet Sinology] (Moscow: Nauka, Glavnai͡a redakt͡sii͡a vostochnoĭ literatury, 1977); Vera Tolz, Russia's Own Orient: The Politics of Identity and Oriental Studies in the Late Imperial and Early Soviet Periods (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Voskressenski, Alexei D., “Uneven Development vs. Searching for Integrity: Chinese Studies in Post-Soviet Russia,” China Review 14.2 (2014), 131–54Google Scholar.
3 On the most important centers of Sinology in post-Soviet Russia, i.e., Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Chita, and Vladivostok, see Voskressenski, “Uneven Development vs. Searching for Integrity,” 131–54, and “Chinese Studies in Post-Soviet Russia: From Uneven Development to the Search for Integrity,” in Sinology in Post-Communist States: Views from the Czech Republic, Mongolia, Poland, and Russia, edited by Chih-yu Shih (Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2016), 133–56.
4 V.P. Zhuravlëva, Bibliografii͡a Kitai͡a: Filosofii͡a i obshchestvenno-politicheskai͡a myslʹ. Ėtika. Ėstetika. Voennai͡a myslʹ. Mifologii͡a. Religii͡a. 1958–2008 [Bibliography of China: Philosophy and Sociopolitical Thought. Ethics. Aesthetics. Military Theory. Mythology. Religion. 1958–2008] (Moscow: ID “Forum,” 2015); S.D. Miliband, Vostokovedy Rosii, XX–nachalo XXI veka. Biobibliograficheskiĭ slovarʹ [Orientologists of Russia, Twentieth–Early Twenty-First Century. Biobibliographical Dictionary] (Moscow: Vostochnai͡a literatura, 2008); P.E. Skachkov, Bibliografii͡a Kitai͡a [Bibliography of China] (Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo vostochnoĭ literatury, 1960).
5 Kelly, Jeanne, “A Survey of Soviet Studies on Chinese Literature (1961–1978): Introduction and Bibliography,” Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews 2.1 (1980), 101–36Google Scholar.
6 Riftin, Boris, “The Study of Chinese Classical Literature in Russia,” Asian Research Trends: A Humanities and Social Science Review 12 (2002), 49–88Google Scholar.
7 I.F. Popova, “Ot Aziatskogo muzei͡a k Institutu vostochnykh rukopiseĭ RAN: sobirateli i issledovateli rukopisnoĭ knigi narodov Vostoka” [From the Asiatic Museum to the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of RAS: Collectors and Researchers of the Handwritten Book of the Peoples of the East], in Aziatskiĭ muzeĭ—Institut vostochnykh rukopiseĭ RAN: putevoditelʹ, 25.
8 For the history of the Institute of Buddhist Culture, see T.V. Ermakova, “Institut buddiĭskoĭ kulʹtury AN SSSR (1928–1930 gg.)” [Institute of Buddhist Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1928–30], in Chetvërtye vostokovednye chtenii͡a pami͡ati O.O. Rozenberga: Doklady, statʹi, publikat͡sii dokumentov [The Fourth Readings in Memory of O.O. Rosenberg: Presentations, Papers, Publication of Documents], edited by T.V. Ermakova (Saint Petersburg: Izdatelʹstvo A. Goloda, 2011), 251–60.
9 Popova, “Ot Aziatskogo muzei͡a k Institutu vostochnykh rukopiseĭ RAN,” 27.
10 This list does not include political and party activists who also engaged in discussions about China's society and economy, such as Manuil Abramson (1898–1938), Anatoliĭ Kantorovich (1896–1937), Lajos Magyar (1891–1937), and Pavel Mif (Fortus, 1901–38).
11 Although the archives of Soviet security services are still not fully open to the public, several NGOs have been working on compiling databases of victims of purges in the USSR. The International Memorial society, the Open List project, the Immortal Barracks project, and other similar initiatives work toward gathering archival data, the memories of survivors and victims’ family members, etc. to record traces of lives lost and broken by the totalitarian machine. Several lists enumerate scholars of the Orient who were prosecuted in the Soviet years. See, e.g., https://ru.openlist.wiki/Категория:Востоковеды; http://memory.pvost.org/pages/dic.html; see also V.M. Alpatov, “Martirolog vostokovednoĭ lingvistiki” [Martyrology of Linguistics in Oriental Studies], Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR [Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Sciences] 12 (1990), 110–21; I͡a.V. Vasilʹkov, M.I͡u. Sorokina, Li͡udi i sudʹby. Biobibliograficheskiĭ slovarʹ vostokovedov—zhertv politicheskogo terrora v sovetskiĭ period (1917–1991) [People and Fates: Biobibliographical Dictionary of Asia Scholars—Victims of Political Terror in the Soviet Period, 1917–91] (Saint Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2003).
12 For more about losses and changes during that time, see L.N. Menʹshikov, L.I. Chuguevskiĭ, “Kitaevedenie” [Sinology], in Aziatskiĭ muzeĭ—Leningradskoe otdelenie Instituta Vostokovedenii͡a AN SSSR [Asiatic Museum—Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences], edited by A.N. Kononov et al. (Moscow: Nauka, Glavnai͡a redakt͡sii͡a vostochnoĭ literatury, 1972), 114–18; V.G. Dat͡syshen, “Velikai͡a Otechestvennai͡a voĭna i sovetskoe kitaevedenie” [The Great Patriotic War and Soviet Sinology], Problemy Dalʹnego Vostoka [Far Eastern Affairs] 2 (2015), 108–17.
13 V.N. Nikiforov, “Izuchenie istorii Kitai͡a v SSSR” [Study of Chinese History in the USSR], in Velikiĭ Okti͡abrʹ i razvitie sovetskogo kitaevedenii͡a [Great October and the Development of Soviet Sinology], edited by I͡u.V. Chudodeev (Moscow: Nauka, Glavnai͡a redakt͡sii͡a vostochnoĭ literatury, 1968), 56–84; Nikiforov, Sovetskie istoriki o problemakh Kitai͡a, 126–270.
14 Pisarev, Alexander, “Soviet Sinology and Two Approaches to an Understanding of Chinese History,” China Review 14.2 (2014), 117Google Scholar.
15 Nikiforov, Sovetskie istoriki o problemakh Kitai͡a, 126–270; Pisarev, “Soviet Sinology,” 113–30, and “Soviet Sinology: Two Conflicting Paradigms of Chinese History,” in Sinology in Post-Communist States, 115–32; Fogel, Joshua A., “The Debates over the Asiatic Mode of Production in Soviet Russia, China, and Japan,” The American Historical Review 93.1 (1988), 56–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Many of these political activists also lost their lives in the 1930s purges, although, unlike scholars of the Orient, they were not accused of espionage but rather of counterrevolutionary activities and being part of Trotskyite organizations.
17 The commission's first report was published as part of Alekseev's book in 1932, although it had been completed by January 1, 1931: V.M. Alekseev, Kitaĭskai͡a ieroglificheskai͡a pisʹmennostʹ i eë latinizat͡sii͡a [Chinese Hieroglyphic Script and Its Latinization] (Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1932), 74–84. See also V.M. Alekseev, “Komissii͡a po latinizat͡sii kitaĭskoĭ pisʹmennosti. K voprosu o latinizat͡sii kitaĭskoĭ pisʹmennosti” [Commission for Latinization of Chinese Script: On the Question of Latinizing Chinese Script], in Zapiski Instituta vostokovedenii͡a Akademii nauk SSSR [Bulletin of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences], 1 (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1932), 35–54, www.orientalstudies.ru/rus/images/pdf/journals/zivan_01_1932_03.pdf; V.M. Alpatov, “Razmyshlenii͡a nad knigoĭ V.M. Alekseeva ‘Kitaĭskai͡a ieroglificheskai͡a pisʹmennosti i eë latinizat͡sii͡a’” [Thinking Over V.M. Alekseev's Book “Chinese Hieroglyphic Script and Its Latinization”], Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae [Society and State in China] 43.2 (2013), 271–85. Reflections on the phonetic system of the Chinese language were made earlier, for example, by Evgeniĭ Polivanov (1891–1938) and Nikolaĭ Popov-Tativa (1883–1937). See E.D. Polivanov and N.M. Popov-Tativa, Posobie po kitaĭskoĭ transkript͡sii [Manual on Chinese Transcription] (Moscow: Kommunisticheskiĭ Universitet Trudi͡ashchikhsi͡a Vostoka im. I.V. Stalina, 1928).
18 Alekseev et al., “Komissii͡a po latinizat͡sii kitaĭskoĭ pisʹmennosti,” 36.
19 For more about the implementation of this script and the reasons for its failure, see V.G. Dat͡syshen, “Dvizhenie za latinizat͡sii͡u kitaĭskoĭ pisʹmennosti i razvitie kitaĭskoĭ shkoly na sovetskom Dalʹnem Vostoke” [Movement for Latinizing Chinese Script and the Development of a Chinese School in the Soviet Far East], Rossii͡a i ATR [Russia and the Pacific] 3 (2008), 160–69. The work of Alekseev's commission followed in the footsteps of an earlier attempt by Qu Qiubai 瞿秋白 (1899–1935, Russian pseudonym Strakhov), Dragunov, and Vsevolod Kolokolov (1896–1979) at creating a latinized script called Sin Wenz; for more about this project, see Jing Tsu, “Romanization without Rome: China's Latin New Script and Soviet Central Asia,” in Asia Inside Out: Connected Places, edited by Eric Tagliacozzo et al. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), 321–53.
20 Apollon Petrov survived the purges of the 1930s unharmed, but he was removed from his academic position at the IOS and given a diplomatic appointment in wartime Chongqing in 1942, which left him little time for research. He was the Soviet ambassador to the Republic of China in 1945–48, after which he and his family moved to Moscow. However, his wife, I͡ulii͡a Averkieva (1907–80), a notable Soviet anthropologist specializing in the peoples of North America, was arrested in 1948 for suspected “connections with spies” and sent to a labor camp for five years. Petrov died a year after her arrest, in 1949. He is considered the first historian of Chinese philosophy in the Soviet Union; see M.L. Titarenko, “Izuchenie kitaĭskoĭ filosofii i religii” [The Study of Chinese Philosophy and Religion], in Osnovnye napravlenii͡a i problemy rossiĭskogo kitaevedenii͡a [Main Directions and Problems of Russian Sinology], edited by N.L. Mamaeva (Moscow: Pami͡atniki istoricheskoĭ mysli, 2014), 191.
21 For an overview of Russian and Soviet Tangut studies, see Sergey Dmitriev, “Tangut (Xi Xia) Studies in the Soviet Union: The Quinta Essentia of Russian Oriental Studies,” in Sinology in Post-Communist States, 233–51.
22 V.M. Alekseev, L.I. Duman, and A.A. Petrov, eds., Kitaĭ: Istorii͡a, ėkonomika, kulʹtura, geroicheskai͡a borʹba za nat͡sionalʹnui͡u nezavisimostʹ [China: History, Economy, Culture, Heroic Struggle for National Independence] (Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1940).
23 “Zasedanie shestoe. Rechʹ tov. Mikoi͡ana” [Session Six: Speech by Comrade Mikoian], in XX s”ezd Kommunisticheskoĭ partii Sovetskogo Soi͡uza, 14–25 fevrali͡a 1956 goda. Stenograficheskiĭ otchët [Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, February 14–25, 1956. Stenographic Report] (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatelʹstvo politicheskoĭ literatury, 1956), 1, 323–24.
24 Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a,” 429.
25 Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a,” 430–31.
26 Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a,” 426.
27 Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a,” 426–27.
28 Nikiforov, “Izuchenie istorii Kitai͡a v SSSR,” 62–64.
29 Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a,” 428.
30 See Nikiforov, “Izuchenie istorii Kitai͡a v SSSR,” 64; Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a,” 428. The encyclopedia of world history was called, simply, World History (Vsemirnai͡a istorii͡a).
31 A.A. Shtukin, trans., N.T. Fedorenko, ed., Shit͡szin [Shijing] (Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1957); A.A. Shtukin, trans., N.I. Konrad, ed., Shit͡szin: izbrannye pesni [Shijing: Selected Songs] (Moscow: Goslitizdat, 1957); N.I. Konrad, Sunʹ-t͡szy. Traktat o voennom iskusstve: perevod i issledovanie [Sun Zi: Treatise on the Craft of War: Translation and Research] (Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1950); V.M. Shteĭn, Guan-tszy: issledovanie i perevod [Guan Zi: Study and Translation] (Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo vostochnoĭ literatury, 1959); N.T. Fedorenko, trans., T͡si͡uĭ I͡uanʹ. Stikhi [Qu Yuan: Poems] (Moscow: Goslitizdat, 1956). The translations of the Guan Zi and Chu Ci are incomplete.
32 All Four Classic Novels were translated into Russian and published in the USSR between 1954 and 1959, as well as many works by twentieth-century Chinese writers. A detailed overview of translations and research on Chinese literature in the USSR from the 1920s through the 1960s can be found in a brochure by Kirina Golygina (1935–99) and Igor Lisevich (1932–2000): K.I. Golygina and I.S. Lisevich, Soviet Sinology in the Past Fifty Years (Literature) (Moscow: “Nauka” Publishing House, Central Department of Oriental Literature, 1968).
33 The peculiar circumstances surrounding the defense of Tikhvinskiĭ's doctoral thesis are described in A.I. Kobzev, “Byl li khėshan Alikė ‘osnovatelem sovetskoĭ shkoly kitaevedenii͡a’?” [Was Heshang Alike “the Founder of the Soviet School of Sinology”?], Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae [Society and State in China], 45.2 (2015), 916–79, here 934–41. This paper also examines two earlier works, Lev Ėĭdlin's (1909–85) candidate thesis of 1942 and Nikolaĭ Fedorenko's (1912–2000) doctoral thesis of 1943; see ibid. p. 970.
34 The words of the Soviet Arabist Oleg Bolʹshakov (1929–2020), quoted in I.F. Popova, “Lev Nikolaevich Menʹshikov (1926–2005)” [Lev Men'shikov, 1926–2005], Pisʹmennye pami͡atniki Vostoka [Written Monuments of the Orient] 1.4 (2006), 6.
35 Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a,” 428.
36 M.E. Kravtsova, A.E. Terekhov, “K istorii izuchenii͡a Chuskikh strof v sovetskom kitaevedenii: 1950–1980-e gg.” [On the History of Soviet Studies of the Elegies of Chu: 1950–1980s], Asiatica: Trudy po filosofii i kulʹturam Vostoka [Asiatica: Papers on Eastern Philosophy and Cultures] 13.1 (2019), 27.
37 Kravtsova and Terekhov, “K istorii izuchenii͡a Chuskikh strof,” 24–99.
38 I͡u.L. Krolʹ, “Rudolʹf Vsevolodovich Vi͡atkin i ‘Istoricheskie zapiski’ Syma T͡si͡ani͡a” [Rudolf Viatkin and Sima Qian's “Records of the Grand Historian”], in Syma T͡si͡anʹ. Istoricheskie zapiski [Sima Qian: The Records of the Grand Historian], translated and annotated by R.V. Vi͡atkin and V.S. Taskin, 2nd edition (Moscow: Vostochnai͡a literatura, 2001), 1, 409.
39 The index and some of the materials published in the Society and State in China conference proceedings can be found at www.synologia.ru/art-general-82.htm.
40 Popova, “Ot Aziatskogo muzei͡a k Institutu vostochnykh rukopiseĭ RAN,” 44.
41 Nikiforov, “Izuchenie istorii Kitai͡a v SSSR,” 71; Chudodeev, “Stanovlenie i razvitie kitaevedenii͡a,” 436.
42 The series is still being published. In 1959 it was renamed Monuments of Literature of the Peoples of the East (Pami͡atniki literatury narodov Vostoka), from which the Monuments of Eastern Literature series separated in 1965. An annotated list of books in the series can be found in V.D. Buzaeva and N.V. Isaeva, Pami͡atniki literatury narodov Vostoka [Literary Monuments of the Peoples of the East] (Moscow: Nauka, 1986). Lists of later publications in this series are available at the Oriental Literature (Vostochnai͡a literatura) Publishing House website at https://vostlit.ru/inform/1b.pdf and at https://vostlit.ru/catalog/A1.htm#2.
43 For a bibliography of these and other translations published since the 1960s, see related sections in Zhuravlëva's Bibliography of China.
44 Work on the dictionary was started by a large collective in Leningrad in 1938. Among the participants were Vasiliĭ Alekseev, I͡uriĭ Bunakov (1908–42), Aleksandr Dragunov, Lazarʹ Duman, Apollon Petrov, Aleksandr Shprint͡syn, Viktor Shteĭn (1890–1964), and many others. By 1941 the draft contents of the dictionary were ready, but the war put any further preparation on hold. When the Sinologists returned to Leningrad after being evacuated from the city, the compilation of the dictionary was resumed, but by then the Chinese lexis had obtained a large number of neologisms that had to be added. Ilʹi͡a Oshanin, Lev Ėĭdlin, and Zhou Songyuan (1909–64) joined the dictionary preparation team. By 1948 the main part of the additions was ready, but in 1949 the dictionary materials were transferred in their entirety from Leningrad to Moscow, where Oshanin took on editing duties. See Menʹshikov and Chuguevskiĭ, “Kitaevedenie,” 111, 118–20.
45 See Popova, “Lev Nikolaevich Menʹshikov,” 5–15.
46 Less stability has been maintained in universities outside of Moscow and Saint Petersburg: many smaller institutes were reorganized into enlarged university bodies, creating a network of ten “federal universities” in the mid-2000s. These universities absorbed between two to seven more specialized educational entities each, which might be helpful for financing but has caused numerous administrative issues and disruptions in local schools. Kazan University, a historical center of Sinology, did not escape this fate.
47 M.L. Titarenko et al., ed., Dukhovnai͡a kulʹtura Kitai͡a [China's Spiritual Culture] (Moscow: Vostochnai͡a literatura, 2006–2010).
48 Kobzev, Dramy i farsy, 56–62.
49 In addition to the already mentioned index of papers submitted for the “Society and State in China” conference, Synologia.ru provides the option to alphabetically search through many entries of China's Spiritual Culture, available at www.synologia.ru/art-alphabet.htm. The thematic search option provides access to some papers submitted to conference proceedings prepared by the IOS and some other publications: www.synologia.ru/art-general.htm. Large parts of the publications in Russian Chinese Studies–Oral History (see below) can be found at www.synologia.ru/art-general-149.htm.
50 On the Russian segment of the project, see http://idp.bl.uk/pages/collections_ru.a4d.
51 Popova, “Ot Aziatskogo muzei͡a k Institutu vostochnykh rukopiseĭ RAN,” 44.
52 For more about these projects see T.M. Turchak, “Publikat͡sii͡a dokumentalʹnykh seriĭ i krupnykh sbornikov dokumentov kak kharakternai͡a cherta izuchenii͡a istorii Kitai͡a v Rossii 1990-kh–nachala 2000-kh gg.” [Publication of Series of Documents and Large Collections of Documents as a Characteristic Trait in the Study of Chinese History in Russia in the 1990s through early 2000s], in Osnovnye napravlenii͡a i problemy rossiĭskogo kitaevedenii͡a, 22–49.
53 Since 2013 four volumes in the Archive series have been published: A.I. Kobzev, comp., and A.R. Vi͡atkin, ed., Arkhiv rossiĭskoĭ kitaistiki [Archive of Russian Chinese Studies] (Moscow: Nauka: Vostochnai͡a literatura, 2013–).
54 There are three volumes at the moment, the first of which already has a revised and updated second edition: V.T͡s. Golovachëv, ed., Rossiĭskoe kitaevedenie—ustnai͡a istorii͡a: sbornik intervʹi͡u s vedushchimi rossiĭskimi kitaevedami, XX–XXI vv. [Russian Chinese Studies—Oral History: Collection of Interviews with Leading Russian Sinologists, Twentieth–Twenty-first Centuries] (Moscow: IOS RAS: Kraft+, 2014–).
55 S.L. Tikhvinskiĭ, ed., Istorii͡a Kitai͡a s drevneĭshikh vremën do nachala XXI veka [History of China from the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century] (Moscow: Nauka: Vostochnai͡a literatura, 2013–17).
56 The most important critiques of the second volume are outlined in Kobzev A.I., “‘Istorii͡a Kitai͡a’ kak zerkalo rossiĭskoĭ kitaistiki” [“History of China” as the Mirror of Russian Chinese Studies], Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae [Society and State in China] 44, no. 2 (2014), 462–517. Kobzev and his colleagues at the IOS leveled such sharp criticism of the second volume that it caused a heated discussion. For example, Sergeĭ Filonov, a prominent scholar of Taoism based in Blagoveshchensk, agreed with some of the criticism but emphasized that the volumes of History of China are valuable assets nonetheless; see https://jinshu.amursu.ru/index.php/144-mnenie-eksperta-s-v-dmitriev-luchshe-vsego-bylo-by-unichtozhit-ves-tirazh-dannogo-toma-k-vykhodu-v-svet-vtorogo-toma-10-tomnoj-istoriya-kitaya-s-drevnejshikh-vremjon-do-nachala-khkhi-veka. A review of the fifth volume can be found in A.I. Kobzev, “Planovai͡a khaltura (Pervye vpechatlenii͡a o pi͡atom tome ‘Istorii Kitai͡a’)” (Routine Hackwork [The First Impressions of the Fifth Volume of “The History of China”]), Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae [Society and State in China], 47.1 (2017), 360–76.
57 http://fareasternaffairs.ru/; https://asaf-today.ru/?sl=en; http://wmo.orientalstudies.ru/index.php?lang=en; https://aasjournal.spbu.ru/; www.iaas.msu.ru/index.php/ru/scientific-activity/vestnik-mgu/vestnik-vostok; http://riatr.ru/en/index.html; https://vostokoriens.ru/; www.orientalistica.com/jour; https://manuscripta-orientalia.kunstkamera.ru/; https://vestnik.ivran.ru/en/mainpage; https://vestnik.nsu.ru/historyphilology/. Several more Asia-related journals published by the IOS can be found at https://ivran.ru/periodicheskie-izdaniya. All links accessed on September 5, 2021.
58 www.elibrary.ru/.
60 Lukin, A.V., “Sovetskoe kitaevedenie: politika i ob”ektivnostʹ” [Soviet Sinology: Politics and Objectivity], Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae [Society and State in China], 41.1 (2011), 261–63Google Scholar.
61 Lukin, “Sovetskoe kitaevedenie,” 274.
62 Voskressenski, “Uneven Development vs. Searching for Integrity,” 134.
63 One indicator of such a trend is the recent amendment to the federal law “On Perpetuating the Victory of the Soviet People in the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945,” where the amended Clause 6.1 prohibits “publicly equating the Soviet leadership's goals, decisions, and actions with those of Nazi Germany” as well as “denying the leading role of the Soviet people in defeating Nazi Germany” (see http://ips.pravo.gov.ru:8080/default.aspx?pn=0001202107010008). The official thinking appears to be that in history, as in all other social studies and humanities, “patriotism” should be given priority over objectivity.
64 A long newspaper article was written in 2014 by one expert on contemporary China in Moscow, Aleksandr Gabuev (b. 1985), enumerating these problems (see www.kommersant.ru/doc/2593673). The article concentrated mostly on China watching rather than Sinology, but the contradictions and difficulties outlined there can certainly be extrapolated to cover traditional scholarly endeavors as well. Yan Guodong reached similar conclusions about a crisis in Russian Sinology; see Yan Guodong 阎国栋, “Eluosi hanxue de weiji” 俄罗斯汉学的危机, Waiguo shehui kexue 6 (2015), 68–73. Academician Vladimir Mi͡asnikov (b. 1931) responded to both these articles by calling the authors “whiners”; see V.S. Mi͡asnikov, “Peterburgskai͡a shkola kitaevedenii͡a: Doklad na konferent͡sii Evropeĭskoĭ assot͡siat͡sii kitaevedov, Sankt-Peterburgskiĭ gosudarstvennyĭ universitet, 24 avgusta 2016 g.” [Saint Petersburg School of Sinology: Paper Presented at the Conference of the European Association for Chinese Studies, Saint Petersburg State University, August 24, 2016], Novai͡a i noveĭshai͡a istorii͡a [Modern and Contemporary History] 2 (2017), 124. A more constructive response was given by Sergeĭ Filonov, who wrote that although problems do exist, there are grounds for hope nonetheless; see Filonov, S.V., “Sovremennoe sostoi͡anie rossiĭskogo kitaevedenii͡a: vzgli͡ad iz Kitai͡a [po materialam statʹi professora I͡anʹ Goduna]” [Current State of Russian Sinology: The View from China (In Relation to Professor Yan Guodong's Paper)], Sot͡sialʹnye i gumanitarnye nauki na Dalʹnem Vostoke [Social Sciences and Humanities in the Far East], 14.4 (2017), 135–37Google Scholar.