Abstract
The problematic nature of Soviet historical writing has become a commonplace even according to its own more recent publications and would, thus, scarcely warrant another re-examination or restatement1 Yet, the singular circumstances of the present subject seem to put this case into a category all by itself. In no other case known to me has the regime’s reluctance to confront an ancient historical text — or allow its full re-publication in the original or in translation — left one of the central problems of classical Greek history (the outbreak and the history of the Peloponnesian War) largely outside the field of scrutiny by Soviet historians.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Editorial Board and Consultative Council of Vestnik drevnei istorii, ‘O Perspektivnom plane zhurnala,’ Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 188, No. 1 (1989) p. 4: ‘The present stage of the history of our society already makes itself felt in the development of the science of history, and gives the opportunity boldly and freely, not on the basis of stereotypes and firmly established tenets, to solve problems of ancient history and culture.’ This happy state of affairs in the period of glasnost’ and perestroika is contrasted to the ‘sad fate of our science of history’ in the recent and not so recent past, when it was ‘very difficult and deadly dangerous to oppose Stalin’s conception of history’. This had caused ‘very many historians to stand aside in order to avoid the blow, and withstand the pressure by their seemingly “peripheric” works’ (taken from a talk by N. Izyumova with three historians: V. Loginov, G. Ioffe and V. Sirotkin, in ‘Poka spala Muza Klio...Stseny iz nedavnego proshlogo Sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki’, Moskovskie novosti, No. 45 (6 November 1988) pp. 8–9. See also the discussion, ‘Kruglyi stol: Istoricheskaya nauka v usloviyakh perestroiki’, Voprosy istorii, No. 3 (March 1988) pp. 3–57;
A. M. Samsonov, Znat ‘Pomnit’. Dialog istorika s chitatelem (Moscow: Politicheskaya Literatura, 1988) pp. 298 and 360;
I. D. Kovalichenko, A. A. Iskenderov, in Anon., ‘Istoricheskoe soznanie obshchestvana uroven’ perestroiki’, Voprosy istorii, No. 1 (January 1990) pp. 6–9.
Even more outspokenly, Academician Z. M. Bunyatov accused Soviet historians of treating history ‘like a lewd wench; in our country everybody ordered her about as he saw fit...Even today we happen on history guided and directed from above’ (from an interview with K. Smirnov, ‘Akademik Bunyatov: ‘Molchat’ ne priuchen”’, Ogonek, No. 45 (5–12 November 1988) p. 22.
A. I. Voronkov, Drevnyaya Gretsiia i Drevnii Rim. Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’ 1895–1959 (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1961) pp. 159–60;
V. I. Kuzishchin, in Istoriografiya antichnoi istorii, V. I. Kuzishchin (ed.), (Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1980) pp. 358–60;
see bibliography in L. P. Marinovich, ‘Gretsiya V v. do n.e.’, in E. S. Golubtsova et al. (eds) in Istoriia Evropv (Moscow: Nauka. 1988) p. 679.
V. Buzeskul, ‘Razrabotka drevne-grecheskoi istorii v Rossii’, Annaly IV (1924) p. 146. According to Voronkov, Drevnyaya Gretsiya, No. 3420 n., the translation was made in 1882; Fukidid, Istoriya, Tom I+II (trans. F. Mishchenko; revised and provided with notes and a Preface by S. A. Zhebelev) (Moscow: M. i. S. Shabashnikovykh, 1915). A selection from the Greek historians was published recently and selections from Thucydides are included; see Istoriki antichnosti v dvukh tomakh, compiled by M. Tomashevski (Moscow: Pravda, 1989) T.1. This anthology also avoids Thucydides’ Book III, with its derogatory remarks on revolution.
A. K. Berger, Politicheskaya mysl’ drevnegrecheskoi demokratii (Moscow: Nauka. 1966) pp. 23–05; 259–260: 265–7 and 270–2.
First published as Yu. V. Andreev, ‘Sparta kak tip polisa’, Vestnik Leningradskogo Gos. Universiteta, No. 8 (1973) pp. 50ff.,
now in E. S. Golubtsova et al. (eds), Antichnaya Gretsiya (Moscow: Nauka, 1983) Vol. I, pp. 194–216.
Anon., ‘Znachenie XXV s”ezda KPSS dlya razvitiya Sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 136, No. 2 (1976) p. 7; Anon., ‘Osnovnye napravleniya i perspektivy raboty VDI v XI pyatiletke’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 158, No. 4 (1981) pp. 5f.; Anon., ‘O perspektivnom plane raboty “Vestnik drevnei istorii” v svete reshenii XXVII s”ezda KPSS’, Vestnik drevnei istorii Vol. 178, No. 3 (1986) p. 7; M. Raskolnikoff, La Recherche en Union Soviétique et L’Histoire Économique et Sociale du Monde Hellénistique et Romain (Strasbourg: AECR, 1975) pp. 123–8, 146–9 and 205–8;
A. I. Tyumenev, ‘Izuchenie istorii drevnei Gretsii v SSSR za sorok let’, Vestnik drevnei istorii Vol. 61, No. 3 (1957) pp. 29–41;
E. D. Frolov, ‘Griechische Geschichte bis zum Zeitalter des Hellenismus’, in H. Heinen (ed.), Die Geschichte des Altertums im Spiegel der sowjetischen Forschung (Darmstadt: WB, 1980) pp. 69–80, 86–8, 96–8 and 108–23.
G. E. M. de Ste Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London: Duckworth, 1972).
A Berger, Politicheskaya mysl’, p. 267; E. D. Frolov, s.v. ‘Fukidid’, Sovetskaya Istoricheskaya Entsiklopediya (Moscow, 1974), Vol. XV, p. 459.
E. D. Frolov, Sotsial’ino-politicheskaya bor’ba v Afinakh v kontse V veka do n.e. (Leningrad: LGU, 1964);
M. S. Korzun, Sotsial’ino-politicheskaya bor’ba v Afinakh v 444–425 gg. do n.e. (Minsk: BGU, 1975).
It is now generally accepted by Western scholarship that there were no ‘political parties’ in Ancient Greece: cf. D. Gillis, ‘The Revolt at Mytilene’, American Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 92 (1971) p. 38.
On the problematic nature of this evidence, see A. W. Gomme, ‘Aristophanes and Politics’, More Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962) pp. 70–91.
For some Soviet articles on this problem, see S. Ya. Lur’e, ‘K voprosu o politicheskoi bor’be v Afinakh v kontse V veka’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 49, No. 3 (1954) pp. 122–32; V. N. Yarkho, ‘Komediya Aristofana i Afinskaya demokratiya’, ibid., Vol. 49, No. 3 (1954) pp. 9–20; A. K. Gavrilov, ‘Si vis pacem (Aristoph., Acharn. 1018–1068); ibid., Vol. 189, No. 2 (1989) pp. 14–28; M. V. Otkupshchikov, ‘Vneshnyaya politika Afin 438–431 gg. do n.e. v svete tragedii Evripida’, ibid., Vol. 63, No.1 (1958) pp. 35–51; M. V. Otkupshchikov, ‘Androimakha Evripida i Arkhidamova voina’, ibid., Vol. 73, No. 3 (1960) pp. 43–60.
S.y. ‘Fukidid’, Bol’shaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya (Moscow, 1956) Vol. XLV, p. 632; E. D. Frolov, Fakel Prometeya, Ocherki Antichnoi obshchestvennoi mysli (Leningrad: LGU, 1981) pp. 118–137;
V. I. Kuzishchin, ‘Istochniki po istorii Drevnei Gretsii’, in his Istoriya Drevnei Gretsii (Moscow, 1986) p.12.
S. Ya. Lur’e, Istoriya, p. 373; Sh. Markish, Sumerki v polden’ (Tel Aviv: LIM, 1988) pp. 42–3;
and see the thoughtful remarks of V. Ehrenberg, From Solon to Socrates (London: Methuen, 1968) pp. 252–3.
G. Walser, ‘Zur Beurteilung der Perserkriege in der neueren Forschung’, Schweizer Beiträge zur allgemeinen Geschichte, 17 (1959) pp. 239f;
A. Demandt, Ungeschehene Geschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1984) pp. 58–60.
A good case for redating the Sparta-Athens dichotomy to 462 B.C. has been made by A. E. Parshikov, ‘Aristotel’ (Ath. Pol. 23.5) i organizatsiya pervogo Afinskogo morskogo soyuza’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 115, No. 1 (1971) p. 81. His book, Issledovaniya po istorii Afinskoi morskoi derzhavy (Moscow, 1976) remained unavailable to me.
The idea of bipolarity was rejected by D. Kagan, The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1969) pp. 349–51.
A. Lintott, Violence, Civil Strife and Revolution in the Classical City (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981) pp. 252–63.
On the meanings of ‘stasis’ (‘revolution’; ‘faction’), see P. F. Mustacchio, The Concept of Stasis in Greek Political Theory (unpublished thesis; New York University, 1972) pp. 10–68.
M. I. Finley, Authority and Legitimacy in the Classical City-State (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1982) p. 11;
R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) pp. 208–10;
M. F. McGregor, The Athenians and their Empire (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987) pp. 109–10.
T. J. Quinn, Athens and Samos, Lesbos and Chios 478–404 B.C. (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1981) pp. 54–5.
For a different view, see J. de Romilly, Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963) pp. 84–5; V. Ehrenberg, Solon to Socrates, p. 205.
E. Ruschenbusch, Untersuchungen zu Staat und Politik in Griechenland vom 7. bis 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Bamberg: aku Vlg., 1978) pp. 83–91;
M. Cogan, ‘Mytilene, Plataea and Corcyra: Ideology and Policy in Thucydides, Book Three’, Phoenix, Vol. 35 (Spring 1981) pp. 1–2.
Though excerpts were inserted by V. S. Sergeev, Istoriya Drevnei Gretsii, (Moscow: OGIZ, 1948) pp. 288–9. True appreciation of these important passages in Thucydides are to be found only recently in Marinovich, Istoriya Evropy, Vol. I, p. 271.
S. Ya. Lur’e, ‘Voprosy voiny i mira 2300 let nazad’, Letopis’, No. 6 (1916) pp. 184–202;
S. Ya. Lur’e, ‘O fashistskoi idealizatsii politseiskogo rezhima drevnei Sparty’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1939) pp. 98–106.
G. Murray, ‘Reactions to the Peloponnesian War in Greek Thought and Practices’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 64 (1944) pp. 1 and 9;
L. J. Halle, Civilization and Foreign Policy. An Inquiry for Americans (New York: Harper, 1952) pp. 263–9;
A. J. Toynbee, A Study of History (London: Oxford University Press, 1963) Vol. X, p. 94; cf. Vol. IX, pp. 345 and 445–7;
Ed Meyer, Forschungen zur Alten Geschichte (Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer, 1899) Vol. II, p. 302 passim;
also see J. Vogt, Orbis, Ausgewählte Schriften zur Geschichte des Altertums (Freiburg: Herder, 1960) pp. 341–2;
M. I. Finley, Ancient History, Evidence and Models (London: Chatto & Windus, 1985) p. 86;
W. G. Forrest, The Emergence of Greek Democracy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966) p. 38.
P. J. Fliess, Thucydides and the Politics of Bipolarity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966) p. viii. Fliess, though conscious of the ‘difficulties of analogy’, rather originally tended to attribute to Sparta and the United States on the one hand, and Athens and the Soviet Union on the other, ‘analogous positions’.
Modern scholars, for example, N. N. Pikus, ‘Review of E. Cavaignac, Sparte, Paris, 1948’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1950) pp. 123–5, tend to villify ‘militaristic Sparta...the monstrous state of exploiters, the stronghold of reaction in Ancient Greece’ (p. 125), and attribute its role to their opponents.
On this, see the intelligent remarks of J. F. Lazenby, The Spartan Army (London: Aris & Phillips, 1985) pp.VII f.
W. R. Connor, ‘A Post Modernist Thucydides?’, The Classical Journal, Vol. 72 (April–May 1977) pp. 290–1.
The stress on truth in reporting history is particular in antiquity to Thucydides (I.22; V.26.4), and is of greatest importance to Solzhenitsyn; see A. Schemmann, ‘A Lucid Love’, J. B. Dunlop et al. (eds), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: Critical Essays and Documentary Materials (New York: Collier, 1975) pp. 387–8.
The exiled author’s search for sources, see. A. Solzehnitsyn, Avgust chetyrnadtsatogo (Paris: YMCA Press, 1971) pp. 571–3. On the influence of external circumstances in warping the human spirit, Thuc. II. 50–53 and III. 82.2;
A. Solzhenitsyn, Arkhipelag Gulag (Paris: YMCA Press, 1973–75) (VII Books in 3 Vols);
A. Solzhenitsyn, Bodalsya telenok s dubom. Ocherki literaturnoi zhizni (Paris: YMCA Press, 1975). In the methodological treatment of history by means of ‘knots’ (fascicles) (‘uzel’);
in the centrality of war in the human experience, and the influence of ‘necessity’; for this in Thucydides, see M. Ostwald, ANACKH in Thucvdides (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988).
A. I. Tyumenev, Ocherki ekonomicheskoi i sotsial’noi istorii Drevnei Gretsii (Moscow and St Petersburg: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo, 1920– 22) Vol. I, pp. 119, 148–56, 162–7, and 177–9; Vol. II, pp. 139–298. The writing of the work was completed by spring 1917, but printing was delayed until December 1919. Vol. I appeared in 1920, Vols II & III in 1922;
see Vol. I, p.6. E. K. Putnyn’, ‘Istoriia ideologicheskoi bor’by v oblasti drevnei istorii (1917–1924)’, Uchenye Zapiski Saratovskogo Universiteta, Seriya Istoricheskaya, Vol. 68, (1959) pp. 175–8;
I. D. Amusin, ‘Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya istoriya drevnego mira v trudakh Akademika A. I. Tyumeneva’, in V. V. Struve et al. (eds), Problemy sotsial’ no-ekonomichaskoi istorii drevnego mira (Moscow and Leningrad, 1963) pp. 6–9; M. Raskolnikoff, Recherche, pp. 46–52, 128 and 146–8.
A. I. Tyumenev, ‘Obshchii krizis rabovladel’cheskoi sistemy. Peloponneskaya voina’, in Istoriya drevnego mira, Drevnyaya Gretsiya, S. I. Kovalev (ed.) (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Sotsial’no-Ekonomicheskoe Izdatel’stvo, 1937) Vol. III, Pt 2, pp. 68–75, 78, 86–8, 96–7, and 111–12.
Tyumenev, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 61, No. 3 (1957) p. 30.
S. Ya. Lur’e, Istoriya antichnoi obshchestvennoi mysli obshchestvennye gruppirovki i umstvennye dvizheniya v Ellinskom Mire (Moscow and Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo, 1929) pp. 368–72.
M. Pokrovsky, ‘The Task of Marxist Historical Science in the Reconstruction Period’, in M. Pundeff (ed.), History in the U.S.S.R. Selected Readings (San Francisco: Chandler, 1967) p. 87;
A. I. Tyumenev, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 61, No. 3 (1957) p. 32;
V. I. Kuzishchin, ‘Sovetskaya istoriografiya antichnosti’, in V. I. Kuzishchin (ed.), Istorio-grafiya antichnoi istorii (Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1980) pp. 326–44.
Ibid., p. 391, fn. 11; Ed Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums (Darmstadt: WB, 1969).
Ibid., pp. 371f; 377–9; see A. I. Tyumenev, Vestnik drevne istorii, Vol. 61, No. 3 (1957) p. 30.
B. Ya. Koprzhiva, Lur’e, Istoriya odnoi zhizni (Paris: Atheneum, 1987).
S. I. Kovalev, Istoriya antichnogo obshchestva Gretsii (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Sotsial’no-Ekonomicheskoe Izdatel’stvo, 1937): ‘The Peloponnesian War was an expression of the inner contradictions, latent in slave-owning society.’
This was a forced adaptation to new dogma of his earlier (1923–25) view, that the Peloponnesian War was a clash ‘of two mighty capitalistic groups, respresented by Athens and the Pelopon-nesian League’, cited in: S. L. Utchenko, ‘Antichnost’, in M. V. Nechkina (ed.), Ocherki istorii istoricheskoi nauki v SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1966) Vol. IV, p. 581.
N. Mashkin, ‘Rev. of S. I. Kovalev, Istoriya..., 1937’, Istoricheskii zhurnal, No. 5 (1937) p. 143; S. L. Utchenko, Ocherki, Vol. IV, pp. 582–3.
V. I. Lenin, Sochineniya (Moscow and Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo, 1929) p. 197.
Thucydides I.139.4, II.8.4–5, and IV.108.3–05. This view is now accepted by Kondratyuk Antichnaya Gretsiya, Vol. I, p. 336; previously Sparta’s demand was viewed as ‘purest hypocrisy’ by S. Ya. Lur’e, ‘Ekspluatatsiya Afinskikh soyuznikov’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1947) p. 18.
Now accepted by G. A. Koselenko, ‘Polis: Problemy razvitiya ekonomiki’ in Golubtsova et al. (eds), Antichnaya Gretsiya, pp. 235–6, who found a suitable quotation in Lenin to prove his case. The case against a mercantile state policy had already been made by W. S. Ferguson, ‘Polis and Idia in Periklean Athens’, American Historical Review, Vol. 45, No. 2 (January 1940) pp. 272–5.
V. V. Sergeev, Istoriya Drevnei Gretsii, pp. 262–3. I was unable to compare this edition with the author’s article ‘Peloponneskie voiny’, Bor’ba klassov, No. 11 (1934) pp. 65–73. Seemingly, in the 1930s Sergeev had accentuated ‘the inner contradictions of Athenian slaveowning society’ as causing the Peloponnesian War’. See S. V. Novikov and V. V. Fedotov, ‘Sergeevskie chteniya’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 151, No. 1 (1980) p. 222. For more than twenty years, Sergeev’s book was the standard textbook at Soviet universities.
See V. I. Kuzishchin et al., ‘Kafedra istorii drevnego mira’, in Yu. S. Kukushkin et al. (eds), Istoricheskaya nauka v Moskovskom Universitete, 1934–1984 (Moscow: MGU, 1984) pp. 243–5.
J. Seibert, Die Politischen Flüchtlinge und Verbannten in der Griech-ischen Geschichte (Darmstadt: WB, 1979) Vol. I, pp. 40–91;
A. Panagopoulos, Fugitives and Refugees in the Peloponnesian War (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1987).
V. V. Sergeev, Istoriya, pp. 278–80. Sergeev cited as much of Thucydides’ text as he could. Even so, N. N. Pikus (‘Rev. of V. V. Sergeev, Istoriya...’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 29 No. 3 (1949) p. 111, censured him for having written that ‘Thucydides anticipated the methods of modern historiography’. No one could have ‘anticipated’ the only ‘correct’ historical method — Stalinist Marxism.
V. N. D’yakov and N. M. Nikol’skii (eds), Istoriya drevnego mira (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Utchebno-Pedagogicheskoe Izdatel’stvo, 1952) pp. 338–9 and 350–1. In the second edition of 1962 (p. 339), the word ‘political’ was deleted, as was the sentence ‘The greatest and most progressive Greek State [i.e. Athens], the only one capable of uniting a fragmented Greece, was utterly defeated. Athens was ruined not by Spartan military might, but [by] the basic contradictions inherent in the ancient slave-owning system’ (p. 363). The deletion of the positive evaluation of Athens is due to the conception of a necessary replacement of Classical by Hellenistic Greece. Are contemporary events the reason for deleting a negative allusion to the importance of military might?
E. A. Razin, Istoriya voennogo iskusstva (Moscow: Voennoe Izdatel’stvo, 1955) Vol. I, pp. 162–4.
D. P. Kallistov, ‘Peloponneskaya voina, upadok Afin; vosvyshenie Makedonii’, in S. L. Utchenko et al. (eds), Vsemirnaya istoriya (Moscow: Politicheskoi Literatury, 1956) Vol. II, pp. 56–7, overemphasised ‘the economic and social causes’. As the title of his contribution shows, in his view, ‘The Peloponnesian war served as the threshold to the crisis of the polis as a particular form of the slave-holding state’.
Anon., ‘Peloponneskaya voina’, in Bol’shaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, Vol. 32 (1955) p. 300. Similarly, S. I. Sobolevskii, Aristofan i ego vremya (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1957) p. 13;
A. Ya. Lentsman, ‘Pelopon-neskaya voina’, Sovetskaia Istoricheskaya Entsiklopediya (Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, 1967) Vol. X, p. 954.
K. M. Kolobova and L. M. Gluskina, Ocherki istorii Drevnei Gretsii (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Uchebno-Pedagogicheskoe Izdatel’stvo, 1958) p. 211.
D. P. Kallistov, Vsemirnaya istoriya, Vol. II, p. 64; M. I. Finley, ‘The Athenian Empire: A Balance Sheet’, Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983) pp. 58–60, rightly rejects this view.
Lur’e, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1947) pp. 13–27, basing himself on Thucydides (VIII.48.6), had tried to show that the ‘demos’ of Athens was considered to be ‘their best refuge’ by the commons in the allied states.
A. Ya. Lentsman, ‘Peloponneskaya voina’, in V. V. Struve and D. P. Kallistov (eds), Drevnyaya Gretsiya (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1956) pp. 267–71. Obtaining permission to publish this book took a whole year. I was unable to establish whether this chapter was revised under the influence of Khrushchev’s speech of 25 February 1956. A similar delay in publication affected the second volume of the Vsemirnaya istoriya.
Sobolevskii, Aristofan, p. 46; Andreev, Antichnaya Gretsiya, Vol. I, p. 198; F. Arskii, Perikl (Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiya, 1971) p. 173: ‘Athenian slave-owning democracy carried the germs of destruction in itself, and its greatest flowering only brought the catastrophe nearer. Only a single test was needed to make its impotence and degeneration clearly perceptible. The Peloponnesian War was to be this test’.
Anon., ‘Uluchshit’ organizaiyu nauchno-issledovatel’skoi raboty v oblasti drevnei istorii’, Vestnik drevnei istorii, Vol. 56, No. 2 (1956) p. 3. The problem persists: see S. Tikhvinskii, ‘Sovetskaya istoricheskaya nauka v preddverii XXVII S”ezda KPSS’, Kommunist, No. 1 (January 1986) pp. 104–5;
N. Gul’binskii, ‘Voskhozhdenie k kratkomu kursu’, Ogonek, No. 23 (3–10 June 1989) p. 25: ‘history is not a stone-quarry for the extraction of the stones of quotations, meant to break the skulls of opponents’.
He was recently approvingly cited by E. D. Frolov, Ogni Dioskurov (Leningrad: LGU, 1984) p. 17, n. 7. His formulation was not adopted, but adapted, however.
A. G. Bokshchanin, ‘Peloponneskaya voina’, in V. I. Avdiev and N. N. Pikus (eds), (Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1962) pp. 272 and 281–3. This was approved as ‘the Leninist definition of the character of the war’ by M. S. Korzun, Sotsial’no-Politicheskaia bor’ ba v Afinakh, p. 47.
V. I. Isaeva, ‘Printsipy mezhpolisnykh otnoshenii kontsa V — serediny IV. v. do n.e.’, in: Golubtsova et al. (eds), Antichnaya Gretsiya, Vol. II, p. 73; Frolov, Fakel Prometeya, p. 119. V. I. Kuzishchin, ‘Peloponneskaya voina. 431–404 gg. do n.e.’, in his Istoriya Drevnei Gretsii (Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1988) p. 193.
E. D. Frolov, ‘Lektsiya 11. Peloponneskaya voina’ in I. S. Sventisitskaya et al. (eds), Istoriia drevnego mira (Moscow: Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoi literatury, 1982) pp. 214–5.
Frolov, Ogni Dioskurov, p. 17; Frolov had already used the term ‘global conflict’ in this context in ‘Politicheskie lidery afinskoi demokratii (opyt tipologicheskoi kharakteristiki)’ in N. L. Nikitina (ed.), Politicheskie deyateli antichnosti, srednevekovya i novogo vremeni, (Leningrad: LGU, 1983) p. 21.
S. L. Tikhvinskii, ‘Nekotorye voprosy raboty Sovetskikh istorikov’, Voprosy istorii, No. 12 (December 1986) pp. 11–12.
S. Tikhvinskii, Kommunist, No. 1 (January 1986) p. 98. He still warns that ‘in international historical science a sharp ideological struggle is developing’. ‘The Party’ still ‘calls us to critically interpret current affairs, reject compacency and turn resolutely to resolving immediate problems’ (p. 101).
Most recently Yu. S. Kukushkin (Vopros y istorii, No. 1 [January 1990] p. 16) warns against ‘the de-ideologisation of the science of history’.
E. K. Ligachev, ‘Doklad chlena politbyuro KPSS, Sekretarya TsK KPSS E. K. Ligacheva’, in V. I. Zubarev et al. (eds), XXVII S” ezd KPSS i Zadachi kafedr obshchestvennykh nauk (Moscow: Politizdat, 1987) pp. 19, 29–30 and 33.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1992 International Council for Soviet and East European Studies, and Michael E. Urban
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rubinsohn, W.Z. (1992). The Sparta-Athens Dichotomy of Fifth-Century B.C. Greece in Recent Soviet Research. In: Urban, M.E. (eds) Ideology and System Change in the USSR and East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22328-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22328-2_13
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-22330-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-22328-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)