Marr, Marrism, and Stalinism

V. M. Alpatov.

Recently, the general growth of interest in the events of our history of the Stalin era has led to increased attention to the well-known linguistic discussion of 1950 and to Stalin's speech against the ideas of Academician Marr. At the same time, this episode is often perceived in isolation from the entire history of Soviet linguistics, which leads to a sympathetic assessment of Marr, who is seen only as a victim of Stalin (1). Then, however, it remains unclear why Marrism was condemned only in the last years of Stalin's life, whereas before that for more than two decades it was considered "Marxism in linguistics" and occupied a monopoly position in science with support from above, and the beginning of this monopoly coincided with the establishment of the regime Stalin's personal power. With this approach, it is difficult to explain the fact that in the years that have passed since the death of Stalin, the ideas he condemned have not received any development and have not aroused serious interest among linguists.

The so-called "new doctrine of language", or "Japhetic theory" (the latter term also has a different meaning, connected with Marr's ideas of an earlier period, which he then abandoned), was formed by Marr in 1923-1924. and was preached by him with endless frequent modifications until his death in 1934. Its basis, abstracting from minor details, was made up of two ideas concerning the historical development of the language. The first of them was diametrically opposed to the usual linguistic ideas about the gradual disintegration of a single proto language into separate, but genetically related languages. According to Marr, linguistic development proceeds in the opposite direction: from plurality to unity. Languages ​​arose independently of each other: not only Russian and Ukrainian languages ​​are not originally related, but every Russian dialect and dialect was in the past a separate, independent language. Then there was a process of crossing, when the two languages, as a result of interaction, turned into a new third language, which is equally a descendant of both languages. For example, French is a crossed Latin-Japhetic [1], moreover, the absence of declension and the underdevelopment of conjugation are its original Japhetic features. As a result of many crossings, the number of languages ​​is reduced, and in a communist society this process will culminate in the creation of a world language different from all existing ones.

Another idea related to the structural development of languages. According to Marr, although languages ​​arose independently of each other, they always developed according to absolutely uniform laws, although with; unequal speed. Sound speech arose in primitive society among magicians and was originally a means of class struggle. At first, among all peoples, it consisted of the same four elements SAL, BER, ION, ROSH, which had the character of "diffuse cries." Gradually, words were formed from their combinations, phonetics and grammar appeared. At the same time, all languages ​​go through the same stages, determined by the level of socio-economic development. Any nation at one or another economic level necessarily possesses a language that is at the stage corresponding to this level (amorphous, agglutinative, inflectional, etc.); moreover, at some level of socio-economic development anywhere in the world, the same values ​​are expressed in the same way, for example, water at one of the economic stages will be called su. When the economic basis changes, language as part of the superstructure undergoes a revolutionary explosion and becomes qualitatively different both structurally and materially; however, traces of the former stages remain in the language up to four elements that can be distinguished in any word of any language; Marr called the search for such traces linguistic paleontology. The connection of language with the basis was traced by Marr for different stages of primitive society; Marr always avoided the question of the linguistic correspondences of formations from the slave-owning to the socialist; again, he willingly began to talk only about the language of communist society, which, in his opinion, should have lost its sound character [2].

It is easy for any person, even elementarily familiar with linguistics, to see that all these ideas have little in common with science. A flagrant inconsistency with the facts and the results obtained in science, lack of evidence and fundamental unprovability of provisions, illogicality, inconsistency, complete isolation from practice - all this is obvious [3]. There is no need to talk about "such discoveries" by Marr as a greater similarity of the Russian language with Georgian than with Ukrainian; the announcement of the German language as a transformed Svan revolutionary explosion, and the Smerds as an Ibero-Sumerian layer of Russians; demands to abolish grammar and many other things expressed in his numerous works. Many phrases from Marr's writings, especially in the last years of his life, are like the ravings of a madman. Let us give just one of hundreds and thousands of examples: "This split of the European world into Catholics and Protestants is a matter of a much more ancient era; I always have roots in shifts in production and technology, specifically in overcoming the natural resources of such centers of their concentration by the Germans, then Iberians, like the Rhineland, the Pyrenees, etc., even earlier with the participation of the Basques, when it was still so-called. Japhetic system, when in all northern, middle and eastern Europe and further, as in the Caucasus, they acted entirely with the thinking of a still primitive society (3). Scientific criticism of the "new doctrine of language" is not a difficult task, solved both in our country and abroad a long time ago (4).

The gap between the scientific weakness of the "new doctrine of language" and the long-term strength of its influence is colossal and requires explanation. The influence of Marr and his teachings cannot be explained by repressive measures alone, which, moreover, acquired decisive importance not earlier than 1928-1929, when Marrism already had many adherents. At the first stage, Marr's main method was to win over people who were sincerely devoted to him, among whom, along with adventurers and ignoramuses, were also very talented people. Suffice it to mention O. Freidenberg, who is very popular in your day, who even in 1937, having already largely abandoned Marr’s ideas, declared: “Marr was our thought, our social and scientific life; it was our biography. We worked, without thinking about him, for him, and he lived without knowing it, for us" (5).

Academician Marr was far from being an unambiguous figure in the history of our science. Having started his career as a serious Caucasian scholar, even before the revolution, he was quite deservedly elected an academician. However, even from a young age, "synthesis decisively prevailed over analysis, generalizations over facts" (6). Marr was undoubtedly a bright personality, possessed of extensive, although often superficial knowledge, and knew how to attract people to him. At the same time, he was always an imperious and unquestioning man; as Academician Alekseev cautiously wrote in Marr's obituary, "expansion was his slogan, the joy of his life" (7). In the 20s. he strove for the creation of a "worldwide language institute" (See: 3. T.1, p. 181); world science, however, rejected his ideas and Marr focused on gaining a monopoly position in his country.

The undeniable attraction of Marr's teachings - especially strong in the 1920s - was not the attraction of scientific theory. Marrism was one of the scientific myths, which, unfortunately, is rich in the 20th century. It is curious, for example, that the signs of a scientific myth are well applicable to Marrism, identified by the American scientist R. Miller on a completely different material (some concepts of Japanese linguistics) (8).

Each myth at its core has some grain of truth, which, however, is fantastically dissected (9). One of these grains was the scientific authority of Marr, which was brought to incredible proportions with his active participation: Marr was called a genius during his lifetime. Another element of truth was the crisis in the development of world linguistics, which Marr noticed and used for his own purposes. Early 20th century was a period of change in the scientific paradigm, when the traditional science of the 19th century, which was entirely focused on the comparative historical study of the Indo-European languages, no longer satisfied many scientists. There was a scientific crisis, which was noted by many linguists. Marr's ideas were one of the attempts to overcome it, which at first seemed interesting only because the "new teaching", refusing traditional postulates, preserved the understanding of linguistics as a historical science familiar to many. Not everyone realized then that the most promising was the path blazed by Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure, associated with an appeal to synchronous linguistics, to the study of linguistic structure in isolation from its history (despite the fact that new methods did not at all cancel the old ones). Marr correctly noticed such a weak point of traditional linguistics as the underdevelopment of semantics, the science of linguistic meanings. Therefore, he could claim to be the discoverer of semantic laws, although these "laws" had the character of arbitrary explanations of almost any sound similarities.[4].

Noticing, for example, the similarity of the German words hund (dog) and hundert (one hundred), Marr easily built a semantic chain: a dog as a totem - the name of the collective - everything - a lot - a hundred (See: 3, vol. II , p. 391), although science, ignored by him, has long established that these two words have different origins. Raised the authority of Marr and his statements about the solution of many problems that modern science bypassed him due to a lack of material (the origin of language and thinking, the principles of building a world language). Marr had no more facts than his predecessors, but the richness of fantasy and peremptory tone affected many of his readers and listeners.

Marr's credibility grew as the accomplishments of others were attributed to him. This applied not only to the concepts of various scientists from the Schlegel brothers to L. Levy-Bruhl, which chaotically interspersed in his teaching, but also to the active work on language construction that unfolded in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. Marr's entourage actively spread the legend about his special role in this activity. However, in reality, Marr and his supporters only interfered with language construction with their project ideas: according to Marr, the creation of alphabets for individual languages ​​is a harmful activity that slows down the transition to a global language. He promoted his so-called "analytical alphabet", in which he seriously saw the prototype of the future unified world alphabet (See: 3. Vol. IV, pp. 82-83); this alphabet was, however, due to extreme inconvenience, quickly rejected.

Another common feature of the scientific myth is the use of the authority of non-specialists (See: 8, p. 66). Marr attracted many worthy people with his extraordinary personality. Vernadsky called him "my old friend" (10). Lunacharsky wrote about the fruitful mind of the greatest philologist of our Union, and perhaps the greatest living philologist, N.Ya. .: 7, p.212).

Marr was even more liked by specialists in the fields of science adjacent to linguistics, especially by philosophers, archaeologists, historians of primitive society, and folklorists. They, taking the "new doctrine of language" on faith, considered it the key to solving the issues that occupied them, especially in connection with the problems of human prehistory. As the linguist P. Kuznetsov notes in interesting and still unpublished memoirs, back in 1927-1928, "Marr was supported (if we talk about scientific, not political support) mainly by philosophers, historians, literary critics, ethnographers, archaeologists (far from not all, but more than linguists)... He was supported by some of the Orientalists, more by those who dealt with non-written languages, but also not all "(12).

Of course, Marr's popularity was determined not only by his personal qualities. The consonance of his idea with the era played a decisive role. It must be emphasized right away that Marr was guided by the ideas of the 20s, when they were waiting for an imminent world revolution, the building of communism seemed to be a matter of the near future, and many seriously hoped to have time to talk with the proletarians of all continents in the world language - "unrealistic goals set the scale on which any real achievements will seem insignificant" (13).

One of the attractive features of Marrism seemed to be the idea of ​​a world language. In 1926, at the Japhetic Institute, headed by Marr, they even decided to create a group to establish "theoretical norms for the future universal language" (14). Equally consonant with the time was Marr's sharp hostility to the science of the West and pre-revolutionary Russia. This hostility had long roots, but now political accusations were increasingly mixed in with scientific accusations. For decades, Marr's statement was repeatedly quoted: "Indo-European linguistics itself is flesh from flesh, blood from the blood of an obsolete bourgeois society, built on the oppression of the peoples of the East by the European peoples, their murderous colonial policy" (See: 3. Vol. III, p. 1 ). The so-called "Indo-Europeanists" (by this name Marr meant any of his opponents, regardless of their sphere of interest) were compared by Marr now with Chamberlain, now with Poincaré, now with the German fascists. Indo-European linguistics, which supposedly identified language with race, was held responsible for the racist theory of fascism; "Indo-Europeanists" were attributed unspoken and obviously absurd ideas of the kind of immutability of the grammatical structure of the languages ​​of a particular race (15). Miller quite rightly points out that the myth must fight with enemies, and often there is a struggle with paper tigers" (See: 8, pp. 56-58).

To any objections of opponents or simply people who did not understand his confusing statements, Marr had one very convenient answer: "a new doctrine of language" requires "especially and above all a new linguistic thinking." "The new doctrine of language requires a renunciation not only of the old scientific, but also of the old social thinking" (See: 3. Vol. II ; p. 426).

To those "who had the misfortune to be a specialist before," Marr also, in the spirit of the times, contrasted "new people" and "masses." According to the memoirs of L. Matsulevich, Marr declared: "Only a work environment free from routine and strong with young, ascending strength can solve all these difficulties. Science, the most advanced science, calls precisely to it" (See: 7, p. 166-167 ). When Marr was elected a member of the Chuvash Central Executive Committee, he stated that this election "has more meaning to him than if all the European academies suddenly chose him as their member" (16). Contrary to the facts, Marr saw the "October revolutionary impulse" not in the formation of new literary languages, but in general "in the creation of new languages" (See: 3. Vol. II, p. 352); or repeated statements like: “If the revolution we are experiencing is not a dream, then there can be no question of any palliative reform of either language, grammar, and, consequently, writing or spelling. Not a reform, but a radical restructuring, but a shift in this entire superstructural world on new tracks, on a new stage in the development of human speech, on the path of revolutionary creativity and the creation of a new language" (See: 3. T.II, pp. 370-371).

Only from 1928 did Marr begin to fill his works with quotations from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, with which, according to B. Bogaevsky (See: 7, p. 165), he was not familiar with before. Statements are also beginning to be circulated that the method of the "new doctrine" is the method of dialectical materialism, about its proletarian character, and so on. (See: T.I, pp. 267, 272, 276; vol. II, pp. 26, 294). At the same time, many statements about the language of Marx and especially Engels (who was known to be fond of Indo-European linguistics) were hushed up, and the citations were decorative in nature, creating the appearance of a similarity between Marr's ideas and the ideas of the founders of Marxism. Thus, citing Engels' definition of the superstructure, where there is not a word about language [5], Marr concluded: "But language is the most complex and most meaningful category of the superstructure" (See: 3. Vol. II, p. 452). Another example. Marr quotes from a letter from Marx to Engels: “The same thing happens in human history as in paleontology. Even the most outstanding minds, in principle, due to some kind of blindness of judgment, do not notice things that are under their very noses. And then the time comes when they begin to be surprised that traces of the same phenomena that were not noticed before are found everywhere" (17). Making such a conclusion: "The paleontology of speech ... has already been provided for by Marx himself" (See: 3. Vol. II, p. 456). Recall that Marr called the paleontology of speech the search for four elements in the words of modern and ancient languages. It is clear that the similarity with Marx is only in the use of the term "paleontology".

So, Marx and Engels dressed up as Marr. However, with a very obvious divergence from the classics, Marr sometimes did not want to give up his favorite ideas. For example, about classes in the era of the birth of sound speech, stating: "Engels' hypothesis about the emergence of classes as a result of the decomposition of the tribal system needs serious amendments" (See: 3. Vol. III , p . 75). Marr considered himself a scientist of no lesser caliber than Engels. Subsequently, in the era of the complete domination of dogmatism, the ideas about classes under the primitive communal system became a textbook example of the "shortcomings" of Marr's teaching.

The consecration of the "new doctrine of language" with quotations from the highest authorities gave the myth complete completion. Now there were all grounds for the conquest of monopoly power. The political situation in the USSR at the end of the 1920s also favored this.

Until 1928-1929 Marrism was not a monopoly in Soviet linguistics, but an influential trend that enjoyed support from above. For the leaders of the party and the state, Marr seemed to be a very important figure. Leading representatives of Russian pre-revolutionary science perceived the revolution in different ways, but even the most sympathetic to the Bolsheviks among them did not go beyond loyalty to the new government and cooperation with it. But I really wanted to have among the reputable scientists and those who would be not just a partner, but an active participant in the struggle to build a new society. And here Marr seemed the best candidate for this role. Among the members of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, only he announced the transition to the class positions of the proletariat, only he (though a little later, in 1930) joined the CPSU (b); it is characteristic that, as a special favor, he became a member of the party without candidate experience (we note that before the revolution, Marr was a right-wing man, closely associated with clerical circles). Marr actively sought to spread such a reputation. O. Freudenberg wrote in her memoirs of the 50s: “Marr never attended meetings of his institute. He always sat somewhere, or rather, turned out to be. Chasing popularity and wanting to be known as a social activist, he refused scientific studies in his presence and guidance, but he sat at a meeting "to combat hooliganism". Always thinking about one thing, about his theory, he bought the attention of the authorities with his sham "social activities" (See: 5, p. 202). It is difficult to draw a final conclusion about the sincerity of such behavior, and some authors question it.Thus, the Swedish communist linguist H. Scheld, who did not actively accept Marrism, claimed that Marr stated abroad:

"To live with wolves - howl like a wolf." In any case, there is no doubt that Marr deliberately "buyed the attention of the authorities."

The authorities appreciated Marr. In 1928, in the same Izvestiya, M. Pokrovsky, then influential, wrote: “If Engels still lived among us, every student of the Komsomol would be engaged in Marr’s theory now, because it would enter the iron inventory of the Marxist understanding of the history of human culture ... The future is ours - and, therefore, behind Marr's theory ... Marr's theory is still far from dominating, but it is already known everywhere. It is already hated everywhere. This is a very good sign. Marxism has been hated everywhere for three quarters of a century, and under the sign of this hatred it conquers the world more and more. The new linguistic theory comes under this honorable mark, and this promises it, in its place, in its scientific circle, the same glorious future "(19).

With the support of M. Pokrovsky, Marr joined the Society of Marxist Historians, and in the same year, a subsection of materialistic linguistics was created at the Comacademy, which had not previously dealt with linguistics, headed by Marr; its actual leader was V. Aptekar, one of the most gloomy figures in the history of Soviet linguistics. The subsection became the center of the propaganda of Marrism as "Marxist linguistics" with the active support of the head of the literary department of the Comacademy, Academician Fritsche, another leader of the vulgar sociologism of those years.

Note that Marr's main propagandists among the authorities - Pokrovsky, Lunacharsky, Fritsche - did not belong to Stalin's entourage. All three were lucky enough to die a natural death before 1937, but all were posthumously to one degree or another overthrown from their pedestals. However, among Marr's patrons there were also persons who are now perceived in a different way: in 1927, the then rector of the 1st Moscow State University demanded the introduction and teaching of the "new doctrine of language" as "the first serious experience of Marxist theory in linguistics", this rector was not who other than Vyshinsky. However, he put forward these demands at the insistence of the same Pokrovsky (20).

In 1930 Marr finally met with Stalin. At one of the first meetings of the 16th Congress of the CPSU(b), Marr delivered a greeting from scientific workers. As stated in the newspaper chronicle, "the speech of Academician Marr and Professor Keller turns into a demonstration of the unity of the working class and representatives of science, walking in step with the working class along the path of socialist construction. The delegates of the congress give an ovation to the speakers" (21). It is said that, speaking to Stalin, Marr uttered part of the greeting in Georgian.

Marr's star rose even more after, in his closing speech on the report at the same congress, Stadii repeated one of his permanent theses: one common language, which, of course, will not be either Great Russian or German, but something new" (22). Let us compare the words of Marr referring to 1926: "The future single world language will be the language of a new system, a special one that has not existed before ... Naturally, none of the most widespread living languages ​​of the world can be such a language" (See: 3. T. II, p . 25). After this, the Marrists could consider that their doctrine received the highest support; they declared: By the doctrine of a single glottogonic process (the thesis about the movement of languages ​​from plurality to unity - V.A. ) N.Ya. (23), although the historical connection between the statements of Marr and Stalin could only be reversed.

In the last years of his life, Marr was one of the most influential figures in Soviet science, he was vice-president of the USSR Academy of Sciences, director of two major academic institutions, a member of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, the owner of many other positions, and titles up to the honorary sailor. His appetites knew no bounds: in one of his last reports in 1933, he called, following linguistics, to completely revise history, abandoning the concepts of "West", "East", "prehistory", etc. (See: 16, p. 498). In the same 1933, he was one of the first in the country to be awarded the Order of Lenin.

From other linguists after 1928-1929. demanded full recognition of the "new doctrine of language" and adherence to its ideas. All other directions in science were eradicated. “Slavic studies are mixed with pan-Slavism... The genetic relationship of the Slavic languages ​​was declared heresy... G. A. Ilyinsky’s Comparative Grammar of the Slavic Languages ​​was scattered after typing” (24). The most ridiculous political accusations fell on the heads of almost all qualified linguists. The collection of articles published in 1932 in Leningrad by a group of Marr's followers headed by F. Filin under the terrifying title "Against Bourgeois Smuggling in Linguistics", where about three dozen leading scientists of those years were enrolled as "smugglers" Even linguists who were not free from the influence of Marrism, but retained some independence in their work, were subjected to merciless persecution. When one of the best Soviet linguists, an outstanding figure in language construction, N. Yakovlev, published a very valuable program for collecting lexical material from the languages ​​of the North Caucasus, an active supporter of Marr G. Serdyuchenko called it an example of shamelessness, carelessness and unscrupulousness, which merges with the preaching of the principles of classes completely alien to us and worldviews with sabotage in language construction" (25). Yakovlev divided his vocabulary into sections "Material culture" and "Spiritual culture", including political vocabulary in the latter. from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism "politics is a concentrated economy", "The separation of the economy from politics is the most characteristic feature of bourgeois theoreticians and their social-fascist lackeys," says Comrade Kaganovich... And Yakovlev took the position of these social-fascist lackeys in his article" (26).

The Marrists called for the abolition of the entire science of language, replacing it with the study of ideology. One of them wrote: “Until now, strange as it may seem, there is a prejudice that a linguist is one who deals with the phonetics or morphology of a language ... And, conversely, when a Marxist-Leninist well-trained person begins to engage in language construction, then such a fact is surprising to some, while others loudly point out the inadmissibility of intrusion into such a sacred area as linguistics. It must be clearly and clearly stated that in our conditions, linguistics and even more so linguistic construction can be engaged primarily in those who are well versed in the methodology of dialectical materialism" (27).

Only a few dared to speak out against such demagogy. Here it is impossible not to mention the great scientist-revolutionary E. Polivanov. In February 1929, on his own initiative, he spoke at the subsection of materialistic linguistics of the Comacademy with a report against the "new doctrine of language." He convincingly and conclusively refuted the main provisions of Marr and showed the unscientific nature of his research methodology. However, the Marrists, led by Fritsche and Aptekar, turned the discussion of the report into a trial of Polivanov, to whom everything was attributed, up to the false accusation of belonging to the Black Hundred organization before the revolution. The mood of the listeners, among whom non-linguists predominated, was also not in favor of Polivanov, who in his concluding remarks bitterly remarked: "I am dealing here with believers - this is first of all. It would be ridiculous for me to make it my task to convince believers." The struggle against the "polivanovshchina" began, Polivanov was forced to leave Moscow for Central Asia, where they continued to persecute him. In 1931, he nevertheless managed to publish the book For Marxist Linguistics, where he confirmed the rejection of Marr's ideas, declaring at the same time that the complete rejection of "bourgeois science" would turn us into obscurants and that Lenin "warned more than once against the authors such a scarcity of flying culture and a scarcity of flying science" (28). This book caused a new storm, henceforth Polivanov could not publish either in Moscow or in Leningrad. For more details on Polivanov's struggle with Marr, see V. Lartsev's book (29).

Another attempt to at least limit the monopoly position of Marrism is associated with the activities of the existing in 1930-1932. "Language Front" groupings (G. Danilov, K. Alaverdov, Ya. Loya, T. Lomtev, P. Kuznetsov and others). In contrast to Polivanov, the Linguists were irreconcilable to "bourgeois science", demanded the creation of "Marxist linguistics" and accepted some of Marr's ideas, such as classifying language as a superstructure and denying linguistic kinship. However, they rejected Marr's apparently absurd conceptions, in particular the four elements, and generally adopted more sound scientific positions. But Marr and his henchmen were stronger. "Lyazykofront" in 1932 was forced to dissolve itself, and the research institute of linguistics associated with it in Moscow was closed in 1933.

By 1933 the victory of the "new doctrine of language" seemed to be complete, its opponents either surrendered or were expelled from science. And since 1934, mass arrests began among linguists (before that, only a few scientists suffered). At the beginning of 1934, the so-called “Slavist case” was fabricated (See: 20), a group of Moscow linguists, literary critics and textual critics was arrested and accused of propagating “reactionary science widespread in fascist Germany” (30). All those arrested were far from Marrism and accepted the relationship of the Slavic languages ​​as true. Two prominent scientists, corresponding members of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR N.M. Durnovo and G.A. Ilyinsky, died, other prominent scientists - A.F. Selishchev, V.V. years in prisons, camps or exile. The year 1937 also had a severe impact on Soviet linguistics. But at this time, no one could be guaranteed against death. Among those destroyed during that terrible period were Marr's opponents (Polivanov, Danilov, Alaverdov), and qualified linguists who verbally accepted his teachings like Academician Samoylovich, and some of the most inveterate Marrists (Aptekar, Bykovsky, Bashindzhagyan). Note, however, that the Institute of Language and Thinking. N.Ya. Marra suffered little from the repressions (Marr himself died at the end of 1934).

The difficult atmosphere that prevailed in our science in the 1930s ruined people not only physically. The fate of the already mentioned Yakovlev is indicative. He lived a long life and was not arrested, but in the face of numerous attacks and studies, he broke down. In the works of the 30-40s. Yakovlev tried to be a Marrist, their scientific level dropped noticeably, and a clear breakdown was felt in all his activities. New studies of the late 1940s and early 1950s, when he was first accused of insufficiently consistent Marrism, and then of Marrism, led Yakovlev to a mental illness and premature departure from science.

By the end of the 1930s, however, the situation in Soviet linguistics began to improve. Marr was no longer there, and his successor, Academician Meshchaninov, in the past an active propagandist of the "new doctrine of language", took a more reasonable and compromise position [6] . The apparently absurd components of Marr's teaching were either forgotten or outright rejected, as was the case with the four elements (31). As V. Zvegintsev rightly noted, "for the followers of N.Ya. Marr, the declarative part of his works was important, and not the actual content of his "theory" and scientific practice" (See: 4. Vol. 1, p. 155). However, the followers of Marr did not dare to recognize the concepts of linguistic kinship and proto-language most zealously rejected by their teacher. Comparative historical linguistics remained banned.

The situation, which had remained stable for about a decade, changed dramatically in 1948. After the infamous session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the summer of 1948, in any field of science, it was ordered to look for its "Mendelists-Weismanists-Morganists." The joint meeting of the scientific councils of the Institute of Language and Thought and the Institute of the Russian Language, which had separated from it by that time, on October 22, 1948, turned out to be a turning point, where F. Filin made a report "On Two Directions in Linguistics". He stated: "The new doctrine of language, based on Marxist-Leninist methodology, is the general and only scientific theory for all particular linguistic disciplines ... Politically, the teaching of N.Ya. Marr, born of the Soviet system, is ... a composite and an organic part of the ideology of a socialist society" (32). Marr's teaching was opposed to "Mendelism-Weissmanism-Morganism" in linguistics, to which many serious scientists were attributed, some of them Filin had stigmatized a decade and a half before. As a result, it was stated: "Non-disarmed Indo-Europeanists in our midst have something to think about ... It is not enough not to be a fighter against N.Ya. Marr, one must be a consistent and implacable fighter for N.Ya. Marr" (33).

After that, for about a year and a half, a pogrom campaign was going on in Soviet linguistics, in which the same Serdyuchenko and Filin played the leading role. Only they were invulnerable to criticism, all other linguists, including even Meshchaninov, who nominally remained the head of Soviet linguistics, were subjected to study in one way or another. The campaign went through a number of stages. Works were carried out at meetings and in a number of press organs (Pravda, Culture and Life, Literaturnaya Gazeta). Many had to renounce their views and works. Some could not stand it: an outstanding Finno-Ugric scholar, Corresponding Member. Academy of Sciences of the USSR DV Bubrich died of a heart attack on November 30, 1949 after two weeks of almost daily study. But there were also those who did not give up. By the spring of 1950, most of them (R.Acharyan, G.Kapantsyan, P.Kuznetsov, B.Serebrennikov) had lost their jobs or were presented for dismissal.

As a positive program, an almost complete (excluding only the doctrine of classes in primitive society) return to Marr was proposed, including his four elements: "Paleontologically" analysis by elements ... with its skillful use in historical and dictionary works, in particular, in the analysis the most ancient nomenclature in the languages ​​of the world, can be quite applicable and useful" (34). Marr's cult reached its apogee at the ceremonial session in his memory in early 1950, where one of the speakers in the speech named by the author of the chronicle in "Problems of Philosophy" A. Spirkin "meaningful", recognized the four elements as "a new, higher level of paleontological analysis of language" (35). At this time, "neither to speak, nor to search, nor to write on linguistic topics without mentioning the name of Marr became impossible" (See: 4. Vol.I , p.393).

Suddenly, on May 9, 1950, a discussion on questions of linguistics was announced in Pravda, which began with an article against Marr written by one of the unsurrendered opponents of his teaching, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of Georgia A.S. Chikobava. At the first stage of the discussion, articles by Marr's opponents (A. Chikobava, B. Serebrennikov, G. Kapantsyan, L. Bulakhovsky), his defenders (I. Meshchaninov, N. Chemodanov, F. Filin) , V. Kudryavtsev) and supporters of a compromise position (V. Vinogradov, G. Sanzheev, A. Popov, S. Nikiforov). The position of Marr's opponents was much more reasoned, but the strength of the arguments in itself did not solve anything in those conditions. Everything was determined another force, and she finally declared herself.

On June 20, as part of the discussion, Stalin's article "On Marxism in Linguistics" appeared, containing sharp criticism of the "new doctrine of language", formally the discussion continued for another two weeks, but its outcome, of course, was not in doubt. On July 4, the day the discussion ended, Pravda published Stalin's response to E. Krasheninnikova, and on August 2, three more of his responses to readers' letters. All these publications amounted to a text under the general title "Marxism and questions of linguistics", published in a huge circulation and declared immediately "brilliant".

It is clear that the discussion was intended by Stalin as a prelude to his own introduction; as Chikobava himself later recalled, his article in Pravda was written on the instructions of Stalin, who read it and corrected it (36). It is also known that this assignment was preceded by a letter from Chikobava to Stalin, written back in April 1949, when Serdyuchenko and other Marxists actively persecuted Chikobava; the text of this letter has now been published (37). Further, not everything is clear. Apparently, Chikobava was not the initiator of his letter; he himself claims that it was prepared at the suggestion of the then First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia, Charkviani, and sent through him to Stalin (38). It is possible that the initiative belonged to Charkviani, who patronized Chikobava. But he could also carry out Stalin's directive, in which case Chikobava acted only as an expert. If so, it remains unclear whether Stalin himself became interested in questions of linguistics or whether someone drew his attention to them.

There are many hypotheses about the reasons for Stalin's intervention (39). First, the appeal to linguistics gave Stalin the opportunity to strengthen the glory of the theoretician of Marxism, which he did not confirm twelve years after the publication of the "Short Course". At the beginning of the first article, referring to the appeal to him of a "group of comrades from the youth" (apparently mythical), he declared: "I am not a linguist and, of course, cannot fully satisfy my comrades. As for Marxism in linguistics, as in sciences, then I have a direct relationship with this matter" (40). The first half of this article is devoted entirely to the refutation of two not so much linguistic as philosophical positions of Marr: on the belonging of the language to the superstructure and on the class character of the language. Here Stalin could speak out on questions little touched upon by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and at the same time purify their teaching from extraneous elements such as the class character of the language. After Stalin’s speech, Marr was labeled for a long time as a “vulgarizer of Marxism” (which, however, corresponded to reality), and both of his theses, which led to absurd conclusions like the emergence of a new Russian language after October, never again had serious supporters.

Secondly, the reason could lie in the discrepancy between Marr's ideas, oriented towards the mindset of the 1920s, and Stalin's political line of the post-war years. Gone are the dreams of world revolution, the cosmic fantasies and the ideas of great-power chauvinism as the chief evil in national questions; "nationality" and "originality" turned from swear words into indispensable epithets of newspaper articles. Under these conditions, Marr's denial of national boundaries and frameworks and the special role of the Russian language, the complete rejection of the old science, the demand to speed up the creation of a world language could not please Stalin. It was not for nothing that Stalin compared Marr with the Proletkult and Rappovites (41). He could also take into account Marr's friendship with Pokrovsky, and the similarity of some of his ideas and those of Bukharin, although Stalin did not mention these names.

It is difficult to disagree with these words. But we must not forget that a similar atmosphere was created in all of Soviet science under the supreme leadership of their author.

Repeatedly, Stalin unleashed a campaign necessary for his goals, and then, seeing that it had gone too far, began to condemn it, blaming too zealous executors of his will. Let us recall the article "Dizziness from Success", Yezhov's resignation and then arrest. It is possible that speeches on questions of linguistics played a similar role for Stalin in the ideological campaign, the milestones of which were the decision on the Leningrad journals, the VASKhNIL session, the struggle against cosmopolitanism. After several years of struggle for "class" and "party" Stalin suddenly remembered the struggle of opinions and freedom of criticism. The guilty ones of the "Arakcheev regime", which allegedly existed only in linguistics, were found primarily to be overly active Serdyuchenko and Filin, as well as not being an "Arakcheev" but Meshchaninov, who occupied a leading position. All of them, however, got off quite lightly according to the norms of those years: they were not arrested or even fired from their jobs, they only lost their positions of authority and had to repent for several years. The new head of Soviet linguistics was Academician Vinogradov, who had previously experienced two arrests and two exiles in Stalin's time, and in 1948-1949. exposed as a "bourgeois linguist".

Calls for a struggle of opinion in science, combined with criticism of Marr's obviously unscientific concept, made a certain impression on Western scientists, who never accepted the "new doctrine of language." Despite the height of the Cold War, their attitude towards Stalin's work was largely positive (43). At the same time, the editorial preface of the journal Langwidge (USA) quite rightly stated that although a step in the right direction had been taken in Soviet linguistics, it was not yet a step from darkness to light, since Stalin's ideas, regardless of their content, were a dogma proclaimed by an official act. (44).

The result of Stalin's speech was ambiguous for Soviet linguistics. On the one hand, the prevailing myth was dispelled in one day, the comparative historical method ceased to be considered “reactionary”, which, in Stalin’s opinion, despite some “serious shortcomings” not indicated by him, at the same time “pushes to work, to study languages". Scientists, moving away from the scholastic study of the problems of language and thinking, the origin of language, stadiality, turned to the analysis of specific facts (See the assessments of foreign observers writing about the "deprovincialization" and "correction after a long paralysis" of Soviet linguistics after 1950) (45) . But at the same time, the general nature of the relationship of the authorities to science has not changed in any way. As before, despite Stalin's statements about freedom of opinion,     other directions, declared "bourgeois" and "ideologically vicious." In addition, not all of the science of language was rehabilitated. Only linguistics of the 19th century was restored in its rights, mainly comparative-historical, primarily Russian pre-revolutionary science. The advanced science of the West, where at that time various trends of structuralism dominated, was rejected as zealously as in 1948-1950; here, of course, the cold war had its effect. See, for example, the statement from the leading article of a new linguistic journal: "Spiritual impoverishment and insanity have gripped the ideological superstructure of modern bourgeois society. This is directly reflected in the development of linguistic science in the West" (46).

Already from 1954-1955. Stalin's name was mentioned less and less in linguistic works, and after the 20th Congress of the CPSU it was no longer mentioned at all. However, there was no return to Marism, either then or later. In the early 1960s, in connection with the criticism of Stalin, individual attempts were made to scientifically rehabilitate Marrism (48), but they were not successful: supported from above. Deprived of such support, it quickly disappeared from the scientific horizon. It is not even of historical interest as a scientific theory, going down in history only as an example of pseudoscience, elevated during the period of Stalinism to the rank of the "only correct" doctrine.

1. Kapustin M.P. What legacy are we giving up? - October, 1988, No. 5; Krasavitskaya T.Yu. Speech at the "round table" of historians. - "Questions of History", 1988, No. 9.

2. Meshchaninov I.I. Introduction to Japhetology. L., 1929.

3. Marr N.Ya. Selected works. M.-L., 1936, T. II . S. 449.

4. Against the vulgarization and perversion of Marxism in linguistics. M ., 1951-1952, T .1-2 - Thomas LL The Linguistic Theories of N.Ya. Marr. Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1957.

5. Freidenberg O.M. Memories of N.Ya.Marr. - East-West, M. 1988. P.182.

6. Abaev V.I. N.Ya.Marr (1864-1934). To the 25th anniversary of his death. - "Issues of Linguistics", 1960, No. 1. P. 98-99.

7. Problems of the history of pre-capitalist societies. 1935, no . 3-4. C . 66.

8. Miller RA Japan's Modern Myth. New York-Tokio, 1982.

9. I bid . P.21.

10. Vernadsky V.I. Autobiography pages. M., 1981. S. 287.

11. "Izvestia", 1925, April 12.

12. Kuznetsov P.S. Autobiography. Manuscript. C.370.

13. Kon I. Psychology of social inertia. - "Communist", 1988, No. 1. P.73.

14. Bashinjaghyan L.G. Institute of Language and Thinking named after N.Ya. Marr. - "Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR", 1937, No. 10-11. P.258.

15. Bykovsky S.N. N.Ya.Marr and his theory. To the 45th anniversary of scientific activity. M.-L., 1933. S.12.

16. Mikhankova V.A. N.Ya.Marr. M.-L., 1949. S.372.

17. Marx K., Engels F. Op. T.32. pp.43-44.

18. Bukharin N.I. The theory of historical materialism. Popular textbook of Marxist sociology. M.-Pg.. 1921. S. 227.

19. Izvestia, 1928, May 23.

20. Bernstein S.B. A tragic page from the history of Slavic philology (30s of the XX century). - "Soviet Slavic Studies", 1989, No. 1. P.79.

21. "Izvestia", 1930. June 29.

22. Pravda, 1930, July 3.

23. All-Union Central Committee of the New Alphabet N.Ya. Marr. M., 1936. S.Z.

24. Vinogradov V.V. State and prospects for the development of Soviet Slavic studies. – "Questions of linguistics", 1959, No. 6, p.6.

25. Serdyuchenko G.P. Bourgeois smuggling on the front of language building. - "Revolution and Butt", 1932. No. 1. P.147.

26. Ibid. P.147.

27. Kusikyan I. Immediate tasks of Marxist linguists in the construction of the languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR. - "Enlightenment of Nationalities", 1931, No. 11-12. P. 78.

28. Polivanov E.D. For Marxist linguistics. M., 1931. C.15.

29. Lartsev V.G. Evgeny Dmitrievich Polivanov. Pages of life and activity. M., 1988. S.74-90.

30. Kuznetsov P.S. Japhetic theory. M., 1932.

31. Meshchaninov I.I. Immediate tasks of Soviet linguistics. - "Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR". Ser. literature and language, 1940, No. 3. S.21-22. – Meshchaninov I.I. The doctrine of N.Ya. Marr about stadiality - "Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR" Ser. literature and language, 1947, No. 1. P.36.

32. Filin F.P. About two directions in linguistics. - "Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR". A series of literature and language, 1948, No. 6. P.488.

33. Ibid. P.496.

34. Serdyuchenko G.P. Academician N.Ya. Marr is the founder of Soviet materialistic linguistics. M. 1950. P.63.

35. Spirkin A.G. Scientific session dedicated to the 85th anniversary of the birth and the 15th anniversary of the death of N.Ya.Marr. - "Questions of Philosophy", 1949, No. 3. P.333.

36. Chikobava A.S. When and how it was. – Yearbook of Iberian-Caucasian linguistics, XII. Tbilisi, 1985. C.11-12.

37. Ibid. pp.14-23.

38. Ibid. C.9.

39. Gorbanevsky M.V. Coryphaeus abstract. - "Literary newspaper", 1988, May 25. – L'Hemutte R. Marr, Marrisme, Marristes. Une page de l'histoire de la linguistique sovietique. Paris, 1987. P.73-75 .

40. "Truth". 1950, June 20.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid . _

43. Rubinstein H. The Recent Conflict in Soviet Linguistics. – language. V.27, 1951, No. 3.

44. Ibid . P.282.

45. Current Trends in Linguistics. V.1. The Hague, 1963. P .22. – Unbegaun BO Some Recent Studies on the History of the Russian Language. - Oxford Slavonic Papers, V.5, 1954. P.131.

46. ​​"Issues of Linguistics", 1952, No. 1. P.6.

47. Pravda, 1950, August 2.

48. Serdyuchenko G.P. On some philosophical questions of general linguistics. M., 1964. - Fedoseev P.N. Some questions of the development of Soviet linguistics. M., 1964. 

Source: V. M. Alpatov. Marr, Marrism and Stalinism

// Philosophical Research, 1993, No. 4, pp. 271-288.

[1] Under the Japhetic language, Marr first understood the languages ​​of the Caucasus, including his native Georgian, then - a large family of languages, which, in addition to the Caucasian ones, included Basque, Etruscan, etc., its composition expanded all the time. After 1923, Marr, having abandoned language families, began to consider these languages ​​as a stage, continuing to add the most diverse languages ​​to the Japhetic languages ​​- from Chuvash to Hottentot. - Auth.

[2] Marr never gave a coherent exposition of his theory, and probably was not in a position to give one. For the most coherent and devoid of contradictions, see its presentation in the book by I. Meshchaninov (2) - Auth.

[3] Marr's teaching sometimes included, in finished form, elements of completely scientific concepts created long before him, for example, the ideas of an amorphous, agglutinative and inflectional structure dated back to the Schlegel brothers and. V. Humbald. - Auth.

[4] Similarities could be rejected only for ideological reasons. for example, a very real connection between the words "slave" and "work" (See: 3.II, p. 458) -Auth.

[5] We note that the attribution of language to the superstructure, which is absent from Marx and Engels, is also encountered before Marr in Marxist literature: development of productive forces" (18). -Auth.

[6] In periods when there was no strong pressure from above, Meshchaninov more than once showed himself to be a decent person: he helped the repressed and their families, saved people from deportation. But he could not resist such a despotic man as Marr, and after 1949 he could not save science from administrative interference and soon gave up. -Auth.