I.L. MAYAK AS A REVIEWER OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ON THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT ROME

Abstract

The subject of this study is a part of the scientific heritage of the Honored Professor of Moscow University, Iya Leonidovna Mayak (1922-2018), represented by her reviews on national and foreign monographs on Roman history, published in 1958-1999. The article deals with I.L. Mayak’s motives for writing the reviews, the methodological foundations of her analysis, her requirements for the source base and the historiographical rating of classical studies, their structure and the logic of presentation. It is noted that I.L. Mayak was opposed to dogmatism in the application of the theory of socio-economic formations as well as a hypercritical attitude to sources related to archaic Rome, the spread of which she considered to be the methodological consequence of Kantianism. It is shown that I.L. Mayak not only monitored the diffi cult process of rehabilitation of the ancient tradition as a source for studying the archaic Rome, but herself actively promoted this process, in particular by means of reviewing other people’s works. Th e study considers the requirements set out by I.L. Mayak for classical studies such as the need to provide a terminological analysis of sources data, to trace changes in the content of concepts over time, to show the possibility of various interpretations of the given facts. In the formulation of theoretical constructions I.L. Mayak considered essential to provide a concept against the background of the concepts introduced by predecessors, and if the problem was debatable, to indicate the view clearly and definitely. The analysis of reviews written by Iya Leonidovna allows us to conclude that they make it possible to expand our understanding of her academic views, especially on those problems of Roman history, which she did not directly examine in her monographs and articles, in particular, on the issue of preserving polis paradigm in the late Roma n Empire. Reviews by I.L. Mayak reflect her image memorable to many generations of historians: she was respectful to colleagues, however critical of their work, delicate in remarks, stringently academic in expressing her thoughts. The article shows the polemic sharpness and dialogic character of the reviews by I.L. Mayak.