essential here, and deftly captures the challenges that dissident historians faced – is the inaccuracy of immediate truths due to difficulties in compiling information acceptable if the broader underpinning truth remains? This is an intriguing question that Martin explores well through the vehicle of her historical subjects. Martin is also right to argue that the oft noted homogeneity of the dissident non-conformist versus loyal party member fails to capture the complexity of intellectual life in the Soviet Union. This argument is clearly and consistently made throughout this text, reiterating the need to see the dissident movement as a multifaceted collection of individuals, often more in disagreement than in agreement. This might seem obvious, but as Martin rightly notes, the study of Soviet dissent is often portrayed as one of ‘heroes and victims’ (2), a position that this book skilfully demonstrates as being far too simplistic to capture the nuanced position of these individuals. In this context, Martin’s argument that dissident historical research is its own distinct genre is both apt and persuasive. This argument captures the reflexive nature of the history produced by these intellectuals and how it was shaped by their political context, something that deserves particular attention in comparison to other forms of history. Whilst Martin is right to note in her concluding paragraph that an understanding of the role of the international community is essential in understanding how dissidents conducted historical research, more could be done to emphasize this throughout the book itself. Further exploration of the international reception and recognition of the four individuals under assessment, comparing and contrasting their reputation and the impact of their interaction with actors outside of the Soviet Union, would undoubtedly offer an extra dimension to her analysis of these figures. This is an impressive piece that is a recommended read to anyone with an interest in political dissent, intellectual history, or life in the Soviet Union. More broadly, historians concerned with how history is produced in contested political circumstances will find this book fascinating, especially given the ample opportunity it offers to reflect on historical practice and its relationship to truth. Reflecting upon the complexities of how these four figures conducted historical research will offer much food for thought for any historian thinking about their own practice.

中文翻译：

---

Yuliya Minkova，《制造烈士：从斯大林到普京的俄罗斯文化中的牺牲语言》

在这里至关重要，并巧妙地捕捉到持不同政见的历史学家面临的挑战——如果更广泛的基础真相仍然存在，由于汇编信息的困难而导致的直接真相的不准确是否可以接受？这是一个有趣的问题，马丁通过她的历史题材的载体很好地探索了这个问题。马丁也正确地辩称，持不同政见的不墨守成规者与忠诚的党员之间经常被注意到的同质性未能捕捉到苏联知识分子生活的复杂性。这个论点在整篇文章中清晰而一致，重申需要将持不同政见者运动视为一个多方面的个人集合，通常更多的是分歧而不是同意。这似乎很明显，但正如马丁正确指出的那样，对苏联异议的研究经常被描绘成“英雄和受害者”之一（2），这本书巧妙地展示了这一立场过于简单，无法捕捉到这些人的细微差别。在这种情况下，马丁关于持不同政见的历史研究是其独特类型的论点既恰当又具有说服力。这个论点抓住了这些知识分子所创造的历史的反思性质，以及它们是如何被他们的政治背景所塑造的，与其他形式的历史相比，这一点值得特别关注。虽然马丁在她的结论段落中正确地指出，理解国际社会的作用对于理解持不同政见者如何进行历史研究至关重要，但在整本书中还可以做更多的工作来强调这一点。进一步探索被评估的四个人的国际接受度和认可度，比较和对比他们的声誉以及他们与苏联以外的演员互动的影响，无疑将为她对这些数字的分析提供额外的维度。这是一篇令人印象深刻的作品，推荐对政治异议、思想史或苏联生活感兴趣的任何人阅读。更广泛地说，关注历史如何在有争议的政治环境中产生的历史学家会发现这本书引人入胜，尤其是考虑到它提供了充分的机会来反思历史实践及其与真理的关系。