Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

FSBEI HPE "Tambov State Technical University"

Department of History and Philosophy

abstract

in the discipline "History of Russia"

on the topic: "Outstanding Russian Historians"

Completed by a 1st year student K.V. Osadchenko

Checked by Ph.D., Associate Professor K.V. Samokhin

Tambov 2011

Introduction

Chapter 1. Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

1 Biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky

2 V.O. Klyuchevsky as a historian

Chapter 2. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

1 Biography of N.M. Karamzin

2 Karamzin as a historian

3 Karamzin as a writer

Chapter 3. Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

1 Biography of V.N. Tatishcheva (life, career, literary works)

Chapter 4. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov

1 Biography of L.N. Gumilyov

2 The main works of L.N. Gumilyov

Chapter 5. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov

1 Biography of S.M. Solovyova

2 Teaching activities

3 Traits

4 "History of Russia"

5 Other writings

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Outstanding Russian historians used to clearly imagine that historical science has general theoretical methodological problems in itself.

In the academic year 1884/85, V.O. Klyuchevsky gave a special course for the first time in Russia Methodology of Russian history , heading the really original section of the first lecture thus: Lack of method in our history.

Commenting on this formulation, Klyuchevsky said: Our Russian historical literature cannot be accused of a lack of industriousness - it has worked out a lot; but I will not charge her too much if I say that she herself does not know what to do with the material she has processed; she doesn't even know if she handled it well.

How can there be methodological concepts gleaned by historical science and corresponding criteria and approaches? Especially in conditions of zero level of development of own approaches? It is clear that only the personality, including its sociological profile, can serve as such an initial source.

What has been said about the relationship between the social concept of personality and history, with well-known far-fetched corrections (in each case, purely amazingly specific, taking into account the specifics of this science), perhaps this exists extrapolated specifically to any branch of humanitarian, social science knowledge.

The purpose of the abstract is to analyze, on the basis of existing literature, the life and work of Russian historians during their lifetime and what they left behind.

Based on the goal, when writing the abstract, the following tasks were formulated:

.Consider the biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky and his activities as a professor of history.

.Consider the biography of N.M. Karamzin and his literature.

.Consider the life, career and literary works of V.N. Tatishchev in his biography.

.Consider the life and main works of L.N. Gumilyov.

.Consider S.M. Solovyov as a teacher, a person with character and his contribution to the "History of Russia".

Chapter 1. Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

.1 Biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich- (1841-1911), Russian historian. He was born on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresensk (near Penza) in the family of a poor parish priest. His first teacher was his father, who died tragically in August 1850. The family was forced to move to Penza. Out of compassion for the poor widow, one of her husband's friends gave her a small house to live in. “Was there anyone poorer than you and me at the time when we were left orphans in the arms of our mother,” Klyuchevsky later wrote to his sister, recalling the hungry years of childhood and adolescence. In Penza, Klyuchevsky studied at the parish theological school, then at the district theological school and at the theological seminary.

Already at school, Klyuchevsky knew the works of many historians well. In order to be able to devote himself to science (the authorities predicted for him a career as a clergyman and admission to a theological academy), in his last year he deliberately left the seminary and spent a year independently preparing for the entrance exams to the university. With admission to Moscow University in 1861, a new period began in the life of Klyuchevsky. F.I. Buslaev, N.S. Tikhonravov, P.M. Leontiev, and especially S.M. Soloviev became his teachers: and it is well known what a pleasure it is for a young mind, beginning a scientific study, to feel in possession of a whole view of a scientific subject.

The time of study for Klyuchevsky coincided with the biggest event in the life of the country - the bourgeois reforms of the early 1860s. He was an opponent of extreme measures of the government, but did not approve of the political actions of the students. The subject of his graduation essay at the university, Legends of Foreigners about the Muscovite State (1866), Klyuchevsky chose the study of about 40 legends and notes of foreigners about Russia in the 15-17th centuries. For the essay, the graduate was awarded a gold medal and left at the department "to prepare for a professorship." Klyuchevsky's master's (candidate's) dissertation, Ancient Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source (1871), is devoted to another type of medieval Russian sources. The topic was pointed out by Solovyov, who probably expected to use the secular and spiritual knowledge of the novice scientist to study the question of the participation of monasteries in the colonization of Russian lands. Klyuchevsky did a titanic work on the study of at least five thousand hagiographic lists. During the preparation of his dissertation, he wrote six independent studies, including such a major work as the Economic Activity of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory (1866-1867). But the efforts expended and the result obtained did not justify the expected - the literary monotony of the lives, when the authors described the life of the heroes according to a stencil, did not allow us to establish the details of "the situation, place and time, without which there is no historical fact for the historian."

After defending his master's thesis, Klyuchevsky received the right to teach at higher educational institutions. He taught the course of general history at the Alexander Military School, the course of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, at the Higher Women's Courses, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. From 1879 he taught at Moscow University, where he replaced the late Solovyov in the department of Russian history. Teaching activities brought Klyuchevsky well-deserved fame. Gifted with the ability of figurative penetration into the past, a master of artistic expression, a famous wit and author of numerous epigrams and aphorisms, in his speeches the scientist skillfully built entire galleries of portraits of historical figures that were remembered by listeners for a long time. The doctoral dissertation The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia (first published on the pages of the Russian Thought magazine in 1880-1881) constituted a well-known stage in the work of Klyuchevsky. The subject of subsequent scientific works of Klyuchevsky clearly indicated this new direction - the Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries. in its relation to the present (1884), The origin of serfdom in Russia (1885), Poll tax and the abolition of servility in Russia (1886), Eugene Onegin and his ancestors (1887), The composition of the representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia (1890), etc. The most famous scientific work of Klyuchevsky, which received worldwide recognition, is the Course of Russian History in 5 parts. The scientist worked on it for more than three decades, but decided to publish it only in the early 1900s.

Klyuchevsky called colonization the main factor in Russian history around which events unfold: “The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of ​​colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Falling, then rising, this age-old movement continues to this day. Based on this, Klyuchevsky divided Russian history into four periods. The first period lasts approximately from the 8th to the 13th century, when the Russian population was concentrated on the middle and upper Dnieper with tributaries. Russia was then politically divided into separate cities, foreign trade dominated the economy. Within the framework of the second period (13th - mid-15th century), the bulk of the population moved to the interfluve of the upper Volga and Oka. The country was still fragmented, but no longer into cities with adjacent regions, but into princely destinies. The basis of the economy is free peasant agricultural labor. The third period continues from the middle of the 15th century. until the second decade of the 17th century, when the Russian population colonized the southeastern Don and Middle Volga chernozems; in politics, the state unification of Great Russia took place; in the economy began the process of enslavement of the peasantry. The last, fourth period until the middle of the 19th century. (the Course did not cover later time) - this is the time when "the Russian people spread across the entire plain from the Baltic and White to the Black seas, to the Caucasus Range, the Caspian and the Urals." The Russian Empire is formed, headed by autocracy, based on the military service class - the nobility. In the economy, the manufacturing industry joins the serf agricultural labor.

The scientific concept of Klyuchevsky, with all its schematism, reflected the influence of social and scientific thought of the second half of the 19th century. The allocation of the natural factor, the importance of geographical conditions for the historical development of the people met the requirements of positivist philosophy. The recognition of the importance of questions of economic and social history was to some extent akin to Marxist approaches to the study of the past. But nevertheless, the historians of the so-called "state school" - K.D.Kavelin, S.M.Soloviev and B.N.Chicherin are closest to Klyuchevsky. “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts,” wrote Klyuchevsky. The biography of Klyuchevsky himself rarely goes beyond these events and facts. His political speeches are few and characterize him as a moderate conservative who avoided the extremes of the Black Hundred reaction, a supporter of enlightened autocracy and the imperial greatness of Russia (it is no coincidence that Klyuchevsky was chosen as a teacher of world history for Grand Duke George Alexandrovich, brother of Nicholas II). The political line of the scientist was answered by the “Eulogy” to Alexander III, pronounced in 1894 and causing indignation among the revolutionary students, and a wary attitude towards the First Russian Revolution, and an unsuccessful ballot in the spring of 1906 in the ranks of electors in the First State Duma on the cadet list. Klyuchevsky died in Moscow on May 12, 1911. He was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.

1.2 V.O. Klyuchevsky as a historian

history literary teaching Klyuchevskiy

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich- professor of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy and at Moscow University (in the latter - since 1879); currently ( 1895 ) is the chairman of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities.

During the existence of the higher women's courses in Moscow, Professor Guerrier gave lectures on Russian history at them, and after the closing of these courses, he participated in public lectures organized by Moscow professors.

Not particularly numerous, but rich in content, Klyuchevsky's scholarly research, of which his doctoral dissertation ("Boyar Duma") stands out, is devoted primarily to clarifying the main issues of the history of administration and the social system of the Moscow state of the 15th - 17th centuries.

The wide scope of the study, covering the most essential aspects of the life of the state and society, in their mutual connection, a rare gift of critical analysis, sometimes reaching petty, but leading to rich results, a brilliant talent for presentation - all these features of K.'s works, long recognized by special criticism, helped him to enrich the science of Russian history with a number of new and valuable generalizations and put him in one of the first places among its researchers.

The most important of the works of Klyuchevsky: "Tales of foreigners about the Moscow State" (M., 1886), "Old Russian Lives of the Saints, as a historical source" (M., 1871), "Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia" (M., 1882), "Russian ruble of the 16th - 18th centuries in its relation to the present "(1884)," The Origin of Serfdom "(" Russian Thought ", 1885, $ 8 and 10)," Poll tax and the abolition of servility in Russia "(" Russian Thought ", 1886, $ 9 and 10), "The composition of the representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia" ("Russian Thought", 1890, $ 1; 1891, $ 1; 1892, $ 1).

In addition to scientific works, Klyuchevsky published articles of a popular and journalistic nature, placing them mainly in Russkaya Mysl.

Preserving his talent for exposition here too, Klyuchevsky moved further and further away from the scientific ground in these articles, although he tried to keep it behind him. Their distinctive feature is the nationalist tint of the author's views, which is closely connected with the idealization of the Moscow antiquity of the 16th-17th centuries. and an optimistic attitude towards modern Russian reality.

Such features were clearly reflected, for example, in the articles: "Eugene Onegin", "Good people of old Russia", "Two educations", "Recollection of N. I. Novikov and his time", as well as in Klyuchevsky's speech entitled: " In memory of the deceased Emperor Alexander III in Bose "(" Readings of Moscow. General. Ist. and Ancient. ", 1894 and separately, M., 1894).

Chapter 2. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

.1 Biography of N.M. Karamzin

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich- the famous Russian writer, journalist and historian. Born December 1, 1766 in the Simbirsk province; grew up in the village of his father, a Simbirsk landowner. The first spiritual food of an 8-9-year-old boy was old novels, which developed natural sensitivity in him. Already then, like the hero of one of his stories, "he loved to be sad, not knowing what," and "could play with his imagination for two hours and build castles in the air."

In the 14th year, Karamzin was brought to Moscow and sent to the boarding school of the Moscow professor Shaden; he also attended the university, where one could then learn "if not the sciences, then Russian literacy." He owed Shaden a practical acquaintance with German and French. After finishing his studies with Shaden, Karamzin hesitated for some time in his choice of activity. In 1783, he tries to enter the military service, where he was enrolled as a minor, but at the same time he retires and in 1784 is fond of secular successes in the society of the city of Simbirsk.

At the end of the same year, Karamzin returned to Moscow and, through his countryman, I.P. Turgenev, became close to Novikov's circle. Here began, according to Dmitriev, "Karamzin's education, not only the author's, but also moral." The influence of the circle lasted 4 years (1785 - 88). Serious work on oneself, which Freemasonry demanded, and which Karamzin's closest friend, Petrov, was so absorbed in, is not noticeable in Karamzin, however. From May 1789 to September 1790 he traveled around Germany, Switzerland, France and England, stopping mainly in big cities like Berlin, Leipzig, Geneva, Paris, London. Returning to Moscow, Karamzin began to publish the Moscow Journal (see below), where Letters from a Russian Traveler appeared. The Moscow Journal ceased in 1792, perhaps not without connection with the imprisonment of Novikov in the fortress and the persecution of Masons.

Although Karamzin, starting the Moscow Journal, formally excluded articles "theological and mystical" from his program, but after Novikov's arrest (and before the final verdict) he published a rather bold ode: "To Mercy" ("As long as a citizen is calm, without fear he can fall asleep, and freely dispose of life to all your subjects; as long as you give freedom to everyone and do not darken the minds of light; as long as the power of attorney to the people is visible in all your affairs: until then you will be sacredly revered ... nothing can disturb the tranquility of your state") and almost came under investigation on suspicion that the Masons had sent him abroad. Karamzin spent most of 1793-1795 in the countryside and prepared two collections here called Aglaya, published in the autumn of 1793 and 1794.

In 1795, Karamzin limited himself to compiling a "mixture" in the Moscow Vedomosti. "Having lost the will to walk under black clouds," he set out into the world and led a rather dispersed life. In 1796, he published a collection of poems by Russian poets, entitled "Aonides". A year later, the second book "Aonid" appeared; then Karamzin decided to publish something like an anthology on foreign literature<#"justify">Chapter 3. Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

.1 Biography of V.N. Tatishcheva (life, career and literary works)

Tatishchev (Vasily Nikitich) - a famous Russian historian, was born on April 16, 1686 on the estate of his father, Nikita Alekseevich T., in the Pskov district; studied at the Moscow artillery and engineering school under the guidance of Bruce, participated in the capture of Narva (1705), in the Battle of Poltava and in the Prussian campaign; in 1713-14 he was abroad, in Berlin, Breslau and Dresden, for improvement in the sciences. In 1717, Tatishchev was again abroad, in Danzig, where Peter I sent him to apply for the inclusion of an old image in the indemnity, about which there was a rumor that it was painted by St. Methodius; but the magistrate of the city did not yield to the image, and T. proved to Peter the infidelity of the legend. From both of his trips abroad T. took out a lot of books. Upon his return, T. was with Bruce, the president of the Berg and Manufactory College, and went with him to the Aland Congress. The idea made by Bruce to Peter the Great of the need for a detailed geography of Russia gave impetus to the compilation of the "Russian History" by Tatishchev, whom Bruce pointed out to Peter in 1719 as the performer of such a work. T., sent to the Urals, could not immediately present the plan of work to the tsar, but Peter did not forget about this matter and in 1724 reminded Tatishchev of it. Having set to work, T. felt the need for historical information and therefore, pushing geography into the background, began to collect materials for history. By the time these works began, there was another, closely related plan of T.: in 1719, he submitted a presentation to the tsar, in which he pointed out the need for a delimitation in Russia. In T.'s thoughts, both plans were connected; in a letter to Cherkasov in 1725, he says that he was determined "to survey the entire state and compose detailed geography with land maps." In 1720, a new order tore T. from his historical and geographical works. He was sent "in the Siberian province on Kungur and in other places where convenient places are searched, to build factories and smelt silver and copper from ores." He had to operate in a country little known, uncultured, which has long served as an arena for all sorts of abuses. Having traveled around the region entrusted to him, Tatishchev settled not in Kungur, but in the Uktussky plant, where he founded the department, which was called at the beginning the mining office, and then the Siberian higher mining authorities. During T.'s first stay at the Ural factories, he managed to do a lot: he moved the Uktus factory to the river. Iset and there laid the foundation for the present Yekaterinburg; he obtained permission to allow merchants to enter the Irbit fair and through Verkhoturye, as well as post offices between Vyatka and Kungur; at the factories he opened two primary schools, two for teaching mining; procured the establishment of a special judge for factories; compiled instructions for protecting forests, etc. P.

Tatishchev's measures aroused the displeasure of Demidov, who saw the undermining of his activities in the establishment of state-owned factories. To investigate disputes, Genik was sent to the Urals, who found that T. acted fairly in everything. T. was acquitted, at the beginning of 1724 he presented himself to Peter, was promoted to councilor of the Berg College and appointed to the Siberian Oberberg Amt. Soon afterwards he was sent to Sweden for the needs of mining and for the execution of diplomatic missions. T. stayed in Sweden from December 1724 to April 1726; with many local scientists, etc. Returning from a trip to Sweden and Denmark, Tatishchev spent some time compiling a report and, although not yet expelled from Bergamt, was, however, not sent to Siberia.

In 1727, Tatishchev was appointed a member of the mint office, to which the mints were then subordinate; the events of 1730 found him in this position.

Regarding them, Tatishchev drew up a note, which was signed by 300 people from the nobility. He argued that Russia, as a vast country, most of all corresponds to monarchical government, but that, nevertheless, "to help" the empress, she should have established a Senate of 21 members and an assembly of 100 members, and elected to the highest places by ballot; here various measures were proposed to alleviate the situation of different classes of the population. Due to the unwillingness of the guards to agree to changes in the state system, this whole project was in vain, but the new government, seeing in T. the enemy of the leaders, treated him favorably: he was the chief master of ceremonies on the day of the coronation of Anna Ioannovna. Having become the chief judge of the coin office, T. began to actively take care of improving the Russian monetary system. In 1731, T. began misunderstandings with Biron, which led to the fact that he was put on trial on charges of bribery. In 1734, Tatishchev was released from court and again assigned to the Urals, "for breeding plants." He was also entrusted with the drafting of the mining charter. While T. remained at the factories, his activities brought a lot of benefits to both the factories and the region: under him, the number of factories increased to 40; new mines were constantly opened, and T. considered it possible to arrange another 36 factories, which opened only a few decades later.

Between the new mines, the most important place was occupied by the mountain Blagodat indicated by T.. T. used the right to interfere in the management of private factories very widely and thus more than once aroused reproaches and complaints against himself. In general, he was not a supporter of private factories, not so much out of personal self-interest, but out of the consciousness that the state needs metals, and that by mining them itself, it receives more benefits than entrusting this business to private people. In 1737, Biron, wishing to remove Tatishchev from mining, appointed him to the Orenburg expedition for the final pacification of Bashkiria and the control devices of the Bashkirs. Here he managed to carry out several humane measures: for example, he procured that the delivery of yasak was entrusted not to the yasaks and kissers, but to the Bashkir foremen. In January 1739, T. arrived in St. Petersburg, where a whole commission was set up to consider complaints against him. He was accused of "attacks and bribes", not diligence, etc. It is possible to assume that there was some truth in these attacks, but T.'s position would be better if he got along with Biron. The commission subjected T. to arrest in the Peter and Paul Fortress and in September 1740 sentenced him to deprivation of his ranks.

The sentence, however, was not carried out. In this difficult year for T., he wrote his instruction to his son - the well-known "Spiritual". The fall of Biron again advanced T.: he was released from punishment and in 1741 was appointed to Tsaritsyn to manage the Astrakhan province, mainly to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks. The lack of the necessary military forces and the intrigues of the Kalmyk rulers prevented T. from achieving anything lasting. When Elizaveta Petrovna came to the throne, T. hoped to get rid of the Kalmyk commission, but he did not succeed: he was left in place until 1745, when he, due to disagreements with the governor, was dismissed from his post. Arriving in his village near Moscow Boldino, T. did not leave her until his death. Here he finished his story, which he brought to St. Petersburg in 1732, but for which he did not meet with sympathy. An extensive correspondence conducted by T. from the village has come down to us. On the eve of his death, he went to the church and ordered the workmen with shovels to appear there. After the liturgy, he went with the priest to the cemetery and ordered that a grave be dug for himself near his ancestors. Leaving, he asked the priest to come the next day to partake of him. At home, he found a courier who brought a decree forgiving him, and the Order of Alexander Nevsky. He returned the order, saying that he was dying. The next day he took communion, said goodbye to everyone and died (July 15, 1750). The main work of T. could only be published under Catherine II. All of T.'s literary activity, including works on history and geography, pursued journalistic objectives: the benefit of society was his main goal. T. was a conscious utilitarian. His worldview is set forth in his "Conversation of two friends about the benefits of science and schools." The main idea of ​​this worldview was the then fashionable idea of ​​natural law, natural morality, natural religion, borrowed by T. from Pufendorf and Walch.

The highest goal or "true well-being", according to this view, lies in the complete balance of spiritual forces, in "peace of soul and conscience", achieved through the development of the mind by "useful" science; Tatishchev attributed medicine, economy, law teaching and philosophy to the latter. Tatishchev came to the main work of his life as a result of a combination of a number of circumstances. Realizing the harm from the lack of a detailed geography of Russia and seeing the connection between geography and history, he found it necessary to collect and consider first all historical information about Russia. Since foreign manuals were full of errors, T. turned to the primary sources, began to study the annals and other materials. At first he had in mind to give a historical essay, but then, finding that it was inconvenient to refer to annals that had not yet been published, he decided to write in a purely annalistic order. In 1739, T. brought to St. Petersburg the work on which he had worked for 20 years, and transferred it to the Academy of Sciences for safekeeping, continuing to work on it and subsequently, smoothing the language and adding new sources. Lacking special training, T. could not give an impeccable scientific work, but in his historical works valuable vital attitude to questions of science and connected with this breadth of outlook. T. constantly connected the present with the past: he explained the meaning of Moscow legislation by the customs of judicial practice and memories of the mores of the 17th century; on the basis of personal acquaintance with foreigners, he understood ancient Russian ethnography; explained ancient names from the lexicons of living languages.

As a result of this connection between the present and the past, T. was not at all distracted by his work in the service from his main task; on the contrary, these studies broadened and deepened his historical understanding. The conscientiousness of Tatishchev, previously questioned because of his so-called Joachim Chronicle (see Chronicle), is now beyond any doubt. He did not invent any news or sources, but sometimes unsuccessfully corrected his own names, translated them into his own language, substituted his own interpretations, or compiled news similar to chronicles from data that seemed to him reliable. Citing chronicle legends in a code, often without indicating sources, T. gave, in the end, in essence, not history, but a new chronicle code, unsystematic and rather clumsy. The first two parts of the first volume of "History" were published for the first time in 1768 - 69 in Moscow, G.F. Miller, under the title "History of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors after 30 years, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan Governor V.N.T." Volume II was published in 1773, Volume III - in 1774, Volume IV - in 1784, and Volume V was found by M.P. Pogodin only in 1843 and published by the Society of Russian History and Antiquities in 1848. T. put the material in order before the time of the death of Vasily III; he also prepared, but did not finally edit the material until 1558; he also had a number of handwritten materials for later eras, but no further than 1613.

Part of T.'s preparatory work is stored in Miller's portfolios. In addition to the history of T. and the conversation mentioned above, he compiled a large number of essays of a journalistic nature: "Spiritual", "Reminder on the sent schedule of high and lower state and zemstvo governments", "Discourse on the revision of the total" and others. "Dukhovnaya" (published in 1775) gives detailed instructions covering the whole life and activity of a person (landowner). She talks about education, about different types of service, about relations with superiors and subordinates, about family life, managing the estate and economy, etc. Tatishchev's views on state law are set out in the "Reminder", and in the "Discourse", written about revisions of 1742, indicate measures to increase state revenues. T. - a typical "chick of Petrov's nest", with a vast mind, the ability to move from one subject to another, sincerely striving for the good of the fatherland, having his own definite worldview and firmly and steadily pursuing it, if not always in life, then in every way. case, in all his scientific works.

Wed ON THE. Popov "T. and his time" (Moscow, 1861); P. Pekarsky "New news about V. N. T." (III volume, "Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences", St. Petersburg, 1864); "On the publication of the works of V. N. T. and materials for his biography" (A. A. Kunik, 1883, published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences); K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (St. Petersburg, 1882); Senigov "Historical and critical research on the Novgorod chronicle and on the Russian history of Tatishchev" (Moscow, 1888; review by S.F. Platonov, "Bibliographer", 1888, No. 11); edition of "Dukhovnaya" T. (Kazan, 1885); D. Korsakov "From the life of Russian figures of the XVIII century" (ib., 1891); N. Popov "Scientists and literary works of T." (St. Petersburg, 1886); P.N. Milyukov "Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought" (Moscow, 1897).

Chapter 4. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov

.1 Biography of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov

Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov (October 1, 1912 - June 15, 1992) - Soviet and Russian scientist, historian-ethnologist, doctor of historical and geographical sciences, poet, translator from Persian. Founder of the passionate theory of ethnogenesis.

Born in Tsarskoye Selo on October 1, 1912. The son of the poets Nikolai Gumilyov and Anna Akhmatova (see pedigree),. As a child, he was brought up by his grandmother in the estate of Slepnevo, Bezhetsky district, Tver province.

From 1917 to 1929 he lived in Bezhetsk. Since 1930 in Leningrad. In 1930-1934 he worked on expeditions in the Sayans, the Pamirs and the Crimea. Since 1934 he began to study at the Faculty of History of the Leningrad University. In 1935 he was expelled from the university and arrested, but after some time he was released. In 1937 he was reinstated at Leningrad State University.

In March 1938, he was arrested again, as a student at Leningrad State University, and sentenced to five years. He was involved in the same case with two other students of Leningrad State University - Nikolai Yerekhovich and Teodor Shumovsky. He served his term in Norillag, working as a geotechnical technician in a copper-nickel mine, after serving his term he was left in Norilsk without the right to leave. In the autumn of 1944, he voluntarily joined the Soviet Army, fought as a private in the 1386th anti-aircraft artillery regiment (zenap), which was part of the 31st anti-aircraft artillery division (zenad) on the First Belorussian Front, ending the war in Berlin.

In 1945 he was demobilized, reinstated at Leningrad State University, from which he graduated in early 1946 and entered the graduate school of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, from where he was expelled with the motivation "due to the inconsistency of the philological preparation of the chosen specialty."

On December 1948, he defended his dissertation as a candidate of historical sciences at Leningrad State University, and was accepted as a researcher at the Museum of Ethnography of the Peoples of the USSR.

Memorial plaque on the house where L. N. Gumilyov lived (St. Petersburg, Kolomenskaya st., 1)

On November 1949, he was arrested, sentenced by a Special Meeting to 10 years, which he served first in a special purpose camp in Sherubay-Nur near Karaganda, then in a camp near Mezhdurechensk in the Kemerovo region, in the Sayans. On May 11, 1956, he was rehabilitated due to the lack of corpus delicti. In 1956, he worked as a librarian in the Hermitage. In 1961 he defended his doctoral thesis in history ("Ancient Turks"), and in 1974 - his doctoral dissertation in geography ("Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the Earth"). On May 21, 1976, he was denied the second degree of Doctor of Geography. Until his retirement in 1986, he worked at the Research Institute of Geography at the Leningrad State University.

He died on June 15, 1992 in St. Petersburg. Funeral service in the Church of the Resurrection of Christ near the Warsaw railway station. He was buried at the Nikolsky cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

In August 2005, in Kazan, "in connection with the days of St. Petersburg and the celebration of the millennium of the city of Kazan," a monument was erected to Lev Gumilyov.

On the personal initiative of the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in 1996, in the Kazakh capital of Astana, one of the leading [source not specified 57 days] universities of the country, the Eurasian National University named after L. N. Gumilyov, was named after Gumilyov. In 2002, an office-museum of L. N. Gumilyov was created within the walls of the university.

4.2 The main works of L. N. Gumilyov

* History of the Xiongnu people (1960)

* Discovery of Khazaria (1966)

* Ancient Turks (1967)

* Quest for the Fictional Realm (1970)

* Xiongnu in China (1974)

* Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth (1979)

* Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe (1989)

* Millennium around the Caspian (1990)

* From Russia to Russia (1992)

* End and start again (1992)

* Black legend

* Synchronization. The experience of describing historical time

* Part of the works

* Bibliography

* From the history of Eurasia

Chapter 5. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov

.1 Biography of S.M. Solovyova

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov(May 5, 1820 - October 4, 1879<#"justify">5.2 Teaching activities

Department of Russian history<#"justify">5.3 Traits

As a character and moral personality, Solovyov was outlined quite definitely already from the very first steps of his scientific and service activities. Neat to the point of pedantry, he did not waste, it seems, not a single minute; every hour of his day was foreseen. Solovyov and died at work. Elected to the rectors, he accepted the position "because it was difficult to fulfill it." Convinced that Russian society does not have a history that satisfies the scientific requirements of the time, and feeling in himself the strength to give one, he set to work on it, seeing in it his social duty. In this consciousness, he drew strength to accomplish his "patriotic feat."

5.4 "History of Russia"

For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on the History of Russia, the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. The first volume appeared in 1851.<#"justify">§ the question of dividing Russian history into epochs;

§ the influence of the natural conditions of the territory (in the spirit of the views of K. Ritter<#"justify">5.5 Other writings

To a certain extent, two other books by Solovyov can serve as a continuation of the "History of Russia":

§ "The History of the Fall of Poland" (Moscow, 1863, 369 pages);

§ "Emperor Alexander the First. Politics, Diplomacy” (St. Petersburg, 1877, 560 pages).

Subsequent editions of the "History of Russia" - compact in 6 large volumes (7th - index; 2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1897<#"justify">§ "Writers of Russian History of the 18th Century" (“Archive of historical and legal information of Kalacheva”, 1855, book II, floor 1);

§"G. F. Miller” (“Contemporary<#"justify">For general history:

§ "Observations on the historical life of peoples" ("Bulletin of Europe", 1868-1876) - an attempt to capture the meaning of historical life and outline the general course of its development, starting from ancient peoples East (brought to the beginning of the X century<#"justify">Conclusion

So what conclusions can we come to? It would be wrong to limit the methodological function of the social concept of personality only to the sphere of modern humanities. Like art, philosophical, social personality performs this function in relation to all arts and sciences, including natural science.

Many problems and in this place can be solved only with methodological substantiation with the help of laws, discovered since ancient times, by the social concept of personality.

In particular, the periodization of the history of a particular science, the role of many social conditions in the emergence and solution of many scientific problems; the role of worldview in historical scientific creativity...

And, of course, the moral responsibility of a scientist as a classifier of sciences and the transformation of science into a direct productive force of society, etc.

In addition, it must be taken into account that in modern natural science, many branches that study objects related to both nature and society have been destroyed.

The achievements of these sciences, in order to become effective, must rest on knowledge not only of the laws of nature, but also on knowledge of many laws of the sociological needs of society and the laws of the corresponding level of social development.

Bibliography

1."N.M. Karamzin according to his writings, letters and reviews of contemporaries" (Moscow, 1866).

.Letters to N.I. Krivtsov ("Report of the Imperial Public Library for 1892", appendix).

.K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (St. Petersburg, 1882).

.Senigov "Historical and critical research on the Novgorod chronicle and on the Russian history of Tatishchev" (Moscow, 1888; review by S.F. Platonov, "Bibliographer", 1888, No. 11).

.N. Popov "Scientists and literary works of T." (St. Petersburg, 1886).

."M. T. Kachenovsky ”(“ Biogr. dictionary of professors of Moscow Univ. ”, Part II).

7. "N. M. Karamzin and his literary activity: History of the Russian State” (“Notes of the Fatherland » 1853-1856, vols. 90, 92, 94, 99, 100, 105).

."A. L. Schletser ”(“ Russian Bulletin ” , 1856, № 8).

. “Ancient and New Russia” by Koyalovich P. V. Bezobrazov (“S. M. Solovyov, his life and scientific and literary activity”, St. Petersburg, 1894, from the series “Biographical Library” by Pavlenkov).

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750)

Well-known Russian historian, geographer, economist and statesman; author of the first major work on Russian history - ʼʼRussian Historyʼʼ. Tatishchev is rightly called the father of Russian history. "History of Russia" (books 1-4, 1768-1784) is the main work of Tatishchev, on which he worked from 1719 until the end of his life. In this work, for the first time, he collected and critically comprehended information from many historical sources. Russian Pravda (in a short edition), Sudebnik 1550, the Book of the Big Drawing and many more. others
Hosted on ref.rf
sources on the history of Russia were discovered by Tatishchev. "History of Russia" has preserved the news of sources that have not survived to our time. According to the fair remark of S. M. Solovyov, Tatishchev indicated “the way and means for his compatriots to engage in Russian history.” The second edition of the History of Russia, which is the main work of Tatishchev, was published 18 years after his death, under Catherine II - in 1768. The first edition of the Russian History, written in the ʼʼancient dialectʼʼ, was first published only in 1964.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov (1733-1790)

Russian historian, publicist. Honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences since 1776, member of the Russian Academy (1783). Shcherbatov was a historian and publicist, economist and politician, philosopher and moralist, a man of truly encyclopedic knowledge. In ʼʼRussian History from Ancient Timesʼʼ (brought to 1610) he emphasized the role of the feudal aristocracy, reducing historical progress to the level of knowledge, science and the mind of individuals. At the same time, Shcherbatov's work is saturated with a large number of acts, chronicles, etc.
Hosted on ref.rf
sources. Shcherbatov found and published some valuable monuments, incl. ʼʼRoyal bookʼʼ, ʼʼChronicle of many rebellionsʼʼ, ʼʼJournal of Peter the Greatʼʼ, etc.
Hosted on ref.rf
According to S. M. Solovyov, the shortcomings of Shcherbatov's works were the result of the fact that ʼʼ he began to study Russian history when he began to write itʼʼ, and he was in a hurry to write it. Until his death, Shcherbatov continued to be interested in political, philosophical and economic issues, expounding his views in a number of articles.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766 -1826)

Karamzin's interest in history arose from the mid-1790s. He wrote a story on a historical theme - ʼʼMartha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novgorodʼʼ (published in 1803). In the same year, by decree of Alexander I, he was appointed to the position of a historiographer, and until the end of his life he was engaged in writing the History of the Russian State, practically ceasing the activities of a journalist and writer.

ʼʼHistoryʼʼ Karamzin was not the first description of the history of Russia, before him were the works of V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov. But it was Karamzin who opened the history of Russia to the general educated public. In his work, Karamzin acted more as a writer than a historian - describing historical facts, he cared about the beauty of the language, least of all trying to draw any conclusions from the events he describes. Nevertheless, his commentaries, which contain many extracts from manuscripts, mostly first published by Karamzin, are of high scientific value. Some of these manuscripts no longer exist.

Nikolay Ivanovich Kostomarov (1817-1885)

Public figure, historian, publicist and poet, corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, contemporary, friend and colleague of Taras Shevchenko. The author of the multi-volume publication ʼʼRussian History in the Biographies of Its Figuresʼʼ, a researcher of the socio-political and economic history of Russia, especially the territory of modern Ukraine, called Kostomarov's southern Russia and the southern region.

The overall significance of Kostomarov in the development of Russian historiography can, without any exaggeration, be called enormous. He introduced and persistently pursued the idea of ​​folk history in all his works. Kostomarov himself understood and implemented it mainly in the form of studying the spiritual life of the people. Later researchers extended the content of this idea, but this does not diminish Kostomarov's merit. In connection with this main idea of ​​Kostomarov's works, he had another one - about the extreme importance of studying the tribal characteristics of each part of the people and creating a regional history. If in modern science a somewhat different view of the national character has been established, denying the immobility that Kostomarov attributed to him, then it was the work of the latter that served as the impetus, on the basis of which the study of the history of the regions began to develop.

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879)

Russian historian, professor at Moscow University (since 1848), rector of Moscow University (1871-1877), ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the department of Russian language and literature (1872), privy councillor.

For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on the History of Russia, the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. Its first volume appeared in 1851, and since then, neatly from year to year, it has been published by volume. The last, 29th, was published in 1879, after the death of the author. ʼʼHistory of Russiaʼʼ brought to 1774. Being an epoch in the development of Russian historiography, Solovyov's work determined a well-known direction, created a numerous school. ʼʼHistory of Russiaʼʼ, according to the correct definition of Professor V.I. Guerrier, there is a national history: for the first time, the historical material necessary for such work was collected and studied with due completeness, in compliance with strictly scientific methods, in relation to the requirements of modern historical knowledge: the source is always in the foreground, sober truth and objective truth alone guide the author's pen. Solovyov's monumental work for the first time captured the essential features and form of the historical development of the nation.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911)

Prominent Russian historian, tenured professor at Moscow University; Ordinary Academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (over staff in Russian History and Antiquities (1900), Chairman of the Imperial Society for Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councillor.

Klyuchevsky is rightfully considered an unsurpassed lecturer. The auditorium of Moscow University, in which he taught his course, was always overcrowded. He read and published special courses “Methodology of Russian History”, “Terminology of Russian History”, “History of Estates in Russia”, “Sources of Russian History”, a series of lectures on Russian historiography.

Klyuchevsky's most important work was his Lecture Course, published in the early 1900s. He managed not only to compose it on a serious scientific basis, but also to achieve an artistic depiction of our history. "Course" received worldwide recognition.

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (1860-1933)

Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1920). Author of a course of lectures on Russian history (1917 ᴦ.). According to Platonov, the starting position, which determined the features of Russian history for many centuries to come, is the "military character" of the Muscovite state, which arose at the end of the 15th century. Surrounded almost simultaneously on three sides by offensive enemies, the Great Russian tribe was forced to adopt a purely military organization and constantly fight on three fronts. The purely military organization of the Moscow state resulted in the enslavement of the estates, which for many centuries ahead predetermined the internal development of the country, incl. and the famous ʼʼTroubleʼʼ of the beginning of the 17th century.

The ʼʼliberationʼʼ of the estates began with the ʼʼliberationʼʼ of the nobility; The last act of "emancipation" of the estates was the peasant reform of 1861. At the same time, having received personal and economic freedoms, the ʼʼliberatedʼʼ estates did not wait for political freedoms, which found expression in the ʼʼmental fermentation of a radical political natureʼʼ, which eventually resulted in the terror of the ʼʼNarodnaya Volyaʼʼ and the revolutionary upheavals of the beginning of the 20th century.

Historiography is a special historical discipline that studies the history of historical science as a complex, multifaceted and contradictory process and its patterns.

The subject of historiography is the history of historical science.

Historiography solves the following tasks:

1) the study of the patterns of change and the approval of historical concepts and their analysis. Under the historical concept is understood the system of views of one historian or group of scientists both on the entire course of historical development as a whole, and on its various problems and aspects;

2) analysis of the theoretical and methodological principles of various trends in historical science and the elucidation of the patterns of their change and struggle;

3) study of the process of accumulation of factual knowledge about human society:

4) the study of the objective conditions for the development of historical science.

The history of historical science in our country begins in the period of the existence of Ancient Russia. Until the end of the XVI century. chronicles were the main type of historical writings.

The Tale of Bygone Years (I quarter of the 12th century) served as the basis for most of the chronicles. The most valuable lists are the Lavrentiev, Ipatiev and First Novgorod chronicles. Since the 18th century, the authorship of The Tale of Bygone Years has been attributed to the monk Nestor, but at present this point of view is not the only one and is being questioned.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, chronicles were kept in most major principalities and centers.

With the creation of a single state at the turn of the XV - XVI centuries. the chronicle acquires an official state character. Historical literature follows the path of creating works of grand scale and magnificent forms (the Resurrection Chronicle, the Nikon Chronicle, the Facial Code of Ivan the Terrible).

In the 17th century historical novels, chronographs and power books are approved. In 1672, the first textbook on Russian history "Synopsis" by I. Gizel was published. The word "synopsis" means "general view". In 1692, I. Lyzlov completed his work "Scythian History".

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) is considered the father of Russian historical science. He was not a professional historian, he came from a seedy family of Smolensk nobles, but, thanks to his abilities, he made a public career under Peter I. Tatishchev participated in the Northern War, carried out diplomatic missions, led the mining industry of the Urals (1720 - 1721, 1734 - 1737) , was the Astrakhan governor. But for a significant part of his life, in parallel with state activity, Tatishchev collected historical sources, described them and systematized them. times" in 5 books was published in 1768 - 1848. In this essay, the author gave a general periodization of the history of Russia, identified three periods: 1) 862 - 1238; 2) 1238 - 1462; 3) 1462 -1577. Tatishchev associated the development of history with the activities of rulers (princes, kings). He sought to establish a causal relationship of events. When presenting history, he used a pragmatic approach, relying on sources, primarily chronicles. Tatishchev was not only the founder of historical science in Russia, but laid the foundations for source studies, historical geography, Russian metrology and other disciplines.

In /725, the Academy of Sciences founded by Peter I was opened. Initially, invited German scientists worked in it. A special contribution to the development of historical science in Russia was made by G.Z. Bayer (1694 - 1738), G.F. Miller (1705 - 1783) and A.L. Schlozer (1735 -1809). They became the creators of the "Norman theory" of the emergence of statehood in Russia.

This theory was sharply criticized by Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711-1765), the first Russian academician, one of the founders of Moscow University, and a scientist-encyclopedist.

M.V. Lomonosov believed that engaging in history is a patriotic affair, and the history of the people closely merges with the history of rulers, the reason for the power of peoples is the merits of enlightened monarchs.

In 1749, Lomonosov made comments on Miller's dissertation "The Origin of the Russian Name and People." The main historical work of Lomonosov is "Ancient Russian history from the beginning of the Russian people to the death of the Grand Duke Yaroslav the first or until 1054, on which the scientist worked from 1751 to 1758.

The scientist believed that the world-historical process testifies to the progressive movement of mankind. He assessed historical events from the standpoint of enlightened absolutism, widely drew on sources, and was the first to raise the question of the level of development of the Eastern Slavs before the formation of the state.

In the second half of the XVIII century. the largest representatives of noble historiography were M.M. Shcherbatov and I.N. Boltin.

A major event in the development of historical science in / quarter XIX century. was the publication of the "History of the Russian State" N.M. Karamzin.

II.M. Karamzin (1766 - 1826) belonged to the provincial Simbirsk nobility, was educated at home, served in the guards, but retired early and devoted himself to literary creativity. In 1803, Alexander I appointed Karamzin a historiographer, instructing him to write a history of Russia for the general reader. Creating the "History of the Russian State", N.M. Karamzin was guided by the desire for the artistic embodiment of history, he was guided by love for the fatherland, the desire to objectively reflect the events that took place. For Karamzin the driving force historical process was power, the state. Autocracy, according to the historian, is the core on which the entire social life of Russia is strung. Destruction of autocracy leads to death, revival - to the salvation of the state. The monarch must be humane and enlightened. Karamzin objectively revealed the insidiousness of Yu. Dolgorukov, the cruelty of Ivan III and Ivan IV, the villainy of Godunov and Shuisky, he assessed the activities of Peter I inconsistently. people in respect for her. The first eight volumes of "History .." were published in 1818 and became compulsory reading in gymnasiums and universities. By 1916 The book went through 41 editions. In Soviet times, his works were practically not published as conservative-monarchist ones. At the end of the XX century. "History ..." Karamzin was returned to readers.

An outstanding historian // pol. XIX century was Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820 -1879), creator of the 29-volume "History of Russia from ancient times", professor, rector of Moscow University. Beginning in 1851, he published a volume every year until his death. His work covers Russian history from antiquity to the end of the 18th century. Solovyov set and solved the problem of creating a generalizing scientific work on Russian history, taking into account the current state of historical science. The dialectical approach allowed the scientist to raise the study to a new level. For the first time, Solovyov comprehensively considered the role of natural-geographical, demographic-ethnic and foreign policy factors in the historical development of Russia, which is his undoubted merit. CM. Solovyov gave a clear periodization of history, highlighting four main periods:

1. From Rurik to A. Bogolyubsky - the period of domination of tribal relations in political life;

2. From Andrei Bogolyubsky to the beginning of the 17th century. - a period of struggle between tribal and state principles, culminating in the victory of the latter;

3. From the beginning of the XVII century. until the middle of the 18th century. - the period of Russia's entry into the system European states;

4. From the middle of the XVIII century. before the reforms of the 60s. 19th century - a new period of Russian history.

Trud S.M. Solovyov has not lost its significance to this day.

A student of S.M. Solovyov was Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841 - 1911). The future historian was born into the family of a hereditary priest in Penza and was preparing to continue the family tradition, but his interest in history forced him to leave the seminary without completing the course and enter Moscow University (1861-1865). In 1871, he brilliantly defended his master's thesis "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a historical source." The doctoral dissertation was devoted to the Boyar Duma. He combined scientific work with teaching. His lectures on the history of Russia formed the basis of the "Course of Russian History" in 5 parts.

V. O. Klyuchevsky was a prominent representative of the national psycho-economic school that was formed in Russia in the last quarter of the 19th century. He considered history as a progressive process, and associated development with the accumulation of experience, knowledge, and everyday comforts. Klyuchevsky saw the task of the historian in the knowledge of the causal relationships of phenomena.

The historian paid close attention to the peculiarities of Russian history, the formation of serfdom and classes. He assigned the role of the main force in the history of the formation and development of the state to the people as an ethnic and ethical concept.

He saw the scientific task of the historian in understanding the origin and development of human societies, in studying the genesis and mechanism of human society.

Klyuchevsky developed the idea of ​​S.M. Solovyov about colonization as an important factor in historical development, highlighting its economic, ethnological and psychological aspects. He approached the study of history from the standpoint of the relationship and mutual influence of the three main factors - personality, nature and society.

Klyuchevsky combined historical and sociological approaches, specific analysis with the study of the phenomenon as a phenomenon of world history.

IN. Klyuchevsky left a deep mark on the history of Russian science and culture. His students were P.N. Milyukov, M.N. Pokrovsky, M.K. Lyubavsky and others. He had a profound influence on his contemporaries and descendants.

In October 1917, the Bolsheviks came to power. The conditions for the development of historical science in the country have changed dramatically. Marxism became the unified methodological basis of the humanities, the topics of research were determined by the state ideology, the history of the class struggle, the history of the working class, the peasantry, the communist party, etc. became priority areas.

Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky (1868 - 1932) is considered the first Marxist historian. He received his education at Moscow University. Since the mid-1890s, he has evolved towards economic materialism. Under economic materialism, he understood the explanation of all historical changes by the influence of material conditions, the material needs of man. The class struggle was perceived by him as the driving beginning of history. On the question of the role of the individual in history, Pokrovsky proceeded from the fact that individual characteristics historical figures were dictated by the economy of their time.

The central work of the historian "Russian history from ancient times" in 4 volumes (1909) and "History of Russia in the XIX century" (1907 - 1911). He saw his task in considering the primitive communal and feudal system, as well as capitalism, from the point of view of economic materialism. Already in these works, the theory of "commercial capital" emerged, more clearly formed in Russian History in the Most Concise Essay (1920) and other works of the Soviet period. Pokrovsky called the autocracy "commercial capital in Monomakh's cap." Under the influence of his views, a scientific school was formed, which was defeated in the 30s. 20th century

Despite the repressions and harsh ideological dictates, Soviet historical science continued to develop. Among Soviet historians, Academician B.A. Rybakov, Academician L.V. Cherepnin, Academician M.V. Nechkin, Academician B.D. Grekov, who made a significant contribution to the development of national historical science.

After the collapse of the USSR (1991), a new stage in the development of historical science began: access to archives expanded, censorship and ideological dictate disappeared, but state funding for scientific research significantly decreased. Domestic historical science has become part of world science, and relations with scientists from all over the world have expanded. But about the results of these positive changes it's still too early to say.

The largest ancient Russian historian and publicist is Nestor (XI-XII centuries). Works: the life of Theodosius, reading about the life and death of Boris and Gleb.

Main ideas: 1) preaches Christianity; 2) proves the independence of Russia from Byzantium; 3) condemns princely strife, showing himself a patriot.

1113 - The Tale of Bygone Years.

Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711-165) - the largest historian. Proceedings: ancient Russian history, a brief Russian chronicler, comments on the thesis of Miller and Bayer "The origin of the name and people of Russia." He proceeded from the role of the people in the history of enlightenment and autocracy.

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766-1826) - the son of a landowner of the Siberian province (conservative). Proceedings: History of the Russian state. Until 1611 he brought history.

He believed that isotria protects people, instructs people against anti-serfdom movements. Psychological analysis is the main method of writing his works.

Following N. Tatishchev, M. Shcherbatov was followed by N. G. Ustryanov, Ilovaisky.

The largest historian of the bourgeois trend was S.M. Soloviev (1820-1879), rector of Moscow State University, armory. Solovyov’s work: the history of Russia from ancient times (29 volumes), brought history to 1775

With Karamzin's subjectivist view of the development of history, he contrasted the idea of ​​historical regularity.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Iosifovich (1841-1911). Born in the family of a priest of the Penza province. A student of Solovyov. Proceedings: a course of Russian history (5 parts).

Other historians: Nayakshin Kuzma Yakovlevich, Khramkov Lenar Vasilievich, Matveeva Galina Ivanovna.

28. Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The struggle of two tendencies in the Russian government.

Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The struggle of two tendencies in the Russian government. Witte's significance as a financier, economist and statesman lay in the fact that he consistently implemented such a policy. S. Yu. Witte paid the main attention to the strengthening of finances, the development of industry and railway transport. At the Special Meeting, significant disagreements were revealed not only among the nobility, but also among the ruling bureaucracy, primarily between S. Yu. Witte and V. K. Plehve. Witte's views were eclectic, contradictory and subject to opportunistic influences. Prior to his appointment as Minister of Finance, he shared the main provisions of the Slavophil theory of a special path for the development of Russia. A special meeting on the needs of the nobility, but his attempt was not successful. Witte saw the salvation of the nobility and the country in "bourgeoisizing" the nobility, reorienting its interests from land to industry and banking. However, Witte, in his understanding of the inevitability of the replacement of the traditional agrarian system by the industrial one, was alone at that time. His arguments of a general sociological nature did not find understanding and left indifferent the majority of the participants in the meeting, which lived in current interests. Witte's main opponent was VK Plehve, the leader of the reactionary-conservative minority. Witte was hated by this part of the ruling class for his financial and economic policy, which prevented the transformation of the state treasury into a fund for helping this nobility. Objecting to Witte, Plehve questioned his idea of ​​the existence of universal immutable world laws of social development. Calling them "fortune-telling", he believed that reasoning about them is appropriate only among students. Russia, according to Plehve, developed in a special way and has every reason to preserve its originality. It will be delivered from "the oppression of capital and the bourgeoisie" and the future in Russia will remain with the nobility. In the name of this, the government in its social policy must be guided not by economic, but by political considerations, to strengthen the shattered local nobility, given that it is the backbone of power and the guardian of morality in the localities. The disagreements that emerged at the meeting led to the fact that its results were very modest and far from consistent with the claims of the conservative-protective part of the local nobility. He failed to change the general course of financial and economic policy for the sake of his own interests. As a result of the work of the meeting, laws were issued: on the planting of noble land ownership in Siberia, on reserved estates, on the establishment of noble mutual assistance funds. The search for solutions to the peasant question had a limited scope: firstly, the landed estates had to remain sacred and inviolable, and secondly, this decision had to cost the treasury minimal costs, since the state was guided by its usual considerations - to give less to the people in order to then take as much as possible from it. Nevertheless, when discussing this problem in the ruling elite, significant differences emerged. Just as in the question of the nobility, these disagreements found their personal manifestation primarily in the positions of S. Yu. Witte and V. K. Plehve. Witte is one of the few in the ruling spheres who, in search of solutions to the peasant question, proceeded not from ideological considerations, but from the standpoint of economic progress. According to Witte, the key to solving the peasant problem could only be the equalization of the rights of the peasants with other estates. The disagreements in the ruling elites on the issue of revising the peasant policy were so significant that in 1902 two parallel centers were created almost simultaneously to deal with this issue: the Special Conference on the Needs of the Agricultural Industry, chaired by S. Yu. Witte and the Editorial Commission for the Revision of Legislation on peasants of the Ministry of the Interior, headed by Comrade Minister of the Interior A. S. Stishinsky. The initiator

In the academic journal "Russian History" (Moscow, 2013, No. 1, pp. 3-32), under the heading "Dialogue about the Book", a transcript of the discussion of the collection "The Scientific Community of Russian Historians: 20 Years of Changes" prepared by the current editor-in-chief of this publication, Igor Anatolyevich Khristoforov, was published . Under the editorship of Gennady Bordyugov" (Moscow: AIRO-XXI, 2011. - 520 pages). The initiator of this form of discussion was the untimely departed Chief Editor magazine "Russian History" Sergei Sergeevich Sekirinsky (April 12, 1955 Simferopol - November 8, 2012 Moscow), elected to this post in the spring of 2012. A more or less academic conversation took place about the fate of historical science in the late Soviet and post-Soviet periods and about the methodology for comprehending the past. For a number of years I led the Department of Philosophy and Methodology of History at the Department of Historical Sciences of the Academic Institute for Scientific Information on Social Sciences, I try to follow the precepts of scientific objectivity-non-engagement of Leopold von Ranke, I know many historians and respect some of them, I have the text below, accompanied by my brief comments, extremely interesting. Earlier there was a self-awareness of the philosophical community of Russia, to which I also spiritually belong, although now I do not participate in academic life, and now the turn of the historical community has come! To begin with - Annotation and Table of Contents of the collection under discussion:

“The book traces the main trends of change in the scientific community of historians over the past two decades and the century preceding them. The authors analyze the ideological and cultural values ​​that dominate the community of historians of modern Russia, new models and forms of association of historians, new challenges that concern the community, and the morals of modern historians. The book is intended for specialists and graduate students.

COMMUNITY OF RUSSIAN HISTORIANS: FROM THE PAST TO THE FUTURE. INTRODUCTION ( Gennady BORDYUGOV> ) 7

HISTORIANS IN THE ERA OF WARS, REVOLUTIONS AND THE SOVIET SYSTEM ( Vladimir ESAKOV ) 17
The idea of ​​science in A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky 17
Soviet power and the scientific community 19
Moscow - the center of academic science 29
New ideological pressure 34
Historians in the "thaw" and "new direction" 40

"PROFESSIONALS OF HISTORY" IN THE ERA OF PUBLICITY: 1985-1991 ( Irina CHECHEL ) 55
Self-determination of a historical corporation in relation to a previous tradition 56
Self-determination of historical science 1985–1991 in relation to historical journalism 69
Historiographic culture of the Russian community of historians in 1985–2010 95

II. TRANSIT: A SOCIOLOGICAL PORTRAIT OF A COMMUNITY ( Gennady BORDYUGOV, Sergey SHCHERBINA )
1. Analysis of general demographic parameters 122
2. Age and territorial characteristics 127
3. Professional interests 141
4. Change of priorities in scientific and popular science publications 167
5. Portrait of a Russian historian 171

III. NEW FORMS OF ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTISTS

COMMUNITIES OF "NATIONAL HISTORIANS" ( Dmitry LYUKSHIN ) 177
National histories in the national historiographical tradition 177
Communities of "national historians": life after the sovereign parade 180
Rethinking Time… Canceled 183
"National Historians" on the period of "gathering Russian lands" at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries: the search for a place in Russian historiography 185

RUSSIAN HISTORICAL JOURNALS: THREE MODELS FOR ORGANIZING KNOWLEDGE AND COMMUNITY ( Natalia POTAPOVA ) 191
Journal as a Legacy: Experience in the Reconstruction of Academic Journals 195
Journal as a business: principles of marketing on the example of the New Literary Review 215
Journal as a media project: strategic principles on the example of Rodina magazine 220

HISTORIANS IN THE INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNITY ( Anton SVESHNIKOV, Boris STEPANOV ) 234
“Soviet means excellent”: interdisciplinarity in one single country 236
The Romance of Interdisciplinarity: Odysseus and THESIS 239
"Dashing 90s": knowledge about the past between disciplines and institutions 242
Academic periodicals between the 1990s and 2000s 247

IV. BEFORE THE CHALLENGES OF THE TURN OF THE CENTURY

THE EVE OF THE NEW ORTHODOXY. HISTORIAN AND POWER IN PERESTROIKA AND POST-SOVIET RUSSIA ( Vasily MOLODIAKOV ) 261
New Orthodoxy 1: "Socialism" vs. "Stalinism" 262
New Orthodoxy - 2: "Democracy" vs. "Soviet" 266
New Orthodoxy - 3: "Putinists" vs. "morons" and "liberals" 271

HISTORICAL COMMUNITY AND SENSATION CREATORS ( Nikita DEDKOV ) 281
On the ruins of an empire 282
Background 283
Away from city noise 286
Success 288
But what about historians? 289

BETWEEN COMPETITION AND PATERNALISM: A "GRANTS" HISTORIAN IN MODERN RUSSIA ( Igor NARSKY, Julia KHMELEVSKY ) 301
"Grant space" 302
"Rules for applying the rules": the realities of grant policy 306
Sketch for a portrait of a contemporary historian 310
Postscriptum 317

MORALS OF MODERN RUSSIAN HISTORIANS: PREREQUISITES FOR THE FALL AND HOPES FOR REVIVAL ( Boris SOKOLOV ) 321
Social roots of morals 322
Writing dissertations for other people: shame or not shame? 323
Scientific unanimity in the post-Soviet way and the struggle for power in historical science 325
The state struggle against "falsifications that harm Russia" and the morals of historians 329
The epistemological roots of the current customs of Russian historians 331
Is there a community of Russian historians 334
The need for a charter of historians 338

V. Russian scientific and historical community in the late 19th - early 21st centuries: publications and research in the 1940s - 2010s ( Joseph BELENKY )
1. Institutions. Communications. Traditions 344
2. Scientific schools in national historical science 371
3. Collections in honor and memory of Russian historians 389
4. Memoirs, diaries and letters of Russian historians 445
5. Bio-bibliography of historians 460
6. Biographical and bio-bibliographic dictionaries of historians 468

NAME INDEX .............................. 479
AUTHORS INFORMATION ................ 511

"/p. 3:/ Sergei Sekirinsky

Introducing a new rubric, it is worth recalling the aphorism of V.O. Klyuchevsky, who called the books "the main biographical facts" in the life of a scientist. We can only add to this that the appearance of new research, the introduction of previously unknown sources into scientific circulation, the writing of generalizing works not only sets milestones in the professional destinies of individual historians, but also serves as the most important symptom of the life of the scientific community as a whole. Unfortunately, so far these seemingly quite obvious considerations have not always been taken into account in our editorial work. Too dominated by the view that has developed in the academic environment of the journal as a collection of scientific articles, only published with a certain frequency; as a kind of intermediate station on the author's path to a book (at worst, to a dissertation). Book novelties, if they were recorded by the magazine, which happened far from always, then (with a few exceptions) only at the end of the issue it was underlined in small print. If you think about it, you can see some strange bias in this: articles, usually representing only more or less successful fragments of future monographs, pushed the books themselves into the background!

A journal that claims to be a mirror of what is happening in science should be more responsive to the main facts of the creative life of the professional community. From now on, we will open each issue of Russian History not with an article, but with a dialogue about a significant event for science - the release of a new book (research, publication of a source, general works). The updated and, in our opinion, rather flexible structure of the issue makes it possible to discuss even several books at once, both in a specially created section for this, which can be repeated two or three times in one issue, and, if necessary, in a number of other sections.

We open the column with a discussion of a topic that, by definition, cannot leave indifferent any of the regular and even casual readers of our magazine. The collection of discussion articles published by the Association of Researchers of the Russian Society AIRO-XXI is dedicated to the community of Russian historians in the era of the still unfinished "transition from 'Soviet' to 'Russian' or 'Russian'" (p. 7). For reasons that are still waiting for their researcher, Russian historians have not yet been too willing to discuss their own internal corporate problems. Almost the only “permissible” genre in this context has been and remains “methodologically” biographical works, in which the history of science is almost always reduced to the history of ideas and the work of their authors, more or less well-known scientists of the past. The social status of historians, the peculiarities of their corporate self-consciousness and the patterns of its formation, not to mention the more acute issues of money, power and control within the community and on the part of “external” forces in relation to it, primarily the state, - all these subjects are discussed more on ordinary level, on the sidelines of conferences and corridors of institutes, than on the pages of scientific publications. Like the authors of the book under discussion, we believe that the time has come to speak openly about them.

/p.4:/ The discussion was attended by: Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences P.Yu. Uvarov (Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences; National research university Higher School of Economics), Doctor of Historical Sciences V.I. Durnovtsev (Russian State University for the Humanities), I.I. Kurilla (Volgograd State University), A.B. Sokolov (Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushinsky), Candidate of Historical Sciences V.V. Tikhonov (Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences).

Pavel Uvarov : Historians are divided into those who work with sources and those who do not work with them
No other country in the world has such a large proportion of professional historiographers; historians who specialize in studying what others have written. But in most cases, what is being studied is what some outstanding historian once wrote or what our Western colleagues write. The analysis of our modern historiographic situation is sorely lacking (3a rare exception, see, for example: Hut L.R. Theoretical and methodological problems of studying the history of the New Age in Russian historiography at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, M., 2010). In Western countries, introspection, i.e. keeping track of the state of its contemporary historiography plays an important role. In our country, this is most often remembered either on some scandalous occasion, or when writing custom reviews.

But it is one thing to pronounce invectives and toasts, and another to try to give a holistic analysis of the situation. Here we are not spoiled big jobs(See, for example, the thematic issue "Historical Science in Modern Russia" of the electronic scientific and educational journal "History". Issue 1 /http://mes.igh.ru/magazine/content.php?magazine-3 82). That is why the team of authors of the book, published under the editorship of GA. Bordyugov, deserves all respect. Respect prescribes to focus on the merits and demerits of this book, and not on general discussions about the fate of the professional community of historians in our country, no matter how much I would like to discuss this topic.

I think that I will not surprise the authors if I say that they did not succeed in a collective monograph. Before us is a collection of articles, partly related by the commonality of problems, partly by the commonality of value judgments, but at the same time differing in genre. There is nothing offensive in this, a collection of articles is a completely respectable form, and most importantly, less vulnerable to criticism. A collective monograph can be reproached for not addressing certain issues, while it is pointless to make such claims to a collection. At best, they can be called recommendations for the future.

But since we have a collection in front of us, then I will allow myself to dwell more on some materials, less on others, and omit some altogether for various reasons. The latter include primarily the bibliographic materials of I.L. Belenky on historiographic research of the Russian community of historians. It is enough to recall the phrase I heard more than once: “If someone does it, then Iosif Lvovich, and if Iosif Lvovich does not do it, then no one will do it.” Actually, if there were nothing else in the book under discussion, except for these bibliographic materials, occupying over a dozen printed sheets, it would still be of great use.

Text by V.D. I will not analyze Esakov either - formally, it refers to an earlier period, is dedicated to another country and another community, although, of course, it plays an important role, setting the starting point for those that began in the 1980s. irreversible changes in the organization of the life of historians in Russia. The main thing is that his research also has the value of an eyewitness account and even a participant in the events related to the activities of the “rebellious party committee” of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the mid-1960s. I don’t know if all the authors have read this section, but Esakov’s story of the division of the Institute convinces of the need to study not only discursive practices and ideological stereotypes, but also the institutional and microhistorical background of events. The authorities had to get rid of a too principled party committee, and as a result they preferred specialization to an integrated approach.

I did not analyze the article by N.I. Dedkov. With all the interest in the phenomenon of "new chronology", this phenomenon only indirectly correlates with the professional community. The reaction of historians to Fomenko is curious, and the text talks about it, but, in my opinion, this is not the problem that worries the author in the first place.

And, finally, I excluded from consideration the text of V.P. Molodyakova. Biting phrases marking the author's position, poorly supported by work with the material (just look at the notes), demonstrate that the article refers more to journalism than to historiography. One can agree or argue with the author, but one cannot say that he did not take into account something in his analysis, because there is no analysis in the article. As about too journalistic, I did not want to write about the text of B.V. Sokolov, but, for some reasons, he refused this intention.

Now you can move through the texts in their order.

Getting acquainted with the work of I.D. Chechel, I remembered how in the second half of the 1980s. envied future historians who would study this turbulent era. It is not surprising, therefore, that I tried to delve into its text with more care than into other sections. This required a lot of work, also because of the style, which gives the impression that the author is trying to say almost everything at once and, in addition, demonstrate the mastery of countless rhetorical figures and intonations at the same time. Often the author's phrase, equipped with quotations, is structured in such a way that it is difficult to determine whether the given statement refers to the "signifier" or "signified".

Metaphors, light hints, terms that are fully understood only by the initiated, are piled on top of each other, requiring from the reader an effort comparable to the cost of decoding Michel de Certo's texts. Sometimes discourse, like a dog's tail, wags the author's thought, building bizarre configurations. So, V.B. For some reason, Kobrin is ranked among the typical "academicians", and Yu.N. Afanasiev and L.M. Batkin find themselves in one camp of “critics-politicians”, irreconcilable fighters who brush aside the Soviet historiographical tradition, while in the other camp of “critics-methodologists” A.Ya. Gurevich and B.G. Mogilnitsky, "who proposed to confine ourselves to a comprehensive and operational reform of historiography in its methodological context." This is surprising to me, since I am well acquainted with these people. For example, it is impossible for me to ignore the fact that B.G. Mogilnitsky is the keeper of the traditions of his teacher A.I. Danilov (“medieval minister”), who was for A.Ya. Gurevich, perhaps the most odious figure in Soviet science, while with L.M. Batkin Aron Yakovlevich, with all the disagreements, was a strategic like-minded person and friend.

But after all, I am an eyewitness, and an eyewitness should relate to the historian approximately in the same way that memory relates to history. Therefore, I fully admit that unexpected turns of historiographical comparisons can be valuable precisely because of their unpredictability, allowing you to see something new. A much more serious question concerns the disciplinary identity of the text. If this is culturology, then I timidly keep silent and refrain from commenting, if this is narratology, then I recognize its relevance, only surprised that the poetics of perestroika historical writing is not given as much space as we would like. But if this is a historical study, then it is worth deciding on the "sacred cows" of historians: sources, chronological framework, research methods. Perhaps the author belongs to the generation of historians who let these cows for meat, but for the subjects of his study they remained sacred. Historians judged each other not only by declarations of intent and political affiliations, but also by the degree of professionalism, measured by how the researcher works with sources. In addition, in the perestroika era /p. 6:/ there was a massive stuffing of new sources that changed the landscape of the "historian's territory" no less than articles in the journal "Communist".

The author's judgments are supported by an analysis of fundamentally different texts - interviews, articles in newspapers, in popular science, journalistic or completely scientific journals and collections, prefaces and afterwords to monographs (As an eyewitness, I would add graffiti in public places as a historically transitional genre from polemical articles to blogosphere forums). Is it possible to ignore the "coercion of form" that prescribes the historian to be buttoned up, or to flaunt the absence of a tie or other details of clothing? It is possible, if we are talking about the use of content analysis. But it is customary to warn the reader about this, as well as about the chronological framework of the study. Having begun to get acquainted with the text devoted to the era of perestroika, he then learns that it was about a period that reaches our time. Everything would be fine, but this sometimes makes the author's conclusions vulnerable. An important place is given in the article to how Yu.A. Polyakov attacked "opportunistic historians". Agreeing with the author’s conclusion that the respected academician treated the “opportunists” badly and that the works of Yu.N. Afanasiev, he rather branded than subjected to a comprehensive analysis, I still have to pay attention to the fact that Polyakov's book is dated 1995, a time when perestroika had long since sunk into oblivion. Today, five years is a short period for us, but then, as in any revolutionary period, history accelerated its pace many times over. The compared texts thus refer to different geological epochs. Perhaps Polyakov's book contains articles written earlier, just in the wake of Afanasiev's speeches? But the reader is not aware of this.

As far as I understand, the vague concept of “the evolution of the image of scientificity” actually means how the community of historians behaved under the conditions of perestroika, how “critics” and “academicians” reacted to challenges, how their positions changed. I'm more interested in this text. History was largely left to itself, either liberated or abandoned by the authorities. If the author were interested in institutional history, then, I think, he would play with the fact that since 1988, in the structure of the Russian Academy of Sciences, our discipline has separated from the section of social sciences and existed as a self-sufficient department, until it was merged with philologists in 2001. Under these conditions for historians, the art of publicity turned out to be important, which led not only to the transformation of the “image of scientificity”, but also to the redistribution of social roles (more precisely, to an attempt at this redistribution). Very valuable, but, unfortunately, not developed by the author is the observation about the fundamental mixing of the genres of perestroika historiography; a small digression into the poetics of historical texts of those years is interesting. While laying claim to a lot of things, history reacted very painfully to the intrusion of "foreigners". No matter how hard-nosed academics and ardent critics-reformers treated each other, here they were very similar in their reactions. Sometimes it was quite a healthy defense against impostors, but sometimes it led to embarrassing losses. Among the losses are not only frustrated attempts at a real, not declarative, interdisciplinary dialogue, but also a missed chance to realize the importance and independence of the phenomenon of “unprofessional history”. Then, by the end of the 1980s, we were one step away from starting to study either “places of memory”, or “mass historical consciousness”, or “folk culture” no worse than Pierre Nora and his team. stories". But, apparently, uncertainty about their own status prevented historians from recognizing the autonomy of this phenomenon. The discrepancy between the "scientific" and "folk" versions of history was presented as the fruits of ignorance, as a result of the insidious policy of the authorities, as a result of insufficient activity of scientists in propaganda scientific knowledge, but by no means as a worthy object of reflection. In this, again, both "academicians" and "critics" were surprisingly similar.

In general, I would concentrate not so much on the divergence of positions of historians, which are already too obvious, but on the search for common features between the opponents/7/ts. Perhaps this is how it would be possible to better answer the question of the existence of a national community of historians or its absence, and whether the era of turbulence contributed more - its consolidation or dispersion. The main thing is that I.D. Chechel has sufficient tools for this.

Compositionally following the text by Chechel, the study by G.A. Bordyugov and S.P. Shcherbina "Transit: a sociological portrait of a community" creates the effect of a contrast shower. Dryish scientism - numerous tables, diagrams, formula for calculating coefficients - immediately demonstrate the seriousness of the intentions of the authors who undertake to solve a task of great importance - to calculate the community of scientists in quantitative data and express existing trends. Then, summarizing the average indicators of the tables, they, proceeding to the biographical method, produce a homunculus - the average Russian historian Viktor Ivanovich, a 65-year-old teacher at one of the Moscow universities. For many readers, this conclusion of a highly scientific article was a pleasant surprise.

I, I confess, was preparing for something similar, having become acquainted with such a prize in the brilliant book of G.M. Derlugyan (Derlugyan G.M. Adept Bourdieu in the Caucasus. Sketches for a biography in a world-system perspective. M., 2010. English version: Derlugian G. Bourdieu "s Secret Admirer in the Caucasus: A World-Systems Biography. Chicago, 2005) , which I strongly recommend to everyone, and especially to the authors of this and other articles in the collection.

“A typical example turned out to be a pseudo-hero, while real heroes have not yet left their creative “underground” and left Viktor Ivanovich to represent their corporate features,” the authors write, obviously not feeling much sympathy for this outgoing type of historian. But in their sentence, as well as in the whole portrait, I lack the knowledge of what kind of historian he was? It is somehow tacitly assumed that it is bad. That he is in the 1970s. joined the party, studied the history of the Patriotic War, and in the 1990s. wrote tutorial on the history of Russia, guided by a civilizational approach, this is not yet a verdict. Let me be told first how conscientiously Viktor Ivanovich worked with sources, whether there was something new in his books, what kind of teacher he was, whether he still had students, and what they are worth. That's when we laugh.

I wonder what criteria make it possible to distinguish a bad historian from a good one, and a historian from a non-historian? This question is not only for this article, of course. But let us return to how the authors write about their homunculus: "Many will be sincerely amazed that this statistical example of a historian turned out to be a portrait of a typical minister of Clio." Those who have forgotten what is written on the first page of this text about the Pareto principle will be amazed, according to which 20% of participants give 80% of the result. But then what is the heuristic value of the respected Viktor Ivanovich? Is he typical of what part of the community?

/MY COMMENT: Indeed, "hospital average temperature" is a primitive approach. It is necessary to focus on the creative minority of any community, including the historical one. Hierarchy - fact /

And this is where the confusion begins. The corpus, consisting of 1,722 historians, is carefully processed according to various parameters, correlations are established, which the authors try to find an explanation for. But why is the number of professional historians in Russia determined at 40,000 people? Maybe this is generally accepted data, and only I do not know about it? If the corps of historians being analyzed is a sample, then what is the general population in relation to it? Does it include archaeologists, orientalists, museum workers, and finally, school teachers? And what about those who, having received a historical education, call themselves culturologists? These quite legitimate questions are not discussed in principle. And, finally, how was the analyzed corpus formed? Is it really true, based on the data of A.A. Chernobaev and A.A. Anikeeva? I am not against either the first or the second, but building a sample based on their data is the same as judging domestic publications based on today's RSCI data. The authors save the reader from getting to know their creative laboratory, and as a result, one comes across strange statements: that the North-Western Federal District is the leader in Russia in terms of the number of publications devoted to the Western / p. 8: / Europe (this is complete nonsense), it turns out that we have much more doctors than candidates, and this is explained by the fact that the influx of young historians into historical science has almost stopped ... Faced with such "pearls", the authors embark on complex interpretations instead of doing sampling repairs.

Was it really impossible to create a team, instruct it to collect data on sites, build a worthwhile sample, and then process all this, avoiding offensive mistakes that could disavow all the rest, even quite convincing conclusions? But, in any case, AIRO-XXI leaders should say thank you very much for their sacrificial work. After all, the lack of available data on the national community of historians is the most eloquent evidence of the state of this community, no matter what associations are created under whatever august patronage. It took me 22 minutes to imagine how many professional historians in France are doing what we call New History.

DI. Lyukshin in his article under the communities of "national historians" understands something completely different. It can be seen that the author writes about painful things, knowing firsthand about the processes of formation of regional-ethnic versions of national history. Its main idea lies in the fiasco of constructing regional versions in order to acquire a new national history. The failure, according to the author, occurred as a result of sabotage by professional historians, due to the rapid change in political realities, and also due to the home-grown local zealots of ethnohistorical identity, who did not master modern research approaches relevant to today's historiography. Despite the generalized name, we are talking mainly about Tatarstan and partly about neighboring Bashkiria. The remaining republics are present only as episodic examples.

I have a number of complaints against the author. Firstly, the manner in principle not to notice the works devoted to the same problem is surprising. You can not read the American G.M. Derlugyan, which was published in Russian relatively recently, or A.I. Miller, who does not write about modern Russian republics. But the books of V.A. It is strange not to know Shnirelman, not to mention the numerous publications on this topic in Rodina magazine. Secondly, the disposition outlined by the author contains a number of essential figures of default even in relation to Kazan. Of course, when the author wrote the article, he might not have known what Kazan University would merge with and what would follow. But in a strange way he is silent about the historical orgy of the millennium of Kazan. Or, perhaps, it is worth explaining to readers who and why is standing in this city on St. Petersburg Street on a pedestal intended for a monument to Peter I?

And, finally, what is the basis of the author's unshakable belief that the topic of national-state creationism has long since become a thing of the past? He believes that “the explanatory potential of historiographic concepts rooted in the discourse of ethno-national history was exhausted as early as the third quarter of the last century”, therefore today “it will not work to build a historical narrative in the understanding proposed by Ankersmit”. But I am sure that if Frank Ankersmit had worked, for example, in Tashkent, his signifier would have quickly converged with the signified in the version of sovereign national history. Yes, for this you can send the Groningen professor not even to Uzbekistan, but to the Baltic, which is much closer to him. Not to hear the measured pace of "historical politics" both in the CIS countries and in countries much more distant from us means judging life only by the books of the classics of postmodernism.

/ MY COMMENT: Reasonable skepticism, but more important is the subjective understanding of history that I profess, which more or less objectively explains the essence of modern nation genesis and lays the foundation for the ideas of the same Ankersmit /

N.D. Potapova sets herself an ambitious task in her article - to trace how the main forms of scientific communication are implemented in modern historical journals. This work, of course, is important for studying the fate of the community of historians, since the periodical press, in the words of a forgotten classic, is "not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer." We must pay tribute to Potapova: unlike many domestic historiographers-epistemologists, she delves into not only the declarations of the authors and members /p. 9:/ editorial board, but also in the content of at least part of the publications. Knowing Potapova as a specialist in the "linguistic turn", I was not surprised either by the attention to the forms of the author's narrative, or by the tone she chose in relation to the works in question, which some would call ironic, others - mocking. I have no moral right to condemn the author for this, because in such situations I myself choose just such a detached and ironic tone (making enemies for myself on a completely empty place). But, having taken intonation, it is necessary to withstand it to the end. If it turns out that over A.N. Medushevsky or the late M.A. You can make fun of Rakhmatullin (strangers), but I.D. Prokhorova (her own) - it’s impossible, then irony turns from a form of worldview into an instrument of value judgment and then, it turns out, those who are offended by us are right.

Models of organization of mass historical knowledge are considered on the example of old academic journals (“Problems of History” and “Otechestvennaya istoriya”), the interdisciplinary “New Literary Review” and the glossy magazine “Rodina”. Outwardly, this choice looks quite justified. But then again there is a feeling of bewilderment. Firstly, only “Patriotic (Russian) History” was subjected to normal analysis, and those one and a half pages allotted to “Motherland” cannot be called analytical in any way. But this is not even the main thing against the background of the fact that the author, as it turned out, is not at all interested in the institutional component.

That S.S. Sekirinsky has never worked in New and Contemporary History, it's not so scary. In the end, maybe he will still go and work if N.D. Potapov. But the fact that the owner of the journal "Questions of History" is not at all the Russian Academy of Sciences, but the team of authors headed by A.A. Iskenderov, this is already a very serious circumstance (the Department of History and Philology of the Russian Academy of Sciences has no influence on the personnel and publishing policy of the journal, but, on the other hand, it does not finance it), if not completely refuting the author’s conclusions, then making it necessary to correct them.

It is also incomprehensible why, to oppose "Otechestvennaya istorii", it is precisely "UFO" that is taken - a journal published by philologists and for philologists, which, if anything, should be compared with, it is with "Questions of Literature". Yes, trying to secure the right to a broad interpretation of philology, the journal sometimes publishes historical texts. But actually, for this, the UFO holding has the Emergency Reserve, which has been successfully published since 1998. I had to somehow explain my choice. It is a pity, by the way, that Ab Imperio was not considered as an alternative to the "History of the Fatherland". In addition to the content, this edition is interesting just for its management and fundraising. And to compare in this regard with something "UFO" is simply incorrect. Well, really, the journal "Istorik i Khudozhnik" ceased to exist in the conditions of the crisis not at all because it did not imitate the publishing policy of I.D. Prokhorova and not because O.V. Budnitsky turned out to be too academic. Well, if you put up some points for management and the struggle for the audience, then you need to be honest to the end and describe all the conditions for the functioning of a historical journal, and not throw lapidary phrases. Otherwise, it is better to confine ourselves to the analysis of discursive practices. So it will be calmer.

An example of chased formulas is from a slightly different area: "Among the authors of Moscow academic journals, men dominate", "the academic environment is not a woman's place", "the voice of the young does not sound there." In our magazine "Middle Ages" the fair sex makes up more than half of the authors, they are all young, and a significant part of them are very young. Should I now remove the RAS stamp from the title page? In addition, among those whom Potapova quotes in her extensive notes, women clearly do not look like a persecuted minority. And, finally, were such calculations carried out for the magazines "UFO" and "Motherland"?

About the article by A.V. Sveshnikova and B.E. Stepanov, perhaps I have no right to speak, since for some time they mentioned my native journal "Srednie veka", and in a completely positive context. They did not notice, did not notice (in all previous published versions of their article), and suddenly - they noticed. How can I blame them now? And if they are only praised, it will be unfair to the authors /p. 10:/ other articles. Let me just say that interdisciplinarity is declared by everyone, attempts to implement it are made by many, but at the same time it is more of an unattainable ideal than a reality. Why, defiantly opening their arms to representatives of fraternal disciplines, historians end up embracing mostly themselves, their loved ones? Is there some institutional reason here? Or is it the deontology of the historical profession?