Historian Platonov Sergei Fedorovich - researcher who lived on turn of XIX-XX centuries The largest part of his works is devoted to the period of the Time of Troubles in Russia. He was also actively involved in archaeography, collecting and publishing sources, publishing biographies statesmen, textbooks on national history, which are still popular today.
Childhood and youth
Sergei Fedorovich Platonov was born in Chernigov on August 9, 1860. He was the only child in the family. His ancestors are Kaluga peasants. The boy's father and mother, Fyodor Platonovich and Cleopatra Alexandrovna, were native Muscovites. When their son was born, F.P. Platonov worked as the head of the Chernigov provincial printing house. After 9 years he was transferred to St. Petersburg. There, Fyodor Platonovich was entrusted with the position of manager of the printing house of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and then granted the title of nobleman.
All the pedagogical and scientific activities of the historian S. F. Platonov subsequently took place in the northern capital, although from childhood he had a special love for Moscow. In 1870-1878 he studied at the gymnasium, where the teacher of Russian literature had a great influence on him. At this age, Sergei Fedorovich did not plan to become a historian. He dreamed of being a writer and wrote poems.
Studying at the University
At the age of 18, Platonov entered St. Petersburg University. While studying at the Faculty of History and Philology, he was fascinated by the lectures of teachers K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V. I. Sergeevich and V. G. Vasilievsky. This determined the final choice of the field of activity of the future scientist. Under the patronage of Bestuzhev-Ryumin, S. Platonov was left after graduating from the university in 1882 at the department to prepare for defending his dissertation.
He decided to choose as an object of study Time of Troubles(1598-1613), when the reign of the kings from the Rurik family was interrupted, and the country had a difficult economic situation. The future scientist-historian Platonov worked conscientiously: to develop his Ph.D. thesis, he used over 60 works of ancient Russian literature, and the total duration of the research was 8 years. To study the necessary documents, he visited 21 archives in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Kazan, and examined the storage facilities of 4 monasteries and the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius.
In 1888, he successfully defended his master's degree, which allowed Sergei Fedorovich to receive the position of private assistant professor, and a year later - a professor at the university. His master's monograph, after publication, was awarded the Uvarov Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which was awarded for outstanding works on Russian history.
Teaching activities
After graduating from university, historian Sergei Platonov began teaching, which lasted more than 40 years. At first he was a teacher in a high school. In 1909 Platonov published school textbook on history. At the age of 23, the scientist began giving lectures at the Bestuzhev courses. It was one of the first higher educational institutions for women in Russia. Sergei Fedorovich also worked at the Pushkin Lyceum, from 1890 he became a professor at St. Petersburg University, and in 1901-1905. - his dean. The history courses he developed were taught in other educational institutions.
Since 1903, he taught at the Higher Pedagogical Women's Institute. Subsequently, Sergei Fedorovich became its director. Under him, this institution became a whole complex, which included a kindergarten, a gymnasium, a preparatory class and an institute with 2 faculties.
Research work
At the same time with pedagogical activity Sergei Fedorovich also conducted research work. In the first publication, which was part of his PhD thesis, he looked for the causes of civil strife during the Time of Troubles and the methods by which they were overcome. The merit of the Russian historian Platonov is that he not only thoroughly studied archival materials, but also published many valuable primary sources.
In 1894, Sergei Fedorovich became one of the members of the Archaeographic Commission, and later he took part in All-Russian Archaeological Congresses. The works of the historian Platonov brought him wide fame in teaching and scientific circles during these years. He is elected to membership in scientific and historical societies operating in different cities.
The greatest activity of his scientific work occurred in the 20s of the twentieth century. In 1920 he was elected academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in 1925 he was appointed director of the Library of the Academy of Sciences, and in 1929 - secretary of the department of humanities of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In addition, he worked as head of the department of Russian and Slavic archeology at the Russian Archaeological Society and chairman of numerous societies (“Old Petersburg”, “Pushkin Corner”, lovers of ancient writing and others).
In the 20s he not only worked hard, but also traveled. Sergei Fedorovich visited Paris and Berlin, where he communicated with his scientific colleagues.
At this time he publishes several books from the series historical portraits(“Images of the Past”):
"Boris Godunov".
"Ivan groznyj".
"Peter the Great" and others.
During these years, Sergei Fedorovich also began work on the work “History of Russia” in 2 parts, but he was unable to complete it due to political persecution.
"Academic Affairs"
At the end of the 20s. The collapse of the NEP began. At the same time, unprecedented terror unfolded Soviet power against the intelligentsia. The Russian historian Platonov became the object of persecution from the school of M. N. Pokrovsky. The scientist was accused of being anti-Soviet, called a class enemy on the historical front, and a collection of slanderous articles was published against him.
On January 12, 1930, Sergei Fedorovich was removed from all administrative work and arrested along with his youngest daughter. This period in the scientist’s life coincided with personal grief in the family - in the summer of 1928 his wife died. Despite the difficulties, he continued to work on his monograph “History of Russia”. Perhaps this was a kind of outlet for him.
In the fabricated “Academic Case,” the OGPU brought in more than 100 people, including four academicians. A large number of Leningrad and Moscow scientists were arrested, and the system of historical and cultural local history was completely destroyed. The historian Platonov was first accused of concealing important political documents, and then of leading a monarchist conspiracy against Soviet power.
Link
Sergei Fedorovich was in a pre-trial detention center for 11 months, and then 8 months in the Kresty detention center in St. Petersburg. In August 1931, he was sentenced to 3 years of exile in Samara, but his daughters were allowed to accompany their father. They settled on the outskirts of the city. On January 10, 1933, the historian Platonov died of acute heart failure. The scientist's body was buried in the city cemetery.
After the death of Sergei Fedorovich, in all historiography textbooks, the cliché of a monarchist, a teacher of the children of the imperial family, was assigned to him. In the 1960s he was completely rehabilitated and restored to the list of academicians.
Personal life
In June 1885, Sergei Fedorovich married Nadezhda Nikolaevna Shamonina. Her family came from Tambov nobles. In her youth, she studied at the Moscow women's gymnasium of Sofia Nikolaevna Fisher. Nadezhda Nikolaevna graduated from this educational institution with honors, and then in 1881 she entered the historical and philological department of the Bestuzhev courses, where Sergei Fedorovich also taught. Like the historian Platonov, his wife also made a contribution to science; she translated the works of ancient philosophers, and was also a biographer of the writer N. S. Kokhanovskaya. For a number of publications about her, Nadezhda Nikolaevna received the Akhmatov Prize of the Academy of Sciences.
In their marriage, they had 9 children, three of whom died in younger age. The only son Mikhail later became a professor of chemistry at Leningradsky Institute of Technology. In March 1942 he was shot. Three daughters, Nina, Natalia and Maria, also died in 1942. Daughter Nadezhda emigrated with her family to Paris. Vera, Nadezhda and Nina followed in the footsteps of their mother and graduated from the Bestuzhev courses.
Contribution to science
The work of Sergei Platonov as a historian of Russia was of great importance in science. His main work, “Essays on the History of the Time of Troubles,” not only has not lost readers over the years, but is also in tune with the present time. He was the first at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries who managed to give a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the history of the Troubles. In his works, Sergei Fedorovich combined the thoroughness of the source study of the St. Petersburg school of historians and taking into account the sociological multifactorial nature of the Moscow school of V. O. Klyuchevsky.
As Platonov believed, the historian’s task is not to substantiate political views, but a reflection of the main moments of the history of society with maximum objectivity. Therefore, the style of his works was distinguished by dryness and clarity, lack of rhetoric. Sergei Fedorovich always sought to study and verify primary sources, and not follow the provisions that were formulated by his predecessors. Thanks to this, his works, along with the works of Klyuchevsky, are of particular value for historical science.
Sergei Fedorovich Platonov - Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1920), professor at St. Petersburg University, head of the “St. Petersburg historical school”, critic of the interdisciplinary approach to the methodology of historical knowledge proposed by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky; author of textbooks on Russian history for higher and secondary schools; opponent of the Marxist-Leninist “class” approach to the study of historical processes; the main defendant in the “academic case” of 1929-1930.
early years
S.F. Platonov was born on June 16 (28), 1860 in Chernigov. He was the only child in the family of the head of the Chernigov provincial printing house, Fyodor Platonovich Platonov, and his wife Cleopatra Alexandrovna (nee Khrisanfova). In 1869, his parents, native Muscovites, moved to St. Petersburg, where the father of the future historian rose to the rank of manager of the printing house of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and received a noble title.
In St. Petersburg, Sergei Platonov studied at the private gymnasium of F. F. Bychkov. The young high school student spent his holidays in the house of Moscow relatives on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. At the seventeenth year of his life, he suffered from typhus for a long time and was seriously ill.
Perhaps the first book read by young Platonov was “History of the Russian State” by N.M., given to him by his father. Karamzin.
However, at first the young man did not think about studying history. He wrote poetry and dreamed of becoming a professional writer. In 1878, 18-year-old Platonov entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. However, the low level of teaching literary disciplines at the university and the brilliant lectures of Professor K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin on Russian history determined his choice in favor of the latter.
Of the faculty professors, the young Platonov was most influenced by the aforementioned K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, partly V. G. Vasilievsky, as well as professors of the Faculty of Law V. I. Sergeevich and A. D. Gradovsky - the most prominent representatives of the first generation of the “St. Petersburg historical school” "
At the University of S.F. Platonov became involved in the activities of the educated on the initiative of A.F. Heyden in 1882 of the Student Scientific and Literary Society. The society was headed by Professor O.F. Miller. Students of I.M. become active members of the Society. Grevs, S.F. Oldenburg, V.I. Vernadsky, V.G. Druzhinin, D.I. Shakhovskoy, N.D. Chechulin, E.F. Shmurlo, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, M.A. Dyakonov and other future famous scientists, teachers of the Faculty of History and Philology.
He originally intended to devote his master's thesis to social movement, which was created by the militia of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, but was once again convinced of the correctness of the idea that any serious research in the field of ancient Russian history is impossible without a thorough development of sources.
At the suggestion of Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who was one of the first to think about the problems of creating a methodology for historical research, S.F. Platonov also decided to follow the path of developing sources, choosing historical and literary monuments of the Time of Troubles as his object. To solve this problem, the historian used more than 60 works of Russian writing of the 17th century, which he studied from 150 manuscripts, many of which turned out to be a discovery for science.
The young scientist worked, as they say, “conscientiously” - preparing his master’s (candidate’s) thesis on the topic “Old Russian tales and stories about the Time of Troubles of the 17th century as a historical source” he devoted more than 8 years. This is twice as long as the period currently allotted to graduate students at the country's leading universities to prepare and defend their candidate's dissertation.
In 1888 (even before the defense) S.F. Platonov published his master's thesis in the journal of the Ministry of Public Education. Soon it was published as a monograph and was awarded the Uvarov Prize of the Academy of Sciences.
On September 11 of the same year, he successfully defended his dissertation for a master's degree in Russian history, which allowed Platonov to take the position of private assistant professor on February 6, 1889, and from 1890 - professor in the department of Russian history at St. Petersburg University.
Professor S.F. Platonov
Throughout his subsequent life, until the mid-1920s, the scientist taught at the university: he taught a general course in Russian history, courses on individual eras and issues, and taught seminars. Many famous representatives of the “new” generation of the St. Petersburg historical school came from his seminaries (P.G. Vasenko, P.G. Lyubomirov, N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky, A.E. Presnyakov, B.A. Romanov, etc.) .
Based on the “broad historical idea” expressed by S. M. Solovyov, according to which the beginning of a new Russia should be sought not in the reforms of Peter I, but in the events of the Time of Troubles, Professor Platonov determined the topic of his doctoral dissertation: “Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th–17th centuries. (Experience of studying social order and class relations in the Time of Troubles)".
Nine years later, in 1899, the dissertation was successfully defended and was immediately published as a separate book.
Written on the basis of a large number of sources, excellent literary language, this work is the pinnacle of the scientist’s scientific creativity. Using the theory of S.M. Solovyov about the struggle of clan and state relations in the history of Russia, the author tried to put into this theory “specific content and show with facts how the old order died in the Time of Troubles and in what forms it arose new order, under which the modern state was created.” The author saw the main meaning of the “political misfortunes and social strife” of the early 17th century in the change of the ruling class - the old nobility to the nobility. Among the prerequisites and driving forces for the development of the Troubles were the formation of serfdom, the strengthening of feudal oppression and the social struggle of the “poor and disadvantaged against the rich and noble.” Oprichnina Ivan the Terrible was defined by Platonov not as “the whim of a timid tyrant,” but as a well-thought-out system of actions to defeat the “appanage aristocracy.”
 |
In subsequent years, Professor of St. Petersburg University S.F. Platonov held positions at the university and other educational institutions whole line important administrative posts, lectured, taught students, and was a member of a number of historical societies. The only source of subsistence for him and his family was income from published works and the salary received from public service. Most likely, due to precisely these circumstances, S.F. Platonov no longer created any major works, except for his dissertation.
"Essays on the History of the Time of Troubles" was followed only by a series popular articles about the figures of the Time of Troubles (Patriarch Hermogenes, False Dmitry I, etc.), about the first Romanovs, the Zemsky Sobor of 1648–1649, the personality and deeds of Peter I.
All historians of science and biographers of Platonov agree that it was his scientific monographs and articles familiar only to a number of specialists. For many years, the students' reference book became "Lectures on Russian history"(first edition 1899) S.F. Platonov and his "Textbook of Russian history for high school"(in 2 parts, 1909–1910). Distinguished by their harmonious and accessible presentation of a huge amount of factual material, the textbooks were extremely popular in pre-revolutionary higher education and “liberal” gymnasiums, which deliberately dissociated themselves from the works of the odious monarchist Ilovaisky.
In 1895-1902, S.F. Platonov was invited (as one of the most talented university professors) as a teacher of Russian history to the Grand Dukes Mikhail Alexandrovich, Dmitry Pavlovich, Andrei Vladimirovich and Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna. However, he did not enjoy the special favor of their brother, Nicholas II. After 1917, a note about professors of Russian history was discovered in the tsar’s papers. It contained the following lines: “Professor Platonov, who has enormous erudition, is also quite decent; but he is dry and, undoubtedly, has very little sympathy for the cult of Russian heroes; Of course, studying his works cannot evoke either a feeling of love for the fatherland or national pride.”
Alas, the last Emperor did not understand the intricacies of revising the positivist concept of Russian historiography and could not understand in any way that the times of the literary educator Karamzin were long gone. Contemporary historical science faced completely different tasks, the solution of which did not involve either enlightenment or instilling love for the fatherland.
Platonov’s difficult relationship with the reigning house to some extent shatters the myth about the scientist as an odious, “official” monarchist historian, which existed within the walls of St. Petersburg (and later Leningrad) University.
From 1900 to 1905, Professor Platonov was the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, while simultaneously heading the department of Russian history. According to many colleagues and later researchers, Sergei Fedorovich, using all his authority and closeness to the royal family, literally saved the faculty from government repressions that followed the student unrest of 1899-1905. It was under him that the faculty developed the strongest teaching staff, which became the pride of the capital’s university. Under him, the development paths of the “St. Petersburg historical school” were determined for many years to come.
In 1903, Professor S.F. Platonov headed the newly organized Women's Pedagogical Institute (the first women's university in Russia), which he brought into exemplary condition.
In 1912, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of teaching, he was confirmed with the rank of emeritus professor, after which he retired in January 1913, transferring the department to his student S. V. Rozhdestvensky and moving to the position of supernumerary professor.
In 1916, due to the administrative responsibilities that began to burden him, Platonov left the directorship of the Women's College. pedagogical institute. In the same year, he moved with his entire family to a spacious apartment on Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt.
“Petersburg School”: Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky
Domestic historiography provides completely different, sometimes downright polar assessments of the relationship between two major scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, professors at St. Petersburg University - S.F. Platonov and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.
Based on memoirs, correspondence and other evidence, historians tend to talk about both a purely personal, even political conflict between the “aristocrat” and the Westernized cadet Lappo-Danilevsky and the “commoner”, but monarchist-patriot S.F. Platonov, and to limit their scope contradictions are only disagreements on organizational and methodological issues. Meanwhile, the main reason for the conflict between historians is connected with the global methodological split of the “St. Petersburg historical school” that occurred in 1900-1910. This split ultimately led to the formation of two directions: theoretical (A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky) and empirical, conventionally associated with the name of S.F. Platonov. In fact, he could be named after any of the historians who criticized the theoretical constructions of Lappo-Danilevsky. At that time, S.F. Platonov concentrated in his hands very real power at the Faculty of History and Philology - the main forge of historical personnel in the country. Platonov and his supporters were the direct successors of the older generation of historians of the St. Petersburg school (Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Vasilievsky, Zamyslovsky, etc.), whose works were largely characterized by an empirical approach to understanding the historical process.
Having approved the scientific-critical method they developed as the basic one in historical research, the second generation of the St. Petersburg school never came to formulate an integral system of historical methodology. This was precisely the main reason for the differences between the supporters of S.F. Platonov and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, who took on the solution of methodological problems of contemporary historical science.
Lappo-Danilevsky did not share the contrast between two cognitive strategies, characteristic of neo-Kantianism, namely, the identification of patterns (nomothetic approach) in the natural sciences and the identification of ways of organizing non-repetitive, specific phenomena (ideographic approach) in the sciences of the spirit, i.e. in historical science. In his main work, “Methodology of History” (1910–1913), Lappo-Danilevsky showed that both of these approaches coexist in relation to the historical process, from antiquity to modern times, and they cannot be separated. He argued that both approaches could be applied in the cultural sciences as well as in the natural sciences. The scientist considered it optimal to apply both approaches to the objects under study, allowing one to identify the general and specific in history.
Platonov and a number of other faculty teachers who made up the “Circle of Russian Historians” (N.D. Chechulin, S.M. Seredonin, S. Rozhdestvensky, V.G. Druzhinin, etc.) were very skeptical about the theorizing of Lappo-Danilevsky’s supporters, considering that historical science faces completely different tasks.
And this “theoretical” enmity for a long time remained the main “stumbling block” in the relations of members of the scientific community at the beginning of the 20th century. Young scientists, students of Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky, sometimes had to maneuver between two warring parties, not even always understanding the main reason for this enmity.
Thus, the historian of the younger generation A.E. Presnyakov, who simultaneously studied with both Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky, said in one of his letters that his colleagues sincerely wanted to reconcile the warring parties. So, in March 1894, Presnyakov attended a banquet on the occasion of the defense of G.V.’s doctoral dissertation. Forsten. Even at the banquet, Professors Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky sat at opposite ends of the table, surrounded by their supporters, as if forming two hostile camps.
“It stung my eyes,” Presnyakov admits in a letter, “and I started a conversation with Platonov to my heart’s content, about the reasons for this division. He was unusually sincere: and in general he was so sincere that he completely touched me. He explained to me that his and Lappo-Danilevsky’s circles differ in two ways: they are nobles by upbringing, with good home education, with extensive scientific resources, democrats by conviction and theory, people with political aspirations, with a certain set of political views, in which they dogmatically believe and are therefore intolerant of other people’s opinions; they are the same, i.e. Platonovites, raznochintsy, people of a different society, a different upbringing, with a smaller reserve of scientific strength, very heterogeneous in beliefs, connected only by personal friendship, and not by some common credo. By the nature of their minds, they are skeptics - dissatisfied with the currently prevailing order, no less than those, they do not see the means to fight and tolerate them in appearance - indifferently, doing their scientific and teaching work and not promoting their discontent, not necessarily demanding agreement with themselves and calmly treating contradictions and opposing beliefs, even those that are not very sympathetic. They do not shy away from the other circle, but it ignores them; there were attempts at rapprochement and ended in insult to them.”
Perhaps, under the influence of this conversation, S.F. Platonov soon proposed a toast, which A.E. Presnyakov describes as follows: “Platonov... proposed a wonderful sincere toast, which should have serious consequences - a toast for the development of complete and close solidarity of the faculty members, on which the faculty tradition rests, which develops young people in a good direction.” Alas! Only Lappo-Danilevsky from the opposite end of the table came to clink glasses. The rest of his “circle members” remained indifferent, some left in English without saying goodbye.
In our opinion, this episode reveals in the best possible way the reasons for not only personal, but also scientific disagreements among scientists. Some (Lappo-Danilevsky and his supporters), considering their fellow historians in advance as incapable of understanding, did not take the trouble to clearly explain their point of view to them; others (Platonov and his “circle members”), due to self-instilled “plebeian” complexes, simply did not want to hear their opponents.
When Lappo-Danilevsky, bypassing S.F. Platonov, was elected to the Academy of Sciences, many contemporaries accused him of certain “intrigues and intrigues,” remembering his closeness to the liberal-bourgeois majority of the future Cadet Party, as well as the president of the academy Sciences - Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich.
However, after the death of Lappo-Danilevsky, Platonov’s wife, N.N. Shamonin, referring to a private letter from V.G. Vasilievsky, said: in their choice, academicians were guided exclusively by the personal qualities of the applicant. Factors such as the scientist’s freedom from family and financial problems were also taken into account. If A.S. While Lappo-Danilevsky was a typical “armchair scientist” and theorist, Sergei Fedorovich Platonov proved himself to be a talented practitioner, administrator, organizer, teacher and pedagogue. In addition, he headed the department, was the dean of the faculty, and had six children. When else should he engage in scientific research?
The split in the “St. Petersburg historical school” was somewhat smoothed over by the October events of 1917. When it was necessary to save national treasures, scientists joined forces in the work of various commissions to save historical and cultural monuments, archives and libraries. After the unexpected death of Lappo-Danilevsky in 1919, the empiricist point of view prevailed in the scientific community, which was later purely physically “reduced to nothing” by supporters of Marxist-Leninist ideology.
After 1917
How S.F. Platonov reacted to the events of February 1917 is unknown. Perhaps he simply didn't notice them. But Platonov categorically did not accept the October coup. He never considered it a “revolution,” because such a revolution, according to the historian, was not prepared “from any point of view,” and the program of the Soviet government was “artificial and utopian.” Invited by D.B. Ryazanov to cooperate in the rescue of historical and cultural monuments, Platonov worked in the interdepartmental commission for the protection and arrangement of archives of abolished institutions, then as deputy chairman of the Main Directorate of Archival Affairs, head of the Petrograd branch of the Main Archive.
April 3, 1920 by the General Meeting Russian Academy Sciences S.F. Platonov was elected (for huge contribution in the development of Russian historical science) as its full member.
At the turn of the 1920s, he was planning a major work on the beginning of the Russian state, and talked about the need to revise the works of A. A. Shakhmatov (the founder of the historical study of ancient Russian chronicles and literature). However, all these plans were not destined to come true. IN Soviet time Only Platonov’s popular science essays “Boris Godunov. Images of the Past" (1921), "Ivan the Terrible (1530–1584)" (1923), the books "Moscow and the West in the 16th–17th centuries" (1925) and "Peter the Great. Personality and activity" (1926), articles about the ancient colonization of the Russian North.
In his research work and in his popular science works, Platonov continued to be guided by the same principles as before:
“My worldview, which developed towards the end of the 19th century, was based on Christian morality, positivist philosophy and scientific evolutionary theory... In essence, I remain so at the present moment. Atheism is as alien to me as church dogma.” (From Platonov’s “repentant” note to the OGPU, October 1930)
After the removal from archival work initiated by M.N. Pokrovsky on August 1, 1925, Platonov became director of the Pushkin House (he remained until 1929), and on August 22 of the same year he was elected director of the Library of the Academy of Sciences (BAN).
In the same year, he allegedly forbade A. A. Vvedensky (a specialist in the history of Ancient Rus') from reading a report on the 1905 revolution in the Urals at the First Historical Research Institute at Leningrad State University in the “spirit of the times” and demanded that this report be replaced with a report on the Stroganov icon.
In 1927, he permanently completed his work at Leningrad State University.
On July 11, 1928, S.F. Platonov spoke in Berlin in front of his German colleagues with a report “The Problem of the Russian North in Recent Historiography.” There he also had contacts with some representatives of the Russian emigration, including his former student Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich, which was later used by the OGPU authorities against the historian.
"Academic Affairs"
The so-called “case of the Academy of Sciences” (“academic case”, “case of academicians”, “case of Platonov and Tarle”) played a tragic role in the fate of the scientist.
On October 12, 1929, the OGPU department for Leningrad and the region received intelligence information about the storage of important political archives in the Library of the Academy of Sciences, allegedly unknown to the Soviet authorities. A check of this information was organized through a commission for cleaning the apparatus of the Academy of Sciences. On October 19, the chairman of the commission, Yu.P. Figatner discovered in the Library original copies of manifestos about the abdication of the throne of Nicholas II and his brother Mikhail, documents of the Central Committee of the Cadets and Socialist Revolutionaries, and some other materials. I.V. Stalin was immediately notified of this.
It would seem: so what? Where should there be documents, the direct creators of which no longer exist, if not in the library of the Academy of Sciences?
Their presence in the library’s collections was officially reported to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee back in 1926, but the party leaders (Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev) at that time were busy with more important matters: sharing power. The hands of the tsar's manifestos and Socialist-Revolutionary protocols came only in 1929. Just then the opportunity arose to get rid of all the dissident anti-Marxist opposition in the Academy and other scientific institutions of Leningrad.
The blame for the “concealment” of documents, naturally, was placed on Platonov. The academician tried to justify himself: “Both the permanent secretary and I myself did not attach much relevance to the documents and brought them under the authority of the decree of November 16, 1926... We did not know that the government had been looking for them for 12 years. ... Comrade Figatner does not distinguish between the terms “archive” and “archival materials” and abuses the former.”
In fact, the “hiding” of documents was just a pretext. Things were much more complicated. The strained relations that existed between the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Academy of Sciences were most acutely manifested back in 1928, when the party bodies attempted to transform a scientific institution, which enjoyed sufficient freedom and autonomy (this had been the case since the days of old Russia), into an obedient bureaucratic appendage systems. It was possible to strengthen the influence of the central bodies of the party on the Academy of Sciences, a purely non-party institution (in 1929, among its 1,158 employees, only 16 were party members), it was possible to introduce a strong group of communists into its composition. The authorities nominated eight people as candidates for full members of the Academy of Sciences: N. I. Bukharin, I. M. Gubkin, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, M. N. Pokrovsky, D. B. Ryazanov, A. M. Deborin, N. M. . Lukin and V. M. Fritsche.
On January 12, 1928, a general meeting was held, but it elected only five people from the list as full members (the first three of them passed with a margin of just one vote, and the last three were voted out). Five days later, the Presidium of the Academy was nevertheless forced to convene a new meeting in order to “elect” the trio that failed at the first meeting. The elections showed the authorities: in the ranks of the Academy of Sciences there are many people who are still capable of resisting the decision of the Politburo itself. It became obvious that there was an urgent need to “clean up” academic institutions. A convincing reason was also found: concealment of documents.
The ideological inspirer of the “purge” and persecution of old specialists was the historian M. N. Pokrovsky, who had just been elected to the Academy. In his letter dated November 1, 1929 to the Politburo, he proposed radically changing the structure of the Academy of Sciences, turning it into an ordinary state institution: “We must go on the offensive on all scientific fronts. The period of peaceful coexistence with bourgeois science has been completely eradicated.” The centralization of science was seen by Pokrovsky as a kind of collectivization, and his call to take science away from scientists and transfer it to four thousand workers' faculty students graduating from universities in 1929 was very reminiscent of calls for dispossession.
Academician S.F. Platonov refused the directorship at the BAN back in September 1928, and in March 1929 - the directorship at the Pushkin House. At the March session of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1929, he was elected academician-secretary of the Department of Humanities (OHN) and a member of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, and on November 5, 1929, the Politburo decided to remove the scientist from work at the Academy and remove him from all posts he held.
Platonov himself resigned, but that was not the end of the matter. On the night of January 12-13, 1930, the historian was arrested along with his youngest daughter Maria by security officer A. A. Mosevich on suspicion of “active anti-Soviet activity and participation in a counter-revolutionary organization.” During a search at the Platonovs’ apartment, a foreign-made revolver was found, as well as letters addressed to Sergei Fedorovich from Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich (junior) and the leader of the cadet party P. N. Milyukov. The private correspondence did not contain anything criminal: the Grand Duke was a student of Platonov, and P.N. Milyukov was the brother of his wife, N.N. Shamonina, who was already deceased by that time. But this was enough for the security officers.
Soon many of Academician Platonov’s friends and professional comrades ended up in prison. Among them are N.P. Likhachev, M.K. Lyubavsky, E.V. Tarle, S.V. Bakhrushin, P.G. Vasenko, Yu.V. Gauthier, V.G. Druzhinin, D.N. Egorov, V.I. Picheta, B.A. Romanov, A.I. Yakovlev and others. All of them were representatives of the old professorship and did not adhere to the official Marxist ideology.
During the investigation, Platonov behaved courageously, despite threats against his arrested daughters, and for a long time refused to give the necessary testimony. As evidenced by the now published materials of the “academic case,” the reason that served as the reason for the arrest of historians - the storage of documents that were subject to submission to the state archives - was forgotten from the very first interrogations. It was impossible to squeeze out of it a political background with a counter-revolutionary overtones. And now the first political accusation, formulated by the head of the investigative department on March 14, 1930, comes to light. In it, Platonov is no longer accused of keeping papers of national importance, but of heading “a counter-revolutionary monarchist organization whose goal was to overthrow Soviet power and establish a monarchical system in the USSR by inducing foreign states and a number of bourgeois social groups to armed intervention.” in the affairs of the Union."
The historian was broken by investigator A. A. Mosevich, who pointed out that truthful testimony is needed not by the investigation, to which everything is already clear, but by history. The scientist gave in and accepted his rules of the game: “Concerning my political convictions, I must admit that I am a monarchist. He recognized the dynasty and was sick at heart when the court clique contributed to the fall of the reigning House of Romanov..."
It was absolutely true.
Then denunciations were used. One of them reported that in a private conversation, Academician Platonov criticized the choice of emigration in favor of Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich as a contender for the Russian throne. The historian allegedly pointed to a more suitable candidate, from his point of view, for his student, Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich. Platonov did not deny this.
Having received the missing link, the investigation charged that Platonov had created a counter-revolutionary monarchist organization at the Academy of Sciences called the “National Union of Struggle for the Revival of Free Russia,” the goal of which was the overthrow of Soviet power and the establishment of a constitutional-monarchical system headed by Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich. Moreover, for some reason the role of the future prime minister was assigned to Platonov himself. In total, 115 people were involved in the case of the “National Union of Struggle for the Revival of Free Russia”.
The investigation lasted more than a year. On February 2, 1931, at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences, its new permanent secretary, member of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Academician V.P. Volgin, announced the establishment of the fact of the participation of academicians S.F. Platonov, E.V. Tarle, N.P. Likhachev and M.K. Lyubavsky in a counter-revolutionary conspiracy and proposed to exclude them from the full membership. After this, the President of the Academy of Sciences, A.P. Karpinsky, took the floor. The transcript of his speech has not been preserved, but Krasnaya Gazeta reported on the “counter-revolutionary attack” of the scientist, who allegedly called the expulsion of Platonov and his colleagues from the Academy unnecessary (which nevertheless took place).
There was no trial, even closed, in the “case of the Academy of Sciences”. The main sentences were passed in three stages: in February 1931, by the OGPU troika in the Leningrad Military District, then in May and August by the OGPU Collegium. The press said almost nothing about this case. The remaining junior colleagues and students of Academician Platonov, out of fear for their fate, publicly renounced their teacher. However, the sentence for those arrested turned out to be relatively mild - 5 years of exile. But there were no casualties at all. Six former officers, “belonging to the military group” of the “National Union” were sentenced to death. The OGPU board sentenced ordinary members of the “union” to 5-10 years in the camps.
Memory
Even during his life in the Soviet country, Platonov was recognized as one of the most famous scientists. His autobiography was published in the popular magazine “Ogonyok” (No. 35, 1927) under the heading “The country should know its scientists.” He was surrounded with honor and glory, even sent abroad to represent Soviet Russia at international historical forums.
But the “academic affair” of 1929-30 put an end to the biography of the Russian scientist, consigning his name to complete oblivion.
Not a single book about the disgraced historian was published in the Soviet Union. In Soviet works on Russian historiography - and in textbooks, and in the academic “Essays on the History of Historical Science in the USSR”, there is no special chapter devoted to the characterization of Platonov’s life and work.
And although in 1937 they published (for the fourth time!) “Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th–17th centuries,” and graduate School propagandists under the Central Committee of the Party published (albeit “for internal use”) fragments of Platonov’s textbook for universities, in the first edition of the Bolshoi Soviet encyclopedia they preferred to do without an article about Sergei Fedorovich altogether.
Only in the book “Russian Historiography”, published in 1941 by N.L. Rubenstein, which to this day remains the most scientifically objective generalizing work on Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, is written about Platonov in a respectfully serious tone, without cheap political labels. However, in the 1950-1970s, Platonov continued to be characterized as “the most prominent exponent of the ideology of the reactionary nobility” in the pre-revolutionary period, speaking “from the position of an apologist for autocracy” in the post-revolutionary years.
Soviet scientists, squeezed within the narrow framework of Marxist-Leninist ideology, reduced the development of historical science primarily to the development of social thought and its reflection of the current socio-political situation. They were little interested in the philosophical and, especially, the moral foundations of the worldview of historians. The period from the mid-1890s to the 1917 revolution was pretentiously defined as the time of “the crisis of bourgeois-noble historical science”; and the views of historians, and indeed all their work, were evaluated depending on their relationship with the development of thought of those who adhered to the views of Marx and especially Lenin. Platonov was given a place on the right flank of non-Marxist historical science. At the same time, “non-Marxist” was often interpreted as “anti-Marxist.”
In 1967, those convicted in the falsified case “On a counter-revolutionary conspiracy in the Academy of Sciences” were completely rehabilitated. Platonov was posthumously restored to the rank of academician. But it took more than 20 years for the first journal articles to appear not only about the last years of the scientist’s life, but also about his entire life’s journey.
In 1994, the first issue prepared by V.A. was published. Kolobkov Catalog of the archive of academician S.F. Platonov. The publication of “Cases against Academician S.F. Platonov" began a multi-volume publication of investigative materials of the "Academic Case of 1929–1931."
In the late 1990s - early 2000s, Platonov’s works began to be published again - his textbooks for higher and secondary schools were published in several editions, in the prestigious academic series “Monuments of Historical Thought” - the fifth edition of “Essays on the History of the Troubles in the Moscow State XVI– XVII centuries”, accompanied by articles by E.V. Chistyakova. In 1993–1994, a two-volume collection of Platonov’s works on Russian history appeared, prepared by V.I. Startsev and B.S. Brachev, republished in the form of books and individual works by S.F. Platonov 1920s. Platonov’s texts, identified in the archives, were published in the volumes of the Archaeographic Yearbook. Currently, serious work is underway with archival materials from his personal fund– unpublished research (about zemstvo councils and others), reviews, memoirs, letters. Meanwhile, the process of forming a historian’s fund in the department manuscripts of the Russian National Library not yet completed: relatives and descendants of S.F. Platonov continue to receive interesting materials related to personal life and in recent years scientist in Samara exile.
As it was said in the Soviet magazine Ogonyok, a country must know its scientists! The works and biography of the outstanding historian S.F. Platonov are gradually returning to the reader who was separated from them, enriching ideas not only about the past of our Fatherland, but also about the history of its study.
Let us add on our own behalf that those who do not know and do not want to know their scientists and their history run the risk of waking up one day and not recognizing their country.
Elena Shirokova
based on materials:
- Brachev V.S. Russian historian S.F. Platonov: Scientist. Teacher. Human. - St. Petersburg, 1997. 2nd ed.
- It's him. The Way of the Cross of the Russian historian: Academician S.F. Platonov and his “deed”. - St. Petersburg, 2005 (revised edition).
- Rostovtsev E. A. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky and S. F. Platonov (on the history of personal and scientific relationships) // Problems of social and humanitarian knowledge. Sat. scientific works. - St. Petersburg, 1999 - Issue I. – P.128-165;
- It's him. A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky and the St. Petersburg historical school. - Ryazan, 2004. 352 p., ill.
- Schmidt S. O. Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (1860-1933) // Portraits of historians: Time and destinies. In 2 volumes - M.-Ier., 2000. - T.1. Domestic history.- pp. 100-135.
- Website photos used
PLATONOV S.
Introduction (concise presentation)
It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining
what exactly should be understood by words historical knowledge, historical
the science. Having understood how history is understood in general, we will understand that we
should be understood as the history of one particular people, and consciously
Let's start studying Russian history.
History existed in ancient times, although it was not considered then
science. Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example,
will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way in relating history to the field
arts By history they understood an artistic story about memorable
events and persons. The task of the historian was to convey
listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure and a number of moral
edification. Art also pursued the same goals.
With this view of history, as an artistic story about
memorable events, ancient historians adhered to the corresponding techniques
presentation. In their narration they strived for truth and accuracy, but
They did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful
Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); in some he
believes because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, even not believing in
them, includes them in his story, because they seduce him with their
artistic interest. Not only this, the ancient historian, faithful to his
artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious
fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt about, puts into his mouth
his heroes speeches composed by himself, but he considers himself right due to
that which faithfully conveys in fictitious form real intentions and
thoughts of historical figures.
Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history was before
to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and
entertainment, not to mention other conditions that prevented historians from
successfully distinguish truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate
knowledge already in ancient times requires pragmatism from the historian. Already at Herodotus we
We are seeing a manifestation of this pragmatism, i.e. desire to connect facts
causal connection, not only to tell them, but also to explain them from the past
origin.
So, at first, history is defined as
an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and persons.
Such views on history also go back to ancient times,
which required from her, in addition to artistic impressions, practical
applicability. The ancients said that history is the teacher of life
(magistra vitae). This kind of account of past life was expected from historians
humanity, which would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future,
would serve as a practical guide for public figures and
a moral school for other people. This view of history in full force
lasted through the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he is straight
brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other hand, turned history into
"tablet of revelations and rules" of a practical nature. One writer XVII
V. (De Rocoles) said that “history fulfills the duties inherent in
moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect may be preferred to it,
since, giving the same rules, she also adds examples to them." On
on the first page of Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State”
expression of the idea that history must be known in order “to establish
order, to reconcile the benefits of people and give them the happiness possible on earth."
With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new
definitions of historical science. Trying to explain the essence and meaning of life
humanity, thinkers turned to the study of history or in order to find in
her solution to her problem, or in order to confirm with historical data
their abstract constructions. According to different philosophical systems,
One way or another, the goals and meaning of the story itself were determined. Here are some of
similar definitions: Bossuet [correctly - Bossuet. -- Ed.] (1627--1704) and
Laurent (1810-1887) understood history as a depiction of those world events in
which with particular brightness expressed the ways of Providence, guiding
human life for your own purposes. Italian Vico (1668--1744) task
history, as a science, considered the depiction of those identical states that
destined to be experienced by all peoples. Famous philosopher Hegel (1770--1831) in
history saw an image of the process by which the “absolute spirit” reached
of his self-knowledge (Hegel explained throughout the world how the development of this
"absolute spirit"). It will not be wrong to say that all these philosophies require
from history is essentially the same thing: history should not depict everything
facts of the past life of mankind, but only the basic ones, revealing its general
meaning.
This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought - a simple
a story about the past in general, or a random collection of facts from different times and
the place for proving edifying thoughts was no longer satisfactory.
There was a desire to unite the presentation with a guiding idea,
systematization of historical material. However, philosophical history
rightly reproached for the fact that it is the guiding ideas of historical presentation
took outside history and systematized the facts arbitrarily. This is not the story
became an independent science, and turned into a servant of philosophy.
History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when from Germany to
as a counterbalance to French rationalism, idealism developed: in contrast to
French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, actively
national antiquities were studied and the belief that life
human societies occurs naturally, in this order of natural
sequence that cannot be broken or changed either
by chance or by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main
interest in history began to be the study of non-random external phenomena And
not the activities of outstanding personalities, but the study of social life in
different stages of its development. History began to be understood as a science of laws
historical life of human societies.
This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. Famous
Guizot (1787-1874), for example, understood history as the doctrine of world and
national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil
dormitories). The philosopher Schelling (1775-1854) considered national history
a means of understanding the “national spirit”. From here grew the widespread
definition of history as a path to national self-awareness. Came next
attempts to understand history as a science that should reveal general laws
development public life outside of their application to a known place, time and
to the people. But these attempts, in essence, assigned history the tasks of another science.
-- sociology. History is a science that studies specific facts in conditions
precisely time and place, and main goal it is recognized systematically
depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and
of all humanity.
Such a task requires a lot to be successfully completed. In order to
give a scientifically accurate and artistically complete picture of any era of folk
life or full history people, it is necessary: 1) to collect historical
materials, 2) investigate their reliability, 3) restore exactly individual
historical facts, 4) indicate the pragmatic connection between them and 5) reduce
them into a general scientific overview or into an artistic picture. The ways in which
historians achieve these particular goals and are called scientific critical
techniques. These techniques are being improved with the development of historical science, but before
Until now, neither these techniques nor the science of history itself have reached their full potential.
development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material that is subject to
their knowledge, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not achieved
even those results that other, more precise, sciences have achieved. And yet
no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.
Since studying the facts world history began to approach with
by the consciousness that human life develops naturally, is subordinated
eternal and unchanging relations and rules - since then the ideal of the historian
became the revelation of these constant laws and relationships. For simple analysis
historical phenomena that were intended to indicate their causal sequence,
a wider field has opened up - a historical synthesis aimed at recreating
the general course of world history as a whole, indicate such laws in its course
sequences of development that would have been justified not only in the past,
but also in the future of humanity.
This broad ideal cannot directly guide the Russian
historian. He studies only one fact of world historical life - life
of your nationality. The state of Russian historiography is still such that
sometimes imposes on the Russian historian the obligation to simply collect facts and
give them initial scientific treatment. And only where the facts are already
collected and illuminated, we can rise to some historical
generalizations, we can notice the general course of this or that historical
process, we can even make a bold
attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which
The basic facts of our historical life developed. But then such a general
The Russian historian cannot follow the scheme without leaving the boundaries of his science.
For
in order to understand the essence and significance of this or that fact in the history of Rus',
he can look for analogies in universal history; with the results obtained he can
serve the universal historian, lay your own stone in the foundation
general historical synthesis. But this is where its connection with the general
history and influence on it. The ultimate goal of Russian historiography is always
What remains is the construction of a system of local historical process.
The construction of this system allows for another, more practical
the task that lies with the Russian historian. There is an old belief that
national history is the path to national identity. Really,
knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future.
reality and knows how to understand it. The task, in this case it is possible
to put it simply, the duty of national historiography is to
show society his past in its true light. In this case, there is no need to enter into
historiography any preconceived points of view; subjective idea
is not a scientific idea, but only treatise may be useful to the public
self-awareness. Remaining in the strictly scientific sphere, highlighting those dominant
the beginnings of social life, which characterized the various stages
Russian historical life, the researcher will reveal to society the most important
moments of his historical existence and thereby achieve his goal. He will give
society has rational knowledge, and the application of this knowledge no longer depends on it.
Thus, both abstract considerations and practical goals set the Russian
historical science has the same task - a systematic depiction of Russian
historical life, the general outline of the historical process that led
our nationality to its present state.
Essay on Russian historiography
When did the systematic depiction of Russian events begin?
historical life and when did Russian history become a science? Still in Kievskaya
Rus', along with the emergence of citizenship, in the 11th century. appeared with us
first chronicles. These were lists of facts, important and unimportant, historical and
not historical, interspersed with literary legends. From our point
From our point of view, the most ancient chronicles do not constitute historical work;
Not
speaking about the content - and the very techniques of the chronicler do not correspond to the current ones
requirements. The beginnings of historiography appeared in our country in the 16th century, when
For the first time, historical tales and chronicles began to be compared and brought together into one
whole. In the 16th century Moscow Rus' took shape and was formed. Uniting in
a single body, under the authority of a single Moscow prince, the Russians tried
explain to yourself your origins, your political ideas, and your
relations with the states around them.
And so in 1512 (apparently by Elder Philotheus) a chronograph was compiled,
those. review of world history. Most of it contained
translations from Greek and only as additions Russian and
Slavic historical tales. This chronograph is brief, but gives sufficient
stock of historical information; followed by completely Russian chronographs,
representing a processing of the first. Together with them they arise in the 16th century. chronicle vaults
collections of mechanically compared facts, and works related by one
general idea. The first such work was "The Degree Book", which received
such a name because it was divided into “generations” or “degrees”,
as they were called then. She transmitted in chronological, sequential,
those. "gradual" order of activity of Russian metropolitans and princes,
starting with Rurik. Metropolitan Cyprian was mistakenly considered the author of this book;
it was processed by Metropolitans Macarius and his successor Athanasius
under Ivan the Terrible, i.e. in the 16th century The basis of the "Degree Book" lies
the trend is both general and specific. The general one is seen in the desire to show that
the power of the Moscow princes is not accidental, but successive, with one
sides, from the South Russians, Kyiv princes, on the other hand, from the Byzantine kings.
The private tendency was reflected in the respect with which
talks about spiritual power. The "degree book" may be called
historical work due to the well-known system of presentation. At the beginning of the 16th century.
was
another historical work was compiled - "The Resurrection Chronicle", more
interesting due to the abundance of material. All previous chronicles formed its basis,
"Sofia Vremennik" and others, so the facts in this chronicle are really
a lot, but they are fastened purely mechanically. Nevertheless, "Voskresenskaya
chronicle" seems to us the most valuable historical work from
everyone, contemporary or earlier, since it was compiled without any
trends and contains a lot of information that we don’t find anywhere else.
Because of its simplicity, one might not like it; the artlessness of its presentation might
seem wretched to experts in rhetorical devices, and so she was subjected to
revisions and additions and, by the middle of the 16th century, compiled a new code,
called the Nikon Chronicle. In this collection we see a lot of information,
borrowed from Greek chronographs, according to the history of Greek and Slavic
countries, the chronicle is about Russian events, especially about later centuries, although
detailed, but not entirely reliable - the accuracy of the presentation suffered from
literary revision: correcting the ingenuous style of previous chronicles,
they unwittingly distorted the meaning of some events.
In 1674, the first textbook of Russian history appeared in Kyiv -
"Synopsis" of Innocent Gisel, very widespread in the era of Peter
Great (he is often found even now). If next to all these
individual historical facts and eras (for example, the Legend of Prince Kurbsky,
tales of troubled times), then let us embrace the entire stock of historical works, with
with which Rus' lived until the era of Peter the Great, until the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in
Petersburg. Peter was very concerned about compiling the history of Russia and entrusted this
matter to different persons. But only after his death did scientific development begin
historical material and the first figures in this field were scientists
Germans, members of the St. Petersburg Academy; Of these, first of all we should mention
Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694--1738). He began by studying the tribes that inhabited
Russia in ancient times, especially the Varangians, but did not go further than that. Bayer left
I left behind a lot of works, of which two are quite major works
written in Latin and now no longer have of great importance For
history of Russia are "Northern Geography" and "Research on the Varangians" (their
translated into Russian only in 1767). The work was much more fruitful
Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705--1783), who lived in Russia under the empresses
Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine II and was already so fluent in in Russian,
that he wrote his works in Russian. He traveled a lot around Russia
(lived for 10 years, from 1733 to 1743, in Siberia) and studied it well. On
In the literary historical field, he acted as the publisher of a Russian magazine
"Monthly Works" (1755--1765) and the collection in German "Sammlung
Russischer Gescihchte". Miller's main merit was collecting materials
on Russian history; his manuscripts (the so-called Miller portfolios) also served
serve as a rich resource for publishers and researchers. And research
Miller mattered - he was one of the first scientists to become interested
later eras of our history, his works are dedicated to them: “The experience of the latest
history of Russia" and "News about the Russian nobles". Finally, he was the first
learned archivist in Russia and put in order the Moscow archive of the Foreign
collegium, the director of which he died (1783). Among the academicians of the 18th century.
[M.] also occupied a prominent place with his works on Russian history. V.] Lomonosov,
who wrote an educational book on Russian history and one volume of "Ancient Russian
history" (1766). His works on history were due to polemics with
academicians - Germans. The latter led Varangian Rus' away from the Normans and
Norman influence was credited with the origin of citizenship in Rus',
which, before the arrival of the Varangians, was considered a wild country; Lomonosov
recognized the Varangians as Slavs and thus considered Russian culture
original.
The named academicians, collecting materials and researching individual issues
our history, did not have time to give a general overview of it, the necessity of which
was felt by Russian educated people. Attempts to provide such an overview
appeared outside the academic environment.
The first attempt belongs to V.N. Tatishchev (1686-- 1750). While studying
actually geographical questions, he saw that it was impossible to resolve them
without knowledge of history, and, being a comprehensively educated person, became
collect information on Russian history and began compiling it. During
he wrote his historical work for many years, revised it more than once,
but it was only after his death, in 1768, that its publication began. Within 6 years
4 volumes were published, the 5th volume was accidentally found in our century and published
"Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities." In these 5 volumes
Tatishchev brought his story to the troubled era of the 17th century. In the first volume we
we get acquainted with the author’s own views on Russian history and sources,
which he used in its compilation; we find a whole range of scientific
sketches about ancient peoples - Varangians, Slavs, etc. Tatishchev often
resorted to the works of others; so, for example, he used the study "About
Varangians" by Bayer and directly included it in his work. This story is now
Of course, it is outdated, but it has not lost its scientific significance, since (in the 18th century
c.) Tatishchev possessed such sources that do not exist now, and therefore,
many of the facts he cited can no longer be restored. It got me excited
suspicion whether some of the sources he referred to existed, and
Tatishchev began to be accused of dishonesty. They especially didn’t trust
the “Joachim Chronicle” cited by him. However, the study of this chronicle
showed that Tatishchev only failed to treat it critically and included
her entirely, with all her fables, into her story. Strictly speaking, labor
Tatishchev is nothing more than a detailed collection of chronicle data,
presented in chronological order; his heavy tongue and lack
literary treatment made it uninteresting to his contemporaries.
The first popular book on Russian history was written by Catherine
II, but her work “Notes on Russian History”, completed
XIII century, has no scientific significance and is interesting only as a first attempt
tell society in easy language his past. Much more important in scientific
relation was “Russian History” by Prince M. [M.] Shcherbatov (1733--1790),
which Karamzin later used. Shcherbatov was not a man
a strong philosophical mind, but well-read in the educational literature of the 18th century
V. and formed entirely under her influence, which was reflected in his work, in
which introduced a lot of preconceived thoughts. According to historical information, he is up to
I didn’t have time to figure it out to such an extent that I sometimes forced my heroes
die 2 times. But despite such major shortcomings, history
Shcherbatov has scientific significance due to many applications, including
historical documents. Particularly interesting are the diplomatic papers of the XVI and
XVII centuries His work was brought to a troubled era.
It happened that under Catherine II a certain Frenchman Leclerc, who was not at all
who knew neither the Russian political system, nor the people, nor their way of life, wrote
the insignificant "L"histoire de la Russie", and there were so many slander in it that
she aroused general indignation. I. N. Boltin (1735--1792), amateur
Russian history, compiled a number of notes in which he discovered ignorance
Leclerc and which he published in two volumes. In them, he partly hurt Shcherbatov.
Shcherbatov was offended and wrote an objection. Boltin responded with printed letters and
began to criticize Shcherbatov's "History". Boltin's works, revealing in
He has historical talent and is interesting because of the novelty of his views. Boltin not quite
is definitely sometimes called the “first Slavophile”, because he noted many dark
parties in blind imitation of the West, an imitation that has become noticeable in our country
after Peter, and wished that Russia would more closely preserve the good beginnings of the past
century. Boltin himself is interesting as a historical phenomenon. He served the best
proof that in the 18th century. in society, even among non-specialists
history, there was a keen interest in the past of his homeland. Views and interests
Boltin was shared by N. I. Novikov (1744--1818), a famous zealot for Russian
education, collected "Ancient Russian Vivliofika" (20 volumes), extensive
collection historical documents and research (1788--1791). At the same time with
The merchant [I.] acted as a collector of historical materials. I.] Golikov
(1735--1801), who published a collection of historical data about Peter the Great under
entitled "The Acts of Peter the Great" (1st ed. 1788-1790, 2nd 1837). So
Thus, along with attempts to give a general history of Russia, the
the desire to prepare materials for such a story. In addition to the initiative
private, the Academy of Sciences itself is working in this direction, publishing chronicles
for general information about them.
But in all that we have listed, there was still little scientificity in our
sense: there were no strict critical techniques, not to mention
lack of integral historical ideas.
For the first time, a number of scientific-critical techniques were introduced into the study of Russian history
foreign scientist Schletser (1735-- 1809). Getting to know the Russians
chronicles, he was delighted with them: he had never seen
such a wealth of information, such poetic language. Having already left Russia and
as a professor at the University of Göttingen, he worked tirelessly on
those extracts from the chronicles that he managed to take out of Russia.
The result of this work was the famous work published under the title
"Nestor" (1805 in German, 1809-1819 in Russian). This is a whole series
historical sketches about the Russian chronicle. In the preface, the author gives a brief
a review of what has been done on Russian history. He finds the position of science in
Russia is sad, treats Russian historians with disdain, believes
his book is almost the only valid work on Russian history. AND
Indeed, his work far outstripped all others in terms of degree.
scientific consciousness and techniques of the author. These techniques created a kind of school for us
Schletser's students, the first scientific researchers, like M.P. Pogodin.
After
Schletser, rigorous historical research has become possible for us, for which,
True, favorable conditions were also created in another environment, headed by
Miller stood. Among the people he collected in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium
Stritter, Malinovsky, and Bantysh-Kamensky were especially outstanding. They created
the first school of learned archivists, by whom the Archives were brought into full
order and which, in addition to the external grouping of archival material,
carried out a number of serious scientific studies based on this material.
Thus, little by little, conditions matured that created for us the possibility of serious
stories.
At the beginning of the 19th century. finally, the first integral view of Russian
historical past in the famous “History of the Russian State” N.M.
Karamzin (1766--1826). Possessing an integral worldview, literary
talent and techniques of a good learned critic, Karamzin throughout Russian
historical life saw one most important process - the creation of a national
state power. A number of talented people led Rus' to this power.
figures, of which the two main ones - Ivan III and Peter the Great - with their
boundaries of its main eras - ancient (before Ivan III), middle (before Peter
Great) and new (before early XIX V.). Karamzin’s own system of Russian history
presented it in a language that was fascinating for its time, and he based his story
on numerous studies, which to this day remain his
History has important scientific significance.
But the one-sidedness of Karamzin’s main view, which limited the task
historian depicting only the destinies of the state, and not society with its
culture, legal and economic relations, was soon noticed
already by his contemporaries. Journalist of the 30s of the XIX century. N. A. Polevoy
(1796--1846) reproached him for calling his work “History
of the Russian State", left the "History of the Russian People" without attention.
It was with these words that Polevoy titled his work, in which he thought to depict
the fate of Russian society. He replaced Karamzin’s system with his own system,
but not entirely successful, since he was an amateur in the field of historical knowledge.
Fascinated by the historical works of the West, he tried purely mechanically
apply their conclusions and terms to Russian facts, for example, -
find the feudal system in ancient Rus'. This explains his weakness
attempts, it is clear that Polevoy’s work could not replace Karamzin’s work: in it
there was no complete system at all.
He spoke out against Karamzin less sharply and with more caution.
St. Petersburg professor [N. G.] Ustryalov (1805--1870), who wrote in 1836
"Discourse on the system of pragmatic Russian history." He demanded that
history was a picture of the gradual development of social life, a depiction
transitions of citizenship from one state to another. But he still believes
into the power of personality in history and, along with the image folk life,
also requires biographies of its heroes. Ustryalov himself, however, refused to give
a certain general point of view on our history and noticed that for this
the time has not come.
Thus, dissatisfaction with Karamzin’s work, which also affected the scientist
world, and in society, did not correct the Karamzin system and did not replace it
another. Above the phenomena of Russian history, as their connecting principle, remained
artistic painting by Karamzin and no scientific system was created. Ustryalov
was right in saying that the time had not yet come for such a system. The best
professors of Russian history who lived in an era close to Karamzin, Pogodin and
[M. T.] Kachenovsky (1775--1842), were still far from one common point
vision; the latter took shape only when Russian history became
take an active interest in the educated circles of our society. Pogodin and
Kachenovsky were brought up on the scientific methods of Schlozer and under his influence,
which had a particularly strong impact on Pogodin. Pogodin continued in many ways
Schletser's research and, studying the most ancient periods of our history, did not go
further particular conclusions and small generalizations, which, however, he was sometimes able to
captivate your listeners who are not accustomed to strictly scientific and independent
presentation of the subject. Kachenovsky took up Russian history when
has already acquired a lot of knowledge and experience in other branches of history
management Following the development classical history in the West, which at that time
time was brought to new way Niebuhr's research, Kachenovsky was interested in
the denial with which they began to treat the most ancient data on history,
for example, Rome. Kachenovsky transferred this denial to Russian history: everything
information relating to the first centuries of Russian history, he considered
unreliable; reliable facts, in his opinion, began only with that
time since written documents of civil life appeared in our country.
Kachenovsky’s skepticism had followers: under his influence, the following was founded
the so-called skeptical school, not rich in conclusions, but strong in new ones,
skeptical approach to scientific material. This school belonged to
several articles compiled under the leadership of Kachenovsky. At
the undoubted talent of Pogodin and Kachenovsky, both of them developed
although large, but specific issues of Russian history; they were both strong
critical methods, but neither one nor the other rose to the level of practical
historical worldview: while giving a method, they did not produce results, to
which could be reached using this method.
Only in the 30s of the 19th century did a coherent
historical worldview, but it developed not on a scientific, but on
metaphysical soil. In the first half of the 19th century. Russian educated people are all
turned with great and great interest to history, both domestic and
Western European. Foreign trips 1813--1814 introduced our
youth with the philosophy and political life of Western Europe. Life Study
and the ideas of the West gave birth, on the one hand, to the political movement of the Decembrists,
on the other hand, a circle of people who were interested in more abstract philosophy than
politics. This circle grew entirely on the basis of German metaphysical
philosophy of the beginning of our century. This philosophy was distinguished by its harmony
logical constructions and optimistic conclusions. In German metaphysics, as in
German romanticism, affected by the protest against dry rationalism
French philosophy of the 18th century. To the revolutionary cosmopolitanism of France
Germany contrasted the beginning of nationality and revealed it in attractive
images of folk poetry and in a number of metaphysical systems. These systems have become
known to educated Russian people and captivated them. In German philosophy
Russian educated people saw a whole revelation. Germany was for them
“The Jerusalem of modern humanity,” as Belinsky called it.
Studying
the most important metaphysical systems of Schelling and Hegel were united in a tight circle
several talented representatives of Russian society and forced them
turn to the study of your (Russian) national past. The result
this study there were two completely opposite systems of Russian history,
built on the same metaphysical basis. In Germany at this time
the dominant philosophical systems were those of Schelling and Hegel.
By
Schelling's opinion, every historical people must implement some
the absolute idea of goodness, truth, beauty. Reveal this idea to the world --
historical vocation of the people. By fulfilling it, the people take a step forward
the field of world civilization; having performed it, he leaves the historical stage.
Those peoples whose existence is not inspired by the idea of the unconditional are peoples
unhistorical, they are condemned to spiritual slavery among other nations. The same
Hegel also gives the division of peoples into historical and non-historical, but he,
Developing almost the same principle, he went even further. He gave the big picture
world progress. All world life, according to Hegel, was a development
absolute spirit, which strives for self-knowledge in the history of various
peoples, but reaches it finally in the German-Roman civilization.
The cultural peoples of the Ancient East, the ancient world and Romanesque Europe were
placed by Hegel in a certain order, which was a ladder, according to
which the world spirit ascended. At the top of these stairs stood the Germans, and they
Hegel prophesied eternal world supremacy. There are no Slavs on this staircase
it was completely. He considered them to be an unhistorical race and thus condemned them to spiritual
slavery in the German civilization. Thus, Schelling demanded for his
Russian minds in the sense that they aroused the desire to look back at Russian
historical life, to find that absolute idea that was revealed in
Russian life, determine the place and purpose of the Russian people in the course of the world
progress. And here, in the application of the beginnings of German metaphysics to Russian
In reality, the Russian people disagreed with each other. One of them,
Westerners believed that the German-Protestant civilization existed
the last word in world progress. For them, ancient Rus', which did not know
Western, German civilization and did not have its own, was a country
unhistorical, devoid of progress, condemned to eternal stagnation, a country
“Asian”, as Belinsky called it (in an article about Kotoshikhin).
From centuries
Asian inertia was brought out by Peter, who, having introduced Russia to the German
civilization, created for it the possibility of progress and history. Throughout Russian
history, therefore, only the era of Peter V [the great] can have a historical
meaning. She is the main point in Russian life; it separates Asian Rus' from
European Rus'. Before Peter there was complete desert, complete nothingness; in ancient Russian
history makes no sense, since ancient Rus' does not have its own culture.
But not all Russian people of the 30s and 40s thought so;
some did not agree that Germanic civilization was the highest
stage of progress, that the Slavic tribe is a non-historical tribe. They are not saw the reasons why world development
should stop at the Germans.
From
Russian history brought them the conviction that the Slavs were far from stagnant,
that it could be proud of many dramatic moments in its past and
that it finally had its own culture. This doctrine was well expounded by I.V.
Kireyevsky (1806--1856). He says that Slavic culture is in its foundations
its own was independent and different from the German one. Firstly, the Slavs
received Christianity from Byzantium (and the Germans from Rome) and their religious
life received different forms than those that developed among the Germans under the influence
Catholicism. Secondly, the Slavs and Germans grew up with different cultures:
the first ones are in Greek, the second ones are in Roman. While the German
culture has developed individual freedom, Slavic communities are completely
enslaved her. Thirdly, the political system was created differently.
Germany was formed on Roman soil. The Germans were a newcomer people; winning
Europe, later turned into antagonism between classes; the Slavs have a state
was created through a peace treaty and voluntary recognition of power. Here
difference between Russia and the West. Europe, differences in religion, culture,
state system. So thought the Slavophiles, who were more independent
followers of German philosophical teachings. They were convinced that
independent Russian life reached its greatest development in
era of the Moscow state. Peter V. grossly disrupted this development,
through violent reform he brought to us alien, even opposite principles
German civilization. He turned the right course of people's life to
false path of borrowing, because he did not understand the covenants of the past, did not
understood our national spirit. The goal of the Slavophiles is to return to the path
natural development, smoothing out the traces of Peter's violent reform.
The common point of view of Westerners and Slavophiles served them as a basis for
interpretation not only of the meaning of our history, but also of its individual facts: it is possible
count many historical works written by Westerners and especially
Slavophiles (of the Slavophile historians we should mention Constantine
Sergeevich Aksakov, 1817--1860). But their works were much more
philosophical or journalistic rather than historical, and
attitude to history is much more philosophical than scientific.
The strictly scientific integrity of historical views was first created by
us only in the 40s of the XIX century. The first bearers of new historical ideas
there were two young professors at Moscow University: Sergei Mikhailovich
Solovyov (1820-- 1879) and Konstantin Dmitrievich Kavelin (1818--1885). Their
views on Russian history at that time were called the “theory of tribal life”,
and subsequently they and other scientists of their direction became known as
the name of the historical and legal school. They were brought up under the influence
German historical school. At the beginning of the 19th century. historical science in Germany
made great progress. Figures of the so-called German historical school
contributed extremely fruitful guiding ideas and new ideas to the study of history
research methods. The main thought of German historians was the idea that
that the development of human communities is not the result of chance or a single
the will of individuals: the development of society occurs as organism development,
according to strict laws, which neither historical history can overthrow
an accident, nor a personality, no matter how brilliant she may be. The first step towards this
view was made at the end of the 18th century by Friedrich August Wolf in
work "Prologomena ad Homerum", in which he studied
origin and composition of the Greek epics "Odyssey" and "Iliad".
Giving in your
work, a rare example of historical criticism, he argued that Homer
the epic could not be the work of an individual, but was gradually
an organically created work of the poetic genius of an entire people.
After Wolf's work began to look for such organic development not only in monuments
poetic creativity
, but also in all spheres of public life, they were looking for
history and law. Signs of organic growth of ancient communities were observed
Niebuhr in Roman history, Karl Gottfried Miller in Greek. Organic
the development of legal consciousness was studied by historian-jurists Eichhorn (Deutsche
Staatsung Rechtsgeschichte, in five volumes, 1808) and Savigny (Geschichte
des ro mischen Rechts in Mittelalter, in six volumes, 1815-- 1831). These
works that bore the stamp of a new direction, by the half of the 19th century. created
in Germany a brilliant school of historians, which has not yet survived
full of your own ideas.
Our scientists of the historical and legal school grew up in its ideas and techniques.
Some learned them by reading, like, for example, Kavelin; others - directly by listening lectures, such as, for example, Soloviev, who was a student of Ranke. They have learned all content in German
historical direction
. Some of them
They were also interested in the German philosophy of Hegel. In Germany, accurate and strictly
the actual historical school did not always live in harmony with metaphysical
the teachings of Hegelianism; nevertheless, both historians and Hegel agreed on
basic view of history as the natural development of human
society Both historians and Hegel alike denied it was an accident, therefore
their views could coexist in one and the same person. These views were
first applied to Russian history by our scientists Solovyov and Kavelin,
who thought to show in it the organic development of those principles that were given
the original way of life of our tribe and which were rooted in the nature of our
people. They paid less attention to cultural and economic life than
on external forms of public unions, since they were convinced that the main thing
the content of Russian historical life was precisely the natural change of some community laws are different. They hoped to notice the order of this shift and in find our law
the treatises are somewhat one-sided historical and legal in nature.
Such
one-sidedness did not constitute the individuality of our scientists, but was introduced
them from their German mentors. German historiography considered the main
its task is to study legal forms in history; the root of this
view lies in the ideas of Kant, who understood history “as a path
humanity" to the creation of state forms. These were the grounds on
which built the first scientific and philosophical view of Russian
historical life. This was not a simple borrowing of other people's conclusions, there was no
only a mechanical application of other people's ideas to poorly understood material -
no, it was an independent scientific movement, in which the views and scientific
the techniques were identical to the German ones, but the conclusions were by no means predetermined and
depended on the material. It was scientific creativity moving in the direction
of his era, but independently. That is why every figure in this movement
retained his individuality and left behind valuable monographs, and all
historical-legal school created such a diagram of our historical
development, under the influence of which Russian historiography still lives. Based on the idea that distinctive features
history of every people
created by its nature and its original environment, they turned
attention to the original form of Russian social life, which, according to them
opinion, was determined by the beginning of tribal life. The entire Russian history was represented
they are like a consistent organically harmonious transition from blood
public unions, from tribal life to state life. Between
The era of blood alliances and the state lies in the intermediate period, in
in which there was a struggle between the beginning of the blood and the beginning of the state.
IN
In the first period, the personality was unconditionally subordinate to the clan, and its position
determined not by individual activity or ability, but by place in
kind; the blood principle dominated not only in the princely, but in all
In other respects, it determined the entire political life of Russia.
Russia in the first stage of its development was considered patrimonial property
princes; it was divided into volosts, according to the number of members of the princely
Houses. The order of ownership was determined by family accounts. Everyone's position
the prince was determined by his place in the clan. Violation of seniority gave rise to
The circumstances of the prince's life and activities changed. In the north-east
The princes of Rus' became the complete masters of the land, they themselves called upon the population, they themselves
built cities. Feeling like the creator of a new region, the prince presents
there are new requirements; due to the fact that he himself created it, he does not consider it
clan, but freely disposes of it and passes it on to his family. From here
the concept of family property arises, a concept that caused the final
the death of family life. Family, not clan, became the main principle; princes even
began to look at their distant relatives as strangers, enemies
your family. A new era is coming, when one principle has decayed, another
has not yet been created. Chaos ensues, the struggle of all against all. From this chaos
an accidentally strengthened family of Moscow princes grows up, who take their patrimony
placed above others in strength and wealth. In this fiefdom little by little
the beginning of a unified inheritance is being developed - the first sign of a new
state order, which is finally established by the reforms of Peter
Great.
This, in the most general terms, is S. M. Solovyov’s view of the course of our
history, a view developed by him in his two dissertations: 1) “On relations
Novgorod to the great princes" and 2) "The history of relations between the princes of Rurikov
at home." Solovyov's system was talentedly supported by K. D. Kavelin in
several of his historical articles (see volume 1 of "Collected Works of Kavelin"
ed. 1897). In only one essential detail Kavelin differed from
Solovyov: he thought that even without a random confluence of favorable
circumstances in the north of Rus', the princely family life had to decompose and
go to family, and then to state. Inevitable and consistent
the shift began in our history, he depicted it like this short formula: "Rod and
common ownership; family and fiefdom or separate property; face and
state".
The impetus given by the talented works of Solovyov and Kavelin to the Russian
historiography, was very great. A harmonious scientific system, given for the first time
our history, captivated many and caused a lively scientific movement. A lot of
monographs were written directly in the spirit of the historical and legal school. But a lot
objections, increasingly stronger as time passed, were raised against
the teachings of this new school. A series of heated scientific debates, in the end,
finally shattered the harmonious theoretical view of Solovyov and Kavelin
in the form in which it appeared in their first writings. First objection
against the school of tribal life belonged to the Slavophiles. Represented by K. S. Aksakov
(1817--1860) they turned to the study of historical facts (partly to them
Moscow professors joined [V. N.] Leshkov and [I. D.] Belyaev,
1810--1873); at the first stage of our history they saw not tribal life, but
communal and little by little created their own doctrine of community. It met
some support in the works of the Odessa professor [F. I.] Leontovich,
who tried to determine more precisely the primitive character of the ancient Slavic
communities; this community, in his opinion, is very similar to the one that still exists
Serbian "zadru", based partly on relatives, partly on
territorial relations. At the place of the genus precisely defined by the school
tribal life, the community became no less precisely defined, and thus
the first part of the general historical scheme of Solovyov and Kavelin has lost its
immutability. The second objection to this private scheme was made
scientists close in their general direction to Solovyov and Kavelin. Boris
Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828--1904), who was brought up in the same scientific
situation, like Solovyov and Kavelin, pushed the era beyond the boundaries of history
blood clan alliances in Rus'. On the first pages of our historical
existence, he already saw the decomposition of the ancient tribal principles. The first form of our
public, as history knows, in his opinion, was not built on
blood ties, but on the basis of civil law. In ancient Russian life
personality was not limited by anything, neither by blood union, nor by state
orders. All social relations were determined by civil transactions -
contracts. From this contractual order arose naturally
subsequently the state. Chicherin's theory, set out in his work "On
spiritual and contractual charters of the great and appanage princes", received further
neck development in the works of prof. V.I. Sergeevich and in this last form already
completely departed from the original scheme given by the school of tribal life. All
the history of Sergeevich’s social life is divided into two periods: the first - from
the predominance of private and personal will over the state principle, the second - with
the predominance of state interest over personal will.
If the first, Slavophile objection arose on the basis of considerations about
general cultural independence of the Slavs, if the second grew on the soil
studying legal institutions, then the third objection to the school of tribal life
Most likely done from a historical and economic point of view. The oldest
Kievan Rus is not a patriarchal country; her social relations
quite complex and built on a timocratic basis. It is dominated by
the aristocracy of capital, whose representatives sit in the princely Duma. That's how
Prof.'s view V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841--1911) in his works “Boyar Duma
ancient Rus'" and "Course of Russian history").
All these objections destroyed the harmonious system of clan life, but not
created any new historical scheme. Slavophilism remained
true to its metaphysical basis, and in later representatives it moved away from
historical research. The system of Chicherin and Sergeevich deliberately considers
itself a system of legal history only. And the point of view is historical and economic
has not yet been applied to explain the entire course of our history. Finally, in the works
We do not meet other historians with any successful attempt to give
foundations for an independent and integral historical worldview.
How does our historiography live now? Together with K. [S.] Aksakov we
we can say that we now have no “history”, that “we now have
historical research, no more." But, noting the absence of one
dominant doctrine in historiography, we do not deny the existence of
our modern historians have common views, novelty and fruitfulness
which determine the latest efforts of our historiography. These common
views arose in our country at the same time as they appeared in European
science; they touched and scientific methods, and historical ideas in general.
The desire that arose in the West to apply techniques to the study of history
natural sciences was reflected in the works of the famous [A. P.] Shchapova
(1831--1876). The comparative historical method developed by the English
scientists [(Freeman) et al.] and requiring that every historical phenomenon
studied in connection with similar phenomena of other peoples and eras, -
was also applied by many scientists (for example, V.I. Sergeevich). Development
ethnography gave rise to the desire to create historical ethnography and from the point of view
from an ethnographic point of view, to consider in general the phenomena of our ancient history
(Ya. I. Kostomarov, 1817 - 1885). Interest in the history of economic life,
growing up in the West, has affected us in many attempts to study
national economic life in different eras (V. O. Klyuchevsky and others).
So
so-called evolutionism also has its representatives in our country
modern university teachers.
our historiography. Revision of old questions that had already been developed gave new ones
conclusions that formed the basis of new and new research. Already in the 70s S.
M. Soloviev in his “Public Readings about Peter the Great” is clearer and
more convincingly expressed his old idea that Peter the Great was
traditional leader and was guided in his work as a reformer by the ideals
old Moscow people of the 17th century. and used the means that were
prepared before him. Almost under the influence of the works of Solovyov
active development of the history of Moscow Rus' began, showing now
that pre-Petrine Moscow was not an Asian inert state and indeed
was moving toward reform even before Peter, who himself adopted the idea of reform from the surrounding
his Moscow environment. Reconsidering the oldest question in Russian historiography
- Varangian question [in the works of V. Gr. Vasilievsky (1838-- 1899), A.A.
Kunika (1814-1899), S. A. Gedeonov and others] illuminates the beginning with new light
our history. New research on the history of Western Rus' has opened up
we have interesting and important data on the history and life of the Lithuanian-Russian
state [V. B. Antonovich (1834--1908), Dashkevich (b. 1852) and
other]. These examples do not, of course, exhaust the content of the latest
works on our subject; but these examples show that modern
historiography works on very large topics. Before attempts at history
synthesis, therefore, may not be far away.
In conclusion of the historiographical review, we should mention those works on
Russian historiography, which depict the gradual development and
the current state of our science and which should therefore serve
preferred guides for getting to know our historiography: 1) K.
N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin “Russian History” (2 volumes, summary of facts and
learned opinions with a very valuable introduction about sources and historiography);
2) K.
N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (Tatishchev, Shletser, Karamzin,
Pogodin, Soloviev, etc.). St. Petersburg, 1882; 3) S. M. Soloviev, articles on
historiography published by the Public Benefit Partnership in the book
"Collected works of S. M. Solovyov" St. Petersburg; 4) O. M. Koyalovich “History”
Russian self-awareness". St. Petersburg, 1884; 5) V. S. Ikonnikov "The experience of Russian
historiography" (volume one, book one and two). Kyiv, 1891;
6) P. N. Milyukov “The main currents of Russian historical thought” - in
"Russian Thought" for 1893 (and separately).
In the broad sense of the word, a historical source is any remainder
antiquity, will it be a structure, an object of art, a thing of everyday life?
everyday life, a printed book, a manuscript or, finally, an oral tradition. But in a narrow
sense, we call the source printed or written balance old times, otherwise
speaking, of the era that the historian studies. We are subject only to
remnants of the latter kind.
A review of sources can be carried out in two ways: firstly, it can
be a simple logical and systematic list of various types of historical
material, indicating its main publications; secondly, a review of sources
can be built historically and combine a list of material with
an overview of the movement of archaeographic works in our country. The second way to get acquainted with
sources are much more interesting for us, firstly, because here we
we can observe the emergence of archaeographic works in connection with how in
society developed an interest in handwritten antiquities, and, secondly, because
that here we will get acquainted with those figures who collected materials
for their native history they have made an eternal name for themselves in our science.
In the pre-Petrine era, the attitude towards manuscripts in the literate strata
The Moscow Society was the most attentive, because at that time the manuscript
replaced the book, was a source of knowledge and aesthetic pleasures and
constituted a valuable item of possession; manuscripts were constantly corresponded with
great care and were often sacrificed before death by the owners in
monasteries “to your liking”: the donor asks the monastery or church for his gift
eternal remembrance of his sinful soul. Legislative acts and everything in general
manuscripts of a legal nature, i.e. what we would call now
official and business papers were also jealously guarded. Printed
legal provisions, except for the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, then
existed, and this handwritten material was, as it were, a code of the current
law, by the leadership of the then administrators and judges. Legislation
It was written then, just as it is printed now. Moreover, on handwritten
charters, monasteries and individuals based their benefits and various types
rights. It is clear that all this written material was expensive in everyday life
life at that time and that it should have been valued and preserved.
In the 18th century under the influence of new cultural tastes, with the spread
printed books and printed statutes, the attitude towards old manuscripts is very
is changing: the decline in the sense of their value is noticeable in us throughout
XVIII century. In the 17th century the manuscript was highly valued by the cultural class of that time,
and now in the 18th century. this class gave way to new cultural layers, which
handwritten sources of antiquity were treated with contempt, as if they were old
worthless rubbish. The clergy also ceased to understand the historical and
spiritual value of their rich manuscript collections and related to them
carelessly. An abundance of manuscripts passed down from the 17th century. in the 18th century, contributed
because they were not valued. The manuscript was still, so to speak, an everyday thing, but
not historical and little by little from the cultural upper echelons of society, where before
rotated, passed into its lower layers, among other things, to the schismatics,
whom our archaeographer P. M. Stroev called “trustees of our manuscripts.”
The old archives and monastery book depositories, which contained a lot of
jewelry, remained without any attention, in complete disregard and
decline. Here are examples from the 19th century that show how ignorant
Handwritten antiquities were handled by their owners and curators. "In one monastery
piety, to which at the end of the 17th century. more than 15 others were attributed
monasteries,” wrote P. M. Stroev in 1823, “its old archive was placed in
tower, where the windows had no frames. The snow covered half a yard a pile of books and
columns piled up indiscriminately, and I rummaged through it as if in ruins
Herculana. This is six years old. Consequently, snow covered these six times
manuscripts and the same amount melted on them, now surely only one rusty one remained
dust..." The same Stroev reported to the Academy of Sciences in 1829 that the archive of the ancient
the city of Kevrol, after the abolition of the latter, was transferred to Pinega, “rotted there
in a dilapidated barn and, as I was told, the last remains of it not long before
now (i.e. before 1829) thrown into the water."
Famous lover and researcher of antiquities, Metropolitan Evgeniy of Kiev
(Bolkhovitinov, 1767--1837), being a bishop in Pskov, wished to inspect
rich Novgorod-Yuryev Monastery. "He made his arrival known in advance,
- writes the biographer of Metropolitan [opolitan] Evgenia Ivanovsky, - and this, of course,
forced the monastery authorities to fuss a little and bring some of
monastery premises in a more specious order. He could go to the monastery
one of two roads: either the upper, more passable, but boring, or the lower,
near Volkhov, less convenient, but more pleasant. He went bottom. Near
of the monastery itself, he met with a cart traveling to Volkhov, accompanied by
monk Wanting to know what the monk was bringing to the river, he asked. The monk replied that he
carries all sorts of rubbish and rubbish that cannot simply be thrown into a dung heap, but
must be thrown into the river. This aroused Eugene's curiosity. He came to
cart, ordered to lift the matting, saw torn books and handwritten sheets and
then he ordered the monk to return to the monastery. We found ourselves in this cart
precious remnants of writing even from the 11th century." (Ivanovsky "Metropolitan Eugene",
pp. 41--42).
This was our attitude towards ancient monuments even in the 19th century. In the XVIII
V. it was, of course, no better, although it should be noted that next to this
beginning already in the 18th century. are individuals who consciously relate to
old times. Peter I himself collected ancient coins, medals and other remains
antiquities, according to Western European custom, as unusual and curious
objects as a kind of “monsters”. But, collecting curious material
remnants of antiquity, Peter wanted at the same time to “know the Russian state
history" and believed that "it is necessary to work about this first, and not about the beginning of the world
and other states, a lot has been written about this." Since 1708, by order
Peter's work on the composition of Russian history (XVI and XVII centuries)
scientist of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy Fedor Polikarpov, but work
he was not satisfied with Petra, and remained unknown to us. Despite, however,
such a failure, Peter until the end of his reign did not abandon the thought of complete
Russian history and took care of collecting material for it; in 1720 he
ordered the governors to review all the wonderful historical documents
and chronicle books in all monasteries, dioceses and cathedrals, compile them
inventories and deliver these inventories to the Senate. And in 1722 the Synod was instructed on these
inventories to select all historical manuscripts from the dioceses to the Synod and make from them
lists. But the Synod failed to carry this out: the majority
diocesan authorities responded to requests from the Synod that they did not have such
manuscripts, and in total up to 40 manuscripts were sent to the Synod, as one can judge
according to some sources, and of these only 8 are actually historical, the rest
spiritual content. So Peter's desire to have a historical account of
Russia and to collect material for this crashed due to ignorance and negligence
contemporaries.
Historical science was born among us later than Peter, and scientific processing
historical material began with the appearance of German scientists among us;
Then, little by little, the significance of handwritten material for
our history. In this last respect, invaluable services to our science
provided by Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705-1785), already known to us. Conscientious
and a hardworking scientist, a careful critic-researcher and at the same time
a tireless collector of historical materials, Miller with his diverse
activity fully deserves the name “father of Russian historical science”,
what our historiographers give him. Our science still uses
the material he collected. In the so-called "portfolios" of Miller, stored in
Academy of Sciences and in the Moscow Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
contains more than 900 issues of various historical papers. These portfolios
and now they still constitute a whole treasure for the researcher, and new
historical works often draw their materials from them; So,
Until recently, the archaeographic commission filled it with material
some of their publications (Siberian affairs in additions to the "Acts
historical"). Miller collected written monuments not only in
European Russia, but also in Siberia, where he spent about 10 years (1733-- 1743).
These studies in Siberia yielded important results, because only here
Miller managed to find a lot of valuable documents about the Troubles, which were then
published in the Collection of State Charters and Treaties in Volume II. At
Empress Catherine II Miller was appointed head of the College Archive
Foreign Affairs and had instructions from the Empress to draw up a meeting
diplomatic documents following the example of the Amsterdam edition of Dumont (Corps
universel diplomatique du droit des Gens, 8 vols., 1726--1731). But Miller was
already too old for such a grandiose work and, as head of the archive, only had time
start analyzing and organizing archival material and preparing a whole school
his students, who after the death of the teacher continued to work in this archive
and fully deployed their forces later in the so-called “Rumyantsev era”.
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) acted next to Miller. He
intended to write the geography of Russia, but understood that geography without history
impossible and therefore decided to write a story first and turned to collecting and
studying handwritten material. While collecting materials, he found and was the first to appreciate
"Russian Truth" and "Tsar's Code of Law". These monuments, like “History” itself
Russian" by Tatishchev, were published after his death by Miller. In addition
actual historical works, Tatishchev compiled instructions for collecting
ethnographic, geographical and archaeological information about Russia. This
the instructions were adopted by the Academy of Sciences.
Since the time of Catherine II, the business of collecting and publishing historical
The material has developed greatly. Catherine herself found time to study Russian.
history, was keenly interested in Russian antiquity, encouraged and challenged
historical works. In this mood of the empress Russian society became
be more interested in your past and be more conscious of what remains
of this past. Under Catherine as a collector of historical material
acts, by the way, Count A. N. Musin-Pushkin, who found the “Tale of the Regiment”
Igor" and tried to collect everything from the monastery libraries to the capital
handwritten chronicles in the types of their best storage and publication. Under Catherine
numerous editions of chronicles begin at the Academy of Sciences and at the Synod,
publications, however, are still imperfect and not scientific. And in society it begins
the same movement in favor of the study of antiquity.
In this case, Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov takes first place
(1744--1818), better known to our society for publishing satirical
magazines, Freemasonry and concerns about the spread of education. According to their own
personal qualities and humane ideas, this is a rare person in his age, a bright
a phenomenon of its time. He is already known to us as a collector and publisher
"Ancient Russian Vivliofika" - an extensive collection of old acts of various
clan, chroniclers, ancient literary works and historical articles.
He began his publication in 1773 and in 3 years he published 10 parts. In the preface to
Vivliofike Novikov defines his publication as “an outline of morals and customs
ancestors" in order to recognize "the greatness of their spirit, adorned with simplicity." (It is necessary
note that the idealization of antiquity was already strong in the first satirical
Novikov's journal "Truten", 1769--1770) First edition of "Vivliofika"
now forgotten for the sake of the second, more complete, in 20 volumes (1788-1791).
Novikov in this publication was supported by Catherine II herself both with money and
by allowing him to study in the archives of the Foreign Collegium, where he
Old Miller helped very cordially. According to its content, "Ancient
Russian Vivliofika" was a random compilation of material that came to hand,
published almost without any criticism and without any scientific techniques, as we
we understand now.
In this regard, the “Acts of Peter the Great” of the Kursk merchant rank even lower
Iv. Iv. Golikov (1735-1801), who admired the deeds of Peter from childhood,
had the misfortune of being put on trial, but was released on a manifesto on the occasion
opening of the monument to Peter. On this occasion Golikov decided his whole life
devote to working on the biography of Peter. He collected all the news he could
could get, without analyzing their merits, letters from Peter, anecdotes about him, etc.
At the beginning of his collection he included a brief overview of the 16th and 17th centuries. To work
Golikova drew Ekaterina’s attention and opened the archives for him, but this work
deprived of any scientific significance, although due to the lack of better materials they
They still use it now. For its time it was a major archaeographic
fact (1st edition in 30 volumes, 1778-1798. 11th edition in 15 volumes, 1838).
In addition to the Academy and private individuals, she turned to ancient monuments
activities and "Volny" Russian Assembly", Scientific Society,
founded at Moscow University in 1771. This society was very
active in helping individual scientists, giving them access to archives, constructing
scientists ethnographic expeditions etc., but it itself produced a little
ancient monuments: in 10 years it published only 6 books of its “Proceedings”.
This, in the most general terms, is the activity of the second half of the past
century for collecting and publishing materials. This activity was different
random in nature, captured only that material that, if possible
so to speak, he went into his own hands: care for those monuments that were in
provinces did not appear. Miller's Siberian expedition and meeting
chronicles, according to Musin-Pushkin, were separate episodes
exceptional character, and the historical wealth of the province remained
so far without evaluation or attention. As for historical publications of the past
century, then they do not withstand even the most lenient criticism. Except
various technical details, we now demand from the learned publisher,
so that he reconsiders everything if possible famous lists published
monument, chose the oldest and best of them, i.e. with the correct text,
one of the best laid the basis for the publication and printed its text, leading to it
all variants of other serviceable lists, avoiding the slightest inaccuracies and
typos in the text. Publication must be preceded by historical verification
monument values; if the monument turns out to be a simple compilation, then it’s better
publish his sources rather than the compilation itself. But in the 18th century. looked at the matter
not this way; considered it possible to publish, for example, a chronicle based on one copy of it
with all the errors, so now, out of necessity, using some of the publications
for lack of better ones, the historian is constantly in danger of making a mistake,
inaccuracy, etc. Only Schletser theoretically established the methods of the scientist
critics, yes Miller in the publication of the "Degree Book" (1775) observed some
from the basic rules of the scientific publication. In the preface to this chronicle he says
about his publishing methods: they are scientific, although not yet developed; but in
He cannot be blamed for this; the complete development of critical techniques came from
us only in the 19th century, and it was Miller’s students who contributed most to it.
Growing old, Miller asked Empress Catherine to appoint after his death
the head of the Archive of the Foreign Collegium of one of his students. Request
he was respected, and after Miller the Archives were managed by his students: first I.
Stritter, then N.N. Bantysh-Kamensky (1739--1814). This last one
compiling a description of the affairs of his archive, on the basis of these cases he worked and
studies, which, unfortunately, are not all published. They are very
helped Karamzin a lot in compiling the “History of the Russian State”.
When, in the first years of the 19th century, the archive of the Foreign Collegium entered
main jurisdiction of Count Nikolai Petrovich Rumyantsev (1754--1826), in the archives
a whole family of archaeographers had already been raised, and they were ready for Rumyantsev
worthy helpers. The name of Rumyantsev signifies an entire era in the course of our
national self-knowledge, and rightly so. Count N.P. Rumyantsev appeared at that very
the time when Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” was being prepared,
when the realization was ripe that it was necessary to collect and save the remains of the old
people's life, when, finally, figures in this area appeared with scientific
techniques. Count Rumyantsev became an exponent of a conscious attitude towards antiquity
and, thanks to his position and means, became the center of a new
historical and archaeological movement, such a venerable philanthropist, before the memory
whom we and all future generations must bow to.
Rumyantsev was born in 1754; his father was the famous count
Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky. Nikolai Petrovich began his service among the Russians
diplomats of the Catherine century and served as envoy extraordinary for more than 15 years
and Minister Plenipotentiary in Frankfurt am Main. When imp. Paul I though
Rumyantsev was in the favor of the emperor, but did not hold any positions and
remained out of work.
Under Alexander I he was given the portfolio of Minister of Commerce, and then in
1809 entrusted with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, retaining the post of minister
commerce. Over time, he was elevated to the rank of State
Chancellor and appointed Chairman State Council. During
management of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Archives was influenced by love
Rumyantsev returned to antiquity, although apparently there was no basis for it. Already in
1810 Count Nikolai Petrovich invites Bantysh-Kamensky to draw up a plan
publication of the Collection of state charters and agreements. This plan was coming soon
ready, etc. Rumyantsev petitioned the Sovereign for the establishment, under
Archive of the Foreign Collegium, Commission for Printing "State
letters and contracts." He took all costs of publication at his own expense, but with
condition that the commission will remain under his jurisdiction even when he leaves
management of the department of foreign affairs. His wish was fulfilled, and on May 3
In 1811 the commission was established. The twelfth year delayed the release of the 1st
volumes, but Bantysh-Kamensky managed to save the printed sheets along with the archive
this first volume, and the first volume was published by 1813 under the title "Collection
State Charters and Agreements stored in the State Collegium
Foreign Affairs". On the title page there was the coat of arms of Rumyantsev, as well as on
all its other publications. In the introduction to the first volume, its editor-in-chief
Bantysh-Kamensky explained the needs that caused the publication and the goals that
it pursued: “Experts of Russian antiquities and those who wanted to acquire
knowledge in domestic diplomacy could not be content with faulty
and contradictory passages of letters placed in Ancient Vivliofika, for
a complete collection of fundamental decrees and treaties was needed, which would
explained the gradual rise of Russia. Without this guide, they
were forced to inquire about the events and alliances of their state from
foreign writers and their works to be guided" (SGG and D, vol. 1,
page II). These words are true, because the publication of gr. Rumyantsev was
the first systematic body of documents, with which no one could compete
one previous edition, The released (first) volume collected
remarkable letters of the time 1229-1613. With their appearance, it was included in
scientific circulation is a mass of valuable material. published conscientiously and luxuriously.
The second volume of the Rumyantsev collection was published in 1819 and contains
charters until the 16th century and documents from the time of troubles. Bantysh-Kamensky died before
the release of the 2nd volume (1814), and Malinovsky worked on the publication instead.
The third volume was published under his editorship in 1822, and in 1828, when Rumyantseva
was no longer alive, and the fourth. Both of these volumes contain documents
XVII century In the preface to the 2nd volume, Malinovsky announced that the publication of charters
comes under the jurisdiction of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and depends on its orders;
however, to this day the matter has not gone further than the beginning of the fifth volume, which from
recently goes on sale and contains diplomatic
paper. If Rumyantsev’s activities were limited only to this publication (at
which he spent up to 40,000 rubles), then even then his memory would live forever in
our science - such is the significance of this collection of documents. How
historical phenomenon, this is the first scientific collection of acts, which marked
the beginning of our scientific attitude towards antiquity, and as a historical source, this
and is still one of the most important bodies of material that is important for
main issues of the general history of our state.
Striving so diligently to bring to light archival material, Count
Rumyantsev was not a simple amateur, but had great erudition in Russian
antiquities and never ceased to regret that his tastes for
antiquity, although their late appearance did not prevent him from spending a lot of labor and
material donations to find and save monuments. The total amount of it
costs for scientific purposes reached 300,000 rubles. silver More than once he
sent his own account to scientific expeditions, made excursions to
in the vicinity of Moscow, carefully searching for all kinds of remnants of antiquity, and
paid generously for every find. From his correspondence it is clear, by the way, that
With one manuscript he released an entire peasant family. High
Rumyantsev's official position made it easier for him to do what he loved and helped him conduct
him on the widest scale: for example, he addressed many governors and
bishops, asking for their instructions about local antiquities, and sent them to
guide your programs for collecting antiquities. Moreover, he
led research in foreign book depositories on Russian history
and, in addition to Russian monuments, wanted to undertake an extensive publication of foreign
writers about Russia: he noted up to 70 foreign legends about Russia,
A plan for publication was drawn up, but unfortunately this did not take place. But not
One matter of collecting monuments interested the chancellor; he often provided
support and researchers of antiquity, encouraging their work, and often he himself called
young forces for research, asking them scientific questions and providing
material support. Before his death, Count Rumyantsev bequeathed for the general
use by compatriots of their rich collection of books, manuscripts and other
antiquities. Emperor Nicholas I opened this meeting to the public, under
the name of the "Rumyantsev Museum", originally in St. Petersburg;
but at
Emperor Alexander II, the museum was transferred to Moscow, where it was connected with
called the public museum in the famous Pashkov House. These museums...
precious repositories of our ancient writing. Was so wide
the activities of Count Rumyantsev in the field of our historical science. Her incentives consisted of high education
this man and in his patriotic
direction. He had a lot of intelligence and material means to achieve it
scientific purposes, but it must be admitted that he would not have done much of what
did if he had not had wonderful assistants behind him
people of that time. His assistants were figures from the Archive of the College of Foreign
business The heads of the Archive under Rumyantsev were N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky
(1739--1814) and L.F. Malinovsky, whose advice and works N. used.
M. Karamzin and who did a lot to improve their Archive.
And of the young scientists who began their activities in this Archive under Rumyantsev,
Let us mention only the most prominent: Konstantin Fedorovich Kalaidovich and Pavel
Mikhailovich Stroev. Both of them did a remarkable amount in terms of numbers and
the significance of their works, working on the scientific publication of monuments. collecting and
describing the manuscripts fully armed with excellent critical techniques.
Kalajdovich's biography is little known. He was born in 1792, lived a short time
- only 40 years old and ended with insanity and almost poverty. In 1829
Pogodin wrote to Stroev about him: “Kalaidovich’s madness passed, but remained
such weakness, such hypochondria, that one cannot look at him without grief.
He is in need..." In his activities, Kalaidovich almost entirely belonged to
Rumyantsev circle and was Rumyantsev’s favorite employee. He participated in
publication of the "Collection of State Charters and Treaties"; together with Stroev
made a trip to the Moscow and Kaluga provinces in 1817 for
searching for old manuscripts. This was the first scientific expedition in
province with the exclusive purpose of paleography. It was created by
starting gr. Rumyantsev and was crowned with great success. Stroev and Kalaidovich found
Illustration of Svyatoslav 1073, Illarionov's Praise to Kogan Vladimir and between
other things in the Volokolamsk Monastery Code of Laws of Ivan ///. This was then complete
new: No one in the Russian edition knew the Princely Code of Law, and Karamzin
used it in Herberstein's Latin translation. The Count welcomed the finds
Stroev and Kalaidovich in 1819 (“Laws of Grand Duke John Vasilyevich
and his grandson Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich." Moscow 1819, second edition, Moscow
1878). - In addition to his publishing works and paleographic research,
Kalaidovich is also known for his philological research (“John, Exarch
Bulgarian"). Early death and sad life did not give this talent
opportunities to fully deploy their rich forces.
P. M. Stroev was in close contact with Kalaidovich in his youth.
Stroev, coming from a poor noble family, was born in Moscow in 1796.
In 1812 he was supposed to enter the university, but military events,
who interrupted the course of university teaching, prevented this, so that only
in August 1813 he became a student. The most remarkable of his teachers are here
were R. F. Timkovsky (d. 1820), professor of Roman literature,
famous for the publication of Nestor’s chronicle (published in 1824, for its publication he
applied methods of publishing ancient classics) and M. T. Kachenovsky (d. 1842)
- founder of the so-called skeptical school. Immediately upon admission to
university, i.e. 17 years old, Stroev has already compiled a short Russian History,
which was published in 1814, became a generally accepted textbook and five years later
demanded a new edition. In 1815, Stroev appeared with his own
own magazine "Modern Observer of Russian Literature",
which he thought of making a weekly and which was published only from March to
July. At the end of the same 1815, Pavel Mikhailovich left the university, not
Having completed the course, he entered the Printing Commission at the suggestion of Rumyantsev
State Charters and Agreements. Rumyantsev valued him highly and, as we shall see,
was right. In addition to successful cabinet works, Stroyev from 1817 to 1820
funds Rumyantseva tours the Moscow book depository together with Kalaidovich
and Kaluga dioceses. We already know what important monuments there were then
found. In addition to the finds, up to 2000 manuscripts were described, and Stroev in these
during his travels he acquired a great knowledge of handwritten material, of which he
helped Karamzin. And after his expeditions, until the end of 1822, Stroev
continues to work under Rumyantsev. In 1828 Stroev was elected
full member of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at
Moscow University (this Society was founded in 1804 to publish
ancient chronicles). At the meeting of the Society on July 14, 1823, Stroev spoke with
a grandiose project. He made a brilliant speech about his choice,
whom he thanked for his election, indicated that the goal of the Society was to publish
chronicles is too narrow, and proposed to replace it with the analysis and publication of all
generally historical monuments, which the Society will have the opportunity to
place:
“Society must,” said Stroev, “extract, make known
and, if not process it yourself, then provide others with the means to process everything
written monuments of our history and ancient literature..." "Let the whole
Russia, he said, will turn into one library accessible to us.
Not
We must limit our studies to hundreds of famous manuscripts, but
countless numbers of them in monasteries and cathedral repositories, no one
stored and not described by anyone, in archives that mercilessly devastate time and
careless ignorance, in storerooms and basements, not accessible to the rays of the sun, where
piles of ancient books and scrolls seem to have been torn down so that the gnawing
animals, worms, rust and aphids could destroy them more conveniently and quickly!..” Stroev,
in a word, he proposed to the Society to bring into existence all written antiquities,
what provincial libraries had, and proposed to achieve this
the goal was to send a scientific expedition to describe the provincial book depositories.
The test trip of this expedition was to be carried out according to the project
Stroev in Novgorod, where it was necessary to dismantle the one located in the St. Sophia Cathedral
library. Next, the expedition had to make its first or northern
trip, the area of which included, according to Stroev’s plan, 10 provinces (Novgorod,
Petersburg, Olonets, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Vyatka, Perm,
Kostroma, Yaroslavl and Tverskaya). This trip was supposed to take two seconds.
more than a year and give, as Stroev hoped, brilliant results, “rich
harvest" because in the north there are many monasteries with libraries; they lived there
There are Old Believers who are very attentive to handwritten
antiquity; and then, in the north there were least of all enemy pogroms.
The second or middle trip, according to Stroev’s project, was supposed to take two years
time and cover central Russia (provinces: Moscow,
Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Tambov, Tula, Kaluga, Smolensk and
Pskovskaya). The third or western trip was to head to
southwestern Russia (9 provinces: Vitebsk, Mogilev, Minsk, Volyn,
Kyiv, Kharkov, Chernigov, Kursk and Oryol) and would demand
descriptions of all historical material in the province, mainly in
spiritual libraries. He determined the costs in the amount of 7,000 rubles. in year. All
he intended to merge the descriptions compiled by the expedition into one common painting
chronicle and historical-legal material and suggested that the Society publish
Then historical monuments according to the best editions described by the expedition, and
not according to random lists, as was done before that time. Drawing like this
attractive prospects, Stroev skillfully proved the possibility of execution
his project and insisted on its adoption. He ended his speech with praise
Rumyantsev, thanks to whom he could acquire skill and experience in
archaeographical work. Of course, the Rumyantsev expedition of 1817-1820.
made Stroev dream about the grandiose expedition that he
offered.
Society, for the most part, accepted Stroev’s speech as a bold dream
young mind and gave Stroev the means to view only Novgorod
Sofia Library, which was described by him. Stroev’s speech wasn’t even
published in the Society's journal, and appeared in the Northern Archive.
They read it and
forgot. Stroev himself was studying the history of the Don Cossacks at that time and
compiled his famous "Key to the History of the Russian State" by Karamzin,
wrote in magazines, became a librarian to Count F.A. Tolstoy, together with
Kalajdovich compiled and published a catalog of a rich collection of manuscripts
Count F.A. Tolstoy, now located in the Imperial Public Library.
Stroev's works were noticed by the Academy of Sciences, and in 1826 it gave him the title
his correspondent. Among his latest works, Stroev seemed to have forgotten about
of his speech: in reality it turned out not to be so. According to legend, the Grand Duchess
Maria Pavlovna reacted with great sympathy to Stroev’s speech, which
read it in the Northern Archive, and this participation, as they say, prompted Stroev
write a letter to the President of the Academy of Sciences, Count S.S. Uvarov. In that
in the letter he develops the same plans that he developed in the Society, he proposes
himself as an experienced archaeographer for archaeographic trips and reports
a detailed plan for the practical implementation of his proposed case. Uvarov
passed Stroev’s letter to the Academy, and the Academy passed it on to its member of the Circle
commissioned its analysis and evaluation. May 21, 1828 thanks to excellent feedback
Circle, an important matter has been decided. The Academy, recognizing that archaeographic
The Empire cannot evade without being justly reproached for
indifference,” decided to send Stroev on a trip, allocating 10 thousand rubles.
banknotes. An archaeographic expedition was thus established.
The choice of assistants for the archaeographic expedition was left to you
Stroev. He selected two officials from the Foreign Office Archive and
entered into a very interesting condition with them, where, among other things, he wrote
the following: “The expedition does not await various fun, but labor, difficulties and
deprivations of all kinds. Therefore, my companions must be inspired by patience and
readiness to endure everything difficult and unpleasant, so that they do not take possession of them
cowardice, indecisiveness, murmuring! "... Next he warns his
assistants that they will often have to have a bad apartment, a cart, instead
spring carriage, not always tea, etc. Stroev, obviously, knew in what
environment he would work, and consciously walked towards hardships. First
His companions, having experienced the difficulties of the matter, abandoned him six months later.
Having prepared everything for the trip, stocking up on official papers, which
should have given him access to all archives, Stroev left from
Moscow to the shores of the White Sea. It would take too long to explain the most interesting
details of this expedition. Deprivations, difficulties of communications and work itself,
murderous hygienic living and working conditions, illness, sometimes
ill will and suspicion of ignorant archive keepers and
libraries - Stroev endured all this stoically. He devoted himself entirely to his work,
often surprisingly difficult and dry, and only occasionally, taking advantage of vacations for
rest for a month, returned to his family. The comforting thing is that
in these works he found himself a worthy assistant in the person of Yak. Iv. Berednikova
(1793-1854), with whom he replaced the previous officials in 1830. Energy
These two workers achieved wonderful results;
They worked for five and a half years, traveling throughout the northern and central
Russia, more than 200 libraries and archives were examined, up to 3000 were written off
historical and legal documents dating back to the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries,
examined a lot of monuments of annalistic and literary nature.
The material they collected, having been rewritten, took up 10 huge volumes, and
their draft portfolios were left with a mass of certificates, extracts and instructions that
allowed Stroev to compose two remarkable works that appeared in print
after his death. (This is the "Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries
Russian Church", everyone whom history remembers, and "Bibliological
dictionary or alphabetical list of all historical and literary manuscripts
contents" that only Stroev had seen in his lifetime.)
The whole of educated Russia followed Stroev’s journey. Scientists
turned to him, asking for extracts, instructions and certificates. Speransky, cooking
then the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire” was published, addressed to
Stroev for help in collecting decrees. Every year, December 29, the day of the year
meetings of the Academy of Sciences, by the way, reports were read about the actions
archaeographic expedition. Information about her was published in magazines. Emperor
Nikolai read from blackboard to blackboard large volumes of completely copied
acts collected by the expedition.
At the end of 1834, Stroev was close to finishing his work. Northern and
His middle trip was over. The smallest one remained - the western one,
those. Little Russia, Volyn, Lithuania and Belarus. In its report to the Academy for 1834
Mr. Stroev triumphantly announced this and, listing the results
archaeographic expedition for the entire period of its existence, said: “From
the discretion of the Imperial Academy of Sciences depends: a) to continue
archaeographic expedition in other areas of the Empire in order to confirm
decisively: there is no more than this, i.e. no unknown material, or b) start
printing of historical and legal acts, almost prepared, and collection
various writings (i.e. chronicles) according to my instructions..." This report by Stroev
read at the solemn meeting of the Academy on December 29, 1834, and almost on that
the same day Stroev learned that by the will of the authorities (not the Academy) the archaeographic
the expedition ceased to exist, so that for the analysis and publication of the extracted
Construction acts established under the Ministry of Public Education
Archaeographic Commission. Stroev was appointed as a simple member of this commission
along with his former assistant Berednikov and two more persons, to
expeditions not at all involved [* It was hard for Stroev to see the expensive business in
at someone else's disposal; so he soon leaves the commission and settles in
Moscow, but involuntarily maintains lively relations with the members of the commission. On the first
at times the commission depended a lot on him in its scientific activities; for her
he continues to work until the end of his life, developing Moscow archives.
Here, under his leadership, the well-known I. E. Zabelin began his work
and N.V. Kyalachev. At the same time, Stroev continued to work for the Society
history and antiquities, describing, among other things, the library of the Society. Died
he January 5, 1876, aged eighty years.]. Establishment of a commission, soon
turned into a constant (it still exists), a new one begins
era in the publication of monuments of our antiquity.
The Archaeographic Commission, which was established first with a temporary
the purpose of publishing the acts found by Stroev became in 1837, as we mentioned,
a permanent commission for the analysis and publication of historical material in general.
Its activities have been expressed throughout its existence by numerous
publications, of which it is necessary to indicate the most important ones. In 1836 she published
his first four volumes under the titles: “Acts collected in libraries
and archives Russian Empire Archaeographic Expedition of the Imperial
Academy of Sciences." (In common parlance, this publication is called "Acts
Expeditions", and in scientific references it is indicated by the letters AE.) In 1838 they appeared
"Legal acts or a collection of forms of ancient paperwork" (one volume).
This publication contains acts of private life up to the 18th century. In 1841 and 1842
five volumes of "Acts of Historical Collection and Published by the Archaeographical
commission" (volume I [contains] acts up to the 17th century, from volumes II to V - acts of the 17th century
V.). Then “Additions to historical acts” began to be published (total XII
volumes containing documents of the XII-XVII centuries). Since 1846, the commission began to
systematic publication " of the Full Assembly Russian Chronicles". Pretty soon
She managed to release eight volumes (Volume I - Laurentian Chronicle. II -
Ipatiev Chronicle. III and IV -- Novgorod Chronicle, end of IV and V --
Pskovskaya, VI - Sofia Temporary, VII and VIII - Resurrection Chronicle).
Then publication slowed down somewhat, and only many years later volumes were published
IX--XIV (containing the text of the Nikon Chronicle), and then volume XV
(concluding the Tver Chronicle), Volume XVI (Chronicle of Abramka), XVII
(Western Russian Chronicles), XIX (Degree Book), XXII (Russian Chronograph),
XXIII (Ermolin Chronicle), etc.
All this material, enormous in number and importance of documents, brought to life
our science. Many monographs were based almost exclusively on it
(for example, the excellent works of Solovyov and Chicherin), questions were clarified
ancient social life, it became possible to develop many details
ancient life.
After its first monumental works, the commission continued to actively
work. Until now, it has published more than forty publications. The highest value
in addition to those already mentioned, they have: 1) “Acts relating to the history of Western Russia”
(5 volumes), 2) “Acts relating to the history of Western and Southern Russia” (15
volumes), 3) "Acts related to legal life ancient Russia"(3 volumes),
4) "Russian Historical Library" (28 volumes), 5) "Great Menaion of Chetya
Metropolitan Macarius" (up to 20 issues), 6) "Scribe books" Novgorod and
Izhora XVII century, 7) “Acts in foreign languages relating to Russia” (3
volumes with addition), 8) "Tales of foreign writers about Russia" (Rerum
Rossicarum scriptores exteri) 2 volumes, etc.
Following the model of the Imperial Archaeographic Commission, the same
commissions in Kyiv and Vilna - just in those places where I did not have time to visit
Stroev. They are engaged in publications and research of local material and
have already done a lot. Business is going especially well in Kyiv,
In addition to the publications of archaeographic commissions, we also have a whole
a number of government publications. Second Division of His Majesty's Stationery
was not limited to the publication of the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire”
(Laws from 1649 to the present), it also published “Monuments
diplomatic relations of the Moscow state with Europe" (10 volumes),
"Palace ranks" (5 volumes) and "Books ranks" (2 volumes). Near
government and private activities for the publication of ancient
monuments. Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, which
the times of Stroev barely eked out its existence, came to life and constantly declares
about yourself with new publications. After the "Readings at the Moscow Society of History and
Antiquities", edited by O. M. Bodyansky, it was published under the editorship of I. D.
Belyaev: "Vremennik of the Imperial Moscow Society of History and
Antiquities" (25 books containing rich material, research and a whole range of
documents). In 1858, Bodyansky was again elected secretary of the Society,
which continued to publish "Readings" instead of Belyaev's "Vremennik".
After Bodyansky, A.N. Popov was elected secretary in 1871, and after his death
him in 1881 by E.V. Barsov, during which the same “Readings” continue.
Archaeological societies have also published and are publishing their works: St. Petersburg,
called "Russian" (founded in 1846), and Moscow (founded in 1864
G.). Was and is engaged in archeology and history Geographical Society
(in St. Petersburg since 1846). Of his publications, we are especially interested in
"Scribe books" (2 volumes edited by N.V. Kalachev). Operating since 1866
(mainly over the history of the 18th century) Imperial Russian Historical
A society that has already managed to publish up to 150 volumes of its “Collection”.
Scientists
Historical Societies are beginning to be founded in the provinces, for example:
Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, provincial scientific archival commissions.
The activities of individuals are also evident: private collections of Mukhanov, book.
Obolensky, Fedotov-Chekhovsky, N.P. Likhachev and others include
very valuable materials. Since the 30s and 40s, our magazines begin
materials for history are printed, there are even magazines specifically
dedicated to Russian history, for example:
Russian Archive, Russian Antiquity, etc.
Let us move on to the characteristics of certain types of historical material and
First of all, let us dwell on chronicle-type sources, and in particular on
chronicle, since we are mainly indebted to it for our acquaintance with the most ancient
history of Rus'. But in order to study chronicle literature, it is necessary
know the terms used in it. In science, a “chronicle” is the weather record.
a story about events, sometimes brief, sometimes more detailed, always with
exact indication of years. Our chronicles have been preserved in huge quantities.
copies or lists of the XIV--XVIII centuries. By place and time of compilation and by
According to the content of the chronicle, they are divided into categories (there are Novgorod, Suzdal,
Kyiv, Moscow). Lists of chronicles of the same category differ from each other
not only in words and expressions, but even in the very choice of news, and often
in one of the lists of a known category there is an event that is not in the other;
As a result, the lists are divided into editions or editions. Differences in the lists
of the same category and led our historians to the idea that our chronicles are
collections and that their original sources have not reached us in their pure form.
This idea was first expressed by P. M. Stroev back in the 20s in his
preface to the Sofia Vremennik. Further acquaintance with the chronicles
led finally to the conviction that the chronicles that we know
represent collections of news and legends, compilations of several works.
AND
Now the prevailing opinion in science is that even the most ancient chronicles are
compilation codes. Thus, the chronicle of Nestor is a collection of the 12th century, Suzdal
Chronicle - vault of the 14th century, Moscow - vaults of the 16th and 17th centuries. etc.
Let's start our acquaintance with chronicle literature with the so-called chronicle
Nestor, which begins with a story about the settlement of tribes after the flood, and
there is a Russian land that went to Kyiv, who were the first principalities, and where did the Russian
the earth began to eat." Thus, from the title we see that the author promises
to say only the following: who first began to reign in Kyiv and where he came from
Russian land. The very history of this land is not promised and yet it is being carried out
until 1110. After this year we read the following postscript in the chronicle:
Hegumen Selivester of St. Michael, having written books and chronicler, hoping
accept mercy from God, under Prince Volodymyr, reigning for him in Kyiv, but for me
I became abbot at St. Michael's in 6624, the 9th year of indictment (i.e. in 1116).
So
In one way it turns out that the author of the chronicle was Sylvester, but according to others
it is not Sylvester, abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery, who wrote the chronicle,
known as "The Tale of Bygone Years", and the monk of Pechersk
Nestor Monastery; Tatishchev also attributed it to Nestor. In the ancient "Paterikon"
Pechersky" we read the story that Nestor came to the monastery, to
Theodosius, 17 years old, was tonsured by him, wrote a chronicle and died in the monastery.
IN
chronicles under 1051, in the story about Theodosius, the chronicler says about himself: “To
He (Theodosius) came to me thin and accepted me when I was seventeen years old.”
Further, under 1074, the chronicler conveys a story about the great ascetics
Pechersky and about their exploits says that he heard a lot from the monks,
and the other “and the witness was.” Under 1091, the chronicler on his own behalf
talks about how, in his presence and even with his participation, the Pechersk brethren
transferred the relics of St. to a new place. Feodosia; in this story the chronicler
calls himself a “slave and disciple” of Theodosius. Under 1093 follows a story about
the Polovtsian attack on Kyiv and their capture of the Pechersky Monastery, story
written entirely in the 1st person; then under 1110 we find the above
Sylvester's note from the hegumen not of the Pechersk, but of the Vydubitsky monastery.
On the basis that the author of the chronicle speaks of himself as a Pechersk
monk, and due to the fact that the news, extraneous chronicles, are called in
Pechersk Monastery by the chronicler of monk Nestor, Tatishchev so confidently
attributed the chronicle before 1110 to Nestor, but only considered Sylvester
her copyist. Tatishchev’s opinion met with support in Karamzin, but with that
the only difference is that the first thought that Nestor brought the chronicle only to 1093
g., and the second - until 1110. Thus, the opinion has been fully established that the chronicle belonged to the pen of one person from the Pechersk brethren, who compiled it,
discovered the Greek chronicle of George Mnich (Amartola), which in some places turned out to be
literally similar to the introduction to the chronicle of Nestor. This fact illuminated this
question from a completely new angle, there was an opportunity to point out and study
chronicle sources. Stroev was the first to hint that the chronicle is nothing more than
as a collection of various historical and literary materials. Its author really
compiled both Greek chronicles and Russian material: brief monastic records,
folk legends, etc. The idea that the chronicle is a compilation collection,
should have prompted new research. Many historians have begun research
reliability and composition of the chronicle. He devoted his scientific articles to this issue.
and Kachenovsky. He came to the conclusion that the original chronicle
was not compiled by Nestor and is generally unknown to us. The chronicles known to us, according to
according to Kachenovsky, are “collections of the 13th or even 14th centuries, of which
sources are mostly unknown to us." Nestor, by his education,
living in an era of general rudeness, I could not create anything similar to what has come down to
us an extensive chronicle; he could only own those inserted into
chronicle "monastery notes", in which he, as an eyewitness, talks about
life of his monastery in the 11th century. and talks about himself. Kachenovsky's opinion
caused serious objections from Pogodin. (See "Research"
remarks and lectures" Pogodin, vol. I, M. 1846.) Pogodin claims that if
we do not doubt the reliability of the chronicle starting from the 14th century, we do not have
there are grounds to doubt the testimony of the chronicle about the first centuries. Coming from
reliability of the later story of the chronicle, Pogodin rises increasingly
and great antiquity and proves that even in the most ancient centuries the chronicle
absolutely correctly depicts events and states of citizenship.
Skeptical views on the chronicle of Kachenovsky and his students caused
defense of the chronicle book by Butkov ("Defense of the Russian Chronicle", M. 1840) and articles
Kubarev ("Nestor" and about the "Paterikon of Pechersk"). Through the labors of these three individuals,
Pogodin, Butkov and Kuba-reva, the idea was established in the 40s that exactly
Nestor, who lived in the 11th century, owns the oldest chronicle. But in the 50s
Over the years, this belief began to waver. Works of P. S. Kazansky (articles in
Vremennik of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities), Sreznevsky ("Readings
about ancient Russian chronicles"), Sukhomlinov ("About the ancient Russian chronicle, how
literary monument"), Bestuzhev-Ryumina ("On the composition of ancient Russian
chronicles up to XIV"), A. A. Shakhmatov (articles in scientific journals and a huge
in terms of volume and very important in terms of scientific significance, the study “Search for
the most ancient Russian chronicle collections", published in 1908) question about the chronicle
was posed differently: new ones were involved in its study
historical and literary materials (undoubtedly belonging to Nestor’s life and
etc.) and new techniques are added. Compilative, consolidated nature of the chronicle
was completely established, the sources of the code were indicated very definitely;
A comparison of Nestor's works with the chronicle revealed contradictions.
The question of Sylvester's role as a chronicle collector became more serious and
more difficult than it was before. Currently, the original chronicle of scientists
imagine as a collection of several literary works,
compiled by different people, at different times, from a variety of sources.
These individual works at the beginning of the 12th century. have been combined into one more than once
literary monument, by the way, by the same Sylvester who signed
own name. A careful study of the original chronicle made it possible to outline
it contains many components, or more precisely, independent
literary works. Of these, the most noticeable and important: firstly,
"The Tale of Bygone Years" itself is a story about the settlement of tribes after
the flood, about the origin and settlement of Slavic tribes, about the division of the Slavs
Russians into tribes, about the original life of the Russian Slavs and about the settlement on
Rus' of the Varangian princes (only to this first part of the chronicle and can
refer to the title of the code given above: “Behold the tales of bygone years and
etc."); secondly, an extensive story about the baptism of Rus', compiled
by an unknown author, probably at the beginning of the 11th century, and thirdly, a chronicle about
events of the 11th century, which is most appropriately called the Kyiv initial
chronicle. As part of these three works that formed the corpus, and especially in
composition of the first and third of them, one can notice traces of other, smaller
literary works, “individual tales”, and thus it is possible
to say that our ancient chronicle is a compilation made up of
compilations, its internal composition is so complex.
Getting acquainted with the news of the Laurentian list, the oldest of those
which contain this name. Nesterov's Chronicle (it was written by a monk
Lawrence in Suzdal in 1377), we notice that for 1110, according to the chronicle
initial, the Laurentian list contains news, mainly
related to northeastern Suzdal Rus'; so that's what we're dealing with here
with a local chronicle. Ipatiev list (XIV-XV centuries) after the original
the chronicle gives us a very detailed account of the events of Kyiv, and then
the chronicle focuses on events in Galich and Volyn land;
and here, therefore, we are dealing with local chronicles. These local
A lot of regional chronicles have reached us. The most prominent place between them
occupied by the Novgorod chronicles (there are several editions of them and some are very valuable) and
Pskovskys, bringing their story to the 16th, even 17th centuries. Considerable importance
There are also Lithuanian chronicles, which have survived in different editions and cover history
Lithuania and Rus' united with it in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Since the 15th century are attempts to collect historical material into one whole,
scattered throughout these local annals. Since these attempts were made in
era of the Moscow State and often through official government means,
then they are known under the name of Moscow vaults or Moscow chronicles, therefore
Moreover, they provide abundant material specifically for Moscow history. Of these
attempts earlier - Sofia Vremnik (two editions), which
connects the news of the Novgorod chronicles with the news of Kyiv, Suzdal
and other local chronicles, supplementing this material with individual legends
historical nature. The Sofia vremennik dates back to the 15th century. And
represents a purely external connection of several chronicles, a connection
under a certain year all data relating to the latest without any of them
processing. The same nature of simple connection of material from all
available to the compiler of chronicles is the Resurrection Chronicle, which arose in
beginning of the 16th century The Voskresensky vault has preserved to us in its pure form a mass of valuable
news on the history of the appanage and Moscow eras, which is why it can be called
the richest and most reliable source for the study of the XIV-XV centuries. Different character
have a Degree Book (compiled by persons close to Metropolitan Macarius,
XVI century) and the Nikon Chronicle with the New Chronicler (XVI-XVII centuries). Taking advantage
with the same material as the previously named vaults, these monuments give us this
material in processed form, with rhetoric in the language, with known
trends in reporting facts. These are the first attempts to process historical
material that introduces us to historiography. Later Russian chronicles
went in two ways in the Moscow state. On the one hand, it became
official business - at the Moscow court, the weather of the palace and
political events (chronicles of the time of Grozny, for example: Alexander Nevskaya,
The Royal Book and, in general, the last parts of the Moscow vaults, -
Nikonovsky, Voskresensky, Lvovsky), and over time, the very type
chronicles began to change, they began to be replaced by the so-called bit
books. On the other hand, chronicles began to appear in different parts of Rus'
strictly local, regional, even urban in nature, in the majority
devoid of meaning for political history(these are Nizhny Novgorod, Dvinsk,
Uglichskaya and others; these are to some extent the Siberian ones).
Since the 16th century, next to the chronicles, there has been the new kind historical
works: these are Chronographs or reviews of world history (more precisely,
biblical, Byzantine, Slavic and Russian). First edition of the chronograph
was compiled in 1512, mainly based on Greek sources
with additional information on Russian history. She belonged to the Pskov
"Elder Philotheus." In 1616--1617. The 2nd edition of the chronograph was compiled. This
the work is interesting in the sense that it depicts more ancient events
based on the first edition of the chronograph, and Russians - starting from XVI, XVII
centuries - describes again, independently. Its author undoubtedly has
literary talent and who wants to get acquainted with ancient Russian rhetoric in
its successful examples, should read articles on Russian history in this
chronograph. In the 17th century Moscow society is beginning to show a special
a penchant for chronographs, which are growing in numbers. Pogodin in
collected up to 50 copies of them in his library; no big deal
collections of manuscripts, where they are not counted in dozens. Prevalence
chronographs are easy to explain: brief summaries of the system, written
in literary language, they gave the Russian people the same information as
chronicles, but in a more convenient form.
In addition to the chronicles themselves, in ancient Russian writing one can find
There are many literary works that serve as sources for the historian. Can
even say that all ancient Russian literary writing should
be considered as a historical source, and it is often difficult
predict from which literary work the historian will draw the best
clarification of the issue of interest. So, for example, the meaning of class
the name of Kievan Rus "ognishchanin" is interpreted in historiography not only
from monuments of legislation, but also from the ancient Slavic text of teachings
St. Gregory the Theologian, in which we encounter the archaic saying “fire” in
in the sense of “slaves”, “servants” (“many fires and herds looming”). Translations
sacred books made by the book. A. M. Kurbsky, provide material for a biography and
characteristics of this famous figure of the 16th century. But with such significance of everything
historical and literary material, some of its types still have a special
interest for the historian;
These are individual tales about persons and facts that have the character of
historical, then journalistic. A number of historical tales are included in their entirety
in our chronicles: such, for example, are the stories about the baptism of Rus', about
the blinding of Prince Vasilko, about the Battle of Lipitsa, about Batu’s invasion, about
Battle of Kulikovo and many others. In separate lists or also collections
curious journalistic works of ancient Rus' have reached us, with which
The 16th century was especially rich; Of these, “History” occupies a prominent place,
written book A. M. Kurbsky about Grozny; pamphleteous works
called Ivashki Peresvetov, defender of the government system
Grozny; "The Tale of a Certain God-Loving Man" who was an opponent of this
systems; "Conversation of the Valaam Wonderworkers", in which they see the work
boyar environment, dissatisfied with the Moscow order, etc. Next to
journalism in the XVI-XVII centuries. continued to exist and develop
historical writing, expressed in a number of curious stories and legends,
often taking large external volumes. This is, for example, compiled in
XVI century "The History of the Kazan Kingdom", outlining the history of Kazan and its fall
in 1552. In the XIII volume of "Russian Historical Library"A whole series has been published
Russian stories about the time of troubles, many of which have long become
known to researchers of the Troubles. Among dozens of these stories stand out: 1) so
called Another Legend, which is a political pamphlet,
left the Shuisky party in 1606; 2) Legend of the cellarer to Trinity-Sergeeva
Laurels of Abraham Palitsyn, written in its final form in 1620; 3)
Vremnik by Ivan Timofeev, a very interesting chronicle of the turmoil; 4) The Prince's Tale
I. Mikh. Katyrev-Rostovsky, marked with the seal of a great literary
talent; 5) New Chronicler - attempts to factually review the troubled era and
etc. Tales of the capture of Azov by the Cossacks date back to a later era,
description of the Moscow state made by G.K. Kotoshikhin in the 60s
XVII century, and, finally, a whole series of notes of Russian people (Prince S.I. Shakhovsky,
Baim Boltin, A. A. Matveev, S. Medvedev, Zhelyabuzhsky, etc.) about time
Peter the Great. These notes open an endless series of Russian memoirs
figures who took part in government activities and
social life of the 18th and 19th centuries. Common knowledge of some memoirs
(Bolotova, Dashkova) eliminates the need to list the most prominent
them.
Next to historical tales as a historical source
there are hagiographical tales or lives of saints and stories of miracles.
Not only the life of the saint itself sometimes provides valuable historical evidence about
the era in which the saint lived and acted, but also in the “miracles” of the saint,
attributed to the life, the historian finds important indications about the circumstances of that
time when miracles happened. So, in the life of Stephen of Sourozh one of
stories about the miracle of the saint makes it possible to establish the existence
the people of Rus' and their actions in Crimea before 862, when, according to the chronicle, Rus'
was called to Novgorod with Rurik. The Artless Form of the Most Ancient Lives
gives particular value to their testimony, but from the 15th century. special
methods of writing lives that replace factual content with rhetoric and
distorting the meaning of a fact for the sake of literary fashion. Lives (of St. Sergius
Radonezh, Stefan of Perm), compiled in the 15th century. Epiphanius the Wise,
already suffer from rhetoric, although they are marked by literary talent and strength
sincere feeling. More rhetoric and cold conventionality in the lives,
compiled by learned Serbs who lived in Rus' in the 15th century: Metropolitan. Cyprian and
monk Pachomius Logothetes. Their works created a conventional form in Rus'
hagiographic creativity, the spread of which is noticeable in the Lives of the XVI and XVII
centuries This conventional form, subordinating the content of the lives, deprives them of testimony
freshness and precision.
We will complete the list of historical sources literary type, If
Let's mention a large number of those notes about Russia that were in different centuries
compiled by foreigners who visited Rus'. From the legends of foreigners it is more noticeable
works: Catholic monk Plano Carpini (XIII century), Sigismund Herberstein
(early 16th century), Paul Jovius (16th century), Hieronymus Horsey (16th century),
Heidenstein (XVI century), Fletcher (1591), Margeret (XVII century), Konrad Bussow
(XVII century), Zholkiewski (XVII centuries), Olearius (XVII century), von Meyerberg (XVII
century), Gordon (late 17th century), Korb (late 17th century). For history XVIII V.
Diplomatic dispatches from Western European ambassadors are of great importance
Russian court and an endless series of memoirs of foreigners. acquaintances with Russians
affairs. Along with the works of foreign writers who knew Russia, it follows
remember also the foreign material that historians use when studying
the first pages of the history of the Slavs and Rus'. The beginning of our historical life
it is impossible, for example, to study without becoming acquainted with Arab writers (IX-X centuries and
later), who knew the Khazars, Rus' and in general the peoples who lived on our plain;
it is equally necessary to use the works of Byzantine writers,
good acquaintance with which has recently given special results in
the works of V. G. Vasilievsky, F. I. Uspensky and our other Byzantinists.
Finally, information about the Slavs and Russians is found in medieval writers
Western European and Polish: the Gothic historian Iornand [correctly --
Jordan. - Ed.] (VI century), Polish Martin Gall (XII century), Jan Dlugosz (XV century
c.) and others.
Let's move on to monuments of a legal nature, to monuments
government activities and civil society. This material
are usually called acts and charters and are stored in large numbers in
government archives (of which the remarkable ones are: in Moscow - Archive
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Archive of the Ministry of Justice, in Petrograd --
State and Senate Archives, finally, Archives in Vilna, Vitebsk and
Kyiv). To become familiar with archival material, you should whenever possible
accurately classify, but monuments of a legal nature have reached us
there are so many and they are so varied that it is quite difficult to do. We can
note only the main types: 1) State acts, i.e. all documents,
which relate to the most important aspects of public life, for example, contracts.
Monuments of this kind have been preserved with us from the very beginning of our history, this
remarkable treaties with the Greeks of Oleg and subsequent princes. Next, a row
interprincely treaties have reached us from the XIV-XVI centuries. In these agreements
the political relations of the ancient Russian princes are determined. Near
contractual letters must be given by spiritual letters, i.e. spiritual
princes' wills. For example, two spiritual testaments of Ivan have reached us
Wickets. The first was written before going to the horde, the second before death. In them
he divides all property between his sons and therefore lists it. So
Thus, a spiritual document is a detailed list of land holdings
and the property of Russian princes and from this point of view is very valuable
historical and geographical material. We will mention with sincere letters
electoral certificates. The first of them relates to the election of Boris Godunov to
Moscow throne (its composition is attributed to Patriarch Job); second - to
election of Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov. Finally, to state acts
monuments of ancient Russian legislation should be included. To them first
In all, Russian Pravda should be considered, since it can be recognized as an act
government activities, not a private collection. Then here
include the letters of judgment of Novgorod and Pskov, approved by the veche; They
conclude a number of rulings in court cases. Has the same character
and Code of Law of Ivan III of 1497 (called the first or princely). In 1550 for
this code of law was followed by the second or royal Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, more
complete, and 100 years after it in 1648-1649. the Council was compiled
The Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, which was comparatively very
the complete code of law then in force. Next to collections of secular
legislation acted in the sphere of ecclesiastical court and administration
collections of church legislation (Kormchaya Book or Nomocanon, etc.);
These collections were compiled in Byzantium, but over the centuries little by little
adapted to the peculiarities of Russian life. 2) Second type
historical and legal material are administrative documents: these are
separate government orders given or for special cases
administrative practice, or to individuals and communities in order to
determine the relationship of these individuals and communities to the authorities. Some of these letters
had a fairly broad content - for example, statutory and oral charters,
determining the order of self-government of entire volosts. In the majority it is
separate government orders on current affairs. In Moscow
in the state, legislation developed precisely through the accumulation of individual
legal provisions, each of which, arising in connection with a particular case,
then turned into a precedent for all similar cases, it became
permanent law. This casuistic nature of legislation created in
Moscow, the so-called Decree Books of Orders or individual departments, -
each department recorded the royal decrees in chronological order,
that concerned him, and a “Book of Indications” arose, which became
guidance for all administrative or judicial practice of the department.
3)
The third type of legal material can be considered petitions, i.e. those
was not constrained by anything in ancient Rus' until the middle of the 17th century, and the legislative
government action was often a direct response to petitions;
from here
the great historical significance of petitions is clear - they not only introduce
needs and everyday life of the population, but also explain the direction of legislation.
4)
In fourth place, let us remember the letters of private civil life, in which
personal and property relations of private individuals were reflected - enslaving
records, bills of sale, etc. 5) Further, a special type of monuments can be considered monuments of legal proceedings, in which we find a lot of data for the history of not only the court, but also those civil relations, that
real life
, which
concerned the court. 6) Finally, a special place among the sources is occupied by:
called Order Books (one type of them - Order Books - has already been mentioned).
There were many types of order books, and we should only familiarize ourselves with
historically important. Scribe books are the most curious of all,
containing a land inventory of the districts of the Moscow State,
produced for tax purposes; census books containing
census of people of tax classes of the population; books of feed and tithes, containing censuses of courtiers and
service people
with indications of their property status; bit books
(and the so-called palace ranks), in which everything that
belonged to the court and state service of the boyars and nobility
(in other words, these are diaries of court life and official appointments).
If we mention materials for the history of diplomatic relations
(“mandates”, i.e. instructions to ambassadors. “item lists”, i.e. diaries
negotiations, reports of ambassadors, etc.), then historical and legal monuments will be
We have listed them with sufficient completeness. As for this kind
monuments of Petrine Rus, then their terminology and classification in the 18th century. V
in its main features differs so little from what we have today that it does not require
explanations.
INTRODUCTION
History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science. An acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way when they classified history as an area of art. By history they understood an artistic account of memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art also pursued the same goals.
With such a view of history as to an artistic story about memorable events, ancient historians also adhered to the corresponding methods of presentation. In their narration they strived for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, even without believing in them, he includes in his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Not only that, but the ancient historian, true to his artistic goals, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we do not doubt, puts into the mouths of his heroes speeches composed by himself, but he considers himself right due to the fact that he correctly conveys in a fictitious form the actual intentions and thoughts of historical persons.
Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history was to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in ancient times required the historian pragmatism. Already in Herodotus we see a manifestation of this pragmatism, that is, the desire to connect facts with a causal connection, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.
So, at first, history is determined, as an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and persons.
Views of history that demanded from it, in addition to artistic impressions, practical applicability, also go back to ancient times. Even the ancients said that history is a teacher of life(magistra vitae). Historians were expected to provide an account of the past life of mankind that would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future, and would serve as a practical guide for public figures and a moral school for other people. This view of history held in full force in the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he directly brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other, he turned history into a “tablet of revelations and rules” of a practical nature. One writer of the 17th century. (De Rocoles) said that “history fulfills the duties inherent in moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect can be preferable to it, since, giving the same rules, it also adds examples to them.” On the first page of Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” you will find an expression of the idea that history must be known in order “to establish order, to reconcile the benefits of people and to give them the happiness possible on earth.”
With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new definitions of historical science began to emerge. In an effort to explain the essence and meaning of human life, thinkers turned to the study of history either in order to find in it a solution to their problem, or in order to confirm their abstract constructions with historical data. In accordance with various philosophical systems, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined in one way or another. Here are some of these definitions: Bossuet (1627–1704) and Laurent (1810–1887) understood history as a depiction of those world events in which the ways of Providence, guiding human life for its own purposes, were expressed with particular vividness. The Italian Vico (1668–1744) considered the task of history as a science to be the depiction of those identical conditions that all peoples are destined to experience. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770–1831) saw in history an image of the process by which the “absolute spirit” achieved its self-knowledge (Hegel explained the entire world life as the development of this “absolute spirit”). It would not be a mistake to say that all these philosophies demand essentially the same thing from history: history should depict not all the facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones, revealing its general meaning.
This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought - a simple story about the past in general, or a random set of facts from different times and places to prove an edifying thought was no longer satisfactory. There was a desire to unite the presentation with a guiding idea, to systematize historical material. However, philosophical history is rightly reproached for taking the guiding ideas of historical presentation outside of history and systematizing facts arbitrarily. As a result, history did not become an independent science, but became a servant of philosophy.
History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when idealism developed from Germany, in contrast to French rationalism: in contrast to French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, national antiquity was actively studied, and the conviction began to dominate that the life of human societies occurs naturally, in such a natural order. sequence, which cannot be broken or changed either by chance or by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main interest in history began to be the study not of random external phenomena and not of the activities of outstanding personalities, but of the study of social life at different stages of its development. History began to be understood as the science of the laws of the historical life of human societies.
This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. The famous Guizot (1787–1874), for example, understood history as the doctrine of world and national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil society). The philosopher Schelling (1775–1854) considered national history a means of understanding the “national spirit.” From here arose the widespread definition of history as path to national self-awareness. Further attempts arose to understand history as a science that should reveal the general laws of the development of social life without applying them to a certain place, time and people. But these attempts, in essence, assigned to history the tasks of another science - sociology. History is a science that studies specific facts in the conditions of time and place, and its main goal is the systematic depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and all of humanity.
Such a task requires a lot to be successfully completed. In order to give a scientifically accurate and artistically integral picture of any era of national life or the complete history of a people, it is necessary: 1) to collect historical materials, 2) to investigate their reliability, 3) to accurately restore individual historical facts, 4) to indicate between them pragmatic connection and 5) reduce them into a general scientific overview or into an artistic picture. The ways in which historians achieve these particular goals are called scientific critical techniques. These techniques are being improved with the development of historical science, but so far neither these techniques nor the science of history itself have reached their full development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material subject to their knowledge, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not yet achieved the results that other, more accurate sciences have achieved. And, however, no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.
Since the study of the facts of world history began to be approached with the consciousness that human life develops naturally, is subject to eternal and unchanging relationships and rules, since then the ideal of the historian has been the disclosure of these constant laws and relationships. Behind the simple analysis of historical phenomena, which aimed to indicate their causal sequence, a broader field opened up - historical synthesis, which has the goal of recreating the general course of world history as a whole, indicating in its course such laws of the sequence of development that would be justified not only in the past, but also in the future of humanity.
This broad ideal cannot directly guide Russian historian. He studies only one fact of world historical life - the life of his nationality. The state of Russian historiography is still such that sometimes it imposes on the Russian historian the obligation to simply collect facts and give them an initial scientific treatment. And only where the facts have already been collected and illuminated can we rise to certain historical generalizations, we can notice the general course of this or that historical process, we can even, on the basis of a number of particular generalizations, make a bold attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which the main facts of our historical life. But the Russian historian cannot go further than such a general scheme without leaving the boundaries of his science. In order to understand the essence and meaning of this or that fact in history of Rus', he can look for analogies in universal history; With the results obtained, he can serve the general historian and lay his own stone in the foundation of a general historical synthesis. But this is where his connection with general history and influence on it is limited. The ultimate goal of Russian historiography always remains the construction of a system of local historical process.
The construction of this system also resolves another, more practical task that lies with the Russian historian. There is an old belief that national history is the path to national self-awareness. Indeed, knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future. A people familiar with their history lives consciously, is sensitive to the reality around them and knows how to understand it. The task, in this case one might say, the duty of national historiography is to show society its past in its true light. At the same time, there is no need to introduce any preconceived points of view into historiography; a subjective idea is not a scientific idea, and only scientific work can be useful to public self-consciousness. Remaining in the strictly scientific sphere, highlighting those dominant principles of social life that characterized the various stages of Russian historical life, the researcher will reveal to society the most important moments of its historical existence and thereby achieve his goal. He will give society reasonable knowledge, and the application of this knowledge no longer depends on him.
Thus, both abstract considerations and practical goals pose the same task to Russian historical science - a systematic depiction of Russian historical life, a general diagram of the historical process that led our nationality to its present state.
Essay on Russian historiography
When did the systematic depiction of the events of Russian historical life begin and when did Russian history become a science? Even in Kievan Rus, along with the emergence of citizenship, in the 11th century. Our first chronicles appeared. These were lists of facts, important and unimportant, historical and non-historical, interspersed with literary legends. From our point of view, the most ancient chronicles do not represent historical work; not to mention the content - and the chronicler’s very techniques do not meet modern requirements. The beginnings of historiography appeared in our country in the 16th century, when historical legends and chronicles began to be collated and brought together into one whole for the first time. In the 16th century Moscow Rus' took shape and was formed. Having united into a single body, under the authority of a single Moscow prince, the Russians tried to explain to themselves their origins, their political ideas, and their relationship to the states around them.
And so in 1512 (apparently by Elder Philotheus) it was compiled chronograph, i.e., a review of world history. Most of it contained translations from Greek, and Russian and Slavic historical legends were added only as additions. This chronograph is brief, but provides a sufficient supply of historical information; After it, completely Russian chronographs appear, representing a reworking of the first. Together with them they arise in the 16th century. chronicle collections compiled from ancient chronicles, but representing not collections of mechanically compared facts, but works connected by one common idea. The first such work was "Degree book" which received this name because it was divided into “generations” or “degrees”, as they were then called. She conveyed in a chronological, sequential, i.e., “gradual” order the activities of Russian metropolitans and princes, starting with Rurik. Metropolitan Cyprian was mistakenly considered the author of this book; it was processed by Metropolitan Macarius and his successor Athanasius under Ivan the Terrible, i.e. in the 16th century. The basis of the “Degree Book” is a tendency, both general and specific. The common feature is seen in the desire to show that the power of the Moscow princes is not accidental, but successive, on the one hand, from the southern Russian, Kyiv princes, on the other, from the Byzantine kings. A particular tendency is reflected in the respect with which spiritual authority is invariably narrated. “The Degree Book” can be called a historical work due to the well-known system of presentation. At the beginning of the 16th century. another historical work was compiled - "Resurrection Chronicle" more interesting due to the abundance of material. It was based on all the previous chronicles, the “Sofia Temporary” and others, so there are indeed a lot of facts in this chronicle, but they are held together purely mechanically. Nevertheless, the “Resurrection Chronicle” seems to us the most valuable historical work of all, contemporary or earlier, since it was compiled without any tendency and contains a lot of information that we do not find anywhere else. Due to its simplicity, it might not have been liked, the artlessness of the presentation might have seemed poor to connoisseurs of rhetorical devices, and so it was subjected to revision and additions and, by the middle of the 16th century, a new set was compiled, called "Nikon Chronicle". In this collection we see a lot of information borrowed from Greek chronographs on the history of Greek and Slavic countries, while the chronicle about Russian events, especially about later centuries, although detailed, is not entirely reliable - the accuracy of the presentation suffered from literary processing: correcting the ingenuous the style of previous chronicles, unwittingly distorted the meaning of some events.
In 1674, the first textbook of Russian history appeared in Kyiv - "Synopsis" by Innocent Gisel, very widespread in the era of Peter the Great (it is often found now). If, next to all these revisions of chronicles, we remember a number of literary tales about individual historical facts and eras (for example, the Legend of Prince Kurbsky, the story of the Time of Troubles), then we will embrace the entire stock of historical works with which Rus' lived until the era of Peter the Great, before the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Peter was very concerned about compiling the history of Russia and entrusted this task to various persons. But only after his death did the scientific development of historical material begin, and the first figures in this field were learned Germans, members of the St. Petersburg Academy; Of these, first of all we should mention Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer(1694–1738). He began by studying the tribes that inhabited Russia in ancient times, especially the Varangians, but did not go further than that. Bayer left behind many works, of which two rather major works were written in Latin and now no longer have much significance for the history of Russia - this "Northern Geography" And "Research on the Varangians"(they were translated into Russian only in 1767). The work was much more fruitful Gerard Friedrich Miller(1705–1783), who lived in Russia under Empresses Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine II and was already so fluent in Russian that he wrote his works in Russian. He traveled a lot around Russia (he lived for 10 years, from 1733 to 1743, in Siberia) and studied it well. In the literary historical field he acted as the publisher of a Russian magazine "Monthly Essays"(1755–1765) and a collection on German"Sammlung Russischer Gescihchte". Miller's main merit was collecting materials on Russian history; his manuscripts (the so-called Miller portfolios) served and continue to serve as a rich source for publishers and researchers. And Miller’s research was important - he was one of the first scientists who became interested in the later eras of our history, his works are dedicated to them: “Experience modern history Russia" and "News about Russian nobles". Finally, he was the first scientific archivist in Russia and put in order the Moscow archive of the Foreign Collegium, the director of which he died (1783). Among the academicians of the 18th century. took a prominent place in his works on Russian history Lomonosov, who wrote an educational book on Russian history and one volume of “Ancient Russian History” (1766). His works on history were due to polemics with German academicians. The latter separated Varangian Rus' from the Normans and attributed the origin of citizenship in Rus', which before the arrival of the Varangians was a wild country, to Norman influence; Lomonosov recognized the Varangians as Slavs and thus considered Russian culture to be original.
The named academicians, collecting materials and studying individual issues of our history, did not have time to give a general overview of it, the need for which was felt by Russian educated people. Attempts to provide such an overview have emerged outside the academic environment.
The first attempt belongs to V. N. Tatishchev(1686–1750). While dealing with geographic issues proper, he saw that it was impossible to resolve them without knowledge of history, and, being a comprehensively educated person, he began to collect information on Russian history himself and began compiling it. For many years he wrote his historical work, revised it more than once, but only after his death, in 1768, did its publication begin. Within 6 years, 4 volumes were published, the 5th volume was accidentally found in our century and published by the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. In these 5 volumes, Tatishchev brought his history to the troubled era of the 17th century. In the first volume we get acquainted with the author’s own views on Russian history and with the sources he used in compiling it; we find a whole series of scientific sketches about ancient peoples - the Varangians, Slavs, etc. Tatishchev often resorted to the works of others; so, for example, he used Bayer’s study “On the Varangians” and directly included it in his work. This story is now, of course, outdated, but it has not lost its scientific significance, since (in the 18th century) Tatishchev had sources that are no longer available, and therefore, many of the facts he cited can no longer be restored. This aroused suspicion whether some of the sources he referred to existed, and Tatishchev began to be accused of dishonesty. They especially did not trust the “Joachim Chronicle” he cited. However, a study of this chronicle showed that Tatishchev only failed to treat it critically and included it entirely, with all its fables, in his history. Strictly speaking, Tatishchev’s work is nothing more than a detailed collection of chronicle data presented in chronological order; His heavy language and lack of literary treatment made him uninteresting to his contemporaries.
The first popular book on Russian history was written by Catherine II, but her work "Notes on Russian history" brought to the end of the 13th century, it has no scientific significance and is interesting only as the first attempt to tell society its past in easy language. Much more important scientifically was the Prince’s “Russian History” M. Shcherbatova(1733–1790), which Karamzin later used. Shcherbatov was not a man of strong philosophical mind, but he had read a lot of educational literature of the 18th century. and formed entirely under her influence, which was reflected in his work, into which many preconceived thoughts were introduced. He did not have time to understand historical information to such an extent that he sometimes forced his heroes to die twice. But, despite such major shortcomings, the history of Shcherbatov has scientific significance due to many applications containing historical documents. Diplomatic papers from the 16th and 17th centuries are especially interesting. His work was brought to a troubled era.
It happened that under Catherine II a certain Frenchman Leclerc, completely ignorant of the Russian political system, the people, or their way of life, he wrote the insignificant “L"histoire de la Russie,” and there were so many slander in it that it aroused general indignation. I. N. Boltin(1735–1792), a lover of Russian history, compiled a series of notes in which he discovered Leclerc’s ignorance and published them in two volumes. In them, he partly hurt Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov was offended and wrote Objection. Boltin responded with printed letters and began criticizing Shcherbatov’s “History.” Boltin's works, which reveal his historical talent, are interesting due to the novelty of his views. Boltin is sometimes not quite accurately called the “first Slavophile”, because he noted many dark sides in blind imitation of the West, an imitation that became noticeable among us after Peter, and wanted Russia to more closely preserve the good beginnings of the last century. Boltin himself is interesting as a historical phenomenon. It served as the best proof that in the 18th century. in society, even among non-history specialists, there was a keen interest in the past of their homeland. Boltin shared his views and interests N. I. Novikov(1744–1818), a famous advocate of Russian education, who collected “Ancient Russian Vivliofika” (20 volumes), an extensive collection of historical documents and research (1788–1791). At the same time, the merchant Golikov (1735–1801) acted as a collector of historical materials, publishing a collection of historical data about Peter the Great entitled "Acts of Peter the Great"(1st ed. 1788–1790, 2nd 1837). Thus, along with attempts to give a general history of Russia, there also arises the desire to prepare materials for such a history. In addition to the private initiative, the Academy of Sciences itself is working in this direction, publishing chronicles for general information.
But in all that we have listed, there was still little scientificity in our sense: there were no strict critical techniques, not to mention the absence of integral historical ideas.
For the first time, a number of scientific and critical techniques were introduced into the study of Russian history by a foreign scientist Schletser(1735–1809). Having become acquainted with the Russian chronicles, he was delighted with them: he had never seen such a wealth of information or such poetic language among any people. Having already left Russia and being a professor at the University of Göttingen, he worked tirelessly on those extracts from the chronicles that he managed to take out of Russia. The result of this work was the famous work published under the title "Nestor"(1805 in German, 1809–1819 in Russian). This is a whole series of historical sketches about the Russian chronicle. In the preface, the author gives a brief overview of what has been done on Russian history. He finds the state of science in Russia sad, treats Russian historians with disdain, and considers his book almost the only valid work on Russian history. And indeed, his work far left behind all others in terms of the degree of scientific consciousness and techniques of the author. These techniques created in our country a kind of school of Schletser’s students, the first scientific researchers, like M.P. Pogodin. After Schletser, rigorous historical research became possible in our country, for which, however, favorable conditions were created in another environment, headed by Miller. Among the people he collected in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium, Stritter, Malinovsky, and Bantysh-Kamensky were especially outstanding. They created the first school of learned archivists, by whom the Archive was put in complete order and who, in addition to the external grouping of archival material, carried out a number of serious scientific research on the basis of this material. Thus, little by little, the conditions matured that created the possibility of a serious history in our country.
At the beginning of the 19th century. finally, the first complete look at the Russian historical past was created in the famous “History of the Russian State” N. M. Karamzina(1766–1826). Possessing an integral worldview, literary talent and the techniques of a good scholarly critic, Karamzin saw one most important process in the entire Russian historical life - the creation of national state power. A number of talented figures led Rus' to this power, of which the two main ones - Ivan III and Peter the Great - with their activities marked transitional moments in our history and stood at the boundaries of its main eras - ancient (before Ivan III), middle (before Peter the Great) and new (until the beginning of the 19th century). Karamzin presented his system of Russian history in a language that was fascinating for his time, and he based his story on numerous studies, which to this day retain his History of important scientific significance.
But the one-sidedness of Karamzin’s main view, which limited the historian’s task to depicting only the destinies of the state, and not society with its culture, legal and economic relations, was soon noticed by his contemporaries. Journalist of the 30s of the XIX century. N. A. Polevoy(1796–1846) reproached him for the fact that, having called his work “The History of the Russian State,” he ignored the “History of the Russian People.” It was with these words that Polevoy titled his work, in which he thought to depict the fate of Russian society. He replaced Karamzin’s system with his own system, but it was not entirely successful, since he was an amateur in the field of historical knowledge. Fascinated by the historical works of the West, he tried to purely mechanically apply their conclusions and terms to Russian facts, for example, to find the feudal system in ancient Rus'. This explains the weakness of his attempt; it is clear that Polevoy’s work could not replace Karamzin’s work: it did not have a coherent system at all.
The St. Petersburg professor spoke out against Karamzin less sharply and with more caution. Ustryalov(1805–1870), who wrote in 1836 "Discourse on the system of pragmatic Russian history." He demanded that history be a picture of gradual development public life, depicting the transitions of citizenship from one state to another. But he also still believes in the power of the individual in history and, along with the depiction of people’s life, he also demands biographies of its heroes. Ustryalov himself, however, refused to give a definite general point of view on our history and noted that the time for this had not yet come.
Thus, dissatisfaction with Karamzin’s work, which was felt both in the scientific world and in society, did not correct the Karamzin system and did not replace it with another. Above the phenomena of Russian history, as their connecting principle, Karamzin’s artistic picture remained and no scientific system was created. Ustryalov was right when he said that the time had not yet come for such a system. The best professors of Russian history who lived in an era close to Karamzin, Pogodin And Kachenovsky(1775–1842), were still far from one common point of view; the latter took shape only when educated circles in our society began to take an active interest in Russian history. Pogodin and Kachenovsky were brought up on the learned methods of Schletser and under his influence, which had a particularly strong effect on Pogodin. Pogodin largely continued Schletser’s research and, studying the most ancient periods of our history, did not go beyond particular conclusions and minor generalizations, with which, however, he was sometimes able to captivate his listeners, who were not accustomed to a strictly scientific and independent presentation of the subject. Kachenovsky took up Russian history when he had already acquired a lot of knowledge and experience in other branches of historical knowledge. Following the development of classical history in the West, which at that time was brought to a new path of research by Niebuhr, Kachenovsky was carried away by the denial with which they began to treat the most ancient data on the history of, for example, Rome. Kachenovsky transferred this denial to Russian history: he considered all information relating to the first centuries of Russian history unreliable; reliable facts, in his opinion, began only from the time written documents of civil life appeared in our country. Kachenovsky's skepticism had followers: under his influence the so-called skeptical school, not rich in conclusions, but strong in a new, skeptical approach to scientific material. This school owned several articles compiled under the leadership of Kachenovsky. With the undoubted talent of Pogodin and Kachenovsky, both of them developed, although large, but specific issues of Russian history; Both of them had strong critical methods, but neither one nor the other rose to the level of a practical historical worldview: while giving a method, they did not give results that could be reached with the help of this method.
Only in the 30s of the 19th century did Russian society develop an integral historical worldview, but it developed not on a scientific, but on a metaphysical basis. In the first half of the 19th century. Russian educated people turned with greater and greater interest to history, both domestic and Western European. Foreign campaigns 1813–1814 introduced our youth to the philosophy and political life of Western Europe. The study of the life and ideas of the West gave rise, on the one hand, to the political movement of the Decembrists, and on the other, to a circle of people who were interested in more abstract philosophy than politics. This circle grew entirely on the basis of German metaphysical philosophy at the beginning of our century. This philosophy was distinguished by the harmony of its logical constructions and the optimism of its conclusions. In German metaphysics, as in German romanticism, there was a protest against the dry rationalism of French philosophy of the 18th century. Germany contrasted the revolutionary cosmopolitanism of France with the beginning of nationality and revealed it in the attractive images of folk poetry and in a number of metaphysical systems. These systems became known to educated Russian people and fascinated them. Russian educated people saw a whole revelation in German philosophy. Germany was for them “the Jerusalem of modern humanity,” as Belinsky called it. The study of the most important metaphysical systems of Schelling and Hegel united several talented representatives of Russian society into a close circle and forced them to turn to the study of their (Russian) national past. The result of this study were two completely opposite systems of Russian history, built on the same metaphysical basis. In Germany at this time the dominant philosophical systems were those of Schelling and Hegel. According to Schelling, every historical people must realize some absolute idea of goodness, truth, beauty. Revealing this idea to the world is the historical calling of the people. By fulfilling it, the people take a step forward in the field of world civilization; having performed it, he leaves the historical stage. Those peoples whose existence is not inspired by the idea of the unconditional are non-historical peoples; they are condemned to spiritual slavery among other nations. Hegel also gives the same division of peoples into historical and non-historical, but he, developing almost the same principle, went even further. He gave a general picture of world progress. All world life, according to Hegel, was the development of the absolute spirit, which strives for self-knowledge in the history of various peoples, but finally achieves it in the German-Roman civilization. The cultural peoples of the Ancient East, the ancient world and Romanesque Europe were placed by Hegel in a certain order, which represented a ladder along which the world spirit ascended. At the top of this ladder stood the Germans, and to them Hegel prophesied eternal world supremacy. There were no Slavs on this staircase at all. He considered them to be an unhistorical race and thus condemned them to spiritual slavery to German civilization. Thus, Schelling demanded only world citizenship for his people, and Hegel demanded world supremacy. But, despite such a difference in views, both philosophers equally influenced Russian minds in the sense that they aroused the desire to look back at Russian historical life, to find that absolute idea that was revealed in Russian life, to determine the place and purpose of the Russian people in the course of world progress. And it was here, in the application of the principles of German metaphysics to Russian reality, that the Russian people diverged among themselves. Some of them, Westerners, believed that the German-Protestant civilization was the last word in world progress. For them, ancient Rus', which did not know Western, German civilization and did not have its own, was an ahistorical country, devoid of progress, condemned to eternal stagnation, an “Asian” country, as Belinsky called it (in an article about Kotoshikhin). Peter brought her out of the centuries-old Asian inertia, who, having introduced Russia to German civilization, created for her the possibility of progress and history. In all of Russian history, therefore, only the era of Peter the Great can have historical significance. She is the main point in Russian life; it separates Asian Rus' from European Rus'. Before Peter there was complete desert, complete nothingness; there is no meaning in ancient Russian history, since ancient Rus' does not have its own culture.
Sergei Fedorovich Platonov
Complete course of lectures on Russian history
Essay on Russian historiography
"Russian Thought" for 1893 (and separately).
PART ONE
Preliminary historical information Ancient history of our country Russian Slavs and their neighbors The original life of the Russian Slavs Kievan Rus The formation of the Principality of Kievan General notes on the first times of the Principality of Kievan The Baptism of Rus The consequences of the adoption of Christianity by Russia Kievan Rus in the 11th-12th centuries Colonization of Suzdal-Vladimir Rus The influence of Tatar power on specific Rus' Specific life of Suzdal-Vladimir Rus' Novgorod Pskov Lithuania Principality of Moscow until the middle of the 15th century The time of Grand Duke Ivan III
PART TWO
The time of Ivan the Terrible The Moscow State before the Troubles Political contradiction in Moscow life of the 16th century Social contradiction in Moscow life of the 16th century Troubles in the Moscow State The first period of Troubles: the struggle for the Moscow throne The second period of Troubles: the destruction of state order The third period of Troubles: an attempt to restore order The time of Tsar Michael Fedorovich (1613-1645) The time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) The internal activities of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich Church affairs under Alexei Mikhailovich The cultural turning point under Alexei Mikhailovich The personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Main moments in the history of Southern and Western Rus' in the 16th-17th centuries The time of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich (1676-1682)
PART THREE
Views of science and Russian society on Peter the Great The situation of Moscow politics and life at the end of the 17th century The time of Peter the Great Childhood and adolescence of Peter (1672-1689) Years 1689-1699 Foreign policy Peter's since 1700 The internal activities of Peter since 1700 The attitude of contemporaries to the activities of Peter Family relationships Peter The historical significance of Peter's activities The time from the death of Peter the Great to the accession to the throne of Elizabeth (1725-1741) Palace events from 1725 to 1741 Management and politics from 1725 to 1741 The time of Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761) Management and politics of the time of Elizabeth Peter III and the coup of 1762 The time of Catherine II (1762-1796) The legislative activity of Catherine II The foreign policy of Catherine II The historical significance of the activities of Catherine II The time of Paul I (1796-1801) The time of Alexander I (1801-1825) The time of Nicholas I (1825-1855) Brief overview of the time of Emperor Alexander II and the great reforms
These “Lectures” owe their first appearance in print to the energy and work of my students at the Military Law Academy, I. A. Blinov and R. R. von Raupach. They collected and put in order all those “lithographed notes” that were published by students in different years my teaching. Although some parts of these “notes” were compiled from the texts I submitted, however, in general, the first editions of the “Lectures” were not distinguished by either internal integrity or external decoration, representing a collection of educational notes of different times and different quality. Through the works of I. A. Blinov, the fourth edition of the Lectures acquired a much more serviceable appearance, and for the next editions the text of the Lectures was revised by me personally. In particular, in the eighth edition the revision affected mainly those parts of the book that are devoted to the history of the Moscow principality in the 14th-15th centuries. and the history of the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II. To strengthen the factual side of the presentation in these parts of the course, I used some excerpts from my “Textbook of Russian History” with appropriate changes to the text, just as in previous editions insertions were made from the same in the section on the history of Kievan Rus before the 12th century. In addition, in the eighth edition the characteristics of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were re-stated. The ninth edition has made the necessary, generally minor, corrections. The text has been revised for the tenth edition. Nevertheless, even in its present form, the Lectures are still far from the desired correctness. Live teaching and scientific work have a continuous influence on the lecturer, changing not only the details, but sometimes the very type of his presentation. In the "Lectures" you can see only the factual material on which the author's courses are usually based. Of course, there are still some oversights and errors in the printed transmission of this material; Likewise, the structure of presentation in the “Lectures” quite often does not correspond to the structure of oral presentation that I have adhered to in recent years. It is only with these reservations that I decide to publish this edition of the Lectures.
S. Platonov
explanations.
It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical science.
Having understood how history is understood in general, we will understand what we should understand by the history of one particular people, and we will consciously begin to study Russian history.
History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science.
An acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way when they classified history as an area of art. By history they understood an artistic account of memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art also pursued the same goals.
With this view of history as an artistic story about memorable events, ancient historians adhered to the corresponding methods of presentation. In their narration they strived for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, even without believing in them, he includes in his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Not only that, but the ancient historian, true to his artistic goals, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we do not doubt, puts into the mouths of his heroes speeches composed by himself, but he considers himself right due to the fact that he correctly conveys in a fictitious form the actual intentions and thoughts of historical persons.
Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history was to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in ancient times required pragmatism from the historian. Already in Herodotus we see a manifestation of this pragmatism, that is, the desire to connect facts with a causal connection, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.
So, at first, history is defined as an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and persons.
Views of history that demanded from it, in addition to artistic impressions, practical applicability, also go back to ancient times.
Even the ancients said that history is the teacher of life (magistra vitae). Historians were expected to provide an account of the past life of mankind that would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future, and would serve as a practical guide for public figures and a moral school for other people.
This view of history held in full force in the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he directly brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other, he turned history into a “tablet of revelations and rules” of a practical nature. One writer of the 17th century. (De Rocoles) said that “history fulfills the duties inherent in moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect can be preferable to it, since, giving the same rules, it also adds examples to them.” On the first page of Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” you will find an expression of the idea that history must be known in order “to establish order, to reconcile the benefits of people and to give them the happiness possible on earth.”
With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new definitions of historical science began to emerge. In an effort to explain the essence and meaning of human life, thinkers turned to the study of history either in order to find in it a solution to their problem, or in order to confirm their abstract constructions with historical data. In accordance with various philosophical systems, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined in one way or another. Here are some of these definitions: Bossuet (1627-1704) and Laurent (1810-1887) understood history as a depiction of those world events in which the ways of Providence, guiding human life for its own purposes, were expressed with particular vividness. The Italian Vico (1668-1744) considered the task of history, as a science, to depict those identical conditions that all peoples are destined to experience. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770-1831) saw in history an image of the process by which the “absolute spirit” achieved its self-knowledge (Hegel explained the entire world life as the development of this “absolute spirit”). It would not be a mistake to say that all these philosophies demand essentially the same thing from history: history should depict not all the facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones, revealing its general meaning.
