Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky - a prominent Russian historian of the liberal trend, a "legend" of Russian historical science, an ordinary professor at Moscow University, an ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (over the state) on Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of at Moscow University, Privy Councilor.
IN. Klyuchevsky
So much has been written about V.O.Klyuchevsky that it seems absolutely impossible to insert even a word into the grandiose memorial erected to the legendary historian in the memoirs of his contemporaries, scientific monographs of fellow historians, popular articles of encyclopedias and reference books. For almost every anniversary of Klyuchevsky, whole collections of biographical, analytical, historical and publicistic materials were published, devoted to the analysis of one side or another of his work, scientific concepts, pedagogical and administrative activities within the walls of Moscow University. Indeed, largely thanks to his efforts, Russian historical science already in the second half of the 19th century reached a completely new qualitative level, which subsequently provided the appearance of works that laid the foundations of modern philosophy and methodology of historical knowledge.
Meanwhile, in the popular science literature about V.O. Klyuchevsky, and especially in modern publications on Internet resources, only general information about the biography of the famous historian is given. The characteristics of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky, who, of course, was one of the most outstanding, extraordinary and remarkable people of his era, the idol of more than one generation of students and teachers of Moscow University, are also presented very differently.
In part, this inattention can be explained by the fact that the main biographical works about Klyuchevsky (M.V. Nechkina, R.A.Kireeva, L.V. was understood primarily as a process of preparing it scientific works and creative achievements. In addition, in the conditions of the dominance of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the propaganda of the advantages of the Soviet way of life, it was impossible to openly say that even under the "accursed tsarism" a person from the lower classes had the opportunity to become a great scientist, a secret adviser, to enjoy the personal disposition and deep respect of the emperor and members of the tsarist families. This to some extent neutralized the gains of the October Revolution, among which, as you know, the people's conquest of those "equal" opportunities was declared. In addition, VO Klyuchevsky in all Soviet textbooks and reference literature was unambiguously ranked among the representatives of the "liberal-bourgeois" historiography, i.e. to class alien elements. To study private life, to reconstruct the little-known facets of the biography of such a "hero", no Marxist historian would have thought of it.
In the post-Soviet period, it was believed that the factual side of Klyuchevsky's biography was sufficiently studied, and therefore it makes no sense to return to it. Still: in the life of a historian there are no scandalous love affairs, intrigues at work, acute conflicts with colleagues, i.e. no "strawberries" that could interest the average reader of the magazine "Caravan of stories". This is partly true, but as a result, today the general public knows only historical anecdotes about the “secrecy” and “excessive modesty” of Professor Klyuchevsky, his maliciously ironic aphorisms, and contradictory statements, “bruised” by the authors of various pseudo-scientific publications from personal letters and memoirs of contemporaries.
However, the modern view of the personality, private life and communications of the historian, the process of his scientific and extrascientific creativity implies the intrinsic value of these objects of study as part of the “historiographic life” and the world of Russian culture as a whole. Ultimately, the life of every person is made up of family relationships, friendships and love relationships, home, habits, household trifles. And the fact that one of us, as a result, ends up or does not go down in history as a historian, writer or politician is an accident against the background of all the same "everyday trifles" ...
In this article, we would like to outline the main milestones not only in the creative, but also in the personal biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky, to tell about him as a man who made a very difficult and thorny path from the son of a provincial priest, a beggar orphan to the heights of glory of the first historian of Russia.
V.O.Klyuchevsky: the triumph and tragedy of the "commoner"
Childhood and adolescence
IN. Klyuchevsky
IN. Klyuchevsky was born on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresenskoye (Voskresenovka) near Penza, into a poor family of a parish priest. The life of the future historian began with great misfortune - in August 1850, when Vasily was not yet ten years old, his father died tragically. He went to the market for shopping, and on the way back got into a severe thunderstorm. The horses were frightened and carried away. Father Osip, having lost control, obviously fell from the wagon, lost consciousness from hitting the ground and choked with streams of water. Without waiting for his return, the family organized a search. Nine-year-old Vasily was the first to see his dead father, lying in the mud on the road. From a strong shock, the boy began to stutter.
After the death of the breadwinner, the Klyuchevsky family moved to Penza, where they entered the maintenance of the Penza diocese. Out of compassion for a poor widow who was left with three children, one of her husband's friends gave her a small house to live in. “Was anyone poorer than you and me at the time when we were left orphans in the arms of our mother,” Klyuchevsky wrote to his sister later, recalling the hungry years of his childhood and adolescence.
In the theological school, where he was sent to study, Klyuchevsky stuttered so much that he weighed down the teachers, did not have time in many basic subjects. As an orphan, he was kept in an educational institution only out of pity. From day to day, the question of expelling a student due to professional incompetence could arise: the school trained clergy, and the stutterer was not suitable either for priests or for sexton. Under the circumstances, Klyuchevsky might not have received any education at all - his mother did not have the funds to study at the gymnasium or invite tutors. Then the widow of the priest tearfully begged one of the students of the senior department to take care of the boy. History has not preserved the name of this gifted young man, who managed to turn a timid stutterer into a brilliant orator, who later attracted thousands of students to his lectures. According to the assumptions of the most famous biographer V.O. Klyuchevsky MV Nechkina, it could have been the seminarian Vasily Pokrovsky - the older brother of Klyuchevsky's classmate Stepan Pokrovsky. Not being a professional speech therapist, he intuitively found ways to combat stuttering, so it almost disappeared. Among the techniques for overcoming the deficiency was the following: slowly and clearly pronounce the ends of words, even if the stress on them did not fall. Klyuchevsky did not overcome his stuttering to the end, but he did a miracle - he managed to give the small pauses involuntarily arising in speech in the form of semantic artistic pauses, which gave his words a peculiar and charming flavor. Subsequently, the lack turned into a characteristic individual trait, which gave a special appeal to the historian's speech. Modern psychologists and image-makers deliberately use such techniques to attract the attention of listeners, to give “charisma” to the image of a particular speaker, politician, or public figure.
IN. Klyuchevsky
The long and stubborn struggle with natural deficiency also contributed to the excellent diction of the lecturer Klyuchevsky. He “rapped” each sentence and “especially the endings of the words he uttered so that not a single sound, not a single intonation of a quietly but unusually clear-sounding voice could be lost for an attentive listener,” wrote his student professor A. I. Yakovlev about the historian ...
After graduating from the district theological school in 1856, V.O. Klyuchevsky entered the seminary. He had to become a priest - this was the condition of the diocese, which took on the maintenance of his family. But in 1860, having dropped out of his last year at the seminary, the young man was preparing to enter Moscow University. The desperately courageous decision of the nineteen-year-old boy determined his entire fate in the future. In our opinion, it testifies not so much to the persistence of Klyuchevsky or the integrity of his nature, but to the intuition inherent in him already at a young age, which many of his contemporaries later spoke of. Even then, Klyuchevsky intuitively understands (or guesses) about his personal purpose, goes against fate in order to take exactly that place in life that will allow him to fully realize his aspirations and abilities.
One must think that the fateful decision to leave the Penza Seminary was not easy for the future historian. From the moment of filing the application, the seminarist was deprived of the scholarship. For Klyuchevsky, who was extremely strapped for money, the loss of even this small amount of money was quite tangible, but circumstances forced him to be guided by the principle "either all or nothing." Immediately after graduating from the seminary, he could not enter the university, because he would have to accept the clergy and stay in it for at least four years. Therefore, it was necessary to leave the seminary as soon as possible.
Klyuchevsky's daring act blew up the measured seminary life. The spiritual authorities objected to the expulsion of a successful student, who had actually already received his education at the expense of the diocese. Klyuchevsky motivated his letter of resignation by constrained domestic circumstances and poor health, but it was obvious to everyone in the seminary, from the director to the stoker, that this was just a formal excuse. The seminar board wrote a report to the Bishop of Penza, His Eminence Varlaam, but he unexpectedly imposed a positive resolution: "Klyuchevsky has not yet completed his course of study and, therefore, if he does not want to be in the clergy, then he can be fired without hindrance." The loyalty of the official document did not quite correspond to the true opinion of the bishop. Klyuchevsky later recalled that at the December exam at the seminary, Barlaam called him a fool.
Uncle IV Evropeytsev (the husband of his mother's sister) gave money for the trip to Moscow, encouraging his nephew's desire to study at the university. Knowing that the young man is deeply grateful, but at the same time mentally uncomfortable from his uncle's charity, the Europeans decided to cheat a little. He presented his nephew "as a keepsake" with a prayer book with parting words to refer to this book in difficult moments of life. Between the pages was a large banknote, which Klyuchevsky found already in Moscow. In one of his first letters home, he wrote: "I left for Moscow, firmly hoping for God, and then for you and for myself, not counting too much on someone else's pocket, no matter what happened to me."
According to some biographers, the complex of personal guilt before the mother and younger sisters left in Penza haunted the famous historian for many years. As evidenced by the materials of Klyuchevsky's personal correspondence, Vasily Osipovich retained the warmest relations with the sisters: he always tried to help them, take care of them, and participate in their fate. So, thanks to the help of her brother, the elder sister Elizaveta Osipovna (married - Virganskaya) was able to raise and educate her seven children, and after the death of her younger sister, Klyuchevsky adopted her two children (E.P. and P.P. Kornevs) into her family and raised them.
The beginning of the way
In 1861 V.O. Klyuchevsky entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. He had a difficult time: in the capitals, almost revolutionary passions were simmering, caused by the manifesto of February 19, 1861, on the emancipation of the peasants. Liberalization of literally all aspects of public life, Chernyshevsky's fashionable ideas about the "people's revolution", which literally floated in the air, confused young minds.
During his studies, Klyuchevsky tried to stay away from political disputes in the student environment. Most likely, he simply had neither the time nor the desire to engage in politics: he came to Moscow to study and, in addition, he had to earn money with lessons in order to support himself and help his family.
According to Soviet biographers, Klyuchevsky at one time attended the historical and philosophical circle of N.A. Ishutin, but this version is not confirmed by the materials of the historian's personal archive now studied. They contain an indication of the fact that Klyuchevsky was the tutor of a certain gymnasium student Ishutin. However, this "tutoring" could have taken place even before Klyuchevsky entered Moscow University. ON. Ishutin and DV Karakozov were natives of Serdobsk (Penza province); in the 1850s, they studied at the 1st Penza men's gymnasium, and the seminarian Klyuchevsky during the same period actively earned money by private lessons. Perhaps Klyuchevsky renewed his acquaintance with his fellow countrymen in Moscow, but researchers have not found any reliable information about his participation in the Ishutinsky circle.
Moscow life, obviously, aroused interest, but at the same time gave rise to wariness and distrust in the soul of the young provincial. Before leaving Penza, he had never been anywhere else, he moved mainly in a spiritual environment, which undoubtedly made it difficult to "adapt" Klyuchevsky to the metropolitan reality. "Provinciality" and a subconscious rejection of everyday excesses, which are considered the norm in a big city, remained with V.O.Klyuchevsky for the rest of his life.
The former seminarian, no doubt, had to endure a serious internal struggle as he moved from the religious traditions learned in the seminary and family to scientific-positivist ones. Klyuchevsky followed this path, studying the works of the founders of positivism (Comte, Mil, Spencer), the materialist Ludwig Feuerbach, in whose concept he was most attracted by the philosopher's prevailing interest in ethics and the religious problem.
As the diaries and some personal notes of Klyuchevsky testify, the result of the inner "degeneration" of the future historian was his constant desire to distance himself from the world around him, keeping his personal space in it, inaccessible to prying eyes. Hence - the ostentatious sarcasm noted by contemporaries more than once, the stinging skepticism of Klyuchevsky, his desire to act in public, convincing those around him of his own "complexity" and "closeness."
In 1864-1865, Klyuchevsky completed his course at the university with the defense of his Ph.D. essay "The Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State." The problem was posed under the influence of Professor F.I. Buslaev. The candidate's essay was highly appreciated, and Klyuchevsky was retained at the department as a fellow to prepare for a professorship.
Work on the master's thesis "Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source" dragged on for six years. Since Vasily Osipovich could not remain a scholar, at the request of his teacher and mentor S.M. Solovyov, he received a place as a tutor at the Alexander Military School. Here he worked since 1867 for sixteen years. Since 1871, he replaced S.M. Solovyov in teaching the course of new general history at this school.
Family and personal life
In 1869 V.O. Klyuchevsky married Anisya Mikhailovna Borodina. This decision came as a real surprise, both for the relatives and for the bride herself. Klyuchevsky initially courted the younger sisters of the Borodins - Anna and Nadezhda, but made an offer to Anisya, who was three years older than him (at the time of the wedding she was already thirty-two). At this age, the girl was considered "century old" and practically could not count on marriage.
Boris and Anisya Mikhailovna Klyuchevskiy, probably with their dogs, named by V.O. Klyuchevsky Grosh and Kopeyka. Not earlier than 1909
It's no secret that among the creative intelligentsia, long-term marriage unions are usually based on relationships of like-minded people. The wife of a scientist, writer, renowned publicist usually acts as a permanent secretary, critic, or even an invisible generator of ideas for her creative "half". Little is known about the relationship between the Klyuchevsky spouses, but, most likely, they were very far from a creative union.
In the correspondence of 1864, Klyuchevsky affectionately called his bride "Nixochka", "the confidant of my soul." But, what is noteworthy, in the future, no correspondence between the spouses was recorded. Even during the departure of Vasily Osipovich from home, he, as a rule, asked his other addressees to transmit information about himself to Anisya Mikhailovna. At the same time, for many years Klyuchevsky conducted lively friendly correspondence with his wife's sister, Nadezhda Mikhailovna Borodina. And drafts of old letters to his other sister-in-law, Anna Mikhailovna, according to the testimony of his son, Vasily Osipovich carefully kept and hid among the "Penza papers".
Most likely, the relationship between the Klyuchevsky spouses was built exclusively in a personal, family and household plane, remaining so throughout their lives.
The home secretary of V.O. Klyuchevsky, his interlocutor and assistant in the work was his only son Boris. For Anisya Mikhailovna, although she often attended her husband's public lectures, the sphere of scientific interests of the famous historian remained alien and largely incomprehensible. As P.N. Milyukov recalled, during his visits to the Klyuchevskys' house, Anisya Mikhailovna only acted as a hospitable hostess: she poured tea, treated guests, without participating in the general conversation. Vasily Osipovich himself, who often attended various unofficial receptions and journals, never took his spouse with him. Perhaps Anisia Mikhailovna did not have a penchant for secular pastime, but, most likely, Vasily Osipovich and his wife did not want to cause themselves unnecessary worries and put each other in an uncomfortable situation. Mrs. Klyuchevskaya could not be imagined at an official banquet or in the company of her husband's scholarly colleagues arguing in a smoky home office.
There are cases when unknown visitors mistook Anisya Mikhailovna for a servant in a professorial house: even outwardly she resembled an ordinary bourgeois housewife or a wicked woman. The wife of the historian was known as a homebody, led the house and household, solving all the practical issues of family life. Klyuchevsky himself, like any person carried away by his ideas, was more helpless than a child in everyday trifles.
All her life A.M. Klyuchevskaya remained a deeply religious person. In conversations with friends, Vasily Osipovich often sarcastically about his wife's addiction to "sports" trips to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, which was far from their home, although there was another small church nearby. In one of these "trips" Anisia Mikhailovna became ill, and when she was brought home, she died.
Nevertheless, on the whole, one gets the impression that for many years of their life together, the Klyuchevskys' spouses retained deep personal affection and almost dependence on each other. Vasily Osipovich took the death of his "half" very hard. Student of Klyuchevsky S.B. Veselovsky these days in a letter to a friend wrote that after the death of his wife, old Vasily Osipovich (he was already 69 years old) and his son Boris "remained orphaned, helpless, like little children."
And when in December 1909 the long-awaited fourth volume of the "Course in Russian History" appeared, before the text on a separate page there was an inscription: "In memory of Anisia Mikhailovna Klyuchevskaya († March 21, 1909)".
In addition to his son Boris (1879-1944), Vasily Osipovich's niece Elizaveta Korneva (? –09.01.1906) lived in the Klyuchevski family as a pupil. When Liza had a fiancé, V.O. Klyuchevsky did not like him, and the guardian began to interfere with their relationship. Despite the disapproval of the whole family, Lisa left home, hastily got married and soon after the wedding she died "of consumption." Vasily Osipovich, who loved her like his own daughter, was especially hard at the death of his niece.
Professor Klyuchevsky
In 1872 V.O. Klyuchevsky successfully defended his master's thesis. In the same year, he took the department of history at the Moscow Theological Academy and held it for 36 years (until 1906). In those same years, Klyuchevsky began to teach at the Higher Courses for Women. Since 1879 - lectured at Moscow University. At the same time, he completed his doctoral dissertation "Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus" and in 1882 defended it at the university department. Since that time, Klyuchevsky has become a professor at four educational institutions.
His lectures were very popular among student youth. Not only students of historians and philologists, for whom, in fact, the course of Russian history was taught, were its listeners. Mathematicians, physicists, chemists, physicians - all tried to break through at the lectures of Klyuchevsky. According to contemporaries, they literally devastated classrooms in other faculties; many students came to the university early in the morning to take a seat and wait for the “desired hour”. The audience was attracted not so much by the content of the lectures as by the aphorism and liveliness of Klyuchevsky's presentation of even already known material. The democratic character of the professor himself, so atypical for the university environment, also could not fail to arouse sympathy among the students: everyone wanted to listen to “their” historian.
Soviet biographers tried to explain the extraordinary success of VO Klyuchevsky's lecture course in the 1880s by his desire to "please" a revolutionary-minded student audience. According to M.V. Nechkina, in his very first lecture, delivered on December 5, 1879, Klyuchevsky put forward the slogan of freedom:
“The text of this particular lecture, unfortunately, did not reach us, but the memories of the listeners have survived. Klyuchevsky, writes one of them, “believed that Peter's reforms did not give the desired results; for Russia to become rich and powerful, freedom was needed. Russia of the 18th century did not see it. Hence, so Vasily Osipovich concluded, and her state weakness. "
M.V. Nechkina “Lecture skills of V.O. Klyuchevsky "
In other lectures, Klyuchevsky spoke ironically about Empresses Elizabeth Petrovna, Catherine II, colorfully characterized the era of palace coups:
“For reasons known to us ... - the university listener of Klyuchevsky recorded the lecture in 1882, - after Peter the Russian throne became a toy for adventurers, for random people, often unexpectedly for themselves who entered it ... Many miracles have been on the Russian throne since the death of Peter the Great - there have been ... both childless widows and unmarried mothers of families, but there was not yet a buffoon; the play of chance was probably intended to fill this gap in our history. The buffoon appeared. "
It was about Peter III. So from the university department, no one has yet spoken about the house of the Romanovs.
From all this, Soviet historians drew a conclusion about the historian's anti-monarchist and anti-nobility position, which almost made him intimate with the regicide revolutionaries S. Perovskaya, Zhelyabov and other radicals who wanted to change the existing order at all costs. However, the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky did not even think about anything like that. His "liberalism" clearly fit into the framework of what was permitted in the era of state reforms in the 1860s and 70s. "Historical portraits" of kings, emperors and other prominent rulers of antiquity, created by V.O.Klyuchevsky, are just a tribute to historical authenticity, an attempt to objectively present monarchs as ordinary people who are not alien to any human weakness.
The venerable scientist V.O. Klyuchevsky was elected dean of the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, vice-rector, chairman of the Society for Russian History and Antiquities. He was appointed teacher of the son of Alexander III, Grand Duke George, was more than once invited to take walks with the royal family, and conducted conversations with the Tsar and Empress Maria Fedorovna. However, in 1893-1894, Klyuchevsky, despite the personal disposition of the emperor to him, categorically refused to write a book about Alexander III. Most likely, this was neither a whim of the historian, nor a manifestation of his opposition to the authorities. Klyuchevsky did not see the talent of a flattering publicist behind him, and for a historian to write about the still living or just deceased "next" emperor is simply not interesting.
In 1894, as chairman of the Society for Russian History and Antiquities, he had to deliver a speech "In memory of the deceased Emperor Alexander III". The liberal-minded historian in this speech sincerely sincerely regretted the death of the sovereign, with whom he often communicated during his lifetime. For this speech, Klyuchevsky was booed by the students, who saw in the behavior of the beloved professor not grief for the deceased, but unforgivable conformism.
In the mid-1890s, Klyuchevsky continued his research work, publishing a "Short Guide to Modern History", the third edition of the Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus. Six of his students are defending dissertations.
In 1900, Klyuchevsky was elected to the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Since 1901, he resigns according to the rules, but remains to teach at the university and the Theological Academy.
In 1900-1910 he began to give a course of lectures at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where many outstanding artists were his listeners. F.I. Chaliapin wrote in his memoirs that Klyuchevsky helped him to understand the image of Boris Godunov before a benefit performance at the Bolshoi Theater in 1903. In the memoirs of the famous singer about the famous historian, it is also repeatedly said about the artistry of Klyuchevsky, his extraordinary talent to attract the attention of the viewer and listener, the ability to "get used to the role" and fully reveal the character of the chosen character.
Since 1902, Vasily Osipovich has been preparing for publication the main brainchild of his life - The Course of Russian History. This work was interrupted only in 1905 by trips to St. Petersburg to participate in the commissions on the law on the press and the status of the State Duma. Klyuchevsky's liberal position complicated his relationship with the leadership of the Theological Academy. In 1906, Klyuchevsky resigned and was dismissed, despite student protests.
According to the cadet historians P.N. Milyukov and A. Kizevetter, at the end of his life V.O. Klyuchevsky held the same liberal constitutional positions as the Party of People's Freedom. In 1905, at a meeting in Peterhof, he did not support the idea of a "noble" constitution for the future "Octobrists", and agreed to run for the State Duma as a deputy from Sergiev Posad. In fact, despite all the curtsies on the part of the leaders of the barely born political parties, the politics of V.O. Klyuchevsky was not interested at all.
Quite fierce disputes arose among Soviet historians about the "party affiliation" of Klyuchevsky. M.V. Nechkina unequivocally (following Milyukov) considered Klyuchevsky an ideological and de facto member of the Party of People's Freedom (cd). However, academician Yu.V. Gaultier, who personally knew the historian in those years, argued that his son Boris almost forcibly forced his son Boris to run for the Duma from this party of the "old man", and "it is impossible to make a cadet figure out of Klyuchevsky."
In the same polemic with Nechkina, the following phrase of Yu.V. Gaultier: “Klyuchevsky was a real“ wet chicken ”in terms of character and social activity. I told him so. He had will only in his works, but in life he had no will ... Klyuchevsky was always under someone's shoe. "
The question of the actual participation or non-participation of the historian in the affairs of the Cadet Party has lost its relevance today. His deputy in the State Duma did not take place, but, unlike P.N. Milyukov and Co., this did not matter for Klyuchevsky: the scientist always had something to do and where to realize his oratorical talent.
"Course of Russian history" and the historical concept of V.O.Klyuchevsky
Along with the special course "History of estates in Russia" (1887), research on social topics ("The origin of serfdom in Russia", "The poll and the abolition of servitude in Russia", "The composition of the representation at the zemstvo cathedrals of ancient Russia"), history cultures of the 18th and 19th centuries. and others, Klyuchevsky created the main work of his life - "The Course of Russian History" (1987-1989. T.I - 5). It is in it that the concept of the historical development of Russia according to V.O. Klyuchevsky is presented.
Most contemporary historians believed that V.O. Klyuchevsky, as a student of S.M. Solovyov, was only continuing to develop the concept of a state (legal) school in Russian historiography under new conditions. In addition to the influence of the state school, the influence on the views of Klyuchevsky of his other university teachers - F.I. Buslaeva, S.V. Eshevsky and figures of the 1860s. - A.P. Shchapova, N.A. Ishutin, etc.
At one time, Soviet historiography made a completely unjustified attempt to "dissolve" the views of SM Solovyov as an "apologist for autocracy" and VO Klyuchevsky, who stood on liberal-democratic positions (MV Nechkina). A number of historians (V.I.Pichet, P.P.Smirnov) saw the main value of Klyuchevsky's works in an attempt to give the history of society and people in its dependence on economic and political conditions.
In modern studies, the view prevails at V.O. Klyuchevsky not only as the successor of the historical and methodological traditions of the state (legal) school (K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Soloviev) , but also the creator of a new, most promising direction for her, based on the "sociological" method.
Unlike the first generation of "statists", Klyuchevsky considered it necessary to introduce social and economic factors as independent forces of historical development. The historical process in his view is the result of the continuous interaction of all factors (geographic, demographic, economic, political, social). The task of the historian in this process is not reduced to the construction of global historical schemes, but to the constant identification of the specific relationship of all the above factors at each specific moment of development.
In practice, the "sociological method" meant for V.O. Klyuchevsky, a thorough study of the degree and nature of the country's economic development, closely related to the natural-geographical environment, as well as a detailed analysis of the social stratification of society at each stage of development and the relationships that arise in this case within individual social groups (he often called them classes). As a result, the historical process was adopted by V.O. Klyuchevsky has more voluminous and dynamic forms than those of his predecessors or contemporaries such as V.I. Sergeevich.
His understanding of the general course of Russian history V.O. Klyuchevsky presented the most succinctly in periodization, in which he distinguished four qualitatively different stages:
VIII-XIII centuries - Rus Dnieper, city, trade;
XIII - mid XV century - Russia Upper Volga, specific-princely, free-agricultural;
mid-15th - second decade of the 17th century - Great Russia, Moscow, tsarist-boyar, military-landowning;
early 17th - mid 19th centuries - the All-Russian period, the imperial-noble, the period of serfdom, agricultural and factory economy.
Already in his doctoral dissertation "Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus", which was, in fact, a developed social portrait of the boyar class, the novelty that V.O. Klyuchevsky introduced into the traditions of the public school.
In the context of the divergence of interests between the autocratic state and society, sharply marked at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Klyuchevsky revised the views of his teacher Solovyov on the entire two-century segment of the country's new history, thereby crossing out the results of the last seventeen volumes of his History of Russia and the political program of the national pre-reform liberalism. On these grounds, a number of researchers (in particular, A. Shakhanov) conclude that it is impossible to classify Klyuchevsky as a state school in Russian historiography.
But this is not the case. Klyuchevsky only announces a "new history", actualizes the sociological orientation of historical research. In fact, he did what most of all appealed to the needs of the younger generation of historians of the 1880s: he declares the rejection of the schemes or goals proposed from the outside, both Westernizing and Slavophil. The students wanted to study Russian history as a scientific problem, and Klyuchevsky's "sociological method" gave them such an opportunity. Pupils and followers of Klyuchevsky (P. Milyukov, Y. Gauthier, A. Kizevetter, M. Bogoslovsky, N. A. Rozhkov, S. Bakhrushin, A. I. Yakovlev, Ya. L. Barskov) are often called "neo-statists", i.e. .To. in their constructions, they used the same multifactorial approach of the state school, expanding and supplementing it with cultural, sociological, psychological and other factors.
In The Course of Russian History, Klyuchevsky has already given a holistic exposition of Russian history on the basis of his sociological method. Like none of the historical works of the state school, "Course" by V.O. Klyuchevsky went far beyond the scope of a purely educational publication, turning into a fact of not only scientific, but also social life of the country. An expanded understanding of the multifactorial nature of the historical process in combination with the traditional postulates of the state school made it possible to bring to a logical limit the concept of the Russian historical process, which was laid down by S.M. Solovyov. In this sense, the work of V.O. Klyuchevsky became a milestone for the development of all historical science in Russia: he completed the tradition of the 19th century and at the same time anticipated the innovative searches that the 20th century brought with it.
Assessment of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky in the memoirs of contemporaries
The figure of V.O. During his lifetime, Klyuchevsky was surrounded by an aura of "myths", all sorts of anecdotes and a priori judgments. And today the problem of the cliched perception of the personality of the historian remains, which, as a rule, is based on the subjective negative characteristics of P. N. Milyukov and the stinging aphorisms of Klyuchevsky himself, which are widely available to the reader.
P.N. Milyukov, as you know, fell out with V.O. Klyuchevsky even in the process of preparing his master's thesis on the reforms of Peter I. The dissertation was enthusiastically received by the scientific community, but V.O. the university does not award her doctorate. He advised Milyukov to write another dissertation, noting that "science will only benefit from this." The future leader of the cadets was mortally offended and subsequently, without going into details and the true reasons for such an attitude of the teacher to his work, he reduced everything to the complexity of character, egoism and “mysteriousness” of V.O.Klyuchevsky, or, more simply, to envy. Everything in life was not easy for Klyuchevsky himself, and he could not tolerate someone else's quick success.
In a letter dated July 29, 1890, Miliukov writes that Klyuchevsky “It's hard and boring to live in the world. Greater fame than he has achieved, he will not be able to receive. Living with love for science - he can hardly be with his skepticism ... Now he is recognized, secured; every word he is caught with greed; but he is tired, and most importantly, he does not believe in science: there is no fire, no life, no passion for scientific work - and for this reason, there is no school and students ".
In the conflict with Milyukov, two remarkable pride obviously clashed in the scientific field. Only Klyuchevsky still loved science more than himself in science. His school and his students developed ideas and multiplied the scientist's merits - this is an indisputable fact. As is known, the older generation of fellow historians supported Klyuchevsky in this confrontation. And not only because at that time he already had a name and fame. Without Klyuchevsky there would not have been Milyukov as a historian, and what is especially sad to realize is that without a conflict with the almighty Klyuchevsky, Milyukov as a politician might not have happened. Of course, there would have been other people willing to rock the building of Russian statehood, but if Milyukov had not joined them, not only historical science would benefit from this, but the history of Russia as a whole.
Often, memories of Klyuchevskoy as a scientist or lecturer smoothly flow into psychological analysis or characteristics of his personality. Apparently, his persona was such a striking event in the life of his contemporaries that this topic could not be ignored. Excessive causticity, isolation of character, and distance of the scientist were noticed by many contemporaries. But you need to understand that different people could have been admitted by Klyuchevsky to him at different distances. Everyone who wrote about Klyuchevsky, one way or another, directly or in context, indicated his degree of closeness to the scientist's personal space. This was the reason for the various, often directly opposite, interpretations of his behavior and character traits.
Klyuchevsky's contemporaries (including S. B. Veselovsky, V. A. Maklakov, A. E. Presnyakov) in their memoirs resolutely refute the myth of his "complexity and mystery", "egoism", "buffoonery", the constant desire to "play to the public ”, try to protect the historian from quick and superficial characteristics.
Vasily Osipovich was a person of a subtle psychological make-up, who endowed all the phenomena of life, attitude towards people, and even his lectures with a personal emotional color. PN Milyukov compares his psyche with a very sensitive measuring apparatus in constant vibration. According to Miliukov, it was rather difficult for such a person as his teacher to establish even ordinary everyday relationships.
If we turn to the diaries of the historian of different years, then, first of all, the researcher is struck by deep self-reflection, the desire to raise his inner experiences above the bustle of everyday life. Often there are records testifying to a lack of understanding by his contemporaries, as it seemed to Klyuchevsky himself, of his inner world. He closes in, seeks revelations in himself, in nature, away from the bustle of modern society, the values and way of life of which he, by and large, does not fully understand and does not accept.
It must be admitted that generations of rural clergy, having absorbed the habits of a simple and unpretentious, low-income life, left a special stamp on the appearance of Klyuchevsky and his life. According to M.V. Nechkina:
“… For a long time already he could proudly carry his glory, feel famous, loved, irreplaceable, but there is not even a shadow of high self-esteem in his behavior, on the contrary - an emphasized disregard for fame. From the applause, he "waved away gloomily and annoyedly."
In the Moscow house of the Klyuchevskys, the atmosphere was traditional for the old capital: the visitor was struck by the old-fashioned "homespun rugs" and similar "bourgeois elements." Vasily Osipovich was extremely reluctant to agree to the numerous requests of his wife and son to improve their life, for example, such as buying new furniture.
Klyuchevsky, as a rule, received visitors who came to him in the dining room. Only when he was in a complacent mood, he invited me to the table. Sometimes his colleagues, professors, came to visit Vasily Osipovich. In such cases, "he ordered a small decanter of pure vodka, herring, cucumbers, then a beluga appeared," although in general Klyuchevsky was very thrifty. (Bogoslovsky, M. M. "From the memoirs of V. O. Klyuchevsky").
Klyuchevsky traveled to lectures at the university only in cheap cabs ("vans"), in principle avoiding the schoogol sledges of the Moscow "reckless drivers". On the way, the professor often led lively conversations with the "vans" - yesterday's village guys and peasants. On his own business, Klyuchevsky moved on the "wretched Moscow horse-drawn carriage", and "climbed onto the imperial". Konka, as one of his students A.I. Yakovlev recalls, was then distinguished by endless downtime at almost every crossing. Klyuchevsky traveled twice a week by rail to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra to teach at the Theological Academy, but always in the third grade, in a crowd of pilgrims.
IA Artobolevsky said: “The well-known rich woman Morozova, with whose son Klyuchevsky was once engaged, offered him a carriage and“ two drawbar horses ”as a present. “And yet I refused ... Pardon me, does it suit me? .. Wouldn't I be ridiculous in such a carriage ?! In borrowed plumes..."
Another famous anecdote about a professor's fur coat, cited in the monograph by M.V. Nechkina:
“The famous professor, no longer constrained by the lack of money, wore an old, shabby fur coat. “Why can't you get yourself a new fur coat, Vasily Osipovich? Everything is rubbed over there, ”the friends remarked. - "In the face and a fur coat" - laconically answered Klyuchevsky. "
The professor's notorious "frugality" undoubtedly testified not at all to his natural stinginess, low self-esteem, or a desire to shock others. On the contrary, she speaks only of his inner, spiritual freedom. Klyuchevsky was accustomed to doing as it was convenient for him, and was not going to change his habits to please external conventions.
Having crossed the line of his fiftieth birthday, Klyuchevsky fully retained his incredible ability to work. She amazed his younger students. One of them recalls how, after working for long hours with young people in the late evening and at night, Klyuchevsky appeared in the department in the morning fresh and full of energy, while the students could hardly stand on their feet.
Of course, he sometimes got sick, complained either of a sore throat or a cold, drafts that blew through the lecture hall at Gerrier's courses began to irritate him, and sometimes his teeth ached. But he called his health iron and was right. Not really observing the rules of hygiene (he worked at night, not sparing his eyes), he created an original aphorism about her: "Hygiene teaches how to be a chain dog of your own health." There was another saying about work: "He who is not able to work 16 hours a day has no right to be born and must be removed from life as a usurper of being." (Both aphorisms date back to the 1890s.)
The memory of Klyuchevsky, like that of any failed clergyman, was amazing. One day, going up to the pulpit for a lecture at some public scientific celebration, he tripped over a step and dropped the sheets of his notes. They scattered like a fan across the floor, their order was fundamentally disrupted. The sheets were once again mixed up by the listeners who rushed to the aid of the professor. Everyone was worried about the fate of the report. Only Klyuchevsky's wife Anisya Mikhailovna, who was sitting in the front rows, remained completely calm: “He will read it, read it, he remembers everything by heart,” she calmly reassured the neighbors. And so it happened.
A very distinct "beaded" handwriting, perhaps even smaller than beads, writing with a sharply sharpened pencil testified to the historian's good eyesight for a long time. It is not his handwriting that interferes with reading his archival manuscripts - it is impeccable, but a pencil that has worn out from time to time. Only in the last years of his life did Klyuchevsky's handwriting become larger, with the predominant use of pen and ink. “To be able to write legibly is the first rule of politeness,” says one of the historian's aphorisms. On his writing table he did not have any massive inkwell on a marble board, but a five-kopeck bottle of ink, where he dipped his pen, as he once did in his seminary years.
In the memoirs dedicated to the historian, the question of whether he was happy in marriage is not at all discussed. This spicy side privacy, or was deliberately kept silent by his acquaintances, or was hidden from prying eyes. As a result, Klyuchevsky's relationship with his wife, reflected only in correspondence with relatives or in the extremely rare memories of family friends, remain not entirely certain.
It is not for nothing that a memoir theme stands out against this background, which characterizes the attitude of Klyuchevsky to the fair sex. The esteemed professor, while maintaining the image of a trustworthy family man, has managed to acquire the fame of a gallant gentleman and ladies' man.
Maria Golubtsova, the daughter of a friend of Klyuchevsky, a teacher of the Theological Academy, A.P. Golubtsov, recalls such a "funny scene." Vasily Osipovich, having come to Easter, was not averse to "making Christ" with her. But the little girl unceremoniously refused him. "The first woman who refused to kiss me!"- said Vasily Osipovich, laughing, to her father. Even on a walk in the mountains with Prince George and all his "brilliant company", Klyuchevsky did not fail to attract female attention to his person. Grieved that he was given an old-aged maid of honor as a companion, he decided to take revenge: Klyuchevsky shocked the company by picking the edelweiss that grew over the cliff and presented it to his lady. “On the way back, everyone surrounded me, and the youngest young ladies walked with me,” the professor, pleased with his trick, said.
Klyuchevsky taught at the Higher Courses for Women, and here the elderly professor was pursued by a mass of enthusiastic admirers who literally idolized him. At the university, even when girls were banned from attending university lectures, its female audience grew steadily. The hostesses of the most famous Moscow salons often competed with each other, wanting to see Klyuchevsky at all their evenings.
The historian's attitude towards women was something chivalrous and at the same time detached - he was ready to serve them and admire them, but, most likely, disinterestedly: only as a gallant gentleman.
One of the few women with whom Klyuchevsky maintained trusting, even friendly relations for many years was the wife's sister, Nadezhda Mikhailovna, which we have already mentioned. Vasily Osipovich willingly invited his sister-in-law to visit, corresponded with her, became the godfather of her pupil. The different characters of these people, most likely, were united by an addiction to witty humor and intellectual irony. V.O. Klyuchevsky gave Nadezhda Mikhailovna an invaluable gift - he gave his "black book" with a collection of aphorisms. Almost all the aphorisms now attributed to the historian are known and remembered only thanks to this book. It contains many dedications to a woman and, perhaps, that is why, after the death of Klyuchevsky, the memoirists involuntarily focused their attention on the topic of his “non-family” relationship with the fair sex.
Speaking about the appearance of Klyuchevsky, many contemporaries noted that he "in his appearance was unenviable ... undignified." From the famous photograph of 1890, a typical "commoner" looks at us: an elderly, tired, slightly ironic man with the appearance of a parish priest or a deacon, who does not care too much about his appearance. Modest requests and habits, ascetic appearance Klyuchevsky, on the one hand, distinguished him from among the university professors, on the other, they were typical of different Moscow inhabitants or visiting provincials. But as soon as Vasily Osipovich struck up a conversation with someone, magnetic force, forcing, somehow involuntarily, to love him. " He did not imitate anyone and did not resemble anyone, "It was created in all the original"... (Memories of priest A. Rozhdestvensky. Memories of V. O. Klyuchevsky // Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. Biographical sketch ... p. 423.)
The person of Klyuchevsky was also interesting thanks to his extraordinary sense of humor: "He sparkled like fireworks with sparkles of wit"... As you know, vivid images of Klyuchevsky's lectures were prepared by him in advance and even repeated from year to year, which was noted by his students and colleagues. But, at the same time, they were always refreshed by the "quick and accurate as a shot" improvisation. At the same time, "the charm of his witticisms lay in the fact that in each of them, along with a completely unexpected juxtaposition of concepts, there was always a very subtle thought." (Bogoslovsky, M. M. "From the memoirs of V. O. Klyuchevsky.")
Klyuchevsky's sharp tongue did not spare anyone, hence his reputation as an "incorrigible skeptic who does not recognize any sacred things." At first glance, he could easily appear selfish and angry. But this impression, of course, was wrong - PN Milyukov and AN Savin justified it: "The Mask of Mephistopheles" was designed not to let strangers into the holy of holies of his sensitive soul. Once in a new and heterogeneous social environment, Klyuchevsky had to develop the habit of wearing this mask as a "protective shell", perhaps, thereby misleading many of his colleagues and contemporaries. Perhaps with the help of this "shell" the historian tried to win back his right to internal freedom.
Klyuchevsky communicated with almost all the scientific, creative and political elite of his time. He attended both official receptions and informal journalism, and just loved to visit colleagues and acquaintances. He always left the impression of an interesting companion, a pleasant guest, a gallant gentleman. But the most sincere friends, according to the recollections of relatives, for Klyuchevsky were ordinary people, mainly of the spiritual class. For example, one could often find with him the assistant librarian of the Theological Academy - Hieromonk Raphael. The hieromonk was a great original and a very kind person (nephews or seminarians constantly lived in his cell). Father Raphael knew scholarly works only by the names and color of the spines of books, moreover, he was extremely ugly, but he loved to boast of his scholarship and former beauty. Klyuchevsky always joked about him and especially liked to ask why he had not married. To which he was answered: “Yes, you know, brother, as he graduated from the seminary, so we have brides, brides, passion. And I used to run away into the garden, lie down between the ridges, and I lie, and they are looking for me. I was handsome then. " “Traces of the former beauty are still noticeable,” Klyuchevsky agreed with good irony.
Coming to Sergiev Posad for the holidays, the professor loved, along with the townspeople guys and girls, to take part in festivities, ride a carousel.
Obviously, in such communication, the eminent historian was looking for simplicity so familiar to him from childhood, which was so lacking in the prim academic environment and the capital's society. Here Klyuchevsky could feel free, not wear "masks", not play "a learned professor", be himself.
The meaning of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky
The importance of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky for his contemporaries was enormous. He was highly regarded as a professional historian, appreciated as an outstanding, talented person. Many students and followers saw in him a source of morality, instructiveness, kindness, and sparkling humor.
But those who communicated with V.O.Klyuchevsky in an informal setting were often repelled in him by his excessive (sometimes unjustified) frugality, scrupulousness in details, unpretentious, "philistine" home environment, sharp language and at the same time - indiscretion in emotions, restraint, isolation of character.
The extraordinary talent of a researcher and analyst, courage in judgments and conclusions inherent in V.O. Klyuchevsky would hardly have allowed him to make a successful career as a clergyman. Applying all these qualities in the scientific field, the provincial priest actually caught the "bird of luck" by the tail, for which he came from Penza to Moscow. He became the most famous historian of Russia, a venerable scientist, academician, "general" from science, a personality of all-Russian and even world scale. Nevertheless, V.O. Klyuchevsky did not feel like a triumphant. Having lived almost his entire adult life in isolation from the environment that raised him, he still tried to remain faithful to his present, at least in the family way of life, life, habits. For some contemporaries, this caused bewilderment and mockery of the "eccentricities" of Professor Klyuchevsky, others made them talk about his "inconsistency", "complexity", "egoism."
In this global contradiction of mind and heart, in our opinion, was the triumph and tragedy of many famous people of Russia, who came from the environment of "commoners" and entered a society where, by and large, the traditions of noble culture still prevailed. Klyuchevsky turned out to be a significant figure in this regard.
IN. Klyuchevsky
A nondescript-looking man, similar to a sexton of a provincial church, in an old fur coat and with spots on his official uniform, at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries was the "face" of Moscow University, an ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, a teacher of imperial children.
This fact largely testifies to a change in external priorities and the democratization of not only Russian society, but also domestic science as a whole.
As a scientist V.O. Klyuchevsky did not make a global revolution in the theory or methodology of historical science. By and large, he only developed and brought to a new qualitative level the idea of the "state" historical school of Moscow University. But the very image of Professor Klyuchevsky broke all the hitherto existing stereotypes of the appearance of a famous scientist, a successful lecturer and, in general, an "educated person" as a bearer of noble culture. Intuitively not wanting to adapt, to adapt to external conventions, at least in everyday life and behavior, the historian Klyuchevsky contributed to the introduction of a fashion for democracy, freedom of personal expression and, most importantly, spiritual freedom in the capital's academic environment, without which the formation of a social "stratum" called the intelligentsia is impossible.
Students loved Professor Klyuchevsky not at all for his shabby fur coat or his ability to artistically tell historical anecdotes. They saw in front of them a person who, before their very eyes, turned the time, by his example, who destroyed the gap between the history of the Fatherland as a tool for educating loyal patriotism and history as a subject of knowledge accessible to every researcher.
For forty years of inflamed public passions, the historian was able to "find the key" to any - spiritual, university, military - audience, captivating and captivating everywhere, never in any way arousing the suspicion of the authorities and various authorities.
That is why, in our opinion, V.O. Klyuchevsky - scientist, artist, artist, master - was erected not only by his contemporaries, but also by his descendants on the high pedestal of the leading figure of Russian historical science. Like N.M. Karamzin at the beginning of the 19th century, at the beginning of the 20th century, he gave his compatriots the history that they wanted to know at that very moment, thereby drawing a line under all previous historiography and looking into the distant future.
V.O. Klyuchevsky died on May 12 (25), 1911 in Moscow, and was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.
Memory and descendants
Memorization of the cultural space in Moscow associated with the name of Klyuchevsky was actively developing in the first years after his death. A few days after the death of V. O. Klyuchevsky, in May 1911, the Moscow City Duma received a statement from the vowel N. A. Shamin about "the need to perpetuate the memory of the famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky." As a result of the meetings of the Duma, it was decided in 1912 to establish a scholarship at the Moscow Imperial University "in memory of V.O. Klyuchevsky." The Klyuchevsky scholarship was also established by the Moscow Higher Courses for Women, where he taught as a historian.
At the same time, Moscow University announced a competition to provide memories of V.O. Klyuchevsky.
Boris Klyuchevsky as a child
In the house on Zhitnaya Street, where Vasily Osipovich lived in recent years, his son, Boris Klyuchevsky, planned to open a museum. Here was the library, the personal archive of V.O. Klyuchevsky, his personal belongings, a portrait by the artist V.O. Sherwood. The son oversaw the holding of the annual memorial services in memory of his father, gathering his disciples and everyone who cherished his memory. Thus, the house of V.O. Klyuchevsky, even after his death, continued to play the role of a center uniting Moscow historians.
In 1918, the Moscow house of the historian was searched, the main part of the archive was evacuated to Petrograd, to one of Klyuchevsky's students, the literary historian Ya.L. Barsky. Subsequently, Boris Klyuchevsky managed to obtain a "security certificate" for his father's library and, with great difficulty, returned the bulk of the manuscripts from Barsky, but in the 1920s the historian's library and archive were seized and placed in state archives.
At the same time, among the students of Klyuchevsky who remained in Moscow, the problem of erecting a monument to the great historian acquired special urgency. By that time, there was not even a monument at his grave in the Donskoy Monastery. The reason for various conversations was partly the negative attitude of the students towards the only living descendant of Klyuchevsky.
Boris Vasilievich Klyuchevsky, according to him, graduated from two faculties of Moscow University, but his scientific activity did not attract him. For many years he played the role of home secretary of his famous father, was fond of sports and bicycle improvement.
From the stories of B. Klyuchevsky M.V. Nechkina knows the following episode: in his youth, Boris invented some kind of special "nut" for a bicycle and was very proud of it. Rolling it in the palm of your hand, V.O. Klyuchevsky, with his usual sarcasm, told the guests: “What time has come! To invent such a nut, you have to graduate from two faculties - history and law ... ”(Nechkina MV Decree, p. 318).
Obviously, Vasily Osipovich spent much more time communicating with his students than with his own son. The son's hobbies did not evoke either understanding or approval from the historian. According to the recollections of eyewitnesses (in particular, Yu. V. Gauthier indicates this), in the last years of his life, Klyuchevsky's relationship with Boris left much to be desired. Vasily Osipovich did not like his son's hobby for politics, as well as his open cohabitation either with a housekeeper, or with a maid who lived in their house. Friends and acquaintances of V.O. Klyuchevsky - V.A. Maklakov and A.N. Savin - it was also believed that the young man exerts strong pressure on the elderly, weakened from the illnesses of Vasily Osipovich.
Nevertheless, during the life of V.O. Klyuchevsky, Boris helped him a lot in his work, and after the death of the scientist he collected and preserved his archive, actively participated in the publication of his father's scientific heritage, was engaged in the publication and reprint of his books.
In the 1920s, colleagues and students of Klyuchevsky accused the "heir" of the fact that the grave of his parents is in desolation: there is neither a monument nor a fence. Most likely, Boris Vasilyevich simply did not have the funds to install a worthy monument, and the events of the revolution and Civil War contributed little to the cares of living people about their deceased ancestors.
Through the efforts of the university community, the "Committee on the question of perpetuating the memory of V.O. Klyuchevsky" was created, which set as its goal the installation of a monument to the historian on one of the central streets of Moscow. However, the Committee limited itself only to the creation in 1928 of a common memorial-tombstone on the grave of the Klyuchevsky spouses (the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery). After the "academic case" (1929-30), the persecution and deportation of historians of the "old school" began. VO Klyuchevsky was ranked among the "liberal-bourgeois" direction of historiography, and it was considered inappropriate to erect a separate monument to him in the center of Moscow.
Width = "300">
The historian's son Boris Klyuchevsky broke all ties with the scientific community in the first half of the 1920s. According to M.V. Nechkina, he served as an assistant legal adviser "in some automotive department" and, finally, was doing his favorite thing - car repairs. Then the son of Klyuchevsky was a car technician, translator, minor co-auditor of VATO. In 1933 he was repressed and sentenced to exile in Alma-Ata. The exact date of his death is unknown (circa 1944). However, B.V. Klyuchevsky managed to preserve the main and very important part of his father's archive. These materials were acquired in 1945 by the Commission on the History of Historical Sciences at the department of the Institute of History and Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR from the "widow of the historian's son." The V.O.Klyuchevsky Museum in Moscow was never created by him, the memories of his father were also not written ...
Only in 1991, on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Klyuchevsky, a museum was opened in Penza, named after the great historian. And today the monuments to V.O. Klyuchevsky exist only in his homeland, in the village of Voskresenovka (Penza region) and in Penza, where the Klyuchevsky family moved after the death of their father. It is noteworthy that the initiatives to perpetuate the memory of the historian, as a rule, did not come from the state or the scientific community, but from local authorities and enthusiasts of local history.
Elena Shirokova
For the preparation of this work, materials from the sites were used:
http://www.history.perm.ru/
World outlook portraits. Klyuchevsky V.O. Bibliofond
Literature:
Bogomazova O. V. Private life of a famous historian (based on the materials of memoirs about V.O. Klyuchevsky) // Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2009. No. 23 (161). History. Issue 33. S. 151-159.
History and historians in the space of national and world culture of the 18th – 21st centuries: collection of articles / ed. N.N. Alevras, N.V. Grishina, Yu.V. Krasnova. - Chelyabinsk: Encyclopedia, 2011;
The world of the historian: a historiographic collection / edited by V.P. Korzun, S.P. Bychkov. - Issue. 7. - Omsk: Publishing house Om. state university, 2011;
M.V. Nechkina Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). History of life and creativity, Moscow: "Science", 1974;
Shakhanov A.N. Struggle against "objectivism" and "cosmopolitanism" in Soviet historical science. "Russian historiography" by N.L. Rubinstein // History and historians, 2004. - №1 - pp. 186-207.
The memory, addressed to the personality of any major cultural and scientific figure, contains not only a feeling of gratitude for everything they have done, but also a sense of respect for the legacy left, which turned out to be necessary for subsequent generations who respect their past and know how to learn from it.
Almost a century separates us from the flowering of Klyuchevsky's creative thought. And all this time there has been a not at all idle question, no matter how complex it may be, - about the value of the experience of his thought for our modern scientific and teaching life, as well as for the public consciousness of presently living generations.
The younger contemporaries of Klyuchevsky turned to comprehending the results of this experience immediately after his death. Many obituaries were just a tribute to the mournful feeling that arose at the news of the death of the scientist. By 1912, the leading Moscow and St. Petersburg professors managed to prepare and publish in Moscow the collection "Characteristics and Memories" dedicated to V.O. Klyuchevsky.
With all the variety of analysis of his work, scientists who knew Vasily Osipovich and his published works well personally set themselves one goal - to proclaim him the founder of the first truly scientific school in Russian historical science, the creator of the scientific history of Russia. It is noteworthy that among the authors of the memoirs placed in this publication were representatives of the historical and legal direction, with which V.O. Since the 1880s, Klyuchevsky has had very complicated and sometimes openly hostile relations. So, B.I. Syromyatnikov resolutely opposed Klyuchevsky B.N. Chicherin, one of the main ideologists of the "state school", and argued that Vasily Osipovich approved a new method in Russian historical science and gave "new answers to old questions" 1.
By the way, a little earlier, in the jubilee collection of articles dedicated to Klyuchevsky, another historian of law, S. A. Kotlyarevsky, highly appreciated his monograph "Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus" precisely from the methodological standpoint. during his lifetime in various journals and other publications - "Experiments and Research", "Essays and Speeches", "Reviews and Answers".
In 1914, these collections were published, and in the Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (1914, No. 1), Klyuchevsky's service record was published with all the administrative details of his career, awards, etc. In 1913, A. Yushkov published his monograph "History of the Estates in Russia" based on the lithography corrected earlier by the author himself. Together with the monographs "Legends of foreigners about the Moscow state", "Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia" and "Course of Russian history" posthumous editions for a long time made up the corpus of Klyuchevsky's works, which until the 1950s. scientists relied in their theoretical assessments of his work.
This stage of studying the legacy of Klyuchevsky as a theorist of the historical process of Russia can only be viewed as evaluative, since it was possible to judge the development of a scientist's creative thought only on the basis of already published works. During the 20-40s. in general criticism of cultural and scientific heritage pre-revolutionary Russia VO Klyuchevsky was devoted to separate memoirs and sections in generalizing works of a historiographic nature, but no special monographic studies of his work were undertaken.
For all his critics, the scientific significance of Klyuchevsky was obvious as one of the largest representatives of the bourgeois historical science of Rosszi, but she was assessed very differently. Historiographers tried to determine in the diversity of V.O. Klyuchevsky's scientific problems the leading theoretical direction for him, to catch his fluctuations "to the right" and "to the left", and hence his personal political positions.
All these attempts today retain only significance for the history of cognition of historical science, but they give little for understanding Klyuchevsky as a scientist. In this respect, they did not lose interest in observing Klyuchevsky's younger contemporaries - his student P.N. Milyukov and professor at St. Petersburg University S.F. Platonov, who, perhaps more objectively than anyone else, represented the inner world of Klyuchevsky. PN Milyukov, an active leader of the Cadet party, did not hesitate to note in his memoirs the political activity of Klyuchevsky, wrote that Vasily Osipovich remained a "democrat" who stood "closer to the democratic-populist, than to the constitutional-liberal trend of our intelligentsia 3. In the same tone, S. F. Platonov recalled about Klyuchevsky, a man not inclined to any exaggeration in his assessments.
Bearing in mind the unexpected "glimpses of a certain pessimism and mournful mood" in Klyuchevsky, manifested in his old years, in particular, in the article "Sadness" dedicated to the memory of M. Yu. Lermontov, and even more so "unexpected lyricism" in a speech in memory of Alexander III, Platonov wrote: “These two speeches of Klyuchevsky were taken into account as symptoms of a mental breakdown, which moved him to the right from his previous positions. But ten years have passed, and recent years have found our historian in the same positions. The mental "break" was not a change in views and feelings; it turned out to be only a symptom of great mental complexity, in which the most diverse elements of the Russian element and universal human thought were intertwined in an intricate knot ”4.
Now, according to the diaries of Klyuchevsky and his handwritten sketches relating to the last, fifth, part of the "Course in Russian History", not finished; and which did not see the light in the final author's edition, it is possible to assert the fairness of words and the subtlety of Platonov's feelings. Since the 50s. after the transfer from private hands to the state storage of V.O.Klyuchevsky's archive and the formation of its special funds (primarily in the manuscript departments of the V.I. life path of the historian. The effectiveness of this stage is in no way comparable with all previous publications of Klyuchevsky's works, and with research experiments dedicated to them. Moreover, even in comparison with S.M.Solovyov, to whose name historiography returned with special attention at the same time, the diverse activity of researching V.O.Klyuchevsky's work undoubtedly prevailed and still prevails today.
It is highly indicative that this work, dictated primarily by the arising documentary possibilities, met the reader's needs; works by V.O. Klyuchevsky, published in the 50s. with a circulation of tens of thousands of copies, at present, even after reaching the million mark, they remain rarities. Initiative in the development of the archive of V.O. Klyuchevsky since the 50s. rightfully belongs to Alexander Alexandrovich Zimin.
In 1951 he summed up the first results of his observations about the composition of the Klyuchevsky archive and the possibilities that exist for further research of his life and work. Based on the materials of the archive, he paid special attention to the formation of Klyuchevsky's historical views on early stages of his work, starting from his student days at Moscow University, in the process of communicating with his teachers, primarily F.I.Buslaev and S.M. —1959).
The main value of this publication, which, unfortunately, did not cover the entire scientific heritage of the historian, was, firstly, in the publication of his special courses read to university students in the 1880s - early 1900 and remained unknown to readers. We are talking about lectures on source studies, terminology of Russian ‘history and Russian historiography. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, in the process of preparing the publication, the entire reference apparatus was restored and a source analysis of the composition of the Course of Russian History was carried out by comparing the lithographic texts on which the author relied in preparation for the publication of the Course, with its final text ...
When publishing a number of his works, and above all the "Course of Russian History", Klyuchevsky did not give references to the publication of documents, memoirs and works of other historians; however, in the margins of his lithographed lectures, he briefly mentioned in pencil all the publications on which he considered it necessary to rely. Thus, this work for the first time made it possible to penetrate into the scientist's "laboratory" and recreate the final text of the "Course of Russian History" further, during the reprints of individual volumes, it was supplemented with inserts and editorial clarifications. Publication of the Works of V.O. Klyuchevsky in 1956-1959. served as a serious impetus for the monographic study of his work. In 1966 the monograph by R. A. Kireeva “V. O. Klyuchevsky as a historian of Russian historical science ", in 1970 - E. G. Chumachenko -" V. O. Klyuchevsky is a source-guide. " In 1974, MV Nechkina's voluminous work "Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky" appeared, representing the first experience of a generalizing description of the entire life and creative path of a scientist. At the same time, the publication of materials from the archive of V.O. Klyuchevsky continued. 6. In 1988 A.I. Pliguzov and V.L.Yanin for the first time republished V.O. and has since become a bibliographic rarity. Finally, in 1987-1990. The Works of V.O. Klyuchevsky in 9 volumes were published, based on a textologically verified edition of 1956-1959. and taking into account the archival materials published in 1968 and 1983, and containing a special university course "Methodology of Russian history" unknown to readers.
In 1990, a one-volume collection of works by V.O. Klyuchevsky “Historical Portraits. Figures of Historical Thought ”, the very name of which reflected one of the directions of the scientist's scientific work. With all the scale of attention to the legacy we have inherited, in no case should one think of any completeness in its study, either from a publishing or research point of view. In particular, the earliest version of the "Course in Russian History" dating back to the 1870s remains on the archival shelves; The teaching activity of V.O.Klyuchevsky in the Alexander School, in the Theological Academy, at the Higher Courses for Women is not at all covered, and, of course, the scientific concept of the historical process in Russia created by him can be interpreted not so unambiguously as now. 59 Nevertheless, even at the modern level of knowledge, the question of the significance of V.O. Klyuchevsky's theoretical legacy arises urgently, and hence the reasons for the unremitting interest in his work can be determined.
In other words, the question is whether to consider this heritage as an outstanding monument of historical thought or to see in it a source of enduring ideas and still unresolved controversial issues. Already in the process of publishing the first Collected Works of V.O. Klyuchevsky, one of the harsh critics of the scientist, M.N. Tikhomirov, highly appreciated his scientific conscientiousness. In 1958 he wrote: “Now that the first three parts of the Course have come out, we have the opportunity to look into the process of its creation that was previously inaccessible to us. The circle of books and sources used to compile the "Course" is relatively small, but at the same time indicative. Klyuchevsky chose, so to speak, the most reliable sources, the information of which did not raise doubts in him and could not be suspected of inaccuracy.
This is where the “fundamentality” of historical quotation stemmed from, which amazes specialist historians when reading the Course. The historical facts and quotes cited in the "Course" can be trusted. The characteristics of certain historical sources, made by Klyuchevsky, retain their value in our time. ”7. The scientific conscientiousness of Klyuchevsky and his source study sagacity give particular urgency to raising questions about the modern understanding of his heritage. At the same time, two points are most significant - Klyuchevsky's methodological approach to teaching and his lecturing activities and the principles he developed in creating the concept of Russian history. The surviving evidence of the memoir property unanimously confirms the lecture-skill of Klyuchevsky; this gift was given to him not only "from God", he worked out by himself purposefully and consistently.
The talent he developed is all the more striking because Klyuchevsky was never an orator in the generally accepted sense of the word. There were enough Zlatoust in Russia at that time. Klyuchevsky had a physical handicap since childhood - stuttering - he overcame in the manner in which his lecture skills were manifested. V.O. Klyuchevsky spoke quietly, very distinctly and slowly; the richness of intonations created the music of speech that fascinated the audience, who was sitting still, and the subtle psychological perception of a particular era and the artistic embodiment in its characters, the chasing of phrasing with the amazing use of all the richness of the Russian language kept the listeners in tense anticipation of some refined imagery or a poisonous joke.
When comparing the lithography of the lectures of the 70s and 80s. Klyuchevsky's constant work on the text is striking, replacing individual words and expressions for the sake of achieving brevity and clarity of presentation, overcoming its lengthyness and replacing cheap effects with bright aphorisms and impromptu, "unexpectedly" published, but in reality prepared in advance. Klyuchevsky was a great master of such "preparations" both for lectures and for everyday communication with the people around him; a great many of them have survived both in the texts of his works and stored in a special notebook and in a notebook. Klyuchevsky himself succinctly expressed this in a well-known aphorism - "an easy thing is hard to write and speak, but easy to write and speak is a hard business" 8.
For himself, Klyuchevsky once formulated in the Notebook of the 90s. his own experience of “submission” to the audience: “Developing a thought in speech, one must first put its scheme into the mind of the listeners, then present it to the imagination in a visual comparison, and finally, on a soft lyrical lining, carefully put it on the listening heart, 60 and then the listener - Your prisoner of war himself will not run away from you, even when you set him free, he will remain forever obedient to your client. " independent work and never let go. Only this element can explain his inexplicable ability to work in this field. In 1867-1883. he taught at the Alexander Military School, in 1871-1906 at the Moscow Theological Academy, in 1872-1887 at the Higher Courses for Women, in 1879-1911 at Moscow University; in addition, he occasionally read courses of public lectures at the Polytechnic Museum, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, and also constantly made reports and speeches.
The fame of the lecturer came to him already in the 70s, and student rumor spread it outside the walls of educational institutions long before he received a professorship at the end of 1882. The popularity of the name of Klyuchevsky depended not only on lecturing, on which the memoirists usually fixed their attention ... In addition to the purely external ability to fascinate any audience, there was a deeper circumstance in its essence. V.O. Klyuchevsky, like no one else, introduced an educational, edifying, but unobtrusive, vividly and clearly formulated and scientifically provable beginning with his teaching practice and his works. Its goal was to foster self-awareness, and its listeners and readers rarely received clearly targeted ethical "charges."
For every era, every episode or character, Klyuchevsky was able to find a verbally flawlessly expressed image or concept, one way or another addressed to national and social consciousness. Already in the second lecture of his famous "Course in Russian History," he concluded it by appealing to the feeling of man, which can be brought up by an understanding of his historical past; “Determining the tasks and direction of our activities, each of us must be at least a little bit of a historian in order to become a consciously and conscientiously acting citizen.” “Our job is to tell the truth, not caring what some captain of the guards will say ...
Russia has common foundations of life with Western Europe, but it has its own peculiarities ... the historical exposition will show that the new beginning is not the arbitrariness of thought, but the natural demand of life. " half of the XIX century, he severely reproached the thinking of the public, which, after the reforms of the 1860s. at a new stage in history, she showed "indifference to the domestic past." " Historical law Klyuchevsky wrote, “a stern uncle of immature peoples and even happens to be their executioner when their stupid childish obstinacy turns into an insane readiness for historical self-forgetfulness.” 12. In these appeals to human thinking, Klyuchevsky considered historical experience exceptionally figuratively. In his "Course of Russian History" he threw a serious warning to his contemporaries: "The history of the people, scientifically reproduced, becomes his income and expense book, according to which the shortcomings and overexposures of his past are counted" 13, and explained that the historical consciousness generated from the knowledge of the past gives to the society that possesses it, that eye of the situation, the instinct of the minute, which protect it from both inertia and haste ”14.
In his speech "The Significance of St. Sergius for the Russian People and State," the historian seemed to be leafing through this income and expense book. Turning to a scary era Mongol yoke and the Battle of Kulikovo, Klyuchevsky, in the millions of people who came to the grave of Sergius for five centuries, felt the timeless memory of the people, which turned into a high moral idea and testifies that “one of the hallmarks of a great people is its ability to rise to its feet after a fall” 15. No less he directed his speech 61 "Kind People of Ancient Rus", read at a public meeting in favor of those who suffered from crop failure in the Volga region in the early 1890s. He began this speech with the words: “Charity is a word with a very controversial meaning and a very simple meaning” 16, and then he developed the idea of it as a condition of “moral health that historically existed among the people.” 17 He constantly extended the edifying lessons of the past to historical types of people who, by the will of fate and chance, ended up at the head of the people.
Opponent of autocracy, he came to a final assessment of the activities of Peter I for a long time, until he found the necessary harsh formulation, far from panegyric and worthy, from his point of view, a great emperor, whose entire activity to create the rule of law by the force of arbitrariness was moral and legal nonsense. “Autocracy itself is disgusting as a political principle. He is never recognized by a civil conscience. But you can put up with a person in whom this unnatural force is combined with self-sacrifice. ” It wasn’t just a matter of looking back at censorship. This showed a certain principle that Klyuchevsky instilled in his listeners and readers. Concluding his memories of Klyuchevskoy as a scientific advisor, his student, who later became a very prominent scientist, Yu. V, Gauthier, successfully revealed this principle “in the requirement that such a person“ reach ”by himself, deepen his knowledge and get used to an independent scientific activity ... in all this one cannot but see the conscious methods of a kind of scientific pedagogy, developed by many years of practice, by long thoughts of a strong and original mind. " speaking to a wide audience as the successor of S. Myu Soloviev in the department.
A quarter of a century later, in 1904, he himself led the reader of his "Course" to understand, on the basis of a study of the past, the practical needs of the "current minute." in the understanding of the human personality, its relationship with society, especially exacerbated the popularity of his lectures and works. In the legacy of V.O. Klyuchevsky, there are many statements about his deceased colleagues. In such responses, one can notice a motive that most closely matched the work of Klyuchevsky himself. Referring to the memory of T.N. Granovsky, F.I.Buslaev, three times to the name of S.M. Solovyov, he certainly linked together their teaching and scientific activities. It is this connection that removes the question (if someone puts it) about who prevailed in Klyuchevskoy - a teacher or a researcher. Delving into the scientific "laboratory" of the scientist, one can see how the original concept of the historical process was reflected in his large-scale teaching practice.
Carefully examining the experience of his university teachers, Klyuchevsky abruptly broke with the established tradition (and still retains its position) of the systematic presentation of historical events and focused his attention on theoretical generalizations. As a result, his "Course of Russian History", which became a scientific testament, in which creative energy was concentrated, reflected in the search for conceptual provisions in individual monographs and lecture courses, became the first and still the only attempt at a problematic approach to the presentation of the entire Russian history. The legacy of Klyuchevsky was considered in different aspects at different stages of the history of historical science. Of course, the main attention was paid to its general theoretical provisions, and, as a rule, there was a desire to determine the directions of the socio-economic order, supposedly prevailing in its constructions.
For all the searches in this direction in 62 post-revolutionary historiography, until relatively recently, Klyuchevsky was reproached, however, in a different tone, in the viciousness of methodology, limited class analysis, inability to overcome the "wrong" ideas of the bourgeois-liberal, even in constitutional monarchism, etc. As a result, his work was firmly associated with various ideas about his political views... We can agree with the conclusion of MV Nechkina that “the historical significance of Klyuchevsky is very great. He gave Russian science one of the brightest concepts of the country's historical past - contradictory, unsaid, but full of problems ”22.
But if these words are true, the patronizing and condolent regret of M.V. Nechkina about the impossibility for Klyuchevsky to overcome everything that testified to the crisis of pre-revolutionary historical science is perplexing. , with an arrogant confidence in their own superiority over a person of another era. The above testimonies of M.N. Tikhomirov about the high level of Kliuchevsky's source study, the conviction of R.A.Kireeva in perfection for that time in the development of the history of historical science 24, and finally, the detailed sections of M.V. to assess the correlation of the theoretical heritage of the scientist with the crisis of bourgeois historical science. It was the "tricky knot" tied, according to S.F. It contained the experience of a researcher's understanding of history while motivating its processes by the sum of essentially different, but precisely defined "historical forces."
Until now, historiographers viewed such an approach as eclectic, although it is unlikely that only the socio-economic dominant can manifest itself as a guiding one in all specific historical situations, especially when taking into account the peculiarities of “local history” (in the terminology of Klyuchevsky). It is this fundamental feature of Klyuchevsky's conceptual approach that should attract primary attention. Klyuchevsky's concept of the Russian historical process took decades to develop. It was not for nothing that in one private letter he very self-critically admitted back in 1872: "My inability to work quickly, and it is an arrogant historical fact for me now" 25.
Developing his concept, Klyuchevsky certainly showed scientific modesty. In search of the "secret" of the historical process, he only pinned his hope on the knowledge of combinations of different conditions for the development of a particular country, which would make it possible in the future to create a science "about the general laws of the structure of human societies, applicable regardless of transient local conditions." from the thought of the exclusivity of Russian history and considered it only as a variant of universal history, with its own "local" peculiarities. He saw the basis of his search in the individual human personality and human society in all their historical diversity, living in certain natural conditions. This approach was first formulated by him in 1 lecture of the "Course of Russian History", but was the result of all his research since the late 1860s. “So, the human personality, human society and the nature of the country - these are the three main historical forces that build the human community” 27 - Klyuchevsky defined his positions in 1904 as opposed to the theoretical principles of the “state school”. The role of the natural factor in the history of the people was also advanced before V.O. Klyuchevsky. In the 1870s. in his lectures he followed SM Soloviev in explaining this factor. However, his interpretation soon acquired an independent sound. SM Soloviev, the leading force in the system people - state - personality believed that the people were embodied in the state and, in particular, the state "organized" the people in the process of constant displacement. Klyuchevsky in his work on the Boyar Duma came to a completely different understanding of the relationship between the role of the people and the state. It was the colonization movements, in his opinion, that determined the political order in udgl time and the process of the creation of the Moscow state. "This colonization (from the south-west, from Kievan Rus to the north-east. - V.A.) created the world of Russian settlements, which served as a ready ground for the specific princely possession," 28 Klyuchevsky argued. He viewed the colonization of the Trans-Volga region as a continuation of the process of settling in the central interfluve; its geographical expansion and the creation of the Moscow state, he considered "the cause of the people", which created its "people's camp" with Moscow as the strategically most convenient center of the struggle on three fronts - eastern, southern and western.
This state "was born on the Kulikovo field, and not in Ivan Kalita's hoary chest," 29 Klyuchevsky could not resist another aphorism. While preparing the first volume of the "Course of Russian History" for publication, Klyuchevsky formulated theoretically capaciously, aphoristically his understanding of the essence of national migrations: “The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Either falling or rising, this age-old movement continues to this day ”30. Moreover,“ based on the current situation, he made a far-reaching and justified assumption - this movement, over time, “will inevitably affect the general state of affairs with important consequences” 31 So the people as an ethnic and ethical concept in the concept of Klyuchevsky was given the main force in the history of the formation and development of the state. Until now, little attention has been paid to this idea in the ethnic aspect in historiography. early works devoted to the Solovetsky monastery and the lives of the saints, and after him the problem remains inexhaustible.
One way or another, the migration movements had consequences of a social, economic, political and demographic nature that were important for the state. They were considered in studies devoted to indiscriminate regions, but were never subjected to a generalizing analysis.At the same time, there is a direct connection between the migration movements, first of all, of the Russian population, with the consolidation of the newly incorporated territories within the multinational state, social protests against serfdom, the spread of agricultural practices, etc. The flourishing of V.O. Klyuchevsky's creative activity in the second half of the 1870s - 1880s. reflected in his special courses: "Methodology of Russian history", "Terminology of Russian history", "History of estates in Russia", "Sources of Russian history", "Lectures from Russian historiography", in which he developed his theoretical ideas primarily about the main " constituent "elements of the historical process. These ideas sounded in the emerging general course, on the basis of which he later prepared his "Course of Russian History" for publication.
MN Tikhomirov stated with good reason that "Klyuchevsky's thoughtful and long-term work on issues of source study, terminology, etc. helps to understand the level of factual validity of both his monographic research and the Course of Russian History" 32. In the course "Methodology" , preserved from the lithograph of the recording of listeners in 1884/85, V.O. Klyuchevsky recognized "four historical forces that create and guide the community: 1) the nature of the country; 2) the physical nature of man; 3) the personality and 4) society" 33. V.O. Klyuchevsky assigned each of these forces a special, specific, in his opinion, role; life, and society creates political and social life.
But the participation of each force in the indicated spheres is not exclusive, but only predominant. ”34 Later, he removed the second indicated“ force ”from his concept and considered the personality in“ its historical action ”in relation to nature and society. It can be assumed that, precisely referring to the personality, V. Klyuchevsky tried to approach the characterization of the people with their spirituality and ethics in a historical perspective, which until recently seemed to be a problem half-forgotten and not worthy of attention.
The rapid development of ethnographic research in Russia in the second half of the 19th century and the direct influence of F. I. Buslaev, it should be thought, determined V.O. Klyuchevsky's approach to the role of people in the historical process as a person. focusing on his struggle with difficult natural conditions, Klyuchevsky essentially posed the problem, only now understood as enduring, about the relationship between man and nature. In the lecture course, he revealed the psychological makeup of the Great Russian, created by the "powerful action" of nature that guided his economic life: his resourcefulness, simplicity, discretion, amazing observation and efficiency, without which the success of agricultural work in a short summer is impossible. “No nation in Europe is capable of such strenuous work for a short time as a Great Russian can develop; but nowhere in Europe, it seems, will we find such a habit of equal, moderate and measured constant work as in Great Russia, ”35 wrote Klyuchevsky. While preparing the Course of Russian History for publication, he found a surprisingly apt, artistically expressive conclusion to a lecture dedicated to the Great Russian: “Nature and fate led the Great Russian so that they taught him to go out on the straight road in roundabout ways.
The Great Russian thinks and acts as he walks. It seems that you can come up with a crooked and winding Great Russian country road? As if a snake crawled A try to go straighter - you will only get lost and come out on the same winding path. ”36. Turning to certain types of people, Klyuchevsky did not seek to illustrate with detailed biographies, as did NI. Kostomarov, who had a well-known influence on him in this respect. In the Methodology course, Klyuchevsky regarded personality as a force “to which the initiative of the historical movement belongs.” 37 Therefore, he looked for types of people, but considered them a force by no means self-sufficient.
He attributed the individuality of mind and ... talent to the field of historical study, as soon as they were prepared by the aggregate work of the environment, society, and therefore "strengthen the connection between the people who make up a certain union, and in the life of the union there can be no completely single activity" 38, moreover , in his opinion, there is also a feedback - “a person who had the misfortune to become outside the union is lost to history. Further, this fact is a necessity for every person entering life: a person cannot live outside the union, this urgent need turns in its further development into a need: a person not only cannot, but also does not want to do without communication with others ”39.
So, for V. O. Klyuchevsky, personality is historical and represents the primary force in the "human community"; she is not only a subject raised by nature and the environment, but she is social, the bearer of morality and culture. It was from this point of view that Klyuchevsky created a whole gallery of images with their moral and ethical appearance that belonged to different social strata of society, and did not miss the opportunity to painfully prick for social "slovenliness." a section in which he proved the importance of education for alternating generations, as a result of which the historical continuity of material and spiritual wealth was created 40 The concept of "historical education" of the people was revealed in O. Klyuchevsky through "historical types", and in them the main thing for him was the role in life society. 3 History of the USSR, No. 5 65 In the gallery of these types there were edifying images of Sergius of Radonezh, Ulyana Osorina, Fyodor Mikhailovich Rtishchev, statesmen Afanasy Lavrentievich Ordin-Nashchokin and Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, most of the Russian autocrats - from Ivan the Terrible to his madness »Catherine II, the noblemen Prostakovs despised by him and the ancestors of Eugene Onegin, whose characters are generated by both domestic and state education, etc. Portraits of the geniuses of Russian culture and science occupy a special place in this gallery. For Klyuchevsky A. S. Pushkin, N. I. Novikov, M. Yu, Lermontov, Russian historians of the XVIII-XIX centuries. for all their diversity and unevenness, it is an object of national pride and "the Russian folk echo of universal human work."
Portraits (types), understood by Klyuchevsky in the historical conditionality of their appearance, go far beyond the limits of historiographic significance. These are examples of the creative experience of revealing the personality in history, without which it is impossible to cognize the cultural and social life of previous generations with their mistakes, achievements and takeoffs of thought. "The problem of society" occupied a special position in the work of V. O. Klyuchevsky. In his "triad" this is the main problem in understanding the essence of the historical process. In sharp opposition to the theory of the "state school" he considered it from the perspective of the development of social classes, and only then the state. In the course "Methodology" he poses the everlasting question: "What does a person give to society and how much does the latter oppress the first?" 41 Kliuchevsky repeatedly turned to the "problem of society" in his theoretical and research searches and dedicated two monographs to it - "History of Estates in Russia" and "Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus". The latter work, especially initially, in the process of creation and the first journal publications of its individual parts, was given a clearly expressed social meaning as the experience of the history of government institutions in connection with the history of society, classes, their evolution and interests that were manifested. MV Nechkina, who scrupulously researched the process of creating the Boyar Duma by V.O. Klyuchevsky, wrote: the widest scope for the interpretation of any major problem, any significant side in the general concept of the history of Russia ”42 In her opinion, the study of the history of classes and class interests was a completely new task in bourgeois historical science 43.
Indeed, in the course "Methodology" Klyuchevsky defined his task as follows: "to the question of what constitutes the subject of historical study, we must give such a simple answer: this subject is the origin, development and properties of human unions." 44 Now it would be strange to criticize Klyuchevsky with positions of the Marxist approach to the formational socio-economic understanding of the historical process, which, of course, he did not adhere to. He went his own way, and we can only talk about something else - about the value of an integrated approach to the history of "human unions" V.O. at certain stages of the historical process, he spoke of "social formations" in his own understanding, of course. Thus, "the third period in the history of the Russian estates is a social formation that took shape in the Moscow state in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries." 45 He approached the position of the estates from a state-legal position, not at all ignoring the economic interests of each of them, and in the evolutionary-state development one of the reasons for their (estates) emergence he saw the economic division of society and the inevitability in the end of the disappearance of class inequality 46 ...
In this scheme of the estate system, the most interesting are now Kliuchevsky's observations on the role of social "unions", in particular, in connection with the still controversial issue of the existence in Russia of the stage of the estate-representative monarchy. V.O. Klyuchevsky did not recognize this stage and at the same time could not ignore the problem of representation and the role of "unions" in the management system. Back in 1874, at the III Archaeological Congress in Kiev, he was impressed by the report of NI Kostomarov on the importance of the princely squad47; he wrote down in detail the main provisions of his report and accompanied them with critical remarks 48. Judging by the length of this entry, one can think how much Klyuchevsky himself was already thinking about the course of social development of ancient Russia at that time; it was not by chance that he wrote down Kostomarov's idea about the participation of non-druzhinny elements in the council of the Kiev prince Vladimir - the bishops and elders of the city. This idea was carried out by him in the first (magazine) version of the Boyar Duma. In the book version of the book, Klyuchevsky bypassed this idea, but developed the position concerning the specific time, about the farmers, who, as free servants of the prince, constituted the "zemstvo class" 49.
In the magazine version of the Boyar Duma, he traced entire phases of the development of local government in Russia, which in specific times “did not have a strictly estate character”; with the development of centralization, there were "signs of all-estate" in it, and the Boyar Duma represented State Council with the representation of different classes, and only in the period of autocracy did local government become one-class - noble. Thus, the estate unions were traced in the canvas of the general periodization of the historical process. Klyuchevsky accompanied this scheme with a conclusion that still retains interest for further research: “So, in the history of our ancient institutions, social classes and interests that were hidden behind them and acted through them remain in the shadows” 50.
This is how Klyuchevsky represented the role of the "unions" in management, until the nobility, again through their "union" - the guard, which had a clearly social character, became the "dominant element." So, the essence of V.O. Klyuchevsky's conceptual experience was an attempt to show the significance of various factors in the general historical process and in certain periods of Russian history. Putting forward four main periods in this history, Klyuchevsky sought to highlight, first of all, the geographical conditions in which the bulk of the population lived. This was followed by the criterion of a political nature that determined the period, and, finally, the criterion of economic and economic. In interrelation with natural conditions in each period, personality traits were considered - historical types and society with its "unions", reflecting the main thing in its structure - sociality with its interests and requirements. In other words, the concept was subordinated to the history of the people with the interconnection of the main problems - natural-territorial, statehood, sociality of society and its economy.
Considering V.O. Klyuchevsky's concept as a concept of the history of the people at different stages of state development, one cannot approach it only as a historiographic phenomenon. V general outline it took shape in the early 1880s. as a result of the scientific and teaching creativity of the scientist on the basis of research and special courses and was embodied in the gradually emerging general "Course of Russian History" in the form in which he saw the light at the beginning of the XX century. It is difficult to say which period of the history of Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky gave research preference; the impression was that XVII century... This is hardly true. From a conceptual point of view, he paid more attention, and in a very specific aspect, to the "all-Russian, imperial-noble" period. He viewed the 18th century of Russian history with all the splendor of imperial power, foreign policy successes and the created noble culture in a very peculiar way and with a far-reaching goal. Departing from the conviction that the state was above-class, V.O. Klyuchevsky was by no means accidental in this part of the "Course of Russian History" he gave the people a sort of secondary downward * 67 mania and at the same time created in the reader a clear impression, as in the conditions of autocratic rule and noble rule the state crushed the people, their work and life.
It is in this part of the "Course" that V.O. Klyuchevsky's anti-monarchist and anti-nobility views are most clearly manifested, deliberately reaching the grotesque when characterizing the cultural and psychological image of the nobility. Theoretically and cognitively, creative search is incompatible with the crisis of science, to which the work of V.O. Klyuchevsky was so generously attributed. The search for common patterns and an integrated approach to determining the leading problems in the historical process, the ratio of their significance, primary attention to the spirituality of the individual and society, the versatility of source study and historiographic analysis are only the main features scientific method scientist. Therefore, in the concept of V.O. Klyuchevsky, one should see, first of all, a creative search that retains a continuous connection with the ways of knowing the history of Russia.
Concluding his report "Eugene Onegin and His Ancestors" in 1887, Klyuchevsky said about Pushkin, about him "you always want to say too much, you always say a lot that is superfluous and you never say everything that follows." yet have not yet said everything that follows. Notes (edit)
1 Syromyatnikov B. I. V. O. Klyuchevsky and B. N. Chicherin // V. O. Klyuchevsky Characteristics and memoirs M, 1912. P. 81, 88.
2Kotlyarevsky S. What does VO Klyuchevsky's "Boyar Duma" give for state studies // Collection of articles dedicated to Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky M, 1909. P. 253.
3Milyukov P. N. V. O Klyuchevsky // V. O. Klyuchevsky. Characteristics and memories. Pp. 211, 212.4Platonov S.F. In memory of V.O. Klyuchevsky. In the same place. Pp. 98, 99. 5Zimin AA Archive of V.O. Klyuchevsky // Notes of the Department of Manuscripts of the State Library V.I. Lenin. Issue 12 M, 1951. S. 76-86, his. Formation of the historical views of V.O. Aleksandrovsky military school in 1871/72 and 1872/73 academic years) // New and recent history 1969 № 5, 6. (co-authored with RA Kireeva), his. From the manuscript heritage of V.O. Klyuchevsky (new materials for the course on Russian historiography) // History and historians. Historiographic Yearbook. 1972 M., 1973. S. 307-336 (in co-authorship with RA Kireeva).
6 V.O. Klyuchevsky. Letters Diaries Aphorisms and thoughts about the history of M., 1968, Klyuchevsky V.O. Unpublished works M., 1983.
7 Tikhomirov M.N.Russian state of the XV-XVII centuries M., 1973. P. 294.
8 Klyuchevsky V.O. Historical portraits. Figures of historical thought. M. 1990.S. 517.
9 Her. Letters. Diaries. P. 356.
10 His Works, in 9 volumes. M., 1987-1990, vol. I, p. 62
11 Her Letters. Diaries p. 264
12 H e g e Historical portraits p. 554
13 H e G e Works in 9 volumes.Vol. I p. 60
14 Ibid. P. 62
15 E g e Historical portraits p. 65.
16 Ibid., P. 77.
17 Ibid., P. 78.
18 H e G e Works in 9 volumes.Vol. IV pp. 203, 204.
19 S e ess Characteristics and memories p. 182
20 Nechkina M.V. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky ...
21 Klyuchevsky V.O. Works. In 9 volumes.Vol. I, p. 60.
22 Nechkina M.V. Decree. op. S. 571.572.
23 Ibid. P. 51
24 Kireeva RA Study of Russian history in pre-revolutionary Russia from the middle of the XIX century to 1917, M., 1983 S. 208, her. V.O. Klyuchevsky as a historian of Russian historical science. M., 1966.S. 224, 225.
25 Nechkina M.V. Decree. op. P. 174.
26 Klyuchevsky V.O. Works. In 9 t. T. I. S. 38-39.
27 Ibid. S. 39-40
28 His same. Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus Pg. , 1919 p. 81
29 Ibid. P. 521 (see also pp. 531-533) 68
30 E g e. Works in 9 volumes. T I. S. 50 (see also: P. 391).
31 Ibid. 32 His same. Works: In 8 volumes. M., 1956-1959. T. VI. P. 471.33 Ego zh e. Works: In 9 volumes.Vol. VI. P. 23 34 Ibid. P. 28.
35 Ibid. T I. S. 315.
36 Ibid. P. 317.
37 Ibid. T. VI. P. 33.
38 Ibid. P. 10.
39 Ibid. P. 22.
40 Ibid. T. I. P. 41 et seq.
41 Ibid. T. VI. P. 25.
42 Nechkin and M.V. Decree. op. From 183.
43 Ibid. S. 187, 188, 206, 220.
44 Klyuchevsky. Compositions: In 9 volumes T. VI. P. 9
45 Ibid. P. 292.
46 Ibid. S. 236-239.
47 Unfortunately, the text of this report by N.I. Kostomarov has not survived. 48 Klyuchevsky V.O. Letters. Diaries ... 250-252.
49 E g o f. Boyar Duma. P. 90.
50 Cit. Quoted from: M.V. Nechkina Decree. op. P. 201 (see also: P. 234).
51 Klyuchevsky V.O. Historical portraits ... P. 426.
V.A. Alexandrov
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, Russia, 16 (28) .01.1841-12.05.1911 The outstanding Russian historian was born on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresenskoye (near Penza) into the family of a poor parish priest. His first teacher was his father, who died tragically in August 1850. The family was forced to move to Penza. Out of compassion for the poor widow, one of her husband's friends gave her a small house to live in. “Was anyone poorer than you and me at the time when we were left orphans in the arms of our mother,” Klyuchevsky wrote to his sister later, recalling the hungry years of childhood and adolescence. In Penza, Klyuchevsky studied at a parish religious school, then at a district religious school and at a theological seminary. Already at school, Klyuchevsky knew well the works of many historians. In order to be able to devote himself to science (the authorities promised him a career as a clergyman and admission to the theological academy), in his last year, he deliberately left seminary and within a year independently prepared for entrance exams in 1861, a new period in the life of Klyuchevsky began with his admission to Moscow University. F.I. Buslaev, N.S. Tikhonravov, P.M. Leontiev and especially S.M. Soloviev: "Soloviev gave the listener a surprisingly integral, harmonious thread, drawn through a chain of generalized facts, a glance at the course of Russian history, and it is known what a pleasure it is for a young mind, beginning a scientific study, to feel in possessing a whole look at a scientific subject." Klyuchevsky coincided with the largest event in the life of the country - the bourgeois reforms of the early 1860s. He was opposed to extreme measures of the government, but did not approve of the political actions of the student body. The subject of his graduation essay at the university on the topic: "Legends of foreigners about the Moscow State" (1866) Klyuchevsky chose the study of about 40 legends and notes of foreigners about Russia in the 15-17 centuries. For this essay, the graduate was awarded a gold medal and left at the department "to prepare for a professorship." The topic was proposed by Soloviev, who probably hoped to use the secular and spiritual knowledge of a novice scientist to study the issue of the participation of monasteries in the colonization of Russian lands. Klyuchevsky has done a titanic job of studying at least five thousand hagiographies. In the course of preparing his dissertation, he wrote six independent studies, including such a major work as "Economic Activities of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory" (1866-1867). But the efforts expended and the result obtained did not justify the expected - the literary monotony of the lives, when the authors described the life of the heroes according to the stencil, did not allow establishing the details of "the setting, place and time, without which there is no historical fact for the historian." Since 1879, Klyuchevsky taught at Moscow University, where he replaced the deceased Solovyov at the Department of Russian History. Klyuchevsky gave 36 years of his life (1871-1906) to this educational institution, first as a privat-docent, and since 1882 as a professor. At the same time, he lectured on Russian civil history at the Moscow Theological Academy (in Sergiev Posad), as well as (at the request of his friend Professor V.I. Klyuchevsky also taught at the Alexander Military School, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture ... Teaching activities brought Klyuchevsky a well-deserved fame. Gifted with the ability of imaginative penetration into the past, a master of artistic words, a well-known wit and author of numerous epigrams and aphorisms, in his speeches, the scientist skillfully built whole galleries of portraits of historical figures that would be remembered by listeners for a long time. The auditorium of Moscow University, in which he taught his course, was always overcrowded. The doctoral dissertation "Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus" (1880) constituted a well-known stage in the work of Klyuchevsky. The theme of the subsequent scientific works of Klyuchevsky clearly indicated this new direction - “Russian ruble of the 16th – 18th centuries. in his relation to the present ”(1884),“ The origin of serfdom in Russia ”(1885),“ The poll and abolition of servitude in Russia ”(1886),“ Eugene Onegin and his ancestors ”(1887),“ Composition of the representation on the zemstvo cathedrals of ancient Russia "(1890) and others. on behalf of the Emperor Alexander III, Klyuchevsky taught a course in Russian history to the Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich. The most famous scientific work of Klyuchevsky, which received worldwide recognition, is "The Course of Russian History" in 5 parts. The scientist worked on it for more than three decades, but decided to publish it only in the early 1900s. The main factor of Russian history around which events unfold, Klyuchevsky called colonization: “The history of Russia is the history of the country that is being colonized. The area of colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Either falling, now rising, this age-old movement continues to this day. " Based on this, Klyuchevsky divided Russian history into four periods. The first period lasts from about the 8th to the 13th century, when the Russian population was concentrated on the middle and upper Dnieper with tributaries. Russia was then politically divided into isolated cities, and foreign trade prevailed in the economy. Within the framework of the second period (XIII century - mid-XV century), the bulk of the population moved to the interfluve of the upper Volga and Oka. The country was still fragmented, but no longer into cities with the regions attached to them, but into princely estates. The basis of the economy is free peasant agricultural labor. The third period lasts from the middle of the 15th century. until the second decade of the 17th century, when the Russian population colonized the southeastern Don and Middle Volga chernozems; in politics, the state unification of Great Russia took place; the process of enslavement of the peasantry began in the economy. The last, fourth period - until the middle of the 19th century. (the later time "Course ..." did not cover) - this is the time when "the Russian people spread throughout the plain from the Baltic and White seas to the Black, to the Caucasian ridge, the Caspian Sea and the Urals." Formed Russian empire led by the autocracy, based on the military-service class - the nobility. In the economy, a manufacturing factory is added to agricultural serf labor. “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, major events- thoughts ", - wrote Klyuchevsky. The biography of Klyuchevsky himself rarely goes beyond these events and facts ... In 1900, Klyuchevsky became an academician, and since 1908 - an honorary academician of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences. In 1905, Klyuchevsky participated in a special meeting on the basic laws. In 1906, in Paris, he was admitted to the Lodge of the Scottish Charter "Cosmos", together with historians, Professor A.S. Trachevsky, E.V. Anichkov and a number of other well-known Russian public figures, mainly belonging to the Cadet party. In 1905, Klyuchevsky received an official order to participate in the work of the Commission for the revision of the laws on the press and in meetings (in Peterhof under the chairmanship of Nicholas II) on the project for the establishment of the State Duma and its powers ... Klyuchevsky died in Moscow on May 12, 1911. Buried at the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery. S.V., Benthal, 24.05.2007
Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich (1841 - 1911)
Russian historian, academician, honorary academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
Born in the village of Voznesenskoye, Penza province, in the family of a village priest who died early. Kliuchevsky's childhood passed in severe need. Overcoming his stuttering and learning difficulties, he graduated with honors in 1856 from the Penza Theological School and entered the Theological Seminary.
In 1861, Klyuchevsky, having decided not to be a priest, left the seminary and entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, from which he graduated in 1865 with a candidate's degree and was left at the department to prepare for a professorship.
The first monograph by Klyuchevsky, "The Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State," testified to his enormous capacity for work and interest in the history of everyday life. Klyuchevsky, on the advice of his teacher S.M. For his master's thesis, Solovyov took the topic "Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source", on which he worked for six years, having studied about 5 thousand Lives, which, according to his opponents, was a scientific feat.
Klyuchevsky came to the conclusion that the Lives are an unreliable historical source and often do not correspond to the real life of the canonized. This work allowed Klyuchevsky to acquire rich experience in source studies.
In 1871 he was offered to take a chair at the Moscow Theological Academy, and the next year to start lecturing at the Higher Courses for Women.
Soon Klyuchevsky gained fame as an amazing lecturer, and in 1879, after the death of S.M. Solovyov took his place at Moscow University. In 1872, Klyuchevsky began a ten-year work on his doctoral dissertation "Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus". Along with the special course "History of estates in Russia", research devoted to social topics ("The origin of serfdom in Russia", "Cap and abolition of servitude in Russia," XIX centuries, Klyuchevsky created the main work of life "The Course of Russian History", in which he outlined his concept of the historical development of Russia. From 1902 until the end of his life, Klyuchevsky prepared it for publication and reprint.
In addition to teaching and research work, Klyuchevsky in 1887-1889. was the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology and vice-rector.
In 1900 he was elected a full member of the Academy of Sciences, but this did not change his life. In 1900-1910. began to give a course of lectures at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where many outstanding artists were his listeners.
Klyuchevsky died in Moscow in 1911. He was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.
IN. Klyuchevsky
"In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts." (V.O. Klyuchevsky)
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky was born in the village of Voskresenskoye near Penza into the family of a poor parish priest who was the boy's first teacher, but who died tragically when Vasily was only 9 years old. The family moved to Penza, where they settled in a small house donated by one of the priest's friends.
First he graduated from the Penza Theological School, and then the Theological Seminary.
In 1861 he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. His teachers were N.M. Leontiev, F.M. Buslaev, K.N. Pobedonostsev, B.N. Chicherin, S.M. Soloviev, whose lectures had a great influence on the young historian. "Soloviev gave the listener a surprisingly integral, harmonious thread, drawn through a chain of generalized facts, a glance at the course of Russian history, and it is known what a pleasure it is for a young mind, beginning a scientific study, to feel in possessing an integral glance at a scientific subject," Klyuchevsky wrote later.
Klyuchevsky Museum in Penza
Career
After graduating from the university, Klyuchevsky stays here to teach and begins work on ancient Russian saints, which became his master's thesis. Along the way, he writes several works on the history of the church and Russian religious thought: "The economic activities of the Solovetsky monastery", "Pskov disputes", "Promoting the church to the success of Russian civil order and law", "The significance of St. Sergius of Radonezh for the Russian people and state", "Western influence and schism in Russia in the 17th century ”and others.
Klyuchevsky devoted much effort to teaching: in 1871 he was elected to the department of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, where he worked until 1906; then he began teaching at the Alexander Military School, as well as at the higher courses for women. His scientific and teaching career is growing rapidly: in September 1879 he was elected assistant professor of Moscow University, in 1882 - extraordinary, in 1885 - ordinary professor.
IN. Klyuchevsky
In 1893 - 1895 he taught a course in Russian history to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich (son of Alexander III); taught at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture; in 1893 - 1905 he was chairman of the Society for History and Antiquities at Moscow University.
He was an academician and honorary academician of a number of scientific societies.
For Klyuchevsky, the fame of a brilliant lecturer was established, who knew how to grab the attention of the audience with the power of analysis, the gift of images, and deep erudition. He shone with wit, aphorisms, epigrams, which are still in demand today. His work has always caused controversy, in which he tried not to interfere. The themes of his works are extremely diverse: the situation of the peasantry, the Zemsky Sobors of Ancient Rus, the reforms of Ivan the Terrible ...
He was worried about the history of the spiritual life of Russian society and its prominent representatives... This topic includes a number of articles and speeches of Klyuchevsky about S.M. Soloviev, Pushkin, Lermontov, N.I. Novikov, Fonvizin, Catherine II, Peter the Great. He published "A Brief Guide to Russian History", and in 1904 began publishing a complete course. In total, 4 volumes were published, brought to the time of Catherine II.
V. Klyuchevsky expounds a strictly subjective understanding of Russian history, eliminating review and criticism and not entering into polemics with anyone. He bases his course on facts not according to their actual significance in history, but according to their methodological significance.
"Course of Russian history"
The most famous scientific work of Klyuchevsky is "The Course of Russian History" in 5 parts. He worked on it for over 30 years, but only decided to publish it in the early 1900s. Klyuchevsky considers the colonization of Russia to be the main factor in Russian history; the main events unfold around the colonization: “The history of Russia is the history of the country that is being colonized. The area of colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Either falling, now rising, this age-old movement continues to this day. "
Klyuchevsky divided Russian history into four periods:
Period I - from about the 8th to the 13th century, when the Russian population was concentrated mainly on the middle and upper Dnieper with tributaries. Russia was then politically divided into separate cities, and foreign trade prevailed in the economy.
II period - XIII - mid-15th century, when the bulk of the people moved to the interfluve of the upper Volga and Oka. It is still a fragmented country, but into princely fiefdoms. The economy was based on free peasant agricultural labor.
Monument to Klyuchevsky in Penza
III period - from the middle of the 15th century. until the second decade of the 17th century, when the Russian population colonized the Don and Middle Volga chernozems; there was a state unification of Great Russia; the process of enslavement of the peasantry began in the economy.
IV period - until the middle of the 19th century. (later the course did not cover) - the time when “the Russian people spread throughout the plain from the seas
Baltic and White to Black, to the Caucasian ridge, the Caspian and the Urals ”. The Russian Empire was formed, the autocracy was based on the military-service class - the nobility. The manufacturing industry joins the agricultural serf labor.
"In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts," wrote Klyuchevsky. The life of Klyuchevsky himself rarely goes beyond these events and facts. By conviction, he was moderate conservative, his political speeches are extremely few. But even if they were, they were always distinguished by the originality of thinking and were never to please someone. He only had his own position. For example, in 1894 he uttered a "Praise of Honor" to Alexander III, which aroused the outrage of the revolutionary students, and was wary of the 1905 revolution.
"Historical portraits" by V. Klyuchevsky
His "Historical portraits" include a number of biographies of famous people:
The first princes of Kiev, Andrei Bogolyubsky, Ivan III, Ivan Nikitich Bersen-Beklemishev and Maxim the Greek, Ivan the Terrible, Tsar Fedor, Boris Godunov, False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky, False Dmitry II, Tsar Mikhail Romanov, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Peter the Great, Catherine , Peter II, Anna Ioannovna, Elizabeth I, Peter III, Catherine II, Paul I, Alexander I, Nicholas I, Alexander II.
Creators of the Russian land
Kind people of Ancient Russia, Nestor and Sylvester, Sergiy Radonezhsky, Ivan Nikitich Bersen-Beklemishev and Maxim Grek, Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky, K. Minin and D.M. Pozharsky, Patriarch Nikon, Simeon of Polotsk, A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin, Prince V.V. Golitsyn, Prince D.M. Golitsyn, N.I. Novikov,
MM. Speransky, A.S. Pushkin, the Decembrists, H.M. Karamzin, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, S.M. Soloviev,
T.N. Granovsky.
Grave of Klyuchevsky in the Donskoy Monastery
Aphorisms of V. Klyuchevsky
- To be happy means not wanting what you can't get.
- A great idea in a bad environment is perverted into a series of absurdities.
- In science, lessons must be repeated in order to remember them well; in morality, mistakes must be well remembered so as not to repeat them.
- It is much easier to become a father than to remain one.
- The evil fool is angry with others for his own stupidity.
- Life teaches only those who study it.
- He who loves himself very much is not loved by others, because out of delicacy they do not want to be his rivals.
- He who laughs is not angry, because to laugh is to forgive.
- People live by idolatry before ideals, and when ideals are lacking, they idealize idols.
- People are looking for themselves everywhere, but not in themselves.
- There are people who can speak but cannot say anything. These are windmills that flap their wings forever, but never fly.
- Thought without morality is thoughtlessness, morality without thought is fanaticism.
- One should not complain about the fact that it is not enough smart people, but thank God for what they are.
- A man usually loves women whom he respects: a woman usually respects only men whom he loves. Therefore, a man often loves women who are not worth loving, and a woman often respects men who are not worth respecting.
- Science is often confused with knowledge. This is a gross misunderstanding. Science is not only knowledge, but also consciousness, that is, the ability to use knowledge as it should.
- Young people are like butterflies: they fly into the light and fall on the fire.
- The past must be known not because it has passed, but because, when leaving, one did not know how to remove its consequences.
- A thinking person should be afraid only of himself, because he should be the only and merciless judge of himself.
- The smartest thing in life is death, because only it corrects all the mistakes and stupidity of life.
- A proud person is one who values the opinion of others about himself more than his own. So, being proud means loving yourself more than others and respecting others more than yourself.
- The surest and perhaps the only way to become happy is to imagine yourself that way.
- Freedom of conscience usually means freedom from conscience.
- Strong passions often hide only a weak will.
- Proud people love power, ambitious people love influence, arrogant people seek both, thinking people despise both.
- A kind person is not one who knows how to do good, but one who does not know how to do evil.
- Friendship can do without love; love without friendship - no.
- The mind dies from contradictions, and the heart feeds on them.
- Character is power over oneself, talent is power over others.
- Christs rarely appear as comets, but Judas is not translated as mosquitoes.
- Man is the greatest brute in the world.
- In Russia, there are no average talents, simple craftsmen, but there are lonely geniuses and millions of worthless people. Geniuses cannot do anything because they have no apprentices, and nothing can be done with millions, because they have no masters. The former are useless because there are too few of them; the latter are helpless because there are too many of them.
