Historians of Russia XVIII-XX centuries.

Tatishchev Vasily Nikitin (1686-1750)

V. N. Tatishchev, who is rightfully considered the “father of Russian historiography”, was a major statesman and public figure in Russia in the first half of the 18th century. For more than 16 years he served in the army. He participated in the capture of Narva, in the Battle of Poltava, the Pruga campaign. Later he acted in the administrative field: he was in charge of the metallurgical industry in the East of the country, was a member, and then the head of the Mint, the head of the Orenburg and Kalmyk commissions, the Astrakhan governor. Tatishchev repeatedly visited abroad, where he studied the experience of building fortresses, artillery, geometry and optics, and geology. It was then that he developed a deep interest in history.

The work of Tatishchev's whole life was a generalizing multi-volume work - "Russian History from Ancient Times", which he brought to 1577. And although this work was not published during his lifetime, it forever entered the golden fund national historiography. According to

S. M. Solovyov, the merit of Tatishchev the historian is that “he was the first to start the business the way it should have started: he collected materials, criticized them, brought together chronicle news, provided them with geographical, ethnographic and chronological notes, pointed out many important questions that served as topics for later research, collected the news of ancient and new writers about the ancient state of the country, which later received the name Russia, in a word, showed the way and gave the means to his compatriots to engage in Russian history.

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766-1826)

N. M. Karamzin - famous writer and historian late XVII I - the first quarter of the XIX century. His name became widely known after the publication of "Letters of a Russian Traveler", the story " Poor Lisa”and other works that were successful in all walks of life. The magazine Vestnik Evropy created by him was very popular. Simultaneously with literary work, editorial and social activities, he was actively involved in national history. In 1803, having received the position of a historiographer by decree of Emperor Alexander I, Karamzin retired to Ostafyev, the estate of Prince Vyazemsky near Moscow, whose daughter he was married to, and proceeded to create his main work, The History of the Russian State.

The publication in 1816 of the first eight volumes of Karamzin's "History" became a real event, made a truly stunning impression on reading Russia. A. S. Pushkin wrote about this: “Everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their fatherland, hitherto unknown to them ... Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Colomb.” In subsequent years, the work was continued. The last, twelfth volume, in which the events are brought up to 1613, was published after the death of the author.

"History of the Russian State" is still in constant demand among readers, which indicates the enormous power of the spiritual impact on people of the scientific and artistic talent of Karamzin the historian.

Solovyov Sergey Mikhailovich (1820-1879)

S. M. Solovyov is the largest historian of pre-revolutionary Russia. His outstanding contribution to the development of Russian historical thought was recognized by scholars of various schools and trends. The statement about Sergei Mikhailovich by his famous student V. O. Klyuchevsky is aphoristic: “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts. In the history of our science and literature there have been few lives as rich in facts and events as Solovyov's life.

Indeed, despite his relatively short life, Solovyov left a huge creative heritage - more than 300 of his works were published with a total volume of more than a thousand printed sheets. Particularly striking is the novelty of the ideas put forward and the wealth of factual material "The History of Russia from Ancient Times"; all 29 volumes were published regularly, from 1851 to 1879. This is a feat of a scientist, which had no equal in Russian historical science, either before Solovyov or after him.

Solovyov's works accumulated the latest philosophical, sociological and historical concepts for his time. In particular, in his youth he enthusiastically studied G. Hegel; the theoretical views of L. Ranke, O. Thierry, F. Guizot had a great influence on the Russian scientist. On this basis, some authors considered Solovyov as an epigone of Hegel's philosophy of history, an imitator of Western European historians. Such claims are completely untenable. S. M. Solovyov is not an eclecticist, but a great thinker who independently developed an original historical concept. His works have firmly entered the treasury of national and world historical thought.

Zabelin Ivan Yegorovich (1820-1908)

I. E. Zabelin - an outstanding Russian historian and archaeologist of the second half of XIX century, one of the leading connoisseurs of Muscovite Russia, the history of Moscow - had behind him only five classes of an orphan school. After that, the only systematic training in his life was a short course of lectures, attended at home by Professor T. N. Granovsky. All the more striking is the unique knowledge of this native of a provincial family of a poor official. The writings of the self-taught scientist, his profound reflections on the tasks of historical science were widely recognized by his contemporaries.

Zabelin's main work, "The Home Life of the Russian People in the 16th and 17th Centuries," has the subtitle: "The Home Life of Russian Tsars" (vol. 1) and "The Home Life of Russian Queens" (vol. 2). However, the focus of the researcher is not sovereign's court, but the people. None of the Russian historians of that time paid as much attention to the problem of the people as Zabelin. It was in him, in his thickness, in his history, that the scientist was looking for an explanation for the vicissitudes of the fate of Russia. According to the correct observation of D. N. Sakharov, Zabelin not only affirmed the value of the people, the common man, but also the power of popular movements, their impressive influence in history. At the same time, he studied the "history of personalities"; through personalities he showed the people and, characterizing him, went to the outline of the character of the individual.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich (1841-1911)

Already the first great work of a student of Moscow University V. O. Klyuchevsky - his graduation essay "Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State" - was highly appreciated by his contemporaries. The young scientist devoted his master's thesis to the study of ancient Russian lives of saints as a historical source. The results of previous studies were summed up by him in his doctoral dissertation "The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia", which covers the entire centuries-old period of the existence of the Boyar Duma from Kievan Rus 10th century until the beginning of the 18th century. The author focuses on the composition of the Duma, its activities, the relationship between the ruling classes and the peasantry.

Klyuchevsky's interest in social history is in the first place in his "Course of Russian History". This work, the result of more than 30 years of scientific and teaching activity of the scientist, is recognized as the pinnacle of his scientific creativity. "Kurs" received worldwide fame, translated into the main languages ​​of the world. In recognition of Klyuchevsky's merits, in the year of the 150th anniversary of his birth, the International Center for Minor Planets (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, USA) named one of the planets after the Russian historian. From now on, the minor planet No. 4560 Klyuchevsky is an integral part of the solar system.

Klyuchevsky was also widely known as a brilliant lecturer. He “captured us right away,” the students admitted, and not only because he spoke beautifully and effectively, but because “we looked for and found in him, first of all, a thinker and researcher.”

Platonov Sergey Fedorovich (1860-1933)

Contemporaries called S. F. Platonov one of the rulers of thoughts in Russian historiography at the beginning of the 20th century. His name at that time was known to all reading Russia. For over 30 years he taught at the university and other educational institutions of St. Petersburg, in 1903-1916. was director of the Women's Pedagogical Institute. Desk books for young students were his "Lectures on Russian History" and "Textbook of Russian History for high school”, withstood many reprints.

The scientist considered the monograph “Essays on the History of Troubles in the Muscovite State of the 16th-17th Centuries” to be the highest achievement of his entire life. (the experience of studying the social system and class relations in the Time of Troubles)": this book "not only gave me a doctorate degree, but, one might say, determined my place among the figures of Russian historiography."

Platonov's scientific and administrative activities continued after October revolution. However, his credo - the non-party nature of science, excluding "any preconceived points of view" - did not correspond to the methodology approved in those years. In early 1930, Platonov was arrested, accused of participating in a mythical "counter-revolutionary monarchist organization" and exiled to Samara, where he soon died.

Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich (1863-1919)

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky is a unique phenomenon in Russian historical science. The breadth of the range of his research interests is striking. Among them are ancient, medieval and new story, problems of methodology, historiography, source studies, archaeography, archival science, history of science. Throughout his career, the religious and ethical moment, the perception of Russian history as part of the world's being, was of significant importance for him.

The outstanding scientific achievements of Lappo-Danilevsky were recognized in the form of his election at the age of 36 in Russian academy Sciences. He had a great influence on many contemporaries who became the pride of Russian historiography. At the same time, it should be recognized that up to the present time, only the first steps have been taken in mastering the richest literary heritage of this scientist-encyclopedist. The main work of Lappo-Danilevsky, The History of Political Ideas in Russia in the 18th Century, has not yet been published. in connection with the development of its culture and the course of its politics. But even what was published - the monographs "Organization of direct taxation in the Muscovite state from the time of unrest to the era of transformations", "Essays domestic policy Empress Catherine II”, “Methodology of History”, “Essay on Russian Diplomacy of Private Acts”, “History of Russian Public Thought and Culture of the 17th-18th Centuries”, numerous articles and documentary publications are clear evidence of his outstanding contribution to the development of Russian historical science.

Pokrovsky Mikhail Nikolaevich (1868-1932)

M. N. Pokrovsky belongs to those Russian historians, disputes about whose creative heritage have not subsided for decades. At the same time, some authors write mainly about the outstanding contribution of the scientist to Russian historiography, his original concept of the historical development of Russia, while others emphasize in every possible way negative points activities of Pokrovsky, the failure of his "entangled in pseudo-Marxist dogmas" class, party approach to the study of the past.

Already in early works Pokrovsky declared himself as a supporter of the materialistic worldview. The further evolution of his views is reflected in the pamphlet Economic Materialism (1906). The specific historical works of the scientist are interesting, especially the articles in the nine-volume "History of Russia in the 19th century" by the Granat brothers. Pokrovsky's main work - the five-volume "Russian History from Ancient Times" (1910-1913) - became the first systematic Marxist coverage of the country's history from the primitive communal system to the end of the 19th century.

After the October Revolution, Pokrovsky had a huge impact on the development of Soviet historical science, was its generally recognized leader. However, soon after the historian's death, his concept was recognized as "anti-Marxist, anti-Bolshevik, anti-Leninist", and his name was deleted from history for decades. Biased assessments of the scientist persist to this day.

Tarle Evgeny Viktorovich (1874-1955)

From his teacher, Professor of Kyiv University I. V. Luchitsky, E. V. Tarle projected the thesis that he followed all his life: “The historian himself may not be interesting, but history is always interesting.” This is probably why Tarle's writings are always interesting and instructive, full of vast factual material, bold conclusions and hypotheses. But no less interesting is the biography of the scientist, replete with ups and downs. Also in late XIX in. he was taken under the tacit supervision of the tsarist police, and in the Soviet Union for almost three years Tarle was in prison and exile. At the same time, his first major work - "The Working Class in France in the Age of Revolution" (vol. 1 - 1909; vol. 2 - 1911) brought the author European and world fame. Subsequently, he was elected a full member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and the Philadelphia Academy of Political and social sciences(USA), honorary doctor of the Sorbonne (France), was awarded the Stalin Prize three times.

The creative heritage of E. V. Tarle exceeds a thousand studies, and the range of these scientific works is truly phenomenal: he successfully dealt with national and general history, antiquity and modernity, problems of politics, economics and culture, church history, the development of military art, etc. There are 50 monographs alone written by Tarle, not counting 120 of their reprints. His book "Napoleon", which has been translated into all the major languages ​​of the peoples of the world, is still especially popular. The works of this outstanding historian have not lost their relevance today.

Grekov Boris Dmitrievich (1882-1953)

As a scientist, B. D. Grekov was formed even before the October Revolution of 1917. However, his talent as a researcher and great organizational skills in science manifested themselves in full measure from the second half of the 1930s, when he became director of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences and was elected an academician. D.S. Likhachev recalled him in 1982: “For me, Grekov was the true head of Soviet historical science, and not only because he held the highest administrative posts in it, but also because, thanks to his scientific and moral character was the greatest authority in historical science.

Grekov's first fundamental work was The Novgorod House of St. Sophia (the first part was published in 1914 and soon defended by him as a master's thesis, and he completed work on the second part in 1927). Six editions of his book "Kievan Rus", which substantiated the concept of the feudal nature of the social system of Ancient Russia put forward by him. The pinnacle of the scientist's work is the monograph "Peasants in Russia from ancient times to mid-seventeenth in.".

This monumental work in two books, first published in 1946, still remains an unsurpassed classic work of Russian historiography in terms of the richness of the sources used by the author, the breadth of the geographical and chronological coverage of the analyzed issues, and the depth of observations.

Druzhinin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1886-1986)

On the centennial day of N. M. Druzhinin, Academician B. A. Rybakov called him a righteous man of historical science. This assessment includes not only recognition of the outstanding contribution of the scientist to the study of topical problems of the past, but also a characteristic of his high moral authority and valuable human qualities. Here is a typical example of the manifestation of the personality of a scientist. During the years of the struggle against the “rootless cosmopolitans”, Druzhinin sought from the Stalinist authorities the rehabilitation of many historians, restoring them to degrees and ranks. And this despite the fact that he himself was arrested more than once, both before the revolution and under Soviet rule.

N. M. Druzhinin is a historian of the most versatile scientific interests. While still a student, he began to study the Decembrist movement. His first monograph was devoted to the Journal of the Landowners, published in 1858-1860. Druzhinin's theoretical articles on socio-economic topics were also of great scientific importance. However, the main business of his life was the study of the Russian peasantry. This issue was brilliantly studied by him in the books “State Peasants and the Reform of P. D. Kiselev” and “The Russian Village at the Turning Point (1861-1880).

Druzhinin is rightfully considered one of the leading agrarian historians in Russian historiography.

Vernadsky Georgy Vladimirovich (1887-1973)

G. V. Vernadsky, the son of the outstanding Russian philosopher and naturalist V. I. Vernadsky, belongs to both Russian and American historiography. Until forced emigration in 1920, his scientific activity was closely associated with both Moscow and St. Petersburg University. In the same period, he published the first scientific works - “Russian Freemasonry in the reign of Catherine II”, “N. I. Novikov” and a number of others. a special place in his creative biography occupies the "Prague period" (1922-1927), when Vernadsky, with his works, summed up the historical basis for the doctrine of the "Eurasians". The further development of the conceptual views of the scientist was associated with the "American period" of his life. After moving to the USA in 1927, Vernadsky became a lecturer at Yale University and lectured at Harvard, Columbia and other universities. In general, his scientific and teaching activities were very successful. He brought up many prominent specialists who became the pride of the American school of studying the history of Russia.

The main work of Vernadsky is the five-volume "History of Russia", in which the presentation of events was brought up to 1682. Many conclusions and provisions substantiated by scientists in this major work (the theory of the cyclical nature of the state-forming process, the influence of natural, climatic and geographical factors on the originality of the historical development of our Fatherland and a number of others), in modern conditions have acquired particular relevance.

Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich (1893-1965)

M. P. Tikhomirov - an outstanding researcher of the national history X-XIX centuries Among more than three and a half hundred of his works are monographs, brochures, articles, publications of historical sources, which he considered the basis of any scientific constructions in the field of studying the past. At the initiative of the scientist, the Archaeographic Commission was restored, the publication of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (PSRL) was resumed, as well as the most valuable chronicle monuments that were published outside the series of PSRL volumes. Tikhomirov’s Peru owns the fundamental monographs “Research on Russian Truth”, “Old Russian Cities”, “Russia in the 16th Century”, “Russian Culture of the 10th-18th Centuries”, “ Russian state XV-XVII centuries”, “Russian Chronicle”, as well as two voluminous books on the history of Moscow in the XII-XV centuries. and many other studies, including those on historiography, archaeography, and source studies.

All my creative life Tikhomirov highly valued the works and achievements of his predecessors in the field of historical science, including his teachers - B. D. Grekov, S. I. Smirnov, V. N. Peretz, S. V. Bakhrushin. In turn, he brought up a whole galaxy of students - "children" and "grandchildren", among whom there are many prominent scientists. Paying tribute to the teacher, they publish in the "Archaeographic Yearbook", founded by Mikhail Nikolaevich, the materials of the "Tikhomirov Readings", dedicated to modern scientific research.

Nechkina Militsa Vasilievna (1899-1985)

M. V. Nechkina gained wide popularity both in our country and abroad, primarily as a talented researcher national history. The history of the Decembrist movement, the liberation movement and social thought in Russia at the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century, as well as the problems of historiography, were at the center of her attention and scientific research. In each of these scientific areas, she achieved significant results, which made a serious contribution to domestic historical science. Clear evidence of this is her fundamental monographs “A. S. Griboyedov and the Decembrists”, “The Decembrist Movement”, “Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. History of life and creativity”, “Meeting of two generations”.

A distinctive feature of Nechkina's works is the masterful ability to combine scientific work analysis and synthesis, careful study of sources and brilliant literary language.

My research activities Nechkina combined with a huge pedagogical and scientific-organizational work. For many years she was a professor at Moscow State University and the Academy social sciences, researcher Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, headed the Scientific Council on the History of Historical Science and the Group for the Study of the Revolutionary Situation in Russia. In 1958 she became an academician. Her diverse scientific activity is a major phenomenon of our national culture.

Artsikhovsky Artemy Vladimirovich (1902-1978)

A. V. Artsikhovsky had a phenomenal ability: holding a sheet with a text in front of his eyes for 2-3 seconds, he not only read it, but also memorized it. An excellent memory helped him easily memorize names and dates, learn foreign languages ​​- he read literature in almost all European languages.

Having become an archaeologist, Artsikhovsky took an active part in the study of Vyatichi burial mounds in the Moscow region, in the study of ancient Novgorod, the first archaeological excavations in the capital associated with the construction of the Moscow Metro. In 1940, at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, he headed the Department of Archeology, defended his doctoral dissertation "Old Russian miniatures as a historical source." However, the discovery in 1951 of birch-bark letters of the 11th-15th centuries brought him worldwide fame. in Novgorod. The significance of this find is often compared with the discovery of the papyri of Hellenistic Egypt. The special value of birch-bark writings lies in the fact that they reflect the everyday life of medieval Novgorodians. The publication and research of this new unique documentary source became the main work of life and scientific feat of Artsikhovsky.

Kovalchenko Ivan Dmitrievich (1923-1995)

ID Kovalchenko combined the talent of a scientist, teacher and organizer of science. After going through the crucible of the Great Patriotic War, the artillery paratrooper came to the student bench of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, where he then became a graduate student and later an assistant, associate professor, professor, head of the department of source studies and historiography of national history. At the same time, for 18 years he was the editor-in-chief of the journal History of the USSR, from 1988 to 1995 he was an academician and com-secretary of the Department of History and a member of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences (RAS), co-chairman of the International Commission on Quantitative History, following Nechkina led the work Scientific Council in historiography and source studies.

The golden fund of national historical science includes the works of this remarkable innovator. Among them is the All-Russian Agricultural Market. XVIII - early XX century. (co-authored with L.V. Milov), “Methods of historical research”, “Russian serfs in the first half of the 19th century”.

The development of methodological problems of historical research and the theoretical foundations for the application of mathematical research methods is associated with the name of Kovalchenko. The scientist held a principled position in the last years of his life. Modern transformations, he believed, would be successful only if they were correlated with the richest experience of national history.

Milov Leonid Vasilyevich (1929-2007)

The formation of Academician L. V. Milov, as well as many other people of his generation, was greatly influenced by the Great Patriotic War experienced in adolescence. At Moscow State University, where he studied in 1948-1953, Leonid Vasilievich chose the history of Ancient Russia as his specialization. After graduating from graduate school, where M.N. Tikhomirov was his supervisor, he worked at the academic institutions of Slavic studies and the history of the USSR, was deputy editor-in-chief of the journal History of the USSR, assistant, senior lecturer, associate professor, professor, head of the department (1989-2007) of history USSR of the period of feudalism (since 1992 it was renamed the Department of the History of Russia until the beginning of the 19th century) MSU.

Milov the researcher was distinguished by the widest range of problems studied, the novelty of approaches, and scrupulous work with sources. The influence of the natural and climatic factor on the development of Russia is devoted to his monograph "The Great Russian Ploughman and Features of the Russian Historical Process", which was awarded the State Prize of the Russian Federation in 2000.

The history of the Russian people is part of the world, so the importance of studying it is clear to everyone. Man, knowledgeable of history of his people, can adequately navigate in the modern space and competently respond to emerging difficulties. Russian historians help to study the science that tells about the affairs of past centuries. Let us dwell in more detail on those who played a significant role in scientific research in this area.

First chronicles

While there was no written language, historical knowledge was passed from mouth to mouth. And such legends existed among different peoples.

When writing appeared, events began to be recorded in chronicles. Experts believe that the first sources date back to the X-XI centuries. Older writings have not been preserved.

The first surviving chronicle belongs to the pen of the monk of the Kiev-Pechora monastery Nikon. Most full work created by Nestor, this is "The Tale of Bygone Years" (1113).

Later, the Chronograph appeared, compiled by the monk Philotheus at the end of the 15th-beginning of the 16th century. The document provides an overview of world history and outlines the role of Moscow in particular and Russia in general.

Of course, history is not just a presentation of events; science is faced with the task of comprehending and explaining historical turns.

The Emergence of History as a Science: Vasily Tatishchev

The formation of historical science in Russia began in the 18th century. At that time, the Russian people tried to realize themselves and their place in the world.

The first historian of Russia is considered to be an outstanding thinker and politician of those years. The years of his life are 1686-1750. Tatishchev was a very gifted person, and he managed to make a successful career under Peter I. After participating in the Northern War, Tatishchev was engaged in state affairs. In parallel, he collected historical chronicles and put them in order. After his death, a 5-volume work was published, on which Tatishchev worked throughout his life - "Russian History".

In his work, Tatishchev established the cause-and-effect relationships of the events taking place, relying on the annals. The thinker is rightfully considered the ancestor of Russian history.

Mikhail Shcherbatov

Russian historian Mikhail Shcherbatov also lived in the 18th century, he was a member of the Russian Academy.

Shcherbatov was born into a wealthy noble family. This man possessed encyclopedic knowledge. He created the "History of Russia from ancient times."

Scientists of later eras criticize Shcherbatov's research, accusing him of some haste in writing and gaps in knowledge. Indeed, Shcherbatov began to study history already when he began to work on writing it.

The history of Shcherbatov was not in demand among his contemporaries. Catherine II considered him completely devoid of talent.

Nikolai Karamzin

Among the historians of Russia, Karamzin occupies leading place. The writer's interest in science was formed in 1790. Alexander I appointed him a historiographer.

Karamzin throughout his life worked on the creation of the "History of the Russian State". This book introduced the story to a wide range of readers. Since Karamzin was more of a writer than a historian, in his work he worked on the beauty of expressions.

The main idea of ​​Karamzin's "History" was reliance on autocracy. The historian concluded that only with the strong power of the monarch, the country prospers, and with its weakening, it falls into decline.

Konstantin Aksakov

Among eminent historians Russia and well-known Slavophiles, the one born in 1817 takes his place of honor. His works promoted the idea of ​​the opposite paths of the historical development of Russia and the West.

Aksakov was positive about returning to traditional Russian roots. All his activities called for precisely this - a return to the roots. Aksakov himself grew a beard and wore a kosovorotka and a murmolka. Criticized Western fashion.

Aksakov did not leave a single scientific work, but his numerous articles became a significant contribution to Russian history. Also known as the author of philological works. He preached freedom of speech. He believed that the ruler should hear the opinion of the people, but is not obliged to accept it. On the other hand, the people do not need to interfere in government affairs, but need to focus on their moral ideals and spiritual development.

Nikolai Kostomarov

Another figure from among the historians of Russia, who worked in the 19th century. He was a friend of Taras Shevchenko, had an acquaintance with Nikolai Chernyshevsky. He worked as a professor at Kiev University. He published "Russian history in the biographies of its leaders" in several volumes.

The significance of Kostomarov's work in Russian historiography is enormous. He promoted the idea folk history. Kostomarov studied the spiritual development of Russians, this idea was supported by scientists of later eras.

A circle of public figures formed around Kostomarov, who romanticized the idea of ​​nationality. According to the report, all members of the circle were arrested and punished.

Sergei Solovyov

One of the most famous historians Russia XIX century. Professor, and later rector of Moscow University. For 30 years he worked on the "History of Russia". This outstanding work has become the pride of not only the scientist himself, but also the historical science of Russia.

Whole collected material was studied by Solovyov with sufficient completeness necessary for scientific work. In his work, he drew the reader's attention to the internal content of the historical vector. The originality of Russian history, according to the scientist, was in a certain delay in development - in comparison with the West.

Solovyov himself confessed to his ardent Slavophilism, which cooled down a little when he studied the historical development of the country. The historian advocated a reasonable abolition of serfdom and a reform of the bourgeois system.

In his scientific work, Solovyov supported the reforms of Peter I, thereby moving away from the ideas of the Slavophiles. Over the years, Solovyov's views shifted from liberal to conservative. At the end of his life, the historian supported an enlightened monarchy.

Vasily Klyuchevsky

Continuing the list of historians of Russia, it should be said about (1841-1911) he worked as a professor at Moscow University. Considered a talented lecturer. Many students attended his lectures.

Klyuchevsky was interested in the basics of folk life, studied folklore, wrote down proverbs and sayings. The historian is the author of a course of lectures that has received worldwide recognition.

Klyuchevsky studied the essence of the complex relations between peasants and landowners, devoted this thought to great importance. Klyuchevsky's ideas were accompanied by criticism, however, the historian did not enter into polemics on these topics. He said that he expresses his subjective opinion on many issues.

On the pages of the Course, Klyuchevsky gave many brilliant characteristics and key moments in Russian history.

Sergei Platonov

Speaking of the great historians of Russia, it is worth remembering Sergei Platonov (1860-1933) He was an academician and university lecturer.

Platonov developed the ideas of Sergei Solovyov about the opposition of the tribal and state principles in the development of Russia. He saw the cause of modern misfortunes in the coming to power of the nobility.

Sergei Platonov gained fame thanks to published lectures and a history textbook. He assessed the October Revolution from a negative point of view.

For hiding important historical documents from Stalin, Platonov was arrested along with friends who had anti-Marxist views.

Nowadays

If we talk about modern historians of Russia, we can name the following figures:

• Artemy Artsikhovsky - professor at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, author of works on ancient Russian history, creator of the Novgorod expedition of archaeologists.
• Stepan Veselovsky - a student of Klyuchevsky, returned from exile in 1933, worked as a professor and lecturer at Moscow State University, and studied anthroponymy.
• Viktor Danilov - took part in the Patriotic War, studied the history of the Russian peasantry, was awarded the Solovyov Gold Medal for his outstanding contribution to the study of history.
• Nikolai Druzhinin - an outstanding Soviet historian, studied the Decembrist movement, the post-reform village, the history of peasant farms.
• Boris Rybakov - historian and archaeologist of the 20th century, studied the culture and life of the Slavs, was engaged in excavations.
• Ruslan Skrynnikov - professor at St. Petersburg University, a specialist in the history of the 16th-17th centuries, studied the oprichnina and the politics of Ivan the Terrible.
• Mikhail Tikhomirov - academician of Moscow University, studied the history of Russia, explored numerous social and economic topics.
• Lev Cherepnin - Soviet historian, academician of Moscow University, studied the Russian Middle Ages, created his own school and made an important contribution to Russian history.
• Serafim Yushkov - Professor of Moscow State University and Leningrad State University, historian of state and law, participated in discussions on Kievan Rus, studied its system.

So, we examined the most famous historians of Russia, who devoted a significant part of their lives to science.

The Frenchman M. Blok called history a "craft". Another publicist added that this is a dog's craft: wagging his tail and barking (depending on the specific situation). It seems that in modern conditions people can not only love history, but also love historians. But before studying history, it is necessary to study the historians who created it.

KARAMZIN NIKOLAI MIKHAILOVICH (1766 - 1826), writer, historian.

"History of Russian Goverment"
is not only the creation of a great writer,
but also a feat an honest man.
A. S. Pushkin

He was born on December 1 (12 n.s.) in the village of Mikhailovka, Simbirsk province, in the family of a landowner. He received a good education at home.
At the age of 14, he began to study at the Moscow private boarding school of Professor Shaden. After graduating in 1783, he came to the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, where he met the young poet and future employee of his "Moscow Journal" Dmitriev. Then he published his first translation of S. Gesner's idyll "Wooden Leg". Having retired with the rank of second lieutenant in 1784, he moved to Moscow, became one of the active participants in the journal " Children's reading for the Heart and Mind", published by N. Novikov, and became close to the Freemasons. He engaged in translations of religious and moral writings. From 1787 he regularly published his translations of Thomson's "Seasons", "Village Evenings" by Janlis, W. Shakespeare's tragedy "Julius Caesar", Lessing's tragedy Emilia Galotti.
In 1789, Karamzin's first original story, Evgeny and Yulia, appeared in the magazine "Children's Reading ...". In the spring, he went on a trip to Europe: he visited Germany, Switzerland, France, where he observed the activities of the revolutionary government. In June 1790 he moved from France to England.
In the autumn he returned to Moscow and soon undertook the publication of the monthly Moscow Journal, in which most of the Letters of a Russian Traveler, the novels Liodor, Poor Liza, Natalya, the Boyar's Daughter, Flor Silin, essays, short stories, critical articles and poems. Karamzin attracted Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and Derzhavin, Lvov Neledinsky-Meletsky and others to cooperate in the journal. Karamzin's articles asserted a new literary trend - sentimentalism. In the 1790s, Karamzin published the first Russian almanacs - "Aglaya" (parts 1 - 2, 1794 - 95) and "Aonides" (parts 1 - 3, 1796 - 99). 1793 came, when in the third stage French Revolution The Jacobin dictatorship was established, shocking Karamzin with its cruelty. The dictatorship aroused in him doubts about the possibility for mankind to achieve prosperity. He condemned the revolution. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the stories "Bornholm Island" (1793); "Sierra Morena" (1795); poems "Melancholy", "Message to A. A. Pleshcheev", etc.
By the mid-1790s, Karamzin had become the recognized head of Russian sentimentalism, opening a new page in Russian literature. He was an indisputable authority for Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, the young Pushkin.
In 1802 - 1803 Karamzin published the journal Vestnik Evropy, which was dominated by literature and politics. In the critical articles of Karamzin, a new aesthetic program emerged, which contributed to the formation of Russian literature as a nationally original one. Karamzin saw the key to the identity of Russian culture in history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story "Marfa Posadnitsa". In his political articles, Karamzin made recommendations to the government, pointing out the role of education.
Trying to influence Tsar Alexander I, Karamzin gave him his Note on Ancient and New Russia (1811), irritating him. In 1819 he filed a new note - "The Opinion of a Russian Citizen", which caused even greater displeasure of the tsar. However, Karamzin did not abandon his faith in the salvation of the enlightened autocracy and later condemned the Decembrist uprising. However, Karamzin the artist was still highly appreciated by young writers who did not even share his political convictions.
In 1803, through M. Muravyov, Karamzin received the official title of court historiographer.
In 1804, he began to create the "History of the Russian State", on which he worked until the end of his days, but did not complete it. In 1818 the first eight volumes of History, Karamzin's greatest scientific and cultural achievement, were published. In 1821, the 9th volume was published, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, in 1824 - the 10th and 11th, about Fyodor Ioannovich and Boris Godunov. Death interrupted work on the 12th volume. It happened on May 22 (June 3, NS) 1826 in St. Petersburg.
The first eight volumes of The History of the Russian State came out all at once in 1818. They say that, closing the eighth and last volume, Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: "It turns out that I have a Fatherland!" And he was not alone. Thousands of people thought, and most importantly, felt this very thing. Everyone read the "History" - students, officials, nobles, even secular ladies. They read it in Moscow and St. Petersburg, they read it in the provinces: distant Irkutsk alone bought 400 copies. After all, it is so important for everyone to know that he has it, the Fatherland. This confidence was given to the people of Russia by Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin.
In those days, at the beginning of the 19th century, ancient, age-old Russia suddenly turned out to be young, a beginner. Here she entered the big world. Everything was born anew: the army and navy, factories and manufactories, science and literature. And it might seem that the country has no history - was there anything before Peter, except dark ages backwardness and barbarism? Do we have history? "Yes," replied Karamzin.
Who is he?
We know very little about Karamzin's childhood and youth - neither diaries, nor letters from relatives, nor youthful writings have been preserved. We know that Nikolai Mikhailovich was born on December 1, 1766, not far from Simbirsk. At that time it was an incredible backwoods, a real bearish corner. When the boy was 11 or 12 years old, his father, a retired captain, took his son to Moscow, to a boarding school at the university gymnasium. Here Karamzin stayed for some time, and then entered active military service - this is at the age of 15! The teachers prophesied for him not only the Moscow-Leipzig University, but somehow it didn’t work out.
The exceptional education of Karamzin is his personal merit.
Military service I didn’t go - I wanted to write: compose, translate. And now, at the age of 17, Nikolai Mikhailovich is already a retired lieutenant. ahead whole life. What to dedicate it to? Literature, exclusively literature - Karamzin decides.
And what was she, Russian literature XVIII century? Also young, a beginner. Karamzin writes to a friend: "I am deprived of the pleasure of reading a lot in my native language. We are still poor writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read." Of course, there are already writers, and not just a few, but Lomonosov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Are there too few talents? No, they do exist, but it's up to the language: the Russian language has not adapted yet to convey new thoughts, new feelings, to describe new objects.
Karamzin focuses on the live conversational speech of educated people. He writes not scholarly treatises, but travel notes ("Notes of a Russian Traveler"), stories ("Bornholm Island", "Poor Lisa"), poems, articles, and translates from French and German.
Finally, he decides to publish a magazine. It was called simply: "Moscow Journal". The well-known playwright and writer Ya. B. Knyazhnin picked up the first issue and exclaimed: "We did not have such prose!"
The success of the "Moscow Journal" was grandiose - as many as 300 subscribers. At the time, a very large number. That's how small is not only writing, reading Russia!
Karamzin works incredibly hard. Collaborates in the first Russian children's magazine. It was called "Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind". Only FOR this magazine Karamzin wrote two dozen pages every week.
Karamzin for his time is the number one writer.
And suddenly Karamzin takes on a gigantic job - to compose his native Russian history. On October 31, 1803, Tsar Alexander I issued a decree appointing N. M. Karamzin as a historiographer with a salary of 2,000 rubles a year. Now he is a historian for the rest of his life. But, apparently, it was necessary.
Now - write. But for this you need to collect material. The search began. Karamzin literally combs through all the archives and book collections of the Synod, the Hermitage, the Academy of Sciences, the Public Library, Moscow University, the Alexander Nevsky and Trinity-Sergius Lavra. At his request, they search in monasteries, in the archives of Oxford, Paris, Venice, Prague and Copenhagen. And how much was found!
Ostromir Gospel of 1056 - 1057 (this is still the oldest dated Russian book), Ipatiev, Trinity chronicles. Sudebnik of Ivan the Terrible, work ancient Russian literature"Daniel the Sharpener's Prayer" and much more.
They say, having discovered a new chronicle - Volyn, Karamzin did not sleep for several nights for joy. Friends laughed that he had become simply unbearable - only talk about history.
Materials are being collected, but how to take up the text, how to write a book that even the simplest person will read, but from which even an academician will not wince? How to make it interesting, artistic, and at the same time scientific? And here are the volumes. Each is divided into two parts: in the first - a detailed story written by a great master - this is for a simple reader; in the second - detailed notes, references to sources - this is for historians.
Karamzin writes to his brother: "History is not a novel: a lie can always be beautiful, and only some minds like the truth in its attire." So what to write about? To set out in detail the glorious pages of the past, and only turn over the dark pages? Perhaps this is exactly what a patriotic historian should do? No, Karamzin decides - patriotism is only not due to the distortion of history. He doesn't add anything, he doesn't invent anything, he doesn't exalt victories or downplay defeats.
Drafts of the 7th volume were accidentally preserved: we see how Karamzin worked on every phrase of his "History". Here he writes about Basil III: "in relations with Lithuania, Vasily ... always ready for peacefulness ..." It's not that, it's not true. The historian crosses out what was written and concludes: "In relations with Lithuania, Vasily expressed peacefulness in words, trying to harm her secretly or openly." Such is the impartiality of the historian, such is true patriotism. Love for one's own, but not hatred for someone else's.
Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus.
The ancient history of Russia is being written, and modern history is being made around: Napoleonic Wars, the battle of Austerlitz, the Peace of Tilsit, the Patriotic War of the 12th year, the fire of Moscow. In 1815, Russian troops enter Paris. In 1818 the first 8 volumes of The History of the Russian State were published. Circulation is a terrible thing! - 3 thousand copies. And they all sold out in 25 days. Unheard of! But the price is considerable: 50 rubles.
The last volume stopped in the middle of the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible.
Everyone rushed to read. Opinions were divided.
Some said - Jacobin!
Even earlier, the trustee of Moscow University, Golenishchev-Kutuzov, submitted to the Minister of Public Education some document, to put it mildly, in which he argued in detail that "Karamzin's writings are full of free-thinking and Jacobin poison." "It's not the order that he should be given, it's time to lock him up."
Why so? First of all - for independence of judgments. Not everyone likes it.
There is an opinion that Nikolai Mikhailovich never in his life lied.
- Monarchist! - exclaimed others, young people, future Decembrists.
Yes, the main character of Karamzin's "History" is the Russian autocracy. The author condemns bad sovereigns, sets good ones as an example. And he sees prosperity for Russia in an enlightened, wise monarch. That is, a "good king" is needed. Karamzin does not believe in revolution, especially in an ambulance. So, we really have a monarchist.
And at the same time, the Decembrist Nikolai Turgenev will later recall how Karamzin "shed tears" upon learning of the death of Robespierre, the hero of the French Revolution. And here is what Nikolai Mikhailovich himself writes to a friend: "I do not demand either a constitution or representatives, but by feeling I will remain a republican, and, moreover, a loyal subject of the Russian tsar: this is a contradiction, but only an imaginary one."
Why is he not with the Decembrists then? Karamzin believed that Russia's time had not yet come, the people were not ripe for a republic.
The ninth volume has not yet been published, and rumors have already spread that it is banned. It began like this: "We proceed to describe the terrible change in the soul of the king and in the fate of the kingdom." So, the story about Ivan the Terrible continues.
Earlier historians did not dare to openly describe this reign. Not surprising. For example, the conquest of free Novgorod by Moscow. True, Karamzin the historian reminds us that the unification of the Russian lands was necessary, but Karamzin the artist gives a vivid picture of exactly how the conquest of the free northern city took place:
“Ioann and his son judged in this way: every day they presented to them from five hundred to a thousand Novgorodians; they beat them, tortured them, burned them with some kind of fiery composition, tied their heads or feet to a sleigh, dragged them to the banks of the Volkhov, where this river does not freeze in winter, and whole families were thrown from the bridge into the water, wives with husbands, mothers with babies. Moscow warriors rode in boats along the Volkhov with stakes, hooks and axes: whoever of those plunged into the water surfaced, that one was stabbed, cut into pieces. These murders lasted five weeks and were committed by general robbery."
And so on almost every page - executions, murders, burning of prisoners at the news of the death of the tsar's favorite villain Malyuta Skuratov, an order to destroy an elephant that refused to kneel before the tsar ... and so on.
Remember, this is written by a person who is convinced that autocracy is necessary in Russia.
Yes, Karamzin was a monarchist, but at the trial the Decembrists referred to the "History of the Russian State" as one of the sources of "harmful" thoughts.
He did not want his book to become a source of harmful thoughts. He wanted to tell the truth. It just so happened that the truth he wrote turned out to be "harmful" for the autocracy.
And here is December 14, 1825. Having received news of the uprising (for Karamzin, this, of course, is a rebellion), the historian goes out into the street. He was in Paris in 1790, was in Moscow in 1812, in 1825 he was walking towards the Senate Square. "I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, five or six stones fell at my feet."
Karamzin, of course, is against the uprising. But how many among the rebels are the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev Bestuzhev, Kuchelbeker (he translated "History" into German).
A few days later Karamzin would say this about the Decembrists: "The errors and crimes of these young people are the errors and crimes of our age."
After the uprising, Karamzin fell mortally ill - he caught a cold on December 14th. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of that day. But he dies not only from a cold - the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe world collapsed, faith in the future was lost, and a new king ascended the throne, very far from perfect image enlightened monarch.
Karamzin could no longer write. The last thing he managed to do was, together with Zhukovsky, persuaded the tsar to return Pushkin from exile.
Nikolai Mikhailovich died on May 22, 1826.
And volume XII froze at the interregnum of 1611-1612. And here are the last words of the last volume - about a small Russian fortress: "Nutlet did not give up."
More than a century and a half has passed since then. Today's historians know much more about ancient Russia than Karamzin - how much has been found: documents, archaeological finds, birch bark letters, finally. But Karamzin's book - history-chronicle - is the only one of its kind and will not be like this again.
Why do we need it now? Bestuzhev-Ryumin said this well in his time: "A high moral sense makes this book so far the most convenient for cultivating love for Russia and for the good."
E. Perehvalskaya
Published in the magazine "Bonfire" for September 1988

KLYUCHEVSKY VASILY OSIPOVICH.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich - a famous historian (born January 16, 1841, died May 12, 1911), the son of a village priest of the Penza diocese. He studied at the Penza Theological School and the Penza Theological Seminary. In 1861, having overcome difficult financial circumstances, he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, where he studied with N.M. Leontiev, F.M. Buslaeva, G.A. Ivanova, K.N. Pobedonostsev, B.N. Chicherina, S.M. Solovyov. Under the influence of especially the last two scientists, Klyuchevsky's own scientific interests were also determined. In Chicherin's lectures, he was captivated by the harmony and integrity of scientific constructions; in Solovyov's lectures, he learned, in his own words, "what a pleasure it is for a young mind, beginning scientific study, to feel in possession of an integral view of a scientific subject." His Ph.D. thesis was written on the topic: "Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state." Left at the university, Klyuchevsky chose for special scientific research extensive manuscript material from the lives of ancient Russian saints, in which he hoped to find "the most abundant and fresh source for studying the participation of monasteries in the colonization of North-Eastern Russia." Hard work on the colossal handwritten material scattered over many book depositories did not justify Klyuchevsky's initial hopes. The result of this work was a master's thesis: "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source" (Moscow, 1871), devoted to the formal side of hagiographic literature, its sources, samples, techniques and forms. Masterful, true Scientific research one of the largest sources of our ancient church history is sustained in the spirit of that strict-critical trend, which was far from dominant in the church history of the middle of the last century. For the author himself, a close study of hagiographic literature also had the significance that from it he extracted many grains of a living historical image, shining like a diamond, which Klyuchevsky used with inimitable skill in characterizing various aspects of ancient Russian life. Classes for a master's thesis involved Klyuchevsky in a circle of various topics on the history of the church and Russian religious thought, and a number of independent articles and reviews appeared on these topics; the largest of them: "Economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery", "Pskov disputes", "Contribution of the church to the successes of Russian civil order and law", "The significance of St. Sergius of Radonezh for the Russian people and state", "Western influence and church schism in Russia in the 17th century ". In 1871, Klyuchevsky was elected to the chair of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, which he held until 1906; the following year, he began teaching at the Alexander Military School and at the higher courses for women. In September 1879 he was elected associate professor at Moscow University, in 1882 - extraordinary, in 1885 - ordinary professor. In 1893 - 1895, on behalf of the emperor Alexander III, read a course of Russian history to the Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich; in Abas-Tuman from 1900 to 1911 he taught at the school of painting, sculpture and architecture; in 1893 - 1905 he was chairman of the Society of History and Antiquities at Moscow University. In 1901 he was elected an ordinary academician, in 1908 - an honorary academician of the category of fine literature of the Academy of Sciences; in 1905 he participated in the press commission chaired by D.F. Kobeko and in a special meeting (in Peterhof) on the fundamental laws; in 1906 he was elected a member of the State Council from the Academy of Sciences and Universities, but refused this title. From the very first courses he read, Klyuchevsky established himself as a brilliant and original lecturer, who captured the attention of the audience by force. scientific analysis, the gift of a bright and convex image ancient life and historical details. Deep erudition in the primary sources gave abundant material to the artistic talent of the historian, who loved to create accurate, concise pictures and characteristics from the original expressions and images of the source. In 1882, Klyuchevsky's doctoral dissertation, the famous Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia, published first in Russkaya Mysl, was published as a separate book. In this central work of his, the special topic of the boyar duma, the "flywheel" of the ancient Russian administration, Klyuchevsky connected with the most important issues of the socio-economic and political history of Russia until the end of the 17th century, thus expressing that integral and deeply thought-out understanding of this history, which formed at the base of it general course Russian history and its special studies. A number of fundamental issues of ancient Russian history - the formation of urban volosts around the shopping centers of the great waterway, the origin and essence of the specific order in northeastern Russia, the composition and political role of the Moscow boyars, the Moscow autocracy, the bureaucratic mechanism of the Moscow state of the 16th - 17th centuries - received in " Boyar Duma" such a decision, which partly became universally recognized, partly served as the necessary basis for the investigations of subsequent historians. The articles "The Origin of Serfdom in Russia" and "The Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia" published later (in 1885 and 1886) in "Russian Thought" gave a strong and fruitful impetus to the controversy about the origin of peasant attachment in ancient Russia. The main idea of ​​Klyuchevsky, that the reasons and grounds for this attachment should be sought not in the decrees of the Moscow government, but in the complex network of economic relations between the peasant clerk and the landowner, which gradually brought the position of the peasantry closer to servility, met with sympathy and recognition from the majority of subsequent researchers and a sharply negative attitude. by V.I. Sergeevich and some of his followers. Klyuchevsky himself did not interfere in the controversy generated by his articles. In connection with the study of the economic situation of the Moscow peasantry, his article appeared: "The Russian ruble of the 16th - 18th centuries, in its relation to the present" ("Readings of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities", 1884). The articles "On the composition of the representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia" ("Russian Thought" 1890, 1891, 1892), which gave a completely new formulation of the question of the origin of the zemstvo councils of the 16th century in connection with the reforms of Ivan the Terrible, ended the cycle of Klyuchevsky's largest studies on political issues. and the social system of ancient Russia ("Experiments and Research". The first collection of articles. M., 1912). The talent and temperament of the historian-artist directed Klyuchevsky to topics from the history of the spiritual life of Russian society and its prominent representatives. This area includes a number of brilliant articles and speeches about S.M. Solovyov, Pushkin, Lermontov, I.N. Boltine, N.I. Novikov, Fonvizine, Catherine II, Peter the Great (collected in the 2nd Collection of Klyuchevsky's articles, "Essays and Speeches", Moscow, 1912). In 1899 Klyuchevsky published " Quick guide on Russian History" as "a private publication for the author's listeners", and in 1904 he began publishing a complete course, which had long been widely used in lithographed student publications. A total of 4 volumes were published, brought up to the time of Catherine II. As in his monographic studies so in the "Course" Klyuchevsky gives his strictly subjective understanding of the Russian historical process, completely eliminating the review and criticism of the literature of the subject, without entering into polemics with anyone. Approaching the study of the general course of Russian history from the point of view of a sociological historian and finding the general scientific interest of this the study of "local history" in the disclosure of "phenomena that reveal the versatile flexibility of human society, its ability to apply to given conditions", seeing the main condition that directed the change in the main forms of our hostel, in a peculiar attitude of the population to the nature of the country, Klyuchevsky highlights the history of political socio-economic life. I mean that the course is based on political and economic facts in terms of their purely methodological significance in historical study, and not in terms of their actual significance in the essence of the historical process. " Brainwork and moral feat will always remain the best builders of society, the most powerful engines of human development. " And on the pages of the "Course" Klyuchevsky's artistic talent was expressed in a number of brilliant characteristics of historical figures and in depicting the ideological side of many historical moments that appear before the reader in all their vital integrity. Of Klyuchevsky's special courses, the "History of Estates in Russia" (Moscow, 1913) was published after his death. His course "Terminology of Russian History" became widespread in a lithographed edition. For a comprehensive assessment of Klyuchevsky's scientific and teaching activities, see the collection "Klyuchevsky, Characteristics and memories "(M., 1912). The Society of History and Antiquities at Moscow University dedicated the 1st book of its "Readings" for 1914 to the memory of Klyuchevsky. Speeches of Klyuchevsky's closest students and employees, materials for a biography and full list his labors.
Biographical Dictionary. 2000.

SOLOVIEV SERGEY MIKHAILOVICH.

Solovyov Sergey Mikhailovich (05/05/1820, Moscow - 10/04/1879, Moscow) - historian, one of the founders of the state school in Russian historiography. Born into the family of an archpriest, a teacher of the Word of God, who taught at the Moscow Commercial School. Eight years old, the boy was sent to a religious school, but he studied reluctantly, sitting all the time over books that were far from the school curriculum, and did not answer well in exams. Finally, his father decided to transfer him to the 1st Moscow Gymnasium, but even here, due to disorderly preparation, they could hardly admit him to the third grade. However, starting from the fourth grade, Solovyov was constantly among the first students and graduated from the gymnasium with a silver medal in 1838.
In the autumn of the same year, young Solovyov became a student of the historical and philological department of the philosophical faculty of Moscow University. At that time, such well-known professors as T.N. Granovsky, M.T. Kachenovsky, M.P. Pogodin, S.P. Shevyrev taught here. Having plunged into student life, Solovyov diligently took notes of lectures and eagerly read everything that came across to him from historical writings. Hegel's "Philosophy of History" made a great impression on him.
Standing out in the student environment with special diligence and erudition, Solovyov did not shy away from the society of his peers and attended the circle of the young A.A. Grigoriev, where he talked with A.A. Fet, Ya.P. Polonsky, N.M. K.D.Kavelin. Having chosen Russian history as his specialty, Solovyov began to work under the guidance of M.P. Pogodin. The venerable professor soon saw in young student great scientific abilities, allowed him to use his rich library and collection of ancient manuscripts, introduced him to the university authorities as his best student. But Solovyov's progress was closely monitored by the trustee himself, Count S.G. Stroganov, who, not having the formal right to send a researcher specializing in Russian history abroad, recommended him, after graduating from university in 1842, as a home teacher to his brother, A. G. Stroganov, whose family was going on a long trip abroad.
In 1842-1844. Solovyov listened to lectures by prominent scientists in Berlin, Paris and Heidelberg, attended solemn meetings of the French Academy. Returning to Moscow, he began to pass the master's exams. In 1845, the publishing house of Moscow University published Solovyov's book "On the Relations of Novgorod to the Grand Dukes", which was defended by him as a master's thesis. In the same year he was approved by an extraordinary professor. In 1846, he completed the manuscript of his doctoral dissertation on The history of relations between the Russian princes of the Rurik House, ”published and successfully defended in 1847. As a result of this defense, Solovyov in 1850 received the post of ordinary professor at Moscow University.
In 1851, the first volume of his work was published entitled "History of Russia from ancient times, which later brought the historian all-Russian and European fame. In total, he wrote 29 volumes (each year one volume was published), covering the history of the Fatherland until the reign of Catherine II ( until 1774). , on the other hand, the conceptual clarity of presentation, based on the idea developed by Hegelian philosophy of historical patterns, stages that change in a certain sequence in the life of each people. "History of Russia" is not only the most striking monument of the state school, but also one of the peaks of the historical thoughts of Westerners, and this was directly reflected in the characteristics of the personality of Peter I, one of the central places in the historical work of Solovyov (cf. "Public readings about Peter the Great" (1871)).
Since 1864, Solovyov was elected a corresponding member in the category of historical and political sciences of the historical and philological department, and since 1872 - an ordinary academician in the Department of Russian Language and Literature (Russian History) of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
The scientist enjoyed authority in royal family: he studied history with the crown princes Nicholas and Alexander Alexandrovich, lectured to Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich.
In addition to the great scientific and pedagogical work(in 1870 he was approved as an honored professor), carefully thought-out lectures of reflections, the scientist devoted a lot of time to organizational activities. From 1855 to 1869 he was the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, and then he was elected rector of Moscow University and received the rank of Privy Councilor.
During his rectorship, Solovyov managed to put into practice a number of major scientific, organizational and cultural projects at Moscow University. Among them - the opening in 1872 at the university of the first higher women's courses in Russia, the organizer and director of which was Solovyov's colleague, professor of general history V.I. Gerye, the division of the Faculty of History and Philology into departments of classical philology, Slavic philology and historical sciences, which increased the level of training of specialists in these areas. Since 1874, "seminaries" on the history of general literature began to be held at the Faculty of History and Philology under the guidance of N.I. Storozhenko. In 1875, the first congress of Russian lawyers was held at the university.
Great courage was demanded from the rector by his firm position in connection with the work of the government commission headed by Count I. D. Delyanov to revise the university charter, which caused a sharply negative assessment of the university corporation. Professors and students were especially indignant at the attacks of the member of the commission prof. N.A. Lyubimov for university autonomy. In this situation, Solovyov, not wanting to be a tool in the hands of the reactionary government, preferred to resign.
In the last years of his life, Solovyov was the chairman of the OIDR, as well as the director of the Armory, for some time he continued to lecture as an external teacher, but soon became seriously ill. He died at the age of 60 and was buried at the Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow. The valuable book collection of the scientist on Russian and world history after his death was transferred to the library of Moscow University. The Solovyov family had twelve children (four died at an early age), of which Vladimir Sergeevich, a Russian religious philosopher, poet, publicist and critic, is the most famous. Sons Mikhail (historian) and Vsevolod (author of historical novels), daughter Polyxena (poetess and writer) also became famous.

Historiography

Historical science is inconceivable without historiography. The historian treats countries, peoples, entire epochs and outstanding personalities as a judge. The historiographer has been given an even more honorable right: he acts as a judge in relation to the historian himself.

Historiography is a science that studies the process of accumulation of historical knowledge. Unlike historical science, which studies the past by extracting data from historical sources and analyzing them, historiography explores this science itself. Therefore, historiography is, as it were, the history of history.

Historiography has recently appeared. The need to describe all previously existing historical knowledge first arose in the middle of the 19th century. Teaching students of historical and historical-philological faculties, historians came to the conclusion that it is no longer enough to teach history itself, it is time to acquaint students with the experience of professional historians and their scientific methods. To this end, in the 1848/49 academic year, a professor at Moscow University, a well-known historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov, gave students a course of lectures on historical literature. The lectures proved to be useful to the students, and soon their reading became regular. Similar lectures were given at St. Petersburg, Kazan and other universities. This is how historiography in Russia took its first steps. Nowadays, a historian who is not familiar with historiography will not be able to work professionally.

So much historical information has accumulated that it is impossible to conduct a serious study without making a historiographic review on this topic, i.e. before presenting his position on any problem, every scientist should know the opinion of his predecessors. It is necessary to make sure either that the judgment is new, or that it is a confirmation of the already known opinion of other historians.

Description of the literature on the historical problem under study is the very first and most important task of historiography. Now in this science a lot has changed. The subject of her research has greatly expanded; and now what used to be called "historiography", meaning a review of the literature on a topic, is proposed to be called a "historiographic review on a topic". The very same term "historiography" in our days is used mainly in the sense of "the history of historical science."

2.1 The development of historical thought in Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century.

2.2 The origin of historical science and the development of national historiography in the XVIII-XIX centuries.

2.3 Features of the historiography of the Soviet period.

2.4 Modern domestic historiography.

Historiography- 1) a special historical discipline that studies the development of historical thought and the accumulation of historical knowledge about the development of society; 2) the history of historical science as a whole or its individual periods; 3) a set of studies on a specific problem, for example, the historiography of the Great Patriotic War.

History originated in Ancient Greece. "Father of history" is considered to be Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century. BC. The writings of the historians of Ancient Rome Plutarch, Tacitus and others are well known.

The process of studying national history has passed long way formation and has more than a thousand years since the emergence of the East Slavic community. The very accumulation of historical knowledge is divided into 2 stages: pre-scientific and scientific. The pre-scientific stage lasted from the moment the East Slavic community appeared (presumably from the 6th century AD) until the turn of the 17th-18th centuries. It is characterized by the fact that historical science did not yet exist in our country, and historical works were of a non-scientific nature.

The second stage of Russian historiography began at the beginning of the 18th century. and continues to this day. It is characterized by the emergence and development of historical science in our country.

2.1 The development of the historical thought of Russia from ancient times to the endXVIIin.

Before the appearance of writing among the Eastern Slavs, information about the past was transmitted orally, as a rule, in the form epics- oral epic stories. Epics are the first source about the past. With the advent of writing among our ancestors, historical information began to be recorded in special weather records - annals. Events were recorded in them, but not analyzed. They were of a religious nature, as they were led by clergymen as the most literate people at that time. The most famous ancient Russian chronicler is Nestor (late 11th - early 12th century) - a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery. He is considered the author of the first chronicle, The Tale of Bygone Years (circa 1113).

Along with the chronicles, literary monuments are also of great historical importance, such as Metropolitan Hilarion's "Sermon on Law and Grace", "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", etc.

A special type of chronicle was hagiography(biography of the saints, containing detailed biographical information), otherwise - "Lives of the Saints", for example, "The Life of Alexander Nevsky".

In the 17th century the first printed textbook on Russian history appeared, called "Synopsis". Its compiler was the Kyiv monk I. Gizel. Until 1861, this textbook was reprinted 25 times. It was excerpts from annals and chronicles, began "from the creation of the world", and ended with the annexation of Ukraine to Russia.

But all this was not yet scientific historical knowledge.

2.2 The origin of historical science and the development of national historiography inXVIII- XIXcenturies

History as a science originated in Russia at the beginning of the 18th century, which is associated with the activities of Peter I. By the end of the reign of Peter I, the Academy of Sciences was organized in St. Petersburg, within which, since 1725, a systematic study of Russian history began. At the beginning of the academic period, the research was carried out by V.N. Tatishchev and G.Z. Bayer.

V.N. Tatishchev was an associate of Peter I. He is considered the first professional historian in Russia. He collected, systematized and compared different variants(lists) of chronicles, considered history in close connection with the ethnography of countries and territories. The result of his work was the work "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times", published after his death. The peculiarity of this work is that V.N. Tatishchev used chronicles that have not survived to this day. His work is written in much the same way as traditional chronicles, the narrative began from the creation of the world. At the same time, a lot of work on criticizing sources (checking the reliability of information) allows us to consider his work as the first scientific work.

G.Z. Bayer came to Russia in 1725 and became the founder of the so-called. Norman theory in Russian historiography, according to which the state in Russia appeared with the advent of the Varangian princes (another name for the Varangians is the Normans). His views were shared by G.F. Miller and A.L. Schlozer.

M.V. spoke out against the "Norman theory". Lomonosov, who wrote the Brief Chronicler, in which he substantiated the creation of a state among the Eastern Slavs without the participation of the Scandinavians. His theory is called anti-Norman.

The controversy surrounding the Norman theory led to an increase in interest in Russian history, to the publication of many historical documents, and the publication of scientific works. AT late XVIII in. highest value received works on Russian history I.N. Boltin, who under Catherine II became famous for his “Notes on the history of Russia by Leclerc”. Leclerc's work absorbed everything negative that could be found in Russian history in order to show the Russian people as non-European, barbaric. In the XVIII century. the recognition of this or that people as "barbarian" meant the need for its forced civilization by turning it into a colony of a "civilized" people. Such interpretations of Russian history could lead to serious problems in foreign policy.

I.N. Boltin in a short time wrote his "Notes" on the work of Leclerc, in which for each of his examples he found exactly the same example from European, especially French history. I.N. Boltin showed the presence in Europe of the same vices as in Russia, but at the same time he successfully showed that the identified shortcomings of Russia were an accident, not a pattern.

By the beginning of the 19th century, thanks to the educational activities of Catherine II, the collection of ancient books, the publication of chronicles and documents, historical research have become systematic. However, Russian history was not yet popular, and remained the lot of a narrow circle of scientists and amateur enthusiasts.

The situation was changed by the work of N.M. Karamzin, the first Russian historiographer who wrote the first work on the history of Russia, the language of which was accessible to a wide range of readers. The first 8 volumes of The History of the Russian State were published in 1816.

The publication of this book coincided well with the change public opinion among the nobility after the war with Napoleon. If, before the Patriotic War of 1812, the nobility extolled European culture and considered the Russian people “mean”, they spoke at court mainly in French, but now, when the peasants “expelled the French from Russia with pitchforks”, there was a fashion for “Russian”. Karamzin's work became a "bestseller" and was published in huge circulation for its time.

History classes have become very popular. Books and magazine publications about Russian history turned out to be the arena of political struggle. First, the Slavophiles and Westernizers, then liberals and conservatives tried to confirm their views with varying degrees of success by referring to Russian history.

The discussion between the Slavophiles and the Westerners, which took place in the 30s-40s. XIX century., had a positive impact on the development of domestic historical science. Thanks to the Slavophiles - the brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, Russian ethnography began to develop rapidly in the country, records of Russian epics, fairy tales, descriptions of customs, etc. appeared. The Slavophiles regarded Russian history as exceptionally original and extolled the old Russian order. They tried to use information about the veche ( people's assembly IX-XIII centuries) and Zemsky Sobors (an elected body of power in the 16th-17th centuries) to agitate the transition to a limited monarchy.

Based on the concept of the Slavophiles in the second half of the XIX century. with the light hand of the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov, the theory took shape official nationality, which received the support of the state and proclaimed education in the spirit of "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." The Slavophiles had no less influence on N.Ya. Danilevsky, who substantiated the existence of Russian civilization and put it on the same level with the European one.

Westerners abandoned the idealization of Russian patriarchal antiquity and developed historical research in the context of contemporary European concepts. They also supported the idea of ​​abandoning autocracy, but they believed that the basis of future statehood was the development of the legal system and, first of all, the consolidation by law of inalienable human rights, that is, the abolition of serfdom and the adoption of a constitution.

The most famous in this period were the works of representatives of the "state school", "Russian school of law". Among the best representatives of the Westerners, it should be noted such scientists as M.P. Pogodin ("Ancient Russian history before Mongolian yoke”), K.D. Kavelin (“Investigations about the beginning of Russia”), B.N. Chicherin (“Experiments on the history of Russian law”), S.M. Solovyov ("History of Russia since ancient times").

Of particular note are the studies of S.M. Solovyov, who considered the state as an institution of popular interests, singled out the function of the state as a social institution (protection from external threats), as well as the historical mission of Russia (the struggle of the forest against the steppe). He believed that the oprichnina was just a means of combating tribal relations. In "Public Readings on Peter the Great" S.M. Solovyov was the first to express the idea that the transformations of Peter the Great had been prepared by the entire course of the historical process.

The works of Russian historians had a significant impact on the preparation of a reform to abolish serfdom, during which, as one of the options, it was proposed to free the peasants without land on the basis that the peasants allegedly “wandered” from one land to another (slash-and-burn and shifting systems ) and, therefore, had no ownership of the land. Thanks to the work of representatives of the legal direction, direct evidence of the inheritance of land by peasants was found, which forced the landowners of southern Russia to abandon the idea of ​​depriving the peasants of land.

Turn of XIX-XX centuries. became the heyday of Russian historical science. The last major study on the history of Russia during this period can be considered the “Course of Russian History” by V.O. Klyuchevsky, whose work to this day in science is exemplary.

2.3 Features of the historiography of the Soviet period

After the October Revolution of 1917, the dominance of Marxist direction(formational approach). Diversity in approaches to historical phenomena and events is replaced by their single interpretation. Historical science came under the influence of power and ideology. The works of scientists were controlled by party organs and subjected to strict censorship. Some historians were repressed.

The development of Soviet historical science was largely determined by the research of N.M. Druzhinina, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, D.S. Likhachev, L.V. Cherepnin, P.A. Zaionchkovsky and others.

AT Soviet period historiography, historical science was in demand. Colossal funds were allocated for research on history, and historical works were published in large numbers.

2.4 Modern Russian historiography

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the dictate of the party was removed, and the Marxist direction was abandoned as the main approach to the study of history. Historians have received the freedom of creativity. Against this background, on the one hand, publications of pseudo-historical “research” began to appear (A.T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovsky “New Chronology”, etc.), and on the other hand, it became possible to revise many overly politicized moments in the historiography of Russian history. .

AT early XXI in. Russian historical science is developing dynamically and is at the stage of changing generations of scientists. Among the “classics” who are currently continuing their activity, one can point out I.Ya. Froyanova, V.L. Yanina, A.N. Sakharova, L.V. Milova and others. But at the same time, new generations of historians are also making themselves known.