Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750)

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

Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov (1733-1790)

Russian historian, publicist. Honorary Member Petersburg Academy of Sciences since 1776, member of the Russian Academy (1783). Shcherbatov was a historian and publicist, economist and politician, philosopher and moralist, a man of truly encyclopedic knowledge. In The History of Russia from Ancient Times (brought to 1610) he emphasized the role of the feudal aristocracy, reducing historical progress to the level of knowledge, science and the mind of individuals. At the same time, Shcherbatov's work is saturated with a large number of act, annalistic and other sources. Shcherbatov found and published some valuable monuments, including the “Royal Book”, “Chronicle of many rebellions”, “Journal of Peter the Great”, etc. According to S. M. Solovyov, the shortcomings of Shcherbatov’s works were the result of the fact that “he began to study Russian history when he began to write it, ”and he was in a hurry to write it. Until his death, Shcherbatov continued to be interested in political, philosophical and economic issues, presenting his views in a number of articles.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766 -1826)

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

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

Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov (1817-1885)

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

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

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879)

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

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

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911)

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

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

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

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (1860-1933)

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

The “emancipation” of the estates began with the “emancipation” of the nobility, which received its final design in the “Charter to the Nobility” of 1785. The last act of "emancipation" of the estates was peasant reform 1861. However, having received personal and economic freedoms, the “emancipated” classes did not wait for political freedoms, which found expression in the “mental fermentation of a radical political nature”, which eventually resulted in the terror of the “Narodnaya Volya” and the revolutionary upheavals of the early 20th century.

End of work -

This topic belongs to:

Abstract of lectures on the history of the fatherland

Im I I Mechnikov .. Department of social humanities economics and law..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material turned out to be useful for you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

tweet

All topics in this section:

History, translated from Greek, means a story about the past, about what has been learned. History is a process of development of nature and society. The complex is also called history. social sciences(historical

Auxiliary historical disciplines
Auxiliary historical disciplines are subjects that study certain types or individual forms and contents of historical sources. To auxiliary historical disciplines

East Slavs
The question of the ancestral home of the Slavs and their ethnogenesis remains debatable in historical science. The separation of the tribes of the Balto-Slavic language group from the Indo-European migration wave and their settlement of the Center

Formation of the Old Russian state
The role of the Varangians in the formation of the Old Russian state. The question of the origin of the Russian state and the role of the Varangians in its formation already in the 18th century. divided the historians

Political and socio-economic structure
The political system of the Old Russian state combined the institutions of the new feudal formation and the old, primitive communal one. supreme power- legislative, military, judicial affiliation

Church, foreign policy, specific period
Christianity. An important milestone in the early history of the Old Russian state was the adoption of Christianity from Byzantium, i.e. in its Eastern, Greek Orthodox form. official, state

Russia and the Golden Horde
Batu invasion. Establishment Tatar-Mongol yoke. At the beginning of the XIII century. there was a unification of the Mongol tribes (located in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bmodern Mongolia and Buryatia) under the rule of Timu

Stages and features of the process of unification of Russian lands. Characteristic features of the Moscow state. XIV - first half of the XVI centuries
The main stages and features of the process of unification of Russian lands. To end of XIII – early XIV in. Russia has a new political system. A fait accompli was the transfer

Reforms of the middle of the XVI century. Oprichnina
After the death of Vasily III in 1533 until the accession of his son Ivan IV (1547), his mother, the young widow Elena Glinskaya, was the de facto ruler. She dealt with rivals - Prince Dmitrovsky

Time of Troubles. Russia under the first Romanov. Zemsky Sobors
Boris Godunov. After the death of Ivan the Terrible (1584), the political crisis caused by the unsuccessful Livonian war and the oprichnina terror took on the character of an open struggle between various boyars.

Cathedral code of 1649, serfdom, popular movements, church reform, reunification of Ukraine with Russia, eve of reforms
The beginning of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. (1645-1676). In 1645, after the death of Mikhail Fedorovich, the throne was succeeded by his only 16-year-old son Alexei Mikhailovich

Reforms of Peter I
The personality of Peter I. After the death of Fedor Alekseevich (1682), at the request of the archers, two tsars were enthroned at once, the sons of Alexei Mikhailovich - the first, Ivan V Alekseevich (from Milo

Enlightened absolutism" Catherine II
The era of palace coups. The time after the death of Peter (1725) and before the accession to the throne of Catherine II (July 1762) went down in history as the era of palace coups, during

Russia in the 19th century
1. Russia in the first half of the 19th century: from the liberal projects of Alexander I to the police-bureaucratic regime of Nicholas I. 2. Liberal-bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s

State of Russia in the late XIX - early XX centuries
Economic development countries. Industry. In the 1990s, Russia experienced a rapid industrial boom, accelerated industrialization, large-scale industry grew

The formation of the Soviet state
(1917-1939) 1. The Bolsheviks are in power. Civil War. NEP. 1917-1926 2. Forced industrialization and collectivization. Total

Soviet Union during World War II
(1939-1945) 1. The USSR on the eve and at the beginning of the Second World War. 1939-1941 2. The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 one.

Great Patriotic War 1941-1945
The beginning of the war with Germany. The first period of the war - from June 22 to November 1941 was the most difficult for our army and country. It was accompanied by a significant superiority

USSR, Russia in the era of globalization of world history
(1945 - 2011) 1. The USSR in the post-war years. 1945-1953 2. USSR in 1953-1964 3. USSR in 1964-1985 4. "Per

USSR in 1964-1985
Changes in top management. L.I. was elected to the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee. Brezhnev (58 years old), a more predictable person without bright leadership qualities and leadership ambitions

Perestroika" in the USSR. 1985 -1991
The objective need for profound changes was due to the crisis in the state and society, which has acquired a comprehensive character and manifested itself

Russia in 2000 - 2011
Adjustment of the political course. In the presidential elections in March 2000, V.V. Putin (who was the candidacy of B.N. Yeltsin) won already in the first

Topic #1-2
Corvee is labor rent - gratuitous forced labor a dependent peasant working with his own equipment on the farm of a landowner - a feudal lord. Corvee in R

Topic #3
Baskaks are special officials of the Tatar-Mongol khans, who collected natural and monetary duties, tribute from the population in the conquered lands. They sent

Topic #4
The Cossacks are a military estate, which included the population of a number of regions of Russia. It took shape gradually (since the 14th century), as the settlement on the outskirts of the Russian principalities

Topic #5
Bironovshchina - the regime in Russia in the 30s. XVIII century, during the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna, named after her favorite Ernest Yogam na Biron (1690 - 1772), Courland nobleman

Theme #6
Anarchism - (from the Greek word anarchia - anarchy), a socio-political movement that advocates the immediate destruction of all state power (as a result of &

Topic #7
Wine monopoly (state-owned sale of drinks) is the exclusive right of the state or individuals (farming) to the production and sale of alcoholic beverages. Monopoly was introduced

Theme #8
"White" movement - armed struggle of military units and illegal military organizations on the territory of the former Russian Empire with the support of the Entente against Soviet power

Theme #9
"Barbarossa" - a plan (named after the medieval conqueror) of aggressive war Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union, developed from July 21, 1940

Topic #10
"Kosygin's reforms" is a program of reforming the economy, adopted in 1965 on the initiative of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygin. It was aimed at overcoming the tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. NEW FORMS OF ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTISTS

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

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

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

IV. BEFORE THE CHALLENGES OF THE TURN OF THE CENTURY

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

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

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

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

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

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

"/p. 3:/ Sergei Sekirinsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now you can move through the texts in their order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N.D. Potapova in her article sets herself an ambitious task - to trace how the main forms of scientific communication are implemented in modern historical journals. This work, of course, is important for studying the fate of the community of historians, since the periodical press, in the words of a forgotten classic, is "not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer." We must pay tribute to Potapova: unlike many domestic historiographers-epistemologists, she delves into not only the declarations of the authors and members /p. 9:/ editorial board, but also in the content of at least part of the publications. Knowing Potapova as a specialist in the "linguistic turn", I was not surprised either by the attention to the forms of the author's narrative, or by the tone she chose in relation to the works in question, which some would call ironic, others - mocking. I don’t have the moral right to condemn the author for this, because in such situations I myself choose just such a detached and ironic tone (making enemies for myself from a completely empty place). But, having taken intonation, it is necessary to withstand it to the end. If it turns out that over A.N. Medushevsky or the late M.A. You can make fun of Rakhmatullin (strangers), but I.D. Prokhorova (her own) - it’s impossible, then irony turns from a form of worldview into an instrument of value judgment and then, it turns out, those who are offended by us are right.

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

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

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

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

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

OUTSTANDING HISTORIANS OF THE XX - BEGINNING OF THE XXI CENTURIES

1. Artsikhovsky Artemy Vladimirovich(1902-1978 ), one of the main study archeology dr. Russia in the USSR. Prof., Founder and Head department of archeology ist. Faculty of Moscow State University (since 1939), creator and editor-in-chief of Zh. "Soviet archeology" (since 1957). Author of works on the antiquities of the Vyatichi XI-XIV centuries, on the miniatures of the Middle Ages. lives, as well as works and training courses on archeology and history of ancient Russian. culture. Creator of the Novgorod archaeological expedition (since 1932), during which b. open birch bark letters and developed a methodology for studying cultural. old Russian layer. cities, developed chronological reconstruction of the life of city estates and quarters. In 1951 b. found the first birch bark. literacy is one of the most remarkable. archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. The study of these charters and the publication of their texts b. main life's work A.

2. Bakhrushin Sergey Vladimirovich (1882-1950 ) - an outstanding Russian. historian, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Known from the family. Moscow merchants and philanthropists. Student V.O. Klyuchevsky. B. arrest. on the Platonov Case (1929-1931). In 1933 he was returned from exile to Moscow; prof. Moscow State University. notice. lecturer (he taught A.A. Zimin, V.B. Kobrin). From 1937 he worked at the Institute of History (hereinafter - II) of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Works on the history of Dr. Russia, Rus. state-va of the XV-XVII centuries, the colonization of Siberia (the history of its indigenous population during the period of colonization, Russia's relations with the countries of the East through Siberia), source studies, historiography, ist. geography.

3. Veselovsky, Stepan Borisovich (1877-1952 ). Genus. in the ancient nobles. family. vyd. historian. Academician. Foundation creator. works, document. editions of reference books on the era of feudalism. Rev. in Moscow. un-those. Studying the era of Kievan Rus and social-economy. relations of the XIV-XVI centuries., V. was the first to introduce into the ist. science data genealogy, place names- science of geographical names, continued development anthroponymy- the science of personal names. During the period of Stalin's praise of Ivan the Terrible as a progressive figure, "who truly understood the interests and needs of his people," V. made a scientific. and civil feat, drawing a reliable picture of life in the 16th century on the basis of scrupulous research. and come to diametrically opposed conclusions. For this he was deprived of the opportunity to publish his work. Studying history through the fate of people, V. prepared a lot of biographical and genealogical materials that have their own. meaning. In the 40-50s, when the impersonal, so-called. "scientific" language, V. tried to write emotionally and excitingly, leaving vivid portraits of medieval figures

4.Volobuev Pavel Vasilievich(1923-1997) - a large owl. historian, academician OK. history department of Moscow State University. From 1955 he worked at the Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences (in 1969-1974 - Director of the Institute). At the end of the 60s. V. known as the leader of the "new direction" in the East. science. From Ser. In the 1970s, he was subjected to administrative repressions - he was removed from the post of director of the USSR Institute of Research. President of the World War I History Association (since 1993). Headed Scientific. Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences "History of revolutions in Russia". Main works according to the study economic, political and social prerequisites for the history and historiography of the October Revolution.

Op.: Monopoly capitalism in Russia and its features, M., 1956; Economic policy of the Provisional Government, M., 1962; The proletariat and the bourgeoisie of Russia in 1917, M., 1964, etc.

5. Grekov Boris Dmitrievich (1882-1953 ) - vyd. historian, academician Receive rec. in Warsaw and Moscow. high fur boots Student V.O. Klyuchevsky. In 1929 issue. the first general work on the history of dr. Russia - "The Tale of Bygone Years about Vladimir's campaign against Korsun". From 1937 in tech. 15 years voz. Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Founder of the so-called. "national" school of historians, which replaced the "school of Pokrovsky". In 1939 the first edition of his major classic was published. work "Kievan Rus", in which he substantiated his theory that the Slavs moved directly from the communal system to the feudal system, bypassing the slave system. 1946 - foundation. work "Peasants in Russia from ancient times to the 17th century." Publications of documents are associated with his name: Pravda Russkaya, Chronicle of Livonia, Serf Manufactory in Russia, and others. 350 works.

6.Viktor Petrovich Danilov (1925-2004 ) - vyd. historian, doctor of historical sciences, prof. WWII teacher. OK. history department of Moscow State University. Head agrarian department. the history of owls. Society in the Institute of History of the USSR of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1987-1992), hands. groups on the history of agriculture. transformations in Russia of the XX century IRI RAS (1992-2004). All life is an example of devotion to one theme - the history of the Russian peasantry. Main directions of scientific research. communications work. with the study social-ec. stories villages of the 20s, its demography, the role of the peasant community and cooperation in the pre-revolutionary. and post-revolution. Russia, carrying out the collectivization of the peasants. farms. After 1991, in the center of his interests - the history of the peasant revolution in Russia 1902-1922, polit. moods and movements in the post-revolution. village, the tragedy of owls. villages, connected. with collectivization and dispossession (1927-1939). For a series of monographs and doc. publications on the history of Russia. owl villages. period in 2004 was awarded the Gold Medal. S. M. Solovyov (for his great contribution to the study of history). Recently, a lot of attention. devoted to the publication of documents from previously inaccessible archives. The author of St. 250 works.

Op.: Creation of material and technical prerequisites for the collectivization of agriculture in the USSR. M., 1957; Soviet pre-kolkhoz village: population, land use, economy. M., 1977 (translated in 1988 in English); Community and collectivization in Russia. Tokyo, 1977 (in Japanese); Documents testify. From the history of the village on the eve and during the collectivization of 1927-1932. M., 1989 (ed. and comp.); Soviet village through the eyes of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD. 1918-1939. Doc. and mother. in 4 volumes (M., 1998 - 2003) (ed. and comp.); The tragedy of the Soviet village. Collectivization and dispossession. Doc. and mother. in 5 vols. 1927-1939 (M., 1999-2004) (ed. and comp.), etc.

7. Druzhinin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1886-1986)- vyd. owls. historian, academician OK. istfilfak Mosk. university Prof. Moscow State University. First monograph. "Landowners' Journal". 1858-1860 ”(20s) - the conclusion that this edition is important. ist-ohm on the history of crepe. economy of the last years of its existence. In the 1920-1930s. occupied the history of the Decembrist movement (monograph "Decembrist Nikita Muravyov" - 1933). Articles about P. I. Pestel, S. P. Trubetskoy, Z. G. Chernyshev, I. D. Yakushkin, the program of the Northern Society. Slave. in the Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The author is a problem-methodologist. articles "On the periodization of the history of capitalist relations in Russia", "The conflict between the productive forces and feudal relations on the eve of the reform of 1861". " State peasants and reformP. D. Kiseleva”(2 volumes - 1946-1958) - the first fundamental study on this category of the rural population of Russia). He revealed the connection between the Kiselyov reform and the peasant reform of 1861 (he considered Kiselyov's reform a "dress rehearsal" for the liberation of the peasants). The first volume of the study is devoted to the economic and political prerequisites for the reform, the second - to the implementation of the foundations of the reform and the characteristics of its consequences. In 1958 he began the study of the post-reform village. Outcome - monograph. " Russian village at a turning point. 1861-1880» (1978). Carefully analyzed. group and region. post-reform development differences. villages, base tendencies emerging as a result of the reform of the peasants. household He led the Commission on the history of agriculture and the peasantry, publishing in many volumes. doc. series "Peasant Movement in Russia".

8.Zimin Alexander Alexandrovich (1920-1980 ) - vyd. owls. historian, doctor of historical sciences, prof. Student S.V. Bakhrushin. Z. belong to numerous. foundation. research on polit. the history of Russia in the XV-XVI centuries, according to the history of Russian. societies. thoughts, according to ancient Russian. literature Encyclopedic knowledge in the field of ist. ist-s on the fox of feudalism. historian b. a "panorama of the history of Russia" was created, covering the period from 1425 to 1598 and represented by. in 6 books: "The Knight at the Crossroads", "Russia at the Turn of the 15th-16th Centuries", "Russia on the Threshold of the New Age", "The Reforms of Ivan the Terrible", "The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible", "On the Eve of Terrible Upheavals". Z. - Editor and compiler of many collections of documents. The author of St. 400 works.

9. Kovalchenko Ivan Dmitrievich (1923-1995)- vyd. scientist, academician WWII teacher. OK. history department of Moscow State University. Head cafe source studies and-ii of the USSR at Moscow State University; ch. ed. magazine "History of the USSR"; chairman Commission for the Application of Mathematical Methods and Computers in the East. research at the Department of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Foundation author. works on social-economy. history of Russia in the 19th century, methodology ist. knowledge ("Methods of historical research" - 1987; 2003), founder of the fatherlands. schools of quantitative (mathematical) history. For the monograph "Russian serf peasantry in the first half of the 19th century." (1967) (in it he used a computer to process a huge array of sources collected by him) b. awarded them. acad. B.D. Grekov.

10. Mavrodin Vladimir Vasilievich (1908-1987 ) is a large owl. historian, doctor of historical sciences, prof. LGU. Scientific tr. on the history of Kievan Rus, the formation of the RCH. Research ist. ist-s, relating. to the Battle of the Ice, the Battle of Kulikovo, the struggle for the Neva banks, carried out by Ivan the Terrible and Peter I, the suppression of the resurrection. E. Pugacheva, etc.

11. Milov Leonid Vasilyevich (1929–2007). vyd. ross. historian. Academician. Head cafe Moscow State University. Pupil I.D. Kovalchenko. Foundation author. works in the field of social-ec. history of Russia from ancient times to the beginning. XX century, source study of fatherland history, quantitative history, founder of a major scientific. schools at the history department of Moscow State University. AT recent decades headed the fatherlands. school of agricultural historians. In his writings, an original concept of Russian was created. history, explaining the key features of the Russian. ist. process by the influence of the natural-geographical factor. In the field of scientific interests also included: ancient Russian law, the origin of crepe. law in Russia, etc. Main tr. – “The Great Russian Ploughman and the Peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process”, in which he analyzed in detail the working conditions of a farmer in the Russian climate. With help statistical analysis of price dynamics in different areas He showed Russia that a single market had taken shape in Russia only by the end of the 19th century.

12. Nechkina Militsa Vasilievna(1901-1985) - a large owl. historian, academician Main scientific interests: history of ross. roar. movement and history ist. sciences: "A.S. Griboyedov and the Decembrists" (1947), 2-volume "Decembrist Movement" (1955), "Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. History of life and work" (1974), "Meeting of two generations" (1980) and others Supervised the creation of the first generalizing work on the father. historiography "Essays on the History of the Historical Science of the USSR" (vols. 2-5) and a facsimile edition of the monuments of the Free Russian. printing houses "Bell", "Polar Star", "Voices from Russia", etc. Under her editorship. a series of documents came out. publ. - multi-volume "Rebellion of the Decembrists", etc.

13. Pokrovsky Mikhail Nikolaevich (1868 - 1932 ) - owls. historian, academician, organizer Marxist. ist. science in the country. OK. ist.-philologist. Faculty of Moscow. university Student V.O. Klyuchevsky. From 1918 - deputy. People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR. He led the Communist Academy, the Institute of Red Professors, the Society of Marxist Historians, the Red Archive magazine, and others. The creator of the so-called. Pokrovsky School. At the heart of ist. representations - "the concept of trading capital". Author of textbooks. allowance "Russian history in the most concise essay" (1920) - a presentation of history from v. sp. class struggle(including "found" the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in ancient Novgorod). He pursued a rough, straightforward policy towards the old professorship. At the end of the 30s. The “school of the MNP” was repressed.

14.Boris Alexandrovich Romanov(1889-1957) - em. historian. OK. St. Petersburg. un-t. Student A.E. Presnyakov. Prof. LGU. He was arrested in the Platonov Case. Scientific interests: Kievan Rus, economic and diplomatic history of Russia in the Far East at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Proceedings: "Russia in Manchuria", "Essays on the diplomatic history of the Russian-Japanese war", "People and customs of Ancient Russia", edition of "Russian Truth" with comments. The book "People and mores of ancient Russia" is a kind of collective portrait of people and pictures of the mores of pre-Mongolian Russia based on a rigorous analysis of the sources of XI - early. 13th century In 1949 the book was subjected to unfounded criticism. R. b. fired from LSU.

15. Rybakov Boris Alexandrovich(1908-2001) - em. ross. archaeologist and historian, academician. Prof. Moscow State University. Creator of a major scientific school Main tr. on archeology, history, culture of the Slavs, etc. Russia. Many works R. contained the foundation. conclusions about the life, way of life and the level of socio-economic and cultural development of the population of Eastern Europe. For example, in the book The Craft of Ancient Russia (1948), he managed to trace the genesis and stages of development of handicrafts. production among the Eastern Slavs from the 6th to the 15th centuries, and so to reveal dozens of crafts. industries. In the monograph. "Dr. Russia. Legends. Epics. Chronicle" (1963) drew parallels between epic stories and Russian. annals. Research in detail. Old Russian Chronicle, subjected to a thorough analysis of the original news of the historian of the XVIII century V. N. Tatishchevai came to the conclusion that they are based on trustworthy ancient Russian sources. Thoroughly studied "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and "The Tale of Daniil the Sharpener". Hypothesis, acc. which the Kyiv boyar Pyotr Borislavich was the author of "The Tale of P. Igor". In book. "Kievan Rus and Russian principalities in the XII-XIII centuries" (1982) attributed the beginning of the history of the Slavs to the XV century BC. e. Carried out large-scale excavations in Moscow, Veliky Novgorod, Zvenigorod, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl Russian, Belgorod Kiev, Tmutarakan, Putivl, Alexandrov and many others. others

Op.:"Antiquities of Chernigov" (1949); "The first centuries of Russian history" (1964); "Russian applied art of the X-XIII centuries" (1971); "The Tale of Igor's Campaign and His Contemporaries" (1971); "Russian chroniclers and the author of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign"" (1972); "Russian maps of Muscovy in the XV-beginning of the XVI centuries" (1974); "Herodot's Scythia. Historical and geographical analysis” (1979); "Paganism of the ancient Slavs" (1981); “Strigolniki. Russian humanists of the 14th century” (1993); ed. B. A. R. came out a very large scientific. works: the first six volumes of the "History of the USSR from ancient times", multi-volume - "Code of archaeological sources", "Archaeology of the USSR", "Complete collection of Russian chronicles", etc.

16. Samsonov Alexander Mikhailovich (1908-1992) - a major owl. historian, academician, specialist in science of World War II. OK. ist. Faculty of Leningrad State University. WWII participant. Since 1948 scientific. collaborator Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. In 1961–70 he was director of the publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (now the Nauka publishing house). Under his editorship. a series of documents came out. collections "The Second World War in Documents and Memoirs". Ch. editor of the Historical Notes. Main slave. on the history of the Second World War 1941-1945.

Op.: Great battle near Moscow. 1941‒1942, Moscow, 1958; Battle of Stalingrad, 2nd ed., M., 1968; From the Volga to the Baltic. 1942‒1945, 2nd ed., M., 1973.

17. Skrynnikov Ruslan Grigorievich– d.h.s., prof. St. Petersburg. university Student B.A. Romanova. One of myself. known specialists in history Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries "The Beginning of the Oprichnina" (1966), "The Oprichny Terror" (1969) - revised the concept of political. development of Russia in the 16th century, proving that the oprichnina was never an integral policy with uniform principles. At the first stage, the oprichnina dealt a blow to the princely nobility, but it maintained this focus for only a year. In 1567-1572. Grozny subjected Novgorod to terror. the nobility, the tops of the bureaucratic bureaucracy, the townspeople, that is, those layers that are composed. the backbone of the monarchy. S. research. foreign policy. and social. politics, economics Gr., development of Siberia. Monograph. "The Kingdom of Terror" (1992), "The Tragedy of Novgorod" (1994), "The Collapse of the Kingdom" (1995) and "The Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilievich the Terrible" (1997, in 2 volumes) are the pinnacle of the scientist's research. He established the exact chronology and circumstances of the conquest of Siberia ("Ermak's Siberian Expedition"), defended against attempts to declare a falsification of an outstanding monument watered. journalism, the correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky (“The Paradoxes of Edward Keenan”), clarified many of the circumstances of the enslavement of the peasantry in c. XVI - early. XVII centuries., Described difficult. the nature of the relationship between the church and the state in Russia (“Prelates and authorities”). Interest in the era of the Time of Troubles - “Tsar Boris and Dmitry the Pretender” (1997). More than 50 monographs and books, hundreds of articles, many others belong to his pen. of them translated. in the USA, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan and China.

18. Tarle Evgeny Viktorovich(1874-1955) - em. historian, academician Genus. in the cupboard family. Arrest. on the "Case of Platonov". In the beginning. 30s restored in the position of prof. Naib. popular owl. historian after the publication of the "trilogy" - "Napoleon" (1936), "Napoleon's Invasion of Russia" (1937), "Talleyrand" (1939). He was not interested in schemes, but in people and events. Prof. Moscow State University and Institute of Intern. relations Nak. and during the Second World War he wrote works on vyd. generals and naval commanders: M. I. Kutuzov, F. F. Ushakov, P. S. Nakhimov and others. In 1941-43 publ. two-volume tr. " Crimean War"(revealed the diplomatic history of the war, its course and results, the state of the Russian army).

19. Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich (1893-1965) - graduate. historian, prof. Moscow State University, academician. OK. ist.-fil. Faculty of Moscow. un-t. Slave. at the Institute of History, Institute of Slavic Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, chairman of the Archaeographic Commission. Main tr. on the history of Russia and the peoples of the USSR, as well as the history of Byzantium, Serbia, general Slavic problems, source studies, archeography, historiography. The generalizing work "Russia in the 16th century" (1962) is the foundation. contribution to ist. geography. The monographs and articles of T. reflect the themes of social economics, political. and cultural history of ancient Russian. cities, people's movements in Russia 11-17 centuries, the history of the state. feudal institutions. Russia, zemstvo councils of the 16th-17th centuries, office work. One of the leaders. specialists in the region paleography and species. At work, dedicated Russian truth, decided in a new way is important. problems associated with the creation of the monument. T. belongs to the merit of the revival of the publication of the series "Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles"; he published the “Cathedral Code of 1649”, “The Righteous Measure”, etc. B. by the leader of the owls. archeographers to find and describe unknown manuscripts; under his arms. the creation of a consolidated catalog of unique manuscripts stored in the USSR began. Manuscripts, collected. personally T., b. transferred to the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Op.: Russian culture of the X-XVIII centuries, M., 1968; Historical connections of Russia with the Slavic countries and Byzantium, M., 1969; The Russian state of the XV-XVII centuries, M., 1973; Ancient Russia, M., 1975; Research on Russian Truth. M.-L., 1941; Ancient Russian cities. M., 1946, 1956; Medieval Moscow in the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1957; Source study of the history of the USSR from ancient times to late XVII I in., M., 1962; Medieval Russia on international routes (XIV-XV centuries), M., 1966, etc.

20. Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich(1936) - ed. ross. historian, prof. Leningrad State University (St. Petersburg State University). Genus. in the family of a Kuban Cossack - the commander of the Red Army, who was repressed in 1937. Student V.V. Mavrodina. Leading special-t in i-ii rus. middle ages. Created a school of historians Dr. Russia. His concept of Kievan Rus survived in the Soviet years accusations of "anti-Marxism", "bourgeoisness", "forgetfulness of the formational and class approaches". It was formulated by F. in a number of scientific. monograph. - "Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-economic history” (1974), “Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history” (1980), “Kievan Rus. Essays on Russian historiography" (1990), "Ancient Russia" (1995), "Slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs" (1996), etc.

21. Cherepnin Lev Vladimirovich (1905-1977 ) - vyd. owls. historian, academician OK. Moscow un-t. Student S.V. Bakhrushina, D.M. Petrushevsky and others. The largest specialist in AI in Russian. middle ages. B. was repressed in the Platonov Case. From Ser. 30s slave. at Moscow State University, Moscow. state Historical and Archival Institute, Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Foundation. work on the I-II of the Russian centralized state state - "Russian feudal archives of the XIV-XV centuries" in 2 volumes (1948-1951). His slave. by prob. source studies ("Novgorod birch bark letters as a historical source" - 1969), social economics. and society.-watered. and-ii of Russia ("Formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV-XVII centuries." - 1978, "Zemsky Sobors"), VIDam ("Russian paleography"), publ. ist. ist-s ("Spiritual and contractual letters of the great and appanage princes of the XIV - XVI centuries") made it possible to create their own. school and contribute means. contribution to the fatherland ist. science.

22.Yushkov Serafim Vladimirovich (1888-1952 ) - owls. historian of state and law, academician. OK. legal and historical philologist. f-you Petersburg. un-ta (1912). Prof. Moscow State University and Leningrad State University. Main works on the i-ii state-va and law: "Feudal Relations and Kievan Rus" (1924), "The Socio-Political System and Law Kyiv state"(M., 1928), "Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus" (1939), the textbook "History of the State and Law of the USSR" (1950). He made a special contribution to the study of Russian Pravda. A participant in all discussions on the history of Kyiv Opponent of Academician B. D. Grekov created the theoretical basis of the science of the history of state and law, even its very name belongs to the scientist, introduced the concept of a class-representative monarchy into Russian historical and legal 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. Got good home education.
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" were printed, the stories "Liodor", "Poor Liza", "Natalia, 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). It was 1793, when the third stage of the French Revolution was established Jacobin dictatorship, which shocked 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, which opened 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 new note- "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 for the dark ages of 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.
The military service did not go - I wanted to write: compose, translate. And now, at the age of 17, Nikolai Mikhailovich is already a retired lieutenant. A whole life ahead. 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 on mother tongue. We are still poor in 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 really few talents? No, they are, but the matter has become language: the Russian language has not adapted yet to convey new thoughts, new feelings, to describe new objects.
Karamzin makes a live setup colloquial speech educated people. He writes not scholarly treatises, but travel notes("Notes of a Russian Traveler"), short stories ("Bornholm Island", "Poor Lisa"), poems, articles, 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 that time very big figure. 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 1056 - 1057 (this is still the oldest of the dated Russian books), Ipatiev, Trinity chronicles. Sudebnik of Ivan the Terrible, a work of ancient Russian literature "The Prayer of Daniel the Sharpener" 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 Vasily 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 it: the Napoleonic wars, the battle of Austerlitz, the Treaty of Tilsit, the Patriotic War of 12, 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 protagonist"History" Karamzin - 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:
“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 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 an extensive handwritten material of 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 colonization 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" (M., 1871), dedicated to the formal side of hagiographic literature, its sources, samples, techniques and forms. 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 art in characterizing different sides 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; of these, the largest are: "The 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 XVII century. "In 1871, Klyuchevsky was elected to the department 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 assistant professor Moscow University, in 1882 - an extraordinary, in 1885 - an ordinary professor. In 1893 - 1895, on behalf of Emperor Alexander III, he taught a course of Russian history to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich; in Abas-Tuman from 1900 to 1911 he taught in 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 fundamental laws; in 1906 he was elected a member 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, capturing the attention of the audience with the power of scientific analysis, the gift of a bright and convex depiction of 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 basis of his general course of Russian history and his 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 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 research economic situation The Moscow peasantry published his article: "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 "A Brief Guide to Russian History" as "a private publication for the author's listeners", and in 1904 he began publishing full course, which has long been widely used in lithographed student publications. In total, 4 volumes were published, brought up to the time of Catherine II. Both in his monographic studies and in the "Course" Klyuchevsky gives his strictly subjective understanding of 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 study of "local history" in the disclosure of "phenomena that reveal versatile flexibility human society, his ability to apply to given conditions, "seeing the main condition that directed the change of the main forms of our hostel, in the peculiar attitude of the population to the nature of the country, Klyuchevsky highlights the history of political socio-economic life. He stipulates that he believes the course is based political and economic facts in their purely methodological significance in historical study, and not in their actual significance in the essence of the historical process. "Intellectual labor and moral achievement will always remain the best builders of society, the most powerful engines of human development." Klyuchevsky's talent was expressed in a number of brilliant characteristics historical figures and in the depiction of the ideological side of many historical moments that appear before the reader in their entire life integrity. Of the special courses of Klyuchevsky, the History of Estates in Russia was published after his death (M., 1913). His course "Terminology of Russian History" was distributed in a lithographed edition. For a comprehensive assessment of Klyuchevsky's scientific and teaching activities, see the collection "Klyuchevsky, Characteristics and Memoirs" (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 collaborators, 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, he was barely able to be accepted into 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 there were teaching such famous professors, as T.N. Granovsky, M.T. Kachenovsky, M.P. Pogodin, S.P. Shevyrev. 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 great scientific abilities in the young student, 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 every nation. "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 the 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 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 a third-party 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.

Historians Russia XVIII-XX centuries

Tatishchev Vasily Nikitin (1686-1750)

V. N. Tatishchev, who is rightfully considered the "father of Russian historiography", was a major state and public figure 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 Poltava battle, Pruh 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 of Russian 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, which 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 means to his compatriots to engage in Russian history.

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766-1826)

N. M. Karamzin is a famous writer and historian of the late 18th - first quarter of the 19th 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 sectors of society. 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 - the largest historian pre-revolutionary Russia. His outstanding contribution to the development of Russian historical thought was recognized by scientists of the most different schools and directions. 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, major events- 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 prominent scientist and thinker who independently developed the 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 the 19th century, one of the leading connoisseurs of Muscovite Russia, the history of Moscow, had only five classes of an orphan school behind him. 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 the 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 - graduation essay"Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state" - was highly appreciated by 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 in the 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 stands 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 minor planet№ 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."

Scientific and administrative activity Platonov continued after the 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 - unique phenomenon in Russian historical science. The breadth of the range of his research interests is striking. Among them are ancient, medieval and modern history, problems of methodology, historiography, source studies, archeography, archiving, 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 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 turmoil to the era of transformations”, “Essays on the domestic policy of Empress Catherine II”, “Methodology of history”, “Essay on Russian diplomacy of private acts”, “History of Russian public thought and culture of the XVII-XVIII centuries”, numerous articles and documentary publications are clear evidence of his outstanding contribution in the development of historical science in Russia.

Pokrovsky Mikhail Nikolaevich (1868-1932)

M. N. Pokrovsky belongs to those Russian historians, disputes about creative heritage which 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 the negative aspects of Pokrovsky's activity, the failure of his class, party approach to the study of the past "entangled in pseudo-Marxist dogmas".

Already in his early works, Pokrovsky declared himself as a supporter of a 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 a huge impact on the formation 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 erased from history for decades. Biased assessments of the scientist persist to this day.

Tarle Evgeny Viktorovich (1874-1955)

From my teacher - professor 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. Even at the end of the XIX century. 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, the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and the Philadelphia Academy of Political and Social Sciences (USA), an 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 qualities, he was in historical science the greatest authority.

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 the middle of the 17th century."

This monumental work in two books, which was 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, their restoration in academic degrees and titles. 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. Right up to the forced emigration in 1920, his scientific activity was closely connected 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 is occupied by the "Prague period" (1922-1927), when Vernadsky, with his works, laid the historical foundation for the doctrine of "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 is 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 was restored Archaeographic Commission, resumed publication Complete collection Russian chronicles (PSRL), as well as the most valuable annalistic monuments that were issued 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”, “The Russian State of the 15th-17th Centuries”, “Russian Chronicle”, and also two voluminous books on the history of Moscow in the 12th-15th 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 of 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. For each of these scientific directions she achieved significant results, which made a serious contribution to the national 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 analysis and synthesis in scientific work, a thorough study of sources and a brilliant literary language.

Nechkina combined her research activity with a huge pedagogical and scientific-organizational work. For many years she was a professor at Moscow State University and the Academy of 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 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.

Becoming an archaeologist, Artsikhovsky accepted Active participation 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 supervised the work of the Scientific Council on 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.