V. O. Klyuchevskoy

In memory of S. M. Solovyov

V. O. Klyuchevskoy. Works in eight volumes. Volume VIII. Research, reviews, speeches (1890-1905) M., Publishing house of socio-economic literature, 1959 Twenty-five years have passed since the death of S. M. Solovyov. Death found the historian behind the XXIX volume of his "History of Russia since ancient times" and interrupted his thirty years of work in a half-phrase. When it became known that the work that had attracted the attention of educated Russian society for so many years stopped forever, that the energy that moved it froze, the first impulse was to pay tribute to the late scientist, to evaluate what he had done with his many years of work for science, for the study of Russian history. , for national self-knowledge. Time strictly tests feelings and judgments. Twenty-five years is a long enough time to test. The writer of these lines, who received the responsible honor of becoming S. M. Solovyov’s successor in the department, under the first impression of the loss suffered, wrote several lines inspired by the student’s feelings about the character of the deceased historian and the significance of his work. Re-reading what was written a quarter of a century later, the author did not find any exaggeration, to which an as yet unclosed grave usually disposes. Rather, on the contrary: the features seem pale and incomplete, the look is not wide enough. This impression justifies the determination to bring to the attention of the reader this hasty short essay, anonymously placed in an edition long interrupted. From it one can partly judge how the significance of these 29 volumes "History of Russia" cleared up and grew after the death of the historian, destroying the fears and his own predictions that the huge book would soon be taken off the table and forgotten. ... Biography and historical criticism will calmly and at their leisure describe his life and character, depict the course and significance of his scientific and literary activities, his way of thinking and convictions, his view of the historical fate of Russia. Under the still lingering impression of a heavy loss, let us try to recall at least only the outward, most superficial features of him as a scientist. Solovyov became a scientist early and remained a scientist until the end of his life. He died before reaching the end of his 60th year; but his name has been known in Russian scholarly literature for 34 years. His activities during these 34 years were divided between the archives, the university auditorium and the desk of his office. He worked surprisingly hard and correctly, and had an influence on the successes of Russian historical science, which is still difficult to assess sufficiently. From 1845, when his first study of Russian history appeared, and until the last line, written by him shortly before his death, he worked in one direction, which directly or indirectly affected the course of all Russian historical literature. In the movement of Russian historiography, this time can be safely designated by the name of Solovyov: the writers living today, who, together with him, have done the most work on the history of their fatherland, will readily agree with this. Armed with the techniques and tasks developed by the historical science of the first half of our century, he was the first to review the entire mass of historical material that remained from the life of the Russian people from the middle of the 9th to the last quarter of the 18th century, linking the torn patches of historical monuments with one thought, and brought to light all the cash surviving facts of our history. There are and will be dozens of industrious researchers of the Russian past who stop and will stop on this or that fact longer than Solovyov, who study and will study this or that phenomenon in more detail than he did; but each of them, in order to go straight and firmly in his work, must begin with how Solovyov ended his speech on the same thing, and he, like a beacon, will for a long time serve as the first pointer of the path even for those who will diverge far from him. in their latest findings. In 1851 the first volume of his "History of Russia", and since then, every year, the reader received a new volume at the appointed time with an accuracy that even the author's near-death illness could not overcome: dying, he handed over Volume XXIX to the printers almost finished; the pen fell out of his hand not far from the supposed end of the book - a description of the execution of Pugachev. Never before in the course of nearly three decades has so much fresh knowledge flowed into our historical literature so consistently, in such an uninterrupted stream. After a long and difficult journey, the narrator was already approaching the threshold of our century; the life of one generation separated him from the time of our fathers, when the thread of his story and his life broke. His activity reminds us of our ancient colonialist, who, having found a trodden path along the edge of a dense forest, was the first to dare to continue it into the depths that no one had gone through and fell when a gap began to appear on the other side of the thicket. The historian himself very calmly looked at the significance of the work to which he gave the best 30 years of his life. Long before his death, he expressed confidence that in the near future they would write the history of Russia better than him; he retained only the merit of the first hard clearing of the path, the first processing of the raw material. But for many reasons, 29 volumes of his "Stories" they will not soon follow their author to the grave. Even with the successful course of Russian historical criticism, our scholarly circulation will retain for a long time a significant stock of historical facts and propositions in the very form in which they were first processed and expressed by Solovyov: researchers will draw them directly from his book for a long time before they have time to verify them themselves according to the first sources. Even more important is the fact that Solovyov, together with a huge number of firmly established facts, introduced very few scientific assumptions into our historical literature. A sober look rarely allowed him to cross the line, beyond which begins a wide field of divination, so convenient for the play of a learned imagination. Lacking firm grounds, Solovyov was more ready to evade the question, subjected to reproaches of criticism, than to solve it with some witty conjecture that would inspire self-satisfied confidence that the question was over, or would lay an extra stone in the way for other researchers. That is why Solovyov had so little left of such a long and quick work on untidy, uncleaned material. scholarly rubbish. They will find various shortcomings in his enormous work; but one cannot reproach him for one thing, from which it is most difficult for a historian to free himself: no one less than Solovyov abused the reader's trust in the name of the authority of an expert. He was a scientist with a strict, well-educated thought. He did not soften the callous truth of reality for the sake of the pathological inclinations of the time. To meet the reader's feuilleton tastes, he came out with a lively, but serious, sometimes harsh story, in which a dry, well-thought-out fact was not sacrificed to a well-told anecdote. This made him famous dry historian. As he treated the public for whom he wrote, he treated the people whose history he wrote in the same way. Russian to the marrow of his bones, he never closed his eyes so as not to see the dark sides in the past and present of the Russian people. More vividly than many, many patriots, he felt the great forces of his native people, more strongly than many believed in their future; but he did not make an idol out of him. As much as possible, he was a stranger to that gross disdain for the people, which is often hidden under an immoderate and unnecessary glorification of its virtues or under an arrogant and indifferent condescension to its shortcomings. He loved and respected the Russian people too deeply to flatter them, and considered them too old to tell him children's tales about national heroism under the guise of folk history. Solovyov did not drop stories to a pamphlet. He was able to consider the historical phenomena of a given place and time, regardless of temporary and local hobbies and passions. His scientific historical outlook was not limited to known degrees of geographical latitude and longitude. Studying large and small phenomena in the history of one people, he did not lose sight of the general laws that govern the life of mankind, the fundamental foundations on which human societies are built. The thinker hid in him behind the narrator; his story developed on a historical-philosophical basis, without which history becomes an amusement of idle curiosity. That is why historical phenomena stand in their places, illuminated by natural, and not artificial light; that is why in his story there is an inner harmony, a historical logic that makes one forget about the external belletristic harmony of presentation. The breadth of his historical outlook was a reflection of the breadth of his historical education. In the field of Russian history it is difficult to be a specialist more than Solovyov. There will not be many scientists after him who will be able to study the sources of our history so consistently and completely. But Solovyov did not dig into his specialty. In this respect, he is an instructive example, especially for those involved in national history, among whom there is often a tendency to retire in their guild cell. The first master of his craft, Solovyov kept in himself the good qualities of the scientists of the old time, when the scientific specialties did not yet diverge from each other as far as they have diverged now. From the time of Herodotus to the present day, he studied the exemplary works of historical and political literature of Europe in the original and knew it perfectly. The Bible books were familiar to him, like ancient Russian chronicles. Connoisseurs were amazed at the attentiveness with which he followed the current foreign literature on history, geography, ethnography and other related branches of knowledge; for them it remains an unsolvable mystery where a man found time for this, who performed his official duties with such pedantic accuracy, constantly wrote in periodicals and published a new volume every year. "History of Russia". In moments of rest, he was especially willing to talk about some wonderful literary news, foreign or Russian, often very far from the subject of his current special studies. A phenomenally happy memory aided this tireless work. It seemed that this memory did not know how to forget, just as the thought it served did not know how to get tired. The observer, having studied the properties of his talent, his way of thinking, the range of his interests, finally stopped in bewilderment before the very structure of his mind: it struck him as a rare scientific mechanism capable of working equally calmly and correctly for an infinite number of hours, processing the most diverse material. He knew the secret of the art of doubling time and restoring strength by a simple change of occupation. Neither years, nor worldly anxieties, nor physical illness could weaken the vivacity of his mental interests. Last summer, chained to an armchair by illness, he could not tear himself away from Pogodin’s newly published correspondence with Slavic scientists and an acquaintance who had come to visit the patient and in vain tried to restrain his participation in the conversation, conveyed his memories of Safarik and the popular literary movement among the Czechs of the forties with the vivacity of a recent impression, although it has been 37 years since he was in Prague. Following this, he showed the newly received issue of the geographical work of Reclus, which contains a drawing of an ancient wooden church in Norway, closely resembling the Moscow Cathedral of St. Basil the Blessed in its architecture, he was ready to talk endlessly about the origin and significance of this similarity. About three weeks before his death, in a voice that was no longer enough to finish the words, he still asked the visitor: did anything new come out in our area? The interest of knowledge still burned alive when the physical life was extinguished. This energy of mental interests was supported solely by moral vigor and did not know those artificial excitements that come from outside to help the writer. Solovyov was never mistaken about the number of readers of his book; he even exaggerated the public's indifference to her. Speaking about the increasing demand for a book, about the need for new editions of its various volumes, he explained this solely by the title of his work and the reproduction of state and public libraries, which must be kept on the shelves. "History of Russia since ancient times". But he belonged to the number of people ready to preach in the wilderness. For Solovyov, his book was the task of life, and for such people the task of life has the meaning of a monastic vow. His moral character is very instructive. Ready to sacrifice many things in his theory of tribal princely relations in Russia in view of sufficient grounds, Solovyov did not allow transactions in moral relations; cautious in solving scientific questions, he was resolute in moral questions, because the basic rules by which he was guided in solving these last questions had in his mind the meaning not of a theory, but of a simple mathematical axiom. It was one of those characters that are carved from solid stone; they stand straight and firm for a long time and usually fall suddenly, undermined not so much by time as by bad weather. All this is pale, incomplete, superficial. To say it now is to say too little. By the twenty-fifth anniversary of the historian's death, much became clear and generally recognized that was only vaguely foreseen or expected at the grave. Large compact edition "Stories" in six full-length books, begun in 1893, began to diverge rapidly, and three years later, when a detailed index to these books appeared, the first three books appeared in the second edition. The work lived, continued its work even after the death of the author. An educated reader turned to him, wishing to expand, streamline and refresh his knowledge of Russian history with ideas and concrete impressions. Working on an inexhaustible supply of data drawn from the first, often untouched sources, facts, carefully selected and pragmatically interpreted, more than one generation of young scientists began to test their thoughts when they began to scientifically study our past. A whole series of special studies devoted to the scientific development of individual facts, episodes, institutions, sources of our history proceeded from the provisions set forth in "History of Russia", in it he looked for the first guidance and with it he checked his conclusions and discoveries, even when he partially supplemented and corrected it. In popular presentations of Russian history, the material, background, thoughts and colors given by the same work often shine through. Broad generalizations and comparisons, stereotyped propositions about the naturalness and necessity of historical phenomena, about regularities in history, parallels between personal, individual and mass folk life - such general historical ideas with which Soloviev liked to lay the background of historical life like stripes of light in his exposition. , had a formative effect on the thinking of the Russian reader, who had not yet lost the habit of interfering with history with an anecdote, reconciled him with the idea that history also has its own multiplication table, its own indisputable two by two, without which no historical thinking is conceivable, even no human community is possible. All this was recognized and appreciated during the lifetime of the historian. Now, distant from him by such a space of time, we can introduce another motive into his assessment: to the recognition of what he has done for Russian history, we can add regret that an untimely death prevented him from doing it. At the moment of death, talking about it might seem like an inappropriate complaint; 25 years later, such regret is a calmly sad recollection of a scientific loss, which for Russian historiography has remained hitherto unrewarded. This loss most closely related to Russian history of the 18th century. IN "History of Russia" this century was revealed for the first time in the fullness of its content untouched by science and in a continuous, carefully elucidated succession with its nine predecessors. Already three quarters of a century have been passed by the historian, whose pen and word for more than 30 years aroused and maintained the attention of the Russian reading society and student youth to their past. Then they were already used to thinking: a few more years, a little more effort of tireless work, and this century, the Russian XVIII century, so important in the fate of our fatherland, full of such high-profile deeds, causing so many noisy and contradictory rumors with its sins and successes, will finally appear before the reader. in an integral scientific image. In volume XIII "History of Russia", where the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich and the Moscow Troubles of 1682, which followed the death of this tsar, are set out, the author put next to the general title of his work another, private, repeated in the next five volumes until the death of Peter the Great: "History of Russia in the Age of Transformation". Most of Volume XIII is occupied by the introductory chapter preceded by the reign of Theodore, in which a general overview of the course of ancient Russian history is followed by an excellent depiction of the state of Russia before the era of transformation. Thus, in 1676, when the reign of Theodore began, the historian himself drew a line between ancient and new Russia. This XIII volume appeared in 1863. For seventeen years Solovyov wrote a new Russian history. A rapidly developing illness stopped the work, which, due to the age of the author, could have continued for many more years. The unfinished XXIX volume, published after the death of the historian in 1879, brings the review of foreign policy to 1774, when peace was concluded with Turkey in Kuchuk-Kaynardzhi, and in the description of the internal state of Russia it is interrupted in the affairs of 1772, just before the Pugachev rebellion , whose execution (in January 1775) was supposed to complete this volume. Solovyov admitted that he did not expect to continue his work beyond the reign of Catherine II. The story about him began in the XXV volume. If the first 12 years of the activity of this empress required five volumes, then for the remaining 22 years at least six were needed. And if the historian's plan had been destined to come true, the reader would have received a huge historical work in 35 volumes, of which 23 would be devoted to depicting all 120 years of our modern history from the last quarter of the 17th century to the last years of the 18th century. So "Russian history", according to the author’s intention, the actual history of the new Russia, being prepared for transformation, being transformed and transformed, and the first 12 volumes of the work are only a lengthy introduction to this extensive narrative of the Peter the Great reform. It is a matter of biography to tell about the rarely successful combination in one person of the qualities that were surprised in Solovyov, such scientific training, the breadth of the historical outlook, love and ability for continuous mental work, the ability to save time, willpower, and finally, such a supply of physical strength, personal conditions, whose meeting made possible the creation "History of Russia". Looking back at this work at a distance of 25 years from the minute that interrupted it forever, one involuntarily dwells on his attitude to his time, you ask yourself what he gave to his time and what he perceived from it. This is a rather complicated question related to the history of our society, education, our public consciousness. It would be reckless to enter into an analysis of such a question in the reminiscence on the occasion of; but it is permissible to make some comparisons. First volumes "History of Russia" appeared at a time when in the Russian literary world, not in literature and not in society, but precisely in the circle of people who were close to literature, but who did not express themselves at all in it, two views on our eighteenth century, actually on the Petrine reform, fought, filling it with itself and its manifold consequences. These are very famous views of the forties and fifties of the last century. People who looked at one of these views saw in Peter's reform the awakening of Russia, raised to its feet by the impetus of the mighty hand of the reformer, who, calling for help from the means of Western European civilization, brought Russia out of its age-old cultural stagnation and impotent loneliness and forced it to develop its powerful, but dormant strength in common human life, in direct contact with the educated European world. Others found that in the consistent and original movement of our people's life, Peter's reform produced a violent break, knocking it off the straight historical road to a different side, killing the rudiments of its original development with alien forms and principles imposed on it by a whim of genius. Looking at the matter from opposite points of view, using images taken from various orders of phenomena to visually express their views, both sides agreed on one basic position: both recognized that Peter's reform was a profound upheaval in our life, which changed Russian society from top to bottom, to its very roots and foundations; only one side considered this coup a great merit of Peter before mankind, and the other - a great misfortune for Russia. Reading Russian society treated the struggle of both sides not indifferently, but rather eclectically, choosing from the conflicting opinions what they liked, willingly listening to the speeches of some about the original development of the hidden forces of the national spirit, and approved of the judgments of others about introducing cultured humanity to life. Moreover, the new time was advancing, bringing new needs and concerns, turning the past by other sides from which the veterans of both camps did not look at it, raising questions that were not included in the program of the old dispute about ancient and new Russia. A general redesign of opinions and interests began, a general revision of stagnant relations was foreseen. Among business people, the idea grew stronger that it didn’t matter whether Russian life went from the beginning of the 18th century. a straight or crooked road, that this is an academic question: the only important thing is that a hundred and fifty years later it was going very sluggishly, in need of renewal and encouragement. Minds have become more practical about the question of the deposit of forms and principles of life; many took the standpoint that even if certain forms and principles were not entirely native in origin, if only they called into action dormant or degraded popular forces, they would help to fairly untie the tangled knots of social relations. In any case, it can be harmlessly said that at the beginning of the sixties of the last century in our society there did not exist a firmly established, dominant view of the course and significance of our history in the last century and a half. At this time, at the time of the strongest public excitement and the most tense expectations, in the midst of the greatest reforms ever experienced by one generation, in the year of the publication of the Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions and the Judicial Charters on November 20, Solovyov published the XIV volume of his "History of Russia", in which he began the story of the reign of Peter after the fall of Princess Sophia and described the first years of the 18th century. It seemed rarely that the work of a historian so coincided with the current affairs of his time, so directly met the needs and demands of his contemporaries. Solovyov had to describe one of the sharp and deep turning points in Russian life in those very years when Russian society was going through another similar turning point, even steeper and deeper in many respects. And, however, that time cannot be considered especially favorable for the development of interest in national history in society. The general upsurge of mood, of course, gave the historian many strong excitements, many observations suitable for historical study, and the multilateral restructuring of everyday life that had begun was conducive to historical reference, asking questions that strongly encouraged the search for indications in the experience of the past. This was reflected in a strong revival of Russian historical literature, in the appearance of a number of monographs that had a direct connection with current issues, with changes being prepared or made in the position of the peasants, in the judiciary and local government. But society itself was, apparently, not up to the experiences of the past: everyone's attention was too absorbed by the importance of the present and the hopes for the near future. With the first successes of the reforming movement, a slightly benevolent mood prevailed in society, resting on the confidence that the matter had been decided irrevocably and would go by itself, so long as they did not interfere with its natural course, the strength of things. In this mood, they do not like to look back. What can one look for in the dark past, when such a bright future could be seen in the approaching distance? At the sight of the desired coast, they are more willing to consider how many knots are left to be done than how many have been done. Optimism is just as little disposed to historical reflection as is fatalism. And things took their natural course: impulses gave way to hesitation, confidence gave way to despondency. To an outside observer, Russia seemed to be a large ship, which is rushing at full sail, but without maps and a compass. From the appearance of accidents, insufficiently foreseen, from the successive change of ups and downs of the spirit in the public consciousness, finally, one somewhat clarified historical idea was deposited that Russian life has irrevocably abandoned its former foundations and is trying to establish itself on new ones. Then Russian history was again divided into two unequal halves: the pre-reform and the reformed, as before it was divided into pre-Petrine and Petrine, or ancient and new. Deciding that Russia had abandoned the old foundations of its life, the society adjusted its historical thinking according to this decision. Thus, a new support appeared for indifference to the domestic past. Until recently, we thought: why look back when there is so much to do and so much light ahead? Now they began to think: what can our past teach us, when we have broken all ties with it, when our life has irrevocably passed on to new foundations? However, there was one important oversight. While admiring how the reform transformed the Russian antiquity, they did not see how the Russian antiquity transformed the reform. This counter-work of the past was noticed, indignant at it, but it was not strictly taken into account, it was considered only a temporary inconvenience or a consequence of the imperfection of human nature. They grieved, seeing how the executive bodies, like the old deacons of the Moscow orders, who shelved the decrees of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself, slowed down the execution or changed the meaning and direction of acts of supreme power, inspired by confidence in the mind and moral feeling of the people. They were indignant at the conservative timidity of people who, in a careless outburst of immature political thought or in a courageous contempt for illegal, but ordinary roundaboutness, saw a dig under the centuries-old foundations of the state order and fearfully treated as belonging with a stereotypical warning, caveant consules, and this meant in translation that the danger was prevented by the degree of east longitude corresponding to the fright. The educated and well-to-do classes, obliged to show by their behavior how to pass from the old foundations of life to the new ones, exposed from their midst the figures who, in the criminal departments of the newly formed district courts, were sadly convincing indicators of the level at which their morals rested. With such examples, too exacting attitude to the way the newly released peasants understood and practiced the estate self-government granted to them, would be a social injustice. With his closed life and strictly measured work, Solovyov closely and sensitively followed the important events of that troubled time, agitated and indignant at everything that hindered the success of the reform movement. In journal articles, he occasionally responded to current issues that occupied Russian society. It is enough to remember at least "Historical Letters" 1858, beginning with an indication of how much life requires from science, how much explanation the present requires from the past. Here he also expressed his view on the relationship of science to life, “Life,” he wrote, “has every right to propose questions to science; science has the duty to answer the questions of life; but the benefit of this decision for life will be only when , firstly, life will not rush science to solve the matter as soon as possible, because science has long preparations, and it is a disaster if it speeds up these collections, and, secondly, when life does not impose on science the solution of the problem, which has already been drawn up in advance due to dominance of one or another view; life, with its movements and demands, should excite science, but should not teach science, but should learn from it. Everyone knew that the historian is a supporter of one of the above views, that he is even one of the most convinced and strong defenders of it in our historical literature. But with each subsequent volume, it became more and more clear to the reader that the image of the reform is not made from an exclusive angle of view, which was established by the view of his side, that, without changing its basic views, he significantly refracts them, correcting and deepening the usual judgments. In five volumes devoted to the actual activity of Peter, and then in all subsequent volumes, the reader encounters a complete depiction of the reform with manifold consequences and connections that connected with it all the phenomena of our external and internal life, both under the reformer himself and under his successors and successors to the last. a quarter of that century - and all this on the basis of the study of the most extensive, for the most part, untouched historical material, a study that no Russian scholar before Solovyov had ever undertaken. The historian remained faithful to the reverent astonishment before the deeds of Peter, who in his narrative grows into a majestic, colossal image, in all its historical size. But history did not turn into an epic: the very process of reform under Peter and after him is described surprisingly simply or, as they say, objectively, with all the hesitations and mistakes, with intentional and unintentional deviations to the side and with disturbing, as if instinctive turns to the former path. The reader, who lived through the reforms of Emperor Alexander II, could observe with great edification from Solovyov’s book what it cost, what efforts and sacrifices every success in the general improvement of the people’s life cost Peter, how with every step of a mighty engine the old days tried to throw him back, how , according to the sadly successful expression of Pososhkov, "our monarch pulls ten himself up the mountain, and pulls millions down the mountains" - in short, how many conventions, metaphors in our words, when we, from our generalizing distance, looking back at the past, talk about transitions folk life from old foundations to new ones. But the most powerful and instructive impression that the reader made from the book consisted in a look at the origin of the reform, at its relation to ancient Russia. "Never," wrote the historian in his final assessment of Peter's activity, "no nation has accomplished such a feat as was accomplished by the Russian people in the first quarter of the 18th century." "The history of no nation presents us with such a great, many-sided transformation, accompanied by such great consequences both for the inner life of the people and for its significance in the common life of peoples, in world history." And side by side with this we read the judgment about Peter's reform as a revolution that necessarily followed with all its consequences from the conditions of the previous situation of the Russian people, that Peter's activity was prepared by all previous history, necessarily followed from it, was required by the people. So, neither personal arbitrariness, nor a violent, even creative interruption in the natural movement of people's life, nothing miraculous was needed for a scientific explanation of the one-of-a-kind historical deed committed by "the greatest of historical figures," as Solovyov of Peter I called it: a simple the idea that popular life never breaks with its past, that such a break is only a new metaphor. In the narrative of the time that followed the death of Peter, as the stock of preparatory works in Russian historical literature dwindled and the historian was left alone in front of a huge raw material, in front of memoirs, journals of the Senate, papers of the State Council, cases of Polish, Swedish, Turkish, Austrian and etc., "Russian history" more and more moved to the annalistic, weather order of presentation, occasionally interrupted by chapters on the internal state of Russia with essays on enlightenment over a certain number of years. But the thought of the reform as a binding basis in the fabric passes in the narrative from year to year from volume to volume. Reading these 11 volumes, sometimes you seem to forget that you are gradually moving away from the time of Peter. The faces and the environment change, but the reformer seems to continue to live, observes his successors and successors, approves or condemns their activities: the effect of his ideas and undertakings, or a misunderstanding of both in the measures and intentions of his successors, is so vividly felt, and so often reminds of This is the historian himself, for whom the reform of Peter is an invariable criterion in assessing all phenomena developing from it or after it. So the reader approaches the end of the third quarter of the century, and here the story is interrupted, leaving him on the eve of the Pugachevshchina, before the era of increased internal activity of the government, before the society, to which this rebellion for the first time so brightly and so menacingly illuminated its position. But it would be highly desirable that precisely this era, the end of the century, be depicted by the historian who described its beginning and continuation. That was the time of everyday verification of what Russian society had been living hitherto; then the first attempts to calmly, without enmity and without adoration to look at the work of Peter appear in society itself. With the advent of the new century, such internal needs will arise, such third-party influences will come that will pose tasks to the government and society that Peter did not face. But until that time, things were running, still driven by the impetus received from Peter. It remained to sum up, calculate the results and explain the surprises. One of Peter's pupils said about the reformer: "Whatever you look at in Russia, everything has its beginning, and no matter what is done in the future, they will draw from this source." But by the end of the century, things were drawn from somewhere that were not akin to this source. Peter limited torture, and if the battle of Lesnaya, where the reformed Russian army in 1708 defeated the Swedes for the first time, without numerical superiority, was, in the words of Peter, the "first soldier's test" of his case, then the spread of corporal punishment to the privileged classes was three-quarters centuries after the decree on torture can be recognized as the last legislative trial of the same case, only from the other side. One of the most curious parts of our history - the fate of Peter's transformations after the reformer - remained unsaid in Solovyov's book. The historical structure of the syllogism of Russian life, reproduced by long labor, deeply thought out over the course of a century, was fatally interrupted before the moment that the reader had long been waiting for with intense attention - before the final so. This interruption left our eighteenth century in scientific twilight, perhaps for a long time. No one stood closer to the sources of the history of this century than Solovyov, no one penetrated deeper than him into its most hidden currents; no one's judgment could have been more helpful in successfully resolving the difficult questions she raises. Solovyov wrote about the historical work of Karamzin that its stop at the Time of Troubles, the absence of a detailed history of the 17th century, this bridge between ancient and new Russia, for a long time should have contributed to the spread of the opinion that the new Russian history is the result of an arbitrary deviation from the former correct path. Solovyov threw this bridge, restored the historical connection between ancient and new Russia, destroyed the prejudice about arbitrary evasion; but even he had an unfinished path between the beginning and the end of the 18th century. Hence a number of confusions. The century, which began with increased government concerns about public education, the establishment of Russian book printing abroad, ended with the closure of private printing houses in Russia itself. Great-grandson of the reformer who first spoke of homeland in the high folk-moral, and not in the narrow parochial sense of the word, about serving the fatherland as the duty of everyone, forbade the use of this word itself. If no nation has ever accomplished such a feat as was accomplished by the Russian people in the first quarter of the 18th century, then rarely has the idea of ​​historical regularity been subjected to such temptation as in its last quarter. I repeat: on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Solovyov's death, remembering what this working life did for the Russian historical consciousness, one involuntarily regrets what death prevented her from doing.

COMMENTS

The eighth volume of "Works" by V. O. Klyuchevsky contains an article and speeches written by him in 1890-1905. This was the time of the spread of Marxism in Russia, marked by the appearance of the brilliant works of V. I. Lenin, which represented a new stage in the development of historical materialism, gave the key to understanding the main points of the Russian historical process. Bourgeois science during the period of imperialism experienced a state of crisis, which also affected the work of V. O. Klyuchevsky. He gradually moves away from the positions of bourgeois economism, resurrecting some already hopelessly outdated constructions of more official historiography. The volume opens with a large study "The Composition of the Representation at the Zemstvo Sobors of Ancient Russia" (1890-1892). This work of Klyuchevsky was for a long time the largest generalizing work on the history of the cathedrals of the 16th century. The wide use of sources, source analysis, excellent knowledge of the history of state institutions, the brightness of the presentation of specific material distinguish Klyuchevsky's article, which had a noticeable influence on the subsequent historiography of the issue. At the same time, the work of V. O. Klyuchevsky testified that the historian in a number of general questions of history Russia in the 16th century returned back to the ideas of the "state" school. It is no coincidence that his work itself was dedicated to the most prominent representative of this school, BN Chicherin. Klyuchevsky begins his research with a sharp contrast between the Zemsky Sobors and the class-representative institutions of the West, thereby entering into a debate with V.N. Latkin and other scientists who spoke about the similarities between these institutions. “At the zemstvo sobors,” writes Klyuchevsky, “there was no mention of political rights, their interference in state administration was even less allowed, their character always remained purely deliberative; they were convened when the government found it necessary; we don’t see any instructions given to representatives from voters, neither an extensive presentation of public needs, nor the legislative activity that distinguished Western representative assemblies ... In general, Zemstvo councils are extremely meager and colorless even in comparison with the French general states, which of Western European representative institutions had the least power " (See above, p. 9.). Following B. N. Chicherin, V. O. Klyuchevsky associated the origin of Zemstvo Sobors not with the socio-economic life of society, the growth of the nobility and cities that declared their political demands, but with the needs of the state. Cathedral representation, according to Klyuchevsky, "grew out of the beginning of state responsibility, laid in the foundation of the complex building of local government" (Ibid., p. 104 (cf. pp. 101-102).). Developing his antithesis of Russia to the West, Klyuchevsky wrote that “zemstvo representation arose in our country from the needs of the state, and not from the efforts of society, appeared at the call of the government, and did not work out from the life of the people, was imposed on the state order by action from above, mechanically, and not grew organically, as the fruit of the internal development of society" (See ibid., p. 71.). The Zemsky Sobor, Klyuchevsky summed up, “was born not out of political struggle, but out of administrative need” (Ibid., p. 110.). The work of V. O. Klyuchevsky was written in an atmosphere of political reaction, during the years of the zemstvo counter-reform of 1890, which actually abolished even the elements of the independence of zemstvo institutions, subordinating them to government officials. Under such conditions, the work of Klyuchevsky, who affirmed the decisive role of the state in the creation of zemstvo sobors, acquired a special political meaning, for it seemed to historically substantiate the inviolability of the existing order. It turns out that it was not the aggravation of the class struggle, the strengthening of the nobility and the growth of cities that gave rise to Zemsky Sobors, but only "administrative need." This general concept of V. O. Klyuchevsky was carried out by him in the specific analysis of information about the zemstvo councils of 1550, 1566 and 1598. So, speaking of the cathedral of 1566, Klyuchevsky believes that he was "a meeting of the government with its own agents"(Ibid., p. 49.). Thus, Klyuchevsky disguisedly took the position of those who argued that Russia never had representative institutions. However, Klyuchevsky already noted the presence at the council of 1598 of elected representatives of local noble societies (Ibid., pp. 64--66.). Klyuchevsky's concept aroused objections during his lifetime. S. Avaliani refuted many of his theses in a special study on Zemsky Sobors. Soviet historical science advanced the work of studying Zemsky Sobors of the 16th century. S. V. Yushkov noted that the Zemsky Sobors of the XVI-XVII centuries. were class-representative institutions (See p. V. Yushkov, On the issue of a class-representative monarchy in Russia, "Soviet State and Law", 1950, No. 10, p. 40 et seq.), which played a prominent role in the political life of the Russian state. M. N. Tikhomirov also noted that the information of V. O. Klyuchevsky about actually held Zemsky Sobors of the 16th century. very incomplete (cf. M. N. Tikhomirov, Class-Representative Institutions (Zemsky Sobors) in Russia in the 16th Century, Voprosy istorii. 1958, No 5, pp. 2-22.). This was confirmed by new finds of materials about the cathedral meetings of 1549, 1575, 1580. and others who were not known to Klyuchevsky (See S. O. Schmidt, Continuation of the chronograph edition of 1512, "Historical Archive", vol. VII, M.--L. 1951, p. 295. V. I. Koretsky. The Zemsky Sobor of 1575 and the appointment of Simeon Bekbulatovich as the "Grand Duke of All Russia", "Historical Archive", 1959, No 2, pp. 148--156. see also V. N. Avtokratov, Ivan the Terrible's speech of 1550 as a political pamphlet of the late 17th century ("Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature", vol. XI. M.--L. 1955, pp. 255--259).). If the general concept of Klyuchevsky about the nature of zemstvo councils in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries. even for its time was a step backwards, many of his specific observations are undoubtedly interesting. The idea of ​​a connection between "cathedral representation and the organization of ancient Russian zemstvo worlds and social classes" (See above, p. 15.) deserves attention. Klyuchevsky showed how a member of the nobility at the council meetings was essentially "a natural representative at the council of the county noble corporation" (Ibid., p. 35.). V. O. Klyuchevsky’s research on Zemstvo Sobors was subsequently widely used by the author in preparing for publication the final version of the “Course of Russian History” (See. V. O. Klyuchevsky, Works, vol. II, M. 1957, pp. 373--398; vol. III, M. 1957, pp. 289--291, 300--318.). In the article "Peter the Great Among His Colleagues", V. O. Klyuchevsky, outlining the bright image of this figure of the 18th century, sought to show that Peter I, as if in his activities as a ruler, showed new features: "this is an unrelenting sense of duty and eternal an intense thought about the common good of the fatherland, in the service of which this duty consists "(See above, p. 315.). The establishment of autocracy in Russia, of course, led to some change in the formulation of the ideological justification of autocracy; in particular, the concept of "common good", so characteristic of "enlightened absolutism", was preached not only by Russian autocrats. However, this "common good" meant narrow class interests, primarily the nobility. The personal high qualities of Peter I caused the desire of noble and bourgeois historiography to sharply contrast the activities of Peter I with his predecessors. V. O. Klyuchevsky did not escape this either, drawing a clearly idealistic image of the tsar, as if subordinating all his thoughts to the service of the state. The eighth volume publishes for the first time a speech delivered by V. O. Klyuchevsky at a solemn meeting at Moscow University on May 26, 1899, dedicated to the centenary of the birth of A. S. Pushkin (See the article "In Memory of A. S. Pushkin", p. 306--313.). In it, V. O. Klyuchevsky emphasized not only the deeply national character of A. S. Pushkin’s work, but also its significance in the development of world culture, linking the activities of the poet of genius with the development of Russian culture of the 18th century. “A whole century of our history has been working,” writes Klyuchevsky, “to make Russian life capable of such a manifestation of Russian artistic genius” (Ibid., p. 309.). And in his speech, V. O. Klyuchevsky again especially emphasizes the fact that the impetus for the development of Russian culture entirely belonged to the initiative of one person - Peter I, who, with his reforms, with all his state activities, ensured that Russia for the first time felt "its own unexpectedly and quickly created international and political power". Russia allegedly responded to the "call that sounded from the throne" and nominated such cultural figures as M. V. Lomonosov and A. S. Pushkin (See above, pp. 307, 308.). Studies devoted to the culture of the 18th century occupy a special section of V. O. Klyuchevsky in his scientific work. Among them, first of all, two articles dedicated to the great noble historian of the 18th century stand out. - I. N. Boltin. In them, Klyuchevsky tries to trace the consistent development of Russian historical science, starting from the first half of the 18th century. Continuing the research begun by S. M. Solovyov on the scientific activities of Boltin, Klyuchevsky correctly noted the role of the latter in the development of Russian historical knowledge, Boltin's desire to reflect the originality of Russian history at the same time as using the comparative method when considering the history of Russia and the history of Western Europe. “His patriotic defense of Russian life turned into a calm comparative study of Russian history, and such a study prompted the search for the laws of local folk history and thereby taught him to understand the laws of the general historical process” (Ibid., p. 156.), - V. O. Klyuchevsky about I. N. Boltin. It should be noted that V. O. Klyuchevsky idealized the views of I. N. Boltin, completely omitting his apology for the autocratic system of Russia. In another work devoted to the history of the 18th century - "Fonvizin's Undergrowth" - V. O. Klyuchevsky focused on the level of education among the noble society of that time, using as an example the collective images of the comedy of D. I. Fonvizin. In this work, V. O. Klyuchevsky rightly saw an excellent source on the history of the 18th century. Correctly recognizing comedy as an incomparable mirror of Russian reality, V. O. Klyuchevsky noted that spiritual demands among the noble society were at an extremely low level and the ideas of enlightenment were very hard to assimilate them. Klyuchevsky tried to explain this circumstance by the weakness of public consciousness among the nobility, his unwillingness to respond to the government's plans aimed at ensuring that the nobility themselves showed "to other classes of society what means education provides for a hostel when it becomes the same need for spiritual life, what nutrition is in physical everyday life" (Ibid., p. 285.). Giving vivid pictures of the noble education of the 18th century, Klyuchevsky nevertheless did not want to understand that the entire education system of the 18th century, as well as later, was built in tsarist Russia on a purely class basis. The younger generation of the nobility was educated in a direction that met the needs of their class, but by no means "social consciousness". Klyuchevsky's article "Memories of N. I. Novikov and his time" is also in obvious connection with the study of "Undergrowth". Following the view established in bourgeois historiography of N. I. Novikov as a book publisher, Klyuchevsky connected this side of Novikov's activity with the state of education in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. V. O. Klyuchevsky saw in Novikov a rare type of advanced Russian nobleman who devoted his organizational talent to spreading enlightenment in Russia through the publication of satirical magazines and book publishing (See above, pp. 249, 251.). However, Klyuchevsky left aside the activities of Novikov as a Russian educator of the 18th century, who was by no means limited to book publishing. After all, N. I. Novikov owned a number of polemical articles and philosophical works, in which, first of all, the anti-serfdom, anti-noble idea was laid down. V. O. Klyuchevsky devoted a number of articles and sketches to cultural and scientific figures of the 19th century. Among them are memories of his teachers at Moscow University S. M. Solovyov and F. I. Buslaev, articles and sketches dedicated to T. N. Granovsky, M. Yu. Lermontov, A. S. Pushkin and others. O. Klyuchevsky, in his memoirs about S. M. Solovyov published in this volume, characterizes his teacher as an outstanding teacher who paid much attention to university teaching. Of great interest is Klyuchevsky's statement about the concept of the main work of S. M. Solovyov - "History of Russia from ancient times." Klyuchevsky believed that Solovyov's main idea was to write the history of Russia for "120 years of our new history from the last quarter of the 17th century to the last years of the 18th century." The first 12 volumes of the work are "only a lengthy introduction to this extensive narrative of the Petrine reform" (Ibid., p. 359.). Klyuchevsky was very sorry that Solovyov did not have time to complete his work and did not show the path traversed by Russia "between the beginning and the end of the 18th century." (Ibid., p. 367.) A gap in the monographic study of Russia in the 18th century. V. O. Klyuchevsky tried to complete it himself to some extent, having done this in the IV and V parts of his "Course of Russian History". To characterize Klyuchevsky's views on the history of Russia in the 18th century. it is important to note that on this issue he significantly departed from Solovyov's point of view. Speaking about the further fate of the reforms of Peter I (after his death and until the 1770s), as shown in Solovyov's History of Russia, Klyuchevsky wrote: year after year, from volume to volume. Reading these 11 volumes, sometimes you seem to forget that you are gradually moving away from the time of Peter" (Ibid., p. 365--366.). Indeed, S. M. Solovyov saw in the bourgeois reforms of the 60s a direct continuation and development of the reforms of Peter I, which was already objected to by V. G. Belinsky and other revolutionary democrats (See "Essays on the History of Historical Science in the USSR", vol. I, M. 1955, p. 358.). V. O. Klyuchevsky, in his "Course of Russian History", trying to trace the fate of the reforms of Peter I after his death, saw in the "beginning of the nobility" a reaction against these reforms (For more on this see. V. O. Klyuchevsky, Works, vol. IV, M. 1958, p. 345.), believed that "rarely has the idea of ​​historical regularity been subjected to such temptation as in its last quarter" (XVIII century) (See above, p. 367.) . V. O. Klyuchevsky did not connect the establishment of "nobility" in Russia with the development of feudalism, although already in his work on Zemsky Sobors he himself showed that the nobility was made by force long before the 18th century. But, despite the denial of the class basis of autocracy, the desire of V. O. Klyuchevsky to catch new phenomena in the historical development of Russia in the 18th century. retains historical interest. The memoirs of V. O. Klyuchevsky about the famous Russian philologist F. I. Buslaev, under whose guidance he studied at the 6th Moscow University, simply and at the same time very clearly reveal the significance of Buslaev as the greatest scientist who put the development of writing and literature in Russia inextricably linked with the language of the people, with monuments of folk art. “Thus, the growth of the language was brought into organic connection with the development of folk life, and written literature into a genetic dependence on oral folk literature,” wrote Klyuchevsky in his outlines for an article about F. I. Buslaev (See below, p. 475 .). The article about T. N. Granovsky, written by Klyuchevsky on the fiftieth anniversary of his death, at the time of the rise of the revolution of 1905, reflected the political views of the author rather than an assessment of the scientific activity of T. N. Granovsky. V. O. Klyuchevsky, who at that time was close to the party of the Cadets, contrasted in this article the transforming activity of Peter I with the activity of the autocrats of Russia until the end of the 19th century, who "deceived the hopes" of people of "measure and order" (See above, p. 394, 395.). Finally, in the article "Sadness" V. O. Klyuchevsky tried to consider the work of M. Yu. Lermontov in terms of his favorite psychological analysis. He correctly connected the inconsistency of Lermontov's work with the conditions of the noble life and environment, which caused the poet bitter annoyance and a feeling of hatred and contempt for the society around him. But then V. O. Klyuchevsky, who ignored the development of the democratic orientation of public thought, tried to prove that M. Yu. Lermontov turned into a "singer of personal sadness", a purely individualist, who at the end of his short life path came to reconciliation with "sad reality", imbued with a Christian sense of humility (See ibid., pp. 113, 120, 124, 128, 131, 132.). This opinion sharply contradicts the enormous socio-political resonance that the works of the great Russian poet actually had. Of great interest are the detailed reviews of V. O. Klyuchevsky published in this volume on the research of P. N. Milyukov, N. D. Chechulin and N. A. Rozhkov. Despite the fact that in 1890-1900. V. O. Klyuchevsky did not create a single monographic work on the social or economic issues of the history of Russia, he continued to be interested in these issues and in his reviews put forward interesting provisions that have not lost their significance to this day and are important for highlighting his personal views. In interpreting the reforms of Peter I, their causes and nature of implementation, V.O. Klyuchevsky was close to the views of P.N. And Klyuchevsky himself in his "Course of Russian History" ( V. O. Klyuchevsky, Works, vol. IV, pp. 360, 361.) looked at the ongoing changes in the socio-economic life of the country at the beginning of the 18th century, mainly through the prism of government reforms. Nevertheless, Klyuchevsky was forced to admit the extreme schematism of Milyukov’s constructions, noting venomously that many of the latter’s conclusions were the result of excessive confidence in the monetary documents of the 18th century. V. O. Klyuchevsky put state reforms in interconnection with the state of the national economy, reproaching Milyukov for the fact that “in his research he strictly adheres to the circle of phenomena of the state economy, in the stencil of financial painting; .. and such an area close to the state economy as national economy, leaves in the shade "(See above, p. 182.). In a review of N. D. Chechulin's study "Cities of the Moscow State in the 16th century." Klyuchevsky, giving a number of interesting considerations on the criticism of scribe books as the main type of sources used by Chechulin, expressed valuable considerations regarding the importance of cities "as factors in social life." So, V. O. Klyuchevsky writes about the need to study the composition of the urban population in close connection with the county population, requires first of all to take into account the townspeople in cities, and also not to ignore other settlements that "did not bear the title of cities, but with a township character" (Tam same, pp. 201-203.). In the same plan, V. O. Klyuchevsky built his review of another work of a socio-economic nature - "Agriculture of Muscovite Russia in the 16th century." N. A. Rozhkova. In his review, R. O. Klyuchevsky credited the author for posing the question of the agricultural crisis in the second half of the 16th century. However, Klyuchevsky did not agree with Rozhkov's opinion that this crisis was caused by the system of land ownership and economy, the growth of local and large-scale monastic agriculture. He considered it necessary to put the question more broadly: "The conditions that created this crisis were not limited to the sphere of agriculture, they made a general and one of the most abrupt changes ever experienced by Russian people's labor, and when the question is examined in the most diverse possible way, then, perhaps, , and the process itself will receive a different illumination and a different assessment" (Ibid., p. 386.). It should be noted that the question of the causes of the agricultural crisis in the second half of the 16th century has not yet received final approval. In particular, the causes of this crisis are explained differently in the works of B. D. Grekov and M. N. Tikhomirov (On the historiography of the issue, see. B. D. Grekov, Peasants in Russia, book. 2, M. 1954, pp. 233-242.) The eighth volume of "Works" by V. O. Klyuchevsky ends with lectures on Russian historiography, given by the historian in the late 80s - early 900s at Moscow University. The "lecture" is the main part of the special course, which was read by Klyuchevsky as a direct continuation of his course on source studies (see Klyuchevsky's course of lectures on source studies in the book: V. O. Klyuchevsky, Works, vol. VI, M. 1959.). Nine lectures on historiography of the 18th century have been fully preserved and reproduced in this edition. Introductory lecture to the course, sections on the historiography of the chronicle period, XVII century. and about V. N. Tatishchev survived only in sketches, which are not published in this edition. Klyuchevsky's course of lectures is in close connection with his studies on the historiography of the 18th century, in particular with articles on N. I. Novikov and I. N. Boltin. In the course, V. O. Klyuchevsky widely used both the works of the historians of the 18th century themselves and the special studies of S. M. Solovyov, Pekarsky, and others. He managed to give a number of interesting characteristics of Russian and German scientists of the 18th century, who were engaged in the history of Russia. At the same time, the Lectures are not free from a number of serious shortcomings. One-sided was the assessment of the historiographic heritage of M.V. Lomonosov, whose works played a major role in the study of ancient Russian history, in the struggle against the Normanist constructions of Bayer and Miller (See. B. D. Grekov, Lomonosov the historian, "Historian Marxist", 1940, No 11, pp. 18--34; M.H.Tikhomirov, Russian historiography of the 18th century, "Questions of History", 1948, No 2, pp. 94--99; "Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR", vol. I, pp. 193--204.). Klyuchevsky's conclusion that Lomonosov's "Ancient Russian History" did not have much influence "on the course of historiography" (See above, p. 409.) does not correspond to the actual state of affairs. Nevertheless, the published course of V. O. Klyuchevsky, for all its concise nature, is of scientific interest, as one of the first attempts to cover the history of Russian historical science in the 18th century. In addition to the articles, reviews and speeches of V. O. Klyuchevsky published in the "Works", as well as articles, reviews and speeches of V. O. Klyuchevsky published in other collections and journals, a significant number of such materials (mostly unfinished by the author) have been preserved in handwritten form (The main part of them is stored in the fund of the Klyuchevsky Manuscript Collection Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, folder 25 (hereinafter, when indicating materials whose storage location is not specifically specified, it should be borne in mind that they are located in this folder).). These include two student works by Klyuchevsky, written in 1862-1863: "Works of Duran, Bishop of Menda on Catholic worship" (2 pp.) and "Comparative essay on folk-religious views" (about 0.5 p. . l.). The last work, written in the seminar of F. I. Buslaev, is very interesting for studying the question of the formation of Klyuchevsky's historical views. Klyuchevsky in it emphasizes that a person "in a state of nature ... is under the constant, irresistible and direct influence of nature, which powerfully acts on his whole life" and, in particular, its phenomena determine "the entire content of religious beliefs." This statement aroused objections from Buslaev, who wrote in the margin that "the main thing is depending on the conditions and customs of the very life of the people." "Life is sometimes stronger than nature has an effect on the formation of myths, because through the conditions of life, nature enters into mythology." Klyuchevsky's unfinished work "On Church Land Property in Ancient Russia" dates back to 1865 (about 2 pp.). The author later devoted a number of works to this topic and paid considerable attention to it in the Course of Russian History. Obviously, in connection with the initial plan for studying the "Lives of the Saints" as a source on the history of land ownership and economy, in the late 60s of the XIX century. Klyuchevsky wrote a study on the participation of monasteries in the colonization of North-Eastern Russia, which also remained unfinished, but later gave material to the author for the Course. In the 70s of the XIX century. Klyuchevsky writes a number of reviews of the large historical works published at that time. In "Notes on the Heresy of the Judaizers" (1870, about 1 pp.), written in connection with the publication of Macarius' "History of the Russian Church" (vol. VI), Klyuchevsky speaks of the need to study heresy as a specific movement, in the depth of which acted "practical motives directed against the whole system of Russian church life of the XV century." (For more details about these notes, see the book by N. A. Kazakova and Ya. S. Lurie, "Anti-feudal heretical movements in Russia in the XIV - early XVI centuries", M.-L. 1955, pp. 7, 9.) He sharply criticizes the works of Slavophile scientists and representatives of the official trend. He wrote: in 1872, a review of M. P. Pogodin's book "The Ancient Russian History of the Pre-Mongol Yoke", vols. I--III (about 0.5 pp.); review of "Russian History", vol. 1, by K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin (about 0.5 pp.); in 1879, a draft review of "Lectures on the History of Russian Legislation" by I. D. Belyaev under the title "Russian Historian and Lawyer of the Recent Past" (State Library named after V. I. Lenin [hereinafter - GBL], folder 14, file 16); sketches of a review of the book by I. E. Zabelin "History of Russian Life", vol. II (GBL, folder 12, file 2, about 0.5 p. l.). A letter (early 1970s) to a newspaper about the role of Moscow in Russian history (0.4 p. sheet) belongs to the same kind of polemical material. In this letter, Klyuchevsky sarcastically ridicules the Slavophile notion that Moscow was a "city of moral opinion." In connection with the publication in 1876 of the books by D. Ilovaisky "Investigations about the beginning of Russia" and "History of Russia", vol. I, Klyuchevsky began a polemical article on the Varangian issue, to which he returned in the 90s of the XIX century. (0.75 p. l.). In this work, Klyuchevsky criticizes the Norman theory of Pogodin and the Roxo-Alanian hypothesis of Ilovaisky, and in the 90s he also touched on the emergence of the "Varangian question" in the historiography of the 18th century. Probably in connection with the work on the "Course of Russian History" Klyuchevsky wrote at the end of the 70s a small work "On the tribal composition of the Eastern Slavs" (about 0.8 p. L.; GBL, folder 15, file 20), in which proceeded from the thesis of S. M. Solovyov that "The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized." From the 80-90s, a number of reviews of Klyuchevsky have been preserved, including on the dissertation of N. Kedrov "Spiritual regulation in connection with the transformative activity of Peter the Great" (1883, about 0.3 p. L.), V. E. Yakushkin Essays on the history of Russian land policy in the XVIII-XIX centuries. "(1890, 0.1 pp.; GBL, folder 14, file 18), M. K. Lyubavsky "Regional division and local government of the Lithuanian-Russian state" (1894, 0.2 pp.; GBL, folder 14, file 27), A. Prozorovsky "Sylvester Medvedev" (1897, 0.4 p. sheet; GBL, folder 14, file 23), HH Firsov "Russian commercial and industrial companies in the 1st half of the 18th century" ( 1897, 0.1 pp.). All these reviews have been preserved, as a rule, not in finished form, but in draft form. The outline of speeches delivered by Klyuchevsky in connection with anniversaries, funerals, etc. have the same character. , for example, a speech in memory of I. S. Aksakov (1886, 0.2 p. L.), a speech at the closing of the Higher Women's Courses (1888, 0.1 p. L.), a speech in memory of A. N. Olenin (1893, 0 , 25 pp; GBL, folder 13, file 14), outline of a speech about the activities of Stefan of Perm (1896, 0.25 pp), in memory of P. I. Shafarik (1896, 0.1 pp. ; GBL, folder 15, file 2), in memory of K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin (1897, 0.2 p. sheets; GBL, folder 14, file 6), in memory of A. N. Zertsalov (1897, 0.1 p. l.), in memory of A. S. Pavlov (1898 ; GBL, folder 15, file 4), speech at the celebration of V.I. 7 pp.), sketch of a speech dedicated to the 150th anniversary of Moscow University (1905, 0.1 pp. sheet). The Klyuchevsky fund in the GBL also preserved manuscripts of unpublished articles and reviews, as well as a number of articles published by Klyuchevsky, but not included in this edition: "V. M. Undolsky's Manuscript Library" (1870; GBL, folder 14), review of T. F. Bernhardi (1876, GBL, folder 14, file 12), a copy of the report "Subbotin's doctoral dispute" (1874; GBL, folder 14, file 13), review of the book by D. D. Solntsev (1876; GBL, folder 14, case 14), drafts of an article about N. Gogol (1892, 0.25 pp. sheet), "Newly discovered monument on the history of the schism" (1896, 0.5 pp.; GBL, folder 13, file 22), " About the grain measure in ancient Russia" (1884; GBL, folder 13, case 6), "Good people of Ancient Russia" (1892; GBL, folder 13, case 12), "The Significance of Sergius of Radonezh for the history of the Russian people and state" (1892 ; GBL, folder 15, case 1), "Two educations" (1893; GBL, folder 13, case 13), "M. S. Korelin" (1899; GBL, folder 14, case 7), "Change" (1899 ; GBL, folder 14, case 8), "On Tsar Fyodor's judicial code" (1900; GBL, folder 14, case 9), reviews on composition for students of the Moscow Theological Academy, etc. The Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR stores Klyuchevsky's materials and additions to P. Kirkhman's book "The History of Public and Private Life", M. 1867 (folder 25); Folder 24 contains manuscripts and proofreadings of the following works by Klyuchevsky published in various editions: "Doctor's Debate of Mr. Subbotin" (1874), proofreading of the article "Promotion of the Church to the Successes of Russian Civil Law and Order" (1888), typesetting of the article "The Significance of Sergius of Radonezh for the Russian People and State" (1892), outline of a speech dedicated to the memory of Alexander III (1894), outline of the article "M. S. Korelin "(1899). When preparing the text of the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky and comments, the rules indicated in the first volume were followed. The text of the eighth volume of the Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky was prepared for printing and commented V. A. Alexandrov And A. A. Zimin. Participated in the preparation for publication of the text of lectures on Russian historiography by V. O. Klyuchevsky and comments on them R. A. Kireeva. Tom goes out under the general supervision of an academician M. H.Tikhomirov.

IN MEMORY OF S. M. SOLOVIEV

The article was first published in the journal "Scientific word", 1904, book. 8, pp. 117--132; republished in the second collection of articles by V. O. Klyuchevsky - "Essays and Speeches", M. 1913, pp. 35--36. In the archive of V. O. Klyuchevsky, a typesetting manuscript (autograph) has been preserved (Manuscript collection of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Klyuchevsky's fund, file 24). Section one of this article is a reprint of the obituary on the death of S. M. Solovyov, published by V. O. Klyuchevsky without a signature in Critical Review, 1879, No 20, pp. 37--40.

Introduction

1. Concepts of national history: V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.M. Soloviev, N.M. Karamzin

2. The main directions of Russian foreign policy in the first half of the eighteenth century

Test: Russian state in the 14th century

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

As long as the state has existed, the problem of what a modern state should be has been widely discussed in science. There is a point of view about a weak state that does not interfere in the natural processes of the development of society; there is a concept of a strong state, especially in the context of transitional stages of development (including in Russia). Most recently, the idea that the state should not be weak or strong, but effective, has received support. But it is unequivocally necessary to say that in order for the state to be effective, it is necessary to study its history. This is what relevance this work.

The modern Russian state is a historical cultural community of people, which is united by a common language, religion, traditions, socio-economic institutions, a way of identification.

Main goals and objectives This work is a study of issues related to the concepts of national history from the point of view of such historians as Klyuchevsky V.O., Solovyov S.M., Karamzin I.M., as well as the characteristics of Russia's foreign policy in the first half of the 18th century.

The study of the history of Russia is necessary, because without knowledge of the past it is impossible to understand the present and make an attempt to predict the future.

Achieving the above goals and objectives in this work is possible with the help of historical, chronological, analytical and other methods research.

1. Concepts of national history:bIN. Klyuchevsky, S.M. Solovyov, I.M. Karamzin

Despite the current political transformations in the Russian state, which have significantly changed the attitude towards various stages of the history of Russia, and, accordingly, the reorientation of historical science, this does not affect the relevance of studying the history of our state. The relevance of considering the concepts of national history in the works of famous Russian historians is determined not only by a retrospective historical and political analysis of the period of their life, but also by modern views on the history of the Fatherland. The concepts of the history of Russia have been considered by many Russian scientists, but in this paper we will consider the concepts of national history proposed by Karamzin I.M., Solovyov S.M., Klyuchevsky V.O.

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

N.M. Karamzin was born December 1 (December 12), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovka, Simbirsk province. The son of a retired army officer. He was brought up in private educational institutions in Simbirsk, and then in Moscow. For some time he served in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment. In 1784 or 1785 he settled in Moscow. He attended lectures at the university, spoke many new and ancient languages. Initially, Karamzin was known as a prose writer.

As an author and translator, Karamzin became close friends with the Masonic circle of the satirist and publisher N.I. Novikov. In 1789, he published his first story "Eugene and Julia", translations of A. Haller's poem "On the Origin of Evil" (1786), "Julius Caesar" by W. Shakespeare (1787) were published in separate editions. From May 1789 to July 1790, Karamzin traveled in Europe. This trip had a decisive influence on the work of the future writer. The result was "Letters from a Russian Traveler" - not a biographical document, but rather a complex literary text.

Upon his return to Russia, Karamzin founded the Moscow Journal (1791-1792), where he published works by contemporary Western European and Russian authors.

At the same time, Karamzin's works of art were published, which brought him fame: the stories "Poor Lisa" (1792), "Natalya, the Boyar's Daughter" (1792), "Frol Silin, a Benevolent Man" (1791), "Liodor" (1792 ). They opened a new page in the history of Russian literature. Literature, thanks to Karamzin's prose, approached life, not the sublimity of the style, but its grace, became a sign of literaryness, just as the value of a person began to be determined not by social weight, power or wealth, but by spiritual subtlety.

The change in the socio-political situation of 1801-1803 influenced Karamzin. First of all, he returned to active publishing. In 1803, Karamzin requested the official appointment of his historiographer. His interest in history had been maturing for a long time, and now he felt the need to historically comprehend his views on modernity. Volume One" History of the Russian state"was completed in 1805, the second - in 1806, the third - in 1808. By 1811, 5 volumes of "History ..." were published. The Patriotic War of 1812 interrupted the writer's work. As the French army approached Moscow, Karamzin gave "the best and a complete" copy to his wife, whom he sent to Yaroslavl, while he himself was preparing to fight in the militia. But Karamzin did not stop working on the "History ...", and at the beginning of 1816 he went to St. Petersburg to apply for the publication of the first eight volumes of his "History .. .". The troubles were crowned with success, and 8 volumes of the History of the Russian State were published on January 28, 1818. 3,000 copies sold out in one month, a second edition was immediately required. Karamzin continued his historical work. The ninth volume was published in 1821, in 1824 - the tenth and eleventh, last, twelfth volume was published posthumously. Karamzinskaya " History..."- not only a historical, but also a literary work. The writer set himself the task of creating epic narrative. This required a change in the image of the narrator - he became a historian, endowed with the innocence of a chronicler and civic courage.

The uprising of December 14, 1825 finally broke the moral and physical strength of Karamzin (he was in the square and caught a cold), who was present at the end of his era. Karamzin died in St. Petersburg on May 22 (June 3), 1826.

Karamzin's historical views stemmed from rationalistic view about the course of social development: the history of mankind is the history of world progress, the basis of which is the struggle of reason with delusion, of enlightenment with ignorance. The decisive role in history, according to Karamzin, is played by great people. Karamzin used all his efforts to reveal the ideological and moral motivations for the actions of historical figures. Psychological analysis is for him the main method of explaining historical events.

Karamzin was a supporter Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state. The periodization of Russian history by Karamzin is very close to the periodization of V.N. and M.M. All of them identify the history of the country with the history of the state, and the history of the state with the history of autocracy. However, Karamzin introduced a lot of new things both in understanding the general course of Russian history and in assessing individual historical events. Unlike Tatishchev and Shcherbatov, who saw in the appanage system only a backward movement and the result of the unreasonable policy of the great princes who divided the state between their sons, Karamzin believed that the appanage system was feudal and "consistent with the circumstances and the spirit of the times" and that it was characteristic of all countries. Western Europe. He considered the formation of a single state under Ivan III as a process similar (and one-time) to the process of formation of large centralized states in Western Europe. Karamzin was not satisfied with a purely rationalistic explanation of historical events and in a number of cases used the so-called pragmatic view of history and the historical-comparative method, which put him at the level of the advanced historical science of that time. For the first time, he used a large number of historical documents, including the Troitsk, Lavrentiev, Ipatiev Chronicles, Dvina letters, Code of Laws, testimonies of foreigners and others. Extracts from documents Karamzin placed in lengthy notes to his "History", which for a long time played the role of a kind of archive. However, in the text of the "History" Karamzin often departed from the source or gave preference to a less reliable source for the sake of his political goals and the monarchist historical concept, or out of a desire to "revive" and "bloom" events.

"History…"Karamzina contributed increasing interest in national history in various strata of Russian society. It marked a new stage in the development nobility in Russian historical science. The historical concept of Karamzin became the official concept supported by the government. Karamzin was considered their spiritual father . Representatives of the progressive camp reacted negatively to Karamzin's "History" (, V. G., N. G.) . The "History" of Karamzin met with a critical attitude from representatives of the emerging Russian bourgeois historiography (M. T., N. A., S. M.). Karamzin himself in his "History ..." wrote: "History in a sense is the sacred book of peoples: the main, necessary; the mirror of their being and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the testament of ancestors to posterity; an addition, an explanation of the present and an example of the future."

Soloviev Sergeevich Mikhailovich

Sergei Mikhailovich was born on May 17, 1820 in the family of an archpriest, a teacher of the law (teacher of the law of God) and rector of the Moscow Commercial School. He studied at a religious school, then at the 1st Moscow Gymnasium, where, thanks to his success in the sciences (his favorite subjects were history, Russian language and literature), he was listed as the first student. In this capacity, Solovyov was introduced and liked by the trustee of the Moscow educational district, Count, who took him under his protection.

In the autumn of 1838, following the results of the final exams at the gymnasium, Solovyov was enrolled in the first (historical and philological) department of the philosophical faculty of Moscow University.

After graduating from the university, Solovyov, at the suggestion of Count S.G. Stroganov, went abroad as a home teacher for his brother's children. Together with the Stroganov family in 1842-1844 he visited Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, Belgium, where he had the opportunity to listen to lectures by then European celebrities - the philosopher Schelling, the geographer Ritter, the historians Neander and Rank in Berlin, Schlosser in Heidelberg, Lenormand and Michelet in Paris .

The news that Pogodin had resigned hastened Solovyov's return to Moscow. In January 1845, he passed the master's (candidate's) examinations, and in October he defended his master's thesis " On the relationship of Novgorod to the Grand Dukes: a historical study". Solovyov saw the originality of Russian history in the fact that, unlike Western Europe, the transition from tribal life to the state in Russia took place with a delay. Solovyov developed these ideas two years later in his doctoral dissertation " The history of relations between the Russian princes of the Rurik House"(1847).

Having headed the department of Russian history at Moscow University at the age of 27, Solovyov soon set himself an incredibly difficult task - to create a new fundamental work on the history of Russia from ancient times to the 18th century, which would replace the outdated History of the Russian state N.M. Karamzin.

At the beginning of 1851 Solovyov completed the first volume of the generalizing work, which he called " History of Russia since ancient times". Since then, with unparalleled punctuality, the scientist has annually released the next volume. Only the last, 29th volume, Solovyov did not have time to prepare for publication, and it was published in 1879, after his death.

"Russian history... "- the pinnacle of Solovyov's scientific work, from beginning to end the fruit of the author's independent scientific work, who for the first time raised and studied new extensive documentary material. main idea of this work - the idea of ​​the history of Russia as a single, naturally developing progressive process of moving from the tribal system to the "lawful state" and "European civilization". Solovyov assigned a central place in the process of the historical development of Russia to the emergence of political structures, on the basis of which, in his opinion, the state was formed.

In the last years of his life, Solovyov's political and historical views underwent a certain evolution - from moderately liberal to more conservative. The scientist did not approve of much either in the methods of implementing bourgeois reforms, or in the post-reform reality of the 1860s and 1870s, which far from justified his expectations in everything. This evolution is reflected in the latest monographs of the scientist History of the fall of Poland (1863), Progress and Religion(1868), Eastern question 50 years ago(1876),Emperor Alexander the First: Politics - Diplomacy(1877), in public lectures on Peter the Great (1872). In these works Solovyov condemned the Polish uprising of 1863, justified the foreign policy line of Russia and its crowned bearers, and more and more clearly began to advocate an enlightened (non-constitutional) monarchy and imperial greatness.

Russian history, according to Solovyov, opens with the phenomenon that several tribes, not seeing the possibility of getting out of a tribal, special way of life, call on a prince from a foreign clan, call on a single common power that unites the clans into one whole, gives them an outfit, concentrates the forces of the northern tribes, uses these forces to concentrate the remaining tribes of present-day central and southern Russia. Here the main question for the historian is how the relations between the called-up governmental principle and the called-for tribes, as well as those who were subsequently subordinated, were determined; how the life of these tribes changed as a result of the influence of the governmental principle - directly and through another principle - the squad, and how, in turn, the life of the tribes affected the relationship between the government principle and the rest of the population when establishing an internal order or outfit.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Klyuchevsky V.O. Born January 16 (January 28), 1841 in the family of an early deceased village priest. Klyuchevsky's childhood passed in severe poverty. Having overcome his stuttering and learning difficulties, he graduated with honors from the Penza Theological School in 1856 and entered the Theological Seminary. In 1861, Klyuchevsky, not wanting to become a priest, left the seminary and entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, from which he graduated in 1865 with a candidate's degree and was left at the department to prepare for a professorship. Klyuchevsky's first monograph " Legends of foreigners about the Muscovite state"(1866) testified to his great capacity for work and interest in the history of everyday life. Klyuchevsky, on the advice of his teacher S.M. Solovyov took the topic for his master's thesis "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source"(1871), on which he worked for 6 years, having studied about 5 thousand lives, which, according to his opponents, was a scientific feat. Klyuchevsky came to the conclusion that the lives are an unreliable historical source and often do not correspond to the real life of the canonized saint. This work allowed Klyuchevsky to gain rich experience in source studies. In 1867 Klyuchevsky began to teach a course world history at the Alexander Military School. In 1871 he was offered to take a chair at the Moscow Theological Academy, and the next year to begin lecturing at the Higher Women's Courses. Soon Klyuchevsky gained fame as an amazing lecturer, and in 1879, after the death of S.M. Solovyov took his place at Moscow University.

In 1872, Klyuchevsky began a 10-year work on his doctoral dissertation. "Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia"(1881), which is largely important for his lecture courses, where the "Boyar Duma" is considered in connection with the classes and interests that dominated ancient Russian society, "which reflected his understanding of the Russian historical process. Along with a special course "History of estates in Russia"(1887), studies on social topics ("The Origin of Serfdom in Russia", "The Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia", "The Composition of Representation at Zemsky Sobors of Ancient Russia"), the history of culture of the 18th and 19th centuries. and others, Klyuchevsky created the main work of life - "Course of Russian History"(1987-1989. T.I - 5), in which he outlined his the concept of the historical development of Russia. From 1902 until the end of his life, Klyuchevsky prepared it for publication and reprinting, interrupting only in 1905 in connection with his participation in the work of the commission for the revision of laws on the press and the establishment of the State Duma. At the core methodology and historical concept of Klyuchevsky held positivist views. The researcher tried to prove that the development of society depends on a combination of a number of external and internal factors - geographical, ethnographic, political, economic and social. In addition to teaching and research work, in 1887-1889 Klyuchevsky was the dean of the historical and philological faculty and vice-rector. In 1894, he, chairman of the Society for Russian History and Antiquities, had to give a speech "In Memory of the late Emperor Alexander III in Bose", in which a liberal-minded historian praised the late sovereign, for which he was booed by students who did not approve of the conformist behavior of their beloved professor. In 1900, Klyuchevsky was elected a full member of the Academy of Sciences, but this did not change his life. In 1900-1910, he began to give lectures at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where many outstanding artists were his students. F.I. Chaliapin wrote in his memoirs that Klyuchevsky helped him understand the image of Boris Godunov before a benefit performance at the Bolshoi Theater in 1903. Klyuchevsky was convinced that "the human personality, human society and the nature of the country ... are the main historical forces." The life of mankind "in its development and results" is the essence of the historical process. To know this process, Klyuchevsky believed, is possible through the historical personality of the people and the human personality. The meaning of history is in people's self-consciousness. A deep knowledge of historical sources and folklore, mastery of historical portraiture, and aphoristic style made Klyuchevsky one of the most widely read and revered historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky died on May 12 (May 25), 1911 in Moscow. He was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.

2. The main directions of Russia's foreign policy in the first half of the eighteenth century

The main directions of Russian foreign policy at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century were determined by the need to gain access to the seas:

§ to the Baltic - western;

§ to Chernoy - south;

§ to the Caspian - east direction.

Foreign policy on the eveXVIIIcentury.

In 1695, the young Tsar Peter undertook a campaign against Azov, a Turkish-Tatar fortress at the mouth of the Don. It was here that the military "career" of the scorer Peter Alekseevich began, who took part in the shelling of the fortress and later wrote: "He began to serve as a scorer from the first Azov campaign." In the summer, Russian troops laid siege to Azov. However, the lack of a Russian fleet allowed the Turks to freely receive reinforcements and food by sea. Having made two unsuccessful assaults, the Russian army was forced to retreat.

In the winter of the same year, preparations began for the second Azov campaign, which turned out to be more successful. Thanks to the fleet built in a few months, Peter was able to block Azov from the sea. The successful actions of the scorers destroyed part of the fortress, and the Turks surrendered without a fight on July 18, 1696. Russia gained access to the Sea of ​​Azov, but access to the Black Sea was closed by the Kerch Strait, which was still in Turkish hands. Further struggle with the Turkish Empire was impossible without allies, whom Peter failed to find. During the Great Embassy of 1697-1698, the tsar got to know the alignment of political forces in Europe, which contributed to the creation of an anti-Swedish alliance. In addition to Russia, the Northern Union included Denmark and the Polish-Saxon kingdom (August II was both the King of Poland and the Elector of Saxony). Denmark dreamed of returning the regions torn away by Sweden, and Augustus II hoped to consolidate his power in the Commonwealth by annexing Livonia.

In 1699, when August II began hostilities, Russian diplomats were actively negotiating peace with Turkey, and Tsar Peter was organizing the army.

The Russian armed forces at that time numbered 600 thousand people. Military reform was just beginning. The newly formed regiments consisted mainly of untrained soldiers who were poorly dressed and armed. Most of the higher and a significant part of the middle command positions were occupied by foreigners who were unfamiliar not only with Russian customs and traditions, but often with the language. As soon as Peter I received news of the signing of a peace treaty with Turkey, he began active operations against Sweden. The Northern War began

North War

Northern War (1700-1721) - Russia's war as part of the Northern Union with Sweden for access to the Baltic Sea.

The struggle for access to the Baltic Sea was one of the main foreign policy tasks facing Russia at the end of the 17th century. It was necessary to return the captured by Sweden in the XVII century. Russian lands. The Baltic was attracted by the convenience of trade relations with the countries of Western and Northern Europe. Direct contacts with them could help the technical progress of Russia.

The beginning of the war was preceded by a search for allies, in which the Great Embassy played a big role. At the end of 1699, the Northern Union was formed - an anti-Swedish coalition of Russia, Denmark, Saxony and Poland. According to the plans of the allies, Denmark began the hostilities with an invasion in March 1700 of Holstein, allied with Sweden. Almost simultaneously, the Polish-Saxon troops, led by King August ll, moved to the capital of Livonia, Riga, intending to take the fortress and drive the Swedes out of Livonia.

The Swedish king Charles XII decided to beat his opponents in parts, starting from Denmark. Without the withdrawal of the Danish fleet from the fight, the Swedes could not transfer their army to the continent and repel the invasion of their Baltic provinces. While the king of Denmark was moving into Holstein (an ally of Sweden), Charles suddenly landed with his army at Copenhagen. Denmark was forced to make peace on August 8, 1700, renouncing claims to Holstein and paying a significant indemnity. However, due to pressure from England and Holland, Charles was unable to capture Copenhagen and destroy the Danish fleet, which remained a potential threat to Sweden.

Then Karl went to the Baltic. On October 6, he landed in Pernov (Pärnu), intending to go to Riga. But August, having learned about the appearance of the main Swedish forces, lifted the siege of the city and retreated to Courland.

On August 19, 1700, immediately after the conclusion of the Constantinople peace treaty between Russia and Turkey, Peter I's manifesto on the war with Sweden was announced. Russia entered the war insufficiently prepared to deal with such a strong and skillful enemy. The Russian armed forces were in the process of reform. Despite the significant number (200 thousand people in the 80s of the XVII century), the army did not have a sufficient number of modern types of weapons. In addition, the streltsy riots, internal strife after the death of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich had a negative impact on the degree of combat readiness of the Russian armed forces, slowing down the implementation of military reforms. There was almost no modern navy in the country (there was none at all in the proposed theater of operations). The own production of modern weapons was also underdeveloped, due to the weakness of the industrial base.

Russian troops invaded Estland and in September 1700, the 35,000-strong Russian army under the command of Peter 1 laid siege to Narva, a strong Swedish fortress on the shores of the Gulf of Finland. The capture of Narva would enable the Russians to cut through the possessions of Sweden in the area of ​​the Gulf of Finland and act against the Swedes both in the Baltic and the Neva basin. The fortress was stubbornly defended by the garrison under the command of General Gorn (about 2 thousand people), and in November Charles XII approached Narva with a 12 thousandth army and moved to Narva. On November 19, 1700, the Battle of Narva took place, in which the Swedish army defeated the Russian troops.

After Narva, Charles XII did not begin the winter campaign against Russia. He believed that the Russians, having received the Narva lesson, were not capable of serious resistance. The Swedish army opposed the Polish king Augustus II, in whom Charles XII saw a more dangerous opponent. The Swedish king moved to Poland. On June 27, 1701, he defeated the army of Augustus, which again besieged Riga, then the Swedes occupied Courland, Lithuania, and on May 14, 1702 captured Warsaw. However, Augustus continued to resist.

The defeat near Narva gave Peter I a powerful impetus to change. Moreover, Sweden was busy with the war with the Polish-Saxon troops, and Russia, thus, received a respite. Peter I used this time to carry out internal reforms, the purpose of which was to strengthen and re-equip the army. Peter managed to create a new army and re-arm it. The fleet was under construction. And it quickly gave a positive result.

Already in 1701, the first successes of the Russians in the Northern War followed. In June 1701, in a battle near Arkhangelsk, a detachment of Russian boats repelled an attack by a Swedish squadron (5 frigates and 2 yachts). During the battle, two Swedish ships (a frigate and a yacht) ran aground and were captured. In December 1701, the land Swedish corps of General Schlippenbach was defeated.

The campaign of 1702 began with a march of 30,000 Russian army under the command of Field Marshal Sheremetev to Livonia. On July 18, 1702, the Russians won a victory near Hummelshof, and then Sheremetev raided Livonia from Riga to Revel.

After the defeat at Hummelshof, the Swedes began to avoid battles in the open field and took refuge behind the walls of their fortresses. So in the north-west began the fortress period of the war. The first major success of the Russians was the capture of the Swedish fortress Noteburg at the source of the Neva (created on the site of the former Russian fortress Oreshek, now Petrokrepost). The battle for Noteburg was extremely fierce. The Russian detachment lost more than half of its composition (1.5 thousand people). The Swedes survived a third of the composition (150 people). Paying tribute to the courage of the soldiers of the Swedish garrison, Peter released them with military honors. Noteburg became the first major Swedish fortress taken by the Russians in the Great Northern War.

In 1703 the onslaught of the Russians continued. If in 1702 they captured the source of the Neva, now they took up its mouth, where the Swedish fortress Nyenschantz was located. In May 1703, after a short siege, Russian troops entered the fortress. At the same time, the first real naval victory was won: a Russian detachment of 60 boats boarded 2 Swedish ships that came to the aid of Nyenschantz. The crews of the ships were almost completely destroyed in a merciless battle (only 13 people survived).

The onslaught of the Swedes from the north, from the side of the Karelian Isthmus, was also successfully repelled. In order to finally gain a foothold on the banks of the Neva, on May 16, 1703, Tsar Peter I founded St. Petersburg - the future capital of Russia and the fortress of Kronstadt. The creation of the Baltic Fleet began at the Ladoga shipyards.

The year 1704 was marked by new successes of the Russian troops. The main events of this campaign were the capture of Dorpat (Tartu) and Narva. In June, the Russian army under the command of Field Marshal Sheremetev (23 thousand people) laid siege to Dorpat. The city was defended by a 5,000-strong Swedish garrison, which fought so desperately that after taking the fortress, Peter, as in Noteburg, releases the surviving Swedish soldiers in recognition of their courage and courage. On June 27, Russian troops laid siege to Narva. The fortress was defended by the Swedish garrison again under the command of General Horn. On the offer to surrender, he refused, reminding the besiegers of their failure at Narva in 1700. The general assault on the city, in which Peter took part, took place on August 9. It lasted only 45 minutes, but was distinguished by great cruelty.

So, in 1701-1704. The Russians cleared the Neva basin from the Swedes, took Derpt, Narva, Noteburg, lost by Russia in the Baltic in the 17th century.

Campaigns 1705-1708 in the northwestern theater of operations were less intense. The Russians had effectively fulfilled their original war goals of access to the Baltic Sea. The Russian army now controlled the main part of the eastern Baltic, where only a few fortresses remained in the hands of the Swedes, two of them were key - Revel (Tallinn) and Riga. The main energy of Peter at that time was directed to the economic development of the returned territories.

The Swedes tried to stop the economic fervor of the Russians in the Baltic lands. So, in 1705, the Swedish squadron appeared in the area of ​​Kotlin Island, where the naval base of Russia, Kronstadt, was being created. The Swedes landed troops on the island. However, after a fierce hand-to-hand fight between the local garrison and paratroopers, the Swedes were thrown into the sea. The Russian squadron attacked the Swedish ships that landed, and they were forced to leave the Kotlin area and retired to their bases in Finland.

In the autumn of 1708, the Swedes moved from the Vyborg region to St. Petersburg. The city was defended by a garrison under the command of Admiral Apraksin. During fierce fighting, the Russians repulsed several Swedish attacks. The Swedes made no more attempts to capture St. Petersburg.

After successes in the Baltic states, Peter I concentrated his main efforts on military operations on the western front, in Poland. Here events took an unfavorable turn for Peter's ally, Augustus II. The Sejm convened in Warsaw in 1704 deprived him of the Polish throne. By 1705, almost all Polish lands came under the control of the army of Charles XII.

In the summer of 1706, the Swedish king ousted the Russian army from Lithuania and Courland. Not accepting the battle, the Russians withdrew to Belarus, to Pinsk. After this, Charles XII delivers the final blow to the forces of Augustus II in Saxony. The Swedish invasion of Saxony ends with the capture of Leipzig and the surrender of Augustus II. As a result, Peter I loses his last ally and is left face to face with the lucky and formidable Swedish king.

Having defeated the allies of Peter I and having secured a reliable rear in Poland, Charles XII set out on a campaign against Russia. In January 1708, the Swedes occupied Grodno, and in June the army of Charles XII crossed the Berezina River and moved to the Russian border. On July 3, Russian troops were defeated near the town of Golovchino northwest of Mogilev and retreated beyond the Dnieper. Despite the defeat, the Russian army withdrew in a fairly organized way. The Battle of Golovchin was the last major success of Charles XII in the war with Russia.

The failure at Golovchin allowed the Russian command to see more clearly the weak points of its army and better prepare for new battles. According to the plan drawn up by Peter I, the Russian army was now supposed to evade decisive battles and wear down the Swedes in defensive battles, thereby creating the conditions for a subsequent transition to a counteroffensive. The Russians retreated, using the tactics of "scorched earth". The inhabitants were ordered to go into the forests and swamps, destroying and hiding everything that they could not take with them.

The Swedish army crossed the Dnieper, Charles occupied Mogilev and in August went to Smolensk. However, the fighting near the village of Dobrogo, and then near the village of Raevka, as well as the fact that the area was badly devastated by the retreating enemy, and the Swedes experienced difficulties with food and fodder, forced the Swedish king to turn to the left-bank Ukraine, where he hoped to find help from the betrayed Russian tsar Hetman Mazepa.

Under a secret agreement with the Swedes, Mazepa was supposed to provide them with provisions and ensure the mass transition of the Cossacks to the side of Charles XII. Left-bank Ukraine and Smolensk went to Poland, and the hetman himself became the specific ruler of the Vitebsk and Polotsk provinces with the title of prince.

In September 1708, the Swedish army stopped in Kostenichi, waiting for the approach of Levenhaupt's corps, which was coming from Riga with a large convoy of food and ammunition. Peter I decided in no case to prevent Lewenhaupt from meeting with the army of Charles XIII.

Having instructed Field Marshal Sheremetev to move after the Swedish army, the tsar, with a "flying detachment" of 12 thousand people mounted on horses, hastily moved towards the corps of General Lewenhaupt (about 16 thousand people). At the same time, the king sent an order to the cavalry of General Bour (4 thousand people) to join him.

On September 28, in the battle of the Levenhaupt Forest Corps, it was defeated by Russian troops. He came to Charles with only half of his army. Detachments of the Ukrainian hetman Mazepa also joined Charles. However, the king's hopes for regional separatism and the split of the Eastern Slavs did not materialize. In Little Russia, only a part of the Cossack elders and the Cossacks, who feared the destruction (as on the Don) of their Cossack freemen, went over to the side of the Swedes. Instead of the promised huge 50,000-strong Cossack army, Karl received only about a few thousand traitors who were looking for only petty personal gain in the struggle between two powerful rivals. The bulk of the population did not respond to the calls of Karl and Mazepa.

The autumn of 1708 and the winter of 1709 passed in the attempts of Charles XII to fight his way to Moscow along the Belgorod-Tula line. In the spring of 1709, Charles XII made another decisive attempt to seize the strategic initiative. In April, a 35,000-strong Swedish army besieged Poltava. If the city was taken, a threat was created to Voronezh, the largest base of the Russian army and navy. With this, the king could attract Turkey to the division of the southern Russian borders. It is known that the Crimean Khan actively offered the Turkish Sultan to oppose the Russians in alliance with Charles XII and Stanislav Leshchinsky. The possible creation of a Swedish-Polish-Turkish alliance could have ended with the defeat of Russia in the Northern War, its dismemberment into separate principalities, a Swedish protectorate over Ukraine, which Charles XII ultimately aspired to. The Swedes also hoped that the capture of Poltava, a large city of the Left-Bank Ukraine, would lead to a change in the mood of the Ukrainians, who would support Mazepa and join the ranks of his troops.

The army of Charles approached Poltava on April 3, 1709. The fighting for the city was fierce. The garrison under the command of Colonel A.S. Kelina fought off several assaults and refused the demand to surrender.

At the end of May, the main Russian forces headed by Tsar Peter I approached Poltava. The Swedes from the besiegers turned into the besieged. The heroic defense of Poltava exhausted the resources of the Swedish army. She did not allow him to seize the strategic initiative, giving the Russian army the necessary time to prepare for a general battle.

On June 27, 1709, the Battle of Poltava took place, which ended with the complete defeat of the Swedish army, with a stampede of Swedish soldiers. Charles XII managed to escape with a small detachment into the possession of the Turkish Sultan.

The battle of Poltava was a turning point in the Northern War. The international position of Russia has changed. In Poland, the positions of August II strengthened, and Stanislav Leshchinsky was forced to flee. In October 1709, Peter I concluded a new alliance treaty with August II against Sweden, which fixed the division of the Baltic states (for Russia - Estonia, for August - Livonia). Signed an alliance treaty with Russia and Denmark. The Northern Union was thus revived. Prussia joined the anti-Swedish coalition, and later Hanover.

After the destruction of the main forces of the Swedish army and the temporary withdrawal from the struggle of Karl, Russian troops occupied Courland in October 1709. The successes of Russian weapons were secured by the marriage of Duke Friedrich-Wilhelm with Peter's niece Anna Ivanovna.

In 1710, the Peter's army captured Vyborg and the main strongholds of the Swedes in the Baltic - Riga, Revel and Pernov. The Baltics completely came under Russian control, and the capture of Vyborg allowed the Russians to control the entire Karelian Isthmus. Petersburg now became reliably protected from Swedish attacks from the north.

However, further successes of Russian weapons were temporarily suspended by the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish war (1710-1713, although its unsuccessful outcome for Russia did not affect the successful continuation of the Northern War.

In 1712, Peter's troops moved the fighting to the Swedish possessions in northern Germany (Pomerania), acting together with Augustus II. The army under the command of Field Marshal A.D. Menshikov acted successfully. She managed to take several fortresses (Stettin, Stralsund) and win the battle of Friedrichstadt (1713), forcing the Swedes to capitulate. However, "the campaign was in vain": Russia was forced to leave with nothing because of the disagreement of the allies.

Relations between the allies began to deteriorate, primarily due to the division of Swedish possessions in Germany. Territorial disputes were stubbornly fueled by England and Holland, who did not want to let Russia into the Baltic. Their efforts were intensified as the War of the Spanish Succession was brought to an end in Western Europe by the Treaty of 1713, and the Western Powers were able to turn their attention to the East. However, England's attempts to create an anti-Russian coalition, raising Holland, Prussia and Austria against Russia, failed. In 1714, Russia concluded an agreement with Prussia on an alliance and territorial guarantees in the event of a victory over Sweden.

All this allowed Russia to turn to solving military problems in the northwest. For a complete victory over the Swedes in Finland and strikes against Sweden itself, it was necessary to neutralize the Swedish fleet, which continued to control the Baltic Sea. By that time, the Russians already had a rowing and sailing fleet capable of withstanding the Swedish naval forces. In May 1714, at a military council, Tsar Peter worked out a plan to break through the Russian fleet from the Gulf of Finland and occupy the Aland Islands in order to create a base there for attacks on the coast of Sweden.

The Swedish squadron stood at Cape Gangut. On July 27, 1714, he was attacked by Russian ships. The three-hour Gangut battle ended in the defeat of the Swedes. This was the first major victory for the Russian fleet.

The goals pursued by Peter in the Great Northern War have in fact already been fulfilled. Therefore, its final stage was distinguished by more diplomatic than military intensity.

At the end of 1714, Charles XII returned from Turkey to his troops in northern Germany (Pomerania), where the fortresses of Wismar and Stralsund continued to resist the allied forces. After their fall at the end of 1715, the king managed to get to Sweden. In the summer of 1716, he successfully repelled the Danish invasion, and in 1718, Charles, at the head of the Swedish army, went on a campaign to Norway, which at that time was part of Denmark. Before that, he began negotiations with Russia, expressing his readiness to cede all of Livonia and Estonia to her. The Swedes managed to take the capital of Norway, Christiania (Oslo), but on November 30, during the siege of the Fredrikshal fortress, Karl was killed by a musket bullet that hit him in the head. After the death of the leader, the Swedish army left Norway, and negotiations with Russia were interrupted.

The so-called "Hessian" party that came to power in Sweden (supporters of Charles XII's sister Ulrika Eleonora and her husband Friedrich of Hesse) began to negotiate peace with Russia's Western allies. In 1719 - 1720, the Swedes, at the cost of territorial concessions, conclude agreements with Hanover, Prussia, and Denmark.

Sweden's only rival is Russia, which does not want to cede the Baltic states. Having enlisted the support of England, Sweden is concentrating all efforts on the fight against the Russians. However, neither the collapse of the anti-Swedish coalition, nor the threat of an attack by the British fleet prevented Peter I from victoriously ending the war. This was helped by the creation of its own strong fleet, which made Sweden vulnerable from the sea. In 1719-1720. Russian landings begin to land near Stockholm, devastating the Swedish coast.

Having started on land, the Northern War ended at sea. Of the most significant events of this period of the war, the Battle of Grenham can be distinguished.

The hopes of the Swedes for English help did not come true. The English fleet was inactive. The failure of hopes for the creation of an anti-Russian coalition forced Stockholm to make peace with Russia. After five months of negotiations in the city of Nystadt in Finland, on August 30, 1721, a peace treaty was signed between Russia and Sweden. The Treaty of Nystad ended the Northern War. The most important task of Russia's foreign policy, set back in the 16th-17th centuries, was solved - access to the Baltic Sea was gained. Russia received a number of first-class ports and favorable conditions for trade relations with Western Europe.

The foreign policy of Emperor PeterI

In 1721, Peter I was proclaimed emperor. From now on, the Russian state became known as the Russian Empire. At the time when the Northern War was going on, Turkey, encouraged by Charles XII, declared war on Russia, which ended in failure for the Russian army. Russia lost all the territories acquired under the Constantinople Peace Treaty.

An important foreign policy event of the last years of the reign of Peter the Great was the campaign of 1722-1723 in Transcaucasia. Taking advantage of the domestic political crisis in Iran, Russia stepped up its activities in the region. As a result of the 1722 campaign against the Caucasus and Iran, Russia received the western shore of the Caspian Sea with Baku, Resht, and Astrabad. Further advance in Transcaucasia was impossible due to Turkey's entry into the war. The Caspian campaign played a positive role in strengthening friendly ties and cooperation between Russia and the peoples of Transcaucasia against Turkish aggression. In 1724, the Sultan made peace with Russia, recognizing the territorial acquisitions during the Caspian campaign. Russia, for its part, recognized Turkey's rights to the western Transcaucasus.

Thus, in the first half of the 18th century, one of the main foreign policy tasks of Russia was solved. Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea and became a world power.

Test: Russian state of the XIV century.

Name:

1. The priest who blessed Prince Dmitry Ivanovich for the battle with the Mongol-Tatras. A) Sergei Radonezhsky

Sergius of Radonezh(May 3, 1314 - September 25, 1392) - monk of the Moscow Church (Patriarchate of Constantinople), founder of the Trinity Monastery near Moscow (now the Trinity-Sergius Lavra). Saint; reverend; revered as the greatest ascetic of the Russian land; Converter of monasticism in Northern Russia. The ideological inspirer of the unifying and national liberation policy of Prince Dmitry Donskoy.

2. Prince, who gathered his regiments to fight the golden horde. D) Dmitry Donskoy

Dmitry I Ioannovich (October 12, 1350, Moscow - May 19, 1389, ibid), nicknamed Dmitry Donskoy for the victory in the Battle of Kulikovo - Grand Duke of Moscow (since 1359) and Vladimir (since 1362). Son of Grand Duke Ivan II the Red and his second wife, Princess Alexandra Ivanovna. During the reign of Dmitry, significant military victories were won over the Golden Horde, the centralization of Russian lands around Moscow continued, and the white-stone Moscow Kremlin was built.

3. Russian hero - a participant in the duel on the Kulikovo field. B) Ivan Peresvet

Peresvet Alexander- hero of the Battle of Kulikovo, monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. His duel with the Tatar hero Temir-Murza, in which both died, was the beginning of the battle.

4. Khan who burned down Moscow in 1382 B) Tokhtamysh

Tokhtamysh(? -1406) - Khan of the Golden Horde (c 1380), one of the descendants of Jochi, the eldest son of Genghis Khan; was at first Zayaitsky Khan. In 1377, the young Khan Tokhtamysh, with the support of Tamerlane's troops, set about conquering the Golden Horde. In the spring of 1378, after the eastern part with its capital in Sygnak fell, Tokhtamysh invaded the western part controlled by Mamai. By April 1380, Tokhtamysh managed to capture the entire Golden Horde up to Azov, including the capital, Saray.

After the Battle of Kulikovo, Tokhtamysh took possession of the Golden throne. Wanting to curb the Russian princes who had risen after the Battle of Kulikovo, Tokhtamysh ordered the Russian guests to be robbed and their ships seized, and in 1382 he himself went to Moscow with a large army.

August 24, 1382 Tokhtamysh approached Moscow. Tokhtamysh took Moscow by cunning, sending the Nizhny Novgorod princes Vasily Kirdyapa and Semyon Dmitrievich, who swore that Tokhtamysh would not do anything bad to the Muscovites if they surrendered. On August 26, Moscow surrendered. The promise was not fulfilled: many people were killed, the city was plundered.

Conclusion

After analyzing the material presented in the first part of this work, we can conclude that the historical and political analysis of the concepts of the state in the works of political thinkers of the historical science of Russia makes it possible to identify and substantiate the essential signs of continuity in the history of the state, both with the previous stage of historical thought, and followed by. Modern domestic historical thought should be supplemented by scientific knowledge about the development of the concept of Russian history. At the same time, it is intended to reveal the diverse nature of the concepts of national history, due to the complex interaction of objective conditions and subjective factors that took place in Russia. Their conceptual understanding is an important task of restoring the true national history.

The analysis of the Russian historical heritage will always be relevant, because without knowing the history of your state, it is impossible to build this state in the future. These are the circumstances that turn the need to study the concepts of national history into a subject of practical interest for modern Russia.

Acquaintance with the materials of the second part of this work allows us to draw the following conclusion. In the first half of the 18th century, one of the main foreign policy tasks of Russia was solved. Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea and became a world power.

Bibliography

1. Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. Volume 1. - M, 1998.

2. Kirillov V.V. History of Russia: textbook - M .: Yurait-Izdat, 2007.

3. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. - M. 1978.

4. New illustrated encyclopedia. T.16 - M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2004.

5. New illustrated encyclopedia. T. 6 - M .: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2004.

6. New illustrated encyclopedia. T. 14 - M .: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2003.

7. New illustrated encyclopedia. T. 18 - M .: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2004.

8. Soloviev S.M. History of Russia since ancient times - M, 2002.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

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

The place of history as a science in human life. Methodology of the subject.

History is a story about the past, which is considered in two meanings:

1) As a process of development of nature and mankind.

2) As a system of sciences that study the past of nature and society.

The object of study of history is a set of factors that characterize life

societies both past and present.

The subject of history is the study of human society as a single

controversial process.

The purpose of history: to explain the present to the past, to help look into the future;

to work out, to form a historical consciousness among the broad masses.

Historical science includes general history and history

civilizations from ancient times to the present.

Auxiliary historical disciplines include:

Paleography; - source study; - heraldry, etc.

Principles of history: 1) The principle of historicism 2) The classical principle, etc.

Methods for studying history are ways of studying historical

regularities through their concrete manifestation, i.e. historical facts:

1) historical method 2) classical method

Types of sources: 1) Written 2) Material 3) Ethnographic 4) Oral

5) Linguistic 6) Audio-visual documents

Periodization is a conditional allocation of successive stages in the general history.

Developments.

Geosid (ancient Greek poet) divided history into 5 stages: 1) Divine

2) Gold 3) Silver 4) Copper 5) Iron

Pythagoras was guided by the theory of the circle: birth, dawn and death

In the history of Russia there is a periodization according to the type of state formations:

1) Kievan Rus 9-12 centuries.

2) Specific Russia 13-15 3) Moscow kingdom 15-17 4) Russian Empire 18-20

Russian historical schools and their representatives (N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others)

Chronicles are the first written sources on the history of our fatherland. “Where did the Russian land come from?”- with this question, eight and a half centuries ago, the ancient Russian chronicler Nestor (XI - early XII centuries), the author of the first edition, began his review of Russian history "The Tale of Bygone Years".

The largest representative of the Russian historical school is the Russian writer, historian N.M. Karamzin- an outstanding historian of the 19th century. Years of life 1766-1820.

His main work: 12-volume "History of the Russian State"

1) Karamzin is characterized by a generalized integral view of the history of Russia with a wide use of chronicles

2) The main concept of Karamzin is the concept of a strong monarchical state.

3) Karamzin left us a clear periodization of Russian history as a legacy

1 period - ancient history from Rurik to Ivan III

2 period - middle history from Ivan III to Peter I

3 period - a new history from Peter I to the present. time.

CM. Solovyov(1820-1879) was born 6 years before the death of Karamzin.

The most significant in terms of content and abundance of sources used is his work “The History of Russia from Ancient Times”, which examines the development of the Russian state from Rurik to Catherine II.

S. M. Solovyov considered statehood to be the main force of the social process, a necessary form of the existence of the people

1) S.M. Solovyov was the first in Russian history to substantiate the principle of historicism - the relationship, interaction, interdependence of historical facts.

2) According to Solovyov, history is not a heap of random events and phenomena, but a natural historical process.

3) S.M. Solovyov was one of the founders of the "state school" in Russian historiography, the essence of which is that the state and its activities were considered the main driving force of the historical process.

V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911) was a follower of Solovyov's ideas. Klyuchevsky was the first among Russian historians to move away from periodization according to the reigns of monarchs. According to Klyuchevsky, history is divided into periods: Dnieper, Upper Volga, Moscow, All-Russian. The highest achievement of the national and moral unity of the people, according to Klyuchevsky, is the state as a classless and nationwide body that protects national interests. Main work: 9-volume "Course of Russian History"

1) retained everything valuable that was in the works of his teacher - "statist", sought to explore not the history of the state, but the history of the people, the history of society, individual social groups, their economic life, life and psychology

2) Closer than all his predecessors came to the assessment of Russian history from the standpoint of civilization.

3) Klyuchevsky's historical concept is difficult to separate from his socio-political views. He was a liberal historian.

L. N. Gumilyov created a new direction of science - ethnology, which lies at the junction of several branches of knowledge: history, ethnography, psychology and biology.

Introduction

Conclusion

Introduction

Even during his lifetime, Vasily the Dark, wanting to guarantee the throne of Moscow to his eldest son (the Grand Duke remembered well everything that he had to endure), made him co-ruler. After the death of his father, Ivan III, without any complications, took the reins of government of the Moscow principality and firmly held them for 43 years. Continuing the policy of his grandfather and father, Vasily I (1389-1245), Vasily II the Dark (1425-1462), Ivan III the Great (1462-1505), Vasily III (1505 - 1533) pursued one and the same goal; strengthening their power. The expansion of the personal power of the Grand Duke necessarily required the expansion of the subject territory. The policy of the Moscow princes in many ways lays the foundations of the Muscovite kingdom. Vasily Klyuchevsky wrote: "The Muscovite state was born in the 14th century under the yoke of an external yoke, built and expanded in the 15th and 16th centuries amidst a stubborn struggle for existence in the west, south and southeast."

The purpose of this study is to consider the opinions of prominent historians of the 19th - early 20th centuries in relation to the period of the formation of the Muscovite Kingdom, or rather, it would be more accurate to say that we are interested in the opinion of V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov and S.M. Solovyov about the reign of Ivan III and Vasily III.

When performing this work, the works of the above historians will be used, as well as later works related to the Soviet period of historical science.

In this work, we will pay more attention to the opinion of V.O. Klyuchevsky, whose works, in my opinion, are more objective on the issue under consideration than the works of other authors of that time, and on the basis of his opinion we will try to understand the full picture of the events that took place during the reign of the Russian Grand Dukes Ivan III and Vasily III.

The work of an abstract nature cannot claim to be a full-scale study, and therefore we will focus only on some aspects of the works of the authors listed above.

Chapter 1. V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov, S.M. Solovyov about Ivan III (the Great)

Now we can accurately determine the main merits of Ivan III before the formation of an integral state: the campaign of John III against Novgorod (1471), the marriage of John III with Sophia Palaiologos (1472); annexation of Novgorod to Moscow (1478); the overthrow of the Tatar yoke (1480); annexation of Tver to Moscow (1485); the publication of the first Sudebnik (1497), the fall of the Golden Horde (1502); truce with Lithuania (1503); condemnation of the heresy of the Judaizers (1504). And these are only his most basic affairs, therefore, such a ruler could not fail to receive the attention of outstanding Russian historians of the 19th century, and each of them considered it his duty to understand this issue as thoroughly as possible, as far as the possibilities in the 19th century allowed.

Ivan III, having ascended the throne, was not the only ruler of the Moscow principality, he had 4 specific prince-brothers and a cousin specific uncle. In other words, the Grand Duchy of Moscow included five formally independent principalities, relations between which were determined by treaties.

The "gathering" of Moscow, the relentless expansion of the territory of the principality was the basis of the policy of all its princes. Ivan III continues the work of his ancestors.

Actively destroying the destinies within the Moscow principality, Ivan diligently pushes the outer borders of Moscow. Using force, cunning, matrimonial ties, Ivan III acquires the Ryazan, Yaroslavl, Rostov principalities.

Ivan III conducted foreign policy on a broad front, acting simultaneously in different directions. The conquest of Novgorod was of great economic and strategic importance. The northern possessions of Novgorod, which became Moscow, pushed Moscow's limits to the Arctic Ocean, became a springboard for the future advance to Siberia and the Pacific Ocean. Especially important was the political significance of the victorious campaigns of Ivan III. the system was eliminated, which was alien to the Moscow concept of a single autocratic power. The social conflicts that torn apart Novgorod, which became one of the reasons for its death, are considered by most Russian historians as a fundamental reason for the absorption by Moscow of ancient Russian democracy, a free city.

Novgorod interfered with Moscow.

The Novogorod policy of Ivan III was inextricably linked with Moscow's relations with two main opponents: Lithuania claimed the role of Novgorod's guardian and entered into an alliance with the Golden Horde, which needed Lithuanian help to fight the Moscow prince. An ally of Lithuania, the Golden Horde Khan Akhmet, easing the position of Lithuania, made a campaign against Ivan III in 1472 and left without having achieved his goal, without a battle. Eight years later, he set off on a new campaign. In the summer of 1480 on the river. The Ugra, delimiting the Moscow and Lithuanian possessions, met Russians and Tatars. They stood for a long time on opposite banks of the river and dispersed without a fight. The ally of the Russian army were the Tatars - detachments of the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, with whom Ivan III concluded an agreement on mutual assistance.

The subjugation of Kazan was one of the important goals of the strategy of Ivan 1P. The Moscow prince sought to put his protege on the Kazan throne and turn the khanate into a dependent state. He actively participates in the internecine struggle of applicants, supporting one against the other. Five times Moscow troops, reinforced by friendly Tatar detachments, went to Kazan. In 1487, the regiments of the Moscow voivode Daniil Kholmsky took the capital of the khanate and elevated a protege of Ivan III to the Kazan throne. The Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, who fought with the Golden Horde, received the constant support of Moscow, which allowed him in 1502 to defeat the last Khan of the Golden Horde, which finally collapsed. Acting through "servicemen", i.e. vassal and allied Tatar rulers, Ivan III achieves success in his eastern policy, also retains all his conquests in the west.

The foreign policy of Ivan III, which significantly expanded the territory of the Moscow principality, was a clear example of "defensive imperialism." The Grand Duke of Moscow is completing the 15th century, having every right to call himself the Sovereign of All Russia. Material successes receive an ideological justification.

The political concept of the Moscow autocracy and the succession of Moscow - the third Rome is born in the monasteries. First of all, because they were the only source of knowledge. But also because they were a serious force that has long been involved in political life, which was the result of their spiritual and missionary activities. Second half of the 15th - early 16th centuries - a time of stormy spiritual - theological, political, cultural - life, one of the most important periods of Moscow history. In passionate and cruel disputes, an understanding is formed of the special nature of the Moscow state, the Russian sovereign, the mission of Moscow - the capital of Russia in the history of mankind.

An important element of the emerging new time is the marriage of Ivan III. Ivan's first wife, Princess Maria of Tver, died in 1467. In 1472, the 32-year-old Grand Duke of Moscow, sovereign of all Russia, married the Byzantine princess Sophia Palaiologos, the niece of Constantine XI, the last Byzantine emperor who died with weapons in his hands during storming of Constantinople by the Turks.

The idea of ​​marriage between the Moscow sovereign and the Byzantine princess arose in the Vatican, where they hoped in this way to attract Moscow to the signing of the Union of Florence. Moscow had other ideas.

Vasily Klyuchevsky writes: "Ivan III, having overcome religious disgust in himself, ordered the princess from Italy and married her in 1472."

The only true Christian faith is Orthodoxy, the only custodian of the faith is Moscow, personified by the autocratic sovereign. The concept of the power of the Moscow sovereigns was based on the successes of the foreign and domestic policies of Ivan III.

Ivan III understood the need for autocratic power, seeing in it a guarantee of state order. In the message of his daughter, who was married to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ivan explained.

“I heard what was the disorder in the Lithuanian land, if there were many sovereigns, but also in our land, you heard what the disorder was under my father, and after my father what things were like with my brothers, I hope you heard, but otherwise and you remember."

The aggressive campaigns of Ivan III and his son Vasily III lead to the inclusion of all territories inhabited by Great Russians within the boundaries of the Moscow principality. All historians agree to recognize this fact. Questions arise about the term "Great Russians", disputes about the time of the formation of the Great Russian nation and its ethnic composition do not stop. National problems, worn in the 19th century. mainly theoretical in nature and attracted the attention of mainly historians.

The formation of the Great Russian ethnos proceeded simultaneously with its separation from other Slavic peoples, who, in turn, absorbed the neighboring non-Slavic tribes. The Old Russian ethnos, - Leo Gumilyov succinctly states, - splits into parts in the XIV century: "The northeastern Rusichs merged with the Merya, Muroma, Vepsians and Turks from the Great Steppe - Russians were formed, and the southwestern ones merged with Lithuanians and Polovtsy - Belarusians and Ukrainians."

The gathering of north-eastern Russia by the Moscow princes, which accelerated in the 15th century, gives the Moscow principality a new quality: it becomes a national Great Russian state. The Grand Duke of Moscow is turning into a Great Russian sovereign. The ideology developed at that time puts his power on solid ground.

Three Moscow princes occupied the entire 15th century with their activities: Vasily I, who ascended the throne in 1389, brought an inheritance from the 14th century, Ivan III, who died in 1505, transferred it in the 16th century. The creation of a state over the course of a century, which included the entire territory of northeastern Russia within its borders, changed the external position of Moscow. Until now, it has been protected from the outside world by its opponents - other Russian principalities, which were at the same time the goal of its aggressive policy. As Tver, Yaroslavl, Rostov, Nizhny Novgorod, Ryazan, Smolensk, Novgorod and Pskov are swallowed up by Moscow, as all Russian principalities become part of the Muscovite state, it encounters more and more foreign states on its borders. New threats are emerging, a new danger is emerging, and there is a sense of need to push the frontiers further to ensure security. Defensive imperialism does not know and does not give rest.

Russian historians see this policy as an inevitable necessity. One can argue who was the greatest Russian historian. Undoubtedly, Vasily Klyuchevsky - an insightful scientist, a talented writer, an exponent of liberal views - continues to be the most widely read among the authors of multi-volume histories of Russia. From his point of view, the main motor of the activity of the Moscow princes was "the highest interest - the defense of the state from external enemies." Klyuchevsky sums up the historical era: "The Muscovite state was born in the 14th century under the yoke of an external yoke, built and expanded in the 15th and 16th centuries amidst a stubborn struggle for its existence in the west, south and southeast." The historian sees a positive feature in the threat to the state: "The external struggle also restrained internal enmities. Internal domestic rivals put up in the sight of common external enemies, political and social disagreements fell silent when they met with national and religious dangers."

In addition to Klyuchevsky, the historian S.F. was also involved in the reign of Ivan III. Platonov, who highlights, for example, the following main elements of his reign: “Northern Russia, hitherto divided into independent local worlds, is united under one state power, the bearer of which is the Moscow sovereign, but he rules with the assistance of a new class that has formed around him - the boyars. The basis of the national economy in this state is still the agricultural labor of a free peasant working on state or private land, but state land is increasingly passing into the hands of a new military class created by the state, and at the same time, the freedom of peasant labor is more and more constrained, being replaced by economic dependence of the peasant on the servant landowner. These are the main phenomena that we have to study in this period. First of all, let us try to clarify the basic, so to speak, central fact from which all these phenomena proceeded or to which they were reduced. Which gives us the right to draw the line of the new period on half of the fifteenth century ? Since that time, important changes have taken place in the Russian land, and all these changes come from the Muscovite state and from the Muscovite sovereign who ruled this state. Here are the main active forces that, during the course of a hundred and fifty years of this period, put the Russian land in a new position. But when Ivan III succeeded his father on the Moscow table, in the Russian land there was still neither the Muscovite state within the boundaries that it had at the end of the 16th century, nor the Muscovite sovereign with the political significance with which he appears 100 years later. Both of these factors were not yet ready in 1462, both are the results of a slow and difficult process going on in this very period. In order to better understand the emergence of these factors, one must imagine the political situation of the Russian land around the middle of the 15th century. "Thus, Platonov, like Klyuchevsky, understands the role of Moscow as a state-forming basis, however, in turn, he is not inclined to consider Ivan III the sole ruler of the state, but asserts an opinion about the significant role of the new class of boyars. In our opinion, this is one of" red threads" of his lectures on the history of Russia. You can see more about this in his 27th lecture.

Let us dwell in this chapter on the views of S.M. Solovyov, what he considered the main thing in the reign of Ivan III (the Great): "The most prominent and successful event in the reign of John III, the subjugation of Novgorod, served as the subject of a special story: "Words chosen from St. Scriptures about truth and humility, a doer of piety, the noble Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, and praise for the piety of faith; even about the pride of the majestic men of Novgorod, the Lord God humble them and subdue them under his hand, he, the pious, had mercy on them, for the Lord's sake, and comfort their land. "This title indicates the content and form of the legend. Already known to us Serbian Pachomius continued to serve Russian ecclesiastical literature under John III: for example, he wrote two canons to St. Metropolitan Jonah and a sermon on the uncovering of his relics. about widowed clergymen, who so much occupied the society of the time described, gave rise to an essay remarkable in its power: “Writing a widowed priest, Georgy Skripitsa, from Rostov City about widowed frights”; for example, we will cite several places that are directly related to the case: “Do not insult and do not condemn the priests, except for theological wines; by those it is written to condemn their sins, and not by yourself and not by your mind. But you, gentlemen, condemned all the priests and deacons, present and future, by the death of their wives. The Lord said to the Jews: do not condemn in vain, but judge a righteous judgment. And you, gentlemen, condemned all the priests and deacons without trial, on their faces in vain: whoever has a wife is pure, and who does not have a wife is not pure. And you, my lords, by which you received your sight in the spirit of the pure and the unclean? How did they test whether the priest is holy with a wife or without a wife, and is the black man holy or the Belets? Why lead a man without a witness? Tochiu his affairs will be announced; God alone knows the thoughts of man. You are an unblessed fault of discord in the church as a priest; a black-priest is worthy to serve in cities and villages, and a widower is a pure priest - it is unworthy to serve in the deserts, lower in the cities, and who has a wife, is worthy of serving, is sacred as a wife. And what do you say, my lords: we did that, we excommunicated those, dividing piety, purifying the church; otherwise, my lords, judge, from whom did evil become in our land? Is it not from your negligence and neglect that the evil ones were not executed, were not excommunicated from the priesthood? Blessedly, neither yourselves nor the chosen priests do not judge the priests, and you do not send to the cities and villages to try out how someone shepherds the church of God; In the history of the enlightenment of ancient Russia, of course, the name of the scribe Nikita Popovich, who argued with the legate and forced the latter to remain silent on the news of the chronicler, should not be forgotten. .M. Solovyov in his writings paid attention not only to the political, but also to the cultural aspects of the reign of Ivan III.

In the first chapter, we tried to consider the reign of Ivan III from the standpoint of three significant historians of Russia, in the second chapter we will try to consider the reign of Vasily III /

Chapter 2. V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov, S.M. Solovyov about Vasily III

The reign of Vasily III, which lasted 28 years (1505 - 1533), completed the history of the Grand Duchy of Moscow and prepared the beginning of the history of the Moscow kingdom.

Vasily III is a necessary intermediate link between the reign of his father, Ivan III, and his son, Ivan IV. Continuing the domestic and foreign policy of his father, realizing all the trends laid down in it, Vasily III, still officially called the Grand Duke of Moscow, will transfer to his son the state and power in it, which allowed Ivan IV to be officially crowned king.

All Moscow princes, starting with Danila Alexandrovich, increased the share of their eldest son, wanting to strengthen him in comparison with his brothers, the specific princes. The spiritual Ivan III completes the process: the Grand Duke bequeathed to his eldest son and heir more than 60 regions - cities with counties, lands with cities and suburbs, and to his four brothers - no more than 30 cities, mostly insignificant in size and wealth. In addition, the eldest son received significant political advantages. Until now, all the sons of the Grand Duke owned Moscow by shares, collected duties, direct and indirect taxes. According to Ivan's spirituality, all rights in Moscow passed into the hands of the eldest son. In the same way as the judicial power, which was previously exercised by the specific princes in their areas. Each specific prince could, like the Grand Duke, mint his own coin. The spiritual gave this right to the exclusive possession of the Grand Duke. Finally, Ivan III deprived the appanage princes, who were dying without an heir-son, of the right to transfer their lands at will - they now passed into the hands of the Grand Duke. Historian M. Dyakonov notes that in the XV century. "the will of sovereigns is becoming increasingly important as a creative force of law." Spiritual Ivan III was a demonstration of the all-powerful will of the Grand Duke. According to V. Klyuchevsky, "the successor of Ivan III enters the Grand Duke's table more sovereign than Ivan himself."

Russian historians saw the main content of the reigns of Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan IV the Terrible in the process of transforming the patrimony (hereditary possessions) of the Moscow Grand Dukes into a state in the proper sense of the word. Soviet historians added to this observation an assessment, calling the process "progressive", because the centralization of Russia was, in their opinion, necessary for the rapid development of the country.

The peculiarity of the process of turning a patrimony into a state consisted in the contradiction between the claim declared in Moscow under Ivan III to the entire Russian land as a single people in the name of the state principle and the desire to own Russia as a patrimony, on a private appanage right.

In the specific patrimony, the prince was the owner of the territory - land with economic lands, the free inhabitants of this territory were in contractual relations with the prince, which could be broken at the request of one of the parties. The collection of lands, the increase in territory turned the patrimony into a state, but it is still managed as the personal lot of the prince. The development of state law begins - extremely slowly. In 1497, the first official collection of laws, the Sudebnik, was published in Moscow. It is a collection of procedural norms and in content, as an expert on the history of Russian law M. Dyakonov notes, "poorer than Russian Truth" (the code of the 10th-11th centuries). It is important, however, that the will of the sovereign, who has in mind not only the interests of his destiny, is becoming increasingly important as a creative force of law.

The process of formation of state law goes through the use of ancient customs, their gradual change. Vasily Tatishchev, who took for his "History of Russia" chronicle materials that later disappeared, cites a dialogue between Ivan III and the metropolitan. In 1491, the Grand Duke ordered his specific brothers to send regiments to the aid of the Crimean Khan Mengli Giray, then an ally of Moscow. Prince Andrei Uglitsky, bound, like other brothers, by an agreement with Ivan III, did not obey, did not send an army. When Andrey appeared in Moscow, he was first received kindly, and then put in jail. Ivan refused to grant the Metropolitan's request to release his brother. The Grand Duke explained: “When I die, he will seek a great reign. And even if he doesn’t get a reign, he will embarrass my children, and they will fight each other, and the Tatars will beat, burn and capture the Russian land and impose tribute again, and Christian blood will continue to flow, and all my labors will remain in vain, and you will continue to be slaves of the Tatars. Ivan III, having put an end to the Tatar yoke, no longer cares about his patrimony, the Moscow principality, but about the Russian land. The methods remained the same, the very ones used by his father Vasily the Dark. Ivan's son Vasily III, on his deathbed, fearing that his brother, Prince Yuri, might encroach on the throne and take it away from the infant heir, the future Terrible, asked the boyars to take appropriate measures. Immediately after the death of Basil III, his brother was killed in prison.

The fluctuations between the two principles - the autocratic master and the bearer of the supreme state power - characteristic of the activities of Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan IV, grandfather, son and grandson, which occupied more than a hundred years of the history of Great Russia, "led the state to deep upheavals, and the dynasty of collectors - to death."

Speaking about the reign of Vasily III S.M. Solovyov, also pays a lot of attention to the external and internal life of the state, like V.O. Klyuchevsky and S.F. Platonov, however, in my opinion, his works contain more details, which, of course, may seem of little interest to a simple reader, but for historians, in my opinion, this is a huge factual material. Let us give just one example, about the relationship of Vasily III with his brothers: “We saw with what impatience the enemies of the Muscovite state waited for the death of Ioannova, thinking that it would result in civil strife between Vasily and his nephew Demetrius, whom numerous adherents would have time to release. But they were deceived in his hope: the side of Demetrius did not move, and this prince died in close imprisonment in 1509. We also saw that, having been deceived in the hope of Demetrius, Sigismund of Lithuania tried to raise his own brother against Vasily - and this attempt was unsuccessful. Failure here, however, came from the impotence of the appanage princes, and not from their unwillingness to free themselves from the relations in which the new order of things placed them with their elder brother, with the Grand Duke.In 1511, the Grand Duke learned that his brother, Semyon of Kaluga, wants to flee to Lithuania. Vasily ordered him to come to Moscow; Semyon, seeing that his intention was open, foreseeing what was being prepared for him in Moscow, began to ask the elder about the brother for pardon through the metropolitan, bishops and other brothers. The Grand Duke forgave Semyon, but he changed all the boyars and boyar children. Semyon died in 1518.

Regarding Vasily’s relationship with his other brother, Prince Dimitri Ivanovich, a curious monument has come down to us - punishment speeches to Ivan Shigona, as he was supposed to speak to Dimitri on behalf of the Grand Duke in private: “Brother! Judge for yourself, are you doing well? Do you remember how we did our father order us to live among ourselves? I ordered you to satisfy us in Kozel's affairs and in the case of Ushaty; and you not only did not fulfill our demand, but also again sent Ushaty to the land, ordered his villages to be plundered, and us with our children You gave us no answer at all to the letter that we sent to you and Fyodor Borisov, but now you have dealt with us even worse: you have sent us such a fellow as you shouldn't have sent it to us, and sent it with a letter, which speaks of great deeds. I don't know what dishonor, what offense I have inflicted on you? And you answered me like that with our boyar children and in your letter wrote to us like that : razv Is that how they answer their father and write in a letter? Here the Grand Duke, arming himself against the ancient claims of the appanage princes, wants to rely on the old days, according to which the younger brothers were supposed to consider the elder father. Demetrius died in 1521." From this fragment it becomes clear that Basil's power was already strong, which made it possible to continue the reforms begun by Ivan III.

Moscow kingdom Klyuchevskiy Solovyov

Conclusion

In this work, we have tried to consider the opinion of three prominent Russian historians about the reign of the two great princes of Muscovy; Ivan III and Vasily III.

To begin with, in the conclusion of the work, it should be noted that in the 19th century there was a clear tendency for many authors to write a "complete" history of the Russian state. All historians considered in this work are among such researchers as: N.M. Karamzin.

Despite the fact that all historians tried to cover the entire period of Russian history, each approached the study from different angles. In my opinion, the best version of the history of Russia is the story written by V.O. Klyuchevsky, since in his works he pays attention not only to factual material, but also to other factors, for example, the psychological characteristics of historical personalities. S.F. Platonov offers us a more materialistic history of Russia, in my opinion, and S.M. Solovyov pays more attention to specific details, as well as to life and culture in the period under review.

In this work, we, as already mentioned, considered the period of the reign of Ivan III and Vasily III, it should be noted that the studies we are considering pay more attention to Ivan III than Vasily III. At the same time, much attention is paid, for example, to S.M. Solovyov, not only to Ivan III, but also to his second wife, Sofya Paleolog.

All historians pay great attention to the foreign policy of both Ivan III and Vasily III, which includes 3 main areas:

) Russian lands not subject to Moscow (Novgorod)

) Crimean, Kazan and Astrakhan Tatars.

However, historians also pay attention to the domestic policy of the Grand Dukes, for example, I liked the head of S.M. Solovyov about internal affairs in the state.

Since V.O. is more interesting in my opinion. Klyuchevsky, I took and applied several of his works in my work, I also got acquainted with the works of other historians who express their opinion about V.O. Klyuchevsky S.M. Solovyov and S.F. Platonov.

List of used literature

1) Borisov N.S. Ivan III / Borisov N.S. - M.: Mol. guard, 2000. - 644 p. - (Life of remarkable people. Series of biographies).

) Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian state: In 12 volumes: T. 2-3 / N. M. Karamzin; Ed. Sakharov A. N.; Academy of Sciences of the USSR. - M.: Nauka, 1991. - 830 p.

) Klyuchevsky V.O. History of estates in Russia. Petrograd, 1918.

) Klyuchevsky V.O. The legend of foreigners about the Muscovite state. M., 1991.

) Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. In 3 vols. T. 2: Full course of lectures / Klyuchevsky V.O. - M.: AST, 2002. - 591 p.

) Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian History: A Complete Course of Lectures. In 2 books. Book. 1 / Klyuchevsky V.O. - Minsk: Harvest, 2000. - 1054 p. - (Classics of historical thought).

) Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Full course of lectures in 3 books. Book. 1. M. 1995

) Klyuchevsky V.O. Works. In 9 vols. T. 1. The course of Russian history. Part 1 / Klyuchevsky V.O.; ed. V.L. Yanin - M.: Thought, 1987. - 430 p.

) Mayorov A.V. Galicia-Volyn Rus. Essays on socio-political relations in the pre-Mongolian period. Prince, boyars and urban community / Maiorov A.V.; Ed. Froyanov I.Ya.; St. Petersburg. un-t. - St. Petersburg: Univ. book, 2001. - 640 p.

) Platonov S.F., Lectures on Russian history, Moscow: Higher school, 1993, lecture 25-27.

) Nightingale S.M. Educational book of Russian history [Text] / Soloviev S.M. - M.: Astrel, 2003. - 477 p.

) Soloviev S.M. The history of relations between the Russian princes of the Rurik House [Text] / Soloviev S.M. - M.: Astrel, 2003. - 446 p.

) Tatishchev V.M. Russian history. In 3 volumes. T. 3 / Tatishchev V. - M .: AST, 2003. - 863 p. - (Classical thought).

Introduction

As long as the state has existed, the problem of what a modern state should be has been widely discussed in science. There is a point of view about a weak state that does not interfere in the natural processes of the development of society; there is a concept of a strong state, especially in the context of transitional stages of development (including in Russia). Most recently, the idea that the state should not be weak or strong, but effective, has received support. But it is unequivocally necessary to say that in order for the state to be effective, it is necessary to study its history. This is what relevance this work.

The modern Russian state is a historical cultural community of people, which is united by a common language, religion, traditions, socio-economic institutions, a way of identification.

Main goals and objectives This work is a study of issues related to the concepts of national history from the point of view of such historians as Klyuchevsky V.O., Solovyov S.M., Karamzin I.M., as well as the characteristics of Russia's foreign policy in the first half of the 18th century.

The study of the history of Russia is necessary, because without knowledge of the past it is impossible to understand the present and make an attempt to predict the future.

Achieving the above goals and objectives in this work is possible with the help of historical, chronological, analytical and other methods research.

Concepts of national history: bV.O. Klyuchevsky, S.M. Solovyov, I.M. Karamzin

Despite the current political transformations in the Russian state, which have significantly changed the attitude towards various stages of the history of Russia, and, accordingly, the reorientation of historical science, this does not affect the relevance of studying the history of our state. The relevance of considering the concepts of national history in the works of famous Russian historians is determined not only by a retrospective historical and political analysis of the period of their life, but also by modern views on the history of the Fatherland. The concepts of the history of Russia have been considered by many Russian scientists, but in this paper we will consider the concepts of national history proposed by Karamzin I.M., Solovyov S.M., Klyuchevsky V.O.

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

N.M. Karamzin was born December 1 (December 12), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovka, Simbirsk province. The son of a retired army officer. He was brought up in private educational institutions in Simbirsk, and then in Moscow. For some time he served in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment. In 1784 or 1785 he settled in Moscow. He attended lectures at the university, spoke many new and ancient languages. Initially, Karamzin was known as a prose writer.

As an author and translator, Karamzin became close friends with the Masonic circle of the satirist and publisher N.I. Novikov. In 1789, he published his first story "Eugene and Julia", translations of A. Haller's poem "On the Origin of Evil" (1786), "Julius Caesar" by W. Shakespeare (1787) were published in separate editions. From May 1789 to July 1790, Karamzin traveled in Europe. This trip had a decisive influence on the work of the future writer. The result was "Letters from a Russian Traveler" - not a biographical document, but rather a complex literary text.

Upon his return to Russia, Karamzin founded the Moscow Journal (1791-1792), where he published works by contemporary Western European and Russian authors.

At the same time, Karamzin's works of art were published, which brought him fame: the stories "Poor Lisa" (1792), "Natalya, the Boyar's Daughter" (1792), "Frol Silin, a Benevolent Man" (1791), "Liodor" (1792 ). They opened a new page in the history of Russian literature. Literature, thanks to Karamzin's prose, approached life, not the sublimity of the style, but its grace, became a sign of literaryness, just as the value of a person began to be determined not by social weight, power or wealth, but by spiritual subtlety.

The change in the socio-political situation of 1801-1803 influenced Karamzin. First of all, he returned to active publishing. In 1803, Karamzin requested the official appointment of his historiographer. His interest in history had been maturing for a long time, and now he felt the need to historically comprehend his views on modernity. Volume One" History of the Russian state"was completed in 1805, the second - in 1806, the third - in 1808. By 1811, 5 volumes of "History ..." were published. The Patriotic War of 1812 interrupted the writer's work. As the French army approached Moscow, Karamzin gave "the best and a complete" copy to his wife, whom he sent to Yaroslavl, while he himself was preparing to fight in the militia. But Karamzin did not stop working on the "History ...", and at the beginning of 1816 he went to St. Petersburg to apply for the publication of the first eight volumes of his "History .. .". The troubles were crowned with success, and 8 volumes of the History of the Russian State were published on January 28, 1818. 3,000 copies sold out in one month, a second edition was immediately required. Karamzin continued his historical work. The ninth volume was published in 1821, in 1824 - the tenth and eleventh, last, twelfth volume was published posthumously. Karamzinskaya " History..."- not only a historical, but also a literary work. The writer set himself the task of creating epic narrative. This required a change in the image of the narrator - he became a historian, endowed with the innocence of a chronicler and civic courage.

The uprising of December 14, 1825 finally broke the moral and physical strength of Karamzin (he was in the square and caught a cold), who was present at the end of his era. Karamzin died in St. Petersburg on May 22 (June 3), 1826.

Karamzin's historical views stemmed from rationalistic view about the course of social development: the history of mankind is the history of world progress, the basis of which is the struggle of reason with delusion, of enlightenment with ignorance. The decisive role in history, according to Karamzin, is played by great people. Karamzin used all his efforts to reveal the ideological and moral motivations for the actions of historical figures. Psychological analysis is for him the main method of explaining historical events.

Karamzin was a supporter Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state. The periodization of Russian history by Karamzin is very close to the periodization of V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov. All of them identify the history of the country with the history of the state, and the history of the state with the history of autocracy. However, Karamzin introduced a lot of new things both in understanding the general course of Russian history and in assessing individual historical events. Unlike Tatishchev and Shcherbatov, who saw in the appanage system only a backward movement and the result of the unreasonable policy of the great princes who divided the state between their sons, Karamzin believed that the appanage system was feudal and "consistent with the circumstances and the spirit of the times" and that it was characteristic of all countries. Western Europe. He considered the formation of a single state under Ivan III as a process similar (and one-time) to the process of formation of large centralized states in Western Europe. Karamzin was not satisfied with a purely rationalistic explanation of historical events and in a number of cases used the so-called pragmatic view of history and the historical-comparative method, which put him at the level of the advanced historical science of that time. For the first time, he used a large number of historical documents, including the Troitsk, Lavrentiev, Ipatiev Chronicles, Dvina letters, Code of Laws, testimonies of foreigners and others. Extracts from documents Karamzin placed in lengthy notes to his "History", which for a long time played the role of a kind of archive. However, in the text of the "History" Karamzin often departed from the source or gave preference to a less reliable source for the sake of his political goals and the monarchist historical concept, or out of a desire to "revive" and "bloom" events.

"History…"Karamzina contributed increasing interest in national history in various strata of Russian society. It marked a new stage in the development nobility in Russian historical science. The historical concept of Karamzin became the official concept supported by the government. Slavophiles considered Karamzin their spiritual father. Representatives of the progressive camp (Decembrists, V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky) reacted negatively to Karamzin’s “History” . Karamzin's "History" received critical attention from representatives of the developing Russian bourgeois historiography (M. T. Kachenovsky, N. A. Polevoy, S. M. Solovyov). Karamzin himself in his "History ..." wrote: "History in a sense is the sacred book of peoples: the main, necessary; the mirror of their being and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the testament of ancestors to posterity; an addition, an explanation of the present and an example of the future."

Soloviev Sergeevich Mikhailovich

Sergei Mikhailovich was born on May 17, 1820 in the family of an archpriest, a teacher of the law (teacher of the law of God) and rector of the Moscow Commercial School. He studied at a religious school, then at the 1st Moscow Gymnasium, where, thanks to his success in the sciences (his favorite subjects were history, Russian language and literature), he was listed as the first student. In this capacity, Solovyov was introduced and liked by the trustee of the Moscow educational district, Count S.G. Stroganov, who took him under his protection.

In the autumn of 1838, following the results of the final exams at the gymnasium, Solovyov was enrolled in the first (historical and philological) department of the philosophical faculty of Moscow University.

After graduating from the university, Solovyov, at the suggestion of Count S.G. Stroganov, went abroad as a home teacher for his brother's children. Together with the Stroganov family in 1842-1844 he visited Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, Belgium, where he had the opportunity to listen to lectures by then European celebrities - the philosopher Schelling, the geographer Ritter, the historians Neander and Rank in Berlin, Schlosser in Heidelberg, Lenormand and Michelet in Paris.

The news that Pogodin had resigned hastened Solovyov's return to Moscow. In January 1845, he passed the master's (candidate's) examinations, and in October he defended his master's thesis " On the relationship of Novgorod to the Grand Dukes: a historical study". Solovyov saw the originality of Russian history in the fact that, unlike Western Europe, the transition from tribal life to the state in Russia took place with a delay. Solovyov developed these ideas two years later in his doctoral dissertation " The history of relations between the Russian princes of the Rurik House"(1847).

Having headed the department of Russian history at Moscow University at the age of 27, Solovyov soon set himself an incredibly difficult task - to create a new fundamental work on the history of Russia from ancient times to the 18th century, which would replace the outdated History of the Russian state N.M. Karamzin.

At the beginning of 1851 Solovyov completed the first volume of the generalizing work, which he called " History of Russia since ancient times". Since then, with unparalleled punctuality, the scientist has annually released the next volume. Only the last, 29th volume, Solovyov did not have time to prepare for publication, and it was published in 1879, after his death.

"Russian history... "- the pinnacle of Solovyov's scientific work, from beginning to end the fruit of the author's independent scientific work, who for the first time raised and studied new extensive documentary material. main idea of this work is the idea of ​​the history of Russia as a single, naturally developing progressive process of moving from the tribal system to the "lawful state" and "European civilization". Solovyov assigned a central place in the process of the historical development of Russia to the emergence of political structures, on the basis of which, in his opinion, the state was formed.

In the last years of his life, Solovyov's political and historical views underwent a certain evolution - from moderately liberal to more conservative. The scientist did not approve of much either in the methods of implementing bourgeois reforms, or in the post-reform reality of the 1860s and 1870s, which far from justified his expectations in everything. This evolution is reflected in the latest monographs of the scientist History of the fall of Poland (1863), Progress and Religion(1868), Eastern question 50 years ago(1876),Emperor Alexander the First: Politics--Diplomacy(1877), in public lectures on Peter the Great (1872). In these works Solovyov condemned the Polish uprising of 1863, justified the foreign policy line of Russia and its crowned bearers, and more and more clearly began to advocate an enlightened (non-constitutional) monarchy and imperial greatness.

Russian history, according to Solovyov, opens with the phenomenon that several tribes, not seeing the possibility of getting out of a tribal, special way of life, call on a prince from a foreign clan, call on a single common power that unites the clans into one whole, gives them an outfit, concentrates the forces of the northern tribes, uses these forces to concentrate the remaining tribes of present-day central and southern Russia. Here the main question for the historian is how the relations between the called-up governmental principle and the called-for tribes, as well as those who were subsequently subordinated, were determined; how the life of these tribes changed as a result of the influence of the governmental principle - directly and through another principle - the squad, and how, in turn, the life of the tribes affected the relationship between the government principle and the rest of the population when establishing an internal order or outfit.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Klyuchevsky V.O. Born January 16 (January 28), 1841 in the family of an early deceased village priest. Klyuchevsky's childhood passed in severe poverty. Having overcome his stuttering and learning difficulties, he graduated with honors from the Penza Theological School in 1856 and entered the Theological Seminary. In 1861, Klyuchevsky, not wanting to become a priest, left the seminary and entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, from which he graduated in 1865 with a candidate's degree and was left at the department to prepare for a professorship. Klyuchevsky's first monograph " Legends of foreigners about the Muscovite state"(1866) testified to his great capacity for work and interest in the history of everyday life. Klyuchevsky, on the advice of his teacher S.M. Solovyov took the topic for his master's thesis "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source"(1871), on which he worked for 6 years, having studied about 5 thousand lives, which, according to his opponents, was a scientific feat. Klyuchevsky came to the conclusion that the lives are an unreliable historical source and often do not correspond to the real life of the canonized saint. This work allowed Klyuchevsky to gain rich experience in source studies. In 1867 Klyuchevsky began to teach a course world history at the Alexander Military School. In 1871 he was offered to take a chair at the Moscow Theological Academy, and the next year to begin lecturing at the Higher Women's Courses. Soon Klyuchevsky gained fame as an amazing lecturer, and in 1879, after the death of S.M. Solovyov took his place at Moscow University.

In 1872, Klyuchevsky began a 10-year work on his doctoral dissertation. "Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia"(1881), which is largely important for his lecture courses, where the "Boyar Duma" is considered in connection with the classes and interests that dominated ancient Russian society, "which reflected his understanding of the Russian historical process. Along with a special course "History of estates in Russia"(1887), studies on social topics ("The Origin of Serfdom in Russia", "The Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia", "The Composition of Representation at Zemsky Sobors of Ancient Russia"), the history of culture of the 18th and 19th centuries. and others, Klyuchevsky created the main work of life - "Course of Russian History"(1987-1989. T.I - 5), in which he outlined his the concept of the historical development of Russia. From 1902 until the end of his life, Klyuchevsky prepared it for publication and reprinting, interrupting only in 1905 in connection with his participation in the work of the commission for the revision of laws on the press and the establishment of the State Duma. At the core methodology and historical concept of Klyuchevsky held positivist views. The researcher tried to prove that the development of society depends on a combination of a number of external and internal factors - geographical, ethnographic, political, economic and social. In addition to teaching and research work, in 1887-1889 Klyuchevsky was the dean of the historical and philological faculty and vice-rector. In 1894, he, chairman of the Society for Russian History and Antiquities, had to give a speech "In Memory of the late Emperor Alexander III in Bose", in which a liberal-minded historian praised the late sovereign, for which he was booed by students who did not approve of the conformist behavior of their beloved professor. In 1900, Klyuchevsky was elected a full member of the Academy of Sciences, but this did not change his life. In 1900-1910, he began to give lectures at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where many outstanding artists were his students. F.I. Chaliapin wrote in his memoirs that Klyuchevsky helped him understand the image of Boris Godunov before a benefit performance at the Bolshoi Theater in 1903. Klyuchevsky was convinced that "the human personality, human society and the nature of the country ... are the main historical forces." The life of mankind "in its development and results" is the essence of the historical process. To know this process, Klyuchevsky believed, is possible through the historical personality of the people and the human personality. The meaning of history is in people's self-consciousness. A deep knowledge of historical sources and folklore, mastery of historical portraiture, and aphoristic style made Klyuchevsky one of the most widely read and revered historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky died on May 12 (May 25), 1911 in Moscow. He was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.