To narrow the search results, you can refine the query by specifying the fields to search on. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search across multiple fields at the same time:

logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all the elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the way in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search based on morphology, without morphology, search for a prefix, search for a phrase.
By default, the search is based on morphology.
To search without morphology, it is enough to put the "dollar" sign before the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, put a hash mark " # " before a word or before an expression in brackets.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthesized expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one was found.
Not compatible with no-morphology, prefix, or phrase searches.

# study

grouping

Parentheses are used to group search phrases. This allows you to control the boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word in a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

The search will find words such as "bromine", "rum", "prom", etc.
You can optionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1, or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

The default is 2 edits.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Expression relevance

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the sign " ^ " at the end of an expression, and then indicate the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the given expression.
For example, in given expression the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values is a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To specify the interval in which the value of some field should be, you should specify the boundary values ​​in brackets, separated by the operator TO.
A lexicographic sort will be performed.

Such a query will return results with the author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in an interval, use square brackets. Use curly braces to escape a value.

Historian. Born in one of the villages of the Saratov province. My father was a teacher at the Ivanovo two-year school. Mother, as the daughter of a priest, belonged to the hereditary honorary citizens of the Saratov province.

The fate of this underestimated scientist, like a drop of water, reflected many great and tragic features of the post-revolutionary history of Russia in general and the history of historical science in particular.

At first glance, L.'s life was not full of bright events. However, the era in which he lived and worked was so dramatic and even tragic that purely scientific disputes and polemics developed into a life-and-death struggle. This "scientific" controversy drove people to the grave sooner than any other disease. The life of Professor L. fully confirms this judgment. It reflected all the vicissitudes of the struggle between two historical divisions (but, we emphasize, not between two worldviews). L. was drawn into the maelstrom of this struggle against his will. He is more of a victim than an active participant in events, part of which was not only the process of exposing the historians of the old school (Platonov, Lyubavsky, Gautier, Tarle, etc.) as monarchist conspirators, but also the notorious defeat of the "anti-historical" concepts of M. N. Pokrovsky, which occurred after the death of L.

L. belonged to the Raznochinsk intelligentsia, he was one of those who were called "priests". His grandfather and father, like many other Russian intellectuals, were priests. The future historian, studying at the theological seminary, took part in the revolution of 1905-1907. Back in 1904, he became a member of one of the many revolutionary circles in Saratov. He was one of the strikers at the seminary. For this, he was expelled from there with a "wolf ticket", that is, without the right to enter a higher educational institution. The revolution, however, did not end with Stolypin's reaction alone, but significantly democratized Russian society. Therefore, L. still got the opportunity to enter in 1906 at St. Petersburg University at the Faculty of History and Philology. L. conducted his scientific work under the guidance of S. F. Platonov. In 1911, he graduated from the university and was left at the department of "Russian history" to prepare for professorial and teaching activities. In the same year (October 4) L. was elected a full member of the Saratov Provincial Scientific Archival Commission (SUAK). He completed his master's thesis in 1915.
After graduation, L. taught in two secondary educational institutions: the female gymnasium of Prince Obolensky and in the Pokrovskaya gymnasium. Teaching in them continued during 1915-1917. Dissertation L. "Essay on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia in 1611 - 1613." was published as a monograph in 1917.

Then L. received a professorship at Tomsk University. During the Civil War, by order of the Provisional Siberian Government. L., together with E.V. Dil, was engaged in the inspection and disassembly of local archives to determine their safety. First of all, the archives of the former gendarme department, the office of the governor and the provincial government were examined. In Tomsk, L. headed the Institute for the Study of Siberia.
In 1920, with the permission of the People's Commissariat of Education, signed by M. N. Pokrovsky, he received a position at the Department of Russian History at Saratov University. He soon headed this department, since the People's Commissariat for Education (read Pokrovsky) considered L. a fairly suitable figure.

In Saratov, he published a number of works on the history of the Time of Troubles.
L. turned to the study of socio-economic processes and social thought in Russia in the XVIII century. It was a reaction to the new demands made by the People's Commissariat for Education.
Mid 20s. was a period of relatively peaceful coexistence between historians of the old school and the new "red professors", students of M. N. Pokrovsky. However, the thunderclouds of the ideological struggle have already begun to thicken.

IN national historiography In recent years, quite a lot of attention has been paid to the so-called "case of Academician S. F. Platonov." Much less attention was paid to the ideological and methodological aspects of the dispute between the two schools of Russian historical science. , who belonged to the old school, of course, were not in the mood for a merciless struggle, like Pokrovsky and his students. Back in 1930, the same L. proposed to his future "chief detractor" G. E. Meyerson to hold a general meeting in memory of the anniversary of the 1905 revolution.

It can be assumed that Pokrovsky and his supporters hated people like L., not only because of the alleged difference in methodology. She just didn't exist. Trotsky and Milyukov convincingly showed that Pokrovsky was not a Marxist, that he was simply trying to pass himself off as one, branding his former university classmates and their students. Pokrovsky remained only a supporter of the theory of economic materialism. Many of his opponents and victims held similar views.

But the main thing that distinguished the historians of the two schools was the balanced, calm approach to historical events and facts by historians like L. and the opportunistic-politicized labeling of historical facts, phenomena, and individual historical figures by Pokrovsky and his students.

L. was primarily a historian and researcher. In his works, as in the works of many other non-Marxist historians of the 1920s, inductive and deductive research approaches were organically and harmoniously combined, which Pokrovsky lacked. Methodologically, as a historian, he was weaker than L. As an indisputably talented and erudite person, Pokrovsky compensated for his methodological flaws with intuition and brilliance of form. But his followers, who took from their teacher only critical and accusatory pathos, turned conceptual generalizations into bare schemes without concrete historical content. History ceased to be a description of the life process of people of the past, but turned into a set of sentences.

Stigmatizing L. as a "non-Marxist", a student of Pokrovsky, professor at Saratov University, Meyerson could afford to hang any labels on him. In the university newspaper "For the Proletarian Cadres", under the heading "Let's Defeat the Agents of the Class Enemy on the Ideological Front," an article by G. E. Meyerson was published entitled: "The Monarchist under the Mask of Loyalty," dedicated to L. In it, from the standpoint of vulgar Marxism, he "understood" him scientific creativity in order to show that the methodological principles on which L.'s works were based are alien to Pokrovsky's Marxism, it was argued that L. was a hidden monarchist, that is, a participant in Platonov's "conspiracy".

Having failed to put L. in prison as a participant in the monarchist conspiracy, the followers of Pokrovsky nevertheless deprived him of the opportunity to fully engage in scientific and teaching activities. He had to leave Saratov University. Then L. leaves Saratov forever. In Moscow, he worked as an ordinary employee of the State Historical Museum, where he was led by no less noisy students of the same Pokrovsky. His consultations as a specialist of the widest profile were resorted to various people, including V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, academician S. G. Strumilin and many members of the society of political prisoners. But L. himself, of course, could not but feel his lack of demand.

After L.'s death, a certain group of people formed around the archive of the professor, who set themselves the goal of publishing the maximum number of manuscripts of the deceased. This tightly knit team included: the widow Lyubomirova Ekaterina Fedorovna, N. L. Rubinshtein, E. N. Kusheva, E. P. Podyapolskaya, S. N. Chernov. S. G. Strumilin and V. D. Bonch-Bruevich provided friendly assistance and support to this team. Posthumous publication of the works of L. went during 1936-1941. During this time, two books and six articles were published. Three of them were included in the book about the Nizhny Novgorod militia as an appendix, two - about Radishchev and about the initial moments in the history of the cotton industry in Russia - were included in the "Historical Collection". In addition, L.'s collection "Articles on the history of Russia in the 17th-18th centuries" was submitted for publication, which included 17 titles. The total amount of works published in these years L. amounted to 81 pp.

The outbreak of war suspended work on the printing of L.'s works. But already in 1945, the article "The role of state, noble and merchant capital in the construction of large-scale industry in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries" was published in "Historical Notes" No. 16 already in 1945. from a lost collection. In 1947, L.'s collection "Essays on the History of Russian Industry" was published.

Pavel Grigoryevich Lyubomirov was born in 1885 in the village of Kulikovka, Volsky district, Saratov province, in the family of a priest.

In 1904, Paul was expelled from the seminary for conducting revolutionary propaganda and participating in a strike. Only the revolution of 1905 allowed Lyubomirov to enter St. Petersburg University. It can be said that the revolution made a learned historian out of the ex-seminarian. One of Lyubomirov's teachers was the outstanding Russian historian Professor S.F. Platonov. Under his leadership and influence, Lyubomirov began work on one of the plots of the history of Russia during the Time of Troubles - the Nizhny Novgorod militia of 1611-1613.

Later, the facts of Lyubomirov's biography, his scientific activity under the pen of "scientists" interested in depriving the Russian people of their history, turned into accusatory evidence of his "monarchism", "seeking God", etc. The adherents of pseudo-Marxism and barracks socialism will later recall a lot to him: the fact that the work on the master's thesis on the above topic coincided with the celebration of the tercentenary of the accession of the Romanov dynasty, and the book went out of print on the eve of October... In the biography of Lyubomirov, the watchful eye of scammers from science finds many "evidence". What, for example, did he do while in Tomsk in 1918-1920? Try to explain to dogmatists with a party card in their pocket that when he left for Tomsk, he could not foresee the beginning of the civil war and that he would find himself in the position of an “internal” emigrant. By the way, during his stay on the territory occupied by Kolchak's troops, Lyubomirov continued to study the history of Siberia. In Tomsk, the Provisional Siberian Government allowed Lyubomirov to inspect the archives to determine their safety. First of all, it was supposed to inspect the archives of the former gendarme department, the office of the governor and the provincial government.

Lyubomirov continues his work in the archives of Tomsk under Soviet rule. For some time he served as the head of the archive department of Tomsk. To get acquainted with the organization of the archives, Lyubomirov was sent to Moscow, Petrograd and Saratov for three months, from May 15 to August 15, 1920. At the same time, he was instructed to begin a search in these archives for materials related to the study of Siberia. In Tomsk, the Society of Ethnography, History and Archeology did not stop its activities, of which Lyubomirov was an active member.

Reflecting on the plots of the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia, Lyubomirov could not help but come to the conclusion that one of the facts that determined the resilience of the Russian people in the face of severe trials was patriotism, a feeling of love for the Motherland, for the Motherland big and small, for the place where he was born and raised .

In 1920, Lyubomirov became a professor of Russian history at the Saratov State University.

Even before the Great October Revolution, he was accepted as a member of the Saratov Scientific Archival Commission. Upon arrival in Saratov, he actively joined the activities of the commission's successors: the Nizhnevolzhsky Institute of Local Lore named after M. Gorky and the Saratov Society for the History of Archeology and Ethnography. December 21, 1921 Lyubomirov speaks at a meeting of the commission with a report “The development of the eastern trade of Russia in the second half of the 16th century and the foundation of the Lower Volga cities” .

It is generally accepted that after the revolution, economic history becomes the sphere of Lubomirov's primary interests. This is not entirely true, although it was in the mid-twenties that he intensively studied archival materials and other sources on the economic geography of Russia. “... I was attracted by the opportunity to try to give, so to speak, the economic geography of Russia at certain points in the 18th century, highlighting the characteristics of individual economic regions. Such, in my opinion, are the beginning and end of the reign of Catherine II. From the 1760s until the beginning of the Catherine’s wars, it is possible to sum up in a general picture the results of the peaceful, in general, period of life in Russia within the boundaries of the same territory, for 30-35 years after the Petrine reforms, and at the same time find out the basis of the great power policy of the times Catherine II. The characterization of Russia in 1790 would allow, in comparison with the data of 1760, to outline some evolution economic life for 30-35 years of a new period, energetic foreign policy and significant domestic reforms”.

Lyubomirov set an extremely difficult task for one person: it is not easy to trace the development of the economy of the entire huge Russia, but also to connect this development with political events not only within the country, but outside it. The above quotation is taken from Lyubomirov's report on his four-month business trip to Leningrad to work in the archives. It would seem that the task of tracing economic development alone over the course of a whole century is extremely difficult. But Lyubomirov believes that the materials available in the archives make it possible to characterize the socio-economic development of Russia before 1917. A truly titanic, but extremely interesting task!

However, this is not enough for Lyubomirov. During his business trip, he was also engaged in the study of some journalistic works from the time of Sofya Alekseevna, whose years of rule had long occupied him. He studies data on the cargo turnover of the Volga piers, including the Lower Volga region during the development of steamship traffic. Such a breadth and abundance of the scientist's interests, obviously, finds one explanation: he, like his contemporaries and students, sought not only to give a description of the event, but also to get to the bottom of its causes, to understand and explain history in the interconnection of facts and phenomena. So, not being a Marxist by upbringing and education, Lyubomirov, and many other historians of the so-called bourgeois school, spontaneously came to Marxism, fulfilled its requirements: historicism, establishing connections between facts and phenomena. And the fundamental and versatile source study training and general culture allowed historians like Lyubomirov to often give very correct assessments of events and phenomena.

Recognizing the basic role of the economy in the life of society, Lyubomirov understood the enormous role of spiritual factors. He collects materials and writes a book about the Old Believers. In Yaksanov's publishing house, in 1924 he published a book “Vyhovskoye Hostel (Old Believers of the Pomeranian Accord)” . He is going to write a book about the Old Believers of the Saratov province. Why is he interested in this topic? In the life of the Old Believers, Lyubomirov saw examples of the spirituality that creates a personality. At the same time, in the communities of the Old Believers, he found examples of the organization of a collectivist hostel. Later, Lyubomirov’s accusations of satisfying the social order of the counter-revolution and of “Ustryalovism” will be based on the fact that he "he considered the spiritual possibilities of the Russian people from the point of view of the achievements of the Old Believers". Lyubomirov really calls to admire the spiritual stamina of the Old Believers, but does not at all idealize their way of life. Materials written out by him from the documents of the expedition of A.I. Artemiev, devoted in many respects to the study of the Old Believers of the Saratov province, testify to the desire of Lyubomirov to comprehensively cover this issue. But the very interest in the forms of ideology independent of the state, in the Old Believers as in the attempts of the people themselves to organize their lives according to the customs of antiquity at a time when a rigid administrative system of leadership of the people was taking shape, was an indicator of Lyubomirov's courage. Such courage could not but cause discontent on the part of the zealots of the Marxist-Leninist dogmatic "orthodoxy".

All this will be remembered by Lyubomirov later. Now, in 1924, the work devoted to the Old Believers can be considered almost opportunistic. In the same year, the XIII Party Congress was held, which examines the attitude towards sectarians in sufficient detail. Indeed, all representatives of non-orthodox Orthodoxy were persecuted in pre-revolutionary times, that is, they acted as if they were fighters against the autocracy. It was later that posters appeared “Sectarian - kulak parsley”, etc. For the time being, the slogans “Facing the village” and “Get rich” are still in force. And among the Old Believers-peasants there were many strong masters, who at the end of the twenties were enrolled in kulaks.

But, of course, Lubomirov was not motivated by opportunistic considerations when he wrote his book. Most likely, his interest in the Old Believers is akin to the interest of an ethnographer who studies the life of peoples who have preserved elements of ancient culture and customs of antiquity; this is an opportunity to get in touch with the remnants of the mores and customs of pre-Petrine Russia.

Like most major scientists, Lyubomirov had a circle of students, followers who continued the research he had begun or opened up their own horizons and layers of Russian history. Among his students are such famous historians as E.N. Kusheva and E. Podyapolskaya. Many of the graduates pedagogical department Saratov University, dispersed to different places Saratov region, write letters to Lyubomirov, talk about their difficult life as a teacher. And in such conditions, when not only textbooks are lacking, but often even bread, Lyubomirov's students are trying to conduct scientific and local history work.

On April 9, 1929, Lyubomirov was elected a full member of the archeographic commission of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The chairman of this commission for many years was Professor S.F. Platonov. And in November of the same year, the so-called “case” of Academician Platonov began to unfold. Many Russian historians and linguists were involved in the whirlpool of this "affair". In total, 115 people were involved in the Platonov-Bogoslovsky case. At the end of 1930, ideological and, so to speak, methodological accusations joined the political accusations. Here, under the fire of the latter, a student and, to some extent, a follower of S.F. Platonova P.G. Lubomirov. The beginning of the ideological substantiation of the accusations against a group of prominent historians of the "bourgeois" school was laid. October 10, 1930 at a joint meeting of the section of industrial capitalism of the Institute of History of the Communist Academy and the Society of Marxist Historians, where with a report “Great Russian bourgeois historiography of the last decade” S.A. spoke Piontkovsky, who sharply criticized the works of S.V. Bakhrushina, R.Yu. Vipper, Yu.V. Gotye, A.A. Kizevetter, S.F. Platonov, M.K. Lyubavsky, P.G. Lyubomirov and some other historians. They were all accused of protecting the interests of the owners. Piontkovsky called the work of scientists "the last convulsions of a dead man." “Our task he declared, is to help them die as soon as possible, to die without a trace and a trace”.

After such a "setting" speech, pogroms of historians of the old school swept through the country's universities. They did not pass Saratov University either. The struggle for "new" cadres resulted in the destruction of the old professors. On April 7, 1931, in the university newspaper “For Proletarian Cadres”, above the general heading “Let's Defeat the Agents of the Class Enemy”, an article by G. Meyerson “A Monarchist under the Mask of Loyalty” was placed, dedicated to the scientific, teaching and social activities of P.G. Lubomirov. In this article, written in a cheeky, mocking manner, Meyerson tries to label Lyubomirov as a “monarchist” and “agent of the priests.” Remembering the works of Lyubomirov of the pre-revolutionary period, those same “Essays on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia” , which became Lyubomirov's master's thesis, Meerson argues: even after the revolution, Lyubomirov did not abandon his monarchical convictions ... “The facts show that neither the February nor the October revolutions taught the professor anything, he remains in his former positions, in the positions of the“ Nizhny Novgorod feat. Professor Lyubomirov himself at the beginning of 1921 was an admirer of the counter-revolutionary feat of Pozharsky”. This is how the zealot of the "purity" of the class approach mocks the venerable professor, while at the same time mocking the glorious pages of the history of the Russian people.

A special article of accusations of Lyubomirov in monarchism was the activity of the latter in the Saratov Scientific Archival Commission. Under the tsarist regime, writes Meerson, this commission was a nest of monarchists, was closely connected with the landowners of the Saratov province and was under the august patronage of the Grand Dukes, enjoyed the favor of the Sovereign himself. The monarchism of the commission in 1917 allegedly manifested itself in the fact that it sent the chairman of the Historical Society, which was liquidated at that time, Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, the former chairman of the society, a photograph of the members of the commission.

For Meyerson, the aforementioned book about the Old Believers served as the basis for the accusation of Lubomirov of propagandizing religion. “The text of this book does not give grounds to think about the spiritual point of view of its author, but at the same time it says quite unambiguously that this book is a work on a certain social order, on the order of those for whom the propaganda of the ideas of the Old Believers has taken on political significance”.

Lyubomirov had to justify himself before a meeting of students and teachers, humiliate himself, proving that he did not deny Marxism and used the works of M.N. Pokrovsky. But in vain! The same Meyerson writes: “Recent statements by Prof. Lyubomirov that he is resolutely rebuilding, have no price. Moreover, these statements are limited only to questions of methodology. Too late, Professor Lyubomirov, you are rebuilding. Reorganize yourself in freedom, outside the walls of the proletarian university. We will train new cadres for socialist construction better without you than with you.”.

Organizing conclusions followed quickly. In May 1931, Lyubomirov was removed from the head of the department, and in July of the same year - from teaching at the university. The search and arrest of Lyubomirov on November 2, 1931 was a natural conclusion to the campaign of harassment and “exposure”.

His friends, comrades in revolutionary work, stood up for Lyubomirov. Sometimes such intercession brought a positive result. G.I. intercedes for Lyubomirov. Oppokov (Lomov), himself subsequently repressed: “I personally worked with Lyubomirov in the revolutionary circles of the city of Saratov, starting in 1902. Not being a consistent Marxist before the revolution of 1917, he was always a revolutionary, helped in the work ... He is undoubtedly a great scientist, studying mainly economy of Russia in the 18th century. I understand the motives for removing him from the pulpit as a non-Marxist, but you can’t accuse a person of monarchism and priesthood and other things”.

Evidently these true opinions had their effect. Pavel Grigoryevich was released, but he could no longer work at Saratov University. Lyubomirov leaves Saratov forever: he moves to Moscow, where he works at the State Historical Museum almost until his death in 1935.

Materials used: - Kurenyshev A. "Exposure" of Professor Lyubomirov. - Years and people. Issue 7. - Saratov: Regional Volga publishing house "Children's Book", 1992.

Libmonster ID: RU-10524

The need to study and comprehensively assess the scientific legacy of P. G. Lyubomirov is currently acquiring relevant importance.

P. G. Lyubomirov wrote a large number of historical works, mainly from the history of economic development and the development of social thought in the 18th century. These works contain a lot of valuable factual information, statistical data; they give a detailed description of economic regions, branches of industry and individual manufactories. The works of P. G. Lyubomirov have become widely used in scientific circulation: not a single researcher who studies the history of the industry of serf Russia can pass by them.

But the use of the useful contribution that Lyubomirov made to Soviet historical science is possible only in the light of a consistent and principled Marxist-Leninist criticism of those methodological principles and techniques that underlie his works. The absolutely urgent need for a comprehensive critical assessment of the historical legacy of Lyubomirov is also emphasized by the fact that some Soviet historians idealize Lyubomirov and incorrectly determine the place he occupies in Russian historiography. Some historians try to present Lyubomirov as a Marxist and recommend his scientific works without harsh criticism. The desire to attribute Marxist-Leninist views to those who did not have them, or to exaggerate the proximity to Marxism of scientists who were at a considerable distance from it, is no different from an attempt to distort Marxism. And such an attempt cannot but evoke the sharpest rebuff.

P. G. Lyubomirov belonged to a generation of historians who began their scientific and pedagogical activity at a pre-revolutionary university and completed it under Soviet rule. In 1910, Lyubomirov graduated from the Faculty of History of St. Petersburg University, where he defended his master's thesis and in 1915, having received the title of Privatdozent in the Department of Russian History, he began teaching.

Lubomirov owes his in-depth historical education, knowledge of sources, archives and archiving, familiarity with auxiliary historical disciplines to St. Petersburg University. But at the same time, the historical departments of St. Petersburg University also influenced the formation of the scientific views of P. G. Lyubomirov.

At the beginning of the XX century. The historical and philological faculty of St. Petersburg University, which was under the "" mediocre supervision of the tsarist government, was the center of a completely "well-intentioned" official science. Historical departments were headed by prominent bourgeois scientists who stood on the positions of idealism. The largest historians, who also headed the St. Petersburg University Historical Society, were A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, S. F. Platonov and N. I. Kareev, who were distinguished by their extreme conservative views and a hostile attitude towards Marxism.

The formation of P. G. Lyubomirov as a historian was especially influenced by S. F. Platonov, A. E. Presnyakov, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. Therefore, he seems to have taken a particular interest in History XVII-XVIII centuries. In the preface to his first monograph on the Nizhny Novgorod militia, Lyubomirov calls Platonov his university teacher and expresses his gratitude to him. "In his seminary," Lubomirov writes, "I developed an interest in this topic" 2 .

Along with the direct influence of university teachers on the formation of Lyubomirov's scientific views, he was undoubtedly influenced by the general ideological situation that developed in the country at that time.

The beginning of the 20th century, marked by the wide spread of Marxism, the enormous creative and organizing activity of Lenin and Stalin, both in the field of theory and in the management of the mass revolutionary movement, was characterized at the same time by the activation of bourgeois ideological currents. A wave of anti-Marxist, conservative and essentially anti-scientific theories surged with particular force after the 1905 revolution. The era of reaction contributed to attempts to revive idealism in the most diverse branches of scientific knowledge.

1 See Questions of History, No. 12, 1948, p. 7.

2 Lyubomirov P. Essay on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia, p. X, Pto. 1917.

In historical science, one of the weapons of struggle against Marxism was neo-Kantianism and its newest variety, Rickert's philosophy. Contrasting natural sciences historical, Rickert, as you know, argued that in the latter only private, individual phenomena and non-repeatable events dominate, having no common features and not amenable to generalizations. Hence Rickert's well-known indication that the individualizing method dominates in historical science, in contrast to the generalizing method, with the help of which the natural sciences are studied.

The task of historical science, according to Rickert, is reduced only "to the study of individual disparate events and facts. The anti-scientific denial of the principle of causality and objective regularity in public life was carried by Rickert to such an extreme that was not in any of the previous idealistic currents.

However, for all the theoretical helplessness of this philosophy, its inability to give any convincing answers to the arguments of Marxist criticism, Rickertism turned out to be quite acceptable and timely for the most reactionary wing of Russian bourgeois historical science in the era of imperialism.

The influence of Rickertianism was reflected not so much in the popularization of the theoretical foundations of this trend as in their practical application by bourgeois researchers 4 . Rickert's teaching freed bourgeois scholars from the necessity of drawing conclusions and fundamental generalizations and substantiated the superficial descriptiveness that was common in bourgeois historical science in the period of imperialism.

The interpretation of the tasks of historical research in the spirit of limited fact-gathering, the evaluation of a historical event as a mechanical combination of separate, disparate, random facts, not only testified to the methodological helplessness of bourgeois science, but also served as a tool in the fight against the materialist understanding of history.

This dogma of apologetic bourgeois science was most frankly and sharply formulated later, already in 1925, by Acad. Bogoslovsky, who in the preface to his work on Peter I wrote: “In order to clearly know any mechanism, it is necessary to disassemble it into its constituent parts and study each of these parts. To know a historical event accurately, one should decompose it into simple facts, from which it was compiled, and to study these facts clearly. I was mainly occupied with the decomposition of a complex fact into its simplest components and a clear representation of the latter "5.

M. Bogoslovsky did not confine himself to such a description of his scientific credo. In this preface, he directly emphasizes his dismissive attitude towards generalizations and conclusions. “The wider the generalization,” noted Bogoslovsky, “the easier it is to build it. But there is nothing more difficult than to convey a simple historical fact quite precisely, i.e., quite exactly as it happened in reality, in fact" 6 .

Superficial descriptiveness, inability to make fundamental conclusions and generalizations, inherent in the bourgeois social sciences, had a great influence on Lyubomirov and determined the content of his work and the peculiarity of research methods 7 .

The early works of Lyubomirov quite clearly reflect the deep crisis that bourgeois historical science was going through at the beginning of the 20th century, which refused to recognize the laws of social life and thereby deprived history of any scientific basis.

Extreme idealism was the defining basis of Lyubomirov's research activities, which experienced numerous influences from various currents of bourgeois historiography. On all his early works lies the stamp of the traditions and dogmas of the state school, which he received through his teacher Platonov. To a certain extent, these works also reveal the influence of Klyuchevsky's bourgeois sociologism. This influence was especially intensified in the 1920s: in search of new, progressive ways of his scientific creativity, Lyubomirov borrowed, first of all, from the arsenal of the bourgeois sociological school,

3 See Rickert G. Philosophy of history, pp. 25 - 29. St. Petersburg. 1908.

4 Theoretical basis Rickertianism was presented in a somewhat modified form in the course "Methodology of History" by Lappo-Danilevsky. The notorious opposition of the idiographic sciences to the nomothetic sciences, which underlay this course, followed entirely from the teachings of Rickert.

5 Theological M, Peter I. T. I. pp. 10 - 11. M. 1940.

7 It is extremely characteristic that in the field of political economy the struggle of bourgeois apologists against the successful dissemination of Marxist-Leninist theory also led to the rejection of the explanation of social phenomena and to the limitation of the tasks of science to mere description. The tendency of the so-called "historical" school of political economy, which had a reactionary, anti-socialist character, to replace theoretical analysis with the accumulation of raw concrete material was intended to divert attention from those sharp political conclusions that inevitably arose in the theoretical analysis of the capitalist economy. P. G. Lyubomirov was well acquainted with and widely used the works of the most prominent Russian representative of the “historical” school of political economy, I. M. Kulisher, which were the most striking example of limited fact-gathering.

interest in economic topics and special emphasis on the role of the natural geographical factor.

The scientific and pedagogical activity of P. G. Lyubomirov falls into two periods: before the October Socialist Revolution and the post-revolutionary period.

In the early period of his activity, Lyubomirov wrote several articles on individual representatives of the Russian church, and a large monograph on the Nizhny Novgorod militia of the early 17th century. These works depict Lubomirov as a typical representative of the extreme idealistic trend in history and reflect the conservatism of his scientific and socio-political views. They do not even attempt to approach the wide social problems historical past. All Lyubomirov's attention is riveted to individual, often secondary, episodes of Russian history of the 17th century, connected with the activities of representatives of the reigning dynasty or church, to small details and biographical details.

In the article "The Legend of the Elder David Khvostov" 8 Lyubomirov carefully examines the issue of the stay of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich in the Makaryevsky Monastery and the personality of the founder of this monastery, David Khvostov. Lubomirov, with his usual thoroughness, explores the question of who David Khvostov was and what role he played to save the young Romanov on the eve of his election as king.

Even more backward and conservative are Lyubomirov's early publications on the history of the Old Believers 9 . They contain detailed characteristics of the figures of the Old Believers. With great care, Lyubomirov analyzes the question of various, completely unimportant details of the life of these "figures." He argues with the historians of the Old Believers on the issue of ... the date of foundation of the Preobrazhensky cemetery (?). In general, in these publications, Lyubomirov appears to us as a historian of the Old Believer religion in the narrow sense of the word. No wonder they were published in the priest's magazine "Old Believer Thought".

And the later works of Lyubomirov on the Old Believers, written already in Soviet time, in their focus is not much different from his earlier articles. They do not give a socio-economic description of the conditions in which a split arose in the Russian Church, they do not reveal the class roots of the Old Believers, but are aimed at a detailed study of various groups of the Old Believer religion, the study of the biographies of numerous "figures" of this movement, etc. A particularly unfavorable impression, from this point of view, the work "Vygovskoe dormitory" (Moscow, Saratov. 1924) produces. The fact that this work was written in a narrow historical and religious plan is evidenced by the entire content of the book, its priestly-preaching style, the author's admiration for various "elders" and "lords". With a zeal worthy of a better application, Lyubomirov describes in it all the details of the religious life of the monks, cites examples of various "messages" and "teachings", etc. He describes the celibacy regime in the Vygovsky monastery in an exceptionally naturalistic way, for example. This, so to speak, "problem" the author devotes a number of pages of his book. The entire exposition is conducted not only without the slightest attempt at a scientific assessment of the history of the Old Believers, but even with some kind of religious admiration for it. Musty ecclesiastical emanates from this work by Lubomirov. It is hard to believe that it was written by a historian in Soviet times.

Therefore, NL Rubinshtein's assertion that PG Lyubomirov's works on the history of the schism reflect his interest in social topics is completely unfounded. Nothing to do with scientific research these works do not have the life and struggle of the masses of the people. Although in articles about the split and the Old Believers, placed in the encyclopedic dictionary Garnet 11. Lyubomirov is trying to note the general historical situation and establish the internal causes that gave rise to the split and the Old Believers, yet they are extremely far from a correct, scientific assessment of these phenomena.

Extreme conservatism, complete disregard for the role of the masses in history - these are the characteristic features historical views Lubomirov during this period.

The first major historical work of Lyubomirov, which completed the pre-revolutionary stage of his scientific activity, is "Essay on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia in 1611 - 1613." 12 . This monograph clearly reflects Lyubomirov's main scientific principles and features of his research methods. The "Essay on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia" contains rich documentary material. Its author showed a thorough acquaintance with the previous literature on the subject. From this point of view, the monograph has not lost its significance to date. But the main focus of this work and all of its content testify that Lyubomirov, in his assessment of Russian history at the beginning of the 17th century. he did not go far from Platonov and his other bourgeois-noble predecessors.

8 "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education". New series, XXXVI, December 1911.

9 "Old Believer Thought" N 1 for 1912, article "The New Historian of the Old Believers", and N 9 for 1912, "New Materials on the History of the Old Believers".

10 See Rubinshtein N. Russian historiography, p. 508. M. 1941.

11 encyclopedic Dictionary Pomegranate. Vol. 35 and 41. Part 4.

Lyubomirov begins your research on economic and geographical characteristics Nizhny Novgorod, where the militia was organized for the first time. In the first chapter, dwelling on the question of the composition of the Nizhny Novgorod population, the author considers this problem in its entirety from the official "state" point of view. He is interested in what categories of the population were the stronghold of the state "order" and could support the "legitimate" government, and which, on the contrary, were a source of "turmoil" and "unrest". The movement of the popular masses against their oppressors, the struggle of the peasants against the boyars and landowners, Lubomirov calls "social turmoil" in contrast to the "distemper" proper, which consisted in the struggle of various contenders for the throne of Moscow 13 .

In full accordance with the views of his teacher", Platonov, Lyubomirov believed that the struggle of the peasantry against feudal oppression led to the destruction of the state order and was deeply hostile to the interests of social development. "As it is quite natural for the era of the collapse of the state," Lyubomirov wrote, "local and even purely selfish interests of individual groups and individuals, more understandable to the population, came to the fore, to obvious damage to the state as a whole" 14. Noting that the peasants seized plots of land, mowing, entire villages, Lyubomirov calls this robbery and robbery.In general, he is far from recognizing the very fact of the existence of social classes: he often speaks of the relationship between "authority" and "population", considering the state as a superclass force.

At the same time, Lyubomirov in his "Outline of the History of the Nizhny Novgorod Militia" also reflected other influences, apparently coming from the bourgeois sociological school. Focusing on the history of the emergence of the Nizhny Novgorod militia, P. G. Lyubomirov notes that various sections of the Russian population took part in its organization. In the work of Lyubomirov, it is emphasized that appeals for the creation of a militia were written on behalf of the entire Nizhny Novgorod world: "from the authorities (clerical rank), governors and clerks, various ranks of service people, from elders, kissers and all townspeople!" 16 . The leading force in the organization of the militia was, in the opinion of Lyubomirov, the townspeople, who raised other sections of the Nizhny Novgorod population 17 . The same idea is carried out in a number of other places in the book under consideration.

In his monograph, Lyubomirov traces step by step how the Nizhny Novgorod militia grew and took on an all-Russian character. In chapter VII, he notes that during the four-month stay of the militia in Yaroslavl, the population of many cities joined it and it concentrated around itself about half the people of the Russian lands 18.

Thus, Lyubomirov, and this is his merit, showed and emphasized the mass nature of the movement raised by the Nizhny Novgorod people for the liberation of Russian land from foreign invaders.

However, one should not exaggerate the progressive shift that we observe in this issue with Lyubomirov. One cannot agree with NL Rubinshtein, who saw in this work of Lyubomirov "an essentially different setting of the theme" than in Platonov's 19 . Lyubomirov in his "Essay on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia" combined the recognition of the mass nature of the militia with Platonov's main idea of ​​the turmoil as a period of violation and restoration of the state order, the bearer of which was autocratic power. The decisive force of the historical process for. Lubomirov was the tsarist monarchy, not the people. Describing the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor, at which Mikhail was elected, he pointed out: "The land, which had suffered without a sovereign, was in a hurry to fulfill the requests of governor-rulers, and in December people's deputies began to come to Moscow to elect a tsar" 20 .

Many years later, Lyubomirov recognized the conservatism of those initial methodological positions that he had taken as the basis for his study of the Nizhny Novgorod militia. In one of his lectures given in 1934, he noted that this work "was written from the point of view of those historiographical aspirations that

13 See P. Lyubomirov, Outline of the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia, p. early XVII c, as an anarchist, robbery principle, which was opposed by autocratic power, the bearer of state order and public peace.

14 Lubomirov P. Decree. cit., p. 109.

15 The most general formula for such an assessment of the state was given during these years by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky in a report read at the international historical congress in London. "In essence, - said Lappo-Danilevsky, - the idea of ​​the state is distinguished by a normative character: it contains the concept of the relationship that should be between the sovereign and subjects, and not just the concept of the coercive power that the state has over private individuals" ("Idea of the state and the main moments of its development in Russia from the time of turmoil to the era of transformation", an article by Lappo-Danilevsky in the journal "Voice of the Past" N 12 for 1914, p. 5). It is impossible not to notice the direct connection between this formula and the original setting about state power, which was the basis of Lyubomirov's monograph.

16 Lubomirov P. Decree. cit., p. 38.

17 Ibid., p. 51.

18 Ibid., p. 105.

19 Rubinstein N. Decree. cit., p. 507.

20 Lubomirov P. Decree. cit., p. 173.

were at that time" 21. At the same time, Lyubomirov noted his disagreement (with the historical views that he had developed in his younger years, and pointed out that the analysis public relations, which is contained in the "Essay on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia", is the weakest point of the book.

The greatest development of Lyubomirov's research work belongs to the second period of his activity - after 1917. The Great October Socialist Revolution made a revolution in the minds of the Russian intelligentsia, a significant and better part of which irrevocably sided with the Soviet government. But the process of theoretical re-equipment of the old scientific cadres, even those who subjectively understood the need to master advanced, Marxist-Leninist methodology, was complex and lengthy.

Along with the steady growth and successful dissemination of Marxist-Leninist ideas, along with the exposure and defeat of hostile anti-Marxist trends in the social sciences, the first years of Soviet power were marked by incessant attacks by bourgeois economists and historians who tried to ideologically substantiate the program of capitalist restoration. The most reactionary part of the bourgeois professors continued to uphold their old positions, waging a struggle against Marxism. Milyukov, Kizevetter and other representatives of the reactionary bourgeois professors emigrated abroad after the October Socialist Revolution. Some of the bourgeois historians, who did not dare to come out openly against Marxism, tried to cover up the failure of scientific conservatism with the false slogan of "pure", non-partisan science, independent of the class and political struggle. Very characteristic in this respect was the speech of S. F. Platonov at the beginning of 1921, which contained a direct attack on the Soviet regime.

The complex process of a critical reappraisal of the old dogmas of bourgeois science and the theoretical re-equipment of that part of pre-revolutionary historians who subjectively strove to take the Marxist path was also to a certain extent hampered by the fact that relatively few Marxist cadres had not yet taken decisive positions in all scientific institutions and scientific bodies. .

Speaking about the ideological situation of the 1920s, one cannot fail to note the influence of N. A. Rozhkov and M. N. Pokrovsky on historians of scientific activity.

In the historical constructions of Rozhkov, vulgar materialism, which denied dialectics and class struggle, was most fully reflected. Being the most complete representative of "economic materialism", which he borrowed from the legal Marxists of the 90s, Struve and Tugan-Baranovsky, Rozhkov developed this point of view in his numerous pre-revolutionary historical works.

Under the Soviet regime, Rozhkov's scientific and pedagogical activities expanded. His main works, in which the ideas of "economic materialism" are most clearly emphasized; - "City and Village in Russian History" and the multi-volume book "Russian History in Comparative Historical Lighting" - after the October Socialist Revolution were repeatedly reprinted and used in teaching. During this period, Rozhkov published a large number of the most diverse textbooks of Russian and general history for secondary and higher schools, and also wrote a number of research and methodological works 23 .

IN last years During his life, Rozhkov taught history at numerous educational institutions in Leningrad and Moscow, and also supervised the training of graduate students, which contributed to the wide dissemination of his anti-Marxist concept.

The fight against Rozhkov's anti-Marxist conception in the 1920s and early 1930s was carried out to a completely insufficient degree. This was facilitated by the fact that the leading position on the historical front at that time was occupied by MN Pokrovsky, who was a follower of the theory of "economic materialism", from which he did not completely depart until the end of his life.

It is known that Pokrovsky's "school" turned out to be a base and cover for the anti-Marxist and direct sabotage activities of the enemies of the people on the front of historical science. At the same time, the dissemination of the historical views of Pokrovsky and his "school" undoubtedly delayed the process of restructuring that part of the historians of the old formation who honestly and sincerely strove to find new, progressive paths in their scientific work. On the other hand, the domination of this school facilitated the superficial adaptation to Soviet science of those scientists who, in essence, remained in their old positions. Many of the old scholars who stood on the positions of the bourgeois sociological school of Klyuchevsky-Vinogradov, instead of Marxism and under the guise of Marxism, perceived the principles of "economic materialism" in their most primitive, vulgar interpretation. Genuine Marxist rearmament was replaced by a transition to economic topics, research, and sometimes simply a description of individual economic phenomena and processes.

After the October Socialist Revolution, the methodology and scientific views of Rozhkov-Pokrovsky undoubtedly

21 See the preface to the "Essay on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia in 1611-1613", p. 4. Sotsekgiz. 1939.

22 See "Deeds and Days" - Historical Journal N 2 for 1921, p. 133.

23 See the bibliography of Rozhkov's works in the article by K. V. Sivkov. "Scientific Notes" of the RANION Institute of History. T. V. M. 1929.

24 See the two-volume book Against the Historical Concept of MN Pokrovsky. M. 1939, especially the article by A. M. Pankratova.

had a great influence on P. G. Lyubomirov.

In the 1920s, Lyubomirov's scientific and pedagogical activity unfolded within the walls of Saratov University, where from 1920 to 1930 he headed the department of Russian history. During this time, he wrote a number of essays on the economy of individual regions of Russia and the history of Russian social thought in the 18th century. In 1924, Lyubomirov received a long business trip to Leningrad to study archival funds in the Manufactory College and the Manufacture Office. In a report on the results of this trip, Lyubomirov noted that the need to study economic history "is increasingly emphasized by modern aspirations in our historiography" 25 .

Lubomirov's research work of this period reflects a certain step forward in comparison with his pre-revolutionary works. This stage of his scientific activity is characterized by the rejection of his former, conservative views. In the works written in the 1920s, there is no hostile attitude towards mass movements, characteristic of his pre-revolutionary works. In some of his economic essays, P. G. Lyubomirov expresses a number of correct thoughts and considerations. However, the transition to economic topics did not at all mean for Lyubomirov the recognition of Marxism-Leninism, and even more so the mastery of it. Economic essays written in the 1920s are largely descriptive. These works are not united by any common, consistently developed ideas.

In the early 1920s, Lyubomirov published an article entitled "The Lower Volga Region in 150 Years" 26 which presented a detailed historical and geographical description of the Saratov region. A number of other local essays by Lyubomirov related to the history of individual economic regions of the country or industries 27 belong to the same period. These works, written with Lubomirov's characteristic thoroughness, are a useful contribution to the economic history of our country. They contain interesting, carefully verified factual material, highlight some little-known episodes from the industrial history of Russia in the 18th century, and make certain correct and interesting judgments. But the lack of clear initial theoretical positions in Lyubomirov's work could not but affect the value of his historical and economic essays. They turned out to be insufficiently purposeful, devoid of generalizing ideas and fundamental conclusions.

In the work "Weaving industry of Astrakhan" Lyubomirov, based on numerous archival documents and published sources gave a comprehensive picture of the emergence, development and decline of this industry in Astrakhan. He showed that the spread of textile, mainly silk weaving, manufactories was due, on the one hand, to Astrakhan's trade relations with eastern countries, from where raw silk was brought, and on the other hand, to the presence of a wide market demand. The remoteness of Astrakhan from the most important centers of the Russian textile industry contributed to the development of local production. Some of the judgments expressed by Lyubomirov in this article relate to problems of great fundamental importance. He gives interesting data on the sources of recruitment of weaving manufactories with labor. In addition to the serfs, a bunch of civilians were used here, who were entangled in debt bondage and gradually fell into complete dependence on the owners of industrial enterprises. Noteworthy are fragmentary information about the existence of home crafts in Astrakhan and their gradual subordination to the owners of manufactories 28 .

But the value of this essay, saturated with facts and figures, is significantly reduced by the fact that the author's initial theoretical ideas about the economic phenomena and processes discussed in the work are extremely uncertain and chaotic. Only based on the teachings of Marx - Lenin on simple cooperation and manufacture, Lyubomirov could systematize and generalize the large factual material about the Astrakhan manufactories, which is contained in this article.

Lubomirov's economic essays, written in the 1920s, speak of "manufactories", "factories", but the author nowhere gives a clear scientific definition of these concepts. In an essay on the weaving industry of Astrakhan, Lyubomirov notes that the manufactories that arose under Peter were "larger and differently organized than before, forms of industrial enterprises" 29 . In the same article, he tries to establish the difference in the understanding of the terms "manufactory", "factory" in the 18th and 20th centuries. However, he does not proceed from the scientific, established mar-

25 "Scientific notes" of Saratov state university named after N. G. Chernyshevsky. T. III. Issue. III, p. 102. Faculty of Education. Saratov. 1925. The very wording of this statement suggests that "modern aspirations in historiography" were for Lubomirov something distant, superficial and insufficiently conscious.

26 See the magazine "Lower Volga" N 1 for 1924.

27 "The Weaving Industry of Astrakhan in the 18th and First Half of the 19th Centuries" (1925); "The first 10 years of the existence of the Irkutsk state-owned factory, 1793 - 1802." (1925). All works originally published in various journals were included in Essays on the History of Russian Industry (M. 1947).

28 See Lubomirov P. Essays on the history of Russian industry, pp. 638, 641, 648, 649. M. 1947.

29 Ibid., p. 633.

xist theory of definition, but from a vulgar, philistine understanding 30 .

The article "The first 10 years of the existence of the Irkutsk state-owned cloth factory" is a study of a separate episode of the industrial history of our country at the end of the 18th century. It contains data on the organization of production at one of the cloth manufactories of that time, its productivity, on the working and living conditions of workers.

Lyubomirov's article on the silk weaving industry in Russia in the middle of the 18th century is of a broader nature. This article starts with historical background, which provides comprehensive information about the origin and geographical location of silk-weaving manufactories in Russia. The paper gives a description of the silk weaving industry in the middle of the 18th century, describes in detail the number of manufactories, the size and profitability of production, the range and quality of manufactured products, indicates the social composition of the owners of enterprises, etc. The fourth chapter is most interesting, in which the nature of the labor force is clarified. used in manufactories in the middle of the XVIII century. This question is closely connected with a broader discussion problem about the social nature of Russian manufactories in the middle of the 18th century. The factual data collected by Lyubomirov on this issue indicate that by the middle of the 18th century. there were already more than one-third of civilian workers in the silk-weaving manufactories 31 .

In 1930, Lyubomirov moved to Moscow and began scientific and pedagogical work at the Institute of History, Philosophy and Literature, the State Historical Museum and in some other educational institutions and scientific organizations. The last, Moscow, period of PG Lyubomirov's activity, although short-lived 32 , was at the same time the most eventful and fruitful. In the last years of Lyubomirov's life, the implementation of his widely conceived plan for writing the history of Russian industry in the XVIII and first half of XIX century. As conceived by the author, it was to consist of five parts. Lyubomirov managed to write only the first part, devoted to the organizational structure of industrial enterprises, and the first issue of the second part, about the geographical location of the metallurgical and metalworking industries. These essays, representing the most important part of Lyubomirov's scientific heritage, were published in separate editions in 1930 and 1937 33 .

The published sections of the history of industry conceived by Lyubomirov enjoy well-deserved fame. Their main advantage lies in the wealth of collected and comprehensively verified factual material. The essays give a picture of the state of Russian manufactories in individual branches of industrial production, provide a number of valuable information about the technique and organization of production, and give a number of examples characterizing the development of domestic peasant crafts.

In the work "Organizational Structure of Industry" Lyubomirov's initial ideas about manufactory, which is considered here as a large enterprise based on manual technology and division of labor, are significantly refined. This was a significant step forward compared with the interpretation of this issue given by P. G. Lyubomirov in the 1920s. At the same time, until the end of his life, he did not take the position of a Marxist understanding of manufactory 34 .

In his generalizing work, Lyubomirov entirely stood on the positions of primitive economism. The aim of the study was extremely limited. In The Organizational Structure of Industry, Lyubomirov was mainly interested in the question of the degree of prevalence of centralized manufactories.

In defining the tasks of research, P. G. Lyubomirov relied on the previous bourgeois historical literature on the subject. He referred to Tugan-Baranovsky, Kulisher and other bourgeois historians 35 . It is no coincidence that P. T. Lyubomirov does not mention either Marx or Lenin in this study. In his essays, there is no formulation of the main tasks that confronted the historian of Russian manufactory production in the 18th century. The problem of studying the various forms of Russian manufactory, determining its social nature, establishing the process of transition from peasant crafts to manufactory was not put by the author of the Essays in those clear methodological frameworks that could greatly facilitate and at the same time give a purposeful, scientific character to everything that follows. study. This explains the extreme limitations of the author's conclusions. In the final chapter, Lyubomirov noted that "centralized manufactory with a widely carried out division of labor" dominated in most industries. However, citing significant descriptive material about the peasant.

30 See Lubomirov P. Essays on the history of Russian industry, pp. 636, 637.

31 Ibid., p. 594.

32 P. G. Lyubomirov died in December 1935. - BUT. P.

33 These works were republished in the collection Essays on the History of Russian Industry.

34 I have already suggested that Lubomirov's idea of ​​manufactory was not based on the study of the Marxist-Leninist concept, but was borrowed by him from other authors, in particular from Tugan-Baranovsky (see Questions of History, No. 12, 1947, p. .107).

35 See Lubomirov P. Essays on the history of industry, p. 726.

36 Ibid., p. 263.

crafts, he did not show that, on the basis of their decomposition, a capitalist type of manufactory arose mainly.

Since the author was not interested in clarifying the social nature of the industrial enterprises of the manufactory type described by him and did not analyze those internal socio-economic processes on the basis of which they arose and developed, his final conclusion also sounds unconvincing that "one cannot pass by the 18th century in search of the genesis of the Russian industrial capitalism" 37 .

Another major essay by P. G. Lyubomirov - on the geographical distribution of the metallurgical and metal-working industries - was written by him entirely in terms of historical and statistical description.

To characterize the historical and economic views of P. G. Lyubomirov, his large article on serf Russia in the 17th-18th centuries, placed in the Granat encyclopedic dictionary, is of considerable interest. The first section of this article, containing a detailed regional description of the economy of serf Russia in the 17th century, gives a clear idea of ​​the nature of agriculture in various parts of the Moscow state, about the industrial centers of the country, about the exploitation of natural resources and the colonization of the southern outskirts and Siberia. In further sections, Lyubomirov gives an assessment of the class structure of Russian society, outlines the domestic and foreign policy of state power in various periods of the history of the 17th-18th centuries. and characterizes the economic development of Russia in the 18th century.

This work of Lyubomirov deals with the most important core problems of the history of the 18th century. and therefore could not fail to reflect the fundamental methodological principles of the author, his scientific worldview. On the other hand, due to the fact that this article was intended for an encyclopedic dictionary, it was more general in nature than other works of Lyubomirov. All this confirms the need for a particularly detailed analysis of this work.

In this article, the influence on the author was not of Marxist ideas, but of Pokrovsky's pseudo-Marxist "theory" of commercial capitalism. Such an influence is found both in the author's individual remarks on socio-economic relations, the classes of Russian society, the nature of state power, and in the general concept of P. G. Lyubomirov. The central idea of ​​the article is the assertion that already in the 17th century. commercial capital becomes the dominant force in the economic and political life of Russian society. Noting the decisive role of the merchants in the organization of manufacturing production in the 17th century, P. G. Lyubomirov formulates the following conclusion: “So, next to the nobility, the importance of merchant capital grows. with the fact that in the sphere of production it will compete with the complex economy of a large estate and declare demands for free labor, depending on this, the seeds of hostile clashes between the forces ruling in the state will be born.

Lyubomirov proceeded from a completely incorrect assessment of the class structure of Russian society, entirely borrowed from Pokrovsky, when he argued in this article that the boyars and the nobility are not separate strata of a single class of feudal landowners, but completely different social classes. The nobility and the bourgeoisie, he continues, by this time conclude an alliance with each other for a joint struggle against the old nobility 39 .

All foreign policy of the tsarist government in the second half of the 17th century, according to Lyubomirov, was determined by the interests of commercial capital. Merchant capital dominated both the economy and the political life of the country, Lubomirov believed, and, following Pokrovsky, he believed that the era of merchant capital came in the 17th century. for changing feudal relations and liquidated the feudal class - the boyars.

Thus, in the last years of his life, Lyubomirov fell under the disastrous influence of Pokrovsky's anti-Marxist views, having fully assimilated the vicious "theory" of commercial capitalism. Therefore, in this article of his, his characteristic method of describing individual, disparate phenomena and facts was intricately intertwined with Pokrovsky's extreme historical schematism.

In full accordance with the views of Pokrovsky, he assessed Lubomirov and Peter's reforms. Analyzing the latter in detail, he came to the conclusion that the transformations of Peter I increased the hardships that lay on the serf peasantry, and at the same time placed state power between the landowner and the serf. The poll taxation of the peasantry and the restriction of certain rights of the landowners in relation to the serfs testified, according to Lyubomirov, that Peter's reforms "obviously had in mind the satisfaction of non-noble interests in the first place" 40 . IN early XVIII in. the position of the clergy also deteriorated sharply, since the state authorities established strict control over all church and monastic incomes, it interfered in church administration. Lyubomirov pointed out that the Petrine

37 Lyubomirov P. Essays on the history of industry, p. 267.

38 Encyclopedic Dictionary Pomegranate. T. 36. Issue. III, stb. 511.

39 Ibid., st. 503. "Mutually complementing each other," wrote Lyubomirov, "these classes - the nobility and the bourgeoisie - had enemies in common, although in a special sphere for each - the ruling forces of the heyday of feudalism, that is, the boyars, already liquidated as a class in seventeenth century, and the (feudal) church, whose various privileges were just now being curtailed."

40 Ibid., stb. 563.

reforms were contrary to the interests of the nobility and the church and caused the ruin of the peasants. According to Lubomirov, "commercial capital" was the only force that benefited from these reforms, and he emphasized that the state "under Peter took on a bourgeois hue" 41 .

Such a statement directly followed from Pokrovsky's well-known thesis about the Petrine monarchy as a political superstructure of "commercial capitalism" and was in complete contradiction with the Stalinist characterization of Petrine Russia as a national state of landlords and merchants. The entire internal economic policy, diplomacy and soldiers of Peter I, from the point of view of Lubomirov, were dictated by the interests of merchant capital 42 . Lubomirov believed that in the second half of the reign of Peter I, merchant capital especially felt the strength of its position and, in connection with this, "vigorously went to the construction of industry" 43 .

Describing the activities of Peter I in the field of spreading industrial crops in agriculture and his concern for the conservation of forests, Lyubomirov concludes: “And all this ultimately harmonized well with the interests of the bourgeoisie, leading to the creation of large masses or best quality goods on the market. And the desire to free the personality of the peasant from the power of the landowner was not a special attack on the nobility, but was connected with the same interests of the bourgeoisie.

In assessing the post-Petrine period of Russian history, Lyubomirov also largely remained on the positions of Pokrovsky. The reign of Anna Ivanovna, according to Lyubomirov, was characterized by a turn in the entire internal policy of state power. "A period of complete noble reaction has begun in response to Peter's policy," 45 he wrote. As for the period of the reign of Elizabeth, about which Pokrovsky spoke as a "nationalist reaction" that replaced the dominance of the Germans, Lubomirov only somewhat softened this characterization, noting: "The national character of the government of Elizabeth must be accepted with certain reservations" 46 .

In his views on the class background of the reign of Elizabeth, Lyubomirov somewhat departed from Pokrovsky, arguing that during this period a kind of compromise was carried out "between the nobility and the bourgeoisie" 47 .

Having collected more factual material characterizing the economic development of Russia in the middle of the 18th century, Lyubomirov could not join Pokrovsky’s completely unsubstantiated thesis divorced from facts that in the reign of Elizabeth “the bourgeois stratifications of the first years of the 18th century were now thoroughly washed away” and that under Catherine II "native capitalism had to start approximately the same way that Peter's Russia began" 48 .

The vagueness and eclecticism of Lyubomirov's views most clearly affected the depiction of the Catherine's period in the history of Russia. Here, his quite correct remarks are intertwined with unfounded judgments and far-fetched characteristics. Although Lyubomirov in this case departed from Pokrovsky's scheme, the very principle of extreme schematism in assessing individual phenomena and the social nature of this reign was preserved. In complete isolation from the facts, P. G. Lyubomirov, for example, characterized the secularization of monastic lands carried out by Catherine as "the beginning of the emancipation of the peasantry" 49 . In fact, this measure, as is known, was carried out in the interests of the nobility.

Correctly noting the development of capitalist elements, the strengthening of the influence of the bourgeoisie during the reign of Catherine II, P. G. Lyubomirov, at the same time, underestimates the fact that Catherine's policy and Catherine's monarchy always had a noble character. In his opinion, only during the years of the Pugachev uprising "in the face of extreme danger was an "alliance" of the nobility and supreme power" 50 .

Lubomirov's arguments either about a smaller or a greater approximation of Catherine's policy to the demands of the nobility are contradictory and, apparently, are an echo of his previous ideas about the state as a supra-class force 51 .

41 Ibid., st. 566.

42 M. Pokrovsky on the reforms of the central and local governments, conducted by Peter, wrote: "The wave of commercial capitalism brought with it something unusual for Moscow Russia - a bourgeois administration" (see Russian History from Ancient Times. Vol. II, p. 213. M. 1933). In another place, Pokrovsky wrote: "Commercial capitalism, as a detractor, stands at the beginning of the reform; as a mentor, it closes it" (ibid., st. 227).

In this section, Lyubomirov makes a number of valuable remarks of a fundamental nature. Especially importance have his data and conclusions about the differentiation of the peasantry in the XVIII century. and the isolation from its environment, on the one hand, of buyers and owners of manufactories, on the other hand, of the poor poor - workers of manufactories. Proceeding from this, P. G. Lyubomirov noted that the emergence of capitalist manufacture in Russia dates back to the middle of the 18th century. “Of course,” he wrote, “the proportion of these capitalist enterprises was not large: in many merchant factories and plants we see assigned or bought, sometimes both workers, on the other hand, not every wage worker in form was a real civilian employee, but it is important to note the emergence of new phenomena" 52 .

In the same part of the article we find a number of interesting information and considerations about the development of trade in the middle of the 18th century, about peasant manufactories, and about the economy of individual regions. P. G. Lyubomirov’s merit lies in the fact that he did not pass by those significant changes that took place in the country’s economy in the middle of the 18th century, past those shoots of capitalism that were born in that period 53 .

But even this, the best part of P. G. Lyubomirov’s article, is not developed at all, but is limited to a few cursory remarks that are not connected either with the previous or subsequent presentation. In addition, P. G. Lyubomirov does not indicate here in what connection the remarks he made about peasant crafts are related to Lenin's teaching on three stages development of capitalism in industry, and does not formulate the tasks facing the researcher of manufacturing production in Russia.

The analysis of the factual material accumulated by Lyubomirov coincided with Lenin's instructions on the role of decaying peasant crafts in the formation of manufactory. However, on the basis of these several fundamentally correct remarks of Lyubomirov, one cannot draw far-reaching conclusions about the change in his scientific views or talk about his closeness to Marxism. The article on serf Russia in the 18th century, taken as a whole, testifies to the extreme inconsistency of Lyubomirov's views, it confirms that he mainly proceeded from Pokrovsky's notorious "theory" of commercial capitalism.

For a complete assessment of the creative heritage and characteristics of the development of the scientific worldview of Lyubomirov, it is also necessary to note his works on the history of Russian social thought. These include, first of all, articles about Radishchev and Shcherbatov, written in the 1920s and 1930s. Except for pre-revolutionary works, nowhere was the influence of Lubomirov’s bourgeois methodology, his misunderstanding of the social movement and class struggle in 18th century Russia, his desire to get away from the broad fundamental problems of the historical past, more clearly manifested than in his articles on Radishchev. In most of them, Lyubomirov does not go beyond the formal descriptive method inherent in him. He describes in detail individual, most often secondary, facts from the life of Radishchev, studies his genealogy in detail, engages in textual analysis of some of Radishchev’s writings, but leaves aside the analysis and evaluation of the socio-economic views and political program of this outstanding revolutionary democrat of the late 18th century.

The article "The Radishchev Clan", published after the death of Lyubomirov 54 , sets out with exceptional care the personal characteristics of numerous representatives of the Radishchev family, details of their marriage, small everyday episodes are described, etc. Small, insignificant details are at the center of this painstaking genealogical research. without any significant cognitive value. However, social environment, in which Radishchev lived and was brought up, is shown extremely pale and inexpressive.

Another work of P. G. Lyubomirov, "An Autobiographical Tale of A. N. Radishchev" 55 , in which all the author's attention is riveted to the external, everyday details of Radishchev's personal life, has the same character. Analyzing the work of A. N. Radishchev "Filaret the Merciful" published by M. I. Sukhomlinov, P. G. Lyubomirov proves its autobiographical nature. It does not say a word about Radishchev as the largest public and political figure of the late 18th century. One can only wonder how, while analyzing Radishchev's autobiographical story, Lyubomirov managed to bypass this most important plot.

Thus, in these articles about Radishchev, Lyubomirov entirely follows the traditions of bourgeois historiography: they do not present an authentic, truthful image of the great revolutionary. Radishchev in them is cut off from the socio-economic conditions of Russian society and the class struggle of the end of the 18th century. Only Lyubomirov's later articles on the history of social thought reflect a noticeable progressive shift in his worldview. So, in the article I analyzed in the Granat encyclopedic dictionary, he gives a more correct and complete characterization of the revolutionary political views of Radishchev than in previous works. Radishchev is characterized here as a materialist, revolutionary

52 Encyclopedic Dictionary Pomegranate, stb. 616.

53 These remarks by Lubomirov are important and echo the discussion about the social nature of Russian manufacture that took place on the pages of Voprosy istorii in 1947-1948.

A general assessment of P. G. Lyubomirov as a historian and the determination of his place in Russian historiography are difficult for one circumstance: Lyubomirov did not proceed from any single complete system of historical views. At all stages of Lyubomirov's scientific activity, inconsistency and eclecticism were characteristic feature his historical outlook. In none of his scientific works did he set out his scientific concept as a whole, did not even formulate those fundamentally methodological positions from which he conducted the study of a particular issue. Even in the last years of his activity, when in his views and scientific papers certain progressive shifts were revealed, he never noted what methodological principles he now accepts, did not characterize his new scientific credo.

However, this review of Lyubomirov's main historical writings allows us to come to some general conclusions about the role of his literary heritage and the development of his historical views.

P. G. Lyubomirov, who spoke in his pre-revolutionary scientific activity as a representative of the bourgeois, idealistic trend in historical science, after the October Socialist Revolution, moved away from some of his most conservative views and changed the subject of his research work. But until the end of his life he was unable to overcome the bourgeois methodological positions. Until the end of his life, Lyubomirov did not develop an integral scientific concept of the historical process. The school of "economic materialism" of Rozhkov and especially Pokrovsky had an indisputable influence on the themes and content of Lyubomirov's post-revolutionary works.

The scientific significance of individual works by Lyubomirov, even individual sections of these works, is very unequal. Most important are his post-revolutionary works devoted to the history of the industry of serf Russia in the 17th-18th centuries. Investigating the country's economy in regional and sectoral sections for almost two centuries, Lyubomirov outlined the situation of the manufacturing type industry and many individual enterprises with exceptional thoroughness and thoroughness. The vast factual, well-tested material contained in his writings is of known value to historical science.

At the same time, an analysis of the most important works of Lyubomirov and a review of the development of his scientific views testify to the complete failure, gross fallacy of attempts to rank Lyubomirov among the scientists who successfully mastered dialectical materialism, close to Marxism.

Speaking at a philosophical discussion, A. A. Zhdanov emphasized the need to overcome bourgeois objectivism and conciliation in theoretical work. Soviet science, imbued with the spirit of the Bolshevik party spirit, should be of a militant, offensive character, exposing the rottenness and helplessness of bourgeois doctrines. The fact that in recent years the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR has published a number of erroneous, and sometimes simply vicious, anti-Marxist works, emphasizes with particular acuteness the need for a Marxist critical analysis of the bourgeois historical heritage, the exposure and ideological destruction of the bourgeois methodology of history in all its manifestations.

The task lies not only in exposing harmful, anti-Marxist concepts, but also in overcoming those vestiges of bourgeois methodology that hinder the successful development of Soviet historical science. One of these rather common, unfortunately, survivals is the tendency to limit the tasks of historical research to mere collection of facts and their description.

Search publisher's materials in systems: Libmonster (worldwide) . Google. Yandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citation):

A. POGREBINSKY, HISTORICAL VIEWS P. G. Updated: 11/14/2015. URL: https://site/m/articles/view/HISTORICAL-VIEWS-P-G-Lyubomirov (Date of access: 06/13/2019).

Religion

Orthodoxy

social background

Clergy

Place of Birth

The village of Ivanovka (Matyushkino), Saratov province

A place of death

Education

Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University (1910)

Years of scientific activity

Stages of scientific career

Major life milestones

Since 1911, Mr.. L. was a full member of the Saratov Provincial Scientific Archival Commission. From 1915 to 1917 he taught at the Intercession Gymnasium and at the Women's Gymnasium of Prince Obolensky in Petrograd. During the same period he taught at the Higher Courses. P.F. Lesgaft. From the autumn of 1917 to the summer of 1920, he held the position of professor of Russian history at Tomsk University. After that, he was elected to the post of professor and head of the department of Russian history at Saratov University, where he worked until 1930. He organized a historical circle at the local history society. In parallel, he worked at the Institute of National Economy and the Institute of Public Education. Since 1931 he has been working in Moscow as an ordinary employee of the State Historical Museum. In addition, L. worked at the Moscow Institute of Philosophy, Literature and History, Orekhovo-Zuevsky Pedagogical Institute, Institute of History and Archives.

Social work

It is believed that L. adhered to moderately leftist views, sometimes referred to as the Socialist-Revolutionaries. While still studying at the seminary, he took part in the revolutionary events of 1905-1907, for which he was expelled from it. In 1904, Mr.. L. became a member of one of the revolutionary circles in Saratov. While studying at the university, he took part in student strikes. In the mid 1920s. with the beginning of the persecution of the old professorship by representatives of the school of M.N. Pokrovsky L. was repeatedly subjected to criticism and unfounded political accusations. For this reason, he was forced to leave Saratov for Moscow in 1930, that is, during the so-called. "Academic business". The fact that he was a student of S.F. also played a role. Platonov.

Area of ​​scientific interests, significance in science

L.'s attention was focused on questions of the economic and sociopolitical history of Russia in the 17th–18th centuries. Research L. made an important contribution to the study of industrial development in Russia. After 1917, L. studied the history of Russian social thought in the 18th century, in particular, the figures of M.M. Shcherbatov and A.N. Radishchev). A number of works L. devoted to the split and sectarianism in Russia.

Dissertations

Students

• Kusheva E.N.
• Podyapolskaya E.P.

Publication activity

Number of book editions (according to the catalog of the National Library of Russia): 18

Major writings

The legend of the elder David Khvostov (Ott. from the Journal of the Ministry of National Education. 1911. No. 12 S. 322-355). SPb., 1911.
Essay on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod militia in 1611-1613. Pg., 1917. (Ott. from "Notes of the Historical and Philological Faculty of the Petrograd University. 1917. Ch. 141).
Vygovskoe dormitory. Historical feature article. M.-Saratov, 1924.
Well-intentioned "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow". (Glushkov and Radishchev). Saratov. (Ret. from "Scientific Notes of the Faculty of Education". T. 6. Issue 3. S. 317-330).
On the settlement of the Astrakhan province in the 18th century. Astrakhan, 1926
On the culture of spelled in Russia until the middle of the 18th century (Ott. from "Works on Applied Botany, Genetics and Breeding. T. XVIII. Issue 1.). L., 1928.
The economy of the Lower Volga region at the beginning of the XIX century. Saratov, 1928.
Silk-weaving industry in Russia in the middle of the 18th century. Saratov, 1929. (Ret. from "Scientific Notes" of the Pedagogical Faculty. T. VII. Issue 3).
Initial moments in the history of the cotton industry in Russia // Historical collection. T. 5. M.-L., 1936. S. 39-76.
Essays on the history of the metallurgical and metalworking industry in Russia (XVII, XVIII and early XIX centuries). Geographic location of the metal industry. L., 1937.

Basic bio-bibliography

Bibliography: Notes // Essays on the history of the metallurgical and metalworking industry in Russia (XVII, XVIII and early XIX centuries). Geographic location of the metal industry. L., 1937. S. 241-281.

Lit.: Kurenyshev A.A. The fate of the historian P.G. Lubomirov. 1885-1935 // Historiographer. Sat. Saratov, 2001. Issue. 19. S. 114-123. (URL: http://www.sgu.ru/files/nodes/9864/13.pdf); Solomonov V.A. “The attitude of P.G. [Lyubomirova] towards the university was extremely careful and loving” (S.N. Chernov about the Saratov period of P.G. Lyubomirov’s life) // Sarat. local historian. collection: Nauch. tr. and publ. Saratov, 2002; Solomonov V.A. The suffering historian: P.G. Lyubomirov // Historian and power: Soviet historians Stalin era. Saratov, 2006; Report by E.P. Podyapolskaya at the mourning meeting of the Academic Council of the State Historical Museum, dedicated to the memory of Professor P.G. Lubomirova / Publ., entry. article and comment. V.A. Solomon // recent history Fatherland XX-XXI centuries: Sat. scientific tr. Saratov, 2009. Issue. 3; “I feel very inexperienced in literary matters ...” (Letters from P.G. Lyubomirov to S.F. Platonov 1912–1929) / Intro. article, publ. and comment. V.A. Solomon // History and historical memory: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Saratov, 2011. Issue. 4; Mitrofanov V.V. P.G. Lubomirov at Tomsk University // Western Siberia: history and modernity: local historian. notes. Tyumen, 2005. Issue. 7; Mitrofanov V.V. About "one of the most beloved historical topics" S.F. Platonov (S.F. Platonov and P.G. Lyubomirov about the Nizhny Novgorod militia during the Time of Troubles) // Clio. 2006. No. 1; Kuznetsov A.A. A word about Pavel Grigoryevich Lyubomirov and his peers-colleagues // Feat of the Nizhny Novgorod militia. N.-Novgorod, 2011. T. 2.

Archive, personal funds

GIM, f. 470, 50 units ridge (Lyubomirov P.G.).

Compilers and editors

I.V. Sidorchuk, A.E. Rostovtsev

Network biographical dictionary of historians of St. Petersburg University of the XVIII-XX centuries. SPb., 2012-.
Ed. board: prof. A.Yu. Dvornichenko (project leader, editor-in-chief), prof. R.Sh. Ganelin, Assoc. T.N. Zhukovskaya, Assoc. E.A. Rostovtsev / otv. ed./, Assoc. I.L. Tikhonov.
Team of authors: A.A. Amosova, V.V. Andreeva, D.A. Barinov, A.Yu. Dvornichenko, T.N. Zhukovskaya, I.P. Potekhina, E.A. Rostovtsev, I.V. Sidorchuk, A.V. Sirenov, D.A. Sosnitsky, I.L. Tikhonov, A.K.Shaginyan and others.

Network biographical dictionary of professors and teachers of St. Petersburg University (1819-1917). SPb., 2012-.
Ed. board: prof.R.Sh. Ganelin (project leader), prof. A.Yu. Dvornichenko / otv. ed./, Assoc. T.N. Zhukovskaya, Assoc. E.A. Rostovtsev / otv. ed./, Assoc. I.L. Tikhonov. Team of authors: A.A. Amosova, V.V. Andreeva, D.A. Barinov, Yu.I. Basilov, A.B. Bogomolov, A.Yu. Dvornichenko, T.N. Zhukovskaya, A.L. Korzinin, E.E. Kudryavtseva, S.S. Migunov, I.A. Polyakov, I.P. Potekhin, E.A. Rostovtsev, A.A. Rubtsov, I.V. Sidorchuk, A.V. Sirenov, D.A. Sosnitsky, I.L. Tikhonov, A.K. Shaginyan, V.O. Shishov, N. A. Sheremetov and others.

Petersburg Historical School (XVIII - early XX centuries): information resource. SPb., 2016-.
Ed. collegium: T.N. Zhukovskaya, A.Yu. Dvornichenko (project leader, editor-in-chief), E.A. Rostovtsev (responsible editor), I.L. Tikhonov
Team of authors: D.A. Barinov, A.Yu. Dvornichenko, T.N. Zhukovskaya, I.P. Potekhina, E.A. Rostovtsev, I.V. Sidorchuk, D.A. Sosnitsky, I.L. Tikhonov and others.