PLATONOV S.

Introduction (Summary)

It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by determining what
what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical
the science. Having understood for ourselves how history is understood in general, we will understand that we
should be understood as the history of any one people, and consciously
Let's start studying Russian history.
History existed in ancient times, although then it was not considered
science. Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example,
will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way in relating history to the region
arts. By history they understood an artistic story about memorable
events and persons. Their task as a historian was to convey
listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure and a number of moral
edification. Art pursued the same goals.
With this view of history as an artistic story about
memorable events, ancient historians kept the appropriate methods
presentation. In their narration, they strove for truth and accuracy, but
they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. At the deeply truthful
Herodotus, for example, there are many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); in some he
believes, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, and not believing in
them, brings them into his story, because they seduce him with their
artistic interest. Not only that, the ancient historian, true to his
artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with a conscious
fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt, puts into his mouth
his heroes of the speech, composed by himself, but he considers himself right by virtue of
that faithfully conveys in an invented form the real intentions and
thoughts of historical figures.
Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history was before
to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and
entertainment, not to mention other conditions that prevented historians from
success in distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate
knowledge already in antiquity requires pragmatism from the historian. Already at Herodotus we
we observe the manifestation of this pragmatism, i.e. desire to relate facts
causal connection, not only to tell them, but also to explain from the past their
origin.
So, at first, history is defined as
artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and persons.
Such views on history date back to the times of deep antiquity,
who demanded from her, in addition to artistic impressions, practical
applicability. The ancients said that history is the teacher of life.
(magistra vitae). From historians expected such a presentation of past life
humanity, which would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future,
would serve as a practical guide for public figures and
moral school for others. This view of history in all its force
kept in the Middle Ages and survived to our times; on the one hand, he
brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other hand, turned history into
"tablet of revelations and rules" of a practical nature. One writer XVII
in. (De Rocoles) said that "history performs the duties inherent in
moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect may be preferred to it,
for, in giving the same rules, she adds examples to them."
on the first page of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" you will find
expression of the idea that history must be known in order "to establish
order, to agree on the benefits of people and to give them the happiness possible on earth.
With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new
definitions of historical science. Seeking to explain the essence and meaning of life
humanity, thinkers turned to the study of history or in order to find in
her solution to her problem, or in order to confirm with historical data
their abstract constructions. According to various philosophical systems,
one way or another, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined. Here are some of
similar definitions: Bossuet [correct -- Bossuet. -- Ed.] (1627--1704) and
Laurent (1810-1887) understood history as a depiction of those world events in
which the ways of Providence, guiding
human life for their own purposes. Italian Vico (1668--1744) task
history, as a science, considered the image of those identical states that
destined to endure for all nations. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770--1831) in
history saw an image of the process by which the "absolute spirit" reached
his self-knowledge (Hegel explained throughout his world life how the development of this
"absolute spirit"). It would not be wrong to say that all these philosophies require
from history is essentially the same: history should not depict all
facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones, revealing its general
meaning.
This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought, a simple
a story about the past in general, or a random set of facts of various times and
places for proof of instructive thought no longer satisfied.
There was a desire to unite the presentation of the guiding idea,
systematization of historical material. However, philosophical history
rightly reproached for being the guiding ideas of the historical exposition
took outside history and systematized the facts arbitrarily. From this history is not
became an independent science, and turned into a servant of philosophy.
History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when from Germany, to
in opposition to French rationalism, idealism developed: in opposition to
French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, actively
national antiquity was studied and the conviction began to dominate that life
human societies takes place naturally, in such an order of natural
sequence, which cannot be violated and changed by any
accidents, or the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main
interest in history began to represent the study of non-random external phenomena and
not the activities of prominent personalities, but the study of social life on
different stages of its development. History began to be understood as the science of laws
historical life of human societies.
This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. Famous
Guizot (1787-1874), for example, understood history as the doctrine of the world and
national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil
hostels). The philosopher Schelling (1775-1854) considered national history
means of knowing the "national spirit". From this grew the widespread
definition of history as a path to national self-consciousness. Appeared further
attempts to understand history as a science that must reveal general laws
development of social life outside their application to a certain place, time and
people. But these attempts, in essence, appropriated the tasks of another science to history.
-- Sociology. History, on the other hand, is a science that studies concrete facts under conditions
time and place, and its main goal is recognized as a systematic
depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and
of all mankind.
Such a task requires a lot to be successful. In order to
to give a scientifically accurate and artistically complete picture of any era of folk
life or the complete history of the people, it is necessary: ​​1) to collect historical
materials, 2) to investigate their reliability, 3) to restore precisely individual
historical facts, 4) indicate a pragmatic connection between them, and 5) reduce
them into a general scientific review or into an artistic picture. The ways in which
historians achieve these particular goals are called scientific critical
tricks. These techniques are being improved with the development of historical science, but before
Until now, neither these methods, nor the science of history itself has reached its full
development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material to be
their conduct, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not reached
still the results that other, more exact, sciences have achieved. And yet
no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.
Since the study of the facts of world history began to be approached with
the consciousness that human life develops naturally, is subject to
eternal and unchanging relations and rules, - since then the ideal of the historian
was the disclosure of these constant laws and relations. For a simple analysis
historical phenomena, intended to indicate their causal sequence,
a wider field has opened up - a historical synthesis aimed at recreating
the general course of world history as a whole, to indicate in its course such laws
sequences of development that would be justified not only in the past,
but also in the future of humanity.
This broad ideal cannot directly guide the Russian
historian. He studies only one fact of world historical life - the life
of their nationality. The state of Russian historiography is still such that
sometimes imposes on the Russian historian the obligation to simply collect facts and
give them initial scientific treatment. And only where the facts are already
collected and illuminated, we can rise to some historical
generalizations, we can notice the general course of one or another historical
process, we can even, on the basis of a number of particular generalizations, make a bold
attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which
the basic facts of our historical life developed. But beyond such a general
schemes, the Russian historian cannot go without leaving the boundaries of his science. For
in order to understand the essence and significance of this or that fact in the history of Russia,
he can look for analogies in the history of the world; with the results obtained, he can
serve as a universal historian, put your own stone in the foundation
general historical synthesis. But this is the limit of its connection with the general
history and influence on it. The ultimate goal of Russian historiography is always
what remains is the construction of a system of local historical process.
The construction of this system allows another, more practical
a task that lies with the Russian historian. There is an old belief that
national history is the path to national self-consciousness. Really,
knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future.
A people familiar with its history lives consciously, sensitively to its surroundings.
reality and understand it. The task, in this case,
to put it - the duty of national historiography is to
show society its past in its true light. There is no need to include in
historiography, any preconceived points of view; subjective idea
is not a scientific idea, but only scientific work can be useful to the public
self-awareness. Remaining in the strictly scientific sphere, highlighting those dominant
the beginning of social life, which characterized the various stages
Russian historical life, the researcher will reveal to society the most important
moments of its historical existence and thereby achieve its goal. He will give
reasonable knowledge to society, and the application of this knowledge no longer depends on it.
So, both abstract considerations and practical goals set the Russian
historical science has the same task - a systematic depiction of Russian
historical life, the general scheme of the historical process that led
our nationality to its present state.

Essay on Russian historiography
When did the systematic depiction of the events of the Russian
historical life and when did Russian history become a science? Back in Kievskaya
Russia, along with the emergence of citizenship, in the XI century. appeared with us
first chronicles. These were lists of facts, important and unimportant, historical and
not historical, interspersed with literary legends. From our point
view, the most ancient chronicles do not represent a historical work; not
speaking about the content - and the very methods of the chronicler do not correspond to the present
requirements. The beginnings of historiography appear in our country in the 16th century, when
historical legends and chronicles began to be compared and brought together for the first time
whole. In the XVI century. Moscow Rus was formed and formed. Rallying in
a single body, under the rule of a single Moscow prince, the Russians tried
to explain to oneself both one's origin, and one's political ideas, and one's
relations with their surrounding states.
And in 1512 (apparently, the elder Philotheus) compiled a chronograph,
those. review of world history. Most of it included
translations from the Greek language and only as additions Russian and
Slavic historical legends. This chronograph is brief, but gives sufficient
stock of historical information; behind it appear quite Russian chronographs,
representing a reworking of the first. Together with them appear in the XVI century.
chronicle codes compiled according to ancient chronicles, but representing not
collections of mechanically compared facts, and works related to one
general idea. The first such work was the Power Book, which received
such a name because it was divided into "generations" or "degrees",
as they were then called. She transmitted in chronological, sequential,
those. "gradual" order of the activities of Russian metropolitans and princes,
starting with Rurik. Metropolitan Cyprian was erroneously considered the author of this book;
it was processed by Metropolitans Macarius and his successor Athanasius
under Ivan the Terrible, i.e. in the 16th century At the heart of the Book of Powers lies
trend, both general and particular. The general peeps through in the desire to show that
the power of the Moscow princes is not accidental, but successive, on the one hand
side, from the southern Russian, Kyiv princes, on the other - from the Byzantine kings.
The private tendency was reflected in the respect with which invariably
talks about spiritual power. The "power book" can be called
historical work by virtue of a well-known system of presentation. At the beginning of the XVI century. was
compiled another historical work - "The Resurrection Chronicle", more
interesting for the abundance of material. It was based on all the previous chronicles,
"Sofia Time" and others, so the facts in this chronicle are really
many, but they are held together purely mechanically. However, "Resurrection
chronicle" seems to us the most valuable historical work of
all, contemporary or earlier, since it was compiled without any
trends and contains a lot of information that is not found anywhere else.
By its simplicity, it could not please, the artlessness of presentation could
seem wretched to connoisseurs of rhetorical devices, and now she was subjected to
processing and additions and made up, by the middle of the 16th century, a new code,
called "Nikon Chronicle". In this collection we see a lot of information,
borrowed from Greek chronographs, according to the history of Greek and Slavic
countries, the chronicle is about Russian events, especially about the later centuries, although
detailed, but not entirely reliable, - the accuracy of the presentation suffered from
literary processing: correcting the ingenuous style of the former chronicles,
unwittingly distorted the meaning of some events.
In 1674, the first textbook of Russian history appeared in Kyiv -
"Synopsis" of Innokenty Gisel, very widespread in the era of Peter
Great (it is often found even now). If next to all these
reworking the chronicles, we will remember a number of literary legends about
individual historical facts and eras (for example, the Legend of Prince Kurbsky,
tell about the Time of Troubles), then let us embrace the entire stock of historical works, with
which Russia survived until the era of Peter the Great, until the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in
Petersburg. Peter was very concerned about compiling the history of Russia and entrusted this
business to various people. But only after his death did scientific development begin.
historical material and the first figures in this field were scientists
Germans, members of the Petersburg Academy; Of these, first of all, we should mention
Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738). He began by studying the tribes that inhabited
Russia in antiquity, especially the Varangians, but did not go further than this. Bayer left
after himself many works, of which two rather capital works
were written in Latin and are no longer of great importance to
history of Russia - this is "Northern Geography" and "Research on the Varangians" (their
translated into Russian only in 1767). Works were much more fruitful
Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705--1783), who lived in Russia under the empresses
Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine II and already knew Russian so well,
that he wrote his works in Russian. He traveled extensively in Russia
(he lived 10 years, from 1733 to 1743, in Siberia) and studied it well. On the
literary historical field, he acted as the publisher of the Russian magazine
"Monthly writings" (1755--1765) and a collection in German "Sammlung
Russischer Gescihchte". Miller's main merit was the collection of materials
on Russian history; his manuscripts (the so-called Miller portfolios) served as
serve as a rich source for publishers and researchers. and research
Miller mattered - he was one of the first scientists who became interested in
later epochs of our history, his works are devoted to them: "The experience of the latest
history of Russia "and" News of the Russian nobles ". Finally, he was the first
scientific archivist in Russia and put in order the Moscow archive of the Foreign
college, the director of which he died (1783). Among the academicians of the XVIII century.
a prominent place in his works on Russian history was occupied by [M. V.] Lomonosov,
who wrote a textbook of Russian history and one volume of "Ancient Russian
history "(1766). His works on history were due to controversy with
academicians - Germans. The latter led Rus Varangians away from the Normans and
Norman influence was attributed to the origin of citizenship in Russia,
which, before the advent of the Varangians, was represented as a wild country; Lomonosov
recognized the Varangians as Slavs and thus considered Russian culture
original.
Named academicians, collecting materials and researching individual issues
of our history, did not have time to give a general overview of it, the need for which
was felt by Russian educated people. Attempts to give such an overview
appeared outside the academic environment.
The first attempt belongs to V. N. Tatishchev (1686-1750). Pursuing
actually geographical questions, he saw that it was impossible to solve them
without knowledge of history, and, being a comprehensively educated person, became himself
collect information on Russian history and began to compile it. During
for many years he wrote his historical work, revised it more than once,
but only after his death, in 1768, did his publication begin. Within 6 years
4 volumes were published, the 5th volume was accidentally found already in our century and published
"Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities". In these 5 volumes
Tatishchev brought his history to the troubled epoch of the 17th century. In the first volume we
get acquainted with the views of the author himself on Russian history and sources,
which he used in compiling it; we find a number of scientific
sketches about ancient peoples - the Varangians, Slavs, etc. Tatishchev often
resorted to other people's work; so, for example, he used the study "About
Varyags" Bayer and directly included it in his work. This story is now,
of course, outdated, but it has not lost its scientific significance, since (in the XVIII
c.) Tatishchev possessed such sources, which now do not exist, and therefore,
many of the facts he cited can no longer be restored. It aroused
suspicion whether some of the sources he referred to existed, and
Tatishchev was accused of dishonesty. Especially distrusted
cited by him "Joachim Chronicle". However, the study of this chronicle
showed that Tatishchev only failed to treat her critically and turned on
her whole, with all her fables, into her story. Strictly speaking, labor
Tatishchev is nothing more than a detailed collection of annalistic data,
presented in chronological order; his heavy tongue and lack of
literary processing made it uninteresting for contemporaries.
The first popular book on Russian history was written by Catherine
II, but her work "Notes on Russian History", brought to the end
XIII century, has no scientific value and is interesting only as the first attempt
to tell the society in easy language its past. Much more important in scientific
relation was the "History of Russia" by Prince M. [M.] Shcherbatov (1733--1790),
which was subsequently used by Karamzin. Shcherbatov was a man
strong philosophical mind, but having read the enlightenment literature of the XVIII
in. and wholly developed under her influence, which was reflected in his work, in
which introduced a lot of preconceived thoughts. In historical data, he
did not have time to understand to such an extent that sometimes he forced his heroes
die 2 times. But, despite such major shortcomings, history
Shcherbatov is of scientific importance due to many applications, including
own historical documents. Particularly interesting are the diplomatic papers of the XVI and
17th century Brought his work to a troubled era.
It happened that under Catherine II, a certain Frenchman Leclerc, completely
who knew neither the Russian state system, nor the people, nor their way of life, wrote
insignificant "L" histoire de la Russie", and there was so much slander in it that
she aroused general indignation. I. N. Boltin (1735--1792), amateur
Russian history, compiled a series of notes in which he discovered ignorance
Leclerc and published in two volumes. In them, he partly touched Shcherbatov.
Shcherbatov was offended and wrote an Objection. Boltin replied by printed letters and
began to criticize Shcherbatov's "History". Boltin's works, which reveal in
he has a historical talent, interesting for the novelty of his views. Bolt is not quite
they are definitely sometimes called the "first Slavophile", because he noted many dark
sides in blind imitation of the West, an imitation that has become noticeable in our country
after Peter, and wished that Russia would keep better the good beginnings of the past
century. Boltin himself is interesting as a historical phenomenon. He served the best
proof that in the eighteenth century in society, even among non-specialists in
history, there was a keen interest in the past of their homeland. Views and interests
Boltin was shared by N. I. Novikov (1744--1818), a well-known zealot of the Russian
enlightenment, who collected "Ancient Russian Vivliofika" (20 volumes), an extensive
collection of historical documents and studies (1788--1791). At the same time with
he, as a collector of historical materials, was a merchant [I. I.] Golikov
(1735--1801), who published a collection of historical data about Peter the Great under
titled "The Acts of Peter the Great" (1st ed. 1788-1790, 2nd 1837). So
Thus, along with attempts to give a general history of Russia, a
the desire to prepare materials for such a story. Beyond the initiative
private, the Academy of Sciences itself is working in this direction, publishing chronicles
for a general introduction to them.
But in all that we have listed, there was still little scientific in our
sense: there were no strict critical techniques, let alone
lack of a coherent historical view.
For the first time, a number of scientific-critical techniques in the study of Russian history were introduced
learned foreigner Schlozer (1735-1809). Getting to know the Russians
chronicles, he was delighted with them: he did not meet any people
such a wealth of information, such a poetic language. Having already left Russia and
as a professor at the University of Göttingen, he worked tirelessly on
those extracts from the annals that he managed to take out of Russia.
The result of this work was the famous work, published under the title
"Nestor" (1805 in German, 1809-1819 in Russian). This is a whole series
historical sketches about the Russian chronicle. In the preface, the author gives a brief
an overview of what has been done in Russian history. He finds the position of science in
Russia sad, treats Russian historians with disdain, believes
his book is almost the only useful work on Russian history. And
indeed, his work far left behind all others in degree
scientific consciousness and techniques of the author. These techniques have created a kind of school for us.
students of Schlozer, the first scientific researchers, like MP Pogodin. After
Schlozer, rigorous historical research became possible with us, for which,
True, favorable conditions were also created in another environment, headed by
Miller stood. Among the people he collected in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium
Stritter, Malinovsky, Bantysh-Kamensky especially stood out. They created
the first school of learned archivists, by whom the Archive was brought to full
order and which, in addition to the external grouping of archival material,
made a number of serious scientific research on the basis of this material.
Thus, little by little, the conditions were ripening that created for us the possibility of a serious
stories.
At the beginning of the XIX century. finally, the first integral view of Russian
the historical past in the well-known "History of the Russian State" by N. M.
Karamzin (1766-1826). Possessing an integral worldview, literary
talent and techniques of a good scholarly critic, Karamzin throughout Russian
historical life saw one most important process - the creation of a national
state power. A number of talented people led Russia to this power.
figures, of which the two main ones - Ivan III and Peter the Great -
activity marked transitional moments in our history and began to
boundaries of its main eras - ancient (before Ivan III), middle (before Peter
Veliky) and new (until the beginning of the 19th century). His system of Russian history Karamzin
expounded in a fascinating language for his time, and he based his story
on numerous researches, which to this day are preserved for his
History of great scholarly importance.
But the one-sidedness of Karamzin's basic view, which limited the task
historian depicting only the fate of the state, and not society with its
culture, legal and economic relations, was soon noticed
already by his contemporaries. Journalist of the 30s of the XIX century. N. A. Polevoy
(1796-1846) reproached him for calling his work "History
of the Russian state", left without attention the "History of the Russian people".
It was with these words that Polevoy titled his work, in which he thought to portray
fate of Russian society. Instead of Karamzin's system, he put his own system,
but not entirely successful, as he was an amateur in the field of historical knowledge.
Carried away by the historical works of the West, he tried purely mechanical
apply their conclusions and terms to Russian facts, so, for example, -
find the feudal system in ancient Russia. This explains his weakness.
attempts, it is clear that the work of Polevoy could not replace the work of Karamzin: in it
there was no complete system at all.
Less sharply and with more caution came out against Karamzin
Petersburg professor [N. G.] Ustryalov (1805-1870), who wrote in 1836
"Reasoning about the system of pragmatic Russian history". He demanded that
history was a picture of the gradual development of social life, an image
transitions of citizenship from one state to another. But he still believes
in the power of the individual in history and, along with the image of folk life,
requires biographies of its heroes. Ustryalov himself, however, refused to give
a certain general point of view on our history and noticed that for this
the time has not come.
Thus, dissatisfaction with the work of Karamzin, which also affected the scientist
world, and in society, did not correct the Karamzin system and did not replace it
another. Above the phenomena of Russian history, as their connecting principle, remained
artistic picture of Karamzin and no scientific system was created. Ustryalov
was right in saying that the time had not yet come for such a system. Best
professors of Russian history who lived in an era close to Karamzin, Pogodin and
[M. T.] Kachenovsky (1775-1842), were still far from one common point
vision; the latter took shape only when Russian history became
take an active interest in the educated circles of our society. Pogodin and
Kachenovsky was brought up on the scientific methods of Schlozer and under his influence,
which had a particularly strong effect on Pogodin. Pogodin largely continued
Schlozer's research and, studying the most ancient periods of our history, did not go
further private conclusions and petty generalizations, which, however, he was sometimes able to
captivate their listeners who are not accustomed to strictly scientific and independent
presentation of the subject. Kachenovsky took up Russian history when
has already acquired a lot of knowledge and experience in other branches of history
reference. Following the development of classical history in the West, which at that time
time was brought to a new path of research by Niebuhr, Kachenovsky was fond of
the denial with which they began to treat the most ancient data on history,
e.g. Rome. Kachenovsky transferred this denial to Russian history: everything
information relating to the first centuries of Russian history, he considered
unreliable; reliable facts, in his opinion, began only with the fact
the time when written documents of civil life appeared in our country.
Kachenovsky's skepticism had followers: under his influence, the
called the skeptical school, not rich in conclusions, but strong in new,
skeptical approach to scientific material. This school owned
several articles compiled under the direction of Kachenovsky. At
undoubted talent of Pogodin and Kachenovsky, both of them developed
although major, but private questions of Russian history; both of them were strong
critical methods, but neither one nor the other did not rise to the point
historical outlook: giving a method, they did not give results, to
which could be reached using this method.
Only in the 30s of the 19th century did Russian society develop an integral
historical outlook, but it developed not on a scientific, but on
metaphysical ground. In the first half of the XIX century. all Russian educated people
with great and great interest turned to history, both domestic and
Western European. Foreign campaigns 1813-1814 introduced our
youth with the philosophy and political life of Western Europe. The study of life
and the ideas of the West gave rise, on the one hand, to the political movement of the Decembrists,
on the other hand, a circle of people who were fond of more abstract philosophy than
politics. This circle grew entirely on the soil of the German metaphysical
philosophy at the beginning of our century. This philosophy was distinguished by harmony
logical constructions and optimistic conclusions. In German metaphysics, as in
German romanticism, the protest against dry rationalism
18th century French philosophy To the revolutionary cosmopolitanism of France
Germany contrasted the origin of nationality and made it clear in attractive
images of folk poetry and in a number of metaphysical systems. These systems have become
known to educated Russian people and fascinated them. In German philosophy
Russian educated people saw a whole revelation. Germany was for them
"Jerusalem of modern mankind" - as Belinsky called it. Study of
the most important metaphysical systems of Schelling and Hegel joined in a close circle
several talented representatives of Russian society and made them
turn to the study of their (Russian) national past. result
of this study were two completely opposite systems of Russian history,
built on the same metaphysical basis. In Germany at this time
the dominant philosophical systems were those of Schelling and Hegel. By
According to Schelling, every historical people must carry out some
the absolute idea of ​​goodness, truth, beauty. Reveal this idea to the world -
historical vocation of the people. Fulfilling it, the people take a step forward on
field of world civilization; having fulfilled it, he leaves the stage of history.
Those peoples whose existence is not spiritualized by the idea of ​​the unconditional are the peoples
unhistorical, they are condemned to spiritual slavery of other nations. The same
the division of peoples into historical and non-historical gives Hegel, but he,
developing almost the same principle, went even further. He gave the big picture
world progress. All world life, according to Hegel, was the development
absolute spirit, which strives for self-knowledge in the history of various
peoples, but reaches it finally in the Germanic-Roman civilization.
The cultural peoples of the Ancient East, the ancient world and Romanesque Europe were
placed by Hegel in a certain order, which was a ladder, according to
which ascended the world spirit. At the top of this ladder stood the Germans, and they
Hegel prophesied eternal world supremacy. Slavs are not on this staircase
it was at all. He considered them to be an unhistorical race and thereby condemned them to spiritual
slavery in German civilization. Thus, Schelling demanded for his
people only of world citizenship, and Hegel of world supremacy. But,
despite this difference of opinion, both philosophers equally influenced
Russian minds in the sense that they aroused the desire to look back at the Russian
historical life, to find that absolute idea that was revealed in
Russian life, to determine the place and purpose of the Russian people in the course of the world
progress. And then, in the application of the beginnings of German metaphysics to Russian
In reality, the Russian people dispersed among themselves. One of them,
Westerners, believed that the German-Protestant civilization is
the last word of world progress. For them, ancient Russia, which did not know
Western, Germanic civilization and did not have its own, was a country
unhistorical, devoid of progress, doomed to eternal stagnation, a country
"Asian", as Belinsky called it (in an article about Kotoshikhin). From the age
Asiatic inertia was brought out by Peter, who, having attached Russia to the German
civilization, created for it the possibility of progress and history. throughout the Russian
history, therefore, only the era of Peter the Great [the great] can have a historical
meaning. She is the main moment in Russian life; it separates Asiatic Russia from
Russia European. Before Peter, complete desert, complete nothingness; in ancient Russian
history makes no sense, since ancient Russia does not have its own culture.
But not all Russian people of the 30s and 40s thought so;
some did not agree that Germanic civilization was the upper
stage of progress, that the Slavic tribe is an unhistorical tribe. They are not
saw reasons why world development should stop at the Germans. From
Russian history, they endured the conviction that the Slavs were far from stagnation,
that it could be proud of many dramatic moments in its past and
that it finally had its own culture. This teaching was well expounded by I.V.
Kireevsky (1806-1856). He says that Slavic culture is in the grounds
its own was independent and different from the German one. First, the Slavs
received Christianity from Byzantium (and the Germans from Rome) and their religious
life took on other forms than those that developed among the Germans under the influence
Catholicism. Secondly, the Slavs and Germans grew up on a different culture:
the first is in Greek, the second is in Roman. While the German
culture has developed the freedom of the individual, the Slavic communities are completely
enslaved her. Thirdly, the state system was created differently.
Germany was formed on Roman soil. The Germans were a newcomer people; winning
native population, they enslaved it. The struggle between the vanquished and
winners, which formed the basis of the state system of Western
Europe, later passed into the antagonism of the estates; the Slavs have a state
created by a peace treaty, voluntary recognition of power. Here
difference between Russia and the West. Europe, differences in religion, culture,
state structure. So thought the Slavophiles, more independent
followers of German philosophy. They were convinced that
independent Russian life has reached the greatest development of its beginnings in
era of the Moscow state. Peter V. grossly violated this development,
by forceful reform introduced to us alien, even opposite principles
Germanic civilization. He turned the right course of people's life on
a false way of borrowing, because he did not understand the covenants of the past, did not
understood our national spirit. The goal of the Slavophiles is to return to the path
natural development, smoothing out the traces of the violent reforms of Peter the Great.
The common point of view of Westerners and Slavophiles served as their basis for
interpretation not only of the meaning of our history, but also of its individual facts: one can
count many historical works written by Westerners and especially
Slavophiles (of the Slavophil historians, Constantine
Sergeevich Aksakov, 1817-1860). But their labors were much more
philosophical or journalistic than actually historical, and
the attitude to history is much more philosophical than scientific.
Strictly scientific integrity of historical views was first created by
us only in the 40s of the XIX century. The first carriers of new historical ideas
there were two young professors of Moscow University: Sergei Mikhailovich
Solovyov (1820-1879) and Konstantin Dmitrievich Kavelin (1818-1885). Them
views on Russian history at that time were called the "theory of tribal life",
and subsequently they and other scientists of their direction became known under
the name of the school of history and law. They were brought up under the influence
German historical school. At the beginning of the XIX century. historical science in Germany
made great strides. Figures of the so-called German historical school
introduced extremely fruitful guiding ideas and new ideas into the study of history.
research methods. The main idea of ​​German historians was the idea that
that the development of human communities is not the result of chance or a single
will of individuals: the development of society takes place as the development of an organism,
according to strict laws, which cannot be overthrown by any historical
accident, not personality, no matter how brilliant it may be. The first step towards such
view was made at the end of the 18th century by Friedrich August Wolf in
work "Prologomena ad Homerum", in which he researched
origin and composition of the Greek epic "Odyssey" and "Iliad". Giving in your
work is a rare example of historical criticism, he argued that Homer's
the epic could not be the work of an individual, but was gradually
organically created work of the poetic genius of an entire nation. After
Wolf's work began to look for such organic development not only in the monuments
poetic creativity, but also in all spheres of public life, were also sought in
history and law. Signs of the organic growth of ancient communities were observed
Niebuhr in Roman history, Karl Gottfried Miller in Greek. organic
the development of legal consciousness was studied by legal historians Eichhorn (Deutsche
Staatsung Rechtsgeschichte, in five volumes, 1808) and Savigny (Geschichte
des ro mischen Rechts in Mittelalter, in six volumes, 1815-1831). These
works that bore the stamp of a new direction, by the middle of the 19th century. created
in Germany a brilliant school of historians, which has not yet survived
full of ideas.
Our scientists of the historical-legal school grew up in its ideas and methods.
Some learned them by reading, like, for example, Kavelin; others by direct listening
lectures, as, for example, Solovyov, who was a student of Ranke. They have adopted
all contents of the German historical direction. Some of them
were fond of the German philosophy of Hegel. In Germany, precise and strictly
the actual historical school did not always live in harmony with the metaphysical
the teachings of Hegelianism; nevertheless, both historians and Hegel agreed on
basic view of history as the natural development of human
societies. Both historians and Hegel equally denied chance in it, therefore
their views could coexist in one and the same person. These views were
first applied to Russian history by our scientists Solovyov and Kavelin,
who thought to show in it the organic development of those principles that were given
the original way of life of our tribe and which were rooted in the nature of our
people. They paid less attention to cultural and economic life than
on the external forms of social unions, since they were convinced that the main
the content of Russian historical life was precisely the natural change of some
the laws of the hostel by others. They hoped to notice the order of this change and in
it to find the law of our historical development. That's why their historical
treatises are somewhat one-sided historical and legal in nature. Such
one-sidedness did not constitute the individuality of our scientists, but was brought
them from their German mentors. German historiography considered the main
its task is to study precisely the legal forms in history; the root of it
view lies in the ideas of Kant, who understood history "as a path
mankind" to the creation of state forms. Such were the reasons for
which built the first scientific and philosophical outlook on Russian
historical life. It was not a simple borrowing of other people's conclusions, there was no
only the mechanical application of other people's ideas to poorly understood material,
no, it was an independent scientific movement in which views and scientific
the techniques were identical with the German ones, but the conclusions were by no means predetermined and
depended on the material. It was scientific creativity, going in the direction
of his era, but independently. That is why every figure in this movement
retained his individuality and left behind valuable monographs, and all
the school of history and law has created such a scheme of our historical
development, under the influence of which Russian historiography still lives.
Based on the idea that the distinctive features of the history of each nation
created by its nature and its original environment, they turned
attention to the original form of Russian social life, which, according to them
opinion, was determined by the beginning of tribal life. All Russian history was represented
they are like a consistent organically harmonious transition from blood
social unions, from tribal life to state life. Between
the era of blood unions and the state is an intermediate period, in
which there was a struggle between the beginning of the blood and the beginning of the state. AT
the first period, the personality was unconditionally subordinate to the clan, and its position
determined not by individual activity or ability, but by place in
kind; the blood principle dominated not only in the princely, but in all
In other respects, it determined the entire political life of Russia.
Russia in the first stage of its development was considered tribal property
princes; it was divided into volosts, according to the number of members of the princely
Houses. The order of ownership was determined by ancestral accounts. The position of each
The prince was determined by his place in the family. Violation of seniority gave rise
internecine strife, which, from the point of view of Solovyov, are being waged not for volosts, not
for something concrete, but for violation of seniority, for an idea. Over time
changed the circumstances of the prince's life and work. In the north-east
The princes of Russia were the full masters of the land, they themselves called on the population, they themselves
built cities. Feeling like the creator of a new area, the prince presents to
her new requirements; by virtue of the fact that he himself created it, he does not consider it
tribal, but freely disposes of it and passes it on to his family. From here
the concept of family property arises, a concept that caused the final
death of the family life. The family, not the gens, became the main principle; princes even
began to look at their distant relatives as strangers, enemies
of his family. A new era is coming, when one principle has decayed, another
not created yet. Chaos ensues, the struggle of all against all. From this chaos
a family of Moscow princes, accidentally strengthened, grows up, who their patrimony
placed above others in power and wealth. In this fiefdom little by little
the beginning of uniform inheritance is being worked out - the first sign of a new
state order, which is finally established by the reforms of Peter
Great.
Such, in the most general terms, is S. M. Solovyov’s view of the course of our
history, a view developed by him in two of his dissertations: 1) "On the relationship
Novgorod to the Grand Dukes "and 2)" The history of relations between the princes of Rurikov
at home". Solovyov's system was talentedly supported by K. D. Kavelin in
several of his historical articles (see volume 1 of the "Collected Works of Kavelin"
ed. 1897). In only one essential particular, Kavelin disagreed with
Solovyov: he thought that even without an accidental confluence of favorable
circumstances in the north of Russia, the tribal life of the princes had to decompose and
go to the family, and then to the state. inevitable and consistent
he depicted the change of beginnings in our history in such a short formula: "Kin and
common ownership; family and patrimony or separate property; face and
state".
The impetus given by the talented works of Solovyov and Kavelin of the Russian
historiography, was very large. A coherent scientific system, first given
of our history, captivated many and caused a lively scientific movement. Lot
monographs was written directly in the spirit of the historical-legal school. But a lot and
objections, stronger and stronger with the passage of time, were raised against
teachings of this new school. A series of heated scientific disputes, after all,
finally shook the harmonious theoretical outlook of Solovyov and Kavelin
in the form in which it appeared in their first works. First objection
against the school of tribal life belonged to the Slavophiles. Represented by K. S. Aksakov
(1817-1860) they turned to the study of historical facts (to them partly
Moscow professors [V. N.] Leshkov and [I. D.] Belyaev,
1810--1873); at the first stage of our history, they saw not tribal life, but
communal and little by little created their own doctrine of the community. It met
some support in the works of the Odessa professor [F. I.] Leontovich,
who tried to define more precisely the primitive nature of the ancient Slavic
communities; this community, in his opinion, is very similar to the existing one
Serbian "zadruga", based partly on kindred, partly on
territorial relations. In place of the genus, precisely defined by the school
tribal way of life, has become no less accurately defined community, and, thus,
the first part of the general historical scheme of Solovyov and Kavelin lost its
immutability. The second objection to this particular scheme was made
scientists close in their general direction to Solovyov and Kavelin. Boris
Nikolayevich Chicherin (1828-1904), brought up in the same scientific
situation, like Solovyov and Kavelin, pushed the era beyond the boundaries of history
blood tribal unions in Russia. On the first pages of our historical
of being, he already saw the decomposition of the ancient tribal principles. Our first form
public, as history knows, in his view, was not built on
blood ties, but on the basis of civil law. In ancient Russian life
personality was not limited to anything, neither blood union, nor state
orders. All social relations were determined by civil transactions -
contracts. From this contractual order naturally grew
later the state. Chicherin's theory, set out in his work "On
spiritual and contractual letters of the princes of the great and appanage", received a distant
neck development in the works of prof. V. I. Sergeevich and in this last form already
completely departed from the original scheme given by the school of tribal life. All
the history of social life in Sergeevich is divided into two periods: the first - from
the predominance of private and personal will over the beginning of the state, the second - with
the predominance of public interest over personal will.
If the first, Slavophile objection arose on the basis of considerations
general cultural independence of the Slavs, if the second grew on the basis of
study of legal institutions, the third objection to the school of tribal life
done most likely from the point of view of historical and economic. ancient
Kievan Rus is not a patriarchal country; her public relations
quite complex and built on a timocratic basis. It is dominated by
the aristocracy of capital, whose representatives sit in the princely duma. Such
view of prof. V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841--1911) in his works "Boyar Duma
Ancient Russia" and "Course of Russian History").
All these objections destroyed the coherent system of tribal life, but did not
created any new historical scheme. Slavophilism remained
true to its metaphysical basis, and in later representatives moved away from
historical research. The system of Chicherin and Sergeevich consciously considers
itself as a system only of the history of law. A historical and economic point of view
not yet applied to the explanation of the whole course of our history. Finally, in the works
other historians, we do not meet any successful attempt to give
grounds for an independent and integral historical outlook.
How does our historiography live now? Together with K. [S.] Aksakov, we
we can say that we now have no "history", that "we now have to
historical research, no more. "But, noting this the absence of one
the dominant doctrine in historiography, we do not deny the existence of
of our modern historians of common views, novelty and fruitfulness
which determine the latest efforts of our historiography. These common
views arose in our country at the same time as they appeared in the European
science; they concerned both scientific methods and historical ideas in general.
The desire that arose in the West to apply techniques to the study of history
natural sciences affected us in the works of the famous [A. P.] Shchapova
(1831--1876). The comparative historical method worked out by the English
scientists [(Freeman) and others] and requiring that every historical phenomenon
studied in connection with similar phenomena of other peoples and epochs, --
was also applied in our country by many scientists (for example, V. I. Sergeevich). Development
ethnography aroused the desire to create a historical ethnography and from the point of view
ethnographic view to consider in general the phenomena of our ancient history
(Ya. I. Kostomarov, 1817 - 1885). Interest in the history of economic life,
who grew up in the West, has also affected us with many attempts to study
economic life in different eras (V. O. Klyuchevsky and others). So
called evolutionism has its representatives among us in the person of
modern university teachers.
Not only what was reintroduced into scientific consciousness moved forward
our historiography. Revision of old already developed questions gave new
conclusions that formed the basis of new and new research. Already in the 70s S.
M. Solovyov in his "Public Readings on Peter the Great" is clearer and
more conclusively expressed his old idea that Peter the Great was
traditional figure and in his work as a reformer guided by the ideals
old Moscow people of the 17th century. and used the means that were
prepared before him. Almost under the influence of the works of Solovyov
active development of the history of Muscovite Russia began, now showing
that pre-Petrine Moscow was not an Asiatic inert state and indeed
went to reform even before Peter, who himself took the idea of ​​reform from the surrounding
his Moscow environment. Revision of the oldest of the questions of Russian historiography
- the Varangian question [in the works of V. Gr. Vasilevsky (1838-- 1899), A. A.
Kunik (1814-1899), S. A. Gedeonov and others] illuminates the beginning of
our history. New research on the history of Western Russia opened up before
us curious and important data on the history and life of the Lithuanian-Russian
states [B. B. Antonovich (1834-1908), Dashkevich (born in 1852) and
other]. These examples do not exhaust, of course, the content of the latest
works on our subject; but these examples show that modern
historiography works on very large topics. Before attempts at historical
synthesis, therefore, may not be far.
In conclusion of the historiographic review, one should name those works on
Russian historiography, which depict the gradual development and
the present state of our science and which therefore must serve
preferred guides for getting to know our historiography: 1) K.
N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Russian History" (2 volumes, summary of facts and
scholarly opinions with a very valuable introduction to sources and historiography); 2) K.
N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (Tatishchev, Shletser, Karamzin,
Pogodin, Solovyov and others). SPb., 1882; 3) S. M. Solovyov, articles on
historiography published by the Association "Public Benefit" in the book
"Collected works of S. M. Solovyov" St. Petersburg; 4) O. M. Koyalovich "History
Russian Self-Consciousness". St. Petersburg, 1884; 5) V. S. Ikonnikov "The Experience of the Russian
historiography" (volume one, book one and two). Kyiv, 1891;
6) P. N. Milyukov "The main currents of Russian historical thought" - in
"Russian Thought" for 1893 (and separately).

Overview of the sources of Russian history
In the broadest sense of the word, a historical source is every remnant
antiquity, will it be a building, an object of art, a thing of everyday
everyday life, a printed book, a manuscript, or, finally, an oral tradition. But in a narrow
sense, we call the printed or written remnant of antiquity the source, otherwise
speaking, of the epoch that the historian is studying. We are only in charge of
remains of the latter kind.
The review of sources can be done in two ways: first, it can
be a simple logically systematic list of various types of historical
material, indicating its main publications; secondly, a review of sources
can be built historically and combine the list of material with
an overview of the movement of archaeographic works in our country. The second way to get to know
sources are much more interesting for us, firstly, because here we
we can observe the appearance of archaeographic works in connection with the way in
society developed an interest in handwritten antiquity, and, secondly, because,
that here we will get acquainted with those figures who, by collecting materials
for their native history they made themselves an eternal name in our science.
In the pre-Petrine era, the attitude to manuscripts in literate layers
Moscow society was the most attentive, because at that time the manuscript
replaced the book, was a source of both knowledge and aesthetic pleasures and
constituted a valuable possession; manuscripts were constantly copied from
great care and often sacrificed before death by the owners in
monasteries "to your liking": the donor for his gift asks the monastery or church about
eternal remembrance of his sinful soul. Legislative acts and everything
manuscripts of a legal nature, i.e. what we would call now
official and business papers were also jealously saved. printed
legal provisions, except for the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, then not
existed, and this handwritten material was, as it were, a code of the
law, the leadership of the then administrators and judges. Legislation
then it was written, as it is now printed. Moreover, on handwritten
charters, monasteries and individuals based their privileges and various kinds
rights. It is clear that all this written material was expensive in everyday life.
the life of that time and that it should have been valued and preserved.
In the XVIII century. under the influence of new cultural tastes, with the spread
printed book and printed statutes, the attitude towards old manuscripts is very
changes: a decline in the sense of their value is noticed in us throughout
XVIII century. In the 17th century the manuscript was highly valued by the then cultural class,
now in the 18th century. this class gave way to new cultural layers, which
handwritten sources of antiquity were treated contemptuously, as if they were old
worthless rubbish. The clergy also ceased to understand the historical and
spiritual value of their rich manuscript collections and applied to them
carelessly. The abundance of manuscripts passed from the 17th century. in the 18th century, contributed
because they were not appreciated. The manuscript was still, so to speak, an everyday thing, and
not historical and little by little from the cultural tops of society, where before
rotated, passed into its lower layers, among other things, to the schismatics,
whom our archaeographer P. M. Stroev called "trustees of our manuscripts."
The old archives and monastic book depositories, containing a lot of
jewels, were left without any attention, in complete disregard and
decline. Here are examples from as early as the 19th century, which show how ignorant
handwritten antiquities were handled by their owners and keepers. "In one abode
piety, to which at the end of the XVII century. more than 15 others have been attributed
monasteries, - wrote P. M. Stroev in 1823, - her old archive was placed in
a tower where the windows had no frames. Snow covered a half inch pile of books and
columns, heaped indiscriminately, and I rummaged through it, as if in ruins
Herculaneus. This is six years old. Therefore, snow covered these six times
manuscripts and the same amount melted on them, now only one rusty
dust ... "The same Stroev in 1829 reported to the Academy of Sciences that the archive of the ancient
the city of Kevrol, after the abolition of the latter, was transferred to Pinega, "rotted there
in a dilapidated barn and, as I was told, the last remnants of it not long before
sim (i.e. before 1829) were thrown into the water."
A well-known lover and researcher of antiquity, Metropolitan of Kyiv Eugene
(Bolkhovitinov, 1767-1837), being a bishop in Pskov, wished to examine
rich Novgorod-Yuriev Monastery. "Forward, he let know of his arrival,
- writes the biographer of the Metropolitan [Opolit] Yevgeny Ivanovsky, - and this, of course,
forced the authorities of the monastery to fuss a little and bring some of
monastery premises in a more specious order. He could go to the monastery
one of two roads: either the upper one, more passable, but boring, or the lower one,
near Volkhov, less convenient, but more pleasant. He drove bottom. Near
the monastery itself, he met with a wagon traveling to Volkhov, accompanied by
monk. Wanting to know what the monk was carrying to the river, he asked. The monk replied that he
carries various rubbish and rubbish, which you can’t just throw into a dunghill, but
should be thrown into the river. This piqued Eugene's curiosity. He came up to
cart, ordered to lift the matting, saw torn books and handwritten sheets and
then he ordered the monk to return to the monastery. In this cart were
precious remains of writing even in the 11th century." (Ivanovsky "Metr. Eugene",
pp. 41-42).
Such was our attitude towards ancient monuments even in the 19th century. In the XVIII
in. it was, of course, no better, although it should be noted that next to this with
beginning of the 18th century. are individuals who consciously relate to
antiquity. Peter I himself collected old coins, medals and other remnants
antiquity, according to Western European custom, as unusual and curious
objects as a kind of "monsters". But, collecting curious real
remnants of antiquity, Peter wished at the same time "to know the state of the Russian
history" and believed that "it is necessary to work first on this, and not on the beginning of the world
and other states, because a lot has been written about this. "From 1708, by order
Peter on the composition of Russian history (XVI and XVII centuries), the then
scholar of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy Fyodor Polikarpov, but labor
Peter did not satisfy him, but remained unknown to us. Despite, however,
such a failure, until the end of his reign, Peter did not leave the thought of a complete
Russian history and took care of the collection of material for it; in 1720 he
ordered the governors to review all the wonderful historical documents
and chronicle books in all monasteries, dioceses and cathedrals, compose them
inventory and deliver those inventories to the Senate. And in 1722, the Synod was indicated on these
inventory to select all historical manuscripts from the dioceses to the Synod and make them
lists. But the Synod failed to enforce this: the majority
diocesan authorities responded to the requests of the Synod that they did not have such
manuscripts, and in total, up to 40 manuscripts were sent to the Synod, as can be judged
according to some sources, and of them only 8 are actually historical, the rest
spiritual content. So Peter's desire to have a historical account of
Russia and collect material for this crashed on the ignorance and negligence of his
contemporaries.
Historical science was born with us later than Peter, and scientific processing
historical material began with the appearance of German scientists among us;
then, little by little, the significance of handwritten material for
our history. In this last respect, invaluable services to our science
Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705-1785), already known to us, rendered. Conscientious
and an industrious scientist, a careful critic-researcher and at the same time
tireless collector of historical materials, Miller, with his various
activity fully deserves the name of the "father of Russian historical science",
what our historiographers give him. Our science is still using
the material they collected. In the so-called "portfolios" of Miller, stored in
Academy of Sciences and in the Moscow Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
contains more than 900 numbers of various kinds of historical papers. These portfolios
and now they still constitute a whole treasure for the researcher, and new
historical works often draw their materials from them; So,
the archaeographic commission until recently filled it with material
some of their publications (Siberian affairs in additions to "Acts
historical"). Miller collected written monuments not only in
European Russia, but also in Siberia, where he spent about 10 years (1733-- 1743).
These surveys in Siberia gave important results, because only here
Miller managed to find a lot of valuable documents about the turmoil, which were later
published in the Collection of State Letters and Treaties in Volume II. At
Empress Catherine II, Miller was appointed head of the Archives of the Collegium
Foreign Affairs and was instructed by the empress to compile a meeting
diplomatic documents following the example of the Amsterdam edition of Dumont (Corps
universel diplomatique du droit des Gens, 8 volumes, 1726--1731). But Miller was
already old for such a grandiose work and, as the head of the archive, he only managed to
start parsing and organizing archival material and prepare a whole school
of their students, who, after the death of the teacher, continued to work in this archive
and fully deployed their forces later in the so-called "Rumyantsev era".
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) acted next to Miller. He
intended to write the geography of Russia, but he understood that geography without history
impossible, and therefore decided first to write a history and turned to collecting and
study of handwritten material. Gathering materials, he found and first appreciated
"Russian Truth" and "Tsar's Sudebnik". These monuments, like the "History
Russian" Tatishchev, were published after his death by Miller. In addition
actually historical works Tatishchev compiled instructions for collecting
ethnographic, geographical and archaeological information about Russia. This
the instruction was adopted by the Academy of Sciences.
Since the time of Catherine II, the collection and publication of historical
material has evolved a lot. Catherine herself found leisure for studying Russian
history, was keenly interested in Russian antiquity, encouraged and evoked
historical works. In this mood of the empress, Russian society became
be more interested in your past and be more conscious of the remnants
this past. Under Catherine as a collector of historical material
acts, among other things, Count A. N. Musin-Pushkin, who found the "Lay of the regiment
Igor" and trying to collect everything from the monastic libraries to the capital
hand-written chronicles in the form of their best storage and publication. Under Catherine
numerous publications of chronicles began at the Academy of Sciences and at the Synod,
publications, however, are still imperfect and not scientific. And in society it begins
same movement in favor of the study of antiquity.
In this case, the first place is occupied by Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov
(1744--1818), better known to our society for publishing satirical
magazines, Freemasonry and concerns about the spread of education. By their own
personal qualities and humane ideas, this is a rare person in his century, a bright
phenomenon of its time. He is already known to us as a collector and publisher
"Ancient Russian Vivliofika" - an extensive collection of old acts of various
family, chroniclers, ancient literary works and historical articles.
He began his publication in 1773 and at the age of 3 he published 10 parts. In the preface to
Vivliofike Novikov defines his publication as "the inscription of manners and customs
ancestors" in order to know "the greatness of their spirit, adorned with simplicity." (It is necessary
notice that the idealization of antiquity was already strong in the first satirical
Novikov's magazine "Truten", 1769--1770) The first edition of "Vivliofika"
now forgotten for the sake of the second, more complete, in 20 volumes (1788-1791).
Novikov in this edition of his was supported by Catherine II herself, both with money and
the fact that she allowed him to study in the archives of the Foreign Collegium, where he
old Miller helped very cordially. According to its content, "Ancient
Russian Vivliofika" was a random compilation of material that came to hand,
published almost without any criticism and without any scientific methods, as we
understand now.
In this regard, the "Acts of Peter the Great" by the Kursk merchant are even lower.
Iv. Iv. Golikov (1735-1801), who from childhood admired the deeds of Peter,
had the misfortune to be put on trial, but was released on a manifesto on occasion
opening of the monument to Peter. On this occasion, Golikov decided his whole life
to devote to work on the biography of Peter. He collected all the news that only
could get, without analyzing their merits, letters from Peter, anecdotes about him, etc.
At the beginning of his collection, he placed a brief overview of the 16th and 17th centuries. For labor
Golikov drew the attention of Ekaterina and opened the archives to him, but this work
devoid of any scientific significance, although due to the lack of the best materials they
are still using it now. For its time, it was a major archaeographic
fact (1st edition in 30 vols. 1778-1798. 11th edition in 15 vols. 1838).
In addition to the Academy and private individuals, she turned to the monuments of antiquity
activities and the "Free Russian Assembly", the scientific society,
founded at Moscow University in 1771. This society was very
actively in helping individual scientists, giving them access to archives, constructing
scientific ethnographic expeditions, etc., but did not publish much
ancient monuments: in 10 years it published only 6 books of its "Works".
Such, in the most general terms, is the activity of the second half of the past
century in collecting and publishing materials. This activity is different
random nature, captured only that material, which, if possible,
so to speak, he went into his own hands: worries about those monuments that were in
province, did not appear. Miller's Siberian expedition and collection
chronicles, according to Musin-Pushkin, were separate episodes
exceptional character, and the historical wealth of the province remained
so far without evaluation and attention. As for historical publications of the past
century, they do not withstand even the most condescending criticism. Except
various technical details, we now demand from a learned publisher,
that he review, if possible, all known lists of published
monument, chose the oldest and best of them, i.e. with correct text
one of the best laid the foundation for the publication and printed its text, leading to it
all variants of other serviceable lists, avoiding the slightest inaccuracies and
typos in the text. The publication must be preceded by a check of the historical
monument values; if the monument turns out to be a simple compilation, then it is better
publish its sources than the compilation itself. But in the XVIII century. looked at the matter
not this way; considered it possible to publish, for example, a chronicle according to one of its lists
with all the errors, so now, as needed, using some of the publications
for lack of better ones, the historian is constantly in danger of making a mistake,
inaccuracy, etc. Only Schlozer theoretically established the methods of scientific
critics, but Miller in the publication of the Book of Powers (1775) observed some
from the basic rules of scholarly publication. In the preface to this chronicle, he says
about his methods of publishing: they are scientific, although they have not yet been worked out; but in
he cannot be reproached for this - a complete development of critical methods appeared in
us only in the 19th century, and it was Miller's students who contributed most of all.
Aging, Miller asked Empress Catherine to appoint after his death
head of the Archives of the Foreign Collegium of one of his students. Request
he was respected, and after Miller, the Archives were managed by his students: first I.
Stritter, then N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky (1739-1814). This last one
compiling a description of the affairs of his archive, on the basis of these cases he was engaged and
studies, which, unfortunately, are not all published. They are very
helped Karamzin a lot in compiling the History of the Russian State.
When, in the first years of the 19th century, the archive of the Foreign Collegium entered the
the main jurisdiction of Count Nikolai Petrovich Rumyantsev (1754--1826), in the archive
a whole family of archeographers had already been brought up, and for Rumyantsev they were ready
worthy helpers. The name of Rumyantsev means a whole era in the course of our
popular self-knowledge, and rightly so. Count N. P. Rumyantsev appeared at that very
the time when Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" was being prepared,
when the consciousness was ripening that it was necessary to collect and save the remnants of the old
people's life, when, finally, the figures in this area with scientific
tricks. Count Rumyantsev became an exponent of a conscious attitude to antiquity
and, thanks to his position and means, was the center of a new
historical and archaeological movement, such a respected patron of the arts, before the memory
which we and all future generations must worship.
Rumyantsev was born in 1754; his father was the famous count
Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky. Nikolai Petrovich began his service among Russians
diplomats of the Catherine's century and for more than 15 years was an extraordinary envoy
and Minister Plenipotentiary in Frankfurt am Main. With imp. Paul I though
Rumyantsev was in favor with the emperor, but did not hold any positions and
remained out of work.
Under Alexander I, he was given the portfolio of Minister of Commerce, and then in
1809 entrusted with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the preservation of the post of minister
commerce. Over time, he was elevated to the rank of State
Chancellor and appointed Chairman of the Council of State. During
management of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Archives affected by love
Rumyantsev to antiquity, although apparently there was no ground for it. Already in
1810 Count Nikolai Petrovich invites Bantysh-Kamensky to draw up a plan
Publications of the Collection of State Letters and Treaties. This plan was soon
ready, and Rumyantsev petitioned the Sovereign for the establishment, with
Archive of the Foreign Collegium, Commission for the Printing of "State
letters and contracts. "He took all the costs of publishing at his own expense, but with
on the condition that the commission shall remain in his charge even when he leaves
administration of the Foreign Office. His wish was fulfilled, and on May 3
1811 the commission was established. The twelfth year delayed the release of the 1st
volumes, but Bantysh-Kamensky managed to save the printed sheets along with the archive
of this first volume, and the first volume came out by 1813 under the title "Collection
State Diplomas and Agreements stored in the State Collegium
Foreign Affairs. "On the title page was the coat of arms of Rumyantsev, as well as on
all other publications. In the introduction to the first volume, its chief editor
Bantysh-Kamensky explained the needs that caused the publication and the goals that
it pursued: "The testers of Russian antiquities and those who wanted to acquire
knowledge in Russian diplomacy could not be content with faulty
and contradictory passages of letters placed in Ancient Vivliofika, for
a complete collection of fundamental decrees and treaties was needed, which would
explained the gradual rise of Russia. Not having this guidance, they
were forced to inquire about the events and alliances of their state from
foreign writers and their writings to be guided" (SGG and D, vol. 1,
page II). These words are true, because the edition of gr. Rumyantsev was
the first systematic code-document with which no one could compete
one previous edition, In the published (first) volume were collected
wonderful letters of the time 1229-1613. With their appearance, she entered
scientific turnover is a mass of valuable material. published conscientiously and luxuriously.
The second volume of the Rumyantsev Collection was published in 1819 and contains
letters until the 16th century. and documents of troubled times. Bantysh-Kamensky died before
the release of the 2nd volume (1814), and instead worked on the publication of Malinovsky.
Under his editorship, the third volume was published in 1822, and in 1828, when Rumyantseva
no longer alive, and the fourth. Both of these volumes contain documents
17th century In the preface to the 2nd volume, Malinovsky announced that the publication of charters
passes under the jurisdiction of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and depends on its orders;
however, to this day, the matter has not gone beyond the beginning of the fifth volume, which, since
recently circulated for sale and contains diplomatic
paper. If Rumyantsev's activities were limited only to this edition (on
which he spent up to 40,000 rubles), then even then his memory would live forever in
our science, - this collection of documents has such significance. how
historical phenomenon, this is the first scientific collection of acts, which marked itself
the beginning of our scientific attitude to antiquity, but as a historical source, this
and is still one of the most important collections of material that is important for
the main questions of the general history of our state.
Striving so diligently to bring to light archival material, Count
Rumyantsev was not a simple amateur, but he had great erudition in Russian
antiquities and did not cease to regret that tastes for
antiquity, although their late appearance did not prevent him from spending a lot of work and
material sacrifices to find and save monuments. Its total
costs for scientific purposes reached 300,000 rubles. silver [brom]. He has repeatedly
sent scientific expeditions on his own account, he himself made excursions to
around Moscow, carefully looking for all sorts of remnants of antiquity, and
generously paid for each find. It is evident from his correspondence, among other things, that
he released one manuscript to the will of a whole peasant family. high
Rumyantsev's official position made it easier for him to do what he loved and helped him to lead
him in the widest sizes: so, he addressed many governors and
bishops, asking them for instructions on local antiquities, and sent them to
management of their programs for collecting ancient monuments. Not only that, he
supervised research in foreign book depositories on the part of Russian history
and, in addition to Russian monuments, wanted to undertake an extensive publication of foreign
writers about Russia: they noted up to 70 foreign legends about Russia,
The publication plan was also drawn up, but unfortunately this business did not take place. But not
one business of collecting monuments interested the chancellor; he often provided
support and researchers of antiquity, encouraging their work, and often himself called
young forces for research, asking them scientific questions and providing
material support. Before his death, Count Rumyantsev bequeathed for the general
use of compatriots its rich collection of books, manuscripts and other
antiquities. Emperor Nicholas I opened this meeting to the public, under
the name of the "Rumyantsev Museum", originally in St. Petersburg; but at
Emperor Alexander II, the museum was transferred to Moscow, where it was connected with
called a public museum in the famous Pashkov House. These museums are
precious repositories of our ancient writing. It was so wide
the activities of Count Rumyantsev in the field of our historical science. her incentives
consisted in the high education of this man and in his patriotic
direction. He had a lot of mind and material means to achieve his
scientific purposes, but it must be confessed that he would not have done much of what
did if he had not had wonderful assistants behind him
people of that time. His assistants were members of the Archives of the College of Foreign
affairs. The chiefs of the Archive under Rumyantsev were N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky
(1739-1814) and L.F. Malinovsky, whose advice and works were used by N.
M. Karamzin and who did a lot to improve their Archive.
And of the young scientists who began their work in this Archive under Rumyantsev,
we will mention only the most prominent: Konstantin Fedorovich Kalaidovich and Pavel
Mikhailovich Stroev. Both of them did remarkably much in number and in
the significance of their works, working on the scientific edition of the monuments. collecting and
describing the manuscripts fully armed with excellent critical techniques.
The biography of Kalaidovich is little known. He was born in 1792, lived a little
- only 40 years old and ended in insanity and almost poverty. In 1829
Pogodin wrote about him to Stroev: "Kalaidovich's madness has passed, but remained
such weakness, such hypochondria, that it is impossible to look at him without sorrow.
He is in need ... "In his activities, Kalaidovich almost entirely belonged to
Rumyantsev circle and was Rumyantsev's favorite collaborator. He participated in
publication of the "Collection of State Letters and Treaties"; together with Stroev
made a trip to the Moscow and Kaluga provinces in 1817 for
searching for old manuscripts. It was the first scientific expedition in
province with an exclusive goal - paleographic. She was created by
the initiative of gr. Rumyantsev and crowned with great success. Stroev and Kalaidovich found
Izbornik Svyatoslav 1073, Illarionov Praise to Kogan Vladimir and between
others in the Volokolamsky Monastery Sudebnik Ivan ///. This was then full
novelty: no one in the Russian edition knew the Princely Sudebnik, and Karamzin
used it in Herberstein's Latin translation. The count welcomed the finds
and thanked the young scientists for their work. The lawsuit was published at his expense
Stroev and Kalaidovich in 1819 ("Laws of the Grand Duke John Vasilyevich
and his grandson Tsar John Vasilyevich". Moscow 1819, second edition, Moscow
1878). -- In addition to his publishing works and paleographic research,
Kalaidovich is also known for his philological studies ("John, Exarch
Bulgarian"). An early death and a sad life did not give this talent
opportunities to fully develop their rich forces.
P. M. Stroev was in close contact with Kalaidovich in the days of his youth.
Stroev, coming from a poor noble family, was born in Moscow in 1796.
In 1812, he was supposed to enter the university, but military events,
interrupted the course of university teaching, prevented this, so that only
in August 1813 he became a student. The most wonderful of his teachers are here
were R. F. Timkovsky (d. 1820), professor of Roman literature,
famous for the publication of the chronicle of Nestor (came out in 1824, to publish it he
applied the techniques of publishing ancient classics) and M. T. Kachenovsky (d. 1842)
- the founder of the so-called skeptical school. Immediately upon admission to
university, i.e. 17 years old, Stroev has already compiled a brief Russian History,
which was published in 1814, became a generally accepted textbook and five years later
demanded a new edition. In 1815, Stroev was already speaking with his
own journal "Modern Observer of Russian Literature",
which he thought to make weekly and which came out only from March to
July. At the end of the same 1815, Pavel Mikhailovich left the university, not
after graduating from the course, and at the suggestion of Rumyantsev enters the Printing Commission
State Diplomas and Treaties. Rumyantsev highly valued him and, as we shall see,
was right. In addition to successful office work, Stroev from 1817 to 1820 on
Rumyantsev’s means travels with Kalaidovich to the book depositories of the Moscow
and Kaluga eparchies. We already know what important monuments were then
found. In addition to the finds, up to 2000 manuscripts were described, and Stroev in these
trips acquired a great knowledge of handwritten material, which he much
helped Karamzin. And after his expeditions, until the end of 1822, Stroev
continues to work under Rumyantsev. In 1828 Stroev was elected
full member of the Society of History and Antiquities of the Russian
Moscow University (this Society was founded in 1804 to publish
ancient chronicles). At a meeting of the Society on July 14, 1823, Stroev spoke with
grandiose project. Regarding his choice, he made a brilliant speech, in
whom he thanked for his election, pointed out that the goal of the Society was to publish
chronicles is too narrow, and proposed to replace it with the analysis and publication of all
in general historical monuments, which the Society will be able to
position:
"Society must," said Stroyev, "extract, bring to the knowledge
and, if not to process itself, then to deliver to others the means to process everything
written monuments of our history and ancient literature..." "Let the whole
Russia, he said, will turn into one library available to us. Not
hundreds of well-known manuscripts, we must limit our studies, but
countless number of them in monasteries and cathedral vaults, no one
stored and not described by anyone, in the archives, which mercilessly devastate time and
negligent ignorance, in storerooms and cellars, not accessible to the rays of the sun, where
piles of ancient books and scrolls seem to have been torn down in order for the gnawing
animals, worms, rust and aphids could exterminate them more conveniently and faster! .. "Stroev,
in a word, he proposed to the Society to bring into existence all written antiquity,
which the provincial libraries had, and proposed to achieve this
purpose to send a scientific expedition to describe the provincial book depositories.
The trial trip of this expedition was to be made according to the project
Stroev in Novgorod, where it was necessary to dismantle the one in the St. Sophia Cathedral
library. Further, the expedition was to make its first or northern
trip, the area of ​​\u200b\u200bwhich included, according to the plan of Stroev, 10 provinces (Novgorod,
Petersburg, Olonets, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Vyatka, Perm,
Kostroma, Yaroslavl and Tver). This trip was supposed to take two
an extra year and give, as Stroev hoped, brilliant results, "a rich
harvest", because in the north there are many monasteries with libraries; there lived and
Old Believers live, who are very attentive to the handwritten
antiquity; and then, in the north, there were the least enemy pogroms.
The second or middle trip, according to Stroev's project, was supposed to take two years
time and cover the middle zone of Russia (provinces: Moscow,
Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Tambov, Tula, Kaluga, Smolensk and
Pskovskaya). The third or western trip was to head to
southwestern Russia (9 provinces: Vitebsk, Mogilev, Minsk, Volyn,
Kyiv, Kharkov, Chernigov, Kursk and Oryol) and would demand
year of time. With these trips, Stroev hoped to achieve a systematic
descriptions of all historical material in the province, mainly in
spiritual libraries. He determined the costs in the amount of 7000 rubles. in year. All
he intended to merge the descriptions compiled by the expedition into one common painting
chronicle and historical-legal material and invited the Society to publish
then historical monuments according to the best editions described by the expedition, and
not according to random lists, as had been done up to that time. Drawing such
attractive prospects, Stroev skillfully proved the possibility of performing
his project and insisted on its adoption. He ended his speech with praise
Rumyantsev, thanks to whom he could acquire skill and experience in
archeographic business. Of course, the Rumyantsev expedition of 1817-1820.
forced Stroev to daydream about that grandiose expedition, which he
offered.
Society, for the most part, took Stroev's speech for a bold dream.
young mind and gave Stroev the means to view only the Novgorod
Sophia Library, which was described by him. Stroev's speech was not even
published in the journal of the Society, and appeared in the "Northern Archive". It was read and
forgot. Stroev himself was engaged at that time in the history of the Don Cossacks and
compiled his famous "Key to the History of the Russian State" by Karamzin,
wrote in magazines, became a librarian to Count F. A. Tolstoy, together with
Kalaidovich compiled and published a catalog of a rich collection of manuscripts
Count F. A. Tolstoy, now located in the Imperial Public Library.
Stroev's works were noticed by the Academy of Sciences, and in 1826 she gave him the title
your correspondent. Among his last works, Stroev seemed to have forgotten about
his speech: in fact, it turned out not to be so. According to legend, the Grand Duchess
Maria Pavlovna reacted with great sympathy to Stroev's speech, which
read in the "Northern Archive", and this participation, as they say, prompted Stroev
write a letter to the President of the Academy of Sciences, Count S. S. Uvarov. In that
in a letter, he develops the same plans that he developed in the Society, he proposes
himself, as an experienced archaeographer, for archaeographic trips and informs
a detailed plan for the practical implementation of the case proposed by him. Uvarov
handed over Stroev's letter to the Academy, while the Academy handed it over to its member of the Circle
entrusted its analysis and evaluation. May 21, 1828 thanks to an excellent review
Krug, an important matter has been decided. Academy, recognizing that archaeographic
expedition is "a sacred duty, from which the first scientific institution
Empire cannot evade without being justly rebuked for
indifference", decided to send Stroev on a trip, allocating 10 thousand rubles.
banknotes. The Archaeographic Expedition was thus established.
The choice of assistants for the archaeographic expedition was provided by
Stroev. He chose two officials from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
concluded with them a very curious condition, where, among other things, he wrote
the following: "The expedition is expected not by various fun, but by labors, difficulties and
deprivation of every kind. Therefore, my companions must be animated with patience and
readiness to endure everything hard and unpleasant, so that they do not take possession of them
cowardice, indecisiveness, grumbling!"... Then he warns his
assistants that they often have to have a bad apartment, a cart, instead of
spring crew, not always tea, etc. Stroev, obviously, knew in what
he will work in the environment, and consciously went towards hardships. First
but his companions, having experienced the difficulties of the case, abandoned him six months later.
Having prepared everything for the trip, having stocked up on official papers, which
were supposed to open the entrance to all the archives for him, Stroev left in May 1829
Moscow to the shores of the White Sea. It would take too long to describe the most curious
details of this expedition. Deprivations, difficulties of communication and work itself,
deadly hygienic conditions of life and work, diseases, sometimes
ill-will and suspicion of ignorant keepers of archives and
libraries, - Stroev endured all this stoically. He devoted himself to work,
often surprisingly difficult and dry, and only occasionally, taking advantage of holidays for
rest for a month, returned to his family. It is comforting that
in these works, he found himself a worthy assistant in the person of Yak. Iv. Berednikov
(1793-1854), with which he replaced the former officials in 1830. Energy
these two workers achieved miraculous results;
they worked for five and a half years, having traveled all over the northern and middle
Russia, examined more than 200 libraries and archives, wrote off up to 3000
historical and legal documents relating to the XIV, XV, XVI and XVII centuries,
examined a lot of monuments of annalistic and literary nature.
The material they collected, being rewritten, took 10 huge folios, and in
their draft portfolios were left with a mass of references, extracts and instructions, which
allowed Stroev to compile two remarkable works that appeared in print
already after his death. (These are "Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries
Russian Church", all whom history remembers, and "Bibliological
dictionary or alphabetical listing of all manuscripts of historical and literary
content" that only Stroev saw in his lifetime.)
All educated Russia followed Stroev's journey. Scientists
turned to him, asking for extracts, instructions and references. Speransky, cooking
then in print "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire", addressed to
Stroev for help in collecting decrees. Annually, on December 29, the day of the annual
meetings of the Academy of Sciences, among other things, reports were read on the actions
archaeological expedition. Information about her was placed in magazines. Emperor
Nikolai read "from board to board" large volumes of
documents collected by the expedition.
At the end of 1834, Stroev was close to finishing his business. Northern and
his average trips were over. The smallest one remained - the western one,
those. Little Russia, Volyn, Lithuania and Belarus. In his report to the Academy for 1834
Mr. Stroev triumphantly declared this and, enumerating the results
archaeographic expedition for the entire time of its existence, said: "From
the discretion of the Imperial Academy of Sciences depends: a) to continue
archeographic expedition in other regions of the Empire in order to approve
resolutely: there is no more of this, i.e. no unknown material, or b) start
printing of acts of historical and legal, almost prepared, and collection
different writings (i.e. chronicles) according to my instructions ... "This report by Stroev
was read at the solemn meeting of the Academy on December 29, 1834, and almost on that
the same day, Stroev learned that by the will of the authorities (not the Academy), the archaeographic
the expedition ceased to exist, that for the analysis and publication of the extracted
Construction Act under the Ministry of Public Education established
Archaeological Commission. Stroev was appointed a simple member of this commission
along with his former assistant Berednikov and two other persons, to
expeditions not at all involved [* It was hard for Stroev to see an expensive deal in
someone else's disposal; so he soon leaves the commission, settles in
Moscow, but involuntarily maintains live relations with members of the commission. At first
at times, the commission depended a lot on him in its scientific activities; for her
he continues to work until the end of his life, developing the Moscow archives.
Here, under his leadership, the well-known I. E. Zabelin began his work
and N. V. Kyalachev. At the same time, Stroev continued to work for the Society
history and antiquities, describing, among other things, the library of the Society. Died
he January 5, 1876, eighty years old.]. The establishment of the commission, soon
turned into a constant (it still exists), a new
era in the publication of monuments of our antiquity.
Archaeographic Commission, which was first established with a temporary
the purpose of issuing the acts found by Stroyev, became from 1837, as we mentioned,
a permanent commission for the analysis and publication of historical material in general.
Its activities were expressed during the entire period of its existence by numerous
publications, of which it is necessary to indicate the most important. In 1836 she published
four of his first folios under the titles: "Acts collected in libraries
and archives of the Russian Empire by the Archaeographic Expedition of the Imperial
Academy of Sciences". (In common parlance, this edition is called "Acts
Expeditions", and in scientific references it is denoted by the letters AE.). In 1838,
"Legal acts or a collection of forms of ancient office work" (one volume).
This edition contains acts of private life until the 18th century. In 1841 and 1842
five volumes of "Acts of Historical, collected and published by the Archaeographic
commission" (I vol. [contains] acts until the 17th century, from II to V volumes - acts of the XVII
in.). Then "Supplements to Historical Acts" began to appear (total XII
volumes containing documents of the 12th-17th centuries). Since 1846, the commission has taken on
systematic publication of the "Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles". Pretty soon
she managed to release eight volumes (I volume - Laurentian Chronicle. II -
Ipatiev Chronicle. III and IV - Novgorod Chronicle, end of IV and V -
Pskovskaya, VI - Sophia Time Book, VII and VIII - Resurrection Chronicle).
Then the publication slowed down somewhat, and only after many years did the volumes
IX-XIV (containing the text of the Nikon Chronicle), and then XV volume
(concluding the Tver Chronicle), Volume XVI (Chronicle of Avramka), XVII
(Western Russian Chronicles), XIX (Book of Powers), XXII (Russian Chronograph),
XXIII (Yermolinskaya chronicle), etc.
All this material, enormous in number and importance of documents, enlivened
our science. Many monographs were based almost exclusively on it.
(for example, the excellent works of Solovyov and Chicherin), questions were clarified
ancient social life, it became possible to develop many particulars
ancient life.
After its first monumental works, the commission continued to actively
work. So far, she has published more than forty publications. The highest value
in addition to those already mentioned, they have: 1) "Acts related to the history of Western Russia"
(5 volumes), 2) "Acts relating to the history of Western and Southern Russia" (15
volumes), 3) "Acts relating to the legal life of ancient Russia" (3 volumes),
4) "Russian Historical Library" (28 volumes), 5) "Great Menaion of the Chetya
Metropolitan Macarius" (up to 20 issues), 6) "Scribal Books" Novgorod and
Izhorsky XVII century., 7) "Acts in foreign languages ​​relating to Russia" (3
volumes with additions), 8) "Tales of foreign writers about Russia" (Rerum
Rossicarum scriptores exteri) 2 volumes, etc.
Following the model of the Imperial Archaeographic Commission, the same
commissions in Kyiv and Vilna - just in those places where I did not have time to visit
Stroev. They are engaged in publishing and researching local material and
already done a lot. Especially successful is the case in Kyiv,
In addition to publications of archaeographic commissions, we also have a whole
a number of government publications. Second Branch of His Majesty's Office
was not limited to the publication of the "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire"
(Laws from 1649 to the present), it also published "Monuments
diplomatic relations of the Muscovite state with Europe" (10 volumes),
"Palace ranks" (5 volumes) and "Books of rank" (2 volumes). Near
government unfolded and private activities for the publication of ancient
monuments. Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, which
the times of Stroev barely eked out its existence, came to life and constantly declares
about yourself with new editions. After "Readings in the Moscow Society of History and
Antiquities", edited by O. M. Bodyansky, it published under the editorship of I. D.
Belyaeva: "Time of the Imperial Moscow Society of History and
Antiquities" (25 books containing rich material, research and a number of
documents). In 1858, Bodyansky was again elected secretary of the Society,
which began to publish, as before, "Readings" instead of Belyaev's "Vremennik".
After Bodiansky, A.N. Popov was elected secretary in 1871, and after his death
him in 1881 by E. V. Barsov, during which the same "Readings" continue.
Archaeological societies have also published and are publishing their works: Petersburg,
called "Russian" (founded in 1846), and Moscow (founded in 1864
G.). Engaged and engaged in archeology and history of the Geographical Society
(in St. Petersburg since 1846). Of his publications, we are especially interested in
"Scribal Books" (2 volumes, edited by N.V. Kalachev). Works since 1866
(mainly over the history of the XVIII century.) Imperial Russian Historical
Society, which managed to publish up to 150 volumes of its "Collection". Scientists
Historical Societies begin to be founded in the provinces, for example:
Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, provincial scholars and archival commissions.
The activity of individuals is also manifested: private collections of Mukhanov, book.
Obolensky, Fedotov-Chekhovsky, N.P. Likhachev and others include
very valuable material. From the 30s and 40s, our magazines begin to
materials for history are printed, there are even magazines, specially
dedicated to Russian history, for example:
Russian Archive, Russian Antiquity, etc.
Let us turn to the characteristics of certain types of historical material and
First of all, let us dwell on the sources of the chronicle type, and in particular on
annals, since we are mainly obliged to her for acquaintance with the most ancient
the history of Russia. But in order to study chronicle literature, one must
know the terms used in it. In science, "chronicle" is called weather
account of events, sometimes brief, sometimes more detailed, always with
exact years. Our chronicles have been preserved in huge numbers.
copies or lists of the XIV-XVIII centuries. By place and time of compilation and by
content of the chronicle are divided into categories (there are Novgorod, Suzdal,
Kyiv, Moscow). Lists of the annals of the same category differ from each other
not only in words and expressions, but even in the very choice of news, and often
in one of the lists of a known category there is an event that is not in the other;
as a result, the lists are divided into editions or editions. List Differences
of the same category and led our historians to the idea that our chronicles are
collections and that their original sources have not come down to us in their pure form.
This idea was first expressed by P. M. Stroev back in the 1920s in his
preface to "Sofia Vremennik". Further acquaintance with the annals
led finally to the conviction that the annals that we know,
represent collections of news and legends, compilations of several works. And
now the opinion prevails in science that even the most ancient chronicles are
compilation summaries. So, the chronicle of Nestor is a collection of the 12th century, Suzdal
chronicle - code of the XIV century, Moscow - codes of the XVI and XVII centuries. etc.
Let's start our acquaintance with chronicle literature with the so-called chronicle
Nestor, which begins with a story about the settlement of tribes after the flood, and
ends around 1110; its title is: "Behold the tales of bygone years (in
other lists added: chernorizets Fedosyev of the Pechora Monastery) from where
there went the Russian land, who went to Kyiv with the first princes, and where did the Russian
the earth began to eat." Thus, by the title we see that the author promises
to say only the following: who was the first to reign in Kyiv and where did the
Russian land. The very history of this land is not promised, and meanwhile it is being
until 1110. After this year, we read the following postscript in the annals:
Abbot Sylvester of St. Michael, having written books and a chronicler, hoping
accept mercy from God, under Prince Volodymyr I reign to him in Kyiv, and then I
the time of being abbess at St. Michael in 6624, indiction of the 9th summer (i.e. in 1116). So
Thus it turns out that the author of the chronicle was Sylvester, according to others
according to not Sylvester, hegumen of the Vydubitsky monastery, wrote a chronicle,
known as "The Tale of Bygone Years", and the monk of the Caves
monastery Nestor; even Tatishchev attributed it to Nestor. In the ancient "Paterik
Pechersky" we read the story that Nestor came to the monastery, to
Theodosius, was tonsured by him at the age of 17, wrote a chronicle and died in a monastery. AT
chronicles under 1051 in the story of Theodosius, the chronicler says about himself: "To
to him (Theodosius) and I came thin and welcomed me for seventeen years.
Further, under 1074, the chronicler conveys the story of the great ascetics
Pechersky and about their exploits says that he heard a lot from the monks,
and the other "and an eyewitness byh." Under 1091 the chronicler on his behalf
talks about how, under him and even with his participation, the Pechersk brethren
transferred to a new place the relics of St. Feodosia; in this story the chronicler
calls himself a "slave and disciple" of Theodosius. Under 1093 follows the story of
the attack of the Polovtsy on Kyiv and the capture of the Pechersk Monastery by them, a story
entirely led in the 1st person; then under 1110 we find the above
Sylvester's postscript to the abbot not of the Caves, but of the Vydubitsky monastery.
On the basis that the author of the chronicle speaks of himself as a Pechersk
monk, and in view of the fact that news, extraneous chronicles, are called in
Caves monastery chronicler monk Nestor, Tatishchev so confidently
attributed the chronicle up to 1110 to Nestor, while Sylvester considered only
her scribe. Tatishchev's opinion met with support in Karamzin, but with that
the only difference is that the first thought that Nestor brought the chronicle only up to 1093
g., and the second - until 1110. Thus, it is well established that
the chronicle belonged to the pen of one person from the Pechersk brethren, who composed it
quite independently. But Stroev, when describing the manuscripts of Count Tolstoy,
discovered the Greek chronicle of George Mnikh (Amartola), which in some places turned out to be
literally similar to the introduction to the annals of Nestor. This fact highlighted this
question from a completely new side, it became possible to point out and study
chronicle sources. Stroev was the first to hint that the chronicle is nothing but
as a collection of various historical and literary material. Its author is indeed
mixed both Greek chronicles and Russian material: brief monastic notes,
folk legends, etc. The idea that the chronicle is a compilation collection,
should have sparked new discoveries. Many historians have studied
reliability and composition of the chronicle. He devoted his scientific articles to this issue.
and Kachenovsky. He came to the conclusion that the original chronicle
compiled not by Nestor and generally unknown to us. Chronicles known to us
According to Kachenovsky, they are "collections of the 13th or even 14th century, of which
sources are mostly unknown to us. "Nestor, by his education,
living in an era of general rudeness, could not compose anything like the
us an extensive chronicle; he could only own those inserted into
chronicle "monastic notes", in which he, as an eyewitness, tells about
the life of his monastery in the XI century. and talking about himself. Kachenovsky's opinion
provoked strong objections from Pogodin. (See "Research,
remarks and lectures "Pogodin, vol. I, M. 1846.) Pogodin claims that if
we do not doubt the authenticity of the chronicle starting from the 14th century, we do not have
reason to doubt the testimony of the chronicle of the first centuries. Coming from
the reliability of the later story of the chronicle, Pogodin ascends more and more
and great antiquity and proves that in ancient times the chronicle
depicts the events and states of citizenship quite accurately.
Skeptical views on the annals of Kachenovsky and his students caused
defense of the annals of Butkov's book ("Defense of the Russian annals", M. 1840) and articles
Kubareva ("Nestor" and about "Paterik of the Caves"). Through the labors of these three persons,
Pogodin, Butkov and Kubarev, the idea was established in the 40s that exactly
Nestor, who lived in the 11th century, owns the oldest chronicle. But in the 50s
Over the years, this belief began to waver. Proceedings of P. S. Kazansky (articles in
Vremennik of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities), Sreznevsky ("Readings
about the ancient Russian annals"), Sukhomlinov ("On the ancient Russian chronicle, how
literary monument"), Bestuzhev-Ryumin ("On the composition of ancient Russian
Chronicles up to XIV"), A. A. Shakhmatova (articles in scientific journals and a huge
in terms of volume and very important in terms of scientific significance, the study "Searchs for
the oldest Russian annalistic codes", published in 1908) the question of the annals
was put differently: new
historical and literary materials (undoubtedly Nestor's lives and
etc.) and new methods are applied. Compilative, consolidated nature of the annals
was established completely, the sources of the code were indicated very definitely;
A comparison of the works of Nestor with the testimony of the chronicle revealed contradictions.
The question of the role of Sylvester, as a collector of the chronicle, became more serious and
harder than it was before. At present, the original chronicle of scholars
imagine as a collection of several literary works,
compiled by different people, at different times, from a variety of sources.
These individual works at the beginning of the XII century. were more than once combined into one
literary monument, by the way, by the same Sylvester who signed
own name. A careful study of the original chronicle made it possible to outline
it contains quite a few constituent parts, or more precisely, independent
literary works. Of these, the most notable and important are: firstly,
actually "The Tale of Bygone Years" - a story about the settlement of tribes after
flood, about the origin and settlement of the Slavic tribes, about the division of the Slavs
Russians into tribes, about the original life of the Russian Slavs and about the settlement on
Russia of the Varangian princes (only to this first part of the chronicle and can
refer to the title of the code above: "Behold the tales of bygone years and
etc."); secondly, an extensive story about the baptism of Russia, compiled
by an unknown author, probably at the beginning of the 11th century, and, thirdly, the chronicle of
events of the 11th century, which is most appropriately called the Kievan original
chronicle. As part of these three works that formed the code, and especially in
composition of the first and third of them, you can see traces of other, smaller
literary works, "separate legends", and, thus, it is possible
to say that our ancient chronicle is a compilation composed of
compilations, its internal composition is so complicated.
Getting acquainted with the news of the Laurentian list, the oldest of those
which contain the so-called. Nesterov chronicle (it was written by a monk
Lawrence in Suzdal in 1377), we notice that for 1110, behind the annals
initial, in the Laurentian list there are news, mainly
relating to northeastern Suzdal Rus; so here we are dealing
with a local chronicle. Ipatiev list (XIV-XV centuries) for the original
chronicle gives us a very detailed account of the events of Kyiv, and then
the attention of the chronicle is focused on the events in Galich and Volhynia;
and here, therefore, we are dealing with local chronicles. These local
A lot of regional chronicles have come down to us. The most prominent place between them
occupy the annals of Novgorod (there are several editions of them and there are very valuable ones) and
Pskov, bringing their story to the XVI, even the XVII century. Considerable value
also have Lithuanian chronicles, which have come down in different editions and illuminate the history
Lithuania and Russia united with it in the XIV and XV centuries.
From the 15th century are attempts to bring together historical material,
scattered in these local annals. Since these attempts were made in
the era of the Muscovite state and often by official means of the government,
then they are known under the name of Moscow Codes or Moscow Chronicles, so
moreover, they provide abundant material specifically for Moscow history. Of these
earlier attempts - Sofiysky Vremennik (two editions), which
connects the news of the Novgorod chronicles with the news of the Kyiv, Suzdal
and other local chronicles, supplementing this material with separate legends
historical nature. Sophia Timepiece refers to the 15th century. and
represents a purely external connection of several chronicles, a connection
under a certain year of all data pertaining to the latter without any
processing. The same character of a simple material connection from all
available to the compiler of chronicles is the Resurrection Chronicle, which arose in
early 16th century The Resurrection Code has preserved to us in its pure form a lot of valuable
news on the history of the specific and Moscow eras, which is why it can be called
the richest and most reliable source for the study of the XIV-XV centuries. different character
have a Book of Degrees (compiled by persons close to Metropolitan Macarius,
XVI century) and the Nikon Chronicle with the New Chronicler (XVI-XVII centuries). Taking advantage
the same material as the previously named vaults, these monuments give us this
material in a revised form, with rhetoric in the language, with well-known
trends in reporting. These are the first attempts to process the historical
material that introduces us to historiography. Later Russian chronicle writing
went in the Muscovite state in two ways. On the one hand, it has become
an official matter - at the Moscow court, the weather of the palace and
political events (annals of the time of Grozny, for example: Alexander Nevsky,
The royal book and in general the last parts of the Moscow vaults, -
Nikonovsky, Voskresensky, Lvovsky), and over time, the very type
chronicles began to change, they began to be replaced by the so-called bit
books. On the other hand, chronicles began to appear in different parts of Russia
strictly local, regional, even urban character, in most
devoid of significance for political history (such are Nizhny Novgorod, Dvina,
Uglichskaya and others; such, to some extent, are the Siberian ones).
Since the 16th century, next to the annals, a new kind of historical
works: these are Chronographs or reviews of the history of the world (more precisely,
Biblical, Byzantine, Slavic and Russian). The first edition of the chronograph
was compiled in 1512, mainly on the basis of Greek sources
with additional information on Russian history. She belonged to the Pskov
"Elder Philotheus" In 1616-1617. chronograph of the 2nd edition was compiled. This is
the work is interesting in the sense that more ancient events depict
based on the first edition of the chronograph, and the Russians - starting from the XVI, XVII
centuries - describes anew, independently. The author undoubtedly has
literary talent and who wants to get acquainted with ancient Russian rhetoric in
its successful examples, should read the articles on Russian history in this
chronograph. In the 17th century Moscow society begins to show a special
penchant for chronographs that grow in large numbers. Pogodin in
his library collected them up to 50 copies; no big one
collections of manuscripts, wherever they were counted in dozens. Prevalence
chronographs is easy to explain: brief systemic presentations written
literary language, they gave the Russian people the same information as
annals, but in a more convenient form.
In addition to the chronicles themselves, in Old Russian writing one can find
many literary works that serve as sources for the historian. Can
even to say that all ancient Russian literary writing should
regarded as a historical source, and it is often difficult to
predict from which literary work the historian will draw the best
clarification of the question. So, for example, the meaning of the estate
the name of Kievan Rus "ognischanin" is interpreted in historiography not only
from the monuments of legislation, but also from the ancient Slavic text of teachings
St. Gregory the Theologian, in which we meet the archaic saying "fire" in
the sense of "slaves", "servants" ("many fires and herds are walking"). Translations
sacred books made by Prince. A. M. Kurbsky, provide material for a biography and
characteristics of this famous figure of the XVI century. But with such a meaning
historical and literary material, some of its types still have a special
interest for the historian;
such are separate tales about persons and facts, bearing the character of something
historical, then journalistic. A number of historical legends are entirely listed
into our chronicles: such, for example, are the legends about the baptism of Russia, about
the blinding of Prince Vasilko, about the Battle of Lipica, about the Batu invasion, about
Battle of Kulikovo and many others. In separate lists or also collections
curious journalistic works of ancient Russia have come down to us, which
the 16th century was especially rich; of these, "History" occupies a prominent place,
written book. A. M. Kurbsky about Grozny; pamphlet
called Ivashka Peresvetov, defender of the government system
Grozny; "The Tale of a God-Loving Husband", who was an opponent of this
systems; "The Conversation of the Valaam Wonderworkers", in which they see the work
boyar environment, dissatisfied with the Moscow order, etc. Next to
journalism in the XVI-XVII centuries. continued to exist and develop
historical writing, expressed in a number of curious stories and legends,
often taking large external volumes. Such is, for example, compiled in
16th century "History of the Kazan Kingdom", outlining the history of Kazan and its fall
in 1552. In the XIII volume of the "Russian Historical Library" a whole series was published
Russian stories about the Time of Troubles, of which many have long since become
known to researchers of distemper. Among dozens of these stories stand out: 1) so
called Another Tale, which is a political pamphlet,
who left the Shuisky party in 1606; 2) The legend of the cellar of the Trinity-Sergeeva
Lavra Avraamy Palitsyn, written in its final form in 1620; 3)
Vremnik Ivan Timofeev, a very curious chronicle of the turmoil; 4) The story of the prince
I. Mikh. Katyrev-Rostovsky, marked by the seal of a large literary
talent 5) New Chronicler - attempts to actually review the troubled era and
etc. Legends about the capture of Azov by the Cossacks belong to a later era,
description of the Moscow state made by G.K. Kotoshikhin in the 60s
XVII century, and, finally, a number of notes of Russian people (book S. I. Shakhovsky,
Baim Boltin, A. A. Matveev, S. Medvedev, Zhelyabuzhsky and others) about time
Peter the Great. These notes open an endless series of memoirs of Russian
figures who took part in government activities and
public life in the 18th and 19th centuries. Publicity of some memoirs
(Bolotova, Dashkova) eliminates the need to list the most prominent of
them.
Next to historical legends as a historical source
there are hagiographic tales, or lives of saints, and accounts of miracles.
Not only the very life of the saint sometimes gives valuable historical evidence about
era in which the saint lived and acted, but also in the "miracles" of the saint,
attributed to life, the historian finds important indications about the circumstances of that
the time when miracles were performed. So, in the life of Stefan Surozhsky, one of
stories about the miracle of the saint makes it possible to establish the existence
people of Rus and its actions in the Crimea before 862, when, according to the annals, Rus
was called to Novgorod with Rurik. Artless form of ancient lives
gives special value to their testimony, but from the XV century. special
methods of writing lives, replacing the actual content with rhetoric and
distorting the meaning of the fact for the sake of literary fashion. Lives (St. Sergius
Radonezhsky, Stephen of Perm), compiled in the 15th century. Epiphanius the Wise,
already suffer from rhetoric, although they are marked by literary talent and strength
sincere feeling. More rhetoric and cold conventionality in lives,
compiled by the learned Serbs who lived in Russia in the 15th century: Met. Kiprian and
monk Pachomius Logothetes. Their writings created a conditional form in Russia
hagiographic creativity, the spread of which is noticeable in the lives of the XVI and XVII
centuries This conditional form, subordinating the content of lives, deprives them of evidence
freshness and precision.
We will complete the list of historical literary sources if
we will mention a large number of those notes about Russia that were in different centuries
compiled by foreigners who visited Russia. From the legends of foreigners more noticeable
writings: Catholic monk Plano Carpini (XIII century), Sigismund Herberstein
(beginning of the 16th century), Paul Jovius (16th century), Jerome Gorsey (16th century),
Heidenstein (XVI century), Fletcher (1591), Margeret (XVII century), Konrad Bussov
(XVII century), Zholkiewski (XVII centuries), Olearius (XVII century), von Meyerberg (XVII
c.), Gordon (late 17th century), Korb (late 17th century). For the history of the XVIII century.
of great importance are the diplomatic dispatches of Western European ambassadors under
Russian court and an endless series of memoirs of foreigners. familiar with Russians
affairs. Along with the works of foreign writers who knew Russia, one should
remember the foreign material that historians use when studying
the first pages of the history of the Slavs and Russia. The beginning of our historical life
it is impossible, for example, to study without acquaintance with Arab writers (IX-X centuries and
later), who knew the Khazars, Russia and in general the peoples who lived on our plain;
it is equally necessary to use the writings of Byzantine writers,
a good acquaintance with which lately gives special results in
works of V. G. Vasilevsky, F. I. Uspensky and our other Byzantines.
Finally, information about the Slavs and Russians is found in medieval writers
Western European and Polish: the Gothic historian Jornand [correct --
Jordan. - Ed.] (VI century), Polish Martin Gall (XII century), Jan Dlugosh (XV
c.) and others.
Let's move on to monuments of a legal nature, to monuments
government activities and civil hostel. This material
are usually called acts and letters and are stored in large numbers in
government archives (of which are remarkable: in Moscow - Archive
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Archive of the Ministry of Justice, in Petrograd -
Archives of the State and Senate, and finally Archives in Vilna, in Vitebsk and
Kyiv). In order to become familiar with archival material, it should, if possible, be
accurately classify, but monuments of a legal nature have come down to us
there are so many and they are so varied that it is rather difficult to do so. We can
note only the main types: 1) State acts, i.e. all documents,
which concern the most important aspects of public life, for example, contracts.
Monuments of this kind have been preserved with us from the very beginning of our history, this
wonderful treaties with the Greeks of Oleg and subsequent princes. Next, a row
inter-princely agreements came down to us from the XIV-XVI centuries. In these treaties
the political relations of the ancient Russian princes are determined. Near
by contractual letters it is necessary to put spiritual letters, i.e. spiritual
testaments of princes. For example, two spiritual testaments of Ivan
Kalita. The first was written before the trip to the Horde, the second before his death. In them
he divides all property among his sons and therefore enumerates it. So
Thus, a mental literacy is a detailed list of land holdings
and property of Russian princes and from this point of view is a very valuable
historical and geographical material. We will mention with sincere letters
electoral certificates. The first of them refers to the election of Boris Godunov to the
the Moscow throne (its compilation is attributed to Patriarch Job); second to
the election of Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov. Finally, to state acts
monuments of ancient Russian legislation should be attributed. to them before
of all, Russkaya Pravda should be attributed, since it can be recognized as an act
government activities, not a private collection. Then right here
include Judicial charters of Novgorod and Pskov, approved by the veche; they
make a number of judgments in court cases. The same character is different
and Sudebnik of Ivan III of 1497 (called the first or princely). In 1550 for
this code was followed by the second or royal code of Ivan the Terrible, more
complete, and 100 years after it in 1648-1649. the conciliar
The Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, which was comparatively already very
complete code of the law then in force. Next to collections of secular
legislation was in force in the field of ecclesiastical court and administration
collections of church legislation (pilot book or Nomocanon, etc.);
these collections were compiled in Byzantium, but over the centuries, little by little
adapted to the peculiarities of Russian life. 2) Second view
historical and legal material are administrative letters: these are
separate government orders given or for special cases
administrative practice, or to individuals and communities in order to
determine the relationship of these individuals and communities to power. Some of these letters
had a fairly broad content - for example, statutory and labial letters,
determined the order of self-government of entire volosts. In the majority, this
separate orders of the government on current affairs. in the Moscow
state legislation developed precisely through the accumulation of individual
legal provisions, each of which, arising from a particular case,
then turned into a precedent for all such cases, became
permanent law. This casuistic nature of legislation created in
Moscow, the so-called Decree books of Orders or individual departments, -
each department recorded royal decrees in chronological order,
that concerned him, and the "Uzdannye book" arose, which became
guidance for all administrative or judicial practice of the department. 3)
The third type of legal material can be considered petitions, i.e. those
requests that were submitted to the government in various cases. Right of petition
was not constrained by anything in ancient Russia until the middle of the 17th century, and the legislative
government activity was often a direct response to petitions; from here
the great historical significance of petitions is clear - they not only introduce
the needs and way of life of the population, but they also explain the direction of the legislation. 4)
In fourth place, let us remember the letters of private civil life, in which
personal and property relations of individuals were reflected, - bonded
records, bills of sale, etc. 5) Further, a special type of monuments can be considered
monuments of legal proceedings, in which we find a lot of data for the history of
only the court, but also those civil relations, that real life, which
concerned the court. 6) Finally, a special place among the sources is occupied by
called Prikaznye books (one type of them - Ukaznye books - has already been mentioned).
There were many types of order books, and we should only familiarize ourselves with
historically important. The most curious of all books are scribes,
containing a land inventory of the counties of the Moscow state,
produced for tax purposes; census books containing
census of people of taxable classes of the population;
fed books and tens, containing censuses of courtiers and
service people with indications of their property status; bit books
(and the so-called palace ranks), which recorded everything that
belonged to the court and state service of the boyars and the nobility
(in other words, these are diaries of court life and official appointments).
If we mention materials for the history of diplomatic relations
("orders", i.e. instructions sent. "article lists", i.e. diaries
negotiations, reports of ambassadors, etc.), then historical and legal monuments will be
we have listed with sufficient completeness. As far as this kind
monuments of Petrine Rus, their terminology and classification in the XVIII century. in
main features differ so little from modern us that it does not require
explanations.

Current page: 1 (the book has 64 pages in total)

Font:

100% +

Sergei Fyodorovich Platonov
Full course of lectures on Russian history

Platonov Sergei Fedorovich (1860-1933) - Russian historian. In 1882, after graduating from the university, he was left to prepare for a professorship. In 1890, Platonov became a professor of Russian history at St. Petersburg University. His doctoral dissertation was the book "Essays on the History of Troubles in the Muscovite State of the 16th-17th Centuries", which Platonov considered "the highest scientific achievement of his entire life", which determined his "place among the figures of Russian historiography". Able to briefly, clearly, interestingly present the material, Platonov became one of the most prominent professors of the early 20th century.

In 1895–1902 Platonov was a visiting teacher of history to the Grand Dukes. In 1903 he headed the Women's Pedagogical Institute. His lecture course on Russian history was repeatedly reprinted, and textbooks for secondary schools were published annually. In 1908, Platonov became a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, and in 1920 he was elected an academician.

In 1930, Platonov was arrested by the Bolsheviks for monarchist views. He died in exile in Samara.

Introduction (Summary)

It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical science. Having clarified for ourselves how history is understood in general, we will understand what we should understand by the history of any one people, and we will consciously begin to study Russian history.

History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science. Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way, referring history to the realm of the arts. By history they understood an artistic story about memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was for them to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art pursued the same goals.

F. A. BRONNIKOV Pythagorean hymn to the rising sun

With such a view of history as an artistic story about memorable events, ancient historians also adhered to the corresponding methods of presentation. In their narration, they strove for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, and not believing in them, he brings into his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Moreover, the ancient historian, true to his artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt, puts speeches composed by himself into the mouths of his heroes, but he considers himself right because he faithfully conveys in an invented form the real intentions and thoughts of historical persons.

J.-D. Ingres. Apotheosis of Homer

Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history has been to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that have prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in antiquity requires pragmatism from the historian. Already in Herodotus we observe the manifestation of this pragmatism, i.e., the desire to link facts by causality, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.

So, at first, history is defined as an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and persons.

Such views on history also go back to the times of ancient times, which demanded from it, in addition to artistic impressions, practical applicability. Even the ancients said that history is the teacher of life (magistra vitae). They expected from historians such a presentation of the past life of mankind, which would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future, would serve as a practical guide for public figures and a moral school for other people. This view of history was held in full force in the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he directly brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other hand, he turned history into a “tablet of revelations and rules” of a practical nature. A 17th century writer (De Rocoles) said that "history fulfills the duties inherent in moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect can be preferred to it, since, giving the same rules, it adds examples to them." On the first page of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" you will find an expression of the idea that history must be known in order "to establish order, agree on the benefits of people and give them the happiness possible on earth."

With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new definitions of historical science began to take shape. In an effort to explain the essence and meaning of human life, thinkers turned to the study of history either in order to find a solution to their problem in it, or in order to confirm their abstract constructions with historical data. In accordance with various philosophical systems, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined in one way or another. Here are some of these definitions: Bossuet (1627–1704) and Laurent (1810–1887) understood history as a depiction of those world events in which the ways of Providence, guiding human life for its own purposes, were expressed with particular clarity. The Italian Vico (1668-1744) considered the task of history as a science to be the depiction of those identical states that all peoples are destined to experience. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770–1831) saw in history an image of the process by which the “absolute spirit” achieved its self-knowledge (Hegel explained the entire world life as the development of this “absolute spirit”). It will not be a mistake to say that all these philosophies require essentially the same thing from history: history should not depict all the facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones that reveal its general meaning.

Giambattista Vico

Jacques Benigne Bossuet

Francois Pierre Guillaume Guizot

This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought - a simple story about the past in general or a random collection of facts from different times and places to prove an instructive thought no longer satisfied. There was a desire to unite the presentation of the guiding idea, the systematization of historical material. However, philosophical history is rightly reproached for taking the guiding ideas of historical presentation outside of history and systematizing the facts arbitrarily. From this, history did not become an independent science, but turned into a servant of philosophy.

History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when idealism developed from Germany, in opposition to French rationalism: in opposition to French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, national antiquity was actively studied, and the conviction began to dominate that the life of human societies takes place naturally, in such a natural order. a sequence that cannot be disturbed and changed neither by chance nor by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main interest in history came to be the study not of random external phenomena and not the activities of prominent personalities, but the study of social life at different stages of its development. History began to be understood as the science of the laws of the historical life of human societies.

This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. The famous Guizot (1787–1874), for example, understood history as a doctrine of world and national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil society). The philosopher Schelling (1775–1854) considered national history to be a means of knowing the "national spirit". From this grew the widespread definition of history as a path to popular self-consciousness. There were further attempts to understand history as a science, which should reveal the general laws of the development of social life without applying them to a certain place, time and people. But these attempts, in essence, appropriated the tasks of another science, sociology, to history. History, on the other hand, is a science that studies concrete facts under the conditions of precisely time and place, and its main goal is recognized as a systematic depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and all of humanity.

Such a task requires a lot to be successful. In order to give a scientifically accurate and artistically complete picture of any era of folk life or the complete history of a people, it is necessary: ​​1) to collect historical materials, 2) to investigate their reliability, 3) to restore exactly individual historical facts, 4) to indicate between them pragmatic connection and 5) reduce them into a general scientific overview or into an artistic picture. The ways in which historians achieve these particular goals are called scientific critical devices. These methods are improved with the development of historical science, but so far neither these methods nor the science of history itself have reached their full development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material that is subject to their knowledge, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not yet achieved the results that other, more accurate sciences have achieved. And, however, no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.

Ever since the study of the facts of world history began to be approached with the consciousness that human life develops naturally, is subject to eternal and unchanging relationships and rules, the discovery of these permanent laws and relationships has become the ideal of the historian. Behind a simple analysis of historical phenomena, which had the goal of indicating their causal sequence, a broader field was opened - a historical synthesis, aiming to recreate the general course of world history as a whole, to indicate in its course such laws of the sequence of development that would be justified not only in the past, but also in the future of humanity.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Gerard Friedrich Miller

This broad ideal cannot be directly guided by the Russian historian. He studies only one fact of world historical life - the life of his nationality. The state of Russian historiography is still such that sometimes it imposes on the Russian historian the obligation to simply collect facts and give them an initial scientific processing. And only where the facts have already been collected and elucidated can we rise to certain historical generalizations, can we notice the general course of this or that historical process, can we even, on the basis of a number of partial generalizations, make a bold attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which the main facts of our historical life. But the Russian historian cannot go beyond such a general scheme without going beyond the boundaries of his science. In order to understand the essence and significance of this or that fact in the history of Russia, he can look for analogies in the history of the general; With the results obtained, he can serve as a general historian, and lay his own stone in the foundation of a general historical synthesis. But this is the limit of his connection with the general history and influence on it. The ultimate goal of Russian historiography always remains the construction of a system of local historical process.

The construction of this system also solves another, more practical problem that lies with the Russian historian. There is an old belief that national history is the path to national self-consciousness. Indeed, knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future. A people familiar with its history lives consciously, is sensitive to the reality surrounding it and knows how to understand it. The task, in this case it can be expressed - the duty of national historiography, is to show society its past in its true light. At the same time, there is no need to introduce any preconceived points of view into historiography; a subjective idea is not a scientific idea, but only scientific work can be useful to social self-consciousness. Remaining in the strictly scientific sphere, highlighting those dominant principles of social life that characterized the various stages of Russian historical life, the researcher will reveal to society the main moments of its historical existence and thereby achieve his goal. He will give society reasonable knowledge, and the application of this knowledge no longer depends on him.

Thus, both abstract considerations and practical goals pose the same task to Russian historical science - a systematic depiction of Russian historical life, a general scheme of that historical process that has brought our nationality to its present state.

Essay on Russian historiography

When did the systematic depiction of the events of Russian historical life begin, and when did Russian history become a science? Even in Kievan Rus, along with the emergence of citizenship, in the XI century. we have the first annals. They were lists of facts, important and unimportant, historical and non-historical, interspersed with literary tales. From our point of view, the most ancient chronicles do not represent a historical work; not to mention the content - and the very methods of the chronicler do not meet today's requirements. The beginnings of historiography appear in our country in the 16th century, when historical legends and chronicles began to be collated and brought together for the first time. In the XVI century. Moscow Rus was formed and formed. Having rallied into a single body, under the rule of a single Moscow prince, the Russians tried to explain to themselves their origin, their political ideas, and their relationship to the states around them.

And so, in 1512 (apparently by Elder Philotheus) a chronograph was compiled, that is, a review of world history. Most of it contained translations from the Greek language, and Russian and Slavic historical legends were added only as additions. This chronograph is brief, but gives a sufficient supply of historical information; behind it appear completely Russian chronographs, which are a reworking of the first. Together with them appear in the XVI century. chronicle compilations compiled according to ancient chronicles, but representing not collections of mechanically compared facts, but works connected by one common idea. The first such work was the Book of Powers, so named because it was divided into "generations" or "degrees," as they were then called. She transmitted in chronological, sequential, i.e. "gradual" order, the activities of the Russian metropolitans and princes, starting with Rurik. Metropolitan Cyprian was erroneously considered the author of this book; it was processed by Metropolitans Macarius and his successor Athanasius under Ivan the Terrible, that is, in the 16th century. At the basis of the "Book of Powers" lies a tendency, both general and particular. The general one is visible in the desire to show that the power of the Moscow princes is not accidental, but successive, on the one hand, from the South Russian, Kyiv princes, on the other, from the Byzantine kings. A particular tendency, however, was reflected in the respect with which spiritual authority is invariably spoken of. The Power Book can be called a historical work due to the well-known system of presentation. At the beginning of the XVI century. another historical work was compiled - "The Resurrection Chronicle", more interesting in terms of the abundance of material. It was based on all the previous chronicles, the Sophia Timepiece and others, so there are really a lot of facts in this chronicle, but they are held together purely mechanically. Nevertheless, the Resurrection Chronicle seems to us the most valuable historical work of all, contemporary or earlier, since it was compiled without any tendency and contains a lot of information that is not found anywhere else. It could not be liked by its simplicity, the artlessness of presentation could seem wretched to connoisseurs of rhetorical devices, and now it was subjected to processing and additions and, by the middle of the 16th century, a new code called the Nikon Chronicle was compiled. In this collection we see a lot of information borrowed from Greek chronographs, on the history of the Greek and Slavic countries, while the chronicle of Russian events, especially about the later centuries, although detailed, but not entirely reliable, - the accuracy of the presentation suffered from literary revision: correcting the ingenuous syllable of the previous chronicles, involuntarily distorted the meaning of some events.

V.M. Vasnetsov. Nestor the Chronicler

In 1674, the first textbook of Russian history appeared in Kyiv - Synopsis by Innokenty Gizel, which became very widespread in the era of Peter the Great (it is often found even now). If, next to all these revisions of the chronicles, we remember a number of literary legends about individual historical facts and eras (for example, the Tale of Prince Kurbsky, the story of the Time of Troubles), then we will embrace the entire stock of historical works with which Russia survived until the era of Peter the Great, before the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Peter was very concerned about compiling the history of Russia and entrusted this matter to various persons. But only after his death did the scientific development of historical material begin, and the first figures in this field were German scientists, members of the St. Petersburg Academy; of these, Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738) should be mentioned first of all. He began by studying the tribes that inhabited Russia in antiquity, especially the Varangians, but did not go further than this. Bayer left behind many works, of which two rather capital works were written in Latin and are no longer of great importance for the history of Russia - these are Northern Geography and Studies on the Varangians (they were translated into Russian only in 1767 .). Much more fruitful were the works of Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705–1783), who lived in Russia under the empresses Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine II and already knew Russian so well that he wrote his works in Russian. He traveled a lot in Russia (he lived for 10 years, from 1733 to 1743, in Siberia) and studied it well. In the literary historical field, he acted as the publisher of the Russian magazine "Monthly Works" (1755-1765) and the collection in German "Sammlung Russischer Gescihchte". Miller's main merit was the collection of materials on Russian history; his manuscripts (the so-called Miller portfolios) served and continue to serve as a rich source for publishers and researchers. And Miller's research was important - he was one of the first scientists who became interested in the later eras of our history, his works are devoted to them: "The Experience of the Recent History of Russia" and "News of the Russian Nobles." Finally, he was the first scientific archivist in Russia and put in order the Moscow archive of the Foreign Collegium, the director of which he died (1783). Among the academicians of the XVIII century. Lomonosov also occupied a prominent place in his works on Russian history, writing a textbook of Russian history and one volume of Ancient Russian History (1766). His works on history were conditioned by polemics with German academicians. The latter deduced Russia from the Varangians from the Normans and attributed the origin of citizenship in Russia to the Norman influence, which before the advent of the Varangians was represented as a wild country; Lomonosov, on the other hand, recognized the Varangians as Slavs and thus considered Russian culture to be original.

J. M. Nattier. Peter I in knightly armor. 1717

The aforementioned academicians, while collecting materials and investigating individual issues of our history, did not have time to give a general overview of it, the need for which was felt by Russian educated people. Attempts to give such an overview appeared outside the academic environment.

The first attempt belongs to VN Tatishchev (1686–1750). Dealing with geographic questions proper, he saw that it was impossible to resolve them without knowledge of history, and, being a comprehensively educated person, he himself began to collect information on Russian history and began compiling it. For many years he wrote his historical work, revised it more than once, but only after his death, in 1768, his publication began. Within 6 years, 4 volumes were published, the 5th volume was accidentally found already in our century and published by the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. In these 5 volumes, Tatishchev brought his history to the troubled era of the 17th century. In the first volume, we get acquainted with the views of the author himself on Russian history and with the sources that he used in compiling it; we find a number of scientific sketches about ancient peoples - the Varangians, Slavs, etc. Tatishchev often resorted to other people's works; so, for example, he took advantage of Bayer's study "On the Varangians" and directly included it in his work. This story is now, of course, outdated, but it has not lost its scientific significance, since (in the 18th century) Tatishchev possessed sources that do not exist now, and consequently, many of the facts he cited can no longer be restored. This aroused suspicion whether some of the sources he referred to existed, and Tatishchev was accused of bad faith. They especially did not trust the "Joachim Chronicle" cited by him. However, a study of this chronicle showed that Tatishchev only failed to treat it critically and included it in its entirety, with all its fables, in his history. Strictly speaking, Tatishchev's work is nothing more than a detailed collection of chronicle data presented in chronological order; his heavy language and lack of literary processing made him uninteresting for his contemporaries.

The first popular book on Russian history was written by Catherine II, but her work “Notes on Russian History”, brought to the end of the 13th century, has no scientific value and is interesting only as the first attempt to tell society its past in a simple language. Much more important in scientific terms was the "History of Russia" by Prince M. Shcherbatov (1733-1790), which was subsequently used by Karamzin. Shcherbatov was not a man of a strong philosophical mind, but he had read the educational literature of the 18th century. and wholly developed under her influence, which was reflected in his work, in which many preconceived thoughts were introduced. In historical information, he did not have time to understand to such an extent that sometimes he forced his heroes to die 2 times. But, despite such major shortcomings, Shcherbatov's story has scientific significance due to many applications that include historical documents. Particularly interesting are the diplomatic papers of the 16th and 17th centuries. Brought his work to a troubled era.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev

Unknown artist of the 18th century. Portrait of M. V. Lomonosov

It happened that under Catherine II, a certain Frenchman Leclerc, who knew neither the Russian state system, nor the people, nor his way of life, wrote an insignificant "L" histoire de la Russie, and there was so much slander in it that she aroused general indignation. I. N. Boltin (1735–1792), a lover of Russian history, compiled a series of notes in which he discovered Leclerc's ignorance and which he published in two volumes. began to criticize Shcherbatov's "History" Boltin's works, which reveal his historical talent, are interesting because of the novelty of his views. Boltin is not quite accurately called sometimes the "first Slavophile", because he noted many dark sides in blind imitation of the West, imitation, which is noticeable became with us after Peter, and wished that Russia would keep the good beginnings of the last century stronger. Boltin himself is interesting as a historical phenomenon. He served as the best evidence that in the 18th century. In society, even among non-specialists in history, there was a keen interest in the past of their homeland. Boltin's views and interests were shared by N. I. Novikov (1744–1818), a well-known zealot of Russian education, who collected Ancient Russian Vivliofika (20 volumes), an extensive collection of historical documents and studies (1788–1791). At the same time, the merchant Golikov (1735-1801) acted as a collector of historical materials, publishing a collection of historical data about Peter the Great called "The Acts of Peter the Great" (1st ed. 1788-1790, 2nd 1837). Thus, along with attempts to give a general history of Russia, there is also a desire to prepare materials for such a history. In addition to the private initiative, the Academy of Sciences itself is working in this direction, publishing chronicles for general familiarization.

But in all that we have listed, there was still little scientific in our sense: there were no strict critical methods, not to mention the absence of integral historical ideas.

D. G. Levitsky. Portrait of N. I. Novikov

For the first time, a number of scientific and critical methods in the study of Russian history were introduced by the learned foreigner Schlozer (1735–1809). Having become acquainted with the Russian chronicles, he was delighted with them: he did not meet such a wealth of information, such a poetic language among any people. Having already left Russia and being a professor at the University of Göttingen, he tirelessly worked on those extracts from the annals that he managed to take out of Russia. The result of this work was the famous work, published under the title "Nestor" (1805 - in German, 1809-1819 - in Russian). This is a whole series of historical sketches about the Russian chronicle. In the preface, the author gives a brief overview of what has been done in Russian history. He finds the state of science in Russia sad, treats Russian historians with disdain, considers his book almost the only worthy work on Russian history. And indeed, his work far left behind all others in terms of the degree of scientific consciousness and methods of the author. These methods created in our country a kind of school of Schlozer's students, the first scientific researchers, like M. P. Pogodin. After Schlozer, strict historical research became possible in our country, for which, it is true, favorable conditions were created in another environment, headed by Miller. Among the people he collected in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium, Stritter, Malinovsky, Bantysh-Kamensky were especially prominent. They created the first school of learned archivists, who put the Archive in full order and who, in addition to the external grouping of archival material, carried out a number of serious scientific research on the basis of this material. Thus, little by little, the conditions were ripening that made it possible for us to have a serious story.

N. I. Utkin. Portrait of Nicholas

Mikhailovich Karamzin Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin

At the beginning of the XIX century. finally, the first integral view of the Russian historical past was created in the well-known "History of the Russian State" by N. M. Karamzin (1766-1826). Possessing an integral worldview, literary talent and the techniques of a good scholarly critic, Karamzin saw one most important process in all of Russian historical life - the creation of national state power. A number of talented figures led Russia to this power, of which the two main ones - Ivan III and Peter the Great - marked transitional moments in our history with their activities and stood at the boundaries of its main eras - ancient (before Ivan III), middle (before Peter the Great) and new (before the beginning of the 19th century). Karamzin outlined his system of Russian history in a language that was fascinating for his time, and he based his story on numerous researches, which to this day retain important scientific significance for his History.

But the one-sidedness of Karamzin's basic view, which limited the task of the historian to depicting only the fate of the state, and not society with its culture, legal and economic relations, was soon noticed by his contemporaries. Journalist of the 30s of the XIX century. N. A. Polevoy (1796-1846) reproached him for the fact that, having called his work "The History of the Russian State", he ignored the "History of the Russian People". It was with these words that Polevoy titled his work, in which he thought to portray the fate of Russian society. To replace the Karamzin system, he put his own system, but not entirely successful, since he was an amateur in the field of historical knowledge. Being carried away by the historical works of the West, he tried purely mechanically to apply their conclusions and terms to Russian facts, for example, to find the feudal system in ancient Russia. Hence the weakness of his attempt is clear, it is clear that the work of Polevoy could not replace the work of Karamzin: it did not have an integral system at all.

St. Petersburg professor Ustryalov (1805–1870), who in 1836 wrote Discourse on the System of Pragmatic Russian History, spoke out against Karamzin less sharply and with more caution. He demanded that history be a picture of the gradual development of social life, an image of the transitions of citizenship from one state to another. But he still believes in the power of the individual in history and, along with the depiction of folk life, also requires biographies of its heroes. Ustryalov himself, however, refused to give a definite general point of view on our history and remarked that the time had not yet come for that.

Thus, dissatisfaction with the work of Karamzin, which affected both the scientific world and society, did not correct the Karamzin system and did not replace it with another. Above the phenomena of Russian history, as their connecting principle, Karamzin's artistic picture remained and no scientific system was created. Ustryalov was right when he said that the time had not yet come for such a system. The best professors of Russian history, who lived in an era close to Karamzin, Pogodin and Kachenovsky (1775-1842), were still far from one common point of view; the latter took shape only when the educated circles of our society began to take an active interest in Russian history. Pogodin and Kachenovsky were brought up on the scientific methods of Schlozer and under his influence, which had a particularly strong effect on Pogodin. Pogodin largely continued Schlozer's research and, studying the most ancient periods of our history, did not go further than private conclusions and small generalizations, with which, however, he sometimes knew how to captivate his listeners, who were not accustomed to a strictly scientific and independent presentation of the subject. Kachenovsky took up Russian history when he had already acquired a lot of knowledge and experience in other branches of historical knowledge. Following the development of classical history in the West, which at that time was brought to a new path of research by Niebuhr, Kachenovsky was carried away by the denial with which they began to treat the most ancient data on history, for example, Rome. Kachenovsky also transferred this denial to Russian history: he considered all information relating to the first centuries of Russian history to be unreliable; reliable facts, in his opinion, began only from the time when written documents of civil life appeared in our country. Kachenovsky's skepticism had followers: under his influence, the so-called skeptical school was founded, not rich in conclusions, but strong in a new, skeptical approach to scientific material. This school owned several articles compiled under the direction of Kachenovsky. With the undoubted talent of Pogodin and Kachenovsky, both of them developed, although major, but particular issues of Russian history; both of them were strong critical methods, but neither one nor the other had yet risen to the level of an efficient historical outlook: by giving a method, they did not give results that could be reached with the help of this method.

Sergei Fyodorovich Platonov

Full course of lectures on Russian history

Essay on Russian historiography

Overview of the sources of Russian history

PART ONE

Preliminary historical information The most ancient history of our country The Russian Slavs and their neighbors The initial life of the Russian Slavs Kievan Rus Formation of the Kievan principality General remarks about the early times of the Kievan principality Baptism of Rus Consequences of the adoption of Christianity by Rus Kievan Rus in the XI-XII centuries specific Russia Specific life of Suzdal-Vladimir Rus Novgorod Pskov Lithuania Moscow principality until the middle of the 15th century Time of Grand Duke Ivan III

PART TWO

Time of Ivan the Terrible Muscovy before the Troubles Political contradiction in Moscow life in the 16th century Social contradiction in Moscow life in the 16th century Troubles in the Muscovite state Fedorovich (1613-1645) The time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) The internal activities of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich Church affairs under Alexei Mikhailovich A cultural turning point under Alexei Mikhailovich The personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich The main moments in the history of Southern and Western Russia in the 16th-17th centuries The time of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich (1676-1682)

PART THREE

The views of science and Russian society on Peter the Great The state of Moscow politics and life at the end of the 17th century The time of Peter the Great Childhood and adolescence of Peter (1672-1689) Years 1689-1699 Peter's foreign policy since 1700 Peter's internal activities since 1700 The attitude of contemporaries to Peter's activities Peter's family relations The historical significance of Peter's activities The time from the death of Peter the Great to the accession to the throne of Elizabeth (1725-1741) Palace events from 1725 to 1741 Management and politics from 1725 to 1741 The time of Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761) The management and politics of Elizabeth's time Peter III and the coup of 1762 The time of Catherine II (1762-1796) The legislative activity of Catherine II The foreign policy of Catherine II The historical significance of the activities of Catherine II The time of Paul I (1796-1801) The time of Alexander I (1801-1825) The time of Nicholas I (1825-1855 ) A brief overview of the time of Emperor Alexander II and the great reforms

These "Lectures" owe their first appearance in print to the energy and labor of my listeners at the Military Law Academy, I. A. Blinov and R. R. von Raupach. They collected and put in order all those "lithographed notes" that were published by students in different years of my teaching. Although some parts of these "notes" were compiled according to the texts I submitted, however, in general, the first editions of the "Lectures" did not differ in either internal integrity or external decoration, representing a collection of different time and different quality educational records. Through the works of I. A. Blinov, the fourth edition of the Lectures acquired a much more serviceable form, and for the next editions the text of the Lectures was also revised by me personally. In particular, in the eighth edition, the revision mainly touched upon those parts of the book that are devoted to the history of the Moscow principality in the 14th-15th centuries. and the history of the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II. In order to strengthen the factual side of the exposition in these parts of the course, I drew on some excerpts from my "Textbook of Russian History" with the corresponding changes in the text, just as in previous editions inserts were made from there into the department of the history of Kievan Rus until the XII century. In addition, in the eighth edition, the characteristics of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were re-stated. In the ninth edition, the necessary, generally minor, corrections have been made. For the tenth edition, the text has been revised. Nevertheless, in its present form, the "Lectures" are still far from the desired serviceability. Live teaching and scientific work have a continuous influence on the lecturer, changing not only the particulars, but sometimes the very type of his presentation. In the "Lectures" you can see only the factual material on which the author's courses are usually built. Of course, some oversights and errors still remain in the printed transmission of this material; likewise, the construction of the presentation in the "Lectures" very often does not correspond to the structure of the oral presentation, which I have been following in recent years. It is only with these reservations that I make up my mind to publish the present edition of the Lectures.

S. Platonov

Introduction (Summary)

It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical science.

Having clarified for ourselves how history is understood in general, we will understand what we should understand by the history of any one people, and we will consciously begin to study Russian history.

History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science.

Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way, referring history to the realm of the arts. By history they understood an artistic story about memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was for them to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art pursued the same goals.

With such a view of history as an artistic story about memorable events, ancient historians also adhered to the corresponding methods of presentation. In their narration, they strove for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, and not believing in them, he brings into his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Moreover, the ancient historian, true to his artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt, puts speeches composed by himself into the mouths of his heroes, but he considers himself right because he faithfully conveys in an invented form the real intentions and thoughts of historical persons.

Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history has been to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that have prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in antiquity requires pragmatism from the historian. Already in Herodotus we observe the manifestation of this pragmatism, i.e., the desire to link facts by causality, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.

So, at first, history is defined as an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and faces.

Such views on history also go back to the times of ancient times, which demanded from it, in addition to artistic impressions, practical applicability.

Even the ancients said that history is the teacher of life (magistra vitae). They expected from historians such a presentation of the past life of mankind, which would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future, would serve as a practical guide for public figures and a moral school for other people.

This view of history was held in full force in the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he directly brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other hand, he turned history into a "tablet of revelations and rules" of a practical nature. A 17th century writer (De Rocoles) said that "history performs the duties proper to moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect can be preferred to it, since, giving the same rules, it adds examples to them." On the first page of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" you will find an expression of the idea that history must be known in order "to establish order, to agree on the benefits of people and to give them the happiness possible on earth."

With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new definitions of historical science began to take shape. In an effort to explain the essence and meaning of human life, thinkers turned to the study of history either in order to find a solution to their problem in it, or in order to confirm their abstract constructions with historical data. In accordance with various philosophical systems, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined in one way or another. Here are some of these definitions: Bossuet (1627-1704) and Laurent (1810-1887) understood history as an image of those world events in which the ways of Providence, guiding human life for its own purposes, were expressed with particular brightness. The Italian Vico (1668-1744) considered the task of history as a science to be the depiction of those identical states that all peoples are destined to experience. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770-1831) saw in history an image of the process by which the "absolute spirit" reached its self-knowledge (Hegel explained the entire world life as the development of this "absolute spirit"). It will not be a mistake to say that all these philosophies require essentially the same thing from history: history should not depict all the facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones that reveal its general meaning.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction (Summary)

It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical science. Having clarified for ourselves how history is understood in general, we will understand what we should understand by the history of any one people, and we will consciously begin to study Russian history.

History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science. Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way, referring history to the realm of the arts. By history they understood an artistic story about memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was for them to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art pursued the same goals.

With this view of history, to a fictional story about memorable events, ancient historians kept the appropriate methods of presentation. In their narration, they strove for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, and not believing in them, he brings into his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Moreover, the ancient historian, true to his artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt, puts speeches composed by himself into the mouths of his heroes, but he considers himself right because he faithfully conveys in an invented form the real intentions and thoughts of historical persons.

Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history has been to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that have prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in antiquity requires the historian to pragmatism. Already in Herodotus we observe the manifestation of this pragmatism, i.e., the desire to link facts by causality, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.

So, at first, history is determined, as an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and faces.

Such views on history also go back to the times of ancient times, which demanded from it, in addition to artistic impressions, practical applicability. Even the ancients said that history is the teacher of life(magistra vitae). They expected from historians such a presentation of the past life of mankind, which would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future, would serve as a practical guide for public figures and a moral school for other people. This view of history was held in full force in the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he directly brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other hand, he turned history into a “tablet of revelations and rules” of a practical nature. A 17th century writer (De Rocoles) said that "history fulfills the duties inherent in moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect can be preferred to it, since, giving the same rules, it adds examples to them." On the first page of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" you will find an expression of the idea that history must be known in order "to establish order, agree on the benefits of people and give them the happiness possible on earth."

With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new definitions of historical science began to take shape. In an effort to explain the essence and meaning of human life, thinkers turned to the study of history either in order to find a solution to their problem in it, or in order to confirm their abstract constructions with historical data. In accordance with various philosophical systems, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined in one way or another. Here are some of these definitions: Bossuet (1627-1704) and Laurent (1810-1887) understood history as an image of those world events in which the ways of Providence, guiding human life for its own purposes, were expressed with particular clarity. The Italian Vico (1668–1744) considered the task of history as a science to be the depiction of those identical states that all peoples are destined to experience. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770–1831) saw in history an image of the process by which the “absolute spirit” achieved its self-knowledge (Hegel explained the entire world life as the development of this “absolute spirit”). It will not be a mistake to say that all these philosophies require essentially the same thing from history: history should not depict all the facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones that reveal its general meaning.

This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought - a simple story about the past in general, or a random collection of facts from different times and places to prove an edifying thought no longer satisfied. There was a desire to unite the presentation of the guiding idea, the systematization of historical material. However, philosophical history is rightly reproached for taking the guiding ideas of historical presentation outside of history and systematizing the facts arbitrarily. From this, history did not become an independent science, but turned into a servant of philosophy.

History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when idealism developed from Germany, in opposition to French rationalism: in opposition to French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, national antiquity was actively studied, and the conviction began to dominate that the life of human societies takes place naturally, in such a natural order. a sequence that cannot be disturbed and changed neither by chance nor by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main interest in history came to be the study not of random external phenomena and not the activities of prominent personalities, but the study of social life at different stages of its development. History is understood as the science of the laws of the historical life of human societies.

This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. The famous Guizot (1787–1874), for example, understood history as the doctrine of world and national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil society). The philosopher Schelling (1775–1854) considered national history to be a means of knowing the "national spirit". From this grew the widespread definition of history as path to popular self-consciousness. There were further attempts to understand history as a science that should reveal the general laws of the development of social life without applying them to a certain place, time and people. But these attempts, in essence, appropriated the tasks of another science to history - sociology. History, on the other hand, is a science that studies concrete facts under the conditions of precisely time and place, and its main goal is recognized as a systematic depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and all of humanity.

Such a task requires a lot to be successful. In order to give a scientifically accurate and artistically complete picture of any era of folk life or the complete history of a people, it is necessary: ​​1) to collect historical materials, 2) to investigate their reliability, 3) to restore exactly individual historical facts, 4) to indicate between them pragmatic connection and 5) reduce them into a general scientific overview or into an artistic picture. The ways in which historians achieve these particular goals are called scientific critical devices. These methods are improved with the development of historical science, but so far neither these methods nor the science of history itself have reached their full development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material that is subject to their knowledge, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not yet achieved the results that other, more accurate sciences have achieved. And, however, no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.

Ever since the study of the facts of world history began to be approached with the consciousness that human life develops naturally, is subject to eternal and unchanging relationships and rules, the discovery of these permanent laws and relationships has become the ideal of the historian. Behind a simple analysis of historical phenomena, which had the goal of indicating their causal sequence, a broader field was opened - a historical synthesis, aiming to recreate the general course of world history as a whole, to indicate in its course such laws of the sequence of development that would be justified not only in the past, but also in the future of humanity.

This broad ideal cannot be directly guided by Russian historian. He studies only one fact of world historical life - the life of his nationality. The state of Russian historiography is still such that sometimes it imposes on the Russian historian the obligation to simply collect facts and give them an initial scientific processing. And only where the facts have already been collected and elucidated can we rise to certain historical generalizations, can we notice the general course of this or that historical process, can we even, on the basis of a number of partial generalizations, make a bold attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which the main facts of our historical life. But the Russian historian cannot go beyond such a general scheme without going beyond the boundaries of his science. In order to understand the essence and significance of this or that fact in the history of Russia, he can look for analogies in the history of the general; With the results obtained, he can serve as a general historian, and lay his own stone in the foundation of a general historical synthesis. But this is the limit of his connection with the general history and influence on it. The ultimate goal of Russian historiography always remains the construction of a system of local historical process.

The construction of this system also solves another, more practical problem that lies with the Russian historian. There is an old belief that national history is the path to national self-consciousness. Indeed, knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future. A people familiar with its history lives consciously, is sensitive to the reality surrounding it and knows how to understand it. The task, in this case, it can be expressed - the duty of national historiography is to show society its past in the true light. At the same time, there is no need to introduce any preconceived points of view into historiography; a subjective idea is not a scientific idea, but only scientific work can be useful to social self-consciousness. Remaining in the strictly scientific sphere, highlighting those dominant principles of social life that characterized the various stages of Russian historical life, the researcher will reveal to society the main moments of its historical existence and thereby achieve his goal. He will give society reasonable knowledge, and the application of this knowledge no longer depends on him.

Thus, both abstract considerations and practical goals pose the same task to Russian historical science - a systematic depiction of Russian historical life, a general scheme of that historical process that has brought our nationality to its present state.

Essay on Russian historiography

When did the systematic depiction of the events of Russian historical life begin, and when did Russian history become a science? Even in Kievan Rus, along with the emergence of citizenship, in the XI century. we have the first annals. They were lists of facts, important and unimportant, historical and non-historical, interspersed with literary tales. From our point of view, the most ancient chronicles do not represent a historical work; not to mention the content - and the very methods of the chronicler do not meet today's requirements. The beginnings of historiography appear in our country in the 16th century, when historical legends and chronicles began to be collated and brought together for the first time. In the XVI century. Moscow Rus was formed and formed. Having rallied into a single body, under the rule of a single Moscow prince, the Russians tried to explain to themselves their origin, their political ideas, and their relationship to the states around them.

And in 1512 (apparently, the elder Philotheus) compiled chronograph, i.e., a survey of world history. Most of it contained translations from the Greek language, and Russian and Slavic historical legends were added only as additions. This chronograph is brief, but gives a sufficient supply of historical information; behind it appear completely Russian chronographs, which are a reworking of the first. Together with them appear in the XVI century. chronicle compilations compiled according to ancient chronicles, but representing not collections of mechanically compared facts, but works connected by one common idea. The first such work was "Power Book" so named because it was divided into "generations" or "degrees", as they were then called. She transmitted in chronological, sequential, i.e. "gradual" order, the activities of the Russian metropolitans and princes, starting with Rurik. Metropolitan Cyprian was erroneously considered the author of this book; it was processed by Metropolitans Macarius and his successor Athanasius under Ivan the Terrible, that is, in the 16th century. At the basis of the "Book of Powers" lies a tendency, both general and particular. The general one is visible in the desire to show that the power of the Moscow princes is not accidental, but successive, on the one hand, from the South Russian, Kyiv princes, on the other, from the Byzantine kings. A particular tendency, however, was reflected in the respect with which spiritual authority is invariably spoken of. The Power Book can be called a historical work due to the well-known system of presentation. At the beginning of the XVI century. another historical work was compiled - "Resurrection Chronicle" more interesting for the abundance of material. It was based on all the previous chronicles, the Sophia Timepiece and others, so there are really a lot of facts in this chronicle, but they are held together purely mechanically. Nevertheless, the Resurrection Chronicle seems to us the most valuable historical work of all, contemporary or earlier, since it was compiled without any tendency and contains a lot of information that is not found anywhere else. It could not be liked by its simplicity, the artlessness of presentation could seem wretched to connoisseurs of rhetorical devices, and now it was subjected to processing and additions and, by the middle of the 16th century, a new code called "Nikon Chronicle". In this collection we see a lot of information borrowed from Greek chronographs, on the history of the Greek and Slavic countries, while the chronicle of Russian events, especially about the later centuries, although detailed, but not entirely reliable, the accuracy of the presentation suffered from literary revision: correcting the ingenuous syllable of the previous chronicles, involuntarily distorted the meaning of some events.

In 1674, the first textbook of Russian history appeared in Kyiv - "Synopsis" by Innokenty Gizel, very widespread in the era of Peter the Great (it is often found now). If, next to all these revisions of the chronicles, we remember a number of literary legends about individual historical facts and eras (for example, the Tale of Prince Kurbsky, the story of the Time of Troubles), then we will embrace the entire stock of historical works with which Russia survived until the era of Peter the Great, before the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Peter was very concerned about compiling the history of Russia and entrusted this matter to various persons. But only after his death did the scientific development of historical material begin, and the first figures in this field were German scientists, members of the St. Petersburg Academy; Of these, first of all, we should mention Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer(1694–1738). He began by studying the tribes that inhabited Russia in antiquity, especially the Varangians, but did not go further than this. Bayer left behind a lot of works, of which two rather capital works were written in Latin and now are no longer of great importance for the history of Russia - these are "Northern Geography" and "Research on the Varangians"(they were translated into Russian only in 1767). Works were much more fruitful Gerard Friedrich Miller(1705-1783), who lived in Russia under the Empresses Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine II and already knew Russian so well that he wrote his works in Russian. He traveled a lot in Russia (he lived for 10 years, from 1733 to 1743, in Siberia) and studied it well. In the literary historical field, he acted as the publisher of the Russian magazine "Monthly Essays"(1755-1765) and a collection in German "Sammlung Russischer Gescihchte". Miller's main merit was the collection of materials on Russian history; his manuscripts (the so-called Miller portfolios) served and continue to serve as a rich source for publishers and researchers. And Miller's research was important - he was one of the first scientists who became interested in the later eras of our history, his works are devoted to them: "The Experience of the Recent History of Russia" and "News of the Russian Nobles." Finally, he was the first scientific archivist in Russia and put in order the Moscow archive of the Foreign Collegium, the director of which he died (1783). Among the academicians of the XVIII century. took a prominent place in his works on Russian history and Lomonosov, who wrote a textbook of Russian history and one volume of Ancient Russian History (1766). His works on history were conditioned by polemics with German academics. The latter deduced Russia from the Varangians from the Normans and attributed the origin of citizenship in Russia to the Norman influence, which before the advent of the Varangians was represented as a wild country; Lomonosov, on the other hand, recognized the Varangians as Slavs and thus considered Russian culture to be original.

The aforementioned academicians, while collecting materials and investigating individual issues of our history, did not have time to give a general overview of it, the need for which was felt by Russian educated people. Attempts to give such an overview appeared outside the academic environment.

First try belongs V. N. Tatishchev(1686–1750). Dealing with geographic questions proper, he saw that it was impossible to resolve them without knowledge of history, and, being a comprehensively educated person, he himself began to collect information on Russian history and began compiling it. For many years he wrote his historical work, revised it more than once, but only after his death, in 1768, his publication began. Within 6 years, 4 volumes were published, the 5th volume was accidentally found already in our century and published by the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. In these 5 volumes, Tatishchev brought his history to the troubled era of the 17th century. In the first volume, we get acquainted with the views of the author himself on Russian history and with the sources that he used in compiling it; we find a number of scientific sketches about ancient peoples - the Varangians, Slavs, etc. Tatishchev often resorted to other people's works; so, for example, he took advantage of Bayer's study "On the Varangians" and directly included it in his work. This story is now, of course, outdated, but it has not lost its scientific significance, since (in the 18th century) Tatishchev possessed sources that do not exist now, and consequently, many of the facts he cited can no longer be restored. This aroused suspicion whether some of the sources he referred to existed, and Tatishchev was accused of bad faith. They especially did not trust the "Joachim Chronicle" cited by him. However, a study of this chronicle showed that Tatishchev only failed to treat it critically and included it in its entirety, with all its fables, in his history. Strictly speaking, Tatishchev's work is nothing more than a detailed collection of chronicle data presented in chronological order; his heavy language and lack of literary processing made him uninteresting for his contemporaries.

The first popular book on Russian history was written by Catherine II, but her work "Notes on Russian history", brought to the end of the 13th century, has no scientific significance and is interesting only as the first attempt to tell society its past in an easy language. Much more important in scientific terms was the "History of Russia" by Prince M. Shcherbatova(1733–1790), which was subsequently used by Karamzin. Shcherbatov was not a man of a strong philosophical mind, but he had read the educational literature of the 18th century. and wholly developed under her influence, which was reflected in his work, in which many preconceived thoughts were introduced. In historical information, he did not have time to understand to such an extent that sometimes he forced his heroes to die 2 times. But, despite such major shortcomings, Shcherbatov's story has scientific significance due to many applications that include historical documents. Particularly interesting are the diplomatic papers of the 16th and 17th centuries. Brought his work to a troubled era.

It happened that under Catherine II, a certain Frenchman Leclerc, completely ignorant of the Russian political system, the people, or their way of life, wrote the insignificant "L" histoire de la Russie, and there was so much slander in it that it aroused general indignation. I. N. Boltin(1735–1792), a lover of Russian history, compiled a series of notes in which he discovered Leclerc's ignorance and which he published in two volumes. In them, he partly touched Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov was offended and wrote Objection. Boltin responded with printed letters and began to criticize Shcherbatov's History. Boltin's works, which reveal his historical talent, are interesting in terms of the novelty of their views. Boltin is sometimes not exactly called the “first Slavophile,” because he noted many dark sides in blind imitation of the West, an imitation that became noticeable in our country after Peter the Great, and wished that Russia would keep better the good beginnings of the last century. Boltin himself is interesting as a historical phenomenon. He served as the best evidence that in the XVIII century. in society, even among non-specialists in history, there was a keen interest in the past of their homeland. The views and interests of Boltin shared N. I. Novikov(1744-1818), a well-known zealot of Russian education, who collected "Ancient Russian Vivliofika" (20 volumes), an extensive collection of historical documents and studies (1788-1791). At the same time, the merchant Golikov (1735–1801) acted as a collector of historical materials, publishing a collection of historical data about Peter the Great called "Acts of Peter the Great"(1st ed. 1788–1790, 2nd 1837). Thus, along with attempts to give a general history of Russia, there is also a desire to prepare materials for such a history. In addition to the private initiative, the Academy of Sciences itself is working in this direction, publishing chronicles for general familiarization.

But in all that we have listed, there was still little scientific in our sense: there were no strict critical methods, not to mention the absence of integral historical ideas.

For the first time, a number of scientific and critical methods in the study of Russian history were introduced by a learned foreigner Schlozer(1735–1809). Having become acquainted with the Russian chronicles, he was delighted with them: he did not meet such a wealth of information, such a poetic language among any people. Having already left Russia and being a professor at the University of Göttingen, he tirelessly worked on those extracts from the annals that he managed to take out of Russia. The result of this work was the famous work, published under the title "Nestor"(1805 in German, 1809–1819 in Russian). This is a whole series of historical sketches about the Russian chronicle. In the preface, the author gives a brief overview of what has been done in Russian history. He finds the state of science in Russia sad, treats Russian historians with disdain, considers his book almost the only worthy work on Russian history. And indeed, his work far left behind all others in terms of the degree of scientific consciousness and methods of the author. These methods created in our country a kind of school of Schlozer's students, the first scientific researchers, like M. P. Pogodin. After Schlozer, rigorous historical research became possible for us, for which, it is true, favorable conditions were created in another environment, headed by Miller. Among the people he collected in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium, Stritter, Malinovsky, Bantysh-Kamensky were especially prominent. They created the first school of learned archivists, who put the Archive in full order and who, in addition to the external grouping of archival material, carried out a number of serious scientific research on the basis of this material. Thus, little by little, the conditions were ripening that made it possible for us to have a serious story.

At the beginning of the XIX century. finally, the first integral view of the Russian historical past was created in the well-known "History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzina(1766–1826). Possessing an integral worldview, literary talent and the techniques of a good scholarly critic, Karamzin saw one most important process in all of Russian historical life - the creation of national state power. A number of talented figures led Russia to this power, of which the two main ones - Ivan III and Peter the Great - marked transitional moments in our history with their activities and stood at the boundaries of its main eras - ancient (before Ivan III), middle (before Peter the Great) and new (before the beginning of the 19th century). Karamzin outlined his system of Russian history in a language that was fascinating for his time, and he based his story on numerous researches, which to this day retain important scientific significance for his History.

But the one-sidedness of Karamzin's basic view, which limited the task of the historian to depicting only the fate of the state, and not society with its culture, legal and economic relations, was soon noticed by his contemporaries. Journalist of the 30s of the XIX century. N. A. Polevoy(1796-1846) reproached him for the fact that, having called his work "The History of the Russian State", he ignored the "History of the Russian People". It was with these words that Polevoy titled his work, in which he thought to portray the fate of Russian society. To replace the Karamzin system, he put his own system, but not entirely successful, since he was an amateur in the field of historical knowledge. Being carried away by the historical works of the West, he tried purely mechanically to apply their conclusions and terms to Russian facts, for example, to find the feudal system in ancient Russia. Hence the weakness of his attempt is clear, it is clear that the work of Polevoy could not replace the work of Karamzin: it did not have an integral system at all.

Less sharply and with more caution came out against Karamzin the St. Petersburg professor Ustryalov(1805–1870), who wrote in 1836 "Reasoning about the system of pragmatic Russian history". He demanded that history be a picture of gradual development public life, depicting the transitions of citizenship from one state to another. But he still believes in the power of the individual in history and, along with the depiction of folk life, also requires biographies of its heroes. Ustryalov himself, however, refused to give a definite general point of view on our history and remarked that the time had not yet come for that.

Thus, dissatisfaction with the work of Karamzin, which affected both the scientific world and society, did not correct the Karamzin system and did not replace it with another. Above the phenomena of Russian history, as their connecting principle, Karamzin's artistic picture remained and no scientific system was created. Ustryalov was right when he said that the time had not yet come for such a system. The best professors of Russian history who lived in an era close to Karamzin, Pogodin and Kachenovsky(1775-1842), were still far from one common point of view; the latter took shape only when the educated circles of our society began to take an active interest in Russian history. Pogodin and Kachenovsky were brought up on the scientific methods of Schlozer and under his influence, which had a particularly strong effect on Pogodin. Pogodin largely continued Schlozer's research and, studying the most ancient periods of our history, did not go further than private conclusions and small generalizations, with which, however, he sometimes knew how to captivate his listeners, who were not accustomed to a strictly scientific and independent presentation of the subject. Kachenovsky took up Russian history when he had already acquired a lot of knowledge and experience in other branches of historical knowledge. Following the development of classical history in the West, which at that time was brought to a new path of research by Niebuhr, Kachenovsky was carried away by the denial with which they began to treat the most ancient data on history, for example, Rome. Kachenovsky also transferred this denial to Russian history: he considered all information relating to the first centuries of Russian history to be unreliable; reliable facts, in his opinion, began only from the time when written documents of civil life appeared in our country. Kachenovsky's skepticism had followers: under his influence, the so-called skeptic school, not rich in conclusions, but strong with a new, skeptical approach to scientific material. This school owned several articles compiled under the direction of Kachenovsky. With the undoubted talent of Pogodin and Kachenovsky, both of them developed, although major, but particular issues of Russian history; both of them were strong critical methods, but neither one nor the other had yet risen to the level of an efficient historical outlook: by giving a method, they did not give results that could be reached with the help of this method.

Only in the 30s of the 19th century did Russian society develop an integral historical outlook, but it developed not on a scientific, but on a metaphysical basis. In the first half of the XIX century. Russian educated people with great and great interest turned to history, both domestic and Western European. Foreign campaigns 1813–1814 introduced our youth to the philosophy and political life of Western Europe. The study of the life and ideas of the West gave rise, on the one hand, to the political movement of the Decembrists, on the other hand, to a circle of people who were fond of more abstract philosophy than politics. This circle grew entirely on the soil of German metaphysical philosophy at the beginning of our century. This philosophy was distinguished by the harmony of logical constructions and optimism of conclusions. In German metaphysics, as in German romanticism, there was a protest against the dry rationalism of French philosophy of the eighteenth century. Germany opposed the beginning of nationality to the revolutionary cosmopolitanism of France and found it out in attractive images of folk poetry and in a number of metaphysical systems. These systems became known to educated Russian people and fascinated them. Russian educated people saw a whole revelation in German philosophy. Germany was for them the "Jerusalem of the newest humanity" - as Belinsky called it. The study of the most important metaphysical systems of Schelling and Hegel united several talented representatives of Russian society into a close circle and forced them to turn to the study of their (Russian) national past. The result of this study were two completely opposite systems of Russian history, built on the same metaphysical basis. In Germany at that time, the dominant philosophical systems were those of Schelling and Hegel. According to Schelling, every historical people must implement some kind of absolute idea of ​​goodness, truth, beauty. To reveal this idea to the world is the historical vocation of the people. Fulfilling it, the people take a step forward in the field of world civilization; having fulfilled it, he leaves the stage of history. Those peoples whose existence is not inspired by the idea of ​​the unconditional are non-historical peoples, they are condemned to spiritual slavery by other nations. The same division of peoples into historical and non-historical is also given by Hegel, but he, developing almost the same principle, went even further. He gave a general picture of world progress. All world life, according to Hegel, was the development of an absolute spirit, which strives for self-knowledge in the history of various peoples, but reaches it finally in the German-Roman civilization. The cultured peoples of the Ancient East, the ancient world, and Romanesque Europe were placed by Hegel in a certain order, which was a ladder along which the world spirit ascended. At the top of this ladder stood the Germans, and to them Hegel prophesied eternal world supremacy. There were no Slavs on this staircase at all. He considered them to be an unhistorical race and thus condemned them to spiritual slavery in the German civilization. Thus, Schelling demanded for his people only world citizenship, and Hegel - world primacy. But, despite such a difference of views, both philosophers equally influenced Russian minds in the sense that they aroused the desire to look back at Russian historical life, to find that absolute idea that was revealed in Russian life, to determine the place and purpose of the Russian people in the course of world progress. And then, in the application of the principles of German metaphysics to Russian reality, the Russian people parted ways. Some of them, the Westerners, believed that the German Protestant civilization was the last word in world progress. For them, ancient Russia, which did not know the Western, Germanic civilization and did not have its own, was an unhistorical country, devoid of progress, condemned to eternal stagnation, an “Asiatic” country, as Belinsky called it (in an article about Kotoshikhin). Peter brought her out of the age-old Asiatic inertness, who, having attached Russia to the German civilization, created for her the possibility of progress and history. In all of Russian history, therefore, only the era of Peter the Great can have historical significance. She is the main moment in Russian life; it separates Asiatic Russia from European Russia. Before Peter, complete desert, complete nothingness; in ancient Russian history there is no point, since ancient Russia does not have its own culture.

Historian Platonov Sergei Fedorovich - a researcher who lived at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Most of his works are devoted to the period of the Time of Troubles in Russia. He was also actively engaged in archeography, collected and published sources, published biographies of statesmen, textbooks on national history, which are still popular in our time.

Childhood and youth

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov was born in Chernigov on August 9, 1860. He was the only child in the family. His ancestors are Kaluga peasants. The boy's father and mother, Fedor Platonovich and Cleopatra Alexandrovna, were native Muscovites. When their son was born, F.P. Platonov worked as the head of the Chernihiv provincial printing house. After 9 years, he was transferred to St. Petersburg. There, Fyodor Platonovich was entrusted with the position of manager of the printing house of the Ministry of the Interior, and then he was granted the title of a nobleman.

Later on, all the pedagogical and scientific activities of the historian S. F. Platonov proceeded in the northern capital, although from childhood he had a special love for Moscow. In 1870-1878. he studied at the gymnasium, where he was greatly influenced by the teacher of Russian literature. At this age, Sergei Fedorovich did not plan to become a historian. He dreamed of being a writer and wrote poems.

Studying at the University

At the age of 18, Platonov entered St. Petersburg University. While studying at the Faculty of History and Philology, he was fascinated by the lectures of teachers K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V. I. Sergeevich and V. G. Vasilevsky. This determined the final choice of the field of activity of the future scientist. Under the patronage of Bestuzhev-Ryumin, S. Platonov was left after graduating from the university in 1882 at the department to prepare for the defense of his dissertation.

As an object of research, he decided to choose the Time of Troubles (1598-1613), when the reign of the kings from the Rurik dynasty was interrupted, and the country was in a difficult economic situation. The future historian Platonov worked conscientiously: to develop his Ph.D. thesis, he used over 60 works of ancient Russian literature, and the total duration of the research was 8 years. To study the necessary documents, he visited 21 archives in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Kazan, examined the vaults of 4 monasteries and the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

In 1888, he successfully defended his master's degree, which allowed Sergei Fedorovich to receive the position of Privatdozent, and a year later - a professor at the university. His master's monograph after its publication was awarded the Uvarov Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which was awarded for outstanding works on Russian history.

Teaching activity

After graduating from the university, the historian Sergei Platonov began to engage in teaching work, which lasted more than 40 years. At first he was a high school teacher. In 1909, Platonov published a school textbook on history. At the age of 23, the scientist began to lecture at the Bestuzhev courses. It was one of the first institutions of higher education for women in Russia. Sergey Fedorovich also worked at the Pushkin Lyceum, from 1890 he became a professor at St. Petersburg University, and in 1901-1905. - its dean. The courses on history developed by him were read in other educational institutions.

From 1903 he taught at the Higher Pedagogical Women's Institute. Subsequently, Sergei Fedorovich became its director. Under him, this institution became a whole complex, which included a kindergarten, a gymnasium, a preparatory class and an institute with 2 faculties.

Research work

Simultaneously with pedagogical activity, Sergei Fedorovich also conducted research work. In the first publication, which was part of his Ph.D. thesis, he looked for the causes of civil strife during the Time of Troubles and the methods by which they were overcome. The merit of the Russian historian Platonov is that he not only thoroughly studied archival materials, but also published many valuable primary sources.

In 1894, Sergei Fedorovich became one of the members of the Archaeographic Commission, and later he took part in the All-Russian Archaeological Congresses. The works of the historian Platonov brought him wide popularity in these years in teaching and scientific circles. He is elected as a member of scientific and historical societies working in different cities.

The greatest activity of his scientific activity fell on the 20s of the XX century. In 1920 he was elected an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in 1925 he was appointed director of the Library of the Academy of Sciences, and in 1929 - secretary of the department of humanities of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In addition, he worked as head of the department of Russian and Slavic archeology in the Russian Archaeological Society and chairman of numerous societies (Old Petersburg, Pushkin Corner, lovers of ancient writing and others).

In the 20s. He not only worked hard, but also traveled. Sergei Fedorovich visited Paris and Berlin, where he talked with his scientific colleagues.

At this time, he publishes several books from a series of historical portraits (“Images of the Past”):

"Boris Godunov".

"Ivan the Terrible".

"Peter the Great" and others.

During these years, Sergei Fedorovich also began work on the work "History of Russia" in 2 parts, but it was not possible to complete it due to political persecution.

"Academic Business"

At the end of the 20s. the collapse of the NEP began. At the same time, the unprecedented terror of the Soviet government against the intelligentsia unfolded. The Russian historian Platonov became the object of persecution by the school of M. N. Pokrovsky. The scientist was accused of being anti-Soviet, called a class enemy on the historical front, and a collection of slanderous articles was published against him.

On January 12, 1930, Sergei Fedorovich was removed from all administrative work and arrested along with his youngest daughter. This period in the scientist's life coincided with personal grief in the family - in the summer of 1928 his wife died. Despite the difficulties, he continued to work on his monograph "History of Russia". Perhaps this was a kind of outlet for him.

According to the fabricated “Academic case”, the OGPU attracted more than 100 people, including four academicians. A large number of Leningrad and Moscow scientists were arrested, the system of historical and cultural local history was completely destroyed. The historian Platonov was first accused of withholding important political documents, and then of leading a monarchist conspiracy against the Soviet regime.

Link

Sergei Fedorovich was in the house of preliminary detention for 11 months, and then 8 months in the pre-trial detention center "Crosses" in St. Petersburg. In August 1931 he was sentenced to 3 years of exile in Samara, but his daughters were allowed to accompany their father. They settled on the outskirts of the city. On January 10, 1933, the historian Platonov died of acute heart failure. The body of the scientist was buried in the city cemetery.

After the death of Sergei Fedorovich, in all textbooks on historiography, he was assigned the cliché of a monarchist, a teacher of the children of the imperial family. In the 1960s he was fully rehabilitated and restored to the lists of academicians.

Personal life

In June 1885 Sergei Fedorovich married Nadezhda Nikolaevna Shamonina. Her family came from the Tambov nobles. In her youth, she studied at the Moscow women's gymnasium Sofya Nikolaevna Fisher. Nadezhda Nikolaevna graduated from this educational institution with honors, and then in 1881 she entered the historical and philological department of the Bestuzhev Courses, where Sergei Fedorovich also taught. Like the historian Platonov, his wife also contributed to science, she translated the works of ancient philosophers, and was also a biographer of the writer N. S. Kokhanovskaya. For a number of publications about her, Nadezhda Nikolaevna received the Akhmatova Prize of the Academy of Sciences.

In marriage, they had 9 children, of whom three died at a young age. The only son, Mikhail, later became a professor of chemistry at the Leningrad Technological Institute. In March 1942 he was shot. Three daughters, Nina, Natalia and Maria, also died in 1942. Daughter Nadezhda emigrated with her family to Paris. Vera, Nadezhda and Nina followed in the footsteps of their mother and graduated from the Bestuzhev courses.

Contribution to science

The work of Sergei Platonov as a historian of Russia was of great importance in science. His main work, Essays on the History of the Time of Troubles, has not only not lost readers over the years, but is also in tune with the present time. He was the first at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries who managed to give a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the history of the Time of Troubles. In his writings, Sergei Fedorovich combined the thoroughness of the St. Petersburg school of historians with regard to the sociological multifactorial nature of the Moscow school of V. O. Klyuchevsky.

According to Platonov, the historian's task is not to substantiate political views, but to reflect the main moments in the history of society with maximum objectivity. Therefore, the style of his work was distinguished by dryness and clarity, lack of rhetoric. Sergei Fedorovich always sought to study and verify primary sources, and not follow the provisions that were formulated by his predecessors. Due to this, his works, along with the works of Klyuchevsky, are of particular value to historical science.