Solovyov history of the Russian state from ancient times. Reign of Nicholas I

Solovyov Sergey Mikhailovich (1820-1879)

Introduction

"History of Russia since ancient times"and there is an attempt to trace our past in relation to the views expressed.

Solovyov's merits

S. M. Solovyov - the largest historian of pre-revolutionary Russia. His outstanding contribution in the development of Russian historical thought acknowledged by scientists different schools and directions. “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts. In the history of our science and literature, there were few lives as abundant in facts and events as Solovyov's life, ”his student, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote about Solovyov. Indeed, despite his relatively short life, Solovyov left a huge creative heritage- published more than 300 of his works with a total volume of more than a thousand printed sheets. This is a feat of a scientist, which had no equal in Russian historical science, either before Solovyov or after his death. His works have firmly entered the treasury of national and world historical thought.

Solovyov was the first of the Russian historians (who together with Kavelin simultaneously expressed the same idea) comprehended our entire past, uniting individual moments and events with one common connection. For him, there are no epochs more or less interesting or important: all have the same interest and importance, like inseparable links of one great chain. Solovyov pointed out in what direction the work of the Russian historian should generally go, set the starting points in the study of our past. He was the first to express a real theory in application to Russian history, introducing the principle of development, the gradual change of mental and moral concepts and the gradual growth of the people - and this is one of Solovyov's most important merits.

The "History of Russia" was created in contrast to the "History of the Russian State" by N. M. Karamzin, which was considered in the first half of the 19th century. official. Solovyov opposed the idea of ​​historical development to the subjectivist views of Karamzin. Human society seemed to Solovyov an integral organism, developing "naturally and necessary." He refused to single out the “Norman” and “Tatar” periods in Russian history and began to consider the main thing not the conquest, but the internal processes of development (the colonization movement, the emergence of new cities, the change in the view of the princes on property and the nature of their power). Solovyov was the first to put the process of state centralization in close connection with the struggle against the Mongol-Tatar yoke. He tried to reveal the historical meaning of the oprichnina as a struggle against the "specific" aspirations of the boyars, at the same time condemning the cruelty of the tsar.

Solovyov, aimed mainly at the growth of statehood and the unifying activity of the center, inevitably left in the shadows many valuable manifestations of regional life; but next to it Solovyov for the first time put forward and illuminated a lot of the most important phenomena of the Russian past which were not noticed at all before, and if some of his views did not receive full citizenship in science, then all, without exception, aroused thought and called for further development.

This may include:

the question of dividing Russian history into epochs;

the influence of the natural conditions of the territory (in the spirit of the views of K. Ritter) on the historical fate of the Russian people;

the significance of the ethnographic composition of the Russian state;

the nature of Russian colonization and its direction;

the theory of tribal life and its replacement by the state system, in connection with a new and original look at the period of appanages;

theory of new princely cities, explaining the fact of the rise princely property and the birth of a new order in the north;

elucidation of the features of the Novgorod system, as grown on purely native soil;

reduction to almost zero political significance Mongolian yoke;

historical continuity of the Suzdal princes of the XII-XIII centuries. and Moscow XIV-XV centuries;

the continuity of the idea in the Danilovich generation, the type of "impassionate faces" and the main conditions for the rise of Moscow (the geographical position of Moscow and its region, the personal policy of the princes, the nature of the population, the assistance of the clergy, the underdevelopment independent living in the cities of North-Eastern Russia, the absence of strong regional attachments, the absence of obstacles from the retinue element, the weakness of Lithuania);

the character of Ivan the Terrible, in connection with the conditions of his upbringing;

the political meaning of Grozny's struggle with the boyars is the carrying out of the principles of statehood, to the detriment of the old retinue "will";

the continuity between Ivan the Terrible's aspirations to advance to the sea and the political tasks of Peter the Great;

due attention to the history of Western Russia;

the progressive movement of the Russian people to the East and the role of Russia in the life of the Asian peoples;

mutual relations between the Moscow State and Little Russia;

the significance of the Time of Troubles as a struggle between state and anti-state elements, and at the same time as the starting point for the subsequent transformational movement;

connection of the era of the first Romanovs with the times of Peter the Great;

the historical significance of Peter the Great: the absence of any break with the Muscovite period, the naturalness and necessity of reform, the close connection between the pre-Petrine and post-Petrine eras;

German influence under the successors of Peter the Great;

the significance of the Elizabethan reign, as the basis of the subsequent, Catherine's;

the significance of Catherine's reign (for the first time, both exaggerated praises and a depiction of the shadow sides of the personality and state activities of the empress were introduced into the proper framework);

application of the comparative historical method: the events of Russian history in Solovyov are constantly illuminated by analogies from the history of Western European peoples, Slavic and German-Romance, and not for the sake of greater clarity, but in the name of that that the Russian people, while remaining an integral and unified organism, at the same time is itself a part of another great organism - the European one.

Klyuchevsky about Solovyov

“He was a scientist with a strict, well-educated thought. He did not soften the callous truth of reality for the sake of the pathological inclinations of the time. To meet the reader's feuilleton tastes, he came out with a lively, but serious, sometimes harsh story, in which a dry, well-thought-out fact was not sacrificed to a well-told anecdote. This made him famous dry historian. As he treated the public for whom he wrote, he treated the people whose history he wrote in the same way. Russian to the bone, he never closed his eyes so as not to see dark sides in the past and present of the Russian people. More alive than many, many patriots, he felt great forces native people, stronger than many believed in his future; but he did not make an idol out of him. As much as possible, he was a stranger to that gross disdain for the people, which is often hidden under an immoderate and unnecessary glorification of its virtues or under an arrogant and indifferent condescension to its shortcomings. He loved and respected the Russian people too deeply to flatter them, and considered them too old to disguise folk history tell him children's tales about national heroism.

Solovyov did not drop stories to a pamphlet. He was able to consider the historical phenomena of a given place and time, regardless of temporary and local hobbies and passions. His scientific historical outlook was not limited to certain degrees geographical latitude and longitude. Studying large and small phenomena in the history of one people, he did not lose sight of the general laws that govern the life of mankind, the fundamental foundations on which human societies are built. The thinker hid in him behind the narrator; his story developed on a historical-philosophical basis, without which history becomes an amusement of idle curiosity. That is why historical phenomena stand in their places, are illuminated by natural, and not artificial light; that is why in his story there is inner harmony, historical logic, which makes one forget about the external belletristic harmony of presentation. V.O.Klyuchevsky

Solovyov. CM. was a great historian. He made an incommensurable contribution to history. He opened his eyes to many previously unnoticed details. His works are used to this day.

1. Introduction

2) The merits of Solovyov

3) Klyuchevsky about Solovyov

List of used literature

1) Biography of S.M. Solovyov

2) V. O. Klyuchevskoy. Works in eight volumes.

Volume VIII. Studies, reviews, speeches (1890-1905)

3) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron

4) Historians Russia XVIII- XX centuries. Issue. 1. - M., 1995.

5) Tsimbaev, N. Sergei Solovyov. - M., 1990. - (ZhZL).

Samara State Technical University.

Report

"The Columbuses of Russian History"

Performed:

Student 1 - XTF

Fligina Elizaveta Vitalievna

Checked:

Tatarenkova Natalya Andreevna

Signature __________

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  Born in the family of Archpriest, teacher of the Moscow Commercial School Mikhail Vasilievich Solovyov (1791-1861); mother, E. I. Shatrova, was the daughter of a minor official who had served the nobility and the niece of Bishop Abraham  (Shumilin). Until the age of 13, he studied the Law of God and ancient languages ​​from his father, being enrolled at the Moscow Spiritual School from the age of 8 with the proviso that the student would receive knowledge in secular subjects at a commercial school, and take exams at a spiritual school. Religious education was manifested in the importance in the historical life of peoples he attached to religion in general and, as applied to Russia, to Orthodoxy in particular.

  Was awarded many orders higher degrees, including the Order of the White Eagle.

  Family

  Wife: Poliksena Vladimirovna, nee Romanova. They had 12 children, four of whom died in early childhood.

  The youngest 12th daughter, Anya, Poliksena Sergeevna, is a poetess, children's writer, editor-publisher of the children's magazine Path. Balmont, Blok, Kuprin, Sollogub and others collaborated with the magazine. Poetic pseudonym Allegro. It was first used in 1895 when publishing poetry in the journal Russian Wealth.

  She studied painting in the class of Pryanishnikov and Polenov. Author of drawings and publisher of a series of postcards Children in winter until 1904.

  In 1908 Tropinka publishing house received gold medal at the St. Petersburg exhibition Art in the life of a child., and the poetess herself - the Golden Pushkin Medal.

  She died on August 16, 1924. She was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery, next to her father and brothers Vladimir and Vsevolod. She left autobiographical notes.

  From the point of view of the actual completeness of the presentation of the events of Russian history, mainly external ones, the History of Russia from Ancient Times is the most complete repository of such facts. None of the Russian historians, either before Solovyov or after him, in their attempts to set out the entire course of Russian history, embraced a huge chronological space: for twenty-three centuries - from the 5th century BC.

  According to the presentation of Solovyov's "History of Russia", it is tiresome not only for an ordinary reader, but also for a specialist. Often her presentation turns into a simple retelling of the chronicle (in the pre-Petrine periods) and into an extract from archival documents(for the 18th century). The general reasoning of the author, which he sometimes precedes the historical narrative, or accompanies with them the exposition of a whole period or era of Russian historical life, casting a glance at the historical path he has traveled, such reasoning goes unnoticed by the ordinary reader, because they are drowned in an abundance of detailed factual presentation. Among these considerations: the influence of the natural conditions of northeastern Europe on the nature of Russian history; explanation of the influence of Christianity on the Slavic Russians; the difference in social foundations and in the course of the history of southern Russia and northeastern Russia; about the significance of the Mongol conquest and the rise of Moscow; about the significance of the era from John III to the Time of Troubles and the Time of Troubles; the "eve" of the reforms of Peter the Great and these reforms themselves and their further historical destiny under his successors.

  Dominant role state beginning in Russian history it was emphasized earlier than Solovyov, but he was the first to point out the true interaction of this principle and social elements. Solovyov showed the continuity of government forms in the closest connection with society and with the changes that this continuity brought into his life; and at the same time he could not, like the Slavophiles, oppose the "state" to the "land", limiting himself to manifestations of the "spirit" of the people alone. In his eyes, the genesis of both state and public life was equally necessary. In logical connection with this formulation of the problem was another basic view of Solovyov, borrowed from Evers and developed by him into a coherent doctrine of tribal life. The gradual transition of this life into state life, the consistent transformation of tribes into principalities, and principalities into a single state entity - this, according to Solovyov, is the main meaning of Russian history. This required the historian “not to divide, not to split up Russian history into separate parts, periods, but to connect them, to follow primarily the connection of phenomena, the direct succession of forms; not to separate the principles, but to consider them in interaction, to try to explain each phenomenon from internal causes, before isolating it from general connection events and subordinate external influence". Former divisions into eras based on external signs, devoid of internal connection, have lost their meaning; they have been replaced by stages of development. Solovyov established four major sections in the history of Russia:

  1. The dominance of the tribal system - from Rurik to Andrey Bogolyubsky
  2. From Andrei Bogolyubsky to the beginning of the 17th century
  3. Russia's entry into the system of European states - from the first Romanovs to the middle of the 18th century
  4. New period of Russia

  Assessing the role of the individual in history, Solovyov considered inappropriate, when depicting the activities of any historical person, "both excessive praise and immoderate censure." He considered it unhistorical when “the activity of one historical person broke away from historical activity the whole people; a supernatural force was introduced into the life of the people, acting according to its own arbitrariness ... ".

  "History of Russia from ancient times" was brought up to 1774. Being an epoch in the development of Russian historiography, Solovyov's work determined a well-known direction, created a numerous school. According to the definition of Professor V. I. Guerrier, Solovyov's "History" is national history: for the first time historical material, necessary for such work, was collected and studied with due completeness, in compliance with strictly scientific methods, in relation to the requirements of modern historical knowledge: the source is always in the foreground, sober truth and objective truth alone guide the author's pen. Solovyov's monumental work for the first time captured the essential features and form of the historical development of the nation. In Solovyov's nature, "three great instincts of the Russian people were deeply rooted, without which this people would not have had a history - its political, religious and cultural instincts, expressed in devotion to the state, in attachment to the church and in the need for enlightenment"; this helped Solovyov, behind the outer shell of phenomena, to reveal the spiritual forces that determined them.

  Other writings

  Before to some extent two other books by Solovyov can serve as a continuation of the "History of Russia":

  • "History of the fall of Poland" (M., 1863. - 369 p.);
  • "Emperor Alexander the First. Politics, Diplomacy ”(St. Petersburg, 1877. - 560 p.).

  Solovyov also wrote The Educational Book of Russian History (1st ed. 1859; 10th ed. 1900), in relation to the gymnasium course, and Public Readings on Russian History (M., 1874; 2nd ed., M., 1882), applied to the level of the people's audience, but emerging from the same principles as main work Solovyov.

  "Public Readings about Peter the Great" (Moscow, 1872) is a brilliant description of the transforming era.

  From Solovyov's writings on Russian historiography:

  • "Writers of Russian History of the 18th Century" (“Archive of historical and legal information of Kalacheva”, 1855, book II, floor 1);
  • "G. F. Miller” (“Contemporary”, 1854, v. 94);
  • "M. T. Kachenovsky ”(“ Biogr. Dictionary of Professors of Moscow Univ. ”, Part II);
  • "N. M. Karamzin and his literary activity: History of the Russian State "(" Domestic Notes "1853-1856, vols. 90, 92, 94, 99, 100, 105);
  • "BUT. L. Schletser ”(“ Russian Bulletin ”, 1856, No. 8).

  For general history:

  • “Observations on the historical life of peoples” (“Bulletin of Europe”, 1868-1876) is an attempt to capture the meaning of historical life and outline the general course of its development, starting from ancient peoples East (brought to the beginning of the X century)
  • and "Course new history"(M., 1869-1873; 2nd ed., 1898).

  Solovyov outlined his method and tasks of Russian historiography in the article: “Schlozer and the anti-historical direction” (“Russian Bulletin”, 1857. - April, Book 2). A very small part of Solovyov's articles (between them "Public Readings on Peter the Great" and "Observations") was included in the publication of "Works of S. M. Solovyov" (St. Petersburg, 1882).

  The bibliographic list of Solovyov’s works was compiled by N. A. Popov (systematic; “Speech and report, read in the solemn meeting of the Moscow Univ. on January 12, 1880”, transcribed in Solovyov’s “Works”) and Zamyslovsky (chronological, incomplete , in Solovyov's obituary, "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education", 1879, No. 11).

  Opinions and criticism

  The main provisions of S. M. Solovyov were criticized even during his lifetime.

  © AST Publishing House LLC, 2017

  Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879) - the largest and most famous historian of Russia, rector of Moscow University (1871-1877), ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the department of Russian language and literature (1872).

  For about 30 years, S. M. Solovyov worked tirelessly on his "History of Russia from ancient times", the glory of his life and the pride of Russia historical science. The last, 29th volume was published in 1879, after the death of the author. Based on the same materials and sources, based on the same scientific guidelines, S. M. Solovyov wrote and adapted for wide reading the “Educational Book of Russian History” (first edition of 1859), an entertaining digression into Russian history - from ancient Russian times to the reign of Nicholas I.

  The works of S. M. Solovyov, included in the golden fund of Russian historical science, are distinguished by the solidity of concepts, the validity of arguments, the weight of arguments, clarity of thought, and clarity of formulation. Therefore, they had a special "scientific fate": a long book life and a wide range of grateful readers.

  Chapter I

  Let's take a look at the map of Russia: here, starting from the place where the Ural mountains, to the Caspian Sea there is a large flat steppe space, as if a wide gate from Asia to Europe. In this place and to the east of it there still live rude, nomadic peoples, hunters to rob, take their neighbors prisoner, but now it is becoming more difficult for these peoples to lead such a life from hour to hour, because the strong Russian state does not allow them to rob; some of them even gave up nomadic life and started farming. But of old in this vast country which we now call European Russia, there was no state, there was no strong settled people, and therefore nomadic peoples moved freely from east to west, occupied southern part present-day Russia and, sometimes gathering in large crowds, went further, devastated Southern and Western Europe. The ancient educated peoples, the Greeks and Romans, knew these nomads who lived in present-day Russia, first under the name of the Scythians, then the Sarmatians, which is why the country was called either Scythia or Sarmatia. After the Nativity of Christ, many diverse peoples clashed here, moving to different sides, predominantly from east to west, from Asia to Europe; stronger than others was the movement of the Huns and Avars. When this movement subsided, the nomadic peoples subsided, then a sedentary tribe clearly appeared in the country, spread over a large area: they were Slavs.

  When the Slavs came here is unknown; it is only known that they came from the south-west, from the banks of the Danube, driven out from there by some strong enemy. They settled along the rivers Western Bug, Dniester, Dnieper and the rivers flowing into it, further in the north they settled along the Western Dvina and near Lake Ilmen, in the east they settled along the Oka. They were divided into several tribes, independent of each other; tribes were divided into clans; each clan lived separately in its own place, under the rule of its ancestor or prince, and had its own customs; settlements were fortified, enclosed, and such fenced settlements were called cities. The Slavs were mainly engaged in agriculture. They worshiped physical deities, natural phenomena: their main deity was Perun, the god of thunder and lightning; also worshiped the sun under different names(Dazhbog, Volos), fire, wind. believed in afterlife, thought that the souls of the dead could eat and drink, and therefore considered it an obligation to treat them. They did not have public worship, temples, or priests; elders or ancestors were also priests, they made sacrifices.

  All the space of the present European Russia to the north, northeast and northwest of the Slavic dwellings was occupied by Finnish tribes; on the Volga, in the current Kazan province, lived the Bulgarians, the people of the Turkish tribe; in the west, along the Neman and in lower parts The Western Dvina, Lithuania lived, to the south of it lived the Yotvingians, a people of unknown origin.

  

  S. V. Ivanov. Scene from the life of the Eastern Slavs

  As Slavic tribes they lived in separate small clans, were scattered over vast expanses and quarreled among themselves, they were weak, could not act together, at the same time, suddenly gather all their strength to repulse the enemies; Enemies attack one tribe, others do not help it, and each separately submits to a foreign people. So the Slavic tribes that lived in the southeast, along the Dnieper, along the rivers flowing into it from the east, and along the Oka, had to pay tribute to the goats, the people who lived on the Don, the Volga and in the Crimea. This people was mixed from different tribes; among the goats one could also find people of different faiths - Christian, Jewish, Mohammedan, pagan, and the main leader of the people, the kagan, professed the Jewish faith. The Kozars led a semi-sedentary life: they had cities, but in the summer the inhabitants left them and migrated to the steppe.

  Chapter II. The vocation of Rurik with his brothers and the general features of the activities of the first Russian princes

  At a time when the southern Slavic tribes paid tribute to the goats, the northern ones could not defend themselves against the Normans, the inhabitants of Sweden, Norway and Denmark, whom the Slavs called the Varangians and Rus. These Varangians conquered the northern Slavs, who lived in the current Novgorod and Pskov provinces, and also conquered the neighboring Finnish tribes. After some time, these tribes, both Slavic and Finnish, gathered together and drove out the Varangians, but when after that they began to rule themselves, they could not settle down peacefully; again each clan began to live separately and by force deal with other clans. Then the tribes gathered and said: "Let's look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right." Having decided so, they sent across the sea to the Varangians-Rus to tell them: "Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it: come reign and rule over us." At this call in 862, three princes of the Varangian-Russians, three brothers - Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, gathered and came with their relatives. Rurik established himself in Novgorod, among the Slavs who lived along Ilmen; Sineus - among the Finnish tribe on Beloozero; Truvor - among the Slavs who lived in the current Pskov province, in the city of Izborsk. Soon Sineus and Truvor died, and Rurik began to reign alone; his possessions began to be called Rus. Rurik died in 879, leaving his young son Igor, and his relative Oleg began to reign.

  

  V. M. Vasnetsov. Varangians

  With the approval of Rurik as a prince among the northern Slavic and Finnish tribes, Russian history begins, because this is the foundation of the Russian state. Several northern Slavic and Finnish tribes united under the rule of one prince; through this, internecine strife ceased among them, their forces gathered into one, and therefore they became stronger than all other tribes; their princes, the successors of Rurik, took advantage of this power and subjugated all the other tribes, who, living separately from each other, could not resist strongly and for a long time. Thus, the tribes that had previously lived separately, united together, made up one Russian people. As a result of the union of the tribes into one people, the princes of this people, using its combined forces, repel the steppe, nomadic peoples, do not allow them to rob and capture the Slavic tribes, to take tribute from them, as happened before. Moreover, the princes use the united forces of the tribes in order to undertake campaigns against the Greek Empire, against Constantinople; as a result of these campaigns, peaceful, commercial relations with the Greeks were also established; Russians began to travel to Constantinople, got acquainted there with Christianity of the Eastern Orthodox confession and began to accept it. Thus, Christianity appeared and strengthened first in the south of the Russian possessions closest to Greece, and then spread from here to all these possessions.

  S.M. Soloviev - the largest historian pre-revolutionary Russia. His outstanding contribution to the development of Russian historical thought was recognized by scholars of various schools and trends. “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, major events- thoughts. In the history of our science and literature, there were few lives as abundant in facts and events as Solovyov's life, ”his student, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote about Solovyov. Indeed, despite his relatively short life, Solovyov left a huge creative heritage - more than 300 of his works were published with a total volume of more than a thousand printed sheets. This is a feat of a scientist, which had no equal in Russian historical science, either before Solovyov or after his death. His works have firmly entered the treasury of national and world historical thought.
  Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov was born on May 5, 1820 in Moscow. His father, Archpriest Mikhail Vasilyevich Solovyov, was a teacher of the law (teacher of the law of God) and rector at the Moscow Commercial School. Having been educated at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, Mikhail Vasilyevich was well-read, spoke French fluently, and replenished his personal library all his life. The mother of the future historian, Elena Ivanovna, nee Shatrova, also aspired to education. The Solovyov family was dominated by a democratic spirit, a craving for knowledge, for enlightenment.
  According to the custom established in the family of the clergy, the father enrolled his eight-year-old son in the Moscow religious school. Seeing soon that there would be no benefit from his son's stay there, he discharged him from the clergy.
  In 1833, Sergei Solovyov was enrolled in the 3rd grade of the First Moscow Gymnasium. Here he becomes the first student in terms of academic performance, and his favorite subjects were history, Russian language and literature. In the gymnasium, Solovyov acquired a powerful patron in the person of the trustee of the Moscow educational district, Count Stroganov, to whom Sergei was introduced as the first student. “From that time,” Stroganov recalled many years later, “I did not lose sight of him.” For almost half a century, the count followed the progress of his pupil, more than once assisted him in difficult circumstances.
  In 1838, Solovyov graduated from the gymnasium with a silver medal (gold medals were not given) and, according to the final exams, was enrolled in the historical and philological department of the philosophical faculty of Moscow University. Among the professors who provided the most strong influence on Solovyov, it should be noted the historian Pogodin. He introduced Solovyov to his richest collection of manuscripts. While working on them, Sergei Mikhailovich made the first discovery: he discovered the previously unknown 5th part of Tatishchev's History of Russia. However, Solovyov did not become Pogodin's like-minded person.
  After graduating from the university, Sergei Mikhailovich received an offer from Count Stroganov to go abroad as a home teacher for the children of his brother, the former Minister of Internal Affairs A.G. Stroganov. The young historian agreed and from 1842 to 1844 lived in the Stroganov family. This allowed him to visit Austria, Germany, France, Belgium. All free time he devoted to replenishing education: he listened to lectures renowned professors in Berlin and Paris, worked in libraries, visited art galleries and theaters. Staying abroad broadened the historian's cultural and political horizons and prepared him even more for a scientific and teaching career.
  Returning to Moscow, Sergei Mikhailovich takes his master's exams in January 1845, and in October of the same year he defends his dissertation on the topic "On the Relations of Novgorod to the Grand Dukes." In 1847, Solovyov defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic "History of relations between the Russian princes of the Rurik House." Both dissertations were an attempt to resolve the issue of internal patterns in the process of formation of a centralized Russian States XVI century. These studies have criticized the concept of Solovyov's former teacher, Professor Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin. (Pogodin attached decisive importance to the influence external events on the formation of the Russian state, namely the Varangian and Mongol conquests). The historical views formulated by Solovyov immediately found support among the liberal professors of Moscow University, headed by Timofei Nikolaevich Granovsky.
  A successful defense strengthened Solovyov's position at the university, enabling the 27-year-old doctor of Russian history to receive a professorship. At the same time, his collaboration began in the most popular magazines of that time, Sovremennik and Otechestvennye Zapiski. Granovsky's support brought Solovyov into the western circle of the university and into the center of Moscow's spiritual life.
  All subsequent scientific, pedagogical and service biography of Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov is associated with Moscow University - the oldest higher educational and scientific center Russia. Here, for more than thirty years, he was a professor at the Department of Russian History, for six years he worked as the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, for six years, from 1871 to 1877, he was the elected rector of the university. In March 1872, Solovyov was elected an academician Russian Academy Sciences in the Department of the Russian Language and Literature.
  Unlimited devotion to science, enormous capacity for work and organization allowed Solovyov to create many studies, each of which attracted close attention professionals and history buffs. Among them are the articles Ancient Russia”, “Historical Letters”, “Progress and Religion”, a book that grew out of a series of lectures “Public Readings on Peter the Great”, “History of the Fall of Poland” and a number of other works.
  The pinnacle of Solovyov's scientific work is his fundamental History of Russia from Ancient Times. The scientist started writing it as a very young man. In his Notes, he spoke about the beginning of this work as follows: “There were no benefits; Karamzin is outdated in the eyes of everyone; it was necessary, in order to draw up a good course, to study according to the sources; but why can’t this very course, processed according to sources, be passed on to the public, eager to have Russian history complete and written, as the histories of states were written in Western Europe? At first it seemed to me that the history of Russia would be a processed university course; but when I got down to business, I found that good course can only be the result of detailed processing, to which one must devote one's life. I decided on such work and started from the beginning, because, as already mentioned, the previous works did not satisfy.
  Solovyov got down to business with solid training: he studied a wide range of sources and literature, was fluent in technology research work, clearly saw the scheme of the future work. Of course, for almost 30 years of work, much in his views has changed, clarified, but the original fundamental theoretical principles and approaches the scientist consistently held on the pages of the entire book.
  One of the main ideas of his work is the idea of ​​the history of Russia as a single, naturally developing process. In the preface to the 1st volume, Sergei Mikhailovich wrote: “Do not divide, do not split Russian history into separate parts, periods, but combine them, follow mainly the connection of phenomena, the direct succession of forms, do not separate the beginnings, but consider them in interaction, to try to explain each phenomenon from internal causes, before isolating it from the general connection of events and subordinating it to external influence - this is the duty of the historian at the present time, as the author of the proposed work understands it.
  Another pivotal position of his work is the idea of ​​historical progress. The source of historical progress, according to Solovyov, is the struggle of contradictory principles, both common to all peoples, and peculiar, explaining in each of them national characteristics historical process. higher goal historical development, the scientist considered the desire to implement the ideals of Christianity, justice and goodness. With regard to Russia, historical progress can and should become a means of advancing the country on the path to " rule of law" and " European civilization».
  In 1851, the 1st volume of "History ..." was published, in 1879 - the last, 29th, after the death of the author. The chronological framework of the work covers the history of Russia from ancient times to 1774. The historian developed the following periodization of the history of Russia:
  1) from IX to the second half of XII centuries - the dominance of tribal inter-princely relations;
  2) from the second half of the XII to late XVI century - tribal relations between the princes are transferred to the state. (This stage ends with the death of Fedor Ivanovich and the suppression of the Rurik dynasty);
  3) the beginning of the 17th century - the “Trouble”, which threatened the “young state with destruction”;
  4) from 1613 to the middle of the 18th century - public life Russia began to develop among the European powers;
  5) the second half of the 18th - the first half of the 19th centuries - the time when borrowing the "fruits of European civilization" became necessary not only "for material well-being", but also for "moral enlightenment".
  Solovyov's work specifically lacks the designation and allocation of periods, “because in history nothing ends suddenly and nothing begins suddenly; the new begins while the old continues.” In each of the sections of the "History ...", he examines the activities of individuals, while highlighting such individuals whose activities can be traced through sources that are reliable, in the author's opinion. In this difficult question of the role of the individual in history, the scientist consistently sought to see the objective laws of the historical process, recognized the possibility of studying and analyzing these laws.
  Among the main conditions that determined the development Ancient Russia, Solovyov put "the nature of the country" in the first place, "the life of the tribes that entered the new society" in the second place, and "the state of neighboring peoples and states" in the third place. At the same time, the scientist believed that in the history of Russia "the course of events is constantly subject to natural conditions."
  Solovyov solved the question of influence in a peculiar way. Tatar-Mongol conquest on the historical development Russia. He did not consider Tatar yoke a factor that had a decisive impact on the unification of Russian lands around Moscow.
  The published 1st volume of "History ..." was greeted by historians and the reading public ambiguously. As well as a positive assessment there were unfriendly, and sometimes rude and mocking reviews. Solovyov was opposed by the famous Slavophile historian Belyaev and former teacher Sergei Mikhailovich Pogodin, who was hostile to his former student. In a review of the 1st volume, Pogodin wrote that there was “not a single living page” in the book, the author’s point of view “is far from normal”, and therefore trying to understand Solovyov’s concept is “as useless as blaming him unfairly for a physical handicap thoughts".
  It should be noted that the attention shown by Solovyov to the analysis of the conditions of the historical life of peoples was unusual for researchers of his time. A New Look caused a lot of criticism. And only in the twentieth century, the study of history in close interweaving with geographical and ethnographic subjects was widely recognized.
  Sergei Mikhailovich painfully experienced such attacks. But he did not lose heart, but continued to work hard. Years later, the scientist recalled: “The thought of abandoning my work never occurred to me, and at this sad time for me I prepared and printed the 2nd volume of the History of Russia, which came out in the spring of 1852. As you can see, I successfully defended myself not with polemical articles, but precisely with volumes of history that were constantly published every year ... ".
  As new volumes of the History of Russia were published, Solovyov's work gained more and more recognition. There were still negative reviews, but most of the responses emphasized the abundance of factual information contained in the work of the scientist, his ability to convincingly explain controversial and difficult questions Russian history. Special attention the public was attracted by the 6th and 8th volumes, dedicated to the second half of the XVI - early XVII centuries. A large place in them is given to Ivan IV, the history of his reign, as well as the Time of Troubles. Unlike Karamzin and Pogodin, the author considered the activities of Ivan the Terrible as a period of final triumph in Russia public relations. He did not idealize the tsar, did not justify his cruelty, but he did not reduce everything to the personal qualities of the autocrat, to his sick psyche, he saw in the introduction of the oprichnina, in the defeat of the boyars, real manifestations of the struggle between the old and the new, regarding those events as a historical necessity and pattern. Outlining domestic political and international issues Time of Troubles, Solovyov compared various versions, comparing them with each other, chose the most reliable. As a result, he was able to make a significant contribution to the study given period Russian history.
  Solovyov paid special attention to the personality of Peter the Great. He was the first among historians to attempt to give a scientific assessment of Peter's reforms. According to the scientist, the reforms carried out by Peter I were prepared by the previous development of Russia. They were a natural and necessary transition of the people from one "age" to another. Having defeated enemies from the East, the Russian people turned their eyes to the West and saw how other peoples live. Solovyov wrote: “The poor people realized their poverty and its causes by comparing themselves with rich peoples... The people got up and got ready for the road; but someone was waiting; waited for the leader, - the leader appeared. This leader was Peter I, who continued the undertakings of his predecessors - the Russian tsars, gave these undertakings a grand scale and achieved great results. For Solovyov, Peter I was "a born head of state" and at the same time - the founder of "a new kingdom, a new empire", not like his ancestors; he is the leader, "and not the creator of the cause, which is therefore a matter of the people, and not a personal one, belonging to Peter alone."
  History of Russia first quarter XVIII century occupies a central place in Solovyov's work. His research on the era of Peter I was of fundamental importance for highlighting this turning point in Russian history. The scientist not only introduced a huge layer of archival documents into scientific circulation, but also presented many aspects of Russian reality in a new way.
  Narrating the events that took place during the reign of Catherine I, Peter II and Anna Ivanovna, Solovyov shows that the closest successors of the reformer tsar failed to continue his undertakings, there was a retreat from the "transformer program". The turning point came only under Elizabeth Petrovna, who delivered the country from the dominance of foreigners; under her, "Russia came to its senses" from the "yoke of the West."
  The last volumes of Solovyov's works are devoted to Russian history during the reign of Catherine II. He managed to bring his story to the beginning peasant war under the direction of Emelyan Pugachev. The extensive information he provided about domestic and foreign policy, economic life and way of life laid the foundations for the scientific study of the history of Russia in the second half of XVIII centuries.
  There are a lot of controversial provisions in the "History of Russia", if we approach its assessment from the standpoint of science today. However, all of them are incomparable with the huge, truly unique contribution that this work makes to domestic and world historical science.
  In 1877 Sergei Mikhailovich fell seriously ill. Soon, diseases of the heart and liver became fatal. Overcoming the pain, the scientist continued to work: he prepared materials for the next volume of the "History of Russia", was interested in literary novelties.
  On October 4, 1879, S.M. Solovyov died and was buried at the Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow. His death was a heavy blow to Russian historical science. The obituaries that appeared noted his services to national culture. One of them contains the following words: “We complain that we have no characters, but until recently there lived between us a man with a strong character, who devoted his whole life to serving the Russian land; we complain that we do not have scientists, but a man has just descended into the grave, whose place is among the greatest scientists XIX century."
  The range of questions covered by Solovyov during his scientific activity, which lasted for about 40 years. Throughout his career, he strove to sum up the well-known results of the study of Russia, to summarize his views on the history of our state in a number of public lectures, public readings and articles. Solovyov's merit lies in the fact that he was the first to introduce into scientific circulation great amount previously unpublished historical sources. In his Historical Letters, he wrote: “Life has every right to propose questions to science; science has a duty to answer these questions.”
  The scientific bibliography has registered 244 titles of Solovyov's printed works published during his lifetime, from 1838 to 1879. Of course, not all of them are of interest to a wide readership. More than a century has passed. Historical science received further development. But the main work of the scientist "History of Russia from ancient times", which became greatest contribution into development national history and culture, can not leave anyone indifferent. Interest in the works of Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov does not weaken, his works continue to be published, studied in universities and are in constant demand among the widest range of readers.

  Literature
  Historians of Russia XVIII - XX centuries. Issue. 1. - M., 1995.
  Tsimbaev, N. Sergei Solovyov. - M., 1990. - (ZhZL).

  (May 5 (17), 1820, Moscow - October 4 (16), 1879, ibid) - Russian historian; Professor of Moscow University (since 1848), Rector of Moscow University (1871-1877), Ordinary Academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the Department of Russian Language and Literature (1872), Privy Councilor.

  For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on the History of Russia, the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. Its first volume appeared in 1851, and since then, neatly from year to year, it has been published by volume. The last, 29th, was published in 1879, after the death of the author. In this monumental work, Solovyov showed energy and fortitude, all the more amazing because during the hours of "rest" he continued to prepare many other books and articles of various contents.

  Proceedings

  

  History of Russia since ancient times. Book I. Primordial Russia

  This book includes the first and second volumes of the main work of the life of S. M. Solovyov - "The History of Russia from Ancient Times." The first volume covers events from ancient times to the end of the reign of the Kyiv Grand Duke Yaroslav Vladimirovich the Wise; the second - from 1054 to 1228

  

  History of Russia since ancient times. Book II. 1054–1462

  The second book of works by S. M. Solovyov includes the third and fourth volumes of the History of Russia from Ancient Times. They illuminate political life and the structure of Russian society in the XIII-XV centuries.

  

  History of Russia since ancient times. Book III. 1463-1584

  The third book of works by S. M. Solovyov includes the fifth and sixth volumes of the History of Russia from Ancient Times. The fifth volume covers the events of the period of the reigns of Ivan III and Basil III; the central place in the sixth volume is given to the reign of Ivan the Terrible.