Scientists historians. Outstanding Russian historians

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

FSBEI HPE "Tambov State Technical University"

Department of History and Philosophy

Essay

in the discipline "History of Russia"

on the topic: “Outstanding domestic historians»

Completed by first year student K.V. Osadchenko

Checked by Ph.D., Associate Professor K.V. Samokhin

Tambov 2011

Introduction

Chapter 1. Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

1 Biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky

2 V.O. Klyuchevsky as a historian

Chapter 2. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

1 Biography of N.M. Karamzin

2 Karamzin as a historian

3 Karamzin as a writer

Chapter 3. Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

1 Biography of V.N. Tatishchev (life, career, literary works)

Chapter 4. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev

1 Biography of L.N. Gumilyov

2 The main works of L.N. Gumilyov

Chapter 5. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov

1 Biography of S.M. Solovyova

2 Teaching activities

3 Character Traits

4 “History of Russia”

5 Other works

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Outstanding Russian historians used to clearly imagine that historical science has general theoretical methodological problems within itself.

In the 1884/85 academic year, V.O. Klyuchevsky gave a special course for the first time in Russia Methodology of Russian history , titling the truly original section of the first lecture as follows: Lack of method in our history.

Commenting on this formulation, Klyuchevsky said: Our Russian historical literature cannot be accused of a lack of hard work - it has worked a lot; but I won’t charge her too much if I say that she herself doesn’t know what to do with the material she processed; she doesn't even know if she treated him well.

How can there be methodological concepts gleaned from historical science and appropriate criteria and approaches? Especially in conditions of zero level of development of your own approaches? It is clear that such an initial source can only come from the individual, including his social science section.

What is said about the relationship between the social concept of personality and history, with far-fetched, well-known adjustments (in each case, extremely specific, taking into account the specifics of a given science), perhaps this is extrapolated specifically to any branch of humanitarian and social science knowledge.

The purpose of the essay is to analyze, on the basis of existing literature, the life and work of Russian historians during their lifetime and what they left behind.

Based on the goal, the following tasks were formulated when writing the abstract:

.Consider the biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky and his activities as a professor of history.

.Consider the biography of N.M. Karamzin and his literary work.

.Consider the life, career and literary works of V.N. Tatishchev in his biography.

.Consider the life and main works of L.N. Gumilyov.

.Consider S.M. Solovyov, as a teacher, a man of character and his contribution to the “History of Russia”.

Chapter 1. Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

.1 Biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich- (1841-1911), Russian historian. Born on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresensky (near Penza) in the family of a poor parish priest. His first teacher was his father, who died tragically in August 1850. The family was forced to move to Penza. Out of compassion for the poor widow, one of her husband’s friends gave her a small house to live in. “Was there anyone poorer than you and me at the time when we were left orphans in the arms of our mother,” Klyuchevsky later wrote to his sister, recalling the hungry years of childhood and adolescence. In Penza, Klyuchevsky studied at the parish religious school, then at the theological district school and at the theological seminary.

Already at school, Klyuchevsky was well aware of the works of many historians. In order to be able to devote himself to science (his superiors predicted a career as a clergyman and admission to the theological academy), he deliberately left the seminary in his last year and spent a year independently preparing for entrance exams to university. With admission to Moscow University in 1861, a new period began in Klyuchevsky’s life. His teachers were F.I. Buslaev, N.S. Tikhonravov, P.M. Leontiev and especially S.M. Soloviev: “Soloviev gave the listener a surprisingly complete, harmonious thread drawn through a chain of generalized facts, view of the course of Russian history, and we know what a pleasure it is for a young mind beginning scientific study to feel in possession of a complete view of scientific subject».

The time of study for Klyuchevsky coincided with the largest event in the life of the country - the bourgeois reforms of the early 1860s. He was opposed to the government's extreme measures, but did not approve of student political protests. The subject of his graduation essay at the university, Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State (1866), Klyuchevsky chose to study about 40 legends and notes of foreigners about Rus' in the 15th-17th centuries. For the essay, the graduate was awarded a gold medal and retained at the department “to prepare for the professorship.” Klyuchevsky’s master’s (candidate’s) dissertation, Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source (1871), is devoted to another type of medieval Russian sources. The topic was indicated by Solovyov, who probably expected to use the secular and spiritual knowledge of the novice scientist to study the question of the participation of monasteries in the colonization of Russian lands. Klyuchevsky did a titanic job of studying no less than five thousand hagiographies. During the preparation of his dissertation, he wrote six independent studies, including such a major work as Economic activity Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory (1866-1867). But the efforts expended and the result obtained did not live up to expectations - the literary monotony of the lives, when the authors described the lives of the heroes according to a stencil, did not allow establishing the details of “the setting, place and time, without which a historical fact does not exist for a historian.”

After defending his master's thesis, Klyuchevsky received the right to teach at higher education institutions. educational institutions. Taught the course general history at the Alexander Military School, a course of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, at the Higher Women's Courses, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. From 1879 he taught at Moscow University, where he replaced the deceased Solovyov in the department of Russian history. Teaching activities brought Klyuchevsky well-deserved fame. Gifted with the ability to visually penetrate into the past, the master artistic word, a famous wit and author of numerous epigrams and aphorisms, in his speeches the scientist skillfully built entire galleries of portraits of historical figures that were remembered by listeners for a long time. The doctoral dissertation The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus' (first published in the pages of the magazine “Russian Thought” in 1880-1881) constituted a well-known stage in Klyuchevsky’s work. The themes of Klyuchevsky's subsequent scientific works clearly indicated this new direction - the Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries. in its relation to the present (1884), The origin of serfdom in Russia (1885), The poll tax and the abolition of servitude in Russia (1886), Eugene Onegin and his ancestors (1887), Composition of representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Rus' (1890), etc. Klyuchevsky's most famous scientific work, which has received worldwide recognition, is a Course of Russian History in 5 parts. The scientist worked on it for more than three decades, but decided to publish it only in the early 1900s.

Klyuchevsky called colonization the main factor in Russian history around which events unfold: “The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of ​​colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Sometimes falling, sometimes rising, this age-old movement continues to this day.” Based on this, Klyuchevsky divided Russian history into four periods. The first period lasts approximately from the 8th to the 13th centuries, when the Russian population concentrated on the middle and upper Dnieper and its tributaries. Rus' was then politically divided into separate cities, and foreign trade dominated the economy. During the second period (13th - mid-15th centuries), the bulk of the population moved to the area between the upper Volga and Oka rivers. The country was still fragmented, but no longer into cities with attached regions, but into princely appanages. The basis of the economy is free peasant agricultural labor. The third period lasts from the half of the 15th century. until the second decade of the 17th century, when the Russian population colonized the southeastern Don and Middle Volga black soils; happened in politics state association Great Russia; The process of enslavement of the peasantry began in the economy. The last, fourth period until the mid-19th century. (more late time The course did not cover) - this is the time when “the Russian people spread across the entire plain from the Baltic and White seas to the Black sea, to the Caucasus ridge, the Caspian Sea and the Urals.” The Russian Empire is formed, led by an autocracy based on the military service class - the nobility. In the economy, the manufacturing factory industry joins serf agricultural labor.

Scientific concept Klyuchevsky, with all its schematism, reflected the influences of social and scientific thought of the second half of the 19th century. Identification of the natural factor, the significance of geographical conditions for historical development people met the requirements of positivist philosophy. Recognition of the importance of economic and social history to some extent was akin to Marxist approaches to the study of the past. But still, the historians closest to Klyuchevsky are the so-called “ public school" - K.D. Kavelin, S.M. Soloviev and B.N. Chicherin. “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts,” wrote Klyuchevsky. The biography of Klyuchevsky himself rarely goes beyond these events and facts. His political speeches are few and characterize him as a moderate conservative who avoided the extremes of the Black Hundred reaction, a supporter of enlightened autocracy and the imperial greatness of Russia (it is no coincidence that Klyuchevsky was chosen as a teacher of general history for Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich, brother of Nicholas II). The scientist’s political line was answered by the “Laudatory speech” to Alexander III, delivered in 1894 and causing indignation among the revolutionary students, and a wary attitude towards the First Russian Revolution, and an unsuccessful run in the spring of 1906 for the ranks of electors in the First State Duma according to the cadet list. Klyuchevsky died in Moscow on May 12, 1911. He was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.

1.2 V.O. Klyuchevsky as a historian

history literary teaching Klyuchevsky

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich- Professor of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy and at Moscow University (in the latter - since 1879); currently ( 1895 ) is the chairman of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities.

During the existence of higher women's courses in Moscow, Professor Guerrier gave lectures on Russian history at them, and after the closure of these courses he participated in courses organized by Moscow professors public lectures.

Not particularly numerous, but rich in content, scientists research Klyuchevsky, from a number of which his doctoral dissertation ("Boyar Duma") is especially outstanding, are devoted primarily to explaining the main issues of the history of management and social order Moscow state XV - XVII centuries.

The wide scope of the research, covering the most significant aspects of the life of the state and society, in their mutual connection, the rare gift of critical analysis, sometimes reaching the point of pettiness, but leading to rich results, the brilliant talent of presentation - all these features of K.’s works have long been recognized by special criticism, helped him enrich the science of Russian history with a number of new and valuable generalizations and promoted him to one of the first places among its researchers.

The most important of Klyuchevsky’s works: “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State” (M., 1886), “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints, as a Historical Source” (M., 1871), “Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” (M., 1882), “Pycc ruble XVI - XVIII centuries in its relation to the present" (1884), "The origin of serfdom" ("Russian Thought", 1885, no. 8 and 10), "Poll tax and the abolition of servitude in Russia" ("Russian Thought", 1886, $9 and 10), “Composition of representation at the Zemstvo Councils of Ancient Rus'” (“Russian Thought”, 1890, $1; 1891, $1; 1892, $1).

Besides scientific works, Klyuchevsky wrote articles of a popular and journalistic nature, publishing them mainly in Russian Thought.

While retaining his characteristic talent for presentation here, Klyuchevsky moved further and further from the scientific soil in these articles, although he tried to keep it behind him. Their distinctive feature is the nationalistic shade of the author’s views, standing in close connection with the idealization of Moscow antiquity of the 16th - 17th centuries. and an optimistic attitude towards modern Russian reality.

Such features were clearly reflected, for example, in the articles: “Eugene Onegin”, “ Good people old Rus'", "Two Upbringings", "Memories of N.I. Novikov and his time", as well as in Klyuchevsky’s speech entitled: "In memory of the late Emperor Emperor Alexandra III"(" Readings of Moscow. General History and Ancient. ", 1894 and separately, M., 1894).

Chapter 2. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

.1 Biography of N.M. Karamzin

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich- famous Russian writer, journalist and historian. Born on December 1, 1766 in Simbirsk province; grew up in the village of his father, a Simbirsk landowner. The first spiritual food of the 8-9 year old boy was ancient novels, which developed his natural sensitivity. Even then, like the hero of one of his stories, “he loved to be sad, not knowing what,” and “could play with his imagination for two hours and build castles in the air.”

In the 14th year, Karamzin was brought to Moscow and sent to the boarding school of the Moscow professor Schaden; He also visited the university, where one could then learn “if not science, then Russian literacy.” He owed Schaden a practical acquaintance with German and French languages. After finishing classes with Schaden, Karamzin hesitated for some time in choosing an activity. In 1783 he tried to enroll in military service, where he was enrolled while still a minor, but then he retired and in 1784 became interested in secular successes in the society of the city of Simbirsk.

At the end of the same year, Karamzin returned to Moscow and, through his fellow countryman, I.P. Turgenev, became close to Novikov’s circle. Here, according to Dmitriev, “Karamzin’s education began, not only as an author, but also as a moral one.” The influence of the circle lasted 4 years (1785 - 88). The serious work on oneself that Freemasonry required, and with which Karamzin’s closest friend, Petrov, was so absorbed, was, however, not noticeable in Karamzin. From May 1789 to September 1790, he traveled around Germany, Switzerland, France and England, stopping mainly in big cities like Berlin, Leipzig, Geneva, Paris, London. Returning to Moscow, Karamzin began publishing the Moscow Journal (see below), where Letters of a Russian Traveler appeared. The "Moscow Journal" ceased in 1792, perhaps not without connection with the imprisonment of Novikov in the fortress and the persecution of the Masons.

Although Karamzin, when starting the Moscow Journal, formally excluded “theological and mystical” articles from its program, after Novikov’s arrest (and before the final verdict) he published a rather bold ode: “To mercy” (“As long as a citizen can calmly, without fear fall asleep, and let all those under your control freely direct their lives according to their thoughts; as long as you give everyone freedom and do not darken the light in their minds; as long as your trust in the people is visible in all your affairs: until then you will be sacredly honored... nothing can disturb the peace of your power") and He almost came under investigation on suspicion that he was sent abroad by the Freemasons. Most Karamzin spent 1793 - 1795 in the village and prepared two collections here called "Aglaya", published in the fall of 1793 and 1794.

In 1795, Karamzin limited himself to compiling a “mixture” in the Moskovskiye Vedomosti. “Having lost the desire to walk under black clouds,” he set out into the world and led a rather absent-minded life. In 1796, he published a collection of poems by Russian poets, entitled "Aonids". A year later, the second book “Aonid” appeared; then Karamzin decided to publish something like an anthology on foreign literature<#"justify">Chapter 3. Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

.1 Biography of V.N. Tatishchev (life, career and literary works)

Tatishchev (Vasily Nikitich) - a famous Russian historian, was born on April 16, 1686 on the estate of his father, Nikita Alekseevich T., in the Pskov district; studied at the Moscow artillery and engineering school under the leadership of Bruce, participated in the capture of Narva (1705), in Battle of Poltava and in the Prussian campaign; in 1713-14 he was abroad, in Berlin, Breslau and Dresden, to improve his science. In 1717, Tatishchev was again abroad, in Danzig, where Peter I sent him to seek inclusion in the indemnity of an ancient image, which was rumored to have been painted by St. Methodius; but the city magistrate did not yield to the image, and T. proved to Peter that the legend was untrue. From both of his trips abroad, T. took a lot of books. Upon his return, T. was with Bruce, the president of the Berg and Manufacturing College, and went with him to the Åland Congress. The presentation made by Bruce to Peter the Great about the need for a detailed geography of Russia gave impetus to the compilation of “Russian History” by Tatishchev, whom Bruce pointed out to Peter in 1719 as the executor of such work. T., sent to the Urals, could not immediately present the work plan to the tsar, but Peter did not forget about this matter and in 1724 reminded Tatishchev about it. Getting down to business, T. felt the need for historical information and therefore, relegating geography to the background, he began to collect materials for history. Another closely related plan of T. dates back to the time of the beginning of these works: in 1719, he submitted a proposal to the Tsar, in which he pointed out the need for demarcation in Russia. In T.’s thoughts, both plans were connected; in a letter to Cherkasov in 1725, he says that he was assigned “to survey the entire state and compose a detailed geography with land maps.” In 1720, a new order tore T. away from his historical and geographical works. He was sent “in the Siberian province on Kungur and in other places where convenient places were searched, to build factories and smelt silver and copper from ores.” He had to operate in a country that was little known, uncultured, and had long served as an arena for all sorts of abuses. Having traveled around the region entrusted to him, Tatishchev settled not in Kungur, but in the Uktus plant, where he founded a department, called at first the mining office, and then the Siberian high mining authorities. During T.'s first stay at the Ural factories, he managed to do quite a lot: he moved the Uktus plant to the river. Iset and there laid the foundation for present-day Yekaterinburg; obtained permission to allow merchants to go to the Irbit fair and through Verkhoturye, as well as to establish a post office between Vyatka and Kungur; opened two primary schools at the factories, two for teaching mining; procured the establishment of a special judge for factories; compiled instructions for protecting forests, etc.

Tatishchev’s measures displeased Demidov, who saw his activities being undermined by the establishment of state-owned factories. Genik was sent to the Urals to investigate the disputes, finding that T. acted fairly in everything. T. was acquitted, at the beginning of 1724 he presented himself to Peter, was promoted to advisor to the Berg College and appointed to the Siberian Ober-Berg Amt. Soon afterwards he was sent to Sweden for the needs of mining and to carry out diplomatic assignments. T. stayed in Sweden from December 1724 to April 1726, inspected factories and mines, collected many drawings and plans, hired a lapidary master who launched the lapidary business in Yekaterinburg, collected information about the trade of the Stockholm port and about the Swedish coinage system, became acquainted with many local scientists, etc. Returning from a trip to Sweden and Denmark, Tatishchev spent some time compiling a report and, although not yet expelled from Bergamt, was not, however, sent to Siberia.

In 1727, Tatishchev was appointed a member of the mint office, to which the mints were then subordinate; The events of 1730 found him in this position.

Regarding them, Tatishchev drew up a note, which was signed by 300 people from the nobility. He argued that Russia, as a vast country, is most suited to monarchical government, but that still, “to help” the empress should have established a Senate of 21 members and an assembly of 100 members, and top places to elect by ballot; here various measures were proposed to alleviate the situation different classes population. Due to the reluctance of the guard to agree to changes in the political system, this entire project remained in vain, but the new government, seeing T. as an enemy of the supreme leaders, treated him favorably: he was the chief master of ceremonies on the day of Anna Ioannovna’s coronation. Having become the chief judge of the coin office, T. began to actively take care of improving the Russian monetary system. In 1731, T. began to have misunderstandings with Biron, which led to him being put on trial on charges of bribery. In 1734, Tatishchev was released from trial and again assigned to the Urals, “to multiply factories.” He was also entrusted with drawing up the mining charter. While T. remained at the factories, his activities brought a lot of benefit to both the factories and the region: under him the number of factories increased to 40; New mines were constantly opening, and T. considered it possible to set up 36 more factories, which opened only a few decades later.

Among the new mines, the most important place was occupied by Mount Grace, indicated by T. T. used the right to interfere in the management of private factories very widely and yet more than once aroused criticism and complaints against himself. In general, he was not a supporter of private factories, not so much out of personal gain, but out of the consciousness that the state needs metals, and that by extracting them itself, it receives more benefits than by entrusting this business to private people. In 1737, Biron, wanting to remove Tatishchev from mining, appointed him to the Orenburg expedition to finally pacify Bashkiria and the control devices of the Bashkirs. Here he managed to carry out several humane measures: for example, he arranged for the delivery of yasak to be entrusted not to yasachniks and tselovalniks, but to the Bashkir elders. In January 1739, T. arrived in St. Petersburg, where a whole commission was set up to consider complaints against him. He was accused of “attacks and bribes,” lack of diligence, etc. It is possible to assume that there was some truth in these attacks, but T.’s position would have been better if he had gotten along with Biron. The commission arrested T. Peter and Paul Fortress and in September 1740 she sentenced him to deprivation of his ranks.

The sentence, however, was not carried out. In this difficult year for T., he wrote his instructions to his son - the famous “Spiritual”. The fall of Biron again brought forward T.: he was released from punishment and in 1741 he was appointed to Tsaritsyn to manage the Astrakhan province, mainly to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks. The lack of the necessary military forces and the intrigues of the Kalmyk rulers prevented T. from achieving anything lasting. When Elizaveta Petrovna ascended the throne, T. hoped to be freed from Kalmyk commission, but he did not succeed: he was left in place until 1745, when, due to disagreements with the governor, he was dismissed from office. Having arrived in his village of Boldino near Moscow, T. did not leave her until death. Here he finished his story, which he brought to St. Petersburg in 1732, but for which he did not meet with sympathy. Extensive correspondence conducted by T. from the village has reached us. On the eve of his death, he went to church and ordered the artisans to appear there with shovels. After the liturgy, he went with the priest to the cemetery and ordered to dig his own grave next to his ancestors. When leaving, he asked the priest to come the next day to give him communion. At home he found a courier who brought a decree forgiving him and the Order of Alexander Nevsky. He returned the order, saying that he was dying. The next day he took communion, said goodbye to everyone and died (July 15, 1750). T.'s main work could only appear under Catherine II. All literary activity T., including works on history and geography, pursued journalistic goals: the benefit of society was his main goal. T. was a conscious utilitarian. His worldview is set out in his “Conversation between two friends about the benefits of sciences and schools.” The main idea of ​​this worldview was the fashionable idea of ​​natural law, natural morality, and natural religion, which T. borrowed from Pufendorf and Walch.

Highest goal or “true well-being,” according to this view, lies in complete balance mental strength, in “peace of soul and conscience” achieved through the development of the mind by “useful” science; Tatishchev attributed medicine, economics, law and philosophy to the latter. Tatishchev came to the main work of his life due to the confluence of a number of circumstances. Realizing the harm from the lack of detailed geography of Russia and seeing the connection between geography and history, he found it necessary to collect and consider first everything historical information About Russia. Since the foreign manuals turned out to be full of errors, T. turned to primary sources and began to study chronicles and other materials. At first he had in mind to write a historical work, but then, finding that it was inconvenient to refer to chronicles that had not yet been published, he decided to write in purely chronicle order. In 1739, T. brought the work to St. Petersburg, on which he had worked for 20 years, and transferred it to the Academy of Sciences for storage, continuing to work on it subsequently, smoothing out the language and adding new sources. Having no special training, T. could not produce impeccable scientific work, but in his historical works his vital attitude to scientific issues and the associated breadth of outlook are valuable. T. constantly connected the present with the past: he explained the meaning of Moscow legislation by the customs of judicial practice and memories of the morals of the 17th century; on the basis of personal acquaintance with foreigners, he understood ancient Russian ethnography; explained ancient names from the lexicons of living languages.

As a result of this connection between the present and the past, T. was not at all distracted by his work activities from his main task; on the contrary, these studies expanded and deepened his historical understanding. Tatishchev's integrity, previously questioned because of his so-called Joachim Chronicle (see Chronicles), now stands above all doubt. He did not invent any news or sources, but sometimes unsuccessfully corrected proper names, translated them into his own language, substituted his own interpretations, or compiled news, similar to the chronicles, from data that seemed reliable to him. Citing chronicle legends in a corpus, often without indicating sources, T. gave, in the end, essentially not history, but a new chronicle corpus, unsystematic and rather clumsy. The first two parts of volume I of "History" were published for the first time in 1768 - 69 in Moscow, G.F. Miller, under the title “Russian History from the most ancient times, through tireless labor, 30 years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan Governor V.N.T.” Volume II was published in 1773, Volume III in 1774, Volume IV in 1784, and Volume V was found by M.P. Pogodin only in 1843 and published by the Society of Russian History and Antiquities in 1848. T. put the material in order before the death of Vasily III; He also prepared the material, but did not finally edit it until 1558; He also had a number of handwritten materials for later eras, but no further than 1613.

Part preparatory work T. is kept in Miller's briefcases. In addition to T.’s story and the conversation mentioned above, I compiled a large number of essays of a journalistic nature: “Spiritual”, “Reminder for the sent schedule of high and low state and zemstvo governments”, “Discussion about the universal audit” and others. “Spiritual” (published in 1775) gives detailed instructions covering the entire life and activity of a person (landowner). She talks about education, about different kinds service, about relations with superiors and subordinates, about family life, management of estates and households, etc. The “Reminder” sets out Tatishchev’s views on state law, and the “Discussion” written on the occasion of the 1742 revision indicates measures for multiplying government revenues. T. is a typical “chick of Petrov’s nest,” with a broad mind, the ability to move from one subject to another, sincerely striving for the good of the fatherland, having his own specific worldview and firmly and steadily pursuing it, if not always in life, then in every case, in all his scientific works.

Wed. ON THE. Popov "T. and His Time" (Moscow, 1861); P. Pekarsky "New news about V.N.T." (III volume, "Notes Imperial Academy" Biographies and characteristics" (St. Petersburg, 1882); Senigov "Historical and critical studies of the Novgorod Chronicle and the Russian history of Tatishchev" (Moscow, 1888; review by S.F. Platonov, "Bibliographer", 1888, No. 11); edition "Spiritual" T. (Kazan, 1885); D. Korsakov "From the life of Russian figures of the 18th century" (ib., 1891); N. Popov "Scientists and literary works of T." (St. Petersburg, 1886); P. N. Milyukov "The main currents of Russian historical thought"(Moscow, 1897).

Chapter 4. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev

.1 Biography of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov

Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov (October 1, 1912 - June 15, 1992) - Soviet and Russian scientist, historian-ethnologist, doctor of historical and geographical sciences, poet, translator from Persian. Founder of the passionary theory of ethnogenesis.

Born in Tsarskoe Selo on October 1, 1912. The son of the poets Nikolai Gumilyov and Anna Akhmatova (see pedigree), . As a child, he was raised by his grandmother on the Slepnevo estate in the Bezhetsk district of the Tver province.

From 1917 to 1929 he lived in Bezhetsk. Since 1930 in Leningrad. In 1930-1934 he worked on expeditions in the Sayan Mountains, the Pamirs and the Crimea. In 1934 he began to study at Faculty of History Leningrad University. In 1935 he was expelled from the university and arrested, but after some time he was released. In 1937 he was reinstated at Leningrad State University.

In March 1938, he was arrested again while a student at Leningrad State University and sentenced to five years. He was involved in the same case with two other Leningrad State University students - Nikolai Erekhovich and Theodor Shumovsky. He served his sentence in Norillag, working as a geological technician in a copper-nickel mine; after serving his term, he was left in Norilsk without the right to leave. In the fall of 1944 he voluntarily joined Soviet Army, fought as a private in the 1386th anti-aircraft artillery regiment (zenap), part of the 31st anti-aircraft artillery division (zenad) on the First Belorussian Front, ending the war in Berlin.

In 1945, he was demobilized, reinstated at Leningrad State University, from which he graduated at the beginning of 1946 and entered graduate school at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, from where he was expelled on the grounds of “due to the inadequacy of philological preparation for the chosen specialty.”

In December 1948, he defended his thesis for Candidate of Historical Sciences at Leningrad State University and was accepted as a research assistant at the Museum of Ethnography of the Peoples of the USSR.

Memorial plaque on the house where L. N. Gumilyov lived (St. Petersburg, Kolomenskaya st., 1)

On November 1949, he was arrested and sentenced by a Special Meeting to 10 years, which he served first in a special purpose camp in Sherubai-Nura near Karaganda, then in a camp near Mezhdurechensk in the Kemerovo region, in the Sayans. On May 11, 1956, he was rehabilitated due to the lack of evidence of a crime. In 1956 he worked as a librarian at the Hermitage. In 1961 he defended his doctoral dissertation on history (“Ancient Turks”), and in 1974 - his doctoral dissertation on geography (“Ethnogenesis and the Earth’s biosphere”). On May 21, 1976, he was denied a second degree of Doctor of Geographical Sciences. Before retiring in 1986, he worked at the Research Institute of Geography at Leningrad State University.

Died on June 15, 1992 in St. Petersburg. Funeral service in the Church of the Resurrection of Christ near the Warsaw Station. He was buried at the Nikolskoye cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

In August 2005, in Kazan, “in connection with the days of St. Petersburg and the celebration of the millennium of the city of Kazan,” a monument was erected to Lev Gumilyov.

On the personal initiative of the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, in 1996, in the Kazakh capital Astana, one of the country’s leading [source not specified 57 days] universities, the Eurasian University, was named after Gumilyov National University named after L.N. Gumilyov. In 2002, an office-museum of L. N. Gumilyov was created within the walls of the university.

4.2 The main works of L. N. Gumilyov

* History of the Xiongnu people (1960)

* Discovery of Khazaria (1966)

* Ancient Turks (1967)

* Quest for a Fictional Kingdom (1970)

* Xiongnu in China (1974)

* Ethnogenesis and biosphere of the Earth (1979)

* Ancient Rus' and the Great Steppe (1989)

* Millennium around the Caspian Sea (1990)

* From Rus' to Russia (1992)

* The End and the Beginning Again (1992)

* Black Legend

* Synchrony. Experience of describing historical time

* Part of the works

* Bibliography

* From the history of Eurasia

Chapter 5. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov

.1 Biography of S.M. Solovyova

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov(May 5, 1820 - October 4, 1879<#"justify">5.2 Teaching activities

Department of Russian History<#"justify">5.3 Personality traits

Like character and moral personality, Solovyov emerged quite clearly from the very first steps of his scientific and career activities. Neat to the point of pedantry, he did not waste, it seems, a single minute; every hour of his day was provided for. Solovyov died at work. Elected rector, he accepted the position “because it was difficult to carry out.” Making sure that Russian society does not have a history that satisfies the scientific requirements of the time, and feeling the strength to give one, he set to work on it, seeing in it his social duty. From this consciousness he drew strength to accomplish his “patriotic feat.”

5.4 "History of Russia"

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<#"justify">§ the question of dividing Russian history into eras;

§the influence of the natural conditions of the territory (in the spirit of the views of K. Ritter<#"justify">5.5 Other works

Before to a certain extent Two other books by Solovyov can serve as a continuation of “History of Russia”:

§ “The History of the Fall of Poland” (Moscow, 1863, 369 pp.);

§ “Emperor Alexander the First. Politics, Diplomacy" (St. Petersburg, 1877, 560 pp.).

Subsequent editions of the “History of Russia” - compact in 6 large volumes (7th - index; 2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1897<#"justify">§ "Writers of Russian history of the 18th century." (“Archive of historical and legal information. Kalachev”, 1855, book II, paragraph 1);

§"G. F. Miller" ("Contemporary"<#"justify">According to general history:

§“Observations on the historical life of peoples” (“Bulletin of Europe”, 1868-1876) - an attempt to grasp the meaning of historical life and outline the general course of its development, starting with the ancient peoples of the East (brought to the beginning of the 10th century<#"justify">Conclusion

So what conclusions can we come to? It would be wrong to limit the methodological function of the social concept of personality only to the sphere of modern humanities. Like art, philosophical, social personality performs this function in relation to all arts and sciences, including natural science.

Many problems, even in this place, can be solved only with methodological justification using laws discovered since ancient times, social concept personality.

In particular, the periodization of the history of one or another science, the role of many social conditions in the emergence and solution of many scientific problems; the role of worldview in history scientific creativity...

And, of course, the moral responsibility of the scientist as a classifier of sciences and the transformation of science into the direct productive force of society, etc.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account that in modern natural science, many branches that study objects related to both nature and society were destroyed.

The achievements of these sciences, in order to become effective, must rest on knowledge not only of the laws of nature, but also on knowledge of many laws of the sociological needs of society and the laws of the corresponding level social development

Bibliography

1."N.M. Karamzin according to his writings, letters and reviews of contemporaries" (Moscow, 1866).

.Letters to N.I. Krivtsov ("Report of the Imperial Public Library for 1892", appendix).

.K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (St. Petersburg, 1882).

.Senigov "Historical and critical studies of the Novgorod Chronicle and the Russian history of Tatishchev" (Moscow, 1888; review by S.F. Platonov, "Bibliographer", 1888, No. 11).

.N. Popov "Scientists and literary works of T." (St. Petersburg, 1886).

."M. T. Kachenovsky" (“Biographical dictionary of professors of Moscow University,” part II).

7. "N. M. Karamzin and his literary activity: History of the Russian state" ("Domestic Notes "1853-1856, vols. 90, 92, 94, 99, 100, 105).

."A. L. Shletser" ("Russian Bulletin" , 1856, № 8).

“Ancient and New Russia” by Koyalovich P. V. Bezobrazov (“S. M. Solovyov, his life and scientific and literary activity”, St. Petersburg, 1894, from the series “ Biographical Library" Pavlenkova).

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

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

The largest ancient Russian historian and publicist is Nestor (XI-XII centuries). Works: the life of Theodosius, reading about the life and destruction of Boris and Gleb.

Main ideas: 1) preaches Christianity; 2) proves the independence of Rus' from Byzantium; 3) condemns princely feuds, showing himself to be a patriot.

1113 - The Tale of Bygone Years.

Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711-165) is a major historian. Works: ancient Russian history, a brief Russian chronicler, comments on the dissertation of Miller and Bayer “The Origin of the Name and People of Russia.” Based on the role of the people in the history of enlightenment and autocracy.

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766-1826) - son of a landowner in the Siberian province (conservative). Works: History of the Russian state. He brought the story up to 1611.

He believed that history protects people and instructs people against anti-serfdom movements. Psychological analysis is the main method of writing his works.

Following N. Tatishchev, M. Shcherbatov were followed by N. G. Ustryanov, Ilovaisky.

The largest historian of the Bourgeois trend was S.M. Solovyov (1820-1879), rector of Moscow State University, Armory Chamber. Solovyov’s work: history of Russia from ancient times (29 volumes), brought the history up to 1775.

With Karamzin's subjectivist view of the development of history, he contrasted the idea of ​​historical regularity.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Iosifovich (1841-1911). Born into the family of a priest in the Penza province. Student of Solovyov. Works: course of Russian history (5 parts).

Other historians: Nayakshin Kuzma Yakovlevich, Khramkov Lenar Vasilievich, Matveeva Galina Ivanovna.

28. Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The struggle of two tendencies in the Russian government.

Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The struggle of two tendencies in the Russian government. Witte's significance as a financier, economist and statesman lay in the fact that he consistently implemented such a policy. S. Yu. Witte paid his main attention to strengthening finances and developing industry and railway transport. At the Special Meeting, significant differences emerged not only among the nobility, but also among the ruling bureaucracy, primarily between S. Yu. Witte and V. K. Plehve. Witte's views were eclectic, contradictory and subject to opportunistic influences. Before his appointment as Minister of Finance, he shared the main provisions of the Slavophil theory about the special path of development of Russia. There was a special meeting about the needs of the nobility, but his attempt was not successful. Witte saw the salvation of the nobility and the country in “bourgeoisizing” the nobility, reorienting its interests from land to industry and banking. However, Witte was alone at that time in his understanding of the inevitability of the replacement of the traditional agrarian system with an industrial one. His arguments of a general sociological nature did not find understanding and left indifferent the majority of the participants in the meeting, who lived by current interests. Witte's main opponent was V.K. Plehve, the leader of the reactionary-conservative minority. Witte was hated by this part of the ruling class for his financial and economic policies, which prevented the transformation of the state treasury into a cash fund to help this nobility. Objecting to Witte, Plehve questioned his idea of ​​the existence of universal, immutable world laws of social development. Calling them “fortune-telling,” he believed that discussions about them were appropriate only among students. Russia, according to Plehve, developed in a special way and has every reason to preserve its identity. It will be freed from the “oppression of capital and the bourgeoisie” and the future in Russia will remain with the nobility. In the name of this, the government in its social policy must be guided not by economic, but by political considerations, to strengthen the shaken local nobility, taking into account that it is the support of power and the guardian of morality in the localities. The disagreements that emerged at the meeting led to the fact that its results were very modest and far from meeting the claims of the conservative-protective part landed nobility. He failed to change the general course of financial and economic policy to suit his interests. As a result of the meeting, laws were issued: on the establishment of noble land ownership in Siberia, on protected estates, on the establishment of noble mutual aid funds. The search for solutions to the peasant question had a limited scope: firstly, the landowner’s land had to remain sacred and inviolable, and secondly, this solution had to cost the treasury minimal expenses, since the state was guided by its usual considerations - to give less to the people in order to then take as much as possible from him. Nevertheless, during the discussion of this problem, significant disagreements emerged among the ruling elite. Just as in the question of the nobility, these disagreements found their personal manifestation primarily in the positions of S. Yu. Witte and V. K. Plehve. Witte is one of the few in the ruling spheres who is looking for solutions peasant question proceeded not from ideological considerations, but from the position of economic progress. According to Witte, the key to solving the peasant problem could only be the equalization of rights of peasants with other classes. The disagreements in the ruling elite on the issue of revising peasant policy were so significant that in 1902, two parallel centers were created almost simultaneously to deal with this issue: a Special Meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry, chaired by S. Yu. Witte and the Editorial Commission for the revision of legislation on peasants of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, led by Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs A.S. Stishinsky. The initiator

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750)

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

Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov (1733-1790)

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

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766 -1826)

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

Karamzin’s “History” was not the first description of the history of Russia; before him there were the works of V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatova. But it was Karamzin who opened the history of Russia to a wide educated public. In his work, Karamzin acted more as a writer than a historian - when describing historical facts, he cared about the beauty of the language, least of all trying to draw any conclusions from the events he described. Still high scientific value represent his comments, which contain many extracts from manuscripts, mostly first published by Karamzin. Some of these manuscripts no longer exist.

Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov (1817-1885)

Public figure, historian, publicist and poet, corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, contemporary, friend and ally of Taras Shevchenko. Author of the multi-volume publication “Russian history in the biographies of its figures”, researcher of socio-political and economic history Russia, especially the territory of modern Ukraine, called by Kostomarov southern Russia and the southern region.

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

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879)

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

For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on “The History of Russia,” the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. Its first volume appeared in 1851, and since then volumes have been published carefully from year to year. The last one, the 29th, was published in 1879, after the death of the author. “History of Russia” has been brought up to 1774. Being an era in the development of Russian historiography, Solovyov’s work defined a certain direction and created a numerous school. “History of Russia”, according to the correct definition of Professor V.I. Guerrier, yes national history: first 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 captured for the first time the essential features and form of the historical development of the nation.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911)

Prominent Russian historian, ordinary professor at Moscow University; ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (extra staff in Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councilor.

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

The most important work Klyuchevsky became his “Course of Lectures,” published in the early 1900s. He managed not only to compile it on a serious scientific basis, but also to achieve artistic image our history. The course has received worldwide recognition.

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (1860-1933)

Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1920). Author of a course of lectures on Russian history (1917). According to Platonov, the starting point that determined the features of Russian history for many centuries to come was the “military character” of the Moscow state, which arose at the end of the 15th century. Surrounded almost simultaneously with three sides enemies acting offensively, the Great Russian tribe was forced to adopt a purely military organization and constantly fight on three fronts. Purely military organization The Moscow state resulted in the enslavement of the classes, which predetermined for many centuries to come internal development countries, including the famous “Troubles” early XVII century.

The “emancipation” of the classes began with the “emancipation” of the nobility, which received its final formalization in the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility” of 1785. The last act of “emancipation” of the classes was peasant reform 1861. However, having received personal and economic freedoms, the “liberated” classes did not receive political freedoms, which was expressed in “mental fermentation of a radical political nature,” which ultimately resulted in the terror of the “Narodnaya Volya” and the revolutionary upheavals of the early 20th century.

From Tatishchev and Karamzin to Solovyov and Klyuchevsky: 7 great Russian historians and their most important works.

VASILY TATISHCHEV (1686-1750). "RUSSIAN HISTORY".

Vasily Tatishchev was the first to attempt to move from the medieval chronicle style to analytical or critical narration. It was he who came up with the idea of ​​viewing history as a series of cause-and-effect relationships; connections of today with events of the past.

Tatishchev’s main work, “Russian History,” was created as the author studied a great variety of sources - both the works of ancient Greek historians (Herodotus, Strabo, Claudius Ptolemy), and Russian chronicles and manuscripts. Tatishchev's “History” consisted of 4 parts, covering the period from ancient times - here Tatishchev was “helped” by the Greeks - until the Time of Troubles.

Detail: of course, Tatishchev’s many years of work on “Russian History” could not pass without unique finds. In particular, it is to him that Russian history owes the publication of such important documents as “Russian Truth” (1019-1054) and “Code of Ivan the Terrible” (1550).2

NIKOLAI KARAMZIN (1766-1826). "HISTORY OF RUSSIAN GOVERMENT".

“Great nations, like great men, have their infancy and should not be ashamed of it: our fatherland, weak, divided into small regions until 862 according to Nestor’s calendar, owes its greatness to the happy introduction of Monarchical power...” - this is how Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin describes the first centuries Russian history in its grandiose scientific work"History of Russian Goverment".

Karamzin's work consists of 12 volumes, including descriptions of all the most important events that occurred in Rus' from the time of the ancient Slavs and the calling of the Varangians to the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible and the Time of Troubles. When creating his “History,” Karamzin used Roman, Greek, Byzantine and Russian chronicles as sources: he compared different descriptions of the same events, analyzed the studied facts and coordinated them with each other in order to achieve maximum objectivity of his own presentation.
Karamzin's epochal work was published over 12 years - the first 8 volumes were published in 1816-1819, and the 9th, 10th and 11th volumes in 1821-1824. The final volume of the History was published in 1829, 3 years after the author's death.

Detail: most of Karamzin’s contemporaries highly valued him as a historian, however, there were exceptions, perhaps the most interesting of which is Pushkin’s assessment of the activities of Karamzin the historian:

In his “History” elegance, simplicity

They prove to us, without any bias,

The need for autocracy

And the delights of the whip.

II.

Dragging the truth on the chopping block,

He proved to us without bias

The need for an executioner

And the beauty of autocracy.

MIKHAIL POGODIN (1800-1875)

Russian historian, writer and publicist Mikhail Pogodin was interested in the history of Russia from early childhood. Having graduated from the literature department of Moscow University and defended his master's thesis “On the Origin of Rus'” (1825), he continued his historical research.

A follower of Karamzin and an expert in all theories of the formation of the ancient Russian state, Pogodin studied Slavic history and taught it to students. He analyzed the processes of enslavement of the peasantry, the reasons for the rise of Moscow and the features of Russian chronicles. In the process, he repeatedly managed to find the most important monuments of literature that were previously considered lost or to discover previously unknown historical sources.

KONSTANTIN AKSAKOV (1817-1860).

Being one of the leaders and ideologists of the Slavophile movement, Aksakov expressed his socio-historical views in works, most of them devoted to contrasting the historical path of Russia and the West.

In 1846, Aksakov published his master's thesis on the topic “Lomonosov in the history of Russian culture and the Russian language”; in his articles “On the Basic Principles of Russian History”, “On the Ancient Life of the Slavs in General and the Russians in Particular” and “On the Russian View” he polemicized with Sergei Solovyov.

In fact, Aksakov the historian did not leave to his descendants a single integral historical work, however, his historical and philological research, critical calculations and reflections on the fate of Russia and the connection of its past with the future were the most important part cultural context of his time and were published and reprinted many times as separate books, and also published in Slavophile magazines (“Russian Conversation”, “Rumor”, “Parus”, etc.).

NIKOLAI KOSTOMAROV (1817-1885). "RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE LIVE STORIES OF ITS MAIN FIGURES."

“... I came to the conviction that history should be studied not only from dead chronicles and notes, but also from living people...” - this is how Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov recalled the formation of his interest in the history of Russia and Ukraine.

Having defended his dissertation on the topic “On the historical significance of Russian folk poetry", Kostomarov began researching Ukrainian chronicles and journalistic works of the 17th century, studying the development of relations between the Russian and Ukrainian people and collecting folk songs, poems and thoughts.

Main historical essay Kostomarov is considered “Russian history in the biographies of its main figures,” the first chapter of which is devoted to the reign of Vladimir the Saint, and the last to Empress Elisaveta Petrovna.

SERGEY SOLOVIEV (1820-1879). "RUSSIAN HISTORY".

A graduate, and later professor and rector of Moscow State University, Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov was interested in historical science from early childhood. It is known, for example, that “History of the Russian State” was authored by Karamzin - let us remind you that these are 12 volumes! - was read by the young Solovyov no less than 12 times, and the lectures of Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin were Solovyov the student’s favorite subject during his university years.

After graduating from Moscow University, Soloviev had the opportunity to listen to lectures by historians in Berlin and Paris and understood how to grasp patterns in changing phenomena and trace the internal logic of the history of his native country.

Corresponding Member and Academician of the Imperial Academy of Sciences Klyuchevsky is rightfully considered the most important of the Russian historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who was able to describe the history of Russia not only in highest degree scientifically, but also truly bright and artistic.

In 1899, “A Brief Guide to Russian History” came out from the pen of Klyuchevsky - and it was this work that became the harbinger of the publication full course history of Russia. Klyuchevsky's work consisted of 4 volumes - from ancient times to the reign of Catherine II.

OUTSTANDING HISTORIANS OF THE XX – EARLY XXI CENTURIES

1. Artsikhovsky Artemy Vladimirovich(1902-1978 ), one of the fundamentals. studied archeology dr. Rus' in the USSR. Prof., founder and head. Department of Archeology and History Faculty of Moscow State University (since 1939), creator and Chief Editor and. "Soviet Archeology" (since 1957). Author of works on the antiquities of the Vyatichi of the 11th-14th centuries, on miniatures of the Middle Ages. Lives, as well as works and training courses on archeology and history of ancient Russia. culture. Creator of the Novgorod archaeological expedition (since 1932), during the course of the b. birch bark documents were discovered and a methodology for studying cultural history was developed. Old Russian layer cities, developed chronological reconstruction of life in city estates and neighborhoods. In 1951 b. The first birch bark was found. literacy is one of the most noticeable things. archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. Studying these charters and publishing their texts b. main life's work A.

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

3. Veselovsky, Stepan Borisovich (1877-1952 ). Genus. in the ancient nobles. family. Issue historian. Academician. Creator of the foundation. works, document publications of reference books on the era of feudalism. Rev. to Moscow un-those. Studying the era of Kievan Rus and social-ec. relations of the XIV-XVI centuries, V. was the first to introduce into history. science data genealogy, place names- science of geographical names, continued development anthroponymy- science of personal names. During the period of Stalin’s praise of Ivan the Terrible as a progressive figure who “correctly understood the interests and needs of his people,” V. made a scientific. and civic feat, based on scrupulous research, painting a reliable picture of life in the 16th century. and arriving at diametrically opposed conclusions. For this he was deprived of the opportunity to publish his works. Studying history through the destinies of people, V. prepared a lot of biographical and genealogical materials that are independent. meaning. In the 40-50s, when the impersonal, so-called "scientific" language, V. tried to write emotionally and captivatingly, leaving vivid portraits of medieval figures

4.Volobuev Pavel Vasilievich(1923-1997) - large owl. historian, academician OK. Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Since 1955 he worked at the Institute of Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences (in 1969-1974 - director of the Institute). At the end of the 60s. V. is known as the leader of the “new direction” in history. science. From ser. In the 70s he was subjected to administrative repression - removed from his post as director of the USSR Institute of Science. President of the Association for the History of the First World War (since 1993). Headed by Scientific. Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences "History of revolutions in Russia". Basic works according to study economic, political and social prerequisites for the history and historiography of the October Revolution.

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

5. Grekov Boris Dmitrievich (1882-1953 ) – emp. historian, academician Arr. received. in Warsaw and Moscow. un-tah. Student V.O. Klyuchevsky. In 1929 issue. the first general work on history by Dr. Rus - “The Tale of Bygone Years about Vladimir’s campaign against Korsun.” From 1937 onwards 15 years old Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Founder of the so-called "national" school of historians, which replaced the "Pokrovsky school". In 1939 the first edition of his major classic was published. work “Kievan Rus”, in which he substantiated his theory that the Slavs moved directly from a communal system to a feudal system, bypassing the slave system. 1946 – foundation. work “Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the 17th century.” The publications of documents are associated with his name: “Russian Truth”, “Chronicle of Livonia”, “Serf Manufactory in Russia”, etc. The author is St. 350 works.

6.Viktor Petrovich Danilov (1925-2004 ) – emp. historian, doctor of historical sciences, prof. School of the Second World War. OK. Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Head department of agriculture history of owls society at the Institute of History of the USSR, USSR Academy of Sciences (1987-1992), director. groups on agricultural history. transformations in Russia of the twentieth century IRI RAS (1992-2004). His whole life is an example of devotion to one topic - the history of the Russian peasantry. Main directions of scientific research communications work with studying social-ec. stories villages of the 20s, its demography, the role of the peasant community and cooperation in the pre-revolutionary period. and post-revolutionary Russia, carrying out collectivization of peasants. farms. After 1991, the center of his interests was the history of the peasant revolution in Russia 1902-1922, political. moods and movements in the post-revolutionary period. village, tragedy of the owls. villages, connected. with collectivization and dispossession (1927-1939). For a series of monographs and docs. publications on Russian history. villages of owls period in 2004 awarded the Gold Medal. S. M. Solovyov (for his great contribution to the study of history). Lately there has been a lot of attention. paid attention to the publication of documents from previously inaccessible archives. Author of St. 250 works.

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

7. Druzhinin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1886-1986)- emp. owls historian, academician OK. Faculty of History, Moscow. un-ta. Prof. Moscow State University. First monograph ""Landowners' Journal". 1858-1860" (20s) - the conclusion is that this publication is important. History of fortress. farms recent years his existence. In the 1920-1930s. occupation history of the Decembrist movement (monograph “Decembrist Nikita Muravyov” - 1933). Articles about P. I. Pestel, S. P. Trubetskoy, Z. G. Chernyshev, I. D. Yakushkin, program Northern Society. Slave. at the Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The author is a problem-methodologist. articles “On the periodization of the history of capitalist relations in Russia”, “The conflict between productive forces and feudal relations on the eve of the reform of 1861”. " State peasants and reformP. D. Kiseleva"(2 volumes - 1946-1958) - the first fundamental study devoted to this category of the rural population of Russia). He revealed the connection between Kiselyov’s reform and the peasant reform of 1861 (he considered Kiselyov’s reform a “dress rehearsal” for the liberation of the peasants). The first volume of the study is devoted to the economic and political prerequisites of the reform, the second - to the implementation of the foundations of the reform and characterization of its consequences. In 1958 he began researching the post-reform village. The result is a monograph. " Russian village at a turning point. 1861-1880"(1978). Carefully analyzed. group and region. post-reform development differences. villages, main trends emerging as a result of the peasant reform. households He headed the Commission on the History of Rural Farming and the Peasantry, publishing a multi-volume book. doc. series " Peasant movement in Russia".

8.Zimin Alexander Alexandrovich (1920-1980 ) – emp. owls historian, doctor of historical sciences, prof. Student S.V. Bakhrushin. Z. belong to numerous. foundation. research in politics history of Rus' XV-XVI centuries, according to the history of Russian. society thoughts, according to ancient Russian lit-re. Encyclopedic knowledge in the field of history. ist-s on the basis of feudalism. Historian b. a “panorama of the history of Russia” was created, covering the period from 1425 to 1598 and presented. in 6 books: “The Knight at the Crossroads”, “Russia at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries”, “Russia on the threshold of the New Age”, “Reforms of Ivan the Terrible”, “Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible”, “On the eve of terrible upheavals”. Z. is the editor and compiler of many collections of documents. Author of St. 400 works.

9. Kovalchenko Ivan Dmitrievich (1923-1995)- emp. scientist, academician. School of the Second World War. OK. Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Head department source studies of the USSR Institute of History at Moscow State University; Ch. ed. magazine "History of the USSR"; chairman Commission on the Application of Mathematical Methods and Computers in History. research at the Department of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The author is the foundation. works on social-ec. Russian history of the 19th century, historical methodology. knowledge (“Methods of historical research” - 1987; 2003), founder of the fatherland. schools of quantitative (mathematical) history. For the monograph “Russian serf peasantry in the first half of the 19th century.” (1967) (in which he used a computer to process a huge array of sources he had collected) b. awarded the prize. acad. B.D. Grekova.

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

11. Milov Leonid Vasilievich (1929–2007). Issue Russian historian. Academician. Head department Moscow State University. Student I.D. Kovalchenko. The author is the foundation. work in the field of social-ec. history of Russia from ancient times to the beginning. twentieth century, source study of father history, quantitative history, founder of a major scientific. schools at the history department of Moscow State University. IN last decades headed the fatherland. school of agricultural historians. His works created an original concept of Russian. history that explains the key features of Russia. ist. process influenced by natural-geographical factors. In the field of scientific interests also included: ancient Russian law, the origin of fortresses. rights in Russia, etc. Main tr. – “The Great Russian Plowman and the Peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process,” in which he analyzed in detail the working conditions of the farmer in the Russian climate. With assistant statistical analysis price dynamics in different regions of Russia, he showed that a single market emerged in Russia only towards the end of the 19th century.

12. Nechkina Militsa Vasilievna(1901-1985) – large owl. historian, academician Basic scientific Interests: Russian history. roar movements and history history. sciences: "A.S. Griboedov and the Decembrists" (1947), 2-volume "Decembrist Movement" (1955), "Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. History of Life and Creativity" (1974), "Meeting of Two Generations" (1980), etc. She supervised the creation of the first generalizing work on the Russian language. historiography "Essays on the history of historical science of the USSR" (vol. 2-5) and a facsimile edition of the monuments of the Free Rus. printing houses "Bell", "Polar Star", "Voices from Russia", etc. Under her editorship. A number of documents have been released. publ. - multi-volume “The Decembrist Revolt”, etc.

13. Pokrovsky Mikhail Nikolaevich (1868 - 1932 ) - owl. historian, academician, Marxist organizer. ist. science in the country. OK. historical-philologist. faculty Moscow un-ta. Student V.O. Klyuchevsky. From 1918 – deputy. People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR. He directed the Communist Academy, the Institute of Red Professorships, the Society of Marxist Historians, the magazine “Red Archive”, etc. The creator of the so-called. "Pokrovsky School". Based on history. ideas – “the concept of trading capital”. Author of textbooks allowance “Russian history in the most concise outline” (1920) - a presentation of history from the perspective. class struggle (including “found” the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in ancient Novgorod). He pursued a rude, straightforward policy towards the old professors. At the end of the 30s. The “MNP school” was repressed.

14.Boris Alexandrovich Romaanov(1889-1957) – emp. historian. OK. St. Petersburg. univ. Student A.E. Presnyakova. Prof. LSU. He was arrested in the Platonov Case. Scientific interests: Kievan Rus, economic and diplomatic history of Russia in the Far East at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Tr.: “Russia in Manchuria”, “Essays on the diplomatic history of the Russian-Japanese War”, “People and customs of Ancient Rus'”, publication of “Russian Pravda” with comments. The book “People and Morals of Ancient Rus'” is a kind of group portrait people and pictures of the morals of pre-Mongol Rus' based on a scrupulous analysis of the history of the XI - early. XIII centuries In 1949 the book was subjected to unfounded criticism. R. b. dismissed from Leningrad State University.

15. Rybakov Boris Alexandrovich(1908-2001) – emp. Russian archaeologist and historian, academician. Prof. Moscow State University. The creator of a major scientific school Basic tr. on archeology, history, culture of the Slavs, etc. Rus'. Many of R.'s works contained a foundation. conclusions about life, everyday life and the level of socio-economic and cultural development of the population of Eastern Europe. So, for example, in the book “The Craft of Ancient Rus'” (1948) he managed to trace the genesis and stages of development of crafts. production among the Eastern Slavs from the 6th to 15th centuries, and so reveal dozens of crafts. industries. In monograph. “Dr. Rus. Tales. Epics. Chronicles" (1963) drew parallels between epic stories and Russian. chronicles. Researched in detail. Old Russian chronicle, subjected to careful analysis the original news of the 18th century historian V. N. Tatishchevai came to the conclusion that they rely on reliable ancient Russian sources. I thoroughly studied “The Tale of Igor’s Host” and “The Tale of Daniil the Sharper.” Hypothesis, acc. in which the author of “The Tale of P. Igor” was the Kiev boyar Pyotr Borislavich. In the book. “Kievan Rus and the Russian principalities in the 12th-13th centuries” (1982) dated the beginning of the history of the Slavs to the 15th century BC. e. Conducted large-scale excavations in Moscow, Veliky Novgorod, Zvenigorod, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl Russky, Belgorod Kiev, Tmutarakan, Putivl, Alexandrov and many others. etc.

Op.:“Antiquities of Chernigov” (1949); “The first centuries of Russian history” (1964); “Russian applied art of the X-XIII centuries” (1971); “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign and His Contemporaries” (1971); “Russian chroniclers and the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”” (1972); “Russian maps of Muscovy in the 15th and early 16th centuries” (1974); “Herodotus Scythia. Historical and geographical analysis" (1979); “The Paganism of the Ancient Slavs” (1981); “Strigolniki. Russian humanists of the 14th century" (1993); edited by B.A.R. turned out to be a very large scientific work. works: the first six volumes of “History of the USSR from Ancient Times”, multi-volume ones - “Code of Archaeological Sources”, “Archaeology of the USSR”, “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”, etc.

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

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

17. Skrynnikov Ruslan Grigorievich– Doctor of Historical Sciences, prof. St. Petersburg un-ta. Student B.A. Romanova. One of himself. known specialists in history Russia XVI and XVII centuries. “The Beginning of the Oprichnina” (1966), “Oprichnina Terror” (1969) - revised the concept of political. development of Russia in the 16th century, proves that the oprichnina was never an integral policy with uniform principles. At the first stage, the oprichnina struck a blow at the princely nobility, but it maintained this direction for only a year. In 1567-1572. Grozny subjected Novgorod to terror. the nobility, the top of the administrative bureaucracy, the townspeople, that is, those layers that consist. support of the monarchy. S. research foreign policy and social politics, economics Iv. Gr., development of Siberia. Monograph “The Reign of Terror” (1992), “The Tragedy of Novgorod” (1994), “The Collapse of the Kingdom” (1995) and “The Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible” (1997, in 2 volumes) are the pinnacle of the scientist’s research. He established the exact chronology and circumstances of the conquest of Siberia (“Ermak’s Siberian Expedition”), and defended against attempts to declare the outstanding political monument a falsification. journalism correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky (“The Paradoxes of Edward Keenan”), clarified many of the circumstances of the enslavement of the peasantry in the XVI - early centuries. XVII centuries, described complexly. the nature of the relationship between the church and the state in Rus' (“Saints and authorities”). Interest in the era of Troubles—“Tsar Boris and Dmitry the Pretender” (1997). He is the author of more than 50 monographs and books, hundreds of articles, and many others. of them translated. in the USA, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan and China.

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

19. Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich (1893-1965) – eminent. historian, prof. Moscow State University, academician. OK. history-phil. faculty Moscow univ. Slave. at the Institute of History, Institute of Slavic Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, chairman of the Archaeographic Commission. Basic tr. on the history of Russia and the peoples of the USSR, as well as the history of Byzantium, Serbia, pan-Slavic problems, source studies, archeography, historiography. General work “Russia in XVI century"(1962) - foundation. contribution to history geography. T.'s monographs and articles reflect the themes of social-ec., political. and cultural history of ancient Russian cities, peoples of movements in Russia 11-17 centuries, history of state. feudal institutions Russia, zemstvo councils of the 16th-17th centuries, administrative office work. One of the presenters. specialists in the region paleography and species. In work, dedicated. Russian truth, decided in a new way is important. problems associated with the creation of the monument. T. is credited with reviving the publication of the “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles” series; he published “The Council Code of 1649”, “The Righteous Standard” and others. B. the leader of the Soviet. archaeographers to find and describe unknown manuscripts; under his hand. The creation of a consolidated catalog of unique manuscripts stored in the USSR has begun. Manuscripts, collected. personally T., b. transferred by him to the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Op.: Russian culture X-XVIII centuries, M., 1968; Historical connections of Russia with the Slavic countries and Byzantium, M., 1969; Russian state XV-XVII centuries, M., 1973; Ancient Rus', M., 1975; Research about Russian Truth. M.-L., 1941; Old Russian cities. M., 1946, 1956; Medieval Moscow in the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1957; Source study of the history of the USSR from ancient times to the end of the 18th century, M., 1962; Medieval Russia on international routes (XIV-XV centuries), M., 1966, etc.

20. Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich(1936) – emp. Russian historian, prof. Leningrad State University (St. Petersburg State University). Genus. in the family of a Kuban Cossack - commander of the Red Army, repressed in 1937. Student V.V. Mavrodina. Leading specialist in I-II Russian. Middle Ages. Created a school of historians Dr. Rus'. His concept of Kievan Rus has endured Soviet years accusations of “anti-Marxism”, “bourgeoisism”, “oblivion of formational and class approaches”. It was formulated by F. in a number of scientific studies. monograph - "Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-economic history" (1974), "Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history" (1980), "Kievan Rus. Essays on Russian historiography" (1990), "Ancient Rus'" (1995), "Slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs" (1996), etc.

21. Cherepnin Lev Vladimirovich (1905-1977 ) – emp. owls historian, academician OK. Moscow univ. Student S.V. Bakhrushina, D.M. Petrushevsky and others. The largest specialist in I-II Russian. Middle Ages. B. was repressed in the “Platonov Case”. From ser. 30s slave. at Moscow State University, Moscow. state Historical and Archival Institute, Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Foundation. work on the history of the Russian centralized state government - “Russian feudal archives of the XIV-XV centuries” in 2 volumes (1948-1951). His slave. according to problem source studies (“Novgorod birch bark documents as a historical source” - 1969), social-ec. and social-political and-ii of Russia ("Formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV-XVII centuries." - 1978, "Zemsky Sobors"), VIDam ("Russian paleography"), publ. ist. ist-ov ("Spiritual and contractual charters of the great and appanage princes of the 14th - 16th centuries.") made it possible to create their own. school and bring it in means. contribution to the fatherland ist. science.

22.Yushkov Serafim Vladimirovich (1888-1952 ) - owl. historian of state and law, academician. OK. legal and historical philologist. f-you Petersburg. University (1912). Prof. Moscow State University and Leningrad State University. Basic works on state and law: “Feudal relations and Kievan Rus” (1924), “Socio-political system and law Kyiv State" (M., 1928), "Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus" (1939), the textbook "History of State and Law of the USSR" (1950). He made a special contribution to the study of Russian Pravda. Participant in all discussions on the history of Kievan Rus' in the 20-50s. Opponent of Academician B.D. Grekov. Created the theoretical basis for the science of the history of state and law, even its very name belongs to the scientist. Introduced the concept of estate-representative monarchy into Russian historical and legal science.