Rumyantseva civilizational and globalist approaches to the theory of the historical process. M.f

Maria Andreevna was born on April 4, 1698 in the family of the diplomat Andrei Artamonovich Matveev (1666 - 1728) and Anna Stepanovna Anichkova (1666-1699).
She was the granddaughter of the boyar Artamon Sergeevich Matveev (1625 - 1682), who was brought up together with Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. Subsequently, he was an educator and adviser to Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, and was killed during a rifle revolt while trying to reason with the archers.
She lost her mother early, who died on October 4, 1699, and grew up under the supervision of her stepmother, the second wife of her father, Anastasia Ermilovna Argamakova (surname from her first husband, died in 1756).
Maria Andreevna spent the first years of her life in Vienna and The Hague, where her father served as ambassador until 1710. The girl was raised by her stepmother.

Maria Andreevna spoke fluent French, danced well, possessed beauty and liveliness, which attracted the attention of Peter I.
According to P.F. Karabanov (1767 - 1851), Peter I not only had a great affection for Maria Andreevna, but was jealous of her for others to the point that once he even punished her for being too bold with someone else and threatened her that he would give her in marriage to a man who will be able to keep her strict and will not allow her to have lovers besides him.
Indeed, when soon one of his favorite orderlies, Alexander Ivanovich Rumyantsev (1680 - 1749), had the intention of getting married, Peter I came with him to A.A. Matveyeva woo his daughter for her orderly. Matveyev did not find it convenient to oppose this proposal, and on July 10, 1720, with a rich dowry from Peter I, in the presence of the Tsar and Tsarina, 19-year-old Maria Andreevna married Alexander Ivanovich, who received the rank of brigadier and recently distinguished himself in the search for the case of Tsarevich Alexei (1690 - 1718). The next day, July 11th, Their Majesties ate at the post yard at Rumyantsev's.
The tsar granted the groom “considerable villages” confiscated from the executed A.V. Kikin (1670 - 1718). Following this, Maria Andreevna gave birth to three daughters.

Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich (1859 - 1919), wrote:
“She ranked first among the mistresses of the great emperor, he loved Maria Andreevna until the end of his life and was even jealous of her, which happened to him infrequently. Wanting someone to hold the young countess "in tight knit gloves," the sovereign gave 19-year-old Matveyeva to his beloved orderly Alexander Ivanovich Rumyantsev ... ".

The newlyweds settled in a house on the Red Canal (section of the house No. 3 along the Field of Mars).
Peter I presented Rumyantsev in 1724 with a large plot on the left bank of the Fontanka, near the road to Tsarskoe Selo. A country one-story house was built there and a garden was laid out (nowadays, 116 Fontanka River Embankment).

When the emperor was dying, Maria Andreevna was pregnant with her son, who later became the famous commander P.A. Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky, outwardly similar to Peter I.
In 1725, her husband was in Constantinople, and then on the Persian border for delimitation, while Maria remained in Moscow, where she gave birth to her fourth child, a son baptized in honor of Tsar Peter Alexandrovich, who was destined to become a famous commander.

Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich reports that the boy's father was not the legal spouse, but Peter himself, Kazimir Valishevsky (1849 - 1935) agrees with the same legend. It is difficult to judge the reliability of this legend, but I.I. Golikov (1735 - 1801) in anecdotes about Peter the Great gives him indirect confirmation. The boy turned out to be the last of the godchildren shortly after this deceased emperor. Empress Catherine I became his godmother.

Under Anna Ivanovna, for his dislike of the Germans and protest against luxury at court (according to some reports, for refusing to take the post of President of the Chamber Collegium, offered to him; or for beating Biron, who was caught by him in embezzlement), Rumyantsev was deprived of his ranks and exiled to Kazan. the village.
When Maria Andreevna's husband fell into disgrace and was deprived of ranks, she, along with him and the children, was sent to live in the Alatyr village, where they spent about three years.

In 1735, her husband was reinstated with the rank of lieutenant general and made Astrakhan and then Kazan governor and appointed commander of the troops sent against the rebellious Bashkirs. In 1738, Rumyantsev was appointed ruler of Little Russia, and the family moved to Kiev, from where, with the help of Mavra Yegorovna Shuvalova (1708 - 1759), Rumyantsev kept in touch with the no less disgraced crown princess Elizabeth. Soon her wife was transferred to the active army, and in 1740 she was appointed Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Constantinople.
In 1740, Rumyantsev was appointed authorized to the congress in Abo, during the celebration of the peace concluded there Rumyantsev M.A. received from the new empress Elizabeth the title of lady of state, and, since her husband was elevated to the dignity of counts, became a countess and gained very great influence at court thanks to her "intelligence and tact".
Representatives of foreign powers, knowing about the influence of Rumyantseva at court, tried to win her over. So, the Swedish general Yu.Kh. von Dühring (1695 - 1759) boasted that the success of his commission was encouraged by the affection of General Rumyantseva; The French envoy Dalion (1742 - 1743, 1745 - 1748) found it necessary to pay her a pension from his court and wrote to his government that she was in great favor with the Empress; The English envoy Kilill Veich (1741 - 1744) also persuaded her to side with his cabinet. But Rumyantseva, as well as her husband, were supporters of the French court and adhered to the Shuvalov party.

In 1744, Empress Elizabeth instructed her to head the court of the future Catherine II, while still Princess of Anhalt-Zerbst, as a confidant of Her Majesty, for the supervision and guardianship of the Princess, with the obligation to give the Empress a detailed account of everything she noticed. And they were very afraid of Rumyantseva in this "small yard".
Catherine II recalls:
“During these masquerades, they noticed that the old Countess Rumyantseva began frequent conversations with the Empress, and that the latter was very cold with her mother, and it was easy to guess that Rumyantseva had armed the Empress against her mother and instilled in her the anger that she herself had from a trip to Ukraine to the whole cart, which I mentioned above; if she didn’t do it before, it’s because she was too busy with a big game that had lasted until then and which she was always the last to throw, but when this game was over, her anger could not restrain. "

After the princess and Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich were married, Rumyantsev M.A. was dismissed from her job as chamberlain and was ordered to return to her husband. It was believed that the reason for this was the dislike of the mother. grand duchess Catherine - Johann Holstein-Gottorp, as well as Chancellor Bestuzhev-Ryumin. But Rumyantseva retained her position as a person who was friendly with the empress.

In 1749 Rumyantseva M.A. widowed, but remained at court and continued to live wastefully, sometimes losing at cards, which is why she often turned to financial assistance to Elizabeth, and then to Catherine II, at whose court, as the oldest lady of the court and a contemporary of Peter, and then the mother of the field marshal, she was highly respected.
Count Louis-Philippe Segur (1753 - 1830) wrote about her:
“Her body, shattered by paralysis, alone denounced old age; her head was full of life, her mind shone with gaiety, her imagination bore the stamp of youth. Her conversation was as interesting and instructive as a well-written history. "

On June 12, 1775, after the conclusion of her son Kuchuk-Kainardzhiyskiy peace, she was awarded the Order of St. Catherine.

On June 10, 1776, Catherine II, although she well remembered how Rumyantseva tortured her, being the manager of her court, nevertheless made her a chamberlain, which was facilitated by the merits of her son, the commander.

The Countess was very often present at various dinners, weddings and celebrations at court; on the day of the first wedding of Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich (1773), she, who was still dancing very well, asked the Grand Duke to show her the honor of dancing with her, since she had the honor of dancing with his great-grandfather, grandfather, and father, and then, more many years later, at the court ball on November 24, 1781, on the Empress's name day, she performed a Polish dance (krakowiak) with one of the grandsons of Catherine II, Grand Duke Alexander Pavlovich.
According to the recollections of her contemporaries, she was distinguished by her extraordinary kindness and was ready to help everyone. She was among the first to accept foundlings and street children in her house in 1763. She was engaged in business in the estate of her son Pavlino (present-day Zheleznodorozhny), which he received as a dowry for his wife, including supervising the construction of the church by the architect Blank.

On September 22, 1778, she was awarded by the Chief Hofmeister of the Imperial Court.
Maria Andreevna survived two of her daughters - Countess P.A. Bruce and E.A. Leontiev.

Maria Andreevna died on May 4, 1788. Buried in the Annunciation Church of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

Derzhavin G.R. dedicated one of his odes to her - "On the Death of Countess Rumyantseva", written for Princess E. R. Dashkova:

Rumyantsev! She shone
Mind, breed, beauty,
And in old age, love has won
All have a kind soul;
She adjoined with firmness
Conjugal gaze, friends, children;
Served seven monarchs,
She wore the insignia of their honor.
…
Behold this eternal monument
You are your contemporaries,
To delight the sorrow of the heart,
to the tranquility of your soul, ...

Derzhavin turned to Dashkova, who was in extreme grief from marrying her son without her blessing, in contrast to Rumyantseva, who stoically endured many sorrows that fell to her lot.

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor.

In 1981 she graduated from the Moscow State Historical and Archival Institute. Specialty - historian-archivist.

In 1981-1985. - Postgraduate student of the source study sector of the Institute of History of the USSR of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

Since 1985 - assistant, associate professor, and from 2002 until liquidation in 2011 - head of the department of source studies and auxiliary historical disciplines Historical and Archival Institute Russian State University for the Humanities.

From 1996 to 2002 - Deputy Director of the Russian-French Center for Historical Anthropology named after Mark Blok, Russian State University for the Humanities.

From September 2011 to June 2014 - Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and History of Humanitarian Knowledge, Institute of Philology and History, Russian State University for the Humanities.

Since November 2012 - Associate Professor of the Department social history faculty history of NRU"Higher School of Economics", Associate Professor of the School of Historical Sciences of the Faculty humanities Higher School of Economics

Member Russian society intellectual history.

‎Courses read. Currently: at the National Research University "Higher School of Economics": "Theory and history of historical knowledge" (bachelor's degree), research seminar "Intellectual history as a subject field of actual historical knowledge" (bachelor's degree), "Methodology and research methods in social history" ( magistracy), research seminar "Technology of historical research" (magistracy), "Theory of source study and practice of source analysis" (postgraduate study), "Theories and methods of modern historical knowledge" (postgraduate study); in RGGU "Theory of history" "Methodology of history". Previously: "Source Study", "Comparative Source Study" (RGGU); "Philosophy" (Russian State agricultural university- Moscow Agricultural Academy named after K.A.Timiryazev); sporadically (mainly for the magistracy of the universities of Stavropol, Petrozavodsk, Volgograd, etc.): “Methodology historical research"," Theoretical and methodological problems of historiography "," Actual historical knowledge: social functions, problem fields, methodological approaches ", etc.

Scientific interests epistemology of humanitarian knowledge, theory of history, methodology of history, history of historical knowledge, history historical science, theory of source study, comparative source study of new time.

Main publications:

Historical sources of the XVIII - early XX centuries // Source study: Theory. History. Method. Sources Russian history: textbook for humanitarian specialties / I.N.Danilevsky, V.V. Kabanov, O.M. Medushevskaya, MF Rumyantseva, Moscow: RGGU, 1998, pp. 318-504, the same: 2000, 2004.
Civil service in the period of formation Russian Empire history public service in Russia XVIII-XX centuries: textbook / T.G. Arkhipova, M.F. Rumyantseva, A.S. Senin M.: RGGU, 1999. Ch. 1. P. 13-98.
Theory of history: textbook. M.: Aspect Press, 2002.319 p.
Humanitarian knowledge at the beginning of the XXI century: from polydisciplinarity to unity // Bulletin of history, literature, art / [chief editor G.М. Bongard-Levin]; Department of History and Philology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow: Collection; Science, 2005) T. 1. P. 16-25.
“Places of Memory” in the Structure of National Historical Myth // Dialogue with Time: Alm. Intellectual History. Moscow: LKI Publishing House , 2007. Issue 21, pp. 106-118.
O. M. Medushevskaya and the formation of the Russian school of theoretical source study / R.B. Kazakov, M.F. Rumyantseva // Russian history. 2009. № 1.P. 141-150.
Linear / nonlinear temporality in history // Images of time and historical representations: Russia - East - West / edited by L.P. Repina.M .: Krug, 2010. S. 25-47.
Phenomenological concept of source study in the interpretation of Olga Mikhailovna Medushevskaya // Bulletin of the Russian State University for the Humanities. Series Historical Sciences. Moscow, 2009. No. 4. P. 12-22 ; 2010. No. 7. P. 11-27.
Paradigmatic mechanisms of modern historiographic research // Kharkiv History of History Collection, Kharkiv, 2010. Issue 10. P. 186-195.
Modern source studies: the search for universal foundations scientific knowledge// Problems of historical knowledge: collection of articles / editor-in-chief K.V. Khvostov. M.: IVI RAS, 2011. S. 70-82.
Regional and local history: comparative analysis // Regional history of Ukraine. Vip. 5. Kiev: Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2011, pp. 49-60. (in collaboration with S.I. Malovichko)
Scientific heritage of Olga Mikhailovna Medushevskaya // Cognitive history: concept - methods - research practices: Readings in memory of Professor Olga Mikhailovna Medushevskaya: [Art. and materials] / otv. ed. M.F. Rumyantseva, R.B. Kazakov. M.: RGGU, 2011. S. 9-36. (in collaboration with R.B. Kazakov)
Russian version of neo-Kantianism: to the formulation of the problem // Uchen. app. Kazan. un-that. Ser. Humanist. science. 2012.Vol. 154. Book. 1.P. 130-141.
transformation species structure historical sources as a criterion for the Transition // Transitional periods in world history: transformation of historical knowledge / otv. ed. M.S. Bobkov. Moscow: IVI RAN, 2012. S. 103-120.
On the cultural component of historical knowledge // Historical magazine - Scientific research... 2012. No. 3. P. 7-13.
Socially oriented history in the current intellectual space: an invitation to discussion // Historical knowledge and historiographic situation at the turn of the XX - XXI centuries. Moscow: IVI RAN, 2012. P. 274-290. (in collaboration with S.I. Malovichko)
The historian's paradigm choice as an ethical problem // Kharkivsky istoriographic collection. Kharkiv: KhNU im. V.N. Karazin, 2012. Vip. 11, pp. 67-78.
The logic of narrative in Baden and Russian neo-Kantianism // Izvestia UrFU, series Humanities. 2012. No. 3 (105). S. 258-271.
Locus history in classical, non-classical and post-non-classical models of historical science // Regional history of Ukraine. Collection of scientific articles. Vip. 6. Kiev, 2012. S. 9-22. (in collaboration with S.I. Malovichko)
History of the city as a historiographic phenomenon // New cultural and intellectual history Russian province: (To the 65th anniversary of Professor T.A.Bulygina). Stavropol: Publishing house "News Bureau", 2012. S. 158-174. (in collaboration with S.I. Malovichko)
History as a rigorous science vs socially oriented writing of history. Orekhovo-Zuevo: MGOGI Publishing House, 2013.252 p. (in collaboration with S.I. Malovichko)
Speeches by V.A. Muravyov on annual conferences department of source studies and auxiliary historical disciplines as historiographic fact// Historiographic readings in memory of Professor Viktor Alexandrovich Muravyov: collection of articles. Art. : in 2 volumes / comp. : R.B. Kazakov, S.I. Malovichko, M.F. Rumyantsev; otv. ed. : R.B. Kazakov, M.F. Rumyantsev; Grew up. state humanitarian. un-t, Scientific-ped. school of source studies - site Source studies.ru. M.: RGGU, 2013. T. 1. S. 70-96. (in collaboration with R.B. Kazakov)
Locus history in classical, non-classical and post-non-classical models of historical science. Article two // Regional history of Ukraine: zb. sciences. Art. / head. ed. V. Smoliy; Iн-t is. Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Kiev, 2013. Vip. 7, pp. 39-54. (in collaboration with S.I. Malovichko)
The concept of cognitive history by Olga Mikhailovna Medushevskaya // Dialogue with Time: Almanac of Intellectual History. M.: IVI RAN, 2013. Issue. 44. S. 6-16.
Reception of the methodological concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky in the Scientific and Pedagogical School of Source Studies - Source Study.ru // Clio: Journal for Scientists. SPb. : Publishing house "Poltorak", 2013. No. 12 (84). S. 28-31.
Historical geography and new local history in the current cognitive situation // Problems of historical geography and demography of Russia / otv. ed. K.A. Averyanov. M.: IRI RAN, 2013. Issue. II. S. 48-67. (in collaboration with S.I. Malovichko)
Phenomenology vs neo-Kantianism in the concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky // Dialogue with Time. M.: IVI, 2014. Issue. 46. S. 7-16.
Source study: textbook. allowance / I.N. Danilevsky, D.A. Dobrovolsky, R.B. Kazakov, S.I. Malovichko, M.F. Rumyantseva, O. I. Khoruzhenko, E.N. Shveikovskaya; otv. ed. M.F. Rumyantsev; Nat. issled. University "Higher School of Economics". - M.: Izd. House High school Economics, 2015. - 685, p.
On the issue of the disciplinary status of source study / Rumyantseva M.F. // Actual problems source study: materials of the III International scientific-practical conference, Vitebsk, October 8-9, 2015 / Vit. state un-t; editorial board: A.N. Dulov and M.F. Rumyantsev (editor-in-chief) [and others]. - Vitebsk: Voronezh State University named after P.M. Masherova, 2015 .-- S. 9-11.
Narrative logic of historiography from the point of view of the phenomenological concept of source study / M.F. Rumyantsev. - Kharkivsky istoriographic collection. - Kh.: KhNU imeni V. N. Karazin, 2015. - Vip. 14. - S. 42-53.
Hermeneutics vs interpretation from the point of view of the source study concept of the methodology of history / M.F. Rumyantseva // Cogito. Almanac of the history of ideas. - Rostov n / Don, 2015, no. 6: Foundation. - S. 11-25.

Correspondence address: [email protected]

The selection of two components in the philosophy of history - the substantive and the epistemological - is rather arbitrary. The point is that theories historical process are not immanent in the process itself, but are ways of comprehending the past. Therefore, let us turn to the relationship between civilizational and globalist approaches in the context of epistemological problems, and first of all to historical knowledge. To do this, one should answer at least two questions: what do we learn when we study history: past or present; why do we learn: to explain the past and predict the future on this basis, or to understand the past (or the present ~ depending on the answer to the first question), in order to learn how to act in the present.
Hegel answered the first question: “... Since we are dealing only with the idea of spirit and we consider everything in world history only as its manifestation, we, observing the past, no matter how great it may be, are dealing only with the present ... the present present form of the spirit contains all the previous steps ... Those moments that the spirit, apparently, left behind it, it contains in itself and in its real depth ”1.
Realizing the value of European as well as North American epistemological experience in searching for an answer to the second question, let us turn to the Russian heritage. V last years In Russia, interest in the Anglo-French epistemological experience has increased, but the traditions of Russian humanities are different from those in the West. The grounds for the divergence in the epistemology of modern times are found already in the opposition of German classical philosophy and Comte positivism as the logical conclusion of the development of Anglo-French empiricism2.
Even before the publication of the Course in Positive Philosophy, Hegel, in his introduction to The Philosophy of History, showed significant differences between the Anglo-French and German traditions of presenting history, which can be extrapolated to humanitarian thought as a whole. It seems that Russian philosophical thought is closer to German thought. This is also indicated by the experience of adaptation of German philosophical schools to
Russian soil, and the system-forming category not only for Russian philosophy, but also for the entire Russian outlook on the category of "unity", genetically dating back to the Christian understanding of the integrity of the world (and in the philosophical tradition - to the Hegelian principle: "Nothing single has the full completeness of reality" ).
The breadth of the Russian worldview, the roots of which can undoubtedly be found in the specifics of the role and action of historical and geographical factors in Russian history, was embodied in the theoretical and cognitive positions of Russian humanitarian thought in the 19th - early 20th centuries. This was especially pronounced in the sphere liberal education, where the historical-philological and historical-legal directions were decisive. Note in Russia XIX v. the prevalence of historical and legal research and the development of the historical school of law, the founder of which was the German lawyer Savigny.
Enlightenment illusions of the 19th century were overcome in France, on the one hand, and in Germany and Russia, on the other, in different ways. In France, positivist sociology developed rapidly. Its purpose was to identify patterns, understood as a stable mutual occurrence of phenomena, in order to explain and predict reality. In Russia, along with this, there was a desire to understand cultural, including legal, phenomena based on historical approach... The latter made it possible to discover the origins of phenomena and their development, to understand cultural phenomena (in contrast to the positivist explanation).
Distinguishing between the concepts of "understanding" and "explanation" as goals cognitive activities is of fundamental importance. At the turn of the XIX and XX centuries. in the humanities, the opposition between nomothetic and idiographic approaches emerged. Without dwelling here on the essential differences between nomothetics and idiography, we note a fundamentally important thing: if nomothetics sets the task of explaining historical reality (hence its prognostic function), then idiography pursues the goal of understanding cultural and historical phenomena. Consequently, idiography preserves the humanitarian character of historical knowledge. That is why, on the paths of idiography, there is now a search for a way out of the crisis for an "explanatory" approach.
The distinction between "explaining" and "understanding" approaches also has a deep ethical meaning. The “explaining” approach and its predictive component usually assign a person the place of a component in a system that operates according to “objective laws”, which removes a significant share of responsibility from the individual. The task of the “understanding” approach is an adequate understanding of the surrounding reality with the aim of realizing free will, making responsible decisions in private and public life.

As we see it, if the opposition between nomothetics and idiography is extended in time and these approaches are applied to the construction of the theory of the historical process, then it is the civilizational approach that can be regarded as “understanding”, and the globalist one as “explaining”.
Differences in approaches are even more clearly revealed when referring to comparative studies. Systemic comprehension of the whole is impossible without a comparative analysis of its components. And we cannot but agree with T. Schieder, who wrote that "the appeal to comparative research is a symptom that reveals the will to overcome national borders also in the field of history ..." 3.
If the globalist, "explaining" approach within the framework of a comparative study is aimed at identifying the common, at finding correspondences to the constructed global model (the fact that as a result of such a search a conscientious scientist finds not only similarities, but also differences, has very little effect on the essence of the matter), then the civilizational, “understanding” approach is aimed at individualization, at identifying the features of a given cultural whole.
Recognizing the value of the civilizational approach as a humanistic one that meets the needs of understanding the past and the present and, in this regard, constitutes the basis for the realization of the freedom of will of the individual, we are forced to recognize the pressure of the globalist approach, which, often against the will of the researcher, penetrates into any civilizational structure.
One of the simplest ways to do this is through terminology4. The presence of a universal model of the historical process is most noticeable when translating from one language to another. For example, French etat or english state translated into Russian as "state". Although even a non-linguist is clear about the difference in the etymology of these words. One of the key concepts of Russian social history is "serf" in English translation at best, it is tracing paper, and most often it is translated by the word slave. You can give other examples of the influence of the concepts used in Russian history in the study European material... So, in medieval history, the concept of "barbaric truths" is well known. Of all of them, "truth" proper — only "Russian truth" by Yaroslav the Wise; European codes are called by the Latin word lex, which in no way corresponds to the concept of "truth". It turns out that the civilizational and globalist approaches are distinguishable at the level of historical theory. Does the globalist approach prevail in the field of methodology? Let's try to answer this question.
The researcher, building a model of the historical process ("constructing historical reality"), must clearly understand the nature and purpose of this model. With comparative is

Following cultures, it is essential to find out what is the “counter-object” of comparative research: another civilization or a global model?
As a result of the globalist approach, a model is created that claims to be universal. The most striking example of this is the theory of socio-economic formations, in which a particular civilization is related to the existing universal model. In this case, the attention of the researcher is aimed at finding the common, and the specific features of the studied civilization, if they are noticed, are considered as secondary, sometimes even as an annoying obstacle that violates the purity of the model. Suffice it to recall how heated discussions were conducted, are being conducted and, most likely, will continue for a long time about the features of feudalism in Russia. With all the subtlety of historical analysis, identifying specific features, etc. the very subject of discussion - feudalism as applied to Russian history - was almost never questioned.
Is it possible to reveal the individuality of a civilization without comparing it with other civilizations? If so, then a second question arises: is it possible to do without a universal model when comparing civilizations. And what, in this case, are the criteria for a comparative cultural discourse?
Let us use the common analogy between the historical process and human life. It was used by I.H.-F.Schiller, speaking about the cultures known at the end of the 18th century: they are "similar to children of various ages who stand around an adult and, through a living example, remind him of what he himself was before and from what he grew up" 5 ...
O. Comte, citing various proofs of the "great fundamental law" of the development of the human mind, discovered by him, wrote: “The general change in the human mind can now be easily established in a very tangible, albeit indirect way, namely by considering the development of the individual mind. Since in the development of an individual and a whole species the starting point must necessarily be the same, the main phases of the first must represent the main epochs of the second. " And further: “... In relation to the most essential concepts each was a theologian in childhood, a metaphysician in adolescence, and a person of a positive mind in adulthood ”6.
Probably the most authoritative confirmation of the fruitfulness of such analogies is found in Z. Freud: “Psychoanalytic research from the very beginning pointed to the analogies and similarities between the results of his (O. Kont. - M.R.) works in the field of the mental life of an individual with the results of research into the psychology of peoples ". And then follows the most significant moment in the context of the problem under consideration: "In the mental life of peoples, ... the same processes and connections that were revealed with the help of psychoanalysis in an individual ..." 7.

Let's try to follow Freud's advice. Wilhelm Dilthey, who developed in late XIX v. the concept of "descriptive psychology", argued: "We make up for internal perception by comprehending others. We comprehend what is inside them. This happens through a spiritual process that corresponds to the conclusion by analogy. The shortcomings of this process are due to the fact that we accomplish it only by transferring our own mental life into it. Elements of someone else's mental life, which differ from our own not only quantitatively or differ from it in the absence of something inherent in us, of course, cannot be perceived by us. In such a case, we can say that something alien to us comes here, but we are not able to say what exactly ”8. Dilthey's ideas were perceived and developed in relation to historical knowledge by the outstanding Russian historian and methodologist A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.
The system-forming principle of the Lappo-Danilevsky methodology was “the recognition of someone else's animality”. Proceeding from this, the historian "constructs ... changes in someone else's psyche, in essence, inaccessible to empirical ... observation" 9. But the recognition of "alien animation" as an epistemological principle, emphasized Lappo-Danilevsky, should not be confused with the pseudo-empirical knowledge of the "alien self", since the historian can only hypothetically construct the "alien self" according to the external discoveries of his spiritual life, according to the objectified results of his mental activity , i.e. according to historical sources. Here the historian can and does proceed only from his own individuality, from his own research and life experience and uses the experience, association and conclusion by analogy to reproduce the “alien I” in oneself.
A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky emphasized the epistemological difficulties arising from the "reproduction of the animality" of the historical subject studied by him. Research starts with scientific analysis elements of their own psychic life. The historian proceeds from the fact that his psyche and the psyche of the subject studied by him differ only in the intensity of its constituent elements. However, the historian cannot be completely sure of the correspondence of the combinations of these elements to each other, therefore, based on the analysis of his own psyche, he is forced to limit himself to
a statement of the similarities individual elements, "Common to both souls
10
laziness ”, not their systems.
Lappo-Danilevsky describes the process of reproducing "alien animation" in the course of humanitarian research... The historian “seems to be trying on the most suitable states of his own consciousness to the external detection of someone else’s animality, analyzed and systematized by him, and counterfeits it
etc.; he has to artificially ... put himself in conditions under which he can cause it, etc., even if only a few times. Only after such research can he reproduce in himself that very state of consciousness that he considers necessary for a proper understanding of other people's actions ... "11.
An original source study concept developed by
A.S. Dappo-Danilevsky, provides unique opportunities for the comparative study of cultures. Considering the psychological understanding of a person to be the main task of the humanities, and the understanding of a person of the past (and, more broadly, of an individual, which can be understood as a separate person or a community of people, in the ultimate sense - humanity) the task of historical science, the scientist assigned a special place in his system of methodology of source study , for the first time constituting it as an independent scientific discipline with its own subject and method. Considering the subject of source study as a "realized product of the human psyche", he investigated the methods of its interpretation, the purpose of which is to understand the individual of the past - the creator of a work of culture (historical source).
The methodological concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, being basically idiographic, considers the historical fact not in isolation, but in the context of the “co-existential” and “evolutionary” whole. This approach leads to the fact that, starting from the modern division of sciences into nomothetic and idiographic, the scientist synthesized these concepts, considering them as two approaches to a single object of history. “From the nomothetic point of view, the historian studies what is common between changes, from the idiographic point of view - what characterizes a given change, distinguishes it from others and, thus, gives it an individual meaning in this process” 12. In other words, the historian studies primarily the impact of the individual on the environment from an idiographic point of view. To explain this effect, the researcher must take into account the effect of the environment on the individual from the nomothetic point of view, from which he studies the effect of the “environment on individuals in its equalizing meaning, ie. to the extent that it makes such changes in the psyche of individuals (and therefore in their actions and in their products), thanks to which they become similar in some respects ... "13.
Such an equalizing, typifying influence of the social environment (collective individual) on individuality, and hence the features of this environment itself, are most consistently manifested at the level of the main classification unit of source study - the historical source. It is under the influence of the unifying influence of the social environment that the individual results of the realization of the human psyche (cultural products) with
acquire common features and can be named collectively: memoirs, periodicals, etc. So, the type of historical source represents the forms of human activity, and the totality of the latter constitutes the history of society in a certain period. That is why the evolution of historical sources can act as a criterion in comparative historical research.
Of course, Freud's discoveries significantly enriched our understanding of the human psyche. And in this part, the concept of Lappo-Danilevsky, who believed that the ideal of understanding the “other” through the products of culture created by him (historical sources) is to understand him as himself, looks somewhat outdated, but the assertion that humanitarian knowledge in general and historical knowledge in particulars begin with the maximum reflection of our own consciousness, and the idea that we can notice in the “other” only what is in the structure of our psyche has not lost its relevance. In this context, Mark Blok's journalistic appeal to the historian “not to be just an armchair scientist” 14 is filled with a very real epistemological meaning: the soul of a humanities scientist “must work day and night,” without which his ability to understand “the other” will be limited.
Thus, from a methodological point of view, the civilizational approach begins with an understanding of one's own culture, just like Lappo-Danilevsky's humanitarian knowledge begins with a reflection of one's own psyche. The civilization model obtained as a result of such an understanding is historically specific and is the basis for comparisons. Of course, in this case, the danger of a return to Eurocentrism is quite obvious. But this will already be a meaningful Eurocentrism, without claims to the universal character of this model of the historical process.
As already mentioned, if comparative historical research within the framework of the globalist approach is aimed at discovering the features of the universal model in a specific historical situation, then within the framework of the civilizational approach it is aimed at understanding the specifics of this form of historical existence. Obviously, in the first case, the result of such a comparative study will be proof of the "performance" of the accepted universal model, and in the second case - a deeper understanding, first of all, of one's actual culture through comparison with others. And here we agree with Claude Levi-Strauss, who argued: “The Renaissance era discovered in ancient literature not only forgotten concepts and ways of thinking - it found the means to put in time perspective its own culture, to compare its own concepts with the concepts of other times and peoples ". And he concluded: "... No part of humanity can understand itself otherwise than through the understanding of other peoples" 15.

In conclusion, we recall that J.-P. Sartre, recognizing that philosophical knowledge of the middle of the XX century. is still experiencing the "moment of Marx" that "historical materialism offered the only acceptable explanation of history ...", wrote that "Marxism suddenly lost its power over us; it did not satisfy our need for understanding ... "16. It is unnecessary to remind once again that over a century and a half, Marxism still remains the most powerful and consistently developed globalist concept.
NOTES Hegel G.V.F. Lectures on the philosophy of history. SPb., 1993, p. 125. See: E. Troelch. Historicism and its problems. M., 1994, p, 719. Shider T. Possibilities and limits of comparative methods in the historical sciences. - Philosophy and methodology of history. Digest of articles. M., 1977, p. 143-167. K. Popper, in particular, drew attention to this when he wrote that “theories are implicitly contained in ... terminology” (K. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism. M., 1993, p. 167). Schiller I.H.-F. What is the study of world history and what is the purpose of this study. - Schiller I.H.-F. Collected Works. In 8 volumes. T. VII. Historical works. M.-L., 1937, p. 600. Comte O. Course of positive philosophy. SPb., 1912, p. 3. Freud 3. Totem It is taboo. - Freud 3. "I" and "it": Trudy of different years. Book. 1. Tbilisi, s. 195. Dilthey V. Descriptive psychology. SPb., 1996, p. 98. Lappo-Danilevsky L.S. History methodology. SPb., 1913, issue. 2, p. 308. Ibid, p. 317. Ibid, p. 315. Ibid, p. 296. Ibid, p. 320. Blok M. Apology of history, or the craft of a historian. M., 1986, p. 27-28. Levi-Strauss K. Three types of humanism. - Levi-Strauss K. Primitive thinking. M., 1994, p. 16. Sartre J.-P. Method problems. M., 1994, p. 25-26.

UDC 93/94 BBK63 R86

Reviewers: Doctor History. Sciences, prof. Moscow Pedagogical University O. V. Volobuev, doctor history. Sciences, prof. Moscow Pedagogical University N, A. Proskuryakova, doctor history. Sciences, prof. Russian State University for the Humanities V. A, Muravyov, Doctor of Philosophy, Sciences, prof. Russian State University for the Humanities Ya. Ya. Kozlova

Rumyantseva M.F.

R 86 Theory of history. Study guide / M. F. Rumyantseva, - M .: Aspect Press, 2002. - 319 p.

ISBN 5-7567-0182-6

The textbook corresponds to the section "Theory of history" of the course "Theory and methodology of history" provided by the State educational standard of higher professional education for the specialties "History" and "Historical and archival studies". The manual consistently examines the development of methods for constructing theories of the historical process in the 18th-20th centuries, reveals the socio-cultural conditionality of changing the goals and methods of historical writing. Special attention is paid to the method of comparative historical research as one of the methodological foundations for constructing a historical meta-story. The crisis of the historical meta-narrative in the postmodern situation is specially analyzed and the possibilities of the source study of the phenomenological paradigm of humanitarian knowledge in overcoming the crisis of global historical constructions are revealed.

For undergraduate and graduate students specializing in history and other humanities.

UDC 93/94 BBK63

Isbn 5-7567-0182-6

"Aspect Press", 2002

All textbooks of the publishing house "Aspect Press" on the site www. aspectpress. ru

Our tasks

"Dad, explain to me why the story is needed." From this children's question begins the famous book of the French historian, one of the founders of the school of "Annals" Mark Blok "The Apology of History, or the Craft of the Historian" 1. People have been looking for the answer to this question for centuries. We will also take part in this search.

But the book in your hands is educational. What are we going to learn?

First, the simplest and most obvious, we learn how the question about the meaning of history has been answered over the past three centuries.

Having set this task, we will immediately notice that in its formulation there is an ambiguity inherent in the very word "history". Obviously, this word has a variety of meanings from "go down in history" to "go down in history." As for the everyday stories, in which one can "get", then we are not talking about them here. But what kind of story you can "enter", "leave your mark." On the one hand, this is the "real historical process" itself. Why in quotes? Because for our consciousness it exists only in the form of historical concepts, historical knowledge and, finally, historical science. And the way in which historical science misunderstands historical reality, and gives history meaning.

Then you have the right to ask: why only during the last three centuries - did people not think about this question before? Of course we did. But the modern type of thinking of a European, whose main feature is rightfully considered historicism, developed in the 17th century, starting with Galileo and Descartes, and manifested itself in its historical component in Xviii. That is why the types of historical scientific knowledge that have developed in Xviii- XX centuries, continue to be relevant. Modern scientific historical knowledge

1 Block M. Apology of History, or the Craft of a Historian: Per. with fr. 2nd ed., Add. M., 1986.S. 6.

rooted in the XVIII century, in the era of the Enlightenment, and the approaches that were formed then not only did not lose their historical significance, but also continue to dominate not only in everyday consciousness, but also in the minds of many historians. For example, such widespread "modern" misconceptions that a historical fact is objective and self-valuable, that a historical explanation is created by generalizing facts, have been happily ever since the 18th century.

There is one more verbal trap in the formulation of our first problem. "Modern" - and where are the boundaries of our modernity? Already not only in scientific, but also in everyday vocabulary, the concepts of "postmodernism", "state of postmodernism" have entered. In the understanding that at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. (or, to put it more sublimely, at the turn of the millennium) we are in a situation of transition from a historical type of culture (at least European) to a different type of culture - and this transition is the state of postmodernism, and the essential difficulties of language also confirm. There is an insurmountable contradiction in the statement: "the modern situation is a postmodern situation." Especially if we remember that modem in English and moderne in French - this is modern. This contradiction is described, for example, by N. N. Kozlova. Reflecting on the possibility of finding an adequate semantic translation of the concept of "modern", she writes:

“It is clear that Modern is a tracing paper from European languages. Unfortunately, no adequate Russian language expression has yet been found. English translation Modernitythe word "modernity" is misleading. In Russian, modernity is what is happening here and now " 2 .

It seems to me that the essence of the problem is not terminological, but mental. In both European and Russian languages, "modern" or "modernity" is the historical space in which a person identifies himself.

The main characteristic of the postmodern state is a distrust of meta-narrative, i.e. distrust of the integral historical knowledge offered by historians. We will talk in more detail about the causes and consequences of the meta-story crisis. But from the recognition of it as a factor of modern reality, our next tasks follow.

Since you and I, like a significant part of our contemporaries, are not inclined to trust the ready-made historical picture that historians can offer, and without undue reflection "adopt" the theory of the historical process that

Kozlova N.N. Socio-historical anthropology. M., 1999.S. 100.

will be declared "the only true", then our second task is to understand how and why it was in this way, and not otherwise, that historians and philosophers of the past built their theories.

The crisis of meta-story obviously leads to the ultimate individualization of historical memory, which disrupts its functioning as the basis of sociocultural identity with all predictable and unpredictable consequences. From here our third task is to outline possible ways of overcoming the meta-story crisis.

Until now, it has been mainly a meta-story. By meta-story (metanarrative) we mean the explication of holistic historical concepts, both scientific and unscientific. The theory of history is a holistic, reflective (meaningful) description of the historical process, based on scientific principles. From these "working" definitions it follows, firstly, that the concept of meta-story is broader than the theory of the historical process. Any theory of history is a meta-story, but not every meta-story has the properties of a theory. Secondly, it is obvious that ordinary historical ideas interact with theory in a complex way: any professional historian or philosopher - the creator of a theory - is a person of his time and as such is not free from the ordinary historical ideas of his era. On the other hand, scientific knowledge ultimately, more often through a complex system of mediation, affects the mass historical consciousness, at least through a school textbook.

So, let's summarize our tasks:

* to obtain systematic knowledge about the main theories of the historical process, formulated in modern times, in the 18th-20th centuries, about their socio-cultural conditioning, tasks, structure and ethical and political consequences;

* on this basis, develop an understanding of the mental and theoretical and cognitive foundations of various historical views;

* learn to comprehend theoretical basis any historical research (including his own), and even in the case when the author does not comprehend in which cognitive theorist he is working; learn to conduct an epistemological examination of a historical meta-story;

»Suggest one of possible ways overcoming the crisis of meta-story based on the source paradigm of humanitarian knowledge;

* and finally, to demonstrate the capabilities of the proposed method in comparative historical research.

In accordance with these tasks, the first section of the textbook examines the goals and principles of constructing theories of the historical process; in the second - classical theories are analyzed,

created in modern times and have not lost their significance; in the third, the source study paradigm of comparative historical research is substantiated and its capabilities in overcoming the crisis of meta-narrative are demonstrated.

At the end of each chapter, a list of references is given, including, first, the works analyzed in the section; secondly, the literature, which helps to assimilate the material of the section, and, thirdly, additional literature, allowing a broader look at the problems discussed in the section. At the same time, from all the literature, it is strongly recommended to get acquainted with the works on the basis of which the theories of the historical process are described, since this will allow the reader to develop his own point of view and then consciously, with knowledge of the matter, either agree or dispute those given by the author. study guide interpretation. After all, the book offered to you is precisely educational manual, those. that which should help, facilitate independent thought.

The questions at the end of chapters are intended to monitor the degree of mastery of the material. You can find answers to the questions posed both in the text of the chapter and in the recommended and additional literature. Needless to say, these answers may not be the same.

The tasks are divided into two groups. The first group of assignments prepares for work on the material of the following sections. The second group is predominantly creative (they are marked with *) and encourages independent research work.

This textbook is the result of many years of reading by the author of lecture courses on the theory and methodology of history at the Department of Source Study and Auxiliary Historical Disciplines of the Historical and Archival Institute of the Russian State University for the Humanities. I am grateful for the creative cooperation and constructive criticism of my constructions to the teaching staff of the department, and especially to Igor Nikolaevich Danilevsky, Roman Borisovich Kazakov, Olga Mikhailovna Medushevskaya, Viktor Alexandrovich Muravyov, Si-gurd Ottovich Schmidt, Yulia Eduardovna Shustova Natalya Nikitichne Kozlova. And separately - to all students of the Russian State University for the Humanities and Pereelavl-Zalessky University, in communication with whom the author had the opportunity to test this course more than once. Part of the work was carried out with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation: Project No. 96-01-00422.

Source study: Theory. History. Method. Sources of Russian history: Textbook. allowance / I.N. Danilevsky, V.V. Kabanov, O.M. Medushevskaya, M.F. Rumyantseva. - M .: Rossiysk. state humanizes. un-t, 1998 .-- 702 p.
ISBN 5-7281-0090-2

The textbook meets the new status of source study in the modern epistemological situation, characterized by the strengthening of polymethodologism, the desire for the humanization of historical knowledge, the strengthening of integration processes.The concept of the book is based on a theoretical understanding of the fact that a historical source (a product of culture, an objectified result of human activity) acts as a single the object of various humanities with the diversity of their subject.

Considerable attention is paid to methodological problems: the source study criterion of comparative historical research is substantiated, interdisciplinary connections of source study are revealed. Source studies are viewed as an integrating discipline in the system of the humanities; shows various methodological approaches to solving the most significant problems, as well as the development of research methods for the main types of historical sources.

The review of the main types of sources of Russian history, given in the second part of the textbook, is universal in nature, since it reflects trends common to the source base of the history of different countries.

Part I. THEORY, HISTORY AND METHOD OF SOURCE STUDIES

Section 2. FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOURCE STUDIES (O.M. Medushevskaya)
(p1s2.pdf - 775K)

Historical fact

Section 3. METHOD OF SOURCE STUDIES AND INTERDISCIPLINARY ASPECTS (O.M. Medushevskaya)
(p1s3.pdf - 483K)

Part 2. SOURCES OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

Section 1. HISTORICAL SOURCES XI-XVII CENTURIES (I.N. Danilevsky)

Section 2. HISTORICAL SOURCES XVIII - BEGINNING XX CENTURY (M.F. Rumyantseva)

General properties