F Platonov lectures on Russian history. Sergei Platonov full course of lectures on Russian history

In particular, in the eighth edition, the revision mainly touched upon those parts of the book that are devoted to the history of the Moscow principality in the 14th-15th centuries. and the history of the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II. In order to strengthen the factual side of the exposition in these parts of the course, I drew on some excerpts from my "Textbook of Russian History" with appropriate changes in the text, just as in previous editions inserts were made from there into the department of the history of Kievan Rus until the XII century. In addition, in the eighth edition, the characteristics of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were re-stated. In the ninth edition, the necessary, generally minor, corrections have been made. For the tenth edition, the text has been revised.

Nevertheless, in its present form, the "Lectures" are still far from the desired serviceability. Live teaching and scientific work have a continuous influence on the lecturer, changing not only the particulars, but sometimes the very type of his presentation. In the "Lectures" you can see only the factual material on which the author's courses are usually built. Of course, some oversights and errors still remain in the printed transmission of this material; likewise, the construction of the presentation in the "Lectures" very often does not correspond to the structure of the oral presentation, which I have been following in recent years.

It is only with these reservations that I make up my mind to publish the present edition of the Lectures.

Sergei Fyodorovich Platonov

Full course of lectures on Russian history

Essay on Russian historiography

Overview of the sources of Russian history

PART ONE

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

PART TWO

The Time of Ivan the Terrible The Muscovite State Before the Troubles Political Controversy in Moscow Life in the 16th Century Social Contradiction in Moscow Life in the 16th Century Troubles in the Muscovite State Fedorovich (1613-1645) The time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) The internal activities of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich Church affairs under Alexei Mikhailovich A cultural turning point under Alexei Mikhailovich The personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Key moments in the history of Southern and Western Russia in the 16th-17th centuries The time of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich (1676-1682)

PART THREE

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

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

S. Platonov

Introduction (Summary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov - Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1920), professor at St. Petersburg University, head of the "St. Petersburg historical school", critic of the interdisciplinary approach to the methodology of historical knowledge proposed by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky; author of textbooks on Russian history for higher and secondary schools; opponent of the Marxist-Leninist "class" approach to the study of historical processes; the main defendant in the "academic case" of 1929-1930.

early years

S.F. Platonov was born on June 16 (28), 1860 in Chernigov. He was the only child in the family of the head of the Chernigov provincial printing house Fyodor Platonovich Platonov and his wife Cleopatra Alexandrovna (née Khrisanfova). In 1869, the parents - native Muscovites - moved to St. Petersburg, where the father of the future historian rose to the rank of manager of the printing house of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and received a title of nobility.

In St. Petersburg, Sergei Platonov studied at the private gymnasium of F. F. Bychkov. The young schoolboy spent his holidays in the house of Moscow relatives on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. In the seventeenth year of his life, he was seriously ill with typhus for a long time.

Almost the first book read by the young Platonov was N.M. Karamzin.

However, the young man did not think about studying history at first. He wrote poetry and dreamed of becoming a professional writer. In 1878, 18-year-old Platonov entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. However, the low level of teaching literary disciplines at the university and the brilliant lectures of Professor K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin on Russian history determined his choice in favor of the latter.

Of the faculty professors, the young Platonov was most influenced by the aforementioned K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, partly V. G. Vasilevsky, as well as professors of the law faculty V. I. Sergeevich and A. D. Gradovsky - the most prominent representatives of the first generation of the “Petersburg historical school ".

At the University of S.F. Platonov joined the activities of A.F. Heyden in 1882 of the Student Scientific and Literary Society. The Society was headed by Professor O.F. Miller. Students of I.M. Grevs, S.F. Oldenburg, V.I. Vernadsky, V.G. Druzhinin, D.I. Shakhovskoy, N.D. Chechulin, E.F. Shmurlo, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, M.A. Dyakonov and other future famous scientists, teachers of the Faculty of History and Philology.

Initially, he intended to devote his master's thesis to the social movement that was created by the militia of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, but once again he was convinced of the correctness of the idea that any serious research in the field of ancient Russian history is impossible without a thorough development of sources.

At the suggestion of Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who was one of the first to think about the problems of creating a methodology for historical research, S.F. Platonov also decided to follow the path of developing sources, choosing historical and literary monuments of the Time of Troubles as an object. To solve this problem, the historian drew on more than 60 works of Russian literature of the 17th century, which he studied from 150 manuscripts, many of which turned out to be a discovery for science.

A young scientist worked, what is called "in good conscience" - preparing his master's (candidate's) dissertation on the topic "Old Russian legends and stories about the Time of Troubles of the 17th century as a historical source" he devoted more than 8 years. This is twice as long as the time that is currently given to graduate students of the country's leading universities for the preparation and defense of a Ph.D. thesis.

In 1888 (even before the defense) S.F. Platonov published his master's thesis in the journal of the Ministry of National Education. Soon it came out in the form of a monograph and was awarded the Uvarov Prize of the Academy of Sciences.

On September 11 of the same year, the thesis for a master's degree in Russian history was successfully defended, which allowed Platonov to take the position of privatdozent from February 6, 1889, and from 1890 - professor in the department of Russian history at St. Petersburg University.

Professor S.F. Platonov

Throughout his subsequent life, until the mid-1920s, the scientist taught at the university: he taught a general course of Russian history, courses on individual eras and issues, and conducted seminars. Many well-known representatives of the “new” generation of the St. Petersburg historical school came out of his seminaries (P.G. Vasenko, P.G. Lyubomirov, N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky, A.E. Presnyakov, B.A. Romanov, etc.) .

Based on the “broad historical idea” expressed by S. M. Solovyov, according to which the beginning of a new Russia should be sought not in the reforms of Peter I, but in the events of the Time of Troubles, Professor Platonov determined the topic of his doctoral dissertation: Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Muscovite state of the XVI-XVII centuries. (The experience of studying the social system and class relations in the Time of Troubles)".

After 9 years, in 1899, the dissertation was successfully defended and immediately published as a separate book.

Written on the basis of a large number of sources, in excellent literary language, this work is the pinnacle of the scientist's scientific creativity. Using the theory of S.M. Solovyov about the struggle of tribal and state relations in the history of Russia, the author tried to put into this theory "concrete content and show on the facts how the old order perished in the Time of Troubles and in what forms a new order arose, in the conditions of which the modern state was created." The author saw the main meaning of "political misfortunes and social strife" of the beginning of the 17th century in the change of the ruling class - the old nobility to the nobility. Among the prerequisites and driving force for the development of the Time of Troubles were the formation of serfdom, the strengthening of feudal oppression and the social struggle of "the poor and the destitute against the rich and noble." The oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible was defined by Platonov not as a “whim of a timid tyrant”, but as a well-thought-out system of actions to defeat the “specific aristocracy”.

In subsequent years, Professor of St. Petersburg University S.F. Platonov held a number of important administrative posts at the university and other educational institutions, lectured, worked with students, and was a member of a number of historical societies. The only source of livelihood for him and his family was income from published works and salaries received in the public service. Most likely, due to precisely these circumstances, S.F. Platonov no longer created any major works, except for his dissertation.

The “Essays on the History of the Time of Troubles” was followed only by a series of popular articles about the figures of the Time of Troubles (Patriarch Hermogenes, False Dmitry I, etc.), about the first Romanovs, the Zemsky Sobor of 1648–1649, the personality and deeds of Peter I.

All historians of science and biographers of Platonov agree that the subsequent wide popularity of the historian was brought by his scientific monographs and articles, familiar only to a number of specialists. For many years, students have become a reference book "Lectures on Russian History"(first edition 1899) S.F. Platonov and his "Textbook of Russian history for high school"(in 2 parts, 1909–1910). Distinguished by the harmony and accessibility of the presentation of vast factual material, textbooks were extremely popular in pre-revolutionary higher education and "liberal" gymnasiums, which deliberately dissociated themselves from the works of the odious monarchist Ilovaisky.

In 1895-1902, S.F. Platonov was invited (as one of the most talented university professors) as a teacher of Russian history to the Grand Dukes Mikhail Alexandrovich, Dmitry Pavlovich, Andrei Vladimirovich and Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna. However, he did not enjoy the special favor of their brother, Nicholas II. After 1917, a note about the professors of Russian history was found in the tsar's papers. It contained the following lines: “Professor Platonov, who has great erudition, is also quite decent; but he is dry and already, undoubtedly, very little sympathizes with the cult of Russian heroes; of course, the study of his works cannot evoke either feelings of love for the fatherland or national pride.

Alas, the last emperor did not understand the intricacies of revising the positivist concept of Russian historiography and could not understand in any way that the times of the writer-educator Karamzin had long passed. Contemporary historical science faced completely different tasks, the solution of which did not involve either enlightenment or the upbringing of love for the fatherland.

Platonov's difficult relationship with the royal house to some extent breaks the myth about the scientist as an odious, "official" monarchist historian, who existed within the walls of St. Petersburg (and later Leningrad) University.

From 1900 to 1905, Professor Platonov was the dean of the historical and philological faculty, at the same time heading the department of Russian history. According to many colleagues and later researchers, Sergei Fedorovich, using all his authority and closeness to the royal family, literally saved the faculty from government repressions that followed the student unrest of 1899-1905. It was under him that the strongest teaching staff was formed at the faculty, which became the pride of the capital's university. Under him, the paths of development of the "Petersburg historical school" were determined for many years to come.

In 1903, Professor S.F. Platonov headed the newly organized Women's Pedagogical Institute (the first women's university in Russia), which led to an exemplary state.

In 1912, on the 30th anniversary of his teaching career, he was approved as an honored professor, after which he retired in January 1913, passing the department to his student S. V. Rozhdestvensky and moving to the position of a supernumerary professor.

In 1916, in view of the administrative duties that began to burden him, Platonov left the directorship at the Women's Pedagogical Institute. In the same year, he moved with his whole family to a spacious apartment on Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt.

Petersburg School: Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky

In Russian historiography, completely different, sometimes downright polar assessments of the relationship between two major scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, professors of St. Petersburg University - S.F. Platonov and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

Based on memoirs, correspondence and other evidence, historians tend to talk about a purely personal, even political conflict between the “aristocrat” and the westerner cadet Lappo-Danilevsky and the “raznochinets”, but the monarchist-patriot S.F. Platonov, and limit the scope of their contradictions only disagreement on organizational and methodological issues. Meanwhile, the main reason for the conflict of historians is connected with the global methodological split of the “Petersburg historical school” that occurred in 1900-1910. This split eventually led to the formation of two directions: theoretical (A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky) and empirical, conditionally associated with the name of S.F. Platonov. In fact, it could be called the name of any of the historians who criticized the theoretical constructions of Lappo-Danilevsky. S.F. Platonov at that time concentrated in his hands quite real power at the Faculty of History and Philology - the main forge of the country's historical personnel. Platonov and his supporters were the direct successors of the older generation of historians of the St. Petersburg school (Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Vasilevsky, Zamyslovsky, and others), whose works are largely characterized by an empirical approach to understanding the historical process.

Having approved the scientific-critical method developed by them as the basic one in historical research, the second generation of the St. Petersburg school did not arrive at the formulation of an integral system of the methodology of history. This was precisely the main reason for the differences between the supporters of S.F. Platonov and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, who took up the solution of the methodological problems of contemporary historical science.

Lappo-Danilevsky did not share the opposition of two cognitive strategies characteristic of neo-Kantianism, namely, the identification of patterns (nomothetic approach) in the natural sciences and the identification of ways to organize non-repeating, specific phenomena (ideographic approach) in the sciences of the spirit, i.e. in historical science. In his main work, The Methodology of History (1910–1913), Lappo-Danilevsky showed that both of these approaches coexist in relation to the historical process, from antiquity to the present, and they cannot be separated. He argued that both approaches could be applied to the cultural sciences as well as to the natural sciences. The scientist considered it optimal to apply both approaches to the objects under study, allowing to identify the general and the specific in history.

Platonov and a number of other teachers of the faculty who made up the "Circle of Russian Historians" (N.D. Chechulin, S. M. Seredonin, S. Rozhdestvensky, V. G. Druzhinin and others) were very skeptical about the theorizing of Lappo-Danilevsky's supporters, believing that historical science faces completely different tasks.

And this "theoretical" enmity for a long time remained the main "stumbling block" in relations between members of the scientific community at the beginning of the 20th century. Young scientists, students of Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky, sometimes had to maneuver between two warring parties, not even always understanding the main reason for this hostility.

So, the historian of the young generation A.E. Presnyakov, who simultaneously studied with both Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky, said in one of his letters that his colleagues sincerely wanted to reconcile the warring parties. So, in March 1894, Presnyakov attended a banquet on the occasion of the defense of G.V. Forsten. Professors Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky even sat at the banquet at opposite ends of the table, surrounded by their supporters, as if forming two hostile camps.

“It hurt my eyes,” Presnyakov admits in a letter, “and I started a conversation with Platonov to my liking, about the reasons for such a division. He was unusually sincere: and in general he was so sincere that he completely touched me. He explained to me that the circles - his and Lappo-Danilevsky's - differ in two ways: those are nobles in education, with a good home education, with extensive scientific resources, democrats in conviction and theory, people with political aspirations, with a certain stock of political views, in which they believe dogmatically and are therefore intolerant of other people's opinions; they, i.e. Platonists, raznochintsy, people of a different society, a different upbringing, with a smaller reserve of scientific strength, very heterogeneous in convictions, only by personal friendship, and not connected by any common credo. By the nature of their minds, they are skeptics - dissatisfied with the current prevailing orders, no less than those, they do not see the means to fight and endure them in appearance - indifferently, doing their scientific and teaching work and not promoting their discontent, without necessarily demanding agreement with themselves and calmly relating to contradictions and opposing beliefs, even a little sympathetic. They do not shun the other circle, but it ignores them; attempts of rapprochement were and ended with an insult to them.

Perhaps, under the influence of this conversation, S.F. Platonov soon proposed a toast, which A.E. Presnyakov describes as follows: “Platonov ... proposed a wonderful sincere toast, which should have serious consequences - a toast to the development of full and close solidarity among faculty members, on which that faculty tradition is based, which develops young people in a good direction. Alas! Only Lappo-Danilevsky from the opposite end of the table came to clink glasses. The rest of his "kruzhkovtsy" remained indifferent, some left in English, without saying goodbye.

In our opinion, this episode is the best way to reveal the reasons for not only personal, but also scientific disagreements between scientists. Some (Lappo-Danilevsky and his supporters), considering their fellow historians incapable of understanding beforehand, did not bother to explain their point of view to them in an accessible way; others (Platonov and his “circle members”), due to the “plebeian” complexes inspired by themselves, simply did not want to hear their opponents.

When Lappo-Danilevsky, bypassing S.F. Platonov, was elected to the Academy of Sciences, many contemporaries blamed him for some "intrigues and intrigues", remembering his closeness to the liberal-bourgeois majority of the future Cadet Party, as well as to the President of the Academy Sciences - Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich.

However, after the death of Lappo-Danilevsky, Platonov's wife, N.N. Shamonin, referring to a private letter from V.G. Vasilyevsky, said: in their choice, the academicians were guided solely by the personal qualities of the applicant. Factors such as the unburdenedness of the scientist with family and financial problems were also taken into account. If A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky was a typical "armchair scientist", a theorist, then Sergei Fedorovich Platonov showed himself as a talented practitioner, administrator, organizer, teacher and teacher. In addition, he headed the department, was the dean of the faculty, and had six children. When will he still engage in scientific research?

The split of the "Petersburg historical school" was somewhat smoothed out by the October events of 1917. When it was necessary to save the national treasure, scientists joined their efforts in the work of various commissions to save historical and cultural monuments, archives and libraries. After the unexpected death of Lappo-Danilevsky in 1919, the point of view of empiricists prevailed in the scientific community, later purely physically “nullified” by supporters of the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

After 1917

How S.F. Platonov reacted to the events of February 1917 is unknown. Maybe he just didn't notice them. But Platonov categorically did not accept the October coup. He never considered it a "revolution", because such a revolution, according to the historian, was not prepared "from any point of view", and the program of the Soviet government was "artificial and utopian". Attracted by D.B. Ryazanov to cooperate in saving historical and cultural monuments, Platonov worked in the interdepartmental commission for the protection and arrangement of archives of abolished institutions, then as deputy chairman of the Main Directorate of Archival Affairs, head of the Petrograd branch of the Main Archive.

On April 3, 1920, S.F. Platonov was elected by the General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences (for his great contribution to the development of Russian historical science) as its full member.

At the turn of the 1920s, he conceived a large work on the beginning of the Russian state, and talked about the need to revise the works of A. A. Shakhmatov (the founder of the historical study of ancient Russian chronicles and literature). However, all these plans were not destined to come true. In Soviet times, only popular science essays by Platonov “Boris Godunov. Images of the Past” (1921), “Ivan the Terrible (1530–1584)” (1923), the books “Moscow and the West in the 16th–17th Centuries” (1925) and “Peter the Great. Personality and activity” (1926), articles about the ancient colonization of the Russian North.

In his research work and popular science work, Platonov continued to be guided by the same principles as before:

“My worldview, which had developed by the end of the 19th century, was based on Christian morality, positivist philosophy and scientific evolutionary theory ... In essence, I remain so at the present moment. Atheism is alien to me as much as church dogma. (From Platonov's "repentant" note to the OGPU, October 1930)

After the dismissal from archival work initiated by M.N. Pokrovsky, on August 1, 1925, Platonov became the director of the Pushkin House (he remained so until 1929), and on August 22 of the same year he was elected director of the Library of the Academy of Sciences (BAN).

In the same year, he allegedly forbade A. A. Vvedensky (a specialist in the history of Ancient Rus') to read a report on the 1905 revolution in the Urals in the “spirit of the times” at the First Historical Research Institute at the Leningrad State University and demanded that this report be replaced by a report on the Stroganov icon.

In 1927 he completed his work at Leningrad State University forever.

On July 11, 1928, S.F. Platonov spoke in Berlin to his German colleagues with the report “The Problem of the Russian North in the Newest Historiography”. There he also had contacts with some representatives of the Russian emigration, including with his former student Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich, which was later used by the OGPU against the historian.

"Academic Business"

A tragic role in the fate of the scientist was played by the so-called “case of the Academy of Sciences” (“academic case”, “case of academicians”, “case of Platonov and Tarle”).

On October 12, 1929, the OGPU administration for Leningrad and the region received intelligence information about the storage of important political archives in the Library of the Academy of Sciences, allegedly not known to the Soviet authorities. Through the commission for cleaning the apparatus of the Academy of Sciences, a verification of this information was organized. On October 19, the chairman of the commission, Yu.P. Figatner found in the Library authentic copies of manifestos on the abdication of Nicholas II and his brother Mikhail, documents of the Central Committee of the Kadets and Socialist-Revolutionaries, and some other materials. I.V. Stalin was immediately informed about this.

It would seem: so what? Where can there be documents whose direct founders no longer exist, if not in the library of the Academy of Sciences?

Their presence in the library fund was officially reported to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee back in 1926, but the party leaders (Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev) at that time were busy with more important matters: they shared power. Hands reached the tsarist manifestos and protocols of the Socialist-Revolutionaries only in 1929. Just then the opportunity arose to get rid of all dissenting anti-Marxist opposition at once in the Academy and other scientific institutions of Leningrad.

The blame for the "concealment" of documents, of course, was laid on Platonov. The academician tried to justify himself: “As an indispensable secretary, and I myself did not attach particular relevance to the documents and brought them under the decree of 11/16/1926 ... We did not know that the government had been looking for them for 12 years. ... Comrade. Figatner does not distinguish between the terms "archive" and "archival materials" and abuses the former."

In fact, the "concealment" of documents was just an excuse. Everything was much more complicated. The strained relations that existed between the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Academy of Sciences were most acutely manifested as early as 1928, when party organs attempted to turn a scientific institution enjoying sufficient freedom and autonomy (as had been the case since the days of old Russia) into an obedient bureaucratic appendage. systems. It was possible to strengthen the influence of the central organs of the party on the Academy of Sciences, a purely non-partisan institution (in 1929, out of 1,158 of its employees, only 16 were members of the party), it was possible by introducing a strong group of communists into its membership. The authorities nominated eight people as candidates for full members of the Academy of Sciences: N. I. Bukharin, I. M. Gubkin, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, M. N. Pokrovsky, D. B. Ryazanov, A. M. Deborin, N. M. Lukin and V. M. Friche.

On January 12, 1928, a general meeting was held, but it elected only five people from the list as full members (the first three of them passed by a margin of only one vote, and the last three were voted out). Five days later, the Presidium of the Academy was nevertheless forced to convene a new meeting in order to "elect" the trinity that had failed at the first meeting. The elections showed the authorities: there are many people in the ranks of the Academy of Sciences who are still capable of resisting the decision of the Politburo itself. The urgent need for a “cleansing” of academic institutions became apparent. There was also a convincing reason: the concealment of documents.

The ideological inspirer of the “purge” and persecution of old specialists was the historian M. N. Pokrovsky, who had just been elected to the Academy. In his letter dated November 1, 1929, to the Politburo, he proposed a radical change in the structure of the Academy of Sciences, turning it into an ordinary state institution: “We must go on the offensive on all scientific fronts. The period of peaceful coexistence with bourgeois science has come to an end.” The centralization of science was seen by Pokrovsky as a kind of collectivization, and his call to take away science from scientists and pass it on to four thousand workers of the faculty who graduated from universities in 1929 was very reminiscent of calls for dispossession.

Academician S.F. Platonov in September 1928 resigned from the directorship of the BAN, and in March 1929 - from the directorship of the Pushkin House. At the March session of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1929, he was elected Academician-Secretary of the Department of Humanities (OGN) and a member of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, and on November 5, 1929, the Politburo decided to remove the scientist from work at the Academy and remove him from all his posts.

Platonov himself resigned, but the matter was not limited to this. On the night of January 12-13, 1930, the historian was arrested along with his youngest daughter Maria by Chekist A. A. Mosevich on suspicion of "active anti-Soviet activities and participation in a counter-revolutionary organization." During a search at the Platonovs' apartment, a foreign-made revolver was found, as well as letters addressed to Sergei Fedorovich from Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich (the younger) and the leader of the Cadets party P. N. Milyukov. The private correspondence did not contain anything criminal: the Grand Duke was a student of Platonov, and P.N. Milyukov was the brother of his wife, N.N. Shamonina, by that time already deceased. But the security officers and this was enough.

Soon, many friends of academician Platonov and comrades in the profession turned out to be in prison. Among them are N.P. Likhachev, M.K. Lyubavsky, E.V. Tarle, S.V. Bakhrushin, P.G. Vasenko, Yu.V. Gauthier, V.G. Druzhinin, D.N. Egorov, V.I. Picheta, B.A. Romanov, A.I. Yakovlev and others. All of them were representatives of the old professorship and did not adhere to the official Marxist ideology.

During the investigation, Platonov behaved courageously, despite the threats against the arrested daughters, and for a long time refused to give the necessary testimony. As the now published materials of the “academic case” testify, the reason that served as the reason for the arrest of historians - the storage of documents to be handed over to the state archives - was forgotten from the very first interrogations. It was impossible to squeeze out a political background with a counter-revolutionary coloring from it. And here comes the first accusation of a political nature, formulated by the head of the investigative department on March 14, 1930. In it, Platonov is no longer accused of keeping papers of national importance, but of leading "a counter-revolutionary monarchist organization that aimed to overthrow Soviet power and establish a monarchical system in the USSR by inducing foreign states and a number of bourgeois social groups to armed intervention. in the affairs of the Union.

The historian was broken by the investigator A. A. Mosevich, who pointed out that truthful testimony is needed not by the investigation, to which everything is already clear, but by history. The scientist gave up and accepted his rules of the game: “Regarding my political convictions, I must admit that I am a monarchist. He recognized the dynasty and was sick of the soul when the court clique contributed to the fall of the reigning House of Romanov ... "

It was pure truth.

Next came the denunciations. One of them reported that in a private conversation, Academician Platonov criticized the choice of emigration in favor of Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich as a pretender to the Russian throne. The historian allegedly pointed to a more, from his point of view, suitable candidate for his student - Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich. Platonov did not deny this.

Having received the missing link, the investigation accused Platonov of creating a counter-revolutionary monarchist organization at the Academy of Sciences called the All-People's Union of Struggle for the Revival of Free Russia, the purpose of which was to overthrow the Soviet government and establish a constitutional monarchy headed by Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich. Moreover, for some reason, the role of the future prime minister was assigned to Platonov himself. In total, 115 people were involved in the case of the All-People's Union of Struggle for the Revival of Free Russia.

The investigation went on for over a year. On February 2, 1931, at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences, its new permanent secretary, member of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Academician V.P. Volgin announced the establishment of the fact that Academicians S.F. Platonov, E. V. Tarle, N. P. Likhachev and M. K. Lyubavsky in a counter-revolutionary conspiracy and proposed to exclude them from full members. After that, the President of the Academy of Sciences A.P. Karpinsky took the floor. The transcript of his speech has not been preserved, but Krasnaya Gazeta reported on the “counter-revolutionary outing” of the scientist, who allegedly called the expulsion of Platonov and his colleagues from the Academy optional (which nevertheless took place).

There was no trial, even a closed one, in the “case of the Academy of Sciences”. The main sentences were handed down in three stages: in February 1931, by the OGPU troika in the Leningrad Military District, then in May and August by the OGPU Collegium. The press didn't say much about the case. The younger colleagues and students of Academician Platonov who remained at large, out of fear for their fate, publicly renounced their teacher. However, the sentence for those arrested turned out to be relatively mild - 5 years of exile. But there were no casualties at all. Six former officers "belonging to the military group" of the "All People's Union" were sentenced to death. The board of the OGPU sentenced ordinary members of the "union" to 5-10 years in the camps.

Memory

Even during his lifetime in the Soviet country, Platonov was recognized as one of the most famous scientists. His autobiography was published in the most popular magazine Ogonyok (No. 35 for 1927) under the heading "The country should know its scientists." He was surrounded by honor and glory, even released abroad to represent Soviet Russia at international historical forums.

But the "academic work" of 1929-30 put a heavy cross on the biography of the Russian scientist, consigning his name to complete oblivion.

Not a single book about the disgraced historian was printed in the Soviet Union. In Soviet works on Russian historiography - both in textbooks and in the academic "Essays on the History of Historical Science in the USSR" - a special chapter is not allotted to the characteristics of Platonov's life and work.

And although in 1937 they published (already for the fourth time!) "Essays on the history of the Troubles in the Moscow state of the XVI-XVII centuries", and the Higher School of Propaganda under the Central Committee of the Party published (albeit "for internal use") fragments of Platonov's textbook for universities , in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia they preferred to do without an article about Sergei Fedorovich altogether.

Only in the book "Russian historiography", published in 1941 by N.L. Rubenstein, which to this day remains the most scientific and objective generalizing work on domestic pre-revolutionary historiography, Platonov is written in a respectfully serious tone, without cheap political labels. However, in the 1950s-1970s, Platonov continued to be characterized as "the most prominent exponent of the ideology of the reactionary nobility" in the pre-revolutionary period, speaking "from the position of an apologist for the autocracy" and in the post-revolutionary years.

Soviet scholars, confined within the narrow confines of Marxist-Leninist ideology, reduced the development of historical science primarily to the development of social thought and its reflection of the current socio-political situation. They were little occupied with the philosophical and even more so with the moral foundations of the worldview of historians. The period from the mid-1890s to the revolution of 1917 was pretentiously defined as the time of the "crisis of the bourgeois-noble historical science"; and the views of historians, and indeed all their work, were evaluated depending on their relationship with the development of thought of those who adhered to the views of Marx and especially Lenin. Platonov was assigned a place on the right flank of non-Marxist historical science. At the same time, "non-Marxist" was often interpreted as "anti-Marxist".

In 1967, the convicts in the falsified case "On the counter-revolutionary conspiracy in the Academy of Sciences" were fully rehabilitated. Platonov was posthumously reinstated in the rank of academician. But it took more than 20 years for the first journal articles to appear not only about the last years of the scientist's life, but also about his entire life path.

In 1994, the first issue prepared by V.A. Kolobkov of the Catalog of the Archives of Academician S.F. Platonov. The publication of the “Case on the charge of Academician S.F. Platonov" began a multi-volume edition of the investigative materials of the "Academic Case of 1929-1931".

In the late 1990s - early 2000s, Platonov's works began to be printed again - his textbooks for higher and secondary schools were published in several editions, in the prestigious academic series "Monuments of Historical Thought" - the fifth edition of "Essays on the History of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State XVI– XVII centuries”, accompanied by articles by E.V. Chistyakova. In 1993-1994, a two-volume collection of Platonov's works on Russian history appeared, prepared by V.I. Startsev and B.C. Brachev, republished in the form of books and separate works by S.F. Platonov in the 1920s. The volumes of the "Archaeographic Yearbook" published Platonov's texts found in the archives. Currently, serious work is underway with archival materials from his personal fund - unpublished studies (on Zemsky Sobors and others), reviews, memoirs, letters. Meanwhile, the process of forming the historian's fund in the Department of Manuscripts of the National Library of Russia has not yet been completed: interesting materials related to the personal life and last years of the scientist in Samara exile continue to come from relatives and descendants of S.F. Platonov.

As it was said in the Soviet magazine Ogonyok, the country should know its scientists! The works and biography of the outstanding historian S.F. Platonov are gradually returning to the reader excommunicated from them, enriching ideas not only about the past of our Fatherland, but also about the history of its study.

On our own behalf, we add that those who do not know and do not want to know their scientists and their history run the risk of waking up one day and not recognizing their country.

Elena Shirokova

according to materials:

Brachev V.S. Russian historian S.F. Platonov: Scientist. Teacher. Human. - SPb., 1997. 2nd ed.
He is. The Way of the Cross of the Russian Historian: Academician S.F. Platonov and his "case" - St. Petersburg, 2005 (revised edition).
Rostovtsev E. A. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky and S. F. Platonov (on the history of personal and scientific relationships) // Problems of social and humanitarian knowledge. Sat. scientific works. - SPb., 1999 - Issue I. – C.128-165;
He is. A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky and the St. Petersburg Historical School. - Ryazan, 2004. 352 p., ill.
Schmidt S. O. Sergey Fedorovich Platonov (1860-1933) // Portraits of Historians: Time and Fate. In 2 volumes - M.-Jer., 2000.- V.1. Domestic history. - S. 100-135.
Website photos used

S. F. Platonov Textbook of Russian history

§1. The subject of the course of Russian history

The Russian state in which we live dates back to the 9th century. according to R. Chr. The Russian tribes that formed this state existed even earlier. At the beginning of their historical life, they occupied only the area of the river. Dnieper with its tributaries, the region of Lake Ilmen with its rivers, as well as the upper reaches of the Western Dvina and Volga lying between the Dnieper and Ilmen. To the number Russian tribes , which constituted one of the branches of the great Slavic tribe, belonged to: clearing - on the middle Dnieper, northerners - on the river. Desna, Drevlyans And Dregovichi - on the river. Pripyat, radimichi - on the river. Sozhe, krivichi - on the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Volga and Western Dvina, Slovenia - not Lake Ilmen. There was very little mutual communication between these tribes at the beginning; even less proximity to them was among the outlying tribes: Vyatichi - on the river. Ok, Volhynyan, Buzhan, Dulebov - on the Western Bug, Croats - near the Carpathian mountains, tivertsev And streets - on the river. Dniester and the Black Sea (it is not even known exactly about the Tivertsy and the streets whether they can be considered Slavs).

The main content of the course of Russian history should be the story of how a single Russian people gradually formed from these individual tribes and how they occupied the vast space on which they now live; how the state was formed among the Russian Slavs and what changes took place in the Russian state and public life until it took the form of the Russian Empire that is modern to us. The story is naturally divided into three parts. The first describes the history of the original Kievan state, which united all the small tribes around one capital - Kyiv. The second describes the history of those states (Novgorod, Lithuanian-Russian and Moscow), which were formed in Rus' after the collapse of the Kievan state. The third, finally, outlines the history of the Russian Empire, which united all the lands inhabited by Russian people at different times.

But before starting a story about the beginning of the Russian state, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with how the tribes of Russian Slavs lived before the emergence of their state order. Since these tribes were not the first and only "inhabitants" of our country, it is necessary to find out who lived here before the Slavs and who the Slavs found in their neighborhood when they settled on the Dnieper and Ilmen. Since the area occupied by the Russian Slavs here has an impact on their economy and life, it is necessary to get acquainted with the nature of the country in which the Russian state arose, and with the features of the original life of the Russian Slavs. When we know the situation in which our distant ancestors had to live, we will more clearly understand the reasons for the emergence of their state and better imagine the features of their social and state structure.

§2. The oldest population of European Russia

Throughout European Russia, and mainly in the south, near the Black Sea, there are enough "antiquities", that is, monuments left over from the ancient population of Russia in the form of separate burial mounds (mounds) and entire cemeteries (burial grounds), ruins of cities and fortifications ( "settlements"), various household items (dishes, coins, precious jewelry). The science of these antiquities (archeology) has managed to determine which peoples exactly belong to certain antiquities. The oldest of them and the most remarkable are the monuments Greek And Scythian . It is known from the history of ancient Hellas that on the northern shores of the Black Sea (or Euxine Pontus, as the Greeks called it), many Greek colonies arose, mainly at the mouths of large rivers and with convenient sea bays. Of these colonies, the best known are: Olbia at the mouth of the river buga, Chersonese (in old Russian Korsun) in the vicinity of present-day Sevastopol, Panticapaeum on the site of the current Kerch, Phanagoria on the Taman Peninsula, Tanais at the mouth of the river Don. Colonizing the sea coast, the ancient Greeks usually did not move away from the sea coast inland, but preferred to attract natives to their coastal markets. It was the same on the Black Sea shores: the named cities did not extend their possessions inland, but nevertheless subordinated the local inhabitants to their cultural influence and attracted them to a lively trade exchange. From the natives - "barbarians", whom the Greeks called Scythians , they purchased local products, mainly bread and fish, and sent them to Hellas; and in return they sold Greek-made items (fabrics, wine, oil, luxury goods) to the natives.

Trade brought the Greeks closer to the natives so much that mixed so-called "Helleno-Scythian" settlements were formed, and even a significant state arose in Panticapaeum, called Bosporus (on behalf of the Cimmerian Bosporus Strait). Under the rule of the Bosporus kings, some Greek coastal cities and native tribes that lived by the sea from the Crimea to the foothills of the Caucasus united. The Bosporan kingdom and the cities of Chersonese and Olbia achieved considerable prosperity and left behind a number of remarkable monuments. Excavations undertaken in Kerch (on the site of ancient Panticapaeum), in Chersonesus and Olbia, discovered the remains of city fortifications and streets, individual dwellings and temples (pagan and later, Christian times). In the burial crypts of these cities (as well as in the steppe mounds) many objects of Greek art, sometimes of high artistic value, were found. Gold jewelry of the finest workmanship and luxurious vases obtained by these excavations constitute the best in the world, in terms of artistic value and number of objects, the collection of the Imperial Hermitage in Petrograd. Along with typical Athenian items (for example, painted vases with drawings on Greek themes), there are items in this collection made by Greek craftsmen in a local style, apparently commissioned by local "barbarians". Thus, the golden scabbard, made for the Scythian sword, which did not look like Greek swords, was decorated with purely Greek ornaments to the taste of the Greek master. Metal or clay vases made according to Greek models were sometimes supplied with drawings not of a Greek nature, but of a Scythian, “barbarian” one: they depicted figures of natives and scenes from Scythian life. Two such vases are world famous. One of them, golden, was dug out of a crypt in the Kul-Oba mound near the city of Kerch; the other, silver, ended up in a large mound near the town of Nikopol on the lower Dnieper near the Chertomlyk River. On both vases, whole groups of Scythians in their national clothes and weapons are artistically represented. Thus, Greek art served here the tastes of the local "barbarians".

For us, this circumstance is important because we get the opportunity to directly get acquainted with the appearance of those Scythians with whom the Greeks dealt on the Black Sea coast. In the figures of Scythian warriors and riders excellently sculpted or painted by Greek masters, we clearly distinguish the features of the Aryan tribe and, most likely, its Iranian branch. From the descriptions of the Scythian life left by Greek writers, and from the Scythian burials excavated by archaeologists, one can draw the same conclusion. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC), talking about the Scythians, divides them into many tribes and distinguishes between nomads and farmers. He places the first closer to the sea - in the steppes, and the second to the north - approximately on the middle reaches of the Dnieper. Agriculture was so developed among some Scythian tribes that they traded grain, delivering it in huge quantities to Greek cities for shipment to Hellas. It is known, for example, that Attica received half of the amount of bread she needed precisely from the Scythians through the Bosporan kingdom. Those Scythians who traded with the Greeks, and those who roamed near the sea, the Greeks more or less knew, and therefore Herodotus gives interesting and thorough information about them. The same tribes that lived in the depths of present-day Russia were not known to the Greeks, and in Herodotus we read fabulous stories about them that cannot be trusted.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction (Summary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when idealism developed from Germany, in opposition to French rationalism: in opposition to French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, national antiquity was actively studied, and the conviction began to dominate that the life of human societies takes place naturally, in such a natural order. a sequence that cannot be broken or changed either by chance or by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main interest in history came to be the study of not random external phenomena and not the activities of prominent personalities, but the study of social life at different stages of its development. History is understood as the science of the laws of the historical life of human societies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essay on Russian historiography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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