Concepts of historiography fact source concept theory. Historiographic sources

It is equally important to master the concept of a historiographic source. Many historians have addressed this question. If we try to bring their positions closer together, then we can stop at the definition that any source containing historical data should be recognized as a historiographic source. historical science... True, such a somewhat simplified definition raises serious objections. So, E.N. Gorodetsky believes that "the definition of a historiographic source needs a greater scale", it should include "... materials that are important and necessary for understanding the development of historical science." Ultimately, this remark is about information about the processes taking place in historical science. The historiographic fact in terms of its functional load is broader than the historiographic source. Not every historiographic fact "materializes" into a source available for wide study (for example, materials from the historian's laboratory, manuscripts of books and dissertations, unpublished transcripts of discussions and scientific conferences). Historiographic sources are usually classified by type, origin and authorship. The works of historians are considered one of the most numerous historiographic sources. At the same time, the works are also the main historiographic facts. Historiography is studying not only works, but also creative path historian, his laboratory. Therefore, along with scientific works In the field of attention of historiographers, there are preparatory materials, drafts of unpublished manuscripts, diaries, memoirs, autobiographies, questionnaires, letters and much more. It is known that when dealing with sources of personal origin, it is required high level critical analysis. It should not be forgotten that in sources of this kind one often encounters a biased attitude of historians towards representatives of other schools and trends. In this regard, it is very important to find out the motives of assessments, to reveal the elements of subjectivity and tendentiousness. Historiographic sources include dissertations, texts of lectures, learning programs, guidelines on the courses of historiography. They allow you to explore activities scientific centers, the process of the formation of historiography as scientific discipline, training of specialists in this area of ​​historical knowledge. For historiography, the materials of conferences, symposia and other scientific communications on the problems of the development of historical science are of importance. Of course, the proposed classification includes only the most significant groups of historiographic sources.

Historiography- has two main meanings: history historical science in general, as well as a set of studies devoted to a specific topic or historical era (for example: historiography October revolution, historiography of the Middle Ages), or a set of historical works that have internal unity in the social-class or national relation (for example, Marxist historiography, French historiography.).

Historiography as the history of historical science.

In antiquity, even before the advent of writing, historical ideas and some elements of historical knowledge existed among all peoples in orally transmitted legends and traditions, in the genealogies of their ancestors. In early class societies, some conditions were prepared for the development of historical knowledge (for example, various systems of chronology were developed), the first records of historical content appeared: historical inscriptions (kings, pharaohs), weather records of events, etc. Huge influence on the description and interpretation historical events provided by religion. All historical events were explained by the "will of the gods".

Ancient historiography became an important stage in the progressive development of historical knowledge. It found its highest manifestation in the writings of the ancient Greek historians Herodotus (nicknamed "the father of history") and especially Thucydides; the latter is characterized by a refusal to explain history by the intervention of divine forces and a desire to penetrate into the internal causal relationship of events, elements of historical criticism - an attempt to separate reliable facts from fiction. Historiography of the Middle Ages, when the nature of historical thinking was determined mainly by church ideology, is characterized by providential view of history, in which historical events were viewed as the result of the intervention of divine will, as the implementation of the "divine plan" . Western European feudal Christian historiography, along with the Bible, was greatly influenced by philosophical historical concepts Christian theologian Augustine the Blessed, on Muslim historiography - the Koran. The most common forms historical writings along with hagiographic literature (lives of the saints) were annals - "world histories" - reviews of world history from the "creation of the world." Medieval authors, as a rule, saw only the external connection of phenomena in the form of their chronological sequence, hence the characteristic form of historical works with weather recording of events - annals. In Russia, their analogue was the chronicle (the most famous of the early Russian chronicle collections - " Tale of Bygone Years " ).

the task of historiography as the history of historical science

- not a simple summing up and summing up the accumulated factual knowledge, -

she studies the growth of science in the development of its content,

history of the creative path of science in the development of scientific thought

N.L. Rubinstein

Historiography (translated from Greek - "I am writing an investigation"). Historiography- in the narrow sense of the word, it is a set of studies in the field of history devoted to a specific topic or historical era (the so-called problem historiography), or a set of historical works that have an inner unity in ideological, linguistic or national relations (for example, Marxist, English-speaking or French historiography ). In a broader sense of the word, historiography is understood as an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of historical science. Domestic historical science as a field of professional knowledge began its formation in the 18th century, when the "literary", "artistic" or "rhetorical" directions of studying the past were replaced. "Historical". It was during this period that Russian historiography separated from the works of German historians-Russianists. As a result, two directions of historical knowledge are formed. The "pannographic-pragmatic" ("patriotic") direction was determined by the works of Russian historians - V.N. Tatishcheva, I.N. Boltina, M.M. Shcherbatova, M.V. Lomonosov, who tried to cover the entire course of Russian history in the most popular way, bringing it to the attention of the general public, who demanded a historical justification of the patriotic upsurge that began with the reforms of Peter I. Sciences, G.-Z. Bayer, G.-F. Miller, A.-L. Schletzer, who, relying on careful criticism of sources, solved highly specialized issues of Russian history (in particular, created the Norman theory). This period of development of Russian historical science ended together with the famous "History of the Russian State" by N.M. Karamzin. The first half of the XIX century - the "philosophical" period of Russian historiography. In the 1820s - 40s. attempts were made to “broad philosophical constructions of the Russian historical process in its entirety on the basis of the general laws of the world historical development". Historical science reflected the "heroic battles" between Westernizers and Slavophiles, who, in the spirit of their philosophical ideas, offered their own vision of the historical process. Thus, in a Westernizing vein, Russian history was viewed "as one of the links in a grandiose world-historical poem." The ideas of Westernizers influenced the formation of the legal (state) school (the works of KD Kavelin, BN Chicherin, SM Solovyov) in Russian historiography. Slavophiles, on the contrary, paid attention to the "specialness" historical path Russia. The ideas of the Slavophiles were reflected in the works of A.P. Shchapova and N.I. Kostomarov. In the same period, university professors M.P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev, together with the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov became the developers in the spirit of the "theory of the official nationality" of a conservative view of the Russian historical process. In the middle of the 19th century, there is a transition from the "philosophical" period of Russian historiography to the so-called "realistic school", which understands the historical process as "not the dialectical development of abstract principles, but a gradual natural selection of real life relationships, from which the history of the people is woven. " Positivism became the methodological basis of historical constructions during this period. The positivist concept attracted historians with its ideas of achieving objective knowledge, identifying general patterns of historical development, and the role of empirical material. A multifactorial approach to the study of the historical past is being formed. Under the influence of positivism, the historical concepts of V.O. Klyuchevsky and S.F. Platonov, reflected in their famous educational works - "Course of Russian history" and "Lectures on Russian history". At the turn of the XIX - XX centuries. historical science has gone through a period of methodological crisis, expressed in doubts about the universality of the positivist paradigm. In world historiography, various approaches to explaining the historical past began to develop. The same process was going on in Russia. However, after the revolutionary events of 1917, due to the increased influence of the state on science, it was formed and consolidated as the only true Marxist understanding of history. In the 1920s. this understanding was based on the concept of M.N. Pokrovsky, recognized as the official head of Marxist science. He viewed history as "politics overturned into the past" and suggested seeing in all historical events a reflection of the class struggle. - "Stalinist" period national history- historical science was based on the concept of the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, which was published in 1938. During this period, historical science underwent a transformation - from cosmopolitan revolutionary to national-imperial, from the idea of ​​world science to its isolationist self-sufficiency. The idea of ​​the common historical past of Soviet society from the pre-revolutionary era was rooted. True, it is worth noting that only the main creators of Russian statehood, its reformers, military leaders, whose merits in strengthening the state outweighed their alien class affiliation, were admitted to this common historical canvas. there was a certain softening of the imperious pressure on science, which allowed "authorized" freedom in its development. In particular, scientific collectives appear that have worked on the verge of the Marxist paradigm. Among them, the most famous are: "a new direction" (K.N. Tarnovsky, P.V. Volobuev, A.Ya. Avrekh and others), "school of I.Ya. Froyanov ", the Moscow-Tartu semiotic school (Yu.M. Lotman, B.A. Uspensky, V.N. world history(A.Ya. Gurevich, Yu.L. Bessmertny) Since the second half of the 1980s. Russian historical science began to perceive new scientific directions emerging in world science after the Second World War. In the 1990s - 2000s. such scientific directions as "new" social history, the history of everyday life, gender history, come to the national historical science, personal history and etc.

Historiographic fact.

The source material for historiographic research is historiographic fact. Under the historiographic fact A.M. Sakharov understood the scientific knowledge obtained by the researcher as a result of certain scientific operations. At the same time, the proposed definition raises an objection as somewhat general. More often than others, the literature uses the definition given in the article by A.I. Zevelœev and V.P. Naumova: “A historical fact is a fact of historical science, which carries information about historical knowledge used to identify the laws of development of the history of historical science”. This definition looks rather capacious and, in to a greater extent, reflects the content of the subject of historiography. The historiographic fact is based on the historical fact, while it is important to take into account that the historical fact is a broader concept, while the historiographic fact is only a part of this general concept, ᴛ.ᴇ. the concept is narrower.

What is the difference between historical and historiographic facts? A historical fact exists objectively, regardless of whether it is known or not. The historiographic fact is subjective, it is the product of the subject's creativity͵ ᴛ.ᴇ. historian. The essence of a historiographic fact in its interpretation, interpretation. It is important to understand that the facts remain, even if the existing ideas about them turn out to be false. Whether the fact is understood or not, whether it is correctly explained or its interpretation is wrong, all this does not change the state of affairs. The fact itself objectively exists outside the consciousness of the historiographer, regardless of its interpretation, research approaches and ratings.

It is equally important to master the concept of a historiographic source. Many historians have addressed this question. If we try to bring their positions closer together, we can stop at the definition that any source containing data on the history of historical science should be recognized as a historiographic source. True, such a somewhat simplified definition raises serious objections. So, E.N. Gorodetsky believes that "the definition of a historiographic source needs a greater scale", it should include "... materials that are important and necessary for understanding the development of historical science". Ultimately, this remark is about information about the processes taking place in historical science.

The historiographic fact in terms of its functional load is broader than the historiographic source. Not every historiographic fact is “materialized” into a source available for wide study (for example, materials from the historian's laboratory, manuscripts of books and dissertations, unpublished transcripts of discussions and scientific conferences).

Historiographic sources are usually classified by type, origin and authorship. The works of historians are considered one of the most numerous historiographic sources. At the same time, the works are also the main historiographic facts.

Historiography studies not only the works, but also the creative path of the historian, his laboratory. For this reason, along with scientific works, preparatory materials, drafts of unpublished manuscripts, diaries, memoirs, autobiographies, questionnaires, letters and much more fall into the field of attention of historiographers. It is known that dealing with sources of personal origin requires a high level of critical analysis. It should not be forgotten that in sources of this kind one often encounters a biased attitude of historians towards representatives of other schools and trends. In this regard, it is very important to find out the motives behind the assessments, to reveal the elements of subjectivity and tendentiousness.

Historiographic sources include dissertations, lecture texts, curricula, guidelines for courses in historiography. Οʜᴎ allow to study the activities of scientific centers, the process of formation of historiography as a scientific discipline, training of specialists in this area of ​​historical knowledge. For historiography, the materials of conferences, symposia and other scientific reports on the problems of the development of historical science are of importance. Of course, the proposed classification includes only the most significant groups of historiographic sources.

Historiographic source - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Historiographic source" 2017, 2018.

The source material for historiographic research is the historiographic fact. Under the historiographic fact A.M. Sakharov understood the scientific knowledge obtained by the researcher as a result of certain scientific operations. However, the proposed definition raises objections as somewhat general. More often than others in the literature, the definition given in the article by A.I. Zevelev and V.P. Naumova: "A historiographic fact is a fact of historical science, which carries information about historical knowledge used to identify the patterns of development of the history of historical science." This definition looks rather capacious and, to a greater extent, reflects the content of the subject of historiography. The historiographic fact is based on the historical fact, while it is important to take into account that the historical fact is a broader concept, while the historiographic fact is only a part of this general concept, i.e. the concept is narrower.

What is the difference between historical and historiographic facts? A historical fact exists objectively, regardless of whether it is known or not. The historiographic fact is subjective, it is a product of the subject's creativity, i.e. historian. The essence of a historiographic fact in its interpretation, interpretation. It is important to understand that the facts remain, even if the existing ideas about them turn out to be false. Whether the fact is understood or not, whether it is correctly explained or its interpretation is wrong, all this does not change the state of affairs. The fact itself objectively exists outside the consciousness of the historiographer, regardless of its interpretation, research approaches and assessments.

Historiographic source

It is equally important to master the concept of a historiographic source. Many historians have addressed this question. If we try to bring their positions closer together, then we can stop at the definition that any source containing data on the history of historical science should be recognized as a historiographic source. True, such a somewhat simplified definition raises serious objections. So, E.N. Gorodetsky believes that "the definition of a historiographic source needs a greater scale", it should include "... materials that are important and necessary for understanding the development of historical science." Ultimately, this remark is about information about the processes taking place in historical science.

The historiographic fact in terms of its functional load is broader than the historiographic source. Not every historiographic fact "materializes" into a source available for wide study (for example, materials from the historian's laboratory, manuscripts of books and dissertations, unpublished transcripts of discussions and scientific conferences).

Historiographic sources are usually classified by type, origin and authorship. The works of historians are considered one of the most numerous historiographic sources. At the same time, the works are also the main historiographic facts.

Historiography studies not only the works, but also the creative path of the historian, his laboratory. Therefore, along with scientific works, preparatory materials, drafts of unpublished manuscripts, diaries, memoirs, autobiographies, questionnaires, letters and much more fall into the field of attention of historiographers. It is known that dealing with sources of personal origin requires a high level of critical analysis. It should not be forgotten that in sources of this kind one often encounters a biased attitude of historians towards representatives of other schools and trends. In this regard, it is very important to find out the motives behind the assessments, to reveal the elements of subjectivity and tendentiousness.

Historiographic sources include dissertations, lecture texts, curricula, guidelines for courses in historiography. They make it possible to study the activities of scientific centers, the process of the formation of historiography as a scientific discipline, and the training of specialists in this sphere of historical knowledge. For historiography, the materials of conferences, symposia and other scientific communications on the problems of the development of historical science are of importance. Of course, the proposed classification includes only the most significant groups of historiographic sources.

Types of sources. Historiographic research (whether common history historical science or a book or an article about its individual representative), like any historical study, is based on historical sources, which, however, in this case, have their own characteristics.

The most important sources of historiography are the works of historians and researchers who moved historical thought forward. As MV Nechkina justly remarked, "without studying the works of scientists there is no history of historical science, just as without studying the works of writers there is no history of literature." The works of historians can take different forms: separately published books, articles in periodicals, shorthand oral reports at scientific forums, etc. Among these works, first of all, a monograph should be named - based on sources that are often introduced into scientific circulation for the first time, an independent research that contains new, original ideas that move science forward. Compiled works are also a source of historiography: while being immeasurably less important for a historiographer than research works, they help to understand the ways of disseminating historical knowledge and may indicate stagnation in science.

As a source of historiography, materials of the scientist's creative laboratory are of considerable importance: synopses and extracts from sources and literature, drafts and trial sketches, plan and text options, cards testifying to bibliographic searches. Thus, elucidating the historiography of imperialism and the place in it of Lenin's work "Imperialism as highest stage capitalism ", we turn to the" Notebooks on imperialism ", which gives an excellent idea of ​​the methodology of scientific research work of VI Lenin.

The sources of historiography are not only scientific works, but also reviews and responses to them: firstly, reviews and responses in a number of cases make it possible to establish the attitude of the scientific community to the published work, the struggle of opinions around the latter, and secondly, a qualified and intelligent review is not easy retells the content of the published essay, but may contain a solution to the problem put forward in it.

In the materials of scientific discussion, used as a historiographic source, a system of evidence is disclosed, sometimes ways of solving controversial problems are outlined.

The source of historiographic research is memoir and epistolary literature, in particular the memoirs and letters of prominent figures of historical science and historians.

Guiding materials are also an important source on the history of historical science: documents of government and scientific institutions about the development of historical knowledge, in particular about the cadres of historians; transcripts of congresses and similar forums of historians; leading and problematic articles in historical periodicals.

Inequality of historiographic sources. Do philosophical, journalistic, artistic and other works of authors who were not professional historians relate to the subject of historiography and are its sources (and, therefore, objects of historiographic research)? As a result of many years of controversy, our historiographers came to the conclusion: the history of historical science should include not only "official", "academic", "university", "professorial" science, but also non-professional, "unrecognized". In the words of MV Nechkina, "the development of historical science should be undertaken by the researcher as a whole, without artificially cutting off its living, albeit peculiar branches."

No branches of the historical tree of knowledge can be cut off for various reasons. First of all, official historical science could be conservative because of the country's reactionary political system - progressive views were expressed by representatives of illegal progressive thought, who were not professional historians. In addition, professional historians were influenced not only by the views of philosophers and politicians, but also by works fiction and arts; this influence was especially significant at the time of the formation of history as a science, although it also manifested itself later, for example, the influence on the historical thought not only of England, but also of the entire world of W. Scott's historical novels was very strong.

So, the sources of historiography are the works of both scientific and "extra-scientific" historical thought.

However, the qualitative difference between them cannot be forgotten: a correct and deep understanding of historical phenomena and processes is provided, first of all, by scientific, and not other forms of historical knowledge, therefore the sources of historiography are unequal, in particular, the study of a professional for a historian of historical thought is usually more important than a literary book.

Finally, it should be noted that there is a certain qualitative difference between the sources of general historical and historiographic research: history textbooks, for example, which even a freshman student will not classify as general historical sources, act as sources on the history of historical science, giving an idea of ​​what and how they taught. on history in a certain era. However, the question of the specifics of historiographic sources has hardly been elaborated in the literature.

V last years in addition to the study of the historiographic fact, the criteria for its assessment and analysis, the problem of the historiographic source and, in general, the range of issues united common theme"Historiographic source study". Their research in modern conditions acquires great theoretical and methodological significance, they are in close contact with the theory of historical knowledge. The quality and effectiveness of historiographic research largely depend on historiographic sources, their completeness, their representativeness, information reliability, objectivity, level of processing, scientific criticism and methods of use.

The theoretical and methodological aspects of historiographic source study are acquiring more and more meaning in the generalization of the achievements of Soviet historiography and in the formulation of new, still unresolved problems.

It should also be borne in mind that modern bourgeois source studies and historiography deny the objective nature of both the source and the fact, question the possibility of their scientific interpretation and put forward the idea of ​​replacing the historical reality of the source with “the experience of the historian," which in fact means replacing the reality of the source with “sensations "Researcher. A rebuff to such views must be argued using materials from historiographic source studies.

The topic "Historiographic Sources", in contrast to Russian source studies, which has more than two hundred years of tradition, is still in its infancy and has not been sufficiently studied.

On the positive side, the previously prevailing opinion that historiographic facts are at the same time the main sources for the historiographic researcher has been overcome, which in fact led, as already noted, to a confusion between the object of research and the sources of their knowledge. The first attempts have also been made to concretize the concept of a historiographic source.

Proceeding from the premise that a historiographic source is a part of a historical one, LN Pushkarev gave a definition acceptable for the initial stage of studying the problem: “... a historiographic source should mean any historical source containing data on the history of historical science. S. O. Schmidt expressed himself even more succinctly when he believes that "any source of knowledge of historiographic phenomena can be recognized as a historiographic source."

Justifying his thought, L.N. Pushkarev pointed out that while the main and basic type of historiographic source is written sources, the historiographer cannot bypass, for example, folklore, ethnographic data, and in our time - materials of photographic documents, etc. the categorical conclusion "Any historical source, concerning at least indirectly the facts of the history of historical science, can be attributed to the number of historiographic sources." This interpretation provoked objections to E.N. Gorodetsky, who asked the question: “Does a historical source that does not contain direct data on the history of science, but reflects the“ microclimate ”, that is, the social atmosphere, historical science, to historiographic sources? " Citing relevant examples from the history of historical science, he concluded:

"The definition of a historiographic source needs a greater scale", it should include "... materials that are important and necessary for understanding the development of historical science." In fact, the opinion that the presence in a historical source of only direct data on the history of historical science, or only its suitability for cognizing historiographic phenomena, was acceptable for that level of development of historiography when it was basically limited to the framework of only the history of historical thought or the history of historical concepts. Such a situation is to some extent comparable to the level of development of source studies, at which in a historical source they only looked for an answer to the question of what it conceals for the knowledge of specific historical facts, without a proper understanding of its theoretical and methodological aspects.

LN Pushkarev also raised the issue of the classification of historiographic sources for discussion. He put forward the idea that the classification scheme worked out by Soviet source studies is, to a certain extent, applicable to historiographic sources; the specific classification depends, in his opinion, on the goals set by the historiographer. EN Gorodetsky argues with him again, noting that with this formulation of the question, the objective basis of the classification is lost. Another objection belongs to S.O.Schmidt, who noted that there are no sufficiently serious reasons to mechanically transfer the concept of "types" to historiographic sources historical sources, about the importance of these or those varieties of them, criteria for systematization, etc. He also believes that the hierarchy of historiographic sources may not coincide with the corresponding hierarchy of historical sources.

MA Varshavchik, considering the range of sources on the historiography of the history of the CPSU, introduced the following definition into science: “Sources on the historiography of the history of the CPSU are all materials, directly (our italics - A. 3.)

reflecting the formation, direction, state and prospects of the development of historical and party knowledge. This definition, in our opinion, more capacious and complete than the previous ones. Unlike MA Varshavchik, NN Maslov refers to a historiographic source only "... the work of a scientist-historian embodied in an article, monograph, dissertation, manuscript, transcript or tape recording."

Assessing in general the current state of the study of historiographic source studies, we can say that it is still at the stage of "initial accumulation of knowledge", since many have not been fully resolved. theoretical aspects, the mechanism of the "transition" of a historiographic source to the "rank" of a historiographic fact has not been clarified, a conceptual apparatus has not been developed that corresponds to the modern level of development of historiographic knowledge.

In these conditions, it is proposed following definition: historiographic source study is a system of knowledge about the patterns of search, processing and use of sources used in historiography. Accordingly, historiographic sources are those historical sources that are determined by the subject of historiography and carry information about the processes taking place in historical science and in the conditions of its functioning. They are used along with historiographic fact to establish the laws governing the emergence and development of historiography.

This interpretation is based on a triune basis: a modern understanding of the subject of historiography, a description of a historiographic fact, an interpretation of the purpose of a historical source. These key phenomena of historiography, studied in a single context, should clarify the content of the historiographic source. Let's consider them in more detail.

The subject of historiography - the knowledge of the laws governing the emergence and development of historical knowledge - is dominant in relation to the historiographic source, it determines the range of sources used. Academician N.M.Druzhinin drew attention to this circumstance from the point of view of a historical source.

He writes: "The attraction of the right sources ... is determined by a thoughtful and clearly formulated problem of the topic."

This starting position explains much in the characterization of the historiographic source, but not all. For the historiographer, as well as for the historian, the source is primary, the fact is extracted from it. The laws of historiography are revealed through the prism of the activity of the subject - the historiographer, which cannot but affect the interpretation of the historiographic source, and in particular the place that it will occupy in the cognizable process. A requirement for a historiographic source should be the presence in the source material of “historiography,” understood in two ways: the presence of elements of historiographic information in it; the possibility of using it in order to establish the laws of historiography. At the same time, MV Nechkina noted: “... to make only the presence of historiographic data the main requirement defining the concept of a historiographic source ... seems insufficient ... criterion for the selection of historiographic facts ”. This thought is legitimate. In fact, the range of historical sources also includes those that, at first glance, may not bear a direct "historiographic load", but are associated with the conditions in which the social function of historical science is carried out.

One of the central tasks of the methodological analysis of a historiographic source is to study the process of raising it to the "rank" of a historiographic fact, and then using it in a historiographic work. The implementation of this process is impossible without a theoretical understanding of the second part of the triad put forward in front - the relationship between the historiographic source and the historiographic fact.

Modern level the exploration of the historical source is reflected in the works of V.I.Buganov, S.N. Valk, M.A.Varshavchik, I.D.Kovalchenko, B.G. Litvak, O.M. Medushevskaya, L.N. Pushkarev,

N.I. Priymak, A.P. Pronshtein, M.N. Tikhomirov, G.A.Trukan, L.V. Cherepnin, S.O. Schmidt, and others.

The materials and theoretical generalizations of these authors make it possible to pose and solve the question of what is common and what are the differences between historical and historiographic sources, between the latter and historiographic fact.

The realities that unite them in general are as follows: they are equally historical and spiritual phenomena that exist independently of the researcher, perceived in their close connection with the time of their occurrence; a historiographic source must meet all the main characteristics of a historical source, and their use includes the main links of the established source study and historiographic practice. If a historical source, as noted by S. O. Schmidt, is of interest to the historian as a carrier of certain information about a historical fact, then a historiographic source is also of interest to a historiographer from the standpoint of its informativeness about a historiographic fact; the dialectic of their knowledge and explanation is based on general methodological

the principles of partisanship and historicism and proceeds from the objectivity of sources and facts; with the help of sources, the past is reconstructed and the present of the historical process is reflected; "on the basis of historiographic sources and historiographic facts, the past and present of the history of historical science is created, its future is foreseen; social characteristics, class partiality and interest are characteristic of both the historiographic source and the historiographic fact. Knowledge of the" history "of the source and the fact also has something in common Finally, it is axiomatic that the state of the source base in historical and historiographic work, the level and degree of study of sources and facts is one of the important defining features of the development of historical and historiographic thought, ideas and scientific concepts.

With a single genetic commonality of source and fact, there are also differences between them.

The historiographic fact in its functional load is broader than the historiographic source, and the range of the latter is accordingly narrower than the historiographic facts. This is explained by several circumstances of a historiographic and source study nature. Not every historiographic fact "materializes" into a source available for wide study (for example, materials from the historian's laboratory, manuscripts of books and dissertations, unpublished transcripts of discussions, scientific conferences, etc.); historiographic facts already known to the researcher sometimes become a prerequisite for the search for new, unknown or previously little-known historiographic sources; the historiographic fact is recreated on the basis of a set of sources; it was also established that in the process of forming scientific factual knowledge, incompleteness and discontinuity of sources are overcome; scientific historiographic research is always fuller and broader than the sources on which it is based, since it not only generalizes the data of the sources, but also relies on theoretical knowledge.

Transition process historical fact in a historiographic source and its use in a historiographic work is shown by A.M. Sakharov using the following example from history Kievan Rus.

It is known that the residents of Dorogobuzh killed the groom, Prince Izyaslav, for which they were ordered to pay a fine of 80 hryvnia. This fact served as one of the sources for the compilation of "Russkaya Pravda", which itself became a fact of the legislative thought of a certain era. "Russkaya Pravda", in turn, served as a source for the formation of the concept of Kievan Rus in the works of B. D. Grekov, S. V. Yushkov, M. N. Tikhomirov and other researchers. This concept is a source for assessing the state of study in the historiography of the 30s - 50s of the feudal era in the USSR. Having entered the textbook on historiography, this concept is for subsequent researchers a source characterizing the state of study of the problem at the present stage. This essentially seven-membered scheme, with appropriate adjustments, is applicable to understanding the relationship between a fact (historical and historiographic) and a historiographic source. The amendment concerns only one thing: the concept, having entered historical works and textbooks, is no longer only a source, but also a historiographic fact.

The question of how to use the historiographic source seems to be topical, especially since it is poorly developed in the existing literature. The historiographer, as AI Danilov wrote, understands that “the emergence of each new direction in historical science has always found expression not only in the consideration of historical reality on the basis of new ideological and methodological principles, but also in the development of new source study techniques, new methodology study and use of historical documents in relation to those problems that are of interest to representatives of this direction. " The process of working on a historiographic source largely coincides in complexity with the work on a historical source. V.O. Klyuchevsky in his "Commentaries" to the course of lectures on source studies wrote: "... the historical material contained in the source is not given immediately ... in order to exhaust the historical source properly, it must be understood and disassembled, separated in it necessary from unnecessary.

This requires its preliminary development and clearing, study and interpretation of the monument. "

In a historiographic work, in our opinion, one can take as a basis, with some adjustments, the stages of interpretation of the source proposed by N.M.Druzhinin and Soviet source researchers and summarized by N.N. Maslov. They include the identification, selection and validation of historiographic sources in relation to the chosen topic and specific tasks research; analytical analysis and criticism of sources; synthetic analysis of the entire set of sources in order to establish a connection between the resulting set of sources.

The specificity of the tasks of historiography shows that the choice of the historiographic source itself, as well as of the fact, is already, in essence, the beginning of its comprehension. Therefore, it should be carried out on the basis of a body of knowledge gleaned both outside the source and within it. Among the former, the theoretical and methodological orientation of the historiographer is of particular importance; the accepted hypothesis on the use of the source also plays a role.

In the light of the already mentioned Leninist idea of ​​the need to study the entire totality of facts related to the issue, without a single exception, it is clear that the basis of historiographic selection should be a set of historiographic sources on the problem under study. In it, those sources are of particular value that make it possible to study the formation of historical knowledge in their context with the socio-economic and political development of society.

Representativeness - the representativeness of the scientific basis of historiographic research, associated with the problem of the qualitative completeness of historical information, is an important factor ensuring the objectivity of the research results. Various periods in the development of historiography have their own specific valuable historiographic sources.

The next remark concerns the classification and systematization of historiographic sources. It is generally accepted that the goal of this work is to achieve objective truth in the process of generalizing different types sources. Therefore, one cannot fully agree with LN Pushkarev's opinion that systematization has a "service", "auxiliary" task. On the contrary, work in the field of systematization plays an important role in preparing historiographic sources for their use in historiographic work. Historiographic sources can be classified by following principles: class origin, authorship, species.

The methods and techniques used in historiographic source study are basically the same as in historiography and source study. Therefore, it is necessary to characterize the source processing methods used by the predecessors and the author of this study. Their specific methods are important. Their methodological basis was revealed by V. I. Lenin in the "Preface to the brochure" How the Socialist-Revolutionaries Deceived the People and What the New Bolshevik Government gave the people, "where it is proposed to reflect, compare, draw conclusions from the documents. These conclusions are achieved with greater fruitfulness when applied to the source, in the synthesis of historiographic and source criticism, comparative historical, retrospective, synchronous and other methods that make up separate links in the general chain of the historiographer's cognitive work. The application of these methods in practice makes it possible to show the political, class interests of researchers of the historical process, the laws of historiography, the ratio of the empirical and theoretical levels in a historiographic source, and allows formulating conclusions and generalizations.

Applying the noted methods, one should know that the dialectical connection between the objective and the subjective is manifested in historiographic source studies in the following aspects: the source itself

(for example, the work of a historian) acts as subjective in relation to objective reality - historical process reflected by the historiographer; a historiographer working with a historiographic source treats it as a subject to an object.

The study of the theoretical, methodological and methodological aspects of historiographic source studies allows us to characterize more vividly their composition itself. The first among them are the works and especially the creative laboratory of the founders of scientific communism, the significance of which, of course, goes far beyond the scope of the historiographical source. Their analysis, from the point of view of the problem under study, includes several directions. Among them, the following stand out: the study of the history of the application by K. Marx, F. Engels and V. I. Lenin of the provisions of dialectical and historical materialism in the analysis of sources; a study of classical examples of the use of different types and content of groups of sources for the creation of historiographic works (K. Marx, "Theories of Surplus Value", which make up the IV volume of "Capital"; V. I. Lenin. "Preface to the collection" For 12 Years ", preface to the brochure "Karl Marx", etc.); identification of methods of scientific criticism and classification of sources by the classics of Marxism-Leninism; the study as a whole of the source base of the works of the founders of scientific communism and its influence on the expansion of the problems of their work; the use by Soviet historiography of the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin as models in work with historiographic sources and the significance of this for modern historiography.

Historical sources of paramount importance include: the programs and regulations of the party, documents of congresses and conferences of the CPSU, minutes, decisions and decrees of the Central Committee of the party. They have a tremendous impact on the development of historical science, define its tasks and aim at research. urgent problems... Party documents assess the phenomena related not only to the history of the party, but also to the whole of historical events, indicate the prospect of their development. This is the multifaceted meaning of this complex in composition of the complex of sources.

The analysis of this group of documents, from the point of view of historiographic source study, involves the study of the process of their development and the identification of historical sources that formed the basis of the party document. In this regard, the work of a historiographer is closely related to the activities of a source researcher. Specifically, historiographic work includes an analysis of how, when, in what works this or that source was introduced into historical science, studies the social-class and ideological essence of the sources, shows their theoretical and methodological significance for the development of historiography. Consequently, a historiographic source of this type can be put in the row scientific research, referring to the Congress materials, analyzed, according to V. I. Lenin, as a kind of "integral" phenomenon.

This group of sources is closely related to such a source as the works of the leaders of the CPSU and the Soviet state, which provide an analysis of the history and modern activities of the party and the state. In this regard, these sources are official. But this does not limit the historiographic significance of these sources.

Outstanding party and state leaders are distinguished by their ability to recognize objective trends in social development, to promote their successful perception by the masses, and to lead the implementation of the party's policy. Therefore, in historiography, it is valuable to show the contribution of individual figures to the development of historical science, recreated not only from their reports and speeches, but also from preparatory materials preserved, in particular, in personal funds, memoirs, etc. The task of historiography is to show how the assessments given by the leaders of the party were perceived and developed in the works of Soviet historians.

Some of the most numerous historiographic sources are the works of historians. Unlike historical source studies, which classifies them as so-called historical manuals, historiographic source studies give them priority attention. But the works are the main historiographic facts. Therefore, historiographic source study develops its own specific attitude towards them. The historiographer characterizes the source basis of the book and article, their richness (or narrowness), methods and methods of processing and shows its influence on the development of historical science. He is also interested in the whole process of "introducing" the work of the historian into science, placing it in a certain series.

The historiographic source includes dissertation research... Their value increases due to the fact that, while remaining unpublished in most cases, they collectively characterize to some extent the level of development of historical science at certain stages of its existence.

The study of the creative path of the historian, his laboratory includes, along with scientific works, preparatory materials for them, texts of lecture courses, some of which served as the basis for historiographic research, drafts of unpublished manuscripts, proofreads, diaries, memoirs, autobiographies, questionnaires, letters, etc. The study of these sources is necessary for the study of a number of historiographic problems, first of all, the processes of the continuity of scientific thought and the "increment" of knowledge, the origins of the evolution of historical concepts, the peculiarities of the formation of scientific views and the work of individual historians, polemics between them, which often covered the relationship of scientific schools, trends and etc.

The historiographer, studying this source (especially the memoirs), has no right to “forget” that it often contains an uncritical attitude towards his associates. The opposite option is also possible - a biased attitude towards representatives of other schools and trends. Consequently, the task of the historiographer is to clarify the political and ideological goals of the authors of memoirs and literature of the epistolary genre, to separate the objective from the subjective in them, to highlight, if possible, the degree of truthfulness and frankness.

The study of this category of historiographic sources has its own specifics, to some extent already studied in the historiographic literature.

It consists, in particular, in finding out the motives behind the creation of memoir works, and to reveal the elements of subjectivity and tendentiousness in creative work... In cases where historical sources are included in memoirs, the task is to identify their documentary basis, methods and techniques for their processing and research. It should be emphasized that this group of sources has great importance for the study of social and psychological moments of creativity, knowledge of the individual characteristics of the author of the source, etc.

Historiographic sources include curricula and reports on the courses given in historiography. They serve to solve the following tasks: the study of the activities of scientific centers, the process of the formation of historiography as a scientific discipline, the specifics of the formation and activities of individual historiographers, etc.

MV Nechkina suggested including as historiographic sources those that explain the era when the historian lived and worked, his connection with a certain class, ideological trend. This sentence has a deep meaning, since it proceeds from the methodological principles of historicism and partisanship, as well as from the Marxist-Leninist position, which says: the source is a social phenomenon. In reality, it is impossible to understand and evaluate historical concepts outside their connection with the era, class struggle and ideological currents of the time of their creation. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that M.N. Pokrovsky in his review of the book by Lappo-Danilevsky

The Methodology of History, published in 1923, criticizing it theoretical basis, wrote: “He (Lappo-Danilevsky - A. 3.) takes a book that is absolutely torn off from the environment where it was formed. For him, a book is a book. When and where it was written, before Christmas or after Christmas, in Africa, Japan or China, he doesn't care. " The historiographic experience of studying a source as a product of a certain social environment and ideological trends of its time, the sympathies and antipathies of its author makes it possible to reveal the patterns of its (source) functioning.

Valuable as a historiographic source are print - periodicals and non-periodicals. The material contained in journals, scientific bulletins, information and abstract reviews (and to some extent in newspapers), especially literature reviews and reviews, brings to the attention of the researcher the existing concepts, views, opinions, achievements of historical science and points to gaps in its development. For the historiographer, they are an indicator of the state of historical knowledge. Often, magazines either conduct or publish discussion and discussion materials themselves. scientific works... Finally, bibliographic reviews or lists of published literature are specific pilots in the initial path of the historiographer's work. In working with this source, it is important to understand the specifics of the classical trinity - what, where, when was published in periodicals.

For historiography, a source is important, reflecting the work of conferences, symposia and other forums on the problems of the development of historical science, as well as the methodology of historiography. In this series, the unpublished documents of the Problem Councils - "History of Historical Science" and "Methodology and Historiography of the History of the CPSU" are of great value.

A historiographer cannot do without materials on the history of historical institutions and the training of historians, which constitute one of the types of historiographic sources. Of particular importance among them are those that reflect the dynamics of the creation, reorganization and activity of centers of historical science,

training and retraining of scientific personnel, the material base of historical science, etc. They contain the material necessary for understanding the laws governing the development of the history of historical science.

The question of mass sources needs a special historiographic study. If we include statistical materials and reference books on the development of the history of historical science among them, they acquire the character of a historiographic source.

The list of historiographic sources cannot be considered complete. A historiographer in most cases works with a complex of facts and sources reflecting real events history of historical science, but the absence of sources does not mean at all that the historiographic fact did not take place.

Historiographic source studies have another important facet, which goes beyond the actual subject of this branch of knowledge, but enters part of into historiographic work. This refers to the historiographer's study of the history of accumulation and the introduction into scientific circulation of the historical sources themselves. This general goal includes several tasks: establishing the influence of the source base on the formation of new ideas, views, concepts, its expansion or contraction; determination of methods of processing and generalization of sources; identification of the presence in historical works of references to the primary introduction of sources into the scientific circulation, etc. Therefore, if a historical source can be deeply understood both in its primary (from the point of view of its creation and service substance) and in secondary qualities (from the point of view of view of its study by the historian), then the historiographic source already appears at the third level - its use and interpretation in historiographic work.

The enumeration of the range of historiographic sources shows the need to analyze the interrelationships of various groups and complexes of sources based on the goals of the historiographic work undertaken, which, however, does not exclude a specific approach to each of them.

The structure of historiographic sources is very rich. It includes the following components: sources associated with the process of formation and methodology, the use of historical knowledge in science;

sources reflecting the class and ideological conditions for the formation of historical science, the psychology of historical creativity, etc.

In the hierarchy of historical sources, generalizing ones occupy a central place, among which the main array are sources associated with historical literature. The rest are part of a system of sources that are difficult to distribute in a definitively established scheme.

The leading criteria for evaluating historiographic sources are general methodological principles: partisanship, historicism, which in their totality ultimately serve to establish the laws of historiography.

Knowledge of historiographic source studies is needed, however, not only for understanding the laws of historiography. They play an important role in identifying objective historiographic truth and other aspects of historiography, united in the concept of "theoretical and methodological aspects of historiography."

Similar information.