History studies the traces of human activity. The object is a person.

Functions of historical knowledge:

Scientific and educational

Prognostic

Educational

Social memory

The method (research method) shows how cognition occurs, on what methodological basis, on what scientific principles. A method is a way of research, a way of constructing and justifying knowledge. More than two thousand years ago, two main approaches to historical thought arose that still exist today: the idealistic and materialistic understanding of history.

Representatives of the idealistic concept in history believe that spirit and consciousness are primary and more important than matter and nature. Thus, they argue that the human soul and mind determine the pace and nature of historical development, and other processes, including in the economy, are secondary, derived from the spirit. Thus, idealists conclude that the basis of the historical process is the spiritual and moral improvement of people, and human society is developed by man himself, while man’s abilities are given by God.

Supporters of the materialist concept argued and maintain the opposite: since material life is primary in relation to the consciousness of people, it is economic structures, processes and phenomena in society that determine all spiritual development and other relationships between people.

An idealistic approach is more typical for Western historical science, while a materialistic one is more typical for domestic science. Modern historical science is based on the dialectical-materialist method, which considers social development as a natural historical process, which is determined by objective laws and at the same time is influenced by the subjective factor through the activities of the masses, classes, political parties, leaders, and leaders.

There are also special historical research methods:

chronological – provides for the presentation of historical material in chronological order;

synchronous – involves the simultaneous study of events occurring in society;

dichronic – periodization method;

historical modeling;

statistical method.

2. Methods of studying history and modern historical science.

Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.

Historical and logical

Abstraction and absolutization

Analysis and synthesis

Deduction and induction, etc.

1.Historical and genetic development

2.Historical-comparative

3.historical-typological classification

4.historical-systemic method (everything is in the system)

5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.

Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing its methods from it and itself influences its formation. Now the task of not just writing historical works on this or that topic is coming to the fore, but creating verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.

Features of modern historical science.

1. Sociocultural development

2. Spiritual and mental foundations

3. Ethno-demographic features

4. Natural geographical features

5. Political and economic aspects

6. Providentialism (by the will of God)

7. Physiocrats (natural phenomena, not God, but man)

8. Geographical, public, social factors.

9. Interdisciplinary approaches (social anthropology, gender studies).

3. Humanity in the primitive era.

Primitive society (also prehistoric society) is a period in human history before the invention of writing, after which the possibility of historical research based on the study of written sources appears. In a broad sense, the word “prehistoric” is applicable to any period before the invention of writing, starting from the beginning of the Universe (about 14 billion years ago), but in a narrow sense - only to the prehistoric past of man.

Periods of development of primitive society

In the 40s of the 20th century, Soviet scientists Efimenko, Kosven, Pershits and others proposed systems for the periodization of primitive society, the criterion of which was the evolution of forms of ownership, the degree of division of labor, family relationships, etc. In a generalized form, such periodization can be presented as follows:

1. the era of the primitive herd;

2. the era of the tribal system;

3. the era of the decomposition of the communal-tribal system (the emergence of cattle breeding, plow farming and metal processing, the emergence of elements of exploitation and private property).

Stone Age

The Stone Age is the oldest period in human history, when the main tools and weapons were made mainly from stone, but wood and bone were also used. At the end of the Stone Age, the use of clay spread (dishes, brick buildings, sculpture).

Periodization of the Stone Age:

Paleolithic:

The Lower Paleolithic is the period of the appearance of the most ancient species of people and the widespread spread of Homo erectus.

The Middle Paleolithic is a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern humans. Neanderthals dominated Europe throughout the Middle Paleolithic.

The Upper Paleolithic is the period of dominance of the modern species of people throughout the globe during the era of the last glaciation.

Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic; The period is characterized by the development of technology for the production of stone tools and general human culture. There is no ceramics.

Neolithic is the era of the emergence of agriculture. Tools and weapons are still made of stone, but their production is being brought to perfection, and ceramics are widely distributed.

Copper Age

The Copper Age, Copper-Stone Age, Chalcolithic or Chalcolithic is a period in the history of primitive society, a transitional period from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Approximately covers the period 4-3 thousand BC. e., but in some territories it exists longer, and in some it is absent altogether. Most often, the Chalcolithic is included in the Bronze Age, but is sometimes considered a separate period. During the Eneolithic, copper tools were common, but stone ones still predominated.

Bronze Age

The Bronze Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the leading role of bronze products, which was associated with the improvement of the processing of metals such as copper and tin obtained from ore deposits, and the subsequent production of bronze from them. The Bronze Age is the second, later phase of the Early Metal Age, which replaced the Copper Age and preceded the Iron Age. In general, the chronological framework of the Bronze Age: 5-6 thousand years BC. e.

Iron Age

The Iron Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the spread of iron metallurgy and the manufacture of iron tools. Bronze Age civilizations go beyond the history of primitive society; other peoples' civilization takes shape during the Iron Age.

The term "Iron Age" is usually applied to the "barbarian" cultures of Europe that existed simultaneously with the great civilizations of antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Parthia). The “barbarians” were distinguished from ancient cultures by the absence or rare use of writing, and therefore information about them has reached us either from archaeological data or from mentions in ancient sources. On the territory of Europe during the Iron Age, M. B. Shchukin identified six “barbarian worlds”:

Celts (La Tène culture);

Proto-Germans (mainly Jastorf culture + southern Scandinavia);

mostly Proto-Baltic cultures of the forest zone (possibly including Proto-Slavs);

proto-Finno-Ugric and proto-Sami cultures of the northern forest zone (mainly along rivers and lakes);

steppe Iranian-speaking cultures (Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.);

pastoral-agricultural cultures of the Thracians, Dacians and Getae.

Topic 29. Characteristics of the state of historical science in Russia at the present stage.

1.The entry of the Russian historical community into world historical science. Common problems.

2. The gap and continuity of Russian and Soviet historical science.

3. Development of theoretical and methodological issues.

4. Topics, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.

Literature:

Dashkova T. Gender issues: approaches to description.//Historical research in Russia - II. Seven years later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugova. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.P.203-245.

Historical research in Russia: trends in recent years. M., 1996//Edited by G.A. Bordyugova.

History of everyday life: Collection of scientific works. St. Petersburg, 2003.

Krom M.M. Historical anthropology. St. Petersburg, 2004.

Krom M. Domestic history in anthropological perspective. .//Historical Research in Russia – II.Seven Years Later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugova. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.P. 179-202.

Kravtsov V.N. Transformation of the foundations of professionalism of historical knowledge in the modern historiographic process.//Images of historiography: Collection of articles /Scientific. ed. A.P. Logunov. M.: RGGU, 2000.

Myths and mythology in modern Russia/Edited by K. Aimermacher, F. Bomsdorf, G. Bordyugov. M., 2003.

Naumova G.R. Historiography of Russian history: textbook. aid for students Higher educational institutions / G.R.Naumova, A.E.Shiklo. M., 2009. P.225-240.

Sokolov A.K. The path to a modern laboratory for studying the modern history of Russia.//History and philosophy of Russian historical science. M., 2007. P.275-341

Chubaryan A.O. Historical science in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century// New and Contemporary History 2003. No. 3.

1. In your opinion, what are the gaps and continuities between Russian and Soviet historical science?

2. How are modern Russian and foreign historical sciences connected?

3. What theoretical and methodological issues are being developed by modern Russian historians?

4. Describe the topics, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.

Topic 30. B.N. Mironov.

Seminar lesson:

1. “Social history of Russia during the imperial period” as the first generalizing study of social history in world historiography.

2. Methodology for researching the social history of Russia.

3.Modernization concept of Russian history B.N. Mironov.

4.Revision of B.N. Mironov established the established provisions of Soviet historiography on the role of the autocracy in social changes, its relationship with the public, etc.

Literature:

Getrel P., Macy D., Friz G. Social history as metahistory.// Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., vol. 1, pp. I – XIV.

Discussion around the “Social history of Russia during the imperial period.” // Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., vol. 1, pp. XV-XL.

Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003.

Tests, problematic questions and exercises:

1.What methodological approaches and principles does Mironov use to study the social history of Russia? What are the advantages of these approaches and principles and what are their limitations?

2. What are the main provisions of B.N.’s concept of Russian history? Mironov. What are the features of the history of Russia and the features of modernization in Russia?

3. What established provisions of Soviet historiography are refuted by B.N. Mironov? Read one of the chapters of “Social History of Russia” and analyze how B.N. Mironov achieves a revision of traditional ideas.

4. What are the causes and nature of the October Revolution according to the concept of B.N. Mironov?

5. How does B.N. Mironov characterize and evaluate Soviet modernization?

6. What are the prospects for the historical development of Russia from the perspective of the historical concept of B.N. Mironov?

7. What ideas of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet and foreign historians does the author of “Social History of Russia” rely on?

Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

Biographical information. B. N. Mironov entered the Faculty of Economics of St. Petersburg State University in 1959. In 1961 he was expelled from the university for anti-Marxist views. In the same year, the rector of the university A.D. Alexandrov was restored by a student at the Faculty of History. After graduating from the history department in 1965, he served in the army. In 1966 he entered graduate school at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR. In 1969 he defended his candidate's dissertation, in 1984 his doctorate. Since 1970, he has worked at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and teaches at St. Petersburg universities and abroad. Author of seven books and more than a hundred articles, many of which were published abroad.

“Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII – early XX centuries). Genesis of the individual, democratic family, civil society and the rule of law.” The main scientific work of B.N. Mironov is dedicated to social history. The so-called “new social history” refers to the research arsenal of sociology in describing the internal state of society, its individual groups and the relations between them. She was born in the second half of the twentieth century.

Social history introduces approaches borrowed from anthropology and social psychology. An integral component of the analysis of a social system becomes the reconstruction of a picture of the world characteristic of a given human community or a set of images, ideas, values ​​that guided the behavior of members of a particular social group.

Particular attention in social history is paid to the content side of the consciousness of people who shape social reality through their actions. Therefore, social history is also the history of mentalities. Under mentalities, as noted by B.N. Mironov, this refers to socio-psychological stereotypes, automatisms of consciousness and habits laid down by upbringing and cultural traditions, value orientations, significant ideas and views that belong not to individuals, but to one or another class or social group.

One of the guiding principles of social history has become interdisciplinarity: “the use of concepts, concepts and methodology of sociology, political economy, geography, anthropology, psychology, demography, statistics, political science.”

Social history does not describe events in their sequence. Social history analyzes primarily durable social structures, systems, institutions, long-term social processes and phenomena. Society is considered as an integral organism in which all elements interact in a complex system of resonant, direct and feedback connections, excluding the possibility of reduction and finding any one that can determine the entire historical development. Social history is based on a structuralist approach. Mironov follows him and builds a model and interprets the fundamental processes and forces that changed Russian society and the state during the imperial period. The study consists of two parts: – the first deals with social dynamics, the second deals with law, state and civil society. At the same time, he finds “a certain degree of historical inevitability” (progress) in the development of Russia, but does not specifically indicate what controls this process.

Social history is understood and conceptualized in the spirit of modernization. Mironov does not limit himself to the imperial period and provides a meta-description of Russian history to demonstrate its “normality.” By identifying patterns in the social development of certain areas of demography, family structure, etc. the author shows that Russia, albeit with some delay, followed the general pattern of development characteristic of Western Europe.

The fact that Russia lags behind Western Europe, according to Mironov, does not mean that it is a backward country. Mironov notes that psychologists have the concept of “socially neglected child.” This child was born normal, but in a difficult family. The poor parents drank and did not take care of the child, so his development was slowed down. The child’s mental development is delayed and he cannot cope with the curriculum at school. But under favorable circumstances, a socially neglected child can catch up with the bulk of his peers, but not the best. According to Mironov, saying that Russia is a backward country is the same as calling it a socially neglected child. So in the Kiev era, the Russians were normal Europeans, but in the middle of the 13th century. For 250 years she found herself in the difficult conditions of the Mongol-Tatar yoke (a difficult childhood). Having freed itself from the yoke, Russia fell under serfdom for 250 years (a difficult adolescence). This has slowed everything down and made Russia underdeveloped, which cannot catch up with its peers from Western European countries. Mironov does not agree with this approach.

The historian says that Russia is going through the same processes belatedly, but not because it is mentally retarded or socially neglected, but because Russia as a state and civilization was simply born later than Western European ones. Kievan Rus was no longer a feudal state in the European sense of the concept. Feudal features appeared several centuries later in the 13th – 16th centuries. But Russia has always, at least for the last thousand years, when statehood arose, fled as fast as its neighbors in the West. Therefore, the scientist claims: Russia is not backward, but a young and rapidly growing country, and comparing it with Western Europe is like comparing an adult and a teenager.

Mironov insists on the untenability of the idea of ​​the uniqueness of Russia's historical development. Despite periodic crises and deviations, from the point of view of B.N. Mironov, Russia as a whole followed the path of modernization together with the West.

The main difference between Russia and Europe is the asynchrony of development, and not the essence of the development process. The autocracy sought to speed up the process of development and introduced incredible tension into social life. This was the case during the implementation of the Soviet modernization project.

The scientist gives a favorable forecast regarding the future of Russia if it continues its development according to the Western European model and in due time achieves prosperity and the rule of law and civil society are established.

The author strives, avoiding both negativism and apologetics regarding national achievements, to reconsider many provisions and myths of Russian historiography that are not positive in relation to our history. Particularly unlucky in our historiography, as Mironov emphasizes, are Russian reformers and government policies. Their achievements were underestimated and even devalued. For example: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 is not considered an achievement, since in Western Europe it happened several centuries earlier and better. Mironov proposes to look at this problem more broadly and deeply, from the point of view of compliance of state policy with the economic, social, psychological and other capabilities of society. And also think about what would happen if the Western European model were implemented in Russia. Moreover, Mironov sees the reasons for negative assessments of his own history in the fact that they were created in the era of society’s struggle against the authoritarianism of state power in the name of establishing a legal society and state in Russia in pre-revolutionary historiography and then were picked up by Soviet historiography. The historian notes: nihilistic sentiments among the intelligentsia have always been in fashion in Russia (here there is a clear analogy of Mironov’s idea with the thoughts of the so-called “conservative” historians in this regard), condemning Russian orders and history was and is still considered good manners, even if there is no reason for this.

Mironov refutes the provisions that:

Russia was a typical colonial empire that oppressed the peoples inhabiting it.

Russian society was closed.

The Russians did not know self-government.

Serfdom blocked the socio-economic development of the country.

Russia was ruled not by laws, but by people.

The state and bureaucracy did not care about society and the people.

All or almost all reforms were untenable.

Autocracy in the 18th – 20th centuries. was an institution that hindered the development of the country.

Arbitrariness reigned in the courts.

The author writes that social institutions became more “rational” and relied more and more on certain legal norms rather than on custom and tradition. Narrow and limited social interaction changed to increasingly open and widespread. Real merit, not privilege, became the basis for promotion. Personality was given greater opportunities for expression, individuals successfully asserted their dignity and protested against corporate interference in personal life, whether this interference was based on the power of the patriarch within the extended family or on the power of the traditional land community. Or other corporate institutions.

Autocracy was a positive and driving force of social change in the country, usually going ahead of society. The autocracy for the most part worked in cooperation with the public. Basically, during the imperial period, the modernization process was successful. At the beginning of the twentieth century. Russia had become a de jure legal state, and civil society was in the process of formation. Why did the autocratic state fail to survive the First World War? The fact is that modernization progressed successfully with the leading role of the state, and was restrained by the people, who also participated in this process, but their mentality changed extremely slowly. This strengthened the gap between the Europeanized elite and the people and gave rise to asynchrony and tension in social processes and phenomena. The revolution, from Mironov’s point of view, was a natural phenomenon. Revolution is a normal, even positive reaction, as a temporary social disaster of modernization, designed to harmonize traditional Russian values ​​with the values ​​of a market economy. The October Revolution was not the Marxist progressive revolution that the revolutionaries believed they were fighting for, but rather a revolution against modernization and in defense of tradition. However, the Soviet government continued the modernization process and created conditions that ensured a peaceful transition to the final stage of modernization, the formation of an open and democratic society.

Specialists are amazed by the book’s huge source base. The author relies on the methodology and achievements of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet, American, Canadian, Australian and European scientists, as well as on his own research on a wide range of problems in the archives and libraries of Russia. The scientist mastered the array of accumulated data on the social history of Russia and creatively processed them based on his own concept. Mironov is fluent in cliometrics and provides extensive statistical data. His work has an unprecedented scholarly apparatus, including footnotes, an alphabetical bibliography, a subject index and an index of names, illustrations, and tables.

However, we must not forget that the modernization model is one of the possible in representing the dynamics of society. It tends to view the past through the prism of the dichotomies tradition/modernity, staticity/mobility, which does not limit understanding and minimizes the search for the originality of Russia's historical development. In addition, even foreign experts note that the concept of “normality” in the historical development of Russia is dangerously close to the absolutization of Western European and American standards of political and social development. It is not axiomatic that this Western model is desirable and that it is destined for a long life.

Exam questions:

1. The state of historical consciousness and the historical and scientific community of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

2. St. Petersburg and Moscow schools of historians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

3. D.I. Ilovaisky (scientific interests, methodological orientations, general concept of Russian history, etc.)

4. Phenomenon N.I. Kostomarov in Russian historiography.

5. V.O. Klyuchevsky. Main works and ideas.

6. V.O. Klyuchevsky about the subject and method of historical knowledge.

7. V.O. Klyuchevsky. "The course of Russian history and its concept." Concept of Russian history.

8. History of Russia in the 19th century. in the works of A.A. Kornilov.

9. Vlad in historical science A.A. Kiesewetter.

10. P.N. Miliukov as a public figure and historian. Continuity and novelty in his historical and scientific work. The history of Russia as the history of Russian culture.

11. S.F. Platonov Peculiarities of personality and historical and scientific creativity.

12. S.F. Platonov “Lectures on Russian history” (theoretical, methodological and conceptual foundations).

13. S.F. Platonov. The concept of the history of the Time of Troubles in Russia.

14. A.E. Presnyakov as a representative of scientific realism.

15. Works of A.E. Presnyakov on the history of Kievan Rus, the Great Russian state.

16. Eurocentrism in the concept of Russian history E.F. Shmurlo

17. Study of feudalism in the works of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky.

18. Contribution of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky.in the study of the history of social movements.

19. Masters of the biographical genre in historical research - N.K. Schilder and Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich.

20. Historian-diplomat S.S. Tatishchev.

21. Historical concept of K.N. Leontyev.

22. Historical concept of L.A. Tikhomirov.

23. Methodology and philosophy of history in the works of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

24. Historical concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

25. Development of theoretical and methodological foundations of source study A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

26. Marxism and pre-revolutionary historical science.

27. “Legal Marxism.” Dispute about the role of violence in history. P.B. Struve, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky and others.

28. “Subjective school” in Russian historiography. P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others.

29. Historiosophy V.S. Solovyova.

30. N.I. Berdyaev as a representative of the religious and philosophical paradigm of history.

31. Eurasian concept of Russian history (G.V. Vernadsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, R.O. Yakobson)

32. General characteristics of historical science in the Soviet period.

a. Periodization of historical science of the Soviet period.

33. Secular historical science in the 1920s–1930s.

34. Sociological method of studying the historical process in the works of N.A. Rozhkova.

35. M.N. Pokrovsky and his role in the formation of the Marxist face of historical science.

36. B.D. Grekov, M.N. Tikhomirov, L.V. Cherepnin as researchers of the history of ancient and medieval Rus'.

37. M.N. Druzhinin as a researcher of the peasant question in Russia.

38. A.L. Sidorov. The personality of the historian and the priorities of scientific research.

39. M.V. Nechkina. Contribution to the study of the revolutionary movement, the history of historical science and the popularization of historical knowledge.

40. P.A. Zayonchkovsky. Themes and features of the historian’s work.

41. I.D. Kovalchenko is a methodologist, source scientist, historical researcher.

42. L.N. Gumilev. The theory of ethnogenesis and the concept of Russian history.

43. Domestic historiography of the second half of the 80s - early 90s.

44. The current state of historical science in Russia.

45. B.N. Mironov. Social history of Russia.

46. ​​I.Ya. Froyanov is a researcher of Ancient and Medieval Rus'. Works on the modern history of Russia.

Trans...(from Latin trans- through, across, for) the first part of compound words meaning here: 1). Movement through any space, crossing it; 2). Designation of transmission through something. The second part of the complex word “form” means that the correspondence of manifestations of the same characteristics or different characteristics in the same manifestations is carried out through and in a new configuration of connections, the highest configuration of which is Meaning.

The disintegration of the “integral personality” occurs not only as a result of normatively and procedurally organized thinking techniques, but also as a result of specialization and technologization of material production. The question of turning a person into an appendage of a machine in the conditions of differentiated capitalist production was actively discussed by representatives of the “subjective school” (P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.I. Kareev, etc.). Mikhailovsky likened the narrow specialist to a “toe” .

See Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of creativity. – Kharkov: Folio, M.: AST, 2002.P.36.

In states of co-existence, a presentational, integral and world-forming connection appears as one that is born, emerges and forms.

In Russian philosophy, the idea of ​​a break in continuity was put forward by representatives of the Moscow philosophical and mathematical school in the theory of arrhythmology long before M. Foucault. In the sphere of thinking, arrhythmology, in contrast to analytics, manifests itself in a creative act - insight, intuitive grasp of meaning, in the social sphere - in catastrophes, revolutions, upheavals that interrupt linear evolution. Arrhythmology can be understood as the emergence of new impulsive centers with their inherent rhythms, redistribution of energy and a new adjustment of rhythms in general.

In Western historiography, the primacy in the conceptual formulation of the principle of multifactorial historical development belongs to the French historical school of the Annales.

Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. – St. Petersburg: JSC Komplekt. 2003. P.31.

Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. – St. Petersburg: JSC Komplekt. 2003.P.97-98.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history: Complete course of lectures. T.1. / V.O. Klyuchevsky - Mn.: Harvest, 2003. P.16.

See Leontyeva O.B. Marxism in Russia at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Problems of methodology of history and theory of the historical process / O.B. Leontyev. - Samara: Samara University Publishing House, 2004.

In exile, Russian scientists came up with the concept of Eurasianism.

Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of the story. New Middle Ages / N.A. Berdyaev. – M.: 2002. P.183.

They themselves put forward an ethical criterion of progress, thereby emphasizing the role of mental states in the dynamics of social reality.

See Rumyantseva M.F. Theory of history / M.F. Rumyantseva. – M.: Aspect Press, 2002. P.23-30.

See Koposov N.E. Stop killing cats! Criticism of social sciences / N.E. Koposov. – M.: New Literary Review, 2005.P.142-157.

Various options for a nonlinear “global” or “total” history were proposed by representatives of the “Annals” school.

It should be noted that ideological and political views and knowledge, like any other, are necessarily included in the context of the free and spontaneous activity of the historian. However, the purposeful normative implementation of ideological and political guidelines in historical research reduces its scientific potential.

Ilovaisky was married twice. He buried his first wife and all the children from his first marriage. The last to die in 1890 was daughter Varvara, married to Tsvetaeva. Son-in-law of Ilovaisky I.V. Tsvetaev married for the second time. and in this marriage M.I. Tsvetaeva was born.

Related information.

NON-STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

"MOSCOW ECONOMIC INSTITUTE"

Faculty of Design

ABSTRACT

In the discipline "History"

On the topic " History as a science. Russia in the world historical process»

Performed:

Anahit Arturovna Harutyunyan

Correspondence department

Moscow

2017

1. Preface

6. The history of Russia is an integral part of world history. general and specific in historical development

10. Literature

Preface

The word “history” came to us from the ancient Greek language, where it meant “investigation, establishment.” History was identified with the establishment of authenticity, the truth of events and facts, and meant any knowledge obtained through research, and not just historical knowledge itself in the modern sense. Currently, the term “history” has several meanings. On the one hand, history refers to any process of development in nature and society (for example, the history of species, the history of science, etc.), on the other hand, the concept of “history” refers to the past stored in the memory of people, as well as any story about it past. History, as a special humanitarian science, studies the past of human society in all its diversity. The past does not disappear - it lives in each of us, determining our destiny, our daily life, our vector of development, our path in life. Therefore, history always surrounds a person and is present in us, although it is sometimes very difficult to catch it with a glance, hearing or thought. It is this “look”, the turning inward of ourselves, that all the humanities are devoted to, among which historical knowledge occupies a special place.

The history of a country is, first of all, the history of its people, and every nation has the right to be proud of its history. Just as the life history of an individual person is embodied in the characteristics of his personality, in his knowledge, skills, character traits, so the past of an entire people is embodied in the achievements of our time. However, every person must remember not only the events of his life, but also know the history of his ancestors - only then will he be able to fully understand his place in the series of generations and better understand the meaning of his own existence. To understand yourself, to understand the life around you, to imagine the possible course of events - that’s what history is for.

Comprehension of history is not only the acquisition of a sum of knowledge about the past, but it is also always the development of historical thinking, which allows one to more clearly understand one’s position in society, clearly define one’s civic position and one’s attitude to current events and phenomena, to reveal and understand their essence and direction. True comprehension of historical knowledge is possible only with its personal comprehension, with independent search, selection and interpretation of facts.

History as a science: Auxiliary subjects and functions of history

History is the science of the past of human society and its present, of the patterns of development of social life in specific forms, in space-time dimensions. The content of history is the historical process, which is revealed in the phenomena of human life, information about which is preserved in historical monuments and sources. These phenomena are extremely diverse and relate to the development of the economy, the external and internal social life of the country, international relations, and the activities of historical figures.

The historical past is recreated by scientists using objects of material culture, written sources or some other basis. But since the heritage of the past is enormous, and human activities are very diverse, it is almost impossible to cover them entirely. Therefore, in historical science there is specialization according to several principles:

– in terms of time (chronological) coverage. In the historical process, the main eras are distinguished (traditionally: primitiveness, antiquity, the Middle Ages, modern / modern times) and their individual periods;

– by spatial (geographical) coverage. World history can be presented as the history of individual continents (history of Africa, Latin America), regions (Balkan studies, history of the Middle East), countries (Chinese studies), peoples or groups of peoples (Slavic studies);

– in various spheres of human activity (political, legal, economic, military, scientific, etc.).

In addition, historical science includes several special branches: archeology, which studies the past from material sources; ethnography, which studies living peoples and ethnic communities, their way of life and culture; source studies, which develops the theory and methodology of studying and using historical sources; historiography, which studies the formation and development of historical science (history of history). There are also a number of special (auxiliary) historical disciplines that study certain forms and types of historical sources:

§ Paleography – an auxiliary historical discipline (a special historical and philological discipline) that studies the history of writing, the patterns of development of its graphic forms, as well as monuments of ancient writing in order to read them, determine the author, time and place of creation. Paleography studies the evolution of the graphic forms of letters, written signs, the proportions of their constituent elements, the types and evolution of fonts, the system of abbreviations and their graphic designation, writing materials and tools. A special branch of paleography studies the graphics of secret writing systems (cryptography).

§ Diplomatics – an auxiliary historical discipline that studies historical acts (legal documents). She examines ancient documents of a diplomatic and legal nature: charters, acts and similar texts and their originals. One of its tasks is to distinguish forged acts from real ones.

§ Genealogy – an auxiliary historical discipline that deals with the study of family relationships of people, the history of clans, the origin of individuals, the establishment of family ties, the compilation of generational lists and family trees. Genealogy is related to heraldry, diplomacy and many other historical disciplines. Since the beginning of the 21st century, due to scientific progress, genetic genealogy, using human DNA analysis, has been gaining popularity.

§ Heraldry - a special historical discipline that deals with the study of coats of arms, as well as the tradition and practice of their use. It is part of emblems - a group of interrelated disciplines that study emblems. The difference between coats of arms and other emblems is that their structure, use and legal status comply with special, historically established rules. Heraldry precisely determines what and how can be applied to the state coat of arms, family coat of arms, and so on, and explains the meaning of certain figures.

§ Sphragistics – an auxiliary historical discipline that studies seals (matrices) and their impressions on various materials. Initially developed as a part of diplomacy, dealing with determining the authenticity of documents.

§ Historical metrology - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the measures used in the past - length, area, volume, weight - in their historical development. Often units of measurement did not form the metric system; they are classified as traditional measurement systems. Historical metrology studies the history of the genesis and development of various measurement systems, the names of individual measures, their quantitative relationships, and establishes their real values, that is, their correspondence to modern metric systems. Metrology is closely related to numismatics, since many peoples in the past had measures of weight that coincided with monetary units and had the same name.

§ Numismatics – an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of coinage and monetary circulation.

§ Social functions of numismatics: identification of numismatic cultural monuments; the study of characteristic facts, connections and processes that contribute to a more in-depth understanding of history and fill gaps in historical science.

§ Chronology – an auxiliary historical discipline that establishes the dates of historical events and documents; sequence of historical events in time; a list of any events in their time sequence.

§ Historical geography – an auxiliary historical discipline that studies history through the “prism” of geography; It is also the geography of a territory at a certain historical stage of its development. At the moment, there are 8 sectors of historical geography: - historical physical geography (historical geography) - the most conservative branch, studies changes in the landscape; - historical political geography - studies changes in the political map, political system, routes of conquest; - historical geography of population – studies ethnographic and geographical features of population distribution in territories; - historical social geography – studies the relationships of society, the change of social strata; - historical cultural geography – studies spiritual and material culture; - historical geography of interaction between society and nature – direct (human influence on nature) and reverse (nature on human); - historical economic geography – studies the development of production, industrial revolutions; historical and geographical regional studies.

§ Archival studies – a scientific discipline that studies and develops theoretical, methodological and organizational issues of archival affairs and its history.

§ Archeology - a historical discipline that studies the historical past of mankind from material sources.

§ Ethnography - part of historical science that studies ethnic peoples and other ethnic formations, their origin (ethnogenesis), composition, settlement, cultural and everyday characteristics, as well as their material and spiritual culture.

§ Historiography is an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of historical science. Historiography examines the correct application of the scientific method in writing a historical work, focusing on the author, his sources, the separation of facts from interpretation, as well as the author's style, preferences, and the audience for which he wrote a given work in the field of history.

§ Historical computer science – an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the methods of using information technologies in the study of the historical process, the publication of historical research and the teaching of historical disciplines, as well as in archival and museum affairs.

History has traditionally been the basis of humanities education and the most important factor in the formation of people's self-awareness. It performs a number of functions that often go beyond the world of science. These include:

- descriptive (narrative) function, which boils down to recording what is happening and the primary systematization of information; cognitive (cognitive, explanatory) function, the essence of which is the understanding and explanation of historical processes and phenomena;

- prognostic (foreseeing the future) and practical-recommendatory (practical-political) functions. Both involve using the lessons of the past to improve the lives of human communities in the near and distant future;

- educational (cultural and ideological) function, social memory function. These functions are responsible for the formation of historical consciousness, self-identification of society and the individual.

Principles and methods of historical science

The process of formation of historical science is inextricably linked with the improvement of the methodology of history, that is, the entire complex of principles and techniques within the framework of which historical research is carried out. The basic principles of scientific historical research include:

- the principle of objectivity, which implies the reconstruction of historical reality based on genuine facts and knowledge of the objective laws of historical development. Each phenomenon must be studied, taking into account both its positive and negative aspects, regardless of the subjective attitude towards it, without distorting or adjusting the existing facts to fit pre-developed schemes;

- the principle of determinism is a scientific approach, according to which all observed phenomena are not random, but have a cause, are determined by certain prerequisites, and all reality appears as a web of cause-and-effect relationships;

- the principle of historicism, which requires consideration of the phenomenon under study taking into account a specific chronological framework and a specific historical situation. In this case, it is necessary to consider the phenomenon in development, that is, take into account what causes gave rise to it, how it was formed and how it changed over time. It is also necessary to study each phenomenon in conjunction with other phenomena that existed in that period and developed over time, in their interrelation and interdependence (the principle of the unity of the historical process);

- the principle of the social approach, implying the need to take into account the interests, traditions and psychology of certain classes, estates, social strata and groups, the correlation of class interests with universal human interests, the subjective moment in the practical activities of governments, parties, individuals;

- the principle of alternativeness, allowing for the possibility of multivariate historical development. Guided by it, the researcher creates models of alternative development by comparing them with similar phenomena in world history, and determines the degree of likelihood of a particular event occurring. Recognizing historical alternativeness allows us to see untapped opportunities and learn lessons for the future.

Methods used in historical research can be divided into two groups: general scientific and special (special scientific). Special historical methods include:

- a concrete historical or ideographic method, the essence of which is to describe facts, phenomena and events, without which no research is possible;

- comparative historical method, which implies that a phenomenon is studied not in itself, but in the context of similar phenomena separated in time and space; comparison with them makes it possible to better understand the phenomenon under study;

- historical-genetic method, which is associated with tracing the genesis, i.e. the origin and development of the phenomenon being studied;

- the retrospective method consists of sequential penetration into the past in order to identify the causes of events; – the historical-typological method is associated with the classification of objects of knowledge according to a selected attribute(s) to facilitate their analysis;

- The chronological method involves presenting historical material in chronological order. In addition, historical research uses methods of other sciences that come to the aid of history within the framework of interdisciplinary interaction: linguistics, anthropology, biology, medicine, sociology, psychology, geography, geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics (statistics). A significant part of these methods is used through the mediation of source studies, in the process of expanding the source base.

The essence of the world historical process

The world historical process is an objective reality, the sphere of social existence in its historical dimension. In philosophy, historical life is understood as a coherent, ordered integrity, the movement of which has a certain direction. The philosophy of history has its own educational goals and objectives.

§ Knowledge of the logic of the historical process, i.e. its unity, integrity, general orientation. It is also necessary to establish the causes and factors of historical development, to discover the universal laws of history as a whole and its individual stages. Their discovery and knowledge is understood as comprehension of the main and essential things in history. History, in its concreteness, is always and everywhere a collection of infinitely diverse and unique historical biographies of individual countries and peoples. But this does not contradict the principle of unity and integrity of the world historical process. True, in this situation, an opposite view of historical life is possible: all phenomena are considered as unique and unrepeatable, regularities are denied, and, as a consequence, the unity of world history.

§ Carry out a chronological division of historical life - stages, eras, stages. The global process is presented as orderly, where each stage is determined by the past and has significance for the future. Periodization is an inevitable moment and the basis for explaining history. The main problem in this case is the choice of a basis that would help highlight the characteristics that separate some groups of societies from others. For example, such grounds can be economic factors (productive forces, production relations) or non-economic factors (religion, way of thinking, political organization).

§ Identify the general form of history. This problem arises as a search for relationships between the general content of history and specific, diverse historical phenomena. It also allows us to clarify the nature of the relationship between the past, present and future. This may be a linearly directed unfolding, in which times cannot repeat each other; it can be a circular or cyclical movement, which does not bring with it any fundamental novelty; this may be a spiral course of historical life, meaning a certain combination of linear and circular movement, etc.

§ Discover the meaning of the historical development of mankind. The meaning of history is seen in the implementation of certain principles, ideas, essences or values. Such factors build the historical life of society into an organized, orderly whole, transparent to philosophical understanding. This state is complemented by an anthropological thesis designed to express the purpose of human existence.

The variety of theories of the world historical process requires a certain systematization, within which several leading directions and approaches can be identified, for example, religious and secular, formational and civilizational.

Patterns and stages of the historical process.

To identify the patterns of the world-historical process, the concept of “type of civilizational or historical development” is used - a civilization or several civilizations with similar basic principles of economic management and organization of political power, a commonality of fundamental principles of mentality and historical destiny. The study of world history allows us to identify four types of historical development: development within the annual cycle or non-progressive type, eastern or cyclical development type, western or progressive development type and mixed development type.

The first in time of occurrence is development within the annual cycle (development in a circle), which is somewhat conventionally called the type of non-progressive development, which arose simultaneously with the appearance of modern humans approximately 40 thousand years ago. Currently, it is preserved among the Indians of America, the aborigines of Australia and New Zealand, a number of small peoples of Siberia and the Far North, and some tribes of Central Africa. The main occupations of the people were hunting and gathering, as well as beekeeping and fishing, then farming and cattle breeding. There was public ownership of the means of production and social equality. The main social unit was the clan community, headed by elders. Communities united into tribes. The consciousness of ancient people was mythological. It is characterized by the unity of the rudiments of religion, philosophy, science and art. The essence of this type of development is fully characterized by its name. Forms of human and social activity change depending on the time of year and are reproduced from generation to generation. If changes occur, they take place over thousands of years.

The second in time of occurrence is the eastern type or the type of cyclic development. It originated with the emergence of the first states in the Ancient East in 4-3 thousand BC. and also continues to exist today. This type of development includes a number of ancient civilizations (Sumerian, Akkadian, ancient Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, etc.), the civilizations of pre-Columbian America (Inca, Aztec, Maya, Zapotec, etc.), medieval Mongolian; modern eastern civilizations formed during the periods of the ancient world and the Middle Ages (Chinese-Confucian, Indo-Buddhist, Islamic).

The history of Russia is an integral part of world history. general and specific in historical development

It is impossible to study the history of one state and understand the deep meaning of the phenomena that took place in it without studying together the history of other states and the entire world historical process as a whole. The history of the Russian and foreign states “evolves” throughout the entire world historical process, i.e. selects the most sustainable forms of government that meet the needs (economic, spiritual, etc.) of people in a given specific historical period. Throughout the history of mankind, people have come up with a diverse number of forms of government, these include monarchies, parliamentary and presidential republics, mixed forms of government, etc. If we take the primitive society of any people, then we can observe that the evolution of forms of government in the early stages occurred along the same path, with some cultural and national characteristics inherent to a given people. But at a certain stage, some states remained at the same level, while others moved forward to forms of government that meet the needs of the people, their people. There are many reasons for this: the development of culture, science, social relations between people, the geographical location of a particular state, etc. As an example of evolution, we can show modern Western democratic society and the society of the peoples of central Africa with its inherent archaic features of the structure of the state and living conditions of people. Russia, as part of Europe, went through a development path from the tribal system to the feudal system (serfdom) and until the 20th century, Russia, like many countries in Western and Eastern Europe, did not know any other form of government other than monarchy - a form of government in which the supreme state power is partially or belongs entirely to one person - the monarch and, as a rule, is inherited.

World history studies and presents the entire long and difficult path traveled by humanity from ancient times to the present day. The history of Russia is part of world history. The object of study is the process of the emergence and development of the human community in the territories that were and are currently part of the Russian state. The history of Russia cannot but be at the same time Russian history or the history of the Russian people, who make up 80% of the population of the Russian Federation. The Russian man with his character, traditions, and mentality became the creator of a unique Russian civilization, the main figure of Russian life and history.

Development of historical science in Russia: classical and modern Russian historical science

The history of Russia as a science has its own history, and you need to know it. If history as a science is a systematic depiction of the development of societies over time, then a natural question arises: when did Russian history become a science? It turns out that not so long ago and not all at once. The transformation of Russian history into science occurred gradually.

The desire to describe the history of Russia, as S. F. Platonov showed well, was manifested first in the compilation of ancient chronicles, then - “chronographs”, “synopsis”. Features of chronicles and chronographs are the content of random information about events from traditions and legends. Then in the works of German scientists I. G. Bayer, G. F. Miller, A. L. Shletser, who worked in Russia under Peter and later, in the works of Russian scientists V. N. Tatishchev, M. P. Pogodin, M. M . Shcherbatova(XVIII)

However, the first comprehensive view of Russia’s historical past was presented only at the beginning of the 19th century. N. M. Karamzin in his 12-volume work “History of the Russian State.” In Russian history, he saw and illuminated the main process - the creation of national state power, to which Rus' was led by its talented leaders. Among them are two main ones: Ivan III and Peter the Great (XV and early XVIII centuries).

After Karamzin, famous historians were N.A. Polevoy, M.T. Kachenovsky, N.G. Ustryalov. But the strictly scientific integrity of historical views was first expressed in our country in the 40s of the 19th century. in the works of S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin, who laid the foundations of the historical and legal school in historical science in Russia, and historical science in Russia finally reached its maturity.

Scientists of the German historical school (XVIII - early XIX centuries) believed that human society develops as an organism, according to strict objective laws, which neither chance nor personality, no matter how brilliant, can reject. And the task of historians is to discover these laws and equip their society with knowledge. Hence the requirement for historians: conclusions must be substantiated by facts and follow from the facts. Without facts there is no science in history.

It was the German scientists who, with their strict demands, turned history from free stories, tales and fables into a strict science. And this tradition of theirs formed the basis of historical science in Russia. The beginning was made by historians of the 18th century. and representatives of the historical and legal school. Then this tradition was continued by supporters of the historical-economic school and the school of Soviet historians. Historians S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin, based on facts, considered Russian history as a natural replacement of some laws of society by others and studied the development of state forms of social life under the influence of nature and the characteristics of tribal life.

The historical and economic school was represented by V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). He considered the development of society as a result of the influence of socio-economic conditions, that is, not by the will of kings or other persons, but under the influence of objective conditions, first of all.

In the 20th century A school of Soviet historians emerged in Russia. They described history from the perspective of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and a narrow class formational approach. In recent years, the desire of our historians to illuminate the past from the perspective of a civilizational approach has been noticeable. The following are distinguished: cultural-historical school and complex, multifactorial school.

Concepts for the development of historical science.

Knowing the characteristics of each school allows you to notice the positions of their authors when reading works. Knowledge of concepts plays the same role.

Stand out:

1. Christian;

2. Rationalistic;

3. Cultural-historical concept.

Supporters of the Christian concept correlate the history of mankind with the religious (Christian idea) of the creation of the world and man by God and present the course of history as a manifestation of God's will.

During Soviet times, history books written from the perspective of a Christian concept were not published. However, at the end of the 90s. such a book appeared. This is Budzilovich P.I. Russian history. In it, the preface is called: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” here the history of Russia is divided into 4 periods:

1. Pagan (Before the Baptism of Rus');

2. From the Baptism of Rus' in 988 to the church schism in the 17th century. and Peter I. The Creation of Holy Rus';

3. From the schism of Peter I to February 1917 “Synodal period”;

The main idea of ​​the textbook: “the Russian Orthodox monarchy, apparently, was the most perfect form of government for Russia.”

The rationalist concept is based on the ideas of the German philosophers Hegel and K. Marx. Its supporters view history as the result not of God's will, but of rational, i.e. conscious, independent activity of people, which is based on the actions of objective laws. The task of historians is to reveal their effect, to promote society’s understanding of them and take them into account in life. According to Hegel, the history of mankind is the embodiment in the activities of people of the creative power of the “world mind”, “world spirit”, “absolute idea”, which existed outside of man (like God). K. Marx - proposed a materialist understanding of history (materialist approach). That is, that the world is material, it consists of moving matter that takes various forms: chemical, physical, organic, social. Humanity, human society is one of the forms of ever-moving matter. The main meaning of history, according to Marx, is the production of material goods, during which classes with different, opposing interests are formed in society: ruling classes, exploiting, and classes of producers of material goods, exploited.

There is a constant struggle between them. The struggle between classes is the main driving force of history. And the task of historians is to reveal this class struggle.

Formational approach in historical science.

K. Marx developed the theory of socio-economic formations. The history of humanity is the history of formations:

1. Primitive communal system;

2. Slaveholding;

3. Feudal;

4. Capitalist;

5. Communist, to which humanity will come in the future.

They differ, each in their own way of producing material goods and forms of class struggle. Formations follow one after another in a linear plan as stages of development of society, from lower to higher. Based on the Marxist theory of formations, a formational approach in historical science has developed.

In Russia, Marx's theory was corrected by Lenin and Stalin and was called “Marxism-Leninism”. And Soviet historians were obliged to cover history only in strict accordance with the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. What Marx and Lenin said was not subject to criticism. The decisive role in society was recognized for the classes producing material goods, the poorest strata of society, and history was covered from the perspective of these classes and strata. This led to its distortion; spiritual culture was assigned a service role in the life of society, and the role of man was underestimated.

Civilization approach in historical science.

Based on the cultural-historical concept and theory of civilization, a civilizational approach has developed in historical science.

Until 1917, Russian historical science developed freely on the basis of all three concepts. After 1917, especially since the 1930s when the totalitarian system in the USSR completed its formation, the Christian concept was rejected as hostile, the cultural-historical one was banned as bourgeois, and the rationalist one was reduced to its Marxist-Leninist branch, on the basis of which a formational approach was developed in Soviet historical science. If in European democratic countries this concept was based on liberal democratic ideas stemming from the philosophy of Hegel, Marx and other thinkers, and contributed to the free development of historical science, then in our country this concept hindered the development of science.

In the mid-30s. “A Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” was published, edited by I.V. Stalin and providing examples of the formational approach, according to which later, after the 30s, the history of Russia and world history was rewritten, generations of Soviet people were brought up, including number of historians. All this must be taken into account when listening to people of older generations, reading works and history textbooks published before the 90s.

And - even from those published in the 90s. many bear the stamp of a formational approach.

Overcoming the negative meanings of the formational approach involves refusing to absolutize its criteria, placing human historians, people, society, culture in all its forms in the center of attention, recognizing the legitimacy, positive role and negative meanings of all types of property created by human society, and all historically emerged classes society, study and functional roles in the life of civilization; A civilizational approach is needed in the study of history.

A modern approach to the study of history is possible only by taking into account the ideas of the theory of civilizations. At the same time, students of history should not be confused by the word “theory.” The fact is that, when studying the theory of civilization, we actually consider the most general features and trends in the development of human society, i.e. the actual history of society only in the most general ideas about it. Therefore, the ideas of the theory of civilization are of methodological importance for the study of Russian history.

N. Ya. Danilevsky identified three stages in the development of societies into civilization:

1. ethnographic,

2. state,

3. civilizational.

There are theories of local civilizations - as large communities and their cultures that once arose and existed in time and space, and - a theory of universal civilization, which assumes that humanity arose united and developed accordingly.

According to Danilevsky, civilizations are “forms of the historical life of mankind,” distinguished by cultural and historical type, i.e., originality, originality of religious, social, everyday, industrial, political development.

Civilizations have existed for thousands of years and have reached a high degree of development. The founders gave them definitions in the light of their origin, development and differences from the pre-civilized state of societies. P. A. Sorokin gave them a more complete and profound definition. According to Sorokin, civilizations are large cultural systems or supersystems, supranational cultural communities. They largely determine the main manifestations of sociocultural life, the organization and functions of small groups and cultural systems, the mentality and behavior of individuals, the nature of events, trends and processes. Therefore, without studying and understanding civilizations, we will not be able to properly understand the nature and causes of changes in society.

The theory of universal human civilizations was reflected in the book of the American scientist O. Toffler “The Third Wave”. The essence of the theory: humanity is united and from a certain time, about 10 thousand years ago, began to acquire common features and trends and since then has represented a single civilization. In its development there are 3 stages, or civilizations:

The first stage is an agrarian-craft civilization, or traditional society. It appeared 10 thousand years ago. It was based on manual labor, traditions dominated, and development was slow.

The second stage is industrial society (civilization), caused by the industrial revolution of the 18th-19th centuries. Development is accelerating.

The third stage is information civilization, caused by the information and computer revolution. The developed capitalist countries of the West joined it in the 1960-1980s. The development is based on computers and personal computers, computerization. A new quality of culture emerges: it is based on information and technology, the intellectual, spiritual, and moral potential of a person increases, on the basis of which a new, information civilization is formed. Manual labor is reduced to a minimum and will disappear in the future.

Modern discussions about Russia's place in the world historical process

The history of Russia is part of the world and cannot be considered outside its context. Let's look at the basic concepts.

According to the Marxist-Leninist point of view, ionic features do not matter. But since Marxism was a product of Western culture, its supporters and followers actually propose to consider Russia by analogy with societies belonging to Western civilization. The main thing comes down to the following: a change in socio-economic formations was taking place in the country, albeit with a lag behind Europe and with significant peculiarities. However, in the second half of the 19th century, supporters of this point of view argue, it sharply accelerated its development and, almost simultaneously with advanced European countries, moved to monopoly capitalism (imperialism) and, finally, earlier than other countries, approached the transition to the highest formation - communism ( its first stage is socialism).

It must be borne in mind that socialism is a social ideal and, like any ideal, it cannot be realized in practice. But even if we ignore this, in order to accept such a concept as the main one when considering the history of Russia, it is necessary to give convincing answers to at least two questions. Why did a country that lagged behind European countries and belonged to the second echelon end up being the first in the transition to socialism?

Why is none of the first-tier countries, i.e. developed, did not follow Russia into socialism? Despite the abundance of Marxist-Leninist literature, published in thousands of copies in Soviet times, there is no convincing answer to these questions, except for statements about the treachery of the world bourgeoisie and the betrayal of social democracy, which cannot be taken seriously. Nevertheless, supporters of this concept still exist in considerable numbers, especially among professional social scientists of the older generation. However, this is an a priori point of view: suitable historical facts are selected for a predetermined theoretical concept.

The next point of view is to a certain extent close to the first, since it proposes to consider Russia as part of Western civilization. Its supporters recognize only Western experience and apply only Western categories to Russia (while excluding the Marxist concept). They believe that Russia, although lagging behind, developed in line with Western civilization. On the eve of the First World War its development reached a high level. However, in a country weakened by the First World War, the Bolsheviks took power, relying on the illiterate, lumpen masses, and Russia left the civilizational highway. It established ochlocracy—the power of the crowd, which developed into totalitarianism (violence on a mass scale). Only now, according to supporters of this concept, have conditions emerged for a return to civilization, which is understood exclusively as Western. Thus, this position is taken by those who advocate a rapid transition of Russia to a completely Western version of development. These are, as a rule, the most radical democrats from among economists, historians, and political scientists. The proposed concept is Bolshevism in reverse.

Supporters of another point of view classify Russia as an eastern-type country. They believe that attempts to include Russia in the European path of development: the adoption of Christianity, the reforms of Peter I - ended in failure. At first glance, it is very similar, especially about the tyrant - the party leader. At second glance, we can state the presence of obvious features of the Eastern type in pre-revolutionary and Soviet society. During the existence of the USSR, exclusively vertical connections functioned in society (through power structures). For example, until recently, two factories, separated only by a fence, could communicate with each other exclusively through the ministry. In the history of Russia, including the Soviet period, one can trace a cyclical pattern: a period of reforms was inevitably followed by a period of counter-reforms, a revolution was followed by a counter-revolution, etc. However, in pre-revolutionary Russia there was a secular state, private property, and market relations. Apparently, not everything is so simple.

R. Kipling once said: “The East is the East. But the West is the West, and they will never meet.” However, there is a point of view according to which East and West came together and they came together in Russia. The idea of ​​a Eurasian, special essence of Russia has been present in the public consciousness and in theoretical developments for a long time - several centuries. P. Ya. Chaadaev wrote in 1836: “One of the saddest features of our unique civilization is that we are still discovering truths that have become hackneyed in other countries... The fact is that we have never gone along with other peoples, we do not belong to any of the known families of the human race, neither to the West nor to the East, and we have no traditions of either one or the other.” The sharp turn that the country made in 1917-1920 gave rise to a movement that spread among the young intelligentsia in exile: it was called “Eurasianism.” For the first time, Eurasianism loudly declared itself in the early 20s. Prince N.S. Trubetskoy, P.L. Savitsky, G.B. Frolovsky and others, first in Sofia, then in Berlin and Prague, published several collections in a row with characteristic titles. Later, several more representatives of the emigrant intelligentsia joined this trend: philosopher L. P. Karsavin, historian G. V. Vernadsky, lawyer N. N Alekseev and some others.

The main idea of ​​Eurasianism: Russia is different from both the West and the East, it is a Special World - Eurasia. What arguments were given to support this thesis? The Russian nationality, formed under the strong influence of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes, took the initiative to unite multilingual ethnic groups into a single multinational nation of Eurasians, which lives in a single state - Russia. The exclusivity and uniqueness of Russian culture, which is Eurasian-Russian, was emphasized: “The culture of Russia is neither a European culture, nor one of the Asian ones, nor a sum or mechanical combination of elements of both. It must be contrasted with the cultures of Europe and Asia as a middle, Eurasian culture . Much has been written about symphony, conciliarity, and the integrity of the Russian world. Thus, the ideological and religious basis of Russia was highlighted. Eurasians assigned a decisive role in this part to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church. Absolutizing the role of the Orthodox Church in spiritual life, they idealized the importance of the state in public life. The state acted in their concept as the supreme master of society, possessing strong power, but at the same time maintaining contact with the people. Russia was viewed as a closed ocean-continent. It has everything. If the whole world collapses, Russia can exist alone in the whole world without losses, the Eurasians argued.

At the same time, Eurasians were sharply negative towards the West; Westernism was considered alien to Russia. Along with this, the special influence on the Russian (Russian) self-awareness of the eastern - “Turanian” factor was emphasized, without taking into account which, according to Eurasianists, it is impossible to understand the course of Russian history. From here came the opposition between Europe and Asia, and the connection between Russia and Asia was transmitted.

Passions were boiling around Eurasianism in the emigration. There were supporters, but more opponents, who saw in this hobby an attempt to justify Bolshevism. Most of those who began this research in the late 20s. moved away from Eurasianism. Agents were introduced into their ranks by the USSR security agencies. In 1928, the newspaper “Eurasia” was published in Paris with money from the NKVD, which led to the collapse and discredit of this trend. It finally died out with the beginning of the Second World War.

For Soviet people at that time, Eurasianism was a closed page. Nowadays, the works of Eurasianists are actively published, their ideas are commented on and developed, which were largely explained by the crisis of Western civilization, the decline in the prestige of Western values, as well as Russia’s sharp turn during the First World War away from European values. In the conditions of modern political struggle, the Eurasian concept was simplified and became a tool for the propaganda of Russian nationalism. We must agree that Russia cannot be reduced in its pure form to either the East or the West; it is necessary to really take into account the influence of the eastern factor on its development. But this, perhaps, is all that can be accepted from the Eurasians. The concept of Russian history cannot be based on these ideas, especially in their modern modifications.

Increasingly, regardless of different points of view on the essence of Russia, the category “civilization” is used. Communists, monarchists, and liberals easily included their ideas in this concept. We constantly come across the phrase “Russian civilization” or, more specifically, “Russian civilization”. Despite all the differences in positions, liberal, communist, and patriarchal-conservative ideas about Russian civilization are based on the peculiarities of the Russian mentality, Russian culture, Russian Orthodoxy, since they view Russia as an integrity. Some politicians and cultural figures of a national-patriotic trend literally fall into a trance at the word Russia, and then the concept of “Russian civilization” sounds like a spell that appeals not to reason, but to faith or even superstition. All this is far from harmless. Here lies the danger of manipulating public consciousness, which lacks a clear historical understanding of the world - the old has collapsed, the new is emerging slowly and difficultly. It is argued that this civilization has a special spiritual basis - Orthodoxy, it is distinguished by a special form of community, collectivism - conciliarity, a special attitude to economic activity, which is characterized as “non-acquisitiveness” (i.e. lack of desire for profit). The creation of a powerful state is considered the greatest achievement of Russian civilization. Western civilization, in contrast to Russian, is characterized as mundane, devoid of spirituality, consumerist and even aggressively consumerist. O. And Platonov, the modern author of several books on this topic, writes. “Russian civilization rejected the Western European concept of development as predominantly scientific, technical, material progress, a constant increase in the mass of goods and services, the possession of more and more things, developing into a real race of consumption, “greed for things.” The Russian worldview contrasted this concept with the idea of ​​improving the soul, transforming life through overcoming the sinful nature of man.”

The multitude of peoples with different civilizational orientations that were part of the state (sometimes more, sometimes less, but always many) turned Russia into a heterogeneous, segmented society. This means that there is not one (Russian) Russia, but many “Russias” in one state. At different times and to different extents, it included natural communities (the peoples of Siberia and Northern Europe), professing paganism, enclaves of Muslim civilization (Volga region, Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Crimea, a significant part of the Caucasus). As well as Buddhist regions (Kalmykia, Tuva, Buryatia, Khakassia), regions with a population belonging to European civilization (Finland, Poland, the Baltic states and some others). All these peoples profess values ​​that are incapable of fusion, synthesis, or integration. They are not reducible to Russian. Muslim, Lamaist, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, pagan and other values ​​cannot be brought together and subordinated to Orthodoxy.

Russia does not have sociocultural unity or integrity. Because of this, it cannot be expressed within the framework of the “East-West” alternative (that is, the presence of eastern and western features); it is not an independent civilizational type (Eurasia, for example). For centuries, pre-revolutionary Russia preserved and increased sociocultural and spiritual pluralism. They tried to change the essence of Russia in Soviet times, but without success (this was shown by the collapse of the USSR). Russia remains a heterogeneous society in terms of civilization even now.

Russia - USSR cannot be considered as a single civilization. We can talk about the civilizational characteristics of certain segments and the forms of their coexistence and interaction within the state, as well as about a certain development paradigm (or paradigms) common to the entire country, which was not constant, but changed at different stages of its history. The analysis of the material is based on the following basic principles:

Russia is a civilizationally heterogeneous society. This is a special, historically established conglomerate of peoples belonging to different types of life activity, united by a powerful, centralized state with a Great Russian core.

The civilizational paradigm for the development of this complex, huge community changed at different stages of history . Russia is geopolitically located between two powerful centers of civilizational influence - East and West; it includes peoples developing both Western and Eastern variants. This inevitably affected the choice of development paths. With sharp turns, historical whirlwinds “moved” the country either closer to the West or closer to the East. Russia was a sort of “drifting society” at the crossroads of civilizational magnetic fields. In this regard, for our country, like no other, throughout history the problem of choosing alternatives has been extremely acute. Which way to develop?

Factors of originality of Russian history and culture.

In Russian historiography, there are four factors that determined the features (backwardness, delay, originality, uniqueness) of Russian history:

1.Natural-climatic: the life of a peasant depended on the weather and soil fertility. Unfavorable conditions had a direct impact on the type. The ruling class created rigid levers of the state mechanism aimed at withdrawing surplus product. This is where the centuries-old tradition of the despotic power of the autocracy comes from - serfdom. Low productivity and dependence on natural conditions have determined the stability of communal farming principles in Russia. The natural and climatic factor largely determined the features of the national character of Russians: a) extreme tension of forces for a relatively long period of time, b) collectivism, c) readiness to help, even to the point of self-sacrifice.

2. Geopolitical factor: a) vast, sparsely populated territory unprotected by natural barriers, b) a huge network of rivers, c) insecure borders, d) isolation from the seas. The geopolitical factor determined such features of the Russian people as national tolerance, lack of nationalism, and worldwide responsiveness.

3. Religious factor: Orthodoxy came from Byzantium. Orthodoxy is characterized by a movement for the better, ideas of social justice, Christianity is distinguished by great freedom of inner life, and collectivism is characteristic. Catholicism from Rome, its values ​​are the market, wealth, Catholics have the main features of power, dominance, discipline.

4. Factor of social organization: its main elements: a) the primary social and economic unit is a corporation (community, collective farm, etc.), and not a private entity as in the West, b) the state is not a superstructure over society as in the West, and the creator of society, c) the state either exists or it is not effective, d) the state, society, the individual are not separated, but integral, e) the state relies on the corporation. 3. Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history. ID Territory of the Future. 2006.

4. Moiseev V.V. Russian history. Volume 1. Belgorod State Technological University named after. V.G. Shukhova, EBS ASV. 2013.

5. Petrovskaya I.F. For the scientific study of Russian history! On the methods and techniques of historical research. Petropolis. 2009. Semennikova L.I. Russia in the world community of civilizations. Textbook for universities. - Bryansk, 1999.

9. Sakharov A.N. On new approaches to the history of Russia // Questions of history. 2002.

10. Shelkovnikova N.V. History of Russia for foreigners. Amur Humanitarian and Pedagogical State University. 2010.

2

Russian historical science has existed for over 250 years and has made a significant contribution to the development and deepening of knowledge both about the history of our country and about world history in general. It is characterized by a wealth of different schools and directions.

The emergence of Russian history as a science is inextricably linked with the name of Peter I. He founded the Russian Academy of Sciences and began to actively invite foreign scientists to Russia. This practice continued under his successors. A significant contribution to the development of Russian historical science was made by the German historians G. Bayer (1693-1738), G. Miller (1705-1783), and A. Schletser (1735-1809). Russian science owes them the introduction into scientific circulation of such a historical source as Russian chronicles. They were the first to translate into Latin and publish the bulk of Russian chronicle sources. F. Miller, in particular, spent ten years in Siberia, where he collected and systematized the richest archival materials. The contribution of these scientists is difficult to overestimate - for the first time a group of sources was introduced into circulation, surpassing the chronicles of European countries in scale; For the first time, Europe learned of the existence on its eastern borders of a huge country with a rich history. Thanks to their efforts, Russian science immediately adopted the most advanced methods of working with sources - comparative linguistic analysis, critical method of study, etc. It was these scientists who first wrote the ancient history of Rus' on the basis of chronicle data, introduced information about the settlement of the Slavs, about the most ancient Slavic settlements, about the founding of Kyiv, about the first Russian princes.

The first Russian historian proper was one of the associates of Peter I, the scientist, encyclopedist and politician V.N. Tatishchev (1686-1750), author of the four-volume “Russian History”, covering the period from Rurik to Mikhail Romanov. For the worldview of V.N. Tatishchev is characterized by a rationalistic approach - for him, history is not the result of God's providence, but the result of human deeds. The idea of ​​the need for a strong autocratic power runs like a red thread through all his work. Only a decisive, strong-willed, educated sovereign, aware of the tasks facing the country, can lead it to prosperity. The strengthening of autocracy leads to the strengthening of the country, weakening, to its decline.

V.N. Tatishchev collected a unique collection of Russian chronicles. Unfortunately, after his death his entire library burned down. But in his “History” he copiously quoted these chronicles (literally entire pages). As a result, it contains a number of information that is not found anywhere else, and is itself used as a historical source.

Works by V.N. Tatishchev, as well as the works of other historians of the 18th century. M.M Shcherbatova (1733-1790) and I.N. Boltin (1735-1792) were known only to a narrow circle of specialists. The first author to achieve truly all-Russian fame was N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826). His twelve-volume “History of the Russian State,” written in the first quarter X 9th century, became one of the most read books in Russia. N.M. Karamzin began writing “History” being already a famous writer. His book, written in lively, vivid, figurative language, read like a Walter Scott novel. A.S. Pushkin wrote: “Everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their Fatherland. Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus.” On the book by N.M. Karamzin was brought up by generations of Russian people, and it is still read with interest.

The main idea of ​​N.M. Karamzin - the history of a country is the history of its sovereigns. This is essentially a series of political biographies. Written after the Patriotic War of 1812, the book is imbued with a sense of patriotism and love for the glorious past of Russia. N.M. Karamzin viewed the history of our country as an inextricable part of world history. He drew attention to Russia's lag behind European nations, considering this to be the result of the 250-year Tatar-Mongol yoke.

Russian historical science became most famous in the world thanks to the works of the “state school” historians K.D. Kavelina (1818-1885), B.N. Chicherin (1828-1904) and especially S.M. Solovyov (1820-1879), author of the twenty-nine-volume “History of Russia since Ancient Times.”

The main object of their research was system state And legal institutions. According to “statist” historians, it is through studying the functioning of the system of government institutions and its evolution that one can gain an understanding of all aspects of the country’s history (economics, culture, etc.).

Historians of the “state school” explained the specifics of Russian history, its difference from Western history, by the geographical and climatic features of Russia. It was from these features that the specificity of the social system, the existence of serfdom, the preservation of the community, etc. were derived. Many ideas of the state school are now being returned to historical science and are being comprehended at a new level.

The vast majority of Russian historians viewed Russia as part of Europe, and Russian history as an inextricable part of world history.

subject to general laws of development. However, the idea of ​​a special path of development for Russia, different from Western Europe, also existed in Russian historiography. It was carried out in the works of historians who belonged to the official-protective direction - M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875), D.I. Illovaisky (1832-1920). They opposed history of Russia history of Western Europe. There states were created as a result of the conquest of some peoples by others, in our country - as a result of the voluntary calling of sovereigns. Therefore, the history of Europe is characterized by revolutions, class struggle, and the formation of a parliamentary system. For Russia, these phenomena are deeply alien. In our country, communal principles predominate, the unity of the king with the people. Only in our country has the Christian religion, Orthodoxy, been preserved in its pure, original form. Historians of this direction enjoyed the support of the state and were the authors of official textbooks.

A major contribution to the development of Russian historical thought was made by the works of N.I. Kostomarov (1817-1885) and A.P. Shchapova (1831-1876). These historians first turned to the study of history directly people, his way of life, customs, character, psychological characteristics.

The pinnacle of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography was the work of the outstanding Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). There was not a single branch of historical science to the development of which he did not make his contribution. He owns the largest works on source study, historiography of Russian history, history of government institutions, etc. The main work of V.O. Klyuchevsky - five-volume “Course of Russian History”. For the first time he paid attention to the action of the economic factor in the history of the country. It was this factor that formed the basis of the periodization of Russian history he proposed. IN. Klyuchevsky did not consider the economic factor to be decisive. Based on a multifactorial position, he considered the role of the economy along with the role of geographical, natural, climatic, and cultural features. However, recognition of the role of economics in the development of society determined the popularity of V.O. Klyuchevsky and in Soviet times. His works were republished many times; Soviet historians considered V.O. Klyuchevsky as his spiritual predecessor, which was largely facilitated by his democratic beliefs and critical attitude towards autocracy. It was believed that V.O. Klyuchevsky “came close to Marxism.”

Since the beginning of the 20th century. in Russian historiography the idea begins to take hold Marxism. The first Russian Marxist historians were N.A. Rozhkov (18b8-1927) and M.N. Pokrovsky (1868-1932).

ON THE. Rozhkov actively participated in the revolutionary movement, was a member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, a deputy of the Third State Duma, was repeatedly arrested, and was exiled to Siberia. After the revolution of 1917, he broke up with the Bolsheviks, was arrested by the Cheka, and there was even a question of his expulsion from the country. The main work of N.A. Rozhkova - twelve-volume “Russian history in comparative historical coverage.” In it he tried, based on the Marxist form

tion theory, highlight the stages of social development that all nations go through. Each stage of Russian history was compared with the corresponding stage in the history of other countries. The basis for changing stages of historical development of the National Academy of Sciences. Rozhkov, following Marx, set the development of the economy, but supplemented it with an attempt to build a history of spiritual culture, expressed in a change in “mental types” characteristic of each stage.

The most famous Marxist historian was M.N. Pokrovsky. Even before the 1917 revolution. he wrote the four-volume “Russian History from Ancient Times” and the two-volume “Essay on the History of Russian Culture.” During the revolution of 1905 M.N. Pokrovsky joined the Bolshevik Party. During this period, his Marxist beliefs were finally formed. He recognizes the decisive role of class struggle in history and begins to approach the history of Russia from this position. M.N. Pokrovsky tried to determine the stages of development of Russian society, based on the Marxist theory of the change of socio-economic formations. He identified the following stages: primitive communism, feudalism, handicraft economy, commercial and industrial capitalism. Russian autocracy and bureaucracy M.N. Pokrovsky considered it as a form of domination of commercial capital.

After the revolution of 1917 M.N. Pokrovsky actually headed Soviet historical science. He was deputy people's commissar of education, headed the communist academy, the institute of history of the RSFSR Academy of Sciences, the institute of red professorships, and edited the magazine "Marxist Historian". During the Soviet period, he wrote “Russian history in the most condensed outline,” which became a textbook for high school, and “Essays on the revolutionary movement of the 19th-20th centuries.” The textbook by M.N. Pokrovsky was characterized by extreme schematism - history turned into a bare sociological scheme.

M.N. Pokrovsky was a revolutionary who devoted his life to the fight against autocracy. As a result, in his works the entire pre-revolutionary history of Russia was depicted exclusively in black (“prison of nations”, “European gendarme”, etc.

In the 20s, when the task was to discredit the old regime, these views of M.N. Pokrovsky were in demand. But by the 1930s the situation had changed - the situation had stabilized, the power of the Bolsheviks had become quite strong and a new goal was set for historical science - to cultivate patriotism, statehood, love for the Fatherland, including using examples of the pre-revolutionary past. Under these conditions, the “Pokrovsky school” did not meet the new requirements. In the last years of N.M.’s life. Pokrovsky was subjected to sharp criticism, and after his death in 1934. a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was issued “On the teaching of history in schools of the USSR”, in a manner characteristic of that time. M.N. Pokrovsky was defamed, and his textbooks were confiscated.

The Soviet period of development of national historical science is rich in the names of historians, many of whom gained worldwide fame. Among them, special mention should be made of the works on the history of Kievan Rus by B.D. Grekova, A.N. Sakharova, B.I. Rybakova, V.L. Yanina, M.N. Tikhomirov; on the history of the Moscow state D.N. Alshitsa, R.T. Skrynnikova, A.A. Zimina, V.B. Kobrina, V.V. Mavrodina; on the history of the Russian Empire XVIII- X I X centuries E.V. Tarle, M.V. Nechkina, N.I. Pavlenko, E.V. Anisimova; on the history of the late XIX - early XX centuries. AND I. Avrekha, B.G. Litvak. S.G. is rightfully considered the founder of the economic history of Russia. Strumilin. The problems of the development of Russian culture are comprehensively covered in the works of D.S. Likhachev, M.A. Alpatova. This list of surnames can be continued. But they all worked on specific historical issues. Generalizing conceptual works were, as a rule, collective in nature. Among them we can highlight those written in the 60-70s. ten-volume “History of the USSR”, twelve-volume “World History”. All these works were written from the perspective of Marxism, which was the only official ideology of society.

In the 90s Works began to appear in which attempts were made to revise existing conceptual provisions. The history of Russia is considered from the perspective of the civilizational approach (L.I. Semennikova), from the perspective of the theory of cyclicity (S.A. Akhiezer), from the perspective of modernization theory. But all these attempts cannot yet be called successful. Creative search is at an early stage, and has not led to the emergence of new concepts for the development of Russian history.

Control questions

1. What is the essence of the world-historical concept of historical development?

2. What is the essence of the civilizational concept of historical development? Its main representatives?

3. What is included in the concept of “mentality”? What is the point of introducing this concept?

4. List the main stages in the development of Russian historical thought. What contribution did representatives of each stage make to the development of historical science in Russia?

Historiography of Russian history - this is a description of Russian history and historical literature. This is the history of historical science as a whole, its branch, a set of studies devoted to a specific era or topic.

Scientific coverage of Russian history begins in the 18th century, when knowledge about the past, previously contained in the form of scattered information, began to be systematized and generalized. Historical science was freed from divine providence and received an increasingly realistic explanation.

The first scientific work on the history of Russia belonged to Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev(1686-1750) - the largest noble historian of the era of Peter I. His major work “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” covered the history of the Russian state in 5 volumes.

Speaking as a champion of a strong monarchy, V.N. Tatishchev was the first to formulate the state scheme of Russian history, highlighting several of its stages: from complete “single power” (from Rurik to Mstislav), through the “aristocracy of the appanage period” (1132-1462) to “the restoration of the monarchy under John the Great III and its strengthening under Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century."

Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov(1711 - 1765) - author of a number of works on Russian history (“A Brief Russian Chronicler with Genealogy”; “Ancient Russian History”), in which he initiated the fight against the Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state. This theory, as you know, was created by the Germans Bayer and Miller and substantiated the inability of the supposedly ignorant Slavs to create their own statehood and called on the Varangians for this.

M.V. Lomonosov presented a number of arguments that refuted the speculations of German scientists. He proved the antiquity of the “Rus” tribe, which preceded the calling of Rurik, and showed the originality of Slavic settlements in Eastern Europe. The scientist drew attention to an important fact: the name “Rus” was extended to those Slavic tribes to which the Varangians had nothing to do. M.V. Lomonosov pointed out the absence of Scandinavian and Germanic words in the Russian language, which would be inevitable given the role that the Normanists ascribe to the Scandinavians.

The first major work on the history of the Russian state belonged to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826) - a prominent historian, writer and publicist. At the end of 1803, Karamzin offered Alexander I his services to write a complete history of Russia, “not barbaric and shameful for his reign.” The proposal was accepted. Karamzin was officially entrusted with writing the history of Russia and a pension was established as being in the public service. Karamzin devoted his entire subsequent life mainly to the creation of the “History of the Russian State” (12 volumes). The central idea of ​​labor: autocratic rule is the best form of statehood for Russia.

Karamzin put forward the idea that “Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord and was saved by a wise autocracy.” This approach was the basis for the periodization of the history of the Russian state.

In it, the scientist identified six periods:

• “the introduction of monarchical power” - from the “calling of the Varangian princes” to Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (862-1015);
• “fading of autocracy” - from Svyatopolk Vladimirovich to Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich (1015-1238);
• “the death of the Russian state and the gradual “state revival of Russia” - from Yaroslav 11 Vsevolodovich to Ivan 111 (1238-1462);
• “establishment of autocracy” - from Ivan III to Ivan IV (1462-1533);
• restoration of the “unique power of the tsar” and the transformation of autocracy into tyranny - from Ivan IV (the Terrible) to Boris Godunov (1533-1598);
• “Time of Troubles” - from Boris Godunov to Mikhail Romanov (1598-1613).”

Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev(1820-1879) - head of the department of Russian history at Moscow University (since 1845), author of a unique encyclopedia of Russian history, a multi-volume major work “History of Russia from Ancient Times”. The principle of his research is historicism. He does not divide the history of Russia into periods, but connects them, considers the development of Russia and Western Europe as a unity. Soloviev reduces the pattern of development of the country to three defining conditions: “the nature of the country”, “the nature of the tribe”, “the course of external events”.

In periodization, the scientist “erases” the concepts of “Varangian” period, “Mongolian” and appanage.

The first stage of Russian history from ancient times to the 16th century. inclusively determined by the struggle of the “tribal principle” through “patrimonial relations” to “state life”.

The second stage (XVII - mid-XVII century) - “preparation” for a new order of things and the “era of Peter I”, “era of transformations”.

The third stage (second half of the 17th - second half of the 19th century) is a direct continuation and completion of Peter’s reforms.

In the 50s XIX century A state (legal) school in Russian historiography emerged. It was the product of bourgeois liberalism, its reluctance to repeat Western revolutions in Russia. In this regard, liberals turned to the ideal of strong state power. The founder of the state school was a professor at Moscow University (lawyer, historian, idealist philosopher) Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828-1904).

Prominent Russian, historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky(1841 - 1911) adhered to the positivist "theory of facts". He identified “three main forces that build human society”: the human personality, human society, and the nature of the country. Klyuchevsky considered “mental labor and moral achievement” to be the engine of historical progress. In the development of Russia, Klyuchevsky recognized the enormous role of the state (political factor), attached great importance to the process of colonization (natural factor), and trade (economic factor).

In the “Course of Russian History” Klyuchevsky gave a periodization of the country’s past. It is based on geographical, economic and social characteristics, which, in his opinion, determined the content of historical periods. However, they were dominated by the state scheme.

The entire Russian historical process - from ancient times to the reforms of the 60s. XIX century Klyuchevsky divided into four periods:

• “Rusdneprovskaya, city, trading” (from the 8th to the 13th centuries). In the first period, the main arena of activity of the Slavs was the Dnieper region. The author did not connect the emergence of a state among the Eastern Slavs with the Normans, noting the existence of principalities among them long before the appearance of the Varangians;
• “Rus of the Upper Volga, appanage princely, free agricultural” (XII - mid-XV century). Characterizing the second period, Klyuchevsky idealized princely power and exaggerated its organizing role;
• "Great Rus'. Moscow, royal-boyar, military-agricultural" (XV - early XVII centuries). The third period of Russian history is associated with Great Russia, covering vast areas not only of Eastern Europe, but also of Asia. At this time, a strong state unification of Rus' was created for the first time;
• “All-Russian, imperial, noble” - the period of serfdom - agricultural and factory (XVII - mid-XIX centuries). This is the time of further expansion of Great Russia and the formation of the Russian Empire. The transformations of Peter I were considered by the author as the main feature of this period, but Klyuchevsky showed duality in his assessment of them. Klyuchevsky influenced the formation of historical views of both bourgeois historians (P.N. Milyukov, M.M. Bogoslovsky, A.A. Kiesewetter), and Marxist historians (M.N. Pokrovsky, Yu.V. Gauthier, S. .V. Bakhrushin).

In Soviet historiography, periodization was based on a formational approach, according to which in Russian history the following were distinguished:

• Primitive communal system (until the 9th century).
• Feudalism (IX - mid-XIX centuries).
• Capitalism (second half of the 19th century - 1917).
• Socialism (since 1917).

Within the framework of these formational periods of national history, certain stages were identified that revealed the process of origin and development of the socio-economic formation.

Thus, the “feudal” period was divided into three stages:

• “early feudalism” (Kievan Rus);
• “developed feudalism” (feudal fragmentation and the formation of a Russian centralized state);
• “late feudalism” (“new period of Russian history”, decomposition and crisis of feudal-serf relations).

The period of capitalism fell into two stages - “pre-monopoly capitalism” and “imperialism”. In Soviet history, the stages of “war communism”, “new economic policy”, “building the foundations of socialism”, “complete and final victory of socialism” and “development of socialism on its own basis” were distinguished.

In the post-perestroika period, in connection with the transition to a pluralistic interpretation of national history, there was a reassessment of both its individual events and entire periods and stages. In this regard, there is, on the one hand, a return to the periodizations of Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and other pre-revolutionary historians, on the other, attempts are being made to give a periodization in accordance with new values ​​and methodological approaches.

Thus, a periodization of Russian history appeared from the point of view of the alternativeness of its historical development, considered in the context of world history.

Some historians propose to distinguish two periods in Russian history:

• “From Ancient Rus' to Imperial Russia” (IX - XVIII centuries);
• “The Rise and Decline of the Russian Empire” (XIX - XX centuries).

Historians of Russian statehood highlight ten of her

periods. This periodization is due to several factors. The main ones are the socio-economic structure of society (level of economic and technical development, forms of ownership) and the factor of state development:

• Ancient Rus' (IX-XII centuries);
• The period of independent feudal states of Ancient Rus' (XII-XV centuries);
• Russian (Moscow) state (XV-XVII centuries);
• Russian Empire of the period of absolutism (XVIII - mid-XIX centuries);
• Russian Empire during the period of transition to the bourgeois monarchy (mid-19th - early 20th centuries);
• Russia during the period of the bourgeois-democratic republic (February - October 1917);
• The period of formation of Soviet statehood (1918-1920);
• Transition period and NEP period (1921 - 1930);
• The period of state-party socialism (1930 - early 60s of the XX century);
• The period of crisis of socialism (60-90s of the XX century).

This periodization, like any other, is conditional, but it allows us to systematize the training course to a certain extent and consider the main stages of the formation of statehood in Russia.

Historical science has accumulated extensive experience in creating works on the history of Russia. Numerous works published in various years both in the country and abroad reflect various concepts of the historical development of Russia, its relationship with the world historical process.

In recent years, fundamental works on the history of Russia by major pre-revolutionary historians have been republished, including the works of S.M. Solovyova, N.M. Karamzina, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others. The works of B.A. were published. Rybakova, B.D. Grekova, S.D. Bakhrusheva, M.N. Tikhomirova, M.P. Pokrovsky, A.N. Sakharova, Yu.N. Afanasyeva and others. This list can be continued.

Today we have works on the history of Russia that are interesting in content, which are available to everyone who is interested in history and strives for a deep study of it.

It must be taken into account that the study of the history of the Fatherland must take place in the context of world history. Students of history must understand such concepts as historical civilizations, their characteristic features, the place of individual formations in the world historical process, the path of development of Russia and its place in the world historical process.

When studying the history of Russia in the context of world historical processes, it is necessary to take into account that the traditional idea of ​​\u200b\u200babroads today has radically changed. The historical reality is such that we are faced with such concepts as “near abroad” and “far abroad”. In the recent past, these distinctions did not exist.