Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879) is a recognized classic. His name is well known not only by historians. Of all the diverse, multi-genre heritage left to posterity, the 29-volume History of Russia from Ancient Times is the most famous.
Solovyov was brought up on the "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin, he knew it literally by heart. And at that time there was no more significant work on the history of Russia. However, much in the presentation of Karamzin did not suit the young scientist. He did not receive answers to many questions. In addition, he was not satisfied with too literary tradition in the presentation of historical facts. Solovyov considered it necessary to rely mainly on historical documents in presenting the main historical events. The views of Evers had a significant influence on Solovyov. Nightingale set himself a difficult task. He considered it necessary to clarify the incompleteness and incompleteness of the philosophical and historical view of world history, provided that the fate of the Russian and Slavic peoples was ignored. In this he saw an indispensable condition for the successful knowledge of the purpose of the history of the Russian people and its comparison with the peoples of Western Europe. The formulation of the question of the special quality of the Russian people and the specifics of their historical life among other world-historical peoples in The Theosophical View is given by Solovyov within the framework of his idea of two "ages" of people's life. “Every nation has its own religious period - children's”; it is characterized by a low degree of education, unconscious adherence to "religious suggestions" and blind obedience to "spiritual leaders". The second age - "the maturity of the people" - in the historical life of the people begins when philosophy (science) takes the place of religion. A "philosophy of history" or "a people's consciousness of their own destinies" is born. With the transition from faith to reason, according to Solovyov, “the saving influence of religion on man and people also disappears”, the seeds of disbelief and destruction are sown. Difference (or exclusion from general rule) the historian saw the Russian people in the fact that the first period of its historical life, corresponding to the "childish" age (from the end of the 9th to the beginning of the 17th century), passed, as elsewhere, under the sign of a deep religious feeling; but, having entered the second period of the "age of manhood", and, thanks to Peter's reforms, entering the field of world-historical activity, the Russian people did not part with religion as the basis of the spiritual sphere of the life of the people. And this is its fundamental difference. Many years later, the historian, retaining the general structural typology community development, i.e., without abandoning the division of the history of folk life into two ages, he changed the names of the categories themselves, defining them as the “age of feeling” and “the age of thought”.
For general comparison Russia with Europe Solovyov compared Russia and Western Europe along three lines, which acquired the character of antithesis. The first antithesis "mother nature" (for Western Europe) - "stepmother nature" (for Russia) emphasized differences in the degree of favorable natural conditions. In turn, the specifics of natural conditions explained the difference in the methods and results of ethnogenesis. Unlike the European peoples, who were closed to the “influx” of the “new Asiatic barbarian peoples” and therefore had the opportunity to develop their nationality, the peoples of Eastern Europe did not have such an opportunity. In addition, ethnically, the Slavs, being a border people, were a mixture of peoples, they were not a single nation. And these two features determined the genesis of statehood among the Slavs. In the West, monarchical states were the result of the conquest and forcible subjugation of the native population by the combatants of the Germanic tribes. And this violence gave rise to the opposite form of struggle, the struggle for independence - the revolution. Among the Slavs, according to Solovyov, neither a despotic form of government (due to the mixed nature of the population), nor a republic (due to the vastness of the territory), nor a monarchical power based on conquest (there was no such conquest here) could be established. The Slavs themselves came to the idea of the need for power, and Soloviev credited them with this circumstance. And this idea itself was born from a state of initial anarchy. Actually Russian history, according to Solovyov, begins with the beginning of Russian statehood. He associated it with the approval of Rurik as a prince among the northern Slavic and Finnish tribes.
Thus, having abandoned the Hegelian triad, or the three-element structure of historical being East-Antiquity-Christianity and putting forward his own four-element East-Antiquity-Western Europe-Russia, Solovyov thereby abandoned dialectics in its Hegelian form, proposing his own philosophical and historical construction.
"History of Russia since ancient times"
The presentation of the events of the internal life of Russia in the 29th volume was brought up to 1775, and in the field of diplomatic relations - up to 1780. It divides the history of the Russian state into the following stages:
1 )From Rurik to Andrey Bogolyubsky- the period of domination of tribal relations in political life.
Solovyov saw the first step towards state relations in the fact that the Vladimir-Suzdal prince Andrey Yurievich Bogolyubsky, having occupied Kyiv, did not sit down to reign in it, but planted his assistant there. There was a prince, “who did not like the Kievan reign, who preferred the glorious and rich Kiev to the poor, who had just begun to rebuild the city in the north, Vladimir Klyazmensky.” Vladimir-Suzdal Russia had special prerequisites for the establishment of state principles, which Solovyov saw in virgin soil, “on which the new order of things could be accepted much more easily”, “there were no rooted old traditions about the unity of the princely family”, the princes did not meet obstacles to their intentions from the townspeople, vecha. Solovyov believed that in North-Eastern Russia "for the first time there were concepts of separate princely property, which Bogolyubsky hastened to separate from the common tribal property."
2) From Andrei Bogolyubsky to the beginning of the 17th century. - the period of the struggle of tribal and state principles, culminating in complete triumph state beginning. This long period had internal stages:
a) from Andrei Bogolyubsky to Ivan Kalita - the initial time of the struggle of tribal and state relations;
b) from Ivan Kalita to Ivan III - the time of the unification of Russia around Moscow;
c) from Ivan III to the beginning of the 17th century. - a period of struggle for the complete triumph of the state principle.
XIII-XV centuries Solovyov considered it a natural stage in the progressive development of society. All states have gone through this stage. XIII-XV centuries to North-Eastern Russia, where a single Russian state. Solovyov emphasized that thanks to this circumstance, North-Eastern Russia acquired a leading position in Russian history, and that the very outcome of the struggle of South-Western Russia against Lithuania and Poland depended on this. From the second half of the XIII century. a clear strengthening of the role of the church in political events is noticeable. Solovyov explained this by the change of Greek metropolitans by Russian metropolitans and the movement from tribal relations to state relations. Solovyov showed that the unification of the Russian lands under the rule of Ivan III was not so much the result of the activity of the Moscow prince himself, but was prepared by the previous course of history. Ivan III "finishes the old and at the same time necessarily begins the new." In the actions of Ivan the Terrible, Solovyov was one of the first in Russian historical science to see a historically conditioned pattern. Oprichnina in the eyes of Solovyov was the last decisive blow to tribal relations, the bearer of which was the boyars. For the first time, the oprichnina was characterized as an act of conscious and historically justified political activity. However, the historian does not justify the cruelty of Ivan IV. Assessing events from the point of view of the development of statehood, Solovyov applied to the events of the early 17th century. the phrase "terrible troubles" - a violent break in the organic course of Russian history, a regression.
3) From the beginning of the XVII century. before mid-eighteenth in.- the period of Russia's entry into the system of European states.
Solovyov considered the first reason for the Troubles to be "the unsatisfactory state of people's morality in the Muscovite state." The fall of morality in Russia occurred during the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, then "a terrible habit was established not to respect the life, honor, property of one's neighbor." Another circumstance that favored the Time of Troubles, Solovyov considered the Cossacks, who gave the Time of Troubles such a scope that the state was on the verge of death. The growth of the national self-consciousness of the Russian people in the course of the liberation struggle at the beginning of the 17th century. was considered by Solovyov as a struggle for the Orthodox faith, the restoration of the monarchy, against the invaders of other faiths - Catholics and Protestants. The enthronement of a new dynasty was a step towards the restoration of state unity. In the general concept of Solovyov XVII century. occupies a special place. He emphasized its critical transitional character, the turn from the "eight centuries of movement to the East" to the "movement to the West." The 17th century is so closely connected in our history with the first half of the 18th century, it is impossible to separate them. The transformations of Peter I opened a "new" period in the history of Russia. The very undertakings of the tsar-transformer contained a program for the development of the country for the future. In the coverage of Russian history 1725-1740. Solovyov proceeded from the recognition of the irreversibility of the changes that had taken place in the life of the country in the first quarter of the 18th century.
4) From the middle of the XVIII century. before the reforms of the 60s. 19th century - new period of Russian history.
the whole subsequent history of Russia was considered by Solovyov from the point of view of the fulfillment of Peter's plans. Solovyov drew attention to the fact that palace intrigues, clashes of group interests in the government had a negative impact on the state of state affairs. Upon closer examination of the actions of Elizaveta Petrovna, Solovyov revealed her adherence not so much to the spirit as to the letter of the legislation of Peter I. Elizaveta Petrovna's imitative dependence on her father's attitudes deprived her policy of the necessary dynamism. The main act of the daughter of Peter the Great, Solovyov considered the deliverance of the country from the “yoke from the West, more severe than the former yoke from the East,” which had been established in the time of Biron. As a result, “Russia came to its senses. Russian people again appeared at the highest places of government. The reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine II was dear to Solovyov as a period of "revolution in moral concepts", softening of morals, development of sciences.
"History of Russia ..." is based on the widespread involvement and use of almost all known at that time historical materials. Solovyov was one of the first among historians to use acts as a source, mainly spiritual and treaty letters of princes, and individual acts of feudal immunity as a monument to the activity of princely power. Presentation of the events of political history up to the 16th century. was built by Solovyov on the basis of chronicles. He used mainly the materials of the late (XVI century) Nikon Chronicle.
Critically comparing the versions of the "New Chronicler" and the Uglich investigative case on the circumstances of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in 1591, Solovyov drew attention to the contradictions in the investigative case, having studied which he came to the conclusion about the political nature of the murder of the tsarevich by order of Godunov and the rigging of the investigative case to please Boris .
Solovyov used archival materials to study the events of the 17th and 18th centuries. Especially widely he used documents from the fund of the Ambassadorial order, characterizing all the main aspects foreign policy Russia. To a lesser extent, the scientist turned to sources covering the internal history of Russia in the 18th century. He attracted documents from the personal office of Peter I and Catherine I, the funds of the Senate, its commissions of inquiry, the Preobrazhensky order, the secret office, the Synod and other materials.
In his narration, Solovyov used the memoirs of Russian and foreign statesmen of the 18th century. (Y.P. Shakhovsky, B.K. Minich, X. Manstein, J. Shtelin, Catherine II, Frederick II, etc.). If in the first volumes of the work, written largely on the basis of chronicle material, there was criticism of the sources, then it is practically absent in the description of the events of the 17th-18th centuries. Solovyov, as a rule, retold or quoted in detail the content of documents of the 18th century. (often entire pages). The historian achieved the greatest mastery of source studies in the study of sources covering his favorite topics - the ups and downs of the internal political, mainly palace, struggle and the subtle intricacies of diplomatic relations.
Results
Dialectics allowed S.M. Solovyov to raise research to a new level.
A comprehensive consideration of the role of natural-geographical, demographic-ethnic and foreign policy factors in the historical development of Russia is among the undoubted merits of S.M. Solovyov.
The historian applied the latest methods of historical criticism to the field of Russian history.
CM. Solovyov for the first time in Russian historical science developed a civilizational approach, with the help of which he was able to distinguish Russian history from Western European and at the same time include it in the world historical process.
36. Problematic approach to history in the work of V.O. Klyuchevsky.
The most popular student of S.M. Solovyov - Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky became a legend in Russian historiography. Klyuchevsky was born on January 16, 1841 in the village of Voskresenskoye, Penza district (there is a version about the historian's birth in Penza). In honor of his paternal grandfather, he was named Vasily. My father served as a priest in the village of Voskresenskoye, Penza district, where the first four years of the life of the future historian passed. The Penza youth, which introduced Klyuchevsky to the root folk culture, had a special influence on the formation of the worldview, the foundations of social views and aesthetic ideas. As a child, he learned the price of the struggle of man with nature, saw the burden of agricultural labor and the peasant life of the era of late serfdom; acquired the habit of ascetic labor. Klyuchevsky absorbed a love for fairy tales and Russian proverbs, with which he later enriched his course in Russian history. The wealth of concepts captured in folklore about the relationship between nature and society, the customs of the hostel organically entered the worldview of Klyuchevsky.
The awakening of interest in history was prepared by the father. He taught his son to read the "Lives of the Saints" according to the Old Slavonic text of the Fourth Menaion. It was to the lives, having become a historian, that Klyuchevsky devoted his first dissertation. The boy knew Sacred history and the catechism, knew how to write. In 1850, when his father tragically died at the age of 34, a shocked 9-year-old child began to stutter. Later, the lecturer Klyuchevsky turned his shortcoming into a technique of oratory, carefully practicing the combination of forced and semantic pauses.
Church education had an undoubted influence on future creativity. Klyuchevsky studied: in 1851-1852. in the Penza Theological Parish School, in 1852-1856. - in the Penza district school, and in 1856-1860. at the Penza Theological Seminary. At the age of 15-19, seminarian Klyuchevsky purposefully mastered the humanities of a non-theological nature - general and Russian history, studied Latin, Ancient Greek and Hebrew. When the decree of 1869 relieved the children of clergy and clergy from the need to engage in their father's craft, this was no longer relevant for Klyuchevsky. By that time, he was already out of his class. To become a historian, he had to endure the struggle: to leave the seminary without completing the course and thereby avoiding the need to enter the Theological Academy. Klyuchevsky's dream was the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. And it came true in 1861. During the years of study at the university (1861-1865), the foundations for scientific growth were laid. F. Buslaev had a great influence on the historian, who turned his scientific interest to the masses of the people, taught him comparative philology. Klyuchevsky listened to lectures by S.V. Eshevsky, P.M. Leontiev, K.N. Pobedonostseva, N.A. Sergievsky, S.M. Solovieva, N.S. Tikhonravova, P.D. Yurkevich and others. At the end of the course, he listened to B.N. Chicherina
After graduating from university in 1856, Klyuchevsky worked on the book Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source for 6 years. And in 1872 she was defended at the master's dispute. Observations on the lives strengthened Klyuchevsky in his opinion about the secondary nature of the monastic colonization, which was preceded by the peasant colonization. Klyuchevsky saw in monastic colonization an important factor in the development of new territories, that is, he attributed to it a state-creating role. Thus, the work of Klyuchevsky, having taken a place in a number of traditional synodal and popular assessments of monastic asceticism, diverged from the latest historiography (A.S. Pavlov, based on the comments of V.A. Milyutin, wrote about monastic land ownership as a most weakening the nobility, the main pillar of the state). Klyuchevsky's conclusion about the merging of monastic colonization and peasant colonization was of fundamental importance for science.
Klyuchevsky expressed his methodological and methodological considerations in a special course "Methodology of Russian History", and in a condensed form in the first four lectures of the "Course of Russian History". Klyuchevsky tried to show the significance of various factors in the historical process and in certain periods of Russian history (Dnieper, Upper Volga, Great Russian, All-Russian). When characterizing these periods, in addition to the geographical conditions (Dnieper Rus, Upper Volga Rus, Great Rus, Moscow), in which the bulk of the population lived, Klyuchevsky simultaneously singled out political (specific princely, royal boyar, imperial noble), social and economic economic (urban, commercial; free-agricultural, military-agricultural, serf) criteria. The political factor strengthens its influence starting from the second period. During all four periods there is a complication of economic life. The role of cities, according to Klyuchevsky, was the most influential in the Dnieper and All-Russian periods, but the socio-economic basis of these periods was not the same (in the first case - trade, in the second - factory). The importance of agriculture is preserved in the Upper Volga, and in Moscow, and in the All-Russian periods. The economic consequences, according to Klyuchevsky, prepare the political consequences, which become noticeable a little later.
Klyuchevsky was a prominent representative of the national psycho-economic school that was formed in Russia in the last quarter of the 19th century. He became the forerunner of historians who developed psychological techniques research in the first quarter of the 20th century, when psychoanalysis gained particular popularity.
One of the methodological concepts stated by the historian was "historical bodies" or human unions. They grow, multiply, pass one into another, and finally collapse. At the same time, the long-term impact of their lives on the historical process was emphasized. He considered history as a progressive process, and the concept of development was associated in the historian's mind with the accumulation of experiences, knowledge, needs, habits, everyday amenities, improving, on the one hand, the private life of an individual, and on the other, establishing and improving social relations between people. .
Klyuchevsky saw the task of the historian as the knowledge of the causal relationships of phenomena, i.e., the properties and actions of the forces that build the hostel. He singled out two subjects for the study of history: the history of culture (or the history of civilization), which studies "... the development of man and human coexistence," and historical sociology. The latter, in turn, studies "... the historical forces that build human societies, the properties of those diverse threads, material and spiritual, with the help of which random and diverse human units with a fleeting existence are formed into harmonious and dense societies that live for whole centuries." The historian reflected on the peculiarities of history in general and Russian history in particular. He wrote about the diverse local and temporary selection of forces and conditions, which was not repeated anywhere else.
Reflections on historical regularities and the possibility of their knowledge gave rise to new thoughts and questions in the historian. Each order was inherent in an internal contradiction: the consequences that flowed from its own foundations and served as means of maintaining it, at the same time destroyed these very foundations.
From the end of the 1870s. Klyuchevsky purposefully studied the history of the peasantry, devoting articles of 1879-1885 to it. He considered the development of serfdom in Russia a process of merging peasants and serfs into one category of the population, transferring the norms of servile law to the peasants. Until the end of the XV century. there were two types of personal dependence: complete servility and debt mortgaging. Bonded servitude developed out of their combination, which was transferred to the peasants. As a result of the rapprochement between serfs and peasants in the sphere of economic life, serfs began to be involved in the performance of state duties.
"Course of Russian History"
Klyuchevsky's teaching and scientific activities were linked together. On February 5, 1872, the Council of Moscow University approved V.O. Klyuchevsky in degree master of Russian history. CM. Solovyov conceded to Klyuchevsky the chair at the Alexander Military School, where he would teach for 16 years. The accumulation of knowledge and scientific conclusions began, which later formed the basis of the famous "Course of Russian History". The historical architecture of Klyuchevsky found its complete expression in it. Klyuchevsky proposed a problematic presentation of Russian history. The presentation of material to students, the highlighting of the “main points” in the teaching lecture course, the figurativeness, clarity and concreteness of the presentation, the “bright dramatization of the historical scheme” only set off the conceptual foundations of the work. The design of the "Course" consisted of five parts, which included 86 lectures, covering the story of Russian history from ancient times to the reforms of Alexander II.
Klyuchevsky's concept of the Russian historical process has been developed and perfected over decades. Particularly serious changes in the understanding of the relationship between the role of the people and the state occurred in the process of his work on his doctoral dissertation "Boyar Duma".
The people as an ethnic and ethical concept Klyuchevsky assigned in his concept the role of the main force in the history of the formation and development of the state. Between the state and the people is the elite. State building is associated with a periodic change of elites. Considering the circumstances of success or, conversely, failure, Klyuchevsky considered it necessary to take into account the presence or absence of a “taste for power”, an awareness of the need to strengthen political rights by the ruling class. He studied the means and mechanisms for the realization by the elite of its claims, the ability to influence society, to analyze the correspondence between real interests and declarations. Settlements and quarrels within the elite and the lack of attention to the problem of relations between the elite and the state, on the one hand, and the people, on the other, the inability to carefully build a line of relationships in these two areas led to the loss of the dominant position by the elite.
For each epoch, any episode or acting person, Klyuchevsky was able to find a colorful, memorable image or an exact concept, one way or another addressed to national and public self-consciousness.
The study of the phenomenon of folk memory, according to Klyuchevsky, opened the way for the historian to know the past, especially the deep past. He was interested in the mechanisms of preserving people's memory (people's attitude) "through the ages" in relation to specific people, phenomena and events. He searched for and found their "traces" (in folk customs, beliefs, etc.), gave them an explanation. And vice versa, in the case of oblivion, the very fact of which testifies to the immaturity of specific peoples, according to Klyuchevsky, the historical law comes into its own. The historian reflected on the mechanisms of maintaining historical memory. For contemporaries, personal impression was decisive. They left behind a historical memory that faded over time. Church memory turned, according to Klyuchevsky, the impression into a familiar, uplifting mood, “the people lived in this mood for centuries; it helped him arrange his inner life, unite and strengthen the state order. When considering the concept of the people, he attached particular importance to its ethnic and mental components, as well as national well-being in specific historical eras(religious and state).
The whole history of Klyuchevsky was divided into periods.
The first period of Russian history. Klyuchevsky defined it in chronological terms: from ancient times to the end of the twelfth century or until early XIII in. In the XI-XII centuries. The historian carried out the historical analysis of the political consciousness of power and its evolution in stages. The political consciousness of the prince in the 11th century, from the point of view of the scientist, was limited to two ideas: the conviction that “food was their political right”, and the actual source of this right was their political duty to defend the land. The idea of a pure monarchy did not yet exist; joint ownership with an elder at the head seemed simpler and more accessible to understanding. In the XII century. the princes were not sovereign sovereigns of the earth, but only its military-police rulers. Causes feudal fragmentation, which Klyuchevsky considered as “political fragmentation”, he saw in a change in the idea of “fatherland”, which was reflected in the words of Monomakh’s grandson Izyaslav Mstislavich: “Not a place goes to the head, but the head to the place”, i.e. “not a place looking for a suitable head, and the head of a suitable place. The personal importance of the prince was placed above the rights of seniority. In addition, the dynastic sympathies of the cities, which caused the interference of the main cities, regions in the mutual accounts of the princes, confused their turn in possession.
Colonization, according to Klyuchevsky's observation, upset the balance of social elements, on which social order was kept. And then the laws of political science came into play: simultaneously with neglect, local self-conceit, arrogance, brought up by political successes, develops. The claim, passing under the banner of law, becomes a precedent, gaining the power not only to replace, but also to cancel law.
In the analysis of the monarchical form of statehood, Klyuchevsky clearly showed his understanding of the ideal and the influence of ethnic ideas on the author's concept and historical assessment. "The political significance of the sovereign is determined by the extent to which he uses his supreme rights to achieve the goals of the common good." As soon as the concept of the common good disappears in society, the idea of the sovereign as a universally obligatory power goes out in the minds. Thus, the idea of the sovereign, the guardian of the common good as the goal of the state, was carried out, the nature of sovereign rights was determined. Klyuchevsky introduced the concept of "responsible autocracy", which he distinguished from unforgivable tyranny. The Russian people faced the latter already in antiquity. Klyuchevsky connects the idea of power, which arose as a result of reading books and political reflections, with the name of Ivan the Terrible, "the most well-read Muscovite of the 16th century." Almost two centuries of struggle between Russia and the Polovtsy had a serious impact on European history. While Western Europe crusades launched an offensive struggle in the Asian East (a similar movement against the Moors began on the Iberian Peninsula), Russia, with its steppe struggle, covered the left flank of the European offensive. This indisputable historical merit cost Russia dearly: the struggle moved her from her settled Dnieper places and abruptly changed the direction of her future life. From the middle of the XII century. there was desolation Kievan Rus under the influence of the legal and economic humiliation of the lower classes; princely strife and Polovtsian invasions. There was a "gap" of the original nationality. The population went to the Rostov land, a region that lay outside the old native Russia and in the XII century. It was more foreign than the Russian region. Here in the XI and XII centuries. three Finnish tribes lived - Muroma, Merya and the whole. As a result of the mixing of Russian settlers with them, the formation of a new Great Russian nationality begins. It finally takes shape in the middle of the 15th century, and this time is significant in that the family efforts of the Moscow princes finally meet with the people's needs and aspirations.
The second period of Russian history (XIII-XV centuries) Under the influence of new geographical and economic conditions in the triangle between the Oka and the upper Volga, northeastern Russia grew, its type, character and way of life developed, as a result of which a different way of socio-political relations than in Kyiv arose. The political consequence of colonization was the established in the XIII-XIV centuries. specific order. Its organizer and leader was the prince - the hereditary patrimony of his inheritance. Thus, a new historical stage, a new territory and another dominant political force appeared. Russia of the Dnieper was replaced by Russia of the Upper Volga, and the volost city gave way to the prince, with whom he had previously competed. Klyuchevsky spoke about the policy of the Moscow princes as “family”, “stingy” and “prudent”, and defined its essence as an effort to collect foreign lands. Among the conditions that ultimately determined the triumph of the Moscow princes, Klyuchevsky singled out the inequality of the means of the fighting parties. If the princes of Tver at the beginning of the XIV century. still considered it possible to fight the Tatars, then the Moscow princes "zealously looked after the khan and made him an instrument of their plans." “As a reward for this, Kalita in 1328 received the grand-ducal table ...”, - Klyuchevsky attached exceptional importance to this event.
XIV century - the dawn of the political and moral revival of the Russian land. 1328-1368 were calm. The Russian population gradually emerged from a state of despondency and stupor. During this time, two generations managed to grow up, who did not know the horror of the elders before the Tatars, free "from the nervous trembling of their fathers at the thought of the Tatar region": they went to Kulikovo field. Thus the ground was prepared for national success. The Muscovite state, according to Klyuchevsky, "was born on the Kulikovo field, and not in the hoard chest of Ivan Kalita." The cementing basis (an indispensable condition) of political revival is moral revival. Earthly existence is shorter than the spiritual influence of a morally strong personality (such as Sergius of Radonezh...)
The Moscow period, according to Klyuchevsky, is the antithesis of the specific period. From the local conditions of the Upper Volga soil, new socio-historical forms of life, types, and relationships have grown. The sources of Muscovite strength and its mysterious first successes lay in the geographical position of Moscow and the genealogical position of its prince. Colonization, the accumulation of the population gave the Moscow prince significant economic benefits, increased the number of payers of direct taxes. The geographical position favored Moscow's early industrial successes. The economic consequences of the geographical position of Moscow gave the Grand Duke abundant material resources, and the Moscow princes were simply able to use these funds to their advantage. According to Klyuchevsky, the rise of Moscow was not a historical pattern.
Trouble. Klyuchevsky distinguished between the concepts of "crisis" and "distemper". The crisis is not yet a turmoil, but already a signal to society about the inevitability of the onset of new relationships, “the normal work of time”, the transition of society “from age to age”. The way out of the crisis is possible either through reforms or through revolution. If, with the breakdown of old connections, the development of new ones comes to a standstill, the neglect of the disease leads to confusion. Strictly speaking, turmoil is a disease of the social organism, a "historical antinomy" (that is, an exception to the rules of historical life), which arises under the influence of factors that impede renewal. Her external manifestations cataclysms and wars of “all against all” become. Klyuchevsky distinguished between the "root causes" of the turmoil - natural, national-historical and current, concrete-historical. He believed that the explanation for the frequent unrest in Russia should be sought in the peculiarities of its development - nature, which taught the Great Russian to go roundabout ways, "the inability to count in advance", the habit of being guided by the famous "maybe", as well as in the conditions of personality formation and social relations. Klyuchevsky proposed a multidimensional characterization of the turmoil. It manifested itself literally in all spheres of society - power, economy, social sphere, international relationships, ideological and moral spheres. In addition, the turmoil was aggravated by the conflict between the center and the places, the strengthening of the separatist consciousness. The absence of social forces capable of reviving the country. Klyuchevsky carefully studied the nature of the unrest of the XIII and XVII centuries. and their move. He came to the conclusion that turmoil develops from top to bottom and is continuous in time. Trouble in the 17th century lasted 14 years, and its consequences - the entire "rebellious" XVII century. Trouble consistently captures all strata of society. Distemper spread from top to bottom, the exit from it took place in reverse direction. Exit from the Great Troubles of the 17th century. in the conditions of the development of serfdom and absolutism, it had its own characteristics (controversial, camouflage, inhumane and potentially explosive).
A positive consequence of the Time of Troubles, Klyuchevsky saw the rise of national self-consciousness, the active work of thought. The turmoil also had negative consequences - the destruction of old ideals, the foundations of life, the transformation social structure society (the predominance of the nobility over all other classes of Russian society began). Klyuchevsky was an opponent of serfdom.
The anti-monarchist and anti-noble views of Klyuchevsky manifested themselves in the characteristics of the cultural and psychological image of the nobility, which in some cases the historian deliberately brought to the grotesque.
Peter I. Russian rulers of the XVIII century. Klyuchevsky divided into two categories. To "unusual" he attributed Peter the Great, and to "accidental" - all the rest. Klyuchevsky believed that “Peter became a reformer somehow by chance, as if reluctantly, involuntarily. The war brought him and pushed him towards reforms until the end of his life. He did not have any preliminary program of reforms or a well-thought-out policy. Nevertheless, Klyuchevsky considered Peter "not a debtor, but a creditor of the future" on the grounds that he created what was developed later. 18th century did not become the subject of independent study of Klyuchevsky. And he allowed himself caricature in the means of representation. He considered the successors and successors of Peter the Great unworthy, wrote about the degeneration of rulers, starting with the sons of Paul I.
Klyuchevsky made an invaluable contribution to the development of Russian historiography as a science. His students were many scientists of the 20th century - P.N. Milyukov, M.N. Pokrovsky, A.A. Kiesewetter. His works had a huge impact on contemporaries and descendants.
A Russian historian presenting his work in the second half of the 19th century does not need to tell his readers about the significance and usefulness of Russian history; his duty is to warn them only of the main thought of the work.This book includes the first and second volumes of the main work of the life of S. M. Solovyov - "The History of Russia from Ancient Times". The first volume covers events from ancient times to the end of the reign of the Kiev Grand Duke Yaroslav Vladimirovich the Wise; the second - from 1054 to 1228This book includes the first volume of the main work of the life of S. M. Solovyov - "History of Russia from ancient times." The first volume covers events from ancient times to the end of the reign of the Kiev Grand Duke Yaroslav Vladimirovich the Wise.After the death of Yaroslav I, five sons and a grandson remained from his eldest son Vladimir; in Polotsk, the descendants of the eldest son of Vladimir, St. Izyaslav, reigned; all these princes receive well-known volosts, multiply, their relationship to each other is in the first place in the chronicler's story. What kind of relationship were these?The second book of works by S. M. Solovyov includes the third and fourth volumes of the History of Russia from Ancient Times. They illuminate the political life and structure of Russian society in the 13th-15th centuries.This book includes the second volume of the main work of the life of S. M. Solovyov - "History of Russia from ancient times." The second volume covers events from the end of the reign of Yaroslav I to the end of the reign of Mstislav Toropetsky.When reviewing the first period of our history, we saw how the tribes were united under the rule of one common head or prince, called by the northern tribes from a foreign clan. The dignity of the princes of the Russian land remains exclusively in this called family; in the tenth century, Novgorodians told Svyatoslav that if he did not give them a prince from his sons, then they would choose a prince from another kind; but after that we do not hear such words anywhere.The third book of works by S. M. Solovyov includes the fifth and sixth volumes of the History of Russia from Ancient Times. The fifth volume covers the events of the reigns of Ivan III and Vasily III; the central place in the sixth volume is given to the reign of Ivan the Terrible."Russian history from the most ancient times"
Tatishchev transferred the noted features of his views to the field of special historical research. The study of Russian history was an integral part of his general outlook.
Tatishchev's historical works can be grouped as follows:
1) generalizing works;
2) comments on the texts of historical monuments;
3) historical reviews in economic notes;
4) research on historical geography.
The historical concept given by him is the scheme of history
autocracy, represented in the images of individual monarchs.
The largest generalizing work of Tatishchev "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" was published (and very imperfectly and incompletely) after his death. This historical work differs in many ways from both chronicles, and from the books of Griboyedov, Mankiev and others. V. N. Tatishchev systematized the annalistic and documentary material at his disposal, in a new way, in the light of the worldview of his time, gave an explanation of the historical process, subjecting the sources to a critical analysis.
"History of the Russian" is preceded by the Introduction, or "Foreshadowing" contained in the first volume, where the author expressed his views on the tasks and methods of historical research, the nature of critical source studies, etc. Such an Introduction with the formulation of historical problems and source study methods already distinguishes Tatishchev's work from earlier works of Russian historiography.
Defining the subject of history, Tatishchev points to the origin of the word "history" from the Greek term meaning "act". However, according to Tatishchev, such word production does not give grounds to reduce the tasks of history to the study of only actually human "acts" (ie, actions, deeds). The concept of "act" also includes "adventure" (ie event). In this regard, the historian raised the question of the causality of an act, considering the “cause” of any “adventure” (event) to be an “external action” (external influence) that comes from God or from a person. Thus, history, according to Tatishchev, should study both the actions of people and events, and their causes, which should be sought in the will of man or in God's providence. Before us is a pragmatic explanation of the historical process as a chain of phenomena that externally influence each other.
In the "Foreshadowing" Tatishchev set forth (in accordance with the thoughts expressed earlier in "A Conversation of Two Friends on the Benefits of Science and Schools") his understanding of the world-historical process as a history of "adventures" and "acts" that come "from the mind or stupidity" . By "mind" the historian meant a natural property that turns into "reason" as a result of enlightenment, by "stupidity" - "lack or impoverishment of the mind." As in "Conversation ...", Tatishchev presents us with three phenomena in world history important for the "enlightenment of the mind": the invention of writing, the coming of Christ, the introduction of printing.
V. N. Tatishchev distinguishes between the history of "sacra", or "holy" (" Holy Bible"); "church"; "civil" or "politics"; the history of "sciences and scientists". He connected the historical process with the successes of enlightenment, the achievements of the human mind and singled out the history of science as a special branch of historical knowledge.
Justifying the applied purpose ("benefit") of history, Tatishchev argued that knowledge of history informs experience that helps practical activities in various fields. The scientist also talked about different types of historical works from the point of view of chronology: you can start history from the "creation of the world", but you can take any important moment in the past as a starting point, highlighting, for example, the history of "ancient", "middle" and " new". Finally, the type of historical work also depends on the order in which the material is presented: by year ("chronograph or chronicle"), by reign of sovereigns ("archontology, or legend about sovereigns"), etc. Such a classification of works according to their tasks, the nature of the selection of material and the method of presentation was a new phenomenon in Russian historiography.
Very interesting are the discussions about the qualities that are necessary for a historian, and about the training that he must possess. V. N. Tatishchev gives two points of view on this issue: some believe that in order to write history, it is enough to diligently read materials, have a good memory and own a good style; others point out that the historian needs to be a philosophically educated person. B. II. Tatishchev declares that both are necessary to a certain extent. Starting his work, the historian must acquire the necessary minimum of historical information, read the required number of books (Russian and foreign). However, this is not enough, it is necessary to comprehend the collected facts.
B. II. Tatishchev compares a historian with a homely owner who, starting to build a house (historical work), must not only collect suitable supplies (historical material) for this, keeping them for the time being in a "storehouse" (his memory) in order to use them when it is necessary, but must still meaningfully, reasonably use this material, otherwise the built building will be fragile. In the assertion that the historian must be both a collector of facts and an interpreter of them, the rationalism inherent in Tatishchev had an effect. He tried to comprehend the problems of source studies, to identify the foundations of historical criticism, to put forward criteria for assessing the reliability of historical sources. And in this case, Tatishchev resorts to a figurative form of presentation, comparing the historian with the builder of the building: just as the builder must be able to "disassemble the supplies fit from the unusable, rotten from the healthy", so "the writer of history needs to examine with diligence, so that fables for netinnu ... don't accept..."
Analyzing the methods of selecting and criticizing sources, Tatishchev points out that the historian should mainly use the testimonies of participants in the events, then the stories of contemporaries, and, finally, records compiled on the basis of data received from participants or contemporaries of the events. Sources of domestic origin, he considers credible in more than the notes of foreigners who did not always speak Russian. But at the same time, Tatishchev speaks of the need for a critical approach to Russian sources, the authors of which could be obsessed with "the passion of pride or self-praise."
There are many sound and correct observations in Tatishchev’s reasoning, although the criteria for source analysis put forward by him come mainly from his general idea of the historical process, where “ministers or noble rulers, generals, etc.” operate, the information of which, reflected in the sources, seems to him the most reliable .
In the "Foreshadowing" Tatishchev lists the sources involved in the study: chronicles, the Book of Power of the royal genealogy, Synopsis, various legends and stories, documentary material (taken from the archives of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia), etc. Individual monuments are accompanied by critical remarks: according to Tatishchev, the Book of Powers is a "real archontology", i.e. biographies of the kings, the chronograph "in years ... many faulty" (contains incorrect dates), the Synopsis contains "many fables and unsubstantiated inclusions."
In connection with the issues of source study, it should be emphasized that the scientist pointed out the importance of studying auxiliary historical disciplines. Among them, he names "chronology, or chronicle telling" (knowledge of chronology systems), "theography" and "genealogy, or genealogy of sovereigns." Interest in the latter discipline is characteristic of noble historiography. Medieval genealogy laid not only a solid source base, but also enabled later scientists to use its techniques to compile various kinds of genealogies: paintings and tables.
With the development of historical science, interest was also shown in genealogy as an essential component of historical research. Its scientific significance was recognized by the first Russian historians. VN Tatishchev was the first to substantiate the importance of the main "auxiliary" historical disciplines. He pointed out that in order to successfully write a historical essay, knowledge is necessary: 1) chronology - "it is very necessary to know when what was done"; 2) geography - "shows the position of places where something fell out before and now is"; 3) genealogy - "you need to know who was born from whom, whom had children, with whom he was obliged to marry, from which you can understand the correct inheritance and harassment." Thus, in the view of Tatishchev, genealogy is one of the three sciences, with the help of which the historian can solve the problems facing him. In addition, Tatishchev's interest in genealogy was dictated by the desire to historically trace the ruling position of the monarchy and the nobility as its support.
The material of "History of Russia" is divided into four books, or five parts. Such a structure differs from that proposed by Tatishchev in the "Pre-Announcement" (four parts) and reflecting his views on the periodization of Russian history.
Part one (according to the printed edition - book 1, parts 1-2) is devoted to events before 860, i.e. to the chronicle story about the calling of Rurik with his brothers; part two (according to the printed edition - books 2 and 3) - the time from the reign of Rurik to the Tatar-Mongol invasion (1237); part three (according to the printed edition - book 4) - until the time of Ivan III; the fourth part (but for the printed edition - book 5) the author wanted to devote to the time from the reign of Ivan III to the accession to the throne of Mikhail Fedorovich; in fact, the events are considered only up to 1577. The unused author's material has been preserved only in fragments.
Tatishchev's periodization is based on the history of autocracy in Russia outlined in his political project of 1730.
The first book of the Russian History (in two parts) differs in its structure and content from the subsequent ones. It consists of a number of chapters devoted to the study of individual problems ancient history Eastern Slavs. The following books are reminiscent of a summary chronicle (built on the basis of news taken from various chronicle lists), which outlines the political history of Russia in chronological order.
The content of the first book begins with the question "about the antiquity of writing" among the Slavs. Citing the news of various ancient authors, Tatishchev tries to interpret them in the sense that "the Slavs long before Christ and the Slavic Russians actually had a letter before Vladimir ...". Interest in ancient Slavic writing is associated with Tatishchev's general ideas that the invention of writing is one of the most important factors in the historical process. Another factor determining the development of education, Tatishchev considers the role of Christianity. The following chapters are devoted to the issue of the spread of Christianity in Russia, based on data from both Russian and foreign monuments. At the same time, the author criticizes the information of the sources, sometimes resorting to rather arbitrary methods, in particular, he believed that the annalistic news about two persons (Askold and Dir) should actually refer to one "husband" - Askold Tirar.
In the first book of "History of Russia" there is an analysis of ancient Russian chronicles. Tatishchev considered the earliest monument of the chronicle type to be one text he acquired, the author of which was supposedly the Novgorod bishop of the 10th century. Joachim. According to a number of historians, in reality, the so-called Joachim Chronicle is, apparently, a monument of the late 17th century, compiled at the direction of the Novgorod archbishop of that time, also named Joachim. Analyzing the chronicle of Nestor ("The Tale of Bygone Years") and his successors, Tatishchev makes a number of interesting critical remarks, for example, that before Nestor there were other historians in Russia. He raises the question (although he does not solve it) about the need to separate the text belonging to Nestor from the texts of subsequent editors who worked on The Tale of Bygone Years ("some foolish people dared to add something to the middle of his chronicle, but they loosened something else ..." ).
Tatishchev then proceeds to describe the manuscripts ("manuscripts") used in his Russian History. The description ends with an appeal to every "industrious" researcher who has made new discoveries to report them to the Academy of Sciences, "so that with another edition they could replenish or forward ...". Thus, the task of further collecting manuscripts is put forward, which should serve as the source study foundation for subsequent scientific works.
Much attention is paid to the question of the origin of various ancient peoples of Eastern Europe. Trying to understand the abundance of their names preserved by sources (Greek, Roman, etc.), Tatishchev gives several explanations for this: sometimes "foreign-language" writers, "hearing indistinctly" the name, "wrote [it] incorrectly"; sometimes "neighbors give names to regions and peoples themselves, which other or those very peoples do not know about." In a number of cases, foreign writers could not convey the names of foreign peoples due to the lack of corresponding letters in their own language. Peoples changed their names during migrations. All these and other explanations of the historian, despite their well-known naivete, testify to his critical approach to the problem raised.
Tatishchev accompanies the narration of the specific history of the most ancient peoples (Scythians, Sarmatians, Getae, Goths, etc.) with excerpts from the works of Herodotus (V century BC), Strabo (I century BC - I century AD). e.), Pliny the Elder (I century AD), Ptolemy (II century), Constantine Porphyrogenitus (X century), also uses the works of the German historian G. 3. Bayer.
V. P. Tatishchev proves the antiquity of the Slavs, who, even before they received their name from "glory", had already proven themselves by glorious deeds. “Of all the Slavic regions,” the historian wrote, “the Russian sovereigns most of all showed their glory by spreading and multiplying the Slavonic language”; "there were many Slavs throughout Russia before Rurik, but with the advent of Rurik from the Varangians, the Slavic clan and language was humiliated"; the name Rus or Ros in Greek sources "was known long before Rurik ...". And only Princess Olga, who came from a family of Slavic princes, "raised the Slavic people and brought the common language into use." Thus, recognizing the Norman origin of the princely dynasty among the Eastern Slavs, Tatishchev believed that it was established when the Slavs had already passed a certain path of social development.
In the chapter "On the Ancient Russian Government and Others as an Example" of the first book, the historian raises a number of theoretical questions about society and the state, which he solves, as in "A Conversation of Two Friends about the Benefits of Science and Schools", on the basis of the concept of "natural law". Tatishchev derives the idea of the beginnings of coexistence and power from the natural need of a person in the family: "... the first community in the human race began when a husband and wife, free for their common benefit, agree to combine or copulate such that the main lesson is to multiply their kind" . On a family basis, a “paternal government” and a “tribal community” arise. With the multiplication of mankind, a third form of community life, based on an agreement, appears - the "domovoe community", where the masters have power over the serfs. The enumerated forms of social organization Tatishchev calls "single-house", or "master's". He emphasizes that these organizations could not exist independently for a long time. Due to evil qualities human nature crimes were born, there was a need for protection from them. At the same time, the economic needs of people increased, they were satisfied through a certain social division of labor: people "of various trades and crafts ... united in order to get everything that they freely needed in their vicinity, and to satisfy others with their trade" could. This is how cities arose that required a common rule - "citizenship" (or "watered"): "several such towns, forming a union in a single society, agreed."
Further, Tatishchev dwells on the forms of the state, proves the advantage for Russia of absolutism in comparison with other types. state structure. Much attention is paid to the titles of various rulers: the Greek "basileus" ("vasileus"), the Roman "river" (geh)- latin "dux" (dux) German "furst" (Just) Slavic "king" and "prince", etc.
The subsequent books of the "History of the Russian" contain a presentation of historical events in accordance with the data of the chronicle and are of less interest for the characterization of Tatishchev the historian. Valuable observations of a geographical, ethnographic and terminological nature are given in the notes to these books.
V.P. Tatishchev (as mentioned above) prepared Russian Pravda for publication under the title "Ancient Russian Laws" ( short version), extracted from a list of the 15th century. Novgorod Chronicle, and the Sudebnik of Ivan IV with additional decrees. A painstaking study of Tatishchev's manuscripts, carried out by
A.I. Andreev, convinces that he worked on the notes to the Russkaya Pravda and the Sudebnik of 1550 for about 15 years. These works of the historian saw the light many years after his death.
Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov is a recognized classic. His name is well known not only by historians. Of all the diverse, multi-genre heritage left to posterity, the 29-volume History of Russia from Ancient Times is the most famous. Its writing became the meaning of life and the creative feat of the historian. Beginning in 1851 and until the end of his life, Solovyov annually published another volume of his understanding of the historical development of the Fatherland. The publication of the first volume became a scientific and social event, evoked a lot of responses, not always favorable. The problems raised in the controversy surrounding Solovyov's work remained the subject of study and discussion for decades and thus contributed to the development of the fundamental phenomena of the national statehood. Well knowing Solovyov V.I. Guerrier wrote: “S.M. Solovyov did not like struggle at all, polemics with false tendencies in science and public life. The controversy disturbed the correct course of his scientific studies, which became a moral necessity for him. However, Solovyov responded to the first conceptually unacceptable reviews of his opponents. In the future, he really refused to participate in the controversy. His answer was the next volumes of the "History of Russia ..." that were published.
Solovyov declared himself publicly in the middle of the 19th century. K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin: "... Karamzin, who was not replaced by anyone, lost, perhaps too early, all his educational significance." CM. Solovyov, highly appreciating the importance of Karamzin in historiography, was convinced that he had already played his role in science.
In this regard, the answer to the question is fundamental: what was the main work of the predecessor "History of the Russian State" for the young historian? Sam S.M. Solovyov described the attitude towards Karamzin in this way: “The first writer of the era, the creator of a new literary language, Karamzin devoted his work to national history, and everything that a strong talent could do for the external painting of events, everything was done by Karamzin; Lomonosov's dream came true: Russian history found its Libya. As for the main view of the historiographer, Karamzin was a representative of the Catherine’s age, in which his views finally took shape: dissatisfaction with the era of transformation, dissatisfaction with the external borrowing of forms of Western European citizenship, the demand for internal moral perfection, rebirth, the demand for the soul, feelings, sensitivity ... ". Solovyov called the "History of the Russian State" "the greatest poem" glorifying the Slavic state. He emphasized that Karamzin fully reflected the consciousness that “of all the Slavic peoples, the Russian people alone formed a state that not only did not lose its independence, like others, but was enormous, powerful, with a decisive influence on the historical destinies of the world.”
However, Solovyov preferred his own scientific semantic content of Russian history and an explanation of the meaning of events and patterns in the development of Russian statehood to the literary component of Karamzin's work. Solovyov contrasted the prose of history with the poetic mood of Karamzin. If Karamzin, according to Solovyov, in the first place was painting, and in the second place the source, then Solovyov deliberately changed their places. Solovyov believed that literary history the time has come for the Russian state to give way to scientific history. Thus, he consciously and with full responsibility took upon himself the burden of writing a new "History of Russia", which, from his point of view, would meet the requirements modern science. And here I ran into a misunderstanding. First of all, he was not satisfied with the lack of a broad philosophical view of history. Solovyov believed that the concept that explains the course of history only by the intention or whim of an individual explains little: "The arbitrariness of one person, no matter how strong this person may be, cannot change the course of people's life, unsettle the people."
By this time, Solovyov's philosophical and historical views were qualitatively different from those of Karamzin. Approaching the analysis of concrete historical material from a different standpoint, Solovyov formulated the anthropological principle of studying and understanding the history of a people: “Science shows us that peoples live, develop according to certain laws, pass certain ages as separate people, like everything living, everything organic .. .". Having absorbed the wealth of modern ideas, including G. Hegel's "Philosophy of History", Solovyov came to an understanding of the organic interconnection of historical phenomena.
Attitude to G. Hegel
In his student years (1838-1842), in the minds of S.M. Solovyov there was an active process of recognition, study, comprehension of Hegel's philosophy. He reflected on its applicability to Russian history. Hegel was then the idol of the Moscow students. “He turned everyone's heads, although very few read Hegel himself, and used him only from the lectures of young professors; the students who studied were expressed in no other way than in Hegelian terms ... ”, S. M. Solovyov recalled this time. Young lecturers of the antique scholar D. L. Kryukov, economist A.I. Chivilev, lawyers P.G. Rare and N.I. Krylov, historian and lawyer K.D. Kavelin, medievalist historian T. N. Granovsky completed an internship abroad. They stood out among the Moscow professors, especially the so-called "Uvarov party" (historian M.P. Pogodin, philologists S.P. Shevyrev and I.I. Davydov belonged to it), in that all were ardent admirers of Hegelian philosophy and experts in European historiography. Solovyov listened to lectures by representatives of both sides, and the force of influence on the student consciousness of individual lecturers was not the same. Solovyov paid tribute to Professor D.L. Kryukov, although in 1843-1844. had a complaint against him. “Kryukov, one might say, rushed at us, high school students, with a huge mass of new ideas, with a completely new science for us, expounded it in a brilliant way and, of course, stunned us, ... sowed good seeds ...”, Solovyov recalled . Kryukov's lectures began with a review of the main works on the history of philosophy and an analysis of the scientific schemes of Fichte, Schelling, Herder, but preference was still given to Hegel. The lecturer demonstrated the fruits of his own application of the historical and philosophical approach to history when presenting specific problems (the formation of the Roman state on the basis of the decomposition of the institutions of the tribal system or the characteristics of the tribal structure of ancient Roman society). He told the students about the influence of the geographical environment on the evolution of social relations. Thanks to Kryukov's historiographical reviews, Solovyov may have drawn attention to the works of G. Evers.
How did the study of Hegel influence Solovyov's creative growth? The historian himself partly answered this question: “Of the Hegelian writings, I read only the Philosophy of History; she made a strong impression on me; for several months I became a Protestant, but things did not go further, the religious feeling was rooted too deeply in my soul, and now the thought arose in me - to study philosophy in order to use its means to establish religion, Christianity, but abstractions were not for me; I was born a historian." Thus, a professional choice was made: not philosophy, but science, not the philosophy of history, but the science of history. This opposition in the eyes of Solovyov had a methodological meaning.
Solovyov quite quickly outgrew the state of enthusiasm for Hegel and his offspring, the Philosophy of History, thanks to his exceptional efficiency and curiosity: “In the study of history, I rushed in different directions, read Gibbon, Vico, Sismondi; I don't remember exactly when I fell into the hands of Eversovo " ancient law Rusov”, this book constitutes an epoch in my mental life, because from Karamzin I collected only facts, Karamzin struck only at my feelings. Evers hit the thought, he made me think about Russian history.
Reflecting on what he had read, Solovyov came to the conclusion that Western thinkers had neglected Russian history; moreover, the Russian people were not among them (above all, Hegel) included among the "world-historical" peoples. Solovyov was well aware of the task that at that time faced the national Russian thought - the construction of the philosophy of Russian history and thereby "inclusion" in its composition of the philosophy of history in general. And he makes a significant contribution to its solution.
If the Slavophiles tried to apply Schelling's philosophical and historical thoughts to the constructions and interpretations of Russian history, Solovyov raised the question on a different plane. He considered it insufficient to "connect" the Russian people to the number of world-historical peoples only to reveal the significance and specificity of the Russian people in history in comparison with the Western European peoples. Another task seemed more important to the historian, namely: explaining the incompleteness and incompleteness of the philosophical and historical view of world history, while ignoring the fate of the Russian and Slavic peoples. In this he saw an indispensable condition for the successful knowledge of the purpose of the history of the Russian people and its comparison with the peoples of Western Europe. As we can see, a certain modification of the content and structure of the former philosophy of history (in this case, Hegel's system) was inevitable for Solovyov, if only because he introduced a new element into the philosophy of history: the Russian people.
In 1841, in the seminar of S.P. Shevyreva Solovyov prepared the work "Theosophical view of the history of Russia" (published in 1996). In this early work, the most important methodological foundations of the historical concept of the scientist were laid. A number of thoughts expressed then will sound in the program works of the mature S.M. Solovyov (“Public readings about Peter the Great” (1872) and “Observations on the historical life of peoples” (1868-1876)).
The formulation of the question of the special quality of the Russian people and the specifics of their historical life among other world-historical peoples in The Theosophical View is given by Solovyov within the framework of his idea of two "ages" of people's life. “Every nation has its own religious period - children's”; it is characterized by a low degree of education, unconscious adherence to "religious suggestions" and blind obedience to "spiritual leaders". The second age - "the manhood of the people" - in the historical life of the people begins when philosophy (science) takes the place of religion. A "philosophy of history" or "a people's consciousness of their own destinies" is born. With the transition from faith to reason, according to Solovyov, “the saving influence of religion on man and people also disappears”, the seeds of disbelief and destruction are sown. The historian saw the difference (or exception from the general rule) of the Russian people in the fact that the first period of its historical life, corresponding to the “childhood” age (from the end of the 9th to the beginning of the 17th century), passed, as elsewhere, under the sign of a deep religious feeling; but, having entered the second period of the "age of manhood", and, thanks to Peter's reforms, entering the field of world-historical activity, the Russian people did not part with religion as the basis of the spiritual sphere of the life of the people. And this is its fundamental difference.
Thus, the formula "rule - exception" is not alien to Solovyov: "In the Russian people alone, religious influence will continue forever, but at the same time reasonably and consciously." This opinion of Solovyov is close to the Slavophile and shows that he experienced many-sided influences. Many years later, the historian, retaining the general structural typology of social development, i.e., without abandoning the division of the history of folk life into two ages, changed the names of the categories themselves, defining them as the “age of feeling” and “the age of thought”. Solovyov writes in Public Readings on Peter the Great: “If a people is capable of development, capable of entering the second period or second age of its life, then the movement usually begins with an acquaintance with a stranger; thought begins to freely relate to its own and others, to give priority in the life of foreign peoples, ahead of those already in the second period in development. According to Solovyov, the Russian people were brought into a state of historical movement by Peter the Great.
During a trip abroad 1842-1844. in Solovyov, his critical perception of Hegel intensifies. At this time, the historian had the opportunity to deeply familiarize himself with the achievements of Western European historical science. At the same time, he basically decided on a methodological point of view. And the initial intuitive feeling of "rejection" of the Hegelian philosophy of history, having matured, turns into a conscious methodological position, the most important feature of which is the anti-Hegelian orientation.
One cannot but agree that Solovyov adhered to a point of view different from Hegel on a number of issues, primarily with regard to the role of the Russian people in the world-historical process. To substantiate his position, Solovyov compared Russia and Western Europe along three lines, which acquired the character of antitheses. The first antithesis "mother nature" (for Western Europe) - "stepmother nature" (for Russia) emphasized differences in the degree of favorable natural conditions. In turn, the specifics of natural conditions explained the difference in the methods and results of ethnogenesis. Unlike the European peoples, who were closed to the “influx” of new Asian barbarian peoples and therefore had the opportunity to develop their nationality, the peoples of Eastern Europe did not have such an opportunity. Ethnically, "a frontier people, especially those living at the crossroads of other peoples, must necessarily be a mixture of different peoples"; “The Slavs are a mixed tribe, a people formed from growth, and not a nation formed by the order of the natural origin of a whole family from another.” And finally, the specifics of the genesis of the statehood of Russia followed from the first two features. In the West, monarchical states were the result of the conquest and forcible subjugation of the native population by the combatants of the Germanic tribes. And violence, in accordance with the law of dialectics, gives rise to its opposite - the struggle for freedom and, as a result, revolution. Among the Slavs, according to Solovyov, neither a despotic form of government (due to the mixed nature of the population), nor a republic (due to the vastness of the territory), nor a monarchical power based on conquest (there was no such conquest here) could be established. The Slavs themselves came to the idea of the need for power, and Soloviev credited them with this circumstance. And this idea itself was born from a state of initial anarchy. Actually Russian history, according to Solovyov, begins with the beginning of Russian statehood. He associated it with the approval of Rurik as a prince among the northern Slavic and Finnish tribes.
Thus, having abandoned the Hegelian triad, or the three-element structure of historical being East-Antiquity-Christianity and putting forward his own four-element East-Antiquity-Western Europe-Russia, Solovyov thereby abandoned dialectics in its Hegelian form, proposing his own philosophical and historical construction.
The difference between Solovyov and Hegel is even more obvious when comparing their positions on the question of the role of peoples in the movement of world history. For Hegel, individual peoples are tools, means of the "world spirit", and their principles are "moments" of the idea of freedom, realized in an ideal state. For Solovyov, the peoples have an independent meaning, although different. He saw in the specifics of the historical life of peoples, their religion and forms of statehood a product of real geographical, ethnographic and historical conditions of life.
But Solovyov still owes all these reflections to Hegel. It is obvious that Hegel left a deep mark on the methodological development of Solovyov and his work. Let us note only a few points: the perception of the dialectical principles of development, the analysis of the "eastern power of nature" as an influential historical factor; the idea of resettlement and historical movement; attitude towards Asian states as standing out of touch with the course of world history; recognition of the connecting role of rivers and the separating role of mountains; the role of the state as a form of the complete realization of the spirit in the present being, expressed by Solovyov in such a way that only through the state or the government does the people manifest its historical existence, the idea of self-consciousness ...
The exceptional value of the state in the views of Solovyov is also from Hegel. The spirit of the Russian people (and in the history of Russian historical science Solovyov was the first to define the scientific parameters of this phenomenon—the nature of the country, the nature of the tribe, and the course of external events) manifested itself in a special relationship to the state. The state is a value-significant phenomenon of Russian history, regardless of likes and dislikes. Solovyov believed that the value orientations of the people are not subject to moral condemnation. The task of the historian is to understand them without allowing modernization.
And at the same time Solovyov deliberately used the ideas of Hegel against the Hegelian philosophy of history. Among such ideas is the concept of the Aryan (or historical) peoples. Solovyov emphatically calls the Russian people the Aryan people and refers them to their number, since Hegel refused him this. Comparing the Slavs with the Germans, Solovyov writes about them as brother tribes of one Indo-European people. He defines their position in Europe in Christian times as dominant, which they "retained forever." Solovyov considers it unacceptable to raise the question of the tribal superiority of any of them. He sees the reason for the differences that have occurred as a result of the different directions of movement of the tribes. If the Germans at one time moved from the northeast to the southwest in the region of the Roman Empire, where the foundation of European civilization had already been laid, then the Slavs, on the contrary, from the southwest began their historical movement to the northeast into the virgin forests, i. e. space untouched by civilization. Therefore, Hegel's judgment about the natural-climatic grounds for excluding countries and peoples located in a cold or hot climate from the world-historical movement was unacceptable for Solovyov.
Paying attention to the origins of the differences between Russia and the countries of Western Europe, the historian pointed out that a number of factors, including territories already developed by ancient civilization, stone and mountains, contributed to the rapid establishment in the West of feudal law, land ownership, rapid settling, and a variety of nationalities. . Russia, due to the absence of these conditions, but in the presence of boundless space, on the contrary, was marked by other signs: the mobility of princes, movable property, instability, dispersion of funds, an unprecedented state in size, a squad, perpetual motion. Solovyov wrote that in Russia they wandered with ease, everywhere there was a smell of "Rus". “We said,” he wrote in Reading Three about Peter the Great, “that Russia is badly protected by nature, open from the east, south and west, easily accessible to enemy attacks; but the absence of sharp physical boundaries was replaced for the Russian people by spiritual boundaries, religious difference in the east and south, religious difference in the west; within these boundaries, the Russian nationality firmly held on and retained its individuality and independence. Solovyov connected the whole course of Russian history with the beginnings of Christianity. From his point of view, the moral forces of the people were given by Christianity, the creative role of the state and enlightenment. All the signs of the “specialness” of Russia named by Solovyov could not, in his opinion, exclude the Russian people from the number of historical ones, or, as after Hegel, he said “Aryan”.
Thus, in modern Russian historiography, the thesis about the Hegelian nature of the philosophical and historical concept of S.M. Solovyov, established since the withdrawal of M.N. Pokrovsky about the "Hegelian school" in Russian historiography. Understanding the creative and methodological independence of S.M. Solovyov led researchers first to the observation of a certain “falling out” of Solovyov from the framework of the state school (for example, N.L. Rubinshtein, A.M. Sakharov, S.S. Dmitriev, V.M. Dalin), and then to the judgment that the historian has developed his own unique methodology of historical knowledge. Opinion of A.N. Erygin is largely shared by A.N. Shakhanov.
Unity to works dedicated to S.M. Solovyov, is given by the fact that no one disputes the very fact of the methodological revolution that took place in Russian historical science in the mid-1840s, the development of new philosophical and methodological approaches by Russian historians.
Pages of life
In the biographies of S.M. Solovyov (among them: P.V. Bezobrazova (St. Petersburg, 1894. Series “The Life of Remarkable People” by F. Pavlenkov), which had a serious impact on subsequent works in this genre; I.A. Volkova (M., 1992. Ser. "Chronicles of the Fatherland"), N.I. Tsimbaeva (M., 1990. Ser. "The Life of Remarkable People"), in addition to the memoirs of S.M. Solovyov, other sources are involved to varying degrees. in the Russian State Library by A.N. Shakhanov, made it possible to highlight the previously little-known aspects of his life, especially his student years, participation in the circle of Apollon Grigoriev, and to make observations about the source basis of the great historian’s “My Notes”.
Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov was born on May 5 (17), 1820 in Moscow in the family of a teacher of the law (that is, a teacher of the Law of God) and the rector of the Moscow commercial school. Father was a priest, later an archpriest from the clergy. Mother was a secular person, the daughter of an official who rose to the rank of nobles. Solovyov was initially educated at home. The Moscow Theological District School, to which Solovyov was later assigned by his father, aroused an internal rejection in the boy due to the rudeness of the mores that prevailed there. At the age of 13, Solovyov entered the 3rd grade of the First Moscow Gymnasium. Some of her teachers were also lecturers at the university. In 1838 Solovyov graduated from the 7th grade of the gymnasium.
The meeting with the trustee of the Moscow educational district, Count S.G., was of crucial importance for the historian. Stroganov. It took place in the gymnasium. Solovyov was then introduced to the trustee as the first student. Stroganov was sincerely surprised by the vivacity of thought and independence of the high school student's judgments. Talking about the subsequent life of S.M. Solovyov and, more broadly, Moscow University in the early 1840s, the Stroganov factor cannot be ignored.
A great merit in the fact that a brilliant time came for Moscow University, which turned it into the center of the intellectual life of Moscow and all of Russia, belonged to Count S.G. Stroganov. He brought together the best scientific and pedagogical personnel of the country on Mokhovaya, saved the university from petty guardianship, and stopped the practice of turning students into soldiers for misconduct. He won the respect of students and teachers, he attended lectures and listened attentively to the lectures of scientists.
S.M. Solovyov. His entire subsequent life, which was not replete with external events, was connected with Moscow University. She was subordinated to the scientific ministry. At Moscow University Solovyov was a student, professor, dean and rector. According to M.K. Lyubavsky, it was Solovyov who raised the teaching of national history at Moscow University to the proper height, gave direction to the scientific activity of V. O. Klyuchevsky and many others.
Solovyov had not so many life periods filled with a dynamic change of external impressions. Among them, a special role was played by his stay abroad in 1842-1844, which had a profound influence on the formation of a scientist. Within two years, Solovyov visited Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Strasbourg, Regensburg, Munich, Dresden, Heidelberg, Aachen, Weimar, Prague, he lived in some cities for quite a long time. The historian attended the universities of Berlin, Heidelberg, the Sorbonne, the College de France, worked at the Royal Library in Paris and at the Aachen Library. A graduate of Moscow University got this opportunity while working as a home teacher in the family of his brother S.G. Stroganova A.G. Stroganov.
At the age of 27, Solovyov became a doctor of historical sciences, political economy and statistics and was approved first as an extraordinary, and from July 1850 as an ordinary professor at Moscow University. In the inseparability of the path of a teacher-teacher and a scientist-researcher - the whole Solovyov. In addition to Moscow University, he taught at the Higher Women's Courses of V.I. Guerrier, at the Third Military (Alexandrovsky) School, the Nikolaev Orphan's Institute. On the recommendation of S.G. Stroganova Solovyov in 1859-1863. taught the history of Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, and later his younger brother, the future emperor Alexander III, in the last year of his life he lectured to Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. Classes with the Grand Dukes in the late 1850s - early 1860s. served as a pretext for writing the "Educational book of Russian history", intended for secondary educational institutions. In 1867, its 7th edition was published, and in 1915 - the 14th. Today, the "Educational Book of Russian History" has been republished again. Historians noted the correlation of the "Educational Book ..." with the general idea of "History of Russia from ancient times." If in the "History ..." Solovyov managed to bring the story to the last third of the 18th century, then in the "Educational Book ..." events are considered recent history Russia, during the reign of Alexander I and Nicholas I. According to N.I. Tsimbaev, this is a kind of prospectus for further volumes of the unfinished "History of Russia ...".
On May 30, 1872, Russia solemnly celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Peter I. Solovyov actively participated in the preparation and conduct of the celebration. On the eve of the anniversary, he delivered a series of 12 public lectures ("readings") about Peter and his time. Readings were held on Sundays from February to May in the Hall of Columns Nobility Assembly, then the largest hall in Moscow, accommodating up to three thousand people. Entrance was free, but the audience was the most sophisticated and listened very carefully to Solovyov. In addition, his personal contribution to the celebration of the anniversary was a series of articles “Time Louis XIV in the West, the time of Peter the Great in the East of Europe" on the pages of the "Conversation" magazine and the organization of the historical department at the Polytechnic Exhibition, on the basis of which, in the same 1872, the Museum of Applied Knowledge (later Polytechnic) was created. Then Solovyov participated in the establishment of a lecture hall at the Polytechnic Museum.
Last years Solovyov was chairman of the Society for the History and Antiquities of Russia. In 1871-1877. he was the rector of Moscow University. Much of his strength was taken away by the struggle for the preservation of academic freedoms and the university charter of 1863, which led to a clash with the Ministry of public education. At the height of his fame, he retired. In 1876, the Minister of Education D. A. Tolstoy rejected the request of Solovyov's colleagues to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the scientist's scientific activity. Nevertheless, it took place. On October 4, 1879, Solovyov died and was buried at the Novodevichy Cemetery ... Before the intended goal - to finish the "History of Russia ..." - he had to outline the last 20 years of Catherine's reign.
History of Russia since ancient times
The presentation of the events of the internal life of Russia in the 29th volume was brought up to 1775, and in the field of diplomatic relations - up to 1780. M.O. Koyalovich analyzed the order of organization of materials by S. M. Solovyov in the following way: “There is such an order in this enormous historical work. First, external events are presented in chronological order, with a few exceptions. Thus, the time of John III is presented not chronologically, but by groups of events: Novgorod the Great, Sophia Paleolog, East, Lithuania. At the same time, Russian foreign affairs are also illuminated by a brief overview of events in the Slavic world in ancient times and in general in Western European states. These last reviews are especially extensive and detailed in those times when diplomatic relations were established and strengthened in our country, that is, mainly in modern times, with Peter I.
Then the internal affairs are considered. Their chronological grouping is not the same. In the old days, groups embrace a big time, as, for example, in the 3rd volume from the death of Yaroslav I to the death of Mstislav Toropetsky (i.e. Udaly, until 1228) or in the 4th volume until the Death of this Mstislav and until John III . In other times, these surveys are arranged most often by reigns, reigns, and finally, simply by groups of several years, as, for example, in the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna by seven years or in the reign of Catherine by groups of events for three, two and even one year. Everywhere, however, one plan is more or less followed in the distribution of events. domestic life. This section begins with a review of the life of princes or kings, then there are reviews of the state of the upper classes and institutions, then - the life of cities, the life of villagers, trade, laws, spiritual and secular education, literature, customs.
It was important for Solovyov himself to express fundamental considerations, the adherence to which was to ensure the internal unity of the multi-volume "History of Russia ...". In the Preface, he “warned” readers “about the main idea of the work”: “Do not divide, do not split Russian history into separate parts, periods, but connect them, follow mainly the connection of phenomena, the direct succession of forms, do not separate the beginnings, but to consider them in interaction, to try to explain each phenomenon from internal causes, before isolating it from the general connection of events and subordinating it to external influence - this is the duty of the historian at the present time, as the author of the proposed work understands it.
The relationship between the main phenomena “noted” in the course of Russian history, in the eyes of Solovyov, was determined by the relationship between the tribal and state (government) principles, the strength of the foundations of state life, internal and external influences (tribal and Greco-Roman), relations with European peoples. The change of the old order by the new one was determined by the transition of "patrimonial princely relations into state relations, on which the unity, power of Russia and the change in the internal order depended." Soloviev discovered the beginnings of a new order in northeastern Russia "before the Tatars", under Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod III (Big Nest). On this basis, the historian assessed the role of the Tatar-Mongol in Russian history: “... Mongolian relations should be important for us to the extent that they contributed to the establishment of this new order of things. We notice that the influence of the Tatars was not the main and decisive one here. Solovyov denies an independent "Tatar period" in Russian history. In his opinion, “... the historian has no right to interrupt the natural thread of events from the middle of the 13th century - namely, the gradual transition of ancestral princely relations into state relations - and insert the Tatar period, highlight the Tatars, Tatar relations, as a result of which the main phenomena must be closed , the main causes of these phenomena.
The task of the historian is to analyze "the main, basic phenomenon - the transition of tribal relations between princes into state relations", which finally triumph in the 16th century. The young state withstood the test of the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. and the suppression of the Rurik dynasty. “With the new dynasty,” Soloviev writes, “the preparations begin for the order of things that marks the state life of Russia among the European powers.” Solovyov does not consider it possible to separate the 17th and 18th centuries, they are so closely connected in Russian history. “In the second half of the 18th century, we notice a new direction: borrowing the fruits of European civilization for the sole purpose of material well-being turns out to be insufficient. There is a need for spiritual, moral enlightenment, a need to put the soul into a previously prepared body ... in our time, enlightenment has borne its necessary fruit - knowledge in general has led to self-knowledge.
Serfdom
In a concentrated form, Solovyov formulated the concept of the origin of serfdom in Russia in the second “Reading” about Peter the Great: “The state is poor, sparsely populated and must maintain a large army to protect the long stretched and open borders ... A poor state, but obliged to maintain a large army , having no money due to industrial and commercial underdevelopment, distributes land to military service people. But the land for the landowner is of no importance without the farmer, without the worker, and that is what is lacking; laborers are expensive, there is a struggle between landowners for them: workers are lured away by landowners who are richer ... And now the only means of satisfying the main need of the country has been found - the attachment of peasants. And the general conclusion: "The attachment of the peasants is a cry of despair emitted by the state, which is in a hopeless economic situation." In the "History of Russia ..." Solovyov noted the "new movement of legal concepts" in the Sudebnik of 1497. He noted the fact of repetition in Art. 88 of the Sudebnik of 1550 on the peasant withdrawal of the corresponding resolution of the Sudebnik of 1497. Solovyov noted the centralizing aspirations of the Sudebnik of 1550. Solovyov shared the opinion of his predecessors (M.M. Shcherbatov, N.M. Karamzin, G. Evers) on attaching peasants to the land by law, published during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich, but did not support any of the points of view expressed by them about the time of publication of this law. Solovyov attributed the publication of the law on attaching peasants to the "beginning of the reign of Fyodor", since an earlier dating would contradict the introductory part of the Council Code of Vasily Shuisky, where Boris Godunov was accused of depriving the peasants of the right to transfer to the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich. According to V.I. Koretsky and B.C. Shulgin, Solovyov was inclined to attribute the publication of the law on the general attachment of peasants to October 1584. By linking the attachment of peasants to the land with increased state centralization, Solovyov took a step forward in studying the problem of the emergence of serfdom.
Explaining the stability of serfdom, which only intensified in the 18th century, by the low population of the country and the fact that the process of colonization continued in Russia, Solovyov in this case considered serfdom as a consequence of low population growth and a means to consolidate the results of colonization.
periodization
I. From Rurik to Andrei Bogolyubsky - the period of domination of tribal relations in political life.
Solovyov saw the first step towards state relations in the fact that the Vladimir-Suzdal prince Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky, having occupied Kyiv, did not sit down to reign in it, but planted his assistant there. “This act of Andrei was an event of the greatest importance, a turning point, from which history took a new course, from which a new order of things begins in Russia.” There was a prince, “who did not like the Kievan reign, who preferred the glorious and rich Kiev to the poor, who had just begun to rebuild the city in the north, Vladimir Klyazmensky.” At Vladimiro-
Suzdal Russia had special prerequisites for the establishment of state principles, which Solovyov saw in virgin soil, “on which the new order of things could be accepted much more easily”, “there were no rooted old traditions about the unity of the princely family”, the princes did not encounter obstacles to their intentions from the townspeople , vecha, since the cities "were built and inhabited by princes" and therefore "necessarily considered themselves" princely property. Solovyov believed that in North-Eastern Russia "for the first time there were concepts of separate princely property, which Bogolyubsky hastened to separate from the common tribal property."
II. From Andrei Bogolyubsky to the beginning of the 17th century. - a period of struggle between tribal and state principles, culminating in the complete triumph of the state principle. This long period had internal stages:
a) from Andrei Bogolyubsky to Ivan Kalita - the initial time of the struggle of tribal and state relations;
b) from Ivan Kalita to Ivan III - the time of the unification of Russia around Moscow;
c) from Ivan III to the beginning of the 17th century. - a period of struggle for the complete triumph of the state principle.
XIII-XV centuries Solovyov considered it a natural stage in the progressive development of society. All "organically formed states" have passed through such a stage. At this time, with a "visible separation", there is a "long, difficult, painful process of internal growth and strengthening." According to V.T. Pashuto, AM. Sakharova, B.C. Shulgin, the problem of the formation of the Muscovite state turns in Solovyov into the problem of the emergence of statehood in Russia in general. The center of the historical life of the Russian people moved in the XIII-XV centuries to North-Eastern Russia, where a single Russian state began to form around Moscow. Solovyov emphasized that thanks to this circumstance, North-Eastern Russia acquired a leading position in Russian history, and that the very outcome of the struggle of South-Western Russia against Lithuania and Poland depended on this. From the second half of the XIII century. a clear strengthening of the role of the church in political events is noticeable. Solovyov explained this by the change of Greek metropolitans by Russian metropolitans and the movement from tribal relations to state relations. Solovyov showed that the unification of the Russian lands under the rule of Ivan III was not so much the result of the activity of the Moscow prince himself, but was prepared by the previous course of history. Ivan III is only "a happy descendant of a number of smart, hardworking, thrifty ancestors." Ivan III "finishes the old and at the same time necessarily begins the new." In the actions of Ivan the Terrible, Solovyov was one of the first in Russian historical science to see a historically conditioned pattern. Oprichnina in the eyes of Solovyov was the last decisive blow to tribal relations, the bearer of which was the boyars. For the first time, the oprichnina was characterized as an act of conscious and historically justified political activity. However, the historian does not justify the cruelty of Ivan IV. Assessing events from the point of view of the development of statehood, Solovyov applied to the events of the early 17th century. the phrase “terrible turmoil” is a violent interruption in the organic course of Russian history, a regression.
III. From the beginning of the 17th century until the middle of the 18th century. - the period of Russia's entry into the system of European states.
Solovyov considered the first reason for the Troubles to be "the unsatisfactory state of people's morality in the Muscovite state." The fall of morality in Russia occurred during the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, then "a terrible habit was established not to respect the life, honor, property of one's neighbor." Another circumstance that favored the Time of Troubles, Solovyov considered the Cossacks, who gave the Time of Troubles such a scope that the state was on the verge of death. The historian approached the definition of the Time of Troubles as a struggle “between the social and anti-social elements, the struggle of the zemstvo people, the owners, who benefited from maintaining calm, the state outfit for their peaceful pursuits, with the so-called Cossacks, landless people, vagrants, people who separated their interests from the interests of society, who wanted to live at the expense of society, to live by the labors of others. The growth of the national self-consciousness of the Russian people in the course of the liberation struggle at the beginning of the 17th century. was considered by Solovyov as a struggle for the Orthodox faith, the restoration of the monarchy, against the invaders of other faiths - Catholics and Protestants. The enthronement of a new dynasty was a step towards the restoration of state unity. In the general concept of Solovyov XVII century. occupies a special place. He emphasized its critical transitional character, the turn from the "eight centuries of movement to the East" to the "movement to the West." The direction of the reforms of Peter the Great was determined in the 17th century. “Under the first three sovereigns of the new dynasty, we already see the beginning of the most important transformations: a permanent army appears ... we see the beginnings of shipbuilding; we see the desire to establish our trade on new principles; foreigners are given privileges for the establishment of factories, factories; external relations begin to take on a different character”; the need for enlightenment is loudly expressed, schools are founded; at court and in the homes of private persons new customs are emerging; defines the relationship between church and state. The reformer is brought up already in the concepts of transformation... In our history, the 17th century is so closely connected with the first half of the 18th century, it is impossible to separate them. The transformations of Peter I opened a "new" period in the history of Russia. The very undertakings of the tsar-transformer contained a program for the development of the country for the future. In the coverage of Russian history 1725-1740. Solovyov proceeded from the recognition of the irreversibility of the changes that had taken place in the life of the country in the first quarter of the 18th century.
IV. From the middle of the XVIII century. before the reforms of the 60s. 19th century - a new period of Russian history.
According to V.E. Illeritsky, the whole subsequent history of Russia was considered by Solovyov from the point of view of the fulfillment of Peter's plans. Solovyov drew attention to the fact that palace intrigues, clashes of group interests in the government had a negative impact on the state of state affairs. Upon closer examination of the actions of Elizaveta Petrovna, Solovyov revealed her adherence not so much to the spirit as to the letter of the legislation of Peter I. Elizaveta Petrovna's imitative dependence on her father's attitudes deprived her policy of the necessary dynamism. A softening of morals has become a positive trend, "a person is beginning to be treated with more respect and intellectual interests are beginning to find more access to society." As a result of this, “the beginnings of literature and attempts to process, to give a sound voice to the instrument of expression of a breaking thought - language” appear. The main act of the daughter of Peter the Great, Solovyov considered the deliverance of the country from the “yoke from the West, more severe than the former yoke from the East,” which had been established in the time of Biron. As a result, “Russia came to its senses. Russian people again appeared at the highest places of government. The reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine II was dear to Solovyov as a period of "revolution in moral concepts", softening of morals, development of sciences, "the well-known triumph of the "spiritual principle" over material strength."
About Peter I
This concept - great person”, Solovyov attached methodological significance: “Thinking about Peter, thinking about why they call him a great man, of course, a Russian person had to think about what a great person is in general.” Solovyov contrasts the pagan idea of a great man as a supernatural, semi-divine being with a Christian concept. He believed that a great man can manifest himself only in the era of transition from the age of youth to the age of maturity, when the people enter the road of historical movement. “The person who started this movement, made it; a person by whose name his descendants know his time, such a person is called great. He is inherent in the awareness of the need of the time, the need for change, "and by the power of his will, his tireless activity," he carries away the heavy-lifting majority to a new and difficult task. A great man, since he is a man, cannot but make mistakes, and "the more visible these mistakes are, the more visible this activity is." “A great man is the son of his time, of his people... he rises high as a representative of his people in known time, the bearer and spokesman of folk thought ... ". His activity should lead "the people to a new road, necessary for the continuation of their historical life." Thus, Solovyov's concept of a great man is optimistic, it is organically connected with the concept of development, and he is given the right to make a mistake. Moreover, "the people will not renounce their great man, for such a renunciation for the people is self-denial." "The age of Peter was not the age of light, but of the dawn..."
“A great man gives his labor, but the magnitude, the success of labor depends on the people’s capital, on what the people have accumulated from their previous life, from previous work, from the combination of the labor and abilities of famous figures with this people’s capital, there is a great production of people’s historical life” . According to S.M. Solovyov in the 17th century. “The need to move on to a new path was realized ... the people rose and gathered on the road; but someone was waiting; waiting for the leader; the leader has come." In this case, it is about Peter and his place in the life of the people.
The acts of Peter the Great divided Russian social thought into Slavophiles and Westernizers. Being a Westerner sympathetic to the Slavophiles, S.M. Solovyov is a scientist, according to A.L. Yurganov, did not fit into these disputes. He appreciated the great tsar more deeply, without dogmatism, finding in his fate the drama of all Russian history. In Solovyov's view of Peter the Great, a comparative historical analysis was fully manifested. The historian compared the transformations of the king with the French Revolution: “... in France, the weak government could not resist, and certain sad phenomena occurred. In Russia, one man, endowed with unprecedented strength, took the direction of the revolutionary movement into his own hands, and this man was a born head of state. Solovyov put Peter above all the famous monarchs and prominent statesmen of the 18th century.
The historical basis of Solovyov's works
"History of Russia..." is based on the extensive involvement and use of almost all historical materials known at that time. Solovyov was one of the first among historians to use acts as a source, mainly spiritual and treaty letters of princes, and individual acts of feudal immunity as a monument to the activity of princely power. Presentation of the events of political history up to the 16th century. was built by Solovyov on the basis of chronicles. He used mainly the materials of the late (XVI century) Nikon Chronicle. The merit of the researcher is the involvement in the solution of the issue of enslavement of the peasants at the end of the 16th century. the verdict of the church council on July 20, 1584 on the abolition of tarkhans. In this verdict, Soloviev saw a measure that prepared the attachment of the peasants on a national scale.
Critically comparing the versions of the "New Chronicler" and the Uglich investigative case on the circumstances of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in 1591, Solovyov drew attention to the contradictions in the investigative case, having studied which he came to the conclusion about the political nature of the murder of the tsarevich by order of Godunov and the rigging of the investigative case to please Boris .
Characterizing I.I. Bolotnikov, Solovyov follows the description given to the leader of the rebels by Konrad Bussov, who saw him as a "kind and faithful knight."
Archival materials (Moscow archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Moscow archive of the Ministry of Justice, Moscow branch of the Archive of the General Staff, State Archive Russian Empire, manuscript collections of the Rumyantsev Library and the Hermitage Library) Solovyov attracted to study the events of the 17th and 18th centuries. He especially widely used documents from the Posolsky Prikaz fund, which characterize all the main aspects of Russia's foreign policy. To a lesser extent, the scientist turned to sources covering the internal history of Russia in the 18th century. He attracted documents from the personal office of Peter I and Catherine I, the funds of the Senate, its commissions of inquiry, the Preobrazhensky order, the secret office, the Synod and other materials.
In his narration, Solovyov used the memoirs of Russian and foreign statesmen of the 18th century. (YP. Shakhovsky, B.K. Minich, X. Manstein, J. Shtelin, Catherine II, Frederick II, etc.), as well as documents published in the Collections of Russian historical society”, “Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University”, etc.
If in the first volumes of the work, written to a large extent on the basis of the material of the chronicles, there was a criticism of the sources, then it is practically absent in the description of the events of the 17th-18th centuries. Solovyov, as a rule, retold or quoted in detail the content of documents of the 18th century. (often entire pages). The historian achieved his greatest mastery of source studies when studying sources covering his favorite topics - the ups and downs of the internal political, mainly palace, struggle and the subtle intricacies of diplomatic relations.
. Dialectics allowed S.M. Solovyov to raise research to a new level.
. A comprehensive consideration of the role of natural-geographical, demographic-ethnic and foreign policy factors in the historical development of Russia is among the undoubted merits of S.M. Solovyov.
. The historian applied the latest methods of historical criticism to the field of Russian history.
. S. M. Solovyov for the first time in Russian historical science developed a civilizational approach, with the help of which he was able to distinguish Russian history from Western European and at the same time include it in the world historical process.
Cultural heritage CM. Solovyov. Teacher of many generations
A contemporary of S.M. Solovieva, historian of the Slavophile trend M.O. Koyalovich believed: “Above all this rises an extraordinary knowledge of our past, extraordinary conscientiousness in factual presentation and great talent capable of making great conquests, i.e. create followers, a school." Solovyov's students learned from him to respect the opinion of their predecessors and to treat mental labor with respect. He had direct students - and the most famous - Klyuchevsky, successors - son-in-law, the famous historian N.A. Popov, students of his students, to whom Solovyov's views seemed closer than the views of his immediate teacher. So, the judgment taken from Solovyov about the possibility and appropriateness of direct borrowing was later developed by P. N. Milyukov.
Brought up in an atmosphere of creativity, the children of S.M. Solovyov (there were 12 of them) were talented. The eldest son, Vsevolod, was a popular novelist in his time. One of the younger daughters, Polixena, is a poetess who published under the pseudonym Allegro, but the name of another son, Vladimir, a religious thinker and philosopher, is best known. Thoughts of S.M. Solovyov organically entered the national philosophy, the works of I. A. Ilyin, N. A. Berdyaev and others. The concept of the reign of Peter the Great S. M. Solovyov formed the basis of A.N. Tolstoy when writing the novel "Peter the Great". Solovyov, like no other of his predecessors, did a lot for the secondary school, in which he took the teaching of history extremely seriously. “History is the only political science in secondary education, and therefore its teaching is of extreme importance: the political makeup of future citizens depends on the direction of its teaching,” Solovyov believed.
Literature
Volkova I.V. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov. Essay on life and creativity // S.M. Solovyov.
Public Readings on Russian History. M., 1992.
Erygin A.N. East. West. Russia. (Becoming civilizational approach in historical research). Rostov-on-Don, 1993.
Illeritsky V.E. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov. M., 1980.
Koyalovich M.O.S.M. Solovyov. Ch. XV // History of Russian self-consciousness according to historical monuments and scientific writings. Minsk, 1997.
Contemporaries about S. M. Solovyov (V. O. Klyuchevsky, V. I. Ger'e, M. I. Semevsky, D. I. Ilovaisky, M. M. Stasyulevich, S. A. Muromtsev, A. N. Pypin, P.V. Bezobrazov) // S.M. Solovyov. Op. M., 2000. Book. XXIII.
Soloviev S.M. Historical commemoration for the historian. Speech December 1, 1866 at Moscow University on the day of the 100th anniversary of Karamzin // Op. M., 2000. Book. XXIII.
Soloviev S.M. History of Russia since ancient times. Preface // Op. M., 1988. Book. I;
Russia Before the Era of Transformation // Op. M., 1991. Book. VII.
Soloviev S.M. Lectures on Russian history (1873/1874) // Op. M., 1998. Book. XXI.
Soloviev S.M. My notes for my children, and if possible, for others // Op. M., 1995. Book. XVIII.
Solovyov S.M. Letters from Europe / Publ. V.V. Kuchurin // Domestic culture and historical science XVIII-XX centuries. Bryansk, 1996.
Soloviev S.M. Public readings about Peter the Great // Op. M., 1995. Book. XVIII.
Tsimbaev N.I. Sergei Solovyov. M., 1990.
Tsamutali A.N. The struggle of currents in Russian historiography. L., 1977.
Shakhanov AN. Archive S.M. Solovyov // Notes of the Department of Manuscripts of the State Library named after V.I. Lenin. M., 1986. Issue. 45.
Shakhanov A.N. Formation of a scientist // S.M. Solovyov. First scientific works. Letters. M., 1996.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
