Liberal dimension periodization. Periodization of Russian history

and civilizational models of measuring Russian history
about the problems of the formation of Russian statehood

Goals and objectives of studying the topic

The purpose of studying the topic is to identify the features of Russian statehood, to consider the problems of its formation from different points of view, set out in several models for measuring Russian history. Statehood is a special sign that marks the development of countries that have managed to create their own state. It includes the social, political, cultural orientation of society. The type of statehood is not born by chance, it is the result of the adaptation of human society to a specific environment and the result of relationships with neighboring states. The established type of statehood, in turn, has an impact on the further development of society.

Formational model for measuring Russian history. The unifying core of this model is the priority of socio-economic factors of development, social progress, in the center of which is the idea of ​​the progressive movement of mankind, the natural change of socio-economic formations. K. Marx singled out the slave-owning, feudal, capitalist socio-economic formations and assumed the transition of human society to the next, communist formation. At the same time, the emphasis is on highlighting socio-economic relations, the class struggle as the driving force of historical progress.

How is the formation of Russian statehood in the 9th-13th centuries considered and explained within the framework of the formational model? To explain this process, we must remember that at the end of the ninth century. the Old Russian state (Kievan Rus) was formed. At the heart of its formation, from the point of view of the formational model, was the process of decomposition of primitive communal relations, which was accompanied by the emergence of property inequality. For a more accurate representation of the essence of the views of the formation model historical process on the problem of Russian statehood, answer the following questions:

1. What social groups of ancient Russian society began to own private property? Note also what social groups of dependent farmers have arisen.

2. What specific form of private land ownership arose in the 10th-11th centuries?

3. Next, indicate what connection exists, from the point of view of the formational model, between the emergence of private property and the foundation of the state? What interests social groups protected by the state and in what ways?

4. How did the process of Christianization of Russia contribute to the strengthening of the state?

5. How are the causes of feudal fragmentation interpreted within the framework of the formational model?

Liberal model for measuring Russian history . Priority is given to the development of man, rights and freedoms, and the creation of conditions for his improvement. Important role assigned to political and ideological factors. Stages human history are considered not through the prism of socio-economic formations, but from the standpoint of the priority of personality development, ensuring its individual freedoms. From the standpoint of the liberal model of historical development, it is proved that the history of mankind has developed two strategies for the historical process - these are the European and Asian ways of development. Liberal historians argue that Russian history is characterized by the formation of an Asian type of statehood. Note exactly what features of the Russian type of statehood the liberal model of measuring Russian history considers to be a manifestation of the Asian type. For a more accurate representation of the essence of the views of the liberal model of the historical process on the problem of Russian statehood, answer the following questions:

1. What reasons do liberal historians explain the emergence of the Old Russian state?

2. What is the relationship between the emergence of wealth inequality and the formation of the state?

3. What social role, from their point of view, is the state playing?

4. How do they explain the collapse of the Old Russian state and the transition of Russian lands to political fragmentation?

5. What are the types of statehood in the Russian principalities formed after the collapse of the Old Russian state?

Modernization model for measuring Russian history . In relation to the historical process, modernization is understood as the process of transition from a traditional, agrarian society to an urban, industrial and modern, informational, post-industrial one. The leading role in historical progress belongs to the innovative and technological component, which ensures the comprehensive improvement of all spheres of life human societies. There are three main phases in the world modernization process: pre-industrial, early industrial, late industrial.

Modernization is a complex process that covers all aspects of public life: economic, social, legal, political, cultural. In the course of modernization, less developed societies acquire features of more developed ones. Historical processes developing in parallel in different countries have mutual influence on each other, carried out both in the form of direct interaction and indirectly - by the very fact of their existence. Thus, the successes of the leaders of world progress can be perceived by the countries of the "second echelon" as a threat of economic or political dependence. Awareness of this threat can serve as an impetus for the beginning of transformations. Hence, the impulsive nature of the historical process of the modernizing countries, to which, in the framework of this theory of the historical process, Russia also belongs.

For a clearer idea of ​​the features of the formation of Russian statehood from the point of view of the modernization model, it is necessary to answer a number of questions:

1. What role did the wave of Norman conquests play in the formation of the Old Russian state?

2. What role did the contact of Russia with the Byzantine cultural circle through the adoption of Christianity play in the formation of Russian statehood?

3. How did the Mongol-Tatar conquest and contacts of Russia with the Mongolian political culture affect the development of Russian statehood?

Civilizational model for measuring Russian history . Focuses on the features, specifics of the functioning of local (defined in time and space) societies (i.e. civilizations). Particular attention is paid to socio-cultural factors. The basis of the civilizational approach in relation to the history of our country is, as a rule, the recognition of Russia as a civilization of a special type, generated by its peculiar geopolitical position, its role in relations between Western and Eastern civilizations.

For a clearer idea of ​​the features of the formation of Russian statehood from the point of view of the civilizational model, answer a number of questions:

1. What climatic and geopolitical factors left their mark on the formation of Russian statehood in the IX–
13th century?

2. What were the differences in the types of statehood of South-Western, North-Western and North-Eastern Russia?

3. How did these differences affect the formation of the state systems of the Novgorod Republic, Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal principalities?

4. What role did the dependence of Russia on the Golden Horde play in the formation of Russian statehood?

Tasks

I. Make a comparison table.

II. Tests.

1. What is the priority of the study of the liberal model of measuring history?

a) class struggle driving force historical progress;

b) human development, rights and freedoms;

c) innovative and technological component of historical progress;

d) sociocultural factors.

2. What model of measuring Russian history is characterized by the assertion that the state is a public institution that defends the interests of a certain class of owners?

a) for the civilizational model;

b) for the formational model;

c) for the liberal model;

d) for the modernization model.

3. What model of measuring Russian history considers the state as a public institution that regulates the lives of the majority of members of society who are interested in protecting the law?

a) formational;

b) modernization;

c) liberal;

d) civilizational.

4. What model of measuring Russian history interprets the role of the veche (national assembly) in the ancient Russian cities of the 12th–13th centuries. as a relic characteristic of the period of early class societies?

a) formational;

b) civilizational;

c) modernization;

d) liberal.

Basic concepts

Modernization, statehood, civilization, liberalism, socio-economic formation

test questions

1. What social and cultural factors influenced the formation of Russian statehood in the 10th - 12th centuries?

2. What are the differences in the type of statehood that developed in the XII - XIII centuries. in North-Eastern Russia from the type of statehood of Central Europe?

3. What features of the political structure of society, characteristic of the Golden Horde, were adopted by the Russian principalities?

Literature

History Russia from the standpoint of different ideologies. Tutorial. // Ed. prof. B.V. Lichman. Rostov-on-Don, 2007.

Methodological problems of history. Ed. prof. V.N. Sidortsova. Minsk, 2006.

Milov L.V.. Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian historical process. M., 2006.

images time and historical ideas: Russia - East - West. M., 2010.

Poberezhnikov I.V. Transition from traditional to industrial society. M., 2006.

Solovey V.D. Blood and soil of Russian history. M., 2008.

Chernobaev A.A., Kamynin V.D., Rogozhin N.M., Shiklo A.E.. Russian historiography II - early XXI centuries. M., 2010.

Topic 3. Stages of gathering Russian lands into a single state. Internal and external activities of Russian princes

Goals and objectives of studying the topic

The result of the study of the topic should be the formation of an integral idea of ​​the ways of the formation of the Russian state, the assimilation of specific historical material.

To study this topic, it is advisable to highlight the chronological stages of centralization:

Stage 1 - the beginning of the XIV century. – 1389

Stage 2 - 1389-1462

Stage 3 - 1462-1533

Looking at the course of political centralization , it is important to pay attention to the specific historical situation of each stage of centralization, to single out their main events and to summarize each of them, to trace the internal and external activities of the Russian princes.

When studying events first stage centralization, it must be borne in mind that its main content was the struggle of the Moscow principality with its political rivals (Tver and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) for leadership in the “gathering of lands”. It is necessary to highlight the reasons why the rise of the Moscow principality became possible (both objective and subjective).

Particular attention should be paid to the reign of Ivan Kalita, under which the Moscow principality became the leader. At the same time, attention should be paid to the political actions that Ivan Kalita took to expand his possessions and strengthen his personal power. What is the role of the Golden Horde in the political struggle of the Russian princes?

Next, it is necessary to sum up the activities of Ivan Kalita and note how much the territory of the Moscow principality expanded (in this case, you can use historical maps) and what role Moscow began to play in relations with the Russian principalities and with the Golden Horde. Further, it should be noted how his successors continued the policy of his father - Simeon Proud, Ivan Krasny, Dmitry Donskoy. After that, proceed to study the history of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380), its causes and results, and note what its historical significance is. Highlight the role of the church in the process of unification of Russian lands.

When studying second stage centralization, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that this was the time of Moscow's further struggle to strengthen its positions, strengthen the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow. Note the activities of which Moscow princes this period is associated with.

In the first quarter of the XV century. the struggle for power was no longer between the strongest Russian princes, but between representatives of one ruling house - the “nest” of Kalita. This process was reflected in the 20-year feudal war (1425–1453). When studying this event, it should be noted which Russian princes entered the war with the Moscow prince Vasily II, what was the reason for the war, how the war went and what were its results. What effect did the war have on the course of centralization of Russian lands? Note how, after the end of the feudal war, the positions of the Moscow prince in Novgorod were strengthened, which territories came under the rule of Moscow by the end of the second stage of centralization.

When studying third stage centralization, which was the completion of the political unification of the Russian lands around Moscow, it is necessary to highlight the political role of Ivan III. It should be noted which principalities came under the patronage of the Moscow prince and the meaning of the title "Sovereign of All Russia", which Ivan III began to be called. Of particular note is when and how Muscovite Rus gained independence from the Golden Horde. In addition, it is necessary to single out those historical facts that can confirm the completion of the process of political centralization of the Russian lands.

Considering the activities of the successor of Ivan III - Vasily III, it should be noted which last independent Russian lands he annexed to Moscow. A detailed study of the stages of gathering Russian lands into a single state will make it possible to understand the features of the process of national unification of Russia. List these features and analyze them, compare the processes of centralization in Europe and in Russia.

Tasks

1. Fill in the table " State activity Ivan III.

2. Mark the features of a single state that took place in Russia by the end of the 15th century. (choose more than one answer):

a) a single coin;

b) a single territory;

c) a single mercenary army;

d) unified laws;

e) a single well-developed state apparatus;

f) unified tax system;

g) one religion;

h) a single all-Russian market.

Basic concepts

Label for a great reign, Horde exit, centralization, grand duke, appanage princes, service princes

test questions

1. What factors contributed to the unification of Russian lands under the rule of the Moscow principality?

2. Why did Moscow successfully compete with Tver and with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania?

3. Than the feudal war of 1425–1453. different from previous strife in Russia?

Literature

Ancient Russia 9th - 13th centuries Teaching aid. Voronezh, 2008.

Gumilyov L.N. Black legend: friends and foes of the Great Steppe. M., 2010.

Mysterious Muscovy: Russia through the Eyes of Foreigners: Notes of Western Diplomats of the 15th – 17th Centuries. Documents and comments. M., 2010.

Illarionova E.V., Fomina A.S., Guskov S.A.. National history. M., 2008.

Kargalov V.V. Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia: XIII century. M., 2011

.Karpov A.V.. Paganism, Christianity, dual faith: the religious life of Ancient Russia in the 9th - 11th centuries. SPb., 2008.

Mironova V.B., Golubeva S.A. Russia between the South, East and West. M., 2009.

.Puzanov V.V.. Old Russian statehood: genesis, ethno-cultural environment, ideological constructs. Izhevsk, 2007.

Semennikova L.I. Russian history. M., 2008.

As an ideological current, liberalism declared itself even in the pre-reform period. Both the Slavophiles and the Westernizers, in the classical form in which they took shape in the 1940s, were basically liberals. The time of the emergence of liberalism as a social movement is the 60s. Government reforms - the liberation of the peasantry and, especially, the creation of zemstvos, these meager "pieces" of the constitution - created a certain basis for the consolidation of supporters of the liberal worldview. The public activity of the central figure of Russian liberalism of the 19th century was connected with the Zemstvo. Boris Nikolayevich Chicherin (1828-1904) was the direct heir of the great Westerners T. Granovsky, K. D. Kavelin and others: they were his teachers at Moscow University. Lawyer, philosopher, historian, author of the fundamental works "Course of State Science" and "History of Political Doctrines" B. Chicherin formulated the theoretical foundations of Russian liberalism in its classical form. Like a true liberal, he believed necessary condition civilizational development freedom of the individual. But at the same time, it was about the assertion of “limited” freedom and its gradual deployment along such basic points as freedom of conscience, freedom from slavery, freedom of public opinion, freedom of speech, teaching, publicity of government actions, primarily the budget, publicity and publicity of legal proceedings. The program of practical actions outlined by him back in the 50s consisted in the elimination of feudal remnants in the economy, the abolition of serfdom, non-interference of the state in the economic sphere, freedom, private enterprise, and the formation of private property.

B.N. Chicherin considered the state and the government to be the only force capable of implementing this program. The idea of ​​the state as the main engine and creator of history was the core of his political worldview, which was formed under the enormous influence of G. Hegel. At the same time, the entire course of Russian history only confirms this general pattern. The specifics of Russia - the enormity of the state, the small population in vast territories, the uniformity of conditions, agricultural life, etc. - determined the especially important and great role of the state in the development of the nation. And the modernization of Russia, according to Chicherin, was to be carried out by autocracy, which would transform itself into a constitutional monarchy. To this end, the government had to rely not on reactionaries and not on radicals, but on supporters of moderate, cautious, gradual, but steady changes. It was a program of "protective", "conservative" liberalism for society or "liberal conservatism" for government.

At the same time, B. Chicherin was never an apologist for absolutism. He considered the ideal political system for Russia to be a constitutional monarchy and supported the autocracy only to the extent that it contributed to the implementation of reforms. Theoretically, he did not deny the inevitability of the revolution in certain exceptional circumstances, but considered it one of the least effective ways historical action and, of course, preferred the evolutionary path community development. His political program today is qualified as a Russian version of the movement towards the rule of law, taking into account socio-political realities. Russia XIX century and national-state traditions of Russian history. At the same time, in the 60-70s of the last century, the implementation of the Chicherin formula was by no means utopian. There is a significant overlap between his ideas and the reformist attitudes of the time of Alexander II. But the history of the 80s took a different path, and Chicherin's ideas remained a purely theoretical phenomenon. The idea of ​​Russia's evolutionary development was uncompromisingly rejected at both political poles of society.

Chicherin's liberalism coincided with classical European in relation to socialist ideas and the socialist movement. This attitude can be characterized briefly - absolute, categorical negation. The very idea of ​​social reforms, according to Chicherin, contradicted the freedom of the individual, and therefore was untenable. "Socialism forever oscillates between the most insane despotism and complete anarchy". “Representative government can only be maintained as long as this party is weak and unable to firmly influence state administration”, “social democracy is the death of democracy”, socialism is a false democracy.

Despite the connection with the Zemstvo, B. Chicherin was a representative of academic, intellectual liberalism. At the same time, a somewhat different form was taking shape, which in the literature was called zemstvo liberalism. Its social basis was formed by those sections of the Russian democratic intelligentsia who were directly involved in the activities coordinated by the zemstvos in organizing public education, health care, etc. These were teachers, doctors, agronomists, and statisticians. Zemstvo significantly intensified in the late 70's - early 80's. The impetus for their activity was the government policy of curtailing the rights of zemstvos, even those limited ones that were originally given to them. Otherwise, in the fair opinion of Belokonsky, a well-known pre-revolutionary researcher of zemstvos, zemstvo leaders could well concentrate on peaceful cultural work for many years. The government offensive against the zemstvos, especially during the period of counter-reforms, pushed the zemstvos to political activity. Chernigov, Poltava, Samara, Kharkov zemstvos entered into an open confrontation with the St. Petersburg authorities, demanding the convocation of representatives of all estates - Zemsky Cathedral. For this speech, the leader of the Tver zemstvo, Ivan Petrunkevich, was expelled from Tver under police supervision, thereby earning the glory of a "zemstvo revolutionary."

By the end of the 1970s, the Zemstvo movement worked out the main requirements of its political program: political freedoms (freedom of speech, press and guarantees of the individual) and the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. To achieve these goals, in 1880, the "League of Opposition Elements" or "Zemsky Union" was created. It was the first liberal organization in Russia. In 1883, in Geneva, Mikhail Dragomanov, a professor at Kiev University, published the journal Free Word as the official organ of the Zemsky Union. Both the organization and the journal arose on a secret basis, illegally, contrary to the fundamental principles of zemstvo liberalism. The latter always dissociated himself from radicalism. The existence of both the "Zemsky Union" and the "Free Word" was short-lived. The next stage of the Zemstvo movement began in the mid-1990s. Its culmination was the formation in January 1904 of the Union of Zemstvo-Constitutionalists and the holding of its congress in the fall of that year. At the congress, they demanded the introduction of political freedoms, the abolition of class, religious and other restrictions, the development of local self-government, the participation of the people's representation as a special elected institution in the exercise of legislative power, and in establishing a list of income and expenses and in monitoring the legality of the actions of the administration. The leaders of the direction were D. Shipov, N. Stakhovich, A. Guchkov and others. Zemsky liberalism was in some respects more mundane, more realistic and more grounded than "Academic". Supporters of the latter in the new conditions of the beginning of the 20th century, paying tribute to the merits of the Zemstvo, considered them politically insufficiently radical.

In the mid-1890s, a new generation of liberals arose and became active. And Russian liberalism itself, together with it, entered into new stage of its existence. M. Tugan-Baranovsky and P. Novgorodtsev, D. Shakhovsky and Prince. E. and S. Trubetskoy, M. Kovalevsky and P. Vinogradov, P. Milyukov and N. Berdyaev. The color of the domestic intelligentsia gravitated towards the liberal movement. But a particularly important role in the development of liberalism at this stage was played by Peter Berngardovich Struve (1870-1944). He came from a family of a prominent royal dignitary. Father was the governor of Perm and Astrakhan. He studied at St. Petersburg University and abroad: in Germany and Austria. Struve considered himself an economist, his master's (1913) and doctoral (1917) dissertations were devoted to the problem of price and value. From 1906 to 1917 he taught political economy at the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology. At the same time, he was also a lawyer, historian, philosopher, deep political thinker. He directed his boundless erudition and extraordinary intellectual abilities to the search for the historical path of his homeland - Russia. Struve was not simple and easy in interpersonal communication, but on the other hand he was amazingly consistent in defining his main life goal. He devoted all his hard and long life to the transformation of Russia into a free country. He was almost never a wealthy person, often lacking basic income. Literally a few days before his death, he was furious when he saw in his house a Russian émigré who went to serve the Nazis: “They (fascists - L.S.) are the enemies of all mankind ... They killed the most precious thing on light: freedom... I live like a beggar. I don't have anything and never have. I will die poor. I sacrificed everything for freedom."

For half a century of his active work, P. Struve experienced a significant ideological evolution. One of the most noticeable shifts occurred just at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. This was the final break with Marxism, which in the socialist press, and then in Soviet historiography, was invariably qualified as "renegacy." Meanwhile, this is far from the case. In an effort to understand the changing reality, P. Struve, not being a dogmatist, really evolved in matters of worldview, program and political tactics, but in fact he never betrayed himself. He never betrayed those key ideas that formed the basis of his worldview, which developed in his youth, even before his "Marxist" period. These were liberalism, statehood, "nationalism" and Westernism. Liberalism meant the recognition of individual freedom as the main human value that allows a person to fulfill himself. Struve saw the meaning of human life in self-improvement, a necessary condition for which is spiritual and political freedom.

The state is one of the main cultural achievements of world development. It is an organizer. In accordance with the Chicherin tradition, Struve saw the state as the guarantor of individual freedom. Therefore, the ideas of statehood and human freedom did not in the least contradict each other, but, on the contrary, organically complemented each other.

Struve's "nationalism" is identical to the concept of "patriotism" in the modern Russian lexicon. Struve loved the Russian people and Russia, his homeland, and was convinced of the enormous abilities and possibilities of the Russian nation. He saw precisely the historical task in removing the obstacle to their full development. Struve's national patriotism was combined with Westernism, so typical of practically the vast majority of domestic liberals. Their Westernism was by no means a desire for blind copying state structure or the way of life of the “advanced” European countries and America, “... the most valuable thing that was in the content of European culture cannot be “learned” so simply, but you have to acquire it yourself, educate yourself ...” . “The only area where peoples really completely imitate each other is the area of ​​science and technology; in all other respects, for better or worse, they are only adapting their own institutions to the new requirements that arise from time to time, if not constantly, in their own environment. They adapt them by modifying them. These changes are often caused by foreign models, but they only take root in the country when they do not directly contradict the whole heritage of the past, which is made up of the beliefs, mores, customs and institutions of a certain people. But at the same time, they believed that it was the Western countries that demonstrated the main path of development of human civilization, the path of progress. Russia can reveal its boundless potential opportunities only by embarking on this common human road.

Thus, in the ideological evolution of P. Struve, liberalism was primary, and Marxism was secondary; liberalism was a constant, while Marxism and socialism were variables. Political freedom in Russia was the main life goal; the working-class movement, whose ideology was Marxism and socialism, is the main social force capable of achieving it in Russia. In the 1990s, Struve, like many future liberals, was sincerely convinced of this. Russian Social Democracy was for them, first of all, a democracy. The retreat of the supporters of the liberal outlook from the Russian labor movement, sooner or later, was inevitable. Struve's personal evolution in this sense signaled the end of the "Marxist" period and the entry into a new liberalism more adequate to its essence. In philosophy, this was the rejection of positivism and the transition to neo-Kantianism, which was reflected in the well-known collection Problems of Idealism. In the field of program and tactics -- the "new" liberalism.

The emergence of the "new" liberalism at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. was directly related to the significant activation of the entire liberal movement at that time. The refusal of the new Tsar Nicholas II to meet their demands prompted the liberals to publish their own illegal organ. It was published from 1902 to October 1905. Liberation magazine. Struve was its permanent editor and the author of many principled articles. By the autumn of 1903, in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Odessa and other cities, local circles of supporters of the "Liberation" were operating, which became the embryos of the first political liberal organization in Russia. The Union of Liberation was officially launched in the summer of 1903, when the magazine's supporters in Switzerland decided to start forming an all-Russian organization. This meeting was attended by Dolgorukov, Prince. Shakhovskoy, I. Petrunkevich, S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev, S. Prokopovich, E. Kuskova. In January 1904, the 1st Congress of representatives of local organizations was held in St. Petersburg. It adopted the program and charter of the "Union of Liberation", elected the council of the organization headed by the patriarch of zemstvo liberalism I. Petrunkevich. The second congress of the "Union", held in October 1904 in St. Petersburg, discussed the issue of holding a banquet campaign in November 1904 in connection with the 40th anniversary of the judicial reform. The Union of Liberation was the most radical liberal organization that emerged in the post-reform period. The radicalism of the "new" liberals was far from accidental, but deeply conscious.

Understanding the essence of the "new" liberalism is facilitated by the classification of the types of liberalism, which on the eve of the revolution was given by another of its prominent figures, Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov (1859-1943). A professional historian who defended a brilliant dissertation in 1892 on the assessment of the reform activities of Peter I, he received a “pass” into politics precisely because of his scientific and teaching activities. For some "progressive" hints in lectures, he was fired from Moscow University, sent into exile and gained a reputation as a disgraced public figure. He became widely known after the release of the first edition of his famous Essays on the History of Russian Culture (1896), which was his author's concept of the history of the Russian state. As a result of careful and long-term development of such a political outlook and principles of political behavior, on the basis of which all the activities of the permanent leader of the Party of Constitutional Democrats, which P. Milyukov became from 1905, were built.

In particular, in the uncensored book “Russia and its crisis” published for the Western reader, the last line of which P. Milyukov wrote on the day of the assassination of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, i.e. February 4, 1905, he concluded that the role liberal movement in the development of political democracies in different Western countries was not the same. In mature, fully developed Anglo-Saxon democracies (USA, England), the main engine of progress was liberalism. In Germany, however, which Milyukov referred to as a country with a new and much less developed political life, liberalism was politically weak. Milyukov included Russia in the same group of countries, but he believed that the peculiarities of the alignment of social and political forces were even more pronounced here than in Germany. If for this country the concept of “liberalism” is outdated, then in Russia a moderate course of political life (in the terminology of Milyukov - one of two in Russia; the second is radical - L.S.) can only very conditionally be called this Western term. “Today in Russia (that is, in 1904—L.S.), wrote Miliukov, the meaning of the term “liberalism” is both expanded and surpassed. It includes much more radical groups for the simple reason that any more or less advanced thought in the press can cause persecution. The term "liberalism" in Russia has become obsolete not because its program has been implemented. The program of classical liberalism is only the first step to be taken. But political and individual freedom cannot be absolute values, as it was believed at the beginning of the era of freedom in France ... People who call themselves liberals in Russia adhere to much more advanced views.

Thus, the most important lesson drawn from European and, above all, German political experience was that in order to maintain its position in the political life of Russia, liberalism here must be more radical than the classical theory of freedom. And it was not at all a call for betrayal of the good old liberalism of modern times. In Milyukov's concept, there was an attempt to preserve the essence of liberalism by expanding its content and changing its form. At the same time, the cornerstone of classical liberalism—individual and political freedom—was by no means excluded from the program of Russian freethinkers. It was recognized as the first, necessary, but insufficient for the existence of liberalism as a significant political trend in the complex historical realities of the early 20th century. German liberalism failed to modify itself in this way, and therefore failed to play a sufficiently prominent role in the political life of its country. During the period of active development of their political physiognomy, Russian liberals saw one of the main tasks in not repeating the sad fate of their German ideological brethren. The output of the leading ideologists of the pre-revolutionary period P.B. Struve and P.N. Milyukov was seen in the radicalization of programs and tactics. Discussed in the pages of the Liberation and embodied in the so-called Parisian Constitution, that is, the draft of the Fundamental State Laws Russian Empire”, adopted by a group of members of the “Union of Liberation” in March 1905, the program included a number of fundamental positions of classical liberalism - the demand for human rights and popular representation. The enumeration of human rights performed, in the view of the ideologists of Russian liberalism, a function similar to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Such declarations at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries were no longer accepted to be included in the programs of political parties. But the specifics of Russia - political arbitrariness - demanded to fix attention on this.

The need for political representation was already formulated in the first program article “From the Russian Constitutionalists”: “Unclassified popular representation, a permanent and annually convened supreme institution with the rights of supreme control, legislation and budget approval” . There was neither unanimity nor definite official formulations on the question of the form of the state system, the structure of popular representation, although the majority of liberals, of course, were inclined to recognize the constitutional monarchy as the most appropriate for the historical conditions of the development of the Russian people. Different points of view were also expressed regarding the internal structure of the legislature. According to Milyukov, Russia could learn from the experience of Bulgaria, with its unicameral people's assembly. The authors of the Paris constitution worked out in detail the mechanism for the functioning of a bicameral parliament, borrowing much from the American constitution.

The radicalism of the program demands manifested itself, first of all, in the idea of ​​a classless popular representation, in universal suffrage, and in the recognition of "state socialism", i.e., an active social policy of the state in the interests of the broad masses of working people.

At that time, universal suffrage did not become the norm for the "advanced" political nations. According to the liberals, in Russia there was no alternative to the "four-member system" (universal, equal, direct suffrage and secret ballot). They substantiated its necessity precisely by the specific conditions of the political development of their country. In an explanatory note to the Paris constitution, Struve wrote: “In the presence of a strong revolutionary tradition in the Russian intelligentsia, in the presence of well-organized socialist parties, in the presence of a long and deep cultural alienation of the masses from an educated society, any resolution of the question of popular representation, except for universal suffrage , will be a fatal political mistake, followed by a heavy retribution.

Having developed a serious program for solving two of the most acute social issues in Russia - agrarian and labor, Russian freethinkers thereby learned a lesson from the experience of their German counterparts in the idea. The content of agricultural and work program did not take on definite outlines during this period, but the very fact of the conviction that such demands are necessary in the program of the liberal party is very indicative.

The radicalism of the liberals of the early 20th century, namely the pre-revolutionary period, manifested itself especially clearly in their political behavior, in their attitude towards the revolution and the Russian socialist movement. There is no doubt that Russian liberals were evolutionists, rightly believing that any revolution is fraught with colossal historical costs. They were convinced of this, first of all, by the experience of the French Revolution, but they were too smart and observant to absolutize evolution as a way to solve social problems. Even B. Chicherin admitted, under certain historical conditions, the inevitability of a revolution. In the situation of the revolutionary crisis in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the extremely short-sighted policy of the tsarist bureaucracy, only very narrow-minded "men in cases" could not recognize the need for radical changes. In the latest historiography, it is rightly stated that the Russian liberals recognized the political, but not the social revolution, although they tried to use it to the last and hoped for any chance to prevent it. "Civil peace and autocracy are incompatible in modern Russia"... "I consider active, revolutionary tactics in the current stage of Russian unrest the only reasonable one for Russian constitutionalists," Struve wrote. At the same time, he always stipulated that the revolution should not be understood narrowly, i.e. to reduce it to the use of physical violence: “Smart, truly statesman people do not fight the revolution at all. Or in other words: the only way to fight the revolution is to stand on its soil and, recognizing its goals, strive to change only its methods.

Finally, the most important distinguishing feature of the womb period of the liberal parties in Russia was an extremely loyal attitude towards the labor movement and socialist organizations. Socialism in Russia was seen as the largest and most significant political movement. “Socialism in Russia,” wrote P. Milyukov, “more than anywhere else, represents the interests of democracy as a whole. This makes its role more important than in countries with more and earlier developed democracies. The Russian working-class movement, according to Struve, has become the main democratic force since the 1990s and prepared the broad and all-round social movement that marked the beginning of the 20th century in Russia. This led to an extremely important tactical conclusion: a confrontation with such a major political force is dangerous and fraught with political death what happened to the German liberals “It is not too late for Russian liberalism to take a correct political position - not against social democracy, but alongside and in alliance with it. Such are the lessons given to us by the entire modern history of the great neighboring country.

And this is the desire for a political alliance, first of all, with social democracy (“The most influential Russian revolutionary group” (social democracy) and its body (“Iskra”), headed by people who are seriously educated, with solid knowledge and remarkable talents”) , was not wishful thinking or theoretical reasoning. Attempts to create a coalition with the Social Democrats were made repeatedly. Great hopes were inspired by the positive experience from this point of view of cooperation between various social forces in the mid-1990s, which was called "legal Marxism". And something was done on the eve of the events of 1905. In 1904, in Paris, the liberals succeeded in convening an unprecedented national history a conference of opposition forces, which was attended by representatives of various liberal organizations, socialist-revolutionaries, national social democracies (the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks refused). It was a step towards the creation of a kind of popular front. The idea of ​​uniting all opposition forces in the struggle against the autocracy was the cherished goal of Osvobozhdeniye and Struve himself. Without overestimating the importance of the Prague Conference, it should nevertheless be recognized that something significant has been done in this direction. The political union, however, could not be carried out in full, mainly because of the intransigent position of the socialists. The liberals clearly overestimated the ability of the revolutionary parties to political compromises, to constructive democratic activity. "It is possible that a new type of workers' party will be formed in our country, intermediate between British workers' liberalism and German doctrinal Social Democracy."

Thus, the Russian liberals were intensively searching for the formula of the liberal party in a not quite typical European country of the early 20th century. In the process of this search, liberalism became less academic, more grounded than it was in the second half of the 19th century. They realized in time that both in Western countries and in Russia the time of classical liberalism had passed. The fundamental elements of the model of political democracy created by the liberals in Russia were radical (social) liberalism, oriented toward an active social policy of the state and loyal to workers' organizations. The core of Russian democracy was to be an alliance of "new" liberalism and socialist forces.

However, having moved away from the orthodox look, liberalism in Russia has become “new” in a more European, rather than Russian, manner. His ideas were more of a theoretical synthesis of the achievements of world liberal thought than a soil version. In his search for this period preceding the events of 1905-1907, the liberals stopped in the middle. On the one hand, they turned out to be too radical new in comparison with classical liberalism - in opposition to autocracy, in illusory hopes for the constructive potential of the socialist movement. And, apparently, they slipped through the first soil mark, to which some of the liberals returned after and under the influence of the revolutionary events of 1905-1907. On the other hand, their liberalism was not radical enough in terms of social programs. And the point here is not so much a lack of determination to implement: in the desire to combine elements of liberalism and socialism, they, perhaps, caught the world progressive, anti-totalitarian trend. But they did not follow this path to the end, they did not understand the urgency and, especially, the priority of social problems in Russia.

Religious Approach to the Study of History

Theological approach represents a religious understanding of history based on the recognition of the Supreme Mind (God the Creator) and the divine world order created by him. According to this approach, God the Creator is the basis of the universe, the fundamental principle of all things and the root cause of all things and phenomena. God created the universe and man, gave his innermost meaning to his historical existence and development.

Point of view. In the religious approach, the priority value in the course of history is the salvation of the Soul. The path to the salvation of the Soul lies through the knowledge of God.

Periodization. The liberation of man from primitive passions, his transformation into a conscious follower of God is the main content of the course of history.

The course of human history is straightforward and consists of two periods:

From the creation of the World to the birth of Jesus Christ;

From the birth of Jesus Christ to the end of the world.

In the Gospel of Luke (chapter 1, verses 26-35) it is written: “God sent His Son Jesus Christ into this sinful, corrupt world to save mankind from sins and eternal death. Since the day of His birth, a new time has come on earth. Even our reckoning begins with the birth of Jesus Christ.”

Semantic concepts. The conceptual apparatus of the approach is based on the fact that the atonement for the sins of the people and man is possible only through repentance - "suffering of the Soul".

Reason and evaluation of facts. The essence of all religions is to understand the short duration of the existence of the material - the human body and Eternity - the Soul. The meaning of history lies in the consistent movement of man towards God, during which the human personality is formed, overcoming its dependence on nature and coming to the knowledge of the ultimate truth given to man in Revelation. Accordingly, historical facts are subjectively selected, which are built into a system of cause-and-effect relationships, and then conclusions are drawn, estimates are given.

A Worldwide Progressive Approach to the Study of History

Point of view. In the world-progressive approach, the priority value in the course of history is the global progress of mankind, which makes it possible to receive increasing material benefits.

Periodization. The idea of ​​the unity of the world historical path of mankind and progress was substantiated by the ethnographer and historian L. Morgan in the middle of the 19th century. He also proposed a periodization of the progressive development of mankind: savagery, barbarism, civilization. A periodization of "ascending history" was created. Civilization was conceived as the highest stage of history, at which the state and property arise and develop.

Reason and evaluation of facts. The movement of the course of history is connected with the acceleration of progress. Accordingly, historical facts are subjectively selected, lined up in a logical chain of cause and effect, and conclusions are drawn.

Directions of approach The world-progressive approach to the study of history with worldview systematization can be divided into areas:

Marxist (according to periodization - formational). Priority in accelerating progress is given to the public interest.

Liberal (according to periodization - modernization). Priority in accelerating progress is given to the interests of the individual.

BUT) MARXIST DIRECTION

Point of view. The direction, studying the progress of mankind, considers the development of society, social relations associated with different forms of ownership as a priority value of mankind.

periodization. The course of history represents the progress of mankind, developing in a spiral, and the periodization of history is based on socio-economic formations.

Semantic concepts. The approach introduces its own concepts, and commonly used ones fill them with meaning from the point of view of the interest of society. Concepts of direction: socio-economic formations, classes and class struggle leading to the destruction of private property and the establishment of public property, revolution, collectivism, partnership, etc.

Reason and evaluation of facts. History is presented as a pattern of change in socio-economic formations, at the junctions of which revolutionary changes. The pinnacle of society's progress is the communist formation. The driving force behind the progressive development of society is the class struggle between the haves, who own private property (exploiters), and the have-nots (exploited), naturally leading in the end to the destruction of private property and the establishment of public property. In accordance with these ideas, historical facts are selected, which are built into an appropriate causal relationship, from which the assessment of events logically follows.

B) LIBERAL DIRECTION

Point of view. Studying the progress of mankind, the liberal direction considers the development of the individual and the provision of his individual freedoms as the highest value of mankind. A person, realizing his interest, opposes another person, as well as society and the state.

periodization. Periodization is based on progress, understood as evolution - modernization. The liberal direction offers the following stages of the modernization course of history: agrarian (traditional) society, industrial society, post-industrial society.

The basis of an agrarian society is manual labor and collective (it is also public, state) property. The basis of an industrial society is the renewal of all aspects of human life and society with the use of machinery and private property. Only private property is the guarantor of personal, individual freedom and the engine of progress.

Semantic concepts. The approach introduces its own concepts, and fills commonly used ones with meaning from the point of view of the individual's interest. The conceptual apparatus of the approach is based on the evolutionary development of society (modernization - renewal) and cooperation (consensus) of classes. The concepts of direction: modernization, evolution, personality, market economy, choice of the historical path of development, totalitarian regime, civilization, variability of history, the price of what happened, etc.

Reason and evaluation of facts. Personality serves as the starting point for the liberal study of history. Liberals believe that in history there is always an alternative to development by a driven person. And the choice itself, the vector of progress, depends on the individual strong personality- hero, charismatic leader. In accordance with this, facts are selected, in the center of which is the interest of an individual. Based on the logic of presenting facts, conclusions are drawn and an assessment of history is given.

The formation of the liberal wing of Russian historiography began in the 1920s and 1930s. XIX century, when a well-known controversy took place in Russian intellectual culture about the “History of the Russian State” by N.M. Karamzin. As already noted in the previous topic, it became the basis for the ideological and scientific delimitation of thinkers in the first decades of the 19th century. in the sphere of their ideas about the historical image of Russia and understanding of its place in the world process of history.

The formation of the conservative tradition in historiography caused in the first third of the 19th century. an adequate response from historians of a different ideological and methodological orientation, associated with the birth of the liberal trend in historiography. The process of disengagement in Russian historiography became even more active during the period of ideological disputes between Slavophiles and Westernizers.

The formation of various trends was facilitated by the new situation both in historiography and in the public life of Russia. The professionalization of historical knowledge, which has become scientific fact during this period, actualized the problems of the theory of historical knowledge, the search for methods and principles historical research. With the process of mastering methodological tools and the use of theories of historical knowledge, Russian historians associated the ability to operate with reliable historical information. The perceived experience of European historical science oriented Russian historians of that time to the search for scientific approaches in order to achieve true knowledge.

The public sentiments of the intellectual community, in which the problems of choosing the path of the country's development occupied a significant place, were also an essential basis for the division of Russian historians into two main areas of scientific thought in historiography. The processes of bourgeois-democratic transformations in the West, the problems of the works of European historians, largely associated with the awareness of these processes, the critical perception of Russian socio-political realities, contributed to the liberalization of socio-political sentiments that significantly affected historical science.

The process of establishing a liberal trend in historiography conditionally ends in the middle of the 19th century. He is usually associated with the work of S.M. Solovyov and the formation of " public school to which he belonged. The period considered in this case is the first third of the 19th century. - a kind of preparatory stage, a kind of "overture" in the logic of the development of this scientific phenomenon.

Liberal historiography, in its developed state, declared itself as an original fact of historiographic culture, in two ways, at least, cognitive spheres: in ideological and conceptual constructions and theoretical and methodological support of historical research. The foundations of the concept and the dominant problems of the new direction in science were opposed to the ideas of conservative historiography. Historians of the liberal persuasion proceeded from the view of Russia as part of the European world, believing that its history is subject to the general laws of its development. Their recognition of the existing features of its historical appearance was not a weighty argument for them to separate Russian history from the European historical and cultural context. They connected the past, present and future of Russia with Europe and the West.

In the field of methodology, there is a rejection of empiricism (“fact-collecting”) and technologies for simplified transmission of the event (political) side of history in a narrative-chronological manner, a transition is being made to the creation of conceptually defined historical constructions subordinate to the system of theoretical, philosophical and scientific ideas of historians regarding the tasks they understand and methods of contemporary historical knowledge. Philosophical and sociological ideas of regularity, evolution, development, and progress find themselves in the space of scientific interests of historians.

The penetration of liberal ideas into the Russian cultural environment contributed to the departure of historians from political issues, in which interest in the history of the autocracy prevailed. The object of historical study is a complex system of the entire state system, which should evolve, according to liberal historians, in the direction of legal support for the life of the country's citizens. The state and power are perceived as institutions that provide favorable conditions for the life of the country as a national organism. The approach to understanding the past in the course of the formation of the liberal trend is updated with the problems and tasks of modern social and political life, which arouses interest in the history of the relationship between government, society, and the individual. Topical topics are the people, national history in the context of the global process of political and socio-cultural development.

New methodological principles appear in the scientific arsenal of historians of a liberal orientation: historicism, scientific argumentation of the conceptual presentation of history, reliance on original and fundamentally presented source material, creation of logical diagrams that explain the process of historical development and its features in the Russian version from the standpoint of the preferred one or another scientist philosophical doctrine. The scientific position of the historian in the process of perceiving the past is removed from the edifying-moralizing style and gravitates towards the development of a critical-analytical approach. It can be noted, anticipating the further presentation of the material, that the renewal of the methodological principles of historical writing initially outpaced the development of a conceptual image of Russian history.

In the first third of the XIX century. the foundations of the characteristic features of liberal historiography are being laid. This process is carried out in the context of a polemical struggle between conservative historians and newly-minted scientists who are opposed to them. The general socio-cultural and scientific situation in the historiography of this time allows us to consider it as a starting basis for the formation of a critical narrative, if we use the well-known periodization of historical narratives by J. Ruesen.

Many years of historiography’s attempts to develop a special definition of this stage (i.e., the historiography of the first third of the 19th century) in the development of the liberal trend have ended at the moment by designating it as a “critical trend”, represented by Johann Philip Gustav Evers (1781-1830), Mikhail Trofimovich Kachenovsky (1775-1842), Nikolai Alekseevich Polev(1796-1846). Each of the representatives of this group of historians acted as an innovator in the development of the principles of historical research.

Interest in the past has existed since the beginning of the human race. This interest is difficult to explain by human curiosity alone. The fact is that man himself is a historical being. It grows, changes, develops over time, is the product of this development.

The original meaning of the word "history" goes back to the ancient Greek term meaning "investigation", "recognition", "establishment". History was identified with the establishment of authenticity, the truth of events and facts. In Roman historiography 2, this word came to mean not a way of recognizing, but a story about the events of the past. Soon, “history” began to be called in general any story about any case, incident, real or fictional. At present, we use the word "history" in two senses: firstly, to denote a story about the past, and secondly, when it comes to the science that studies the past.

The subject of history defined ambiguously. The subject of history can be social, political, economic, demographic history, the history of the city, village, family, private life. The definition of the subject of history is subjective, connected with the ideology of the state and the outlook of the historian. Historians who take materialistic positions believe that history as a science studies the patterns of development of society, which, ultimately, depend on the method of production of material goods. This approach prioritizes economics, society - and not people - in explaining causality. Historians adhering to liberal positions are convinced that the subject of the study of history is a person (personality) in the self-realization of natural rights granted by nature. The famous French historian Mark Blok defined history as “the science of people in time”.

Scientific categories. Whatever subject historians study, they all use scientific categories in their research: historical movement (historical time, historical space), historical fact, theory of study (methodological interpretation).

historical movement includes related scientific categories historical time And historical space.

historical time only moves forward. Each segment of the movement in historical time is woven from thousands of connections, material and spiritual, it is unique and has no equal. Outside the concept of historical time, history does not exist. Events following one after another form a time series. There are internal links between events in the time series.

The concept of historical time has repeatedly changed. This was reflected in the periodizations of the historical process. Almost to late XVIII centuries, historians distinguished eras according to the reign of sovereigns. French historians in the 18th century, eras of savagery, barbarism, and civilization began to be distinguished. At the end of the 19th century, materialist historians divided the history of society into formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, and communist. At the turn of the 21st century, historical-liberal periodization divides society into periods: traditional, industrial, informational (post-industrial).

Under historical space understand the totality of natural-geographical, economic, political, socio-cultural processes occurring in a certain territory. Under the influence of natural and geographical factors, the way of life of peoples, occupations, and psychology are formed; there are features of socio-political and cultural life. Since ancient times, there has been a division of peoples into Western and Eastern. This does not mean belonging to the West (Europe) or East (Asia) in the geographical sense, but the common historical fate, the social life of these peoples. The concept of "historical space" is often used without regard to a specific territory. For example, the Christian world was synonymous with the West, while the Muslim world was synonymous with the East.

Historical fact 3 is a real event in the past. The entire past of mankind is woven from historical facts, there are many of them. Fact - the wars of Alexander the Great, fact - a single event from the personal life of one person. We obtain concrete historical facts from historical sources 4 . The entire past of mankind consists of facts, but in order to obtain a historical picture, it is necessary to line up the facts in a logical chain and explain them.

Theories of historical process or theories of learning (methodological interpretation 5) determined by the subject of history. Theory 6 is a logical diagram explaining historical facts. By themselves, historical facts as "fragments of reality" do not explain anything. Only the historian gives the fact an interpretation that depends on his ideological and theoretical views.

What distinguishes one theory of the historical process from another? The difference between them lies in the subject of study and the system of views on the historical process. Each schema-theory selects from a multitude of historical facts only those that fit into its logic 6 . Based on the subject of historical research, each theory identifies my periodization, determines mine conceptual apparatus, creates my historiography 8 . Various theories reveal only their regularities or alternatives - variants of the historical process and offer his vision of the past, do their forecasts for the future.

Only the facts of history can be true, the interpretation of these facts is always subjective. Facts that are biased and built into a predetermined logical and semantic scheme (without explanation and conclusions) cannot claim to be an objective history, but are only an example of a hidden selection of facts of a certain theory.

Different learning theories that explain real historical facts do not take precedence over each other. All of them are “truthful, objective, true” and reflect the difference in worldviews 9, systems of views on history and modern society. Criticism of one theory from the position of another is incorrect, as it replaces the worldview, the subject of study. Attempts to create a common (single), universal theory, that is, to combine different theories - worldviews (subjects of study), are unscientific, as they lead to violation of causal relationships, to conflicting conclusions.

According to the subjects of study, three theories of study are distinguished: religious-historical, world-historical, local-historical.

IN religious-historical theory the subject of study is the movement of a person towards God, the connection of a person with the Higher Mind, the Creator - God. The essence of all religions is to understand the short duration of the existence of the material - the human body and the eternity of the soul.

Within the framework of religious-historical theory, there are several directions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.). This tutorial deals only with the Christian-Orthodox direction. From the point of view of Christianity, the meaning of history lies in the consistent movement of a person towards God, during which a free human personality is formed, overcoming its dependence on nature and coming to the knowledge of the ultimate truth given to man in Revelation. The liberation of man from primitive passions, his transformation into a conscious follower of God is the main content of the story. The authors of works and textbooks on the history of Russia, written from religious positions, are A. V. Kartashov, V. D. Pospelovsky and others.

In world-historical theory the subject of study is the global human progress, allowing you to receive increasing wealth. The social essence of a person, the progress of his consciousness, which allows creating an ideal person and society, is put at the head. Society has separated itself from nature, and man transforms nature in accordance with his growing needs. The development of history is identified with progress. All nations go through the same stages of progress. Some go through the progressive path of development earlier, others later. The idea of ​​progressive social development is regarded as a law, as a necessity, an inevitability. Theory assigns a special role to the scientific category historical time.

The world-historical theory was projected onto England, Germany, France of the 19th century and revealed the features of the formation of mankind in the form in which it took place in Western Europe. The Eurocentrism inherent in this theory reduces the possibilities of constructing a picture world history, because it does not take into account the peculiarities of the development of not only other worlds (America, Asia, Africa), but even the so-called European periphery (Eastern Europe and especially Russia). Having absolutized the concept of "progress" from Eurocentric positions, historians "lined" the peoples along the hierarchical ladder. There was a pattern of development of history with "advanced" and "backward" peoples.

Within the framework of the world-historical theory of study, there are directions: materialistic, liberal, technological.

Materialistic (formational) direction, studying the progress of mankind, gives in it priority to the development of society, public relations associated with forms of ownership. History is presented as a pattern of change in socio-economic formations 10 at the junctions of which revolutionary changes take place. The pinnacle of the development of society is the communist formation. The change in formations is based on the contradiction between the level of development of productive forces 11 and the level of development of production relations 12 . The driving force behind the development of society is the class struggle between the haves who own private property (exploiters) and the have-nots (exploited), naturally leading in the end to the destruction of private property and the construction of a classless society. The first chapter of the Manifesto communist party”, written by K. Marx and F. Engels in 1848, begins as follows: “The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggles.” Some countries go through the stages of socio-economic formations (primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, communist) earlier, while others a little later. The proletariat of the more progressive countries (the European continent) helps the proletariat of the less progressive countries (the Asian continent). The materialistic trend in the history of Russia is represented by the works and textbooks of M. N. Pokrovsky, B. A. Rybakov, M. P. Kim, and others.

Liberal (modernization) direction, studying the progress-evolution of mankind, gives priority in him personal development to ensure his individual freedoms. Personality serves as the starting point for the liberal study of history. Liberals believe that in history there is always an alternative development 13 . And the choice itself, the vector of progress, depends on a strong personality - a hero, a charismatic leader 14 . If the vector of the progress of history corresponds to the Western European way of life - this is the way to ensure human rights and freedoms, and if it is Asian, then this is the way of despotism, the arbitrariness of the authorities in relation to the individual. The liberal trend in the history of Russia is represented by the works and textbooks of I. N. Ionov, R. Pipes, R. Werth, and others.

Technological (modernization) direction, studying the progress of mankind, gives priority in him technological development and related changes in society. Mankind is “doomed” to technical development, going from isolation “from the animal world” to the exploration of space. Milestones in this development are fundamental discoveries: the emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry, the development of iron metallurgy, the creation of horse harness, the invention of a mechanical loom, a steam engine, etc., as well as the political, economic and social systems corresponding to them. Fundamental discoveries determine the progress of mankind and do not depend on the ideological coloring of this or that political regime. The technological direction divides the history of mankind into periods: traditional (agrarian), industrial, post-industrial (informational) 15 . The evolution of the spread of a fundamental discovery both within one country and beyond its borders has been called modernization 16 . The technological direction in history is represented by the works and textbooks of S. A. Nefedov, V. A. Krasilshchikov and others.

IN local historical theory subject of study are local civilizations 17 . Each of the local civilizations is distinctive, is merged with nature and goes through the stages of birth, formation, flourishing, decline and death in its development. A lost civilization is being replaced by another civilization. At the head of the theory is the genetic and biological essence of man and the specific environment of his habitat. Humanity is a part of Nature-biosphere and changes along with it. Not the progress of consciousness, the mind of a person, but his subconscious, eternal biological instincts: procreation, envy, the desire to live better than others, greed, herding, etc. determine and inevitably repeat in time one or another form of social structure born by Nature. History does not repeat itself at a new stage of development, it repeats itself species- a man in time with his constant biological instincts. In Nature, there is a steady cycle of life cycles. Human life is determined by the environment, not progress. Theory assigns a special role to the scientific category historical space.

The English poet R. Kipling wrote: “The West is the West, the East is the East, and they will not leave their place until Heaven and Earth appear at the terrible judgment of the Lord.”

Within the framework of local historical theory, there are a number of areas - Slavophilism, Eurasianism, ethnogenesis, etc. Russian society. The Russian (Eurasian) local civilization, unlike others, has a “special” way of development. Russian spirituality will never be “suppressed” by the spirituality of other peoples. “Russia is a great country from birth”. Local-historical theory is represented by the works and textbooks of G. V. Vernadsky, L. N. Gumilyov and others.

Theories of learning

Rules for multi-theoretical STUDY

1. The multi-theoretical study of history is aimed at an independent scientific search for a student who is able to reasonably and wholeheartedly defend the chosen (his) theory and who understands, and therefore respects the logic of an opponent who adheres to a different theory.
2. The past - history - is impossible to study “in general”. It is woven from many historical facts, logically connected and unrelated. Figuratively speaking, this is a chaos of countless facts of the past. Reasoning about the history of mankind in general (as a whole) is pointless. reasonable man ( Homo sapiens), before exploring the past, determines the subject of study.
3. There are several subjects of study in the history of mankind. The selection of objects is subjective. Combining them on similar grounds eventually leads to three, fundamentally different subjects of study, and then to theories of study, which include a different understanding of the purpose of life, worldview, and the moral position of a person. Supporters of the religious-historical theory see the meaning of a person's stay on Earth in his movement towards God, in the victory of the spiritual component over the material, carnal passions 18 . Supporters of the world-historical theory see the meaning of human life in his striving for material goods, which depend on global progress 19 . Supporters of the local-historical theory see the meaning of human life in prolonging life, maintaining health, provided by the unity of man and the environment 20 .
4. Attempts to create a universal-historical, the most general and "only true" theory of study lead to eclecticism 21, the unification of subjects of study. Combining subjects of study is anti-scientific, causal relationships are lost and history ceases to exist as a science.
5. Based on the subject of historical study, each theory offers its own understanding of the course of history, defines its own conceptual apparatus, creates its own historiography, offers its own conclusions and makes its own forecast for the future. Criticism of one theory from the standpoint of another is incorrect.
6. The teaching of history is the explanation of the historical process. It is impossible to write (read) a lecture that does not contain an explanation of the factual material. Therefore, it is necessary to announce to the students in advance, in line with which theory the lecture will be read.
7. Various theories of the historical process (learning theories) that explain real historical facts in their strict causal relationship do not have advantages over each other. All of them are “truthful, objective, true”. The student has the right to give preference to one of the theories of history, but is obliged to know others.
8. Lots of facts from the past. From their multitude, historians subjectively, to substantiate their causal logic of the course of history, select individual facts.
9. Historical facts (without explanations and conclusions), chosen in advance and pre-built in a logical and semantic construction, represent a hidden theory, the cunning of a historian with a claim to the “only truth”, objectivity.
10. When using concepts (totalitarian system, command-administrative system, socialism, socio-economic formation, modernization, passionarity, mode of production), an explanation is given and the theory to which they belong is named.
11. Multi-theoretical study, first of all, is based on those well-known historical facts that students received earlier, studying event or one-theoretical history. At the same time, the multi-theoretical course is aimed at studying new factual material. After all, each theory builds its own logic of cause-and-effect relationships, selects only its own facts from the multitude.
12. To the question asked to the student: “Your assessment, personal opinion on this or that historical event?”, The teacher will receive an answer based on the personal perception of the world. This question is incorrect, since it already aims at an answer in line with liberal theory (the subject of study is personality).
13. In the world-historical theory, the materialistic direction is studied revolution(a sharp transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones) and the patterns of progress (change of socio-economic formations), and in the liberal direction - evolution(graduality) and alternatives of progress (civilized or uncivilized), as well as options (within one of the alternatives).
14. The comprehension, explanation of historical facts is influenced by: the worldview of people from different eras, the mentality of people from different countries, political preferences. The historian's conception of the past always takes place in the light of the problems being solved in his epoch. Each new generation of people comprehends the facts of the past in line with their changing meaning of life, reflected in the theories of study: world-historical, local-historical, religious-historical.
15. When presenting event material, it is necessary to take into account the scientific category - historical movement (time and space) 22:
    a) scientific category historical time does not allow “mechanical” transfer (copying) of the ideas of our historical time to the past historical time;
    b) scientific category historical space does not allow “mechanical” transfer (mixing) of the historical space of different regions.
16. historical document only reproduces or helps to reconstruct the historical fact - the truth. Only theory explains events - the facts of the past, reflected in historical sources. No document of the past can give an assessment of the events of October 1917 in Petrograd. In the materialist theory of study, this is the natural Great October Socialist Revolution, and in the liberal theory, it is an accidental armed coup d'état. The document itself in different theories of learning receives different explanations.

Conceptual apparatus of history

(each of the theories of learning introduces its own specific concepts, and fills the generally accepted ones with its own meaning)

State:

1. French enlighteners of the 18th century: Voltaire, J.-J. Rousseau and others believed that the formation of the state was based on a social contract. The liberal direction of world-historical theory, based on the ideas of the great humanists of the 18th century, considers all formations of peoples, including ancient ones, to be states. ( Liberal direction of world-historical theory.)
2. The state is a political system aimed at suppressing one class by another. Hence, the first state on the territory of Eastern Europe is Kievan Rus, and before it there were only tribes and tribal unions. (Materialistic direction of world-historical theory.)

Classes:

1. The origin of classes is associated with the emergence of private property, hence the destruction of private property means the elimination of classes. In world history there were classes: slaves - slave owners, serfs - feudal lords, proletarians - capitalists. These classes are antagonistic (irreconcilable). (The materialistic direction of the world-historical theory.)
2. Classes are large groups people differing in their role in the system of organizing social production and, consequently, in the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they possess. Classes arise during the transition to a factory, industrial society and disappear, eroded with the formation of a post-industrial society. These classes are non-antagonistic (cooperating). (Liberal and technological trends in world-historical theory.)

Study schemes

No. 1. What does the science of history study?

Movement Time

Fact Space

No. 3. Subject of study (algorithm-matrix)

No. 4. Theories of learning

#5 Differences in Learning Theories

Name of the theory	Principles of the theory	The main thing in theory
Religious-historical (Christian)	Faith in God, the eternity of the human Soul and the short duration of life.	The main thing in history is the essence of the separation of man from the animal world of sin, the liberation from the devilish machinations of the flesh and the salvation of the Soul, the movement towards God. Today, out of 6 billion people on Earth, 4 billion believe in God and the eternity of the Soul. Among them are almost all monarchs and presidents, many figures of science and culture. By old age, more than 90% of the people of the planet believe in the eternity of the Soul.
World-historical:	Global development, the progress of mankind and, above all, the progress of the human mind, consciousness.	The main thing in the history of mankind is progress. The leading factor of progress is social. Increasing progress will lead to the absolute domination of man over nature.
Local-historical		The main thing in history is the harmony of the biosphere, where man and his environment are an inseparable whole. The leading factor in the harmony of the biosphere is biological. Progress is a product of human activity and is secondary to it. Society does not improve in the course of progress, but is a product of human instincts that repeats itself over time.

No. 6. Mutual irreconcilability of theories

Name of the theory	Subject of study	Criticism of one theory from the standpoint of another theory
Religious-historical	Man's movement towards God.	The world and local theories consider the religious theory to be unscientific, false. Natural Sciences do not confirm the existence of God and the presence of a Soul in man.
World Historical	Global progress	The local theory considers the world theory unscientific, false. Progress is not the main thing in a person's life, it is just a product of his activity. Progress has almost no effect on the biological essence of man.
Local-historical	The unity of man and his environment	The world theory considers the local theory unscientific, false. Local theory absolutizes biological instincts and does not pay due attention to technical and social progress.

No. 7. World-historical theory

The subject of study is the global progress of mankind	Directions of study
eurocentrism Advanced regions (Western Europe and North America) and backward, catching up regions (Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.)	– materialistic Gives priority in the study of progress - the revolution of society, social relations associated with forms of ownership, class struggle. (Reviews a person in society.) In all countries, a revolutionary change in socio-economic formations and the emergence of a classless communist society are natural. The process of changing socio-economic formations in Europe occurs earlier than in other regions.
– Liberal Gives priority in the study of progress - the development of the individual and ensuring its individual freedoms. (An element of the opposition of man to society, man and society). All countries will come to a civilization that is associated with today's society in Western Europe. In the process of historical progress, alternatives arise. One alternative is civilized and the other is uncivilized. As a result of progress, the civilized alternative of development will win in all countries. .
- T technological Gives priority in the study of progress - technological, scientific discoveries. (Man and technology). All countries on the basis of scientific and technological progress as a result of convergence (merger) will come to one socio-political system based on Western European liberal values. Progress is primarily expressed in fundamental, technological discoveries and does not depend on the political system of states.

Notes

1. The material of chapter 1 of part I, with minor changes, is taken from the textbook: A multi-conceptual history of Russia. Part I. From ancient times to the end of the 19th century. Tutorial. / Ed. B.V. Lichman. Yekaterinburg: Ural. state tech. un-t. 2000. S. 8-27 .
2. Historiography is a branch of historical science that studies its history.
3. In historical science, simple and complex historical facts are distinguished. If the former are reduced to events, incidents (generally accepted truths), then the latter already include the moment of interpretation - interpretation. Complex historical facts include those that explain processes and historical structures (wars, revolutions, serfdom, absolutism). For the purposes of a clear separation of scientific categories, we consider it possible to speak only of simple facts - universally recognized truths.
4. Historical sources are understood as all the remnants of the past, in which historical evidence has been deposited, reflecting the real activity of man. All sources can be divided into groups: written, material, ethnographic, folklore, linguistic, film and photo documents.
5. Methodology - the doctrine of the scientific method of cognition; method (from the Greek. methodos) - the path of research, theory, teaching. Interpretation - interpretation.
6. Theory is a system of basic ideas in a particular branch of knowledge.
7. A sharp transition in our country in the early 90s of the twentieth century from the historical-materialist to the historical-liberal theory caused a “phenomenon” of “blank spots” in the presentation of history. Currently, there is a process of selecting facts in line with the historical-liberal theory related to the activities of an individual.
8. Each of the theories introduces specific concepts, and commonly used ones fill them with their own meaning. For example, the concepts: “state”, “classes”, “democracy”, etc.
9. A person's worldview is a combination of consciousness and psychological and biological factors. Ideology is a system of political, legal, moral, religious, philosophical views and ideas in which people's attitudes to reality are recognized and evaluated. Concept - a system of views on something, the main idea.
10. Socio-economic formation is a concept used to characterize a historically defined type of society (primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, communist), according to which a certain mode of production is considered as the basis of socio-historical development.
11. Productive forces - a system of subjective (human) and objective (substance, energy, information) elements of production.
12. Production relations - a set of material, economic relations between people in the process of social production and the movement of a social product from production to consumption.
13. The historical-liberal direction reveals alternatives of development in “its own” historical process, while the historical-materialist direction reveals the laws of development in “its” historical process.
14. A charismatic leader is a person endowed in the eyes of his followers with authority based on the exceptional qualities of his personality - wisdom, heroism, “holiness”.
15. The historical-liberal direction, which is based on progressive, evolutionary development, adheres to the same periodization.
16. Modernization is a progressive change.
17. Local civilization is a region of the world in which the development of mankind takes place in a special direction, different from other regions, based on its own cultural norms and values, a special worldview, usually associated with the dominant religion.
18. The Gospel of Matthew says: “No one can serve two masters - God and mammon: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one, and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Matt., II, 24. (Mammon - wealth.)
19. “Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it.” I.S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". (Phrase by Bazarov.)
20. Nature is the Temple and man is part of the Temple. At the end of the 20th century, in the conditions of an ecological crisis leading to the death of the planet, local-historical theory in the countries of Western Europe and North America replaced the liberal theory. The political influence of environmentalists - the Greens (Greenpeace) is rapidly growing.
21. Eclecticism (from the Greek eklektikus - choosing) - a mechanical combination of heterogeneous, often opposite principles, views, etc.
22. Public politicians, promoting historical experience in line with their ideas, "modernize" events, ignoring historical laws - time and space.

Chapter 2
Reflection of scientific categories in works on Russian history

Scientific category theory of historical process (or theory of learning) is determined by the subject of study and is a logical chain of cause-and-effect relationships, in which specific facts of history are woven. Theories are the core of all historical works, regardless of the time of their writing.

The outlook of the chroniclers - the first historians - was religious. The history of the state and society was interpreted as the realization of the divine plan, retribution for virtues and punishment for sins. In the annals, the history of the state is closely intertwined with religion - Christianity. The emergence of the state is associated with the adoption of Christianity in Kyiv in 988, and then with the transfer of religious and state centers to Vladimir (the seat of the metropolitan), to Moscow (the seat of the metropolitan and patriarch). From these positions, the history of society was considered as the history of the state, the basis of which was Christianity - Orthodoxy. The expansion of the state and the spread of Christianity were inextricably linked with each other. From the time of the chroniclers, historical tradition began to divide the population of the Eastern
Europe and Siberia on "ours" - Orthodox and "not ours" - non-Christians.

The thought of a special way for Russia, different from Western and Eastern countries, was formulated at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. the elder of the Elazarov Monastery Philotheus - this was the teaching "Moscow - the Third Rome." According to this doctrine, the First Rome - the Roman Empire - fell as a result of the fact that its inhabitants fell into heresy and abandoned true piety. The second Rome - Byzantium - fell under the blows of the Turks. “Two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, there will be no fourth,” wrote Elder Philotheus. From this, the messianic role of Russia became clear, called upon to preserve true Christianity, lost in other countries, to indicate the path of development to the rest of the world.

In the 18th century, Russian historians, under the influence of Western historians, switched to the positions of the world-historical theory of study, considering Russian history as part of the world. However, the idea of ​​a special, different from Western European, development of Russia continued to exist in Russian society. It found its embodiment in the theory of "official nationality", the foundations of which were formulated in the 1930s. XIX century, the Minister of Public Education of Russia, Count S.S. Uvarov. Its essence is that, unlike Europe, public life Russia is based on three fundamental principles: "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality."

The impression of an exploding bomb was made by the “philosophical” letter of P.Ya. Chaadaev, published in 1836 in the Telescope magazine. He saw the main difference in the development of Europe and Russia in their religious basis - Catholicism and Orthodoxy. In Western Europe, he saw the guardian of the Christian world, while he perceived Russia as a country standing outside world history. Salvation of Russia P.Ya. Chaadaev saw in the speedy introduction to the religious-Catholic principles of the Western world.

The letter had a huge impact on the minds of the intelligentsia, laid the foundation for disputes about the fate of Russia, the appearance in the 30-40s. XIX century movements of "Westerners" - supporters of the world-historical theory - and "Slavophiles" - supporters of the local historical theory.

Westerners proceeded from the concept of the unity of the human world and believed that Western Europe was at the head of the world, most fully and successfully implementing the principles of humanity, freedom and progress, and showing the way for the rest of humanity. The task of Russia, a backward, ignorant country, which only since the time of Peter the Great embarked on the path of cultural 1 universal development, is to get rid of inertia and Asiaticism as soon as possible and, having joined the European West, merge with it into one cultural universal family.

The local-historical theory of study gained considerable currency in the middle and second half of the 19th century. Representatives of this theory, the Slavophiles and Narodniks, believed that there was no single universal community, and therefore, a single path of development for all peoples. Each nation lives its own "original" life, which is based on the ideological principle, the "national spirit". For Russia, such beginnings are the Orthodox faith and the principles of inner truth and spiritual freedom associated with it; the embodiment of these principles in life is the peasant world, the community, as a voluntary union for mutual help and support.

According to the Slavophiles, Western principles of formal legal justice and Western organizational forms are alien to Russia. The reforms of Peter I, the Slavophiles and populists believed, turned Russia from the natural path of development to the Western path alien to it.

With the spread of Marxism in Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, the world-historical theory of study replaced the local-historical one. After 1917, one of the branches of the world-historical theory - materialistic - became official. A scheme for the development of society was developed, based on the theory of socio-economic formations. The materialistic direction of world-historical theory gave a new interpretation of Russia's place in world history. She regarded the October Revolution of 1917 as socialist, and the system established in Russia as socialism. According to K. Marx, socialism is a social system that should replace capitalism. Consequently, Russia automatically turned from a backward European country into "the world's first country of victorious socialism", into a country "indicating the path of development for all mankind."

The part of Russian society that ended up in emigration after the events of 1917-1920 adhered to religious beliefs. A number of historical works that comprehended events in line with religious theory belong to General P.N. Krasnov. His view of the events of 1917 and those that followed was the view of an Orthodox believer, for whom the root of the problem was "Russia's loss of God", that is, the oblivion of Christian values ​​and sinful temptations. Another general, A.I. Denikin directly called his work on the Civil War “Essays on Russian Troubles”.

In the environment of emigration, the local-historical theory has also received significant development, in line with which the "Eurasian direction" has developed. A number of collections were published, as well as the manifesto "Eurasianism" (1926). The yearbooks "Eurasian Timepiece", "Eurasian Chronicle" were published. The economist P.N. Savitsky, ethnographer 2 N.S. Trubetskoy, historian G.V. Vernadsky and others.

The main ideas of the Eurasianists are, firstly, the idea of ​​a special mission for Russia, which stems from the special “local development” of the latter. The Eurasianists believed that the roots of the Russian people could not be associated only with the Slavic ones. In the formation of the Russian people, an important role was played by the Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes, who inhabited the same “place of development” with the Eastern Slavs and constantly interacted with them. As a result, a Russian nation was formed, uniting multilingual peoples into a single state - Russia.

Secondly, this is the idea of ​​Russian culture as a “middle, Eurasian” culture. "The culture of Russia is neither a European culture, nor any of the Asian ones, nor the sum or mechanical combination of the elements of both." Russian culture was created as a result of the synthesis of Slavic and Eastern elements.

Thirdly, the history of Eurasia is the history of many states, ultimately leading to the creation of a single, large state. The Eurasian state requires a single state ideology.

At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, Russia began to spread historical and technological direction of world-historical theory, which was most fully reflected in the textbooks of S.A. Nefedov. According to historical and technological direction, history presents a dynamic picture of the spread fundamental discoveries in the form of cultural and technological circles, diverging around the world. Cultural and technological circles are comparable to circles radiating across the water from a thrown stone. These may be fundamental discoveries in the field of food production, allowing to increase the population density by tens and hundreds of times. These may be fundamental discoveries in the field of weapons, allowing to push the boundaries of habitation at the expense of neighbors. The effect of these discoveries is such that they give the discoverer people a decisive advantage over other peoples. Having mastered a new weapon, the pioneering people expands externally, and other peoples are forced either to submit to the conquerors or to borrow their weapons and culture in order to repulse them. The conquests of the Normans in the 9th-10th centuries are explained by the creation of new warships - “drakars”, and the conquest of the Mongols in the 13th century is explained by the creation of a powerful bow, an arrow from which pierced any armor in 300 steps. The appearance of gunpowder and a regular army armed with firearms led to the rise of the power of the Ottoman sultans, whom Ivan the Terrible tried to imitate. The creation of light guns by the Swedes determined the military expansion of Sweden, and this explains the reforms of Peter the Great, who tried to remake Russia according to the Swedish model.

Thus, for thousands of years there has been a process of constant comprehension and rethinking by man of the history of Russia, but in all ages historical facts have been grouped by thinkers in line with three theories of study: religious-historical, world-historical and local-historical.

Studying the historical process, historians divide it into periods. The division into periods is carried out by the historian on the basis of: a) the historian's ideas about the past in the light of the problems being solved in his era; b) the theory of study, proceeding from the subject of study.

In 1560-1563. The “Book of Powers” ​​appeared, in which the temporal history of the country is divided into a series of successive reigns and reigns. The appearance in time of such a periodization of history is explained by the formation of the Russian state with its center in Moscow, the need to justify the continuity of the tsarist Autocracy, to prove its inviolability and eternity.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev(1686-1750) in the work "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" (in 4 books), based on the political ideal of a strong monarchical power, singled out temporal stages in Russian history: from "perfect autocracy" (from Rurik to Mstislav , 862-1132), through the "aristocracy of the specific period" (1132-1462) to the "restoration of the monarchy under John the Great III" (1462-1505) and its strengthening under Peter I in early XVIII centuries.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826) devoted his main work to history ("History of the Russian State" in 12 volumes). The idea that “Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord, but was saved by wise autocracy” , Karamzin, like Tatishchev, laid the basis for the temporary division of national history. Karamzin singled out six periods: 1) "the introduction of monarchical power" - from the "calling of the Varangian princes" to Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (862-1015); 2) "fading of the autocracy" - from Svyatopolk Vladimirovich to Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich (1015-1238); 3) the "death" of the Russian state and the gradual "state revival" of Russia - from Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich to Ivan III (1238-1462); 4) "assertion of autocracy" - from Ivan III to Ivan IV (1462-1533); 5) the restoration of "tsarist autocracy" and the transformation of autocracy into tyranny - from Ivan IV (the Terrible) to Boris Godunov (1533-1598); 6) "Time of Troubles" - from Boris Godunov to Mikhail Romanov (1598-1613).

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov(1820-1879), who created the "History of Russia from ancient times" in 29 volumes, considered statehood to be the main force in social development, a necessary form of existence for the people. However, unlike Karamzin, he no longer attributed successes in the development of the state to the tsar and the autocracy. Solovyov was the son of the 19th century and, under the influence of discoveries in natural science and geography, attached great importance to natural and geographical factors in the coverage of history. He believed that “three conditions have a special impact on the life of the people: the nature of the country where he lives; the nature of the tribe to which he belongs; the course of external events, the influences coming from the peoples that surround it. In accordance with this, he singled out four major sections in the history of Russia: 1) the dominance of the tribal system - from Rurik to Andrei Bogolyubsky; 2) from Andrei Bogolyubsky to the beginning of the 17th century; 3) Russia's entry into the system of European states - from the first Romanovs to mid-eighteenth century; 4) the "new period" of Russian history - from the middle of the 18th century to the great reforms of the 1860s.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky(1841-1911) in the "Course of Russian History" in 5 volumes under the influence of economists of the middle of the 19th century, for the first time he violated tradition and departed from periodization according to the reigns of monarchs. He put the problematic principle at the basis of periodization.

Klyuchevsky's theoretical constructions were based on the triad: "the human person, human society and the nature of the country." The main place in the "Course of Russian History" is occupied by questions of the socio-economic history of Russia.

In national history, he singled out four time periods: 1) “Rus of the Dnieper, urban, commercial” (from the 8th to the 13th centuries); 2) "Rus of the Upper Volga, specific princely, free-agricultural" (XIII - mid-XV centuries); 3) "Great Russia, Moscow, tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural" (XV - early XVII centuries); 4) "all-Russian, imperial" period (XVII - the middle of the XVIII centuries).

Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky(1868-1932) in the work "Russian History from Ancient Times" in 5 volumes for the first time reflected materialistic direction of the world-historical theory of national history. Turn of XIX-XX centuries in Russia - period of rapid development of capitalism, sharp property differentiation of the people, mass social protest.

The basis of the historical-materialistic periodization was the formation-class approach, according to which the following were singled out in Russian history: 1) “primitive communal system” (until the 9th century); 2) "feudalism" (IX - mid-XIX centuries); 3) "capitalism" (second half of the 19th century - 1917); 4) "socialism" (since 1917).

The turn of the XX-XXI centuries is the time of the completion of the scientific and technological revolution in the world, the dominance of computer technology and the threat of a global environmental crisis. From the standpoint of the 21st century, a new vision of the structure of the world is emerging, and historians offer other directions of the historical process and their corresponding periodizations.

Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov(1912-1992), follower of academician V.I. Vernadsky about biosphere (humanity is part of the biosphere) 3 . Interest in the legacy of L.N. Gumilyov in our country and abroad is huge.
He published at the intersection of natural and human sciences more than a dozen monographs: "From the History of Eurasia", "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe", "From Russia to Russia", etc., creating a global concept of the ethnic history of our planet.

A person is born, matures, grows old, dies. Such is the fate of every ethnic group 4 in the world. Cosmic rays, interacting with the biosphere of a certain part of the Earth, give an impulse-flash for the birth of an ethnos. This push-flash L.N. Gumilyov called passionary 5 . A single harmony arises: space - a certain territory of the Earth - an ethnic group living in this territory. Having gone through all the phases of development (similar to the life cycles of a person), the ethnos dies. The life span of the ethnic group Gumilev determines 1200-1500 years 6:

1. passionary outbreak (the formation of a new ethnic group - about 300 years);
2. akmatic phase (the greatest rise in passionarity - 300 years);
3. break (a sharp decrease in passionarity - 200 years);
4. inertial phase (smooth decrease in passionarity - 300 years);
5. obscuration (destruction of ethnic ties - 200 years);
6. memorial phase (dying of an ethnic group - 200 years).

L.N. Gumilyov, in accordance with his theory, distinguishes stages (phases) of the life of an ethnic group in the history of Russia. Passionary outbreak, which led to the formation of the Russian ethnos, occurred in Russia around 1200. During the years 1200-1380. on the basis of the merger of the Slavs, Tatars, Lithuanians, Finno-Ugric peoples, the Russian ethnos arose. The phase of the passionary outbreak ended with the creation in 1380-1500. Grand Duchy of Moscow. In 1500-1800. (Akmatic phase, settlement of the ethnos) the ethnos spread within Eurasia, there was a unification under the rule of Moscow of the peoples living from the Baltic to Pacific Ocean. After 1800, a breaking phase began, which was accompanied by a huge dissipation of passionate energy, loss of unity, and an increase in internal conflicts. At the beginning of the 21st century, an inertial phase should begin, in which, thanks to the acquired values, the ethnos lives, as it were, “by inertia”, the unity of the ethnos returns, material benefits are created and accumulated. L.N. Gumilyov called himself "the last Eurasian."

Sergei Alexandrovich Nefedov(our contemporary) in the textbooks "History of the Middle Ages", "History of modern times. Renaissance" shows the development of Russia in the context of influences from peoples who had superiority in the technological, military and cultural spheres. Invading the territory of the East European Plain, these peoples encouraged the Slavs to adopt their technique, culture and customs. The process of adopting technology and culture is called modernization, and the process of interaction of borrowings and traditional culture– process social synthesis. Overly hasty upgrades can cause national reaction and partial rejection of borrowed institutions.

Igor Nikolaevich Ionov(our contemporary) in the textbook "Russian civilization, IX - early XX century." for the first time gave a complete presentation of the history of Russia from point of view liberal direction world-historical theory. Ionov believes that “It is the individual, and not the nation, not the religion, not the state, that serves as the starting point for the liberal version of history.” In the historiography of the liberal direction 7, the periodization of history is accepted, dividing society into periods: traditional (agrarian), industrial, post-industrial (information).

Thus, history, as a constant process of comprehension and rethinking of the past, can never be completed, since each generation must comprehend it anew for itself.

A historical fact is located not only in historical time, but also in historical space, which is understood as a set of processes: natural, economic, political, etc., occurring in a particular territory at a certain historical time. Works on the history of Russia in the pre-Soviet period began with a section on the geographical position of the country, its nature, climate, landscape, etc. This is especially true for the books by S.M. Solovyov and V.O. Klyuchevsky.

State borders. CM. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky noted in their writings that the geographical conditions of Eastern Europe differ markedly from those of Western Europe. The shores of Western Europe are heavily indented by inland seas and deep bays, dotted with many islands. Proximity to the seas is feature Western European states.

The relief of Western Europe differs sharply from that of Eastern Europe. The surface of Western Europe is extremely uneven. In addition to the massive ridge of the Alps, almost every European country has a mountain range, which serves as a kind of skeleton, or "ridge" of the country. So, in England there is a chain of the Pennines, in Spain - the Pyrenees, in Italy - the Apennines, in Sweden and Norway - the Scandinavian mountains. In the European part of Russia, there is no point higher than 500 meters above sea level. Ridge Ural mountains has little effect on the character of the surface.

CM. Solovyov draws attention to the fact that the borders of the Western European states are delineated by natural boundaries - seas, mountain ranges, and high-water rivers. Russia also has natural borders: along the perimeter of Russia there are seas, rivers, mountain peaks. On the territory of Russia there is an extensive strip of steppes - Great Steppe, stretching from the Carpathian Mountains to Altai. The great rivers of the East European Plain - the Dnieper, the Don, the Volga - were not obstacles, but rather roads connecting different regions of the country. Their dense network permeates a huge space, allowing you to reach its most remote corners. The whole history of the country is connected with rivers - it was along these "living roads" that the colonization of new territories was carried out. IN. Klyuchevsky wrote: "The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized."

Economic activity. Russia is a vast plain, open to the north winds, which are not hindered by mountain ranges. The climate of Russia belongs to the continental type. Winter temperatures decrease as you move eastward. Siberia, with its inexhaustible supply of arable land, is for the most part unsuitable for agriculture. In its eastern regions, lands located at the latitude of Scotland cannot be cultivated at all.

Just like Inner Asia, Africa and Australia, Russia is located in a zone of sharply continental climate. The temperature difference between the seasons reaches 70 degrees or more; the distribution of precipitation is extremely uneven. Precipitation is most abundant in the northwest, along the Baltic coast, where warm winds bring it; as you move to the southeast, they decrease. In other words, precipitation is most abundant where the soil is poorest, which is why Russia generally suffers from drought - in Kazan, for example, there is half as much precipitation as in Paris.

The most important consequence of the geographical position of Russia is the extreme shortness of the period suitable for sowing and harvesting. Around Novgorod and Petersburg, the agricultural period lasts only four months a year; in the central regions, near Moscow, it increases to five and a half months; in the steppe it lasts six months. In Western Europe, this period lasts 8-9 months. In other words, the Western European peasant has almost twice as much time for field work as the Russian.

How unprofitable an occupation was agriculture in Russia can be understood from the calculations of August Haxthausen, a Prussian agronomist who visited Russia in the 1840s. He compared the income generated by two farms (1000 hectares each), one of which is located on the Rhine, and the other in the Upper Volga region. He concluded his calculations with advice: if you are presented with an estate in Russia, it is best to refuse the gift, since from year to year it will bring losses. According to Gaksthausen, an estate in Russia could become profitable only under two conditions: using the labor of serfs (which would free the landowner from the costs of maintaining peasants and livestock) or by combining agriculture with manufactory (which would help keep peasants busy during the winter months).

Nevertheless, it is known that tsarist Russia exported grain abroad in fairly large volumes. At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. grain accounted for 47% of the country's total exports. Something else is less known: after the export, each inhabitant of the empire had 15 poods (240 kg) of bread per year. In countries that bought Russian grain (Denmark, Belgium, the USA, etc.), each inhabitant accounted for from 40 to 140 poods of bread. The Russian peasant brought grain to the market from need and saved on his food. Not by chance public services they were in a hurry to collect taxes immediately after the harvest, believing, not without reason, that otherwise the peasants would eat everything themselves.

Political system. On the territory of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, economic activity requires the efforts of a large number of people, subordinating them to a single will. It has historically shaped the despotic form of state power and the collectivist psychology of the people. The family community of the Slavs is an association of many relatives as joint owners of the land. In Eastern Europe, a political system based on communal ownership of land, and in Western Europe - on private property. In Germany, the brand community was a voluntary association of independent community members, individually owning land. In Western Europe, where natural and climatic conditions made it possible to run an individual economy, democratic traditions of power arose and an individualistic character of people developed.

Modern American historian Richard Pipes notes that the scarcity of land and harsh natural and climatic conditions (only 1% of agricultural land in Russia have optimal ratio quality of the soil, heat and moisture, and in the USA - 66%), systematically repeated crop failures have long taught the peasants to work and live together, to jointly overcome the ruthless surprises of the weather. The solution of all issues at a village meeting, communal ownership of land, the joint performance of all duties and the payment of taxes have formed over the centuries the collectivist psychology of the Russian. The communal life of the majority of the country's population gave rise to a unique Soviet regime. The Soviets remained the same rural gatherings, only renamed.

Most of the peasants came to terms with collectivization, since its idea was somewhat reminiscent of the well-known communal collectivity. It is impossible to imagine that the authorities were able to turn the peasants into collective farmers without relying on social ideals, without taking advantage of the peasants' dislike of the rich. In a country where the peasantry constituted the majority (in 1926, 82% of the population lived in the countryside), unanimous resistance to collectivization could instantly wipe the state off the face of the earth. Indeed, there would hardly be a government that would try to take such a step without being sure of significant support.

Communal ownership of land did not contribute to the formation of a sense of the owner, a respectful attitude towards private property. On the contrary, for centuries it has formed leveling tendencies aimed primarily at protecting the poor, at helping them at the expense of wealthy peasants.

Historical psychology of the people. The natural and climatic conditions of Russia are far from unambiguous. Therefore, it is hardly possible to talk about the emergence of a single psychology of the people. In the conditions of the North and Siberia, the life and work of people were largely associated with hunting and fishing, with working alone, which required courage, strength, endurance and patience. Many days of lack of communication accustomed to isolation, silence, and hard work - to regularity and slowness.

The agricultural population is characterized by a "torn" rhythm of labor. During a short, capricious summer, it was necessary to sow, grow and harvest crops, sow winter crops, prepare fodder for livestock for the whole year and do many other chores. I had to work hard and quickly, multiplying my efforts tenfold in case of heavy and untimely rains or early frost. After the work ended in the fall and there was a break in it, people sought to throw off the accumulated fatigue. After all, the end of work is a holiday in itself. Therefore, they knew how to relax and celebrate noisily and brightly, on a grand scale. The "winter" cycle formed calmness, slowness, regularity, and as extreme manifestations - slowness and laziness.

Due to the unpredictability of weather conditions, it was difficult for a peasant to plan and calculate anything in advance. Therefore, the habit of uniform systematic work is not typical for a Russian person. Capricious weather gave rise to another phenomenon obscure to Western Europeans - the Russian "maybe".

Natural and climatic conditions for centuries formed increased efficiency, endurance and patience of the people. The people were distinguished by the ability to concentrate physical and spiritual forces at the right moment, the ability to “gather into a fist” and make an extra effort when, it seems, all human resources have been exhausted.

By its nature, a person living on the territory of Eurasia is a person of extremes and systematic turbulent transitions, shying from one side to another. That is why “Russians harness slowly, but drive fast” and “either the chest is in crosses, or the head is in the bushes.”

An important factor that affected spirituality was the territory. The immensity, boundlessness of the earth, the boundlessness of the flat expanses determined the breadth of human nature, the openness of the soul, the constant striving into the reckless distance, into infinity. Driven by a variety of reasons, he always strove to the edge and even beyond the edge of the world. This formed the leading feature of spirituality, national character - maximalism, bringing everything to the limits of the possible, ignorance of the measure. Eurasia, located at the junction of the continents of Asia and Europe, has been the scene of a large-scale “merger” for millennia. different peoples. In today's Russia it is difficult to find a person who does not have genes, "the blood" of several ancient peoples is not mixed. Only taking into account the multipolar nature of today's Russian, the words of the poet F.I. Tyutchev:

Russia cannot be understood with the mind,

Do not measure with a common yardstick:

She has a special become -

One can only believe in Russia.

The mastery of new territories, the immensity of the lands created the possibility of continuous resettlement of people. This process allowed all irrepressible, restless natures, persecuted and oppressed, to express themselves, helped to realize their desire for will.

The will in the representation of a Russian person is, first of all, the ability to live (or live) according to one's desires, without being burdened by any social ties. Russian will and Western European freedom are different. Will - always only for itself. The will is constrained by equals, and so is society. The will triumphs either in leaving society or in power over it. Personal freedom in Western Europe is associated with respect for the freedom of others.

Will in Russia is a widespread and first form of protest, a rebellion of the soul. Rebellion for the sake of liberation from psychological oppression, from stress arising from overwork, deprivation, oppression ... Will is a creative passion, a personality straightens in it. But it is also destructive, since psychological relaxation is often found in material destruction, in surrendering to one's own maximalism, destroying everything that comes to hand - dishes, chairs, a manor's estate. This is a riot of emotions with ignorance of other forms of protest, this is a revolt "senseless and merciless."

Huge territory and harsh natural conditions determined the way of life and the spirituality corresponding to it, the crown of which was the common faith in God, the leader, the collective 8 . The loss of this faith led to the collapse of society, to the death of the state, the loss of personal guidelines. Examples of this: The Troubles of the beginning of the 17th century - the absence of a "natural" king; February 1917 - the destruction of faith in a just, caring monarch; the turn of the 90s is the loss of faith in communism.

Thus, in order to understand and reflect the processes taking place on the territory of Russia, it is necessary to take into account the historical space: the relationship of natural, geographical, economic, political, psychological and other factors. At the same time, the factors of historical space cannot be regarded as “frozen”, forever given. They, like everything else in the world, are in motion, subject to changes in historical time.

Theories of learning

Literature of various theories

1. Monographs: Vernadsky G.V. Russian historiography. M., 1998; Danilevsky N.Ya. Russia and Europe. M., 1991; Milov M.V. Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian historical process. M., 1998 (local). Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. In 5 volumes. T. 1. Lecture IV. M., 1989; Pipes R. Russia under the old regime. M., 1993. Ch. one (liberal).Nechkina M.V. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. M., 1974; Eidelman N.Ya. The last chronicler. M., 1983; Munchaev Sh. M., Ustinov V. V. History of Russia. M., 2000; Markova A.N., Skvortsova E.M., Andreeva I.A. History of Russia. M., 2001 (materialistic). Nefedov S. A. History of the Middle Ages. M., 1996; Nefedov S. A. The history of the new time. M., 1996 - http://hist1.narod.ru (technological).
2. Articles: Burovsky A. The outline of Russian history. (Russian people in the history of Eurasia) // Motherland, 1991, No. 4 (local).Leontiev K. Between East and West // Motherland, 1995, No. 5 (liberal).Milov M.V. Natural-geographic factor and features of the Russian historical process // Questions of history, 1992, no. 4, 5 (local).Oleinikov Yu. The natural factor of the historical existence of Russia // Svobodnaya thought, 1999, No. 2 (local).Savitsky P.N. Geopolitical Notes on Russian History // Questions of History, 1993, No. 11-12 (liberal).Sakharov A. The meaning of our history // Motherland, 1995, No. 9 (materialistic).Smirnov C. Gumilyov's experience // Knowledge is power, 1993, No. 5 (local). Nefedov S. A. Reforms of Ivan III and Ivan IV: Ottoman influence // Questions of History, 2002, No. 11 - ( technological).

Comparative schemes

No. 1. Historical time (periodization) in the works of Russian historians

V. Tatishchev (1686–1750) Worldwide historical theory	Autocracy (from Rurik to Mstislav 862–1132). The aristocracy of the appanage period (1132–1462). Restoration of the monarchy under John the Great III (1462–1505). Strengthening of the monarchy under Peter I (beginning of the 18th century).
N. Karamzin (1766–1826) World-historical theory	The introduction of monarchical power - from the calling of the Varangian princes to Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (862-1015). The extinction of the autocracy - from Svyatopolk Vladimirovich to Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich (1015-1238). The death of the Russian state and the gradual state revival of Russia - from Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich to Ivan III (1238–1462). The establishment of autocracy from Ivan III to Ivan IV (1462–1533). Restoration of tsarist autocracy and transformation of autocracy into tyranny - from Ivan IV (the Terrible) to Boris Godunov (1533-1598). Time of Troubles - from Boris Godunov to Mikhail Romanov (1598-1613).
S. Solovyov (1820–1879) World-historical theory	The dominance of the tribal system - from Rurik to Andrei Bogolyubsky. From Andrei Bogolyubsky to the beginning of the 17th century. Russia's entry into the system of European states - from the first Romanovs to the middle of the 18th century. A new period in the history of Russia - from the middle of the 18th century to the great reforms of the 1860s.
V. Klyuchevsky (1841–1911) World-historical theory	Russia Dnieper, city, trade (from VIII to XIII centuries). Russia of the Upper Volga, specific princely, free-farming (XIII - mid-XV centuries). Russia Great, Moscow, tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural (XV - early XVII centuries). All-Russian, imperial period (XVII - mid-XIX centuries).
M. Pokrovsky (1868–1932) World-historical theory (Materialistic direction)	Periods of formational (progressive) development: Primitive communal system (until the 9th century). Feudalism (IX - XIX centuries). Capitalism (second half of the 19th century - 1917). Socialism (since 1917).
L. Gumilyov (1912–1992) Local historical theory	The period of existence of the Russian ethnic group is approximately 1200–1500 years. The phase of passionary flash. The birth of an ethnic group occurs on the basis of old ethnic groups as a complex system. On the basis of the fusion of Slavs, Tatars, Lithuanians, Finno-Ugric peoples, the Russian ethnos arises (1200–1380). The Grand Duchy of Moscow is created (1300–1500). The phase is akmatic. The ethnos spreads within Eurasia from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean (1500–1800). Breakdown phase. There is a huge dissipation of passionate energy, crystallizing in the monuments of culture and art, the growth of internal conflicts, the loss of the unity of the ethnos (1800-2000). Based on Gumilyov's ideas, further periodization can be proposed: The phase is inertial. The unity of the ethnos is returning, there is a mutual subordination of people to each other, material wealth is accumulating (2000–2300). Obscuration phase. The processes of disintegration of the ethnos become irreversible. Sluggish and selfish people dominate. (2300–2500). Memorial phase. The ethnos dies (2500–2700).
I. Ionov (our contemporary) World-historical theory (Liberal direction)	Periods of temporary modernization (progress): Traditional agrarian society (until the end of the 19th century) Industrial society (late 19th - late 20th century) Post-industrial society (since the end of the 20th century)
S.Nefedov (our contemporary ) World-historical theory (Technological direction)	Norman conquest of Eastern Europe and formation Kievan Rus(IX century). Modernization according to the Byzantine model and the adoption of Christianity (X-XII centuries). Mongol conquest and formation of the Grand Duchy of Moscow (XIII - XV centuries). Modernization according to the Ottoman model (XVI century). Modernization according to the Swedish-Dutch model (XVIII - XX centuries). Since the 19th century, a global phenomenon has been spreading in Eastern Europe - the transition, modernization of a traditional society into an industrial one. The transition dates back to the 19th - 20th centuries. This period chronologically coincided with the period of Westernization, which began earlier, in the 18th century.

No. 2. The natural and climatic factor affects

Notes

1. Culture - in a broad sense - the result social activities people: in material, political, ideological and other spheres; in narrow sense- the result of the spiritual activity of people.
2. Ethnography - folk description.
3. Biosphere - an area of ​​active life, covering the lower part of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the upper part of the lithosphere. In the biosphere, living organisms (living substances) and their habitat are organically connected and interact with each other, forming an integral dynamic system.
4. Ethnos is a natural community: a group of people, naturally formed on the basis of an original stereotype of behavior and opposing itself to all other similar groups (L.N. Gumilyov).
5. Passionarity is the effect of excess biochemical energy of living matter.
6. At the same time, the life cycle of an “aging” ethnos can be interrupted by force (by conquest) by another, nearby developing “younger” ethnos.
7. Ionov I.N. believes: “The key concept in which the liberal ideal is embodied ... is the concept modernization, i.e. renewal, meaning in a broad sense the transition from the corporate-communal society of the Middle Ages to bourgeois society modern times, but in a narrower and more precise sense - the dual progress of the creation of a machine industry and liberal transformations in society.
8. Several theories explain the behavior of a mature person: a) the world-historical theory believes that only education and reason determine behavior and life path person; b) local-historical theory believes that not only education and intelligence, but also heredity (genes) influence the formation and behavior of a mature person.