Question " Was there a school of Klyuchevsky in Russian historiography?? set back in the 1920s. 20th century and still continues to intrigue historians. If most of the contemporaries involved in the activities of Klyuchevsky, even during his lifetime, and most of all soon after his death, boldly paired the phenomenon of Klyuchevsky with the original school in science, then the first to consider it from the perspective of historiographical doubt was one of the students of the historian - M.N. . Pokrovsky. In the collection of articles Class Struggle and Russian Historical Literature"(1923), he, on the one hand, admitted that "Klyuchevsky left an imprint on all the latest historiography, you will find fragments of this influence everywhere. Having the key to the Klyuchevsky cipher, you have the key to all Russian historiography - both to Platonov and to Milyukov .... So for most of the historical literature, Klyuchevsky gives an excellent starting point. On the other hand, Pokrovsky was not inclined to support those who associated the phenomenon of a scientific school with the name of a famous historian. In this regard, in his other work, he noted: “If any historian could not have a school, then this is precisely the author of the Boyar Duma, whose only method was what in the old days was called “divination”. Thanks to his artistic imagination, Klyuchevsky, using a few lines of an old letter, could resurrect a whole picture of life, restore a whole system of relations using one sample. But he could teach how to do it just as little as Chaliapin can learn how to sing the way he sings himself. For this, it was necessary to have the artistic imagination of Klyuchevsky ... ".
Pokrovsky’s assessments, and moreover, his own fate, connected with the well-known scientific and political criticism of the “Pokrovsky school”, created in Soviet historiography the basis for ideas about the absence of the Klyuchevsky school and the widespread belief that in Soviet historical science, based on a single methodological platform, there is no places to form separate schools. Although N.L. Rubinstein had in mind the school of Klyuchevsky, which he placed at the center of bourgeois historical science at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, but further understanding of this scientific phenomenon returned Soviet historiographers to the conclusions of Pokrovsky. M.V. Nechkina, recognizing the undoubted contribution to Russian culture of Klyuchevsky the historian, who, in her opinion, created one of the most striking concepts of the history of Russia, like Pokrovsky, did not consider it possible to talk about the school of Klyuchevsky. True, these historians had different grounds for rejecting the Klyuchevsky school. If Pokrovsky emphasized the original talent of a historian endowed with a historical imagination that cannot be conveyed to others, then Nechkina appealed to the absence of a clearly expressed general methodological basis among Klyuchevsky and his students. He was not inclined to talk about the school of Klyuchevsky and A.L. Shapiro, preferring to use the concept of "Klyuchevsky's direction". In his final interpretation, the image of Klyuchevsky is presented in the tradition of historiographic biographies, in which the environment of the historian practically received no special coverage.
At the same time, in the depths of Soviet historiography of the 1970s. another trend was also outlined, represented by the studies of L.V. Tcherepnin. The well-known historian wrote not only about Klyuchevsky himself, but also created a series of articles about scientists close to his circle. The materials of Cherepnin's personal fund suggest that they should have become the basis of the monograph he conceived with a noteworthy title for us: “ School of Klyuchevsky in Russian historiography". In all likelihood, for L.V. Cherepnin, the main sign of the presence of a school in V.O. Klyuchevsky was the fact that contemporary historians recognized him as their teacher. At the same time, Cherepnin included within his apprenticeship several generations of historians, who were not only Klyuchevsky’s “children” students, but also his “grandchildren”.
At the very beginning of the 1970s. appeared " Essays on Russian historiography» G.V. Vernadsky, originally published in the émigré edition of Notes of an Academic Group in the USA. His position in understanding the place and role of Klyuchevsky as a prominent scientific leader in Russian historical science is close to Tcherepnin. In the context of his "Essays", Klyuchevsky is perceived as the head of the school, as evidenced by the special section "Klyuchevsky's Pupils". It can be seen that G.V. Vernadsky in his memoirs associated his own professional development with the names of Klyuchevsky and his students.
Leaving a noticeable mark in the history of American Russian studies, he had his followers in the USA, passing the baton of influence of Klyuchevsky's ideas to the foreign scientific community. It is probably no coincidence that M.V. Nechkina noted the spread of the slogan “Back to Klyuchevsky”, which she criticized, in foreign historiography. She, in particular, referring to the observations of Rieber, stated that in the "foreign" Klyuchevskian "there is a statement about the formation of a whole generation of English and American Russian historians, brought up in the spirit of the works of Klyuchevsky.
Within the framework of the approach characteristic of Cherepnin and Vernadsky, the phenomenon of Klyuchevsky and his entourage is considered by the American historian T. Emmons, one of the representatives of that generation of American historians who found themselves in the space of influence of the indicated influence of the Russian historian. He, however, proposed to clearly limit the circle of Klyuchevsky's students to those persons who were left at the Department of Russian History of Moscow University, headed by Klyuchevsky, to work on master's theses and subsequently defended them with Klyuchevsky's approval. Thus, T. Emmons introduced certain criteria for creating the boundaries of the intellectual space of the Klyuchevsky school, which his predecessors did not have.
In modern historiographic studies relating to the 1990s. and the beginning of the 21st century, Klyuchevsky, his students and followers remain a popular plot. However, as before, for the majority of historiographers, the communicative nature of the historian's connection with the circle of his admirers of various levels remains unclear. Interesting in this regard is the position of V.A. Muraviev. Without using the concept of "school" in relation to Klyuchevsky, he introduces something else - the "new wave" of historians, understanding by this the generation of scientists who entered into active scientific activity at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Formed "on the shoulders of Klyuchevsky", a new generation of historians is brought up, according to the author, in other socio-cultural and scientific traditions than the authoritative master of science. Historians of the new generation enrich science with alternative methodologies and scientific problems. Attractive in the general setting, Klyuchevsky's concept, according to Muravyov, "began to lag behind the new historical challenge." In this situation, as follows from the context of the author's article, we can talk not so much about the phenomenon of the school, but about some kind of broad movement in historiography, caused by a change of generations in science, as well as a system of historical circumstances and sociocultural influences, including Klyuchevsky's work.
In the textbook V.P. Korzun and S.V. Bychkova V.O. Klyuchevsky appears as the head of the Moscow school of Russian historians. The authors do not doubt the existence of the Klyuchevsky school and try to outline its main features. Among them, the communication characteristics of the school and the foundations of its scientific program are considered. They expressed some doubts about the legitimacy of limiting the circle of students to the parameters that T. Emmons put forward. In their opinion, it is wider and can be determined by the factor of self-identification of young historians with this school. There are other studies in which the phenomenon of V.O. Klyuchevsky and the circle of his students are perceived as a scientific school.
In the newest textbook on pre-revolutionary historiography (edited by M.Yu. Lachaeva), the creative activity of historians is presented outside the context of the problem of scientific communications, which predetermined the appearance in it of the traditional model of presenting historiographic material in the style of scientific portraiture. For this reason, a place for scientific schools, including V.O. Klyuchevsky, not defined in the textbook. Klyuchevsky himself, as well as P.N. Milyukov look like large, but separate figures. Among other students of Klyuchevsky, little attention is paid to N.A. Rozhkov, presented in the context of the formation of Marxist historiography, and A.A. Kizevetter, who for some reason is connected with A.A. Kornilov (!?). Places for M.M. Bogoslovsky, Yu.V. Gauthier and M.K. Lyubavsky was not found at all in the structure of the textbook.
A continuation of the conversation about the Klyuchevsky school is proposed in the monograph by A.N. Shakhanov, in which the author, having focused on the study of communication cultures in science, actually refuses to talk about Klyuchevsky and his students as a phenomenon of the scientific school. He comes to the conclusion that “V.O. Klyuchevsky was largely formal in nature. This observation, based on the well-known facts of the organizational and psychological distancing of the historian from his students, gave rise to A.N. Shakhanov to define the team of historians who rallied around the scientific platform of Klyuchevsky, not as a “school”, but as a “community united by the teaching of V.O. Klyuchevsky, the traditions of Moscow University, joint pedagogical activities ".
The noted trends in the perception of the famous historian in the plane of his historical and pedagogical activity require a certain reaction on the part of those who continue to associate the tradition of the scientific school with him. Sharing a similar position, it is impossible not to notice that the solution to the problem - was there a school of Klyuchevsky? – can be performed not only within the framework of identifying the scientific meaning of his work and clarifying the boundaries of his influence on the scientific community, but also as a result of clarifying the definitions of the concept of a scientific school. Since there are many problems in this area, related, in particular, to identifying the criteria for this definition, as well as the presence of diverse models of scientific and sociocultural communications that form one or another type of communication and interaction between scientists, then put an end to solving the above problem on this stage its development is impossible. The above judgment by A.N. Shakhanova not so much argues for the absence of the Klyuchevsky school as a scientific phenomenon (“teaching” of the historian, “traditions” of Moscow University, “joint pedagogical activity”, in my opinion, do not exclude, but confirm the existence of a school lost in historiography), which demonstrates the incompleteness of the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of a scientific school.
Of undoubted interest in studying the problem of the "school of Klyuchevsky" is the monograph of the German historian Thomas M. Bohn, published in Germany in 1998 and later translated into Russian. Meaning by the "Moscow school" the school of Klyuchevsky, T.M. Bon put forward several signs-criteria that give reason to talk about the existence of the phenomenon of the school of V.O. Klyuchevsky ("Moscow school"). But at the same time, one cannot fail to notice that T. Bona is alarmed by the fact that V.O. Klyuchevsky, being recognized as the head of the Moscow School, "did not make any attempts to attract the younger generation to joint projects." The historian considers “historical sociology”, presented by him as a typological form of positivism, to be the methodological foundation of the Klyuchevsky school.
The relevance of the problem under consideration is emphasized by the fact of the appearance of a new monograph on V.O. Klyuchevsky, in which his activity is presented as a phenomenon of a scholar nature, which left a significant mark, both in science and in the culture of Russia. The author of the book is N.V. Grishina, creating an updated image of this scientific phenomenon, substantiates the belonging of the Klyuchevsky school to the "leader" type of scientific communication, offers its original spatial and temporal configuration, determines the historical and communicative foundations of the school and the peculiarities of its perception by representatives of the intellectual culture of pre-revolutionary Russia, reveals the scientific and social potential phenomenon being studied. A long-standing historiographical problem - the "School of Klyuchevsky" - is studied in the monograph as a phenomenon of intellectual history based on the relevant scientific and methodological tools of modern humanitarian knowledge. Appealing to a set of ideas from the field of science of science, the sociology of knowledge and relying, in particular, on the theoretical experience and historiographic practice of modern science’s perception of scholar processes and images of historians, the author actualizes the problem of the “Klyuchevsky school”, proposing to reach new round her comprehension. N.V. Grishina at the same time seeks to avoid the idealization and mythologization of the image of V.O. Klyuchevsky.
Turning further to the presentation of the identified issues, we will try to emphasize those characteristics in the activities of Klyuchevsky and his communication with the younger generation of historians that allow us to qualify this phenomenon as a scientific school.
Moscow University in the first third of the XIX century. became a place for the formation of traditions for the transfer of scientific experience and the style of scientific activity from one generation of scientists to another generation. In the conditions of the dominance of the "salon" form of communication of the cultural environment in the first half of the 19th century, which was characterized by relaxed intellectual pastime in the form of conversations and joint discussions of various, including scientific problems, the forms of the scientific community gravitated towards the so-called "leaderless" type. An example of such a school is a "public school".
In the middle of the XIX century. among Moscow historians, T.N. Granovsky. Although the existence of any school is not associated with his figure, he is considered the inspirer of many scientific and socio-political ideas. His influence extended to a wide range of figures in the 1940s and 1950s. XIX century, including all representatives of the public school.
T.N. Granovsky is usually presented as the head of the so-called "Western Party", which largely contributed to the formation of the liberal trend in Russian historiography. He headed the department of general history. Although he wrote a relatively small number of scientific works, he was highly valued by his contemporaries as a person who was able to unite others with the ideological side of his views, which he most often expressed in oral conversations with friends and colleagues. It is no coincidence that K.D. Kavelin wrote about him: “Only dull myopia is able to say, looking at two not too large volumes of Granovsky’s works: what did the famous Moscow professor do that was so wonderful? Where are his works, where are his merits? His labors in those generations that from the university bench brought an honest way of thinking, honest labor into Russian life, sympathetically responded to the cause of transformation; his merit in the views developed in Moscow circles, in the mental work of which he took such a lively and active part and in which he occupied such a prominent place ... ".
IN. Klyuchevsky was fully aware of Granovsky's long-term influence on the traditions of university life. He admitted: "We are all more or less students of Granovsky ...". Klyuchevsky determined its significance by the fact that he "created for subsequent generations of Russian science the ideal prototype of the professor." He especially emphasized that Granovsky not only taught history, but also "looked at his audience as a school of civic education." It can be assumed that the experience of Granovsky's university, social and cultural activities, highly valued by Klyuchevsky, assimilated by subsequent generations, was fully perceived and reproduced by Klyuchevsky himself in his professorial practice.
From Granovsky, there has clearly been a tendency to study and teach general history within the framework of a certain scientific culture, which in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. gave sprouts in the form of V.I. Guerrier, and then - P.G. Vinogradov. Both of them are connected with the development of various problems of world history, but, existing during the period of V.O. Klyuchevsky undoubtedly influenced the formation of his school.
With the name of P.G. Vinogradov, in particular, the activities of the so-called “Russian School” of historians, studied in detail by G.P. Myagkov. Although this school was represented by several medieval historians (I.V. Luchitsky from Kiev University, N.I. Kareev from St. Petersburg University), but the role of Moscow University, in which, in addition to Vinogradov, M.M. Kovalevsky, was especially significant. The Russian school of historians, turning to the problems of medieval and modern Europe, demonstrated its own special style, characterized by close attention to the social side of European history. Its representatives did not bypass the problems of the history of social upheavals in European society. The problems, original for that time, social accents in the study of the past, deep immersion in the source material did not pass by the work of Klyuchevsky himself and his students.
In an attempt to understand the phenomenon of Klyuchevsky as a leading historian, it is important to address the problem of his own formation according to the “teacher-student” model. At the time of his scientific youth, who did Klyuchevsky go to as a student, whose ideas and style of scientific communication could he reproduce in the period of his scientific maturity? The memoirs of contemporaries, including Klyuchevsky himself (letters, diary entries, memoir notes), and modern historiography allow a fairly definite answer to this question.
Klyuchevsky, during his student years, experienced at least two direct lines of influence. They are represented, on the one hand, by the figures of the historian of ancient literature, an expert on the history of the Russian language and folklore F.I. Buslaev and professor of Russian and general history S.V. Eshevsky; on the other hand, the famous S.M. Solovyov and his colleague in the public school, B.N. Chicherin. The first of these teachers, whom he listened to in his junior years of study at the university, formed in him a strong interest in Russian literature, folk culture, honed his literary abilities, which later brought him fame as a historian-artist. Communication with them also contributed to the creation of young Klyuchevsky's interest in the democratic stream of Russian literature and journalism. Probably, through Eshevsky, who previously worked at Kazan University, Klyuchevsky got acquainted with the works of A.P. Shchapov, the influence of whose ideas is noted by many biographers of the historian. Klyuchevsky, a first-year student, left enthusiastic impressions of the classes of these teachers in his letters to a friend P.P. Gvozdev, with whom he studied at the Penza Theological Seminary. Buslaev’s admiration is fully expressed by Klyuchevsky’s conclusion about the main subject and method of his research and lectures: “The people and only the people with their well-aimed, prophetic words with their concepts - that’s what occupies him most of all ... In one song, in a small proverb, he will indicate the deep meaning of life will reveal the belief and outlook of the people. Klyuchevsky was no less attracted by the rich content of Eshevsky's lectures, which he, in his words, wrote down "especially diligently." He confessed to his friend: “Rarely have I been so struck by the thought, the word of another, as after his first lecture, where he spoke about the significance of the ancient world for us, people of the 19th century ...”. In the work of both, Klyuchevsky was attracted not only by the professionalism of scientists, but also by their ability to update past phenomena with the demands and tasks of modern life.
Starting from the third year, when Klyuchevsky began to listen to lectures by S.M. Solovyov, gained richer experience in communicating with teachers of the Faculty of History and Philology and strove for independent judgments regarding the content and methods of teaching, the figure of the leading historian, who had already become widely known, overshadowed the authorities of his predecessors. Solovyov's name flashes in Klyuchevsky's correspondence since 1861, but he will give the most detailed description and assessment of Solovyov as a historian and his teacher already in his mature years in diary entries, as well as in special articles about him written after Solovyov's death. The high appraisal given by Klyuchevsky to Solovyov, as historian-thinker, is well known in historiography, which frees us from the details in the coverage of this plot. We only note that Klyuchevsky emphasized the scientific value of Solovyov’s 29-volume History of the Russian History, which “for many reasons will not soon follow its author to the grave,” which is enduring for the subsequent development of historiography. More than once he noted that own course Russian history relied on this fundamental work. A series of essays about Solovyov was written by Klyuchevsky in the style of memoirs, which made it possible to convey the historian's warm feelings for Solovyov as a scientist and personality.
But along with the assessments that determined Solovyov's contribution to historical science, the young Klyuchevsky already had a critical beginning in the perception of the master of science. In one of his letters in 1861, he polemically stated that "Soloviev justifies and defends Moscow centralization with its shameless despotism and tyranny." Critical notes, although probably borrowed from revolutionary-democratic journalism, undoubtedly later gave independent shoots, laying the foundation for Klyuchevsky's revision of the general view of Russian history, which was imprinted in his "Course".
Among the stories about Solovyov left by Klyuchevsky, one cannot but be interested in those that allow one to imagine the nature and style of the relationship between them. Probably, Klyuchevsky not only borrowed individual scientific ideas of Solovyov, but also took out a certain experience and culture of communication from their relationship as teacher and student. It is quite possible to assume that the nature of Klyuchevsky's own relations with his students was built on the basis of this experience.
According to the observations of historiographers, the relationship between Solovyov and Klyuchevsky was not simple. Some believe that they could not be called friendly. A.N. Shakhanov, in particular, notes that in principle Soloviev did not allow close relations with his students. Unlike many other teachers (for example, Pogodin, Buslaev), he did not invite anyone to his house. Distance from his undergraduates, increased demands on them, differences in views and dissimilarity of characters gave rise to various misunderstandings between Solovyov and his few students, Klyuchevsky in particular. It can be assumed that in the history of the relationship between Solovyov and Klyuchevsky, the fact of the poor experience of "teaching" and "apprenticeship" that developed in Russian historical science by the 60-70s played a role. 19th century
The traditions of scientific schools were just beginning to take shape and, probably, did not form a conscious attitude towards this phenomenon of those who represented scientific communities, defined in modern historiography as scientific schools. At the same time, it is impossible not to notice that Solovyov's position in relation to Klyuchevsky, a master's student, contained all the necessary components that made it possible to characterize him as a scientific supervisor of a novice historian. He noticed and singled out a talented and hardworking student from the general student environment. It was he who determined the themes of both the candidate’s essay (“Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State”, 1864), and the master’s thesis (“Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source”, 1872) by Klyuchevsky. But the protracted work of Klyuchevsky on his dissertation and its failure to submit it by the promised date could not but cause increased concern and even irritation in Solovyov, a very responsible and organized person in his scientific activities. However, after the successful defense of Klyuchevsky’s dissertation, quite friendly relations were established between them: “He (Klyuchevsky) was familiar with Soloviev’s stiff “Fridays”, visited the scientist in the country for years ... which even many professors who knew him for more than a decade could not boast of. Subsequently, in the circle of Klyuchevsky's students, there was a belief that until the death of Solovyov, Klyuchevsky retained a sense of gratitude and friendly disposition towards him.
A quite definite attitude, as to an authoritative scientist, from whom there was something to learn, was formed by the young Klyuchevsky in relation to B.N. Chicherin. One of the prominent students of Klyuchevsky M.M. Bogoslovsky recalled that Vasily Osipovich spoke more than once about the great influence on him of Chicherin's lectures, which he listened to while in the magistracy. MM. Bogoslovsky noted a direct connection between the works of Chicherin, devoted to regional institutions and Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century. and Klyuchevsky's doctoral dissertation ("Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia", 1882). He also emphasized the close interest of the historian in the collection of articles by Chicherin "An Experience in the History of Russian Law" (1858), which examined the history of the non-free estates in Russia. According to Bogoslovsky, Klyuchevsky's cycle of works on the history of serfdom can be regarded as a continuation of Chicherin's articles. A strong impression on Klyuchevsky, Bogoslovsky recalled, was also made by Chicherin's language - "crystal clear, concise and precise, unusually adapted for expressing legal concepts and relations." Noting the fact of dedication to Chicherin of one of Klyuchevsky's "most remarkable" articles - "The Composition of the Representation at Zemsky Sobors of Ancient Russia", Bogoslovsky defined it with an interesting phrase for us - as an expression of "generous gratitude to his teacher." Valuable testimony of Bogoslovsky makes it possible to clarify the system of influence of authoritative scientists on the formation of Klyuchevsky as a historian and leader of a scientific school, as well as to get an idea of the historian's self-identification with the environment of the older generation of historians.
It is impossible not to notice that the noted two lines of influence on Klyuchevsky - one (in the person of Buslaev, Eshevsky, partly Shchapov), gravitating towards the ideas of a people-philic nature, and the other (in the person of Solovyov, Chicherin) - state studies, are fancifully intertwined in the ideological program of scientific constructions historian. In all likelihood, the experience of the teachers, which conceptually did not coincide with each other, was one of the factors that forced Klyuchevsky to rethink the course of Russian history in his own way. He did not directly follow either the first or the second line of teachers, but tried to combine the ideas of both. In this sense, we can support T. Bon's identification of the "Moscow school" and the school of Klyuchevsky, since the latter was the bearer and, in a way, the unifier of the previous historical and scientific traditions of Moscow University. At the same time, the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University was distinguished by a plurality of scientific traditions and schools. And although it is possible to catch a common methodological relationship between them, each of the scholar phenomena, including the school of Klyuchevsky, had its own space, style, history.
Characterizing the figure of Klyuchevsky in the context of the scientific traditions of his native Moscow University, one cannot but take into account the relations that the historian had with some representatives of St. Petersburg University, for example, with K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V.I. Semevsky, S.F. Platonov, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky. However, it should be emphasized that a much broader road to scientific communication between Muscovites and Petersburgers was already paved by Klyuchevsky's students.
Determining the personal and generational composition of the historian's students is one of the most difficult aspects of the problem. One can cite many examples of differing schemes for the nominal composition of students, offered both by Klyuchevsky's contemporaries and historiographers. At one time G.V. Vernadsky, who considered himself a student of Klyuchevsky, spoke of him and S.F. Platonov as “pillars of Russian historiography of the late 19th and early 20th centuries”: “Tens of thousands of students listened to them at the university. Tens of thousands of Russian educated people have read them. Russian society was brought up on them. On them ... Russian public opinion was created. G.P. Fedotov. In this sense, the figure of Klyuchevsky is perceived in a large-scale sense. national educator(teachers) of Russian society. Many of the contemporaries who not only studied with Klyuchevsky, but also simply listened to his lectures or read his works, considered themselves students, admirers, followers of the famous and popular historian. A similar perspective in And Klyuchevsky's teaching as a teacher opens up great opportunities in expanding the horizons and spatio-temporal boundaries of studying Klyuchevsky's school, creating an opportunity to explore the process of transformation of one of the historical and scientific traditions at the macro level. At the same time, the problem under study requires the development of clearer signs that fix the presence of traditions of "teaching" and "apprenticeship". This is all the more important because the theoretical basis for developing the problem of the "scientific school" is still far from complete, and the question of the existence of the Klyuchevsky school remains controversial. Therefore, attempts to outline the circle of Klyuchevsky's students (as, indeed, of any other scientific leader) are of not only concrete historiographical, but also methodological interest.
The first who tried to make adjustments to the large list of possible applicants for the status of a student of Klyuchevsky on the basis of identifying certain criteria was T. Emmons. He proposed a simple option, considering it expedient to resort in this logical operation to the formal signs of apprenticeship, namely: he referred to the students of the historian only those who were left by him at the department of Russian history to prepare master's theses, and who managed to defend them during the life of Klyuchevsky. All of them - Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov(1859-1943; defense of a master's thesis - in 1892), Matvey Kuzmich Lyubavsky(1860-1936; 1894 - master's, 1901 - doctoral), Nikolai Alexandrovich Rozhkov(1868-1927; 1900 - master's ), Mikhail Mikhailovich Bogoslovsky(1867-1929; 1902 - master's, 1909 - doctoral ), Alexander Alexandrovich Kizevetter(1866-1933; 1903 - master's, 1909 - doctoral), Yuri Vladimirovich Gotye(1873-1943; 1906 - master's) made up the first generation of Klyuchevsky's students. Close to this line Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky, left by Klyuchevsky at the department, but did not pass the master's exams and did not write a dissertation.
Without continuing the rather large list of names of candidates for Klyuchevsky's students, we note that modern historiographers tend to see the contours of at least one more generation of representatives of the Klyuchevsky school, who were students of his students. Many of them after the revolution of 1917 made up the first generation of Soviet historians: for example, A.A. Novoselsky, S.V. Bakhrushin, V.I. Picheta, N.M. Druzhinin, S.K. Bogoyavlensky, B.B. Kafengauz, E.I. Zaozerskaya, L.V. Cherepnin. It is clear that the scholar line, born of the school of Klyuchevsky, could not receive a natural generational continuation in the conditions of the break in scientific and cultural traditions in Russia in the 20th century. Therefore, as N.V. Grishin, "the formation of the third generation of the school has not been completed."
Based on pragmatic tasks training course historiography, we will, following Emmons, keep in mind the first generation of students in whose work the scientific and pedagogical traditions of V.O. Klyuchevsky found the most complete expression. At the same time, it should be noted that in the scientific development of the problem, it is necessary to take into account a wider range of students, demonstrating the mechanism for the transmission of scientific tradition in science and its historical fate in a new socio-cultural situation.
What was V.O. Klyuchevsky in communication with his students, and how did they characterize him as their scientific mentor? What importance did he attach to communication links in science, and did his undergraduates form an image of their unity around the figure of Klyuchevsky as an expression of a scientific school? Has he developed his own view on the forms of collective co-creation? Finally, how did he perceive the phenomenon of apprenticeship that was forming around him, and did he express his attitude towards his own person as the leader of the scientific community (scientific school)?
A series of questions posed can contribute to the solution of important aspects of scholar research, allowing to focus on attempts at scientific self-identification, both of an individual scientist and a scientific team. Noting the fundamental importance of obtaining answers to these questions in order to recreate the ideas of members of a particular community in science (bearers of a particular scientific tradition) for the scientific identification of a model of scientific communication, one should remember the subjective factor. Theoretically, it can be assumed that the fact of the existence of a scientific school may or may not be recognized by its defendants. In addition, situations of assessments of the nature of the scientific community and the role of a leader in it that do not coincide between them are not excluded.
Quite a certain subjectivism can also be admitted on the part of the historiographer. One cannot but agree with the opinion of G.P. Myagkov that “the “empirical discovery” of a school is a cognitive process full of contradictions. You can “discover” a school where it does not exist, and, conversely, not see a school where it actually existed.”
Thus, the historiographer, on the path of studying scholar processes, faces problems related both to the subjectivity of information from historiographic sources and the complexities of the interpretive activity of the researcher-historiographer.
Let us turn to an attempt to recreate the image (portrait) of V.O. Klyuchevsky in the key that interests us. It is advisable to initially "give the floor" to his students, who expressed their attitude towards Klyuchevsky in a series of memoir sketches. But the analysis of their general complex would require access to very voluminous information and would take a lot of time, which the format of the educational lecture does not allow. Therefore, we will try to give a concise and generalized description of Klyuchevsky the teacher.
Almost all memoirist students tend to emphasize the teaching and research talent of a historian, which created the basis for perceiving him as the leading and most authoritative scientist in Russian science. Definitions of his qualities as historian-thinker, historian-researcher And historian-artist- a characteristic feature of many memories of him. Klyuchevsky was also assessed by his students as an innovator who managed to interpret well-known historical material differently than his predecessors. Attractive, in particular, for the younger generation of historians, were such features of his scientific style as a social analysis of historical facts, consistency in striving to cover with his scientific gaze a wide range of interacting factors historical development, a special interest in reform initiatives in Russian history and their consequences, critical assessments of the historical activities of the authorities. The students realized that Klyuchevsky, in comparison with his teacher S.M. Solovyov, made a decisive turn from political history to social history. B.I. emphasized this point especially expressively. Syromyatnikov, who believed that Klyuchevsky, with his "Boyar Duma", gave "brilliant criticism of the old (state - N. Alevras) school of historians", he "overturned the whole building of idealistic historiography".
Milyukov also presented Klyuchevsky as a "destroyer" and "liberator" in historiography. The first side of the characteristic of the historian was associated with Klyuchevsky's "instinctive distrust" of everything "intentional and far-fetched", as a result of which he left no stone unturned "in the world of historical authorities consecrated by antiquity." The second one opened in Klyuchevsky a scientist who was able to move away from traditions and stereotypes in science and pave the way to new horizons of historical knowledge, which was based on an attempt to understand the past both at the level of rational perception of the sociality of history, and through its emotional experience - “through sympathy and compassion of the historian.
The history of the “human community” that Klyuchevsky tried to study, his subtle socio-psychological approach to understanding history, his beautiful literary figurative language raised his scientific narrative to intuitive attempts to “get used to” historical images, which significantly distinguished him from the typical positivist historian of that time . These individual abilities and the nature of the historian's work formed a genuine interest in Russian history in the professional and public environment. P.N. Milyukov, despite the complexity of the relationship with the teacher (more on this later) admitted that " Klyuchevsky was for us a real Columbus, who opened the way to unknown countries.. "Unexplored", in fact, were previously not interested in historians of the parties Russian history. Moreover, according to the same Milyukov, Klyuchevsky aroused a deep interest among the younger generation of scientists in Russian history, which now seemed to them no less relevant for scientific study than general history. It is in this sense that Klyuchevsky played the role of Columbus in Russian historiography.
It is impossible not to notice that at one time the role of Columbus belonged to Karamzin. With both historians at the beginning of the 20th century. different depths of immersion of historical science into the past of Russia were connected. From the context of the memoirs of Klyuchevsky's students it follows that through Karamzin the history of Russia learned, and through Klyuchevsky - understood. The students appreciated Klyuchevsky's doctoral dissertation "The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia", in which, at the level of high skill, a comprehensive, given in evolution, characterization of the boyars as one of the social groups of Russian society was presented. Young scholars who followed Klyuchevsky believed that the Boyar Duma was "that new school from which modern historical science came from." Klyuchevsky's dissertation, and then the publication of the "Course of Russian History" became a model for students in the field of the methodology of history, the formation of problems, its conceptual coverage, the language and style of research.
Let's see how the students assessed the personality of Klyuchevsky as the leader of their scientific (master's) essays. One can immediately notice that the high marks of a historian’s personal talent do not directly correlate with the characteristics of his “teaching” abilities, which are usually understood as a system of some pedagogical methods and a style of relationships with students, which together contributed to the successful completion of research projects by novice scientists. Some of you may even be disappointed to learn, for example, that V.O. Klyuchevsky was not very interested in the progress of his undergraduates' work. He did not always respond to the requests of his students for help in solving a particular problem. So, M.M. Bogoslovsky in his memoirs emphasized the "individualistic" creative nature of the teacher, immersed in his work, his "isolation" and even "loneliness" in the field of scientific research. He admitted that Klyuchevsky "was not interested in the works of others at the stage of their execution", he could not know until the moment of publication about the specific content of his students' research. According to the impression of Bogoslovsky, he perceived the books presented to him as "surprises".
Indicative was the refusal of V.O. Klyuchevsky to help Yu.V. Gauthier in consultation on compiling a list of references for the master's exam. The professor recommended the undergraduate to "work independently." Gauthier himself, who left this passage in his memoir essay, summarized this: “In all this one cannot but see the conscious methods of a kind of scientific pedagogy, developed by many years of practice, long thoughts of a strong and original mind.”
Probably, many modern graduate students will find this style of relations with students strange. Indeed, Klyuchevsky did not show guardianship and emphasized didacticism, did not allow scholasticism in relations with students. He was not inclined to conduct any conversations about the "secrets" of his skill and share revelations from the field of his creative activity. The world of his personality and creativity, his scientific laboratory were hidden from the eyes of even the closest students.
The reasons for this style of relationships with students should probably be sought not only in pedagogical techniques Klyuchevsky, but also in the nature of his personality. According to contemporaries, Vasily Osipovich, for all his popularity and public recognition, was an easily vulnerable and suspicious person. A.A. Kizevetter called him “the mimosa man”: “some randomly uttered, not entirely successful word instantly jarred him, and he cringed and retreated into himself.” He "did not like to let strangers into the holy of holies of his soul."
It is impossible not to take into account his principled position in relation to professional historians, which he developed from the experience of his own professional development. Kizevetter emphasized that Klyuchevsky mastered the heights of his skill on his own, overcoming severe life tests. He had to "take his successes with a fight." In the same time life experience, from which he learned knowledge of the everyday and social psychology of man, became a well-defined basis for his understanding of the cultural atmosphere of life in various historical eras. Milyukov drew attention to this, noting the special "research psyche" of Klyuchevsky, who was able to "intuitively" understand the life of history.
Seeking independence from his students, Klyuchevsky believed that they should give up any guardianship concerns from the outside. It is no coincidence that one of his aphorisms-judgments, probably addressed to the younger generation of scientists, stated: “The mind of the modern young man wears out early assimilation of other people's thoughts and loses the ability to independence and self-activity. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Klyuchevsky confessed to the composer S.N. Vasilenko, who attended the lectures of the historian and consulted with him in the process of working on musical works on historical topics: “I am always ready to give advice and help to composers, artists and artists. But when my brother-historian turns to me: help, but explain - I don’t like it. Everyone should strive for it himself, they don’t like to work with us.”
In characterizing the relationship between Klyuchevsky and the younger generation of historians, one cannot exclude the natural rivalry between the teacher and students, which could arise in a situation of students' independent attempts to establish themselves in science and distance themselves either from the ideological program or the teacher's methodological recommendations. In this regard, the example of the conflict that arose between Klyuchevsky and Milyukov is typical.
But, despite the closeness of the teacher and his difficult relationship with individual students, his precious thoughts on how to write history, the students still heard and remembered. Despite the remaining grievances, it was Milyukov who, in his memoirs, preserved the lessons of Klyuchevsky about the method of “revitalizing” the past: “Dead material must be asked to give answers, and these answers must be able to predetermine in order to be able to verify them by research.” Milyukov admitted that this kind of teacher's intuition was inaccessible to the students.
The simplified, in my opinion, assessment of Klyuchevsky's attitude towards his students, which is characterized as formally indifferent (A.N. Shakhanov), is hardly justified. The features of his "teaching" strategy were affected by his character traits, and life attitudes, and his own experience of apprenticeship, not spoiled by close attention from Solovyov the teacher. It is impossible not to take into account the ethical principles characteristic of the era that brought up Klyuchevsky. Explicit reflection in the direction of his scientific leadership, in whatever form it was expressed, in all likelihood, was not honorable. And in scientific ethics, both Solovyov and Klyuchevsky. The generation of students of the last of these historians mastered the new principles of communication in science. Young historians at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. were convinced of the need to form scientific schools, assuming in the future their leadership in this scholar system.
Thus, the well-known features of the "intra-school" relations that have developed between Klyuchevsky and students can be explained by the crisis of generational change, the psychological problems of "fathers" and "children" in science, associated with the formation of new communicative practices that marked the beginning of much more than before, large-scale on the tasks and volumes of historical research, which required the collective efforts of scientists.
Numerous memories of Klyuchevsky's students and admirers about the famous historian undoubtedly reflect the fact of their self-identification of their belonging to Klyuchevsky's circle. For many of them, the consolidation of contemporary historians around the figure of a scientist was perceived as an expression of a scientific school. The existence of self-assessments of the community of Klyuchevsky's students as a scholar tradition is an important sign (among others) of the existence of a scientific school. For example, Yu.V. Gautier in the post-revolutionary hard times in his famous diary repeatedly recalled Klyuchevsky, linking the existence of his personal school with him and stating the continuation of this tradition in 1919: “In the evening I listened to A.A. Novoselsky;<…>. This is the first of the younger generation of historians that we are bringing to our shift. I think that this one will be a good successor to the Klyuchevsky school.” The theme "school of Klyuchevsky" is subsequently implemented in the structure of the lecture course by Yu.V. Gauthier in historiography, which was built (like a number of his other contemporaries - students of Klyuchevsky) according to the scholar principle. Lectures on Klyuchevsky were accompanied by the important subtitle "His School".
An absolute indicator of the consolidation of the studied scientific community around the figure of Klyuchevsky and the cohesion of his students in the system of their own interpersonal relations are the traditions of defending dissertations in their circle. The practice of mutually opposing dissertations, the established style of deep immersion in the analysis of the peer-reviewed work and unbiased criticism, which did not exclude the manifestations of completely friendly relations among Klyuchevsky's students, demonstrates the mutual understanding that dominated within the Klyuchevsky school.
Dissertation disputes of that time were not only an integral part of the life of the scientific community, but turned into social cultural events. Contemporaries "at the debates were looking for a living word, a living thought, because somewhere else they could not be expressed." IN AND. Picheta, having paid special attention in his memoir sketch to this side of scientific life, lamented the lack of transcripts of speeches during the defense of dissertations. However, the increased interest of contemporaries in this form of scientific discussion was caused by initiatives related to the publication in periodicals of information about defended dissertations and their discussions.
When organizing dissertation disputes of that time, it was quite assumed that the supervisor could act as an opposing party, as was the case at the defense of P.N. Milyukov, whose opponent, along with V.E. Yakushkin, was V.O. Klyuchevsky. He, together with M.V. Dovnar-Zapolsky, opposed M.K. Lyubavsky. Opponents could be historians who did not yet have dissertations. For example, A.A. Kizevetter played this role twice before defending his dissertation. In a circle close to Klyuchevsky, opposition from students or teachers with someone from their environment was often practiced.
So, opponents at the defense of the master's thesis M.M. Bogoslovsky in 1902 were performed by A.A. Kizevetter and M.K. Lyubavsky. In the same capacity, they were present at the historian's doctoral debate in 1909. Protection of N.A. Rozhkov in 1899 was accompanied by opposition to V.O. Klyuchevsky and A.A. Kiesevetter. At the master's dispute A.A. Kizevetter was opposed by V.O. Klyuchevsky and M.K. Lyubavsky. M.K. Lyubavsky and Yu.V. Gautier became his own opponents at the defense of his doctoral dissertation in 1909.
The atmosphere of a scientific debate was largely set by the supervisor and opponents. IN. Klyuchevsky, if present at the defense, became the central figure of the scientific spectacle, largely determining the impression of those present about the dissertation work.
The indisputable fact that practically all the students of Klyuchevsky recognized that they belonged to his school in itself about it in understanding its features. Maybe it's paradoxical but the Klyuchevsky school was formed not so much by the efforts of its leader, but by the aspirations of his students to consolidate around the scientific program of Klyuchevsky. At the same time, one should not absolutize the teacher's detachment from them. Klyuchevsky chose the method of unobtrusive lessons of mastery, which he taught throughout his life in science and in those rare, but forever memorable conversations with his wards. It is also impossible not to notice that at the end of his life, he significantly softened his relationship with his students and himself often initiated various forms of communication with them.
Turning to this plot, let us first focus on the methodological ideas of Klyuchevsky, at the same time noting the attitude of his students towards them, and then we will characterize their own methodological searches, which will allow us to consider the degree of unity of the methodological foundations of the school.
At one time, M.V. Nechkina refused to call the community of historians, consolidating around the figure of Klyuchevsky, a scientific school, believing that it had not developed a unified methodology. This observation and judgment from the standpoint of modern study of the problem cannot but be questioned. The methodological foundations laid down in the research projects of both Klyuchevsky himself and his students quite definitely fit into positivist paradigm. Positivist Doctrine inspired them in discussions about the subject of historical science, in search of mechanisms that determined the course and combination of various aspects of the development of history, in the development of methods for the historian's cognitive activity, in the explanation of historical phenomena. In this regard, Klyuchevsky and his students distanced themselves from the idealistic Hegelian scheme of history inherent in most representatives of the state school, including S.M. Solovyov. True, one cannot but bear in mind the fact that the "late" Solovyov gravitated toward a positivist explanation of the peculiarities of Russian history, which does not place an insurmountable methodological boundary between him and Klyuchevsky. As emphasized by V.P. Korzun, “both scientists saw in the subject of their science a means of self-knowledge, proceeded from the fact of an internally conditioned process community development which has a universal character while maintaining a unique specificity for each individual people.
At the same time, Klyuchevsky gradually moved away from a number of methodological convictions inherent in Solovyov, which allows us to see methodological innovation in his work. If Solovyov was a supporter of the ideas of the progressive unilinear movement of mankind, which led to the absence of variance (within the framework of the Hegelian thesis of "historical necessity") of the laws of evolution of the historical process, then Klyuchevsky proceeded from other methodological grounds.
Ascertaining the well-known fact of his recognition of the positivist doctrine, which became the basis of his methodological positions, we note features of the positivist program historical research of Klyuchevsky. It developed on the basis of a parallel process of mastering positivism by him and certain doubts about the truth and scientific effectiveness of his doctrinal dogma.
Even in his younger years, shortly after graduating from university, he thought about different bases, inherent in the nature of physical and social phenomena, which are equally the object of study of scientists. The young Klyuchevsky tried to grasp the difference between facts of a "blind unconscious nature" and facts from the "sphere of human relations”, believing that in the second case the spiritual principle dominates.
These arguments are curious in that in the emerging positivist ideology of Klyuchevsky, which was later fully expressed in the construction of his "Course of Russian History", some discord with the methodological system recognized by him in the main features was already visible. Even more specifically, Klyuchevsky expressed his rejection of both the idealistic schemes of his teacher and orthodox positivism in his diary reflections of 1903-1904. It is characteristic that at that time he was under the impression of the work of the famous German scientist G. Helmholtz "The Relationship of Natural Science to the System of Sciences". Asking the “eternal” question “what is a historical pattern?”, Klyuchevsky comes to the conclusion that “the laws of history, pragmatism, the connection of causes and effects are all concepts taken from other sciences, from other orders of things.” Referring to the law of “sufficient reason”, he defined the specifics of the development of history as a process that is difficult to predict, in which chance is the result of a “combination of elements of the community”. Criticizing the widespread approach in the cognitive practice of historians, he wrote: historical phenomena to causes and effects, we give historical life the appearance of a distinct, rationally conscious, planned process, forgetting that two forces participate in it, to which these logical definitions are alien, society and external nature. The historian came to the conclusion that "history is not a logical process, but a people's psychological one." From here they determined the subject historical knowledge, formulated as "a manifestation of the forces and properties of the human spirit."
The given reflections of the historian, at one time hidden by a diary from prying eyes, testify that the methodological foundations of historical science have always remained relevant to him. An attempt to specifically develop methodological problems in the special course "Methodology of Russian History" (1884/85 academic year.), In all likelihood, did not satisfy him. Methodological search Klyuchevsky led to the end of his career, not always expressing his ideas in a detailed form and in the form of publications. His students and admirers have preserved valuable testimonies of the teacher about methodological advice to his wards, which reflect the originality of his approaches in understanding what And how should be studied. A. E. Presnyakov noted Klyuchevsky’s well-known reflections on the problem of constructing facts and working with sources, expressed in the judgment: “A fact is not something objective and impersonal in a historical work ...”. The memoirist noted that historical facts for Klyuchevsky were the basis of interpretations, with their help "he liked to dig up the "garbage" of life, as he sometimes expressed it about everyday details, since sometimes the true features of a past life are better revealed in them."
With all certainty, such an approach was reflected in the recall of Klyuchevsky for the master's thesis by S.F. Platonov, in which Klyuchevsky wondered what "to call factual material for a historian?". Answering it, he considered it necessary to attribute to this category facts not only in the form of specific incidents, but also "opinions", "trends", "ideas, views, feelings, impressions of people."
His students - M.M. Bogoslovsky, M.K. Lyubavsky, A.A. Kizevetter emphasized that he encouraged them to study " everyday» sides of history, « worldly truth". Himself, possessing a "sense of vital reality", he expressed the desire for its "living concrete understanding and reproduction."
The peculiarities of Klyuchevsky's understanding of the nature of historical fact, noticed by the students, allow us to see in him a scientist who not only took an important step from the Hegelian ideas that dominated in the time of Solovyov to a more versatile and picturesque positivist picture of history, but also outlined a way out of this methodological model.
It is important to note that some modern scholars, emphasizing the long commitment of Russian historians to positivism, note the specificity of Klyuchevsky's positivism that stands out from the general series. The American historian M. Raev, in particular, correlated his method and creative style with the innovations of "impressionist painting and poetry of symbolism." A well-known specialist in the field of source studies and methodology of history O.M. Medushevsky, discussing the peculiarities of the methodology of the Russian humanities, singled out the name of Klyuchevsky in the gallery of those historians who, in the field of source studies, paved the way for a new understanding of the source as a cultural phenomenon.
Unlike Solovyov, who was characterized by a monistic approach to history, Klyuchevsky demonstrated the opposite - pluralistic, which was expressed in his theory of factors (see lectures I-II to his “Course of Russian History”, special course “Methodology of Russian History”). MM. Bogoslovsky emphasized that Klyuchevsky, possessing "amazingly sophisticated and developed", but always concrete thinking, had a special taste for analysis and various combinations of facts. In this regard, “he was organically unable to set himself the task of deriving the entire course of Russian history from any single abstract beginning, did not create for himself that single idol that the Hegelians Slavophiles and Westerners worshiped, and from worshiping which at the beginning of his scientific activity did not Solovyov also remained free.
The younger generation of historians was attracted by Klyuchevsky's idea of the unpredictability of the historical process, its multivariance (alternativeness), which always created a kind of "secret" of the past, which historians, including each of Klyuchevsky's students, had to reveal. Klyuchevsky's experience in knowing the "secrets" of history testified that without immersion in all the diversity of aspects of history and without attempts to discover the socio-psychological background of phenomena, it is impossible to understand the meaning of history. These lessons in the knowledge of the past at that time were new and differed from the methodological guidelines of both representatives of Slavophilism and the state school. The general approaches to the presentation of Russian history, laid down by Klyuchevsky, removed the former contradictions between Westerners and Slavophiles. The historian himself emphasized the loss in new era the relevance of the "heroic battles" between them.
Summing up some comparisons of the methodological foundations characteristic of Solovyov the teacher and Klyuchevsky the student, we agree with those historiographers who are not inclined to see the latter as a complete denial of the “Soloviev heritage”, but emphasize the “captiously critical clarification and revision” of this heritage by Klyuchevsky.
It is from the perspective of such a revision of the previous methodological priorities that one can consider the “Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia” by Klyuchevsky, perceived by contemporaries as a kind of methodological milestone work, according to the release date of which (in 1880-1881 in a magazine version) it was possible to count the beginning of a new period in Russian historical science. Klyuchevsky's dissertation became a model for many of his students in the problem-methodological sense and an example of high professionalism, which was expressed in the source study side of his research. According to a number of modern historiographers (T. Emmons, V.P. Korzun, T. Bona), the “Boyar Duma” was a manifesto new science focused on creating social history.
In his dissertation and "Course" Klyuchevsky proposed a new system for describing the phenomena of Russian history, taken in a large-scale socio-cultural panorama. This system was based on a certain sequence of analytical processing of historical facts of various social nature. A.A. Kiesewetter. They fully demonstrate the peculiarities of the positivist basis of his general approach. Describing the lectures of the teacher, the structure of which was later reproduced in the published "Course", Kizevetter wrote that they were based on the concept of the history of Russia, which organically combined "all the best of what the "law school" gave" and the results of the socio-economic analysis of the main processes of Russian folk life, independently developed by the historian. The concept was based on the idea of the colonization nature of the development of Russian history, which was reinforced by the scheme of its periodization (see Fig. introductory lectures(I-IV) to the "Course" by V.O. Klyuchevsky). Each period was outlined by Klyuchevsky according to one plan. At first, a vivid picture of the political system was given. But when it seemed to the listener, A.A. Kizevetter, "that he had already penetrated the very essence of the then historical reality", Klyuchevsky opened the next vast area - a no less vivid picture of social relations, "as the basis of the previously studied political system." “And when the listener began to think that now he was already holding in his hands the key to all the locks of the historical process, the lecturer once again pushed the framework of presentation into a new field of facts, moving on to the image National economy of the corresponding period and showing how the features of both the political and social system were determined by the warehouse of national economic relations.
Thus, Klyuchevsky proposed his own scheme, which incorporated a special method of presenting historical material and an analytical program for the knowledge of history, which is an additional argument for his innovation. Within the framework of the approach characteristic of positivism, V.O. Klyuchevsky repeatedly talked about " factors" or " forces which form the basis and guide the development of history. Of all their diversity, he singled out nature of the country, personality And society(see lecture I of the "Course"). Note that this list no state, as a separate independent force, because, as you can understand the background of the historian's thought, it is shaped by the individual and society. country nature according to his version determined the possibilities and type of economic life, personality represented the creative force in mental and moral life, society took on the function of shaping social and political life. These forces, according to Klyuchevsky, determined the subject (more precisely, two subjects) of historical study. It boiled down, firstly, to observations of the "development of man and human community", and secondly, of the nature and action of historical forces that form the structure of society. He understood the first subject as "the history of culture, or civilization." The second - matched with "historical sociology". Attaching great importance to the individual as the most important historical element, he at the same time assigned special importance to society and the social categories that underlay its structure. His attempts to define society as a historical category show his deep awareness of the elemental basis, complex inconsistency, socio-psychological and cultural diversity that were embodied in it: “I mean society, as a historical force, not in the sense of any special human union, but simply as the fact that people live together and in this life together influence each other. This mutual influence of people living together forms a special element in the structure of the hostel, which has special properties, its own nature, its own sphere of activity. Society is made up of persons; but the individuals who make up society are far from being all of them together, in the composition of society: here they intensely manifest some properties and hide others, develop aspirations that have no place in a lonely life, by means of the addition of personal forces they perform actions that are beyond the power of each employee separately. It is known what an important role is played in human relations by example, imitation, envy, rivalry, and yet these powerful springs of community life are called to action only when we meet with our neighbors, i.e. imposed on us by society.
The inseparable connection of the individual with society, as a sociological problem, was rethought by him on the basis of historical material, which, as M.M. Bogoslovsky, aroused his particular interest in the history of "social classes". Klyuchevsky's personality is social, it is brought up by the social environment. Only in this understanding is a person perceived by him as a bearer of morality and culture. The famous gallery of historical figures, created by the historian, presents, first of all, images typical representatives of the social strata of Russian society.
Ultimately, Klyuchevsky, referring to the history of society, tried to recreate the history of the nation. Solving, in fact, the same problems as his teacher S.M. Solovyov, he proposed a completely different version of national history. The German historian Thomas Bohn, in solidarity, in fact, with the assessment
| |Page |
| Introduction | 2 |
|1. Brief biography |3 |
|2. A look at the history of the Russian state from the standpoint | 9 |
| V.O. Klyuchevsky | |
|3. Creativity V.O. Klyuchevsky as a noticeable phenomenon of Russian | 13 |
| culture | |
| Conclusion | 14 |
| Literature | 15 |
Introduction
An outstanding Russian scientist - historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841
- 1911) - academician (and honorary academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences), was a versatile person and, in addition to the well-known series of lectures: "The Course of Russian History", left wonderful works on the history of serfdom, estates, finance, historiography.
The Russian writer, Prince Sergei Mikhailovich Volkonsky wrote about him: “In
In 1911, the venerable professor Klyuchevsky died in Petrograd, the newest of the luminaries of Russian historiography, a man gifted with an exceptional gift of penetrating into the recesses of the past life of the people. From the touch of his critical chisel, historical figures fall off conventional outlines superimposed on their appearance by traditional, superficially repeated superficial judgments. You will not find any embodiment of state virtues, nor bearers of unparalleled villainy on the pages of his book, there before you pass living people - a combination of selfishness and kindness, statesmanship and reckless personal desires.
But not only Andrei Bogolyubsky or Ivan the Terrible are resurrected under his creative touch; the nameless, almost silent builder of his history also comes to life - an ordinary Russian person: he fights for life in the grip of harsh nature, fights off strong enemies and absorbs the weakest; he plows, trades, cunning, humbly endures and violently rebels; he longs for power over himself and overthrows it, destroys himself in strife, goes into dense forests to prayerfully bury the rest of his years in a skete, or runs away to the unrestrained expanse of the Cossack steppes; he lives a daily gray life of petty personal interests - those importunate engines, from whose uninterrupted work the skeleton of the people's building is built; and in the years of severe trials, it rises to high impulses of active love for the perishing homeland.
This simple Russian man lives on the pages of Klyuchevsky as he was, without embellishment, in all the diversity of his aspirations and deeds. Major personalities, bright events - these are only milestones in Klyuchevsky's historical presentation: thousands of threads stretch to them and from them depart to those unknown units that, without knowing it, weave a fabric with their daily life folk history. Klyuchevsky's thought, conceived in the lofty realm of love for truth, over decades of scholarly work has penetrated a powerful layer of historical raw material, transformed it and flows calmly, as a stream of exceptional specific gravity, impassive and free. Nowhere is there a phrase, nowhere does he stoop to a one-sided passion, everywhere he has, as in life itself, a combination of light and shadow, everywhere about faces, classes, nationalities, about epochs, an impartial, balanced judgment. In our age of slavish party thought and deceitful words, this book is mental delight and peace of mind. We can trust her."
1. Brief biography
Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich was born on January 16, 1841 in the family of a village priest of the Penza diocese. He studied at the Penza Theological School and the Penza Theological Seminary. In 1861, having overcome difficult financial circumstances, he entered the Faculty of History and Philology.
Moscow University, where he listened to N.M. Leontiev, F.M. Buslaeva, G.A.
Ivanova, K.N. Pobedonostsev, B.N. Chicherina, S.M. Solovyov.
Under the influence of especially the last two scientists, Klyuchevsky's own scientific interests were also determined. In Chicherin's lectures, he was captivated by the harmony and integrity of scientific constructions; in Solovyov's lectures, he learned, in his own words, "what a pleasure it is for a young mind, beginning scientific study, to feel in possession of an integral view of a scientific subject." His Ph.D. thesis was written on the topic: "Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state." Left at the university
Klyuchevsky chose for special scientific research an extensive handwritten material of the lives of ancient Russian saints, in which he hoped to find
"the most abundant and fresh source for studying the participation of monasteries in the colonization of North-Eastern Russia". Hard work on the colossal handwritten material scattered over many book depositories did not justify Klyuchevsky's initial hopes. The result of this work was a master's thesis: "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source" (Moscow, 1871), devoted to the formal side of hagiographic literature, its sources, samples, techniques and forms. A masterful, truly scientific study of one of the major sources of our ancient church history is sustained in the spirit of that strict-critical trend, which in the church-historical science of the middle of the last century was far from being dominant.
For the author himself, a close study of hagiographic literature also had the significance that from it he extracted many grains of a living historical image, shining like a diamond, which Klyuchevsky used with inimitable skill in characterizing various aspects of ancient Russian life. Classes for a master's thesis involved Klyuchevsky in a circle of various topics on the history of the church and Russian religious thought, and a number of independent articles and reviews appeared on these topics; of these, the largest are: "The Economic Activities of the Solovetsky Monastery", "Pskov Disputes", "Contribution of the Church to the Successes of Russian Civil Order and Law", "The Significance of the Monk
Sergius of Radonezh for the Russian people and state", "Western influence and church schism in Russia of the 17th century". In 1871, Klyuchevsky was elected to the department of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, which he held until
1906; in next year began teaching at the Alexander Military School and at the higher courses for women. In September 1879, he was elected an associate professor at Moscow University, in 1882 - extraordinary, in 1885.
- tenured professor. In 1893 - 1895, on behalf of the emperor
Alexander III, lectured a course in Russian history to Grand Duke George
Alexandrovich; in Abas-Tuman from 1900 to 1911 he taught at the school of painting, sculpture and architecture; in 1893 - 1905 he was chairman
Society of History and Antiquities at Moscow University. In 1901 he was elected an ordinary academician, in 1908 - an honorary academician of the category of fine literature of the Academy of Sciences; in 1905 he participated in the press commission chaired by D.F. Kobeko and in a special meeting (in Peterhof) on the fundamental laws; in 1906 he was elected a member of the State Council from
Academy of Sciences and Universities, but refused this title. From the very first courses he read, Klyuchevsky established himself as a brilliant and original lecturer, capturing the attention of the audience with the power of scientific analysis, the gift of a bright and convex image ancient life and historical details.
Deep erudition in the primary sources gave abundant material to the artistic talent of the historian, who loved to create accurate, concise pictures and characteristics from the original expressions and images of the source. In 1882, Klyuchevsky's doctoral dissertation, the famous Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia, published first in Russkaya Mysl, was published as a separate book. In this central work, a special topic about the boyar duma, the "flywheel" of the ancient Russian administration, Klyuchevsky connected with the most important issues of the socio-economic and political history of Russia before late XVII century, thus expressing that integral and deeply thought-out understanding of this history, which formed the basis of his general course of Russian history and his special studies. A number of fundamental issues of ancient Russian history - the formation of urban volosts around the shopping centers of the great waterway, the origin and essence of the specific order in the northeastern
Russia, the composition and political role of the Moscow boyars, the Moscow autocracy, the bureaucratic mechanism of the Moscow state of the 16th-17th centuries - received in the "Boyar Duma" such a decision, which partly became universally recognized, partly served as the necessary basis for the investigations of subsequent historians. Published later (in 1885 and 1886) in the "Russian
Thoughts" in the articles "The Origin of Serfdom in Russia" and "The Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia" gave a strong and fruitful impetus to the controversy about the origin of peasant attachment in ancient Russia. The main idea
Klyuchevsky, that the reasons and grounds for this attachment should be sought not in the decrees of the Moscow government, but in the complex network of economic relations between the peasant-orderer and the landowner, which gradually brought the position of the peasantry closer to servility, met with sympathy and recognition from the majority of subsequent researchers and a sharply negative attitude from IN AND. Sergeevich and some of his followers. Klyuchevsky himself did not interfere in the controversy generated by his articles. In connection with the study of the economic situation of the Moscow peasantry, his article appeared:
"The Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries, in its relation to the present" ("Readings of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities", 1884). Articles "On the composition of the representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia" ("Russian Thought" 1890,
1891, 1892), which gave a completely new formulation of the issue of the origin of the zemstvo councils of the 16th century in connection with the reforms of Ivan the Terrible, ended the cycle of Klyuchevsky's largest studies on the political and social system of ancient Russia ("Experiments and Researches".
First collection of articles. M., 1912). The talent and temperament of the historian-artist directed Klyuchevsky to topics from the history of the spiritual life of Russian society and its prominent representatives. This area includes a number of brilliant articles and speeches about S.M. Solovyov, Pushkin, Lermontov, I.N. Boltine, N.I.
Novikov, Fonvizine, Catherine II, Peter the Great (collected in the 2nd
Collection of articles by Klyuchevsky, "Essays and Speeches", Moscow, 1912). In 1899
Klyuchevsky published "A Brief Guide to Russian History" as "a private publication for the author's listeners", and in 1904 he began publishing full course, which has long been widely used in lithographed student publications. In total, 4 volumes were published, brought up to the time of Catherine II. Both in his monographic studies and in The Course, Klyuchevsky gives his strictly subjective understanding of the Russian historical process, completely eliminating the review and criticism of the literature on the subject, without entering into polemics with anyone. Approaching the study of the general course of Russian history from the point of view of a sociological historian and finding the general scientific interest of this study of "local history" in the disclosure of "phenomena that reveal the versatile flexibility of human society, its ability to apply to given conditions", seeing the main condition that directed the change of main forms of our hostel, in the peculiar attitude of the population to the nature of the country, Klyuchevsky highlights the history of political socio-economic life. At the same time, he makes the reservation that he bases his course on political and economic facts in terms of their purely methodological significance in historical study, and not in terms of their actual significance in the essence of the historical process. "Intellectual labor and moral achievement will always remain the best builders of society, the most powerful engines of human development." And on the pages of the "Course" artistic talent
Klyuchevsky expressed himself in a number of brilliant characteristics of historical figures and in the description of the ideological side of many historical moments that appear before the reader in their entire life integrity. From special courses
Klyuchevsky was published already after his death "The History of Estates in Russia" (M.,
1913). Received distribution in a lithographed edition of his course
"Terminology of Russian history". For a comprehensive assessment of Klyuchevsky's scientific and teaching activities, see the collection "Klyuchevsky, Characteristics and Memoirs" (M., 1912). The Society of History and Antiquities at Moscow University dedicated the 1st book of its
"Readings" for 1914. Speeches of the closest students and employees are printed here
Klyuchevsky, materials for a biography and a complete list of his works.
2. A look at the history of the Russian state from the standpoint
IN. Klyuchevsky
Consider the course of Russian history in accordance with the views of V.O.
Klyuchevsky.
The vast East European plain, on which the Russian state was formed, at the very beginning was not inhabited throughout its entire space by the people who make its history to this day. The history of Russia opens with the phenomenon that the eastern branch of the Slavs, which later grew into the Russian people, enters the Russian plain from the southwest, from the slopes
Carpathians. For many centuries, this Slavic population was far from enough to completely and evenly occupy the entire plain. According to the conditions of historical life and geographical situation, the population spread across the plain not gradually by birth, not settling, but moving, leaving their homes and settling in new ones. With each such movement, it was exposed to new conditions, in accordance with the physical features of the new region and new external relations that arose in new places. These local features and relations, with each new distribution of the people, gave the people's life a special direction, a special structure and character.
The history of Russia according to Klyuchevsky is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Falling, then rising, this secular movement continued until the 20th century.
Klyuchevsky divided the history of Russia into sections or periods in accordance with people's movements. “The periods of our history are the stages successively passed by our people in the occupation and development of the country they inherited until the very time when, finally, through the natural generation and absorption of oncoming foreigners, it spread throughout the plain and even went beyond it. A series of these periods is a series of halts or camps that interrupted the movement of this people across the plain and at each of which our hostel was arranged differently than it was arranged at the previous camp. I will list these periods, indicating in each of them the dominant facts, of which one is political, the other is economic, and at the same time designating that area of \u200b\u200bthe plain on which the mass of the Russian population was concentrated in a given period - not the entire population, but the main mass of it who made history."
The first period of Russian history.
According to Klyuchevsky, no earlier than from the 8th century AD, one can trace the gradual growth of the Russian people, observe the external situation and the internal structure of their life within the plain. From the 8th to the 13th century, people concentrated on the middle and upper Dnieper with its tributaries and its historical water continuation - the Lovat-Volkhov line. All this time
Russia is politically divided into separate, more or less isolated regions, in each of which a large trading city was the political and economic center. This city was captured by an alien prince, but even under him it did not lose its importance. The dominant political fact of this period is the political fragmentation of the land under the leadership of the cities.
Dominant fact economic life- foreign trade, the driving force of which is: forestry, hunting, beekeeping (forest beekeeping), etc. This is Dnieper Rus, urban, commercial.
The second period of Russian history.
From the 13th to the middle of the 15th century, the bulk of the Russian population appeared on the upper Volga with its tributaries. This mass is politically fragmented no longer into urban areas, but into princely destinies. Destiny is a completely different form of political life. The dominant political fact of this period is the specific fragmentation of the Upper Volga Russia under the rule of the princes. The dominant fact of economic life is agricultural peasant labor. This is Russia
Upper Volga, specific princely, free-agricultural.
The third period of Russian history.
From the middle of the 15th century to the second decade of the 17th century, the bulk of the Russian population from the region of the upper Volga spread south and east along the Don and Middle Volga black earth, forming a special branch of the people - Great Russia, which, together with the population, expanded beyond the upper Volga region.
Expanding geographically, the Great Russian tribe for the first time unites into one political tribe under the rule of the Moscow sovereign, who rules his state with the help of the boyar aristocracy, formed from the former appanage princes and appanage boyars. The dominant political fact of this period is the state unification of Great Russia. Changes are taking place in economic life: the will of the peasantry begins to be constrained as land ownership is concentrated in the hands of the service class, the military class, recruited by the state for external defense. This is Russia the Great, Moscow, tsarist-boyar, military-landowning.
The fourth period of Russian history.
From the beginning of the 17th century to the middle of the 19th century, the Russian people spread over the entire plain from the Baltic and White to the Black seas, to the Caucasus Range, the Caspian and the Urals, and even penetrated to the south and east far beyond the Caucasus,
Caspian and Ural. Politically, almost all parts of the Russian nationality are united under one authority: Little Russia, one after another, adjoins Great Russia,
Belorussia and Novorossiya, forming the All-Russian Empire. But this gathering all-Russian power no longer acts with the help of the boyar aristocracy, but with the help of the military service class formed by the state in the previous period - the nobility. The dominant political fact of this period is the political gathering and unification of parts of the Russian land.
The main fact of economic life remains agricultural labor, which has finally become serfdom, to which manufacturing industry joins: factory and factory. This period is all-Russian, imperial-noble, the period of serfdom, agricultural and factory.
“Such are the periods of our history we have lived through, which reflected the change in the warehouses of the hostel that were historically developed in our country. Let us recalculate these periods again, denoting them according to the regions of the plain, in which the main mass of the Russian population was concentrated at different times:
1) Dnieper, 2) Upper Volga, 3) Great Russian, 4) All-Russian.
3. Creativity V.O. Klyuchevsky as a noticeable phenomenon of Russian culture
The work of Vasily Klyuchevsky - the largest Russian historian, publicist and teacher - is of interest not only as a bright page in the development of historical science, but also as a noticeable phenomenon of Russian culture.
Here are just two quotations: OE Mandelstam. "From every line of poetry
Blok about Russia, Kostomarov, Solovyov and Klyuchevsky are looking at us, namely
Klyuchevsky, good genius, the domestic spirit is the patron of Russian culture, with whom no disasters, no trials are terrible.
A.A. Blok. "Let the 41st lecture of Klyuchevsky be our reference book - for the Russian people of as wide a circle as possible."
The image of V.O. Klyuchevsky is one of the central, key personological images of images in the system of ideas that have developed in Russian culture of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, about the meaning of life and work of a historian as a witness of historical existence, his "works and days" , about the content of the unity of the scientific and artistic word in historical knowledge.
With all the inconsistency, the duality of the obvious and the hidden, it is the image of V.O. Klyuchevsky, constantly reproduced, broadcast; repeatedly subjected in the endless mirrors of Russian culture of the late 19th-20th centuries to various kinds of mythologization (and equally often de- and re-mythologization); developed already in the first decades of the twentieth century into the most complex cult-semiotic formation. "V.O. Klyuchevsky in the eyes of contemporaries and subsequent generations" (here the proposed
M.K. Mamardashvili, for such complex ideological structures, the concept of "transformed form" - along with similar formations that accompany the memory of N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, P.I. Bartenev,
F.I. Buslaev, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, S.F. Platonov and some other historians of the XIX-XX centuries. - turned out to be one of the most important sources for the formation and existence of normative and value ideas about the type of Russian historian who studies Russian history.
The image of V.O. Klyuchevsky - along with the image of N.M. Karamzin - became one of the necessary principles of unifying proportionality in that long dispute-dialogue
(explicit and implicit) scientific, artistic and philosophical historicism, which was carried out in Russia during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Conclusion
Creativity V.O. Klyuchevsky is of interest not only as a bright page in the history of Russian historical science, but also as a phenomenon of Russian and world culture.
Klyuchevsky was convinced that "the human personality, human society and the nature of the country ... are the main historical forces." The life of mankind "in its development and results" is the essence of the historical process. To know this process, Klyuchevsky believed, is possible through the historical personality of the people and the human personality. The meaning of history is in people's self-consciousness. A deep knowledge of historical sources and folklore, mastery of the historical portrait, aphoristic style made Klyuchevsky one of the most widely read and revered historians of the late XIX - early. 20th century
The famous "Course of Russian History" by Vasily Klyuchevsky, which is considered the pinnacle of his work, is remarkable not only as a scientific work.
The book reads like a work of art thanks to the special, very figurative language of Klyuchevsky's historical prose. The author considered the task of the work not only to present and comprehend historical information, but also to create a portrait of the nation, to study the historical personality of the Russian people.
In his “Course of Russian History”, Klyuchevsky, unlike many other historians, previous and contemporaries, gave a historical description of the country not according to the reigns of the great princes and tsars, but outlined a periodization based on the main points that, in his opinion, determine the development of the historical process: there is a lot of interesting material in his work, testifying to the role of the economic and political factor in the development of the country, and all this is in close connection with the geographical, natural conditions of existence, settlement and development of the people.
The work of Klyuchevsky remains of great importance today, not only as evidence of the achievements of Russian historical science in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, but also as a rich heritage that helps us better understand the history of Russia.
Literature
1. A.P. Shikman. Figures of national history. Biographical guide.-
M., 1997.
2. M.V. Nechkin. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky.-M., 1974.
3. Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR, vol. 2-3, - M., 1960.
4. V. I. Astakhov. V. O. Klyuchevsky - an outstanding representative of the bourgeois historiography of the post-reform period, in the book: A course of lectures on Russian historiography, part 2, Har., 1962.
5. A. A. Zimin. The formation of the historical views of V. O. Klyuchevsky in the 60s. XIX century, in the collection: Historical Notes, vol. 69, M., 1961.
6. R. A. Kireeva. V. O. Klyuchevsky as a historian of Russian historical science.-
M., 1966.
7. E. G. Chumachenko. V. O. Klyuchevsky - source specialist, M., 1970.
). Klyuchevsky's father was a priest. Since he served in the Penza diocese, the fate of his son was determined from early childhood: Vasily, obedient to the will of his parents, graduated from the Penza Theological School and the Penza Theological Seminary.
The family lived very hard, so the parents did not support the repeatedly voiced idea of the son to become a historian. Meanwhile, Klyuchevsky was fond of history and, in between passing seminary exams, eagerly read various historical works, books and studies. By the end of the seminary, Vasily Osipovich no longer imagined himself as anyone else, linking his life only with historical science. We must pay tribute to Klyuchevsky's parents, who, realizing that their son was not enthusiastic about becoming a priest, showed themselves to be very understanding people. Realizing that the son was not going to follow in the footsteps of his father, they let him go to take the entrance exams to the Historical and Philological University of Moscow University, allowing him to leave the seminary. It was very difficult to overcome poverty: the Klyuchevsky family was going through difficult times. Subsequently, Klyuchevsky all his life gratefully remembered his parents and the opportunity given to him to do what he loved.
At the university, he listened to lectures by such outstanding researchers for his time as Leontiev, Buslaev, Chicherin, Solovyov, and even the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev. The scientific interests of Klyuchevsky were largely formed under their influence. Most of all, he was impressed by the lectures of Chicherin and Solovyov: excellent speakers, they, like no one else, knew how to inspire young listeners and had an almost hypnotic effect on the audience.
First works
Klyuchevsky spoke several foreign languages, which helped him not to be limited to Russian sources when writing his works. His Ph.D. thesis was called "Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state." After graduating from the faculty, Klyuchevsky received a place at the university and began to study the lives of the saints. He pursued the goal of finding a fresh source in order to study the issue of the participation of ancient Russian monasteries in the colonization of North-Eastern Russia. Klyuchevsky devoted the next few years of his life to further study of the lives of the saints. He spared no time and effort, researching and analyzing the most inaccessible sources, scattered across various book depositories. But after the expiration of the two-year term, Klyuchevsky, to his disappointment, was forced to admit that the result he had obtained did not at all live up to his expectations. As a result, Klyuchevsky wrote a master's thesis on the topic "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a historical source." The work was devoted to hagiographic literature in many of its aspects - the source base, samples, techniques and forms.
Klyuchevsky, as a researcher, was generally characterized by self-criticism. He was very rarely satisfied with the results of his work and research. Most of Klyuchevsky's successors spoke of his work on the lives in the warmest terms. But for its time, the study was almost provocative. The fact is that for the middle of the 20th century, the strictly critical direction in which Klyuchevsky's works were sustained was something completely new for church history science, where such methods have not dominated until now.
After writing his master's thesis, Klyuchevsky continued to closely study the history of the church and socio-religious thought. The result was the writing of a number of articles and reviews, which played a huge role both for the modern Klyuchevskoy time, and for the entire historical science as a whole. The largest of them were: "Pskov disputes", "Economic activity", "Western influence and church schism in the 17th century." Vasily Osipovich's inspiration was inexhaustible.
Professorship
When Solovyov, one of the teachers at Moscow University, died in 1979, Klyuchevsky took his place and began teaching a course in Russian history there. He became a professor at the same university in 1882 and continued to lecture for many years. Klyuchevsky was extremely self-disciplined: he managed to teach at the same time at the Moscow Theological Seminary. His friend Guerrier soon organized the famous Moscow Women's Courses, where he also invited Klyuchevsky to teach.
In the period from 1887 to 1889, Klyuchevsky was vice-rector of the Moscow Faculty of History and Philology. Thanks to his activities, the scientist received recognition not only among colleagues, but also in the "top". The emperor, impressed by the knowledge of Vasily Osipovich, invited him to give a course in Russian history to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich.
Klyuchevsky really made an amazing career for his time. Starting with an ordinary teacher, he climbed to the top in just a decade: such a jump was not just the result of Klyuchevsky's innate talent, but also his amazing diligence. In 1905, the scientist took part in the work of the State Commission for the revision of the press. He also played an important role in the establishment of the first State Duma.
The main works of Klyuchevsky
Despite the fact that Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky was an extremely versatile person both as a researcher and as a person, his interests were still more connected with the history of the spiritual life of Russian society. The vast majority of his works (monographs, articles and books) were devoted to this particular topic. Several collections of Klyuchevsky's articles included unknown data and curious facts from the biographies of Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov and many other prominent figures of his era.
In 1899, Vasily Osipovich published a “Short Guide to Russian History”, which became a prologue to a voluminous work on a similar topic. Just a few years later, four volumes of Russian history appeared in print. Klyuchevsky brought his story to the time of the reign of Catherine II.
Klyuchevsky's research, covering a long era of Russian history, was not like the manuals that researchers are used to using when writing their own works and which they mainly focused on. Klyuchevsky from the very beginning refused to criticize other authors, did not raise sharp and controversial issues in his studies, did not want to argue with other historians of both his era and the previous one.
Klyuchevsky was the first researcher in Russia who began to teach a course Russian historiography.
Among the works of Vasily Osipovich devoted to highly specialized topics, it is worth highlighting the History of Estates in Russia, published on the basis of his special course, which the scientist read as a professor at Moscow University. The Terminology of Russian History was also quite popular. Many of Klyuchevsky's works were constantly published by the Literary Thought magazine. After the death of Vasily Osipovich, many of his students took part in compiling the collection Klyuchevsky, Characteristics and Memoirs. Among the most prominent students and followers of Klyuchevsky were the historians Milyukov, Bakhrushin, Barskov, Bogoslovsky and many others. Klyuchevsky's research activity made him an outstanding representative of the Moscow historical school.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky died on May 25, 1911 in Moscow and was buried at the Donskoy cemetery.
KLYUCHEVSKY VASILY OSIPOVICH - the great Russian historian.
Graduated from Moscow University (1865). Master's thesis: "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a historical source" (1872). Doctoral: "The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia" (1882). Lecturer at the Moscow Alexander Military School (1867-82). Privatdozent (1871), professor (1882) of the Moscow Theological Academy (1871-1911). Professor of the Higher Women's Courses (1872-1897). Associate Professor (1879), Professor (1882), Dean (1887-89) of the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. Series member learned societies: Moscow archaeological, Lovers of Russian literature, history and Russian antiquities (chairman - 1893-1905).
He became famous as an outstanding lecturer. He developed an original concept of Russian history, which found the most complete embodiment in the "Course of lectures on Russian history". Adhered to the positivist methodology. He believed that historians should shift their focus from the study of politics and the role of individuals to socio-political history and the study of social phenomena. Recognized the importance of class (a class was understood as a social group) interests in the development of society. He considered the Boyar Duma as an expression of the class interests of the boyars, and not of the state as a whole. This approach was called historical sociology.
He emphasized the role of the geographical factor in Russian history, pointing out its great influence on the formation of the Russian mentality. He paid special attention to colonization, considering it the main content of the development of Russian statehood. Based on this, he proposed a periodization associated with the development of the territory Russian state: 1) Dnieper Rus (the basis of the economy and social life was trade and related urban centers); 2) Upper Volga Russia (the population migrates to the northeast, where princely power dominates, and agriculture becomes the basis of the economy); 3) the Great Russian period (settlement along the Russian Plain); 4) the all-Russian period (colonization and development of the territory of the Moscow State of the 17th century and the Russian Empire, the unification of all branches of the Russian people).
Developed an impeccable theory of the enslavement of the peasants, believing that serfdom arose because of the debt of the peasants to the landowners, and the decree only consolidated the existing situation. Special historian courses were devoted to the history of estates, special historical disciplines. Historical research Klyuchevsky were distinguished by a highly artistic style. Considered the founder of the school of historians.
Compositions:
Works in 8 volumes. M., 1956-59;
Letters. Diaries. Aphorisms and thoughts about history. M., 1968;
Works in 9 volumes. M., 1987-90;
IN. Klyuchevsky. Favorites. M., 2010.
KLYUCHEVSKY Vasily Osipovich, Russian historian, academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the category of Russian history and antiquities (1900) and honorary member in the category of fine literature (1908); Privy Councilor (1903). From the family of a village priest. He graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University (1865), where he attended lectures by F. I. Buslaev (history of Russian literature), S. V. Eshevsky (general history), P. M. Leontiev (Latin philology and literature), S. M. Solovyov (Russian history), B. N. Chicherina (history of law), etc. He taught courses in general history at the 3rd Alexander Military School (1867-83), Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy (1871-1906; since 1882 professor , from 1897 an honored professor, from 1907 an honorary member of the academy), at Guerrier courses (1872-88), at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (1898-1910), a course of Russian history and special courses at Moscow University (1879-1911; Privatdozent since 1879, Professor since 1882, Dean of the Faculty of History and Philology in 1887-89, Assistant Rector of the University in 1889-90, and Honorary Member of the University in 1911). In 1893-95 he read in Abastuman (a mountain climatic resort in the Akhaltsikhe district of the Tiflis province) the course "Recent history of Western Europe in connection with the history of Russia" to the seriously ill Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich. Member of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (since 1872; chairman in 1893-1905), the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature (since 1874; since 1909 an honorary member), the Moscow Archaeological Society (since 1882).
Klyuchevsky's political outlook was characterized by a desire to find a middle line between extremes: he denied both revolution and reaction, and avoided active political activity. Already after the assassination attempt by D. V. Karakozov on Emperor Alexander II (1866), Klyuchevsky spoke with disapproval of "extreme liberalism and socialism." During the Revolution of 1905-1907, he shared the program of the Cadets, ran (unsuccessfully) for electors in the 1st State Duma. Member of the Special Meeting to draw up a new Charter on the press (1905-06), advocated the elimination of censorship. He was invited by Emperor Nicholas II to discuss the draft law on the "Bulygin Duma" (1905), insisted on granting the Duma legislative rights, on the introduction of universal suffrage, objected to the idea of estate representation, referring to the obsolescence of the estate organization of society. In 1906 he was elected a member State Council from the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and Universities, however, he refused this post, not finding his stay in it "sufficiently independent for a free discussion of emerging issues of public life in the interests of the cause."
Klyuchevsky considered the essence of national history to be a unique combination of factors of its development. He singled out among them geographical, ethnic, economic, social and political factors, none of which, according to Klyuchevsky, was certainly predominant. The engine of history, according to Klyuchevsky, is the “mental labor and moral feat” of a person. Klyuchevsky also wrote about the three forces that "build human hostel" - "the human personality, human society, the nature of the country." He paid great attention to the inherent, in his opinion, the sense of national unity of the Russian people at all times, which was realized in the unity of power and people, that is, in the state. The creative manner and historical concept of Klyuchevsky were distinguished by: the combination in a single text of source study and historical narrative; choice as a subject of study of the realities of economic and social life; knowledge of the life of various social strata and penetration into their everyday psychology; honed, bordering on literary and artistic techniques, the style and language of narration. From S. M. Solovyov and the “state school” of Russian historiography, Klyuchevsky inherited the idea of Russia as a country whose territory was constantly being developed by its population. However, he translated the thesis about the “country being colonized” from a general philosophical and historical premise into a system of observing the movement of the population with the aim of plowing new lands (“The economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory”, 1867, “Pskov disputes”, 1872, etc.) .
He systematized and compared information about 40 embassy reports, travel notes, letters from foreigners about the Russian state, published in various European languages (“Tales of foreigners about the Moscow state”, 1866). In search of new historical sources, Klyuchevsky, on the advice of S. M. Solovyov, turned to the lives of Russian medieval saints - the founders of monasteries and organizers of a large monastic economy in North-Eastern Russia. He was the first to study the development of Russian medieval hagiography and developed methods for scientific criticism of hagiographic texts (“Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source”, 1871). He analyzed the lives of 166 saints (about 5 thousand lists compiled by Klyuchevsky in about 250 editions), established the time and place of origin of the lists, as well as their sources. He came to the conclusion that they were created according to literary models, reflected abstract Christian moral ideals and therefore do not contain information about economic and social history and are not reliable historical evidence. At the same time, later Klyuchevsky used the lives as a source for characterizing the way of life, culture, folk consciousness, and the economic development of North-Eastern Russia.
According to his contemporaries, Klyuchevsky laid the foundation for the socio-economic trend in historiography. In the book "The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia" (1881), having studied a wide range of phenomena and processes ("from markets to offices") using a huge array of legislative, clerical and act sources, Klyuchevsky considered the emergence and evolution of social classes in the 10th - early 18th centuries , allocated to them on the basis of the difference in their occupations, rights and obligations: “industrial”, by which Klyuchevsky understood the “military-commercial aristocracy”, “serviceman” - the princely squad, which was replaced by the nobility, “urban” - artisans and merchants. According to Klyuchevsky, classes were formed both under the influence of economic processes and under the influence of the state. The norm of their existence was mutual cooperation, in maintaining which Klyuchevsky assigned a large role to the state. The Boyar Duma, according to Klyuchevsky, was "a flywheel that set in motion the entire government mechanism", an essentially constitutional institution "with extensive political influence, but without a constitutional charter." The latter, as well as the lack of feedback from society, led, according to Klyuchevsky, to the fall of its role and its replacement by the Senate.
Based on the analysis of bread prices, Klyuchevsky developed methods for assessing the purchasing power of the ruble in the 16-18 centuries, opening the way to the study and interpretation of evidence from historical sources of a financial and economic nature (“Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries in its relation to the present”, 1884). He transferred the problem of the emergence of serfdom from the political to the socio-economic sphere. In contrast to the theory of enslavement of all classes by the state developed by the “state school” of Russian historiography, Klyuchevsky formulated (on the basis of order and loan records, which he first studied) the concept of the origin of serfdom as the result of peasant debt to landowners. According to Klyuchevsky, the state, which considered the peasants, first of all, as the main payers of taxes and executors of state duties, only regulated the existing serfdom [“The Origin of Serfdom in Russia”, 1885; Poll tax and the abolition of servility in Russia, 1886; "History of estates in Russia", 1887; "The Abolition of Serfdom" (created in 1910-11, published in 1958)].
Klyuchevsky is the author of an extensive university “Course of Russian History” (brought by the author to the reforms of the 1860s and 70s inclusive), which became the first generalizing historical work in Russian science, where instead of the traditional sequential presentation of political (“eventual”) history, an analysis of the main, according to Klyuchevsky, the problems of the Russian historical process, attempts to substantiate the patterns of development of the people, society, state. In Russian history, depending on the direction of the flows of colonization by the Russian people of the vast expanses of Russia, Klyuchevsky distinguished four periods: the Dnieper (8-13 centuries; the bulk of the population was located on the middle and upper Dnieper, along the line of the Lovat River - the Volkhov River; the basis of economic life - foreign trade and the "forestry" caused by it, and political - "crushing the land under the leadership of cities"); Upper Volga (13th - mid-15th century; the concentration of the main mass of the Russian population in the upper reaches of the Volga with its tributaries; the most important occupation is agriculture; the political system is the fragmentation of the land into princely destinies); Great Russian, or Tsar-Boyar (mid-15th century - 1620s; resettlement of the Russian people “along the Don and Middle Volga black soil” and beyond the Upper Volga region; the most important political factor is the unification of the Great Russian people and the formation of a single statehood; social structure is military landowner ); all-Russian, or imperial-noble (from the 17th century; the spread of the Russian people from the Baltic and White Seas to the Black and Caspian Seas, the Urals and "even ... far beyond the Caucasus, the Caspian and the Urals"; the main political factor is the unification of the Great Russian, Little Russian and Belarusian branches of the Russian people under a single authority, the formation of an empire; the main content of social life is the enslavement of the peasants; economy - agricultural and factory). Klyuchevsky did not always adhere to the position of a plurality of equivalent forces in the historical process: as he approached the present, political and personal factors became increasingly important in his constructions. Klyuchevsky's course was distinguished by high artistic merit, often all the students of Moscow University gathered at his lectures; originally distributed in student handwritten and hectographed abstracts, first published in 1904-10 (parts 1-4; reprinted several times).
Klyuchevsky proposed new solutions for the series big problems Russian history. He believed that the Eastern Slavs came to the Russian Plain from the Danube River, that in the Carpathians in the 6th century they had a military alliance; noted the variety of political forms in the Old Russian state (princely-Varangian power, city "regions", the power of the Kiev prince). He put forward a version of the consistent involvement in the Troubles of the 17th century of all layers of Russian society "from top to bottom". Klyuchevsky's schemes and estimates have been and continue to be the subject of discussion and research by scientists. Klyuchevsky also studied the problems of world history, primarily from the point of view of their influence on the history of Russia.
Klyuchevsky - an outstanding master of historical portrait, created a gallery of images of the rulers of Russia (tsars Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible, Alexei Mikhailovich, Emperor Peter I, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Emperor Peter III, Empress Catherine II), statesmen(F. M. Rtishchev, A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin, Prince V. V. Golitsyn, His Grace Prince A. D. Menshikov), church leaders (St. Sergius of Radonezh), cultural figures (N. I. Novikov, A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov), historians (I. N. Boltin, N. M. Karamzin, T. N. Granovsky, S. M. Solovyov, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, F. I. Buslaev ). Possessing the gift of artistic and historical imagination, Klyuchevsky advised figures of literature and art (for example, F. I. Chaliapin, with the help of Klyuchevsky, developed stage images of the tsars Ivan IV the Terrible, Boris Fedorovich Godunov, the elder Dosifei and was shocked at how skillfully Klyuchevsky himself during consultations played Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky). The artistic gift of Klyuchevsky was embodied in his aphorisms, remarks, assessments, some of which were widely known in the intellectual circles of Russia.
The name of Klyuchevsky is associated with the school of Klyuchevsky that developed at Moscow University in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - historians (not only students) who gathered around Klyuchevsky or shared his scientific principles. At various times, it included M. M. Bogoslovsky, A. A. Kizevetter, M. K. Lyubavsky, P. N. Milyukov, M. N. Pokrovsky, N. A. Rozhkov, and others; Klyuchevsky influenced the formation of the scientific views of M. A. Dyakonov, S. F. Platonov, V. I. Semevsky and others. Outstanding artists who were teachers and students of the Moscow School of Painting and Sculpture testified to the influence of Klyuchevsky on the development of historical themes in the visual arts and architecture (V. A. Serov and others).
Since 1991, the V. O. Klyuchevsky Museum has been operating in the house where Klyuchevsky lived in Penza.
Works: Works: In 8 vols. M., 1956-1959; Letters. Diaries. Aphorisms and thoughts about history. M., 1968; Unpublished works. M., 1983;
Works: In 9 vols. M., 1987-1990; historical portraits. Figures of historical thought. M., 1990; Letters from V. O. Klyuchevsky to Penza. Penza, 2002; Aphorisms and thoughts about history. M., 2007.
Lit .: V. O. Klyuchevsky. Characteristics and memories. M., 1912; V. O. Klyuchevsky. Biographical sketch. M., 1914; Zimin A. A. Archive of V. O. Klyuchevsky // Notes of the Department of Manuscripts of the State Library named after V. I. Lenin. 1951. Issue. 12; Chumachenko E. G. Klyuchevsky - source expert. M., 1970; Nechkina M. V. V. O. Klyuchevsky. History of life and creativity. M., 1974; Fedotov G.P. Russia of Klyuchevsky // Fedotov G.P. Fate and sins of Russia. SPb., 1991. T. 1; Klyuchevsky. Sat. materials. Penza, 1995. Issue. one; Kireeva R. A. Klyuchevsky V. O. // Historians of Russia. Biographies. M., 2001; Popov A. S. V. O. Klyuchevsky and his “school”: a synthesis of history and sociology. M., 2001; V. O. Klyuchevsky and problems of Russian provincial culture and historiography: In 2 books. M., 2005; History of historical science in the USSR. pre-October period. Bibliography. M., 1965.