Classical and modern Russian historical science briefly. Methods of studying history and modern historical science
In fact, by now it has formed and requires its permission problem area national historiography.
In ideological terms Russian historiography is split into Western (liberal) and national-powerful, social-democratic and other “left” paradigms of the development of explaining the past. Each of them includes a large set of theories.
Liberal theory in modern Russian historiography is quite contradictory and has its own Russian logic of application. Discussions within this theory are not accidental. For example, "The State and Evolution" by E. Gaidar and "Russian Statehood" by Akhiezer and Ilyin. Gaidar's main thesis is that private property is the foundation of the state's liberal policy. The core of A. Akhiezer's theory is the assertion that historically the Russian state and society are stuck in a state of "split".
Today we can state the onset of a new wave of conservatism in Russian social thought and Russian historiography. It came as a reaction to the political processes in Russia, the beginning of which dates back to the second half of the 1980s. It is characterized by three generic features: anti-Westernism, upholding the ideals of Orthodoxy and the norms of social community arising from it, the ideal of a powerful centralized state. (M. Nazarov, L. Borodin, E. Volodin, Metropolitan John, A. Dugin, I. Shafarevich, A. Gulyga, S. Kurginyan, V. Kozhinov and others) on issues of attitude towards Russian emigration, Russian statehood and socialist past.
The national-power paradigm, like the liberal one, has no less dispersion. (N. Narochnitskaya "On Russia and Russians", A. Panarin "Strategies of Instability". Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences - O. Yanitsky. "Sociology of Risks", Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (T. Oizerman. "Marxism and Utopianism").
The Institute for Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISPI RAS) and its director, Corresponding Member of the RAS V. Kuznetsov and his team put forward and substantiated the ideological manifesto of Russian sovereignty, as well as a comprehensive program for the formation of the ideology of power. Leading in modern domestic historiography modern history Russia is striving to justify "special way of Russia", single out Russia as a special civilization and single it out beyond the limits of the laws characteristic of the historical development of the West. The literature in this direction is extremely numerous.
I note the heterogeneity of this direction.
An alternative to the idea of a special path for the development of Russia, Russia as a special civilization, is the concept of totalitarianism in Russian contemporary literature, which goes back to the works of L. von Mises, L. Shapiro, M. Finesod, R. Pipes, E. Carrer d "Encausse, R. Conquest, published many times in Russia and their domestic followers. In our domestic historiography, the idea of totalitarianism has become certain stage politically almost official. These are the works of A.N. Yakovleva, D.A. Volkogonov, Yu.N. Afanasiev. She gets into huge number in educational literature, the works “Totalitarianism in Europe of the 20th century. History of Ideology, Movements, Regimes”, prepared by the Institute of World History, etc.
The theory of totalitarianism quickly became outdated and, due to its obviously ideological fuse, ceased to work. The appearance of the direction of the so-called "revisionists" was logical, forced to state a discrepancy theoretical concepts totalitarianism - the realities of Russian history. The next concept that has become widespread in explaining the modern history of Russia is modernization theory. The founders of this school - W. Rostow, S. Aizenshtadt and others proceeded from the idea of spreading the values of liberalism in the world.
The theory of modernization, getting into a new qualitative environment - post-Soviet Russia - acquired new methodological features, in particular, about the "civilizational originality of Russian modernizations". It should be recognized the achievements in the national historiography of the history of modern Russia in works on stories of everyday life. This direction, historiographically associated with the Annals School, was continued in studies on the social history of modernity (the works of A.K. Sokolov, A.V. Shubin, S.V. Zhuravlev, E.Yu. Zubkova, M.R. Zezina , V.A. Kozlova).
Functionally Russian historiography is also split. On the one hand, it seems to be in demand: we see how the historical past is intensively exploited by politicians, how historical plots are “woven” into the texts of other humanities, as a result of which the subject areas of various disciplines are blurred. On the other hand, knowledge about this past is pushed to the periphery liberal education. History as a profession is not prestigious.
The contradictions between the real use of the historical narrative in different areas and the real low-status state in the system of the humanities are obvious. The reason is the political attitude towards the technocracy of practical politics, which excludes the significance for the modernization of the country. historical knowledge. This is because the previous period Russian history- Soviet - is considered mainly in the liberal version, and also because postmodern ideas about history as a literary literary product of the subject in the subjectivist space of time prevail in the world humanitarian space.
In the content In terms of the state of historical science, it is characterized by a tendency towards descriptiveness, pettiness, and a decrease in the level of conceptual generalizations. The paradigm of historical knowledge has changed. The disclosure of history as a concept has been replaced by its presentation as information.
Levels of historical research - the dominance of microhistory over macrohistory. Intradisciplinary multi-topics: History of everyday life. Gender and oral history. Demographic and ecological history. Intellectual history, etc.
3) Russian historical science lags behind the modernization tasks of Russian society and education reforms. Why? First, there is a generational “gap” in the corporation of historians. The “departure” of a generation of Soviet-type scientists, the reorganization of faculties, various reasons, the devaluation of history as a profession in the conditions of market relations, the absence of a commercial component of the profession of history itself - destroyed the very "being" of the discipline. The realization of this and the adoption of measures to modernize historical science is one of the realities that characterize it.
Secondly, the “collision” with Western historiography, the active inclusion of new theories, schemes, ideas, terms into the arsenal, basically did not lead to the birth of its own new research concepts, but turned Russian historical science into a “production for processing” old theories for the West. .
Thirdly, the formation of “new historiographies” in the post-Soviet space has put on the agenda the question of the reaction of Russian historians to criticism and nihilism in relation to the entire legacy of Soviet historical science, to the often unreasonable priorities of only the national-ethnic heritage.
Fourth, the uncertainty of the status of historical science in the context of the evolution of the system historical education and development university science as an equal academic science. Consequently, the study of the University as a carrier and producer of historical knowledge, as a "factory" for the production of new generations of humanists capable of fulfilling their social tasks.
I would like to note such an important area of work as writing the history of the Russian State University for the Humanities, and for this, an analysis of the intellectual product that it produces (degree and dissertation research, their practical significance, publications in scientific journals, the activities of the Russian State University for the Humanities in the media, demand on the labor market), others in words - a "portrait" of the Russian State University for the Humanities as a subject of the educational and scientific space of modern Russia.
The self-identification of the university corporation of historians is necessary, the definition of the line further development historical education - the main mechanism for the reproduction of the scientific community - is our contribution to the policy and practice of modernizing the country.
Fifth , the role and significance of regional historiography as a historiographic phenomenon is not fully understood. This cultural projection of all-Russian historiography and at the same time a structure that has its own problematic field of historical research is a regional community of historians of the region, scientific schools and trends, a system of historical institutions, training of historians, research projects, local sources, archives and library collections, scientific communications, forms of communication; public interest in history in the local socio-cultural environment, forms of organization and activities of amateur historians, the relationship of professional science with the community of non-professional researchers, support for historical science by the regional administration, “regional patronage”, etc. To purchase the drug Toximin, you do not need to go to the pharmacy - the drug is not available for free sale. The only purchase option is to place an order via the Internet from official representatives and receive it by mail.
The task of historical science in the extrapolation of knowledge about the past to the present. The imperative of historical knowledge: based on the experience of the past, explain the present, predict and build the future in accordance with the understanding achieved. And for this you need general historical theory. How can it be worked out in the conditions of methodological pluralism and ideological disputes?
Finally, factors in the direction of the development of Russian historiography is the social order from the state, the opposition, various political forces. The cardinal problem of historiography is on the agenda: what does the national history of the Russian state look like and does it even have the right to exist? This problem has clearly manifested itself since the mid-1990s, when the authorities set the task of finding a national idea on the way of Russia's advancement towards the planned market economy and a Western-style society. Russian historians have joined in its search. It was recognized that, using the statement of the French expert on contemporary nations Ernest Renan "Oblivion ... a distorted perception of one's own history is an essential factor in the formation of a nation", Russian historians began to develop problems of national history and faced the need to solve them together with political scientists, responding to the question “Is it possible to seriously talk about “national history” as a scientific discipline in the multinational country of Russia?”
And again myths began to arise, about which Foucault wrote as the inevitability of national histories. At the same time, some authoritative researchers suggest "forgetting about the nation." In parallel, there is a negative trend towards a return to the former "republican history", for example, "History of Tatarstan".
The current situation in the Russian media was called the "war of stories", which in the form of the "cold war" continues to this day. The very fact of the emergence of alternative interpretations of history is destroying a single federal information field.
Today we must acknowledge that historical heritage- this, along with language, religion and culture, is the most important element of national consolidation, and for its study, the creation of a comprehensive program is required.
Apparently, one should not neglect the achievements of the Soviet era, for example, in the field of the same source study, or scientific results the Moscow-Tartus school of “semiotics of culture”, which developed an interesting methodology for studying cultural structures as symbolic systems of social representations.
The theoretical basis for the analysis of Russian realities is completely forgotten. Historians have not developed any independent concept of studying the peculiar development of post-Soviet Russia. Basically, there are attempts to “fit” this period of history under the models of “theory of democratization”, “transitology”, “conflictology”, “theory of elites”, etc.
Summing up, I will say that the most important condition for the development of historical science as a science is the improvement of teaching history at the historical departments of universities, the development of new directions in methodology, methodology, increased attention to the history of philosophy, increased attention to historiography courses. Another most important condition for the development of Russian historical science is the formation of a new culture of source study, its conditioning by the new realities of the modern world.
Exam questions by history.
1. Fundamentals of the methodology of historical science .
History studies traces human activity. The object is a person.
Functions of historical knowledge:
Scientific and educational
predictive
Educational
The method (method of research) shows how cognition takes place, on what methodological basis, on what scientific principles. A method is a way of research, a way of building and substantiating knowledge. More than two millennia ago, two main approaches to historical thought arose that exist to this day: this is an idealistic and materialistic understanding of history.
Representatives of the idealistic concept in history believe that spirit and consciousness are primary and more important than matter and nature. Thus, they argue that the human soul and mind determine the pace and nature of historical development, while other processes, including in the economy, are secondary, derived from the spirit. Thus idealists conclude that at the core historical process there is a spiritual moral perfection of people, and human society is developed by the person himself, while the abilities of a person are given by God.
Proponents of the materialistic concept argued and continue to argue the opposite: since material life is primary in relation to the consciousness of people, it is precisely economic structures, processes and phenomena in society that determine all spiritual development and other relations between people.
For Western historical science, an idealistic approach is more characteristic, for domestic - a materialistic one. Modern historical science is based on the dialectical-materialist method, which considers social development as a natural historical process, which is determined by objective laws and at the same time is influenced by the subjective factor through the activities of the masses, classes, political parties, leaders, leaders.
There are also special-historical research methods:
chronological - provides a presentation historical material in chronological order;
synchronous - involves the simultaneous study of events taking place in society;
dichronous - periodization method;
historical modeling;
statistical method.
Methods of studying history and modern historical science.
Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.
Historical and logical
Abstraction and absolutization
Analysis and synthesis
Deduction and induction, etc.
1.Historical and genetic development
2.Historical and comparative
3.historical and typological classification
4.historical-system method (everything in the system)
5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.
Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing from it its methods and itself influences its formation. Now the task is coming to the fore not just writing historical works on a particular topic, but the creation of a verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.
MODERN HISTORICAL SCIENCE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
MODERN HISTORICAL SCIENCE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
V. V. Grishin, N. S. Shilovskaya
The article is devoted to the problem of searching for historical truth. Historical science of the XX-XXI centuries. falls under the influence of ideologies and ideolologisms, which sometimes makes history sophistical and leads to the substitution of historical truth for historical opinion. Historical relativism is one of the acute problems of teaching history. Does history as a science have perspectives and what are they?
Key words: history, science, historical existence, knowledge, truth.
V. V. Grishin, N. S. Shilovskaya
The article is devoted to the problem of search of historical truth. The historical science of XX - the XX-Ith centuries gets under the influence of ideologies and the so-called ideologisms that makes history sometimes sophistical, it leads to substitution of historical truth by just a historical opinion. The historical relativity is one of the acute problems of teaching of history. Has History as science prospects and what are they? Is the question.
Keywords: history, science, historical life, cognition, truth.
Historical reflection is one of the prerogatives of man. Only if for the ancient Greek history is a pure description-fixation of events, life or everyday life, then the modern European history moves away from pure descriptiveness towards philosophy. In other words, history is, first of all, a comprehension of history, it is a search for the meaning of historical being, its analysis, penetration into its deep laws.
If we take modern historical science (both Russian and global in general), then its classical reflective spirit is slowly fading away. Historical inquisitiveness dies out, historical research turns out to be two-dimensional, their three-dimensional depth disappears. As a rule, history closes on the study of textual historical sources, therefore it becomes more descriptive in nature than analytical. The historian in this case turns from a researcher into a storyteller, educator and propagandist, he rather narrates about the historical past than comprehends it.
The crisis of modern historical science has many faces. Perhaps the basis for the fading of historical analytics is the departure from the conceptuality of historical research: scientific conceptuality is replaced by non-scientific eclecticism and political opportunism, which naturally results in a distortion of the truth of historical existence.
On the other hand, the science of history was also affected by the postmodern annihilation of truth, the transformation of the latter from the desired goal of epistemological attempts into a word in a text, into a textual reality. Historical science thereby loses not only the spirit of academicism, but sometimes, however paradoxical it may sound, its own scientific character. The truth of history is also supplanted by attachment
stim to "historical fashion": let's say there is a "fashion" for a certain interpretation of the revolution of 1917 or the Great Patriotic War. The pages of history are thus rewritten and often become completely unrecognizable. Historical knowledge diverges from the reality of historical existence, and thus historical science is not just experiencing a crisis, it is given to the will of the masses, the mass dictates the truth of history.
Now let's narrow down the crisis phenomena in historical science in general to the framework of domestic science, more specifically, Soviet-post-Soviet. History as a science always has the danger of an alliance with ideology, which soviet history. The ideologization of historical science may be the result of the degeneration of its philosophical component, its transformation into an ideological one, which, for example, happened to the philosophy of Marxism. With the ideologization of historical science, historical facts are also distorted, but already ideologically, historical reality is rewritten and adjusted to the ideology (liberal, Marxist national or any other). The meaning of history thus turns out to be mediated by ideology, the source base is adjusted to the ideological message. Ideologized history is characterized not by the desire for the essence of the historical, but by fitting the historical to the ideology. The historian-ideologist proceeds not from the primacy of historical reality, but from the primacy of his own ideology. Historical being in such a case becomes a servant of ideology, and scientific discussion is replaced by the struggle of ideologies.
If in Soviet times the whole history was biased in a Marxist way and class ideologized, then post-Soviet historical science is moving away from the ideological Historical mainstream, but acquiring new problems. Today in historical science it is tolerant
There are polarity concepts: postmodernism, constructivism, historical eclecticism or neo-Marxism. Among modern professional historians, therefore, there is not even a hint of any agreement. It turns out that Russian history, leaving Marxism, threw off not just the fetters of ideology. History has not arrived at historical truth, it degenerates into deconstruction, separate facts are snatched out of the historical process and mechanically combined with others. The element of connection is an arbitrary vision of history, which is based on the subjective preferences of the historian. The result is a mosaic of historical existence, composed of both historical facts and pseudo-facts. Eclecticism becomes dominant in the historical consciousness.
The identified problems of historical science affect the concept of teaching history both in secondary and higher educational institutions. Postmodern relativism, reductionism and eclecticism of historical and scientific thinking is manifested in the multivariance of history textbooks or the lack of a general assessment of the historical path of Russia. Today, a new generation of people is growing up, brought up on sophistical history. For example, modern Brazilian schoolchildren are taught that in World War II, they say, there was no winner at all, the USSR did not win the war, which is an unacceptable distortion of historical reality.
So, in historical thinking, a situation arose that was once described by Kant, who tried to give an analyst of pure reason: historical thinking falls into antinomies (for example, the characterization of Stalin as an outstanding political figure and as the organizer of the "great terror"). Perhaps a way out of the antinomies of historical consciousness should be sought in the Kantian direction, but by overcoming the Kantian gap between theoretical reason and morality. In the Kantian way (which is represented in the philosophy of history of the neo-Kantians of the Baden school), historical events are considered exclusively through the prism of practical reason (for the Badenians, these are absolute values). Thus, historical events become axiologically two-tone black and white, and historical truth in its classical (Aristotelian) understanding is replaced by the truth of good and evil. Meanwhile, historical truth cannot be axiological. Historical truth is, first of all, the correspondence of historical knowledge to historical reality, and only after that does historical knowledge give events an axiological assessment.
Historical Science and the Postmodern Worldview
in the European public mind last third 20th century postmodernist ideas begin to dominate, which are characterized primarily by overcriticism of rationalism, the rejection of absolute truth and the meaning of history as a whole. In historical science, postmodern
Sodernist trends lead to the fact that the question of objective truth is replaced by the question of understanding. Modern historical analytics is often reduced to turning to written sources, whether they are historical chronicles or literary works. The postmodernist historian H. White tried to prove that historical description, or narrative, is subject not to the logic of historical development, but to the logic of literary genres, from drama to comedy. History will thereby be replaced by literature, and facts by the historian's frame of mind. Hence the rejection of objective truth and historical reality as such. It turns out that the historian can cognize historical reality as a product of subjective consciousness, that is, as a literary text.
It turns out that in postmodern historical science, hermeneutics and psychology were synthesized into a method of historical research. This may give interesting results for history, but only as special case. Only with a systematic approach can these results take their place in the overall picture of historical existence, which postmodernist historians are not capable of. Humanistic project voiced by Pico della Mirandola, which emphasized the interconnectedness natural patterns with the unity of the human race, postmodernism is rejected. Thus, the meaning of history and history as a process, movement and development lose their meaning.
Appreciating what you have now, or not appreciating anything - this is, according to postmodernism, the only truth. Postmodernism expands the concept of Dasein, it becomes mobile, and this mobility depends on the strength of the author's creativity. Historian Hans Kellner said of the influence of Erich Auerbach and Michel Foucault on the worldview of the postmodern era: "Their version of humanism says that people's lives are determined by their literary and linguistic capabilities."
Philistine and scientific in history
Another problem of modern historical science is the blurring of the demarcation line between history as a science and the philistine opinion about history: today the philistine-historical opinion penetrates into what has always been scientific-historical, destroys the core of the scientific nature of history. Thus, pseudo-historical works are published in huge editions, in which historical reality is replaced by fairy tales about the suffering people and Stalin as their intercessor, about our eternal external enemies, etc. The Polish historian E. Topolsky notes that there are two types of readers of historical texts: semantic (that is, naive, perceiving the text in a literal sense) and semiotic (that is, approaching the text critically). It is naive readers-consumers who today sometimes dictate the direction in historical science. To please such readers, historical facts are hushed up and historical reality is distorted, which is done, as a rule, by populist historians.
The philistine approach to history is characterized by superficiality and uncriticality, a departure from objective truth, but at the same time the conviction that there is one's own position, claiming to be true, regarding the reality of historical existence. Modern media easily manipulate the historical consciousness of such an ingenuous, poorly educated layman, introducing distorted historical facts into it and leading a person even further away from the truth of history.
The layman, who supposedly tries to think historically, receives "historical knowledge" from populist mass literature, where, as a rule, the historical past is glorified, which to some extent compensates for the inferiority of modernity and gives hope for the embodiment of historical legend in the reality of modernity (for example, the legend of equality and brotherhood that allegedly existed in the USSR, and the return to national brotherhood in modern Russia).
Playing along with such views, some politicians gain popularity among the people. For the sake of their own legitimacy, they hide behind the slogan "the people are always right." Therefore, there is always a threat that such a "popular" public consciousness will absorb the historically scientific consciousness, like the general will of J.-J. Rousseau absorbs individual will. Philistine opinion interferes with scientific truth.
Since at the philistine level the history of Russia is viewed in a heroic context, and its negative aspects are viewed as a conspiracy, modernity also appears as an absolutely negative process in which the scenario of an enemy conspiracy is visible. It is highly likely that in this situation new ideologies will emerge based on the mythologemes of Russian history. For example, the dream of the revival of Holy Russia in modern conditions. Historical consciousness formed in this way can influence the vigorous activity of a person. Instead of solving the problems of the present, responding to the challenge of history, a person spends his energy on creating political organizations that act in line with the fight against the enemy environment.
History is not just social science but also the guarantor of social development, guarded by professional historians. It is professional knowledge about the historical process that constitutes the core of historical consciousness. They form a historical paradigm that acquires an official status. This paradigm is transferred to educational system and is the basis for the formation of the historical thinking of the population as a whole. Therefore, Franklin Ankersmit's demand to historians is legitimate: they "should always be aware that they, like writers, have a cultural responsibility, and therefore their language must be understandable and readable for all those interested in history" .
History Perspectives
With the sometimes extreme subjectivism and eclecticism of modern historical science, today, however, the classical historical paradigm of thinking survives, which does not at all claim to be postmodern literary or constructing the reality of the past. The intention of the classical approach to history is that the historian first of all stands on "historical ground". The category of historical being is fundamental for a historian of the classical type, and its essence and regularities are the goal of historical science.
Works appear in modern historical science that try to lead historical science away from the descending line of development. Such an attempt, for example, is the historical study by O. M. Medushevsky “Theory and Methodology of Cognitive History”. The book was discussed on the pages of the Russian History magazine, where its positive aspects were noted. “The theory and methodology of cognitive history,” noted, for example, B. S. Ilizarov, “is a work that raises the most profound questions of historical knowledge ... The concept of a “thing” is very convincingly introduced into the concept - a historical source as a product of purposeful human activity, studying which, of course, one can reach the true universals of ideas about a person. Our historical picture can change and, in this sense, be accessible to various interpretations, but source study is a rigorous science, since the criteria for evidence-based and accurate knowledge are unchanged. It is these categories that the concept presented in this book advocates. From these positions, it is advisable to address not only questions of a proper epistemological nature, but also the problems of ethics - good and evil, the value choice of each era. O. M. Medushevskaya noted the need to analyze historical texts more deeply. So, when studying chronicles, one must not only answer the question of what this or that text says, but also what and why the author is silent. O. M. Medushevskaya, on the one hand, returns historical science to philosophical appeal, which gives it (science) depth of analysis, theoreticality and conceptuality. On the other hand, strict reliance on historical sources does not allow the growth of numerous historical quasi-interpretations. Historical science acquires accuracy, objectivity, it does not go beyond the actual materiality and eventfulness of the course of history.
LIST OF SOURCES AND LITERATURE
1. Domanska E. Philosophy of history after modernism. M.: Kanon+, 2010. - 400 p.
2. Round table on the book by O. M. Medushevsky "Theory and Methodology of Cognitive History" // Russian History. - 2010. - No. 1.
Topic 29. Characteristics of the state of historical science in Russia at the present stage.
1. Entry of the Russian historical community into world historical science. Generality of problems.
2. Rupture and continuity of Russian and Soviet historical science.
3. Development of theoretical and methodological issues.
4. Topics, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.
Literature:
Dashkova T. Gender issues: approaches to description.//Historical research in Russia - II. Seven years later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugov. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.S.203-245.
Historical research in Russia: trends recent years. M., 1996//Edited by G.A. Bordyugov.
History of everyday life: Collection scientific works. SPb., 2003.
Krom M.M. Historical anthropology. SPb., 2004.
Krom M. National history from an anthropological perspective. .//Historical research in Russia - II. Seven years later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugov. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.S. 179-202.
Kravtsov V.N. Transformation of the foundations of the professionalism of historical knowledge in the modern historiographic process.//Images of historiography: Collection of articles / Nauchn. ed. A.P. Logunov. M.: RGGU, 2000.
Myths and Mythology in Modern Russia / Edited by K. Aimermacher, F. Bomsdorf, G. Bordyugov. M., 2003.
Naumova G.R. Historiography of the history of Russia: textbook. allowance for students. Higher educational institutions / G.R. Naumova, A.E. Shiklo. M., 2009. pp.225-240.
Sokolov A.K. The path to a modern laboratory for studying the modern history of Russia.//History and philosophy of Russian historical science. M., 2007. S.275-341
Chubaryan A.O. Historical Science in Russia at the Beginning of the 21st Century // New and Contemporary History 2003. No. 3.
1. What do you think shows the gap and continuity of Russian and Soviet historical science?
2. How are modern Russian and foreign historical sciences connected?
3. What theoretical and methodological issues are being developed by modern Russian historians?
4. Describe the themes, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.
Topic 30. BN Mironov.
1. "The social history of Russia in the period of the empire" as the first generalizing study of social history in world historiography.
2.Methodology of the study of the social history of Russia.
3. Modernization concept of the history of Russia B.N. Mironov.
4. Revision B.N. Mironov of the well-established provisions of Soviet historiography about the role of the autocracy in social changes, about its connection with the public, etc.
Literature:
Getrel P., Macy D., Freese G. Social history as metahistory.// Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., vol. 1, pp. I – XIV.
Discussion around the "Social history of Russia in the period of the empire." // Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., v. 1, p. XV-XL.
Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. - St. Petersburg: "Dmitry Bulanin", 2003.
Control tasks, problematic issues and exercises:
1. What methodological approaches and principles does Mironov use to study the social history of Russia? What is the advantage of these approaches and principles and what is their limitation?
2. What are the main provisions of the concept of the history of Russia B.N. Mironov. What are the features of the history of Russia and features of modernization in Russia?
3. What well-established provisions of Soviet historiography are refuted by BN Mironov? Read one of the chapters of the "Social History of Russia" and analyze how B.N. Mironov achieves a revision of traditional ideas.
4. What are the causes and nature of the October Revolution according to the concept of B.N. Mironov?
5. How does BN Mironov characterize and evaluate Soviet modernization?
6. What are the prospects for the historical development of Russia from the standpoint of the historical concept of BN Mironov?
7. What ideas of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet and foreign historians does the author of the Social History of Russia rely on?
Boris Nikolaevich Mironov
Biographical information. B. N. Mironov in 1959 entered the Faculty of Economics of St. Petersburg state university. In 1961, he was expelled from the university for anti-Marxist views. In the same year, the rector of the university A.D. Alexandrov restored as a student at the Faculty of History. After graduating from the history department in 1965, he served in the army. In 1966 he entered the graduate school of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR. In 1969 he defended his Ph.D. thesis, in 1984 his doctoral thesis. Since 1970 he has been working at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and teaching at St. Petersburg universities and abroad. Author of seven books and over one hundred articles, many of which have been published abroad.
"The social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century) The genesis of the individual, the democratic family, civil society and the rule of law." Main treatise B.N. Mironov is devoted to social history. The so-called "new social history" refers to the research arsenal of sociology in describing the internal state of society, its individual groups and relations between them. She was born in the second half of the 20th century.
Approaches borrowed from anthropology and social psychology are being introduced into social history. An integral component of the analysis of a social system is the reconstruction of a picture of the world characteristic of a given human community or a set of images, ideas, values that guided the behavior of members of a particular social group.
Particular attention in social history is paid to the content side of the consciousness of people who form social reality by their actions. Therefore, social history is still the history of mentalities. Under mentalities, as B.N. Mironov, socio-psychological stereotypes, automatisms of consciousness and habits laid down by upbringing and cultural traditions, value orientations, meaningful representations and views that do not belong to individuals, but to one or another estate or social group.
One of the guiding principles of social history has become interdisciplinarity: "the use of concepts, concepts and methodology of sociology, political economy, geography, anthropology, psychology, demography, statistics, political science."
Social history does not describe events in their sequence. Social history analyzes predominantly enduring social structures, systems, institutions, long-term social processes and phenomena. Society is considered as an integral organism in which all elements interact in a complex system of resonant, direct and feedback, excluding the possibility of reduction and finding any one that can determine the entire historical development. Social history is based on a structuralist approach. Mironov follows him and builds a model and interprets the fundamental processes and forces that changed Russian society and the state during the imperial period. The study consists of two parts: - in the first we are talking about social dynamics, in the second - about law, the state and civil society. At the same time, he finds in the development of Russia "a certain degree of historical inevitability" (progress), but does not indicate specifically what controls this process.
Social history is comprehended and conceptualized in the spirit of modernization. Mironov is not limited to the period of the empire and gives a meta-description of Russian history to demonstrate its "normality". Revealing models in the social development of certain areas of demography, family structure, etc. the author shows that Russia, though with some delay, followed general scheme development characteristic of Western Europe.
The fact that Russia lags behind Western Europe, according to Mironov, does not at all mean that it is a backward country. Mironov notes that psychologists have the concept of a “socially neglected child.” This child was born normal, but in a difficult family. Poor parents drank, they did not take care of the child, so his development was slowed down. Mental development the child is late and at school he cannot cope with the program. But under favorable circumstances, a socially neglected child can catch up with the bulk of his peers, but not the best. According to Mironov, to say that Russia is a backward country is the same as to call it a socially neglected child. So in Kiev time, the Rusichs were normal Europeans, but in the middle of the 13th century. for 250 years she fell into the difficult conditions of the Mongol-Tatar yoke (difficult childhood). Freed from the yoke, Russia fell under serfdom for 250 years (difficult adolescence). This slowed everything down and made Russia underdeveloped, which cannot catch up with peers from Western European countries. Mironov does not agree with this approach.
The historian says that Russia is belatedly going through the same processes, but not because it is mentally retarded or socially neglected, but because Russia as a state and civilization was simply born later than Western European ones. Already Kievan Rus was not a feudal state in the European sense of the term. Feudal features appeared a few centuries later in the XIII-XVI centuries. But Russia has always, at least for the last thousand years, when statehood arose, fled as fast as its neighbors in the West. Therefore, the scientist argues: Russia is not backward, but a young and rapidly growing country, and comparing it with Western Europe is the same as comparing an adult and a teenager.
Mironov insists on the inconsistency of the idea of the originality of the historical development of Russia. Despite periodic crises and deviations, from the point of view of BN Mironov, Russia as a whole followed the road of modernization together with the West.
The main difference between Russia and Europe lies in the asynchrony of development, and not in the essence of the development process. The autocracy sought to speed up the process of development and introduced incredible tension into social life. So it was in the implementation of the Soviet modernization project.
The scientist gives a favorable forecast regarding the future of Russia, if it continues its development according to the Western European model and in due time achieves prosperity and the rule of law and civil society are established.
The author strives, avoiding both negativism and apology for national achievements, to revise many provisions and myths of Russian historiography, which are not distinguished by positive attitude towards our history. Particularly unlucky in our historiography, as Mironov emphasizes, Russian reformers and government policy. Their achievements were underestimated and even depreciated. For example: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 is not considered an achievement, since in Western Europe it happened several centuries earlier and better. Mironov proposes to take a broader and deeper look at this problem, from the point of view of the correspondence of state policy to the economic, social, psychological and other possibilities of society. And also think about what would happen if the Western European model were implemented in Russia. Moreover, Mironov sees the reasons for the negative assessments of his own history in the fact that they were created in the era of the struggle of society against the authoritarianism of state power in the name of establishing a legal society and state in Russia back in pre-revolutionary historiography and then were picked up by Soviet historiography. The historian notes: nihilistic sentiments among the intelligentsia have always been in vogue in Russia (here there is a clear analogy between Mironov’s idea and the thoughts of the so-called “conservative” historians on this matter), it was and is still considered good form to condemn Russian orders and history, even if there is no reason for this.
Mironov refutes the position that:
Russia was a typical colonial empire that oppressed the peoples inhabiting it.
Russian society was closed.
The Russians did not know self-government.
Serfdom blocked the socio-economic development of the country.
Russia was ruled not by laws, but by people.
The state and the bureaucracy did not care about society and the people.
All or almost all of the reforms failed.
Autocracy in the XVIII - XX century. was an institution that hindered the development of the country.
Arbitrariness reigned in the courts.
The author writes that social institutions became more “rational”, more and more relied on certain legal norms, and not on custom and tradition. narrow and limited social interaction changed to more open and wide. Real merit, not privilege, became the basis for promotion. The personality was given greater opportunities for its manifestation, individuals successfully asserted their dignity and protested against the interference of the corporation in their personal lives, whether this interference was based on the power of the patriarch within the extended family or on the power of the traditional land community. Or other corporate institutions.
Autocracy was positive and driving force social changes in the country, going, as a rule, ahead of society. The autocracy for the most part worked in cooperation with the public. Basically, during the imperial period, the process of modernization was successful. At the beginning of the twentieth century. Russia has become a legal de jure state, and civil society was in the process of formation. Why did the autocratic state not survive the First World War. The fact is that modernization was successfully promoted with the leading role of the state, and was held back by the people, who also participated in this process, but their mentality changed extremely slowly. This widened the gap between the Europeanized elite and the people and created asynchrony and tension in social processes and phenomena. The revolution, from Mironov's point of view, was a natural phenomenon. Revolution is a normal, even positive reaction, as a temporary social disaster of modernization, designed to harmonize traditional Russian values with those of a market economy. October Revolution was not the Marxist progressive revolution that the revolutionaries believed they were fighting for, but rather a revolution against modernization and in defense of tradition. However, the Soviet government continued the process of modernization and created conditions that ensured a peaceful transition to the final stage of modernization, the formation of an open and democratic society.
Specialists are amazed by the huge source base of the book. The author relies on the methodology and achievements of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet, American, Canadian, Australian and European scientists, as well as on his own research on a wide range of problems in Russian archives and libraries. The scientist mastered the array of accumulated data on the social history of Russia and creatively processed them on the basis of his own concept. Mironov is fluent in cliometry and provides extensive statistical data. His work has an unparalleled scientific apparatus, including footnotes, bibliography in alphabetical order, subject and index of names, illustrations, tables.
However, one should not forget that the modernization model is one of the possible ones in representing the dynamics of society. It tends to view the past through the prism of dichotomies tradition/modernity, static/mobility, which does not limit understanding and minimizes the search for the uniqueness of Russia's historical development. In addition, even foreign experts note that the concept of "normality" of Russia's historical development is in perilous proximity to the absolutization of Western European and American standards of political and social development. It is not axiomatic that this Western model is desirable and has a long life ahead of it.
Exam questions:
1. The state of historical consciousness and the historical and scientific community of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
2. Petersburg and Moscow schools of historians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
3. D.I. Ilovaisky (scientific interests, methodological orientations, the general concept of Russian history, etc.)
4. The phenomenon of N.I. Kostomarov in Russian historiography.
5. V.O. Klyuchevsky. Main works and ideas.
6. V.O. Klyuchevsky about the subject and method of historical knowledge.
7. V.O. Klyuchevsky. "The course of Russian history and its concept". The concept of the history of Russia.
8. History Russia XIX in. in the works of A.A. Kornilov.
9. Vlad in historical science A.A. Kiesevetter.
10. P.N. Milyukov as a public figure and historian. Continuity and novelty in his historical and scientific work. The history of Russia as the history of Russian culture.
11. S.F. Platonov Features of personality and historical and scientific creativity.
12. S.F. Platonov "Lectures on Russian history" (theoretical, methodological and conceptual foundations).
13. S.F. Platonov. The concept of the history of the Time of Troubles in Russia.
14. A.E. Presnyakov as a representative of scientific realism.
15. Proceedings of A.E. Presnyakov on the history of Kievan Rus, the Great Russian state.
16. Eurocentrism in the concept of Russian history E.F. Shmurlo
17. The study of feudalism in the works of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky.
18. Contribution of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky. in the study of the history of the social movement.
19. Masters of the biographical genre in historical research - N.K. Schilder and Grand Duke Nikolay Mikhailovich.
20. Historian-diplomat S.S. Tatishchev.
21. The historical concept of K.N. Leontiev.
22. The historical concept of L.A. Tikhomirov.
23. Methodology and philosophy of history in the works of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.
24. The historical concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.
25. Development of theoretical and methodological foundations of source studies by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.
26. Marxism and pre-revolutionary historical science.
27. "Legal Marxism". Dispute about the role of violence in history. P.B. Struve, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky and others.
28. "Subjective school" in Russian historiography. P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others.
29. Historiosophy V.S. Solovyov.
30. N.I. Berdyaev as a representative of the religious and philosophical paradigm of history.
31. The Eurasian concept of Russian history (G.V. Vernadsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, R.O. Yakobson)
32. General characteristics of historical science in the Soviet period.
a. Periodization of the historical science of the Soviet period.
33. Secular historical science in the 1920s-1930s.
34. sociological method studies of the historical process in the works of N.A. Rozhkov.
35. M.N. Pokrovsky and his role in the formation of the Marxist image of historical science.
36. B.D. Grekov, M.N. Tikhomirov, L.V. Cherepnin as researchers of the history of ancient and medieval Russia.
37. M.N. Druzhinin as a researcher peasant question in Russia.
38. A.L. Sidorov. The personality of the historian and the priorities of scientific research.
39. M.V. Nechkin. Contribution to research revolutionary movement, history of historical science and popularization of historical knowledge.
40. P.A. Zaionchkovsky. Themes and features of the historian's work.
41. I.D. Kovalchenko is a methodologist, source expert, historian-researcher.
42. L.N. Gumilev. The theory of ethnogenesis and the concept of the history of Russia.
43. Domestic historiography of the second half of the 80s - early 90s.
44. The current state of historical science in Russia.
45. B.N. Mironov. Social history of Russia.
46. I.Ya. Froyanov is a researcher of ancient and medieval Russia. Works on recent history Russia.
Trans… (from lat. trans- through, through, behind) the first part of compound words meaning here: 1). Movement through any space, crossing it; 2). The designation of transmission through the medium of something. The second part compound word"form" means that the correspondence of manifestations of the same features or various signs in the same manifestations is carried out through and in a new configuration of connections, the highest configuration of which is Meaning.
The disintegration of the "holistic personality" occurs not only as a result of a normatively and procedurally organized technique of thinking, but also as a result of the specialization and technologization of material production. The issue of turning a person into an appendage of a machine under conditions of differentiated capitalist production was actively discussed by representatives of the “subjective school” (P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.I. Kareev, etc.). Mikhailovsky likened a narrow specialist to a “toe” .
See Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of creativity. - Kharkov: Folio, M .: AST, 2002. P. 36.
In the states of coexistence, the representative, holistic and world-forming connection acts as a being born, emerging and being formed.
In Russian philosophy, the idea of a break in continuity was put forward by representatives of the Moscow philosophical and mathematical school in the theory of arrhythmology long before M. Foucault. In the sphere of thinking, arrhythmology, unlike analytics, manifests itself in a creative act - insight, intuitive grasp of meaning, in the social sphere - in catastrophes, revolutions, upheavals that interrupt linear evolution. Arrhythmology can be understood as the emergence of new impulsive centers with their inherent rhythms, the redistribution of energy and a new tuning of rhythms in general.
In Western historiography, the primacy in the conceptual design of the principle of multifactorial historical development belongs to the French historical school "Annals".
Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. - St. Petersburg: AO Kit. 2003. P.31.
Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. - St. Petersburg: AO Kit. 2003.S.97-98.
Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history: Full course lectures. T.1. / V.O. Klyuchevsky - Minsk: Harvest, 2003. P.16.
See Leontieva O.B. Marxism in Russia at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Problems of methodology of history and theory of historical process / O.B. Leontiev. - Samara: Samara University Publishing House, 2004.
In exile, Russian scientists came up with the concept of Eurasianism.
Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of history. New Middle Ages / N.A. Berdyaev. – M.: 2002. P.183.
They themselves put forward an ethical criterion of progress, thereby emphasizing the role of mental states in the dynamics of social reality.
See Rumyantseva M.F. Theory of history / M.F. Rumyantsev. - M.: Aspect Press, 2002. S.23-30.
See Koposov N.E. Stop killing cats! Criticism social sciences/ NOT. Koposov. - M .: New Literary Review, 2005. P. 142-157.
Various versions of a non-linear "global" or "total" history are proposed by representatives of the Annales school.
It should be noted that ideological and political views and knowledge, like any other, are necessarily included in the context of the historian's free and spontaneous activity. However, purposeful normative implementation of ideological and political guidelines in historical research reduces its scientific potential.
Ilovaisky was married twice. He buried his first wife and all the children from his first marriage. The last to die in 1890 was the daughter of Varvara, in the marriage of Tsvetaeva. Son-in-law of Ilovaisky I.V. Tsvetaev married a second time. and in this marriage M.I. Tsvetaeva was born.
Similar information.
Methods of studying history and modern historical science.
Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.
Historical and logical
Abstraction and absolutization
Analysis and synthesis
Deduction and induction, etc.
1.Historical and genetic development
2.Historical and comparative
3.historical and typological classification
4.historical-system method (everything in the system)
5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.
Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing its own methods from it, and itself influences its formation. Now the task is coming to the fore not just writing historical works on a particular topic, but the creation of a verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.
Features of modern historical science.
1. Socio-cultural development
2. Spiritual and mental foundations
3. Ethno-demographic features
4. Natural and geographical features
5. Political and economic aspects
6. Providentialism (by the will of God)
7. Physiocrats (natural phenomena, not God, but man)
8. Geographic, public, social factors.
9. Interdisciplinary approaches (social anthropology, gender studies).
Humanity in the Age of Primitiveness.
Primitive society (also prehistoric society) - a period in the history of mankind before the invention of writing, after which there is an opportunity for historical research based on the study of written sources. In a broad sense, the word "prehistoric" is applicable to any period before the invention of writing, starting from the moment the Universe arose (about 14 billion years ago), but in a narrow sense - only to the prehistoric past of man.
Periods of development of primitive society
In the 40s of the XX century, Soviet scientists Efimenko, Kosven, Pershits and others proposed periodization systems for primitive society, the criterion of which was the evolution of forms of ownership, the degree of division of labor, family relations, etc. In a generalized form, such periodization can be represented as follows:
1. the era of the primitive herd;
2. the era of the tribal system;
3. the era of the decomposition of the communal-tribal system (the emergence of cattle breeding, plow farming and metal processing, the emergence of elements of exploitation and private property).
Stone Age
The Stone Age is the oldest period in the history of mankind, when the main tools and weapons were made mainly of stone, but wood and bone were also used. At the end of the Stone Age, the use of clay (dishes, brick buildings, sculpture) spread.
Periodization of the Stone Age:
Paleolithic:
The Lower Paleolithic is the period of the appearance of the oldest human species and the widespread distribution of Homo erectus.
Middle Paleolithic - a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern man. Neanderthals dominated Europe during the entire Middle Paleolithic.
Upper Paleolithic - the period of domination of the modern type of people throughout the territory the globe during the last glaciation.
Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic; The period is characterized by the development of technology for the production of stone tools and the general culture of man. Ceramic is missing.
Neolithic - the era of the emergence of agriculture. Tools and weapons are still stone, but their production is brought to perfection, and ceramics are widely distributed.
copper age
Copper Age, Copper-Stone Age, Chalcolithic or Eneolithic - a period in the history of primitive society, a transitional period from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Approximately covers the period 4-3 thousand BC. e., but in some areas it exists longer, and in some it is absent altogether. Most often, the Eneolithic is included in the Bronze Age, but sometimes it is also considered a separate period. During the Eneolithic, copper tools were common, but stone tools still prevailed.
Bronze Age
The Bronze Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the leading role of bronze products, which was associated with an improvement in the processing of metals such as copper and tin obtained from ore deposits, and the subsequent production of bronze from them. The Bronze Age is the second, late phase of the Early Metal Age, succeeding the Copper Age and preceding the Iron Age. In general, the chronological framework of the Bronze Age: 5-6 thousand years BC. e.
iron age
The Iron Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the spread of iron metallurgy and the manufacture of iron tools. For civilizations of the Bronze Age, it goes beyond the history of primitive society, for other peoples, civilization develops in the era of the Iron Age.
The term "Iron Age" is usually applied to the "barbarian" cultures of Europe, which existed simultaneously with the great civilizations of antiquity ( Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Parthia). The “barbarians” were distinguished from the ancient cultures by the absence or rare use of writing, in connection with which information about them has come down to us either according to archeology or references in ancient sources. On the territory of Europe in the era of the Iron Age, M. B. Schukin identified six "barbarian worlds":
Celts (La Tène culture);
proto-Germans (mainly Jastorf culture + southern Scandinavia);
mostly Proto-Baltic cultures of the forest zone (possibly including Proto-Slavs);
Proto-Finno-Ugric and Proto-Sami cultures of the northern forest zone (mainly along rivers and lakes);
steppe Iranian-speaking cultures (Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.);
pastoral and agricultural cultures of the Thracians, Dacians and Getae.
ORIGINS OF ROMAN CIVILIZATION
The Romans were proud that, unlike many other peoples, they knew the history of their country to ancient times, starting from the day when, according to legend, Rome was founded - April 21, 753 BC. e. In fact, the most ancient period of Roman history holds many mysteries, which to this day cause controversy between scientists.
peninsula
Roman civilization, like ancient Greek civilization, was maritime. The Apennine peninsula, fenced off from the mainland by the Alps, is washed from the west by the Tyrrhenian Sea, and from the east by the Adriatic Sea, which are parts of the Mediterranean Sea. True, unlike Greece, the coastline of Italy is much less indented: there are not a large number of convenient harbors and islands that made life so easy for Greek sailors. But this did not prevent Rome from becoming the largest maritime power. The most convenient bays were in the Gulf of Naples and at the mouth of the Tiber.
The climate in Italy is mild and warm, only in the north there are severe winters. The most fertile were the valleys of the rivers Po, Tiber, Arno. Conditions for agriculture were not as fertile as, for example, in Egypt or in Mesopotamia, although many ancient historians praised the abundant vegetation and other natural wealth of Italy.
Let us outline the most important conditions, thanks to which the Romans at the present time have risen to such a height. The first of these conditions is that Italy, like an island, is surrounded, as by a sure fence, by the seas, with the exception of only a few parts, which, in turn, are protected by rugged mountains. The second condition is that, although most of its coasts do not have harbors, the existing harbors are vast and very convenient. One of them is especially beneficial for repelling invasions from outside; the other is useful for attacks on foreign enemies and for extensive trade.
Romans and their neighbors
AT ancient times The Apennine peninsula was inhabited by many tribes: among them were the Ligures, Umbrians, Veneti, as well as the Latins who lived in the lower reaches of the Tiber. This region, separated from its neighbors by low mountains, was called Latium. It was here that the center of the future Roman civilization arose.
In the 8th century BC e., i.e., in the era of the birth of Roman civilization, all these tribes have not yet completely left the state of primitiveness. But next to them lived other peoples who stood at a higher stage of development - Greek, Carthaginian settlers and the Etruscan tribe.
In the VIII-VI centuries. BC e. Greek colonists settled along the shores of southern and central Italy, as well as in Sicily. Cities arose there, among them Naples and Syracuse - large trade and cultural centers. This played a big role in the development of the future Roman civilization. Indeed, in the colonial cities, the same forms of government were established as in Greece itself, philosophy, literature and art flourished. Greek technology, mythology, the alphabet, agricultural skills, political structure - all this, to one degree or another, influenced the tribes that inhabited Italy.
The western part of Sicily was colonized by the Carthaginians. Carthage - in the future main enemy Rome - was the largest North African colony of the Phoenicians. It was located on the territory of modern Tunisia. Carthage, the most important center of intermediary trade, was actually independent and sent colonists along the shores of the Mediterranean. The Carthaginians were formidable opponents of the Greeks: in the 7th-6th centuries. BC e. they waged a stubborn struggle with them for Sicily and managed to conquer a significant part of the island.
Many mysteries are connected with the Etruscan tribe: its origin is unknown, although most historians believe that the Etruscans came to Italy from somewhere in the East. The Etruscans used the Greek alphabet, but it has not yet been possible to decipher their language. And yet, enough of the Etruscan culture has been preserved to judge its high level. The Etruscans were the closest neighbors of the Romans: they occupied an area called Etruria (in the region of modern Tuscany). Cities were erected there with a regular rectangular layout and stone houses and temples. The Etruscans were engaged in agriculture, trade and sea piracy, crafts.
The Etruscans had a strong influence on the Romans: this manifested itself in art, religion, in the planning of cities, in the special architecture of houses - with a courtyard. From the Etruscans, the Romans took signs royal power- bundles of rods with hatchets embedded in them. Greek culture was adopted through the Etruscans. Ties with Etruria were strong: young men from noble families were sent there to study, in the 6th century. BC e. the kings of the Etruscan dynasty ruled over the Romans, and in Rome itself there was even a special quarter where immigrants from Etruria lived.
As the power of the Romans increased, the Etruscans lost their importance. By the middle of the 1st c. BC e., having suffered a series of defeats from the Romans, they no longer played any role in the history of ancient Italy, and their language was soon forgotten. A similar fate befell the Greek city-colonies: they began to lose power in the 5th-4th centuries. BC e. Among the neighbors of the Romans, the most formidable opponents until the middle of the II century. BC e. only the Carthaginians remained.
So not only natural conditions favored the formation of Rome: the Romans began their history, surrounded by the Greeks, Carthaginians, Etruscans, who stood at a higher level of culture. Communication with them made it possible to take advantage of "foreign" achievements, and this accelerated the pace of development of Roman civilization.
THE WAY TO THE REPUBLIC
Patricians and plebeians
After the establishment of the republican system, conflicts in Roman society escalated. The main opposing forces were patricians and plebeians. The position of the patricians after the overthrow of the monarchy improved significantly. Consuls were chosen from among them - the two highest officials in the state, who performed the functions of the former kings. Only patricians could be elected to the Senate - the main body of the Roman Republic, which decided the most important issues of foreign and domestic policy. Only patricians could become priests. They knew all the subtleties of legal proceedings and held it in their hands. In addition, the patricians accumulated everything more land: they had the right to occupy plots from the land fund of their community - a fund that constantly increased as Rome won military victories. So the patricians had large land holdings.
The plebeians were deprived of this privilege, many of them went bankrupt and even turned into slaves for debts. There was only one way to solve this problem - to equalize rights with the patricians. In this case, the plebeians would also have access to government.
The outcome of the conflict largely depended on the characteristics of life in Rome. Already the first centuries of its history, Rome spent in endless wars with its neighbors, suffering defeats or gaining victories, and in the future remained a militarized state. In the initial period of the history of this civilization, military campaigns were held every year, starting in March and ending in October. Each citizen was required to participate in 20 military campaigns in the infantry or 10 if he was in the cavalry. Dodging military service threatened with sale into slavery. It was impossible to assemble a strong army without the participation of the plebeians in it; the patricians thus became dependent on the plebeians.
In 494 BC. e. the plebeians refused to go on a military campaign and left Rome fully armed, setting up camp on the Sacred Mountain, one of the hills adjacent to Rome. This tactic worked - the patricians were forced to give in, and the plebeians won the right to have people's tribunes - defenders of their interests. The person of the tribune was considered inviolable. In the future, the plebeians repeatedly used the same method of pressure, and the patricians always made concessions.
One of the most important achievements was the appearance of the first written laws in Rome. In 449 BC. e. the laws were written on twelve copper tablets and put on public display in the Forum - the main square of Rome. Thus was an end to the arbitrariness of the patricians, who had previously judged "according to custom." But the struggle for political rights and land is not yet over. Only in the III century. BC e. the plebeians eventually became equal in their rights with the patricians. Marriages between patricians and plebeians were no longer forbidden; the decisions made by the assemblies of the plebeians had the force of law; one of the consuls was necessarily selected from the plebeians. Debt slavery was abolished, and the right to own public land was limited: now each citizen could receive a plot of no more than 125 hectares.
In the III century. BC e. finally formed the civil community of Rome. By this time, her inner life, and the composition expanded - the patrician community turned into a patrician-plebeian.
Civic community of Rome
In the Roman community, as in the Greek, collective and private land ownership was combined; all citizens had equal rights and were not only farmers, but also warriors. The concepts of "good farmer", "good warrior" and "good citizen" for a long time merged into one whole in the minds of the Romans.
The bravest men and the most enterprising warriors come out of the farmers, and agriculture is the most pious and stable occupation ...
The life of the community was organized in such a way as to maintain a balance between personal and public benefit. In Rome, there were no taxes that would have supported the state apparatus. People who held the highest positions did not receive a salary and had to organize feasts, games, build temples, and provide poor citizens with allotments of land at their own expense. The way up was open primarily to the nobility, which included the patricians and the plebeian elite. On the other hand, the richer a citizen was, the more money he was obliged to spend for the common good.
Service in the army was a duty for citizens, but an honorable duty. A person could not become a statesman without military experience. Only in the IV century. soldiers began to be paid salaries: before that, they were content with the fruits of their victories and had to take care of their weapons and food themselves. When the war began, the citizens took a loan, which was returned after the victory. Military booty passed into the ownership of the community, and it was used by all citizens. The land taken away was added to the public, and then divided between the soldiers and the landless. Precious metals and other tribute went to the treasury of the community. The rest was distributed among the soldiers, who were also given gifts by the generals.
Nobility - from the Latin word "nobilis" - "noble, noble."
Great importance in the life of the Romans had religion. The most ancient gods were the two-faced Janus - the creator of the Universe, Jupiter - the god of the sky, Mars - the god of war. The Romans revered Vesta - the keeper of the hearth and state, Juno - the goddess of the moon and the patroness of women, Minerva - the goddess of wisdom, the patroness of crafts. There were many other gods, and their number increased all the time. The Romans willingly accepted "foreign" gods - Etruscan, Greek, and then Eastern.
Religious rites were a kind of public duty of citizens: members of the community had to participate in the rites of their family, honoring the "family" gods, and in national rites. Any business in Ancient Rome began by asking the will of the gods.
Historians call Roman religion rational and practical. Relations with the gods were, so to speak, of a business nature: one had to be faithful to the gods, strictly observe rituals and various prohibitions, and in return one could count on their help.
The highest court over a person in Ancient Rome was carried out not by the gods, but by society - fellow citizens assessed the actions of a person, expressed approval or disapproval. The best citizens were role models, their exploits, committed for the common good, had to be guided by a person.
Thus, the idea of "common benefit" determined both the order in the civil community and the behavior of each of its individual members. The obligations of the Roman citizen were clearly established: in the first place was the duty to society, in the second - to the family, and in the last place - concern for one's personal welfare.
AT public life In Rome, popular assemblies played an important role. The resolutions of the people's assemblies had the force of law. In addition, the tribunes had high powers: they had the right to impose a ban on the decisions of the court, the senate and senior officials if these decisions infringed upon the interests of the plebeians. The doors of the tribune's house were to remain open day and night, so that any plebeian could find protection there.
The most important governing body was the senate, which consisted of the patricians and the top of the plebs: he was in charge of domestic policy and determined the external, under the control of the senate were finances and a religious cult. The Senate was an aristocratic body. Historians believe that, despite the importance of popular assemblies, it was he who ultimately led the state. In this respect, Roman democracy differed from Athenian.
In republican Rome, traditions inherited from the monarchy were also preserved. The supreme power belonged to two consuls. True, they were annually re-elected, but their powers practically did not differ from those that the kings had previously had. The consuls, after their election, were even given symbols of royal power. Outside Rome, during wars, the power of the consuls was indisputable, but in the city it was limited to the senate and popular assemblies. Ancient historians were aware of the originality of their statehood and considered it the most perfect.
I Republic - in literal translation from Latin "public business". A state in which power belongs to people chosen by society for a certain period of time.
The first of these was Polybius (201-120 BC), a Greek by birth, who lived in Rome for many years and became an enthusiastic admirer of it. Polybius created a theory that explained why the Romans were able to rise above many peoples. In his opinion, Rome had the best form of government - a mixed one, combining both democracy (popular assemblies), and the monarchical principle (consuls), and aristocratic (senate). None of these principles of government did not suppress the others, but taken together, they constituted a single harmonious whole.
Path to world domination
In the IV century. BC e. The Romans took over the entire territory of Central Italy.
The Romans subjugated almost the entire known world to their power and raised their power to such a height that was unthinkable for their ancestors and will not be surpassed by their descendants.
The Romans declared most of the conquered Italic tribes to be their allies. This meant that they had to pay a military tax to Rome, to put up detachments to help the Roman army. Rome did not interfere in the internal affairs of the allies, but did not allow them to conclude agreements among themselves. Roman colonies began to appear throughout Italy. Thanks to them, two problems were solved: the poor Romans received land and, with the help of the colonies, the local population was kept from speaking out against Rome.
Having conquered vast territories, Rome remained a relatively closed city-state: only a very small part of the Italian population had Roman citizenship.
VIII century. BC e. it was the turn of Southern Italy, where the rich Greek colonies were located, and then Sicily. Because of this fertile island, the Romans had to wage cruel wars with Carthage for decades. The Punic Wars (the Romans called the Carthaginians Punnes), which began in the middle of the 3rd century BC. BC e., continued intermittently until the middle of the II century. BC e.; only in 146 the city of Carthage was captured and literally wiped off the face of the earth - burned to the ground.
2nd century BC e. was marked by a victory over Greece. Having crushed the two most serious opponents and rivals, Rome in the II-I centuries. BC e. became a world power covering the entire Mediterranean, and continued to expand its borders in the future.
Military successes and the expansion of the territory caused global changes in various areas of Roman civilization. The victories over Carthage and Greece enriched Rome. Huge indemnities were levied from the conquered peoples, and a stream of slave power began to flow to the slave markets.
Conquered countries (outside of Italy) were turned into provinces of Rome and taxed. Trade relations began to be quickly established with rich provinces.
Socio-economic crisis of the community
The flourishing of trade and the direct robbery of new possessions gave an important result - commodity-money relations began to actively develop in Rome.
Commodity-money relations and a sharp increase in the number of slaves changed a lot in the life of the Roman peasantry. Until the II century. BC e. in Italy there was a mass of small and medium-sized peasant farms, in which mostly family members (surnames) worked, providing for themselves. In II-I centuries. BC e. such subsistence farms began to die and were replaced by other, larger ones, in which the labor of slaves was used, and the products were partially sold to the market.
The new estates were called villas; according to the stories of contemporaries, we know what they were. An outstanding political figure of that era, Katan the Elder, described his own estate, which he considered exemplary. Cato had a complex economy: an olive grove, a vineyard, a pasture for cattle and a field with grain crops. To serve such a villa, the labor of many people, mostly slaves, was required: 13 people looked after the olives, at least 16 people looked after the vineyard. Cato was very interested in the profitability of his villa, the ability to sell his products. “The owner should strive to buy less and sell more,” he wrote.
The small and middle peasants were ruined or simply forcibly deprived of their land, while the slaves began to turn into the main producers, crowding out the labor of the free. Ancient historians wrote with anxiety and indignation that the old law was forgotten, according to which a citizen is supposed to have no more than 125 hectares of land. The Greek historian Plutarch restored the picture of this process in detail: “The rich began to transfer rent to themselves with the help of nominees and, in the end, openly secured for themselves most lands."
Peasants deprived of land became tenants or farm laborers. However, the farm laborers could not secure a permanent income: their work was seasonal. And a huge mass of peasants poured into the cities, increasing the number of urban plebs. These new plebeians bore little resemblance to their predecessors, the free farmers who fought for rights against the patricians. Some managed to get a job as artisans or construction workers, others formed a special layer - the ancient lumpen proletariat - and existed at the expense of state distributions of bread, money or the generosity of politicians who won votes.
Slaves, who in that era turned into a special class, were also not homogeneous. Their numbers have increased tremendously compared to the former times, when slavery was domesticated. Only on the island of Delos, one of the largest centers of the slave trade, about 10 thousand slaves were sometimes sold per day. Some of them became state slaves, but mostly they passed into the hands of private owners, also forming two groups - rural and urban.
The means of labor are divided into three parts: speaking tools that make inarticulate sounds and dumb tools; slaves belong to the speakers, oxen to those who make inarticulate sounds, carts to the dumb. Marcus Varro, Roman writer, 116-27 AD BC e.
Among the urban slaves, who, of course, were in a more privileged position, there were many educated, skilled people. Through the learned Greek slaves, for whom, by the way, the Romans remained barbarians, Hellenistic culture penetrated into Rome. The "slave intelligentsia" created technical improvements: pipes through which steam flowed and heated the premises, special polishing of marble, mirror tiles, etc.
Transformations have also taken place in the upper strata of society. The Roman nobility began to be pressed by a new monetary aristocracy - horsemen. The horsemen belonged, as a rule, to the humble, but wealthy citizens who got rich on trade or tax collection in the provinces.
Significant changes took place in society, its structure became more complicated, and, consequently, the relationships between different layers became more complicated. For example, rivalry arose between the nobility and the equites for the right to exploit the provinces. In addition, the horsemen rushed to higher positions, practically inaccessible to them at that time. There was a growing conflict between large and medium, as well as small landowners. Already in the II century. BC e. the first slave uprising took place (in Sicily) - another important hotbed of social tension opened.
Serious problems were associated with the provinces. Before Rome the question arose: how to manage them? A governor was appointed to the province, who for a year, until his term ended, had full power and virtually uncontrolled orders there, as in his fiefdom. The provincials were also ruined by tax collectors, who contributed the due amount to the treasury, and then robbed the population for their own benefit. In essence, management was reduced to the robbery of the provinces, and this was unprofitable even from the point of view of the Romans themselves.
The inhabitants of the provinces had other problems, and the main one was how to obtain citizenship rights? The population of the provinces, including the Roman colonists, had more or less curtailed rights, if not none at all, and this, of course, was a source of discontent and conflict.
Having become a huge power, Rome could no longer remain a community. The first signs of the destruction of its traditional structure, the norms of communal life appeared in the 2nd century. BC e., and soon this process unfolded in full force.
Looking for an exit
The answer to the approaching crisis was the reform of Tiberius and Gaius of the Greeks. A descendant of an old plebeian family that belonged to the Roman nobility, Tiberius Grayakh, elected tribune of the people, in! 33g. Don. created a land reform project. He decided to resurrect the principle of equality in the use of land. Therefore, the main point of his program was that from the asche it was possible to take only a strictly defined norm of plots. A special commission was organized, which was supposed to take away the surpluses from large landowners and distribute them among landless citizens.
This program aroused strong opposition from members of the Senate. The atmosphere was tense, and during one of the popular meetings between opponents and supporters of Gracchus there was an armed clash in which the people's tribune was killed. For the first time in its history, a civil war broke out on the streets of Rome, albeit on a small scale - a formidable sign of trouble in society.
The reform of Tiberius Gracchus to some extent managed to be implemented by his brother. Guy Gracchus resumed the activities of the commission, having managed to allocate land to 50-75 thousand families, but he was also defeated. The struggle again came to an armed clash, in which about 3 thousand people died, and Gracchus ordered his slave to kill himself.
The Gracchi brothers wanted to resurrect and preserve the old community, but it was impossible to do this by the “administrative” way (as, indeed, by any other). Meanwhile, the conflict over land flared up, until finally, a grandiose uprising of the Italian population broke out - the Allied War (90-88 BC). Rome was forced to make concessions: the Italian population received the rights of Roman citizens, and, consequently, the opportunity to participate in political life. However, the equalization of rights did not mean a return to equalization in the use of land.
Result The allied war was very important: now Rome was no longer the only center in which full-fledged citizens were concentrated; its people lost their former privileges. Rome as a civil community ended its existence.
At the origins of imperial power
The last decades of the existence of the republic were full of upheavals: Rome survived the Allied War, unrest in the provinces, a grandiose uprising of slaves led by Spartacus, in battles with which the Roman legions were defeated for a long time, and finally, the struggle of political groups for power, which resulted in civil wars.
In these turbulent years began to emerge new form government, destroying the principles of the republican system - the sole power of the dictator or emperor. Such titles existed in Rome before, but they were used only in extraordinary circumstances and for a short time (usually in case of war). In the 1st century BC e. twice the situation was repeated when they were given for life, without a time limit.
The talented commander Sulla was the first to achieve dictatorial power, the second - Caesar (100-44 BC), whose glory as a military leader and strategist survived the centuries. Both of them relied primarily on the army, and this is not accidental: the army in that era turned into the most reliable force, which was used not only to pacify the enemy, but also to resolve internal political disputes.
The dictatorship of Sulla and Caesar did not last long. But the transition to imperial rule was already inevitable.
Only with the help of a strong individual power could it be possible to maintain the political unity of the vast and diverse empire, streamline the administration of the provinces, and satisfy the interests of various sections of society.
Finally, the imperial sole power was established in 27 BC. e., when Octavian, a relative of Caesar, received from the senate the title of emperor for life, as well as the titles of August, that is, “exalted by a deity”, and “son of god”, as was the case in the Eastern despotisms.
What was the significance of the change in the system of government for Roman civilization? A. Toynbee believed that the creation of an empire is the desire of an already dying civilization to avoid its fate. For Toynbee, imperial Rome is a civilization that has been abandoned by the "creative spirit". But, paradoxically, to the people of that era, the empire and all the orders established in it seemed eternal and ideal, their “ephemeral nature” was invisible to contemporaries.
"Golden Age" of the Empire
The beginning of the imperial era was brilliant, especially compared to the previous turbulent, troubled times internal conflicts. This was largely due to the personality of Octavian Augustus, who is rightfully considered one of the most prominent political figures in Rome.
Augustus received full power: he disposed of the treasury, negotiated with other states, resolved issues of war and peace, nominated candidates for the highest government positions. However, Augustus himself, who became the first person in the state and had enormous powers, used them very wisely. He called himself a princeps, that is, the first person on the list of senators, emphasizing by this respect for the senate and the traditions of republican Rome (therefore, the era of the reign of Augustus and his successors is called "principate"). Moreover, Augustus his supporters claimed to have restored the republic. In the minds of the Romans, the republic did not exclude sole rule, if this did not contradict the principle of “common benefit”. Jupiter, throwing thunders, - we believe - reigns in heaven: here on earth Augustus will be counted among the gods ...
Horace
To a certain extent, this principle underlay the activities of Octavian Augustus, who tried to stabilize relations between different strata of society. While strengthening centralized power, he also made concessions from which everyone, except the slaves, benefited to some extent.
Senators remained a privileged layer, although they were obedient to the will of Augustus. At the same time, Octavian attracted new trade and money nobility, horsemen, to his side, appointing them to high positions. Popular assemblies also survived, although they began to lose their significance even before the reign of Augustus. Poor citizens received grain free of charge every month.
Augustus wanted to resurrect the ancient purity of morals and introduced laws to limit luxury; severe punishments awaited all who were guilty of adultery. The emperor personally set an example of gentle, humane treatment of slaves.
Respecting the interests of society, Augustus did not forget about strengthening the imperial power: he expanded the administrative apparatus, under his command were special forces who maintained order in Rome and on the frontiers.
In this era, Roman civilization was taking off: a certain stability was achieved in society, Roman literature reached an unusually high flowering, in which a whole galaxy of talented original poets appeared, combining both Greek and primordially Roman traditions (Ovid, Virgil, Horace, Tibull). Augustus was the patron of art and science, under him a water pipe was laid in Rome, the construction of magnificent temples that adorned the city was launched. Contemporaries perceived this era as a "golden age".
Empire after August
However, after the death of Augustus (AD 14), it quickly became apparent that the system of government he had created was not so perfect. sole power opened up opportunities for manifestations of despotism and arbitrariness and from time to time turned into tyranny, against which few dared to protest. A vivid example of the violation of old republican traditions and legality is the attitude of the Senate towards the emperor Nero (ruled from 54 to 68), who was guilty of the murder of his wife and mother. Nero himself was surprised when the senate, despite the atrocities committed by the emperor, welcomed him; According to legend, Nero exclaimed: “Until now, not a single princeps knew how far he could go!”
Of course, not all emperors followed in the footsteps of Nero; and in imperial Rome, legality was considered the basis of power. Many rulers became famous for their wisdom and humanism (for example, the emperors of the Antonine dynasty, Marcus Aurelius - "philosopher on the throne"), and their activities resurrected dreams of a "golden age". In the era of the empire, the position of slaves softened somewhat,