Modern historical science briefly. Russian historical science at the present stage
Historiography of the history of Russia - it is a description of Russian history and historical literature. This is the history of historical science as a whole, its branch, the totality of studies devoted to a particular era, topic.
Scientific coverage of Russian history begins in the 18th century, when knowledge about the past, previously contained in the form of scattered information, began to be systematized and generalized. Historical science was freed from divine providence and received an ever more realistic explanation.
The first treatise according to the history of Russia belonged Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev(1686-1750) - the largest noble historian of the era of Peter I. His capital work "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" in 5 volumes covered the history Russian state.
Speaking as a champion of a strong monarchy, V.N. Tatishchev was the first to formulate the state scheme of national history, highlighting several of its stages: from perfect "one-man rule" (from Rurik to Mstislav), through the "aristocracy of the specific period" (1132-1462) to "the restoration of the monarchy under John the Great III and its strengthening under Peter I in early XVIII century."
Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov(1711 - 1765) - the author of a number of works on Russian history ("A Brief Russian Chronicler with Genealogy"; "Ancient Russian History"), in which he initiated the struggle against the Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state. This theory, as is known, was created by the Germans Bayer and Miller and substantiated the inability of the allegedly ignorant Slavs to create their own statehood and the Varangians who called for this.
M.V. Lomonosov cited a number of arguments that refuted the conjectures of German scientists. He proved the antiquity of the "Rus" tribe, which preceded the calling of Rurik, showed the originality of the settlements of the Slavs in Eastern Europe. The scientist drew attention to important fact: the name "Rus" was extended to those Slavic tribes to which the Varangians had nothing to do. M.V. Lomonosov pointed out the absence of Scandinavian and Germanic words in the Russian language, which would have been inevitable given the role attributed by the Normanists to the Scandinavians.
The first major work on the history of the Russian state belonged to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826) - a prominent historian, writer and publicist. At the end of 1803, Karamzin offered Alexander I his services to write a complete history of Russia, "not barbaric and shameful for his reign." The offer was accepted. Karamzin was officially entrusted with writing the history of Russia and a pension was established as being on public service. Karamzin devoted his entire subsequent life mainly to the creation of the History of the Russian State (12 volumes). The central idea of labor: autocratic rule is the best form of statehood for Russia.
Karamzin put forward the idea that "Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord and was saved by wise autocracy." This approach was the basis for the periodization of the history of the Russian state.
In it, the scientist identified six periods:
- "the introduction of monarchical power" - from the "calling of the princes of the Varangians" to Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (862-1015);
- "fading of autocracy" - from Svyatopolk Vladimirovich to Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich (1015-1238);
- “the death of the Russian state and the gradual “state revival of Russia” - from Yaroslav 11 Vsevolodovich to Ivan 111 (1238-1462);
- "assertion of autocracy" - from Ivan III to Ivan IV (1462-1533);
- the restoration of "tsarist autocracy" and the transformation of autocracy into tyranny - from Ivan IV (the Terrible) to Boris Godunov (1533-1598);
- "Time of Troubles" - from Boris Godunov to Mikhail Romanov (1598-1613)".
Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov(1820-1879) - head of the department of Russian history at Moscow University (since 1845), author of a kind of encyclopedia of Russian history, a multi-volume capital work "The History of Russia from Ancient Times". The principle of his research is historicism. He does not divide the history of Russia into periods, but connects them, considers the development of Russia and Western Europe in unity. Soloviev reduces the pattern of development of the country to three defining conditions: “the nature of the country”, “the nature of the tribe”, “the course of external events”.
In periodization, the scientist “erases” the concepts of the “Varangian period”, “Mongolian” and specific.
The first stage of Russian history from ancient times to the 16th century. inclusive is determined by the struggle of the "patrimonial principle" through "patrimonial relations" to the "state way of life".
The second stage (XVII - the middle of the XVII century) - "preparation" for a new order of things and "the era of Peter I", "the era of transformations".
The third stage (the second half of the 17th - the second half of the 19th century) is a direct continuation and completion of Peter's reforms.
In the 50s. 19th century the state (legal) school in Russian historiography took shape. It was a product of bourgeois liberalism, its unwillingness to repeat the revolutions of the West in Russia. In this regard, the liberals turned to the ideal of strong state power. The founder of the state school was a professor at Moscow University (lawyer, historian, idealist philosopher) Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828-1904).
Major Russian, historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky(1841 - 1911) adhered to the positivist "theory of facts". He singled out "three main forces that build human community": the human personality, human society, the nature of the country. Klyuchevsky considered "intellectual labor and moral feat" to be the engine of historical progress. In the development of Russia, Klyuchevsky recognized the enormous role of the state (political factor), attached great importance to the process of colonization (natural factor), trade (economic factor).
In The Course of Russian History, Klyuchevsky gave a periodization of the country's past. It is based on geographical, economic and social characteristics, which, in his opinion, determined the content of historical periods. However, they were dominated by the state scheme.
The entire Russian historical process - from ancient times to the reforms of the 60s. 19th century Klyuchevsky divided into four periods:
- "Rusdneprovskaya, city, trade" (from the 8th to the 13th centuries). In the first period, the main arena of activity of the Slavs was the Dnieper region. The author did not connect the emergence of the state among the Eastern Slavs with the Normans, noting the existence of their principalities long before the appearance of the Varangians;
- "Rus of the Upper Volga, specific-princely, free-agricultural" (XII - the middle of the XV century). Describing the second period, Klyuchevsky idealized princely power, exaggerated its organizing role;
- "Great Russia. Moscow, tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural" (XV - early XVII century). The third period of Russian history is associated with Great Russia, covering vast expanses not only of Eastern Europe but also Asia. At this time, for the first time, a stable state unification of Russia was created;
- "All-Russian, imperial, noble" - the period of serfdom - agricultural and factory (XVII - the middle of the XIX century). This is the time for the further expansion of Great Russia, the formation of the Russian Empire. The transformations of Peter I were considered by the author as the main feature of this period, but Klyuchevsky showed duality in their assessment. Klyuchevsky influenced the formation of historical views of both bourgeois historians (P.N. Milyukov, M.M. Bogoslovsky, A.A. Kizevetter), and Marxist historians (M.N. Pokrovsky, Yu.V. Gotye, S. .V. Bakhrushin).
In Soviet historiography, periodization was based on the formational approach, according to which the following were singled out in Russian history:
- Primitive communal system (until the 9th century).
- Feudalism (IX - mid-XIX century).
- Capitalism (second half of the 19th century - 1917).
- Socialism (since 1917).
Within the framework of these formational periods of national history, certain stages were singled out, revealing the process of the emergence and development of a socio-economic formation.
Thus, the "feudal" period was divided into three stages:
- "early feudalism" (Kievan Rus);
- "developed feudalism" (feudal fragmentation and the formation of the Russian centralized state);
- "late feudalism" ("new period of Russian history", the disintegration and crisis of feudal-serf relations).
The period of capitalism was divided into two stages - "pre-monopoly capitalism" and "imperialism". In Soviet history, the stages of "war communism", "new economic policy", "building the foundations of socialism", "complete and final victory of socialism" and "development of socialism on its own basis" were distinguished.
In the post-perestroika period, in connection with the transition to a pluralistic interpretation of Russian history, there was a reassessment of both its individual events and entire periods and stages. In this regard, on the one hand, there is a return to the periodizations of Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and other pre-revolutionary historians, on the other hand, attempts are being made to give a periodization in accordance with new values and methodological approaches.
Thus, a periodization of national history appeared from the point of view of the alternative historical development of it, considered in the context of world history.
Some historians suggest distinguishing two periods in Russian history:
- "From Ancient Russia to Imperial Russia" (IX - XVIII centuries);
- "The heyday and decline of the Russian Empire" (XIX - XX centuries).
Historians Russian statehood allocate ten of her
periods. This periodization is due to several factors. The main ones are the socio-economic structure of society (the level of economic and technical development, forms of ownership) and the factor of state development:
- Ancient Russia (IX-XII centuries);
- Period of independent feudal states Ancient Russia(XII-XV centuries);
- Russian (Moscow) state (XV-XVII centuries);
- Russian Empire of the period of absolutism (XVIII - mid-XIX centuries);
- Russian Empire during the period of transition to a bourgeois monarchy (mid-19th - early 20th centuries);
- Russia during the period of the bourgeois-democratic republic (February - October 1917);
- The period of the formation of Soviet statehood (1918-1920);
- The transition period and the NEP period (1921 - 1930);
- The period of state-party socialism (1930 - early 60s of the XX century);
- The period of the crisis of socialism (60-90s of the XX century).
This periodization, like any other, is conditional, but it allows us to systematize the training course to a certain extent and consider the main stages in the formation of statehood in Russia.
Historical science has accumulated extensive experience in creating works on the history of Russia. Numerous works published in different years, both in the country and abroad, reflect the various concepts of the historical development of Russia, its relationship with the world historical process.
Per last years fundamental works on the history of Russia by major pre-revolutionary historians were republished, including the works of S.M. Solovieva, N.M. Karamzin, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others. The works of B.A. Rybakova, B.D. Grekova, S.D. Bakhrusheva, M.N. Tikhomirova, M.P. Pokrovsky, A.N. Sakharova, Yu.N. Afanasiev and others. This list can be continued.
Today we have at our disposal works on the history of Russia, interesting in content, which are available to anyone who is interested in history and seeks to study it in depth.
It must be borne in mind that the study of the history of the Fatherland must take place in the context of world history. Students of history should understand such concepts as historical civilizations, their characteristics, the place of individual formations in the world historical process, the ways of Russia's development and its place in the world historical process.
Studying the history of Russia in the context of world historical processes, it is necessary to take into account that the traditional idea of abroad has changed radically today. The historical reality is such that we are faced with such concepts as "near abroad" and "far abroad". In the recent past, these distinctions did not exist.
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
stance to the "historical fashion": let's say there is a "fashion" for a certain interpretation of the 1917 revolution 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 was precisely what Soviet history sinned. 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, the 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 a special case. Only when systems approach these results can take their place in the overall picture of historical existence, which postmodern historians are not capable of. The humanistic project voiced by Pico della Mirandola, which emphasized the relationship of natural patterns with the unity of the human race, is rejected by postmodernism. 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 allegedly 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 mythologems 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 a guarantor community development, whose guardians are 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.
Change theoretical foundations domestic historical science. In the mid 80s. Russian historical science has entered a very difficult period of development, characterized by the emergence of a contradictory situation. On the one hand, there has been an unusually high public interest in history, on the other hand, there has been a sharp drop in the prestige of historical historical works. The majority of historians connected the resolution of the contradiction with the creative reading of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. M.P. Kim, for example, stated: "Our trouble is that in the study of history, the development of historical science, we inconsistently used Lenin's theoretical heritage" ("Round Table": Historical Science in the Conditions of Perestroika // Questions of History. 1988. No. 3. P. eight). Implementation of the idea of creative reading of the works of K. Marx and V.I. Lenin were called upon to serve as publications of their previously little-known or banned works, in particular the work of K. Marx "Revealing the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century." At the same time, it turned out that Marxism, in interpreting the history of Russia, along with the correct provisions, included errors of a fundamental nature. For example, K. Marx ignored the role of internal factors in the history of the Old Russian state, putting forward a clearly erroneous proposition about the exclusively Varangian composition of the Rurikovich squads, etc. He gave a belittled description of Ivan Kalita, whose policy he called "Machiavellianism of a slave striving for the usurpation of power." No less tendentious is the assessment of the activities of Ivan III, who "did not crush the yoke, but got rid of it on the sly." Muscovy, according to K. Marx, "strengthened only due to the fact that it became virtuoso in the art of slavery" (See: Marx K. Revelations of the diplomatic history of the 18th century // Questions of History. 1989. No. 4. P. 4, 6, 7.11).
The appeal to Marxist assessments of the history of Russia further aggravated the situation. The search for a way out of it led to the idea of alternativeness in history, the choice of ways of social development, most fully expressed in the historical and methodological works of P.V. Volobuev. He wrote: "... the historical process in all three of its constituent parts and parameters (past, present, future) are not predetermined and not programmed; it is probable. Its probabilistic nature is also manifested in the multivariance of development. It cannot proceed otherwise, since social patterns are realized by people in the course of their activities ambiguously, but in many different forms and types (“many stories”), depending on specific historical conditions, which are very diverse in each era in different countries and even in each individual country "(Volobuev P.V. The choice of ways of social development: theory, history, modernity. M., 1987. P. 32). At the same time, an attempt was made to consider alternatives using the examples of Soviet history. They began to write about the turn of 1929 and alternative to N.I. Bukharin, the positions of L.D. Trotsky, etc. At the same time, the works of representatives of the Leninist environment (L.D. Trotsky, N.I. Bukharin, etc.) were introduced into scientific circulation with a very a kind of interpretation of Marxism.
Significant changes in the understanding of Russian history began to occur in connection with the publication of the works of outstanding Russian philosophers and historians of the early 20th century, whose works allowed researchers to understand that the desire for the canonization of Marxism is its immanent regularity. Already S.N. Bulgakov showed that Marxism is "alien to any kind of ethics", since it substantiates its conclusions and forecasts based not on the requirements of an ethical ideal, but on reality itself. But he is also "through and through" ethical, because, rejecting any religion, he thereby rejects religious morality, in the place of which he has nothing to put but himself. Thus, the possibility of the most severe "stagnation" in the field of social sciences arises.
Publication of Russian thinkers of the early twentieth century. contributed to the formation of an understanding of the entire amoralism of the doctrine of the class struggle as the engine of history. The idea of K. Marx and V.I. Lenin about the necessary change of weapons of criticism by criticism of weapons began to be seen as a kind of justification for terror against dissent in all spheres of public life. The uniformity established as a result of this impoverished the study of historical reality, first of all excluding man from the process. S.N. Bulgakov wrote: "For the views of Marx, people are formed into sociological groups, and these groups sedately and naturally form regular geometric figures, as if nothing else happens in history besides this dimensional movement of socialist elements, and this is the abolition of the problem and concern for the individual, excessive abstractness is the main feature of Marxism, and it goes to the strong-willed mental warehouse of the creator of this system" (Bulgakov S.N. Philosophy of economy. M., 1990. P. 315). After the publication of the works of Russian thinkers of the early XX century. Many religious and myth-creating aspects of Marxism, its multifaceted idealistic beginning, have been revealed to wide layers of historians. ON THE. Berdyaev, in particular, wrote: "Marx created a real myth about the proletariat. The mission of the proletariat is an object of faith. Marxism is not only science and politics, but also faith, religion" (Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. M. , 1990, p. 83).
In parallel, there was a "rehabilitation" of foreign non-Marxist philosophy of history and historical thought. The reading circle of Russian historians included books by F. Braudel, L. Fevre, M. Blok, K. Jaspers, A. J. Toynbee, E. Carr and others. At the same time, their works clearly showed a respectful and objective attitude to the history of Russia , which clearly contradicted the main thesis of Soviet historiography about foreign literature as a falsification of the historical process. In this regard, the statement of L. Fevre is indicative: "... Russia. I have not seen it with my own eyes, I have not specifically studied it, and yet I believe that Russia, vast Russia, landlord and peasant, feudal and Orthodox, traditional and revolutionary, - this is something huge and powerful "(Fevre L. Fights for history. M., 1991. P. 65).
The described processes led to a rethinking of Marxism-Leninism as the theoretical basis of historical science. Historians have raised the question: to what extent does the Marxist theory of formations contribute to the deepening and progress of historical knowledge? During the discussions, many characterized the reduction of the entire diversity of the "world of people" to formational characteristics as "formational reductionism" (See: Formations or civilizations? (Materials of the "round table") // Questions of Philosophy. 1989. No. 10. P.34), leading to ignoring or underestimating the human principle, whatever it may be expressed. Thinking about this, A.Ya. Gurevich wrote: "... the world historical process can hardly be rightfully understood as a linear ascent from one formation to another, as well as the placement of these formations over chronological periods, because one way or another, at any stage of history, there is a synchronous coexistence and constant interaction of various social systems" (Gurevich A.Ya. Theory of Formations and the Reality of History // Questions of Philosophy. 1990. No. 11. P. 37). In addition, modern historical science has begun to study "small groups", while the formational approach to history involves operating with generalized concepts that express a high degree of abstraction.
The development of historical science in Russia has set before scientists the task of developing a flexible and adequate theoretical and methodological toolkit for the modern era. The above contradiction is only a manifestation of this trend. Attempts to resolve it led to the expansion of the methodological base of domestic historical science and the beginning of the formation of trends and schools. Among them, allowing a certain conventionality of classification, we can distinguish:
1) the Marxist trend, represented by the bulk of historians of both the center and the provinces. For certain reasons, it does not cover the vast layers of topical issues that have come to the fore in our days in the humanities;
2) the school of structural-quantitative methods, focused to a large extent on the achievements of Anglo-American historiography. Its supporters admit and demand:
a broad approach to the object of knowledge, its versatile consideration;
applications various methods identification, collection, processing and analysis of specific historical data;
comprehensive interpretation and generalization of the results of concrete historical analysis.
At the same time, the main goal of using the mathematical apparatus in research is to "as a result of mathematical processing and analysis of the initial quantitative indicators, obtain new information that is not directly expressed in the initial data. A historical and meaningful analysis of this information should provide new knowledge about the phenomena and processes under study "( Quantitative Methods in Soviet and American historiography. M., 1983. P. 13);
3) the school of "anthropologically oriented history", whose representatives proclaimed that "the most promising are the modern schools of humanitarian knowledge that explore the sign systems inherent in a given civilization, the system of behavior of people belonging to it, the structure of their mentalities, their conceptual apparatus," psychological equipment "" (Odysseus. A man in history. Studies in social history and the history of culture: 1989. M., 1989. P.5). In their research, historians of this trend are guided by the achievements of the historical and psychological school of pre-revolutionary Russia (L.P. Karsavin, P.M. Bitsilli), the French, and now international, school of the Annales (M. Blok, L. Fepp, F. Braudel, J. Duby) and the West German school of "everyday history".
In addition, but the second half of the 80's - early 90's. there has been a revival of regional historiography associated with the collapse of the idea of unification of historical science. Despite the presence of crisis phenomena in provincial historical thought, researchers started talking about the originality and specificity of local history (See: Balashov V.A., Yurchenkov V.A. Regional history: problems and new approaches // Bulletin of Mordov. University. 1991. No. 4. P. 10 - 14).
The main problems of pre-revolutionary national history. Modern domestic historiography is characterized by a wide exchange of views on a number of key problems of the domestic feudal phase of historical development. One of the main topics at the same time is the questions of the genesis of feudalism in Ancient Russia. Until recently, when considering them, the traditions of the school of B.D. Grekov (works by B.A. Rybakov, M.B. Sverdlov, etc.), the main idea of which was the idea of the original feudalism of Ancient Russia. Three main factors appear as evidence of the development of the feudal mode of production:
1) a system of state taxes and duties (hence - free smerds became feudally dependent);
2) the use of iron tools (this led to the emergence of economically independent small families and neighboring communities);
3) all types of violence perpetrated by the feudal boyars, with the help of which they gradually asserted their dominance, turning community members into slaves and purchases (See: Goremykina V.I. On the genesis of feudalism in Ancient Russia // Questions of history. 1987. No. 2. P.80). A somewhat different position was taken by I.Ya. Froyanov, who finds, with some reservations and peculiarities, in Russia in the 9th - 11th centuries. late birth society. Finally, V.I. Goremykina tried to change the established point of view and stated: "It seems to us that among the Eastern Slavs the society from the 6th - 7th centuries had a slave-owning character, and then in Russia. In the 12th century it turned into a feudal society" (Ibid., p. 100). A.P. took a more flexible position. Pyankov, who saw the presence of a layer of slaves in the cities of Russia as early as the 11th century. He erected the Old Russian statehood to an earlier time than the VIII - IX centuries.
Almost simultaneously, the question of the genesis of statehood in Russia was raised. Academician B.A. Rybakov published a number of works, where he recognized the Kyiv region as the basis of Ancient Russia, leading its ancestry from the Polyansky principality. This point of view goes back to the works of D.I. Ilovaisky and M.S. Grushevsky and was supported only by P. Tolochko. A.P. criticized her. Novoseltsev, who called to begin the history of Ancient Russia, as B.D. Grekov and other scientists, from the unification of the north (Novgorod) and south (Kyiv).
It should be noted that under the conditions of the new historiographic situation, it became possible to criticize hitherto indisputable authorities, in particular, the works of the same B.A. Rybakov. Among his mistakes and inaccuracies were attempts to date the time of the formation of the Slavs to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, to deny the role of Novgorod in the formation of the Old Russian state, to date the beginning of the chronicle in Kyiv to the time of Askold and Dir, etc. According to A.P. Novoseltsev, "under the direct influence of Rybakov's views, a number of authors of various qualifications began to search for Rus among clearly non-Slavic ethnic groups (Huns, etc.), and the most zealous try to link the Rus even with the Etruscans!" ("Round table": historical science in the conditions of perestroika // Questions of History. 1988. No. 3. P. 29). Serious criticism was caused by the attitude of B.A. Rybakov to sources, in particular, to ancient and Arabic. Moreover, criticism of his constructions in many cases was very impartial. The same A.P. Novoseltsev wrote: “His (B.A. Rybakova. - Auth.) fantasy sometimes creates impressive (for non-specialists) pictures of the past, which, however, have nothing in common with what we know from surviving sources. Any science needs hypotheses, but what Rybakov does with the history of Russia cannot be attributed to scientific hypotheses" (Novoseltsev A.P. "The World of History" or the myth of history? // Questions of History. 1993. No. 1. P. 30).
In connection with the formation of the Old Russian state, the question of the role of the Normans in the genesis of statehood was again raised in Russian historiography. At the same time, there were three approaches to the news of the chronicle about the calling of the Varangians. Some researchers (A.N. Kirpichnikov, I.V. Dubov, G.S. Lebedev) consider them basically historically reliable. They proceed from ideas about Ladoga as "the original capital of Upper Russia", the inhabitants of which took the initiative to call Rurik. In their opinion, this step was very far-sighted, as it made it possible to "regulate relations practically on the scale of the entire Baltic." Others (B.A. Rybakov) completely deny the possibility of seeing in these news a reflection of real facts. The chronicle story is interpreted as a legend that developed in the heat of ideological and political passions of the late 11th - early 12th centuries. Sources, according to, for example, B.A. Rybakov, "do not allow us to draw a conclusion about the organizing role of the Normans, not only for organized Kievan Rus, but even for that federation of northern tribes that experienced the burden of the Varangian raids." Still others (I.Ya. Froyanov) capture in the "legend about Rurik" echoes of real incidents, but by no means those that are told by the chronicler (For more details, see: Froyanov I.Ya. Historical realities in the annalistic legend about the calling of the Varangians // Questions of history. 1991. No. 6. S.5 - b).
Along with Western factors of influence on the Old Russian state in modern Russian historiography, the problem of Eastern influence is quite acute, the formulation of which is associated with the research of G.A. Fedorova-Davydov and L.N. Gumilyov. Special mention should be made of the latter in view of the wide popularization of his views. L.N. Gumilyov made a number of hypothetical statements: about the peculiar nature of the Mongolian religion, bringing it closer to monotheism or Mithraic dualism, about the conscious invention of the "legend of Prester John" by the Jerusalem feudal lords, about the campaigns of Batu in 1237 - 1240. as about two "campaigns" that only slightly reduced the "Russian military potential", about the "first liberation of Russia from the Mongols" in the 60s. 13th century etc. [See: Lurie Ya. S: On the history of one discussion // History of the USSR. 1990. No. 4. P. 129). There are direct contradictions between them and the testimony of sources, as B.A. pointed out in his time. Rybakov (See: Rybakov B.A. On overcoming self-deception // Questions of history. 1971. No. 3. P. 156 - 158).
The change in the historiographic situation led to the publication of books on the history of feudalism, the concept of which differs from the traditional one. An example is the monographic studies of A.A. Zimin on the formation of the boyar aristocracy in Russia in the 15th - early 16th centuries, on the prerequisites for the first peasant war, etc. In them, the scientist proceeds from the idea that the fate of society and the individual is inevitably and always interconnected. In addition, his idea of noticeable traces, remnants of specific decentralization in Russia at the end of the 15th - 16th centuries is interesting.
In the second half of the 80s. the role of the church in the history of Russia began to be assessed in a new way. A number of works have been published on its relationship with the authorities: A. Kuzmin - on the Christianization of Russia (1988), Ya.N. Shchapov - about the relationship between the state and the church in the X - XIII centuries. (1989), R.G. Skrynnikov - on the connection between the Soviet and spiritual authorities in the XIV - XVII centuries. (1990), V.I. Buganov and A.P. Bogdanov - about rebels in the Russian Orthodox Church (1991). A.P. Bogdanov in the book "Pen and Cross. Russian Writers Under Church Court" (1990) managed to show the involvement of the church in the state security system from the 16th to the beginning of the 20th centuries. - the process is equally dramatic for the Russian church and Russian society.
AT modern conditions it became possible to move away from the ideological assessments of the peasant wars, which were traditionally called anti-feudal. However, only bourgeois revolutions could be such. N.I. Pavlenko wrote about this: “The peasants, as you know, due to many reasons of their existence, could not“ invent ”new socio-economic relations and the political system. During the uprisings, the peasants fought not against the system, but for its improved version ... " (Pavlenko P.I. Historical science in the past and present // History of the USSR. 1991. No. 4. P. 91). Some authors began to abandon the idealization of peasant wars, write about their robbery character, the destruction of material and spiritual culture, morality, the plundering of landowners' estates, the burning of cities, etc. There has been a departure from the thesis about the loosening of the feudal-serf system as the main result of the peasant wars. The realization came that after the suppression of the uprisings, the nobility not only restored the old order, but also strengthened them by improving the administrative system and increasing duties in favor of the feudal lord.
Of undoubted interest are attempts in modern conditions to investigate the formation of a service bureaucracy and its role in the development of a class-representative monarchy into an absolute one. When evaluating these processes, N.F. Demidova attributed their beginning to the 17th century, characterizing the order system as a manifestation of bureaucracy. From other positions, I.I. Pavlenko, who connected the emergence of bureaucracy in Russia with the unification government controlled in Peter's time. A similar point of view was expressed by E.V. Anisimov, who studied the history of the XVIII century.
The development of the problems of Russian absolutism has led historians to the concept of the "Petrine period" of history. It was most clearly defined by P.Ya. Eidelman: "Peter's Revolution determined Russian history for about a century and a half..." (Eidelman P.Ya. "Revolution from above" in Russia. M., 1989, p.67). Certain refinements to this formula were introduced by E.V. Anisimov, who expressed a paradoxical, at first glance, idea about the distinct conservative nature of the revolutionary nature of Peter the Great. The researcher wrote: "The modernization of institutions and power structures for the sake of preserving the fundamental principles of the traditional regime - that was the ultimate goal. It's about about the design of the autocratic form of government, which survived without significant changes until the 20th century, about the formation of a system of disenfranchised estates, which became a serious brake on the development of an inherently medieval society, and finally, about serfdom, which was consolidated during the Peter the Great reforms "(Anisimov E.V. Time Petrine reforms, L., 1989, pp. 13 - 14).
Publication or reprint reproduction of numerous "novels of the Empress", "Catherine's lovers", "women of Peter the Great", etc. in addition to a negative impact on the formation of mass historical thinking, they also had a positive significance in the form of a restoration of interest among professional historians in the role of the individual in history. There will be a departure from the one-dimensional characterization of tsars and pre-revolutionary politicians. N.I. Pavlenko writes about this: “It is clear that long reigns left their mark on the internal life of the state and its foreign policy. The tsar, in accordance with the measure of his enlightenment and understanding of the tasks facing the country, formed a "team", so to speak, a think tank that generated ideas and, with the permission of the monarch, put them into practice "(Pavlenko N.I. Decree. op. C .92) Biographies of well-known political and military figures, diplomats of the 18th century appeared: A. V. Gavryushkin published a book about Count N. I. Panin (1989), V. S. Lopatin - about the relationship between G. A. Potemkin and A. V. Suvorov (1992), P. V. Perminov - about the envoy of Russia in Constantinople A. M. Obreskov (1992) Finally, the monograph of A. I. Zaozersky about Field Marshal B.P. Sheremetev (1989) A.S. Mylnikov assessed the activities of Peter III in a different way.
Study of the essence of state power in the XVIII - early XX centuries. led to the formulation of the problem of the correlation of reforms and counter-reforms in the history of Russia. Appeal to political history"revolutions from above" occurred for the first time in the last decades of the development of historical science in our country and was to a large extent an indicator of the changes taking place in it.
Reforms in the early 19th century were analyzed quite seriously by M.M. Safonov and S.V. Mironenko. Through the prism of Count M.M. Speransky tried to present them to V.A. Tomsinov. The researchers came to the conclusion about the formation in Russian society of the consciousness of the need and inevitability of fundamental changes. Under these conditions, the government embarked on the path of reforms, and society initially turned to pressure on the government, support, pushing its reformist aspirations, then revolutionary struggle. The latter caused a reaction and a desire to strengthen the foundation of the existing system. From these positions, they began to consider the Decembrist uprising, which was reflected in the monographs of V.A. Fedorov "We are proud of our fate ..." (1988) and Ya.A. Gordin, The Reformers' Mutiny: December 14, 1825 (1989).
When analyzing the situation in the middle of the XIX century. there has been a shift in the chronological framework of reforms. According to some researchers, the thaw began in the mid-1950s. XIX century., The reforms themselves were a typical "revolution from above". Let us note that new approaches to the analysis of reforms have emerged in the works of economists, not historians. G.X. Popov considered the economic, social, ideological and political roots of the reforms, the immediate causes that made them necessary and forced the tsar to take the initiative and carry it out from above. He gave material on attempts at reform, in particular, he gave an assessment of the experiments being carried out with state and specific peasants. G.X. Popov showed that in the struggle between ardent opponents, liberal-minded and ardent supporters of reform, each of whom defended his own reform program, not a “Prussian”, not an “American”, but a special “Russian” way of overcoming feudal relations was born, which prepared the development of capitalism . He wrote: “The reform of 1861 was an outstanding maneuver of the most powerful and most experienced absolutism in the world. It outstripped the internal maturation of the crisis. Skillfully maneuvering, in essence, always remaining in the minority, making concessions to the feudal lords, absolutism developed and carried out the version of transformations that to the greatest extent met the interests of the autocracy and its apparatus "(Popov G. X. The abolition of serfdom in Russia // Origins. Questions of the history of the national economy and economic thought. M., 1990. Issue 2. P. 69).
The problem of the relationship between reforms and revolution in the analysis of the post-reform development of national history became central in the studies of this period. A.A. Iskanderov, B.G. Litvak, R.Sh. Ganelin and others. Its consideration is taking into account the alternative development. In this regard, the statement of A.A. Iskanderova: "Russia in the 20th century really faced not one, but two possible paths of development: the path of the revolutionary overthrow of the existing system and the path of the peaceful transformation of society and the state" (Iskanderov A.L. Russian monarchy, reforms and revolution // Questions of history. 1993 No. 7. P. 126). Correlation between reforms and revolution in Russian history at the beginning of the 20th century. quite fully considered in the monograph by R.Sh. Ganelina (1991). He managed to show that the reforming activities of tsarism were not limited to the events of December 1904, February and October 1905. In his opinion, the government’s attempts to organize reforms did not stop, various commissions and subcommissions, constant and one-time meetings, other state structures embodying the monarch’s will.
The question of Stolypin's reforms came up in particular. According to academician I.D. Kovalchenko, received a "widespread interpretation of the" Stolypin path "almost as a model of agrarian development, which supposedly should be taken into account and even reproduced in the modern restructuring of agrarian relations in the Soviet countryside. There is not only an ignorance of the historical approach and reliable facts, but and opportunistic falsification of an important historical event" (Kovalchenko I.D. Stolypinskaya agrarian reform(Myths and reality) // History of the USSR. 1991. No. 2. P.53). I.D. Kovalchenko, denying the developments of recent years, stated that "the Stolypin agrarian reform, in fact, failed even before the first" world war ", and" the socialist revolution in Russia was inevitable, due to the peculiarities of its historically primarily agrarian development "(There pp. 69, 70. Many researchers held the position of ID Kovalchenko. Stolypin completely opposite political forces. N.Ya. Eidelman wrote about this: “On the one hand, the new prime minister and his policies were subjected to various revolutionary blows. The Bolsheviks considered the fight against Stolypin as a class problem, while the Socialist-Revolutionaries, anarchists, to a large extent fought against the personality of Stolypin himself, waged terror against members of his family ... The right-wing nobility and Nicholas II, who listened to him very much, saw in Stolypin a "violator of age-old foundations", transferring the original noble power to the bourgeoisie "(Eidelman N.Ya. Revolution from above" in Russia. M., 1989. P. 163 - 164 ).
Political history of the turn of the XIX - XX centuries. is in the center of attention of modern Russian historiography, it has relegated to the background the previously widely studied socio-economic processes. Among the published works, the monograph by S.V. Tyutyukin about the July political crisis of 1906 (1991), book by G.A. Gerasimenko on zemstvo self-government until 1917 (1990), the last works of J. Avrekh on the political situation on the eve of the revolution of 1917. Quite interesting studies came out on the history of tactical parties: G.D. Alekseeva - populist parties (1990), N.G. Dumova - the Cadets in the First World War and the February Revolution (1988), etc. V.M. Zhukhrai published the book "Secrets of the Tsarist Okhrana: Adventurers and Provocateurs" (1991), which shows the behind-the-scenes history of the ruling circles of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. He writes about the higher ranks Russian police and agents embedded in the revolutionary movement.
At the intersection of political and social economic history works on the classes and estates of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century were published. A very interesting monograph by A.N. Bokhanova "The big bourgeoisie of Russia. The end of the 19th century - 1914" (1992), in which, for the first time in historiography, the number and composition of the upper stratum of entrepreneurs is considered, the sources of its replenishment are clarified, and the ratio of class and estate characteristics is analyzed.
New approaches to the study of the February Revolution have been outlined. They were initiated by the monographs of L.M. Spirin "Russia, 1917: From the history of the struggle of political parties" and G.3. Ioffe "Great October and the epilogue of tsarism". They combined traditional Soviet historiography approaches with new trends. Continuing to develop this trend, D.3. Ioffe in 1989 published a book about General L. Kornilov and the beginning of the formation of the "white cause".
Soviet period in the work of modern researchers. The rethinking of the history of the Fatherland of the Soviet period began in the second half of the 1980s. in journalism, the leader of which was, without a doubt, Yu.N. Afanasiev. Yu. Karyakin, N. Shmelev, G. Popov, and others actively spoke, proposing a new conceptual understanding of individual stages of history and developing a "concept" of "blank spots". Assessing the situation of those years, G.A. Bordyugov and V.A. Kozlov wrote: "... "Professorial" journalism gave a broad panorama, historians worked on the details. But since there were immeasurably more "details" and "white spots" than historians capable of dealing with them, professional historical journalism was drowning in a wide sea of popular non-professional articles..." (Bordyugov G.A., Kozlov V.A. History and conjuncture. M., 1992. P.8). They proposed a kind of periodization of the development of historical journalism:
1988 - "Bukharin boom",
1988 - 1989 - "Stalinade"
1989 - 1990 - Trial of Lenin
1990 - "the return of Trotsky".
One can argue about its details, but the essence of the processes, in principle, was noted correctly.
Historical journalism has played its role - it has succeeded in identifying and posing the most poorly developed problems, acute questions of historical development, and outlining new conceptual approaches. However, it did not rise to the level of a truly new historiography, as noted by the American researcher M. von Hagen. During this time, historians have not written anything that was not known to world historical thought. At the same time, journalism created the ground for a new historical conjuncture. G.A. Bordyugov and V.A. Kozlov note: "... Soviet historiography with all the cognitive structures, the psychology of personnel, ideas and guidelines, objectively speaking, was only ready to take out a worked-out block of concepts gleaned from " short course history of the CPSU (b)", and replace it with another..." (Ibid., p.31).
Despite the wide interest in history in the mid-80s, historical science was reorganized quite slowly (See: Davis R.W. Soviet historical science in the initial period of perestroika // Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences. 1990. No. 10). And yet, in the end, she "behind" politics and its maintenance.
In the late 80s - early 90s. researchers of the Oktyabrskaya; revolutions freed themselves from ideological dictates, the source base expanded, it became possible to use the scientific potential of non-Bolshevik historiography, which opened up qualitatively new opportunities for rethinking traditional stories. The barrier that arose as a result of a vulgarized formational approach is being eroded, which makes it possible to fit the events of 1917 into the context of Russian and world history of the 20th century. This applies primarily to the complex of contradictions that determined the content and meaning of the revolution. Some researchers (V.P. Dmitrenko and others) argue that in 1917 there were phenomena that did not always fit into the framework of "socialist construction". In their opinion, it is appropriate to talk about the existence of parallel ("small") revolutions, such as the national liberation, the poor-proletarian, the agrarian-peasant revolutions. It should be borne in mind that the conditions of the Russian industrial surge and the participation of the empire in the First World War gave a special color to these revolutions. The complex of various conflicts expanded the substantive framework of the revolution, made the composition of its participants, programs and goals extremely diverse. This weakened the vanguard of the revolutionary forces in the person of the parties and, at the same time, ensured the rallying of the impatient, rapidly radicalized rank and file.
Researchers propose to consider the events of 1917 as a single revolutionary cycle, exceptionally complex in its components, dynamics, self-realization, as the Great Russian Revolution. In the course of it, a factor arose that had a decisive influence on the ongoing processes - the total collapse of the institutions of power. V.P. Dmitrenko argues: “The most tragic milestone on this path was the liquidation of the monarchy. The bond of statehood was torn off society, then the social and administrative ties that had been developing for centuries began to break and the usual foundations of the people’s self-consciousness were shaken. The absence of an alternative management system gave rise to growing chaos in all spheres of society. .." (October Revolution: expectations and results // Patriotic history. 1993. No. 4. P. 213).
An opportunity arose for a deeper analysis of the social forces that participated in the 1917 revolution. When developing this direction, the priority attention is paid to the peasantry. Among the numerous works on this topic, the studies of V.V. Kabanov, who fully substantiated the thesis about the significant losses of the peasantry as a result of the revolution. He believes that the Decree on Land (1917) aroused a lot of hopes and then disappointments. There was not enough landowner land, for the peasant lack of land was due not only and not so much to feudal remnants as to agrarian overpopulation.
The agrarian question in the revolution and civil war is one of the most intricate in Russian history. Recent studies have shown that on the eve of 1917 Russian peasant suffered not so much from lack of land, having an average of 5 - 7 acres of arable land per capita, but from the low culture of agriculture. The analysis of statistics made by V.P. Butt, showed that the "black redistribution" of 1917-1918. only by 5 - 10% increased peasant allotments due to the actual destruction of 20 thousand landlord farms, which supplied about half of the marketable grain to the market. These processes to a large extent contributed to the spontaneous collapse of the army, the split of society, the disorganization of the economy and the deterioration of the food supply, etc.
New approaches to the study of the civil war raised again questions that had not been resolved in the course of the previous development of historical science in the country. Among them is the problem of the beginning of the civil war, which is interpreted ambiguously. IN AND. Petrov expressed a conceptual consideration about the lack of connection between the revolution and the civil war. In his opinion, the revolution acts only as a prerequisite for a civil war, but armed violence during the overthrow of the regime cannot be identified with the beginning of a civil war. The events from October 1917 to February 1918 serve in his interpretation as a prologue to the civil war. A different position was taken by E.G. Gimpelson, who declared that it was the October Revolution that served as the beginning of the civil war. He believes that the Civil War was inevitable, because the Bolshevik Party decided to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and with its help lead the country along the path of socialism. In his opinion, this was the main reason for the civil war, since the implementation of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism in a peasant country inevitably caused a negative response not only from the overthrown ruling classes, but also from a significant part of the peasantry. L.M. offered his interpretation of events. Spirin, who singled out not one, but several civil wars in Russia. The first of them, unleashed by the Bolsheviks, began in the summer of 1917 and ended in October, the Second Civil War began in October 1917, went through three stages and ended in 1922. The first stage - from October 1917 to the summer of 1918, when cardinal transformations (redistribution of property and strengthening of power) were decided mainly by the unarmed. The second stage - from the summer of 1918 to the end of 1920 - is the main period, the actual civil war. From 1921, the third stage begins - the real civil war, the people's war (a series of uprisings in Kronstadt, in the Tambov province, in Siberia, in Ukraine, the North Caucasus, etc.).
A rather complicated problem is the solution of the question of the guilt of certain forces in unleashing a civil war. Yu.P. Sharapov declared the incorrectness of such a formulation of the issue, because it is known that both sides are to blame. He was supported by V.I. Petrov, according to whom history is "to blame", a confluence of objective tragic circumstances. D.3. Joffe took a different position. In his interpretation, the civil war was the result of a struggle for power unleashed by political structures. E.G. spoke more definitely. Gimpelson, who laid the blame for the outbreak of the civil war on the Bolsheviks, in whose ideas and practice the war was contained, is already in potency. For example, the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was based on the split of society according to the socio-ideological principle, dividing it into "clean" and "unclean", against which any form of violence, up to mass terror, can be applied.
Serious scientific development problems of the consequences of the civil war. Almost all researchers point out that these events led to:
huge social upheaval and demographic "deformation;
rupture of economic ties and colossal economic ruin;
change in psychology, mentality of the general population.
Many scientists believe that it was the civil war that had a significant impact on the political culture of Bolshevism, which was characterized by the following features: curtailment of inner-party democracy; the perception not only by the top of the party, but also by the broad party masses of the installation on the methods of coercion and violence in achieving political goals; the support of the party on the lumpenized sections of the population.
Since the mid 80s. NEP was in the center of attention of historians, economists, social scientists. Studies have appeared on the possibilities of the NEP, its crises and prospects (V.P. Danilov, V.P. Dmitrenko, V.S. Lelchuk, Yu.A. Polyakov, N.S. Simonov). A comparison of different points of view made it possible to create a basis for further analysis, which determined new concrete historical studies. Historians noted that even under the NEP, political interests prevailed over economic expediency, which was an immanent feature of Bolshevism: I.V. Bystrova writes: "On the one hand, the economic activity of the ruling apparatus was dictated by political interests. On the other hand, the solution of economic problems, the fate of the NEP again rested on a political problem - the question of power" (Bystrova I.V. State and Economy in 1920- years: struggle of ideas and reality // Otechestvennaya istoriya, 1993, no. 3, p.33). This can be seen quite clearly in the analysis of "Antonovism", which modern authors (S.A. Esikov, V.V. Kanishchev, L.G. Protasov) propose to consider as a peasant uprising, a form of popular resistance to the military-communist dictatorship. Moreover, the "Union of the working peasantry", interpreted as an element of organization and awareness in the movement, in their opinion, reflects the search for a peasant alternative to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" at the time of its crisis.
The study of the NEP gave rise to a number of problems. Particularly in the second half of the 1980s. in the domestic socio-political, historical and economic literature, questions were openly raised about the alternative paths of Soviet society, about the essence of power that has dominated the country for many decades (G. Popov, O. Latsis, Yu. Goland, L. Piyasheva). The problem of the formation of the so-called "command-administrative system", "state socialism", "totalitarianism" was posed in a general, evaluative way. Almost immediately, objections were raised against the concept of totalitarianism as a key one in the study of the USSR. Yu.I. Igritsky writes: "Their essence boiled down to the following:
1) the totalitarian model is static, with its help it is difficult to explain all the natural changes that have occurred in the communist countries and in the communist movement after the death of Stalin;
2) history has not known and does not know the situation when a dictator, a party, this or that elite group would completely and completely control the development of society and all its cells; the degree of approach to totality cannot be calculated either with the help of quantification methods, or, even more so, without them "(Igritsky Yu.I. Again about totalitarianism // Patriotic history. 1993. No. 1. P. 8). Quite typical in this regard is the statement of AK Sokolov: “It is no secret that this concept is taken from Western historiography. It denies the class and formational approach to the analysis of the historical process. At one pole - "totalitarian society", at the other - "free society", personified by the so-called "Western democracies". Every researcher who adopts the provisions of this theory should be aware that this entails a reassessment of all the events of our Soviet history, the actual rejection of the Marxist interpretation of the development of society" (Actual Problems of Soviet Source Studies // History of the USSR. 1989. No. 6. P.59).
Despite the criticism, the point of view about the dominance of the totalitarian system in the USSR was established in historiography. Yu.S. Borisov showed how by the end of the 30s. the creation of two protective regimes was completed - administrative-punitive and propagandistic-ideological. On a broader political plane, according to L.A. Gordon and E.V. Klopov, the transformation of democratic centralism into non-democratic, then into an authoritarian-administrative system and, finally, into an authoritarian-despotic system. K.S. Simonov made a conclusion about the essence of the regime of this power. He wrote: "It is possible that such a regime of power was finally found a form for the implementation of the Marxian idea of the" dictatorship of the proletariat "in one, separately taken country" (Simonov N.S. Thermidor, brumer or fruktidor? The evolution of the Stalinist regime of power: forecasts and Reality // Patriotic History, 1993, No. 4, p.17).
The concept of the formation of a totalitarian system in the USSR had an impact on the development of traditional topics for Russian historiography: industrialization and collectivization of agriculture.
In 1988 - 1989 articles by O. Latsis, L. Gordon, E. Klopov, V. Popov, N. Shmelev, G. Khanin appeared in the press,
3. Selyunina and others, who posed the problem of the content and scale of industrialization. They noted that during the era of industrialization, inflationary tendencies arose and huge shifts in prices took place. Therefore, comparisons based on generalizing cost indicators and characteristic of Soviet historiography turned out to be unreliable. Researchers overestimated growth rates, especially during periods of significant product innovation. This point of view was, to some extent, contrary to the official opinion that prevailed at the earlier stages of the development of historical science. Arguing with her, S.S. Khromov stated that industrialization made it "possible to overcome the contradiction between the most advanced political power established after October revolution, and inherited technical and economic backwardness "(Actual problems of the history of industrialization and industrial development of the USSR // History of the USSR. 1989. No. 3.S. 200). Rejecting the idea of the need for a slower pace by industry, he referred to V.I. Lenin, V.S. Lelchuk, who spoke out on this issue, took a compromise position. He repeated the traditional thesis about the industrial transformation of the country as the main result of the industrialization policy. However, at the same time he challenged the well-known conclusion about the transformation of the USSR during the pre-war five-year plans into an industrial power .
Serious disputes flared up around the problems of the history of collectivization, which were raised with sufficient severity in journalism (V.A. Tikhonov, Yu.D. Chernichenko, G.N. Shmelev, and others). At the same time, the deplorable state of modern agriculture was explained by the difficulties and troubles of collectivization. V.A. Tikhonov called the period of collectivization "the period of Stalin's civil war with the peasantry" (Collectivization: origins, essence, consequences // History of the USSR 1989. No. 3. P. 31). Yu.D. Chernichenko coined the term "agrogulag". G.N. Shmelev is less emotional in his assessments; they occupy a transitional position from the articles of publicists to the works of historians. Assessing collectivization as a whole, he writes: “The adoption of a course towards complete collectivization and dispossession of kulaks, to replace the alliance of the working class with the peasantry based on commodity exchange, on contractual relations, with relations of diktat and violence meant not only a change in the course of agrarian policy, but also the creation of a different political situation in country" (Shmelev G.N. Collectivization: at a sharp turning point in history // Origins. Questions of the history of the national economy and economic thought. M., 1990. Issue 2. P. 109).
Professional historians initially took a rather conservative position. Many of them (V.P. Danilov, I.E. Zelenin, N.A. Ivnitsky and others) began to write about the difficulties and shortcomings of agriculture, which were the result of collectivization and aggravated by the administrative-command system. A discussion was launched on the topic "The Great Break" of 1929 and the alternative of N.I. Bukharin, and several points of view were expressed on this issue:
1) there was undoubtedly an alternative, which can be confirmed by the materials of the 15th Party Congress and the 1st Five-Year Plan;
2) there was an alternative in the figurative sense, since N.I. Bukharin defended the Leninist cooperative plan against Stalinist perversions;
3) there was no alternative, since N.I. Bukharin and his group in the late 1920s. recognized the need for accelerated industrialization and complete collectivization.
At the same time, disputes flared up around the thesis of collectivization as a revolution carried out from above on the initiative of the state power, with support from below, by the peasant masses. The question was raised about the social image of the kulaks, the role of collectivization in strengthening the totalitarian system of society. essential role collections of documents prepared under the guidance of V.P. Danilova: "Documents testify. From the history of the village on the eve and during collectivization. 1927 - 1932." (1989) and "Cooperative and collective farm construction in the USSR. 1923 - 1927." (1991).
During the discussions, new approaches to the problems of collectivization were outlined, and the emphasis in assessing events shifted. For the first time in historiography, the processes associated with the famine of 1932-1933 began to be analyzed. (V.V. Kondrashin), deportation of peasants during the years of collectivization (N.A. Ivnitsky and others). At the same time, the traditional approach continues to exist, an example of which is the work of N.L. Rogalina. ). She interprets the questions of the food dictatorship and the activities of the committees in 1918 in the old way. She is convinced of the need to abolish small-scale commodity production, since it supposedly serves as the base of the kulaks. Permission in the years of the New Economic Policy (NEP) labor lease of land and subsidiary hiring and delivery of labor and means of production meant "a certain growth of capitalism." N.L. Rogalina passes off the progressive process of development of the peasant economy as "kulaking". Moreover, it overly trusts the official data on the number and proportion of the kulaks in 1926-1927, obtained on the basis of tax records. The researcher repeats the hackneyed thesis that for the rational use of technology, an enlarged area is needed, and not "single patches of land."
Fundamentally new approach outlined to some problems of the history of the Great Patriotic War. In particular, issues related to the start of the war were raised. The focus was on previously unknown documents that shed light on the relationship between the USSR and Nazi Germany. The most indicative in this regard are the books by Yu. Dyakov and T. Bushuyeva "The Fascist Sword Was Forged in the USSR" and "The Hidden Truth of War. 1941". They contain documents showing how the pre-war USSR helped to restore on its territory military power Germany. The authors convincingly showed that Soviet Russia, finding itself in international isolation after the civil war, the unsuccessful "Polish campaign", which revealed the insufficient preparedness of the Red Army, was looking for a way out of this situation in an alliance with Germany. The prospect was bright for both sides: the USSR, receiving German capital and technical assistance, could increase its combat power, Germany could have top secret bases on Russian territory for the illegal production and testing of weapons prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. The USSR also trained cadres of German officers (G. Guderian, V. Keitel, E. Manstein, V. Model, V. Brauchitsch, and others).
Serious controversy was caused by the publication of V. Suvorov's book "Icebreaker", which showed the role of the Stalinist leadership in unleashing the war. The author argued that the USSR was preparing for war and was taking real steps to force it.
In recent years, the question of a radical change in the course of the Great Patriotic War has been raised. In historical science, the point of view about the events of November 1942 - November 1943 as the year of a radical change still dominates. It was expressed by I.V. Stalin and repeated in the theses of the Central Committee of the CPSU for the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. On its basis, the events of the war were evaluated in the history of the Second World War, the history of the CPSU, textbooks and encyclopedias. In 1987, A.M. Samsonov and O.A. Rzheshevsky, who proposed that the battle near Moscow be considered the beginning of a radical change. They stated that the concept of "radical change" does not imply an invariably ascending process and temporary recessions are possible in it. They were supported by D.M. Projector, opposed by A.A. Sidorenko, L.V. Strakhov. An attempt to reconcile these points of view was made by A.V. Basov, who announced a radical change in the balance of forces of the parties during the battles of December 1941 - July 1943.
In modern historiography, a rather serious attempt was made to analyze the post-Stalin era. In 1991, scientists from the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU published a collective monograph "The 20th Congress of the CPSU and Its Historical Realities", which examined in detail the problems of economic and social policy, issues of ideology and culture, etc. The events of October 1964 were analyzed for the first time, and their objective basis was discussed. In recent years, researchers have turned to a number of particular problems. For the first time in historiography, the themes of the famine of 1946-1947 began to be developed. (V.F. Zima), deportation of the population (N.F. Bugai, G.G. Wormsbeher, X.M. Ibrahimbeyli, etc.), etc.
A serious analysis of the development of Soviet society in the second half of the 60s - the first half of the 80s. was started in the early 90s. In 1990, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU published a collective monograph "On the Threshold of a Crisis: Growing Stagnation in the Party and Society." The book shows various aspects of the state and evolution of society during the period of stagnation, a significant place was given to the analysis of negative factors in the economy, social sphere, etc. A year later, the Progress publishing house published a collection of articles "Dive into the bog: (Anatomy of stagnation)", containing sharper assessments of the period of the late 60s - the first half of the 80s. The authors (V. Tikhonov, V. Popov, N. Shmelev, A. Gurov, G. Pomerants and others) assess the era of "stagnation" as a natural legacy of mass violence against the people, unsuccessful attempts to reform society, and the exhaustion of its moral resources.
The development of the national history of the era of perestroika in modern historiography has not been analyzed from scientific positions. The available assessments are, as a rule, politicized and journalistic. Modern domestic historiography is developing in rather difficult conditions. However, a very positive trend has emerged in this development - the rejection of the ideological conjuncture, the revival of the atmosphere of discussions. Conceptually alternative points of view on national history are being formed, historical schools are being formed.
2
Russian historical science has existed for over 250 years and has made a significant contribution to the development and deepening of knowledge both about the history of our country and about world history as a whole. It is characterized by a wealth of different schools and directions.
emergence Patriotic history, as a science, is inextricably linked with the name of Peter I. He founded Russian Academy Sciences and began to actively invite foreign scientists to Russia. This practice continued under his successors. A significant contribution to the development of Russian historical science was made by the German historians G. Bayer (1693-1738), G. Miller (1705-1783), and A. Schlozer (1735-1809). Russian science owes them the introduction into scientific circulation of such a historical source as Russian chronicles. For the first time they translated into Latin and published the bulk of Russian chronicle sources. F. Miller, in particular, spent ten years in Siberia, where he collected and systematized the richest archival materials. The contribution of these scientists can hardly be overestimated - for the first time a group of sources was introduced into circulation, in scale exceeding the chronicles of European countries; For the first time, Europe learned about the existence on its eastern borders of a huge country with a rich history. Thanks to their efforts, Russian science immediately adopted the most advanced methods of working with sources - comparative linguistic analysis, a critical method of study, etc. It was these scientists who first wrote on the basis of annalistic data ancient history Russia, introduced into circulation information about the resettlement of the Slavs, about the most ancient Slavic settlements, about the foundation of Kyiv, about the first Russian princes.
The first proper Russian historian was one of the associates of Peter I, scientist - encyclopedist and politician V.N. Tatishchev (1686-1750), author of the four-volume "Russian History", covering the period from Rurik to Mikhail Romanov. For the worldview of V.N. Tatishchev is characterized by a rationalistic approach - for him, history is not the result of God's providence, but the result of human deeds. Through all his work, the idea of the need for a strong autocratic power runs like a red thread. Only a decisive, strong-willed, educated sovereign, who is aware of the tasks facing the country, can lead it to prosperity. The strengthening of the autocracy leads to the strengthening of the country, the weakening, to its decline.
V.N. Tatishchev collected a unique collection of Russian chronicles. Unfortunately, after his death, his entire library burned down. But in his "History" he quoted these chronicles abundantly (literally whole pages). As a result, it contains a number of information that is not found anywhere else, and it is itself used as a historical source.
Works by V.N. Tatishchev, as well as the works of other historians of the eighteenth century. M.M. Shcherbatov (1733-1790) and I.N. Boltin (1735-1792) were known only to a narrow circle of specialists. The first author to gain truly all-Russian fame was N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826). His twelve-volume "History of the Russian State", written in the first quarter X IX century, became one of the most widely read books in Russia. N.M. Karamzin began writing the "History" being already a famous writer. His book, written in a lively, vivid, figurative language, read like a novel by Walter Scott. A.S. Pushkin wrote: “Everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their Fatherland. Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus. On the book of N.M. Karamzin was brought up by generations of Russian people, and even now it is read with interest.
The main idea of N.M. Karamzin - the history of the country is the history of its sovereigns. It is essentially a series of political biographies. Written after the Patriotic War of 1812, the book is imbued with a sense of patriotism and love for Russia's glorious past. N.M. Karamzin considered the history of our country as an inseparable part of world history. He drew attention to the backlog of Russia from the European peoples, considering this the result of a 250-year-old Tatar-Mongol yoke.
Russian historical science gained the greatest fame in the world thanks to the works of historians of the “state school” K.D. Kavelin (1818-1885), B.N. Chicherin (1828-1904) and especially S.M. Solovyov (1820-1879), the author of the twenty-nine-volume History of Russia from Ancient Times.
Their main focus of research was system state and legal institutions. According to the historians of the “statists”, it is through the study of the functioning of the system public institutions, its evolution, one can get an idea of all aspects of the country's history (economy, culture, etc.).
Historians of the "state school" explained the specifics of Russian history, its difference from Western history, by the geographical and climatic features of Russia. It was from these features that the specificity was derived social order, the existence of serfdom, the preservation of the community, etc. Many ideas of the state school are now returning to historical science, being comprehended at a new level.
Russian historians in the vast majority considered Russia as part of Europe, and Russian history as an inseparable part of world history,
subject to the general laws of development. However, the idea of a special way of development of Russia, different from the Western European one, also existed in Russian historiography. It was carried out in the works of historians belonging to the official-protective direction - M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875), D.I. Illovaisky (1832-1920). They are opposed history of Russia history of Western Europe. There, states were created as a result of the conquest of some peoples by others, in our country - as a result of the voluntary calling of sovereigns. Therefore, the history of Europe is characterized by revolutions, class struggle, the formation of a parliamentary system. For Russia, these phenomena are deeply alien. We are dominated by communal principles, the unity of the king with the people. Only we have preserved in its pure, original form the Christian religion - Orthodoxy. Historians of this direction enjoyed the support of the state, were the authors of official textbooks.
A major contribution to the development of Russian historical thought was made by the works of N.I. Kostomarov (1817-1885) and A.P. Shchapova (1831-1876). These historians first turned to the study of history directly people, his way of life, customs, temperament, psychological characteristics.
The pinnacle of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography was the work of the outstanding Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). There was not a single branch of historical science to the development of which he would not have contributed. He owns the largest works on source studies, the historiography of Russian history, the history of state institutions, etc. The main work of V.O. Klyuchevsky - a five-volume "Course of Russian History". For the first time he paid attention to the action of the economic factor in the history of the country. It was this factor that formed the basis of the periodization of Russian history he proposed. IN. Klyuchevsky did not consider the economic factor to be decisive. Proceeding from the position of multifactoriality, he considered the role of the economy along with the role of geographical, climatic, cultural features. However, the recognition of the role of the economy in the development of society led to the popularity of V.O. Klyuchevsky and in Soviet times. His works were reprinted many times, Soviet historians considered V.O. Klyuchevsky as his spiritual predecessor, which was largely facilitated by his democratic convictions, a critical attitude towards autocracy. It was believed that V.O. Klyuchevsky "came close to Marxism."
Since the beginning of the XX century. in Russian historiography, the idea begins to take hold Marxism. The first Russian historians - Marxists were N.A. Rozhkov (1868-1927) and M.N. Pokrovsky (1868-1932).
ON THE. Rozhkov actively participated in the revolutionary movement, was a member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, a deputy of the III State Duma, was repeatedly arrested, and was exiled to Siberia. After the revolution of 1917, he broke up with the Bolsheviks, was arrested by the Cheka, and there was even a question of his expulsion from the country. The main work of N.A. Rozhkov - twelve-volume "Russian history in comparative historical coverage." In it he tried, proceeding from the Marxist form
theory, to single out the stages of social development that all peoples go through. Each stage of the history of Russia was compared with the corresponding stage in the history of other countries. The basis for changing the stages of the historical development of NA. Rozhkov, following Marx, staged the development of the economy, but supplemented it with an attempt to build a history of spiritual culture, expressed in the change of "mental types" characteristic of each stage.
Most famous historian M.N. was a Marxist. Pokrovsky. Even before the revolution of 1917. he wrote the four-volume Russian History from Ancient Times and the two-volume Essay on the History of Russian Culture. During the revolution of 1905. M.N. Pokrovsky joined the Bolshevik Party. During this period, his Marxist convictions were finally formed. He recognizes the decisive role of the class struggle in history and from these positions begins to approach the history of Russia. M.N. Pokrovsky tried to determine the stages of development of Russian society, based on Marxist theory changes in socio-economic formations. He singled out the following stages: primitive communism, feudalism, handicraft economy, commercial and industrial capitalism. Russian autocracy and bureaucracy M.N. Pokrovsky considered as a form of domination of commercial capital.
After the revolution of 1917 M.N. Pokrovsky actually headed the Soviet historical science. He was Deputy People's Commissar of Education, headed the Communist Academy, the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the RSFSR, the Institute of Red Professors, and edited the journal "Historian-Marxist". During the Soviet period, he wrote Russian History in the Most Concise Essay, which became a textbook for secondary schools, and Essays on the Revolutionary Movement of the 19th-20th Centuries. The textbook by M.N. Pokrovsky was characterized by extreme schematism - history turned into a bare sociological scheme.
M.N. Pokrovsky was a revolutionary who devoted his life to the struggle against the autocracy. As a result, in his works, the entire pre-revolutionary history of Russia was depicted exclusively in black (“prison of peoples”, “European gendarme”, etc.).
In the 1920s, when the task was to discredit the old regime, these views of M.N. Pokrovsky were in demand. But by the 1930s, the situation had changed - the situation had stabilized, the power of the Bolsheviks had become quite strong, and a new goal was set for historical science - to educate patriotism, statehood, love for the Fatherland, including on the examples of the pre-revolutionary past. Under these conditions, the “Pokrovsky school” did not meet the new requirements. In the last years of his life, N.M. Pokrovsky was subjected to sharp criticism, and after his death in 1934. issued a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the teaching of history in the schools of the USSR”, where, in a manner characteristic of that time. M.N. Pokrovsky was defamed, and his textbooks were confiscated.
The Soviet period in the development of domestic historical science is rich in the names of historians, many of whom have gained worldwide fame. Among them, it is worth highlighting the works on the history of Kievan Rus B.D. Grekova, A.N. Sakharova, B.I. Rybakova, V.L. Yanina, M.N. Tikhomirov; on the history of the Moscow State D.N. Alshits, R.T. Skrynnikova, A.A. Zimina, V.B. Kobrina, V.V. Mavrodina; on the history of the Russian Empire XVIII- X I X centuries E.V. Tarle, M.V. Nechkina, N.I. Pavlenko, E.V. Anisimova; on the history of the late XIX - early XX centuries. AND I. Avrekh, B.G. Litvak. The founder of the economic history of Russia is rightfully considered S.G. Strumilin. The problems of the development of Russian culture are comprehensively covered in the works of D.S. Likhachev, M.A. Alpatov. This list of surnames can be continued. But they all worked on specific historical issues. The generalizing works of the conceptual plan were, as a rule, of a collective nature. Among them are those written in the 60-70s. ten-volume "History of the USSR", twelve-volume "World History". All these works were written from the standpoint of Marxism, which was the only official ideology of society.
In the 90s. works began to appear in which attempts are made to revise the existing conceptual provisions. The history of Russia is considered from the standpoint of a civilizational approach (L.I. Semennikova), from the standpoint of the theory of cyclicality (S.A. Akhiezer), from the standpoint of modernization theory. But all these attempts have not yet been successful. Creative search is at the initial stage, and has not led to the emergence of new concepts for the development of the history of Russia.
test questions
1. What is the essence of the world-historical concept of historical development?
2. What is the essence of the civilizational concept of historical development? Its main representatives?
3. What is included in the concept of "mentality"? What is the meaning of introducing this concept?
4. List the main stages in the development of Russian historical thought. What contribution did representatives of each stage make to the development of historical science in Russia?
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.
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.
The Middle Paleolithic is a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern humans. Neanderthals dominated Europe during the entire Middle Paleolithic.
The Upper Paleolithic is the period of domination of the modern type of people throughout the globe in the era of the last glaciation.
Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic; The period is characterized by the development of technology for the production of stone tools and 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, transition 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 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
In 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 even a special quarter arose, 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 more and 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 prohibited; 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 every 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 with the fact that the will of the gods was requested.
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.
Popular assemblies played an important role in the social life of Rome. 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 on 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 reconstructed the picture of this process in detail: “The rich began to transfer rent to themselves with the help of figureheads and, in the end, openly secured most of the land for themselves.”
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 troops 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,