History studies the traces of human activity. The object is a person.

Functions of historical knowledge:

Scientific and educational

Prognostic

Educational

Social memory

The method (research method) shows how cognition occurs, on what methodological basis, on what scientific principles. A method is a way of research, a way of constructing and justifying knowledge. More than two thousand years ago, two main approaches to historical thought arose that still exist today: the idealistic and materialistic understanding of history.

Representatives of the idealistic concept in history believe that spirit and consciousness are primary and more important than matter and nature. Thus, they argue that the human soul and mind determine the pace and nature of historical development, and other processes, including in the economy, are secondary, derived from the spirit. Thus, idealists conclude that the basis of the historical process is the spiritual and moral improvement of people, and human society is developed by man himself, while man’s abilities are given by God.

Supporters of the materialist concept argued and maintain the opposite: since material life is primary in relation to the consciousness of people, it is economic structures, processes and phenomena in society that determine all spiritual development and other relationships between people.

An idealistic approach is more typical for Western historical science, while a materialistic one is more typical for domestic science. Modern historical science is based on the dialectical-materialist method, which considers social development as a natural historical process, which is determined by objective laws and at the same time is influenced by the subjective factor through the activities of the masses, classes, political parties, leaders, and leaders.

There are also special historical research methods:

chronological – provides for the presentation of historical material in chronological order;

synchronous – involves the simultaneous study of events occurring in society;

dichronic – periodization method;

historical modeling;

statistical method.

2. 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-comparative

3.historical-typological classification

4.historical-systemic method (everything is in the system)

5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.

Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing its methods from it and itself influences its formation. Now the task of not just writing historical works on this or that topic is coming to the fore, but creating verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.

Features of modern historical science.

1. Sociocultural development

2. Spiritual and mental foundations

3. Ethno-demographic features

4. Natural geographical features

5. Political and economic aspects

6. Providentialism (by the will of God)

7. Physiocrats (natural phenomena, not God, but man)

8. Geographical, public, social factors.

9. Interdisciplinary approaches (social anthropology, gender studies).

3. Humanity in the primitive era.

Primitive society (also prehistoric society) is a period in human history before the invention of writing, after which the possibility of historical research based on the study of written sources appears. In a broad sense, the word “prehistoric” is applicable to any period before the invention of writing, starting from the beginning of the Universe (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 20th century, Soviet scientists Efimenko, Kosven, Pershits and others proposed systems for the periodization of primitive society, the criterion of which was the evolution of forms of ownership, the degree of division of labor, family relationships, etc. In a generalized form, such periodization can be presented 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 human history, when the main tools and weapons were made mainly from stone, but wood and bone were also used. At the end of the Stone Age, the use of clay spread (dishes, brick buildings, sculpture).

Periodization of the Stone Age:

Paleolithic:

The Lower Paleolithic is the period of the appearance of the most ancient species of people and the widespread spread of Homo erectus.

The Middle Paleolithic is a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern humans. Neanderthals dominated Europe throughout the Middle Paleolithic.

The Upper Paleolithic is the period of dominance of the modern species of people throughout the globe during 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 general human culture. There is no ceramics.

Neolithic is the era of the emergence of agriculture. Tools and weapons are still made of stone, but their production is being brought to perfection, and ceramics are widely distributed.

Copper Age

The Copper Age, Copper-Stone Age, Chalcolithic or Chalcolithic is a period in the history of primitive society, a transitional period from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Approximately covers the period 4-3 thousand BC. e., but in some territories it exists longer, and in some it is absent altogether. Most often, the Chalcolithic is included in the Bronze Age, but is sometimes considered a separate period. During the Eneolithic, copper tools were common, but stone ones still predominated.

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 the improvement of 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, later phase of the Early Metal Age, which replaced the Copper Age and preceded 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. Bronze Age civilizations go beyond the history of primitive society; other peoples' civilization takes shape during the Iron Age.

The term "Iron Age" is usually applied to the "barbarian" cultures of Europe that existed simultaneously with the great civilizations of antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Parthia). The “barbarians” were distinguished from ancient cultures by the absence or rare use of writing, and therefore information about them has reached us either from archaeological data or from mentions in ancient sources. On the territory of Europe during the Iron Age, M. B. Shchukin 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-agricultural cultures of the Thracians, Dacians and Getae.

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-comparative

3.historical-typological classification

4.historical-systemic method (everything is in the system)

5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.

Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing its methods from it and itself influences its formation. Now the task of not just writing historical works on this or that topic is coming to the fore, but creating verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.

Features of modern historical science.

1. Sociocultural development

2. Spiritual and mental foundations

3. Ethno-demographic features

4. Natural geographical features

5. Political and economic aspects

6. Providentialism (by the will of God)

7. Physiocrats (natural phenomena, not God, but man)

8. Geographical, public, social factors.

9. Interdisciplinary approaches (social anthropology, gender studies).

Humanity in the era of primitiveness.

Primitive society (also prehistoric society) is a period in human history before the invention of writing, after which the possibility of historical research based on the study of written sources appears. In a broad sense, the word “prehistoric” is applicable to any period before the invention of writing, starting from the beginning of the Universe (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 20th century, Soviet scientists Efimenko, Kosven, Pershits and others proposed systems for the periodization of primitive society, the criterion of which was the evolution of forms of ownership, the degree of division of labor, family relationships, etc. In a generalized form, such periodization can be presented 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 human history, when the main tools and weapons were made mainly from stone, but wood and bone were also used. At the end of the Stone Age, the use of clay spread (dishes, brick buildings, sculpture).

Periodization of the Stone Age:

Paleolithic:

The Lower Paleolithic is the period of the appearance of the most ancient species of people and the widespread spread of Homo erectus.

The Middle Paleolithic is a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern humans. Neanderthals dominated Europe throughout the Middle Paleolithic.

The Upper Paleolithic is the period of dominance of the modern species of people throughout the globe during 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 general human culture. There is no ceramics.

Neolithic is the era of the emergence of agriculture. Tools and weapons are still made of stone, but their production is being brought to perfection, and ceramics are widely distributed.

Copper Age

The Copper Age, Copper-Stone Age, Chalcolithic or Chalcolithic is a period in the history of primitive society, a transitional period from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Approximately covers the period 4-3 thousand BC. e., but in some territories it exists longer, and in some it is absent altogether. Most often, the Chalcolithic is included in the Bronze Age, but is sometimes considered a separate period. During the Eneolithic, copper tools were common, but stone ones still predominated.

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 the improvement of 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, later phase of the Early Metal Age, which replaced the Copper Age and preceded 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. Bronze Age civilizations go beyond the history of primitive society; other peoples' civilization takes shape during the Iron Age.

The term "Iron Age" is usually applied to the "barbarian" cultures of Europe that existed simultaneously with the great civilizations of antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Parthia). The “barbarians” were distinguished from ancient cultures by the absence or rare use of writing, and therefore information about them has reached us either from archaeological data or from mentions in ancient sources. On the territory of Europe during the Iron Age, M. B. Shchukin 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-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 contains many mysteries, which to this day cause controversy among scientists.

Apennine Peninsula

Roman civilization, like ancient Greek, was maritime. The Apennine Peninsula, fenced off from the mainland by the Alps, is washed from the west by the Tyrrhenian Sea, and from the east by the Adriatic Sea, which are parts of the Mediterranean Sea. True, unlike Greece, the coastline of Italy is much less indented: there are not a large number of convenient harbors and islands that made life so easy for Greek sailors. But this did not stop 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 Po, Tiber, and Arno rivers. Conditions for agriculture were not as favorable as, for example, in Egypt or Mesopotamia, although many ancient historians praised the abundant vegetation and other natural resources of Italy.

Let us outline the most important conditions due to which the Romans have now risen to such heights. The first of these conditions is that Italy, like an island, is surrounded, like a sure fence, by the seas, with the exception of only a few parts, which, in turn, are protected by impenetrable mountains. The second condition is that, although most of its coasts do not have harbors, the existing harbors are extensive and very convenient. One of them is especially advantageous for repelling invasions from outside; the other is useful for attacks on external 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., that is, in the era of the birth of Roman civilization, all these tribes had not yet completely emerged from the state of primitiveness. But other peoples who stood at a higher stage of development lived next to them - 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 commercial and cultural centers. This played a big role in the development of the future Roman civilization. After all, in the colonial cities the same forms of government were established as in Greece itself, philosophy, literature and art flourished. Greek technology, mythology, alphabet, agricultural skills, political system - 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 the main enemy of 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 itself sent colonists along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The Carthaginians were formidable opponents of the Greeks: in the 7th-6th centuries. BC e. They fought a stubborn battle with them for Sicily and managed to conquer a significant part of the island.

There are many mysteries associated 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 their language has not yet been deciphered. And yet, enough of the Etruscan culture has survived to judge its high level. The Etruscans were the Romans' closest neighbors: they occupied an area called Etruria (in the area of ​​modern Tuscany). Cities with a regular rectangular layout and stone houses and temples were erected there. The Etruscans were engaged in agriculture, trade, sea piracy, and crafts.

The Etruscans had a strong influence on the Romans: this was manifested in art, religion, city planning, and the special architecture of houses - with a courtyard. From the Etruscans, the Romans took signs of royal power - bundles of rods with hatchets embedded in them. Greek culture was adopted through the Etruscans. Connections 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 the Romans, and in Rome itself a special quarter even arose where immigrants from Etruria lived.

As the power of the Romans increased, the Etruscans lost their importance. By the middle of the 1st century. 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 colonial cities: 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 2nd 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, and Etruscans, who stood at a higher level of culture. Communication with them made it possible to take advantage of “other people’s” achievements, and this accelerated the pace of development of Roman civilization.

THE PATH TO THE REPUBLIC

Patricians and plebeians

After the establishment of the republican system, conflicts in Roman society intensified. The main opposing forces were the patricians and plebeians. The position of the patricians after the overthrow of the monarchy improved significantly. From among them, consuls were chosen - 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 intricacies 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 was constantly increasing as Rome won military victories. This is how the patricians acquired large land holdings.

The plebeians were deprived of this privilege, many of them went bankrupt and were even turned into slaves for debt. There was only one way to solve this problem - to equalize the 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. Rome spent the first centuries of its history in endless wars with its neighbors, suffering defeats or winning victories, and in the future it remained a militarized state. In the initial period of the history of this civilization, military campaigns were carried out 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. Avoiding military service meant being sold into slavery. It was impossible to assemble a strong army without the participation of the plebeians; the patricians thus found themselves 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 neighboring Rome. This tactic worked - the patricians were forced to give in, and the plebeians won the right to have tribunes of the people - defenders of their interests. The personality of the tribune was considered inviolable. Subsequently, the plebeians more than once used the same method of pressure, and the patricians always made concessions.

One of the most important developments was the appearance of the first written laws in Rome. In 449 BC. e. the laws were written down on twelve copper tablets and put on public display in the Forum, the main square of Rome. This was the end of the arbitrariness of the patricians, who previously judged “according to custom.” But the struggle for political rights and land was not yet over. Only by the 3rd century. BC e. the plebeians eventually equalized their rights with the patricians. Marriages between patricians and plebeians were no longer prohibited; decisions made by assemblies of plebeians had the force of law; one of the consuls was necessarily chosen from the plebeians. Debt slavery was abolished, and the right to own public land was limited: now each citizen could receive a plot of no more than 125 hectares.

In the 3rd century. BC e. The civil community of Rome was finally formed. By this time, its internal life had also changed, and its composition expanded - the patrician community turned into a patrician-plebeian one.

Civic community of Rome

In the Roman community, as in the Greek, collective and private land ownership were combined; all citizens had equal rights and were not only farmers, but also warriors. The concepts of “good farmer”, “good warrior” and “good citizen” long merged into one whole in the minds of the Romans.

Farmers make the bravest men and the most enterprising warriors, and farming is the most pious and sustainable occupation...

Community life was organized in such a way as to maintain a balance between personal and social benefits. In Rome there were no taxes to support the state apparatus. People holding senior positions did not receive a salary and had to organize feasts, games, build temples, and provide poor citizens with plots of land at their own expense. The path to the top was open primarily to the nobility, which included patricians and the plebeian elite. On the other hand, the richer the citizen was, the more money he was obliged to spend for the common benefit.

Military service was a duty for citizens, but an honorable duty. A person could not become a statesman without military experience. Only in the 4th century. the soldiers began to be paid salaries: before that they were content with the fruits of their victories and had to take care of weapons and food themselves. When the war began, a loan was taken from citizens, which was returned after the victory. War booty became the property of the community, and all citizens enjoyed it. The taken land was added to the public land, and then divided between the soldiers and the landless. Precious metals and other tribute went to the community treasury. The rest was distributed among the soldiers, who were also given gifts by the generals.

Nobility - from the Latin word “nobilis” - “noble, noble”.

Religion was of great importance in the life of the Romans. 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 guardian of the hearth and the state, Juno - the goddess of the moon and patroness of women, Minerva - the goddess of wisdom, patroness of crafts. There were many other gods, and their number was increasing all the time. The Romans willingly accepted “foreign” gods - Etruscan, Greek, and then eastern.

Religious rituals were a kind of public duty of citizens: members of the community had to participate in the rituals of their family, honoring the “family” gods, and in national rituals. Any business in Ancient Rome began with the will of the gods being sought.

Historians call the Roman religion rational and practical. Relations with the gods were, so to speak, of a business nature: one had to remain faithful to the gods, strictly follow rituals and various prohibitions, and in return one could count on their help.

The highest judgment of a person in Ancient Rome was carried out not by gods, but by society - fellow citizens assessed a person’s actions, expressed approval or disapproval. The best citizens were role models; people should be guided by their deeds performed for the common good.

Thus, the idea of ​​“common benefit” determined both the order in the civil community and the behavior of each individual member. The obligations of a Roman citizen were clearly established: the first place was duty to society, the second to the family, and the last to concern for one's personal welfare.

Public assemblies played a large role in the public life of Rome. Resolutions of people's assemblies had the force of law. In addition, the tribunes had high powers: they had the right to impose a ban on 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 had to remain open both day and night so that any plebeian could find protection there.

The most important governing body was the Senate, consisting of patricians and the top plebs: it was in charge of issues of domestic policy and determined foreign policy; finances and religious cult were under the control of the Senate. The Senate was an aristocratic body. Historians believe that, despite all the importance of popular assemblies, it was he who ultimately led the state. In this respect, Roman democracy differed from Athenian democracy.

In Republican Rome, traditions inherited from the monarchy were also preserved. The highest power belonged to two consuls. True, they were re-elected annually, but their powers were practically no different from those that the kings had previously had. After their election, consuls were even given symbols of royal power. Outside Rome, during wars, the power of the consuls was unquestioned, but in the city it was limited by the Senate and popular assemblies. Ancient historians were aware of the uniqueness of their statehood and considered it the most perfect.

I Republic - literally translated from Latin as “public matter”. A state in which power belongs to people chosen by society for a certain period of time.

The first of them was Polybius (201-120 BC), a Greek by birth, who lived in Rome for many years and became his enthusiastic admirer. Polybius created a theory that explained why the Romans were able to rise above many nations. In his opinion, Rome had the best form of government - a mixed one, combining democracy (popular assemblies), a monarchical principle (consuls), and an aristocratic principle (Senate). None of these principles of government suppressed the others, but taken together they formed a single harmonious whole.

Path to world domination

In the 4th century. BC e. The Romans took possession of the entire territory of Central Italy.

The Romans conquered almost the entire known world 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 Italian tribes as their allies. This meant that they had to pay a war tax to Rome and send troops to help the Roman army. Rome did not interfere in the internal affairs of the allies, but did not allow them to conclude treaties 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 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.

3rd 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 brutal wars with Carthage for decades. The Punic Wars (the Romans called the Carthaginians Punns), which began in the middle of the 3rd century. BC e., continued intermittently until the middle of the 2nd 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. marked by victory over Greece. Having crushed the two most serious opponents and rivals, Rome in the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e. became a world power covering the entire Mediterranean, and subsequently continued to expand its borders.

Military successes and expansion of territory caused global changes in various areas of Roman civilization. Victories over Carthage and Greece enriched Rome. Huge indemnities were collected from the conquered peoples, and a flow of slave power began to flow into the slave markets.

Conquered countries (outside Italy) became provinces of Rome and were taxed. Trade ties began to be quickly established with rich provinces.

Social and 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 2nd century. BC e. in Italy there were a lot of small and medium-sized peasant farms, in which mainly family members (surnames) worked, providing for themselves. In the II-I centuries. BC e. such natural farms began to die and were replaced by other, larger ones, in which slave labor was used, and the products were partially sent to the market.

The new farms were called villas; from the stories of contemporaries we know what they were like. The outstanding politician of that era, Catan the Elder, described his own estate, which he considered exemplary. Cato had a complex farm: an olive grove, a vineyard, a pasture for livestock and a field of grain crops. To maintain such a villa, the labor of many people was required, mostly slaves: 13 people looked after the olives, and at least 16 people looked after the vineyard. Cato was very interested in the profitability of his villa and the opportunity to sell his products. “The owner should strive to buy less and sell more,” he wrote.

The small and middle peasantry went bankrupt or were simply forcibly deprived of their land, while slaves began to turn into the main producers, displacing the labor of the free. Ancient historians wrote with alarm and indignation that the old law was forgotten, according to which a citizen was supposed to have no more than 125 hectares of land. The Greek historian Plutarch reconstructed in detail the picture of this process: “The rich began to transfer the lease to themselves with the help of dummies and, in the end, openly secured most of the lands for themselves.”

Peasants deprived of land became tenants or farm laborers. However, the farm laborers could not secure a permanent income for themselves: 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 sought rights against the patricians. Some managed to find work as artisans or construction workers, others formed a special layer - the ancient lumpen proletariat - and existed due to state distributions of bread, money or the generosity of politicians who won votes.

The slaves, who in that era became a special class, were also not homogeneous. Their numbers have increased incredibly compared to former times, when slavery was domestic. On the island of Delos alone, 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, emitting inarticulate sounds, and dumb tools; Slaves are among those who speak, oxen are among those emitting inarticulate sounds, and carts are among those who make inarticulate sounds. Marcus Varro, Roman writer, 116-27. BC e.

Among the city slaves, who, of course, were in a more privileged position, there were many educated, qualified 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 rooms, special polishing of marble, mirror tiles, etc.

Transformations also occurred in the upper strata of society. The Roman nobility began to be squeezed out by a new monetary aristocracy - the horsemen. The horsemen, as a rule, belonged to the ignorant but wealthy townspeople who became rich from trade or collecting taxes in the provinces.

Significant changes were taking place in society; its structure became more complex, and, consequently, the relationships between different layers became more complex. For example, rivalry arose between the nobility and the horsemen for the right to exploit the provinces. In addition, the horsemen strived for higher positions, practically unavailable to them at that time. Conflict grew between large and medium-sized, as well as small landowners. Already in the 2nd century. BC e. The first slave uprising occurred (in Sicily) - another important source of social tension opened up.

Serious problems were also associated with the provinces. Rome faced the question: how to manage them? A governor was appointed to the province, who for a year, until his term ended, had full power and virtually ruled there uncontrollably, as if it were his own fiefdom. The provincials were also ruined by tax collectors, who contributed the required amount to the treasury, and then robbed the population for their own benefit. In essence, governance came down to the robbery of the provinces, and this was unprofitable even from the point of view of the Romans themselves.

Residents 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 reduced rights, or even none at all, and this, of course, was a source of discontent and conflict.

Having turned into a huge power, Rome could no longer remain a community. The first signs of the destruction of its traditional structure and norms of community life appeared in the 2nd century. BC e., and soon this process unfolded in full force.

Searching for a way out

The answer to the approaching crisis was the reform of Tiberius and Gaius the Greeks. A descendant of an ancient plebeian family that belonged to the Roman nobility, Tiberius Graiah, elected tribune of the people in! 33g. Don. created a project for land ownership reform. He decided to resurrect the principle of equalization in the use of land. Therefore, the main point of his program was that only a strictly defined quota of plots could be taken from everything else. A special commission was organized, which was supposed to take away the surplus from large landowners and distribute it among landless citizens.

This program met with strong opposition from members of the Senate. The atmosphere was tense, and during one of the public meetings, an armed clash occurred between opponents and supporters of Gracchus, in which the tribune of the people 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 was to some extent implemented by his brother. Guy Gracchus resumed the activities of the commission, having managed to allocate land to 50-75 thousand families, but he too faced defeat. The struggle again reached an armed conflict, 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 through the “administrative” method (as, indeed, in any other way). 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, 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 population lost its former privileges. Rome as a civil community ended its existence.

At the origins of imperial power

The last decades of the republic's existence were full of turmoil: Rome experienced the Allied War, unrest in the provinces, a grandiose slave uprising led by Spartacus, in battles with which the Roman legions suffered defeats for a long time, and finally, the struggle of political groups for power, which resulted in civil wars.

During these turbulent years, a new form of government began to emerge, destroying the principles of the republican system - the sole power of a 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. The situation was repeated twice when they were given for life, without a term limit.

The first to achieve dictatorial power was the talented commander Sulla, the second was Caesar (100-44 BC), whose glory as a military leader and strategist survived centuries. Both relied primarily on the army, and this is no coincidence: 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 was it possible to maintain the political unity of a huge and variegated empire, streamline the administration of the provinces, and satisfy the interests of various strata of society.

The imperial sole power was finally 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 Augustus, that is, “exalted by the deity,” and “son of god,” as was the case in the eastern despotisms.

What significance did the change in the system of government have 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 the “creative spirit” has abandoned. 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 in comparison with the previous turbulent, troubled time of 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 managed the treasury, negotiated with other states, resolved issues of war and peace, and nominated candidates for senior government positions. However, Augustus himself, who became the first person in the state and had enormous powers, used them very wisely. He called himself princeps, that is, the first person on the list of senators, thereby emphasizing 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 and his supporters claimed to have restored the republic. In the minds of the Romans, the republic did not exclude individual rule, if this did not contradict the principle of “common benefit.” Jupiter, who throws thunder, we believe, reigns in the sky: here on earth Augustus is ranked among the gods...

Horace

To a certain extent, this principle underlay the activities of Octavian Augustus, who tried to stabilize relations between different layers of society. While strengthening centralized power, he at the same time made concessions that benefited everyone except the slaves to one degree or another.

The senators remained a privileged class, although they were obedient to the will of Augustus. At the same time, Octavian attracted new trade and monetary nobility, horsemen, to his side, appointing them to high positions. The popular assemblies also survived, despite the fact that they began to lose their importance even before the reign of Augustus. Poor citizens received free grain every month.

Augustus wanted to revive 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 imperial power: he expanded the administrative apparatus, under his command there were special troops that maintained order in Rome and on the borders.

During this era, Roman civilization experienced a rise: a certain stability was achieved in society, Roman literature reached an unusually high flourishing, in which a whole galaxy of talented original poets appeared, combining both Greek and native Roman traditions (Ovid, Virgil, Horace, Tibullus). Augustus was the patron of art and science, under him a water supply system was laid in Rome, and the construction of magnificent temples that adorned the city began. Contemporaries perceived this era as a “golden age.”

Empire after Augustus

However, after the death of Augustus (14 AD), it quickly became obvious that the system of government he 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 striking example of the violation of old republican traditions and legality is the attitude of the Senate towards Emperor Nero (reigned from 54 to 68), 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 Nero's footsteps; and in imperial Rome the basis of power was considered to be legality. Many rulers became famous for their wisdom and humanism (for example, the emperors of the Antonine dynasty, Marcus Aurelius - “the philosopher on the throne”), and their activities again resurrected dreams of a “golden age”. During the imperial era, the position of slaves softened somewhat,

From the editor: We thank the European University Press in St. Petersburg for the opportunity to publish a fragment from the book by historian Ivan Kurilla “History, or the Past in the Present” (St. Petersburg, 2017).

Let's now talk about historical science - how much does it suffer from violent storms in the historical consciousness of society?

History as a scientific discipline is experiencing overload from different sides: the state of historical consciousness of society is an external challenge, while the accumulated problems within science, calling into question the methodological foundations of the discipline and its institutional structure, represent internal pressure.

Plurality of subjects (“History in fragments”)

Already in the 19th century, history began to fragment according to the subject of study: in addition to political history, the history of culture and economics appeared, and later social history, the history of ideas and many directions studying various aspects of the past were added to them.

Finally, the most uncontrollable process was the fragmentation of history according to the subject of historical questioning. We can say that the process of fragmentation of history is pushed forward by the identity politics described above. In Russia, the fragmentation of history by social and gender groups occurred more slowly than by ethnic and regional variants.

Coupled with the fragmentation of the methodology used by historians, this situation led to the fragmentation of not only historical consciousness as a whole, but also the field of historical science itself, which by the end of the century was, in the words of the Moscow historian M. Boytsov (in a sensational situation among the professional community in the 1990s article), a pile of “shards”. Historians have come to state the impossibility of unity not only of the historical narrative, but also of historical science.

The reader has already understood, of course, that the idea of ​​the possibility of the only true historical narrative, the only correct and final version of history is contrary to the modern view of the essence of history. You can often hear questions addressed to historians: well, what happened in reality, what is the truth? After all, if one historian writes about an event this way, and another writes differently, does that mean one of them is mistaken? Can they come to a compromise and understand how it “really was”? There is a demand for such a story about the past in society (the recent attempt of the popular writer Boris Akunin to become a “new Karamzin”, and, to some extent, the debate about a “single textbook” of history, are probably growing from such expectations). Society, as it were, demands that historians agree to finally write a single textbook in which “the whole truth” will be presented.

There are indeed problems in history in which it is possible to find a compromise in understanding, but there are also those in which this is impossible: this is, as a rule, a story told by “different voices”, associated with the identity of a particular social group. The history of an authoritarian state and the history of victims of some “great turn” are unlikely to ever create a “compromise option.” An analysis of the interests of the state will help to understand why certain decisions were made, and this will be a logical explanation. But his logic in no way “balances” the history of those people who, as a result of these decisions, lost their fortune, health, and sometimes life - and this story will also be true about the past. These two views on history can be presented in different chapters of the same textbook, but there are many more such points of view than two: it can be difficult, for example, to reconcile the history of different regions in a large multinational country. Moreover, the past provides historians with the opportunity to create multiple narratives, and bearers of different value systems (as well as different social groups) can write their own “history textbook”, in which they can describe history from the point of view of nationalism or internationalism, statism or anarchy, liberalism or traditionalism. Each of these stories will be internally consistent (although, probably, each such story will contain silence about some aspects of the past that are important to other authors).

It is apparently impossible to create a single and consistent story about history that unites all points of view - and this is one of the most important axioms of historical science. If historians have given up on the “unity of history” quite a long time ago, then the awareness of the immanent inconsistency of history as a text is a relatively new phenomenon. It is associated with the above-mentioned disappearance of the gap between the present and the recent past, with the intervention of memory in the process of historical reflection of modern society.

Modern historians are faced with the problem of this multiplicity of narratives, the multiplicity of stories about the past that are produced by different social groups, different regions, ideologists and states. Some of these narratives are confrontational and potentially contain the germ of social conflicts, but the choice between them has to be made not on the basis of their scientific nature, but on the basis of ethical principles, thereby establishing a new connection between history and morality. One of the newest tasks of historical science is to work at the “seams” between these narratives. The modern idea of ​​history as a whole looks less like a single stream, and more like a blanket sewn from different scraps. We are doomed to live simultaneously with different interpretations and be able to establish a conversation about a common past, maintaining disagreements or, rather, polyphony.

Historical sources

Any historian will agree with the thesis formulated by the positivists that reliance on sources is the main feature of historical science. This remains true for modern historians as much as it was for Langlois and Seignobos. It is precisely the methods of searching and processing sources that students are taught in history departments. However, in just over a hundred years, the content of this concept has changed, and the basic professional practice of academic historians has been challenged.

To understand the difference in attitude towards the sources of historical science and the practice that preceded it, we must recall that what we call falsification of documents was a frequent occurrence in the Middle Ages and was not condemned at all. The entire culture was built on respect for authority, and if something was attributed to authority that was not said by them, but was certainly good, then there was no reason to question it. Thus, the main criterion for the truth of a document was the good that the document provided.

Lorenzo Valla, who was the first to prove the forgery of the “correct document,” did not dare to publish his “Reflection on the fictitious and false donation of Constantine” - the work was published only half a century after the author’s death, when the Reformation had already begun in Europe.

Over the course of several centuries, historians have developed increasingly subtle ways of determining the truth of a document, its authorship, and dating, in order to exclude the use of forgeries in their work.

“The past,” as we found out, is a problematic concept, but the texts of the sources are real, you can literally touch them with your hands, re-read them, check the logic of your predecessors. The questions formulated by historians are addressed precisely to these sources. The first sources were living people with their stories, and this type of source (bounded by time and space) is still important in working with recent and modern history: oral history projects of the 20th century have produced significant results.

The next type of sources were official documents remaining from the daily activities of various types of bureaucracies, including legislation and international treaties, but also numerous registration papers. Leopold von Ranke preferred diplomatic documents from state archives to other types of documents. Statistics - government and commercial - allows the use of quantitative methods in the analysis of the past. Personal recollections and memoirs traditionally attract readers and are also traditionally considered very unreliable: memoirists, for obvious reasons, tell their desired version of events. However, given the author's interest and comparison with other sources, these texts can provide much insight into events, motives, and details of the past. From the moment of its appearance, materials from periodicals began to be used by historians: no other source makes it possible to understand the synchronicity of different events, from politics and economics to culture and local news, as well as the pages of newspapers. Finally, the Annales school proved that any object that bears traces of human influence can become a source for a historian; a garden or park laid out according to a specific plan, or plant varieties and animal breeds bred by man, will not be left out. The accumulation of significant amounts of information and the development of mathematical methods for processing it promise great breakthroughs in the study of the past with the beginning of the use of Big Data processing tools by historians.

However, it is important to understand that in themselves, until they come into the historian’s field of interest, a text, information or material object is not a source. Only the question asked by the historian makes them so.

In the last third of the twentieth century, however, this practice was challenged. Having postulated the inaccessibility of the past, postmodernists reduced the work of historians to transforming one text into another. And in this situation, the question of the truth of this or that text faded into the background. Much greater importance began to be attached to the problem of what role the text plays in culture and society. The “Donation of Constantine” determined state-political relations in Europe for many centuries and was exposed only when it had already lost its real influence. So who cares if it was fake?

The professional practice of historians has also come into conflict with the instrumental approach to history that is spreading in society: if the past is not recognized as having independent value and the past must work for the present, then the sources are not important. Indicative is the conflict that broke out in the summer of 2015 between the director of the State Archive of the Russian Federation, Sergei Mironenko, who presented documentary evidence of the composition of the “feat of 28 Panfilov’s men” in the Battle of Moscow in 1941, and the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Medinsky, who defended the “correct myth” from being verified by sources.

“Any historical event, when completed, becomes a myth - positive or negative. The same can be applied to historical figures. Our heads of state archives must conduct their research, but life is such that people operate not with archival information, but with myths. Information can strengthen these myths, destroy them, and turn them upside down. Well, public mass consciousness always operates with myths, including in relation to history, so you need to treat this with reverence, care, and prudence.”
Vladimir Medinsky

In fact, politicians not only express their claims to control history, but also deny the right of historians to expert judgment about the past, equating professional knowledge based on documents with “mass consciousness” based on myths. The conflict between the archivist and the minister could be considered a curiosity if it did not fit into the logic of the development of the historical consciousness of modern society, which led to the dominance of presentism.

Thus, having parted with positivism, we suddenly found ourselves faced with a new Middle Ages, in which a “good goal” justifies the falsification of sources (or their biased selection).

Laws of history

At the end of the 19th century, the debate about the scientific nature of history focused on its ability to discover the laws of human development. Over the course of the 20th century, the very concept of science evolved. Today, science is often defined as “a field of human activity aimed at developing and systematizing objective knowledge about reality” or as “description using concepts.” History certainly fits into these definitions. In addition, various sciences use the historical method or historical approach to phenomena. Finally, we must understand that this is a conversation about the relationship between concepts developed by European civilization itself, and these concepts are historical, i.e. change over time.

And yet - do historical laws, “laws of history” exist? If we talk about the laws of development of society, then this question must obviously be redirected to sociology, which studies the laws of human development. Laws for the development of human societies certainly exist. Some of them are statistical in nature, some allow us to see cause-and-effect relationships in a repeating sequence of historical events. It is these kinds of laws that are most often declared by supporters of the status of history as a “rigorous science” to be the “laws of history.”

However, these “laws of history” were most often developed (“discovered”) not by historians, but by scientists involved in related social sciences - sociologists and economists. Moreover, many researchers identify a separate field of knowledge - macrosociology and historical sociology, which consider such scientists as “their” classics such as Karl Marx (economist) and Max Weber (sociologist), Immanuel Wallerstein and Randall Collins (macrosociologists), Perry Anderson and even Fernand Braudel (only the last one from the list is also considered by historians to be their classic). In addition, historians themselves very rarely in their works propose formulas for the laws of history or somehow refer to such laws. At the same time, historians take great pleasure in asking questions posed within the framework of macrosociological, as well as economic, political science, philology and other social science and humanities disciplines of the past, thus transferring the theories of related sciences to the material of the past.

It's easier to talk about historical discoveries. Discoveries in history are of two types: the discovery of new sources, archives, memoirs, or the formulation of a new problem, question, approach, turning into sources what was not previously considered sources, or allowing one to find something new in old sources. Thus, a discovery in history may be not only a birch bark letter discovered during excavations, but also a research question posed in a new way.

Let's dwell on this point in a little more detail. Since the time of the Annales school, historians have begun their work by posing a research question - this requirement seems to be common to all sciences today. In the practice of historical research, however, there is constant repeated clarification and reformulation of the question in the process of working on it.

The historian, in accordance with the hermeneutic circle model, constantly refines his research question based on the data he receives from sources. The final formulation of the historian’s research question becomes a formula for the relationship of the present to the past, established by the scientist. It turns out that the research question itself is not only the starting point, but also one of the most important results of the study.

This description well illustrates the idea of ​​history as a science about the interaction of modernity with the past: a correctly posed question determines the “difference of potentials,” maintaining tension and establishing a connection between modernity and the period under study (unlike those social sciences that seek to find an answer precisely to the originally posed question). question).

Examples of the laws of history can be the repeating patterns of the use of the past in modern debates (the selection in the past of subjects and problems that help in solving today's problems or in the struggle for a group vision of the future; the limitations of such selection, the influence of scientific works and journalism on the formation of the historical consciousness of society), and also ways of setting tasks and obtaining historical knowledge.

Notes

1. Cliometry is a direction in historical science that is based on the systematic application of quantitative methods. The heyday of cliometrics occurred in the 1960s and 70s. Published in 1974, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery by Stanley Engerman and Robert Fogel ( Fogel R.W., Engerman S.L. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston; Toronto: Little, Brown, and Company, 1974) caused heated controversy (findings about the economic efficiency of slavery in the southern United States were perceived by some critics as a justification for slavery) and showed the possibilities of cliometrics. In 1993, one of the book's authors, Robert Fogel, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, including for this research.

6. Monuments of cultural heritage - a strategic priority of Russia // Izvestia. 2016. 22 Nov.

7. The hermeneutic circle was described by G.-G. Gadamer: “We can understand something only thanks to pre-existing assumptions about it, and not when it is presented to us as something absolutely mysterious. The fact that anticipations can be a source of errors in interpretation and that prejudices that contribute to understanding can also lead to misunderstanding is only an indication of the finitude of such a being as man, and the manifestation of this finitude." Gadamer G.-G. About the circle of understanding // Relevance of beauty. M.: Art, 1991).

Topic 29. Characteristics of the state of historical science in Russia at the present stage.

1.The entry of the Russian historical community into world historical science. Common problems.

2. The gap and continuity of Russian and Soviet historical science.

3. Development of theoretical and methodological issues.

4. Topics, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.

Literature:

Dashkova T. Gender issues: approaches to description.//Historical research in Russia - II. Seven years later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugova. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.P.203-245.

Historical research in Russia: trends in recent years. M., 1996//Edited by G.A. Bordyugova.

History of everyday life: Collection of scientific works. St. Petersburg, 2003.

Krom M.M. Historical anthropology. St. Petersburg, 2004.

Krom M. Domestic history in anthropological perspective. .//Historical Research in Russia – II.Seven Years Later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugova. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.P. 179-202.

Kravtsov V.N. Transformation of the foundations of professionalism of historical knowledge in the modern historiographic process.//Images of historiography: Collection of articles /Scientific. ed. A.P. Logunov. M.: RGGU, 2000.

Myths and mythology in modern Russia/Edited by K. Eimermacher, F. Bomsdorf, G. Bordyugov. M., 2003.

Naumova G.R. Historiography of Russian history: textbook. aid for students Higher educational institutions / G.R.Naumova, A.E.Shiklo. M., 2009. P.225-240.

Sokolov A.K. The path to a modern laboratory for studying the modern history of Russia.//History and philosophy of Russian historical science. M., 2007. P.275-341

Chubaryan A.O. Historical science in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century // New and Contemporary History 2003. No. 3.

1. In your opinion, what are the gaps and continuities between Russian and Soviet historical science?

2. How are modern Russian and foreign historical sciences connected?

3. What theoretical and methodological issues are being developed by modern Russian historians?

4. Describe the topics, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.

Topic 30. B.N. Mironov.

Seminar lesson:

1. “Social history of Russia during the imperial period” as the first generalizing study of social history in world historiography.

2. Methodology for researching the social history of Russia.

3.Modernization concept of Russian history B.N. Mironov.

4.Revision of B.N. Mironov established the established provisions of Soviet historiography on the role of the autocracy in social changes, its relationship with the public, etc.

Literature:

Getrel P., Macy D., Friz G. Social history as metahistory.// Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., vol. 1, pp. I – XIV.

Discussion around the “Social history of Russia during the imperial period.” // Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., vol. 1, pp. XV-XL.

Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003.

Tests, problematic questions and exercises:

1.What methodological approaches and principles does Mironov use to study the social history of Russia? What are the advantages of these approaches and principles and what are their limitations?

2. What are the main provisions of B.N.’s concept of Russian history? Mironov. What are the features of the history of Russia and the features of modernization in Russia?

3. What established provisions of Soviet historiography are refuted by B.N. Mironov? Read one of the chapters of “Social History of Russia” and analyze how B.N. Mironov achieves a revision of traditional ideas.

4. What are the causes and nature of the October Revolution according to the concept of B.N. Mironov?

5. How does B.N. Mironov characterize and evaluate Soviet modernization?

6. What are the prospects for the historical development of Russia from the perspective of B.N. Mironov’s historical concept?

7. What ideas of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet and foreign historians does the author of “Social History of Russia” rely on?

Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

Biographical information. B. N. Mironov entered the Faculty of Economics of St. Petersburg State University in 1959. In 1961 he was expelled from the university for anti-Marxist views. In the same year, the rector of the university A.D. Alexandrov was restored by a student at the Faculty of History. After graduating from the history department in 1965, he served in the army. In 1966 he entered graduate school at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR. In 1969 he defended his candidate's dissertation, in 1984 his doctorate. Since 1970, he has worked at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and teaches at St. Petersburg universities and abroad. Author of seven books and more than a hundred articles, many of which were published abroad.

“Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII – early XX centuries). Genesis of the individual, democratic family, civil society and the rule of law.”

The main scientific work of B.N. Mironov is dedicated to social history. The so-called “new social history” refers to the research arsenal of sociology in describing the internal state of society, its individual groups and the relations between them. She was born in the second half of the twentieth century.

Social history introduces approaches borrowed from anthropology and social psychology. An integral component of the analysis of a social system is the reconstruction of a picture of the world characteristic of a given human community or a set of images, ideas, and values ​​that guided the behavior of members of a particular social group.

One of the guiding principles of social history has become interdisciplinarity: “the use of concepts, concepts and methodology of sociology, political economy, geography, anthropology, psychology, demography, statistics, political science.”

Social history does not describe events in their sequence. Social history analyzes primarily durable social structures, systems, institutions, long-term social processes and phenomena. Society is considered as an integral organism in which all elements interact in a complex system of resonant, direct and feedback connections, excluding the possibility of reduction and finding any one that can determine the entire historical development. Social history is based on a structuralist approach. Mironov follows him and builds a model and interprets the fundamental processes and forces that changed Russian society and the state during the imperial period. The study consists of two parts: – the first deals with social dynamics, the second deals with law, state and civil society. At the same time, he finds “a certain degree of historical inevitability” (progress) in the development of Russia, but does not specifically indicate what controls this process.

Social history is understood and conceptualized in the spirit of modernization. Mironov does not limit himself to the imperial period and provides a meta-description of Russian history to demonstrate its “normality.” By identifying patterns in the social development of certain areas of demography, family structure, etc. the author shows that Russia, albeit with some delay, followed the general pattern of development characteristic of Western Europe.

The fact that Russia lags behind Western Europe, according to Mironov, does not mean that it is a backward country. Mironov notes that psychologists have the concept of “socially neglected child.” This child was born normal, but in a difficult family. The poor parents drank and did not take care of the child, so his development slowed down. The child’s mental development is delayed and he cannot cope with the curriculum at school. But under favorable circumstances, a socially neglected child can catch up with the bulk of his peers, but not the best. According to Mironov, saying that Russia is a backward country is the same as calling it a socially neglected child. So in the Kiev era, the Russians were normal Europeans, but in the middle of the 13th century. For 250 years she found herself in the difficult conditions of the Mongol-Tatar yoke (a difficult childhood). Having freed itself from the yoke, Russia fell under serfdom for 250 years (a difficult adolescence). This has slowed everything down and made Russia underdeveloped, which cannot catch up with its peers from Western European countries. Mironov does not agree with this approach.

The historian says that Russia is going through the same processes belatedly, but not because it is mentally retarded or socially neglected, but because Russia as a state and civilization was simply born later than Western European ones. Kievan Rus was no longer a feudal state in the European sense of the concept. Feudal features appeared several centuries later in the 13th – 16th centuries. But Russia has always, at least for the last thousand years, when statehood arose, fled as fast as its neighbors in the West. Therefore, the scientist asserts: Russia is not backward, but a young and rapidly growing country, and comparing it with Western Europe is like comparing an adult and a teenager.

Mironov insists on the untenability of the idea of ​​the uniqueness of Russia's historical development. Despite periodic crises and deviations, from the point of view of B.N. Mironov, Russia as a whole followed the path of modernization together with the West.

The main difference between Russia and Europe is the asynchrony of development, and not the essence of the development process. The autocracy sought to speed up the process of development and introduced incredible tension into social life. This was the case during the implementation of the Soviet modernization project.

The scientist gives a favorable forecast regarding the future of Russia if it continues its development according to the Western European model and in due time achieves prosperity and the rule of law and civil society are established.

The author strives, avoiding both negativism and apologetics regarding national achievements, to reconsider many provisions and myths of Russian historiography that are not positive in relation to our history. Particularly unlucky in our historiography, as Mironov emphasizes, are Russian reformers and government policies. Their achievements were underestimated and even devalued. For example: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 is not considered an achievement, since in Western Europe it happened several centuries earlier and better. Mironov proposes to look at this problem more broadly and deeply, from the point of view of compliance of state policy with the economic, social, psychological and other capabilities of society. And also think about what would happen if the Western European model were implemented in Russia. Moreover, Mironov sees the reasons for negative assessments of his own history in the fact that they were created in the era of society’s struggle against the authoritarianism of state power in the name of establishing a legal society and state in Russia in pre-revolutionary historiography and then were picked up by Soviet historiography. The historian notes: nihilistic sentiments among the intelligentsia have always been in fashion in Russia (here there is a clear analogy of Mironov’s idea with the thoughts of the so-called “conservative” historians in this regard), condemning Russian orders and history was and is still considered good manners, even if there is no reason for this.

Mironov refutes the provisions that:

Russia was a typical colonial empire that oppressed the peoples inhabiting it.

Russian society was closed.

The Russians did not know self-government.

Serfdom blocked the socio-economic development of the country.

Russia was ruled not by laws, but by people.

The state and bureaucracy did not care about society and the people.

All or almost all reforms were untenable.

Autocracy in the 18th – 20th centuries. was an institution that hindered the development of the country.

Arbitrariness reigned in the courts.

The author writes that social institutions became more “rational” and relied more and more on certain legal norms rather than on custom and tradition. Narrow and limited social interaction changed to increasingly open and widespread. Real merit, not privilege, became the basis for promotion. Personality was given greater opportunities for expression, individuals successfully asserted their dignity and protested against corporate interference in personal life, whether this interference was based on the power of the patriarch within the extended family or on the power of the traditional land community. Or other corporate institutions.

Autocracy was a positive and driving force of social change in the country, usually going ahead of society. The autocracy for the most part worked in cooperation with the public. Basically, during the imperial period, the modernization process was successful. At the beginning of the twentieth century. Russia had become a de jure legal state, and civil society was in the process of formation. Why did the autocratic state fail to survive the First World War? The fact is that modernization progressed successfully with the leading role of the state, and was restrained by the people, who also participated in this process, but their mentality changed extremely slowly. This strengthened the gap between the Europeanized elite and the people and gave rise to asynchrony and tension in social processes and phenomena. The revolution, from Mironov’s point of view, was a natural phenomenon. Revolution is a normal, even positive reaction, as a temporary social disaster of modernization, designed to harmonize traditional Russian values ​​with the values ​​of a market economy. The October Revolution was not the Marxist progressive revolution that the revolutionaries believed they were fighting for, but rather a revolution against modernization and in defense of tradition. However, the Soviet government continued the modernization process and created conditions that ensured a peaceful transition to the final stage of modernization, the formation of an open and democratic society.

Specialists are amazed by the book’s huge source base. The author relies on the methodology and achievements of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet, American, Canadian, Australian and European scientists, as well as on his own research on a wide range of problems in the archives and libraries of Russia. The scientist mastered the array of accumulated data on the social history of Russia and creatively processed them based on his own concept. Mironov is fluent in cliometrics and provides extensive statistical data. His work has an unprecedented scholarly apparatus, including footnotes, an alphabetical bibliography, a subject index and an index of names, illustrations, and tables.

However, we must not forget that the modernization model is one of the possible in representing the dynamics of society. It tends to view the past through the prism of the dichotomies tradition/modernity, staticity/mobility, which does not limit understanding and minimizes the search for the originality of Russia's historical development. In addition, even foreign experts note that the concept of “normality” in the historical development of Russia is dangerously close to the absolutization of Western European and American standards of political and social development. It is not axiomatic that this Western model is desirable and that it is destined for a long life.

Exam questions:

1. The state of historical consciousness and the historical and scientific community of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

2. St. Petersburg and Moscow schools of historians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

3. D.I. Ilovaisky (scientific interests, methodological orientations, general concept of Russian history, etc.)

4. Phenomenon N.I. Kostomarov in Russian historiography.

5. V.O. Klyuchevsky. Main works and ideas.

6. V.O. Klyuchevsky about the subject and method of historical knowledge.

7. V.O. Klyuchevsky. "The course of Russian history and its concept." Concept of Russian history.

8. History of Russia in the 19th century. in the works of A.A. Kornilov.

9. Vlad in historical science A.A. Kiesewetter.

10. P.N. Miliukov as a public figure and historian. Continuity and novelty in his historical and scientific work. The history of Russia as the history of Russian culture.

11. S.F. Platonov Peculiarities of personality and historical and scientific creativity.

12. S.F. Platonov “Lectures on Russian history” (theoretical, methodological and conceptual foundations).

13. S.F. Platonov. The concept of the history of the Time of Troubles in Russia.

14. A.E. Presnyakov as a representative of scientific realism.

15. Works of A.E. Presnyakov on the history of Kievan Rus, the Great Russian state.

16. Eurocentrism in the concept of Russian history E.F. Shmurlo

17. Study of feudalism in the works of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky.

18. Contribution of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky.in the study of the history of social movements.

19. Masters of the biographical genre in historical research - N.K. Schilder and Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich.

20. Historian-diplomat S.S. Tatishchev.

21. Historical concept of K.N. Leontyev.

22. Historical concept of L.A. Tikhomirov.

23. Methodology and philosophy of history in the works of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

24. Historical concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

25. Development of theoretical and methodological foundations of source study A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

26. Marxism and pre-revolutionary historical science.

27. “Legal Marxism.” Dispute about the role of violence in history. P.B. Struve, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky and others.

28. “Subjective school” in Russian historiography. P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others.

29. Historiosophy V.S. Solovyova.

30. N.I. Berdyaev as a representative of the religious-philosophical paradigm of history.

31. Eurasian concept of Russian history (G.V. Vernadsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, R.O. Yakobson)

32. General characteristics of historical science in the Soviet period.

a. Periodization of historical science of the Soviet period.

33. Secular historical science in the 1920s–1930s.

34. Sociological method of studying the historical process in the works of N.A. Rozhkova.

35. M.N. Pokrovsky and his role in the formation of the Marxist face of historical science.

36. B.D. Grekov, M.N. Tikhomirov, L.V. Cherepnin as researchers of the history of ancient and medieval Rus'.

37. M.N. Druzhinin as a researcher of the peasant question in Russia.

38. A.L. Sidorov. The personality of the historian and the priorities of scientific research.

39. M.V. Nechkina. Contribution to the study of the revolutionary movement, the history of historical science and the popularization of historical knowledge.

40. P.A. Zayonchkovsky. Themes and features of the historian’s work.

41. I.D. Kovalchenko is a methodologist, source scientist, historical researcher.

42. L.N. Gumilev. The theory of ethnogenesis and the concept of Russian history.

43. Domestic historiography of the second half of the 80s - early 90s.

44. The current state of historical science in Russia.

45. B.N. Mironov. Social history of Russia.

46. ​​I.Ya. Froyanov is a researcher of Ancient and Medieval Rus'. Works on the modern history of Russia.

Trans...(from Latin trans- through, through, for) the first part of compound words meaning here: 1). Movement through any space, crossing it; 2). Designation of transmission through something. The second part of the complex word “form” means that the correspondence of manifestations of the same characteristics or different characteristics in the same manifestations is carried out through and in a new configuration of connections, the highest configuration of which is Meaning.

The disintegration of the “integral personality” occurs not only as a result of normatively and procedurally organized thinking techniques, but also as a result of specialization and technologization of material production. The question of turning a person into an appendage of a machine in the conditions of differentiated capitalist production was actively discussed by representatives of the “subjective school” (P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.I. Kareev, etc.). Mikhailovsky likened the narrow specialist to a “toe” .

See Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of creativity. – Kharkov: Folio, M.: AST, 2002.P.36.

In states of co-existence, a presentational, integral and world-forming connection appears as one that is born, emerges and forms.

In Russian philosophy, the idea of ​​a break in continuity was put forward by representatives of the Moscow philosophical and mathematical school in the theory of arrhythmology long before M. Foucault. In the sphere of thinking, arrhythmology, in contrast to analytics, manifests itself in a creative act - insight, intuitive grasp of meaning, in the social sphere - in catastrophes, revolutions, upheavals that interrupt linear evolution. Arrhythmology can be understood as the emergence of new impulsive centers with their inherent rhythms, redistribution of energy and a new adjustment of rhythms in general.

In Western historiography, the primacy in the conceptual formulation of the principle of multifactorial historical development belongs to the French historical school of the Annales.

Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. – St. Petersburg: JSC Komplekt. 2003. P.31.

Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. – St. Petersburg: JSC Komplekt. 2003.P.97-98.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history: Complete course of lectures. T.1. / V.O. Klyuchevsky - Mn.: Harvest, 2003. P.16.

See Leontyeva O.B. Marxism in Russia at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Problems of methodology of history and theory of the historical process / O.B. Leontyev. - Samara: Samara University Publishing House, 2004.

In exile, Russian scientists came up with the concept of Eurasianism.

Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of the story. New Middle Ages / N.A. Berdyaev. – M.: 2002. P.183.

They themselves put forward an ethical criterion of progress, thereby emphasizing the role of mental states in the dynamics of social reality.

See Rumyantseva M.F. Theory of history / M.F. Rumyantseva. – M.: Aspect Press, 2002. P.23-30.

See Koposov N.E. Stop killing cats! Criticism of social sciences / N.E. Koposov. – M.: New Literary Review, 2005.P.142-157.

Various options for a nonlinear “global” or “total” history were proposed by representatives of the “Annals” school.

It should be noted that ideological and political views and knowledge, like any other, are necessarily included in the context of the free and spontaneous activity of the historian. However, the purposeful normative implementation of ideological and political guidelines in historical research reduces its scientific potential.

Ilovaisky was married twice. He buried his first wife and all the children from his first marriage. The last to die in 1890 was daughter Varvara, married to Tsvetaeva. Son-in-law of Ilovaisky I.V. Tsvetaev married for the second time. and in this marriage M.I. Tsvetaeva was born.

Related information.

In fact, by now it has formed and requires its permission problem area domestic historiography.

Ideologically Russian historiography is split into Westernizing (liberal) and national-power, social-democratic and other “leftist” paradigms for the development of an explanation of the past. Each of them includes a large set of theories.

Liberal theory in modern Russian historiography is quite contradictory and has its own Russian logic of application. Discussions within this theory are not accidental. For example, “State and Evolution” by E. Gaidar and “Russian Statehood” by Akhiezer and Ilyin. Gaidar's main thesis is that private property is the foundation of the liberal policy of the state. The core of A. Akhiezer’s theory is the assertion that, historically, the Russian state and society are stuck in a state of “schism.”

Today we can note the onset of a new wave of conservatism in Russian social thought and Russian historiography. It came as a reaction to political processes in Russia, the beginning of which dates back to the second half of the 1980s. It is characterized by three generic characteristics: anti-Westernism, upholding the ideals of Orthodoxy and the resulting norms of social coexistence, and the ideal of a powerful centralized state. (M. Nazarov, L. Borodin, E. Volodin, Metropolitan John, A. Dugin, I. Shafarevich, A. Gulyga, S. Kurginyan, V. Kozhinov, etc.) on issues of attitude towards Russian emigration, Russian statehood and socialist past.

The national-power paradigm, like the liberal one, has no less variation. (N. Narochnitskaya “About Russia and the Russians”, A. Panarin “Strategies of Instability”. Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences - O. Yanitsky. “Sociology of Risks”, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (T. Oizerman. “Marxism and Utopianism”).

The Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISPI RAS) and its director, corresponding member of the RAS V. Kuznetsov and his team put forward and substantiated the ideological manifesto of Russian sovereignty, as well as a comprehensive program for the formation of the ideology of power. The leading one in modern domestic historiography of modern Russian history is the desire to substantiate "Russia's special path" to single out Russia as a special civilization and isolate it beyond the boundaries of the patterns inherent in the historical development of the West. The literature in this direction is extremely numerous.

I would like to note the heterogeneity of this direction.

An alternative to the idea of ​​a special path of development for Russia, Russia as a special civilization, is totalitarianism concept in Russian modern literature, which dates back to the works of L. von Mises, L. Shapiro, M. Fainsod, R. Pipes, E. Carrer d'Encausse, R. Conquest, repeatedly published in Russia and their domestic followers. In our domestic historiography The idea of ​​totalitarianism became almost politically official at a certain stage. These are the works of A.N. Yakovlev, D.A. Volkogonov, Yu.N. , movements, regimes”, prepared by the Institute of General History, etc.

The theory of totalitarianism quickly became outdated and, due to its obvious ideological fervor, stopped working. It was natural that the trend of so-called “revisionists” emerged, forced to acknowledge the discrepancy between the theoretical concepts of totalitarianism and the realities of Russian history. The next concept that has become widespread in explaining the modern history of Russia is modernization theory. The founders of this school - W. Rostow, S. Eisenstadt and others proceeded from the idea of ​​​​spreading the values ​​of liberalism in the world.

The theory of modernization, finding itself in a new qualitative environment—post-Soviet Russia—acquired new methodological features, in particular, about the “civilizational uniqueness of Russian modernizations.” It is necessary to recognize the achievements in domestic historiography of the history of modern Russia in works on stories of everyday life. This direction, historiographically associated with the “Annals school”, was continued in research on the social history of modern times (works by A.K. Sokolov, A.V. Shubin, S.V. Zhuravlev, E.Yu. Zubkova, M.R. Zezina , V.A. Kozlova).

Functionally Russian historiography is also split. On the one hand, it seems to be in demand: we see how intensively the historical past is exploited by politicians, how historical subjects are “woven” into the texts of other humanities, as a result of which the subject areas of various disciplines are blurred. On the other hand, knowledge about this past is being pushed to the periphery of humanities education. History as a profession is not prestigious.

The contradictions between the real use of historical narrative in different directions and the real low-status state in the system of humanities disciplines are obvious. The reason is the political orientation towards technocratism of practical politics, which excludes the importance of historical knowledge for the modernization of the country. This happens because the previous period of Russian history - the Soviet - is considered mainly in the liberal version, and also because in the global humanitarian space, postmodernist ideas about history as a literary literary product of a subject in a subjectivist space of time prevail.

In content In general, the state of historical science is characterized by a tendency towards descriptiveness, petty topics, and a decrease in the level of conceptual generalizations. The paradigm of historical knowledge has changed. Revealing history as a concept has given way to presenting it as information.

Levels of historical research – the dominance of microhistory over macrohistory. Intradisciplinary multi-topics: The history of everyday life. Gender and oral history. Demographic and environmental history. Intellectual history, etc.

3) Russian historical science lags behind the modernization tasks of Russian society and education reforms. Why? Firstly, there is a noticeable generational “gap” in the corporation of historians. The “departure” of a generation of Soviet-type scientists, the reorganization of faculties, changes in the composition of the scientific community for various reasons, the devaluation of history as a profession in market conditions, the absence of a commercial component of the profession of history itself - have destroyed the very “being” of the discipline. Awareness of this and taking measures to modernize historical science is one of the realities that characterize it.

Secondly, the “collision” with Western historiography, the active inclusion of new theories, schemes, ideas, terms into the arsenal, basically did not lead to the birth of its own new research concepts, but turned Russian historical science into a “production for processing” theories old for the West .

Thirdly, the formation of “new historiographies” in the post-Soviet space has put on the agenda the issue of Russian historians’ response to criticism and nihilism in relation to the entire legacy of Soviet historical science, to the often unfounded priorities of only the national-ethnic heritage.

Fourthly, the uncertainty of the status of historical science in the context of the evolution of the system of historical education and development university science as an equal academic science. Consequently, the study of the University as a carrier and producer of historical knowledge, as a “factory” for the production of new generations of humanists capable of fulfilling their social tasks.

I would like to note such an important area of ​​work as writing the history of the Russian State University for the Humanities, and for this purpose an analysis of the intellectual product that it produces (thesis and dissertation research, their practical significance, publications in scientific journals, the activities of the Russian State University for the Humanities in the media, demand in the labor market), and others in words – a “portrait” of the Russian State University for the Humanities as a subject of the educational and scientific space of modern Russia.

It is necessary to self-identify the university corporation of historians, determine the line of further development of historical education - the main mechanism for the reproduction of the scientific community - our contribution to the policy and practice of modernization of the country.

Fifthly , the role and significance of regional historiography as a historiographic phenomenon is not fully understood. This cultural projection of all-Russian historiography and at the same time a structure that has its own problem field of historical research is a regional community of scholar-historians of the region, scientific schools and directions, a system of historical institutions, training of historians, research projects, local sources, archives and library collections, scientific connections, forms of communication; public interest in history in the local sociocultural environment, forms of organization and activity of amateur historians, the relationship of professional science with the community of non-professional researchers, support for historical science from the regional administration, “regional patronage”, etc. To purchase the medicine Toximin, you do not need to go to the pharmacy - the drug is not available for free sale. The only purchasing option is to place an order online from official representatives and receive it by mail.

The task of historical science in extrapolating knowledge about the past to the present. The imperative of historical knowledge: based on the experience of the past, explain the present, predict and build the future in accordance with the achieved understanding. And for this you need general historical theory. How to develop it in conditions of methodological pluralism and ideological disputes?

Finally, The directional factors for the development of Russian historiography are the social order on the part of the state, the opposition, and various political forces. On the agenda is a cardinal problem of historiography: what does the national history of the Russian state look like and does it even have the right to exist? This problem has clearly manifested itself since the mid-1990s, when the authorities set the task of finding a national idea on the path of Russia’s advancement towards the intended market economy and Western-style society. Russian historians joined in the search for it. It was recognized that, using the statement of the French specialist on modern nations Ernest Renan “Oblivion... a distorted perception of one’s own history is an essential factor in the process of nation formation,” Russian historians began to develop problems of national history and were faced with the need to solve them together with political scientists, responding to question “Is it possible to seriously talk about “national history” as a scientific discipline in the multinational country of Russia?”

And again myths began to emerge, which Foucault wrote about as the inevitability of national histories. At the same time, some authoritative researchers suggest “forgetting about the nation.” In parallel, there is a negative trend towards a return to the previous “republican history”, for example, “History of Tatarstan”.

The current situation in the Russian media was called the “war of stories,” which, in the form of the “Cold War,” continues to this day. The very fact of the emergence of alternative interpretations of history destroys the unified federal information field.

Today we must recognize that historical heritage, along with language, religion and culture, is the most important element of national consolidation, and the creation of a comprehensive program is required to study it.

Apparently, we should not neglect the achievements of the Soviet era, for example, in the field of the same source study, or the scientific results of the Moscow-Tartu school of “cultural semiotics,” which developed an interesting methodology for the study of cultural structures as symbolic systems of social representations.

The theoretical basis for analyzing Russian realities is completely forgotten. Historians have not developed any independent concept for studying the unique development of post-Soviet Russia. Basically, there are attempts to “fit” this period of history into the models of “democratization theory”, “transitology”, “conflictology”, “elite theory”, etc.

To summarize, I will say that the most important condition for the development of historical science as a science is the improvement of teaching in history departments of history universities, the development of new directions in methodology, methodology, increased attention to the history of philosophy, increased attention to historiography courses. Another important condition for the development of Russian historical science is the formation of a new culture of source research, conditioning it on the new realities of the modern world.