The largest ancient Russian historian and publicist is Nestor (XI-XII centuries). Works: the life of Theodosius, reading about the life and destruction of Boris and Gleb.

Main ideas: 1) preaches Christianity; 2) proves the independence of Rus' from Byzantium; 3) condemns princely feuds, showing himself to be a patriot.

1113 - The Tale of Bygone Years.

Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711-165) is a major historian. Works: ancient Russian history, a brief Russian chronicler, comments on the dissertation of Miller and Bayer “The Origin of the Name and People of Russia.” Based on the role of the people in the history of enlightenment and autocracy.

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766-1826) - son of a landowner in the Siberian province (conservative). Works: History of the Russian state. He brought the story up to 1611.

He believed that history protects people and instructs people against anti-serfdom movements. Psychological analysis is the main method of writing his works.

Following N. Tatishchev, M. Shcherbatov were followed by N. G. Ustryanov, Ilovaisky.

The largest historian of the Bourgeois trend was S.M. Solovyov (1820-1879), rector of Moscow State University, Armory Chamber. Solovyov’s work: history of Russia from ancient times (29 volumes), brought the history up to 1775.

With Karamzin's subjectivist view of the development of history, he contrasted the idea of ​​historical regularity.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Iosifovich (1841-1911). Born into the family of a priest in the Penza province. Student of Solovyov. Works: course of Russian history (5 parts).

Other historians: Nayakshin Kuzma Yakovlevich, Khramkov Lenar Vasilievich, Matveeva Galina Ivanovna.

28. Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The struggle of two tendencies in the Russian government.

Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The struggle of two tendencies in the Russian government. Witte's significance as a financier, economist and statesman lay in the fact that he consistently implemented such a policy. S. Yu. Witte paid his main attention to strengthening finances and developing industry and railway transport. At the Special Meeting, significant differences emerged not only among the nobility, but also among the ruling bureaucracy, primarily between S. Yu. Witte and V. K. Plehve. Witte's views were eclectic, contradictory and subject to opportunistic influences. Before his appointment as Minister of Finance, he shared the main provisions of the Slavophil theory about the special path of development of Russia. There was a special meeting about the needs of the nobility, but his attempt was not successful. Witte saw the salvation of the nobility and the country in “bourgeoisizing” the nobility, reorienting its interests from land to industry and banking. However, Witte was alone at that time in his understanding of the inevitability of the replacement of the traditional agrarian system with an industrial one. His arguments of a general sociological nature did not find understanding and left indifferent the majority of the participants in the meeting, who lived by current interests. Witte's main opponent was V.K. Plehve, the leader of the reactionary-conservative minority. Witte was hated by this part of the ruling class for his financial and economic policies, which prevented the transformation of the state treasury into a cash fund to help this nobility. Objecting to Witte, Plehve questioned his idea of ​​the existence of universal, immutable world laws of social development. Calling them “fortune-telling,” he believed that discussions about them were appropriate only among students. Russia, according to Plehve, developed in a special way and has every reason to preserve its identity. It will be freed from the “oppression of capital and the bourgeoisie” and the future in Russia will remain with the nobility. In the name of this, the government in its social policy must be guided not by economic, but by political considerations, to strengthen the shaken local nobility, taking into account that it is the support of power and the guardian of morality in the localities. The disagreements that emerged at the meeting determined that its results were very modest and far from meeting the claims of the conservative-protective part of the landed nobility. He failed to change the general course of financial and economic policy to suit his interests. As a result of the meeting, laws were issued: on the establishment of noble land ownership in Siberia, on protected estates, on the establishment of noble mutual aid funds. The search for solutions to the peasant question had a limited scope: firstly, the landowner’s land had to remain sacred and inviolable, and secondly, this solution had to cost the treasury minimal expenses, since the state was guided by its usual considerations - to give less to the people in order to then take as much as possible from him. Nevertheless, during the discussion of this problem, significant disagreements emerged among the ruling elite. Just as in the question of the nobility, these disagreements found their personal manifestation primarily in the positions of S. Yu. Witte and V. K. Plehve. Witte is one of the few in the ruling spheres who, in search of solutions to the peasant question, proceeded not from ideological considerations, but from the position of economic progress. According to Witte, the key to solving the peasant problem could only be the equalization of rights of peasants with other classes. The disagreements in the ruling elite on the issue of revising peasant policy were so significant that in 1902, two parallel centers were created almost simultaneously to deal with this issue: a Special Meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry, chaired by S. Yu. Witte and the Editorial Commission for the revision of legislation on peasants of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, led by Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs A.S. Stishinsky. The initiator

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750)

Famous Russian historian, geographer, economist and statesman; author of the first major work on Russian history - “Russian History”. Tatishchev is rightly called the father of Russian history. “Russian History” (books 1-4, 1768-1784) is Tatishchev’s main work, on which he worked from 1719 until the end of his life. In this work, he was the first to collect and critically comprehend information from many historical sources. Russian Truth (in a brief edition), Sudebnik 1550, Book of the Big Drawing and many others. other sources on the history of Russia were discovered by Tatishchev. “Russian History” has preserved news from sources that have not reached our time. According to the fair remark of S. M. Solovyov, Tatishchev indicated “the way and means for his compatriots to study Russian history.” The second edition of Russian History, which is Tatishchev’s main work, was published 18 years after his death, under Catherine II - in 1768. The first edition of Russian History, written in the “ancient dialect,” was first published only in 1964.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov (1733-1790)

Russian historian, publicist. Honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences since 1776, member of the Russian Academy (1783). Shcherbatov was a historian and publicist, economist and politician, philosopher and moralist, a man of truly encyclopedic knowledge. In “Russian History from Ancient Times” (up to 1610), he emphasized the role of the feudal aristocracy, reducing historical progress to the level of knowledge, science and the mind of individuals. At the same time, Shcherbatov’s work is saturated with a large number of official, chronicle and other sources. Shcherbatov found and published some valuable monuments, including the “Royal Book”, “Chronicle of Many Rebellions”, “Journal of Peter the Great”, etc. According to S. M. Solovyov, the shortcomings of Shcherbatov’s works were the result of the fact that “he I began to study Russian history when I started writing it,” and he was in a hurry to write it. Until his death, Shcherbatov continued to be interested in political, philosophical and economic issues, expressing his views in a number of articles.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766 -1826)

Karamzin developed an interest in history in the mid-1790s. He wrote a story on a historical theme - “Martha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novgorod” (published in 1803). In the same year, by decree of Alexander I, he was appointed to the position of historiographer, and until the end of his life he was engaged in writing “The History of the Russian State,” practically ceasing his activities as a journalist and writer.

Karamzin’s “History” was not the first description of the history of Russia; before him there were the works of V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatova. But it was Karamzin who opened the history of Russia to a wide educated public. In his work, Karamzin acted more as a writer than a historian - when describing historical facts, he cared about the beauty of the language, least of all trying to draw any conclusions from the events he described. Nevertheless, his commentaries, which contain many extracts from manuscripts, are of high scientific value, for the most part first published by Karamzin. Some of these manuscripts no longer exist.

Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov (1817-1885)

Public figure, historian, publicist and poet, corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, contemporary, friend and ally of Taras Shevchenko. The author of the multi-volume publication “Russian history in the biographies of its figures”, a researcher of the socio-political and economic history of Russia, especially the territory of modern Ukraine, called by Kostomarov southern Russia and the southern region.

The general significance of Kostomarov in the development of Russian historiography can, without any exaggeration, be called enormous. He introduced and persistently pursued the idea of ​​people's history in all his works. Kostomarov himself understood and implemented it mainly in the form of studying the spiritual life of the people. Later researchers expanded the content of this idea, but this does not diminish Kostomarov’s merit. In connection with this main idea of ​​​​Kostomarov’s works, he had another one - about the need to study the tribal characteristics of each part of the people and create a regional history. If in modern science a slightly different view of the national character has been established, denying the immobility that Kostomarov attributed to it, then it was the work of the latter that served as the impetus, depending on which the study of the history of the regions began to develop.

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879)

Russian historian, professor at Moscow University (since 1848), rector of Moscow University (1871-1877), ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the department of Russian language and literature (1872), privy councilor.

For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on “The History of Russia,” the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. Its first volume appeared in 1851, and since then volumes have been published carefully from year to year. The last one, the 29th, was published in 1879, after the death of the author. “History of Russia” has been brought up to 1774. Being an era in the development of Russian historiography, Solovyov’s work defined a certain direction and created a numerous school. “History of Russia”, according to the correct definition of Professor V.I. Guerrier, yes national history: for the first time, the historical material necessary for such a work has been collected and studied with due completeness, in compliance with strictly scientific methods, in relation to the requirements of modern historical knowledge: the source is always in the foreground, sober truth and objective truth alone guide the author’s pen. Solovyov's monumental work captured for the first time the essential features and form of the historical development of the nation.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911)

Prominent Russian historian, ordinary professor at Moscow University; ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (extra staff in Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councilor.

Klyuchevsky is rightfully considered an unsurpassed lecturer. The auditorium of Moscow University, where he taught his course, was always crowded. He read and published special courses “Methodology of Russian History”, “Terminology of Russian History”, “History of Estates in Russia”, “Sources of Russian History”, a series of lectures on Russian historiography.

Klyuchevsky’s most important work was his “Course of Lectures,” published in the early 1900s. He managed not only to compose it on a serious scientific basis, but also to achieve an artistic depiction of our history. The course has received worldwide recognition.

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (1860-1933)

Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1920). Author of a course of lectures on Russian history (1917). According to Platonov, the starting point that determined the features of Russian history for many centuries to come was the “military character” of the Moscow state, which arose at the end of the 15th century. Surrounded almost simultaneously on three sides by enemies acting offensively, the Great Russian tribe was forced to adopt a purely military organization and constantly fight on three fronts. Purely military organization The Moscow state resulted in the enslavement of the classes, which predetermined the internal development of the country for many centuries to come, including the famous “Troubles” of the early 17th century.

The “emancipation” of the classes began with the “emancipation” of the nobility, which received its final formalization in the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility” of 1785. The last act of “emancipation” of the classes was the peasant reform of 1861. However, having received personal and economic freedoms, the “liberated” classes did not receive political freedoms, which was expressed in “mental fermentation of a radical political nature,” which ultimately resulted in the terror of the “Narodnaya Volya” and the revolutionary upheavals of the early 20th century.

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

Lecture notes on the History of the Fatherland

Im I I Mechnikov.. Department socially humanities economics and law..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

Tweet

All topics in this section:

History translated from Greek language means a story about the past, about what has been learned. History is the process of development of nature and society. History is also called the complex of social sciences (historical

Auxiliary historical disciplines
Auxiliary historical disciplines are subjects that study certain types or individual forms and contents of historical sources. To auxiliary historical disciplines

East Slavs
The question of the ancestral homeland of the Slavs and their ethnogenesis remains controversial in historical science. Branch of the Balto-Slavic tribes language group from the Indo-European migration wave and their settlement of the Center

Formation of the Old Russian State
The role of the Varangians in education Old Russian state. The question of the origin of the Russian state and the role of the Varangians in its formation already in the 18th century. divided historians

Political and socio-economic system
The political system of the Old Russian state combined the institutions of the new feudal formation and the old, primitive communal one. Supreme power - legislative, military, judicial

Church, foreign policy, appanage period
Christianity. An important milestone in the initial history of the Old Russian state was the adoption of Christianity from Byzantium, i.e. in its Eastern, Greek Orthodox form. Official, state

Rus' and the Golden Horde
Invasion of Batu. Establishment of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. At the beginning of the 13th century. there was a unification of the Mongol tribes (located in the region of modern Mongolia and Buryatia) under the rule of Timu

Stages and features of the process of unification of Russian lands. Characteristic features of the Moscow state. XIV – first half of the XVI centuries
The main stages and features of the process of unification of Russian lands. By the end of the XIII - beginning of the XIV century. A new political system emerged in Rus'. A fait accompli was the transfer

Reforms of the mid-16th century. Oprichnina
After the death of Vasily III in 1533 until the accession of his son Ivan IV (1547), the actual ruler was his mother, the young widow Elena Glinskaya. She dealt with her rivals - Prince Dmitrov

Time of Troubles. Russia under the first Romanov. Zemsky Sobors
Boris Godunov. After the death of Ivan the Terrible (1584) political crisis caused by unsuccessful Livonian War and oprichnina terror, took on the character of an open struggle between various boyars

Council Code of 1649, serfdom, popular movements, church reform, reunification of Ukraine with Russia, eve of reforms
The beginning of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. (1645-1676). In 1645, after the death of Mikhail Fedorovich, the throne was inherited by his only 16-year-old son Alexei Mikhailovich

Reforms of Peter I
Personality of Peter I. After the death of Fyodor Alekseevich (1682), at the request of the Streltsy, two kings were enthroned at once, the sons of Alexei Mikhailovich - the first, Ivan V Alekseevich (from Milo

Enlightened absolutism" of Catherine II
The era of palace coups. The time after the death of Peter (1725) and before the accession to the throne of Catherine II (July 1762) went down in history as the era of palace coups, during

Russia in the 19th century
1. Russia in the first half of the 19th century: from the liberal projects of Alexander I to the police-bureaucratic regime of Nicholas I. 2. Liberal-bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s

The state of Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries
Economic development countries. Industry. In the 90s of the XIX century, Russia experienced a rapid industrial boom, accelerated industrialization, large-scale industry grew

Formation of the Soviet state
(1917-1939) 1. The Bolsheviks are in power. Civil War. NEP. 1917-1926 2. Forced industrialization and collectivization. Total

Soviet Union during World War II
(1939-1945) 1. USSR on the eve and at the beginning of the Second World War. 1939-1941 2. Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 1.

Great Patriotic War 1941-1945
The beginning of the war with Germany. The first period of the war, from June 22 to November 1941, was the most difficult for our army and country. It was accompanied by significant superiority

USSR, Russia in the era of globalization of world history
(1945 – 2011) 1. USSR in post-war years. 1945-1953 2. USSR in 1953-1964. 3. USSR in 1964-1985. 4. "Per"

USSR in 1964-1985
Reshuffles in senior management. L.I. was elected to the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee. Brezhnev (58 years old), a more predictable person without bright colors leadership qualities and leader's ambitions

Perestroika" in the USSR. 1985 -1991
The objective need for profound changes was due to the crisis in the state and society, which became comprehensive and manifested itself

Russia in 2000 – 2011
Adjustment of the political course. On presidential elections in March 2000 V.V. Putin (who was B.N. Yeltsin’s candidate) won already in the first

Topic No. 1-2
Corvée is labor rent - free forced labor a dependent peasant working with his own equipment on the farm of the land owner - the feudal lord. Corvee in R

Topic No. 3
Baskaks were special officials of the Tatar-Mongol khans who collected in-kind and monetary duties and tribute from the population in the conquered lands. They sent

Topic No. 4
The Cossacks are a military class that included the population of a number of regions of Russia. It developed gradually (from the 14th century), with the settlement on the outskirts of the Russian principalities

Topic No. 5
Bironovschina - the regime in Russia in the 30s. XVIII century, during the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna, named after her favorite Ernest Yogam na Biron (1690 - 1772), a Courland nobleman

Topic No. 6
Anarchism - (from the Greek word anarchia - anarchy), a socio-political movement that advocates the immediate destruction of any state power(as a result &

Topic No. 7
Wine monopoly (state-owned sale of drinks) is the exclusive right of the state or individuals (farming) to the production and sale of alcoholic beverages. Monopoly was introduced

Topic No. 8
The “White” movement is an armed struggle of military formations and illegal military organizations on the territory of the former Russian Empire with the support of the Entente against Soviet power

Topic No. 9
“Barbarossa” is a plan (named after the medieval conqueror) of the aggressive war of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union, developed from July 21, 1940

Topic No. 10
“Kosygin reforms” is an economic reform program adopted in 1965 on the initiative of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygin. Was aimed at overcoming tradition

Historians of Russia XVIII-XX centuries.

Tatishchev Vasily Nikitin (1686-1750)

V. N. Tatishchev, who is rightfully considered the “father of Russian historiography,” was a major statesman and public figure in Russia’s first half of the XVIII V. His service in the army continued for more than 16 years. He took part in the capture of Narva, the Battle of Poltava, and the Pruga campaign. Later he acted in the administrative field: he was in charge of the metallurgical industry in the East of the country, was a member and then the head of the Coinage Office, the head of the Orenburg and Kalmyk commissions, and the Astrakhan governor. Tatishchev also visited abroad several times, where he studied the experience of building fortresses, artillery, geometry and optics, and geology. It was then that he developed a deep interest in history.

Tatishchev’s life’s work was a generalizing multi-volume work, “Russian History from Ancient Times,” which he completed until 1577. And although this work was not published during his lifetime, it forever entered the golden fund of Russian historiography. According to

S. M. Solovyov, the merit of Tatishchev the historian is that “he was the first to start the matter the way it should have been started: he collected materials, subjected them to criticism, compiled chronicle news, provided them with geographical, ethnographic and chronological notes, pointed out many important questions that served as topics for later research, collected news from ancient and modern writers about the ancient state of the country, which later received the name Russia, in a word, showed the way and gave the means to his compatriots to study Russian history.”

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766-1826)

N. M. Karamzin - famous writer and historian of the late 18th - first quarter of the XIX V. His name became widely known after the publication of “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” the story “ Poor Lisa"and other works that were successful in all strata of society. The magazine he created, “Bulletin of Europe,” was very popular. Along with his literary work, editorial and social activities, he was actively involved in national history. In 1803, having received the position of historiographer by decree of Emperor Alexander I, Karamzin retired to Ostafyevo, the estate of Prince Vyazemsky near Moscow, whose daughter he was married to, and began to create his main work, “History of the Russian State.”

The publication in 1816 of the first eight volumes of Karamzin’s “History” became a genuine event and made a truly stunning impression on reading Russia. A. S. Pushkin wrote about this: “Everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their fatherland, hitherto unknown to them... Ancient Rus' seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Colomb.” In subsequent years, work continued. The last, twelfth volume, in which the events were brought up to 1613, was published after the death of the author.

“The History of the Russian State” is still in constant demand among readers today, which testifies to the enormous power of the spiritual influence of Karamzin the historian’s scientific and artistic talent on people.

Soloviev Sergei Mikhailovich (1820-1879)

S. M. Solovyov - a major historian pre-revolutionary Russia. His outstanding contribution to the development of Russian historical thought was recognized by scientists of various schools and directions. The statement about Sergei Mikhailovich by his famous student V.O. Klyuchevsky is aphoristic: “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts. In the history of our science and literature there have been few lives as rich in facts and events as the life of Solovyov.”

Indeed, despite his relatively short life, Solovyov left a huge creative legacy - over 300 of his works were published with a total volume of more than a thousand printed sheets. “The History of Russia from Ancient Times” is especially striking in the novelty of the ideas put forward and the wealth of factual material; all 29 volumes were published regularly, from 1851 to 1879. This is a feat of a scientist, which had no equal in Russian historical science either before Solovyov or after him.

Solovyov's works accumulated the latest philosophical, sociological and historical concepts for his time. In particular, in his youth he enthusiastically studied G. Hegel; The theoretical views of L. Ranke, O. Thierry, and F. Guizot had a great influence on the Russian scientist. On this basis, some authors considered Solovyov as an epigone of Hegel’s philosophy of history, an imitator of Western European historians. Such statements are completely unfounded. S. M. Solovyov is not an eclecticist, but a major scientist-thinker who independently developed an original historical concept. His works have firmly entered the treasury of domestic and world historical thought.

Zabelin Ivan Egorovich (1820-1908)

I. E. Zabelin, an outstanding Russian historian and archaeologist of the second half of the 19th century, one of the leading experts on Muscovite Rus' and the history of Moscow, had only five classes of an orphan school under his belt. After this, the only systematic training in his life was a short course of lectures, attended at home by Professor T. N. Granovsky. All the more striking is the unique knowledge of this poor official, who comes from a provincial family. The works of the self-taught scientist and his deep reflections on the tasks of historical science were widely recognized by his contemporaries.

Zabelin’s main work, “The Home Life of the Russian People in the 16th and 17th Centuries,” has the subtitle: “The Home Life of the Russian Tsars” (vol. 1) and “The Home Life of the Russian Tsarinas” (vol. 2). However, the focus of the researcher is not on the sovereign’s court, but on the people. None of the Russian historians of that time paid as much attention to the problem of the people as Zabelin. It was in it, in its thickness, in its history that the scientist sought an explanation for the vicissitudes of Russia’s fate. According to the correct observation of D. N. Sakharov, Zabelin not only affirmed the value of the people, the common man, but also the power of popular movements, their impressive influence in history.” At the same time, he studied the “history of personalities”; he showed the people through personalities and, characterizing them, went to outlining the character of the individual.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich (1841-1911)

Already the first great work of Moscow University student V. O. Klyuchevsky - his graduation essay “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State” - received highly appreciated contemporaries. The young scientist devoted his master's thesis to the study of ancient Russian lives of saints as a historical source. The results of previous research were summarized by him in his doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus',” which covers the entire centuries-long period of existence of the Boyar Duma from Kievan Rus in the 10th century. until the beginning of the 18th century. The author focuses on the composition of the Duma, its activities, and the relationship between the ruling classes and the peasantry.

Klyuchevsky's interest in social history is also in first place in his “Course of Russian History”. This work, the result of more than 30 years of scientific and teaching activity of the scientist, is recognized as the pinnacle of his scientific creativity. The “course” has gained worldwide fame and has been translated into the main languages ​​of the world. In recognition of Klyuchevsky’s services in the year of the 150th anniversary of his birth International Center on Minor Planets (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, USA) assigned the name of the Russian historian to one of the planets. From now on, minor planet No. 4560 Klyuchevsky is an integral part of the Solar System.

Klyuchevsky was also widely known as a brilliant lecturer. He “conquered us immediately,” the students admitted, and not only because he spoke beautifully and effectively, but because “we looked for and found in him, first of all, a thinker and researcher.”

Platonov Sergei Fedorovich (1860-1933)

Contemporaries called S. F. Platonov one of the masters of thought in Russian historiography of the early 20th century. His name at that time was known throughout reading Russia. For over 30 years he taught at the university and other educational institutions St. Petersburg, in 1903-1916. was the director of the Women's Pedagogical Institute. His “Lectures on Russian History” and “Textbook of Russian History for high school”, which went through many reprints.

The scientist considered the monograph “Essays on the History of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th-17th Centuries” to be the highest achievement of his entire life. (experience in studying the social system and class relations in Time of Troubles)”: this book “not only gave me a doctorate degree, but, one might say, determined my place in the circle of figures in Russian historiography.”

Platonov's scientific and administrative activities continued after the October Revolution. However, his credo - the non-partisan nature of science, excluding “any preconceived points of view” - did not correspond to the methodology established in those years. At the beginning of 1930, Platonov was arrested, accused of participating in a mythical “counter-revolutionary monarchist organization” and exiled to Samara, where he soon died.

Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich (1863-1919)

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky is a unique phenomenon in Russian historical science. The breadth of his research interests is striking. Among them are ancient, medieval and modern history, problems of methodology, historiography, source studies, archaeography, archival studies, history of science. Throughout his career, the religious and ethical moment, the perception of Russian history as part of world existence, was of significant importance to him.

Lappo-Danilevsky's outstanding scientific achievements received recognition in the form of his election at the age of 36 to the Russian Academy of Sciences. He had a great influence on many of his contemporaries, who became the pride of Russian historiography. At the same time, it should be recognized that up to now only the first steps have been taken in mastering the rich literary heritage of this encyclopedist scientist. Lappo-Danilevsky’s main work, “The History of Political Ideas in Russia in the 18th Century,” has not yet been published. in connection with the development of its culture and the course of its politics.” But also what has been published is the monograph “Organization of direct taxation in the Moscow state from the time of unrest to the era of transformations,” “Essays domestic policy Empress Catherine II", "Methodology of history", "Essay on Russian diplomacy of private acts", "History of Russian social thought and culture of the 17th-18th centuries", numerous articles and documentary publications are clear evidence of his outstanding contribution in the development of historical science in Russia.

Pokrovsky Mikhail Nikolaevich (1868-1932)

M. N. Pokrovsky belongs to those Russian historians whose creative heritage has not subsided for decades. At the same time, some authors write mainly about the scientist’s outstanding contribution to Russian historiography, his original concept of the historical development of Russia, while others strongly emphasize the negative aspects of Pokrovsky’s activities, the inconsistency of his class, party approach to the study of the past, “entangled in pseudo-Marxist dogmas.”

Already in his early works, Pokrovsky declared himself as a supporter of a materialistic worldview. The further evolution of his views is reflected in the brochure “Economic Materialism” (1906). The scientist’s concrete historical works are interesting, especially the articles in the nine-volume “History of Russia in the 19th Century” by the Granat brothers. Pokrovsky’s main work, the five-volume “Russian History from Ancient Times” (1910-1913), became the first systematic Marxist coverage of the country’s history from the primitive communal system to the end of the 19th century.

After the October Revolution, Pokrovsky had a huge influence on the formation of Soviet historical science and was its generally recognized leader. However, soon after the historian’s death, his concept was recognized as “anti-Marxist, anti-Bolshevik, anti-Leninist,” and his name was erased from history for decades. The scientist's biased assessments persist to this day.

Tarle Evgeniy Viktorovich (1874-1955)

From his teacher, professor of Kyiv University I.V. Luchitsky, E.V. Tarle projected a thesis that he followed all his life: “The historian himself may not be interesting, but history is always interesting.” This is probably why Tarle’s writings are always interesting and instructive, full of vast factual material, bold conclusions and hypotheses. But no less interesting is the biography of the scientist, replete with ups and downs. Back at the end of the 19th century. He was taken under the secret surveillance of the tsarist police, and in the Soviet Union, Tarle was in prison and exile for almost three years. At the same time, his first major work - “The Working Class in France in the Age of Revolution” (vol. 1 - 1909; vol. 2 - 1911) brought the author European and world fame. Subsequently, he was elected a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and the Philadelphia Academy of Political and Social Sciences (USA), an honorary doctor of the Sorbonne (France), and was awarded the Stalin Prize three times.

The creative legacy of E. V. Tarle exceeds a thousand studies, and the range of these scientific works is truly phenomenal: he successfully studied national and world history, ancient and modern history, problems of politics, economics and culture, the history of the church, the development of military art, etc. There are 50 monographs written by Tarle alone, not counting 120 of their reprints. His book “Napoleon”, which has been translated into all the major languages ​​of the world, is still particularly popular. The works of this outstanding scientist-historian have not lost their relevance today.

Grekov Boris Dmitrievich (1882-1953)

B. D. Grekov developed as a scientist even before the October Revolution of 1917. However, his talent as a researcher and great organizational abilities in science became fully evident in the second half of the 1930s, when he became director of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences and was elected academician. D. S. Likhachev recalled him in 1982: “For me, Grekov was the true head of Soviet historical science, and not only because he occupied the highest administrative positions in it, but also because, thanks to his scientific and moral qualities, he was the greatest authority in historical science."

Grekov’s first fundamental work was “The Novgorod House of St. Sophia” (the first part was published in 1914 and was soon defended by him as a master’s thesis, and he completed work on the second part in 1927). His book went through six editions. Kievan Rus”, in which the concept of the feudal nature of the social system of Ancient Rus' put forward by him was substantiated. The pinnacle of the scientist’s work is the monograph “Peasants in Rus' from Ancient Times to the Middle of the 17th Century.”

This monumental work in two books, first published in 1946, still remains an unsurpassed classic work of Russian historiography in terms of the wealth of sources used by the author, the breadth of geographical and chronological coverage of the analyzed issues, and the depth of observations.

Druzhinin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1886-1986)

On the centenary day of N. M. Druzhinin, academician B. A. Rybakov called him a righteous man of historical science. This assessment not only recognizes the scientist’s outstanding contribution to research current problems past, but also a characteristic of his high moral authority and valuable human qualities. Here is a typical example of the manifestation of the personality of a scientist. During the years of the struggle against “rootless cosmopolitans,” Druzhinin sought from the Stalinist authorities the rehabilitation of many historians, their restoration to academic degrees and titles. And this despite the fact that he himself was arrested more than once, both before the revolution and under Soviet rule.

N. M. Druzhinin is a historian of the most diverse scientific interests. While still a student, he began studying the Decembrist movement. His first monograph was devoted to the “Journal of Landowners,” published in 1858-1860. Druzhinin’s theoretical articles on socio-economic topics were also of great scientific significance. However, the main work of his life was the study of the Russian peasantry. This issue was brilliantly explored by him in the books “State Peasants and the Reform of P. D. Kiselev” and “Russian Village at a Turning Point (1861-1880).

Druzhinin is rightfully considered one of the leading agricultural historians in Russian historiography.

Vernadsky Georgy Vladimirovich (1887-1973)

G.V. Vernadsky, the son of the outstanding Russian philosopher and naturalist V.I. Vernadsky, belongs to both Russian and American historiography. Until his forced emigration in 1920, his scientific activity was closely connected with both Moscow and St. Petersburg universities. During the same period, he published his first scientific works - “Russian Freemasonry during the reign of Catherine II”, “N. I. Novikov" and a number of others. A special place in his creative biography occupies the “Prague period” (1922-1927), when Vernadsky, with his works, provided a historical basis for the doctrine of the “Eurasians”. Further development The scientist’s conceptual views were already associated with the “American period” of his life. Having moved to the USA in 1927, Vernadsky became a teacher at Yale University and lectured at Harvard, Columbia and other universities. In general, his scientific and teaching activities were very successful. He trained many prominent specialists who became the pride of the American school of studying Russian history.

Vernadsky’s main work is the five-volume “History of Russia”, in which the account of events is brought up to 1682. Many conclusions and provisions substantiated by the scientist in this major work (the theory of the cyclical nature of the state-forming process, the influence of natural, climatic and geographical factors on the uniqueness of the historical development of our Fatherland and a number of others), in modern conditions have acquired particular relevance.

Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich (1893-1965)

M. P. Tikhomirov - an outstanding researcher of Russian stories X-XIX centuries Among more than three and a half hundred of his works are monographs, brochures, articles, publications of historical sources, which he considered the basis of any scientific constructions in the field of studying the past. On the initiative of the scientist, the Archaeographic Commission was restored, the publication of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (PSRL) was resumed, as well as the most valuable chronicle monuments that were published outside the series of volumes of the PSRL. Peru Tikhomirov owns the fundamental monographs “Research on Russian Truth”, “Ancient Russian Cities”, “Russia in the 16th Century”, “Russian Culture of the 10th-18th Centuries”, “ Russian state XV-XVII centuries,” “Russian Chronicle,” as well as two voluminous books on the history of Moscow in the XII-XV centuries. and many other studies, including historiography, archaeography, and source studies.

Throughout his creative life, Tikhomirov highly valued the works and merits of his predecessors in the field of historical science, including his teachers - B. D. Grekov, S. I. Smirnov, V. N. Peretz, S. V. Bakhrushin. In turn, he raised a whole galaxy of students - “children” and “grandchildren”, among whom there were many prominent scientists. Paying tribute to the teacher, they publish in the Archaeographic Yearbook, founded by Mikhail Nikolaevich, materials from the Tikhomirov Readings, dedicated to modern scientific research.

Nechkina Militsa Vasilievna (1899-1985)

M. V. Nechkina gained wide popularity both in our country and abroad primarily as a talented researcher national history. The focus of her attention and scientific research was the history of the Decembrist movement, the liberation movement and social thought in Russia at the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century, as well as problems of historiography. In each of these scientific areas, she achieved significant results that made a serious contribution to Russian historical science. Vivid evidence of this is her fundamental monographs “A. S. Griboedov and the Decembrists", "Decembrist Movement", "Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. The story of life and creativity,” “Meeting of two generations.”

A distinctive feature of Nechkina’s works is her masterful ability to combine analysis and synthesis, careful study of sources and brilliant literary language in scientific work.

Nechkina combined her research activities with enormous pedagogical and scientific-organizational work. For many years she was a professor at Moscow State University and the Academy of Social Sciences, research fellow Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed the Scientific Council on the History of Historical Science and the Group for the Study of the Revolutionary Situation in Russia. In 1958 she became an academician. Her diverse scientific activities are a major phenomenon in our national culture.

Artsikhovsky Artemy Vladimirovich (1902-1978)

A. V. Artsikhovsky had a phenomenal ability: after holding a sheet of text before his eyes for 2-3 seconds, he not only read it, but also memorized it. Excellent memory helped him easily remember names and dates, learn foreign languages ​​- he read literature in almost all European languages.

Having become an archaeologist, Artsikhovsky took an active part in the study of Vyatichi burial mounds in the Moscow region, in the study of ancient Novgorod, and the first archaeological excavations in the capital related to the construction of the Moscow Metro. In 1940, at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, he headed the department of archeology and defended his doctoral dissertation “Ancient Russian miniatures as historical source" However, the discovery in 1951 of birch bark documents from the 11th to 15th centuries brought him worldwide fame. in Novgorod. The significance of this find is often compared to the discovery of papyri from Hellenistic Egypt. The special value of birch bark letters lies in the fact that they reflect the everyday life of medieval Novgorodians. The publication and research of this new unique documentary source became the main work of life and scientific feat of Artsikhovsky.

Kovalchenko Ivan Dmitrievich (1923-1995)

I. D. Kovalchenko combined the talent of a scientist, teacher and organizer of science. Having gone through the crucible of the Great Patriotic War, the paratrooper-artilleryman came to the student bench of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, where he then became a graduate student and subsequently an assistant, associate professor, professor, head of the department of source studies and historiography of Russian history. At the same time, for 18 years he was the editor-in-chief of the magazine “History of the USSR”, from 1988 to 1995 he was an academician and secretary of the Department of History and a member of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences (RAN), co-chairman International Commission in quantitative history, following Nechkina, he led the work of the Scientific Council on Historiography and Source Studies.

The golden fund of Russian historical science includes the works of this remarkable scientist-innovator. Among them is the All-Russian Agricultural Market. XVIII - early XX centuries." (co-authored with L. V. Milov), “Methods of historical research,” “Russian serf peasantry in the first half of the 19th century.”

The name of Kovalchenko is associated with the development of methodological problems of historical research and the theoretical foundations of the application of mathematical research methods. The scientist took a principled position in the last years of his life. Modern transformations, he believed, would be successful only if they were correlated with the rich experience of Russian history.

Milov Leonid Vasilievich (1929-2007)

The development of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences L.V. Milov, as well as many other people of his generation, was greatly influenced by the Great Patriotic War experienced in his adolescence. At Moscow State University, where he studied in 1948-1953, Leonid Vasilyevich chose the history of Ancient Rus' as his specialization. After graduating from graduate school, where his supervisor was M. N. Tikhomirov, he worked at academic institutes of Slavic studies and history of the USSR, was deputy editor-in-chief of the History of the USSR magazine, assistant, senior lecturer, associate professor, professor, head of the department (1989-2007) of history USSR during the period of feudalism (since 1992, renamed the Department of History of Russia until the beginning of the 19th century) Moscow State University.

Milov the researcher was distinguished by the widest range of problems studied, novelty of approaches, and scrupulous work with sources. His monograph “The Great Russian Plowman and Features of the Russian Historical Process,” which was awarded the State Prize of the Russian Federation in 2000, is devoted to the influence of natural and climatic factors on the development of Russia.

THOMAS CARLYLE (1795-1881) English thinker, historian, publicist. He tried to explain world history by the decisive role of great personalities. Carlyle was born in the town of Ecclefecan (Scotland), in a rural family...

Thierry Augustin

AUGUSTIN THIERRY (1795-1856) A graduate of the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Thierry at the age of 19 became the secretary and closest student of Saint-Simon (see Utopian socialism). Together with him he wrote a number of journalistic articles. IN…

Francois Pierre Guillaume Guizot

FRANCOIS PIERRE GUILLAUME GUISOT (1787-1874) French historian and politician. Since 1830, Guizot held the posts of Minister of the Interior, Education, Foreign Affairs and, finally, Prime Minister. Internal…

Thucydides

THUCYDIDES (CA. 460 - CA. 400 BC) Thucydides belonged to that group of ancient thinkers whose youth coincided with the “golden age” of Athenian democracy (see Ancient Greece). This largely determined...

Chulkov Mikhail Dmitrievich

Chulkov Mikhail Dmitrievich (1743-1792). He comes from raznochinsky circles. He studied at the gymnasium at Moscow University together with S. S. Bashilov, S. E. Desnitsky, M. I. Popov, I. A, Tretyakov, and in the nobility ...

Schlozer August Ludwig

Schlozer August Ludwig (1735-1809). Born into the family of a German pastor. He studied at the Universities of Wittenberg and Göttingen. In 1761 he went to St. Petersburg as Miller’s assistant in the publication...

Shcherbatov Mikhail Mikhailovich

Shcherbatov Mikhail Mikhailovich (1733-1790). One of the founders of Russian historical science, was born into a famous princely family on July 22, 1733 in Moscow. From childhood he was enrolled in the Semenovsky regiment and was...

Edward Gibbon

EDWARD GIBBON (1737-1794) English scientist, the first professional historian, whose works were advanced philosophical ideas 18th century combined with a high scientific level of critical analysis of a wide range...

Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich (1686-1750). Born in Pskov. At the age of seven he was accepted to the court of Ivan V as a steward. After the death of the Tsar, Ivan leaves the court. Since 1704 - in the service of the Azov Dragoon...

Toynbee Arnold Joseph

ARNOLD JOSEPH TOYNBEE (1889-1975) English historian, sociologist and leading representative of the philosophy of history. Toynbee graduated from Winchester College and Oxford University. He was a recognized expert on ancient...

Thomas Babington Macaulay

THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY (1800-1859) English historian, poet, literary critic, orator, public and political figure of the Whig Liberal Party. Born in Leicestershire (England), received a humanitarian degree...

Sima Qian

SIMA QIAN (145 OR 135 - APPROX. 86 BC) In Ancient China, the cult of the past played a large role. The assessment of any act, any political step was necessarily correlated with examples from the past, real or sometimes...

Tarle Evgeniy Viktorovich

EVGENY VIKTOROVICH TARLE (1876-1955) Russian historian, academician. Born in Kyiv. He studied at the 1st Kherson gymnasium. In 1896 he graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Kyiv University. Worked under...

Publius Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (OK.58-OK.117)

PUBLIUS GAIUS CORNELIUS TACITUS (CA. 58-CA. 117) Tacitus was born into a humble family in Narbonne Gaul and received an education traditional for this environment. His extraordinary abilities and hard work allowed him to...

Soloviev Sergey Mikhailovich

Soloviev Sergei Mikhailovich (1820-1879). The largest historian of pre-revolutionary Russia, was born into the family of a clergyman. He studied at theological school, gymnasium, and Moscow University. In 1845 he defended...

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

FSBEI HPE "Tambov State Technical University"

Department of History and Philosophy

Essay

in the discipline "History of Russia"

on the topic: “Outstanding Russian historians”

Completed by first year student K.V. Osadchenko

Checked by Ph.D., Associate Professor K.V. Samokhin

Tambov 2011

Introduction

Chapter 1. Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

1 Biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky

2 V.O. Klyuchevsky as a historian

Chapter 2. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

1 Biography of N.M. Karamzin

2 Karamzin as a historian

3 Karamzin as a writer

Chapter 3. Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

1 Biography of V.N. Tatishchev (life, career, literary works)

Chapter 4. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev

1 Biography of L.N. Gumilyov

2 The main works of L.N. Gumilyov

Chapter 5. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov

1 Biography of S.M. Solovyov

2 Teaching activities

3 Character Traits

4 “History of Russia”

5 Other works

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Outstanding Russian historians used to clearly imagine that historical science has general theoretical methodological problems within itself.

In the 1884/85 academic year, V.O. Klyuchevsky gave a special course for the first time in Russia Methodology of Russian history , titling the truly original section of the first lecture as follows: Lack of method in our history.

Commenting on this formulation, Klyuchevsky said: Our Russian historical literature cannot be accused of a lack of hard work - it has worked a lot; but I won’t charge her too much if I say that she herself doesn’t know what to do with the material she processed; she doesn't even know if she treated him well.

How can there be methodological concepts drawn from historical science and corresponding criteria and approaches? Especially in conditions of zero level of development own approaches? It is clear that such an initial source can only come from the individual, including his social science section.

What is said about the relationship between the social concept of personality and history, with far-fetched, well-known adjustments (in each case, extremely specific, taking into account the specifics of a given science), perhaps this is extrapolated specifically to any branch of humanitarian and social science knowledge.

The purpose of the essay is to analyze, on the basis of existing literature, the life and work of Russian historians during their lifetime and what they left behind.

Based on the goal, the following tasks were formulated when writing the abstract:

.Consider the biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky and his activities as a professor of history.

.Consider the biography of N.M. Karamzin and his literary work.

.Consider the life, career and literary works of V.N. Tatishchev in his biography.

.Consider the life and main works of L.N. Gumilyov.

.Consider S.M. Solovyov, as a teacher, a man of character and his contribution to the “History of Russia”.

Chapter 1. Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

.1 Biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich- (1841-1911), Russian historian. Born on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresensky (near Penza) in the family of a poor parish priest. His first teacher was his father, who died tragically in August 1850. The family was forced to move to Penza. Out of compassion for the poor widow, one of her husband’s friends gave her a small house to live in. “Was there anyone poorer than you and me at the time when we were left orphans in the arms of our mother,” Klyuchevsky later wrote to his sister, recalling the hungry years of childhood and adolescence. In Penza, Klyuchevsky studied at the parish theological school, then at the district theological school and at the theological seminary.

Already at school, Klyuchevsky was well aware of the works of many historians. In order to be able to devote himself to science (his superiors predicted a career for him as a clergyman and admission to the theological academy), in his last year he deliberately left the seminary and spent a year independently preparing for the entrance exams to the university. With admission to Moscow University in 1861, a new period began in Klyuchevsky’s life. His teachers were F.I. Buslaev, N.S. Tikhonravov, P.M. Leontiev and especially S.M. Soloviev: “Soloviev gave the listener a surprisingly complete, harmonious thread drawn through a chain of generalized facts, view of the course of Russian history, and we know what a pleasure it is for a young mind beginning scientific study to feel in possession of a complete view of a scientific subject.”

The time of study for Klyuchevsky coincided with the largest event in the life of the country - the bourgeois reforms of the early 1860s. He was opposed to the government's extreme measures, but did not approve of student political protests. The subject of his graduation essay at the university, Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State (1866), Klyuchevsky chose to study about 40 legends and notes of foreigners about Rus' in the 15th-17th centuries. For the essay, the graduate was awarded a gold medal and retained at the department “to prepare for the professorship.” Klyuchevsky’s master’s (candidate’s) dissertation, Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source (1871), is devoted to another type of medieval Russian sources. The topic was indicated by Solovyov, who probably expected to use the secular and spiritual knowledge of the novice scientist to study the question of the participation of monasteries in the colonization of Russian lands. Klyuchevsky did a titanic job of studying no less than five thousand hagiographies. During the preparation of his dissertation, he wrote six independent studies, including such a major work as Economic Activities of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory (1866-1867). But the efforts expended and the result obtained did not live up to expectations - the literary monotony of the lives, when the authors described the lives of the heroes according to a stencil, did not allow establishing the details of “the setting, place and time, without which a historical fact does not exist for a historian.”

After defending his master's thesis, Klyuchevsky received the right to teach at higher educational institutions. He taught a course on general history at the Alexander Military School, a course on Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, at the Higher Women's Courses, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. From 1879 he taught at Moscow University, where he replaced the deceased Solovyov in the department of Russian history. Teaching activities brought Klyuchevsky well-deserved fame. Gifted with the ability to imaginatively penetrate into the past, a master of artistic expression, a famous wit and the author of numerous epigrams and aphorisms, in his speeches the scientist skillfully built entire galleries of portraits of historical figures that were remembered by listeners for a long time. The doctoral dissertation The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus' (first published in the pages of the magazine “Russian Thought” in 1880-1881) constituted a well-known stage in Klyuchevsky’s work. The themes of Klyuchevsky's subsequent scientific works clearly indicated this new direction - the Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries. in its relation to the present (1884), The origin of serfdom in Russia (1885), The poll tax and the abolition of servitude in Russia (1886), Eugene Onegin and his ancestors (1887), Composition of representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Rus' (1890), etc. Klyuchevsky's most famous scientific work, which has received worldwide recognition, is a Course of Russian History in 5 parts. The scientist worked on it for more than three decades, but decided to publish it only in the early 1900s.

Klyuchevsky called colonization the main factor in Russian history around which events unfold: “The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of ​​colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Sometimes falling, sometimes rising, this age-old movement continues to this day.” Based on this, Klyuchevsky divided Russian history into four periods. The first period lasts approximately from the 8th to the 13th centuries, when the Russian population concentrated on the middle and upper Dnieper and its tributaries. Rus' was then politically divided into separate cities, the economy was dominated by international trade. During the second period (13th - mid-15th centuries), the bulk of the population moved to the area between the upper Volga and Oka rivers. The country was still fragmented, but no longer into cities with attached regions, but into princely appanages. The basis of the economy is free peasant agricultural labor. The third period lasts from the half of the 15th century. until the second decade of the 17th century, when the Russian population colonized the southeastern Don and Middle Volga black soils; in politics, the state unification of Great Russia took place; The process of enslavement of the peasantry began in the economy. The last, fourth period until the mid-19th century. (the Course did not cover later times) - this is the time when “the Russian people spread across the entire plain from the Baltic and White seas to the Black, to Caucasian ridge, Caspian and Urals". Formed Russian empire led by an autocracy based on the military-service class - the nobility. In the economy, the manufacturing factory industry joins serf agricultural labor.

Klyuchevsky’s scientific concept, with all its schematism, reflected the influences of social and scientific thought of the second half of the 19th century. The identification of the natural factor and the significance of geographical conditions for the historical development of the people met the requirements of positivist philosophy. The recognition of the importance of questions of economic and social history was to some extent akin to Marxist approaches to the study of the past. But still, the historians closest to Klyuchevsky are the so-called “state school” - K.D. Kavelin, S.M. Solovyov and B.N. Chicherin. “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts,” wrote Klyuchevsky. The biography of Klyuchevsky himself rarely goes beyond these events and facts. His political speeches are not numerous and characterize him as a moderate conservative who avoided the extremes of the Black Hundred reaction, a supporter of enlightened autocracy and the imperial greatness of Russia (it is not accidental that Klyuchevsky was chosen as a teacher of general history for Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich, brother of Nicholas II). The scientist’s political line was answered by the “Laudatory speech” to Alexander III, delivered in 1894 and causing indignation among the revolutionary students, and a wary attitude towards the First Russian Revolution, and an unsuccessful run in the spring of 1906 in the ranks of electors to the First State Duma on the Cadet list. Klyuchevsky died in Moscow on May 12, 1911. He was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.

1.2 V.O. Klyuchevsky as a historian

history literary teaching Klyuchevsky

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich- Professor of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy and at Moscow University (in the latter - since 1879); currently ( 1895 ) is the chairman of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities.

During the existence of higher women's courses in Moscow, Professor Guerrier gave lectures on Russian history at them, and after the closure of these courses he participated in public lectures organized by Moscow professors.

Not particularly numerous, but rich in content, Klyuchevsky’s scientific studies, of which his doctoral dissertation (“Boyar Duma”) is especially outstanding, are devoted primarily to elucidating the main issues of the history of government and the social system of the Moscow state of the 15th - 17th centuries.

The wide scope of the research, covering the most significant aspects of the life of the state and society, in their mutual connection, the rare gift of critical analysis, sometimes reaching the point of pettiness, but leading to rich results, the brilliant talent of presentation - all these features of K.’s works have long been recognized by special criticism, helped him enrich the science of Russian history with a number of new and valuable generalizations and promoted him to one of the first places among its researchers.

The most important of Klyuchevsky’s works: “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State” (M., 1886), “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints, as a Historical Source” (M., 1871), “Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” (M., 1882), “Pycc ruble XVI - XVIII centuries in its relation to the present" (1884), "The origin of serfdom" ("Russian Thought", 1885, no. 8 and 10), "Poll tax and the abolition of servitude in Russia" ("Russian Thought", 1886, $9 and 10), “Composition of representation at the Zemstvo Councils of Ancient Rus'” (“Russian Thought”, 1890, $1; 1891, $1; 1892, $1).

Besides scientific works, Klyuchevsky wrote articles of a popular and journalistic nature, publishing them mainly in Russian Thought.

While retaining his characteristic talent for presentation here, Klyuchevsky moved further and further from the scientific soil in these articles, although he tried to keep it behind him. Their distinctive feature is the nationalistic shade of the author’s views, which is closely connected with the idealization of Moscow antiquity of the 16th - 17th centuries. and an optimistic attitude towards modern Russian reality.

Such features were clearly reflected, for example, in the articles: “Eugene Onegin”, “Good People of Old Rus'”, “Two Upbringings”, “Memories of N.I. Novikov and His Time”, as well as in Klyuchevsky’s speech entitled: “ In memory of the late sovereign Emperor Alexander III in Bose" ("Readings of the Moscow. General History and Ancient", 1894 and separately, M., 1894).

Chapter 2. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

.1 Biography of N.M. Karamzin

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich- famous Russian writer, journalist and historian. Born on December 1, 1766 in Simbirsk province; grew up in the village of his father, a Simbirsk landowner. The first spiritual food of the 8-9 year old boy was ancient novels, which developed his natural sensitivity. Even then, like the hero of one of his stories, “he loved to be sad, not knowing what,” and “could play with his imagination for two hours and build castles in the air.”

In the 14th year, Karamzin was brought to Moscow and sent to the boarding school of the Moscow professor Schaden; He also visited the university, where one could then learn “if not science, then Russian literacy.” He owed Schaden a practical acquaintance with the German and French languages. After finishing classes with Schaden, Karamzin hesitated for some time in choosing an activity. In 1783, he tried to enter military service, where he was enrolled while still a minor, but then he retired and in 1784 he became interested in secular successes in the society of the city of Simbirsk.

At the end of the same year, Karamzin returned to Moscow and, through his fellow countryman, I.P. Turgenev, became close to Novikov’s circle. Here, according to Dmitriev, “Karamzin’s education began, not only as an author, but also as a moral one.” The influence of the circle lasted 4 years (1785 - 88). The serious work on oneself that Freemasonry required, and with which Karamzin’s closest friend, Petrov, was so absorbed, was, however, not noticeable in Karamzin. From May 1789 to September 1790, he traveled around Germany, Switzerland, France and England, stopping mainly in big cities like Berlin, Leipzig, Geneva, Paris, London. Returning to Moscow, Karamzin began publishing the Moscow Journal (see below), where Letters of a Russian Traveler appeared. "Moscow Journal" ceased in 1792, perhaps not without connection with the imprisonment of Novikov in the fortress and the persecution of the Masons.

Although Karamzin, when starting the Moscow Journal, formally excluded “theological and mystical” articles from its program, after Novikov’s arrest (and before the final verdict) he published a rather bold ode: “To mercy” (“As long as a citizen can calmly, without fear fall asleep, and let all those under your control freely direct their lives according to their thoughts; as long as you give everyone freedom and do not darken the light in their minds; as long as your trust in the people is visible in all your affairs: until then you will be sacredly honored... nothing can disturb the peace of your power") and He almost came under investigation on suspicion that he was sent abroad by the Freemasons. Karamzin spent most of 1793 - 1795 in the village and prepared two collections here called "Aglaya", published in the fall of 1793 and 1794.

In 1795, Karamzin limited himself to compiling a “mixture” in the Moskovskiye Vedomosti. “Having lost the desire to walk under black clouds,” he set out into the world and led a contented distracted life. In 1796, he published a collection of poems by Russian poets, entitled "Aonids". A year later, the second book “Aonid” appeared; then Karamzin decided to publish something like an anthology on foreign literature<#"justify">Chapter 3. Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

.1 Biography of V.N. Tatishchev (life, career and literary works)

Tatishchev (Vasily Nikitich) - a famous Russian historian, was born on April 16, 1686 on the estate of his father, Nikita Alekseevich T., in the Pskov district; studied at the Moscow artillery and engineering school under the leadership of Bruce, participated in the capture of Narva (1705), in the Battle of Poltava and in the Prussian campaign; in 1713-14 he was abroad, in Berlin, Breslau and Dresden, to improve his science. In 1717, Tatishchev was again abroad, in Danzig, where Peter I sent him to seek inclusion in the indemnity of an ancient image, which was rumored to have been painted by St. Methodius; but the city magistrate did not yield to the image, and T. proved to Peter that the legend was untrue. From both of his trips abroad, T. took a lot of books. Upon his return, T. was with Bruce, the president of the Berg and Manufacturing College, and went with him to the Åland Congress. The presentation made by Bruce to Peter the Great about the need for a detailed geography of Russia gave impetus to the compilation of “Russian History” by Tatishchev, whom Bruce pointed out to Peter in 1719 as the executor of such work. T., sent to the Urals, could not immediately present the work plan to the tsar, but Peter did not forget about this matter and in 1724 reminded Tatishchev about it. Getting down to business, T. felt the need for historical information and therefore, relegating geography to the background, he began to collect materials for history. Another closely related plan of T. dates back to the time of the beginning of these works: in 1719, he submitted a proposal to the Tsar, in which he pointed out the need for demarcation in Russia. In T.’s thoughts, both plans were connected; in a letter to Cherkasov in 1725, he says that he was assigned “to survey the entire state and compose a detailed geography with land maps.” In 1720, a new order tore T. away from his historical and geographical works. He was sent “in the Siberian province on Kungur and in other places where convenient places were searched, to build factories and smelt silver and copper from ores.” He had to operate in a country that was little known, uncultured, and had long served as an arena for all sorts of abuses. Having traveled around the region entrusted to him, Tatishchev settled not in Kungur, but in the Uktus plant, where he founded a department, called at first the mining office, and then the Siberian high mining authorities. During T.'s first stay at the Ural factories, he managed to do quite a lot: he moved the Uktus plant to the river. Iset and there laid the foundation for present-day Yekaterinburg; obtained permission to allow merchants to go to the Irbit fair and through Verkhoturye, as well as to establish a post office between Vyatka and Kungur; opened two primary schools at the factories, two for teaching mining; procured the establishment of a special judge for factories; compiled instructions for protecting forests, etc. P.

Tatishchev’s measures displeased Demidov, who saw his activities being undermined by the establishment of state-owned factories. Genik was sent to the Urals to investigate the disputes, finding that T. acted fairly in everything. T. was acquitted, at the beginning of 1724 he presented himself to Peter, was promoted to advisor to the Berg College and appointed to the Siberian Ober-Berg Amt. Soon afterwards he was sent to Sweden for the needs of mining and to carry out diplomatic assignments. T. stayed in Sweden from December 1724 to April 1726, inspected factories and mines, collected many drawings and plans, hired a lapidary master who launched the lapidary business in Yekaterinburg, collected information about the trade of the Stockholm port and about the Swedish coinage system, became acquainted with many local scientists, etc. Returning from a trip to Sweden and Denmark, Tatishchev spent some time compiling a report and, although not yet expelled from Bergamt, was not, however, sent to Siberia.

In 1727, Tatishchev was appointed a member of the mint office, to which the mints were then subordinate; The events of 1730 found him in this position.

Regarding them, Tatishchev drew up a note, which was signed by 300 people from the nobility. He argued that Russia, as a vast country, is most suited to monarchical government, but that still, “to help” the empress should have established a Senate of 21 members and an assembly of 100 members, and top places to elect by ballot; Here, various measures were proposed to alleviate the situation of different classes of the population. Due to the reluctance of the Guard to agree to changes in state system, this entire project remained in vain, but the new government, seeing T. as an enemy of the supreme leaders, treated him favorably: he was the chief master of ceremonies on the day of Anna Ioannovna’s coronation. Having become the chief judge of the coin office, T. began to actively take care of improving the Russian monetary system. In 1731, T. began to have misunderstandings with Biron, which led to him being put on trial on charges of bribery. In 1734, Tatishchev was released from trial and again assigned to the Urals, “to multiply factories.” He was also entrusted with drawing up the mining charter. While T. remained at the factories, his activities brought a lot of benefit to both the factories and the region: under him the number of factories increased to 40; New mines were constantly opening, and T. considered it possible to set up 36 more factories, which opened only a few decades later.

Among the new mines, the most important place was occupied by Mount Grace, indicated by T. T. used the right to interfere in the management of private factories very widely and yet more than once aroused criticism and complaints against himself. In general, he was not a supporter of private factories, not so much out of personal gain, but out of the consciousness that the state needs metals, and that by extracting them itself, it receives more benefits than by entrusting this business to private people. In 1737, Biron, wanting to remove Tatishchev from mining, appointed him to the Orenburg expedition to finally pacify Bashkiria and the control devices of the Bashkirs. Here he managed to carry out several humane measures: for example, he arranged for the delivery of yasak to be entrusted not to yasachniks and tselovalniks, but to the Bashkir elders. In January 1739, T. arrived in St. Petersburg, where a whole commission was set up to consider complaints against him. He was accused of “attacks and bribes,” lack of diligence, etc. It is possible to assume that there was some truth in these attacks, but T.’s position would have been better if he had gotten along with Biron. The commission arrested T. in the Peter and Paul Fortress and in September 1740 sentenced him to deprivation of his ranks.

The sentence, however, was not carried out. In this difficult year for T., he wrote his instructions to his son - the famous “Spiritual”. The fall of Biron again brought forward T.: he was released from punishment and in 1741 he was appointed to Tsaritsyn to manage the Astrakhan province, mainly to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks. The lack of the necessary military forces and the intrigues of the Kalmyk rulers prevented T. from achieving anything lasting. When Elizaveta Petrovna ascended the throne, T. hoped to free himself from the Kalmyk commission, but he did not succeed: he was left in place until 1745, when, due to disagreements with the governor, he was dismissed from office. Having arrived in his village of Boldino near Moscow, T. did not leave her until death. Here he finished his story, which he brought to St. Petersburg in 1732, but for which he did not meet with sympathy. Extensive correspondence conducted by T. from the village has reached us. On the eve of his death, he went to church and ordered the artisans to appear there with shovels. After the liturgy, he went with the priest to the cemetery and ordered to dig his own grave next to his ancestors. When leaving, he asked the priest to come the next day to give him communion. At home he found a courier who brought a decree forgiving him and the Order of Alexander Nevsky. He returned the order, saying that he was dying. The next day he took communion, said goodbye to everyone and died (July 15, 1750). T.'s main work could only appear under Catherine II. All of T.’s literary activities, including works on history and geography, pursued journalistic objectives: the benefit of society was his main goal. T. was a conscious utilitarian. His worldview is set out in his “Conversation between two friends about the benefits of sciences and schools.” The main idea of ​​this worldview was the fashionable idea of ​​natural law, natural morality, and natural religion, which T. borrowed from Pufendorf and Walch.

The highest goal or “true well-being,” according to this view, lies in the complete balance of mental forces, in “peace of soul and conscience,” achieved through the development of the mind by “useful” science; Tatishchev attributed medicine, economics, law and philosophy to the latter. Tatishchev came to the main work of his life due to the confluence of a number of circumstances. Realizing the harm caused by the lack of a detailed geography of Russia and seeing the connection between geography and history, he found it necessary to first collect and consider all historical information about Russia. Since the foreign manuals turned out to be full of errors, T. turned to primary sources and began to study chronicles and other materials. At first he had in mind to write a historical work, but then, finding that it was inconvenient to refer to chronicles that had not yet been published, he decided to write in purely chronicle order. In 1739, T. brought the work to St. Petersburg, on which he had worked for 20 years, and transferred it to the Academy of Sciences for storage, continuing to work on it subsequently, smoothing out the language and adding new sources. Without special training, T. could not produce impeccable scientific work, but in his historical works there are valuable life attitude to scientific issues and the associated breadth of outlook. T. constantly connected the present with the past: he explained the meaning of Moscow legislation by the customs of judicial practice and memories of the morals of the 17th century; on the basis of personal acquaintance with foreigners, he understood ancient Russian ethnography; explained ancient names from the lexicons of living languages.

As a result of this connection between the present and the past, T. was not at all distracted by his work activities from his main task; on the contrary, these studies expanded and deepened his historical understanding. Tatishchev's integrity, previously questioned because of his so-called Joachim Chronicle (see Chronicles), now stands above all doubt. He did not invent any news or sources, but sometimes unsuccessfully corrected proper names, translated them into his own language, substituted his own interpretations, or compiled news, similar to the chronicles, from data that seemed reliable to him. Citing chronicle legends in a corpus, often without indicating sources, T. gave, in the end, essentially not history, but a new chronicle, unsystematic and rather clumsy. The first two parts of volume I of "History" were published for the first time in 1768 - 69 in Moscow, G.F. Miller, under the title “Russian History from the most ancient times, through tireless labor, 30 years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan Governor V.N.T.” Volume II was published in 1773, volume III in 1774, volume IV in 1784, and volume V was found by M.P. Pogodin only in 1843 and published by the Society of Russian History and Antiquities in 1848. T. put the material in order before the death of Vasily III; He also prepared the material, but did not finally edit it until 1558; He also had a number of handwritten materials for later eras, but no further than 1613.

Part of T.'s preparatory work is stored in Miller's portfolios. In addition to the history of T. and the above-mentioned conversation, he composed a large number of essays of a journalistic nature: “Spiritual”, “Reminder on the sent schedule of high and low state and zemstvo governments”, “Discourse on the universal audit” and others. “Spiritual” (published in 1775) gives detailed instructions covering the entire life and activity of a person (landowner). She treats about education, about different types of service, about relationships with superiors and subordinates, about family life, managing estates and households, etc. The “Reminder” sets out Tatishchev’s views on state law, and in the “Discourse”, written on the occasion of the audit of 1742, measures are indicated to increase government revenues. T. is a typical “chick of Petrov’s nest,” with a broad mind, the ability to move from one subject to another, sincerely striving for the good of the fatherland, having his own specific worldview and firmly and steadily pursuing it, if not always in life, then in every case, in all his scientific works.

Wed. ON THE. Popov "T. and His Time" (Moscow, 1861); P. Pekarsky "New news about V.N.T." (III volume, "Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences", St. Petersburg, 1864); “On the publication of the works of V.N.T. and materials for his biography” (A.A. Kunika, 1883, ed. of the Imperial Academy of Sciences); K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (St. Petersburg, 1882); Senigov "Historical-critical studies of the Novgorod Chronicle and Russian history Tatishchev" (Moscow, 1888; review by S.F. Platonov, "Bibliographer", 1888, No. 11); edition of "Spiritual" T. (Kazan, 1885); D. Korsakov "From the life of Russian figures of the 18th century" (ib. , 1891); N. Popov “Scientific and literary works of T.” (St. Petersburg, 1886); P. N. Milyukov “Main currents of Russian historical thought” (Moscow, 1897).

Chapter 4. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev

.1 Biography of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov

Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov (October 1, 1912 - June 15, 1992) - Soviet and Russian scientist, historian-ethnologist, doctor of historical and geographical sciences, poet, translator from Persian. Founder of the passionary theory of ethnogenesis.

Born in Tsarskoe Selo on October 1, 1912. The son of the poets Nikolai Gumilyov and Anna Akhmatova (see pedigree), . As a child, he was raised by his grandmother on the Slepnevo estate in the Bezhetsk district of the Tver province.

From 1917 to 1929 he lived in Bezhetsk. Since 1930 in Leningrad. In 1930-1934 he worked on expeditions in the Sayan Mountains, the Pamirs and the Crimea. In 1934 he began studying at the history department of Leningrad University. In 1935 he was expelled from the university and arrested, but after some time he was released. In 1937 he was reinstated at Leningrad State University.

In March 1938, he was arrested again while a student at Leningrad State University and sentenced to five years. He was involved in the same case with two other Leningrad State University students - Nikolai Erekhovich and Theodor Shumovsky. He served his sentence in Norillag, working as a geological technician in a copper-nickel mine; after serving his term, he was left in Norilsk without the right to leave. In the fall of 1944, he voluntarily joined the Soviet Army, fought as a private in the 1386th anti-aircraft artillery regiment (zenap), part of the 31st anti-aircraft artillery division (zenad) on the First Belorussian Front, ending the war in Berlin.

In 1945, he was demobilized, reinstated at Leningrad State University, from which he graduated at the beginning of 1946 and entered graduate school at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, from where he was expelled on the grounds of “due to the inadequacy of philological preparation for the chosen specialty.”

In December 1948, he defended his thesis for Candidate of Historical Sciences at Leningrad State University and was accepted as a research assistant at the Museum of Ethnography of the Peoples of the USSR.

Memorial plaque on the house where L. N. Gumilyov lived (St. Petersburg, Kolomenskaya st., 1)

November 1949 was arrested and sentenced by a Special Meeting to 10 years, which he first served in a camp special purpose in Sherubai-Nura near Karaganda, then in a camp near Mezhdurechensk in Kemerovo region, in Sayan. On May 11, 1956, he was rehabilitated due to the lack of evidence of a crime. In 1956 he worked as a librarian at the Hermitage. In 1961 he defended his doctoral dissertation on history (“Ancient Turks”), and in 1974 - his doctoral dissertation on geography (“Ethnogenesis and the Earth’s biosphere”). On May 21, 1976, he was denied a second degree of Doctor of Geographical Sciences. Before retiring in 1986, he worked at the Research Institute of Geography at Leningrad state university.

Died on June 15, 1992 in St. Petersburg. Funeral service in the Church of the Resurrection of Christ near the Warsaw Station. He was buried at the Nikolskoye cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

In August 2005, in Kazan, “in connection with the days of St. Petersburg and the celebration of the millennium of the city of Kazan,” a monument was erected to Lev Gumilyov.

On the personal initiative of the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, in 1996, in the Kazakh capital Astana, one of the leading [source not specified 57 days] universities in the country, the Eurasian National University named after L. N. Gumilyov, was named after Gumilyov. In 2002, an office-museum of L. N. Gumilyov was created within the walls of the university.

4.2 The main works of L. N. Gumilyov

* History of the Xiongnu people (1960)

* Discovery of Khazaria (1966)

* Ancient Turks (1967)

* Quest for a Fictional Kingdom (1970)

* Xiongnu in China (1974)

* Ethnogenesis and biosphere of the Earth (1979)

* Ancient Rus' and the Great Steppe (1989)

* Millennium around the Caspian Sea (1990)

* From Rus' to Russia (1992)

* The End and the Beginning Again (1992)

* Black Legend

* Synchrony. Experience of describing historical time

* Part of the works

* Bibliography

* From the history of Eurasia

Chapter 5. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov

.1 Biography of S.M. Solovyov

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov(May 5, 1820 - October 4, 1879<#"justify">5.2 Teaching activities

Department of Russian History<#"justify">5.3 Personality traits

As a character and moral personality, Solovyov emerged quite clearly from the very first steps of his scientific and career activities. Neat to the point of pedantry, he did not waste, it seems, a single minute; every hour of his day was provided for. Solovyov died at work. Elected rector, he accepted the position “because it was difficult to carry out.” Having made sure that Russian society did not have a history that satisfied the scientific requirements of the time, and feeling within himself the strength to give one, he set to work on it, seeing in it his social duty. From this consciousness he drew strength to accomplish his “patriotic feat.”

5.4 "History of Russia"

For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on “The History of Russia,” the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. Its first volume appeared in 1851<#"justify">§ the question of dividing Russian history into eras;

§the influence of the natural conditions of the territory (in the spirit of the views of K. Ritter<#"justify">5.5 Other works

To a certain extent, two other books by Solovyov can serve as a continuation of “History of Russia”:

§ “The History of the Fall of Poland” (Moscow, 1863, 369 pp.);

§ “Emperor Alexander the First. Politics, Diplomacy" (St. Petersburg, 1877, 560 pp.).

Subsequent editions of “History of Russia” - compact in 6 large volumes(7th - index; 2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1897<#"justify">§ "Writers of Russian history of the 18th century." (“Archive of historical and legal information. Kalachev”, 1855, book II, paragraph 1);

§"G. F. Miller" ("Contemporary"<#"justify">According to general history:

§“Observations on the historical life of peoples” (“Bulletin of Europe”, 1868-1876) - an attempt to grasp the meaning of historical life and outline the general course of its development, starting with ancient peoples East (brought to the beginning of the 10th century<#"justify">Conclusion

So what conclusions can we come to? It would be wrong to limit the methodological function of the social concept of personality only to the sphere of modern humanities. Like art, philosophical, social personality performs this function in relation to all arts and sciences, including natural science.

Many problems, even in this place, can be solved only with methodological justification using laws discovered since ancient times, social concept personality.

In particular, the periodization of the history of one or another science, the role of many social conditions in the emergence and solution of many scientific problems; the role of worldview in historical scientific creativity...

And, of course, the moral responsibility of the scientist as a classifier of sciences and the transformation of science into the direct productive force of society, etc.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account that in modern natural science, many branches that study objects related to both nature and society were destroyed.

The achievements of these sciences, in order to become effective, must rest on knowledge not only of the laws of nature, but also on knowledge of many laws of the sociological needs of society and the laws of the corresponding level of social development

Bibliography

1."N.M. Karamzin according to his writings, letters and reviews of contemporaries" (Moscow, 1866).

.Letters to N.I. Krivtsov ("Report of the Imperial Public Library for 1892", appendix).

.K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (St. Petersburg, 1882).

.Senigov "Historical and critical studies of the Novgorod Chronicle and the Russian history of Tatishchev" (Moscow, 1888; review by S.F. Platonov, "Bibliographer", 1888, No. 11).

.N. Popov "Scientists and literary works of T." (St. Petersburg, 1886).

."M. T. Kachenovsky" (“Biographical dictionary of professors of Moscow University,” part II).

7. "N. M. Karamzin and his literary activity: History of the Russian state" ("Domestic Notes "1853-1856, vols. 90, 92, 94, 99, 100, 105).

."A. L. Shletser" ("Russian Bulletin" , 1856, № 8).

“Ancient and New Russia” by Koyalovich P. V. Bezobrazov (“S. M. Solovyov, his life and scientific and literary activity”, St. Petersburg, 1894, from the series of Pavlenkov’s “Biographical Library”).

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.