Moscow, Nauka Publishing House. 1983. 216 p.
Significant progress has been made in studying the history of pre - revolutionary historical science - the views and historical concepts of its individual representatives and entire trends .1 To a much lesser extent, other components of historical science are covered, in particular, the development of special and auxiliary historical disciplines, without which it is impossible to fully present the main trends and level of development of historical science. Thus, the coverage of the state and development of historiography as a special discipline is limited to the relevant sections in " Essays on the history of Historical Science in the USSR "(vol. 2, 3. Moscow, 1960 - 1963) and an assessment of some historiographical works .2
The new book by Candidate of Historical Sciences R. A. Kireeva (Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences of the USSR) is the first systematic study of the formation and development of Russian historiography as an independent historical discipline.
The author is based on the study of historiographical works of representatives of mainly liberal-bourgeois and noble trends of Russian historical science in the Middle Ages.XIX-early XX. centuries. The attention paid to these areas and the chronological framework of the research are fully justified by the author (p. 15) and correspond to the actual process of formation of Russian historiography as a discipline. In the middle of the 19th century, Russian historical science, primarily represented by S. M. Solovyov, began to develop the main features of historiography.
The method used as the basis of R. A. Kireeva's research combines, on the one hand, a consistent consideration of the historiographic work of individual historians (Chapter 1), which allowed us to determine the range of historiographic subjects in their works, as well as the development of historiographic problems in general; on the other, the study of some methodological problems that make it possible to trace the process of transformation historiography from a simple supplement to historical works to an independent scientific discipline. Here the author of the book highlights questions about the definition of the subject of the history of historical science, its tasks and goals; about the course of development of historical science and its directions, about the system of its concepts and terms (Chapters 2-4).
The book is based on a thorough study of not only the published works of historians, but also the use of archival materials. The author worked in the archives of Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Nezhin, Penza with the personal funds of historians and the funds of institutions where their activities took place. As shown in the study, they contain valuable sources, lecture courses on Russian historiography, training programs, lecture reports, etc., which have not yet been introduced into scientific circulation.
These materials made it possible to cover a number of issues in a new way, to expand the idea of historiographical research of a particular historian, to trace the stages of his work on these problems. The 14 programs of the course of lectures on historiography for 1868-1879 by V. S. Ikonnikov made it possible to trace the process of forming historiography into an independent course and determine the basis on which it was developed. a great work "Experience of Russian historiography" was written (pp. 56-57). Based on archival materials, R. E. Kireeva identified new names of historians who dealt with historiography (A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, A. L. Ikonnikova), i.e. presented a more complete picture of the formation of historiography as an independent discipline. The archives also provided a wealth of material for studying the teaching of historiography. Here the preserved texts and plans of lectures by I. V. Lashnyukov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. S. Lappo - Danilevsky and others are of great value.
The author considers the historiographical ideas of historians in close connection
1 Nechkina M. V. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. Istoriya zhizni i tvorchestva [History of Life and Creativity], Moscow, 1974; Tsamutali A And the Struggle of Trends in Russian Historiography in the Second Half of the 19th Century, Moscow, 1977; Khmylev L. N. Problems of History Methodology in Russian Bourgeois Historiography in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Tomsk, 1978; Illeritsky V. E. Sergey Mikhailovich Solovyov, Moscow, 1980; Levandovsky A. A. Iz istorii krizisa russkoy bourzhuazno-liberalnoy istoriografii, Moscow, 1982; and others.
2 The largest work of this kind is R. A. Kireeva's monograph " V. O. Klyuchevsky as a historian of Russian Historical Science "(Moscow, 1966).
page 131
with other components of their historical views. Attention is focused on the connection of theoretical and methodological principles and general ideas about the Russian historical process, characteristic of a particular historian, with his views on the development of historical thought in Russia. This is most clearly seen when considering the issue of periodization of the development of historical science and determining its directions. These observations contribute to a deeper understanding of the processes that took place in science at the end of the XIX-beginning of the XX century. For example, the fact that P. N. Milyukov and A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky understood the development of historical science as the result of the evolution of "scientific ideas" - in contrast to their predecessors (Solovyov and Lashnyukov), who linked this development with the general internal development of the country, indicates the strengthening of idealism and subjectivism in bourgeois historical science in the end XIX-early XX century.
R. A. Kireeva makes an attempt to trace the connection between the formation of historiography as an independent discipline and the stages of development of Russian historical science in general. This is very important, but it would be advisable to pay attention to these points not only in the first chapter, but also when considering the subject of historiography, its periodization and definition of trends. Then the idea of historiography as a special branch of the study of history (Klyuchevsky), or a component of Russian national science as a whole (Koyalovich), or a part of Russian culture (Milyukov) would be more closely connected with the development of the discipline itself and with the general level of historical science and social thought.
Noting the general inconsistency of the historiography of that time in understanding the causes of the emergence and class basis of trends in historical science, the author assesses the importance of attempts to pose this problem in order to clarify the social essence of the historiographic concepts of liberal-bourgeois historians. This is evident in their desire to see the origins and peculiarities of the bourgeois trend in historical science, which, for example, is due to the attention paid to the study of the" skeptical " school, the views of Slavophiles and Westerners, and even in the recognition of the merits of the Decembrists as critics of N. M. Karamzin, although the development of democratic ideas in historical science was hushed up by them. It reveals a tendency for bourgeois historiographers to reject the analysis of significant differences in historiographical concepts of the late XIX-early XX centuries. It rightly sees this as a reflection of the weakness of the original theoretical-methodological and ideological-political positions of liberal bourgeois historiography.
The book significantly expands our understanding of the level of development of historiography as a special historical discipline at the time under consideration. First, it was possible to establish that the circle of historians who studied the history of historical science in Russia and the scope of historiographical research were wider than previously thought. Secondly, the author reveals the process of forming historiography into a special discipline, improving the methods of historiographic analysis. R. A. Kireeva showed that historiography was born as an academic "university" discipline, and that most historiographic works were based on historiographic courses. All this makes it possible to better understand the patterns of development of historical science in general and the role of historiography in it.
Consideration of the role of educational institutions, in particular universities, in the development of scientific problems was very fruitful. Continuing this topic, it is possible to raise a broader question about the level of teaching of general and special courses, about the interrelation of academic disciplines, about the influence of university science on the development of historical science. The history of historiography as an integral component not only of historical science, but also of the history of science in general is also of interest.
page 132
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2019-2025, LIBRARY.MD is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Moldova |