Historiography. Historiography as a science Historiography is called

HISTORIOGRAPHY (from the Greek ίστορία - history and...graphy), a special scientific discipline that interprets the experience of knowing history. He studies mainly the history of historical science (history), but, along with it, also the history of the formation of historical ideas in the space of culture, the history of socio-political thought. Historiography develops in close cooperation with archival science, librarianship, historical bibliography, source studies, and bibliology.

The need to understand the theoretical and methodological components of scientific research determines the attention of historiography to philosophy and the philosophy of history, which makes it possible to identify the influence of basic historical and philosophical concepts on historical knowledge, on the replacement of theories of scientific knowledge. Historiography observes the development and change of historical concepts based on the material of specific historical works. Historiography as an academic discipline is also aimed primarily at presenting historical concepts. The subject of historiography includes research schools, traditions, the practice of scientific continuity, the empirical component of historical research, the formation and development of their problems, analysis of the source study and historiographic foundation of the works of historians. This set of tasks includes the disclosure of methods of historical research and coverage of the history of the development of methods and methods of interpreting historical sources.

The concepts of “historiographer” and “historian”, “historiography” and “history” during the formation of history as a science were used as synonyms (for example, in the 18th - early 19th centuries, G.F. Miller, M.M. Shcherbatov, N.M. Karamzin, who were engaged in “writing history”). We find similar word usage among foreign authors (for example, the Italian philosopher and historian B. Croce uses the concept of “historiography” to denote the process of historical knowledge; he defines the history and theory of historiography as the subject of analysis). The subject of historiography changes with the development of historical science itself, expanding its boundaries; its understanding has its own characteristics in various historical schools and traditions.

There is also another definition of historiography - a set of historical works reflecting events and phenomena of the past that appeared in a particular period or dedicated to a particular historical era or problem, the history and theory of historical knowledge.

Historiography of antiquity and the European Middle Ages. Ancient historiography covers the period from the 5th century BC to the 5th century AD. Its origins go back to the era of the formation of classical Greek culture, associated with the formation of rationalistic philosophy and a special type of literature based on strict rhetorical principles. With its forms of knowledge of the world and the normative ordering of literary creativity, this culture broke with previous forms of mythological consciousness and mythopoetic creativity, and was decisively different from other cultures of antiquity. It was within the framework of the Greco-Latin tradition that the idea of ​​historiography was formed as a special form of literary text, the main features of which are a reliable narration of past events, presented in chronological order and selected in accordance with the criteria of truth and veracity. Historical writing was initially defined as the result of both research efforts (it was the idea of ​​research, search that determined the semantics of the concept of “history” already in the first major historical narrative, Herodotus’s “History”), and literary work itself.

As a literary work, the story had to appear rhetorically perfect, it had to please the reader, entertain and instruct him. For this reason, the criterion of truthfulness was easily replaced by verisimilitude, and in the texts purely literary stylistic devices were often used, such as fictitious speeches and dialogues, guesswork of missing information, stylization of images of heroes or pictures of people’s lives in accordance with the views of the authors. At the same time, the idea that truthfulness is an indispensable and obligatory condition for historical writing, declared by the “father of history” Herodotus and specially problematized by the second great founder of the genre, Thucydides, was firmly rooted in the minds of ancient authors.

Ancient historiography reflects the most important features of the historical consciousness of this culture. These include confidence in the fundamental knowability of the natural, including human, world and the possibility of its reasonable explanation. The works of ancient historians performed didactic tasks, presenting to the public convincing images of virtuous and bad behavior of both individual outstanding individuals and entire nations. History, being a special genre of ancient literature, at the same time in a number of cases came close to biography in its functions of moral teaching using the example of historical figures.

The turn to the creation of historical works, as evidenced by the example of all the most significant Greek and Roman authors, was caused by pressing problems of political life and the desire to understand their causes and possible consequences. It is no coincidence that the main content of historical works was the facts of political history: wars, important government decisions, the struggle of political parties, the actions of rulers and politicians. In general, the historical consciousness of the Greeks was characterized by a lack of ideas about the variability of society over time. Historical dynamics were determined by external factors: wars, political struggles, states of decline or prosperity, but not by changes in the very nature of social life.

However, it was not only involvement in current life that forced representatives of the social and political elites (from whose circle almost all famous historians of antiquity came) to write historical works, but also a direct, living curiosity about the life of their community and surrounding peoples. The very birth of history in the Ionian Greek colonies was due to extensive contacts of the Greeks with neighboring peoples, and the creation of Herodotus’s “History” is directly related to his interest in the enemy in the Greco-Persian wars.

Already at the very beginning of the formation of historiography as a special form of intellectual and literary activity, the question of its cognitive capabilities was raised; in particular, Aristotle determined its place in the circle of empirical sciences, declaring that history deals with separate and individual things, and therefore, unlike philosophy, cannot claim to derive universal generalizations. Finally, already in this era, a distinction emerged between two forms of historical research and writings - between lengthy narratives, on the one hand, and private studies, on the other.

The end of the era of ancient historiography coincided not only with the disintegration and collapse of the Roman Empire, but also with the formation of a new, Christian concept of historical development and ways of explaining historical processes. The creation in the 4th and 5th centuries of a Christian model of universal history, based on biblical schemes and proceeding from the dualistic unity of the earthly history of peoples and the sacred history of Divine predestination, played a crucial role in the future development of medieval European and Byzantine historiography. At the same time, both European and Byzantine historiography of the new era did not lose living ties with the traditions of Greco-Roman historical writing. The first universal Christian stories (Eusebius of Caesarea, Orosius), based on the experience of the biblical narrative about the action of God through the historical existence of the chosen people, at the same time directly refer to the forms and techniques of ancient historical writings. In the subsequent centuries of the development of medieval historiography, the connection with the ancient tradition was manifested in a variety of aspects: in the preservation of the main genres of ancient historiography (annals, chronicles, chronographs, histories); in the widespread use of the works of ancient historians for rhetorical decoration or clarification of the meaning of the events described; in fidelity to the principles of authenticity and chronological sequence of the narrative; in primary attention to recording contemporary events or the recent past, information about which should be preserved for posterity.

Medieval historical works were numerous and varied in their subjects. They included works of different genres: annals, chronicles, biographies and autobiographies, histories of individual secular and church communities, genealogies of ruling and aristocratic dynasties. In their content and functions, hagiographic texts were similar to historical works proper: the lives contained a narrative not only about the saints themselves, but often also a broad outline of the history of the community or locality with which the saint was associated during life or after death. Medieval authors made extensive use of oral tradition - legends and oral testimonies of contemporaries, gave unconditional priority to eyewitness information, and described in more detail the events of which they were contemporaries. Written sources were used mechanically, historical works were largely compilative in nature, and the authors sought to use the works of their predecessors with maximum accuracy, rewriting large fragments of the text. When selecting written sources, they were guided by the pragmatic principle of accessibility of certain texts, on the one hand, and the principle of the authority of a particular work, confirmed by the tradition and memory of a particular community, on the other. The concept of an authoritative source and an authoritative judgment was one of the most important categories of medieval consciousness, including the historiographical tradition. The main and unconditional authoritative text of the Middle Ages was the Holy Scripture. The information contained in it was not questioned. In addition, they served as the main source for the interpretation of real events and historical characters. The universal epistemological procedure of medieval historiography is determined by the concept of “mimesis” - the likening of real events and people to one or another biblical prototype. In the facts of earthly life they saw only the external expression of universal ideas and a reflection of divine providence.

Historical works rarely included information about social or economic life; their authors were primarily interested in information about significant events that took place in the sphere of political or church life, the actions of powerful people - secular rulers or princes of the church. Medieval historiography also retained the function of moral instruction, characteristic of antiquity.

Historiography of the European early modern period and the Enlightenment (15th-18th centuries). The development of Europe in the 15th-18th centuries, marked by significant socio-cultural phenomena such as the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment, is characterized by a radical reorganization of its entire confessional, political and intellectual space.

Among the most important phenomena of the 15th-18th centuries that influenced the subsequent formation of history as a modern science was the emergence of new practices for the study of historical monuments. First of all, it should be noted the formation of techniques of historical philology, which formed the basis of modern criticism of historical sources. Historical and philological research developed in the context and in connection with the desire of Italian humanists to revive the high standards of classical ancient culture and literature. They formulated new ideas about the historical process (the idea of ​​development and variability, the concept of the rise and decline of culture, the concept of the “Middle Ages”) and began to use new techniques for working with texts, which made it possible to distinguish classical texts from medieval forgeries. The first example of the use of methods of philological criticism in order to establish historical truth is the work of L. Valla “Treatise on the Forgery of the Donation of Constantine” (about 1440), which proved that neither from a historical nor from a philological point of view one of the most famous medieval documents could be written in the era of Emperor Constantine and Pope Sylvester I. Historical and philological research of this time was carried out mainly on the material of ancient literature and New Testament texts, which for the first time were tested from the point of view of the Vulgate’s compliance with the Greek original, and the results of humanist research were used in the preparation of Protestants’ own editions New Testament. Thus, not only was the possibility of establishing the authenticity of texts proven by studying their literary and linguistic features, but also the importance of studying individual manuscripts for discovering the original version of the work was revealed (E. Barbaro, in whose works they see the origins of future textual criticism). Another innovative technique in the historian’s work aimed at determining the reliability of the sources he uses was the method of establishing the authenticity of medieval documents, first developed by the Benedictine scholar J. Mabillon (“De re diplomatica”, 1681). In essence, this was the first convincing apology for history as a science capable of confirming the truth of its statements.

Another remarkable innovation in historical work was the desire, which consistently developed over these centuries, to accumulate as many monuments of the past as possible, which was seen as an opportunity to get to know it better. Activities related to the collection, description and study of antiquities had as their most important component the search and publication of medieval written texts, including monuments of a legal and business nature. In England, monuments from the Anglo-Saxon era came into focus; German Protestants searched for historical works, trying to explain the peculiarities of the development of German statehood and the church; the study of legal texts by French jurists to explain the differences in legal systems that existed in the northern and southern parts of the kingdom in the 16th century gave impetus to the development of legal and institutional history; The Jesuits and Benedictines began a systematic effort to locate and publish texts relating to church history. This desire to collect monuments of the past grew out of the erudite interest in antiquities so characteristic of humanists and from the perception of history as an effective weapon in an era of acute religious and political conflicts.

The polymaths became the first representatives of historical scholarship in the various scientific societies of the 17th century created to develop the empirical and natural sciences. The perception of history as an empirical science, based on concrete facts, capable of establishing their reliability and recreating real events on their basis, was born from the painstaking hard work of antiquarians and scholars, fertilized by the theoretical reflection of early modern times. Statements about the duty of history to establish the authenticity of facts and events and consider them in their entirety can be found in the reflections of J. Bodin, F. Patrizi, F. Bacon and others.

The study of antiquities and the writing of history existed as two separate and largely isolated practices of knowledge of the past, determined by their own tasks and methods of its reconstruction. F. Bacon divided historical knowledge into “perfect” and “imperfect” history, referring to the first the stories about significant events and outstanding statesmen, and to the second - the efforts of antiquarians and scholars who prepared working material for the former. The overwhelming majority of historical works of the 15th-17th centuries maintained direct continuity with the practices of medieval chroniclers; they were compilative and adhered to chronological sequence as the main principle of narrative organization. Only a few outstanding works of the era (the value of which is recognized by modern scientific historiography) are marked by the close attention of the authors to the problems of selecting sources and establishing the truth of the information they report.

Until the 17th century, the writing of history was complicated by very strict and almost universal censorship supervision: authors had to monitor whether their writings threatened the interests of ecclesiastical or secular authorities. During this period, scientific historiography, still in its infancy, received its first martyrs: scientists who suffered for publishing historical information or judgments that were objectionable to the authorities and the church.

At the same time, public interest in historical works noticeably increased, the social profile of the creators and readers of historical works changed - these activities ceased to be the prerogative of the clergy and the church and moved to the secular environment of intellectuals and educated laity. The content of historical writings was increasingly determined by a departure from church-religious issues towards secular life (the so-called secularization of history).

In the context of the formation in the 16th-17th centuries of the concept of science as a special sphere of human activity, with undeniable benefits for society, capable of independently determining its own subject, goals and methods of work and convincingly proving the truth of its conclusions, history was declared an activity that did not fall under this definition. R. Descartes, the most authoritative theorist of rational scientific knowledge, was skeptical about the possibilities of obtaining reliable historical knowledge, which, of course, reflects observations on modern practices of historical writing. The historical essay was evaluated in accordance with the criteria of the literary work itself: good language, adherence to rhetorical conventions, entertaining. Truthfulness was still often sacrificed for the sake of literary appeal. The line between fiction and conjecture, reliability and plausibility remained fluid and was determined at the level of personal intuition. If Aristotle assigned history a low place in his hierarchy of sciences, since it dealt with particular things without answering the question of universal laws, then the new era reproached it for the lack of a clear understanding of its subject and method, the only ones capable of confirming the reliability and objectivity of the knowledge it produces. It should be noted that this period was also marked by the absence of any decisive changes in the sphere of understanding the general laws of the historical process. The providentialist concept of Christian historiography more or less clearly gave way to a rational and secularized explanation of cause and effect.

The idea of ​​history as a process of change and development gradually took root, however, only in the 18th century did these ideas transform into new holistic concepts of the historical process. At the same time, the 18th century is notable for the active use of historical information as material for determining the universal principles of the organization of human communities, modeling various types of social organization and the mechanisms of their change, which had unconditional originality in comparison with previous forms of political and social reflection.

History as a general system of knowledge and ideas about the past received in this era a number of important philosophical models of the historical process and a variety of forms of social structure (“philosophical historiography”). It was they who became the instrument for the final displacement of the religious paradigm of salvation and predestination to the periphery of rational schemes for explaining history as a dynamic process.

Philosophical historiography of the 18th century was brought to life by the general progress of natural science and became a response to the demand to formulate general laws of social development. The most important ideas include the concept of the unity of human history, the possibility of convincing generalizations about the nature of individual societies or historical periods, and an understanding of historical dynamics as the progress of human culture and civilization. The intellectual arsenal of historians has been replenished with the concepts of culture and civilization, historical era, society as a set of various factors that are in complex and diverse relationships. Most of the writings of this kind arose in the course of polemics with opponents from church circles or a rival political camp. Their significance, however, was not limited to solving specific political problems, since for the first time the authority of any judgments and statements was called into question.

The most popular and had the greatest impact on all subsequent European historiography and historical philosophy was the theory of progress. Its direct expression was the work of the French philosopher M. J. Condorcet “Sketch for a Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind” (1794). He interpreted the history of mankind as a linear process, the content of which was a consistent movement towards an increasingly more reasonable structure of society. He divided it into 9 periods, the transition to each of which was characterized by some significant achievement in the field of intellectual development or scientific discovery. He predicted that people are on the threshold of the last, 10th era, which will be marked by an unprecedented triumph of reason and science, which will create a truly happy society based on justice, equality of people and the prosperity of trade. In history, he saw a source of enlightenment for humanity, a way to teach it a lesson and direct its development in the right direction. A similar attitude to history was typical of the French encyclopedists, who saw in it primarily a source of didactically significant examples. The only obvious opponent of the theory of progress among educational philosophers was J. J. Rousseau, who believed that only the initial natural state of people is ideal, the progress of the mind is carried out at the expense of other properties of human nature, and civilization leads to the destruction of the “natural state” of man.

In parallel and often without connection with the theory of historical progress, other forms of socio-philosophical reflection developed, which responded to the need to explain the existence of various types of human communities. An attempt to explain the diversity of forms of social structure, morals and customs, reconciling it with the ideas of the unity of human nature and the decisive role of reason in the development of mankind, was undertaken by S. L. Montesquieu in his treatise “On the Spirit of Laws.” Like no one before, he drew attention to the variety of factors influencing society, of which he considered the natural environment to be the main one.

In contrast to the theory of progress, which focused on elucidating the mechanisms of development that were universal for all mankind, the concept of culture shifted the focus of attention from the external signs of various societies to their deep originality, looking for the mechanisms of their historical development in the complex interaction of their inherent features of spiritual life and customs. The ideas of modern historiography were anticipated by the work “Foundations of a new science of the general nature of nations” (1725) by the Italian philosopher G. Vico, who considered each specific society as a complex system of various phenomena that are in close and multilateral interaction with each other. Understanding the true nature of society consisted of studying not only individual elements of spiritual or social life, but also understanding the principles of their mutual influence and relationships. Vico, rejecting the rationalistic confidence in the universality and omnipotence of reason, proposed an alternative model to the universal theory of progress for explaining the mechanisms of society’s transition from one stage of development to another, believing that they should be sought in changes in individual aspects of social consciousness and the ways in which they influence society as a whole. Just as decisively, he challenged the idea of ​​a hierarchy of individual stages of social development, replacing them with the idea of ​​the intrinsic value of individual eras and societies. Vico's ideas influenced the concept of the diversity of cultures in the historiography of G. Herder, who introduced the distinction between the Enlightenment concept of civilization (the universal process of improvement and transformation of society) and culture as a historically formed system of values ​​and customs. Each nation has its own culture, and it is in it that one should look for an explanation of the peculiarities of its historical development, without reducing them to the path traversed by European society. Herder, like Vico, replaced the concept of linear progress of humanity with the image of the cyclical development of each individual culture.

In the 18th century, several outstanding historical works were created, which combined broad erudite knowledge of specific historical material with its understanding within the framework of new concepts of progress and development. The main work of historiography of the Enlightenment era, which for many years retained the status of an exemplary historical work, was the work of E. Gibbon “The History of the Decline and Destruction of the Roman Empire” (volumes 1-6, 1776-88). In this work, the traditional understanding of historical writing as a literary and didactic work is combined with the wide use of a variety of historical sources and a tolerant attitude towards the main historical and philosophical explanatory schemes.

Scientific European historiography of the 19th-20th centuries. The 19th century is called the century of history, since in this century a set of important and heterogeneous trends emerged that directly affected the status of historiography, the internal principles of its constitution and the general principles of development. This period is characterized by a movement from a general increase in interest in the past in the culture of romanticism to the final transformation of history into an academic science with its own method and rules of argumentation, an established educational system and the institutionalization of professional activities. In the 19th century, the assertion about the ability of historical research to come to justified conclusions about the patterns and cause-and-effect relationships of events was supplemented by the use of theoretical experience of other social sciences and the subsequent desire to prove the ability of history to make independent generalizations. Finally, this century ushered in an era of theoretical and methodological reflection on the nature and prospects of historical knowledge, without which, starting from the mid-20th century, work in the field of research and writing historical works became impossible.

The period of formation of scientific historiography itself and history as an academic science began with increased interest in history at the beginning of the 19th century, caused by the events of the French Revolution of the 18th century and the Napoleonic wars. For the first time, the attention of historians was drawn to the study of the people as a subject of history and the search for the causes of historical events in the behavior of mass communities (O. Thierry, F. Guizot, J. Michelet). The culture of romanticism also brought with it a deep interest in the Middle Ages, which began to be perceived as an era when human consciousness and motives of behavior were deeply different from modern ones. The Middle Ages were idealized by the romantics as a time for people to openly express their passions and emotions and contrasted them with modernity, based on rationality and regulation of individual behavior. The culture of romanticism not only rehabilitated the Middle Ages, but introduced the principle of historicism into the understanding of the past, namely the awareness that individual societies and eras differ not only in certain formal parameters, but in the entire structure of people’s lives and thoughts. The Enlightenment concept of progress was supplanted by the idea of ​​organic development of society. The historiography of the early 19th century retained many of the traditional shortcomings of previous eras: literariness, compilation, and the absence of a clear boundary between verifiable authenticity and fiction. Methods of critical analysis of historical monuments and their careful study still remained the domain of scholars or specialists in ancient literature and were not perceived by the creators of historical works as a mandatory basis for their work.

A real turning point in the understanding of historiography as a professional scientific activity occurred only in the 2nd third of the 19th century and is associated with the activities of L. von Ranke and the spread of the rules and techniques of historical research and historical education introduced by him in Europe. It is noteworthy that both Ranke himself and the creator of a complete system of scientific criticism of sources, B. G. Niebuhr, were brought up on the experience of classical studies, which since the Renaissance have been engaged in improving the methods of studying and interpreting ancient texts. Having declared the main task of the historian to be accuracy in the reconstruction of the past, Ranke placed at the center of his work literary and historical criticism of sources, the completeness and accuracy of their selection, and the need to establish with maximum accuracy the reliability of the information used. He believed that history consists of the development of individuals, nations and states, which together form the process of cultural development. Ranke believed that history is a holistic and natural process, which is based on the action of divine predestination hidden from people, and the justification of reality should be sought in the continuity and continuity of cultural development. Using the concept of the “historical life” of peoples, he considered the most perfect form of its embodiment to be the modern state and their relationships. Ranke, defining the historian's duty as an accurate, objective and impartial reconstruction of the past, proceeded from the idea of ​​religious responsibility, the most truthful and reliable disclosure of God's plan, reflected in the facts of human history. Ranke used the principles of historical research that he formulated as the basis for his teaching activities, and the scientific seminar he created, dedicated to the techniques of source study, became during the 2nd half of the 19th century the main form of training for professional historians.

The scientific historiography of this time, called positivist, stood firmly on the foundation of the historical-critical method (summarized in the classic work of C. Langlois and C. Senobos, “Introduction to the Study of History,” 1898). The interpretation of the tasks of historiography as the most reliable and objective reconstruction of the past in the entirety of known facts firmly established history as an empirical science; the dispute was about the ability of history to independently deduce general patterns of historical development. Positivist philosophy, which flourished in the 2nd half of the 19th century, gave historians the confidence that the accumulation of the most reliable facts could in itself lead researchers to conclusions about the universal laws of human evolution. At the same time, in the general system of rapidly developing social knowledge, the prevailing belief was that historical research can only provide reliable facts for other sciences about society, which are engaged in elucidating the general laws of its structure and development. Generalizing concepts of universal historical development, giving a holistic idea of ​​the nature, goals, laws and direction of human development (the theories of G. W. F. Hegel, K. Marx), did not find direct application in positivist historiography. In essence, historical-critical research as such did not need theoretical reflection, but the need for generalizations and generalizations arose when historians were faced with the need to create narratives covering a large volume of accumulated facts or long historical periods. By the end of the century, the development of economic research began to have a great influence on history: this led not only to the formation of economic history as a special branch of historiography, but also to the popularity of theories of economic determinism, which forced us to see in the sphere of economics the main mechanism of the evolution of human society.

The recognition and spread of the historical-critical method in the 2nd half of the 19th century met with intellectual opposition that arose among philosophers and sociologists, and then professional historians. From the point of view of the subsequent development of the methodology of history, reflections on its subject and methods, F. Nietzsche’s criticism of history was extremely important. His views were determined by pessimism regarding both the usefulness of historical knowledge for modern times and its ability to truthfully and objectively reconstruct the past. Nietzsche’s ideas, superficially understood by his contemporaries, turned out to be in demand in the debate about the boundaries, principles and functions of historical knowledge, which unfolded in the 2nd half of the 20th century and has not subsided to this day. He is seen as the founder of ideas about the impossibility of objective historical knowledge, inevitably colored by personal and ideological predilections, and, consequently, subjective assessments of the past.

Of great relevance was the criticism coming from practicing historians, especially cultural historians: they realized that to describe cultural phenomena in their development and impact on the life of society, both rationalistic concepts of evolution and progress of consciousness, as well as deterministic and universal sociological or economic models, were unacceptable. German historians were largely responsible for the fact that discussions about the importance of understanding the motives of human behavior, their connection with the problems of the formation of values ​​and ideas, and the relationship between individual and mass consciousness began to penetrate into the very fabric of concrete historical research. German historians of the late 19th - early 20th centuries (L. Brentano, K. Bücher, K. Lamprecht) widely used the concept of culture, understood as a complex set of ideas, values, ideas, in the implementation of economic and social research, creating new directions in historiography, alternative both traditional political history in the spirit of L. von Ranke, and positivist sociology. The outstanding historian of antiquity E. Meyer sharply criticized the ideas about the real existence of laws of historical development, believing that any generalizations regarding historical patterns are just intellectual constructs that do not exist in reality, but only in the minds of researchers who organize empirical experience.

The beginning of a radical revolution in understanding the specifics of historical research, the consequences, and perhaps even a direct continuation of which are presented in modern discussions about the methodology of history, is associated with a wide debate about the nature of the humanities and social sciences. This controversy, initiated by supporters of German neo-Kantian philosophers, aimed at precise differentiation of the natural sciences and the cultural sciences by determining the specificity of their research methods, the credibility of their conclusions and the ability to create universal theoretical generalizations. Despite the profound differences in the views of the participants in this debate (W. Dilthey, W. Windelband, G. Rickert, M. Weber, E. Meyer), the discussion made it possible to draw a line that distinguishes the modern methodology of humanitarian knowledge from the positivist one. It was shown that the social phenomena that are the subject of historical research are fundamentally, by their very nature, different from the phenomena studied by the natural sciences; they reflect various aspects of human activity and, therefore, cannot be explained without understanding the motives that gave rise to them. Recognition of the individuality and singularity of any historical fact deprives historians of the right to claim to construct certain universal and objective laws of history: they are forced to recognize the initial convention of both the analytical categories and concepts used, and any generalization or theorizing that accompanies the study of specific empirical material. Finally, in the course of these debates, the very objectivity of historical research was called into question: history as a science of values ​​could not be free from value judgments introduced by the researcher himself and associated with his personal subjective experience. This controversy left open the most important questions, such as the specific boundaries of empiricism and theorizing in historical research, the acceptable extent of the historian’s use of the tools and conceptual apparatus of other social sciences (sociology, psychology, economics), and the role of the scientist’s intuition in the interpretation of facts. Freedom of choice in answering these questions has become an inalienable individual right of historians of the 20th century, and the need to solve them is part of their professional activity.

In the 20th century, historiography is marked by extreme diversity due to various factors: the expansion of problems and topics of research, the wide possibility of choosing a methodological paradigm, the use of achievements of other social and human sciences, and finally, the recognition of critical reflection on questions of methodology as an integral element and even a separate branch of historiographical activity. The desire for novelty became the main feature of all new historiographical movements that emerged in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Often the declarative nature of these claims did not contradict the fact that they opened the way for truly serious criticism of any of the most authoritative historiographical schools and trends, brought into focus problems that had not previously occupied historians, and finally led to the introduction of new techniques into research and into the language of historical narratives. - new concepts and concepts.

Among the most important phenomena of historiography of the 20th century, the following trends should be noted: various directions of socio-cultural and cultural history (German “history of ideas” and “history of culture”; “history of mentalities”; “new intellectual history”, “cultural history of the social”, “history of discourses"); generalizing social-structural history (“Annals” school, European and partly Soviet Marxist social history); historical and cultural anthropology, the history of rituals and representations, united by the widespread use of techniques of semiotic and anthropological analysis in the study of social, political and religious phenomena of the past; so-called postmodern criticism, which sharpened the problem of the literary nature of both historical sources and scientific works themselves; microhistory, which has placed the study of individual particular phenomena of the past at the center of research interest. All these areas allow for the widest variation of research topics and techniques. The boundaries between them are fluid, and the paths of evolution or relationships between different generations are often unpredictable. What they have in common is a conscious distancing from traditional critical historiography, presented in the model of political and event history set by L. von Ranke. In addition, in modern historiography, as a rule, the use of generalizing concepts of the historical process is deliberately avoided.

The changing role of the state, the status of women, methods of communication and dissemination of information, attitudes towards social minorities and many other important processes and problems of our time inevitably resonate in the topics of historical research: the study of the functions and symbols of power, methods of social control, the position and perception of women or minorities in the past, mechanisms of social communication and transmission of information.

Lit.: Baraclough G. Turning points in world history. L., 1979; Febr L. Fights for history. M., 1991; Vernadsky G.V. Russian historiography. M., 1998; Croce B. Theory and history of historiography. M., 1998; Other Middle Ages. M., 2000; Koposov N. E. How historians think. M., 2001; Images of historiography. M., 2001; Repina L.P., Zvereva V.V., Paramonova M.Yu. History of historical knowledge. 2nd ed. M., 2004; "Chain of Times". Problems of historical consciousness. M., 2005; Iggers G. G. Historiography in the twentieth century. Middletown, 2005; Toynbee A. Comprehension of history. M., 2006; Historical science in the 20th century. Historiography of the history of modern and modern times in Europe and America. M., 2007.

Russian historiography. The attention of Russian historians has always been focused primarily on the experience of comprehending Russian history, which is how the directions “historiography of the history of Russia” (“Russian historiography”, “historiography of Russia”) and “historiography of the history of the USSR” were formed.

Elements of historiography in the modern sense of the word arose a long time ago: already ancient Russian chroniclers were to a large extent historiographers. Historiography arose together with historical science in the 18th century as its integral part (in the mid-18th - 1st quarter of the 19th century, essays about the works of their predecessors were included in the prefaces to their works by V.N. Tatishchev, F.A. Emin, M.M. Shcherbatov, I. P. Elagin, A. L. Shlyotser, N. M. Karamzin, etc.). At the same time, historiography was not considered for a long time as an independent branch of scientific historical knowledge. A significant role in the preparation of the historiographic reference base was played by the bibliographic and biographical works of A. B. Sellia, N. I. Novikov, Evgeniy (E. A. Bolkhovitinov), N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky, A. K. Shtorkh, F. P. Adelunga and others. The disciplinary formation of domestic historiography was facilitated by the historical and literary controversy around N. M. Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” (volumes 1-12, 1818-29). At the same time, the foundations of the so-called personological historiography were laid, collecting and publishing the heritage of historians (“The Spirit of Karamzin, or Selected Thoughts and Feelings of this Writer,” parts 1-2, 1827). In the 2nd quarter of the 19th century, the genre of critical annual reviews of historical literature developed (K. D. Kavelin, M. P. Pogodin, A. N. Afanasyev). At the same time, gradually the terms “historiography” and “history” received an additional interpretation: historiography began to be understood not as the actual study of the past, but as the history of this study itself. The terminology of the discipline appeared. In the 1830-1840s, methodological issues of historiography were considered by representatives of the “skeptical school” founded by M. T. Kachenovsky. In 1845, the works of A. V. Starchevsky (“Essay on the literature of Russian history before Karamzin”), who sought to clarify the evolution of the forms of historical works, and A. V. Alexandrov (“Modern historical works in Russia”) were published. Significant interest in historiography was revealed in the ideological disputes between Slavophiles and Westerners in the 1840-50s.

Actually, historiographic approaches began with the interpretation of medieval spiritual and historical writings as manifestations of Russian self-awareness, with which Russian historiography is obviously connected. Studying medieval literature, S.P. Shevyrev (“History of Russian Literature...”, parts 1-2, 1846, part 3, 1858, part 4, 1860) perceived it as a reflection of the spiritual experience of the people and used the “historical method of presentation” ; M. O. Koyalovich’s work was called “The History of Russian Self-Consciousness Based on Historical Monuments and Scientific Writings” (1884).

In the 2nd half of the 19th century, the historiography of antiquity, the historiography of the Middle Ages, the historiography of the Renaissance, the historiography of the Enlightenment, the historiography of romanticism, the historiography of positivism, etc. began to be considered as an independent object of analysis. At the same time, the existence of special and national historiographies was noted for the first time, which meant the study of the state and development of historical knowledge within the framework of individual historical periods and various directions and traditions (for example, the historiography of the New Age in Europe and Asia). Problem historiography, engaged in the analysis of the study of a specific historical problem, also took shape as a separate direction; often she drew close to historical bibliography.

In the domestic tradition, the subject of historiography is adjacent to historical source studies. “The Experience of Russian Historiography” by V. S. Ikonnikov (volume 1, books 1-2, volume 2, books 1-2, 1891-1908) is entirely aimed at a critical examination of sources and literature on Russian history in their gradual development. In the 2nd half of the 19th century, a tradition of scientific portraiture arose. The number of publications dedicated to the work of individual historians has increased dramatically since the 1850s. In this regard, the work of N. A. Popov “V. N. Tatishchev and his time" (1861). The gallery of portraits of historical scientists of the 18th-19th centuries was created by S. M. Solovyov, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin (the first of the Russian historians in whose work historiography took a central place), V. O. Klyuchevsky and others. Perceiving historiography as set of works, historians emphasized that both historical works as a whole and their individual elements can be subjected to historiographic analysis, but at the same time, in the words of Klyuchevsky, the “main meaning” of historical development, which unites all the main phenomena of historical life, should not be lost. In this way, historiographic approaches were associated with the general context of historical development.

The completion of the process of formation of historiography as an independent scientific discipline occurred in the 1890-1910s and is associated with the works of V. S. Ikonnikov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, P. N. Milyukov, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. The latter proposed a methodologically correct analysis of the problems of periodization of historical science and examined the origin of scientific historical schools.

Already from the end of the 19th century, the subject of historiography included consideration of forms of organization of historical and scientific research, organizational conditions for the development of science and the acquisition of historical knowledge. In the space of historiographic consideration were the structure of scientific institutions, archives, libraries, the history of scientific societies, the system of training and the state of scientific personnel, the system of popularization of historical knowledge, the publication of historical sources, objective socio-political and socio-economic conditions for the development of science.

By the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, clear ideas had emerged about the composition of the body of historiographical sources, supplemented and clarified in the methodological developments of subsequent decades. Such sources included early forms of historical writing (primarily chronicles), works of professional historians and preparatory materials for them; journalistic writings, memoirs, diaries and correspondence of historians; documentation of scientific and historical institutions, organizations and societies; educational and popular scientific historical literature; scientific and historical periodicals; works of fiction and fine art on historical themes. At the same time, there was a tendency to include philosophical works, manifestations of social thought and political doctrine in the sphere of historiographic analysis. Historiography also interpreted everyday ideas about the past, providing material for understanding the historical consciousness of society, its individual groups, the degree and nature of the dissemination of historical knowledge, and their influence on social practice. With the discovery of the connection between historical concepts and social practice, the boundaries of historiography and the history of social thought began to blur. This is clearly visible in the works of P. N. Milyukov “The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought” (1897), G. V. Plekhanov “The History of Russian Social Thought” (volumes 1-3, 1914-17), etc. In them, the research of historians is presented as a phenomenon of social thought, and in some cases even political thought.

Changes in public attitudes in the 20th century led to the fact that historical science began to be viewed as a socio-political phenomenon. The theme of class struggle in historical science ultimately turned out to be central and was combined with consideration of the history of Russian historical thought as social thought. The application of the Marxist approach to the problems of historiography in a simplified form, not going beyond the boundaries of “economic materialism,” was carried out by M. N. Pokrovsky in the 1920s (his works of this period are collected in the book “Historical Science and the Struggle of Classes,” issues 1- 2, 1933). Marxist historical thought, having originated within the framework of European traditions, began to be used on an increasingly wider scale in domestic research, and Russian science in the philosophical and theoretical-methodological aspects was made directly dependent on it. However, in the 1920s, the previous domestic historiographic tradition was still preserved: historiographic courses (remained unpublished) were taught by S. V. Bakhrushin, N. G. Berezhkov, Yu. V. Gauthier, I. P. Kozlovsky, A. E. Presnyakov , S. V. Rozhdestvensky; personological studies about historians of the “old school” were published by S. V. Bakhrushin, S. A. Golubtsov, M. A. Dyakonov, S. F. Platonov, A. E. Presnyakov. Until the beginning of the 1930s, the only general work devoted to historiography remained “Introduction to Russian History: Sources and Historiography” by V. I. Picheta (1922). In it, Russian historical science of the 18th - early 20th centuries is considered as the history of individual schools and directions.

At the end of the 1920-1930s, a number of political and repressive actions of the Soviet government (“Academic Affairs”, publication in 1931 in the magazine “Proletarian Revolution” of J.V. Stalin’s letter “On some issues in the history of Bolshevism”) caused an intensification of the “struggle against the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois” historiography, the politicization of historical science and the vulgarization of the principles of analysis in historiographic research, turning them into historical and ideological principles. In the late 1930s - early 1940s, criticism of the works of M. N. Pokrovsky and his school, the emerging transition in the ideological sphere from the ideas of proletarian internationalism to the ideas of Soviet patriotism resulted in an appeal to the heritage of pre-revolutionary historical science. N. L. Rubinstein’s training course “Russian historiography” (1941) for the first time in the Soviet era gave a detailed idea of ​​the development of Russian historical thought; it traced all stages of the development of scientific knowledge - from chronicle writing to the 1930s. His course and textbook “Source Studies of the History of the USSR” by M. N. Tikhomirov (1940) also initiated the scientific development of historiographical problems.

Interest in historiography increased significantly in the mid-1950s, which was the result of a “thaw” in Soviet historical science. In 1958, on the initiative of V.P. Volgin, M.N. Tikhomirov and M.V. Nechkina, a Scientific Council on the problem “History of Historical Science” was created at the Department of Historical Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences (heads: Tikhomirov in 1958-61, Nechkina in 1961 -85, I. D. Kovalchenko in 1985-95, A. N. Sakharov - since 1996), who coordinated the historiographic activities of domestic scientists, organizing all-Union and regional historiographic conferences, “historiographic environments”, etc. In 1965, the publication of a historiographic yearbook began “History and Historians” (since 2001 - the historiographical bulletin “History and Historians”, edited by A. N. Sakharov). The bibliography “History of Historical Science in the USSR” was published (volume 1, 1965, volume 2, 1980).

Generalizing works and textbooks on the pre-Soviet period of development of historical science by N. L. Rubinstein (1945), L. V. Cherepnin (1957), S. L. Peshtich (1961), A. L. Shapiro (1962, 1982) became a significant phenomenon. , V. N. Kotov (1966), A. M. Sakharov (1978), textbook edited by V. E. Illeritsky and I. A. Kudryavtsev (1961). The educational historiography dedicated to the 20th century was significantly less represented - in fact, the only generalizing textbook on Soviet historiography was “Historiography of the History of the USSR. The Age of Socialism" edited by I. I. Mints (1982); Besides it, only a number of textbooks of an essay nature were published. Work on the scientific study of the history of historical science was concentrated in the historiography sector of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (since 1968 Institute of USSR History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, since 1992 Russian History Institute). “Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR” were prepared and published (on pre-Soviet historiography - volumes 1-3, 1955-1963; on the history of historical science of the Soviet period - volume 4, 1966, volume 5, 1985).

Since the late 1980s, a new stage in the development of historiography began. It was caused by the lifting of the ban on research on a number of topics, the opening of access to previously closed archival funds, and the rejection of the official canon of previous years.

The focus of research interests was: the entire range of ideological movements, schools and directions of domestic historiography, philosophical, historical and socio-political thought; the phenomenon of a scientific school in historical science; the activities and creativity of emigrant historians and repressed scientists; the problem of the real relationship between historical science and its socio-political and ideological context. Historiographic collections have been published: “Russia in the 20th century: historians of the world argue” (1994), “Historical research in Russia: trends in recent years” (1996), “Russia in the 20th century: the fate of historical science” (1996), “Historical science Russia in the 20th century." (1997), “Historical Science at the Turn of the Century” (2001), “Historical Research in Russia: Seven Years Later” (2003). The first attempts at a holistic description of large periods of development of historical science have been made (“Historiography of the history of Russia before 1917”, volumes 1-2, 2003; “Essays on the history of Russian historical science”, 2005). The works of A. V. Antoshchenko, V. Yu. Afiani, N. V. Illeritskaya, B. G. Mogilnitsky, M. P. Mokhnacheva, G. P. Myagkov, A. N. Sakharov, S. are devoted to methodological and source study problems. V. Chirkov, S. O. Schmidt. Attempts have been made to determine the essence of the phenomenon of “Soviet historical science” (collective work of scientists of the Russian State Humanitarian University “Soviet Historiography”, 1996; works by N. E. Koposov, L. A. Sidorova, etc.), as well as to analyze the process of formation of the concept of Russian history , established in Soviet historiography.

In the 1990-2000s, the historiographical works of K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, G. V. Vernadsky, N. I. Kareev, M. O. Koyalovich, P. N. Milyukov were published again. Works, memoirs, diaries, letters of historians of the 19th-20th centuries have been published and republished: N.P. Antsiferov, A.N. Afanasyev, I.D. Belyaev, M.M. Bogoslovsky, S.K. Bogoyavlensky, S.N. Valka, A. D. Gradovsky, S. S. Dmitriev, N. M. Druzhinin, I. E. Zabelin, A. M. Zayonchkovsky, D. I. Ilovaisky, K. D. Kavelin, N. M. Karamzin, N. I. Kostomarov, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, M. K. Lyubavsky, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky, A. E. Presnyakov, A. N. Pypin, S. F. Platonova, B. N. Chicherin, A. A. Shakhmatov, S. D. Sheremetev, E. F. Shmurlo and others. The collected works (close to the complete works) of V. O. Klyuchevsky and S. M. Solovyov were published.

The modern scientific stage is characterized by serious historiographic reflection. The results are summed up by historians of different scientific schools and directions. In fact, a collective portrait of Russian historians of the 20th century is being created (for example, “Historians of Russia, XVIII - early XX centuries”, 1996; Pryakhin A.D. “Archaeologists of the passing century”, 1999; “Historians of Russia. Post-war generation”, compiled by L.V. Maksakova, 2000).

The struggle of trends in historical science, caused by different ideological positions of scientists, is increasingly associated in historiography with the individual experience of the historian, his biography, and social position. The individuality and personality of the historian are increasingly involved in historiographical consideration. The subject of the study also becomes the community of historians as a whole, in its commonality and inconsistency.

With the unconditional dominance of the genre of biographies and autobiographies, problematic historiography also retains its position. It does not always fit into the general historiographical context, but, as a rule, it provides material for historiographical generalization and, in addition, creates the prerequisites for the development of bibliographical and biographical trends in historiography.

Russian historiography is characterized by the desire to synthesize the achievements of both domestic and foreign science. Overcoming the monopoly of Marxist methodology in historical research stimulates the development of historiography. Along with the modernization of the Marxist method in historical science, civilizational, multifactorial and other research approaches are developing in modern historiography. In addition to Moscow and St. Petersburg, whose academic institutes and universities traditionally pay a lot of attention to the study of historiography, regional scientific centers operate successfully in Tomsk, Kazan and other universities.

The development of the subject of historiography in modern conditions is significantly influenced by scientific studies, which directs scientific interest not to ready-made, formalized knowledge, but to ways of obtaining and testing this knowledge. Issues of the theory and methodology of historiography are also included in an independent area of ​​consideration: the subject of historiography, a historiographic source, a historiographic fact, the boundaries of historiographic analysis in an interdisciplinary space, the principles of periodization of the cognitive historical process, the basis for the interaction of various national schools and traditions, etc.

Lit.: Sakharov A. M. Some questions of the methodology of historiographic research // Questions of methodology and history of historical science. M., 1977; Kireeva R. A. Study of domestic historiography in pre-revolutionary Russia from the middle of the 19th century. before 1917 M., 1983; Dmitrienko V. A. Introduction to historiography and history of science. Tomsk, 1988; Kolesnik I. I. Development of historiographical thought in Russia in the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. Dnepropetrovsk, 1990; Mogilnitsky B.G. Historical knowledge and historical theory // New and recent history. 1991. No. 6; Popova T. N. The formation of historiography as a special historical discipline: some aspects of the problem // Russian universities in the 19th - early 20th centuries. Voronezh, 1996. Issue. 2; Vandalkovskaya M. G. Historical science of Russian emigration: “Eurasian temptation.” M., 1997; Belenky I. L. Russian history in the 19th - early 20th centuries: transformation of historiographical ideas in the Soviet and post-Soviet eras // Russia of the 20th century in historical science: views, concepts, value approaches. M., 2000. Part 1; Korzun V.P. Images of historical science at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries: analysis of domestic historiographic studies. Ekaterinburg, 2000; Myagkov G.P. Scientific community in historical science: the experience of the “Russian historical school”. Kazan, 2000; Kornoukhova I. A. Historiographic models of historical science of the late XIX - early XX centuries. // History of thought: Historiography. M., 2002; Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. 2nd ed. M., 2003; Ganelin R. Sh. Soviet historians: what they talked about among themselves: pages of memories of the 1940s - 1970s. St. Petersburg, 2004; Sakharov A. N. On new approaches in Russian historical science. Turn of the 21st century // Sakharov A. N. Russia: People. Rulers. Civilization. M., 2004; Illeritsky V. E. Soviet historiography of Russian history: essays on the development of historiography of the history of the USSR (1917-1960). M., 2006.

I. L. Belenky, G. R. Naumova, M. Yu. Paramonova.

In your workbook, indicate the names of the light microscope elements corresponding to the numbers in the figures:

Introduction.

Historiography as a science

People have always been interested in their past. History is a science that studies the past of human society. As a science, it took shape in the 18th century, although historical works were created before the 18th century, but they cannot be considered scientific. Period until the 18th century is the period of existence of historical knowledge (as opposed to historical science).

The process of accumulating historical knowledge is a necessary process that leads to the transformation of any knowledge into scientific knowledge. The task of historical science (as opposed to historical knowledge) is not only to describe events and reproduce historical facts, but also to explain them, generalize them, and highlight cause-and-effect relationships between events and patterns. Historical knowledge is transformed into historical science, first of all, thanks to the emergence of theoretical understanding. Instead of theology from the 18th century. The principle of causality and internal regularity comes first in historical research. In addition, the description of historical facts within the framework of scientific historical knowledge is also changing: it is carried out on the basis of a critical attitude towards sources. And finally, historians begin to theoretically comprehend and formulate the tasks of historical research. All these innovations appeared in the 18th century, so history as a science took shape precisely in the 18th century.

The term "historiography" comes from the Greek words history(a story about something) and count - writing. Thus, Literally, historiography is translated as a written story about the past. For a long time, historians were called historiographers, using the term historiography as a synonym for historical works, historical literature. For example, N.M. Karamzin was the “official historiographer” of the Russian state. In this sense, the term “historiography” today is outdated and practically not used.

By the end of the 19th century. historiography emerged from history into an independent scientific discipline. Since that time, historiography (in the broad sense of the word) has been understood as a science that studies the history of historical science as a whole or in a particular country.

The concept of “historiography” can also be used in in the narrow sense words. In this case, historiography is understood as a set of scientific works on any topic. For example, the historiography of the Decembrist movement, the historiography of the First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907, the historiography of the Great Patriotic War, etc. A historiographic review on any topic includes not only a bibliography and listing of works, but also their analysis, critical analysis of the literature . At the same time, it is necessary not only to consider various historical works and concepts, but also to explain why in different periods of time precisely such theories dominated, precisely such topics were predominantly studied (or not studied), and precisely such cause-and-effect relationships were highlighted. But still, the basis of the historiography of individual problems is the history of historical science as a whole.

The subject of historiography in the broad sense of the word is historical science in its development. Historiography studies the development of historical science: the accumulation of factual material, attitude to the source, changes in topics, concepts of historical science. Therefore, the main sources of historiography as a science are the works of historians themselves, historical works, and materials of scientific historical conferences.

The specificity of historical knowledge lies in the fact that the historian studies the past. The subject of research for a historian is, first of all, objective reality itself, which breaks down into individual historical facts. Historical knowledge is retrospective in nature, that is, it is directed from the present to the past. The historian cannot perceive the past sensually. History, as a science, is based on facts that are the subject of research by professional historians. Historical fact- this is a real event, phenomenon. Since the historian was not a participant in the events being studied, his ideas about historical facts are formed only on the basis of historical sources.

Historical source- this is everything that is created in the process of human activity, carries information about the diversity of social life and serves as the basis for scientific knowledge. This is everything that was created in the society that the historian studies: monuments of material culture (tools, homes, buildings, household items, clothing, etc.) and, of course, written monuments: chronicles, legislative sources, legal sources , office documents (protocols, reports, etc.), statistics, periodicals, memoirs, diaries, etc. Scientific historical works are created only on the basis of sources (and primarily written ones). Therefore, a historian must be able to work with historical sources, be able to identify objective information from them, using critical methods.

In addition, historical works are greatly influenced by the era in which the historian lives, his political and scientific views. All this makes historical knowledge quite complex.

The historian faces the following tasks:

Describe historical facts based on a thorough critical analysis of sources;

Explain why this or that event happened, trace cause-and-effect relationships between historical events;

Create a periodization of the historical process, a specific scheme of historical development;

Formulate and define the tasks of historical science and research methods.

At different times, events were explained differently. This was largely due to the methodology that underlay the historical research. Methodologists I is a theory of historical knowledge, a set of research methods. The term "methodology" comes from the Greek words methodos And logos Literally it means path of knowledge. The methodology of history in its content is, first of all, a system of certain ideological theoretical positions used by scientists as cognitive principles.

As society developed, new philosophical socio-political movements appeared that explained historical events in different ways: sentimentalism, Hegelianism, Marxism, positivism, neo-Kantianism. Depending on which one the historian adheres to, he may explain the same events differently. Therefore, works written by liberal historians and Marxist historians will differ from each other, even if they cover the same events.

Thus, it can be noted that the development of historical science is influenced by the following factors:

The level of socio-economic and political development of society. Of great importance is the time at which this or that historical work was written, since historical knowledge is the restoration of the past in the conditions of the requirements of the modern era. It is society that determines the leading concepts and research topics.

Philosophical and political views of the historian, his methodology.

Source base: publication of sources and the degree of accessibility of archival materials, as well as developed methods of working with sources.

All these factors are studied by historiography. Of course, when assessing a particular scientific concept, it is important to identify its significance, to determine what new this or that historian has contributed to the development of historical science from the point of view of theory, methodology, research methods, source base, and conclusions.

The range of tasks that historiography as a scientific discipline must solve is quite wide. The following tasks facing historiography can be identified:

To identify patterns and features of the development of historical science, to show its connection and dependence on the socio-economic and socio-political level of development of society.

Consider government policy in the field of historical science and education;

Study the activities of historical scientific institutions and the system of training historians;

Study the history of the development of research methods and techniques, the struggle of opinions in different eras according to fundamental theoretical and methodological principles;

Explore the process of accumulating factual knowledge about human society, introducing new sources into scientific circulation;

Monitor the improvement of criticism techniques and methods of working with historical sources;

Trace changes in the topics of historical research.

The study of historiography is of great importance in the training of historians. Knowledge of historiography helps when choosing a research topic. When justifying the choice of a topic for scientific research, it is necessary, first of all, to analyze all the available literature on the selected period and issue, noting the most unstudied problems, after which the topic and objectives of the study can be finally formulated. In addition, in the course of his work, the historian always has known material that is formed in the course of the previous development of historical science. It contains not only previously accumulated facts, but also assessments, conclusions, and concepts. And before you formulate your vision of the problem or support an existing concept, you need to know all the assessments and opinions expressed in the scientific literature.

Writing a historical work on any issue of interest is impossible without taking into account existing knowledge and concepts, without their analysis and criticism, that is, the historiography of this topic. As a rule, the object of historiography is understood as historical science itself. However, there are other ways to read this concept. What is our historiography? The history is in this article.

It is necessary to immediately make a reservation that historiography is not only “the history of history.” This science can consider the stages of development of other disciplines. In particular, one can find works on the historiography of the natural sciences, literary criticism, linguistics, and so on. However, consideration of these forms of existence of historiographical science is not within the scope of this article.

Experts have identified several basic ways of understanding the content of the term “historiography”. In the broad sense of the word, it is understood as a specific scientific discipline that deals with the history of the emergence, development and functioning of various historical concepts and history as an independent field of knowledge. However, this does not exhaust the content of the term.

Firstly, historiography can be understood as the entire body of scientific work on a specific problem or a specific historical period. Secondly, it is possible to identify all scientific literature created in a particular region during a certain period of time, regardless of its content. In this way, for example, the liberal historiography of the Russian Empire of the mid-19th century can be distinguished. And not only. Also modern foreign historiography. The identification of such subsections is often based on the views of the researcher and is determined by his scientific attitudes.

The third option for defining the concept is based on the development of the science in question itself. Historiography can be called the totality of all works created on the history of the development of historical science.

The problem of the emergence of historiography

It is difficult to trace the history of the emergence of this section of knowledge. First of all, it is necessary to decide which works can be considered purely historical. And although most researchers agree that the origins of this science are Herodotus and Thucydides, folklore works cannot be ignored: mythology and epic. An example is the ancient Babylonian poem “On Who Has Seen Everything.” For a long time it was considered only as a work of oral folk art, subsequently written down, and reflecting only some of the realities of the society of that time. But then it was discovered that its main character, Gilgamesh, is a real historical figure, a king in the city of Uruk at the turn of the 27th-26th centuries BC. e. Thus, we can talk about the existence of a historiographical tradition in ancient times.

If we approach the problem from a more academic position, then it is necessary to recognize that historiography as an independent branch of knowledge was formalized and received its scientific apparatus only in the middle of the 19th century. Of course, this does not mean that some work and ideas on this topic did not exist before. In this case, we are talking about the institutionalization of such elements of science as methodology, problems, and there is an awareness of the specific tasks and goals of historiography.

Conditions for distinguishing historiography as a science

Some researchers believe that the division of the origin of history and historiography is erroneous. This opinion is based on the fact that when creating a historical work, its author was always guided by certain goals. And he turned to the experience of previous generations. That is, the emergence of historical historiography occurred simultaneously with the creation of historical science as such. But it was precisely the relationship between the two disciplines that did not make it necessary to distinguish historiography as an independent discipline. This required the fulfillment of several conditions:

1. Accumulation of sufficient knowledge in the field of theory and methodology of historical science.
2. Formation of centers and schools that develop specific issues.
3. The formation of a special layer of historians focused specifically on studying the past of their science.
4. The emergence of special studies in historiography.
5. Formation of a specific conceptual apparatus.

One more thing could be added to these conditions. The emergence of historiography as a science occurred spontaneously. This was due to the need of the liberal sections of society, and scientists in particular, to find new arguments in the fight against the Old Regime (this term refers to the order of the times of feudal society and absolutism). For this purpose, a critical examination of the historical works of previous generations was undertaken.

Objectives of historiography

The functioning of science is impossible without awareness of its goals. To achieve them, historians have to solve a certain number of problems, which brings them closer to the most adequate and accurate perception of the level, directions and features of the development of historical knowledge.

Briefly, the tasks of historiography are as follows:

• studying changes in historical concepts, features of their change;
• study of existing and emerging trends in historical science, study of the features of their methodology and analysis;
• understanding the essence of the process of accumulation of historical knowledge and its development;
• search and introduction of new sources into scientific circulation;
• finding ways to improve source analysis;
• study of institutions and schools engaged in historical research, as well as the system of training scientific personnel;
• dissemination of new scientific concepts and historical works, including in periodicals;
• studying the relationships between national historical schools, their influence on each other;
• analysis of the influence of existing conditions (political, economic, social) on the development of historical science.

The principle of historicism

In their essence, the general principles of historical science coincide with the principles of historiography. The most important of them were formulated back in the 19th century with the direct participation of Russian scientists. In particular, Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov formulated the fundamental principle of historicism: not a single phenomenon or event can be considered in isolation from the context in which it arose. In relation to historiography, this principle is implemented as follows: when criticizing an established direction or specific research, one cannot discount the level of development of the science of that time. Using a specific example, this can be illustrated as follows: one cannot deny the significance of the work of Herodotus only for the reason that he compiles his own observations and received rumors, practically without using the methods of scientific criticism. Firstly, in the 5th century BC. they simply did not exist, and secondly, this does not negate the possibility of correcting Herodotus’ information in accordance with other works that have come down to us from that era.

The principle of integrity in historiography

In the scientific discipline under consideration, he instructs the researcher to structure the study of the topic with an understanding of the systematic nature of the causes and conditions for the emergence of a certain scientific direction. When studying, for example, the works of Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov on the Western European Middle Ages, a scientist must take into account his concept of historical development, his system of views, and the methods he used to criticize the source.

As a special case of this principle, we can note the principle of partisanship that existed in Soviet historiography. Researchers of that time found out the political views of the historian being studied, his affiliation or sympathies with a particular party, and from this point of view they assessed the significance of his works. At the same time, it was a priori believed that only the Marxist-Leninist theory of formations is scientific. Fortunately, in modern historiography this principle has been rejected.

Methods of historiography

In fact, the methodology of any research presupposes the presence of an arsenal of mental or experimental techniques for studying the chosen problem. In historiography, this is the past of historical science, which imposes certain specifics on general scientific methods. There are the following methods for a historiographer to obtain new knowledge:

• comparative-historical, that is, consideration of scientific concepts in order to clarify the common and different between them;
• chronological, which involves studying changes in concepts, ideas and approaches over time;
• method of periodization, which makes it possible to group changes occurring in historical science over a long period of time in order to highlight the most significant trends in scientific thought and their features in comparison with other periods;
• retrospective analysis, the essence of which is to search for residual elements, previously existing concepts in comparison with today’s ones, as well as comparing the conclusions obtained now and those formulated previously;
• prospective analysis, that is, determining the problems and range of topics for future historical science on the basis of currently available knowledge.

Features of pre-revolutionary domestic historiography

The identification of such a gap in the history of Russian historical science is based largely on political considerations and the desire of Soviet historians to dissociate themselves from previous concepts.

As in foreign historiography, the origins of Russian history are epic and mythology. The first historical works - chronicles and chronographs - usually began with a review of existing ideas about the creation of the world, and briefly provided information from world history, especially ancient and Jewish history. Already at that time, learned monks were raising programmatic questions. The chronicler Nestor directly states on the first pages of the Tale of Bygone Years that the purpose of his work is to clarify the origin of the Russian state and identify its first rulers. His followers worked in the same direction.

The historiography of that time was based on a pragmatic approach, most of the attention was paid to the personalities and psychology of rulers and significant persons. With the advent of the rationalist trend in science, these considerations faded into the background. M.V. Lomonosov and V.N. Tatishchev in their historical writings proceeded from the understanding of knowledge as the driving force of history. This affected the nature of their work. Tatishchev, for example, simply rewrote old chronicles, giving his comments to them, which later made it possible to speak of him as the last chronicler.

A significant figure for Russian history is Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. His “History of the Russian State” is based on the idea of ​​the benefit of a wise autocracy for the country. The historian illustrated his idea by describing the crisis of Russian statehood and society during the period of fragmentation and, conversely, its significant strengthening under the strong figure of the ruler. Karamzin had already used special techniques for criticizing sources and provided his work with numerous notes, where he not only referred to sources, but also expressed his thoughts about them.

Contribution of 19th century scientists to the development of historiography

The entire enlightened society of that time was brought up on the work of Karamzin. It was thanks to him that interest in Russian history arose. New generations of historians, among whom S.M. Soloviev and V.O. Klyuchevsky occupy a special place, formulated new approaches to comprehending history. Thus, the first formulated for Russian historiography the main factors of historical development: the physical-geographical position of Russia, the mentality of the peoples inhabiting it and external influences such as campaigns against Byzantium or the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

Klyuchevsky is known in Russian historiography for the fact that, developing the ideas of Solovyov, he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to identify a set of geographical, economic, ethnic and social factors for each historical period and study their impact on the events that took place.

Historiography in the USSR

One of the consequences of the revolution was the denial of all scientific knowledge of the previous era. The basis for obtaining new historical knowledge was the Marxist principle of the staged development of society - the well-known theory of five formations. Previous studies were assessed with bias, since previous historians did not master Marxist methodology and were used only as an illustration of the correctness of new conclusions.

This situation remained until the mid-30s. The established totalitarian dictatorship sought justification for itself in the past, which is why works on the era of Ivan the Terrible and Peter I appear.

The historiography of problems of socio-economic development, the study of the life and everyday life of the masses constitute the most important achievement of historical science of that period. However, it should be noted that the obligatory quotation of the classics of Marxism, turning to them on any issue that they did not even consider, significantly reduced the quality of historical writings of this period.

Historiography- this is the history of historical science as a whole, as well as a set of studies devoted to a specific era, topic, problem. Historiography is also a collection of historical works, the very description of history, the historical process. National historiographies (French, American, Russian, etc.) and historiographies with certain ideological guidelines (enlightenment, liberal, Marxist, etc.) are also distinguished.

Initial historical knowledge arose among the Eastern Slavs in the pre-state period - in the form of folklore. At different times, historians have explained in different ways the reasons and patterns of development of the history of our country.

Chroniclers since the time of Nestor believed that the world develops according to divine providence and divine will. The genre of historical literature known as chronicle writing began at the end of the 10th century. The most famous Russian chronicle, The Tale of Bygone Years, was created in the 12th century.

The process of the formation of history as a science is associated with the names of outstanding representatives of the 18th century. – V.N. Tatishchev (1686-1750) and M.V. Lomonosov (1711-1765). Their works were written from a rationalistic position. Tatishchev's author penned the first scientific generalizing work on the history of Russia: “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times.” He saw the cause of historical events in the activities of outstanding people. M.V. Lomonosov was the first to use the comparative historical method, comparing the history of Russia with Western Europe.

A fundamental work on the history of Russia was created by N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826). “The History of the Russian State” in 12 volumes was intended for a wide range of readers. The main idea of ​​the author is the need for a wise autocracy for Russia. Karamzin’s traditions were continued by representatives of the conservative trend in pre-revolutionary historical science - A.S. Khomyakov, M.P. Pogodin, V.P. Meshchersky, L.N. Tikhomirov.

S.M. is rightfully considered an outstanding historian of the 19th century. Solovyov (1820-1879), who noted the objective and natural nature of the development of the historical process. In his “History of Russia since Ancient Times” in 29 volumes, he used the comparative historical method, noting the uniqueness of the historical fate of Russia. Soloviev saw the factors of the movement of Russian history in the “nature of the country”, “the nature of the tribe” and “the course of external events”, and also noted the enormous role of the state.

A bright and multifaceted picture of Russian history was given by Solovyov’s student, V.O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). Klyuchevsky’s methodology was positivism. He believed that world history develops according to general laws. At the same time, each country is characterized by a number of characteristics that are determined by a combination of geographical, ethnic, economic, political, and social factors. The initial factor is natural-geographical. For Russia, the development of the territory played a decisive role. Close to him in theoretical views was S.F. Platonov (1850-1933), whose “Lectures on Russian History” repeatedly, like the works of N.M. Karamzina, S.M. Solovyova, V.O. Klyuchevsky, have been republished in recent years.

A special place in domestic and world historiography is occupied by the cultural-historical approach, the founder of which was the outstanding Russian scientist N.Ya. Danilevsky (1822-1885). According to this approach, world history is not a single and universal process. It is a collection of individual histories of specific and unique civilizations that have certain socio-biological patterns in their development: birth, childhood, youth, maturity, old age, degradation, death. Danilevsky considered the Russian people to be historically young, destined to replace the aging and degrading Western nations as world leaders. The traditions of Danilevsky’s cultural-historical approach were continued in the 20th century by such major historians as O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, L.N. Gumilev.

The materialistic approach has been visible in Russian historiography since the end of the 18th century in the concept of A.N. Radishcheva. He believed that the basis of historical development was not the improvement of the human spirit, but a change in economic forms, although he did not explain what it actually depends on.

Later, in the 19th century, these ideas were developed by revolutionaries - from populists to Marxists. After the October Revolution, materialism became the dominant and only officially acceptable historical concept in the country.

During the Soviet period, historians, guided by a materialistic understanding of history, focused their attention on the problems of socio-economic development and the popular movement. The principles of formation theory were the basis for the historical understanding of the world. The most significant works of this period are the works of historians B.A. Rybakova, B.D. Grekova, S.D. Bakhrushin, M.N. Tikhomirov, M.N. Pokrovsky and others. And although during this period historical science as a whole successfully fulfilled its social functions, the dominance of one methodology (Marxism-Leninism) significantly constrained the creativity of scientists. And this, accordingly, limited the possibilities for obtaining objective knowledge.

Modern Russian historical science is going through a special period when new approaches, positions, and directions are being developed and approved. Some historians call for continuing the traditions of the pre-revolutionary historical school, others study the experience of Western historical science, and still others propose to positively use the research of Soviet historians. Russian historians are now paying particular attention to the civilizational approach, which allows us to identify the intrinsic value of our society, its place in world history and culture.

The term “historiography” consists of two Greek words: “history”, i.e. reconnaissance, research of the past and “grapho” - I write. The concept of “historiography” is not unique.

Historiography 歴史学 - in the broad sense of the word - is an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of historical science. Historiography examines the correct application of the scientific method when writing a historical work, focusing on the author, his sources, the separation of facts from interpretation, as well as on the style, author's preferences and the audience for which he wrote this work in the field of history.

In the narrow sense of the word, this is a body of research in the field of history devoted to a specific topic or historical era (for example, historiography of the Tokugawa era), or a body of historical works that have internal unity in ideological, linguistic or national terms (for example, Marxist, Russian-language or Japanese historiography) .

I would like to draw your attention to one more circumstance. The term “historiography” often refers to historical literature on any issue, problem, or period. In this sense, it is customary to talk about the historiography of feudalism, the historiography of the Great French Revolution, the historiography of the peasant reform of 1861 in Russia, etc.

The term “historiography” is also used as a synonym for historical works, historical literature in general. Based on this understanding, in the last century, authors of historical works were called historiographers.

It is important to take into account that historiography or the creation of written works on history is not inherent in every society. Before the advent of writing, of course, there was no written history either: the events of the past were reflected only in oral folk art - folklore.

The idea of ​​the subject of historiography developed gradually as the theory and practice of historiographic research developed.

History of historiography

In ancient times, even before the advent of writing, historical ideas and some elements of historical knowledge existed among all peoples in orally transmitted tales and traditions, in the genealogies of their ancestors. The emergence of classes and the state expanded the need for historical knowledge, and the emergence of writing made it possible to begin accumulating it. In early class societies, some conditions were prepared for the development of historical knowledge (for example, various chronology systems were developed), the first records of historical content arose: historical inscriptions (of kings, pharaohs), weather records of events, etc. Religion had a huge influence on the description and interpretation of historical events . All historical events were explained by the “will of the gods.” Such historical ideas were enshrined in “holy books” (for example, the Bible).

An important stage in the progressive development of historical knowledge was ancient Historiography

It found its highest manifestation in the writings of ancient Greek and then Roman historians. The works of these historians are no longer fragmentary, but a coherent, entertaining narrative, devoted primarily to political history.