These “Lectures” owe their first appearance in print to the energy and work of my students at the Military Law Academy, I. A. Blinov and R. R. von Raupach. They collected and put in order all those “lithographed notes” that were published by students in different years of my teaching. Although some parts of these “notes” were compiled from the texts I submitted, however, in general, the first editions of the “Lectures” were not distinguished by either internal integrity or external decoration, representing a collection of educational notes of different times and different quality. Through the works of I. A. Blinov, the fourth edition of the Lectures acquired a much more serviceable appearance, and for the next editions the text of the Lectures was revised by me personally.

In particular, in the eighth edition the revision affected mainly those parts of the book that are devoted to the history of the Moscow principality in the 14th-15th centuries. and the history of the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II. To strengthen the factual side of the presentation in these parts of the course, I used some excerpts from my “Textbook of Russian History” with appropriate changes to the text, just as in previous editions insertions were made from the same in the section on the history of Kievan Rus before the 12th century. In addition, in the eighth edition the characteristics of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were re-stated. The ninth edition has made the necessary, generally minor, corrections. The text has been revised for the tenth edition.

Nevertheless, even in its present form, the Lectures are still far from the desired correctness. Live teaching and scientific work have a continuous influence on the lecturer, changing not only the details, but sometimes the very type of his presentation. In the "Lectures" you can see only the factual material on which the author's courses are usually based. Of course, there are still some oversights and errors in the printed transmission of this material; Likewise, the structure of presentation in the “Lectures” quite often does not correspond to the structure of oral presentation that I have adhered to in recent years.

It is only with these reservations that I decide to publish this edition of the Lectures.

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov - Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1920), professor at St. Petersburg University, head of the “St. Petersburg historical school”, critic of the interdisciplinary approach to the methodology of historical knowledge proposed by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky; author of textbooks on Russian history for higher and secondary schools; opponent of the Marxist-Leninist “class” approach to the study of historical processes; the main defendant in the “academic case” of 1929-1930.

early years

S.F. Platonov was born on June 16 (28), 1860 in Chernigov. He was the only child in the family of the head of the Chernigov provincial printing house, Fyodor Platonovich Platonov, and his wife Cleopatra Alexandrovna (nee Khrisanfova). In 1869, his parents, native Muscovites, moved to St. Petersburg, where the father of the future historian rose to the rank of manager of the printing house of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and received a noble title.

In St. Petersburg, Sergei Platonov studied at the private gymnasium of F. F. Bychkov. The young high school student spent his holidays in the house of Moscow relatives on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. At the seventeenth year of his life, he suffered from typhus for a long time and was seriously ill.

Perhaps the first book read by young Platonov was “History of the Russian State” by N.M., given to him by his father. Karamzin.

However, at first the young man did not think about studying history. He wrote poetry and dreamed of becoming a professional writer. In 1878, 18-year-old Platonov entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. However, the low level of teaching literary disciplines at the university and the brilliant lectures of Professor K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin on Russian history determined his choice in favor of the latter.

Of the faculty professors, the young Platonov was most influenced by the aforementioned K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, partly V. G. Vasilievsky, as well as professors of the Faculty of Law V. I. Sergeevich and A. D. Gradovsky - the most prominent representatives of the first generation of the “St. Petersburg historical school” "

At the University of S.F. Platonov became involved in the activities of the educated on the initiative of A.F. Heyden in 1882 of the Student Scientific and Literary Society. The society was headed by Professor O.F. Miller. Students of I.M. become active members of the Society. Grevs, S.F. Oldenburg, V.I. Vernadsky, V.G. Druzhinin, D.I. Shakhovskoy, N.D. Chechulin, E.F. Shmurlo, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, M.A. Dyakonov and other future famous scientists, teachers of the Faculty of History and Philology.

Initially, he intended to devote his master's thesis to the social movement that created the militia of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, but he was once again convinced of the correctness of the idea that any serious research in the field of ancient Russian history is impossible without a thorough development of sources.

At the suggestion of Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who was one of the first to think about the problems of creating a methodology for historical research, S.F. Platonov also decided to follow the path of developing sources, choosing historical and literary monuments of the Time of Troubles as his object. To solve this problem, the historian used more than 60 works of Russian writing of the 17th century, which he studied from 150 manuscripts, many of which turned out to be a discovery for science.

The young scientist worked, as they say, “conscientiously” - preparing his master’s (candidate’s) thesis on the topic “Old Russian tales and stories about the Time of Troubles of the 17th century as a historical source” he devoted more than 8 years. This is twice as long as the period currently allotted to graduate students at the country's leading universities to prepare and defend their candidate's dissertation.

In 1888 (even before the defense) S.F. Platonov published his master's thesis in the journal of the Ministry of Public Education. Soon it was published as a monograph and was awarded the Uvarov Prize of the Academy of Sciences.

On September 11 of the same year, he successfully defended his dissertation for a master's degree in Russian history, which allowed Platonov to take the position of private assistant professor on February 6, 1889, and from 1890 - professor in the department of Russian history at St. Petersburg University.

Professor S.F. Platonov

Throughout his subsequent life, until the mid-1920s, the scientist taught at the university: he taught a general course on Russian history, courses on individual eras and issues, and taught seminars. Many famous representatives of the “new” generation of the St. Petersburg historical school came from his seminaries (P.G. Vasenko, P.G. Lyubomirov, N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky, A.E. Presnyakov, B.A. Romanov, etc.) .

Based on the “broad historical idea” expressed by S. M. Solovyov, according to which the beginning of a new Russia should be sought not in the reforms of Peter I, but in the events of the Time of Troubles, Professor Platonov determined the topic of his doctoral dissertation: “Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th–17th centuries. (Experience in studying the social system and class relations in the Time of Troubles)".

Nine years later, in 1899, the dissertation was successfully defended and was immediately published as a separate book.

Written on the basis of a large number of sources, in excellent literary language, this work is the pinnacle of the scientist’s scientific creativity. Using the theory of S.M. Solovyov about the struggle of clan and state relations in the history of Russia, the author tried to put into this theory “concrete content and show with facts how the old order died in the Time of Troubles and in what forms a new order arose, under the conditions of which the modern state was created.” The author saw the main meaning of the “political misfortunes and social strife” of the early 17th century in the change of the ruling class - the old nobility to the nobility. Among the prerequisites and driving forces for the development of the Troubles were the formation of serfdom, the strengthening of feudal oppression and the social struggle of the “poor and disadvantaged against the rich and noble.” The oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible was defined by Platonov not as “the whim of a timid tyrant,” but as a well-thought-out system of actions to defeat the “appanage aristocracy.”

In subsequent years, Professor of St. Petersburg University S.F. Platonov held a number of important administrative positions at the university and other educational institutions, gave lectures, taught students, and was a member of a number of historical societies. The only source of livelihood for him and his family was income from published works and salaries received in the public service. Most likely, due to precisely these circumstances, S.F. Platonov no longer created any major works, except for his dissertation.

“Essays on the History of the Troubles” was followed only by a series of popular articles about the figures of the Time of Troubles (Patriarch Hermogenes, False Dmitry I, etc.), about the first Romanovs, the Zemsky Sobor of 1648–1649, the personality and deeds of Peter I.

All historians of science and biographers of Platonov agree that the subsequent wide popularity of the historian was brought by his scientific monographs and articles, familiar only to a number of specialists. For many years, the students' reference book became "Lectures on Russian history"(first edition 1899) S.F. Platonov and his "Textbook of Russian history for high school"(in 2 parts, 1909–1910). Distinguished by their harmonious and accessible presentation of a huge amount of factual material, the textbooks were extremely popular in pre-revolutionary higher education and “liberal” gymnasiums, which deliberately dissociated themselves from the works of the odious monarchist Ilovaisky.

In 1895-1902, S.F. Platonov was invited (as one of the most talented university professors) as a teacher of Russian history to the Grand Dukes Mikhail Alexandrovich, Dmitry Pavlovich, Andrei Vladimirovich and Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna. However, he did not enjoy the special favor of their brother, Nicholas II. After 1917, a note about professors of Russian history was discovered in the tsar’s papers. It contained the following lines: “Professor Platonov, who has enormous erudition, is also quite decent; but he is dry and, undoubtedly, has very little sympathy for the cult of Russian heroes; Of course, studying his works cannot evoke either a feeling of love for the fatherland or national pride.”

Alas, the last emperor did not understand the intricacies of revising the positivist concept of Russian historiography and could not understand that the times of the literary educator Karamzin were long gone. Contemporary historical science faced completely different tasks, the solution of which did not involve either enlightenment or instilling love for the fatherland.

Platonov’s difficult relationship with the reigning house to some extent shatters the myth about the scientist as an odious, “official” monarchist historian, which existed within the walls of St. Petersburg (and later Leningrad) University.

From 1900 to 1905, Professor Platonov was the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, while simultaneously heading the department of Russian history. According to many colleagues and later researchers, Sergei Fedorovich, using all his authority and closeness to the royal family, literally saved the faculty from government repressions that followed the student unrest of 1899-1905. It was under him that the faculty developed the strongest teaching staff, which became the pride of the capital’s university. Under him, the development paths of the “St. Petersburg historical school” were determined for many years to come.

In 1903, Professor S.F. Platonov headed the newly organized Women's Pedagogical Institute (the first women's university in Russia), which he brought into exemplary condition.

In 1912, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of teaching, he was confirmed with the rank of emeritus professor, after which he retired in January 1913, transferring the department to his student S. V. Rozhdestvensky and moving to the position of supernumerary professor.

In 1916, due to the administrative responsibilities that began to burden him, Platonov left the directorship of the Women's Pedagogical Institute. In the same year, he moved with his entire family to a spacious apartment on Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt.

“Petersburg School”: Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky

Domestic historiography provides completely different, sometimes downright polar assessments of the relationship between two major scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, professors at St. Petersburg University - S.F. Platonov and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

Based on memoirs, correspondence and other evidence, historians tend to talk about both a purely personal, even political conflict between the “aristocrat” and the Westernized cadet Lappo-Danilevsky and the “commoner”, but monarchist-patriot S.F. Platonov, and to limit their scope contradictions are only disagreements on organizational and methodological issues. Meanwhile, the main reason for the conflict between historians is connected with the global methodological split of the “St. Petersburg historical school” that occurred in 1900-1910. This split ultimately led to the formation of two directions: theoretical (A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky) and empirical, conventionally associated with the name of S.F. Platonov. In fact, he could be named after any of the historians who criticized the theoretical constructions of Lappo-Danilevsky. At that time, S.F. Platonov concentrated in his hands very real power at the Faculty of History and Philology - the main forge of historical personnel in the country. Platonov and his supporters were the direct successors of the older generation of historians of the St. Petersburg school (Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Vasilievsky, Zamyslovsky, etc.), whose works were largely characterized by an empirical approach to understanding the historical process.

Having approved the scientific-critical method they developed as the basic one in historical research, the second generation of the St. Petersburg school never came to formulate an integral system of historical methodology. This was precisely the main reason for the differences between the supporters of S.F. Platonov and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, who took on the solution of methodological problems of contemporary historical science.

Lappo-Danilevsky did not share the contrast between two cognitive strategies, characteristic of neo-Kantianism, namely, the identification of patterns (nomothetic approach) in the natural sciences and the identification of ways of organizing non-repetitive, specific phenomena (ideographic approach) in the sciences of the spirit, i.e. in historical science. In his main work, “Methodology of History” (1910–1913), Lappo-Danilevsky showed that both of these approaches coexist in relation to the historical process, from antiquity to modern times, and they cannot be separated. He argued that both approaches could be applied in the cultural sciences as well as in the natural sciences. The scientist considered it optimal to apply both approaches to the objects under study, allowing one to identify the general and specific in history.

Platonov and a number of other faculty teachers who made up the “Circle of Russian Historians” (N.D. Chechulin, S.M. Seredonin, S. Rozhdestvensky, V.G. Druzhinin, etc.) were very skeptical about the theorizing of Lappo-Danilevsky’s supporters, considering that historical science faces completely different tasks.

And this “theoretical” enmity for a long time remained the main “stumbling block” in the relations of members of the scientific community at the beginning of the 20th century. Young scientists, students of Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky, sometimes had to maneuver between two warring parties, not even always understanding the main reason for this enmity.

Thus, the historian of the younger generation A.E. Presnyakov, who simultaneously studied with both Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky, said in one of his letters that his colleagues sincerely wanted to reconcile the warring parties. So, in March 1894, Presnyakov attended a banquet on the occasion of the defense of G.V.’s doctoral dissertation. Forsten. Even at the banquet, Professors Platonov and Lappo-Danilevsky sat at opposite ends of the table, surrounded by their supporters, as if forming two hostile camps.

“It stung my eyes,” Presnyakov admits in a letter, “and I started a conversation with Platonov to my heart’s content, about the reasons for this division. He was unusually sincere: and in general he was so sincere that he completely touched me. He explained to me that his and Lappo-Danilevsky’s circles differ in two ways: they are nobles by upbringing, with good home education, with extensive scientific resources, democrats by conviction and theory, people with political aspirations, with a certain set of political views, in which they dogmatically believe and are therefore intolerant of other people’s opinions; they are the same, i.e. Platonovites, raznochintsy, people of a different society, a different upbringing, with a smaller reserve of scientific strength, very heterogeneous in convictions, connected only by personal friendship, and not by some common credo. By the nature of their minds, they are skeptics - dissatisfied with the currently prevailing order, no less than those, they do not see the means to fight and tolerate them in appearance - indifferently, doing their scientific and teaching work and not promoting their discontent, not necessarily demanding agreement with themselves and calmly treating contradictions and opposing beliefs, even those that are not very sympathetic. They do not shy away from the other circle, but it ignores them; there were attempts at rapprochement and ended in insult to them.”

Perhaps, under the influence of this conversation, S.F. Platonov soon proposed a toast, which A.E. Presnyakov describes as follows: “Platonov... proposed a wonderful sincere toast, which should have serious consequences - a toast for the development of complete and close solidarity of the faculty members, on which the faculty tradition rests, which develops young people in a good direction.” Alas! Only Lappo-Danilevsky from the opposite end of the table came to clink glasses. The rest of his “circle members” remained indifferent, some left in English without saying goodbye.

In our opinion, this episode reveals in the best possible way the reasons for not only personal, but also scientific disagreements between scientists. Some (Lappo-Danilevsky and his supporters), considering their fellow historians in advance as incapable of understanding, did not take the trouble to clearly explain their point of view to them; others (Platonov and his “circle members”), due to self-instilled “plebeian” complexes, simply did not want to hear their opponents.

When Lappo-Danilevsky, bypassing S.F. Platonov, was elected to the Academy of Sciences, many contemporaries accused him of certain “intrigues and intrigues,” remembering his closeness to the liberal-bourgeois majority of the future Cadet Party, as well as the president of the academy Sciences - Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich.

However, after the death of Lappo-Danilevsky, Platonov’s wife, N.N. Shamonin, referring to a private letter from V.G. Vasilievsky, said: in their choice, academicians were guided exclusively by the personal qualities of the applicant. Factors such as the scientist’s freedom from family and financial problems were also taken into account. If A.S. While Lappo-Danilevsky was a typical “armchair scientist” and theorist, Sergei Fedorovich Platonov proved himself to be a talented practitioner, administrator, organizer, teacher and pedagogue. In addition, he headed the department, was the dean of the faculty, and had six children. When else should he engage in scientific research?

The split in the “St. Petersburg historical school” was somewhat smoothed over by the October events of 1917. When it was necessary to save national treasures, scientists joined forces in the work of various commissions to save historical and cultural monuments, archives and libraries. After the unexpected death of Lappo-Danilevsky in 1919, the empiricist point of view prevailed in the scientific community, which was later purely physically “reduced to nothing” by supporters of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

After 1917

How S.F. Platonov reacted to the events of February 1917 is unknown. Perhaps he simply didn't notice them. But Platonov categorically did not accept the October coup. He never considered it a “revolution,” because such a revolution, according to the historian, was not prepared “from any point of view,” and the program of the Soviet government was “artificial and utopian.” Invited by D.B. Ryazanov to cooperate in the rescue of historical and cultural monuments, Platonov worked in the interdepartmental commission for the protection and arrangement of archives of abolished institutions, then as deputy chairman of the Main Directorate of Archival Affairs, head of the Petrograd branch of the Main Archives.

On April 3, 1920, the General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences elected S.F. Platonov (for his great contribution to the development of Russian historical science) as its full member.

At the turn of the 1920s, he was planning a major work on the beginning of the Russian state, and talked about the need to revise the works of A. A. Shakhmatov (the founder of the historical study of ancient Russian chronicles and literature). However, all these plans were not destined to come true. In Soviet times, only Platonov’s popular science essays “Boris Godunov. Images of the Past" (1921), "Ivan the Terrible (1530–1584)" (1923), the books "Moscow and the West in the 16th–17th centuries" (1925) and "Peter the Great. Personality and activity" (1926), articles about the ancient colonization of the Russian North.

In his research work and popular science creativity, Platonov continued to be guided by the same principles as before:

“My worldview, which developed towards the end of the 19th century, was based on Christian morality, positivist philosophy and scientific evolutionary theory... In essence, I remain so at the present moment. Atheism is as alien to me as church dogma.” (From Platonov’s “repentant” note to the OGPU, October 1930)

After the removal from archival work initiated by M.N. Pokrovsky on August 1, 1925, Platonov became director of the Pushkin House (he remained until 1929), and on August 22 of the same year he was elected director of the Library of the Academy of Sciences (BAN).

In the same year, he allegedly forbade A. A. Vvedensky (a specialist in the history of Ancient Rus') to read a report on the 1905 revolution in the Urals at the First Historical Research Institute at Leningrad State University in the “spirit of the times” and demanded that this report be replaced with a report on the Stroganov icon.

In 1927, he permanently completed his work at Leningrad State University.

On July 11, 1928, S.F. Platonov spoke in Berlin in front of his German colleagues with a report “The Problem of the Russian North in Recent Historiography.” There he also had contacts with some representatives of the Russian emigration, including his former student Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich, which was later used by the OGPU authorities against the historian.

"Academic Affairs"

The so-called “case of the Academy of Sciences” (“academic case”, “case of academicians”, “case of Platonov and Tarle”) played a tragic role in the fate of the scientist.

On October 12, 1929, the OGPU department for Leningrad and the region received intelligence information about the storage of important political archives in the Library of the Academy of Sciences, allegedly unknown to the Soviet authorities. A check of this information was organized through a commission for cleaning the apparatus of the Academy of Sciences. On October 19, the chairman of the commission, Yu.P. Figatner discovered in the Library original copies of manifestos about the abdication of the throne of Nicholas II and his brother Mikhail, documents of the Central Committee of the Cadets and Socialist Revolutionaries, and some other materials. I.V. Stalin was immediately notified of this.

It would seem: so what? Where should there be documents, the direct creators of which no longer exist, if not in the library of the Academy of Sciences?

Their presence in the library’s collections was officially reported to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee back in 1926, but the party leaders (Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev) at that time were busy with more important matters: sharing power. The hands of the tsar's manifestos and Socialist-Revolutionary protocols came only in 1929. Just then the opportunity arose to get rid of all the dissident anti-Marxist opposition in the Academy and other scientific institutions of Leningrad.

The blame for the “concealment” of documents, naturally, was placed on Platonov. The academician tried to justify himself: “Both the permanent secretary and I myself did not attach much relevance to the documents and brought them under the authority of the decree of November 16, 1926... We did not know that the government had been looking for them for 12 years. ... Comrade Figatner does not distinguish between the terms “archive” and “archival materials” and abuses the former.”

In fact, the “hiding” of documents was just a pretext. Things were much more complicated. The strained relations that existed between the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Academy of Sciences were most acutely manifested back in 1928, when the party bodies attempted to transform a scientific institution, which enjoyed sufficient freedom and autonomy (this had been the case since the days of old Russia), into an obedient bureaucratic appendage systems. It was possible to strengthen the influence of the central bodies of the party on the Academy of Sciences, a purely non-party institution (in 1929, among its 1,158 employees, only 16 were party members), it was possible to introduce a strong group of communists into its composition. The authorities nominated eight people as candidates for full members of the Academy of Sciences: N. I. Bukharin, I. M. Gubkin, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, M. N. Pokrovsky, D. B. Ryazanov, A. M. Deborin, N. M. Lukin and V. M. Fritsche.

On January 12, 1928, a general meeting was held, but it elected only five people from the list as full members (the first three of them passed with a margin of just one vote, and the last three were voted out). Five days later, the Presidium of the Academy was nevertheless forced to convene a new meeting in order to “elect” the trio that failed at the first meeting. The elections showed the authorities: in the ranks of the Academy of Sciences there are many people who are still capable of resisting the decision of the Politburo itself. It became obvious that there was an urgent need to “clean up” academic institutions. A convincing reason was also found: concealment of documents.

The ideological inspirer of the “purge” and persecution of old specialists was the historian M. N. Pokrovsky, who had just been elected to the Academy. In his letter dated November 1, 1929 to the Politburo, he proposed radically changing the structure of the Academy of Sciences, turning it into an ordinary state institution: “We must go on the offensive on all scientific fronts. The period of peaceful coexistence with bourgeois science has been completely eradicated.” The centralization of science was seen by Pokrovsky as a kind of collectivization, and his call to take science away from scientists and transfer it to four thousand workers' faculty students graduating from universities in 1929 was very reminiscent of calls for dispossession.

Academician S.F. Platonov refused the directorship at the BAN back in September 1928, and in March 1929 - the directorship at the Pushkin House. At the March session of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1929, he was elected academician-secretary of the Department of Humanities (OHN) and a member of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, and on November 5, 1929, the Politburo decided to remove the scientist from work at the Academy and remove him from all posts he held.

Platonov himself resigned, but that was not the end of the matter. On the night of January 12-13, 1930, the historian was arrested along with his youngest daughter Maria by security officer A. A. Mosevich on suspicion of “active anti-Soviet activity and participation in a counter-revolutionary organization.” During a search at the Platonovs’ apartment, a foreign-made revolver was found, as well as letters addressed to Sergei Fedorovich from Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich (junior) and the leader of the cadet party P. N. Milyukov. The private correspondence did not contain anything criminal: the Grand Duke was a student of Platonov, and P.N. Milyukov was the brother of his wife, N.N. Shamonina, who was already deceased by that time. But this was enough for the security officers.

Soon many of Academician Platonov’s friends and professional comrades ended up in prison. Among them are N.P. Likhachev, M.K. Lyubavsky, E.V. Tarle, S.V. Bakhrushin, P.G. Vasenko, Yu.V. Gauthier, V.G. Druzhinin, D.N. Egorov, V.I. Picheta, B.A. Romanov, A.I. Yakovlev and others. All of them were representatives of the old professorship and did not adhere to the official Marxist ideology.

During the investigation, Platonov behaved courageously, despite threats against his arrested daughters, and for a long time refused to give the necessary testimony. As evidenced by the now published materials of the “academic case,” the reason that served as the reason for the arrest of historians - the storage of documents that were subject to submission to the state archives - was forgotten from the very first interrogations. It was impossible to squeeze out of it a political background with a counter-revolutionary overtones. And now the first political accusation, formulated by the head of the investigative department on March 14, 1930, comes to light. In it, Platonov is no longer accused of keeping papers of national importance, but of heading “a counter-revolutionary monarchist organization whose goal was to overthrow Soviet power and establish a monarchical system in the USSR by inducing foreign states and a number of bourgeois social groups to armed intervention.” in the affairs of the Union."

The historian was broken by investigator A. A. Mosevich, who pointed out that truthful testimony is needed not by the investigation, to which everything is already clear, but by history. The scientist gave in and accepted his rules of the game: “Concerning my political convictions, I must admit that I am a monarchist. He recognized the dynasty and was sick at heart when the court clique contributed to the fall of the reigning House of Romanov..."

It was absolutely true.

Then denunciations came into play. One of them reported that in a private conversation, Academician Platonov criticized the choice of emigration in favor of Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich as a contender for the Russian throne. The historian allegedly pointed to a more suitable candidate, from his point of view, for his student, Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich. Platonov did not deny this.

Having received the missing link, the investigation charged that Platonov had created a counter-revolutionary monarchist organization at the Academy of Sciences called the “National Union of Struggle for the Revival of Free Russia,” the goal of which was the overthrow of Soviet power and the establishment of a constitutional-monarchical system headed by Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich. Moreover, for some reason the role of the future prime minister was assigned to Platonov himself. In total, 115 people were involved in the case of the “National Union of Struggle for the Revival of Free Russia”.

The investigation lasted more than a year. On February 2, 1931, at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences, its new permanent secretary, member of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Academician V.P. Volgin, announced the establishment of the fact of the participation of academicians S.F. Platonov, E.V. Tarle, N.P. Likhachev and M.K. Lyubavsky in a counter-revolutionary conspiracy and proposed to exclude them from the full membership. After this, the President of the Academy of Sciences, A.P. Karpinsky, took the floor. The transcript of his speech has not been preserved, but Krasnaya Gazeta reported on the “counter-revolutionary attack” of the scientist, who allegedly called the expulsion of Platonov and his colleagues from the Academy unnecessary (which nevertheless took place).

There was no trial, even closed, in the “case of the Academy of Sciences”. The main sentences were passed in three stages: in February 1931, by the OGPU troika in the Leningrad Military District, then in May and August by the OGPU Collegium. The press said almost nothing about this case. The remaining junior colleagues and students of Academician Platonov, out of fear for their fate, publicly renounced their teacher. However, the sentence for those arrested turned out to be relatively mild - 5 years of exile. But there were no casualties at all. Six former officers "belonging to the military group" of the "All People's Union" were sentenced to death. The OGPU board sentenced ordinary members of the “union” to 5-10 years in the camps.

Memory

Even during his life in the Soviet country, Platonov was recognized as one of the most famous scientists. His autobiography was published in the popular magazine “Ogonyok” (No. 35, 1927) under the heading “The country should know its scientists.” He was surrounded with honor and glory, even sent abroad to represent Soviet Russia at international historical forums.

But the “academic affair” of 1929-30 put an end to the biography of the Russian scientist, consigning his name to complete oblivion.

Not a single book about the disgraced historian was published in the Soviet Union. In Soviet works on Russian historiography - both in textbooks and in academic “Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR” - no special chapter is devoted to the characterization of Platonov’s life and work.

And although in 1937 they published (for the fourth time!) “Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th–17th centuries,” and the Higher School of Propagandists under the Central Committee of the Party published (albeit “for internal use”) fragments of Platonov’s textbook for universities , in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia they chose to do without an article about Sergei Fedorovich altogether.

Only in the book “Russian Historiography”, published in 1941 by N.L. Rubenstein, which to this day remains the most scientifically objective generalizing work on Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, is written about Platonov in a respectfully serious tone, without cheap political labels. However, in the 1950-1970s, Platonov continued to be characterized as “the most prominent exponent of the ideology of the reactionary nobility” in the pre-revolutionary period, speaking “from the position of an apologist for autocracy” in the post-revolutionary years.

Soviet scientists, squeezed within the narrow framework of Marxist-Leninist ideology, reduced the development of historical science primarily to the development of social thought and its reflection of the current socio-political situation. They were little interested in the philosophical and, especially, the moral foundations of the worldview of historians. The period from the mid-1890s to the 1917 revolution was pretentiously defined as the time of “the crisis of bourgeois-noble historical science”; and the views of historians, and indeed all their work, were evaluated depending on their relationship with the development of thought of those who adhered to the views of Marx and especially Lenin. Platonov was given a place on the right flank of non-Marxist historical science. At the same time, “non-Marxist” was often interpreted as “anti-Marxist.”

In 1967, those convicted in the falsified case “On a counter-revolutionary conspiracy in the Academy of Sciences” were completely rehabilitated. Platonov was posthumously restored to the rank of academician. But it took more than 20 years for the first journal articles to appear not only about the last years of the scientist’s life, but also about his entire life’s journey.

In 1994, the first issue prepared by V.A. was published. Kolobkov Catalog of the archive of academician S.F. Platonov. The publication of “Cases against Academician S.F. Platonov" began a multi-volume publication of investigative materials of the "Academic Case of 1929–1931."

In the late 1990s - early 2000s, Platonov’s works began to be published again - his textbooks for higher and secondary schools were published in several editions, in the prestigious academic series “Monuments of Historical Thought” - the fifth edition of “Essays on the History of the Troubles in the Moscow State XVI– XVII centuries”, accompanied by articles by E.V. Chistyakova. In 1993–1994, a two-volume collection of Platonov’s works on Russian history appeared, prepared by V.I. Startsev and B.S. Brachev, republished in the form of books and individual works by S.F. Platonov 1920s. Platonov’s texts, identified in the archives, were published in the volumes of the Archaeographic Yearbook. Currently, serious work is underway with archival materials from his personal collection - unpublished studies (about zemstvo councils and others), reviews, memoirs, letters. Meanwhile, the process of forming the historian’s fund in the manuscript department of the Russian National Library has not yet been completed: quite interesting materials related to the personal life and last years of the scientist in Samara exile continue to arrive from the relatives and descendants of S.F. Platonov.

As it was said in the Soviet magazine Ogonyok, a country must know its scientists! The works and biography of the outstanding historian S.F. Platonov are gradually returning to the reader who was separated from them, enriching ideas not only about the past of our Fatherland, but also about the history of its study.

Let us add on our own behalf that those who do not know and do not want to know their scientists and their history run the risk of waking up one day and not recognizing their country.

Elena Shirokova

based on materials:

1. Brachev V.S. Russian historian S.F. Platonov: Scientist. Teacher. Human. - St. Petersburg, 1997. 2nd ed.
2. It's him. The Way of the Cross of the Russian historian: Academician S.F. Platonov and his “deed”. - St. Petersburg, 2005 (revised edition).
3. Rostovtsev E. A. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky and S. F. Platonov (on the history of personal and scientific relationships) // Problems of social and humanitarian knowledge. Sat. scientific works. - St. Petersburg, 1999 - Issue I. – P.128-165;
4. It's him. A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky and the St. Petersburg historical school. - Ryazan, 2004. 352 p., ill.
5. Schmidt S. O. Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (1860-1933) // Portraits of historians: Time and destinies. In 2 volumes - M.-Ier., 2000. - T.1. Domestic history.- pp. 100-135.
6. Website photos used