Sergei Fyodorovich Platonov

Full course of lectures on Russian history

Essay on Russian historiography

Overview of the sources of Russian history

PART ONE

Preliminary historical information The most ancient history of our country The Russian Slavs and their neighbors The initial life of the Russian Slavs Kievan Rus Formation of the Kievan principality General remarks about the early times of the Kievan principality Baptism of Rus Consequences of the adoption of Christianity by Rus Kievan Rus in the XI-XII centuries specific Russia Specific life of Suzdal-Vladimir Rus Novgorod Pskov Lithuania Moscow principality until the middle of the 15th century Time of Grand Duke Ivan III

PART TWO

Time of Ivan the Terrible Muscovy before the Troubles Political contradiction in Moscow life in the 16th century Social contradiction in Moscow life in the 16th century Troubles in the Muscovite state Fedorovich (1613-1645) The time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) The internal activities of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich Church affairs under Alexei Mikhailovich A cultural turning point under Alexei Mikhailovich The personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich The main moments in the history of Southern and Western Russia in the 16th-17th centuries The time of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich (1676-1682)

PART THREE

The views of science and Russian society on Peter the Great The state of Moscow politics and life at the end of the 17th century The time of Peter the Great Childhood and adolescence of Peter (1672-1689) Years 1689-1699 Peter's foreign policy since 1700 Peter's internal activities since 1700 The attitude of contemporaries to Peter's activities Peter's family relations The historical significance of Peter's activities The time from the death of Peter the Great to the accession to the throne of Elizabeth (1725-1741) Palace events from 1725 to 1741 Management and politics from 1725 to 1741 The time of Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761) The management and politics of Elizabeth's time Peter III and the coup of 1762 The time of Catherine II (1762-1796) The legislative activity of Catherine II The foreign policy of Catherine II The historical significance of the activities of Catherine II The time of Paul I (1796-1801) The time of Alexander I (1801-1825) The time of Nicholas I (1825-1855 ) A brief overview of the time of Emperor Alexander II and the great reforms

These "Lectures" owe their first appearance in print to the energy and labor of my listeners 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 according to the texts I submitted, however, in general, the first editions of the "Lectures" did not differ in either internal integrity or external decoration, representing a collection of different time and different quality educational records. Through the work of I. A. Blinov, the fourth edition of the Lectures acquired a much more serviceable form, and for the next editions the text of the Lectures was also revised by me personally. In particular, in the eighth edition, the revision mainly touched upon 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. In order to strengthen the factual side of the exposition in these parts of the course, I drew on some excerpts from my "Textbook of Russian History" with the corresponding changes in the text, just as in previous editions inserts were made from there into the department of the history of Kievan Rus until the XII century. In addition, in the eighth edition, the characteristics of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were re-stated. In the ninth edition, the necessary, generally minor, corrections have been made. For the tenth edition, the text has been revised. Nevertheless, in its present form, the "Lectures" are still far from the desired serviceability. Live teaching and scientific work have a continuous influence on the lecturer, changing not only the particulars, 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 built. Of course, some oversights and errors still remain in the printed transmission of this material; likewise, the construction of the presentation in the "Lectures" very often does not correspond to the structure of the oral presentation, which I have been following in recent years. It is only with these reservations that I make up my mind to publish the present edition of the Lectures.

S. Platonov

Introduction (Summary)

It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical science.

Having clarified for ourselves how history is understood in general, we will understand what we should understand by the history of any one people, and we will consciously begin to study Russian history.

History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science.

Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way, referring history to the realm of the arts. By history they understood an artistic story about memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was for them to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art pursued the same goals.

With such a view of history as an artistic story about memorable events, ancient historians also adhered to the corresponding methods of presentation. In their narration, they strove for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, not believing in them, he brings into his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Moreover, the ancient historian, true to his artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt, puts speeches composed by himself into the mouths of his heroes, but he considers himself right because he faithfully conveys in an invented form the real intentions and thoughts of historical persons.

Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history has been to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that have prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in antiquity requires pragmatism from the historian. Already in Herodotus we observe the manifestation of this pragmatism, that is, the desire to link facts by causality, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction (Summary)

It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical science. Having clarified for ourselves how history is understood in general, we will understand what we should understand by the history of any one people, and we will consciously begin to study Russian history.

History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science. Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way, referring history to the realm of the arts. By history they understood an artistic story about memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was for them to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art pursued the same goals.

With this view of history, to a fictional story about memorable events, ancient historians kept the appropriate methods of presentation. In their narration, they strove for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, not believing in them, he brings into his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Moreover, the ancient historian, true to his artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt, puts speeches composed by himself into the mouths of his heroes, but he considers himself right because he faithfully conveys in an invented form the real intentions and thoughts of historical persons.

Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history has been to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that have prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in antiquity requires the historian to pragmatism. Already in Herodotus we observe the manifestation of this pragmatism, that is, the desire to link facts by causality, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.

So, at first, history is determined, as an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and faces.

Such views on history go back to the times of ancient times, which demanded from it, in addition to artistic impressions, practical applicability. Even the ancients said that history is the teacher of life(magistra vitae). They expected from historians such a presentation of the past life of mankind, which would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future, would serve as a practical guide for public figures and a moral school for other people. This view of history was held in full force in the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he directly brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other hand, he turned history into a “tablet of revelations and rules” of a practical nature. A 17th century writer (De Rocoles) said that "history performs the duties inherent in moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect can be preferred to it, since, giving the same rules, it adds examples to them." On the first page of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" you will find an expression of the idea that history must be known in order "to establish order, agree on the benefits of people and give them the happiness possible on earth."

With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new definitions of historical science began to take shape. In an effort to explain the essence and meaning of human life, thinkers turned to the study of history either in order to find a solution to their problem in it, or in order to confirm their abstract constructions with historical data. In accordance with various philosophical systems, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined in one way or another. Here are some of these definitions: Bossuet (1627-1704) and Laurent (1810-1887) understood history as an image of those world events in which the ways of Providence, guiding human life for its own purposes, were expressed with particular clarity. The Italian Vico (1668–1744) considered the task of history as a science to be the depiction of those identical states that all peoples are destined to experience. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770–1831) saw in history an image of the process by which the “absolute spirit” achieved its self-knowledge (Hegel explained the entire world life as the development of this “absolute spirit”). It will not be a mistake to say that all these philosophies require essentially the same thing from history: history should not depict all the facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones that reveal its general meaning.

This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought - a simple story about the past in general, or a random collection of facts from different times and places to prove an edifying thought no longer satisfied. There was a desire to unite the presentation of the guiding idea, the systematization of historical material. However, philosophical history is rightly reproached for taking the guiding ideas of historical presentation outside of history and systematizing the facts arbitrarily. From this, history did not become an independent science, but turned into a servant of philosophy.

History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when idealism developed from Germany, in opposition to French rationalism: in opposition to French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, national antiquity was actively studied, and the conviction began to dominate that the life of human societies takes place naturally, in such a natural order. a sequence that cannot be broken or changed either by chance or by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main interest in history came to be the study not of random external phenomena and not the activities of prominent personalities, but the study of social life at different stages of its development. History is understood as the science of the laws of the historical life of human societies.

This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. The famous Guizot (1787–1874), for example, understood history as the doctrine of world and national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil society). The philosopher Schelling (1775–1854) considered national history to be a means of knowing the "national spirit". From this grew the widespread definition of history as path to popular self-consciousness. There were further attempts to understand history as a science, which should reveal the general laws of the development of social life without applying them to a certain place, time and people. But these attempts, in essence, appropriated the tasks of another science to history - sociology. History, on the other hand, is a science that studies concrete facts under the conditions of precisely time and place, and its main goal is recognized as a systematic depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and all of humanity.

Such a task requires a lot to be successful. In order to give a scientifically accurate and artistically complete picture of any era of folk life or the complete history of a people, it is necessary: ​​1) to collect historical materials, 2) to investigate their reliability, 3) to restore exactly individual historical facts, 4) to indicate between them pragmatic connection and 5) reduce them into a general scientific overview or into an artistic picture. The ways in which historians achieve these particular goals are called scientific critical devices. These methods are improved with the development of historical science, but so far neither these methods nor the science of history itself have reached their full development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material that is subject to their knowledge, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not yet achieved the results that other, more accurate sciences have achieved. And, however, no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.

Ever since the study of the facts of world history began to be approached with the consciousness that human life develops naturally, is subject to eternal and unchanging relationships and rules, the discovery of these permanent laws and relationships has become the ideal of the historian. Behind a simple analysis of historical phenomena, which had the goal of indicating their causal sequence, a broader field was opened - a historical synthesis, aiming to recreate the general course of world history as a whole, to indicate in its course such laws of the sequence of development that would be justified not only in the past, but also in the future of humanity.

This broad ideal cannot be directly guided by Russian historian. He studies only one fact of world historical life - the life of his nationality. The state of Russian historiography is still such that sometimes it imposes on the Russian historian the obligation to simply collect facts and give them an initial scientific processing. And only where the facts have already been collected and elucidated can we rise to certain historical generalizations, can we notice the general course of this or that historical process, can we even, on the basis of a number of partial generalizations, make a bold attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which the main facts of our historical life. But the Russian historian cannot go beyond such a general scheme without going beyond the boundaries of his science. In order to understand the essence and significance of this or that fact in the history of Russia, he can look for analogies in the history of the general; With the results obtained, he can serve as a general historian, and lay his own stone in the foundation of a general historical synthesis. But this is the limit of his connection with the general history and influence on it. The ultimate goal of Russian historiography always remains the construction of a system of local historical process.

The construction of this system also solves another, more practical problem that lies with the Russian historian. There is an old belief that national history is the path to national self-consciousness. Indeed, knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future. A people familiar with its history lives consciously, is sensitive to the reality surrounding it and knows how to understand it. The task, in this case, it can be expressed - the duty of national historiography is to show society its past in the true light. At the same time, there is no need to introduce any preconceived points of view into historiography; a subjective idea is not a scientific idea, but only scientific work can be useful to social self-consciousness. Remaining in the strictly scientific sphere, highlighting those dominant principles of social life that characterized the various stages of Russian historical life, the researcher will reveal to society the main moments of its historical existence and thereby achieve his goal. He will give society reasonable knowledge, and the application of this knowledge no longer depends on him.

Thus, both abstract considerations and practical goals pose the same task to Russian historical science - a systematic depiction of Russian historical life, a general scheme of that historical process that has brought our nationality to its present state.

Essay on Russian historiography

When did the systematic depiction of the events of Russian historical life begin, and when did Russian history become a science? Even in Kievan Rus, along with the emergence of citizenship, in the XI century. we have the first annals. They were lists of facts, important and unimportant, historical and non-historical, interspersed with literary tales. From our point of view, the most ancient chronicles do not represent a historical work; not to mention the content - and the very methods of the chronicler do not meet today's requirements. The beginnings of historiography appear in our country in the 16th century, when historical legends and chronicles began to be collated and brought together for the first time. In the XVI century. Moscow Rus was formed and formed. Having rallied into a single body, under the rule of a single Moscow prince, the Russians tried to explain to themselves their origin, their political ideas, and their relationship to the states around them.

And in 1512 (apparently, the elder Philotheus) compiled chronograph, i.e., a survey of world history. Most of it contained translations from the Greek language, and Russian and Slavic historical legends were added only as additions. This chronograph is brief, but gives a sufficient supply of historical information; behind it appear completely Russian chronographs, which are a reworking of the first. Together with them appear in the XVI century. chronicle compilations compiled according to ancient chronicles, but representing not collections of mechanically compared facts, but works connected by one common idea. The first such work was "Power Book" so named because it was divided into "generations" or "degrees", as they were then called. She transmitted in a chronological, sequential, i.e. "gradual" order, the activities of the Russian metropolitans and princes, starting with Rurik. Metropolitan Cyprian was erroneously considered the author of this book; it was processed by Metropolitans Macarius and his successor Athanasius under Ivan the Terrible, that is, in the 16th century. At the basis of the "Book of Powers" lies a tendency, both general and particular. The general one is visible in the desire to show that the power of the Moscow princes is not accidental, but successive, on the one hand, from the South Russian, Kyiv princes, on the other, from the Byzantine kings. A particular tendency, however, was reflected in the respect with which spiritual authority is invariably spoken of. The Power Book can be called a historical work due to the well-known system of presentation. At the beginning of the XVI century. another historical work was compiled - "Resurrection Chronicle" more interesting for the abundance of material. It was based on all the previous chronicles, the Sophia Timepiece and others, so there are really a lot of facts in this chronicle, but they are held together purely mechanically. Nevertheless, the Resurrection Chronicle seems to us the most valuable historical work of all, contemporary or earlier, since it was compiled without any tendency and contains a lot of information that is not found anywhere else. It could not be liked by its simplicity, the artlessness of presentation could seem wretched to connoisseurs of rhetorical devices, and now it was subjected to processing and additions and, by the middle of the 16th century, a new code called "Nikon Chronicle". In this collection we see a lot of information borrowed from Greek chronographs, on the history of the Greek and Slavic countries, while the chronicle of Russian events, especially about the later centuries, although detailed, but not entirely reliable, the accuracy of the presentation suffered from literary revision: correcting the ingenuous syllable of the previous chronicles, involuntarily distorted the meaning of some events.

In 1674, the first textbook of Russian history appeared in Kyiv - "Synopsis" by Innokenty Gizel, very widespread in the era of Peter the Great (it is often found now). If, next to all these revisions of the chronicles, we remember a number of literary legends about individual historical facts and eras (for example, the Tale of Prince Kurbsky, the story of the Time of Troubles), then we will embrace the entire stock of historical works with which Russia survived until the era of Peter the Great, before the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Peter was very concerned about compiling the history of Russia and entrusted this matter to various persons. But only after his death did the scientific development of historical material begin, and the first figures in this field were German scientists, members of the St. Petersburg Academy; Of these, first of all, we should mention Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer(1694–1738). He began by studying the tribes that inhabited Russia in antiquity, especially the Varangians, but did not go further than that. Bayer left behind a lot of works, of which two rather capital works were written in Latin and now are no longer of great importance for the history of Russia - these are "Northern Geography" and "Research on the Varangians"(they were translated into Russian only in 1767). Works were much more fruitful Gerard Friedrich Miller(1705-1783), who lived in Russia under the Empresses Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine II and already knew Russian so well that he wrote his works in Russian. He traveled a lot in Russia (he lived for 10 years, from 1733 to 1743, in Siberia) and studied it well. In the literary historical field, he acted as the publisher of the Russian magazine "Monthly Essays"(1755-1765) and a collection in German "Sammlung Russischer Gescihchte". Miller's main merit was the collection of materials on Russian history; his manuscripts (the so-called Miller portfolios) served and continue to serve as a rich source for publishers and researchers. And Miller's research was important - he was one of the first scientists who became interested in the later eras of our history, his works are devoted to them: "The Experience of the Recent History of Russia" and "News of the Russian Nobles." Finally, he was the first scientific archivist in Russia and put in order the Moscow archive of the Foreign Collegium, the director of which he died (1783). Among the academicians of the XVIII century. took a prominent place in his works on Russian history and Lomonosov, who wrote a textbook of Russian history and one volume of Ancient Russian History (1766). His works on history were conditioned by polemics with German academicians. The latter deduced Russia from the Varangians from the Normans and attributed the origin of citizenship in Russia to the Norman influence, which before the advent of the Varangians was represented as a wild country; Lomonosov, on the other hand, recognized the Varangians as Slavs and thus considered Russian culture to be original.

The aforementioned academicians, while collecting materials and investigating individual issues of our history, did not have time to give a general overview of it, the need for which was felt by Russian educated people. Attempts to give such an overview appeared outside the academic environment.

First try belongs V. N. Tatishchev(1686–1750). Dealing with geographic questions proper, he saw that it was impossible to resolve them without knowledge of history, and, being a comprehensively educated person, he himself began to collect information on Russian history and began compiling it. For many years he wrote his historical work, revised it more than once, but only after his death, in 1768, his publication began. Within 6 years, 4 volumes were published, the 5th volume was accidentally found already in our century and published by the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. In these 5 volumes, Tatishchev brought his history to the troubled era of the 17th century. In the first volume, we get acquainted with the views of the author himself on Russian history and with the sources that he used in compiling it; we find a number of scientific sketches about ancient peoples - the Varangians, Slavs, etc. Tatishchev often resorted to other people's works; so, for example, he took advantage of Bayer's study "On the Varangians" and directly included it in his work. This story is now, of course, outdated, but it has not lost its scientific significance, since (in the 18th century) Tatishchev possessed sources that do not exist now, and consequently, many of the facts he cited can no longer be restored. This aroused suspicion whether some of the sources he referred to existed, and Tatishchev was accused of bad faith. They especially did not trust the "Joachim Chronicle" cited by him. However, a study of this chronicle showed that Tatishchev only failed to treat it critically and included it in its entirety, with all its fables, in his history. Strictly speaking, Tatishchev's work is nothing more than a detailed collection of chronicle data presented in chronological order; his heavy language and lack of literary processing made him uninteresting for his contemporaries.

The first popular book on Russian history was written by Catherine II, but her work "Notes on Russian history", brought to the end of the 13th century, has no scientific significance and is interesting only as the first attempt to tell society its past in an easy language. Much more important in scientific terms was the "History of Russia" by Prince M. Shcherbatova(1733–1790), which was subsequently used by Karamzin. Shcherbatov was not a man of a strong philosophical mind, but he had read the educational literature of the 18th century. and wholly developed under her influence, which was reflected in his work, in which many preconceived thoughts were introduced. In historical information, he did not have time to understand to such an extent that he sometimes forced his heroes to die 2 times. But, despite such major shortcomings, Shcherbatov's story has scientific significance due to many applications that include historical documents. Particularly interesting are the diplomatic papers of the 16th and 17th centuries. Brought his work to a troubled era.

It happened that under Catherine II, a certain French Leclerc, completely ignorant of the Russian political system, the people, or their way of life, wrote the insignificant "L" histoire de la Russie, and there was so much slander in it that it aroused general indignation. I. N. Boltin(1735-1792), a lover of Russian history, compiled a series of notes in which he discovered Leclerc's ignorance and which he published in two volumes. In them, he partly touched Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov was offended and wrote Objection. Boltin responded with printed letters and began to criticize Shcherbatov's History. Boltin's works, which reveal his historical talent, are interesting because of the novelty of their views. Boltin is sometimes not exactly called “the first Slavophile,” because he noted many dark sides in blind imitation of the West, an imitation that became noticeable in our country after Peter the Great, and wished that Russia would keep better the good beginnings of the last century. Boltin himself is interesting as a historical phenomenon. He served as the best evidence that in the XVIII century. in society, even among non-specialists in history, there was a keen interest in the past of their homeland. The views and interests of Boltin shared N. I. Novikov(1744-1818), a well-known zealot of Russian education, who collected "Ancient Russian Vivliofika" (20 volumes), an extensive collection of historical documents and studies (1788-1791). At the same time, the merchant Golikov (1735–1801) acted as a collector of historical materials, publishing a collection of historical data about Peter the Great called "Acts of Peter the Great"(1st ed. 1788–1790, 2nd 1837). Thus, along with attempts to give a general history of Russia, there is also a desire to prepare materials for such a history. In addition to the private initiative, the Academy of Sciences itself is working in this direction, publishing chronicles for general familiarization.

But in everything that we have listed, there was still little scientific in our sense: there were no strict critical methods, not to mention the absence of integral historical ideas.

For the first time, a number of scientific and critical methods in the study of Russian history were introduced by a learned foreigner Schlozer(1735–1809). Having become acquainted with the Russian chronicles, he was delighted with them: he did not meet such a wealth of information, such a poetic language among any people. Having already left Russia and being a professor at the University of Göttingen, he tirelessly worked on those extracts from the annals that he managed to take out of Russia. The result of this work was the famous work, published under the title "Nestor"(1805 in German, 1809–1819 in Russian). This is a whole series of historical sketches about the Russian chronicle. In the preface, the author gives a brief overview of what has been done in Russian history. He finds the state of science in Russia sad, treats Russian historians with disdain, considers his book to be almost the only worthy work on Russian history. And indeed, his work far left behind all others in terms of the degree of scientific consciousness and methods of the author. These methods created in our country a kind of school of Schlozer's students, the first scientific researchers, like M. P. Pogodin. After Schlozer, rigorous historical research became possible for us, for which, it is true, favorable conditions were created in another environment, headed by Miller. Among the people he collected in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium, Stritter, Malinovsky, Bantysh-Kamensky were especially prominent. They created the first school of learned archivists, who put the Archive in full order and who, in addition to the external grouping of archival material, carried out a number of serious scientific research on the basis of this material. Thus, little by little, the conditions were ripening that made it possible for us to have a serious story.

At the beginning of the XIX century. finally, the first integral view of the Russian historical past was created in the well-known "History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzina(1766–1826). Possessing an integral worldview, literary talent and the techniques of a good scholarly critic, Karamzin saw one most important process in all of Russian historical life - the creation of national state power. A number of talented figures led Russia to this power, of which the two main ones - Ivan III and Peter the Great - marked transitional moments in our history with their activities and stood at the boundaries of its main eras - ancient (before Ivan III), middle (before Peter the Great) and new (before the beginning of the 19th century). Karamzin outlined his system of Russian history in a language that was fascinating for his time, and he based his story on numerous researches, which to this day retain important scientific significance for his History.

But the one-sidedness of Karamzin's basic view, which limited the task of the historian to depicting only the fate of the state, and not society with its culture, legal and economic relations, was soon noticed by his contemporaries. Journalist of the 30s of the XIX century. N. A. Polevoy(1796-1846) reproached him for the fact that, having called his work "The History of the Russian State", he ignored the "History of the Russian People". It was with these words that Polevoy titled his work, in which he thought to portray the fate of Russian society. To replace the Karamzin system, he put his own system, but not entirely successful, since he was an amateur in the field of historical knowledge. Being carried away by the historical works of the West, he tried purely mechanically to apply their conclusions and terms to Russian facts, for example, to find the feudal system in ancient Russia. Hence the weakness of his attempt is understandable, it is clear that Polevoy's work could not replace Karamzin's work: it did not have an integral system at all.

Less sharply and with more caution came out against Karamzin the St. Petersburg professor Ustryalov(1805–1870), who wrote in 1836 "Reasoning about the system of pragmatic Russian history". He demanded that history be a picture of gradual development public life, depicting the transitions of citizenship from one state to another. But he still believes in the power of the individual in history and, along with the depiction of folk life, also requires biographies of its heroes. Ustryalov himself, however, refused to give a definite general point of view on our history and remarked that the time had not yet come for that.

Thus, dissatisfaction with Karamzin's work, which affected both the scientific world and society, did not correct Karamzin's system and did not replace it with another. Above the phenomena of Russian history, as their connecting principle, Karamzin's artistic picture remained and no scientific system was created. Ustryalov was right when he said that the time had not yet come for such a system. The best professors of Russian history who lived in an era close to Karamzin, Pogodin and Kachenovsky(1775-1842), were still far from one common point of view; the latter took shape only when the educated circles of our society began to take an active interest in Russian history. Pogodin and Kachenovsky were brought up on the scientific methods of Schlozer and under his influence, which had a particularly strong effect on Pogodin. Pogodin largely continued Schlozer's research and, studying the most ancient periods of our history, did not go further than private conclusions and small generalizations, with which, however, he sometimes knew how to captivate his listeners, who were not accustomed to a strictly scientific and independent presentation of the subject. Kachenovsky took up Russian history when he had already acquired a lot of knowledge and experience in other branches of historical knowledge. Following the development of classical history in the West, which at that time was brought to a new path of research by Niebuhr, Kachenovsky was carried away by the denial with which they began to treat the most ancient data on history, for example, Rome. Kachenovsky transferred this denial to Russian history: he considered all information related to the first centuries of Russian history to be unreliable; reliable facts, in his opinion, began only from the time when we had written documents of civil life. Kachenovsky's skepticism had followers: under his influence, the so-called skeptic school, not rich in conclusions, but strong with a new, skeptical approach to scientific material. This school owned several articles compiled under the direction of Kachenovsky. With the undoubted talent of Pogodin and Kachenovsky, both of them developed, although major, but particular issues of Russian history; both of them were strong critical methods, but neither one nor the other had yet risen to the level of an efficient historical outlook: by giving a method, they did not give results that could be reached with the help of this method.

Only in the 30s of the 19th century did Russian society develop an integral historical outlook, but it developed not on a scientific, but on a metaphysical basis. In the first half of the XIX century. Russian educated people with great and great interest turned to history, both domestic and Western European. Foreign campaigns 1813–1814 introduced our youth to the philosophy and political life of Western Europe. The study of the life and ideas of the West gave rise, on the one hand, to the political movement of the Decembrists, on the other hand, to a circle of people who were fond of more abstract philosophy than politics. This circle grew entirely on the soil of German metaphysical philosophy at the beginning of our century. This philosophy was distinguished by the harmony of logical constructions and optimism of conclusions. In German metaphysics, as in German romanticism, there was a protest against the dry rationalism of French philosophy of the eighteenth century. Germany opposed the beginning of nationality to the revolutionary cosmopolitanism of France and found it out in attractive images of folk poetry and in a number of metaphysical systems. These systems became known to educated Russian people and fascinated them. Russian educated people saw a whole revelation in German philosophy. Germany was for them the "Jerusalem of the newest humanity" - as Belinsky called it. The study of the most important metaphysical systems of Schelling and Hegel united several talented representatives of Russian society into a close circle and forced them to turn to the study of their (Russian) national past. The result of this study were two completely opposite systems of Russian history, built on the same metaphysical basis. In Germany at that time, the dominant philosophical systems were those of Schelling and Hegel. According to Schelling, every historical people must implement some kind of absolute idea of ​​goodness, truth, beauty. To reveal this idea to the world is the historical vocation of the people. Fulfilling it, the people take a step forward in the field of world civilization; having fulfilled it, he leaves the stage of history. Those peoples whose existence is not spiritualized by the idea of ​​the unconditional are non-historical peoples, they are condemned to spiritual slavery by other nations. The same division of peoples into historical and non-historical is also given by Hegel, but he, developing almost the same principle, went even further. He gave a general picture of world progress. All world life, according to Hegel, was the development of an absolute spirit, which strives for self-knowledge in the history of various peoples, but reaches it finally in the German-Roman civilization. The cultured peoples of the Ancient East, the ancient world, and Romanesque Europe were placed by Hegel in a certain order, which was a ladder along which the world spirit ascended. At the top of this ladder stood the Germans, and to them Hegel prophesied eternal world supremacy. There were no Slavs on this staircase at all. He considered them to be an unhistorical race and thereby condemned them to spiritual slavery in the German civilization. Thus, Schelling demanded for his people only world citizenship, and Hegel - world primacy. But, despite such a difference of views, both philosophers equally influenced Russian minds in the sense that they aroused the desire to look back at Russian historical life, to find that absolute idea that was revealed in Russian life, to determine the place and purpose of the Russian people in the course of world progress. And then, in the application of the principles of German metaphysics to Russian reality, the Russian people parted ways. Some of them, the Westerners, believed that the German Protestant civilization was the last word in world progress. For them, ancient Russia, which did not know the Western, Germanic civilization and did not have its own, was an unhistorical country, devoid of progress, condemned to eternal stagnation, an “Asiatic” country, as Belinsky called it (in an article about Kotoshikhin). Peter brought her out of the age-old Asiatic inertness, who, having attached Russia to the German civilization, created for her the possibility of progress and history. In all of Russian history, therefore, only the era of Peter the Great can have historical significance. She is the main moment in Russian life; it separates Asiatic Russia from European Russia. Before Peter, complete desert, complete nothingness; in ancient Russian history there is no point, since ancient Russia does not have its own culture.

It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical science. Having clarified for ourselves how history is understood in general, we will understand what we should understand by the history of any one people, and we will consciously begin to study Russian history.

History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science. Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way, referring history to the realm of the arts. By history they understood an artistic story about memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was for them to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art pursued the same goals.

With such a view of history as an artistic story about memorable events, ancient historians also adhered to the corresponding methods of presentation. In their narration, they strove for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, not believing in them, he brings into his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Moreover, the ancient historian, true to his artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt, puts speeches composed by himself into the mouths of his heroes, but he considers himself right because he faithfully conveys in an invented form the real intentions and thoughts of historical persons.

Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history has been to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that have prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in antiquity requires pragmatism from the historian. Already in Herodotus we observe the manifestation of this pragmatism, that is, the desire to link facts by causality, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.

So, at first, history is defined as an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and faces.

Such views on history go back to the times of ancient times, which demanded from it, in addition to artistic impressions, practical applicability. Even the ancients said that history is the teacher of life (magistra vitae). They expected from historians such a presentation of the past life of mankind, which would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future, would serve as a practical guide for public figures and a moral school for other people. This view of history was held in full force in the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he directly brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other hand, he turned history into a “tablet of revelations and rules” of a practical nature. A 17th century writer (De Rocoles) said that "history performs the duties inherent in moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect can be preferred to it, since, giving the same rules, it adds examples to them." On the first page of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" you will find an expression of the idea that history must be known in order "to establish order, agree on the benefits of people and give them the happiness possible on earth."

With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new definitions of historical science began to take shape. In an effort to explain the essence and meaning of human life, thinkers turned to the study of history either in order to find a solution to their problem in it, or in order to confirm their abstract constructions with historical data. In accordance with various philosophical systems, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined in one way or another. Here are some of these definitions: Bossuet (1627-1704) and Laurent (1810-1887) understood history as an image of those world events in which the ways of Providence, guiding human life for its own purposes, were expressed with particular brightness. The Italian Vico (1668-1744) considered the task of history as a science to be the depiction of those identical states that all peoples are destined to experience. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770-1831) saw in history an image of the process by which the "absolute spirit" achieved its self-knowledge (Hegel explained the entire world life as the development of this "absolute spirit"). It will not be a mistake to say that all these philosophies require essentially the same thing from history: history should not depict all the facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones that reveal its general meaning.

This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought - a simple story about the past in general, or a random collection of facts from different times and places to prove an edifying thought no longer satisfied. There was a desire to unite the presentation of the guiding idea, the systematization of historical material. However, philosophical history is rightly reproached for taking the guiding ideas of historical presentation outside of history and systematizing the facts arbitrarily. From this, history did not become an independent science, but turned into a servant of philosophy.

History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when idealism developed from Germany, in opposition to French rationalism: in opposition to French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, national antiquity was actively studied, and the conviction began to dominate that the life of human societies takes place naturally, in such a natural order. a sequence that cannot be broken or changed either by chance or by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main interest in history came to be the study not of random external phenomena and not the activities of prominent personalities, but the study of social life at different stages of its development. History began to be understood as the science of the laws of the historical life of human societies.

This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. The famous Guizot (1787-1874), for example, understood history as a doctrine of world and national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil society). The philosopher Schelling (1775-1854) considered national history to be a means of knowing the "national spirit". From this grew the widespread definition of history as a path to popular self-consciousness. There were further attempts to understand history as a science, which should reveal the general laws of the development of social life without applying them to a certain place, time and people. But these attempts, in essence, appropriated the tasks of another science, sociology, to history. History, on the other hand, is a science that studies concrete facts under the conditions of precisely time and place, and its main goal is recognized as a systematic depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and all of humanity.

Such a task requires a lot to be successful. In order to give a scientifically accurate and artistically complete picture of any era of folk life or the complete history of a people, it is necessary: ​​1) to collect historical materials, 2) to investigate their reliability, 3) to restore exactly individual historical facts, 4) to indicate between them pragmatic connection and 5) reduce them into a general scientific overview or into an artistic picture. The ways in which historians achieve these particular goals are called scientific critical devices. These methods are improved with the development of historical science, but so far neither these methods nor the science of history itself have reached their full development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material that is subject to their knowledge, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not yet achieved the results that other, more accurate sciences have achieved. And, however, no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.

Lectures on Russian history S. F. Platonov

(No ratings yet)

Title: Lectures on Russian history

About the book "Lectures on Russian History" by S. F. Platonov

S.F. Platonov is a Russian historian, member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, author of many works on history. He has worked as a lecturer at many prestigious universities. For a long time he headed the Women's Pedagogical Institute. He was active and led a number of movements. He was famous at the royal court. An entry about professors was found in the diary of Nicholas II. They also contained a note about S.F. Platonov. One of the professor's most famous works is Lectures on Russian History. 100 years after it was written, the work remains relevant. The author constantly made adjustments to it, supplementing it with facts that he could find in earlier works of historians.

S.F. Platonov, in his book Lectures on Russian History, described Russian history based on various sources. This edition is the tenth and has been revised and revised. The main material was taken from a work printed in the Senate Printing House. The book is written in a fairly easy, accessible form, so it will be of interest to many. Thanks to this work, you can plunge into history from ancient times. The author described the events up to the reign of Alexander III, so the work is recommended for reading to a wide range of readers.

The book "Lectures on Russian History" will introduce a number of events that took place in Russian history. The author describes them impartially, it may seem to some that the facts are presented rather dryly, there is no beauty of the style. However, this is the main feature of this work. S. Platonov does not make any judgments about this or that event, he simply sets out the events of the past days. This book contains only facts that will help to understand how the history of the Russian people developed. In the course of the story, you can find many significant dates, get acquainted with the kings and dynasties that ruled the empire for centuries. The reader will learn how the Russian state was formed, what personalities influenced the outcome of important events. The author does not make assumptions, he appeals to the facts, so his work is valuable even now. It is supplemented by information, but in fact remains almost unchanged.

S.F. Platonov created a real masterpiece, which is still relevant today. The book "Lectures on Russian History" will be of interest to schoolchildren, students, teachers of history. In it you can find a huge amount of information that was not distorted under pressure from the authorities.

On our site about books lifeinbooks.net you can download for free without registration or read online the book "Lectures on Russian History" by S. F. Platonov in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and a real pleasure to read. You can buy the full version from our partner. Also, here you will find the latest news from the literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For novice writers, there is a separate section with useful tips and tricks, interesting articles, thanks to which you can try your hand at writing.

These "Lectures" owe their first appearance in print to the energy and labor of my listeners 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 according to the texts I submitted, however, in general, the first editions of the "Lectures" did not differ in either internal integrity or external decoration, representing a collection of different time and different quality educational records. Through the work of I. A. Blinov, the fourth edition of the Lectures acquired a much more serviceable form, and for the next editions the text of the Lectures was also revised by me personally. CONTENTS Historicity of S.F. Platonov - a brief historical and biographical essay Introduction (concise presentation) Outline of Russian historiography Overview of the sources of Russian history PART ONE Preliminary historical information The most ancient history of our country Russian Slavs and their neighbors The original life of the Russian Slavs Kievan Rus Formation of the Kyiv principality General remarks on the early times of the Kyiv principality Baptism Russia Consequences of the adoption of Christianity by Russia Kievan Rus in the XI-XII centuries Colonization of Suzdal-Vladimir Rus Influence of Tatar power on appanage Rus Specific life of Suzdal-Vladimir Rus Novgorod Pskov Lithuania Moscow principality until the middle of the XV century Time of Grand Duke Ivan III PART TWO Time of Ivan the Terrible Muscovy before the turmoil Political contradiction in the Moscow life of the 16th century Social contradiction in the Moscow life of the 16th century Troubles in the Muscovite state The first period of turmoil: the struggle for the Moscow throne The second period of turmoil: the destruction of the state Yadka The Third Period of Troubles: An Attempt to Restore Order Election to the Tsarship of Mikhail Romanov Time of Tsar Mikhail (1613-1645) Time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) Internal activities of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich Church affairs under Alexei Mikhailovich Cultural turning point under Alexei Mikhailovich Personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Main moments in the history of Southern and Western Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries The time of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682) PART THREE The views of science and Russian society on Peter the Great The situation of Moscow politics and life at the end of the XVII century The time of Peter the Great The childhood and adolescence of Peter (1672-1672- 1689) Years 1689-1699 Peter's foreign policy since 1700 Peter's domestic activity since 1700 Attitude of contemporaries to Peter's activities Peter's family relations Historical significance of Peter's activities Time from the death of Peter the Great to the accession to the throne of Elizabeth (1725-1741) Palace events from 1725 to 1741 Government and politics from 1725 to 1741 Time of Ely Precepts of Petrovna (1741-1761) Management and politics of the time of Elizabeth Peter III and the coup of 1762 The time of Catherine II (1762-1796) The legislative activity of Catherine II The foreign policy of Catherine II The historical significance of the activities of Catherine II The time of Paul I (1796-1801) The time of Alexander I (1801-1825) The time of Nicholas I (1825-1855) A brief overview of the time of Emperor Alexander II and the great reforms