Pavlov-Sylvansky Nikolai Pavlovich. Literary and historical notes of a young technician Pavlov-Silvansky Nikolai Pavlovich
Pavlov-Silvansky Nikolai Pavlovich - an outstanding Russian historian, archivist, statesman and political figure. Author of works on the history of Russia during the time of Peter I, social movements of the XVIII-XIX centuries, the peasantry, the author of the concept of the development of "Russian feudalism".
To us, people of the 20th and 21st centuries, it may seem strange and even absurd to ask whether feudalism existed in ancient Russia. But at that historiographic moment, when Pavlov-Silvansky became interested in Russian feudalism, it seemed to the leading historians of Russia that this issue had been resolved in the negative. Professor of St. Petersburg University Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev later wrote that in those days even talking about Russian feudalism "became a kind of bad taste in historical science, and perhaps bad taste, a sign of historical bad manners." The luminaries of Russian historical science of the 19th century (S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky, N.I. Kareev and other representatives of the “state” school) persistently denied the identity of the social institutions of specific Russia and the feudal West. Some of them, in particular Klyuchevsky and Kostomarov, found certain features of Western feudalism in the system of established land relations in medieval Russia, but no one believed that these relations determined the nature of the social system at any significant stage in history. Before Pavlov-Silvansky, Russian historiography clearly separated the paths of the historical development of peoples Western Europe and the population of the East Slavic countries, including Russia.
Thus, from the very beginning of his scientific activity, Pavlov-Silvansky had to go not only along an unbeaten path, but also not approved by the scientists of that time. The first works of Pavlov-Silvansky, connected with the general theme he had conceived of about feudalism in Russia, began to appear in special editions, known only to a narrow circle of university professors, starting from 1897. Already after the appearance of the first article, S. F. Platonov told its author: "And they will scold you." Only such an answer could Pavlov-Silvansky then expect from almost the only readers of his articles. But the talented scientist was not afraid to challenge the modern scientific community. Against all odds, Pavlov-Silvansky managed to "get through" to the common sense of his recent mentors and colleagues. He managed to break the established stereotypes, abandon the usual clichés, say a new word in historical science
The beginning of the way
Nikolai Pavlovich Pavlov-Silvansky was born on February 1, 1869 (February 13, according to a new style) in Kronstadt, where his father served as a doctor in the 2nd naval crew. The grandfather and great-grandfather of Pavlov-Silvansky were clergymen of the Kharkov province. Grandfather Nikolai Gavrilovich was engaged in literary and educational activities. For opening a women's folk school, he was put on trial. The historian's father went from a doctor to an official (actual state councilor) of the Ministry of Finance. In childhood, the future historian lived either with his grandfather in Ukraine, or traveled with his parents to his father's places of service, and spent some time in Omsk.
In the spring of 1884, the Pavlov-Silvansky family moved to St. Petersburg. Nikolai entered the 6th grade of the gymnasium at the Historical and Philological Institute. Already in his gymnasium years, he showed a particular interest in the study of Russian literature and history.
In 1888, Pavlov-Silvansky entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. From the lectures of Bestuzhev-Ryumin, he took the historicism of S.M. Solovyov, V.I. Sergeevich learned the method of legal research. In his student years, Pavlov-Silvansky, like all his peers, was fond of European positivism, read Buckle, Comte, Spencer. Then he outgrew this teaching. Sociology remained a constant passion of the historian throughout his professional career.
Under the guidance of leading professors of St. Petersburg University, Pavlov-Silvansky carefully studied the experience of applying the comparative historical method in Western European and Russian historiography. He knew the work of the English legal historian Henry D.S. Maine (1822-1888), who proved the wide geographical distribution of communal relations and their primordial existence among all Indo-European peoples. Later, experts saw the prototype of the theory of Russian feudalism put forward by Pavlov-Silvansky in the observations of the Russian historian, professor of the Nizhinsky Lyceum M.D. Zatyrkevich (1831-1894). Using the comparative historical method, Zatyrkevich compared the development social relations in Kievan Rus and in medieval Western Europe. He paid special attention to popular movements, explaining their nature by serious contradictions between the estates.
The scientific independence of Pavlov-Silvansky manifested itself in his student years. He categorically rejected the antithesis between the history of Russia and the history of the West, defined in the work of S.M. Solovyov, and then repeated by Klyuchevsky and Milyukov. The "state" historical school traditionally opposed the mobile, wandering Russia to the sedentary West, emphasizing the influence of a number of geographical, climatic, demographic and other factors on the historical development of the country.
Pavlov-Silvansky considered this antithesis deeply erroneous:
“There is only a certain grain of truth in Solovyov's antithesis. The nature of the country exerted its influence on Russian historical development, but it did not radically change it, to the point of complete opposite, but only weakened the manifestation of those beginnings of the medieval order, which were more clearly expressed in the history of the West.
This is one of the main provisions of my research and the main point of my disagreement with Solovyov and with the new historians adjoining him.
Unfortunate misunderstanding
Having successfully completed his studies at the university, Pavlov-Silvansky was left at the department of Russian history to prepare for the title of master. However, the career of a young historian almost ended at the very beginning.
At the master's exam in world history there was an unfortunate misunderstanding. The day before, Professor Kareev and Pavlov-Silvansky had a fleeting conversation about a new, just published book by M.M. Kovalevsky, The Origin of Modern Democracy. The book was not included in the number of works recommended for preparing for the exam, but the applicant showed remarkable awareness of it. Impressed by the recent conversation, Kareev even during the exam built the entire conversation with Pavlov-Silvansky on the basis of detailed questions only on this book. Later, Pavlov-Silvansky, trying to justify Kareev, decided that he himself had misled the professor: it might have seemed to him that the future master had prepared well only this one book and deliberately suggested to the examiner not to go beyond its scope during the exam. And when it turned out that the answers of the examiner were not detailed, the professor decided to use the means of pedagogical influence, he wanted to “make him prepare at least one book perfectly by a repeated exam.” Only Pavlov-Silvansky was not an ordinary loafer. He prepared for the exam all the books recommended to him and was ready to answer any other questions, but Kareev invited him to come next time. In this situation, Pavlov-Silvansky felt undeservedly humiliated and re-exam didn't show up.
Later, Pavlov-Silvansky was inclined to consider the culprit of his failure as a like-minded person. The two scientists were brought together by positivist methodology. Their ideas about Western feudalism converged in many ways, they just didn’t understand each other that day. After the death of Pavlov-Silvansky, Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev published the work “In what sense can we talk about the existence of feudalism in Russia?: Regarding the theory of Pavlov-Silvansky” (1910), collecting and reviewing in it numerous reviews of the works of Pavlov-Silvansky.
An accidental failure at the master's exam closed the possibility of teaching for the young scientist and forced him to leave the walls of the capital's university forever.
This failure was extremely upsetting, but did not break Pavlov-Silvansky. It took him a considerable amount of time to regain confidence "in his ability to communicate his ideas consistently and convincingly." Nikolai Pavlovich confessed to his close friend historian A.E. Presnyakov: "... I trust myself very little ... And after the university there was a period of complete skepticism in my abilities."
After university
Leaving St. Petersburg University, Pavlov-Silvansky first worked as an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and then moved to serve in the State Archives of the Ministry. Being a clerk of the 4th class, he actually replaced the director. Under his leadership, the archive staff published numerous thematic documentary collections, edited scientific publications. The bureaucratic career of Pavlov-Silvansky developed successfully. He visited Rome, Vienna, Paris, London, received ranks and awards in a timely manner. But the historian saw the meaning of life's existence only in scientific work. Fortunately, the service in the State Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided him with such an opportunity. In 1897, Pavlov-Silvansky published the work "Reform Projects in the Notes of Contemporaries of Peter the Great" with his research essay. The historian believed that it was impossible to deny the "tremendous significance of Peter's personality in the process of reform." Describing the essence of the transformations, he emphasized that their result was the emergence of an absolute monarchy, but the foundations of the socio-political system - the estate system of the state, serfdom - remained the same.
The study of the history of the Russian liberation movement, primarily the Decembrists, is connected with work in the archives by Pavlov-Silvansky. He collaborated with P.E. Shchegolev, who was entrusted by the relatives of Pavlov-Silvansky after his death to dispose of the publication of his scientific heritage.
And yet, according to the figurative expression of B.D. Grekov, Pavlov-Silvansky was and remained a historian of one topic, one big problem: the history of feudalism in Russia.
The main works of Pavlov-Silvansky on Russian feudalism "Feudalism in Ancient Russia” and “Feudalism in specific Russia” were innovative not only in posing the main questions, but also in the methodology proposed by the researcher. According to A.E. Presnyakova, S.F. Platonov appreciated "clear and New World", which his comparative method introduced "into the understanding of the order of the life of that time." Presnyakov himself asked Pavlov-Silvansky a question: “Indeed, can’t your theory replace Solovyov’s theory of“ old and new cities ”, long destroyed, but replaced by what?”
The concept of Pavlov-Silvansky aroused sympathetic understanding among the "young researchers": Forsten, Rozhkov, Shumakov, Presnyakov, Pokrovsky and others.
However, the older contemporaries of Pavlov-Silvansky - Klyuchevsky, Milyukov, Dyakonov, Vladimirsky-Budanov (and partly S.F. Platonov) did not recognize feudalism in Russia.
“There was no general concept of the history of Russia, where a certain place would be assigned to feudalism, before Pavlov-Silvansky,” B.D. Grekov, due to his obviousness, no one will argue today.
"Feudalism in Ancient Russia"
The first edition of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky “Feudalism in Ancient Russia” was published during the author’s lifetime, in 1907, in the series “History of Europe by Epochs and Countries”, published by the Brockhaus-Efron publishing house.
1924 edition
This book played an important role in the historiographical fate of the historian. Until that time, his "theory of Russian feudalism" was known only in a narrow circle of professors and teachers at St. Petersburg University. Now the entire scientific community is talking about it.
In a concise historiographic essay, Pavlov-Silvansky examined the views of the dominant historical schools, starting with N.M. Karamzin and the Slavophiles and ending with V.O. Klyuchevsky and P.N. Milyukov, and came to the conclusion that all of them, being supporters of a “deep difference between the historical development of Russia and the West,” precisely in this way “fatally suffered the most failures in their efforts to elucidate the distinctive peculiar features of Russian historical development.”
Pavlov-Silvansky singled out three periods of Russian historical development, using his understanding of the role of large land ownership as the basis of feudalism as the basis for periodization.
first period, from ancient times to the middle of the 12th century, Pavlov-Silvansky characterized the dominance of the communal structure in the social system. Considering the institution of the community, he took into account both of its components: peace, secular self-government, which existed since ancient times, and a later phenomenon - communal land tenure, or land use with land redistribution. Systems approach allowed Pavlov-Silvansky to assess the contemporary historiographical situation and identify the sources of disputes between supporters of the ancient origin of the community (I.D. Belyaev, M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, V.I. Semevsky, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky) and the authors who associated the emergence of the community with the emergence of redistribution (P.N. Milyukov). And since “repartitions are a later phenomenon” (XV-XVI centuries), then, accordingly, there is no need to look for communities in ancient times. According to Pavlov-Silvansky, “communal unions, volosts and marks, the widely developed self-government of these organically formed territorial unions were the main basis ancient state system. State power, the power of the prince with his deputies or counts, was, as it were, a superstructure over self-governing communities.
“During the Middle Ages, the ancient communal unions, volosts and marks, weakened and collapsed, suppressed by the rapidly growing large landownership. The growth of large landownership, overwhelming the community, is the main driving force development of the Middle Ages; it underlies the development of feudalism in the West and ourspecific feudal order of the XIII-XVI centuries" - Pavlov-Silvansky came to this conclusion.
The boyar landownership advancing on the community defeats the community and creates a new one, the second, specific-feudal period of Russian history (XIII-XVI centuries). In the struggle against the boyarism, defeating it, an estate state is already born with its two changing forms - the “Moscow estate monarchy” and “Petersburg absolutism”.
Pavlov-Silvansky outlined "transitional epochs" from one device to another. The XII-XIII centuries became the era of transition to a specific order, “A historical event,“ significant sociologically ”, was the capture of Kyiv by Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1169.
“And the fact that, having taken Kyiv, Andrei gave it away younger brother, and he himself remained in the north, in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, ”according to the historian,“ marks the beginning of the patrimonial order, the emergence of patrimonial princes, the beginning of the landowning settled way of life of princes and squads.
In the book “Feudalism in specific Russia”, Pavlov-Silvansky provided interesting data on the organization of secular self-government and on the functions that the ancient Russian community (world) performed: disposal of secular lands, judicial and political functions, functions of the church community. The seizure of communal lands by feudal lords led to the usurpation of many functions of the world boyars and large landowners. These two institutions (the boyars and the world) all the time, as in the West, entered into a struggle with each other. The growth of large-scale feudal landownership, according to Pavlov-Silvansky, completely shatters the thesis of the "statists" about the "wandering" population of ancient Russia. A large landowner, who owns a population attached to the land, will not become mercenaries to another lord, will not begin to wander in search of a better life. On the contrary, he will strive to strengthen his fiefdom, keeping the population in one place and defending himself from the claims of his neighbors.
The researcher considered the 16th century “the century of the formation of the Moscow state”, highlighting the oprichnina, and as a landmark historical event - 1565 - the time of the “grand” confiscation of “hereditary princely lands, which, together with the terror of Ivan the Terrible, completed the gradual decline in the political significance of the princes and marked the triumph of the new state order." Until the 16th century “Secular self-government is preserved in a weakened sense; it lives under the hand of the boyar on his land.
Third period - XVI-XVIII and part of the XIX century- this is the time of the estate state, which has gone through two stages in its development: the Moscow estate monarchy and St. Petersburg absolutism based on the same estate system. Thus, the usual scheme of the Russian historical process was “broken”, according to which the Petrine reforms were the line between the two main periods of Russian history. Pavlov-Silvansky believed that "Peter's reform did not rebuild the old building, but gave it only a new facade."
Summing up his periodization, Pavlov-Silvansky wrote: “During these three periods, three institutions successively replace one another as the main, prevailing over other elements of the order: 1) the world, 2) the boyars, 3) the state.”
Since 1861, Russia entered, according to the historian, into another transitional era “of the destruction of the old estate system and the formation of a new free civil order. It was the emancipation of the peasants that destroyed "the main foundation of the old estate system and absolutism closely connected with it."
Thus, the doctrine of feudalism by Pavlov-Silvansky not only advanced the study of the Russian Middle Ages, but also raised topical political issues.
Pavlov-Silvansky went his way as a scientist along an unbeaten path. In allotted to him, very short time the historian managed the main thing - he proposed his own theory of the historical development of Russia, based on the principle of the unity of the development of Russia and Western European countries. Pavlov-Silvansky considered the Russian historical process as identical to the Western European one, finding identical institutions in the West for domestic institutions (community - mark, boyarshchina - seigneury, etc.), as well as studying the “kinship proximity” of the “symbolic rituals” of European peoples. The theory of Pavlov-Silvansky is turned to face the West. The East in the context of Russian history was of no interest to Pavlov-Silvansky. In the books of the historian it is as if it does not exist.
Last years
In the short life of Pavlov-Silvansky (he died at the age of 39 from cholera) there were few external events. One of these events is the first Russian revolution. It intensified the creative and social energy of Pavlov-Silvansky, led to a reassessment of the systemic foundations of the worldview. The historian began to develop ideas about the laws of the Russian revolution, about its similarity with the Great French Revolution. He actively participated in the political struggle. At first, Pavlov-Silvansky ardently defended the "People's Freedom Party", but in 1906 he was already comparing the Cadets with the Girondins and censured them for their moderation and "academicism".
The first revolution forced a prosperous Foreign Ministry official to try his hand at teaching. In February - April 1906, Pavlov-Silvansky gave a course in Russian history at the Higher Free School of P.F. Lesgaft, in June 1907 - a special course on Russian feudalism for teachers of secondary schools returning from an illegal professional congress in Finland. Since September 1907, Pavlov-Silvansky became a teacher at the Department of the History of Russian Law at the Higher Women's Courses.
Subsequently, the first Soviet Marxist historian M.N. Pokrovsky writes: “Pavlov-Silvansky, a non-Marxist by conviction and a Cadet by his party affiliation, made the question of Russian feudalism one of the arguments in favor of a Marxist explanation of history.” In this, Pokrovsky saw "the enormous methodological significance of the works of Pavlov-Silvansky."
In national historiography Soviet period another opinion was also expressed, characterizing a different sequence of ideological influences.
Pavlov-Silvansky was well aware of the Marxist concept. This gave grounds for Soviet historiographers to assert in the 1960s and 1970s that in the emergence and development of the idea of the identity of social orders in Russia and in the West, his worldview was influenced, first of all, by the works of K. Marx and F. Engels. Some researchers even saw in the latest works of Pavlov-Silvansky, dedicated to the history of the Decembrist movement, a direct forerunner of Marxist-Leninist approaches to the methodology of historical research.
Today we, the distant descendants, can only guess how the fate of the outstanding Russian scientist N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky after all the revolutionary upheavals of the 20th century. Like any intellectual, he could have become a victim of the Bolshevik terror or, like his great contemporary Academician Shakhmatov, could have died of starvation and disease in revolutionary Petrograd. Pavlov-Sylvansky could have left the country and for many years stewed in the same emigrant cauldron with his yesterday's scientific opponents and political comrades-in-arms (Struve, Milyukov). He could have stayed in Russia and become a victim of the "academic case" of Platonov-Tarle, he could, like M.N. Pokrovsky to stand on a Marxist platform, serve the new government, and then die under the steamroller of Stalinist repressions...
But fate decreed otherwise. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky died, as they say, "on the rise." His sudden death did not allow him to complete much of what the scientist had planned. There was no school left, no students, no direct followers.
Nevertheless, the works of Pavlov-Silvansky represent a major phenomenon in Russian historiography of the 20th century. They largely paved the way for the further movement of historical thought, the revision of outdated historiographical ideas, and the criticism of the prevailing schemes of the country's historical past. And today, Pavlov-Silvansky's "theory of Russian feudalism" has not lost its status as one of the most important stages of formation of national historiography. Modern researchers of the Russian Middle Ages, based on the study of new documentary sources, continue to supplement or challenge the concept of Pavlov-Silvansky, again and again referring to his scientific works.
Compilation by Elena Shirokova based on materials:
Sidorenko O.V. Historiography of the Patriotic History XIX - early. XX centuries (tutorial). - Vladivostok, 2004.
Schmidt S.O. Works by N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky as a monument of history and culture//N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky. Feudalism in Russia. M., 1988.
Chirkov S.V. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky and his books about feudalism//N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky. Feudalism in Russia. M., 1988.
Seminar session:
1. The study of the social movement in Russia Pavlov-Silvansky. History of Russia from the standpoint of the liberation movement.
2. The question of the nature of the Russian autocracy in the works of Pavlov-Silvansky.
3.Pavlov-Sylvansky - researcher of feudalism in ancient Russia.
Sources:
Pavlov-Silvansky N.P. Feudalism in Russia. (Feudalism in Ancient Russia. Feudalism in Specific Russia). M., 1988.
Literature:
Tsamutali A.N. The struggle of trends in Russian historiography during the period of imperialism: historiographical essays. L.: Nauka, 1985.
Chirkov S.V. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky and his books about feudalism // Pavlov-Silvansky Feudalism in Russia. M., 1988.
Schmidt S.O. Works by N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky as a monument of history and culture // N.P. Pavlov-Sylvanian Feudalism in Russia. M., 1988.
1. What conclusions does Pavlov-Silvansky make as a result of considering the History of Russia from the standpoint of the liberation movement?
2. What is the meaning of the patriarchal attitude of the Russian people to the supreme power according to Pavlov-Silvansky?
3. Describe the theoretical and methodological search of Pavlov-Silvansky?
4. What new things did Pavlov-Silvansky bring to the study of the history of ancient Russia?
Nikolai Pavlovich Pavlov-Silvansky (1869 - 1908)
Short biography. Born in Kronstadt, where his father served at that time as a doctor in the 2nd naval crew. He studied at the Omsk gymnasium, then at the gymnasium at the Historical and Philological Institute in St. Petersburg, which he graduated with a medal. In high school, he was fond of fiction, poetry and history, wrote poetry. In 1888 - 1892. studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. As a student, Pavlov-Silvansky found K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and V. I. Sergeevich at St. Petersburg University, who are usually called his teachers. Through the lectures of K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Pavlov-Silvansky perceived the historicism of S. M. Solovyov and his desire to reveal the inner integrity and regularities of the historical process. Close relations began between Pavlov-Silvansky and the young professor S. F. Platonov, who was under the influence of the ideas of V. O. Klyuchevsky. Through the lectures of the representative of the "law school" V. I. Sergeevich, Pavlov-Silvansky mastered the method of legal research of Russian antiquity. He was greatly influenced by the works of the classics of positivist philosophy (T. Buckle, O. Comte, G. Spencer), in which he was attracted by the idea of historical regularity. By the 90s. is the interest of the historian in the study of Marxism.
After graduating from the university, he was left with him to prepare for a professorship in the department of Russian history. However, in 1895 he did not pass the master's exams and was forced to enter the service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Served in the archives of the Ministry. Wrote a number of scientific papers. As an editor-in-chief and one of the authors, he participated in the preparation of the anniversary Essay on the History of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1902). Also, on the “official order” of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, he published the work “Tsar’s Servants. Origins of the Russian nobility" (1898).
Under the influence of the growth of the social movement in the country in the early twentieth century. there was an accession of Pavlov-Silvansky to political life. At the beginning of the First Russian Revolution, he collaborated in the left-liberal newspaper Nasha Zhizn, participated in the zemstvo congress in Moscow, and was a member of the Kadet Party. During the elections to the First State Duma, he organized rallies and spoke at them, his apartment was the headquarters, where they wrote ballots, handed out campaign leaflets. In the future, the scientist becomes disillusioned with the Cadet Party, he begins to sympathize with the left wing of the Russian revolution.
In 1907, Pavlov-Silvansky was elected to the chair of the history of Russian law at the Higher Women's Courses and was given the opportunity to systematically teach Russian history. Prior to that, his teaching activities were episodic, being associated either with teacher courses or with the Higher Free School of P.F. Lesgaft.
By this time, there was also a gradual recognition of the ideas of Pavlov-Silvansky. They found a particularly lively response among young historians, among whom were A. E. Presnyakov, M. N. Pokrovsky, N. A. Rozhkov, F. V. Taranovsky, S. A. Shumakov. In academic circles, they were ostracized and rejected, and with the luminaries of the legal direction - V. I. Sergievich, M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov P.-S. led an uncompromising scientific debate.
The widely and fruitfully developed scientific and teaching work of Pavlov-Silvansky ended unexpectedly tragically. On September 17, 1908, the historian died suddenly of cholera.
Major writings.
"Projects of reforms in the notes of contemporaries of Peter the Great" (1897),
"The sovereign's service people: the origin of the Russian nobility" (1898),
"History and Modernity" (1906),
"Feudalism in Ancient Russia" (1907),
Schemes of Russian history. Revolution and Russian historiography" (1907),
"Feudalism in specific Russia" (1910).
Historical concept.
Study of the history of social movements. The question of Russian autocracy. Pavlov-Silvansky's lectures "History and Modernity" and "Revolution and Russian Historiography" are interesting from the point of view of studying his views on the historical process, as well as clarifying the connection between history and socio-political thought.
The first lecture, "History and Modernity", was written under the vivid impression of the events that took place during the days of the First Russian Revolution. He began his lecture by stating that the revolution of 1905-1907 contributed to the growth of interest in historical science in circles far beyond the scope of specialist historians. In his opinion, in this period, history became a science in which everyone began to look for answers to practical questions.
Pavlov-Silvansky tried to determine the role of revolutionary events in the life of Russia and other countries, of all mankind. Revolution of 1905 - 1907 he considered a phenomenon of world historical proportions. He recognized the importance of revolutionary events in history, their versatile influence, which, in particular, arouses a special interest in the study of the past, allows it to be better understood, and also to feel the very "element of history". Pavlov-Silvansky also notes that if there is a great interest in descriptive history, then "to an even greater extent, modernity awakens in us an interest in a new type of history that has arisen in recent times, in sociological history."
Sociological history is busy searching for patterns of historical development, establishing uniform historical laws. This is manifested in the similarity of the events of the First Russian Revolution and the Great French Revolution. Matching similarities French Revolution and revolutions of 1905-1907. in Russia, a scientist comes to the conclusion: “History repeats itself. We now know this from the lessons of life, we know from the similarity of the Russian Revolution, which is clear to us, to the Great French Revolution. History repeats itself, no matter what the opponents of sociology say, who in two pictures painted with different colors cannot discern the same picture, which, behind the diversity historical facts they do not see the monotony of the historical process.
Revolutionary events of 1905 - 1907 prompted Pavlov-Silvansky to compare them with what happened in the days of the Great French Revolution, not only to find common ground for these revolutions, but also to raise the question of the existence of common patterns of historical development, to revise history from the standpoint, as he said, "sociological history".
Under the influence of the revolution of 1905-1907. the scientist finds it necessary to take a fresh look at the history of Russia in relation to its coverage from the standpoint of the liberation movement. He also outlines the periodization of the liberation movement in Russia, in many respects similar to Lenin’s: “Radischev, the Decembrists, the 40s, 60s, the Narodnaya Volya, Marxists and Social Democrats, the Narodniks and their successors, the Socialist-Revolutionaries - these are the main stages of our great liberation movements…”.
There is another significant point in Pavlov-Silvansky's lecture. In them freedom movement put at the center of all the events that took place in Russian history. Thanks to this, Russian history itself, and in particular ancient Russian history, is viewed from a new angle, in the light of history. revolutionary movement. The historian argued that the sources of the Russian liberation movement "are rooted in ancient times." He resolutely rejects the version spread by the official protective direction about the originality of the loyal feelings of the Russian people. “The patriarchal, loyal nature of our ancient history,” wrote Pavlov-Silvansky, “is nothing but a misunderstanding, to put it mildly.” According to him, "the omnipotence of the state is a relatively new phenomenon in our country", and "its basis - serfdom - dominated us for no more than 2 1/2 centuries."
He revived the tradition of Russian historiography of the 19th century, which asserted the existence in ancient Russia of the principles of democracy, the limitation of power, which was in the hands of the princes. He saw these foundations of democracy in popular sovereignty, characteristic of the medieval republics of Novgorod, Pskov, and Vyatka. Moreover, he presents Russian history as the history of the people’s continuous struggle against state power: “Our entire antiquity, like our days, is covered with the blood of rebellious popular movements».
Agreeing that in ancient Russia there was indeed some kind of patriarchy in relations to the supreme power, Pavlov-Silvansky, however, emphasized that this was a special kind of patriarchy. Its meaning was that the people often demanded from the prince that, being "not loved", he left the reign, that is, in the right of the people, as they said in the annals, "show the way to the prince." He saw the manifestation of this kind of "patriarchy" not only in such events as the expulsion of Vsevolod from Novgorod in 1221, but also in the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky, and in the "Moscow revolution of 1648".
The history of the Zemsky Sobor of 1648, the circumstances associated with the drafting of the Code of 1649, are presented to scientists as an example of the maneuvering of the tsarist government, either making concessions or concluding an alliance with the middle classes in order to rely on them to suppress the popular movement. He notes that at the Council of 1648, 80 new legalizations were introduced into the Code he considered, that almost all the requirements stated in the mandates of the elected in the form of petitions were satisfied, that in the preface to the laid book “the participation of the land in the affairs of the state was brightly shaded arrangements." The drafting and adoption of the Code is interpreted by Pavlov-Silvansky as acts aimed at clarifying and legitimizing the relationship between the tsar and his government, on the one hand, and the people, its various estates and their elected representatives, on the other.
According to the historian, although the government proclaimed the equality of court and reprisals in the broad sense, the fair dispensation of all classes, as the basis of the Code, in fact, the Code satisfied only the requirements of the middle classes - the middle and small landed nobility and the urban bourgeoisie - townspeople. The majority of those elected at the Zemsky Sobor were representatives of these two classes. The government found support in these middle classes, sacrificing in their favor the interests of the boyars and, in part, the higher clergy, and the lower ones - the landowning peasants and small townspeople, attaching them to the tax. For these reasons, the lower classes were dissatisfied with the Code of 1649. This dissatisfaction, wrote Pavlov-Silvansky, “expressed itself 21 years later in a strong popular uprising, the so-called Stepan Razin rebellion,” however, relying on the middle classes, the Moscow government soon suppressed this movement. A general sketch of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, sustained in such tones, the historian contrasted the relationship of his government with society with the image of this time “in the form of the golden age of the Moscow pre-Petrine state.”
Comparing the facts concerning popular movements in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich with the events of the end XVI-beginning XVII century., Pavlov-Silvansky came to the conclusion that "from the beginning of the Time of Troubles, from 1605 to 1620, between the various classes of society and between society and the government, there has been an essentially unceasing stubborn struggle." Pointing to the blatant contradiction between historical reality and its interpretation in the conservative press, which represented antiquity as “a peaceful procession of a crowned tsar with a loyal people,” he wrote that they “in this appeal to the precepts of Russian history ... make a big mistake: they inadvertently call a witness who testifies against them."
Explaining who he has in mind as the above-mentioned witness, the scientist writes: “Ivan the Terrible was the main theorist and practitioner of unlimited autocracy. But under Ivan the Terrible, autocracy was pure tyranny of the tsar, who undoubtedly suffered from insanity, although the form of this insanity has not been fully elucidated by historians. Ivan the Terrible “formulated his power according to foreign Byzantine theories” and did so “openly cynicism”, offering a formula that was simple and broad: “The sovereign commands his desire to create from God to guilty slaves.” The meaning of this formula is that “subjects are slaves and must obey all the wishes of their master, no matter how arbitrary and painful they may be. The foundations of this power are in its heredity and its divine pre-establishment.
Since this tyrannical theory of autocracy was based on the eternity of the royal family, and this foundation collapsed after the death of Ivan the Terrible's son Fyodor Ivanovich, then, as Pavlov-Silvansky argues, it was destroyed in its foundations by our history 14 years after the death of its creator. The theory of autocracy created by Ivan IV, a theory that collapsed simultaneously with the death of its creator, was, according to the historian, moreover, "not a popular theory, but an artificial, bookish one." Turning to XVII century, this "golden age of the Moscow kingdom of the Romanovs", he argued that it was impossible to find "the concept of unlimited autocracy" in it.
Pavlov-Silvansky wrote that the idea of autocracy as unlimited autocracy was first formulated by Peter I. The theory of Peter I, according to the scientist, is “a European book theory, just like the theory of Ivan the Terrible was a Byzantine book.” The people's historical view of the autocratic tsar was completely different. It was precisely because of a different view of autocratic power that “the people did not recognize the autocracy of Peter I and called him an anti-Tichrist and a Swede for the manifestation of his autocracy.”
Revealing the meaning of the "popular view" of autocracy, Pavlov-Silvansky noted that it consisted not in unlimited power, but in "unlimited mercy." The historian explained the origins of this view as follows: “According to the view of the Moscow time, autocracy was not allowed by itself, because at that time custom, ordinary people's law, was of great importance. The tsar, like any other person, had to observe the old customs, had to act through the established authorities, taking into account the world, worldly truth. This subordination of the king to worldly truth was implied by itself. The guardian of this truth was the world, the people, the land. Government affairs were then called “sovereign and zemstvo”. Thus, Pavlov-Silvansky sees the most important feature of the concept of autocratic power adopted in the 17th century in that it provides for the subordination of the tsar to the norms of customary law. Accordingly, the tsar’s deviation from this rule entailed a protest on the part of the people, pouring out in forms of disobedience to royal power. "The concept of unlimitedness was opposed in the people's consciousness by the concept of the king's subordination to worldly truth. And when the king did not obey it, when he autocratically broke the old charters, the people's consciousness allowed disobedience to royal power. This was clearly manifested in sharp opposition to the autocratic Peter by schismatics, people who preserved the views of the 17th century in the era of reform.
The historian wrote that under the first Romanovs, the tsar in the popular mind was presented not as an autocrat, but as "the highest gracious judge." Tsarist power, therefore, was far from unlimited absolutism. Moving on from consideration theoretical concepts about autocracy to the practical activities of tsarist power in Russia in the 17th century, Pavlov-Silvansky came to the conclusion that “in practice, the power of the Moscow tsar is even closer to constitutional power.” He saw confirmation of this, first of all, in the fact that a restrictive record was taken from Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. But the essence of the restriction was not in writing, but in the fact that even without a formal act of restriction, the Muscovite tsars were limited, by custom, by an ordinary constitution, which at that time of the omnipotence of custom had tremendous power. As for the “ordinary constitution”, according to it, “the power of the tsar was limited by the power of the patriarch and the consecrated cathedral, the power of the boyar duma and the power of the Zemsky Sobor, which spoke at all important moments in the life of the state.” On this basis, Pavlov-Silvansky argued that absolutism in Russia is a new phenomenon, that it is not yet two centuries old, that “the principle itself was formulated in military regulations 1716" Unlimited autocracy, according to the scientist, was established in the 18th and 19th centuries. and did not last long (it was already destroyed by the Manifesto on October 17).
The concept of Russian feudalism. The study of Russian feudalism is one of the main activities of the historian. Also in last years 19th century he thought of writing big book on feudalism, which was to serve as his master's thesis. But the writing of the work was delayed, and the historian decided first to publish the theoretical part of the study in the form of a small book, called "Feudalism in Ancient Russia."
The main pathos of this book was the assertion of the existence in Russia not just feudal relations, but feudalism as a whole historical period. Pavlov-Silvansky makes a consistent comparison of the legal institutions of Russia and the feudal West, compares the boyar service and vassalage, princely protection and mundebur, beneficiaries and salaries, boyars and immunity, etc. In the history of feudalism, he highlights, first of all, the legal side, feudal institutions, legal norms, and their sum gives reason to talk about the identity of the system of legal relations. The very definition of feudalism was given by him in the spirit of the concept of state theory as a combination of landownership with political domination, with a hierarchy of power created on this basis. But in understanding the significance of the legal norm in history, a discrepancy between the scientist and the then dominant state theory appeared. If, in the view of the statesmen, the norm itself creates history, creating and organizing social relations, then for Pavlov-Silvansky the legal norm is only a manifestation of social relations, their consolidation. Laws do not create social relations, but social relations create the norms that define them; custom takes shape before the law, society is ahead of the state.
Trying to reveal the essence of the social relations of ancient Russia, the historian came to study the struggle of the boyars with the community. The community in his understanding is the basis of the original, pre-feudal system. It is among such phenomena as the police rope among the Western Slavs, the mark among the ancient Germans. The basis and content of the feudal system is the boyar-signory, a distinctive feature of which is the combination of large landownership with power and small farming. The decisive process of the formation of feudalism was the forcible seizure of land by the military-service boyar elite, the forcible alienation of communal, volost lands and the enslavement of the free members of the community sitting on them. Therefore, for Pavlov-Sylvansky, feudalism is not a phenomenon introduced from outside, but the result of a long process of internal struggle between the boyars and the community. Social antagonism is the driving force of history.
AT in general terms Pavlov-Silvansky outlined the main provisions of his concept of the history of Russia in the final chapter of the book Feudalism in Ancient Russia. He divided Russian history into three periods: the first - until the 12th century, characterized by the dominance of the community, or the secular system, the second - from the 13th to the half of the 16th century, when "the center of gravity of relations passes from the world to the boyars", although "secular self-government is preserved in a weakened sense", and the last, third, - XVI - XVIII and part of the XIX centuries, when "the main institution is the estate state." Thus, according to this scheme, three epochs are determined by the change of three institutions: the world, the boyars, and the state.
Study of the history of Peter's reforms and the Russian liberation movement of the 18th - 19th centuries. Along with studying the problem of feudalism in Russia, the historian also turned to other topics of Russian history, in particular, to the reforms of the early 18th century. in studying the era of Peter I, the historian put forward his own concept, rejecting the negative attitude towards the significance of Peter and his reform efforts, which was characteristic of P. N. Milyukov. He proved the necessity, vitality and progressiveness of the Petrine reforms. Pavlov-Silvansky believed that one cannot deny the "tremendous significance of Peter's personality in the process of reform." Contrasting Peter I with the people around him who did not believe in the cause of transformation, he portrayed him as a lone reformer. Speaking about the essence of the reform, the scientist believed that after the Peter's reforms, an absolute, unlimited monarchy arose, but the foundations of the socio-political system - the estate state, serfdom - remained the same. Absolutism and estate monarchy constituted one period, the period of the state.
The beginning of Pavlov-Silvansky's study of the history of the Russian social movement of the 18th - 19th centuries is directly connected with the work in the archive. One of the first he turned to the study of the biography of A. N. Radishchev, having prepared for publication the “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” discovered in the archive. The Decembrist movement attracted the attention of the historian when, by virtue of his official duties, he analyzed the fund of the Extraordinary Investigation Commission and the Supreme Criminal Court in the case of the Decembrists. In 1901, for the Russian Biographical Dictionary, he wrote an essay on the life of P. I. Pestel, representing the first experience in historical literature of creating scientific biography Pestel. It also served as the starting point for the creation of Pavlov-Silvansky's own concept of the Decembrist movement. The basis for the emergence of the Decembrist movement, in his opinion, was the evolution of political ideas adopted by future Decembrists under the influence of foreign campaigns and the study of the history of Western European countries. In the image of the historian, the Decembrist movement looked like a struggle between the revolutionary-minded Pestel and the politically immature, constantly vacillating members of secret societies. Pestel himself appeared at Pavlov-Silvansky in the form of "the main figure in the Decembrist conspiracy."
Further studies of the scientist in the history of the Decembrist movement are intertwined with the events of the revolution of 1905-1907. For the historian, this was an opportunity to show his idea that the liberation movement in Russia was not something accidental and alien to Russia, but was rooted in antiquity and had a long tradition.
Topic 12. E.F. Shmurlo
Self-study:
1. History of Russia E.F. Shmurlo: combining a Eurocentric position with Eurasian ideas.
2. E.F. Shmurlo about the reforms of Peter I.
Sources:
Shmurlo E. History of Russia. M., 2001.
Literature:
Gorelova S.I. Shmurlo Evgeny Frantsovich.//Historians of Russia. Biographies. M., 2001.
Shapiro A.L. Russian historiography from ancient times to 1917. M., 1993.
Shakhanov A.N. Russian historical science second half of XIX- the beginning of the twentieth century. Moscow and Petersburg universities. M., 2003.
Control tasks, problem questions and exercises:
1. What is the geopolitical approach and the combination of the Eurocentric concept with the ideas of the Eurasianists in the systematic coverage of Russian history by E. Shmurlo?
2. Compare the assessments of the reforms of Peter I given by Milyukov and Shmurlo?
Evgeny Fedorovich Shmurlo (1853 - 1934)
Biography. Shmurlo was born on December 29 (Old Style) in Chelyabinsk in the family of a nobleman of Lithuanian origin. In 1874 he entered the law faculty, and then moved to the historical and philological faculty of St. Petersburg University. Upon graduation, he was left to prepare for a professorship (on the recommendation of K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin), at the same time he taught history in gymnasiums and at the Higher Women's Courses. Beginning in 1884, he participated in a circle of young historians at St. Petersburg University (which also included S. F. Platonov, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, V. G. Druzhinin, and others). In 1888, under the leadership of K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin defended his master's thesis "Metropolitan Eugene as a scientist ...". In this work, Shmurlo creatively used Bestuzhev's method of preliminary critical analysis of sources. In the same year he was approved as Privatdozent of St. Petersburg University. In 1889 he became one of the founders of the Historical Society at St. Petersburg University.
Of great importance for the formation of the scientific interests of the scientist was his trip to Italy in 1890 (before that he had been there several times). Shmurlo works in the archives of the Vatican. In 1891, he prepared for publication Giovanni Tedaldi's story about Russia in the time of Ivan the Terrible, found in this archive.
From July 1891, for 12 years, E. F. Shmurlo was a professor at the Department of Russian History at the University of Dorpat. He taught courses in Russian history of the 16th-18th centuries. and a course in historiography. In 1891-1894. Shmurlo undertook a number of business trips to work in Italian archives and libraries in order to collect materials on Russian history. Problems of Russian-Italian Relations in the 17th-18th Centuries. occupied a special place in the work of the scientist.
In 1898 - 1899. the historian took part in the elimination of the consequences of the famine in Ufa and the Sterlitamak district, and as a special correspondent for the newspaper "Sankt-Peterburgskiye Vedomosti" published a number of essays (the collection "The Hungry Year ..." 1898-1900). In 1899, a year after the death of K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Shmurlo published a book about his teacher, full of personal memories.
In 1903, E. F. Shmurlo went to Italy to work in the Vatican Archives as a scientific correspondent of the Academy of Sciences. He set himself the task of covering "the totality of Russia's relations with the Italian states and with the papal throne ...". In parallel, he searched for documents on Russian history in the archives and libraries of Italy, Spain, France and Holland.
The fruits of his labor were collections of documents "The Roman Curia in the Russian Orthodox East in 1609 - 1654", "Russia and Italy: a collection historical materials and Studies Concerning Relations between Russia and Italy” and “Monuments of Cultural and Diplomatic Relations between Russia and Italy”. In addition to publishing activities, Evgeny Frantsievich continued to deal with the problems of historiography. In 1912, "Peter the Great in the Assessment of Contemporaries and Posterity" was published.
During the years of work in Rome, E. F. Shmurlo collected the richest library of a scientific correspondent - about 2 thousand titles, more than 6 thousand books. It included valuable, mostly historical materials.
In 1911, the scientist was elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences in the category of historical and political sciences. At the same time, he was a member of various scientific societies in Russia: the Russian Geographical, Russian Archaeological, Historical Society in St. Petersburg, a member of the scientific archival commissions of Ryazan, Voronezh, Vitebsk, Vladimir, Simferopol. In 1916, Shmurlo visited his homeland for the last time. Having found himself in the position of an emigrant after October 1917, the scientist ceased to receive a salary from the Academy of Sciences.
During the first post-revolutionary years, E. F. Shmurlo established ties with the Russian abroad. In 1921 he organized the Russian Academic Group in Italy in Rome, at the end of 1924 he moved to Prague. Despite his advanced age, the historian was actively engaged in scientific, social and pedagogical activity. During this period, he published the most significant works, such as "Voltaire and his book about Peter the Great" (1929), "History of Russia 862 - 1917." (Munich, 1922), "Introduction to Russian History" (1924), "Course of Russian History" (Prague, 1931-1935), etc. E. F. Shmurlo was a member of the Academic Council and the Academic Commission of the Russian Foreign Historical Archive, was a historian of the philological department of the Russian Educational College, a member of the Russian Academic Group in Czechoslovakia, an honorary member of the Slavic Institute and chairman (until 1931) of the Russian Historical Society in Prague.
On January 9, 1934, the Parisian newspaper Latest News wrote: “April 7 at 2.30 am. Yevgeny Frantsievich Shmurlo, the oldest Russian historian abroad, died yesterday in the city hospital in Prague. The deceased turned 80 on January 11, in connection with which he was honored in Prague and other centers of emigration. He was buried at the Olshansky cemetery in Prague next to his friends and colleagues - A. A. Kizevetter and B. A. Evreinov.
Letters of congratulations on the 75th and 80th anniversaries of the historian, received from G.V. Vernadsky, P.N. Milyukov, P.B. Struve, E P. Kovalevsky, N. N. Bubnov and others. They especially appreciated the scientific merits of the last work of E. F. Shmurlo - the three-volume "Course of Russian History". In January 1934, P. N. Milyukov wrote to him: “With your latest work, you have facilitated the path for our successors to serious, critical scientific development of historical data on the most difficult period of our history. With all this you have made a great contribution to the history of our science, and the work of your life will not be forgotten or bypassed.
historical perspectives. E. F. Shmurlo was one of the first in the Russian historical abroad to undertake systematic coverage of Russian history from the formation of the Old Russian state to the October Revolution . Following Solovyov and Klyuchevsky, he stood for the organic development of the historical process, closely linking the history of Russia with the history of other peoples. A step forward in this direction was the fact that he gave an important place in his book "History of Russia" to questions of geopolitics. A deep analysis of the sources and achievements of domestic and foreign thought led the scientist to a broader interpretation of the course compared to the Eurocentric theory. historical events, which allowed him to take a closer look, in contrast, for example, to Kizevetter and Milyukov, to the scheme of the historical process of the Eurasians.
The scientist divides the history of Russia into 6 successive eras, each of which is divided into several periods:
the birth of the Russian state. 862 - 1054
instability of the political center. 1054 - 1462.
Kyiv period. 1054 - 1169
Suzdal-Volyn period. 1169 - 1242.
Moscow-Lithuanian period. 1242 - 1462.
Moscow State. 1462 – 1613.
Formation of the Moscow state. 1462 - 1533.
time of the first king. 1533 - 1584.
Time of Troubles. 1584 - 1613.
becoming a European power. 1613 - 1725.
establishment of an absolute monarchy. 1613 - 1682.
The era of reforms of Peter the Great. 1682 - 1725.
Russia is a European power. 1725 - 1855.
Time for palace revolutions. 1725 - 1741.
Time of enlightened absolutism. 1741 - 1796.
Time of political dominance in Europe. 1796 - 1855.
destruction of the old order. 1855 - 1917.
The era of the great reforms of Alexander 2. 1855 - 1881.
Opposition to reforms. 1881 - 1904.
Preparation of the revolution. 1904 - 1917.
The author in a new way illuminated the position of Russia in the system of European and Asian peoples, revealed a lot of specific facts and particular patterns of development of Russian lands in the 13th - 15th centuries. The scientist emphasized the need to study all state formations, which included the Eastern Slavs, in order to understand how the national unity and identity of Russia developed. In the New Age for Russia, the scientist singled out the priority of the state over society, the subordination of "national interests to international interests", this was especially evident in the characterization of the reign of Alexander 1. Considering the problems of the sociocultural development of Russian society, the historian traced the stereotypes of the behavior of various population groups and their attitude to cultural values at different stages of Russian history. Individual characters Russian history appear "before the court of historians" - a historiographic review of the assessment of such figures as Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great.
A fascinating narrative is accompanied by a concise presentation of facts, lists of monuments of material and spiritual culture, historical diagrams, historiographic excursions and unexpected comparisons. This significantly expands the boundaries of the "historical field" of research.
The historian focuses his main attention on “the constituent elements of a fait accompli or phenomenon, the forces that gave rise to it, the process of development, causal connection”, destining his narrative “for reflection and analysis” of the reader. The author preferred to dwell on the phenomena of spiritual life, on facts that make it possible to bring together and compare the history of Russia with the history of Western Europe, as well as on the features of the situation in which the life of our Motherland has developed.
About the reforms of Peter I: Reforms of Peter the Great. is not the result of a preliminary, strictly considered plan; they owe not to armchair theory ... they grew out of life itself, most often out of the urgent needs of a given moment; not everything in them turned out to be stable, and therefore one changed, the other replenished. …Therefore, in the transformations of Peter there is both unfinished and contradictory. ... The reforms grew primarily and most of all from the needs of the military.
“The work that Peter did was not created by him; he received the program ready; the very ways of its fulfillment were also indicated by the previous generation; but the people of the 17th century. have not yet been imbued with the consciousness that reform is urgently needed, that it is impossible to postpone it; and they felt the program itself rather than clearly realized ... People were still at a crossroads, in indecision, the majority still doubted whether reform was really needed, ... but Peter appeared and cut the Gordian knot with a wave of his sword.
Milyukov considered the transformations of Peter in connection with the military needs of the state, closely related to the problem of finance. In this Shmurlo agrees with his colleague. Also, both historians agree that the reforms did not have a strict preliminary plan, they were caused by the momentary demands of public life, especially foreign policy. “One of the important conclusions of Milyukov's work was the conclusion that Peter I's influence on the development and implementation of the reform was limited. Questions state structure interested the king as much as the satisfaction of the next, next need depended on it. A significant drawback of the reform is the absence of a necessary element in it - thought: deprived of thought, it destroyed the old only out of necessity, not daring to step a single step further than the need of the current moment demanded. Miliukov belittles the role of the personality of the tsar-transformer in the reorganization of the country, highlighting the objective needs of the time, which caused both this process and Peter's personal initiative. Unlike Milyukov, Shmurlo glorifies Peter, characterizing his qualities, which greatly influenced the decisive turn of our history.
Peter's Qualities:
thirst for knowledge
inquisitive mind
tireless worker
performance
the tsar-citizen - awareness of the needs of the state, his duties as a sovereign, uniting himself with the people, their needs.
consciousness of one's own human limitations - the ability to recognize and correct one's mistakes.
breadth of vision, enlightenment.
Shmurlo characterizes Peter as a developed spiritual person who wants to join the high culture, knowledge and moving forward towards his ideal - great Russia- a strong power and a spiritually free, rapidly developing country. The consequences of Peter's case for our country were "enormous. ... Already the next generation gave Russia ... Lomonosov ... in the next, 19th century ... the great Pushkin." “The Russian personality began to stand out from total weight only from Peter the Great; only under him was it placed in the proper conditions for its development and self-determination.
Similar information.
Among the representatives of liberal historiography in Russia during the period of imperialism, their progressive views and independence in resolving issues national history distinguished Nikolai Pavlovich Pavlov-Silvansky (1869-1908).
He was born on February 1, 1869 in Kronstadt, where his father served as a doctor in the 2nd naval crew. From 1875 to 1884 the family lived in Omsk, where the future historian began to study in the preparatory class of the gymnasium. Since childhood, the boy was fond of independent reading. and poetry. Nikolai Pavlovich carried his love for the artistic word through his whole life. Until the end of his days he wrote poetry.
In 1884, the Pavlov-Silvansky family finally moved to St. Petersburg, where Nikolai Pavlovich transferred to the 6th grade of the gymnasium at the St. Petersburg Historical and Philological Institute. Insufficient preparation in Omsk led to the fact that Pavlov-Silvansky remained for the second year. Failures aroused perseverance, and N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky began to work hard, was promoted to the forefront and finished the course with a medal.
In his gymnasium years, and then in his student years, he persistently engaged in literature, wrote essays, was fond of Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Turgenev, got acquainted with the evolutionary teachings of Charles Darwin. One could think that Nikolai Pavlovich would take up the history of literature, but other interests took over: he became a historian, a theorist of feudalism.
In 1888, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University, from which he graduated in 1892. Here, student Pavlov-Silvansky listened to lectures by K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, S. F. Platonov, V. I. Sergeevich. In his student years, he is fond of sociology, studies the works of G. T. Bockl, O. Comte, G. Spencer and others Philosophical views Nikolai Pavlovich were not inherited from these sociologists. In his discussions about the influence of Bokl's works on the views of S. M. Solovyov, Nikolai Pavlovich admits an element of criticism of Bokl's worldview. As can be seen from his philosophical extracts, Pavlov-Silvansky was familiar with the famous work of G. V. Plekhanov "On the development of a monistic view of history" and assessed it positively.
It is interesting that, listening to the lectures of K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. Pavlov-Silvansky did not become his follower, neither in the choice of subjects, nor even in his historical views. The legal school in the person of V. I. Sergeevich had a huge impact on the worldview of Pavlov-Silvansky. But Nikolai Pavlovich was not an imitator, but took only the method of legal research, which is the strong side of his work “Feudalism in Ancient Russia”.
The basis of the historian's theoretical ideas was the idea of an internal regularity associated with the sociological direction.
After graduating from St. Petersburg University, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky was left at the department of Russian history to prepare for a professorship. At this time, he met A.. E. Presnyakov (1870-1929), with whom he would be friends all his life, because they were the same in their views on Russian history.
Nikolai Pavlovich began to prepare for the master's examinations and at the same time, experiencing financial difficulties, he entered the service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Department of External Relations, and from 1899 in the State Archives, where he was assistant director of the archives as a senior clerk. Pavlov-Silvansky was even awarded 4 foreign orders, including the highest French and Turkish ones. But for what - is unknown.
In 1895, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky failed at the very first master's exam, and on the problem on which he would later become a major specialist - on the history of Russian feudalism. There is an assumption that the failure in the exam was due to a discrepancy in grades with V.I. Sergeevich, a representative of the state law school. This failure delayed Pavlov-Silvansky's appearance as a teacher at the higher educational institution. His scientific activity closed in the archive. Documents prompted new topics. On duty, Nikolai Pavlovich took part in compiling the “Essay on the history of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1802-1902" (1902), was the chief editor and author of the essay The Age of Nesselrode (1902). The historian gave a complete outline of Russia's foreign policy in the first half of the 19th century. Only a year before his death, in 1907, he was elected to the chair of the history of Russian law at higher courses in St. Petersburg.
N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky died very early, tragically, from transient cholera, being in the prime of his creative powers. The only son of the historian died in 1943 in besieged Leningrad.
The socio-political and philosophical positions of the historian have undergone a serious evolution. Being formally a member of the Kadet party, he, under the influence of the events of 1905, is more and more inclined to the side of revolutionary democracy. Several times N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky went on business to Vienna, Rome, Paris, London, became close to the future Soviet diplomat E. V. Chicherin, with whom he corresponded. He studied philosophy a lot, was influenced by Marxism, and even conceived the work "Ideas of historical materialism among Russian historians."
N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky represents the second side of the development of bourgeois historiography at the beginning of the 20th century, opposite to P. N. Milyukov. Nikolai Pavlovich was an advanced, progressive scientist who gave a number of original constructions. The historical concept of N. P. Pavlova-va-Sylvansky was influenced by Eizo, especially the last volumes of his "History of the English Revolution", which substantiate the need for a bloc of the bourgeoisie and the nobility in France. Nikolai Pavlovich also experienced the influence of Romanist historians, primarily Fustel de Coulange, Germanist historians (E. Weitz, E. Maurer). Many institutions of feudal-specific Russia are characterized by Pavlov-Silvansky in almost the same way as they are covered by the above scientists on the materials of European feudalism.
In the study of Russian history, in particular, in assessing the transformations of Peter the Great, Pavlov-Silvansky was influenced by S. M. Solovyov, to whom he assigned a decisive role in the development of historical science in Russia. But in the works of Solovyov, Pavlov-Silvansky takes not the state theory, which was liked by V. O. Klyuchevsky, and then P. N. Milyukov, but deep historicism, the desire of S. M. Solovyov to reveal the internal patterns of historical development. The historian separates S. M. Solovyov from K. D. Kavelin and deeply perceives the idea of Sergei Mikhailovich about the unity of the laws of the historical process of the development of Russia and the West, opposes his theory to the Slavophile doctrine of the originality of the country's history.
The progressiveness of the historical constructions of Pavlov-Silvansky allowed him to identify contradictions in the studies of V. O. Klyuchevsky, for example, he contrasts the “Boyar Duma” with the “Course of Russian History”. Nikolai Pavlovich believed that the analysis of the factual material in the "Boyar Duma" revealed against the will of the author the foundations of the feudal system of Ancient Russia.
From the same positions, the historian criticizes P. N. Milyukov, speaking out against his “theory of contrasts”.
At the center of all studies of N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky was the problem of feudalism in Russia as a single pattern with Western Europe. The second theme is the history of the reforms of Peter the Great, which also brought the history of Russia closer to the West. And, finally, the third topic of the historian's research, which he dealt with at the end of his life, is the history of the revolutionary liberation movement and social thought in Russia.
Pavlov-Silvansky considered the work on the social system of specific Russia, on Russian feudalism, to be the main business of his life. The scientist began with the article "Westernism - patronage", then his publications "Immunity in specific Russia", "Feudal relations in specific Russia" appeared in the journal of the Ministry of Public Education. Then came the book "Feudalism in Ancient Russia" (St. Petersburg, 1907). These studies introduced a new theory into Russian historiography.
The final work on the history of Russian feudalism was Feudalism in Specific Russia, which was completed by Pavlov-Silvansky's friend A.E. Presnyakov, who shares the author's convictions. Presnyakov completed his research on handwritten materials and sketches and wrote his preface. The monograph was published in 1910 after the death of Nikolai Pavlovich. In it, the author examines the legal side of feudalism - feudal institutions, legal norms. The scientist defines feudalism as a combination of large land ownership with political domination, on the basis of which a hierarchy of power is created.
But the essence of the views of Pavlov-Silvansky does not lie in this. From these external formal elements, the historian proceeds to the disclosure of the internal content of the social relations themselves.
First, the researcher disagrees with the state school in understanding the legal norm. As is known, representatives of the state legal school saw the content of the historical process in the law and in the legal institution, which create history and organize social relations. N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky saw in the legal norm only a manifestation of social relations, their consolidation, for him the legal norm is a historical source for the study of social relations. He puts forward the task of studying law by a comparative method. The historian compares Russian law with German law and comes to the conclusion that they are similar. Nikolai Pavlovich reproaches Russian historians for the fact that they rarely used the comparative method, and therefore they spoke about the originality of the Russian historical process and law, in particular. The scientist, however, has a different opinion on this issue: “There is, however, in our antiquity one area in which Russian orders are so strikingly similar to German and others that our historians, contrary to the prevailing direction of our historiography, could not help but stop at their comparative study ". This is the area of ancient Russian criminal, civil law and legal proceedings, where institutions common to many peoples existed: a) in criminal law: blood feud, vira, monetary penalties for bodily injuries; b) in legal proceedings: a test of water and iron, in the field: a judicial duel, a set, rumors - jurors; c) in civil law: the purchase and kidnapping of wives, the right of ancestral redemption of landed property, the slavery of an unpaid debtor, the right of inheritance, etc.
Based on the comparative method, Pavlov-Silvansky came to the following conclusions. Firstly, the similarity of Slavic and, in particular, Russian law with German and others is explained not by borrowing, but by a common origin, and their similar development is the result of the same primitive living conditions. Secondly, East Slavic law, of all other rights, is most similar to German law. We are talking about the fact that the same conditions of social life of people cause the same rules of law. This is the essence of the views of the historian, who stands on the point of view of the laws of historical development.
N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky finds similarities between the German and Russian peoples even in customary law and comes to the important conclusion that it is not laws that create social relations, but form the legal norms that define them - custom develops before law, society stands before the state. This statement was a direct attack on the public school.
Pavlov-Silvansky criticizes the German historian Weitz, according to whom immunity was created by the will of the supreme power, and the general legislative act was replaced by a long series of individual private acts - immunity diplomas.
The basis of the emergence of immunity, the historian saw a large feudal landownership. He says that the princely and boyar murderers were based on the struggle for land ownership. Further, Pavlov-Silvansky develops the idea that the immunity of large landowners was the basis for their usurpation of supreme power. But he emphasizes this in relation to Western Europe, making a reservation about the Russian state: "We had no immunity of this consequence." The encroachment of lands in our country prevented the usurpation of power by the boyars. In Russia, as in the West, due to the same reasons, the land irresistibly disintegrated into small independent principalities.
It is quite understandable that Pavlov-Silvansky could not reach a scientific understanding of the causes of feudal fragmentation and the formation of the state. Although he recognized the primacy of material conditions, he still could not definitively depart from the legal scheme for constructing his research. The scientist posed the problem of feudalism as a problem of the struggle between the community and the boyars.
The community is the basis of the original, pre-feudal system; it is a specific historical form of the social system. Pavlov-Silvansky dissociates himself from the transformation of the community into a formal legal concept, into a product of state legislation, as was the case with B. N. Chicherin. In the understanding of the historian, the community enters as a certain stage of social development. The author puts the community on a par with the police rope of the Western Slavs, with the brand - the ancient Germans. This identity was also pointed out by F. Engels.
The community is the first period of Russian history until the 12th century, when the secular system dominated. The second period in the history of Russia is from the 12th to the 16th centuries, when the center of gravity of relations passes from the world to the boyars. Worldly self-government remains in a weakened state.
Boyarism is the direct basis and content of the feudal system. It goes beyond legal understanding. The boyarshchina combines large-scale landownership with political power and with small-scale peasant farming and introduces an understanding of the feudal-dependent relations of the smerd, the serf, and so on. The historian sees the source of this dependence in the forcible seizure of land by the military-service boyar elite and the hereditary alienation of communal lands, the enslavement of free people. The establishment of feudal relations takes place as a result of the violent struggle between the boyars and the community. N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky comes close to the theory of the non-economic origin of feudal dependence, to the disclosure of the essence of the feudal system.
The third period of Russian history - - XVI - the first half of the XIX centuries, when the main institution is the state.
The world, the boyars, the state - this is the scheme of the historical development of Russia.
The historian could not definitively depart from the old scheme. For example, he identifies feudalism with feudal fragmentation, with a specific period, while the boyars also took place in Kievan Rus.
Pavlov-Silvansky also introduced something essentially new. Thus, he associates the triumph of the state with the oprichnina, as a result of which “political feudalism” fell, but its social basis remained unchanged. The historian separates the political from the social.
In the third period of the history of Russia (XVI - the first half of the XIX century), the attention of N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky was attracted primarily by the reforms of Peter I. He devoted a number of publications to this issue: “Count P. A. Tolstoy”, “Pososhkov”, “ New about Pososhkov”, “Opinions of the leaders on the reforms of Peter the Great”, “Historical Letters”, “Time of Troubles at the Beginning of Centuries. 1605-1705-1805" and such a well-known work as "Projects of reforms in the notes of contemporaries of Peter the Great" (1897). Here, the projects of Fedor Saltykov, Alexei Kurbatov, Konon Zotov and others are considered in detail. The texts of the projects are also published.
The researcher gave a new assessment of the era of Peter I in the general course of Russian history, amending the scheme of S. M. Solovyov. Accepting the theory of the “organic” development of Russian history, the scientist draws a logical conclusion from it: “Going further along the path of Solovyov, we can now, on the basis of new research on the Petrine reform, establish that Europeanization, just like the Normans and Mongols, does not constitute fundamental phenomenon of our historical development. According to Pavlov-Silvansky, the Petrine reform did not rebuild the old building, but gave it a new facade, so the history of Russia cannot be divided into two eras: pre-Petrine and Peter the Great, as was done before. The time of Peter I is only one of the stages in the development of the state of the new time, which, in its main foundations, took shape in our country in the 16th century. and lasted until the middle of the 19th century. The historian closely connects in one period of the XVII-XVIII centuries. and part of the 19th century.
Pavlov-Silvansky analyzes the reforms of Peter I and the reforms of 1861 and believes that they cannot be compared. The transformations of Peter the Great did not lead to radical changes in the social structure of Russia; on the contrary, they contributed to the strengthening of serfdom, while the reform of 1861 marked the victory of capitalism in the country.
N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky does not agree with P. N. Milyukov on the question of Petrine reforms. In contrast to Milyukov, he draws the following conclusions: 1) the reforms met the requirements of the times; 2) not recognizing a radical break in the reforms, one should see them as of great importance in the overall development of Russia, which was elevated to the rank of European states; 3) it is necessary to highlight the positive meaning and personality of Peter I.
The history of the Russian liberation movement is also reflected in the works of the historian.
The merit of Pavlov-Silvansky is that he first prepared and published the full work of A.N. Radishchev "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow", investigative cases about the Decembrists. It was Pavlov-Sylvansky who called A. N. Radishchev the first Russian revolutionary. In general, the scientist correctly assessed the historical significance and direction of Radishchev's work, which protested against autocracy and serfdom, but nevertheless belittled the originality of the work by stating that "Journey ..." was a reflection of the ideas of the French Enlightenment.
Pavlov-Silvansky wrote a number of studies about the Decembrists, especially the historian was interested in the history of the Southern Society and its leader P. Pestel, to whom he devoted a special publication "Pestel's Political Program". The assessment of the Decembrist movement is controversial. On the one hand, Pavlov-Silvansky, following A. I. Herzen, calls the Decembrists revolutionaries, notes the courage and dedication of the most prominent figures, especially P. Pestel, at the same time, the historian exaggerates the influence of French educational literature on the Decembrists, underestimates the national foundations of the movement Decembrists.
The attention of the scientist was attracted by the activities of the revolutionary democrats A. I. Herzen and V. G. Belinsky. In the article "Herzen the Exile" Pavlov-Silvansky quite objectively shows the views of the revolutionary democrat: faith in the community, in the possibility of bypassing capitalism in Russia. The historian considers Herzen the great tribune of freedom. In an unfinished article about V. G. Belinsky, Pavlov-Silvansky calls him a "saint" in contrast to the conservative publicist Suvorin.
In addition to the development of large historical issues, the scientist published a number of journalistic articles in which he gave an assessment of contemporary events. Being a witness of the "Bloody Sunday" on January 9, 1905, he is in the article "What are they doing, what are they doing?" condemns the shooting of a peaceful demonstration in St. Petersburg. In the newspaper Nasha Zhizn, Pavlov-Silvansky made publications on Russian foreign policy at the beginning of the 20th century: Behind the Scenes of Foreign Policy, Insulted Patriotism. In them, the author assesses the Russo-Japanese war of 1904 as predatory on both sides, unlike other bourgeois historians and politicians. After the events of 1905, when Pavlov-Silvansky's views turned to the left, the historian becomes interested in the activities of left-wing parties in Russia. Black articles on the parties of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Social Democrats have been preserved.
4. "Legal Marxism" in Russian historiography (P. B. Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky)
A special branch of bourgeois historiography is the work of "legal Marxists" (N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, P. B. Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky and others). This trend is back in the 90s. years XIX in. was defined as a reflection of Marxism in bourgeois literature. V. I. Lenin more than once noted the rapid break of his leaders with Marxism, the rapid evolution to the right towards liberalism. N. A. Berdyaev became a supporter of "Christian existentialism", pessimism reigned in his research, conclusions about the "end of history". S. N. Bulgakov, who in his letters to G. V. Plekhanov acknowledged the weakness and limitations of E. Bernstein's attacks on the materialist understanding of history as early as the 1990s, became a defender of idealism a few years later.
The "legal Marxists" took from Marxism the proposition that capitalism in Russia is inevitable and progressive. But if for the Marxists capitalism was a stage in historical development, then for the "legal Marxists" it was the ultimate goal. However, even on the question of the development of capitalism, these historians only covered themselves with Marxist phrases, and, in essence, stood on the positions of economic materialism and positivism, and not Marxism. Recognizing the principle of historical conditioning only in relation to the economic system, "legal Marxists" believed that social and political relations developed by themselves, independently of economic relations. By excluding the question of combating real contradictions, the "legal Marxists" deprived Marxism of an effective principle. Their policy was based on an agreement with the autocracy on the basis of bourgeois reforms.
In historical science, "legal Marxists" singled out two problems: 1) economic development (capitalism); 2) state system. However, both problems were separated from one another. The main goal that was set by the "legal Marxists" was the strengthening of the capitalist order, and not overcoming them. P. B. Struve urged to recognize Russian unculturedness and to go to school for Western capitalism.
Of all the "legal Marxists," P. B. Struve and M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky were the greatest scholars of Russian history.
P. B. Struve (1870- 1944 ). Russian economist, philosopher, historian, publicist. Theorist of "legal Marxism", one of the leaders of the Cadet Party. He edited the journal "Liberation", "Russian Thought", was a member of the collection "Milestones" (1909).
II. B. Struve went from formal membership in the Social Democracy (90s) to the most extreme nationalism (1905), to white emigration after graduation civil war.
P. B. Struve took “the economic outside the social”, considering exchange, rather than production relations, to be decisive in historical development. He removed the internal antagonism of the capitalist system, rejected its basic class contradictions. The historian ignored the class struggle and the social characteristics of the social system. Struve's work breaks the link between economic structure society and the state, which he considered as an organization of order. All issues of the state, in his opinion, must be resolved not through revolution, but through peaceful transformations. These provisions are set forth in the book "Critical Notes on the Question of economic development Russia" (1894), which marked the beginning of the attacks on Marxism.
In 1899, P. B. Struve presented his work “On the Question of Markets in Capitalist Production”, in which he showed his methodological positions. He came up with the principle of opposing "economic" and "sociological" categories, tried to subordinate Marxism to neo-Kantianism.
In 1913, P. B. Struve published his major work “Serfdom. Studies in Economic History Russia XVIII and 19th centuries. Here he formulates the theory of the growth of "serfdom into capitalism". The author put forward the idea of a feudal economy as a carrier of commercial capital and primitive accumulation. The historian considered the serf economy not a brake, but an engine of economic progress. The contradiction of the serf system, in his opinion, is not of a class, but of an economic nature, like a contradiction between the landlord and peasant economy. At the same time, according to Struve, the progressive role belongs not to the peasant, but to the landlord economy. The author sees natural economy only in the peasantry, therefore, he considers the emancipation of the peasants in 1861 to be premature. According to Struve, a large estate farm represented a more harmonious system, it acted as a regulator of the agricultural market. Until the agricultural market is developed, the abolition of serfdom is hasty. If Russia was saved from a "natural" reaction, it was because of railway construction. P. B. Struve considers the reform of 1861 as an act of state policy. The state appears to him as the creator of history. The researcher thereby becomes more and more connected with the state school.
In the political history of Russia, Struve tried to present AI Herzen and the entire liberation movement in a form convenient for liberalism. The historian understood the history of Narodnaya Volya in a simplified way, idealized the history of zemstvo sobors in the spirit of Slavophilism, which provoked objections even from P. N. Milyukov on the pages of the Struvist journal Osvobozhdenie.
Many historical works are written by a "legal Marxist" M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky (1865-1919). His defense of the progressiveness of capitalism was criticized by exiled Marxists in Siberia. During the civil war, Tugan-Baranovsky was the Minister of Finance of the Central Rada. The historian's books on the crises and development of the factory, especially The Russian Factory in the Past and Present (1898), gained wide popularity. He conducted a revision of Marxism within the framework of the economic history of Russian capitalism.
Like all "legal Marxists", M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky followed the line of opposing economic and social categories. "Economism" the researcher took as the basis of his historical constructions. He contrasted Marx's analysis of the successive replacement of manufactory with a factory with a homegrown and unscientific understanding of the stages of development of capitalism. The author of The Russian Factory saw the reasons for Russia's backwardness in Russian unculturedness, he considered the contradictions of the serfdom era as disagreements between the upper classes in the struggle for economic domination. The historical works of M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky are replete with factual errors. He created a theory that contradicted reality of the collapse of the "factory" into makeshift huts in the 40s. XIX century, the "victories" of small handicraft production over the factory, the manufactory of the XVIII century. mixed with the factory, the fallacy of which was pointed out by V. I. Lenin in his work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”.
M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky covered the history of the Russian factory from the period of the reign of Peter I. The historian believed that capitalist enterprises had already arisen under him, therefore the main goal of the workers' struggle was liberation from serfdom, from the land.
Tugan-Baranovsky considered crises under capitalism not as a product of the anarchy of capitalist production, but as a result of economic progress. The crisis consisted in a temporary excess of supply over demand, and each time was resolved by the expansion of the market. The expansion of the market, on the other hand, is carried out automatically by the very growth of capitalism. Thus, the contradictions of capitalism, according to Tugan-Baranovsky, were economic, not social, so their solution should be sought not in the class struggle, but in economic development. The historian did not understand the problem of the genesis of Russian capitalism, did not understand its background and history. The positive aspects of his work "Russian Factory" include rich factual material on the development of industry in Russia in the 18th-19th centuries.
M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky calls the class struggle of all times "distemper", contrasting it with the organizing role of the state. He is against revolution as anarchy. The author approves the reform of 1861 and the manifesto of October 17, 1905, which lead to the victory of capitalism.
Short biography. Born in Kronstadt, where his father served at that time as a doctor in the 2nd naval crew. He studied at the Omsk gymnasium, then at the gymnasium at the Historical and Philological Institute in St. Petersburg, which he graduated with a medal. In his gymnasium years he was fond of fiction, poetry and history, wrote poetry. In 1888 - 1892. studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. As a student, Pavlov-Silvansky found K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and V. I. Sergeevich at St. Petersburg University, who are usually called his teachers. Through the lectures of K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Pavlov-Silvansky perceived the historicism of S. M. Solovyov and his desire to reveal the inner integrity and regularities of the historical process. Close relations began between Pavlov-Silvansky and the young professor S. F. Platonov, who was under the influence of the ideas of V. O. Klyuchevsky. Through the lectures of the representative of the "law school" V. I. Sergeevich, Pavlov-Silvansky mastered the method of legal research of Russian antiquity. He was greatly influenced by the works of the classics of positivist philosophy (T. Buckle, O. Comte, G. Spencer), in which he was attracted by the idea of historical regularity. By the 90s. is the interest of the historian in the study of Marxism.
After graduating from the university, he was left with him to prepare for a professorship in the department of Russian history. However, in 1895 he did not pass the master's exams and was forced to enter the service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Served in the archives of the Ministry. Wrote a number of scientific papers. As an editor-in-chief and one of the authors, he participated in the preparation of the anniversary Essay on the History of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1902). Also, on the “official order” of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, he published the work “Tsar’s Servants. Origins of the Russian nobility" (1898).
Under the influence of the growth of the social movement in the country in the early twentieth century. there was an accession of Pavlov-Silvansky to political life. At the beginning of the First Russian Revolution, he collaborated in the left-liberal newspaper Nasha Zhizn, participated in the zemstvo congress in Moscow, and was a member of the Kadet Party. During the elections to the First State Duma, he organized rallies and spoke at them, his apartment was the headquarters, where they wrote ballots, handed out campaign leaflets. In the future, the scientist becomes disillusioned with the Cadet Party, he begins to sympathize with the left wing of the Russian revolution.
In 1907, Pavlov-Silvansky was elected to the chair of the history of Russian law at the Higher Women's Courses and was given the opportunity to systematically teach Russian history. Prior to that, his teaching activities were episodic, being associated either with teacher courses or with the Higher Free School of P.F. Lesgaft.
By this time, there was also a gradual recognition of the ideas of Pavlov-Silvansky. They found a particularly lively response among young historians, among whom were A. E. Presnyakov, M. N. Pokrovsky, N. A. Rozhkov, F. V. Taranovsky, S. A. Shumakov. In academic circles, they were ostracized and rejected, and with the luminaries of the legal direction - V. I. Sergievich, M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov P.-S. led an uncompromising scientific debate.
The widely and fruitfully developed scientific and teaching work of Pavlov-Silvansky ended unexpectedly tragically. On September 17, 1908, the historian died suddenly of cholera.
Major writings.
"Projects of reforms in the notes of contemporaries of Peter the Great" (1897),
"The sovereign's service people: the origin of the Russian nobility" (1898),
"History and Modernity" (1906),
"Feudalism in Ancient Russia" (1907),
Schemes of Russian history. Revolution and Russian historiography" (1907),
"Feudalism in specific Russia" (1910).
39. Nikolai Pavlovich Pavlov-Silvansky and his contribution to the study of agrarian problems (1869 - 1908).
Liberal representative. He noted the similarities in the historical development of Western Europe and Russia. He paid attention to Peter's transformations; revolutionary movement in Russia.
Works: reform project. Notes of contemporaries of Peter the Great", "feudalism in ancient Russia" - the main work, "feudalism in Russia", "history of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs". The triumph of the state is connected with the oprichnina, because. because of it, feudalism fell, and the power of the state grew.
Separates the political from the social. Attention to the reforms of Peter "Count Tolstoy", "Posashkov", "the opinion of the leaders on the reforms of Peter", etc.
From his point of view, Europeanization is not the main path of Russia. Peter's reforms did not rebuild the "old building", but gave only a "new facade", therefore, the history of Russia cannot be divided into two stages: before and after Peter.
He condemned the revolution of 1905. After the revolution, he becomes interested in left-wing parties.
Nikolai Pavlovich Silvansky (Pavlov-Silvansky)(1869-1908) was one of the leading Russian historians late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century. The works of S. M. Solovyov had a great influence on the formation of his scientific views. In the 1990s he was influenced by the sociological ideas of legal Marxism, but he perceived the historical theory of Marxism mainly in the spirit of economic materialism. The work of Pavlov-Silvansky developed in a period when there was a differentiation of political trends, and the ideological struggle took on extremely sharp forms. Under these conditions, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky turned out to be one of the few historians who honestly tried to answer the pressing questions that arose related to determining the paths for Russia's development at a revolutionary turning point. Such an attempt inevitably led to a revision of outdated historiographic ideas, to criticism of the prevailing schemes of the country's historical past.
N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky created a new scheme of Russian historical development, one of the last schemes in Russian bourgeois historiography: in his key work - "Feudalism in Ancient Russia" he proved by the method of comparative historical analysis the presence in Russia in the XII-XVI centuries of a feudal society, of the same type as the feudal system in Western Europe. As Pavlov-Silvansky noted, in Russia there were all three characteristic principles of feudalism, highlighted in the famous definition of Guizot - both the conventionality of land ownership, and the connection of power with land ownership, and hierarchical division. The fact that the boyar could serve not the prince from whom he took the land, a special transformation of boyar immunity, a different nature of the feudal hierarchy, and the fact that not all principalities were interconnected by agreements, as was the case with Western seigneurs - all this is not more than nuances, features of Russian feudalism, which by no means cancel it. The theory of Russian feudalism substantiated by Pavlov-Silvansky not only put the study of medieval Russia on a scientific basis, but also led to significant political conclusions, asserting the commonality of the historical process in Russia and in Europe.
