Historiography of Russian history - this is a description of Russian history and historical literature. This is the history of historical science as a whole, its branch, a set of studies devoted to a specific era or topic.

Scientific coverage of Russian history begins in the 18th century, when knowledge about the past, previously contained in the form of scattered information, began to be systematized and generalized. Historical science was freed from divine providence and received an increasingly realistic explanation.

The first scientific work on the history of Russia belonged to Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev(1686-1750) - the largest noble historian of the era of Peter I. His major work “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” covered the history of the Russian state in 5 volumes.

Speaking as a champion of a strong monarchy, V.N. Tatishchev was the first to formulate the state scheme of Russian history, highlighting several of its stages: from complete “single power” (from Rurik to Mstislav), through the “aristocracy of the appanage period” (1132-1462) to “the restoration of the monarchy under John the Great III and its strengthening under Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century."

Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov(1711 - 1765) - author of a number of works on Russian history (“A Brief Russian Chronicler with Genealogy”; “Ancient Russian History”), in which he initiated the struggle against the Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state. This theory, as you know, was created by the Germans Bayer and Miller and substantiated the inability of the supposedly ignorant Slavs to create their own statehood and called on the Varangians for this.

M.V. Lomonosov presented a number of arguments that refuted the speculations of German scientists. He proved the antiquity of the “Rus” tribe, which preceded the calling of Rurik, and showed the originality of Slavic settlements in Eastern Europe. The scientist drew attention to an important fact: the name “Rus” was extended to those Slavic tribes to which the Varangians had nothing to do. M.V. Lomonosov pointed out the absence of Scandinavian and Germanic words in the Russian language, which would be inevitable given the role that the Normanists ascribe to the Scandinavians.

The first major work on the history of the Russian state belonged to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826) - a prominent historian, writer and publicist. At the end of 1803, Karamzin offered Alexander I his services to write a complete history of Russia, “not barbaric and shameful for his reign.” The proposal was accepted. Karamzin was officially entrusted with writing the history of Russia and a pension was established as being in the public service. Karamzin devoted his entire subsequent life mainly to the creation of the “History of the Russian State” (12 volumes). The central idea of ​​labor: autocratic rule is the best form of statehood for Russia.

Karamzin put forward the idea that “Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord and was saved by a wise autocracy.” This approach was the basis for the periodization of the history of the Russian state.

In it, the scientist identified six periods:

• “the introduction of monarchical power” - from the “calling of the Varangian princes” to Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (862-1015);
• “fading of autocracy” - from Svyatopolk Vladimirovich to Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich (1015-1238);
• “the death of the Russian state and the gradual “state revival of Russia” - from Yaroslav 11 Vsevolodovich to Ivan 111 (1238-1462);
• “establishment of autocracy” - from Ivan III to Ivan IV (1462-1533);
• restoration of the “unique power of the tsar” and the transformation of autocracy into tyranny - from Ivan IV (the Terrible) to Boris Godunov (1533-1598);
• “Time of Troubles” - from Boris Godunov to Mikhail Romanov (1598-1613).”

Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev(1820-1879) - head of the department of Russian history at Moscow University (since 1845), author of a unique encyclopedia of Russian history, a multi-volume major work “History of Russia from Ancient Times”. The principle of his research is historicism. He does not divide the history of Russia into periods, but connects them, considers the development of Russia and Western Europe as a unity. Soloviev reduces the pattern of development of the country to three defining conditions: “the nature of the country”, “the nature of the tribe”, “the course of external events”.

In periodization, the scientist “erases” the concepts of “Varangian” period, “Mongolian” and appanage.

The first stage of Russian history from ancient times to the 16th century. inclusively determined by the struggle of the “tribal principle” through “patrimonial relations” to “state life”.

The second stage (XVII - mid-XVII century) - “preparation” for a new order of things and the “era of Peter I”, “era of transformations”.

The third stage (second half of the 17th - second half of the 19th century) is a direct continuation and completion of Peter’s reforms.

In the 50s XIX century A state (legal) school in Russian historiography emerged. It was the product of bourgeois liberalism, its reluctance to repeat Western revolutions in Russia. In this regard, liberals turned to the ideal of strong state power. The founder of the state school was a professor at Moscow University (lawyer, historian, idealist philosopher) Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828-1904).

Prominent Russian, historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky(1841 - 1911) adhered to the positivist "theory of facts". He identified “three main forces that build human society”: the human personality, human society, and the nature of the country. Klyuchevsky considered “mental labor and moral achievement” to be the engine of historical progress. In the development of Russia, Klyuchevsky recognized the enormous role of the state (political factor), attached great importance to the process of colonization (natural factor), and trade (economic factor).

In the “Course of Russian History” Klyuchevsky gave a periodization of the country’s past. It is based on geographical, economic and social characteristics, which, in his opinion, determined the content of historical periods. However, they were dominated by the state scheme.

The entire Russian historical process - from ancient times to the reforms of the 60s. XIX century Klyuchevsky divided into four periods:

• “Rusdneprovskaya, city, trading” (from the 8th to the 13th centuries). In the first period, the main arena of activity of the Slavs was the Dnieper region. The author did not connect the emergence of a state among the Eastern Slavs with the Normans, noting the existence of principalities among them long before the appearance of the Varangians;
• “Rus of the Upper Volga, appanage princely, free agricultural” (XII - mid-XV centuries). Characterizing the second period, Klyuchevsky idealized princely power and exaggerated its organizing role;
• "Great Rus'. Moscow, royal-boyar, military-agricultural" (XV - early XVII centuries). The third period of Russian history is associated with Great Russia, covering vast areas not only of Eastern Europe, but also of Asia. At this time, a strong state unification of Rus' was created for the first time;
• “All-Russian, imperial, noble” - the period of serfdom - agricultural and factory (XVII - mid-XIX centuries). This is the time of further expansion of Great Russia and the formation of the Russian Empire. The transformations of Peter I were considered by the author as the main feature of this period, but Klyuchevsky showed duality in his assessment of them. Klyuchevsky influenced the formation of historical views of both bourgeois historians (P.N. Milyukov, M.M. Bogoslovsky, A.A. Kiesewetter), and Marxist historians (M.N. Pokrovsky, Yu.V. Gauthier, S. .V. Bakhrushin).

In Soviet historiography, periodization was based on a formational approach, according to which in Russian history the following were distinguished:

• Primitive communal system (until the 9th century).
• Feudalism (IX - mid-XIX centuries).
• Capitalism (second half of the 19th century - 1917).
• Socialism (since 1917).

Within the framework of these formational periods of national history, certain stages were identified that revealed the process of origin and development of the socio-economic formation.

Thus, the “feudal” period was divided into three stages:

• “early feudalism” (Kievan Rus);
• “developed feudalism” (feudal fragmentation and the formation of a Russian centralized state);
• “late feudalism” (“new period of Russian history”, decomposition and crisis of feudal-serf relations).

The period of capitalism fell into two stages - “pre-monopoly capitalism” and “imperialism”. In Soviet history, the stages of “war communism”, “new economic policy”, “building the foundations of socialism”, “complete and final victory of socialism” and “development of socialism on its own basis” were distinguished.

In the post-perestroika period, in connection with the transition to a pluralistic interpretation of national history, there was a reassessment of both its individual events and entire periods and stages. In this regard, there is, on the one hand, a return to the periodizations of Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and other pre-revolutionary historians, on the other, attempts are being made to give a periodization in accordance with new values ​​and methodological approaches.

Thus, a periodization of Russian history appeared from the point of view of the alternativeness of its historical development, considered in the context of world history.

Some historians propose to distinguish two periods in Russian history:

• “From Ancient Rus' to Imperial Russia” (IX - XVIII centuries);
• “The Rise and Decline of the Russian Empire” (XIX - XX centuries).

Historians of Russian statehood highlight ten of her

periods. This periodization is due to several factors. The main ones are the socio-economic structure of society (level of economic and technical development, forms of ownership) and the factor of state development:

• Ancient Rus' (IX-XII centuries);
• The period of independent feudal states of Ancient Rus' (XII-XV centuries);
• Russian (Moscow) state (XV-XVII centuries);
• Russian Empire of the period of absolutism (XVIII - mid-XIX centuries);
• Russian Empire during the period of transition to the bourgeois monarchy (mid-19th - early 20th centuries);
• Russia during the period of the bourgeois-democratic republic (February - October 1917);
• The period of formation of Soviet statehood (1918-1920);
• Transition period and NEP period (1921 - 1930);
• The period of state-party socialism (1930 - early 60s of the XX century);
• The period of crisis of socialism (60-90s of the XX century).

This periodization, like any other, is conditional, but it allows us to systematize the training course to a certain extent and consider the main stages of the formation of statehood in Russia.

Historical science has accumulated extensive experience in creating works on the history of Russia. Numerous works published in various years both in the country and abroad reflect various concepts of the historical development of Russia, its relationship with the world historical process.

In recent years, fundamental works on the history of Russia by major pre-revolutionary historians have been republished, including the works of S.M. Solovyova, N.M. Karamzina, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others. The works of B.A. were published. Rybakova, B.D. Grekova, S.D. Bakhrusheva, M.N. Tikhomirova, M.P. Pokrovsky, A.N. Sakharova, Yu.N. Afanasyeva and others. This list can be continued.

Today we have works on the history of Russia that are interesting in content, which are available to everyone who is interested in history and strives for a deep study of it.

It must be taken into account that the study of the history of the Fatherland must take place in the context of world history. Students of history must understand such concepts as historical civilizations, their characteristic features, the place of individual formations in the world historical process, the path of development of Russia and its place in the world historical process.

When studying the history of Russia in the context of world historical processes, it is necessary to take into account that the traditional idea of ​​\u200b\u200babroads today has radically changed. The historical reality is such that we are faced with such concepts as “near abroad” and “far abroad”. In the recent past, these distinctions did not exist.

In fact, by now it has formed and requires its permission problem area domestic historiography.

Ideologically Russian historiography is split into Westernizing (liberal) and national-power, social-democratic and other “leftist” paradigms for the development of an explanation of the past. Each of them includes a large set of theories.

Liberal theory in modern Russian historiography is quite contradictory and has its own Russian logic of application. Discussions within this theory are not accidental. For example, “State and Evolution” by E. Gaidar and “Russian Statehood” by Akhiezer and Ilyin. Gaidar's main thesis is that private property is the foundation of the liberal policy of the state. The core of A. Akhiezer’s theory is the assertion that, historically, the Russian state and society are stuck in a state of “schism.”

Today we can note the onset of a new wave of conservatism in Russian social thought and Russian historiography. It came as a reaction to political processes in Russia, the beginning of which dates back to the second half of the 1980s. It is characterized by three generic characteristics: anti-Westernism, upholding the ideals of Orthodoxy and the resulting norms of social coexistence, and the ideal of a powerful centralized state. (M. Nazarov, L. Borodin, E. Volodin, Metropolitan John, A. Dugin, I. Shafarevich, A. Gulyga, S. Kurginyan, V. Kozhinov, etc.) on issues of attitude towards Russian emigration, Russian statehood and socialist past.

The national-power paradigm, like the liberal one, has no less variation. (N. Narochnitskaya “About Russia and the Russians”, A. Panarin “Strategies of Instability”. Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences - O. Yanitsky. “Sociology of Risks”, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (T. Oizerman. “Marxism and Utopianism”).

The Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISPI RAS) and its director, corresponding member of the RAS V. Kuznetsov and his team put forward and substantiated the ideological manifesto of Russian sovereignty, as well as a comprehensive program for the formation of the ideology of power. The leading one in modern domestic historiography of modern Russian history is the desire to substantiate "Russia's special path" to single out Russia as a special civilization and isolate it beyond the boundaries of the patterns inherent in the historical development of the West. The literature in this direction is extremely numerous.

I would like to note the heterogeneity of this direction.

An alternative to the idea of ​​a special path of development for Russia, Russia as a special civilization, is totalitarianism concept in Russian modern literature, which dates back to the works of L. von Mises, L. Shapiro, M. Fainsod, R. Pipes, E. Carrer d'Encausse, R. Conquest, repeatedly published in Russia and their domestic followers. In our domestic historiography the idea of ​​totalitarianism became at a certain stage politically almost official. These are the works of A.N. Yakovlev, D.A. Volkogonov, Yu.N. Afanasyev. It appears in large quantities in educational literature, the works "Totalitarianism in Europe of the 20th century. History of ideology" appear , movements, regimes”, prepared by the Institute of General History, etc.

The theory of totalitarianism quickly became outdated and, due to its obvious ideological fervor, stopped working. It was natural that the trend of so-called “revisionists” emerged, forced to acknowledge the discrepancy between the theoretical concepts of totalitarianism and the realities of Russian history. The next concept that has become widespread in explaining the modern history of Russia is modernization theory. The founders of this school - W. Rostow, S. Eisenstadt and others proceeded from the idea of ​​​​spreading the values ​​of liberalism in the world.

The theory of modernization, finding itself in a new qualitative environment—post-Soviet Russia—acquired new methodological features, in particular, about the “civilizational uniqueness of Russian modernizations.” It is necessary to recognize the achievements in domestic historiography of the history of modern Russia in works on stories of everyday life. This direction, historiographically associated with the “Annals school”, was continued in research on the social history of modern times (works by A.K. Sokolov, A.V. Shubin, S.V. Zhuravlev, E.Yu. Zubkova, M.R. Zezina , V.A. Kozlova).

Functionally Russian historiography is also split. On the one hand, it seems to be in demand: we see how intensively the historical past is exploited by politicians, how historical subjects are “woven” into the texts of other humanities, as a result of which the subject areas of various disciplines are blurred. On the other hand, knowledge about this past is being pushed to the periphery of humanities education. History as a profession is not prestigious.

The contradictions between the real use of historical narrative in different directions and the real low-status state in the system of humanities disciplines are obvious. The reason is the political orientation towards technocratism of practical politics, which excludes the importance of historical knowledge for the modernization of the country. This happens because the previous period of Russian history - the Soviet - is considered mainly in the liberal version, and also because in the global humanitarian space, postmodernist ideas about history as a literary literary product of a subject in a subjectivist space of time prevail.

In content In general, the state of historical science is characterized by a tendency towards descriptiveness, petty topics, and a decrease in the level of conceptual generalizations. The paradigm of historical knowledge has changed. Revealing history as a concept has given way to presenting it as information.

Levels of historical research – the dominance of microhistory over macrohistory. Intradisciplinary multi-topics: The history of everyday life. Gender and oral history. Demographic and environmental history. Intellectual history, etc.

3) Russian historical science lags behind the modernization tasks of Russian society and education reforms. Why? Firstly, there is a noticeable generational “gap” in the corporation of historians. The “departure” of a generation of Soviet-type scientists, the reorganization of faculties, changes in the composition of the scientific community for various reasons, the devaluation of history as a profession in market conditions, the absence of a commercial component of the profession of history itself - have destroyed the very “being” of the discipline. Awareness of this and taking measures to modernize historical science is one of the realities that characterize it.

Secondly, the “collision” with Western historiography, the active inclusion of new theories, schemes, ideas, terms into the arsenal, basically did not lead to the birth of its own new research concepts, but turned Russian historical science into a “production for processing” theories old for the West .

Thirdly, the formation of “new historiographies” in the post-Soviet space has put on the agenda the issue of Russian historians’ response to criticism and nihilism in relation to the entire legacy of Soviet historical science, to the often unfounded priorities of only the national-ethnic heritage.

Fourthly, the uncertainty of the status of historical science in the context of the evolution of the system of historical education and development university science as an equal academic science. Consequently, the study of the University as a carrier and producer of historical knowledge, as a “factory” for the production of new generations of humanists capable of fulfilling their social tasks.

I would like to note such an important area of ​​work as writing the history of the Russian State University for the Humanities, and for this purpose an analysis of the intellectual product that it produces (thesis and dissertation research, their practical significance, publications in scientific journals, the activities of the Russian State University for the Humanities in the media, demand in the labor market), and others in words – a “portrait” of the Russian State University for the Humanities as a subject of the educational and scientific space of modern Russia.

It is necessary to self-identify the university corporation of historians, to determine the line of further development of historical education - the main mechanism for the reproduction of the scientific community - our contribution to the policy and practice of modernization of the country.

Fifthly , the role and significance of regional historiography as a historiographic phenomenon is not fully understood. This cultural projection of all-Russian historiography and at the same time a structure that has its own problem field of historical research is a regional community of scholar-historians of the region, scientific schools and directions, a system of historical institutions, training of historians, research projects, local sources, archives and library collections, scientific connections, forms of communication; public interest in history in the local sociocultural environment, forms of organization and activity of amateur historians, the relationship of professional science with the community of non-professional researchers, support for historical science from the regional administration, “regional patronage”, etc. To purchase the medicine Toximin, you do not need to go to the pharmacy - the drug is not available for free sale. The only purchasing option is to place an order online from official representatives and receive it by mail.

The task of historical science in extrapolating knowledge about the past to the present. The imperative of historical knowledge: based on the experience of the past, explain the present, predict and build the future in accordance with the achieved understanding. And for this you need general historical theory. How can it be developed in conditions of methodological pluralism and ideological disputes?

Finally, The directional factors for the development of Russian historiography are the social order on the part of the state, the opposition, and various political forces. On the agenda is a cardinal problem of historiography: what does the national history of the Russian state look like and does it even have the right to exist? This problem has clearly manifested itself since the mid-1990s, when the authorities set the task of finding a national idea on the path of Russia’s advancement towards the intended market economy and Western-style society. Russian historians joined in the search for it. It was recognized that, using the statement of the French specialist on modern nations Ernest Renan “Oblivion... a distorted perception of one’s own history is an essential factor in the process of nation formation,” Russian historians began to develop problems of national history and were faced with the need to solve them together with political scientists, responding to question “Is it possible to seriously talk about “national history” as a scientific discipline in the multinational country of Russia?”

And again myths began to emerge, which Foucault wrote about as the inevitability of national histories. At the same time, some authoritative researchers suggest “forgetting about the nation.” In parallel, there is a negative trend towards a return to the previous “republican history”, for example, “History of Tatarstan”.

The current situation in the Russian media was called the “war of stories,” which, in the form of the “Cold War,” continues to this day. The very fact of the emergence of alternative interpretations of history destroys the unified federal information field.

Today we must recognize that historical heritage, along with language, religion and culture, is the most important element of national consolidation, and the creation of a comprehensive program is required to study it.

Apparently, we should not neglect the achievements of the Soviet era, for example, in the field of the same source study, or the scientific results of the Moscow-Tartu school of “cultural semiotics,” which developed an interesting methodology for studying cultural structures as symbolic systems of social representations.

The theoretical basis for analyzing Russian realities is completely forgotten. Historians have not developed any independent concept for studying the unique development of post-Soviet Russia. Basically, there are attempts to “fit” this period of history into the models of “democratization theory”, “transitology”, “conflictology”, “elite theory”, etc.

To summarize, I will say that the most important condition for the development of historical science as a science is the improvement of teaching in history departments of history universities, the development of new directions in methodology, methodology, increased attention to the history of philosophy, increased attention to historiography courses. Another important condition for the development of Russian historical science is the formation of a new culture of source research, conditioning it on the new realities of the modern world.

History studies the traces of human activity. The object is a person.

Functions of historical knowledge:

Scientific and educational

Prognostic

Educational

Social memory

The method (research method) shows how cognition occurs, on what methodological basis, on what scientific principles. A method is a way of research, a way of constructing and justifying knowledge. More than two thousand years ago, two main approaches to historical thought arose that still exist today: the idealistic and materialistic understanding of history.

Representatives of the idealistic concept in history believe that spirit and consciousness are primary and more important than matter and nature. Thus, they argue that the human soul and mind determine the pace and nature of historical development, and other processes, including in the economy, are secondary, derived from the spirit. Thus, idealists conclude that the basis of the historical process is the spiritual and moral improvement of people, and human society is developed by man himself, while man’s abilities are given by God.

Supporters of the materialist concept argued and maintain the opposite: since material life is primary in relation to the consciousness of people, it is economic structures, processes and phenomena in society that determine all spiritual development and other relationships between people.

An idealistic approach is more typical for Western historical science, while a materialistic one is more typical for domestic science. Modern historical science is based on the dialectical-materialist method, which considers social development as a natural historical process, which is determined by objective laws and at the same time is influenced by the subjective factor through the activities of the masses, classes, political parties, leaders, and leaders.

There are also special historical research methods:

chronological – provides for the presentation of historical material in chronological order;

synchronous – involves the simultaneous study of events occurring in society;

dichronic – periodization method;

historical modeling;

statistical method.

2. Methods of studying history and modern historical science.

Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.

Historical and logical

Abstraction and absolutization

Analysis and synthesis

Deduction and induction, etc.

1.Historical and genetic development

2.Historical-comparative

3.historical-typological classification

4.historical-systemic method (everything is in the system)

5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.

Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing its methods from it and itself influences its formation. Now the task of not just writing historical works on this or that topic is coming to the fore, but creating verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.

Features of modern historical science.

1. Sociocultural development

2. Spiritual and mental foundations

3. Ethno-demographic features

4. Natural geographical features

5. Political and economic aspects

6. Providentialism (by the will of God)

7. Physiocrats (natural phenomena, not God, but man)

8. Geographical, public, social factors.

9. Interdisciplinary approaches (social anthropology, gender studies).

3. Humanity in the primitive era.

Primitive society (also prehistoric society) is a period in human history before the invention of writing, after which the possibility of historical research based on the study of written sources appears. In a broad sense, the word “prehistoric” is applicable to any period before the invention of writing, starting from the beginning of the Universe (about 14 billion years ago), but in a narrow sense - only to the prehistoric past of man.

Periods of development of primitive society

In the 40s of the 20th century, Soviet scientists Efimenko, Kosven, Pershits and others proposed systems for the periodization of primitive society, the criterion of which was the evolution of forms of ownership, the degree of division of labor, family relationships, etc. In a generalized form, such periodization can be presented as follows:

1. the era of the primitive herd;

2. the era of the tribal system;

3. the era of the decomposition of the communal-tribal system (the emergence of cattle breeding, plow farming and metal processing, the emergence of elements of exploitation and private property).

Stone Age

The Stone Age is the oldest period in human history, when the main tools and weapons were made mainly from stone, but wood and bone were also used. At the end of the Stone Age, the use of clay spread (dishes, brick buildings, sculpture).

Periodization of the Stone Age:

Paleolithic:

The Lower Paleolithic is the period of the emergence of the most ancient species of people and the widespread spread of Homo erectus.

The Middle Paleolithic is a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern humans. Neanderthals dominated Europe throughout the Middle Paleolithic.

The Upper Paleolithic is the period of dominance of the modern species of people throughout the globe during the era of the last glaciation.

Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic; The period is characterized by the development of technology for the production of stone tools and general human culture. There is no ceramics.

Neolithic is the era of the emergence of agriculture. Tools and weapons are still made of stone, but their production is being brought to perfection, and ceramics are widely distributed.

Copper Age

The Copper Age, Copper-Stone Age, Chalcolithic or Chalcolithic is a period in the history of primitive society, a transitional period from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Approximately covers the period 4-3 thousand BC. e., but in some territories it exists longer, and in some it is absent altogether. Most often, the Chalcolithic is included in the Bronze Age, but is sometimes considered a separate period. During the Eneolithic, copper tools were common, but stone ones still predominated.

Bronze Age

The Bronze Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the leading role of bronze products, which was associated with the improvement of the processing of metals such as copper and tin obtained from ore deposits, and the subsequent production of bronze from them. The Bronze Age is the second, later phase of the Early Metal Age, which replaced the Copper Age and preceded the Iron Age. In general, the chronological framework of the Bronze Age: 5-6 thousand years BC. e.

Iron Age

The Iron Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the spread of iron metallurgy and the manufacture of iron tools. Bronze Age civilizations go beyond the history of primitive society; other peoples' civilization takes shape during the Iron Age.

The term "Iron Age" is usually applied to the "barbarian" cultures of Europe that existed simultaneously with the great civilizations of antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Parthia). The “barbarians” were distinguished from ancient cultures by the absence or rare use of writing, and therefore information about them has reached us either from archaeological data or from mentions in ancient sources. On the territory of Europe during the Iron Age, M. B. Shchukin identified six “barbarian worlds”:

Celts (La Tène culture);

Proto-Germans (mainly Jastorf culture + southern Scandinavia);

mostly Proto-Baltic cultures of the forest zone (possibly including Proto-Slavs);

proto-Finno-Ugric and proto-Sami cultures of the northern forest zone (mainly along rivers and lakes);

steppe Iranian-speaking cultures (Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.);

pastoral-agricultural cultures of the Thracians, Dacians and Getae.

Since the 90s A new stage in the development of domestic science begins. Most of all, this affected the humanities. The last decades have given us significant research on the university issue in pre-revolutionary Russia.

One of the studies covering the history of universities throughout the 19th century is the collective publication “Higher Education in Russia. Essay on History before 1917.” edited by V.G. Kineleva. The collection considers the Charter of 1804 as an organic part of the reforms conceived by Alexander I and the “secret committee.” The apparatus of the Ministry of Public Education at that time was small and was entirely concentrated in the main department of schools. According to the idea of ​​the reform, each large city should have its own university, which would be the center of the entire educational district. But the formation and development of universities was hampered by insufficient training of students and a shortage of teachers.

V. And Zmeev, who studies higher education in pre-revolutionary Russia in its development, also considers the first decades of the 19th century to be the period of formation of the university system, the creation of a base for subsequent development, the expansion of university geography, and the creation of higher educational institutions in the regions.

Petrov F.A., the author of a multi-volume work on the history of universities, adheres to the same point of view. Directly with the creation of the Ministry of Public Education and the publication of the charter of 1804, a network of Russian universities began to form. A hierarchy of educational institutions is established, with universities at the head. The most important step of F.A. Petrov considers the approval of university autonomy by the 1804 charter. The Charter of 1804 clearly distinguished between the sphere of the state in university life and the sphere of the university itself, within which they could act independently. Thus, a certain balance was established.

A. Yu. Andreev, exploring the influence of Moscow University on the social life of the country, calls the beginning of the 19th century a successful start for the formation of the university system. And, despite the fact that the provisions of the Charter of 1804. were in fact impossible to implement; their very declaration had profound consequences for the further development of universities.

A. I. Avrus calls the main distinctive feature of the formation of the university system in Russia the creation of universities exclusively on a state basis, unlike in Europe. University Charter 1804 was created on the model of Western European ones, therefore universities according to it received “...unprecedented democracy at that time in Russia at that time...” Among the shortcomings, Avrus A. I. names the fact that it was not possible to introduce freedom of teaching according to the Western model, due to the lack of professors, and freedom hearings, due to a lack of trust in student autonomy. He also admits that many provisions of the charter remained on paper, since the general freedom granted to universities did not correspond to the surrounding reality.

The period of reaction that began in the next decade, a number of authors, was a result of events in Europe: victory in the war of 1812-1814, the formation of the “Holy Alliance” - the conclusion of treaties with Germany, where at that time student protests took place and conservative figures came to the leadership of universities.

Avrus A.I. calls this period “a real campaign against universities,” in which the unification of the ministries of public education and spiritual affairs played a significant role.

As a result of the introduction of a new charter in 1835, educational districts were reorganized on a bureaucratic basis. Uvarov S.S. was a supporter of limiting university autonomy, establishing classicism as the basis of general education, and class restrictions in access to higher education. However, the authors propose to abandon the stereotype about the government’s desire to suppress higher education and that all changes were reactionary in nature.

Contrary to popular belief that after 1835 universities were completely deprived of their administrative functions and were thus separated from secondary education, F.A. Petrov believes that, on the contrary, never before has secondary education been so subordinated to higher education. University autonomy was not destroyed by the new charter, but “...was only introduced within a certain framework, which allowed universities to focus on solving direct scientific and educational problems.” It was by the time of the charter of 1835 that F.A. Petrov attributes the final formation of the university system in Russia. At this time, the main tasks of university education are formed. A cadre of domestic professors is being formed, and students are being formed as a social stratum.

O. V. Popov analyzes the draft Charter of 1835 prepared by leading political figures and their role in preparing the reform. The author refuses to interpret the Charter of 1835. as clearly reactionary. Considering the drafts and provisions of the Charter, O. V. Popov highlights the positive principles contained in this document and comes to the conclusion that the Charter of 1835 reflects a change in public views on the importance of universities and is fully in line with the requirements of the time.

From the negative assessment of the Charter of 1835. Whittaker Ts.H. also refuses the activities of the Minister of Public Education Uvarov S.S.: “...if we consider it (the activity) according to the criteria of modernization...it turns out that Uvarov did everything necessary for his time. He laid the foundations for future development, as he managed to raise a well-educated and enlightened elite...”

Avrus A. I. especially notes the duality in university politics. On the one hand, there is the desire to integrate universities into the administrative and bureaucratic system of the country and, accordingly, detailed regulation and control over their activities; on the other hand, there is an understanding of the need to develop education, including university education. It was during this period that significant successes were achieved in university education; domestic scientific schools began to form in a number of universities. This progressive development and progress of universities until the mid-40s began to slow down in the second half of the 40s. Avrus connects this process with the revolutionary events that began in 1848 in Europe. The situation at universities became increasingly alarming.

A new university charter was given to universities in 1863. Zmeev V.A., like most researchers, calls the university reform one of the points of the Great Reforms, which “... set in motion all the social institutions of Russia and could not but affect higher education...”

S.I. Posokhov speaks of the special significance of the Charter of 1863, as a document first adopted with wide public discussion.

R. G. Eymontova, the author of a number of monographs and articles on the university reform of 1863, recreates in every detail the struggle “at the top” on the issue of university policy. The author does not limit himself to analyzing the development of the draft charter, but presents the complex and contradictory course of Alexander II, not only examines the charter and the main changes in university life after the reforms, but also examines the process of introducing new rules into life. The reform of 1863 was intended as an act of granting full university autonomy. However, as it turned out, the public expected much more from the reforms than the tsarist government intended to deliver. But it was too late to retreat - the university issue had already been discussed in the liberal press. Thus, “the university reform was wrested from the autocracy by the force of the democratic onslaught.” However, the most radical innovations were eliminated. Be that as it may, the new law on universities was a considerable concession, a concession from the authorities to the public. But the significance of the charter of 1863 cannot be underestimated. The bureaucratic guardianship over universities is significantly weakened. University autonomy, nullified by the charter of 1835, is gradually being restored.

Authors of the collection “Higher Education in Russia. Essay on history before 1917" also notes the incompleteness of the university reform. The school was held responsible for the "...destructive false teachings" spreading in society. The law was passed, but was repealed before it could produce results. The charter of 1863 failed to stem the tide of social movement, and the responsibility for this was assigned to the liberal university law. Accordingly, the charter of 1884 was adopted not with the aim of introducing something new into the life of universities, but with the aim of repealing the charter of 1863.

Zmeev V.A. notes that despite the almost complete abolition of university freedoms, the Charter of 1884. created the necessary prerequisites for the dynamic development of the entire university system. In the following decades, “... the state higher school developed in a balanced manner in the direction of improving the quality of training of specialists.”

In addition to studies that continue the tradition of considering the formation and development of the Russian university system in the 19th century, depending on the turns of government policy, in recent years a number of articles have appeared on the history of higher education, introducing a new concept of the “Russian model of education.” The team of authors contrasts the “Russian model of education” and the process of formation of the Western European university system, substantiates the special path of domestic universities, which lies in the exclusive role of the state in the creation and management of universities. “We are talking about the formation of a special, Russian type of university, let us emphasize, a state university, distinguished by a number of special features unknown to the West. Among them are the rich scientific richness of curricula and programs, high spirituality and citizenship, and finally, the ability to perform collective feats in extreme conditions, which has given rise to such unique features of the national higher school as inescapable internal energy and vitality.”

Changing the theoretical foundations of domestic historical science. In the mid-80s. Russian historical science has entered a very difficult period of development, characterized by the emergence of a contradictory situation. On the one hand, there was an unusually high public interest in history, on the other, there was a sharp drop in the prestige of historical historical works. Most historians associated the resolution of the contradiction with a creative reading of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. M.P. Kim, for example, stated: “Our trouble is that in the study of history and the development of historical science, we inconsistently used Lenin’s theoretical heritage” (“Round table”: historical science in the conditions of perestroika // Questions of History. 1988. No. 3. P. 8). Implementation of the idea of ​​creative reading of the works of K. Marx and V.I. Lenin was called upon to publish their previously little-known or prohibited works, in particular the work of K. Marx “Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century”. At the same time, it turned out that Marxism, when interpreting the history of Russia, along with correct provisions, included errors of a fundamental nature. For example, K. Marx ignored the role of internal factors in the history of the Old Russian state, putting forward a clearly erroneous position about the exclusively Varangian composition of the Rurikovich squads, etc. He gave a disparaging characterization to Ivan Kalita, whose policy he called “the Machiavellianism of a slave seeking to usurp power.” No less tendentious is the assessment of the activities of Ivan III, who “did not break the yoke, but got rid of it on the sly.” Muscovy, according to K. Marx, “strengthened only due to the fact that it became virtuoso in the art of slavery” (See: K. Marx. Revelations of the diplomatic history of the 18th century // Questions of History. 1989. No. 4. P. 4, 6, 7.11).

Turning to Marxist assessments of Russian history further aggravated the situation. The search for a way out of it led to the idea of ​​alternativeness in history, the choice of paths of social development, most fully expressed in the historical and methodological works of P.V. Volobueva. He wrote: "... the historical process in all three of its components and parameters (past, present, future) is not predetermined or programmed; it is probabilistic. Its probabilistic nature is also manifested in the multivariance of development. Otherwise, it cannot proceed as social patterns are realized by people in the course of their activities ambiguously, and in many different forms and types (“many stories”), depending on specific historical conditions, which are very diverse in each era in different countries and even in each individual country” (Volobuev P. V. The choice of paths of social development: theory, history, modernity. M., 1987. P. 32). At the same time, an attempt was made to consider alternatives using examples from Soviet history. They began to write about the turn of 1929 and the alternative to N.I. Bukharin, positions of L.D. Trotsky, etc. At the same time, the works of representatives of Lenin’s circle (L.D. Trotsky, N.I. Bukharin, etc.) with a very unique interpretation of Marxism were introduced into scientific circulation.

Significant changes in the understanding of Russian history began to occur in connection with the publication of the works of outstanding Russian philosophers and historians of the early 20th century, whose works allowed researchers to understand that the desire for the canonization of Marxism is its immanent pattern. Already S.N. Bulgakov showed that Marxism is “alien to all ethics,” since it substantiates its conclusions and forecasts based not on the requirements of the ethical ideal, but on reality itself. But he is also “through and through” ethical, since, rejecting all religion, he thereby rejects religious morality, in the place of which he has nothing to put except himself. Thus, the possibility of the most severe “stagnation” in the field of social sciences arises.

Publication of Russian thinkers of the early twentieth century. contributed to the formation of an understanding of the entire immoralism of the doctrine of class struggle as the engine of history. The idea of ​​K. Marx and V.I. Lenin on the necessary change of weapons of criticism with criticism of weapons began to be seen as a kind of justification for terror against dissent in all spheres of public life. The uniformity established as a result of this impoverished the study of historical reality, first of all excluding man from the process. S.N. Bulgakov wrote: “For Marx’s eyes, people form into sociological groups, and these groups decorously and naturally form regular geometric figures, as if apart from this measured movement of socialist elements nothing happens in history, and this is the abolition of the problem and concern for the individual, excessive abstractness is the main feature of Marxism, and it thus goes to the strong-willed mental makeup of the creator of this system" (Bulgakov S.N. Philosophy of Economics. M., 1990. P. 315). After the publication of the works of Russian thinkers of the early 20th century. Many religious and myth-creating aspects of Marxism, its multifaceted idealistic beginnings, were revealed to wide layers of historians. ON THE. Berdyaev, in particular, wrote: “Marx created a real myth about the proletariat. The mission of the proletariat is an object of faith. Marxism is not only science and politics, but there is also faith and religion” (Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. M. , 1990. P. 83).

At the same time, there was a “rehabilitation” of foreign non-Marxist philosophy of history and historical thought. The reading circle of Russian historians included books by F. Braudel, L. Febvre, M. Blok, K. Jaspers, A. J. Toynbee, E. Carr and others. At the same time, their works clearly showed a respectful and objective attitude to the history of Russia , which clearly contradicted the main thesis of Soviet historiography about foreign literature as a falsification of the historical process. In this regard, the statement of L. Febvre is indicative: “... Russia. I have not seen it with my own eyes, I have not specifically studied it, and yet I believe that Russia, vast Russia, landowner and peasant, feudal and Orthodox, traditional and revolutionary, - this is something huge and powerful" (Fevre L. Fights for History. M., 1991. P.65).

The described processes led to a rethinking of Marxism-Leninism as the theoretical basis of historical science. Historians have posed the question: to what extent does the Marxist theory of formations contribute to the deepening and progress of historical knowledge? During the discussions, many characterized the reduction of the entire diversity of the “world of people” to formational characteristics as “formational reductionism” (See: Formations or civilizations? (Round table materials) // Questions of Philosophy. 1989. No. 10. P. 34), leading to ignoring or underestimating the human principle, whatever it may be expressed in. Reflecting on this matter, A.Ya. Gurevich wrote: "... the world historical process can hardly be legitimately understood in the form of a linear ascent from one formation to another, as well as the placement of these formations according to chronological periods, because one way or another at any stage of history there is a synchronous coexistence and constant interaction of various social systems" (Gurevich A.Ya. Theory of formations and the reality of history // Questions of Philosophy. 1990. No. 11. P. 37). In addition, modern historical science has begun to study “small groups,” while the formational approach to history involves operating with generalized concepts that express a high degree of abstraction.

The development of historical science in Russia has confronted scientists with the task of developing theoretical and methodological tools that are flexible and adequate to the modern era. The above contradiction is only a manifestation of this tendency. Attempts to resolve it led to the expansion of the methodological base of domestic historical science and the beginning of the formation of trends and schools. Among them, allowing for a certain convention of classification, we can highlight:

1) the Marxist direction, represented by the bulk of historians of both the center and the provinces. For certain reasons, it does not cover vast layers of topical issues that have come to the forefront in humanities these days;

2) a school of structural-quantitative methods, focused largely on the achievements of Anglo-American historiography. Its supporters admit and demand:

a broad approach to the object of knowledge, its comprehensive consideration;

application of various methods of identifying, collecting, processing and analyzing specific historical data;

comprehensive interpretation and generalization of the results of a specific historical analysis.

At the same time, the main goal of using the mathematical apparatus in research is “as a result of mathematical processing and analysis of initial quantitative indicators, to obtain new information that is not directly expressed in the initial data. The historical and meaningful analysis of this information should provide new knowledge about the phenomena and processes being studied "(Quantitative methods in Soviet and American historiography. M., 1983. P. 13);

3) the school of “anthropologically oriented history”, whose representatives declared that “the most promising are modern schools of humanities that explore the sign systems inherent in a given civilization, the system of behavior of the people belonging to it, the structure of their mentalities, their conceptual apparatus, “psychological weapons "" (Odysseus. Man in history. Research in social history and cultural history: 1989. M., 1989. P.5). In their research, historians of this direction are guided by the achievements of the historical and psychological school of pre-revolutionary Russia (L.P. Karsavin, P.M. Bicilli), the French, and now international, school of the “Annals” (M. Blok, L. Fepp, F. Braudel, J. Duby) and the West German school of “everyday history”.

In addition, but in the second half of the 80s - early 90s. There has been a revival of regional historiography, associated with the collapse of the idea of ​​unifying historical science. Despite the presence of crisis phenomena in provincial historical thought, researchers started talking about the originality and specificity of local history (See: Balashov V.A., Yurchenkov V.A. Regional history: problems and new approaches // Vestn. Mordovian University. 1991. No. 4. P. 10 - 14).

The main problems of pre-revolutionary national history. Modern domestic historiography is characterized by a wide exchange of opinions on a number of key problems of the domestic feudal phase of historical development. One of the main topics is the genesis of feudalism in Ancient Rus'. Until recently, when considering them, the traditions of the school of B.D. dominated and developed. Grekov (works by B.A. Rybakov, M.B. Sverdlov, etc.), whose main idea was the idea of ​​​​the original feudalism of Ancient Rus'. Three main factors appear as evidence of the development of the feudal mode of production:

1) a system of state taxes and duties (hence, free smerds became feudal dependent);

2) the use of iron tools (this led to the emergence of economically independent small families and neighboring communities);

3) all types of violence perpetrated by the feudal boyars, with the help of which they gradually asserted their dominance, turning community members into slaves and purchasers (See: Goremykina V.I. On the genesis of feudalism in Ancient Rus' // Questions of history. 1987. No. 2. P.80). I.Ya. took a slightly different position. Froyanov, found with some reservations and peculiarities in Rus' in the 9th - 11th centuries. late-birth society. Finally, V.I. Goremykina tried to change the established point of view and stated: “It seems to us that the society of the Eastern Slavs from the 6th - 7th centuries had a slave-owning character, and then in Rus'. In the 12th century it turned into a feudal one” (Ibid. P. 100). A.P. took a more flexible position. Pyankov, who saw the presence of a layer of slaves in the cities of Rus' back in the 11th century. He traced Old Russian statehood to an earlier time than the 8th - 9th centuries.

Almost simultaneously, the question of the genesis of statehood in Rus' was raised. Academician B.A. Rybakov published a number of works in which he recognized the Kiev region as the basis of Ancient Rus', tracing its ancestry from the Polyansky principality. This point of view went back to the works of D.I. Ilovaisky and M.S. Grushevsky and was supported only by P. Tolochko. A.P. criticized it. Novoseltsev, who called for starting the history of Ancient Rus', as B.D. did. Grekov and other scientists from the unification of the north (Novgorod) and south (Kyiv).

It should be noted that in the conditions of the new historiographical situation it became possible to criticize hitherto indisputable authorities, in particular, the works of the same B.A. Rybakova. Among his errors and inaccuracies were attempts to ancientize the time of the formation of the Slavs to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, to deny the role of Novgorod in the formation of the Old Russian state, to date the beginning of chronicle writing in Kiev to the time of Askold and Dir, etc. According to A.P. Novoseltsev, “under the direct influence of Rybakov’s views, a number of authors of various qualifications began searching for Rus among clearly non-Slavic ethnic groups (Huns, etc.), and the most zealous are trying to link the Rus even with the Etruscans!” (“Round table”: historical science in the conditions of perestroika // Questions of history. 1988. No. 3. P. 29). The attitude of B.A. caused serious criticism. Rybakov to sources, in particular to ancient and Arabic ones. Moreover, criticism of his constructions in many cases was very impartial. The same A.P. Novoseltsev wrote: “His (B.A. Rybakov. - Author) imagination sometimes creates impressive (for non-specialists) pictures of the past, which, however, have nothing in common with what we know from surviving sources. Any science needs hypotheses, but what Rybakov is doing with the history of Rus' cannot be attributed to scientific hypotheses” (Novoseltsev A.P. “The World of History” or the Myth of History? // Questions of History. 1993. No. 1. P. 30).

In connection with the formation of the Old Russian state, the question of the role of the Normans in the genesis of statehood was again raised in domestic historiography. At the same time, three approaches to the news of the chronicle about the calling of the Varangians emerged. Some researchers (A.N. Kirpichnikov, I.V. Dubov, G.S. Lebedev) consider them to be fundamentally historically reliable. They proceed from the idea of ​​Ladoga as the “original capital of Upper Rus',” whose inhabitants took the initiative to call Rurik. In their opinion, this step was very far-sighted, as it made it possible to “regulate relations practically on the scale of the entire Baltic.” Others (B.A. Rybakov) completely deny the possibility of seeing real facts in these news. The chronicle story is interpreted as a legend that developed in the heat of ideological and political passions of the late 11th - early 12th centuries. Sources, according to, for example, B.A. Rybakov, “do not allow us to draw a conclusion about the organizing role of the Normans not only for the organized Kievan Rus, but even for that federation of northern tribes that experienced the brunt of the Varangian raids.” Still others (I.Ya. Froyanov) catch in the “legend about Rurik” echoes of actual incidents, but not at all those told by the chronicler (For more details, see: Froyanov I.Ya. Historical realities in the chronicle legend about the calling of the Varangians // Questions of History. 1991. No. 6. P.5 - b).

Along with Western factors of influence on the Old Russian state, in modern Russian historiography the problem of Eastern influence is quite acute, the formulation of which is associated with the research of G.A. Fedorov-Davydov and L.N. Gumilyov. It is especially worth mentioning the latter in view of the widespread popularization of his views. L.N. Gumilev makes a number of conjectural statements: about the unique nature of the Mongolian religion, which brings it closer to monotheism or Mithraic dualism, about the deliberate invention of the “legend of Prester John” by the Jerusalem feudal lords, about Batu’s campaigns of 1237 - 1240. as about two “campaigns” that only slightly reduced the “Russian military potential”, about the “first liberation of Rus' from the Mongols” in the 60s. XIII century etc. [See: Lurie Ya. S: On the history of one discussion // History of the USSR. 1990. No. 4. P. 129). There are direct contradictions between them and the testimony of sources, as B.A. pointed out at the time. Rybakov (See: Rybakov B.A. On overcoming self-deception // Questions of history. 1971. No. 3. P. 156 - 158).

The change in the historiographical situation led to the publication of books on the history of feudalism, the concept of which differs from the traditional one. An example is the monographic research of A.A. Zimin about the formation of the boyar aristocracy in Russia in the 15th - early 16th centuries, about the prerequisites for the first peasant war, etc. In them, the scientist proceeds from the idea that the destinies of society and the individual are inevitably and always interconnected. In addition, his idea about noticeable traces, remnants of specific decentralization in Russia at the end of the 15th - 16th centuries seems interesting.

In the second half of the 80s. The role of the church in the history of Russia began to be assessed in a new way. A number of works have been published on its relationship with the authorities: A. Kuzmin - on the Christianization of Rus' (1988), Ya.N. Shchapov - about the relationship between the state and the church in the X - XIII centuries. (1989), R.G. Skrynnikov - about the connection between Soviet and spiritual power in the XIV - XVII centuries. (1990), V.I. Buganov and A.P. Bogdanov - about rebels in the Russian Orthodox Church (1991). A.P. Bogdanov, in his book “The Pen and the Cross. Russian Writers Under Church Trial” (1990), managed to show the involvement of the church in the state security system from the 16th to the beginning of the 20th centuries. - the process is equally dramatic for the Russian church and Russian society.

In modern conditions, it has become possible to move away from ideologically based assessments of peasant wars, which were traditionally called anti-feudal. However, only bourgeois revolutions could be such. N.I. Pavlenko wrote about this: “The peasants, as is known, due to many reasons for their existence, could not “invent” new socio-economic relations and political systems. During the uprisings, the peasants fought not against the system, but for its improved version...” (Pavlenko P.I. Historical science in the past and present // History of the USSR. 1991. No. 4. P.91). Some authors began to abandon the idealization of peasant wars, write about their predatory nature, the destruction of material and spiritual culture, morality, the looting of landowners' estates, the burning of cities, etc. There has been a departure from the thesis about the weakening of the feudal-serf system as the main result of peasant wars. The realization came that after the suppression of the uprisings, the nobility not only restored the old order, but also strengthened it by improving the administrative system and increasing duties in favor of the feudal lord.

Of undoubted interest are attempts in modern conditions to study the formation of a service bureaucracy and its role in the development of an estate-representative monarchy into an absolute one. When assessing these processes, N.F. Demidova attributed their beginning to the 17th century, characterizing the order system as a manifestation of bureaucracy. I.I. spoke from a different position. Pavlenko, who connected the emergence of bureaucracy in Russia with the unification of public administration in the time of Peter the Great. A similar point of view was expressed by E.V. Anisimov, who studied the history of the 18th century.

The development of problems of Russian absolutism led historians to the concept of the “Petrine period” of history. It was most clearly defined by P.Ya. Eidelman: “Peter’s revolution determined Russian history for about a century and a half...” (Eidelman P.Ya. “Revolution from Above” in Russia. M., 1989. P.67). Certain clarifications to this formula were made by E.V. Anisimov, who expressed a paradoxical, at first glance, idea about the distinct conservative nature of Peter the Great’s revolutionary spirit. The researcher wrote: “Modernization of institutions and power structures for the sake of preserving the fundamental principles of the traditional regime - this is what turned out to be the ultimate goal. We are talking about the establishment of an autocratic form of government, which survived without significant changes until the 20th century, about the formation of a system of disenfranchised classes, which became a serious brake on the development process an essentially medieval society, and finally, about serfdom, which was strengthened during Peter’s reforms” (Anisimov E.V. The Time of Peter’s Reforms. L., 1989. P. 13 - 14).

Publication or reprint reproduction of numerous “novels of the Empress”, “Catherine’s lovers”, “women of Peter the Great”, etc. in addition to the negative impact on the formation of mass historical thinking, they also had a positive impact in the form of restoring the interest of professional historians in the role of the individual in history. There will be a departure from the one-dimensional characterization of kings and pre-revolutionary political figures. N.I. Pavlenko writes about this: “It is clear that long reigns left their mark on the internal life of the state and its foreign policy. The Tsar, in accordance with the extent of his enlightenment and understanding of the tasks facing the country, formed a “team”, so to speak, a brain a center that generated ideas and, with the permission of the monarch, implemented them" (Pavlenko N.I. Decree. Op. P.92). Biographies of famous political and military figures and diplomats of the 18th century appeared. A.V. Gavryushkin published a book about Count N.I. Panin (1989), V.S. Lopatin - about the relationship between G.A. Potemkin and A.V. Suvorov (1992), P.V. Perminov - about the Russian envoy in Constantinople A.M. Obreskov (1992). Finally, it was written back in the 20s and 30s. monograph by A.I. Zaozersky about Field Marshal B.P. Sheremetev (1989). A.S. Mylnikov assessed the activities of Peter III differently.

Study of the essence of state power in the 18th - early 20th centuries. led to the formulation of the problem of the relationship between reforms and counter-reforms in the history of Russia. The appeal to the political history of “revolutions from above” occurred for the first time in recent decades of the development of historical science in our country and was, to a large extent, an indicator of the changes taking place in it.

Reforms of the early 19th century. were analyzed quite seriously by M.M. Safonov and S.V. Mironenko. Through the prism of the personality of Count M.M. Speransky tried to introduce them to V.A. Tomsinov. The researchers came to the conclusion that a consciousness of the need and inevitability of fundamental transformations is emerging in Russian society. Under these conditions, the government embarked on the path of reform, and society initially turned to putting pressure on the government, supporting, pushing its reform aspirations, and then to revolutionary struggle. The latter caused a reaction and a desire to strengthen the foundation of the existing system. From this position they began to consider the Decembrist uprising, which was reflected in the monographs of V.A. Fedorov “We ​​are proud of our destiny...” (1988) and Y.A. Gordin "Revolt of the Reformers: December 14, 1825" (1989).

When analyzing the situation in the mid-19th century. There has been a shift in the chronological framework of reforms. According to a number of researchers, the thaw began in the mid-50s. XIX century, the reforms themselves were a typical “revolution from above.” Let us note that new approaches to the analysis of reforms have emerged in the works of economists, not historians. G.X. Popov examined the economic, social, ideological and political roots of the reforms, the immediate reasons that made them necessary and forced the tsar to take the initiative and carry it out from above. He cited material about attempts at reform, in particular, he assessed the experiments conducted with state and appanage peasants. G.X. Popov showed that in the struggle between ardent opponents, liberal-minded and ardent supporters of reform, each of whom defended his own reform program, not a “Prussian”, not an “American” was born, but a special - “Russian” way of overcoming feudal relations, which prepared the development of capitalism . He wrote: “The reform of 1861 was an outstanding maneuver of the most powerful and most experienced absolutism in the world. It was ahead of the internal ripening of the crisis. Skillfully maneuvering, in essence, always remaining in the minority, making concessions to the serf owners, absolutism developed and implemented the version of transformations that to the greatest extent met the interests of the autocracy and its apparatus" (Popov G. X. Abolition of serfdom in Russia // Origins. Questions of the history of the national economy and economic thought. M., 1990. Issue 2. P. 69).

The problem of the relationship between reforms and revolution in the analysis of the post-reform development of national history became central in the studies of this period. This topic was addressed by A.A. Iskanderov, B.G. Litvak, R.Sh. Ganelin and others. Its consideration is taking into account the alternative nature of development. In this regard, the statement of A.A. is quite indicative. Iskanderova: “Russia of the 20th century actually faced not one, but two possible paths of development: the path of the revolutionary overthrow of the existing system and the path of peaceful transformation of society and the state” (Iskanderov A.L. Russian monarchy, reforms and revolution // Questions of History. 1993 No. 7. P. 126). The relationship between reforms and revolution in Russian history at the beginning of the 20th century. discussed quite fully in the monograph by R.Sh. Ganelina (1991). He was able to show that the reform activities of tsarism were not limited to the events of December 1904, February and October 1905. In his opinion, the government’s attempts to organize reforms did not stop; various commissions and subcommittees, permanent and one-time meetings, and other government structures were working at the same time, embodying the monarchy will.

The question of Stolypin's reforms especially arose. According to academician I.D. Kovalchenko, the interpretation of the “Stolypin path” has become widespread almost as a model of agrarian development, which supposedly should be taken into account and even reproduced in the modern restructuring of agrarian relations in the Soviet countryside. Not only is there a disregard for the historical approach and reliable facts, but and opportunistic falsification of an important historical event" (Kovalchenko I.D. Stolypin agrarian reform (Myths and reality) // History of the USSR. 1991. No. 2. P. 53). I.D. Kovalchenko, denying the developments of recent years, stated that “Stolypin’s agrarian reform, in fact, failed even before the First World War,” and “the socialist revolution in Russia was inevitable, due to the peculiarities of its historically, primarily agrarian, development” (There same. P.69, 70). Many researchers supported the position of I.D. Kovalchenko. At the same time, developments related to the political aspects of Stolypin’s reforms cannot be ignored. In particular, the opinion of a kind of alliance against P.A. Stolypin of completely opposite political forces. N. Y. Eidelman wrote about this: “On the one hand, the new prime minister and his policies were subjected to various revolutionary blows. The Bolsheviks viewed the fight against Stolypin as a class problem, while the Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists to a large extent fought against the personality of Stolypin himself, and waged terror against members of his family... The right-wing nobility and Nicholas II, who listened to him very much, saw in Stolypin a “violator of age-old foundations,” transferring the original noble power to the bourgeoisie" (Eidelman N.Ya. Revolution from above" in Russia. M., 1989. P. 163 - 164).

Political history of the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. is the focus of modern Russian historiography, it has relegated previously widely studied socio-economic processes to the background. Among the published works, special mention should be made of the monograph by S.V. Tyutyukin about the July political crisis of 1906 (1991), book by G.A. Gerasimenko about zemstvo self-government before 1917 (1990), the latest works of J. Avrekh about the political situation on the eve of the revolution of 1917. Quite interesting studies have come out on the history of tactical parties: G.D. Alekseeva - populist parties (1990), N.G. Dumova - cadets in the First World War and the February Revolution (1988), etc. V.M. Zhukhrai published the book “Secrets of the Tsarist Secret Service: Adventurers and Provocateurs” (1991), which shows the behind-the-scenes history of the ruling circles of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. He writes about the highest ranks of the Russian police and agents embedded in the revolutionary movement.

At the intersection of political and socio-economic history, works on the classes and estates of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century were published. The monograph written in line with this topic by A.N. is very interesting. Bokhanov "The big bourgeoisie of Russia. The end of the 19th century - 1914." (1992), in which for the first time in historiography the number and composition of the upper stratum of entrepreneurs is examined, the sources of its replenishment are clarified, and the relationship between class and estate characteristics is analyzed.

New approaches to the study of the February Revolution have emerged. They started with the monographs published in 1987 by L.M. Spirin "Russia, 1917: From the history of the struggle of political parties" and G.3. Joffe "Great October and the epilogue of tsarism." They combined approaches traditional to Soviet historiography with new trends. Continuing to develop this trend, G.3. Ioffe in 1989 published a book about General L. Kornilov and the beginning of the formation of the “white cause”.

The Soviet period in the works of modern researchers. Rethinking the history of the Fatherland during the Soviet period began in the second half of the 80s. in journalism, the leader of which was, without a doubt, Yu.N. Afanasiev. Y. Karyakin, N. Shmelev, G. Popov and others actively spoke, proposing a new conceptual understanding of individual stages of history and developing the “concept” of “blank spots”. Assessing the situation of those years, G.A. Bordyugov and V.A. Kozlov wrote: “...“Professorial” journalism gave a broad panorama, historians worked on details. But since there were immeasurably more “details” and “blank spots” than historians capable of dealing with them, professional historical journalism was drowning in a wide sea of ​​popular unprofessional articles..." (Bordyugov G.A., Kozlov V.A. History and conjuncture. M., 1992. P. 8). They proposed a unique periodization of the development of historical journalism:

1988 - "Bukharin boom"

1988 - 1989 - "Staliniad"

1989 - 1990 - "Lenin's trial"

1990 - “the return of Trotsky.”

One can argue about its details, but the essence of the processes was, in principle, correctly noted.

Historical journalism played its role - it managed to identify and pose the most poorly developed problems, pressing questions of historical development, and outline new conceptual approaches. However, it did not rise to the level of truly new historiography, as the American researcher M. von Hagen noted. Historians did not write anything during this time that was not known to world historical thought. At the same time, journalism created the ground for a new historical conjuncture. G.A. Bordyugov and V.A. Kozlov note: “... Soviet historiography with all the cognitive structures, psychology of personnel, ideas and guidelines, objectively speaking, was only ready to remove the worked out block of concepts drawn from the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” and replace him to others..." (Ibid. P.31).

Despite the widespread interest in history in the mid-80s, historical science was reorganized rather slowly (See: R.W. Davis. Soviet historical science in the initial period of perestroika // Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences. 1990. No. 10). And yet, in the end, she “became behind” politics and its service.

In the late 80s - early 90s. Oktyabrskaya researchers; revolutions freed themselves from ideological dictates, the source base expanded, and the opportunity arose to use the scientific potential of non-Bolshevik historiography, which opened up qualitatively new opportunities for rethinking traditional subjects. The barrier that arose as a result of the vulgarized formational approach is being eroded, which makes it possible to fit the events of 1917 into the context of Russian and world history of the 20th century. This concerns, first of all, the complex of contradictions that determined the content and meaning of the revolution. Some researchers (V.P. Dmitrenko and others) argue that in 1917 phenomena took place that did not always fit into the framework of “socialist construction.” In their opinion, it is appropriate to talk about the existence of parallel (“small”) revolutions, such as national liberation, poor-proletarian, agrarian-peasant. It must be taken into account that these revolutions were given a special color by the conditions of the Russian industrial surge and the participation of the empire in the First World War. The complex of various conflicts expanded the substantive framework of the revolution and made the composition of its participants, programs and goals extremely varied. This weakened the vanguard of the revolutionary forces represented by the parties and at the same time ensured the unity of the impatient, quickly radicalized lower ranks.

Researchers propose to consider the events of 1917 as a single revolutionary cycle, exceptionally complex in its components, dynamics, and self-realization, like the Great Russian Revolution. In the course of it, a factor arose that had a decisive impact on the processes taking place - the total collapse of the institutions of power. V.P. Dmitrenko states: “The most tragic milestone on this path was the liquidation of the monarchy. The bond of statehood was torn from society, then the social and managerial ties that had developed over centuries began to break and the usual foundations of the people’s self-awareness were shaken. The absence of an alternative management system gave rise to growing chaos in all spheres of society. ..” (October Revolution: expectations and results // Domestic History. 1993. No. 4. P. 213).

The opportunity has arisen for a more in-depth analysis of the social forces that participated in the revolution of 1917. In developing this direction, priority attention is paid to the peasantry. Among the numerous works on this topic, the studies of V.V. stand out noticeably. Kabanov, who sufficiently substantiated the thesis about the significant losses of the peasantry as a result of the revolution. He believes that the Decree on Land (1917) caused a lot of hopes and then disappointments. There was not enough land for the landowners, because the peasant land shortage was due not only and not so much to feudal remnants as to agrarian overpopulation.

The agrarian question in the revolution and civil war is one of the most confusing in Russian history. Research in recent years has shown that on the eve of 1917, the Russian peasant suffered not so much from a lack of land, having an average of 5 - 7 acres of arable land per capita, but from a low level of farming. Analysis of statistics carried out by V.P. Buttom, showed that the “black redistribution” of 1917 - 1918. increased peasant plots by only 5-10% due to the actual destruction of 20 thousand landowner farms, which supplied about half of the marketable grain to the market. These processes to a large extent contributed to the spontaneous collapse of the army, the split of society, the disorganization of the economy and the deterioration of food supplies, etc.

New approaches to the study of the civil war have again raised questions that were not resolved during the previous development of historical science in the country. Among them is the problem of the beginning of the civil war, which is interpreted ambiguously. IN AND. Petrov expressed a conceptual point about the lack of connection between the revolution and the civil war. In his opinion, the revolution acts only as a prerequisite for civil war, but armed violence during the overthrow of the regime cannot be equated with the beginning of a civil war. The events from October 1917 to February 1918 serve in his interpretation as a prologue to the civil war. A different position was taken by E.G. Gimpelson, who stated that it was the October Revolution that served as the beginning of the civil war. He believes that the civil war was inevitable because the Bolshevik Party decided to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and, with its help, lead the country along the path of socialism. In his opinion, this was the main reason for the civil war, since the implementation of the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism in a peasant country inevitably caused a negative response not only from the overthrown ruling classes, but also from a significant part of the peasantry. L.M. offered his interpretation of events. Spirin, who identified not one, but several civil wars in Russia. The first of them, unleashed by the Bolsheviks, began in the summer of 1917 and ended with October, the Second Civil War began in October 1917, went through three stages and ended in 1922. The first stage - from October 1917 to the summer of 1918, when cardinal transformations (redistribution of property and strengthening of power) were solved mainly by unarmed means. The second stage - from the summer of 1918 to the end of 1920 - is the main period, the civil war itself. In 1921, the third stage began - a real civil war, a people's war (a series of uprisings in Kronstadt, in the Tambov province, in Siberia, Ukraine, the North Caucasus, etc.).

A rather difficult problem is resolving the issue of the guilt of certain forces in starting a civil war. Yu.P. Sharapov stated that such a formulation of the question was incorrect, because it is known that both sides are to blame. He was supported by V.I. Petrov, according to whom history, a confluence of objective tragic circumstances, is “to blame.” D.3. Joffe took a different position. In his interpretation, the civil war was the result of a struggle for power unleashed by political structures. E.G. spoke more definitely. Gimpelson, who laid the blame for the outbreak of the civil war on the Bolsheviks, in whose ideas and practice the war was contained, is already in potency. For example, the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat was based on the split of society along socio-ideological principles, dividing it into “pure” and “impure”, against whom any form of violence, including mass terror, can be used.

A serious scientific study of the problem of the consequences of the civil war began. Almost all researchers indicate that these events entailed:

a huge social shake-up and demographic deformation;

severance of economic ties and colossal economic devastation;

changes in psychology and mentality of broad sections of the population.

Many scientists believe that it was the civil war that had a significant impact on the political culture of Bolshevism, which was characterized by the following features: the curtailment of intra-party democracy; the perception not only by the top of the party, but also by the broad mass of the party, of an attitude towards methods of coercion and violence in achieving political goals; the party's reliance on the lumpen sections of the population.

Since the mid-80s. The NEP became the center of attention of historians, economists, and social scientists. Studies have appeared on the possibilities of the NEP, its crises and prospects (V.P. Danilov, V.P. Dmitrenko, V.S. Lelchuk, Yu.A. Polyakov, N.S. Simonov). A comparison of different points of view made it possible to create a basis for further analysis, which determined new concrete historical research. Historians have noted that even under the conditions of the NEP, political interests prevailed over economic expediency, which was an immanent feature of Bolshevism: I.V. Bystrova writes: “On the one hand, the economic activities of the ruling apparatus were dictated by political interests. On the other hand, the solution to economic problems, the fate of the NEP again rested on a political problem - the question of power” (Bystrova I.V. State and Economy in 1920- e years: the struggle of ideas and reality // Domestic History. 1993. No. 3. P. 33). This can be seen quite clearly in the analysis of the “Antonovschina,” which modern authors (S.A. Yesikov, V.V. Kanishchev, L.G. Protasov) propose to consider as a peasant uprising, a form of popular resistance to the military-communist dictatorship. Moreover, the “Union of the Working Peasantry,” interpreted as an element of organization and awareness in the movement, in their opinion, reflects the search for a peasant alternative to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” at the time of its crisis.

The study of the NEP gave rise to a number of problems. In particular, in the second half of the 80s. in the domestic socio-political, historical and economic literature, questions were openly raised about alternative paths of Soviet society, about the essence of power that had dominated the country for many decades (G. Popov, O. Latsis, Y. Goland, L. Piyasheva). The problem of the formation of the so-called “command-administrative system”, “state socialism”, “totalitarianism” was posed in a general, evaluative way. Almost immediately, objections were raised to the concept of totalitarianism as a key concept in the study of the USSR. Yu.I. Igritsky writes: “Their essence boiled down to the following:

1) the totalitarian model is static, with its help it is difficult to explain all the natural changes that occurred in communist countries and in the communist movement after the death of Stalin;

2) history has not known and does not know a situation where a dictator, a party, one or another elite group would completely and completely control the development of society and all its cells; the degree of approximation to totality cannot be calculated either with the help of quantification methods, or, moreover, without them" (Igritsky Yu.I. Again about totalitarianism // Domestic History. 1993. No. 1. P. 8). Accusations were also made of an ideological nature The statement of A.K. Sokolov can be considered quite typical in this regard: “It is no secret that this concept was taken from Western historiography. It denies the class and formational approach to the analysis of the historical process. At one pole is a “totalitarian society”, at the other is a “free society”, personified by the so-called “Western democracies”. Every researcher who takes into account the provisions of this theory must be aware that this entails a reassessment of all the events of our Soviet history, an actual rejection of the Marxist interpretation of the development of society" (Current problems of Soviet source studies // History of the USSR. 1989. No. 6. P.59).

Despite criticism, the point of view about the dominance of the totalitarian system in the USSR has become established in historiography. Yu.S. Borisov showed how by the end of the 30s. The creation of two protective regimes was completed - administrative-punitive and propaganda-ideological. What happened in a broader political sense, according to L.A. Gordon and E.V. Klopov, the transformation of democratic centralism into non-democratic, then into an authoritarian-administrative system and, finally, into an authoritarian-despotic system. K.S. Simonov drew a conclusion about the essence of the regime of this government. He wrote: “It is possible that such a regime of power was finally the found form for the implementation of Marx’s idea of ​​the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in one single country” (Simonov N.S. Thermidor, Brumaire or Fructidor? The evolution of the Stalinist regime of power: forecasts and reality // Domestic history. 1993. No. 4. P. 17).

The concept of the formation of a totalitarian system in the USSR influenced the development of traditional themes for Russian historiography: industrialization and collectivization of agriculture.

In 1988 - 1989 articles by O. Latsis, L. Gordon, E. Klopov, V. Popov, N. Shmelev, G. Khanin appeared in print,

3. Selyunin and others, who raised the problem of the content and scale of industrialization. They noted that during the era of industrialization, inflationary trends arose and enormous shifts in prices occurred. Therefore, comparisons based on generalized cost indicators and characteristic of Soviet historiography turned out to be unreliable. Researchers overestimated growth rates, especially during periods of significant product innovation. This point of view was to some extent contrary to the official opinion that had developed at earlier stages of the development of historical science. Polemicizing with her, S.S. Khromov stated that industrialization provided “the opportunity to overcome the contradiction between the most advanced political power established after the October Revolution and the inherited technical and economic backwardness” (Current problems in the history of industrialization and industrial development of the USSR // History of the USSR. 1989. No. 3.P. 200 ). Rejecting the idea that the industry needs a slower pace, he referred to V.I. Lenin, who demanded high rates of development of the productive forces. V.S., who spoke on this matter. Lelchuk took a compromise position. He repeated the traditional thesis about the industrial transformation of the country as the main result of the industrialization policy. However, at the same time he challenged the well-known conclusion about the transformation of the USSR into an industrial power during the pre-war five-year plans.

Serious debates flared up around the problems of the history of collectivization, which were raised with sufficient urgency in journalism (V.A. Tikhonov, Yu.D. Chernichenko, G.N. Shmelev, etc.). At the same time, the difficulties and turmoil of collectivization explained the deplorable state of modern agriculture. V.A. Tikhonov called the period of collectivization “the period of Stalin’s civil war with the peasantry” (Collectivization: origins, essence, consequences // History of the USSR 1989. No. 3. P. 31). Yu.D. Chernichenko introduced the term "agrogulag". G.N. Shmelev is less emotional in his assessments; they occupy a transitional position from articles by publicists to the works of historical researchers. Assessing collectivization as a whole, he writes: “The adoption of a course towards complete collectivization and dispossession, towards replacing the alliance of the working class with the peasantry based on commodity exchange and contractual relations with relations of dictatorship and violence meant not only a change in the course of agrarian policy, but also the creation of a different political situation in country" (Shmelev G.N. Collectivization: at a sharp turning point in history // Origins. Questions of the history of the national economy and economic thought. M., 1990. Issue 2. P. 109).

Professional historians initially took a rather conservative position. Many of them (V.P. Danilov, I.E. Zelenin, N.A. Ivnitsky and others) began to write about the difficulties and shortcomings of agriculture that resulted from collectivization and aggravated by the administrative-command system. A discussion was launched on the topic “The Great Turning Point of 1929 and the alternative to N.I. Bukharin,” and several points of view were expressed on this issue:

1) there was undoubtedly an alternative, which can be confirmed by the materials of the XV Party Congress and the 1st Five-Year Plan;

2) there was an alternative in a figurative sense, since N.I. Bukharin defended Lenin's cooperative plan against Stalin's perversions;

3) there was no alternative, since N.I. Bukharin and his group in the late 20s. recognized the need for accelerated industrialization and complete collectivization.

At the same time, controversy flared up around the thesis of collectivization as a revolution carried out from above on the initiative of state power, with support from below by the peasant masses. The question was raised about the social appearance of the kulaks, the role of collectivization in strengthening the totalitarian system of society. Collections of documents prepared under the leadership of V.P. played a significant role in rethinking these problems. Danilova: “Documents testify. From the history of the village on the eve and during collectivization. 1927 - 1932.” (1989) and "Cooperative-collective farm construction in the USSR. 1923 - 1927." (1991).

During the discussions, new approaches to the problems of collectivization emerged, and the emphasis in assessments of events shifted. For the first time in historiography, the processes associated with the famine of 1932 - 1933 began to be analyzed. (V.V. Kondrashin), deportation of peasants during the years of collectivization (N.A. Ivnitsky and others). At the same time, the traditional approach continues to exist, exemplified by the works of N.L. Rogalina (See: Ryansky L.M. Rec.: N.L. Rogalina. Collectivization: lessons from the path traveled. Moscow University Publishing House, 1989.224 p. // Questions of History. 1991. No. 12. P.224 ). In the old way, she interprets the issues of the food dictatorship and the activities of the poor committees in 1918. She is confident in the need to destroy small commodity production, since it serves as the base of the kulaks. During the NEP, the permission for labor lease of land and auxiliary hiring and rental of labor and means of production meant “a certain growth of capitalism.” N.L. Rogalina passes off the progressive process of development of peasant farming as “cultivation”. Moreover, she overly trusts official data on the number and share of the kulaks in 1926 - 1927, obtained on the basis of tax records. The researcher repeats the hackneyed thesis that for the rational use of technology, an enlarged area is needed, and not “individual pieces of land.”

A fundamentally new approach has emerged to some problems in the history of the Great Patriotic War. In particular, questions related to the start of the war were raised. The focus was on previously unknown documents that shed light on the relationship between the USSR and Nazi Germany. The most revealing books in this regard are the books by Yu. Dyakov and T. Bushueva, “The Fascist Sword was Forged in the USSR” and “The Hidden Truth of the War. 1941.” They present documents showing how the pre-war USSR helped restore Germany's military power on its territory. The authors convincingly showed that Soviet Russia, finding itself in international isolation after the civil war and the unsuccessful “Polish campaign”, which revealed the insufficient preparedness of the Red Army, was looking for a way out of this situation in an alliance with Germany. The prospect was bright for both sides: the USSR, receiving German capital and technical assistance, could increase its combat power, Germany could have top secret bases on Russian territory for the illegal production and testing of weapons prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. The USSR also trained cadres of German officers (H. Guderian, V. Keitel, E. Manstein, V. Model, V. Brauchitsch, etc.).

Serious controversy was caused by the publication of V. Suvorov's book "Icebreaker", which showed the role of Stalin's leadership in starting the war. The author argued that the USSR was preparing for war and was taking real steps to force it.

In recent years, the question of a radical change in the course of the Great Patriotic War has been raised. In historical science, the dominant point of view to this day is that the events of November 1942 - November 1943 were the year of a radical change. It was expressed by I.V. Stalin and repeated in the theses of the CPSU Central Committee for the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. On its basis, the events of the war were assessed in the history of the Second World War, the history of the CPSU, textbooks and encyclopedias. In 1987, A.M. criticized the established assessments. Samsonov and O.A. Rzheshevsky, who proposed to consider the battle of Moscow as the beginning of a radical change. They stated that the concept of a “radical change” does not imply an invariably upward process and that temporary recessions are possible in it. They were supported by D.M. Projector, opposed by A.A. Sidorenko, L.V. Strakh. An attempt to reconcile these points of view was made by A.V. Basov, who announced a radical change in the balance of forces of the parties during the battles of December 1941 - July 1943.

In modern historiography, a fairly serious attempt has been made to analyze the post-Stalin era. In 1991, scientists from the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the CPSU Central Committee published a collective monograph, “The 20th Congress of the CPSU and Its Historical Realities,” which examined in detail the problems of economic and social policy, issues of ideology and culture, etc. For the first time, the events of October 1964 were analyzed and their objective basis was discussed. In recent years, researchers have turned to a number of specific problems. For the first time in historiography, the themes of the famine of 1946 - 1947 began to be developed. (V.F. Zima), deportation of the population (N.F. Bugai, G.G. Wormsbecher, Kh.M. Ibragimbeyli, etc.), etc.

A serious analysis of the development of Soviet society in the second half of the 60s - the first half of the 80s. was started in the early 90s. In 1990, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU published a collective monograph “On the threshold of crisis: increasing stagnation in the party and society.” The book shows various aspects of the state and evolution of society during the period of stagnation; significant space was devoted to the analysis of negative factors in the economy, social sphere, etc. A year later, the Progress publishing house published a collection of articles, “Diving into the Mire: (Anatomy of Stagnation),” containing more harsh assessments of the period of the late 60s - the first half of the 80s. The authors (V. Tikhonov, V. Popov, N. Shmelev, A. Gurov, G. Pomerants, etc.) assess the era of “stagnation” as a natural legacy of mass violence against the people, unsuccessful attempts to reform society, and the exhaustion of its moral resources.

The development of Russian history during the perestroika era has not been analyzed from a scientific perspective in modern historiography. Available assessments are, as a rule, politicized in nature and are journalistic. Modern domestic historiography is developing in rather difficult conditions. However, a very positive trend has emerged in this development - a rejection of ideological conjuncture, a revival of the atmosphere of discussion. Conceptually alternative points of view on Russian history are taking shape, and historical schools are being formed.