Historiography (from History and...graphy)
1) the history of historical science as a whole, as well as a set of studies devoted to a specific topic or historical era (for example, I. Great October socialist revolution), or a body of historical works that have internal unity in social-class or nationally(for example, Marxist I., French I.). 2) A scientific discipline that studies the history of historical science. I. as the history of historical science. I. until the mid-19th century. (before the emergence of Marxist I.). In ancient times, even before the advent of writing, historical ideas and some elements historical knowledge existed among all peoples in orally transmitted tales and traditions, in the genealogies of their ancestors. The emergence of classes and the state expanded the need for historical knowledge, and the emergence of writing made it possible to begin accumulating it. In early class societies, some conditions were prepared for the development of historical knowledge (for example, various chronology systems were developed), and the first records arose historical content: historical inscriptions (kings, pharaohs), weather records of events, etc. Religion had a huge influence on the description and interpretation of historical events. All historical events were explained by the “will of the gods.” Such historical ideas were consolidated in “ holy books"(for example, in the Bible (See Bible)). An important stage in the progressive development of historical knowledge was ancient history. It found its highest manifestation in the writings of the ancient Greek historians Herodotus (nicknamed the “father of history”) and especially Thucydides; the latter is characterized by a refusal to explain history through intervention divine powers and the desire to penetrate into the internal cause-and-effect relationship of events, elements of historical criticism - an attempt to separate reliable facts from fiction. The works of these historians are no longer fragmentary, but a coherent, entertaining narrative, devoted primarily to political history (the history of the Greco-Persian Wars, the Peloponnesian War). In the writings of Polybius, the concept of world history first emerged. The works of Titus Livy, Tacitus, Plutarch (a master of the biographical genre), Appian, and others were also of significant importance in ancient history. Ancient historical thought, for all its achievements, was alien to the idea of historical progress: history was depicted either as a regressive process or as a cyclical one. a cycle that repeats the same stages. (For more information about ancient history, see the articles Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, section Culture.) The Chinese historian Sima Qian (2nd-1st centuries BC) created the first general history of China, moving away from the purely chronological principle of historical narration and trying to illuminate not only political, but also other aspects of life in Ancient China. History of the era of feudalism, when the nature of historical thinking was determined primarily by feudal-church ideology, was characterized by a providentialist view of history, in which historical events were viewed as the result of the intervention of the divine will, as the implementation of the “divine plan” (see Providentialism). This idea also permeated the feudal-Christian periodization of world history according to the “four monarchies” (Assyro-Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Macedonian, Roman - the last “earthly” state) - their successive changes were considered as the result of divine providence. Western European feudal-Christian history, along with the Bible, was greatly influenced by the philosophical and historical concepts of the Christian theologian Augustine the Blessed, and Muslim history was greatly influenced by the Koran. (about the Muslim Arab medieval. And see in the article Arab culture, section Historical science.) The most common forms of historical writings, along with hagiographic (hagiography) literature (see Lives of the saints) were annals, “world histories” (for example, Western European chronicler Otto of Freisingen, Arab historian at-Tabari) - reviews of world history from the “creation of the world.” Medieval authors, as a rule, saw only the external connection of phenomena in the form of their chronological sequence, hence the characteristic form of historical works with weather records of events - annals, Russian Chronicles (the most famous of the early Russian chronicle collections is “The Tale of Bygone Years”). The historical narrative gradually became more complex. Primitive annals are replaced by more complex Chronicles, and as cities develop, city chronicles appear; in the process of state centralization arise chronicle vaults(for example, Great French Chronicles of the 13th-15th centuries, Moscow chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries, etc.). One of the earliest attempts in medieval history to move from purely narrative history to the presentation of historical events in their causation(on a secular basis) was undertaken in the 14th century. Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who rejected the explanation of history from the standpoint of religious ideology and viewed history as a constant change in the life and morals of people, as a continuous process of the rise and fall of states. The first stage in the formation of bourgeois historical thought was the Western European humanistic history of the Renaissance (See Renaissance) (15th-16th centuries). Its most prominent representatives saw the driving force of the historical process in the political struggle of parties and social groups replacing each other in power (Italian humanists N. Machiavelli, F. Guicciardini) and tried to reveal the laws historical development and connect them with more general laws, developing questions of the influence of the geographical environment on history (French thinker J. Bodin). This secular approach to history meant a break with its feudal-theological interpretation and was a huge progressive step in the development of history. Of exceptional importance for history was the invention (mid-15th century) and the spread of printing. Humanist historians, relying on the successes of philology, laid the foundation for systematic criticism of historical sources (Italian humanists Flavio Biondo, Lorenzo Valla, etc.), which became a powerful tool for overcoming the ideas developed by feudal history. They laid the foundations (Italian humanist L. Bruni) of a new periodization of history (dividing it into ancient, middle, modern). Humanistic history undermined the monopoly of feudal history in Western Europe. Representatives of feudal-absolutist and feudal-Catholic history, in their struggle against the new understanding of history, paid great attention to the collection, systematization, and publication of historical sources. In the 17th century auxiliary historical disciplines appear (diplomacy, paleography); The Bollandists and Maurists publish the first extensive collections of medieval historical documents. In the 18th century The collection and publication of historical sources began in Russia (see article Archaeography). In the 17th century Dutch and English bourgeois thinkers (G. Grotius, T. Hobbes) made the first attempts to create theories of social development based on the principles of natural law (See Natural Law) and other rationalistic teachings; Italian thinker G. Vico revived and developed the idea of a cycle in history. With a clarity unknown until that time, the question of the laws of history was raised by the French enlighteners of the 18th century. Approaching history from the standpoint of rationalism, they looked for the laws of history either in the rational essence of man, or in the interaction of society with nature, mechanically likening the laws of history to the laws of nature. French enlighteners put forward the idea of creating a universal history of mankind, based on the recognition of the unity of the destinies of the human race (Voltaire), the theory natural state, which argued that at the beginning of historical development man was only a part of nature (J. J. Rousseau), the idea of continuous progress in history (J. Condorcet and others), developed the doctrine of the influence of the natural geographic environment on social development (C. Montesquieu ). They considered the main subject of historians’ studies not only political history, but also cultural history (in the broad sense of the word). Prominent representatives of English and Scottish educationalism (E. Gibbon, W. Robertson) gave detailed coverage of important periods of European history from anti-clerical and anti-feudal positions. Of great importance were the philosophical and historical concepts of German educators, especially I. G. Herder, and Russian educators, especially A. N. Radishchev, who approached history from the point of view of the revolutionary struggle against autocracy and serfdom. Enlightenment history and its ideas were opposed at the beginning of the 19th century. representatives of the reactionary noble Romanticism a. This trend of romantic history (especially strong in German historical and historical-legal science) rejected the existence of revolutions in history, idealized the Middle Ages, and denied a rationalistic explanation of history. However, the romantics - despite the reactionary nature of their general positions - contributed fruitful ideas to the progressive development of historical science. They insisted on the existence of an internal connection in historical eras, believing that the current state of each nation is the product of its long historical development, drew attention to the qualitative uniqueness of the history of individual peoples, etc. Prominent representatives of the so-called historical school of law (See Historical school of law) in Germany (F.C. Savigny, K.F. Eichhorn) made a significant contribution to the study of the history of state and law, basing their research on a thorough study and criticism of historical sources. A major role in the development of critical research methods in historical science classical philology played a role. Its application to ancient history(German scientists F.A. Wolf, A. Beck and especially B.G. Niebuhr) meant a new stage in the development of this branch of historical science. L. Ranke (Germany) was the first to systematically apply the principle of research previously put forward by ancient philologists to sources on medieval and modern history. The progress of source studies made it possible to begin the creation of the first scientific serial publications of sources on the history of antiquity (“Corpus of Greek Inscriptions” - from 1825, later, from 1863 - “Corpus of Latin Inscriptions”) and the Middle Ages ( Monumenta Germaniae historica and etc.). At the same time, Ranke’s historical concept (providentialism, the idea of the decisive role of ideas in history, the assertion of the primacy of foreign policy over domestic policy, primary attention to the activities of “great people”, etc.) was reactionary; it had a significant and lasting influence on the conservative Junker-bourgeois movement in Germany. In Russian history at that time, the dominant trend was the noble-monarchist direction (the largest representatives of the 1st half of the 19th century were N.M. Karamzin and M.P. Pogodin). It defended the thesis about the decisive role of autocracy in Russian history, about the fundamental difference in the historical development of Russia and Western Europe (in the pre-Petrine era), about the unacceptability of the revolutionary path of development for Russia. The “skeptical school” of Russian history (M. T. Kachenovsky and others), which demanded a critical attitude to historical sources, began a critical revision of many concepts of noble history. In the 1st half of the 19th century. The progress of historical ideas was greatly influenced by the philosophical and historical concepts of utopian socialism (primarily A. Saint-Simon) and the philosophy of G. Hegel, who, within the framework of the idealistic philosophy of history, made the most fruitful attempt to reveal intercom continuous movement, change and transformation inherent in human history. Saint-Simon's idea about the role of class struggle in history, which arose from his generalization of the historical experience of the Great french revolution, was adopted by French liberal-bourgeois historians of the Restoration era - O. Thierry, F. Mignet, F. Guizot. Despite the historical and class limitations of the theory of class struggle put forward by them (the explanation of the origin of classes from conquest, the identification of the struggle of classes with the struggle of “races”), their development of the specific history of France and England as the history of class struggle was a phenomenon of great scientific significance in world history. Recognition of the patterns of historical development, the desire to establish relationships historical phenomena and to consider history as a process of development primarily of political and legal institutions - with special attention to the history of the state (with which the history of the people was often identified) - became characteristic of the approach to covering history by many major historians of the 19th century. From these positions, in particular, S. M. Solovyov approached the consideration of Russian history. Pre-Marxist scientific-historical thought received its highest development in the revolutionary-democratic concept of history. IN historical views V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. A. Dobrolyubov, N. G. Chernyshevsky, the democratic historian A. P. Shchapov found expression in the approach of historical knowledge to the materialist understanding of history. Remaining, ultimately, in positions of idealism in the field of methodology social sciences, revolutionary democrats, at the same time, when raising the question of the objective laws of history, which they considered common to all peoples, attached particular importance to the development of economic life, changes in the socio-economic situation masses. The core of the revolutionary democratic concept was the idea of the decisive role of the masses in social development, during which the revolutionary democrats attached decisive importance to the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors. The revolutionary-democratic concept of history largely contributed to preparing the conditions for the spread of a materialist understanding of history in Russia. The emergence of Marxist history. Despite the significant progress in historical knowledge, all pre-Marxist history was characterized by an idealistic interpretation of the main reasons for the development of society. With the spread of dialectical materialism to the field of social phenomena by K. Marx and F. Engels, history for the first time received a consistently scientific methodological basis. The emergence of a materialistic understanding of history became a turning point in the development of knowledge of social life. Marxism proved that the driving forces of history are determined material production, emergence, development and death in various ways production, giving rise to the entire social structure. The key to the study of self-propulsion was found in the laws of development of production methods human society. Thus, the path was indicated “...to the scientific study of history as a single, natural process in all its enormous diversity and inconsistency” (Lenin V.I., Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 26, p. .58). The application of the doctrine of socio-economic formations to the analysis of specific social phenomena as a guiding methodological principle made it possible to “...correctly and accurately depict the actual historical process...” (ibid., vol. 1, p. 164). On this basis, Marx and Engels showed that the objective course of history itself leads to the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, to the liquidation of capitalism as a result of the socialist revolution, to the victory of communism. The identification by Marx and Engels of the significance of class struggle and revolutions in history, the world-historical mission of the working class, the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarian party armed historical science with an understanding of the main and decisive issues of social development. Thus, historical knowledge was organically connected with the practice of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Marx’s “Capital” was of great importance for the development of Marxist historical science. With the advent of Capital (volume 1 was published in 1867), the materialist understanding of history from scientific hypothesis was transformed into a strict, confirmed by a comprehensive analysis of capitalism scientific theory, which has become synonymous with the only scientific perception of history (see ibid., p. 140). Marx and Engels provided examples of the use of the dialectical-materialist method not only in the development of general philosophical and economic problems, but also problems of specific history. This was reflected in such historical studies as “The Class Struggle in France”, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” by Marx, “The Peasant War in Germany”, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” by Engels, etc. The most complete coverage was received in the works Marx and Engels history of capitalist society, history of bourgeois revolutions, history of workers and national liberation movement, but they also developed many cardinal problems in the history of pre-capitalist formations. Bourgeois I. 2nd half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Bourgeois historical science of the 2nd half of the 19th century. had major successes in the field of accumulation of facts and initial processing of the collected material, increasing the level research work, its technology, development of auxiliary historical disciplines, publication of historical sources. The organization of historical science and historical education was improved - history departments and historical seminars were created everywhere at universities, numerous Historical Societies arose, and the number of historical journals rapidly increased (See Historical Journals). There was an expansion of the problems studied by historical science. The history of political events still occupied a dominant position in bourgeois history. However, bourgeois history began a more or less broad study of the history of spiritual and material culture, history of socio-economic life, industry, trade and somewhat later - to history social movements. In historical research, the comparative historical method began to be used, and historians increasingly began to turn to statistics. Major successes have been noted in the study of the early stages of the development of human society. In the works of the American scientist L. G. Morgan, the problem of the genus as a universal form of organization was first widely interpreted primitive society. The works of the German scientist G. L. Maurer, the founder of the communal theory (See Communal theory), proved that private ownership of land was not the original form of land ownership. One of the largest studies in the field of ancient history, which had a significant impact on the further development of bourgeois history in antiquity, was “Roman History” by the German historian T. Mommsen. In the problems of medieval studies, the question of the origin of Western European feudalism occupied an important place. The search for an answer to it resumed, which began back in the 18th century. controversy between the so-called Germanists and Romanists about the role of Germanic and Roman institutions in the formation of feudalism. Among bourgeois medievalists of both historical and legal (Maurer, G. Weitz, P. Roth and others in Germany, W. Stebs and others in Great Britain) and historical and economic directions (it has gained increasing influence since the mid-70s gg.) ideas about the qualitative difference between medieval society and late Roman society prevailed, it was emphasized a vital role free peasantry and communities in the early Middle Ages (its importance was also recognized by representatives of the patrimonial theory (see Patrimonial theory) of the 2nd half of the 19th century - German scientists K. T. Inama-Sternegg, K. Lamprecht, etc.). Bourgeois researchers of modern history have intensified their study of the problems of bourgeois revolutions. In French history, in the fight against the clerical-monarchist, bourgeois-noble and other reactionary trends (A. Tocqueville, I. Taine, etc.), the liberal-republican tradition in the study of the Great French Revolution has been strengthening (since the 70-80s). revolution (A. Olar and his school). English liberal history, reflecting the growing conservatism of the English bourgeoisie, contrasted (following T. B. Macaulay) the bloodless “Glorious Revolution” of 1688-89 with the “extremes” of the revolutionary events of the 40s. 17th century; the concept of the English revolution was created as a purely religious, “Puritan” revolution, a revolution without class struggle (S. R. Gardiner). Development of bourgeois history in the 2nd half of the 19th century. in leading European countries and the USA was strongly influenced by positivism (O. Comte, G. Spencer, etc.). The general, most characteristic features of positivist history were: criticism of traditional history (which reduced the historian’s task to describing individual events and the activities of “great people”), increased attention to economic and social history, rejection of speculative, speculative constructions in favor of accumulation, careful critical examination and description of “positive” historical facts. In this regard, the positivist stage in history meant a certain step forward in the development of bourgeois historical science. At the same time, positivist history was characterized by a mechanical interpretation of the idea of historical regularity, the denial of revolutionary leaps in history and the preaching of evolutionism and agnosticism in explaining the essence and causes of historical phenomena. Developed during the period of completion in the main capitalist countries industrial revolution, in the conditions of the growth of the labor movement and the class struggle of the proletariat, positivist ideology was directed against the Marxist worldview and the young Marxist ideology. In Great Britain, liberal-positivist historians create the first major works on economic history(T. Rogers, W. Kenningham), generalizing synthetic works (“History of Civilization in England” by G. Buckle, “History of the English People” by J. Green). Positivist history developed intensively in the United States, especially after the Civil War of 1861–65; The works of the historian and sociologist J. Draper were of great importance. In Russian history, a new phenomenon was the work of V. O. Klyuchevsky, who concentrated his attention in the study of the Russian historical process on the analysis of social and economic factors (especially in the works of the 80s) and largely contrasted his views with the historical concepts that previously dominated in Russian I. public school (See Public school) (B. N. Chicherin, K. D. Kavelin, etc.). Under the strong influence of positivism, the worldview of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky developed, who defended the idea of the unity of the Russian and Western European historical process and proved the presence of feudalism in medieval Rus'(which was then denied by Russian bourgeois and noble historians). Since the 70-80s. an influential liberal-positivist trend of Russian historians studying Western European history is growing (N. I. Kareev, M. M. Kovalevsky, P. G. Vinogradov, I. V. Luchitsky, later D. M. Petrushevsky, A. N. Savin) ; they made a particularly large contribution to the development agrarian history France and England. In Germany, the influence of positivism was insignificant (the largest German positivist historian was K. Lamprecht). Here, after the unification of the country “from above,” the convergence of the liberal and conservative (coming from L. Ranke) trends in Germany was clearly manifested. Historians of the “Little German” school (G. Siebel, G. Treitschke, I. Droysen, etc.) in their historical writings created a legend about the “historical mission” of the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty as “collectors and unifiers” of Germany. From the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th centuries. In bourgeois history, signs of a crisis appeared, spreading primarily to the area of historical methodology. The social causes of the crisis were associated with the advent of the era of imperialism and the exacerbation of the contradictions of the capitalist system, epistemological - with the collapse of the positivist approach to the historical process, which clearly manifested itself in these years. In bourgeois history in the leading capitalist countries, there is an emerging trend towards a revision of the theoretical and methodological foundations of history as a science (refusal to recognize the natural and progressive nature of social development, the unity of the world historical process, objective nature historical knowledge itself); tendencies towards bringing history closer to literature and art (and not to the exact sciences, which was characteristic of positivism) intensified. These symptoms became especially clear in Germany [the spread of the views of the “idiographic” Baden school of neo-Kantianism (See Neo-Kantianism) (W. Windelband, G. Rickert), M. Weber, opposition to the idea of historical regularity by historians G. von Below, F. Meinecke, G. Onken and others]. The “anti-positivist reaction” clearly manifested itself in Italian history, where the traditional schools that were experiencing a crisis, partly associated with positivism (“critic-philological”, “economic-legal”), were replaced by the neo-Hegelian “ethico-political” concept of the history of history. Croce (which retained influence in Italian Italy in the 20th century). Late 19th - early 20th centuries. - the era of outstanding archaeological discoveries (see article Archaeology), mastered by historical science. I. continues to accumulate factual material and makes progress in studying individual aspects of the historical process. Historians are showing increasing attention to problems of economics and social relations (including ancient history - German historians E. Meyer, R. Poehlmann, etc.). The organizational foundations of historical science and historical education are strengthened, fundamental generalizing works appear (for example, “Cambridge History”, “World History” by E. Lavisse and A. Rambo, “History of Western Europe in Modern Times” by N. I. Kareev). In France, major studies are being created on the history of the Great French Revolution (A. Aulard and his school, A. Mathiez), works on social and economic history (E. Levasseur, J. Weil), fundamental, written from a progressive position “ Socialist history» edited and with the participation of J. Jaurès. In the USA, the foundations of an influential direction of bourgeois economism are being laid: the works of F. Turner appear on the “moving border” of the USA as the most important factor in its history in modern times. During this period, Charles Beard created his first works, who sought to find the socio-economic roots of the political struggle in the USA during the years of the first American Revolution. At the same time, in the field of concrete historiographical work, the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. marked by the strengthening of reactionary tendencies. Originated at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The so-called critical movement revised (from reactionary methodological positions) the liberal historical concepts that dominated bourgeois history in the second half of the 19th century. The modernization of history inherent in bourgeois history intensified. In an effort to prove the eternity of the capitalist system, historians of this trend “found” capitalism in antiquity (E. Meyer) and in the Middle Ages (Austrian historian A. Dopsch). The idea of “continuity” (continuity) during the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages (put forward by the French historian N. D. Fustel de Coulanges), associated with the denial of revolutionary leaps in history, received increasing recognition in bourgeois history. In Russia, a striking manifestation of the crisis of bourgeois historical science was the revival of ideas about the fundamentally different historical development of Russia and Western Europe (primarily in the works of P. N. Milyukov), the influence of the ideas of neo-Kantianism in methodology (A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, D. M. Petrushevsky). The intensified reactionary currents in bourgeois history were directed not only against Marxism, but also against various variants of the liberal and democratic approach to the historical process (right-bourgeois history in France, pan-German history, the expansionist school in the study of US politics, the chauvinistic trend in Italian history. etc.). Marxist trend in India at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. The beginning of the Leninist stage in Marxist I. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. in contrast to the dominant bourgeois ideology and in the fight against it, the Marxist trend is developing. I. G. V. Plekhanov, F. Mehring, A. Bebel, P. Lafargue, J. Connolly, A. Labriola, D. Blagoev and other representatives of it made a significant contribution to scientific development history of the labor movement, capitalism, peasantry and peasant movements, revolutions, social thought and other problems. At the same time, the development of Marxist historical thought was negatively influenced by the increased opportunism of a number of ideologists of the 2nd International (German social democrats E. Bernstein, K. Kautsky, G. Kunow, etc.), which was reflected in their historical views on many important problems (history of capitalism, international labor movement, colonial policy, etc.). The beginning of a new stage in the development of Marxist historical thought was laid by the works of V. I. Lenin. Of particular great importance for I. was Lenin’s development of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the social sciences (including historical science) - the development of the materialist theory of knowledge, dialectical-materialist historicism, and the advocacy scientific position about the existence of objective historical laws, the possibility of understanding historical phenomena, the development of the principles of partisanship in the history of science, the class approach to the assessment of historical events (“What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?”, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” and other works). All this was especially important in the context of the emerging theoretical and methodological crisis of bourgeois historical science. In his struggle against bourgeois and reformist history, Lenin developed and enriched the Marxist concept of the world-historical process. He developed the problems of the socialist revolution, the role of the masses in the history of bourgeois revolutions, the workers', democratic and national liberation movements, etc. A solid methodological basis for scientific study history of modern times was laid down by V.I. Lenin in his theory of imperialism (“Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism” and other works). Still in the works of the 90s. (“Development of capitalism in Russia”, etc.) Lenin laid the foundations of the Marxist concept of the Russian historical process. In Lenin's works such cardinal problems of Russian history as the periodization of the history of Russia and Russian revolutionary movement, features of the feudal system in Russia, the genesis of capitalism, issues of post-reform socio-economic and political development of Russia, domestic and foreign policy of tsarism and much more. The Marxist concept of Russian and world history was developed in Russia by a number of party leaders, publicists, and historians. Marxist history in the USSR and other countries after 1917. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia for the first time created the conditions for the transformation of the Marxist direction of history into the dominant direction of historical science in the whole country. The formation of Soviet historical science took place in a fierce ideological struggle against bourgeois-landowner and Menshevik historical concepts, in the struggle against Trotskyist, Kautskyite and other distortions of history. Soviet historical science relied on the fundamental works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Of great importance was Lenin's further development in the post-October period of the Marxist concept of the historical process - a generalization of the experience of preparing and carrying out the October Revolution, the first years of Soviet power, the history of the party, the history of the international workers' and national liberation movements and much more. The needs of socialist construction, the tasks of communist education of the working people and the fight against hostile ideology brought to the fore in young Soviet history the need to develop new historical problems. Research by Soviet historians of the first generation (A. A. Adoratsky, M. N. Pokrovsky, I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, E. M. Yaroslavsky, V. I. Nevsky, F. A. Rotshtein, M. S. Olminsky, N. N. Baturin, M. P. Pavlovich and others) topical problems of national and world history was an important stage in the formation of Soviet Marxist history. They developed the most important problems of new and modern history: history of bourgeois revolutions (especially the Great French Revolution), the Paris Commune, the emergence and development of Marxism, the Russian revolutionary movement, Bolshevism, the Great October Revolution, national liberation movements, etc. The study of these new historical problems was organically connected with the formulation and solution of the most important theoretical problems: the role of revolutions in world history, the patterns of class struggle at various stages of social development, the difference between the Great October Socialist Revolution and the revolutions of the past, its nature, driving forces, international significance, the role of the masses in history, etc. The creation of a new history on traditional problems and periods of history followed, first of all, the path of revising and overcoming idealistic concepts of the world-historical process and the establishment of a materialist understanding of history, along the path of a comprehensive study and rethinking of what had been accumulated by pre-revolutionary science historical material. Marxist historians of the first generation seriously criticized the most important theoretical principles of bourgeois history—historical idealism, pluralism, various types of modernization of the historical past, and the limitations of its problems (ignoring the history of class struggle, etc.). M. N. Pokrovsky, the first of the Russian professional historians who made an attempt to systematically present the history of Russia from a Marxist position, played a leading role in Soviet historical science during the period of its formation. His activities most clearly reflected both the successes and difficulties of the 1st stage of the development of Marxist historical science in the USSR. The search for new ways to develop historical thought, given the narrow factual base of research on most problems of history, coupled with insufficient Marxist training of young personnel, led to some erroneous assessments and positions, and gave rise to elements of schematism, “economic materialism” and vulgarism in Soviet history at that time. sociologism. The successes and weaknesses of the first stage of the development of Soviet India were also reflected in the experiments carried out in the late 20s and early 30s. Marxist historians discussed socio-economic formations and the “Asian mode of production”, the primitive communal system, slavery and feudalism, etc. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, Soviet historians criticized and overcame both the bourgeois apologetic and nihilistic approaches to the historical past. From the mid-30s. a new stage in the development of Soviet historical science began. By this time, Marxist-Leninist theory and methodology had become established in all areas of the study of history. The concept of the world-historical process, which considers it as a natural change of socio-economic formations: the primitive communal system, the slave formation, feudalism, capitalism, socialism (communism), has become dominant in Soviet historical science. Height professional excellence, the training of Marxist historians (including in those branches of historical science that were previously the monopoly of the old, pre-revolutionary cadres of historians) made it possible to begin intensive monographic development of many problems and periods of domestic and world history. The study of socio-economic relations and the position of direct producers has taken a central place in historical research. Thus, the greatest successes of researchers involved in the history of Russian and Western European feudalism were associated with the study of agrarian relations, the history of the peasantry (works of B. D. Grekov, N. M. Druzhinin on the history of the peasantry in Russia, E. A. Kosminsky, S. D. . Skazkin and others on the agrarian history of Western Europe, etc.), ancient Russian craft (B. A. Rybakov). The problems of socio-economic prerequisites for the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia were studied and discussed. During this period, special attention was paid to identifying the unity of the world-historical process and general patterns in the development of society. So, for example, in the field of ancient history, a point of view was established about not only ancient societies, but also ancient Eastern societies as slave-owning ones; much effort was aimed at overcoming the “Eurocentrism” inherent in bourgeois history and proving the fundamental unity of the paths of social development of the countries of the East and West, etc. d. The point of view about the feudal nature of Kievan Rus was established. Significant place in the pre-war, war and post-war period We were busy with work on exposing the fascist falsification of the history of the Russian and other Slavic peoples, on the history of wars and military art, and the military-patriotic theme. At the same time, during these years, traits of dogmatism and schematism appeared in historical science, in the study of a number of issues, especially on the history of the Great October Revolution, the Civil War of 1918-20 and subsequent development Soviet society, one-sided, subjectivist interpretations emerged that developed in the context of Stalin’s personality cult. Began in the mid-50s. elimination negative consequences The cult of personality contributed to a more consistent application of Marxist-Leninist principles in the study of historical processes. The range of problems subject to historical research has expanded. The center of gravity in the field of studying national history has shifted to the history of Soviet society. The history of Soviet society and the history of the party, the study of which was particularly lagging behind in the previous period, was replenished with valuable documentary publications, monographic studies, and collective works (on the history of the October Revolution, the Soviet working class and peasantry, socialist industrialization and collectivization, on nation-state building in the USSR and etc.). The history of Marxism and Leninism, the most pressing problems of the history of the world labor and communist movement, the history of the countries of the socialist community, the formation and development of the world system of socialism, and the history of the national liberation movement began to be more actively developed. Research in Slavic studies has received significant development. Essentially, for the first time in Soviet history, the history of African countries began to be studied, Latin America, research on the history of Asian countries has expanded significantly. There is further clarification and improvement of the Marxist-Leninist concept of the world-historical process. This was greatly facilitated by the research carried out in the 60s. discussions and discussions: about socio-economic formations and the “Asian mode of production”, about the genesis of feudalism in Russia, in the countries of Europe and the East, about the “ascending” and “descending” stages of feudal formation in Russia, about the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe and in Russia, about the main stages of the Russian revolutionary movement and ways of its further study, about Russian imperialism, etc. While still emphasizing the general patterns of the historical process, Soviet researchers began to pay more attention to the specifics of their manifestation in different regions and countries of the world, various options and types of historical development. More attention is paid to the history of ideology and culture than in the previous period; there has been a tendency towards a more comprehensive study of classes and social groups in different historical eras. The problems of the history of historical science began to be developed more intensively. The range of research issues related to methodological problems Marxist history (the relationship between history and the theory of historical materialism, the criteria of truth in historical science, the subject, method and tasks of Marxist history, the specifics of historical research) and its conceptual apparatus(era, historical fact, transition period, etc.). During all the years of the existence of Marxist history in the USSR, Soviet historians created significant amount valuable research that has received recognition in the USSR and abroad. A number of research directions have been formed, distinguished by certain specifics in the development of large problems of history, for example, M. N. Tikhomirov - on the Russian history of the era of feudalism, A. L. Sidorov - on the history of Russian imperialism, I. I. Mints - on the history of the Great October Revolution, M. V. Nechkina - on the history of the Russian revolutionary movement of the 19th century; on the study of the Great French Revolution and the history of socialist teachings (the formation of these scientific directions associated with the names of N. M. Lukin, V. P. Volgin); E. A. Kosminsky and A. I. Neusykhin - on the agrarian history of the Western European Middle Ages, V. V. Struve - on the history of the Ancient East, V. B. Lutsky - on the new and recent history of Arab countries, I. M. Reisner - on history of India, etc. One of the evidence of the fruitful development of Soviet historical science is the formation and success of national history in the union republics, the creation there of their own national cadres of Marxist historians. (See articles on the Union republics, subsection Historical Science.) The Marxist-Leninist concept of national and world history was concretely embodied in fundamental generalizing collective works - the 10-volume “World History” (1955-66), the 12-volume “History of the USSR. From ancient times to the present day." The 5-volume “History of the Civil War in the USSR” (1935-60), the 6-volume “History of the Great War” were created Patriotic War Soviet Union. 1941-1945" (1963-65), the 6-volume "History of the CPSU" is published. The collective works of Soviet historians are devoted to the study of bourgeois revolutions: “French bourgeois revolution 1789-1794” (1941), “Revolutions 1848-1849” (vol. 1-2, 1952), “English bourgeois revolution” Revolution XVII V." (vol. 1-2, 1954). The results of the study of the international labor movement are summarized in the collective works “The Paris Commune of 1871” (vol. 1-2, 1961), “The First International” (parts 1-3, 1964-68), “History of the Second International” (vol. 1-2, 1965-1966), prepared by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism short essay history of the Comintern (1969). The collective work “History of Diplomacy” (1st edition - vols. 1-3, 1941-45; 2nd revised and expanded edition - vols. 1-3, 1959-65) provides Marxist coverage of the history of diplomacy throughout its entire history. Special generalizing works are devoted to the foreign policy of the USSR (“History of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR”, 2nd ed., vol. 1-3, 1967; “The Soviet Union in the United Nations”, vol. 1-2, 1965; “Soviet Union and the United Nations. 1961-1965", 1968, etc.). Collective generalizing works have been created on the history of many foreign countries, including Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, the USA, Italy, on German history, collective works on the new and recent history of the countries of the foreign East and Latin America, etc. A fundamental 3 -volume “History of Byzantium” (1967). The "Soviet Historical Encyclopedia" is published - the first Marxist universal reference publication on history (by 1972 - 13 volumes). The formation of the world socialist system created the preconditions for the victory of Marxist-Leninist ideology in a large group of countries. In young Marxist history in foreign socialist countries, along with national specificities, general processes also emerged. In the development of history in most of these countries, three main stages can be distinguished, mainly related to the general milestones of their historical development. Already in the first period (1945 - late 1940s), measures were taken to create new basis and a significant expansion of the organizational, source study, and publishing base of historical science. However, the Marxist trend during this period, in an environment of fierce ideological, political and class struggle, was just beginning to establish itself as dominant. In the academic sphere and in the field of teaching, as a rule, the predominance of old scientists based on the old bourgeois methodology remained. In the late 40s - mid 50s, as the creative core of Marxist historians strengthened and a significant number of monographic works appeared, Marxist methodology gradually gained more and more leading positions. But this process was complex and contradictory, and did not yet cover all areas of historical science. Period from the mid-50s. became, in general, the time of the final victory of the Marxist-Leninist methodology of historical research. The establishment and victory of Marxist ideology took place under the ideological leadership of the communist parties. In the field of concrete historical research, historians of socialist countries are characterized by two main directions. The first is a scientifically reasoned critical rethinking of old, bourgeois concepts of national history, for example, the reconstruction by historians of the GDR in general works and special monographs of the main lines of the new and recent history of Germany and the history of the German labor movement (G. Schilfert, I. Streisand, K. Oberman, E. Engelberg, H. Bartel, etc.), new coverage by Czech scientists of the Revolution of 1848 as a movement not only national, but also social class, studied by Hungarian historians liberation struggle the Hungarian people against the Habsburgs and others. The second main direction of research by historians of socialist countries was the discovery and development of new problems, including those ignored by the old science. For the first time, entire periods of national history were comprehended, the objective socio-economic basis of indigenous social processes, which had previously remained in the shadows, was revealed - for example, the fruitful development of the problems of the workers and peasant movement in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria (N. Gonsyorovskaya-Grabovskaya, M. Gosiorovsky, A. Ocetea, etc.), works on the influence of the Russian Revolution of 1905-1907 and the Great October Socialist Revolution on the development of class and national struggle (L. Stern, P. Constantinescu-Yash, F. Chulinovich, etc.), fundamental study of the anti-fascist Resistance Movement in the GDR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania (O. Wincer, I. Marjanovic and others; collective works). There is a noticeable turn towards the study of modern history. The problems of studying people's democratic and socialist revolutions and socialist construction occupy a significant place. Fundamental development of such key problems of national history as the history of the peasantry and its class struggle, the formation of the proletariat, the development of the labor movement, national liberation movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries. and anti-fascist struggle, etc., made it possible to move on to the creation - based on Marxist-Leninist methodology - of generalizing consolidated works on the history of Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and other countries. Much attention is paid to developing the history of revolutionary, cultural, scientific connections countries of the socialist system. Scientific contacts historians of socialist countries, the use of the experience of Soviet history, and the joint development of a number of cardinal problems of history play an important role in the development of history in socialist countries. The significant increase in the share of Marxist history after World War II (1939–45) and the collective development of important historical problems by Marxist historians in many countries are all new phenomena in the development of world history as a whole. An indicator of the increased influence of the Marxist historical sciences of the socialist countries on world historical science is, in particular, their active participation in international congresses of historical sciences (see International historical congresses). Soviet scientists are now speaking on the international stage together with historians from other socialist countries, finding support from progressive representatives of historical science in capitalist countries. The period of modern history (especially after World War II) was marked by a significant growth of the Marxist trend in India in many capitalist countries. Marxist historians of these countries made the most significant contribution to the development of problems of modern and contemporary history, the labor and socialist movement, the revolutionary traditions of their peoples, economic history and the situation of the working masses. There is a strong Marxist trend in I. France, Italy, Japan and a number of other countries. Marxist history of France most intensively develops the history of popular movements, the Great French Revolution, economic history, the history of the labor and socialist movement, colonial policy, the Resistance Movement (A. Soboul, C. and J. Villard, J. Brua, F. Chenault, etc. .). Among the problems of Italian history, which are most thoroughly studied by Marxist historians in Italy, the most important place is occupied by the problems of the Risorgimento, the history of the labor and socialist movement, fascism and anti-fascist movement, problems of national economic history (E. Sereni, G. Candeloro, G. Manacorda, G. Berti, etc.). US Marxist historians have created works that cover almost the entire range of major problems of US history: the socio-economic development of the country and two American revolutions, the labor and black movements (J. Allen, G. Aptheker, W. Foster, V. Perlo, F. Foner, etc.). The leading problems of national history are being developed by Marxist historians from Great Britain (A. Morton, M. Dobb, etc.) and other countries. A significant place in Marxist history in both socialist and capitalist countries is occupied by the exposure of social and ideological orientation bourgeois and reformist I. The growth of Marxist ideology in capitalist countries is of great fundamental importance. It is not only associated with new advances in development scientific concept national history of these countries, but also contributes to increasing stratification within bourgeois history. Under the influence of the successes of the Marxist school, many historians of capitalist countries enter into dialogue, and sometimes even collaboration, with Marxist historians. In some countries (for example, Italy) a broad progressive democratic camp is emerging in India, where the Marxist trend occupies a place of honor. Historians from Latin American countries make an important contribution to the development of Marxist history. Marxist historians of Argentina (R. Iscaro, B. Marianetti, L. Paso), Brazil (C. Prado Junior, R. Facu, O. Brandan, etc.), Chile (V. Teitelboim, E. R. Necochea) many did to develop a scientific concept of the history of these countries, study the leading socio-economic processes, and the main problems of the class and anti-imperialist struggle. Their activities contributed to the rapprochement of all progressive, national democratic, anti-imperialist forces. Bourgeois history after 1917. After the First World War of 1914-18 and the Great October Socialist Revolution, the main direction of development of history was determined by the confrontation on the main methodological and specific historical issues of Marxist-Leninist and bourgeois history. Bourgeois (and the reformist one adjacent to it) In modern times, India is in a state of ever-deepening crisis. It is expressed primarily in the ideological and methodological attitudes of a significant part of bourgeois history, in the deep penetration of relativism and subjectivism into it, and in the denial of historical laws, which undermines the very foundations of history as a science. There is a growing gap between the increasing flow of emerging scientific works and the narrowing of the cognitive capabilities of bourgeois intellectualism. The “politicization” of a number of trends in bourgeois intellectualism intensified, and the open subservience of its entire schools and trends to the reactionary ruling circles and the monopolistic bourgeoisie. Another important aspect of the crisis of bourgeois history is the growing stratification in the camp of bourgeois historians in the face of the collapse of their traditional general ideas and the successes of Marxist I. In the development of bourgeois history after 1917, two periods can be distinguished: before and after World War II (1939-45). In the first period, the leading position was occupied by the countries that were victorious in World War I (1914-18) - Great Britain and France; German history, which previously set the tone in many areas of historical research, experienced a decline after the defeat of Germany in World War I. In Great Britain during the interwar period, Labor history developed intensively, constituting the history of the labor movement as an equal topic for academic research (J. D. Cole and his followers). Crisis phenomena were clearly manifested in the reactionary concept of the world historical process as the development and change of closed civilizations (A. J. Toynbee), in a broad revision of traditional liberal concepts of national history by L. Namier and his school. In French history, the activity of the Society of Robespierrist Studies (headed by A. Mathiez and then J. Lefebvre) became a significant phenomenon. Valuable works of this direction on the socio-economic history of the Great French Revolution were created under the influence of the methodology of Marxism. An attempt to overcome the crisis experienced by bourgeois society was the emergence in the 20s. an influential trend in the study of economic and social history, associated with the magazine “Annales” and with the names of M. Blok and L. Febvre. Researchers in this direction have written valuable works on the socio-economic history of Western European feudalism, cultural history, etc. The Belgian historian A. Pirenne is close to this direction. However, in interpreting the main problems of the history of the Middle Ages greatest influence Dopsch's concept was used among Western European bourgeois historians. In the USA, bourgeois economism was widely developed (C. Beard and his school), and the study of the history of the labor movement expanded and became the property of “academic” science (J. Commons and his followers, the so-called Commons-Wisconsin school). Despite the accumulation by historians of these areas of enormous factual material and well-known successes in highlighting certain aspects of the historical development of the United States, their works were, as a rule, apologetic in nature and were far from scientific reconstruction of the main processes of national history. The struggle between the extremely reactionary nationalist (G. von Below, A. Schaefer, etc.) and liberal (together with the social reformist that joined it) movements in Weimar Germany by the beginning of the 30s. ended with the victory of the first. As a result, traditional German “historicism” gave way to outright relativism, and then, as a logical consequence, to the delusional Nazi “theory of rhythms” in social development. After World War II, there was a further deepening of crisis features in bourgeois history and a growing stratification among bourgeois historians in connection with the development of Marxist-Leninist history in the socialist countries and in the capitalist countries themselves. Interest in the theoretical problems of historical science has increased significantly, associated with the desire of bourgeois historical science to oppose its historical synthesis to Marxist methodology. The current stage of development of world history is characterized by the increasingly widespread introduction into history of research techniques and results achieved in related scientific disciplines - sociology, economics, demography, social psychology, etc. But this is often accompanied by the assimilation of reactionary theories that dominate in bourgeois sociology and other related disciplines, turns out to be a form of historical synthesis within the framework of idealistic methodology (increasing the influence on history of reactionary sociological theories especially characteristic of many areas of modern bourgeois historical science in the USA). It is very indicative, in particular, for modern bourgeois I. wide use structural method in historical research, passion for quantitative methods related to history economic sciences. At the same time, research methodology practically replaces methodology, and helper methods the historian’s works, which in themselves are capable of enriching and deepening his work, are absolutized and turned into their own opposite. Such “structuralization” and “mathematization” of historical knowledge in the form in which they are carried out by many modern bourgeois historians is additional evidence of the deepening crisis phenomena of modern bourgeois history. The increased influence of Marxism on bourgeois history is manifested not only in the transition of some progressive historians to Marxist positions when covering a number of major historical problems, but also in attention to those issues and aspects of the historical process that were previously ignored by “academic” science. Modern bourgeois history is characterized by an increased interest in economic history. An indicator of this is a significant increase in the share of historical and economic research, the creation of numerous centers for organizing and coordinating research on socio-economic issues, and the conduct (since 1960) of international congresses in economic history, etc. But the development of bourgeois history of economic problems is characterized by a focus on the history of trade and finance, partly technology, a departure from the study of production relations, and consideration of economics without connection with the class struggle. Thus, the assimilation of bourgeois I.'s position on the role of economics in social development occurs in the form of perception of the ideas of economic materialism. Among the reactionary part of bourgeois historians, the development of problems of economic history is accompanied by the creation (or assimilation) of bourgeois apologetic historical and economic concepts - for example, the theory of “old” and “new” capitalism (according to which everything social vices, the deprivations of the masses are explained by the genesis bourgeois society, and not the very nature of capitalism, and belong to the distant past), the theory of a “single industrial society”, etc. Modern bourgeois history is characterized by the actualization of problems and a noticeably increased attention to the problems of modern and contemporary history. There has been a quantitative increase in the literature on the history of the labor movement. Professional historians now take an active part in its study; special publications, scientific societies and research institutes have appeared. A large number of works have been published on the history of Marxism, Leninism, communist and workers' parties, which give a distorted picture of the development of the international labor movement. Reformist theories became widespread. A significant number of works are imbued with the spirit of anti-communism (in a hidden or more overt form). “Evidence” of the obsolescence of Marxism, the accidental nature of the October Revolution, the opposition of Marxism to Leninism, the imaginary absence of prerequisites for the proletarian revolution in the West, the portrayal of the international communist movement as a “tool of Moscow”, falsified coverage of the process of the formation of the world socialist system, the process of industrialization and collectivization in the USSR, the history of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45, etc. - the main directions of falsification of history by numerous bourgeois “Sovietologists” and “Kremlinologists”. Recent decades have brought a forced return of some bourgeois historians to the position of recognizing the unity of the world-historical process. Behind this forced recognition is the rapid rise of the national liberation movement in the world, the emergence of a large number of new sovereign states. At the same time, this does not at all mean a complete rejection of the leading trends in bourgeois history from Eurocentrism, from theories about the separate development of different regions in closed circles of “cultures.” In the development of the corresponding problems, “ultra-left” tendencies of the Maoist type also appear, essentially uniting with the most reactionary currents of imperialist history. IN post-war years Some changes are taking place in the development of bourgeois history in various countries. The United States of America has come to the fore, becoming more active in the development of problems not only of American history, but also of world history in all its periods. American history sets the tone in many areas of historical research. At the same time, it reveals even more clearly the features of a crisis, which are most clearly revealed in theoretical works on history. The once influential one is leaving the stage economic direction, it is being replaced by schools that are even more distant from the scientific approach to history. The school of “neoliberalism” appears (A. M. Schlesinger Jr., R. Hofstader, etc.), whose representatives refuse any analysis of socio-economic contradictions in American society, glorify the activities of bourgeois reformers, and present American capitalism as a dynamic system that adapts its structure to the needs of social development without class struggle and social upheaval. Representatives of the school of “neoconservatism” (R. Brown, D. Boorstin, etc.) go even further in this direction, denying the regularity and inevitability of the War of Independence in North America 1775-83 and the American Civil War 1861-65 and considering these turning points American history as a consequence of the mistakes made by the revolutionaries. A crudely apologetic “business school” is emerging, openly glorifying the capitalist elite of the United States and its actions, and some historians studying foreign policy and international relations are degenerating into champions of anti-Sovietism and anti-communism and singers of “American world hegemony.” French history occupied an increasingly prominent place in the post-war period. Its characteristic features are the further development of the direction of economic and social history (E. Labrousse and others), which continues to experience a certain influence of Marxist methodology. A sharp struggle between bourgeois and Marxist history on central issues of national history is taking place in Great Britain (the history of the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century and the industrial revolution, foreign and colonial policies, the labor movement, the question of the impact of the development of capitalism on the position of the working class, the fate of the British Empire ). Leading position in post-war West German Germany from the mid-50s. occupies the so-called pseudo-liberal direction, led by H. Rothfels, which replaced the group of G. Ritter, which reigned supreme in the first post-war decade (which adhered in many ways to the traditions of the compromised Prussian-German reactionary I.). I. countries that have freed themselves from colonial and semi-colonial dependence. In the world history of modern times important phenomenon became the development of national history in countries that freed themselves from colonial and semi-colonial dependence and embarked on the path of independent development. I. in these countries long time was of a feudal nature (mainly chronicle forms of historical writings predominated, there were no broad generalizations, modern methods scientific criticism). The emergence of bourgeois history here is closely connected with the formation of nations and nationalities, the growth of national self-awareness, and the search for the roots of historical traditions that could be countered to the influence of the ideology of the colonialists. The process of the formation of national history is inseparable from the activities of educators. So, in India at the beginning of the 19th century. Rammohan Rai was one of the first in Indian India to begin studying the history of Russian culture and religion; in China, Kang Yu-wei and Liang Qi-chao undertook a revision of Confucian texts, trying, based on them, to explain the need for progressive reforms. The beginning of modern history in Arab countries was laid by Butrus al-Bustani, Rifaa at-Tahtawi, J. Zeidan, and others; in Iran - Aga Khan Kermani, Malkom Khan; in the Philippines - Jose Rizal. The history of the Eastern countries was formed under the strong influence of Western European history. After the liberation of the countries of the East from colonial rule in India, the desire to rethink the concepts of colonial history and re-evaluate the events of national history intensified. The connection between anti-colonialist ideology and interest in national history is becoming more and more clearly visible. So, for example, India and Pakistan, in contrast to Western bourgeois India, which considered the Indian uprising of 1857-59 a military revolt, evaluates this event as a popular progressive uprising; prominent historical figures (Jugurtha in Algeria, Chaka and Dingaan in South Africa, Samori Toure in West Africa, M. Sakaya in the Philippines) are considered in national history as heroes of the liberation movement. The study of antiquity and the Middle Ages continues to occupy a significant place in the history of these countries. At the same time, scientists are especially attracted to problems that resonate with modern times. Periods of former greatness are contrasted with the time of colonial oppression. The history of the modern states of sub-Saharan Africa is characterized by the desire to prove the existence of the peoples of these countries of their own unique culture long before the appearance of Europeans in Africa, and to clear the history of African peoples from its falsification in the works of some European bourgeois racist historians. A special place in national history is occupied by: the history of the liberation movement in modern and contemporary times, the history of national liberation revolutions, the struggle against imperialism in modern stage. Big influence The formation and development of national history is influenced by the works of prominent figures of the national liberation movement [J. Nehru (India), Kemal Ataturk (Turkey), Sekou Toure (Guinea), J. Kenyatta (Kenya), etc.]. In young national schools of historians in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, interest in purely political history gives way to broader topics, in particular, cultural history, problems of social and economic history. The specialization of historians is deepening not only in individual periods, but also in topics and problems within these periods. Nationalist anti-imperialist history of the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America sometimes opposes bourgeois Eurocentrism by exaggerating the role of “one’s own continent,” “one’s own” country in world history, overestimating the level of its development in certain periods, and idealizing figures of the past. Thus, supporters of the so-called Asiacentrism argue that the main role in world history was played by the states of Asia; supporters of the theory of so-called African exceptionalism are trying to prove that Africa is following a special path, different from other continents, etc. Marxist scientists from Asia, Africa and Latin America are waging a determined struggle both against the exaggeration of the role of the peoples of Europe in world history, and and against inflating the role of the peoples of any other part of the world, they advocate an objective demonstration of the specific contribution of each people to the world historical process. The Marxist historical science of the socialist countries has a significant influence on history in the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
And How scientific discipline, studying the history of historical science. Marxist-Leninist I. has the following main aspects of research:
1) Clarification of the social basis of historical knowledge at each stage of its development, defining it social functions V different eras and how they were carried out; the need to study historical concepts in organic connection with the socio-political life of the era when these concepts were developed. This aspect of the study allows us to establish the relationship between historical science and modernity. Considering the relationship between historical science and modernity, I. studies the most important source of partisanship in historical knowledge and establishes the dependence of the effectiveness of historical knowledge on the social positions of the historian.
2) Study of theoretical and methodological principles inherent in each direction of historical thought. This requires the disclosure of connections between historical science, on the one hand, and philosophy, sociology, political economy, theories of state and law, theoretical natural science, on the other. At the same time, the study of theoretical and methodological principles cannot be reduced only to an analysis of the totality of relevant general theoretical statements by historians of a particular school, but involves an analysis of the application of theoretical and methodological principles in the practice of historical research.
3) Analysis of the source base of historical works, the nature of the use of sources, specific research methods. The study of history in this aspect makes it possible to illuminate the uniqueness of research methods characteristic of various directions of historical thinking, to determine the place of each school in the establishment and systematization of historical facts, and to clarify the relationship between the methodology and methods of historical research.
4) Analysis of the problems of historical research, its development and expansion as the most important manifestation of the progress of historical knowledge and as a manifestation of the socio-economic and political requirements of a given historical era.
5) Study of historical concepts created by various movements and schools of historical thought. Analysis of historical concepts allows, on the one hand, to trace the process of overcoming outdated historical ideas, and on the other, to clarify the moment of continuity in the development of historical science, the use of objectively true results of previous periods of this development in new conditions. On this basis, the struggle of representatives different schools on current historical issues of the time.
6) Study of the organization and forms of research work in the field of history, including the system of scientific institutions and archives; issues of personnel training, publishing activities, forms of use and propaganda of historical concepts, etc.
Various aspects of historiographical research are closely interconnected. Only a comprehensive study of historiographical material allows one to scientifically reproduce both the main lines of the history of historical science as a whole and individual significant phenomena of this history, and makes it possible to use the experience of historical knowledge to develop problems that are relevant from the point of view of the study of history today. Study of historiographical problems in modern conditions requires the researcher high level general historical culture, good mastery of specific historical material, mastery of Marxist-Leninist theory, which allows one to creatively apply the categories of dialectical and historical materialism to the analysis of historiographic phenomena and processes, without which a consistent scientific knowledge of the history of historical science is unthinkable.
Lit.: Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR, vol. 1-4, M., 1955-66; Soviet historical science from the XX to the XXII Congress of the CPSU. Sat. art., [h. 1-2], M., 1962-63; Works of Soviet historians for 1965-1969, M., 1970; Chubaryan A. O., Soviet historical science after the XXIII Congress of the CPSU, “Questions of History”, 1971, No. 3; Kertman L. E., Larkina K. I., Rakhshmir P. Yu., Ushkevich N. F., Study of problems of modern and contemporary history in 1966-1970, ibid., No. 4; Marx is a historian. [Sat. Art.], M., 1968; Gorodetsky E.N., Lenin is the founder of Soviet historical science. History of Soviet society in the works of V. I. Lenin, M., 1970; V.I. Lenin as a historian. Bibliography of Soviet historical literature, “History of the USSR”, 1969, No. 4-6; Alekseeva G.D., October Revolution and historical science in Russia (1917-1923), M., 1968; Vainstein O. L., Historiography of the Middle Ages..., M.-L., 1940; his, Western European medieval historiography, M.-L., 1964; his, History of Soviet Medieval Studies. 1917-1966, L., 1968; Kosminsky E. A., Historiography of the Middle Ages..., [M.], 1963; Historiography of modern times in Europe and America, M., 1967; Historiography of the new and recent history of European and American countries, M., 1968; Postovskaya N. M., Study of the ancient history of the Middle East in the Soviet Union (1917-1959), M., 1961; Kuznetsova N. A., Kulagina L. M., From the history of Soviet oriental studies 1917-1967, M., 1970; Thompson J. W., A history of historical writing, v. 1-2, N.Y., 1942; Barnes N. E., A history of historical writing, 2 ed., N. Y., 1962; Fueter E., Geschichte der neueren Historiographie, 3 Aufl., Münch. - B., 1936; Gooch G. P., History and historians in the 19th century, L. - 1952; Histoire et historiens depuis cinquante ans. Méthodes, organization et résultats du travail historique de 1876 á 1926, v. 1-2, P., 1927-28; Relazioni del X Congresso Internazionale di scienze storiche, v. 6, Firenze, 1955 (historiographical reviews); Rosenthal F., A history of Muslim historiography, Leiden, 1952; Historians of Southeast Asia, ed. by D. G. Hall, L., 1961; Historians of the Middle East, L., 1962; Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, ed. by C. N. Philips, L., 1961.
Historical dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian language - (from history and...graphy), 1) the history of historical science as a whole, as well as a set of studies devoted to a specific era, topic, problem. 2) A branch of historical science that studies its formation and development (accumulation of historical knowledge... ... Modern encyclopedia
The transformation of historical knowledge into historical science was carried out over a long period of time. Now in the development of historical science the following most important stages are distinguished.
1. Historical ideas of the Ancient World. At first, historical thought developed in the form of legends and myths. A feature of mythological thinking, characteristic of many ancient peoples, was historical pessimism - the idea that “what happened before is better than now.” Thus, the ancient Indians believed that the “golden age” of humanity had already passed, and that only hard work and all kinds of trials lay ahead.
In addition, mythological thinking linked the course of history with the deeds of the gods. Thus, in Homer's Iliad, the reason Trojan War was caused by a quarrel between the goddesses. At the same time, a concept was developed according to which heroes create history with the help and will of the gods. In general, the history of mankind was presented to them as a manifestation of the will of the deity: Fate determined the fate of nations.
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) believed that the development of history is carried out thanks to the discoveries and inventions of geniuses.
The highest achievements of historical thought in the era of the Ancient World were the works of ancient authors - Herodotus and Thucydides. Greek historian Herodotus (between 490 and 480 - c. 425 BC) was considered the "father of history". He described Ancient Greece, as well as the peoples and countries he visited: Persia, Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Scythia. His main work is “The History of the Greco-Persian Wars.”
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) author of “History,” which includes eight books dedicated to the Peloponnesian War, and is considered the pinnacle of ancient historiography. Polybius (c. 200-c. 120 BC) was also a great ancient historian, who attempted to create world history. His work “History” (40 books) covers the history of Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Rome and other countries from 220 to 146 BC.
In the Ancient East, an important role was also attached to the cult of the past. Thus, in China, under each appanage ruler (later after the unification of China - at the court of the emperor) there was a historiographer. By the 2nd century. BC. Many chronicles and annals appeared, mostly local. These sources were summarized by the son of the court historiographer Sima Tan, Sima Qian (145 or 135 - c. 86 BC), nicknamed the “Chinese Herodotus.” The main work of Sima Qian’s entire life was the “Historical Notes” (“Shi Tsei”), which had a significant influence on the development of historical science in China. Since that time, the histories of all ruling dynasties began to be compiled in China.
2. The historical thought of the Middle Ages developed under the influence of church and religious ideology, therefore, in the works written by historians of different countries and peoples of this period, the historical process of social development was interpreted idealistically. The leading historical concept of early medieval thought in Western Europe was the concept of providentialism (by the will of Providence), developed by Augustine the Blessed (354-430). The theory of great people and heroes was popular, as in ancient times. Among the European historians of this era, Gregory of Tours (538 or 539-593 or 594), Raul Glaber (985 - ca. 1047), Michael Psellus (1018 - ca. 1078 or ca. 1096) are distinguished. Gregory of Tours is the author of the “History of the Franks” in ten books. This work is considered a historical monument of the early Middle Ages; its author is called the “father of barbarism.”
In the Arab East, the most prominent historical scientists were the authors of “universal histories” Yakubi (10th century AD), Abu Hanifa ad-Dinaveri (9th century) and Tabari (late 9th - early 10th centuries). In China in the 11th century. statesman and historian Sim Guang created a huge work (294 books), covering the history of the Chinese people from the 5th to the end of the 9th centuries.
In medieval Russia at the beginning of the 12th century. An outstanding work of Russian socio-political thought, “The Tale of Bygone Years,” was created, the author of which is called the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, chronicler Nestor. Then the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” appeared, dedicated to unsuccessful campaign Novgorod-Seversky Prince Igor Svyatoslavovich against the Polovtsians. The author notes the destructiveness of the fragmented state of the Russian principalities and the need for their unity in the face of the threat of enemy invasion.
The study of human history received a new development during the Renaissance, the transition from the Middle Ages to the New Age, when the dominance of medieval religious ideology was opposed cultural heritage antiquity. Interest in ancient monuments is growing. New approaches to understanding history emerged. The Italian politician N. Machiavelli (1469-1527) in his work “The Prince” (1513) named one of the reasons for the struggle of people in history - property.
3. In the modern era, some Western European historians and philosophers, discarding the idea of God as the creator of history, tried to explain the cause-and-effect relationship material world based on himself. The Italian philosopher, one of the founders of historicism D. Vico (1668-1774), argued that the historical process has an objective and providential character.
All nations develop in cycles consisting of three eras: divine (stateless state, subordination to priests); heroic (aristocratic state) and human (democratic republic or representative monarchy). A. Turgot (1727-1781) - French statesman, enlightenment philosopher, economist - believed that the history of society is driven by human mind. Modern philosophers believed that ideas rule the world. After Cicero (106-43 BC), they developed the idea of natural law and later came to the idea of an enlightened monarch.
However, in general, Western European historical science during the period of its formation and establishment capitalist relations, i.e. Modern times, despite the struggle against feudal-church views on the history of society, remained on idealistic positions. The views of scientists of this time were characterized by dualism: approaching natural phenomena materialistically (albeit metaphysically), they remained supporters of idealism in the study of history, explaining the course of the historical process as a manifestation of the “will of God,” “divine providence,” “divine world spirit,” or the absolute "ideas".
Its largest representatives in the West were F. Guizot (1787-1874), O. Thierry (1795-1856), F. Mignet (1796-1884), M. Henry (1818-1881), T. Carlyle (1795-1881) , M. Macaulay (1800-1859). French historians F. Guizot, O. Thierry, F. Mignet in the first half of the 19th century. created a bourgeois theory of class struggle, in which they recognized class differences in society, but denied the exploitative nature of the bourgeois state.
In the 19th century German historians F. Schlosser (1776-1861) and W. Onkekn created “World History” (19 and 46 volumes, respectively).
The statement in the 19th century was of great importance for the development of historical science. historical method knowledge and the emergence of Marxism.
The historical method (principle) of approaching reality as changing over time and developing was recognized before Marx by representatives of German classical idealism, for example, Hegel (1770-1831). However, the principle of historicism was consistently developed by K. Marx (1818-1883) and F. Engels (1820-1895). His distinguishing feature– distribution to all spheres of objective reality – nature, society, thinking.
Marx and Engels wrote: “We know only one single science - the science of history. History can be viewed from two sides; it can be divided into the history of nature and the history of people. However, both these sides are inextricably linked: as long as people exist, the history of nature and the history of people mutually determine each other.”
Historical thought of the East in the XVII-XIX centuries. is in decline; historians of this time do not put forward new ideas and concepts, but imitate ancient authors - both in the content of their works and in their form.
In Russia in the 18th century. The first attempts were made to create a systematized code of Russian history. This is the 7-volume “Russian History” by V.N. Tatishchev (1686-1756), “Russian History” by M.M. Shcherbatov (1733-1799) in 20 books.
The largest Russian historian beginning of the 19th century was N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826). His main work is “History of the Russian State,” written in simple, living language. This work by Karamzin was followed by the 29-volume “History of Russia since Ancient Times” by S.M. Solovyov (1820-1879), “Russian History” by N.I. Kostomarov (1817-1885) and “Course of Russian History” by V.O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). A specialist in general history was T.N. Granovsky (1813-1855).
4. Historical science has developed rapidly in Modern times (end of XIX-XX centuries). At this stage, various concepts of historical development were developed in Western historical science. Here we should name the Englishman Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), the American Walt Rostow (b. 1916), Max Weber (1864-1920), Mark Blok (1886-1944), Alvin Tofler (b. 1928) and others.
Among the most famous domestic historians Modern times F. Platonov (1860-1933), M.N. Pokrovsky (1868-1932), E.V. Tarle (1876-1955), V.V. Struve (1889-1965), S.D. Skazkin (1890-1973), E.A. Kosminsky (1886-1959), M.V. Nechkina (1901-1985), I.D. Kovalchenko (1928-1995), A. Narochnitsky, M.N. Tikhomirov (1893-1965), S.V. Bakhrushin (1882-1950), M.A. Barg et al.
In the 50s The USSR Academy of Sciences prepared and published the 13-volume World History. Volumes of the new “World History”, conceived as a 24-volume edition, are now being published. In 1996, more than 10 volumes were published.
