Historical sources and their criticism. Historical criticism Internal criticism of a historical source includes

The next, significant part of the work of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky is the chapter dedicated to historical criticism. The scientist speaks of the need to replace the collection of technical rules with a general, systematic and complete doctrine of criticism. At the same time, he emphasizes that criticism pursues its cognitive goal and therefore cannot be confused with the doctrine of interpretation. “The purpose of scientific criticism is to establish the scientific and historical value of a source.”

Criticism, according to the scientist, arises under the influence of doubt about the value of what interests the researcher, if the historian has not eliminated his doubt through interpretation, when he encounters disagreements between the testimony of sources, etc.

Any criticism presupposes the presence of a criterion according to which something is recognized as valuable. In scientific and historical criticism, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky takes such a criterion, first of all, truth (absolute and factual), as well as the criteria of authenticity or inauthenticity, reliability or unreliability.

Due to the fact that a source can have scientific and historical value in a double sense: as a historical fact and as evidence of a historical fact, there are differences in cognitive purposes, and accordingly the scientist distinguishes two types of criticism:

• 1) criticism, establishing the scientific and historical value of the source as a fact;
• 2) criticism, establishing the scientific and historical value of the source’s testimony about the fact.

This division, the scientist notes, to a certain extent coincides with the division of criticism into:

• "historical" and "philological"
• "external" and "internal"
• "criticism of authenticity" and "criticism of authenticity". The main task of the first type of criticism is to clarify

authenticity historical source. In this regard, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky considers the concept of “authenticity”:

If a historian has reason to assert that a real source is the very fact as this source appears to him (that its author is really the very person he appears to be, that this source arose at the time and in the place indicated in it, that this source really retained the very form and content that it received upon its appearance, that it really had the very meaning that it ascribes to itself), he recognizes it as authentic.

The scientist names two concepts as a criterion for establishing authenticity.

Firstly, the concept of unity or disunity of consciousness. The unity of consciousness is understood as the logical consistency of the author’s thoughts, the unity of purpose and its execution in the source, identical or very similar features of creativity in a number of works by one author. If the historian finds contradictory elements of the source or its parts, that is, notices disunity in it, then there is reason to doubt its authenticity.

Secondly, the concept of the correspondence or non-compliance of the source with the culture and the individuality to which it belongs. To establish the correspondence of a source with the culture of a given area, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky proposes to use methods of systematic typing interpretation, and with the culture of a given time - methods of evolutionary typing interpretation. It is also possible to conduct a comparative study of the work under study with the sources of a given culture.

The scientist also applies the above criteria in order to establish groups of interconnected sources. A group is understood as a set of sources that are in some dependence.

The construction of a group of “related” sources consists, first of all, in establishing the one that is recognized as the “archetype”, the original or the main source that influenced the emergence of the remaining, derivative members of the group (copies, sources containing borrowings from the main one, etc.). Further, such a construction requires studying the relationship in which the dependent sources are among themselves. The search for an “archetype” is carried out on the basis of general criteria of authenticity and inauthenticity of the source.

In connection with the above concepts, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky dwells on the question of the relationship between the original and the copy.

In his opinion, the unity of consciousness is not fully reflected in the copy, even if it is impeccably executed by the author himself - and even more so if the copy is made from someone else's original. Therefore, a copy cannot be recognized as an original. At the same time, “the original is a product in which the individual act of creativity and its execution merged together.” The scientist also considers it possible to establish differences between the original and the copy using the criterion of correspondence. When a work does not correspond to the culture or individuality to which it is attributed, then it is not an original, not an original, but a copy.

Of great interest are the arguments of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky about the so-called “imaginary sources”. The scientist lists plagiarism and forgery as such.

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky distinguishes between plagiarism in a broad sense: “deliberate and secret borrowing of any part of someone else’s work that has some value” - and plagiarism in a narrower sense, which consists of “appropriating to oneself someone else’s discoveries, inventions or original observations and conclusions with deliberate concealment of the very source of borrowing and without independent processing of at least the form of the borrowed.”

As for counterfeiting, characterizing its nature in a broad, psychological sense, the scientist dwells on the categories of subject and object of such a source. By the subject of counterfeiting, he means “anyone who deliberately passes off his (manufactured) artificial product as real, through lies or deception. In this case, the subject is content only external resemblance between your product and the original. The object of counterfeiting is the counterfeit product itself.”

From a cognitive point of view, notes A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, the criterion of forgery turns out to be more complex than the criterion of inauthenticity of the source. In order to come to the conclusion that the product he is studying is counterfeit, the historian must clearly establish the identity of the creator of the counterfeit and his motives, and have grounds to assert that the creator discovered an evil will in his creation, namely, he wanted to pass off his artificial product as real by deception.

The scientist proposes to use the concept of a counterfeit product in the historical, cognitive and legal sense. In the historical-cognitive sense, one can deliberately pass off an artificial product as a real one through deception, if one ascribes to it the meaning of a real source. In the legal approach, a product is assigned a legal meaning that it does not have. In the latter case we are talking about forgery.

In the concept of fakes, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky singled out various shades depending on the motives for their appearance and the degree of artificiality of the counterfeit product. The motives for counterfeiting are the “passion for counterfeiting,” personal gain, the desire for wealth, fame, genealogical calculation, political interests, etc. The degree of artificiality of a counterfeit product can be partial or complete. Partial forgery is sometimes called falsification. It should be borne in mind that a complete fake can be presented as either an original or a copy, or contain only a retelling of an imaginary source and references to it.

Due to the fact that a forgery is an artificial product of human ill will, a “materialized lie,” the methods for detecting it are in many ways similar to the methods for establishing the inauthenticity of a source. A counterfeit is detected by “the artificiality of the general appearance of the product, its excessive preservation or, conversely, demonstrative archaism,” etc. The technical method of interpretation is also suitable in this case.

At the same time, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky drew attention to the fact that a source can be genuine and yet turn out to be unreliable - and vice versa. Therefore, the researcher must distinguish the concepts of authenticity and inauthenticity from the concepts of reliability and unreliability of the source.

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky believed that the basis of criticism of the second type, which establishes the scientific value of the testimony of a source, is the concept of its reliability or unreliability.

The main criterion of reliability, according to the scientist, is the criterion of truth - factual and absolute.

A historian recognizes a source as reliable if, based on its testimony about a fact, he can scientifically judge the same fact as if he himself had experienced or not experienced it (a historian can attribute reliability to such testimony that reports that the fact of interest to the historian did not exist in reality) it in your sensory perception. And, conversely, he considers a source unreliable if, on the basis of his testimony, he cannot infer such a fact in the above sense.

It is obvious that this concept of the reliability or unreliability of a source was formulated by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky from a theoretical-cognitive point of view.

In the event that the testimony does not deserve to be recognized as unconditionally true or unconditionally untrue, it is necessary to find out the degree of its reliability or unreliability.

“The degree of reliability of a testimony depends on the ratio in which its “true elements” are to the entire set of elements included in the testimony.” But at the same time, one cannot be content with counting them, but must weigh the value of each element. The degree of unreliability of the testimony is determined by finding out the ratio in which “its incorrect elements” are to the totality of all the elements that form the testimony.

According to the scientist, it should be borne in mind that such a concept is not attached to a fact, but to the knowledge about the fact revealed in the testimony about it. You cannot talk about the degree of reliability or unreliability of a fact that happened or did not happen, but you can talk about the degree of reliability or unreliability of knowledge about the fact.

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, as a criterion for establishing the degree of reliability or unreliability of a source, proposed answering two questions:

• 1) the recorded fact could or could not have happened;
• 2) whether he really was or wasn’t.

When answering the first question, the historian, according to A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, must proceed from the concept of the systematic unity of consciousness in general and from the position of the relationship given indication with “absolute truth” to judge its meaning, namely whether it corresponds or not to the “laws of consciousness” and “laws of nature.”

When answering the second question, it is not enough to be content with the criterion of “absolute truth”; it is also necessary to establish criteria for the actual truth of testimony. The most important of them are the concepts of the unity of consciousness contained in a given testimony, and the correspondence of a work with the culture and individuality to which it belongs.

The historian constantly uses another criterion suitable for establishing the factual reliability of testimony: the knowledge that he receives about each new fact that interests him must be put in accordance with his knowledge about the remaining facts already known to him. According to the scientist, two types of the above correspondence can be distinguished: consistency (non-contradiction) of evidence and coincidence (identity of independent) evidence.

To determine the reliability or unreliability of a source’s testimony, as noted by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, the study of the genesis of the testimony is of independent importance. At the same time, the circumstances and conditions for the emergence of the testimony being studied, the reasons and motives for its appearance are studied in detail, the conditions of a given place and time, and the position occupied by their author in society are clarified. The genesis of indications is clarified in connection with the general properties of human nature and depending on the conditions of the culture in which they arose. The identity of the author or witness requires detailed study.

“Methodology of History” ends with A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky’s reflections on the general significance of historical sources.

The scientist’s conclusions have not lost their modern resonance today. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky notes:

Historical sources have both theoretical and practical significance. In theoretical terms, they are important for understanding historical reality. In practical terms, they are needed in order to act in it and participate in cultural life humanity.

From a general theoretical and epistemological point of view, a historical source acquires a special kind of significance, since without historical sources it is impossible to construct the history of mankind, which can only be learned from them.

But, the scientist warns, historical knowledge based on historical sources turns out to be only “more or less probable.” Firstly, because the material available to the researcher is of rather “random origin”. And, secondly, because the historian rarely achieves a “full understanding and proper assessment” of the testimony of the source.

However, further argues A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, thanks to the close connection between manifestations of culture, occasional gaps of one type of source can sometimes be filled in with data from other sources. The gaps formed in a given group of sources or in one of them can be restored by reconstructing the archetype or restoring lost parts. The concept of “random material” is more applicable to the remains of culture than to historical legends, since “than fact is more important for a certain social group, it is all the more likely that it will somehow be reflected in the consciousness of contemporaries or even several generations and will evoke on their part some kind of memory or evaluation.”

In addition, according to A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, the historian must keep in mind that each source receives its full “meaning” only as a result of its scientific processing. But in many cases interpretation and criticism cannot fully achieve accurate results and are forced to be content with “an understanding of the source that only more or less approaches the truth.” Consequently, conclusions obtained by interpreting and criticizing a source can easily turn out to be “only more or less probable.”

At the same time, the scientist emphasizes, “historical material (controlled by interpretation and criticism) is still suitable for understanding historical reality.” Moreover, “the wider the range of sources to which the historian turns, the more he can count on achieving his goal.” Further, A. S. Lap-po-Danilevsky concludes:

One should not overly underestimate the importance of historical material for the knowledge and construction of historical reality: it suffers, of course, from significant gaps and does not always lend itself to successful interpretation and criticism, but it also contains such treasures of human thought, the study of which is sufficient to construct the history of our culture , at least in its most important features and contribute to its development in the future.

Discussing the significance of sources for the knowledge and construction of historical reality, the scientist emphasizes that they themselves turn out to be “facts from the history of culture that arose under its influence” and “can more or less significantly influence its subsequent development.” A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky concludes his work with the words about the meaning of historical sources in the matter of cultural continuity: “Without the constant use of historical sources, a person cannot participate in the fullness of the cultural life of mankind.”

Thus, the “Methodology of History” represents an integral, theoretically reasoned concept. And S. Lappo-Danilevsky defined the tasks of the methodology of source study, formulated the concept of a historical source as the central link of his scientific concept, and correlated other theoretical basis sciences and methods of source research - classification, doctrines of criticism and interpretation, determining the meaning of historical sources. The scientist considered the main issues of source study methodology in the system of historical knowledge.

For almost a century, the dominant point of view in Russian historiography was that A. S. LappoDanilevsky belonged to neo-Kantian direction of philosophy of history. However, recently a different view has emerged, the essence of which is that the scientist’s philosophical concept is close to phenomenology E. Husserl, based on the idea of ​​the unity of the world and scientific knowledge about it. Thus, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky saw in humanity a special part of the world whole endowed with consciousness (O. M. Medushevskaya).

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky creatively rethought contemporary epistemological concepts: the positivism of O. Comte, the neo-Kantian philosophy of W. Windelband and G. Rickert, the sociological ideas of N. K. Mikhailovsky. He did not agree with the neo-Kantians in contrasting the nomothetic and ideographic approaches in science and believed that in historical research they coexist and complement each other. Thus, the main position of neo-Kantianism was not only not shared, but was also refuted by it.

Consideration morphological features documents for empirical level became the main goal of the positivist movement. The positivist historian studied historical sources as and only as they are presented in direct empirical perception.

The philosophical paradigm that has proven capable of combining philosophical and empirical approaches into a single whole is the phenomenological approach to historical phenomena. A. S. Lappo-Danilsvsky, as the founder of the phenomenological concept of historical methodology, put forward the thesis of “recognition of someone else’s animation,” which means that there is a universal connection between man and man, a certain possibility of their mutual understanding. This affirms the possibility of animated exchange through realized products of purposeful human activity. Phenomenological philosophy, based on the thesis about the integrity and systematicity of the surrounding world, allows us to take a new approach to understanding the vast empirical material accumulated in the field of source studies. The similarities and differences of historical sources can be studied as a manifestation of their unity and diversity. It turns out to be possible to consider any of them as a historical phenomenon and apply to them a single method of revealing their source capabilities.

Assessing the contribution of his teacher, S. N. Valk defined the essence of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky’s concept as “phenomenology of culture.” Creation at the beginning of the 20th century. The phenomenological concept of historical methodology became a decisive historiographical fact for the subsequent development of the theory and methodology of source study.

Bibliography

Sources

Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Methodology of history / A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. - M., 2006.

Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Essay on Russian diplomacy of private acts. Lectures given to students of the “Archival Courses” at the Petrograd Archaeological Institute in 1918 / A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. - Pg„ 1920.

Research

Valk S. N. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. Essay on Russian diplomacy of private acts / S. N. Valk // Russian Historical Journal. - 1922. - No. 8.

Grevs I. M. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky: Experience in the interpretation of the soul / I. M. Grevs // Russian Historical Journal. - 1920. - Book. 6.

Ivanov G. M. Historical source and historical knowledge / G. M. Ivanov. - Tomsk, 1973.

Historical science and methodology of history in Russia of the 20th century: To the 140th anniversary of the birth of Academician A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. - St. Petersburg, 2003.

Malinov A. Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky: historian and philosopher / A. Malinov, S. Pogodin. - St. Petersburg, 2001.

Medushevskaya O. M. History of source study in the 19th-20th centuries. / O. M. Medushevskaya. - M., 1988.

Medushevskaya O. M. Lappo-Danilevsky / O. M. Medushevskaya // Social thought in Russia in the 18th - early 20th centuries. Encyclopedia. - M., 2005.-S. 249-250.

Medushevskaya O. M. Methodology of history as a strict science / O. M. Medushevskaya // Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Methodology of history: in 2 volumes - M.: ROSSPEN, 2010. - T. 1. - P. 23-84.

Medushevskaya O. M. Modern foreign source studies / O. M. Medushevskaya. - M., 1983.

Medushevskaya O. M. Theory and methodology of cognitive history / O. M. Medushevskaya. - M., 2008.

Pronshtein A.P. Theory and methodology of historical source study in the work of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky “Methodology of History” / A. P. Pronshtein // Source study of Russian history. 1989. - M., 1989.

Rostovtsev E. A. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky and the St. Petersburg school / E. A. Rostovtsev. - Ryazan, 2004.

Rusina Yu. A. The scientific heritage of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky (on the issue of the theory and methodology of source study) / Yu. A. Rusina // Document. Archive. Story. Modernity: Sat. scientific tr. - Vol. 2. - Ekaterinburg: Ural State University Publishing House, 2002. - P. 246-263.

Rumyantseva M. F. Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky (introductory article) / M. F. Rumyantseva // Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Methodology of history: in 2 volumes - M.: ROSSPEN, 2010. - T. 1. - P. 5-23 .

KhmylevL. N. Problems of historical methodology in Russian bourgeois historiography late XIX- beginning of the 20th century / L. N. Khmylev. - Tomsk, 1978.

Schmidt S. O. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky at the turn of eras / S. O. Schmidt // The historian’s path: selected works on source study and historiography.-M„ 1997.-P. 167-176.

Classification of historical sources. Domestic historiography on classification. Classification of written sources.

IV.End 19th - early 20th centuries.

III.70s 19th century

II.30-50s 19th century

The concept of “historical source” - field source - appears, but they did not set out to give a definition.

1872 - course of lectures K. Bestuzheva-Ryumina . The introduction draws attention for the first time to the differences between historical source and historical research. The term " historical source“They began to use it more thoughtfully.

Klyuchevsky, Koreev...

The need to define.

Klyuchevsky lectured on source studies at Moscow State University:

historical source- a written or material monument that reflects the extinct life of individuals and entire...

Zagossky: historical source- everything that can serve us as a means of understanding the past life.

· Historical source- an objective reflection of historical reality.

· Historical source- the result of an analysis of the human psyche.

Medushevskaya - Lappo-Danilevsky viewed the source as a form of communication between people.

Stages after 1917(By Pushkarev):

Saar: source- materials from which we can recognize the past.

Grekov: source– in a broad sense, this is everything from where we can get information.

Tikhomirov: source- a monument of the historical past, testifying to the history of human society and characterizing the level of its development at a certain stage.

Pushkarev: source is an object created by man on the basis of personal subjective images of the real objective world.

Classification- a process that consists of dismembering a single complex according to one or more characteristics.

Cherepnin: classification– this is not the main problem of source study.

Bulygin And Pushkarev : This is the most important problem of source study.

1985 – Schmidt: Art. “On the classification of historical sources” (classification is an important tool).

What to take as a basis?

Zimin: content and (politics, economics).

Kashtanov: by origin.

Medushevskaya: formational feature.

Pushkarev: divided by the method of recording (coding) information:

1. Written.

2. Real.

3. Oral.

4. Ethnographic.

5. Linguistic.

6. Photo-cinema.

7. Photo documents.

Kovalchenko offered fewer groups:

1. Real.

2. Written.

3. Fine.

4. Phonetic.

Pushkarev: “Written sources must be divided according to their common structure, content, origin, and purpose.”

He highlighted the following groups:

1. chronicle,

2. legislative acts,

3. statistical acts,

4. office documents,

5. private acts,

6. periodicals,

7. journalism,

8. personal documents.

Kovalchenko: mass source– characterizing objects that form social systems.

Litvak: mass source– documents that reflect single facts and have a single interest, but in the aggregate allow one to identify a pattern.

Criteria:

· uniformity– everyday life of the conditions in which the source arose (birth certificate),

· uniformity– similarity or repeatability (birth certificate),

· uniformity of form(birth certificate, characteristics).

Stages:

1. Identify the historical source (know which institutions...),

2. Select the desired historical source (+ criticism),

3. Correctly use a historical source.

5.Historical source – the unity of objective and subjective.

Marxism-Leninism is the recognition of the objectivity and subjectivity of the historical source.

Every source is subjective, because he is a product of human consciousness, at the same time historical source is objective, because it is part of historical reality and the author could express reality quite objectively.

Marxism-Leninism recognizes the objective feature of the source.

A historical source is also objective because the historian can separate the objective side of the source from the subjective. The basis for this is the inexhaustibility of sources.

The source arises in the process of human activity and is a reflection of human consciousness. The source is a product of activity on the human psyche of the surrounding world.

At the same time, a person influences the world around him. Consequently, reflection is inseparable from human practical activity.

Historical sources are everything that reflects the development of human society and is the basis for scientific knowledge, i.e. everything created in the process of human activity and carrying information about the diverse aspects of social life.

The basis of the source is information. Information communications.

Basic principles of the Marxist-Leninist methodology of historical analysis of sources:

§ Principle of objectivity. Comprehensiveness of study. Two aspects of the application of this principle: at the basis of the analysis of each individual source, in identifying and selecting sources for research.

§ The principle of partisanship. Belonging of the source to a certain social group.

§ The principle of historicism.

Stages of working with a source :

2. identifying the source;

3. source analysis (otherwise, scientific or source criticism);

4. development of methods for studying, processing and analysis.

The widespread distinction in the analysis of external and internal criticism of sources is unfounded. Such a division is based on a formal approach to the source, on the rupture of its unified and integral structure. Therefore, it does not reveal the content and objectives of the researcher’s work with the source.

The concept of source analysis, or scientific criticism, of a source contains a series of consistently resolved issues in the study of historical sources :

· definition external features monument,

· circumstances and motives of the origin of the text,

· interpretation of the text,

· determination of its reliability,

· completeness,

· representativeness,

· scientific significance.

Criticism is conditioned by the very nature of the historical source, therefore it is wrong to limit this task only to the source analysis of documents that came out, for example, from among the exploiting classes. All sources need analysis.

Critical analysis of a source requires both establishing the origin of the source (authenticity, circumstances and purposes of compilation) and its text (identifying the original text, additions and revisions, editions and lists). Analysis of a written source begins with establishing its authenticity. It is necessary to find out that the existing document actually originated in a certain place and at a certain time. When establishing the authenticity of a source, its external features, chronological and metrological information, language and style data, form and structure, information about events, persons, organizations, institutions, geographic locations, etc. mentioned in the source itself are taken into account. Having established the fact of the authenticity of the source, it is necessary to determine whether the document reaching the researcher is the first copy, a copy or a list. The next stage is reading the text. Requires special paleographic preparation, taking into account the features of statutory, semi-statutory and cursive writing with their abbreviations, ascenders, and the absence of division into phrases and words. Their text should be broken down into phrases and words, and translation into a modern language should be done on the basis of knowledge of the grammatical forms and vocabulary of the language of the eras to which the document belongs. In addition to establishing the existing literal meaning of the text, it is important to identify the primary text and possible additions and changes. As a result, editions arise, i.e. works based on one protograph (original text), but receiving a new direction, form, content. Reading the text may require textual analysis of the source, when the main text is established, codified and commented on. The problem of dating is related to the task of establishing the place of origin of the source. There is also an important question about the authorship of the source. This is necessary not only for the sake of finding out the name of the person who wrote the source, or identifying the institution or organization that took part in its compilation. These data require a critical attitude. Pseudonyms are possible. Handwriting examination is possible.

Having identified the authenticity of the source, read the text, established the place and time of its compilation, authorship, you can find out the circumstances and purposes of compiling the document, i.e. historical conditions of its appearance.

The next stage of working with the source requires studying the content of the source and establishing its correspondence to historical reality. Each written source contains facts, characteristic events and phenomena.

The source expresses the interests of a certain circle of people, a certain social environment.

All this gives the most general idea about the main paths, directions, stages and content of scientific criticism of written sources.

Source criticism of sources is a prerequisite for developing methods for processing and subsequent analysis of the data they contain. Only a comprehensive critical analysis of a source can ensure the identification of its scientifically significant information and help the researcher in choosing methods for processing it to create a system of historical facts that reveal the inner essence of the phenomena and processes being studied, their interrelationships and development trends. The development of science is accomplished to a large extent due to the development of more advanced techniques and methods for interpreting sources, as well as processing their data.

The main sources involved in this study are the following subtypes of office documentation: minutes of meetings of the political and educational committee, minutes of meetings of school employees, minutes of meetings of school councils and parent meetings; information on schools in the form of statistical documentation; teacher questionnaires; school reports on the work done; sick leave and vacation certificates for teachers; estimates for school renovations; lists of students, etc.

Speaking about the appearance of the sources, it should immediately be noted that they are all preserved in fairly good condition. An archival storage unit is a “Case” folder containing a certain number of documents. On the cover in large letters in the center it says “Minutes of meetings of the volost political and educational committee”, and the date is indicated at the bottom right, for example in storage unit No. 24 there is the following entry - “Started: January 5, 1926 Finished: December 30.”

The documents are filed with thread on the left side according to a chronological principle. Cases contain from 60 to 500 sheets.

Most documents are drawn up in writing by hand, less often on a typewriter. Minutes of meetings, for example, were kept during the meeting; the handwriting of the writers was sometimes not legible, which made them difficult to study. The ink color is also different:

• · Black;
• · Blue;
• · Green;
• · Violet;
• · Red;

It should be noted that the “original” protocols, as a rule, had copies compiled for storage in the institution for the purpose of transferring information to higher authorities (for example, to the district or provincial committees). On copies of the minutes, the printed sign COPY was placed in the upper right corner and at the end of the document the chairman of the meeting wrote “Copy is correct” and signed.

The paper used for keeping documents was changed at almost every meeting. Most often the paper was Low quality, dark color, A4 format (especially in rural areas). The minutes were kept on different types of paper:

• · “in line”;
• · “in a cage”;
• · "White list;
• · office paper of other institutions;

For the most part, documents were kept on two sides of the sheet; in order to save money (especially copies), only sometimes the clerks used only one (front) side of the sheet.

By the 1920s, office work had largely established a basic structure for the introduction of protocols. This stability makes it possible to present the contents of the protocols:

• 1. Province, district, volost, village, society;
• 2. Date;
• 3. Self-name of the gathering (if present);
• 4. Composition and number of participants;
• 5. Chairman, official members of the company;
• 6. Presence of outsiders (representatives of government, public, etc.);
• 7. Self-title of the document;
• 8. List of issues discussed;
• 9. Listening to each question point by point;
• 10. Decisions made after each question;
• 11. Signature of the clerk (secretary);
• 12. Signature of the chairman of the meeting;
• 13. Seal of the institution;

Unfortunately, this structure was not always followed, which complicates the research. Sometimes, in order to save time, or perhaps due to the inexperience or illiteracy of the secretary, such important points as the dating of the protocol, the composition of the participants, or the list of issues discussed were omitted. It should also be noted that, unfortunately, the vast majority of protocols are “dumb”. “Blind” minutes are minutes that contain only an indication of the agenda, a list of speakers and short solutions(for example, minutes of meetings of the presidium of the volost political and educational committee for 1926, GATO. F. R-1666. Inventory 1. Item 24.).

Establishing the time and place of origin of the sources is not difficult in this case, since all documents, firstly, are distributed according to a geographical principle in the archival file itself, and secondly, the dating and place of creation can be established from the text of the document itself, in which it is necessary either at the beginning or at the end the place of creation is indicated and exact time. Finding out the time the source appeared is very important, since the assessment of both the source itself and the information it provides largely depends on it.

When working with office documents, it is necessary to take into account how the office work of a given institution was carried out, on what principle the file was formed, how archivists-custodians subsequently invaded it, unforeseen accidents, and also take into account history government agencies. Since office documents arise directly in the process of practical activities of institutions and organizations when they perform their functions in the field of management or the implementation by public organizations of the duties assigned to them. Chernomorsky M. N. Source study of the history of the USSR: Soviet period. M., 1976. P. 181.

In the 1920s, as the main government agency In the field of education, science and art, according to the decree of the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the People's Commissariat of Education of the Republic operated, headed by A.V. Lunacharsky. In areas of local significance, according to the resolution of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR dated January 21, 1918, educational districts and their entire administration were abolished, and local school management was transferred to local Councils of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. Within the executive committees of provincial, district, city and volost Soviets, special bodies were formed - departments of public education, which functioned on the principle of double subordination. Being bodies of local Soviets, they at the same time represented the local apparatus of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR. Nelidov A. A. History of state institutions of the USSR 1917-1936. M.:, 1962. P. 694.

The activities of local departments of public education, the volume of their work, the breadth of coverage of issues of cultural construction, and at the same time their apparatus were directly dependent on the size of the territory under their jurisdiction (province, district, city, etc.), the power and complexity of the subordinated to them networks of educational institutions. But with all this, as A. A. Nelidov notes, the following functions were common to all departments of public education: school reform, concern for the material support of educational work within their jurisdiction, concern for providing educational institutions with qualified Soviet personnel, development of a network of educational institutions, developing the most appropriate organizational forms, programs and methods of educational work, instructing grassroots bodies and educational institutions, promoting the ideas of Soviet education among the population, linking educational work with the activities of trade union and party bodies, as well as with the work of economic bodies and the population, organizing public initiative , in the matter of public education, control over the execution of orders, etc. Nelidov A. A. History of state institutions of the USSR 1917-1936. P. 700. source clerical criticism archival

Local bodies were represented by provincial and district departments of public education, and in zoned territories by regional, district and district public education organizations. IN this study This means the Novotorzhsky district ONO and the Likhoslavl VONO. It should be noted that, in the territories where district control was introduced Administrative division, the management of public education in the district was entrusted to one of the members of the district executive committee. Under him, a public education apparatus was created, consisting of 2-3 workers.

Thus, the features of the source will come from the structure and organization of work of public education departments.

Establishing the reliability (authenticity of the source) is one of the stages of external criticism. A source is considered authentic if all its details (stamps, signatures, handwriting, paper, ink) are authentic.

AND drainage studies - a term denoting a body of knowledge about historical sources and their study. At the same time, a “historical source” means literally everything that can indicate accomplished facts, events, processes and phenomena. Sources can be oral, written, material, pictorial, and therefore a scientific classification of historical sources is built. Depending on the tasks of studying sources, scientific specialties of source study are distinguished. Classical methods of linguistic and historical source study are used. Thus, linguistic source studies analyzes written sources in order to find evidence in their texts about the history of the language. Historical source studies analyzes sources on the history of a state or people. Historical book source study aims to find and study sources that reveal the history of the book. These can be written sources and monuments of material culture, for example, means of producing handwritten and printed books. Books are an independent historical source. The subject of science in the source study of book history is the search for evidence about the emergence and development of writing, the means and forms of its recording and distribution, methods of consumption, reading characteristics, etc. Historical book source study has developed special moves, which are used in the historical study of book signs (ex librises), typographic fonts, engraving and printing methods, and printing house equipment.

One of the main methods of source study is external and internal criticism of a historical source.

External criticism of the source - this is its characteristic from the point of view of attribution and dating, that is, origin, connection to certain historical circumstances, manufacturer (author), time and place of creation.

Internal criticism - structure characteristics, source content, comparative analysis information, data that the researcher expects to obtain. Ways to check their reliability are indicated. Groups of questions are outlined that sources can answer. It is established what their value and significance for specific research results is. There are two types of sources: documentary - those that accurately convey a fait accompli, and interpreted - those who present it, narrate it (abbreviated, subjective, etc.). Interpreted historical sources include periodicals, memoirs and notes, and memoirs. External and internal criticism of a source aims to determine the degree of interpretability of the materials it contains. Based on this, a specific analysis plan is developed. In addition to setting the objectives of the research and establishing its chronological framework, the sequence of techniques and methods of source study is determined depending on its stages and directions. The analysis ends with conclusions about the significance of the detected group of sources.

Periodicals and ongoing publications are called newspapers, bulletins, magazines, almanacs, collections, etc. published at pre-announced dates. Newspapers and magazines have always actively expressed public opinion; in them you can find not only characteristics of the books being published, reviews of them, but also reviews of the work of publishing houses and the book industry. the market as a whole. The most valuable material for a researcher of the history of books are acts published in periodicals (laws, regulations on the press), book advertising, various types of information, letters from readers, etc.

Before proceeding with a source analysis of periodicals, it is necessary to identify whose press organ the publication is, its frequency of publication, format, volume, and the presence of special applications. Particularly interesting is the presence of letters from readers and reviews of them from the editors. Taken together, this makes it possible to establish the public face of the body, its political orientation, and general attitude towards book publishing and its problems.

It is also necessary to take into account the presence of special periodical journals of bibliology, which represent a real treasure for the modern historian. The earliest of such organs was probably the St. Petersburg Book Messenger (1860-1867). Its main advantage was systematic information about published books. However, the magazine was closed for critical articles about the state of the book market. The same fate befell the Moscow magazine "Knizhnik", published in 1865-1866. bookseller A.F. Cherenin. Of all the subsequent bibliographic publications in our country (and there are more than fifty of them), the most famous was “News on Literature, Sciences and Bibliography of Bookstores of the M.O. Wolf T.” (1897-1917). For the modern period, the most valuable is the ongoing publication of the scientific collection "Book. Research and Materials." Seventy-eight issues were published between 1959 and 2000.

Source research in periodicals should begin with bibliographic indexes of the press, and then, choosing what is necessary, gradually narrow the search until a specific source is identified.

Work with memoirs has its own specifics. There are numerous works on source research and criticism of memoirs. When studying memoirs (memoirs, diaries, notes, correspondence), inaccuracies of a subjective nature (for example, memory deficiencies), political, and ideological nature should be identified and, if possible, eliminated. A comparison is made of the memoirs under study with existing reliable historical sources on the history of the book: legislative acts, newspaper reports, advertising, address books and other reference materials.

From the point of view of the history of the book, memoirs can be divided into memoirs of a general nature and memoirs of the book’s figures; Objectively, both of them may contain sources that are extremely useful for our purpose. However, of particular interest are memoirs, business notes, diaries of famous publishers (for example, I.D. Sytin, A.S. Suvorin, M.V. Sabashnikov, etc.), booksellers (for example, P.P. Shibanov, F.G. Shilov, N.N. Nakoryakova), censors, librarians, bibliographers and many others. Unfortunately, a consolidated work on the bibliography of memoirs on the history of books in our country has not yet been created.

Print statistics includes quantitative indicators of book production. This is the number of titles both in total volume and by type, type of publication, by language, and state affiliation. Circulations and the volume of publications are taken into account - in author's, publisher's sheets, in pages. Press statistics keeps records of book publishing and book distribution enterprises: printing plants, printing houses, book warehouses, shops, kiosks. The subject of statistics can also be readers (consumers, buyers) of books.

The beginning of press statistics in our country was laid by the famous bibliographers A.K. Storch and F.P. Adelung. The systematic publication of statistical collections began, where the book was first taken into account among other cultural objects. Over time, special collections of statistical indicators of Russian book publishing and book distribution appear. In recent times, such fundamental statistical publications as “Print in the USSR” (yearbook), “Book Chronicle” and others have become famous. Currently, the publication of publications on press statistics is entrusted to the Russian Book Chamber.

When conducting a source analysis of statistical publications in terms of external criticism, it is necessary to determine what type of statistical tables they are, why use the introductory article and notes, if any. Please rate if possible statistical sources in terms of their origin and authenticity. In terms of internal criticism, establish possible dynamic characteristics of book publishing, book trading, and printing activities, reveal newly emerging features of their development, and evaluate them.

The most important sources on the history of the book are concentrated in state, departmental, public and personal archives - sources that are usually called unpublished. According to academician N.M. Druzhinina, historians “cannot limit themselves to printed publications and strive to search for new materials in archival funds... Direct contemplation of the document, gradual reading, thoughtfulness,... feeling into its contents enrich the researcher with a better knowledge of the era and the phenomenon being studied."

The history of the book must develop its own approaches to the study of sources, based both on the characteristics of the book, considered as historical fact, and on the features of sources that contribute to the disclosure of historical patterns of development, production of the book, its distribution and use. In this regard, it is customary to call the books and similar documents being studied historical sources.

Polish book historian K. Migon proposes to group the facts reflected in historical book sources as follows: the appearance of new elements in the content of the book, the appearance of new elements in the form of the book, changes in the technology of book production, changes in the organization of book production, changes in the organization of book distribution , social phenomena, processes that determine the growth or decline of interest in the book.

External criticism

Determining the external features of a written source

To determine the external characteristics of a source, data and methods of paleography, sphragistics, filigree studies and a number of other auxiliary historical disciplines are used. Establishing external features makes it possible to date the text and determine its authenticity. This procedure includes identifying the writing material (paper, parchment, fabric, birch bark, etc.), writing or printing tools, type of writing, handwriting or font, and the external design of the text.

Initially, parchment, birch bark, and wood were used as writing materials. Since the 15th century paper became the main writing material. Paper production began in Russia only at the beginning of the 18th century. Before this, foreign-made paper was used. During production, each full sheet of paper was marked with a watermark (filigree). By restoring the watermark, you can date the text. Special reference books on filigree help you do this. The best among them include the works of N.P. Likhachev “Paleographical meaning of paper watermarks” (in 2 volumes, St. Petersburg, 1898–1899) and S.A. Klepikov “Filigree and stamps on paper of Russian and foreign production of the 17th-20th centuries.” (M., 1959). The ink used to write medieval manuscripts was usually brown or Brown, but there were also black ones.

Most of the handwritten monuments of the 11th–17th centuries. was issued in the form of books, letters and scrolls. Old books differed in format, depending on the size of the paper sheet. 1/4 formats were used; 1/8; 1/16 and 1/32 sheets. As a rule, handwritten books were compiled from notebooks of 16 pages. The notebooks were numbered. The binding of the book was made of wooden boards, which were necessarily covered with leather or fabric. Certificates were written on separate sheets on one side. If one sheet was missing, then other sheets were glued to it from below, and the result was a rather long scroll. The places where the sheets were glued together on the blank reverse side were marked with a staple or the scribe's signature, which verified the authenticity of the text. When stored, the scrolls were arranged in pillars (columns). The size of the columns can be judged by Council Code 1649, composed of 959 sheets. Its length eventually exceeded 300 m. In 1700, columnar records management was abolished. It was replaced by business as a form of document organization.

Elements of the external design of the text include the decoration of manuscripts that changed over time: script, ornament and miniature. Elm is a decorative writing style that has a certain ratio of the height of the letter to its width and characteristic curls. A handwritten ornament is understood as the totality of its constituent elements: initial, headpiece, ending and decorations in the margins. An initial is the beautifully drawn initial letter of a text. In addition to the initial, there was a headband at the top - an ornamented drawing at the beginning of the text. An ornamented design placed at the end of the text was called an ending. An ornamental design made in a certain style was also located on the margins. Many manuscripts featured painted miniature (face) drawings. Manuscripts painted with miniatures were called obverse.

The most significant external feature of a text is the type of writing. The most ancient type of writing in Rus' was the charter, which existed in the 11th–15th centuries. In the XIV - early XVI centuries. semi-charter was used in the 16th–17th centuries. - cursive writing. In the 18th century its simplified type was established. In the XIX - early XX centuries. Civil writing and, since 1918, modern writing have become widespread.

Setting the time of text occurrence

Many Russian documents of the Middle Ages, modern and contemporary times have a direct indication of the time of their creation - the date in the text, stamp or near the signature. Similar evidence is also found in some sources of earlier times, when the document mentions a name, title, position, church rank or membership in the “list of saints”. The dates of writing documents are also established based on the events, persons, institutions mentioned in the text, banknotes, the quality of paper, ink, the physical measures and seals used in the text, the lists and registers of papers, the vocabulary and dialectal features of the language. One of the important techniques is dating by external signs text: letter, material, watermarks, design. In some cases, astronomical and other data help date the text. The situation is more complicated when you have to work with a copy or editing of the text. In this case, it is necessary to find out whether the specified date is the time of compilation of this option. To date written sources, the researcher often has to use data from paleography, filigree science, numismatics, heraldry, historical metrology, historical linguistics and other auxiliary historical disciplines.

Determining the location of the source

Determining the place of creation of a written source helps to find out the reasons, goals, historical, cultural and local conditions of its origin, find the author and, ultimately, correctly interpret its content. When working with spatial information, it is necessary to know the political and territorial division of the country, its geography, toponymy, local features of culture and language in the time being studied and in their historical development. Therefore, to localize a document, data from historical geography, toponymy, and linguistics are used. In addition, materials from paleography, heraldry, sphragistics, and historical metrology are used. For example, in medieval Rus' for a long time diversity was maintained local systems physical measures. In Novgorod until the end of the 15th century. Volumes of bulk solids were measured in boxes and quadrangles. In the rest of Rus' the units were kad, ladle, quarter and octine.

Some sources provide direct information about the place of origin. Most often these are toponyms - proper names objects and areas of terrain: settlements(oikonyms) and rivers (hydronyms). Many medieval documents do not contain direct spatial references. Then, for localization, the indirect data available in them is used, first of all, ethnonyms - the names of peoples and tribes. In this group of names, ethnotoponyms are important - names of peoples transferred to geographical features and topoethnonyms - names of places transferred to the people. Evidence of the local origin of a particular written source can be detailed description events that took place in any land, the author’s knowledge of small geographical and topographical objects. Indirectly, the place of origin of a document is often evidenced by local features of the form (for acts), seals, stamps and external design of the text. In a number of cases, anthroponyms - nicknames, first and last names of people derived from the names of places - are considered as localizing features. Usually they indicate the origin and affiliation of a person to a particular region, city, or locality.

Identifying the author allows us to obtain more accurate ideas about the place, time, causes and conditions of the origin of the source, and to more fully reveal its socio-political orientation. Having studied the worldview, practical activities, and sociocultural affiliation of the author, one can more accurately interpret the text and determine the degree of reliability of the information reported in it. Even incomplete, non-personalized (corporate-cultural) attribution of the source is important.

The author of the text could be either an individual or a collective subject: a corporation, a state or public institution, a sociocultural community. Collective texts were, first of all, the remnants of the functioning of social systems: legislative, office work, legislative and statistical materials, periodicals, and many chronicles.

The name of the author is quite often determined on the basis of direct testimony from the source. Human proper names (anthroponyms) include personal name, nickname, surname, pseudonym and cryptonym (encrypted name). Personal names are names that were assigned at birth and were known to society. The main thing was the canonical personal name, which was given according to the church calendar, at baptism and was secret. A non-canonical, worldly name was used in everyday life. Nicknames more often expressed the qualities and origin of their bearers.

An important part of the name was the patronymic nickname. It indicated a person’s ancestral origin, was honorable and reflected the social affiliation of its bearer. Aristocrats had a full middle name ending in “vich” (Petrovich). Persons of the middle classes used semi-patronymic names ending in “ov”, “ev”, “in” (Petrov, Ilyin). The lower classes until the end of the 19th century. got by without a middle name. Later than all other forms of names, surnames began to spread in Russia. Their appearance dates back to the 15th–16th centuries. The first surnames were given to princes, boyars, and nobles. Most of them arose from middle names, grandfather names and nicknames. In the 18th and early 20th centuries, pseudonyms were often used. To identify them, you can use special reference books, in particular “Dictionary of pseudonyms of Russian writers, scientists and public figures” by I.F. Masanova.

Most medieval texts of the 11th–17th centuries. expressed corporate consciousness. They were written according to the canons, had an anonymous character, and were repeatedly rewritten and revised at different times, which further strengthened their anonymity. Attribution of such evidence is carried out indirectly. For this purpose, data from anthroponymy, genealogy, heraldry, sphragistics, paleography, and historical linguistics are used.

The possibilities of indirect attribution of a source depend on the information it contains about the individual and social status author. The author is openly identified by indications of his place of birth, gender, age, age of majority (12–15 years for princes and service people) and marriage, ethnic origin, family and kinship ties. A good basis for restoring the degree of family kinship, in addition to pedigrees, is provided by knowledge of the “ladder” system of ascension of ancient Russian princes to the thrones and an idea of ​​the parochial system of holding positions in the 16th–17th centuries. Also important is the information in the text about the social origin and position (class, rank, position, awards) of the author, his worldview, values ​​and socio-political position.

Determining authorship often requires an analysis of the stylistic features of the text. This is especially true when studying narrative sources, since style analysis is sometimes the only way of indirect attribution. Everyone, even a writer working according to the canon, has his own stable style, expressed in the peculiarities of the construction of text and sentences, in the use of favorite words and phrases. The structure of style can be given a quantitative and stylistic form, which can be analyzed by computer methods. The coincidence of stylistic characteristics of an anonymous work and works whose creator is known allows us to attribute it to this author.

Establishing the authenticity of the monument

In source studies, a special technique for identifying forgeries has been developed. In many cases, they are discovered at the stage of clarifying the time, place, authorship and conditions of the document’s origin. If it is established that the source did not appear at the time, place and conditions in which, by all indications, it should have appeared, if the author is not the person who is meant, then it should be considered a forgery. According to the degree of authenticity, all historical sources are divided into originals, copies that repeat the external features of the original, and fakes.

To distinguish counterfeits, you need to know the reasons for their creation. All fabricated evidence can be divided into three groups. Most of them were forged in the past they represent. Most often these were fake legal documents. They confirmed ownership or provided various benefits. Another group of false testimonies does not express the past at all. These false testimonies were initially fabricated at a later time as fake sources. They were created in order to form the necessary ideas about the past. Such forgeries fabricated historical facts themselves. In addition, there are also collectible fakes that were created by collectors for prestige and to gain certain benefits.

All methods of falsifying sources are divided into falsification by content and falsification by form. The first includes completely falsified documents. Some of them can be executed in compliance with external signs of authenticity (handwriting, seals, etc.). Such forgeries are recognized by analyzing the content of the text and comparing it with already known and accurately established facts. Forgeries in form usually have genuine content. But some of them have fabricated external signs. Other sources, while apparently genuine, include forged text insertions, records, scribal notes, etc. This is how chronicles, charters and office documents were most often falsified.

Studying the nature of genetic connections of sources (Stemma)

Many ancient sources have come down to us in dozens of copies and editions, so their source analysis involves establishing the relationship between editions and lists, identifying the genetic connection of all preserved and lost texts of the monument, and reconstructing the history of the texts. These tasks are solved through comparative textual analysis, which can be facilitated by computer construction of a classification of lists. To do this, they use the method of constructing a “family tree” (stemma). It is based on the “groups” method proposed by the French textual critic D.J. Froger. The main idea of ​​the method is the following: if the “descendant” lists acquire all the features of the “ancestor” lists, then the history of copying the lists is encrypted in a very specific way in the different readings of the lists. Then, based on the analysis of the structure of discrepancies, a family tree of the lists is built.

The “groups” method has the following conditions:

1) each list has only one protograph;

2) each list contains all the errors of its protograph;

3) identical errors are not contained in lists that have independent lists as their protographs.

To study the genetic connections of sources, methods of conventional and historical textual criticism are used.

Methods of conventional textual criticism are used when studying texts that were edited by the author of the source himself or by a collective author. In this case, all surviving versions of the text (initial, intermediate, final) are sequentially checked. The study of connections makes it possible to clarify all aspects of the change in the original text, to trace the change in the intention of the author / authors, their ideological orientation, and the influence of individuals in the work on the final version of the text.

Methods of historical textual criticism are used in the study of the original text, which over a period of time was repeatedly rewritten and revised by various authors. Such texts have reached us in dozens of lists and editions. The ultimate goal of historical textual criticism is the restoration of the original, which serves as a source of historical reality. Unlike ordinary textual criticism, in historical textual criticism the study proceeds in the reverse order: first, later stages in the history of the text are restored, and then all the earlier ones. The research process looks like this: a comparison of lists allows us to identify their individual and general properties and restore the protograph of the text edition; in turn, their comparison also allows us to identify their individual and general properties and ultimately restore the protograph of the original text.

Internal criticism

Identification and external criticism of sources leads the researcher to the final stage of working with the document - interpretation of the text, interpretation of identified historical facts, i.e. hermeneutics. It is preceded by a study of the actual content of a historical source and clarification of its correspondence to historical reality.

Analysis of the actual content of a historical source involves identifying all the historical facts present in the text, revealing the completeness of its sociocultural information, determining whether the actual content of the source corresponds to historical reality, assessing the accuracy and reliability of its data, and determining the authenticity of the texts. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the sociocultural affiliation of the source, its functions, and the historical conditions of its occurrence; personal characteristics of the author, his worldview, the influence on him of the social atmosphere and political situation of the time of creation of the work in the selection, recording and evaluation of events, facts and persons, his attitude towards them, the degree of awareness of the author, sources of his information (rumors, eyewitness accounts, personal impressions , documentation).

Authentic sources include texts that are a direct remnant of an event, that is, there were no indirect links in time and space between the source and the event. Genetically, they are the result of the action of one of the participants in the event. Their occurrence influenced the course of events. Authentic sources, as a rule, include business documentation aimed at solving specific practical problems. These sources predominate among the sources of modern and recent times. Based on the source of information, inauthentic sources are divided into several groups: 1) sources compiled by participants in the events; 2) sources compiled by eyewitnesses of the events and 3) sources compiled by contemporaries of the events. In turn, a contemporary of the events - the author of the text - could use information gleaned from a participant in the events, an eyewitness or other contemporaries, which also influenced the degree of his awareness of the events that took place. The degree of reliability of all these sources is different. It depends not only on the source of information, but also on the time of compilation of the text, by one or another author - participant, eyewitness, contemporary.

Determining the reliability of historical sources comes down to clarifying the nature of the coincidence of their information. Such information may coincide independently of each other and as a result of genetic connections. In source studies, rules have been developed for formally checking source information for accuracy. The first rule states: if, by coincidence, the sources arose independently of each other, then this information is reliable. The second rule: if, when the information coincides, one source is based on another, then it is impossible to determine the reliability. And finally, the third rule: if information from sources contradicts each other, then it is also impossible to determine reliability. The dependence and independence of sources is verified using their attribution and methods of historical textual criticism. If there are three or more sources, which does not happen rarely, the rules for checking the reliability of information from sources become somewhat more complicated:

1. if information from one independent source contradicts information from other independent sources that coincide with each other, then the information from this group is reliable;

2. if information from one independent source contradicts information from a group of dependent sources, then reliability cannot be established;

3. if matching information from one group of sources contradicts matching information from another group of sources, then it is first necessary to find out the presence of genetic connections.

Most known sources contain information about several events. At the same time, the reliability of all information from one source is a contradictory property. A source may be reliable in describing some events, unreliable in describing others, and biased in describing others.

Identification of all historical facts present in the text, disclosure of the completeness of its sociocultural information, and representativeness of sources in historical research is associated with ensuring representativeness, which logically follows the identification of reliability. Representativeness is the property of a group of sources to display a phenomenon comprehensively and with the same degree of detail. In source studies, there are several ways to ensure representativeness. Firstly, when studying past phenomena, you should select sources that relate to different types and, secondly, depending on the type of historical phenomenon (action, event, process, situation). In addition, it is necessary to actively involve non-authentic sources (memoirs, memoirs, diaries, journalistic writings), especially when studying major social upheavals, when information was mainly transmitted orally, and total documents decreased.

Interpretation of the text (hermeneutic analysis)

Hermeneutics is a special branch of knowledge (from the Greek epmnvevw - I interpret, explain) which sets as its task to explain, interpret, interpret the meaning of the document being studied. At this stage, the problem of interaction in the system: “source-historian” is solved. C. Langlois and C. Senobos believed that the main thing in hermeneutics is the art of recognizing and explaining hidden meaning texts, their images and metaphors. According to A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, the tasks of hermeneutics are much broader: “To determine exactly what historical fact can be restored on the basis of a given source, to more accurately identify the very meaning that the author attached to the entire work.”

Representatives of the Annales school, who pay considerable attention to issues of hermeneutics, believe that the historian’s method is expressed both in the selection of sources and in the method of their interpretation. M. Blok decisively breaks with the tradition of old historiography and criticizes Alfan, who believed that “it is enough to surrender, so to speak, to the disposal of the sources, reading them one after another in the form in which they have come down to us, in order for the chain of events to be restored almost automatically". M. Blok is against the fact that the functions of a historian are reduced to the role of a passive registrar of archival storage units, a reteller of texts. He compares the historian to a forensic investigator, who “is not satisfied with the version of the accused and even his confessions, looks for evidence and tries to recognize all the circumstances of the case.”

Soviet historians S.N. Bykovsky, E.M. Kashtanov, A.A. Kursnosov, A.A. Novoselsky believe that the analysis of the document should be comprehensive and there is no need to divide criticism of sources into “external” and “internal”. In many ways it is conditional. The main thing is to determine the tasks of scientific criticism and methods for their implementation. A historical source reflects a certain sociocultural system of the past. The historian working with him represents a different (scientific and social) culture. There is a large temporal and cultural distance between the source and the historian. The researcher must overcome it by correctly understanding the content of the text used. Therefore, the historian, having established all the circumstances of the origin of the written message, moves on to its interpretation. The essence of interpretation is to reveal the true meaning invested in the testimony by its author. When interpreting, methods of hermeneutics (the science of understanding), ethnology and auxiliary historical disciplines are used. In order to correctly interpret the text, it is necessary to understand it as a historically determined sociocultural integrity (typing method), take into account the peculiarities of the worldview, values, character and interests of the author (psychological and individualizing methods). For this purpose, it is initially determined true meaning concepts and expressions used in the text. They need to be translated, understood and interpreted correctly. In principle, the historian begins to interpret the text while reading and translating. Unlike simple translation, when interpreting a text, the researcher focuses on revealing its meaning in accordance with the specific historical and cultural conditions in which the source arose. Words, concepts, phrases receive a direct, unambiguous interpretation. At the same time, omissions and errors are eliminated, idioms, symbols, allegories, allegories and allusions are revealed, individual parts of the text and the text as a whole are interpreted. These operations are especially important for revealing the meaning of narrative monuments, and the literal meaning often has no meaning.

Basic concepts of the course “Source Studies”

Historical sources are everything that was created by people in the process of social activity, has reached the present day and is used in science to obtain primary knowledge about the past of mankind.

Authenticity is the ability of a historical source to be part of the event it reports in the past.

Reliability is the correspondence of source information to the facts of historical reality.

Interpolation - words or phrases randomly inserted into the text during rewriting or editing.

Information expressed – consciously recorded, obvious.

Information is fixed - fixed on a material medium.

Unfixed information – not fixed on a material medium (oral).

Hidden information – not expressed in the content of the source, recorded involuntarily.

Narrative source – narrative source.

A copy is a text that completely reproduces the original text and has the formal characteristics of a copying certificate.

Mass sources – reflecting the essence and interaction of mass objects.

Authenticity is the correspondence of the source to what the author claims it to be.

A fake source is one that does not correspond to what the author claims it to be.

Representativeness is the property of a source to display a separate historical phenomenon comprehensively, with an equal degree of detail.

Tendentiousness is the incomplete correspondence of the source to the facts of historical reality.

The fact of a historical source is a subjective reflection of the facts of reality in a historical source.

The fact of historical reality is a concrete manifestation of reality in its past state.

A scientific-historical fact is a reflection of the facts of historical reality based on the facts of historical sources in the scientific works of historians.