Historical sources and their criticism. Basic elements of scientific criticism of sources Scientific criticism of sources
Historical criticism By the name of historical history we mean, first of all, a set of techniques that the historian uses in order to distinguish truth from lies in historical evidence. The so-called K. text is aimed at resolving the issue of the authenticity or falsification of a document. For example, one of the founders of historical history in new Europe , Italian humanist of the 15th century. Lavrenty Valla (see), wrote an entire essay to prove the forgery of the famous gift of Konstantinov, the authenticity of which was believed throughout the Middle Ages. Further, the document itself may be genuine, but the information contained in it may be incorrect. The author of one or another historical source often conveys what he himself learned from others, including in his work, without any criticism, known to him only by hearsay. Often the author himself, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, distorts the facts of which he was a direct witness. The scientific nature of historical work should be based primarily on the elimination from sources of everything that may contradict factual reliability. Historical history gives rules, developed through experience, on how to treat news contained in historical sources of different categories. The main common basis of these rules is simple common sense, but their successful application in practice is possible only with a certain kind of skill, the possession of which indicates a good school passed by the historian. Nevertheless, many scientists tried to formulate the rules of historical calculus as a special methodological discipline; There is a whole literature on this subject. Historical history is usually divided into external and internal. By external criticism is meant the examination, in relation to each document or monument, firstly, whether it is what it claims to be, and secondly, whether it really represents what it has hitherto been taken to be. When examining a source from the first point of view, for example, either direct forgery, or any insertions into the original text or other distortions can be discovered. When studying a monument from the second point of view, misconceptions about it that were formed and established independently of the author’s intentions can be eliminated. Science knows a lot of such cases when scientists mistook this or that monument for something that in reality it was not. Once the authenticity of a source has been established, it is often necessary to resolve questions about the time and place of its origin, about its author, whether it is a primary source or borrowing from some other source, etc. It is necessary to distinguish K from this external K. ... internal, which consists in deciding the question of the relationship of the news contained in the sources to the actual facts, i.e. whether this news can be considered completely reliable, or only probable, or whether the very possibility of the reported facts should be rejected. The main issues are resolved here by examining the internal merit of the sources, which depends on the nature of the sources themselves, on the individuality of the author, and on the influences of place and time. At the same time, it is very often necessary to check the reliability of some sources by others, and many sources about the same fact may, to a greater or lesser extent, either coincide with each other, or contradict each other. In all cases of historical research, both external and internal, the researcher, in addition to common sense and skill, also requires impartiality and close familiarity with the subject of research. Some theorists of historical theory also point out the need to maintain a golden mean between gullibility and excessive skepticism. The newest treatise on historical history, with references to the literature of the subject, is the fourth chapter of E. Bernheim’s excellent book: “Lehrbuch der historischen Methode” (1889, 2nd ed. 1894). Russian historical literature is very poor in works on historical history. A number of comments on this subject can be found in volume I of “Russian History” by Bestuzhev-Ryumin and in volume I of “The Experience of Russian Historiography” by Ikonnikov. See also Fortinsky’s article: “Experiences in systematic processing of historical criticism,” in “Kyiv University News” for 1884, as well as the Russian translation of Tardif’s pamphlet: “Fundamentals of Historical K.” (1894). In a broader sense, the name of historical criticism is given to a critical attitude, from a historical point of view, towards the very phenomena studied by historical science; but such usage cannot be considered correct, and it can give rise to great misunderstandings. N. Kareev.
encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - S.-Pb.: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .
See what “Historical Criticism” is in other dictionaries:
- (Greek xritikn art of judging, disassembling) study, analysis and evaluation of the phenomena of muses. lawsuit va. In a broad sense, classical music is part of any study of music, since the evaluative element is an integral part of aesthetics. judgments...... Music Encyclopedia
THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word “judgment” is closely related to the concept of “court”. To judge, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze any object, try to understand its meaning, bring... ... Literary encyclopedia
- (Greek krittke, from krino I judge). Analysis and judgments about the merits and demerits of any subject, work, especially an essay; discussion, evaluation. Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. CRITICISM of the Greek... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
Criticism- Literary criticism is a type of literary creativity, the subject of which is literature itself. Just as the philosophy of science is a theory of knowledge, epistemology is an organ of self-consciousness scientific creativity, so criticism is the organ of self-awareness of creativity... ... Dictionary of literary terms
CRITICISM, critics, women. (from Greek kritike). 1. units only Discussion, consideration, research of something, testing of something for some purpose. To criticize something. Treat something without any criticism. Criticism of pure... ... Dictionary Ushakova
Contents 1 Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.1 Notable critics 1.2 Translation ... Wikipedia
Women search and judgment about the merits and demerits of any work, esp. essays; analysis, assessment. Historical criticism, everyday analysis, searching for events, clearing them of embellishments and distortions. Human criticism cannot be avoided, gossip,... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary
- “New chronology” is a non-academic theory that claims that the generally accepted chronology of historical events is generally incorrect, and offers its own version of chronology and the history of mankind in general. According to its authors, it is based on... ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Historical school. Historical school of law current in jurisprudence first half of the 19th century century. It originated and became most famous in Germany. Contents 1 Basic provisions ... Wikipedia
Books
- A. Pushkin. Collected works in 6 volumes (set of 6 books), A. Pushkin. The collected works of the great Russian poet and writer A. S. Pushkin include all of his most significant works...
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. 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 Marxist-Leninist methodology historical analysis 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 :
· determination of the external features of the 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 mentioned in the source itself, information about events, persons, organizations, institutions, geographical locations, etc. Having established the authenticity of the source, it is necessary to determine whether the document that reached the researcher is the first copy , copy or 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 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.
Comprehensive analysis of the source or "source criticism", as source scholars usually say, includes determining the type of source, its origin, establishing the time, place, circumstances of its appearance, and completeness of information. Source criticism is usually divided into external And internal.
External criticism establishes the time, place and authenticity of the creation of the source, as well as authorship. Time, place and authorship are established even when they are indicated in the document, since this information may be deliberately distorted.
External criticism source studies are largely involved. Historian researchers pay much more attention to analyzing the content of a historical source ( internal criticism).
Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source, on the analysis of the completeness, accuracy and truthfulness of the information contained in the source.
Main directions of internal criticism- this is the establishment:
· the place of the source in the context of the era, its completeness and representativeness;
· the purpose of creating the source;
· reliability of the source (accuracy and truthfulness of the presentation).
You can determine the place of a source, how important and fundamental it is for the study of the era reflected in it, by establishing how representative it is (how much the most significant facts are reflected in it). In this regard, it is worth quoting the words of the famous American historian L. Gottshok: “People who observed the past saw only part of what took place, and recorded only part of what they remembered; of what they recorded, only a part has been preserved; The historian has reached part of what was recorded, but only part of it is trustworthy: and of what is trustworthy, not everything is clear to us; and, finally, only part of what is understood can be formulated or told.” At the same time, he adds that “we have no guarantee that what has reached the end of this path represents precisely the most important, the largest, the most valuable, the most typical and the most durable of the past.”
The researcher needs to remember that any document is created to achieve some purpose. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose allows us to understand that there could be other goals and, accordingly, other sources illuminating this fact, but in other way. This guides the search for other sources, various kinds of documents, and their comparison.
Establishing the reliability of a source involves how accurately a historical source reflects historical phenomena and events. For example, statements politicians are genuine from the point of view that these are the speeches of these very figures, and not impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always truthful and reliable.
In the general context of the study, the language and phraseology of the source are subject to critical analysis, since in different historical eras the meaning of words does not remain unchanged.
It is also worth paying attention to the fact that between a fact and its reflection in the source there is always a witness who occupies a certain place in the structure of society, has his own views and is endowed with individual psyche. All facts, before being deposited in the source, pass through its perception, and this leaves a certain stamp on the content of the source.
Each source contains elements of subjectivity that transfer to the facts reflected in it, that is, the source is colored to one degree or another by a personal attitude. The researcher has to do painstaking work to “clean” the facts from the taint of subjectivity and identify the true phenomenon of the historical process.
Structure and methods of historical knowledge
Specifics of historical knowledge
Structure of historical research reflects, taking into account its specificity, the stages of scientific- research activities in any field of knowledge:
· Selection of the object and subject of research based on determining the relevance and degree of knowledge of the problem
· Determination of the purpose and objectives of the study
· Selection of research methods
· Reconstruction of historical reality
· Theoretical analysis, proof of the truth of the acquired knowledge
· Determination of the value, theoretical and practical significance of the acquired knowledge
The research is determined by relevance, that is, it must be of scientific interest. The researcher certainly strives to objectivity in the assessment of historical events and phenomena. But with all the desire to be impartial, it is impossible to be completely free from one’s worldview, value or other attitudes. One way or another, in the process of research, the historian expresses his own, subjective opinion. The research activity of any historian always reveals a combination of objective and subjective factors.
The specificity of historical research lies in the fact that the research process is based primarily on theoretical methods, which necessitates verification (certification of authenticity) of historical knowledge. In order to get as close as possible to objective truth, reducing the influence of subjective factors, a system of methods of historical knowledge is needed.
Methods for studying history
History, like any other science, is characterized by its research methods. The first level covers general scientific methods used in all humanitarian fields knowledge (dialectical, systemic, etc.), the second level directly reflects general historical research methods (retrospective, ideographic, typological, comparative, comparative, etc.). Methods of other humanities and even natural sciences (sociology, mathematics, statistics) are widely used.
Dialectical method contributes to a theoretical reflection of the integrity of the object, identification of the main trends in its change, causes and mechanisms that ensure its dynamism and development.
System method determines the need for a holistic analysis of historical events and phenomena in the totality of the individual, special and general, the diversity of components of the historical process and its internal
Widespread in historical science comparison method (comparative method ) - comparison of historical facts, portraits of historical figures in the process of historical knowledge. It is aimed at detecting analogies or their absence in the historical process. The comparative method produces fruitful results when comparing the history of different states and the lives of different peoples.
Closely related to the comparison method typological method (classification method)– based on the classification of historical phenomena, events, objects; identifying the common in the individual, searching characteristic features for certain types of historical events. Classification is the basis of all types of theoretical constructs, including a complex procedure for establishing cause-and-effect relationships that connect classified objects. This method makes it possible to compare historical phenomena according to similar parameters.
One of the most common methods of historical knowledge is genetic (or retrospective). This is a retrospective disclosure of historical reality, activities historical figures, consistent changes in historical reality in the process of development based on cause-and-effect relationships, patterns historical development. Based on the analysis of the same object in different phases of its development, the genetic method serves to restore events and processes of the past according to their consequences or retrospectively, that is, from what is already known after the lapse of historical time - to the unknown.
Here is what the English historian D. Elton wrote about this: “Since we know how events moved, we are inclined to assume that they must have moved only in this direction and considered the result known to us to be “correct.” The first tendency frees the historian from his main duty - to explain something: the inevitable does not require explanation. Another tendency makes him a tedious apologist for what has happened and encourages him to see the past only in the light of the present.” The researcher must strive for objectivity, must strive to see the features of the era being studied and take a historical approach to the prospects for social development.
Idiographic (individualizing) method characterized by a description of individual historical events and phenomena, processes. This is specific, as much as possible. Full description individual historical phenomenon, allowing to recreate only a local whole, without implying comparative historical research. The idiographic method is aimed at identifying the characteristics of historical phenomena.
The study of historical sources involves the application matching method, mutual verification of information from available documents, various historical sources, which excludes the absolutization of a once-mentioned fact, and, accordingly, speculativeness in historical knowledge, and ensures an approach to the truth in a retrospective display of a historical event or process.
By studying historical documents, the researcher is engaged in observation. However, observation is indirect in nature, since, as a rule, what is studied is what no longer exists, what has sunk into eternity: the conditions in which events developed, the people who took part in them, and even entire civilizations. Observation is carried out on the testimony of individual participants in the events who did not choose the moment of these events, their place in them and often saw far from the most important thing in these historical phenomena. Only the study of various sources, historical observation through sources allows us to paint a more objective picture, to fully present historical fact and its peculiar features.
Historical science allows mental or thought experiment, carried out in the imagination of the researcher when an attempt is made to reproduce a particular historical event.
Widespread quantitative method (quantitative, statistical) analysis phenomena - dynamics analysis social processes based on statistical material. The first to enter the quantitative path was economic history, since it always dealt with measurable quantities: volume of trade, industrial production and so on. She widely used statistical materials characterizing economic processes And economic life society. With the help of statistical methods, various empirical data are accumulated and systematically summarized, reflecting various aspects and states of the object of study. Quantitative methods are now widely used in the study social phenomena of the past. However, when working with quantitative indicators, researchers are faced with two difficulties: for distant eras this information is too scarce and fragmentary, and for the modern period it is enormous in volume.
When extracting information about various facts from a source, the researcher compares them with what he knows about the same or similar facts and phenomena. Knowledge independent of sources is what the Polish historian E. Topolsky calls “ non-source": it is given both by one’s own observations of the environment and various sciences. Based on existing knowledge, the inevitable gaps in the source are filled. In this case, plays a significant role common sense, that is, a guess based on observation, reflection and personal experience.
All of the listed and characterized methods of historical research or methods of historical knowledge are at the same time methods of studying history within the framework of the widespread problem-chronological method– studying historical processes in the interrelation of facts, events and phenomena in chronological order.
Methodology of history
To understand current problems For historical science, it is important to understand not only the features of historical knowledge, the specifics of historical research, but also to get acquainted with various methodological approaches. This necessary condition to optimize not only historical, but also humanitarian training in general at the university.
"Methodological approach"- a method of historical research based on a specific theory that explains historical process.
Under the term "methodology" one should understand the theory that explains the historical process and determines the methods of historical research.
Long years In our country, only the Marxist-Leninist methodology of history was known. Currently, domestic historical science is characterized by methodological pluralism, when various methodologies are used in historical research.
Theological approach
The theological approach was one of the first to emerge. It is rooted in religious ideas that determined the basis for understanding the development of mankind. For example, the basis of the Christian understanding of the development of society is the biblical model of history. The theological approach thus relies on theories that explain the historical process as a reflection of the Divine plan for human existence. According to the theological approach, the source of the development of human society is the Divine will and people's faith in this will. Adherents of this theory were Augustine, Geoffrey, and Otto. In the 19th century the course of history was determined by the divine providence of L. Ranke. Russian authors of the Christian concept of historical development include G. Florovsky, N. Kantorov.
Subjectivism is an idealistic understanding of the historical process, according to which the history of the development of society is determined not by objective laws, but by subjective factors. Subjectivism, as a methodological approach, denies historical patterns and defines the individual as the creator of history, explains the development of society by the will of individual outstanding personalities, the result of their activities. One of the supporters of the subjective method in historical sociology is K. Becker.
Geographical determinism– exaggeration of the importance of the geographical factor in the development of specific societies. The Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), author of the “Book of Instructive Examples on the History of the Arabs, Persians, Berbers and the Peoples Living with them on Earth,” developed the idea of the decisive importance of the geographical environment for the development of society, the dependence of the customs and institutions of each people on the way they earn their livelihood. Thus, according to the theory of geographical determinism, the historical process is based on natural conditions that determine the development of human society. The diversity of the historical process is also explained by the peculiarities geographical location, landscape, climate. Supporters of this trend include S.L. Montesquieu, who expounded in detail the idea of the influence of climate and other natural geographical factors on society, its forms of government and spiritual life.
Russia as an entire historical and geographical continent with a special destiny was considered by representatives of the Eurasian school G.V. Vernadsky and N.S. Trubetskoy, V.N. Ilyin, G.V. Florovsky. N.I. Ulyanov, S.M. Soloviev in the history of the development of society attached great importance to nature and the geographical environment. N.I. Ulyanov believed that “if there are laws of history, then one of them must be seen in the geographical outlines of the Russian State.” CM. Soloviev wrote: “Three conditions have a special influence on the life of the people: the nature of the country where they live; the nature of the tribe to which he belongs; the course of external events, the influences coming from the peoples who surround him.”
Rationalism- a theory of knowledge that defines reason as the only source of true knowledge and the criterion of reliable knowledge. Descartes, the founder of modern rationalism, proved the possibility of comprehending truth by reason. Rationalism XVII-XVIII centuries. denied the possibility of scientific knowledge of history, considering it as the realm of chance. As a methodological approach, rationalism correlated the historical path of each people with the degree of its advancement along the ladder of universal human achievements in the field of reason. The figures of the Enlightenment most clearly demonstrated their boundless faith in the triumph of progress based on the power of reason.
The rationalistic interpretation of history (world-historical interpretation) in the 19th century is represented by the teachings of K. Marx and G. Hegel. In their opinion, history is universal; there are general and objective laws in it. In the philosophy of G. Hegel, the historical process is represented by three stages: Eastern (Asian), Greco-Roman (ancient), Germanic (European). In the preparatory manuscripts for Capital, K. Marx distinguished pre-capitalist, capitalist and post-capitalist society. It is a description of European civilization. Eurocentrism (recognition of European masterpieces of economics, architecture, military affairs, science as the standard of civilization and European criteria of progress as universal) led to a crisis in the rationalist interpretation of history in the twentieth century.
Evolutionism formed in early XIX V. as an anthropological interpretation of the idea of development and progress, which does not consider human society as a society of producers. The classics of evolutionism include G. Spencer, L. Morgan, E. Taylor, F. Fraser. Among Russian scientists, N.I. Kareev is considered a supporter of evolutionism. Evolutionism represents the historical process as a unilinear, uniform development of culture from simple shapes to complex ones, based on the fact that all countries and peoples have a single development goal and universal criteria for progress. The essence of evolutionist theory is extremely simple: with a few temporary deviations, all human societies move upward along the path to prosperity. Cultural differences between peoples are explained by their belonging to different stages of historical progress.
Positivism as a theory, arose in the 19th century. The founder of positivism was the French philosopher and sociologist O. Comte, who divided the history of mankind into three stages, of which - theological and metaphysical - have been passed, the highest stage - scientific, or positive, is characterized by the flourishing of positive, positive knowledge. Positivism focuses Special attention the influence of social factors on human activity, proclaims the omnipotence of science and recognizes the evolution of human society from lower to higher levels, independent of the arbitrariness of the individual. Supporters of positivism ignored the socio-political evolution of society, explaining the emergence of classes and other socio-economic processes functional division labor.
Formational approach
The formational approach is based on Marxist methodology , authored by Karl Marx.
Understanding the development of the historical process within the framework of Marxist methodology is materialistic understanding of history, since the basis of the life of society is determined material production, development of productive forces. TO productive forces refers to a person with his labor skills and skills and means of production , which, in turn, are divided into the object of labor and the means of labor. The object of labor is understood as everything to which human activity can be directed. Means of labor combine the instruments of labor with which a person carries out labor activity, as well as what is on modern language could be called production infrastructure (that is, a communications system, storage facilities). Relationships between people in the production process material goods, as well as their distribution and exchange are called industrial relations. The dialectical unity of productive forces and production relations is called production method.
An analysis of the dynamics of the relationship between the productive forces and production relations led Marx to the formulation of the law according to which the development of human history occurs. This basic historical law, discovered by K. Marx, was called the law of compliance of production relations with the nature and level of development of productive strength The discrepancy between production relations and the nature and level of productive forces leads to a change in the type of ownership of the means of production, a change in production relations, the development of productive forces and, thus, a change in the nature of the method of production. But not only the method of production is changing, but also all other components of human society. New type property leads to the formation of a new ruling layer (class) and socially lower strata, in other words, will change social class structure of society. New system industrial relations will be new economic basis. The new basis will lead to the renewal of what in Marxism is called superstructure. The superstructure includes both the system of so-called institutions, among them, for example, the state, and the system of ideas, which may include ideology, morality and much more.
So, the action of the law of correspondence leads to the fact that, along with the breakdown of old production relations, the whole type of society. The type of society that includes the above features is called in Marxism socio-economic formation(OEF). The process of changing socio-economic formations in Marxism is called social revolution.
The history of human society, according to the theory of K. Marx, is a change of socio-economic formations. In the Preface to the “Critique of Political Economy” he identified Asian, ancient, feudal and capitalist formations. On this basis, the Marxist approach to history is called formational approach. According to the formational approach finally formalized in the twentieth century, five socio-economic formations are distinguished in the history of mankind: primitive, slave, feudal, capitalist and communist.
The theory of formations is formulated as a generalization of the historical path of development of Europe. Within this methodology, human history is unified, and all countries appear to be moving in the same direction: from primitive to communist society. The course of history is determined (predetermined) by socio-economic relations, and a person in the context of a class approach to history is considered only as a component of class and productive forces. The main attention is paid to the class struggle as the driving force of history, when revolutionary development is absolutized and the importance of evolutionary development is downplayed.
Civilizational approach
When critically assessing evolutionism, positivism, Marxism, one should pay attention to theory of local civilizations, which is a cultural-historical interpretation of history. The theory of local civilizations arose as a reaction to attempts to unify the diverse human history. This theory, without recognizing uniform criteria for historical progress, characterizes the history of mankind as a diverse, multivariate process, a set of histories of various local civilizations, each of which has its own laws and its own direction of development. It has its roots in the theory of cyclical development of Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, who identified periods of development, stagnation and decline of social systems.
The development of the civilizational approach was based on the theory of cycles developed by O. Spengler and A. J. Toynbee. Oswald Spengler in his book “The Decline of Europe” revealed the uniqueness of Western European civilization, presenting it, like other civilizations, fenced off from the world. The English historian Arthur Toynbee made a huge contribution to the development of the theory of local civilizations. At first, in his theory there were 100 civilizations, then, as a result of enlarged criteria, the number of civilizations as types of society was reduced to 21.
Civilization is distinguished by a large number of criteria: geographical, natural, religious, economic and other various factors. Due to difficulties with numerous criteria of civilization, a large scatter in the number of identified civilizations, historians adhering to this methodology turned to the concept type of civilization. Russian scientist (a botanist by profession, history and politics were his hobbies) Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky presented the history of mankind as the history of individual, not related friend with a friend13 cultural-historical types, including the Slavic cultural-historical type . In educational literature, the following types of civilizations are usually distinguished: natural societies, eastern and western types of civilization.
A civilizational approach that takes into account the influence of a wide variety of factors on the historical process allows us to more adequately reconstruct history; to include in the process of historical knowledge the highest value - man; overcome Eurocentrism, that is, not present European criteria of progress as universal.
However, within the framework of the civilizational approach, a clear categorical apparatus has not yet been developed, the concept of a “civilized country” in the usual, everyday sense of the word is denied, there are no uniform criteria for civilization, and due to the “atomization” of human history, it is difficult to distinguish general patterns historical development.
The theories presented above do not exhaust the methodological teachings. And at present, the search continues for new ways of understanding the historical past, determining the content of historical science and methods of historical research.
Historiography of history
The concept of “historiography”
Initially, historiography was the name given to historical science (“historiography” - description of history). Currently, this term has a slightly different meaning. It means history of historical science. The term “historiography” is also used today in the sense "historical bibliography"(historical literature on a specific problem).
Appearance Russian state with caused the need to substantiate its origin and the inviolability of autocracy. In 1560-63. For the first time in the "Book of Degrees" the history of the state is depicted as successively changing reigns.
Comprehensive analysis of the source or "source criticism", as source scholars usually say, includes determining the type of source, its origin, establishing the time, place, circumstances of its appearance, and completeness of information. Source criticism is usually divided into external And internal.
External criticism establishes the time, place and authenticity of the creation of the source, as well as authorship. Time, place and authorship are established even when they are indicated in the document, since this information may be deliberately distorted.
External criticism is largely carried out by source scholars. Historian researchers pay much more attention to analyzing the content of a historical source (internal criticism).
Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source, on the analysis of the completeness, accuracy and truthfulness of the information contained in the source.
Main directions of internal criticism- this is the establishment:
· the place of the source in the context of the era, its completeness and representativeness;
· the purpose of creating the source;
· reliability of the source (accuracy and truthfulness of the presentation).
You can determine the place of a source, how important and fundamental it is for the study of the era reflected in it, by establishing how representative it is (how much the most significant facts are reflected in it). In this regard, it is worth quoting the words of the famous American historian L. Gottshok: “People who observed the past saw only part of what took place, and recorded only part of what they remembered; of what they recorded, only a part has been preserved; The historian has reached part of what was recorded, but only part of it is trustworthy: and of what is trustworthy, not everything is clear to us; and, finally, only part of what is understood can be formulated or told.” At the same time, he adds that “we have no guarantee that what has reached the end of this path represents precisely the most important, the largest, the most valuable, the most typical and the most durable of the past.”
The researcher needs to remember that any document is created to achieve some purpose. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose allows us to understand that there could be other goals and, accordingly, other sources covering this fact, but from the other side. This guides the search for other sources, various kinds of documents, and their comparison.
Establishing the reliability of a source involves how accurately a historical source reflects historical phenomena and events. For example, statements by political figures are genuine from the point of view that these are the speeches of these figures, and not impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always truthful and reliable.
In the general context of the study, the language and phraseology of the source are subject to critical analysis, since in different historical eras the meaning of words does not remain unchanged.
It is also worth paying attention to the fact that between a fact and its reflection in the source there is always a witness who occupies a certain place in the structure of society, has his own views and is endowed with an individual psyche. All facts, before being deposited in the source, pass through its perception, and this leaves a certain stamp on the content of the source.
Each source contains elements of subjectivity that transfer to the facts reflected in it, that is, the source is colored to one degree or another by a personal attitude. The researcher has to do painstaking work to “clean” the facts from the taint of subjectivity and identify the true phenomenon of the historical process.
1.1. External and internal criticism of historical sources. Subject of study of auxiliary historical disciplines
When recreating a true picture of the historical past, researchers use a variety of historical sources in their work. Historical sources- all evidence of the past that is associated with human activities and reflects the history of human society. Any object to which human labor has been applied at least twice is a historical source.
Historical sources are:
· material (various household and cultural objects created by human civilization);
· ethnographic (preserved traditions in the morals and customs of peoples);
· oral (folklore);
· linguistic (outdated words and names that were used in ancient times to call various phenomena and objects);
· written (signs made on organic or inorganic material that can be identified as writing);
· film, photo, phono, video documents.
Historical sources are varied and to prove their authenticity they must be subject to criticism. Criticism of sources is divided into external and internal.
External criticism is primarily about obtaining information about the origin of the source. This is what they do auxiliary historical disciplines– establishing the time and place of compilation of the source, authorship, conditions of its writing, authenticity, as well as restoration of the original text.
Auxiliary historical disciplines allow you to analyze text, language data, proper names, geographical information, observation of forms, handwriting, writing signs and writing materials.
Target external criticism – determining the degree of legality of using a source in scientific research.
Internal criticism is based on studying the content of the source and aims to establish its reliability, that is, to determine the degree to which life events correspond to their reflection in the source. The completeness of information and scientific value of the source is established. When internally criticizing a source, it is necessary to identify social status, national and cultural affiliation of the author. The author can ignore or modify some facts and, on the contrary, highlight those that he is interested in covering in detail. The author also has a certain influence historical setting where he lives and works. Internal criticism of a historical source is carried out by source studies.
Source study is an auxiliary historical discipline that needs to be given first place, which develops a methodology and theory for the study and use of historical sources. Source studies deals with techniques for identifying, classifying historical sources, and developing a comprehensive methodology for processing, studying and using sources.
The subject of study of source studies is written sources.
The main tasks of source study:
1. Identification of sources, search for sources;
2. Establishing the text (identifying later insertions - intercolations). Reading the text.
3. Establishing the origin of sources - authorship, place of writing, year of writing, authenticity, establishing the purpose of writing.
4. Determining the completeness of information and the political orientation of the document.
5. Synthesis of historical sources.
Source study, having separated from the auxiliary historical disciplines, is currently striving to become a special historical discipline.