History of the book (3.1). Historical sources and their criticism An example of synthetic criticism of historical sources

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

IV. Late 19th - early 20th centuries

III.70s 19th century

II.30-50s. 19th century

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

1872 - course of lectures K. Bestuzheva-Ryumin . In the introduction, for the first time, attention is drawn to the differences in the historical source and historical research. The term " historical source"began to use more deliberately.

Klyuchevsky, Koreev ...

The need to define.

Klyuchevsky lectured on source studies at Moscow State University:

historical source- a written or material monument, which reflected the extinct life of individuals and whole ...

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

· historical source- an objective reflection of historical reality.

· historical source- the result of the analysis of the human psyche.

Medushevsky - Lappo-Danilevsky considered the source as a form of communication between people.

Stages after 1917(on Pushkarev):

Saar: source- materials by which we can learn the past.

Greeks: 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 a person on the basis of personal subjective images of the real objective world.

Classification- a process that consists in the division of a single complex according to one or more features.

Cherepnin: classification This is not the main source problem.

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).

chestnuts: by origin.

Medushevsky: formation sign.

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

1. Written.

2. Real.

3. Oral.

4. Ethnographic.

5. Linguistic.

6. Photo-cinema.

7. Photo documents.

Kovalchenko suggested fewer groups:

1. Real.

2. Written.

3. Fine.

4. Phonetic.

Pushkarev: "Written sources should be divided according to the commonality of structure, content, origin, purpose."

He highlighted the following groups:

1. chronicle,

2. legislative acts,

3. statistical acts,

4. business documents,

5. private acts,

6. periodicals,

7. journalism,

8. personal documents.

Kovalchenko: mass source- characterizing the objects that form social systems.

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

Criteria:

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

· homogeneity– similarity or repeatability (birth certificate),

· uniformity of form(birth certificate, characteristics).

stages:

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

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

3. It is correct to use a historical source.

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

Marxism-Leninism is the recognition of the objectivity and subjectivity of a 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.

The historical source is also objective because the historian can separate the objective side of the source from the subjective side. The basis of 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 the product of activity on the human psyche of the surrounding world.

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

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 links.

The main principles of the Marxist-Leninist methodology of the historical analysis of sources:

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

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

§ The principle of historicism.

Stages of working with a source :

2. identification of the source;

3. source analysis (in other words, scientific or source criticism);

4. development of methods of study, processing and analysis.

The widespread allocation in the analysis of external and internal criticism of sources is unreasonable. Such a division is based on a formal approach to the source, on breaking its single and integral structure. Therefore, it does not disclose the content and tasks of the researcher's work with the source.

The concept of source study analysis, or scientific criticism, of a source contains a number of sequentially solved questions of studying a historical source :

determination of the external features of the monument,

the circumstances and motives for the origin of the text,

text interpretation,

Determining its credibility

completeness,

representation,

scientific significance.

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

Critical analysis of the 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 the establishment of its authenticity. It is necessary to find out that the existing document really arose 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, geographical locations, etc., are taken into account. Having established the fact of the authenticity of the source, it is necessary to determine whether the document that has come down to the researcher is the first copy, a copy, or a list. The next step is reading the text. It requires special paleographic preparation, taking into account the peculiarities of statutory, semi-statutory and cursive writing with their abbreviations, extended letters, lack of division into phrases and words. Their text should be divided into phrases and words, and the translation into modern language should be made on the basis of knowledge of 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 original text and possible additions and changes. As a result, revisions appear, i.e. works based on one protograph (original text), but given a new direction, form, content. Reading the text may require a textual analysis of the source, when the main text is established, it is codified and commented. The problem of dating is related to the task of establishing the place of origin of the source. 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 establishing the institution, organization that took part in its compilation. These data require a critical attitude. Aliases are possible. Possibly handwriting.

Revealing the authenticity of the source, reading the text, establishing the place and time of its compilation, authorship, you can find out the circumstances and goals of compiling the document, i.e. historical conditions of its appearance.

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

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

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

Source criticism of sources is a prerequisite for the development of methods for processing and subsequent analysis of the data contained in them. Only a comprehensive critical analysis of the 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 studied phenomena and processes, their relationship and development trends. The development of science is carried out to a large extent due to the development of more advanced techniques and methods for interpreting sources, as well as processing their data.

At the very beginning of the nineteenth century . A. L. Shletser substantiated the need for studying all sources of application three types of criticism: criticism of words, or small, then grammatical or historical interpretation of the text and, finally, higher criticism, or criticism of deeds. Throughout the nineteenth century. many Western European and Russian scientists, representatives of noble and bourgeois historiography, offered their own methods of scientific criticism of sources. So, V. O. Klyuchevsky, F. Schleiermacher and W. Wund divided it into philological and historical criticism, I. G. Droyzen - into criticism of the authenticity and correctness of the testimony of the source, Paul - into criticism of the text and testimony, etc.

At the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX centuries. in the works of C. Langlois and C. Segnobos, E. Bernheim and A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, a method of scientific criticism of written historical sources was developed, which received wide recognition among bourgeois historians.

The first stage in the analysis of historical sources according to this method should be their external criticism, i.e., establishing their origin in the narrow sense of the word. The task of external criticism is to determine the date and place of origin of the source, its author and authenticity based on the study of the material on which the source is written, handwriting and other paleographic data, seals, coats of arms, if any, as well as direct indications in the text of the source.

Second stage - internal criticism. According to these scientists, it consists in clarifying the reliability of the facts contained in the source. According to C. Langlois and C. Segnobos, this is achieved “by inference, by analogy, borrowed phenomena mostly from psychology and aimed at reproducing the state of mind of the author” .

Internal and external criticism cannot be run separately. Any position expressed in the document can be better understood and more accurately studied if the researcher knows the name of the compiler, time, place and conditions of occurrence.

Many bourgeois scientists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. recognized this method of criticizing historical sources as correct, even classical, and in their scientific work they were guided by it, making only minor adjustments. There are adherents of it even today.

However, while completely denying the reality and regularity of any connections in the historical process, proponents of theories in the West speak of the impossibility of developing scientific methods for critical analysis of sources.

historical materialism- a scientific basis for the development of general methods of analysis and criticism of historical sources. It provides a theoretical basis for criticizing the idealistic idea of ​​a historical source, as well as for developing a scientific understanding of the source as a phenomenon of social life. It equips the historian with the criteria and principles for identifying sources.

Many bourgeois scholars draw a sharp line between the different stages and methods of scientific criticism of sources. From their point of view, all issues of external criticism of sources can be resolved in isolation from understanding the political and class positions of the author. Even such a penetrating researcher as A. A. Shakhmatov, who recognized the reflection of the political positions of their authors in the sources, often reduced his work on chronicles to a logical-semantic or comparative analysis of their texts.

Purpose of criticism- Accurately convey the facts. In contrast to them, Soviet historians stand on the point of view that the completeness, reliability and accuracy of the transmission of facts depends most of all on the positions from which they were covered. Moreover, even many private questions related to establishing the place and time of the document, its authenticity or forgery, the name of the author, etc., the researcher can only answer on the basis of simultaneous external and internal criticism of the source.

Subject, method and periodization of the IGPR.

The subject of the science of the history of state and law in Russia is the study of the emergence and development of types and forms of state and law, institutions and mechanisms of state power, as well as legal institutions of specific states among the peoples of our country in a certain historical period.

The history of the state and law of Russia explores the interaction: state structures; legal institutions.

One of the tasks of the science of the history of the state and law of Russia is the study of various approaches to historiography.

The main methods of studying the history of the state and law of Russia are; historical, comparative, system-dark-structural, statistical, analogy and extrapolation.

The historical method approaches the state and law as phenomena that develop and change over time. This method reveals the main elements of the object under study and the changes taking place in it in order to reveal their content and relationships.

The comparative method consists in a comparative study of the state-legal phenomena in Russia and other countries. At the same time, their common features, differences and features of development are revealed. Individual state-legal institutions of the country in the process of their evolution can also be compared.

As a result of a comparative analysis, it is possible to trace the changes in these concepts and identify their causes.

The system-structural method is effective in the study of self-governing systems consisting of many interacting elements. Their analysis involves the study of the structure of elements, their internal and external relations, the identification of backbone elements.

The statistical method is used in the study of the quantitative aspects of the historical process. Working with numerical indicators allows you to identify the extent, prevalence, pace of development and other aspects of the process. Inference by analogy is a conclusion about the similarity of two or more phenomena in any particular respect, made on the basis of their similarity in other respects. Analogy is used in cases of studying phenomena, information about which is inaccurate, incomplete or fragmentary.

Extrapolation provides for the distribution of conclusions obtained in the course of the study of one part of the phenomenon (process) to another part of it. Extrapolation contributes to forecasting, especially when the object of study is a historical process. The conclusions obtained as a result of the study of the completed stage of development help to understand its present and to foresee the boundaries of the future.

The history of the state and law of Russia can be divided into the following periods:

- Ancient Russia (IX-XII centuries);

The period of independent feudal states of Ancient Russia (XII-XIV centuries);

Russian (Moscow) state (XV-XVII centuries);

- The Russian Empire of the period of absolutism (XVIII - the middle of the XIX century);

Russian Empire of the period of transition to a bourgeois monarchy (mid-19th - early 20th centuries);

Russia during the period of the bourgeois-democratic republic (February-October 1917);

The period of the socialist revolution and the creation of the Soviet state (1918-1920);

Transition period, or NEP period (1921-1930);

The period of state-party socialism (1930 - early 1960s);

The period of the crisis of socialism (1960-1990);

The period of restoration of capitalism (from 1990 to the present).

A modern human (homo sapiens) appeared on the territory of our country in the Black Sea region and in the south of Central Asia about 30 thousand years ago. At that time, the central and northern regions of the European part of Russia were covered with a glacier. Primitive people were engaged in hunting, gathering, fishing. As the climate warmed and glaciers melted, primitive people began to settle from the southwestern and southern regions to the north and east. By the 5th millennium BC. people penetrated to the upper reaches of the Volga and into the territory of the modern Baltic states and Karelia, and in the III - II millennium BC. - to the Barents Sea and to the southern regions of Siberia (to Baikal), after which they began to gradually move to the north of the Asian part of the country.

The southern regions, due to favorable natural conditions, were significantly ahead of other parts of the European and Asian territories in their development. The development of material production, the increase in population and the growth of property inequality led to the decomposition of the primitive communal system, which did not take place simultaneously in different regions of Eurasia. At the turn of III and II millennia BC. Slave-owning states arose in Transcaucasia, Central Asia and the Black Sea region. It is important to note that all of them appeared in the south and developed independently of each other for a long time.

The general events of their history were most often due to the invasion of the same foreign conquerors. These states had no contacts with the western and central regions of the European part of Russia, where the foundations of ancient Russian statehood began to form a millennium later. Contacts with this territory were prevented by mountains or semi-deserts lying on the way, as well as a wide strip of steppes where warlike pastoral tribes roamed. From the first centuries of our era, the steppes became the main route for the penetration of large nomadic hordes from Asia to Europe, often destroying everything in their path.

State of Urartu.

In the ninth century BC. in Transcaucasia, around Lake Van (now in Turkey), the state of Urartu was formed from several dozen Armenian tribes. By the middle of the 7th century the state occupied the territory from Lake Sevan in Armenia to the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates and became one of the significant states of the Ancient East. Urartu were engaged in agriculture, gardening with the use of artificial irrigation. Cattle breeding was widely developed. The cities of Urartu were fortified with walls and towers made of huge stones. Skilled artisans made tools, household utensils, weapons, expensive gold jewelry from clay, copper and iron. The state of Urartu had to constantly wage defensive wars with neighboring Assyria, which sought to enslave Urartu.

The state reached its heyday by the middle of the 8th century. BC, but in the VI century. after the invasion of the Scythians, the state perished. The Armenian tribes became the basis for the later Armenian kingdom formed here. To the west of it, the Colchis kingdom was formed from the Georgian and Abkhazian tribes, and to the north - the Georgian kingdom of Kartli (Iberia). Somewhat later - in the 4th century BC. - The state of Albania appeared on the territory of northern Azerbaijan.

Peoples of Central Asia.

The history of the peoples of Central Asia goes back into the mists of time. In the middle of the 1st millennium BC. three states arose here: Sogdiana(Zerafshan basin), Bactria(southern parts of modern Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) and Khorezm(in the lower reaches of the Amu Darya).

In the 5th century BC. Transcaucasia and Central Asia briefly came under the rule of the Persian Empire. In the IV century. these areas were conquered by Alexander the Great. There were large and powerful cities here: Khojent, Samarkand. The population was engaged in agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts. There was an advanced irrigation system.

The Arab conquest (VII-VIII centuries AD), which brought Islam with it, had a significant impact on the history of Transcaucasia and especially Central Asia. In the Caucasus, Islam spread among the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis and other peoples of the Eastern and Northern Caucasus. Armenians and Georgians, who adopted Christianity in the first centuries of our era, staunchly resisted Islamization, but some groups of Georgians (Adjarians, Ingiloys, etc.) were later converted to Islam. In Central Asia, Islam gradually became the main religion of the entire population. In socio-economic terms, the Arab conquest coincided with the emergence of feudal relations and partly contributed to this process.

After the collapse in the ninth century. Arab Caliphate in Transcaucasia emerged a number of feudal states. In the XI century. in the course of the struggle against the Seljuk Turks who penetrated into the Transcaucasus from Central Asia, the unification of Georgian lands took place, which ended under David the Builder with the creation of a single Georgian kingdom with its capital in Tbilisi. This kingdom reached its socio-economic and cultural flourishing under Queen Tamara (late 12th - early 13th century). The borders of Georgia at that time, as a vassal state, included most of Armenia (with the capital Ani). To the north of it was the Abkhazian kingdom and independent Kakheti, to the east (on the territory of Azerbaijan) - the Albanian kingdom and a number of other feudal states, the largest among which was Shirvan (with its capital in Shamakhi).

In Central Asia, after the collapse of the Arab Caliphate, several states arose (Samanids, Karakhanids, etc.), the largest of which was Khorezm. The Shahs of Khorezm managed to repel the invasion of the Seljuk Turks and extend their power by the 13th century to almost the entire territory of Central Asia, as well as to the southern Caspian regions, including part of Azerbaijan.

Greek colonies.

In the I millennium BC. The shores of the Black Sea began to explore the ancient Greeks. Greek colonization reached its greatest extent in the 6th-5th centuries. BC. At this time, in the Northern and Eastern Black Sea and Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov, the Greeks create such large colony cities as Tiras (the mouth of the Dniester), Olvia (the Ochakov region), Chersonesus (the region of Sevastopol), Feodosia, Panticapaeum (the Kerch region), Tanais (the mouth of the Don) , Phanagoria (Taman Peninsula), Dioscuria (Sukhumi region), Phasis (mouth of the Rion). In the 5th century BC. Panticapaeum became the center of a large slave-owning power - the Bosporan kingdom (V century BC - IV century AD), which covered a significant part of the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov. Trade, agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing, handicraft production were actively developing here.

The Greek city-states copied the structure and way of life of the Greek world. Almost all of them were slave-owning republics. Slaves were acquired as a result of wars, and all free citizens could own them. Large land holdings were formed here, in which grain, wine, and oil were produced. The craft was at a high level, which was largely facilitated by extensive trade. The Greek colonies maintained trade and cultural ties with the Scythian tribes living in the Black Sea and Azov steppes, and with the Caucasian peoples. At the turn of our era, the Greek colonies were subjected to repeated attacks by nomads, and in the 3rd century, when the great migration of peoples began, they all ceased to exist.

Scythians.

Numerous nomadic Scythian tribes lived to the north of the Greek Crimean settlements. They created a bright and original culture that left a deep mark on the history of the peoples of the southern part of Eastern Europe and the regions of Western and Central Asia. The earliest references to the Scythians are found in written sources. The "father of history" the Greek historian Herodotus (5th century) dedicated book IV of his history to them. he named the Iranian-speaking tribes that occupied the space from the mouth of the Danube, the Lower Bug, the Dnieper to the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and the Don. During this period, the Scythians were in the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system and a class society was taking shape. On the territory of the former USSR, the Scythians were among the first to create their own state.

Following the example of Herodotus, according to the way of managing the economy, the Scythians are usually divided into Scythian nomads and Scythian plowmen. Scythian nomads roamed in the Lower Dnieper, Crimea, Azov. Scythian plowmen lived on the right bank of the Lower Dnieper. Their dwellings were semi-dugouts, the depth of which did not exceed 1 m. Scythian plowmen cultivated wheat, flax, hemp, bred cows, sheep, goats, and pigs. Grain from Scythia was exported to Greece. They were engaged in various crafts, the most important of which was metallurgy, as well as bone carving, weaving, and pottery.
The nomadic Scythians were pastoralists. They left the most famous treasures and burials, which make it possible to judge the level of their development. Horse breeding among the Scythians played a major role. The horse was the favorite and main animal, and its image was a favorite and integral decoration of many products of the Scythians. Since the Scythians constantly changed camps, they developed a special type of dwelling - a felt yurt placed on a wagon.

In the VI - IV centuries. BC e. Scythians united in a powerful tribal union. In the III century. BC. on its basis, a strong Scythian state was formed with its capital in Scythian Naples (a district of Simferopol). From the point of view of the political structure, the Scythians represented military democracy. Power belonged to the military assembly. At the head of the tribe was the leader - the king, he was considered the supreme commander. The tribal nobility of the Scythians was fabulously rich, owned a huge number of slaves and had strong power. Slavery among the Scythians reached considerable proportions. Slaves were not only prisoners of war, but also free people from subordinate tribes. In the event of the death of the king, the royal escort was also killed in order to serve the master in the other world. The Scythians adopted from the Greek aristocrats a passion for the accumulation of gold and its obligatory placement with the deceased.

By the 3rd century BC e. the general situation in the Northern Black Sea region has changed significantly. The troops of Alexander the Great dealt a crushing blow to the Scythians. The territory of the Scythians was greatly reduced and was limited only to the Crimean peninsula. Relations between the Greek city-states and the Scythians deteriorated. From the east, the Scythians began to be pressed. At the beginning of the III century. AD came to the Northern Black Sea region. They destroyed the Scythian cities. The final defeat of the Scythian state was carried out by those who appeared on the Crimean peninsula in the 70s. 4th century AD

The Great Migration of Peoples in the III - IV centuries.

In the III-IV centuries. AD the time of the struggle of hundreds of barbarian tribes with neighboring states began. This period of world history is also called the great migration of peoples. Barbarians from the steppes and forests conquered the rich southern cities and settled in new places. This process contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire and Byzantium. At the same time, he had a great influence on the formation of the Romanesque, Germanic and Slavic peoples.

The migration of peoples went in two directions. From the north-west of Europe to the south and south-west, the tribes of the Celts, Germans, and later the Slavs moved. Hordes of nomads moved from the east from Asia to the west. In the IV century. AD the nomadic Huns traveled from the Great Wall of China to France, the Alans - the ancestors of modern Ossetians - from the North Caucasus to Spain. At the same time, the Germanic tribes visited the Black Sea, Italy, North Africa. Beginning of the 6th century characterized by the strongest pressure of the Slavs on Byzantium. Byzantine historians describe the invasion of the empire by Slavic troops, settling it with Slavic colonists.

The emergence of statehood among the ancient Slavs. Norman theory.

By the VI century. the tribes of the Eastern Slavs are going through the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system. Tribal and kinship relations are replaced by territorial, political and military ties.

As the division of labor and the increase in its productivity, it becomes possible to exploit the labor of others. In the rural community, the process of social stratification begins, the separation of the top, which grew rich due to the exploitation of neighbors and the use of slave labor.

Numerous wars also contributed to the emergence of a class society. In connection with the wars, the dependence of the communal peasants on the princes and their squads, which ensured the protection of the communities from external enemies, increased.

By the 8th century 14 tribal unions were formed on the territory of the Slavic tribes. At the head of the union were the prince and the prince's retinue.

The form of social relations of the Slavs in the VII-VIII centuries. military democracy.

Its features include:

Participation of all members of the tribal union in solving the most important issues;

The special role of the people's assembly as the highest authority;

General arming of the population (people's militia).

The ruling class consisted of the old tribal aristocracy - leaders, priests, elders - and wealthy members of the community.

Pursuing military-political goals, tribal unions united into even larger formations - “unions of unions”. Sources testify to the existence in the VIII century. three major political centers:

Kuyaba - the southern group of Slavic tribes (Kyiv); Slavia - northern group (Novgorod); Artania - southeastern group (Ryazan).

The Old Russian state was formed in 882 as a result of the unification under the rule of Kyiv of the two largest Slavic states - Kyiv and Novgorod. Later, other Slavic tribes submitted to the Kyiv prince - the Drevlyans, the northerners, the Radimichi, the Ulichi, the Tivertsy, the Vyatichi and the Po-Lyans. The ancient Russian (Kiev) state in its form was an early feudal monarchy.

It lasted until the middle of the 12th century. In the second half of the XI - the beginning of the XII century. semi-state principalities began to form on its territory: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav.

According to the Norman theory of the emergence of the Old Russian state, the state of the Eastern Slavs was created by the Varangians (Normans). Supporters of this theory are based on the legend of the calling of the Varangians to rule the Slavs. In this regard, they believe that the Slavs were at a low level of development and were not able to create a state. The Slavs were conquered by the Varangians, and the latter created state power.

However, sources testify that by the time the Varangians appeared in Novgorod, the state had already taken shape there. The Slavs had a high level of both socio-economic and political development, which served as the basis for the formation of the state.

The Varangian princes and their squads did not have a significant impact on the development of the Eastern Slavs, moreover, the Varangian nobility itself was influenced by Slavic culture and soon became Russified.

The development of state bodies in Russia.

According to the form of government, Kievan Rus was an early feudal monarchy. The Grand Duke was at the head of the state. Its functions at an early stage of the existence of the Old Russian state consisted in organizing the armed forces, commanding them, collecting tribute and establishing foreign trade. In the future, the activities of the prince in the field of administration acquired greater importance: the appointment of a local administration, princely agents, legislative and judicial activities, management of foreign relations, etc.

The income of the prince consisted of feudal duties, tribute (tax), court fees, criminal fines (vir and sales) and other requisitions.

Relations with other princes were built on the basis of letters of the cross, which determined the rights and obligations of the Grand Duke and the vassal princes (protecting the latter, helping them, helping the Grand Duke, etc.).

The Grand Duke's throne was inherited: first, according to the principle of seniority - to the eldest in the family, and then "fatherland" - to the son.

The Grand Duke in his activities relied on the advice of large feudal lords - the boyars and the clergy. Although the council did not have a clearly defined competence, the boyars, together with the prince, decided the most important issues of administration, foreign policy, courts, legislative activities, etc.

When the prince consisted of a council of boyars and "princely husbands." The management of the branches of the princely palace economy was entrusted to tiuns and elders. Over time, they turn into managers of branches of the princely economy. The decimal management system is being replaced by the palace-patrimonial system, in which political power belongs to the owner (boyar-patrimony). Two centers of power are being formed - the princely palace and the boyar estate.

In the early feudal monarchy, an important state and political role is played by the people's assembly - Vienna. All free residents of the city (posada) and adjoining settlements (settlements) participated in the veche. The competence of the veche included issues of taxation, defense of the city, organization of military campaigns and the election of princes. The executive body of the veche was the council, which consisted of the city patriciate, elders, and others.

Local government was carried out by posadniks (governors) in cities and volosts in rural areas, and relied on military garrisons led by thousands, centurions and tenths.

The representatives of the prince had the following powers: they collected tribute and duties, administered justice, established and levied fines, etc. Instead of a salary for service, they had the right to keep part of the population collected from the population for themselves. Such a control system is called a feeding system.

The body of local peasant self-government was the territorial community - verv. Verv XI-XII centuries. combined elements of neighborhood and family communities and was a conglomerate of small settlements. The competence of the Vervi included issues of redistribution of land allotments, tax and financial issues, police supervision, resolution of litigation, investigation of crimes and execution of punishments. The state, using the rope for fiscal, police and administrative purposes, was interested in the further preservation of the community structure.

Judicial bodies as special institutions did not yet exist. Judicial functions were performed by authorities and administrations in the center and locally - princes, posadniks, volostels and other representatives of princely power.

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was established. The Church judged: the dependent population of their lands, the clergy in all categories of cases, the population of the state in certain categories of cases (crimes against religion, morality, etc.).

The armed forces included: the squad of the Grand Duke, the squad of local princes, the feudal militia and the people's militia.

In 988, Christianity was adopted as the state religion in Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church was organized as a diocese of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The clergy were divided into "black" (monastic) and "white" (parish). Dioceses, parishes and monasteries acted as organizational centers.

The procedure for collecting tithes for the income of the church is established. She was granted the right to acquire land, inhabited villages, to exercise judgment in certain categories of cases, etc.

The largest monument of Russian law is Russkaya Pravda. Lists of Russian Pravda have come down to us in large numbers, but their unified classification is still missing.

Russian Pravda was a code of ancient Russian feudal law. Its norms underlie the Pskov and Novgorod judicial charters and subsequent legislative acts not only of Russian but also of Lithuanian law.

The articles of Russkaya Pravda speak of the establishment of the right of feudal property not only to land and land, but also to the movable property of horses, beavers, tools of production, etc.

Russkaya Pravda, the oldest Russian collection of laws, was formed during the 11th-11th centuries, but some of its articles go back to pagan antiquity. The first text was discovered and prepared for publication by V.N. Tatishchev in 1737. Now there are more than a hundred lists, which differ greatly in composition, volume and structure. The name of the monument is different from European traditions, where similar collections of law received purely legal headings - the law. lawyer. In Russia at that time the concept of "charter" was known. "law", "custom". but the code is designated by the legal-moral term "Pravda".

It is customary to divide the collection into three editions (large groups of articles. United by chronological and semantic content): Brief. Spacious and Abbreviated. The Brief Edition includes two components: the Truth of Yaroslav (or the Most Ancient) and the Truth of the Yaroslavichs - the sons of Yaroslav the Wise. Yaroslav's Truth includes the first 18 articles of the Brief Truth and is entirely devoted to criminal law. Most likely, it arose during the struggle for the throne between Yaroslav and his brother Svyatopolk (1015-1019). The hired Varangian squad of Yaroslav came into conflict with the Novgorodians, accompanied by murders and beatings. Trying to fix the situation. Yaroslav appeased the Novgorodians "by giving them the Truth, and copying off the charter, taco told them: go according to her letter." Behind these words in the Novgorod Chronicle 1 is the text of the Most Ancient Truth.

True Yaroslavichi includes Art. Art. 19-43 Brief Truth (Academic list). Its title indicates that the collection was developed by the three sons of Yaroslav the Wise with the participation of major figures from the feudal environment. There are clarifications in the texts. from which it can be concluded that the collection was approved no earlier than the year of Yaroslav's death (1054) and no later than 1072 (the year of the death of one of his sons).

From the second half of the XI century. The Long Truth began to take shape (121 articles on the Trinity List), which took shape in the final version in the 20th century. In terms of the level of development of legal institutions and the socio-economic content, this is already a highly developed monument of law. Along with new regulations, it also included modified norms of the Brief Pravda. The Extensive Truth consists, as it were, of groups of articles united by a single meaning. It presents criminal and inheritance law, thoroughly developed the legal status of categories of the population and slaves, contains a bankruptcy charter, etc. By the beginning of the XII century. The Broad Truth has formed.

In the XIII-XIV centuries. an abridged edition arose, which has come down to us in just a few lists (50 articles on the IV Trinity list). It is a selection from the Extended Truth, adapted for more developed social relations during periods of fragmentation.

The next important part of AS Lap-po-Danilevsky's work is the chapter devoted 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 it cannot be confused with the doctrine of interpretation. "The purpose of scientific criticism is to establish the scientific-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 by interpretation, when he encounters disagreements between the testimony of sources, etc.

All criticism presupposes the existence of a criterion according to which something is recognized as valuable. In scientific and historical criticism, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky takes as 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 an indication of a historical fact, there are differences in cognitive purposes, and accordingly, the scientist distinguishes two types of criticism:

• 1) criticism that establishes the scientific and historical value of the source as a fact;
• 2) criticism that establishes the scientific and historical value of the testimony of the source 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 the historian has reason to assert that the actual source is the very fact that this source appears to him (that its author is really the same person as he appears to be, that this source arose at the time and place that are indicated in it, that this source really retained the same form and content that it received when it appeared, that it really had the same meaning that it ascribes to itself), he recognizes it as authentic.

As a criterion for establishing authenticity, the scientist names two concepts.

First, the concept of the unity or disunity of consciousness. The unity of consciousness is understood as the logical consistency of the author's thoughts, the unity of the goal and its fulfillment 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-correspondence of the source to the culture and the individuality to which it refers. To establish the correspondence of the source with the culture of a given area, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky suggests using the methods of systematic typifying interpretation, and with the culture of a given time - the methods of evolutionary typifying interpretation. A comparative study of the work under study with the sources of a given culture is also possible.

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 primarily in establishing one of them, which is recognized as an "archetype", the original or the main source that influenced the emergence of the rest, derivative members of the group (copies, sources containing borrowings from the main one, etc.). Further, such a construction needs to study the relationship in which dependent sources are located among themselves. The search for an "archetype" is based on the 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 made by the author himself - and even more so if the copy is made from someone else's original. Therefore, the copy cannot be recognized as the original. At the same time, "the original is a product in which the individual act of creativity and its performance have merged." The scientist also considers it possible to establish differences between the original and the copy using the matching criterion. When a work does not correspond to the culture or personality to which it is attributed, then it is not the original, not the original, but a copy.

Of great interest are the arguments of AS Lappo-Danilevsky about the so-called "imaginary sources". The scientist classifies plagiarism and fakes 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 “in appropriating someone else’s discoveries, inventions or original observations and conclusions with intentional concealment of the very source of borrowings and without independent processing of at least the form of the borrowed.

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

From a cognitive point of view, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky notes, the criterion of falsity is more complicated than the criterion of unauthenticity of the source. In order to come to the conclusion that the product he is studying is fake, the historian must quite specifically establish the identity of the compiler of the forgery and his motives, have reason to assert that the creator discovered an evil will in his creation, namely, he wanted to pass off his artificial product as a real one by deception.

The scientist proposes to use the concept of a fake product in the historical, educational and legal sense. In the historical and cognitive sense, it is possible to deliberately pass off an artificial product as a real one by means of deceit, if we attribute to it the meaning of a real source. In the legal approach, the product is assigned a legal value that it does not have. In the latter case, we are talking about forgery.

In the concept of fakes, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky distinguished various shades depending on the motives for their appearance and the degree of artificiality of a fake product. The motives for counterfeiting are “passion for counterfeiting”, personal gain, the desire for wealth, fame, genealogical calculation, political interests, etc. The degree of artificiality of a fake 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 either as an original or a copy, or contain only a retelling of an imaginary source, links to it.

In view of the fact that a fake is an artificial product of the evil will of a person, a “materialized lie”, the methods for detecting it are in many ways similar to the methods for establishing the inauthenticity of a source. A fake 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 authentic and still 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 second type of criticism, which establishes the scientific value of the testimony of a source, is based on the concept of its credibility or unreliability.

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

The historian recognizes the source as reliable if, on the basis of his testimony about the fact, he can scientifically judge the same fact, as if he himself experienced or did not experience actually) him in his sense perception. And, conversely, he considers a source unreliable if, on the basis of his testimony, he cannot judge such a fact in the above sense.

Obviously, this concept of the reliability or unreliability of the source was formulated by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky from the epistemological 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 an indication depends on the ratio in which “its true elements” are to the totality of the elements included in the indication.” But at the same time, one cannot be content with counting them, but one must weigh the value of each element. The degree of unreliability of the indication is determined by finding out the ratio in which "its incorrect elements" are to the totality of all the elements that form the indication.

According to the scientist, it should be borne in mind that such a concept is applied not to a fact, but to knowledge about a fact revealed in a testimony about it. One cannot speak about the degree of certainty or unreliability of a fact that happened or did not happen, but one can argue about the degree of certainty or unreliability of knowledge about a fact.

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

• 1) a recorded fact could or could not have happened;
• 2) was or was not he in reality.

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 standpoint of the correlation of this testimony with “absolute truth”, judge its meaning, namely, whether it corresponds or not to the “laws consciousness" and "laws of nature".

When answering the second question, it is not enough to be satisfied with the criterion of "absolute truth", it is also necessary to establish criteria for the factual truth of testimony. The most important of these are the concepts of the unity of consciousness contained in a given indication, and of the correspondence of the work with the culture and the 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 brought into line with his knowledge about the rest of the facts already known to him. According to the scientist, two types of the above correspondence can be distinguished: consistency (consistency) of evidence and coincidence (identity of independent) evidence.

To determine the reliability or unreliability of the testimony of a source, as A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky noted, the study of the genesis of the testimony has independent significance. At the same time, the circumstances and conditions for the emergence of the test testimony, the reasons and motives for its appearance are studied in detail, the conditions of the given place and time, the position that their author occupied 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. A detailed study requires the identity of the author or witness.

The "Methodology of History" ends with A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky's reflections on the general significance of historical sources.

The conclusions of the scientist have not lost their modern sound even today. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky notes:

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

From a general epistemological point of view, the 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 that the researcher has at his disposal is rather "accidental". And, secondly, because the historian rarely manages to achieve a "full understanding and proper evaluation" of the testimony of a source.

However, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky argues further, due to the close connection between the manifestations of culture, random gaps of one kind of sources can sometimes be filled with data from other sources. 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 remnants of culture than to historical legends, since “the more important a fact is for a certain social group, the more likely it is to somehow be reflected in the minds of contemporaries or even several generations and cause them to side any recollection or assessment.

In addition, according to A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, the historian must keep in mind that each source receives its full “its own meaning” only as a result of its scientific processing. But in many cases, interpretation and criticism cannot achieve completely accurate results and are forced to be content with "an understanding of the source that is only more or less close to the truth." Consequently, the conclusions obtained by interpreting and criticizing the 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 the knowledge of 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 unduly underestimate the importance of historical material for the knowledge and construction of historical reality: it suffers, of course, from significant gaps and is not always amenable 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 cognition 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 affect its subsequent development." A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky concludes his work with the words of the meaning of historical sources in the continuity of culture: “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" is 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, correlated with it other theoretical foundations of science and methods of source study - classification, doctrines of criticism and interpretation, determination of the meaning of historical sources. The scientist considered the main questions of the methodology of source study in the system of historical knowledge.

For almost a century, Russian historiography was dominated by the point of view that A. S. Lappo Danilevsky belonged to neo-Kantian direction of the philosophy of history. However, recently a different view has been formed, the essence of which is that the philosophical concept of the scientist is close to phenomenology E. Husserl, based on the ideas of the unity of the world and scientific knowledge about it. So, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky saw in humanity a special, endowed with consciousness part of the world whole (O. M. Medushevsky).

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky creatively rethought contemporary epistemological concepts: the positivism of O. Comte, the neo-Kantian philosophy of V. Windelband and G. Rickert, and the sociological ideas of N. K. Mikhailovsky. He did not agree with the neo-Kantians in opposing 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 even refuted by it.

Consideration of the morphological features of documents at the empirical level has become the main goal of the positivist trend. The positivist historian studied historical sources as and only as they are presented in direct empirical perception.

The philosophical paradigm that has been able to combine the philosophical and empirical approaches into a single whole is the phenomenological approach to historical phenomena. A. S. Lap-po-Danilsvsky, as the founder of the phenomenological concept of the methodology of history, put forward the thesis of “recognition of alien 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 animate exchange through the realized products of purposeful human activity. Phenomenological philosophy, based on the thesis of the integrity and consistency of the surrounding world, allows a new approach to understanding the vast empirical material accumulated in the field of source studies. The similarity and difference of historical sources can be studied as a manifestation of their unity and diversity. It turns out that it is 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 the concept of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky as "the phenomenology of culture." Creation at the beginning of the 20th century. the phenomenological concept of the methodology of history has become a decisive historiographical fact for the subsequent development of the theory and methodology of source studies.

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. - Prince. 6.

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

Historical Science and Methodology of History in Russia in the 20th Century: On 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. - SPb., 2001.

Medushovskaya O. M. History of source studies in the XIX-XX centuries. / O. M. Medushevsky. - M., 1988.

Medushovskaya O. M. Lappo-Danilevsky / O. M. Medushevsky // Public Thought of Russia in the 18th - early 20th centuries. Encyclopedia. - M., 2005.-S. 249-250.

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

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

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

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

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

Rusina Yu. A. Scientific legacy of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky (to the question of the theory and methodology of source study) / Yu. A. Rusina // Document. Archive. Story. Modernity: Sat. scientific tr. - Issue. 2. - Yekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 2002. - S. 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. - S. 5-23 .

KhmylevL. N. Problems of the methodology of history in Russian bourgeois historiography of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. / L. N. Khmylev. - Tomsk, 1978.

Schmidt S. O. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky at the turn of the epochs / S. O. Schmidt // The path of the historian: selected works on source studies and historiography.-M 1997.-S. 167-176.

Historical criticism

Under the name of historical K. they mean, first of all, the totality of techniques that the historian uses in order to distinguish truth from falsehood in historical evidence. The so-called K. text aims to decide the question of the authenticity or falsity of this or that document. For example, one of the founders of historical culture in the new Europe, an Italian humanist of the 15th century. Lavrenty Valla (q.v.), wrote a whole 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 authentic, but the information contained in it may be incorrect. The author of this or that historical source often conveys what he himself learned from others, entering into his work, without any criticism, known to him only by hearsay. Often the author himself, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, distorts the facts in relation to which he was a direct witness. The scientific nature of historical work should be based primarily on the elimination from the sources of everything that may contradict factual reliability. Historical K. gives rules worked out through experience on how to treat news contained in historical sources of various categories. The main general 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 scholars have attempted to formulate the rules of historical philosophy as a special methodological discipline; There is an entire literature on this subject. Historical K. is usually divided into external and internal. By external criticism is meant the investigation, 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 been taken to be until now. When examining the source from the first point of view, for example, either a direct forgery, or any inserts in the original text or other distortions can be found. When examining a monument from the second point of view, incorrect ideas about it, formed and confirmed regardless of the author's intentions, can be eliminated. Science knows a lot of such cases when scientists mistook this or that monument for what it really was not. Once the authenticity of a source has been established, it is very 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 internal K. from this external K., which consists in deciding the relation of the news contained in the sources to the actual facts, that is, whether these news can be considered completely reliable, or only probable, or the very possibility of reported facts must be rejected. The main questions are resolved here by examining the internal dignity 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, in addition to common sense and skill, impartiality and close acquaintance with the subject of research are also required from the researcher. Some theorists of historical criticism also point to the need to keep to the golden mean between gullibility and excessive skepticism. The newest treatise on historical K., 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 writings on historical K. A number of remarks on this subject can be found in the first volume of Bestuzhev-Ryumin's "Russian History" and in the first volume of Ikonnikov's "Experience in Russian Historiography". See also Fortinsky's article: "Experiences in the 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, to the very phenomena studied by historical science; but such a usage cannot be considered correct, and it can give rise to great misunderstandings.

N. Kareev.

Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what "Historical Criticism" is in other dictionaries:

- (Greek xritikn the art of judging, disassembling) the study, analysis and evaluation of the phenomena of muses. claim. In a broad sense, classical music is part of any study of music, since the evaluative element is an integral part of the aesthetic. judgments. ... ... Music Encyclopedia

THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word "judgment" is closely related to the concept of "judgment". To judge this, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze some object, try to understand its meaning, give ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

- (Greek krittke, from krino I judge). Analysis and judgments about the merits and demerits of any subject, work, especially essays; discussion, evaluation. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. CRITICISM of 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 the theory of knowledge, epistemology is the organ of self-consciousness of scientific creativity, so criticism is the organ of self-consciousness of creativity ... ... Dictionary of literary terms

CRITIQUE, critics, wives. (from Greek kritike). 1. only units Discussing, examining, investigating something, testing something for some purpose. Criticize something. Treat something without any criticism. Criticism of pure ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

Contents 1 Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.1 Notable critics 1.2 Translation ... Wikipedia

Female search and judgment about the merits and demerits of any labor, esp. essays; parsing, evaluation. Historical criticism, analysis of everyday life, search for events, cleaning them from 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 the chronology and the history of mankind in general. According to the statements of its authors, it is based on ... ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Historical school. Historical school of law - a trend in jurisprudence in the first half of the 19th century. It originated and gained the greatest popularity in Germany. Contents 1 Basic provisions ... Wikipedia

Books

• A. Pushkin. Collected works in 6 volumes (set of 6 books), A. Pushkin. The collection of works of the great Russian poet and writer A. S. Pushkin includes all of his most significant works ...

Comprehensive analysis of the source or "source criticism", as it is customary to say among source scholars, includes determining the type of source, its origin, establishing the time, place, circumstances of its appearance, and the completeness of information. Source criticism is usually categorized 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 these information can be deliberately distorted.

External criticism is largely dealt with by source scholars. Researchers-historians pay much more attention to the analysis of the content side of the 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.

The main directions of internal criticism is the setting:

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 presentation).

It is possible to determine the place of the source, how important and fundamental it is for studying 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. Gottshock: “People who observed the past saw only a part of what took place, and recorded only a part of what they remembered; of what was recorded by them, only a part has survived; part of what was recorded has reached the historian, but only part of it is trustworthy: and of what is trustworthy, not everything is clear to us; and, finally, only a part of what is understood can be formulated or told. At the same time, he adds that “we have no guarantees that what has reached the end of this path is just 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 for the realization of some purpose. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose allows us to understand that there could be other purposes and, accordingly, other sources that cover this fact, but from the other side. This focuses on 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, the statements of politicians are authentic in terms of the fact that these are the speeches of these figures, and not impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always true and reliable.

In the general context of the study, the language and phraseology of the source is subjected to critical analysis, since the meaning of words does not remain unchanged in different historical epochs.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that between the 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 imposes a certain seal on the content of the source.

In each source there are elements of subjectivity, which are transferred to the facts reflected in it, that is, the source is to some extent colored by a personal attitude. The researcher has to do painstaking work in order to “clear” the facts from the plaque of subjectivity and to reveal the true phenomenon of the historical process.