History of the book (3.1). Basic elements of scientific criticism of sources The main direction of internal criticism of a source

Criticism of origin and criticism of content. Usually in historical criticism There are two sides: criticism of origin and criticism of content. True, some source scholars deny the need for such a division; sometimes different historians do not put exactly the same content into each of these concepts. But with all the vagueness of concepts and the fluidity of the boundaries between them, it is difficult to do without dividing into criticism of origin and criticism of content when analyzing sources.

Origin criticism also has other names that to some extent help to understand its essence: “external”, “initial”, “preliminary”, “preparatory”. Criticism of the origin should reveal: the type (type) of the source, its authenticity, originality or copying; the author of the source, his social origin and position, age, education, party affiliation, nationality, personal likes and dislikes (the dispassionate author of the source, who “calmly looks at the right and the guilty, listening to good and evil indifferently, knowing neither pity nor anger”, existed only in the imagination of a brilliant poet); time, place, conditions of creation, purpose for the appearance of the source, etc. Criticism of the origin gives the source a general description and facilitates criticism of the content.

The most important task of historical criticism is to clarify the ideological and political orientation of the source. This postulate, however, should not be vulgarized, acting on the principle: a source from an environment close to us is always reliable, and a source from a hostile environment is always unreliable.

3. The founding fathers of historical criticism

Lorenzo Valla. Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) was a brilliant scholar of Latin and even wrote a treatise, “Six Books on the Beauties of the Latin Language,” in which he advocated a return from the corrupt, barbaric medieval Latin to classical Latin. Like other humanists, Valla was an opponent of the church, opposed asceticism as one of the principles of medieval church morality and preached happiness and pleasure as the goal of life. Valla considered the main culprits for the political fragmentation of Italy to be the popes, whose claims to secular power during the Renaissance still held very firmly.

The legal basis for such claims was a fake known as the “Donation of Constantine.” It was a forged document fabricated in the papal office in the 8th century, according to which the Roman Emperor Constantine (306-337) allegedly granted Pope Sylvester I temporal power over the entire western part of the empire.

In the treatise “Discourses on the false and fictitious donation of Constantine,” Valla convincingly proved that it was a forgery that could not have been compiled in the 4th century. The arguments of his analysis were as follows: 1) why would Constantine deprive himself of half of his possessions; 2) references to an imaginary donation are not found in any other evidence; 3) the letter was not written in classical Latin, which was still in use in the 4th century, but in late barbarian Latin, and, therefore, it was written later and forged. The date of the forgery (8th century) was established later.

We are interested in Balla’s work not from the anti-church side, but from the source study side. Valla laid the foundations for source analysis, although centuries would pass before historical criticism would become widely used as the most important method of historical research.

The further development of source analysis from the end of the 18th century was associated with the names of German university professors of antiquity Wolf and Niebuhr, especially the modern historian L. Ranke.

Wolf and Niebuhr. F. A. Wolf(1759-1884) in his “Introduction to Homer” (1795) explored the Homeric epic.

Historians have used Homer's poems before, but mainly to borrow historical facts. Wolf examined the source itself, in particular, he raised the problem of its authorship. He argued that the Iliad was not created by one person, but is a record of folklore works in which the Greek people reflected their ancient past.

Walking, like Wolf, along the path of philological criticism, B. G. Niebuhr(1776-1831) studied the works of the Roman historian Titus Livy and argued that they were based on folk tales. He argued that historical narration is impossible without a previous assessment of witnesses telling about the past, that is, without a preliminary assessment of the authors of the sources: their awareness, their likes and dislikes, and their ability to reliably convey events.

Wolff and Niebuhr critically examined specific sources on their topics (Homer, Titus Livy). Each of them explored their specific sources by touch, intuitively. They did not formulate the rules that the critical method should consist of. Therefore, they themselves could not apply this method systematically and comprehensively, much less could they consciously and deliberately teach it to other historians.

Ranke's creative path. The further development of source analysis is associated, first of all, with the name of Ranke.

In the life of the modest teacher Leopold Ranke (1795-1886), who taught history and Latin at the gymnasium of provincial Frankfurt an der Oder, a rapid advance up the educational, scientific and social ladder suddenly began. He turned out to be a professor and head of department at the University of Berlin, a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, was elevated to the dignity of nobility, turning into Leopold von Ranke, and became the educator of some of the German heirs to the throne. Bismarck even compared the usefulness of reading Ranke's works to studying the Bible. This rise of Ranke began in 1824, when he published his first work, “The History of the Germanic and Roman Peoples in 1494 - 1535,” with the accompanying source study “Toward the Criticism of Modern Historians,” and continued until the end of his life - Ranke died at the apogee of his fame. Meanwhile, Ranke's views were conservative, and his lecturer skills were mediocre. What are the reasons for his phenomenal career? What are his achievements?

"Ranke's Method". Using previous achievements, in particular the methods of philological analysis of Wolff and Niebuhr, Ranke developed a system of methods for analyzing sources, which his contemporaries began to call the “Ranke method.” The foundations of this analysis were already contained in the sketch “On the Criticism of Modern Historians” - in fact, part of his first work with a story about the sources used in its writing and the methods of their application. Among the sources were the works of the Florentine politician Guicciardini and the Roman memoirist Giovio, who lived at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. It was impossible to reconcile their testimonies due to the great inconsistency, and to establish the historical truth, Ranke attracted the testimony of other contemporaries, whose appearance he had previously clarified, as if subjecting them to “cross-examination.” This is the basis of the “Ranke method”: it finds out the origin of each source, the competence of the author of the source, the degree of confidence in it, and then compares the sources used to establish the actual picture of the past.

Although the "Ranke method", or more precisely the method of historical criticism, did not arise out of nowhere, it represented a discovery in science. Several times historians have used this method unintentionally, by groping. “Ranke abstracted it from unconscious factual application and generalized it into a logical formula, which could henceforth be passed on to a whole generation of minor historians in a school way” 1 .

With his arrival at the University of Berlin in 1825, Ranke turned historical criticism into an academic discipline. Convenient form academic teaching of historical criticism became the first seminars he introduced into university practice. Their work was attended by students and young historians, eventually and not only German ones, who were eager to join the latest methods of researching historical sources. Ranke created an extensive school, his students occupied departments in most German universities. Thanks to the activities of Ranke's seminar and the growing authority of his school, the principles of historical criticism became widespread not only in Germany, but also beyond its borders.

In addition, Ranke began to study archival materials and revealed their significance for the study of the past, and it was from him that the use of archives began, without which historians have since not imagined themselves.

This is why Ranke is deservedly called the “father of historical criticism.”

First of all, you need to find out What does the concept of “historical sources” mean and why is the ability to work with them necessary?

The historian is completely deprived of the opportunity to personally establish the facts that he studies. Not a single Egyptologist has seen the pharaohs. Not a single specialist Napoleonic wars I didn’t hear Austerlitz’s guns. One can speak about previous eras only on the basis of the evidence remaining from them. As Mark Block (who has already been discussed) noted, the historian plays the role of an investigator trying to reconstruct the picture of a crime in which he himself was not present, or a physicist forced to stay at home due to the flu and learning about the results of his experiment from the reports of a laboratory assistant. Thus, knowledge of the past will never be direct. But even a researcher who reconstructs the history of the recent past, which he himself witnessed, finds himself in no better position. After all, immediate, “direct” observation is almost always an illusion. A historian cannot be a witness to all the events taking place in his time; he can directly observe only a small part of them. Moreover, what the researcher “saw” consists to a large extent of what others have seen. The historian studies the state of affairs in the economy on the basis of reports compiled by economists; public opinion– based on data from sociologists, etc.

Thus, historical knowledge is always not direct, but indirect. Between history as a process and the activity of the historian there are certain intermediaries, which are called historical sources. Historical source is a very broad concept. This is everything that can give an idea of ​​​​a person's life in the past. Diversity historical sources dictates the need for their classification. There are several types of such classifications. For example, sources are divided into intentional And unintentional. Unintentional sources include what a person created not with the goal of going down in history, leaving a mark about himself in it, but with the goal of simply providing himself with everything necessary for life. Such sources usually include material sources. There is a special historical discipline - archeology, which studies the ancient past of humanity on the basis of what remains of dwellings, tools, etc. Intentional sources usually include written sources. Many of them were created with a very specific purpose - to express themselves. This especially applies to the sources that political history studies: these are the programs of political parties; transcripts of congresses, conferences, meetings; speeches and writings politicians and similar documents.

There are other classifications of historical sources: they are classified by period of creation, by type(materials mass media, memoirs, etc.), in the areas of historical science, for which these sources may be of interest (sources for economic history, for political history, for cultural history, etc.).

The search for historical sources is the most important component of the work of both a professional historian and a person studying history. But just having sources is not enough. This is easy to verify at specific example. Long years In our country, access to a significant part of sources was difficult; many archives were closed even to specialists. Under these conditions, the idea arose that as soon as the doors of special storage facilities and secret funds were opened, all questions related to our past would be answered. Access to sources has now become easier, but the expected breakthrough in historical science has not occurred, since its source study crisis has emerged. It follows from this that without the ability to work with historical sources, an adequate reconstruction of history is impossible.

It should be taken into account that sources are things created by people and therefore cannot be a reflection of objective truth. They bear both the stamp of the era and the ideological, social, psychological and other orientations of their authors, i.e. they represent a complex combination of objective and subjective factors. To reproduce the source’s point of view without analysis and commentary in historical research means repeating the long-noted mistake of historical science, which sometimes believes any era, no matter what it says about itself.

Let us quote the words of Karl Marx on this matter: “While in everyday life any shopkeeper is perfectly able to distinguish between what this or that person pretends to be and what he really is, our historiography has not yet reached before this trivial knowledge. She takes the word of every era, no matter what it says or imagines about itself.”

Therefore, the ability to analyze historical sources is necessary. The development of methods for their analysis is carried out by a special historical discipline - source study.

Having found out what historical sources are and what their classifications exist, it is necessary to move on to the question: What are the areas of analysis of historical sources and methods of working with them?

Source study contains the concept "criticism of sources"(that is, their analysis). Usually isolated external And internal criticism of historical sources. External criticism establishes the authenticity, time, place of creation of the source, its authorship. (Time, place and authorship are established even when they are indicated in the document, since they are sometimes deliberately distorted.) Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source. Its essence is to study the testimony of a source about a historical fact, to determine the reliability, completeness and accuracy of the information contained in the source.

Since students get acquainted with sources through anthologies and collections of documents, which include documents that have undergone external criticism, mastery of its techniques for them and for all students of history is not a primary task. It is much more important to learn to analyze a historical source from the point of view of content.

Main directions internal criticism are:

– establishing the purpose of creating a particular source;

– establishing the place of the source in the context of the era, its

representativeness relative to the historical

reality;

– establishing the reliability of the source (it should not be

confused with authenticity).

What do these directions mean?

An intentional historical source is created to realize some purpose. Highlighting this goal will allow you to better understand the content of the source, its logic and argumentation. Realizing that a source was created for a specific purpose will allow students to understand that there were other purposes, and therefore there are other documents that cover the same historical fact from the other side. This will focus on searching for multiple documents, and therefore comparing them.

Finding out the place of the source in the context of the era involves solving several problems at once. Firstly, it is necessary to establish how important this source is for the study of the era reflected in it. After all, the real scale of historical events does not always coincide with how it is reflected in documents. More significant facts may be illuminated briefly, and less significant may be given too much great importance. In other words, it is necessary to understand how representative the source is for the study of a particular time. Secondly, this is to clarify from what positions the document was written. This will answer the question: what other points of view on the event in question existed in the past and, thus, will again guide the search for other documents. In addition, understanding that a source belongs to a particular belief system will ensure that his point of view will not be mechanically transferred into historical research as the ultimate truth.

Establishing the reliability of a source involves finding out how accurately it explains the reasons for certain events. There may be situations where the source will be genuine from the point of view of external criticism (that is, not fake), but will contain unreliable information or interpretation. For example, many speeches by political figures are genuine from the point of view of the fact that these are speeches by these political figures, and not by their doubles or impostors. But this does not mean at all that the information contained in these speeches is true and reliable. Therefore, comparison with other documents is necessary.

What are the rules and techniques for working with historical sources?

There are many techniques for working with historical sources that allow you to accomplish the tasks of their criticism. Let us dwell on the basic techniques, without knowledge of which any meaningful work with historical documents is impossible.

▼ First of all, you need to learn the rule: sources should not be matched to ready-made theories, but theories and conclusions should be formulated based on an analysis of numerous sources. If you break this rule, the result will be anything but historical science. There are a lot of historiosophical constructions that operate on specially selected facts, but they cannot be considered historical science; they distort historical reality, going not from documents to theory, but from theory to documents. The sources are not illustrations of pre-constructed theories. The worst scientific crime a historian can commit is to throw out a fact that does not fit into his historical concept.

▼ Hence the rule follows: study not individual sources (no matter on what basis they were selected), but the entire complex of sources on the topic under study.

▼ Studying the entire complex of sources will inevitably lead to situations where the same historical fact will be covered by different sources not just from different angles, but from completely opposite positions. This should be treated as a natural phenomenon. Each source reflects the view of one part of society on an event, and there are many views. If we limit ourselves to one source, this will lead to a one-sided vision of the historical event.

What techniques for working with sources are needed in this situation? It is not at all the ability to compose something arithmetic average from various sources. This is impossible, and it is not necessary. It is necessary to be able to compare and contrast sources, showing the versatility of a historical event and the ambiguity of its perception.

Let's look at this with a specific example. On December 6, 1876, in St. Petersburg, on Nevsky Prospekt in front of the Kazan Cathedral, the first demonstration in the history of Russia under the red banner took place. One of its organizers was G.V. Plekhanov, then a student at one of the St. Petersburg universities, later the first Russian Marxist. It is a fact. Let's see how it is reflected in various sources.

Source one. G.V. Plekhanov himself, a participant in this demonstration, recalls:

“On the morning of December 6, all the “rebellious” workers’ circles came to the scene. But there were no outside workers at all. We saw that we had too little strength and decided to wait. The workers dispersed to the nearest taverns, leaving only a small group at the cathedral porch to monitor the progress of work. Meanwhile, young students were approaching in large groups. ...

The bored “nihilists” began to go out onto the porch, and the “rebels” who were sitting there—the workers—came up from the neighboring taverns. The crowd assumed quite impressive proportions. We decided to act. ...

There were few policemen and gendarmes on Kazan Square. They looked at us and “waited for action.” When the first words of the revolutionary speech were heard, they tried to squeeze through to the speaker, but they were immediately pushed back. ... When, after the speech was delivered, the red banner was unfurled, the young peasant Potapov grabbed it and, raised in the hands of the workers, held it for some time high above the heads of those present. ...

“Now let’s all go together, otherwise we’ll be arrested,” some voices shouted, and the crowd moved towards Nevsky. But we had barely taken a few steps when the police... began to grab those walking in the back rows. ...

The police received new and strong reinforcements. A whole detachment of policemen, accompanied by many janitors, was quickly approaching the square. ... The most brutal dump began. ... Those who acted alone were immediately grabbed and, after brutal beatings, dragged to the police stations.”

(G.V. Plekhanov. Russian worker in the revolutionary movement. Collection of articles. L., 1989. P. 84 – 88.)

This is the testimony of a demonstration participant. Here's a look from the other side. The famous Russian lawyer Anatoly Fedorovich Koni testifies, describing in his memoirs the same day, December 6, 1876:

“I found Trepov, the prosecutor of the chamber, Fuchs, comrade prosecutor Poskochin and comrade minister Frisch in the minister of justice’s office. The latter animatedly said that, walking an hour ago along Nevsky, he witnessed a demonstration at the Kazan Cathedral, carried out by a group of youth of the “nihilistic nature,” which was stopped by the intervention of the police, who began to beat the demonstrators. In view of the undoubted importance of such a fact in the capital, in broad daylight, he hurried to the ministry and found Trepov there, who confirmed that a group of young people were rioting and carrying in their arms a boy who was waving a banner with the inscription “Land and Freedom.” At the same time, Trepov said that they were all arrested - one resister was tied up, and some were probably armed, because a revolver was found on the ground. ... The demonstration ... caused a very indifferent attitude from society. Drivers and shopkeepers rushed to help the police and beat “gentlemen and girls in scarves [plaids] with whips and fists.”

(Koni A.F. Memories of the case of Vera Zasulich // Selected works. M., 1958. T.2. P. 8, 10.)

And one more piece of evidence demonstrating a completely unexpected view of these events.

One observer of street life told about a merchant who said: “My wife and child and I went out for a walk on Nevsky; We see a fight near the Kazan Cathedral. ... I put my wife and child at Milyutin’s shops, rolled up my sleeves, got into the crowd, and - it’s a pity only two of them and managed to hit the neck quite a bit ... I had to hurry to my wife and child - after all, they were the only ones left!” - “Who did you hit and why?” - “Who knows, who, but how, for mercy’s sake, I suddenly see them beating: I can’t stand there with my hands folded?! Well, he gave it to anyone a couple of times, amused himself - and to his wife...” (The character’s language has been preserved unchanged).

(Koni A.F. Op. op. pp. 10 – 11.)

Let's see what happens if, when reconstructing this event, we limit ourselves to only one source. What will the use of Plekhanov's memoirs as such a source lead to? (After all, it is natural for a participant and organizer of a demonstration to remember it in an elevated, pathetic tone). Moreover, this demonstration will have to be portrayed as an event that was of great significance and had a significant impact on the socio-political life of the capital, and even the entire country. This was the case in Soviet historical literature, which used only this source (omitting unnecessary everyday details about taverns). What if we use only the opinions of officials as a source? Then this event will have to be portrayed as a riot, completely groundless, which did not cause any resonance in society. If we use only the above opinion of the merchant as a source, then this event should generally fall into the category of police chronicles or even oddities of St. Petersburg life. Therefore, using a single source will result in an inadequate representation of history. At the same time, it is clear that it is impossible to make something arithmetic average from these sources. Therefore, the use of different sources is necessary in order to show the real scale of this historical event, its perception in different strata of society.

▼ When working with sources, it is necessary to systematize, summarize them, and compare them with each other to determine their reliability.

For example, source studies teaches that memoirs as a historical source can only be used when compared with other sources. This is explained by the fact that the memoirist may fail his memory, he may (even unwittingly) exaggerate his role in historical events, ascribe to himself views that he did not share at that time. Finally, he may be under pressure from the political circumstances of the time the memoirs were written. This is certainly true. But would a document written on official letterhead, with a signature and official seal be more reliable? Many materials from state and former party archives Soviet era are nothing more than reports. You don’t have to be a great expert in source studies to understand: if future historians reproduce the history of our recent past from reports, they will have a completely wrong idea about it. But some historians have developed a kind of reverence for official documents. This stereotype needs to be overcome. These documents need careful re-checking and comparison with many other historical sources.

This applies to all sources. For example, there is not one political party, the program of which would state that this party wants to do bad things to the people or the country (and party programs are also a historical source). Alas, there was enough blood in history. Thus, here too a comparison of programs with other documents is necessary.

▼ When working with historical sources, it is necessary to understand that some information may be hidden from the researcher. Therefore, methods of working with sources should lead to clarifying not only what the authors of documents testify to, but also what they are silent about, to the ability to see the character of the era behind individual facts of a document.

Of course, this is not everything, but only the basic rules and techniques for working with historical sources. But without mastering them, understanding history is impossible.

So, the material presented above is an introduction to historical science. It reveals the specifics of history as a science, the methodology of historical research, directions and techniques of source analysis. This knowledge is necessary for the formation of historical consciousness, for the meaningful study of specific topics in a university history course.

1. Specifics of history as a science. The problem of objective truth in historical science……..p. 3

2. Methodology of historical research. Main methodological approaches and schools……………………………………………………………p.15

3. Historical sources and their criticism……………………………………………..p.37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 item to which it has been applied at least twice work activity person 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 (obsolete 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.

The purpose of 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 historical sources are concerned with 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.