Basic elements of scientific criticism of sources. History of the book (3.1) External criticism of the source

The next, significant part of A. S. Lappo-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 cannot be confused with the doctrine of interpretation. “The purpose of scientific criticism is to establish the scientific and historical value of a source.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

Sources

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

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

Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medushevskaya O. M. Lappo-Danilevsky / O. M. Medushevskaya // Social Thought Russia XVIII- beginning of the 20th century. Encyclopedia. - M., 2005.-S. 249-250.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comprehensive analysis of the source or "source criticism", as source scholars usually say, includes determining the type of source, its origin, establishing the time, place, circumstances of its appearance, and completeness of information. Source criticism is usually divided into external And internal.

External criticism establishes the time, place and authenticity of the creation of the source, as well as authorship. Time, place and authorship are established even when they are indicated in the document, since this information may be deliberately distorted.

External criticism source studies are largely involved. Historian researchers pay much more attention to analyzing the content of a historical source (internal criticism).

Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source, on the analysis of the completeness, accuracy and truthfulness of the information contained in the source.

Main directions internal criticism - this is the establishment:

· the place of the source in the context of the era, its completeness and representativeness;

· the purpose of creating the source;

· reliability of the source (accuracy and truthfulness of the presentation).

It is possible to determine the place of a source, how important and fundamental it is for the study of the era reflected in it, by establishing how representative it is (to what extent the most significant facts). In this regard, it is worth quoting the words of the famous American historian L. Gottshok: “People who observed the past saw only part of what took place, and recorded only part of what they remembered; of what they recorded, only a part has been preserved; The historian has reached part of what was recorded, but only part of it is trustworthy: and of what is trustworthy, not everything is clear to us; and, finally, only part of what is understood can be formulated or told.” At the same time, he adds that “we have no guarantee that what has reached the end of this path represents precisely the most important, the largest, the most valuable, the most typical and the most durable of the past.”

The researcher needs to remember that any document is created to achieve some purpose. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose allows us to understand that there could be other goals and, accordingly, other sources illuminating this fact, but in other way. This guides the search for other sources, various kinds of documents, and their comparison.

Establishing the reliability of a source involves how accurately a historical source reflects historical phenomena and events. For example, statements politicians are genuine from the point of view that these are the speeches of these very figures, and not impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always truthful and reliable.

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

It is also worth paying attention to the fact that between a fact and its reflection in the source there is always a witness who occupies a certain place in the structure of society, has his own views and is endowed with individual psyche. All facts, before being deposited in the source, pass through its perception, and this leaves a certain stamp on the content of the source.

Each source contains elements of subjectivity that transfer to the facts reflected in it, that is, the source is colored to one degree or another by a personal attitude. The researcher has to do painstaking work to “clean” the facts from the taint of subjectivity and identify the true phenomenon of the historical process.

Historical criticism

By the name of historical history we mean, first of all, a set of techniques that the historian uses in order to distinguish truth from lies in historical evidence. The so-called K. text is aimed at resolving the issue of the authenticity or falsification of a document. For example, one of the founders of historical history in new Europe, Italian humanist of the 15th century. Lavrenty Valla (see), wrote an entire essay to prove the forgery of the famous gift of Konstantinov, the authenticity of which was believed throughout the Middle Ages. Further, the document itself may be genuine, but the information contained in it may be incorrect. The author of one or another historical source often conveys what he himself learned from others, including in his work, without any criticism, known to him only by hearsay. Often the author himself, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, distorts the facts of which he was a direct witness. The scientific nature of historical work should be based primarily on the elimination from sources of everything that may contradict factual reliability. Historical history gives rules, developed through experience, on how to treat the news contained in historical sources different categories. The main common basis of these rules is simple common sense, but their successful application in practice is possible only if famous family a skill, the possession of which indicates a good schooling completed by a historian. Nevertheless, many scientists tried to formulate the rules of historical calculus as a special methodological discipline; There is a whole literature on this subject. Historical history is usually divided into external and internal. By external criticism is meant the examination, in relation to each document or monument, firstly, whether it is what it claims to be, and secondly, whether it really represents what it has hitherto been taken to be. When examining a source from the first point of view, for example, either direct forgery, or any insertions into the original text or other distortions can be discovered. When studying a monument from the second point of view, misconceptions about it that were formed and established independently of the author’s intentions can be eliminated. Science knows a lot of such cases when scientists mistook this or that monument for something that in reality it was not. Once the authenticity of a source has been established, it is often necessary to resolve questions about the time and place of its origin, about its author, whether it is a primary source or borrowing from some other source, etc. It is necessary to distinguish K from this external K. ... internal, which consists in deciding the question of the relationship of the news contained in the sources to the actual facts, i.e. whether this news can be considered completely reliable, or only probable, or whether the very possibility of the reported facts should be rejected. The main issues are resolved here by examining the internal merit of the sources, which depends on the nature of the sources themselves, on the individuality of the author, and on the influences of place and time. At the same time, it is very often necessary to check the reliability of some sources by others, and many sources about the same fact may, to a greater or lesser extent, either coincide with each other, or contradict each other. In all cases of historical research, both external and internal, from the researcher, except common sense and skill, impartiality and close familiarity with the subject of research are also required. Some theorists of historical theory also point out the need to maintain a golden mean between gullibility and excessive skepticism. The newest treatise on historical history, with references to the literature of the subject, is the fourth chapter of E. Bernheim’s excellent book: “Lehrbuch der historischen Methode” (1889, 2nd ed. 1894). Russian historical literature is very poor in works on historical history. A number of comments on this subject can be found in volume I of “Russian History” by Bestuzhev-Ryumin and in volume I of “The Experience of Russian Historiography” by Ikonnikov. See also Fortinsky’s article: “Experiences in systematic processing of historical criticism,” in “Kyiv University News” for 1884, as well as the Russian translation of Tardif’s pamphlet: “Fundamentals of Historical K.” (1894). In a broader sense, the name of historical criticism is given to a critical attitude, from a historical point of view, towards the very phenomena studied by historical science; but such usage cannot be considered correct, and it can give rise to great misunderstandings.

N. Kareev.

encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - S.-Pb.: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what “Historical Criticism” is in other dictionaries:

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

THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word “judgment” is closely related to the concept of “court”. To judge, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze any object, try to understand its meaning, bring... ... Literary encyclopedia

- (Greek krittke, from krino I judge). Analysis and judgments about the merits and demerits of any subject, work, especially an essay; discussion, evaluation. Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. CRITICISM of the Greek... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Criticism- literary criticism literary creativity, the subject of which is literature itself. Just as the philosophy of science is a theory of knowledge, epistemology is an organ of self-consciousness scientific creativity, so criticism is the organ of self-awareness of creativity... ... Dictionary of literary terms

CRITICISM, critics, women. (from Greek kritike). 1. units only Discussion, consideration, research of something, testing of something for some purpose. To criticize something. Treat something without any criticism. Criticism of pure... ... Dictionary Ushakova

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

Women search and judgment about the merits and demerits of any work, esp. essays; analysis, assessment. Historical criticism, everyday analysis, searching for events, clearing them of embellishments and distortions. Human criticism cannot be avoided, gossip,... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

- “New chronology” is a non-academic theory that claims that the generally accepted chronology of historical events is generally incorrect, and offers its own version of chronology and the history of mankind in general. According to its authors, it is based on... ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Historical school. Historical school of law current in jurisprudence first half of the 19th century century. It originated and became most famous in Germany. Contents 1 Basic provisions ... Wikipedia

Books

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

Comprehensive analysis of the source or "source criticism", as source scholars usually say, includes determining the type of source, its origin, establishing the time, place, circumstances of its appearance, and completeness of information. Source criticism is usually divided into external And internal.

External criticism establishes the time, place and authenticity of the creation of the source, as well as authorship. Time, place and authorship are established even when they are indicated in the document, since this information may be deliberately distorted.

External criticism is largely carried out by source scholars. Historian researchers pay much more attention to analyzing the content of a historical source (internal criticism).

Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source, on the analysis of the completeness, accuracy and truthfulness of the information contained in the source.

Main directions of internal criticism- this is the establishment:

· the place of the source in the context of the era, its completeness and representativeness;

· the purpose of creating the source;

· reliability of the source (accuracy and truthfulness of the presentation).

You can determine the place of a source, how important and fundamental it is for the study of the era reflected in it, by establishing how representative it is (how much the most significant facts are reflected in it). In this regard, it is worth quoting the words of the famous American historian L. Gottshok: “People who observed the past saw only part of what took place, and recorded only part of what they remembered; of what they recorded, only a part has been preserved; The historian has reached part of what was recorded, but only part of it is trustworthy: and of what is trustworthy, not everything is clear to us; and, finally, only part of what is understood can be formulated or told.” At the same time, he adds that “we have no guarantee that what has reached the end of this path represents precisely the most important, the largest, the most valuable, the most typical and the most durable of the past.”

The researcher needs to remember that any document is created to achieve some purpose. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose allows us to understand that there could be other goals and, accordingly, other sources covering this fact, but from the other side. This guides the search for other sources, various kinds of documents, and their comparison.

Establishing the reliability of a source involves how accurately a historical source reflects historical phenomena and events. For example, statements by political figures are genuine from the point of view that these are the speeches of these figures, and not impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always truthful and reliable.

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

It is also worth paying attention to the fact that between a fact and its reflection in the source there is always a witness who occupies a certain place in the structure of society, has his own views and is endowed with an individual psyche. All facts, before being deposited in the source, pass through its perception, and this leaves a certain stamp on the content of the source.

Each source contains elements of subjectivity that transfer to the facts reflected in it, that is, the source is colored to one degree or another by a personal attitude. The researcher has to do painstaking work to “clean” the facts from the taint of subjectivity and identify the true phenomenon of the historical process.

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 expert on the Napoleonic wars had heard of Austerlitz's cannons. 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 all that can give an idea of ​​human life in the past. The variety of 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 of political figures 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 whom 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.

The main areas of 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 guide you to search for multiple documents, and therefore compare 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 highlighted briefly, while less significant ones may be given too much emphasis. 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