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

The next important part of AS Lap-po-Danilevsky's work is the chapter devoted to historical criticism. The scientist speaks of the need to replace the collection of technical rules with a general, systematic and complete doctrine of criticism. At the same time, he emphasizes that criticism pursues its cognitive goal and therefore it cannot be confused with the doctrine of interpretation. "The purpose of scientific criticism is to establish the scientific-historical value of a source."

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

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

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

• 1) criticism that establishes the scientific and historical value of the source as a fact;
• 2) criticism that establishes the scientific and historical value of the testimony of the source about the fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, the concept of the correspondence or non-correspondence of the source to the culture and the individuality to which it refers. To establish the correspondence of the source with the culture of a given area, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky suggests using the methods of systematic typifying interpretation, and with the culture of a given time - the methods of evolutionary typifying interpretation. A comparative study of the work under study with the sources of a given culture is also possible.

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

The construction of a group of "related" sources consists primarily in establishing one of them, which is recognized as an "archetype", the original or the main source that influenced the emergence of the rest, derivative members of the group (copies, sources containing borrowings from the main one, etc.). Further, such a construction needs to study the relationship in which dependent sources are located among themselves. The search for an "archetype" is based on the general criteria of authenticity and inauthenticity of the source.

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

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

Of great interest are the arguments of AS Lappo-Danilevsky about the so-called "imaginary sources". The scientist classifies plagiarism and fakes as such.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, this concept of the reliability or unreliability of the source was formulated by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky from the epistemological point of view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The historian constantly uses another criterion suitable for establishing the factual reliability of testimony: the knowledge that he receives about each new fact that interests him must be brought into line with his knowledge about the rest of the facts already known to him. According to the scientist, two varieties of the above correspondence can be distinguished: consistency (consistency) of evidence and coincidence (identity of independent) evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

But, the scientist warns, historical knowledge based on historical sources turns out to be only "more or less probable." Firstly, because the material at the disposal of the researcher is rather "accidental". And, secondly, because the historian rarely manages to achieve a "full understanding and proper evaluation" of the testimony of a source.

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, the "Methodology of History" is an integral, theoretically reasoned concept. And S. Lappo-Danilevsky defined the tasks of the methodology of source study, formulated the concept of a historical source as the central link of his scientific concept, correlated with it other theoretical foundations of science and methods of source study - classification, doctrines of criticism and interpretation, determination of the meaning of historical sources. The scientist considered the main questions of the methodology of source study in the system of historical knowledge.

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

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

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

The philosophical paradigm that has been able to combine the philosophical and empirical approaches into a single whole is the phenomenological approach to historical phenomena. A. S. Lap-po-Danilsvsky, as the founder of the phenomenological concept of the methodology of history, put forward the thesis of “recognition of alien animation”, which means that there is a universal connection between man and man, a certain possibility of their mutual understanding. This affirms the possibility of animate exchange through the realized products of purposeful human activity. Phenomenological philosophy, based on the thesis of the integrity and consistency of the surrounding world, allows a new approach to understanding the vast empirical material accumulated in the field of source studies. The similarity and difference of historical sources can be studied as a manifestation of their unity and diversity. It turns out that it is possible to consider any of them as a historical phenomenon and apply to them a single method of revealing their source capabilities.

Assessing the contribution of his teacher, S. N. Valk defined the essence of the concept of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky as "the phenomenology of culture." Creation at the beginning of the 20th century. the phenomenological concept of the methodology of history has become a decisive historiographical fact for the subsequent development of the theory and methodology of source studies.

Bibliography

Sources

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

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

Research

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

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

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

Historical Science and Methodology of History in Russia in the 20th Century: On the 140th Anniversary of the Birth of Academician A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky. - St. Petersburg, 2003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rusina Yu. A. Scientific legacy of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky (to the question of the theory and methodology of source study) / Yu. A. Rusina // Document. Archive. Story. Modernity: Sat. scientific tr. - Issue. 2. - Yekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 2002. - S. 246-263.

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

KhmylevL. N. Problems of the Methodology of History in Russian Bourgeois Historiography of the Late 19th - Early 20th Centuries. / L. N. Khmylev. - Tomsk, 1978.

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

Comprehensive analysis of the source or "source criticism", as it is customary to say among source experts, includes determining the type of source, its origin, establishing the time, place, circumstances of its appearance, and the completeness of information. Source criticism is usually categorized into external and internal.

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

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

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

The main directions of internal criticism is the setting:

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

the purpose of creating the source;

Reliability of the source (accuracy and truthfulness of presentation).

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

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

Establishing the reliability of a source involves how accurately a historical source reflects historical phenomena and events. For example, the statements of politicians are authentic in terms of the fact that these are the speeches of these figures, and not impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always true and reliable.

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

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

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

Historical criticism

Under the name of historical K. they mean, first of all, the totality of techniques that the historian uses in order to distinguish truth from falsehood in historical evidence. The so-called K. text aims to decide the question of the authenticity or falsity of a document. For example, one of the founders of historical culture in the new Europe, an Italian humanist of the 15th century. Lavrenty Valla (q.v.), wrote a whole essay to prove the forgery of the famous gift of Konstantinov, the authenticity of which was believed throughout the Middle Ages. Further, the document itself may be authentic, but the information contained in it may be incorrect. The author of this or that historical source often conveys what he himself learned from others, entering into his work, without any criticism, known to him only by hearsay. Often the author himself, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, distorts the facts in relation to which he was a direct witness. The scientific nature of historical work should be based primarily on the elimination from the sources of everything that may contradict factual reliability. Historical K. gives rules worked out through experience on how to treat news contained in historical sources of various categories. The main general basis of these rules is simple common sense, but their successful application in practice is possible only with a certain kind of skill, the possession of which indicates a good school passed by the historian. Nevertheless, many scholars have attempted to formulate the rules of historical philosophy as a special methodological discipline; There is an entire literature on this subject. Historical K. is usually divided into external and internal. By external criticism is meant the investigation, in relation to each document or monument, firstly, whether it is what it claims to be, and secondly, whether it really represents what it has hitherto been taken to be. When examining the source from the first point of view, for example, either a direct forgery, or any inserts in the original text or other distortions can be found. When examining a monument from the second point of view, incorrect ideas about it, formed and confirmed regardless of the author's intentions, can be eliminated. Science knows a lot of such cases when scientists mistook this or that monument for what it really was not. Once the authenticity of a source is established, it is very often necessary to resolve questions about the time and place of its origin, about its author, whether it is a primary source or borrowing from some other source, etc. It is necessary to distinguish internal K. from this external K., which consists in deciding the relation of the news contained in the sources to the actual facts, that is, whether these news can be considered completely reliable, or only probable, or the very possibility of reported facts must be rejected. The main questions are resolved here by examining the internal dignity of the sources, which depends on the nature of the sources themselves, on the individuality of the author, and on the influences of place and time. At the same time, it is very often necessary to check the reliability of some sources by others, and many sources about the same fact may, to a greater or lesser extent, either coincide with each other or contradict each other. In all cases of historical research, both external and internal, in addition to common sense and skill, impartiality and close acquaintance with the subject of research are also required from the researcher. Some theorists of historical criticism also point to the need to keep to the golden mean between gullibility and excessive skepticism. The newest treatise on historical K., with references to the literature of the subject, is the fourth chapter of E. Bernheim's excellent book: "Lehrbuch der historischen Methode" (1889, 2nd ed. 1894). Russian historical literature is very poor in writings on historical K. A number of remarks on this subject can be found in the first volume of Bestuzhev-Ryumin's "Russian History" and in the first volume of Ikonnikov's "Experience in Russian Historiography". See also Fortinsky's article: "Experiences in the Systematic Processing of Historical Criticism", in "Kyiv University News" for 1884, as well as the Russian translation of Tardif's pamphlet: "Fundamentals of Historical K." (1894). In a broader sense, the name of historical criticism is given to a critical attitude, from a historical point of view, to the very phenomena studied by historical science; but such a usage cannot be considered correct, and it can give rise to great misunderstandings.

N. Kareev.

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

See what "Historical Criticism" is in other dictionaries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Female search and judgment about the merits and demerits of any labor, esp. essays; parsing, evaluation. Historical criticism, analysis of everyday life, search for events, cleaning them from embellishments and distortions. Human criticism cannot be avoided, gossip, ... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

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

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

Books

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

Comprehensive analysis of the source or "source criticism", as it is customary to say among source experts, includes determining the type of source, its origin, establishing the time, place, circumstances of its appearance, and the completeness of information. Source criticism is usually categorized into external and internal.

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

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

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

The main directions of internal criticism is the setting:

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

the purpose of creating the source;

Reliability of the source (accuracy and truthfulness of presentation).

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

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

Establishing the reliability of a source involves how accurately a historical source reflects historical phenomena and events. For example, the statements of politicians are authentic in terms of the fact that these are the speeches of these figures, and not impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always true and reliable.

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

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

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

First of all, it is necessary to find out What does the concept of "historical sources" mean and why is it necessary to be able to work with them?

The historian is completely deprived of the opportunity to personally establish the facts that he studies. No Egyptologist has ever seen pharaohs. Not a single expert on the Napoleonic wars heard the guns of Austerlitz. One can speak about previous epochs only on the basis of the evidence left from them. As Mark Blok (which has already been discussed) noted, the historian plays the role of an investigator trying to reconstruct a picture of a crime in which he himself was not present, or a physicist who is forced to stay at home due to the flu and learns about the results of his experience from the reports of a laboratory attendant. Thus knowledge of the past will never be direct. But even a researcher who recreates the history of the recent past, which he himself witnessed, is not in the best position. After all, direct, "direct" observation is almost always an illusion. The historian cannot be a witness to all the events taking place in his time, he can directly observe only an insignificant part of them. In addition, what the researcher "sees" to a large extent consists of what others have seen. The historian studies the state of affairs in the economy on the basis of summaries 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 a historian there are peculiar intermediaries, which are called historical sources. Historical source is a very broad concept. This is all that can give an idea of ​​a person's 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 aim of entering history, leaving a trace about himself in it, but with the aim of simply providing himself with everything necessary for life. These sources usually include material sources. There is a special historical discipline - archeology, which studies the ancient past of mankind on the basis of what remains of dwellings, tools, etc. Intentional sources are usually written sources. Many of them were created with a very specific goal - to declare themselves. This is especially true for the sources studied by political history: these are the programs of political parties; transcripts of congresses, conferences, meetings; speeches and writings of politicians and similar documents.

There are other classifications of historical sources: they are classified by period of creation, by type(materials of 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 the mere presence of sources is not enough. This is easy to verify with a specific example. For many years in our country, access to a significant part of the sources was difficult, many archives were closed even to specialists. Under these conditions, the idea arose that, as soon as the doors of special vaults 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 crisis has been revealed. It follows from this that without the ability to work with historical sources, an adequate reconstruction of history is impossible.

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

Here are the words of Karl Marx expressed on this occasion: “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 believes in the word of each era, no matter what it says or imagines about itself.

Therefore, it is necessary to be able to analyze historical sources. 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 are, it is necessary to move on to the question: What are the directions 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 sometimes they are deliberately distorted). Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source. Its essence lies in the study of the testimony of a source about a historical fact, in determining 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, mastering its techniques for them and for all students of history is not a priority. It is much more important to learn how to analyze a historical source in terms 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 most 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 for some purpose. Highlighting this goal will allow a deeper understanding of the content of the source, its logic and argumentation. The realization that the 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 a different angle. This will target the search for multiple documents, and therefore their comparison.

Finding out the place of the source in the context of the era involves the solution of several problems at once. First, it is necessary to establish how important this source is for studying the era reflected in it. After all, the real scale of historical events does not always coincide with how it is reflected in the documents. More significant facts may be given a glimpse, and less significant ones may be given too much importance. In other words, it is necessary to understand how the source is representative (representative) for the study of a particular time. Secondly, this is a clarification of the positions from which the document was written. This will answer the question: what other points of view on the event under consideration existed in the past and, thus, will again guide the search for other documents. In addition, understanding that the source belongs to a certain system of views will lead to the fact that his point of view will not be mechanically transferred to historical research as the ultimate truth.

Establishing the reliability of a source involves finding out how correctly it explains the causes of certain events. There are situations when the source will be authentic from the point of view of external criticism (that is, not fake), but will contain unreliable information or interpretation. For example, many speeches by politicians are authentic in the sense that they are speeches of these political figures, and not 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 methods of working with historical sources that allow you to fulfill the tasks of their criticism. Let us dwell on the basic techniques, without the knowledge of which any meaningful work with historical documents is impossible.

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

▼ From this follows the rule: to study not individual sources (no matter what principle they are selected for), but the whole complex of sources on the topic under study.

▼ The study of 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. It should be treated as a natural phenomenon. Each source reflects the view of one part of society on the event, and there are many views. If we confine ourselves to one source, this will lead to a one-sided vision of a historical event.

What methods of working with sources are necessary in this situation? It is not at all the ability to make something arithmetic mean from various sources. This is not possible, nor is it necessary. It is necessary to be able to compare and compare sources, showing the versatility of a historical event and the ambiguity of its perception.

Let's look at this with a specific example. 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 of 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. 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 observe the progress of affairs. Meanwhile, young students came up in large groups. …

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

There were few policemen and gendarmes on Kazanskaya 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 him and, lifted up by the workers, held him high above the heads of those present for some time. …

“Now let’s all go together, otherwise they will arrest us,” some voices shouted, and we moved in a crowd towards Nevsky. But as soon as we took a few steps, the police ... began to grab those walking in the back rows. …

New and strong reinforcements came to the police. A whole detachment of policemen, accompanied by many janitors, quickly approached the square. … The most severe dump began. ... Those who acted alone were immediately seized and, after brutal beatings, dragged to the stations.

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

This is the testimony of a demonstrator. 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 in the office of the Minister of Justice, Fuchs, Prosecutor of the Chamber, Comrade Prosecutor Poskochin, and Comrade Minister Frisch. The latter briskly related that, walking along the Nevsky an hour ago, he had witnessed a demonstration at the Kazan Cathedral by a group of young people of a "nihilistic streak", 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 handful of young people were outrageous and carried in their arms some kind of boy who waved a banner with the inscription "Land and Freedom". At the same time, Trepov said that they were all arrested - one who resisted was tied up, and some were probably armed, because. a revolver was found on the ground. ... Demonstration ... caused a very indifferent attitude on the part of society. Cab drivers and shop clerks rushed to help the police and beat with whips and fists "gentlemen and girls in headscarves [plaids]."

(Koni A.F. Memories of the case of Vera Zasulich // Selected Works. M., 1958. V.2. S. 8, 10.)

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

One observer of street life told about a merchant who said: “We went out with my wife and child to take 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, climbed into the crowd, and - it's a pity only two of them and I managed to hit them in the neck ... I had to hurry to my wife and child - after all, there were only one left! “But who and why did you hit?” “But who knows who, but how, pardon, suddenly I see, they are beating: do not stand with folded arms ?! Well, he gave it twice to anyone, he amused himself - and to his wife ... ”(The character’s language is preserved unchanged).

(Koni A.F. op. op. P. 10 - 11.)

Let's see what happens if, in the reconstruction of this event, we restrict 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 the participant and organizer of the demonstration to recall it in an upbeat, pathetic tone). Moreover, this demonstration will have to be portrayed as an event of great importance and had a significant impact on the socio-political life of the capital, and even the whole country. So it was in the Soviet historical literature, which used only this source (omitting unnecessary everyday details about taverns). And if you use only the opinions of officials as a source? Then this event will have to be portrayed as a turmoil, completely groundless, which did not cause any resonance in society. If, however, we use only the above opinion of the merchant as a source, then this event should generally fall into the category of a police chronicle or even curiosities of St. Petersburg life. Therefore, the use of a single source will result in an inadequate reproduction of the story. At the same time, it is clear that it is impossible to make something arithmetic mean 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 sections of society.

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

For example, source studies teach that memoirs as a historical source can only be used when compared with other sources. This is explained by the fact that a memoirist can fail his memory, he can (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 of writing his memoirs. It is, of course, so. But would a document written on official letterhead, with a signature and official seal, be more reliable? Many materials of the state and former party archives of the Soviet era are nothing more than reports. You don't have to be a great specialist in source studies to understand that if historians of the future reproduce the history of our recent past from reports, they will have an absolutely wrong idea about it. But some historians have formed a kind of reverence for official documents. This stereotype needs to be overcome. These documents need to be carefully rechecked and compared with many other historical sources.

This applies to all sources. For example, there is not a single political party whose program states that this party wants to harm the people or the country (and party programs are also a historical source). Alas, there has been enough blood in history. Thus, here again it is necessary to compare programs with other documents.

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

Of course, this is not all, but only the basic rules and techniques for working with historical sources. But without owning them, it is impossible to understand history.

So, the above material 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 of the university history course.

1. The 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