BASIC METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH.

Keywords

Approaches: abstract and concrete, logical and historical, inductive and deductive, analytical and synthetic, dynamic and static, descriptive and quantitative, genetic, typological, comparative, systemic, structural, functional, informational, probabilistic, model. Principles: the principle of analogy, the principle of typology, the principle of historicism. General methods of studying historical reality. Special scientific methods. The methods are problem-specific. Time and historical causality. Chronology and periodization. Forecast in history. "Historical memory". The principles of historical knowledge: the principle of historicism, the principle of objectivity, systems approach, value approach, assessment, axiomatic method.

Issues for discussion

The principle of historicism and the historical method.

Historical and genetic method.

Historical-comparative method [Comparative (critical) method]

Historical and typological method.

Historical and systemic method.

Ideas about the nature of historical knowledge in foreign historiography.

Why are there no facts that are historical in nature?

What is probabilistic knowledge? Why is the definition of science through law not entirely legitimate?

Why is history predominantly an indirect science, and its method an indirect method based on inference?

Why is a layman right when he recognizes a historical text by the presence of dates in it?

Why does making a forecast in itself mean a change in the situation? Is it possible to accurately predict the future development of society based on the study of its history?

Why is one historical time never equal to another, even of equal duration?

Is a monocausal explanation permissible in historical science?

Criticism of Historicism by Karl Popper.

Directly-activity and scientific-cognitive practical needs and the formulation of a scientific problem.

General methods of studying historical reality: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic. Strengths and weaknesses.

The concept of a principle in historical science. Basic principles of historical science and their essence.

Interpretation of principles in historiography.

When studying this topic, it is recommended to pay attention first of all to the works of I.D. Kovalchenko 1, K.V. Khvostovoy 2, M.F. Rumyantseva 3, Antoine Pro 4, John Tosh 5, which adequately reveal its current state. It is possible to study other works, depending on the availability of time and if this work is directly related to the topic of the student's scientific research 6.

Under "historical", "history" in scientific knowledge in a broad sense, we mean everything that, in the diversity of objective social and natural reality, is in a state of change and development. The principle of historicism and the historical method have a common scientific significance. They are equally applied in biology, geology or astronomy as well as for the study of the history of human society.

This method allows you to cognize reality by studying its history, which distinguishes this method from the logical one, when the essence of the phenomenon is revealed by analyzing its given state. The methods of historical research are understood as all general methods of studying historical reality., that is, methods related to historical science as a whole, applied in all areas of historical research. These are special scientific methods. On the one hand, they are based on the general philosophical method, and on one or another set of general scientific methods, and on the other, they serve as the basis for specific problem methods, that is, methods used in the study of certain specific historical phenomena in the light of certain other research tasks. Their difference lies in the fact that they should be applicable to the study of the past according to the remnants that remain of it.

Special-historical, or general historical, research methods are one or another combination of general scientific methods aimed at studying the object of historical knowledge, that is, taking into account the features of this object, expressed in the general theory of historical knowledge.

Historical reality is characterized by a number of common features, and therefore the main methods of historical research can be distinguished.

According to the definition of academician I.D. Kovalchenko, the main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic... When using this or that general historical method, other general scientific methods are also used (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, description and measurement, explanation, etc.), which act as specific cognitive means necessary to implement the approaches and principles underlying based on the leading method. The rules and procedures necessary for conducting research are also developed (research methodology) and certain tools and instruments are used (research technique) 1.

Any research process begins with the formulation of a problem, a research task and the definition of goals for its solution.

The infinite variety of phenomena of objective reality necessitates the definition of a specific aspect of research and its tasks. Without this, no research can be fruitful. The statement of this or that problem is determined by practical needs, direct-activity and scientific-cognitive, and its essential content is determined by the available scientific knowledge 2.

Formulation of the problem is a complex research procedure not only in assessing the practical significance of the problem, but also in identifying that a certain problem exists at all. This requires an analysis of existing knowledge to identify the consequences that follow from it, as well as to what extent this knowledge fits into the existing general scientific picture of the corresponding sphere of objective reality and how this system of knowledge (theory) relates to other theories that characterize the circle under consideration. phenomena, etc. Revealing antinomies (logical contradictions) and paradoxes in existing knowledge, opposing or competing theories and hypotheses leads to the formulation of new research problems 1.

The method includes cornerstone premises that form the basis and characterize the essence of scientific research. Such premises are an approach and principle... The approach determines the main way to solve the set research problem. He reveals the strategy for this decision.

There is a whole range of approaches to solving research problems. These approaches were formed as a result of generalization of research practice, and therefore have a general scientific character, that is, they are applied in all or many sciences. It has long been known in science such approaches as abstract and concrete, logical and historical, inductive and deductive, analytical and synthetic, dynamic and static, descriptive and quantitative, genetic, typological, comparative, etc.

In modern science, a number of new general scientific approaches – systemic, structural, functional, informational, probabilistic, model etc. Each indicated approach characterizes one of the possible ways of conducting research.

An approach, outlining the main perspective of the study of an object in the light of the task at hand, determines only the most general feature of a particular method. The specific content of the method is expressed by the principles inherent in the corresponding approach. In defining what a principle is, there are a wide variety of opinions among philosophers. Principle consider, as a rule, a means, a method, an essential judgment, a law, a basis, an initial position, etc. They note the dual nature and double role of a principle, that is, they characterize it both as knowledge about reality (ontological principles) and as means her knowledge (epistemological and methodological principles).

According to its functional place in the method, the principle is an epistemological and methodological means of implementing the corresponding approach. So, for example, one of the principles on the basis of which the comparative approach can be implemented is analogy principle... The implementation of this principle requires taking into account the qualitative uniformity of the compared phenomena, i.e., their structural and functional relationship and stage differences in their development, for which, in turn, it is necessary to have comparable content characteristics of phenomena. Another principle for the implementation of the comparative approach can be typology principle... It requires that the types of objects in the compared populations be distinguished on the basis of common general criteria and specific indicators.

The research approach and principle are closely intertwined and intertwined and can, as it were, change places. So, genetic approach based on the principle of historicism... The historical approach, on the contrary, requires a genetic principle of considering the phenomenon. At first glance, they are one and the same. But in reality it is not so, because the history of an object or phenomenon and their genesis are not identical.

The theory of method, for all its undoubtedly decisive role, by itself does not allow research to be carried out. The principles of obtaining new knowledge, substantiated in the theory of the method, are practically implemented in "techniques and logical operations with the help of which the principles ... begin to work" 1. The set of rules and procedures, techniques and operations that allow in practice to implement the ideas and requirements of the principle (or principles) on which the method is based, form the methodology of the corresponding method. Methodology- the same indispensable structural component of the method, as well as its theory.

Finally, rules and procedures, techniques and operations (that is, the method itself) can be enforced with the presence of certain tools and tools. Their totality constitutes the third structural component of the scientific method - research technique.

It is only necessary to add that the basis for identifying the levels of methodology should be the level of theoretical knowledge about reality. With regard to social phenomena, as indicated, there are four such levels: general philosophical, philosophical-sociological, special-scientific and specific-problem. In methodology, as well as in theory in general, these levels are closely interrelated and the leading of them, which has a decisive influence on others, is the general philosophical. In turn, he synthesizes the results of the development of other levels of methodology.

Logic is a powerful means of scientific and cognitive activity due to the fact that its concepts and categories, laws and principles are an adequate reflection of the objective in the subjective consciousness of a person.

Philosophical methods of scientific knowledge, revealing general ways (approaches) and principles of cognition of reality, are universal, characterize the course of the research process as a whole and are applicable in the study of all manifestations of reality 2.

Another category of research methods is formed by general scientific methods of cognition... They are used in all or many sciences and, unlike general philosophical methods, cover only certain aspects of scientific and cognitive activity, are one of the means for solving research problems. Thus, induction and deduction express different approaches to revealing the essence of the studied phenomena, and analysis and synthesis are different methods of penetrating this essence. Descriptive and quantitative methods are means and forms of expressing information about the phenomena under study, and modeling is a method of formalized representation of knowledge inherent in higher levels of scientific knowledge.

In the practice of scientific research, the appeal to one or another general scientific method is determined by the nature of the phenomena being studied and the set research task 1.

Special scientific methods are based on philosophical and general scientific methods. These are the methods that are used in a particular science as a whole. Their theoretical basis is the theory of a special scientific level. The role of these ontologically directed theories in the formation of special scientific methods is that they determine the nature of those methodological principles and regulatory requirements that make up the theory of the method. The specificity of these principles and requirements is determined by the peculiarities of the object of cognition of the corresponding science. For example, historical science differs from other social sciences and humanities in that it studies the past. This led to the development of methods that are characteristic of historical research.

The lowest level is formed problem-specific methods... They are aimed at studying specific phenomena that characterize certain aspects and phenomena of reality, which constitutes the object of cognition of the corresponding science. The essence of these phenomena is expressed in the theories of a specific problem level. They determine the specifics of the methodology (theory) of specific problem methods, that is, those principles and requirements on which these methods are based. If, for example, the course of economic development of this or that country is being studied in a given period of time, then the indispensable principles and requirements for such a study and its methods should be to show the production and economic (formational) essence of this development, its stage level, the conditionality of its rates the nature of the relationship between productive forces and production relations, etc. In other words, this development should be presented as an objective, natural and internally conditioned historical process. And if some ideological social phenomenon is being investigated, then an indispensable principle and requirement for analysis will be the reduction of the individual to the social and the disclosure of the essence of the ideal through the material, that is, showing the essence of the subjective on the basis of the objective. It is clear that the research methods in the first and second cases will be different.

How does a historian act when he wants to understand or explain a historical phenomenon in the usual, non-scientific sense of the word? As a rule, he tries to reduce it to phenomena of a more general order, or to find deep or random causes that cause it. So, the reasons for the Great French Revolution were the economic situation, the development of social thought, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the financial crisis of the monarchy, the bad harvest of 1787, etc. 1 From the point of view of logic, the explanation of the historian does not differ from the explanation of the ordinary person. The mode of reasoning used to explain the causes of the French Revolution is no different from the way a person on the street explains the causes of a traffic accident or the results of an election. Basically, this is the same intellectual technique, only refined, improved taking into account additional factors 2

All this is tantamount to a statement that the historical method as such does not exist. There is, of course, a critical method of rigorously establishing facts in order to assess the validity of the historian's hypotheses. But historical explanation is an explanation that is practiced on a daily basis. The historian explains the 1910 railroad strike using reasoning that is no different from the one used by the pensioner in his story about the 1947 strike. He applies to the past those types of explanations that allowed him to understand the situations or events he personally experienced 3

The historian thinks by analogy with the present, it takes you to the past ways of explaining that have proven their worth in the everyday experience of each and every one. By the way, this is one of the reasons for the success that history enjoys among the general public: in order to delve into the content of a book on history, no special training is required from the reader.

Historical and genetic method.

Historical and genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. It consists in the sequential discovery of the properties, functions and changes of the studied reality in the process of its historical movement, which makes it possible to get as close as possible to the reconstruction of the real history of the object. Cognition goes (should go) sequentially from the singular to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical-idiomatic, and by the form of expressing information about the reality being investigated, it is descriptive. Of course, this does not exclude the use (sometimes even broad) and quantitative indicators. But the latter act as an element of describing the properties of an object, and not as a basis for identifying its qualitative nature and building its essential-meaningful and formal-quantitative model 4.

The historical-genetic method makes it possible to show causal relationships and patterns of historical development in their immediacy, and to characterize historical events and personalities in their individuality and imagery. When using this method, the individual characteristics of the researcher are manifested to the greatest extent. To the extent that the latter reflect a social need, they have a positive effect on the research process.

Thus, the historical-genetic method is the most versatile, flexible and accessible method of historical research. At the same time, it is also inherent in its limitations, which can lead to certain costs in its absolutization.

The historical and genetic method is aimed primarily at analyzing development. Therefore, with insufficient attention to statics, i.e. to the fixation of a certain temporal datum of historical phenomena and processes, there may be danger of relativism.

Reasoning from the standpoint of relativism is given in the work of the French historian Henri Marroux, published in 1954 ("On Historical Knowledge"):

“... Theory, that is, the position, conscious or unconscious, that the historian takes in relation to the past - the choice and turn of the topic, the posing of questions, the concepts used and especially the types of connections, systems of interpretation, the relative value recognized for each of them. It is the personal philosophy of the historian that dictates to him the choice of the system of thinking, in accordance with which he will recreate and, as he believes, explain the past.

The richness, complexity of the nature of anthropological facts and as a result of this historical reality makes the latter [...] practically inexhaustible for efforts aimed at discovery and understanding. Being inexhaustible, historical reality is at the same time and ambiguous: there are always so many different aspects in it, so many active forces intersecting and superimposing on each other at one point in the past that the historian's thought will always find in it that specific element that, in accordance with his theory will be decisive and will act as a system of intelligibility - as an explanation. The historian chooses what he needs: the data for his proof will be found, and they can be adapted to any system, he always finds what he is looking for 1 ... "

The weak side of relativism is due to the fact that objective reality is considered one-sided. It takes into account some changes and ignores the fact that, along with them, a certain stability is inherent in objective reality, arising from the fact that any qualitative definiteness corresponds to one or another range of its quantitative expression. Therefore, while continuously occurring changes are only quantitative in nature and do not lead to the emergence of a new quality, all objects, phenomena and processes of reality are stable. In this regard, it is of paramount importance to identify the measure of the quantitative determination of the corresponding qualities.

The historical-genetic method, with excessive attention to concreteness and detail, can lead to protrusion of the individual and unique, obscuring the general and natural. In the study, as the saying goes, the forest could disappear behind the trees. Therefore, in its final form, the historical-genetic method must organically include the characteristics of the individual, the particular and the general.

The historical genetic method tends to be descriptive, factual and empiric. This is largely due to the fact that in historical research very often it takes a lot of effort and time to identify, collect and initially systematize and process specific factual data. As a result, either an illusion arises that this is the main task of the study, or there is not enough time for a thorough theoretical analysis of the revealed facts. To prevent factography and empiricism, one should proceed from the fact that, no matter how many facts and no matter how striking they are, "empirical observation in itself can never sufficiently prove necessity", that is, the regularity of a given state or development ... This can only be done on the basis of a theoretical analysis of the facts. Such an analysis is in principle rejected by positivism, which limits cognition to its empirical stage.

The historical-genetic method, with all its age and breadth of application, does not have a developed and clear logic and conceptual apparatus. Therefore, his methodology, and, consequently, his technique, is vague and uncertain, which makes it difficult to compare and bring together the results of individual studies 1

Historical and comparative method.

The historical-comparative method has also been used for a long time in historical research. In general, comparison is an important and, perhaps, the most widespread method of scientific knowledge. In fact, no scientific study is complete without comparison. The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case when the similarity of essences is established is analogy. Analogy is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that on the basis of the similarity - of some features of the compared objects, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other features 2 . It is clear that in this case the range of known features of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made must be wider than that of the object under study.

In general, the historical-comparative method has broad cognitive capabilities. First, it allows you to reveal the essence of the investigated phenomena in cases where it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts; to identify the common and the repetitive, the necessary and natural, on the one hand, and the qualitatively different, on the other. This fills in the gaps and brings the study to completion. Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the studied phenomena and, on the basis of analogies, come to broad historical parallels. Thirdly, it allows the use of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method 1.

It is possible to compare objects and phenomena and similar and different types that are at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, and in the other, differences. Compliance with these conditions of historical comparisons, in essence, means consistent implementation of the principle of historicism 2.

Revealing the significance of the features, on the basis of which the historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stages of the compared phenomena, most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily the historical-typological and historical-systemic ones. In combination with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research.

But this method, naturally, has a certain range of the most effective action. This is primarily the study of socio-historical development in broad spatial and temporal aspects, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be disclosed by direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data. 3

Western countries in modern and contemporary times. Special course "Basics scientificresearch”. Genesis...

BASICS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Manual for students of technical specialties Approved by the methodological commissions Gomel 2005

Document

Reason: memory corresponds history, imagination - poetry ... in some cases - oh foreignresearch... Bibliographic indexes represent ... COURSE " THE BASESSCIENTIFICRESEARCH " Introduction. Item " The basicsscientificresearch”. Genesis...

Fundamentals of scientific research work program of the academic discipline

Document

Perhaps the whole history philology testifies to this ... to the theory of language // New in foreign linguistics. Issue I. M., 1960 ... Methodology scientificresearch... M .. 1999. - 245 p. 4. Chuvakin A.A., Koschey L.A., Morozov V.D. The basicsscientificresearch on...

It makes it possible to reveal the essence of the studied phenomena both by the similarity and by the difference of their inherent properties, as well as to compare in space and time, i.e., horizontally and vertically.

The logical basis of the historical-comparative method is analogy - this is a general scientific method of cognition that, based on the similarity of some features of the compared objects, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other features.

In this case, the range of known features of the object (phenomena), with which the comparison is made, should be wider than that of the object under study. Possibilities of the historical-comparative method:

It allows you to reveal the essence of the investigated phenomena in those cases when it is not obvious on the basis of the available facts;

Reveal common and repetitive, necessary and natural and qualitatively different;

Go beyond the studied phenomena and, on the basis of analogies, arrive at broad historical generalizations and parallels;

It allows the use of other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method. Methodological requirements for its use:

The comparison should be based on specific facts that reflect the essential features of the phenomena, and not their formal similarity;

One should take into account the general nature of the historical epochs in which the compared historical events took place;

It is possible to compare objects and phenomena of the same type and of different types, which are at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identified similarities, and in the other, differences.

Disadvantages of the historical-comparative method:

This method is not intended to disclose the

reality;

It is difficult to use it when studying the dynamics of social processes. Historical and typological method

Typologization - as a method of scientific knowledge, has as its goal the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes) based on their common essential features. This is the method of essential analysis. The entire set of objects appears in this case as a generic phenomenon, and the types included in it - as species of this genus.

Historical and systemic method

Its use is due to the deepening of historical research both from the point of view of the holistic coverage of the cognizable historical reality, and from the point of view of disclosing the internal mechanisms of the functioning and development of various kinds of socio-historical systems.

Systems analysis methods are structural and functional analyzes. The system under study is considered not from the side of its individual aspects, but as an integral qualitative definiteness, taking into account both its own main features and its place and role in the hierarchy of systems.

From the point of view of the specific content, the solution to this problem is reduced to identifying the system-forming (system) features that are inherent in the components of the system being distinguished. These include features, the relationship between which primarily determines the essence of the structure of the system.

After the selection of the corresponding system is followed by its analysis as such. The central point here is structural analysis, that is, the identification of the nature of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties.

The result of the structural-system analysis is knowledge about the system as such. This knowledge is of an empirical nature, since by itself it does not reveal the essential nature of the revealed structure. Transferring the knowledge gained to the theoretical level requires identifying the functions of a given system in the hierarchy of systems, where it appears as a subsystem. This problem is solved by functional analysis, which reveals the interaction of the system under study with systems of a higher level.

Recently, the importance of methods that expand the possibilities of historical research and are at the intersection of several disciplines (linguistics, demography, statistics, history of collective psychology and mentality) has been growing. When analyzing a particular method, one should clearly highlight its essence, possibilities of use, requirements for application and disadvantages.

THEME 2. LITERARY AND PUBLIC MONUMENTS X-XVII centuries.

1. Works of journalism and literature as a historical source. Study methods.

2. Translated literature (canonical and apocryphal).

3. Original Old Russian literature:

a) A word about law and grace;

b) Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh;

c) "The Word about Igor's Regiment" and its source study analysis;

d) hagiographic literature.

4. Publicism of the 15th-17th centuries:

a) the originality of publicistic works of the period of formation and strengthening of the centralized Russian state;

b) church-political treatises by I. Volotsky and N. Sorsky;

c) the works of I. Peresvetov;

d) the correspondence between I. Grozny and A. Kurbsky as a historical source;

e) the works of Archpriest Avvakum, their creative individuality;

f) the works of G. Kotoshikhin and Yu. Krizhanich about Russia in the middle of the 17th century.

SOURCES

1. Life and Life of Sergius of Radonezh: Sat. - M., 1991 .-- 336 p.

2. Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself and his other works / Under total. ed. N.K. Hudzia. - M., 1960 .-- 479 p.

3. Goldblast: Ancient Russia of the X-XIII centuries. - M., 1990.

4. Krizhanich Y. Politics / Ed. M.N. Tikhomirov. - M., 1965 .-- 735 p.

5. Nikitin A. Walking beyond the three seas of Afanasy Nikitin / Ed. prepare I'M WITH. Lurie, L.S. Semenov. - L., 1986 .-- 213 p.

6. Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia / Comp. and total. ed. L. A. Dmitrieva, D. S. Mosachev. - M., 1978, 1980. -T. 12.

7. Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Andrei Kurbsky. - L., 1979 .-- 431 p.

8. Peresvetov I. Works. - M.-L., 1956 .-- 388 p.

9. Stories about the Battle of Kulikovo. - M., 1959.

10. The message of Joseph Volotsky / Prepared. Text by A.A. Zimin, Ya.S. Lurie. - M.-L., 1952.-390 p.

11. Word about Igor's regiment / Ed. V.P. Andriyanova-Peretz. - M.-L., 1950 .-- 46 p.

12. Reader on ancient Russian literature / Comp. N.I. Prokofiev. - M., 1987.-429s.

13. Reader on ancient Russian literature / Comp. N.K. Hudziy. - M., 1973 .-- 397 p.

LITERATURE

1. Gumilev L.N. Black legend. Friends and girlfriends of the Great Steppe. - M., 1994.

2. Old Russian literature. Source study. - L., 1984.

3. 3. Kazakova N.A. Essays on the history of Russian social thought: the first third of the 16th century - L., 1970.-297 p.

4. The Kulikovo battle in literature and art. - M., 1980.

5. Kuskov V.V. History of Old Russian Literature. - M., 1977.

6. Likhachev D.S. "The Word about Igor's Campaign" and the Culture of His Time. - L., 1985.

7. Likhachev D.S. The Great Heritage: Classical Works of the Literature of Ancient Rus. - M., 1980.-366 p.

8. Likhachev D.S. History of Russian literature X-XIV centuries - M., 1980 .-- 205 p.

9. Lurie Ya.S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism of the late 15th - early 16th centuries - M.-L., 1960-532

10. Pozdeeva I.V. Liturgical text as a historical source // Questions of history. - 2000.-№ 6. - S. 112-121.

12. Sokolova V.K. Russian historical legends. - M., 1970 .-- 258 p.

Work on the topic of the seminar should begin with highlighting the features of Old Russian literature. She combined in herself what in modern times has turned into independent cultural spheres: journalism, historiography, philosophy, ethics, artistic expression. In addition, any written monument was endowed with a number of meanings: symbolic, allegorical, moral.

As a field of mental activity, literature is closely connected with the philosophical and worldview ideas of writers. She is a reflection of them. For medieval literature, this connection was all the more strong because in the medieval period the artistic method of reflecting being inherent in literature did not exist apart from the scientific and cognitive method due to the syncretism of medieval personal and social consciousness. As a result, literature accurately reflected contemporary worldview thought.

After the adoption of Christianity by Russia in 988 as a state religion, for seven centuries it became the basis of the ideological ideas of the ancient Russian scribes. Students should prove that the first time after the adoption of Christianity, in Russia they used exclusively translated literature. Spiritual literature was divided into canonical and apocryphal. It is important to note that translated texts of spiritual content have extremely limited informational capabilities. Most often they are used in the study of individual problems of ancient Russian culture and to restore the circle of countries with which Russia had "book" cultural contacts.

A notable role among translated literature was played by moralizing works - the so-called izborniks. The earliest surviving one is Izbornik 1073. Many Greek texts included in it were rethought and brought into conformity with the circumstances of ancient Russian life. The collection reflected all the moral problems characteristic of Russia in the second half of the 11th century.

When characterizing translated literature, students should note that Byzantine chronicles make up a large complex of works of this group. They formed the basis of the Old Russian annals. The most famous of them are the Chronicles of John Malala and George Amartol. It is important that the literary monuments of Western Europe contributed to the involvement of ancient Russian culture in the context of world culture and had a serious impact on the development of the original ancient Russian literature.

The first political treatise in Russian literature was an essay that was included in science under the short title "The Word about Law and Grace." Its author was Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev. His essay was dedicated to one of the turning points in our history - the adoption of Christianity by Russia. Hilarion wrote about the place of his people and his country in world history, about the historical role of Prince Vladimir - the head of the ancient Russian state. The Slovo is distinguished by a high level of theological and political thinking, it makes one wonder how at the early stage of Russian history, when the official recognition of Christianity in Russia was less than half a century old, a literary monument could appear, the originality of which is impressive to this day. Students should think about the reasons for the appearance of such a work. It is also necessary to dwell on the structure of the "Lay", which was traditional for "words" and assumed three parts: the historical and theological, Praise to Prince Vladimir and Hilarion's prayer for the Russian land. In the historical-theological part, Hilarion gives a brief overview of the history of Christianity. Following the canonical Christian interpretation, the author defines law as “the forerunner and servant of grace”, and grace (faith) as preparation for the “future age”. The main topic in the historical and theological section for him is the spread of Christianity among the peoples of the world and the inclusion of the ancient Russian people in this process. The second part of the Lay reflected medieval ideas about the nature of princely power, about an ideal prince. At the same time, students should note that Hilarion does not focus on the fundamental point for Byzantine ideology - the origin of power from God. This is the difference between the initial stage in the development of Old Russian political thought and its evolution in Byzantium. In addition, Hilarion calls on Vladimir to pray for his land and for his subjects. He also exalts the military valor of the prince, his feats of arms. With his "Praise" to Vladimir, the ancient Russian writer, obviously, was preparing the canonization of the prince as one of the first national saints of the young Russian Church. Finally, the third part of the Lay is devoted to prayer for the Russian land. Hilarion glorifies the beauty of Russia, is proud of his country, realizes its worthy place among other peoples.

Thus, completing the analysis of The Word of Law and Grace, students should note that the work combines religious, civil and political meanings. "The Word" is of particular interest, as it is a unique monument of the official ideology of Ancient Rus.

The problem of the "ideal" prince is continued by Vladimir Monomakh's "Instruction". Students must determine the structure of this work, its source. It should be pointed out that the "Instruction" includes actually a lesson, an autobiography, a letter to Prince Oleg Svyatoslavich of Chernigov. It is also important to note that the "Instruction" is known in one list of the 12th century. Vladimir Monomakh offers his ideology of princely power and ethics of political activity. He stands for the unity of actions of the Russian princes against external enemies and is ready for this to be reconciled with Prince Oleg. A large place in this work is occupied by descriptions of military campaigns and princely hunts, instructions on housekeeping. Vladimir Monomakh puts forward the demand for the fulfillment of the general norms of Christian morality. The events in the life of the author of the "Teachings" are also facts of the political history of Russia at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries, and his views reflect the worldview of a far-sighted state ruler. This determines the place and significance of the "Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh" as a historical source.

Most of the works of Old Russian literature were responses to modern events, distinguished by a poetic style of presentation and closeness to oral folk art. But the main thing that unites them is the theme of the struggle for independence, the defense of the Fatherland, which occupy a central place in them. An example of such a work is "The Lay of Igor's Campaign", in which the highest artistic merit is combined with an unrivaled patriotic content. "The Lay of Igor's Regiment" was a work of a pronounced secular character, a military story. Carrying out a source analysis, reveal the content of the discussion about the time, place of creation and authorship, trace the history of the monument itself from the moment one of the lists was discovered by Count A.I.Musin-Pushkin, a St. Petersburg dignitary, a famous collector of ancient books. Note that 1185, 1187, 1188, 1194, 1196, 1198, 1199 are named as possible dates for the creation of the "Word". Explain why. Try to find out the main events that caused the "Lay of Igor's Campaign" and the peculiarities of their reflection in the monument. Point out that the approach of Igor in 1185 against the Polovtsians became an incentive for the creation of such an outstanding work.

The main idea of ​​"The Lay of Igor's Regiment" is the need for unity of action by the Russian princes in the face of external danger. The main obstacles in this are the princely "who" and "sedition", but it is important to note that the author of the "Lay" is not a supporter of a single centralized state. He calls not for state unification, but for unity of action, an end to strife and strife. The historical theme of the Lay influenced subsequent works.

Lives became another type of original Old Russian literature. Identify the specific features of hagiographic literature. Prove that for the hagiographic literature of the XI-XIII centuries, as well as for icons, static figures are characteristic - the absence of movement, since movement is associated with a change in time (and this is an earthly destiny). Saints are static, for they are eternal and not subject to earthly changes in time. VO Klyuchevsky gave a very clear definition of the hagiographic model: "The Life is not a biography, but an instructive panegyric within the framework of a biography, just like the image of a saint in a life is not a portrait, but an icon." The earliest original Old Russian life is "Service to the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb" (written about 1021). An analysis of the life can be carried out on the basis of stories dedicated to Boris and Gleb - "Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearers Boris and Gleb" and belonging to the pen of Nestor. The reading is written in compliance with the canons of hagiography: it has fewer specific elements, more edification, there are motives of martyrdom, etc. As an example for analyzing hagiographic literature, one can take the lives of Stephen of Perm, Sergius of Radonezh, Dmitry Prilutsky and Metropolitan Alexy. "The Tale of Peter and Fevronia" and "The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, Written by Himself" stand apart in the hagiographic literature. Determine what their features are. In conclusion, note that the study of hagiographic literature from the point of view of sources is not very promising and explain why.

Analyzing publicistic works as sources on the history of the socio-economic, political and cultural life of the Russian state, determine their features and distinctive features. Note that the works that have arisen in connection with the distribution in the second half of the 15th and the first half of the 16th century are of journalistic character. heretical teachings. Most often, publicistic essays were devoted to topical problems of modern life. Among such problems in the XV-XVI centuries. - the theme of "autocracy", the relationship between spiritual and secular power, the place of the church and monastic land tenure. These questions became one of the central ones in the church-political treatises by I. Volotsky and N. Sorsky. Name the works belonging to these thinkers, highlight the main ideas of the works.

The current system of relations between the sovereign and his subjects is criticized by Ivan Peresvetov. In his works: "Big and small petitions", "The Legend of Mohammed-Saltan" reflected the views of the nobility. He intended to carry out specific reforms: to create a permanent army of nobles, to abolish servitude, to establish a strong power of the sovereign. To clarify the direction of the reforms, it is advisable to analyze the social status of the author, the history of the origin of the works.

An important source for the history of Russia in the 16th century. is the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and A. Kurbsky. It reflects the socio-political views of the bearer and ideologist of autocracy and a representative of the boyar opposition. Analyze how Ivan the Terrible defends his right to unlimited autocracy, substantiates his domestic and foreign policy course. Determine how long the correspondence took, how many letters were written. Evaluate the correspondence in terms of its reliability and completeness of information.

The work of Archpriest Avvakum stands out among the literary monuments. In terms of content, his "life" is an autobiography or even a memoir. This is the creative individuality of Habakkuk's writings. Remember the life story of Habakkuk himself. Try to prove that the Life of Avvakum is one of the most expressive monuments of opposition to the official ideology of the 17th century. A fanatical champion of the Old Believers, Avvakum, in his memoirs, tells a lot about the operatives of the church schism, about the persecution of the Old Believers by the official church and state authorities.

Among the historical sources of literary and journalistic nature of the 18th century. it is necessary to note the works of G. Kotoshikhin and Yu. Krizhanich about Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. Stop at the characteristics of the personality of the authors, reveal the direction of their views, try to assess the social prospects of their political ideas and aspirations.

So, literary and journalistic monuments of the XI-XVII centuries. contain rich historical material. Not differing in documentary accuracy, they are necessary for historical research, since they allow you to draw a full-blooded living picture of the era, convey the flavor of the time. However, they are characterized by political tendentiousness and author's subjectivity, the presence of elements of artistic fantasy. The methodology for analyzing these sites cannot be standard.

1. Methodology is the teaching of the methods of cognition and transformation of reality. It is a system of scientific principles and methods of historical research.

The methods of studying history include the following:

1. The comparative method of studying history consists in comparing historical objects in space and time.

2. Typological method - in the classification of historical phenomena, events, objects

3. The ideographic method of studying history is to describe historical events and phenomena.

4. Problematic - chronological method of studying history is to study the sequence of historical events in time.

5. The systemic method consists in disclosing the internal mechanisms of functioning and development.

An objective study of history requires a complex of historical sources, which include:

1. Written (chronicles, vaults, documents, etc.)

2. Material (tools, household items, coins, architectural structures, etc.)

3. Oral folk art (folklore, fairy tales, sayings, etc.)

4. Linguistic (place names, personal names, etc.)

5. Film-photo-documents.

The concept of history is considered from 2 positions:

The development process of human society.

Science designation that studies the past of humanity.

Historical Subject: Society

Subject: Regularities of the socio-economic and political development of society and the state.

Regularity is an objectively existing repeating connection between the phenomena of real life, expressed in historical events and facts.

To understand the essence of science, you need to trace the path of its formation or development. This is what historiography is doing, i.e. a set of historical research or the history of historical science. Several stages can be distinguished in historiography:

I. In the early centuries, Russian history was transmitted through oral tradition (songs, legends, epics).

II In the Middle Ages in Russia, historiography was of a religious nature of thinking.

II. Scientific coverage of Russian history begins in the 18th century, the so-called noble stage.

The first scientific work on the history of Russia belongs to Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev - the largest noble historian of the era of Peter I. His major work "History of Russia from the most ancient times" in 5 volumes.

Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov, the author of a number of works on Russian history ("A Brief Russian Chronicler with a Genealogy", "Ancient Russian History"), in which he initiated the struggle against the Norman theory of the formation of an ancient Russian state, belongs to the same period.

The first major work on the history of the Russian state belonged to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766 - 1826) 12 volumes of "History of the Russian state".

IV. Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev, author of the multivolume work History of Russia from Ancient Times, and Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, who wrote The Course of Russian History, belong to a new stage in historiography.

V. Soviet historiography, which used a formational approach in the study of history. This stage includes scientists like M. Pokrovsky (Short Course of the CPSU (b), Grekov B. D. Rybakov B. A. (paganism of Ancient Rus).

Currently, there is a tendency, on the one hand, to return to the periodization of the domestic history of Soloviev, Klyuchevsky and other pre-revolutionary historians, on the other hand, attempts are being made to give a periodization in accordance with new values ​​and methodological approaches.

2. The main achievements of the ancient era:

The flourishing of the human personality and the priority of the spiritual sphere, the rise of science and art

Division of labor: mental and physical.

The birth of systems of abstract sciences (I mean it's about ethics, and the like)

The emergence of world religions: a m.r. became an important step for streamlining the sphere of ideology, became important integration factors for mutual understanding between peoples belonging to the same faith.

Formation of city-states - policies.

Stages of antiquity:

The first (Homeric Greece), which lasted XII-VI centuries. BC, characterized by the domination of the agricultural aristocracy, patriarchal tribal relations.

The second, which began in the VI Art. and lasted until the beginning of our era, crafts, commodity-money relations were actively developing, slave work was widely used in all spheres of production. In political life, aristocracy and democracy (trade and craft strata of the city) competed, which was the reason for the gradual removal of the aristocracy from power. The consequence of these changes was the transfer of the center of socio-economic life from the village to the city, the transformation of the city from the core of the aristocracy to a craft and trade center.

3. The Great Migration of Nations - the conventional name for the totality of ethnic movements in Europe in the IV-VII centuries, which destroyed the Western Roman Empire and affected a number of territories of Eastern Europe. The prologue of the Great Migration of Peoples was the movement of Germanic tribes (Goths, Burgundians, Vandals) in the late II - early III centuries. to the Black Sea. The immediate impetus to the Great Migration of Peoples was the massive movement of the Huns (from the 70s of the 4th century). In the VI-VII centuries. Slavs (Sklavins, Antes) and other tribes invaded the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Causes Most researchers cite as the reasons for the great migrations leaving the impoverished and disadvantaged regions in search of more attractive lands for living. One of the main reasons was the general cooling of the climate, in connection with which the population of territories with a continental climate rushed to areas with a milder climate. The peak of resettlement fell on the period of a sharp cold snap in 535-536 [source not specified 158 days].

Effects

Socio-economic and political consequences of V. p. N. were extremely large. It contributed to the fall of the slave system and the breakdown of the Roman state mechanism (in the Western Roman Empire). Free peasant land tenure is spreading over a significant part of the Northern Mediterranean, small-scale production finally displaces the slave-owning latifundia, and the prerequisites for the formation of a feudal system are created (which was partially prepared by the internal development of the Roman Empire).

4. The history of the peoples of our country is rooted in antiquity. The homeland of their distant ancestors was Eurasia. Indo-Europeans (ancestors of the Germanic, Slavic and some other peoples) came to Europe from the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region and the Volga region (the area of ​​their earlier settlement is controversial) and initially settled the lower and middle reaches of the Danube, the northern part of the Balkans. Under the influence of migration processes, a single Indo-European community disintegrates: the tribes that rushed to the East, reach the coast of the Caspian Sea, penetrate into Asia Minor and gradually populate the Hindustan Peninsula. The movement to the West allowed the Indo-Europeans to move deeper into Europe. The time of the separation of the Slavs (more precisely, the Proto-Slavs) from the Indo-European linguistic and ethnic community is usually attributed to the II - I millennium BC. NS. Most likely, the process of isolation of the Proto-Slavic tribes took place when the tribes settled in Europe. According to archaeological data, the ancestral home of the Slavs was a territory that stretched from the Oder in the west to the Dnieper in the east, from the Vistula and Pripyat in the north to the Danube in the south. The closest neighbors of the Slavs in the west were the Celtic-Illyrian tribes, in the north - the Baltic and Finno-Ugric tribes, in the southeast - Iranian-speaking, in the southwest - Dacian.

The main habitat of the ancient Slavs was the forest, which saved from the steppe nomads, provided food, clothing and shoes, shelter and fuel. The main occupations of the Slavic tribes were forest slash farming, hunting, beekeeping, forestry. Another natural element of ancient man was rivers with their abundant fish stocks. Rivers were the main means of communication. It was along the course of the rivers that Slavic colonization took place, trade routes passed, connecting the Slavs with other peoples. So, "the way from the Varangians to the Greeks" through the Dnieper connected the Baltic with the Black Sea and Byzantium. It was on this path that the first cities arose - Novgorod, Smolensk, Kiev

The Slavs, like other peoples who were at the stage of military democracy, were pagans. They worshiped the forces of nature that were incomprehensible to man, deified deceased ancestors. With all the unique features, the paganism of the Eastern Slavs was only a branch of the common Slavic, more broadly, the common Indo-European, moreover, the common human tree of pagan religion and mythology. Slavic pre-Christian beliefs went through three stages in their development. Initially, the Slavs made sacrifices to ghouls and bereginians. Ghouls are vampires, werewolves who personified evil. Beregini are kind spirits that help a person. uh

5. Kievan Rus is one of the largest states of the Middle Ages of the 9th-12th centuries. Unlike in Eastern and Western countries, the process

the formation of statehood had its own specific features - spatial and geopolitical. The geopolitical space in which Kievan Rus was located was at the junction of different worlds: nomadic and sedentary, Christian and Muslim, pagan and Jewish. In the course of its formation, Russia acquired the features of both Eastern and Western state formations, since it occupied a middle position between Europe and Asia and did not have pronounced natural geographic boundaries within the vast plain space. The need for constant protection from external enemies of a large territory forced peoples with different types of development, religion, culture, language to rally, to create a strong state power. The Old Russian state emerges in a heterogeneous society and is a way of regulating relations between different social strata, classes, etc.

The beginning of the formation of the Old Russian nationality should be considered the 9th-10th centuries. - the time of the emergence of feudal relations in Russia and the formation of the Old Russian state.

First, collecting lands into one, then segmentation, due to wars and civil strife :)

6. "Russkaya Pravda" is a legislative formulation of the political system of the Old Russian state, which combined the features of a new feudal formation in the form of autocracy of the Grand Duke and remnants of old tribal communal relations in the form of a national assembly, or a veche of all free urban residents. At the head of the state was the Grand Duke, who transferred power both by seniority, and by will, and by inheritance from father to son, and thanks to the calling of the prince by the inhabitants of the city - the center of the principality. This variety of forms of inheritance of power speaks of the transitional, unstable nature of ancient Russian society. The Kiev prince exercised full power in the state: he was a legislator, military leader, supreme judge and administrator on the territory of all Russian lands.

The princely squad occupied a special place in the political structure of Kievan Rus. She was not only a military force, but also took a direct part in governing the country. Some princely warriors performed the function of bailiffs ("swordsmen"), others acted as collectors of taxes and fines ("virniks"), and still others carried out assignments in the field of diplomatic relations with other countries. With the help of the squad, the princes strengthened their power, expanded the territory of the state.

7. For more than five centuries, Russia was in close relations with Byzantium. The very formation of the ancient Russian state took place during the most diverse contacts and clashes with the Byzantines. Byzantium has always attracted Russian merchants. In order to obtain from Byzantium a higher diplomatic recognition and privileges for trade, Russian men and warships went to Constantinople. The Russians concluded treaties with the Greeks and sometimes helped Byzantium with troops. But if we talk about cultural interaction and mutual influence between Russia and Byzantium, then the most significant result of the relationship between the two states was the adoption of Orthodoxy by Russia - one of the most important foundations of Byzantine culture.

One of the largest events of long-term importance for Russia was the adoption of Christianity as a state religion. The main reason for the introduction of Christianity in its Byzantine version - Orthodoxy - was the need to form a state ideology, the spiritual unification of the diverse peoples of Russia, to strengthen international relations on a solid basis. Under the new conditions, the pagan religion did not fully ensure the process of the formation of statehood, since, due to its inherent polytheism, it was not able to unite Russia, to strengthen the authority of the grand ducal power. The process of adopting a new religion was lengthy and controversial. It began with an attempt by Prince Vladimir to create a single pagan pantheon. The main thing was the baptism of the entourage of the prince and Kiev according to the Orthodox rite in 988. The baptism of the people was most actively carried out in 988–998. Unlike the urban population, the peasants did not accept the new faith for a long time, and the resistance in the northern regions of the country (Novgorod, etc.) was especially serious.

Objectively, the introduction of Christianity contributed to the strengthening of the political unity of the ancient Russian lands, the final elimination of tribal isolation. Orthodoxy had a significant cultural impact on society: writing became more widespread, schools appeared, and systematic annals began to be written.

8. The most important causes of fragmentation

1. Division of a single territory of the state between the heirs in the absence of a legally justified right of succession to the throne. Formally, the beginning of the “specific period” dates back to the testament of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054, according to which he imprisoned his sons to rule the country in various Russian regions. The divisions of the princely lands between the heirs, which became especially noticeable by the 13th century, exacerbated the fragmentation of the principalities-states.

2. The dominance of the subsistence economy. The feudal economy at that time was mainly of a subsistence nature, it was closed. Economic ties with the center were weak, and the military-political power of the local authorities was steadily increasing, so the cities gradually turned, first of all, into craft and trade centers for the neighboring lands.

3. Strengthening the property of feudal lords to land. Many cities were feudal estates, fortresses of princes. Local authorities were created in the cities, their main task was to maintain the authority of the local prince.

4. Weakening of the external threat - Polovtsian raids, the intensity of which dropped sharply as a result of active hostilities by Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav.

5. The decline in the prestige of Kiev, due to the fact that it has lost its former significance as a trading center of Rus. The Crusaders laid new trade routes from Europe to the East across the Mediterranean. In addition, Kiev was practically destroyed in 1240 during the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

The disintegration of Rus into separate principalities played not only a negative (weakening before the Mongol-Tatar invasion), but also a positive role: it contributed to the rapid growth of cities and estates in individual principalities, the development of trade with the Baltic states, with the Germans, the development of local culture - architectural structures were built, chronicles were created, etc. Russia did not disintegrate completely. The principality of Kiev, although formally, cemented the country; the All-Russian Orthodox Church retained its influence, which advocated the unity of Russia, condemned the princely strife;

The composition of Russia: The largest were the principalities: · Kiev (Kiev); · Chernigovskoe (Chernigov), Severskoe (Novgorod-Seversky); · Galicia-Volynskoe (Galich and Vladimir-Volynsky); · Vladimir-Suzdalskoe (Vladimir-on-Klyazma); · Novgorod land (Veliky Novgorod). But three main political centers were identified: in the southwest - the Galicia-Volyn principality; in the north-east - the Vladimir-Suzdal principality and the Novgorod land. 9. At the end of 1237, feudal Russia was invaded by the Tatar-Mongols.

The Golden Horde finally conquered Russia in 1240. One after another, brave princely squads perished on the battlefields, thousands of Russian people perished, who defended their land to the last. After the defeat and death of Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich in the battle with the Tatar-Mongols in 1238 on the City River, his brother Yaroslav Vsevolodovich Vladimirsky (father of Alexander Nevsky) “began to pay tribute to Tsar Batu in the Golden Horde. And after him, our Russian princes, his sons and grandchildren for many years paid exits and dues to the tsars in the Golden Horde, obeying them, and everyone took power from them ... " Kazan history ". * 1 *

10. The formation of a single centralized state as a result of the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow during the XIV-XV centuries was a very complex and contradictory phenomenon. It had a number of distinctive features in comparison with a similar process in a number of Western European countries. At the same time, the defining moment was not so much an economic need as the national-patriotic idea of ​​unification for the struggle for independence. Undoubtedly, the unification of the Russian lands did not yet mean overcoming the economic and social originality of the territory. However, already at this time Russia appeared before Europe as a powerful multinational state of Russia.

Moscow princes, Russian tsars (from 1547) and emperors (from 1721)

Years Name of the ruler

Rurik dynasty

1331-1340 Ivan I Danilovich Kalita

1340-1353 Simeon Ivanovich Proud

1353-1359 Ivan II Ivanovich Red

1360-2 Dmitry I Konstantinovich

1362-89 Dmitry II Ivanovich Donskoy

1389-1425 Vasily I Dmitrievich

1425-33, 1434-46, 1447-62 Vasily II Vasilievich the Dark

1434 Yuri Dmitrievich

1446-7 Dmitry III Yurievich Shemyaka

1462-1505 Ivan III the Great

1505-33 Vasily III

1533-1584 Ivan IV the Terrible (tsar from 1547)

1584-1598 Fedor I Ivanovich

11. Vasily III died in 1533, leaving the three-year-old Ivan IV as heir to the throne. Before his death, he created a regency (guardian) council, which included representatives of the most powerful aristocratic clans of the Boyar Duma. The council was supposed to help the young Ivan to govern the state until he came of age.

In view of the early childhood of the Grand Duke, a fierce struggle unfolded around the throne. In the course of this struggle, two brothers of Vasily III were defeated: the Dmitrov appanage prince Yuri Ivanovich and the old appanage prince Andrei Ivanovich. Both were arrested and died in prison. Her uncle Mikhail Glinsky also challenged the regency with the Grand Duchess. He was arrested and accused of allegedly trying to give a potion to the deceased Grand Duke.

Having ousted rivals from the throne, Elena Glinskaya concentrated all power in her hands, officially acting as the co-ruler of her son. Her closest adviser was the boyar Prince Ivan Fedorovich Ovchina - Telepnev Obolensky.

Elena Glinskaya made significant efforts to strengthen the centralized state. The two largest appanage principalities in the country - Dmitrovskoe and Staritskoe - were liquidated. She supported the nobility, reduced the land and tax privileges of monasteries, and carried out a monetary reform. In particular, she issued a new coin, which depicted a horseman with a spear, which is why the coin was named a penny. The single monetary system has strengthened finances, made the ruble more stable.

A new organ of power arose - the Zemsky Sobor. Zemsky councils met irregularly and dealt with the most important state affairs, primarily foreign policy and finance. They included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral - representatives of the higher clergy; at the meetings of the Zemsky Councils were also attended by representatives of the nobility and the top of the posad. The first Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1549.

The main tasks of Russian foreign policy in the 16th century were: a) in the southeast and east - the fight against the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates and the beginning of the development of Siberia; b) in the west - the struggle for access to the Baltic Sea; c) in the south - protection of the country from the raids of the Crimean Khan. a) The Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates, formed as a result of the collapse of the Golden Horde, constantly threatened the Russian lands. They held the Volga trade route in their hands

The oprichnina eliminated political fragmentation in the country, but caused even more controversy in the country. An economic crisis has ripened in the country, and there has been devastation.

There was a centralization of the monetary system and the system of measures.

Along with the reform of the noble militia in 1550, a streltsy army was created, which became the nucleus of a standing army.

During the first period, the tsar, together with his closest entourage (nobleman Adashev, prince Kurbsky, etc.), who made up the "Chosen Rada" (1549 - 1560), strengthened the centralization of the country, expanded the monarch's prerogatives. Zemsky Sobors were established (since 1549) with a partially elective composition, the liquidation of appanages was completed, an order system was formed, the system of local government was rebuilt (the abolition of feeding, elective zemstvo and lip organs), and strelets (semi-professional) troops were created.

12. One of the most tragic periods in the history of the Russian state was the period of the late 16th - early 17th centuries, known as the Time of Troubles. Most historians associate its beginning with the suppression of the Rurik dynasty in 1598, and the end with the establishment of the Romanov dynasty in 1613.

The Russian throne has become the object of the struggle of numerous legal and illegal claimants. The society was divided into several hostile groups, in fact, there was no central authority. There was a real civil war. This development of events pushed Russia's external enemies, in this case Poland and Sweden, to active offensive actions. As a result, Russia could well lose its independence.

The main reasons for the Time of Troubles are: protracted wars of the second half of the 16th century. (Livonian, Swedish, military campaigns to Kazan, etc.); oprichnina, mass executions; boyar civil strife; dynastic crisis (death

Tsarevich Dmitry in 1591, the termination of the Rurik dynasty after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich in 1598); crop failure and famine 1601-1603

THE FIRST STAGE OF DISORDERS. 1598 - 1605 - the period of the reign of Boris Godunov.

SECOND STAGE OF DISORDERS. 1605 - 1609 During this period, there was a complete disintegration of the state, the civil war engulfed all strata of society: the nobility, the peasantry, the Cossacks. In Moscow, as in a kaleidoscope, the authorities were replaced: False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky, False Dmitry II, the Boyar Duma, whose reign went down in history under the name "Seven Boyars". However, there were no forces capable of stabilizing the situation. Some historians associate the possibility of stabilization with the name of False Dmitry I.

THIRD STAGE OF DISORDERS. 1610 - 1613 This is the time to choose the path of development. In those years, active attempts were made to revive the European system on the Russian lands. They are associated with Western states, primarily with Poland. After the overthrow of Shuisky, for several months in Moscow there was a reign of 7 boyars, so they "organized" the oath to the Polish prince Vladislav, inviting him to the throne.

Economic consequences) reduction of acreage) shortage of workers c) replenishment of the royal treasury) ruin of peasant farms) decline of industries) decline of handicraft production) revival of trade

The consequences of the “turmoil” are human and material losses;

- deterioration of the geopolitical position of the country (loss of territories in the west);

Consolidation of the forms of despotic autocracy, corresponding to the interests of the nobility, who made a decisive contribution to overcoming the "turmoil".

The election to the throne of Mikhail Romanov, a representative of the noble Moscow boyars, meant the preservation of the state sovereignty of the country - the "local development" of Russian history.

13. Culture of Russia of the XVI century. had a pronounced traditionalist character. It was believed that everything that happens in the world is a reflection of the divine "prototype", most clearly captured in antiquity. Subsequently, the "distortion" of the truth came. When solving specific state issues in the Boyar Duma, it was not so much the circumstances of the case that were taken into account, as examples from the history of the past. The winner in the dispute was not the one who proposed a rational solution to the issue, but the one who referred to a more significant case from history, connected with a famous statesman, best of all with a saint such as Alexander Nevsky. The decisive argument was that one should do “according to the fatherland” or “according to custom,” that is, exactly as they did in the old days. Changing traditions was seen as destructive for the state. “And that land changes its customs, - wrote the boyar Bersen Beklemishev, - that land does not last long.”

The peculiarity of the history of Russia was that the traditional culture developed here later than in Western Europe. This was primarily due to the protracted colonization and the Tatar yoke, which turned the country to the East and alienated it from the cultural world of Europe. All this undermined the organic development of culture. Moreover, already from the XV-XVI centuries. the cultural influence of Europe on Russia increased. More and more foreigners appeared in Moscow. New ideas and customs spread - shaving a beard and smoking tobacco. This energized the forces of traditionalist reaction.

Traditional culture had the ability to develop, but this process sometimes has the opposite direction in comparison with the evolution of modern culture.

The collectivist ideals of the Russian people were reflected in traditional Orthodox culture. Therefore, repentance for sin was often superficial. Rather, it is repentance not before God, but before society.

14. Russian absolutism - in contrast to the European one, which took shape in the transition from feudal to bourgeois relations - was formed on the basis of the dominance of the feudal-serf system. Russian absolutism is an autocracy with a bureaucracy that creates a mechanism for the implementation of unlimited power of the sovereign in the center and in the localities.

Historical and systemic method

The historical-systemic method is one of the main methods of historical research, which implements the principles of the systems approach. The historical-systemic method is aimed at studying objects and phenomena of the past as integral historical systems: analysis of their structure and functions, internal and external relations (morphology), as well as dynamic changes (genesis).

The term "historical-systemic method" was introduced by ID Kovalchenko, considering it as a method based on structural and functional analysis, supplemented by the characteristics of the development of the system, taking into account its properties. The epistemological potential of the historical-systemic method is not limited only to the description of the structural and functional parameters of historical objects or phenomena, it allows you to move from concrete historical knowledge to theoretical knowledge, to understanding the laws of functioning of social systems and their modeling. In addition, within the framework of the historical-systemic method, the problem of correlating the model with real manifestations of the object and the assessment of the model's ability to “predict” or “reconstruct” the behavior of the system is solved. A feature of the historical-systemic method is the widespread use, along with general scientific methods based on logical judgment, methods of system analysis and mathematical modeling.

Historical and typological method

The historical-typological method, like all other methods, has its own objective basis. It consists in the fact that in socio-historical development, on the one hand, they differ, and on the other hand, the individual, the particular, the general and the universal are closely interconnected. Therefore, an important task in the knowledge of socio-historical phenomena, the disclosure of their essence is the identification of that single, which was inherent in the variety of certain combinations of the individual (singular).

Social life in all its manifestations is a constant dynamic process. It is not a simple sequential course of events, but the replacement of some qualitative states by others, has its own dissimilar stages. The identification of these stages is also an important task in the knowledge of socio-historical development.

The layman is right when he recognizes a historical text by the presence of dates in it.

The first feature of time, in which, in general, there is nothing surprising: the time of history is the time of various social groups: societies, states, civilizations. This is the time that serves as a reference point for all members of a certain group. Wartime always drags on for a very long time, revolutionary time was time that flew by very quickly. Historical time fluctuations are collective. Therefore, they can be objectified. The historian's task is to determine the direction of movement. The rejection of the teleological point of view in modern historiography does not allow the historian to admit the existence of a clearly directed time, as it appears to contemporaries. The investigated processes themselves impart a certain topology to time. A forecast is possible not in the form of an apocalyptic prophecy, but a forecast directed from the past to the future, based on a diagnosis based on the past, in order to determine the possible development of events and assess the degree of its probability.

R. Koselleck writes in this regard: “While the prophecy goes beyond the horizon of calculated experience, the forecast, as you know, is itself embedded in the political situation. And to such an extent that making a forecast in itself means changing the situation. Thus, a forecast is a conscious factor of political action; it is made in relation to events by detecting their novelty. Therefore, in some unpredictable predictable way, the time is always outside the forecast. "

The first step in a historian's work is chronology. The second step is periodization. The historian cuts history into periods, replaces the elusive continuity of time with some signifying structure. The relations of discontinuity and continuity are revealed: continuity takes place within periods, discontinuity - between periods.

To periodize means, thus, to identify discontinuities, violations of continuity, to indicate what exactly is changing, to date these changes and give them a preliminary definition. Periodization is concerned with identifying continuity and its violations. It opens the way for interpretation. It makes history, if not fully comprehensible, then at least already conceivable.

The historian is not engaged in the reconstruction of time in its entirety for each new study: he takes the time on which other historians have already worked, the periodization of which is available. Since the question asked acquires legitimacy only as a result of its involvement in the research field, the historian cannot abstract from the previous periodizations: after all, they constitute the language of the profession.

Typologization as a method of scientific cognition aims at breaking down (ordering) a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes based on their inherent common essential features. The focus on identifying essentially homogeneous in spatial or temporal aspects sets of objects and phenomena distinguishes typologization (or typification ) from classification and grouping, in a broad sense, in which the task of identifying the belonging of an object as an integrity to one or another qualitative definiteness may not be set. specific data on historical objects, phenomena and processes, while typologization, being in its form a kind of classification, is a method of essential analysis.

These principles can be most effectively implemented only on the basis of a deductive approach. It consists in the fact that the corresponding types are distinguished on the basis of a theoretical essential-meaningful analysis of the considered set of objects. The result of the analysis should be not only the definition of qualitatively different types, but also the identification of those specific features that characterize their qualitative certainty. This creates an opportunity for attributing each individual object to one type or another.

All this dictates the need to use both a combined deductive-inductive and inductive approach in typologization.

In terms of cognition, the most effective typification is that it allows not only to single out the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree of belonging of objects to these types and the degree of their similarity with other types. This requires special methods of multidimensional typology. Such methods have been developed, and there are already attempts to apply them in historical research.

The historical-comparative method has also been used for a long time in historical research.

In general, comparison is an important and, perhaps, the most widespread method of scientific knowledge. In fact, no scientific study is complete without comparison. The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case when the similarity of essences is established is analogy. Analogy is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that based on the similarity of some features of the compared objects, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other features. It is clear that in this case the range of known features of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made must be wider than that of the object under study.

The historical-comparative method is a critical method. The comparative method and verification of sources are the basis of the historical "craft", starting with the research of positivist historians. External criticism allows the authenticity of the source to be established with the aid of ancillary disciplines. Internal criticism is based on the search for internal contradictions in the document itself. Mark Blok considered unintentional, involuntary evidence that was not meant to inform us as the most reliable sources. He himself called them "indications that the past accidentally drops along its path." They can be private correspondence, a purely personal diary, company accounts, acts of marriage records, declarations of inheritance, as well as various items.

In general, any text is encoded by a representation system closely related to the language in which it is written. The report of an official of any era will reflect what he expects to see and what he is able to perceive: he will pass by what does not fit into the scheme of his ideas.

That is why a critical approach to any information is the basis of a historian's professional activity. A critical attitude requires intellectual effort. As S. Senobos wrote: “Criticism is contrary to the normal structure of the human mind; a person's spontaneous tendency is to believe what they say. It is quite natural to take on faith any statement, especially a written one; with all the more easily if it is expressed in numbers, and even more easily if it comes from the official authorities ... Therefore, to apply criticism means to choose a way of thinking that contradicts spontaneous thinking, to take a position that is unnatural ... This cannot be achieved without effort. The spontaneous movements of a person who has fallen into the water is all that is needed in order to drown. While learning to swim, it means slowing down your spontaneous movements, which are unnatural. "

In general, the historical-comparative method has broad cognitive capabilities. First, it allows you to reveal the essence of the investigated phenomena in cases where it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts; to identify the common and the repetitive, the necessary and natural, on the one hand, and the qualitatively different, on the other. This fills in the gaps and brings the study to completion. Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the studied phenomena and, on the basis of analogies, come to broad historical parallels. Thirdly, it allows the use of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.

It is possible to compare objects and phenomena and similar and different types that are at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, and in the other, differences. Compliance with these conditions of historical comparisons, in essence, means consistent implementation of the principle of historicism.

Revealing the significance of the features, on the basis of which the historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stages of the compared phenomena, most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily the historical-typological and historical-systemic ones. In combination with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research.

But this method, naturally, has a certain range of the most effective action. This is primarily the study of socio-historical development in broad spatial and temporal aspects, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be disclosed by direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data. ...

The comparative method is also used as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. On its basis, retroalternative studies are possible. History as a retro story assumes the ability to move in time in two directions: from the present and its problems (and at the same time the experience accumulated by this time) to the past, and from the beginning of the event to its end. This brings an element of stability and strength to the search for causality in history, which should not be underestimated: the end point is set, and the historian proceeds from it in his work. This does not eliminate the risk of delusional constructions, but at least it is minimized. The history of the event is actually a completed social experiment. It can be observed by circumstantial evidence, hypotheses can be constructed, and tested. The historian can offer all sorts of interpretations of the French Revolution, but in any case, all his explanations have a common invariant to which they should be reduced: the revolution itself. So the flight of fantasy has to be contained. In this case, the comparative method is used as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. Otherwise, this technique is called retroalternativeism. To imagine a different development of history is the only way to find the reasons for the real history.

Raymond Aron urged to rationally weigh the possible causes of certain events by comparing what was possible: “If I say that Bismarck’s decision caused the war of 1866 ... then I mean that without the chancellor’s decision, the war would not have started (or , at least, it would not have started at that moment) ... the actual causality is revealed only by comparing it with what was available in the possibility. Any historian to explain what was, asks the question of what could have been. Theory serves only to clothe in a logical form this spontaneous device, which is used by every ordinary person. If we are looking for the cause of a phenomenon, then we are not limited to simple addition or comparison of antecedents. We try to weigh the own influence of each of them. To implement such a gradation, we take one of these antecedents, mentally assume it to be non-existent or modified, and try to reconstruct or imagine what would happen in this case. If you have to admit that the phenomenon under study in the absence of this factor (or if it were not so) would be different, we conclude that this antecedent is one of the causes of some part of the phenomenon-effect, namely that of its the part, changes in which we had to assume. ... Thus, logical research includes the following operations: 1) dismemberment of the phenomenon-effect; 2) establishing the gradation of antecedents and highlighting the antecedent, the influence of which we have to evaluate; 3) construction of an unreal flow of events; 4) comparison between speculative and real events. Suppose for the time being ... that our general knowledge of a sociological nature allows us to create surreal constructions. But what will be their status? Weber replies: in this case, we will talk about objective possibilities, or, in other words, about the development of events in accordance with the laws known to us, but only probable. "

This analysis, in addition to the event history, applies to everything else. Actual causality is revealed only by comparing it with what was available. If, for example, you are faced with the question of the causes of the Great French Revolution and if we want to weigh the importance that were, respectively, economic factors (the crisis of the French economy at the end of the XV21 century, poor harvest in 1788), social factors (the rise of the bourgeoisie, noble reaction) , political factors (financial crisis of the monarchy, resignation of Turgot), etc., then there can be no other solution but to consider one after another all these different reasons, to assume that they could be different, and to try to imagine the development of events that might follow in this case. As M. Weber says, in order to "unravel real causal relationships, we create unreal ones." Such "imaginary experience" is for the historian the only way not only to reveal the reasons, but also to unravel, weigh them, as M. Weber and R. Aron put it, that is, to establish their hierarchy.

The historical-comparative method has a certain limitation, one should bear in mind the difficulties of its application. Not all phenomena can be compared. Through it, first of all, the root essence of reality in all its diversity is cognized, and not its specific specifics. It is difficult to apply the historical-comparative method in the study of the dynamics of social processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations.