Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevskiy period of study. Vasily O

KLYUCHEVSKY VASILY OSIPOVICH - the great Russian historian.

Graduated from Moscow University (1865). Master's thesis: "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a historical source" (1872). Doctoral: "The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia" (1882). Lecturer at the Moscow Alexander Military School (1867-82). Privatdozent (1871), professor (1882) of the Moscow Theological Academy (1871-1911). Professor of the Higher Women's Courses (1872-1897). Associate Professor (1879), Professor (1882), Dean (1887-89) of the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. Member of a number of scientific societies: Moscow archaeological, Lovers of Russian literature, history and Russian antiquities (chairman - 1893-1905).

He became famous as an outstanding lecturer. He developed an original concept of Russian history, which found the most complete embodiment in the "Course of lectures on Russian history". Adhered to the positivist methodology. He believed that historians should shift their focus from the study of politics and the role of individuals to socio-political history and the study of social phenomena. Recognized the importance of class (a class was understood as a social group) interests in the development of society. He considered the Boyar Duma as an expression of the class interests of the boyars, and not of the state as a whole. This approach was called historical sociology.

He emphasized the role of the geographical factor in Russian history, pointing out its great influence on the formation of the Russian mentality. He paid special attention to colonization, considering it the main content of the development of Russian statehood. Based on this, he proposed a periodization associated with the development of the territory of the Russian state: 1) Dnieper Rus (the basis of the economy and social life was trade and related urban centers); 2) Upper Volga Russia (the population migrates to the northeast, where princely power dominates, and agriculture becomes the basis of the economy); 3) the Great Russian period (settlement along the Russian Plain); 4) the all-Russian period (colonization and development of the territory of the Moscow State of the 17th century and the Russian Empire, the unification of all branches of the Russian people).

Developed an impeccable theory of the enslavement of the peasants, believing that serfdom arose because of the debt of the peasants to the landowners, and the decree only consolidated the existing situation. Special historian courses were devoted to the history of estates, special historical disciplines. Klyuchevsky's historical research was distinguished by a highly artistic style. Considered the founder of the school of historians.

Compositions:

Works in 8 volumes. M., 1956-59;

Letters. Diaries. Aphorisms and thoughts about history. M., 1968;

Works in 9 volumes. M., 1987-90;

IN. Klyuchevsky. Favorites. M., 2010.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky is a famous Russian historian, author of the Complete Course of Russian History. January 28, 2011 marks the 170th anniversary of his birth.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky was born on January 28, 1841 in the village of Voznesenskoye, Penza province, into the family of a poor parish priest.

In August 1850, his father died, and the family was forced to move to Penza. There Vasily Klyuchevsky studied at the parish theological school, which he graduated in 1856, then at the district theological school and at the theological seminary. From the second grade of the seminary, he gave private lessons in order to financially support his family. He was promised a career as a clergyman, but in his last year he left the seminary and spent a year preparing himself for university exams.

In 1861, Vasily Klyuchevsky entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. There he listened to lectures by Boris Chicherin, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Sergei Solovyov. The last two influenced the formation of his scientific interests.

In 1866, he defended his graduation work "Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state", for which he studied about 40 legends and notes of foreigners about Russia in the 15th-17th centuries. For this work, he was awarded a gold medal, received a Ph.D., and remained at the university.

In 1871, Vasily Klyuchevsky defended his master's thesis "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source". During the preparation of his dissertation, he wrote six independent studies. After defending his master's thesis, Klyuchevsky received the right to teach at higher educational institutions. In the same year, he was elected to the chair of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, where he taught a course in Russian history.

In addition, he began teaching at the Alexander Military School, at the Higher Women's Courses, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. In 1879, Vasily Klyuchevsky began to lecture at Moscow University, where he replaced the deceased Sergei Solovyov in the department of Russian history.

Between 1887 and 1889 was the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, in 1889-1890. - Rector's Assistant. Under the guidance of Klyuchevsky, six master's theses were defended. In particular, he supervised the thesis of Pyotr Milyukov (1892).

Since the 1880s Vasily Klyuchevsky was a member of the Moscow Archaeological Society, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities (chairman in 1893-1905).

In 1893-1895 by order of the emperor Alexander III he taught a course in Russian history to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich, who was prescribed cold mountain air because of tuberculosis, in Abas-Tuman (Georgia).

In 1894, Vasily Klyuchevsky, as chairman of the Society for Russian History and Antiquities, delivered a speech "In Memory of the late Emperor Alexander III in Bose", in which he gave a positive assessment of the emperor's activities, for which he was booed by students.

In 1900, Klyuchevsky was elected a full member of the Academy of Sciences.

From 1900 to 1911 he taught at the school of painting, sculpture and architecture in Abas-Tuman.

In 1901, Klyuchevsky was elected an ordinary academician, and in 1908 - an honorary academician of the belles-lettres category of the Academy of Sciences.

In 1905, he participated in the press commission chaired by Dmitry Kobeko and in a special meeting on the fundamental laws of the Russian Empire.

In 1904, Vasily Klyuchevsky began to publish the Complete Course of Russian History, his most famous and large-scale work, which received worldwide recognition. He has been working on this study for more than thirty years. Between 1867 and 1904 he wrote more than ten works on various issues of Russian history.

In 1906, Vasily Klyuchevsky was elected a member of the State Council from the Academy of Sciences and Universities, but refused this title, because he considered that participation in the council would not allow for a sufficiently free discussion of issues of state life.

Klyuchevsky became famous as a brilliant lecturer who knew how to attract the attention of students. He maintained friendly relations with many cultural figures. Writers, composers, artists, actors turned to him for advice; in particular, Klyuchevsky helped Fyodor Chaliapin work on the role of Boris Godunov and other roles.

A wide public outcry was caused by Klyuchevsky's speech at the opening of the monument to Alexander Pushkin in 1880.

In 1991, the USSR released Postage Stamp dedicated to Klyuchevsky. On October 11, 2008, the first monument in Russia was erected to the outstanding historian in Penza.

The material was prepared on the basis of information from open sources

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky(1841-1911) - Russian historian, academician (1900), honorary academician (1908) of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Proceedings: "The Course of Russian History" (parts 1-5, 1904-22), "Boyar Duma Ancient Russia"(1882), on the history of serfdom, estates, finance, historiography.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky was born on January 28 (January 16 according to the old style), 1841, in the village of Voznesenskoye, Penza province. His father was a rural priest of the Penza diocese. He studied at the Penza Theological School and the Penza Theological Seminary. In 1861, having overcome difficult financial circumstances, he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, where he listened to N. M. Leontiev; F. M. Buslaeva; G.A. Ivanova; K.N. Pobedonostsev; lawyer, historian and philosopher Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin and historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov. Under the influence of especially the last two scientists, Vasily Osipovich's own scientific interests were determined.

The complaint that we are not understood, most often comes from the fact that we do not understand people.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

In Chicherin's lectures, he was captivated by the harmony and integrity of scientific constructions; in Solovyov's lectures, he learned, in his own words, "what a pleasure it is for a young mind, beginning scientific study, to feel in possession of a whole view of a scientific subject."

Candidate's thesis of V.O. Klyuchevsky was written on the topic: "Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state." Left at the university, Vasily chose for special scientific research extensive handwritten material from the lives of ancient Russian saints, in which he hoped to find "the most abundant and fresh source for studying the participation of monasteries in the colonization of North-Eastern Russia." Hard work on the colossal handwritten material scattered over many book depositories did not justify Klyuchevsky's initial hopes. The result of this work was a master's thesis: "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a historical source" (M., 1871), dedicated to the formal side of hagiographic literature, its sources, samples, techniques and forms.

A great success is made up of many foreseen and considered details.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

A masterful, truly scientific study of one of the largest sources of our ancient church history is sustained in the spirit of that strictly critical trend that was far from dominant in the church history of the middle of the last century. For the author himself, a close study of hagiographic literature also had the significance that from it he extracted many grains of a living historical image, shining like a diamond, which Klyuchevsky used with inimitable skill in characterizing various aspects of ancient Russian life.

Classes for a master's thesis involved Klyuchevsky in a circle of various topics on the history of the church and Russian religious thought, and a number of independent articles and reviews appeared on these topics; of which the largest are: Economic activity Solovetsky Monastery”, “Pskov Disputes”, “Contribution of the Church to the Successes of Russian Civil Order and Law”, “The Significance of St. Sergius of Radonezh for the Russian People and State”, “Western Influence and the Church Schism in Russia in the 17th Century”.

Since the time of Ordin-Nashchokin, no other such strong mind has come to the Russian throne; after Speransky, I don't know if there will be a third one.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

In 1871, Vasily Klyuchevsky was elected to the chair of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, which he held until 1906; the following year, he began teaching at the Alexander Military School and at the higher courses for women. In September 1879 he was elected associate professor at Moscow University, in 1882 - extraordinary, in 1885 - ordinary professor. In 1893 - 1895, on behalf of Emperor Alexander III, he taught a course in Russian history to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich; in Abas-Tuman from 1900 to 1911 he taught at the school of painting, sculpture and architecture; in 1893 - 1905 he was chairman of the Society of History and Antiquities at Moscow University. In 1901 he was elected an ordinary academician, in 1908 - an honorary academician of the category of fine literature of the Academy of Sciences; in 1905 he participated in the press commission chaired by Dmitry Fomich Kobeko and in a special meeting (in Peterhof) on fundamental laws; in 1906 he was elected a member of the State Council from the Academy of Sciences and Universities, but refused this title.

The smartest thing in life is still death, because only it corrects all the mistakes and stupidities of life.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

From the very first courses he gave, Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky established himself as a brilliant and original lecturer, capturing the attention of the audience with the power of scientific analysis, the gift of a bright and convex depiction of ancient life and historical details. Deep erudition in the primary sources gave abundant material to the artistic talent of the historian, who loved to create accurate, concise pictures and characteristics from the original expressions and images of the source.

In 1882, Klyuchevsky's doctoral dissertation, the famous "Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia", first published in Russkaya Mysl, was published as a separate book. In this central work of his, V.O. Klyuchevsky connected with the most important issues of the socio-economic and political history of Russia until the end of the 17th century, thus expressing the integral and deeply thought-out understanding of this history, which formed the basis of his general course of Russian history and his special studies. A number of fundamental issues of ancient Russian history - the formation of urban volosts around the shopping centers of the great waterway, the origin and essence of the specific order in northeastern Russia, the composition and political role of the Moscow boyars, the Moscow autocracy, the bureaucratic mechanism of the Moscow State of the 16th - 17th centuries - received in " Boyar Duma ”such a decision, which partly became universally recognized, partly served as the necessary basis for the investigations of subsequent historians. The articles “The Origin of Serfdom in Russia” and “The Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia” published later (in 1885 and 1886) in Russkaya Mysl gave a strong and fruitful impetus to the controversy about the origin of peasant attachment in ancient Russia.

It is much easier to become a father than to remain one.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

The main idea of ​​Klyuchevsky that the reasons and grounds for this attachment should be sought not in the decrees of the Moscow government, but in the complex network of economic relations between the peasant-orderer and the landowner, which gradually brought the position of the peasantry closer to servility, met with sympathy and recognition from the majority of subsequent researchers and a sharply negative attitude from the lawyer Vasily Ivanovich Sergeevich and some of his followers. Klyuchevsky himself did not interfere in the controversy generated by his articles.

In connection with the study of the economic situation of the Moscow peasantry, his article appeared: “The Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries, in its relation to the present” (“Readings of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities”, 1884). The articles “On the Composition of Representation at the Zemstvo Sobors of Ancient Russia” (“Russian Thought” 1890, 1891, 1892), which gave a completely new formulation of the question of the origin of the Zemstvo Sobors of the 16th century in connection with the reforms of Ivan the Terrible, ended the cycle of Klyuchevsky’s largest studies on political issues. and the social system of ancient Russia ("Experiments and Research". The first collection of articles. M., 1912).

Sport is becoming a favorite subject of reflection and will soon become the only method of thinking.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

The talent and temperament of the historian-artist directed Klyuchevsky to topics from the history of the spiritual life of Russian society and its prominent representatives. This area includes a number of brilliant articles and speeches about Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov, Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin, Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov, Ivan Nikitich Boltin, Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov, Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin, Catherine II, Peter the Great (collected in the 2nd Collection of Klyuchevsky's Articles, " Essays and speeches”, M., 1912).

In 1899, Vasily Klyuchevsky published A Brief Guide to Russian History as a "private publication for the author's listeners", and in 1904 he began publishing a complete course, which had long been widely distributed in lithographed student publications. In total, 4 volumes were published, brought up to the time of Catherine II.

Frankness is not gullibility at all, but only a bad habit of thinking aloud.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Both in his monographic studies and in The Course, Klyuchevsky gave his strictly subjective understanding of the Russian historical process, completely eliminating the review and criticism of the literature on the subject, without entering into polemics with anyone. Approaching the study of the general course of Russian history from the point of view of a sociological historian and finding the general scientific interest of this study of “local history” in the disclosure of “phenomena that reveal the versatile flexibility of human society, its ability to apply to given conditions”, seeing the main condition that guided the change of main forms of our hostel, in the peculiar attitude of the population to the nature of the country, Klyuchevsky brought to the fore the history of political socio-economic life. At the same time, he made the reservation that he based the course on political and economic facts in terms of their purely methodological significance in historical study, and not in terms of their actual significance in the essence of the historical process.

Biography

KLYUCHEVSKY, VASILY OSIPOVICH (1841−1911), Russian historian. He was born on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresensk (near Penza) in the family of a poor parish priest. His first teacher was his father, who died tragically in August 1850. The family was forced to move to Penza. Out of compassion for the poor widow, one of her husband's friends gave her a small house to live in. “Was there anyone poorer than you and me at the time when we were left orphans in the arms of our mother,” Klyuchevsky later wrote to his sister, recalling the hungry years of childhood and adolescence. In Penza, Klyuchevsky studied at the parish theological school, then at the district theological school and at the theological seminary. Already at school, Klyuchevsky knew the works of many historians well. In order to be able to devote himself to science (the authorities predicted for him a career as a clergyman and admission to a theological academy), in his last year he deliberately left the seminary and spent a year independently preparing for the entrance exams to the university.

With admission to Moscow University in 1861, a new period began in the life of Klyuchevsky. His teachers are F. I. Buslaev, N. S. Tikhonravov, P. M. Leontiev, and especially S. M. Soloviev: and it is known what a pleasure it is for a young mind beginning scientific study to feel in possession of a whole view of a scientific subject.

The time of study for Klyuchevsky coincided with the biggest event in the life of the country - the bourgeois reforms of the early 1860s. He was an opponent of extreme measures of the government, but did not approve of the political actions of the students. The subject of his graduation essay at the university Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state (1866) Klyuchevsky chose the study of about 40 legends and notes of foreigners about Russia in the 15th-17th centuries. For the essay, the graduate was awarded a gold medal and left at the department "to prepare for a professorship."

Klyuchevsky's master's (candidate's) dissertation, Ancient Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source (1871), is devoted to another type of medieval Russian sources. The topic was pointed out by Solovyov, who probably expected to use the secular and spiritual knowledge of the novice scientist to study the question of the participation of monasteries in the colonization of Russian lands. Klyuchevsky did a titanic work on the study of at least five thousand hagiographic lists. During the preparation of his dissertation, he wrote six independent studies, including such a major work as the Economic Activity of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory (1866−1867). But the efforts expended and the result obtained did not justify the expected - the literary monotony of the lives, when the authors described the life of the heroes according to a stencil, did not allow us to establish the details of "the situation, place and time, without which there is no historical fact for the historian."

After defending his master's thesis, Klyuchevsky received the right to teach at higher educational institutions. He taught a course in general history at the Alexander Military School, a course in Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, at the Higher Women's Courses, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. From 1879 he taught at Moscow University, where he replaced the late Solovyov in the department of Russian history.

Teaching activities brought Klyuchevsky well-deserved fame. Gifted with the ability of figurative penetration into the past, a master of the artistic word, a famous wit and author of numerous epigrams and aphorisms, in his speeches the scientist skillfully built entire galleries of portraits. historical figures long remembered by listeners.

The doctoral dissertation The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia (first published on the pages of the Russian Thought magazine in 1880-1881) constituted a well-known stage in the work of Klyuchevsky. The subject of subsequent scientific works of Klyuchevsky clearly indicated this new direction - the Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries. in its relation to the present (1884), The origin of serfdom in Russia (1885), Poll tax and the abolition of servility in Russia (1886), Eugene Onegin and his ancestors (1887), The composition of the representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia (1890), etc. .

The most famous scientific work of Klyuchevsky, which received worldwide recognition, is the Course of Russian History in 5 parts. The scientist worked on it for more than three decades, but decided to publish it only in the early 1900s. Klyuchevsky called colonization the main factor in Russian history around which events unfold: “The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of ​​colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Falling, then rising, this age-old movement continues to this day. Based on this, Klyuchevsky divided Russian history into four periods. The first period lasts approximately from the 8th to the 13th century, when the Russian population was concentrated on the middle and upper Dnieper with tributaries. Russia was then politically divided into separate cities, foreign trade dominated the economy. Within the framework of the second period (13th - mid-15th century), the bulk of the population moved to the interfluve of the upper Volga and Oka. The country was still fragmented, but no longer into cities with adjacent regions, but into princely destinies. The basis of the economy is free peasant agricultural labor. The third period continues from the middle of the 15th century. until the second decade of the 17th century, when the Russian population colonized the southeastern Don and Middle Volga chernozems; in politics, the state unification of Great Russia took place; in the economy began the process of enslavement of the peasantry. The last, fourth period until the middle of the 19th century. (the Course did not cover later time) - this is the time when "the Russian people spread across the entire plain from the Baltic and White to the Black seas, to the Caucasus Range, the Caspian and the Urals." Formed Russian empire led by the autocracy, based on the military service class - the nobility. In the economy, the manufacturing industry joins the serf agricultural labor. The scientific concept of Klyuchevsky, with all its schematism, reflected the influence of social and scientific thought of the second half of the 19th century. The allocation of the natural factor, the importance of geographical conditions for the historical development of the people met the requirements of positivist philosophy. The recognition of the importance of questions of economic and social history was to some extent akin to Marxist approaches to the study of the past. But nevertheless, the historians of the so-called "state school" - K. D. Kavelin, S. M. Solovyov and B. N. Chicherin are closest to Klyuchevsky. “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, major events- thoughts, ”wrote Klyuchevsky. The biography of Klyuchevsky himself rarely goes beyond these events and facts. His political speeches are few and characterize him as a moderate conservative who avoided the extremes of the Black Hundred reaction, a supporter of enlightened autocracy and the imperial greatness of Russia (it is no coincidence that Klyuchevsky was chosen as a teacher of world history for Grand Duke George Alexandrovich, brother of Nicholas II). The political line of the scientist was answered by the “Eulogy” to Alexander III, pronounced in 1894 and causing indignation among the revolutionary students, and a wary attitude towards the First Russian Revolution, and an unsuccessful ballot in the spring of 1906 in the ranks of electors in the First State Duma on the cadet list. Klyuchevsky died in Moscow on May 12, 1911. He was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich (1841−1911). The great historian saw the light on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresenskoye (near Penza). The family of the future writer was poor, they did not have anything to pay even for the education of their children, so his father, a clergyman, was a mentor. However, his life came to an abrupt end in 1850. Taking pity on a poor widow with children, the husband's friend gave away the house in Penza. There, Klyuchevsky first studied at the parish theological school, later entered the district religious school and then the theological seminary. From school, Klyuchevsky loves and knows history, completely immersing himself in the study of historical facts and events. Deciding to devote himself to science, he leaves the seminary in his last year and prepares to enter the university.

Becoming a student at Moscow University in 1861, Vasily practically begins a new life.

The student years coincided with the bourgeois reforms of 1860. Graduation work was the study of foreigners' notes about Russia, which brought Klyuchevsky gold medal and an invitation to stay to work at the department.

1871 - defense of his master's thesis, after which Klyuchevsky was given the right to teach at higher educational institutions. He teaches a course in history at the Alexander Military School, at the Higher Women's Courses, at the Moscow Theological Academy, at the School of Painting. Since 1879 he has been teaching at Moscow University.

It was teaching that brought Klyuchevsky well-deserved popularity. Listeners easily memorized the lectures of a talented teacher, many epigrams and aphorisms belong to him.

Klyuchevsky is known for his Course of Russian History, published in five parts, the work on which took more than thirty years of the historian's life. It was published in the early 1900s. This scientific work was recognized all over the world and is still appreciated and enjoys special popularity.

Klyuchevsky's scientific views reflected the influence of scientific and social thought in the second half of the 19th century. He recognized the importance of questions of social and economic history. The biography of Klyuchevsky has very few political speeches. He avoided extremes, for himself he preferred the position of a moderate conservative. It was because of his political views that Klyuchevsky was invited to teach history to the brother of Nicholas II, Prince Georgy Alexandrovich.

The memory addressed to the personality of any major figure in culture and science contains not only a sense of gratitude for everything he has done, but also a sense of respect for the legacy left, which turned out to be necessary for future generations who respect their past and are able to learn from it.

Almost a century separates us from the flowering of Klyuchevsky's creative thought. And all this time there has been a not at all idle question, no matter how complicated it may be, about the value of the experience of his thought for our modern scientific and teaching life, as well as for the public consciousness of now living generations.

The younger contemporaries of Klyuchevsky turned to understanding the results of this experience immediately after his death. Many obituaries were only a tribute to the mournful feeling that arose at the news of the death of a scientist. By 1912, the leading Moscow and St. Petersburg professors managed to prepare and publish in Moscow the collection "Characteristics and Memoirs" dedicated to V.O. Klyuchevsky.

With all the variety of analysis of his work, scientists who personally knew Vasily Osipovich and his published works well had one goal - to proclaim him the founder of the first truly scientific school in Russian historical science, the creator of the scientific history of Russia. It is noteworthy that among the authors of the memoirs placed in this edition, there were representatives of the historical and legal direction, with which V.O. Klyuchevsky since the 1880s had very difficult, and sometimes openly hostile relations. So, B.I. Syromyatnikov strongly opposed Klyuchevsky B.N. Chicherin, one of the main ideologists of the "state school", and argued that Vasily Osipovich approved a new method in Russian historical science and gave "new answers to old questions" 1.

By the way, a little earlier, in the anniversary collection of articles dedicated to Klyuchevsky, another legal historian, S. A. Kotlyarevsky, highly appreciated his monograph “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia” precisely from the methodological positions 2. At the same time, three collections of Klyuchevsky’s works published by him were being prepared during his lifetime in various journals and other publications - "Experiments and Research", "Essays and Speeches", "Reviews and Answers".

In 1914, these collections saw the light, and in the Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (1914, No. 1), Klyuchevsky's track record was published with all the administrative details of his service career, awards, etc. In 1913, a student of Klyuchevsky A. Yushkov published his monograph "History of estates in Russia" on the basis of a lithograph previously corrected by the author himself. Together with the monographs “Tales of foreigners about the Muscovite state”, “Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia” and “Course of Russian history” published under Aleksandrov, Vadim Alexandrovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, chief researcher at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology named after N. N. Miklukho-Maklai of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR posthumous editions for a long time made up the corpus of Klyuchevsky's works, which until the 1950s. scientists relied in their theoretical assessments of his work.

This stage in the study of Klyuchevsky's heritage as a theorist of the historical process of Russia can only be considered an estimate, since it was possible to judge the development of the scientist's creative thought only on the basis of already published works. During the 20-40s. In the general criticism of the cultural and scientific heritage of pre-revolutionary Russia, V. O. Klyuchevsky was devoted to separate memoirs and sections in generalizing works of a historiographic nature, but no special monographic studies of his work were undertaken.

For all his critics, the scientific significance of Klyuchevsky as one of the largest representatives of the bourgeois historical science of Rossci was obvious, but it was evaluated very differently. Historiographers tried to determine in the variety of scientific problems of V. O. Klyuchevsky the leading one for him theoretical direction, to catch his fluctuations "to the right" and "to the left", and hence his personal political positions.

All these attempts to date retain only significance for the history of the knowledge of historical science, but already do little to understand Klyuchevsky as a scientist. In this regard, the observations of Klyuchevsky's younger contemporaries, his student P. N. Milyukov and St. Petersburg University professor S. F. Platonov, who, perhaps more objectively than anyone else, represented inner world Klyuchevsky. P. N. Milyukov, an active figure in the Cadet Party, who did not fail, was, in his memoirs, to note political activity Klyuchevsky, wrote that Vasily Osipovich remained a “democrat”, standing “closer to the democratic-populist than to the constitutional-liberal trend of our intelligentsia” 3. In the same tone, S. F. Platonov recalled Klyuchevsky, a person not inclined to any or exaggeration in their assessments.

Bearing in mind the unexpected “glimpses of some pessimism and mournful mood” in Klyuchevsky, which manifested itself in his elderly years, in particular, in the article “Sadness”, dedicated to the memory of M. Yu. Lermontov, and even more so “unexpected lyricism” in the speech in memory of Alexander III, Platonov wrote: “These two performances of Klyuchevsky were taken into account as symptoms of a mental fracture that moved him to the right from his previous positions. But a decade has passed and last years found our historian in his former positions. The mental "break" was not a change of views and feelings; it turned out to be only a symptom of great spiritual complexity, in which the most heterogeneous elements of the Russian element and universal human thought were intertwined in an intricate knot.

Now, according to the diaries of Klyuchevsky and his handwritten sketches, relating to the last, fifth, part of the "Course of Russian History", not completed; and did not see the light of day in the final author's edition, one can assert the validity of Platonov's words and subtlety of sensations. From the 50s. after the transition from private hands to state storage of the archive of V. O. Klyuchevsky and the formation of its special funds (primarily in the manuscript departments State Library them. V. I. Lenin and the Academic Institute of the History of the USSR) began a qualitatively new, research stage in the study of the creative process and life path historian. The effectiveness of this stage is in no way comparable with all previous publications of Klyuchevsky's works, and with research experiments dedicated to them. Moreover, even in comparison with S. M. Solovyov, to whose name historiography returned with special attention at the same time, diverse activities in the study of the work of V. O. Klyuchevsky, of course, prevailed and still prevail today.

It is highly significant that this work, dictated primarily by the emerging documentary possibilities, responded to the needs of the reader; works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, published in the 50s. with a circulation of tens of thousands of copies, at present, even when reaching the millionth “mark”, they remain rarities. Initiative in the development of the archive of V. O. Klyuchevsky since the 50s. rightfully belongs to Alexander Alexandrovich Zimin.

In 1951, he summed up the first results of his observations on the composition of the Klyuchevsky archive and the opportunities that are available for further research of his life and work. Based on archive materials, he drew Special attention on the formation of Klyuchevsky's historical views in the early stages of his work, starting from the student bench of Moscow University, in the process of communicating with his teachers, primarily F.I. Buslaev and S.M. publications of the Works of V. O Klyuchevsky (1956-1959).

The main value of this publication, which, unfortunately, did not cover the entire scientific heritage of the historian, was, firstly, in the publication of his special courses, read to university students in the 1880s - early 1900 and remained unknown to readers. We are talking about lectures on source studies, the terminology of Russian history and Russian historiography. Secondly, and perhaps even more significantly, in the process of preparing the publication, the entire reference apparatus was restored and a source analysis of the composition of the "Course of Russian History" was carried out by comparing the texts of lithographs, which the author relied on in preparing for the publication of the Course, with its final text. .

When publishing a number of his works, and above all the "Course of Russian History", Klyuchevsky did not give references to publications of documents, memoirs and writings of other historians; however, in the margins of his lithographed lectures in pencil, he briefly mentioned all the publications on which he considered it necessary to rely. Thus, this work made it possible for the first time to delve into the scientist's "laboratory" and to recreate the final text of the "Course of Russian History", part of which was formed from the text already available, but very often processed by the scientist, contained in lithographs of past years, and part was written anew, and sometimes in later, when reprinting individual volumes, it was supplemented by inserts and editorial clarifications. Edition of the Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky in 1956-1959. served as a serious impetus for a monographic study of his work. In 1966, a monograph by R. A. Kireeva “V. O. Klyuchevsky as a historian of Russian historical science”, in 1970 — E. G. Chumachenko — “V. O. Klyuchevsky is a source-scientist. In 1974, M. V. Nechkina’s voluminous work “Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky” appeared, which was the first attempt to generalize the characteristics of all life and creative way scientist. At the same time, the publication of materials from the archive of V. O. Klyuchevsky continued 6. In 1988, A. I. Pliguzov and V. L. Yanin for the first time republished the study by V. O. Klyuchevsky “Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source”, which was published 117 years ago and has since become a bibliographic rarity. Finally, in 1987-1990. Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky were published in 9 volumes, based on a textologically verified edition of 1956-1959. and taking into account archival materials published in 1968 and 1983, and containing a special university course "Methodology of Russian history" unknown to readers.

In 1990, a one-volume collection of works by V. O. Klyuchevsky “Historical Portraits. Figures of Historical Thought”, the very name of which reflected one of the directions of the scientific work of the scientist. With all the scale of attention to the heritage that has come to us, in no case can one think of any completeness in its study, either from a publishing or research point of view. In particular, the earliest version of the "Course of Russian History", dating from the 1870s, remains on the archival shelves; the teaching activity of V. O. Klyuchevsky at the Alexander School, at the Theological Academy, at the Higher Women's Courses is not covered at all, and, of course, the scientific concept of the historical process created by him in Russia can be interpreted not as unambiguously as now. 59 Nevertheless, already at the present level of knowledge, the question of the significance of the theoretical heritage of V. O. Klyuchevsky urgently arises, and from this the reasons for the unflagging interest in his work can be determined.

In other words, we are talking about whether to consider this heritage as an outstanding monument of historical thought or to see it as a source of enduring ideas and still unresolved controversial issues. Already in the process of publishing the first Collected Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, one of the severe critics of the scientist, M. N. Tikhomirov, highly appreciated his scientific conscientiousness. In 1958, he wrote: “Now that the first three parts of the Course have come out, we have the opportunity to look into the process of its creation that was previously inaccessible to us. Our attention is stopped1 by the extreme thoroughness with which Klyuchevsky studied the main sources; on the basis of which he created their constructions. The range of books and sources used to compile the "Course" is relatively small, but at the same time indicative. Klyuchevsky chose, so to speak, the most reliable sources, the information of which did not cause him doubts and could not be suspected of inaccuracies.

Hence the "fundamental" nature of the historical quotation, which strikes specialist historians when reading the "Course". The historical facts and quotations given in the Course can be trusted. The characteristics of certain historical sources made by Klyuchevsky retain their value in our time. 7. Klyuchevsky's scientific conscientiousness and his sagacity of sources make it especially relevant to raise questions about the modern understanding of his heritage. In this case, the most significant two points - methodical approach Klyuchevsky to teaching and his lecture activities and the principles he developed in creating the concept of Russian history. The surviving evidence of a memoir quality unanimously confirms the lecture skill of Klyuchevsky; this gift was given to him not only "from God", but was worked out by him purposefully and consistently.

The talent he developed is all the more striking because Klyuchevsky was never an orator in the generally accepted sense of the word. There were enough Chrysostoms in Russia at that time. Klyuchevsky had a physical handicap since childhood - stuttering - he overcame in the manner in which his lecture skills were manifested. V. O. Klyuchevsky spoke quietly, very clearly and slowly; the richness of intonations created that music of speech, which fascinated the audience, sitting without moving, and the subtle psychological perception of this or that era and the artistic embodiment in its characters, the sharpness of phrasing with the amazing use of all the richness of the Russian language kept the listeners in a tense expectation of some exquisite imagery or a poisonous joke.

When comparing the lithography of the lectures of the 70s and 80s. Klyuchevsky's constant work on the text is striking, replacing individual words and expressions in order to achieve brevity and clarity of presentation, overcoming its protractedness and replacing cheap effects with vivid aphorisms and impromptu, "unexpectedly" issued to the public, but in reality prepared in advance. Klyuchevsky was a great master of such "blanks" both for lectures and for everyday communication with people around him; a great many of them have been preserved both in the texts of his works, and stored in reserve in a special notebook and in a notebook. Klyuchevsky himself succinctly expressed this in a well-known aphorism - "it's easy - it's hard to write and speak, but it's hard to write and speak easily" 8.

For himself, Klyuchevsky once formulated in the Notebook of the 90s. his own experience of “subduing” the audience: “When developing a thought in a speech, one must first put its scheme into the mind of the listeners, then present it to the imagination in a visual comparison, and, finally, on a soft lyrical lining, carefully place it on the listening heart, 60 and then the listener — Your prisoner of war will not run away from you, even when you let him go free, he will remain forever obedient to your client ”9. The element of lecture activity captured Klyuchevsky from the very beginning of his independent work and never let go. Only this element can explain his inexplicable ability to work in this field. In 1867-1883. he taught at the Alexander Military School, in 1871 - 1906 - at the Moscow Theological Academy, in 1872-1887 - at the Higher Women's Courses, in 1879-1911 - at Moscow University; in addition, he occasionally gave courses of public lectures at the Polytechnic Museum, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, and also constantly made presentations and speeches.

The fame of a lecturer came to him already in the 70s, and student rumor spread it beyond the walls educational institutions long before he received a professorship at the end of 1882. The popularity of Klyuchevsky's name depended not only on lecturer's skill, on which memoirists usually fixed their attention. In addition to the purely external ability to captivate any audience, there was a circumstance deeper in its essence. V. O. Klyuchevsky, like no one else, through his teaching practice and his works, introduced an educational, instructive, but unobtrusive, clearly and clearly formulated and scientifically proven beginning. Its goal was to nurture self-awareness, and its listeners and readers rarely received well-targeted ethical "charges."

For each epoch, any episode or acting person, Klyuchevsky was able to find in words an impeccably expressed image or concept, one way or another addressed to national and public self-consciousness. Already in the second lecture of his famous “Course of Russian History”, he, concluding it, appealed to the feeling of a person, which can be brought up by an understanding of his historical past; “Determining the tasks and direction of our activity, each of us must be at least a little bit of a historian in order to become a consciously and conscientiously acting citizen” 10. The same thought about the importance of historical thinking did not leave the conscientious scientist even during meetings in Abastuman for the sake of the royal command to enlighten Tsarevich George: “Our business is to tell the truth, not worrying about what some guards headquarters captain will say ...

Russia general fundamentals life with Western Europe, but it has its own characteristics ... a historical presentation will show that a new beginning is not an arbitrariness of thought, but a natural requirement of life "11. At the beginning of the 20th century, rebuffing the second half of XIX century, he severely reproached the thinking of the public, which, after the reforms of the 1860s. at a new stage in history showed "indifference to the domestic past." “Historical law,” wrote Klyuchevsky, “is a strict uncle of immature peoples and even happens to be their executioner when their stupid childish obstinacy turns into an insane readiness for historical self-forgetfulness.” 12 In these appeals to human thinking, Klyuchevsky considered historical experience exclusively figuratively. In his "Course of Russian History" he issued a serious warning to his contemporaries: "The history of the people, scientifically reproduced, becomes its income and expenditure book, according to which the shortcomings and overexposures of its past are calculated" 13, and he explained that "historical consciousness, developed from knowledge of the past, gives society that possesses it, that eye of the situation, that instinct of the minute, which protect it both from inertia and from haste.

In his speech “The Significance of St. Sergius for the Russian People and State,” the historian, as it were, turned over the pages of this income-expenditure book. Turning to a terrible era Mongolian yoke and the Battle of Kulikovo, Klyuchevsky, in the millions of people who came to the grave of Sergius for five centuries, felt the timeless memory of the people, which turned into a high moral idea and testifies that “one of the hallmarks of a great people is its ability to rise to its feet after a fall” 15. No less he directed his speech 61 “The Good People of Ancient Russia”, read at a public meeting in favor of those who suffered from crop failure in the Volga region in the early 1890s. He began this speech with the words: “Charity is a word with a very controversial meaning and a very simple meaning” 16, and then he developed the idea of ​​it as a condition of “moral health that historically existed among the people” 17. He constantly extended the instructive lessons of the past to historical types people who, by the will of fate and chance, found themselves at the head of the people.

An opponent of autocracy, he came to a final assessment of the activities of Peter I for a long time, until he found the necessary harsh wording, far from panegyric and worthy, from his point of view, of the great emperor, whose entire activity in creating the law-governed state by the power of arbitrariness was a moral and legal nonsense. “Autocracy in itself is repugnant as a political principle. It will never be recognized by the civil conscience. But you can put up with a person in which this unnatural force is combined with self-sacrifice. 18. Here the historian only once allowed himself to excuse a person with autocratic power, V. O. Klyuchevsky was a great master not to finish his thoughts, to express them “between the lines”. It was not just a matter of having to look back at censorship. This was a certain principle that Klyuchevsky inspired his listeners and readers. Concluding his memoirs about Klyuchevsky as a scientific supervisor, his student, who later became a very prominent scientist, Yu. V. Gauthier, successfully revealed this principle “in the requirement that such a person “get it on his own”, deepen his knowledge on his own and get used to independent scientific activity ... in all this it is impossible not to see conscious methods of a kind of scientific pedagogy developed by many years of practice, long thoughts of a strong and original mind "19. In this self-knowledge, Klyuchevsky saw the basis for further human initiative, which he said on January 12, 1880, speaking to a wide audience as the successor of S. Mu Solovyov in the department.

A quarter of a century later, in 1904, he himself led the reader of his "Course" to an understanding of the practical needs of the "current minute" on the basis of studying the past. in the understanding of the human personality, its relationship with society, the popularity of his lectures and works especially exacerbated. In the legacy of V. O. Klyuchevsky there are many statements about colleagues who have passed away. In such responses, one can notice a motive that most corresponded to the work of Klyuchevsky himself. Referring to the memory of T. N. Granovsky, F. I. Buslaev, three times to the name of S. M. Solovyov, he certainly linked together their teaching and scientific activity. It is this connection that removes the question (if anyone raises it) about who prevailed in Klyuchevsky - a teacher or a researcher. Delving into the scientific “laboratory” of the scientist, one can see how his large-scale teaching practice reflected the original concept of the historical process.

Carefully looking at the experience of his university teachers, Klyuchevsky sharply broke with the established tradition (and still retains its position) of a systematically consistent presentation historical events and focused on theoretical generalizations. As a result, his "Course of Russian History", which became a scientific testament, in which creative energy was concentrated, reflected in the search for conceptual provisions in separate monographs and lecture courses, became the first and still the only attempt at a problematic approach to presenting the entire Russian history. The legacy of Klyuchevsky was considered in different aspects at different stages of the history of historical science. Of course, the main attention was paid to his general theoretical provisions, and, as a rule, there was a desire to determine the directions of the socio-economic order, which allegedly prevailed in his constructions.

With all the searches in this direction in post-revolutionary historiography, until relatively recently, Klyuchevsky was reproached, however, in different tones, for the viciousness of methodology, the limitations of class analysis, the inability to overcome the "incorrect" ideas of the bourgeois-liberal, even in constitutional monarchism, etc. As a result, his work was strongly associated with various ideas about his political views. We can agree with the conclusion of M. V. Nechkina that “ historical meaning Klyuchevsky is very large. He gave Russian science one of the most striking concepts of the country's historical past - contradictory, unsaid, but full of problems.

But if these words are true, the patronizing and condoling regret of M.V. Nechkina about the impossibility for Klyuchevsky to overcome everything that testified to the crisis of pre-revolutionary historical science 23 is bewildering. Such an approach to any monument or cultural figure can only be addressed contrary to historical and dialectical logic , with arrogant confidence in their own superiority over a man of another era. The above testimonies of M.N. Tikhomirov about high level Klyuchevsky’s source analysis, R. A. Kireeva’s conviction that he developed the history of historical science for that time, 24, and finally, the detailed sections of M. V. Nechkina’s book on Klyuchevsky’s historiographical and source study work force a different assessment of the correlation of the theoretical heritage of the scientist with the crisis of bourgeois historical science. It was the “tricky knot” tied, according to S. F. Platonov, by Klyuchevsky, that contained the uniqueness of his concept, and not abstractly sociological, but based on research, that is, having a specifically applied character. It contained the experience of the researcher's understanding of history while motivating its processes by the sum of essentially different, but precisely defined "historical forces".

Until now, this approach has seemed eclectic to historiographers, although it is unlikely that only the socio-economic dominant can manifest itself as a guiding factor in all specific historical situations, especially when taking into account the peculiarities of “local history” (in Klyuchevsky’s terminology). It is this fundamental feature of Klyuchevsky's conceptual approach that should attract paramount attention. Klyuchevsky's concept of the Russian historical process took shape over decades. Not without reason, in one private letter, he very self-critically admitted back in 1872: “My inability to work quickly and quickly for me is now proven historical fact» 25.

Developing his concept, Klyuchevsky certainly showed scientific modesty. In search of the "mystery" of the historical process, he only pinned his hopes on the knowledge of combinations of different conditions for the development of a particular country, which would later create a science "about the general laws of the structure of human societies, applicable regardless of transient local conditions" 26. He was far from from the idea of ​​the exclusivity of Russian history and considered it only as a variant of the history of the general, with its own "local" features. He saw the basis of his search in the individual human personality and human society in all their historical diversity, living in certain natural conditions. This approach was first formulated by him in Lecture 1 of the Course of Russian History, but was the result of all his research since the late 1860s. “So, the human personality, human society and the nature of the country - these are the three main historical forces that build human community” 27, Klyuchevsky defined his positions in 1904 in opposition to the theoretical principles of the “state school”. The role of the natural factor in the history of the people was put forward even before V. O. Klyuchevsky. In the 1870s in his lectures he followed S. M. Solovyov in explaining this factor. However, his interpretation soon acquired an independent sound. S. M. Solovyov believed that the people were embodied in the state and, in particular, the state "organized" the people in the process of constant displacement. Klyuchevsky, in his work on the Boyar Duma, came to a completely different understanding of the relationship between the role of the people and the state. It was the colonization movements, in his opinion, that determined the political order at a certain time and the process of creating the Muscovite state. “This colonization (from the southwest, from Kievan Rus to the northeast. - V. A.) created the world of Russian settlements, which served as ready ground for specific princely possessions ”28,” Klyuchevsky argued. He considered the colonization of the Trans-Volga region as a continuation of the process of settling the central interfluve; he considered its geographical expansion and the creation of the Muscovite state "a matter of the nationality", which created its own "people's camp" with Moscow as the strategically most convenient center of struggle on three fronts - eastern, southern and western.

This state "was born on the Kulikovo field, and not in the hoard chest of Ivan Kalita" 29 - Klyuchevsky could not resist another aphorism. In preparing the first volume of The Course of Russian History for publication, Klyuchevsky theoretically succinctly and aphoristically formulated his understanding of the essence of popular migrations: “The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of ​​colonization in it expanded along with its state territory. Now falling, then rising, this secular movement continues to this day. 30 general position cases with significant consequences. So the people as an ethnic and ethical concept in Klyuchevsky's concept was assigned the main force in the history of the formation and development of the state. Until now, little attention has been paid to this idea in the ethnic aspect in historiography. Klyuchevsky himself, having put forward the thesis about the role of popular migrations, researched only on his early works devoted to the Solovetsky Monastery and the lives of the saints, and after him the problem remains inexhaustible.

One way or another, but the migration movements had important consequences for the state of a social, economic, political and demographic nature. They were considered in studies devoted to indiscriminate regions, but they were never subjected to a generalized analysis. Meanwhile, a direct connection between migration movements, primarily of the Russian population, and the consolidation of the newly included territories in the multinational state, social protests against serfdom, the spread of agricultural practices, etc. d. Rise creative activity V. O. Klyuchevsky in the second half of the 1870s - 1880s. reflected in his special courses: "Methodology of Russian history", "Terminology of Russian history", "History of estates in Russia", "Sources of Russian history", "Lectures from Russian historiography", in which he developed his theoretical ideas primarily about the main " constituent elements of the historical process. These ideas sounded in the emerging general course, on the basis of which he later prepared his “Course of Russian History” for publication.

WITH with good reason M. N. Tikhomirov stated that “Klyuchevsky’s thoughtful and long-term work on source studies, terminology, etc. helps to understand the level of factual validity of both his monographic studies and the Course of Russian History” 32. In the course “Methodology”, preserved according to lithography recordings of listeners in 1884/85, V. O. Klyuchevsky recognized "four historical forces that create and direct the hostel: 1) the nature of the country; 2) the physical nature of man; 3) personality and 4) society" 33. Each of these forces V. O. Klyuchevsky assigned a special, specific, in his opinion, role; “it can be said that the nature of the country directs economic life; the physical nature of a person ties and directs private, domestic life; personality is a creative force in mental and moral life, and society creates political and social life.

But the participation of each force in these areas is not exclusive, but only predominant” 34 Later, he eliminated the second indicated “force” from his concept and considered the individual in “its historical action” in interconnection with nature and society. It can be assumed that, by referring to the individual, V. O. Klyuchevsky tried to approach the characterization of the people with their spirituality and ethics in a historical perspective, which until recently seemed to be a problem half-forgotten and not deserving of attention.

The rapid development of ethnographic research in Russia in the second half of the 19th century and the direct influence of F. I. Buslaev, one should think, determined the approach of V. O. Klyuchevsky to the role of the people in the historical process precisely as a person. Klyuchevsky devoted especially bright pages to the Great Russian in his relationship with nature , focusing on his struggle with difficult natural conditions, Klyuchevsky essentially posed a problem, only now understood as an enduring one, about the relationship between man and nature. V lecture course he revealed the psychological makeup of the Great Russian, created by the "powerful action" of nature, which directed his economic life: his resourcefulness, unpretentiousness, prudence, amazing observation and efficiency, without which the success of agricultural labor in a short summer is impossible. “Not a single people in Europe is capable of such intense work for a short time, which a Great Russian can develop; but nowhere in Europe, it seems, will we find such unaccustomed to even, moderate and measured constant work, as in the same Great Russia, ”35 wrote Klyuchevsky. While preparing the “Course of Russian History” for publication, he found a surprisingly well-aimed, artistically expressive conclusion to a lecture on the Great Russian: “Nature and fate led the Great Russian in such a way that they taught him to go to the straight road by roundabout ways.

The Great Russian thinks and acts as he walks. It seems that you can come up with a crooked and winding Great Russian country road? It’s like a snake has crawled in. And try to go straighter - you’ll only get lost and go out onto the same winding path ”36. Turning to certain types of people, Klyuchevsky did not seek to illustrate with detailed biographies, as did N. I. Kostomarov, who had a certain influence on him in this regard. course "Methodology" Klyuchevsky considered personality as a force "to which the initiative of the historical movement belongs" 37 Therefore, he was looking for types of people, but considered them a force by no means self-sufficient.

He attributed the individuality of the mind and .. talent to the field of historical study, as long as they are prepared by the cumulative work of the environment, society, and therefore “strengthen the connection between people who make up a certain union, and in the life of the union there cannot be completely solitary activity” 38, moreover , according to him, there is Feedback- “A person who had the misfortune of being outside the union is lost to history. Further, this fact is a necessity for every person entering into life: a person cannot live outside the union, this urgent need turns into a need in its further development: a person not only cannot, but also does not want to do without communication with others.

So, for V. O. Klyuchevsky, the personality is historical and represents a paramount force in the "human community"; she is not only a subject brought up by nature and environment, but she is social, the bearer of morality and culture. It was from this point of view that Klyuchevsky created a whole gallery of images with their moral and ethical image, belonging to different social strata of society, and did not miss the opportunity to prick painfully for social "sloppiness". a section in which he proved the importance of education for alternating generations, as a result of which the historical succession of material and spiritual wealth was created society. 3 History of the USSR, No. 5 65 In the gallery of these types there were instructive images of Sergius of Radonezh, Ulyana Osoryina, Fedor Mikhailovich Rtishchev statesmen Afanasy Lavrentievich Ordin-Nashchokin and Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, most of the Russian autocrats - from Ivan the Terrible with his follies to the "capturer of the throne" Catherine II, the nobles Prostakovs despised by him and the ancestors of Eugene Onegin, whose characters are generated by both domestic and state education, etc. . Special place this gallery is occupied by portraits of the geniuses of Russian culture and science. For Klyuchevsky A. S. Pushkin, N. I. Novikov, M. Yu, Lermontov, Russian historians of the XVIII-XIX centuries. for all their diversity and unequalness, they are a subject of national pride and "Russian folk echo of universal work."

Portraits (types), understood by Klyuchevsky in the historical conditionality of their appearance, go far beyond the limits of historiographical significance. These are samples of the creative experience of revealing the personality in history, without which it is impossible to cognize the cultural and public life previous generations with their mistakes, achievements and ups and downs of thought. "The problem of society" occupied a special position in the work of V. O. Klyuchevsky. In his "triad" this is the main problem in understanding the essence of the historical process. In sharp opposition to the theory of the "public school", he considered it from the perspective of the development of social classes, and only then the state. In the course "Methodology" he poses the eternal question: "What does the individual give to society and how much does the latter oppress the former?" 41 Klyuchevsky repeatedly turned to the “problem of society” in his theoretical and research studies and devoted two monographs to it - “The History of Estates in Russia” and “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia”. The latter work, especially initially, in the process of creation and the first journal publications of its individual parts, was given a pronounced social sounding as an experience of the history of government institutions in connection with the history of society, classes, their evolution and emerging interests. M. V. Nechkina, who scrupulously studied the process of creating the Boyar Duma by V. O. Klyuchevsky, wrote: “Eight centuries of development of the central government institution, taken in the context of the history of society in connection with its classes and class interests, opened up the widest scope for the interpretation of major problem, any significant aspect in the general concept of the history of Russia" 42 In her opinion, the study of the history of classes and class interests was a completely new task in bourgeois historical science 43.

Indeed, Klyuchevsky in the course "Methodology" defined his task as follows: "to the question of what constitutes the subject of historical study, we must give such a simple answer: this subject is the origin, development and properties of human unions" 44. Now it would be strange to criticize Klyuchevsky with the positions of the Marxist approach to the formational socio-economic understanding of the historical process, which, of course, he did not adhere to. He went his own way, and we can only talk about something else - about the value of an integrated approach to the history of "human unions" V. O. Klyuchevsky considered the state to be a superclass force, but at the same time he was aware of the "History of estates", meaning the relationship between the position of estates at certain stages of the historical process, he spoke of "social formations" in his own understanding, of course. Thus, “the third period in the history of the Russian estates is a social formation that took shape in the Muscovite state in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.” 45 He approached the position of the estates to a greater extent from a state-legal position, not at all ignoring the economic interests of each of them, and in the evolutionary-state development he saw the economic division of society and the inevitability of the disappearance of class inequality in the end 46 .

In this scheme of the estate system, of greatest interest now are Klyuchevsky's observations on the role of social "unions", in particular, in connection with the still debatable question of the existence in Russia of a stage of a class-representative monarchy. V. O. Klyuchevsky did not recognize this stage and at the same time could not ignore the problem of representation and the role of “unions” in the management system. Back in 1874, at the III Archaeological Congress in Kiev, he was impressed by the report of N. I. Kostomarov on the significance of the princely squad47; he wrote down in detail the main provisions of his report and accompanied them with critical remarks. 48 community development ancient Russia; it was no accident that he wrote down Kostomarov's idea of ​​participating in the council Kiev prince Vladimir of non-druzhina elements - bishops and elders of the city. This idea was carried out by him in the first (magazine) version of the Boyar Duma. In the book version of the book, Klyuchevsky bypassed this idea, but developed a provision concerning specific time about farmers, who, as free servants of the prince, constituted the “zemstvo class” 49.

In the magazine version of The Boyar Duma, he traced the entire phases of the development of local government in Russia, which at the appropriate time "did not have a strictly estate character"; with the development of centralization, there were “signs of all-estate” in it, and the Boyar Duma represented the State Council with representation of different classes, and only during the period of autocracy did local government become single-estate - noble. Thus, class unions were traced in the outline of the general periodization of the historical process. Klyuchevsky accompanied this scheme with a conclusion that still retains interest for further research: “So, in the history of our ancient institutions, the social classes and interests that hid behind them and acted through them remain in the shadow” 50.

This is how Klyuchevsky imagined the role of "unions" in governance, while the nobility, again through its "union" - the guard, which had a clear social character, did not become the "dominant element". So, the essence of the conceptual experience of V. O. Klyuchevsky was an attempt to show the significance of various factors in the general historical process and in certain periods of Russian history. Putting forward four main periods in this history, Klyuchevsky sought to shade, first of all, geographical conditions where the bulk of the population lived. This was followed by a criterion of a political nature, which determined the period, and, finally, an economic criterion. In interconnection with natural conditions in each period, personality characteristics were considered - historical types and society with its "unions", reflecting the main thing in its structure - sociality with its interests and requirements. In other words, the concept was subordinated to the history of the people with the interconnection of the main problems - natural-territorial, statehood, sociality of society and its economy.

Considering the concept of V. O. Klyuchevsky as a concept of the history of the people at different stages of the development of the state, one cannot approach it only as a historiographic phenomenon. In general terms, it took shape in the early 1880s. as a result of the scientific and teaching creativity of the scientist on the basis of research and special courses and was embodied in the gradually created general "Course of Russian History" in the form in which it saw the light at the beginning of the 20th century. It is difficult to say which period in the history of Russia V. O. Klyuchevsky preferred research; gave the impression that XVII century. This is hardly true. From a conceptual point of view, he paid more attention, and in a very specific aspect, to the "all-Russian, imperial-noble" period. He considered the 18th century of Russian history with all the brilliance of imperial power, foreign policy successes and the created noble culture in a very peculiar way and with a far-reaching goal. Deviating from the conviction that the state was above class, it was not by chance that in this part of the Course of Russian History V. O. Klyuchevsky gave the people, as it were, a secondary mania and at the same time created a clear impression in the reader, as in the conditions of autocratic rule and noble domination the state crushed the people, their work and life.

It is in this part of the "Course" that the anti-monarchist and anti-noble views of V. O. Klyuchevsky are most clearly manifested, deliberately reaching the grotesque when characterizing the cultural and psychological appearance of the nobility. Theoretically and cognitively creative search is not compatible with the crisis of science, to which the work of V.O. Klyuchevsky was so generously attributed. Search general patterns and an integrated approach to identifying the leading problems in the historical process, the correlation of their significance, paramount attention to the spirituality of the individual and society, the versatility of source study and historiographic analysis are just the main features of the scientist's scientific method. Therefore, in the concept of V. O. Klyuchevsky, one should first of all see a creative search that maintains a successive connection with the ways of knowing the history of Russia.

Concluding his report "Eugene Onegin and His Ancestors" in 1887, Klyuchevsky said about Pushkin, "you always want to say too much about him, you always say too much and you never say everything that follows" yet they have not yet said everything that follows. Notes

1 Syromyatnikov B. I. V. O. Klyuchevsky and B. N. Chicherin // V. O. Klyuchevsky Characteristics and memories M, 1912. S. 81, 88.

2Kotlyarevsky S. What does the “Boyar Duma” of V. O. Klyuchevsky give for state studies // Collection of articles dedicated to Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky M, 1909. P. 253.

3Milyukov P. N. V. O Klyuchevsky // V. O. Klyuchevsky. Characteristics and memories. pp. 211, 212. 4Platonov S. F. In memory of V. O. Klyuchevsky. There. pp. 98, 99. 5Zimin A. A. Archive of V. O. Klyuchevsky // Notes of the Department of Manuscripts of the State Library. V. I. Lenin. Issue. 12 M, 1951. S. 76-86, his own. Formation of the historical views of V. O. Klyuchevsky in the 60s of the XIX century // Historical Notes T. 69. M., 1961. S. 178-196, his own V. O. Klyuchevsky Notes on General History (from lectures given in Alexander Military School in 1871/72 and 1872/73 academic years) // New and recent history 1969 No. 5, 6. (co-authored with R. A. Kireeva), his own. From the manuscript heritage of V. O. Klyuchevsky (new materials for the course on Russian historiography) // History and Historians. Historiographic yearbook. 1972. M., 1973. S. 307-336 (co-authored with R. A. Kireeva).

6 V. O. Klyuchevsky. Letters Diaries Aphorisms and thoughts about history M., 1968, Klyuchevsky V. O. Unpublished works M., 1983.

7 Tikhomirov M.N. Russian state XV-XVII centuries M., 1973. S. 294.

8 Klyuchevsky V. O. Historical portraits. Figures of historical thought. M. 1990. S. 517.

9 Mrs. Letters. Diaries. S. 356.

10 His Works In 9 vols. M., 1987-1990 T. I P. 62

11 Mrs. Letters. Diaries S. 264

12 Mrs. Historical portraits S. 554

13 Mrs. Works In 9 vols. T. I C. 60

14 Ibid p. 62

15 Mrs. Historical portraits S. 65.

16 Ibid., p. 77.

17 Ibid., p. 78.

18 Mrs. Works In 9 vols. T. IV S. 203, 204.

19 Mrs. Characteristics and Memoirs P. 182

20 Nechkina M. V. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky ...

21 Klyuchevsky V. O. Works. In 9 vols. T. I S. 60.

22 Nechkina M.V. Decree. op. pp. 571,572.

23 Ibid. S. 51

24 Kireeva R. A. Study national history in pre-revolutionary Russia from the middle of the 19th century until 1917. M., 1983 S. 208, her own. V. O. Klyuchevsky as a historian of Russian historical science. M., 1966. S. 224, 225.

25 Nechkina M.V. Decree. op. S. 174.

26 Klyuchevsky V. O. Works. In 9 vols. T. I. S. 38-39.

27 Ibid. pp. 39-40

28 His own. Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia Pg. , 1919 P. 81

29 Ibid., p. 521 (see also pp. 531-533) 68

30 Mrs. Works in 9 vols. T I. S. 50 (see also: p. 391).

31 Ibid. 32 His own. Works: In 8 vols. M., 1956-1959. T. VI. P. 471. 33 Mrs. E. Works: In 9 vols. T. VI. pp. 23 34 Ibid. S. 28.

35 Ibid. T I. S. 315.

36 Ibid. S. 317.

37 Ibid. T. VI. S. 33.

38 Ibid. P. 10.

39 Ibid. S. 22.

40 Ibid. T. I. C. 41 et seq.

41 Ibid. T. VI. S. 25.

42 N echkina M.V. Decree. op. From 183.

43 Ibid. pp. 187, 188, 206, 220.

44 Klyuchevsky. Compositions: In 9 volumes, vol. VI. S. 9

45 Ibid. S. 292.

46 Ibid. pp. 236-239.

47 Unfortunately, the text of this report by N. I. Kostomarov has not been preserved. 48 Klyuchevsky V. O. Letters. Diaries ... From 250-252.

49 Mrs. Boyarskaya Duma. S. 90.

50 Cit. by: Nechkina M.V. Decree. op. S. 201 (see also: S. 234).

51 Klyuchevsky V. O. Historical portraits ... S. 426.

V.A. Alexandrov