Vasily Klyuchevsky - biography, information, personal life. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky

Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich (1841 – 1911)

Russian historian, academician, honorary academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

Born in the village of Voznesenskoye, Penza province, in the family of a village priest who died early. Klyuchevsky's childhood was spent in severe poverty. Having overcome his stuttering and learning difficulties, he graduated with honors from the Penza Theological School in 1856 and entered the theological seminary.

In 1861, Klyuchevsky, having changed his mind about becoming a priest, left the seminary and entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, from which he graduated in 1865 with a candidate's degree and was left at the department to prepare for a professorship.

Klyuchevsky’s first monograph, “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State,” testified to his enormous ability to work and interest in the history of everyday life. Klyuchevsky, on the advice of his teacher S.M. Solovyov for his master’s thesis took the topic “ Old Russian Lives saints like historical source", on which he worked for six years, having studied about 5 thousand lives, which, according to his opponents, was a scientific feat.

Klyuchevsky came to the conclusion that lives are an unreliable historical source and often do not correspond to the real life of the saint. This work allowed Klyuchevsky to acquire rich source study experience.

In 1871, he was offered to take a chair at the Moscow Theological Academy, and the next year he began lecturing at the Higher Women's Courses.

Soon Klyuchevsky gained fame as an amazing lecturer and in 1879 after the death of S.M. Solovyov took his place at Moscow University. In 1872, Klyuchevsky began ten years of work on his doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma Ancient Rus'" Along with the special course “History of Estates in Russia”, research on social topics (“The Origin of Serfdom in Russia”, “Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia”, “Composition of Representation at the Zemstvo Councils of Ancient Rus'”), cultural history of the XVIII and XIX century, Klyuchevsky created the main work of his life, “The Course of Russian History,” in which he outlined his concept of the historical development of Russia. From 1902 until the end of his life, Klyuchevsky prepared it for publication and reprint.

In addition to teaching and research work, Klyuchevsky in 1887-1889. was dean of the Faculty of History and Philology and vice-rector.

In 1900 he was elected a full member of the Academy of Sciences, but this did not change his life. In 1900-1910 began to give a course of lectures at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where his listeners were many outstanding artists.

Klyuchevsky died in Moscow in 1911. He was buried in the Donskoy Monastery cemetery.

Biography. The great historian of Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky was born on January 16, 1841 in the village of Voskresenskoye, Penza district. The Klyuchevsky surname is symbolic and is associated with the source, source, and ideas about the homeland. It comes from the name of the village of Klyuchi, Penza province. The words “key” and “key” have another meaning for scientists - method. Possessing the ability to accumulate all the best in historical thought, Klyuchevsky kept many scientific keys in his mind.

Came from the clergy class. Klyuchevsky's childhood years were spent in the rural wilderness of the Penza province at the place of service of his father, a poor rural priest and teacher of the law. Since childhood, I perceived sympathy and understanding of peasant life, interest in the historical fate of the people, and folk art.

His first teacher was his father, who taught his son to read correctly and quickly, “write decently” and sing from notes. Among the books read, in addition to the obligatory Book of Hours and Psalter, there were the Chetya-Minea and books of secular content.

Sudden tragic death Vasily Osipovich's childhood was cut short in 1850. His mother and her two surviving children (the other four died in infancy) moved to Penza. Out of compassion for the poor widow, priest S.V. Filaretov (her husband’s friend) gave her a small house to live in. The family lived in the back, worst part of the house; the front room was rented out to guests for three rubles a month. The most financially difficult 10 years of V.O. Klyuchevsky’s life passed in this house. In 1991, the V.O. Klyuchevsky House-Museum was opened here.

In Penza, Klyuchevsky successively studied at the parish theological school, at the district theological school and at the theological seminary. Very early, almost from the 2nd grade of the seminary, he was forced to give private lessons, and in the future he continued to tutor, earning a living and accumulating teaching experience. The early manifested love for history in general, and Russian history in particular, strengthened during my student years. At school, Klyuchevsky already knew the works of Tatishchev, Karamzin, Granovsky, Kavelin, Solovyov, Kostomarov; followed the magazines “Russian Bulletin”, “Otechestvennye zapiski”, “Sovremennik”. In order to be able to enter the university (and his superiors intended him to attend the Kazan Theological Academy), he deliberately dropped out of the seminary in his last year. For a year, the young man independently prepared to enter the university and prepared the two sons of a Penza manufacturer for exams.

In 1861, Klyuchevsky entered Moscow University. In his final years, Klyuchevsky began studying Russian history under the guidance of S.M. Solovyov. Co student years Vasily Osipovich studied the sources in depth: together with Buslaev, he sorted out old manuscripts in the Synodal Library, spent hours immersed in the “boundless sea of ​​archival material” in the archives of the Ministry of Justice, where he was given a table next to S.M. Solovyov. In one of his letters to a friend we read: “It is difficult to summarize my activities. The devil knows what I'm not doing. And I’m reading political economy, and I’m studying the Sanskrit language, and I’m learning some things in English, and I’m mastering the Czech and Bulgarian languages ​​- and God knows what else.”

Klyuchevsky looked carefully at the surrounding everyday life. During the holidays, he met with peace mediators and “listened to peasant affairs”; during leisure hours, he went to the Kremlin and took with him law students who were interested in the schism (among them was A.F. Koni), “to mingle among the people in front of the cathedrals” and listen to the debate between schismatics and Orthodox Christians. After intense university and independent work, Klyuchevsky gave private lessons in different parts of the city, the distance between which he usually covered on foot.

For his graduation essay “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State,” Klyuchevsky was awarded a gold medal and kept at the department “to prepare for a professorship.” Five years later, to obtain the right to lecture at the Moscow Theological Academy, he defended this work as a dissertation. Thus, Klyuchevsky left the university as a fully established scientist.

The master's thesis “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source” was published in 1871, and its master’s defense took place in 1872. It attracted the attention of not only scientists, but also a large public. The applicant defended himself brilliantly, demonstrating his talent as a polemicist.

A master's degree gave him the official right to teach at higher educational institutions, and Klyuchevsky began teaching, which brought him well-deserved fame. He taught at five higher educational institutions: at the Alexander Military School, where he taught all courses general history for 17 years; in other places he read Russian history: at the Moscow Theological Academy, at the Higher Women's Courses, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture; since 1879, Moscow University became its main department.

The defense of his doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” by Klyuchevsky took place in 1882. It lasted almost four hours and passed brilliantly.

“The Course of Russian History” by V.O. Klyuchevsky received worldwide fame. It has been translated into all major languages ​​of the world. According to foreign historians, this work served as the basis and main source for Russian history courses around the world.

In 1893/94 and 1894/95 academic years Klyuchevsky again returned to teaching world history, as he was seconded to give lectures to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich. The course he called " Recent history Western Europe in connection with the history of Russia,” covers the time from the French Revolution of 1789 to the abolition of serfdom and the reforms of Alexander II. The history of Western Europe and Russia is considered in it in their relationship and mutual influence. This complex course, rich in factual material, is an important source for analyzing the evolution of Klyuchevsky’s historical views and for studying the problem of studying general history in Russia in general, and the history of the French Revolution in particular.

Vasily Osipovich was an active member of the Moscow Archaeological Society, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, and the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, where he was its chairman for four terms (from 1893 to 1905). Contemporaries regarded Klyuchevsky's chairmanship for 12 years as the time of greatest flowering of the scientific activity of the OIDR. In 1889, he was elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, and in 1900, an academician of Russian history and antiquities outside the state, since he did not want to leave Moscow and move to St. Petersburg, as required by position. In 1908, the scientist was elected honorary academician in the category of fine literature.

Klyuchevsky had a chance to participate in a number of government events. In 1905, he was a member of the so-called D.F. Kobeko commission, which developed a project to weaken censorship. Klyuchevsky spoke several times before the commission. In particular, polemicizing with defenders of censorship, he gave a witty history of it.

In the same year, Klyuchevsky was invited to the “Peterhof Meetings” regarding the development of the State Duma project. There he resolutely opposed the choice “at the basis of estates,” arguing that the estate organization was outdated, and that not only the nobility, but also all other estates, benefited. The historian has consistently spoken out in favor of mixed elections.

In the spring of 1906, Klyuchevsky unsuccessfully ran for election to the First State Duma from Sergiev Posad. A month later, he was elected to the State Council from the Academy of Sciences and Russian universities. However, he resigned this title, declaring publicly through the newspaper Russkie Vedomosti that he did not find the position of a member of the Council “independent enough to freely discuss emerging issues of public life in the interests of the cause.”

Despite the enormous research work and teaching load, Klyuchevsky gave speeches and public lectures free of charge, for example, in favor of the hungry, in favor of those affected by crop failure in the Volga region, in favor of the Moscow Literacy Committee, as well as on anniversaries and public events. In them, the historian often touched upon problems of morality, mercy, upbringing, education, and Russian culture. Each of his performances acquired a huge public resonance. In terms of the power of influence on the audience, people who heard Klyuchevsky compared him not with other professors or scientists in general, but with the highest examples of art - with the performances of Chaliapin, Yermolova, Rachmaninov, with the performances of the Art Theater.

Despite being overly busy, Klyuchevsky still found the opportunity to communicate with the artistic, literary and theatrical circles of Moscow. Artists, composers, writers (for example, N.S. Leskov), and artists (among them F.I. Chaliapin) often turned to Vasily Osipovich for advice. It is widely known about Klyuchevsky’s assistance to the great artist in creating the images of Boris Godunov and others. Klyuchevsky treated everyone with favorable attention, considering it his sacred duty to help figures in the artistic world.

For more than 10 years, Klyuchevsky lectured at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where he was listened to not only by students from all workshops and classes, but also by teachers and venerable artists (V.A. Serov, A.M. Vasnetsov, K. Korovin, L. O. Pasternak and others). His last lecture was given within the walls of the School on October 29, 1910.

While in the hospital, Klyuchevsky continued to work - he wrote two articles for the newspapers “Russian Vedomosti” and “Rech” on the 50th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom. They say that he worked even on the day of his death, which followed on May 12, 1911. V.O. Klyuchevsky was buried in Moscow at the Donskoy Monastery cemetery.

As a sign of deepest recognition of the scientist’s merits, in the year of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Vasily Osipovich, the International Center for Minor Planets (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, USA) assigned his name to one of the planets. From now on, minor planet No. 4560 Klyuchevsky is an integral part of the Solar System.

Major works:

Tales of foreigners about the Moscow state

Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source

Boyar Duma of ancient Rus'

Lectures on Russian history.

"Tales of foreigners about the Moscow state". For his graduation essay, Klyuchevsky chose a topic related to the history of Moscow Russia in the 15th-17th centuries, based on a large range of then poorly studied sources on the tales of foreigners, many of which had not yet been translated into Russian. In his work he used about 40 legends. Even before Klyuchevsky, historians drew some factual data and characteristics from the notes of foreigners; There were also articles about individual foreigners who left evidence of Rus'. But before Klyuchevsky, no one had studied these monuments in their entirety. The young historian’s approach was fundamentally different. He collected together and thematically systematized the specific information contained in the legends, critically processed and generalized them, and created a complete picture of the life of the Russian state for three centuries.

In the introduction, Klyuchevsky gave a list of his sources, analyzed them in general, characterized the authors of the tales, paying attention to the features of the notes depending on the time of their writing, as well as on the goals and objectives facing the writers. In general, Klyuchevsky emphasized the importance of notes from foreigners for studying the everyday life of the Moscow state, although many curiosities and inaccuracies can be found there. Hence the requirement for a critical approach to the evidence of foreign authors. His analysis of the sources was so thorough that in subsequent literature “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State” is often called a source study. But this is a historical work on the history of Muscovite Rus', written on abundant “fresh” sources.

Klyuchevsky argued that news from foreigners about the home life of Muscovites, about the moral state of society and other issues of internal life could not be sufficiently reliable and complete in the mouths of foreigners, since this side of life is “less open to prying eyes" External phenomena, the external order of social life, its material side could be described by an outside observer with the greatest completeness and fidelity. Therefore, Klyuchevsky decided to limit himself only to the most reliable information about the state and economic life of the country and data about the geographical environment, and it was this side of Russian life that most interested the author. But he collected and processed the material significantly more questions, as the scientist’s manuscripts eloquently speak about.

The book is written with “strict legibility in the material” and at the same time bright, figurative, with a touch of cheerful irony. It is as if the reader himself, along with the “observant European,” travels along unsafe roads through vast dense forests, steppe desert spaces, and finds himself in various vicissitudes. Klyuchevsky masterfully conveys the charm of living concrete evidence of the original, preserving the freshness of a foreigner’s impressions and sprinkling his own presentation with colorful details and expressive touches of the appearance of the tsar and his entourage, ceremonies for the reception of ambassadors, feasts, table speeches, and the customs of the royal court. The author monitors the strengthening of the centralized state and autocracy as forms of government, the gradual complication of the state administration apparatus, legal proceedings and the state of the army, and compares Moscow government with the orders of other countries.

Klyuchevsky was not interested in the details of diplomatic negotiations, the struggle of court parties and related foreign policy events. He focused on the internal life of the country. From the notes of foreigners, he selected information about the “type” of the country and its climate, the fertility of certain regions of the Moscow state, the main crops, about cattle breeding, hunting, fishing, salt making, vegetable gardening and horticulture, about the growth of cities and population. The work ends with a consideration of the history of trade of the Moscow state in the 15th-17th centuries, and the coin circulation associated with trade. Klyuchevsky spoke about centers of domestic and foreign trade, trade routes and communication routes, about imported and exported goods, and their prices.

Research interest in economic issues and social history (which was a new phenomenon in the historical science of that time), attention to geographical conditions as a constant factor in Russian history, to population movements with the aim of developing new lands, to the issue of relations between Russia and the West - this is already visible foundations of the concept of the Russian historical process.

"Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source". Vasily Osipovich decided to devote his master's thesis to the history of monastic land ownership, at the center of which the problem of colonization, first posed in science by S.M. Solovyov, was supposed to be. But unlike the state school, which explains colonization by the activities of the state, Klyuchevsky understood it as a process determined by the natural conditions of the country and population growth.

For his master's work, Klyuchevsky again chose the same set of sources - the lives of saints. Both the problem of colonization itself and the lives of the saints attracted the attention of many historians at that time: they thought to find in the lives what was not found in the chronicles. It was assumed that they contained extensive material on the history of colonization, land ownership, the history of Russian morals, customs, living conditions, the history of everyday life, private life, the way of thinking of society and its views on nature. Interest in the lives was enhanced by their lack of study.

To understand Klyuchevsky’s plan, unpublished materials from his archive are very important: four sketches in the form of lectures-conversations, draft essays on the history of Russian hagiography, the original plan of the work and other drafts. These materials indicate that he intended to show through the life of an ordinary Russian person the history of the cultural development of that territory North-Eastern Rus', which formed the basis of the future Russian state.

Klyuchevsky did a titanic work of studying the texts of no less than five thousand hagiographies. During the preparation of his dissertation, he wrote six papers. Among them are such major studies as “Economic activities of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory” (it is called Klyuchevsky’s first economic work), and “Pskov Disputes”, which examines some issues of ideological life in Rus' in the 15th-16th centuries. (the work was written at a time of increasing controversy between the Orthodox Church and the Old Believers). However, despite all the efforts expended, Klyuchevsky came to an unexpected conclusion about the literary monotony of lives, in which the authors described everyone’s life from the same sides, forgetting “about the details of the situation, place and time, without which for a historian there is no historical fact. It often seems that in the story of a life there is hidden an apt observation, a living feature of reality; but upon analysis one common point remains.”

It became obvious to Klyuchevsky that the materials identified from the sources would not be enough to fulfill his plans. Many colleagues advised him to abandon the topic, but he managed to turn it in a different direction: he began to approach the lives of saints not with the goal of identifying the factual data they contained, but turned the lives themselves into an object of study. Now Klyuchevsky set himself purely source-study tasks: dating the lists, determining the oldest list, the place of its origin, possible sources of lives, the number and nature of subsequent editions; determining the accuracy of the source’s reflection of historical reality and the degree of truthfulness of the historical fact stated in it. The book received the final title “Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source.”

Klyuchevsky’s conclusions were extremely bold and radically diverged from the then prevailing views on ancient Russian lives. It is clear that the attitude towards his work was ambiguous.

“Work on ancient Russian lives made the artist-creator, as Vasily Osipovich was by nature,” his student M.K. Lyubavsky later wrote, “a subtle critic-analyst, harmoniously combined in him the usually incompatible properties of a painstaking, accurate and cautious researcher and wide creative scope of the writer." Science has recognized Klyuchevsky’s research as a masterpiece of source studies, an unsurpassed example of source analysis of narrative monuments.

"Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'". Social history in the works of Klyuchevsky. The doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” was a kind of result of previous research and it gave a holistic concept of the Russian historical process. The choice of the topic of the dissertation fully reflected the scientific interests of the historian, his sociological approach to the study of judicial management in Russia. Klyuchevsky figuratively called the Boyar Duma the flywheel of the Moscow state and interpreted it as a constitutional institution “with extensive political influence, but without a constitutional charter, a government seat with a wide range of affairs, but without an office, without an archive.” This happened due to the fact that the Boyar Duma - this “government spring” that set everything in motion, itself remained invisible in front of the society it governed, since its activities were closed from two sides: by the sovereign from above and by the clerk, “its rapporteur and record-keeper ", from below. This led to the difficulties of studying the history of the Duma, since “the researcher is deprived of the opportunity to reconstruct, on the basis of authentic documents, both the political significance of the Duma and the order of its paperwork.”

Klyuchevsky began to collect the necessary data bit by bit from a variety of sources - in archives, in private collections (including his own), in published documents; He also studied the works of historians. Klyuchevsky’s students had the impression that their teacher was not at all bothered by the preliminary, menial, painstaking and thankless “Egyptian” work of sifting through a mass of sources and “piles of archival materials,” on which a lot of time and effort was spent, and as a result only grains were found. True, they noted, Klyuchevsky “mined grains of pure gold,” collected in homeopathic doses and analyzed under a microscope. And he reduced all these scrupulous research to definite, clear conclusions that constituted the achievement of science.

The study covers the entire centuries-old period of existence of the Boyar Duma from Kievan Rus X century until the beginning of the 18th century, when it ceased its activities in connection with the creation of the Government Senate by Peter I in 1711. But it was not so much the history of the Boyar Duma as a state institution, its competence and work that attracted Klyuchevsky. Much greater was his interest in the composition of the Duma, in those ruling classes of society who ruled Russia through the Duma, in the history of society, in the relationships between classes. This was the novelty of the scientist’s plan. In the magazine version, the work had an important clarifying subtitle: “An experience in the history of a government institution in connection with the history of society.” “In the proposed experiment,” the author emphasized in the first version of the introduction, “the Boyar Duma is considered in connection with the classes and interests that dominated ancient Russian society.” Klyuchevsky believed that “in the history of a social class there are two main moments, of which one can be called economic, the other political.” He wrote about the dual origin of classes, which can be formed on both a political and an economic basis: from above - by the will of power and from below - by the economic process. Klyuchevsky developed this position in many works, in particular, in special courses on the terminology of Russian history and on the history of estates in Russia.

Historian lawyers of the old school (M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, V.I. Sergeevich, etc.) spoke out in the press sharply against Klyuchevsky’s concept. But not all historians of Russian law (for example, S.A. Kotlyarevsky) shared their position. In most cases, Klyuchevsky’s work “Boyar Duma” was perceived as an artistic embodiment of a completely new scheme of Russian history. “Many chapters of his book are positively brilliant, and the book itself is a whole theory, completely beyond the scope of the topic, close to a philosophical understanding of our entire history,” noted the then student of St. Petersburg University (later academician) S.F. Platonov.

In addition to “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus',” Klyuchevsky’s research interest in the social history of Russia, especially in the history of the ruling classes (boyars and nobility) and the history of the peasantry, is reflected in his works “The Origin of Serfdom in Russia”, “Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia” ”, “History of estates in Russia”, “Composition of representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia”, “Abolition of serfdom” and in a number of articles. The social history of Russia is in the foreground in his “Course of Russian History”.

From the concept of representatives of the state school with their purely legal approach to the essence of government, Klyuchevsky’s position differed primarily in the desire to present the historical process as a process of development of social classes, the relationships and roles of which changed in connection with the economic and political development of the country. Vasily Osipovich considered the nature of social classes and their relationship to each other to be more or less friendly cooperation. He called the state, which acted as an exponent of national interests, the reconciling principle in the national economy and political life.

“Course of Russian history” (from ancient times to Alexander II). During the intense years of working on his doctoral dissertation and creating the first lecture courses on general and Russian history, Klyuchevsky replaced the deceased S.M. Solovyov (1879) at the university department of Russian history. The first lecture was dedicated to the memory of the teacher, then Klyuchevsky continued the course begun by Solovyov. According to his program, he first began giving lectures at Moscow University a year later, in the fall of 1880. In parallel with the main course, Klyuchevsky conducted seminar classes with students on the study of individual monuments of ancient Russia, and later on historiography. Vasily Osipovich “conquered us immediately,” the students admitted, and not only because he spoke beautifully and effectively, but because “we looked for and found in him, first of all, a thinker and researcher”; “behind the artist was a thinker.”

Throughout his life, Klyuchevsky continuously improved his general course of Russian history, but did not limit himself to it. For university students, the scientist created an integral system of courses - in the center a general course of Russian history and five special courses around it. Each of them has its own specificity and independent meaning, however, the main value lies in their totality. All of them are directly related to the course of Russian history, adding and deepening its individual aspects, and all are aimed at developing the professionalism of future historians.

Special courses are arranged by Klyuchevsky in a logical order. The theoretical course opened the cycle "Methodology of Russian history" , which was a “hat” for everyone else. This was the first experience in Russia of creating a training course of a methodological nature - before that there had only been isolated introductory lectures. In Soviet literature, the methodology course was particularly harshly criticized. Klyuchevsky was reproached for the fact that his philosophical and sociological views were not sufficiently definite and clear, and were distinguished by eclecticism; that Klyuchevsky viewed the historical process in an idealistic way; that the concept of the class structure of society is alien to him; that he perceived society as a phenomenon devoid of antagonistic contradictions and said nothing about class struggle; that he incorrectly interpreted such concepts as “class”, “capital”, “labor”, “formation”, etc. Klyuchevsky was also reproached for the fact that he failed to cross the “threshold to Marxism.” This course met the requirements of the historical science of another era. But even then, with a generally negative assessment of Klyuchevsky’s “methodology,” the named course was valued as a scientific search by a scientist, and the innovative nature of the problem formulation for its time was emphasized.

The three subsequent courses were largely devoted to source studies: this is the study and interpretation of the terms of ancient Russian monuments in the course "Terminology of Russian history" (neither before nor after Klyuchevsky there is another comprehensive presentation of Old Russian terminology; this course is unique); course of lectures "History of estates in Russia" , where Klyuchevsky showed the injustice of the existing relations of class inequality. The topic of the history of estates was acutely contemporary for Vasily Osipovich in connection with the peasant reform of 1861. Explaining the “concept of estate,” Klyuchevsky, just as in the terminology course, in the “Boyar Duma” and other works, spoke about their dual origin: political and economic. He associated the first with the forced enslavement of society by armed force, the second with “voluntary political subordination to its class, which has achieved economic dominance in the country.” The historian pursued the idea of ​​the temporary nature of the class division of society, emphasized its transitory significance, and drew attention to the fact that “there were times when there were no classes yet, and the time is coming when they no longer exist.” He argued that class inequality is a historical phenomenon (that is, not an eternal, but a temporary state of society), “disappearing almost everywhere in Europe; class differences are increasingly smoothed out in law,” “the equalization of classes is the simultaneous triumph of both the general state interest and personal freedom. This means that the history of classes reveals to us two of the most hidden and closely related historical processes: the movement of consciousness common interests and the liberation of the individual from class oppression in the name of the common interest.”

The situation of peasants in Russia, the origin of serfdom and the stages of development of serfdom, the economic development of the country and management issues were Klyuchevsky's constant themes. In science there was a theory about the “enslavement and emancipation of classes” by an all-powerful state, depending on its needs. Klyuchevsky came to the conclusion that “serfdom in Russia was not created by the state, but only with the participation of the state; the latter owned not the foundations of the law, but its boundaries.” According to the scientist, the main reason for the emergence of serfdom was economic; it stemmed from the debt of peasants to landowners. Thus, the issue moved from the state sphere to the field of private law relations. Thus, on this issue too, Klyuchevsky went beyond the framework of the historical-state school.

The history of monetary circulation and finance of Russia was developed by Klyuchevsky in many works, starting with the student essay “Tales of Foreigners” (chapters “Treasury Revenue”, “Trade”, “Coin”), in the special course “Terminology of Russian History” (lecture XI, dedicated to the monetary system ), in the research article “Russian ruble XVI-XVIII centuries. in its relation to the present" (1884), where, comparing grain prices in the past and present, the author determined the purchasing power of the ruble in different periods of Russian history, in an article on the poll tax (1886), in the "Course of Russian History". Based on a subtle analysis of sources, these works made a significant contribution to the study of this range of problems.

Fourth year - lectures on sources of Russian history . Fifth year - lectures on Russian historiography . R.A. Kireeva drew attention to the fact that V.O. Klyuchevsky did not develop any stable understanding and, accordingly, a definition of the subject of historiography. In practice, it was close to the modern interpretation, namely in the meaning of the history of historical science, but its formulations changed and the understanding of the subject underwent a change: it was close to the concept of source study, then history, then self-awareness, but more often Klyuchevsky still meant by the term historiography is the writing of history, historical work, and not the history of the development of historical knowledge, historical science.

His consideration of historiography clearly shows a cultural perspective. He considered the history of Russian science within the framework of the problem of Western influence and in close connection with the problem of education. Until the 17th century Russian society, according to Klyuchevsky, lived under the influence of native origin, the conditions of its own life and the indications of the nature of its country. Since the 17th century A foreign culture, rich in experience and knowledge, began to influence this society. This incoming influence met with home-grown orders and entered into a struggle with them, disturbing the Russian people, confusing their concepts and habits, complicating their life, giving it increased and uneven movement. A view began to be established on Europe as a school in which one can learn not only skills, but also the ability to live and think. Further development of the European scientific tradition V.O. Klyuchevsky connected with Poland. Rus' did not change its usual caution: it did not dare to borrow Western education directly from its deposits, from its masters and workers, but looked for intermediaries. Western European civilization in the 17th century. came to Moscow in Polish processing and noble clothes. It is clear that this influence was more traditional and strong in Little Russia and, as a consequence of this, wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky, - the figure-conductor of Western science was, as a rule, a Western Russian Orthodox monk, trained in the Latin school.

However, this process was full of drama and contradictions. The need for a new science, in his opinion, was met with irresistible antipathy and suspicion towards everything that came from the Catholic and Protestant West. At the same time, Moscow society has barely tasted the fruits of this science when they are already beginning to be overcome by heavy thoughts about whether it is safe and whether it will not harm the purity of faith and morals. Protest against new science V.O. Klyuchevsky considered it as the result of a collision between the national scientific tradition and the European one. The historian characterized the Russian scientific tradition from the point of view value guidelines a society in which science and art were valued for their connection with the church, as a means of knowledge of the word of God and spiritual salvation. Knowledge and artistic decorations of life, which did not have such a connection and such significance, were considered as idle curiosity of a shallow mind or as unnecessary frivolous fun, amusement, neither such knowledge nor such art were given educational power, they were attributed to the base order of life, considered if not direct vice, then the weaknesses of human nature, susceptible to sin.

In Russian society, summed up V.O. Klyuchevsky, a suspicious attitude was established towards the participation of reason and scientific knowledge in matters of faith, and as a consequence of this, he identified such a feature of the Russian mentality as self-confidence of ignorance. This construction was strengthened by the fact that European science entered Russian life as a competitor or, at best, a collaborator with the church in the matter of creating human happiness. The protest against Western influence and European science was explained by V.O. Klyuchevsky’s religious worldview, because teachers, following the Orthodox scientists, were Protestants and Catholics. Convulsive movement forward and reflection with a timid glance back - this is how one can describe the cultural gait of Russian society in the 17th century, wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky.

A sharp break with the traditions of medieval Rus' is associated with the activities of Peter I. It was from the 18th century. A new image of science begins to take shape, a secular science focused on the search for truth and practical needs. Questions arise: did V.O. pay attention? Klyuchevsky on the presence or absence of national characteristics of Russian scientific thought in the post-Petrine period, or maybe Western influence completely eliminates this problem? Most likely, the historian did not ask these questions and, moreover, expressed the irony characteristic of his nature about the search for national identity anywhere. He wrote that there are periods of crisis when the educated class closes European books and begins to think that we are not behind at all, but are going our own way, that Russia is on its own, and Europe is on its own and we can do without its sciences and arts with our own home-grown means. This surge of patriotism and longing for originality is so powerfully gripping our society that we, usually rather unscrupulous admirers of Europe, begin to feel some kind of embitterment against everything European and are imbued with faith in the immense strength of our people... But our revolts against Western European influence are devoid of active character; these are more treatises on national identity than attempts at original activity. And, nevertheless, in his historiographical notes there are individual reflections on some features of the development of Russian historical science, which are considered in the context of the features of the development of Russian culture. IN. Klyuchevsky wrote about the meager reserve of cultural forces that appears in our country in such combinations and with such features that, perhaps, have never been repeated anywhere in Europe. This partly explains the state of Russian historical literature. It cannot be said that she suffered from a poverty of books and articles; but relatively few of them were written with a clear awareness of scientific demands and needs... Very often a writer, like a Crimean of old times, raiding Russian historical life, with three words already judges and parades about it; Having barely begun to study a fact, he hurries to formulate a theory, especially when it comes to the so-called history of a people. From here We prefer to poke at a historical question rather than solve it, having examined thoroughly. From here in our historiography there are more views than scientifically proven facts, more doctrines than disciplines. This part of the literature provides more material for characterizing the contemporary development of Russian society than instructions for studying our past. So V.O. Klyuchevsky formulated in 1890 - 1891. the idea of ​​hypertrophied sociality of Russian science.

All introductory courses were taught by Klyuchevsky according to a strictly developed plan: they always defined the subject and objectives of each course, explained its structure and periodization, indicated sources and gave, against the background of the general development of historical science, a description of the literature where the selected issues were covered or touched upon (or the fact of the absence of such study). The presentation, as always with Klyuchevsky, had a relaxed form. He explained a lot, made unexpected comparisons that awakened the imagination, joked, and most importantly, the professor introduced students to the depths of science, shared his research experience with them, facilitated and guided their independent work.

For more than three decades, Klyuchevsky worked continuously on his lecture course on Russian history, but only in the early 1900s he finally decided to prepare it for publication. “The Course of Russian History” (in 5 parts), which provides a holistic construction of the Russian historical process, is recognized as the pinnacle of the scientist’s creativity. The “course” was based on the deep research work of the scientist, whose works significantly expanded the problems of historical science, and on all the courses he created, both general (on Russian and world history) and five special ones.

In four introductory lectures to the Course, Klyuchevsky outlined the foundations of his historical philosophy. The most important points that he previously developed in the special course “Methodology of Russian History” (20 lectures) are concentrated in one lecture. This:

Understanding local (in this case Russian) history as part of the world, “general history of mankind”;

Recognition of the content of history as a separate science. historical process, that is, “the course, conditions and successes of human society or the life of mankind in its development and results”;

Identification of three main historical forces that “build human society”: human personality, human society, the nature of the country.

Klyuchevsky, like Solovyov, considered colonization to be the main factor in Russian history. Solovyov’s thought about colonization as an important factor in historical development was given an in-depth interpretation by Klyuchevsky by considering such aspects as economic, ethnological and psychological. Having begun the historical part of the published course of lectures with the section “The Nature of the Country and the History of the People,” he proceeded to determine the significance of soil and botanical stripes, as well as the influences that the “main elements of Russian nature” had on history: the river network, plain, forest and steppe. Klyuchevsky showed the attitude of the Russian people towards each of them, explaining the reasons for the stability of the reputation (dislike for the steppe and forest, ambiguous attitude towards the river, etc.). The historian led the reader to the idea of ​​the need for a careful, as we would now say, ecological approach to nature: “The nature of our country, despite its apparent simplicity and monotony, is characterized by a lack of stability: it is relatively easy to be thrown out of balance.”

Given the vast territory, ethnic diversity and widespread migration characteristic of Russia in its history, according to Klyuchevsky, the factor of the so-called “braces” was inevitably at work, which alone could keep the ever-growing conglomerate in unity. In politics, the role of “brace” was assigned to highly centralized power and absolutism; in the military sphere - a strong army capable of carrying out both external and internal functions(for example, suppression of dissent); administratively, a precociously developed strong bureaucracy; in ideology - the dominance of a type of authoritarian thinking among the people, including among the intelligentsia, religion; and finally, in economics, the persistence of serfdom and its consequences.”

Klyuchevsky shared Solovyov’s thought about the possibility of comparing human societies with organic bodies of nature, which are also born, live and die. He characterized the scientific movement to which he and his teacher contributed as follows: “Historical thought began to look closely at what can be called the mechanism of human coexistence.” The inescapable need of the human mind, according to Klyuchevsky, was the scientific knowledge of the course, conditions and successes of “human society,” or the life of mankind in its development and results. The task of “reproducing the consistent growth of the political and social life of Russia” and analyzing the continuity of forms and phenomena set by Solovyov was accomplished by his student in his own way. He approached the study of Russian history from the standpoint of the relationship and mutual influence of three main personality factors, nature and society. The historian's organic approach to history required taking into account the context of the era and the current forces of history, exploring the multidimensionality of the historical process and the diversity of existing and existing connections. Klyuchevsky combined historical and sociological approaches, concrete analysis with the study of the phenomenon as a phenomenon of world history.

Klyuchevsky divides Russian history into periods primarily depending on the movement of the bulk of the population and on geographical conditions that have a strong effect on the course of historical life. The fundamental novelty of its periodization was the introduction of two more criteria - political (the problem of power and society and changes in the social support of power) and especially economic factors. Economic consequences, as Klyuchevsky believed, prepare for political consequences, which become noticeable somewhat later: “Economic interests consistently turned into social ties, from which political unions grew.”

The result was four periods:

1st period. Rus' Dnieper, city, trade from the 8th - 13th centuries. Then the mass of the Russian population concentrated on the middle and upper Dnieper with its tributaries. Rus' was then politically divided into separate isolated regions; at the head of each was big city as a political and economic center. The dominant fact of economic life is foreign trade with the resulting forestry, hunting, and beekeeping.

In the XI-XII centuries. “Rus as a tribe merged with the native Slavs, both of these terms Rus' and Russian land, without losing their geographical meaning, have a political meaning: this is how the entire territory subject to the Russian princes, with its entire Christian Slavic-Russian population, began to be called.” The Mongol invasion did not become a dividing line: “... the Mongols caught Russia on the march. During the movement, which was accelerated, but which was not called; a new way of life began before them.” For Klyuchevsky, it was important to explain how and under what conditions the pattern of political and economic relations was created, as well as when the Slavic population appeared and what caused its appearance. Economic consequences, according to Klyuchevsky, also prepared political consequences, which became noticeable from the beginning of the 9th century.

“For us, a Varangian is predominantly an armed merchant, going to Russia in order to get further into rich Byzantium... A Varangian is a peddler, a petty trader, brew - engage in petty bargaining." “Settled in the large trading cities of Russia, the Varangians met here a class of population that was socially related to them and needed them, the class of armed merchants, and became part of it, entering into a trading partnership with the natives or hiring out for good food to protect Russian trade routes and trading people , that is, to escort Russian trade caravans.” In the 11th century The Varangians continued to come to Russia as mercenaries, but they no longer turned into conquerors here, and the violent seizure of power, having ceased to be repeated, seemed unlikely. Russian society of that time saw in the princes the establishers of state order, the bearers of legitimate power, under the shadow of which it lived, and traced its beginning to the calling of princes. From the union of the Varangian principalities and the city regions that retained their independence, a third political form emerged, which began in Russia: it was Grand Duchy of Kiev."

“So, there are no large trading cities visible among the Drevlyans, Dregovichs, Radimichi, Vyatichi; There were no special areas of these tribes. This means that the force that pulled together all these regions was precisely the trading cities that arose along the main river routes of Russian trade and that did not exist among the tribes remote from them.” Large armed cities, which became the rulers of the regions, arose precisely among the tribes that most actively participated in foreign trade.

The historian carried out a historical analysis of the political consciousness of power and its evolution in stages. The political consciousness of the prince in the 11th century, from the point of view of a scientist, was exhausted by two ideas: the conviction that “food was their political right,” and the actual source of this right was their political duty to defend the land. The idea of ​​a pure monarchy did not yet exist; joint ownership with an elder at the head seemed simpler and more accessible to understanding. In the 12th century. the princes were not the sovereign rulers of the land, but only its military and police rulers. “They were recognized as the bearers of supreme power, insofar as they defended the land from the outside and maintained the existing order in it; only within these limits could they legislate. But it was not their job to create a new zemstvo order: such powers of the supreme power had not yet existed either in the existing law or in the legal consciousness of the land.” Losing its political integrity, the Russian land began to feel like an integral national or zemstvo composition.

He saw the reasons for feudal fragmentation, which Klyuchevsky considered as “political fragmentation,” in a change in the idea of ​​“fatherland,” which was reflected in the words of Monomakh’s grandson Izyaslav Mstislavich: “It is not the place that goes to the head, but the head to the place,” i.e. “It is not the place that is looking for a suitable head, but the head of a suitable place.” The personal importance of the prince was placed above the rights of seniority. In addition, the dynastic sympathies of the cities, which caused the interference of the main cities and regions in the mutual accounts of the princes, confused their turn in possession. Klyuchevsky cited a statement from Novgorod residents that “they didn’t feed him for themselves.” Thus, “... defending their local interests, volost towns sometimes went against the prince’s bills, calling their favorite princes to their tables in addition to the regular ones. This interference of the cities, which confused the princely line of precedence, began soon after the death of Yaroslav.”

And finally, the third circumstance was that “the princes did not establish their own order in Rus' and could not establish it. They weren’t called for that, and they didn’t come for that. The earth called them for external defense, needed their saber, and not their constituent mind. The earth lived with its own local orders, however, rather monotonous ones. The princes slid on top of this zemstvo system, which was built without them, and their family accounts are not state relations, but the allocation of zemstvo remuneration for security service.”

Colonization, according to Klyuchevsky’s observation, upset the balance of social elements on which social order was based. And then the laws of political science came into play: simultaneously with disdain, local conceit and arrogance, nurtured by political success, develop. A claim, passing under the banner of law, becomes a precedent, gaining the power not only to replace, but also to abolish law.

In Klyuchevsky’s analysis of the monarchical form of statehood, his understanding of the ideal and the influence of ethnic ideas on the author’s concept and historical assessment were clearly demonstrated. " Political significance the sovereign is determined by the extent to which he exercises his sovereign rights to achieve the ends of the common good.” As soon as the concept of the common good disappears in society, the thought of the sovereign as a universally binding authority fades away in the minds.” Thus, the idea of ​​the sovereign, the guardian of the common good as the goal of the state, was carried out, and the nature of sovereign rights was determined. Klyuchevsky introduced the concept of “responsible autocracy,” which he distinguished from unforgivable tyranny. Russian people encountered the latter already in ancient times. Klyuchevsky believed that Andrei Bogolyubsky “did a lot of bad things.” The historian recognized that the prince was the conductor of new state aspirations. However, the “novelty” introduced by A. Bogolyubsky, “hardly good”, had no real benefit. Klyuchevsky considered A. Bogolyubsky’s vices to be disdain for antiquity and customs, self-will (“he acted his own way in everything”). The weakness of this statesman there was an inherent duality, a mixture of power and caprice, strength and weakness. “In the person of Prince Andrei, the Great Russian appeared on the historical stage for the first time, and this entry cannot be considered successful,” was the general assessment given by Klyuchevsky. The popularity of government officials, according to the deep conviction of the historian, was facilitated by personal virtues and talents.

Klyuchevsky connects the idea of ​​power, which arose as a result of reading books and political reflections, with the name of Ivan the Terrible, “the most well-read Muscovite of the 16th century”: “Ivan IV was the first of the Moscow sovereigns who saw and vividly felt within himself a king in the true biblical sense, an anointed God's It was a political revelation for him.”

The almost two-century struggle between Rus' and the Cumans had a serious impact on European history. While Western Europe crusades launched an offensive struggle against the Asian East (a similar movement against the Moors began on the Iberian Peninsula), Russia covered the left flank of the European offensive with its steppe struggle. This indisputable historical merit cost Rus' dearly: the struggle moved it from its native places on the Dnieper and abruptly changed its direction later life. From the middle of the 12th century. the desolation of Kievan Rus occurred under the influence of the legal and economic humiliation of the lower classes; princely strife and Polovtsian invasions. There was a “break” of the original nationality. The population went to the Rostov land, a region that lay outside the old indigenous Rus' and in the 12th century. was more foreign than Russian. Here in the 11th and 12th centuries. There lived three Finnish tribes - the Muroma, the Merya and the whole. As a result of the mixing of Russian settlers with them, the formation of a new Great Russian nationality begins. It finally took shape in the middle of the 15th century, and this time is significant in that the family efforts of the Moscow princes finally met the people's needs and aspirations.

2nd period. Upper Volga Rus', appanage-princely, free-farming from the 13th to the mid-15th century. The main mass of the Russian population, amid general confusion, moved to the upper Volga with its tributaries. It remains fragmented, but not into city regions, but into princely appanages; this is already a different form of political life. The dominant political fact of the period was the specific fragmentation of Upper Volga Rus' under the rule of princes. The dominant economic fact is free peasant agricultural labor on the Aleunian loam.

Klyuchevsky always emphasized the important historical significance of transitional times precisely because such times “often lie in wide and dark stripes between two periods.” These eras “recycle the ruins of a lost order into elements of the order that arises after them.” “Specific centuries,” according to Klyuchevsky, were such “transferable historical stages.” He saw their significance not in them themselves, but in what came out of them.

Klyuchevsky spoke about the policy of the Moscow princes as “family”, “stingy” and “calculating”, and defined its essence as efforts to collect foreign lands. The weakness of power was a continuation of its strength, used to the detriment of law. Unwittingly modernizing the mechanisms of the historical process in accordance with his own socio-political convictions, Klyuchevsky drew the attention of students to cases of immoral actions of Moscow princes. Among the conditions that ultimately determined the triumph of the Moscow princes, Klyuchevsky singled out the inequality of means of the fighting parties. If the Tver princes at the beginning of the 14th century. still considered possible fight with the Tatars, the Moscow princes “zealously courted the khan and made him an instrument of their plans.” “As a reward for this, Kalita received the Grand Duke’s table in 1328...” - Klyuchevsky attached exceptional importance to this event.

The 14th century is the dawn of the political and moral revival of the Russian land. 1328-1368 were calm. The Russian population gradually emerged from a state of despondency and numbness. During this time, two generations managed to grow up, not knowing the horror of their elders before the Tatars, free “from the nervous trembling of their fathers at the thought of the Tatars”: they went to the Kulikovo Field. Thus the ground was prepared for national success. The Moscow state, according to Klyuchevsky, “was born on the Kulikovo field, and not in the hoarding chest of Ivan Kalita.”

The cementing basis (an indispensable condition) of political revival is moral revival. Earthly existence is shorter than the spiritual influence of a morally strong personality (such as Sergius of Radonezh...). “The spiritual influence of St. Sergius survived his earthly existence and poured into his name, which from a historical memory became an ever-active moral engine and became part of the spiritual wealth of the people.” Spiritual influence transcends the framework of mere historical memory.

The Moscow period, according to Klyuchevsky, is the antithesis of the specific period. New socio-historical forms of life, types, and relationships grew out of the local conditions of the Upper Volga soil. The sources of Muscovite power and its mysterious early successes lay in the geographical position of Moscow and the genealogical position of its prince. Colonization and population accumulation gave the Moscow prince significant economic benefits and increased the number of direct tax payers. The geographical position favored the early industrial successes of Moscow: “the development of trade transport traffic along the Moscow River revived the industry of the region, drew it into this trade movement and enriched the treasury of the local prince with trade duties.”

The economic consequences of the geographical position of Moscow provided the Grand Duke with abundant material resources, and his genealogical position among the descendants of Vsevolod III “showed” him how best to put them into circulation. This “new thing,” according to Klyuchevsky, was not based on any historical tradition, and therefore could only very gradually and late acquire general national-political significance.

3rd period. Great Rus', Moscow, Tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural Russia from the half of the 15th century. until the second decade of the seventeenth century. , when the main mass of the Russian population spreads from the upper Volga region to the south and east, along the Don and Middle Volga black soil, forming a special branch of the people - Great Russia, which, together with the local population, expands beyond the upper Volga region. The dominant political fact of the period is the state unification of Great Russia under the rule of the Moscow sovereign, who rules his state with the help of the boyar aristocracy, formed from former appanage princes and appanage boyars. The dominant fact of economic life is the same agricultural labor on the old loam and on the newly occupied Middle Volga and Don black soil” through free peasant labor; but his will is already beginning to be constrained as agriculture is concentrated in the hands of the service class, the military class, recruited by the state for external defense.”

The 3rd period ends with the events of the Troubles. Klyuchevsky viewed the atrocities of Ivan the Terrible as a reaction to popular outrage caused by the ruin. At the slightest difficulty, the king leaned in the bad direction. “To enmity and arbitrariness, the king sacrificed himself, his dynasty, and the good of the state.” Klyuchevsky denied Grozny “practical tact,” “a political eye,” and “a sense of reality.” He wrote: “...having successfully completed the state order laid down by his ancestors, he, unbeknownst to himself, ended up shaking the very foundations of this order.” Therefore, what was patiently endured when the owner was there turned out to be unbearable when the owner was gone.

Klyuchevsky distinguished between the concepts of “crisis” and “turmoil”. A crisis is not yet turmoil, but already a signal to society about the inevitability of new relationships, the “normal work of time,” the transition of society “from age to age.” The way out of the crisis is possible either through reforms or through revolution.

If, with the breakdown of old connections, the development of new ones comes to a dead end, the neglect of the disease leads to turmoil. Unrest itself is a disease of the social organism, a “historical antinomy” (i.e., an exception to the rules of historical life), which arises under the influence of factors that interfere with renewal. Its external manifestations are cataclysms and wars of “all against all.”

Klyuchevsky distinguished between the “root causes” of the Troubles - natural, national-historical and current, specific historical. He believed that the explanation for the frequent unrest in Russia should be sought in the peculiarities of its development - nature, which taught the Great Russians to take roundabout paths, the “impossibility of counting in advance,” the habit of being guided by the famous “maybe,” as well as in the conditions of personality formation and social relations.

Characteristic, from Klyuchevsky’s point of view, were the following features of the turmoil: “A government without a clear consciousness of its tasks and limits and with shaken authority, with impoverished... means without a sense of personal and national dignity...”

“The old received the meaning not of obsolete, but of national, original, Russian, and the new - the meaning of foreign, someone else's... but not the best, improved.”

Conflict between center and places. Strengthening separatist consciousness. Lack of social forces capable of revitalizing the country. The degeneration of power structures under authoritarian traditions in Russia.

Klyuchevsky carefully studied the nature of the unrest of the 13th and 17th centuries. and their progress. He came to the conclusion that the turmoil develops from top to bottom and lasts for a long time. Troubles of the 17th century lasted 14 years, and its consequences were all the “rebellious” 17th century. Troubles consistently capture all layers of society. First, the rulers enter into it (the first stage of the unrest). If the top are unable or unwilling to solve the fundamental problems that led to the unrest, then the unrest descends “to the floor below” (the second stage of unrest). “Debauchery of the upper classes. Passive courage of the people." " Upper classes diligently assisted the government in increasing social discord.” They consolidated old customs in a new shell, left unsolved pressing problems - the main spring of unrest, and thereby betrayed the people. And this, in turn, aggravated the turmoil. Such destruction of “national unions” is fraught with the intervention of foreigners. Thus, unrest descends to the “lower floor” and discontent becomes general. Troubles can be cured only by eliminating the causes that caused this disease, solving the problems that confronted the country on the eve of the turmoil. The way out of the turmoil is in the reverse order - from the bottom up, local initiative takes on special importance.

Exit from the Great Troubles of the 17th century. in the conditions of the development of serfdom and absolutism, it had its own characteristics (contradictory, camouflage, inhumane and potentially explosive). Thus, an a priori, armchair approach to reforms has entered into the Russian tradition, when the people are offered a ready-made program (or a set of slogans), but the desires and capabilities of the people are not taken into account.

Klyuchevsky “as if warns future reformers of Russia who are planning to Europeanize it: experience shows how important it is to take into account the deep causes of the disease in revival programs - both general and specific, otherwise their implementation may give the opposite result,” says researcher of this topic N.V. Shcherben. It's all about overcoming the inertia of authoritarian thinking and tendencies towards monopolism.

Klyuchevsky saw the positive effect of the turmoil in the sad benefit of troubled times: they rob people of peace and contentment and in return give them experiences and ideas. The main thing is a step forward in the development of social self-awareness. "The rise of the people's spirit." The unification takes place “not in the name of any state order, but in the name of national, religious and simply civil security.” Having been freed from the “bonds” of an authoritarian state, national and religious feelings begin to perform a civic function and contribute to the revival of civic consciousness. An understanding comes of what can be borrowed from other people's experience and what cannot. The Russian people are too large to be an “alien-eating plant.” Klyuchevsky reflected on the question of how to “use the fire of European thought so that it shines, but does not burn.” The best, albeit difficult, school of political thinking, according to Klyuchevsky, is popular revolutions. The feat of the Time of Troubles in “the struggle with oneself, with one’s habits and prejudices.” Society learned to act independently and consciously. In turning points, new progressive ideas and forces are born in agony.

The Troubles also had negative consequences for public consciousness: “The destruction of old ideals and foundations of life due to the impossibility of forming a new worldview from hastily grasped concepts... Until this difficult work is completed, several generations will vegetate and rush about in that intermittent, gloomy state when worldview is replaced by mood, and morality is exchanged for decency and aesthetics.” At the dawn of the “separation of powers” ​​in Russia, the “patrimony” of power prevailed over the representative body elected by the people. Uprisings of “black people” against the “strong” caused “mandatory counterfeiting of the people’s will” - a phenomenon that accompanied the entire subsequent history of Russia. Social changes took place in the composition of the ruling class: “The Troubles were resolved by the triumph of the middle social strata at the expense of the social elite and the social bottom.” At the expense of the latter, the nobles received “more honors, gifts and estates than before.” The bitterness of Klyuchevsky’s conclusion was that the potential for unrest in the future remained, i.e., unrest does not provide any immunity for the future.

The opinion about the establishment of serfdom of the peasants by Boris Godunov, Klyuchevsky believed, belongs to our historical fairy tales. On the contrary, Boris was ready for a measure aimed at strengthening the freedom and well-being of the peasants: he, apparently, was preparing a decree that would precisely define the duties and taxes of the peasants in favor of the landowners. This is a law that the Russian government did not dare to implement until the liberation of the serfs. Characterizing Boris Godunov and analyzing his mistakes, Klyuchevsky was guided in his judgments by his own political sympathies: “Boris should have taken the initiative in the matter, turning the Zemsky Sobor from a random official meeting into a permanent people’s representation, the idea of ​​which was already fermenting... in Moscow minds under Grozny and the convocation of which Boris himself demanded in order to be popularly elected. This would have reconciled the opposition boyars with him and - who knows - would have averted the troubles that befell him and his family and Russia, making him the founder of a new dynasty.” Klyuchevsky emphasized the duality of Godunov’s policy: for falsehood, he began to raise to high ranks honorable people, unaccustomed to government affairs and illiterate.

4th period. From the beginning of the seventeenth century. until the half of the nineteenth century. All-Russian, imperial-noble, period of serfdom, agricultural and factory farming. "Ru

Municipal educational institution

"** Secondary School No. 47"

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. Biography

(ABSTRACT)

Completed:

student of 10th grade

Belgorod, 2007

Introduction

Section 1. Childhood and adolescence

Section 3. Brilliant lecturer

Conclusion

References

Introduction

Today, in beginning of XXI, we study history by looking back into the past, analyzing and comparing it. We are trying to objectively assess the picture of the world of that time, give characteristics, identify patterns and draw lessons from any events. Moreover, in the modern world, during the period of globalization, knowledge of the history of the Fatherland is simply necessary.

Answers to many pressing questions must be sought, first of all, in the depths of centuries, that is, in books about history, the compilation of which is a huge task. What is needed here is knowledge of working with sources (which can be very old), the ability to critically assess the situation, an inquisitive mind, and most importantly, a love of history and the Fatherland. These and many other qualities were possessed by Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, the greatest Russian historian.

Section 1. Childhood and adolescence

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky was born on January 16 (or according to the old style, 28) January 1841 in the village of Voznesenskoye (Voskresensky), Penza province, in the family of a rural priest of the Penza diocese. When little Vasily was eight years old, his father died, and his mother had to move with all the children to a small house in Penza. The family's situation was difficult - the Klyuchevskys lived poorly, since the main source of their income was the government allowance that Vasily received as a student at the city religious school. The boy had a hard time with his father's death. For him it was a real nervous shock, which also affected his studies. But gradually Klyuchevsky began to stand out among other students and, after graduating from college, was enrolled in a theological seminary. It was there that he became interested in history.

Young Vasily was so fascinated by the science of the past that he even abandoned his spiritual career. In 1861, he abandoned his studies at the seminary and, overcoming financial difficulties, went to Moscow, where he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. Here he listened to lectures by the greatest thinkers of his time - F. M. Buslaev, N. M. Leontyev, G. A. Ivanova, K.N. Pobedonostseva, B. N. Chicherina, S. M. Solovyova. It is at Moscow University that the future historian’s own scientific interests take shape. 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 complete view of a scientific subject.” In 1865, Klyuchevskoy graduated from Moscow University.

Section 2. From teacher to academician

Klyuchevsky historian dissertation

After his candidate’s dissertation on the topic “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State,” Klyuchevskoy chose extensive handwritten material from the lives of ancient Russian saints for scientific research.

In it he hoped to find “the most abundant and fresh source for studying the participation of monasteries in the colonization of North-Eastern Rus'.” This work showed the diligence of Vasily Osipovich: it was necessary to collect into a single whole various manuscripts from different book depositories. In 1872, Klyuchevsky excellently defended his master’s thesis “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source.” Later he expanded and published it as a book, which is still considered a reference book that contains everything that foreigners have ever written about medieval Rus'.

In September 1879 he became an associate professor at Moscow University.

In 1882, Klyuchevsky’s doctoral dissertation, the famous “Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus',” was published as a separate book, first published in Russian Thought. In this work, Klyuchevsky connected the most important issues of the socio-economic and political history of Rus' until the end of the 17th century. In the same year he was elected extraordinary professor (ordinary in 1885)

From 1887 to 1889, the Russian historian was even the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology and the vice-rector of Moscow University, but he asked to be relieved of these duties - such work was a burden to him. One might even say that his fame hindered his pursuit of science.

In 1893 - 1905, Vasily Osipovich was chairman of the Society of History and Antiquities at Moscow University.

In 1901 he was elected an ordinary academician. (In 1906, the great scientist was appointed a member of the state council from the Academy of Sciences and universities, but refused this title.) And since 1908 - honorary academician of the category of fine literature of the Academy of Sciences.

Section 3. Brilliant lecturer

Since 1867, the historian began teaching (Higher Women's Courses at the Alexander Military School, etc.)

In 1871, Klyuchevsky was elected to the department of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, which he held until 1906.

Lectures by Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky were extremely popular. Despite the fact that he suffered from stuttering all his life, so many people gathered at them that only those who were scheduled to listen to them had to be allowed into the audience.1 The scientist became famous as a brilliant and original lecturer. Klyuchevsky spoke about historical events in such a way that his listeners seemed to have seen them with their own eyes.2

This is how M. M. Bogoslovsky, who attended the course at the end, spoke about these lectures XIX century: “... Klyuchevsky’s language is also beautiful because of the special artistic beauty poured into it, the beauty of poetic comparisons and colorful images, which not only aroused attention in the listener, but also aroused aesthetic emotion in him; and I don’t remember who, characterizing Klyuchevsky’s lectures, correctly compared the impression of them with the effect of Beethoven’s music. The subtle beauty of his thoughts was conveyed by a word sparkling with beauty, and this elegant word came out of his mouth, clothed in the beauty of the sounds of his amazing voice. Under the influence of the beauty of thought, words and sounds, it happened that you left Klyuchevsky’s lecture in enlightened charm and, indeed, experienced the same joyfully excited, elevated and precisely enlightened mood that you happen to be carried away after an outstanding performance classical music. For a long time afterwards, these sounds sounded in the ears, arose in the memory as living, unfolding images, and the thoughts expressed were changed.”3

In 1893, on behalf of Emperor Alexander III, he went to the Caucasus in Abas-Tuman, where he was supposed to teach a course in Russian history to the great Tsarevich Georgy Alexandrovich, who was being treated there for tuberculosis. There, from 1900 to 1911, he lectured at the school of painting, sculpture and architecture.

Vasily Osipovich’s innovation lay in the fact that, unlike his predecessors who gave a systematic presentation of historical facts and events, he discovered the general patterns of the world-historical process, where main role gave herself to the people. In this regard, a new term appeared “ historical figure people." Klyuchevsky stated that this is “the main subject of the study of his history.”

Section 4. Works and political views of Klyuchevsky

Political Views Vasily Osipovich in the bourgeois-liberal direction and changed in some way throughout his life towards the right wing of the Cadet Party. The scientist sees the image of an ideal state in the cooperation of all classes in a bourgeois state with representative government. In his works and lectures he opposed autocracy, and from the end of the 19th century he changed his position and began to support the monarchy.

In the 1860s. The formation of Klyuchevsky’s historical views was definitely influenced by revolutionary democratic ideas and the conditions of post-reform reality.1 His interest in the history of the people with their way of life and economy began to manifest itself more clearly. The historian emphasized the geographical factor and the development of Russian territories.

In the 1880s, during the heyday of his work, he focused his attention on the analysis of various circumstances in the history of society. In “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State” a significant part was allocated to describe the occupations of the population. The scientist considered colonization as a consequence of population growth and the natural characteristics of any region, and not as a result of state activity in such works as “Economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory” (1867-1868) and the monograph “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source” (1871).

IN in his work “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” (1882), Klyuchevsky tried to trace the socio-political development of the country in the 10th-18th centuries. Here he sought to analyze the process of development of classes, their relationships and role in the life of the country, but did not accept class struggle and contradictions. Vasily Osipovich pays attention to the history of the peasantry in Russia in his research works “The Origin of Serfdom in Russia” (1885), “Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia.”

According to the historian, the serfdom of the peasants was due to the economic debt of the peasants to the landowners.

By the end of the 19th century, Klyuchevsky's views changed again, but this time towards the so-called state school. In the works “Empress Catherine II. 1796-1896" (1896) and "Peter the Great among his employees" (1901) he, in a sense, idealizes the monarchs of past Russia.

Klyuchevsky’s methodology and historical concepts were based on positive views.1 Klyuchevsky tried to prove that the development of society depends on a combination of a number of external and internal factors - geographical, ethnographic, political, economic and social.2

Vasily Osipovich did not recognize the consistent change of socio-economic formations. The historian considered the stages of colonization to be the main criterion for periodization, considering the two most important points: political and economic.

Conclusion

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky is one of the most famous historians of Russia and the world. The contribution he made to the development of historical science is truly enormous and significant. It allowed us to look at history in a new light, from a different point of view. A Russian scientist who examined in detail many historical events and facts.

He lived in difficult times, and life did not spoil him at a very early stage, but it endowed him with an extraordinary mind and love of history.

Many of his works are relevant in the modern world. These are the sources of how a person of that time saw the past, what he assumed correctly, and why he paid attention to specific topics. The very work of V. O. Klyuchevsky and his life is already a reason to love history, for this is a real example of sincere feeling and interest in the science of the Fatherland.

References

Medvedev Yu. V. O. Klyuchevsky. M.: Eksmo. 2005. 912 p.

Shalaeva G.P. Who is who in the world. M.: OLMA-PRESS. 2004. 1680 p.

Prokhorov A. M. Great Soviet Encyclopedia. where was it published??? ., 1970-1977. 30 t.

Brockhaus F. A., Efron I. A. Klyuchevsky V. O. //http:/ www.KM.ru / New encyclopedic dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron", 1911 - 1916

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

"Historical Portraits" by the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky draw a series of political figures of the Russian state of the XIV-XVIII centuries. Recreating types of people of the past - be they kings, public figures, saints or ordinary people- was for Klyuchevsky one of the ways to understand the historical process as a whole.

"Historical Portraits" by V.O. Klyuchevsky are brilliant characteristics of Russian princes, monarchs, chroniclers, clergy, generals, diplomats, saints, and cultural figures.
The publication is based on the famous lecture "Course of Russian History".

Today it is difficult to imagine studying a university course on “National History” without the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky's contemporaries secured the reputation of a profound researcher, a brilliant lecturer, and an inimitable master of artistic expression.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911) is the author of many works on Russian history, but the main one, undoubtedly, is the “Course of Russian History” offered to the reader’s attention. In published lectures, the author highlights the main elements of his concept and general periodization of national history. The narrative covers the most ancient period of Russian history, the "specific centuries", the development of the Russian state until the middle of the 19th century.

The book presents articles and notes by V. O. Klyuchevsky, devoted to issues of morality and Russian culture.
The second edition (1st - 1998) is supplemented with memoirs of writers and artists about the great Russian historian.
For students of humanitarian specialties at universities and anyone interested in issues of Russian culture.

The library of the project "History of the Russian State" is the best monuments of historical literature recommended by Boris Akunin, which reflect the biography of our country, from its very origins.
The classics of Russian historiography V. O. Klyuchevsky, N. I. Kostomarov and S. M. Solovyov tell about the era of the reign of the first Russian tsars Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, full of tragedy and contradictions, selected chapters from whose works are published in this volume.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911) - the son of a village priest and a graduate of the Penza Theological Seminary, who became an outstanding Russian historian.
His crowning creation is “A Course of Lectures on History” (1904).
The historian’s scientific work has gone through many reprints and is still one of the most popular guides on the history of Russia.

This collection contains for the first time the original works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, which show the most important aspects of the history of Orthodoxy in Russia: a brilliant master's study of the lives of saints; work revealing the role of the Russian Church in establishing civilizational norms of civil law; articles about the characteristic features of Russian monasteries, their participation in colonization activities; about the significance of St. Sergius for the Russian people and...

| | (0)

• Series:
• Genre:
• “The word is given to teachers not to lull their own thoughts, but to awaken someone else’s” - this aphorism of the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky expressed his own scientific credo. Klyuchevsky was a wonderful lecturer: the precision of his formulations, the richness of his intonation, and the laconicism of his definitions fascinated the students. Lithographs of his lectures were literally read by students until they were full of holes. “Historical Portraits” by V.O. Klyuchevsky are brilliant characteristics of Russian princes, monarchs, chroniclers, clergy, generals, diplomats, saints, cultural figures. The publication is based on the famous lecture “Course of Russian history", which has been demonstrating scientific depth and artistic power for more than a century, confirms its enduring value, and amazes with its novelty and relevance.
• | | (0)

• Series:
• Genre:
• “The word is given to teachers not to lull their own thoughts, but to awaken someone else’s” - this aphorism of the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky expressed his own scientific credo. Klyuchevsky was a wonderful lecturer: the precision of his formulations, the richness of his intonation, and the laconicism of his definitions fascinated the students. Lithographs of his lectures were literally read by students until they were full of holes. “Historical Portraits” by V.O. Klyuchevsky are brilliant characteristics of Russian princes, monarchs, chroniclers, clergy, generals, diplomats, saints, cultural figures. The publication is based on the famous lecture “Course of Russian history", which has been demonstrating scientific depth and artistic power for more than a century, confirms its enduring value, and amazes with its novelty and relevance.
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky - an outstanding Russian historian, academician, professor at Moscow University and the Moscow Theological Academy, founder of a scientific school - wrote about the events and facts of Russian reality in a fascinating and accessible way. Historical portraits, diaries and aphorisms of the scientist - a brilliant master of words - reflect his thoughts about science, life, human virtues and shortcomings. “In the life of a scientist and writer, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts” - this is a statement by V.O. Klyuchevsky confirms his whole life.
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• “The word is given to teachers not to lull their own thoughts, but to awaken someone else’s” - this aphorism of the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky expressed his own scientific credo. Klyuchevsky was a wonderful lecturer: the precision of his formulations, the richness of his intonation, and the laconicism of his definitions fascinated the students. Lithographs of his lectures were literally read by students until they were full of holes. “Historical Portraits” by V.O. Klyuchevsky are brilliant characteristics of Russian princes, monarchs, chroniclers, clergy, generals, diplomats, saints, cultural figures. The publication is based on the famous lecture “Course of Russian history", which has been demonstrating scientific depth and artistic power for more than a century, confirms its enduring value, and amazes with its novelty and relevance.
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• “The word is given to teachers not to lull their own thoughts, but to awaken someone else’s” - this aphorism of the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky expressed his own scientific credo. Klyuchevsky was a wonderful lecturer: the precision of his formulations, the richness of his intonation, and the laconicism of his definitions fascinated the students. Lithographs of his lectures were literally read by students until they were full of holes. “Historical Portraits” by V.O. Klyuchevsky are brilliant characteristics of Russian princes, monarchs, chroniclers, clergy, generals, diplomats, saints, cultural figures. The publication is based on the famous lecture “Course of Russian history", which has been demonstrating scientific depth and artistic power for more than a century, confirms its enduring value, and amazes with its novelty and relevance.
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• “The word is given to teachers not to lull their own thoughts, but to awaken someone else’s” - this aphorism of the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky expressed his own scientific credo. Klyuchevsky was a wonderful lecturer: the precision of his formulations, the richness of his intonation, and the laconicism of his definitions fascinated the students. Lithographs of his lectures were literally read by students until they were full of holes. “Historical Portraits” by V.O. Klyuchevsky are brilliant characteristics of Russian princes, monarchs, chroniclers, clergy, generals, diplomats, saints, cultural figures. The publication is based on the famous lecture “Course of Russian history", which has been demonstrating scientific depth and artistic power for more than a century, confirms its enduring value, and amazes with its novelty and relevance.
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• “The word is given to teachers not to lull their own thoughts, but to awaken someone else’s” - this aphorism of the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky expressed his own scientific credo. Klyuchevsky was a wonderful lecturer: the precision of his formulations, the richness of his intonation, and the laconicism of his definitions fascinated the students. Lithographs of his lectures were literally read by students until they were full of holes. “Historical Portraits” by V.O. Klyuchevsky are brilliant characteristics of Russian princes, monarchs, chroniclers, clergy, generals, diplomats, saints, cultural figures. The publication is based on the famous lecture “Course of Russian history", which has been demonstrating scientific depth and artistic power for more than a century, confirms its enduring value, and amazes with its novelty and relevance.
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• “The word is given to teachers not to lull their own thoughts, but to awaken someone else’s” - this aphorism of the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky expressed his own scientific credo. Klyuchevsky was a wonderful lecturer: the precision of his formulations, the richness of his intonation, and the laconicism of his definitions fascinated the students. Lithographs of his lectures were literally read by students until they were full of holes. “Historical Portraits” by V.O. Klyuchevsky are brilliant characteristics of Russian princes, monarchs, chroniclers, clergy, generals, diplomats, saints, cultural figures. The publication is based on the famous lecture “Course of Russian history", which has been demonstrating scientific depth and artistic power for more than a century, confirms its enduring value, and amazes with its novelty and relevance.
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• “Historical Portraits” by the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky draw a series of political figures of the Russian state of the 14th–18th centuries. Recreating types of people of the past - be they kings, public figures, saints or ordinary people - was for Klyuchevsky one of the ways to understand the historical process as a whole. The historian describes the personality of his heroes, both in private and in public life, while the moral character of a person plays the most important role. Many historical figures appear before the reader from an unexpected perspective (Ivan the Terrible, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Peter I, Catherine II), their characteristics are original and often differ from the generally accepted ones. The personal attitude towards each of them, the lively manner of depiction and the detailed description of the environment around them make this cycle a fascinating read even in our time.
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841–1911) a remarkable Russian historian who, according to contemporaries, was “talented to the point of genius” and “himself became a historical phenomenon, a major historical fact mental life Russia”, at today’s turning point in our history, again helps us to understand and comprehend the present from the perspective of the past. The mathematical precision of expressions, together with artistic beauty, accuracy of comparisons and epithets, is what is original and special, which makes Klyuchevsky’s texts memorable from his student days. He painted for us such vivid portraits of Andrei Bogolyubsky, Ivan Kalita, Ivan the Terrible, Alexei Mikhailovich, Peter the Great, that we get the feeling that he himself lived with these people of the past, thought and felt together with them, penetrated into their psychology, managed to resurrect the thoughts thoughts, faded feelings. Resurrected by the magical power of his creativity, they have become completely real for us in today's life. " Short course in Russian History”, “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source”, “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State” - this is a wonderful monument of our national identity, in which you can see the result of the work of the Russian people on their past, summed up by one of its most talented sons.