Define the term historiography. Historiography as a science. What is historiography

In the workbook, indicate the names of the elements of the light microscope, corresponding to the numbers in the figures:

Introduction.

Historiography as a science

People have always been interested in their past. History is a science that studies the past of human society. As a science, it takes shape in the 18th century, although historical works were created even before the 18th century, but they cannot be considered scientific. Period up to the 18th century is the period of existence of historical knowledge (as opposed to historical science).

The process of accumulation of historical knowledge is a necessary process that leads to the transformation of any knowledge into scientific knowledge. The task of historical science (unlike historical knowledge) is not only to describe events, to reproduce historical facts, but also to explain them, generalize, highlight cause-and-effect relationships between events and patterns. Historical knowledge is transformed into historical science, first of all, thanks to the emergence of theoretical understanding. Instead of theology from the XVIII century. the principle of causality and internal regularity comes to the fore in historical research. In addition, the description of historical facts within the framework of scientific historical knowledge is also changing: it is carried out on the basis of a critical attitude to sources. And, finally, historians begin to theoretically comprehend and formulate the tasks of historical research. All these innovations appeared in the 18th century, so history as a science takes shape precisely in the 18th century.

The term "historiography" comes from the Greek words history(a story about something) and count - writing. In this way, Literally, historiography is translated as a written account of the past. For a long time, historians were called historiographers, using the term historiography as a synonym for historical works, historical literature. For example, N.M. Karamzin was the "official historiographer" of the Russian state. In this sense, the term "historiography" is now obsolete and is practically not used.

By the end of the XIX century. historiography emerged from history into an independent scientific discipline. Since that time, historiography (in the broad sense of the word) has been understood as a science that studies the history of historical science as a whole or in a particular country.

The concept of "historiography" can also be used in narrow sense the words. In this case, historiography is understood as a set of scientific works on a particular topic. For example, the historiography of the Decembrist movement, the historiography of the First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907, the historiography of the Great Patriotic War, etc. A historiographic review on any topic includes not only a bibliography and a listing of works, but also their analysis, a critical analysis of literature . At the same time, it is necessary not only to consider various historical works and concepts, but also to explain why exactly such theories dominated in different periods of time, precisely such topics were predominantly studied (or not studied), precisely such causal relationships were singled out. But all the same, the basis of the historiography of individual problems is the history of historical science as a whole.

The subject of historiography in the broad sense of the word is historical science in its development. Historiography studies the development of historical science: the accumulation of factual material, the relationship to the source, the change in subject matter, the concept of historical science. Therefore, the main sources of historiography as a science are the works of historians themselves, historical works, materials of scientific historical conferences.

The specificity of historical knowledge lies in the fact that the historian studies the past. The subject of research for the historian is, first of all, the objective reality itself, which breaks up into separate historical facts. Historical knowledge has a retrospective character, that is, it is directed from the present to the past. The historian cannot sense the past. History, as a science, relies on facts that are the subject of research by professional historians. historical fact is a real event, a phenomenon. Since the historian was not a participant in the events under study, his ideas about historical facts are formed only on the basis of historical sources.

historical source- this is everything that is created in the process of human activity, carries information about the diversity of social life and serves as the basis for scientific knowledge. This is everything that was created in the society that the historian studies: monuments of material culture (tools, dwellings, buildings, household items, clothing, etc.) and, of course, written monuments: chronicles, legislative sources, act sources , office documents (minutes, reports, etc.), statistics, periodicals, memoirs, diaries, etc. Scientific historical works are created only on the basis of sources (primarily written ones). Therefore, a historian must be able to work with historical sources, be able to identify objective information from them using critical methods.

In addition, historical works are greatly influenced by the era in which the historian lives, his political and scientific views. All this makes historical knowledge quite difficult.

The tasks of the historian are:

Describe historical facts based on careful critical analysis of sources;

Explain why this or that event occurred, trace causal relationships between historical events;

To create a periodization of the historical process, a definite scheme of historical development;

Formulate and define the tasks of historical science, research methods.

At different times, events were explained in different ways. This was largely due to the methodology that underlay historical research. Methodologists I is a theory of historical knowledge, a set of research methods. The term "methodology" comes from the Greek words methodos and logos. Literally it means path of knowledge. The methodology of history in its content is, first of all, a system of certain ideological theoretical propositions used by scientists as cognitive principles.

As society developed, more and more new philosophical socio-political currents appeared that explained historical events in different ways: sentimentalism, Hegelianism, Marxism, positivism, neo-Kantianism. Depending on which of them the historian adheres to, he can explain the same events in different ways. Therefore, the works written by liberal historians and Marxist historians will differ from each other, even if they cover the same events.

Thus, it can be noted that the following factors influence the development of historical science:

The level of socio-economic and political development of society. Of great importance is the time at which this or that historical work was written, since historical knowledge is the restoration of the past in the conditions of the requirements of the modern era. It is society that determines the leading concepts and research topics.

Philosophical and political views of the historian, his methodology.

Source base: publication of sources and the degree of accessibility of archival materials, as well as developed methods for working with sources.

All these factors are studied by historiography. Of course, when evaluating a particular scientific concept, it is important to identify its significance, to determine what new things this or that historian has introduced into the development of historical science in terms of theory, methodology, research methods, source base, and conclusions.

The range of tasks that historiography as a scientific discipline must solve is quite wide. The following tasks facing historiography can be distinguished:

Reveal the patterns and features of the development of historical science, show its connection and dependence on the socio-economic and socio-political level of development of society.

Consider government policy in the field of historical science and education;

To study the activities of historical scientific institutions and the system of training historians;

To study the history of the development of research methods and techniques, the struggle of opinions in different eras on the fundamental theoretical and methodological provisions;

Explore the process of accumulating factual knowledge about human society, introducing new sources into scientific circulation;

Track the improvement of critical techniques and methods of working with historical sources;

Track the change in the subject of historical research.

The study of historiography is of great importance in the preparation of historians. Knowledge of historiography helps in choosing a research topic. Justifying the choice of the topic of scientific research, it is necessary, first of all, to analyze all the available literature on the selected period and issue, noting the most unexplored problems, after which it is possible to finally formulate the topic and objectives of the study. In addition, in the course of his work, the historian always has at his disposal known material, which is formed in the course of the previous development of historical science. It contains not only previously accumulated facts, but also assessments, conclusions, concepts. And before you formulate your vision of the problem or support an already existing concept, you need to know all the assessments and opinions expressed in the scientific literature.

Historiography- this is the history of historical science in general, as well as a set of studies devoted to a particular era, topic, problem. Historiography is also a collection of historical writings, the very description of history, of the historical process. There are also national historiographies (French, American, Russian, etc.) and historiographies with certain ideological attitudes (enlightenment, liberal, Marxist, etc.).

The initial historical knowledge arose among the Eastern Slavs in the pre-state period - in the form of folklore. At different times, historians explained the causes and patterns of development of the history of our country in different ways.

Chroniclers from the time of Nestor believed that the world develops according to divine providence and divine will. From the end of the 10th century, such a genre of historical literature as chronicle writing originates. The most famous Russian chronicle - "The Tale of Bygone Years" was created in the XII century.

The process of formation of history as a science is associated with the names of prominent representatives of the 18th century. - V.N. Tatishchev (1686-1750) and M.V. Lomonosov (1711-1765). Their works are written from rationalistic positions. Peru Tatishchev owns the first scientific generalizing work on the history of Russia: "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times." He saw the cause of historical events in the activities of prominent people. M.V. Lomonosov was the first to use the comparative historical method, comparing the history of Russia with Western Europe.

The fundamental work on the history of Russia was created by N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826). "History of the Russian State" in 12 volumes was intended for a wide range of readers. The main idea of the author is the need for a wise autocracy for Russia. The traditions of Karamzin were continued by representatives of the conservative trend in pre-revolutionary historical science - A.S. Khomyakov, M.P. Pogodin, V.P. Meshchersky, L.N. Tikhomirov.

S.M. Solovyov (1820-1879), who noted the objective and natural nature of the development of the historical process. In his "History of Russia from Ancient Times" in 29 volumes, he used the comparative historical method, noting the originality of the historical fate of Russia. Solovyov saw the factors of movement in Russian history in the "nature of the country", "the nature of the tribe" and "the course of external events", and also noted the enormous role of the state.

A bright and multifaceted picture of Russian history was given by Solovyov's student - V.O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). Klyuchevsky's methodology was positivism. He believed that world history develops according to general laws. At the same time, each country is characterized by a number of features that are due to a combination of geographical, ethnic, economic, political, and social factors. The initial factor is natural-geographical. For Russia, the development of the territory played a decisive role. Close to him in theoretical views was S.F. Platonov (1850-1933), whose "Lectures on Russian History" repeatedly, like the works of N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovieva, V.O. Klyuchevsky, have been republished in recent years.

A special place in Russian and world historiography is occupied by the cultural-historical approach, the founder of which was the outstanding Russian scientist N.Ya. Danilevsky (1822-1885). According to this approach, world history is not a single and universal process. It is a collection of individual histories of specific and unique civilizations that have certain socio-biological patterns in their development: birth, childhood, youth, maturity, old age, degradation, death. Danilevsky considered the Russian people to be historically young, destined to replace the aging and degrading Western peoples as world leaders. The traditions of the cultural-historical approach of Danilevsky were continued already in the 20th century by such prominent historians as O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, L.N. Gumilev.

The materialistic approach has been seen in Russian historiography since the end of the 18th century in the concept of A.N. Radishchev. He believed that the basis of historical development is not the improvement of the human spirit, but a change in the forms of economy, although he did not explain what it actually depends on.

Later, in the 19th century, these ideas were developed by revolutionaries - from populists to Marxists. After the October Revolution, materialism became the dominant historical concept and the only one officially allowed in the country.

In the Soviet period, historians, guided by a materialistic understanding of history, focused their attention on the problems of socio-economic development and the popular movement. The principles of formational theory were put in the basis of the historical world outlook. The most significant works of this period are the works of historians B.A. Rybakova, B.D. Grekova, S.D. Bakhrushina, M.N. Tikhomirova, M.N. Pokrovsky and others. And although during this period historical science as a whole successfully performed its social functions, the dominance of one methodology (Marxism-Leninism) significantly fettered the creativity of scientists. And this, accordingly, limited the possibilities for obtaining objective knowledge.

Modern Russian historical science is going through a special period when new approaches, positions, and directions are being developed and approved. Some historians call for the continuation of the traditions of the pre-revolutionary historical school, others study the experience of Western historical science, and still others suggest using the research of Soviet historians in a positive way. Russian historians are now paying special attention to the civilizational approach, which makes it possible to reveal the inherent value of our society, its place in world history and culture.

Writing a historical work on any issue of interest is impossible without taking into account already existing knowledge and concepts, without their analysis and criticism, that is, the historiography of this topic. As a rule, the object of historiography is the science of history itself. However, there are other interpretations of this concept. What is our historiography? History - in this article.

It is necessary to make a reservation right away that historiography is not only the "history of history". In this science, the stages of development of other disciplines can also be considered. In particular, one can find works on the historiography of the natural sciences, literary criticism, linguistics, and so on. However, consideration of these forms of existence of historiographic science is beyond the scope of this article.

Specialists have identified several basic ways of understanding the content of the term "historiography". In the broad sense of the word, it is understood as a specific scientific discipline dealing with the history of the emergence, development and functioning of various historical concepts and history as an independent field of knowledge. However, this is not the end of the term.

Firstly, historiography can be understood as the totality of scientific works on a specific problem or a specific historical period. Secondly, it is possible to single out all the scientific literature created in a particular region in a certain period of time, regardless of its content. In this way, for example, the liberal historiography of the Russian Empire in the middle of the 19th century can stand out. And not only. Also modern foreign historiography. The allocation of such subsections is often based on the views of the researcher and is determined by his scientific attitudes.

The third version of the definition of the concept is already based on the development of the science under consideration itself. Historiography can be called the totality of all created works on the history of the development of historical science.

The problem of the emergence of historiography

It is difficult to trace the history of this section of knowledge. First of all, it is necessary to determine which works can be considered purely historical. And although most researchers agree that Herodotus and Thucydides are at the origins of this science, folklore works: mythology and epic cannot be ignored. As an example, we can cite the ancient Babylonian poem "About the One Who Has Seen Everything". For a long time, it was considered only as a work of oral folk art, subsequently recorded, and reflecting only some of the realities of the then society. But then it was discovered that its main character - Gilgamesh - is a real historical person, a king in the city of Uruk at the turn of the 27th-26th centuries BC. e. Thus, we can talk about the existence of a historiographic tradition in ancient times.

If we approach the problem from a more academic position, then it must be recognized that historiography, as an independent branch of knowledge, takes shape and receives its scientific apparatus only in the middle of the 19th century. Of course, this does not mean that there were no works and ideas on this topic before. In this case, we are talking about the institutionalization of such elements of science as methodology, problems, there is an awareness of the specific tasks and goals of historiography.

Conditions for the selection of historiography as a science

Some researchers believe that it is erroneous to separate the time of the emergence of history and historiography. This opinion is based on the fact that when creating a historical work, its author was always guided by certain goals. And he turned to the experience of previous generations. That is, the birth of historical historiography took place simultaneously with the creation of historical science as such. But it was precisely the interconnection of the two disciplines that did not make it necessary to single out historiography as an independent discipline. This required the fulfillment of several conditions:

Accumulation of sufficient knowledge in the field of theory and methodology of historical science.
Formation of centers and schools that develop certain issues.
The formation of a special stratum of historians oriented specifically towards studying the past of their science.
The emergence of special studies on historiography.
The formation of a specific conceptual apparatus.

One more thing could be added to these conditions. The emergence of historiography as a science occurred spontaneously. This was due to the need of the liberal strata of society, and scientists in particular, to find new arguments in the fight against the Old Regime (this term refers to the orders of the times of feudal society and absolutism). For this purpose, a critical examination of the historical works of previous generations was undertaken.

Tasks of historiography

The functioning of science is impossible without awareness of its goals. To achieve them, historians have to solve a number of problems, which brings them closer to the most adequate and accurate perception of the level, directions and features of the development of historical knowledge.

Briefly, the tasks of historiography are as follows:

study of changes in historical concepts, features of their change;
the study of existing and emerging trends in historical science, the study of the features of their methodology and analysis;
comprehension of the essence of the process of accumulation of historical knowledge and its development;
search and introduction of new sources into scientific circulation;
finding ways to improve source analysis;
the study of institutions and schools engaged in historical research, as well as the system of training scientific personnel;
dissemination of new scientific concepts and historical works, including in the periodical press;
the study of the relationship between national historical schools, their influence on each other;
analysis of the influence of existing conditions (political, economic, social) on the development of historical science.

The principle of historicism

In essence, the general principles of historical science coincide with the principles of historiography. The most important of them were formulated in the 19th century with the direct participation of Russian scientists. In particular, Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov formulated the fundamental principle of historicism: not a single phenomenon or event can be considered in isolation from the context in which it arose. With regard to historiography, this principle is implemented as follows: when criticizing an established trend or a specific study, one cannot discount the level of development of science at that time. On a specific example, this can be illustrated as follows: one cannot deny the significance of the work of Herodotus only for the reason that he compiles his own observations and received rumors, practically without applying the methods of scientific criticism. Firstly, in the 5th century BC. they simply did not exist, and secondly, this does not negate the possibility of correcting Herodotus' information in accordance with other writings from that era that have come down to us.

The principle of integrity in historiography

In the scientific discipline under consideration, he instructs the researcher to build the study of the topic with an understanding of the systematic nature of the causes and conditions for the emergence of a certain scientific direction. Studying, for example, the works of Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov on the Western European Middle Ages, a scientist must take into account his concept of historical development, his system of views, and the methods of source criticism he uses.

As a special case of this principle, one can note the principle of partisanship that existed in Soviet historiography. The researchers of that time found out the political views of the studied historian, his affiliation or sympathy for a particular party, and from this point of view they assessed the significance of his works. At the same time, it was assumed a priori that only the Marxist-Leninist theory of formations is scientific. Fortunately, this principle has been rejected in modern historiography.

Methods of historiography

In fact, the methodology of any research assumes the presence of an arsenal of mental or experimental techniques for studying the chosen problem. In historiography, this is the past of historical science, which imposes a certain specificity on general scientific methods. There are the following methods for obtaining new knowledge by a historiographer:

comparative-historical, that is, the consideration of scientific concepts in order to clarify the common and different between them;
chronological, involving the study of changes in concepts, ideas and approaches over time;
the method of periodization, which makes it possible to group the changes taking place in historical science over a long period of time in order to highlight the most significant trends in scientific thought and their features in comparison with other periods;
retrospective analysis, the essence of which is to search for residual elements, previously existing concepts in comparison with today's ones, as well as comparing the conclusions obtained now and formulated before;
perspective analysis, that is, the definition of the problems and range of topics of future historical science on the basis of the knowledge currently available.

Features of pre-revolutionary domestic historiography

The identification of such a gap in the history of Russian historical science is based largely on political considerations and the desire of Soviet historians to dissociate themselves from previous concepts.

As in foreign historiography, epic and mythology are at the origins of Russian history. The first historical works - chronicles and chronographs - usually began with a review of existing ideas about the creation of the world, briefly cited information from world history, especially ancient and Jewish. Already at that time, learned monks raised program questions. Chronicler Nestor directly declares on the first pages of the Tale of Bygone Years that the purpose of his work is to clarify the origin of the Russian state and identify its first rulers. His followers worked in the same direction.

The then historiography was based on a pragmatic approach, most of the attention was paid to the personalities and psychology of rulers and significant persons. With the advent of the rationalist trend in science, these considerations faded into the background. M.V. Lomonosov and V.N. Tatishchev in their historical writings proceeded from the understanding of knowledge as the driving force of history. This was reflected in the nature of their work. Tatishchev, for example, simply rewrote the old chronicles, giving them his own comments, which subsequently made it possible to speak of him as the last chronicler.

A significant figure in Russian history is Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. His "History of the Russian State" is based on the thought of beneficence for the country of the wise autocracy. The historian illustrated his idea with a description of the crisis of Russian statehood and society in a period of fragmentation and, conversely, its significant strengthening with a strong figure of the ruler. Karamzin had already used special techniques for criticizing sources and supplied his work with numerous notes, where he not only referred to sources, but also expressed his thoughts about them.

The contribution of scientists of the 19th century to the development of historiography

The entire enlightened society of that time was brought up on the work of Karamzin. It was thanks to him that interest in national history arose. New generations of historians, among whom a special place is occupied by S.M. Soloviev and V.O. Klyuchevsky, have formulated new approaches to the comprehension of history. So the first one formulated for Russian historiography the main factors of historical development: the physical and geographical position of Russia, the mentality of the peoples inhabiting it and external influences such as campaigns against Byzantium or the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

Klyuchevsky is known in the historiography of Russia for the fact that, developing the ideas of Solovyov, he came to the conclusion that it is necessary to single out a set of geographical, economic, ethnic and social factors for each historical period and study their impact on the events that took place.

Historiography in the USSR

One of the consequences of the revolution was the denial of all scientific knowledge of the previous era. The basis for obtaining new historical knowledge was the Marxist principle of the staged development of society - the well-known theory of five formations. Previous studies were judged biased, since the previous historians did not own the Marxist methodology and were used only as an illustration of the correctness of the new conclusions.

This situation continued until the mid-1930s. The established totalitarian dictatorship was looking for justification in the past, so there are works on the era of Ivan the Terrible and Peter I.

The historiography of the problems of socio-economic development, the study of the life and way of life of the masses constitute the most important achievement of the historical science of that period. However, it should be noted that the obligatory quoting of the classics of Marxism, referring to them on any issue that they did not even consider, significantly reduced the quality of historical writings of this period.

HISTORIOGRAPHY - a discipline of historical science, arose as a practice of criticizing the works of historians, as a reflection on the process of constructing history. Historiography (as the history of history) appeared along with the formation of a non-classical type of rationality, when history "entered its historiographical age" (P. Nora). The word "historiography" originally meant "writing history". The term "historiography" has several meanings: 1) the study of historical literature on any issue, problem, period; 2) a synonym for historical works, historical literature in general; 3) the history of historical knowledge, historical thought, historical science in general (or in one country, region, in a certain period). From early modern times in Europe, court historians began to be called historiographers. In Russia in the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries, this title was G. F. Miller, M. M. Shcherbatov, N. M. Karamzin and others. Under the names "historiography", "history of history", "history of historical thought", "history of historical writing", "history of historiography", and then "history of historical science", this type of historical self-reflection has become widespread among professional historians in national historiographies Europe and USA. Historiography is taught in universities, at first as an auxiliary historical discipline. In national historiographical traditions, historiography meant not only the history of historical science (thought), but also the philosophy and methodology of history, the history of historical education, the history of historians or the history of the study of certain issues, problems, etc. For a long time, work on historiography was strongly dependent on from the traditions of political history, which dominated in the 19th century and proposed a structure for constructing material, consisting of a chain of prominent historians successively replacing each other who studied significant eras of the national past. In the structure of Soviet historical science, historiography occupied a significant place (transforming from an auxiliary historical discipline into an independent discipline of historical science), which was associated not only with purely scientific tasks, but also with the development of a “correct” concept of criticism of pre-revolutionary and modern foreign historical science. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the traditional scientific view of historiography began to be replaced by a broader one, involving the study of historiography in connection with the type of culture contemporary to a particular period of historical writing, in connection with historical consciousness (M. A. Barg, 1915-1991). From the point of view of modern historical science, historiography is one of the basic components of historical culture. One of the factors in the actualization of historiography is the search for the epistemological foundations of history as a rigorous science within the framework of the neoclassical type of rationality, which proceeds under the conditions of the delimitation of scientific historical knowledge and socially oriented historical writing. The practice of studying historiography in the subject field of intellectual history is becoming fruitful, where it becomes possible to form a new direction of historical criticism, moving further and further away from the description and inventory of historical concepts and allowing one to explore not only historiographic trends and schools, but professional culture as a whole (L. P. Repina ).

S. I. Malovichko

The definition of the concept is cited from the ed.: Theory and Methodology of Historical Science. Terminological dictionary. Rep. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. [M.], 2014, p. 161-163.

Literature:

Bagaley D. I. Russian historiography. Kharkov, 1911; Barg M.A. Epochs and ideas. M., 1987; Klyuchevsky V. O. Lectures on Russian historiography // Klyuchevsky V. O. Works: in IX vol. M., 1989. T. VII. pp. 185-233; Koyalovich M. O. The history of Russian self-consciousness according to historical monuments and scientific writings. St. Petersburg, 1884; Malovichko S. I., Rumyantseva M. F. Socially oriented history in the actual intellectual space: an invitation to discussion // Historical knowledge and historiographical situation at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. M., 2012. S. 274-290; Milyukov P. N. The main currents of Russian historical thought. M., 1897. T. 1; Nora P. Between memory and history: The problem of places of memory // France-memory / P. Nora, M. Ozuf, J. de Puemezh, M. Vinok. SPb., 1999; Popova T. N. Historiographical science: problems of self-consciousness // Kharyuvsky ktoryugraf1chny zb1rnik. Kharyuv, 2000. Vip. 4. S. 20-33; Repina L.P. Historical science at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries: social theories and historiographic practice. M., 2011; Repina L.P. Memory and historical writing // History and memory: Historical culture of Europe before the beginning of the New Age. M., 2006; Rubinshtein N.L. Russian historiography. M., 1941 (Republished: St. Petersburg, 2008); Fueter E. Geschichte der Neueren Historiographie. Munchen; Berlin, 1911; Gooch G. P. History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century. L., 1913; Grever M. Fear of Plurality: Historical Culture and Historiographical Canonization in Western Europe // Gendering Historiography: Beyond National Canons. Frankfurt; N.Y., 2009; Jameson J. F. The History of Historical Writing in America. Boston; N.Y., 1891; Shotwell J. T. An Introduction to the History of History. N. Y., 1922.