What is the external and internal criticism of the source. Historical sources and their criticism. Methods for studying history

First of all, you need to find out what does the concept of "historical sources" mean and why is the ability to work with them necessary?

The historian is completely deprived of the opportunity to personally establish the facts that he is studying. Not a single Egyptologist has seen the pharaohs. Not a single expert on the Napoleonic Wars heard the guns of Austerlitz. One can speak about previous eras only on the basis of the evidence remaining from them. As Mark Block (which has already been discussed) noted, the historian plays the role of an investigator trying to reconstruct a picture of a crime in which he himself was not present, or a physicist who is forced to stay at home due to the flu and learns about the results of his experiment from the reports of a laboratory clerk. Thus, knowing the past will never be direct. But even a researcher recreating the history of the recent past, which he himself witnessed, is not in the best position. After all, direct, "direct" observation is almost always an illusion. The historian cannot witness all the events taking place in his time; he can directly observe only a small part of them. In addition, what the researcher “saw” to a large extent consists of what is seen by others. A historian studies the state of affairs in economics on the basis of summaries compiled by economists; public opinion - based on data from sociologists, etc.

Thus, historical knowledge is always not direct, but mediated. Between history as a process and the activity of the historian there are some kind of intermediaries, which are called historical sources. Historical source is a very broad concept. This is all that can give an idea of ​​a person's life in the past. The variety of historical sources dictates the need for their classification. There are several types of such classifications. For example, sources are divided into intentional and unintentional. Unintentional sources include what a person created not with the aim of entering history, leaving a trace about himself in it, but with the aim of simply providing himself with everything necessary for life. These sources include, as a rule, material sources. There is a special historical discipline - archeology, which studies the ancient past of mankind on the basis of what remains of dwellings, tools, etc. Intentional sources generally include written sources. Many of them were created with a very specific purpose - to declare themselves. This is especially true of the sources studied by political history: these are the programs of political parties; transcripts of congresses, conferences, meetings; speeches and works of politicians and similar documents.

There are other classifications of historical sources: they are classified by periods of creation, by types(media materials, memoirs, etc.), in the areas of historical science, for which these sources may be of interest (sources for economic history, for political history, for cultural history, etc.).

The search for historical sources is the most important component of the work of both a professional historian and a person studying history. But the availability of sources alone is not enough. This is easy to verify with a specific example. For many years in our country, access to a significant part of the sources was difficult, many archival funds were closed even for specialists. In these conditions, the idea arose that, as soon as the doors of special depositories and secret funds were opened, all questions related to our past would be answered. Access to sources has now become easier, but the expected breakthrough in historical science did not happen, as its source crisis was revealed. It follows from this that without the ability to work with historical sources, an adequate reconstruction of history is impossible.

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

Let us cite the words of Karl Marx expressed on this occasion: “While in everyday life any shopkeeper is perfectly able to distinguish between what a particular person claims to be and what he is in reality, our historiography has not yet reached before this trivial knowledge. She believes in the word of every epoch, no matter what she says or imagines about herself. "

Therefore, it is necessary to be able to analyze historical sources. A special historical discipline is engaged in the development of methods for their analysis - source study.

Having found out what the historical sources are and what their classifications are, it is necessary to move on to the question: What are the areas of analysis of historical sources and methods of working with them?

Source study contains the concept "Criticism of sources"(that is, their analysis). Usually allocate external and internal criticism of historical sources. External criticism establishes the authenticity, time, place of creation of the source, its authorship. (Time, place and authorship are established even when they are indicated in the document, since sometimes they are deliberately distorted). Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source. Its essence is in studying the testimony of the source about the historical fact, in determining the reliability, completeness and accuracy of the information contained in the source.

Since students get acquainted with sources for reading books and collections of documents, which include documents that have passed external criticism, the mastery of its techniques for them and for all students of history is not a primary task. It is much more important to learn how to analyze a historical source in terms of content.

The main areas of internal criticism are:

- setting the goal of creating a particular source;

- establishing the place of the source in the context of the era, its

representativeness of the most historical

reality;

- establishing the credibility of the source (it should not be

confused with authenticity).

What do these directions mean?

An intentional historical source is created for the realization of some purpose. Highlighting this goal will allow a deeper understanding of the content of the source, its logic and argumentation. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose will allow students to understand that there were other goals, and, therefore, there are other documents that illuminate the same historical fact from a different perspective. This will focus on finding multiple documents, and therefore comparing them.

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

Establishing the reliability of a source involves finding out how correctly it explains the reasons for certain events. Situations are possible when the source will be genuine from the point of view of external criticism (that is, not fake), but will contain inaccurate information or interpretation. For example, many speeches by politicians are genuine from the point of view of the fact that they are speeches of these politicians, and not their counterparts or impostors. But this does not mean at all that the information contained in these speeches is true and reliable. Therefore, comparison with other documents is necessary.

What are the rules and techniques for working with historical sources?

There are many techniques for working with historical sources that allow you to fulfill the tasks of their criticism. Let us dwell on the basic techniques, without the knowledge of which no meaningful work with historical documents is possible.

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

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

▼ Study of the entire complex of sources will inevitably lead to situations when the same historical fact will be illuminated by different sources not just from different angles, but from completely opposite positions. You should treat this as a natural phenomenon. Each source reflects the view of one part of society on the event, and there are many views. If we limit ourselves to one source, this will lead to a one-sided vision of the historical event.

What methods of working with sources are needed in this situation? It is not at all the ability to compose something arithmetic mean from various sources. This is impossible and unnecessary. It is necessary to be able to compare and contrast sources, showing the versatility of a historical event and the ambiguity of its perception.

Let's consider this with a specific example. On December 6, 1876, in St. Petersburg, on Nevsky Prospekt in front of the Kazan Cathedral, the first demonstration in the history of Russia under the red banner took place. One of its organizers was G.V. Plekhanov, then a student of one of the St. Petersburg universities, later - the first Russian Marxist. It is a fact. Let's see how it is reflected in various sources.

Source one... G.V. Plekhanov himself, a participant in this demonstration, recalls:

“On the morning of December 6, all the 'rebellious' workers' circles came to the scene. But there were no outside workers at all. We saw that we had too little strength and decided to wait. The workers dispersed to the nearest taverns, leaving only a small group at the cathedral porch to observe the progress of affairs. Meanwhile, the student youth came up in large groups. ...

The bored "nihilists" began to go out to the porch, from the neighboring taverns came the "rebels" sitting there - workers. The crowd assumed a rather impressive size. We decided to act. ...

There were few policemen and gendarmes on Kazan Square. They looked at us and "expected actions." When the first words of the revolutionary speech were heard, they tried to squeeze in to the speaker, but they were immediately pushed back. ... When, after delivering the speech, they unfurled the red banner, the young peasant Potapov grabbed it and, raised in the hands of the workers, for some time held it high above the heads of those present. ...

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

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

(GV Plekhanov. Russian worker in the revolutionary movement. Collection of articles. L., 1989. S. 84 - 88.)

This is the testimony of a participant in the demonstration. And here is a look from the other side... The famous Russian lawyer Anatoly Fedorovich Koni testifies in his memoirs on the same day, December 6, 1876:

“I met the Minister of Justice in Trepov’s office, the prosecutor of the Fuchs chamber, the assistant prosecutor Poskochin and the assistant minister Frisch. The latter told briskly that, walking an hour ago along the Nevsky, he witnessed a demonstration at the Kazan Cathedral by a group of "nihilistic" youth, which was stopped by the intervention of the police, who began to beat the demonstrators. In view of the undoubted importance of such a fact in the capital, in broad daylight, he hurried to the ministry and found Trepov there, who confirmed that a bunch of young people were outraged and carried in their arms a boy who was waving a banner with the inscription "Land and Freedom." At the same time, Trepov said that they were all arrested - one who resisted was tied up, and some were probably armed, since a revolver was found on the ground. ... The demonstration ... caused a very indifferent attitude from the side of society. Cab drivers and shop assistants rushed to help the police and beat "gentlemen and girls in shawls [rugs] with whips and fists."

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

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

One observer of street life told about a merchant who said: “My wife and I went out for a walk on the Nevsky; we see there is a fight at the Kazan Cathedral. … I put my wife and child at Milyutin’s shops, rolled up my sleeves, got into the crowd, and - it's a pity only two of them and managed to hit them in the neck… I had to hurry to see my wife and child - there were only ones left! ” - "But who did you hit and why?" - “But who knows whom, but how, have mercy, suddenly I see, they beat: do not stand with folded hands ?! Well, he gave two times to anyone, amused himself - and to his wife ... ”(The language of the character is preserved unchanged).

(Koni A.F. Decree.p. 10 - 11.)

Let's see what will happen if, when reconstructing this event, we restrict ourselves to only one source. What will the use of Plekhanov's memoirs as such a source lead to? (Indeed, for the participant and organizer of the demonstration, it is natural to remember it in an upbeat, pathetic tone). Moreover, this demonstration will have to be portrayed as an event of great importance and having a significant impact on the social and political life of the capital, and even the entire country. This was the case in Soviet historical literature, which used only this source (omitting unnecessary everyday details about taverns). And if you use only the opinions of officials as a source? Then this event will have to be portrayed as a disturbance, completely groundless, which did not cause any resonance in society. If we use only the above-mentioned opinion of the merchant as a source, then this event should generally fall into the category of police chronicles or even curiosities of Petersburg life. Consequently, using one source will lead to inadequate reproduction of the story. At the same time, it is clear that it is impossible to make something arithmetic mean from these sources. Therefore, the use of different sources is necessary in order to show the real scale of this historical event, its perception in different strata of society.

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

For example, the study of sources teaches that memoirs as a historical source can only be used when compared with other sources. This is explained by the fact that the memoirist can fail memory, he can (even involuntarily) exaggerate his role in historical events, ascribe to himself views that he did not share at that time. Finally, he may be under pressure from the political circumstances of the time of writing the memoirs. This is, of course, so. But would a document written on an official letterhead, signed and stamped, be more reliable? Many materials from the state and former party archives of the Soviet era are nothing more than reports. You don't need to be a great specialist in source studies to understand that if future historians reproduce the history of our recent past according to reports, they will have a completely wrong idea about it. But some historians have formed a kind of reverence for official documents. This stereotype must be overcome. These documents need to be carefully checked and compared with many other historical sources.

This applies to all sources. For example, there is not a single political party whose program would declare that this party wants to do bad things to the people or the country (and the programs of the parties are also a historical source). Alas, there was enough blood in history. Thus, here, too, we need to compare programs with other documents.

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

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

So, the above material is an introduction to historical science. It reveals the specifics of history as a science, the methodology of historical research, directions and techniques of source analysis. This knowledge is necessary for the formation of historical consciousness, for a meaningful study of specific topics of the university history course.

1. The specifics of history as a science. The problem of objective truth in historical science …… ..s. 3

2. Methodology of historical research. Basic methodological approaches and schools ……………………………………………… p.15

3. Historical sources and their criticism …………………………………………… ..p.37

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

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

Source critics are largely engaged in external criticism. Historical researchers pay much more attention to the analysis of the content side of the historical source (internal criticism).

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

The main directions of internal criticism Is the establishment:

· The place of the source in the context of the epoch, its completeness and representativeness;

· The purpose of creating the source;

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

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

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

Establishing the credibility of a source assumes how accurately a historical source reflects historical phenomena and events. For example, the statements of politicians are genuine from the point of view of the fact that these are speeches of precisely these figures, and not of impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always truthful, reliable.

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

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

In each source there are elements of subjectivity, which are also transferred to the facts reflected in it, that is, the source is colored to one degree or another by a personal attitude. The researcher has to do painstaking work in order to "cleanse" the facts from the taint of subjectivity and to reveal the true phenomenon of the historical process.

The nature of the historical source. Purpose and main stages of source criticism

Source criticism

A historical source, on the one hand, is a fact of the historical past, on the other, it contains information about a particular fact. A historical source is material (i.e., available for direct perception), but, unlike other material objects that arose under the influence of natural forces, it is a kind of product with a certain purposefully created structure. It possesses properties expressing the unity of goal-setting, more or less completely completes the thought of its creator.

The source, by its nature, carries double information. It is an indirect reflection of a certain object through the consciousness of the subject and at the same time characterizes the subject, reflects the goals and methods of perception of objective reality. So, memoirs contain certain information, both about reality and about their creator. In turn, the presence of information about the author in a historical source makes it possible to reveal the degree of adequacy of the historical reality reflected in it.

In the process of subsequent processing of sources, further subjectivization of the information available in them occurs. The subjective fixation of the initial information is supplemented by the subjectivity of its extraction and processing. An example of this is the editorial offices and lists of various (primarily chronicle) monuments.

The circumstances noted above predetermined the skeptical attitude of a number of researchers about the possibility of objective knowledge of the past (see Skeptical School). The search for a way out of this situation was seen in the division of all sources into objective ("remnants" of facts) and subjective ("legends" about them). In reality, however (as noted above), the historical source appears both as a result of the subject's reflection of reality and as a product of the subject's activity, thus acting simultaneously as a "remnant" and a "legend."

The division into "remnants" and "traditions" is reflected in the division of two important stages of criticism - external and internal... The main content external criticism is the study of the historical source as a carrier of information about the past (place, conditions of origin, the author), and the goal is to establish the historical source as a fact, that is, to establish authenticity... The source is considered to be genuine, which was created in that place, at that time, and by the author who are indicated in it.

The essence of external criticism is to study the testimony of a source about a historical fact. Using categories such as fullness and accuracy the degree of reliability of the information contained in the source is determined. It is important to find out representativeness(representativeness) of the source in relation to the historical reality itself and in comparison with the once existing set of them.

Organic interweaving in the sources of information about historical reality and its creators leaves a certain imprint on the order in the study of sources. It is customary to view their external and internal criticism as a sequence of source study procedures.

However, in relation to the very names of the stages, their number and essence, various points of view have been expressed (and are being expressed) throughout the development of source studies. So V.O. Klyuchevsky singled out philological and factual criticism, the representatives of the Marxist school in source study - analytical and synthetic. A.P. Pronshtein and A.G. Zader noted 1) external criticism; 2) interpretation; 3) internal criticism and 4) synthesis of historical facts. (Methods of work on historical sources: Uch.- method. Manual. M., 1977.) In the textbook of the Russian State Humanitarian University 1998. the structure of source research looks more complex:

1) the historical conditions of the origin of the source;

3) the circumstances of the creation of the source;

5) the functioning of the work in culture;

6) interpretation of the source;

8) source study synthesis.

Understanding the conventionality of the terms external and internal criticism, their intertwining, the authors of this manual nevertheless believe that such an approach reflects the nature of the historical source and, as practice has shown, is most convenient in the practice of the initial acquaintance of students with the main goals and objectives of source criticism.

At the very beginning of the nineteenth century . A.L.Shletser substantiated the need for the study of all sources of application three kinds of criticism: criticism of words, or small, then grammatical or historical interpretation of the text and, finally, higher criticism, or criticism of deeds. Throughout the nineteenth century. many Western European and Russian scholars, representatives of noble and bourgeois historiography, offered their own methods of scientific criticism of sources. So, V.O. Klyuchevsky, F. Schleiermacher and V. Wund divided it into philological and historical criticism, I. G. Droysen - criticism of the authenticity and correctness of the source's testimony, Paul - criticism of the text and testimony, etc.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. in the works of C. Langlois and C. Seniobos, E. Bernheim and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, a method of scientific criticism of written historical sources was developed, which was widely recognized among bourgeois historians.

The first stage in the analysis of historical sources using this method should be their external criticism, that is, establishing their origin in the narrow sense of the word. The task of external criticism is to determine the date and place of origin of the source, its author and authenticity based on the study of the material on which the source is written, handwriting and other paleographic data, seals, coats of arms, if any, as well as direct indications in the text of the source.

Second stage - internal criticism... According to these scientists, it consists in finding out the reliability of the facts contained in the source. According to C. Langlois and C. Seignobos, this is achieved "by reasoning, by analogy with phenomena borrowed mostly from psychology and aiming to reproduce the author's state of mind" .

Internal and external criticism cannot be kept separate from each other... Any positions expressed in the document can be better understood and more accurately studied if the researcher knows the name of the originator, the time, place and conditions of occurrence.

Many bourgeois scientists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. recognized this method of criticizing historical sources as correct, even classical, and were guided by it in their scientific activities, making only minor adjustments. His adherents still exist today.

However, completely denying the reality and regularity of any connections in the historical process, supporters of theories in the West speak of the impossibility of developing scientific methods for a critical analysis of sources.

Historical materialism- a scientific basis for the development of general methods of analysis and criticism of historical sources. It provides a theoretical basis for criticizing the idealistic view of the historical source, as well as for developing a scientific understanding of the source as a phenomenon of social life. It equips the historian with criteria and principles for identifying sources.

Many bourgeois scholars draw a sharp line between different stages and methods of scientific criticism of sources. From their point of view, all questions of external criticism of sources can be resolved in isolation from clarifying the political and class positions of the author. Even such a penetrating researcher as A. A. Shakhmatov, who recognized the reflection in the sources of the political positions of their authors, often reduced his work on the annals to a logical-semantic or comparative analysis of their texts.

The purpose of criticism- accurately convey the facts. In contrast to them, Soviet historians take the point of view that the completeness, reliability and accuracy of the transmission of facts depends most of all on the positions from which they were covered. Moreover, even many specific questions related to the establishment of the place and time of the compilation of the document, its authenticity or falsity, the author's name, etc., the researcher can answer only on the basis of the simultaneous conduct of both external and internal criticism of the source.

Subject, method and periodization of IGPR.

The subject of the science of the history of the state and law of Russia is the study of the emergence and development of types and forms of state and law, institutions and mechanisms of state power, as well as legal institutions of specific states among the peoples of our country in a certain historical period.

The history of the state and law of Russia explores the interaction of: state structures; legal institutions.

One of the tasks of the science of the history of state and law in Russia is the study of various approaches to historiography.

The main methods of studying the history of the state and law of Russia are; historical, comparative, system-dark-structural, statistical, analogy and extrapolation.

The historical method approaches the state and law as developing and changing over time phenomena. This method reveals the main elements of the object under study and the changes occurring in it in order to reveal their content and relationships.

The comparative method consists in a comparative study of state and legal phenomena in Russia and other countries. At the same time, their common features, differences and features of development are revealed. Individual state and legal institutions of the country in the process of their evolution can also be compared.

As a result of a comparative analysis, it is possible to trace the changes in these concepts and identify their causes.

The systemic-structural method is effective in the study of self-governing systems consisting of many interacting elements. Their analysis involves the study of the structure of the elements, their internal and external connections, the identification of system-forming elements.

The statistical method is used in the study of the quantitative aspects of the historical process. Working with numerical indicators allows you to identify the length, prevalence, rate of development and other aspects of the process. Inference by analogy is a conclusion about the similarity of two or more phenomena in any specific relationship, made on the basis of their similarity in other respects. The analogy is used in cases of studying phenomena, information about which is inaccurate, incomplete or fragmentary.

Extrapolation provides for the distribution of conclusions obtained during the study of one part of the phenomenon (process) to another part. Extrapolation contributes to forecasting, especially when the object of research is a historical process. The conclusions obtained as a result of the study of the completed stage of development help to understand its present and foresee the boundaries of the future.

The history of the state and law of Russia can be divided into the following periods:

- Ancient Russia (IX-XII centuries);

The period of independent feudal states of Ancient Rus (XII-XIV centuries);

Russian (Moscow) state (XV-XVII centuries);

- Russian Empire of the period of absolutism (XVIII - mid-XIX centuries);

Russian Empire during the period of transition to bourgeois monarchy (mid-19th - early 20th centuries);

Russia during the period of the bourgeois-democratic republic (February-October 1917);

The period of the socialist revolution and the creation of the Soviet state (1918-1920);

The transitional period, or the period of the NEP (1921-1930);

The period of state-party socialism (1930 - early 1960s);

The period of the crisis of socialism (1960-1990);

The period of restoration of capitalism (from 1990 to the present).

A modern man (homo sapiens) appeared on the territory of our country in the Black Sea region and in the south of Central Asia about 30 thousand years ago. At that time, the central and northern regions of the European part of Russia were covered with glaciers. Primitive people were engaged in hunting, gathering, fishing. As the climate warmed and the glaciers melted, primitive people began to settle from the southwestern and southern regions to the north and east. By the 5th millennium BC. people penetrated to the upper reaches of the Volga and to the territory of the modern Baltic and Karelia, and in the III - II millennium BC. - to the Barents Sea and to the southern regions of Siberia (to Baikal), after which they began to gradually move to the north of the Asian part of the country.

The southern regions, due to favorable natural conditions, significantly outstripped other parts of the European and Asian territories in their development. The development of material production, an increase in population and an increase in property inequality led to the decomposition of the primitive communal system, which did not take place simultaneously in different regions of Eurasia. At the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. slave-owning states arose in the Transcaucasus, Central Asia and the Black Sea region. It is important to note that they all appeared in the south, for a long time they developed independently of each other.

The general events of their history were most often caused by the invasion of the same foreign conquerors. These states did not have contacts with the western and central regions of the European part of Russia, where the foundations of ancient Russian statehood began to form a millennium later. Contacts with this territory were hindered by mountains or semi-deserts lying on the way, as well as a wide strip of steppes, where warlike pastoral tribes roamed. From the first centuries of our era, the steppes became the main route of penetration from Asia to Europe for large nomadic hordes, often destroying everything in their path.

State of Urartu.

In the IX century. BC. in Transcaucasia, around Lake Van (now in Turkey), the state of Urartu was formed from several dozen Armenian tribes. By the middle of the VII century. the state occupied the territory from Lake Sevan in Armenia to the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates and became one of the significant states of the Ancient East. Urartu were engaged in agriculture, gardening with the use of artificial irrigation. Cattle breeding was widely developed. The cities of Urartu were fortified with walls and towers made of huge stones. Skilled artisans made tools, household utensils, weapons, and expensive gold jewelry from clay, copper and iron. The state of Urartu had to constantly wage defensive wars with neighboring Assyria, which sought to enslave Urartu.

The state reached its heyday by the middle of the 8th century. BC, but in the VI century. after the invasion of the Scythians, the state perished. The Armenian tribes became the basis for the Armenian kingdom that was formed here later. To the west of it, from the Georgian and Abkhaz tribes, the Colchis kingdom was formed, and to the north - the Georgian kingdom of Kartli (Iberia). Somewhat later, in the 4th century BC. - the state of Albania arose on the territory of northern Azerbaijan.

Peoples of Central Asia.

The history of the peoples of Central Asia goes back centuries. In the middle of the 1st millennium BC. here three states arose: Sogdiana(Zeravshan basin), Bactria(southern parts of modern Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) and Khorezm(in the lower reaches of the Amu Darya).

In the V century. BC. Transcaucasia and Central Asia briefly fell under the rule of the Persian Empire. In the IV century. these areas were conquered by Alexander the Great. Large and powerful cities existed here: Khujand, Samarkand. The population was engaged in agriculture, cattle breeding, handicrafts. A well-developed irrigation system was in operation.

The Arab conquest (VII - VIII centuries AD), which brought Islam with it, had a significant impact on the history of Transcaucasia and especially Central Asia. In the Caucasus, Islam spread among the ancestors of Azerbaijanis and other peoples of the East, as well as the North Caucasus. Armenians and Georgians, who established Christianity in the first centuries of our era, staunchly resisted Islamization, but some groups of Georgians (Adjarians, Ingilois, etc.) were later converted to Islam. In Central Asia, Islam gradually became the main religion of the entire population. In socio-economic terms, the Arab conquest coincided with the emergence of feudal relations and partly contributed to this process.

After the collapse in the IX century. A number of feudal states arose in the Arab Caliphate in Transcaucasia. In the XI century. In the course of the struggle against the Seljuk Turks who penetrated into Transcaucasia from Central Asia, the Georgian lands were unified, which ended under David the Builder with the creation of a single Georgian kingdom with the capital in Tbilisi. This kingdom reached its socio-economic and cultural heyday during the reign of Queen Tamara (late 12th - early 13th centuries). At that time, most of Armenia (with the capital Ani) was part of the borders of Georgia as a vassal state. To the north of it was the Abkhazian kingdom and independent Kakheti, to the east (on the territory of Azerbaijan) - the Albanian kingdom and a number of other feudal states, the largest of which was Shirvan (with the capital in Shemakha).

In Central Asia, after the collapse of the Arab Caliphate, several states arose (Samanids, Karakhanids, etc.), the largest of which was Khorezm. The Shahs of Khorezm managed to repel the invasion of the Seljuk Turks and spread their power by the 13th century to almost the entire territory of Central Asia, as well as to the southern Caspian regions, including part of Azerbaijan.

Greek colonies.

In the 1st millennium BC. the coasts of the Black Sea began to be mastered by the ancient Greeks. The greatest scope of Greek colonization reached the 6th - 5th centuries. BC. At this time, in the Northern and Eastern Black Sea and Azov regions, the Greeks created such large city-colonies as Tiras (the mouth of the Dniester), Olvia (Ochakov region), Chersonesos (Sevastopol region), Feodosia, Pantikapey (Kerch region), Tanais (Don mouth) , Phanagoria (Taman Peninsula), Dioscuria (Sukhumi region), Phasis (the mouth of the Rion). In the V century. BC. Panticapaeum became the center of a large slave-owning state - the Bosporus kingdom (V century BC - IV century AD), which covered a significant part of the Azov region. Trade, agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing, and handicraft production were actively developing here.

The Greek city-states copied the structure and way of life of the Greek world. Almost all of them were slave republics. Slaves were acquired as a result of wars, and all free citizens could own them. Large land holdings were formed here, in which grain, wine, oil were produced. The craft was at a high level, which was greatly facilitated by widespread trade. The Greek colonies maintained trade and cultural ties with the Scythian tribes living in the Black Sea and Azov steppes, with the Caucasian peoples. At the turn of our era, the Greek colonies were subjected to repeated attacks by nomads, and in the 3rd century, when the great migration of peoples began, they all ceased to exist.

Scythians.

Numerous nomadic tribes of the Scythians lived to the north of the Greek Crimean settlements. They created a vibrant and unique culture that left a deep mark in the history of the peoples of the southern part of Eastern Europe and the regions of Western and Central Asia. The earliest mentions of the Scythians are contained in written sources. The "father of history", the Greek historian Herodotus (5th century), dedicated book IV of his history to them. he named the Iranian-speaking tribes that occupied the space from the mouth of the Danube, the Lower Bug, the Dnieper to the Sea of ​​Azov and the Don. During this period, the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system was going on among the Scythians and a class society was taking shape. On the territory of the former USSR, the Scythians were among the first to create their own state.

Following the example of Herodotus, according to the method of managing the economy, it is customary to divide the Scythians into nomadic Scythians and plowmen Scythians. Scythian nomads roamed in the Lower Dnieper, Crimea, Azov. On the right bank of the Lower Dnieper lived the Scythians-ploughmen. Their dwellings were semi-dugouts, the depth of which did not exceed 1 m. Scythian plowmen cultivated wheat, flax, hemp, bred cows, sheep, goats, and pigs. Grain from Scythia was exported to Greece. They were engaged in various crafts, the most important of which was metallurgy, as well as bone carving, weaving, and pottery.
Scythian nomads were herders. They left the most famous treasures and burials, which make it possible to judge the level of their development. Horse breeding among the Scythians played a major role. The horse was a favorite and main animal, and its image was a favorite and integral decoration of many products of the Scythians. Since the Scythians constantly changed their camps, they developed a special type of dwelling - a felt yurt placed on a wagon.

In the VI - IV centuries. BC e. the Scythians united in a powerful tribal union. In the III century. BC. on its basis a strong Scythian state was formed with the capital in Scythian Naples (Simferopol region). From the point of view of the political structure, the Scythians represented military democracy... Power belonged to the military assembly. At the head of the tribe was the leader - the king, he was considered the supreme commander. The tribal nobility of the Scythians was fabulously rich, owned a huge number of slaves and wielded strong power. Slavery among the Scythians reached significant proportions. Not only prisoners of war, but also free people from subordinate tribes became slaves. In the event of the death of the king, the royal convoy was also killed in order to serve the lord in the other world. The Scythians adopted from the Greek aristocrats the passion for the accumulation of gold and its obligatory placement with the deceased.

By the III century. BC e. the general situation in the Northern Black Sea region has changed significantly. The troops of Alexander the Great dealt a crushing blow to the Scythians. The territory of the Scythians was greatly reduced and was limited only to the Crimean peninsula. Relations between the Greek city-states and the Scythians deteriorated. From the east, the Scythians began to press. At the beginning of the III century. AD came to the region of the Northern Black Sea coast. They destroyed the Scythian cities. The final defeat of the Scythian state was made by those who appeared on the Crimean peninsula in the 70s. IV century AD

The great migration of peoples in the III - IV centuries.

In the III-IV centuries. AD the time of the struggle of hundreds of barbarian tribes with neighboring states began. This period of world history is also called the great migration of peoples. Barbarians from the steppes and forests conquered the rich southern cities and settled in new places. This process contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire and Byzantium. At the same time, he had a great influence on the formation of the Romanesque, Germanic and Slavic peoples.

The resettlement of peoples proceeded in two directions. The tribes of the Celts, Germans, and later Slavs moved from the north-west of Europe to the south and south-west. Hordes of nomads moved from the east from Asia to the west. In the IV century. AD the nomadic Huns traveled from the Great Wall of China to France, the Alans, the ancestors of modern Ossetians, from the North Caucasus to Spain. At the same time, the Germanic tribes visited the Black Sea, Italy, North Africa. The beginning of the 6th century characterized by the strongest pressure of the Slavs on Byzantium. Byzantine historians describe the invasion of the empire by Slavic troops, its settlement by Slavic colonists.

The emergence of statehood among the ancient Slavs. Norman theory.

By the VI century. the tribes of the Eastern Slavs are going through the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system. Tribal and consanguineous relations are replaced by territorial, political and military ties.

With the division of labor and an increase in its productivity, it becomes possible to exploit someone else's labor. In the rural community, the process of social stratification begins, the allocation of the top, who grew rich due to the exploitation of neighbors and the use of slave labor.

Numerous wars also contributed to the emergence of a class society. In connection with the wars, the dependence of the communal peasants on the princes and their squads, who ensured the protection of communities from external enemies, increased.

By the VIII century. on the territory of the Slavic tribes, 14 tribal unions were formed. At the head of the union were the prince and the prince's squad.

The form of social relations of the Slavs in the VII-VIII centuries. military democracy advocated.

Its features include:

Participation of all members of the tribal union in solving the most important issues;

The special role of the people's assembly as the highest authority;

General arming of the population (militia).

The dominant class consisted of the old tribal aristocracy - leaders, priests, elders - and wealthy members of the community.

Pursuing military and political goals, tribal unions were united into even larger formations - "alliances of unions". Sources testify to the existence in the VIII century. three major political centers:

Kuyaba - southern group of Slavic tribes (Kiev); Slavia - northern group (Novgorod); Artania - southeastern group (Ryazan).

The Old Russian state was formed in 882 as a result of the unification under the rule of Kiev of the two largest Slavic states - Kiev and Novgorod. Later, other Slavic tribes obeyed the Kiev prince - the Drevlyans, the northerners, the Radimichi, the Ulici, the Tivertsy, the Vyatichi and the Pole. The Old Russian (Kiev) state in its form was an early feudal monarchy.

It lasted until the middle of the 12th century. In the second half of the XI - the beginning of the XII century. on its territory, semi-state princedoms began to form: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl.

According to the Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state, the state of the Eastern Slavs was created by the Varangians (Normans). Supporters of this theory are based on the legend about the vocation of the Varangians to rule the Slavs. In this regard, they believe that the Slavs were at a low level of development and were not able to create a state. The Slavs were conquered by the Varangians, and the latter created state power.

However, sources indicate that by the time the Varangians appeared in Novgorod, the state had already taken shape there. The Slavs had a high level of both socio-economic and political development, which served as the basis for the formation of the state.

The Varangian princes and their squads did not have a significant impact on the development of the Eastern Slavs, moreover, the Varangian nobility itself was influenced by Slavic culture and soon became Russified.

Development of state bodies in Russia.

According to the form of government, Kievan Rus was an early feudal monarchy. The state was headed by the Grand Duke. Its functions at the early stage of the existence of the Ancient Russian state were to organize the armed forces, command them, collect tribute and establish foreign trade. In the future, the activities of the prince in the field of management acquired greater importance: the appointment of the local administration, princely agents, legislative and judicial activities, management of foreign relations, etc.

The prince's income consisted of feudal duties, tribute (tax), court fees, criminal fines (vir and sales) and other extortions.

Relations with other princes were built on the basis of letters of the cross, which determined the rights and obligations of the Grand Duke and princes-vassals (protecting the latter, providing them with assistance, their assistance to the Grand Duke, etc.).

The Grand Ducal throne was passed on by inheritance: first, according to the principle of seniority, to the eldest in the family, and then "from the fatherland" to the son.

In his activities, the Grand Duke relied on the council of large feudal lords - the boyars and the clergy. Although the council did not have clearly defined competence, the boyars, together with the prince, solved the most important issues of management, foreign policy, court, legislative activity, etc.

Under the prince, the council consisted of boyars and "princely men". The management of the branches of the princely palace economy was entrusted to the tiuns and elders. Over time, they turn into managers of the branches of the princely economy. The decimal system of government is replaced by the palace-patrimony, in which political power belongs to the owner (boyar-patrimonial). Two centers of power were formed - the prince's palace and the boyar patrimony.

In the early feudal monarchy, the popular assembly - Vienna - plays an important state and political role. All free residents of the city (posad) and adjoining settlements (settlements) took part in the veche. The competence of the veche included issues of taxation, defense of the city, the organization of military campaigns and the election of princes. The executive body of the veche was a council consisting of the city patriciate, elders, and others.

Local government was carried out by mayors (governors) in cities and volostels in rural areas, and relied on military garrisons led by thousand, centurion and ten.

The representatives of the prince had the following powers: they collected tribute and duties, carried out justice, established and collected fines, etc. Instead of a salary for the service, they had the right to keep a part of the collected from the population for themselves. This control system is called the feeding system.

The body of local peasant self-government was the territorial community - the rope. Rope XI-XII centuries. It combined elements of the neighborhood and family communities and was a conglomerate of small settlements. The competence of the Vervi included issues of redistribution of land allotments, tax and financial issues, police supervision, litigation, crime investigation and execution of punishments. The state, using the rope for fiscal, police and administrative purposes, was interested in further preserving the communal structure.

The judiciary did not yet exist as special institutions. Judicial functions were carried out by the authorities and administrations in the center and at the local level - princes, posadniks, volostels and other representatives of the princely power.

Church jurisdiction was formalized. The church judged: the dependent population of its lands, the clergy in all categories of cases, the population of the state in some categories of cases (crimes against religion, morality, etc.).

The armed forces included: the squad of the Grand Duke, friends of local princes, the feudal militia and the people's militia.

In 988, Christianity was adopted in Russia as the state religion. The Russian Orthodox Church was organized as the diocese of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The clergy was divided into “black” (monastic) and “white” (parish). Dioceses, parishes and monasteries were the organizational centers.

The procedure for collecting tithes for the income of the church is established. She was granted the right to acquire land, inhabited villages, to exercise court in certain categories of cases, etc.

The largest monument of Russian law is Russkaya Pravda. Lists of Russkaya Pravda have come down to us in large numbers, but their unified classification is still lacking.

Russkaya Pravda was the code of ancient Russian feudal law. Its norms are the basis of the Pskov and Novgorod court letters and subsequent legislative acts of not only Russian but also Lithuanian law.

The articles of Russkaya Pravda talk about the establishment of the right of feudal ownership not only to land and land, but also to the movable property of beaver horses, tools of production, etc.

Russkaya Pravda, the oldest Russian collection of laws, was formed during the 11th-11th centuries, but some of its articles go back to pagan antiquity. The first text was discovered and prepared for publication by V.N. Tatishchev in 1737. Now there are more than a hundred copies, greatly differing in composition, volume and structure. The name of the monument differs from European traditions, where similar collections of law received purely legal titles - law. legalist. In Russia at that time the concept of "charter" was known. "Law", "custom". but the code is designated by the legal and moral term "Pravda".

It is customary to divide the collection into three editions (large groups of articles. United by chronological and semantic content): Brief. Expanded and Abbreviated. The Short Edition includes two components: the Truth of Yaroslav (or the Most Ancient) and the Truth of the Yaroslavichs - the sons of Yaroslav the Wise. Yaroslav's Truth includes - the first 18 articles of the Short Pravda and is entirely devoted to criminal law. Most likely, it arose during the struggle for the throne between Yaroslav and his brother Svyatopolk (1015-1019). Yaroslav's hired Varangian squad entered into a conflict with the Novgorodians, accompanied by murders and beatings. Seeking to settle the situation. Yaroslav appeased the Novgorodians "by giving them the Truth, and having written off the charter, tako rekshi to them: follow her literacy." Behind these words, the text of the Most Ancient Truth is placed in the Novgorod 1 Chronicle.

The truth of the Yaroslavichi includes Art. Art. 19-43 Brief Truth (Academic List). Its title indicates that the collection was developed by the three sons of Yaroslav the Wise with the participation of the largest persons from the feudal environment. There are clarifications in the texts. from which we can conclude that the collection was approved not earlier than the year of Yaroslav's death (1054) and not later than 1072 (the year of death of one of his sons).

From the second half of the XI century. began to form the Extensive Truth (121 articles on the Trinity list), which took shape in the final version in the XII century. In terms of the level of development of legal institutions, social and economic content, this is already a highly developed monument of law. Along with new regulations, it also included modified norms of the Brief Truth. Spatial Truth consists, as it were, of groups of articles united by a single meaning. It presents criminal and inheritance law, thoroughly developed the legal status of categories of the population and slaves, contains a bankruptcy charter, etc. By the beginning of the XII century. The Vast Truth has formed.

In the XIII-XIV centuries. an abbreviated edition appeared, which has come down to us in only a few copies (50 articles on the IV Trinity list). It is a selection from the Expanded Truth, adapted for more developed social relations during periods of fragmentation.

Origin criticism and content criticism. Usually, in historical criticism, two sides are distinguished: criticism of origin and criticism of content. True, some source researchers deny the need for such a division, sometimes different historians put in each of these concepts not quite the same content. But for all the vagueness of concepts and the fluidity of the boundaries between them, it is difficult to do without dividing into criticism of origin and criticism of content when analyzing sources.

Criticism of origin has other names, to some extent helping to understand its essence: "external", "initial", "preliminary", "preparatory". Criticism of the origin should reveal: the type (type) of the source, its authenticity, originality or copying; the author of the source, his social origin and position, age, education, party affiliation, nationality, personal sympathies and antipathies (the impassive author of the source, who “calmly looks at the right and the guilty, listening to good and evil indifferently, knowing neither pity nor anger”, existed only in the imagination of a genius poet); time, place, conditions of creation, purpose of the source, etc. Criticism of origin gives a general description of the source and facilitates criticism of the content.

The most important task of historical criticism is to clarify the ideological and political orientation of the source. This postulate, however, should not be vulgarized, acting according to the principle: a source from an environment close to us is always reliable, and a source from a hostile environment is always unreliable.

3. The founding fathers of historical criticism

Lorenzo Valla... Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) was a brilliant connoisseur of Latin and even wrote a treatise "Six books on the beauties of the Latin language", in which he advocated a return from corrupted, barbaric medieval Latin to classical Latin. Like other humanists, Valla was an opponent of the church, opposed asceticism as one of the beginnings of medieval church morality and preached happiness and pleasure as the goal of life. Valla considered the main culprits of the political fragmentation in Italy of the popes, whose claims to secular power during the Renaissance were still very strong.

The legal basis for such claims was a fake known as "Konstantinov's Gift". It was a forged letter, fabricated in the papal chancellery in the 8th century, according to which the Roman emperor Constantine (306-337) allegedly granted Pope Sylvester I secular authority over the entire western part of the empire.

In his treatise Discourses on the Forged and Fictitious Donation of Constantine, Valla convincingly proved that it was a forgery that could not have been composed in the 4th century. The arguments of his analysis were as follows: 1) why would Constantine begin to deprive himself of half of his possessions; 2) references to the alleged donation are not found in any other evidence; 3) the letter was written not in classical Latin, which was still in use in the 4th century, but in the late barbarian, and, therefore, it was written later and forged. The date of the compilation of the forgery (VIII century) was set later.

We are interested in the work of Balla not from the anti-church side, but from the source study. Valla laid the foundations for source analysis, although centuries will pass before historical criticism will be widely used as the most important method of historical research.

The further development of source analysis from the end of the 18th century was associated with the names of the German university professors of antiquity Wolf and Niebuhr, especially the historian of modern times L. Ranke.

Wolf and Niebuhr. F. A. Wolf(1759-1884) in his "Introduction to Homer" (1795) investigated the Homeric epic.

Historians used Homer's poems earlier, but mainly for borrowing historical facts. Wolf, on the other hand, investigated the source itself, in particular, put forward the problem of its authorship. He argued that the Iliad was not created by one person, but is a recording of folklore works in which the Greek people reflected their ancient past.

Walking, like Wolf, along the path of philological criticism, B.G. Niebuhr(1776-1831) studied the works of the Roman historian Titus Livy and claimed that they were based on folk tales. He argued that historical narration is impossible without a prior assessment of witnesses telling about the past, that is, without a preliminary assessment of the authors of the sources: their awareness, their likes and dislikes, the ability to reliably convey events.

Wolf and Niebuhr critically studied specific sources on their topics (Homer, Titus Livy). Each of them explored their specific sources by groping, intuitively. They did not formulate the rules of which the critical method was supposed to consist. Therefore, they themselves could not apply this method systematically and comprehensively, all the more they could not consciously and deliberately teach it to other historians.

Ranke's creative path. Further development of source analysis is associated, first of all, with the name of Ranke.

In the life of the humble teacher Leopold Ranke (1795-1886), who taught history and Latin at the grammar school of the provincial Frankfurt an der Oder, an unexpected advance began on the educational, scientific and social ladder. He turned out to be a professor and head of a department at the University of Berlin, a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, was elevated to the nobility, becoming Leopold von Ranke, and became an educator of some of the German successors to the throne. Bismarck even compared the usefulness of reading Ranke's writings with studying the Bible. This rise of Ranke began in 1824, when he published his first work "History of the Germanic and Romanesque peoples in 1494-1535" with accompanying source study study "To the criticism of modern historians", and continued until the end of his life - Ranke died at the apogee of fame. Meanwhile, Ranke's views were conservative, lecturer data were mediocre. What are the reasons for his phenomenal career? What are his merits?

"Ranke method". Using previous achievements, in particular the methods of philological analysis of Wolf and Niebuhr, Ranke developed a system of methods for analyzing sources, which contemporaries began to call the "Ranke method". The foundations of this analysis were already contained in the study "To the Critique of Contemporary Historians" - in fact, part of his first work with a story about the sources used in writing it and the ways of their application. Among the sources were the works of the Florentine politician Guicciardini and the Roman memoirist Giovio, who lived in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. It was impossible to reconcile their testimonies due to the great contradictions, and to establish the historical truth, Ranke drew on testimonies from other contemporaries, whose appearance he had previously found out, as if subjecting them to "cross-examination." This is the basis of the "Ranke method": he finds out the origin of each source, the competence of the author of the source, the degree of trust in him, and then compares the sources used to establish a true picture of the past.

Although the "Ranke method", or, more precisely, the method of historical criticism, did not arise from scratch, it was a discovery in science. Several times historians have used this method unintentionally, by groping. "Ranke distracted it from the unconscious actual application and generalized it into a logical formula that could henceforth be passed on to a whole generation of secondary historians in a school way."

With his arrival at the University of Berlin in 1825, Ranke turned historical criticism into an academic discipline. Seminars, which he first introduced into university practice, have become a convenient form of academic teaching in historical criticism. Students and young historians, over time and not only German ones, who were eager to join the newest methods of researching historical sources, took part in their work. Ranke created an extensive school, his students took departments in most German universities. Thanks to the activities of Ranke's seminar and the growing authority of his school, the principles of historical criticism spread not only in Germany, but also abroad.

In addition, Ranke began to study archival materials and revealed their significance for the study of the past, and it was with him that the use of archives began, without which historians have not imagined themselves ever since.

That is why Ranke is deservedly called "the father of historical criticism."