The main direction of internal criticism of the source. Historical sources and their criticism. Peoples of Central Asia

home The main sources involved in this study are the following subtypes of office documentation: minutes of meetings of the political and educational committee, minutes of meetings of school employees, minutes of meetings of school councils and parent meetings

; information on schools in the form of statistical documentation; teacher questionnaires; school reports on the work done; sick leave and vacation certificates for teachers; estimates for school renovations; lists of students, etc. Talking about appearance

sources, it should immediately be noted that they are all preserved in fairly good condition. An archival storage unit is a “Case” folder containing a certain number of documents. On the cover in large letters in the center it says “Minutes of meetings of the volost political and educational committee”, and the date is indicated at the bottom right, for example in storage unit No. 24 there is the following entry - “Started: January 5, 1926 Finished: December 30.”

The documents are filed with thread on the left side according to a chronological principle. Cases contain from 60 to 500 sheets.

• Most documents are drawn up in writing by hand, less often on a typewriter. Minutes of meetings, for example, were kept during the meeting; the handwriting of the writers was sometimes not legible, which made them difficult to study. The ink color is also different:
• · Black;
• · Blue;
• · Green;
• · Violet;

· Red;

It should be noted that the “original” protocols, as a rule, had copies compiled for storage in the institution for the purpose of transferring information to higher authorities (for example, to the district or provincial committees). On copies of the minutes, the printed sign COPY was placed in the upper right corner and at the end of the document the chairman of the meeting wrote “Copy is correct” and signed. The paper used for keeping documents was changed at almost every meeting. Most often, the paper was of low quality, dark in color, A4 format (especially in rural settlements ). The minutes were kept on paper:

• different types
• · “in line”;
• · “in a cage”;
• · "White list;

· office paper of other institutions;

By the 1920s, office work had largely established a basic structure for the introduction of protocols. This stability makes it possible to present the contents of the protocols:

• 1. Province, district, volost, village, society;
• 2. Date;
• 3. Self-name of the gathering (if present);
• 4. Composition and number of participants;
• 5. Chairman, official members of the company;
• 6. Presence of outsiders (representatives of government, public, etc.);
• 7. Self-title of the document;
• 8. List of issues discussed;
• 9. Listening to each question point by point;
• 10. Decisions made after each question;
• 11. Signature of the clerk (secretary);
• 12. Signature of the chairman of the meeting;
• 13. Seal of the institution;

Unfortunately, this structure was not always followed, which complicates the research. Sometimes, in order to save time, or perhaps due to the inexperience or illiteracy of the secretary, such important points such as the dating of the protocol, the composition of the participants or the list of issues discussed. It should also be noted that, unfortunately, the vast majority of protocols are “dumb”. “Blank” protocols are protocols that contain only an indication of the agenda, a list of speakers and brief decisions (for example, minutes of meetings of the presidium of the volost political and educational committee for 1926, GATO. F. R-1666. Op. 1. Item. 24.).

Establishing the time and place of origin of the sources is not difficult in this case, since all documents, firstly, are distributed according to a geographical principle in the archival file itself, and secondly, the dating and place of creation can be established from the text of the document itself, in which it is necessary either at the beginning or at the end the place of creation is indicated and exact time. Finding out the time the source appeared is very important, since the assessment of both the source itself and the information it provides largely depends on it.

When working with office documents, it is necessary to take into account how the office work of a given institution was carried out, on what principle the file was formed, how archivists-custodians subsequently invaded it, unforeseen accidents, and also take into account history government agencies. Since office documents arise directly in the process of practical activities of institutions and organizations when they perform their functions in the field of management or implementation public organizations responsibilities assigned to them. Chernomorsky M. N. Source study of the history of the USSR: Soviet period. M., 1976. P. 181.

In the 1920s, as the main government agency in the field of education, science and art according to Decree II All-Russian Congress The People's Commissariat of Education of the Republic operated in the Soviet Union, headed by A.V. Lunacharsky. In area local significance, according to the resolution of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR dated January 21, 1918, educational districts and their entire administration were abolished, local school management was transferred to local Councils of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. As part of the executive committees of provincial, district, city and volost Soviets, special bodies- departments of public education, which functioned on the principle of double subordination. Being organs local councils, they at the same time represented the local apparatus of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR. Nelidov A. A. History of state institutions of the USSR 1917-1936. M.:, 1962. P. 694.

The activities of local departments of public education, the volume of their work, the breadth of coverage of issues of cultural construction, and at the same time their apparatus were directly dependent on the size of the territory under their jurisdiction (province, district, city, etc.), the power and complexity of the subordinated to them networks of educational institutions. But with all this, as A. A. Nelidov notes, the following functions were common to all departments of public education: school reform, concern for the material support of educational work within their jurisdiction, concern for providing educational institutions with qualified Soviet personnel, development of a network of educational institutions, developing the most appropriate organizational forms, programs and methods of educational work, instructing grassroots bodies and educational institutions, promoting the ideas of Soviet education among the population, linking educational work with the activities of trade union and party bodies, as well as with the work of economic bodies and the population, organizing public initiative , in the matter of public education, control over the execution of orders, etc. Nelidov A. A. History of state institutions of the USSR 1917-1936. P. 700. source clerical criticism archival

Local bodies were represented by provincial and district departments of public education, and in zoned territories by regional, district and district public education organizations. IN this study This means the Novotorzhsky district ONO and the Likhoslavl VONO. It should be noted that in territories where district administrative division was introduced, the management of public education in the district was entrusted to one of the members of the district executive committee. Under him, a public education apparatus was created, consisting of 2-3 workers.

Thus, the features of the source will come from the structure and organization of work of public education departments.

Establishing the reliability (authenticity of the source) is one of the stages external criticism. A source is considered authentic if all its details (stamps, signatures, handwriting, paper, ink) are authentic.

1.1. External and internal criticism of historical sources. Subject of study of auxiliary historical disciplines

When recreating a true picture of the historical past, researchers use a variety of historical sources in their work. Historical sources - all evidence of the past that is associated with human activities and reflects the history of human society. Any item to which it has been applied at least twice work activity person is a historical source.

Historical sources are:

· material (various household and cultural objects created by human civilization);

· ethnographic (preserved traditions in the morals and customs of peoples);

· oral (folklore);

· linguistic (outdated words and names that were used in ancient times to call various phenomena and objects);

· written (signs made on organic or inorganic material that can be identified as writing);

· film, photo, phono, video documents.

Historical sources are varied and to prove their authenticity they must be subject to criticism. Criticism of sources is divided into external and internal.

External criticism is primarily about obtaining information about the origin of the source. This is what they do auxiliary historical disciplines– establishing the time and place of compilation of the source, authorship, conditions of its writing, authenticity, as well as restoration of the original text.

Auxiliary historical disciplines allow for analysis of text, language data, proper names, geographical information, observation of forms, handwriting, writing signs and writing materials.

The purpose of external criticism – determining the degree of legality of using a source in scientific research.

Internal criticism is based on studying the content of the source and aims to establish its reliability, that is, to determine the degree to which life events correspond to their reflection in the source. The completeness of information and scientific value of the source is established. When internally criticizing a source, it is necessary to identify social status, national and cultural affiliation of the author. The author can ignore or modify some facts and, on the contrary, highlight those that he is interested in covering in detail. The author also has a certain influence historical setting where he lives and works. Internal criticism historical sources are concerned with source studies.

Source study is an auxiliary historical discipline that needs to be given first place, which develops a methodology and theory for the study and use of historical sources. Source studies deals with techniques for identifying, classifying historical sources, and developing a comprehensive methodology for processing, studying and using sources.

The subject of study of source studies is written sources.

The main tasks of source study:

1. Identification of sources, search for sources;

2. Establishing the text (identifying later insertions - intercolations). Reading the text.

3. Establishing the origin of sources - authorship, place of writing, year of writing, authenticity, establishing the purpose of writing.

4. Determining the completeness of information and the political orientation of the document.

5. Synthesis of historical sources.

Source study, having separated from the auxiliary historical disciplines, is currently striving to become a special historical discipline.

The next, significant part of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky’s work is the chapter devoted to historical criticism. The scientist speaks of the need to replace the collection of technical rules with a general, systematic and complete doctrine of criticism. At the same time, he emphasizes that criticism pursues its cognitive goal and therefore cannot be confused with the doctrine of interpretation. "The purpose scientific criticism is to establish the scientific and historical value of the source.”

Criticism, according to the scientist, arises under the influence of doubt about the value of what interests the researcher, if the historian has not eliminated his doubt through interpretation, when he encounters disagreements between the testimony of sources, etc.

Any criticism presupposes the presence of a criterion according to which something is recognized as valuable. In scientific and historical criticism, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky takes such a criterion, first of all, truth (absolute and factual), as well as the criteria of authenticity or inauthenticity, reliability or unreliability.

Due to the fact that a source can have scientific and historical value in a double sense: as a historical fact and as evidence of historical fact, - there are differences in cognitive purposes, and accordingly the scientist distinguishes two types of criticism:

• 1) criticism, establishing the scientific and historical value of the source as a fact;
• 2) criticism, establishing the scientific and historical value of the source’s testimony about the fact.

This division, the scientist notes, to a certain extent coincides with the division of criticism into:

• "historical" and "philological"
• "external" and "internal"
• "criticism of authenticity" and "criticism of authenticity". The main task of the first type of criticism is to clarify

authenticity historical source. In this regard, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky considers the concept of “authenticity”:

If a historian has reason to assert that a real source is the very fact as this source appears to him (that its author is really the very person he appears to be, that this source arose at the time and in the place indicated in it, that this source really retained the very form and content that it received upon its appearance, that it really had the very meaning that it ascribes to itself), he recognizes it as authentic.

The scientist names two concepts as a criterion for establishing authenticity.

Firstly, the concept of unity or disunity of consciousness. The unity of consciousness is understood as the logical consistency of the author’s thoughts, the unity of purpose and its execution in the source, identical or very similar features of creativity in a number of works by one author. If the historian finds contradictory elements of the source or its parts, that is, notices disunity in it, then there is reason to doubt its authenticity.

Secondly, the concept of the correspondence or non-compliance of the source with the culture and the individuality to which it belongs. To establish the correspondence of a source with the culture of a given area, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky proposes to use methods of systematic typing interpretation, and with the culture of a given time - methods of evolutionary typing interpretation. It is also possible to conduct a comparative study of the work under study with the sources of a given culture.

The scientist also applies the above criteria in order to establish groups of interconnected sources. A group is understood as a set of sources that are in some dependence.

The construction of a group of “related” sources consists, first of all, in establishing the one that is recognized as the “archetype”, the original or the main source that influenced the emergence of the remaining, derivative members of the group (copies, sources containing borrowings from the main one, etc.). Further, such a construction requires studying the relationship in which the dependent sources are among themselves. The search for an “archetype” is based on general criteria authenticity and inauthenticity of the source.

In connection with the above concepts, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky dwells on the question of the relationship between the original and the copy.

In his opinion, the unity of consciousness is not fully reflected in the copy, even if it is impeccably executed by the author himself - and even more so if the copy is made from someone else's original. Therefore, a copy cannot be recognized as an original. At the same time, “the original is a product in which the individual act of creativity and its execution merged together.” The scientist also considers it possible to establish differences between the original and the copy using the criterion of correspondence. When a work does not correspond to the culture or individuality to which it is attributed, then it is not an original, not an original, but a copy.

Of great interest are the arguments of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky about the so-called “imaginary sources”. The scientist lists plagiarism and forgery as such.

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky distinguishes between plagiarism in a broad sense: “deliberate and secret borrowing of any part of someone else’s work that has some value” - and plagiarism in a narrower sense, which consists of “appropriating to oneself someone else’s discoveries, inventions or original observations and conclusions with deliberate concealment of the very source of borrowing and without independent processing of at least the form of the borrowed.”

As for counterfeiting, characterizing its nature in a broad, psychological sense, the scientist dwells on the categories of subject and object of such a source. By the subject of counterfeiting, he means “anyone who deliberately passes off his (manufactured) artificial product as real, through lies or deception. In this case, the subject is content with only the external similarity between his product and the original. The object of counterfeiting is the counterfeit product itself.”

From a cognitive point of view, notes A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, the criterion of forgery turns out to be more complex than the criterion of inauthenticity of the source. In order to come to the conclusion that the product he is studying is counterfeit, the historian must clearly establish the identity of the creator of the counterfeit and his motives, and have grounds to assert that the creator discovered an evil will in his creation, namely, he wanted to pass off his artificial product as real by deception.

The scientist proposes to use the concept of a counterfeit product in the historical, cognitive and legal sense. In the historical-cognitive sense, one can deliberately pass off an artificial product as a real one through deception, if one ascribes to it the meaning of a real source. In the legal approach, a product is assigned a legal meaning that it does not have. In the latter case we're talking about about forgery.

In the concept of counterfeits, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky identified various shades depending on the motives for their appearance and the degree of artificiality of the counterfeit product. The motives for counterfeiting are the “passion for counterfeiting,” personal gain, the desire for wealth, fame, genealogical calculation, political interests, etc. The degree of artificiality of a counterfeit product can be partial or complete. Partial forgery is sometimes called falsification. It should be borne in mind that a complete fake can be presented as either an original or a copy, or contain only a retelling of an imaginary source and references to it.

Due to the fact that a forgery is an artificial product of human ill will, a “materialized lie,” the methods for detecting it are in many ways similar to the methods for establishing the inauthenticity of a source. A counterfeit is detected by its “artificiality” general view product, its excessive preservation or, conversely, demonstrative archaism,” etc. The technical method of interpretation is also suitable in this case.

At the same time, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky drew attention to the fact that a source can be genuine and yet turn out to be unreliable - and vice versa. Therefore, the researcher must distinguish the concepts of authenticity and inauthenticity from the concepts of reliability and unreliability of the source.

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky believed that the basis of criticism of the second type, which establishes the scientific value of the testimony of a source, is the concept of its reliability or unreliability.

The main criterion of reliability, according to the scientist, is the criterion of truth - factual and absolute.

A historian recognizes a source as reliable if, based on its testimony about a fact, he can scientifically judge the same fact as if he himself had experienced or not experienced it (a historian can attribute reliability to such testimony that reports that the fact of interest to the historian did not exist in reality) it in your sensory perception. And, conversely, he considers a source unreliable if, on the basis of his testimony, he cannot infer such a fact in the above sense.

It is obvious that this concept of the reliability or unreliability of a source was formulated by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky from a theoretical-cognitive point of view.

In the event that the testimony does not deserve to be recognized as unconditionally true or unconditionally untrue, it is necessary to find out the degree of its reliability or unreliability.

“The degree of reliability of a testimony depends on the ratio in which its “true elements” are to the entire set of elements included in the testimony.” But at the same time, one cannot be content with counting them, but must weigh the value of each element. The degree of unreliability of the testimony is determined by finding out the ratio in which “its incorrect elements” are to the totality of all the elements that form the testimony.

According to the scientist, it should be borne in mind that such a concept is not attached to a fact, but to the knowledge about the fact revealed in the testimony about it. You cannot talk about the degree of reliability or unreliability of a fact that happened or did not happen, but you can talk about the degree of reliability or unreliability of knowledge about the fact.

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, as a criterion for establishing the degree of reliability or unreliability of a source, proposed answering two questions:

• 1) the recorded fact could or could not have happened;
• 2) whether he really was or wasn’t.

When answering the first question, the historian, according to A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, must proceed from the concept of the systematic unity of consciousness in general and from the position of the relationship given indication with “absolute truth” to judge its meaning, namely whether it corresponds or not to the “laws of consciousness” and “laws of nature.”

When answering the second question, it is not enough to be content with the criterion of “absolute truth”; it is also necessary to establish criteria for the actual truth of testimony. The most important of them are the concepts of the unity of consciousness contained in a given testimony, and the correspondence of a work with the culture and individuality to which it belongs.

The historian constantly uses another criterion suitable for establishing the factual reliability of testimony: the knowledge that he receives about each new fact that interests him must be put in accordance with his knowledge about the remaining facts already known to him. According to the scientist, two types of the above correspondence can be distinguished: consistency (non-contradiction) of evidence and coincidence (identity of independent) evidence.

To determine the reliability or unreliability of source testimony independent meaning, as noted by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, has a study of the genesis of indications. At the same time, the circumstances and conditions for the emergence of the testimony being studied, the reasons and motives for its appearance are studied in detail, the conditions of a given place and time, and the position occupied by their author in society are clarified. The genesis of the indications is being clarified in connection with general properties human nature and depending on the conditions of the culture in which they arose. The identity of the author or witness requires detailed study.

“Methodology of History” ends with A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky’s reflections on general meaning historical sources.

The scientist’s conclusions have not lost their modern resonance today. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky notes:

Historical sources have both theoretical and practical significance. In theoretical terms, they are important for understanding historical reality. In practical terms, they are needed in order to act in it and participate in cultural life humanity.

From a general theoretical and epistemological point of view, a historical source acquires a special kind of significance, since without historical sources it is impossible to construct the history of mankind, which can only be learned from them.

But, the scientist warns, historical knowledge based on historical sources turns out to be only “more or less probable.” Firstly, because the material available to the researcher is of rather “random origin”. And, secondly, because the historian rarely achieves a “full understanding and proper assessment” of the testimony of the source.

However, further argues A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, thanks to the close connection between manifestations of culture, occasional gaps of one type of source can sometimes be filled in with data from other sources. The gaps formed in a given group of sources or in one of them can be restored by reconstructing the archetype or restoring lost parts. The concept of “random material” is more applicable to the remains of culture than to historical legends, since “than fact is more important for a certain social group, the more likely it is that it will somehow be reflected in the consciousness of contemporaries or even several generations and will evoke on their part some kind of memory or evaluation.”

In addition, according to A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, the historian must keep in mind that each source receives its full “meaning” only as a result of its scientific processing. But in many cases, interpretation and criticism cannot achieve completely accurate results and are forced to be content with “an understanding of the source that is only more or less close to the truth.” Consequently, conclusions obtained by interpreting and criticizing a source can easily turn out to be “only more or less probable.”

At the same time, the scientist emphasizes, “historical material (controlled by interpretation and criticism) is still suitable for understanding historical reality.” Moreover, “the wider the range of sources to which the historian turns, the more he can count on achieving his goal.” Further, A. S. Lap-po-Danilevsky concludes:

One should not overly underestimate the importance of historical material for the knowledge and construction of historical reality: it suffers, of course, from significant gaps and does not always lend itself to successful interpretation and criticism, but it also contains such treasures of human thought, the study of which is sufficient to construct the history of our culture , By at least, in its main features and contribute to its development in the future.

Discussing the significance of sources for the knowledge and construction of historical reality, the scientist emphasizes that they themselves turn out to be “facts from the history of culture that arose under its influence” and “can more or less significantly influence its subsequent development.” A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky concludes his work with the words about the meaning of historical sources in the matter of cultural continuity: “Without the constant use of historical sources, a person cannot participate in the fullness of the cultural life of mankind.”

Thus, the “Methodology of History” represents an integral, theoretically reasoned concept. And S. Lappo-Danilevsky defined the tasks of the methodology of source study, formulated the concept of a historical source as the central link of his scientific concept, and correlated other theoretical basis sciences and methods of source research - classification, doctrines of criticism and interpretation, determining the meaning of historical sources. The scientist considered the main issues of source study methodology in the system of historical knowledge.

For almost a century, the dominant point of view in Russian historiography was that A. S. LappoDanilevsky belonged to neo-Kantian direction of philosophy of history. However, in Lately a different view has formed, the essence of which is that the scientist’s philosophical concept is close to phenomenology E. Husserl, based on the ideas of the unity of the world and scientific knowledge about him. Thus, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky saw in humanity a special part of the world whole endowed with consciousness (O. M. Medushevskaya).

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky creatively rethought contemporary epistemological concepts: the positivism of O. Comte, the neo-Kantian philosophy of W. Windelband and G. Rickert, the sociological ideas of N. K. Mikhailovsky. He did not agree with the neo-Kantians in contrasting the nomothetic and ideographic approaches in science and believed that in historical research they coexist and complement each other. Thus, the main position of neo-Kantianism was not only not shared, but was also refuted by it.

Consideration morphological features documents at the empirical level became the main goal of the positivist direction. The positivist historian studied historical sources as and only as they are presented in direct empirical perception.

The philosophical paradigm that has proven capable of combining philosophical and empirical approaches into a single whole is the phenomenological approach to historical phenomena. A. S. Lap-Danilsvsky, as the founder of the phenomenological concept of historical methodology, put forward the thesis of “recognition of someone else’s animation,” which means that there is a universal connection between man and man, a certain possibility of their mutual understanding. This affirms the possibility of animated exchange through realized products of purposeful human activity. Phenomenological philosophy, based on the thesis about the integrity and systematicity of the surrounding world, allows us to take a new approach to understanding the vast empirical material accumulated in the field of source studies. The similarities and differences of historical sources can be studied as a manifestation of their unity and diversity. It turns out to be possible to consider any of them as historical phenomenon and applying to them a unified method of revealing their source capabilities.

Assessing the contribution of his teacher, S. N. Valk defined the essence of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky’s concept as “phenomenology of culture.” Creation at the beginning of the 20th century. The phenomenological concept of historical methodology became a decisive historiographical fact for the subsequent development of the theory and methodology of source study.

Bibliography

Sources

Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Methodology of history / A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. - M., 2006.

Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Essay on Russian diplomacy of private acts. Lectures given to students of the “Archival Courses” at the Petrograd Archaeological Institute in 1918 / A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. - Pg„ 1920.

Research

Valk S. N. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. Essay on Russian diplomacy of private acts / S. N. Valk // Russian Historical Journal. - 1922. - No. 8.

Grevs I.M. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky: Experience in the interpretation of the soul / I. M. Grevs // Russian Historical Journal. - 1920. - Book. 6.

Ivanov G. M. Historical source and historical knowledge / G. M. Ivanov. - Tomsk, 1973.

Historical science and methodology of history in Russia of the 20th century: To the 140th anniversary of the birth of Academician A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. - St. Petersburg, 2003.

Malinov A. Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky: historian and philosopher / A. Malinov, S. Pogodin. - St. Petersburg, 2001.

Medushevskaya O. M. History of source study in the 19th-20th centuries. / O. M. Medushevskaya. - M., 1988.

Medushevskaya O. M. Lappo-Danilevsky / O. M. Medushevskaya // Social thought in Russia in the 18th - early 20th centuries. Encyclopedia. - M., 2005.-S. 249-250.

Medushevskaya O. M. Methodology of history as a strict science / O. M. Medushevskaya // Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Methodology of history: in 2 volumes - M.: ROSSPEN, 2010. - T. 1. - P. 23-84.

Medushevskaya O. M. Modern foreign source studies / O. M. Medushevskaya. - M., 1983.

Medushevskaya O. M. Theory and methodology of cognitive history / O. M. Medushevskaya. - M., 2008.

Pronshtein A.P. Theory and methodology of historical source study in the work of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky “Methodology of History” / A. P. Pronshtein// Source Study national history. 1989. - M., 1989.

Rostovtsev E. A. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky and the St. Petersburg school / E. A. Rostovtsev. - Ryazan, 2004.

Rusina Yu. A. The scientific heritage of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky (on the issue of the theory and methodology of source study) / Yu. A. Rusina // Document. Archive. Story. Modernity: Sat. scientific tr. - Vol. 2. - Ekaterinburg: Ural State University Publishing House, 2002. - P. 246-263.

Rumyantseva M. F. Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky (introductory article) / M. F. Rumyantseva // Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Methodology of history: in 2 volumes - M.: ROSSPEN, 2010. - T. 1. - P. 5-23 .

KhmylevL. N. Problems of historical methodology in Russian bourgeois historiography late XIX- beginning of the 20th century / L. N. Khmylev. - Tomsk, 1978.

Schmidt S. O. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky at the turn of eras / S. O. Schmidt // The historian’s path: selected works on source study and historiography.-M„ 1997.-P. 167-176.

1.1. External and internal criticism of historical sources. Subject of study of auxiliary historical disciplines

When recreating a true picture of the historical past, researchers use a variety of historical sources in their work. Historical sources- all evidence of the past that is associated with human activities and reflects the history of human society. Any object to which human labor activity has been applied at least twice is a historical source.

Historical sources are:

· material (various household and cultural objects created by human civilization);

· ethnographic (preserved traditions in the morals and customs of peoples);

· oral (folklore);

· linguistic (outdated words and names that were used in ancient times to call various phenomena and objects);

· written (signs made on organic or inorganic material that can be identified as writing);

· film, photo, phono, video documents.

Historical sources are varied and to prove their authenticity they must be subject to criticism. Criticism of sources is divided into external and internal.

External criticism is primarily about obtaining information about the origin of the source. This is what they do auxiliary historical disciplines– establishing the time and place of compilation of the source, authorship, conditions of its writing, authenticity, as well as restoration of the original text.

Auxiliary historical disciplines allow for analysis of text, language data, proper names, geographical information, observation of forms, handwriting, writing signs and writing materials.

The purpose of external criticism – determining the degree of legality of using a source in scientific research.

Internal criticism is based on studying the content of the source and aims to establish its reliability, that is, to determine the degree to which life events correspond to their reflection in the source. The completeness of information and scientific value of the source is established. When internally criticizing a source, it is necessary to identify social status, national and cultural affiliation of the author. The author can ignore or modify some facts and, on the contrary, highlight those that he is interested in covering in detail. The author also has a certain influence historical setting where he lives and works. Internal criticism of a historical source is carried out by source studies.

Source study is an auxiliary historical discipline that needs to be given first place, which develops a methodology and theory for the study and use of historical sources. Source studies deals with techniques for identifying, classifying historical sources, and developing a comprehensive methodology for processing, studying and using sources.

The subject of study of source studies is written sources.

The main tasks of source study:

1. Identification of sources, search for sources;

2. Establishing the text (identifying later insertions - intercolations). Reading the text.

3. Establishing the origin of sources - authorship, place of writing, year of writing, authenticity, establishing the purpose of writing.

4. Determining the completeness of information and the political orientation of the document.

5. Synthesis of historical sources.

Source study, having separated from the auxiliary historical disciplines, is currently striving to become a special historical discipline.

Historical criticism

By the name of historical history we mean, first of all, a set of techniques that the historian uses in order to distinguish truth from lies in historical evidence. The so-called K. text is aimed at resolving the issue of the authenticity or falsification of a document. For example, one of the founders of historical history in new Europe , Italian humanist of the 15th century. Lavrenty Valla (see), wrote an entire essay to prove the forgery of the famous gift of Konstantinov, the authenticity of which was believed throughout the Middle Ages. Further, the document itself may be genuine, but the information contained in it may be incorrect. The author of one or another historical source often conveys what he himself learned from others, including in his work, without any criticism, known to him only by hearsay. Often the author himself, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, distorts the facts of which he was a direct witness. The scientific nature of historical work should be based primarily on the elimination from sources of everything that may contradict factual reliability. Historical history gives rules, developed through experience, on how to treat news contained in historical sources of different categories. The main common basis of these rules is simple common sense, but their successful application in practice is possible only with a certain kind of skill, the possession of which indicates a good school passed by the historian. Nevertheless, many scientists tried to formulate the rules of historical calculus as a special methodological discipline; There is a whole literature on this subject. Historical history is usually divided into external and internal. By external criticism is meant the examination, in relation to each document or monument, firstly, whether it is what it claims to be, and secondly, whether it really represents what it has hitherto been taken to be. When examining a source from the first point of view, for example, either direct forgery, or any insertions into the original text or other distortions can be discovered. The main issues are resolved here by examining the internal merit of the sources, which depends on the nature of the sources themselves, on the individuality of the author, and on the influences of place and time. At the same time, it is very often necessary to check the reliability of some sources by others, and many sources about the same fact may, to a greater or lesser extent, either coincide with each other, or contradict each other. In all cases of historical research, both external and internal, from the researcher, except common sense and skill, impartiality and close familiarity with the subject of research are also required. Some theorists of historical theory also point out the need to maintain a golden mean between gullibility and excessive skepticism. The newest treatise on historical history, with references to the literature of the subject, is the fourth chapter of E. Bernheim’s excellent book: “Lehrbuch der historischen Methode” (1889, 2nd ed. 1894). Russian historical literature is very poor in works on historical history. A number of comments on this subject can be found in volume I of “Russian History” by Bestuzhev-Ryumin and in volume I of “The Experience of Russian Historiography” by Ikonnikov. See also Fortinsky’s article: “Experiences in the systematic processing of historical criticism,” in “Kyiv University News” for 1884, as well as the Russian translation of Tardif’s pamphlet: “Fundamentals of Historical K.” (1894). In a broader sense, the name of historical criticism is given to a critical attitude, from a historical point of view, towards the very phenomena studied historical science; but such usage cannot be considered correct, and it can give rise to great misunderstandings.

N. Kareev.

encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what “Historical Criticism” is in other dictionaries:

- (Greek xritikn art of judging, disassembling) study, analysis and evaluation of the phenomena of muses. lawsuit va. In a broad sense, classical music is part of any study of music, since the evaluative element is an integral part of aesthetics. judgments...... Music Encyclopedia

THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word “judgment” is closely related to the concept of “court”. To judge, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze any object, try to understand its meaning, bring... ... Literary encyclopedia

- (Greek krittke, from krino I judge). Analysis and judgments about the merits and demerits of any subject, work, especially an essay; discussion, evaluation. Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. CRITICISM of the Greek... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Criticism- Literary criticism is a type of literary creativity, the subject of which is literature itself. Just as philosophy of science is the theory of knowledge, epistemology is the organ of self-awareness of scientific creativity, so criticism is the organ of self-awareness of creativity... ... Dictionary of literary terms

CRITICISM, critics, women. (from Greek kritike). 1. units only Discussion, consideration, research of something, testing of something for some purpose. To criticize something. Treat something without any criticism. Criticism of pure... ... Dictionary Ushakova

Contents 1 Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.1 Notable critics 1.2 Translation ... Wikipedia

Women search and judgment about the merits and demerits of any work, esp. essays; analysis, assessment. Historical criticism, everyday analysis, searching for events, clearing them of embellishments and distortions. Human criticism cannot be avoided, gossip,... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

- "New Chronology" is a non-academic theory that states that the generally accepted chronology historical events is generally incorrect, and offers its own version of chronology and the history of mankind in general. According to its authors, it is based on... ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Historical school. Historical school of law current in jurisprudence first half of the 19th century century. It originated and became most famous in Germany. Contents 1 Basic provisions ... Wikipedia

Books

• A. Pushkin. Collected works in 6 volumes (set of 6 books), A. Pushkin. The collected works of the great Russian poet and writer A. S. Pushkin include all of his most significant works...