January 28, 1841 (Voskresenovka village, Penza province, Russian Empire) - May 25, 1911 (Moscow, Russian Empire)
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky is the most prominent Russian liberal historian, a “legend” of Russian historical science, an ordinary professor at Moscow University, an ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (extra staff) in Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councilor.
IN. Klyuchevsky
So much has been written about V.O. Klyuchevsky that it seems completely impossible to insert even a word into the grandiose memorial erected to the legendary historian in the memoirs of his contemporaries, scientific monographs of fellow historians, popular articles in encyclopedias and reference books. For almost every anniversary of Klyuchevsky, entire collections of biographical, analytical, historical and journalistic materials were published, devoted to the analysis of one or another aspect of his work, scientific concepts, pedagogical and administrative activities within the walls of Moscow University. Indeed, largely thanks to his efforts, Russian historical science already in the second half of the 19th century reached a completely new qualitative level, which subsequently ensured the appearance of works that laid the foundations of modern philosophy and methodology of historical knowledge.
Meanwhile, in the popular scientific literature about V.O. Klyuchevsky, and especially in modern publications on Internet resources, only general information about the biography of the famous historian is given. The characteristics of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky, who, of course, was one of the most outstanding, extraordinary and remarkable people of his era, the idol of more than one generation of students and teachers at Moscow University, are also presented very differently.
This inattention can be partly explained by the fact that the main biographical works on Klyuchevsky (M.V. Nechkina, R.A. Kireeva, L.V. Cherepnin) were created in the 70s of the 20th century, when in classical Soviet historiography “the path of the historian” was understood primarily as the process of preparing his scientific works and creative achievements. Moreover, under the conditions of the dominance of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the propaganda of the advantages of the Soviet way of life, it was impossible to openly say that even under the “damned tsarism” a person from the lower classes had the opportunity to become a great scientist, a privy councilor, to enjoy the personal favor and deep respect of the emperor and members of the tsarist government. families. This to some extent neutralized the gains of the October Revolution, among which, as is known, the people declared that they had gained those same “equal” opportunities. In addition, V.O. Klyuchevsky in all Soviet textbooks and reference literature was unambiguously ranked among the representatives of “liberal-bourgeois” historiography - i.e. to class alien elements. It would never have occurred to any Marxist historian to study the private life and reconstruct little-known facets of the biography of such a “hero.”
In post-Soviet times, it was believed that the factual side of Klyuchevsky’s biography had been sufficiently studied, and therefore there was no point in returning to it. Of course: in the life of a historian there are no scandalous love affairs, career intrigues, acute conflicts with colleagues, i.e. there is no “strawberry” that could interest the average reader of the Caravan of Stories magazine. This is partly true, but as a result, today the general public knows only historical anecdotes about the “secrecy” and “excessive modesty” of Professor Klyuchevsky, his maliciously ironic aphorisms, and contradictory statements “pulled up” by the authors of various pseudo-scientific publications from personal letters and memoirs of contemporaries.
However, a modern view of the personality, private life and communications of a historian, the process of his scientific and extra-scientific creativity implies the intrinsic value of these objects of research as part of the “historiographic life” and the world of Russian culture as a whole. Ultimately, the life of each person consists of relationships in the family, friendships and love affairs, home, habits, and everyday trifles. And the fact that one of us ends up or doesn’t end up in history as a historian, writer or politician is an accident against the backdrop of the same “everyday little things”...
In this article we would like to outline the main milestones of not only the creative, but also the personal biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky, to talk about him as a person who has made a very difficult and thorny path from the son of a provincial clergyman, a poor orphan to the heights of glory as the first historian of Russia.
V.O. Klyuchevsky: triumph and tragedy of the “commoner”
Childhood and adolescence
IN. Klyuchevsky
IN. Klyuchevsky was born on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresensky (Voskresenovka) near Penza, into a poor family of a parish priest. The life of the future historian began with great misfortune - in August 1850, when Vasily was not yet ten years old, his father died tragically. He went to the market to do some shopping, and on the way back he was caught in a severe thunderstorm. The horses got scared and bolted. Father Osip, having lost control of the car, apparently fell from the cart, lost consciousness from hitting the ground and choked on the streams of water. Without waiting for his return, the family organized a search. Nine-year-old Vasily was the first to see his dead father lying in the mud on the road. From the strong shock the boy began to stutter.
After the death of their breadwinner, the Klyuchevsky family moved to Penza, where they entered the Penza diocese. Out of compassion for the poor widow, who was left with three children, one of her husband’s friends gave her a small house to live in. “Was there anyone poorer than you and me at the time when we were left orphans in the arms of our mother,” Klyuchevsky later wrote to his sister, recalling the hungry years of his childhood and adolescence.
At the theological school where he was sent to study, Klyuchevsky stuttered so much that he was a burden to the teachers and did not do well in many basic subjects. As an orphan, he was kept in an educational institution only out of pity. Any day now the question of expelling a student due to professional incompetence could arise: the school trained clergy, and the stutterer was not fit to be either a priest or a sexton. Under the current conditions, Klyuchevsky might not have received any education at all - his mother did not have the funds to study at the gymnasium or invite tutors. Then the priest's widow tearfully begged one of the students from the senior department to take care of the boy. History has not preserved the name of this gifted young man, who managed to turn a timid stutterer into a brilliant speaker, who later attracted thousands of student audiences to his lectures. According to the assumptions of the most famous biographer of V.O. Klyuchevsky, M.V. Nechkina, he could be seminarian Vasily Pokrovsky, the older brother of Klyuchevsky’s classmate Stepan Pokrovsky. Not being a professional speech therapist, he intuitively found ways to combat stuttering, so that it almost disappeared. Among the techniques for overcoming the shortcoming was this: slowly and clearly pronounce the ends of words, even if the emphasis did not fall on them. Klyuchevsky did not completely overcome his stuttering, but he performed a miracle - he managed to give the small pauses that appeared involuntarily in his speech the appearance of semantic artistic pauses, which gave his words a unique and charming flavor. Subsequently, the flaw turned into a characteristic individual trait, which gave a special appeal to the historian’s speech. Modern psychologists and image makers deliberately use such techniques to attract the attention of listeners and add “charisma” to the image of a speaker, politician, or public figure.
IN. Klyuchevsky
A long and persistent struggle with a natural deficiency also contributed to the excellent diction of lecturer Klyuchevsky. He “minted” every sentence and “especially the endings of the words he spoke so that for an attentive listener not a single sound, not a single intonation of a quiet but unusually clear sounding voice could be lost,” his student Professor A. I. Yakovlev wrote about the historian. .
After graduating from the district theological school in 1856, V.O. Klyuchevsky entered the seminary. He had to become a priest - this was the condition of the diocese, which took his family into support. But in 1860, having dropped out of seminary in his last year, the young man was preparing to enter Moscow University. The desperately bold decision of a nineteen-year-old boy determined his entire fate in the future. In our opinion, it testifies not so much to Klyuchevsky’s persistence or the integrity of his nature, but rather to the intuition inherent in him already at a young age, which many of his contemporaries later spoke about. Even then, Klyuchevsky intuitively understands (or guesses) his personal destiny, goes against fate in order to take exactly the place in life that will allow him to fully realize his aspirations and abilities.
One must think that the fateful decision to leave the Penza Seminary was not easy for the future historian. From the moment the application was submitted, the seminarian lost his scholarship. For Klyuchevsky, who was extremely strapped for funds, the loss of even this small amount of money was very noticeable, but circumstances forced him to be guided by the principle “either all or nothing.” Immediately after graduating from the seminary, he could not enter the university, because he would be obliged to accept a clergy title and remain in it for at least four years. Therefore, it was necessary to leave the seminary as soon as possible.
Klyuchevsky’s daring act exploded the measured seminary life. The spiritual authorities objected to the expulsion of a successful student who, in fact, had already received an education at the expense of the diocese. Klyuchevsky motivated his request for dismissal by cramped home circumstances and poor health, but it was obvious to everyone in the seminary, from the director to the stoker, that this was just a formal excuse. The seminary board wrote a report to the Penza bishop, His Eminence Varlaam, but he unexpectedly issued a positive resolution: “Klyuchevsky has not yet completed his course of study and, therefore, if he does not want to be in the clergy, then he can be dismissed without hindrance.” The loyalty of the official document did not quite correspond to the true opinion of the bishop. Klyuchevsky later recalled that during the December exam at the seminary, Varlaam called him a fool.
Uncle I.V. Evropeytsev (the husband of his mother’s sister) gave money for the trip to Moscow, who encouraged his nephew’s desire to study at the university. Knowing that the young man was experiencing great gratitude, but at the same time also spiritual discomfort from his uncle’s charity, Evropeytsev decided to cheat a little. He gave his nephew a prayer book “as a keepsake” with parting words to turn to this book in difficult moments of life. A large banknote was inserted between the pages, which Klyuchevsky found already in Moscow. In one of his first letters home, he wrote: “I left for Moscow, firmly relying on God, and then on you and on myself, not counting too much on someone else’s pocket, no matter what happened to me.”
According to some biographers, a complex of personal guilt towards his mother and younger sisters left in Penza haunted the famous historian for many years. As evidenced by the materials of Klyuchevsky’s personal correspondence, Vasily Osipovich maintained the warmest relations with his sisters: he always tried to help them, look after them, and participate in their fate. Thus, thanks to the help of her brother, her elder sister Elizaveta Osipovna (married Virganskaya) was able to raise and educate her seven children, and after the death of her younger sister, Klyuchevsky accepted her two children (E.P. and P.P. Kornev) into his family and raised them.
The beginning of the way
In 1861, V.O. Klyuchevsky entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. He had a difficult time: almost revolutionary passions were in full swing in the capitals, caused by the manifesto of February 19, 1861 on the liberation of the peasants. The liberalization of literally all aspects of public life, Chernyshevsky’s fashionable ideas about the “people's revolution”, which were literally floating in the air, confused young minds.
During his studies, Klyuchevsky tried to stay away from political disputes among students. Most likely, he simply had neither the time nor the desire to engage in politics: he came to Moscow to study and, in addition, he needed to earn money by giving lessons in order to support himself and help his family.
According to Soviet biographers, Klyuchevsky at one time attended the historical and philosophical circle of N.A. Ishutin, but this version is not confirmed by the currently studied materials from the historian’s personal archive. They contain an indication of the fact that Klyuchevsky was a tutor of a certain high school student Ishutin. However, this “tutoring” could have taken place even before Klyuchevsky entered Moscow University. ON THE. Ishutin and D.V. Karakozov were natives of Serdobsk (Penza province); in the 1850s they studied at the 1st Penza Men's Gymnasium, and seminarian Klyuchevsky during the same period actively earned money by giving private lessons. It is possible that Klyuchevsky renewed acquaintance with his fellow countrymen in Moscow, but researchers did not find any reliable information about his participation in the Ishutinsky circle.
Moscow life obviously aroused interest, but at the same time it gave rise to wariness and mistrust in the soul of the young provincial. Before leaving Penza, he had never been anywhere else; he moved mainly in a spiritual environment, which, of course, made it difficult for Klyuchevsky to “adapt” to the capital’s reality. “Provincialism” and subconscious rejection of everyday excesses, considered the norm in a big city, remained with V.O. Klyuchevsky throughout his life.
The former seminarian, no doubt, had to endure a serious internal struggle when he moved from the religious traditions learned in the seminary and family to scientific positivism. Klyuchevsky followed this path by studying the works of the founders of positivism (Comte, Mile, Spencer), the materialist Ludwig Feuerbach, in whose concept he was most attracted by the philosopher’s predominant interest in ethics and religious problems.
As Klyuchevsky’s diaries and some personal notes testify, the result of the internal “rebirth” of the future historian was his constant desire to distance himself from the world around him, maintaining his personal space in it, inaccessible to prying eyes. Hence - Klyuchevsky’s ostentatious sarcasm, caustic skepticism, more than once noted by his contemporaries, his desire to act in public, convincing others of his own “complexity” and “closedness.”
In 1864-1865, Klyuchevsky completed his course at the university with the defense of his candidate’s essay “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State.” The problem was posed under the influence of Professor F.I. Buslaeva. The candidate's essay received a very high assessment, and Klyuchevsky was retained at the department as a scholarship holder to prepare for a professorship.
Work on his master's thesis “The Lives of Saints as a Historical Source” lasted for six years. Since Vasily Osipovich could not remain a scholarship holder, at the request of his teacher and mentor S.M. Solovyov, he received a position as a tutor at the Alexander Military School. Here he worked from 1867 for sixteen years. Since 1871, he replaced S.M. Solovyov in teaching the course of new general history at this school.
Family and personal life
In 1869, V.O. Klyuchevsky married Anisya Mikhailovna Borodina. This decision came as a real surprise, both for relatives and for the bride herself. Klyuchevsky initially courted the younger Borodin sisters, Anna and Nadezhda, but proposed to Anisya, who was three years older than him (she was already thirty-two at the time of the wedding). At that age, a girl was considered a “vekovushka” and practically could not count on marriage.
Boris and Anisya Mikhailovna Klyuchevsky, probably with their dogs, named V.O. Klyuchevsky Grosh and Kopeyka. Not earlier than 1909
It's no secret that among the creative intelligentsia, long-term marriages, as a rule, are based on relationships between like-minded people. The wife of a scientist, writer, or famous publicist usually acts as a permanent secretary, critic, or even a generator of ideas for her creative “half,” invisible to the public. Little is known about the relationship between the Klyuchevsky spouses, but most likely they were very far from a creative union.
In correspondence of 1864, Klyuchevsky affectionately called his bride “Nixochka,” “confidant of my soul.” But, what is noteworthy, no further correspondence between the spouses was recorded. Even during Vasily Osipovich’s departures from home, he, as a rule, asked his other recipients to convey information about himself to Anisya Mikhailovna. At the same time, for many years Klyuchevsky maintained a lively and friendly correspondence with his wife’s sister, Nadezhda Mikhailovna Borodina. And according to his son, Vasily Osipovich carefully kept and hid drafts of old letters to his other sister-in-law, Anna Mikhailovna, among the “Penza papers.”
Most likely, the relationship between the Klyuchevsky spouses was built exclusively on a personal, family and everyday level, remaining so throughout their lives.
V.O. Klyuchevsky’s home secretary, his interlocutor and assistant in his work was his only son Boris. For Anisya Mikhailovna, although she often attended her husband’s public lectures, the sphere of scientific interests of the famous historian remained alien and largely incomprehensible. As P.N. Milyukov recalled, during his visits to the Klyuchevskys’ house, Anisya Mikhailovna only performed the duties of a hospitable hostess: poured tea, treated guests, without participating in any way in the general conversation. Vasily Osipovich himself, who often attended various informal receptions and zhurfixes, never took his wife with him. Perhaps Anisia Mikhailovna had no inclination for social pastime, but, most likely, Vasily Osipovich and his wife did not want to cause themselves unnecessary worries and put each other in an uncomfortable situation. Mrs. Klyuchevskaya could not be imagined at an official banquet or in the company of her husband’s learned colleagues arguing in a smoky home office.
There are known cases when unfamiliar visitors mistook Anisya Mikhailovna for a servant in the professor's house: even in appearance she resembled an ordinary bourgeois housewife or priest. The historian’s wife was known as a homebody, she ran the house and household, solving all the practical issues of family life. Klyuchevsky himself, like any person passionate about his ideas, was more helpless than a child in everyday trifles.
All her life A.M. Klyuchevskaya remained a deeply religious person. In conversations with friends, Vasily Osipovich often sneered at his wife’s passion for “sports” trips to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, which was located far from their home, although there was another small church nearby. During one of these “campaigns,” Anisiya Mikhailovna became ill, and when they brought her home, she died.
Nevertheless, in general, one gets the impression that during many years of marriage, the Klyuchevsky spouses maintained deep personal affection and almost dependence on each other. Vasily Osipovich took the death of his “half” very hard. Student of Klyuchevsky S.B. Veselovsky these days wrote in a letter to a friend that after the death of his wife, old Vasily Osipovich (he was already 69 years old) and his son Boris “were left orphaned, helpless, like little children.”
And when the long-awaited fourth volume of the “Course of Russian History” appeared in December 1909, there was an inscription before the text on a separate page: “In memory of Anisia Mikhailovna Klyuchevskaya († March 21, 1909).”
In addition to his son Boris (1879-1944), Vasily Osipovich’s niece, Elizaveta Korneva (? –01/09/1906), lived in the Klyuchevsky family as a pupil. When Lisa got a fiancé, V.O. Klyuchevsky did not like him, and the guardian began to interfere with their relationship. Despite the disapproval of the entire family, Lisa left home, hastily got married, and soon after the wedding died “of consumption.” Vasily Osipovich, who loved her as his own daughter, experienced the death of his niece especially hard.
Professor Klyuchevsky
In 1872 V.O. Klyuchevsky successfully defended his master's thesis. In the same year, he took the chair of history at the Moscow Theological Academy and held it for 36 years (until 1906). In those same years, Klyuchevsky began teaching at the Higher Women's Courses. Since 1879 - lectures at Moscow University. At the same time, he completed his doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” and in 1882 defended it at the university department. From that time on, Klyuchevsky became a professor at four educational institutions.
His lectures were extremely popular among students. Not only students of history and philology, for whom, in fact, the course of Russian history was taught, were his listeners. Mathematicians, physicists, chemists, doctors - everyone tried to break into Klyuchevsky’s lectures. According to contemporaries, they literally emptied classrooms at other faculties; many students came to the university early in the morning to take a seat and wait for the “desired hour.” The listeners were attracted not so much by the content of the lectures as by the aphorism and liveliness of Klyuchevsky’s presentation of even already known material. The democratic image of the professor himself, so atypical for the university environment, also could not but arouse the sympathy of young students: everyone wanted to listen to “their” historian.
Soviet biographers tried to explain the extraordinary success of V.O. Klyuchevsky’s lecture course in the 1880s with his desire to “please” the revolutionary-minded student audience. According to M.V. Nechkina, in his first lecture, given on December 5, 1879, Klyuchevsky put forward the slogan of freedom:
“Unfortunately, the text of this particular lecture has not reached us, but the memories of the listeners have been preserved. Klyuchevsky, writes one of them, “believed that Peter’s reforms did not produce the desired results; In order for Russia to become rich and powerful, freedom was needed. Russia of the 18th century did not see it. Hence, Vasily Osipovich concluded, and its weakness as a state.”
Nechkina M.V. “Lecture skills of V.O. Klyuchevsky"
In other lectures, Klyuchevsky spoke ironically about Empresses Elizaveta Petrovna, Catherine II, and colorfully characterized the era of palace coups:
“For reasons known to us...,” Klyuchevsky’s university student recorded a lecture in 1882, “after Peter, the Russian throne became a toy for adventurers, for random people who often unexpectedly stepped on it... Many miracles happened on the Russian throne from death of Peter the Great - there were childless widows and unmarried mothers of families there, but there was no buffoon yet; Probably, the game of chance was aimed at filling this gap in our history. The buffoon has appeared."
It was about Peter III. No one from a university department has ever spoken about the House of Romanov like this.
From all this, Soviet historians drew a conclusion about the anti-monarchist and anti-noble position of the historian, which almost made him similar to the regicide revolutionaries S. Perovskaya, Zhelyabov and other radicals who wanted to change the existing order at any cost. However, the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky did not even think about anything like that. His “liberalism” clearly fit into the framework of what was permitted in the era of government reforms of the 1860-70s. “Historical portraits” of kings, emperors and other outstanding rulers of antiquity, created by V.O. Klyuchevsky, are only a tribute to historical authenticity, an attempt to objectively present monarchs as ordinary people who are not alien to any human weaknesses.
The venerable scientist V.O. Klyuchevsky was elected dean of the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, vice-rector, chairman of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. He was appointed teacher of the son of Alexander III, Grand Duke George, was more than once invited to walks with the royal family, and had conversations with the sovereign and empress Maria Feodorovna. However, in 1893-1894, Klyuchevsky, despite the emperor’s personal favor towards him, categorically refused to write a book about Alexander III. Most likely, this was neither the historian’s whim nor a manifestation of his opposition to the authorities. Klyuchevsky did not see his talent as a flattering publicist, and for a historian to write about the “next” emperor who is still living or who has just died is simply not interesting.
In 1894, he, as chairman of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, had to give a speech “In memory of the late sovereign Emperor Alexander III.” In this speech, the liberal-minded historian sincerely regretted the death of the sovereign, with whom he often communicated during his lifetime. For this speech, Klyuchevsky was booed by students, who saw in the behavior of their beloved professor not grief for the deceased, but unforgivable conformism.
In the mid-1890s, Klyuchevsky continued his research work and published a “Brief Guide to New History”, the third edition of the “Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'”. Six of his students are defending dissertations.
In 1900, Klyuchevsky was elected to the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Since 1901, according to the rules, he resigns, but remains to teach at the university and the Theological Academy.
In 1900-1910, he began to give a course of lectures at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where his listeners were many outstanding artists. F.I. Chaliapin wrote in his memoirs that Klyuchevsky helped him understand the image of Boris Godunov before a benefit performance at the Bolshoi Theater in 1903. The memoirs of the famous singer about the famous historian also repeatedly speak about Klyuchevsky’s artistry, his extraordinary talent to attract the attention of the viewer and listener, his ability to “get used to the role” and fully reveal the character of the chosen character.
Since 1902, Vasily Osipovich has been preparing for publication the main brainchild of his life - “The Course of Russian History”. This work was interrupted only in 1905 by trips to St. Petersburg to participate in commissions on the law on the press and the status of the State Duma. Klyuchevsky’s liberal position complicated his relationship with the leadership of the Theological Academy. In 1906, Klyuchevsky resigned and was fired, despite student protests.
According to the assurances of cadet historians P.N. Milyukov and A. Kiesewetter, at the end of his life V.O. Klyuchevsky stood on the same liberal constitutional positions as the People's Freedom Party. In 1905, at a meeting in Peterhof, he did not support the idea of a “noble” constitution for the future “Octobrists”, and agreed to run for the State Duma as a deputy from Sergiev Posad. In fact, despite all the curtseys from the leaders of the barely fledgling political parties, V.O. Klyuchevsky was not interested in politics at all.
Quite fierce disputes arose more than once among Soviet historians regarding Klyuchevsky’s “party affiliation”. M.V. Nechkina unequivocally (following Milyukov) considered Klyuchevsky an ideological and actual member of the People's Freedom Party (KD). However, Academician Yu.V. Gauthier, who personally knew the historian in those years, argued that his son Boris almost forcibly forced the “old man” to run for the Duma from this party, and “it is impossible to make Klyuchevsky a cadet figure.”
In the same polemic with Nechkina, the following phrase was heard by Yu.V. Gautier: “Klyuchevsky was a real “wet chicken” in terms of character and social activities. That's what I told him. He had a will only in his works, but in life he had no will... Klyuchevsky was always under someone’s shoe.”
The question of the actual participation or non-participation of the historian in the affairs of the Cadet Party has lost its relevance today. His deputy in the State Duma did not take place, but, unlike P.N. Milyukov and Co., this did not matter for Klyuchevsky: the scientist always had something to do and where to realize his oratorical talent.
“Course of Russian History” and the historical concept of V.O. Klyuchevsky
Along with the special course “History of Estates in Russia” (1887), research on social topics (“The Origin of Serfdom in Russia”, “Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia”, “Composition of Representation at Zemstvo Councils of Ancient Rus'”), history culture of the 18th and 19th centuries. and others, Klyuchevsky created the main work of his life - “Course of Russian History” (1987-1989. T.I - 5). It is in it that the concept of the historical development of Russia according to V.O. Klyuchevsky is presented.
Most contemporary historians believed that V.O. Klyuchevsky, as a student of S.M. Solovyov, only continued to develop the concept of the state (legal) school in Russian historiography in new conditions. In addition to the influence of the state school, the influence of his other university teachers on Klyuchevsky’s views - F.I. Buslaeva, S.V. Eshevsky and figures of the 1860s. - A.P. Shchapova, N.A. Ishutin, etc.
At one time, Soviet historiography made a completely unfounded attempt to “divorce” the views of S.M. Solovyov as an “apologist of autocracy” and V.O. Klyuchevsky, who stood on liberal-democratic positions (M.V. Nechkin). A number of historians (V.I. Picheta, P.P. Smirnov) saw the main value of Klyuchevsky’s works in an attempt to give the history of society and people in its dependence on economic and political conditions.
In modern research, the prevailing view is that V.O. Klyuchevsky is not only a successor of the historical and methodological traditions of the state (legal) school (K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Soloviev) , but also the creator of a new, most promising direction, based on the “sociological” method.
Unlike the first generation of “statists,” Klyuchevsky considered it necessary to introduce social and economic factors as independent forces of historical development. The historical process in his view is the result of the continuous interaction of all factors (geographical, demographic, economic, political, social). The historian’s task in this process comes down not to constructing global historical schemes, but to constantly identifying the specific relationship of all of the above factors at each specific moment of development.
In practice, the “sociological method” meant for V.O. Klyuchevsky’s thorough study of the degree and nature of the country’s economic development, closely related to the natural-geographical environment, as well as a detailed analysis of the social stratification of society at each stage of development and the relationships that arise within individual social groups (he often called them classes). As a result, the historical process took over from V.O. Klyuchevsky’s forms are more voluminous and dynamic than those of his predecessors or contemporaries such as V.I. Sergeevich.
His understanding of the general course of Russian history V.O. Klyuchevsky presented the most concisely in periodization, in which he identified four qualitatively different stages:
VIII-XIII centuries - Rus' Dnieper, policeman, trade;
XIII - mid-XV centuries. - Upper Volga Rus', appanage-princely, free agricultural;
mid-15th - second decade of the 17th century. - Great Rus', Moscow, royal-boyar, military-landowning;
beginning of the 17th - mid-19th centuries. - the all-Russian period, the imperial-noble period, the period of serfdom, agricultural and factory farming.
Already in his doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'”, which was, in fact, a detailed social portrait of the boyar class, the novelty that V.O. Klyuchevsky contributed to the traditions of the public school.
In the context of the divergence of interests of the autocratic state and society that sharply emerged at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Klyuchevsky revised the views of his teacher Solovyov on the entire two-century period of the country’s new history, thereby crossing out the results of the last seventeen volumes of his “History of Russia” and the political program of the domestic pre-reform built on them liberalism. On these grounds, a number of researchers (in particular, A. Shakhanov) conclude that it is impossible to classify Klyuchevsky as a state school in Russian historiography.
But that's not true. Klyuchevsky only announces a “new history” and updates the sociological orientation of historical research. In fact, he did what most appealed to the needs of the younger generation of historians of the 1880s: he announced the rejection of schemes or goals proposed from outside, both Westernizing and Slavophile. Students wanted to study Russian history as a scientific problem, and Klyuchevsky’s “sociological method” gave them this opportunity. Klyuchevsky’s students and followers (P. Milyukov, Y. Gauthier, A. Kiesewetter, M. Bogoslovsky, N. A. Rozhkov, S. Bakhrushin, A. I. Yakovlev, Ya. L. Barskov) are often called “neo-statists”, i.e. .To. in their constructions they used the same multifactorial approach of the public school, expanding and supplementing it with cultural, sociological, psychological and other factors.
In the “Course of Russian History,” Klyuchevsky already gave a holistic presentation of Russian history based on his sociological method. Like no other public school historical work, “The Course” by V.O. Klyuchevsky went far beyond the scope of a purely educational publication, turning into a fact of not only scientific, but also social life of the country. An expanded understanding of the multifactorial nature of the historical process, combined with the traditional postulates of the state school, made it possible to bring to its logical limit the concept of the Russian historical process that was laid down by S.M. Solovyov. In this sense, the work of V.O. Klyuchevsky became a milestone for the development of all historical science in Russia: he completed the tradition of the 19th century and at the same time anticipated the innovative searches that the 20th century brought with it.
Assessment of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky in the memoirs of contemporaries
Figure V.O. Klyuchevsky, already during his lifetime, was surrounded by an aura of “myths,” various kinds of anecdotes and a priori judgments. And today the problem of clichéd perception of the historian’s personality persists, which, as a rule, is based on the subjective negative characteristics of P. N. Milyukov and the caustic aphorisms of Klyuchevsky himself, which are widely available to the reader.
P.N. Milyukov, as is known, quarreled with V.O. Klyuchevsky even in the process of preparing his master’s thesis on the reforms of Peter I. The dissertation was enthusiastically received by the scientific community, but V.O. Klyuchevsky, using his indisputable authority, persuaded the academic council the university will not award a doctorate for it. He advised Miliukov to write another dissertation, noting that “science will only benefit from this.” The future leader of the cadets was mortally offended and subsequently, without going into details and the true reasons for the teacher’s attitude towards his work, he reduced everything to the complexity of character, egoism and “mystery” of V.O. Klyuchevsky, or, more simply, to envy. For Klyuchevsky himself, everything in life was not easy, and he did not tolerate the quick success of others.
In a letter dated July 29, 1890, Milyukov writes that Klyuchevsky “It’s hard and boring to live in the world. He will not be able to achieve greater glory than he has achieved. He can hardly live with the love of science given his skepticism... Now he is recognized, secured; every word is caught with greed; but he is tired, and most importantly, he does not believe in science: there is no fire, no life, no passion for scientific work - and for this reason, there is no school and no students.”.
In the conflict with Miliukov, obviously, two remarkable egos collided in the scientific field. Only Klyuchevsky still loved science more than himself in science. His school and his students developed the ideas and multiplied the scientist’s merits many times over – this is an indisputable fact. The older generation of fellow historians, as is known, supported Klyuchevsky in this confrontation. And not only because at that time he already had name and fame. Without Klyuchevsky, there would have been no Miliukov as a historian, and what is especially sad to realize is that without the conflict with the all-powerful Klyuchevsky, Miliukov as a politician might not have happened. Of course, there would have been other people who wanted to shake the edifice of Russian statehood, but if Miliukov had not joined them, not only historical science, but also the history of Russia as a whole would have benefited from this.
Often, memories of Klyuchevsky as a scientist or lecturer smoothly flow into psychological analysis or characteristics of his personality. Apparently, his person was such a striking event in the life of his contemporaries that this topic could not be avoided. Many contemporaries noticed the scientist’s excessive causticism, closed character, and distance. But it is necessary to understand that different people could have been allowed by Klyuchevsky to come to him at different distances. Everyone who wrote about Klyuchevsky, one way or another, directly or in context, indicated their degree of closeness to the scientist’s personal space. This was the reason for the various, often directly opposite, interpretations of his behavior and character traits.
Klyuchevsky’s contemporaries (including S. B. Veselovsky, V. A. Maklakov, A. E. Presnyakov) in their memoirs decisively refute the myth of his “complexity and mystery,” “selfishness,” “buffoonery,” and constant desire to “play.” to the public,” they try to protect the historian from quick and superficial characterizations.
Vasily Osipovich was a man of subtle psychological makeup, who endowed all phenomena of life, his attitude towards people, and even his lectures with a personal emotional coloring. P. N. Milyukov compares his psyche to a very sensitive measuring apparatus, in constant oscillation. According to Miliukov, it was quite difficult for a person like his teacher to establish even ordinary everyday relationships.
If we turn to the historian’s diaries from different years, then, first of all, the researcher is struck by deep self-reflection, the desire to elevate one’s inner experiences above the bustle of everyday life. There are often records that indicate a lack of understanding by contemporaries, as it seemed to Klyuchevsky himself, of his inner world. He withdraws, seeks revelations in himself, in nature, away from the bustle of modern society, the values and way of life of which he, by and large, does not fully understand and does not accept.
It is impossible not to admit that generations of rural clergy, having absorbed the habits of a simple and unassuming, low-income life, left a special stamp on Klyuchevsky’s appearance and his way of life. As M.V. writes Nechkina:
“...For a long time now he could have proudly carried his fame, felt famous, loved, irreplaceable, but there is not a shadow of high self-esteem in his behavior, even on the contrary - a pointed disregard for fame. He “gloomily and annoyedly waved away” the applause.
In the Moscow house of the Klyuchevskys, the atmosphere traditional for the old capital reigned: the visitor was struck by old-fashioned “homespun rugs” and similar “philistine elements”. Vasily Osipovich agreed extremely reluctantly to numerous requests from his wife and son to improve their life, such as buying new furniture.
Klyuchevsky, as a rule, received visitors who came to him in the dining room. Only when he was in a complacent mood did he invite him to the table. Sometimes his colleagues and professors came to visit Vasily Osipovich. In such cases, “he ordered a small decanter of pure vodka, herring, cucumbers, then a beluga appeared,” although in general Klyuchevsky was very thrifty. (Bogoslovsky, M. M. “From the memories of V. O. Klyuchevsky”).
To lectures at the university, Klyuchevsky traveled only in cheap cabs (“vankas”), fundamentally avoiding the dandy cabs of the Moscow “reckless drivers”. On the way, the professor often had animated conversations with the “vankas” - yesterday’s village boys and men. Klyuchevsky went about his business on a “poor Moscow horse-drawn horse,” and “climbed onto the imperial.” The horse-drawn railway, as one of his students A.I. Yakovlev recalls, was then distinguished by endless downtime at almost every siding. Klyuchevsky traveled to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra to teach at the Theological Academy twice a week by rail, but always in third grade, in a crowd of pilgrims.
I. A. Artobolevsky said: “The famous rich woman Morozova, with whose son Klyuchevsky once worked, offered him “as a present” a stroller and “two drawbar horses.” “And yet I refused... For mercy’s sake, does this suit me?.. Wouldn’t I be ridiculous in such a stroller?! In borrowed plumes..."
Another famous anecdote about a professor’s fur coat, given in the monograph by M.V. Nechkina:
“The famous professor, no longer constrained by a lack of money, wore an old, worn fur coat. “Why don’t you get yourself a new fur coat, Vasily Osipovich? Look, she’s all worn out,” her friends noted. - “The face and the fur coat,” Klyuchevsky answered laconically.”
The professor's notorious "frugality" undoubtedly did not indicate his natural stinginess, low self-esteem or desire to shock others. On the contrary, she speaks only of his inner, spiritual freedom. Klyuchevsky was used to doing what was convenient for him, and was not going to change his habits for the sake of external conventions.
Having crossed the threshold of his fiftieth birthday, Klyuchevsky fully retained his incredible ability to work. She amazed his younger students. One of them recalls how, after working long hours with young people late in the evening and at night, Klyuchevsky appeared at the department in the morning fresh and full of strength, while the students could barely stand on their feet.
Of course, he was sometimes ill, complaining either of a sore throat or a cold, the drafts that blew through the lecture hall at Guerrier’s courses began to irritate him, and sometimes his teeth hurt. But he called his health iron-clad and he was right. Not really observing the rules of hygiene (he worked at night, not sparing his eyes), he created an original aphorism about her: “Hygiene teaches you how to be the watchdog of your own health.” There was another saying about work: “Whoever is not able to work 16 hours a day did not have the right to be born and should be eliminated from life as a usurper of existence.” (Both aphorisms date back to the 1890s.)
Klyuchevsky’s memory, like that of any failed clergyman, was amazing. One day, while going up to the pulpit to give a report at some public scientific celebration, he tripped over a step and dropped the sheets of his notes. They fanned out across the floor, their order was completely disrupted. The sheets of paper were once again mixed during collection by the students who rushed to help the professor. Everyone was worried about the fate of the report. Only Klyuchevsky’s wife Anisya Mikhailovna, sitting in the front rows, remained completely calm: “He will read, he will read, he remembers everything by heart,” she calmly reassured the neighbors. And so it happened.
The very distinct “beaded” handwriting, perhaps even smaller than beads, and notes made with a sharp pencil long testified to the historian’s good eyesight. What makes it difficult to read his archival manuscripts is not his handwriting - it is impeccable - but a pencil worn out by time. Only in the last years of his life did Klyuchevsky’s handwriting become larger, with a predominant use of pen and ink. “Being able to write legibly is the first rule of politeness,” says one of the historian’s aphorisms. On his desk he did not have some massive inkwell on a marble board, but there was a five-kopeck bottle of ink into which he dipped his pen, as he had once done in his seminary years.
In the memoirs dedicated to the historian, the question of whether he was happy in his marriage is not discussed at all. This piquant side of private life was either deliberately kept silent by his acquaintances, or was hidden from prying eyes. As a result, Klyuchevsky’s relationship with his wife, reflected only in correspondence with relatives or in the extremely rare memories of family friends, remains not entirely certain.
It is not without reason that the memoir theme characterizing Klyuchevsky’s attitude towards the fair sex stands out against this background. The respected professor, while maintaining the image of a trustworthy family man, managed to gain the reputation of a gallant gentleman and ladies' man.
Maria Golubtsova, the daughter of Klyuchevsky’s friend, teacher of the Theological Academy, A.P. Golubtsov, recalls such a “funny scene.” Vasily Osipovich, coming to Easter, was not averse to “sharing Christ” with her. But the little girl unceremoniously refused him. “The first woman who refused to kiss me!”- Vasily Osipovich said, laughing, to her father. Even on a walk in the mountains with Prince George and all his “brilliant company,” Klyuchevsky did not fail to attract female attention to his person. Distressed that he was given an old, old lady-in-waiting as his companion, he decided to take revenge: Klyuchevsky shocked the company by plucking an edelweiss tree that was growing right above the cliff and presenting it to his lady. “On the way back, everyone surrounded me, and even the youngest young ladies walked with me,” the professor reported, pleased with his outburst.
Klyuchevsky taught at the Higher Women's Courses, and here the elderly professor was pursued by a mass of enthusiastic fans who literally idolized him. At the university, even during the time of the ban on girls attending university lectures, its female audience was constantly growing. The hostesses of the most famous Moscow salons often competed with each other, wanting to see Klyuchevsky at all their evenings.
The historian’s attitude towards women was something chivalrous and at the same time detached - he was ready to serve them and admire them, but, most likely, disinterestedly: only as a gallant gentleman.
One of the few women with whom Klyuchevsky maintained trusting, even friendly relations for many years, was his wife’s sister, Nadezhda Mikhailovna, already mentioned by us. Vasily Osipovich willingly invited his sister-in-law to visit, corresponded with her, and became the godfather of her pupil. The different characters of these people were most likely united by a passion for witty humor and intellectual irony. V. O. Klyuchevsky gave Nadezhda Mikhailovna a priceless gift - he gave him his “black book” with a collection of aphorisms. Almost all aphorisms now attributed to the historian are known and remembered only thanks to this book. It contains many dedications to women and, perhaps, that’s why after Klyuchevsky’s death, memoirists involuntarily focused their attention on the topic of his “extra-family” relationships with the fair sex.
Speaking about Klyuchevsky’s appearance, many contemporaries noted that he “was unenviable in appearance... undignified.” From the famous photograph of 1890, a typical “commoner” looks at us: an elderly, tired, slightly ironic man who does not care too much about his appearance and looks like a parish priest or deacon. Klyuchevsky’s modest demands and habits, ascetic appearance, on the one hand, distinguished him from the environment of university professors, on the other hand, they were typical of ordinary Moscow inhabitants or visiting provincials. But as soon as Vasily Osipovich started a conversation with someone, “something incomprehensible immediately appeared in him.” magnetic force, forcing, somehow involuntarily, to fall in love with him.” He did not imitate anyone and was not like anyone, “it was created in every way original”. (Memoirs of priest A. Rozhdestvensky. Memories of V. O. Klyuchevsky // Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. Biographical sketch... P. 423.)
Klyuchevsky’s personality was also interesting due to his extraordinary sense of humor: “He sparkled like fireworks with sparkles of wit”. As is known, the vivid images of Klyuchevsky’s lectures were prepared by him in advance and were even repeated from year to year, which was noted by his students and colleagues. But at the same time, they were always refreshed by the “fast and accurate as a shot” improvisation. At the same time, “the beauty of his witticisms was that in each of them, along with a completely unexpected comparison of concepts, there was always a very subtle thought hidden.” (Bogoslovsky, M. M. “From the memories of V. O. Klyuchevsky.”)
Klyuchevsky’s sharp tongue spared no one, hence his reputation as an “incorrigible skeptic who does not recognize any sacred things.” At first glance, he could easily seem selfish and evil. But this impression, of course, was incorrect - P.N. Milyukov and A.N. Savin justified it: “The Mask of Mephistopheles” was designed to prevent strangers from entering the holy of holies of his sensitive soul. Finding himself in a new and heterogeneous social environment, Klyuchevsky had to develop the habit of wearing this mask like a “protective shell,” perhaps thereby misleading many of his colleagues and contemporaries. Perhaps with the help of this “shell” the historian tried to win his right to internal freedom.
Klyuchevsky communicated with almost the entire scientific, creative and political elite of his time. He attended both official receptions and informal zhurfixes, and simply loved to visit his colleagues and acquaintances. He always left the impression of an interesting interlocutor, a pleasant guest, a gallant gentleman. But according to the recollections of relatives, Klyuchevsky’s most sincere friends remained ordinary people, mostly of the clergy. For example, one could often find him with the assistant librarian of the Theological Academy, Hieromonk Raphael. The hieromonk was a great original and a very kind person (nephews or seminarians constantly lived in his cell). Father Raphael knew scientific works only by the titles and color of the spines of the books; moreover, he was extremely ugly, but he loved to boast of his learning and former beauty. Klyuchevsky always joked about him and especially liked to ask why he didn’t get married. To which he received the answer: “You know, brother, when I graduated from the seminary, we have brides, brides, passion. And I used to run into the garden, lie down between the ridges, and lie there, but they were looking for me. I was beautiful then.” “Traces of the former beauty are still noticeable,” Klyuchevsky agreed with kind irony.
When he came to Sergiev Posad for holidays, the professor loved, along with the townspeople's boys and girls, to take part in folk festivals and ride the carousel.
Obviously, in such communication, the eminent historian was looking for the simplicity so familiar to him from childhood, which the prim academic environment and metropolitan society so lacked. Here Klyuchevsky could feel free, not wear “masks,” not play “scientific professor,” and be himself.
The significance of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky
The significance of V. O. Klyuchevsky’s personality for his contemporaries was enormous. He was highly regarded as a professional historian and valued as an extraordinary, talented person. Many students and followers saw in him a source of morality, instructiveness, kindness, and sparkling humor.
But those who communicated with V.O. Klyuchevsky in an informal setting were often repulsed by his excessive, (sometimes unjustified) economy, scrupulousness in detail, unpretentious, “philistine” home environment, sharp tongue and at the same time - wastefulness in emotions, restraint, isolation of character.
The extraordinary talent of a researcher and analyst, the courage in judgments and conclusions inherent in V.O. Klyuchevsky would hardly have been allowed to make a successful career as a clergyman. Having applied all these qualities in the scientific field, the provincial popovich actually caught the “bird of luck” by the tail, for which he came from Penza to Moscow. He became the most famous historian of Russia, a venerable scientist, academician, a “general” of science, a personality of all-Russian and even global scale. However, V.O. Klyuchevsky did not feel triumphant. Having lived almost his entire adult life in isolation from the environment that raised him, he still tried to remain true to his real self, at least in his family structure, everyday life, and habits. This caused bewilderment and ridicule of Professor Klyuchevsky’s “eccentricities” among some contemporaries, while others made them talk about his “inconsistency,” “complexity,” and “selfishness.”
In this global contradiction of mind and heart, in our opinion, lay the triumph and tragedy of many famous people of Russia, who emerged from among the “commoners” and entered a society where, by and large, the traditions of noble culture still prevailed. Klyuchevsky turned out to be a significant figure in this regard.
IN. Klyuchevsky
A nondescript-looking man in an old fur coat and with stains on his official uniform, looking like a sexton of a provincial church, at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries he was the “face” of Moscow University, an ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, and a teacher of the Tsar’s children.
This fact largely indicates a change in external priorities and democratization not only of Russian society, but also of domestic science as a whole.
As scientist V.O. Klyuchevsky did not make a global revolution in the theory or methodology of historical science. By and large, he only developed and brought to a new qualitative level the ideas of the “state” historical school of Moscow University. But the very image of Professor Klyuchevsky broke all the previously existing stereotypes of the appearance of a famous scientist, a successful lecturer and in general an “educated person”, as a bearer of noble culture. Intuitively not wanting to adapt, to adapt to external conventions, at least in everyday life and behavior, the historian Klyuchevsky contributed to introducing into the capital’s academic environment a fashion for democracy, freedom of personal expression and, most importantly, spiritual freedom, without which the formation of a social “stratum” called the intelligentsia is impossible.
Students loved Professor Klyuchevsky not at all for his shabby fur coat or his ability to artistically tell historical anecdotes. They saw before them a man who, before their eyes, turned the clock, who, with his example, destroyed the gap between the history of the Fatherland as an instrument for nurturing loyal patriotism and history as a subject of knowledge accessible to every researcher.
Over the course of forty years of inflamed public passions, the historian was able to “pick up the key” to any audience - spiritual, university, military -, captivating and captivating everywhere, never arousing the suspicion of the authorities and various authorities.
That is why, in our opinion, V.O. Klyuchevsky - a scientist, artist, painter, master - was elevated not only by his contemporaries, but also by his descendants to the high pedestal of the luminary of Russian historical science. Like N.M. Karamzin at the beginning of the 19th century, at the beginning of the 20th century he gave his compatriots the history that they wanted to know at that very moment, thereby drawing a line under all previous historiography and looking into the distant future.
V.O. Klyuchevsky died on May 12 (25), 1911 in Moscow, and was buried in the Donskoy Monastery cemetery.
Memory and descendants
The memorization of the cultural space in Moscow associated with the name of Klyuchevsky actively developed in the first years after his death. A few days after the death of V. O. Klyuchevsky, in May 1911, the Moscow City Duma received a statement from member N. A. Shamin about “the need to perpetuate the memory of the famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky.” Based on the results of the Duma meetings, it was decided to establish a scholarship at the Moscow Imperial University in 1912 “in memory of V. O. Klyuchevsky.” Klyuchevsky’s personal scholarship was also established by the Moscow Higher Women’s Courses, where the historian taught.
At the same time, Moscow University announced a competition for the provision of memoirs about V.O. Klyuchevsky.
Boris Klyuchevsky in childhood
In the house on Zhitnaya Street, where Vasily Osipovich lived in recent years, his son, Boris Klyuchevsky, planned to open a museum. The library and personal archive of V.O. remained here. Klyuchevsky, his personal belongings, a portrait by the artist V.O. Sherwood. The son oversaw the annual memorial services in memory of his father, gathering his students and everyone who cared about his memory. Thus, the house of V. O. Klyuchevsky continued to play the role of a center uniting Moscow historians even after his death.
In 1918, the historian’s Moscow house was searched, the main part of the archive was evacuated to Petrograd, to one of Klyuchevsky’s students, literary historian Ya.L. Barsky. Subsequently, Boris Klyuchevsky managed to obtain a “safe conduct letter” for his father’s library and, with great difficulty, return the bulk of the manuscripts from Barsky, but in the 1920s, the historian’s library and archive were confiscated and placed in state archives.
At the same time, among Klyuchevsky’s students who remained in Moscow, the problem of erecting a monument to the great historian acquired particular relevance. By that time there was not even a monument at his grave in the Donskoy Monastery. The reason for various conversations was partly the negative attitude of the students towards the only living descendant of Klyuchevsky.
Boris Vasilyevich Klyuchevsky, according to him, graduated from two faculties of Moscow University, but scientific activity did not attract him. For many years he played the role of his famous father's home secretary, and was fond of sports and improving his bicycle.
From the stories of B. Klyuchevsky himself, M.V. Nechkina knows this episode: in his youth, Boris invented some special “nut” for a bicycle and was very proud of it. Rolling it in the palm of your hand, V.O. Klyuchevsky, with his usual sarcasm, told the guests: “What a time has come! In order to invent such a nut, you need to graduate from two faculties - history and law...” (Nechkina M.V. Decree. cit., p. 318).
Obviously, Vasily Osipovich spent much more time communicating with his students than with his own son. The son's hobbies did not evoke either understanding or approval from the historian. According to the recollections of eyewitnesses (in particular, this is indicated by Yu. V. Gauthier), in the last years of his life, Klyuchevsky’s relationship with Boris left much to be desired. Vasily Osipovich did not like his son’s passion for politics, as well as his open cohabitation with either a housekeeper or a maid who lived in their house. Friends and acquaintances of V.O. Klyuchevsky – V.A. Maklakov and A.N. Savin - they also believed that the young man was putting strong pressure on the elderly Vasily Osipovich, weakened by illness.
However, during the life of V.O. Klyuchevsky, Boris helped him a lot in his work, and after the scientist’s death he collected and preserved his archive, actively participated in the publication of his father’s scientific heritage, and was involved in the publication and reprinting of his books.
In the 1920s, Klyuchevsky’s colleagues and students accused the “heir” of the fact that the grave of his parents was in disrepair: there was neither a monument nor a fence. Most likely, Boris Vasilyevich simply did not have the funds to install a worthy monument, and the events of the revolution and the Civil War contributed little to the concerns of living people about their deceased ancestors.
Through the efforts of the university community, the “Committee on the Issue of Perpetuating the Memory of V. O. Klyuchevsky” was created, which set as its goal the installation of a monument to the historian on one of the central streets of Moscow. However, the Committee limited itself only to the creation in 1928 of a common monument-tombstone at the grave of the Klyuchevsky spouses (Donskoy Monastery cemetery). After the “academic affair” (1929-30), persecution and expulsion of historians of the “old school” began. V.O. Klyuchevsky was ranked among the “liberal-bourgeois” direction of historiography, and it was considered inappropriate to erect a separate monument to him in the center of Moscow.
Width="300">
The historian’s son, Boris Klyuchevsky, already in the first half of the 1920s broke all ties with the scientific community. According to M.V., who visited him in 1924. Nechkina, he served as an assistant legal adviser “in some automobile department” and, finally, was engaged in his favorite business - car repair. Then Klyuchevsky’s son was an auto technician, translator, and minor employee of the VATO. In 1933, he was repressed and sentenced to exile in Alma-Ata. The exact date of his death is unknown (around 1944). However, B.V. Klyuchevsky managed to preserve the main and very important part of his father’s archive. These materials were acquired in 1945 by the Commission on the History of Historical Sciences at the department of the Institute of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences from the “widow of the historian’s son.” The V.O. Klyuchevsky Museum in Moscow was never created by him, and memories of his father were also not written...
Only in 1991, on the 150th anniversary of Klyuchevsky’s birth, a museum was opened in Penza, named after the great historian. And today the monuments to V.O. Klyuchevsky exist only in his homeland, in the village of Voskresenovka (Penza region) and in Penza, where the Klyuchevsky family moved after the death of their father. It is noteworthy that initiatives to perpetuate the memory of the historian, as a rule, came not from the state or the scientific community, but from local authorities and enthusiastic local historians.
Elena Shirokova
To prepare this work, materials from the following sites were used:
http://www.history.perm.ru/
Worldview portraits. Klyuchevsky V.O. Bibliofund
Literature:
Bogomazova O.V. Private life of a famous historian (based on the memoirs of V.O. Klyuchevsky) // Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2009. No. 23 (161). Story. Vol. 33. pp. 151–159.
History and historians in the space of national and world culture of the 18th–21st centuries: collection of articles / ed. N. N. Alevras, N. V. Grishina, Yu. V. Krasnova. – Chelyabinsk: Encyclopedia, 2011;
The world of a historian: historiographic collection / edited by V.P. Korzun, S.P. Bychkova. – Vol. 7. – Omsk: Om Publishing House. State University, 2011;
Nechkina M.V. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). History of life and creativity, M.: “Nauka”, 1974;
Shakhanov A.N. The fight against “objectivism” and “cosmopolitanism” in Soviet historical science. “Russian historiography” by N.L. Rubinstein // History and historians, 2004. - No. 1 – P.186-207.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky is probably the most popular Russian historian. Few people have read it, but many quote the sacramental: “History teaches nothing, but only punishes for ignorance of the lessons.” A large part of Klyuchevsky’s greatness lies in his ability to distill the most complex ideas into short and punchy aphorisms. If Karamzin was the Pushkin of Russian historiography, unattainable in his beauty; Solovyov - her Tolstoy, thorough and monumental; then Klyuchevsky was Chekhov - accurate, paradoxical, often bilious, able to say everything with one tiny detail.
It is all the more offensive that Klyuchevsky never wrote his own “History of Russia” - with his talents it would have been a book outstanding not only scientifically, but also in literary terms, a kind of pandan to Karamzin. But Klyuchevsky’s generalizing work was the publication of his course of lectures on Russian history, prepared according to his own plans and notes, as well as student notes. It has been published since 1904, during the era of the wild flowering of Russian science and culture, amid political turmoil and a general rethinking of values.
Like his teacher Sergei Solovyov, Klyuchevsky was a commoner who achieved a high position and enormous authority in society through his scientific studies. The similarity with Chekhov was aggravated by his common provincial origin and the self-perception of a man who achieved everything himself. Klyuchevsky did not get anything in life for nothing, he knew the value of work, money, fame, and those who took these things too lightly annoyed him. In later years, already in the 20th century, he was a living legend, a stronghold of sanity characteristic of the previous century; Full auditoriums were packed to listen to him - a lean, cheerful, sarcastic old man. Until the end of his days, he was keenly interested not only in history, but also in current politics, insisting that politics is “applied history.” In short, he was a real old-regime Russian intellectual, although he himself would probably have been offended by such a definition - he despised the Russian intelligentsia, who considered themselves the salt of the earth.
Klyuchevsky’s father, Joseph (Osip) Vasilyevich, was a priest in the village of Voskresenovka, Penza province. It was in his parish school that the future historian began his education. In 1850, the father died. The impoverished family moved to Penza. There, Klyuchevsky in 1856 (fifteen years old) entered the theological seminary - people from priestly families were also supposed to become priests. He was one of the best students. He made a living by tutoring. Finally, he decided to connect his life not with the church, but with science, dropped out of the seminary - and in 1861, taking money from his uncle, he went to Moscow to enter the university at the Faculty of History and Philology.
It was an exciting time. Moscow University, and the Faculty of History and Philology in particular, was flourishing. Klyuchevsky listened to lectures by Sergei Solovyov (dean of the faculty) on Russian history, Fyodor Buslaev on ancient Russian literature, Nikolai Tikhonravov on the history of Russian literature, Pamfil Yurkevich on the history of philosophy, Boris Chicherin on the history of Russian law. All of these were the greatest experts in their fields, the founders of their own scientific schools and, in general, real stars. In addition, in the same year of 1861, when Klyuchevsky’s Moscow student life began, the long-awaited “peasant reform” took place - serfdom was abolished.
The Moscow mixed student body, to which Klyuchevsky belonged, was perhaps the main breeding ground for radical political ideas. Klyuchevsky personally knew Dmitry Karakozov, one of the first Russian revolutionary terrorists (who tried to shoot Tsar Alexander II in 1866), from Penza - he was his brother’s tutor. However, Klyuchevsky himself did not join the political movement, preferring study to free students. His idols were not revolutionary tribunes like Nikolai Chernyshevsky, extremely popular among the youth of the 1860s, but university professors. Klyuchevsky remained a moderate liberal throughout his life: sympathizing with many new political trends, believing in the beneficence of capitalism advancing in Russia, emphasizing in every possible way the connection between studying national history and citizenship, he was a categorical opponent of any radicalism and any upheavals.
At first, Klyuchevsky considered himself more of a philologist than a historian, and was greatly influenced by Professor Fyodor Buslaev (by the way, also a native of Penza). This scientist in 1858 published the first “Historical Grammar of the Russian Language”, and in 1861 - “Historical Sketches of Russian Folk Literature and Art”, in which he sought the primary sources of the “wandering” myths of the Indo-European peoples (primarily the Germans and Slavs). However, Klyuchevsky ultimately switched to history, and in 1865 he wrote his diploma work on a completely historical topic, “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State.” After defending his diploma, 24-year-old Klyuchevsky, at the suggestion of Solovyov, remained at the Department of Russian History to prepare for a professorship. And the thesis was published by the university printing house the following year and became the first printed work of the young scientist.
Soloviev, who was in the midst of work on “The History of Russia from Ancient Times,” entrusted his most capable students with special research, the materials of which he later used in his major work. In particular, Klyuchevsky began to develop for him the theme of monastic land use. It sounds terribly boring, but the plot is actually extremely interesting. The most important Russian monasteries, such as Kirillo-Belozersky or Solovetsky, arose on the wild outskirts of the inhabited world as refuges for hermits, but over time they became economic centers and outposts of civilization. This “monastic colonization” played an important role in the expansion of the Russian cultural and economic area. Klyuchevsky dedicated his next published work to this under the unpromising title “Economic Activities of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory” (1867).
Studies in the history of monasteries led Klyuchevsky to a close study of the lives of saints - the founders and inhabitants of the monasteries. His master's thesis, defended in 1871, was devoted to the study of them as a historical source. Klyuchevsky hoped to find in the lives what was missing in the chronicles - everyday details, information about the economy, morals and customs. Having examined several thousand of them, he came to the conclusion that they are not biographies, just as icons are not portraits; they are written not to tell something about a specific person, but then to give an example of a righteous life; all lives are, in fact, variations of the same text, contain almost no specific historical details and therefore cannot serve as a historical source. As a source study, this work was impeccable, and Klyuchevsky received the title of Master of History, but he was disappointed with the actual historical results of his work on the lives.
The title of master gave Klyuchevsky the right to teach in higher educational institutions. The most prestigious department of Russian history - the university one - was still occupied by Solovyov. But he gave the student a place as a history teacher at the Alexander Military School. In addition, Klyuchevsky taught at such a conservative institution as the Moscow Theological Academy and such a liberal one as the Higher Courses for Women. The latter were a private venture of Vladimir Guerrier, a friend of Klyuchevsky, also a historian. Women were not accepted into universities at that time, except occasionally as volunteers, that is, they were allowed to study, but were not given diplomas. A characteristic example of the then intelligentsia liberalism: Buslaev, Tikhonravov and many other major professors at Moscow University simultaneously taught at the Women's Courses.
However, the breadth of Klyuchevsky’s views on the “women’s issue” had certain limits. His notebooks are full of very caustic remarks about women. For example: “The only way ladies discover the presence of mind in themselves is that they often leave it.”
In 1879, Solovyov died, and the 38-year-old Klyuchevsky became his successor at the Department of Russian History at Moscow University - in the absence of a court historiographer (the title was not awarded after Karamzin’s death), this was actually the main position in Russian historical science.
The time when Klyuchevsky assumed this honorable position is no longer the euphoric time of the “Great Reforms”. In 1881, “Narodnaya Volya” terrorists killed Emperor Alexander II. Alexander III, who replaced him, shocked by the terrible death of his father (his legs were blown off in an explosion), began to “tighten the screws.” Regarding the liberal ministers and tsarist advisers, the ideologists of the “Great Reforms” and their followers - Dmitry Milyutin, Mikhail Loris-Melikov, Dmitry Zamyatnin - were replaced by excellent obscurantists led by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev.
Among other “counter-reforms” of these figures was the new university statute of 1884, which introduced almost barracks-like discipline in universities; “Circular about cooks’ children” of 1887, which recommended not to admit into the gymnasium and pro-gymnasium “children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and similar people, whose children, with the exception of those gifted with genius abilities, should not at all strive for the average and higher education"; and the closure of the Higher Women's Courses in 1888 (Klyuchevsky gave his farewell speech, and in it he proclaimed “faith in the mind and heart of the Russian woman”). Pobedonostsev said without mincing words that these and his other measures are designed to preserve the class structure of society and generally “freeze Russia.” They were afraid of revolution.
Klyuchevsky was the first of the professors of Russian history to abandon the chronological presentation of events, leaving students to master the general “plot outline” from textbooks or from the same 29 volumes of Solovyov. In his lectures he analyzed and built concepts.
As for the theoretical foundations, Klyuchevsky remained a faithful follower of his teachers Sergei Solovyov and Boris Chicherin all his life. In nineteenth-century cliches, he was a Hegelian, a Westerner, and a representative of the “state” or “legal” historiographic school. This means, strictly speaking, a fairly simple set of basic beliefs. Firstly, world history is a single process in which different peoples living at different times participate to varying degrees. The locomotive of world history is Europe. Russia is a part of Europe, but, due to its geographical features and the resulting peculiarities of historical development, it is very unique. Secondly, the leading force of historical development is the state: it unites the people, directs them towards a common goal and provides the means to achieve it, makes the people a participant in the world-historical process. The state is born from the “crystallization” of tribal relations in the vast ruling family.
The fundamental basis of these ideas is Hegelianism with its idea of world history as a progressive process of development of world civilization (in the concepts of Hegel himself, the creation of a perfect state by the World Mind). In the second half of the 19th century, the German thinker Heinrich Rückert, and a little later the Russian Nikolai Danilevsky, contrasted this familiar historical philosophy with an approach that we now call civilizational. His initial postulate: there is no single world-historical process; separate “natural groups” of people each live their own, separate historical lives. Danilevsky calls these groups “cultural-historical types,” and we, following the British historian Arnold Toynbee (who worked already in the 20th century), call them civilizations. Danilevsky lists ten such “types,” and the West (“German-Roman type”) is only one of them, now temporarily dominant. Danilevsky classifies Russia as a new, still nascent - and, of course, the most perfect - Slavic cultural and historical type.
Danilevsky was not a professional historian. He was a botanist by education and a publicist by vocation. His concept, in contrast to the later and much more strict civilizationist constructions of the same Toynbee, was, strictly speaking, not historical, but rather political - it was a program of pan-Slavism, the unification under the auspices of Russia of all Slavic peoples in opposition to the West, which, of course, , degenerates and is about to die. This was a lot of resentment towards Europe after the humiliating defeat in the Crimean War, which began the second half of the 19th century for Russia. And by the way, Danilevsky’s ideas during his lifetime (he died in 1885) were not very popular - he was considered just another Slavophile. We mention it here only because the civilizational approach is quite popular in our time.
Be that as it may, the question of whether world history exists at all as a single progressive process was not idle in the second half of the 19th century. As already mentioned, Klyuchevsky, together with the entire Russian professional historical community of his time, believed that it existed.
Klyuchevsky's specialization was the social and economic history of Muscovite Rus' (mainly the 16th–17th centuries). His doctoral dissertation, defended in 1882, was devoted to the Boyar Duma as “the flywheel of the ancient Russian administration.” The scientist himself considered himself to be a member of the “sociological direction” of historical science - the doctrine of “diverse and changeable happy or unsuccessful combinations of external and internal conditions of development that develop in certain countries for one or another people for a more or less long time.” From this teaching, as Klyuchevsky hoped, over time, “a science about the general laws of the structure of human societies, applicable regardless of transient local conditions,” should be developed.
The fruits of Klyuchevsky’s studies in historical sociology are “The Origin of Serfdom in Russia” (1885), “Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia” (1886), “Composition of Representation at the Zemstvo Councils of Ancient Rus'” (1890). In addition to the general course of Russian history, he taught special courses on the history of estates and the history of law, and annually conducted seminars on individual written monuments, mainly legal (in the 1880/1881 academic year - on “Russian Truth” and the Pskov Judicial Charter, in 1881/1882- m - according to the Code of Laws of Ivan the Terrible, in 1887/1888 - according to the treaties of Oleg and Igor with Byzantium, preserved as part of the Initial Chronicle).
Being an economic historian, Klyuchevsky paid attention to the relationships between people not only among themselves, but also with the environment. In this aspect, he considers the main factor of Russian history to be the development of land, constant expansion: “The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized.” In the West, the Germanic tribe of Franks conquers the Roman province of Gaul - it turns out France; on the East European Plain, and then in Siberia and Asia, the Eastern Slavs settled widely, subjugating or assimilating small, scattered local tribes without large-scale conflicts.
The periods of Russian history according to Klyuchevsky are stages of colonization. Moreover, each stage is characterized by special forms of political and economic life, associated mainly with adaptation to the territory being developed: “Dnieper Rus' - city, trade” (Kievan Rus of the 8th–13th centuries), “Upper Volga Rus' - appanage princely, free agricultural” (XIII–XV centuries), “Moscow Rus' - royal-boyar, military-landowning” (XV–XVII centuries) and “Imperial-noble Russia, serfdom”.
At the same time that Klyuchevsky was lecturing to students at Moscow University on the decisive importance of colonization in Russian history, Frederick Jackson Turner was coming to similar conclusions about American history at the University of Wisconsin. In 1893, 32-year-old Professor Turner published a lengthy research article entitled “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” in which he argued that the peculiarities of American social, political and economic institutions were explained by the existence of the Wild West. Throughout the 19th century, Americans had no shortage of land: anyone who had no place in the civilized states in the east of the country could go west to the frontier. It had its own laws, the rule of the strong reigned there, there were no everyday amenities, but there was freedom and almost unlimited opportunities. More and more waves of colonialists, mastering the western forests and prairies, pushed the frontier further and further to the west, closer and closer to the Pacific Ocean.
It is clear that the hundred-year history of the American colonization of the Wild West and the thousand-year history of the Slavic colonization of the East European Plain and Siberia are phenomena of different orders, but the typological similarity is remarkable. And it is all the more remarkable what different consequences these processes had: in America, according to Turner, the development of the frontier forged an individualistic, independent, aggressive spirit among the people; whereas in Russia, according to Klyuchevsky, it was constant colonization that led to serfdom becoming the cornerstone of the state. Welcoming the peasant reform of 1861, Klyuchevsky hoped that now the development of Siberia would acquire the same entrepreneurial character as the development of the American Wild West. Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin imagined something similar when in 1906, during the agrarian reform, he began to lure peasants to Siberia with free land and freedom from the rural community.
Soloviev, tracing the formation of Russian statehood and considering Peter's transformations as the completion of this centuries-old process, experienced great difficulties in writing the history of Russia in the 18th century (starting from the 18th volume): his narrative lost its core, its organizing idea. Klyuchevsky’s “colonization” theory works for the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries: it fits perfectly, say, the development of virgin lands in the 1950s and the transformation of the West Siberian oil and gas province into the foundation of the Soviet and Russian economy, since the 1960s.
In 1887–1889, Klyuchevsky was dean of the Faculty of History and Philology and vice-rector of Moscow University. In 1893–1895, as a home teacher, he taught a course in general and national history to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich, the son of Emperor Alexander III and the younger brother of the heir to the throne, Nikolai Alexandrovich (the future Nicholas II). It was common practice to involve leading professors in teaching the Tsar's children: Buslaev, Solovyov and other teachers of Klyuchevsky simultaneously taught Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich (he died in 1864, after which Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Alexander III, became the heir to the throne). The situation with Georgy Alexandrovich was complicated by the fact that he suffered from consumption and, on the recommendation of doctors, lived in the Georgian resort of Abastumani, so Klyuchevsky had to spend two academic years there. His preparatory notes for lectures on the history of Europe after the French Revolution and on the history of Russia from Catherine II to Alexander II were published in 1983 under the title “Abastuman Readings.”
Klyuchevsky, like any Russian liberal intellectual, had a difficult relationship with the authorities. On the one hand, he was in the sovereign's service at the Imperial Moscow University, taught the royal children, and from 1893 he was also the chairman of the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, a respected scientific organization enjoying the patronage of the royal family. On the other hand, being a commoner, coming from the lower social classes, he could not sympathize with the extremely conservative, anti-democratic policies of Alexander III, his suspicion of the professors and students as peddlers of “dangerous freethinking.” On the third hand, the revolutionary terror of Narodnaya Volya and other similar radical organizations horrified Klyuchevsky.
In 1894, at a meeting of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, Klyuchevsky delivered a speech “In memory of the late Emperor Alexander III in Bose.” A normal duty-loyal obituary, such ones were pronounced at almost every public meeting then. Even the genre of speech itself, not to mention its status, did not imply any serious discussion of the personality and legacy of the deceased emperor. However, at the lecture at the university immediately after the meeting, Klyuchevsky heard a whistle from the auditorium for the first time in his career.
Klyuchevsky did not give up. In 1904, he delivered a heartfelt speech on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the death of his teacher Sergei Solovyov, and in it, speaking about the importance of studying history, he casually remarked about the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of this decision: “Admiring how the reform transformed Russian antiquity, they did not notice how Russian antiquity transformed the reform.” He saw both in the “counter-reforms” and in the outright grassroots sabotage of the cause of liberation of the peasants not just sabotage by officials and former landowners deprived of their usual centuries-old privileges - he saw in this a continuation of the development of social forces that, after the Tsar’s manifesto of 1861, had not gone away. Whatever one may say, the vital interests of a powerful class of people are affected - no matter how you treat them, you cannot simply ignore them. The radicals saw this position as compromise.
Klyuchevsky reached the official pinnacle of his scientific career - the title of ordinary academician - in 1900, being 59 years old. In 1905, shortly after that very speech in memory of Solovyov with a discussion about how “old times transformed the reform,” the First Russian Revolution broke out. The seriously frightened government and Emperor Nicholas II hastened to proclaim the democratization of the political system and in February 1905 they promised to establish a parliament - the State Duma. Meetings began in Peterhof on how to do this more efficiently. Klyuchevsky was invited to them as an expert on popular representation - after all, among his greatest scientific achievements was a study of the social composition and functioning of the Boyar Duma and zemstvo councils (which, however, as Klyuchevsky established, were not bodies of popular representation, but accordingly class administrative structure and form of consultation between the supreme power and its local agents).
The project of the Duma as a legislative body, elections to which were neither direct, nor universal, nor equal, did not suit anyone. In October, an all-Russian strike began, which forced Nicholas II to make new concessions: with a manifesto of October 17, he proclaimed the granting of basic civil liberties to Russia (including freedom of speech, assembly and association in political parties), as well as the establishment of a Duma on the principles of general elections.
The State Council, from a virtually non-functional legislative body under the tsar, turned into the upper house of parliament. Half of its members were appointed by the emperor, the other half were elected from curiae: from the Orthodox clergy, from noble assemblies, from provincial zemstvo assemblies (local government bodies), from business public organizations. And there was also an “academic curia” that elected six members of the State Council “from the Academy of Sciences and Universities.” In April 1906, Klyuchevsky was one of these six, but immediately refused this honor because, due to the specific election procedure, he did not feel proper independence. Instead, he decided to run for the State Duma (where elections were direct) from the liberal Constitutional Democratic Party, led by his student Pavel Milyukov (we will tell you more about him next time). But Klyuchevsky failed the elections, and this ended his short and unsuccessful journey into politics.
Klyuchevsky died in 1911, being 70 years old. The historiographic school he created at Moscow University, which gave priority to the study of socio-economic relations, determined the mainstream of Russian historical science until the establishment of Marxist teaching as the “only true” one, and even after that, under the name of “bourgeois economism”, was the starting point for Soviet researchers: they started from Klyuchevsky, criticizing, arguing or clarifying him, just as historians of the 19th century started from Karamzin. Strictly speaking, Klyuchevsky had everything that Marxists required: the primacy of economics and the secondary nature of politics, the class structure of society, the consistent derivation of the causes of events and phenomena from the internal logic of the development of society, and not from external factors, the recognition of the insignificance of the “hype of state events” - only Klyuchevsky, as a non-Marxist, interpreted all this “wrongly”.
Solovyov was more favored by the Soviet authorities: the fact that he belonged entirely to the 19th century allowed him, a “bourgeois” historian, to be fearlessly proclaimed “progressive.” Klyuchevsky was already an older contemporary of Lenin, and he had to be considered “reactionary.”
Solovyov's thinking was entirely scientific, synthetic: he saw processes in all historical events and phenomena. It was not for nothing that Klyuchevsky wrote, in addition to historical research, stories and even poetry (both mainly in the satirical genre) - he had artistic thinking. If in Solovyov’s presentation individual historical figures appeared as nothing more than functions, “nodes” of those very processes; then Klyuchevsky, remaining on the same strictly scientific basis, revived the Karamzin tradition of living historical portraits. He returned psychologism to historical science - not in the sentimental Karamzin spirit, with the division into heroes and villains, but rather in the spirit of the literary “natural school”, for which individual characters were the product and reflection of their time and their social environment. For Solovyov, the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible is nothing more than another stage in the struggle between state life and clan life, Petrine transformations are an inevitable result of the development of Russian society in the 17th century. Klyuchevsky, recognizing the same general historical significance behind these phenomena, pays special attention to the actions of the sovereigns, seeing in them both the manifestation of their personal temperaments and visual illustrations of the prevailing morals and concepts of the corresponding eras.
The clearest example of this “scientific-artistic,” “docudramatic” method of Klyuchevsky is the semi-comic study “Eugene Onegin and His Ancestors,” which he presented at the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature in 1887, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Pushkin’s death. A fictional “reconstruction” of the genealogy of a fictional character in the form of a gallery of historical portraits of his “ancestors”: “some Nelyub-Nezlobin, the son of such and such,” an illiterate provincial nobleman of the second half of the 17th century; the “melancholy commissar” of the Peter the Great era, a scholar of “Latin” and the head of the supply of boots to soldiers; a foreign-educated “navigator” who was tortured in dungeons under Anna Ioannovna for “a careless word about Biron”; a brave Catherine's guard, superficially carried away by the ideals of the Enlightenment and who ended his life in the Russian wilderness as an “eternally cloudy grouch” with Parisian manners - this “reconstruction” of Klyuchevsky is, in fact, a brief sketch of the history of a certain social stratum and those “childhood traumas” that made this layer as it became. This is a feuilleton in the spirit of the early Chekhov (he was just blossoming in 1887), and a worthy bow to the majestic shadow of Pushkin, and a brilliant popular science work.
Russian historiography, like Russian literature, had its own “Silver Age”. Klyuchevsky was not an active figure in it, but played a huge role in it: many of the largest scientists of the Silver Age, including Pavel Milyukov and Alexei Shakhmatov, were his students.
Artem Efimov
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. Born on January 16 (28), 1841 in Voskresenovka (Penza province) - died on May 12 (25), 1911 in Moscow. Russian historian.
Ordinary professor at Moscow University; ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (extra staff) in Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councilor.
After the death of his father, the village priest Joseph Vasilyevich Klyuchevsky (1815-1850), the Klyuchevsky family moved to Penza, where Vasily studied first at the parish and then at the district theological school, after which he entered the Penza Theological Seminary in 1856, but after a little He dropped out of more than four years of study without completing it.
In 1861 he left for Moscow, where in August he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University.
After graduating from the university (1865), at the suggestion of S. M. Solovyov, he was left at the department of Russian history to prepare for a professorship.
Among university professors, Klyuchevsky was particularly influenced by S. V. Eshevsky (general history), S. M. Solovyov (Russian history), F. I. Buslaev (history of ancient Russian literature).
Candidate's dissertation: “Tales of foreigners about the Moscow State”; master's thesis: “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source” (1871), doctoral thesis: “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” (1882).
After the death of S. M. Solovyov (1879), he began teaching a course in Russian history at Moscow University.
Since 1882 - professor at Moscow University. In parallel with his main place of work, he lectured at the Moscow Theological Academy and the Moscow Women's Courses, organized by his friend V. I. Gerye.
In the period 1887-1889 he was dean of the Faculty of History and Philology and vice-rector of the university.
In 1889 he was elected a corresponding member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in the category of historical and political sciences.
In 1893-1895, on behalf of Emperor Alexander III, he taught a course on general studies combined with Russian history to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich. Among his students was also A. S. Khakhanov.
In 1899, a “Brief Guide to Russian History” was published, and since 1904 the full course has been published. A total of 4 volumes were published - until the time of the reign.
In 1900 he was elected an ordinary academician of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (extra staff) in Russian history and antiquities.
In 1905, he received an official assignment to participate in the work of the Commission for the revision of laws on the press and in meetings on the project for the establishment of the State Duma and its powers.
On April 10, 1906, he was elected a member of the State Council from the Academy of Sciences and Universities, but on April 11 he refused the title because he did not find participation in the council “independent enough for free... discussion of emerging issues of state life.”
He was an honorary member of the Vitebsk Scientific Archival Commission.
Klyuchevsky is one of the leading representatives of Russian liberal historiography of the 19th-20th centuries, a supporter of state theory, who meanwhile created his own original scheme of Russian history and the recognized leader of the Moscow historical school.
Among his students are P. N. Milyukov, M. K. Lyubavsky, A. A. Kizevetter, Ya. L. Barskov, M. M. Bogoslovsky, M. N. Pokrovsky, N. A. Rozhkov, Yu. V. Gauthier, A. I. Yakovlev, S. V. Bakhrushin.
In 1991, a USSR postage stamp dedicated to Klyuchevsky was issued.
In 1991, in Penza, in a house on Klyuchevsky Street, 66, the V. O. Klyuchevsky Museum was opened.
Museum of Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky in Penza
Since 1994, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences has awarded the Prize named after. V. O. Klyuchevsky for his work in the field of Russian history.
In February 1966, Popovka Street in Penza, where the future historian spent his childhood and youth (1851-1861), was named after Klyuchevsky.
Personal life of Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky:
He was married to Anisya Mikhailovna Borodina (1837-1909).
From this marriage a son, Boris, was born, who graduated from the history and law faculties of Moscow University. From July 2, 1903 to 1917, he was listed as an assistant to sworn attorney P.P. Koreneva.
Bibliography of Klyuchevsky:
“Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State” (1866)
“Economic activities of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea region” (1867)
“New studies on the history of ancient Russian monasteries” (review) (1869)
“The Church in relation to the mental development of ancient Rus'” (review of Shchapov’s book) (1870)
"Old Russian Lives of Saints" (1871)
"Pskov Disputes" (1872)
“The Legend of the Miracles of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God” (1878)
"Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'" (1880-1881)
“Russian ruble XVI-XVIII centuries. in its relation to the present" (1884)
"The Origin of Serfdom in Russia" (1885)
“Poll tax and the abolition of servitude in Russia” (1886)
"Eugene Onegin and his ancestors" (1887)
“The composition of the representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Rus'” (1890)
Course of Russian history in 5 parts - (St. Petersburg, 1904−1922. - 1146 pp.; Russian history. Full course of lectures - M., 1993.)
Historical portraits. Figures of historical thought (“The significance of St. Sergius for the Russian people and state”, “Good People of Ancient Rus'”, “Characteristics of Tsar Ivan the Terrible”, “Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich”, “The Life of Peter the Great before the start of the Northern War”; I. N. Boltin , N. M. Karamzin, Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov)
"Aphorisms. Historical portraits and sketches. Diaries." - M.: “Mysl”, 1993. - 416 pp., 75,000 copies.
Biography. The great historian of Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky was born on January 16, 1841 in the village of Voskresenskoye, Penza district. The Klyuchevsky surname is symbolic and is associated with the source, source, and ideas about the homeland. It comes from the name of the village of Klyuchi, Penza province. The words “key” and “key” have another meaning for scientists - method. Possessing the ability to accumulate all the best in historical thought, Klyuchevsky kept many scientific keys in his mind.
Came from the clergy class. Klyuchevsky's childhood years were spent in the rural wilderness of the Penza province at the place of service of his father, a poor rural priest and teacher of the law. Since childhood, I perceived sympathy and understanding of peasant life, interest in the historical fate of the people, and folk art.
His first teacher was his father, who taught his son to read correctly and quickly, “write decently” and sing from notes. Among the books read, in addition to the obligatory Book of Hours and Psalter, there were the Chetya-Minea and books of secular content.
The sudden tragic death of his father in 1850 cut short Vasily Osipovich’s childhood. His mother and her two surviving children (the other four died in infancy) moved to Penza. Out of compassion for the poor widow, priest S.V. Filaretov (her husband’s friend) gave her a small house to live in. The family lived in the back, worst part of the house; the front room was rented out to guests for three rubles a month. The most financially difficult 10 years of V.O. Klyuchevsky’s life passed in this house. In 1991, the V.O. Klyuchevsky House-Museum was opened here.
In Penza, Klyuchevsky successively studied at the parish theological school, at the district theological school and at the theological seminary. Very early, almost from the 2nd grade of the seminary, he was forced to give private lessons, and in the future he continued to tutor, earning a living and accumulating teaching experience. The early manifested love for history in general, and Russian history in particular, strengthened during my student years. At school, Klyuchevsky already knew the works of Tatishchev, Karamzin, Granovsky, Kavelin, Solovyov, Kostomarov; followed the magazines “Russian Bulletin”, “Otechestvennye zapiski”, “Sovremennik”. In order to be able to enter the university (and his superiors intended him to attend the Kazan Theological Academy), he deliberately dropped out of the seminary in his last year. For a year, the young man independently prepared to enter the university and prepared the two sons of a Penza manufacturer for exams.
In 1861, Klyuchevsky entered Moscow University. In his final years, Klyuchevsky began studying Russian history under the guidance of S.M. Solovyov. Since his student years, Vasily Osipovich has studied sources in depth: together with Buslaev, he sorted out old manuscripts in the Synodal Library, spent hours immersed in the “boundless sea of archival material” in the archives of the Ministry of Justice, where he was given a table next to S.M. Solovyov. In one of his letters to a friend we read: “It is difficult to summarize my activities. The devil knows what I'm not doing. And I’m reading political economy, and I’m studying the Sanskrit language, and I’m learning some things in English, and I’m mastering the Czech and Bulgarian languages - and God knows what else.”
Klyuchevsky looked closely at the everyday life around him. During the holidays, he met with peace mediators and “listened to peasant affairs”; during leisure hours, he went to the Kremlin and took with him law students who were interested in the schism (among them was A.F. Koni), “to mingle among the people in front of the cathedrals” and listen to the debate between schismatics and Orthodox Christians. After intense university and independent work, Klyuchevsky gave private lessons in different parts of the city, the distance between which he usually covered on foot.
For his graduation essay “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State,” Klyuchevsky was awarded a gold medal and kept at the department “to prepare for a professorship.” Five years later, in order to obtain the right to lecture at the Moscow Theological Academy, he defended this work as a dissertation. Thus, Klyuchevsky left the university as a fully established scientist.
The master's thesis “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source” was published in 1871, and its master’s defense took place in 1872. It attracted the attention of not only scientists, but also a large public. The applicant defended himself brilliantly, demonstrating his talent as a polemicist.
A master's degree gave him the official right to teach at higher educational institutions, and Klyuchevsky began teaching, which brought him well-deserved fame. He taught at five higher educational institutions: at the Alexander Military School, where he taught a course in general history for 17 years; in other places he read Russian history: at the Moscow Theological Academy, at the Higher Women's Courses, at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture; since 1879, Moscow University became its main department.
The defense of his doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” by Klyuchevsky took place in 1882. It lasted almost four hours and passed brilliantly.
“The Course of Russian History” by V.O. Klyuchevsky received worldwide fame. It has been translated into all major languages of the world. According to foreign historians, this work served as the basis and main source for Russian history courses around the world.
In the 1893/94 and 1894/95 academic years, Klyuchevsky again returned to teaching world history, as he was seconded to give lectures to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich. The course, which he called “The Recent History of Western Europe in Connection with the History of Russia,” covers the time from the French Revolution of 1789 to the abolition of serfdom and the reforms of Alexander II. The history of Western Europe and Russia is considered in it in their relationship and mutual influence. This complex course, rich in factual material, is an important source for analyzing the evolution of Klyuchevsky’s historical views and for studying the problem of studying general history in Russia in general, and the history of the French Revolution in particular.
Vasily Osipovich was an active member of the Moscow Archaeological Society, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, and the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, where he was its chairman for four terms (from 1893 to 1905). Contemporaries regarded Klyuchevsky's chairmanship for 12 years as the time of greatest flowering of the scientific activity of the OIDR. In 1889, he was elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, and in 1900, an academician of Russian history and antiquities outside the state, since he did not want to leave Moscow and move to St. Petersburg, as required by position. In 1908, the scientist was elected honorary academician in the category of fine literature.
Klyuchevsky had a chance to participate in a number of government events. In 1905, he was a member of the so-called D.F. Kobeko commission, which developed a project to weaken censorship. Klyuchevsky spoke several times before the commission. In particular, polemicizing with defenders of censorship, he gave a witty history of it.
In the same year, Klyuchevsky was invited to the “Peterhof Meetings” regarding the development of a draft State Duma. There he resolutely opposed the choice “at the beginning of estates,” arguing that the estate organization was outdated, and that not only the nobility, but also all other estates, benefited. The historian has consistently spoken out in favor of mixed elections.
In the spring of 1906, Klyuchevsky unsuccessfully ran for election to the First State Duma from Sergiev Posad. A month later, he was elected to the State Council from the Academy of Sciences and Russian universities. However, he resigned this title, declaring publicly through the newspaper “Russian Vedomosti” that he did not find the position of a member of the Council “independent enough to freely discuss emerging issues of public life in the interests of the cause.”
Despite the enormous research work and teaching load, Klyuchevsky gave speeches and public lectures free of charge, for example, in favor of the hungry, in favor of those affected by crop failure in the Volga region, in favor of the Moscow Literacy Committee, as well as on anniversaries and public events. In them, the historian often touched upon problems of morality, mercy, upbringing, education, and Russian culture. Each of his performances acquired a huge public resonance. In terms of the power of influence on the audience, people who heard Klyuchevsky compared him not with other professors or scientists in general, but with the highest examples of art - with the performances of Chaliapin, Yermolova, Rachmaninov, with the performances of the Art Theater.
Despite being overly busy, Klyuchevsky still found the opportunity to communicate with the artistic, literary and theatrical circles of Moscow. Artists, composers, writers (for example, N.S. Leskov), and artists (among them F.I. Chaliapin) often turned to Vasily Osipovich for advice. It is widely known about Klyuchevsky’s assistance to the great artist in creating the images of Boris Godunov and others. Klyuchevsky treated everyone with favorable attention, considering it his sacred duty to help figures in the artistic world.
For more than 10 years, Klyuchevsky lectured at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where he was listened to not only by students from all workshops and classes, but also by teachers, venerable artists (V.A. Serov, A.M. Vasnetsov, K. Korovin, L. O. Pasternak and others). His last lecture was given within the walls of the School on October 29, 1910.
While in the hospital, Klyuchevsky continued to work - he wrote two articles for the newspapers “Russian Vedomosti” and “Rech” on the 50th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom. They say that he worked even on the day of his death, which followed on May 12, 1911. V.O. Klyuchevsky was buried in Moscow at the Donskoy Monastery cemetery.
As a sign of deepest recognition of the scientist’s merits, in the year of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Vasily Osipovich, the International Center for Minor Planets (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, USA) assigned his name to one of the planets. From now on, minor planet No. 4560 Klyuchevsky is an integral part of the Solar System.
Major works:
Tales of foreigners about the Moscow state
Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source
Boyar Duma of ancient Rus'
Lectures on Russian history.
"Tales of foreigners about the Moscow state". For his graduation essay, Klyuchevsky chose a topic related to the history of Moscow Russia in the 15th-17th centuries, based on a large range of then poorly studied sources on the tales of foreigners, many of which had not yet been translated into Russian. In his work he used about 40 legends. Even before Klyuchevsky, historians drew some factual data and characteristics from the notes of foreigners; There were also articles about individual foreigners who left evidence of Rus'. But before Klyuchevsky, no one had studied these monuments in their entirety. The young historian’s approach was fundamentally different. He collected together and thematically systematized the specific information contained in the legends, critically processed and generalized them, and created a complete picture of the life of the Russian state for three centuries.
In the introduction, Klyuchevsky gave a list of his sources, analyzed them in general, characterized the authors of the tales, paying attention to the features of the notes depending on the time of their writing, as well as on the goals and objectives facing the writers. In general, Klyuchevsky emphasized the importance of notes from foreigners for studying the daily life of the Moscow state, although many curiosities and inaccuracies can be found there. Hence the requirement for a critical approach to the evidence of foreign authors. His analysis of the sources was so thorough that in subsequent literature “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State” is often called a source study. But this is a historical work on the history of Muscovite Rus', written on abundant “fresh” sources.
Klyuchevsky argued that news from foreigners about the home life of Muscovites, about the moral state of society and other issues of internal life could not be sufficiently reliable and complete in the mouths of foreigners, since this side of life is “less open to prying eyes.” External phenomena, the external order of social life, its material side could be described by an outside observer with the greatest completeness and fidelity. Therefore, Klyuchevsky decided to limit himself only to the most reliable information about the state and economic life of the country and data about the geographical environment, and it was this side of Russian life that most interested the author. But he collected and processed material on a much larger number of issues, as the scientist’s manuscripts eloquently testify to.
The book is written with “strict legibility in the material” and at the same time brightly, figuratively, with a touch of cheerful irony. It is as if the reader himself, along with the “observant European,” travels along unsafe roads through vast dense forests, steppe desert spaces, and finds himself in various vicissitudes. Klyuchevsky masterfully conveys the charm of living concrete evidence of the original, preserving the freshness of a foreigner’s impressions and sprinkling his own presentation with colorful details and expressive touches of the appearance of the tsar and his entourage, ceremonies for the reception of ambassadors, feasts, table speeches, and the customs of the royal court. The author monitors the strengthening of the centralized state and autocracy as forms of government, the gradual complication of the state administration apparatus, legal proceedings and the state of the army, and compares Moscow government with the orders of other countries.
Klyuchevsky was not interested in the details of diplomatic negotiations, the struggle of court parties and related foreign policy events. He focused on the internal life of the country. From the notes of foreigners, he selected information about the “type” of the country and its climate, the fertility of certain regions of the Moscow state, the main crops, cattle breeding, hunting, fishing, salt making, vegetable gardening and horticulture, the growth of cities and population. The work ends with a consideration of the history of trade of the Moscow state in the 15th-17th centuries, and the circulation of coins associated with trade. Klyuchevsky spoke about centers of domestic and foreign trade, trade routes and communication routes, about imported and exported goods, and their prices.
Research interest in economic issues and social history (which was a new phenomenon in the historical science of that time), attention to geographical conditions as a constant factor in Russian history, to population movements with the aim of developing new lands, to the issue of relations between Russia and the West - this is already visible foundations of the concept of the Russian historical process.
"Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source". Vasily Osipovich decided to devote his master's thesis to the history of monastic land ownership, the center of which was to be the problem of colonization, first posed in science by S.M. Solovyov. But unlike the state school, which explains colonization by the activities of the state, Klyuchevsky understood it as a process determined by the natural conditions of the country and population growth.
For his master's work, Klyuchevsky again chose the same set of sources - the lives of saints. Both the problem of colonization itself and the lives of the saints attracted the attention of many historians at that time: they thought to find in the lives what was not found in the chronicles. It was assumed that they contained extensive material on the history of colonization, land ownership, the history of Russian morals, customs, living conditions, the history of everyday life, private life, the way of thinking of society and its views on nature. Interest in the lives was enhanced by their lack of study.
To understand Klyuchevsky’s plan, unpublished materials from his archive are very important: four sketches in the form of lectures-conversations, draft essays on the history of Russian hagiography, the original plan of the work and other drafts. These materials indicate that he intended to show, through the life of a simple Russian person, the history of the cultural development of that territory of North-Eastern Russia, which formed the basis of the future Russian state.
Klyuchevsky did a titanic work of studying the texts of no less than five thousand hagiographies. During the preparation of his dissertation, he wrote six papers. Among them are such major studies as “Economic activities of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory” (it is called Klyuchevsky’s first economic work), and “Pskov Disputes”, which examines some issues of ideological life in Rus' in the 15th-16th centuries. (the work was written at a time of increasing controversy between the Orthodox Church and the Old Believers). However, despite all the efforts expended, Klyuchevsky came to an unexpected conclusion about the literary monotony of lives, in which the authors described everyone’s life from the same sides, forgetting “about the details of the situation, place and time, without which for a historian there is no historical fact. It often seems that in the story of a life there is hidden an apt observation, a living feature of reality; but upon analysis one common point remains.”
It became obvious to Klyuchevsky that the materials identified from the sources would not be enough to fulfill his plans. Many colleagues advised him to abandon the topic, but he managed to turn it in a different direction: he began to approach the lives of saints not with the goal of identifying the factual data they contained, but turned the lives themselves into an object of study. Now Klyuchevsky set himself purely source-study tasks: dating the lists, determining the oldest list, the place of its origin, possible sources of lives, the number and nature of subsequent editions; determining the accuracy of the source’s reflection of historical reality and the degree of truthfulness of the historical fact stated in it. The book received the final title “Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source.”
Klyuchevsky’s conclusions were extremely bold and radically diverged from the then prevailing views on ancient Russian lives. It is clear that the attitude towards his work was ambiguous.
“Work on ancient Russian lives made the artist-creator, as Vasily Osipovich was by nature,” his student M.K. Lyubavsky later wrote, “a subtle critic-analyst, harmoniously combined in him the usually incompatible qualities of a painstaking, careful and cautious researcher and wide creative scope of the writer." Science has recognized Klyuchevsky’s research as a masterpiece of source studies, an unsurpassed example of source analysis of narrative monuments.
"Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'". Social history in the works of Klyuchevsky. The doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'” was a kind of result of previous research and it gave a holistic concept of the Russian historical process. The choice of the topic of the dissertation fully reflected the scientific interests of the historian, his sociological approach to the study of judicial management in Russia. Klyuchevsky figuratively called the Boyar Duma the flywheel of the Moscow state and interpreted it as a constitutional institution “with extensive political influence, but without a constitutional charter, a government seat with a wide range of affairs, but without an office, without an archive.” This happened due to the fact that the Boyar Duma - this “government spring” that set everything in motion, itself remained invisible in front of the society it governed, since its activities were closed from two sides: by the sovereign from above and the clerk, “its rapporteur and record-keeper ", from below. This led to the difficulties of studying the history of the Duma, since “the researcher is deprived of the opportunity to reconstruct, on the basis of authentic documents, both the political significance of the Duma and the order of its paperwork.”
Klyuchevsky began to collect the necessary data bit by bit from a variety of sources - in archives, in private collections (including his own), in published documents; He also studied the works of historians. Klyuchevsky’s students had the impression that their teacher was not at all bothered by the preliminary, menial, painstaking and thankless “Egyptian” work of sifting through a mass of sources and “piles of archival materials,” on which a lot of time and effort was spent, and as a result only grains were found. True, they noted, Klyuchevsky “mined grains of pure gold,” collected in homeopathic doses and analyzed under a microscope. And he reduced all these scrupulous research to definite, clear conclusions that constituted the achievement of science.
The study covers the entire centuries-old period of the existence of the Boyar Duma from Kievan Rus in the 10th century. until the beginning of the 18th century, when it ceased its activities in connection with the creation of the Government Senate by Peter I in 1711. But it was not so much the history of the Boyar Duma as a state institution, its competence and work that attracted Klyuchevsky. Much greater was his interest in the composition of the Duma, in those ruling classes of society who ruled Russia through the Duma, in the history of society, in the relationships between classes. This was the novelty of the scientist’s plan. In the magazine version, the work had an important clarifying subtitle: “An experience in the history of a government institution in connection with the history of society.” “In the proposed experiment,” the author emphasized in the first version of the introduction, “the Boyar Duma is considered in connection with the classes and interests that dominated ancient Russian society.” Klyuchevsky believed that “in the history of a social class there are two main moments, of which one can be called economic, the other political.” He wrote about the dual origin of classes, which can be formed on both a political and an economic basis: from above - by the will of power and from below - by the economic process. Klyuchevsky developed this position in many works, in particular, in special courses on the terminology of Russian history and on the history of estates in Russia.
Historian lawyers of the old school (M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, V.I. Sergeevich, etc.) spoke out in the press sharply against Klyuchevsky’s concept. But not all historians of Russian law (for example, S.A. Kotlyarevsky) shared their position. In most cases, Klyuchevsky’s work “Boyar Duma” was perceived as an artistic embodiment of a completely new scheme of Russian history. “Many chapters of his book are positively brilliant, and the book itself is a whole theory, completely beyond the scope of the topic, close to a philosophical understanding of our entire history,” noted the then student of St. Petersburg University (later academician) S.F. Platonov.
In addition to “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus',” Klyuchevsky’s research interest in the social history of Russia, especially in the history of the ruling classes (boyars and nobility) and the history of the peasantry, is reflected in his works “The Origin of Serfdom in Russia”, “Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia” ”, “History of estates in Russia”, “Composition of representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia”, “Abolition of serfdom” and in a number of articles. The social history of Russia is in the foreground in his “Course of Russian History”.
From the concept of representatives of the state school with their purely legal approach to the essence of government, Klyuchevsky’s position differed primarily in the desire to present the historical process as a process of development of social classes, the relationships and roles of which changed in connection with the economic and political development of the country. Vasily Osipovich considered the nature of social classes and their relationship to each other to be more or less friendly cooperation. He called the state, which acted as an exponent of national interests, the reconciling principle in the national economy and political life.
“Course of Russian history” (from ancient times to Alexander II). During the intense years of working on his doctoral dissertation and creating the first lecture courses on general and Russian history, Klyuchevsky replaced the deceased S.M. Solovyov (1879) at the university department of Russian history. The first lecture was dedicated to the memory of the teacher, then Klyuchevsky continued the course begun by Solovyov. According to his program, he first began giving lectures at Moscow University a year later, in the fall of 1880. In parallel with the main course, Klyuchevsky conducted seminars with students on the study of individual monuments of ancient Russia, and later on historiography. Vasily Osipovich “conquered us immediately,” the students admitted, and not only because he spoke beautifully and effectively, but because “we looked for and found in him, first of all, a thinker and researcher”; “behind the artist was a thinker.”
Throughout his life, Klyuchevsky continuously improved his general course of Russian history, but did not limit himself to it. For university students, the scientist created an integral system of courses - in the center a general course of Russian history and five special courses around it. Each of them has its own specificity and independent meaning, however, the main value lies in their totality. All of them are directly related to the course of Russian history, adding and deepening its individual aspects, and all are aimed at developing the professionalism of future historians.
Special courses are arranged by Klyuchevsky in a logical order. The theoretical course opened the cycle "Methodology of Russian history" , which was a “hat” for everyone else. This was the first experience in Russia of creating a training course of a methodological nature - before that there had only been isolated introductory lectures. In Soviet literature, the methodology course was particularly harshly criticized. Klyuchevsky was reproached for the fact that his philosophical and sociological views were not sufficiently definite and clear, and were distinguished by eclecticism; that Klyuchevsky viewed the historical process in an idealistic way; that the concept of the class structure of society is alien to him; that he perceived society as a phenomenon devoid of antagonistic contradictions and said nothing about class struggle; that he incorrectly interpreted such concepts as “class”, “capital”, “labor”, “formation”, etc. Klyuchevsky was also reproached for the fact that he failed to cross the “threshold to Marxism.” This course met the requirements of the historical science of another era. But even then, with a generally negative assessment of Klyuchevsky’s “methodology,” the named course was valued as a scientific search by a scientist, and the innovative nature of the problem formulation for its time was emphasized.
The three subsequent courses were largely devoted to source studies: this is the study and interpretation of the terms of ancient Russian monuments in the course "Terminology of Russian history" (neither before nor after Klyuchevsky there is another comprehensive presentation of ancient Russian terminology; this course is unique); lecture course "History of estates in Russia" , where Klyuchevsky showed the injustice of the existing relations of class inequality. The topic of the history of estates was acutely contemporary for Vasily Osipovich in connection with the peasant reform of 1861. Explaining the “concept of estate,” Klyuchevsky, just as in the terminology course, in the “Boyar Duma” and other works, spoke about their dual origin: political and economic. He associated the first with the forced enslavement of society by armed force, the second with “voluntary political subordination to its class, which has achieved economic dominance in the country.” The historian pursued the idea of the temporary nature of the class division of society, emphasized its transitory significance, and drew attention to the fact that “there were times when there were no classes yet, and the time is coming when they no longer exist.” He argued that class inequality is a historical phenomenon (that is, not an eternal, but a temporary state of society), “disappearing almost everywhere in Europe; class differences are increasingly smoothed out in law,” “the equalization of classes is the simultaneous triumph of both the general state interest and personal freedom. This means that the history of classes reveals to us two of the most hidden and closely interconnected historical processes: the movement of consciousness of common interests and the liberation of the individual from under class oppression in the name of common interest.”
The situation of peasants in Russia, the origin of serfdom and the stages of development of serfdom, the economic development of the country and management issues were Klyuchevsky's constant themes. In science there was a theory about the “enslavement and emancipation of classes” by an all-powerful state, depending on its needs. Klyuchevsky came to the conclusion that “serfdom in Russia was not created by the state, but only with the participation of the state; the latter owned not the foundations of the law, but its boundaries.” According to the scientist, the main reason for the emergence of serfdom was economic; it stemmed from the debt of peasants to landowners. Thus, the issue moved from the state sphere to the sphere of private law relations. Thus, on this issue too, Klyuchevsky went beyond the framework of the historical-state school.
The history of monetary circulation and finance of Russia was developed by Klyuchevsky in many works, starting with the student essay “Tales of Foreigners” (chapters “Treasury Revenue”, “Trade”, “Coin”), in the special course “Terminology of Russian History” (lecture XI, dedicated to the monetary system ), in the research article “Russian ruble XVI-XVIII centuries. in its relation to the present" (1884), where, comparing grain prices in the past and present, the author determined the purchasing power of the ruble in different periods of Russian history, in an article on the poll tax (1886), in the "Course of Russian History". Based on a subtle analysis of sources, these works made a significant contribution to the study of this range of problems.
Fourth year in college - lectures on sources of Russian history . Fifth year - lectures on Russian historiography . R.A. Kireeva drew attention to the fact that V.O. Klyuchevsky did not develop any stable understanding and, accordingly, a definition of the subject of historiography. In practice, it was close to the modern interpretation, namely in the meaning of the history of historical science, but its formulations changed and the understanding of the subject underwent changes: it was close to the concept of source study, then history, then self-awareness, but more often Klyuchevsky still meant by the term historiography is the writing of history, historical work, and not the history of the development of historical knowledge, historical science.
His consideration of historiography clearly shows a cultural perspective. He considered the history of Russian science within the framework of the problem of Western influence and in close connection with the problem of education. Until the 17th century Russian society, according to Klyuchevsky, lived under the influence of native origin, the conditions of its own life and the indications of the nature of its country. Since the 17th century A foreign culture, rich in experience and knowledge, began to influence this society. This incoming influence met with home-grown orders and entered into a struggle with them, disturbing the Russian people, confusing their concepts and habits, complicating their life, giving it increased and uneven movement. A view began to be established on Europe as a school in which one can learn not only craftsmanship, but also the ability to live and think. Further development of the European scientific tradition V.O. Klyuchevsky connected with Poland. Rus' did not change its usual caution: it did not dare to borrow Western education directly from its deposits, from its masters and workers, but looked for intermediaries. Western European civilization in the 17th century. came to Moscow in Polish processing and noble clothes. It is clear that this influence was more traditional and strong in Little Russia and, as a consequence of this, wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky, - the figure-conductor of Western science was, as a rule, a Western Russian Orthodox monk, trained in the Latin school.
However, this process was full of drama and contradictions. The need for a new science, in his opinion, was met with irresistible antipathy and suspicion towards everything that came from the Catholic and Protestant West. At the same time, Moscow society has barely tasted the fruits of this science when they are already beginning to be overcome by heavy thoughts about whether it is safe and whether it will not harm the purity of faith and morals. Protest against new science V.O. Klyuchevsky considered it as the result of a collision between the national scientific tradition and the European one. The historian characterized the Russian scientific tradition from the point of view of the value guidelines of a society in which science and art were valued for their connection with the church, as a means of knowing the word of God and spiritual salvation. Knowledge and artistic decorations of life, which did not have such a connection and such significance, were considered as idle curiosity of a shallow mind or as unnecessary frivolous fun, amusement, neither such knowledge nor such art were given educational power, they were attributed to the base order of life, considered if not direct vice, then the weaknesses of human nature, susceptible to sin.
In Russian society, summed up V.O. Klyuchevsky, a suspicious attitude was established towards the participation of reason and scientific knowledge in matters of faith, and as a consequence of this, he identified such a feature of the Russian mentality as self-confidence of ignorance. This construction was strengthened by the fact that European science entered Russian life as a competitor or, at best, a collaborator with the church in the matter of creating human happiness. The protest against Western influence and European science was explained by V.O. Klyuchevsky’s religious worldview, because teachers, following the Orthodox scientists, were Protestants and Catholics. Convulsive movement forward and reflection with a timid glance back - this is how one can describe the cultural gait of Russian society in the 17th century, wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky.
A sharp break with the traditions of medieval Rus' is associated with the activities of Peter I. It was from the 18th century. A new image of science begins to take shape, a secular science focused on the search for truth and practical needs. Questions arise: did V.O. pay attention? Klyuchevsky on the presence or absence of national characteristics of Russian scientific thought in the post-Petrine period, or maybe Western influence completely eliminates this problem? Most likely, the historian did not ask these questions and, moreover, expressed the irony characteristic of his nature about the search for national identity anywhere. He wrote that there are periods of crisis when the educated class closes European books and begins to think that we are not behind at all, but are going our own way, that Russia is on its own, and Europe is on its own and we can do without its sciences and arts with our own home-grown means. This surge of patriotism and longing for originality is so powerfully gripping our society that we, usually rather unscrupulous admirers of Europe, begin to feel some kind of embitterment against everything European and are imbued with faith in the immense strength of our people... But our revolts against Western European influence are devoid of active character; these are more treatises on national identity than attempts at original activity. And, nevertheless, in his historiographical notes there are individual reflections on some features of the development of Russian historical science, which are considered in the context of the features of the development of Russian culture. IN. Klyuchevsky wrote about the meager reserve of cultural forces that appears in our country in such combinations and with such features that, perhaps, have never been repeated anywhere in Europe. This partly explains the state of Russian historical literature. It cannot be said that she suffered from a poverty of books and articles; but relatively few of them were written with a clear awareness of scientific requirements and needs... Very often a writer, like a Crimean of old times, raiding Russian historical life, with three words already judges and rants about it; Having barely begun to study a fact, he hurries to formulate a theory, especially when it comes to the so-called history of a people. From here in our country they like to poke at a historical question rather than solve it, having examined thoroughly. From here in our historiography there are more views than scientifically proven facts, more doctrines than disciplines. This part of the literature provides more material for characterizing the contemporary development of Russian society than instructions for studying our past. So V.O. Klyuchevsky formulated in 1890 - 1891. the idea of hypertrophied sociality of Russian science.
All introductory courses were taught by Klyuchevsky according to a strictly developed plan: they always defined the subject and objectives of each course, explained its structure and periodization, indicated sources and gave, against the background of the general development of historical science, a description of the literature where the selected issues were covered or touched upon (or the fact of the absence of such study). The presentation, as always with Klyuchevsky, had a relaxed form. He explained a lot, made unexpected comparisons that awakened the imagination, joked, and most importantly, the professor introduced students to the depths of science, shared his research experience with them, facilitated and guided their independent work.
For more than three decades, Klyuchevsky worked continuously on his lecture course on Russian history, but only in the early 1900s he finally decided to prepare it for publication. “The Course of Russian History” (in 5 parts), which provides a holistic construction of the Russian historical process, is recognized as the pinnacle of the scientist’s creativity. The “course” was based on the deep research work of the scientist, whose works significantly expanded the problems of historical science, and on all the courses he created, both general (on Russian and world history) and five special ones.
In four introductory lectures to the Course, Klyuchevsky outlined the foundations of his historical philosophy. The most important points that he previously developed in the special course “Methodology of Russian History” (20 lectures) are concentrated in one lecture. This:
Understanding local (in this case Russian) history as part of the world, “general history of mankind”;
Recognition of the content of history as a separate science. historical process, that is, “the course, conditions and successes of human society or the life of mankind in its development and results”;
Identification of three main historical forces that “build human society”: the human personality, human society, and the nature of the country.
Klyuchevsky, like Solovyov, considered colonization to be the main factor in Russian history. Solovyov’s thought about colonization as an important factor in historical development was given an in-depth interpretation by Klyuchevsky by considering such aspects as economic, ethnological and psychological. Having begun the historical part of the published course of lectures with the section “The Nature of the Country and the History of the People,” he proceeded to determine the significance of soil and botanical stripes, as well as the influences that the “main elements of Russian nature” had on history: the river network, plain, forest and steppe. Klyuchevsky showed the attitude of the Russian people towards each of them, explaining the reasons for the stability of the reputation (dislike for the steppe and forest, ambiguous attitude towards the river, etc.). The historian led the reader to the idea of the need for a careful, as we would now say, ecological approach to nature: “The nature of our country, despite its apparent simplicity and monotony, is characterized by a lack of stability: it is relatively easy to be thrown out of balance.”
Given the vast territory, ethnic diversity and widespread migration characteristic of Russia in its history, according to Klyuchevsky, the factor of the so-called “braces” inevitably acted, which alone could keep the ever-growing conglomerate in unity. In politics, the role of “brace” was assigned to highly centralized power and absolutism; in the military sphere - a strong army capable of performing both external and internal functions (for example, suppressing dissent); administratively, a precocious, strong bureaucracy; in ideology - the dominance of a type of authoritarian thinking among the people, including among the intelligentsia, religion; and finally, in economics, the persistence of serfdom and its consequences.”
Klyuchevsky shared Solovyov’s thought about the possibility of comparing human societies with organic bodies of nature, which are also born, live and die. He characterized the scientific movement to which he and his teacher contributed as follows: “Historical thought began to look closely at what can be called the mechanism of human coexistence.” The inescapable need of the human mind, according to Klyuchevsky, was the scientific knowledge of the course, conditions and successes of “human society,” or the life of mankind in its development and results. The task of “reproducing the consistent growth of the political and social life of Russia” and analyzing the continuity of forms and phenomena set by Solovyov was accomplished by his student in his own way. He approached the study of Russian history from the perspective of the relationship and mutual influence of three main factors - personality, nature and society. The historian's organic approach to history required taking into account the context of the era and the operating forces of history, exploring the multidimensionality of the historical process and the diversity of existing and existing connections. Klyuchevsky combined historical and sociological approaches, concrete analysis with the study of the phenomenon as a phenomenon of world history.
Klyuchevsky divides Russian history into periods primarily depending on the movement of the bulk of the population and on geographical conditions that have a strong effect on the course of historical life. The fundamental novelty of its periodization was the introduction of two more criteria - political (the problem of power and society and changes in the social support of power) and especially economic factors. Economic consequences, as Klyuchevsky believed, prepare for political consequences, which become noticeable somewhat later: “Economic interests consistently turned into social ties, from which political unions grew.”
The result was four periods:
1st period. Rus' Dnieper, city, trade from the 8th - 13th centuries. Then the mass of the Russian population concentrated on the middle and upper Dnieper with its tributaries. Rus' was then politically divided into separate isolated regions; each was headed by a large city as a political and economic center. The dominant fact of economic life is foreign trade with the resulting forestry, hunting, and beekeeping.
In the XI-XII centuries. “Rus as a tribe merged with the native Slavs, both of these terms Rus' and Russian land, without losing their geographical meaning, have a political meaning: this is how the entire territory subject to the Russian princes, with its entire Christian Slavic-Russian population, began to be called.” The Mongol invasion did not become a dividing line: “... the Mongols caught Russia on the march. During the movement, which was accelerated, but which was not called; a new way of life began before them.” For Klyuchevsky it was important to explain how and under what conditions the pattern of political and economic relations was created, as well as when the Slavic population appeared and what caused its appearance. Economic consequences, according to Klyuchevsky, also prepared political consequences, which became noticeable from the beginning of the 9th century.
“For us, a Varangian is predominantly an armed merchant, going to Russia in order to get further into rich Byzantium... A Varangian is a peddler, a petty trader, brew - engage in petty bargaining." “Settled in the large trading cities of Russia, the Varangians met here a class of population that was socially related to them and needed them, the class of armed merchants, and became part of it, entering into a trading partnership with the natives or hiring out for good food to protect Russian trade routes and trading people , that is, to escort Russian trade caravans.” In the 11th century The Varangians continued to come to Russia as mercenaries, but they no longer turned into conquerors here, and the violent seizure of power, having ceased to be repeated, seemed unlikely. Russian society of that time saw in the princes the establishers of state order, the bearers of legitimate power, under the shadow of which it lived, and traced its beginning to the calling of princes. From the union of the Varangian principalities and the city regions that retained their independence, a third political form emerged, which began in Russia: it was Grand Duchy of Kiev."
“So, there are no large trading cities visible among the Drevlyans, Dregovichs, Radimichi, Vyatichi; There were no special areas of these tribes. This means that the force that pulled together all these regions was precisely the trading cities that arose along the main river routes of Russian trade and that did not exist among the tribes remote from them.” Large armed cities, which became the rulers of the regions, arose precisely among the tribes that most actively participated in foreign trade.
The historian carried out a historical analysis of the political consciousness of power and its evolution in stages. The political consciousness of the prince in the 11th century, from the point of view of a scientist, was exhausted by two ideas: the conviction that “food was their political right,” and the actual source of this right was their political duty to defend the land. The idea of a pure monarchy did not yet exist; joint ownership with an elder at the head seemed simpler and more accessible to understanding. In the 12th century. the princes were not the sovereign sovereigns of the land, but only its military and police rulers. “They were recognized as the bearers of supreme power, insofar as they defended the land from the outside and maintained the existing order in it; only within these limits could they legislate. But it was not their job to create a new zemstvo order: such powers of the supreme power had not yet existed either in the existing law or in the legal consciousness of the land.” Losing its political integrity, the Russian land began to feel like an integral national or zemstvo composition.
He saw the reasons for feudal fragmentation, which Klyuchevsky considered as “political fragmentation,” in a change in the idea of “fatherland,” which was reflected in the words of Monomakh’s grandson Izyaslav Mstislavich: “It is not the place that goes to the head, but the head to the place,” i.e. “It is not the place that is looking for a suitable head, but the head of a suitable place.” The personal importance of the prince was placed above the rights of seniority. In addition, the dynastic sympathies of the cities, which caused the interference of the main cities and regions in the mutual accounts of the princes, confused their turn in possession. Klyuchevsky cited the statement of the Novgorodians that “they did not feed him for themselves.” Thus, “... defending their local interests, volost towns sometimes went against the prince’s bills, calling their favorite princes to their tables in addition to the regular ones. This interference of the cities, which confused the princely line of precedence, began soon after the death of Yaroslav.”
And finally, the third circumstance was that “the princes did not establish their own order in Rus' and could not establish it. They weren’t called for that, and they didn’t come for that. The earth called them for external defense, needed their saber, and not their constituent mind. The earth lived with its own local orders, however, rather monotonous ones. The princes slid on top of this zemstvo system, which was built without them, and their family accounts are not state relations, but the allocation of zemstvo remuneration for security service.”
Colonization, according to Klyuchevsky’s observation, upset the balance of social elements on which social order was based. And then the laws of political science came into play: simultaneously with disdain, local conceit and arrogance, nurtured by political success, develop. A claim, passing under the banner of law, becomes a precedent, gaining the power not only to replace, but also to abolish law.
In Klyuchevsky’s analysis of the monarchical form of statehood, his understanding of the ideal and the influence of ethnic ideas on the author’s concept and historical assessment were clearly demonstrated. “The political importance of a prince is determined by the extent to which he uses his sovereign rights to achieve the ends of the common good.” As soon as the concept of the common good disappears in society, the thought of the sovereign as a universally binding authority fades away in the minds.” Thus, the idea of the sovereign, the guardian of the common good as the goal of the state, was pursued, and the nature of sovereign rights was determined. Klyuchevsky introduced the concept of “responsible autocracy,” which he distinguished from unforgivable tyranny. Russian people encountered the latter already in ancient times. Klyuchevsky believed that Andrei Bogolyubsky “did a lot of bad things.” The historian recognized that the prince was the conductor of new state aspirations. However, the “novelty” introduced by A. Bogolyubsky, “hardly good”, had no real benefit. Klyuchevsky considered A. Bogolyubsky’s vices to be disdain for antiquity and customs, self-will (“he acted his own way in everything”). The weakness of this statesman was his inherent duality, a mixture of power and caprice, strength and weakness. “In the person of Prince Andrei, the Great Russian appeared on the historical stage for the first time, and this entry cannot be considered successful,” was Klyuchevsky’s general assessment. The popularity of government officials, according to the deep conviction of the historian, was facilitated by personal virtues and talents.
Klyuchevsky connects the idea of power, which arose as a result of reading books and political reflections, with the name of Ivan the Terrible, “the most well-read Muscovite of the 16th century”: “Ivan IV was the first of the Moscow sovereigns who saw and vividly felt within himself a king in the true biblical sense, an anointed God's It was a political revelation for him.”
The almost two-century struggle between Rus' and the Cumans had a serious impact on European history. While Western Europe launched an offensive struggle against the Asian East with crusades (a similar movement against the Moors began on the Iberian Peninsula), Russia covered the left flank of the European offensive with its steppe struggle. This indisputable historical merit cost Rus' dearly: the struggle moved it from its native places on the Dnieper and abruptly changed the direction of its future life. From the middle of the 12th century. the desolation of Kievan Rus occurred under the influence of the legal and economic humiliation of the lower classes; princely strife and Polovtsian invasions. There was a “break” of the original nationality. The population went to the Rostov land, a region that lay outside the old indigenous Rus' and in the 12th century. was more foreign than Russian. Here in the 11th and 12th centuries. There lived three Finnish tribes - the Muroma, the Merya and the whole. As a result of the mixing of Russian settlers with them, the formation of a new Great Russian nationality begins. It finally took shape in the middle of the 15th century, and this time is significant in that the family efforts of the Moscow princes finally met the people's needs and aspirations.
2nd period. Upper Volga Rus', appanage-princely, free-farming from the 13th to the mid-15th centuries. The main mass of the Russian population, amid general confusion, moved to the upper Volga with its tributaries. It remains fragmented, but not into city regions, but into princely appanages; this is already a different form of political life. The dominant political fact of the period was the specific fragmentation of Upper Volga Rus' under the rule of princes. The dominant economic fact is free peasant agricultural labor on the Aleunian loam.
Klyuchevsky always emphasized the important historical significance of transitional times precisely because such times “often lie in wide and dark stripes between two periods.” These eras “recycle the ruins of a lost order into elements of the order that arises after them.” “Specific centuries,” according to Klyuchevsky, were such “transferable historical stages.” He saw their significance not in them themselves, but in what came out of them.
Klyuchevsky spoke about the policy of the Moscow princes as “family”, “stingy” and “calculating”, and defined its essence as efforts to collect foreign lands. The weakness of power was a continuation of its strength, used to the detriment of law. Unwittingly modernizing the mechanisms of the historical process in accordance with his own socio-political convictions, Klyuchevsky drew the attention of students to cases of immoral actions of Moscow princes. Among the conditions that ultimately determined the triumph of the Moscow princes, Klyuchevsky singled out the inequality of means of the fighting parties. If the Tver princes at the beginning of the 14th century. still considered it possible to fight the Tatars, the Moscow princes “zealously courted the khan and made him an instrument of their plans.” “As a reward for this, Kalita received the Grand Duke’s table in 1328...” - Klyuchevsky attached exceptional importance to this event.
The 14th century is the dawn of the political and moral revival of the Russian land. 1328-1368 were calm. The Russian population gradually emerged from a state of despondency and numbness. During this time, two generations managed to grow up, not knowing the horror of their elders before the Tatars, free “from the nervous trembling of their fathers at the thought of the Tatars”: they went to the Kulikovo Field. Thus the ground was prepared for national success. The Moscow state, according to Klyuchevsky, “was born on the Kulikovo field, and not in the hoarding chest of Ivan Kalita.”
The cementing basis (an indispensable condition) of political revival is moral revival. Earthly existence is shorter than the spiritual influence of a morally strong personality (such as Sergius of Radonezh...). “The spiritual influence of St. Sergius survived his earthly existence and overflowed into his name, which from a historical memory became an ever-active moral engine and became part of the spiritual wealth of the people.” Spiritual influence transcends the framework of mere historical memory.
The Moscow period, according to Klyuchevsky, is the antithesis of the specific period. New socio-historical forms of life, types, and relationships grew out of the local conditions of the Upper Volga soil. The sources of Muscovite power and its mysterious early successes lay in the geographical position of Moscow and the genealogical position of its prince. Colonization and population accumulation gave the Moscow prince significant economic benefits and increased the number of direct tax payers. The geographical position favored the early industrial successes of Moscow: “the development of trade transport traffic along the Moscow River revived the industry of the region, drew it into this trade movement and enriched the treasury of the local prince with trade duties.”
The economic consequences of the geographical position of Moscow provided the Grand Duke with abundant material resources, and his genealogical position among the descendants of Vsevolod III “showed” him how best to put them into circulation. This “new thing,” according to Klyuchevsky, was not based on any historical tradition, and therefore could only very gradually and late acquire general national-political significance.
3rd period. Great Rus', Moscow, Tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural Russia from the half of the 15th century. until the second decade of the seventeenth century. , when the main mass of the Russian population spreads from the upper Volga region to the south and east, along the Don and Middle Volga black soil, forming a special branch of the people - Great Russia, which, together with the local population, expands beyond the upper Volga region. The dominant political fact of the period is the state unification of Great Russia under the rule of the Moscow sovereign, who rules his state with the help of the boyar aristocracy, formed from former appanage princes and appanage boyars. The dominant fact of economic life is the same agricultural labor on the old loam and on the newly occupied Middle Volga and Don black soil” through free peasant labor; but his will is already beginning to be constrained as agriculture is concentrated in the hands of the service class, the military class, recruited by the state for external defense.”
The 3rd period ends with the events of the Troubles. Klyuchevsky viewed the atrocities of Ivan the Terrible as a reaction to popular outrage caused by the ruin. At the slightest difficulty, the king leaned in the bad direction. “To enmity and arbitrariness, the king sacrificed himself, his dynasty, and the good of the state.” Klyuchevsky denied Grozny “practical tact,” “a political eye,” and “a sense of reality.” He wrote: “...having successfully completed the state order laid down by his ancestors, he, unbeknownst to himself, ended up shaking the very foundations of this order.” Therefore, what was patiently endured when the owner was there turned out to be unbearable when the owner was gone.
Klyuchevsky distinguished between the concepts of “crisis” and “turmoil”. A crisis is not yet turmoil, but already a signal to society about the inevitability of new relationships, the “normal work of time,” the transition of society “from age to age.” The way out of the crisis is possible either through reforms or through revolution.
If, with the breakdown of old connections, the development of new ones comes to a dead end, the neglect of the disease leads to turmoil. Unrest itself is a disease of the social organism, a “historical antinomy” (i.e., an exception to the rules of historical life), which arises under the influence of factors that interfere with renewal. Its external manifestations are cataclysms and wars of “all against all.”
Klyuchevsky distinguished between the “root causes” of the Troubles - natural, national-historical and current, specific historical. He believed that the explanation for the frequent unrest in Russia should be sought in the peculiarities of its development - nature, which taught the Great Russians to take roundabout paths, the “impossibility of counting in advance,” the habit of being guided by the famous “maybe,” as well as in the conditions of personality formation and social relations.
Characteristic, from Klyuchevsky’s point of view, were the following features of the turmoil: “A government without a clear consciousness of its tasks and limits and with shaken authority, with impoverished... means without a sense of personal and national dignity...”
“The old received the meaning not of obsolete, but of national, original, Russian, and the new - the meaning of foreign, someone else's... but not the best, improved.”
Conflict between center and places. Strengthening separatist consciousness. Lack of social forces capable of revitalizing the country. The degeneration of power structures under authoritarian traditions in Russia.
Klyuchevsky carefully studied the nature of the unrest of the 13th and 17th centuries. and their progress. He came to the conclusion that the turmoil develops from top to bottom and lasts for a long time. Troubles of the 17th century lasted 14 years, and its consequences were all the “rebellious” 17th century. Troubles consistently capture all layers of society. First, the rulers enter into it (the first stage of the unrest). If the top are unable or unwilling to solve the fundamental problems that led to the unrest, then the unrest descends “to the floor below” (the second stage of unrest). “Debauchery of the upper classes. Passive courage of the people." “The upper classes assiduously assisted the government in increasing social discord.” They consolidated old customs in a new shell, left unsolved pressing problems - the main spring of unrest, and thereby betrayed the people. And this, in turn, aggravated the turmoil. Such destruction of “national unions” is fraught with the intervention of foreigners. Thus, unrest descends to the “lower floor” and discontent becomes general. Troubles can be cured only by eliminating the causes that caused this disease, solving the problems that confronted the country on the eve of the turmoil. The way out of the turmoil is in the reverse order - from the bottom up, local initiative takes on special importance.
Exit from the Great Troubles of the 17th century. in the conditions of the development of serfdom and absolutism, it had its own characteristics (contradictory, camouflage, inhumane and potentially explosive). Thus, an a priori, armchair approach to reforms has entered into the Russian tradition, when the people are offered a ready-made program (or a set of slogans), but the desires and capabilities of the people are not taken into account.
Klyuchevsky “as if warns future reformers of Russia who are planning to Europeanize it: experience shows how important it is to take into account the deep causes of the disease in revival programs - both general and specific, otherwise their implementation can give the opposite result,” says researcher of this topic N.V. Shcherben. It's all about overcoming the inertia of authoritarian thinking and tendencies towards monopolism.
Klyuchevsky saw the positive work of the turmoil in the sad benefit of troubled times: they rob people of peace and contentment and in return give them experiences and ideas. The main thing is a step forward in the development of social self-awareness. "The rise of the people's spirit." The unification takes place “not in the name of any state order, but in the name of national, religious and simply civil security.” Having been freed from the “bonds” of an authoritarian state, national and religious feelings begin to perform a civic function and contribute to the revival of civic consciousness. An understanding comes of what can be borrowed from other people's experience and what cannot. The Russian people are too large to be an “alien-eating plant.” Klyuchevsky reflected on the question of how to “use the fire of European thought so that it shines, but does not burn.” The best, albeit difficult, school of political thinking, according to Klyuchevsky, is popular revolutions. The feat of the Time of Troubles in “the struggle with oneself, with one’s habits and prejudices.” Society learned to act independently and consciously. In turning points, new progressive ideas and forces are born in agony.
The Troubles also had negative consequences for public consciousness: “The destruction of old ideals and foundations of life due to the impossibility of forming a new worldview from hastily grasped concepts... Until this difficult work is completed, several generations will vegetate and rush about in that intermittent, gloomy state when worldview is replaced by mood, and morality is exchanged for decency and aesthetics.” At the dawn of the “separation of powers” in Russia, the “patrimony” of power prevailed over the representative body elected by the people. Uprisings of “black people” against the “strong” caused “mandatory counterfeiting of the people’s will” - a phenomenon that accompanied the entire subsequent history of Russia. Social changes took place in the composition of the ruling class: “The Troubles were resolved by the triumph of the middle social strata at the expense of the social elite and the social bottom.” At the expense of the latter, the nobles received “more honors, gifts and estates than before.” The bitterness of Klyuchevsky’s conclusion was that the potential for unrest in the future remained, i.e., unrest does not provide any immunity for the future.
The opinion about the establishment of serfdom of the peasants by Boris Godunov, Klyuchevsky believed, belongs to our historical fairy tales. On the contrary, Boris was ready for a measure aimed at strengthening the freedom and well-being of the peasants: he, apparently, was preparing a decree that would precisely define the duties and taxes of the peasants in favor of the landowners. This is a law that the Russian government did not dare to implement until the liberation of the serfs. Characterizing Boris Godunov and analyzing his mistakes, Klyuchevsky was guided in his judgments by his own political sympathies: “Boris should have taken the initiative in the matter, turning the Zemsky Sobor from a random official meeting into a permanent people’s representation, the idea of which was already fermenting... in Moscow minds under Grozny and the convocation of which Boris himself demanded in order to be popularly elected. This would have reconciled the opposition boyars with him and - who knows - would have averted the troubles that befell him and his family and Russia, making him the founder of a new dynasty.” Klyuchevsky emphasized the duality of Godunov’s policy: for falsehood, he began to raise to high ranks honorable people, unaccustomed to government affairs and illiterate.
4th period. From the beginning of the seventeenth century. until the half of the nineteenth century. All-Russian, imperial-noble, period of serfdom, agricultural and factory farming. "RU
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky is a famous Russian historian, author of "The Complete Course of Russian History." January 28, 2011 marks the 170th anniversary of his birth.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky was born on January 28, 1841 in the village of Voznesenskoye, Penza province, into the family of a poor parish priest.
In August 1850, his father died, and the family was forced to move to Penza. There Vasily Klyuchevsky studied at the parish theological school, which he graduated in 1856, then at the district theological school and at the theological seminary. From the second grade of seminary, he gave private lessons in order to financially support his family. He was destined for a career as a clergyman, but in his final year he left the seminary and spent a year independently preparing for university exams.
In 1861, Vasily Klyuchevsky entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. There he listened to lectures by Boris Chicherin, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, and Sergei Solovyov. The last two influenced the formation of his scientific interests.
In 1866, he defended his graduation thesis “Tales of Foreigners about the Moscow State,” for which he studied about 40 tales and notes of foreigners about Rus' in the 15th-17th centuries. For this work he was awarded a gold medal, received a candidate's degree and remained at the university.
In 1871, Vasily Klyuchevsky defended his master’s thesis “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source.” During the preparation of his dissertation, he wrote six independent studies. After defending his master's thesis, Klyuchevsky received the right to teach at higher educational institutions. In the same year, he was elected to the department of Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy, where he taught a course in Russian history.
In addition, he began teaching at the Alexander Military School, at the Higher Women's Courses, and at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. In 1879, Vasily Klyuchevsky began lecturing at Moscow University, where he replaced the deceased Sergei Solovyov in the department of Russian history.
In the period from 1887 to 1889. was the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology in 1889-1890. - assistant to the rector. Six master's theses were defended under the leadership of Klyuchevsky. In particular, he supervised the dissertation of Pyotr Milyukov (1892).
Since the 1880s Vasily Klyuchevsky was a member of the Moscow Archaeological Society, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, the Moscow Society of History and Russian Antiquities (chairman in 1893-1905).
In 1893-1895 On behalf of Emperor Alexander III, he taught a course in Russian history to Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich, to whom doctors prescribed cold mountain air due to tuberculosis, in Abas-Tuman (Georgia).
In 1894, Vasily Klyuchevsky, as chairman of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, delivered a speech “In memory of the late Emperor Alexander III,” in which he gave a positive assessment of the emperor’s activities, for which he was booed by students.
In 1900, Klyuchevsky was elected a full member of the Academy of Sciences.
From 1900 to 1911 he taught at the school of painting, sculpture and architecture in Abas-Tuman.
In 1901, Klyuchevsky was elected an ordinary academician, and in 1908, an honorary academician of the category of fine literature of the Academy of Sciences.
In 1905, he participated in the press commission chaired by Dmitry Kobeko and in a special meeting on the basic laws of the Russian Empire.
In 1904, Vasily Klyuchevsky began publishing “The Complete Course of Russian History” - his most famous and large-scale work, which received worldwide recognition. He worked on this research for more than thirty years. In the period from 1867 to 1904. he wrote more than ten works devoted to various issues of Russian history.
In 1906, Vasily Klyuchevsky was elected a member of the State Council from the Academy of Sciences and Universities, but refused this title because he considered that participation in the council would not allow him to discuss issues of public life quite freely.
Klyuchevsky became famous as a brilliant lecturer who knew how to attract the attention of students. He maintained friendly relations with many cultural figures. Writers, composers, artists, artists turned to him for consultations; in particular, Klyuchevsky helped Fyodor Chaliapin work on the role of Boris Godunov and other roles.
Klyuchevsky’s speech at the opening of the monument to Alexander Pushkin in 1880 caused a wide public response.
In 1991, the USSR issued a postage stamp dedicated to Klyuchevsky. On October 11, 2008, the first monument in Russia was erected in Penza to the outstanding historian.
The material was prepared based on information from open sources
