HISTORICAL-TYPOLOGICAL METHOD - one of the main methods historical research, in which the tasks of the typology are realized. The basis of typology (from ancient Greek τόπος - imprint, form, sample and λόγος - word, teaching) is the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively homogeneous classes (types), taking into account their inherent common significant features. Typology requires adherence to a number of principles, the central of which is the choice of the basis of the typology, which allows reflecting the qualitative nature of both the entire set of objects and the types themselves. Typology as an analytical procedure is closely related to abstraction and simplification of reality. This is reflected in the system of criteria and “boundaries” of types, which acquire abstract, conventional features.
In historical science, the historical-typological method is used to study mass historical objects and phenomena; its main task is to identify and analyze socio-economic and socio-cultural historical types, that is, to create a historical typology. The epistemological and methodological capabilities of the method were revealed by I. D. Kovalchenko.
The following options for using the historical-typological method can be distinguished: 1) based on the use deductive method, i.e. through theoretical understanding of the phenomenon under consideration (theoretical typology). A deductive approach to constructing a typology is possible provided that there is a deep knowledge of the object being studied and corresponds to the concept of an ideal type introduced by M. Weber; 2) by applying the inductive method: from the particular to the general (empirical typology). The inductive approach to typology is reflected in the works of G. P. Becker, who substantiated the concept of a “constructed” type in relation to sociological research. The difference between an “ideal” type and a “designed” one lies in the method of its modeling. The latter is created on the basis of specific information characterizing social reality. The inductive approach to typology often relies on formal techniques (typological grouping, methods of multivariate statistics) and allows one to take into account the specifics of the population being studied, but cannot go beyond its limits, i.e., it does not have the property of universality; 3) based on a mixed deductive-inductive approach. In this case, the types are determined on the basis of theoretical analysis, and their quantitative characteristics are clarified empirically.
L. N. Mazur
The definition of the concept is quoted from the publication: Theory and Methodology historical science. Terminological dictionary. Rep. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. [M.], 2014, p. 156-158.
Literature:
Varg M. A. Categories and methods of historical science. M., 1984. Bocharov A.V. Basic methods of historical research: textbook. allowance Tomsk, 2006; Weber M. Research on the methodology of sciences. M., 1980; Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. M., 1987; Mazur L.N. Methods of historical research: textbook. allowance Ekaterinburg, 2010; Moiseev N. N. Man. Wednesday. Society. Problems of formalized description. M., 1982; Smolensky N.I. Theory and methodology of history: textbook. allowance M., 2007.
(short description).
BASIC METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH.
Keywords
Approaches: abstract and concrete, logical and historical, inductive and deductive, analytical and synthetic, dynamic and static, descriptive and quantitative, genetic, typological, comparative, systemic, structural, functional, informational, probabilistic, model. Principles: principle of analogy, principle of typology, principle of historicism. General methods for studying historical reality. Special scientific methods. The methods are specifically problematic. Time and historical causality. Chronology and periodization. Forecast in history. "Historical Memory". Principles of historical knowledge: the principle of historicism, the principle of objectivity, systems approach, value approach, assessment, axiomatic method.
Issues for discussion
The principle of historicism and historical method.
Historical-genetic method.
Historical-comparative method [Comparative (critical) method]
Historical-typological method.
Historical-systemic method.
Ideas about the nature of historical knowledge in foreign historiography.
Why are there no facts that are historical in nature?
What is probabilistic knowledge? Why is the definition of science through law not entirely legitimate?
Why is history primarily an indirect science, and its method is an indirect method based on inference?
Why is a layman right when he recognizes a historical text by the presence of dates in it?
Why does making a forecast in itself mean changing the situation? Is it possible to accurately predict the future development of a society based on the study of its history?
Why is one historical time never equal to another, even of equal duration?
Is a monocausal explanation acceptable in historical science?
Criticism of historicism by Karl Popper.
Direct activity and scientific-cognitive practical needs and formulation of a scientific problem.
General methods of studying historical reality: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic. Advantages and weaknesses.
The concept of principle in historical science. Basic principles of historical science and their essence.
Interpretation of principles in historiography.
When studying this topic, it is recommended to pay attention first of all to the works of I.D. Kovalchenko 1, K.V. Khvostovoy 2, M.F. Rumyantseva 3, Antoine Pro 4, John Tosh 5, revealing it current state sufficiently. You can study other works depending on the availability of time and if this work directly relates to the topic of the student's scientific research 6 .
“Historical”, “history” in scientific knowledge in a broad sense means everything that, in the diversity of objective social and natural reality, is in a state of change and development. The principle of historicism and the historical method have general scientific significance. They are equally used in biology, geology or astronomy as well as for studying the history of human society.
This method allows us to understand reality by studying its history, which distinguishes this method from the logical one, when the essence of a phenomenon is revealed by analyzing its given state. Methods of historical research mean all general methods of studying historical reality., i.e. methods related to historical science as a whole, applied in all areas of historical research. These are special scientific methods. They, on the one hand, are based on a general philosophical method, and on one or another set of general scientific methods, and on the other hand, they serve as the basis for specific problem methods, i.e. methods used in the study of certain specific historical phenomena in the light of certain other research tasks. Their difference lies in the fact that they must be applicable to the study of the past from the remnants that remain from it.
Special historical, or general historical, research methods are one or another combination of general scientific methods aimed at studying the object of historical knowledge, i.e., taking into account the characteristics of this object, expressed in general theory historical knowledge.
Historical reality is characterized by a number of common features, and therefore the main methods of historical research can be identified.
According to the definition of academician I.D. Kovalchenko, the main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic. When using one or another general historical method, other general scientific methods are also used (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, description and measurement, explanation, etc.), which act as specific cognitive tools necessary for the implementation of the approaches and principles underlying based on the leading method. The rules and procedures necessary for conducting research are also developed (research methodology) and certain tools and instruments are used (research technique) 1 .
Any research process begins with the formulation of a problem, a research task and the definition of goals for its solution.
The infinite variety of phenomena of objective reality necessitates the determination of a specific aspect of research and its tasks. Without this, no research can be fruitful. The formulation of a particular problem is determined by practical needs, direct activity and scientific-cognitive, and its essential content is determined by the available scientific knowledge 2.
Formulation of the problem is a complex research procedure not only in assessing the practical significance of a problem, but also in identifying that a certain problem exists at all. This requires an analysis of existing knowledge to identify the consequences that follow from it, as well as the extent to which this knowledge fits into the existing general scientific picture of the corresponding sphere of objective reality and how this system of knowledge (theory) relates to other theories characterizing the circle under consideration phenomena, etc. Identification of antinomies (logical contradictions) and paradoxes in existing knowledge, opposing or competing theories and hypotheses leads to the formulation of new research problems 1.
The method includes cornerstone premises that form the basis and characterize the essence of scientific research. Such parcels are an approach And principle. The approach determines the main way to solve the research problem. He reveals the strategy behind this decision.
There is a whole set of approaches to solving research problems. These approaches were formed as a result of generalization of scientific research practice, and therefore have a general scientific nature, i.e., they are used in all or many sciences. Such approaches as abstract and concrete, logical and historical, inductive and deductive, analytical and synthetic, dynamic and static, descriptive and quantitative, genetic, typological, comparative, etc. have long been known in science.
IN modern science a number of new general scientific approaches – systemic, structural, functional, informational, probabilistic, model etc. Each indicated approach characterizes one of the possible ways of conducting research.
An approach, outlining the main angle of study of the object in the light of the task, determines only the most common feature one method or another. The specific content of the method expresses the principles inherent in the corresponding approach. In defining what a principle is, there are very different opinions among philosophers. Principle As a rule, they consider a means, a method, an essential judgment, a law, a basis, an initial position, etc. They note the dual nature and dual role of a principle, i.e., they characterize it both as knowledge about reality (ontological principles) and as a means its knowledge (epistemological and methodological principles).
According to its functional place in the method, the principle is an epistemological and methodological means of implementing the corresponding approach. For example, one of the principles on the basis of which a comparative approach can be implemented is principle of analogy. The implementation of this principle requires taking into account the qualitative similarity of the compared phenomena, i.e., their structural and functional relatedness and stage-by-stage differences in their development, which, in turn, requires content-comparable characteristics of the phenomena. Another principle for implementing the comparative approach can be typology principle. It requires that the types of objects in their compared populations be distinguished on the basis of uniform general criteria and specific indicators.
The research approach and principle are closely interrelated and intertwined and can, as it were, change places. So, genetic approach based on the principle of historicism. The historical approach, on the contrary, requires a genetic principle for considering the phenomenon. At first glance, these are the same thing. But in reality, this is not so, because the history of an object or phenomenon and their genesis are not identical.
The theory of the method, with all its undoubtedly decisive role, does not in itself allow the research to be carried out. The principles of obtaining new knowledge, substantiated in the theory of the method, are practically implemented in “techniques and logical operations with the help of which the principles... begin to work” 1. A set of rules and procedures, techniques and operations that make it possible to put into practice the ideas and requirements of the principle (or principles) on which the method is based form the methodology of the corresponding method. Methodology- just as indispensable structural component method, as well as his theory.
Finally, rules and procedures, techniques and operations (i.e., the methodology itself) can be put into action in the presence of certain tools and instruments. Their totality constitutes the third structural component scientific method – research technique.
We just need to add that the basis for identifying the levels of methodology should be the level of theoretical knowledge about reality. In relation to social phenomena, as indicated, there are four such levels: general philosophical, philosophical-sociological, special scientific and specific problem. In methodology, as in theory in general, these levels are closely interrelated, and the leading one, which has a decisive impact on the others, is the general philosophical one. In turn, it synthesizes the results of the development of other levels of the methodology.
Logic is a powerful means of scientific and cognitive activity due to the fact that its concepts and categories, laws and principles are an adequate reflection of the objective in subjective consciousness person.
Philosophical methods of scientific knowledge, revealing general ways (approaches) and principles of knowledge of reality, are universal, characterize the course of the research process as a whole and are applicable in the study of all manifestations of reality 2 .
Another category of research methods consists of general scientific methods of cognition. They are used in all or many sciences and, unlike general philosophical methods, cover only certain aspects of scientific and cognitive activity and are one of the means of solving research problems. Thus, induction and deduction express different approaches to revealing the essence of the phenomena being studied, and analysis and synthesis are different methods of penetrating this essence. Descriptive and quantitative methods are means and forms of expressing information about the phenomena under study, and modeling is a method of formalized knowledge representation inherent in higher levels of scientific knowledge.
In the practice of scientific research, the use of one or another general scientific method is determined by the nature of the phenomena being studied and the research task posed 1 .
Special scientific methods are based on philosophical and general scientific methods. These are methods that are used in a particular science as a whole. Their theoretical basis is theories of a special scientific level. The role of these ontologically oriented theories in the formation of special scientific methods is that they determine the nature of those methodological principles and normative and regulatory requirements that make up the theory of the method. The specificity of these principles and requirements is determined by the characteristics of the object of knowledge of the corresponding science. For example, what distinguishes historical science from other social sciences and humanities is that it studies the past. This led to the development of methods that are characteristic specifically for historical research.
The lowest level is formed specific problem methods. They are aimed at studying specific phenomena that characterize certain aspects and phenomena of reality, which constitute the object of knowledge of the corresponding science. The essence of these phenomena is expressed in theories at a specific problem level. They determine the specifics of the methodology (theory) of specific problem methods, i.e. those principles and requirements on which these methods are based. If, for example, one studies the move economic development of one or another country in one or another period of time, then the indispensable principles and requirements for such a study and its methods should be a demonstration of the production-economic (formational) essence of this development, its stage level, the conditionality of its pace by the nature of the relationship of productive forces and production relations and etc. In other words, this development must be presented as an objective, natural and internally determined historical process. And if some ideological social phenomenon is being studied, then the indispensable principle and requirement for analysis will be the reduction of the individual to the social and the disclosure of the essence of the ideal through the material, i.e., showing the essence of the subjective on the basis of the objective. It's clear that research methods in the first and second cases will be different.
How does a historian act who wants to understand or explain in the ordinary, not scientifically words any historical phenomenon? As a rule, he tries to reduce it to phenomena more general order, or find the underlying or random causes that cause it. Thus, the reasons for the Great French Revolution were the economic situation, the development of social thought, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the financial crisis of the monarchy, the poor harvest of 1787, etc. 1 From a logical point of view, the historian’s explanation is no different from the explanation of an ordinary person. Method of reasoning used in explaining causes French Revolution, is no different from the way a person on the street explains the causes of a traffic accident or the results of an election. Basically, this is the same intellectual technique, only refined, improved taking into account additional factors 2
All this is tantamount to stating that the historical method as such does not exist. There is, of course, a critical method that allows one to strictly establish facts in order to evaluate the validity of the hypotheses put forward by the historian. But historical explanation is explanation that is practiced every day. The historian explains the railroad strike of 1910 using reasoning no different from that used by the pensioner in his account of the strike of 1947. He applies to the past those types of explanations that allowed him to understand the situations or events he personally experienced 3
The historian argues by analogy with the present, it takes you back to the past ways of explaining, which have proven their suitability in the everyday experience of one and all. This, by the way, is one of the reasons for the success that history enjoys among the general public: in order to delve into the content of a history book, the reader does not require any special preparation.
Historical-genetic method.
Historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. It consists in the consistent discovery of the properties, functions and changes of the reality being studied in the process of its historical movement, which allows us to come closest to recreating real story object. Knowledge goes (must go) sequentially from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical-inductive, and by its form of expressing information about the reality under study, it is descriptive. Of course, this does not exclude the use (sometimes even widespread) of quantitative indicators. But the latter act as an element in describing the properties of an object, and not as a basis for identifying its qualitative nature and constructing its essentially substantive and formal-quantitative model 4 .
The historical-genetic method allows you to show cause-and-effect relationships and patterns historical development in their immediacy, and characterize historical events and personalities in their individuality and imagery. When using this method, the most pronounced individual characteristics researcher. To the extent that the latter reflect a social need, they have a positive impact on the research process.
Thus, the historical-genetic method is the most universal, flexible and accessible method of historical research. At the same time, it is also inherently limited, which can lead to certain costs when it becomes absolute.
The historical-genetic method is aimed primarily at analyzing development. Therefore, with insufficient attention to statics, i.e. to fix a certain temporal reality of historical phenomena and processes, it may arise danger of relativism.
Reasoning from the standpoint of relativism is given in the work of the French historian Henri Marroux, published in 1954 (“On Historical Knowledge”):
“...Theory, that is, the position, conscious or unconscious, that the historian takes in relation to the past - the choice and turn of the topic, the formulation of questions, the concepts used and especially the types of connections, systems of interpretation, the relative value accorded to each of them. It is the historian's personal philosophy that dictates his choice of system of thought according to which he will reconstruct and, as he believes, explain the past.
The richness and complexity of the nature of anthropological facts and, consequently, historical reality makes the latter […] practically inexhaustible for efforts aimed at discovery and understanding. Being inexhaustible, historical reality is at the same time ambiguous: it always contains so much different aspects, there are so many active forces intersecting and overlapping each other at one point in the past that the historian’s thought will always find in it that specific element that, in accordance with his theory, will be decisive and will act as a system of intelligibility - as an explanation. The historian chooses what he needs: the data for his proof will be found, and they can be adapted to any system, he always finds what he is looking for 1 ... "
Weak side relativism is due to the fact that objective reality is viewed one-sidedly. It takes into account only changes and ignores the fact that, along with them, objective reality is also characterized by a certain stability, resulting from the fact that any qualitative certainty corresponds to one or another range of its quantitative expression. Therefore, while continuously occurring changes are only quantitative in nature and do not lead to the emergence of a new quality, all objects, phenomena and processes of reality are stable. In this regard, identifying the measure of quantitative certainty of the corresponding qualities is of utmost importance.
The historical-genetic method, with excessive attention to specificity and detail, can lead to protrusion of the individual and unique, obscuring the general and natural. The study says the forest may disappear for the trees. Therefore, in its completed form, the historical-genetic method must organically include the characteristics of the individual, the special and the general.
The historical-genetic method tends towards descriptiveness, factualism and empiricism. This is largely due to the fact that historical research very often requires a lot of effort and time to identify, collect and initially systematize and process specific factual data. As a result, either an illusion arises that this is the main task of the study, or there is not enough time left for a thorough theoretical analysis of the revealed facts. To prevent factography and empiricism, one should proceed from the fact that, no matter how many facts there are and no matter how vivid they are, “empirical observation in itself can never sufficiently prove necessity,” i.e., the regularity of a given state or development . This can only be done on the basis of a theoretical analysis of the facts. Such an analysis is rejected in principle by positivism, which limits knowledge to its empirical stage.
The historical-genetic method, despite its long history and breadth of application, does not have a developed and clear logic and conceptual apparatus. Therefore, its methodology, and, consequently, technology, is vague and uncertain, which makes it difficult to compare and bring together the results of individual studies 1
Historical-comparative method.
The historical-comparative method has also long been used in historical research. In general, comparison is an important and, perhaps, the most widespread method of scientific knowledge. In fact, no scientific research can do without comparison. The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case where the similarity of entities is established is analogy. Analogy is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that based on the similarity of some characteristics of the objects being compared, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other characteristics 2 . It is clear that in this case the range of known features of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made should be wider than that of the object under study.
In general, the historical-comparative method has broad cognitive capabilities. Firstly, it allows us to reveal the essence of the phenomena under study in cases where it is not obvious, based on the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. In this way, the gaps are filled and the research is brought to a complete form. Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the phenomena being studied and, on the basis of analogies, to arrive at broad historical parallels. Thirdly, it allows the use of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method 1.
You can compare objects and phenomena, both of the same type and of different types, located at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case the essence will be revealed based on identifying similarities, and in the other - differences. Compliance with the specified conditions for historical comparisons, in essence, means consistent application of the principle of historicism 2.
Identification of the significance of the signs on the basis of which historical research should be carried out comparative analysis, as well as the typology and stages of the phenomena being compared, most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily historical-typological and historical-systemic. Combined with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research.
But this method, naturally, has a certain range of most effective action. This is, first of all, the study of socio-historical development in broad spatial and temporal aspects, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be revealed through direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data 3
Western countries in modern and contemporary times. Special course "Basics scientificresearch" Genesis...
FUNDAMENTALS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH A manual for students of technical specialties Approved by methodological commissions Gomel 2005
DocumentReason: memory corresponds story, to the imagination - poetry... in some cases - about foreignresearch. Bibliographical indexes represent... COURSE « BASICSSCIENTIFICRESEARCH" Introduction. Item " Basicsscientificresearch" Genesis...
Fundamentals of scientific research work program of the academic discipline
DocumentPerhaps that's all story philology testifies to this... to the theory of language // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. I. M., 1960 ... Methodology scientificresearch. M.. 1999. - 245 p. 4. Chuvakin A.A., Koschey L.A., Morozov V.D. Basicsscientificresearch By...
It makes it possible to reveal the essence of the phenomena being studied both by the similarity and difference of their inherent properties, as well as to make comparisons in space and time, i.e. horizontally and vertically.
The logical basis of the historical-comparative method is analogy - this general scientific method of cognition consists in the fact that, based on the similarity of some characteristics of the objects being compared, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other characteristics.
In this case, the range of known features of the object (phenomena) with which the comparison is made should be wider than that of the object under study. Possibilities of the historical-comparative method:
It allows you to reveal the essence of the phenomena under study in cases where it is not obvious based on the available facts;
Identify the general and repetitive, the necessary and natural and qualitatively different;
Go beyond the phenomena being studied and, on the basis of analogies, come to broad historical generalizations and parallels;
Allows the use of other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.
Methodological requirements for its use:
Comparison should be based on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not their formal similarity;
It is necessary to take into account the general nature of the historical eras in which the compared historical events took place;
You can compare objects and phenomena, both of the same type and of different types, located at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case the essence will be revealed on the basis of identified similarities, and in the other - differences.
Disadvantages of the historical-comparative method:
This method does not aim to reveal the reality in question;
It is difficult to use it when studying the dynamics of social processes.
Historical-typological method
Typologization - as a method of scientific knowledge, has as its goal the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes) based on their inherent common features essential features. This is a method of essence analysis. The entire set of objects appears as a generic phenomenon, and the types included in it act as species of this genus.
Historical-systemic method
Its use is due to the deepening of historical research, both from the point of view of a holistic coverage of knowable historical reality, and from the point of view of revealing the internal mechanisms of the functioning and development of various kinds of socio-historical systems.
System analysis methods are structural and functional analyses. The system under study is considered not from the perspective of its individual aspects, but as a holistic qualitative certainty with a comprehensive account of both its own basic features and its place and role in the hierarchy of systems.
From the point of view of specific content, the solution to this problem comes down to identifying system-forming (system) features that are inherent in the components of the selected system. These include features, the relationship between which primarily determines the essence of the structure of a given system.
After identifying the corresponding system, its analysis as such follows. Central here is structural analysis, i.e. identifying the nature of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties.
The result of structural-system analysis is knowledge about the system as such. This knowledge is of an empirical nature, since in itself it does not reveal the essential nature of the identified structure. Translation of acquired knowledge into theoretical level requires identifying the functions of a given system in the hierarchy of systems, where it appears as a subsystem. This problem is solved by functional analysis, which reveals the interaction of the system under study with higher-level systems.
IN Lately The importance of methods that expand the possibilities of historical research and are at the intersection of several disciplines (linguistics, demography, statistics, history of collective psychology and mentality) is increasing. When analyzing a particular method, one should clearly highlight its essence, possibilities of use, application requirements and disadvantages.
Questions:
1. The problem of interpreting the concept of “historical source” in domestic and foreign source studies:
a) in the concepts of representatives of historical positivism and neo-Kantianism (E. Bernheim, C.-V. Langlois, C. Senobos);
b) in foreign source studies (W. Bauer, L. Febvre,
M. Block, D. Collingwood);
c) in the concept of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky;
d) in domestic historiography (L. N. Pushkarev,
R. M. Ivanov, I. D. Kovalchenko, A. P. Pronshtein, M. A. Varshavchik, O. N. Medushevskaya).
2. Structure of information from historical sources.
3. Stages of source research:
a) conditions for the occurrence of the source;
c) source functions;
d) interpretation of the source;
f) source synthesis.
4. The problem of classifying historical sources (schemes by E. Bernheim, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, domestic historians - M. N. Tikhomirov, A. A. Zimin, L. N. Pushkarev, S. N. Kashtanov, A. A Kurnosova, I. D. Kovalchenko).
5. Modern principles and methods of historical research.
Literature:
1. 1. Actual problems Soviet source studies: “Round table” in the editorial office of the magazine “History of the USSR” // History of the USSR. – 1989. – No. 5. – P. 36–91.
2. 2. Current problems in the theory of history: Materials of the round table // Questions of history. – 1994. – No. 6. – P. 45–103.
3. 3. Anikeev A. A. On some issues of modern methodology of history // New and recent history.– 1997.– No. 2. – P. 169–172.
4. 4. Afansyev Yu. N. Evolution theoretical foundations school “Annals” // Questions of history. – 1981. – No. 9.
5. 5. Blok M. Apology of history, or the craft of a historian. – M., 1986. – 256 p.
6. 6. Bobinskaya Ts. Gaps in sources: methodological analysis // Questions of History. – 1965. – No. 6. – P. 76–86.
7. 7. Vanshtein O. L. Essays on the development of bourgeois philosophy and methodology of history in the 19th – 20th centuries – L., 1979. – 293 p.
8. 8. Varshavchik M. L. Questions of the logic of historical research and historical sources // Questions of history. – 1968. – No. 10. – P. 26–89.
9. 9. Vizgin V. P. History and metahistory // Questions of philosophy. – 1998. – No. 10. – P. 99–114.
10. 10. Hempel K. G. The function of general laws in history // Questions of Philosophy. – 1998. – No. 10. – P. 89–99.
11. 11. Danilevsky I. N., Kabanov V. V., Medushevskaya O. M., Rumyantseva M. F. Source study: Theory. Story. Method. Sources Russian history: Textbook. allowance. – M., 1998.–
702 pp.
12. 12. Dilegensky G. G. Marxist-Leninist theory and specifically historical research // Questions of history. – 1963. – No. 3. – P. 88–101.
13. 13. Dilthey V. Types of worldview and their detection in metaphysical systems // Culturology of the XX century. – M., 1995.
14. 14. Eliseeva N.V. Theoretical problems of historical research // National history.– 1999.– №1.
15. 15. Zhukov E. M. Essays on the methodology of history. – M., 1980. – 245 p.
16. 16. Zhuravlev V.V. Methodology of historical science. Yesterday. Today. Tomorrow // Centaur. – 1994. – No. 4. – P. 87–94; 1995.– No. 6.– P. 140–147.
17. 17. Zelenov M.V. Glavlit and historical science in the 20–30s // Questions of history. – 1997. – No. 3. – P. 21–36.
18. 18. Iskenderov A. A. Historical science on threshold of XXI century // Questions of history. – 1996. – No. 4. – P. 21–36.
19. 19. Historical science: Questions of methodology. – M., 1986. – 261 p.
20. 20. Source study in Russia of the 20th century: scientific thought and social reality // Soviet historiography / Ed. ed. Yu. N. Afanasyeva. – M., 1996. – P. 42–47.
21. 21. Source study: Theoretical and methodological problems: Sat. Art. / Rep. ed. S. O. Schmidt. – M., 1969. – 511 p.
22. 22. Karsavin L.P. Introduction to history // Questions of history. – 1996. – No. 8. – P. 101–128.
23. 23. Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history. – St. Petersburg, 1993. –
351 p.
24. 24. Kashtanov S. M. Diplomacy as a special historical discipline // Questions of history. – 1965. – No. 1. – P. 39–45.
25. 25. Klyuchevsky V. O.
26. 26. Kovalchenko I. D. Historical source in the light of information theory. Towards the formulation of the problem // History of the USSR. – 1982. – No. 3.- P. 129–148.
27. 27. Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. – M., 1987. – 438 p.
28. 28. Kovalchenko I. D. Some questions of the methodology of history // New and recent history. – 1991. – No. 5.
29. 29. Kovalchenko I. D. Theoretical and methodological problems of historical research // New and recent history. – 1995. – No. 1.
30. 30. Collingwood R.J. Story idea. Autobiography. – M., 1980. – 485 p.
31. 31. Lurie Ya. S. On the ways of evidence in the analysis of sources // Questions of History. – 1985. – No. 5. – P. 61–68.
32. 32. Medushevskaya O. M. Archival document, a historical source in the reality of the present // Domestic archives. – 1995. – No. 2. – P. 9–13.
33. 33. Mogilnitsky B. G. Introduction to the methodology of history. – M., 1989. – 175 p.
35. 35. Pokrovsky N. N. Source study problems of Russian history of the 20th century // Social sciences and modernity. – 1997. – No. 3.
36. 36. Pronshtein A.P. Interpretation of historical sources // Questions of history. – 1969. – No. 10. p. 69–86.
37. 37. Pronshtein A.P. Methodology of historical source study. – Rostov n/d, 1976.
38. 38. Pronshtein A.P. Theory and methodology of historical source study in the work of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky “Methodology of history” // Source study of national history. 1989.– M., 1989.
39. 39. Pronshtein A. P., Danilevsky I. N. Questions of theory and methodology of historical research. – M., 1986. – 208 p.
40. 40. Pronshtein A. P., Zadera A. G. Methodology for working on historical sources. – M., 1964.
41. 41. Pushkarev L.V. Classification of Russian written sources on national history. – M., 1975. – 281 p.
42. 42. Rehabilitation of historicism// Questions of Philosophy. – 1994. – No. 4.
43. 43. Rickert R. Sciences about nature and sciences about culture // Culturology of the XX century. – M., 1995.
44. 44. Smolensky N. I. On the development of theoretical problems of historical science // New and recent history. – 1993. – No. 3.
45. 45. Tartakovsky A. G. Social functions of sources as methodological problem Source Studies // History of the USSR. – 1983. – No. 3. – P. 112–130.
46. 46. Toynbee A. Comprehension of history. – M., 1991.
47. 47. Farsobin V.V. Source study and its method. – M., 1983. – 231 p.
48. 48. Feinberg E. A. Evolution of methodology in the 20th century. // Questions of Philosophy. – 1995. – No. 7. – P. 38–45.
49. 49. Khanpira E. I. What is a documentary monument (towards the formulation of the problem) // History of the USSR. – 1988. – No. 2. – P. 79–89.
50. 50. Khvostova K.V. On the issue of historical knowledge // New and recent history. – 1993. – No. 6.
51. 51. Cherepnin L.V. Issues in the methodology of historical research. Theoretical problems of the history of feudalism. – M., 1981. – 280 p.
THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN CHRONICLE
AND "THE TALE OF BYE YEARS"
The first dated written sources of history Ancient Rus' date back to the 11th century. During this period, there was a special species structure of the entire complex of sources. The central place in it belonged to chronicles. Chronicle writing was carried out in Rus' from the 11th to the 17th centuries. Like any source, the chronicle can be used by a historian for different research purposes: as evidence on the basis of which it is possible to establish a specific fact or group of facts, and as a monument to the culture and social thought of a certain era.
When preparing for the seminar topic, students must clearly understand the specifics of the chronicle narrative; find out the meaning of the terms: chronicle, chronicle code, secondary chronicle, excerpt, list, protograph, gloss, interpolation. Particular attention should be paid to the compilative nature of the chronicles, their significant territorial and temporal coverage.
One of the most controversial questions that students should try to answer is what is the purpose of creating chronicles. In science for a long time the dominant view was of the chronicler as a dispassionate and objective observer who slowly and accurately recorded events. Therefore, the historical function of chronicles has traditionally been emphasized. However, after the work of A. A. Shakhmatov, such a one-sided approach was overcome. In the author, the compilers of the chronicle, the researchers saw a writer reflecting the interests of this or that prince, an active defender of the views of this or that feudal group or person, his own political and historical concept. Princes and metropolitans actively intervened in the chronicle writing process, and sometimes were the direct customers of the chronicles.
I. N. Danilevsky proposed a hypothesis about the eschatological motives of the ancient manuscripts, which determined the social function of the chronicles - to record the moral assessments of historical figures of Rus', which should become the center of the salvation of mankind. This function, according to the scientist, determined the structure of the chronicle narrative.
The student must formulate the concept of authorship. This is one of the most difficult in chronicle writing, since all known chronicles are the result of the work of several generations of chroniclers. Each of them first rewrote one or more previous chronicles in accordance with their social standard.
It is also important to note that the main way to describe events is to directly or indirectly quote authoritative texts. For the chronicler, the Bible was timeless and real. Therefore, he widely resorted to analogy with already known events (researcher I.N. Danilevsky devoted an interesting article to this problem, “The Bible and the Tale of Bygone Years.” On the problem of interpreting chronicle texts.” See the list of references).
The foundations of modern chronicle writing were laid by A. A. Shakhmatov, who developed a method for studying chronicle lists and chronicle codes. This method involves a comprehensive, comparative historical, textual study of the chronicles, which identifies discrepancies and common places inherent in the chronicles. The analysis allows the researcher to identify editions and trace discrepancies. The use of this method makes it possible to identify the protograph, the time and purpose of its occurrence.
A. A. Shakhmatov demonstrated his method most clearly and convincingly when analyzing “The Tale of Bygone Years,” the central monument of ancient Russian chronicles. Comparing everything famous lists, the scientist grouped them into three editions and tried to explain the reasons for their appearance. Students should have a clear understanding of the main editions of the PVL, the time and circumstances of their compilation. In our time, A. A. Shakhmatov’s scheme is shared by most historians, although some (M. N. Tikhomirov, D. S. Likhachev, L. V. Cherepnin) expressed a number of clarifying and specific provisions. It is necessary to understand what the essence of the discrepancies is.
An important problem is the issue of sources of PVL. Among them we see foreign works, works of a sacred nature, and ancient chronicles. Students should be able to highlight the features of the internal structure of the chronicle, the genre characteristics of individual parts of the chronicle, the main ideas of the chronicler, his political and historical preferences. It is necessary to emphasize the idea that until now many ideas and spiritual values contained in the PVL remain undisclosed and uninterpreted.
Chronicles of the 12th–13th centuries. came to us in fragments. Among the main centers of chronicle writing of this time are Kyiv, the Galicia-Volyn land, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, and Novgorod. The main ideas of the chronicles were proof of the priority of this or that principality, land among other Russian lands. For example, the chronicles of northeastern Rus' were based on the idea of the transfer of the center of the Russian land from Kyiv to Vladimir.
The chronicles of Novgorod were more focused on internal problems, economic and political life cities.
Chronicles of the 15th–16th centuries. acquires new features. At this time, in Rus' there was already a single all-Russian chronicle tradition associated with the grand ducal chancellery. Some researchers, proving the existence of an independent metropolitan chronicle tradition (M. D. Priselkov), recognized the existence of a single center, chronicle writing that existed already in the 14th century. During this period, chronicles are kept with greater completeness and thoroughness, and obediently respond to changes in government policy. The analysis of the official chronicle should be made on the basis of the Nikon Chronicle (20s of the 16th century), the Resurrection Chronicle (first half of the 16th century), the Degree Book of the Tsar's Genealogy, and the Facial Vault of Ivan the Terrible. These monuments became the final stage in the unification of Russian chronicles under the auspices of Moscow, which was reflected in their content. Students must highlight and analyze the main ideas of these chronicles and the history of their creation.
Unofficial chronicles were conducted by private individuals and sometimes opposed the grand ducal records. Among its features: a small range of sources, independence of assessments of the Grand Duke’s policies.
In the 17th century Chronographs have become widespread - works on world history. They contained passages from the Holy Scriptures, Greek chronicles and Russian chronicles. It would be more appropriate to prepare this question in the form of a report or message, since the literature is not distinguished by the number of titles and diversity. The speaker must necessarily emphasize that the chronographs included information of a natural science nature, works of ancient literature, Christian apocrypha, and hagiographic materials.
Last question on the topic seminar class– about miniatures – can also be prepared in the form of a report. The main source will be the monograph by O. I. Podobedova. The report should draw attention to the fact that almost all chronicle vaults were richly decorated and contained a significant number of miniatures.
A miniature is a picture in a chronicle, made in paint and by hand. The general evolution of Old Russian miniatures consisted of the loss of various features of Byzantine art and the partial acquisition of features of Western art. The miniature was an illustration of the contents of the chronicle, a schematic drawing that can be “read” only if you have information about the main symbols and compositional features. There were special techniques for conveying information about age, social affiliation, and heroes of miniatures. Thus, analysis of the content of miniatures will contribute to a more systematic and in-depth study of chronicle sources.
At the end of the lesson, students must identify the reasons why chronicle writing is losing priority and is being replaced by new forms of historical storytelling.
Questions
1) Chronicles as a historical source. Social, political, historical functions of chronicles.
2) A. A. Shakhmatov and his method of studying chronicles.
3) “The Tale of Bygone Years”:
b) internal structure PVL;
4) Chronicles of the 12th–15th centuries:
a) local chronicles of the 12th–13th centuries: main centers, features;
b) chronicle of the 14th–15th centuries: monuments, centers, content.
5) All-Russian chronicles of the late 15th–16th centuries, official and unofficial chronicles.
6) Chronographs.
7) Old Russian miniatures as a historical source.
Sources
1. The Tale of Bygone Years: In 2 parts – M.–L., 1950. – 556 p.
2. Complete collection of Russian chronicles.– L., 1989.
3. Reader on ancient Russian literature/ Comp. N.K. Gudziy. – M., 1973. – 347 p.
Literature
1. 1. Buganov V.I. Domestic historiography Russian chronicles: Review Soviet literature. – M., 1975.– 344 p.
2. 2. Vovina V. G. New chronicler and controversial issues studying late Russian chronicles // Domestic History. – 1992. – No. 5. – P. 117–130.
3. 3. Gudziy N.K. History of ancient Russian literature. – M., 1966. – 319 p.
4. 4. Danilevsky I. N. The Bible and the Tale of Bygone Years (on the problem of interpreting chronicle texts) // Domestic History. – 1993. – No. 1. – P. 78–93.
5. 5. Danilevsky I. N. The idea and title of the Tale of Bygone Years // Domestic History. – 1995. – No. 5. – P. 101–109.
6. 6. Eremin I. P. Lectures and articles on history ancient Russian literature.– L., 1987.– 327 p.
7. 7. Ipatov A. N. Orthodoxy and Russian culture - M., 1985.
8. 8. Kloss B.N. Nikonovsky arch and Russian chronicles of the 16th–17th centuries. – M., 1980. – 312 p.
9. 9. Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of lectures on source studies // Works: In 9 volumes - M., 1989. - T. 7. - P. 5–83.
10. 10. Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history. – Volume I. – Part I. – M., 1987.
11. 11. Koretsky V.I. History of Russian chronicles of the second half of the 16th century - early XVII V. / Rep. Ed. V.I. Buganov. – M., 1986. – 271 p.
12. 12. Kuzmin A. G. The initial stages of ancient Russian chronicle writing. – M., 1977. – 406 p.
13. 13. Kuskov V.V. History of Old Russian Literature. – M., 1977. – 375 p.
14. 14. Chronicles and chronicles: Digest of articles. – M., 1984.
15. 15. Likhachev D. S. History of Russian literature of the X–XII centuries. – M., 1980. – 205 p.
16. 16. Likhachev D. S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. – M.–L., 1947.– 499 p.
17. 17. Lurie Ya. S. Two stories of Rus' in the 15th century. – St. Petersburg, 1994. – 240 p.
18. 18. Lurie Ya. S. Mikhail Dmitrievich Priselkov and issues of studying Russian chronicles // Domestic history. – 1995. – No. 1. – P. 146–160.
19. 19. Lurie Ya. S. On the Chessman method of studying chronicle vaults // Source study of national history. 1975. – M., 1976.
20. 20. Lurie Ya. S. Rus' of the 15th century: reflection in early and independent chronicles // Questions of history. – 1993. – No. 11–12. – P. 3–17.
21. 21. Lvov A. S. Vocabulary “The Tale of Bygone Years.” – M., 1975.
22. 22. Mirzoev V. G. Epics and chronicles are monuments of Russian historical thought. – M., 1978.– 273 p.
23. 23. Muravyova L. L. Trinity Chronicle in scientific circulation XVIII – early XIX centuries. // Source study of Russian history. 1989.– M., 1989.
24. 24. Nasonov A. N. History of Russian chronicles XI – early XVIII century: Essays and studies. – M., 1969. – 555 p.
25. 25. Podobedova O. I. Miniatures of Russian historical chronicles and the history of Russian facial chronicles. – M., 1965. – 334 p.
26. 26. Pronshtein A.P. Source study in Russia. The era of feudalism. – Rostov on/D. 1989. – 419 p.
27. 27. Rybakov B. A. From the cultural history of Ancient Rus'. – M., 1984. – 219 p.
28. 28. Sapunov B.V. Book in Russia in the XI-XIII centuries. – L., 1978.
29. 29. Special courses/ Ed. V.L. Yanina. – M., 1989.
30. 30. Tvorogov O. V. Chronographs of ancient Rus' // Questions of history. – 1990. – No. 1. – P. 57–72.
31. 31. Tikhomirov M. N. Russian chronicle. – M., 1979.
32. 32. Froyanov I. Ya. Historical realities in chronicle legend about the calling of the Varangians // Questions of history. – 1991. – No. 6
33. 33. Schmidt S. O. The Russian state in the middle of the 16th century: The Tsar’s archive and personal chronicles of the time of Ivan the Terrible / Responsible. ed. D. S. Likhachev. – M., 1984. – 277 p.
34. 34. Shchapov Ya. N. Ideas of peace in Russian chronicles of the 11th–13th centuries. // Domestic History. – 1992. – No. 1. – P. 172–179.
LEGISLATIVE ACTS
Legislative acts are a special type of historical sources, emanating from the supreme power and having the highest legal force in a certain territory. In historical research, legislative sources are most often used, selected thematically in accordance with the research topic. This group of sources is distinguished by reliability and accuracy in covering issues of social, economic and political development states. When working with legislative monuments, it should be remembered that compliance with a particular law did not always become general rule. For a long time, the Russian state was not able to control the implementation of laws due to the insufficient development of its apparatus.
Analysis of legislative acts involves studying the activities state institutions, the most important function which was the publication of laws, the formulation of new norms for society. It is important to find out: who had the right of legislative initiative, what was the mechanism for discussing, adopting and approving the law, how the document was published, in what form and in what collection it has reached the present day
Legislative acts reflected the main stages of the history of the Russian state, therefore the appearance of each monument should be explained by specific socio-economic and political reasons.
Considering the process of the emergence of law in the Old Russian state, it is necessary to analyze its sources. It should be noted that, unlike Western Europe, in ancient Rus' the role of customary law or tradition was especially great. Other sources include princely legislation and Russian treaties.
The central written monument of law ancient Russian state is “Russian Truth”, known in three editions - Brief, Long and Abridged. Despite more than two hundred years of study, there are still debatable problems. Among them is the question of whether “Russkaya Pravda” is a single monument or whether its editions represent independent sources related to each other. The next problem: what are the historical conditions for the emergence of individual parts and editions of Russkaya Pravda. Each edition consists of several parts that did not arise simultaneously, but in connection with certain historical events. Students should be able to identify these reasons. When analyzing the content of “Russian Truth”, it is important to trace changes in legal norms and characterize the sources of this legislative monument.
The question of canon law of Ancient Rus' should begin to be considered from the very concept of “canon law”. It is necessary to understand that it was a set of church legal norms that were mandatory for representatives of a certain denomination. Church legal norms were contained in the apostolic canons, decrees of ecumenical and local councils, the canons of the church fathers, which have come down to us as part of the Pilot's Books and the Standard of the Righteous.
In contrast to “Russian Truth,” the Pskov Judgment Charter is one of the least studied legislative monuments of the 14th-15th centuries. Thus, the origin of this source is still controversial. The charter has several editions, which reflected the process of codification of the current law of northwestern Rus'. It gives an idea of the world of the city, village, and their socio-economic development. The most important information is contained in it on the history of Pskov.
The first all-Russian experience of codification was the Code of Laws of 1497. Students must analyze the reasons for its appearance, the history of its adoption, sources, and internal structure.
Using a similar scheme, one should analyze the Council Code of 1649, which became the final stage in the formation of the legislation of a unified Russian state. It is important to give external criticism of the Cathedral Code of 1649, emphasizing that it was a column of enormous length - 309 m. The manuscript of the monument was compiled according to all the rules of that time. The student must formulate them in his answer. Revealing the structure of the Council Code, one should emphasize its more complex nature compared to other legislative monuments.
In the 18th century legislation acquires a number of specific features. This includes the desire of government authorities to regulate in detail the life of society and the private lives of their subjects. As a result, there was an intensification of lawmaking and an expansion of the scope of legislative regulation and the subject of legislation. An important feature The legislation of modern times has become a regulated publication of legislative acts. In Russia, a system of publishing laws was being developed, which involved sending decrees to provinces and governors, printing them in a typographical manner, reading legislative acts in churches after services, etc. As a result, no other source of the 18th century. cannot be compared with legislation in terms of prevalence.
The most important qualitative characteristic of legislative acts of the 18th century. was a change in the relationship between custom and law as sources of law. Until the beginning of the 18th century. the main source of law was custom. The personal decree of April 17, 1722 “On the preservation of civil rights” finally approved the priority of the law. Students must find out the content and significance of this decree, taking into account that it formalized the main elements of lawmaking: approbation of the decree by the sovereign, publication, etc. late XVIII V. a new requirement is also formulated - accuracy, literal reproduction of laws and quotations from legislative acts.
The difficulty of working with legislative acts is that in Russia in the 18th century and later, criteria for separating the law from other orders of the supreme power were not developed. One of the main reasons for this was the lack of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. Therefore, the main feature of the law in Russia was the presence of the emperor’s signature and a certain procedure for adoption.
The period under review is distinguished by a wide variety of legislative acts: manifestos, decrees, charters, regulations, institutions, regulations. It is important to highlight the differences between one type and another, for example, how personal decrees, Senate decrees, and those announced from the Senate differed. These differences concerned mainly the legal role, nature and scope of the action. In general, the entire 18th century. characterized by rapid lawmaking, therefore all attempts to codify Russian legislation, undertaken since the beginning of the 18th century. turned out to be unsuccessful. This problem was solved in the 19th century.
Development of lawmaking in the 19th century. continues mainly along the path of fixing the legislative procedure. Students must understand such issues as: what constitutes legislative power, who was its bearer, who had the right of legislative initiative, etc. In this case, special attention should be paid to changes in the structure of public administration Russian Empire that occurred at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is important to analyze the functions and structure of the newly created governing bodies.
In the 19th century Attempts at codification work continued. They were embodied in the creation of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire and in the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire. The work on compiling the Code of Laws (CZ) was headed by M. M. Speransky, and was carried out by the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery. The Code includes current legislative norms, systematized thematically. It included 8 main departments, distributed over 15 volumes. The code was published in 1832, the second edition was published in 1842, and the third only in 1857. Subsequently, it was published in separate statutes.
The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire (PCZ) was a chronological systematization of legislative norms, was prepared by a special commission headed by M. M. Speransky and published in 1830. This publication remains the most complete publication of legislative acts from 1649 to 1825. However, it should be noted that the PSZ was not completely complete: it did not include laws of a secret nature and the legislation of the 17th - early 18th centuries was not sufficiently represented in it.
The PLC had three editions: the 1st collection included legislative acts from 1649 to 1825; in II - from 1825 to 1880; in III - from 1881. The CCD remains the main source of legislation for modern historians.
Legislation of the XIX - early XX centuries. is marked by an extraordinary variety of acts. Among them there are pre-existing ones - manifestos, regulations, decrees and new laws - the highest approved opinions of the State Council, the highest commands. It is necessary to determine the structure and functions of all types of legislative acts of the 19th - early 20th centuries.
At the beginning of the 19th century. An ideology of constitutional changes is being formed in government circles. Students must define the concept of constitution, assess the real possibilities of its emergence and existence in autocratic Russia, and analyze the causes and conditions of constitutional ideas at the beginning of the 19th century. One of the first monuments of government constitutionalism was the “Certificate of Commitment to the Russian People.” The main ideas and the problem of authorship of this source should be analyzed. The next monument was M. M. Speransky’s plan for political reforms, “Introduction to the Code of State Laws,” which assumed a system of separation of powers and a change in the status of the monarch. An attempt to create a national constitution was the “State Charter of the Russian Empire”. It is important to consider the history of its preparation, consideration, substantive and ideological connection with the Polish constitution. Political programs of the Decembrists, government projects for the political transformation of Russia in the second half of the 19th century- the beginning of the twentieth century, it is advisable to consider the ideas of noble representation, populists in the form small messages, designed for 5-7 minutes.
Questions
1) Sources of law during the period of feudalism: common law, princely legislation, treaties of Rus'.
2) Legal monuments of the 11th–17th centuries:
a) “Russian Truth” (editions, lists, source study problems);
b) canon law of Ancient Rus';
c) Pskov judicial charter - code of law of the 14th–15th centuries;
d) the first attempt to codify all-Russian legal norms - Sudebnik 1497;
e) Council Code of 1649
3) Legislation of the 18th century;
a) principles and qualitative features of the legislative process of modern times;
b) varieties of legislative sources of the 18th century.
4) Legislation of the 19th – early 20th centuries:
a) legislative power: content, carrier, functions;
b) codification of laws in the first half of the 19th century. general characteristics and a comparative analysis of the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire” and the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire”;
c) basic state laws: concept, structure, functions;
d) alternative interpretations of state laws (projects of M. M. Speransky, Decembrists, Narodniks, political parties of Russia in the 20th century).
Sources
1. 1. Legislative acts of the Russian state second half of the XVI - first half XVII V. Comments / Ed. N. E. Nosova. – L., 1986. – 264 p.
2. 2. Pravda Russian/ Ed. B. D. Grekova.– M.–L., 1940–1963.– T. 1–3.
3. 3. Pskov judicial charter/ Ed. K.V. Sivkova. – M., 1952. – 160 p.
4. 4. Russian legislation of the 10th–20th centuries.: Texts and comments: In 9 volumes / Under general. ed. O.I. Chistyakova. – M., 1984–1994. – T. 1–9.
5. 5. Cathedral Code of 1649: Text, commentary / Prepared by. text by L. I. Ivina; hands A. G. Mankov. – L., 1987. – 448 p.
6. 6. Law books of the XV-XVI centuries./ Under general ed. B. D. Grekova. – M.–L., 1952. – 619 p.
Literature
1. 1. Alekseev Yu. G. Pskov judicial charter and its time: Development of feudal relations in Rus' in the XIV-XV centuries. / Ed. K. N. Serbina. – L., 1980. – 243 p.
2. 2. Antonova S. I. Materials of legislation of the period of capitalism as a historical source. – M., 1976. – 271 p.
3. 3. Government agencies Russia XVI–XVIII centuries – M., 1991.
4. 4. Degtyarev A. Ya.
a method of studying and explaining various phenomena, in which, based on establishing the similarity of these phenomena in form, a conclusion is drawn about their genetic relationship, i.e., about their common origin. Feature of S.-i. m., used in the study of cultural phenomena, is that its starting point is the restoration and comparison of the most ancient elements common to various areas material culture and knowledge. A notable contribution to the development of S.-i. m. in this area were done by W. Humboldt and especially Comte. Its development S.-i. m. reached in the 19th century. from representatives of comparative historical linguistics J. Grimm, A. Pott, A. Schleicher (Germany), F. de Saussure (Switzerland), as well as in the works of Russian. scientists I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, A. N. Veselovsky, A. X. Vostokov, F. F. Fortunatov and others. S.-i. m had a strong influence on the development of linguistics, ethnography, and the historical study of myths and beliefs. Limited S.-i. m. was revealed in the fact that it did not allow us to move from the fact of the external similarity of cultural and ideological forms to the disclosure of those material social relations that determine them. In modern scientific research S.-i. m is used in combination with other methods (experiment, etc.).
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
Comparative historical method
or comparative, cross-cultural, comparative method)? a research method that allows, through comparison, to identify the general and special in the development of countries and peoples of the world and the reasons for these similarities and differences. Widely used in history. sciences, cultural studies, sociology, ethnography. Sim. - one of the main methods for reconstructing a primitive society, studying the ethnogenesis of the peoples of the world; general and special in the development of ethnicity. cultures and social communities; genesis, distribution and typology of the department. phenomena of material, spiritual and socionormative cultures, as well as their components, origin, formation of historical and ethnographic. areas and the interaction of peoples forming such areas. Each comparative-historical. The study specifies cognizant goals that determine the range of sources and features of the methods of comparison used. Mainly three types of history are used. comparisons: historical and typological. (studying the similarity of convergent phenomena); historical-genetic. (investigating phenomena that have a genetic connection in their development, i.e. diachronically); historical-diffusion (studying phenomena that spread as a result of borrowing). The reconstruction of the primitive society is being carried out by Ch. arr. by historical-genetic. comparisons. In particular, the so-called method of survivals (reconstruction of disappeared phenomena based on their survivals in modern cultures). This method is a particular form of S.-i.m., which was widely used by evolutionists back in the 19th century, but requires, however, a very strict selection of the most representative. facts and establishing their stage depth, for which it is necessary, if possible, to draw analogies to the studied survivals in the communities where they actually function. The comparison is not made about you as a whole, but about you. complexes of interrelated characteristics. Inferences by analogy are widely used, based primarily on similar features of comparable facts, which makes it possible to transfer features from one of the objects under study to another. Method of archaeological-ethnogr. analogies make it possible to reconstruct certain aspects of a primitive society, especially its material culture, according to archaeology. finds, interpreted by comparing them with ethnographic. analogues. In recent decades, mathematics and statistics have become increasingly important. intercultural (cross-cultural) research to study the variability and correlation of certain cultural features of the peoples of the world, which makes it possible to identify groups of features and project them into the past to primitiveness. Application of S.-i.m. for carrying out cultural-genetic studies. research in history ethnography aims to study the origin and formation of ethnicity. cultures, as well as certain cultural phenomena within the framework of both one ethnic group and the entire historical-ethnogr. areas. In this case, a comparative typology is initially carried out. research dept. components of the culture of the ethnic group, as well as typologically similar components in other related cultures. Then comparisons are made. study of typologically, perhaps, different, but genetically related components up to their most ancient initial prototypes (Archetypes). The range of sources being studied includes ethnic objects as actually existing ones. cultures, and reconstructed on the basis of the memories of people of the older generation, writings. sources, etc., as well as archaeological sources. materials (the latest chapters in the study of material culture), which makes it possible to identify the history. development of certain cultural phenomena. Concludes such studies will compare. learning functionally interconnected components in chronologically close sections in order to identify historical and genetic. layers in culture. The emergence of such layers is caused by the fact that cultural genesis proceeds unevenly as a result of internal. (endogenous) processes, and diffusion - the influence of cultures of other ethnic groups, while one part of the innovations that penetrated from the outside dies off after a greater or lesser period of time, the other organically enters the culture and participates in its further genesis (the main factors influencing these processes : socio-economic development, functional needs, ecology, stereotypes of traditions, etc.). Innovations of endogenous and exogenous origin that entered the culture in the definition. history era and those participating in its further genesis form a historical-genetic. layers, which have both relative and absolute chronology. Study of the genesis and evolution of ethnicity. cultures is impossible without a sufficiently complete identification of their historical and genetic. layers, without taking into account environmental factors and the role of historical and ethnographic. regions and economic and cultural types. Study of the origin and evolution of ethnicity. cultures and their components must be carried out along with studies of the genesis of the department. interethnic forms folk culture , because the development of the former is closely connected with the general and particular processes of cultural genesis. Areal and historical-genetic. Studies of historical and cultural areas, also carried out on the basis of historical and cultural history, make it possible to identify similar cultural and everyday characteristics of the peoples included in these areas and the process of their formation. They may indicate both genetic kinship diff. ethnic groups (usually associated with either substrate or superstrate components in their ethnogenesis, less often with both), and about long-term, genetically unrelated cultural contacts. Therefore, the study of historical and ethnographic. areas requires a combination of historical and genetic. and historical-diffusion methods of research. The role of S.-i.m. is great. in the study of the genesis and evolution of economic and cultural types. Compare. Research should cover all the basics. components of economy and culture misc. peoples living in similar geographies. and socio-economic. conditions, in order, first of all, to identify among them typologically similar forms of economy and culture that have developed convergently, as well as borrowed and genetically related ones; highlight the distribution areas of economic and cultural types (and subtypes) and their evolution from their origin to the present. These studies require the involvement of all fundamentals. comparison methods. Historiography of the use of S.-i.m. very significant. The first attempts to compare the life of various. peoples and explanations of its similarities on this basis were undertaken by ancient science (Herodotus and others). Interest in compare. research has especially increased since the 16th century. (Great geographical discoveries, etc.). Based on compare. materials puts forward the idea of human unity. hell, about the common origin of people. Great influence on the formation of S.-i.m. had a development in the 19th century. comparative-historical linguistics, compare. mythology and compare. study of religions. Sim. became the main one in the works of evolutionists (L. Morgan, Tylor, J. McLennan, Frazer, etc.), who first turned to history. studying folk culture and the patterns of its development. In recent decades, Neo-evolutionism has gained some popularity in the United States. Representatives of this school (D. Steward, L. White, M. Fried, M. Sahlins, etc.) also use S.-i.m. in their research, which, especially in the works of Sahlins, are associated with the so-called. direction of cultural ecology. In modern zap. ethnography S.-I.M., in particular, is used as a method of cultural typology that denies the uniform patterns of history. development, highlighting ch. arr. not common, but special features in the cultures of the peoples of the world. A serious step in studying the universal diversity of cultures was made by J. Murdock and the comparative research group he created at Yale and then in Pittsburgh. Based on an analysis of almost 600 cultures, the group prepared and published the global “Ethnographic Atlas” (1967). In such areas as history. school, Diffusionism and Functionalism, compare. the method is essentially devoid of Historicism. In modern zap. history schools synthesis and comparative studies, which have become widespread in social science, attempts are being made on the basis of S.-i.m. come to “histor. synthesis” of the picture of the development of the peoples of the world. Cultural-genetic. direction in Russian ethnography, based on modern. successes in the use of S.-i.m., developed in the works of S.P. Tolstova, L.P. Potapova, S.V. Ivanova, M.V. Kryukova and others. S.-i.m. successfully used by scientists who involve ethnography. material for the reconstruction of a primitive society (Yu.I. Semenov, A.I. Pershits, B.A. Frolov, etc.), economic and cultural typology of the peoples of the world (M.G. Levin, N.N. Cheboksarov, B. .A. Andrianov and others), studying ethnogenesis. See Historical typology of culture, Cultural taxonomy, Universal model of culture. Lit.: Markaryan E.S. About the basics principles will compare. studying history // VI. 1966. No. 7; Pershits A.I. To the problem of comparative history. synthesis // Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1980. N 4; Cheboksarov N.N. Peoples. Races. Cultures. M., 1985; Vainshtein S.I. Historical ethnography in the structure of ethnography. science // SE. 1987. No. 4; Compare. sociology. M., 1995. S. I. Vainshtein. Cultural studies of the twentieth century. Encyclopedia. M.1996
It makes it possible to reveal the essence of the phenomena being studied both by the similarity and difference of their inherent properties, as well as to make comparisons in space and time, i.e. horizontally and vertically.
The logical basis of the historical-comparative method is analogy - this general scientific method of cognition consists in the fact that, based on the similarity of some characteristics of the objects being compared, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other characteristics.
In this case, the range of known features of the object (phenomena) with which the comparison is made should be wider than that of the object under study. Possibilities of the historical-comparative method:
It allows you to reveal the essence of the phenomena under study in cases where it is not obvious based on the available facts;
Identify the general and repetitive, the necessary and natural and qualitatively different;
Go beyond the phenomena being studied and, on the basis of analogies, come to broad historical generalizations and parallels;
Allows the use of other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method. Methodological requirements for its use:
Comparison should be based on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not their formal similarity;
It is necessary to take into account the general nature of the historical eras in which the compared historical events took place;
You can compare objects and phenomena, both of the same type and of different types, located at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case the essence will be revealed on the basis of identified similarities, and in the other - differences.
Disadvantages of the historical-comparative method:
This method is not aimed at revealing the issue in question.
reality;
It is difficult to use it when studying the dynamics of social processes. Historical-typological method
Typologization - as a method of scientific knowledge, has as its goal the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes) based on their common essential features. This is a method of essence analysis. The entire set of objects appears as a generic phenomenon, and the types included in it act as species of this genus.
Historical-systemic method
Its use is due to the deepening of historical research, both from the point of view of a holistic coverage of knowable historical reality, and from the point of view of revealing the internal mechanisms of the functioning and development of various kinds of socio-historical systems.
System analysis methods are structural and functional analyses. The system under study is considered not from the perspective of its individual aspects, but as a holistic qualitative certainty with a comprehensive account of both its own basic features and its place and role in the hierarchy of systems.
From the point of view of specific content, the solution to this problem comes down to identifying system-forming (system) features that are inherent in the components of the selected system. These include features, the relationship between which primarily determines the essence of the structure of a given system.
After identifying the corresponding system, its analysis as such follows. The central point here is structural analysis, i.e., identifying the nature of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties.
The result of structural-system analysis is knowledge about the system as such. This knowledge is of an empirical nature, since in itself it does not reveal the essential nature of the identified structure. Translating the acquired knowledge to the theoretical level requires identifying the functions of a given system in the hierarchy of systems, where it appears as a subsystem. This problem is solved by functional analysis, which reveals the interaction of the system under study with higher-level systems.
