The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

The culture of the historian of the last quarter of the XIX beginning of the 20th century (on the example of representatives of "the Russian historical school")

yu. S. Nikiforov

The CULTURE of the HISTORIAN of the LAST QUARTER of XIX - the BEGINNINGS of the 20th CENTURY (on the example of representatives of "the Russian historical school")

Work is presented by department of general history of the Yaroslavl state pedagogical university of K.D. Ushinsky. The research supervisor - the doctor of historical sciences, professor A.B. Sokolov

Article is devoted to a phenomenon of culture of the historian of the last quarter of XIX - the beginnings of the 20th century. Subject of the analysis - memoirs of the Russian historians N.I. Kareev and M.M. Kowalewski. Special attention is paid to interpretation of concepts: the culture of the scientist, the culture of the teacher, the culture of communication in historical science.

Yu. Nikiforov

HISTORIAN&S CULTURE OF THE LAST QUARTER OF THE 19TH AND THE EARLY 20TH CEN-TURIES (by the example of the scientists of the & #34; Russian historical school")

The article is devoted to the phenomenon of a historian&s culture of the last quarter of the 19th and the early 20th centuries. The object of analysis is memoirs of Russian historians - N. Y. Kareyev and M. M. Kovalevsky. Special attention is paid to the interpretation of the notions & #34; culture of a scientist" & #34; culture of a teacher" & #34; culture of communication" in historical studies.

The last quarter of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century - time of the real blossoming of historical science in Russia. Formation in historical community of a special system of values and representations turned out to be inevitable consequence of development of science, the fact that IOJ -

but to call the culture of the historian. The term culture in a modern historiography is used in more and more extending sense. In the spirit of "modern cultural history" K. Girts gives one of key definitions: "Culture - historically told siste-

ma values, the inherited representations expressed in a symbolical form by means of which people transfer keep and develop savoir vivre and the attitude towards her" [2, page 29]. As P. Burke, "we on the way to cultural history of everything witty notices: dreams, food, emotions, memory, gestures, humour" [1, page 18]. Perspective it seems to analyze also the culture of the historian which should be considered, in our opinion, as the multilayered phenomenon. First, it is the culture of the scientist-researcher - the methodological culture including elements of creative laboratory of the historian (argument and scope of researches, work with sources and literature, outlook). Secondly, the culture of the teacher including style of teaching, ideals of education and education. Thirdly, the communicative culture including style of relationship with colleagues, the management, students, features of participation in scientific organizations, cooperation in newspapers and magazines. For the analysis of a phenomenon of culture of the historian it is interesting to concern creative heritage of two representatives of "the Russian historical school" - N.I. Kareev's memoirs (1850-1931) [4] and M.M. Kowalewski (1851-1916) [6]. Blossoming of works of historians fell on the last quarter of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century. Their scientific heritage attracted fixed interest of many outstanding researchers [3; 7; 8].

We will consider the methodological layer of culture of the historian important for understanding of an image of the historian scientist. From N.I. Ka-reev's memoirs we learn that by 1873 the historian has interest in general history, philosophy and sociology [4, page 121]. M.M. Kowalewski, as well as Kareev, at the university according to Kachenovsky's recommendation "stopped on the choice of specialty" [6, page 78] - the state law of the European powers. The inquisitiveness and width of interests became the traits of character which defined Kareev's career - "read in different objects, chased expansion of knowledge"; diligence and assiduity - "accurately attended lectures, read much and summarized" [4, page 131]. Common ground of Kareev and Kowalewski

at the end of the 1870th there was interest in sociology [4, page 142]. Kareev gives success algorithm to young historians - "that there was a scientist, not only the talent and enthusiasm, but also tendency to systematic work is required" [4, page 186]. The scientist compared historical science to a mighty tree, allocating two stages in a research - roots (direct work on material) and krone (historical generalizations), and noted preference "works synthetic and generalizing" [4, page 249]. The scientist positions himself the opponent of "faktopoklonnik". Also Kowalewski indicating the need of sweeping generalization is solidary with him: "Sitting over manuscripts much, took out an impression that the research, is exclusive on them constructed, will be one-sided and incomplete" [6, page 261]. Kowalewski also gives the recipe triad of qualities necessary for the historian: "logical brainwork, flight of scientific imagination, ability to build broad constructions and the whole systems" [6, page 261]. Both scientists are united by synthetic style of thinking, tendency to generalizations.

An exclusive role in formation of the young Russian historian was played by foreign business trips. Kowalewski calls these periods of life which captured 1872-1876, "years of foreign apprenticeship and wanderings" [6]. France enjoyed special popularity. Kowalewski directly says that in France he learned to work, "to draw conclusions from primary sources, to bring them into a system, to build hypotheses" [6, page 126]. Kareev, telling about stay in Paris (1876-1878), draws an image of "happiness" of the historian - "freedom on hand time, lack of external duties, an opportunity to indulge in work on a scientific question in the conditions of excellent libraries and archive" [4, page 146]. About hearing of lectures abroad both scientists speak as of an additional class. So, Kareev writes that he "at a lecture came into Sorbonne occasionally to look at a celebrity" [4, page 149]. The main thing - collecting material for the thesis in archives and libraries. Kowalewski's memoirs allow to judge daily work of the historian: "Rabo-


that in archive and library was adjusted - I excitedly spent to them morning, usually from 9-10 h, with a break for a breakfast, up to 5 h day" [6, page 168].

Not only research, but also teaching was an integral part of life of historians. M.M. Kowalewski was more the university teacher who was successfully giving lectures and in Russia (1877-1887 - at the Moscow university, 1905-1916 - at the St. Petersburg university), and, during emigration (1887-1905), abroad (in France, Sweden, Belgium, the USA). N.I. Kareev was a teacher of wider profile: he edified in a gymnasium (1873-1876), in 1878-1879 gave lectures at the Moscow university, from 1879 to 1884 was extraordinary professor of the Warsaw university, in St. Petersburg taught at the same time at the university (1885-1899, 1906-1923), Aleksandrovsk lyceum, on the High Female courses and Polytechnical institute - everywhere on a modern history [4, page 179]. Kareev gives courses and on other historical periods (Ancient East and Antiquity) and humanitarian objects (to sociology, philosophy) [4, page 182]. Kowalewski also points to the various nature of the lectures [6, page 688]. In a gymnasium Kareev remembers teaching with warmth and notes that he "sought to make story interesting" for wards, and pupils "considered it as honor to have good marks in a subject" [4, page 136]. From lecturing Kareev derived obvious pleasure: "Lectures did not weigh me, I could even miss them" [4, page 222]. Selflessly loving teaching, he "willingly responded on the invitation to give lectures without a thought to do from this earnings" [4, page 252]. The talent of Kareeva-lektora was shown in ability to work with different audience. He wrote: "It is necessary for students economists not that to students historians" [4, page 223]. Kareev lights views of education ideals in works of the 1890th turned to youth [5].

Teaching activity of Kowalewski, as well as Kareeva, coincided with the period of counterreforms of the 1880th Kowalewski is critical to modern to it to the system of an average obrazova-

niya: "I consider our school inert, its present evaded of the past a little" [6, page 68]. Much better he speaks of the university which role rather educational, than educational "not in some lectures and seminars, but also in formation of scientific circles" [6, page 87]. The scientist called for broad general preparation and opposed early specialization which is "not useful, but harmful" [6, page 88]. The look at Kowalewski and on seminars [6, page 133]. The historian considered that not privatdozents, but "outstanding Russian scientists" who would acquaint students with the advanced methods of a research have to conduct them. According to the historian, demands reforms and the system of training of young scientists: Whether "It is time to insist not on thesis volume, and on its internal qualities?" [6, page 127]. Kowalewski assimilates lecturing to a drama performance, and professors to actors - "when they bad publics gather a little" [6, page 223]. The scientist urges "to win" audience not only bright form of presentation, but also original contents: "Klyuchevsky spoke new from department, concerning minds and hearts, and professor textbook sat in empty audience" [6, page 316]. The abstract and use of literary novelties [6, page 688] were important attributes of preparation of a lecture.

The third component of culture of the historian communicative, including communication at three levels - in community of scientists, with students, with the management. N.I. Kareev repeatedly points to sociability as the main personal line [4, page 189]. Let's analyze the culture of interaction of authors of memoirs. Kowalewski, according to Kareev, owing to enormous erudition and charming character was "the center of youth of that time" [4, page 141]. Kareev notes that they with Kowalewski "were companions" on the St. Petersburg university, Polytechnical institute, editing "The encyclopedic dictionary" Brockhaus and Efron. Communication with colleagues was defined by scientific interest and influenced research. Kareev writes that his acquaintances, lawyers and economists corresponded to interest in social history of French

peasantry [4, page 142]. It is possible to see the same also at Kowalewski. For example, he is obliged to the Sanskritist Miller by "the instructions which allowed to expand readings by the primitive right" [6, page 204].

The nature of relationship of scientists depended on the university. For example, at the Moscow university, according to Kowalewski, the lack of "any serious discord" with companions on teaching [6, page 232] was "the most pleasant aspect of life". Kareev characterizes professorial customs in Warsaw, on the contrary, as strange. Mutual causticities [4, page 168] were norm. According to memoirists, their relations with students were excellent. Kareev noted that he "in university anniversaries was among the few, invited to student's tea drinking" [4, page 194]. Kowalewski emphasized qualities, valued with students: the work spent by professor; ability to prove the point of view; friendly relation [6, page 235]. Perception of university administration by scientists is illustrated by Kowalewski's words: "We recognized administrative abilities for people either not pursuing science, or ceased to be engaged in it" [6, page 232]. At the same time the historian noted that most of heads "is imbued with love for knowledge and freedom" [6, page 207].

Work in scientific organizations, cooperation in newspapers and magazines were a part of professional communication. Kowalewski mentioned that he was a member archaeological, ethnographic, legal and psikholo-

gichesky societies [6, page 216]; edited the Kriticheskoye Obozreniye and Yuridichesky vestnik magazines [6, page 204], cooperated in the Russkiye Vedomosti and Russkaya mysl newspapers [6, page 224]. The rich life was conducted also by Kareev: in the 1890th he worked in the society of self-education, Committee of the help to students, Literary fund, the Union of mutual aid of writers, was the chairman of Historical society and the editor of "A historical review", cooperated in "The Russian wealth" [4, page 189-193].

Thus, formation of culture of the historian was defined by a sociocultural situation of post-reform Russia received by it the classical university preparation complemented with foreign training. A part of culture of the historian was made by fine foreign language skills; fanatical interest in research in combination with system thinking; diligence and assiduity as personal lines; variety of scientific interests and creative approach. The culture of the historian-teacher was based on broad specialization of the lecturer and deep erudition; desire to make lectures available to different audience; the aspiration to reform an education system on the basis of the progressive pedagogical ideas; inclusion not only an educational, but also educational component in teaching. Communicative culture was defined by outlook, personal lines, the professional status of the historian and circumstances of a communicative situation.


1. BerkP. "Anthropological turn" in the humanities: individual versions and configuration whole//Historical anthropology and modern cultural history. UFO. 2005. No. 75. Page 15-48.
2. K. Girts. Interpretation of cultures. M, 2004. 380 pages
3. V.P. Zolotarev. Historical concept of N.I. Kareev: maintenance and evolution. L., 1988. 220 pages
4. N.I. Kareev. Lived and endured. L., 1990. 384 pages
5. N.I. Kareev. Conversations about development of a world view. SPb., 1896. 168 pages
6. M.M. Kowalewski. My life. Memoirs. M.: ROSSPEN, 2005. 784 pages
7. G.P. Myagkov. Scientific community in historical science: experience of "Russian historical school". Kazan, 2000. 286 pages
8. S.N. Pogodin. Russian historical school: N.I. Kareev, M.M. Kowalewski, I.V. Luchitsky. SPb., 1997. 280 pages
John Davis
Other scientific works: