The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Phenomenon & #34; Ecole russe": theory of history of N.I. Kareev (beginning)



fenomen "Ecole russe": theory of history of N.I. Kareev

Yu.A. Vasilyev (Moscow humanities university) *

The synthetic system of the theory of history of the outstanding Russian scientist of Nikolay Ivanovich Kareev is presented in article (on the basis of original texts). On the basis of nomologichesky and phenomenological classification of sciences by Kareev the synthesis of the theory of historical knowledge (historians), theories of historical process (istoriologiya), sociological, psychological, philosophical, historiosophical aspects of studying history is carried out.

The "Ecole Russe" Phenomenon:

N. I. Kareev's Theory of History

Yu. A. Vasiliev

>(Moscow University for the Humanities)

The article covers a presentation (based on original texts) of synthetic system of the theory of history by an outstanding Russian scientist Nikolay Ivanovich Kareev. On the grounds of nomological and phenomenological classifications of sciences Kareev made a synthesis of the theories of historical cognition (historica), theory of historical process (historiology), sociological, psychological, philosophical, historiosophical aspects of history studies.

It is known that in the West almost do not read the Russian publications in humanitarian field. However in the history of the Russian science there is little-known even for experts a recognition fact western scientific "Ecole russe" ("the Russian school") today. This term introduced into circulation in the last quarter of the 19th century by Zh. Zhores still is in broad use at the French historians. Under well-known in Europe "Ecole russe" mean first of all three outstanding Russian scientists — N.I. Kareev, M.M. Kowalewski and I.V. Lu-chitsky who forced the French historians to reconsider the views of the agrarian relations in prerevolutionary France. The French historians A. Matyez, Zh. Lefebvre considered themselves pupils "the Russian

schools". The scientific world named N.I. Kare-eva "By Nestor of the Russian science", A. Matyez — "the kind giant" (see: Pogodin, 1997). "Ecole russe" is an outstanding phenomenon of the Russian historical science not only because of its international recognition: this phenomenon in itself was turned not so much to the accumulated historical experience how many to that historical knowledge which should be mastered in the future. Today it is important to add: and still it is necessary in current and future, including in overcoming estrangement of experts not only in historical science, but also humanitarian disciplines in general.

Prevailing for "the Russian school" in the 1770-1780th years was interest in the social and economic party of history, to ag-

* Yury Albertovich Vasilyev is a doctor of historical sciences, professor, professor of department of history and the international relations of the Moscow humanities university. Ph.: (495) 374-55-81. Al. address: vasmar@orc.ru

to the rarny relations and peasantry. Further there was an evolution of scientific interests in the direction of development of the theory of history. "The Russian school", despite own specialization of her representatives, kept community of the main approaches to the theory of history based on sociological approach, studying the similar reasons, conditions, factors, general trends.

Ivan Vasilyevich Luchitsky (1845-1918) is a historian by training (ended in 1866. The Kiev university) and scientific activity at department of general history of the Kiev university (in 1908 it is elected the chle-number-correspondent of the St. Petersburg academy of Sciences). It determined by the first a formula of interaction of history and sociology: history uses the general laws of social development output by sociology for studying the phenomena of public life and social development.

Maxim Maksimovich Kowalewski (1851-1916) is a jurist by training (finished in 1872. The Kharkiv university on department of the state law), became widely known as the historian subsequently. The founder of the Russian higher school of social sciences in Paris (1901-1906). During the last — St. Petersburg — period of life (1906-1916) its main efforts were directed to researches in the field of sociology. M.M. Kowalewski — one of founders of the Russia's first department of sociology at Psychoneurological institute in St. Petersburg (1908). Since 1899 — the corresponding member, since 1914 — the full member of the St. Petersburg academy of Sciences.

Theorists of the well-known French school of "Annals" in the 20th century can be considered to some extent followers of "Ecole russe" if to take into account similarity of research programs of historians of "the Russian school" and their French colleagues - "analysts". By recognition of one of founders of school of "Annals" of Lucian Fe-vr, in search of "own field" the last addressed a research and country problems, comparative history

the European societies, to a perspective of the sociological direction (Febvre, 1991: 37, 130-145).

"The Russian school" as the school of sciences existed from 1860-1870th years prior to the beginning of the 1930th years when it underwent ideological and organizational defeat as a certain community of "bourgeois historians of the West in the USSR". The academician N.M. Lukin, opening on December 18, 1930 a meeting of methodological section of Society of istori-kov-Marxists, accused representatives of "the Russian school" in hostility to Marxism. The name of N.I. Kareev, the last by then the survived representative of "the Russian school", contacted just ended process of Industrial party, attributed it desire to promote restoration aspirations of the overthrown classes, the far-fetched thesis about "anti-Marxist shouts" of Kareev on pages of foreign editions was put forward (the Historian Marxist, 1931: 44-86). In this case "The report on the Russian historical science for 50 years (1876-1926)" meant. It was written by Kareev at the request of the editorial office of the French historical magazine "Revue historique" which celebrated on January 1, 1926 50 years from the date of issue of its first number. Edition addressed 30 historians of the countries of Europe in advance and America with a request to light development of the national historiographies. As Ka-reev was well-known in scientific community of the European countries, the personal offer was sent him (by the way, in 1929 he became the honorary academician of Academy of Sciences of the USSR). Big work came out two volumes in 1927-1928 (the extensive historiographic essay of Kareev is for the first time published in Russian in the mid-nineties by V.P. Zolotarev) (see: Kareev, 1994).

After defeat of "the Russian school" even the use of this term in a domestic historiography appeared under a ban. Besides "historians Marxists" made the actual substitution of concepts: began to use as equivalent another ponya-

tiye — "the Russian historical school" (the Historian Marxist, 1929). The last term still exists in "zakavychenny" option. There were also other similar "associations": "Russian historical school of general historians", "Russian school of a modern history", "Russian agrarian school" (Myagkov, 2000b: 46). Everything listed — self-names, but not an authoritative inonatsionalny look from outside as the act of recognition in the environment of the international scientific community. Quite often the list of "the collective leader" of "Ecole russe" extends on the basis of the speculative bases (Myagkov, 2000a: 26).

It is remarkable that one of founders of "Ecole russe" — Nikolay Ivanovich Kareev (1850-1931), the historian by training (studied in 1869-1873 and graduated from istorikofilologichesky faculty of the Moscow university) and to the main activity (within five years — professor of department of general history of the Warsaw university, then, in 1886-1999, the privatdozent, professor of history of the St. Petersburg university, in 1906-1923 again professor of this university), the author of the seven-volume "History of Western Europe during Modern times" (SPb., 1892-1917), at the same time ranked as "the Russian sociological school", called him the founder of the psychological direction in sociology (A sociological thought in Russia, 1978: 203-210; Sorokin, 1992: 271). Since 1910 Kareev was a member correspondent of the St. Petersburg academy of Sciences. Special attention the historiosophical provisions of the theory of history stated by the Russian researcher deserve. The scientist developed a system to which requirements each part from the science developed by him about society — the theory of historical knowledge, the theory of historical process, sociology, psychology, history philosophy was subordinated. It built the system, proceeding from the fact that society can be considered from the different points of view, but there is the general in the aspiration to achieve one objective — on -

knowledge of public life. The sociological direction in history philosophy in the last decades 19th century in many respects defined the person of the Russian historiosophy.

It should be noted that development of actually theoretical knowledge in the form of the Russian philosophy began only since a boundary of the 19th century. In terms of theoretical judgment of historical process, it is characteristic in respect of influence on the Russian historians from the German classical philosophy 19th century (shellingianstvo in 1820 — the 1830th years, hegelianism in 1830 — the 1840th years) and positivism (especially Comte's ideas, Spencer in the 1840-1850th years). In the 1880-1890th the influence of economic materialism and also Neo-Kantianism was shown. Emergence of systems in the Russian philosophy began only at the end of XIX — the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time there was a formation as scientific discipline of psychology, at the beginning of the 20th century — sociology. Considerable advance in the field of a historical epistemologiya became the response to informative turn which happened in social and humanitarian knowledge. The Russian historical science, having saved up huge empirical material, as well as philosophical thought, began judgment of questions of ways and the fate of historical development of Russia in its relation to world historical process.

"The philosophizing historian" — such is, by Kareev's definition, has to be an image of the professional qualified specialist in historical science. In this regard at the beginning of the 20th century the feature of historical knowledge which it is possible to call characteristic not only for his contemporaries, but also for a condition of historical science at the beginning of the 21st century was noted: rather weak interest of historians in theoretical questions of historical science. Historians with mistrust treat theoretical abstractnesses as generations of metaphysical philosophy of history. It is obvious, however, that without use of theoretical prerequisites about essence of historical process to work in historical science Nesle -

zya if only business is not limited to criticism of sources and a konstatirovaniye of the facts. If the historical methodology draws to itself attention of historians on the value for practice of historical researches and constructions and if in this area the historians developed rules for the scientific activity, nevertheless the theoretical situations of historical process are insufficiently affected, and many do not even see need for such researches (Kareev, 1913: 12-13; Kareev, 2000: 31; Kareev, 1887: 298).

Optimum approach synthesis of theoretical and empirical knowledge in line with system and synthetic approach is represented. However concerning the last thesis quite often there are charges of eclecticism. Let's note that were exposed to criticism in eclecticism both Nikolay Ivanovich Kareev, and close to it on methodological approach his contemporary Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. And the criticism accompanied their views not only during a time of their vigorous creative activity, but also throughout all Soviet period in the history. In the matter the methodological position of Kareev was as follows. It as the researcher connected separate elements of various theories including contradictory. Similar "eclectic" approach, in the sense of the choice accepted by science from the provisions expressing different scientists, according to him, is the most effective, otherwise the science cannot develop. At the same time there is an important condition: the choice of theoretical aspects has to be carried out on the basis of logical or actual validity, but not for any moral or political reasons. Based on a priority of logic and the facts, but not feelings or interests, from what already expressed other researchers separate thoughts in a harmonious system get out and connect. It is not the eclecticism uniting the facts and the ideas under initial installation, namely synthesis logically and actually reasonable on -

the lozheniye which were exposed to scientific criticism and passed these tests (Kareev, 1913: 18-19).

Due to the disputes over an occasion of "eclecticism" it is appropriate to give opinion of the famous historian of science V.V. Zenkovsky. According to him, "eclecticism" of the Russian thinkers of the 19th century no more than imaginary "eclecticism": this reproach means only complete misunderstanding of synthetic plans of the Russian thinkers which at superficial attention to them ranked as eclecticism. Meanwhile there came the time of systems as organic binding of the saved-up material. Therefore there was a problem of organic synthesis of everything that was stated before in separate constructions. And synthesis in the form of a system (Zenkovsky, 1989: 1: 20; 2: 11).

The dispute on subjectivity and objectivism in Kareev's understanding belongs to a question of reality assessment — both real, and last. He was ranked as "subjective sociology". In reply to the Brown ev resolutely spoke against a subjective method, recognizing only an objective method leading to knowledge of the truth; the subjectivity was allowed only as an element of assessment of the phenomena at their konstatirovaniye on the basis of rules of logic and the objective facts, but not a way of their understanding. "The legal subjectivity", according to Kareev, is the ethical attitude towards reality. In this regard types of "illegal subjectivity" are opposed to it: subjectivity national (often coinciding with state), confessional and party (quite often identical with class or class) (Brown ev, 1916: 195, 220, 231; Kareev, 2000: 14).

the Simple konstatirovaniye of the fact is represented to

objective knowledge, judgment of the researcher of the fact — subjective. Applying it to history, under a name of the objective direction the simple konstatirovaniye of the facts and their interconnection, for whole stories what is called empirical creation of history is designated. Sub-

nothing but the researcher's relation to the objective established facts and to all empirically constructed history course will be the ektivny direction in that case. But objective reproduction of history breaks up to two moments: the science cannot be the simple catalog of objectively these facts — their choice, classification which in this case depend on the leading idea, i.e. on the subjective view deciding in each this case what is important is necessary and that is unimportant what facts and as have to be grouped what can be eliminated as insignificant (Kareev, 1887: 154-155). Thus, what was understood as "a subjective method" represents introduction of assessment into judgment of the reality having ethical character (Zenkovsky, 1989: 2: 252). "The legal subjectivity" of Ka-reev comes down to the subjective relation of the historian as scientist and the human person to the history of human acts and their consequences (Novikova, Sizemskaya, 2006: 60).

Konstatirovaniye of the facts, their choice and their assessment — are that three the main the moment of historical knowledge. Process of history has to be reproduced with objective reliability: the konstatirovaniye of the objective course of history cannot be substituted it for subjective designing. The subjective point of view indicates only the facts which have to be grouped with elimination of all others in the same area, but she cannot invent the relations between them which do not exist in fact (Kareev, 1887: 155-156).

LIST OF REFERENCES

Zenkovsky, V.V. (1989) History of the Russian philosophy. the 2nd prod. T. 1, 2. Paris.

Historian Marxist. (1929) T. 14.

Historian Marxist. (1931) T. 21.

Kareev, N. (1887) Main questions of philosophy of history. Part 1. Essence and problems of philosophy of history. the 2nd prod. SPb.

Kareev, N. (1913) Theory of historical knowledge. SPb.

Kareev, N. (1916) Historian (Theory of historical knowledge). the 2nd prod. SPb.

Kareev, N.I. (1994) The report on the Russian historical science in 50 years (1876-1926)//National history. 1994. No. 4.

Kareev, N.I. (2000) Istoriologiya (Theory of historical process)//Sociology of history of Nikolay Kareev. SPb.

Myagkov, G.P. (2000a) "Russian historical school": theory and history of development of school as scientific community: avtoref. yew.... Dr.s east. sciences. Kazan.

Myagkov, G. of the Item (2000) Scientific community in historical science: experience of "Russian historical school". Kazan.

Novikova, L.I., Sizemskaya, I.N. (2006) Essay of the Russian philosophy of history//Russian historiosophy: anthology. M

Pogodin, S.N. (1997) "Russian school" of historians: N.I. Kareev, I.V. Luchitsky, M.M. Kowalewski. SPb.

Sorokin, P.A. (1992) Long journey: autobiography. M

A sociological thought in Russia. (1978) L.

Feb, L. (1991) Fights for history. M

(To be continued)

Elmer Perez
Other scientific works: