Printer Friendly

History in Russia comes of age: institution-building, cosmopolitanism, and theoretical debates among historians in late imperial Russia.

In the late 1880s, Russian historiography entered a period of rapid change. This is well-known to both Western and Russian historians and requires no further demonstration. (1) It was also the post factum perception of contemporaries. The St. Petersburg historian I. I. Lappo described the 1890s, in particular, as a time when "Russian historical scholarship flourished mightily," which he attributed particularly to the opening of archives and the expanding number of academic positions at universities. (2) Comparing this period with earlier ones, we find that it was marked not only by a rising volume and quality of historical writings but also by two trends that, while obviously not encompassing all of this scholarship, were nonetheless dominant.

The first of these trends was a rapid historiographical opening to the West. This put an end, in many cases, to the relative isolation of the previous period, roughly the 1850s-80s, when the study of Russian history had developed under a kind of "protectionist" regime that nevertheless allowed it to develop its own periodization, sources, and specific terminology and problemics. As one might expect, the opening was felt most strongly by scholars of universal history, for whom chairs had gradually been established since the beginning of the 19th century and especially after 1835, alongside the establishment of chairs in Russian history. By the turn of the century, historians such as Pavel Vinogradov (1854-1925), a specialist on medieval England, or Nikolai Kareev (1850-1931), a historian of the French Revolution, had made such distinguished names for themselves in the West that the former held the Henry Maine Chair at Oxford from 1903 until his death in 1925, and the latter undertook research on the French peasantry and was published in France (as was Vinogradov in Great Britain). (3) This opening to Western Europe was reflected in the increasing frequency of foreign travel by "universalist" historians as well as in their lecture courses, such as those on the Middle Ages by Vasil'evskii and Grevs (on whom, more below) or Vinogradov's universal-history textbook. These historians were not shy about presenting their audiences with sweeping historiographic vistas. (4)

However, the opening to the West also touched specialists in Russian history of the generation sometimes called "the students of Kliuchevskii." As is well known, their teacher had a poor grasp of foreign languages and did not travel abroad. Increasing contact with German, French, and British universities and historical journals produced a minor intellectual revolution among the younger generation of Russian historians. In Russia itself, professors like Vinogradov systematically pushed their history students to read foreign literature and approach Russian and world history from a comparative perspective.

This revolution fueled the second trend to which I alluded earlier: the impressive developments in the study of social history that placed Russia, in Terence Emmons's view, at the forefront of the European historiography of the time. (5) Social history--or rather, the social history of institutions, for that was in fact the main thrust of the studies that Kliuchevskii initiated. The attractiveness and prestige of European (French, British, German) sociology accounted for much of this development. Leaving aside the historian, ethnographer, lawyer, but above all sociologist Maksim Kovalevskii, historians were often the first in Russia to discover the Western sociologists: Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer (who dominated the landscape of the human sciences beyond the turn of the century), Henry Maine, Emile Durkheim, and others. Western historians who might be considered social historians were also introduced into Russia, including Fustel de Coulanges, who was read, translated, discussed, and greatly admired, as well as Edward Augustus Freeman (honorary professor of history at St. Petersburg University), Georg Ludwig von Maurer, Georg Waitz, Karl Lamprecht, Frederic Seebohm, Frederic William Maitland, and others." Underlying this development was a profound urge to anchor the historiography of Russia within coherent systems--particularly ones that provided a standard for measuring the stages of a society's "development"--and thereby put Russia's distinctive characteristics to the test.

In my view, these trends in Russian historiography were particularly apparent in two sites, Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnoga prosveshcheniia (The Journal of the Ministry of Education, ZhMNP) and the Historical Society of St. Petersburg University. I focus on them because, in my view, both set themselves the explicit or implicit goal of breaking out of the ghettoization of Russian history as well as the isolation of the Russian historical profession, and they actively pursued these aims even if their outcomes were uneven--ZhMNP seems to have been a great success, whereas the society was largely a failure.

The "Two Schools" Thesis of Imperial Russian Historiography

Both ZhMNP and the society were located in St. Petersburg and organized mainly by Petersburgers. Is geography alone--the society being based at the capital city's unversity, and the education ministry's sponsorship of ZhMNP--enough to explain this preponderance, especially in relation to Moscow and its historians? In other words, was the outlook that I described earlier specific to St. Petersburg? Answering this question requires us to consider briefly a problem that has received much attention in Russia over the past two decades--the supposed existence of several Russian historiographic "schools" since the turn of the century. This issue was raised most prominently by St. Petersburg historians, who contrasted their own historical school, which they thought was based on the critical study of sources (istochnikovedenie) and was more rigorous in their treatment as well as more committed to exploring them empirically, with its counterpart in Moscow, which the Petersburgers believed was more inclined to the construction of historical theories, sometimes at the expense of the sources and facts. (7) Since then, certain Muscovite historians have also taken up this conception, albeit in much more moderate form. (8) The example of St. Petersburg has also found imitators at universities elsewhere in the former Russian empire--for example, Kiev (as we see in a recent study)," to the point where today's Russian academic landscape tends to break up explicitly into a series of "schools" that are often given a degree of weight as though they resembled, say, the historical school of Gottingen or the "positivist" ecole methodique in France.

Nowadays, St. Petersburg historians such as Aleksei Tsamutali, Viktor Paneiakh, Viktor Brachev, and others readily build on the works of Aleksandr Presniakov (a Petersburger) and Pavel Miliukov (a Muscovite) as well as Sigizmund Valk (another Petersburger), to validate their "two schools" thesis. (10) The two original "founding" texts underlying that thesis, however, actually have important disagreements. In his thesis defense speech of 1920, Presniakov emphasized what he called the "scientific realism" of the Petersburgers, that is, their respect for the sources independently of any theory that was preconceived or handed down by tradition. Miliukov in his memoirs, however, contrasted the blind--the French might say "positivist"--empiricism of some Petersburgers in the mold of Konstantin Bestuzhev-Riumin, whom he otherwise greatly respected, to the critical method from Gottingen that was represented in both Moscow and St. Petersburg. (11) The latter method, as is well-known, was far from promoting purely theoretical approaches but in fact advocated the critical examination of sources and hence considerable scientific rigor. Lastly, Miliukov made sure to point out that Kliuchevskii, whom he still saluted as a founding father despite their disagreements, had an influence that extended to the new generation in St. Petersburg--for example, Sergei Platonov. We should add that prior to the fall of the old regime, Presniakov showed substantial interest in the theory of history; and his 1908 obituary for Nikolai Pavlov-Sil'vanskii in ZhMNP reveals his deep intellectual engagement with, and respect for, comparative approaches in history and sociology, all of which is a far cry from Bestuzhev-Riumin's source studies or even the methodology of a Platonov. (12) It was no different with a historian like Aleksandr Lappo-Danilevskii, whom I discuss below. Lastly, one cannot help being struck that the "two schools" thesis generally ignores ancient historians and historians of medieval and early modern Europe. In Moscow, Vinogradov was at once a vigorous "theorist" of social history and an explorer of archives, since he was the first Russian to send his students to the British archives. In St. Petersburg, the same applies to Kareev and Grevs, and later Rostovtsev and others.

Presniakov and Miliukov wrote retrospectively and were among the only historians of their generation to express themselves in this way. If we examine texts from the early 20th century, what we find is not the idea of multiple historical schools but of a single Russian historical school. For example, in his obituary for three historians of his city, the St. Petersburg historian Nikolai Chechulin described them as eminent representatives of "Russian historical scholarship," not as bearers of a St. Petersburg standard, an idea that was clearly foreign at the time to historians to whom claiming a place for Russia in the world academic community mattered far more than did asserting local differences. (13) In the above-mentioned obituary, Presniakov credited Pavlov-Sil'vanskii with having provided many elements for a "fruitful reexamination of questions in universal history" (obshcheistaricheskie voprosy), thereby proving "that the study of Russian history is as important for scholarship in Western Europe as are the scholarly influences that flow in the opposite direction." (14) As for the rich and well-researched essay by Valk, it traces the birth of a St. Petersburg school whose scientific quality it emphasizes (thereby following Presniakov). (15) Far from considering only the historiography on Russia, however, it makes sure to encompass the totality of the scholarship from St. Petersburg, which means giving considerable space to the ancient historians and the historians of medieval and early modern Europe. In Valk's view, this school owed its existence to Vasil'evskii (to whom we will return later), who definitively established the "critical method" in Russia while also contributing greatly to situating Russia in the wider context of universal history. As used by Valk, "school" (a term he does not define) remains a weak notion that is more geographic than methodological.

The idea of an opposition between "schools" thus appears to be a retroactive historiographic construct that exaggerates, often in panegyric style, minor tendencies or nuances. It is true that Bestuzhev-Riumin and some of his students (in the academic, not the intellectual sense of the word) gave great weight to the study of sources, which they made into a new auxiliary science and that, similar to what was being done in France or Germany, they cared more about facts than problematics. It is also true, lastly, that personal enmities and, above all, the traditional rivalry between these cities may have had a part in the mainly retrospective way in which the historians defined their positions. (16) But that is all there is to the "schools." Indeed, how can we regard the meticulously researched works of the Muscovites Aleksandr Kizevetter and Mikhail Bogoslovskii as products of preconceived theories, or the ambitious comparative works of the Petersburger Pavlov-Sil'vanskii as purely empirical and narrow in focus? More important still, this conception would lead us to interpret Russian academic life as though its actors had remained attached to particular cities, so a man like Kareev, who was very "theoretical" and played an important role in St. Petersburg, would be labeled "Muscovite" merely because of his early training. This conception, though interesting for what it reveals about the intellectual history of the post-World War II period, seems to me to miss the issues that are essential in the development of early 20th-century historiography and that can be seen in a particularly revealing way in the two sites that I now discuss. (17)

The Journal of the Ministry of Education

By the turn of the century, ZhMNP had established itself as the premier Russian historical journal of the time. Russia lacked an authoritative journal like the venerable German Historische Zeitschrift or the French Revue histarique, which dated back to 1879. All the existing periodicals were exclusively devoted to Russian history; moreover, three of them were semi-popularizing (Russkii arkhiv, Russkaia starina, and Istoricheskii vestnik) and were in any event almost entirely devoted to publishing documents. Certain general-interest journals, such as Russkaia mysl', Vestnik Evropy, Russkoe bogatstvo, and Otechestvennye zapiski regularly published historical studies that only approached (but did not quite reach) the level of scholarly publications because they allowed for only limited footnotes. Besides, history or sociology could inevitably only ever occupy a modest place in them, even if they were on clearly topical subjects. The same could be said for the Izvestiia, Zapiski, and Uchenye trudy that were published as serials by various universities and the Academy of Sciences: they published history along with other scholarship, but they were not full-fledged scholarly journals that carried book reviews, news of current events in academia, and so on.

This is why ZhMNP played a role--imperfect, to be sure, but very real all the same--as a meeting place and legislator in the human sciences, particularly history and the history of literature. Established in 1834, this official monthly began in the late 1860s to include a scholarly section made up of scientific articles, including highly specialized studies. From the mid-1870s on, it acquired a distinctly historical orientation, most likely under the influence of its editor-in-chief, the historian of 18th-century Russia Leonid Maikov.

This tendency grew even stronger under the leadership of Vasilii Vasil'evskii (1838-99), who became editor-in-chief when Maikov resigned in 1890. Vasil'evskii left a strong personal imprint on ZhMNP. (18) A student of Mikhail Kutorga (1809-86, widely considered the father of ancient studies in Russia), professor at St. Petersburg University, and member of the Academy of Sciences from 1890 on, Vasil'evskii had started out as a historian of classical Greece and had heard the lectures of Mommsen and Droysen in Berlin and then of Adolph Schmidt in Jena. (19) Early on, however, he developed an interest in late antiquity, and then Byzantium, to which he devoted most of his later work as well as the journal Vizantiiskii vremennik, whose editor-in-chief he became in 1894. He is generally considered the founder of the Byzantinist school in Russia, since he counted among his students the famous Aleksandr Vasil'ev (1867-1953). (20) Vasil'evskii was the first in Russia to work on landed property in Byzantium. These evolving interests led him to medieval Russian and Slavic history.

Such a broad intellectual range, which did not inhibit depth, was more or less in keeping with the journal that Vasil'evskii edited, which retained its profile after he died--and indeed until the 1917 Revolution, especially since no one was able to establish another historical journal comparable to those in the West before the Great War. During his lifetime, Vasil'evskii was assisted by another faculty member from St. Petersburg University, Nikolai Chechulin (1863-1927). A historian of early Russia and the 18th century, Chechulin played an important part in editing the historical section before and after 1899. Vasil'evskii was further assisted by Sergei Platonov (1860-1933). (21) The precise functions of Chechulin and Platonov are not very clear from the documentation at our disposal. Platonov played an active part after 1890 and seems to have had a major role in the succession to Maikov, who had preceded Vasil'evskii at the head of ZhMNP. It was thanks to his mediation with Vasil'evskii that Miliukov was able quickly to publish his thesis in ZhMNP, as his correspondence with Platonov indicates. Some others, such as the historian of ancient times Sergei Zhebelev (1867-1941) and the historian of antiquity and the medieval West Ivan Grevs (1860-1941), also took an active part in editing ZhMNP.

Under Vasil'evskii's aegis, ZhMNP effectively became the venue in which many historians published their first work, especially their theses, and sometimes also further research that later appeared as monographs. If we consider only the historians of Russia, we find many outstanding historians of the turn of the century. Lappo-Danilevskii in 1884 published his first work there, and Platonov published his thesis on accounts of the Time of Troubles in 1887-88. Others include Miliukov's thesis on finance under Peter the Great (1891-92), several studies by M. A. D'iakonov on the peasantry in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries (1893-96), Presniakov's work (1895), F. I. Leontovich's studies on the peasantry of Lithuanian Rus' (1896-97), Pavlov-Sil'vanskii's first comparative work on feudalism (1900-2), and Bogoslovskii's work on local government in the 17th century (1903). These publications helped these historians become established in the profession and brought them considerable royalties, on the order of 100 to 180 rubles for a monograph-length article at the turn of the century. (22) Moreover, ZhMNP enjoyed a wide network of foreign subscribers, particularly in the Slavic countries, Germany, Great Britain, and to a lesser extent France. (23)

Vasil'evskii did not appear to favor any particular field of research, which can be explained by the "generalist" nature of ZhMNP, where works on literature, linguistics (philology), philosophy, geography, theology, and so on were also published. But history dominated, as we can see from Table 1. (24)

Though history was in first place throughout the period, it is apparent that its share increased even further in the 1890s, when Vasil'evskii edited ZhMNP, and then decreased markedly after his death. Though his death may have been the chief cause of the shift, the growing variety of historical publications at the very end of Russia's old regime may also have been a factor. "History" included all subfields within the discipline. Russian history predominated, representing 56 percent of the articles on historical topics published between 1867 and 1891 and even increasing to 67 percent under Vasil'evskii, undoubtedly due to ZhMNP's success as well as the increasing output in Russian history, but ancient, Byzantine, and medieval European history was also well represented.

Most Petersburg historians, but also many from Moscow and the provinces, contributed fairly regularly to ZhMNP with major articles or at least book reviews or academic news. The journal, in fact, had a voluminous and rigorous book-review section, as well as carrying obituaries of Russian and foreign scholars and a substantial section on current events in academia, particularly in Europe, which included coverage of conferences on ethnography, archaeology, and history.

Recent foreign books were often reviewed. In addition, Russian historians published review articles, some of them quite lengthy, that surveyed the Western historiography on this or that question. From the 1880s until the early 1900s, Vinogradov, his student Aleksandr Savin (1873-1923), and occasionally Dmitrii Petrushevskii (1863-1942) (25)--all of them specialists on medieval and early modern England--wrote regularly in ZhMNP about developments in historiography in the West generally (Vinogradov), and more specifically in Great Britain (Savin and Petrushevksii). (26) Even more remarkably, historians specializing in Russian history sometimes published articles on foreign scholars, such as Presniakov's article on Pierre Lacombe's programmatic book De l'histaire consideree comme science ([History Considered as a Science] Paris, 1886). (27)

The editors of ZhMNP never announced what orientation they would have liked to give it; the journal's status as an official publication evidently prohibited this, as did Vasil'evskii's own temperament. Even so, a content analysis shows that it was here that social, particularly agrarian, history achieved full respectability, for few other publications of the time offered so many first-rate monographs in these fields as well as theoretical and methodological reflections by social historians. Certain articles read like programmatic texts. In his study of landed property in Rome, Ivan Grevs noted new trends in ancient studies that emphasized socioeconomic issues. (28) Pavel Vinogradov was no doubt among the first in Russia to use, deliberately and systematically, the term "social history" (sotsial'naia istoriia) to characterize what he defined as a new historiographic orientation in Europe. (29) This is how he described the birth of the new discipline: "social history deals mainly with two aspects of the life of society: the legal capacity [pravosposobnost'] of varous social classes and their economic situation." Thereupon he at once cited Kovalevskii, who was a student of Henry Maine and helped make Maine's work known in Russia: "In the works on English history by M. M. Kovalevskii, whose profession is teaching law, the history of economic life prevails decisively over the history of legal norms." (30) Legal history became the social history of law. The recourse to European sociology was openly recognized. For example, in his obituary for Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, Presniakov took care to indicate that the deceased had "prepared for the study of history in the school of sociology" by reading Henry T. Buckle and especially Spencer. (31) Durkheim and his Annee sociologique were introduced through ZhMNP from its first issue in 1898. The historian F. Zigel' wrote in his review: "This new publication can help bring together sociology and certain specialized sciences that currently, to their mutual disadvantage, remain apart. This pertains particularly to history. Historians need to be persuaded that sociologists are not afraid to deal with minutiae, but facts have meaning for them only insofar as they relate to patterns and laws. The historian needs to realize that one cannot simply describe without also juxtaposing, that history can be a science only inasmuch as it explains and there can be no explaining without comparing." (32)

This call to comparison was not advertised by ZhMNP, but the journal's very composition often suggested it and, one might say, put it into practice. The old project of a universal history that could account for the evolution of humanity found new nourishment here. Ivan Grevs, who contributed regularly to ZhMNP and taught universal history in St. Petersburg, began his course on medieval history with a plea for a universal history that was truly global: quoting Ranke, he wrote that its "depictions of the lived experience of all peoples and times in their interconnectedness ... [should] form a unified whole" and include all its facets--sociopolitical, economic, and material as well as religious and moral, scientific, and artistic. If it was impossible to be all-encompassing, the well-trained historian should nonetheless always keep a universalistic historical point of view present in his mind. (33) In an earlier, lengthy review article devoted to Western historiography, Pavel Vinogradov had similarly taken Ranke and his Weltgeschichte as his starting point, but this time to criticize it: in his quest to present a history of humanity that showed a "universal-historical life that is transmitted from one nation to the next," he argued, Ranke had not paid enough attention to the "inner development of individual states" and failed especially to analyze "socio-political formations" such as the "great economic transformation of ancient society under the emperors." (34) Thus, in Vinogradov's view, social history alone was capable of bringing to fruition the great project of a universal history.

These Russian historians believed that the comparative study of social (especially agrarian) phenomena across geographic and chronological boundaries constituted the supreme historical methodology of the end of the 19th century. (35) They drew their inspiration not only from French, British, and German sociology but also from Russian authors like Kovalevskii or Ivan Luchitskii, whose studies of rural communities openly represented themselves as a social science that simultaneously embraced sociology, history, and legal studies. Particular social formations "were rooted too deeply in human nature" (36) or even, in terms that were more sociologically ambitious, were driven by the same "laws," so that a single basic formation, such as the rural community, constituted "one of the stages, or more precisely, a series of developmental stages through which all people inevitably pass." (37) History should therefore accept sociology's challenge and leave the specific behind in order to reach the general. World history especially, but national history as well, built bridges in all directions, because each aspired to a synthesis that would lead to the universal. Vasil'evskii's student Fedor Uspenskii (1845-1928) could thus quote his teacher to affirm that the study of agrarian relations was not only a "task for Byzantine history but also for universal and Russian history." Moreover, Uspenskii began this same study of Byzantine landholding relations by citing Spencer in support of the argument that the whole could not be understood without its parts, just as no part could be understood without the whole--that is, without universal history. (38)

It is striking that concepts and terms previously reserved for Russian institutions--obshchina (commune),> pistsovye knigi (land registries), (40) barshchina (corvee), (41) otkhozhie promysly (seasonal labor), (42) pozemel'nyi and podushnyi nalog (land and capitation tax), (43) and others--were hereafter applied indifferently to other contexts, such as the Roman and Byzantine empires and Western medieval or non-European societies. Specialists in Western history deliberately used Russian terms in their reviews of Western books. Savin, for example, not only translated "community" as obschchina, which was normal, but also rendered "virgate holdings" as nadely and used the very "Russian" expressions krugovaia poruka (collective liability) and cherespoloshoe vladenie (strip farming). (44)

These studies were a response to the challenge from the nascent discipline of sociology and from economic studies, but also to the current relevance and acuity of the agrarian and social question in Russia. Contemporaries were conscious of this. Thus Greys could write in 1895 in the preface to his study of landed property in Rome:
   Phenomena in the lives of ancient peoples that remain far from
   fully understood include the social history of their agrarian
   system.... Not only has historical scholarship yet to give us a
   general history of landed property in Roman antiquity, but Rome's
   economic history more generally has received too little attention
   from scholars.... The idea that we need to examine carefully the
   socioeconomic aspects of human life has arisen only recently among
   our scholars [in Russia]. This turn has been due in significant
   measure to the influence of the most recent advances in political
   economy and statistics, and even more broadly, to the importance
   that questions about society's economic organization have acquired
   in the practical life and public thinking of our time. (45)

The Historical Society of St. Petersburg University

The Historical Society of St. Petersburg University, which opened in 1889, was in many ways a site where ZhMNP's distinctive features showed up even more clearly, at least in the intentions of those who established it. (46) Its first elected chairman was Vasil'evskii, which is indicative of the association's intellectual kinship with ZhMNP and the important role played in it by scholars of universal history. But its principal founder was Kareev, who managed, moreover, to impose himself as chairman at the second meeting of the founding members, once Vasil'evskii had resigned. (47)

Kareev had traveled abroad on several occasions and naturally got to know a number of foreign academics. Kovalevskii, with whom he was very close, (48) introduced him in France to Fustel de Coulanges and to Alphonse Aulard, the historian of the French Revolution. Later, Kareev developed ties to Gabriel Monod, the editor-in-chief of Revue historique, and corresponded with him on several occasions. When Monod asked him to find a correspondent for the journal who would agree to write regular reviews of Russian historiography, Kareev proposed himself for the job. (49) Still later, Kareev met Charles-Victor Langlois and Charles Seignobos, both leaders of the so-called ecole methodique, and--from a completely different "camp"--Henri Berr, editor-in-chief of the journal La synthese historique. The latter relationship had the consequence that Kareev published a favorable review of Berr's book La synthese en histoire ([Synthesis in History] Paris, 1911). (50) Kareev could not help being interested in the ideas of Berr, whose aim was to go beyond the mere study of facts, and he could sympathize with Berr's idea of a total history that would transcend the traditional framework of universal history. Although he had fewer ties to Germany, Kareev's memoirs also highlight his meetings with Lamprecht.

Aside from Aulard and (later) Albert Mathiez, Kareev was thus in touch with some of the historians at the center of the historiographical debates of the time. Not only were they the authors of major works of historical scholarship, but in the case of Monod and Berr, they also played a major part in editing historical journals. (51) Kareev took great interest in the theory of knowledge in history, which formed the subject of his thesis and several subsequent presentations and publications at the Historical Society, and tried in particular to define the specific place of history and sociology within the "social sciences." (52) He was keenly interested in sociology: he was close to Kovalevskii and familiar with Rend Worms, Gabriel Tarde, Alfred Espinas, and Lester Ward but seems to have missed the turning point represented by Durkheim as well as the work of Max Weber. He would go on to devote many articles and several books to sociology. Later, in 1899, he became vice-president of the International Institute of Sociology, where Worms was the dominant personality. (53)

The society was established officially by ten professors from St. Petersburg University, (54) but in practice by a small group that Kareev had brought together. (55) His personality left a strong imprint on this initial group--hence the participation of V. I. Semevskii, who was banned from teaching because of his political opinions, and the strong involvement of specialists in universal history such as the "patriarch of Slavic studies" Vladimir Lamanskii, Georgii Forsten, Grevs, and others, all of whom belonged to his group. The society also benefited in some measure from older, informal networks. One of these was the Student Society for Literary Studies (Studencheskoe nauchnoliteraturnoe obshchestvo), which had been formed in 1881 and closed down in 1887. Among its members had been Lappo-Danilevskii, V. V. Vodovozov, A. A. Kaufman, Grevs, S. F. Ol'denburg, and Chechulin, some of whom had a student-teacher relationship with Kareev, and the professors V. I. Sergeevich and E. E. Zamyslovskii. (56) We find all of them in the Historical Society as well, and they specialized in very different subfields. The society likewise benefited from the membership of historians who had taken to meeting under the name of"Circle of Russian Historians" (Kruzhok russkikh istorikov) and were students of Bestuzhev-Riumin and Vasil'evskii, among whom we might note Platonov, Vasilii Druzhinin, Chechulin, Lappo-Danilevskii, Evgenii Shmurlo, S. M. Seredonin, and others. (57) It seems to have been this group that proposed making Vasil'evskii chairman and came into conflict with Kareev, whom Platonov and later Presniakov depicted in the most unflattering terms, although most of them--even Platonov--continued their membership in the society. As Platonov later wrote, the society's goal of bringing together all historians could not be criticized and made participation obligatory. (58)

At the time it was established, this organization was not only without precedent in St. Petersburg, it had no equivalent anywhere in Russia, since the other historical societies that were much older and operated in Moscow (the Society for Russian History and Antiquities [Obshchestvo istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh]) and St. Petersburg (the Imperial Russian Historical Society [Imperatorskoe russkoe istoricheskoe obshchestvo]) (59) were exclusively devoted to ancient and early modern Russian history and their journals mainly published documents. (60)

As we have seen, the founding members of the society included both "universalist" historians such as Grevs, Forsten, Modestov, Veselovskii, and others and historians of Russia, such as Lappo-Danilevskii (who was particularly active in the society as secretary), Chechulin, Platonov, D'iakonov, Sergeevich, Shmurlo, and others. (61) Before long, the society had 162 members, almost all of them professional historians. By the mid-1890s, the figure had risen to 275. Most of the outstanding historians of the time joined, including (in addition to those already noted) Kutorga, Vinogradov, Uspenskii, Vasilii Modestov, and later Vladimir Ikonnikov, Semevskii, Kovalevskii, Sergei Rozhdestvenskii, Vladimir Ger'e, Miliukov, Vladimir Antonovich, Luchitskii, Dmitrii Bagalei, Lamanskii, Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, Presniakov, Mikhail Priselkov, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovskii, Vladislav Buzeskul, Mikhail Rostovtsev--in other words, historians of antiquity, medieval and early modern Europe, Byzantium, and Russia. To these we might add specialists in Western and Russian philology (Aleksandr Veselovskii, Aleksei Shakhmatov), Orientalists (Vasilii Bartol'd), sociologists (Aleksandr Kaufman), experts in law (Sergei Muromtsev), and others. Kliuchevskii's absence is not particularly suprising and has various possible explanations, including his low opinion of Kareev and especially his dislike for this type of endeavor. (62)

Petersburgers made up a large contingent, but not a majority (57 of 162 members in the first year), nor were they alone in being active. For example, D'iakonov was a professor at Dorpat University, while Vinogradov and Miliukov taught in Moscow and were likewise active in the society (especially Vinogradov).

The Historical Society did not try to move beyond history's disciplinary boundaries but sought rather to unify the discipline; bring the histories of Western Europe, antiquity, and Russia closer together; and provide a forum for theoretical reflections on historical methods--three goals that were ultimately one and the same. These three principles were articulated both in the society's bylaws and in Kareev's many speeches. (63) According to him, the convergence of the different branches of history was to take place on the basis of certain methodological premises: that, Slavophile ideas notwithstanding, the history of the Slavs and Russians formed part of universal history; and that ancient history should not end with the Classical period but link up with medieval and early modern history, if only because of its retrospective significance for the Renaissance. (64) The project for a general theory of historical knowledge, which the society made a centerpiece of its program, not only reflected Kareev's preferences but also responded to genuinely widespread demand. Moreover, after the 1905 Revolution, several Russian historians-"national" as well as "universalist" historians--published treatises on historical knowledge in the image of their French or German predecessors, among them Lappo-Danilevskii, who was a pillar of the society. (65)

The highly ambitious Kareev occupied a dominant position in the early life of the society, which may have had a negative impact on the attitude of his colleagues. But the goals he pursued were shared by many historians, both young and less young: the emphasis on social history, on sociology as a discipline close to social history and a source of inspiration for it, and on the need to find a place for Russian national history in the vast field of universal history. Evgenii F. Shmurlo (1853-1934), one of the society's founding members and later professor at Dorpat University in 1891, gave an inaugural lecture on "The Relationship between Russian and Universal History" where he cited the natural sciences as a model for transcending the division between "external" and "internal" history and declared that Russian history needed to be studied "from the standpoint of its analogies and differences with universal history." He thus embraced the project of a global history that would no longer respect the divisions created by the German historiography of the late 18th and the 19th centuries: "At bottom, all history is one--it is the history of mankind, and it is wrong to distinguish between peoples with and without history." (66)

Kareev hoped to establish a publication for the society that would be comparable to Historische Zeitschrift or Revue historique. (67) In fact, the society did create its own journal, Istoricheskoe obozrenie, which appeared irregularly between 1890 and 1916 (for a total of 21 volumes) and exhibited a degree of dynamism during its first decade. Kareev was its driving force and leading editor. In a long, quasi-programmatic article in the first issue, Kareev and Georgii Forsten listed historical journals that appeared outside Russia, paying particular attention to three aspects that they deemed essential and thought were best represented by Historische Zeitschrift and Revue historique: their open and universal character, which embraced all subfields of history; their role as a forum for discussions among historians, including ones on questions of the theory of history; and their openness to scholarship from other countries, particularly through their sections for book reviews and on current events in the profession. Kareev and Forsten also deplored the lack of awareness in most foreign countries about Russian historical scholarship. (68)

The society and the editors of its journal sought to keep the Russian academic world abreast of the scholarly life of Western Europe and to inform Europeans about the work done by Russian academics. In 1892, the journal published a lengthy article signed by Grevs and Kareev's student P. D. Pogodin about the teaching of history in institutions of higher learning in Paris. It was obviously intended to mark the opening of a section on this subject. Some passages can be read as a program of sorts: the "time spent studying abroad is a very important--indeed, often decisive--moment in the scholarly development of an aspiring Russian academic," because the "young academic goes abroad and suddenly finds himself in an incomparably more complex and rich cultural space, in an academic milieu where life is incomparably more intense and variegated than what he is accustomed to in his homeland." (69)

It is interesting to analyze the topics on which presentations were made at the society's meetings. Out of 359 presentations, 109 dealt with universal history, 172 were on Russian history, and 25 on the "theory of history," with the remainder divided among teaching-related issues, reports on current events in academia, and topics from disciplines other than history (philology, ethnography, sociology). In the three main categories mentioned above, which comprised 306 presentations, 84 (i.e., more than one-quarter of the total) were devoted to social and economic history or questions of sociology and economics. Of these 84 presentations, 54 were on agrarian history, including 5 in Russian history that dealt with the study of land registries. (70) Many presentations, along with the ensuing debates, were summarized in the columns of the journal. For example, in March 1901, Pavlov-Sil'vanskii presented a comparative discussion of "feudal relationships in ancient Russia," which was apparently followed by a lively discussion. (71) He returned to this topic in 1906. (72) The society also published book reviews, as well as--much less typical for Russia--reviews of inaugural lectures, academic debates, thesis defenses, and the curricula of various universities.

The society was at its height until 1899, after which it declined to a certain degree, in part because the liberal Kareev was banned from the university until 1906. (73) The position that Kareev occupied, his ambition, and his poor relations with some of his colleagues, particularly Platonov, also contributed to the declining interest. (74)

Kareev subsequently had to recognize the society's two principal failures. (75) On the one hand, its journal was largely unable to play its intended role, mainly for lack of money but also, perhaps, out of persistent insularity and conservative habits. On the other, the society's division into sections--in particular that of national history, which was the largest and most homogeneous, and the much more disparate one of universal history--tended to reproduce traditional cleavages and prevented the society, whose general assemblies became more rare after the turn of the century, from really playing the part of the crucible for innovation intended by Kareev. The fact remains, however, that, while partly abortive, this experiment illumines a moment--the 1890s--when history, ennobled and relevant to current events, became a site where new demands were raised and new horizons opened up.


This has been a brief overview of a publication and a learned society, of which the former played a major role in Russian historiography's movement toward social history and integration into universal history, while the latter sheds a revealing light on that movement. ZhMNP and the Historical Society of St. Petersburg University were certainly not the only places where Russian and universal history crossed paths within a grand project of social history. The study of Russian learned societies (especially the historical ones) in the years before 1914, a field where almost all the research remains to be done, may yet surprise us in this respect. The Ecole superieure russe des sciences sociales in Paris, which Maksim Kovalevskii founded in 1901, was also a place of cross-fertilization among the social sciences, among Russian and Western academics, and among Russian specialists on Russia and other countries. (76)

The journal for global history of which Kareev had dreamed finally came into being in 1916 in the form of the Russkii istoricheskii zhurnal, whose existence was cut short by the 1917 Revolution and which brought together most of the important historians of the time, except Platonov. Russian historiography's release from isolation, which went hand in hand with growing professionalism and the creation of formal structures, marked the arrival in Russia of a new generation of ancient, medieval, and early modern historians of both Western and Eastern Europe. Although fragile, this movement progressed at a spectacular pace.

By the 1890s, Russian historiography had built up enough strength to speak with a full voice in the European context. It is no surprise that this change of mentality--a rising spirit of openness--revived and rejuvenated the old project of a universal history, but this time one in which Russia would fully find its place.

Translated by Vasilis Vaurkoutiotis

Universite de Geneve

5, rue de Candolle

1211 Geneve


Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales

54, boulevard Raspail

75006 Paris


(1) Much has been published on this subject in the last 20 years. General works on Russian historiography include, in particular, A. N. Tsamutali, Bor'ba napravlenii v russkoi istoriografii v period imperializrna (Leningrad: Nauka, 1986); G. P. Miagkov, "Russkaia istoricheskaia shkola"--metodologicheskie i ideino-politicheskie pozitsii (Kazan: Izdatel'stvo Kazanskogo universiteta, 1988); V. P. Korzun, Obrazy istoricheskoi nauki na rubezhe XIX-XX vv.: Analiz otechestvennykh istoriograficheskikh kontseptsii (Ekaterinburg and Omsk: Izdatel'stvo Ural'skogo universiteta, 2000); Terence Emmons, "Kliuchevskii's Pupils," in Historiography of Imperial Russia: The Profession and Writing of History in a Multinational State, ed. Thomas Sanders (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1999), 118-45; A. N. Shakhanov, Russkaia istoricheskaia nauka vtoroi poloviny XIX-nachala XX veka: Moskovskii i Peterburgskii universitety (Moscow: Nauka, 2003); V. S. Brachev and A. Iu. Dvornichenko, Kafedra russkoi istorii Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta (1834-2004) (St. Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2004). Other works are cited below.

(2) I. 1. Lappo, "Pamiati B. A. Evreinova, A. A. Kizevettera i E. F. Shmurlo," Zapiski Russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva v Prage, no. 3 (1931), 18, cited in Shakhanov, Russkaia istoricheskaia nauka, 5.

(3) Nicolai Ivanovitch Kareiew, Les paysans et la question paysanne en France clans le dernier quart du XVIIIe siecle (Paris: V. Giard and E. Briere, 1899). On the two historians, see the entries by A. V. Antoshchenko, "Vinogradov Pavel Gavrilovich," and L. P. Lapteva, "Kareev Nikolai Ivanovich," in Istoriki Rossii: Biografii, ed. A. A. Chernobaev (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001), 351-61 and 336-43; and the entries by L. S. Moiseenkova (on Vinogradov) and V. P. Zolotarev (on Kareev) in Portrety istorikov: Vremia i sud by, 2 vols., 2: Vseobshchaia istoriia, ed. G. N. Sevostianov, L. P. Marinovich, and L. T. Mil'skaia (Moscow and Jerusalem: Gesharim, 2000), 116-24, 276-23. See also V. P. Zolotarev, Istoricheskaia kontseptsiia N. L Kareeva: Soderzhanie i evoliutsiia (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1988); Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev, chelovek, uchenyi, obshchestvennyi deiatel': Materialy pervoi Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, posviashchennoi 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia N. L Kareeva, Syktyvkar, 5-6 dekabria 2000 g. (Syktyvkar: Syktyvkarskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2002); and S. N. Pogodin, "Russkaia shkola" istorikov: N. L Kareev, L V. Luchitskii, M. M. Kovalevskii (St. Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi tekhnicheskii universitet, 1997).

(4) See the following sets of lithographed lectures: V. G. Vasil'evskii, Lektsii po srednei istorii (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1880-81); Vasil'evskii, Istoriia srednikh vekov (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1883-84, 1891-93); Ivan M. Greys, Istoriia srednikh vekov: Lektsii, chitannye na SanktPeterburgskikh kursakh v 1892-1893g. (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1892); P. Vinogradov, Uchebnik vseobshchei istorii (Moscow: Kartsev, 1913).

(5) Terence Emmons, "The Problem of 'Russia and the West' in Russian Historiography (With Special Reference to M. I. Rostovtsev and P. N. Miliukov)," in The Cultural Gradient: The Transmission of Ideas in Europe, 1789-1991, ed. Catherine Evtukhov and Stephen Kotkin (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 108.

(6) See, for example, Ivan Grevs's review of Fustel's work on the colonate in Zhurnal Ministerstva naradnogo prosvesheheniia (ZhMNP) (November-December 1886): 347-53.

(7) On the problem of the St. Petersburg and Moscow "schools," see the excellent and balanced overview in E. A. Rostovtsev, A. S. Lappo-Danilevskii i peterburgskaia istoricheskaia shkola (Riazan': P. A. Tribunskii, 2004), 32-47, which includes a complete bibliography for the period discussed in this article, of which only a few titles are discussed here. The author argues that while two schools did indeed exist, they are conventionally presented within too schematic a typology and chronology. Both of them, he argues, coexisted in St. Petersburg, where--as Terence Emmons also notes in "Kliuchevskii's Pupils"--the influence of Kliuchevskii (who was not, strictly speaking, a "theorist") made itself felt through the work of D'iakonov and Platonov. Lappo-Danilevskii stood somewhere between the empiricist and theoretical schools. The author thus seriously chips away at the usual arguments for the "two schools" thesis, though he could have gone farther and found the very existence of these two schools to be largely mythical.

(8) See, for example, D. A. Gumov, "Ob istoricheskoi shkole Moskovskogo universiteta," Vestnik Maskovskogo universiteta, Seriia istorii, no. 8 (1993): 40-53. Western historians have also adopted the idea of "schools," although without giving it the same weight as in Russia. See, for example, Thomas Bohn, Russische Geschichtswissenschaft yon 1880 bis 1905: Pavel Miljukov und die Moskauer Schule (Cologne: Bohlau, 1998).

(9) S. I. Mikhal'chenko, Kievskaia shkola v rossiiskoi istoriografii (N. B. Antonovich, M. V. Dovnar-Zapol'skii i ikh ucheniki) (Moscow: Prometei; Briansk: Izdatel'stvo Brianskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 1997).

(10) See, for example, V. M. Paneiakh, "lakov Salomonovich Lur'e i peterburgskaia istoricheskaia shkola," in Istoriograficheskie etiudy (St. Petersburg: Evropeiskii universitet v Sankt-Peterburge and Aleteiia, 2005), 152-65 (first published in In memoriam: Sbornik pamiati Ia. S. Lur'e [Paris: Atheneum; St. Petersburg: Feniks, 1997], 133-46). Paneiakh argues that the "famous St. Petersburg historical school" was formed over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries and flourished "during its last decades due to great St. Petersburg historians" who specialized in Russian history, such as Platonov, Lappo-Danilevskii, Aleksei Shakhmatov, Nikolai Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, Presniakov, and many others. He cites Valk for details on the school and Presniakov for an articulation of its core principles (153-54). See also Paneiakh, "Boris Aleksandrovich Romanov i Ivan Ivanovich Smirnov," in Istoriograficheskie etiudy, 187-222 (first published in 1997, in U istochnika: Sbornik statei v chest' Sergeia Mikhailovicha Kashtanova, no. 1 [Moscow: Signal, 1997], 490-545); Paneiakh, Tvorehestvo i sud'ba istorika: Boris Aleksandravich Romanov (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2000); and A. N. Tsamutali, "Peterburgskaia istoricheskaia shkola," in Intellektual'naia elita Sankt-Peterbuga, pt. 1 (St. Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburskii universitet ekonomiki i finansov, 1993), 138-52. See also the studies of V. S. Brachev, who sees a political significance (liberals versus conservatives) in the opposition between Moscow and St. Petersburg: Russkii istorik S. E Platanov. Uchenyi, pedagog, chelovek (St. Petersburg: Nestor, 1997); and "Nasha universitetskaia shkola russkikh istorikov" i ee sud'ba (St. Petersburg: Stomma, 2001).

(11) p. N. Miliukov, Vospominaniia, 2 vols. (Moscow: Sovremennik, 1990), 1: 161-62.

(12) A. Presniakov, "N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii (Nekrolog)," ZhMNP (December 1908): 11-17. This is not the place to give this brief but dense article the attention it deserves. Presniakov retraces the intellectual development of Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, whose comparative studies of feudalism he saw as moving progressively from a synchronous method that was inherited from sociology to a historian's approach, which was more complex because it had to incorporate into the synchronous method but without displacing it--the study of the development of societies over time.

(13) N. Chechulin, Pamiati uchitelei: K. N. Bestuzhev-Riumin, V. G. Vasil'evskii, L. N. Maikov (St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorokhodov, 1901), 6.

(14) Presniakov, "N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii (Nekrolog)," 15.

(15) S. N. Valk, "Istoricheskaia nauka v Leningradskom universitete za 125 let," in his Izbrannye trudy po istoriografii i istochnikovedeniiu (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2000), 7-106 (first published in Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi universitet: Trudy iubileinoi nauchnoi sessii LGU. Sektsiia istoricheskikh nauk [Leningrad: Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1948], 3-79).

(16) For example, Platonov complained about the scornful attitude of the Muscovites. See his letter to Miliukov of 1 March 1890, where he describes their "haughtiness [vysokomerie] toward the academic milieu where I was trained": V. P. Korzun, ed., Pis'ma russkikh istorikov (S. F. Platonov, P. N. Miliukov) (Omsk: Omskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2003), 205. He was aiming here at Kliuchevskii, who also gave the Muscovites (his students) plenty of grounds for complaint.

(17) Shakhanov, Russkaia istoricheskaia nauka, 321-27 and 393-407, strongly questions the conventional conception by giving many examples of "overlap" between the schools. He attributes the urge to categorize historians by "schools" to a desire to overcome the categorization by political affiliation that was typical of the Soviet era (392). While persuasive, this hypothesis probably does not fully explain a phenomenon that I would also associate with a regionalist problematic that was specific to St. Petersburg.

(18) On Vasil'evskii's career, see the obituary by Vasilii Ivanovich Modestov (who was close to Vasil'evskii after teaching at St. Petersburg University until 1889, when he became professor of Latin at Odessa University) in ZhMNP (January 1902): 134-68; and the obituary by Nikolai Chechulin in Novoe uremia (15 May 1899), reproduced in Pamiati uchitelei, 9-13. See also V. Buzeskul, "Pamiati V. G. Vasil'evskogo," Khar'kovskie gubernsleie vedomosti, no. 132 (1899) (of which I used an offprint); and S. F. Platonov, Vasilii Grigorievich Vasil'evskii (St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorokhodov, 1900), containing Platonov's speech about Vasil'evskii to the Russian Archaeological Society in November 1899.

(19) My principal source on ancient studies in Russia is the very thorough study by Eduard Frolov, Russkaia nauka ob antichnosti (St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo S.-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 1999).

(20) On this question, see for example L. V. Isakova, G. L. Kurbatov, and G. B. Lebedeva, "100 let vizantinovedeniia v LGU," Ocherki po istorii Leningradskogo universiteta, 8 vols. (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1962-), 3: 26-39.

(21) In a letter to Vsevolod F. Miller, a Moscow University professor and future academician and director of the Lazarev Institute, Platonov wrote that the editorial work was done by Vasil'evskii and himself; see S. F. Platonov, Perepiska s istorikami, 1: Pis'ma S. F. Platonova 1883-1930, ed. V. G. Bukhert (Moscow: Nauka, 2003), 29-30 (letter of 27 June 1890). On the publication of Miliukov's thesis, see his correspondence with Platonov, in Pis'ma russkikh istorikov, e.g., 203-4 (letter from Platonov of 10 February 1890); in addition, Miliukov's letter to Platonov of 25 February discusses the succession to Maikov (38), and Platonov's letter of 4 June 1890 describes the work of the new editorial team (219). From two letters from Platonov to M. A. D'iakonov, it seems that Platonov was very active in helping to edit ZhMNP; the second praises Chechulin's work as assistant editor; Platonov, Perepiska s istorikami, 1: 33, 44-45 (letters of 1 May 1891 and 25-26 October 1895).

(22) As one can see from the journal's financial records: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (St. Petersburg, RGIA) f. 742, op. 2, dd. 2 and 3. For example, Ivan Greys received 162.50 rubles for the first part of his article on landed property in ancient Rome, which appeared in February 1895 (RGIA f. 742, op. 2, d. 36, 1.33). Most unfortunately, the ZhMNP archives contain very little correspondence on scholarly matters.

(23) As shown in the list of 61 free subscriptions and the exchange agreements of the journal (RGIA f. 742, op. 2, d. 235, n.d.).

(24) Calculated from ZhMNP's tables of contents based on their system of classifications. Only the scholarly part of the journal is included, not the official section (which came directly from the ministry) or the section on "teaching." This leaves out obituaries, conference reports, history of art, and church history (which appeared under the rubric of "Theology"), but history's role would be even greater if these were included.

(25) On these two historians, see Portrety istorikov, 2:143-54 (by M. V. Vinokurova) and 133-42 (by L. T. Mil'skaia).

(26) See, for example, the long review article by Vinogradov, "Ocherki zapadno-evropeiskoi istoriografii," ZhMNP (August 1883): 390-408; (September 1883): 160-92; (October 1883): 371-85; (November 1883): 176-98; (January 1884): 237-62. Savin continued the tradition, almost 20 years later, for example in "Sotsial'naia istoriia Anglii XV i XVI veka v novoi istoriografii," ZhMNP (January 1901): 318-44. See also Petrushevskii's significant review of Vinogradov: (Paul Vinogradoff), Villainage in England: Essays in Mediaeval English History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1892): "Novoe issledovanie o proiskhozhdenii feodal'nogo stroia," ZhMNP (December 1892): 307-76, as well as his other articles of the same type on the "decay of feudalism" that appeared between October 1896 and March 1897.

(27) ZhMNP (January 1895): 188-210.

(28) Ivan Grevs, "Ocherki iz istorii rimskogo zemlevladeniia vo vremena Imperii," ZhMNP (February 1895): 81 n. 2.

(29) p. Vinogradov, "Issledovaniia po sotsial'noi istorii Anglii v srednie veka," published in ZhMNP in 1886-87 and then as a separate work (St. Petersburg: V. S. Balashev, 1887).

(30) Vinogradov, "Sotsial'naia istoriia Anglii XV i XVI veka v novoi istoriografii," ZhMNP (October 1885): 324.

(31) ZhMNP (November 1908): 12.

(32) ZhMNP (January 1899): 481-93, quotation on 483.

(33) Greys, Istoriia srednikh vekov, 8-9.

(34) P. G. Vinogradov, "Ocherki zapadno-evropeiskoi istoriografii," ZhMNP (June 1884): 245-46.

(35) P. G. Vinogradov, "Issledovaniia po sotsial'noi istorii Anglii v srednie veka," ZhMNP (May 1886): 1.

(36) This phrase appears in the Byzantinist Fedor Uspenskii's preface to his study of land registers in Byzantium, "Iz istorii krest'ianskogo zemlevladeniia v Vizantii," ZhMNP (January 1884): 30.

(37) Ibid., 57-58.

(38) ZhMNP (January 1882): 31.

(39) From the early 1880s on, Vinogradov frequently used this term in speaking of England, as did Luchitskii with France and Kovalevskii in a world perspective.

(40) See Fedor Uspenskii, "Sledy pistsovykh knig v Vizantii," ZhMNP (January 1884): 1-43; and, two years later and in connection with England, Vinogradov, Issledovaniia po sotsial'noi istorii Anglii v srednie veka (1887 edition). The use of this expression, which acquired its meaning mainly in the context of Muscovite history, deserves emphasis because of the importance that these documents acquired for the study of agrarian history. In his memoirs (first published only in 1987), Bogoslovskii thus describes his first encounter with these sources, which Kalachev had discovered: "A completely new monument [pamiatnik] revealed itself that did not tell of events or heroes. In a pistsovaia kniga, the mass of the people step into the foreground, the thousands and tens of thousands of simple, average, ordinary folk, townspeople and peasants, whose names it thus saves from historical anonymity, carefully preserving them as though expecting from posterity the gratitude and remembrance that their labor probably deserved as much as did the exploits of any hero. The pistsovaia kniga carried the reader into society's lower depths, to those powerful and mysterious forces that form the foundations of the historical process" (M. M. Bogoslovskii, Istoriografiia, memuaristika, espistoliariia: Nauchnoe nasledie [Moscow: Nauka, 1987], 42-43).

(41) This term is used by Vinogradov and Pavlov-Sil'vanskii.

(42) S. P. Nikonov, "K istorii otkhozhikh promyslov v Rime, leges de oleo Catones," ZhMNP (October 1895): 1-13. The context here involves seasonal labor by free people in Rome. Nikonov also examines the societas formed by free laborers like these, for which he finds references in Cato. Citing Semen Pakhman's writings on Russian customary law, he speaks of it as an artel' with a starosta (eider).

(43) M. M. Rostovtsev, "Novye ucheniia po istorii finansovogo upravleniia greko-rimskogo Egipta (po povodu knigi U. Wilcken, Die Griechischen Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien," ZhMNP (January 1900): 133.

(44) A. Savin, "Angliiskii iurist v roli istorika: Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, 1898," ZhMNP (November 1898): 310-22, (December 1898): 419-43. The expression krugovaia poruka was used by Vinogradov as early as 1886 (Issledovaniia po sotsial 'noi istorii Anglii 12).

(45) Grevs, "Ocherki iz istorii rimskogo zemlevladeniia," 66-67 (emphasis in orig.).

(46) There exist only two short studies of this association: N. N. Kononova, "Istoricheskoe obshchestvo pri Peterburgskom universitete," in Ocherki po istorii Leningradskago universiteta, 2: 138-51; and A. G. Slonimskii, "Vozniknovenie istoricheskogo obshchestva pri Peterburgskom universitete," Uchenye zapiski istoricheskogo fakul'teta Tadzhikskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 1 (1974): 22-41. The discussion in the present article is based mainly on an analysis of the society's journal Istoricheskoe obozrenie (cited hereafter as IO.

(47) See, on this topic, the first activity report of the society in its IO, no. 1, section 2 (1890): 53; and, for a much less official version, the accounts of Platonov in two letters to D'iakonov, where he describes "the scandal that burst at the new Historical Society." Platonov took sides with Vasil'evskii and, like him, refused to take part in the management committee of the society after the forcible takeover by Kareev, for whom he had little sympathy. See Platonov, Perepiska s istorikami, 1:27-29 (letters of 2 and 26 December 1889).

(48) As he was with Gambarov and Luchitskii; see N. I. Kareev, Prozhitoe iperezhitoe, ed. V. P. Zolotarev (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1990), 148-49, 154-55. On Kareev's ideas about the theory of history, in addition to the works already cited, see also Boris G. Safronov, N. L Kareev o strukture istoricheskogo znaniia (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1992).

(49) On the meetings and relationships of Kareev, see his memoirs, Prozhitoe i perezhitoe, 218-19, and the letters of Monod in the Kareev archives: Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka, Otdel rukopisei (OR RGB) f. 119 (Kareev), papka 32, ed. khr. 37, 11. 1-3 (letters from Monod of 4 February and 29 November 1907).

(50) IO, no. 17 (1912): 274-87.

(51) Note that Seignobos and Langlois's book was translated and published in Russian: Vvedenie v izuchenie istorii (St. Petersburg: O. N. Popova, 1897; it was reissued in 1899 and 1913). Likewise, Seignobos's lectures at the College libre des sciences sociales: Istoricheskii metod v prilozhenii k sotsial'nym naukam (Moscow: A. I. Mamontov, 1902).

(52) See, especially, his "Razrabotka teoreticheskikh voprosov istoricheskoi nauki," IO, no. 1 (1890): 3-34. In this article, Kareev cites Auguste Comte, Spencer, Marx, and others to argue that a theory of history is both possible and necessary.

(53) See the letter from Worms to Kareev of 10 December 1916: OR RGB f. 119 (Kareev), papka 32, ed. khr. 9, II. 1-1 ob.

(54) Vasil'evskii, A. N. Veselovskii, E. E. Zamyslovskii, Kareev, Lamanskii, I. P. Minaev, Platonov, F. F. Sokolov, Forsten, and Shmurlo; see IO, no. 20 (1915): 188.

(55) According to Shmurlo's diary, they included Kareev, Forsten, Platonov, and himself, as well as A. Vasil'ev, E. A. Gurevich, E. A. Belov, and N. G. Druzhinin: OR RGB f. 178, Muzeinoe sobranie, karton 7774, I. 27. The diary covers the period 1889-92 and forms the subject of the presentation by L. I. Demina, "'Zapiski' E. F. Shmurlo ob istorikakh peterburgskogo universiteta," Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1984g. (Moscow: Nauka, 1986), 252-56.

(56) Kareev, Prozhitoe iperezhitoe, 188. See also several books, e.g., Shakhanov, Russkaia istoricheskaia nauka, 354-56.

(57) This circle has drawn the attention of historians of the period, e.g., Rostovtsev, A. S. Lappo-Danilevskii, 61-64. This author also reconstructs the origins of the Historical Society. One finds further information on this circle in the memoirs and correspondence of the historians, especially Platonov, and in Shmurlo's diary.

(58) Pis'ma russkikh istorikov, 217 (letter to Miliukov of 10 May 1890).

(59) One could also mention the Archaeological Society (Moscow), the Historical Society of Nestor the Chronicler in Kiev, the societies of history and philology in Odessa and Khar'kov, the Society of Archaeology, History, and Ethnography of Kazan, and others that were less important.

(60) A similar society was to be founded in Moscow in 1893 and actually opened in 1895. It suffered from even greater problems due to personality conflicts. I know of only one brief work of synthesis on the Russian learned historical societies: A. D. Stepanskii, "K istorii nauchno-istoricheskikh obshchestv v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii," Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1974g. (Moscow: Nauka, 1975): 38-55.

(61) On this topic, see the society's first report on its activities, in IO, no. 1, section 2 (1890): 12; or the general report on its activities that was published in 1915 (IO, no. 20 [1915]: 188-221). The first membership lists were published in IO, no. 1 (1890): 57-64.

(62) See his notebook for the 1890s, where he calls a certain "K" (perhaps Kareev) a chattering "magpie": V. O. Kliuchevskii, Pis'ma. Dnevniki. Aforizmy i mysli ob istorii (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), 338, and notes on 479.

(63) See "Istoricheskoe obshchestvo pri Imperatorskom Sankt-Peterburgskom universitete," IO, no. 1 (1890): 5, for a summary of Kareev's first speech as chairman; see also the society's bylaws, in the same issue.

(64) N. I. Kareev, "Vseobshchaia istoriia v universitete," IO, no. 3 (1891): 14-15.

(65) For example (following Kareev), A. S. Lappo-Danilevskii, Metodologiia istorii: Pasobie k lektsiiam, chitannym studentam S.-Peterburgskogo universiteta v 1910-11 godu, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: V. Bezobrazov i Ko., 1913). See also R. Iu. Vipper, Ocherki teorii istoricheskogo poznaniia (Moscow: I. N. Kushnerev, 1911) (note the use of the word "theory").

(66) IO, no. 3 (1891): 201-2.

(67) IO, no. 1 (1890): 9.

(68) N. I. Kareev and G. Forsten, "Inostrannye istoricheskie zhurnaly," IO, no. 1 (1890): 244-53.

(69) I. M. Greys and P. D. Pogodin, "Ocherki sovremennogo istoricheskogo prepodavaniia v vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniiakh Parizha," IO, no. 4 (1892): 178-79.

(70) These numbers are based on the list of presentations in the official record of meetings in most issues, as well as the report on activities that was cited earlier (IO, no. 20 [1915]: 201-14).

(71) The date was 23 March 1901: IO, no. 15 (1909): 62-63.

(72) Ibid., 143-44.

(73) It is also after this date that the meetings of the society ceased to be public, which most likely limited the audience it reached.

(74) On this topic, see E. A. Rostovtsev, "N. I. Kareev v srede istorikov peterburgskoi shkoly," in Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev: Chelovek, uchenyi, obshchestvennyi deiatel', 183-213. Platonov, as his position in St. Petersburg grew more dominant, became increasingly involved in the more prestigious--but also more conservative and "official"--Imperial Russian Historical Society, where he became a member in 1902 and a council member in 1908.

(75) See the activities report of the society from 1889 to 1915; IO, no. 20 (1915): esp. 194.

(76) On this subject, see the rich book by Dmitrii Gutnov, Russkaia vysshaia shkola obshchestvennykh nauk v Parizhe (1901-1906 gg.) (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2004). It is full of new information but is also limited almost entirely to a Russian horizon; by contrast, the interactions among Russian academics (Kovalevskii, Kareev, Vinogradov, Luchitskii, Miliukov, Chuprov, Gambarov, and others) and their French counterparts (Seignobos, Leroy-Beaulieu, Sorel, Worms, Tarde, Mauss, and others) as well as the school's influence on the development of Russian scholars receive little attention.
Table 1. Articles Published in ZhMNP (by subject)

Time period     Number of       History     Literature    Linguistics

1867-91     3,584 (100%)   1,409 (39.3%)   695 (19.4%)    377 (10.5%)
1892-1900   1,698 (100%)     703 (41.4%)   298 (17.5%)    117 (6.9%)
1901-10     1,837 (100%)    599 (32.6%)    365 (19.9%)    153 (8.33%)
COPYRIGHT 2008 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Berelowitch, Wladimir
Geographic Code:4EXRU
Date:Jan 1, 2008
Previous Article:Nikolai Kharuzin and the quest for a universal human science: anthropological evolutionism and the Russian ethnographic tradition, 1885-1900.
Next Article:Russia learns to write: Slavistics, politics, and the struggle to redefine empire in the early 20th century.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters