Klyuchevsky Russian history full course of lectures. Vasily Klyuchevsky full course of lectures on the history of Russia

January 28, 1841 (Voskresenovka village, Penza province, Russian Empire) - May 25, 1911 (Moscow, Russian Empire)



Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky - the most prominent Russian historian of the liberal direction, a "legend" of Russian historical science, ordinary professor at Moscow University, ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (over staff) in Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councillor.

IN. Klyuchevsky

So much has been written about V.O. Klyuchevsky that it seems completely impossible to insert even words into the grandiose memorial erected to the legendary historian in the memoirs of contemporaries, scientific monographs of fellow historians, popular articles in encyclopedias and reference books. For almost every anniversary of Klyuchevsky, entire collections of biographical, analytical, historical and journalistic materials were published dedicated to the analysis of one or another side of his work, scientific concepts, pedagogical and administrative activities within the walls of Moscow University. Indeed, largely thanks to his efforts, Russian historical science reached a completely new qualitative level in the second half of the 19th century, which subsequently ensured the appearance of works that laid the foundations of modern philosophy and methodology of historical knowledge.

Meanwhile, in popular science literature about V.O. Klyuchevsky, and especially in modern publications on Internet resources, only general information about the biography of the famous historian is given. The characteristics of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky, who, of course, was one of the most outstanding, extraordinary and remarkable people of his era, the idol of more than one generation of students and teachers of Moscow University, are also very contradictory.

In part, this neglect can be explained by the fact that the main biographical works about Klyuchevsky (M.V. Nechkina, R.A. Kireeva, L.V. Cherepnin) were created in the 70s of the XX century, when in classical Soviet historiography the “path of the historian” was understood mainly as the process of preparing his scientific works and creative achievements. In addition, in the conditions of the dominance of the Marxist-Leninist ideology and propaganda of the advantages of the Soviet way of life, it was impossible to openly say that even under the “damned tsarism” a person from the bottom had the opportunity to become a great scientist, privy adviser, enjoy the personal favor and deep respect of the emperor and members of the tsarist families. This, to some extent, leveled the gains of the October Revolution, among which, as is known, the conquest by the people of those very “equal” opportunities was declared. In addition, in all Soviet textbooks and reference literature, V.O. to class alien elements. To study the private life, to reconstruct the little-known facets of the biography of such a "hero" would never have occurred to any of the Marxist historians.

In the post-Soviet period, it was believed that the factual side of Klyuchevsky's biography had been sufficiently studied, and therefore it makes no sense to return to it. Still: in the life of a historian there are no scandalous love affairs, intrigues at work, sharp conflicts with colleagues, i.e. no "strawberries" that might interest the average reader of the Caravan of Stories magazine. This is partly true, but as a result, today the general public knows only historical anecdotes about the "secrecy" and "excessive modesty" of Professor Klyuchevsky, his maliciously ironic aphorisms, and contradictory statements, "pulled" by the authors of various near-scientific publications from personal letters and memoirs of contemporaries.

However, the modern view of the personality, private life and communications of the historian, the process of his scientific and non-scientific creativity implies the inherent value of these objects of research as part of the “historiographic life” and the world of Russian culture as a whole. Ultimately, the life of every person is made up of relationships in the family, friendships and love relationships, home, habits, household trifles. And the fact that one of us, as a result, gets or does not get into history as a historian, writer or politician is an accident against the background of all the same “everyday little things” ...

In this article, we would like to outline the main milestones not only in the creative, but also in the personal biography of V.O. Klyuchevsky, to tell about him as about a man who made a very difficult and thorny path from the son of a provincial clergyman, a poor orphan to the heights of glory of the first historian of Russia.

V.O.Klyuchevsky: the triumph and tragedy of the "raznochinets"

Childhood and youth

IN. Klyuchevsky

IN. Klyuchevsky was born on January 16 (28), 1841 in the village of Voskresensky (Voskresenovka) near Penza, in a poor family of a parish priest. The life of the future historian began with a great misfortune - in August 1850, when Vasily was not yet ten years old, his father died tragically. He went to the market for shopping, and on the way back he got into a severe thunderstorm. The horses got scared and ran. Father Osip, having lost control, obviously fell from the wagon, lost consciousness from hitting the ground and choked on streams of water. Without waiting for his return, the family organized a search. Nine-year-old Vasily was the first to see his dead father lying in the mud on the road. From a strong shock, the boy began to stutter.

After the death of the breadwinner, the Klyuchevsky family moved to Penza, where they entered the Penza diocese. Out of compassion for the poor widow, who was left with three children, one of her husband's friends gave her a small house to live in. “Was there anyone poorer than you and me at the time when we were left orphans in the arms of our mother,” Klyuchevsky later wrote to his sister, recalling the hungry years of his childhood and adolescence.

In the theological school, where he was sent to study, Klyuchevsky stuttered so much that he burdened the teachers with this, and did not have time in many basic subjects. As an orphan, he was kept in an educational institution only out of pity. From day to day, the question could arise about the expulsion of a student due to incompetence: the school trained clergy, and a stutterer was not fit for either a priest or a sexton. Under these conditions, Klyuchevsky might not have received any education at all - his mother did not have the means to study at the gymnasium or invite tutors. Then the widow of the priest tearfully begged one of the students of the senior department to take care of the boy. History has not preserved the name of this gifted young man, who managed to make a brilliant speaker out of a timid stutterer, who subsequently gathered many thousands of student audiences for his lectures. According to the assumptions of the most famous biographer of V.O. Klyuchevsky M.V. Nechkina, he could be a seminarian Vasily Pokrovsky - the older brother of Klyuchevsky's classmate Stepan Pokrovsky. Not being a professional speech therapist, he intuitively found ways to deal with stuttering, so that it almost disappeared. Among the methods of overcoming the deficiency was the following: slowly and clearly pronounce the ends of words, even if the stress did not fall on them. Klyuchevsky did not overcome stuttering to the end, but performed a miracle - he managed to give the appearance of semantic artistic pauses to the small pauses that involuntarily appeared in his speech, giving his words a peculiar and charming coloring. Subsequently, the disadvantage turned into a characteristic individual feature, which gave a special appeal to the historian's speech. Modern psychologists and image makers deliberately use such techniques to attract the attention of listeners, to give “charisma” to the image of a particular speaker, politician, public figure.

IN. Klyuchevsky

A long and stubborn struggle with a natural defect also contributed to the excellent diction of the lecturer Klyuchevsky. He “minted out” every sentence and “especially the endings of the words he uttered in such a way that not a single sound, not a single intonation of a low, but unusually clear-sounding voice could be lost for an attentive listener,” wrote his student Professor A. I. Yakovlev about the historian. .

After graduating from the district religious school in 1856, V.O. Klyuchevsky entered the seminary. He had to become a priest - such was the condition of the diocese, which took on the maintenance of his family. But in 1860, having abandoned his studies at the seminary in his last year, the young man was preparing to enter Moscow University. The desperately bold decision of a nineteen-year-old youth determined his entire fate in the future. In our opinion, it testifies not so much to the perseverance of Klyuchevsky or the integrity of his nature, but to the intuition inherent in him already at a young age, which many of his contemporaries later spoke about. Even then, Klyuchevsky intuitively understands (or guesses) about his personal destiny, goes against fate in order to take exactly the place in life that will allow him to fully realize his aspirations and abilities.

One must think that the fateful decision to leave the Penza Seminary was not easy for the future historian. From the moment of submitting the application, the seminarian was deprived of the scholarship. For Klyuchevsky, who was extremely constrained in his means, the loss of even this small amount of money was very tangible, but circumstances forced him to be guided by the principle of "all or nothing." Immediately after graduating from the seminary, he could not enter the university, because he would have to accept a spiritual title and stay in it for at least four years. Therefore, it was necessary to leave the seminary as soon as possible.

The daring act of Klyuchevsky blew up the measured seminary life. The spiritual authorities objected to the expulsion of a successful student, who had actually already received an education at the expense of the diocese. Klyuchevsky motivated his application for dismissal by cramped domestic circumstances and poor health, but it was obvious to everyone in the seminary, from the director to the stoker, that this was only a formal excuse. The seminary board wrote a report to the Penza bishop, His Grace Varlaam, but he unexpectedly imposed a positive resolution: “Klyuchevsky has not yet completed the course of study and, therefore, if he does not want to be in a spiritual rank, then he can be fired without hindrance.” The loyalty of the official document did not quite correspond to the true opinion of the bishop. Klyuchevsky later recalled that at the December exam at the seminary, Varlaam called him a fool.

Uncle I.V. Evropeytsev (the mother's sister's husband) gave money for the journey to Moscow, encouraging his nephew to want to study at the university. Knowing that the young man feels great gratitude, but at the same time spiritual discomfort from his uncle's charity, Evropeitsev decided to cheat a little. He gave his nephew a prayer book "as a memento" with parting words to turn to this book in difficult moments of life. A large banknote was enclosed between the pages, which Klyuchevsky found already in Moscow. In one of his first letters home, he wrote: “I left for Moscow, firmly hoping in God, and then in you and myself, not counting too much on someone else’s pocket, no matter what happened to me.”

According to some biographers, the complex of personal guilt towards the mother and younger sisters left in Penza haunted the famous historian for many years. As evidenced by the materials of Klyuchevsky's personal correspondence, Vasily Osipovich maintained the warmest relations with the sisters: he always sought to help them, patronize, and participate in their fate. So, thanks to the help of her brother, the elder sister Elizaveta Osipovna (married - Virganskaya) was able to raise and educate her seven children, and after the death of her younger sister, Klyuchevsky accepted her two children (E.P. and P.P. Kornev) into his family and raised them.

The beginning of the way

In 1861, V.O. Klyuchevsky entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. He had a difficult time: almost revolutionary passions were seething in the capitals, caused by the manifesto of February 19, 1861 on the emancipation of the peasants. The liberalization of literally all aspects of public life, Chernyshevsky's fashionable ideas about the "people's revolution", which literally hovered in the air, confused young minds.

During the years of study, Klyuchevsky tried to stay away from political disputes among the students. Most likely, he simply had neither the time nor the desire to engage in politics: he came to Moscow to study and, in addition, he had to earn money by lessons in order to support himself and help his family.

According to Soviet biographers, Klyuchevsky at one time attended the historical and philosophical circle of N.A. Ishutin, but this version is not confirmed by the currently studied materials of the historian's personal archive. They contain an indication of the fact that Klyuchevsky was a tutor of a certain high school student Ishutin. However, this "tutoring" could have taken place even before Klyuchevsky entered Moscow University. ON THE. Ishutin and D.V. Karakozov were natives of Serdobsk (Penza province); in the 1850s they studied at the 1st Penza Men's Gymnasium, and the seminarian Klyuchevsky in the same period actively worked part-time with private lessons. It is possible that Klyuchevsky renewed his acquaintance with fellow countrymen in Moscow, but the researchers did not find any reliable information about his participation in the Ishutinsk circle.

Moscow life, obviously, aroused interest, but at the same time gave rise to wariness and distrust in the soul of the young provincial. Before leaving Penza, he had never been anywhere else, revolving mainly in a spiritual environment, which, of course, made it difficult for Klyuchevsky to "adapt" to the reality of the capital. "Provinciality" and a subconscious rejection of everyday excesses, which are considered the norm in a big city, remained with V.O. Klyuchevsky for the rest of his life.

The former seminarian, no doubt, also had to go through a serious internal struggle when he moved from the religious traditions learned in the seminary and family to the scientific-positivist ones. Klyuchevsky went this way, studying the works of the founders of positivism (Comte, Mil, Spencer), the materialist Ludwig Feuerbach, in whose concept he was most attracted by the philosopher's predominant interest in ethics and the religious problem.

As evidenced by the diaries and some personal notes of Klyuchevsky, the result of the internal "rebirth" of the future historian was his constant desire to distance himself from the outside world, keeping his personal space in it, inaccessible to prying eyes. Hence the ostentatious sarcasm noted by contemporaries, Klyuchevsky's caustic skepticism, his desire to act in public, convincing others of his own "complexity" and "closedness".

In 1864-1865, Klyuchevsky completed a course of study at the university with the defense of his candidate's essay "Tales of Foreigners about the Muscovite State". The problem was posed under the influence of Professor F.I. Buslaev. The candidate's essay was highly appreciated, and Klyuchevsky was left at the department as a scholarship holder to prepare for a professorship.

Work on the master's thesis "Lives of the Saints as a Historical Source" dragged on for six years. Since Vasily Osipovich could not remain a scholarship holder, at the request of his teacher and mentor S.M. Solovyov, he got a job as a tutor at the Alexander Military School. Here he worked from 1867 for sixteen years. Since 1871, he replaced S.M. Solovyov in teaching the course of a new general history at this school.

Family and personal life

In 1869, V.O. Klyuchevsky married Anisya Mikhailovna Borodina. This decision was a real surprise, both for relatives and for the bride herself. Klyuchevsky initially courted the younger Borodin sisters, Anna and Nadezhda, but proposed to Anisya, who was three years older than him (she was already thirty-two at the time of the wedding). At this age, the girl was considered "centuries" and practically could not count on marriage.

Boris and Anisya Mikhailovna Klyuchevsky, probably with their dogs, named V.O. Klyuchevsky Grosh and Kopek. Not earlier than 1909

It's no secret that among the creative intelligentsia, long-term marriage unions, as a rule, are based on the relationship of like-minded people. The wife of a scientist, writer, famous publicist usually acts as a permanent secretary, critic, and even invisible to the public generator of ideas of her creative "half". Little is known about the relationship of the Klyuchevsky spouses, but, most likely, they were very far from a creative union.

In the correspondence of 1864, Klyuchevsky affectionately called his bride "Niksochka", "confidant of my soul." But, what is noteworthy, in the future, no correspondence between the spouses was recorded. Even during the departures of Vasily Osipovich from home, he, as a rule, asked his other addressees to transfer information about himself to Anisya Mikhailovna. At the same time, for many years Klyuchevsky carried on a lively friendly correspondence with his wife's sister, Nadezhda Mikhailovna Borodina. And the drafts of old letters to his other sister-in-law, Anna Mikhailovna, according to his son, Vasily Osipovich carefully kept and hid among the “Penza papers”.

Most likely, the relationship of the Klyuchevsky spouses was built exclusively in the personal, family and household plane, remaining such throughout their lives.

The home secretary of V.O. Klyuchevsky, his interlocutor and assistant in work was the only son Boris. For Anisya Mikhailovna, although she often attended her husband's public lectures, the sphere of scientific interests of the famous historian remained alien and largely incomprehensible. As P. N. Milyukov recalled, during his visits to the Klyuchevskys' house, Anisya Mikhailovna only acted as a hospitable hostess: she poured tea, treated the guests, without participating in any way in the general conversation. Vasily Osipovich himself, who often attended various unofficial receptions and journalism, never took his wife with him. Perhaps Anisia Mikhailovna did not have a penchant for secular pastime, but, most likely, Vasily Osipovich and his wife did not want to cause themselves unnecessary worries and put each other in an uncomfortable situation. Mrs. Klyuchevskaya could not be imagined at an official banquet or in the company of her husband's scientific colleagues, arguing in a smoky home office.

There are cases when unfamiliar visitors mistook Anisya Mikhailovna for a servant in a professor's house: even outwardly she resembled an ordinary bourgeois housewife or priest. The historian's wife was reputed to be a homebody, she managed the house and household, solving all the practical issues of family life. Klyuchevsky himself, like any person passionate about his ideas, was more helpless than a child in everyday trifles.

All her life, A.M. Klyuchevskaya remained a deeply religious person. In conversations with friends, Vasily Osipovich often ironically spoke about his wife's addiction to "sports" trips to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, which was far from their home, although there was another small church nearby. In one of these "campaigns" Anisia Mikhailovna became ill, and when she was brought home, she died.

Nevertheless, on the whole, it seems that for many years of their life together, the Klyuchevsky spouses maintained a deep personal attachment and almost dependence on each other. Vasily Osipovich took the death of his “half” very hard. Student of Klyuchevsky S.B. Veselovsky these days in a letter to a comrade wrote that after the death of his wife, old Vasily Osipovich (he was already 69 years old) and his son Boris "remained orphaned, helpless, like small children."

And when the long-awaited fourth volume of the Course of Russian History appeared in December 1909, there was an inscription in front of the text on a separate page: “In memory of Anisia Mikhailovna Klyuchevskaya († March 21, 1909).”

In addition to his son Boris (1879-1944), Vasily Osipovich's niece, Elizaveta Korneva (? -01/09/1906), lived in the Klyuchevsky family as a pupil. When Lisa got a fiancé, V.O. Klyuchevsky did not like him, and the guardian began to interfere with their relationship. Despite the disapproval of the whole family, Lisa left home, got married in a hurry, and soon after the wedding she died "of consumption." The death of his niece was especially hard for Vasily Osipovich, who loved her like his own daughter.

Professor Klyuchevsky

In 1872 V.O. Klyuchevsky successfully defended his master's thesis. In the same year, he took the chair of history at the Moscow Theological Academy and held it for 36 years (until 1906). In the same years, Klyuchevsky began teaching at the Higher Women's Courses. Since 1879 - lectured at Moscow University. At the same time, he was finishing his doctoral dissertation "The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'" and in 1882 he defended it at the university department. Since that time, Klyuchevsky became a professor at four educational institutions.

His lectures were very popular among the student youth. Not only students of historians and philologists, for whom, in fact, the course of Russian history was read, were his listeners. Mathematicians, physicists, chemists, physicians - all sought to break into Klyuchevsky's lectures. According to contemporaries, they literally devastated audiences at other faculties; many students came to the university early in the morning to take a seat and wait for the “desired hour”. The listeners were attracted not so much by the content of the lectures as by the aphoristic, lively presentation of even already known material by Klyuchevsky. The democratic image of the professor himself, so atypical for the university environment, also could not but arouse the sympathy of the student youth: everyone wanted to listen to "their" historian.

Soviet biographers tried to explain the extraordinary success of V.O. Klyuchevsky's lecture course in the 1880s by his desire to "please" the revolutionary-minded student audience. According to M.V. Nechkina, in his very first lecture, delivered on December 5, 1879, Klyuchevsky put forward the slogan of freedom:

“The text of this particular lecture, unfortunately, did not reach us, but the memories of the listeners have been preserved. Klyuchevsky, writes one of them, “believed that Peter's reforms did not produce the desired results; in order for Russia to become rich and powerful, freedom was needed. Russia did not see it in the 18th century. Hence, Vasily Osipovich concluded, and her state weakness.

Nechkina M.V. “The lecture skill of V.O. Klyuchevsky"

In other lectures, Klyuchevsky spoke ironically about the empresses Elizabeth Petrovna, Catherine II, colorfully characterized the era of palace coups:

“For reasons known to us ... - a university student of Klyuchevsky recorded a lecture in 1882, - after Peter the Great, the Russian throne became a toy for adventurers, for random people, often unexpectedly for themselves, who entered it ... Many miracles happened on the Russian throne from the death of Peter the Great, - there were on it ... both childless widows and unmarried mothers of families, but there was still no buffoon; probably, the game of chance was aimed at filling this gap in our history. The buffoon has come."

It was about Peter III. So from the university department no one has yet spoken about the house of the Romanovs.

From all this, Soviet historians drew a conclusion about the anti-monarchist and anti-noble position of the historian, which almost made him related to the revolutionary regicides S. Perovskaya, Zhelyabov and other radicals who wanted to change the existing order at all costs. However, the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky did not even think about anything like that. His "liberalism" clearly fit within the framework of what was permitted in the era of state reforms of the 1860s and 70s. The "historical portraits" of kings, emperors and other prominent rulers of antiquity, created by V.O. Klyuchevsky, are only a tribute to historical authenticity, an attempt to objectively present monarchs as ordinary people who are not alien to any human weaknesses.

The venerable scientist V.O. Klyuchevsky was elected dean of the historical and philological faculty of Moscow University, vice-rector, chairman of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. He was appointed teacher of the son of Alexander III, Grand Duke George, was repeatedly invited to walk with the royal family, and had conversations with the sovereign and empress Maria Feodorovna. However, in 1893-1894, Klyuchevsky, despite the emperor’s personal disposition towards him, categorically refused to write a book about Alexander III. Most likely, this was neither a whim of the historian, nor a manifestation of his opposition to power. Klyuchevsky did not see the talent of a flattering publicist, and for a historian to write about the still living or just deceased “next” emperor is simply not interesting.

In 1894, he, as chairman of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, had to deliver a speech "In Memory of the late Emperor Alexander III in Bose." In this speech, a liberal-minded historian, in a human way, sincerely regretted the death of the sovereign, with whom he often communicated during his lifetime. For this speech, Klyuchevsky was booed by students who saw in the behavior of their beloved professor not grief for the deceased, but unforgivable conformism.

In the mid-1890s, Klyuchevsky continued his research work, publishing A Brief Guide to New History, the third edition of the Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'. Six of his students defend dissertations.

In 1900, Klyuchevsky was elected to the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Since 1901, according to the rules, he resigns, but remains to teach at the university and the Theological Academy.

In 1900-1910, he began to give lectures at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where many outstanding artists were his students. F.I. Chaliapin wrote in his memoirs that Klyuchevsky helped him understand the image of Boris Godunov before a benefit performance at the Bolshoi Theater in 1903. The memoirs of the famous singer about the famous historian also repeatedly talk about the artistry of Klyuchevsky, his outstanding talent to attract the attention of the viewer and listener, the ability to "get used to the role" and fully reveal the character of the chosen character.

Since 1902, Vasily Osipovich has been preparing for publication the main brainchild of his life - The Course of Russian History. This work was interrupted only in 1905 by trips to St. Petersburg to participate in commissions on the law on the press and the status of the State Duma. The liberal position of Klyuchevsky complicated his relationship with the leadership of the Theological Academy. In 1906, Klyuchevsky resigned and was fired, despite student protests.

According to the assurances of the Cadets historians P.N. In 1905, at a meeting in Peterhof, he did not support the idea of ​​a "noble" constitution for the future "Octobrists", and agreed to run for the State Duma as a deputy from Sergiev Posad. In fact, despite all the curtsies from the leaders of the barely born political parties, V.O. Klyuchevsky was not interested in politics at all.

Quite fierce disputes arose among Soviet historians about Klyuchevsky's "party affiliation". M.V. Nechkina unequivocally (following Milyukov) considered Klyuchevsky an ideological and actual member of the People's Freedom Party (KD). However, Academician Yu.V. Gautier, who personally knew the historian in those years, argued that the “old man” was almost forcibly forced to run for the Duma from this party by his son Boris, and “it is impossible to make a Cadet figure out of Klyuchevsky.”

In the same polemic with Nechkina, the following phrase was also heard by Yu.V. Gauthier: “Klyuchevsky was a real “wet chicken” in relation to his character and social activities. I told him so. He had will only in his works, but in life he had no will ... Klyuchevsky was always under someone's shoe.

The question of the actual participation or non-participation of the historian in the affairs of the Cadet Party has lost its relevance today. His deputyship in the State Duma did not take place, but, unlike P.N. Milyukov and Co., it did not matter for Klyuchevsky: the scientist always had something to do and where to realize his oratorical talent.

"The course of Russian history" and the historical concept of V.O. Klyuchevsky

Along with the special course "History of the Estates in Russia" (1887), studies on social topics ("The Origin of Serfdom in Russia", "The Poll Tax and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia", "The Composition of Representation at Zemstvo Sobors of Ancient Rus'"), the history of culture of the 18th and 19th centuries. and others, Klyuchevsky created the main work of his life - "The Course of Russian History" (1987-1989. T.I - 5). It is in it that the concept of the historical development of Russia according to V.O. Klyuchevsky is presented.

Most contemporary historians believed that V.O. Klyuchevsky, as a student of S.M. Solovyov, only continues to develop the concept of the state (legal) school in Russian historiography in the new conditions. In addition to the influence of the state school, the influence on the views of Klyuchevsky of his other university teachers - F.I. Buslaeva, S.V. Eshevsky and figures of the 1860s. - A.P. Shchapova, N.A. Ishutin, etc.

At one time, Soviet historiography made a completely unreasonable attempt to “divorce” the views of S.M. Solovyov as an “apologist for autocracy” and V.O. Klyuchevsky, who stood on liberal-democratic positions (M.V. Nechkin). A number of historians (V.I. Picheta, P.P. Smirnov) saw the main value of Klyuchevsky's works in an attempt to give a history of society and people in its dependence on economic and political conditions.

In modern research, the view of V.O. Klyuchevsky not only as a successor of the historical and methodological traditions of the state (legal) school prevails (K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Soloviev) , but also the creator of a new, most promising direction based on the "sociological" method.

Unlike the first generation of "statists", Klyuchevsky considered it necessary to introduce social and economic factors as independent forces of historical development. The historical process in his view is the result of the continuous interaction of all factors (geographical, demographic, economic, political, social). The task of the historian in this process is not to build global historical schemes, but to constantly identify the specific relationship of all the above factors at each specific moment of development.

In practice, the "sociological method" meant for V.O. Klyuchevsky, a thorough study of the degree and nature of the country's economic development, closely related to the natural and geographical environment, as well as a detailed analysis of the social stratification of society at each stage of development and the relationships that arise in this case within individual social groups (he often called them classes). As a result, the historical process took over from V.O. Klyuchevsky has more voluminous and dynamic forms than those of his predecessors or contemporaries like V.I. Sergeevich.

His understanding of the general course of Russian history V.O. Klyuchevsky most concisely presented in periodization, in which he singled out four qualitatively different stages:

8th-13th centuries - Rus' Dnieper, urban, commercial;

XIII - the middle of the XV century. - Rus' of the Upper Volga, specific princely, free-farming;

mid-15th - second decade of the 17th century - Rus' Great, Moscow, tsarist-boyar, military-landowning;

early 17th - mid 19th centuries - the period of the all-Russian, imperial-noble, the period of serfdom, agricultural and factory economy.

Already in his doctoral dissertation “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'”, which, in fact, was a detailed social portrait of the boyar class, the novelty that V.O. Klyuchevsky contributed to the traditions of the public school.

In the context of the divergence of interests of the autocratic state and society, which sharply emerged at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Klyuchevsky revised the views of his teacher Solovyov on the entire two-century period of the country's new history, thereby crossing out the results of the last seventeen volumes of his "History of Russia" and the political program of the domestic pre-reform period built on them. liberalism. On these grounds, a number of researchers (in particular, A. Shakhanov) conclude that it is impossible to attribute Klyuchevsky to the state school in Russian historiography.

But it's not. Klyuchevsky only announces a "new history", actualizes the sociological orientation of historical research. In fact, he did what most appealed to the needs of the younger generation of historians of the 1880s: he announced the rejection of schemes or goals proposed from outside, both Western and Slavophile. The students wanted to study Russian history as a scientific problem, and Klyuchevsky's "sociological method" gave them that opportunity. Pupils and followers of Klyuchevsky (P. Milyukov, Yu. Gauthier, A. Kizevetter, M. Bogoslovsky, N. A. Rozhkov, S. Bakhrushin, A. I. Yakovlev, Ya. L. Barskov) are often called "neo-statesmen", t .To. in their constructions they used the same multifactorial approach of the state school, expanding and supplementing it with cultural, sociological, psychological and other factors.

In The Course of Russian History, Klyuchevsky already gave a holistic presentation of Russian history on the basis of his sociological method. Like none of the historical works of the public school, V.O. Klyuchevsky went far beyond the framework of a purely educational publication, turning into a fact not only of scientific, but also of the social life of the country. An expanded understanding of the multifactorial nature of the historical process, combined with the traditional postulates of the state school, made it possible to bring to its logical limit the concept of the Russian historical process, which was laid down by S.M. Solovyov. In this sense, the work of V.O. Klyuchevsky became a milestone for the development of all historical science in Russia: he completed the tradition of the 19th century and at the same time anticipated the innovative searches that the 20th century brought with it.

Assessment of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky in the memoirs of contemporaries

Figure V.O. Klyuchevsky’s work was already surrounded by a halo of “myths”, all sorts of anecdotes and a priori judgments during his lifetime. Even today, the problem of a clichéd perception of the personality of a historian remains, which, as a rule, is based on the subjective negative characteristics of P. N. Milyukov and the caustic aphorisms of Klyuchevsky himself, which are widely available to the reader.

P.N. Milyukov, as you know, quarreled with V.O. Klyuchevsky even in the process of preparing his master's thesis on the reforms of Peter I. The dissertation was enthusiastically received by the scientific community, but V.O. Klyuchevsky, using his unquestioned authority, bowed the academic council the university does not award a doctoral degree for it. He advised Milyukov to write another dissertation, noting that "science will only benefit from this." The future leader of the cadets was mortally offended and subsequently, without going into details and the true reasons for such an attitude of the teacher to his work, he reduced everything to the complexity of character, selfishness and "mysteriousness" of V.O. Klyuchevsky, or, more simply, to envy. Everything in life was not easy for Klyuchevsky himself, and he did not tolerate someone else's quick success.

In a letter dated July 29, 1890, Milyukov writes that Klyuchevsky “It’s hard and boring to live in the world. Glory greater than he has achieved, he can not get. He can hardly live with love for science with his skepticism ... Now he is recognized, secured; every word he is caught with greed; but he is tired, and most importantly, he does not believe in science: there is no fire, no life, no passion for scientific work - and for this reason alone, there is no school and students..

In the conflict with Milyukov, obviously, two remarkable vanities clashed in the scientific field. Only Klyuchevsky still loved science more than himself in science. His school and his students developed ideas and multiplied the merits of the scientist many times over - this is an indisputable fact. The older generation of fellow historians, as you know, supported Klyuchevsky in this confrontation. And not only because at that time he already had a name and fame. Without Klyuchevsky, there would be no Milyukov as a historian, and what is especially sad to realize is that without a conflict with the almighty Klyuchevsky, perhaps Milyukov as a politician would not have happened. Of course, there would be other people who want to shake the building of Russian statehood, but if Milyukov had not joined them, not only historical science, but also the history of Russia as a whole would have benefited from this.

Often, memories of Klyuchevsky as a scientist or lecturer smoothly flow into a psychological analysis or characteristics of his personality. Apparently, his person was such a bright event in the life of his contemporaries that this topic could not be avoided. Excessive causticity, isolation of character, distance of the scientist was noticed by many contemporaries. But it is necessary to understand that different people could be admitted by Klyuchevsky to himself at different distances. Everyone who wrote about Klyuchevsky, one way or another, directly or in context, indicated his degree of proximity to the scientist's personal space. This was the reason for various, often directly opposite, interpretations of his behavior and character traits.

Klyuchevsky's contemporaries (including S. B. Veselovsky, V. A. Maklakov, A. E. Presnyakov) in their memoirs decisively refute the myth of his "complexity and mystery", "selfishness", "figuration", constant desire to "play to the public”, trying to protect the historian from quick and superficial characterizations.

Vasily Osipovich was a man of a subtle psychological make-up, endowing with a personal emotional coloring all the phenomena of life, his attitude towards people, and even his lectures. P. N. Milyukov compares his psyche with a very sensitive measuring apparatus, which is in constant fluctuation. According to Milyukov, it was rather difficult for such a person as his teacher to establish even ordinary everyday relationships.

If we turn to the diaries of a historian of different years, then, first of all, the researcher is struck by deep self-reflection, the desire to elevate his inner experiences above the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Often there are records that testify to the misunderstanding by contemporaries, as it seemed to Klyuchevsky himself, of his inner world. He closes himself, seeks revelations in himself, in nature, away from the bustle of modern society, the values ​​and way of life of which, by and large, he does not fully understand and does not accept.

It must be admitted that the generations of the rural clergy, having absorbed the habits of a simple and unpretentious, low-income life, left a special imprint on the appearance of Klyuchevsky and his way of life. As M.V. Nechkin:

“... For a long time he could have proudly carried his fame, felt famous, loved, irreplaceable, but there is not even a shadow of high self-esteem in his behavior, on the contrary - an underlined disregard for fame. From the applause, he "gloomy and annoyed waved."

In the Moscow house of the Klyuchevskys, the atmosphere traditional for the old capital reigned: the visitor was struck by old-fashioned “homespun rugs” and similar “petty-bourgeois elements”. Vasily Osipovich agreed extremely reluctantly to the numerous requests of his wife and son to improve their life, for example, such as buying new furniture.

Klyuchevsky, as a rule, received visitors who came to him in the dining room. Only when he was in a good mood, invited to the table. Sometimes his colleagues, professors, came to visit Vasily Osipovich. In such cases, “he ordered a small decanter of pure vodka, herring, cucumbers, then a beluga appeared,” although in general Klyuchevsky was very thrifty. (Bogoslovsky, M. M. “From the memories of V. O. Klyuchevsky”).

Klyuchevsky went to lectures at the university only in cheap cabs (“vankas”), fundamentally avoiding the dandy cabs of Moscow “reckless drivers”. On the way, the professor often had lively conversations with the "vankas" - yesterday's village boys and men. On his own business, Klyuchevsky moved on a "wretched Moscow horse", and "climbed onto the imperial." Konka, as one of his students A.I. Yakovlev recalls, was then distinguished by endless downtime at almost every siding. Klyuchevsky went to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra to teach at the Theological Academy twice a week by rail, but always in the third grade, in a crowd of pilgrims.

I. A. Artobolevsky said: “The well-known rich woman Morozova, with whose son Klyuchevsky once worked, offered him a carriage and“ two drawbar horses “as a present”. “Still, I refused... Excuse me, does it really suit me?... Wouldn’t I be ridiculous in such a carriage?! In borrowed plumes..."

Another famous anecdote about a professor's fur coat, cited in the monograph by M.V. Nechkina:

“The famous professor, no longer constrained by a lack of money, walked around in an old, worn fur coat. “Why don’t you get yourself a new fur coat, Vasily Osipovich? All rubbed out, ”friends noticed. - “In the face and a fur coat,” Klyuchevsky answered laconically.

The notorious "frugality" of the professor, of course, testified not at all to his natural stinginess, low self-esteem, or desire to shock others. On the contrary, it speaks only of his inner, spiritual freedom. Klyuchevsky was used to doing what was convenient for him, and he was not going to change his habits for the sake of external conventions.

Having crossed the line of his fiftieth birthday, Klyuchevsky fully retained his incredible ability to work. She impressed his younger students. One of them recalls how, after working for long hours with the youth in the late evening and at night, Klyuchevsky appeared in the morning at the department fresh and full of strength, while the students could hardly stand on their feet.

Of course, he sometimes got sick, complained of a sore throat, then of a cold, he began to be annoyed by the drafts that blew through the lecture hall at Guerrier's courses, it happened that his teeth ached. But he called his health iron and was right. Not really observing the rules of hygiene (he worked at night, not sparing his eyes), he created an original aphorism about her: “Hygiene teaches how to be a chain dog of your own health.” There was another saying about work: "Whoever is not able to work 16 hours a day, he had no right to be born and must be eliminated from life, as a usurper of being." (Both aphorisms are from the 1890s.)

The memory of Klyuchevsky, like that of any failed clergyman, was amazing. Once, while climbing the pulpit for a report at some public scientific celebration, he stumbled on a step and dropped the sheets of his notes. They fanned out on the floor, their order was fundamentally disrupted. The sheets were once again mixed during the collection by the students who rushed to the aid of the professor. Everyone was excited about the fate of the report. Only Klyuchevsky's wife Anisya Mikhailovna, who was sitting in the forefront, remained completely calm: “He will read, read, he remembers everything by heart,” she calmly reassured her neighbors. And so it happened.

A very distinct "beady", perhaps even smaller than beads, handwriting, notes with a sharply sharpened pencil for a long time testified to the historian's good eyesight. Reading his archival manuscripts is not hindered by handwriting - it is impeccable, but by a pencil that has worn out from time to time. Only in the last years of his life did Klyuchevsky's handwriting become larger, with the predominant use of pen and ink. “To be able to write legibly is the first rule of politeness,” says one of the aphorisms of the historian. On his desk he did not have any massive inkwell on a marble board, but a five-kopeck vial of ink, where he dipped his pen, as once in his seminary years.

In the memoirs dedicated to the historian, the question of whether he was happily married is not discussed at all. This piquant side of private life was either deliberately kept silent by his acquaintances, or was hidden from prying eyes. As a result, Klyuchevsky's relationship with his wife, reflected only in correspondence with relatives or in extremely rare memoirs of family friends, remains not entirely certain.

It is not without reason that a memoir theme stands out against this background, characterizing Klyuchevsky's attitude towards the fair sex. The respected professor, while maintaining the image of a trustworthy family man, managed to acquire the fame of a gallant gentleman and ladies' man.

Maria Golubtsova, the daughter of a friend of Klyuchevsky, a teacher at the Theological Academy, A.P. Golubtsov, recalls such a “funny scene”. Vasily Osipovich, having come to Easter, was not averse to "Christening" with her. But the little girl unceremoniously refused him. "The first woman who refused to kiss me!"- said, laughing, Vasily Osipovich to her father. Even on a walk in the mountains with Prince George and all his "brilliant company", Klyuchevsky did not fail to attract female attention to his person. Disappointed that he was given an old, old lady-in-waiting as a companion, he decided to take revenge: Klyuchevsky shocked the company by picking an edelweiss growing over the very cliff, and presented it to his lady. “On the way back, everyone surrounded me, and even the youngest young ladies walked with me,” the professor reported, pleased with his trick.

Klyuchevsky taught at the Higher Women's Courses, and here the elderly professor was pursued by a mass of enthusiastic admirers who literally idolized him. At the university, even during the time of the ban on girls attending university lectures, its female audience was constantly growing. The hostesses of the most famous Moscow salons often competed with each other, wanting to see Klyuchevsky at all their evenings.

There was something chivalrous and at the same time detached in the attitude of the historian towards women - he was ready to serve them and admire them, but, most likely, disinterestedly: only as a gallant gentleman.

One of the few women with whom Klyuchevsky maintained a trusting, even friendly relationship for many years was the sister of his wife, already mentioned by us, Nadezhda Mikhailovna. Vasily Osipovich willingly invited his sister-in-law to visit, corresponded with her, and became the godfather of her pupil. The different characters of these people, most likely, were united by a predilection for witty humor and intellectual irony. V. O. Klyuchevsky gave Nadezhda Mikhailovna an invaluable gift - he gave his “black book” with a collection of aphorisms. Almost all the aphorisms now attributed to the historian are known and remembered only thanks to this book. It contains many dedications to a woman and, perhaps, therefore, after the death of Klyuchevsky, the memoirists involuntarily focused on the topic of his “out-of-family” relations with the fair sex.

Speaking about the appearance of Klyuchevsky, many contemporaries noted that he "in his appearance was unenviable ... not respectable." From the famous photograph of 1890, a typical “common citizen” is looking at us: an elderly, tired, slightly ironic person who does not care too much about his appearance with the appearance of a parish priest or deacon. Modest requests and habits, Klyuchevsky's ascetic appearance, on the one hand, distinguished him from the environment of university professors, on the other hand, they were typical of raznochinny Moscow inhabitants or visiting provincials. But as soon as Vasily Osipovich started a conversation with someone, and “some kind of incomprehensible magnetic force, forcing, somehow involuntarily, to love him. He did not imitate anyone and did not resemble anyone, "it was created in all original". (Memoirs of the priest A. Rozhdestvensky. Memories of V. O. Klyuchevsky // Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. Biographical sketch ... P. 423.)

The person of Klyuchevsky was also interesting due to his extraordinary sense of humor: "He sparkled like fireworks with sparkles of wit". As you know, the bright images of Klyuchevsky's lectures were prepared by him in advance and even repeated from year to year, which was noted by his students and colleagues. But, at the same time, they were always refreshed by "fast and accurate as a shot" improvisation. At the same time, "the charm of his witticisms was that in each of them, along with a completely unexpected comparison of concepts, a very subtle thought always lurked." (Bogoslovsky, M. M. “From the memories of V. O. Klyuchevsky”.)

Klyuchevsky's sharp tongue did not spare anyone, hence his reputation as "an incorrigible skeptic who does not recognize any shrines." At first glance, he could easily come across as selfish and evil. But this impression, of course, was wrong - P. N. Milyukov and A. N. Savin justified it: “The Mask of Mephistopheles” was designed to keep outsiders out of the holy of holies of his sensitive soul. Once in a new and diverse social environment, Klyuchevsky had to develop the habit of wearing this mask as a "protective shell", perhaps thereby misleading many of his colleagues and contemporaries. Perhaps with the help of this "shell" the historian tried to win back his right to inner freedom.

Klyuchevsky communicated with almost all the scientific, creative and political elite of his time. He attended both official receptions and informal zhurfixes, and simply liked to visit colleagues and acquaintances. He always left the impression of an interesting interlocutor, a pleasant guest, a gallant gentleman. But the most intimate friends, according to the recollections of relatives, for Klyuchevsky were ordinary people, mostly of the clergy. For example, one could often find an assistant librarian of the Theological Academy, Hieromonk Raphael, with him. The hieromonk was a great original and a very kind person (nephews or seminarians always lived in his cell). Father Raphael knew scholarly works only by the titles and color of the spines of the books, and besides, he was extremely ugly, but he liked to show off his scholarship and former beauty. Klyuchevsky always joked with him and especially liked to ask why he did not marry. To which he was answered: “Yes, you know, brother, as soon as he graduated from the seminary, so we have brides, brides, passion. And I used to run away to the garden, lie down between the ridges, and I lie, but they are looking for me. I was handsome back then." “The traces of the former beauty are still noticeable,” Klyuchevsky agreed with good irony.

Coming to the holidays in Sergiev Posad, the professor loved, along with the townspeople boys and girls, to take part in folk festivals, ride a carousel.

Obviously, in such communication, the eminent historian was looking for the simplicity so familiar to him since childhood, which was so lacking in the stiff academic environment and the metropolitan society. Here Klyuchevsky could feel free, not put on “masks”, not play “scientific professor”, be himself.

The value of the personality of V.O. Klyuchevsky

The value of the personality of V. O. Klyuchevsky for his contemporaries was enormous. He was highly regarded as a professional historian, valued as an outstanding, talented person. Many students and followers saw in him a source of morality, instructiveness, kindness, sparkling humor.

But those who communicated with V.O. Klyuchevsky in an informal setting were often repelled by his excessive (sometimes unjustified) frugality, scrupulousness in detail, unpretentious, “petty-bourgeois” home environment, sharp language and at the same time - wastefulness in emotions, restraint, isolation of character.

The outstanding talent of a researcher and analyst, courage in judgments and conclusions inherent in V.O. Klyuchevsky would hardly have allowed him to make a successful career as a clergyman. Having applied all these qualities in the scientific field, the provincial priest actually caught the “bird of luck” by the tail, for which he came from Penza to Moscow. He became the most famous historian of Russia, a venerable scientist, academician, "general" of science, a personality of all-Russian and even global scale. Nevertheless, V.O. Klyuchevsky did not feel like a triumph. Having lived almost his entire conscious life in isolation from the environment that raised him, he still tried to remain true to his real self, at least in the family way of life, habits. For some contemporaries, this caused bewilderment and ridicule at the "eccentricities" of Professor Klyuchevsky, others made them talk about his "contradiction", "complexity", "egoism".

This global contradiction of mind and heart, in our opinion, was the triumph and tragedy of many famous people of Russia, who left the environment of the “raznochintsy” and entered a society where, by and large, the traditions of noble culture still prevailed. Klyuchevsky turned out to be an iconic figure in this regard.

IN. Klyuchevsky

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a plain-looking man, resembling a deacon of a provincial church, in an old fur coat and with spots on his official uniform, was the “face” of Moscow University, an ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, a teacher of the royal children.

This fact largely testifies to a change in external priorities and the democratization of not only Russian society, but also domestic science as a whole.

As a scientist V.O. Klyuchevsky did not make a global revolution in the theory or methodology of historical science. By and large, he only developed and brought to a new qualitative level the ideas of the “state” historical school of Moscow University. But the very image of Professor Klyuchevsky broke all the hitherto existing stereotypes of the appearance of a famous scientist, a successful lecturer and, in general, an “educated person”, as a bearer of noble culture. Intuitively not wanting to adapt, adjust to external conventions, at least in everyday life and behavior, the historian Klyuchevsky contributed to the introduction of a fashion for democracy, freedom of personal expression and, most importantly, spiritual freedom into the metropolitan academic environment, without which it is impossible to form a social "stratum" called the intelligentsia.

Students loved Professor Klyuchevsky not at all for his shabby fur coat or his ability to artistically tell historical anecdotes. They saw before them a man who turned time before their eyes, who by his example bridged the gap between the history of the Fatherland as a tool for educating loyal patriotism and history as a subject of knowledge accessible to every researcher.

During forty years of inflamed public passions, the historian was able to "pick up the key" to any - spiritual, university, military - audience, captivating and captivating everywhere, never arousing the suspicion of the authorities and various authorities in anything.

That is why, in our opinion, V.O. Klyuchevsky - a scientist, artist, artist, master - was erected not only by contemporaries, but also by descendants to the high pedestal of the coryphaeus of Russian historical science. Like N.M. Karamzin at the beginning of the 19th century, at the beginning of the 20th century, he gave his compatriots the history that they wanted to know at that very moment, thus drawing a line under all previous historiography and looking into the distant future.

V.O. Klyuchevsky died on May 12 (25), 1911 in Moscow, was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.

Memory and descendants

The memorization of the cultural space in Moscow associated with the name of Klyuchevsky was actively developed already in the first years after his death. A few days after the death of V. O. Klyuchevsky, in May 1911, the Moscow City Duma received a statement from the vowel N. A. Shamin about the "need to perpetuate the memory of the famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky." Based on the results of the meetings of the Duma, it was decided, from 1912, to establish a scholarship at the Moscow Imperial University "in memory of V. O. Klyuchevsky." The personal scholarship of Klyuchevsky was also established by the Moscow Higher Women's Courses, where the historian taught.

At the same time, Moscow University announced a competition to provide memoirs of V.O. Klyuchevsky.

Boris Klyuchevsky in childhood

In the house on Zhitnaya Street, where Vasily Osipovich lived in recent years, his son, Boris Klyuchevsky, planned to open a museum. The library remained here, the personal archive of V.O. Klyuchevsky, his personal belongings, a portrait by the artist V.O. Sherwood. The son oversaw the holding of annual requiems in memory of his father, gathering his students and all those who cherished the memory of him. Thus, even after his death, the house of V. O. Klyuchevsky continued to play the role of a center uniting Moscow historians.

In 1918, the Moscow house of the historian was searched, the bulk of the archive was evacuated to Petrograd, to one of Klyuchevsky's students, literary historian Ya.L. Barsky. Subsequently, Boris Klyuchevsky managed to get a “protection certificate” for his father’s library and, with great difficulty, to return the main part of the manuscripts from Barsky, but in the 1920s the historian’s library and archive were confiscated and placed in state archives.

At the same time, among the students of Klyuchevsky who remained in Moscow, the problem of erecting a monument to the great historian acquired particular relevance. By that time, there was not even a monument on his grave in the Donskoy Monastery. The reason for the various conversations was partly the negative attitude of the students towards the only living descendant of Klyuchevsky.

Boris Vasilyevich Klyuchevsky, according to him, graduated from two faculties of Moscow University, but scientific activity did not attract him. For many years he played the role of the house secretary of his famous father, was fond of sports and improvement of the bicycle.

From the stories of B. Klyuchevsky M.V. Nechkina knows such an episode: in his youth, Boris invented some special “nut” for a bicycle and was very proud of it. Rolling it in the palm of your hand, V.O. Klyuchevsky, with his usual sarcasm, told the guests: “What time has come! To invent such a nut, you need to graduate from two faculties - historical and legal ... ”(Nechkina M.V. Decree. soch., p. 318).

Obviously, Vasily Osipovich devoted much more time to communicating with his students than with his own son. The hobbies of the offspring did not cause either understanding or approval from the historian. According to the recollections of eyewitnesses (in particular, Yu. V. Gauthier points to this), in the last years of his life, Klyuchevsky's relationship with Boris left much to be desired. Vasily Osipovich did not like his son's passion for politics, as well as his open cohabitation with either a housekeeper or a maid who lived in their house. Friends and acquaintances of V.O. Klyuchevsky - V.A. Maklakov and A.N. Savin - it was also believed that the young man exerts strong pressure on the elderly, weakened by the illnesses of Vasily Osipovich.

Nevertheless, during the life of V.O. Klyuchevsky, Boris helped him a lot in his work, and after the scientist’s death he collected and preserved his archive, actively participated in the publication of his father’s scientific heritage, and was engaged in the publication and reprinting of his books.

In the 1920s, colleagues and students of Klyuchevsky accused the “heir” of the fact that the grave of his parents was in desolation: there was neither a monument nor a fence. Most likely, Boris Vasilyevich simply did not have the funds to erect a worthy monument, and the events of the revolution and the Civil War did little to contribute to the concerns of living people about their deceased ancestors.

Through the efforts of the university community, a “Committee on the issue of perpetuating the memory of V. O. Klyuchevsky” was created, which set as its goal the installation of a monument to the historian on one of the central streets of Moscow. However, the Committee limited itself only to the creation in 1928 of a common monument-tombstone on the grave of the Klyuchevskoy spouses (the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery). After the "academic case" (1929-30), the persecution and expulsion of historians of the "old school" began. V.O. Klyuchevsky was classified as a “liberal-bourgeois” direction of historiography, and it was considered inappropriate to erect a separate monument to him in the center of Moscow.

Width="300">

The historian's son Boris Klyuchevsky already in the first half of the 1920s severed all ties with the scientific community. According to M.V., who visited him in 1924, Nechkina, he served as an assistant legal adviser "in some kind of automotive department" and, finally, did his favorite thing - car repair. Then the son of Klyuchevsky was an auto technician, translator, small co-employee of the VATO. In 1933 he was repressed and sentenced to exile in Alma-Ata. The exact date of his death is unknown (circa 1944). However, B.V. Klyuchevsky managed to save the main and very important part of his father's archive. These materials were acquired in 1945 by the Commission on the History of Historical Sciences at the department of the Institute of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences from the "widow of the historian's son." The Museum of V.O. Klyuchevsky in Moscow was never created by him, memories of his father were also not written ...

Only in 1991, on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Klyuchevsky, a museum was opened in Penza, which received the name of the great historian. And today the monuments to V.O. Klyuchevsky exist only in his homeland, in the village of Voskresenovka (Penza region) and in Penza, where the Klyuchevsky family moved after the death of his father. It is noteworthy that initiatives to perpetuate the memory of a historian, as a rule, did not come from the state or the scientific community, but from local authorities and local history enthusiasts.

Elena Shirokova

For the preparation of this work, materials from the following sites were used:

http://www.history.perm.ru/

Worldview portraits. Klyuchevsky V.O. Library Fund

Literature:

Bogomazova O.V. Private life of a famous historian (based on memoirs of V.O. Klyuchevsky) // Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2009. No. 23 (161). Story. Issue. 33, pp. 151–159.

History and historians in the space of national and world culture of the XVIII-XXI centuries: collection of articles / ed. N. N. Alevras, N. V. Grishina, Yu. V. Krasnova. - Chelyabinsk: Encyclopedia, 2011;

The world of the historian: historiographic collection / edited by V.P. Korzun, S.P. Bychkov. - Issue. 7. - Omsk: Om Publishing House. state university, 2011;

Nechkina M.V. Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). History of life and creativity, M .: "Science", 1974;

Shakhanov A.N. The struggle against "objectivism" and "cosmopolitanism" in Soviet historical science. "Russian historiography" by N.L. Rubinshtein // History and Historians, 2004. - No. 1 - P. 186-207.

Our future is heavier than our past and emptier than our present.

V. O. Klyuchevsky

Instead of a preface: Dark waters of the history of Rus'

Russian, that is, local history, entered the scientific circulation at the very end of the 18th century, when the post-Petrine rulers, in order to create a favorable image of the country among the civilized peoples of Europe, needed something more weighty than the “legends about antiquity” that existed before. You understand that you cannot go far on traditions and legends in the matter of proving the antiquity and culture of the territory subject to them. The Russians themselves had no scientific knowledge of their past. Yes, Russian historical chronicles were kept in every land - be it Kyiv, Novgorod, Pskov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl or another ancient city where a local prince sat and there was a local monastery. But the chronicles, called chronicles in Rus' (from the word summer- that is, a year), were repeatedly copied to please the next owner of the territory, so that by the 18th century no ancient chronicles had survived, the earliest texts could be considered written down in the 15th century. And the first centuries of the Russian state were exactly in a fog. The Russian historical school also did not exist, which is why Western scholars, mostly Germans, were called in for a correct, that is, European approach to chronicle material. So G. Z. Bayer (1694–1738), G. F. Miller (1705–1783) and A. L. Schletser (1735–1809) began to study Russian history. One should not think that these scientists, so blasphemed by our first domestic "historian" M.V. Lomonosov, were asleep and saw only how to harm Russia in the European perception. Alas, the German historians were honest people, they knew their subject very well. However, these citizens certainly did not experience true Russian "patriotism"! As it should be for that time, they studied the history of Russia with exactly the same methods as the history of any other state. The Germans studied the Russian primary sources they got, trying to understand the truth of the material received. And it’s not their fault that it turned out to be so difficult to sort out this chronicle chaos that the notorious early history of Rus' became the subject of political disputes and claims over the following centuries, ours, XXI in a row, is no exception. It is unlikely that there is a more thankless task than the study of domestic antiquity.

The conclusions made by the German experts did not please both the customers of scientific knowledge and local patriots. Mikhailo Vasilyevich Lomonosov was one of them.

Let's say right away that he had no right to be called any historian. Lomonosov was an amateur. Chemist, physicist, mathematician, naturalist, but not a historian! He could call himself a historian in Russian historical science only because there was no one to put next to him at all. The niche that Lomonosov occupied is somewhat similar to the place in this science of our contemporary A. T. Fomenko, with the only difference that, with all his dilettantism, Mikhailo Vasilyevich did not reach the insanity that the conclusions of our contemporary's school sinned. Lomonosov firmly believed in the greatness of the Russian spirit, therefore, the conclusion of German historians, who read in the chronicles the legendary foundation of the Russian state by the Scandinavians, was considered an insult. And so a funny, in my opinion, collision arose: scientists had to justify themselves to an amateur that they didn’t have anything bad in their thoughts, but since then, in relation to the scientist’s attitude to the Norman theory of the creation of the Russian state, they judged the degree of his patriotism. Such a completely wild story with history arose at the very beginning of the creation of its own historical school in Russia. It is from Lomonosov that the holy idea comes that the first Rus were named after the river Ros and generally originated from the Roxolans. And although today hardly anyone takes his last statement seriously, the first one exists in many historical writings to this day. And for the Fomenko school, the Roxolans were remarkably replaced by the Etruscans, who, with their name, appeal to the historical memory of the people, according to Fomenko, the Etruscans, translated into modern language, are nothing more than "these are Russians." Such are the things.

The first historian who managed to bring together the scattered local chronicles was Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev(1686–1750). It was he who wrote the first large-scale historical work - "Russian History". To write this work, Tatishchev read, processed and systematized a huge amount of ancient materials, strictly following the scientific principles adopted in his time. His "History of Russia" is especially valuable for us because for two and a half centuries, science has lost many documents that the scientist held in his hands in fires and other natural disasters. So the retelling of documents by Tatishchev is sometimes the only evidence that they existed at all. He divided the history of Russia into five periods: early, from the 9th to the 12th centuries, when there was one sovereign prince in Rus', transferring power to his sons; internecine (from the 12th century to the end of the Mongol-Tatar yoke), when the princes actively fought with each other and thereby weakened the state until it became an easy prey for the eastern predator and was forced to spend several centuries under the rule of foreigners; the period of new autocracy under Ivan III and Ivan IV (the Terrible); the period of Troubles, when civil strife and the struggle for power began again, which almost ended with a new conquest, but already from the West; and the last period of restoration of autocracy under Alexei Mikhailovich and Peter the Great, culminating in the creation of a powerful Russian Empire. Tatishchev saw Russian history as a constant change of autocracy and unrest (strife). When the government was able to unite the country, the state developed and grew stronger, when it was not able, things went to disintegration and national tragedy. But during his lifetime, Tatishchev did not see his works published: the first volume of his "History" was published only twenty years after his death, and the last - even fifty years later.

Much more fortunate was another Russian historian, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766-1826).

Having begun his life as a writer, Karamzin became interested in Russian history and devoted himself entirely to the Clio muse. For fourteen years, he wrote and published twelve volumes of the History of the Russian State. Karamzin happened to work in various archives, to study numerous ancient texts. Possessing a pictorial style, he managed to bring history closer to the understanding of the educated people of his time. However, Karamzin, for all his perseverance and literary talent, was, of course, not a scientist, but an excellent popularizer of history. He divided his history into three major periods - ancient(from Rurik to Ivan III), Average(Ivan III to Peter I), New(from Peter I to Alexander I). He made a purely patriotic essay. Karamzin did not spare colors in order to teach the reading public the idea that only autocratic rule allowed Russia from ancient times to take place as a strong and cultured state, that any violation of autocracy leads to misfortunes and troubles, since it contradicts the very spirit of the Russian people. Karamzin's conclusions, literally far-fetched, did not bother the best minds of that time. They literally read Karamzin… Alas, a historical work in appearance, his “History” was, in fact, a new chronicle to please the reigning monarchs.

THE SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE OF STUDYING LOCAL HISTORY. HISTORICAL PROCESS. HISTORY OF CULTURE OR CIVILIZATION. HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY. TWO POINTS OF VIEW IN HISTORICAL STUDY – CULTURAL-HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL. METHODOLOGICAL CONVENIENCE AND DIDACTIC EXPECTABILITY OF THE SECOND OF THEM IN THE STUDY OF LOCAL HISTORY. SCHEME OF THE SOCIO-HISTORICAL PROCESS. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LOCAL AND TEMPORARY COMBINATIONS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTS IN HISTORICAL STUDY. METHODOLOGICAL CONVENIENCE OF STUDYING RUSSIAN HISTORY FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW.

You have already attended several courses on world history and have become familiar with the tasks and methods of university study of this science. Beginning the course of Russian history, I will preface it with a few of the most general elementary considerations, the purpose of which is to connect the observations you have made and the impressions you have made on general history with the task and methods of a separate study of the history of Russia.

THE SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE OF STUDYING LOCAL HISTORY. The practical interest that prompts us to study the history of Russia in a special way, singling it out from the composition of general history is understandable: after all, this is the history of our fatherland. But this educational, i.e., practical, interest does not exclude the scientific, on the contrary, it should only give it more didactic power. So, starting a special course in Russian history, one can pose the following general question: what scientific goal can a special study of the history of any one country, any individual people have? This goal must be derived from the general tasks of historical study, that is, from the tasks of studying the general history of mankind.

HISTORICAL PROCESS. In scientific terms, the word story is used in a double sense: 1) as movement in time, a process, and 2) as knowledge of a process. Therefore, everything that happens in time has its own history. The content of history as a separate science, a special branch of scientific knowledge is historical process, i.e., the course, conditions and successes of human society or the life of mankind in its development and results. Human coexistence is the same fact of world existence as the life of the nature surrounding us, and the scientific knowledge of this fact is the same unavoidable need of the human mind, as is the study of the life of this nature. Human community is expressed in various human unions, which can be called historical bodies and which arise, grow and multiply, pass one into another and, finally, are destroyed - in a word, they are born, live and die like the organic bodies of nature. The emergence, growth and change of these unions with all the conditions and consequences of their life is what we call historical process.

TWO SUBJECTS OF HISTORICAL STUDY. The historical process is revealed in the phenomena of human life, information about which has been preserved in historical monuments or sources. These phenomena are boundlessly diverse, they concern international relations, the external and internal life of individual peoples, the activities of individuals among one or another people. All these phenomena add up to a great struggle in life, which humanity has waged and is waging, striving for the goals that it has set for itself. From this struggle, which is constantly changing its methods and character, however, something more solid and stable is deposited: it is a certain everyday order, a system of human relations, interests, concepts, feelings, mores. People hold on to the established order until the continuous movement of the historical drama replaces it with another. In all these changes, the historian is occupied with two main subjects, which he tries to discern in the undulating stream of historical life as it is reflected in the sources. The accumulation of experiences, knowledge, needs, habits, everyday comforts, improving, on the one hand, the private personal life of an individual, and on the other, establishing and improving social relations between people - in a word, the development of a person and human community - such is one subject of historical study. . The degree of this production, achieved by one or another people, is usually called it culture, or civilization; the signs by which historical study determines this degree constitute the content of a special branch of historical knowledge, cultural history, or civilization. Another subject of historical observation is the nature and action of historical forces that build human societies, the properties of those diverse threads, material and spiritual, with the help of which random and diverse human units with a fleeting existence are formed into harmonious and dense societies that live for whole centuries. The historical study of the structure of society, the organization of human unions, the development and functions of their individual organs - in a word, the study of the properties and action of the forces that create and direct human society, constitutes the task of a special branch of historical knowledge, the science of society, which can also be distinguished from the general historical study under name historical sociology. Its essential difference from the history of civilization is that the content of the latter is the results of the historical process, while in the former, the forces and means of achieving it, so to speak, its kinetics, are subject to observation. According to the difference in subjects, the methods of study are also different.

ATTITUDE TO THEM OF GENERAL AND LOCAL HISTORY. What is the relation of general and local history to these objects of knowledge? Both of these objects of historical study are more easily distinguished in the abstract classification of knowledge than in the process of study itself. In fact, both in general and in local history, both the successes of community life and the structure of society are observed at the same time, moreover, in such a way that by the very successes of community life they study the nature and action of the forces that build it, and, conversely, the successes of community life are measured by the given structure of society. However, it can be noted that in the history of the general and in the history of the local, both subjects are not in balance, and in one study one subject prevails, in the other - the other. Let us compare what degree of scope and what material the historian of culture finds for his research within the limits of universal history and within the limits of local history, and then we will give ourselves the same account in relation to the historian who has posed questions of a sociological nature. The successes of human community, the acquisition of culture or civilization, which are used to a greater or lesser extent by individual peoples, are not the fruits of their activity alone, but are created by the joint or successive efforts of all cultural peoples, and the course of their accumulation cannot be depicted within the narrow framework of any local history, which can only indicate the connection of local civilization with the universal, the participation of an individual people in the general cultural work of mankind, or at least in the fruits of this work. You are already familiar with the course of this work, with the general picture of the successes of human society: peoples and generations changed, the scenes of historical life moved, the order of society changed, but the thread of historical development was not interrupted, peoples and generations were connected in links in an uninterrupted chain, civilizations alternated sequentially, as peoples and generations, being born one from the other and giving birth to a third, a certain cultural reserve gradually accumulated, and what was deposited and survived from this centuries-old reserve has come down to us and has become part of our existence, and through us will pass to those who will replace us. This complex process becomes the main subject of study in world history: pragmatically, in chronological order and in a consistent connection of causes and effects, it depicts the life of peoples who, through joint or successive efforts, have achieved any success in the development of community life. Considering phenomena on a very large scale, general history focuses mainly on the cultural conquests that this or that people managed to achieve. On the other hand, when the history of an individual people is specifically studied, the horizon of the student is constrained by the very subject of study. Here, neither the interaction of peoples, nor their comparative cultural significance, nor their historical succession is subject to observation: successively replaced peoples are here considered not as successive moments of civilization, not as phases of human development, but are considered in themselves, as separate ethnographic individuals in which, By repeating themselves, the known processes of community life, certain combinations of the conditions of human life, were modified. The gradual progress of the hostel in connection with causes and effects is observed in a limited field, within known geographical and chronological limits. Thought concentrates on other aspects of life, goes deep into the very structure of human society, into what produces this causal connection of phenomena, that is, into the very properties and action of the historical forces that build community life. The study of local history provides ready-made and most abundant material for historical sociology.

Lectures on Russian history:

1. The scientific task of studying local history. historical process. History of Culture or Civilization. Historical sociology. There are two points of view in the study of history - cultural-historical and sociological. Methodological convenience and didactic expediency of the second of them in the study of local history. Scheme of the socio-historical process. The Significance of Local and Temporal Combinations of Social Elements in Historical Study. Methodological conveniences of studying Russian history from this point of view.

2. Course plan. Colonization of the country as the main fact of Russian history. Periods of Russian history as the main moments of colonization. The dominant facts of each period. Visible incompleteness of the plan. Historical Facts and so-called ideas. Different origin and interaction of those and Others. When does an idea become historical fact? Essence and methodological significance of political and economic facts. The practical purpose of the study of national history.

3. Surface shape of European Russia. Climate. Geological origin of the Plains. The soil. Botanical belts. The relief of the plain. Soil waters and atmospheric Precipitation. River basins.

4. The influence of the country's nature on the history of its people. Diagram of the relationship of man to nature. Significance of soil and botanical bands and river network of the Russian plain. The value of the Oka-Volga interfluve as a node of colonization, economic and political. Forest, steppe and rivers: their significance in Russian history and the attitude of the Russian people towards them. Is it possible to judge the effect of the nature of the country on the mood of an ancient person by modern impressions? Some threatening phenomena in the nature of the plain.

5. Primary chronicle as the main source for the study of the first period of our history. Chronicle writing in ancient Rus'; primary annals and annalistic vaults. The oldest lists of the initial chronicle. Traces of the ancient Kievan chronicler in the Initial Chronicle Code. Who is this chronicler? The main components of the Primary Chronicle. How they are connected in a solid vault. Chronological plan of the Code. Nestor and Sylvester.

6. Historical and critical analysis of the initial chronicle. Its significance for further Russian chronicle writing, the fallacy of the chronological basis of the code and the origin of the Error. Processing of the constituent parts of the code by its compiler. Incompleteness of the most ancient Lists of the initial chronicle. The idea of ​​Slavic unity underlying it. Attitude to the annals of the student. Chronicles of the 12th century. Historical views of the Chronicler.

7. The main facts of the first period of Russian history. Two looks at its beginning. The peoples who lived in southern Russia before the Eastern Slavs, and their relationship to Russian history. What facts can be recognized as initial in the history of the people? The legend of the initial Chronicle about the settlement of the Slavs from the Danube. Jordan about the placement of the Slavs in the VI century. Military Union of Eastern Slavs in the Carpathians. Settlement of the Eastern Slavs in the Russian Plain, its time and signs. Isolation of the Eastern Slavs as a Consequence of Settlement.

9. Political consequences of the settlement of the Eastern Slavs on the Russian plain. Pechenegs in the South Russian steppes. Russian trading cities are arming. Varangians; The question of their origin and time of appearance in Rus'. The formation of urban areas and their relationship to the tribes. Varangian principalities. The legend of the calling of the Princes; its historical basis. Behavior of the Scandinavian Vikings in the 9th century. In Western Europe. The formation of the Grand Duchy of Kyiv as the first form of the Russian state. The value of Kyiv in the formation of the state. Overview of Learned.

10. Activities of the first Kyiv princes. Unification of the Eastern Slavic tribes Under the rule of the Kyiv prince. Control device. taxes; wagons and fields. Communication of management with a trade turnover. External activities of the Kyiv princes. Treaties and trade relations between Rus' and Byzantium. The significance of these treaties and intercourse in the history of Russian law. External difficulties and dangers of Russian Trade. Defense of the steppe borders. Russian land in the middle of the 11th century. Population and Limits. The meaning of the Grand Duke of Kyiv. Princely squad: its political and economic proximity to the merchants of large cities. Varangian element in this merchant class. Slave ownership as the initial basis of class division. Varangian element in the squad. Multi-temporal meanings of the word Rus. The transformation of tribes into estates.

11. The order of princely possession of Russian land after Yaroslav. The ambiguity of the order before Yaroslav. The division of the land between the sons of Yaroslav and its foundation. Further Changes in the order of allotments. The order of seniority in possession as the basis of the Order. His scheme. The origin of the next order. Its practical action. Conditions that upset him: the ranks and strife of princes; the thought of fatherhood; the allocation of rogue princes; personal prowess of princes; intervention of volost cities. The value of the next order.

12. The consequence of the next order and the conditions that counteracted it. Political fragmentation of the Russian land in the XII century. Strengthening of the senior volost Cities; their vecha and rows with princes. Elements of zemstvo unity of Rus' in the XII century. The effect of princely relations on public mood and consciousness; general zemstvo value of princely squads; the significance of Kyiv for princes and people; generalization of household Forms and interests, the political system of the Russian land in the XII century. The awakening of the feeling of national unity is the final fact of the period.

13. Russian civil society in the 11th and 12th centuries Russian truth as its reflection. Two views of this monument. Features of Russian truth, pointing to its origin. The need for a revised code of local legal customs For an ecclesiastical judge of the 11th and 12th centuries. Significance of codification among the main forms of Law. Byzantine codification and its influence on Russian. Church-Judgment Origin of Truth. The monetary account of truth and the time of its compilation. Sources of Truth. Russian law. Princely law. Judgments of princes. Legislative projects of the clergy. Benefits. which they used.

14. Upcoming questions about the compilation of Russian truth. Traces of partial codification in ancient Russian legal writing. Mixing and processing of partially compiled articles. Compilation and composition of Russian truth; mutual relation of its main editions. The relation of truth to the law in force. Civil order according to Russian truth. A preliminary note on the significance of monuments of law for the historical study of civil society. Separate line between criminal and civil law according to Russian truth. Punishment system. The Ancient Foundation of Truth and later layers. Comparative assessment of the property and personality of a Person. twofold division of society. Property transactions and obligations. Russian truth - the code of capital.

15. Church statutes of the first Christian princes of Rus'. Church department according to the Charter of St. Vladimir. The space of the church court and the joint Church-secular court according to the charter of Yaroslav. Changes in the concept of a crime, in the area of ​​imputation and in the system of punishments. Cash account of the Yaroslavl charter: the time of its compilation. The original basis of the charter. Legislative powers of the Church. The course of church codification. Traces of her techniques in the charter of Yaroslav. The attitude of the Charter to Russian truth. The influence of the church on the political order. Public Warehouse and civil life. The organization of the Christian family.

16. The main phenomena of the 2nd period of Russian history. Conditions upset the social order and welfare of Kievan Rus. Life of high society. Advances in citizenship and education. The position of the lower classes; successes of slavery and enslavement. Polovtsian attacks. Signs of the desolation of the Dnieper Rus. Bilateral outflow of the population from there. Signs of ebb to the west. A look at the further fate of southwestern Rus' and the question of the origin of the Little Russian tribe. Signs of population ebb to the northeast. The significance of this Ebb and the fundamental fact of the period.

17. Ethnographic consequences of the Russian colonization of the upper Volga region. The question of the origin of the Great Russian tribe. Disappeared foreigners of the Oka-Volga Mesopotamia and their traces. The attitude of Russian settlers to the Finnish natives traces the Finnish influence on the anthropological type of the Great Russian. On the formation of dialects of the Great Russian dialect, on the popular beliefs of Great Russia and on the composition of the Great Russian society. The influence of the nature of the upper Volga region on the national economy of Great Russia and on the tribal character of the Great Russian.

18. Political consequences of the Russian colonization of the upper Volga region. Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky and his attitude to Kievan Rus: an attempt to turn the patriarchal Power of the Grand Duke into a state one. Andrey's mode of action in the Rostov Land: his relationship with his closest relatives. To the older cities and the older squad. Princely and social strife in the Rostov land after the death of Prince Andrei. The judgment of the Vladimir chronicler about this strife. The predominance of the Upper Volga Rus over the Dnieper under Vsevolod 3. The effect of the political successes of Princes Andrei and Vsevolod on the mood of Suzdal society. List of learned Facts.

19. A look at the position of the Russian land in the 13th and 14th centuries. The specific order of the Princely possession in the offspring of Vsevolod III. Princely inheritance. The main features of the specific order. His origin. The idea of ​​a separate hereditary possession among the southern princes. The transformation of Russian regional princes into servants under Lithuanian rule. The power of tribal tradition among the Yaroslavichs of the older lines: Relations between the Verkhneoksky and Ryazan princes at the end of the 15th century. The main features of the specific order, the reasons for its successful development in the offspring of Vsevolod III. The absence of obstacles to this order in the Suzdal region.

20 . A note on the significance of specific centuries in Russian history. Consequences of specific order of princely possession. Questions for their study. The course of specific crushing. The impoverishment of the specific princes. their mutual alienation. The meaning of the specific Prince. His legal attitude to private estates is in his destiny. Comparison of specific relations with feudal ones. The composition of society in the specific Principality. The decline of zemstvo consciousness and civic feeling among the specific Princes. Conclusions.

21 . Moscow begins to collect specific Rus'. The first news about the city of Moscow. The original space of the Moscow Kremlin. Economic benefits of the geographical location of the city of Moscow. The city of Moscow is a key point for many-sided paths. Traces of the early population of the Moscow region. Moscow is the ethnographic center of Great Russia. The Moscow River is a transit route. Political consequences of the geographical location of the city of Moscow. Moscow is a junior lot. The influence of this on the external relations and internal activities of the Moscow princes, the political and national successes of the Moscow princes until the middle of the 15th century. I. Expansion of the territory of the principality. II. Acquisition of the Grand Duke's table. III. The consequences of this success: the suspension of the Tatar invasions; Moscow Union of Princes. IV. The transfer of the metropolitan see to Moscow is the significance of this change for the Moscow princes. Conclusions.

22 . Mutual relations of the Moscow princes. - The order of succession. - Apparent legal indifference of movable property and specific possessions. The relationship of the Moscow princely order of inheritance to the legal custom of ancient Rus'. - The attitude of the Moscow princes by kinship and possession. - Strengthening the senior heir. - The form of subordination to him of the younger appanage princes. - The influence of the Tatar yoke on princely relations. - Establishing the succession of the Moscow grand ducal power in a direct descending line. - The meeting of the family aspirations of the Moscow princes with the people's needs of Great Russia. - The significance of the Moscow strife under Vasily the Dark. - The character of the Moscow princes

23 . Free urban communities. - Novgorod the Great. - Its location; sides and ends. Region of Novgorod; patches and hairs. - Conditions and development of Novgorod liberty. - Contractual relations of Novgorod with the princes. - Management. - Veche and its relation to the princes. - Posadnik and thousand. - Court. - Council of gentlemen. - Regional administration. - Suburbs and their relation to the main city. - Conclusion.

24 . Classes of Novgorod society. - Novgorod boyars and its origin. - Living people. - Merchants and black people. - Serfs, smerds and ladles. - Zemtsy; the origin and meaning of this class. - The basis of the class division of Novgorod society. - The political life of Novgorod. - The origin and struggle of princely and social parties. The nature and significance of Novgorod strife. - Features of the Pskov political system and life. - The different nature of the Pskov and Novgorod political order. - Disadvantages of the Novgorod political life. - The general reason for the fall of the liberty of Novgorod. - Predictions

25 . The main phenomena of the III period of Russian history. - The position of the Russian land in the middle of the XV century. - Borders of the Moscow Principality. A change in the further course of the gathering of Rus' by Moscow. - Territorial acquisitions of Ivan III and his successor. - The political unification of Great Russia is the main fact of the III period. - Immediate consequences of this fact. - A change in the external position of the Moscow principality and in the foreign policy of its grand dukes. The idea of ​​a people's Russian state and its expression in the foreign policy of Ivan III

26 . Internal consequences of the main fact of the III period. - The growth of the political self-consciousness of the Moscow sovereign. - Sophia Paleolog and its importance in Moscow. - New titles. - A new genealogy and legend about the coronation of Vladimir Monomakh. - The patrimony and the state. - Fluctuation between both forms of government. - Order of succession. - Expansion of the power of the Grand Duke. - Lateness and harm of specific possession. - The indecisive attitude of Ivan III and his successors towards him. - The composition of the supreme power of the Moscow sovereign. - A change in the view of Moscow society on their sovereign. - Conclusions

27 . Moscow boyars. - A change in its composition since the half of the 15th century. - Conditions and rules of order for boyar families. - The political mood of the boyars in its new composition. - Definition of the Moscow boyars as a class. - Localism. - Local fatherland. - Local account simple and complex. - Legislative restrictions of locality. - The idea of ​​locality. -When it has developed into a system. Its significance as a political guarantee for the boyars. - Its shortcomings in this respect

28 . The attitude of the boyars in its new composition to their sovereign. - The attitude of the Moscow boyars to the Grand Duke in specific centuries. - Change in these relations with Ivan III. - Collisions. - Uncertainty of the cause of the discord. - Bersen's conversations with Maxim Grek. - Boyar rule. - Correspondence of Tsar Ivan with Prince Kurbsky. Judgments of Prince Kurbsky. - Objections of the king. - The nature of the correspondence. - Dynastic origin of discord.

29 . Circumstances that prepared the establishment of the oprichnina. - Unusual departure of the tsar from Moscow and his message to the capital. - The return of the king. - Decree on oprichnina. - The life of the king in Alexander Sloboda. - The attitude of the oprichnina to the zemshchina. - Appointment of the oprichnina. - The contradiction in the structure of the Muscovite state. - The idea of ​​replacing the boyars with the nobility. - Aimlessness of the oprichnina. - Judgment of her contemporaries

30 . Characteristics of Tsar Ivan the Terrible

31 . Composition of specific society. - Composition of the Moscow service class. - Service elements. - Elements unserved; townspeople-landowners, clerks, servicemen on the device. - Foreigners. - The quantitative ratio of constituent elements by tribal origin. - Ladder of ranks. The number of the military service class. - External position of the state. - Wars in the Northwest. - The fight against the Crimea and legs. - Defense of the northeastern borders. - Coastal service. - Lines of defensive fortifications. - Guard and stanitsa service. - The severity of the struggle. - The question of the economic and military structure of the service class and the local system

32 . local farming. - Opinions on the origin of local law. - The origin of landownership. - Local system. - Her rules. - Local and monetary salaries. - Local layout. - Lives.

33 . Immediate consequences of the local system. - I. Influence of the local principle on patrimonial land tenure. Mobilization of estates in the XVI century. - II. The local system as a means of artificial development of private land ownership. - III. Formation of county noble societies. - IV. The emergence of a service agricultural proletariat. - V. Unfavorable influence of local landownership on cities. - VI. The influence of the local system on the fate of the peasants.

34 . Question about monastic estates. - Spread of monasteries. - Monasteries in northeastern Russia. - Desert monasteries. - Monasteries-colonies. - Colonization activities of the Trinity Sergius Monastery. - The meaning of the desert monasteries. - Old Russian calendar. - Old Russian hagiography. - The composition and nature of ancient Russian life. - World monasteries. - Founders of desert monasteries. - Wandering and settlement of a hermit in the desert. - Desert cenobitic monastery

35 . Ways of land enrichment of monasteries. - Land granted. - Contributions for the soul and for the tonsure. - Purchases and other transactions. - Harmful consequences of monastic land ownership for monasticism itself. - Monastery sterns. - The decline of monastic discipline. - The inconvenience of monastic land tenure for service people and the state. - The question of monastic estates. - Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky. - Council of 1503 - Literary controversy on the issue. - Legislative attempts to restrain the land enrichment of the monasteries

36 . The relationship of monastic land ownership with serfdom. - Peasants in the XV and XVI centuries. - Types of rural settlements. The ratio of residential arable land to the void. Classes of landowners. - The relationship of the peasants: 1) to the landowners, 2) to the state. - The social structure of the peasants. - The question of the rural community. - A peasant in his agricultural holding. - Assistance, loan, benefits. - Peasant plots. - Duties. - Conclusion.

37 . Opinion on the attachment of peasants at the end of the XVI century. - The 1597 Fugitive Peasants Act and the alleged decree on the general attachment of peasants. - Orders of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. - Economic conditions that prepared the serfdom of the peasants. - Land attachment of black and palace peasants. - The growth of loans and the strengthening of the personal dependence of the peasant owners. - Peasant transports and escapes and legislative measures against them. - The position of the possessing peasantry at the beginning of the XVII century. - Conclusions

38 . Overview of the past. - Management in the Muscovite state of the XV-XVI centuries. - Unfavorable conditions of its device. General view of its structure and character. - Office of the specific principality. - Boyars led and boyar thought. - Deputies and volostels. - Importance of feeding. - Changes in the central administration of the Muscovite state since the half of the 15th century. - Orders and the Boyar Duma. - The nature of their activities

39 . Changes in regional government. - Normalization of feedings. - Report and judges. - Lip control. - Its composition. - Department and process. - Character and meaning. - Two questions. - Attitude of the labial administration to feeders. - Zemstvo reform. - Her reasons. - Introduction of zemstvo institutions. - Department and responsibility of earthly authorities. Faithful management. - The nature and significance of the reform

40 . Management and society. - The fragmentation and class character of local self-government. The failure of the all-estate beginning. - The need to unite local institutions. - Zemsky cathedrals. - The legend of the cathedral in 1550 - Analysis of the legend. Composition of the councils of 1566 and 1598 - Service and commercial and industrial people in their composition. - Zemsky Sobor and land. The value of the conciliar representative. - The order of conciliar meetings. - Meaning of the cross kiss. - Connection of cathedrals with local worlds. - The origin and significance of zemstvo cathedrals. - The idea of ​​the All-Earth Council. - Muscovy at the end of the 16th century

41 . A look at the IV period of Russian history. - The main facts of the period. - Mutual contradictions in the correlation of these facts. - The influence of foreign policy on the internal life of the state. - The course of affairs in the IV period in connection with this influence. - State and political consciousness of society. - Beginning of Troubles. - End of a dynasty. Tsar Fedor and Boris Godunov. - Causes of Trouble. Imposture

42 . Consistent entry into the Troubles of all classes of society. - Tsar Boris and boyars. - False Dmitry I and the boyars. - Tsar Vasily and the great boyars. - Cross entry of Tsar Basil and its meaning. - Middle boyars and metropolitan nobility. - Treaty February 4, 1610 and the Moscow Treaty August 17, 1610 - Their comparison. - The provincial nobility and the zemstvo sentence on June 30, 1611 - The participation of the lower classes in the Time of Troubles

43 . Causes of Troubles. - Its dynastic reason: patrimonial-dynastic view of the state. - A look at the elected king. - The reason is socio-political: the draft system of the state. - Public strife. - The meaning of imposture during the Time of Troubles. - Conclusions. - The second militia and the cleansing of Moscow from the Poles. - Election of Michael. - Reasons for its success

44 . Immediate consequences of the Troubles. - New political concepts. - Their manifestations in Troubles. - A change in the composition of the government class. - Disorder of locality. - A new formulation of the supreme power. - The king and the boyars. - Boyar Duma and Zemstvo Cathedral. - Simplification of the supreme power. - Boyar attempt in 1681. Change in the composition and significance of the Zemsky Sobor. - Ruin. - The mood of society after the turmoil.

45 . External position of the Muscovite state after the Time of Troubles. - Tasks of foreign policy under the new dynasty. - Western Rus' since the union of Lithuania with Poland. - Changes in management and class relations. - Cities and Magdeburg law. - Union of Lublin. - Its consequences. - The settlement of the steppe Ukraine. - The origin of the Cossacks. - Little Russian Cossacks. - Zaporozhye

46 . The moral character of the Little Russian Cossacks. - Cossacks are for faith and nationality. - Discord in the Cossacks. - Little Russian question. - Questions of the Baltic and Eastern. - European relations of the Moscow State. - The significance of Moscow's foreign policy in the 17th century

47 . Fluctuations in the internal life of the Muscovite state of the XVII century. - Two series of innovations. - The direction of legislation and the need for a new set of laws. - The Moscow rebellion of 1648 and its relation to the Code. - The verdict of July 16, 1648 on the drafting of the Code and the execution of the sentence. - Written sources of the Code. - Participation of conciliar elected in its preparation. - Methods of compilation. The value of the Code. - New ideas. - Newly listed articles

48 . Government troubles. - Centralization of local government; governors and labial elders. - The fate of zemstvo institutions. - District grades. Concentration of central control. District grades. - Concentration of central control. - Orders of Counting and Secret Affairs. - Concentration of society. - Basic and transitional classes. - The formation of estates. - Service people. - Posad population; return of pawns to the land tax

49 . Peasants on the lands of private owners. - Conditions of their position. - Serfdom in ancient Rus'. - The origin of bondage slavery. - April decree of 1597 - Backyard people. - Appearance of a serf peasant record. - Her origin. - Her conditions. - Serfs according to the Code of 1649 - Peasant bellies. - Tax liability for serfs. - The difference between the serfs and serfs in the era of the Code

50 . Lords and serfs. - Serfdom and Zemsky Sobor. - The public composition of the Zemsky Sobor in the XVII century. - Its numerical composition. - Elections. - The course of affairs at the cathedrals. - The political character of the cathedrals. - Conditions of their fragility. - The idea of ​​the Zemstvo Cathedral in the trading classes. - The collapse of the cathedral representation. What did the Zemsky Sobor of the 17th century - Overview of what has been said

51 . Connection of phenomena. - Army and finance. - Salary taxes: indirect; direct - money given and frilled, yamsky, polonyanichnye, streltsy. - Writing books. - Fixed fees. - Experiments and reforms. - Salt duty and tobacco monopoly. - Copper credit marks and the Moscow rebellion of 1662 - Living quarter. - Underwater tax and census books. - Estate apportionment of direct taxes. - Finance and zemstvo. - Distribution of the tax on backyard people. Distribution of people's labor among state forces. - Extraordinary taxes. - List of income and expenses in 1680

52 . Dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the state. - His reasons. - His manifestations. People's riots. - Reflection of discontent in written monuments. - Prince. I.A. Khvorostinin. - Patriarch Nikon. - Grieg. Kotoshikhin. - Yuri Krizhanich.

53 . Western influence. - Its beginning. Why did it start in the 17th century? - The meeting of two foreign influences and their difference. - Two directions in the mental life of Russian society. - Gradual Western influence. - Regiments of a foreign system. - Factories. - Thinking about the fleet. - Thought about the national economy. - New German Sloboda. - European comfort. - Theater. - Thought about scientific knowledge. - The first conductors of it. - Scientific works of Kyiv scientists in Moscow. The beginnings of school education. - S. Polotsky

54 . The beginning of the reaction to Western influence. - Protest against the new science. - Church schism. - The story of its beginning. - How do both sides explain its origin. - The power of religious rites and texts. - Its psychological basis. - Rus' and Byzantium. - The eclipse of the idea of ​​the universal church. - Tradition and science. National-church conceit. - State innovations. - Patriarch Nikon

55 . The position of the Russian Church at the accession of Nikon to the patriarchal throne. - His idea of ​​a universal church. - His innovations. - How did Nikon contribute to the church schism? - Latinophobia. - Confessions of the first Old Believers. - Overview of what has been said. - The folk-psychological composition of the Old Believers. - Disruption and enlightenment. - Contributing to the split Western influence

56 . Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. - F.M. Rtishchev

57 . A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin

58 . Prince V.V. Golitsyn. - Preparation and reform program

59 . Life of Peter the Great before the start of the Northern War. - Infancy. - Court teacher. - Teaching. - Events of 1682 - Peter in Preobrazhensky. - Amusing. - Secondary school. - Moral growth of Peter. - The reign of Queen Natalia. - Peter's company. - Fun value. Trip abroad. - Return

60 . Peter the Great, his appearance, habits, way of life and thoughts, character

61 . Foreign policy and reform of Peter the Great. - Tasks of foreign policy. - International relations in Europe. - Beginning of the Northern War. - The progress of the war. - Its influence on the reform. - Progress and connection of reforms. - The order of study. - Military reform. - Formation of a regular army. - Baltic Fleet. - Military budget

62 . Importance of military reform. - Position of the nobility. - The nobility of the capital. - The triple meaning of the nobility before the reform. - Nobility review and analysis. - The failure of these measures. - Compulsory education of the nobility. - Service order. - Separation of service. - Change in the genealogical composition of the nobility. - Significance of the above changes. Rapprochement of estates and estates. - Decree on unity of succession. - Effect of the decree

63 . Peasants and the first revision. - Composition of society according to the Code. Recruitment and kits. - Poll census. - Quartering regiments. - Simplification of the public composition. - Poll census and serfdom. - Economic importance of the poll census

64 . Industry and trade. - The plan and methods of Peter's activity in this area. - I. Calling foreign craftsmen and manufacturers. - II. Sending Russian people abroad. - III. Legislative propaganda. - IV. Industrial companies, benefits, loans and subsidies. - Hobbies, failures and successes. - Trade and communications

65 . Finance. - Difficulties. - Measures to eliminate them. - New taxes; informers and profiters. - Arrived. - Monastery order. - Monopolies. Poll tribute. - Its meaning. Budget 1724 - Results of the financial reform. Obstacles to reform.

66 . Control transformation. - The order of study. - Boyar Duma and orders. - Reform of 1699 - Voivodship comrades. - Moscow City Hall and Kurbatov. - Preparation of the provincial reform. - Provincial division in 1708 - Administration of the province. - The failure of the provincial reform. - Establishment of the Senate. - The origin and significance of the Senate. - Fiscals. - Boards

67 . Reformation of the Senate. - The Senate and the Attorney General. - New changes in local government. - Commissars from the land. - Magistrates. - Starting new establishments. - The difference between the foundations of central and regional government. - Regulations. New management in action. - Robbery

69 . Russian society at the moment of the death of Peter the Great. - The international position of Russia. - Impression of the death of Peter in the people. - The attitude of the people to Peter. - The legend of the impostor king. - The legend of the Antichrist king. - Significance of both legends for the reform. - Change in the composition of the upper classes. - Educational means. Overseas education. - Newspaper. - Theater. - Public education. - Schools and teaching. - Gymnasium Gluck. - Primary schools. - Books; assemblies; secular textbook. - The ruling class and its attitude towards reform

70 . Epoch 1725-1762 - Succession to the throne after Peter I. - Accession of Catherine I. - Accession of Peter II. - Further changes on the throne. - Guards and nobility. - The political mood of the upper class - the Supreme Privy Council. - Prince D.M. Golitsyn. - Verkhovniki 1730

71 . The ferment among the nobility caused by the election of Duchess Anna to the throne. - Shlyakhetsky projects. - The new plan of Prince D. Golitsyn. - Crash. - His reasons. - Case connection. 1730 with the past. - Empress Anna and her court. - Foreign policy. - Movement against the Germans

72 . The meaning of the era of palace coups. - The attitude of governments after Peter I to his reform. - The impotence of these governments. - Peasant question. - Chief Prosecutor Anisim Maslov. - Nobility and serfdom. - Service benefits of the nobility: educational qualification and service life. - Strengthening of noble land ownership: the abolition of single inheritance; noble loan bank; fugitive decree; expansion of serfdom; class cleaning of noble land ownership. - Abolition of compulsory service of the nobility. - The third formation of serfdom. - Law practice

75 . The main fact of the era. - Empress Catherine II. - Her origin. - Elizabeth's Court. - The position of Catherine at court. - Catherine's mode of action. - Her activities. - Tests and successes. - Count A.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. - Catherine under Emperor Peter 3 the Third. - Character

79 . The fate of the central administration after the death of Peter 1. - The transformation of the regional administration. - Provinces. - Provincial institutions, administrative and financial. - Provincial judicial institutions. - Contradictions in the structure of provincial institutions. - Letters of grant to the nobility and cities. - The importance of provincial institutions in 1775

81 . The influence of serfdom on the intellectual and moral life of Russian society. - Cultural demands of the noble society. - The program of noble education. - Academy of Sciences and University. - State and private educational institutions. - Home education. - Morals of noble society. - The influence of French literature. - Guides of French Literature. - The results of the influence of educational literature. - Typical representatives of an educated noble society. - Significance of the reign of Empress Catherine II. - Increasing funds. Strengthening social discord. - Nobility and Society

85 . The reign of Nicholas 1. Tasks. - The beginning of the reign of Nicholas 1 the First. - Codification. - Own office. - Provincial Administration. - Growth of bureaucracy. Peasant question. - The device of the state peasants. - Legislation on peasants. - Its meaning

86 . Essay on the most important reforms of Alexander II II. - Fortified population. - Landlord economy. - The mood of the peasants. - Accession to the throne of Alexander 2. - Preparation of the peasant reform. - Secret Committee on Peasant Affairs. - Provincial committees. - Reform projects. - Editorial committees. - The main features of the Regulations of February 19, 1861. - Land arrangement of peasants. - Peasant duties and redemption of land. - Loan. - Redemption payments. - Zemstvo reform. - Conclusion

To the 175th anniversary of the birth

Proceedings of an outstanding Russian historian
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911)
in the fund of rare and valuable documents
Pskov Regional Universal Scientific Library

“A peculiar creative mind and scientific inquisitiveness
united in it with a deep sense of historical reality
and with a rare gift for its artistic reproduction.

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky

"Deep and subtle researcher of historical phenomena,
he himself has now become a complete historical phenomenon,
major historical fact of our mental life.

M. M. Bogoslovsky

Today it is difficult to imagine the study of national history without the works of Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. His name is among the largest representatives of domestic historical science of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Contemporaries secured his reputation as a deep researcher, a brilliant lecturer, an inimitable master of the artistic word.

The scientific and pedagogical activity of Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky lasted about 50 years. The name of a brilliant and witty lecturer was widely popular among the intelligentsia and students.

Noting the significant contribution of the scientist to the development of historical science, the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1900 elected him an over-staff academician in the category of history and Russian antiquities, and in 1908 he became an honorary academician in the category of fine literature.

In recognition of the merits of the scientist in the year of the 150th anniversary of his birth, the International Center for Minor Planets assigned his name to planet No. 4560. In Penza, the first monument in Russia to V.O. memorial museum opened.

	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich. Legends of foreigners about the Moscow state / V. Klyuchevsky. - Moscow: Printing house of T-va Ryabushinsky, 1916. - 300 p. While studying at the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, V. O. Klyuchevsky studied Russian history under the guidance of the largest Russian historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov and for his graduation essay "The legend of foreigners about the Muscovite state" was awarded a gold medal. The author, after conducting a detailed analysis of the documents, shows through the eyes of foreign observers the climatic features of the country, the economic employment of the urban and rural population, the leadership of the state in the person of the royal court, the maintenance of the army.
	Klyuchevsky, Vasily Osipovich. Boyar Duma of ancient Rus' / prof. V. Klyuchevsky. - Ed. 4th. - Moscow: A. I. Mamontov Printing House Partnership, 1909. -, VI, 548 p. - On tit. l.: All copyrights reserved. - Life time. ed. ed. In 1882, V. O. Klyuchevsky brilliantly defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic "Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'". His research covered the entire period of existence of the Boyar Duma from the Kievan Rus of the 10th century to the beginning of the 18th century, when it was replaced by the Government Senate. In his work, the scientist studied the social problems of society, highlighting the history of the boyars and the nobility as the ruling class.
	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich. History of estates in Russia: course, cheat. in Moscow. un-those in 1886 / prof. V. Klyuchevsky. - Ed. 2nd. - Moscow: Printing house of P. P. Ryabushinsky, 1914. - XVI, 276 p. - On tit. l.: All copyrights reserved. In 1880-1890. V. O. Klyuchevsky was most interested in the problem of social history. While lecturing, the scientist created an integral system of courses. The most famous was a special course "History of Estates in Russia", issued by him in the form of a lithograph in 1887. The text of the book has been reproduced from the original lecture notes, carefully reviewed and edited.

The main creative achievement of V. O. Klyuchevsky was the lecture "Course of Russian History", in which he outlined his concept of the historical development of Russia. The publication of the "Course of Russian History" was of decisive importance in the fate of the scientist, fixing his lecturer's talent on paper and becoming a monument of Russian historical thought.

His "Course" was the first attempt at a problematic approach to the presentation of Russian history. He divided Russian history into periods depending on the movement of the bulk of the population and on geographical conditions that have a strong effect on the course of historical life.

The fundamental novelty of his periodization was that he introduced two more criteria into it: political (the problem of power and society) and economic. The human personality seemed to him to be the paramount force in the human community: "... the human person, human society and the nature of the country - these are the three main historical forces that build the human community."

This work has gained worldwide fame. It was translated into many languages ​​of the world and, according to foreign historians, served as the base and main source for the study of Russian history throughout the world.

	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich. Russian history course. Part 1: [Lectures 1-20] / prof. V. Klyuchevsky. - Ed. 3rd. - Moscow: Printing house of G. Lissner and D. Sobko, 1908. - 464 p. - On tit. l.: All copyrights reserved; The only original text. - Life time. ed. ed. - On the spine is a supereclibris: "T.N."
	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich. Russian history course. Part 2: [Lectures 21-40] / prof. V. Klyuchevsky. - Moscow: Synodal Printing House, 1906. -, 508, IV p. - Life time. ed. ed. - On the spine is a supereclibris: "T.N."
	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich. Russian history course. Part 3: [Lectures 41-58]. - Moscow, 1908. - 476 p. - Tit. l. absent. - Life time. ed. ed. - On the spine is a supereclibris: "T.N."
	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich. Russian history course. Part 4: [Lectures 59-74] / prof. V. Klyuchevsky. - Moscow: A. I. Mamontov Printing House Partnership, 1910. -, 481 p. - On tit. l .: Each copy must have an author's stamp and a special sheet with a notice from the publisher; All copyrights reserved; The only original text. - Life time. ed. ed. - On the spine is a supereclibris: "T.N."
	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich. Russian history course. Part 5 / prof. V. Klyuchevsky; [ed. Ya. Barskov]. Petersburg: Gosizdat, 1921. - 352, VI p. - Decree: p. 315-352 .- On the region. ed. 1922. - On tit. l. Owner's inscription: "K. Romanov". The historian did not have time to complete and edit the fifth part of the book; the “Course of Russian History” ends with an analysis of the reign of Nicholas I. Part 5 was printed according to the lithographed edition of the lectures of 1883-1884. at Moscow University according to the notes of the publisher Y. Barskov, corrected by V. O. Klyuchevsky with his own hand, partly - under his dictation.
	After the revolution, all the works of the historian were monopolized by the new government, information about this was placed on the back of the title page of each publication: “Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky monopolized Russian Federative Soviet Republic for five years, until December 31, 1922 ... None of the booksellers indicated on the book price cannot be increased under penalty of liability before the law of the land. Government Commissar Liter.-Ed. Department P. I. Lebedev-Polyansky. Petrograd. 15/III 1918,” the publishers warn. Like other works of the scientist, "The Course of Russian History" was republished in 1918 by the Literary and Publishing Department of the Commissariat of Public Education, in 1920-1921. Gosizdat. Each volume cost 5 rubles, the books were published on poor paper, in a publisher's cardboard binding and were distinguished by low print quality.

Other publications published after his death speak of the enduring value of the works of the largest Russian historian. These are three collections of works of a different nature, published in Moscow in the most difficult political and social situation of pre-revolutionary Russia.

	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich Experiments and research: 1st Sat. Art. / V. Klyuchevsky. - 2nd ed. - Moscow: Printing houses of the Moscow City Arnold-Tretyakov School for the Deaf and Dumb and T-va Ryabushinsky, 1915. -, 551, XXVIII, p. - On tit. l.: All copyrights reserved. - Contents: Economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory. Pskov disputes. Russian ruble XVI-XVIII centuries. in relation to the present. The origin of serfdom in Russia. Poll tax and the abolition of servility in Russia. The composition of the representation at the Zemsky Sobors of Ancient Rus'. Applications. - Bookseller. announced - Library of K. K. Romanov. Collection 1st - "Experiments and Research" - came out in 1912. The preface states that "the name of the collection was given by the author himself, and he also determined the composition of the works included in the collection." This edition is notable for us in that it contains the article "Pskov Disputes". It is dedicated to the church society of the 4th - 12th centuries.
	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich Essays and speeches: 2nd Sat. Art. / V. Klyuchevsky. - Moscow: Printing house of P. P. Ryabushinsky, 1913. -, 514, p. - On tit. l.: All copyrights reserved. - Contents: Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov. S. M. Solovyov, as a teacher. In memory of S. M. Solovyov. Speech at the solemn meeting of Moscow University on June 6, 1880 on the day of the opening of the monument to Pushkin. Eugene Onegin and his ancestors. Contribution of the Church to the successes of Russian civil law and order. Sadness. In memory of M. Yu. Lermontov. Good people of Ancient Rus'. I. N. Boltin. Meaning prep. Sergius for the Russian people and state. Two upbringings. Remembrance of N. I. Novikov and his time. Undergrowth Fonvizin. Empress Catherine II. Western influence and church schism in Russia in the 17th century. Peter the Great among his employees. Collection 2nd - "Essays and Speeches"- was published the following year, 1913. From the preface, one can learn that this edition “was conceived by the author himself. Under this title, he was going to combine the second, so to speak, journalistic cycle of his printed articles, of which some were delivered as speeches.
	Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich