Г.А. Герасименко: изломы судьбы и творчества историка

Abstract

Introduction. Currently, interest in studying the creative heritage of prominent Russian historians has increased significantly, the formation of conceptual views of which took place under the conditions of the dominance of the Marxist-Leninist methodology. Such researchers include Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Grigory Alekseevich Gerasimenko. His scientific heritage is widely and highly appreciated by specialists. Methods and materials. The fate and scientific work of the scientist was recreated on the basis of the works published by him, reviews of them, attraction of memoirs, bibliographic reference books and some documentary materials on the basis of which his works were created. In this article, on the basis of the anthropological method, the problems of scientific research by G.A. Gerasimenko at different periods of his life and work are analyzed; the principles and methods of research practices of the scientist are considered. Analysis. The first stage of scientific and pedagogical activity of the scientist is connected with the Saratov State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky, where he studied, then taught at the Faculty of History and created his scientific works. They present observations and conclusions about the party-political struggle in the councils of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies of the Volga region; on the basis of mass historical sources, the forms and methods of organizing peasant committees in 1917 were shown, the dynamics of their social composition were revealed. These definitions conditioned the historian’s contribution to the study of the topical issues of the Great Russian Revolution. The article shows the expansion of the chronological and territorial framework of research by G.A. Gerasimenko during the Moscow period of his scientific activity. He turned to identifying the prerequisites for radical actions of peasants, revealed the causes of conflicts between the people and the authorities, and outlined the positions of public organizations during the revolution. Results. Analyzing the work of the historian, the authors revealed traditions and innovations in his work, noted new methodological techniques and historiographic plots in the scientist’s creative laboratory.