Место “Киевского Периода” в Общей Системе “Русской Истории”

Abstract

SUMMARY: “Mesto ‘Kievskogo perioda’…” was written by the outstanding Russian historian of the early twentieth century, Aleksandr Evgen’evich Presniakov, who elaborated this text as an introduction to his innovative course of lectures on Russian history (1907–1908). In this introduction Presniakov (undoubtedly under the influence of current political debates on whether Russia is a national or a multinational state) critically addressed the pillar of the Russian imperial historiography known as “the scheme of Russian history”. Presniakov argued that this scheme was conceived by court literati of the 15 th century and survived with little modifications until the beginning of the 20 th century. Given the political intentions of the authors of the grand historical scheme, this concept of Russian past constructed continuity of national history from Kievan Russia to the imperial period. By doing so the scheme of Russian history relegated to the margins alternative paths of Russian history (the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and of South-Western Rus’) and created a homogenous perspective on Russian history. Presniakov gave a short overview of the development of Russian historiography during the imperial period and concluded that innovative studies by P. N. Miliukov and M. K. Liubavskii did not essentially change the scheme and therefore could not serve as an answer to the politicized debate between the Russian (Great Russian) and Ukrainian schools of historiography. Presniakov suggested that the challenge posed by the Ukrainian historiography (M. Grushevskii in particular) was in need of a critical reflection on the concepts of nation, people, and nationality as the key question appeared to be whether the Kievan period belonged to the Russian (Great Russian) or Ukrainian history. In what amounted to a surprisingly modern analysis of concepts for studies of nationalism and history of nation-formation Presniakov contended that it was analytically inappropriate to apply concepts of national history to the early period of Rus’ history. He also suggested to keep the plurality of historical experiences of that period (though still within one common narrative) in order to understand the historical process of nation-formation (and challenges to the Russian nation-building) in later periods. It is this astonishing novelty and critical sophistication and the strive to de-center Russian national narratives and allow for a multiplicity of historical experiences that inticed the editors to reprint the largely forgotten 1938 publication of Presniakov’s lectures.