Basic Questions of M. N. Pokrovskii's View of History

Abstract

In the development of Soviet historiography in the 1920s, the works of its most important figure, M. N. Pokrovskii, played a definite role. A critical evaluation of those works continues to be timely today. Efforts to do this fall into three stages, if we leave out a few comments in the prerevolutionary period. In the first (the 1920s and early 1930s), criticism of Pokrovskii's views was timid and inconsistent, his authority as a public figure and scholar was very high, and the theoretical positions taken by those who wrote about him were weak. Nevertheless, the notion that a number of his important formulations were not acceptable, including his theory of merchant capitalism, was expressed even then. (1) The second stage (from the end of the 1930s to the mid-1950s) witnessed a comprehensive reexamination of Pokrovskii's general conception. As a consequence, false and debatable conclusions resulting from it were revealed. (2) A profoundly negative overriding aspect of that critique was its insufficient objectivity and inadequate willingness to approach the matter historically. The major feature of the third stage, which began in the middle 1950s and continues to this day, is an attempt to provide objective evaluations. Two trends made themselves felt: on the one hand, an idealization of Pokrovskii as historian (3), and on the other, an underestimation of the positive content and significance of his works. (4) The roots of the former tendency lie in Pokrovskii's own self-evaluation and the apologetic critiques of the first stage, while the second is a flashback to the positions held in the late 1930s. Let us note the value of a number of the formulations advanced in articles appearing in recent years. (5) Below we bring together the most important observations, those of the present author included, with regard to the development of Pokrovskii's scholarly views.