History in Russia Comes of Age: Institution-Building, Cosmopolitanism, and Theoretical Debates among Historians in Late Imperial Russia

Abstract

In late 1880s, historiography entered a period of rapid change. This is well-known to both Western and historians and requires no further demonstration. (1) It was also post factum perception of contemporaries. The St. Petersburg historian I. I. Lappo described 1890s, in particular, as a time when Russian historical scholarship flourished mightily, which he attributed particularly to opening of archives and expanding number of academic positions at universities. (2) Comparing this period with earlier ones, we find that it was marked not only by a rising volume and quality of historical writings but also by two trends that, while obviously not encompassing all of this scholarship, were nonetheless dominant. The first of these trends was a rapid historiographical opening to West. This put an end, in many cases, to relative isolation of previous period, roughly 1850s-80s, when study of history had developed under a kind of protectionist regime that nevertheless allowed it to develop its own periodization, sources, and specific terminology and problemics. As one might expect, opening was felt most strongly by scholars of universal history, for whom chairs had gradually been established since beginning of 19th century and especially after 1835, alongside establishment of chairs in history. By turn of century, historians such as Pavel Vinogradov (1854-1925), a specialist on medieval England, or Nikolai Kareev (1850-1931), a historian of French Revolution, had made such distinguished names for themselves in West that former held Henry Maine Chair at Oxford from 1903 until his death in 1925, and latter undertook research on French peasantry and was published in France (as was Vinogradov in Great Britain). (3) This opening to Western Europe was reflected in increasing frequency of foreign travel by universalist historians as well as in their lecture courses, such as those on Middle Ages by Vasil'evskii and Grevs (on whom, more below) or Vinogradov's universal-history textbook. These historians were not shy about presenting their audiences with sweeping historiographic vistas. (4) However, opening to West also touched specialists in history of generation sometimes called the students of Kliuchevskii. As is well known, their teacher had a poor grasp of foreign languages and did not travel abroad. Increasing contact with German, French, and British universities and historical journals produced a minor intellectual revolution among younger generation of historians. In Russia itself, professors like Vinogradov systematically pushed their history students to read foreign literature and approach and world history from a comparative perspective. This revolution fueled second trend to which I alluded earlier: impressive developments in study of social history that placed Russia, in Terence Emmons's view, at forefront of European historiography of time. (5) Social history--or rather, social history of institutions, for that was in fact main thrust of studies that Kliuchevskii initiated. The attractiveness and prestige of European (French, British, German) sociology accounted for much of this development. Leaving aside historian, ethnographer, lawyer, but above all sociologist Maksim Kovalevskii, historians were often first in Russia to discover Western sociologists: Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer (who dominated landscape of human sciences beyond turn of century), Henry Maine, Emile Durkheim, and others. Western historians who might be considered social historians were also introduced into Russia, including Fustel de Coulanges, who was read, translated, discussed, and greatly admired, as well as Edward Augustus Freeman (honorary professor of history at St. Petersburg University), Georg Ludwig von Maurer, Georg Waitz, Karl Lamprecht, Frederic Seebohm, Frederic William Maitland, and others. …