Methodology is an integral part of scientific knowledge

Any discipline, in order to have the status of a scientific one, simply inevitably must acquire a clear system and methodology of knowledge. Otherwise, in the absence of a methodological apparatus, it cannot, strictly speaking, be considered a science. A striking example of such a statement is the existence of a number of alternative views (like homeopathy). Historical discipline, taking shape in science, of course, over time, it also acquired its own scientific apparatus and acquired methods of historical research.

Peculiarities

It is interesting that the methods of research in history are by no means always historical in isolation, sometimes they are borrowed from other sciences. So, a lot was taken from sociology, geography, philosophy, ethnography, etc. However, history has one important feature that is unique to it. This is the only scientific discipline whose object and subject of study do not exist in real time, which makes it difficult to study them, significantly reduces the possibilities of its methodological apparatus, and also adds inconvenience to the researcher, who inevitably projects his own experience and beliefs onto the logic and motivation of past eras.

Variety of historical methods of knowledge

Methods of historical research can be classified in different ways. However, these methods formulated by historians are divided mainly into the following: logical knowledge, general scientific methods, special, interdisciplinary.
Logical or philosophical methods of historical research are the most elementary elements of common sense in the study of the subject: generalization, analysis, comparison, analogy.

General scientific methods

These are those methods of historical research that do not belong to history alone, but apply in general to the methods of scientific knowledge, such may be the following: scientific experiment, measurement, hypothesis building, and so on.

Special Methods

They are the main and characteristic of a particular story. There are also a lot of them, but the following are distinguished as the main ones. Ideographic (narrative), which consists in the most accurate description of facts (of course, a description of reality and facts has its place in any study, but in history it has a completely special character). Retrospective method, which consists in tracking the chronicle preceding the event of interest in order to identify its causes. Closely related to it is the historical-genetic method aimed at studying early development event of interest. The historical-comparative method is based on the search for common and different phenomena in distant time and geographical periods, that is, on the identification of patterns. The logical follower of the previous method is the historical-typological method, which is based on the found patterns of phenomena, events, cultures, creates their classification for a simpler subsequent analysis. The chronological method involves a strict presentation of the factual material in the correct sequence.

Interdisciplinary Methods

Methods of historical research include interdisciplinary ones. For example, quantitative, borrowed from mathematics. Or socio-psychological. And geography did not just give history a cartographic method of research based on close work with maps. The purpose of the latter is to identify patterns and causes historical events. A special discipline was born - historical geography, which studies the influence of geographical and climatic features on the course of history.

Thus, the methods of historical research are the most important basis for history as a science.

The subject of history

History deals with human activity, i.e. with actions performed by individuals and groups of individuals. It describes the circumstances in which people live and the way they react to those circumstances. Its object is value judgments and the ends to which people are guided by these judgments, the means to which people resort to achieve the goals pursued, and the results of their actions. History studies the conscious reaction of a person to the state of his environment, both the natural environment and the social environment, determined by the actions of previous generations and his contemporaries.

Every individual is born into a particular social and natural environment. The individual is not merely a man in general, whom history can consider in the abstract. At every moment of his life, the individual is the product of all the experience accumulated by his ancestors, plus the experience that he himself has accumulated. A real man lives as a member of his family, his race, his people and his era; as a citizen of their country; as a member of a certain social group; as a representative of a certain profession. He is inspired by certain religious, philosophical, metaphysical and political ideas, which he sometimes expands or modifies with his own thinking.

His actions are guided by the ideologies he has adopted in his environment. However, these ideologies are not immutable. They are products of the human mind and change when new thoughts are added to an old assortment of ideas or replace discarded ideas. In searching for the source of the origin of new ideas, history cannot go further than establishing that they were produced by the thinking of some man. The end data of history, beyond which no historical research can go, are human ideas and actions. The historian can trace the origin of an idea to another, previously developed idea. He can describe the external conditions to which these actions were a reaction. But he will never be able to say more about new ideas and new ways of behaving than that they arose at a certain point in space and time in the human brain and were perceived by other people.

Attempts have been made to explain the birth of ideas from "natural" factors. Ideas were described as a necessary product of the geographic environment, the physical structure of the human environment. This doctrine clearly contradicts the facts available. Many ideas are born as a reaction to irritations of the human physical environment. But the content of these ideas is not determined by the external environment. Different individuals and groups of individuals react differently to the same external environment.

Biological factors have tried to explain the diversity of ideas and actions. Man as a biological species is divided into racial groups that have clearly distinguishable inherited biological characteristics. Historical experience does not prevent us from suggesting that members of a particular racial group are better equipped to understand sound ideas than members of other races. However, it is necessary to explain why people of the same race have different ideas? Why are brothers different from each other?

It is all the more doubtful whether cultural backwardness is an indication of the irreversible inferiority of a racial group. The evolutionary process that turned the animal-like ancestors of man into modern people, lasted many hundreds of thousands of years. Compared with this period, the fact that some races have not yet reached the cultural level that other races passed several thousand years ago does not seem to be of great importance. The physical and mental development of some individuals is slower than average, but subsequently they far outperform most normally developing people. There is nothing impossible in the fact that the same phenomenon is characteristic of entire races.

Outside of human ideas and the goals to which people are driven by these ideas, nothing exists for history. If the historian refers to the meaning of any fact, then he always refers either to the interpretation, which acting people give the situation in which they have to live and act, as well as the results of the actions taken, or the interpretation that other people give to the results of these actions. The ultimate causes referred to in history are always the ends sought by individuals and groups of individuals. History does not recognize in the course of events any other meaning and meaning than that attributed to them by acting people who judge from the point of view of their own human deeds.

Methods of historical research

History as a subject and a science is based on historical methodology. If in many other scientific disciplines there are two main methods of cognition, namely observation and experiment, then only the first method is available for history. Even despite the fact that every true scientist tries to minimize the impact on the object of observation, he still interprets what he sees in his own way. Depending on the methodological approaches used by scientists, the world receives different interpretations of the same event, various teachings, schools, and so on.

There are the following methods of historical research:

Brain teaser,

general scientific,

special,

Interdisciplinary.

Logical methods of historical research

In practice, historians have to use special research methods based on logical and general scientific methods. Logical (philosophical) methods include analysis and synthesis, analogy and comparison, modeling and generalization, and others.

Synthesis implies the reunion of an event or object from smaller components, that is, the movement from simple to complex is used here. The complete opposite of synthesis is analysis, in which one has to move from the complex to the simple.

No less important are such research methods in history as induction and deduction. The latter makes it possible to develop a theory based on the systematization of empirical knowledge about the object under study, deriving numerous consequences. Induction, on the other hand, translates everything from the particular to the general, often probabilistic, position.

Scientists also use analgia and comparison. The first makes it possible to see a certain similarity between different objects that have a large number of relationships, properties, and other things, and comparison is a judgment about the signs of difference and similarity between objects. Comparison is extremely important for qualitative and quantitative characteristics, classification, evaluation and other things.

The methods of historical research are especially distinguished by modeling, which only allows one to assume a connection between objects in order to reveal their location in the system, and generalization, a method that highlights common features that make it possible to make an even more abstract version of an event or some other process.

General scientific methods of historical research

In this case, the above methods are supplemented by empirical methods of knowledge, that is, experiment, observation and measurement, as well as theoretical methods of research, such as mathematical methods, transitions from the abstract to the concrete and vice versa, and others.

Special methods of historical research

One of the most important in this area is the comparative historical method, which not only highlights the underlying problems of phenomena, but also points out similarities and features in historical processes, points out the trends of certain events.

At one time, the theory of K. Marx and his historical-dialectical method, in contrast to which the civilizational method acted, became especially widespread.

Interdisciplinary research methods in history

Like any other science, history is interconnected with other disciplines that help to understand the unknown in order to explain certain historical events. For example, using the techniques of psychoanalysis, historians have been able to interpret the behavior of historical figures. Very important is the interaction between geography and history, which resulted in the cartographic method of research. Linguistics has made it possible to learn a lot about early history based on the synthesis of the approaches of history and linguistics. There are also very close links between history and sociology, mathematics, and so on.

· The cartographic method of research is a separate section of cartography, which is of great historical and economic importance. With its help, you can not only determine the place of residence of individual tribes, indicate the movement of tribes, etc., but also find out the location of minerals and other important objects.

General scientific research methods

General scientific methods include universal research methods that are used to some extent by every science and every scientific theory. The most common of these are the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, and in the social sciences the method of the unity of the logical and the historical.

Climbing from the abstract to the concrete

The most important method of studying reality, characteristic of any science, scientific thinking in general, is the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete. To correctly understand its essence, one must have a correct understanding of the categories of the concrete and the abstract.

The concrete from a scientific point of view is, firstly, a real object, reality in all the richness of its content. Secondly, it is a reflection of this reality, concrete scientific knowledge about it, which is the result of sensory perception and thinking. In the second meaning, the concrete exists in the form of a system of theoretical concepts and categories. “The concrete is concrete because it is the synthesis of many determinations, and therefore the unity of the manifold. In thinking, therefore, it appears as a process of synthesis, as a result, and not as a starting point, although it is a real starting point and, consequently, also a starting point. contemplation and representation."

The abstract, or abstraction, is the result of abstraction - the process of thinking, the essence of which lies in the mental abstraction from a number of non-essential properties of a real object and, thereby, in highlighting its basic properties that are common with other objects. Abstractions are "abbreviations in which we embrace, according to their general properties, many different sensually perceived things "2. As examples of abstractions, one can name such concepts as "man" or "house". In the first case, thinking is abstracted from such features of a person as race, nationality, gender, age, in the second - from diversity The same abstraction is the category "economy", since it lacks features that characterize the set of economic relations inherent in any real economy.

Based on such a scientific understanding of the concrete and the abstract, it can be argued that the objects and phenomena of reality are always concrete, and their everyday or scientific definitions are always abstract. This is explained by the fact that the organs of human sensory perception are capable of capturing only certain aspects, properties and relationships of real objects. A person can imagine an object in all its concreteness, with all its elements, their internal and external connections only through thinking, moving step by step from superficial perception to understanding its deep, essential connections. That is why this process of thinking is called the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

In general, the process of scientific knowledge of reality is carried out in two interconnected and interdependent ways: by the movement of thought from specific objects of knowledge, given in their sensory perception, to abstractions (this path is also called the movement from the concrete to the abstract, from the particular to the general, or from facts to generalizations) and by ascending from the abstract to the concrete, the essence of which is to get an idea of ​​reality through understanding the abstractions obtained.

Analysis and synthesis

Both in nature and in society, the subject under study has a set of features, properties, and traits. In order to correctly understand this subject, it is necessary to break it down into its simplest constituent elements, to subject each of the elements to a detailed study, to reveal the role and significance of each element within a single whole. The decomposition of an object into separate elements and the study of each of these elements as a necessary part of the whole is called analysis.

However, the research process is not limited to analysis. After the nature of each of the constituent elements is known, their role and significance within the given whole is clarified, it is necessary to combine these elements again, in accordance with their role and purpose, into a single whole. The combination of dissected and analyzed elements into a single internally connected whole is called synthesis.

A physicist or chemist can experimentally isolate the studied side of the phenomenon from all the others, study it in its purest form. In economic theory, this method is impossible. When studying the subject of economic theory, analysis and synthesis can only be carried out in the head of the researcher, with the help of a mental breakdown of the subject being studied. Here, the use of scientific abstractions becomes of paramount importance as a tool for cognizing reality.

· Induction and deduction

Induction (literally translated from Latin - guidance) is a method of logical reasoning, using which, from knowledge of individual specific facts or from less general, individual knowledge, one passes to knowledge that has more general character. This method is an ancient (originating in ancient Indian, ancient Chinese and ancient Greek logic) method of logical reasoning, the process of knowing reality by moving from the concrete to the abstract.

Induction usually relies directly on observation and experiment. The source material for it is the facts that are obtained in the process of empirical study of reality. The result of inductive thinking are generalizations, scientific hypotheses, guesses about previously unknown patterns and laws.

The ultimate basis and criterion for the correctness of generalizing inductive conclusions is practice. Knowledge acquired in a purely inductive way usually turns out to be incomplete and, as F. Engels put it, "problematic". For this reason, the conclusions of inductive reasoning in the process of cognition are closely intertwined with deduction.

Deduction (inference) is the conclusion of speculative consequences from premises in accordance with the laws of logic (a favorite method of the famous detective Sherlock Holmes). Deduction issues began to be intensively developed from the end of the 19th century. in connection with the rapid development of mathematical logic.

The rigor of logical and mathematical constructions can create the illusion of impeccable conclusions based on the deductive method. In this regard, it must be remembered that the very laws of logic and mathematics are only the results of observing certain laws of the world around us, mainly in the field of natural science. Therefore, the application of the deductive method requires knowledge of the internal laws of connection of the studied phenomena, without which no logic can lead to correct conclusions. The deductive method is a tool for cognition of reality, and not its creation. Figuratively speaking, deductive method is a cookbook that allows you to bake a good pie from raw products, but does not make it possible to make such a pie from imitated or conditional raw materials. Therefore, when a theoretician bases his theory on a conditional assumption, he cannot expect to receive conclusions that reflect reality.

The unity of the logical and historical

In the social sciences, real history is the basis of logical scientific constructions, and therefore here purely speculative theoretical models are admissible only to a very limited extent. A good knowledge of the facts of history and their verification of the results of logical conclusions is an important methodological principle of economic science, which is called the principle of the unity of the historical and the logical. Where does the history of the social system under consideration begin, its theoretical analysis should begin with the same. At the same time, the theoretical reflection historical process is not an exact copy. The totality of processes and relations that make up a particular social system is immeasurably greater than its individual aspects, which are the subject of a particular social science. Therefore, the researcher must abstract from a number of relations that are unimportant from the point of view of his subject. History describes and records facts and events as they actually took place in a particular country, in a particular period of time. Economic theory selects and considers from the facts of history only those that point to typical relationships and regular, necessary connections. With logical reflection, history is, as it were, cleansed of everything accidental, insignificant and reproduced only in its main, decisive, objectively necessary links. History is reflected in logic as a progressive, natural movement of society from simple to complex, from lower to higher. All historically random zigzags in the process of this movement are not reproduced during logical research.

· Other research methods

In the process of scientific knowledge, numerous and varied methods are used, including private techniques, usually referred to as methodology. Of these, first of all, the method of comparison should be named - a cognitive logical operation, by means of which, on the basis of some fixed attribute (the basis of comparison), the identity (equality) or difference of the compared objects is established.

Common methods for studying the current reality are empirical methods which include observation and experiment. In modern scientific knowledge, the methods of analogy, modeling, formalization, probability theory, and statistical methods are widely used.

Each science, having its own special subject of study and its own theoretical principles, applies special methods arising from this or that understanding of the essence of its object. Thus, the methods used in the study of social phenomena are determined by the specifics social form motion of matter, its regularities, its essence. Similarly, biological methods must conform to the essence of the biological forms of the motion of matter. Statistical laws that objectively exist in the mass of random phenomena and which are characterized by specific relationships between the random and the necessary, the individual and the general, the whole and its parts, form the objective basis of statistical methods of cognition.

They are based on philosophical, general scientific ones, they are the basis of concrete-problem methods.

Historical-genetic and retrospective methods. The historical-genetic method is the most common. It is aimed at the consistent disclosure of properties, functions and changes in historical reality. According to the definition of I. Kovalchenko, by logical nature it is analytical, inductive, by the form of information expression it is descriptive. It is aimed at identifying cause-and-effect relationships, at analyzing the emergence (genesis) of certain phenomena and processes. Historical events are also shown in their individuality, concreteness.

When applying this method, some errors are possible if it is absolutized. With emphasis on the study of the development of phenomena and processes, one should not underestimate the stability of these phenomena and processes. Further, showing the individuality and uniqueness of events, one should not lose sight of the common. Pure empiricism should be avoided.

If the genetic method is directed from the past to the present, then the retrospective method is from the present to the past, from the effect to the cause. It is possible to reconstruct this past by elements of the preserved past. Going into the past, we can clarify the stages of formation, the formation of the phenomenon that we have in the present. What may seem random in the genetic approach, with the retrospective method, will appear as a prerequisite for later events. In the present we have a more developed object in comparison with its previous forms and we can better understand the process of formation of this or that process. We see the prospect of the development of phenomena and processes in the past, knowing the result. By studying the years preceding the French Revolution of the 18th century, we will obtain certain data on the maturing of the revolution. But if we return to this period, already knowing what happened in the course of the revolution, we will know the deeper causes and preconditions of the revolution, which manifested themselves most clearly in the course of the revolution itself. We will see not individual facts and events, but a coherent regular chain of phenomena that naturally led to the revolution.

Synchronous, chronological and diachronic methods. The synchronous method is focused on the study of various events occurring at the same time. All phenomena in society are interconnected, and this method, especially often used in a systematic approach, helps to reveal this connection. And this will make it possible to clarify the explanation of the historical events taking place in a particular region, to trace the influence of economic, political, and international relations of different countries.

In Russian literature, B. F. Porshnev published a book where he showed the system of states in the period English revolution middle of the 17th century However, to this day, this approach is poorly developed in Russian historiography: the chronological histories of individual countries predominate. Only recently has an attempt been made to write the history of Europe not as a sum individual states, A certain system states, to show the mutual influence and interconnection of events.

chronological method. It is used by every historian - the study of the sequence of historical events in time (chronology). Important facts must not be overlooked. Distortions of history are often allowed, when historians hush up facts that do not fit into the scheme.

A variant of this method is problem-chronological, when a broad topic is divided into a number of problems, each of which is considered in a chronological sequence of events.

Diachronic method (or periodization method). The qualitative features of processes in time, the moments of formation of new stages, periods, are distinguished, the state at the beginning and at the end of the period is compared, and the general direction of development is determined. In order to identify the qualitative features of periods, it is necessary to clearly define the criteria for periodization, take into account the objective conditions and the process itself. One criterion cannot be replaced by another. Sometimes it is impossible to accurately name the year or month of the beginning of a new stage - all facets in society are mobile and conditional. It is impossible to fit everything into a strict framework, there is an asynchrony of events and processes, and the historian must take this into account. When there are several criteria and various schemes, the historical process is more deeply known.

Historical-comparative method. Even enlighteners began to apply the comparative method. F. Voltaire wrote one of the first world stories, but the comparison was used more as a technique than a method. At the end of the 19th century, this method became popular, especially in socio-economic history (M. Kovalevsky, G. Maurer wrote works on the community). After the Second World War, the comparative method was especially widely used. Virtually no historical study is complete without comparison.

Collecting factual material, comprehending and systematizing the facts, the historian sees that many phenomena can have similar content, but different forms of manifestation in time and space, and, conversely, have different content, but be similar in form. The cognitive significance of the method lies in the possibilities it opens up for understanding the essence of phenomena. The essence can be understood by the similarity and difference of the characteristics inherent in the phenomena. The logical basis of the method is analogy, when, based on the similarity of some features of an object, a conclusion is made about the similarity of others.

The method allows you to reveal the essence of phenomena when it is not obvious, to identify the general, repetitive, natural, to make generalizations, to draw historical parallels. A number of requirements must be met. Comparison should be carried out on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not formal similarities. You need to know the era, the typology of phenomena. It is possible to compare phenomena of the same type and different types, at one or different stages of development. In one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, in the other - differences. We should not forget the principle of historicism.

But the use of the comparative method has some limitations. It helps to understand the diversity of reality, but not its specificity in a particular form. It is difficult to apply the method when studying the dynamics of the historical process. Formal application leads to errors, and the essence of many phenomena can be distorted. You need to use this method in combination with others. Unfortunately, only analogy and comparison are often used, and the method, which is much more meaningful and broader than the methods mentioned, is rarely used in its entirety.

Historical-typological method. Typology - the division of objects or phenomena into different types based on essential features, the identification of homogeneous sets of objects. I. Kovalchenko considers the typological method to be the method of essential analysis. Such a result is not given by the formal descriptive classification proposed by the positivists. The subjective approach led to the idea of ​​constructing types only in the thinking of the historian. M. Weber deduced the theory of "ideal types", which for a long time was not used by domestic sociologists, who interpreted it in a simplified way. In fact, it was about modeling, which is now accepted by all researchers.

According to I. Kovalchenko, types are distinguished on the basis of a deductive approach and theoretical analysis. The types and features that characterize the qualitative certainty are distinguished. Then we can attribute the object to a particular type. I. Kovalchenko illustrates all this on the example of the types of Russian peasant farming. I. Kovalchenko needed such a detailed development of the typology method to justify the use of mathematical methods and computers. A significant part of his book on the methods of historical research is devoted to this. We refer the reader to this book.

Historical-system method. This method was also developed by I. Kovalchenko in connection with the use of mathematical methods, modeling in historical science. The method proceeds from the fact that there are socio-historical systems different levels. The main components of reality: individual and unique phenomena, events, historical situations and processes are considered as social systems. All of them are functionally related. It is necessary to isolate the system under study from the hierarchy of systems. After the selection of the system, a structural analysis follows, the determination of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties. In this case, logical and mathematical methods are used. The second stage is a functional analysis of the interaction of the system under study with systems of a higher level (the peasant economy is considered as part of the system of socio-economic relations and as a subsystem of capitalist production). The main difficulty is created by the multi-level nature of social systems, the transition from lower-level systems to higher systems (yard, village, province). When analyzing, for example, a peasant economy, data aggregation provides new opportunities for understanding the essence of phenomena. In this case, all general scientific and special-historical methods are used. The method gives the greatest effect in synchronous analysis, but the process of development remains undiscovered. System-structural and functional analysis can lead to excessive abstraction and formalization, and sometimes subjective design of systems.

We have named the main methods of historical research. None of them is universal and absolute. You need to use them in combination. In addition, both historical methods must be combined with general scientific and philosophical ones. It is necessary to use methods taking into account their capabilities and limits - this will help to avoid errors and false conclusions.

The purpose of the lesson is mastering the principles of historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological methods of historical research.

Questions:

1. Idiographic method. Description and summary.

2. Historical and genetic method.

3. Historical and comparative method.

4. Historical-typological method. Typology as forecasting.

When studying this topic, it is recommended to pay attention first of all to the works of I.D. Kovalchenko, K.V. Tail, M.F. Rumyantseva, Antoine Pro, John Tosh, revealing its current state to a sufficient extent. Other works can be studied depending on the availability of time and if this work directly relates to the topic of the student's scientific searches.

Under the "historical", "history" in scientific knowledge in a broad sense is understood everything that in the diversity of objective social and natural reality is in a state of change and development. The principle of historicism and the historical method have a common scientific value. They apply equally to biology, geology or astronomy as well as to the study of history. human society. This method allows you to know reality through the study of its history, which distinguishes this method from the logical one, when the essence of the phenomenon is revealed by analyzing its given state.

Under the methods of historical research everyone understands common methods the study of historical reality, i.e., methods related to historical science as a whole, used in all areas of historical research. These are special scientific methods. On the one hand, they are based on the general philosophical method, and on one or another set of general scientific methods, and on the other hand, they serve as the basis for specific problematic methods, that is, methods used in the study of certain specific historical phenomena in the light of certain other research tasks. Their difference lies in the fact that they must be applicable to the study of the past according to the remnants that remain of it.

The concept of "ideographic method", introduced by representatives of the German neo-Kantian philosophy of history, presupposes not only the need to describe the phenomena under study, but also reduces to it the functions of historical knowledge in general. In fact, description, although an important step in this knowledge, is not universal method. This is just one of the procedures of the historian's thinking. What are the role, limits of application and cognitive possibilities of the descriptive-narrative method?

The descriptive method is connected with the nature of social phenomena, their features, their qualitative originality. These properties cannot be neglected; no method of cognition can ignore them.

From this it follows that cognition in any case begins with a description, a characteristic of a phenomenon, and the structure of the description is ultimately determined by the nature of the phenomenon under study. It is quite obvious that such a specific, individually unique character of the object of historical knowledge requires appropriate linguistic means of expression.

The only language suitable for this purpose is a live colloquial speech in the literary language contemporary historian of the era, scientific historical concepts, terms of sources. Only a natural language, and not a formalized way of presenting the results of knowledge makes them accessible to the general reader, which is important in connection with the problem of the formation of historical consciousness.

Essential-meaningful analysis is impossible without methodology; it also underlies the description of the course of events. In this sense, the description and analysis of the essence of phenomena are independent, but interconnected, interdependent stages of cognition. Description is not a random enumeration of information about the depicted, but a coherent presentation that has its own logic and meaning. The logic of the image can to some extent express the true essence of what is depicted, but in any case, the picture of the course of events depends on the methodological ideas and principles that the author uses.

In a truly scientific historical study, the formulation of its goal is based on the position, including methodological, of its author, although the study itself is carried out in different ways: in some cases, it has a pronounced tendency, in others, the desire for a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of what is depicted. However, in the overall picture of events, the specific weight of what is a description always prevails over generalization, conclusions regarding the essence of the subject of the description.

Historical reality is characterized a number of common features, and therefore it is possible to single out the main methods of historical research. According to the academician I.D. Kovalchenko The main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic. When using one or another general historical method, other general scientific methods are also used (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, description and measurement, explanation, etc.), which act as specific cognitive means necessary to implement the approaches and principles underlying basis of the leading method. The rules and procedures necessary for conducting research (research methodology) are also developed, and certain tools and tools are used (research technique).

Descriptive method - historical genetic method. The historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. It consists in the consistent discovery of the properties, functions and changes of the studied reality in the process of its historical movement, which allows you to get as close as possible to the reconstruction real history object. Cognition goes (should go) sequentially from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical and inductive, and by the form of expressing information about the reality under study, it is descriptive. Of course, this does not exclude the use (sometimes even wide) of quantitative indicators. But the latter act as an element of describing the properties of an object, and not as a basis for revealing its qualitative nature and constructing its essential-content and formal-quantitative model.

The historical-genetic method makes it possible to show causal relationships and patterns of historical development in their immediacy, and to characterize historical events and personalities in their individuality and imagery. When using this method, the most pronounced individual characteristics researcher. To the extent that the latter reflect a social need, they have a positive effect on the research process.

Thus, the historical-genetic method is the most universal, flexible and accessible method of historical research. At the same time, it is also inherent in its limitations, which can lead to certain costs in its absolutization.

The historical-genetic method is aimed primarily at the analysis of development. Therefore, with insufficient attention to statics, i.e. to fixing a certain temporal given of historical phenomena and processes, there may be a danger relativism .

Historical comparative method has also long been used in historical research. In general, comparison is an important and, perhaps, the most widespread method of scientific knowledge. In fact, there is no comparison Scientific research. The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case when the similarity of entities is established is analogy.

Analogy is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that on the basis of similarity - some features of the compared objects, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other features. . It is clear that in this case the range of known features of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made should be wider than that of the object under study.

Historical comparative method - critical method. The comparative method and verification of sources is the basis of the historical "craft", starting with the studies of positivist historians. External criticism allows, with the help of auxiliary disciplines, to establish the authenticity of the source. Internal criticism is based on the search for internal contradictions in the document itself. Mark Block considered the most reliable sources to be unintentional, unwitting evidence that was not intended to inform us. He himself called them "indications that the past unintentionally drops along its path." They can be private correspondence, a purely personal diary, company accounts, marriage records, inheritance declarations, as well as various items.

IN general view any text is encoded by a representation system closely related to the language in which it is written. The report of an official of any era will reflect what he expects to see and what he is able to perceive: he will pass by what does not fit into his scheme of ideas.

That is why a critical approach to any information is the basis of the professional activity of a historian. A critical attitude requires intellectual effort. As S. Segnobos wrote: “Criticism is contrary to the normal structure of the human mind; man's spontaneous inclination is to believe what is said. It is quite natural to take on faith any statement, especially written; all the more easily if it is expressed in numbers, and even more easily if it comes from official authorities... Therefore, to apply criticism means to choose a way of thinking that is contrary to spontaneous thinking, to take a position that is unnatural.... This cannot be achieved without effort. The spontaneous movements of a person who has fallen into the water are all that is needed in order to drown. While learning to swim, it means to slow down your spontaneous movements, which are unnatural.

In general, the historical-comparative method has a wide range of knowledge. Firstly, it allows revealing the essence of the studied phenomena in those cases when it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. Thus, the gaps are filled, and the study is brought to a complete form. Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the studied phenomena and, on the basis of analogies, to come to broad historical parallels. Thirdly, it allows the application of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.

It is possible to compare objects and phenomena both of the same type and different types that are at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, and in the other - differences. Compliance with these conditions of historical comparisons, in essence, means the consistent implementation of the principle of historicism.

Revealing the significance of the features on the basis of which a historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stages of the compared phenomena most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily historical-typological and historical-systemic. In combination with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research.

But this method, of course, has a certain range of the most effective action. This is, first of all, the study of socio-historical development in a wide spatial and temporal aspect, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be revealed through direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data. .

The comparative method is used also as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. On its basis, retro-alternativism is possible. History as a retro-telling suggests the ability to move in time in two directions: from the present and its problems (and at the same time the experience accumulated by this time) to the past, and from the beginning of an event to its finale. This brings to the search for causality in history an element of stability and strength that should not be underestimated: the final point is given, and in his work the historian proceeds from it. This does not eliminate the risk of delusional constructions, but at least it is minimized.

The history of the event is actually a social experiment that has taken place. It can be observed by circumstantial evidence, hypotheses can be built, tested. The historian may offer all sorts of interpretations of the French Revolution, but in any case, all his explanations have a common invariant to which they must be reduced: the revolution itself. So the flight of fancy has to be restrained. In this case, the comparative method is used as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. Otherwise, this technique is called retroalternativism. To imagine a different development of history is the only way to find the causes of real history.

Raymond Aron urged to rationally weigh the possible causes of certain events by comparing what was possible: “If I say that the decision Bismarck caused the War of 1866… I mean, without the chancellor’s decision, the war would not have started (or at least wouldn’t have started at that moment)… actual causality is revealed only by comparison with what was in the possibility. Any historian, in order to explain what was, asks the question of what could have been.

Theory serves only to clothe in a logical form this spontaneous device, which is used by every ordinary person. If we are looking for the cause of a phenomenon, then we are not limited to simple addition or comparison of antecedents. We try to weigh the own impact of each of them. To carry out such a gradation, we take one of these antecedents, mentally consider it non-existent or modified, and try to reconstruct or imagine what would happen in this case. If you have to admit that the phenomenon under study would be different in the absence of this factor (or if it were not so), we conclude that this antecedent is one of the causes of some part of the phenomenon-effect, namely that part of it. parts in which we had to assume changes.

Thus, logical research includes the following operations:

1) dismemberment of the phenomenon-consequence;

2) establishing a gradation of antecedents and highlighting the antecedent whose influence we have to evaluate;

3) constructing an unreal course of events;

4) comparison between speculative and real events.

Suppose for a moment ... that our general knowledge of a sociological nature allows us to create unreal constructions. But what will be their status? Weber replies: in this case we will talk about objective possibilities, or, in other words, about the development of events in accordance with the patterns known to us, but only probable.

This analysis in addition to the event history, it applies to everything else. The actual causality is revealed only by comparison with what was in the possibility. If, for example, you are confronted with the question of the causes of the French Revolution, and if we want to weigh the importance respectively of economic factors (the crisis of the French economy at the end of the 18th century, the poor harvest of 1788), social factors (the rise of the bourgeoisie, the reaction of the nobility) , political factors (financial crisis of the monarchy, resignation Turgot), etc., there can be no other solution but to consider all these different causes one by one, to suppose that they could be different, and to try to imagine the course of events that might follow in this case. As he says M. Weber , to "untangle real causal relationships, we create unreal ones." Such an “imaginary experience” is the only way for the historian not only to identify the causes, but also to unravel, weigh them, as M. Weber and R. Aron put it, that is, to establish their hierarchy.

The historical-comparative method is inherent in a certain limitation, and one should also bear in mind the difficulties of its application. Not all phenomena can be compared. Through it, first of all, the root essence of reality in all its diversity is known, and not its specific specificity. It is difficult to apply the historical-comparative method in studying the dynamics of social processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations.

Historical-typological method, like all other methods, has its own objective basis. It consists in the fact that in socio-historical development, on the one hand, they differ, and on the other hand, the individual, particular, general and universal are closely interconnected. Therefore, an important task in the knowledge of socio-historical phenomena, the disclosure of their essence, is to identify the one that was inherent in the diversity of certain combinations of the individual (single).

Social life in all its manifestations is a constant dynamic process. It is not a simple sequential course of events, but a change of some qualitative states by others, it has its own dissimilar stages. The allocation of these stages is also an important task in the knowledge of socio-historical development.

A layman is right when he recognizes a historical text by the presence of dates in it.

The first feature of time, in which, in general, there is nothing surprising: the time of history is the time of various social groups: societies, states, civilizations. This is the time that serves as a guide for all members of a group. War time always drags on for a very long time, revolutionary time was a time that flew by very quickly. The fluctuations of historical time are collective. Therefore, they can be objectified.

The task of the historian is to determine the direction of movement. Rejection of the teleological point of view in modern historiography does not allow the historian to admit the existence of a clearly directed time, as it appears to contemporaries. The processes under investigation themselves, in their course, communicate a certain topology to time. The forecast is possible not in the form of an apocalyptic prophecy, but a forecast directed from the past to the future, based on a diagnosis based on the past, in order to determine the possible course of events and assess the degree of its probability.

R. Koselleck writes about this: “While the prophecy goes beyond the horizon of calculated experience, the forecast, as you know, is itself interspersed in the political situation. And to such an extent that making a forecast in itself means changing the situation. Forecasting is thus a conscious factor in political action, it is made in relation to events by discovering their novelty. So in some unpredictably predictable way, time is always pushed beyond the forecast.”

The first step in the work of a historian is the compilation of a chronology. The second step is periodization. The historian cuts history into periods, replaces the elusive continuity of time with some signifying structure. The relations of discontinuity and continuity are revealed: continuity takes place within periods, discontinuity - between periods.

Periodization means, therefore, to identify discontinuities, discontinuities, to indicate what exactly is changing, to date these changes and give them a preliminary definition. Periodization deals with the identification of continuity and its violations. It opens the way for interpretation. It makes history, if not quite understandable, then at least already conceivable.

The historian does not reconstruct time in its entirety for each new study: he takes the time that other historians have already worked on, the periodization of which is available. Since the question being asked acquires legitimacy only as a result of its inclusion in the research field, the historian cannot abstract from previous periodizations: after all, they constitute the language of the profession.

Typology as a method of scientific knowledge has as its goal the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes based on their inherent common essential features. The focus on identifying essentially homogeneous in spatial or temporal aspects of sets of objects and phenomena distinguishes typology (or typification) from classification and grouping , in a broad sense, in which the task of identifying the belonging of an object as an integrity to one or another qualitative certainty may not be set.The division here may be limited to grouping objects according to certain characteristics and in this regard act as a means of ordering and systematizing specific data on historical objects , phenomena and processes.Typologization, being a kind of classification in form, is a method of essential analysis.

These principles can be implemented most effectively only on the basis of a deductive approach. It consists in the fact that corresponding types are distinguished on the basis of a theoretical essential-content analysis of the considered set of objects. The result of the analysis should be not only the identification of qualitatively different types, but also the identification of those specific features that characterize their qualitative certainty. This creates the possibility of assigning each individual object to a particular type.

All this dictates the need to use both a combined deductive-inductive and inductive approach in typology.

In cognitive terms, the most effective typification is one that allows not only to single out the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree to which objects belong to these types and the measure of their similarity with other types. This requires special methods of multidimensional typology. Such methods have been developed, and there are already attempts to apply them in historical research.

Each method is formed on a certain methodological basis, i.e. any method proceeds from a certain methodological principle (one or a combination).

Methodology – the basic principles on (from) which the historian proceeds (is based). That is why the variety of interpretations of the same eras and events is so great (for example, the degree of significance of the role of the USSR and Western countries in the victory in World War II).

Methodology of historical research - the means, methods, techniques by which the historian extracts historical information, builds his story.

Specific historical methods the most common. Why do historians need to know them?

1. To study results were richer, the study is more complete.

2. Clearer become flaws reliance on sources and other methods of historical research.

Methods of historical research:

1. Method of relying on sources (source analysis method).

2. Descriptive method.

3. Biographical method.

4. Comparative historical method.

5. Retrospective method.

6. Terminological method.

7. Statistical method.

Method of relying on sources (method of source study analysis).

Methodological principle of the source analysis method- the historian must conduct external and internal criticism of the source to establish the authenticity, completeness, reliability and novelty, significance of both the source itself and the information contained in it.

The advantage of this method of historical research: comes from information, reports of contemporaries, documentary sources (they are more or less objective).

The disadvantage of this method of historical research: information from one source is not enough, it is necessary to compare one source with other sources, data, etc.

Descriptive Method

Descriptive Method historical research (one of the oldest) is based on the methodological principle that history must study the unique, individual, non-repeating (historical events do not repeat) in the past.

Proceeding from the originality, uniqueness, singularity of historical events, descriptive method comes down to this:

1. Way of presentation wears not “formalized” (i.e. in the form of diagrams, formulas, tables, etc.), but literary, narrative.

2. Since dynamics(movement, path) development of events is individual, then it can be expressed only by describing.

3. Since every event is related to others, then to determine these relationships, you must first describe them (connections).

4. Definition of the subject (image) possible only with the help of description (if based on terms (for example, civilization), then first you need to agree on what it is (subject, object), i.e. describe).

conclusions.

1. Description is a necessary step in historical research.

2. Description is only the first step, because event entity expressed not in individual, but in in general terms(signs); common features can be expressed in the logic of narration, generalizations, conclusions(for example, when describing a person (let's say Turgenev's Bazarov), we can only describe a specific person, but not a person as a phenomenon, concept).

3. Generalization without description is schematization, description without generalization is factography, which means that these descriptions and conclusions, generalizations are closely related, But with this method (descriptive) description prevails over generalization.

biographical method

biographical method historical research is one of the oldest.

Used in era of antiquity ("Comparative Lives" Plutarch), was widely used in the 19th century. in political history.

INXIXV., V political historiography There were both supporters and opponents of the biographical method.

Proponents of the biographical method (Thomas Carlyle, Pyotr Lavrov etc.) proceeded from the methodological position, according to which the biographical method is the most intelligent (the subject of the historical process is heroes, outstanding, unique personalities; their (heroes, outstanding personalities) biography, motives, actions, behavior were studied).

Critics of the biographical method: subject of history masses(German historian highway) and their needs (from this position, Schusser studied uprisings, rebellions).

compromise position: English historian Lewis Namir (Namir) considered mid-level politicians(deputies of the English parliament of the middle level, ordinary deputies): what influenced the results of their voting, analyzed their life path, biography, social status, personal connections (career, household); L. Namir believed that he was able to determine in this way not imaginary, abstract (generalized) class motives, but true, concrete motives for the behavior of the social stratum, expressed in the figure of an ordinary (average) deputy; at Namira political struggle in English parliament looked only like a struggle for personal power, career growth and well-being, parliamentary seats, so these are the true motives of behavior and social strata that the above-mentioned deputies represent? Namir does not take into account the means of production, social interests in its concept.

In what cases and to what extent is the biographical method applicable?

1. The biographical method can be used with given the nature historical conditions, the needs of the masses(because historical figure expresses the needs of the masses, it plays a very important role).

2. The combination of the role of the masses and the individual is such that the leading role belongs to the masses, personality can only speed up or slow down but not generate historical conditions.

T. Carlyle exaggerated the role of the individual many Soviet historians - the role of the masses. Namir did not connect the motives of people's behavior with specifics of historical conditions (i.e., the motives of the behavior of a medieval lord and a townsman are not identical to the motives of the behavior of a lord and a townsman in the English parliament of the 19th century), which is determined by production method (primitive-communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, communist) material goods.

Comparative historical method

Comparative historical method is now very widely used (especially in Russian historiography).

The comparative-historical method was also used in Enlightenment , but in a very peculiar way:

1. Compare different types of society, state, therefore, they came to false conclusions (for example, about the superiority of European civilization over the American Indians on the example of the Spanish monarchy and the Aztec state).

2. The basis for comparing different types of societies, states was the belief in the truth of the methodological principle, according to which human nature is unchanged in all ages, times (for example, by the English historian Lewis Namir), history was perceived as general patterns, motives for the behavior of human society.

Conclusion. Thus, methodological basis The comparative historical method in the Enlightenment was an incorrect definition of the general, regular in the form of the same human nature as the basis of motivation. One cannot investigate the general on the basis of the immutability of human nature (for example, the empire of Charlemagne and the Qing empire).

IN XIX V. (especially towards the end of the century), the comparative historical method began to be used both for identify common(general patterns - for example, in HELL. Toynbee (tried to find common features in civilizations of different times, etc.)), and for identifying originality(for example, at Gerhard Elton , a German historian at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries), i.e. some historians absolutized the general, other historians - originality (bias in one direction).

The Possibility and Necessity of Using the Comparative Historical Method associated with the recognition of the truth of the following methodological principle(if derived from the following methodological principle): there is a close relationship between the general and the singular (i.e. in events that are repetitive and non-repeating (peculiar) in the understanding of history).

The condition for the correct application of the comparative historical method is comparison of "single-order" events, which implies preliminary use of the descriptive method:

I – analogy , "parallel", i.e. transfer of ideas from an object of one era to a similar object of another era, but the comparison of "single-order" events, phenomena, etc. involves the use of the next stage of the comparative-historical method (descriptive character prevails at stage I);

IIstage of the comparative historical method– identification essential-content character (e.g. war, revolution) events, the basis is "repeatability" in time and space(the essence is repeated both in the same epoch and in different epochs and space).

With an incorrect comparison at stage I (descriptive character predominates), the historian may come up with incorrect elements of “repetitiveness” at stage II. For example, commodity production at the second stage of the comparative historical method was equated with capitalist production (for example, in Edward Meyer (1855-1930), German historian who saw capitalism in Ancient Greece and in modern world; according to one attribute, one phenomenon is equated to another).

IIIstage of the comparative historical method– in fact, horizontal “repeatability” –

typology reception , i.e. should be compared Not only individual(albeit important) events, but also system of events in a given era, i.e. types are distinguished.

Types of feudal society:

1) Romanesque (Italy, Spain) beginning;

2) Germanic (England, Scandinavian countries) beginning;

3) a mixture of Romanesque and Germanic principles (the Frankish kingdom from the Merovingians to the Capetians).

Gradually, the general comes to the fore, the originality is gradually erased. Typology is an attempt to establish a balance between the general and originality.

Sampling method

A more complex type of quantitative analysis is sample statistics , representing a method of probabilistic conclusion about the unknown on the basis of the known. This method is used in cases where there is no complete information about the entire statistical population and the researcher is forced to create a picture of the studied phenomena on the basis of incomplete, partial data, or when the information is complete, but it is difficult to cover it or its study in its entirety does not provide noticeable advantages in comparison with the sample.

Example. On the basis of a small part of the surviving household inventories, generalized indicators were calculated for the beginning of the 19th century, and 1861, in particular, which made it possible to judge the presence of livestock in the peasant economy (namely, serfs), the ratio of various strata in the peasant environment and etc.

Sampling method finds application also with complete information, the processing of which in its entirety does not give any significant advantage in obtaining results.

How are the calculations made according to sampling method? Computed the arithmetic mean applied to the totality of phenomena. Generalizations obtained on the basis of a sampling approach become justified only if they are sufficiently representative, i.e. adequately reflecting the properties of the studied set of phenomena.

Selective statistical analysis in most cases leads to detection of development trends.

Example. Comparison of selective quantitative data on the provision of peasant farms with workers and other livestock in early XIX V. in comparison with the post-reform period, it helped to reveal a tendency towards a deterioration in the situation of the peasant economy, to show the nature and degree of social stratification in its environment, etc.

results quantification the ratios of the studied characteristics are not absolute results in general and cannot be transferred to a situation with other conditions.

Retrospective method

Historical knowledge is retrospective, i.e. it refers to how events developed in reality - from cause to effect. The historian must go from the effect to the cause. (one of the rules of historical knowledge).

The essence of the retrospective method is reliance on a higher stage of development in order to understand and evaluate the previous one. This may be due to the fact that there may not be enough evidence, sources, or because:

1) to understand the essence the event or process being studied thinking needs to be traced his end to end development;

2) each previous stage Can understand not only thanks to him links to other stages but also in the light subsequent and a higher stage of development in general, in which the essence of the whole process is most fully expressed; it also helps to understand the previous steps.

Example. French revolution endXVIIIV. developed in an ascending line, if we keep in mind the degree of radicalization of demands, slogans and programs, as well as the social essence of the strata of society that came to power. The last, Jacobin stage expresses this dynamic to the greatest extent and makes it possible to judge both the revolution as a whole and the nature and significance of its previous stages.

The essence of the retrospective method, in particular, expressed Karl Marx . On the method of studying the medieval community by the German historian Georg Ludwig Maurer (1790 - 1872) K. Marx wrote: "... the seal of this "agricultural community is so clearly expressed in the new community that Maurer, having studied the latter, could restore the first."

Lewis Henry Morgan (1818 - 1881), an American historian and ethnographer, in his work "Ancient Society" showed the evolution of family and marriage relations from group forms to individual ones; recreated the history of the family in reverse order up to the primitive state of the domination of polygamy. Along with recreating the appearance of the primitive form of the familyL.G. Morgan proved the fundamental similarity of the development of family and marriage relations among the ancient Greeks and Romans and American Indians. He was helped to understand this similarity by the idea of ​​the unity of world history, which also manifests itself asynchronously, and not only within the time horizon. Your idea of ​​unity L.G. Morgan expressed as follows: "Their" (the forms of family and marriage relations in ancient Greece and Rome with the relations of the American Indians) "comparison and comparison indicates the uniformity of the activity of the human mind with the same social system." Opening L.G. Morgana reveals in the mechanism of his thinking the interaction of retrospective and comparative historical methods.

In Russian historiography, the retrospective method was used Ivan Dmitrievich Kovalchenko (1923 - 1995) in the study of agrarian relations in Russia in the 19th century. The essence of the method was an attempt to consider the peasant economy at different system levels: individual peasant farms (yards), a higher level - peasant communities (villages), even higher levels - volosts, counties, provinces.

I.D. Kovalchenko considered the following:

1) the system of provinces represents the highest level, it was on it that the main features of the socio-economic structure of the peasant economy were most clearly manifested; their knowledge is necessary to reveal the essence of structures located at a lower level;

2) the nature of the structure at the lowest (household) level, being correlated with its essence at highest level, shows the extent to which the general trends in the functioning of the peasant economy were manifested in a single one.

Retrospective method applicable not only to the study of individual phenomena, but also entire historical epochs. This essence of the method is most clearly expressed in K. Marx who wrote the following: bourgeois society- is the most developed and most versatile historical organization of production. That's why categories expressing his attitudes, understanding of his organization, give at the same time possibility of penetration in organization and industrial relations of all obsolete social forms, from the fragments and elements of which it is built, partly developing to its full meaning what was previously only in the form of a hint, etc. Human anatomy is the key to monkey anatomy. On the contrary, the hints of the higher in the lower species of animals can only be understood if this higher itself is already known later.

In a concrete historical study retrospective method very closely associated with "method of experiences" , by which historians understand the method of reconstructing objects that have gone into the past according to the remains that have survived and have come down to the contemporary historian of the era.

"The Survival Method" used E. Taylor, German historian A. Meitzen, K. Lamprecht, M. Blok and etc.

Edward (Edward) Burnett Taylor (1832 - 1917), an English researcher of primitive society, an ethnographer, understood the term "survivals" as follows: "... there is an extensive class of facts, for which I would find it convenient to introduce the term "survival". These are those customs, rituals, views, etc., which, being transferred by force of habit from one stage of culture, to which they were characteristic, to another, later one, remain a living evidence or monument of the past. E. Taylor wrote about the significance of the study of survivals: "The study of them invariably confirms that a European can find among the Greenlanders and Maori many features to recreate a picture of the life of his own ancestors."

Relics in the broad sense of the word include monuments, information of a relic nature. If we are talking about written sources belonging to a certain era, then data or fragments included from older documents may be relic in them (for example, among the titles salic truth(IX century) of archaic content is title 45 “On Settlers”).

Many German historians of the 19th century, who were engaged in agrarian historical research and actively used the “survival method”, believed that historical development is evolutionary in nature, the past is reproduced in the present and is its simple continuation, profound qualitative changes in the communal system throughout its existence missing; vestiges are not relics of the past in conditions of a qualitatively different reality, but in general, phenomena of the same type with it (reality).

This led, for example, to the following. Overgeneralization of data obtained by a German historian A. Meizen by using "method of survivals”, expressed itself in the fact that, without due critical examination, he covered the agricultural regulations of one region on the basis of boundary maps of another region and transferred the evidence of German boundary maps to the agrarian system of France, England and other countries.

German historian Karl Lamprecht (1856 - 1915) in the study of household communities that took place in the first half of the 19th century. near the city of Trier, found in them features that were not a direct relic of the ancient free community.

French historian Mark Block (1886 - 1944) and representatives of his school successfully applied the "survival method" to the analysis of French boundary maps of the 18th century.

Main methodological requirement presented to the "survival method" –

the need to determine and prove the relic nature of the evidence on the basis of which the historian wants to reconstruct in a scientific way the picture of a long-vanished historical reality. At the same time, genuine historicism must be observed in assessing the phenomena of the past. A differentiated approach to relics of the past of various character is also needed.

terminological method

The vast majority of information about the past is expressed for the historian in verbal form. This raises a number of problems, the main of which is linguistic: does the meaning (meaning) of the word have reality or is it a fiction? The last performance was shared by the famous Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 - 1913).

Methodological basis study of the role of terminological analysis in the studies of the historian is the thesis according to which the terminological apparatus of sources borrows its substantive content from life, from reality, although the ratio of thought and content of the word is not entirely adequate.

Accounting for the historical, i.e. changing, content of terms, words of sources - one of the necessary conditions for scientific historicism in understanding and evaluating social phenomena.

IN XIX V . scientists came to the conclusion that language becomes one of the sources of knowledge of social phenomena from the moment when they begin to treat it historically, i.e. when it is seen as one of the results of historical development. Using the achievements of classical philology and comparative linguistics, German historians B.G. Niebuhr , T. Mommsen and others widely used terminological analysis as one of the means of cognition social phenomena era of antiquity.

Terminological analysis is of particular importance when using various categories of ancient and medieval sources. This is explained by the fact that the content and meaning of many terms related to the modern researcher of the era are not as clear as the language of his day or the language of the recent past. Meanwhile, the solution of many fundamental concrete historical problems often depends on this or that interpretation of the content of terms.

The complexity of studying many categories of historical sources also lies in the fact that the terms used in them are ambiguous or, on the contrary, different terms are used to refer to the same phenomena.

Famous researcher of the peasantry Ancient Rus' academician Boris Dmitrievich Grekov (1882 - 1953) attached great importance to the analysis of the terms of historical sources. He wrote about the need to find out "... what terms the written language left to us denoted the farmer ... what terms the sources denoted the various strata of the mass of the people who fed the country with their labor." According to Grekov, the conclusions of the researcher depend on this or that understanding of the terms.

An example of the relationship between language data analysis and historical analysis is the work Friedrich Engels "Frankish Dialect". This work is an independent scientific-historical and linguistic research. Studying Engels The Frankish dialect is accompanied by generalizations on the history of the Franks. At the same time, he widely applies the retrospective method of studying the Salic dialect in contemporary languages ​​and dialects.

F. Engels uses language for solving a number of problems in the history of the ancient Germans. By analyzing the High German movement of consonants, establishing the boundaries of dialects, he draws conclusions about the nature of the migrations of the tribes, the degree of their mixing with each other and the territory they occupied initially and as a result of conquests and migrations.

The development of the content of terms and concepts recorded in historical sources, by and large, lags behind the development of the real content of historical events hidden behind them. In this sense, archaism is inherent in many historical terms, which often borders on the complete necrosis of their content. Such a lag is a problem for the researcher that requires a mandatory solution, because. otherwise, historical reality cannot be adequately reflected.

Depending on the nature of the historical source, terminological analysis may have different meaning to solve historical problems. Clarification of the property appearance of various categories of holders, hiding under the terms villani, borbarii, cotarii found in doomsday book(end of the 11th century), is of paramount importance for studying the history of feudalism in England.

Terminological analysis is a productive means of cognition even in cases where sources are written in the native language of a given people, for example Russian truth or Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon truths.

special terminological analysis as one of the sources of historical knowledge is toponymic analysis . Toponymy, needing the data of history, as well as the data of other branches of knowledge, is itself kind source for the historian. Geographical names are always historically determined, so they somehow bear the imprint of their time. Geographical names reflect the features of the material and spiritual life of the people in a particular era, the pace of historical development, the impact on social life of natural and geographical conditions. For the historian, the source of knowledge is not only the content of the word, but also its linguistic form. These are formal elements in toponymic material, which cannot serve as a reliable source without linguistic analysis; the latter, however, must have a truly historical basis, i.e. it is necessary to study both the bearer of names and those who gave these names. Geographical names reflect the process of settlement of territories, individual names indicate the occupations of the population in the past. Great importance toponymic data have for history of non-literate peoples; they replace chronicles to a certain extent. Toponymic analysis gives material for the preparation of geographical maps.

A certain source of knowledge of the past are names and surnames of people, anthroponymic analysis (rarely used in modern historiography) The processes of name-formation and name-creation were closely connected with real life people, including those with economic relations.

Example. The surnames of representatives of the feudal nobility of medieval France emphasized the ownership of their bearer on the land. The need to account for subjects in order to receive feudal rent from them was one of the important reasons for the introduction of the surname. Often names and surnames were a kind of social signs, the decoding of which allows us to judge social status of their carriers, as well as to raise and resolve other specific historical issues.

Without a preliminary study of the content of the term, it is impossible to achieve an understanding of any phenomenon. The problem - language and history - is an important scientific problem for both linguists and historians.

The fruitfulness of terminological analysis(method) depends primarily on the following conditions:

1. Required consider polysemy of the term , used to refer to various events or phenomena that differ from each other; connected with this is the need to consider a set of terms relating to the same events, and in order to clarify this ambiguity, the widest possible range of sources in which it takes place is involved.

2. To the analysis of each term should fit historically , i.e. take into account the development of its content depending on conditions, time, place, etc.

3. With emergence of new terminology should find out whether it hides new content or one that already existed before, but under a different name.

Statistical method (methods of mathematical statistics)

In historical science, quantitative and mathematical methods are increasingly being used. What caused this, what are the essence and purpose of these methods, what is their relationship with the methods of essential-content, qualitative analysis in the work of a historian?

Historical reality is a unity of content and form, essence and phenomenon, quality and quantity. Quantitative and qualitative features are in unity, characterized by the transition from one to the other. The ratio of quantity and quality expresses a measure that reveals the mentioned unity. The concept of "measure" was first used Hegel. There is a wide variety of quantitative methods - from the simplest calculation and counting to modern mathematical methods using computers.

The application of mathematical analysis varies depending on the measure of the ratio of quantity and quality. For example, to conquer China, Genghis Khan required, among other things, military leadership ( quality) and a 50,000th army ( quantity). The properties and nature of phenomena determine the measure and features of the application of their quantitative analysis, and in order to understand this, a qualitative analysis is necessary.

Ivan Dmitrievich Kovalchenko (1923 - 1995) - a historian who at an early extent mastered the methods of essential-content and quantitative analysis, wrote: "... the widest use of mathematical methods in any branch of knowledge does not in itself create any new science (in this case," mathematical history ”) and does not replace other research methods, as is sometimes mistakenly thought. Mathematical methods allow the researcher to obtain certain characteristics of the studied features, but by themselves they do not explain anything. The nature and inner essence of phenomena in any field can be revealed only by the methods inherent in this or that science.

Although measurement, to one degree or another, can also be used to characterize the qualitative features of any, including individual, phenomena, but there are objects in the course of the study of which a qualitative analysis is insufficient and cannot do without quantitative methods. This is the area massive phenomena reflected in mass sources.

Example. For example, land donations Western Europe in the Middle Ages, in favor of the church, it found its expression in the design of charters (cartulary). The cartularies number in the tens of thousands, in particular the cartulary of the Lorsch Monastery. To study the transfer of landed property from hand to hand, a qualitative analysis is insufficient; labor-intensive operations of a quantitative nature and properties are necessary.

The application of quantitative analysis methods is dictated the nature of the object of historical science and the needs for the development of its study. Historical research opens up the possibility of applying mathematical methods when it is “ripe” for this, i.e. when the necessary work has been carried out on a qualitative analysis of the event or phenomenon under study in the ways inherent in historical science.

The original form of quantitative analysis in historical research was statistical method. Its development and application are associated with the emergence of statistics as a social discipline that studies the quantitative side of mass social phenomena and processes - economic, political, cultural, demographic, etc. Statistics(originally - "political arithmetic") originated in England in the second halfXVIIV. The term "statistics" came into use inXVIIIV. (from lat.status- state). The statistical method has been widely used in middle - second halfXIXV. This method was used by: English historian Henry Thomas Buckle (1821 - 1862), German historians K.T. Inama-Sternegg (1843 - 1908), Karl Lamprecht (1856 - 1915), Russian and Soviet historians IN. Klyuchevsky, ON THE. Rozhkov, N.M. Druzhinin, M.A. barg, I.D. Kovalchenko and etc.

The statistical method can be effective tool historical knowledge only under certain conditions of its application. In works IN AND. Lenin the requirement of social typology is clearly formulated as one of the conditions for applying the statistical method: “... statistics should give not arbitrary columns of numbers, but digital illumination of those various social types of the phenomenon under study, which have been fully outlined and are outlined by life.

To the number general conditions for the rational application of the statistical method relate:

1. A priority , primacy qualitative analysis in relation to to quantitative analysis .

2. Study qualitative and quantitative features in their unity.

3. Identification qualitative homogeneity of events subjected to statistical processing.

It is not always possible to use the statistical method in the presence of mass material from medieval sources. In connection with the study of the history of the free and dependent peasantry in Germany in the 8th - 12th centuries. Alexander Iosifovich Neusykhin (1898 - 1969) wrote: “ The nature of the sources at our disposal in particular for the first two regions (Alemannia and Tyrol), – does not allow the use of the statistical method surveys, because the cartularies we have studied do not make it possible to make quantitative calculations of different strata of the peasantry or different forms of feudal rent. In such cases, a qualitative analysis of the content of sources, associated with an individual approach to them, becomes a cognitive tool that fills this gap in the application of the statistical method.

One of the varieties statistical analysis is descriptive statistics . Its similarity with the descriptive method is that the description procedure is applied to quantitative data, the totality of which constitutes a statistical fact. For example, in pre-revolutionary Russia, 85% of the population was the peasantry.

correlation method

There is also correlation method , at which the ratio (correlation coefficient) of two values ​​\u200b\u200bis established with a much greater degree of probability, reliability than a qualitative analysis can give (see below).

Example. The historian sets the task of clarifying the dependence of the size of corvee duties and their dynamics on the state of peasant farms and its changes. In this case, the historian uses the calculation of the ratio between the level of corvée and the provision of the peasant economy with draft animals, between corvée and the number of able-bodied men, and then the total dependence of duties on the number of draft animals and the amount of labor.

The correlation method is hardly suitable for determining the comparative role of various causes (factors) in a particular process.

Regression method

There is also a regression method, which is used where there is a combination of factors (i.e. almost always). Example. One of important tasks study of agrarian relations in the Russian village of the XIX century. was to identify the degree of impact of peasant duties and their growth on the state of the peasant economy and its dynamics. In such a situation, the calculation of the regression coefficient is used, which shows the degree of change in the result of a particular development process from a change in the factor (factors) influencing it. Usage regression method made it possible to obtain indicators characterizing the scale of the impact of the size of duties on the state of the peasant economy. Quantitative analysis operates with numerical data on the studied phenomena, helps to identify and characterize their important features and features, i.e. leads to an understanding of their essence, makes this understanding more accurate than in a qualitative analysis, or even is the only way to achieve such an understanding.