Why did the gastronomy of Siberia fall into your interests?
I sincerely believe that our region has rich traditions, including culinary ones. This was facilitated by the generosity of nature - there was always a lot of game and wild plants around, and fish can be highlighted in a separate line: broad white salmon, nelma, muksun. And there was someone to cook all this wealth - the Khakass, Nenets, Evenks added their touches to the traditional Russian cuisine promoted by the colonists from the capital. In addition, it is always interesting that no one has yet thoroughly developed it. Well, the fact that I am a Siberian in the second generation and sincerely value my native land complements the list of reasons.
How was the book created?
Several years ago I began writing a large work devoted to the space of the Siberian table as a whole, and I am still working on it. I'm interested in writing historical life from the point of view of taste. While preparing my first works, I discovered one quality in myself: I really loved sitting in archives and digging up interesting things. So I'm still digging. Here is one chapter from the book that has been “bloated” into a separate work. Why the front table? This is concentration, the pinnacle of culinary excellence. Why the turn of the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries? This is a period of classicism in Russian gastronomy. I am not interested in the Soviet canteen, where the goal was to fill the stomach. And although, like many cultural heritages, gastronomy was also trampled upon after 1917, it did not lose its greatness, and today we still have to reach this level.
Do you like Russian cuisine?
I don’t call myself a gastronomic patriot, I’m just for historical justice. It is a pity that, for various reasons, today in the minds of most Russians Japanese sushi, American burgers and Italian pasta rule the roost. We can name several reasons for this situation: these “cooking masterpieces” are more promoted, perhaps more understandable to the general public, and they are easier to put into production. But we also knew how to cook liver perfectly, it’s just that foie gras has better PR. And in Kuban there were excellent traditions of sparkling wines. There are also macaroons in the history of Russian cuisine, so what kind of macaroons are there? And these are just isolated examples. Poor information flow is the problem with our kitchen. If we consider that these are only the notorious dumplings, borscht and pancakes, we won’t get far. Real buckwheat pancakes, sour, which truly reveal the taste of caviar - this is a completely special story. Or the original Little Russian borscht, in the preparation of which beet essence is used, and not just beets cooked in broth. Why am I all this? We have something to be proud of, we just need to protect our traditions.
Are you for high culture in gastronomy?
I don’t single out drinking or eating culture separately - for me there is a common human culture. When I presented my book at one of the radio stations, there was a parallel survey “How do you use to eat?” There were two options: at the table or in front of the TV/computer. And approximately 70% chose the second option. This is scary. I always sign my books “Live deliciously” and I apply this not only to meals. Life should be enjoyed. And I am deeply convinced that culture does not arise in school or college, but comes from the family. You can learn to put on a tailcoat and treat a jacket correctly, but if you haven’t received the “vaccination” since childhood, it will only be mechanics.
Do many people share your views?
There will always be those who want the best and have high needs. For example, when the Krasnoyarsk Wine Club was organized in 1997, a circle of interested people immediately formed. Local artists participate frequently and in different ways at the conferences. Some paint an event menu, others paint the mood of the evening on canvas, others create thematic installations. In order for the results of my activities to be open to more people, two years ago I opened the Internet resource “Shein Archive”. All my works, thoughts, opinions appear on ivshein.ru. And for me this is a great opportunity to speak out without financial influence; I don’t do business on the Internet in principle. I do not count on the widespread dissemination of high culture; in this regard, I am rather a pessimist. But there is still a certain percentage of those who are interested, and that means I’m not alone. Moreover, today information often comes into my hands, people themselves bring me sources. For example, from the latter - notes from the chef of the regional party administration and a unique menu from 1912. So there are more than enough subjects for work and study.
Are you satisfied with the way your destiny has turned out?
I guess I couldn’t get past what I’m doing now. Since childhood, he loved nature and wanted to understand its secrets. When I was planning to enter a university, I chose between Krasnoyarsk and Novosibirsk. And I came here because there are Stolby, the Yenisei, and rafting on the Mana River. While still a student, at the end of April I took exams ahead of schedule and went on expeditions - archaeological, hydrological, botanical, and spent the whole summer until the onset of the first frost. At one time, together with academician Okladnikov, he conducted excavations on Biryusa and walked the entire Eastern Sayan. I’m just interested in exploring the world, and this continues to this day.
Igor Shein was born in Novokuznetsk. The biochemist worked at the Academy of Sciences for more than twenty years, but left it during perestroika. He was involved in the restoration of old Russian alcohol technologies and recipes, which was implemented in the international project “Higher Drinks” (vichepitia.ru). He skis several tens of kilometers a day and owns an Airedale terrier. Continues to collect a collection of vintage menus.
Text: Daria Bakhanova
Friends! Recently another very good book was published in Krasnoyarsk - Igor Shein’s “Siberian Ceremonial Table. XIX - early XX centuries." (Krasnoyarsk, Sitall, 2013, large format, 329 pp.).
On December 19, we will have a presentation at our library., starts at 17.00. You can get acquainted with the book, its contents, and magnificent design now on the Shein Archive website.
Igor Shein is the author of more than 500 popular scientific articles on various problems of the ecology of human nutrition, as well as the book “Distillation in the Yenisei Territory: on the history of the Kansk Distillery (1863-1924).” Currently, Igor Vladimirovich works as a wine expert at the Negotsiant company and is the president of the Krasnoyarsk Wine Club.
When writing the book “The Siberian State Table,” Igor Shein’s skill as a cook and his painstakingness as a historian were successfully combined. The author not only collected and analyzed ancient recipes of Siberian cuisine, but also prepared these dishes himself. From the book you will learn what was served on the ceremonial table in Krasnoyarsk and St. Petersburg, what was prepared for the New Year and Christmas, what the menu of dinners that accompanied significant events in the history of the city and province was, and you will also read about these events. Here, for example, is the beginning of a section describing one of the Krasnoyarsk dinners in 1897:
You can already see that the book contains exact culinary recipes for holiday dishes, so you can try to cook them during the upcoming holidays! :))
At the presentation, Igor Vladimirovich will talk about the traditional diet of Siberians, products, recipes of national cuisines and many other interesting things from the world of cooking.
We are waiting for you in the auditorium. 3-13 (3rd floor).
At the presentation you will be able to buy a book for 1 thousand rubles. (in stores it costs 1500).
According to Mr. Shein, wine is an integral part of the cultural code of many countries. Thus, when tasting outside the cultural context, it is difficult to truly understand the peculiarities of a new point on the map.
Are people who purposefully go drinking abroad really able to understand a foreign culture and mentality in this way? They are not being deceitful or being deceived, what do you think?
I don’t think every tourist is puzzled by understanding the mentality of the country where he is traveling. For most, it all comes down to a few phrases like “cool”, “I’ve never seen anything like this (didn’t eat, didn’t drink)”, “wow”, etc. And I wouldn’t say that unusual travel is now in fashion. It’s better to say that the usual ones have become unfashionable. There are few people who want to listen to you warming your belly on the sand somewhere out there. Either way: “And so we walk through the dungeon, there are barrels of port everywhere, we taste and taste, it’s heavy, we spit on the floor...”. Today such tales will roll around.
As for wine or other drinks as such, it is impossible to understand anything about the country through them. When in a mediocre French restaurant you are faced with a choice of 30-40 items of wine to accompany your meal, you will definitely get confused in the “mentality”. Well, if you and an Englishman start comparing “mentality” in relation to strong drinks...
You can understand another country, another people only through its culture. Nutrition is an integral part of culture, and wine or any other drink should never be taken out of this context.
Can a person, getting acquainted with new drinks for him in another country, first of all, do without an experienced companion who is well versed in wines? What mistakes can an amateur taster make in this regard?
Traveling alone is for experts, that's a different story. It’s definitely not worth going on a “wine journey” alone, you need to share your emotions with someone, in fact, you’re going for them. But there is only one mistake you can make: not preparing, not preparing yourself before the trip.
In other words, in order for wines to be “digested,” you need to learn as much as possible about them before traveling, and create some kind of structure in your mind. If you don’t do this before a wine trip, for example in France, you are guaranteed to have brain fog. Of course, it will dissipate over time, but the information and emotions from the journey will go with it. By the way, this has its own advantage - you can travel to these places again.
So my advice: prepare more carefully for any trip, move from the general to the specific, culture - gastronomy - wine, and not vice versa. Work out questions at home to resolve them there, on the spot. There is no point in trying txakoli from the Basques if you are not theoretically ready for it, much less delving into their territorial nuances: which is better - from Guitaria, Vizcaya or Alava.
Do you personally have a lot of experience in wine travel?
Of the wine-producing countries, I have not been only to South Africa and Australia and New Zealand, and also to Canada. Here I can tell you a lot - I have a lot of experience, and it says the following: you need to trust the local cuisine, not break its structure - both in relation to wine and in relation to dishes, forget your habits.
For example, in the villages of Maritime Charente, at Sunday markets, oyster traders also offer wine, in their opinion, suitable for these beautiful sea creatures. But sometimes the price for wine is so low that it’s even embarrassing to buy it. Or they offer you your least favorite wine. Once I was advised to go with Oleron oysters with Gros-Plant de Nantes Sur Lie. Brrr! Just the memory of this wine set my teeth on edge. But he obeyed and took him to the oysters. And it was unique.
If a less experienced person decides to go on a wine trip, where would you advise him to go first? Just let’s look at different options: for a traveler whose financial capabilities allow, let’s say, to go wild, and for someone who will still count money.
Let's first apply the right-hand principle: close the prices and choose the dishes. France is definitely the first. Do you know why? Because it contains wines for all occasions, for any, even the perversely sophisticated taste of a gastronome. Because in this country, all the wines produced have been used for centuries on the local table, hence the balance, at the physiological level.
For contrast and to understand what I just said, try to balance a Super Tuscan wine, this Italian-American mestizo, born in the last quarter of the 20th century, will not work. The New World wine industry is in the same situation. From these positions, France is the standard.
In second place should be two countries - Germany and Hungary. These countries are the exact opposite of France in terms of diversity. You have to come to terms with this and enjoy white wines in Germany - among them the density of great wines is the highest in the world. All of the above applies equally to Hungary, where it is absolutely necessary to try the natural wine, from the native to the essence of the azu and, if you are lucky, the essence as such.
In third place according to the right-hand principle is Spain. In terms of diversity, the wine is drawn towards France and imitates it. It is good to travel through after Southern Italy.
Now let’s arm ourselves with the left-hand principle - we’ll look for cheaper ones, but still we won’t be unprincipled, we’ll focus on a high culture of winemaking, which a priori means developed local gastronomy - it’s all interdependent.
I think the optimum in terms of price and quality is, undoubtedly, Georgia and Greece. The latter, of course, is more expensive, but Georgia is good in all respects. Moreover, today in this country you can simultaneously get acquainted with new technologies of Georgian winemaking in the European style and experience traditional qvevri methods. And in general, if you want to truly understand wine, then you need to start with Georgia and Greece - the true cradles of world winemaking.
Interviewed by Yulia Starinova
All photos are from the personal archive of Igor Shein
At first, Igor Shein spent a long time choosing tea, citing names that I had never heard of before. "Eat?" — he asked the waitress briefly. “No,” she answered just as succinctly. “And this one?” The waitress silently shook her head. “Well, let’s take this one,” Shein said doomedly and closed the menu. They brought tea. He tried and said a short word. Then he asked the owner of the coffee shop, who also happened to be his friend: “Where do you get your tea? Would you like me to tell you where to get it?” I thought: the specialists - broad and narrow - are all boring.
We agreed at the very beginning: we don’t talk about what vodka is; We’re not talking about wine; We're not talking about tea. Let's philosophize. We're talking about "in general."
Five minutes later they started talking about vodka. After another five, Igor began excitedly talking about wine. Otherwise, it is probably difficult to imagine a conversation with a wine expert: approximately a third of Krasnoyarsk counters with this product are Shein’s choice.
Well, the rest of the conversation fell into disarray. We talked about the kitchen. Exclusively.
They didn't talk about tea.
Although it started with tea.
Academy of Sciences
I'm an unhappy person: I worked for some time as a tee tester. I tasted the teas. Now this is for life.
You are called a professional taster, a professional gourmet... Who are you really?
This is the most difficult question for me... Two years ago I left the Academy of Sciences, having worked there for 23 years. There is an academic degree, title, etc. I am a biochemist, I studied the theory - how does a tree live? What's going on inside him? Conducted many different experiments. When perestroika came, people's stomachs began to growl in the academic community. Frankly. There was nothing to eat. There was no money, science was abandoned, good scientists left.
I started working part-time to somehow feed my family. I came to the company and said: I can do this and that - it seems to me that I will be useful to you... At first I collaborated with “Golden Valley” - remember that company that developed alcoholic drinks under its own brand? Helped them in choosing technologies and in biochemical analyses. Then he helped the SibEx trading house, advised on teas and cigarettes. Then for five years he ran the “Products and Fans” column in Segodnyaya Gazeta. What has it all come down to? A hobby became a profession, and a profession became a hobby. I felt very comfortable making money in another field and doing science at the same time.
And two years ago he left the Academy of Sciences. I wrote scientific articles, that is, I seemed to be fulfilling my function, but I was not present at work. Not everyone likes it. I had to leave.
Have you stopped being a scientist?
I remained and remain a biochemist to this day. In addition to academic studies, I teach at a university. I’m teaching this subtle course: “Physiology and biochemistry of adaptation.” To rename it, it is essentially a philosophy of biology. But I’ve been trying to quit the university for three or four years now.
What makes you quit?
The course is for graduates, I need students to have complete residual knowledge. Otherwise they won't master it. Well, for example: I’m starting to analyze the Krebs cycle, this is the logic of biology. If there is no residual knowledge acquired over previous years of study, nothing can be understood. Today's students have no residual knowledge at all. Under this condition, I cannot tell them what the Krebs cycle is. Let's give a clearer analogy: in order to talk about the adaptability of a car, how springs work, how airbags save you in a collision, I need my listeners to know that the car has all this - springs, airbags... And my listeners have a car they don't know. The level of education has fallen catastrophically. I can say with full justification that the education that existed even 15 years ago does not exist in Krasnoyarsk. Neither at SFU, nor at any other university. Well, okay - Siberian Federal University, 90 percent of whose graduates then work as assistants, etc. But graduates of the medical university treat us...
Wine map
A hobby has become a profession. What kind of profession?
A wine expert is probably the most correct way. But science, the profession of a biochemist, helps in my current work, I know the technology for making alcohol, the processes of distillation, distillation, etc. I understand all this.
It seems to me that for the sphere of professional consulting on wine and vodka, simple knowledge of technology is not enough. We also need some kind of natural interest, excitement...
Well, yes. They say that everything about a person is written in heaven. It's about me. I guess I couldn’t get past what I’m doing now. One thing helps another, another helps a third... Perhaps I became a biochemist because in my heart I always wanted to cook something and experiment. Or maybe he started cooking because he was a biochemist. It is interesting to do experiments not just on the academic field, in the laboratory, but in the kitchen. I’m still in the kitchen on holidays. This is a form of relaxation. It's like reading a good book.
I read one good book by Igor Shein: “Distillation in the Yenisei region.”
It was so. I wrote a monograph on the history of distillation in the Yenisei region. This revealed one quality in me: I really fell in love with sitting in archives. And I'm still sitting. How many different interesting things are unearthed there!
Vodka must taste
You are a well-known apologist for Russian vodka.
When I became deeply interested in alcohol - history, technology - when I began to work a lot in archives, I began restoring Russian alcohol. And I can now say absolutely categorically: what we drink today has nothing to do with Russian alcohol. How does the whole world prepare strong alcohol? In distilleries. They take wine, distill it, and get strong drinks. This is how cognac, brandy, schnapps are made... In Russia, distilleries and vodka production have always been separated - not only spatially, but also morally. Vodka was never a direct product of distillation; many additional operations were required. The process schematically looked something like this. They took the mash, distilled it - they got the first intermediate product, then they distilled it again - they got a half-gar. This is an ordinary wine, the bottom step of the distillation process. But this is not drinking. The result of the next distillation is foamy wine with a strength of 42 degrees. Triple, or triple, wine is the result of distillation of foam, it was approximately 46 degrees. Four-trial - the next stage, 58 degrees. The most expensive vodkas with a strength of 58 degrees - they were called “erofeichi” - were sold only in city drinking houses.
The products were flavored, infused with herbs, and had their own sweet versions. The main thing is that they tasted good. Vodka has never been a tasteless drink in Rus'.
Well, what is modern vodka?
Polugar or foamy wine, which is well cleaned, is brought to consumer condition. It is like a drug and has no taste. The main expected parameters are that it should hit you gently on the head and that your head won’t hurt afterwards. The question arises: what do people need sense organs for if they are not used? This means that this is not a natural drink. If it’s nasty—and vodka is nasty, which is why we chill it—that means it’s not entirely natural.
In addition, today in its production, rectified alcohol is used, which is quite aggressive, and not distilled, as before. I won’t go deep into the technology, but we conducted experiments - these are completely different drinks. Distilled alcohol is less addictive, has less effect on the kidneys and liver, and is less aggressive.
Is Russian vodka a unique product or are there any analogues?
Unique, there are no analogues. I restored the traditional Russian vodka recipe. But there are no relevant technical specifications for this product. If you try to break through them, it will take your life. Too many authorities. We will all be killed by officials someday. Because the main task of an official is to take on as little responsibility as possible. This is its function. He sits in Moscow, happy with everything - why does he need extra trouble?
Dynamics in a glass
How cluttered is our alcohol market?
The Russian market is not like others. There is such a thing: tete-beche. Changeling. In our country, wine costs as much as vodka in Europe, and vodka costs as much as wine. Any doctor will tell you: the colder latitudes you live in, the more wine you should drink. Vodka is a hard product, and wine is a soft adaptability, these are vitamins... I look at a bottle of wine in Europe, automatically multiply by four - and get the price of this bottle on the Russian shelf. This makes relevant the question of how much the Russian government cares about the health of the nation.
Although, returning to the issue of clutter, now the alcohol market has fundamentally changed. About ten years ago, when buying a bottle of wine or vodka in a Russian store, we looked at the packaging, the cork - God forbid we buy a fake. Now it is pointless to try to determine whether something is fake or authentic based on the label or packaging. No balls or holograms are worth anything; anything can be faked. Today, the consumer trusts the supplier. This is the only way to guarantee your own safety.
What wines does wine expert Igor Shein prefer?
If we talk about permanent preferences, I really love Burgundy. And I will always love him, no matter what choice I make. I love Bordeaux very much, but high Bordeaux. In the case of Burgundy, you more often end up with a wine that is not very pronounced or not very good; Bordeaux is more systematized, here you are more often dealing with a good product.
In general, it’s easier for me to say what I don’t like. I am very wary of Italy. I don’t accept Sicilian wines at all, I just don’t understand them. I feel good about northern Spain, worse about southern Spain. If France or even Spain is on the menu, I will never take a New World product.
Chile, Argentina...
I love natural taste, natural beauty. Both in products and in women. It happens that a pretty girl, but lacks taste, smears herself too much - and all her beauty becomes doll-like, unnatural. New World wines are like this: if they are astringent, they will make your tongue tingle; if there is a scent - so that there is no smell of anything else nearby!
Are we not talking about Bulgaria at all?
At one time I visited all the wineries in Bulgaria - specifically to find something to drink. If English capital is present in the winery, this wine can still be drunk. If the capital is local or, God forbid, Russian, you can pour it out right away. The Ottoman yoke took its toll. Have you tried wine in Turkey? Here you go...
My gastronomic portfolio has its own delights: I really love intelligent, complex wines. When you pour wine into a wine glass, smell it, taste it - you understand that it smells like some kind of sun-warmed stones... After five minutes it has a different aroma, a different taste. The dynamics of change can be quite long. They say: “The wine quickly deflated” - this means that after a short time it lost its taste and aroma. It's not dynamic. And money is paid for dynamics in a wine glass. There are wines - the same white Haut Brion - it will develop for you within one and a half to two hours. This is a performance.
That’s why I always say: “Don’t buy serious wines for company!” You're wasting your money." Communication with such wine is an action, an absolutely intimate process.
High relationship
Your wine idol is France. What do you like to snack on?
France is the most powerful country in the world when it comes to wine, I am absolutely convinced of this. I can say that Russia has given a lot to the development of this country. At one time, Russia was the largest importer of champagne from France. True, it was used here a little differently: at first it was diluted with cucumber brine. By the way, pickles are not the worst appetizer for champagne. Do you know which is the best? Radish. Try eating champagne with radishes. The best combination. Chocolate has never been combined with it, this is a myth.
Literature also has something in common with us, by the way. Russia gave birth to modern French classics, our native Andrei Makin is a Booker laureate. By the way, he is from here, almost the same age as me, born in 1957, graduated from the Krasnoyarsk tenth school. He wrote more than 20 novels, including The French Testament. Cool stuff!
Anyway, on to the appetizers. In Paris, I must admit, I didn’t really understand what real French cuisine was. Onion soup, mussels in Provencal sauce - perhaps that's all.
You have to be in specific places, order specific dishes. The first thing that comes to mind is Provençal snails. You can try them here, they are already prepared in supermarkets, just heat them up. If they were stored and transported correctly, they are very tasty. Another typical dish of French cuisine is scallops in a sweet custard cream sauce... Of course, duck baked with cherry sauce - essentially cherry jam. Tangerines are served as a side dish.
These are, of course, frog legs fried to a crunchy, appetizing crust. These are truffles. It's not such an expensive dish, by the way. They vary by season, with winter being the most expensive. Now the Peregorsk truffles are just starting there, I’m going there in a week...
Also sweet meat. By the way, we gave this dish to the French; it is actually Russian. Although we have forgotten it.
I love to cook meat: tell me.
If I tell you, I’ll tell you, but I’m unlikely to be able to cook it. The calf has a thymus gland. He suckles his mother, and when he stops, this gland slowly dissolves. This meat is the most expensive, it is gold. It is so rare that it is always served with truffles. I probably visited all the butchers supplying meat to Krasnoyarsk markets. He said: this is how it is written in French, this is how it is written in Russian, this is how it looks in the picture. “What are you talking about, we’re throwing it away!” The culture is lost, the dish is forgotten.
Do you know who among the indigenous population of Siberia was the greatest gourmet? Evenks. They take a fish - usually a whitefish - cut it, dip it in blueberry juice, dry it, dip it again, dry it again... And so on many times. This can last for decades. And it's very tasty.
Here's a festive deer dish for you. They hung the deer over the fire, tying it by the legs, without removing the skin; the head was covered with a bast; They cut open the belly, took out the intestines, poured water into the belly, and threw hot stones there. It turned out that the inside was boiled meat with broth, and the outside was fried. They drained the broth, drank it, put the intestines fried over the fire into the belly, and somehow held the belly together. Then they spread out the shroud, dug a stake in the middle, turned the deer belly down, and “put” it on the stake. And they ate, cutting off pieces. Can you imagine how complex gastronomic sketches are?
I must state here too: culture has been lost, what was said is the subject of investigation. Alas.
VK dossier
Igor Vladimirovich Shein
Born in 1958 in Novokuznetsk. In 1982 he graduated from the Faculty of Biology of KSU. In 1988 he defended his PhD thesis in biochemistry. 35 scientific publications, including 4 monographs. More than 500 popular scientific articles have been published on various problems of the ecology of human nutrition. Currently works as a wine expert at the Negotsiant company. He is the president of the Krasnoyarsk Wine Club.
Gennady Vasiliev, “Evening Krasnoyarsk”, No. 7 (248)
Page 1
As a manuscript
Yakimenko Maxim Valentinovich
Bourgeois revolutions in Europe in the 17th – first half of the 19th centuries. and their study in Soviet historiography of the pre-war period (1917-1941)
Specialties 07.00.03 - general history (new and contemporary history) and 07.00.09 - historiography, source studies and methods of historical research
dissertations for an academic degree
candidate of historical sciences
Moscow
2011
The work was carried out at the Department of New and Contemporary History, Faculty of History, Moscow Pedagogical State University
Scientific adviser:
Doctor of Historical Sciences,
Professor KISELEV Kirill Alexandrovich
Official opponents:
Doctor of Historical Sciences,
Professor
SHEIN Igor Alexandrovich
Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor
KOVALEV Igor Georgievich
Leading organization – Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
The dissertation defense will take place 2011 in hours at a meeting of the dissertation council D 212.154.09 at the Moscow Pedagogical State University at the address: 119571, Moscow, Vernadsky Ave., 88
The dissertation can be found in the library of the Moscow Pedagogical State University at the address: 119992, Moscow, GSP-2, st. Malaya Pirogovskaya, 1.
Scientific Secretary
dissertation council SIMONOVA N.V.
Relevance of the research topic due to the fact that the significance of the revolutionary processes of the past, in the opinion of almost all domestic and foreign researchers, is enduring, since they have largely shaped the realities and problems of today in the leading countries of Western and Central Europe. The assessment of these revolutions, their social orientation, typology, character, driving forces, and most importantly, positive or negative consequences is still the subject of heated debate. This, for example, is evidenced by the heated debate in domestic and foreign scientific journals on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Great French Revolution.
The relevance of the theoretical and practical aspects of the undertaken research is caused by the timeliness of the scientific analysis of the problems of revolutions of the New Age, a noticeable increase in interest in the theoretical and methodological problems of domestic historical science at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries.
The changes that occurred in the intellectual society in the post-Soviet era gave rise to new approaches to understanding the historical past. At the same time, there is an obvious continuity in the process of scientific research and a refusal to indiscriminately deny the work of “ideologically biased” authors. In this regard, the works of outstanding Soviet historians who have focused their attention on revolutionary processes and their connection with the events of the early 20th century in Russia are still relevant. There is no doubt about the consistency and competence of their research. However, the reassessment of values that has occurred acutely raises the question of some limitations and bias of these works, constrained by the rigid ideological guidelines of that time. Having provided fertile ground for the development of scientific thought by new generations of historians, Soviet historiography still needs fresh assessments and approaches, especially in the field of typology of revolutions, their nature and results.
The “challenges” of the time require not so much denial as an urgent rethinking of the creative heritage of domestic researchers, whose works were created in the interwar period of the history of the Soviet state.
Scientific novelty of the dissertation is determined by the choice of a bifocal research perspective, the formulation of specific research problems and the formulation of the author’s principle for solving them. Although the revolutionary movements in Europe in the mid-17th - mid-19th centuries. Quite widely represented in domestic and foreign historical science, interest in these processes not only does not decrease, but, on the contrary, increases. Much of them is controversial (typology, character, role of individuals, consequences), source material that has long been in scientific circulation has recently been assessed and interpreted in a new way, and most importantly, this material is constantly updated with new sources (for example, pamphlet literature, journalism that time and memoirs), and therefore new facts. In this study, in addition to attracting new material, based on a comparative analysis of revolutionary movements, a correction is made to the typology of revolutions (especially the 1830–1840s), and a new vision of both immediate and more distant consequences is presented.
At the same time, the current situation in the space of Russian historical science necessitates the search for new assessments of the historiographic heritage of outstanding Soviet historians of the pre-war period, who studied the countries of Western and Central Europe during the period of revolutionary upheavals. Here, scientific novelty is present in a more detailed study of their personalities, creative paths, the evolution of their worldview, but, above all, in identifying how much the conditions of their time and strict ideological framework influenced the adequacy and results of their research.
Object The research is typical characteristics of revolutions in Europe in the mid-17th – mid-19th centuries and the state of domestic historiography of 1917–1941, which studied the socio-economic and political situation in those European states that became subjects of revolutionary upheavals.
Subject of research became the diversity of revolutionary processes that unfolded at different times in most European countries, as well as their study by the Soviet historical school of the pre-war period.
Purpose of the dissertation corresponds to the complex nature of the work: research and comparative analysis of European revolutions, as well as the study of these processes in Soviet historiography of the pre-war period.
To achieve this goal, the following were formulated: tasks:
consider the political and socio-economic situation in European societies on the eve of revolutions;
characterize the causes, character, role of leaders, typology and results of revolutions;
conduct a comparative analysis of revolutionary movements, taking into account different time frames, circumstances and levels of development of European countries;
explore the development of Soviet historiography in the study of Western societies and especially the revolutionary processes that took place there;
to study the scientific creativity of outstanding representatives of the Soviet historical school, the formation of their worldview and the significance of their contribution to historical science;
show the degree of influence of the rigid ideological paradigm of the Soviet state on the scientific work of Soviet historians, on individual provisions and conclusions in their works on the history of European revolutions of the 17th–19th centuries.
The historiographical part of the work highlights the interwar period 1917–1941, when the ideology of the Soviet state determined the highest priorities in scientific research, and revolutions were considered exclusively as “locomotives of history” .
Methodological basis of the dissertation: When working on his dissertation, the author was guided by the requirements of modern historical science, including general philosophical principles, as well as historical-comparative and descriptive-analytical methods. The historical-comparative method made it possible to study facts in close connection with the historical context of their occurrence. Its use also contributed to an objective assessment of the conclusions that were drawn by other researchers. The problem-chronological approach ensured the structuring of the study in the unity of its general essence. In accordance with the principle of historicism, the development of Soviet historical science was studied in the general context of the evolution of state ideology. When working with sources and literature, a classification method was used, which helped to systematize the bibliographic base of the study. The author also used an economic-deterministic approach, which made it possible to confirm the thesis that it was the involvement of European countries in the orbit of capitalist relations, economic shocks and mass pauperization (and not the purely political situation or the ambitions of certain leaders) that were the root cause of the development of revolutionary situations in any from the countries in question.
Source base of the research. To solve the problems, sources of different nature were used, which can be divided into separate groups in accordance with their specifics and those problems , which they illuminate. The first group includes various kinds of official documentation containing information related to the pre-revolutionary time in European countries that were then affected by revolutionary events. These are, for example, documents delineating land relations, where the breakdown of medieval orders and the emergence of elements of capitalist relations were very intense. The main source for studying these relations in England in the 16th–17th centuries. are manorial inventories and rentals 1. Based on this material, our ideas about the economy and social relations of that era are formed. From a legal point of view, the publication of “The Institution of English Laws” 2 by the famous English lawyer and parliamentary figure Edward Coke (1552–1634) is interesting. It contains brief characteristics of the main legal categories of holders in an English manor of the 17th century. The origins of English urban capitalist production are illuminated, for example, by data on cloth factories collected in documents sent to the Lord Chamberlain, Treasurer of the State 3.
A special group of sources are represented by documents characterizing the legislation of the revolutionary era. Official materials also include publications of international treaties, government decrees, laws, actions, decisions of monarchs and governments on certain issues of foreign policy, and draft constitutions.
For example, for studying the political situation in England, the collection “History of Parliament”, which has been expanded and republished many times, is very important. It contains such copies as “An Act for regulating the activities of the Privy Council and for the abolition of the court, usually called the “star chamber” 4, “The King’s Speech to the Lords and Commons at Oxford on the Purposes of the War with Parliament, January 22, 1645 5” and others.
Soviet historiography has always treated the history of France with great attention. Sources of this category were carefully collected by Yu.V. Klyuchnikov and A.A. Sabanin 6, Y.M. Zacher 7, and were also published in the collections “Documents of the History of the Great French Revolution” 8 and “The French Revolution in the Province and at the Front: Reports of Commissars” Convention" 9. Documents from official records contained in the 12-volume collection “Sources on the history of the Rhineland during the French Revolution of 1780–1801,” published in Bonn in 1931–1933, helped to explore the international context during the French Revolution. 10 .
Archival documents were of great importance for the study of the topic, in particular, materials from the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (AFPRI) (fund 133 of the Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; fund 137 Reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; fund 184 Embassy in London; fund 187 Embassy in Paris; fund 161 St. Petersburg Main archive; fund 182 Mission in Krakow) for the years 1830–1848. These same documents contributed to familiarization with the revolutionary events in other countries during the period of revolutionary movements of the late 1840s. In addition to them, materials from the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) (Fund 467 “Documents from the Revolution of 1848 and the Second Republic in France 1816–1901”) and documentary materials from the RAS Archive were used. Of undoubted scientific interest is the collection of documents “Retrospective review or secret archives of the last government. 1830–1848” 11, published in France by the French writer and politician of the 19th century. J.-A. Taschereau. The collection reflects the correspondence of leading political figures of France, King Louis Philippe, on the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy.
Parliamentary speeches of the most prominent French statesmen - Adolphe Thiers (1797–1877) 12 and Francois Guizot (1787–1874) 13 , as well as their political opponents, covering the entire period of their political activity, are given in the relevant publications. When studying the features and typology of other European revolutions, an important role belongs to publications such as the collection of documents “European Revolutions of 1848–1849.” 14, published in Germany and "Collection of documents of the revolutions of 1848" 15, published in London.
A special place also belongs to a group of sources that include the work of participants in revolutionary events: publicists, writers, political and military figures (texts, speeches, notes, notes and memoirs). For example, “Address to the English People on Freedom of the Press” 16 (1644) by the Republican John Milton; the speeches, declarations, proclamations and laws of Oliver Cromwell, collected and published by T. Carlyle 17 ; Bamford's work "The Diary of a Royalist" 18. A lot of information on the French Revolution is provided by Danton 19, Saint-Just 20, Robespierre 21, as well as speeches by deputies of the Constituent Assembly and members of the Jacobin Club; memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte 22 , Marshal Saint-Cyr 23 , Marshal Soult 24 , Marshal Marmont 25 , prominent figures of the French Revolution - Talleyrand 26 , Cambasseresses 27 , Carnot 28 and ordinary participants in the events. Of no less interest are the memoirs of F. Guizot 29 , the head of the left opposition in the Chamber of Deputies of Odilon Barrot 30 , and Duke Leon-Victor de Broglie 31 . Revolutions in other countries are discussed, for example, in the notes of the Prussian minister Count Brandenburg 32 about the revolutionary wave of 1848–1849, or the diaries of the Governor General of Algeria Vale 33 about the same events.
As follows from the topic of the dissertation and its objectives, the Soviet historiography of European revolutionary movements itself became the subject of our research and, as such, served as source material for the historiographic sections of this work. At the same time, the contribution of scientific research by outstanding domestic scientists to the study of European history of modern times can hardly be overestimated and is discussed in detail in the relevant sections of the dissertation.
The degree of knowledge of the problem. In Soviet historiography, in accordance with the formational Marxist-Leninist approach, the main attention was paid to social and economic processes in society during the years of revolution, which is perfectly illustrated by the example of the English revolution 34. Also, a special place was given to the role of the popular masses and radical movements in the revolution 35. With the crisis of Marxist-Leninist ideology in the 1980s and 1990s, some changes emerged. So, M.A. Bargh 36, along with the presentation of the classical Marxist-Leninist concept of the English Revolution, admitted the insignificance of changes in the socio-economic basis of English society during this period, which actually undermined the foundations of the above concept 37. Moreover, interest in the biographical genre has increased due to the recognition of the importance of the role of the individual in history. Specialists in the study of the English revolution, M.A., paid tribute to the genre of political portraits and biographies. Barg and his student T.A. Pavlova 38, freeing himself from the ideological restrictions of the recent past. However, their courage was not enough to avoid criticism from M.I. Batser 39 for his “apology for regicide”, historically unfounded exaggeration of the role of the Diggers in the revolution and praise of Cromwell. He was interested in the group of Levellers led by J. Lilburne, in whom he saw representatives of “revolutionary liberalism.”
More conservative views have also been preserved in the person of A.S. Manykin, who takes the English revolution as the starting point in the history of modern times and sees in it the initial phase of the modernization of English society, which laid the economic foundation for the future industrial society 40. At the same time, the majority of scientists, represented by research associates of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences 41, began to deny the world-historical significance of the English Revolution and did not consider it the starting point in the countdown of new history, since there was no radical change in the socio-economic basis and political superstructure after it . The English Revolution was a purely national phenomenon and was important not in itself, but for its political consequences. In general, at the end of the 20th century. The interest of Russian historians in the English revolution decreased; instead of new full-fledged works, either editions of books by foreign and pre-revolutionary domestic authors 42 or domestic reviews of foreign historiography 43 were published.
Regarding the latter, special attention is drawn to the founder of the “local history” school, which reflected the desire for a comprehensive analysis of English provincial society, A. Everitt 44, 45. In his publications of the 1960s. the idea was established that each county had its own social hierarchy and political culture and its own reasons for opposition to both Charles I and the Long Parliament. At the same time, he defined the growth of provincial consciousness not as a relic of the past, but as a new phenomenon. This concept was found in the 1970s. numerous followers (R. Howell 46, A. Roots 47, A. Johnson 48, etc.). Their most important conclusion came down to identifying the small number of consistent supporters of one or another warring side in each county, the fact that the overwhelming majority of representatives of the local nobility - the gentry - did not want to be involved in the conflict,
Giving a broad overview of the socio-political life of England in the first half to the middle of the 17th century, P. Clarke in the monograph “English Provincial Society from the Reformation to the Revolution: Religion, Politics and Society in Kent in 1500–1600.” 49 modified this concept. Exploring the economy, social structure and formation processes in 1629–1640. opposition to the crown at all levels of society, Clark attached much greater importance to religion as one of the factors that determined the political sympathies of the participants in the events,
However, the ascent to a new stage in the development of the historiography of the revolution urgently required the purification of the “loyalist” and “revisionist” concepts from excesses of extremes and schematism. The first step was taken by A. Fletcher in his monograph “The Beginning of the English Civil War” 50. Fletcher revealed the existence of a split among the gentry and emphasized the importance of popular uprisings in defense of Parliament, recognizing them as decisive in the outbreak of the war. Active research by British historians in the field of local history of the 16th–17th centuries. revealed a significant degree of property and social differentiation in the English agrarian society of that time, as well as shifts in the religious and cultural sphere.
As a new model, instead of a “single-class” and “provincial” society, closed and monolithic, E. Hughes proposed her interpretation of the relationship between the center and local governments. She, using extensive material from Yorkshire and other counties, argued that the reasons for Parliament's victory in the civil war were largely explained by the fact that this side was able to more flexibly combine local and national interests in the system of government that emerged during the war. On the other hand, the weaknesses of the royalists, in her opinion, 51 were inherent in the very nature of personal government, in the hidden contradiction between personal loyalty to the monarch and zemstvo connections, while parliament carried out the natural connection of local elites into a national whole. Similar ideas were held by B. Manning, who proposed the “third model,” which established a connection between local and national issues, with full priority given to the former. Thus, the “local” approach in modern English and Western historiography in general 52 was complemented by an integrative one, which opened up broad prospects for a more objective process of studying the English Revolution of the mid-17th century.
The French revolutions have always aroused special interest in Russian historiography. In the post-war twenty years, the classical interpretation of the revolution was preserved, preserving its main assessments as anti-feudal and bourgeois. In the 1950s–1970s, the recognized leaders of Soviet historiography of the French Revolution remained A.Z. Manfred (1906–1976) and V.M. Dahlin (1902–1985); their heirs in title were A.V. Ado (1928–1995) and G.S. Kucherenko (1932–1997), who adhered to the golden mean between the extremes of “militant Marxism” and Westernizing “revisionism” (openness to the perception of modern trends in world historical science while maintaining ideological Marxist-Leninist positions). As a result, this allowed their students to openly recognize the scientific significance and relevance of all areas of Western historiography on the problems of French history of the 18th century in the context of the collapse of the USSR. Events associated with the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution only spurred the development of scientific interest in this area. At the Institute of General History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now the Russian Academy of Sciences), on September 19–20, 1988, a round table was held, in which experts who still determine the course and nature of modern historical research took part: S.F. Blumenau, D.Y. Bovykin, A.F. Gladyshev, A.A. Egorov, D.A. Rostislavlev, A.V. Chudinov and a number of others.
As for foreign (French) historiography devoted to revolutions in France, we should note the book by J. Jaurès “Socialist history of the French Revolution” 53 . However, soon there was an oversaturation of works on socio-economic issues with a lack of new argumentation. Works on political history, the history of everyday life and family relations began to come to the fore. A striking example of this are the works of F. Furet 54 , G. Chaussinant-Nagoret and the biographies of Mirabeau 55 and Manon-Roland 56 written by him. Both authors emphasized political democracy as the main value of the revolution, with the latter giving preference not to constitutional monarchists - the main figures of the previous neoliberal historiography, but to the Gironde and the Girondins, symbolizing the advent of a new France. In the second half of the 1980s. “neoconservative” historiography made itself known, led by the historian P. Chaunu, as well as R. Secher 57 (Franco-French genocide), F. Bluchet 58 (September 1792: The Logic of Terror), who had a negative attitude towards the events of the late 18th century.
But if the old school of conservatives blamed the people's spontaneous rebellion and the impotence of politicians, the new school blamed Girondin and Montaignard figures as the main instigators of terror and other troubles. There was also a “Jacobin” direction, uniting scientists associated with the Society for Robespierre Studies. An example of his activity is a collection of articles by A. Soboul under the general title “Understanding the Revolution: Political Problems of the French Revolution (1789–1797).” 59 A number of modern French historians speak out with clearly Jacobin sympathies, often not sharing either Marxist or generally radical views (M. Chanta, S.P. Berto, M. Vovel, etc.).
French historiography until the mid-1980s. examined the revolutionary panorama of France at the beginning of the 19th century in line with the “classical” concept, characteristic of liberal and classical historians 60 . The pre-revolutionary years were considered as a period of dominance of the monetary aristocracy. Politically, it was a system of personal government for the king, who relied on a group of conservatives. In the field of foreign policy, such as neglecting the national interests of France for the sake of achieving “cordial agreement” with Great Britain. In the economic sphere - as a period of intensive economic development, but with disregard for the aspirations of the general population (using the example of the works of I. Luc Dubreton). 61
The problem of the relationship between liberalism and revolutionary democracy, in particular, the essence of Guizot’s political system, was considered in the monograph of the French researcher Andre-Jean Tudesque “Democracy in France since 1815.” 62. A feature of French researchers of the second half of the 20th century. was also their socio-economic orientation. For example, a study by M. Faucher and L. Morazo 63 pointed to a direct connection between the spread of revolutionary utopian ideas in society and the plight of the population of the Vendée and neighboring French provinces. The collection “The Army and the Second Republic” 64 stands out against the general background, in which the authors examined the morale of the army and the events of the revolution of 1848.
Professor Philippe Vigier wrote a monograph on the July Monarchy and subsequent revolutionary events in the Alps 65 . Vigier, unlike many of his predecessors, noted the glaring contradictions between those who made a profit and those who eked out a miserable existence. Causes of the revolutions of 1830, 1848 he explained the deterioration of the population's situation as a result of the economic crisis associated with crop failure. Applying the demographic principle as opposed to social antagonism, Vigier polemicized with Marx. Another researcher of the July Monarchy, the above-mentioned Andre-Jean Tudesque, studied the social psychology of notables and public opinion in connection with the spread of Bonapartism 66, 67, 68. In 1968, on the occasion of the 120th anniversary of the revolution of 1848 in France, academician J. Chastanet made an article “Spontaneous revolutions”. Summing up the development of the historiography of the revolution of 1848, we can note the interest of French historians in socio-economic issues, which compared favorably with the previous time, when exclusively political subjects were in the first place.
When considering the revolutionary events in Europe in 1848–1849. It must be emphasized that everywhere - in Germany, Italy, the Austrian Empire - the national question played a decisive role everywhere. The problems of nationalism in the revolutionary upsurge in Germany are considered in the works of modern German historians V. Konze 69, B. Wilms 70, G. Volshtein 71. On the history of the Italian revolutionary movement in the 19th century. it is necessary to highlight chapters in the academic publication “History of Italy” edited by S.D. Skazkin 72, as well as special works by K.E. Kirova 73, 74 and K.F. Misiano 75. The revolutionary processes that unfolded in the Austrian Empire are also carefully analyzed in Russian literature. Publications that stand out here include the collective monograph “Liberation Movements of the Peoples of the Austrian Empire” 76, where Chapter VI is titled “Revolution and Counter-Revolution 1848–1849,” as well as “History of Romania. 1848–1917" 77 and "A Brief History of Hungary" 78.
A number of studies by foreign authors covered individual stages of the movements of Eastern European peoples in the revolutionary movements of 1848–1849. For example, in foreign historiography the merits of the Austrian historian E. Zellner 79 are noted, who described the beginning of the revolution in the Habsburg Empire and the role of the Hungarians in them as its instigators. A monograph by V. Bogdanov 80 is devoted to the participation of the Serbs in the revolution. In general, their works contain valuable factual material, are based on a wide base of sources, representing a variety of points of view.
Dissertation structure structured according to the purpose and objectives of this study. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of used sources and literature. In accordance with the dual specialization of the research undertaken, the chapters of the dissertation are composed in such a way that the first paragraph of each of them examines the problems of the development of European countries in the pre-revolutionary years and the revolutions themselves, and in the second, historiographical paragraph of each chapter, their study by Soviet historical schools of the pre-war period.
The introduction substantiates the relevance and novelty of the chosen topic, defines the object and subject of research, the purpose and main objectives, characterizes the methodological basis of the dissertation, substantiates its chronological framework, characterizes the source base of the work and the state of scientific elaboration of the problem, shows its theoretical and practical significance.
The first chapter of the dissertation examines the problems of the English bourgeois revolution of the mid-17th century. and its study in Soviet pre-war historiography.
The second chapter accordingly analyzes the French Revolution of the late 18th century. in direct connection with its reflection in the studies of Soviet historians of the above period.
The third chapter of the dissertation provides a comparative and typological analysis of the European revolutions of the 1830s–1840s. and characteristics of domestic pre-war historiography on their main problems.
IN Conclusion the results of the dissertation research are summed up, conclusions and generalizations are formulated on the key issues of the topic under consideration.
Firstly, the European bourgeois revolutions largely prepared the process of crystallization and division of class interests. Even in England under Charles I, and then in other European countries, the new landed nobility and wealthy trading bourgeoisie wanted to invest the funds previously obtained by robbery of the colonies and piracy in legal and safe trade; feudal lords, in the face of falling income from land, began to depend more and more on the court, which distributed positions and subsidies to them, which turned into the only economic guarantee of their existence. Added to this problem were the difficulties in redistributing finances: prices rose, the wealth of the bourgeoisie grew at a rapid pace, but the income of the crown, like the income of all large landowners, remained unchanged. As a result, the royal governments of European countries could only increase revenues from feudal duties, without ensuring their independence from the bourgeoisie financially and alienating potential friends of the feudal lords, embittering the peasantry. Poor harvests, famine, a shrinking market for industrial goods, spontaneous uprisings of the rural poor and protests from the urban poor, who suffered from lack of work and skyrocketing prices - all these were just sparks for the gunpowder of deep contradictions against the backdrop of expanding market capitalist relations. It is not surprising that the main demands voiced during the revolutions were: rational use of land, free enterprise and trade, standardized effective management of a single homogeneous national territory and the abolition of the most burdensome prohibitions and social inequalities, remnants of feudalism. The demands of the bourgeoisie were most clearly stated in 1789 in the famous “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.” This document was a manifesto against the hierarchical privileged noble society. It is significant that the main demand was put forward there, ensuring the bourgeois development of any society, the demand for the introduction of private ownership of land and means of production. The politically most important requirement was the participation of all citizens in political power through the development of laws with the help of their representatives, i.e. introduction of a constitutional system. It is also worth noting that it was the French, and not the English, revolution that is defined as bourgeois-democratic, due to the fact that the broad masses not only actively participated in it, but also put forward their own political slogans.
Secondly, it is necessary to highlight the duality of the positions of the European bourgeoisie, which determines the entire course, character and results of revolutions: on the one hand, it needed the people as the main argument in the fight against the king, on the other, it was afraid of him and only wanted to legitimize its rights within the framework of limited constitutional monarchy. During the popular uprisings, features typical of the French (and subsequent revolutions) clearly stood out: the implementation of episodic moderate reforms of the middle class, uniting the masses against counter-revolution, then the desire of these masses for their own social revolution, leading to the unification of moderates with reactionaries and the readiness of the left wing to persecute left unfinished moderate targets with the help of the masses, even at the risk of losing control over them. In other words: mass mobilization, shift to the left, split among the moderates - movement to the right, until most of the middle class goes over to the conservative camp or is broken by social revolution. What was special about the French Revolution was the desire of the liberal wing of the middle class to remain in the revolution even after achieving the main bourgeois goals, including the seizure of political power: these were the Jacobins, whose name began to be called “radical revolutionaries” everywhere. This phenomenon was explained by the inexperience of the French bourgeoisie, which had not yet become acquainted with the brutal side of the revolution, and by the fact that the Jacobins could afford radicalism, because in their time the proletariat class was poorly developed, which could offer a consistent social alternative (which would happen already during the years of the Paris Commune ). At that time, the only alternative to bourgeois radicalism was the sans-culottes, a largely formless movement of the rural working poor, small artisans, shopkeepers, and artisans. Moreover, the Great French Revolution was the only one of all modern revolutions that was worldwide, influencing the development of many countries, even in Latin America.
Thirdly, although each of the European revolutions of 1848–1849. had its own distinct originality, yet their national revolutionary cycles largely coincided, which makes it possible to periodize the “European revolution” as a single whole. This “European revolution” covered almost all of Western and Central Europe, including a number of revolutionary processes similar in typology in France, the states of the German Confederation, Italy, the Kingdom of Sardinia, Poland, Austria-Hungary and even Wallachia. Its first stage was the revolutionary awakening of the continent, the “spring of nations”, which lasted roughly from the end of February to the end of March - beginning of April 1848: revolutionary movements were on the rise everywhere, and the reaction suffered serious defeats, but the economic and political foundations of its dominance were not destroyed . The people won important bourgeois-democratic rights and freedoms: the right to elections, freedom of the press, freedom of association. There was a transfer of power to the big bourgeoisie as a whole, to its most advanced groups such as the industrial bourgeoisie (France), or where it was still too poorly developed - to the liberal nobility. The second stage (until the summer of 1848): national differences began to appear in the revolutionary process, the revolutionary upsurge continued, but on the issue of political power, the revolutionary movement was unable to cross the line achieved, since the bourgeois and noble liberals who came to power often sought agreement with the old government. An important factor that contributed to the revitalization of the forces of counter-revolution was the unfavorable outcome of the London Chartist demonstration April 10, 1848 and the absence of a revolution in England, the country that has advanced farthest along the path of capitalist development.
The signal for a general offensive by counter-revolutionary forces was the defeat of the June uprising of the Parisian lower classes (June 23–26, 1848). Thus, the third stage of the European revolution was opened, which lasted until the end of 1848, with the initiative in the hands of counter-revolutionary forces, culminating in their victory in Austria and Prussia. The first half of 1849 became the last key point: in southern Germany, pockets of the revolutionary movement flared up again, ending in vain.
Fourthly, to more accurately determine the place and significance of the revolutions of 1848–1849. In the pan-European revolutionary process, the development of questions of their typology is of great importance. The following methodological criteria and signs are possible: the first is the outcome of the revolution, its victory or defeat, the degree of transformation of society it has produced, and the driving forces. The second is the course of the revolution: if the revolution of 1789, for example, developed along an ascending line until the feudal class was destroyed and the bourgeois system was guaranteed, then the French revolution of 1848 followed a descending line from the very beginning. The third criterion is based on an analysis of the forms of bourgeois revolutions in individual countries - for the revolutions of 1848–1849. was characterized by a pronounced national coloring. This makes it possible to make their typological division in accordance with national-political goals and orientation, i.e. according to which side - domestic or foreign policy - occupied a central place in the struggle for bourgeois development.
In general, revolutions stimulated capitalist development. On the territory of the Austrian Empire, in the Romanian lands and in some German states, for example, in Bavaria, only the revolution of 1848 opened up the prospect of liberation from feudal dependence for the peasantry. In Prussia and other German states, where the emancipation of the peasants was already in full swing, the revolution led to the adoption of laws, thanks to which the bourgeois revolution in the countryside was completed within one decade. In the political sphere, only the French bourgeoisie managed to establish its dominance. However, in some countries, thanks to the adoption of bourgeois constitutions and electoral laws, cut down and skimpy to the limit, the bourgeoisie still gained access to power. The revolution paved the way for national unification in Germany and Italy, which took place in the 60s and early 70s of the 19th century, for the bourgeois reforms of 1867 in the Habsburg Monarchy, which brought greater independence to Hungary and for the formation of the Romanian state. The revolutions forced their immediate opponents to take up the solution of national problems.
Conclusions on the historiographical part of the study can be represented by the following provisions: firstly, rigid ideological frameworks still could not stop the scientific search, alternative vision and, in general, the “dissent” of the majority of historians of the period under study, who believed that without this the development of scientific thought would not be ensured. Evidence can be provided by the activities of the famous specialist in the New History of the West N.I. Kareev. By August 1918, he finished the book “General Fundamentals of Sociology” 81: not feeling sympathy for the new government and the new system, the author transferred his antipathy to the Western revolutions of the 16th–19th centuries, although in pre-Soviet times he was quite loyal to them. Speaking about the essence of revolutions, he compared them with “collective psychoses”, “mental epidemics”, during which “infection of some with others” occurred. His colleague, R. Yu. Vipper, who was influenced not only by legal Marxism, but also by bourgeois liberalism and empirio-criticism, tried to prove the fallacy of the theory of historical progress and called for remembering the “forgotten theory of the historical cycle of Giambattista Vico” 82, 83 - that is, to return to idealistic concepts. “We now want, first of all, to know,” wrote Vipper, “events, the role of individuals, the cohesion of ideas. When a philosopher wants to define this change in views and tastes, he will say: public opinion has moved from a materialistic to an idealistic outlook” 84 . N.A. Rozhkov, the creator of the multi-volume work “Russian History in Comparative Historical Light” 85, who also considered the new history of Western Europe and the USA, was accused of eclecticism. The historian relied on the theories of critical and organic eras, theories of the development of mental types, etc., branded as bourgeois, although in fact he sought to draw an analogy between the laws of social development and the laws of the exact and natural sciences. Moreover, the author examined the historical process from the point of view of “economic materialism”, but was accused of replacing socio-economic formations with a diagram of the “social dynamics” of society, highlighting the periods of “noble revolution”, “dominance of the nobility”, “bourgeois revolution”, "productive capitalism". Naturally, over time N.I. Kareev, as well as the outstanding historian of modern Western Europe E.V. Tarle and others formally recognized the path of Marxist-Leninist methodology as the correct one to continue their research, despite the incessant criticism from committed Marxists: N.M. Lukin and his associates and students at the Institute of Red Professors V. M. Dalina, S.D. Kunitsky, S.M. Monosova, N.P. Freyberg.
Secondly, outwardly concentrating on revolutionary processes (issues of driving forces, social base and the nature of the activities of individual classes, parties, the content of ideological struggle), Soviet scientists studied almost all aspects and manifestations of the social life of modern European states that were experiencing revolutionary upheavals. Their outstanding contribution to Russian historical science is still in demand and relevant.
Practical significance dissertation lies in the possibility of using its materials to prepare generalizing works on revolutionary movements in modern Europe, as well as works on the domestic historiography of these problems.
The provisions and conclusions of the dissertation can also be used when writing educational and methodological works for secondary or higher schools - workshops, programs and teaching aids, thematically related both to the history of European revolutions of the 17th–19th centuries, and to issues of the development of domestic historiography of the 1920s –1930s
Approbation of work. The main provisions and results of the study were presented to a wide audience within the framework of scientific conferences of students, graduate students and teachers (“April Readings” at the Moscow Pedagogical State University in 2007–2010), and were also presented in five scientific publications (including three peer-reviewed articles scientific journals recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission).
The main results of the study are reflected in the following publications.
