Culture of Kievan Rus folk art. Introduction, folklore - culture of Kievan Rus

Talking about educational literature pre-revolutionary Russia, it should be noted that the authors of the textbooks were such major Russian historians as Solovyov, Klyuchevsky, I.I. Bellarminov, M.M. Bogoslovsky, S.F. Platonov and others. But the most widespread were the textbooks of D. I. Ilovaisky, which went through dozens of editions. Even before 1917, a somewhat ironic attitude had developed towards Ilovaisky. The term “Ilovaischina” was widely used and his name became a household name during his lifetime. Even in pre-revolutionary reference publications he was characterized as a tendentious, conservative and extremely nationalistic author. But Ilovaisky received a special history education at Moscow University, studied with Granovsky and Solovyov, and was himself a historian-researcher. He is known for his works on the history of the Ryazan principality, major work“History of Russia”, etc. More attention was paid to it in recent post-Soviet years.

Time from the 1st century. BC. to the 9th century AD Ilovaisky attributed it to the prehistory of Rus', then he went on to the Kiev period (X - XII centuries), Vladimir - XII - XIII, Moscow-Lithuania - XIV-XV centuries, Moscow-Tsarist - XVI - late XVII centuries. (it included the Troubles, which he dated 1603 - 1613), i.e. before the reign of Peter I. In their “ Brief Essays Russian history", which in 1875 was published in its 15th edition; Ilovaisky calls the beginning of Russian history the 9th century. Next he has sections “Development of the appanage system” covering 1113 - 1212, “ Mongol yoke"from 1224 to 1340, etc. Recent sections Ilovaisky compiled a textbook on the reigns, trying to show character traits reign of Paul I, Alexander I and Nicholas I. Ilovaisky was almost not interested in the problems of methodology, and he practically did not take into account the developments in this area of ​​such prominent Russian methodologists as N. I. Kareev, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, M. M. Khvostov, L.P. Karsavin and others, without whose works it was no longer possible to do with the periodization of not only universal, but also national history.

Textbooks and teaching aids in Russia at that time were of an official or official nature. But there was also literature of a different kind, which was usually published either illegally or outside the country. Rare exceptions include, for example, the famous “Historical Letters” of P. L. Lavrov, published legally and having gone through several editions by 1917. The prominent revolutionary populist S. M. Stepnyak-Kravchinsky in 1885 published abroad on English language his book “Russia under the Rule of the Tsars,” later translated into Russian. Its first part, entitled “Development of Autocracy,” which consists of 9 problematic chapters, deserves special attention. It pays special attention to the history of the community, the beginning of the veche, the Novgorod Republic and the Zaporozhye Sich. In the 11th and 12th centuries, according to Stepnyak-Kravchinsky, an ultra-democratic system prevailed in Rus', which within 300 or 400 years turned into despotism, and in the 13th and 14th centuries. observed greatest development Moscow autocracy.

“Stories from Russian History” - a book by the famous populist and later Socialist-Revolutionary L. E. Shishko, like the book of Stepnyak-Kravchinsky, was popular in nature, but was still to a greater extent aims to study life common people. At the same time, Shishko combines a problem-chronological approach with a presentation of historical material on reigns, although the mood of the book was clearly anti-monarchical. Literature of this kind had limited circulation in Russia itself at that time, but it attracts attention today not only for its oppositional orientation, but also because it seemed to anticipate the publications that were published after 1917.

Soviet historical literature was by no means a complete negation of previous works on history. By the way, many prominent Soviet historians - V.P. Volgin, N.M. Druzhinin, N.M. Lukin, S.D. Skazkin, M.N. Tikhomirov and others - received a special historical education even before October revolution 1917 Long before October, Marxist historical literature began to appear in Russia, as well as Bolshevik publications that emerged from it. Before the revolution, the works of M. N. Pokrovsky, M. S. Olminsky, Yu. M. Steklov and other prominent Bolsheviks were published. Back in 1907, the future famous Soviet antiquist A.I. Tyumenev published his book “The Theory of Historical Materialism”. G. V. Plekhanov paid considerable attention to history. It is noteworthy that Beltov’s (Plekhanov’s) book on the materialist approach to history was published legally in St. Petersburg back in 1895. Referring to Marx and Engels, he wrote that “the criterion of the ideal is economic reality.” Being a supporter of the formational approach to history, Plekhanov paid considerable attention to its periodization. It is interesting that, referring to the “History of German national literature“G. Kluge, he rejected his proposed division of this history into periods, saying: “To us it seems completely eclectic, i.e. built not on the basis of one principle, which is a necessary condition any scientific classification and division, but on the basis of several, incommensurable principles.” V.I. Lenin also repeatedly addressed the problems of history. He divided the history of Russia during the era of feudalism into three main stages - Ancient Rus', The Middle Ages, or the era of the Muscovite kingdom, and the so-called New period Russian history from about the 17th century. How important stage in development Russian society Lenin considered the transformations of Peter I and repeatedly turned to the peasant reform of 1861 and to the problem of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia. Lenin's periodization of the Russian liberation movement, which he also divided into three periods, the theory of imperialism, etc., became widespread.

The works of Plekhanov and especially Lenin had a strong influence on Soviet historical literature. Without taking into account their works, the key to its understanding is lost, but turning to Soviet publications on the periodization of history, it should be noted that within the framework of a unified Marxist methodology with its formational approach, different approaches. M. N. Pokrovsky built his “Russian History in the Most Concise Essay,” the first two parts of which were published in 1920, on the basis of previous, pre-revolutionary studies. But now he paid more attention to the analysis of the capitalist development of the country with an emphasis on the problem of merchant capital and history revolutionary movement. One should also keep in mind the fact that Pokrovsky's views gradually changed. For the periodization of Russian feudalism, his article, specifically devoted to the problems of Russian feudalism, deserves special attention.

About serious attempts at unification historical science in the USSR we can only speak from the 1930s. This was connected with well-known party documents, which contained guidelines for the periodization of history 9, and with preparations for a big war, and with serious internal changes in the country. Special attention applied for teaching civil history in schools and universities. In this regard, in 1934-1935. the magazine “History in Secondary School” was published, and in 1936 - the magazine “History in School”, the successor of which in 1946 was the magazine “Teaching History in School”, which is still published. Considerable attention was paid to the preparation of textbooks and teaching aids on civil history and the history of the CPSU (b), where installations corresponding to the spirit of the times were carried out. In 1937, " Short course history of the USSR" for primary school, prepared by a team of authors under the leadership of a prominent agricultural historian, participant in the December armed uprising of 1905 in Moscow A.V. Shestakov. Your contribution to unification historical knowledge He also contributed the famous “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”.

However, despite all attempts to create solid official schemes, complete unification in the field of periodization of history could not be achieved. In 1949, the largest discussion took place on the problems of periodization of Russian history. It began with articles by K. V. Bazilevich and N. M. Druzhinin, devoted to the periodization of the history of the USSR during the period of feudalism and capitalism and published in the pages of the journal “Questions of History”. In total, the journal received 30 articles on periodization problems from different cities of the country, of which 21 were published. A special scientific session was held at the Academy social sciences under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. These problems were also discussed at scientific meetings at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences and its Leningrad branch. The discussion received resonance in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and a number of articles were translated into foreign languages. There was nothing like this in the USSR either before or later.

K. V. Bazilevich proposed his own periodization feudal period history of Russia “on the basis of the development of productive forces and production relations.” He attempted to date initial stage feudal period, identified a number of internal stages in it, noting, for example, the system of feudal semi-states, drew attention to the feudal war of the times of Vasily the Dark, identified the 1480s as a turning point internally, emphasizing them important role in the formation of the Russian centralized state. Bazilevich dated the next period in the history of Russia, the era of feudalism, to the end of the 15th - end of the 17th centuries, characterizing it as the time of origin and development commodity-money relations(cash rent). From the end of the 17th century, in his opinion, a “new period” began in the history of Russia. Bazilevich characterized the events of the 18th century in somewhat less detail.

The discussion was very lively, but in March 1950 Bazilevich died and was unable to summarize its results and answer his opponents. The final article on the periodization of the feudal period of Russian history was published by V. T. Pashuto and L. V. Cherepnin, who did not agree with either Bazilevich’s scheme or I. I. Smirnov’s scheme. They hurled, in particular, a number of reproaches at Bazilevich, emphasizing that he actually built his periodization based on the development of rent relations. At the same time, Pashuto and Cherepnin proposed their own periodization of the history of Russia during the era of feudalism, dividing it into 3 periods: early feudal (IX - early XII centuries), the period of developed feudalism (XII - early XVII centuries) and the period of late feudalism (early 17th century - 1861). They also divided the second period into 2 sections, the first of which consisted of six, and the second of three stages. The third period is also divided into 2 sections, but the authors of the article limited themselves to its characteristics without highlighting any stages.

N. M. Druzhinin spoke at this discussion with his presentation and final articles. In his opinion, the process of maturation of the capitalist structure (1760 - 1861) should be divided into three intermediate periods: from the 1760s. before 1789, from 1790 to 1825 and from 1826 to 1861. Druzhinin based his division on shifts socio-economic the nature and characteristics of the class struggle directed against the decaying feudal system. He applied the same approaches to the era that came after 1861, which he also divided into 3 periods: from 1861 to 1882, from 1883 to 1900. and from 1901 to 191745. The most important phenomenon first post-reform period Druzhinin considered the replacement of forced labor with free labor in industry and agriculture. In the second period, in his opinion, the factory finally defeated manufacture, and in agriculture the capitalist system of wage labor began to prevail over feudal “works”. The third period is the period of military-feudal imperialism. The author also drew attention to the possibility of a more detailed division of the history of Russian capitalism, demonstrating it with relevant specific examples.

In the final article, Druzhinin, taking into account all the opinions expressed, responded to his opponents and clarified his own positions. He stopped at important issues"fragmentation" and "connection" historical periods and emphasized that “the greatest debates revolved around the question of what moment should be dated for the beginning of the capitalist system, i.e. that period when feudal relations of production became an “insurmountable” obstacle, a fetter for the development of productive forces and production relations of the new society? On the question of the date of the emergence of the capitalist system, indeed, a huge range of opinions emerged: some called the 17th century, others - early XIX century, the third, leaning towards the 18th century, were also not absolutely united, highlighting the middle of the century, the 60s, last third or late XVIII V. This was connected with another heated debate in Soviet historical science, which began back in 1947 - 1948, about the early or later genesis of capitalism in Russia. Subsequently, the first point of view was supported by A. A. Preobrazhensky, E. I. Indova, Yu. A. Tikhonov, and the second by I. D. Kovalchenko and L. V. Milov, and each of these directions had a fairly wide circle of its supporters and opponents.

Druzhinin also gave a number of explanations in favor of his periodization, emphasizing: “The discussion showed that the complex problem of periodization of the history of the USSR can only be resolved through the joint efforts of specialists studying various social formations.” As a matter of fact, no one spoke against the formational approach during the discussion; it permeated the final editorial article of the journal “Questions of History.” This article summarized the general results of the discussion: certain achievements of the exchange of views were noted, for example, a discussion of the principles of periodization, the desire to determine larger and more detailed periods of each formation, statements about the genesis of feudalism and capitalism, and identification of the characteristics of Russian feudalism and capitalism. It was also noted that the IX-X centuries. AD in history Slavic peoples were not the beginning of the pre-feudal period, the origins of which can be dated back to the 7th-8th, and perhaps even to the 6th-7th centuries. The separation of domestic history from world history was also noted, called a major flaw in the discussion. Remarkable unanimity was expressed only in the sense that 1800 cannot serve as a milestone between the two stages of the emergence of capitalist relations. At the same time, it was emphasized that only on some of the major issues of the country’s history “during the discussion, more or less general points of view emerged.” The discussion was about the need to revise the periodization that existed at that time, which developed during the years of criticism of the views of the “Pokrovsky school”, which did not meet the needs research work and teaching history in secondary and higher schools. The discussion also convincingly showed that the generally accepted or widely accepted periodization of history can only be the result of a scientific compromise, a kind of social contract.

This discussion contributed to the approval of the periodization implemented in the preparation of multi-volume books on world history and history of the USSR, “Soviet historical encyclopedia"," Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR. A general periodization of the world-wide historical process, according to which the transition from a slave system to a feudal system took place in the 5th century, after the fall of the Roman Empire, and the beginning of a new history dates back to the mid-17th century, the time after the English Revolution. Finally, modern history (a concept that came into use in the 20th century), in accordance with Soviet periodization, began with the October Revolution of 1917. But even after the approval of this scheme, the development of problems of periodization and closely related issues of historical methodology did not stop. As the civilizational approach was applied to the periodization of world and domestic history, researchers and methodologists began to feel more and more difficulties. The clarity and certainty that was observed with the formational approach did not work out, and the most searching historians began to feel the need for truly scientific foundations for the study of the historical process. This led to two related discussions. The first of them concerned the problems of methodology, the second - the periodization of world history. In both cases special role played by the magazine “New and Contemporary History”, where in 1994 an article was published by I. N. Ionov, a sincere and convinced “civilizationist” who came to civilizational approaches not at all at the behest of fashion. By the way, he became the author of a textbook for high school, where he tried to apply a civilizational approach to the history of Russia. Ionov's article gave rise to a debate in the field of historical methodology. Academician I. D. Kovalchenko took part in it, emphasizing that “the civilizational approach, integrating other approaches and methods historical research, opens up wide opportunities for their deepening.” At the same time, he advocated the use of other approaches - historical-situational and historical-retrospective. Kovalchenko called for synthesis various theories, research approaches and methods, and specific scientific concepts. Academician-lawyer V.N. Kudryavtsev and a number of other researchers took part in this discussion. The journal Voprosy istorii actually joined the discussion at that time. Philosophers organized round tables on this topic, publishing relevant materials and emphasizing that the formational approach retains its position in historical science. They came to similar conclusions during a round table at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences at the end of 1995, the results of which were also published in the press. V. G. Fedotova stated there that “stage characteristics expressing the degree of development of society or its location at a certain stage of human development are still preserved and recognized in the world.” Thus, she took the formational approach under her protection, but noted the need to supplement it with a civilizational approach, emphasizing: “The principle of the unity of the staged and civilizational should become the methodological basis of world history.” Other participants in the round table (V.F. Mamonov, K.A. Zuev, I.A. Zhelenina) generally agreed with the opinions of Fedotova and Kovalchenko, who noted the crisis of historical science and difficulties with the use of the formational approach.

If we take into account that, along with the works of the participants in this discussion, special works on the formational approach continued to be published, then we can state the emergence of an original situation, when social science as a science followed one path, and educational methodological literature, as a rule, others. This was confirmed by another discussion devoted to the problems of periodization. Central to it was the article by B. D. Kozenko and G. M. Sadova, where its authors categorically opposed both calls to abandon periodization in general and the thesis “how many researchers - so many periodizations.” Turning to the periodization of the New and Recent history, they came to the conclusion that the three periods of formational history almost completely coincide with the three periods of development of world civilization. The beginning of the first of them - the period of formation of capitalism and bourgeois civilization - dates back to 1640 - 1649, and the end - 1789 - 1815. They place the second period between 1815 and 1914, calling it the period of victory and establishment of capitalism and the beginning of the transition from the stage of industrial capitalism of free competition to imperialism. Finally, they begin the third period from 1914 to 1923, calling it the period of the formation and flourishing of modern capitalism and its coexistence with socialism, the period of crisis of world civilization.

The article by Kozenko and Sadova generally received the approval of specialists in general history, although during its discussion a rather significant range of opinions emerged. Noteworthy, for example, are the speeches of Pskov historians, who dedicated a special “ round table“, where, in particular, it was proposed to consider the end of the First World War as the beginning of Modern history, i.e. 1918 In general, the discussion in the journal “New and Contemporary History” (1993 - 1997) revealed 2 approaches to the time of the beginning of Modern history. Some attributed this chronological line to 1917, others to 1918. This difference of only 1 year reflected different methodological approaches and the principled nature of the discussion.

The periodization of Russian history contains such time periods of the country's development that differ from each other in political, economic, social, cultural and other fundamental criteria.

Initial periodization. Dozens of periodizations of Russian history are known. Let's take for example those proposed by the patriarchs of Russian history: N.M. Karamzin (main work “History of the Russian State”), S.M. Soloviev (main work “History of Russia since ancient times”), V.O. Klyuchevsky (main work “Course of Russian History”).

N.M. Karamzin identifies three periods in the history of Russia (Table 1):

Table 1

As we can see, N.M. based his periodization. Karamzin laid down the concept: “The history of the people belongs to the king.”

CM. Soloviev identified four periods in Russian history (Table 2):

table 2

Periodization S.M. Solovyov reflects, first of all, the history of the state.

IN. Klyuchevsky also identified four periods in the history of Russia (Table 3):

Table 3

The basis for the periodization of the historical development of Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky put more emphasis on economic development, focusing considerable attention on the factor of colonization.

Meanwhile, we believe that the periodization of N.M. Karamzina, S.M. Solovyova, V.O. Klyuchevsky were acceptable for their time (the level of scientific development of historiography and source studies), today it is enough to know them, and not to use them as the basis for teaching a university history course - too much time has passed since then.

The time of obvious active searches for the periodization of history was the end of the 19th and 20th centuries. At the same time, the greatest controversy has always been caused by the first period of development of the Russian state.

In textbooks pre-revolutionary (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) and post-revolutionary (M.V. Nechkina and A.V. Fadeev, B.A. Rybakov, etc.), including modern times (late 90s. XX century - A.N. Sakharov and V.I. Buganov, Sh.M. Munchaev and V.M. Ustinov, etc.), it is easy to notice that, for example, the concepts of Kievan Rus and Novgorod are used either sporadically or not used at all. It must be assumed that the textbooks reflect different concepts of the origin of Rus'. There are many of them, but modern conditions the most common are the Norman, Kiev and theories of the heterogeneous origin of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples (at the same time, we do not accept the “theories” of Fomenko, Koder, Kondyba and Zolin with their “exotic” concepts of the history of Rus', far from scientific justification and openly Russophobic-falsified). Textbooks most often discuss the Norman, or “Kievan” version of the origin of Rus'.

According to the “Kyiv” concept, Kyiv and only Kyiv is the beginning of Russian statehood. At the same time, Novgorod is not assigned any role; Vladimir and Moscow are considered a continuation of development Kievan Rus.

The Norman theory to a certain extent confirms the Novgorod beginning of Rus', but at the same time it seems to infringe on the pride of the Russians: after all, according to the chronicle, the Varangians began to reign in the Novgorod land - the brothers Rurik (in Novgorod), Sineus (in Beloozero) and Truvor (in Izborsk). 1

And if these lands are considered the fundamental basis of the Russian state, then such an assumption seems to strengthen the Norman theory. Based on this, apparently, the emphasis was placed on “Kievan Rus” as the only beginning of the Russian state.

I would like to give some thoughts regarding the Norman roots of Russian statehood. Of the three princes mentioned in the chronicle (PVL), only Rurik, as proven, was real face. As for Sineus and Truvor, their appearance on historical scene, according to A.M. Kuznetsova, nothing more than a “curiosity of historiography.” Academician B.A. Rybakov in his work “Early Centuries of Russian History” writes: “Historians have long paid attention to the anecdotal nature of Rurik’s “brothers”..., “brothers” turned out to be a Russian translation of Swedish words. It is said about Rurik that he came “with his family” (“Sineuse” - “his relatives” - Sineus) and his faithful squad (“Truwar” - “faithful squad” - Truvor) ... In other words, the chronicle included a retelling of some Scandinavian legend about the activities of Rurik (the author of the chronicle, a Novgorodian, who did not know Swedish well, mistook the mention in the oral care (presentation - I.P.) of the king’s traditional entourage for the names of his brothers). The reliability of the legend as a whole... is not great.” 2

Regarding the beginning of Russian statehood, we will make the following assumption. Many detachments (teams) of the Varangians (Normans, Scandinavians) rushed (for various reasons, in our opinion, the main one was material and economic) to the West, South and East for plunder, seizure of lands, with the aim of settling on them, etc. One of these detachments, led by the military leader Rurik, who was looking for land for plunder, ended up in the Novgorod land, and for a short time captured Novgorod, becoming its ruler (according to another version, the Ilmen Slavs called him to reign together with the “brothers” Sineus and Truvor in Novgorod; the fact of inviting the Varangians to reign in the Russian land has not been established). Meanwhile, the Varangians were soon expelled from Novgorod. N.M. Karamzin writes: “The Slavic boyars (led by the elder, Prince Gostomysl - I.P.), dissatisfied with the power of the conquerors, which destroyed their own..., armed (the Novgorodians - I.P.) against the Normans, and drove them out...". 3 Consequently, in Novgorod there was a princely power headed by Prince Gostomysl (the first half of the 9th century). Moreover, in the “Life of St. Stephen of Sourozh,” who was for a long time an archbishop in the Byzantine colony in Crimea in the city of Sourozh (present-day Sudak) and died in 787, talks about the Novgorod prince Bravlin: “The warlike and strong prince of Russian Novgorod... Bravlin... with a large army he devastated the places from Korsun to Kerch, approached Surozh with great force... broke the iron gates, entered the city...". 4 And thus, “Life...” testifies that Novgorod already existed in the 8th century. and Bravlin reigned in it. Since the reign of Bravlin (second half of the 8th century) and Gostomysl (first half of the 9th century) already presupposes statehood, we consider the second half of the 8th century to be the beginning of Rus' as a state formation. (Novgorod), and not the end of the 9th century. (connected with the “calling” of the Varangians to reign in Kyiv.) It can be assumed that on this basis A.T. Stepanishchev considers Novgorod the first capital of the Old Russian state and therefore the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state is untenable from his point of view. Taking into account the arguments of A.T. Stepanishchev about Novgorod - the first capital of the Old Russian state - the periodization of the last two centuries of the first millennium and the first three centuries of the second millennium could have the following specific form, coinciding with the time of the transfer of the capital of the Russian lands: Novgorod period - until 882 G.; Kyiv period- until 1157; Vladimir-Suzdal period - until 1326; Moscow period - after 1326 5

To a certain extent, one could agree with the reasoning of A.T. Stepanishchev. But still, I would like to clarify the situation regarding the “first capital” and the beginning of Russian statehood. According to the research of academician B.A. Rybakov “... who in Kyiv began first than the principality...”, he refers to the 6th century. (during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (527-565), which is also dated by Byzantine coins). In all likelihood, it was at this time that several forest-steppe Slavic tribes merged into one large union. The union of the Middle Dnieper Slavic tribes was called Rus (primacy in the new union, one might think, originally belonged to the Rus, but Polyansky Kyiv became the capital). At the turn of the VIII-IX centuries. The Dnieper Union is growing into a super-union, uniting several unions of Slavic tribes. Such an association was already a real state or was becoming one. This is yet another evidence of the inconsistency of the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state.

In our opinion, Novgorod statehood took shape already at the beginning of the 8th century, in the form of an early feudal republic, administratively divided into pyatinas, headed by elected governing bodies - posadnik, tysyatsky and veche - which carried out direct democracy (rule of people) and survived until the end of the 15th century. - early 16th centuries Kiev statehood began to take shape in the 9th century, in the form of an early feudal monarchy, administratively and territorially divided into volosts and appanages, with the Grand Duke and a feudal assembly of nobility at the head. It can be assumed that two centers were formed with various types(republic and monarchy) of Russian statehood. The interaction of these two centers, as well as international interaction with other states (Novgorod with the Hanseatic League, Scandinavian countries, etc.; Kiev with Byzantium, Western European countries, etc.) formed the Old Russian state (the specifics of Novgorod statehood remained until the 15th and even the 18th centuries). 6

After 1917, the Norman theory became unacceptable for Soviet historiography and source research for political, ideological and patriotic reasons. Therefore, along with the Norman theory, Novgorod was also pushed aside as part of it. At the same time, the concept of “Kievan Rus” was not particularly advertised, and the development of the theory and heterogeneity of the origin of Russia and Ukraine was hampered.

Another relevant point in developing a periodization of Russian history is the abolition of serfdom as a main milestone in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Many authors argue that the Manifesto of February 19, 1861 gave practically nothing to Russia and the situation of the peasants worsened even more, etc., although they mark this act as a turning point in the movement towards capitalism. There are also supporters of another concept, who propose to consider the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905-1907 as the beginning of the development of capitalism in Russia. and the subsequent Stolypin agrarian reform. Moreover, parliamentarism as a sign of bourgeoisism arose precisely in these years. There is something to think about here, since Stolypin’s agrarian reform also gave Russia little, it even caused protests from the peasantry, which even led to clashes with the police.

Along with the uncertainty of certain provisions of the periodization of Russian history until October 1917, there are difficulties in assessing the time from 1917 to 1991, etc. Based on an analysis of the concepts of many modern historians, we can propose the use of the following periodization in a university course on the history of Russia (Table 4):

Table 4

It should be noted that this periodization of Russian history is not indisputable, but it absorbs the diversity of points of view of different authors and specialists. In educational work, one should also consider the re-odization given in the textbooks that students use.