(to the 150th anniversary of the birth)

The article discusses some aspects philosophy Academician Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky (1863-1919), which was reflected, first of all, in his Methodology of History. Based on the philosophy of positivism and neo-Kantianism, Lappo-Danilevsky tried to develop a theory of social science. One of the main principles of the methodology of history Lappo-Danilevsky considered the principle of someone else's animation. Recognition of someone else's spiritual life acted for Lappo-Danilevsky as a moral postulate necessary for the knowledge of social reality.

This article discusses some aspects of the philosophical doctrine of academician Alexander Sergeyevich Lappo-Danilevsky (1863-1919), which is reflected, above all, in his "Methodology of History." Based on the philosophy of positivism and neokantian Lappo-Danilevsky tried to develop a theory of social science. One of the main principles of the methodology of the history of Lappo-Danilevsky considered the principle of the stranger spiritual life. Recognition of a stranger spiritual life advocated for Lappo-Danilevsky as a moral postulate necessary for understanding of social reality.

KEY WORDS: Lappo-Danilevsky, neo-Kantianism, philosophy of history, methodology, alien "I", fact, event, moral sense.

KEYWORDS: Lappo-Danilevsky, kantianism, philosophy of history, methodology, another's "I", fact, co-existence, moral sense.

Academician Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky (1863-1919) entered the history of Russian thought as one of the leading representatives of the neo-Kantian philosophy of history in Russia. In a similar way, he was already evaluated by his contemporaries [Kareev 1920, 121; Kareev 1996, 168-169 ] and subsequent researchers [Khmylev 1978, Tsamutali 1986, Sinitsyn 1990, Ramazanov 1999-2000; Malinov, Pogodin 2001, Rostovtsev 2004, Trapsh 2006]. Together with S.I. Gessen, he represented the St. Petersburg editorial office of the neo-Kantian journal Logos. However, Lappo-Danilevsky was not a professional philosopher, which is probably why researchers of Russian neo-Kantianism, as a rule, bypass his work. His main research is devoted to Russian history of the XVII-XVIII centuries, as well as a number of special historical disciplines. Nevertheless, among Russian historians, Lappo-Danilevsky was distinguished by his penchant for developing philosophical problems that were far from the specifics of historiography. To a greater extent, the philosophical interests of Alexander Sergeevich were reflected in his lecture courses, the peak of which was the "Methodology of History", by which he actually understood the theory of historical knowledge. Lappo-Danilevsky's "Methodology of History" is the most complete study of the problems of theory and epistemology of history in the Russian scientific tradition.

For two decades, Lappo-Danilevsky taught at St. Petersburg University. Basically, these were lectures and practical classes on Russian history of the 18th century, the history of estates, the diplomacy of private acts, and Russian historiography. During his work at the university, Alexander Sergeevich led numerous seminaries philosophical content devoted, as he himself put it, to the “theory of social science”: practical exercises on the VI book “Systems of Logic” by D.S. Mill (1899-1900 and 1900-1901), systematics social phenomena various degrees (1901-1902), the analysis of the simplest social interactions (1903-1904), the theory of value and its application to social science (1904-1905), the theory of evolution and its application to social science and history (1906-1907), the logic of the social sciences and history (1908-1909 and 1909-1910), the theory of historical knowledge: analysis of the most important doctrines of value (1910-1911), critical analysis of the most important doctrines of development (1911-1912), critical analysis major teachings on chance (1912-1913), critical analysis of the main teachings on value (1913-1914 and 1917-1918), critical analysis of the main teachings concerning the problem of "alien self" (1914-1915), methodology of social and historical sciences (1915-1916 ), the logic of social and historical sciences (1918-1919).

Alexander Sergeevich himself noted that he “led his methodological seminaries in the spirit of critical philosophy» [ Materials for a biographical dictionary 1915, 408]. Practical classes in the theory of social science, "a rich seminary" in the words of A.E. Presnyakov, was visited not only by historians, but also by philosophers and lawyers. Regular participants in these classes were I.M. Grevs, A.A. Kaufman, I.I. Lapshin, M.A. Polievktov, A.E. Presnyakov. Since 1906, on behalf of the Faculty of History and Philology, Lappo-Danilevsky began to read a three-year lecture course on the methodology of history. After the death of Lappo-Danilevsky, N.I. taught this course at the university. Kareev [ Kareev 1990, 285 ]. The influence of Lappo-Danilevsky's studies on the philosophy of the social sciences extended far beyond the confines of the Faculty of History and Philology.

Of course, the history of Russia remained the main theme of Lappo-Danilevsky's special historical investigations. But even when studying particular problems of Russian history, he tried to proceed from a general idea of ​​the tasks and goals of scientific historical research. “His scientific interest,” wrote A.E. Presnyakov, - was focused, one might say, not on Russian history for its own sake, like most representatives of this specialty, but on historical science as a whole, in its fundamental, theoretical foundations and methods. Russian material - both in the sense of sources and in the sense of the phenomena studied - seems to be only an essential, but external condition for his scientific work, an object of experimental application, verification and concretization of general ideas about the methodological and phenomenological tasks of historical science" [Presnyakov 1920, 98]. For Lappo-Danilevsky, it was important to have a broad and general understanding of history itself, not even the historical process, but the historical subject itself, which consists of spiritual, economic and legal phenomena that interact within heterogeneous social groups (peoples), as well as the attitude in which peoples consist to each other [Lappo-Danilevsky 1890, 284].

The task of studying national (specifically, Russian) history for Lappo-Danilevsky was the result of such an understanding of the subject of history, the result of its further concretization. For a philosophical attitude to history, it is especially important to approach particular historical problems from the side of a generalizing view of history itself, justified ideologically and epistemologically. In the affirmation of this approach, the philosophical orientation of Lappo-Danilevsky's work was manifested primarily. “He, on the contrary,” stated A.E. Presnyakov, - is consciously and persistently working on a combination of a philosopher and a historian, and this left a special imprint on all his scientific activities ... His thought always went from the general to the particular, from the general tasks of the worldview and theoretical premises to the specific tasks of scientific research " [ Presnyakov 1922: 49].

The main philosophical work of Lappo-Danilevsky is the Methodology of History. The scientist worked on the topics covered in this work for about twenty years. Many of the subjects included in the "Methodology of History" were previously considered in practical classes on theoretical issues of the social and historical sciences, which Lappo-Danilevsky taught at the university since 1899. They received a systematic presentation in a general course on the methodology of history, for which the scientist started in 1906. This course was constantly revised and updated by Lappo-Danilevsky. It was first published by lithographic method in 1909. The most complete and complete edition was published in two editions in 1910 and 1913. Shortly before his death, Lappo-Danilevsky again began to rework his research, which in 1918 he began to publish in parts in the Izvestia of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Series VI, Volume XII, No. 5-7, 9, 11, 13). In 1923, in Petrograd, through the efforts of students and friends, the first issue was published. new edition"Methodologies of History".

In assessing the work of Lappo-Danilevsky, the Methodology of History serves as the main argument for the neo-Kantian attribution of his views. The evolution of his philosophical and historical views has gone from a passion for positivism to building the foundations of historical science in the spirit of neo-Kantianism. Here is what A.E. wrote about this. Presnyakov: "His philosophical development went a different way - from dogmatism to criticism, and the reason for this direction was the main need - to combine the scientific validity of the system of concepts about the reality under study with the breadth and depth of satisfying moral needs in a coherent and harmonious worldview" [ Presnyakov 1922, 53 ]. Later this point of view was repeatedly reproduced by other researchers. However, as a rule, another aspect noted by A.E. Presnyakov, according to which the movement of Lappo-Danilevsky's thought was imbued with the desire to create a coherent, as consistent as possible philosophical system substantiating the scientific status of humanitarian knowledge, and above all of history. Lappo-Danilevsky was not just an erudite compiler who followed a change in philosophical fashion in his work. His legacy is quite integral and holistic, although not without contradictions. A good knowledge of contemporary historical and philosophical literature, academic exactingness in substantiating the propositions put forward, the scientifically understood detachment of statements, professionalism in the selection of factual material create the illusion of a compiling essay, stringing different points of view one on top of the other. Lappo-Danilevsky, indeed, did not strive for originality. He tried to develop a scientifically based system of historical knowledge in the way he understood scientificity, and in accordance with how scientificity was understood in his time.

Positivism and neo-Kantianism at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. were two main options. scientific philosophy and two main versions of the philosophical foundation of science. Both directions claimed to be the philosophy of science. For Lappo-Danilevsky, it was mainly the general goal and task of these areas that was important, and not specific methodological aspects. philosophical schools. In his teaching he followed the general spirit of scientific philosophy. In this sense, both his early works (which are usually referred to as positivism) and his “mature” (so-called neo-Kantian) works are subject to the same task - the construction scientific system humanitarian knowledge. This is the integrity and consistency of his scientific work. The most sensitive and attentive contemporaries noted this feature: “His work, growing and systematizing, was directed towards the creation of a comprehensive system theoretical social science» [ Grevs 1920, 67 ]; "all his versatile works were united by one idea - the idea of ​​scientific truth as a unified knowledge" [ Presnyakov 1922: 90].

Lappo-Danilevsky's monograph "Basic Principles of O. Comte's Sociological Doctrine", published in the collection "Problems of Idealism" (1902), is devoted directly to the analysis of positive philosophy and its critical evaluation. In the Methodology of History, the reception of the Baden school of neo-Kantianism (W. Windelband and G. Rickert) is already more noticeable. However, the nature of this influence must be taken into account. The bulk of the technical terminology of the Methodology of History is of neo-Kantian origin. An example is the concept of "historical connection" used by G. Rickert in his "Philosophy of History". The neo-Kantian flavor of Lappo-Danilevsky's work is noticeable at the first acquaintance. Indicative in this regard is the beginning of the posthumous edition of the Methodology of History, which proclaims Kant's understanding of scientific knowledge and is abundantly supported by references to the writings of I. Kant himself [Lappo-Danilevsky 1923, 3]. It would seem that the following statement from the first, lithographed version of the “Methodology of History” sounds quite Kantian: “Any historical fact from the epistemological point of view is only our idea of ​​it” [Lappo-Danilevsky 1909, 78]. Although one does not have to be a Kantian to come to such a conclusion. Numerous references to German philosophers look more like a tribute to school tradition, a variant of academic tediousness, than the only possible canon of historical construction. The terminology of the Baden philosophers is mostly used by Lappo-Danilevsky as a variant of the scientific language of his day, and not only as a reference to the concepts of German scientists. In The Methodology of History, Lappo-Danilevsky first of all strove to be at the level of contemporary science.

How, Lappo-Danilevsky wondered, is our idea correlated with reality? After all, historical reality is constructed, and historical knowledge is a way of constructing, recreating historical reality. The reality with which historical research relates is covered by the concept historical fact. It is necessary to distinguish both the "real" side of a historical fact and the ways in which a historical fact is given and thanks to which it enters the system of historical knowledge. The "real" and "cognitive" sides of a historical fact are largely determined by the relationship in which this concept is with the concepts of the individual (individuality) and value. Thus, a historical fact is the impact that the individual as part of the whole has on this whole and the result of such an impact [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 335 ]. In other words, “under the fact he (historian. - A.M.) primarily refers to the impact of individuality on the environment, dead and, especially, living" [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 322 ]. It is not mechanical, but mental (through the will [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 323 ]) impact, i.e. "the historian studies those facts that consist in the psychophysical impact of individuality on the environment" [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 322 ]. More precisely, it is the impact of consciousness on the social environment [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 322 ]. At the same time, the greatest historical significance is not so much the very impact of individuality on the environment, but the consequences and results of such an impact [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 325 ]. “The historical fact also has the greater historical significance, the larger the scope of its operation,” concluded Lappo-Danilevsky [Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 252 ].

The central concept of the constructed historical reality is not a "historical fact", but an "event", which already contains the idea of ​​a causal relationship. Event- a complex concept denoting the meeting of several individuals or their actions [Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 274 ]. More precisely, it is a meeting of two or more cause-and-effect series, i.e. "relative case" [Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 260 ]. In an event, two types of reality are combined - the original, given and constructed, given: “... under the “event” one can, therefore, understand an individual concept that combines a set of ideas about heterogeneous facts that form a specific linkage, which includes a meeting of the last kind , moreover, their totality is really given and really influences (or influenced) the course of human development; since such a collection appears to our mind as given and, therefore, relatively random, it is called an event in the narrow sense of the word.Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 274 ]. Thus, in the event, the comprehension of reality is carried out with the help of its construction. The occurring cause-and-effect series of historical facts contribute to the formation of events and, thereby, lead to a synthetic construction of historical reality. The construction of history recreates historical being, returns us to the ontology of history, although Lappo-Danilevsky does not use this expression. The ontology of history, revealed as historical eventfulness, allows history to take place as a science, which, in turn, operates not with historical facts that are no longer available to it, but with historical events created, constructed by science, cognizable precisely because they are created by this science. Historical events, in turn, are also individual. An element of the reality constructed in this way, in particular, can be historical figures.

The activity of a historical personality can be understood as a kind of interaction between the individual and the environment, distinguishing both the influence of the individual on the environment and the impact of the environment on the individual. Lappo-Danilevsky is inclined to see in this difference signs, on the one hand, of idiographic, and on the other hand, of nomothetic constructions [Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 230 ]. Influencing the environment, the individual, in turn, can be guided by ideas and associations put forward by himself, but can also use those ideas that either the social environment or other individuals offer. This is the difference between geniuses and talents operating in history. Lappo-Danilevsky, in particular, recognized Catherine II as such a talent [Lappo-Danilevsky 1898, 1 ].

One of the main principles of knowledge of history, Lappo-Danilevsky believed, is alienation principle directly related to the concept of change. The historian in this case draws attention to the qualitative, and not to the quantitative change [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 301 ]. This is a change in someone else's psyche. Lappo-Danilevsky's interest in the problems of someone else's mental life was probably partly provoked by the controversy around the work of A.I. Vvedensky "On the Limits and Signs of Animation: A New Psychophysical Law in Connection with the Question of the Possibility of Metaphysics" (1892) [ Malinov 2006, 73-128 ], which was attended by both St. Petersburg (E.L. Radlov, I.I. Lapshin, S.A. Alekseev-Askoldov, N.O. Lossky) [ Rumyantseva 2001, 161 - 175, Rumyantseva 2007, 35-54], and Moscow (S.N. Trubetskoy, N.Ya. Grot, L.M. Lopatin, P.E. Astafiev) philosophers. The principle of alien animation is based on the idea of ​​the uniformity of nature in general and, in particular, the mental nature of man [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 314 ]. The “alien self” is not given directly in experience, therefore we conclude about it from observations of bodily processes [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 314 ]. It is difficult to come to a specific “I” (and, further, to historical individuality) from the concept of consciousness in general and from the idea of ​​the relationship between “I” and “non-I”, where self-consciousness is understood as the consciousness of another [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 305-306 ]. However, Lappo-Danilevsky did not clearly distinguish between "psychic" and "transcendental" and often used them in the same sense. The principle of someone else's animation and the recognition of "alien self" influence both the concept of truth and the formation and development of self-consciousness [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 312 ].

To establish the principle of someone else's animation, not a categorical or constitutive, but a regulative-teleological approach is needed [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 306 ]. In other words, this principle should be considered either as a scientific hypothesis or as a moral postulate [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 307 ], which already directly referred to the teachings of A.I. Vvedensky about "moral feeling".

The importance of the a priori element of ethical nature for the construction of the theory of historical knowledge of Lappo-Danilevsky was noted by A.E. Presnyakov [Presnyakov 1920 a , 90, Presnyakov 1922, 62]. The ethical intention was not clearly formulated in Lappo-Dinilevsky's "Methodology of History", he did not devote a special section to this problem, but the ethical disposition of many of his arguments about history is encountered more than once. In support of this thesis, the following statement by Lappo-Danilevsky can be cited: “From this point of view (meaning the ideographic construction. - A.M.) ethics finds significant support in history ... it (history. - A.M.) should determine what is due in relation to him as an individual in its socio-historical meaning" [Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 233 ]; “It is desirable, of course, to use historical material for ethical purposes...” [Lappo-Danilevsky 1890a, 100].

In principle, the constitutive application of psychology to explain historical facts is also possible, but it does not give grounds to assert the actual existence of these mental factors in history and their results. “The application of psychology to history in a constitutive sense,” Lappo-Danilevsky wrote, “on the contrary, presupposes a special kind of premise: in this case, mental factors are recognized as really given in reality” [Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 110 ]. However, neither the regulative nor the constitutive application of psychology to history makes it possible to formulate the laws of history. The point is not only in the inapplicability of psychology to the nomothetic construction of history, but in the fact that the laws of history are more complex than the laws of psychology [Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 111 ]. In a broad sense, the teleological principle can be used in history from the side of its knowledge. This means that the historian has knowledge of what happened and, based on knowledge of the results of the historical process, interprets this process. In the course of "history" itself, the teleological function can be performed by the values ​​that the individuals acting in history set for themselves and towards the achievement and realization of which they direct their efforts.

Another option for recognizing someone else's animation can be called "psychogenetic". It manifests itself in the sympathetic experience of "alien self": "... any understanding of someone else's spiritual life presupposes a personal experience and reproduction of it" [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 435 ]. But, as Lappo-Danilevsky noted, this approach is still little understood [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 309 ]. Lappo-Danilevsky tried to supplement it with the concept of “congeniality” or “consonance” between homogeneously organized beings [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 309 ], which is based on a double association of states of consciousness, which is a manifestation of homogeneous mental processes [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 310 ]. Sometimes this process is interpreted as a conclusion by analogy [Lappo-Danilevsky 1913, 311 ].

As a result of these considerations, the following quotation can be cited: “So, it can be said that the historian studies historical evolution from a psychological, and not from a purely biological point of view: he always presupposes the actual existence of the animation of that social group, the development of which he builds ... "[Lappo-Danilevsky 1910, 133 ]

One of the first attempts to develop philosophical questions of social science for Lappo-Danilevsky was a small sketch "General Review (Summa) of the Basic Principles of Social Science", published below. In a draft autograph stored in the fund of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences (F. 113. Op. 1. Item 329. 29 sheets), it is designated as “Course 1902-1903.” Many of the provisions from this outline found a more detailed justification in the "Methodology of History". The text of the "General Review" is a thesis statement and is not in the strict sense a "sustainable text". During the preparation of the publication, the underlining was changed to italics, the detailed heading and numbering of the provisions was retained.

Literature

Greves 1920 - Grevs I.M. Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky (the experience of interpreting the soul) // Russian Historical Journal. 1920. No. 6.

Kareev 1920 - Kareev N.I. Historical and theoretical works of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky // Russian Historical Journal. 1920. No. 6.

Kareev 1990 - Kareev N.I. lived and experienced. L., 1990.

Kareev 1996 - Kareev N.I. Fundamentals of Russian sociology. SPb., 1996.

Lappo-Danilevsky 1890 - Lappo-Danilevsky A.S.. Speech at the master's debate on May 9, 1890 // Historical Review. T. I. SPb., 1890.

Lappo-Danilevsky 1890 a - Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Materials for a general education course on the history of mankind // Commemorative book of the Tenishevsky School. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1890.

Lappo-Danilevsky 1898 Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Essay on the domestic policy of Empress Catherine II. SPb., 1898. S. 1.

Lappo-Danilevsky1909 - Lappo-Danilevsky A.S.. Methodology of history (lithography). SPb., 1909.

Lappo-Danilevsky1910 - Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history. Issue I. St. Petersburg, 1910.

Lappo-Danilevsky 1913 - Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history. Issue II. SPb., 1913.

Lappo-Danilevsky 1923 - Lappo-Danilevsky A.S.. Methodology of history. Release the first. Pg., 1923.

Malinov, Pogodin 2001 - Malinov A.V., Pogodin S.N. Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky: historian and philosopher. SPb., 2001.

Malinov 2006 - Malinov A.V."Psychophysical Law" A.I. Vvedensky and his critics // Alexander Ivanovich Vvedensky and his philosophical era. SPb., 2006.

Materials for the biographical dictionary 1915 - Materials for the biographical dictionary of full members of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Part I. A-L. Pg., 1915.

Presnyakov 1920 - Presnyakov A.E. Proceedings of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky on Russian history // Russian historical journal. 1920. No. 6.

Presnyakov 1920 a - Presnyakov A.E. A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky as a scientist and thinker // Russian Historical Journal 1920. No. 6.

Presnyakov 1922 - Presnyakov A. E. Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky. SPb., 1922.

Ramazanov1999-2000 - Ramazanov S.P.. Crisis in Russian historiography at the beginning of the 20th century: in 2 hours. Volgograd, 1999-2000.

Rostovtsev 2004 - Rostovtsev E.A.. A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky and the St. Petersburg Historical School. Ryazan, 2004.

Rumyantseva 2001 - Rumyantseva M.F.. "Alien I" in historical knowledge: I.I. Lapshin and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky // History and historians. 2001. No. 1.

Rumyantseva 2007 - Rumyantseva M.F. The concept of "recognition of someone else's animation" in the Russian version of neo-Kantianism // Cogito: almanac of the history of ideas. Rostov-on-Don, 2007. Issue. 2.

Sinitsyn 1990 - Sinitsyn O.V.. The Crisis of Russian Bourgeois Historical Science in the Late 19th - Early 20th Centuries: Neo-Kantian Current. Kazan, 1990.

Trapsh2006 - Trapsh N.A. Theoretical and methodological concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky: experience of evolutionary reconstruction. Rostov-on-Don, 2006.

Khmylev 1978 - Khmylev L.N.. Problems of the Methodology of History in Russian Bourgeois Historiography of the Late 19th - Early 20th Centuries. Tomsk, 1978.

Tsamutali1986 - Tsamutali A.N.. The struggle of trends in Russian historiography in the period of imperialism. L., 1986.

Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky

Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich - Russian historian, philosopher. From the mid 1890s. taught at Petersburg University. Since 1899 he was a full member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. In 1916 he received an honorary Doctor of Laws from Cambridge. One of the founding members of the Sociological Society. M.M. Kovalevsky (1916).

Developed an original concept of the methodology of history, based on uniquely interpreted ideas neo-kantianism. The most important work is “Methodology of History” (v. 1–2. St. Petersburg, 1910–1913). He considered the goal of the humanities to be twofold: to clarify the mental content of social and cultural facts, then to build a typological construction. Like M. Weber, believed that this problem could not be solved by means of one of the two methods of scientific research - ideographic or nomothetic. The disadvantage of the first is the opposition of subjective-semantic interpretation to an objective explanation based on general scientific concepts. The second ignores the specifics of social phenomena, which are the objectification of the mental interaction of individuals. Synthesis needed positive aspects through methodological understanding of the differences and the limits of their fruitful use, which will allow us to formulate the foundations of theoretical sociology. He criticized positivist sociology for underestimating the role of the individual.

Peru Lappo-Danilevsky owns large scientific works on the history of the state, law, social and scientific thought in Russia. The most important of them is the monograph "History of Russian public thought and culture of the 17th–18th centuries.” (M., 1990; the second volume has not yet been published), in which an original attempt was made to consider the mutual influence of various ideological and cultural systems in Russia in the 17th–18th centuries.

S.I. Bazhov

New philosophical encyclopedia. In four volumes. / Institute of Philosophy RAS. Scientific ed. advice: V.S. Stepin, A.A. Huseynov, G.Yu. Semigin. M., Thought, 2010, vol. II, E - M, p. 374.

Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich (15 (27). 01.1863, Udachnoe village of Yekaterinoslav province - 02.07.1919, Petrograd) - historian, sociologist. Graduated from the historical and philological faculty of St. Petersburg University (1886). Having defended his master's thesis (1890), he became a university teacher. In 1902 he was elected an extraordinary academician, and then - a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in 1916 he was awarded the title of Doctor of Laws of Cambridge University. Lappo-Danilevsky did a lot to organize archives in the country, repeatedly represented Russian science at international historical congresses, prepared and published a collection of documents “Monuments of Russian Legislation”, “Russia and Italy”, “Letters and Papers of Peter the Great”, etc. Scientific interests of Lappo-Danilevsky were historical and cultural issues. He considered the main aspect of studying the history of culture to be the development of people's self-awareness, which manifests itself when comparing one's national "I" with its environment. Moreover, the main channel for the development of national identity, in his opinion, is the borrowing of ideas from a more developed culture. He studied the development of Russian culture in the 16th-19th centuries, especially the 18th century. His main work, The History of Political Ideas in Russia in the 18th Century in Connection with the Development of Its Culture and the Course of its Politics, was not published during his lifetime. An introduction to this work, representing an independent study, was published only in 1990 under the title "History of Russian social thought and culture of the 17th-18th centuries." A peculiar result of his research activity was the 2-volume work "Methodology of History", published in 1910-1913. and withstood 4 editions. Lappo-Danilevsky belonged to the state legal school in historiography and in his ideological development went from positivism to neo-Kantianism. He considered a person as a subject of the historical process, oriented towards socially useful goals and realizing the values ​​of culture. The concept of "culture" was perceived by him as the total spiritual power of mankind, growing in the course of history and constituting its meaning. The history of mankind appears in the final analysis as a "world whole", "historical universe", integral part which are separate historical events, so they cannot be understood and explained in isolation from the whole. Lappo-Danilevsky considered it impossible to study the history of any people without its connection with the history of other peoples, without the mutual influence of cultures. The leading trend of the historical process is defined by him as the growth of the unity of mankind. “As its consciousness unifies, humanity becomes more and more a “great individuality,” he argued. Proceeding from such a philosophical and methodological premise, he considered Russian culture as an integral part of the pan-European culture and drew attention to the influences experienced by it in the process of its development. Therefore, he studied with particular attention the activities of Russian educational institutions as centers of culture, through which Western ideas penetrated into the Russian environment and spread in it.

A. T. Pavlov

Russian philosophy. Encyclopedia. Ed. the second, modified and supplemented. Under the general editorship of M.A. Olive. Comp. P.P. Apryshko, A.P. Polyakov. - M., 2014, p. 317.

Works: Basic principles of O. Comte's sociological doctrine // Problems of idealism. M., 1902; Methodology of history. M., 1910-1913. Issue. 1-2 (M., 2006); History of Russian social thought and culture of the XVII-XVIII centuries. M., 1990.

Literature: Malinov A. V. Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky: historian and philosopher. SPb., 2001.

Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich (January 15, 1863 - February 7, 1919) - Russian bourgeois historian, academician (since 1899), one of the ideologists of the big Russian bourgeoisie. Politically, he was close to the Cadets. From the nobles of the Yekaterinoslav province. In 1886 he graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University; since 1890 he was a privatdozent, and later a professor at this university. Research work Lappo-Danilevsky began in his student years ("Scythian Antiquities", St. Petersburg, 1887, republished. St. Petersburg, 1897, etc.). He is the author of many works on the socio-economic and political history of Russia during the period of feudalism, source studies, diplomacy, prepared and published a number of valuable historical sources (the Feeding Book of the Kostroma couple of 1613-1627, the scribe and census book of the 17th century for Nizhny Novgorod, the Notebook of serf acts 15-16 centuries in Veliky Novgorod - RIB, vol. 15-16, St. Petersburg, 1894-97; "Collection of letters of the College of Economy", vol. 1-2, 1922-29). Lappo-Danilevsky also developed questions of the methodology of historical research ("Methodology of History", v. 1-2, St. Petersburg, 1910-13). In the first years of his scientific activity, Lappo-Danilevsky shared the views of the positivists and joined the supporters of the state theory of the historical process. At the beginning of the 20th century, under the influence of the works of Rickert, he took the position of neo-Kantianism. Lappo-Danilevsky opposed the Marxist understanding of history from the standpoint of subjective idealism. Following Rickert, he contrasted natural science, which studies the laws of nature, with historical science. The latter, Lappo-Danilevsky believed, can only give a description of a single, non-repeating event of the past, which, due to its originality, cannot be subsumed under the concept of "law". Related to this is the division of sciences into generalizing sciences, striving to establish patterns (nomothetic), and individualizing (idiographic) and assigning history to the second group.

Neo-Kantian idealism also made itself felt in the theoretical foundations of bourgeois source studies formulated by Lappo-Danilevsky. Lappo-Danilevsky divided sources into "remnants of culture" (when they can be viewed as remnants of the facts being studied; these are: architectural monuments, obsolete customs, documents on legal transactions, etc.) and "historical legends" (when they contain not remnants of the facts of the past, but legends about them). The historical study of the source, Lappo-Danilevsky believed, should be carried out by methods of psychological, technical, typifying and individualizing interpretation. At the same time, he considered the main penetration into the psychology of the author of the source and his time. Interpretation and criticism of sources in Lappo-Danilevsky is associated primarily with a psychological approach to them. He denied the socio-historical criterion of the value of a source; The task of historical criticism, according to Lappo-Danilevsky, is to ascertain the extent to which the testimony of the source corresponds to the "laws of consciousness" or "the laws of nature."

Of the works of Lappo-Danilevsky, the most famous are studies on the "Organization of direct taxation in the Muscovite state from the Time of Troubles to the era of transformations" (St. Petersburg, 1890) and "Russian industrial and trading companies in the first half of the 18th century" (St. Petersburg, 1899). They have retained to this day a great scientific value due to the richness of archival material. Great achievements were noted in the activities of Lappo-Danilevsky and his students (the "school" of Lappo-Danilevsky) in the field of source studies and diplomacy. He paid great attention to the study of scribe books as historical sources. A feature of the methodology he developed for studying ancient Russian private acts is their scrupulous "anatomization" into separate articles (clauses) and the grouping of acts based on it. In the development of formal act source studies, this was a significant step forward, since, unlike the law school, its method required the study of all or most acts of a given type, type. Lappo-Danilevsky was engaged in a lot of theoretical development of the foundations of Russian archaeography. The "Rules for issuing charters of the Collegium of Economics" prepared by him is the pinnacle of the development of Russian bourgeois archaeography, they far surpassed all similar works of Western European archaeographers.

V. I. Buganov. Moscow.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 8, KOSHALA - MALTA. 1965.

Compositions: Critical. notes on the history of Nar. x-va in Vel. Novgorod and its region for the XI - XV centuries, St. Petersburg, 1895; Essay int. politics imp. Catherine II, St. Petersburg, 1898; Research on the history of attaching the owner. peasants in Moscow. state-ve XVI - XVII centuries, St. Petersburg, 1900; I. I. Betskoy and his system of education, St. Petersburg, 1904; Essay on the history of the formation of the main categories of the cross. population in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1905.

Literature: "RIZH", 1920, book. 6 (there is a list of scientific works of L.-D.); Presnyakov A. E., A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, P., 1922; Materials for the biography of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, L., 1929; Valk S. N., Soviet archeography, M.-L., 1948; Cherepnin L. V., A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky - bourgeois. historian and source expert, "VI", 1949, No 8; Essays on the history of ist. Sciences in the USSR, vol. 3, M., 1963.

Read further:

Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).

Historians (biographical index).

Compositions:

Basic principles of O. Comte's sociological doctrine. M., 1902.

Critical notes on the history of Nar. x-va in Vel. Novgorod and its region for the XI - XV centuries, St. Petersburg, 1895;

Essay int. politics imp. Catherine II, St. Petersburg, 1898;

Research on the history of attaching the owner. peasants in Moscow. state-ve XVI - XVII centuries, St. Petersburg, 1900;

I. I. Betskoy and his system of education, St. Petersburg, 1904;

Essay on the history of the formation of the main categories of the cross. population in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1905.

Literature:

Materials for the biography of Lappo-Danilevsky. M., 1929;

"RIZH", 1920, book. 6 (there is a list of scientific works of L.-D.);

Presnyakov A. E., A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, P., 1922;

Materials for the biography of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, L., 1929;

Valk S. N., Soviet archeography, M.-L., 1948;

Cherepnin L. V., A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky - bourgeois. historian and source expert, "VI", 1949, No 8;

Essays on the history of ist. Sciences in the USSR, vol. 3, M., 1963.

The ideas and scientific conclusions of Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky underlie the methodology of modern source studies. This outstanding Russian historian made an invaluable contribution to the development of the theory and methods of studying historical sources. First of all, he is credited with creating the doctrine of a historical source, defining its concept and nature as a key issue in source studies. In addition, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky developed teachings on the interpretation and criticism of historical sources, considered the tasks and possible systems for their classification, and expressed the idea of ​​the culturological significance of sources for the knowledge of the past.

"Methodology of history" - This volume is devoted to the methodology of source studies. The problem of the historical source, its interpretation and criticism by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky considered from the epistemological point of view Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of History, 1913.

In the first section of his work, the scientist addresses the question of the object of historical knowledge and characterizes the phenomena studied by the historian. Here A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky introduces the concept of reality and its change, as well as the principle of recognizing someone else's animation, which determines the concept of historical change or historical fact. Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history, 1913. P.24-33 According to the scientist, the object of historical knowledge is a change that has actually occurred, and the historian is most interested qualitative changes in time. In modern humanitarian knowledge, the principle of recognizing someone else's animation contained in a historical source is defined as the essence and originality of the methodology of source study. Further, the scientist dwells on the question of the specifics of historical facts. The historian's reflections on this subject are closely connected with the previously considered principle of someone else's animation. A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky notes that a historical fact should be understood primarily as the products of the impact of the consciousness of a given individual (subject) on the environment, especially on the social environment. Essay on the development of Russian historiography // Russian historical journal. 1920. Book 6. pp.5-29. Such an impact is predominantly psychological in nature and is available to someone else's observation (historian) only in its results (sources). The most profound analysis in his work A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky subjects questions to the methodology of source study. Having studied the contemporary literature on the methodology of history (P. Ranke, A. Freeman, S. Segnobos, V.S. Ikonnikov, V.P. Buzeskul, G. Wolf), the scientist comes to the conclusion that the methodology of source study does not yet systematically developed teaching. Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of History, 1913. P.134-149 Some historians, according to A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, offer instead of such a teaching only a review of specific historical sources and give a special place to criticism, others identify the methodology of source study with criticism, understanding it in a broad sense, others replace the methodology with the study of historical sources in their genesis. The scientist notes that for a long time the methodology of source study developed in close dependence on philology and the very concepts of the source, hermeneutics (the art of understanding someone else's speech) and criticism arose in connection with the philological interpretation and criticism of works of classical literature. Such dependence, in his opinion, delayed the independent development of the methodology of source study, which only from the beginning of the 18th century. began to acquire special significance scientific discipline. Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history, 1913, pp.290-389

Considering the tasks of the methodology of source study, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky believes that the historian deals with already accomplished facts, and the scientific construction of the historical past depends on the availability of historical sources in the broadest sense. At the same time, the sources cannot be identified with the disappeared facts, since they were not created for scientific observation and require special methods for their study. Thus, the historian is forced to draw his knowledge of the majority of complex historical facts from other people's observations, memories, and assessments. At the same time, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, the importance of the principles and methods set forth in the methodology of source study increases. The central place among the theoretical issues of source studies is occupied by the concept of a historical source. A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, developing his teaching, gives a series of interrelated arguments, developing the definition of a historical source, analyzing the theoretical and practical meanings of sources and explaining their characteristic features.

Firstly, the scientist notes that "a source is any real object that is studied not for its own sake, but in order to gain knowledge about another object, i.e., about a historical fact, through its closest mediation." The proposed definition includes the concept of the reality of a given object and the concept of its suitability for cognition of another object, since every historical study has the goal of cognizing reality from a given source. A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky notes that any object can become a source, provided it is included in the process of cognition. Thus, the second stage in the development of the definition under consideration by the scientist is as follows: "a historical source should be understood as a product of the human psyche that is accessible to someone else's perception, that is, realized." This definition includes the concept of the mental significance of a historical source and the concept of its material image in which such a product is realized.

The author of the "Methodology of History" notes that the concept of a source interprets it as a means to achieve a certain cognitive goal. Only in the event that a given objectified product of the human psyche can serve as material for the historian to get acquainted with some fact from the history of mankind, the researcher calls it a historical source. This means that the question of the suitability of a historical source is decided by the historian himself, and the criterion for selecting material depends on his cognitive goal.

And, finally, summarizing all the considered characteristics of the historical source, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky formulated its definition from an analytical and genetic point of view: "... A historical source is a realized product of the human psyche, suitable for studying facts with historical significance."

Based on this definition, the scientist draws several conclusions related to the idea of ​​the psychological nature of the source.

First, the historical source is the historical construction of what is not directly accessible. sense perception historian.

Secondly, the historical source is the result of human creativity in the broadest sense.

And, thirdly, the concept of a historical source is closely related to its practical purpose from the point of view of its creator, but the historian can also achieve an idea of ​​its purpose and purpose. Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of History, 1913, pp. 490-528

In the first group, the scientist singles out sources depicting a fact (in colors or sounds), and sources denoting a fact (using symbolic signs - writing). Sources depicting a fact coincide with material monuments, sources denoting a fact coincide with verbal and written monuments.

The sources of the second group A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, taking into account their content, divided them into sources with actual content (what was) and sources with normative content (what was considered proper). It was this approach that seemed to the scientist to be important for cognition.

The most important contribution to the development of the method of source study is the section of work of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, devoted to the doctrine of the historical interpretation of the source. From a cognitive point of view, historical interpretation begins with a psychological interpretation of the source, based on the premise of the existence of someone else's "I".

Psychological interpretation. based on the principle of recognizing someone else's animation, it proceeds from the concept of someone else's consciousness, found in the source under study. This approach is associated with great difficulties, since a complete and mutual understanding of two subjects (the author of the work and his researcher) implies the identity of their psyche, which in itself is unlikely. The matter is complicated by the fact that the historian is not dealing with a living subject, but only with a source that only more or less reflects the animation of its creator.

Considering the following method of interpretation, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky noted that a historian can judge the meaning and purpose of a source by technical means, i.e., by those special techniques that the author used to create his work and thanks to which he gave it one and not another specific look. Thus, technical interpretation is reduced to the interpretation of those technical means that the author used to realize his thoughts and thanks to the understanding of which one can come closer to understanding the meaning or purpose of his work. At the same time, the scientist had in mind the technical interpretation of the material properties of the source and the technical interpretation of the style of the source.

Evolutionary interpretation acquires highest value when the historian explains the source in the context of its real dependence on the previous culture and its same influence on the subsequent one.

Thus, thanks to the typifying method of interpretation, the historian is able, from a systematic and evolutionary point of view, to clarify those generic features of a source that are explained by its real dependence on the environment, that is, on a given state or period of culture.

A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky notes two important rules of individualizing interpretation: 1) the source must first be analyzed in its totality, and then the individual parts should be interpreted; 2) the text should be studied only in its context.

The scientist draws attention to the fact that the range of sources to which the individualizing method of interpretation is applicable is quite wide, since a person can be understood as both a collective person and an individual.

In conclusion of this section, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky emphasized that all the considered methods of historical interpretation complement each other due to their common goal. The historian cannot reach a sufficiently complete understanding of the source by means of one of them and must resort to various combinations, depending on the goals and object of his research. Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history, 1913 pp.530-540

The next significant part of the work of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky is a chapter devoted to historical criticism. Criticism, according to the scientist, arises under the influence of a doubt about the value of what interests the researcher, if the historian has not eliminated his doubt through interpretation, when he encounters disagreements between the testimony of sources, etc. The scientist distinguishes between two types of criticism, taking into account that that a source can have scientific and historical value in a double sense: as a historical fact and as an indication of a historical fact.

The “Methodology of History” ends with the reflections of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky about general meaning historical sources.

A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky notes that “Historical sources have both theoretical and practical value. In a theoretical sense, they are important for the knowledge of historical reality. In practical terms, they are needed in order to act in it and participate in the cultural life of mankind.”

But, the scientist warns, historical knowledge based on historical sources turns out to be only "more or less probable." Firstly, because the material at the disposal of the researcher is rather "accidental". And, secondly, because the historian rarely manages to achieve a "full understanding and proper evaluation" of the testimony of a source. The work of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky concludes with words about the significance of historical sources in the continuity of culture. "Without the constant use of historical sources, a person cannot participate in the fullness of the cultural life of mankind."

Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich (January 15, 1863, the Udachnoye estate of the Verkhnedneprovsky district of the Yekaterinoslav province - February 7, 1919, Petrograd), social thinker, historian, public figure, academician of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (1905). From nobles. He graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University (1886), taught there (since 1890 - Privatdozent), was also a professor at the Historical-Philological and Archaeological Institutes in St. Petersburg. Author of works on the history of the state, law, political system of Russia, theory, history and methodology of science. Creator scientific school, which influenced a number of social thinkers, philosophers, sociologists, historians of science and historians of Russia in the first quarter of the 20th century, which is characterized by the unity of philosophical ideas about the object of humanitarian knowledge and the interdisciplinarity of scientific methodology. In the sphere of influence of Lappo-Danilevsky and his school - the author of "The System of Sociology" P. A. Sorokin, the economist N. D. Kondratiev, the philosopher N. I. Lapshin, the philologist S. F. Oldenburg, the medievalist historian I. M. Grevs , historian of science T. I. Raynov, historians A. E. Presnyakov, A. I. Andreev, S. N. Valk, M. A. Polievktov, L. P. Karsavin and others.

Lappo-Danilevsky explored and creatively rethought philosophical and epistemological concepts, primarily O. Comte's positivism, the neo-Kantian philosophy of V. Windelband and G. Rickert, sociological views N. K. Mikhailovsky. In the work "Basic principles of the sociological doctrine of O. Comte" (1902), Lappo-Danilevsky attempted a critical analysis of the sociology of positivism, paid special attention to criticism of the reception of Comte's idea of ​​the collective will of humanity in modern public consciousness, saw in this phenomenon a dangerous tendency for the will of the individual to dissolve into mass consciousness, the dictate of the "general will" over the choice of a free individual. Analyzing the works of Windelband and Rickert, Lappo-Danilevsky did not share in neo-Kantianism his opposition of two cognitive strategies, namely, the identification of patterns (nomothetic approach) in the natural sciences and the identification of ways to organize non-repeating, specific phenomena (ideographic approach) in the sciences about the spirit. In his work "Methodology of History" (1910–13), Lappo-Danilevsky showed that both of these approaches coexist in relation to the historical process, from antiquity to the present. Appeal to this topic gave reason to consider the scientist an adherent of neo-Kantian philosophy (N. I. Kareev). However, this is not true, since neo-Kantianism is characterized by the opposition of two approaches: in the natural sciences - nomothetic, in the sciences of culture - ideographic. Lappo-Danilevsky, on the contrary, argued that both approaches can be applied in the sciences of culture, as well as in the sciences of nature. The scientist considered it optimal to apply both approaches to the objects under study, allowing to identify the general and the specific in history.

Philosophical concept Lappo-Danilevsky is close to the phenomenology of E. Husserl, since he proceeded from the idea of ​​the world whole as the ultimate object of science, from the idea of ​​humanity as a special, endowed with consciousness, part of the world whole. The history of mankind, in turn, is integral and has unity throughout its entire time span (the evolutionary whole of mankind) and unity for each given moment (the co-existential whole of mankind). The history of a people, country, individual can only be interpreted as part of this whole. The philosophical concept of Lappo-Danilevsky was influenced by the ideas of Mikhailovsky, who attached decisive importance in influencing the environment of an active creative person. Hence the thinker's polemic with the teachings that reduced social processes to spontaneity.

A. E. Presnyakov noted that Lappo-Danilevsky was "a convinced representative of such a concept of history, which sees the creative power of the process in human consciousness and, therefore, the active carrier of the movement in it determines the human personality - individual and collective, in its mind and freedom ".

The focus of the historian is the Russian historical process and Russian social thought of the period of transition from the cultural and historical type of Muscovite Rus' to new forms. public life formed in interaction with political and cultural processes Western Europe. Lappo-Danilevsky himself defined the main subject of his scientific research as the history of Russian social thought and culture during its transition from the integrity of medieval (mainly religious) consciousness to the development of Western political ideas and the development of a new identity. Partly in the tradition of the state school, Lappo-Danilevsky traced the role of the state in Russian political and even cultural development. This topic is devoted to his report at the International Congress of Historians in London ("The idea of ​​the state and the main moments of its development in Russia from the Time of Troubles to the era of Transformations"). Researchers of the scientist's work emphasize the idea that he saw the transition to new forms political life and culture, not as a process of blind borrowing of Western forms and ideas, but as their active processing. The scientist saw one of the main problems in the insufficient development of the legal consciousness of society, and in his public, pedagogical, scientific and academic activities he paid priority attention to this problem. In a number of works, Lappo-Danilevsky traced the history of the formation of the main categories of the peasant population in Russia; in university teaching, he paid special attention to a detailed examination of private law acts as a source for studying the legal consciousness of society. In the course of his social activities, the scientist touched upon the practical problems of law. So, elected to the State Council from the academic and university curia, he advocated the abolition of death penalty(1906), and during the period of preparation for the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, he worked in the legal commission of F. F. Kokoshkin for the preparation of projects for the future Russian Constituent Assembly.

As a scientist-historian and organizer of academic science, Lappo-Danilevsky was an active participant (honorary chairman, vice-chairman) of all International congresses of historians at the beginning of the 20th century, a member of the Bureau of the International Organization of Academies, a member of the Commission for the Creation of the Institute of Social Sciences (1918), considered science, The activities of the scientific community are an important driving force behind the country's social development. According to Presnyakov, the scientist dreamed "of the free cooperation of Russia, as an organic part of humanity, with other peoples: such was the testament of the Russian thinker on the eve of the great crisis of all world and Russian life."

Archives: Archive of wounds (St. Petersburg). F. 113. Op. 12.

Works: Organization of direct taxation in the Muscovite state from the time of the Time of Troubles to the era of the Transformations. SPb., 1890; Basic principles of the sociological doctrine of O. Comte // Problems of idealism. M., 1902;

Essay on the history of the formation of the main categories of the peasant population in Russia // Krestyansky stroy. SPb., 1905. T. 1.; Methodology of history. SPb., 1910–1913. Issue. 1–2; History of Russian social thought and culture of the 17th–18th centuries. M., 1990; The Development of Sciences and Learning in Russia // Russian Reality and Problems / Ed. by J. D. Duff. Cambridge, 1917.

Literature: Kondratiev N. D. Theory of history of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky // Historical review. 1915. Vol. 20; In memory of Academician A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky // Russian historical journal. 1920. Book. 6; Boldyrev N.V. A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky // Thought. 1922. No. 1; Presnyakov A. E. Alexander Sergeevich Lappo-Danilevsky. Pg., 1922; To the 75th anniversary of the death of Academician A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky // AE for 1994. M., 1996; Medushovskaya O. M. Phenomenology of Culture: The Concept of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky in the Humanitarian Knowledge of Modern Times // IZ. M., 1999. Vol. 2 (120); Chernobaev A. A. Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich (1863–1919) // Historians of Russia: Biographies. M., 2001; Malinov A. V., Pogodin S. N. Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky: historian and philosopher. SPb., 2001.

A brief inventory of the manuscripts of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky in the Library of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR// Materials for the biography of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. L., 1929.

O. M. Medushovskaya

A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky

Notes

1

Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history. Part I. Theory of historical knowledge: A guide to lectures given to students of St. Petersburg University in 1909 / 10 account. year. SPb., 1910.

2

Russel B. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge U.-P., 1903; Couturat L. Les principes des mathematiques. Par., 1905.

3

Pointare H. La science et l "hypothèse, 1 éd., p. 260. We are talking about Ampère and his work "Théorie des phenomènes électrodynamiques uniquement fondée sur I" experience ".

Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich

L appo-Danilevsky, Alexander Sergeevich - historian. Born on January 15, 1863, he was educated at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. As a student, he compiled a review of "Scythian antiquities", published in the "Notes of the Department of Russian and Slavic Archeology" (1887). For the dissertation: "The organization of direct taxation in the Moscow State from the time of turmoil to the era of transformation" (St. Petersburg, 1890) received a master's degree in Russian history. From 1891 to 1905 he occupied the chair of Russian history at the Historical and Philological Institute. Consists of an ordinary academician of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and a member of the archaeological commission. In 1906, he was elected from the Academy of Sciences and universities as a member of the State Council, but soon resigned this title. Scientific activity Lappo-Danilevsky deals with various aspects and problems of Russian history. In archeology, in addition to a number of critical articles and notes, his largest work is the study of the antiquities of the Karagodeuashkh mound ("Materials on the Archeology of Russia" No. 13). From the works of Lappo concerning the economic and social system ancient Rus', the largest: "Investigations on the history of the attachment of peasants in the Muscovite state of the XVI-XVII centuries" and "Essay on the history of the formation of the main categories of the peasant population in Russia" (in the publication "Peasant System"). To his works on the cultural, economic and legal history of Russia in the XVIII century. include: "Collection and Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, compiled in the reign of Catherine II" ("Journal of the Ministry of National Education", 1897); "Essay on the domestic policy of Catherine II" ("Cosmopolis", 1897); "Russian industrial and trading companies of the XVIII century" ("Journal of the Ministry of National Education", 1898 - 1899); "I.I. Betsky and his system of education" (review of the essay by P.M. Maikov, "Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences", vol. VI, 1904); "L"idee de l"Etat et son evolution en Russie depuis les troubles du XVII siecle jusqu"aux reformes du XVIII-me", in the collection "Essays in legal history" (Oxford, 1913; Russian translation in "Voice of the Past" 1914 , No. 12. Since the mid-1890s, teaching at the university special courses on the theory of social and historical sciences, in the spirit of critical philosophy, and since 1906 - a general course on the methodology of history, Lappo-Danilevsky published the following works on these areas of science : "Basic principles of the sociological doctrine of O. Comte" (in the collection "Problems of Idealism", Moscow, 1902); "Methodology of History", issue I - II (1910 - 1912). - Biographical data and a detailed list of A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky - in "Materials for the Biographical Dictionary of Members of the Imperial Academy of Sciences" (vol. I, 1915).

Other interesting biographies: