A.A. Kizivetter about role of people mass in Russia state construction

The articleanalyses the views of famous Russian foreign countries historian A.A.Kizevetter about the role of folk mass in the evolution of Russianstatehood in the XVI-XIX centuries expressed in his work General models of Russian history in modern literature in 1928. Here the authoris engaged in polemics with B.E.Nolde and I.I. Bunakov who tried to prove the normality of Bolsheviks victory.The contents of the work gives the possibility to speak about some changes in scientists theoretical outlooks during the emigrant periodof his life. (1922-1923) If in pre-revolutionary period of his scientific work he was a successive states supporter, then he defended the thesisabout folks mass leading role in history, in state construction in particular. Middle sections of the population and in the first place provincialnobility were not content with the position of silent tool in the hands of government power and influenced states policy in the XVI-XIXcenturies. Studying society and authorities cooperation problems, to his opinion, must not be limited with the sphere of state construction. Itis necessary to analyze the history of Russian colonization, national economy, culture and daily life of Russian society for scientific interpretationof the role of national creative work. A.A. Kvazevetter paid attention to dialectics of general and special in the history of Russia. Undoubtedly,one must not deny the originality of Russias historic way which is caused by climate conditions, Byzantine and Tatar influence.But this peculiarity is relative on the background of historic process general regularities. Their action can be traced in all European nations.Ranking himself among scientific realistic school whose representatives restricted themselves with the frames of real historic events anddisputed the ideas of unity and regularities of historic process, he deemed it necessary that changes of societys existence conditions led tostate forms changes. The reflections of the famous scientist about the fates of Russian statehood have not lost urgency up to now as theyagree with the trends of historic knowledge development.

Keywords

Authors

References