Yemelyan Pugachev in Russian Historiography

The aim of the article was the review of the assessments of the personality of Yemelyan Pugachev made by Russian historians. Pugachev led a Russian rebellion in 1773-74 that became the biggest revolt in Russia in the eighteenth century. The sources of the article were the works of Russian historians: monographs, articles, lecture materials. The author divided the works of Russian historians into three periods: pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern. Using a comparative historical method, the author revealed certain tendencies of the making of Pugachev's image in each of the periods of national historiography. The author came to the following conclusions. Pre-revolutionary historians' works could be considered narrative because sources of information about this period were hardly accessible. Materials of the commission of inquiry that was running Pugachev's rebellion investigation are the main source of studying Pugachevshchina. Ya.K. Grot was the first to see the investigation materials, and N.F. Dubrovin was the first to examine them. Therefore, their works can be considered as compilations made up of texts of documents. Pugachev himself is presented as an anti-state villain in these works, since the main part of them was governmental materials. Many works related to peasant speeches were published during the Soviet period. This was due to the Marxist ideology. The leaders of these speeches were presented as national heroes and liberators worried about the rights of poor people. This was the then image of Pugachev. Some authors (e.g., A.Yu. Limonov) even opposed any criticism of Pugachev and justified all his actions by objective circumstances. Still, we must pay tribute to Soviet historians who published a great number of documents about Pugachev's rebellion. They worked in central and regional archives. During the Soviet period, the Pugachevshchina study started to be carried out in regions: the Volga, Mordovia, Ural, and others. Modern historians are making a detailed analysis of the investigation materials. They pay attention to the investigators who were questioning Pugachev and his accomplices. Pugachev's personality assessment stops being one-sided with either positive or negative sides only. Now we know that it was not only Cossacks that were aware of the spuriousness of the "emperor" Pugachev was trying to pretend to be, but also peasants that he met in the villages knew who he really was. They kindly welcomed him because of the fear of being defeated. Some peasants even tried to resist. At the same time, this information is not contained in governmental records only, but in the folk stories and songs about Pugachev as well. Another feature of modern historiography is that much of Pugachev's action is attributed to coincidence. However, during the rebellion he was able to apply all his tireless energy Soviet historians wrote about.

Keywords

Authors

References