Page:Russian Realities and Problems - ed. James Duff (1917).djvu/223

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky
209

accept the theory of Solovyev and particularly the modifications of it which he introduced in the later volumes of his history: Klyuchevsky attached much more importance to material than to moral forces, which he appreciated in so far as they manifested themselves in social phenomena; besides, he could not content himself, as Chicherin had done, with the study of institutions considered merely as mechanisms which were bound to develop in a certain way: he was interested in the real "social stuff," of which they were made, and with the "vital forces" which put them in motion; he investigated the social and economic evolution of different classes, their enslavement and emancipation, and their influence on political institutions. Yet, agreeing to some extent with the Slavophile doctrine, Klyuchevsky insisted on the "originality" of Russian history and explained the part that the Russian nation had played, particularly the Great Russians, whom he characterized in a very vivid manner; and he tried to represent, in a genetic way, the "real" historical evolution of this nation and not the dialectical scheme of a series of mental concepts, only logically connected with one another. According to these views, Klyuchevsky held that the Russian nation had passed through different stages of evolution: he characterized ancient Russia, situated on the Dnieper, by town life and trade; mediaeval Russia, settled on the middle-Volga, by feudal principalities (differing however, in some respects, from the western type) and by free agriculture; "Great" Russia, formed at a later date, by the national State of Moscow, with the Tsar and the boyars at its