Historian Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich: biography, scientific works and interesting facts. Froyanov I. Ya. Ancient Russia IX-XIII centuries. Popular movements. The princely and vechevaya power of the Froyans dependent people of ancient Russia
Prose writer
Birthday: 06/22/1936
Place of birth: Armavir, Krasnodar Territory, RSFSR, USSR
Soviet and Russian historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences. Public figure, writer. Professor, from 1982 to 2001 - Dean of the Faculty of History, St. Petersburg State University.
The son of a hereditary Kuban Cossack, commander of the Red Army, who was repressed in 1937, rehabilitated in 1957.
After completing military service in 1955-1958. entered the history department of the Stavropol Pedagogical Institute. Since 1963 - in graduate school of the Faculty of History, Leningrad State University. In 1966 he defended his candidate's thesis, in 1973 - his doctoral dissertation. Since 1966 he has been working at the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University (St. Petersburg State University). From 1982 to 2001 - Dean of the Faculty of History, and from 1983 to 2003 - Head of the Department of Russian History (intermittently). Chairman of the St. Petersburg State University Dissertation Council in such specialties as Russian history, general history (the ancient world, the Middle Ages, modern and modern times) and historiography, source studies and methods of historical research.
Pupil of Professor V. A. Romanovsky and V. V. Mavrodin, a prominent representative of the Leningrad (St. Petersburg) historical school (including according to his opponents), the founder and head of the St. Petersburg school of historians specializing in the study of medieval Russia. One of the theorists of anti-globalism in Russia. Member of the editorial board of the radio newspaper "Slovo".
The concept of the history of ancient Russia
Igor Froyanov proves the pre-class and communal nature of the social and state structure of Ancient Rus.
In his doctoral dissertation and the book “Kievan Rus. Essays on Socio-Economic History ", he rejected the notion of the class and feudal nature of Russia that prevailed in Soviet historiography and showed that in ancient Russia large-scale private land ownership was poorly developed and was based on the labor of slaves, and not feudally dependent people, which among the entire population were extremely few (part of the smerds). At the same time, in the book of 1974, he refrained from directly assessing the social system of Russia in the 9th-13th centuries as feudal or slave-owning, and in the 1980 book “Kievan Rus. Essays on Socio-Political History "directly declared the pre-feudal nature of ancient Russian society.
According to Froyanov's concept, the population of Kievan Rus was free and directly participated in the management of state affairs at veche meetings. The territorial community decided the issue of power, called and expelled princes. Thus, the state in Russia arose before the division of society into classes.
Criticism of the historical concept of Igor Froyanov
Froyanov's concept ran counter to the official doctrine of the emergence of the state in a society in which classes appeared, and to the theoretical constructions of the most prominent Soviet historians of the older generation, which caused first ignorance of his book, and then a wave of criticism against him. After Froyanov became the dean of the Faculty of History of Leningrad University, it became impossible not to notice his publications, and his opponents brought a number of accusations against the historian: a deviation from Marxism, a departure from the main road of Russian historiography, a lack of understanding of Old Russian texts. Due to opposition, the third book of the dean of the Faculty of History, devoted to issues of historiography, could not be published in the university publishing house until 1990.
With criticism of Froyanov's concept in soviet time Academicians S. Tikhvinsky, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Director of the Institute of Archeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1956-1987) B.A. Rybakov, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR V.T.Pashuto, M. B. Sverdlov spoke.
Criticism of activities and political views
Rafail Ganelin, a historian and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, accused Igor Froyanov of xenophobia and propaganda of national hatred, like the persecution of "cosmopolitans" in the 1950s. Igor Froyanov was accused of nationalism and conflicts with other scientists of the department. Rector of St. Petersburg State University Lyudmila Verbitskaya accused Igor Froyanov of authoritarianism.
Boris Komissarov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor, argued that Froyanov is a “national communist, xenophobe, anti-Semite”, that “he sincerely believes that, according to at least, in the last three centuries Russia has been a victim of a world anti-Russian conspiracy, and according to his theoretical views, he runs the faculty, ”accused him of dictatorship.
In April 2001, the Academic Council of the University refused I. Ya. Froyanov to extend his dean's office. On June 26, 2003, he was released from the head of the department of Russian history.
Froyanov's dismissal from the post of dean caused a protest among some Russian historians and public figures of patriotic views. In particular, the Russian historian Mikhail Florinsky gave the following assessment: “After the publication of the book“ Falling into the Abyss ”, as if on command, a number of liberal-Masonic mass media began to persecute the scientist. As a result of this campaign, Froyanov was stripped of the post of dean of the Faculty of History in 2001. But this does not in the least confuse the scientist and teacher, who most of all values \u200b\u200bthe freedom of creativity and is not used to changing the Truth. "
In defense of the actions of Igor Froyanov, the Writers' Union of Russia spoke out, a number of whose members signed a collective appeal to the University Academic Council with a request to cancel the decision on the historian's resignation, which said: “Westerners, liberal intellectuals have declared total war on the entire Russian history, on our assets and victories. Liberal-democratic forces, feeding from Western sources, launched a new offensive against Russian science, culture, and literature. Professor I. Froyanov should become one of the fearsome victims. "
Bibliography:
Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-economic history. L., 1974.
Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history. L., 1980.
Formation and development of early class societies. L., 1986 (with co-authors).
City-states of Ancient Rus. L., 1988 (with co-authors).
Kievan Rus. Essays on Russian historiography. L., 1990.
Historical realities in the chronicle legend about the vocation of the Varangians // Questions of history. 1991. No. 6.
Rebellious Novgorod. SPb., 1992.
Ancient Russia. Research experience in the history of social and political struggle. SPb., 1995.
Slavery and tributary eastern Slavs... SPb., 1996.
Epic history. SPb., 1997 (with co-authors).
Kievan Rus. The main features of the socio-economic system. SPb., 1999.
October seventeenth (looking from the present). SPb., 1997 (2002 - 2nd ed.).
History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the XX century.
The beginning of Christianity in Russia.
Submersion into the abyss (Russia at the end of the 20th century). SPb., 1999 (2001, 2002 - 2nd, 3rd ed.).
The beginning of Russian history. Favorites. M., 2001.
The riddle of the baptism of Rus. M., 2007; 2nd ed. 2009.
The Drama of Russian History: On the Way to Oprichnina. M., 2007.
Reference: Born in 1936. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Russian History from Ancient Times to the XX century. Faculty of History, St. Petersburg State University, member of the Writers' Union of Russia. Author of the books: "Kievan Rus: Essays on socio-economic history" (L., 1974), "Kievan Rus: Essays on socio-political history" (L., 1980), "City-states of Ancient Rus" (L., 1988, co-authored with A.Yu.Dvornichenko), "Kievan Rus: Essays on Russian Historiography" (L., 1990), "Rebellious Novgorod: Essays on the History of Statehood, Social and Political Struggle of the Late IX - Early XIII Centuries" (St. Petersburg, 1992) , "Ancient Rus: Experience in the Study of the History of Social and Political Struggle" (Moscow; St. Petersburg, 1995), "Slavery and Tributary among the Eastern Slavs (VI-X centuries)" (St. Petersburg, 1996), "October seventeenth (looking from the present) ”(St. Petersburg, 1997),“ Epic history. Works of different years "(St. Petersburg, 1997, in collaboration with Yu. I. Yudin)," Kievan Rus. The main features of the socio-economic system "(St. Petersburg, 1999)," Beginnings of Russian history. Selected ”(St. Petersburg, 2001),“ Drama of Russian history. On the way to the oprichnina "(St. Petersburg, 2007)," Prayer for Russia "(St. Petersburg, 2008).
- Igor Yakovlevich, how would you assess the state of modern Russian historical science? What is more in it: gains or losses? Which contemporary historians would you pay special attention to?
Modern historical science is now in a state of some confusion and confusion. The collapse of Soviet historical science, which relied on the Marxist fundamental foundations of the theory of the historical process, took place. Now there is a search for new fundamental foundations of the knowledge of history. We cannot say that this search has ended. Therefore, I would say that modern historical science is going through a time of search, and at best, it has entered the initial period of its formation. Much in it resembles what happened during the 1920s and early 1930s, when the formation of Soviet historical science took place. A distinctive feature of the indicated time and of the present day is the intensive publication of sources that did not fall into the field of view of specialists until then. In this expansion of the range of sources introduced into the scientific circulation, one cannot but see the positive work done by modern historians. There are, of course, negative aspects. These include attempts to indiscriminately deny the achievements of Soviet historical science, the desire to revise the works of Soviet historians, moreover, to caricature and slander the history of the Russian people, especially the Soviet era. You probably remember that the campaign against Russian history began with the supposedly good intentions of eliminating the so-called white spots in it, and ended with its shameful denigration. As a result, the Russian people were presented as lazy, lacking in initiative, in a stupor and paradigm of millennial slavery. In my opinion, a hasty, downright timid rejection of the Marxist theory of history also served a disservice. Here our historians have clearly overdone it. In any case, the rumors spread in their community about the scientific inconsistency of Marxism turned out to be largely exaggerated and premature. This is evidenced by the financial and economic crisis that the world economy is currently experiencing, under which the demand for Marxist literature has noticeably increased, and K. Marx's book Capital has become, as they say, quite read in the West, in particular in Germany. It seems to me that the development of modern theoretical foundations of historical science should combine the latest civilizational theory with the Marxist doctrine of formations, which, I hope, will allow researchers to establish, on the one hand, the specificity, the originality of the historical life of the peoples of the planet belonging to different civilizations, and also to reveal they have something in common, lying in the plane of the formation, i.e. stage development - on the other. As for your last question, I would like to note: since we have stated that now Russian historical science is in its infancy, I would refrain from highlighting the work of individual historians. And to tell the truth, in general, there is nothing to brag about. Until now, the studies of Soviet historians B.D. Grekova, S.V. Yushkova, S.V. Bakhrushina, V.V. Mavrodin, M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnin, B.A. Rybakova, S.B. Veselovsky, I.I. Smirnova, B.A. Romanova, A.A. Zimin, N.E. Nosova, M.V. Nechkina, N.M. Druzhinin and other prominent scientists.
- What, from your point of view, is the social and cultural originality of Russian history at its different stages?
It is necessary, first of all, to establish the stages or periods of the Patriotic history that you are talking about. I would outline several periods in the historical development of Russia: 1) the Old Russian period, or Kievan Rus; 2) the Moscow period, or Muscovy Rus; 3) the Petersburg period, or the era of Imperial Russia. Then follows the fourth period of Soviet history, followed by a new fifth period, which is too early to characterize in any definitions, because everything is in a state of formation, often complicated by chaos. It cannot be said that all the periods mentioned are something closed, independent, independent of each other. What was in the history of Kievan Rus, in any case, much of what was in this period turned out to be in demand in the Moscow period, and what developed in the Moscow period passed into the St. Petersburg Imperial period. I also do not think that it is possible to separate the Soviet period from the previous history of Russia and see in it something completely new, in no way connected with what Russia experienced during the previous time. On the contrary, the traditions of conciliarism, collectivism, communality, the prevalence of public interest over private, the willingness to “lay down your soul for your friends,” to give your life for the Motherland - all this, brought up in the Russian people for centuries, organically entered the life of Soviet society.
- What is the significance of the absence of feudalism in Kievan Rus for Russian history (what do you insist on in your works)?
- The absence of feudalism in Ancient Rus has, first of all, the significance that the communal organization, both in the socio-economic sphere and in the political sphere (which is especially important), was not destroyed. The communal principle in the ancient Russian period of our history, or in the era of Kievan Rus, was strengthened and constituted into a peculiar system of social (pre-class society) and political (republican institutions) relations, which were based on direct democracy, which is the most effective form of democracy, in comparison, say, with representative democracy. The communal veche of Ancient Russia became a fateful school of democracy in the history of Russia. Under the sign of communal forms of life, communal institutions, one way or another, the further development of our country followed up to the era of the Soviets.
- Muscovite Rus, in your opinion, is it a direct continuation of Kiev Rus?
It seems to me that this is a continuation of the development of Kievan Rus, complicated by external intervention - the Tatar-Mongol invasion. And this external factor played an extremely important role in our further history, brought in many peculiar features, but, nevertheless, to tear Muscovite Rus from Kievan Rus and say that the Old Russian period is one thing, and the Moscow period is completely different, we are not we have reasons.
- In what way was the influence of this external factor expressed in the first place, in your opinion?
The influence of the external factor consisted, first of all, in the fact that such conditions were created - historical, demographic, geopolitical, military - which contributed to the emergence of new phenomena in comparison with what we observe in the ancient Russian period. We can say that the socio-economic structure began to change. First of all, in the field of agricultural relations. If earlier land ownership in the ideas of the nobility did not have a special value, then in the post-Mongolian period the land acquires this value, and we observe the intensive development of large private land ownership, parallel to which the formation of a dependent population - feudal dependent peasants - took place. It was in the post-Mongol period that the peasantry emerged as a special class of agricultural producers, while the city gradually fell away from the countryside, and the urban population was separated from the rural population. Therefore, we can say that the Tatar-Mongol invasion created such conditions that contributed to the development of feudalism in Russia with all the consequences in the social and political sphere.
- That is, the transition from the city-state to other forms of political organization is taking place?
Yes, to other forms of political organization, to other forms of power. The nature of princely power is changing. If earlier the prince was, as it were, the highest executive power of the communal organization, the veche organization, now monarchist tendencies and features are more and more clearly manifested in him. It must be said, however, that the prince in Ancient Rus potentially contained monarchical qualities and properties. The appropriate historical conditions were necessary for these qualities and properties to manifest themselves in full force. And so the Tatar-Mongol invasion created these conditions in which the potential monarchical properties of the prince began to manifest themselves more and more intensively.
- Your recent book is about Ivan the Terrible's oprichnina. What new does it bring to the explanation of this largely mysterious historical phenomenon?
Historians usually explain the emergence of the Oprichnina by the peculiarities of the character of Tsar Ivan IV, a person allegedly unbalanced and even mentally not quite well-off. In historical literature, there is a whole direction, a psychological direction (N.M. Karamzin, V.O.Klyuchevsky, S. B. Veselovsky, etc.), explaining the actions of Ivan the Terrible, including the establishment of the Oprichnina, exclusively by psychological motives.
- But historians and socio-economic and political prerequisites tried to find it?
Of course we tried. But they usually looked for and found these prerequisites mainly in the socio-economic and political spheres. Moreover, they, as a rule, took the years immediately preceding it, and in some cases - the beginning of the 50s of the 16th century, as the starting line of the historical movement towards Oprichnina. I associate the introduction of the Oprichnina with the reasons for the religious-political, church-state order and I attribute the origin of these reasons to the end of the 15th - the beginning of the 16th century. It was then, in my opinion, that the historical prerequisites of the Oprichnina emerged. Until the middle of the 16th century, they were, as it were, in a latent state, and only in the 60s of the same century did they break out, giving rise to such a formidable institution, which was Oprichnina.
- And what are these prerequisites? Can you briefly describe them?
The threat to the national foundations of Russia's existence was steadily growing. Threat to the existence of the newly emerged Svyatorussky Kingdom. This threat was associated with the limitation of autocratic power - that is, with the elimination, in essence, of the newly formed autocracy.
- That is, in your opinion, we can already talk about the existence of autocracy in Russia for this time?
Yes, I think that the wedding of Ivan IV to the throne is a legal registration of autocracy in Russia. And it was precisely the autocracy that was threatened by its opponents, who were concentrated in the Chosen Rada.
- What goals did these people pursue, in your opinion?
The goals of encroaching on the Russian autocracy, limiting autocratic power, creating a political system in Russia, similar to that which took place in neighboring Poland.
- Maybe it would be good for Russia? Such a political system?
In those specific historical conditions, this would be very bad, since the Russian state, pressed from all sides by enemies, needed to mobilize forces, to rally and unite. And this could only be ensured by the autocratic power. People's monarchy - that is what was hidden behind the term Autocracy. It should also be remembered that the "Russian autocracy" took shape in close unity and interaction with the Russian Orthodox Church. We observe, as they say, a symphony of autocratic and ecclesiastical powers, their indissoluble unity. Therefore, when the blows were directed against the autocracy, they also hit the Church, and if they hit the Church, then they also hit Orthodoxy. All this was organically closely interconnected, so the elimination of one link entailed the elimination of the remaining links, plunging Russia into a state of religious and political chaos.
- In addition, do you insist that there was a serious external threat to Muscovite Russia, that is, Western countries already perceived Russia as a geopolitical competitor?
Yes, a geopolitical and religious, spiritual rival. This perception intensified after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. It seemed that Byzantium as a stronghold of the Orthodox faith was over. Many in the West were interested in the overthrow of Byzantium as a pillar of Orthodoxy. First of all, representatives of the Catholic clergy. It seemed, I repeat, that Orthodoxy and the Orthodox State were finished once and for all. And then, unexpectedly, a powerful united state appeared, which declared that it was the recipient of Byzantium and the guardian of the Orthodox faith. This is what caused the change in the direction of the blow. From the end of the 15th century, a constant and systematic, planned attack on Russia began. It was then that the enemy forces developed methods of fighting Russia. This is, firstly, an ideological war in the form of heresy; secondly, the desire to master the highest power: either to seize it, or to approach it, so that one can actively influence its policy in the sense that suits these forces (later this will be called the enveloping of power); thirdly, the creation of support within the country - what is now called "agents of influence"; and, finally, fourthly, if all the above means did not work, a direct invasion followed by the dismemberment of a single state. And already at the end of the 16th century, as is clear from the documents, the task of conquering and dismembering Russia was set. In the future, this task was solved over the centuries with constant constancy and perseverance, until it was solved at the end of the XX century before our very eyes.
- How do you assess the Westernizing-imperial period of Russian history (XVIII - early XX century)? What achievements and contradictions do you see in it?
It seems to me that the imperial period draws an important line between old Russia, Holy Russia and new Russia. The former equal alliance of the State with the Church has disintegrated, instead of a symphony of secular and spiritual authorities one can hear a cacophony, or, so to speak, "confusion instead of music." The severity of the blame here falls primarily on Peter I, who abolished the institution of the patriarchate, completely subordinating the Church to the State, turning it essentially into a state body, part of the state mechanism. Changed not only the Church, but also "Autocracy". From that moment on, the Russian autocracy began to gradually evolve, apparently, into Western-type absolutism with all the ensuing negative consequences, in particular, the loss of an official role and responsibility before God and people. The power of the king becomes less sacred and more secular, although not completely secularized. The divine essence of tsarist power in Russia is still preserved, concentrating mainly in the act of the sacrament of chrismation and the personal experiences of the autocrat. The autocratic throne, lowered from heaven to earth, becomes the subject of a political game, harassment and claims, and often from those who only happened to be close to it. The external expression of these changes was the palace coups, which are so rich in the 18th century. But the most important change was the transformation of the people's monarchy into a noble monarchy. It was in Peter's time that the main contradiction was laid between the mass of the population and the social elite, which was in every possible way supported and protected by the higher power, between the self-serving nobility and the peasantry crushed by serfdom. Over time, this contradiction intensified more and more until, in the end, it led to the revolutionary upheavals of the early twentieth century. Russia more and more deviated from its national traditions, buried, in essence, its past on the path of rapprochement with the West, imitation of the West, which was especially clearly demonstrated by the reforms of S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin, in many ways contributing and even partly predetermining the February coup and the October Revolution.
- What do you see as the reasons for the collapse of the USSR?
There were reasons both internal and external. I'll start with the first ones. The mobilization economic, social and political system created by I.V. Stalin and which was an absolutely necessary step in the development of the Soviet state, exhausted its historical resource somewhere in the middle - the end of the 50s of the XX century. And then, in my opinion, it was necessary to start reforming the country. Stalin understood the need for such a reform, and did something in this area, highlighting the organs of state administration and Soviet power at the expense of narrowing the power of the CPSU. It was no accident that he expressed a desire to leave the post of head of the party, leaving behind him the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Death prevented him from carrying out the planned transformations. But Stalin's departure from life further exacerbated the need to reform Soviet society. It had to be carried out along the lines of bringing the working masses closer to property and power. The party leadership did not answer the challenge of the times. The party, Soviet and economic nomenklatura continued to rule the country, expanding their rights and reducing their responsibilities, i.e. became a privileged estate, if not a class. Stalin understood all the threats posed by her: placed close to property and possessing tremendous power, she was internally predisposed to master the property. Therefore, Stalin took a number of measures to restrain her appetites, including repressive measures, making a kind of selection of nomenklatura personnel. However, there was nowhere to go: for the time being, the nomenclature had to endure and even feed. At the stage of a mobilization society, the nomenklatura "population" was a historically necessary socio-political element, since without it this society could neither be created nor put into operation. The very same mobilization society, which made it possible to modernize the country in an extremely short time, thus ensured the external security of the USSR (Russia). If it were not for him, the Russian people would have lost the war against German fascism - the most difficult and bloody war in the history of mankind. With the invention of nuclear missile weapons, which guaranteed the external security of our country, the need for a mobilization society and the nomenclature closely related to it disappeared. How did the further development of Soviet society go? Some concessions were made in the economic, social and political areas. But they turned out to be ineffective: the people were at odds with the government, they were increasingly moving away from it, which ultimately turned into indifference to the fate of the Soviet system. As for the nomenclature, its positions remained unshakable. They even intensified as a result of the impunity of the actions of the nomenklatura officials, the criticism of the Stalin personality cult and the condemnation of Stalin's repressions being introduced to the rumble of criticism. The shadow economy flourished, encouraged by the nomenklatura and firmly connected with it. The new nomenklatura elite in the Center, in the localities and in the national outskirts was waiting in the wings. All that was needed was a signal from above. And it followed in the form of Gorbachev's perestroika. Here we come to the external factors of the collapse of the USSR. Making sure that Russia cannot be taken directly (and this was shown by the Great Patriotic War), our enemies began long-term and rather sophisticated work. Their efforts boiled down to ideologically disarming the Soviet people, for which an unprecedented ideological war was unleashed, support groups - "agents of influence" were created, and a proven means of "enveloping power" was launched. Communities of consultants - “dissidents in the system”, who embodied “oases of thought”, have developed around the country's top leaders. They skillfully did their job, introducing their patrons to the ideas and values \u200b\u200bof Western Social Democracy. There is only one step from such rulers "enlightened" by them to direct apostates. And they, together with Gorbachev, came out of the underground.
- What do you think as a historian and citizen about modern Russia and about its future?
I think that now Russia is still at the crossroads and two paths are open before it: either to enter a new world order and come to terms with a subordinate position in relation to the West, or to turn towards its national identity and become a great country again.
- Maybe we will be able to enter this new world order, but not on terms of subordination, but as one of its leaders? As a country shaping this order?
In my opinion, the question is not worth it. The modern Russian elite is more concerned with its position among the world elite than with the fate of Russia. But, as the poet wrote, "your perfections are in vain." A select few are members of the "world government." The doors are closed for beginners. At best, they can hope for a seat at the gate. It seems that our rulers are gradually realizing this. And they don't want to play a subordinate role. And this is correct, for behind them is a great, albeit temporarily weakened, power. If they understand all this fully and finally, then a turn towards our national traditions and identity, towards the national interests of our country is inevitable.
- Do you agree that there is an unresolved Russian question in modern Russia, and if so, what is it and what are the ways of its solution?
Yes, I agree. The Russian people are the leading, state-forming people of our country, and it is they who suffered the most during the years of the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent reforms.
- But it seems that our authorities are gradually realizing this: and, if we return to the previous question, then that they will not be accepted as equals in the “world government”, and, as a consequence, that it is necessary to take care of our country and our people?
As I said, while they have not yet fully realized this, and time is passing: the people are gradually dying out, the nation is dying out, and if it goes on like this, then soon we will not be able to hold all the territories that we occupy.
“But now the government seems to have understood this and is taking action. Is there a demographic program, maternity capital, etc.?
This is completely insufficient. Much more serious measures must be taken.
Interviewed
Igor Yakovlevich - a student of the Patriarch of Leningrad historians - a student of V.V. Mavrodin. While defending the doctoral dissertation of I.Ya. Froyanov, devoted to the study of the socio-economic system of Kievan Rus, his teacher said: "In my recent works about Kievan Rus, I adhere to the concept of I.Ya. Froyanov." The teacher (the largest specialist in the history of Ancient Russia at that time) recognized the innovation of his student. This rarely happens.
What was the essence of Froyanov's concept? First of all, in the proof of the pre-class and communal nature of the social and state structure of Ancient Rus. Developing his concept in the future, the scientist showed that the basis of our civilization is not Tatar or Byzantine, but Slavic, and it is expressed in collectivism, communality and the secular spirit of the Russian people, which since ancient times are characterized by mutual assistance, the desire for social justice, the rejection of greed and greed. ... The priority of the interests of the collective over the interests of the individual is a feature of communal, people's democracy throughout Russian history.
Today many people talk and write about it, but then ... Then it had to be proved. Then (Froyanov defended his doctoral dissertation in 1973, and it was approved by the Higher Attestation Commission in 1976) Academicians of the SL sharply opposed Froyanov's concept. Tikhvinsky, B.A. Rybakov, cor. Academy of Sciences of the USSR V.T.Pashuto - names have long been known. They could not come to terms with the pre-class and communal (non-feudal) nature of the social and state structure of Ancient Rus.
Igor Froyanov's research talent, his outstanding contribution to the science of history were recognized in the continuous struggle against pseudo-Marxist dogmatism. In 1982 I.Ya. Froyanov became the dean of the history department of the Leningrad State University. In 1983 V.V. Mavrodin transferred to him the head of the Department of History.
In Gorbachev's perestroika and Yeltsin's reforms, the Soviet, Russian historian and scientist saw the tragedy of the USSR and Russia. Since 1993, he has been a staunch supporter of the Communist Party. In the same year, in one of the constituencies of St. Petersburg, he went to the Duma elections from the Communist Party. Then, in the conditions of anti-communist aggression, only a few decided on this.
Igor Yakovlevich is a man of decisive courage. The first audience before which Anatoly Ivanovich Lukyanov spoke after leaving "Matrosskaya Tishina" was the student audience of the history department. Zyuganov also spoke to her.
In the dark years of the privatization of Russia by the "fifth column" Igor Froyanov comprehends the origins and causes of the treachery of a great power. In 1997 his book “October seventeenth. Looking from the present. " In 1999 I.Ya. Froyanov publishes the work “Diving into the Abyss. Russia at the End of the Twentieth Century ”. This publication was the first in Russia fundamental scientific study of the history of that tragedy, which was called by its creators "perestroika". Both books are widely known among patriots and liberal cosmopolitans. The latter could not forgive the Russian historian for his courage. And they did not forgive ...
Since 1999, the carefully thought-out and organized persecution of Igor Froyanov by the "democratic" public begins. Persecution, into which the "broadest scientific circles" of St. Petersburg University, headed by the rector Verbitskaya, are voluntarily involved in the loyal authorities. As if on command (and so it was), liberal publications attack Froyanov: Izvestia, Novye Izvestia, Obshchaya Gazeta, New Newspaper"," Depot "," Democratic Choice "... With incredible speed the" Letter 140 "is being composed, a special commission is formed to check the history department.
The Antifroyan campaign reached a state of hysteria. There was not a grain of scientific polemic with a prominent historian-scientist in it, only abuse, close to the marketplace. He was called a Great Russian chauvinist, anti-Semite, Black Hundreds, national communist, despot, who usurped power at the history department. And all because Igor Froyanov challenged the entire Russophobic army, which prefers “novistic” Western history to Russian history. The traditions of the latter, according to Froyanov, found their continuation in the great Soviet history: 3a it was this "conviction that brought the" case "against it.
On April 23, 2001, the Academic Council of the University, by 60 votes "against" and 37 "for" with 8 abstentions, refused I. Ya. Froyanov to extend his dean's office. As you can see, he was not alone. But the forces were unequal. At a meeting of the Council, the rebellious professor said to his opponents: “You think this is the end. No, this is just the beginning - the struggle continues. "On June 26, 2003, he was relieved of his head of the Department of Russian History" in connection with its organization. " There is no more department with such a name at St. Petersburg University.
As soon as Froyanov ceased to head the department, the Higher Attestation Commission liquidated the specialized council of the history faculty, which, from the foundation of the university, accepted candidate and doctoral dissertations on the problems of Russian history for defense. They beat the Russian historian in order to hit the Russian historical science.
Harassment and mockery did not shake the rebellious spirit of Igor Yakovlevich. In recent years, he has been researching the era of Ivan the Terrible. The work is close to completion.
The fate, faith and passion of the scientist are captured in his scientific works. We present to the reader the main publications of I.Ya. Froyanov.
Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history. L., 1980.
Kievan Rus. The main features of the socio-economic system. SPb., 1999.
Ancient Russia. Experience in researching social and political struggle, St. Petersburg, 1995.
Rebellious Novgorod. Essays on the history of statehood, social and political struggle at the end of the 9th - the beginning of the 13th century. SPb., 1992.
Slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs. SPb., 1996.
The beginnings of Russian history. SPb., 2001.
October seventeenth. Looking from the present. SPb., 1997.
Diving into the abyss. Russia at the end of the twentieth century. SPb., 1999.
The patriotic journalism of Professor Froyanov is of undoubted value in the search for an answer to the question - to be or not to be Russia. She is distinguished by deeply reasoned historical optimism: “ The history of the Russian people and Russia gives us hope».
Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich is a famous historian, writer and public figure. He lived an interesting and fulfilling life, completely dedicated to his career. He wrote a number of works that are very popular abroad.
Youth
Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich was born in the summer of 1936. His father was a Kuban Cossack and a major in the Red Army (repressed in 1937). In his youth, he was accused of counter-revolutionary activities and sentenced to death, which was replaced by ten years of work in a forced labor camp. In 1957, Yakov Froyanov was rehabilitated. He decided not to return to the family for personal reasons, so Igor Yakovlevich never recognized his second parent: he was brought up by one mother.
Career
Since 1955, Igor Yakovlevich has been doing military service for three years. After that, he decided to enter the Faculty of History. At the university, Professor V. Romanovsky became its scientific adviser. Studying was easy for him, because the subject itself was to his liking. After graduating from university, Igor decides to enroll in graduate school in the capital of Russia. Most of all, he wanted to get into the group of a professor who was a specialist in the field of Medieval Russia. The small number of vacant places in the group contributed to the fact that Froyanov left to enter Leningrad. In 1963, Igor Yakovlevich entered the Leningrad State University. Three years later, he successfully defended his dissertation on the topic of dependent people in Ancient Russia. In 1973 he was already writing his doctoral dissertation on the social and political characteristics of Kievan Rus. But this work was not as successful as the first one. It was published only three years later, when the certification commission approved the work. In 1976, Froyanov became a doctor of historical sciences, and already in 1979 he received the title of professor.
In 1982-2001, Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov was the dean of the history department at his native university; 1983-2003 he worked as the head of the department of Russian history. Working as dean was difficult for the historian. His books were published for a long time, sometimes this process dragged on for years. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Froyanov's political views were finally formed: he supported the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.
Basic books, public reaction
In two of his basic works, the historian outlined his own view of Soviet and Russian political history ("October seventeenth. Looking from the present", "Diving into the abyss"). The appearance of books on store shelves caused a resonance among the public, because no one had ever written such a thing. Froyanov's concept, interpreting the causes of the October Revolution, has many opponents and followers who zealously defend their point of view. The author's supporters are sure that it was the voicing of such thoughts that led to the emergence of the “anti-Froyan campaign”.
The concept of ancient Russia
What did Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov write about? History was not only his work, but also a hobby, so he devoted all his works to in-depth study of specific issues. In books, he substantiates the communal and pre-class structure of Ancient Rus. He refuted the assertion of Soviet historians about class and feudalism in Kievan Rus, showing that private land ownership grew at the expense of only slaves (and not at the expense of dependent on feudal lords). Moreover, it was too weak and underdeveloped. An interesting fact is that in his first book on this topic (1974), he abandoned a specific statement, only prompting the reader to think. In the book “Kievan Rus. Essays on Socio-Political History ”(1980), he already openly declared that the ancient Russian society had a pre-feudal character.
I. Froyanov's concept is based on the assertion that people in ancient Russia were free, they took an active part in the management of various spheres through the veche. The issues of power, election and expulsion of princes belonged to the territorial community. The historian's main conclusion is that the ancient Russian state was formed before the beginning of class division.
Criticism of historical views
Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich, whose books caused a controversial reaction from the public, also received a lot of professional criticism. The historian Froyanov's concept was a new and harsh word in historiography. She denied the official Soviet doctrine of the emergence of the state. At first, his work was simply ignored, but after that, a storm of criticism fell upon him. While in the position of dean, Igor Yakovlevich continued to write. It was impossible to ignore him, therefore opponents of his views brought him a number of accusations (lack of understanding of Old Russian texts, departure from the "official road", ignorance of Marxism). Because of this storm of protests, the third book on this topic was not published until 1990. Among the ardent critics of the historian are S. Tikhvinsky, B. Rybakov, V. Pashuto, Yu. Limonov.
Criticism of political activity
Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich, whose biography was full of sharp criticism, caused the same controversy because of his political views. In 2001, 137 scientists published a document stating that Froyanov's work at the department led to a deep crisis. Also, attention was focused on the fact that Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov retains his power, firing workers who contradict him. In 2003 he was relieved of his post as head of the Department of History. It is also known that the dissertation commission under his leadership was liquidated (60 votes supported the decision of the administration, 37 votes were against and 8 abstained). The professors were also accused of the complete isolation of the faculty, which entailed the focus of his power. The text of the appeal had another weighty accusation that the teaching and learning from Igor Froyanov was veiled by tough political propaganda. At the same time, Professor M. Florinsky said that there was an obvious persecution of the scientist, and the Writers' Union of Russia appealed to the university administration with a request to change the decision to dismiss Igor Yakovlevich from the post of head. They argued that the historian was deliberately surviving from the collective "Westernizers and liberal intellectuals."
Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich: works
Igor Froyanov has written many works. We will list only the most basic of them: “Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-economic history ”,“ Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history "," Kievan Rus. Essays on national historiography ”,“ Kievan Rus. The main features of the socio-economic system "," October seventeenth "," The beginning of Christianity in Russia "," The riddle of the baptism of Russia "and others.
Present time
Today Professor Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich works as a teacher and continues active scientific and social activities. In 2013, he supported the idea that the painting by I. Repin should not be in the gallery: it had to be transferred to the general fund. The painting was believed to reinforce the falsity russian history and seals this slander. However (the gallery director) did not support this movement, stating that the painting "Ivan the Terrible ..." will continue to be in the gallery.
Summing up the article, it should be said that only a specialist can judge the activities of the historian Froyanov. To understand how you feel about his ideas, it is enough to read the main works on the formation of legal order in Ancient Russia. After that, you will become a supporter of the ideas of Igor Yakovlevich or completely reject his concept. In any case, his opinion, supported by facts and arguments, has full right for existence. It should be remembered that sharp criticism can be caused not only by a harsh rejection of information, but also by a blinding truth that few people satisfy.
Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov (June 22, 1936, Armavir, Krasnodar Territory, RSFSR, USSR) - Soviet and Russian historian, doctor of historical sciences. Public figure, writer. Professor, from 1982 to 2001 - Dean of the Faculty of History, St. Petersburg State University.
Pupil of the head of the Department of History of the Stavropol State Pedagogical Institute, Professor V. A. Romanovsky (1890-1971) and Dean of the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University V. V. Mavrodin (1908-1987).
Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov was born into the family of a Kuban Cossack, a major in the Red Army, who was repressed in 1937. Froyanov was brought up by his mother, his father did not return to the family after his release.
After completing military service in 1955-1958, I. Ya. Froyanov entered the history faculty of the Stavropol Pedagogical Institute, where the student's supervisor was Professor V.A.Romanovsky. After graduating from the institute, he decided to go to graduate school in Moscow to A. A. Zimin, a famous researcher of Medieval Russia, but due to problems with the availability of places, he decided to go to Leningrad.
Since 1963, Froyanov studied in the postgraduate course of the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University (scientific supervisor is the dean of the faculty and head of the Department of History of the USSR, Professor V.V. Mavrodin). In 1966 he defended his Ph.D. thesis "Dependent people of Ancient Rus (servants, servants, tributaries, smerds)", in 1973 - his doctoral dissertation "Kievan Rus. The main features of the social and political system ”. Froyanov's work was published only three years later, when, after many adjustments, the Higher Attestation Commission nevertheless approved the scientist's dissertation. In 1976, Froyanov was awarded the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences, in 1979 - a professorship.
From 1982 to 2001 - Dean of the Faculty of History, and from 1983 to 2003 - Head of the Department of Russian History (until 1991 - Department of History of the USSR). Chairman of the SPbU dissertation council in the specialties "Russian history", "general history (Ancient world, Middle Ages, New and Modern times) and historiography", "source studies and methods of historical research."
In 2013, he was among the public figures who advocated the transfer of the painting Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan November 16, 1581 to the storage rooms of the Tretyakov Gallery, since, according to the authors of the appeal, the canvas creates “the effect of false” psychological reliability ", Depicting slander against Russia and its history." The gallery's director I. V. Lebedeva opposed this initiative and said that the painting will remain on display.
Books (15)
City-states of Ancient Rus
The monograph is devoted to the topical problem of the formation of city-states in Ancient Rus.
It examines issues related to the history of the emergence of Russian cities and their socio-political role in the second half of the 9th - 10th centuries. The main attention is paid to the study of the development of city-states in Russia in the 11th - early 13th centuries.
The research focuses on the history of urban communities, their acquisition of a state character.
Terrible oprichnina
The book of the famous Russian historian I.Ya. Froyanova is dedicated to the first Russian tsar and his politics.
Ivan the Terrible is still one of the most controversial and mysterious figures in Russian history. The opinions of various historians about him range from the most positive to sharply negative.
A cruel tyrant who executed many people - and a wise educator who opened printing houses and schools, a libertine on the throne - and an outstanding commander who doubled the territory of Russia, the destroyer of Veliky Novgorod - and the creator of hundreds of new cities, churches, monasteries.
What was he really like? A famous scientist, our contemporary, Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov, tells about this.
Drama of Russian history. On the way to Oprichnina
The book, which tells about the ways of formation of the Oprichnina, has a not accidental title - "The Drama of Russian History".
It, according to the author, indicates the relatively complex and long-term nature of the prehistory of this institution. That is why one cannot agree with those historians who artificially shorten the time of formation of the historical prerequisites for the introduction of the Oprichnina by Tsar Ivan IV.
So, RG Skrynnikov, a well-known expert on the era of Ivan the Terrible, declares: “Only a comprehensive study of the political development of the Russian state in the second half of the 16th century. will allow to give a substantiated answer to the question about the essence of the repressive regime of the oprichnina and the meaning of terror from the point of view of the country's historical destinies ”.
The riddle of the baptism of Russia
The book by the famous Russian historian I. Ya. Froyanov "The Riddle of the Baptism of Rus" is devoted to a key moment in Russian history.
In 988, the tribes of the Polyans, Drevlyans, northerners and other inhabitants of the Kiev state entered the Dnieper water, and a single Russian people emerged, united by a single faith, culture and love of Christ. Until now, this event has not been fully studied.
History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century
A guide for applicants.
This book, intended for applicants, is not a textbook on Russian history. It serves as a study guide to help you prepare for the entrance exam. The manual has been prepared taking into account the many years of experience in conducting competitive exams in Russian history for the humanitarian faculties of St. Petersburg University.
Kievan Rus. The main features of the socio-economic system
This research, defended in December 1973 at the Academic Council of the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University as a doctoral dissertation, has not yet been fully published. Published in 1974, the book "Kievan Rus: Essays on Socio-Economic History" is an abridged version of this work. In addition, it has become inaccessible for those who are interested in the history of Ancient Russia.
The publication of the full text of the dissertation, together with the record of its discussion at the Department of History of the USSR, Leningrad State University, reviews of the leading institution and opponents gives a kind of historiographic cut, allowing you to see the state of Soviet historical science in the study of Kievan Rus in the early 70s of our century. This is important from the point of view of the history of the development of science itself.
Kievan Rus. Essays on Russian historiography
The monograph, which continues the study of the history of Kievan Rus, published in 1974 and 1980, examines the stages of its study in the scientific literature. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the points of view of Soviet historians on such key issues as the emergence of the Old Russian state, the role of the city, the genesis and development of feudalism in Russia, the nature and forms of the class struggle, etc.
The book is intended for researchers, teachers of the humanitarian faculties of universities, everyone interested in the history of Kievan Rus.
Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history
The monograph, which is a continuation of the study of Kievan Rus, the first part of which, devoted to socio-economic history, was published in 1974, examines the most important issues of the socio-political system of Kievan Rus in the 10th-12th centuries, the activities of the national veche, the social nature of veche meetings.
Problems related to the socio-political significance of the ancient Russian city are investigated. The work is designed for researchers, history teachers, postgraduate students of history departments and everyone who is interested in the past of our country.
Prayer for Russia. Publicism of different years
An eminent scientist, historian-specialist in Russian (eminent in our country and abroad) for the first time addresses us as a publicist.
True, journalism was always present in his scientific works. A regularity has long been known: the larger the scientist-historian, the more he strives for the artistic, journalistic expression of his research conclusions. There are many examples of this in Russian historical science: N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Soloviev, V.O. Klyuchevsky, E.V. Tarle, V.V. Mavrodin. The historical memory that historians "serve" is publicistic - it lives in concepts and images.
And yet this is the first book by I.Ya. Froyanov, which is the result of his many years of publicistic work: articles, essays, reviews, interviews in newspapers and magazines, radio and television talks.
Rebellious Novgorod
Essays on the history of statehood, social and political struggle in the late 9th - early 13th centuries.
The monograph examines the emergence and development of Novgorod statehood, social and political struggle in ancient Novgorod.
The nature of popular unrest is studied, the evolution of social and political conflicts is traced. An important place is given to the analysis of the struggle between Novgorod and Kiev for independence, as well as the influence that this struggle had on the formation of the Novgorod republic.
The beginning of Christianity in Russia
The book is dedicated to the first centuries of the history of Christianity in Russia. In a fascinating way, the author talks about the life and beliefs of the Eastern Slavs, the penetration of Christianity into the territory of Eastern Europe, the place and role of the church in ancient Russian society.
A special place in the work is given to the consideration of East Slavic paganism, which retained extraordinary vitality for several centuries after the baptism of Rus.
October seventeenth
The book of the Russian historian I. Ya. Froyanova, written in a vivid and engaging form, invites the reader to look at October 1917 from the standpoint of today.
The rich factual material used by the scientist highlights the phenomena of our history that have previously escaped the scientific field of vision, explains why "mountains of anger and hatred" towards the authorities have accumulated in the genetic memory of the Russian people.
Russia. Diving into the abyss
The transformation of Russia from a global superpower into an impoverished country is one of the most tragic events in human history. This crash happened in peacetime in just a few years. In terms of pace and scale, this collapse has no precedent in world history.
In essence, it was a betrayal unprecedented in world history. According to A.A. Zinoviev's faithful observation, it was "committed primarily by the country's top leaders, party officials, ideological leaders and representatives of the intellectual elite." This betrayal is discussed in the book of the outstanding Russian historian I.Ya. Froyanov.
Lessons from Red October
“Capitalism does not enter organically into flesh and blood, into everyday life, habits and psychology of our society. Once he already embroiled Russia in a fratricidal civil war and, as many years of experience confirm, will not take root on Russian soil. This is evidenced by the three revolutions that took place in the country with a minimum time interval: from October 1905 to October 1917. These revolutions showed that the main part of Russian society was decisively dissatisfied with the "unfinished" Russian capitalism, which developed rapidly in the country after the peasant reform of 1861, which encroached on the cathedral, communal collectivist and spiritual and moral foundations of the people's life. He was not accepted by the whole people, and not only by the restless, radical-minded intelligentsia, as the committed ideologists of the regime are trying to prove today. (G.A. Zyuganov)
These words are convincingly confirmed in the book of the famous historian I.Ya. Froyanov, which we present now to the attention of the reader.
Christianity: Antiquity, Byzantium, Ancient Russia
The book is devoted to the emergence and early history of Christianity.
Particular attention to this topic is due to the approaching millennium anniversary of the so-called "baptism of Rus", which the ideologists of Russian Orthodoxy regard as an event that allegedly marked a decisive turning point in the history of the Russian people.
In an effort to give an objective and correct idea of \u200b\u200bthe essence of Christianity in general, of the "baptism of Russia" and its impact on ancient Russian society, the authors turn to the history of the issue - not only to the circumstances that determined the adoption of Christianity by Russia, but also to the origins of the Christian movement in the ancient world, to the fate of the Christian religion in Byzantium, from where it was borrowed by the Russian people.
