Content and contradiction of Russian historiography process

Abstract

It is well known that each generation writes its own history. for history researchers, the question always arises of how and on the basis of which history their predecessors wrote history. The author attempts to identify the circumstances in which the question of evaluating, interpreting and rethinking the historiographical tradition becomes the most urgent. Having considered the most significant works of N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, V.O., Klyuchevsky, P.N. Milyukova and N.L. Rubinstein and the circumstances in which they were written and received public recognition, the author attempts to identify a key feature in which one historical work replaces another. According to the researcher, the reason why the question of reflection or rethinking becomes the most urgent is crises or so-called fractures. To identify the content and contradictions of the Russian historiographic process, the author attempted to determine which approaches to the assessment of the historiographical works of predecessors exist. The author identifies three approaches to such an assessment. From the historiographic heritage, you can refuse and try to rethink the historical events, rather than the works of predecessors. On the other hand, one can take into account the historiographic experience of predecessors, but try to find inaccuracies and errors in their research. A wasteful approach can be considered an attempt to combine the experience of their predecessors with their own observations.