'Rehabilitation' of M.N. Pokrovsky in the community of historians: Late 1950s – 1960s

V.S. Gruzdinskaya

Dostoevsky Omsk State University, Omsk, 644077 Russia

E-mail: vik11910314@yandex.ru

Received March 25, 2020

Full text PDF
DOI: 10.26907/2541-7738.2020.3.220-231

For citation: Gruzdinskaya V.S. “Rehabilitation” of M.N. Pokrovsky in the community of historians: Late 1950s – 1960s. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki, 2020, vol. 162, no. 3, pp. 220–231. doi: 10.26907/2541-7738.2020.3.220-231. (In Russian)

Abstract

In the paper, the most important and resonant episodes of M.N. Pokrovsky’s “rehabilitation” as a researcher were studied. Based on the analysis of various published and unpublished sources, a number of conclusions were drawn. Firstly, the period of late 1950s – 1960s was marked by the rejection of the previous assessments of M.N. Pokrovsky’s legacy that became popular in the historiography of the Stalin era at the level of party and political discourses, as well as among researchers. Secondly, historians proposed different models for studying M.N. Pokrovsky’s legacy; the ubiquitous feature of all models was the use of archival sources. The “living memory” and personal experience of the academic community served as an integral supplement to the “cold” documentary facts. Thirdly, the active participation of Soviet historians in returning of M.N. Pokrovsky to the historiographic pantheon was of great importance. M.V. Nechkina, E.A. Lutsky, and A.L. Sidorov were among them. Interestingly, they were among the authors of an earlier published two-volume edition against M.N. Pokrovsky. At the same time, the limits of what was “acceptable” or not were still defined by the government authorities. This influenced the presentation of scientific knowledge to the professional community.

Keywords: Soviet historiography, M.N. Pokrovsky, academic community, corporate memory, science and power

References

1. Bukhert V.G. “In the proceedings, he pleaded not guilty of anything”. S.M. Dubrovskii in 1936–1954. Vestnik Omskogo Universiteta. Seriya Istoricheskie Nauki, 2019, no. 2, pp. 228–240. (In Russian)
2. Artizov A.N. The fates of historians from M.N. Pokrovsky’s school (middle of the 1930s). Voprosy Istorii, 1994, no. 7, pp. 34–48. (In Russian)
3. Nechkina M.V. The problem with M.N. Pokrovsky in the party and government resolutions of 1934–1938 about teaching history and history as a science (On the historiographic aspect of the discussion). Istoricheskie Zapiski, 1990, vol. 118, pp. 232–246. (In Russian)
4. Istoriya v cheloveke. Akademik M.V. Nechkina: Dokumental’naya monografiya [History in a Human. Academician M.V. Nechkina: A Documentary Monograph]. Moscow, Nov. Khronogr., 2011. 1104 p. (In Russian)
5. Sidorov A.L. Some reflections about the work and experience of historians. Istoriya SSSR, 1964, no. 3, pp. 118–138. (In Russian)
6. Naidenov M.E. M.N. Pokrovsky and his role in the Soviet historiography. Istoriya SSSR, 1962, no. 3, pp. 48–71. (In Russian)
7. Lutsky E.A. M.N. Pokrovsky’s historical concept development. In: Istoriya i istoriki. Istoriografiya istorii SSSR [History and Historians. Historiography of USSR History]. Moscow, Nauka, 1965, pp. 334–370. (In Russian)
8. Bukhert V.G. “In general, S.M. Dubrovsky’s work is of undeniable interest”. Unpublished monograph by S.M. Dubrovsky about M.N. Pokrovsky. 1968–1969. Istoricheskii Arkhiv, 2018, no. 3, pp. 113–116. (In Russian)

The content is available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.