A HISTORiAN OF THE “OLD SCHOOL”. BORIS IVANOVICH SYROMYATNIKOV'S SCIENTIFIC BlOGRAPHY eNGLISh SummAry

A distinctive feature of modern historiographic studies is the ‘personification’ of the historical cognitive process, which has led in particular to an interest in the scientific biography of historians of the late 19 th and early 20th centuries.

A flowering of creative activity by a galaxy of prominent Russian historians occurred in pre-revolutionary times. Their work in the fields of Russian and world history al­lowed Russian historical thought to occupy an honourable place among European schools.

One of the most of the most brilliant representatives of this generation was the well- known historian, jurist and public figure Boris Ivanovich Syromyatnikov (1874­1947).

B.I. Syromyatnikov was born on 4 October 1874 in Moscow. In 1895 he entered the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University, graduating in 1900. While a stu­dent, Syromyatnikov was greatly influenced by V.O. Klyuchevskiy. After graduation the young future lawyer continued his studies in order to obtain a Master’s degree. Subsequently he was invited to lecture at the University as assistant professor. From 1903 to1905 Syromyatnikov was engaged in a probation period abroad. This had an enormous influence on the formation of his scientific outlook.

After his return to Russia, Syromyatnikov lectured at different educational institu­tions in Moscow, simultaneously continuing work on his thesis, which was devoted to feudalism in Old Rus’. Syromyatnikov was an active participant in public and scientific life of early 20th-century Moscow.

litical position determined Syromyatnikov’s public activity. He was not only a his­torian and university professor, but also an active propagandist and participant in the movement for the enlightenment and the modernisation of the Russian empire. He participated actively in the creation and the activities of the Moscow Society of Public Universities (MSPU), where he occupied key posts. During this period Syromyatnikov’s public and political views were completely formed and his position was liberal democratic. Though he denied that education and politics were linked, Syromyatnikov’s enlightened views were closely connected with his political prefer­ences. Being a zapadnik [liberal westernizer] he believed that for a western type of society to emerge in Russia, it would be necessary for a new kind of emancipated, educated individual to be formed, capable not only of understanding his place in the world, but also able and willing to fight for his rights. Syromyatnikov saw as the primary task of public universities that of helping students to become aware of their personalities and abilities so as to become active members of society.

In 1911, protesting against the interference of the Minister of Education, L.A. Kasso, in the activities of the University of Moscow, Syromyatnikov, like many other lecturers of the university, submitted a request for retirement. The consequence of this was that the first part of Syromyatnikov’s thesis, entitled Traditional Theory of Russian Historical Development, was not published (and it is still unpublished to­day).

The events of 1911 opened a new stage in the historian’s life. He concentrated on teaching activity in the MSPU without abandoning his scientific work.

Syromyatnikov’s post-revolutionary life can be divided into two stages. The first stage (1917-1934) was characterized by quite an unsuccessful attempt to become

part of the Soviet historiographical community. Though he taught at several higher educational establishments, his position remained shaky. He was hardly able to pub­lish at all. In spite of the fact that he did not accept the Bolsheviks’ power, in practice he had to adjust to the situation. This situation was reflected in his scientific work. He began to study Marxism and the theoretical legacy of V.I. Lenin, though Marxist methodology did not penetrate deeply into his outlook. His works continued to be based on the pre-revolutionary approaches and ideals. He remained a historian of the “old school”. All this caused him to occupy the position of an outsider in Soviet historical science. As Soviet historiography evolved towards a more traditional model he came to occupy his own niche in the historiographical community.

In the 1920s Syromyatikov worked in the Ivanovo-Voznesensk Polytechnic Institute (IVPI) contributing to the journal “Law and Life” and co-operating with the Granat publishing house.

The next stage (1934-1947) in Syromyatnikov’s life and activity, as well as that of most historians of the “old school”, began with the resolution of 1934. After a dec­ade of official dominance of the school of Pokrovskiy, Russian history of the past was interpreted - rather negatively - as the period of dominance of the proletariat’s class enemies. Such a view could exist when the idea of world revolution and inter­nationalism was prevalent in the ideology of the Communist party. After Stalin obtained decisive control over the party and the whole country, hopes for a rapid world revolution vanished and the historical component of the official ideology also changed. It became more patriotic. Thus it became necessary to search the past not only for negative examples, but also for samples to be imitated. The changes that occurred were listed in “Remarks on Compiling Synopses of Textbooks on the History of the USSR”, written by A.A. Zhdanov, I. V. Stalin and S.M. Kirov. Such a turn allowed the humanistic scientists of pre-revolutionary times to occupy their place in Soviet science. Among them was Syromyatnikov.

After this shift had taken place, Syromyatnikov occupied his niche in academic com­munity; he was invited to work in prestigious educational institutions and research centres of the capital. In spite of some obstacles, his works began to be published regularly in the most important periodicals.

From 1938 on Syromyatnikov worked at the State and Law Institute of the Academy of Science of the USSR. His main activity was the preparation of the tomes of the

Monuments ofLaw for publication, the total planned length being 100 printed fo­lios. Publication did not actually take place because of the reluctance of the Institute of History, headed by B.D Grekov. The main reason for this was Syromyatnikov’s ac­tive development of the concept of the slave-owning character of society of Kievan Rus’.

The main achievement of this period of the scientist’s life was the book The “Regulated” State ofPeter I and its Ideology, published in 1943. The book received many reviews, most of which were negative. The book was discussed at the famous meeting of historians at the Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) in 1944, where it was disapproved as being both a rebirth of M.N. Pokrovskiy’s concept, and an example of bourgeois historiography. Syromyatnikov devoted the last years of his life to the legal history of Slavic nations. He planned to publish a book on this subject, but was not able to finish what he had planned. He died on 12 January1947.

Syromyatnikov’s scientific heritage is marked by the variety and breadth of the top­ics treated and by the depth of the scientific research carried out. Some of the his­torian’s works are published. Among these some had broad resonance and became the subject of heated debates. Others were not published, and are little-known and not sufficiently studied.

Positivism was the axis around which Syromyatnikov’s methodological concepts were organised. In his scientific work he strove to use a firm system based on scien­tific methods of historical research. According to Syromyatnikov, it is the change in methodology that allows a scientist to take a qualitative step forward, and that provides for transition from outdated to modern scientific concepts. A somewhat exaggerated emphasis on the methodological component of the historian’s craft led to rather a cautious attitude towards seeking new sources. This attitude led to the lack of use of previously unknown documents in Syromyatnikov’s works.

The important feature of Syromyatnikov as a researcher was the consequential use of a relative historical method. In his opinion, it was thanks to comparative study that it would be possible to structure and explain the enormous factual material that had been accumulated though scientific research.

At the base of all specific theoretical and methodological notions there lies a general interpretation of the world historical process. Syromyatnikov was convinced that all nations, whatever the specific traits of their histories, pass through similar stages in their development. This thought was complemented by a belief in the “rotation of history”, in accordance with which historical stages of social development are inevi­tably repeated when a new “public organism” appears in a new timeframe.

Within the framework of the above-mentioned principle Syromyatnikov attempted to solve the vital problem of Russian public thought: the problem of “Russia versus the West”. In his opinion, Russia had passed through the same stages of historical development as western countries. He was strongly against the idea that Russia’s historical trajectory was unique, and he included Russia in the world context on principle.

Syromyatnikov’s scientific activity took up one of the most important features of pre-revolutionary historiography, and led to a reconsideration of the concept of Russia’s unique historical path, which was also reflected in works by N. P. Pavlov- Silivanskiy.

Syromyatnikov identified the following stages in Russian history: 1) the epoch of primitive democracy; 2) the epoch of the dominance of political feudalism; 3) feudal monarchy; 4) the police state and 5) the people’s state founded on law. He developed the concept of unceasing historical development of Russia, where each successive stage of evolution is closely connected with the previous one.

An analysis of Syromyatnikov’s theoretical and methodological views allows us to solve in a more accurate way than has been possible until now the problem of how his research relates to the various historiographical schools and influences. The present study has shown that Syromyatnikov continued to observe the methodo­logical principles characteristic of V.O. Klyuchevskiy and his followers, although he was not his direct pupil nor a graduate of the Faculty of History and Philology. The sociological approach to the study of Russian history that was first developed and defended by V.O. Klyuchevskiy is central to Syromyatnikov‘s studies. Moscow University was a place where that approach had been cultivated not only amongst graduates of the Faculty of History and Philology where V. O. Klyuchevskiy taught, but also among exponents of other humanistic disciplines, and of history of law in particular.

A significant place in Syromyatnikov‘s legacy is occupied by works of a historio­graphic character. The researcher left no single complete work which would give us the whole picture of his historiographic views, but the analysis of his scientific herit­age leads us to acknowledge that he was a great and original specialist in the field of the history of historical thought.

The largest among his works of a historiographic character was the first part of the unpublished thesis entitled Traditional Theory ofRussian Historical Development. In this work Syromyatnikov pursued the aim of explaining why the belief that Russian historical development was peculiar to it alone was so popular in Russian science. Following P.N. Milyukov in many respects, Syromyatnikov pointed out that in the 18 th century, at the dawn of its formation, Russian historiography had adopted many features of pre-Petrine historical literature. In particular, following semi-of­ficial chronicles, the historians of the 18th century started to consider the Russian past as the history of its rulers’ activity. Moreover, the scheme of the chronicles was organically combined with the philosophical thought of the Age of Enlightenment, with its faith in an “enlightened monarch” creating history.

The first half of the 19 th century was marked by the departure from rationalism and the mastery of idealistic concepts. Having explored the heritage of German classical philosophy, Russian historians concentrated on the study of the state as an expres­sion of the “public spirit”. Such an approach inevitably led to the opinion that the history of Russia is a history of a state, rather than of a society. This point of view was expressed most clearly by the school of historians of the state. Their concepts, according to Syromyatnikov, continued to prevail in Russian historiography even at the beginning of the 20th century. Thus P.N. Milyukov’s “theory of contrast” was a logical continuation of the conceptual theories of the historians of the state.

The counterweight to the state school was the school of Klyuchevskiy. He was the first to suggest a general scheme of development of Russian history that was not “top down”, but “from the bottom up”. The impulse for development in his view did not go from state to society, but on the contrary, state institutions grew on this or that social and economic base.

Syromyatnikov’s historiografic works played an important role in his critique of the state school. In his study he tried to prove that the concepts of the state school had become old-fashioned and did not respond the needs of Russian historiogra­phy anymore. There is no doubt that Syromyatnikov’s historiographic views were naturally compatible with the historical sciences of the pre-revolutionary times. He joined the trend that considered that its ultimate purpose was to study historical concepts taking into account the philosophical and political views of historians. P.N. Milyukov had an essential influence upon Syromyatnikov’s historiographic views. But, in spite of some obvious borrowings, there are significant differences in how the causes of the evolution of historical understanding are viewed. Thus if P.N. Milyukov linked the development of Russian historiography mainly with the influ­ence of European thought, Syromyatnikov saw it has being the result of an internal genesis. He strongly believed that all nations passed through the same stages in their development. European historiographic ideas were understood and accepted so eas­ily because the internal needs of Russian history organically coincided with the evo­lution of the science on a world scale.

An important trait of Syromyatnikov’s work was the use of a comparative histori­cal method while analysing historiographical material. He was not always consist­ent in conducting parallels between the evolution of Russian and foreign historical thought, often restricting himself to mere declaration that the two developed in an identical way. However, in his works we find comparative studies of Russian histo­riography.

The example of Syromyatnikov as a legal historian reveals a typical feature of the his­torical science of his time: the intensification of the struggle between different and competing trends. One of the results of this struggle was the increase in the quantity of historiographic works. Researchers tried to find the sources of their rivals’ con­cepts: by proving that they were politically or ideologically engaged and hence not objective, they could attack their rivals as purveyors of slanted and invalid views. Syromyatnikov’s hstoriographic studies played an important role in concrete his­torical research in particular with respect to the history of the Old Rus’. For the first time in historical legal science Syromyatnikov spoke of a special pre-historical stage in the formation of the Old Rus’ state and characterized it as a period characterised by collective relations. The evolution of social relations gave rise to the class struc­ture. Following V.O. Klyuchevskiy, Syromyatnikov used the term “class” to refer to any social group.

The beginning of the following period was not explicitly defined according to a pre­cise chronological framework. But, judging by its description, we can refer it to the beginning of the 9th century. This stage was characterised by further decomposition of tribal society. Syromyatnikov ascribed an important role in this decomposition to colonization. As a result of migration, strong blood ties were being broken down. The organization of society, based on kinship, no longer reflected reality. A new formation - the territorial state or “land-volost” - appeared.

Syromyatnikov considered the state that was established to be a weakly central­ized formation. He produced a synthesis of V.O. Klyuchevskiy’s “town theory” and of M.F. Vladimirskiy-Budanov’s concept of “territorial relations”. In his opinion, Kievan Rus’ presented itself as a complex system made up of “senior” and “minor” cities grouped into volost formations, with trade constituting the main part of the economy.

In a social sense, the “land” in Syromyatnikov’s interpretation appears as a class so­ciety. In its structure the author distinguished three “obviously isolated elements”: boyars, townsfolk and peasants. In his view, there were three powers that dominated the political sphere: the prince, the boyars and the veche [popular assembly]. The princely power became gradually more dominant. The change in the social and economic configuration of power brought about the regeneration of the essence of the state: the state was transformed from a “land-volost” state into a “patrimonial princedom”. By that time the Kievan state was in decline as a result of social stratifi­cation and the decay of trade.

With the fall of the land-volost state of Kievan Rus’, a new stage in Russian his­tory began, the stage of “political feudalism”. Syromyatnikov, as well as N. P. Pavlov- Silivanskiy, distinguished and explained scientifically the appearance of the feudal order in Rus’.

Following G.L. Maurer’s “mark theory”, Syromyatnikov thought that feudalism derived from the decomposition of the communal system and the transformation into serfs of the free peasantry. But he added to this concept an opinion that social relations were transformed as a result of the influence of processes of colonization, as was widely assumed in Russian historiography of the period. The migration of the population from south to northeast, in this view, brought about a change in the prevalent economic activity, from trade and artisanal production to agricul­ture. This promoted the “naturalization” of the economy, a factor that, according to Syromyatnikov, constitutes the most important trait of a feudal state, where the main wealth was the land, on which primitive forms of management dominated. The absence of veche traditions and the class structure which had prevailed during the previous period changed the prince’s function: he became above all the owner of an extensive landed patrimony.

By the 13 th century, the process of shaping the large boyar patrimonies founded on the use of slave labour had been clearly marked. These became the base of the feudal order. Syromyatnikov considered feudalism to be a natural and necessary stage in the existence of Russian society. In his concept feudalism fell into a number of stages: political feudalism, class-representative monarchy and a police state. Unfortunately due to the pressure of circumstances the legal historian was not able to elaborate a complete concept of the genesis of Russian feudalism before the revolution. Syromyatnikov’s return to the themes of the Russian Middle Ages can be observed at the beginning of early 1930s. This was the time when the question of social and economic nature of Kievan state acquired great importance both from scientific and political point of view.

Syromyatnikov was one of B.D. Grekov’s main opponents. His report, entitled “The Problem of Slavery in Old Rus’ ”, and read at the Institute of State and Law on 9 January 1940, became an important event. The speaker himself separated his report into two parts: in the first he analysed in detail the main points of B.D. Grekov’s concept, but in the second one he explained the slave-owning nature of social and economic order of Old Rus’.

While B.D. Grekov supposed that Kievan Rus’ having passed by the stage of slave- owning immediately entered the feudal era, Syromyatnikov tried to prove the uni­versal character of the theory of formations for all nations. This conviction naturally resulted from the historian’s pre-revolutionary concepts about the universality of the historical process. He concentrated on a critique of the positions of the author of “Kievan Rus’” about the existence of a large feudal patrimony cultivated by an enslaved population. According to Syromyatnikov, there are no facts to support the hypothesis that feudal land-owning characterised Kievan Rus’. And the base of the Kievan state economy was slave labour.

The concept that Kievan society was slave-owning was developed in Monuments of the History of State and Law of the USSR, commented by B.I. Syromyatnikov. In agreement with A.E. Presnyakov, he compared Russian cities to ancient city-states, whose democratic formation was based on the exploitation of slavery. “Together with Presnyakov we drive at the thought that in Old Russian city-states, “lands” or “volost”[...] we have a typical sample of Old Russian veche democracy, like the ancient polis, with all the diversity which is naturally inherent in each particular historical phenomenon”.

Syromyatnikov’s understanding of the social and economic order of Old Russian state in the process of development gained more and more individual features, and turned into an original and fruitful concept, which can be claimed by modern sci­ence. Its existence is a significant fact in the development of Russian historical sci­ence.

Another significant direction in the historian’s studies was his research on the epoch of Ivan the Terrible, to which he devoted the unpublished monograph The Epoch of Ivan the Terrible in 1926. The book begins with the analysis of the works by R.Yu. Vipper and S.F. Platonov. Syromyatnikov was not satisfied with either of these works about Ivan the Terrible and his rule. In his view, the authors presented the historical process during Ivan the Terrible’s reign as being completely dependent on the tsar’s persona. As a representative of the Moscow school Syromyatnikov rejected such an approach, considering political processes and their effects to be the results of established relations within society.

Syromyatnikov asserted that during Ivan the Terrible’s reign there was a collision of two social and political systems: the appanage order and class monarchy. The historian thought that it was impossible to agree with the statement that Ivan the Terrible fought against “individuals” or the administration, but not against the “ap­panage order”. Syromyatnikov’s position is unambiguous: the process of the forma­tion of the Muscovian centralized monarchy was accompanied by an extreme inten­sification of class struggle and a fundamental rearrangement of the social classes.

By the 16th century the following configuration of classes had been formed. On the one hand, the aristocracy, struggling against a centralized state, and on the other hand, the supporters of the tsar’s strong power. Among the rivals of Ivan the Terrible, in the first place the historian indicated the upper part of the feudal order and the “Byzantine church” (“non-grabbers”). These were strongly against reinforcement of the tsar’s authority. But the tsar found support among the gentry, the trading and

manufacturing class, Joseph Volockiy’s followers (“grabbers”) and the common folk. The struggle of these social groups was at the core of the period under considera­tion.

The tsar’s personality was also of great importance. Syromyatnikov came to the conclusion that personal qualities of Ivan the Terrible were an important factor in the social struggle. But the extraordinary character of his actions should not be exaggerated. His social program and the oprichnina were not absolutely new. In Syromyatnikov’s opinion, Ivan IV made this policy coherent, moulding it in an ide­ologically motivated way. And as for mass executions, the “governmental terror had become the usual device of Moscow policy long before Ivan the Terrible”. The policy of Ivan IV was based on the idea of an “awesome kingdom”, that is to say a kingdom in which the monarch is an unlimited ruler, free “to execute and pardon”.

Such was the way Syromyatnikov depicted the process of social struggle in the 15 th and 16th centuries, including the sphere of ideology. That stage in the evolution of the Russian state and society was absolutely natural and corresponded to the world­wide path of development. Revealing public relations during Ivan IV’s rule provides for adequate understanding and evaluation of his policies. Ivan the Terrible fought against the appanage order and old classes. Syromyatnikov was sure that it was Ivan the Terrible who laid the bases for the absolute monarchy which would be estab­lished during Peter the Great’s reign. The scientific work of the legal historian was characterized by a firm interest in Peter’s time. The first work directly devoted to that problem was a popular scientific article about the development of the institu­tion of absolute monarchy under the title “Absolute Monarchy in Russia in the 18 th century”.

At the end of 1930s the researcher returned to the theme of the Petrine state. The first part of his monograph The “Regulated” State ofPeter I and its Ideology was pub­lished in 1943.

The historiography on the question was considered in the first chapter. Syromyatnikov distinguished the following periods in the study of the time of Peter the Great: 1) the 18 th century, as the epoch of rationalism and the Enlightenment; 2) Karamzin’s activity as a transitional stage; 3) the period of debates between Slavophiles and Westernizers; 4) Soloviyov’s scientific activity as an intermediate stage between ide­alism and positivism; 5) positivism; 6) the Soviet period. He came to the conclusion that neither pre-revolutionary nor Soviet authors gave an adequate interpretation of the enlightened absolutism of Peter the Great.

Syromyatnikov found the sources of absolutism in the Muscovite state. Its devel­opment led to a balance between two leading social forces - the gentry and the posad. This balance was the basis for Peter’s absolute empire. The difference between Peter’s reign and other periods in the development of the Russian state lay in the absence of a counterweight to the ruler. While earlier such a role was performed by the veche, the duma and the Zemsky Sobor, the 18th century had no such institution restricting the tsar’s power.

But this was not the only factor that triggered the appearance of a police state. When the Muscovite state broke out of its isolation, a window to European cul­ture was opened to influence on Russian society. The ideal of the philosophers of the time was a state of general prosperity, a state built on the principals of reason­able need and faith in human reason. From the point of view of the philosophy of pragmatism, such a state could be built by a philosopher in power, an “enlightened monarch”. Peter I became such a monarch.

Syromyatnikov thought that the important feature of Peter the Great’s internal policy was the anti-gentry trend in legislation. In his opinion, the reforms led to a situation where state interests were superior to the narrow class interests of the gen­try. The book by Syromyatnikov was not characteristic of Soviet historiography, first of all because it was based mainly on achievements of pre-revolutionary historians. In many respects it repeated the concept first stated by the historian himself in his article “Absolutism in Russia in the 18th century”.

The work dedicated to the ideology of a “regulated” state represented a synthesis in the historiographical context. It conceptually generalised the achievements of Russian pre-revolutionary science. The analysis of the monograph allows us to re­ject the generally accepted belief that Syromyatnikov’s work was a rebirth of M.N. Pokrovskiy’s conceptual theories.

In The “Regulated” State, Syromyatnikov tried to solve the central question of his scientific work - the problem of “Russia and the West”. The historian once again as­serted his belief in the identity of the development of Russia and the rest of Europe. This time he chose the example of Peter’s absolute state. Analysing Peter’s reforms Syromyatnikov tried to prove that the stage of subordination of society to the state was typical of all European countries, not only of Russia: the same idea that was formulated by P.N. Milyukov.

Thus B.I. Syromyatnikov’s historical ideas are closely connected with the general development of Russian historical science during the first half of the 20th century and significantly determined by it. Syromyatnikov presents an interest as a historian whose life, work and fate are important in themselves as aspect of an individual ex­perience, while at the same time they also constitute a part of the history of Russian historical science.

Syromyatnikov’s scientific work shows a close relationship between legal history and historical science proper. The methodological views of the scientist are extremely im­portant for understanding his scientific activity. It is possible to draw the conclusion that the theoretical conception of the historian determined not only the essence of his studies and his choice of themes, but, quite often, the findings themselves.

Now and then in his studies Syromyatnikov engaged in theorizing. First he created a logical design and only then passed on to concrete historical study. To some extent this can be explained by the traditions of the classical historical and legal school, with its adherence to a firm logical and historical scheme.

Remaining a positivist, Syromyatnikov became an outstanding representative of the Moscow school. Founding his research on methodological principle of V. O. Klyuchevskiy, he gave a vivid example of how to introduce sociology into the study of the history of Russian law.

Syromyatnikov stuck to a holistic scheme in interpreting the worldwide historical process. In his opinion, all nations evolve through similar stages. The only difference between them is the time spent in passing through these stages. The theory of the identical character of world development of all countries was complemented by the concept of “rotation of history”. The historian consequently kept to this scheme. At this point, he diverged widely from a generally accepted view in pre-revolutionary historiography. He was strongly against admitting the unique character of Russia’s historical trajectory. Starting from his beliefs about a worldwide historical process, Syromyatnikov included the history of Russia in a worldwide context. He did not find any proof that Russian history should be considered deeply original, different from that of other European countries.

Not only his publications but also unpublished and archival documentation are im­portant in understanding and evaluating Syromyatnikov’s legacy. The archival mate­rial has allowed us to conclude that the role of the legal historian in the development of Soviet historical science was more significant than has been believed until now. As a whole, an analysis of Syromyatnikov’s historical views permits us to charac­terize him as a bright and scientifically conscientious researcher, who achieved a close knowledge and deep understanding of the main trends of the development

of historical science; who was capable of responding to the contemporary needs of the discipline, having accepted and developed the paths of study marked out by his predecessors. The scientific activity of the lawyer-historian testifies that large-scale social and political cataclysms can greatly complicate, but not break up the stream of thematic investigation, the profound theoretical relationship and continuity be­tween separate periods in the development of historical knowledge. In this sense historiographic memory is closely connected to historical memory.

The analysis of the scientific and literary heritage of Syromyatnikov leads us to reject the statement that there was a complete break between pre-revolutionary histori­ography and Soviet science. Thanks to the broad erudition on which it was based, the skill in adapting and developing the achievements of both Russian historical science, and foreign historiography, Syromyatnikov was able to elaborate a holistic concept of the historical process and keep to it, with certain changes, during his en­tire scientific career. In his works Syromyatnikov preserved both the best traditions and the defects of pre-revolutionary historiography.

Syromyatnikov’s scientific legacy did not receive the acknowledgment that was due among specialists. His name is known to a rather narrow circle of historians. This was mainly caused by the fate of his works. Many of them were not published for reasons having no direct relations with scientific concerns. However historiography has always showed an interest in the legal historian’s heritage. The scientific activity of Syromyatnikov constitutes a bright area, worthy of consideration, in the develop­ment of Russian historical science.

PuBLIcATIONS Of THe cLIOHreS NeTwOrk Of exceLLeNce

Thematic Work Group 1, “States, Legislation, Institutions”

1. Public Power in Europe: Studies in Historical Transformation, James S. Amelang, Siegfried Beer eds., 2006;

2. Communities in European History: Representations, Jurisdictions, Conflicts, Juan Pan-Montojo, Frederik Pedersen eds., 2007;

3. Making, Using and Resisting the Law in European History, Gunther Lottes, Eero Medijainen, Jon ViSar SigurSs- son eds., 2008.

Thematic Work Group 2, “Power and Culture”

1. Power and Culture: Hegemony, Interaction and Dissent, Ausma Cimdina, Jonathan Osmond eds., 2006;

2. Power and Culture. Identity, Ideology, Representation, Jonathan Osmond, Ausma Cimdina eds., 2007;

3. Power and Culture: New Perspectives on Spatiality in European History, Pieter Francois, Taina Syrjamaa, Henri Terho eds., 2008.

Thematic Work Group 3, “Religion and Philosophy”

1. Religion, Ritual and Mythology. Aspects ofIdentity Formation in Europe, Joaquim Carvalho ed., 2006;

2. Religion and Power in Europe: Conflict and Convergence, Joaquim Carvalho ed., 2007;

3. Bridging the Gaps: Sources, Methodology and Approaches to Religion in Europe, Joaquim Carvalho ed., 2008.

Thematic Work Group 4, “Work, Gender and Society”

1. Professions and Social Identity. New European Historical Research on Work, Gender and Society, Berteke Waaldijk ed., 2006;

2. Reciprocity and Redistribution: Work and Welfare Reconsidered, Gro Hagemann ed., 2007;

3. Rhetorics ofWork, Dimitra Lampropoulou, Carla Salvaterra, Yannis Yannitsiotis eds., 2008.

Thematic Work Group 5, “Frontiers and Identities”

1. Frontiers and Identities: Exploring the Research Area, Lud’a Klusakova, Steven G. Ellis eds., 2006;

2. Imagining Frontiers. Contesting Identities, Steven G. Ellis, Lud’a Klusakova eds., 2007;

3. Frontiers and Identities: Cities in Regions and Nations, Lud’a Klusakova, Laure Teulieres eds., 2008.

Thematic Work Group 6, “Europe and the Wider World”

1. Europe and the World in European Historiography, Csaba Levai ed, 2006;

2. Sights and Insights: Interactive Images ofEurope and the Wider World, Mary N. Harris ed., 2007;

3. Europe and its Empires, Mary N. Harris, Csaba Levai eds., 2008.

Transversal Themes

1. Citizenship in Historical Perspective, Steven G. Ellis, GuSmundur Halfdanarson, Ann Katherine Isaacs eds., 2006.

2. Immigration and Emigration in Historical Perspective, Ann Katherine Isaacs ed., 2007.

3. Discrimination and Tolerance in Historical Perspective, GuSmundur Halfdanarson ed., 2008.

Doctoral Dissertations

1. Florencia Peyrou, La Comunidad de Ciudadanos. El Discurso Democratico-Republicano en Espana, 1840-1868 (2006);

2. Marta Smagacz, Revitalisation ofUrban Space. Social changes in Krakow’s Kazimierz and the Ticinese District of Milan (2007);

3. Andreas Gemes, Austria and the 1956Hungarian Revolution. Between Solidarity and Neutrality (2008).

4. Vitaly V. Tichonov, A Historian ofthe “OldSchool”. Boris Ivanovich Syromyatnikov’s Scientific Biography (2008).

www.cliohres.net

Printed in July 2008 by Industrie Grafiche Pacini Editore S.p.A. on behalf of Edizioni PLUS - Pisa University Press