Youth
Born into a Jewish family. The father belonged to the merchant class, but was mainly involved in raising children, served as the manager of a store that belonged to a Kyiv company, and his wife managed it. He spoke German and even translated Dostoevsky. The mother came from a family whose history included many tzaddikim - experts and interpreters of the Talmud. Tarle spent his childhood and early youth in Kherson, where interethnic peace reigned. In Odessa, in the house of his older sister, he met the famous Byzantine historian Professor (later academician) F. I. Uspensky. On his advice and recommendation, Tarle was admitted to the Imperial Novorossiysk University. Uspensky brought Tarle together with his future teacher - a professor at the University of St. Vladimir (Kyiv) Ivan Vasilievich Luchitsky. For the second academic year, Tarle transferred to Kyiv. In Kyiv, in 1894, Tarle was baptized according to the Orthodox rite in the St. Sophia Cathedral
The reason for accepting Orthodoxy was romantic: since his high school days, Tarle had loved a very religious Russian girl from a noble family, Lelya Mikhailova, and so that they could unite, he converted to Orthodoxy. They lived together for 60 years. Yours ethnic origin Tarle never hid it. His phrase “... I am not a Frenchman, but a Jew, and my last name is pronounced Ta?rle”, which he said at the first lecture on the modern history of Europe and North America to the first year of the historical and international faculty of the MGIMO Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR in the fall of 1951 (“In the USSR, the anti-Semitic campaign was gaining momentum with might and main, the case of “killer doctors” was not far off, officially, according to the “fifth point” in the questionnaire, there were no one Jew...")
Like many Kyiv University students of that time (for example, like Berdyaev), he joined student circles of Social Democrats. There Tarle made reports, participated in discussions, “went to the people” - to the workers of Kyiv factories. On May 1, 1900, Tarle was arrested along with other members of the circle in a student apartment during Lunacharsky’s report on Henrik Ibsen) and deported under public police surveillance to the place of residence of his parents in Kherson. As “politically unreliable,” he was forbidden to teach at imperial universities and state gymnasiums. A year later he was allowed to defend his master's thesis. His master's thesis on the English utopian Thomas More (1901) was written in the spirit of "legal Marxism".
In 1903, after petitions supported by prominent professors, the police allowed Tarle to teach on an hourly basis as a private lecturer at the University of St. Petersburg. In February 1905, he was again arrested for participating in a student meeting and again suspended from teaching at the university.
On October 18, 1905, Tarle was wounded by mounted gendarmes at a rally near the Technological Institute in St. Petersburg. The meeting was dedicated to supporting Tsar Nicholas II and his manifesto on “civil liberties” of October 17, 1905. The manifesto amnestied all unreliable people, and Tarle returned to St. Petersburg University.
“His social circle included A. Dostoevskaya and S. Platonov, N. Kareev and A. Dzhivelegov, A. Amphiteatrov and F. Sologub, P. and V. Shchegolevs, V. Korolenko and A. Koni, N. Roerich and I. Grabar, K. Chukovsky and L. Panteleev, and many others.”
Academic career
Graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Kyiv University (1896). Graduate Research: “Peasants in Hungary before the reform of Joseph II” In February 1900, the academic council of Kyiv University awarded Tarle the academic title of privat-docent. His master's thesis (1901) was published as a separate book, and in 1902, based on the dissertation, Tarle published in the liberal-populist journal V. G. Korolenko “ Russian wealth» article “On the question of the boundaries of historical foresight”.
In 1903-1917 (with a short break in 1905) private assistant professor at St. Petersburg University. In 1911 he defended his doctoral dissertation on the basis of a two-volume study “The Working Class in France in the Age of the Revolution.” In 1913-1918 he was also a professor at the university in Yuryev (Tartu). Since 1918, Tarle has been one of the three leaders Petrograd branch Central Archive of the RSFSR. In October 1918, he was elected an ordinary professor at Petrograd University (and then Leningrad University), then became a professor at Moscow University and lived in Moscow (before his arrest).
In 1921 he was elected corresponding member Russian Academy Sciences, and in 1927 - a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
Awarded the Stalin Prize (first degree) in 1942 for the collective work “History of Diplomacy”, vol. I, published in 1941. Honorary doctorate from the universities of Brno, Prague, Oslo, Algiers, Sorbonne, corresponding member of the British Academy (1944), full Member of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and the Philadelphia Academy of Political and Social Sciences.
He was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery in Moscow.
Repression and official criticism
After the February Revolution of 1917, Tarle immediately went to serve the “young democracy”. He (like the poet A. Blok) is included among the members of the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government for the crimes of the tsarist regime. In June 1917, Tarle was a member of the Russian official delegation to international conference pacifists and socialists in Stockholm.
Tarle is wary of the October Revolution. During the days of the “Red Terror”, Tarle in 1918 published a book in the liberal publishing house “Byloye”: “The Revolutionary Tribunal in the era of the Great French Revolution (memoirs of contemporaries and documents).”
In the autumn of 1929 and winter of 1931, the OGPU arrested a group of famous historians in the “Academic Case” of Academician S. F. Platonov. Involved were Yu. V. Gauthier, V. I. Picheta, S. B. Veselovsky, E. V. Tarle, B. A. Romanov, N. V. Izmailov, S. V. Bakhrushin, A. I. Andreev, A I. Brilliantov and others, 115 people in total. The OGPU accused them of plotting to overthrow Soviet power. E.V. Tarle was supposedly intended for the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new Cabinet. The USSR Academy of Sciences expelled those arrested.
E.V. Tarle was also accused of belonging to the Industrial Party. By the decision of the OGPU board of August 8, 1931, E.V. Tarle was exiled to Alma-Ata. There he began to write his "Napoleon". On March 17, 1937, the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR cleared the criminal record against E.V. Tarle, and he was soon reinstated to the rank of academician. However, on June 10, 1937, Pravda and Izvestia published devastating reviews of the book Napoleon. In particular, it was called "a striking example of an enemy attack." Despite this, E.V. Tarle was forgiven, presumably on Stalin’s personal initiative.
In 1945, the magazine of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolshevik) criticized his work “The Crimean War”; There were no reprisals this time either. The author of the article, identified as “Yakovlev N.” wrote, in particular: “Many of Academician Tarle’s provisions and conclusions raise serious objections. Some important questions issues concerning the essence and consequences of the Crimean War are ignored by him or are resolved incorrectly.<…>he gives an incorrect assessment of the outcome of the war, believing that tsarist Russia was essentially not defeated in the Crimean War.”
During the war years
At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 E.V. Tarle was evacuated to Kazan, where he worked as a professor in the Department of History (1941-1943) of the Faculty of History and Philology of Kazan State University. V. I. Ulyanov-Lenin (KSU). Simultaneously with his teaching activities at KSU, Evgeniy Viktorovich worked on preparing the monograph “The Crimean War” and read public lectures on historical and patriotic topics for the workers of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.
Member of the Commission for the Investigation of Atrocities Nazi invaders (1942).
Scientific and literary activities
Tarle, who occupied a leading position in Russian historical science even before the revolution, later became one of the most authoritative historians of the USSR. In the 1920s, E.V. Tarle, S.F. Platonov and A.E. Presnyakov began to create their own “ Historical library: Russia and the West in the past." Participates in 1923 in the international historical congress in Brussels and in 1928 in the congress in Oslo. In 1927, he published his course “Europe in the Age of Imperialism, 1871-1919,” which caused great irritation among official Marxists. He played a large role in the cooperation of Soviet and French historians, which is highly valued by the latter. In 1926, with the active participation of Tarle, the first scientific committee for relations with scientists of the USSR was created in Paris, which included such world luminaries as P. Langevin, A. Mathiez, A. Mazon, and other major French scientists.
Great importance in historical science there are Tarle’s works “Europe in the Age of Imperialism”, “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia”, “Crimean War”. Tarle's works are characterized by some freedom in relation to historical facts, allowed for the sake of a lively, exciting style of presentation, presenting Tarle in a number of works more as a historical writer than a historian. Strictly historical works are not without the ideological distortions inevitable for scientific works of the Stalinist period, but nevertheless remain brilliant monuments of historical thought, which have fully retained their significance for science.
In 1942, his work “Hitlerism and Napoleonic era", written in the journalistic genre; the book praised Napoleon as a great transformer and gave a derogatory description of Adolf Hitler, proving “the caricature of serious comparisons of an insignificant pygmy with a giant.” The book ended with the statement: “And we can safely say, throughout my entire life great history Never, not even excluding 1812, have the Russian people been the savior of Europe to such an extent as they are now.”
Once, at the anniversary of ... Evgeniy Viktorovich Tarle, Chukovsky teased Samuil Yakovlevich that even he would not be able to find a rhyme for the surname of the hero of the day.
In response, Marshak instantly gave an impromptu:
In one sitting, historian Tarle
Could write (like me in an album)
A huge volume about every Karl
And about anyone Louis.
- According to L. E. Belozerskaya, “of the writers he loved Dostoevsky most of all.”
Publications of works
- Tarle E.V. Works in 12 volumes. - M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1957-1962.
- History of Italy in the Middle Ages 1906
- Continental blockade 1913
- Economic life Kingdom of Italy during the reign of Napoleon I 1916
- The West and Russia 1918
- Europe in the Age of Imperialism 1927
- Germinal and Prairial 1937
- "Hitlerism and the Napoleonic era." Academy of Sciences of the USSR. - M.-L., 1942.
- Essays on history colonial policy Western European states 1965
Evgeniy Viktorovich Tarle was born on November 8, 1875. The father belonged to the merchant class. The mother came from a family in whose history there were many tzaddikim - experts and interpreters of the Talmud.
In Odessa, in the house of his older sister, he met the famous Byzantine historian Professor (later academician) F. I. Uspensky. On his advice and recommendation, Tarle was admitted to the Imperial Novorossiysk University. For the second academic year, Tarle transferred to Kyiv.
In Kyiv, in 1894, Tarle was baptized according to the Orthodox rite. The reason for accepting Orthodoxy was romantic: since his high school days, Tarle had loved a very religious Russian girl from a noble family, Lelya Mikhailova, and so that they could unite, he converted to Orthodoxy. They lived together for 60 years.
Tarle did not hide his ethnic origin. His phrase “... I am not a Frenchman, but a Jew, and my last name is pronounced Tarle” (emphasis on the first syllable), which hedelivered at the first lecture on the modern history of Europe and North America to the first year of the historical and international faculty of the MGIMO Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR in the fall of 1951 (“In the USSR, the anti-Semitic campaign was gaining momentum, the case of the “killer doctors” was not far off, officially, on the “fifth point” in questionnaire, there was not a single Jew at MGIMO at that time...”).
In 1903-1917, private assistant professor at St. Petersburg University. In 1911 he defended his doctoral dissertation on the basis of a two-volume study “The Working Class in France in the Age of the Revolution.”
In 1913-1918 he was also a professor at the university in Yuryev (Tartu). Since 1918, Tarle was one of the three heads of the Petrograd branch of the Central Archive of the RSFSR. In October 1918 he was elected ordinary professor at Petrograd University, then professor at Moscow University.
On the eve and during the First Russian Revolution he gave lectures in which he spoke about the fall of absolutism in Western Europe and promoted the need for democratic changes in Russia. In his political views, he aligned himself with the Mensheviks, was friends with Plekhanov, and was a consultant to the Social Democratic faction in the Third State Duma.
After the February Revolution of 1917, Tarle immediately went to serve the “young democracy”. He is included among the members of the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry of the Provisional Government on the crimes of the tsarist regime. In June 1917, Tarle was a member of the Russian official delegation at the international conference of pacifists and socialists in Stockholm.
Tarle is wary of the October Revolution. During the days of the “Red Terror”, Tarle in 1918 published a book in the liberal publishing house “Byloye”: “The Revolutionary Tribunal in the era of the Great French Revolution (memoirs of contemporaries and documents).”
In 1921 he was elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and in 1927 - a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
In the fall of 1929 - winter of 1931, the OGPU arrested a group of famous historians, 115 people in total, in the “Academic Case” of Academician Platonov. The OGPU accused them of plotting to overthrow Soviet power. E.V. Tarle was supposedly intended for the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new Cabinet. The USSR Academy of Sciences expelled those arrested from the academy.
By the decision of the OGPU board of August 8, 1931, Tarle was exiled to Alma-Ata. There he began to write his "Napoleon". On March 17, 1937, the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR cleared Tarle’s criminal record, and he was soon restored to the rank of academician. Awarded the State Prize (first degree) 1942 for the collective work “History of Diplomacy”, Volume I, published in 1941
IN last period life Evgeniy Viktorovich great attention The scientist devoted his time to the history of the Russian fleet, published three monographs about the expeditions of Russian naval sailors, and the author cited many new facts about the activities of Russian naval commanders.
Tarle is an honorary doctor from the universities of Brno, Prague, Oslo, Algiers, and the Sorbonne, a corresponding member of the British Academy for the Encouragement of Historical, Philosophical and Philological Sciences, a full member of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and the Philadelphia Academy of Political and Social Sciences.
Evgeniy Tarle died on January 5, 1955 in Moscow. He was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery.
jewish-memorial.narod.ru
Evgeni th Tarle
Napoleon
The monograph on Napoleon Bonaparte, created by the outstanding historian Evgeniy Viktorovich Tarle, does not need a special introduction. Published more than once in our country, translated into many European languages, it belongs to the best examples world and domestic historiography about Napoleon. Still not lost scientific significance, the book by E.V. Tarle is distinguished by its exquisite literary style, fascinating presentation, subtle psychological characteristics Main character and his era. All this makes the work of E.V. Tarle attractive both to professional historians and to a wide range of the reading public.
Evgeniy Tarle
Talleyrand
The book tells the story of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, a French politician and diplomat who served as foreign minister under several regimes, starting with the Directory and ending with the government of Louis Philippe. The name Talleyrand has become almost a household word to denote cunning, dexterity and unscrupulousness. From the series “The Lives of Remarkable People.” Illustrated edition 1939. Spelling has been preserved.
Evgeniy Tarle
Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov - commander and diplomat
Evgeny Tarle Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov - commander and diplomat
Evgeniy Tarle
North War and the Swedish invasion of Russia
The author based his work on the Swedish invasion primarily and most of all, of course, on Russian materials, both unpublished archival data and published sources. And then, setting one of the goals of my research to refute with facts the old, new and latest fabrications of Western European historiography hostile to Russia about the Northern War and, in particular, about the invasion of 1708-1709, I had, of course, to attract those almost completely ignored by our old , pre-revolutionary historiography and especially carefully hushed up Western historians Swedish, English, French, German certificates.
Evgeniy Tarle Borodino
Crimean War. Volume 1
Evgeniy Tarle
POLITICS History of territorial seizures. XV-XX centuries Works
The name of Evgeniy Viktorovich Tarle, a brilliant scientist and talented storyteller, is well known to domestic history experts. Less known is the fact that Tarle still tops the list of the most published Russian historians abroad. A fascinating presentation of the history of the foreign policy of leading European countries over the past few centuries, Tarle’s inherent ability to combine interesting factual material with scientific and artistic depictionsrumors, brought him unprecedented success among the reading public and, at the same time, the hostility of the “masters” of Soviet historiography. Thus, books worthy of decorating any home library became bibliographic rarities in the USSR. And now Russian publishers have the opportunity to return disgraced masterpieces of historical painting to readersisi.
Among the outstanding domestic scientists who have passed " way of the cross"Russian intelligentsia through thorns Stalin's repressions, there was also academician E.V. Tarle.
Tarle was born on October 27 (November 8), 1874 in Kyiv. After graduating from the Kherson gymnasium in 1892, he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Novorossiysk University in Odessa, from where a year later he transferred to Kiev University.
Tarle's interest in history was formed in high school and developed during his student years. At that time, at the Kiev University, the department of general history was headed by Professor Ivan Vasilyevich Luchitsky, whose broad erudition, personal charm and democratic views influenced him young student the most beneficial effect. Tarle owed much of his skill in analyzing archival documents and excellent processing of statistical material to his teacher, who instilled in him a taste for painstaking research work. Under the influence of Luchitsky, Tarle began to study the history of the European peasantry, and then the history of socio-political and social thought, choosing the topic of his master's thesis to analyze the views of one of the founders of Western European utopian socialism, Thomas More.
Even from his student days, Tarle showed interest in issues of social thought, and after becoming a master's student, he established contacts with the first organizations of Kyiv Social Democrats. The young scientist actively collaborated in revolutionary-democratic journals, delivering abstracts at meetings of the progressive Kyiv intelligentsia. All this led to the fact that already in 1897 Tarle came to the attention of the secret police, and in 1900 he was arrested in a student apartment, where in front of a large audience, very unreliable in the eyes of the gendarmes, A.V. Lunacharsky read his essay on the works of Henrik Ibsen. The collection of money from the sale of entrance tickets was intended for the Red Cross to assist political prisoners and Kyiv strikers. Having arrested the young scientist, the Kiev gendarme General Novitsky certified him in a letter to the Police Department: “Tarle is a person, a completely propagandized and convinced social democrat, especially dangerous because his mental baggage is very large, and he enjoys great influence thanks to his pedagogical studies, as well as participation in liberal magazines and newspapers"2. Undoubtedly, Novitsky clearly exaggerated the degree of Tarle’s revolutionary spirit, but he was absolutely right when speaking about the power of the scientist’s influence on the minds of students, which later clearly manifested itself both on the eve and during the first Russian revolution 1905–1907
After his arrest, Tarle was first exiled to the Kherson province, then deported to Warsaw, but was deprived of his rights teaching activities. With great difficulty and only with the assistance of friends, after defending his master's thesis, in 1902 he managed to obtain a position as a private assistant professor at St. Petersburg University.
The beginning of Tarle's teaching career coincided with the growing revolutionary storm in Russia, which largely determined the direction of the themes and content of his lectures and journalism. Thus, his lectures on the fall of absolutism in Western Europe, later published as a separate book3, were in tune with the sentiments of Russian democratic circles. Tarle’s extensive knowledge, his masterful manner of presentation, which sometimes turned into intimate conversations with listeners, awakened their thoughts and forced them to draw conclusions in relation to Russian reality. As a rule, Tarle's lectures attracted a huge number of listeners, among whom were students from various faculties. And often, soon after his incendiary speeches, student gatherings of a political nature were held here in the auditorium, the chairman of which was usually Tarle4. When, the day after the publication of the Tsar’s manifesto on October 17, 1905, a protest demonstration took place in St. Petersburg, the scientist considered it his duty to be among its participants, among the revolutionary youth. The broadsword of the guard of "order" fell on his head, causing a serious injury. The news of this spread throughout St. Petersburg and caused even greater indignation at the authorities' policies.
In 1903 Tarle was among the 34 representatives national science, literature and art, who addressed an appeal “To Russian society”, which protested against the death penalty5. Among those who signed the appeal are V.I. Vernadsky, V.G. Korolenko, A.I. Kuprin, I.E. Repin, Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, N.I. Kareev, N.A. Berdyaev and K.K. .Arsenyev.
This outstanding work, dedicated to the period of the 18th century, was awarded the annual Merchant Akhmatov Prize, awarded by the Academy of Sciences for the best Scientific research. Laudatory reviews of N.I. Kareev and A.N. Savin6 were published about him, and reviews by historians E. Levasseur and A. Se were published in France, who recognized the priority of the Russian scientist in developing the history of the French working class7.
Having defended his doctoral dissertation, Tarle immediately began writing his other major work, dedicated to the economic history of France, Italy and other European countries during the era of Napoleon I. The plan for creating such a work matured while studying the materials of the French archives, in which he worked annually, and was accelerated by the approach of the centenary of the Patriotic War of 1812.
Tarle's monograph "The Continental Blockade" was published in 1913 and immediately attracted the attention of domestic and world historical science. He introduced its main provisions to foreign scientists at the IV International Congress of Historians in London. The inclusion of Tarle in the small delegation of Russian scientists testified to the recognition of the value of his works for the study of the history of modern France.
Adjacent to “The Continental Blockade” in terms of theme and content was another monograph by Tarle, “The Economic Life of the Kingdom of Italy during the Reign of Napoleon I,” published in 1916. It was subsequently translated and published in 1928 in France, where it also received laudatory reviews.
The events of the October Revolution of 1917 plunged Tarle, like most representatives of the Russian intelligentsia, into a state of confusion. At the same time, he was worried not so much about the collapse of the usual way of a prosperous professorial life, the encroaching hunger and deprivation, but rather about the fear that the beginning of the death of culture was coming and that the revolution could become the starting point for the collapse of Russia as a great power. Tarle was even more frightened by a separate peace with Germany. He took the news of the negotiations that had begun in Brest very painfully and expressed his attitude towards them in the article “Prospects”, published in the Menshevik newspaper “Den”. Protesting against the signing of a treaty with Germany, the scientist called not to sit down at the negotiating table until all the territories they had captured were cleared of German troops. At the same time, Tarle did not oppose the legitimacy of the new government and saw its main duty to the people as strengthening the country's defense capability. Defining the priority tasks of the renewed Russia, from which he did not separate himself, the scientist wrote: “We will have to simultaneously deal with the general state building, and at the same time, persistently and quickly, without sparing labor and expense, to recreate, at least in a relatively modest size, but certainly in real form, the combat power of the country, to revive finances, restore the army, vigilantly and carefully conduct its foreign policy"8. However, Tarle's de facto recognition of Soviet power did not mean that he immediately took the path of cooperation with it. This required considerable time for reflection. At the same time, despite flattering offers to take a position as a professor at a number of French universities, including and the Sorbonne, Tarle refused to emigrate. He also had the opportunity to remain a university professor in Estonia, which was relatively well-fed at that time. But the scientist rejected the second option. He also refused to move to Voronezh, where the Russian branch Yuryev University, where he worked during the First World War, although he accepted live participation in the implementation of this event, taking advantage of his acquaintance with the People's Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky, in the provision of carriages for equipping laboratories, libraries, accommodation of professors and employees9. But the scientist himself preferred to stay in Petrograd, where he began to work, receiving a professor's ration - a pound of oats per day10. Characterizing the situation of those days in a letter to his friend and colleague at Yuryev University, prominent international lawyer V.E. Grabar, Tarle wrote: “In general, life here is not free. Hunger and cold, cold and hunger. G.A. Lopatin, an economist, died V.V. Vorontsov, every day you hear about new deaths from exhaustion"11. But, despite this, the scientist found the strength to continue his scientific activities, developing the democratic traditions of the best part of the Russian intelligentsia.
In April 1918, in Petrograd, Tarle became a member of the interdepartmental commission on archives, created on the initiative of D.B. Ryazanov, who headed it for some time. Later the commission was reorganized into the Central Archive of the RSFSR12. Its main function at that time was to save the country's archival wealth from acts of voluntary or involuntary vandalism. As a major specialist, Tarle was offered the position of head of the historical and economic section of the Petrograd branch of the Central Archive, which he accepted without hesitation. Describing his work in a new field, he told Grabar: “Now I am taking part in the feasible rescue of archives that are important for economic history from destruction and, at the request of [S.F.] Platonov, I am taking part in the organization of the economic section state archives. I managed to transport the most precious archive from a place on the Exchange Line, where it was destroyed by water, to another (to the Department of Heraldry in the Senate) and there I am drying it. And they decided to suddenly take away the entire notary archive and burn it, without letting Platonov know... So something else perished. But saving the Customs Archives (200 years old!) is my personal matter, which was given to me after incredible difficulties. Fortunately, Platonov, Presnyakov, Polievktov fight very well and staunchly, and a lot of good can be done with them. They managed to keep archival service many excellent old archivists, to replenish the staff with new scientists and save a lot. And dangers threaten literally every day: various institutions have moved into buildings where there are archives, they are showing a tendency to heat the stoves with these archives - and they don’t give a damn about all the ideas, warnings, requests and efforts of the archival department."13 Thanks to the persistence of Ryazanov, Platonov, Tarle and other prominent scientists, many valuable sources were saved for subsequent generations of historians.
Along with his work in the archive department, Tarle did not stop pedagogical activity. In October 1918, on the initiative of N.I. Kareev, I.M. Grevs, A.E. Presnyakov, he was elected professor of the department of general history of Petrograd University14, with whom he was forced to part ways in 1913. In addition, Tarle, together with P. E. Shchegolev edited the magazine “Byloe”, revived after the February Revolution, which they turned into a popular organ on the history of the liberation movement in Russia. By publishing articles, documents and memories on its pages, Tarle believed that the generation that accomplished October Revolution, must know the history of all stages of the struggle against the tsarist autocracy and preserve the memory of its selfless heroes.
Having encountered interesting documents about the customs policy of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century in the archives being saved, Tarle intended to continue his research on the history of the continental blockade and devote a special monograph to this topic15. However, the situation of those days in Petrograd, the constant concern for a piece of bread for himself and his loved ones (wife and sisters) did not contribute to the implementation of this plan, so it is not surprising that in the early 20s the creative activity inherent in Tarla noticeably decreased. Not a single one came from his pen. great job. This was reflected not only by everyday unsettled conditions, but also by the state of instability and severe pressure from the new government, which almost all historians experienced old school. Not the least role here was played by uncertainty about the future in the context of so frequent arrests and executions of hostages in Petrograd. He was very upset by the news that people he knew, who had never actively opposed the Soviet regime, were shot without any trial or investigation. Tarle expressed his protest against the Red Terror by publishing in 1918–1919. a small two-volume collection of documents "The Revolutionary Tribunal in the era of the Great French Revolution". Condemning the senselessness of the Jacobin terror, Tarle seemed to condemn the terror in Petrograd. The same goal was pursued by his book “The West and Russia,” which included articles he had previously published. It was demonstratively dedicated to the “martyrdom” of the ministers of the Provisional Government A.I. Shingarev and F.F. Kokoshkin, who were killed by anarchist sailors in the Mariinsky Hospital in January 1918.
However, as the country emerged from the state of war communism and transitioned to NEP, Tarle’s positions changed and his creative activity was revived. Happy ending civil war he makes an attempt to understand the changes that have occurred. This was reflected in his methodological searches, in attempts to “link” Marxist theory to the problems of his contemporary international relations. In the programmatic article “The Next Task”, published in the first issue of the journal “Annals” - the organ of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which Tarle edited together with the Byzantine academician F.I. Uspensky, he wrote: “In the meantime, you need to look around, check yourself, make sure which of intellectual abilities we were deprived or what the ongoing cataclysm gave us, and at the same time we must find out the next tasks of science, methods and means for solving them"16.
Having received the opportunity to work again in foreign archives and libraries in 1923, Tarle concentrated on studying the history of international relations late XIX– beginning of the 20th century He was prompted to do this by the need to comprehend the changes that took place in the world as a result of the world war and revolution. The result of this work was the articles and monograph "Europe in the Age of Imperialism", the first edition of which was published in 1927. Despite its modest purpose - to serve as a textbook for students, it was a serious study, the center of which was the history of the preparations for the First World War.
In the 1920s, when people’s memories of this war were still fresh, a debate broke out between historians in a number of countries about responsibility for its outbreak. Many foreign scientists, ignoring the question of the role of international monopoly in the preparation of war, argued fiercely: who attacked first and who made this attack inevitable? Based on factual material, the scientist specifically found out how the growth of monopolies and the export of capital gave rise to contradictions between the great powers, which led to an armed conflict. In Tarle's understanding, the main culprit of the war was international imperialism with its policy of conquest, and therefore he considered it completely pointless to argue about which country attacked first and who, through their actions, made the war inevitable. However, the historian showed a clear bias towards exposing the aggressive aspirations of the powers Triple Alliance in preparing for war and at the same time tried to smooth out the militaristic aspirations of the Entente countries.
Tarle’s main opponent was M.N. Pokrovsky, who took the opposite position on the issue of those responsible for the outbreak of the war. Even before the revolution, he, fighting against official and non-Marxist historiography and journalism, argued that responsibility for the outbreak of the war lay entirely with the Entente countries, and, above all, with Russia, which supported Serbia. Pokrovsky continued to adhere to this same point of view after the revolution. It even became even harsher in his works of that time under the influence of improving relations between the USSR and Weimar Germany. Pokrovsky’s concept, which boiled down to the fact that in 1914 the Germans were forced to defend themselves from the Entente countries and that at that time it was unprofitable for them to fight, was criticized by G.V. Chicherin17. However, Pokrovsky stubbornly remained in his previous positions, and therefore it is not surprising that he greeted the appearance of Tarle’s book with sharp criticism and did not want to take into account the adjustments that Tarle made to its 2nd edition, which was published in 1928.
For Pokrovsky, who reduced the main content of history to the struggle of classes, it was a huge crime that Tarle avoided considering the question of the international labor movement in the era of imperialism and its impact on the politics of the great powers. Despite the fact that the scientist had by that time made a noticeable movement towards understanding the content of international relations of the era of imperialism from the standpoint of the methodology that triumphed in the USSR, Pokrovsky refused to recognize this indisputable fact and rejected the sincerity of the evolution of Tarle’s views, considering them as “a clever disguise for Marxism”18.
The scientific controversy between the two historians left an imprint on their personal relationships, which before the release of “Europe in the Age of Imperialism” were completely loyal. And the point here is not so much that Tarle encroached on a topic in the study of which Pokrovsky was considered a recognized and indisputable authority, and came out from positions that were clearly unacceptable to him, but rather a change in the attitude of the authorities towards non-Marxist scientists. In our opinion, the American historian J. Entin is absolutely right when he claims that in 1928 Pokrovsky, as the head of Soviet historical science, wanting to please Stalin, changed his positions and “became a champion of intolerance and unanimity in historiography”19, which manifested itself, in particular , and in his attitude towards Tarle especially when a series of falsified trials began against the old intelligentsia with the aim of discrediting them and removing them from science.
In parallel with his studies of international relations, Tarle did not stop working on the history of the French working class. Based on new research in the archives, he wrote and published in 1928 the monograph “The Working Class in France in the First Times of Machine Production.” At the same time, he began working on the book “Germinal and Prairial,” which was mostly written by the end of the 20s, but saw the light, due to circumstances beyond the author’s control, only in 1937.
While in France, Tarle made a lot of efforts to restore scientific ties with its historians, severed during the years of war and revolution. With his assistance, a Franco-Soviet committee was created in Paris in 1926 scientific relations, in whose activities such prominent scientists as P. Langevin, A. Mathiez, A. Mazon and others took part.20 Recognizing Tarle’s scientific merits, French scientists elected him a member of the “Society for the History of the French Revolution” and the “Society for the Study Great War". Tarle's authority in French scientific circles contributed to the fact that his foreign colleagues agreed to assist him in replenishing Soviet scientific libraries and archives the latest literature and copies of documents on the history of the French Revolution and the First World War. On the instructions of the director of the Marx-Engels Institute D.B. Ryazanov, Tarle took part in searching abroad for documents and materials about the life and work of K. Marx and F. Engels, as well as on the history of the international labor movement21. The scientist paid special attention to replenishing the funds of the Leningrad branch of the Historical Institute RANION, where he headed the section of general history. Many books and sources acquired through the efforts of Tarle subsequently entered the library of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now: St. Petersburg branch of the Institute Russian history RAS).
Outstanding French historians A. Aulard, A. Mathiez, J. Renard, C. Blok and others received Tarle very warmly. Tarle's contacts with French scientists contributed to awakening their interest in intellectual life in the USSR, which had a real impact on the development of Soviet-French relations. Along with Academician V.I. Vernadsky, Tarle was awarded an invitation to give a course of lectures to students of the Sorbonne22. Uppsala University in Sweden and the University of Minnesota in the USA approached him with the same proposal. Academy political sciences Columbia University, in recognition of Tarle's scientific merits, elected him as an honorary member23.
Tarle’s enormous knowledge and talent were appreciated in his homeland. In 1921, the Academy of Sciences elected him a corresponding member, and in 1927 - its full member. The scientist’s works were published annually in our country and abroad. Represented Tarle with dignity Soviet science and at the International Historical Congresses in Brussels in 1923 and in Oslo in 1928. At the last of them, he joined G.S. Fridlyand as a member of the International Committee of Historical Sciences (ICHS)24.
All of Tarle’s activities in the 1920s testified to the fact that he successfully introduced the best traditions of pre-revolutionary Russian science into Soviet science. historical school. However, his fruitful work was interrupted after his arrival from Sweden by arrest on January 28, 193025 on a trumped-up charge of belonging to a counter-revolutionary monarchist conspiracy.
A wave of arrests among humanities scientists in Leningrad, Moscow, Kyiv, Minsk and a number of other cities began in 1929. It began with the so-called “Academic Case”26.
In January 1929, the next elections to the USSR Academy of Sciences took place, during which communists N.I. Bukharin, G.M. Krzhizhanovsky, P.P. Maslov, M.N. Pokrovsky, D.B. Ryazanov, S.I. Solntsev. However, three communists - philosopher A.M. Deborin, economist V.M. Friche and historian N.M. Lukin - were voted out. The election results angered Stalin, who saw in the position of the academicians a challenge from the old scientific intelligentsia to the regime he was imposing. This is quite common in academic environment the event was given a political meaning, and the issue of elections was considered at a meeting of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on February 5, 1929, chaired by A.I. Rykov, where some academicians were also invited. The Presidium of the Academy of Sciences was asked, in violation of the charter, to review the election results and hold new ones27. And although the authorities’ demand was satisfied, an order followed to create a government commission chaired by a member of the Presidium of the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Yu.P. Figatner, to check the activities of the Academy of Sciences. During her work, it was established that the Library of the Academy of Sciences (BAN) contained documents such as the original abdication of the throne of Nicholas II, personal funds of dignitaries of the tsarist regime, leaders of the Kadet party, deposited there for preservation during the revolution28. In addition, the commission discovered that the director of the Pushkin House, S.F. Platonov, attracted many educated people to work there: former guards officers, the daughter of the Tsar’s minister P.N. Durnovo and a number of other “class alien” employees29.
One more circumstance should not be ignored. In the BAN, among a number of personal archives, traditionally handed over by their fund-founders to the Academy of Sciences, there was also the archive of the former Moscow governor, later Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs and Director of the Police Department V.F. Dzhunkovsky. Naturally, there were also materials related to the activities of informants of the Tsarist secret police. As is known, among them there was more than one “double” who was listed in the Bolshevik Party. Fear of exposure required an immediate reaction and destruction of the “compromising evidence.” It was unreasonable for the party elite not to take advantage of the opportunities of the current situation, and as a result, the ground was prepared for the formation of “counter-revolutionary crime”30.
The created Government Commission to “cleanse” the Academy of Sciences, headed by a member of the OGPU board J.H. Peters, began to act. And by the end of 1929, out of 259 verified employees of the Academy of Sciences, 71 were expelled from it31. The blow was mainly directed against humanities scholars. And soon the arrests began.
According to V.S. Brachev, 115 people were arrested in the “Academic Case”, and according to English historian John Barber - 13032. If we take into account the arrested local historians on the periphery, then their number was immeasurably greater. Behind bars were academicians S.F. Platonov, N.P. Likhachev, M.K. Lyubavsky, E.V. Tarle, corresponding members V.G. Druzhinin, D.N. Egorov, S.V. Rozhdestvensky, Yu V. Gauthier, A. I. Yakovlev, rector of the Belarusian University V. I. Picheta, many professors of Moscow and Leningrad universities and employees of academic institutes. The heads of the Leningrad OGPU and operational departments worked tirelessly, trying to inflate the “Academic Case” to please Stalin in the manner of “Shakhtinsky” and organize a high-profile political process among the scientific intelligentsia. According to the developed scheme, the scientists allegedly set themselves the goal of overthrowing Soviet power, establishing a constitutional-monarchical system and forming a government in which the post of prime minister was given to Platonov, and the post of minister of foreign affairs to Tarle. As local historian N.P. Antsiferov, who was arrested earlier and taken to Leningrad to give testimony from Solovki, testifies in his memoirs, investigator Stromin, using psychological pressure, extracted testimony from him against Platonov and Tarle33. They used blackmail and intimidation of the arrested themselves, especially the elderly Platonov and Rozhdestvensky, whom the investigator persistently forced to incriminate Tarle34. Similar accusations against Tarle took place in the falsified trial of the so-called Union of Engineering Organizations (“Industrial Party”) 35.
M.N. Pokrovsky also played an unseemly role in preparing the arrest. In 1929, he and his associates in the Society of Marxist Historians waged systematic attacks on the RANION Institute of History and achieved the closure and transfer of its divisions to the Communist Academy36. Having launched a campaign in the press against representatives of the old historical science, they hung political labels on them and thereby ideologically justified the repressive actions of the punitive authorities. Thus, speaking at the All-Union Conference of Marxist Historians even before the “Academic Case” was fabricated, Pokrovsky said that representatives of “the Russian historical school are in a scientific cemetery where there is no place for Marxism”37. He even denied the possibility of them creating truly scientific works. The discrediting of the old scientists reached its climax after their arrest. In December 1930, a meeting of the methodological commission of the Society of Marxist Historians took place, where Tarle was classified as one of the most harmful categories of bourgeois scientists who allegedly skillfully disguised themselves as Marxism and thereby smuggled alien concepts into science38. And F.V. Potemkin, who spoke at the meeting, explaining his position, stated that “we are now separated from Tarle not only by theoretical differences, but... by a thick wall with a strong lattice”39. Tarle’s works were subjected to even more harsh criticism and attacks at a meeting of the Leningrad branch of the Communist Academy. His transcript was published in a separate publication entitled "Class Enemy on historical front", where G.S. Zaidel, M.M. Tsvibak, as well as Tarle’s students (P.P. Shchegolev and others) accused the scientist of counter-revolutionary activities and deliberate falsification of history40.
The investigation into the “Academic Case” lasted more than a year. The chairman of the OGPU V.R. Menzhinsky himself closely followed him and regularly reported about him to Stalin. All this time Tarle was in the Kresty prison. The prison censorship stamp was affixed to postcards addressed to Tarle from prison to his wife, which were preserved in the historian’s archives. From their contents it is clear that the scientist, who suffered equally from kidney disease and the inability to engage in his favorite scientific work, did not admit to many of the charges against him. A number of other defendants behaved the same way. In order to discredit them and break the resistance, investigators S.G. Zhudakhin, M.A. Stepanov, V.R. Dombrovsky, Yu.V. Sadovsky, A.R. Stromin, who personally led the Tarle case, are higher “conductors” of the upcoming trial , behind whom the gloomy figure of Stalin is unmistakably visible, decided to expel Platonov, Tarle and other academicians from the members of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which happened on February 2, 1931.41 Its president A.P. Karpinsky spoke out against the exclusion of academicians, and in particular Tarle, who declared the immorality of the act of exclusion due to the services of prominent scientists to world science and the establishment of contacts of the USSR Academy of Sciences with foreign scientific centers. However, the authorities regarded the speech of 84-year-old Karpinsky as a counter-revolutionary attack42. His protest was not taken into account, and Tarle was expelled from the USSR Academy of Sciences.
By a resolution of the OGPU board of August 8, 1931, Tarle was extrajudicially sentenced to five years of exile in Alma-Ata. His colleagues, who were involved in the same “Academic case”, were mostly sentenced to the same period of exile in various cities of the country: the Volga region, the Urals, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia. Historians who wrote about this verdict draw attention to its relative mildness and the refusal of the punitive authorities to conduct a show political trial in the manner of the Shakhtinsky case, the Industrial Party case, etc. It seems that this move by Stalin can be explained by his desire to psychologically break the country's greatest historians with a view to their subsequent use in the interests of the regime he imposed. An exception was made only for them. Many local historians who did not have big names in science, both before and in the early 30s, were sentenced, as a rule, to longer terms in concentration camps43.
When Tarle arrived in Alma-Ata, the first secretary of the Kazakhstan Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was F.I. Goloshchekin, who perfectly remembered his teacher at St. Petersburg University and treated him with great respect. He helped Tarla get a professorship at a local university. Talking in a letter to L.G. Deitch about his life in Alma-Ata, Tarle wrote: “Here, since my arrival, I have been a full-time professor at the State University of Kazakhstan, reading “The History of Imperialism in Western Europe” for as many as 7 departments. I was ordered (a formal contract was signed!) by the local State Publishing House (with the special approval of the regional party committee) - about the conquest of Central Asia in the 19th century - in a word, you see that the nonsense I’m talking about above (accusation of counter-revolutionary activities . – Author), they don’t believe it even now. And yet I am sitting here, although I need to undergo surgery with my urologist, Prof. Gorash in Leningrad. And when I will leave here and whether I will leave is unknown.”44
Isolation from scientific centers and the lack of sources and literature on the history of Western Europe in Alma-Ata weighed heavily on Tarle. Therefore, he turned to his influential acquaintances in Moscow and Leningrad with requests for protection. He also sent a letter to Pokrovsky, asking him, if not for release from exile, then at least for assistance in publishing it. However, the then leader of Soviet historians did not find anything better than to forward Tarle’s letters, along with letters of similar content sent to him from exile by V.I. Picheta and A.I. Yakovlev, to the OGPU with a note that this institution might need them45, while they are of no interest to him46.
Shortly after his arrest, French historians K. Blok, A. Mathiez, F. Sagnac, P. Renouvin, C. Seniebos, A. Se and others spoke out in defense of Tarle, A. Se, and others, who handed over an appeal to the Soviet ambassador in Paris for delivery to the government he represented. “We consider it our duty as scientists,” they wrote, “to raise our voices in defense of a person whose honesty and dignity we do not doubt.”47
Mathiez delivered a sharp rebuke to the Soviet historian Friedland, who had joined the general chorus of Tarle’s detractors. The widow of G.V. Plekhanov, Rosalia Markovna, and a veteran of the Russian revolutionary movement L.G. Deitch, who petitioned the authorities to review the scientist’s case. Due to their appeals to the competent authorities, in March 1932, A.A. Solts, a member of the Supreme Court of the USSR, came to Alma-Ata to talk with Tarle, promising the historian to look into his case49.
In October 1932, Tarle was already in Moscow and was invited by the People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR A.S. Bubnov for a conversation about the restructuring of history teaching. Sharing his impressions on this matter, he wrote to the poetess T.L. Shchepkina-Kupernik on October 31: “I was just received in the Kremlin. A brilliant, very warm welcome... They promised to do everything, they also want me to work. They said: “A tit like T[arle] (i.e., me) should work with us.”50 A few weeks later, Tarle was introduced to the State Academic Council. Talking about his first participation in a meeting of this body, he told the same addressee: “It was very interesting. At the beginning of the meeting, the chairman made a speech beginning with the words: “We were given instructions to decorate the State Academic Council with some first-class scientists. The first of them we invited was Evgeniy Viktorovich.”51
The question arises, from whom could the order come to introduce into the GUS a scientist who is in exile on charges of counter-revolutionary activities? In conditions of enormous centralization of power and the imposition of a command-administrative system, it could only be given by one person - Stalin. And what played a role in Tarle’s release from exile was not the intercession of R.M. Plekhanova and L.G. Deitch, not the appeal of French historians, but Stalin’s preparation for restructuring the teaching of history, for which he needed major scientists who were in positions other than Pokrovsky and his students, and who, it seemed to him, after arrest and exile, would obediently and strictly carry out his will.
Let us remember that in the 20s, Pokrovsky reduced the content of school and university history courses to the teaching of social science, where the central place was occupied by the process of changing socio-economic formations at the level of vulgar sociologization. History education has lost one of its essential functions- fostering a sense of patriotism. Focusing on the study of the class struggle, Pokrovsky actually emasculated from history courses questions of material and spiritual culture, war and foreign policy, the contribution of major political figures, generals, and diplomats. For Stalin, who was already beginning to show imperial thinking and was preparing to revise historical science in order to exalt his own role in history, such teaching was unacceptable. Therefore, soon after Pokrovsky’s death in 1932, preparations began for the development of the famous Resolution of the Council of People’s Commissars and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, adopted on May 16, 1934, on the teaching of civil history. And this circumstance, in our opinion, played decisive role in the fate of Tarle and other exiled historians. Tarle was the first to be returned from exile, and then other surviving prominent scientists who received professorships in the revived history departments of Moscow and Leningrad universities.
Upon his return from exile, Tarle was reinstated as a professor at Leningrad University. But he did not immediately return the title of academician. His criminal record was not cleared, and the historian’s complete rehabilitation occurred only on July 20, 1967, by decision of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR in connection with a statement by one of the authors of this article.
Despite the fact that "Napoleon" was enthusiastically received by readers and translated into many foreign languages and published abroad and, apparently, liked Stalin, thunder soon struck over the scientist’s head. On June 10, 1937, devastating reviews of the monograph were simultaneously published in two central newspapers: in Pravda by A. Konstantinov, in Izvestia by Dm. Kutuzov. It's hard to say who these reviewers were. Most likely, these are pseudonyms of people acting on instructions from above, who were instructed to defame the scientist.
Formally, the reason for the appearance of reviews was the fact that “Napoleon” was published under the editorship of K. B. Radek and that N. I. Bukharin publicly spoke favorably about the book. At that time, this was quite enough to declare Tarle “a lying counter-revolutionary publicist who deliberately falsifies history to please the Trotskyists”52. Hanging such labels in those years meant quick and inevitable arrest.
Realizing the threat looming over himself, Tarle managed to contact Stalin’s apparatus and asked for protection. It seems that this is exactly the reaction that was expected from him. The very next day after the publication of the review, Pravda and Izvestia published notes “From the Editor,” which completely disavowed their yesterday’s authors. A note from the Pravda newspaper said: “The reviewer presented the author of the book “Napoleon” with strict demands, such as are presented to a Marxist author. Meanwhile, it is known that E. Tarle was never a Marxist, although he abundantly quotes the classics of Marxism in his work. In this case, responsibility for errors in the interpretation of Napoleon and his era lies not so much with the author Tarle, but with the notorious double-dealer Radek, who edited the book, and the publishing house, which was obliged to help the author. In any case, of the non-Marxist works devoted to Napoleon, Tarle’s book is the best and closest to the truth.”53 An article in the Izvestia newspaper was written in a similar spirit, which stylistically was almost no different from the article in Pravda. This suggests the opinion that both came from the same pen.
The question arises: who and why launched the persecution of the scientist in the press? Leningrad historian Yu. Chernetsovsky puts forward two versions on this matter. Perhaps, he believes, the publication of reviews occurred either not without Stalin’s knowledge, or according to him direct instructions in order to intimidate the scientist and make him even more compliant54. The second version seems more correct to us, given the Jesuitical inclinations of Stalin’s character and his quick response to Tarle’s appeal. His letter to the historian also speaks in favor of this version. “It seemed to me,” Stalin wrote to Tarle on June 30, 1937, “that the editorial comments of Izvestia and Pravda, disavowing the criticism of Konstantinov and Kutuzov, had already exhausted the question raised in your letter regarding your right to respond in the press to the criticism of these comrades with anti-criticism. I learned, however, recently that the editorial comments of these newspapers do not satisfy you. If this is true, your requirement regarding anti-criticism could certainly be satisfied. You retain the right to choose the form of anti-criticism that most satisfies you (a speech in a newspaper or in the form of a preface to a new edition of Napoleon).”55
The publication of refutations of reviews in central newspapers and Stalin’s letters to Tarle indicate that he was quite satisfied with the leader as a historian. This is also evidenced by the fact that Tarle was restored to the rank of academician by decision General meeting AN September 29, 1938 by personal order of Stalin. At the same time, he remained not rehabilitated in the “Academic Case”. And this circumstance reminded the scientist that, in case of disobedience, he could end up in places more remote and less comfortable than Alma-Ata.
IN pre-war years when the danger of attack has increased fascist Germany on the Soviet Union, Tarle turns to the study of the heroic past of the Russian people. His book “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia,” published in the first edition in 1938, was devoted to this topic. It seemed to be a logical continuation of his monograph on Napoleon. This book by Tarle was also warmly received by critics and readers both in our country and abroad. She gave me confidence that soviet people, reflecting fascist aggression, repeat heroic feat their ancestors and liberate their homeland and the countries of Europe from the encroachments of a new contender for world domination.
During the Great Patriotic War, Tarle’s fundamental two-volume monograph “The Crimean War” was published. It presented a panoramic picture of how tsarism and the European powers brought contradictions in the sphere of the Eastern question to an armed conflict, and at the same time showed all the greatness of the feat of the heroic defenders of Sevastopol, led by P.S. Nakhimov, V.A. Kornilov and V. I. Istomin, who defended the city to the last opportunity, despite the mediocrity of the high command and the general backwardness and rottenness of Nicholas Russia.
Tarle's works about the heroic past of the Russian people were imbued with a sense of patriotism and carried a huge journalistic charge. His articles in periodicals and lectures, which attracted large audiences of listeners in many cities of the country, served the same purpose; Tarle even received a special train carriage. And when the Great Patriotic War ended victoriously, he continued to study the history of wars and foreign policy of pre-revolutionary Russia and, as always, keenly responded to all the most important events in contemporary international relations. His talent as a brilliant publicist served the cause of protecting peace.
It would seem that in post-war period Tarle, who had the authority of one of the largest Soviet historians and being well known personally to Stalin, did not have to fear attacks on his freedom and well-being. However, even this circumstance did not give the scientist a guarantee that he would not be ostracized again. And soon it happened, another study of the scientist began.
In the late 40s and early 50s, a version began to spread in the statements of some Soviet historians that Stalin, following the example of Kutuzov, deliberately lured the Germans to Moscow in order to then defeat them, as the great Russian commander had once done. The famous writer V.V. Karpov in his work “Marshal Zhukov” believes that the author of this version was P.A. Zhilin56, who studied a book about Kutuzov’s counter-offensive in 1950. But it seems that Zhilin’s concept was not original and was formed under the influence of Stalin’s statements in his response to Colonel E.A. Razin’s letter, where “the great leader of all times and peoples” stated that Kutuzov, as a result of a well-prepared counter-offensive, ruined Napoleon’s army57. Since then Soviet historians began to portray Stalin as the successor to Kutuzov’s tactics and at the same time emphasize the exceptional role of the field marshal in organizing the counter-offensive of the Russian army58.
Tarle, in “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia,” believed that the main merit in the defeat of Napoleon’s army belongs to the Russian people. Therefore, he, without asking for the role of the great Russian commander in the war of 1812, did not set himself the goal of focusing on this issue Special attention. Now his position, expressed in a book dating back to the pre-war period, was regarded as a gross mistake. They wanted Tarle to pay much more attention to the glorification of Kutuzov in the second volume of the trilogy “Russia in the fight against aggressors in the 18th-20th centuries,” which Stalin invited him to write59, and, of course, in the third volume he would present Stalin as such a commander , who not only was a consistent student of his predecessor, but also surpassed him in the scale of his deeds. This circumstance became one of the reasons for Tarle’s criticism. Another reason was associated with an attempt to reconsider the problem of responsibility for the Moscow fire. And it was caused by the fact that in Western journalism voices began to be heard about the illegality of the USSR receiving most of the reparations from Germany on the grounds that the Soviet people themselves destroyed cities and villages during the retreat, following the example of their ancestors, who burned Moscow in 1812 and Tarle, and many historians before him, viewed the fire of the city as a patriotic feat of the inhabitants who remained in it. Now it was decided to radically reconsider the traditional point of view and place responsibility for the fire of Moscow solely on Napoleon’s army. Therefore, the scientist was criticized for his long-established point of view regarding the burning of the ancient Russian capital.
The role of the main critic of Tarle was assigned to S.I. Kozhukhov, the then director of the Museum on Borodino Field. His article “On the issue of assessing the role of M.I. Kutuzov in the Patriotic War of 1812,” directed against a number of provisions of “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia,” was published in the magazine “Bolshevik1160.
Distorting and distorting a number of facts presented in “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia,” Kozhukhov accused Tarle of deliberately using only dubious Western sources and ignoring evidence about the War of 1812 from Russian contemporaries. It should not be forgotten that these accusations were made at the height of the campaign against “cosmopolitanism,” when any positive reference to foreign literature was considered an unpatriotic act. Under the text of Kozhukhov’s article, one can clearly see the author’s desire to attach a political label to Tarle.
The main points of Kozhukhov’s critical speech boiled down to the fact that Tarle allegedly did not reveal the true role of Kutuzov in the defeat of Napoleon and belittled the significance of the Battle of Borodino as a victory for Russia, and also repeated the legends of French historiography regarding the Moscow fire and the role of natural factors in the death French army. To summarize my criticisms, some of which were justified. Kozhukhov concluded in a stereotyped form that Tarle belittled the role of the Russian people in achieving victory in the Patriotic War of 1812. This statement, which clearly contradicts the basic principles of Tarle, did not at all confuse his critics.
And soon after the publication of Kozhukhov’s article, a meeting of the Academic Council was held at the Faculty of History of Leningrad University, at which Tarle’s book was subjected to furious criticism. The scientist’s most zealous colleagues, who had previously curried favor with him, now found an opportune moment to strengthen their positions in the current situation. It should not be forgotten that the university was then going through difficult days due to the purges caused by the so-called “Leningrad Affair” fabricated in the late 40s and early 50s. Therefore, some of Tarle’s “whistleblowers” insisted on reconsidering not only “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia”, but also the “Crimean War”. Similar discussions of the article took place at the history department of Moscow University and at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. True, here Academician M.V. courageously spoke out in defense of Tarle. Nechkina, who proved the complete inconsistency of Kozhukhov’s criticism.
In the midst of the new persecution that was unfolding, Tarle felt as if lost. The playwright and writer A.M. Borshagovsky, who met him in those days, described his impressions as follows: “I found an unconfident, ironic man who had special spiritual strength, which was discernible in his classical works, so talented that it was Fadeev who decided to accept Tarle to the Writers' Union, bypassing all formalities. More precisely, everything worthy was with him, bursting out: sharpness of mind, sarcasm, breadth of views, but he was tormented by anxieties, resentment towards the offensive articles of dogmatists, pseudo-Marxists, who then began to criticize his works, including the “Crimean War”. Their calculation was a win-win: Stalin did not like Engels, and Tarle “carelessly” quoted him - it is difficult for a historian to do without the works of F. Engels on the “Eastern Question”. And the seventy-five-year-old academician, not an old man in mind and memory, kept returning to the injustice done to him, not complaining, but somehow vainly and often assuring him that Stalin valued him, would not give him offense, would protect him, and soon the magazine "Bolshevik" “will print his response to his detractors, he called Poskrebyshev and he was kind, very kind, and helpful”61. And although the memoirist does not quite correctly illuminate the reasons for the next persecution of Tarle, on the whole he correctly managed to capture the spiritual mood of the scientist in those days. Indeed, Tarle did not know who was the inspirer of his persecution, he was waiting for help and salvation from Stalin.
That is why Tarle sent a letter to " to the best friend Soviet scientists", asking him for assistance in publishing a response to his critic on the pages of Bolshevik. Its text was preserved in the historian’s archives62. Stalin gave such permission, and soon the scientist’s response was published63.
Using specific facts, Tarle showed in his response to the editors of Bolshevik that Kozhukhov’s attacks were biased and far-fetched. At the same time, he admitted that “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia” did not sufficiently cover Kutuzov’s role in organizing and conducting the counter-offensive of the Russian army, and promised to correct this in the second volume of the trilogy. Without delaying matters, the historian immediately began writing the article “Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov - commander and diplomat”64, which was published a few months later. And yet, the editors of Bolshevik, having published Tarle’s letter, in their response to the scientist essentially supported Kozhukhov’s position, repeating many of his unfounded attacks65.
It is difficult to say how Tarle’s future relationship with Stalin would have developed, especially in connection with the writing of the last volume of the trilogy. But the death of the tyrant, which occurred in March 1953, freed the historian from such a thankless task as exalting a “commander” who had never led troops into battle in his life. Tarle did not survive his tormentor for long. On January 5, 1955, his life was cut short, most of which was devoted to serving historical science. A difficult life, accompanied by a number of persecutions, the need to adapt to the tastes and demands of Stalin and the misanthropic command-bureaucratic system he created - quite typical for many representatives of the old scientific Russian intelligentsia. And although Stalinism inflicted deep psychological trauma on Tarle, he managed to preserve himself as a great scientist on a global scale, creating, even in these difficult and tragic times, fundamental works that still constitute the pride of Russian historical science.
Historian, publicist, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1927), corresponding member of the British Academy of Sciences (1944), academician of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences (1946).
Born into a merchant family. He graduated from high school in Kherson (1892). Higher education received at the Faculty of History and Philology of Novorossiysk University (1892-1893), transferred to Kiev University (1893-96), where he received gold medal for the essay “Pietro Pomponazzi and the Skeptical Movement in Italy at the Beginning of the 16th Century” and at the end of which he was left to prepare for a professorship. Scientific supervisor Tarle became professor I.V. Luchitsky. He taught history in gymnasiums, at the same time he was involved in left-radical student circles, for which he was arrested in 1900. Despite persecution, in 1901 Tarle defended his master’s thesis at Kiev University “The social views of Thomas More in connection with the economic state of England time." From 1898 to 1914 he regularly went on scientific trips abroad to work in archives and libraries in Germany and France.
In 1902 he moved to St. Petersburg, and only a year later, after requests supported by prominent professors, Tarle was allowed to take the position of private assistant professor at the university. In February 1905, he was arrested for participating in a student meeting and was again suspended from teaching at the university.
In October 1905, during student unrest, he was wounded, only at the end of the year Tarle was amnestied, he was able to teach again, but remained under the secret supervision of the police. In 1911 he defended his doctoral dissertation. “The Working Class in France in the Age of Revolution,” which was awarded the Academy of Sciences prize in 1913. After that, he took the position of an extraordinary professor at Yuryev University, but continued to live in the capital, coming to Yuryev to give lectures. In 1913 he represented Russian scientists at the first world congress of historians in London. By that time, the scientist’s monograph “The Continental Blockade” had already been published, which attracted the attention of world historical science, three years later appeared new work: “The economic life of the kingdom of Italy during the reign of Napoleon I” (translated and published in France in 1928).
In 1917, on the initiative of N.I. Kareev, I.M. Grevs, A.E. Presnyakov, the scientist received a professorship at Petrograd University. Accepted February revolution, but was wary of the Bolsheviks coming to power. Despite this, from 1918 he headed the historical and economic section of the Central Archive and gave lectures to archivists. Simultaneously with work in the archive department. In 1918-1919 Tarle published two volumes of documents about Jacobin terror in France under the title “Revolutionary Tribunal in the era of the Great French Revolution. Memoirs of contemporaries and documents.” He dedicated another study, “The West and Russia,” published in 1918, to the memory of the ministers of the Provisional Government A.I. Shingarev and F.F. Kokoshkin, killed by revolutionary sailors in the hospital. On 12/10/1921 he was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and on 05/07/1927 - an academician. In the 1920s, Tarle headed the section of general history at LO RANION; on his initiative, a historical research institute was created at the university. Having received the opportunity to work in foreign archives and libraries again in 1923, Tarle focused on studying the history of international relations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The result of this work was the monograph “Europe in the Age of Imperialism,” published in 1927.
From autumn 1929 to winter 1931. on “Academic Case” by Academician S.F. Platonov OGPU arrested 115 famous historians, including: Yu. V. Gauthier, V. I. Picheta, S. B. Veselovsky, E. V. Tarle, B. A. Romanov, N. V. Izmailov, S.V. Bakhrushin, A.I. Andreev, A.I. Brilliantov and others, after which they were expelled from the USSR Academy of Sciences. According to the indictment, the scientists were planning a conspiracy to overthrow Soviet power, and E.V. Tarle was destined for the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new government. Spent a year and a half in custody, subjected to threats and grueling interrogations. A year later he was sent into exile for 5 years; the court's decision caused a wide public outcry. The sentence was commuted: Tarle was allowed to teach history at the University of Almaty, scientist began write a book "Napoleon". In 1933, he was reinstated as a professor at Leningrad University. In 1936, his most famous and popular monograph “Napoleon” was published, but in June 1937, devastating reviews of the study were simultaneously published in two central newspapers: in Pravda - by A. Konstantinov, in Izvestia - by D. Kutuzov . Tarle immediately went to authorities and the charges were dropped the next day. In 1938, by personal order of I.V. Stalin Tarle was restored to the rank of academician, but the full rehabilitation of the scientist occurred after his death in 1967.
During World War II, Tarle was evacuated to Kazan, where he worked as a professor at the Faculty of History and Philology of the local university. At this time, the scientist wrote a lot of scientific and journalistic works dedicated to various periods of Russian history. One of them was the two-volume study “Crimean War”, based on a huge array of previously unstudied archival materials and containing a number of brilliant historical portraits and paintings like that. In 1942 and 1943 the scientist was awarded the title of laureate of the Stalin Prize, 1st degree, for his participation in the collective work “History of Diplomacy” (volume I) and the book “Crimean War”, in 1944 - awarded the order Lenin, in 1946 - awarded two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor, in 1946. - awarded the title of laureate of the Stalin Prize, 1st degree, for participation in the collective work “History of Diplomacy” (volumes II and III).
After the end of the war, from 1945 until his death he taught at Moscow University. IN post-war period Throughout his life, the scientist paid great attention to the history of the Russian fleet. In 1950 he was awarded the Order of Lenin, despite this, a year later an article by S.I. appeared in the Bolshevik magazine. Kozhukhov, directed against a number of provisions of the scientist’s monograph “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia.” However, this passed without consequences for Tarle’s scientific activities.
Essays:
Social views of Thomas More in connection with the economic state of England of his time. St. Petersburg, 1901
Essays and characteristics from the history of the European social movement in the 19th century: Sat. Art. St. Petersburg, 1903
The Fall of Absolutism in Western Europe: East. essays. St. Petersburg, 1906. Part 1 Workers of national factories in France during the era of the revolution (1789-1799). St. Petersburg, 1907
The working class in France during the era of the revolution. St. Petersburg, 1909-11. Part 1—2 Continental blockade. 1. Research on the history of industry and foreign trade of France during the Napoleonic era. M., 1913
Peasants and workers in France during the era Great Revolution. St. Petersburg, 1914 Economic life of the Kingdom of Italy during the reign of Napoleon I. Yuryev, 1916
West and Russia: Articles and documents on the history of the 18th—20th centuries. Petrograd, 1918
Europe from the Congress of Vienna to Treaty of Versailles, 1814—1919. M.; L., 1924
Europe in the era of imperialism, 1871-1919. M.; L., 1927
The working class in France in the early days of machine production. From the end of the Empire to the workers' uprising in Lyon. M.; L., 1928
Napoleon. M., 1936
Napoleon's invasion of Russia, 1812. M., 1938
Talleyrand. M., 1939
Crimean War. M.; L., 1941-43. T.1-2
Chesme battle and the first Russian expedition to the Archipelago. 1769-1774 M., 1945
Admiral Ushakov on the Mediterranean Sea. 1798-1800 M., 1946
Expedition of Admiral D.N. Senyavin in the Mediterranean Sea. 1805-1807 M., 1954.
TARLE, EVGENIY VIKTOROVICH(1874–1955), Russian historian. Born on October 27 (November 8), 1874 in Kyiv into a merchant family. He graduated from the 1st Kherson gymnasium, studied at Novorossiysk, then at Kiev University, where he joined the student democratic movement. He studied in a seminar with Professor I.V. Luchitsky, on whose recommendation he was left at the university to prepare for a professorship. On the eve of May 1, 1900, he was arrested at a gathering to raise funds for the benefit of strikers and spent a month and a half in prison. Then he was deported to the Kherson province and Warsaw with a temporary ban on the right to teach.
In 1901 he defended his master's (candidate's) thesis Social views of Thomas More in connection with the economic state of England of his time. From 1903 he was a private assistant professor at St. Petersburg University, where he taught (with short breaks) until the end of his life.
On the eve and during the First Russian Revolution, he gave lectures in which he spoke about the fall of absolutism in Western Europe and promoted the need for democratic changes in Russia. In his political views, he aligned himself with the Mensheviks, was friends with G.V. Plekhanov, and was a consultant to the Social Democratic faction in the Third State Duma.
The events of the revolution led Tarle to the idea of studying historical role working class. In 1909 he published the first, and in 1911 - the second volume of the study Working class in France during the revolution. In the same year, Tarle defended his doctoral dissertation.
Gradually, the scientist’s scientific interests became increasingly focused on the study of international economic and political relations. Based on the study of documents from the archives of Paris, London, Berlin, The Hague, Milan, Lyon, Hamburg, Tarle prepared the first study in world science of the economic history of Europe during the period Napoleonic wars Continental blockade(vol. 1, 1913; 2nd volume entitled Economic life of the Kingdom of Italy during the reign of Napoleon I published in 1916).
Tarle welcomed the fall of the autocracy and became a member of the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government to investigate the crimes of the tsarist regime.
The scientist met the October Revolution with hostility, but refused to emigrate and take the place of professor at the Sorbonne, and continued to work in domestic scientific and pedagogical institutions. Tarle indirectly condemned the “Red Terror” by publishing in 1918–1919 two volumes of documents on the Jacobin Terror entitled Revolutionary tribunal in the era of the Great French Revolution. Memoirs of contemporaries and documents. Another book West and Russia(1918), dedicated to the memory of the ministers of the Provisional Government A.I. Shingarev and F.F. Kokoshkin, killed by revolutionary sailors in the hospital.
At the end of the 1920s, under conditions of severe persecution of dissident professors, Tarle was persecuted. His work Europe in the era of imperialism(1927) Marxist historians declared him “a class alien” and the author a “defender of the French and British imperialists.” On January 28, 1930, Tarle was arrested and spent more than a year and a half in prison as a defendant in two political trials rigged by the OGPU - the "Industrial Party" and the "All-People's Union of Struggle for Revival" free Russia"(the so-called Academic Affairs). In both cases, the alleged foreign minister was identified as a conspirator. He was sentenced to five years of exile in Alma-Ata. There, thanks to the support of his former student and local party leader F.I. Goloshchekin, took the place of professor at the University of Kazakhstan.
In October 1932, on the instructions of I.V. Stalin, who probably expected to use Tarle as a court historian, the scientist was released early from exile. He was given apartments in Leningrad on Palace Embankment (part of the former apartments of S.Yu. Witte) and Moscow (in the famous government “House on the Embankment”). Tarle's most famous and popular book was published in 1936 Napoleon. Stalin received the book favorably: after its publication, the author’s criminal record was cleared, and he was restored to the rank of full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which had been taken away from him in 1931.
On the eve of the Great Patriotic War, Tarle published a book about the invincibility of the Russian people in the fight against aggressors - Napoleon's invasion of Russia(1938), biography Talleyrand(1939), a study about popular uprisings in Paris in the spring of 1795 Germinal and Prairial(1937). During the war, two volumes appeared fundamental work Crimean War, about the events of 1853–1856 and heroic defense Sevastopol.
In the last period of his life, the scientist paid much attention to the history of the Russian fleet and published three monographs about the expeditions of Russian military sailors: Chesme battle and the first Russian expedition to the Archipelago. 1769–19774(1945), Admiral Ushakov on the Mediterranean Sea(1798–1800 ) (1945–1946), Expedition of Admiral D.N. Senyavin to the Mediterranean Sea(1805–1807) (1954). The author not only presented many new facts about the activities of Russian naval commanders, but also embellished Russia's foreign policy, which was consistent with the then political guidelines aimed at fighting the West.
Tarle began working on another trilogy not of his own free will, but “on the initiative of the top leadership of the CPSU (b)” (i.e., on the instructions of Stalin), as the academician himself wrote about this in a report on his scientific works for 1949. The theme of the trilogy should be was the struggle of Russia against aggressors in the 18th–20th centuries. It is clear that the customer gave the central place in the trilogy to the book about Hitler’s invasion and the praise of his personal role in the defeat of the enemy. But Tarle was in no hurry to write a politically relevant volume and took on the first volume of the trilogy about the Peter the Great era and the Swedish invasion. As a result, the scientist fell into disgrace; his work, like in the old days, again began to be criticized in the press. Book The Northern War and the Swedish invasion of Russia turned out to be the last and was published after the death of the academician in 1958.